470 
CORRESPONDED CE. 
the Long Island Veterinary Society that the ruling by a judge 
that castration was not veterinary surgery was unjustifiable and 
wrong , and that the Secretary be requested to place himself in 
communication with the editor of the American Veterinary 
Review, requesting the name of the prosecuting veterinarian, so 
that the society may place themselves in communication with the 
party, expressing hearty commendation of his action in main¬ 
taining the law. Trusting you will favor me with the veterina¬ 
rian’s name, I remain 
Yours very respectfully, 
Frank J. Fanshew, D.V.S., Secretary. 
CASTRATION NOT VETERINARY SURGERY. 
Brooklyn, Nov. 22, 1888. 
Editor American Veterinary Review : 
In your last issue you call the attention of the profession to 
the fact that a learned (?) member of the law has lately ruled 
that castration is not surgery, and so decided against one who 
was endeavoring to enforce the act relating to the practice of 
veterinary medicine and surgery in this State. I can’t too 
strongly coincide with the Review in advocating the appeal of 
the case, and as I know of no organization who has a fund pro¬ 
vided for the prosecution of persons violating the act supposed to 
be in force in this State, I would, therefore, respectfully suggest 
that the Review at once proceed to solicit a subscription for the 
purpose of forming a fund to appeal the case in question. I have 
personally brought the case before a well-known lawyer, who 
characterized the ruling of the court as absurd, and if such a 
legal farce as this is to go unchallenged, there is no use having 
any law, and what we have in this State certainly becomes a dead 
letter. 
W. H. Pendry. 
CALIFORNIA STATE VETERINARY SOCIETY. 
Oakland, Cal., Nov. 17, 1888. 
Editor American Veter'inary Review : 
In the November number of the Review appears an arti- 
