THE ETIQUETTE OF VETERINARY AUTHORSHIP. 803 
subject in my work on “ Horse-Shoes and Horse-Shoeing,” 
published more than three years ago ; and again in my 
essay on “ Practical Horse-Shoeing,” to which the first prize 
was awarded by the Scottish Society for the Prevention of 
Cruelty to Animals, and which was published at the com¬ 
mencement of the present year. 
It would also appear that, in the course of his remarks, 
Professor Williams does not offer the slightest indication of 
the source from which he derived his ideas; neither does it 
seem that there is anything offered on this subject beyond what 
is to be found in the two above-mentioned works; it is only at 
the conclusion of the chapter that he acknowledges having 
borrowed materials for its construction from an unpublished 
essay by Mr. Broad, of Bath, and which obtained the second 
prize from the Society on the same occasion as that on which 
I had the honour to receive the first. 
How far this statement may be correct there are at pre¬ 
sent no means of judging, as neither I nor my correspond¬ 
ents have seen Mr. Broad’s essay ) but this I do know, from 
an indisputable authority, that that gentleman did refer to 
Horse-Shoes and Horse-Shoeing” in the composition of his 
treatise, and, as might have been expected, duly and honorably 
acknowledged that he had done so. 
In the second place, my attention is also drawn to what 
would appear to be a fact—that the horse-shoe which Mr. 
Williams figures and recommends for use—but without men¬ 
tioning any names, and the introduction of which might 
therefore be ascribed to himself—is in principle, if not exactly 
the same as that which Staff Veterinary Surgeon Thacker 
proposed, and which has been in use for several years. It is 
described and figured by me as Mr. Thacker’s horse-shoe in 
the essay on “ Practical Horse-Shoeing.” 
If the facts are as my correspondents state, it is evident 
that I have some reason to complain; not because mention 
of my name has been omitted from Mr. Williams’ work in 
reference to this subject—for I can well afford to overlook 
that exclusion ; but because that which was written by me 
has been ascribed to another who, so far as I am aware, has 
published but few opinions on the subject, and some of these 
did not, at one time, quite harmonise with those attributed 
to him by Mr. Williams. 
In a first attempt at authorship, mistakes will occur beyond 
those attributable to the printer, and be due either to want 
of experience or ignorance. In this instance, whatever reasons 
may be adduced, certainly ignorance cannot be offered as an 
excuse. I have reason to believe that “ Horse-Shoes and 
