914 
THE ETIQUETTE OF VETERINARY AUTHORSHIP. 
A Letter from Professor Williams, Edinburgh, in reply 
to Mr. Fleming. 
Mr. Fleming, in a letter published in your last number, has 
seen fit to refer to the ‘ Principles and Practice of Veterinary 
Surgery,’ recently published by me, and seems to think that I 
have treated him unfairly in what he calls my chapter on 
Shoeing.” Singularly enough, Mr. Fleming does not appear 
to have read the work itself, but to have obtained his informa¬ 
tion from what he callsseveral independent sources,” for he 
not only makes this assertion at the commencement, but in an 
after part of his letter he says, “ If the facts are as my corre¬ 
spondents state, it is evident I have some reason to complain.” 
The correct course which Mr. Fleming should have taken 
before rushing into print with a complaint would surely have 
been to have read the book, and not trusted to statements of 
correspondents, or his so-called “ independent sources.” 
But let us see what Mr. fFleming has to complain of. 
In the first place, he says “ Mr. Williams repeats substantially, 
“ if not literally, in some parts a portion of what has been 
ct written by me on this subject in my work on f Horse-Shoers 
“ 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 
“ Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and which was published 
“ at the commencement of the present year. 
<e It would also apjrnar 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 found in the two above-mentioned works. 
“ It is only at the conclusion of the chapter that he 
“ acknowledges having borrowed materials for its construc- 
“ tion from an unpublished essay by Mr.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 obtain 
“ the first.” 
In the second place, Mr. Fleming accuses me of having 
adopted Mr. Thacker’s shoe without acknowledgment. 
It is a very easy matter to bring forward charges of un¬ 
fairness on such a subject as horse-shoeing. Mr. Fleming can 
scarcely imagine or expect the public to believe that the 
works he has written on this subject contain nothing but 
