87 
■-—-- 
C. Cattanach, that the Secretary be instructed to engage a room at the Cooper 
lion, as reported by committee. 
On the question being called, the amendment was put, and declared lost 
•s. R. A. McLean, C. C. Cattanach and Delesser alone voted for it. 
The original motion was put and carried, and afterward made unanimous on 
ition of Dr. R. A. McLean. 
Dr. R. A. McLean proposed the names of John Foy, V.S; John T. D. Don- 
Uy> V.S.; John C. Shiffort, V.S., and Otto V. Lang, for membership, which 
ire referred to the Board of Censors. 
The Secretary read a letter from M. J. Tracy, M.R.C.V.S., Army Veterina- 
n, asking to have enclosed circulars, relating to the low standing of Army Vet- 
nary Surgeons, endorsed by the Society and forwarded to Washington, 
ter some discussion, during which it was stated that this had already been done 
i that the remedy was in their own hands by leaving the service if it was not 
'eeable, and thus letting the Government feel the loss of their services the 
ter was ordered to be filed. 
At the request of the chairman of Legislative Committee, Drs. R. W. Fin- 
, J. S. Cattanach and S. S. Field were appointed to go with the committee to 
fany, as a delegation to wait on the Governor to get his signature to the bill 
t should pass the Senate. 
Dr. R. A. McLean being appointed essayist for next meeting, a motion to 
iourn was carried. 
W. H. Pendry, D.V.S., Secretary. 
ci 
CORRESPONDENCE, 
VETERINARY EDUCATION. 
Chillicothe, Ohio, March 20, 1886. 
litor American Veterinary Review : 
In the February number of your excellent journal there 
peared an article, under the head of “Imperfect Veterinary 
Incation—Is it traffic in Veterinary Diplomas ?” and over the 
inatnre of James A. Waugh, V.S., Ontario. 
Had Dr. W. not allowed his enthusiastic exuberance on the 
>ject of veterinary education in America to lead him into un- 
-donable exaggerations and unnecessary and unbecoming per- 
lalities, we should have been happy to re-echo his sentiments 
1 say amen to his prayers. He states that his “ article was not 
itten for the purpose of inciting any personal discussion, but 
rely to expose some practices which are inimical to the inter- 
3 and welfare of veterinary science.” If the motive which 
