SOCIETY MEETINGS. 
283 
gets into the tick. But who ever heard of an intermediary bearer being 
'ssary to complete the life-history of a bacillus ? Lastly, and perhaps we 
it to have taken this first, it surely was a strange proceeding, on the part of 
one investigating a particular disease, to come to the conclusion that the dis- 
was a micro-parasitic one, and not attempt to prove it.” In concluding their 
cism of Pro mssor Williams’ report the essayists say they would commend to 
| lotice the conditions formulated by Koch, and now universally accepted, as 
anding fulfilment in every case, before it can be held proved that any disease 
used by a particular micro-organism“ (1) It must be shown that in every 
■; of that particular disease the organism is present in the tissues or fluids of 
liseased animal. (2) Pure cultivations, started from the tissues or fluids of 
liseased animal, must be carried on through successive generations outside 
)0 dy. (3) The disease must be excited in the body of a healthy subject by 
ting Wltl1 a portion of such a pure cultivation. (4) In the body of this last 
ict microscopic examination must demonstrate the same micro-organisms as 
present in the subjects of the disease spontaneously contracted. With how 
j of these conditions has Professor Williams complied in his investigation of 
ng-ill ? None. These investigations, therefore prove nothing, except that 
1 2SS0r Williams neglected the most elementary details of bacteriological 
rch.” 
Mr. Rutherford, Edinburgh, in proposing that Dr. Hunter, of the New Vet- 
ry College, Edinburgh, open the discussion on the paper, said he was sorry 
j d that the manner in which the subject had been treated reflected no credit 
le writers of the paper. Professor McFadyean was a young and might 
i eminent bacteriologist and sarcastic critic, but he was sure the members 
I agree with him that he had not treated this subject in a proper spirit. He 
:ssed the very sincere hope that in future papers of the Association no mem- 
x>uld ever dare to send such a paper to his brother members, or he (Mr. 
erford) would move that it be deleted from the ajenda. (Hear, hear.) 
j r °f essor Hunter traversed the views of the essayists in dealing with Pro- 
| Williams’ report on louping-ill, and said the critics had overshot the mark 
making allowance for future discoveries. If that portion of the paper had 
torn out and given to him, he would have said that it never formed a part 
3 Association’s proceedings, but was the production of a fourth-rate Ameri- 
swspaper. Having supported the investigations of Professor Williams, and 
3d that his report wrs justified by the results, Dr. Hunter said that until 
hing better could be shown them than Professor Williams had done, it was 
| ie part of any man, be he practitioner or not, to run down his work until 
; l something better to put in its place. (Applause.) 
j rincipal Williams said perhaps it would be wiser in him to take no notice 
I last P art of the paper, which reflected very much on himself. The meet- 
ould probably take Mr. Rutherford’s remarks as the feeling of most of the 
ers regarding such a severe and personal criticism on the work which he 
me towards what he thought was the advancement of his profession. He 
ery much surprised to find the name of Dr. Woodhead on that paper. As 
otliei gentleman, he was not at all surprised ; his motive was not far to 
In dealing with the criticism on his paper, the Principal said he had 
