EDITORIAL. 393 
“From a careful study of the whole subject of inoculation for pleura-pneu¬ 
monia, we conclude (1) that this practice does not greatly lessen the losses which 
occur from lung-plague infection; (2) that it is powerless to extirpate pleuro¬ 
pneumonia from any country; (3) that it can only be practiced with safety to the 
community where the inoculated herds are kept under careful supervision, and 
where inoculated animals can only leave infected premises to go to slaughter ; (4) 
that there is no good reason for practicing inoculation in America, and that* it 
should be prohibited by law, except where the conditions just mentioned are rig¬ 
idly enforced.” 
The discussion of the subject of inoculation might also with 
propriety have been made to cover and include that of the danger 
O 
attending the u so-called cured cases.” Perhaps in the estima¬ 
tion of the assemblage present, these dangers are too well known 
and too generally recognized to need re-discussion. Perhaps, 
also, their own observations, as well as those of Law, Salmon, 
Lyman, Michener, W. B. Miller, McLean, Gamgee, Fleming, Wal- 
ley, Dehifond, Reynal, Bouley, and many others, were deemed 
sufficiently strong and decisive to satisfy them that a “ recovered ” 
jase of contagious plcuro-pneumonia is a dangerous animal. 
But this, it appears, is not the opinion of every veterinarian, 
and this varied opinion (not, of course, any the less entitled to 
respect because of its variance) has just now subjected us to the 
snmity and severe animadversion of one of our friends, as the 
following article indicates. We copy it from the Turf , Field 
md Farm , where it appears as a reply to some remarks of our 
Dwn in our last number : 
The Critic Criticised. —Having in a previous issue commented on an 
irticle on contagious pleura-pneumonia, furnished us by Dr. Gadsden, of Phila- 
I lelphia, for publication, the editor of the American Veterinary Review criti- 
'ises us severely for stating the doctor’s “so-called cured cases” were in nowise 
m infecting medium. We called attention to the fact of having conducted a 
"'(ireful experiment with a view to determining the contagious nature of such 
iases, and found to our satisfaction that the malady could not be reproduced from 
he contents of an encysted lung, and also to the tendency of professional people 
o jump to conclusions. The latter, our antagonist inadvertently admits, has in 
his case been done, then launches into the ambiguous statement and a liberal use 
>f italics, thus: 
“And his opinion is based on—what? On a process of experimentation , 
vhwh, perhaps, was not carried out by the supporters of the contrary opinion , but 
sy himself. We agree with him ; evidently, his experiments were not followed 
>y any processes producing anything resembling contagious pleuro-pneumonia, or 
ts remotest symptoms. But a little careful thought must lead to the conclusion 
