THE CIIAIILIER HOUSE-SHOE. 
355 
ordered not to cut the rahbet in the wall of the foot, except 
when the feet are very strong, and under no circumstances to 
cut it sufficiently deep to let in the whole thickness of the 
shoe. Not until the third or fourth shoeing is the shoe ex¬ 
pected to be sunk to the level of the sole. 
During their investigation the commission ascertained that 
comparatively few horses are shod with the Charlier shoe on 
the hind feet; and the General Omnibus Company found it 
impossible to employ the hind shoe, on account of the ra¬ 
pidity with which they were worn out in fast work. 
The members of the commission met a second time on 
January 4th, 1868, and continued their inspections. Since 
the commencement of the inquiry in 1866 the system of 
shoeing the fore feet only on the Periplantar method appears 
to have been confirmed, as it was remarked that hardly any 
of the omnibus horses was shod behind with that shoe. The 
experience of the shoe during frost was generally favorable, 
and horses continued to work without accident, but it was 
found necessary to use frost nails in the hind shoes, which 
were of the ordinary kind. Upon this point the commission 
concludes that during frost and snow, horses shod on this 
system slip less than with the ordinary French shoe ; but 
the ordinary shoes with frost nails are incomparably more 
secure than the Charlier shoe without them.’^ 
Finally, the commission states that the Periplantar system 
as ordinarily practised, the shoe not being sunk to the level 
of the sole until the third or fourth shoeing, is tantamount to 
the removal of a certain portion of the unnecessary length of 
hoof. The system is most applicable to strong well-formed 
feet; applicable with difficulty to feet with low heels and 
small frogs ; and quite inapplicable to feet which are deformed 
by disease. The shoe cannot be considered, any more than 
that in ordinary use, as a panacea for all the ills that horses^ 
feet and legs are liable to. 
In the concluding words of the report we find the expres¬ 
sion of a strong conviction that there has been already qnite 
enough discussion of the matter; and a decided hint that for 
the future it would be better to leave those who are interested 
to find out whether or not the advantages of the Charlier 
system are of so positive a kind as to counterbalance the in¬ 
conveniences which attend its employment .—The Field. 
