Editorial observations. 
575 
may in turn warn agriculturists—for that is clearly 
within our province—that the Journal brings forward no 
evidence —npt one single fact—to support the position of 
‘ the clinical observers who maintain the opposite 
opinion. 5 We do not express any opinion as to the point 
at issue ; but we are entitled to comment on the evidence 
hitherto supplied, and that appears to us to be in favour of 
the direct cohabitation theory, because we have seen no evi¬ 
dence of the disease being communicated in any other way. 
It is a matter of very great importance, and we shall be glad 
to see it settled. Then, with regard to inoculation, the 
Veterinary Journal takes up a very decided position, as of 
course it is entitled to do. It appears that Mr. Rutherford, 
a veterinary surgeon of Edinburgh, has inoculated some 2000 
cows f in and around 5 that city, and none of them have after¬ 
wards contracted the disease ; and his loss has been only 1 
per cent., a proportion which he hopes still farther to reduce. 
From this, and the Continental experiences, which we have 
had over and over again, the Journal concludes that e the 
question as to its efficacy and safety is now beyond discus¬ 
sion or dispute ; thanks to Mr. Rutherford, the problem is 
solved, and the freedom of Edinburgh from pleuro-pneumonia 
at the present time—a condition which has not been known 
to exist for more than thirty years—is mainly, if not alto¬ 
gether, due to his scientific skill, indomitable perseverance, 
and intelligent enthusiasm.With regard to 
the protection afforded by inoculation, there cannot now be 
any reasonable doubt, except with those whose unvarying 
prejudice to the operation renders them incapable of ac¬ 
knowledging the power of stubborn facts/ At the risk of 
coming within this category, we may ask whether the every¬ 
day practice of this Edinburgh veterinarian, amongst the 
ever-varying conditions afforded by town dairies, fulfils ‘ all 
the demands of pathological investigation ; 5 and, if not, 
whether the evidence is not f consequently incomplete and 
unreliable? 5 In that case we shall be justified in warning 
‘ agriculturists against receiving with implicit confidence the 
conclusions arrived at. 5 We can see nothing in Mr. Ruther¬ 
ford's testimony which differs in kind from volumes of 
