THE ETIQUETTE OF VETERINARY AUTHORSHIP. 7 
publications; though, as might be expected, he adds that he 
is “ nevertheless not aware that they contain any original 
matter.” It must be some satisfaction to me to find that I 
have done anything in the way of writing an account of horse¬ 
shoeing, and even that it should be designated as “ full and 
accurate.” I suppose at this period of our existence one 
must be content with small mercies in certain quarters. 
Having extorted such a confession from Mr. Williams, I am 
well content to leave the unfortunate subject of “ originality” 
in the hands of competent and impartial judges. 
I am supposed to be wroth with Mr. Williams for alluding 
to Mr. Broad, te who only gained the second prize.” Even 
in this matter Mr. Williams cannot trust himself to do me 
justice; for so far from being “ wroth” I sympathise most 
deeply with him in the disappointment he evidently suffers 
from. I would have been as pleased had Mr. Broad been the 
successful competitor, as Mr. Williams appears to be chagrined 
that he was not. It seems to have been my misfortune, not 
my fault, that the fates decreed it otherwise ; but I must also 
leave that subject to be decided between Mr. Williams and 
the other gentlemen who acted with him as judges, and 
whose views as to originality and practical and interesting 
writing may be quite as advanced as his own. 
I know Mr. Broad too well ever to suspect for a moment 
that he is vexed with me because I chanced to be adjudged 
the most successful of the competitors. On the contrary, 
months before the award was known, and when he was told 
I had entered the list of competitors, he predicted what 
really was the issue of the competition, and he was one of 
the first—if not the first—to offer his congratulations. Cer¬ 
tainly, this is no more than what gentlemen who are 
moved by a spirit of fairness and honest emulation would 
do. If I refer to it here, it is not because it was an ex¬ 
ceptional incident in Mr. Broad’s behaviour towards me, 
but to show how unjust is Mr. Williams’ assertion that the 
mention of his name should annoy me. I should have re¬ 
joiced at the tidings that Mr. Broad’s essay had been con¬ 
sidered the best, and would have eagerly awaited its publica¬ 
tion, in the expectation of being informed on a subject to 
which he, like myself, has devoted years of attentive observa¬ 
tion. Those who know me will give me credit for sincerity 
in what I now say; and this knowledge enables me to dis¬ 
regard the wrong which Mr. Williams perpetrates when he 
insinuates that I think no one should write or publish their 
ideas on the subject but myself. 
I certainly accused Mr. Williams of specially attributing 
