8 THE ETIQUETTE OF VETERINARY AUTHORSHIP. 
to M r. Broad what I had written more than three years ago: 
what I had taken every pains to elucidate, and make public ; 
and what I am pleased to observe Mr.jfWilliams has adopted, 
viz., “ sole-pressure,”—if it is to be so styled. 
He now says that he knows for a fact that Mr. Broad ad¬ 
vocated this so long ago as 1838. Where is the proof?* I 
am certainly utterly ignorant of such a fact, and cannot find 
it anywhere. What I do know is that I have no recollection 
of Mr. Broad, in our conversations on the subject before my 
work was published, ever mentioning this ; on the contrary, 
he generously presented me with patterns of the shoes he uses 
in Bath, and though these were all of unexceptionable work¬ 
manship, not one of them was adapted for resting on the 
sole ; all were bevelled like the ordinary shoes, with the 
exception of a hunting-shoe, which of course is narrow, and 
has never been bevelled. 
And even the laminitis shoe, which, one would imagine, 
should be, par excellence, a sole-pressing shoe, is wider in 
the cover than ordinary shoes, and is perhaps even more 
bevelled towards the foot surface. Indeed to this cause, 
and to the manner in which it throws the animal’s weight 
on the heels—thus producing a most inordinate degree of 
tension of the flexor tendon of the foot—must be attributed 
the disastrous effects which have been constantly produced 
in the cases of laminitis treated on Mr. Broad’s system in the 
vicinity of Chatham and Rochester. Surely this is no 
evidence that Mr. Broad, previously to 1869, advocated the 
necessity of resting the shoe on the sole ! 
Will Mr. Williams indicate any authority in this country 
who, before that year, published anything resembling what I 
have written on the subject of calkins and sole-pressure 
by means of the shoe ? Private and unpublished opinions 
are seldom, if ever, quoted ; published opinions always take 
precedence. I had published my opinion on this matter 
unhesitatingly, and have had to stand the consequences. I 
am not aware of any other who has; and if Mr. Williams 
wished to share the responsibility by adopting it without 
acknowledgment, he might at least have done so without 
involving Mr. Broad. 
As Mr. Williams says, I might have included myself, had 
I wished, among the other “ practical ” men (where is their 
published evidence to be found ?) who it appears bear out 
his views in this matter; hut this would indeed he a strange 
way of solacing oneself for an injustice done. At any rate, 
it was not the way to prevent a repetition of a breach of 
etiquette ; and knowing besides the very different interpre- 
