10 THE ETIQUETTE OF VETERINARY AUTHORSHIP. 
attend and explain why a proceeding which is diametrically 
opposed to every principle of surgery, and contra-indicated 
by everything we know of pathological processes, could be 
expected to be successful in the case of acutely inflamed 
laminae, accompanied by exudation and effusion. 
I do not wish, however, to discuss this malady in the pages 
of the Veterinarian , and if I allude to it now, it is merely to 
show that I have no reason to class myself among Mr. 
Williams’ “ practical ” men, as he says I might do in the 
case of sole-pressure. 
1 have now done with the subject of professional etiquette, 
so far as regards its literature; and see no reason to modify, 
in any way, the opinion I expressed in my first communica¬ 
tion on the subject. My object was not so much to com¬ 
plain that Mr. Williams had transferred to his book, without 
acknowledgment, or debited to the credit of others, certain 
statements, or the basis of certain statements, which had not 
appeared in a published form in any work previous to 1869; 
but rather to point out such a proceeding was not according 
to what I have understood to be a recognised code in litera¬ 
ture. The charge was not lightly made, though it has been 
lightly replied to, so far as facts are concerned. 
True, Mr. Williams tries to excuse himself by saying 
that the great mass of our information is at least professional, 
if not even public property, and that it is unreasonable for 
any author to claim credit for what belongs to all. The 
same language might be applied to literature of any kind, 
and Mr. Williams, beyond our own professional sphere, might 
do as he has done in this instance, but the chances are he 
would not do it with impunity. Though a man’s writings 
are the property of all, nevertheless it is universally recog¬ 
nised that he deserves credit for what he has done; and to 
deprive him of that credit by taking his work without 
acknowledgment, or to attempt to give the credit to another 
through a morbid excess of partisanship, cannot be conducive 
to the interests of justice or the maintenance of literary 
morality. Though I preferred this complaint, and see 
every reason for maintaining it, I nevertheless, in the 
interest of the equine speeies, no less than of their owners, 
gladly see in Mr. Williams’ chapter on “ Horse-Shoeing ” 
opinions on the subject which I have insisted upon for years, 
and which are doubtless none the worse for being repeated 
and endorsed by him. I only regret he has not given us, 
from his large experience, something more than was already 
known, especially as his book was intended for the profession; 
while my humble efforts were directed only towards the 
