280 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
There are undoubtedly veterinary sharks swarming about the sale marts, working in 
unison with the dealers, who encourage them in the nefarious practices, because legitimate 
practice does not yield them the amount of returns they require or desire, and with abso¬ 
lutely no moral sensibility or pride, they become the moths that live upon the reputation 
the profession has gained through the efforts and honorable principles of its true members. 
They do not represent the profession any more than barnacles upon the bottoms of vessels 
do the materials from which the hull is made. The chief difference is that periodically 
the shipmaster dry-docks his vessel and scrapes off the barnacles, while the profession 
permits them to remain until their worthlessness causes their own decay, when they drop 
off and pass out of sight. That some veterinarians of the Metropolis occupying honorable 
positions in the profession are known to be recipients of dealers’ dollars should not be 
discouraging to the younger members of the profession. Let them begin and pursue their 
careers untrammeled by such a load.stone about their necks, for once the fatal step is 
taken that dealer who gave the bribe has the recipient in his power, his self-respect 
is gone, and if a man of honor he must feel ashamed to look his brethren in the face. No 
veterinarian known to have received money from a horse dealer for the purpose of 
influencing his decision in the examination of a horse should be eligible to membership 
in an association of veterinary gentlemen, and any member of such an organization - 
against whom such a charge can be sustained should be relieved of his certificate of 
affiliation without ceremony. 
But when any man assails the profession of New York City as a body in the manner 
that our correspondent’s informant has, we reply simply that he wilfully or ignorantly 
lies. 
EXAMINATION OF HORSES FOR SOUNDNESS—LIABILITY FOR 
CONDEMNATION UPON “ SUPERFICIAL ” EXAMINATION. 
Brooklyn, June iith, 1898, 
Editor's Arner'ican Veterinar'y Review: 
Gentlemen :— Your comments in the enrrent issue of the 
Review, on the subject submitted to you by Mr. Clarence H. 
Robbins, of this city, in reference to the liability or non-liability 
of Dr. Ackerman in a civil action, either evades the question, 
or you have misconstrued the point at issue. Kindly refer to 
the “query ” on p. 198, and partieiilarly to the quoted portions 
thereof, and you will find no reference to “ malieioiis ” or “ pre- 
judieed ” action on the part of Dr. Ackerman, which you claim 
must be the basis for legal action. 
As you say, the ihatter has gained considerable professional 
notoriety, the vital question at issue is,—Dr. Ackerman, in his 
certificate having pronounced the animal “ unsound at both 
ends,” and that upon a “ siiperfieial examination,”—therefore, 
Qiiei'y: “ Is not any veterinary surgeon legally liable to the 
coiiseqiienees of certifying to the unsoundness of an animal,. 
while admitting in that certificate that same is done upon a 
“ siiper'ficial examination ” ? 
This is the vital point to the profession at large. 
Trusting that this will not be too late for publication in the 
Julv issue of the Review, I am. Yours truly, 
L. McLean, M. R. C. V. S. 
