CORRESPONDENCE. 
281 
The comments in the June Review anent the subject referred to by Dr. McLean 
were based upon the general pecuniary responsibility of an examiner for the contents of a 
certificate issued by him detailing the results of his examination of a horse for soundness, 
and the views there expressed are those held, we believe, by almost all men familiar 
with veterinary jurisprudence. Since, however, our correspondent insists that the real 
question involved in the original query is the apparent carelessness of the examiner in 
rendering a judgment of unsoundness, we renew our remarks based upon this aspect of 
the case. ust here we will lay aside the individuals concerned in the controversy, and 
discuss the question simply on the point submitted. The subject is practical, and its 
ventilation must prove of interest and profit to the profession. We believe that our cor¬ 
respondent. who is avowedly a painstaking and conscientious examiner, has condemned 
many a horse upon a “ superficial ” inspection ; but we do not think he ever passed one in 
that manner. For in.stance, if an animal were submitted to him for professional opinion, 
and his first observation led him to believe that the horse was ‘ shaky” in its knees ; or 
if a lateral view revealed the presence of a curb, or that he was knuckled, or that he pos¬ 
sessed any other defect or deformity which his experience and knowledge had taught him 
lo reject, the animal would be condemned without putting it through the details of a 
minute examination. On the other hand, if a “ superficial ” examination failed to reveal 
the presence of such conditions, he is in duty bound to pursue his investigations in quest 
of defects of a less patent character ; and, it is only after exhausting every means in his 
power to find evidence of ill condition, that he can conscientiously certify to his belief in 
the soundness of the subject. In the case in question the examiner declares in his letter 
to the buyer that as he stood looking at the subject he observed a weakn ss of the knees 
sufficient to cause him to consider the horse unsound ‘‘at that end.” What he dis¬ 
covered at ‘‘ the other end ” to produce a similar verdict is not made plain, but he became 
satisfied of that fact enough to cause him to submit such an opinion in writing. Now 
the question arises in the case of the first objection, whether a ‘‘superficial ” examination 
was not all that was necessary If such a condition really existed, it strikes us that he 
was just as competent to observe it superficially as upon a minute examination. And the 
same would apply in the detection of knuckling, curb, or the presence of lameness, and 
many other conditions. If they are seen at the first glance no amount of careful work can 
secure the examiner’s approval, and the horse had as well be condemned as to waste any 
further time upon the case, for he is rejected from the beginning. We, therefore, hold 
that a veterinary surgeon is justified in many cases in condemning a horse upon “ superfi¬ 
cial examination,” and adhere to our contention, that the burden of proof to do injury or 
injustice from malice or prejudice must be against the examiner as a basis for legal 
action. 
THE ATTITUDE OF THE PRESS TOWARD THE VETERINARY 
PROFESSION. 
Nashville, Tenn., May 23, 1898. 
Editors American Veterinary Revieiu : 
Dear Sirs :—It is the function of the daily press to instruct 
the people in all branches of science and all forms of knowledge 
as well as gather and condense news for them and advance their 
political and social interests. Thus to particularize it is a mat¬ 
ter approved of by all veterinarians to see the people informed on 
such veterinary matters as can be presented in a shape easily 
understood by them. The public learn thus to have more respect 
for them and to feel sensible of the work which the veterinary 
profession is constantly struggling so earnestly to accomplish. 
Especially is it well to frequently call the stock-owners’ and 
