DEPARTMENT OF SURGERY. 
931 
Review,” we notice the report of a case that has attracted the 
attention of a number of English and French journals. The 
case was reported by Monsarrat, and consisted of an atrophy of 
the semimembranosis following the castration of a horse with¬ 
out properly securing the patient. This instance verifies the 
statement frequently reiterated in this department that no oper¬ 
ation should ever be undertaken before the patient is perfectly 
secured. At the last meeting of the Chicago Veterinary 
Society, Professors Hughes and McKillip furnished the society 
with interesting data anent the restraint of surgical patients. 
Hughes, during 17 years with an operating table, reported no 
accidents, while McKillip, with 25 years’ experience with ropes 
and harness, recorded but one trivial accident. Both of these 
surgeons are careful men, and are each favored with ample ap¬ 
pointments and educated help, which account for their univer¬ 
sal success in protecting their patients against injury. The 
same items, we believe, contribute largely to their success as sur¬ 
geons. The other members of the society, who are less favored 
with help and appointments, report occasional accidents, among 
which are fracture of the vertebrae, fractures of the femur, 
radial paralysis, brachial paralysis, and azoturia. To attempt 
even the minor operations with the patient free to move in every 
direction is dangerous to the patient and surgeon and makes ac¬ 
curate surgery impossible, and to permit a patient u to make a 
monkey of you ” is as homely as the expression.—( E . M.) 
In order to supply our readers with as rational matter as 
possible we frequently solicit articles from veterinarians whom 
we deem specially qualified along particular lines, and as the 
articles thus obtained are published verbatim we cannot be re¬ 
sponsible for their contents. Nevertheless, we invite, encour¬ 
age, yes, admire, criticism that may enlighten our readers ; that 
may add a mite to the storehouse of veterinary surgical knowl¬ 
edge ; or that voices honest opinions, right or wrong. We ad¬ 
mire the critic who fortifies his position with logical or well- 
meant arguments as a real scientist, or at least as a true friend 
to science. We have little time and less inclination, however, 
to give more than passing notice to the critic who simply denies 
the assertions of others without some substantiating proposi¬ 
tions. Such a critic does harm in proportion to the number of 
readers who are weak enough to accept his deductions unchal¬ 
lenged. To-day it is fortunate these are few and far between. 
And when such a critic uses unwarranted, cutting insinuations 
he lacks the elements of common courtesy, but from a scienti- 
