932 
DEPARTMENT OF SURGERY. 
fic standpoint he is probably harmless. Then, again, the critic 
of American veterinary literature who limits his criticisms to 
the rhetorical aspects of the articles appearing in our profes¬ 
sional journals lacks a keen perception of the educational status 
of our rank and file. During the past decade the low matricu¬ 
late and graduate requirements of most of our colleges have re¬ 
cruited our ranks with few college men, few high school gradu¬ 
ates, but it has given us many who have only the rudiments of 
grammar school work. To these latter men we must look for 
a large share of our current literature, and, while their writings 
may not glow with fine rhetoric, they usually contain either 
sound sense or honest effort. The next generation of veteri¬ 
narians may reasonably expect nicer literature, because the re¬ 
cruits may then emanate from the high schools and universities 
instead of from the u little red school-house,” as they do to-day. 
Our literature to-day suffers much from the fact that those who 
write nicely have little technical qualification, while those who 
are well qualified by experience cannot, or have no time to 
write. We have in mind a recent letter to the Review, 
written by Mr. Butler, for the ostensible purpose of stimulating 
a lively interest in the clinics of the American Veterinary 
Medical Association, in which he ridicules a writer in this de¬ 
partment who dared to criticise the conditions under which a 
certain operation was performed at the Omaha clinic in 1898. 
Whether this clinic merited the drastic criticism it received 
has no bearing upon the case so far as we are concerned. It 
may have been an ideal operation, conditions and all. The 
point we wish to make is that the writer deserved better treat¬ 
ment from Mr. Butler. To openly ridicule a writer’s effort to 
describe the technique of an operation seems to 11s a mighty 
humble occupation for the president of the A. V. M. A. Those 
of 11s who are not specially blessed with a high education fre¬ 
quently find it difficult to vividly portray the minute details of 
medical and surgical technique, without overstepping the 
bounds of good English. In order to “bring out ” our points 
many of us are prone to diverge from the sphere of classical 
English and use “convenient” words and expressions instead. 
Even Mr. Butler finds it convenient to say, “ Asepsis is not the 
‘ whole thing ’ in surgery,” etc. Although our literature is 
evidence of our merit as a whole, and, although we should 
make every effort to improve our rhetoric, there is reason at 
this stage of veterinary evolution to be charitable to our writers. 
—(A. A. M. and E. M.) 
