454 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
A., which carefully read reflected unfavorably on the commit¬ 
tee, the association, and the veterinary profession in America. 
It asserted in effect that the members of the association 
through their votes had elected a President who so disregarded 
the interests of the profession as to create a Publication Com¬ 
mittee consisting of such men as Secretary Stewart, Treasurer 
Lowe, Professor Bell, editor of the American Veterinary 
Review, Dr. R. P. Lyman, and the writer, who ignorantly, 
hastily and carelessly issued “ Proceedings ” from which impor¬ 
tant papers had been omitted, other papers .had been ruined by 
editing, and the discussions and transactions had been falsified, 
hence association funds recklessly wasted and the association 
and profession in America dishonored. 
But it was noticed that with the criticism the writer’s name 
was linked in a manner suspiciously akin to numerous previous 
slurs in the same columns, and the question arose whether it 
was intended as a beneficent criticism for the good of the asso¬ 
ciation and profession or a “ stiletto ” thrust at a member of 
the committee. Believing that if the Journal's attack were 
sincere a caustic rejoinder would cause its editor to sustain his 
charges, while if otherwise he would turn upon the writer in a 
storm of personal abuse and thus disclose what we suspected to 
be his real motive, we contributed to the Review for June a 
communication justifiable only, if at all, by the ends sought. 
The reply of Dr. Hoskins in the August Review fully accom¬ 
plished the desired result and his motive stands out clear. 
It only remains for us to correct one or two erroneous de¬ 
ductions, due perhaps to misreading of our communication in 
June Review, when Dr. H. summonses us to present evidence 
that he has misappropriated association funds. We made no 
such charge. We suggested that he account for the destiny of 
some association proceedings. In the Report of Pub. Com. 
for 1893, there appears in Vol. XV., p. 391, Jour. Comp . Med. } 
the statement: u 50 copies (of proceedings 1893) remain in 
the sheet for future binding as required,” beyond which we 
cannot trace them. Again, when Dr. Hoskins turned over the 
association property in his hands to the writer he reported the 
delivery under date of Nov. 21, 1897, among other property 170 
paper-bound copies of 1893 “ Proceedings,” which, after they had 
been receipted for, were carefully examined, and it was found 
that 76 of the wrappers stamped as containing u Proceedings of 
1893 ” contained other matter of about the same bulk instead. 
Probably Dr. H. can account for all these, but to do so he 
