CORRESPONDENCE. 
133 
eluding New York. Let us suppose that occasionally some non¬ 
graduate applies for a license. He, like others, will be required 
to pass an examination in chemistry, anatomy, physiology, 
pathology, meat inspection, bacteriology, surgery, materia med- 
ica, practice of medicine, and any other branches the board may 
designate. Should he be found qualified, I say, “Let him in.” 
The Review editor will doubtless say, “Turn him out.” On 
this point we shall.probably always differ. 
It must be understood that Illinois has no State Veterinary 
College, so any measure without such a clause would be re¬ 
garded by legislators as an enactment to enhance the interests 
of the private colleges in Chicago. The Review editor evi¬ 
dently did not think of this. Besides, in canvassing the legis¬ 
lature we found it would be impossible to pass a bill that did 
not recognize the non-graduate practitioners, nor one that 
created a new board, nor one that provided for any special 
course of study, or did not give equality to all persons, irrespec¬ 
tive of their particular kind of college training. 
During the present legislature, thus far, all educational meas¬ 
ures—The Harper Bill, the Medical Bill, the Pharmacists Bill 
—were “turned down.” The exception is the Veterinary Bill, 
which has gone through the necessary steps unopposed, which 
certainly shows the foresight of its promoters. 
I only ask the Review to be fair, and withhold judgment 
until the “ audacity ” growing out of this measure becomes a 
reality instead of a wild suspicion. 
As to the State Veterinarian of Illinois, the Review contin¬ 
ually makes the assertion that he is a “ political creature,” 
without even the rudiments of an education. I do not pro¬ 
fess to understand what is meant by “ political creature,” but 
assure the Review editor that the latter part of the statement 
would be very difficult to prove and would be refuted by any 
competent judge. Would it not be better for the Review to 
attack- his official acts, rather than simply surmise that he is a 
bad man without quality, and then continually preface every 
reference to him with adjectives to suit the suspicion. The 
facts in the case are that Dr. Lovejoy has been a great disap¬ 
pointment to those who have attacked him, because in all his 
work he has shown no evidence of incapacity or deficiency which 
was predicted, but, on the contrary, has won the universal praise 
of all just and fair-minded men who have had the opportunity 
to observe his doings. 
I do not wish to defend empiricism nor to endorse the ap- 
