316 
EDITORIAL. 
erinarians, the one herewith being an actual copy of one re¬ 
ceived by the editor of the Review : 
New York, July 18, 1899. 
Roscoe R. Bell, D. V. S., 100 Seventh Avenue , Brooklyn, N. Y. 
Dear Doctor :—Will you please call on us Thursday, the 20th 
inst., in reference to contracting for veterinary service. We have .sev¬ 
eral applications in your location, and will await your calling before 
completing arrangements. Should the time appointed be inconvenient, 
please telephone us making your own time, not later, however, than 
Friday of this week. Yours truly, etc., 
The Veterinary Service Assn. 
M. E. Frey, President. 
The following reply was addressed to the Service Company : 
Seventh Ave. and Union Street, 
Borough of Brooklyn, New'York City, 
> . July 21, 1899. 
The Veterinary Service Association, 32 Broadway, New York City. 
Dear Sirs :—I am in receipt of your letter requesting me to call at 
your office in reference to contracting for veterinary service with you. 
I beg to say in reply that I do not approve of your association, and do 
not believe that any veterinary surgeon with any amount of practice 
will need your aid in conducting his business. I shall, therefore, not 
only not call upon you myself, but will endeavor to prevent by argu¬ 
ment any other veterinarian of qualification from doing so. 
Very respectfully, 
Roscoe R. Bell. 
Before the reception of this letter we had already read a 
‘similar one addressed to Dr. Robert W. Ellis, appointing June 
29 as the date when he should call. The Doctor having busi¬ 
ness in the locality of the office of the company, 32 Broadway, 
called to see what it meant and found that the offices were 
located on the eighth floor of a large office building. It con¬ 
sisted of two rooms, one for the reception of visitors, the other 
private. The scheme of the company was unfolded to the 
Doctor about as follows : The company desired to enter into a 
five-year contract with a number of veterinarians located in 
various parts of the city to treat the horses of their (the com¬ 
pany’s) clients for the stated price of two dollars per horse per 
year. As they were to charge such clients fifteen cents per 
week, or $7.80 per year, it left the company the very handsome 
margin of $5.80 per horse, while the veterinarian has in all 
probability lost the client from his individual account. The 
