EDITORIAL. 
317 
outer office was adorned by a rack containing the professional 
cards of some forty or fifty veterinarians, many of them promi¬ 
nent and some of them active in veterinary associations. 
W hen asked if those gentlemen were acting for the company, the 
answer was given in the affirmative. When reminded that 
associational ethics would debar them from such service, he was 
told that upon that point it had been ruled by a veterinarian of 
authority that the present instance was not parallel to the live 
stock insurance companies, and that no objection could be made 
to such a contract. Doubt being expressed of the correctness 
of the President’s construction of the spirit of ethical law, he 
observed that the Doctor was in an excellent position to de¬ 
cide the question himself, and hoped that he would do so. 
He was urged to give the subject earnest thought, which he 
did, the result of which was the following letter: 
■p. -p, . New York, July 3, 1890. 
EAR Doctor : I have not as yet had the time nor opportunity to 
comply with your request of 29th ult., in looking up the question as to 
whether it is a violation of the Code of Ethics of the several veterinary 
medical associations for veterinarians to contract with you or not • but 
personally I am satisfied that it is entirely unprofessional , and upon that 
ground alone I would personally refrain from any connection with it. 
Yours very respectfully, 
Robt. W. Ellis. 
Dr. Ellis says in a communication to the Review : 
“ Now, if those cards are placed in that conspicuous rack at their 
owner s will, and if they are connected with the company, as claimed, 
it is a pity ; if they are there as bait only, it is a shame. If professional 
etiquette be left entirely out of the matter, how can a man be such an 
ass as to give his clients into the hands of such a concern, allowing 
them to collect the money for his work and paying him his wages, as 
the null owner does his laborers. The circular is sent to a veterinarian’s 
clients and a man calls and explains that his companv will treat all 
ttieir stock for two cents a day, and upon inquiry they find that the very 
veterinarian whom they have always employed will do the work iust as 
he has always done, with the difference that they will not have ’to pav 
two dollars every time he enters that stable. Even that client dcesifft 
know that the doctor is reduced to the pittance of two dollars per vear 
How beautifully he is playing into the hand of the service association 
tu Signing that contract, and how easily the association is foiled by his 
refusal to do so. No, the man who signs that contract has no practice 
and thinks he can get one in-that way, or if he has one he is in hopes of 
^ettmg a hold upon some other man’s by getting into it. ” 
We know nothing of the personality of the promoters of the 
