100 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
proper question, and I am sure, was put in a proper spirit. 
I simply again, “ emphatically say,” that such a question was asked, 
and answered by Plageman as reported. 
Now, for thejinsulting part of his letter. What have “essen¬ 
tial requirements ” got to do with “ a truthful report ?” I am 
not given to making wrong statements maliciously, and of this, I 
am able “ to form an opinion ” and back it in any shape or form 
any one interested may desire. He writes, “ it will give him an 
opportunity to correct his statements, and for the future, be a 
little more just in his remarks, especially to his senior and more 
qualified veterinary surgeon.” I have embraced the opportunity, 
as you will see, in the latter part of his comment. I think it 
enough to quote the two following lines: 
“ Oh wad some power the gif tie gie us, 
To see oursel’s as ithers see us.” 
I trust I shall be pardoned for saying that 1 do not consider him 
a “more qualified veterinary surgeon” tham I am. 
He follows in a strain that leads me to suppose that some one 
had had occasion to criticise some former communication of his. 
I looked through the back numbers of the Review, and found 
some one had been “ridiculing” him, (in numbers for December, 
1878, and January, 1879), so that I pass over that part of his 
letter, as not referring to me, though I should hardly have 
thought “ a superior veterinary surgeon,” who states he is a 
M.R.C.V.S., would lay himself open to such criticism as that 
given by “Nemo.” He says he is proud of his title; I suppose 
he is. It is one that members of my family have enjoyed as far 
back as 1826—and one held the position of Vice-President of the 
Royal College for a term—but lean assure him that I am just as 
proud of being a D.V.S. He must not forget either that at the 
present day veterinary surgery is more a science than it was 
thirty or forty years ago. He claims that he has “ had ample 
opportunities to correct blunders made by veterinary surgeons 
just out of their pupilage, and others that have been years in prac¬ 
tice,” but he was “ generous enough to overlook them.” Well! I’ll 
be generous enough, in the interests of the profession, to make 
no comment. He claims, as a mark of distinction, that he prac- 
