338 
EDITORIAL. 
large among his neighbors, because wantonly overlooking the 
discoveries of Pasteur ? 
We are quite aware that in venturing these remarks and put¬ 
ting these questions, we are exposing ourselves to a great deal of 
criticism, and that we may even be accused, as Mr. Pasteur has 
already been, of attempting to “ make a corner ” in vaccine ! But— 
to adhere to the true matters of the issue—what difference can 
there truly be between pleuro-pncumonia and the diseases named ; 
and what, (if we may be allowed to strain the comparison some¬ 
what) between the fearfully contagious and infectious disease of 
smallpox, and the no less frightful and commonly fatal anthrax; 
or still more, the irresistible and deadly hydrophobia, that they 
should be discriminated in devising and applying measures and 
methods of “ crushing out ” the evil common to them all ? It is 
true that these affections of our domestic animals are not very 
frequently communicated to man, and this may be a reason for 
failing to make vaccination obligatory, as it is in the case of 
smallpox. But why is it made obligatory in some of the 
countries of Europe, for contagious pleuro-pneumonia ? It 
is not done because of its dangers to man, but because of its 
dangers to the national wealth. Hog cholera kills hogs by 
thousands every year, and the loss in money reaches millions 
of dollars. There is no good reason, no excuse even, for 
this. Anthrax, either in its bacteridian or bacterian form, car¬ 
ries away annually hundreds of our fat cattle, and besides the 
pecuniary loss to individuals and to the nation, exposes many 
human beings to long sickness and possible death. There is also 
no reason for this. Hydrophobia kills, perhaps, a less number of 
animals, but when it attacks one, it not only irrevocably seals his 
doom, but as long as he lives exposes to certain death every man, 
woman or child who may come in contact with him, when attacked 
at last. And now that we know that for this disease, as well as 
for the others named, there are means of prevention—that 
inoculation will insure immunity—why do we longer hesitate 
or doubt? We are sure that the question may be wisely put, 
both from the point of view of the protection of human life, 
and from that of the economies of our national wealth. Does 
