SOCIETY MEETINGS. 
487 
Dr. R. A. Finlay questioned whether those few were willing to father the 
expense. 
Dr. Pendry said section two of article five provided for that, inasmuch as it 
gave the power to assess such expenses as had been incurred by the society. 
Dr. R. Ogle was sure no money would have to be spent to have the bill 
passed. He had already been promised the support of members of the 
Legislature. 
Dr. Pendry being called upon to express his views on the subject, said 
that he considered some of the members had got hold of a wrong idea, in consid¬ 
ering that money was necessary to pass such a bill as the one proposed. Dr. 
Finlay had stated, that when at Albany, in the interest of the last bill, he had 
been asked what was behind it, or in other words, was there any money in it. 
He was not surprised to hear that such a question had been put, although no such 
question had been asked him when he visited Albany, as Secretary of the 
society, in the interest of their then proposed bill. It was true the bill did not 
pass; but why ? because his pleading to have the examining clause struck out, 
was inetfective. A bill with such a clause inserted, demanding that a fee equal to 
that paid for a diploma, bore upon its face—however unintentional it might have 
been—a money making job for some three members of the profession, who 
would have formed the Examining Board. A Western paper even went so far 
as to place the amount of such fees at ten thousand dollars; this he considered 
was the reason of the question of money being raised. He had the pledge of 
more than one member of the Assembly, and one had offered to father the bill. 
The present bill was so liberal, was so void of any individual benefit, that there 
could not possibly be any opposition. It was not because money had not been 
put up, that the last bill was killed, but simply because a country non-graduate 
had so strongly and easily shown the committee before which the bill was, that 
it possibly placed it within the means of three men to take the bread out of his 
mouth, so the opposition was strong and forcible. We should not advocate the 
bill as individuals, but as a body of professional men advocating a cause for the 
good of their profession. Veterinarians would not receive any individual benefit, 
but would succeed in raising their profession to the high position where it justly 
belongs, and not let it any longer lay in the unlegalized gutter-like position that 
it now occupies. That we should not go ahead because there were so few 
present, was he thought a poor argument. Were we going to let those who did not 
consider it worth their while to come, see that we could not get along without 
them. Such an idea he considered childish; it was simply the old, old story over 
again, that the few had always to do the work, and the many receive the benefit. 
It had always been so, and would always remain so, and he for one was willing 
to yet remain one of those few. 
Several members spoke of members of the Legislature who had promised the 
bill their support. 
The President said there could not be any opposition to the bill. He was in 
favor of it. The bill was a very liberal one, yet not more so than the one passed 
by practitioners of human medicine. The country practitioner could not be 
antagonized; he was doing his best, and could control more votes than a city 
practitioner. He had had no opportunity to educate himself. This bill was lift¬ 
ing such men from the gutter. He did not think the bill would be defeated. 
