CORRESPONDENCE. 
209 
Editor -Review: 
No one detests more than myself the ventilation of personal 
matters through the columns of the Review, and had not Prof. 
McEachran’s report to the Canadian government been copied in 
Prof. Walley’s most aide work on “ The Four Bovine Scourges,” 
from which extracts were made in your last issue, I would have 
preferred to let the matter pass unnoticed in public print. But 
when we consider the general publicity which the report will gain 
among the members of the profession, by reason of its connection 
with “ The Four Bovine Scourges,” we feel that simple justice to 
our own efforts in the past warrants a defense against the reflec¬ 
tion made in the following extract from Prof. McFachran’s 
report: 
“ Accompanied by Mr. Gadsden, 1 visited New York and com¬ 
municated with the Principal and Professors of the American 
Veterinary College, none of whom had any experience with the 
disease, and doubted the correctness of the rumors of its ex¬ 
istence.” 
On page 33, Jan. issue of the Review, 1S77, in my article on 
“ Stimulants in Disease,” read before the meeting of the United 
States Veterinary Medical Association, held in Philadelphia, on 
Sept. 20th, 1876, is the statement: “In the summer of 1874, T 
treated thirty-three cases of epizootic pleuro-pneumonia, &c.” 
In the report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, made to the 
United States Government, on the 26th of Feb., 1878, page 49, is 
the following: 
“ Prof, A. A. Holcombe, D.V.S., lecturer on ‘ Special Pathol¬ 
ogy ’ in the American Veterinary College, New York, says : ‘In 
reply to communication received from you last month, I can only 
give the facts relating to contagious pleuro-pneumonia as it exists 
in the State of New Jersey. It has prevailed to a greater or less 
extent, in some parts of the State, for a number of years past. 
That it is spreading is attested by recent outbreaks in localities 
where heretofore it has been unknown. In September, 1873, an 
outbreak of this disease occured on a large dairy farm at North 
Branch, Somerset County, N. J. It was treated by a quack of 
Somerville (in the same county), and nearly every case died. I 
