I at once decided to try and break down the adhesion, after due preparation, with antiseptics. I took an eight-inch seton needle, and, passing right hand into the vagina, with left hand passed needle, directing its course with right, and as carefully as possible broke through the adhesion, which was about one-half inch in length. On withdrawing the needle, pus followed quickly. Forcing the index finger into the opening made with the needle, I enlarged the opening so that I passed the whole hand, when, on withdrawing my hand, an enormous quantity of pus followed. The mare began to strain violently, and with every strain forced pus from behind her-pus of a darkish cast and terribly offensive, driving my assistant and others out of the barn.

As soon as the mare stopped straining, I again passed my hand into vagina. The broken adhension left a jagged surface, which I dressed down with curved scissors. The os uteri and uterus I found more relaxed than any case I have seen immediately after foaling; the mare now began to show signs of pain, I at once prepared an antiseptic and thoroughly irrigated uterus, dressed the wound that I had made by placing a plegit of antiseptic cotton in the vagina, gave the mare a stimulant, clothed her warmly, and turned her in a box stall, where she at once lay down, and I then had hot rugs applied to her loins.

The next morning she could not rise, refused to eat, temperature 104 degrees F., pulse 60; gave stimulant, Tr. Mur. Iron, Quinia Sulph., with antiseptic washing of uterus and dressing to wound; also hot rugs continuously to loins; from second to sixth day no material change, only that she would occasionally eat a little with coaxing; nursed her as carefully as possible, and placed a careful man with her night and day.

On the sixth day she appeared much better, and with a little assistance got on her feet, but was very weak, and could with difficulty move her hind limbs. She now for the first time ate a mash and some hay, and appeared bright. After a thorough hand rubbing to limbs, she moved around the stall, though with difficulty. I now discontinued the use of all medicines excepting Fld. Ext. Hydrastis, and gave a soft diet. From this time on her recovery was rapid, and in one month from time of operation she left my hospital cured. She is now in fine condition and again in foal.

WENONA, ILL.

REPLY TO DR. AUSTIN PETERS' CRITICISM OF THE

BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY.

BY DR. D. E. SALMON, Chief of the Bureau.

At the meeting of the United States Veterinary Medical Association, held in Washington on September 15 and 16, 1891, a meeting from which the writer was unavoidably absent, Dr. Peters, as chairman of the committee on Intelligence and Education, presented a report in which he bitterly assailed and criticised the Bureau of Animal Industry, and especially the writer, as the chief of that Bureau. This report has since been published, and has, no doubt, been perused, in whole or in part, by the readers of THE JOURNAL; at any rate, it has been spread before the world as being the deliberate statements of one of the most important committees of our National veterinary organization. The assertions contained in it are of such a nature that they cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed either by the individual whose name and reputation are involved, or by the association before which the charges were so publicly made.

If Dr. Peters' report is true, then the writer of this communication is an unworthy member of the Association; if it is false, then the chairman of the committee on Intelligence and Education is guilty of unprovoked, deliberate and malicious slander. In either case the self-respecting members of the Association cannot allow the matter to stand without taking some positive action. To act intelligently they must have both sides of the controversy before them, and I have consequently prepared this reply to Dr. Peters' statements, which I shall send for publication to the two veterinary periodicals of the country.

All will agree with me, no doubt, that a person who is assailed in such language as appears in Dr. Peters' contribution should, in common fairness, be accorded an opportunity to make a reply before he is condemned, even if there were nothing at stake but his individual reputation. And when, as in this case, there is in addition to individual honor the reputation of a great Bureau of the National Government, a Bureau on the force of which the veterinary profession has always been largely represented, how much greater reason is there for expecting the fullest hearing, and the most unbiased

treatment.

Dr. Peters, in his paper, endeavored to give the impression that he boldly made these charges in my presence, since he says that he is glad that he has deferred the matter until this year, as it has given me (him) an opportunity to beard the lion in his den, so to speak, which I (he) always prefer to do, if the opportunity permit." Instead of this being the case, he seized the opportunity when he knew I was unavoidably absent in Europe, representing the Secretary of Agriculture at the International Congress of Hygiene and Demography at London, and at the International Agricultural Congress at The Hague, to make an attack not only on the scientific work of the Bureau, but upon my honesty and truthfulness. This attack was the more cowardly since he also knew that Dr. Smith, who has charge of the investigations, was not a member of the Association, and was therefore not in a position to reply.

It should be remarked in this connection that Dr. Peters has adopted three lines of attack. The first and chief one consists of personalities; the second is the misrepresentation of our views in order to secure plausible subjects for criticism; while the third and least prominent is the attempt to controvert views which we have actually expressed. It is fortunate that this whole subject is a matter of record, and that all the evidence has been printed where it is easily accessible. There is, consequently, no excuse for misrepresentation or inexact statements.

The personalities are chiefly based on the assumption that I have failed to give Dr. Smith credit for the part which he has had in the investigation of swine diseases. "In a special report of the Bureau of Animal Industry upon Hog Cholera: Its History, Nature and Treatment,' issued in 1889," Dr. Peters says, "there is a short history of the investigations of swine disease made in the United States, but we do not find any mention of the name of Billings, although he discovered at once the bacterium which the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry had been searching for, for years, and which he probably would not have found for some time if he had not had the help of an assistant whom he was not generous enough to credit with the discovery, and so let it pass as his own."

We will now go to the records and see how much credit has been given to Dr. Smith for the work which he has done. In the report of the Bureau for 1885, page seven, is the following sentence: "I have been ably assisted in these investigations by Dr. Theobald Smith, whose untiring services have been indispensable

and invaluable; also, by Dr. F. L. Kilborne, who has had charge of the experiment station." In 1886, long before the report for that year was issued, and in order to remove any possible doubt as to the manner in which the investigations were conducted, I published an article in which the following paragraphs occur:

"Very soon after these experiments" (those of 1884) "were made, the many duties which devolve upon me as chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry made it necessary to place the investigations of hog cholera almost entirely in the hands of my assistant, Dr. Theobold Smith, in whose ability and devotion to the work I had and still have the utmost confidence. While, therefore, I marked out the lines of investigation, and kept a personal supervision over what was done, the work has been carried out by another.

"Now one of the very first results of this arrangement was the conclusion by Dr. Smith that hog cholera was caused by a motile bacterium, which certainly was a different germ from the one that I had described in 1884." (Breeders' Gazette, Nov. 11, 1886.)

The very article in which these sentences occur was referred to by Dr. Frosch, and this reference was reproduced by Dr. Peters, so there can be no excuse for either of them to plead ignorance of its contents; and yet, in spite of this plain statement, Dr. Frosch, after mentioning the article, pretends that he did not know until the publication of Dr. Smith's recent paper, the part which the latter (Smith) had taken in the work. And Dr. Peters, taking his cue from Frosch, chimes in with the same order of statements.

This is by no means all the credit that has been given. In the report of the Bureau for 1886, page 7, I said: "For the careful and accurate manner in which the experiments referred to above have been carried out, I am indebted to Dr. Theobald Smith, director of the laboratory, and to Dr. F. L. Kilborne, director of the experiment station, both of whom have shown the most commendable activity and interest in the work, and whose intelligence and zeal have enabled us to satisfactorily decide some of the most difficult questions which modern science has been called upon to elucidate." It will be noticed that although Dr. Smith came to me a young man, I had very soon made him director of the laboratory, and I recognized in my reports not only his work, but the position which he filled. This report for 1886 was the one which contained the first record of his work in connection with the disease which we call swine plague; and we therefore have the most explicit evidence that he received full credit for his work with both diseases.

In the Bureau report for 1887 and 1888, which was published in one volume, I said (page 7): "In conclusion, it affords me pleasure to acknowledge the ability, energy and devotion to work shown by Dr. Theobald Smith and Dr. F. L. Kilborne in conducting the experimental work, the details of which are given in this report." In the Special Report on Hog Cholera, mentioned by Dr. Peters in the quotation made above from his paper, occurs the following paragraph:

"The greater part of the detailed study of the disease, the planning of the experiments, and the bacteriological investigations have been carried out by Dr. Theobald Smith, while the conducting of the experiments, the care of the experimental animals and the general management of the experiment station have been under the direction of Dr. F. L. Kilborne. I can only speak in the highest terms of the untiring industry and skill displayed by both of these gentlemen."

It is unnecessary for me to make further quotations to establish the fact that Dr. Peters was guilty of the most inexcusable misrepresentation and distortion of facts in what he said in reference to this matter. "You will see," he says, "that Jeffries in his paper gives Smith the credit for the work he has done." But why should he not have given him credit? Were not all the facts detailed with sufficient minuteness in the reports, as shown by the above quotations? Again, he says: "It has been no secret to me for the last year and a half as to who was actually conducting these investigations in the Bureau of Animal Industry." Why should it have been any secret to him or to any one else who consulted the reports of the Bureau as to the exact position and work of each one connected with the investigations?

There is one other paragraph in Dr. Peter's paper which I must quote and comment on in this connection. He says: "If the Bureau of Animal Industry is to be a political organization, why not have its chief simply write the letter of transmissal of his annual report to the Secretary of Agriculture, and have a few true scientists in his employ to work unhampered, and make their own reports upon the questions that they have been studying upon. This, at least, for the sake of making a more creditable appearance to other civilized nations, if we have no respect for ourselves."

This is very strong language, calculated and intended to discredit the bureau and those connected with it both at home and abroad. The reader will agree with me, I am sure, that it should not have been published broadcast without the most ample evi