BLACKWELL FAMILY ELIZABETH BLACKWELL. Subject File. vivisectionADDITIONAL OPINIONS CONCERNING VIVISECTION. DR. CHARLES BELL TAYLOR, F.R.C.S. and M.D., Fellow of the Medical Society of London in an Address, Nov.16, 1892, before Medico Chirurgical Society, Nottingham: Galvani's discovery of electricity was due to experiments on dead frogs- "dalle morte rane"-not on living animals; Vivisection had nothing whatever to do with it. The Anaesthetic properties of ether and chloroform were discovered by experiments upon human patients, not by Vivisection of animals. Koch's inoculations with tubercle, which were adopted from experiments upon animals, have led to death from initial fever, the infection of the whole system of patients who merely suffered from localized disease, and to failure and terrible disappointment of patients subjected to it. Vivisection was not needed for the discovery of the properties of nitrite of amyl, nor indeed, so far as I can make out, of anything. After all, "It is not whether such and such a discovery was made by Vivisection, but whether Vivisection was indispensable to that discovery?" If there are any such discoveries, either made or to be made, I must candidly confess I do not know of them. In fact, if anything could exceed the hideous cruelty of the whole business, it would be the childish absurdity of the claims to benefit which are constantly put forth by the advocates and promoters of the system.QUOTATIONS FROM GREAT THINKERS CONCERNING VIVISECTION. LORD TENNYSON. "We shudder to dream our maids should ape Those monstrous males that carve the living hound." "The Princess;" a medley. "I could think he was one of those who could break their jests on the dead, And mangle the living dog that had loved him and fawn'd at his knee, Drenched with the hellish oorah-that ever such things should be!" In the Children's Hospital. In her Life, Miss Cobbe relates that the last time she saw Lord Tennyson, he held her hand for a moment as she was quitting his luncheon table, and said with his peculiar grave earnestness, alluding to her work in opposing vivisection: "Go on! Fight the good fight, Miss Cobbe! Fight the good fight!" ROBERT BROWNING "I would rather submit to the worst of deaths, so far as pain goes, than have a single dog or cat tortured on the pretence of sparing me a twinge or two I return the paper, because I shall be probably shut up here for the next week or more, and prevented from seeing my friends. Whoever would refuse to sign would certainly not be of the number." ––From a Letter to Miss Cobbe, Dec. 28, 1874. CARDINAL MANNING "I take the first opportunity that has been offered to me to renew publicly my firm determination, so long as life is granted me, to assist in putting an end to that which I believe to be a detestable practice without scientific result, and immoral in itself. . . I believe the time has come, and I only wish that we had the power, legally, to prohibit altogether the practice of vivisection . . . Nothing can justify, no claim of science no conjectural result, no hope for discovery, such horrors as these. Also, it must be remembered that whereas these torments, refined and indescribably, are certain, the result is altogether conjectural–– everything about the result is uncertain but the certain infraction of the first laws of mercy and humanity. . . I love my country and my countrymen but I will not confide in the notion that that which is practised abroad has not been and cannot be practised in our midst; and if I thought that there was at this moment a comparative exemption in England, I would say, 'Let us take care that there shall never be the re-action of the Continent on this country, for it is true and certain that whatever is done abroad within a little while is done among ourselves, unless we render it impossible that it should be done.' " ––Speech, June 21, 1882. THE LATE EARL OF THE SHAFTES- BURY. K. G "We are bound in duty, I think, to leap over all limitations, and go in for the total abolition of this vile and cruel form of idolatry. for idolatry it is. and like all idolatry. brutal, degrading and deceptive." ––Extract from a Letter to Miss Cobbe. "The thought of this diabolic system disturbs me night and day. God remember Thy poor humble, useful creature." ––Diary, Vol.111, p 374 "No physical gain can possibly equal the injury caused by the moral degradation of the feelings which such barbarous experiments must naturally induce." ––Speech in House of Lords, May 22, 1876. JAMES MARTINEAU, D. D. "I should have been very sorry not to join this protest against this hideous offence. . . The simultaneous loss from the morals of our 'advanced' scientific men of all reverent sentiment towards beings below, is a curious and instructive phenomena highly significant of the process which their natures are undergoing at both ends." –– From a Letter dated Jan. 5, 1875. THE LATE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER (DR. BROWNE). "He maintained that we had no right to torture these creatures of God for the sake of any supposed benefit we might derive from doing so. He quite admitted that man was superior to the beast, but the part of him which was so valuable was not his bodily constitution, but the immortal part of his being." ––Speech at Southampton, 1878 THE LATE BISHOP OF OXFORD (DR. MACKARNESS) "Depend upon it other avenues of knowledge will be open to you for the discoveries you desire to make. God in his good time will give you these avenues: but for my part I would rather that they should not be discovered at all than that they should be brought about by the sacrifice altogether of the finer feeling of compassion, which should be treasured as a priceless jewel. Do your duty to the beast, and depend upon it you will be doing your duty to man." ––Speech, May 1st, 1893. , JOHN RUSKIN. "These scientific pursuits were now defiantly, provokingly, insultingly, separate from the science of religion; they were all carried on in defiance of what had hitherto been held to be compassion and pity, and of the great link which bound together the whole creation from it's Maker to the lowest creature." ––Speech at Oxford, Dec. 9, 1884. THE BISHOP OF MANCHESTER (DR.MOORHOUSE). "If a man could hear with cold callous heart the cry of the poor dog which was suffering tortures caused and continued by the experimenter, that man must become more hard and brutal in character. He was gaining his knowledge by the degradation of his moral character. If such a man urged the selfish plea. 'I am torturing the lower creatures for the advantage of man,' he (the Bishop) replied by asking: Who gave him the right to do any such thing? He doubted whether any such advantage were to be obtained; but even if it were, he deprecated the attempt to obtain it, because He who made the poor creatures capable of suffering made them so in order that they might be capable of happiness, and for his part he (the Bishop) unhesitatingly answered that he would rather die a hundred times than save his life by such infernal experiments. Those things were wholly unlawful. They degraded the mind of the experimenter, they tortured God's innocent creatures, they were totally contrary to the spirit of the Gospel, and they were Pagan in their conception and in their execution." ––Extract from Sermon preached in Manchester Cathedral, September 27, 1891 CANON WILBERFORCE. "I believe this practice panders to the very lowest part of human nature, which is our selfishness engendered by fear. And when they excite our terrors, and the pander to this fear that they have excited, and tell us that by the exhibition of a certain amount of necessary cruelty they will be able to relieve us, they are degrading the human race." ––Speech in London, June 22, 1892.DR GEORGE MACDONALD. "The higher your motive for it, the greater is the blame of your righteousness. Must we congratulate you on such a love for your fellows as inspires you to wrong the weaker than they, those who are without helper against you? . . . It is the old story; the greed of knowing casts out Righteousness and Mercy and Faith. "Whatever believed benefit may or may not thus be wrought for higher creatures, the injustice to the lower is nowise affected."--"The Hope of the Universe" in Sunday Magazine, Nov., 1892. BISHOP BARRY, D. D., D. C. L. Canon of Windsor, late Primate of Australia. "We speak of vivisection as involving scientific torture, and we condemn it as a moral offence. . . . We always describe as Humanity that which is the direct opposite to the dread struggle for existence, I mean the self-sacrifice of the strong for the sake of the weak. . . . And by the very word Humanity we declare that it lies at the very root of our human nature, and that it is one of its noblest and best elements. I cannot conceive anything that could be more demoralizing, either to the inflictors or the spectators of vivisection, than the looking on at the torture of thee helpless animals."--Speech in London, June 22nd, 1892. "For humanity at large, to seek its own supposed good at all hazard of wrong-doing and cruelty to the weaker creatures of God, is surely of the very essence of selfishness. To hold that the increase of physical comfort, the removal of physical pain, the prolongation of physical life, are the supreme objects, for the sake of which we may demoralize our higher humanity, is simply a worship of the flesh, unworthy of a true man, impossible to a true Christian. To sin for these purposes against God's creatures, bound up with ourselves in the great chain of organic being, and committed to us as made in His image, and having a delegation of His sovereignty, is a prostitution of God-given power which is almost a sacrilege."-- Paper read at the Church Congress, at Folkestone, 1892. THE BISHOP OF DURHAM, DR. WESTCOTT. "If He who made us made all other creatures also, and if they find a place in His providential plan, if His tender mercies reach to them, and this we Christians most certainly believe--then I find it absolutely inconceivable that He should have so arranged the avenues of knowledge, that we can attain to truths, which it is His will that we should master, only through the unutterable agonies of beings which trust in us."--Sermon in Westminster Abbey, August 18th, 1889. COLERIDGE, LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND. "What would our Lord have said, what looks would He have bent upon a chamber filled with the unoffending creatures which he loves, dying under torture deliberately and intentionally inflicted, or kept alive to endure further torment, in pursuit of knowledge? . . . "Shouldest thou not have had compassion upon these even as I had pity on thee? So He seems to me to say, and I shall act accordingly." --Fortnightly Review. Published by the Illinois Anti-Vivisection Siocety Aurora, Ill., 35c per 100. ILLINOIS ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY, AURORA, ILLINOIS. ORGANIZED JUNE 1, 1892. INCORPORATED FEB'Y, 25, 1893. PRESIDENT: MRS. INEZ K. SUTPHEN, Downer Place Addition, Aurora, Illinois. Local Vice Presidents: MRS. CHAUNCEY MILLER, MRS. EMILY A McCARTY, MRS. MARY E. EVANS. One Hundred and Thirty-five Other Active Vice Presidents in Thirty States. Secretary and Treasurer: MRS. FAIRCHILD-ALLEN. Asst. Secretary: MISS JOSEPHINE THOMSON. Auditor of Accounts: MISS HELEN GRAHAM. Executive Committee: MRS. INEZ K. SUTPHEN, MRS. CLARA E. BEEDE, MRS. CHAUNCEY MILLER, MRS. R. B. POTTER, MRS. M. A. RALPH, MRS. FAIRCHILD-ALLEN. Board of Managers: A. K. PERRY, MRS. PHOEBE J. PERRY, MRS. CHAUNCEY MILLER, MRS. MARY E. EVANS, MRS. E. M. WALKER, HON. E. R. ALLEN, MRS. INEZ K. SUTPHEN, MRS. CLARA E. BEEDE, MRS. R. B. POTTER, MRS. E. F. EURICH. Local Associate Members: REV. J. A. COSBY, Pastor United Presbyterian Church. REV. W. A. COLLEDGE, Pastor People's ch. REV. JOHN NORRIS HALL, Pastor M. E. Ch. REV. J. F. HEILNER, Pastor Claim St. Institutional Ch. REV. THOMAS KNOX, Pastor Presbyterian Ch. REV. J. LANGDON SAUNDERS, Pastor Park Place Baptist Ch. REV. O. F. MATTISON, Pastor Galena St. M. E. Ch. REV. FATHER MCLAUGHLIN, St. Mary's Ch. REV. MILTON B. WILLIAMS, Pastor Willard M. E. Ch. Delegate to the International Provisional Council of A. V. Delegates, London (organized at the instance of the Illinois Society) MR. SYDNEY L. SAREL, Oxford House, Bethnal Green. Advisory Council: PHILIP G. PEABODY, M. D., Boston, Mass. JAS. W. THOMSON, M. D., New York, N. Y. MATHEW WOODS, M. D., Philadelphia, Pa. N. FOSTER, M. D., Chicago, Ill. Hon'y. Vice Presidents, by their written approval and consent: THOMAS M. CLARK, D. D., Bishop of Rhode Island, Providence, R. I. CLELAND KINLOCH NELSON, Bishop of the M. E. Church, Topeka, Kansas. JOHN P. NEWMAN, Bishop of the M. E. Church, San Francisco, Cali. HENRY C. POTTER, D. D., LL. D., Bishop of New York, New York City, N. Y. FREDERIC D. HUNTINGTON, D. D., LL. D., Bishop of Central New York, Syracuse, N. Y. WM. ANDREW LEONARD, D. D., Bishop of Ohio, Cleveland, O. WILLARD F. MALLALIEU, Bishop of the M. E. Church, Boston, Mass. J. D. MORRISON, D. D., LL. D., Bishop of Duluth, Duluth, Minn. WM. WOODRUFF NILES, D. D., LL. D., Bishop of New Hampshire, Concord, N. H. CHAS. C. MCCABE, Bishop of M. E. Church, New York, N. Y. GEO. F. SEYMOUR, S. T. D., LL. D., Bishop of New Springfield, Springfield, Ill. JOHN SCARBOROUGH, D. D., Bishop of New Jersey, Trenton, N. J. HUGH MILLER THOMPSON, S. T. D., LL. D., Bishop of Mississippi, Jackson, Miss. HENRY B. WHIPPLE, D. D. LL. D., Bishop of Minnesota, Faribault, Minn. WM. X. NINDE, D. D., LL. D., Bishop of the M. E. Church, Detroit Mich. Supplement to ANTI-VIVISECTION. AN EXPOSITION OF VIVISECTION. The following concise definition of Vivisection, and various facts connected with the practice, is from the pen of MRS. SARA THORPE THOMAS, of Alexander, Arkansas, and reprinted from The Farmers' Director, of Madisonville, Texas. As a means of much information in small compass this pamphlet should be perused by those willing to become informed upon a subject now under general discussion. Mrs. Thomas has at command the published authority for every statement herein contained. Let all who hope for Mercy or Peace in the final adjustment of human affairs nerve themselves to examine these pages and then, come over and help us. - ILLINOIS ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCY., AURORA, ILL. Apparatus for studying the "Mechanism of Death by Heat." - Bernard's Lecons sur la chaleur Animale (Paris) p. 347. Living dogs, rabbits and pigeons were thus baked or boiled to death. It is so short a time since public attention has been directed to the practice of vivisection that many do not know what it is, and others will not believe its horrors are perpetrated in our own country. Vivisection is the cutting up of animals, and includes many other modes of torture, such as suffocating, starving, baking, freezing, dissecting out different internal organs, etc., etc. It is carried on in nearly all Medical Colleges and Universities in Europe and America, and it has been introduced into many private and public schools, principally at the North, in which animals are dissected alive before classes by teachers, both men and women. Vivisectors deceive and quiet the public by claiming these horrible acts are "for the benefit of mankind" and in "the interests of science," but read the following with this thought in mind and see if there is anything that in the remotest way could be of use in the treatment of human beings. According to the published records of the vivisectors, in books, pamphlets and medical journals, from which, mostly, we obtain our information, up to October 1894, they have been engaged in baking dogs, cats, rabbits and other animals, and birds, in ovens made especially for that purpose with glass sides so all the agony can be seen by the tormentor as he stands with book in hand and makes notes of his victim's2. actions and breathing, as death approaches. They have roasted them in both dry and damp heat, sometimes with the heads out so their temperature could be taken as it rises. Vivisectors, according to their own published testimony, have skinned animals alive and wrapped them in different substances, covered with oil and varnishes to see how long they could live without a natural skin. They dip others in boiling oil, and water, and still others they rub with inflammable substances like turpentine, and set them on fire; they starve animals and feed them on unnatural substances like pebbles, earth and the vilest filth; pour melted lead into their ears; make holes in their stomachs and pour in boiling water; break their bones by blows from heavy mallets and stone bottles, and bruise the flesh so thoroughly the bones can be drawn from it; dislocate the limbs and confine the dogs for months in plaster casts so the joints will heal permanently stiff; cut holes in the skull and wash out the brains--put in the brains of other animals, or tear them in pieces, so that as one vivisector said, "they looked like newly hoed potatoe Dr. A. M. Phelps, of New York, twisted and bound the legs of dogs in unnatural positions; forced the leg of one dog over its back, binding it, and sealing it in plaster-of-paris; kept it thus 145 days. The above illustration is an exact copy of the drawing accompanying the article written by Dr. Phelps and published in "Laboratory Researches." They who know the pain of a limb even a short time in a cramped position can imagine the sufferings of this dog. fields;" divide the back bones of large animals, like horses, mules and kine, with a chisel and destroy the spinal marrow by running wires through it, or lay it bare to be stimulated by passing electricity over it which causes the most indescribable agony. The nerves are also separated from the surrounding flesh by carefully picking it away and in this state experimented on with electricity, acids, heat, &c., &c. Internal organs are cut out, like livers, kidneys and stomachs, and in the latter case organs of other animals put in, and the one operated upon made to vomit. Vivisectors, according to their own published testimony, freeze animals to death, suffocate them by slow drowning and plastering up the mouth; they inoculate them in the brain, eyes, ears, with dreadful diseases like hydrophobia, and inject drugs, poison of snakes powdered glass, and vile substances under the skin to produce ulcers and abcesses which keep the poor creatures in fearful agony for months before they die; they are also compelled to breathe corrosive gases which make the lungs and all the air passages a mass of raw flesh. They fasten animals till they grow 3. together, stiffen them like iron by putting them under compressed oxygen; try in every conceivable way to make them commit suicide to get rid of pain. These fearful outrages are perpetrated upon man's most faithful friend, the dog; upon our more timid pets, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, white rats and mice as well as grey ones; upon pig- eons, frogs, and indeed upon every species of living creatures the "experimenters" can secure. So pitiless and hardened do vivisectors become to suffering that, according to their own published testimony, they watch the most terrible agony which they themselves have caused, with feelings of pleasure, patience and "joyful excitement." Prof. Goltz says, "It was 'marvelous and astonishing,' to find that a dog that had served for some seven experiments, whose breasts had been cut off, whose hind quarters were completely paralyzed, and whose spinal marrow had been destroyed, the animal suffering afterwards from fatal peritonitis, was still capable of natural feelings for its young. "She unceasingly licked the living and the dead puppy (born on the torture table) and treated the living puppy with the same The mouth held open for hours, or at the experimenter's convenience. Imagine the misery of this condition. From Bernard's Physiologic Operatoire, p. 137. tenderness an uninjured dog might do." ANAESTHETICS. Every vivisector declares to the outside world that chloroform or other anaesthetics are used to make the animal insensible to pain while they are at work upon it, but their record of their own experiments show they rarely use anything of the kind for various reasons. Some animals, like dogs, for instance, are so sensitive to chloroform that they die before being stupified. Hence, to them chloroform and ether cannot be safely administered, for they would defeat the objects of the vivisector; and anaesthesia cannot be prolonged through the days and weeks of suffering consequent upon the result of inoculations with drugs or bacilli of the virulent diseases like cholera, yellow fever, small-pox, etc. They do indeed use curare, a drug which paralyses the muscles so the animals cannot move or cry out, but it renders their nerves so sensitive their sufferings are far more dreadful than without it. Claude Bernard, called4. "the prince of vivisectors" says of curare: "This death that seems to steal on in so gentle a manner and so exempt from pain is, on the contrary, accompanied by the most atrocious sufferings that the imagination of man can conceive." INOCULATIONS. Vivisectors say their inoculations are "not more painful than the prick of a needle," but as they are vaccinating the animals with hydrophobia, diphtheria, anthrax, cholera, and using the most dreadful substances to produce inflammation, the sufferings attendant upon these operations are if possible more horrible than those where death follows in a few hours. Vivisectors claim for themselves some of the most important discoveries in medical science, and though it has been proved over and over again that vivisection had nothing whatever to do with them, with an effrontery that would shame the veriest mountebank they still delude the credulous public with the same old falsehoods which EWT Of this poor dog suffering from inoculated rabies M. Pasteur remarked to his visitor, M. CHARLES MAYET, "He will die to-morrow." "M. Pasteur kicked the bars of the cage and the animal dashed at him with bleeding jaws, then turned and tore the litter of its kennel, uttering a piercing and plaintive cry."—L'Illustration, 1891. grow stale to the men and women whose horror of this work has brought on investigation. Vivisectors say they "only use a few animals." Do they not own this is false when their records show the following? Victor Horsley, of London, acknowledged the use of 384 cats and 364 monkeys for a particular purpose. Paul Bert performed his most awful experiments on 585 animals. Fontana caused 4,000 animals to be bitten by poisonous snakes. Between 1850 and 1882 there were 26,000 dogs, 25,000 cats and rabbits, and 5,000 horses, asses and cattle vivisected in Vienna alone. Orfila poisoned 6,000 dogs; Schiff vivisected 14,000 for one purpose, and altogether, 70,000 in his two year's work in Florence. Majendie sacrificed 4,000 dogs to prove one theory and 4,000 more to disprove it; Flourens did cruelly to death another enormous number to reprove it; Pasteur, who claims to prevent 5. hydrophobia, is visiting many un-nameable torments upon thousands of innocent animals at the present time. Koch, who professed to cure consumption, used thousands upon thousands of animals in inhuman and useless experiments. Koch has gone to his reward "unhonored and unsung." The Doctors themselves are giving little credit to either Koch or Pasteur for their "discoveries." We learn this from their published letters and speeches. After excusing all this fiendish work by claiming it is to benefit mankind, they come out and plainly say the lower animals are so entirely different from man that the knowledge they get "is not reliable." Drugs and surgical operations act so entirely unlike in many cases on men and animals that they "are misleading" and on these grounds they urge the necessity for human subjects. They say "it is right that the few should suffer for the many; give us criminals who have forfeited their claims on society, and the inmates of the almshouses and hospitals." Without waiting to receive this gift voluntarily from the people vivisectors have taken the privilege of experimenting on living men, women and children, and it makes one's blood run cold to read the records of what they have done in hospitals —namely: Grafted cancers on patients while they were under the influence of chloroform and not conscious of what was being done; tickled and H. Windpipe of a Living Dog dissected out to stop the cries of the animal, under other experimentation.—De Graaf, No. 5. pricked the soles of a woman's feet day after day to produce convulsions; injected different drugs into insane persons which produced such agony they begged it should not be done and even struggled so against it the vivisectors said they "were obliged to use force." Persons known to be dying were experimented on in many ways as stated "to furnish reports to the Medical Journal." The effects of drugs, poisons and inoculating with almost all the frightful diseases known, such as leprosy, erysipelas, &c., have been tried in childrens' hospitals, some experiments commencing with infants of a few hours. To such insane lengths does this unholy passion for experimenting extend that a Dr. Wachsmuth, who, though knowing how to prevent and cure a certain disease his own child was suffering from, did nothing for him, in order to watch the course of the disease. Another, Dr. Lund, fed his own healthy son on milk from a diseased cow to produce tuberculosis and succeeded in doing so to his entire satisfaction. This spring (1894) M. McGowan brought suit against the city of San Francisco for seven strips of skin each one and a half by eight inches, stolen from his body for skin-grafting while a patient at the6. city hospital. This is vivisection--nothing but death--spiritual death to him who practices it and physical destruction for his victims. It is true we see these men mingling socially with their fellows but described in Holy Writ as "whited sepulchers which indeed appear beautiful outwardly but within are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness." Their eyes cannot pity, their hearts cannot feel, and friend or foe are alike if they fall into their power when they can be used for "experiment." Our own country is becoming full of it, and anxious to ape the so called "Science" of foreign lands. The most barbarous experiments ever performed abroad have already been repeated with great self congratulation in many of our own Universities. Nearly all institutes of learning have their vivisectors, home bred or from abroad, to teach physiology by untold torture of defenseless animals; but they like to call those from other countries who already have a "reputation" in connection with this diabolical sport. One example is the Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, where a Prof. Gad from Berlin officiates at the torture table. Four years ago the Worcester Telegram (Mass.) commenced a crusade against vivisection as carried on in "Large dog on which various experiments have been made over night. It seems no worse." La Pression Barometrique, p. 637. PAUL BERT, Paris. Clark University of that city with the knowledge and consent of its founder, Jonas Clark. Mr. Clark admitted that great pains had been taken to keep this work from the knowledge of the people, but was very much pleased that it was atrocious enough to be "recognized in Europe and published in the 'scientific journals' in Prussia." The reporter who would not have been admitted had he asked permission, let himself into a room where dogs were kept in all states of mutilation; the cats were in another place which reeked with heat, filth and odors. A Dr. Hodge officiates there now, and the amount of agony which he can cause with the $50,000 worth of machinery made especially for that purpose, cannot ever be imagined. To stop this satanic work, anti-vivisecton societies have been organized to spread information and circulate petitions to the General and State Governments to suppress it by law, for, strange as it may seem, a man may be punished for unmercifully whipping his horse but let him turn into a medical professor and he can cut him up alive by inches, and add to that every 7. torture he can invent, for then he calls his work science. Great excitement was caused in 1902 by the dissecting of living horses without anaesthetics in the University of Pennsylvania. The existing laws of Pennsylvania provided no punishment for cruelty done by "scientists." The agitation against vivisection commenced in Europe in 1874. There are now in operation there sixty-three anti-vivisection societies and branches Rabbit paralyzed by hydrophobia inoculation as seen by M. CHARLES MAYET in the institut Pasteur. Exact copy of drawing from the Paris journal L'Illustration, 1891. Seen also by HERBERT J. REID, of London, Feb. 22 and 23, 1894. Mr. Reid says, "The wretched animals were lying on their sides slowly dying of paralytic rabies, their hind legs extended and powerless but their eyes turned pleadingly toward the visitor." Rabbit bound for Trepanning. Scene in the Institut Pasteur as witnessed by Herbert J. Reid, F. S. A., F. R. S. L. (London), Feb 22 and 23, 1894. Exact copy of illustration in Mr. Reid's pamphlet describing his visit. No anaesthetics were given the animals. There are four societies in the United States--the American, at Philadelphia; the Illinois, at Aurora, Ill.; the New England, at Boston Mass., and the New York State A. V. Society, Saugerties. A Restrictive Act passed the British Parliament twenty-three years ago, but was found so ineffective that ll the societies are demanding total abolition. The phenomena of free and happy LIFE is a wonderful and beautiful study, and no lessons so effectively foster all that is good and noble in the human heart. In connection with this, teach Kindness, Justice and Mercy to all living creatures and you form a character approaching to the perfect man and woman.--F. A. THE NOBLER LESSONS. Soon the little Hiawatha Learned of every bird its language Learned their names and all their secrets; How they build their nests in summer, Where they hid themselves in winter; Of all beasts he learned their language, Learned their names and all their secrets; How the beavers build their lodges, Where the squirrels hid their acorns, How the reindeer ran so swiftly Why the rabbit was so timid. --LONGFELLOW. Knowledge never learned at schools Of the wild bee's morning chase, Of the wild flowers' time and place, Flight of fowl, and habitude Of the tenants of the wood; How the tortoise bears his shell; How the woodchuck digs his cell. And the ground mole makes his well; How the robin feeds her young; How the oriel's nest is hung; Of the black wasp's cunning way, Mason of his walls of clay; And the architectural plans Of grey hornet artizans. --WHITTIER "BIOLOGY" IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Concerning the matter of vivisection and dissection in common and high schools we feel assured that very many parents do not really comprehend the true nature of these practices and the inevitably pernicious results to the moral nature of the child. For the enlightenment of those who have only contemplated them as an education in biology we feel that the following examples should be given: It will be observed that these "demonstrations" are practiced all over our land, from the far East to the Farther West, and "the half has never yet been told." The first instance which came to our notice occurred at the High School in the city of Beloit, Wis. A female teacher was the operator. From a member of the humane society committee which investigated the matter we have the following: "Chloroform was given the kitten in the laboratory and it was then brought before the class. With her scissors Miss-----cut open the skin over the breast and abdomen, laying bare the beating heart and other organs. She finally took out the vitals into her hand to show the ligaments which held them to the sides of the internal cavity. The class shrank from it--at first--but some of them would easily 'grow accustomed to it,' Miss-----believed, and the sight would cease to shock them.' There is no doubt of this. So do habitual criminals become accustomed to deed of violence and learn to view and perpetrate them with calmness." OREGON. In her report for 1893, Mrs. Louise P. Rounds, State Supt. Dept. of Mercy W. C. T. U., for Oregon, says that "a professor in a college there choked a cat to death to let the students see how it struggled in dying. Since he was threatened with arrest he hills before cutting, but starves a few days first. He also varnished a cat to prove that the skin was the third lung." WISCONSIN. "We are told that thirty cats have been 'cut up' in a certain school in Wisconsin the past winter. Do the parents of the pupils know it - and not interfere? If so they can not be surprised when 'cut up' themselves in their old age. IOWA. "A lady in Iowa recently said her son was made sick by witnessing dissections in the class room and she would be obliged to remove him from school." One of our "faithful outposts" in Iowa reports the following: "Two teachers in adjoining districts have been teaching 'demonstrations' to their scholars; one had a dissecting knife and cut up a live from before them; another put a mouse in a glass can and sealed it up before the scholars to see how long it would live without air. One of the pupils, a boy, went home and tried to get a mouse so he could experiment, too. "Professor Hyde of the Adams County Normal, cut up a live cat and dog before the teachers, and advised them to vivisect before their scholars, 'as they could learn more in that way than by text books.' " OHIO. Upon the heels of this comes the following from another quarter: "One girl told me that in her class at high-school the teacher, a man (?), wanted to show the effect of atmospheric pressure in and on all things, and that he put a mouse in an air receiver, exhausted all the air until the mouse swelled up with all the awful pressure inside of him, jumped up and down in vain attempts to grasp at the receding air and finally burst all to pieces! Isn't this too horrible to believe? And think of boys and girls fifteen and sixteen years old being taught to enjoy these interesting experiments!" S. MUNSON, Zanesville, Ohio. CALIFORNIA. From Escondido, Cali.: "A few weeks ago Prof. M. -, of the High School, dissected a cat before his pupils, making some of them sick." KANSAS IN THE RACE. A gentleman residing near Wichita, Kansas, writing to his sister in Peoria, Ills., in describing the attempted dissection of a rabbit in a school of that locality says, under the pressure of his disgust and indignation: "The 'educated fool' held the live rabbit up by the hind legs, struck it on the head and ripped it open in the presence of the school. Then Miss Lizzie Stewart and Miss Helen Miles, both of Goddard, Kan., rose and went out, followed by the rest of the girls- Miss Stewart saying she 'did not come there to learn to run a butcher shop.' " At Hiawatha, Kas., two boys, after leaving a lesson of demonstrative physiology, procured a cat and cut it open alive, quickly, to again see the heart beat. Mrs. Fannie M. White, of Shenandoah, Iowa, visited Hiawatha a few days later and learned the fact. NEW YORK. The Middleton, N.Y., Argus, in Dec. 1895, related the story of how Prof. E. P. Haines, of Wallkill Academy, secured a young cat for vivisection before his class. It proved to have been the pet of a little girl whose mother, Mrs. Archie Hall, upon investigation learned its fate. The Argus says" "The little girl's grief was pitiable. She cried as though her little heart would break, nearly all day, and was finally put to bed, actually made sick by her sorrow." MASSACHUSETTS. The following appeared in Boston dailies of Nov. 20 and 21, 1894: "Complaints are made to me that in various Massachusetts cities and towns boys and girls are being taught in the public schools to dissect male and female cats." -Geo. T. Angell, Boston. We extract the following from Our Dumb Animals for December, 1894: "At the State Normal School for girls, in Framingham, one of the teachers requires her pupils to procure, kill and dissect kittens. -Letter of Oct. 25." In consequence of these revelations the following law was passed by the Massachusetts Legislature, 1895. Section 1. No teacher or other person employed in any public school of this Commonwealth shall, in the presence of any scholar, in said school, or any child or minor there present, practice vivisection, nor in such presence exhibit any animal upon which vivisection has been practiced. Sect. 2. Dissection of dead animals, or any portions thereof, in the public schools of this Commonwealth in no instance shall be for the purpose of exhibition, but in every case shall be confined to the class-room and the presence of those pupils engaged in that study to be illustrated by such dissection. Sect. 3. Any person violating the provisions of this act shall be punished by a fine of not less than ten nor more than fifty dollars. Sect. 4. This act shall take effect upon its passage. WASHINGTON, D. C Mrs. Mary F. Lovell, National Superintendent Department of Mercy, W. C. T. U., Bryn Mawr, Penna., writes: "It is unfortunately too true that dissection and vivisection in public schools is on the increase. In Washington, D.C., recently, I was told that a cat had been vivisected a short time previously in one of the Washington public school. I afterward met at lunch a lady who had talked with a boy who had seen the cat vivisected. She said it caused great horror in the class, but alas, these sentiments soon change to those of indifference. I was also informed that at the same school a squirrel, which was kept for an object lesson, was so ill treated by having its tail twisted and other cruelties inflicted on it that it died. PENNSYLVANIA. A young girl, who was a pupil in the West-Chester, Penn., Normal School, told me that while there she saw a cat horribly mutilated, which was allowed to crawl around the room in that condition (this was a demonstration in physiology), and one of the pupils became so sick that she fainted away. You will remember my own experience of my young friend who went to study medicine in the Woman's College of Philadelphia, and whose ardor for science became so great that she gave her own pet cat to be vivisected before her class. -M. F. L. At Worcester, Pa., recently, two professors in the Normal School advertised for cats to dissect and the consequence was that all the boys went to work and stole pet cats, and the S. P. C. A. is up in arms. -Exchange. MAINE. From other correspondents we have the following: "One Maine female teacher says; 'I can teach my pupils more physiology in half an hour with a cat and a jack knife than with all the text books we have in schools.' " WASHINGTON (STATE). Miss Page, my State Superintendent for Washington, has just written an admirable circular letter to her assistants throughout the state in which she mentions a teacher in one high school who makes it a practice to chloroform cats, cut them up with her own hands and exhibit them to the class; and then a boy hearing of it (not seeing it), took a poor cat and without any anaesthetics nailed feet and neck to a board, because that was the way the teacher did it! -M. F. L/ILLINOIS "DEMONSTRATIONS." A pregnant cat was dissected before a class of boys and girls in the East Side High School at Aurora, some time ago. The Supt. of Schools and the physiology professor admitted to the writer that the boys "captured" cats for them and they )the boys) also had pocket cases of instruments for "operating." We are not aware that any member of the school board made any protest against the spectacle, although made fully aware of it. The Superintendent and the Professor have, however, removed from the city. The West Side Superintendent favored this method of "teaching" and we have no advices that it has been discontinued there. F.A. ADDITIONAL FROM NEW YORK. Letter from a correspondent: Several cats have recently been killed and dissected before the pupils of the Academical Department of the School in Catskill, N. Y. The teacher in physiology is Prof. Bement; in connection with the school is Prof. Stevens who charged the boys not to take cate unless they were "strays or given them by the owners." (Boys, however, are not expected to discriminate with nicety upon such occasions.) Some of the boys are only about thirteen years old. (Probably none of them yet studying medicine.) "One operating day, I understand, was Dec. 14; a cat was chloroformed, and the throat cut so as to let the blood out. The boys said a 'female' teacher skinned the cat, in the cellar, then it was brought up to the class and cut open, to show the heart and lungs." Our correspondent adds: "The boy who was told this is a very well disposed lad, to whom I have given many humane publications, and he did not wish to stay and see the spectacle; but the harder sort of boys laugh at any one who goes out, and you know how sensitive boys are about laughed at, and what perverted notions they have about what is "brave" and manly. This is a very real kind of constraint, yet the teachers would say that "nobody is obliged to stay." I was told that another cat was sacrificed in the girls' class, either that day or the next and that a rabbit was cut up by a 'female' teacher (now gone away) some time ago." "SCIENCE" IN NEBRASKS. We have the following from the Hay Springs Leader of Feb., '96: There has been a good deal of comment during the past week regarding a certain "scientific demonstration" in the grammar school, last Monday afternoon. A cat was inveigled into the school room, put partially under the influence of chloroform, stretched upon a dissecting table and operated upon by Prof. Jones. We have been informed by several eye witnesses that either the drug was not properly administered or had lost its effect and the "cat came back" to life and did so much kicking at being cut up alive that it was nailed to the table and the work of disemboweling proceeded. A crowd of small children eagerly watched, not the scientific fact, assuming there was one, but the flowing blood and quivering flesh. So horrible was the sight that a number of pupils were made sick, and when the throbbing heart of the poor animal was exposed to view what benefit ensued? Out upon such cruelty in the name of science! It is horrible enough to contemplate in a proper place before a class of medical students, but in a public school, before small children, we consider it an outrage and will say right here that if there is no law in Nebraska that makes a penalty of this business, there ought to be. Since the séance at the school house Monday afternoon a number of small boys have been heard to plan an entertainment of the kind among themselves. Concerning this, Mrs. Mary E. Smith Hayward, of Chadron, Neb., adds: "A lady writes me that the outrage was witnessed by her sixteen year old daughter and that the chloroform was administered by a teacher who said, "Kitty, you had better say your prayers!" She also wrote that most of the children thought the butchery was rare fun." Letters of inquiry concerning the foregoing will be promptly answered by application to the Illinois Anti-Vivisection Society, Mrs. Fairchild Allen, Secretary, Aurora, Ill. Eleventh Edition. Price 35c per 100. Published by the Illinois Anti-Vivisection Society. Aurora. Ill. -enter- tion cannot be advanced without a proper use of human subjects. . . . . Questions impossible to be studied upon the lower animals remain unsolved. . . . Vivisection upon the lower animals opens a field of unlimited importance for the same work upon the capital class of human subjects. That part of the medical science which refers directly to the human organism cannot be studied upon any other class of animals." This article is not written in total condemnation of Dr. Pyle's reasoning, for he has an advantage which he fails to make use of, namely: In the vivisection of criminals punishment is meted out to the guilty, deserving of punishment, whereas the vivisection of animals is an undeserved punishment of the innocent. This, however, approaches too near that quality, "sentiment," which he desires to be understood as ignoring. But the sentimental anti-vivisectionist might argue that strict justice would sanction the vivisection of the guilty criminal rather than the innocent animal. There is now a third party vitally interested in the discussion going on over vivisection but who has hitherto stood aloof from it - and this is he who occupies a position in life from which he may without difficulty descend to the status of the criminal classes. This representative of a vast multitude should now bestir himself; either yield himself to the sentiment which pities all things that can suffer or to the dictates of science which would hold all things in subserviency to herself. If he embraces the latter he must stand willing to yield his own living body to the vivisector. So must the preacher and the professor, who, thinking they stand securely, may yet suffer a fall- for no man is infallible and the most secure to-day may to-morrow, through a combination of circumstances, be found under the ban of the law. In connection with the vivisection of criminals another question arises. In order to supply the animal laboratories the breeding of victims has become a regular business. So it is very doubtful if the criminal classes can furnish enough human "material" in the ordinary way. May not the next step be the proposition that male and female convicts shall consort together so offspring may thus be produced to furnish further material for scientific research. The opening for new and advanced (?) ideas along this line is almost limitless. Meantime the public should embrace this as one of the important questions of the day, which it may find of infinite concern to itself. MRS. FAIRCHILD ALLEN. HUMAN VIVISECTION. The following is taken from the Philadelphia Bulletin of June 13: The New England Anti-Vivisection Society at their recent meeting in Boston discussed "the impending question of human vivisection;" it was asserted that the advocates of experimenting on live animals are quite prepared to take in the most advanced animal -indeed, that a bill "not so very long since" introduced into the Ohio Legislature, "whose purpose was to turn over to the vivisectors of that Commonwealth all persons convicted of capital crimes," simply revealed what all vivisectors really desire. This is, of course, an extreme arraignment, but if there be any basis for it the introduction of such bills ought to be widely encouraged, for there is no sort of danger of their being enacted, or even getting a vote at all. whereas the publicity would finish the vivisectionists. -Springfield (Mass.) Republican. Published by the Illinois Anti-Vivisection Society, Aurora, Ill. Price 25c per 100, post-paid. VIVISECTION OF CRIMINALS Reprinted from the Monthly Journal, 'ANTI-VIVISECTION. The following was published in the Aurora Daily News, June 10. Under the head, "Barbarous vs. Scientific Methods in the Disposition of Capital Criminals, with a Reply to Critics," Dr. J. S. Pyle, of Canton, Ohio, issues another pamphlet in pursuance of his argument, or plea, that condemned criminals should be given over to vivisectors for physiological experiment. At his request a bill to this effect was introduced in the Ohio Legislature Nov. 3, 1894. Prior to this, Oct. 3, 1893, his leading paper, "A Plea for the Appropriation of Capital Criminals to the Experimental Physiologist," had been read at the Tri-State Medical Meeting held at Peoria, Ill., and it was published in the December numbers of the Tri-State Medical Journal and the American Journal of Politics. The fact that this paper obtained such recognition shows that the proposition is not startling to medical minds in general; and the further fact that it is openly endorsed by other professional men, including ministers and lawyers whose names are given in this later paper, furnishes food for contemplation as to the final result when such law shall have become enacted -if it ever does. It has long been predicted by close observers of the methods of vivisection, and the unsatisfactory results of those methods, that human subjects would again be openly demanded. I say "again" advisedly, for in ancient history we read of many human sacrifices to the god of science. Among other things in defense of his bill, Dr. Pyle observes; "The right to punish being based upon the law of justice, capital punishment and experimental research can be defended and authorized upon the same ground." He contends that "if the law of justice is obeyed we are compelled to enforce the death penalty" -a position by no means sanctioned by all students of political and social economy. Dr. Pyle deplores the waste of valuable material- the human body- done now to death by electrocution or hanging- when it could serve such a purpose in yielding knowledge to research. He deplores, ridicules and condemns "sentiment" in human beings, as dwarfing their reason and preventing fair judgement in regard to any question. As customary with vivisectors, Dr. Pyle also brings forward that threadbare and untruthful statement that "not one protest is made by anti-vivisectionists about refraining from the use of animal food, etc." Whether this statement springs from ignorance or willful falsehood we cannot say, but it is none the less false, as most anti-vivisectionists protest loudly against the use of animals for food and the attendant horrors connected with animal food traffic; and a large per cent of them are vegetarians in practice as well as theory, on account of these horrors. Further on, Dr. Pyle still pursuing his argument that death should be the punishment of the condemned criminal, declares 'if the purpose of the law is followed the right to experiment upon capital criminals cannot be denied." To evade this appendix to the criminal statute is simple defeating in part the object of organized society and wastefully destroying valuable material that might be used to good account in the advancement of mankind. * * * "That part of medical science which applies solely to the human constitu- -enter- THE EXHIBIT AT PARIS IN 1900. OFFICE OF THE ILLINOIS ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY. AURORA, ILLINOIS, JUNE, 1896. TO OUR MEMBERS AND PATRONS EVERYWHERE: Dear Friends- In 1900 will open the twentieth century -also the Paris Exposition -towards which all the nations of the earth will gravitate. Paris is the hot-bed of Vivisection. It is stated by a vivisector there that there are in Paris 1,000 vivisectional laboratories. We are in constant receipt of letters from people of intelligence and education who state they never knew of Vivisection until viewing our Exhibit at the World's Fair. From among these have arisen our strongest supporters. An exhibit at the Paris Exposition would enlighten thousands more -and the result would be still more extended aid. In 1900 will be our opportunity. We must have the Exhibit, and we must have workers. We must have literature in English, French, and German. We must also endeavor to find workers in those countries where there are none at present. Let all who can help in any manner, financially or otherwise, whether in Europe or America, address the undersigned, and tell us what they will do personally. If any have friends in Paris please give us their address. Kindly make letters brief, to the point, and strictly business. Address MRS. FAIRCHILD ALLEN, Secretary of the Illinois Anti-Vivisection Society [And Editor of ANTI-VIVISECTION, which has subscribers in France, Great Britain, Germany, Denmark and India.] From the Monthly Journal, ANTI-VIVISECTION, for October, 1895. THE FIRST GUN. Soon after issuing the call for an Exhibit at Paris came the following letter from one whose active brain and generous hand are never idle: CORNWALL-ON HUDSON, N. Y., Sept. 15, 1895. To the Secretary of the Illinois Anti-Vivisection Society, Aurora, Illinois: I have read with grief and horror of the heartrending scenes daily taking place at Alfort (France) -cursed Alfort! the Horses' Hell -rightly so called -in view of the piteous doom of those poor brutes suffering slow death by such horrible methods. Can you not at once communicate with the Paris Society and commence the distribution in France of your impressive literature which with its wonderful pictorial evidence is so well calculated to convey the terrible truths concerning Vivisection? May we not thus begin there an agitation which shall awaken sympathy and action against this evil which constitutes the darkest page in this world's history? May the enclosed Fifty Dollars prove the nucleus of an increasing fund which shall be used for France. If you are willing to undertake this difficult work (involving such distressing detail for yourself) I can but trust and believe that many will aid you in your blessed work for those who suffer such agony at the hands of cruel men. I may say I have means of rendering you, further on, valuable assistance. Faithfully Yours, G. KENDALL. Later the following message came from BENJN. BRYAN, Esq., Hon. Secy. of the Victoria Street Society and Editor of The Zoophilist, London: Dear Madam -You will see from the Zoophilist that I duly published your letter, and I also brought it before our Executive Committee with a view of cooperating in any effort made for an Anti-Vivisection Exhibit at the Paris Exposition of 1900. The Committee entirely concurs in your view and will act with all societies in organizing for the occasion. You will no doubt communicate with me further, so that we may cooperate to a common end. I am, dear Madam, yours faithfully, B. BRYAN, Secretary. [OVER.]THE HORRORS AT ALFORT. OFFICE OF THE ILLINOIS ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY, AURORA, ILLINOIS., JUNE, 1896. To All Anti-Vivisectionists--in both Europe and America--Greeting: DEAR FRIENDS AND CO-WORKERS--The horrors of the Vivisection of Horses at Alfort are now generally known to most of you--as well as other cruelties in South western Europe, through the dissemination of the famous Alfort Tract which is being issued by thousands by this Society, and is in process of distribution by our faithful allies abroad. While it is true that there is plenty of work for us at home, still we should embrace every opportunity for aiding the work of Justice and Mercy abroad; so we ask you, everyone, to allow no opportunity to pass which may call to either public or private attention the enormity of these special wrongs at Alfort to our helpless fellow creatures to whom Man is so greatly indebted for service and pleasure. We ask you, also, to aid financially the societies which are seeking to abate these wrongs by arousing public sentiment everywhere against them, in the publication and dissemination of literature. Purchase this literature and mail it to people of influence both at home and abroad. Scatter it in your own vicinity and ask people for money to publish more. Especially we ask you to bear in mind the work of the Illinois Society, which it will scarcely be disputed is far towards the front in battling with the Demon of Cruelty. Our expenses are great. Our work is widely extended, but the field is vast. With additional means the matter at Alfort may become so well known and so odious to the world that the world will clamor for its abatement. Let us all work with this unflinching purpose in view. Orders for the Alfort Tract will be promptly filled. Price 15c per doz.; $1.25 per 100, post-paid. 16 Pages. Illustrated. Address, MRS. FAIRCHILD ALLEN, Secretary Illinois Anti-Vivisection Society, Aurora, Illinois. [The Illinois Anti-Vivisection Society keeps constantly in print a very large amount of literature, fully illustrated. Sample lots sent free.] [OVER] AMERICAN VIVISECTIONS. ABBREVIATED FROM "EXPERIMENTERS''' OWN PUBLISHED REPORTS [Vivisection is practiced all over the United States in Colleges and Universities and in many schools of Children and Youth. It will be readily seen by the following record from the experimenters' published reports that anaesthetics are frequently not used--Curare not being an anaesthetic.] Dr. A. M. Phelps, of New York, twisted and bound the legs of dogs in unnatural positions; forced the leg of one dog over its back, binding it, and sealing it in plaster of paris; kept it thus 145 days. The above illustration is an exact copy of the drawing accompanying the article written by Dr. Phelps and published in "Laboratory Researches." They who know the pain of a limb even a short time in a cramped position can imagine the sufferings of this dog. Dr. Phelps also attempted to graft the leg of a living dog upon that of the shortened leg of a boy, in the New York Charity Hospital (1892). The suffering of this dog, a small spaniel, was largely commented upon at the time. Its fore leg was mutilated and fastened to the limb of the boy. The dog was encased in solid plaster dressing so he could only move head and tail: the vocal cords were cut, so he could only "moan pitifully." The "experiment" was not successful. Both boy and dog were subjected to a season of severe and needles suffering. Dr. B. A. Watson of Jersey City, in his book describes experiments upon 141 dogs that he "hoppled," raised to a height of 24 feet and dropped upon ridges of iron. The backs of some were broken. Some of the dogs lived only a few hours and others for days in terrible suffering. (Sept. 1890). This is called "Traumatism." The following descriptions of experiments may be found in the Nine Circles (published by the Victoria St. Society P. A. V., 20 Victoria St., London), which gives its authority (the medical record) in every instance: P. 18. William Halstead of New York tried "circular suture" experiments, opening the abdomen, drawing out a portion of the intestine which is sewn in a loop and placed in the abdominal cavity. "Some German experiments were not considered successful on account of small size of dogs and inability to bear the suffering." (1890). -2- P. 24. Dr. Walter Mendelsohn of New York, placed curarized dogs in heated boxes "to ascertain the function of the liver in fever." P. 26. Dr. Leo Breisacher of Detroit, Mich., extirpated (cut out) the thyroid glands of thirty dogs and minutely describes their consequent sufferings. Prof. Austin Flint of New York in his Text Book of Physiology says: "We have ourselves frequently exposed and irritated the roots of nerves in dog in public demonstration." Concerning an example of Vivisection in America, we have the following from the New York World of February 21, 1892: "An eyewitness of the experimentation at the veterinary department of the University of Pennsylvania (a competent judge as well as person of veracity). says that he was ushered into a room with windows far above the ground, to debar the curious from looking in. "The door was unlocked to permit him to enter, and locked again when he was within. He supposed there was to be a regular examination of students, but to his surprise found there were to be operations of a most revolting description. "A horse was before, tied with a halter. The first pupil was told to drive a seton into the shoulder of the horse -a most painful operation; the second was asked to perform tracheotomy -making an opening into the windpipe -and a third to drive a seton into the hind flank. By this time the horse had been "hobbled," that is, so tied that it could not move, and the next student was told to dissect the various nerves of the foot. No anaesthetic of any description was given to the horse, and when the demonstrations were finished and the professor was asked by the visitor what would be done with the animal, he replied: "We leave it here, and if it is alive in the morning we go on with other experimentations." "It should be said that Prof. Zuill (the instructor) is a graduate of Alfort, near Paris, and that at this and similar institutions, as many as twelve horses are operated upon each week, and if the horse lives to endure them, sixty-four operations are performed on each." When Prof. Zuill's proceeding was reported by the well-known veterinary surgeon, Dr. Gadsden, to the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, such was the devotion to "Science" no arrest could be secured. -enter- -3- AMERICAN VIVISECTIONS-CONTINUED. [CURARE. There is employed to a great extent, in Vivisection, the drug Curare, which paralyses motion while sensibility acutely remains. According to Claude Bernard, who was named the "Prince of Vivisectors," the curarized animals undergo atrocious suffering without being able to cry out or move a muscle.] We extract from the paper of Dr. Albert Leffingwell (not an anti-vivisectionist) read at the annual meeting, Sept., 1895, of the American Humane Association at Minneapolis, Minn., the following American Vivisections, "most of them to be found in the volumes entitled 'Collected Papers, Physiological Laboratory of Harvard Medical School,' " bringing the record up to 1895. This paper was principally an answer to the published statement, a short time previously, of Dr. Wm. Townsend Porter and his five associated, that no painful experiments were performed at Harvard Medical School. 1. Dr. Ott on the Action of Lobelina: "The number of my experiments was six, and all were made on rabbits. * * * Into the left jugular had been bound a canula, through which the poison was injected toward the heart. (Exp. I.) As the injection of the poison caused struggling * * * I used curare to paralyze the motor nerves." (Exp. II.) Rabbit, curarized, vagus irritated. (This experiment lasted thirty minutes.) From another series, we may quote the Exp. VIII. Dog: vagi and sympathetics cut; artificial respiration. etc. The above experiments were made in Professor Bowditch's laboratory at Harvard Medical School. There is no mention of anaesthetics. 3. Dr. Watson on the Epiglottis -Case IX. "Dog; epiglottis excised; watched six days; coughed at almost every attempt to eat or drink. Case X, large dog; epiglottis excised; observed twenty-one days; choked in swallowing liquids and solids at every trial." The experiments were performed in the laboratory of Harvard Medical School. A dog, strangling in all attempts to swallow food for a period of three weeks, can hardly be said to undergo "a painless experiment." 4. Dr. Hooper's Experiments. "The following experiment was made in order to ascertain whether an upward movement of the cricoid cartilage was necessarily associated with increased capacity of the larynx: Small dog; curarized; artificial respiration; larynx plugged; and a cord tied around the head and jaw in front of the ears to compress the cotton and passages leading upward. Trachia divided; a tubulated cork secured in upper end." It may be questioned certainly how far an experiment of this kind can be applied to the living human larynx, or with what logical justice we can draw conclusions from it. The experiments recorded in this paper were performed in the physiological laboratory of Harvard Medical School. Of another series of ninety-four experiments upon nine different dogs, it is stated that they were etherized "during the early part of the operation." If one desires to see the picture of a dog "thoroughly etherized or chloralized," fastened immovably, its throat cut, and its larynx dissected out and tied up with a string - an experiment from the physiological laboratory of Harvard Medical School -let him consult Dr. Hooper's paper. 5. Vaso-motor Experiments Upon Frogs. by Dr. Ellis: "All the frogs -4- were curarized, * * * The sciatic nerve laid bare and cut in the upper part of the thigh." Dr. Ellis tells us that "many frogs were used;" that "different frogs vary greatly in their susceptibility to different forms of electrical irritation;" that "each animal is a law unto itself;" that "the individual peculiarities of different frogs and the carrying conditions to which they are subjected add perplexing elements to the problem;" that "very delicate apparatus was employed;" that in some instances a "curious result was obtained by striking the abdomen rapidly for a short time, causing the force of the heart-beats to much diminish;" that sometimes the little creature's heart becomes "enormously swollen with blood, as shown by the great rise in the lever;" that shocks were "given once every second" in certain cases, and that "very beautiful records can be taken." No doubt; no doubt! All this is very interesting to the physiologist; but what practical results were obtained? "We cannot believe," says the Harvard manifesto, "that such inquires are ever taken without * * * the conviction that the benefit to humanity will far outweigh whatever suffering they may cause to the animals." Beautiful words! Let Dr. Ellis state the results of his own experiments in his own way: "The results of our experiments point to the existence of a vaso-dilator as well as a vaso-constrictor mechanism in the frog!" That is all. The "benefit to humanity" was about as much as would come from the discovery of a silver mine in the moon. 6. Dr. Bowditch's experiments on the vaso-motor nerves. After some preliminary experiments on other animals, it was decided to employ cats in this research, since adult cats vary less than dogs in size, and are much more vigorous and tenacious of life that rabbits or other animals usually employed in physiological laboratories. The latter point is one of considerable importance in experiments extending over several hours. The animals were curarized, and kept alive by artificial respiration, while the pheriphenic end of the divided sciatic nerve was stimulated by inductions shocks, varying in intensity and frequency * * * The experiments were so prolonged that it seemed important to give to the air thrown through the trachial canula into the lungs a temperature as near as possible to air respired through the natural channel * * * The cat to be experimented upon was first etherized by being placed in a bell-glass with a sponge saturated with ether, and then secured, "the head being held in an ordinary Czermak's rabbit holder. The sciatic nerve was then divided. In some cases the cat was allowed to recover from the effect of the ether, and the experiment postponed some days; in others, a half-per-cent solution of curare was put into the circulation while the animal was still etherized." (The effect of the curare would be to render the animal motionless, after recovery from the ether; it has no other use.) In all, there were 909 observations made upon "about seventy cats." In one experiment "a tetanic stimulation was applied for fifteen minutes to the sciatic nerve. The result was a constriction steadily maintained during continuance of the irritation." If there were any results for "benefit of humanity" in these investigations they are not recorded. These experiments were made at Harvard Medical School; and I submit that they were by no means "painless." 7. Dr. Bowditch's experiments on -enter- -5- nerves. They were made upon cats "in the laboratory of Harvard Medical School." "The animals were kept under the influence of a dose of curare just strong enough to prevent muscular contractions; while artificial respiration was maintained, and the sciatic nerve constantly subjected to stimulation sufficiently intense to produce in unpoisoned animals, a tetanic contraction of the muscles. In this way it was found that stimulation of a nerve lasting from one and a half to four hours (the muscle being prevented from contracting by curare) did not exhaust the nerve." The foregoing quotation is from an address given before the American Association for Advancement of Science, August, 1886 -nine years ago. If any great "benefit to humanity" has resulted from them. I am ignorant of it at any rate. Were these experiments "painless?" 8. Dr. Ernst's Researches into Rabies. In the International Journal of Medical Sciences for April, 1887, there appears an account of certain investigations into the nature of rabies and hydrophobia, made by one Dr. Harold C. Ernst of the Harvard Medical School. Some thirty-two rabbits were inoculated with rabies, and all of them died of this terrible disease. Without touching upon the question of utility here. I submit that by his own account of these investigations, they were by no means "painless." Experiments of Prof. Porter on the spinal cord. In the Journal of Physiology for April, 1895, appears a long and elaborate article on the "Path of the Respiratory Impulses," by Professor W.T. Porter of the Laboratory of Physiology in the Harvard Medical School. Taken in conjunction with his assertion regarding painful vivisections that "none have been made in Harvard Medical School within our knowledge," this paper would seem to offer a somewhat noteworthy illustration of scientific forgetfulness. The object of Professor Porter's experiments was the confirmation of a purely physiological hypothesis; one which had no reference whatever to the cure or treatment of human ills. His researches embraced at least sixty-eight experiments, and full details of fifteen are given in this essay. In seven of these fifteen experiments -all involving most painful mutilations -only light doses of morphia or chloral were administered; in one experiment the dose is not given, and in another there is no mention of any "narcotic" of any kind. Even when ether was given. it was not as a rule used throughout the experiment. Some examples will be of interest: "I have separated the cord from the bulb in eight rabbits and six dogs, all fully grown * * * Artificial respiration was kept up a long time. * * * The animals were all very lightly narcotized." EXP. XXIII. Feb. 27, 1894. Dog narcotized with morphia. Cervical cord exposed its entire length; severed at the sixth cervical vertebra, and the posterior roots of the cervical nerves cut. (An exceedingly painful experiment.) EXP. LXVI. Nov. 20. '94. Rabbit, "lightly narcotized with ether." Left phrenic nerve "was seized near the first rib and torn out of the chest." * * "I have made such experiments on thirteen rabbits and one dog, and the result has always been the same." (A beautiful engraving gives the resiratory curve of this rabbit. "the left phrenic nerve of which has been torn out. * * * The stars denote struggling.") EXP. I. Dec. 19, '93. "The fourth ventricle was laid bare in a large, lightly -6- chloralized rabbit, and the floor of the left side of the medium line burned away with small hot glass beads. Respiration continued on both sides, in spite of repeated cauterizations." EXP. II. Dec. 15, '93. "Most of the left side of the floor of the left ventricle of a rabbit, lightly chloralized (not over 0. 1 g.) was burned away. * * * (This was one-tenth the usual dose of chloral. EXP. LI. May 3 '94. At 10.30, a middle-sized dog received 0. 2 g. morphia) Half an hour later, the left half of the spinal cord was severed. * * * Animal being loosed, showed a paralysis on the left side. * * * At 4.30 the dog was bound again and the abdomen opened. * * * (Why was the "dog bound again"? No mention of "narcotic" or anaesthetic during further steps of the experiment.) EXP. XXV. March 3, '94. Dog given 0.15 grammes morphia sulphate; tracheotomized, spinal cord severed at sixth cervical vertebra; artificial respiration. EXP. XLIX. May 1, '94. "At 10:30 A.M. the left side of the spinal cord of a rabbit, narcotized with ether, was cut . . . At 4 P.M., 5 1/2 hours after, breathing was bilateral . . . . On opening the abdomen . . . Diaphragm once more exposed . . . and cut in two pieces." . . . (No mention of anaesthetic or narcotic during latter half of experiment "5 1/2 hours later.") EXP. LII. May 4. '94. Spinal cord of rabbit, narcotized with ether, cut on left side . . . . "Seven hours later he was in good condition and kicked vigorously as he was again put on the board. The abdomen opened in the medium line; . . . phrenic nerve was now cut, etc." There is no mention of narcotic or anaesthetic during the latter part of the operation, "seven hours later" when the rabbit "was again put on the board," kicking vigorously, to have it abdomen opened. EXP. LVI. May 14, '94. Rabbit, etherized and tracheotomized. Spinal cord cut; artificial respiration. "The narcotic was stopped. On turning the rabbit and opening the abdomen," etc. EXP. LXI. Nov. 8, 94. "The right half of the spinal cord of a full grown rabbit was severed . . . the phrenic nerve cut . . . artificial respiration," etc. (There is no mention whatever of either narcotic or anaesthetic being used in this experiment.) "Other experiments could be added, but they seem unnecessary," says Professor Porter. We agree with him. There are few laboratories in Europe better equipped for vivisection that the scene of these experiments. In one of his works Dr. Ott pays a tribute to the inventive genius of one of the Harvard professors who has contrived a new device for holding immovably the head of an animal to be vivisected. "It consists of a fork-shaped iron instrument, the points of the fork united by an iron bar . . . which is passed behind the canines (teeth) and bound fast by a strong cord which is fastened over the jaws. When the iron rod is fastened to the prongs, the handle is inserted into the screw-sliding points of the upright rod of a Bernard holder." in which device certain straps prevent the dog "from retracting his nose." But how can a dog retract his nose, if insensible? Why should he wish to retract his nose if he is suffering nothing? "I sometimes fear," said Dr. Theophilus Parvin in his address before the American Academy of Medicine. "that this anaesthesia is frequently nominal rather than real; else why so many ingenious contrivances for confining the animal during operations, contrivances that are not made use of in surgical operations upon human beings?" These were Boston vivisections. They were not done thousands of miles away in some distant European laboratory, but here at home. -enter- .-7- VIVISECTION IN ILLINOIS. "We have not thought it wise to place any restriction upon experimentation involving prolonged or severe pain." Wm. R. Harper. [Prest University of Chicago.] Dr. Albert Leffingwell, of Cambridge, Mass., gives the above as part of the reply of Dr. Harper to Dr. Ballou, of Providence, R. I., in answer to the inquiry of Dr. Ballon whether vivisection was in any way limited or restricted in that institution. Extract from published Announcement. University of Chicago -Autumn Quarter (Assistant Professor Loeb): Original investigations in Physiology. Laboratory work in physiology of the sense organs and the nervous system. Winter Quarter: Laboratory work in the Physiology of circulation, respiration and animal heat. Spring Quarter: Laboratory work in physiology of the nerves and muscles, and in general physiology. Summer Quarter: Physiological Demonstrations. It is the aim of this course to give to teachers in high schools and colleges an opportunity to become familiar with typical physiological experiments. -"Animals' Rights," p. 152. In addition to Dr. Harper's assurance above we have the words of an eye witness as follows: "The other day my friend and I went into a room to look at some white rabbits which we supposed were pets of the attendant. To our horror, he told us they were kept there until some of the graduate students and professors were ready to operate on them in various ways, mostly on their brains. He either did not know or thought he had better not tell the names of these scientific individuals, for we could not get one name from him. You see really these people themselves do not yet feel secure enough in their cruel practice to let it be generally known! "There were also some pretty, gentle little guinea pigs in dirty, sickly pens, and bright eyed tame white rats -scores of them -with their little ones, in cages -all awaiting their doom. The attendant told us (and it seemed to make him feel badly, too,) the young rats were experimented on without any anaesthetics at all." In February last we were informed by a student in the University that the dreaded Curare was being used there, and that an experiment just preformed upon a rabbit under its influence had, from its unusual cruelty, exited much indignation among the students who learned of it. The Post-Graduate Medical School of Chicago in its "World's Fair Bulletin of Information" for the summer of 1893, advertised to give "practical instructions to students who wish to pursue lines of experimental research by operations on the brains of living animals," and under the head of "Experimental Inoculations" . . . 'animals are used." . . . 'the object being to fit him (the student) to continue his studies at home." An article in the Chicago Tribune of Dec. 10, 1894, contained an account of the equipments for Bacteriological Research in connection with the above mentioned institution -stating that numberless animals, from dogs to white mice, "go there to die" -and those acquainted with the nature of this death grow cold at heart -if they have any sympathy with suffering. As though not enough victims could be secured outside it was stated they are also bred there in large numbers.ILLINOIS ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY AURORA, ILLINOIS. Organized June 1, 1892. Incorporated Feb. 25, 1893. PRESIDENT: MRS. A. K. PERRY, 259 South Broadway, Aurora, Illinois. VICE PRESIDENTS IN AURORA: MRS. INEZ K. SUTPHEN . . . . . . MRS. M. G. SNOVER. Secretary, MRS. FAIRCHILD ALLEN. Treasurer, MR. WHITE DAWSON. Recording Secretary, Miss Josephine Thomson. The Executive Committee is composed of the above officers. BOARD OF DIRECTORS. A. K. Perry. Mrs. Inez K. Sutphen. Hon. E. R. Allen. Mrs. Chauncey Miller. White Dawson. Mrs. R. B. Potter. E. W. Thompson. Mrs. Frances E. Palmer Mrs. A. K. Perry. Mrs. Fairchild Allen. Membership, 344. Eighty-five active, working vice-presidents in twenty-seven states. Please send Signatures to the Secretary Illinois Anti-Vivisection Society, Aurora, Illinois. NATIONAL PETITION FOR THE TOTAL ABOLITION OF VIVISECTION. Vivisection is the Cutting, Poisoning, Burning, Freezing, Smothering, and Breaking the bones of Live Animals, by Medical Scientists, and is done all over the World. To Date, June 1, 1896, we have 16,860 signatures including those of 347 Physicians. Ten Cents from each Petitioner will aid in publishing and distributing Literature. I am Opposed to Vivisection and hereby Petition for its Total Abolition. NAME, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO. AND STREET, . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOWN, . . . . . . . . . . STATE, . . . . . . -enter- THE ANTI-VIVISECTION MOVEMENT We frequently hear the remark that one half of mankind does not know how the other half is living, and we might say with equal propriety that one half of mankind scarcely knows what the other half is doing. The experience of workers along the anti-vivisection line fully demonstrates this. Many people, thoroughly informed upon most of the leading questions of the day, scarcely comprehend the real meaning of the term Vivisection. VIVISECTION is the cutting up of Live Animals -also poisoning, burning, smothering, freezing, breaking the bones, irritating the bared nerves with electricity, dissecting out the stomach, and other organs, etc., to which may be appended the further elucidation by Dr. Mathew Woods, of Philadelphia, in an article in the Journal of Zoophily. He says: "It is not alone the cutting of flesh that is called vivisection, but the brain burnings of Golz, the bakings alive of Bernard, the crucifictions of Mantegazza, the electric stimulations of Brown-Sequard, the freezings alive of J. C. Coleman, the disease-producing feeding of animals upon the putrid lungs of human beings, of Dr. Klein; the inserting of tubes into arteries, as advised and practiced by Rev. Stephen Hales, of Farrington; the covering of the shaven skins of animals with varnish, of Drs. Kleinberg and Prolatus; the injection of putrid matter into the blood vessels, of Dr. Saunderson; the starvings of Dr. Chossatt; the drownings and smotherings of the commission of professors from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, of London; stopping wind-pipes with corks; keeping animals forcibly under water until almost dead, then, by methods as cruel, restoring them to consciousness; holding the heads of Guinea pigs in basins of quicksilver; cramming the mouths and larynxes of dogs with liquid plaster of Paris until it solidified, all given in that terrible volume, "The Nine Circles" -such practices as these, although knives are not used, and cutting unnecessary, are catalogued under the heading of Vivisection." All these operations are treated of in the published records of vivisectors, from whose works we obtain nearly all of our knowledge of their methods; and from these records we are sage in assuming that vivisection is practiced in nearly all the colleges and universities in the world. The discovery has also been made, recently, that it has, in many places, become a feature of our public school system, where children and youth are caused to witness both the vivisection and dissection of animals, as a part of their training in physiology, or "nature study." [Private letters from several states in our Union have given us details of these scenes from time to time.] The name of the celebrated authoress, Miss Frances Power Cobbe, is inseparably connected with the anti-vivisection movement. She came of English stock, which was subsequently transplanted to Ireland, the first representative of the family in Ireland being the Archbishop of Dublin. Miss Cobbe was born in 1822, and reared at Newbridge, the family seat, in County Dublin. She is now living in North Wales, and although approaching the age of 74 years, seems to have lost none of the intellectual vigor which has made her name one never to be forgotten in the annals of literature and philanthropy. Miss Cobbe spent the fall of 1863-4 in Florence, Italy, and at that time and place there began the first organized agitation against vivisection. The cruelties of Prof. Schiff resulted in the presentation of a memorial, headed by Mrs. Somerville, to which was appended 700 signatures, among which were the names of nearly the whole old noblesse of Florence, and most of the English residents, urging him to use greater moderation in his researches. This was treated by the professor with contempt, and a denial of the facts which had been abundantly proven, one eye witness of them having been Dr. Appleton, of Harvard College, Boston, Mass. The agitation was continued at intervals, and in 1877 Prof. Schiff retreated to Geneva, where he is still pursuing his profession with unrestrained cruelty, as reported by Dr. Philip G. Peabody, of Boston, who visited his laboratory less than a year ago. In the meantime, in 1874, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, London, instituted a prosecution against a French physiologist for extreme cruelty in certain experiments performed before a medical congress at Norwich. Among those who declared these experiments useless as a factory of medical science were Sir William Ferguson, physician to the Queen, and Dr. Tufnell, president of the Irish College of Surgeons. The experimenter fled to his own country, and escaped punishment, but during that trial it became evident that there was an element even among professedly anti-cruelty societies, which would condone excessive cruelty, providing it were done in the interests of science. This forced the anti-vivisectionists to a more determined stand, and a memorial was drawn up and circulated, urging immediate efforts for the restriction of vivisection. Miss Cobbe was at the front of this movement, and in her Life, written by herself, and published last year, she says" "We obtained 600 signatures." After the first one came those of Mr. Carlyle, Tennyson, Browning, Lecky, Sir Arthur Helps, Sir WIlliam Ferguson, John Bright, Dr. Thomson (Archbishop of York), Sir Edwin Arnold, Marcus Beresford, primate of Ireland, Cardinal Manning, then Archbishop of Westminster, the Duke and Duchess of Northumberland, John Ruskin, James Martineau, the Dukes of Portland and Wellington, Lords Coleridge and Selbourne, the Bishops of Winchester, Exeter, Salisbury, Manchester, Bath and Wells, besides members of Parliament and seventy-eight medical men, many of whom were eminent in the profession. Miss Cobbe gives many of the letters written to her at that time by the personages mentioned, emphasizing their stand upon the question of cruelty to animals, and their detestation of the practices coming to light. After the expenditure of very much time and labor a Restrictive Act was secured but so distorted from its original provisions in order to pacify its medical opponents as to prove of little avail in protecting the dumb victims from the old-time tortures. In the meantime, in June, 1875, there had been organized what is now the Victoria St. Society for the Protection of Animals from Vivisection, for the purpose, as was -enter- avowed, of obtaining the utmost possible protection of animals liable to vivisection. The Earl of Shaftesbury, the Archbishop of York, Miss Cobbe and Dr. Hoggan were the first members. Lord Shaftesbury served as its president for 17 years and until his death. Other societies were organized within the year but developments proved the utter inefficiency of the Restrictive Act, and on the 7th of August, 1878, the Victoria St. Society changed its name in accordance with the determination to thereafter work for the total prohibition of vivisection. Soon afterwards there was founded the Great German League against Scientific Animal Torture; in 1881, at Stockholm, the Scandinavian League Against Scientific Cruelty, under the auspices of H. R. H. Princess Eugene of Sweden; in 1883 the Swiss Anti-Vivisection Society at Berne; in 1889 the Church of England Anti-Vivisection League, at Cardiff, Wales; in 1890 the Friends' Anti-Vivisection Society in the Netherlands; and a very flourishing one in Calcutta, India, formed to resist the establishment of a Pasteur Institute there. The societies and branches in Europe now number 86, and new organizations are steadily assuming shape. Coming to our own country, the American Anti-Vivisection Society was founded at Philadelphia, in February, 1883; first for restriction, then for total abolition; its Illinois branch, now an independent society, was organized at Aurora, Ill., June 1, 1892, and incorporated the following February. Its membership now, 344. In May, 1895, was organized, at Boston, the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, having now nearly 400 members. The New York State Anti-Vivisection Society was organized at Saugerties, N. Y., last winter, and has done much active work. Here, as in Great Britain, many of the humane societies will not meddle with the cruelties of scientific research -which the published records indicate are no less aggravated than those of the Old World; and however great or however useless these cruelties have been proven not a single arrest or prosecution has yet occurred because of the pressure brought to bear in behalf of science; but the immense distribution of literature during the past five years, the wide spread newspaper articles upon the subject, the lectures, sermons and publications of the different societies are having their effect. A large number of physicians and surgeons in Great Britain and on the continent are giving active aid to the Anti-Vivisection cause; nearly 500 American Medical men have signed the National Petition for the total abolition of vivisection, in circulation by the Illinois society, and a goodly number are giving time and means to further the cause. A bill was presented to Congress last winter by the Washington Humane Society for the restriction and regulation of vivisection in the District, and is still pending, with good prospects for its passage. A bill was presented by the Massachusetts S. P. C. A. to the State Legislature for the regulation of vivisection in colleges, and its prohibition in public schools; a bill before the New York Legislature for the prohibition of vivisection and dissection in schools of children and youth was tabled, and now the society has amended its constitution so that it calls for the total prohibition of vivisection throughout the state. The Illinois Society, while na- [national]tional [national] in its membership and support, finds a vast amount of necessary work in its own state. Universities and colleges, almost without exception, are fitted up with apparatus for original research -the study of biology -so called -while the minor institutions, including high schools, demonstrate the facts already known, by the mutilation of living or dead animals before classes of children and youth. Are not the crimes and woes of the world a plea for the teaching of gentler sciences -those which shall elevate the mind and morals, which shall instill into the heart pity for all things that can suffer? One of the greatest disputes of today is the utility of this vast, world-wide system of physiological and biological research, ostensibly for the benefit of mankind, but inflicting full misery upon the dumb creation, and to the mind of the anti-vivisectionist it is a great moral issue, involving the keenest principles of right and wrong. The claim of Man's superiority over other created things, loses its force when he becomes callous to the writhings of pain, blind to the pleading eye and deaf to the sufferer's cry, even though it be that of an humbler brother, yet sharing in common with us the desire for life and happiness. The toleration of animal experimentation has now arrived at the point predicted by anti-vivisectionists years ago -namely, the demand for human subjects. We have many accounts, given by the operators themselves, of the uses to which helpless hospital patients have been put, in the interests of science, and in the winter of 1894-5 there was presented to the Ohio Legislature a bill praying that condemned criminals be turned over to physiologists for experimental research. The scheme was devised by Dr. J. S. Pyle, the head of a private hospital in Canton, that state, and received the open endorsement of eight ministers of that city, besides a number of editors and other professional men. Dr. Pyle has since written two pamphlets, and purposes continuing the agitation of his project -as I learn from him personally by letter. He is sustained by many members of the medical profession, while, of course many denounce the plan. Should not the matter of vivisection be looked into by all those who are striving to make the world better? Any further information concerning the movement will be promptly supplied upon application to the undersigned. MRS. FAIRCHILD ALLEN, Secretary Illinois Anti-Vivisection Society, September, 1896. Aurora, Ill. LATER -At the recent International Congress of Animal Protection Societies, held at Budapest, Hungary, there was a vote of 176 to 17 for the total Prohibition of Vivisection. There were present 200 delegates, representing over 400 societies. Hitherto the humane societies generally have declined to interfere with physiological research but we may now count upon the assistance of the great mass of animal protection societies in Europe. America will follow. Published by the Illinois Anti-Vivisection Society, Aurora, Ill. Price, 35 cents per 100, Postpaid.New Issue, Revised by the Author. VIVISECTION: IS IT JUSTIFIABLE? BY CHARLES BELL TAYLOR, DOCTORS OF MEDICINE, FELLOW OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, FELLOW OF THE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON, LATE PRESIDENT OF THE PARISIAN MEDICAL SOCIETY. 1898. PUBLISHED BY THE LONDON ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY (The Oldest Total Abolition Society in the World), 32, SACKVILLE STREET, PICCADILLY, LONDON, W. SIDNEY G. TRIST, Secretary. "HEARTILY SYMPATHISING WITH YOUR EFFORTS." Extract from a Letter from H.M. the Queen to the Secretary of this Society. Price 1d.; post free, 1 1/2d. "A STRANGER WITHIN OUR GATES."--THE PREY OF THE "BRAIN SPECIALIST" VIVISECTOR. JEAN M. CHARCOT, M.D., the celebrated Physician to the Salpetrière Hospital, Paris, who experimented on the patients, thus wrote: "Experimentation with animals that are nearest to man--still more with those far removed from man in the zoological scale--cannot, however faultless its technique, however definite its results, solve finally the problems raised by the pathology of the human brain. In brain it is, above all, that we differ from animals. That organ attains in man a degree of development and of perfection not reached in any other species."--The Forum, New York, August, I888.VIVISECTION: IS IT JUSTIFIABLE? BY CHARLES BELL TAYLOR, F.R.C.S.E. AND M.D. EDIN, FELLOW OF THE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON; LATE PRESIDENT OF THE PARISIAN MEDICAL SOCIETY. An Address delivered before the Medico-Chirurigcal Society of Nottingham, November 16th, 1892. MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN, I have long thought that any advance we may hope to make in the direction of civilization, any step towards the amelioration of the evils of existing conditions, must be mainly by way of the recognition of rights -not only the rights of men and women who may be less fortunately placed than ourselves, but also the rights of those poor relations of ours whom we call animals, and to whom we owe so much of our enjoyment of life, so much of our well-being, so much of our prosperity, and but for whose cheerful and willing aide the business of the world could not be carried on. I must insist that it is our duty to treat these humble fellow-creatures of ours with the utmost kindness, care, and consideration, and that such duty is no less sacred than that which binds us in any of our social relations. It is true that the exigencies of our nature compel us to kill animals for food, and also in self-defence; but we are bound to make such death as swift and painless as possible, and nothing -absolutely nothing, to my mind -can justify deliberate, prolonged, and cold-blooded torture of any of them.* I need not dwell upon this point; the principle is admitted on * "The right to kill and the right to torture are essentially different, and the assertion that one right covers and includes the other, is simply childish. The whole agitation against vivisection rests on the position that between death, a quick and easy death, and the infliction of pain so severe and prolonged as to be fairly called torture, there is a great gulf fixed, and that the right to inflict the one by no means carries with it the right to inflict the other. The existence of this gulf is admitted by the common sense of mankind, and is shown, for instance, by the discontinuance of legal torture as compared with the persistence of capital punishment. Vivisectors have never ventured to meet their opponents fairly and squarely on this ground, -to lay down that the infliction of pain amounting to torture is unjustifiable, and to assert that they do not in fact inflict it. They do not do this because they know very well that to make such an assertion, and to base their cause upon it, would be to deliver themselves into the hands of the enemy." -ARNOLD.2 all sides; it is embodied in our laws against cruelty to animals, and the sentiment finds a ready response in all hearts which are not dead to the instincts of common humanity. Nevertheless we are told, and especially of late, that we must forego this claim of our animal friends to exemption from torture, in the interests or supposed interests of certain gentlemen, who assure us that they are in the pursuit of science; that the pain they inflict is trifling to a degree; that anaesthetics are for the most part employed, and that they have made discoveries which have benefited the human race. It therefore behoves us to ascertain how far these statements are worthy of credence, and to what extent, if at all, they may lead us to condone acts and deeds which we should certainly, a priori, condemn as atrocious to the last degree. Well, here is a specimen of what is meant by the pursuit of science from a vivisector's point of view. It is called a moral experiment. "I inspired," says Dr. Brachet, Professor of Physiology at the Ecole de Medicine, of Paris, "a dog with the greatest aversion for me, by plaguing or inflicting some pain or other upon it as often as I saw it. When this feeling was carried to its height, so that the animal became furious as soon as it saw or heard me, I put out its eyes. I could then appear before it without its manifesting any aversion. I spoke, and immediately its barkings and furious movements proved the passion which animated it. I therefore destroyed the drum of its ears and disorganized the internal ear as much as I could, and when an intense inflammation which was excited had rendered it deaf, I filled up its ears with the molten wax. It could no longer hear at all. Then I went to its side, spoke aloud, and even caressed it, without its falling into a rage; it seemed even sensible of my caressed." Dr. Brachet repeated the same experiment on another dog, and assures us that the results was always the same. Here is another, also called a moral experiment, which I quote from a speech by Dr. Shaw, delivered quite recently before the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland, "The operator began by treating the animal kindly and winning its love and confidence. When these were secured he cut off an ear of the dog, who looked astonished but manifested no resentment. Next day he cut off a paw, and a few days afterwards another. Thus he went on from one outrage to another, slashing and stabbing till the experiment was complete. It was astonishing how much the animal endured before his confidence was gone and his love turned to hate. After the second paw was removed he continued to gaze up into his master's face, and to lick the hand that maimed him." Here is another which belongs to the same category, and is recorded by Baron Weber, a distinguished scientist, who tells us that a German gentlemen cut out the puppies from a pregnant bitch and laid them -enter- 3 before the mother. He wished, he said, to ascertain whether she would exhibit affection for them such as is usually displayed when they are born in the natural way. When Mr. Lawson Tait announced the fact that the peritoneum was capable of digesting the immature fetus in cases of ectopic gestation, he tells us that certain German vivisectors put his assertions to the test by cutting out the immature puppies of pregnant bitches and stitching them in the cavity of the peritoneum. "I recall to mind," says Dr. Latour, who was present at the time a poor dog, the roots of whose vertebral nerves Majendie desired to lay bare to demonstrate Bell's theory which he claimed as his own, "the dog mutilated and bleeding twice escaped from under the implacable knife, and threw its front paws around Majendie's neck, licking, as if to soften its murderer and ask for mercy. I confess," says Dr. Latour, "I was unable to bear that heart-rending spectacle."* A similar scene is recorded by a student who was present at an experiment in this country. The dog, alarmed at the awful preparations, sat up and begged for its life of each assistant in turn. The students, moved at this pathetic appeal, endeavoured to save the poor creature, and offered to but it, or do anything in order that it might be set free, but in vain; it was cruelly tortured, and reproduced at the next lecture for a repetition of the process, under which it died. "Repeated electrical stimulation," says the Editor of The Lancet (Sept. 17th, 1881), "appears to produce in rabbits a state of tetanus arresting respiration, which may be kept up artificially." In respect of dogs, the following account is given of those experimented on by M. Richet. "In the dogs," he says, "the electricity employed was not sufficiently powerful to arrest respiration, and death was due to elevation of temperature. The ascent of the thermometer was extremely rapid, so that after the tetanus had lasted for half-an hours, the lethal temperature of 111 or 112 degrees Fahrenheit was reached. The proof that the increased body heat was the cause of death, was furnished by the fact that if the animals were kept cool by artificial means they will bear for more than two hours extremely strong currents, which cause severe tetanus without dying for some days. The breathing is so frequent that it is hardly possible to count it, and so feeble that scarcely any air enters the thorax." These miserable animals were thus subjected for two hours at a time to currents of electricity which caused such intense agony of cramp and heat together, that they either expired with their blood fourteen degrees above the *The same man, M. Majendie, lecturing to his class on one occasion with a toy greyhound fawning on his knee, remarked, "Gentlemen, the skin is a sensitive organ." He then slashed his pet with a sharp bistoury, the creature uttered a piercing cry. "That scream, gentlemen," said the eminent professor, "proves the truth of my assertion."4 normal temperature, i.e., simmered as it were in their own vital fluid, or lingered for a day or two, having been kept cool by ice baths and other artificial means during their hideous torture. An eminent London physician, in the Appendix to the Report of the Royal Commission, describes an experiment, of which the following is a brief summary. The subject, a dog, having been rendered motionless with curare, had its windpipe cut open, a nozzle inserted, and artificial respiration maintained by means of bellows; its head was then partially flayed, its spinal marrow cut through, needles dug into the exposed marrow, and shocks given by a galvanic battery. The nerves which lead from the brain to the heart were then burnt away, and the spinal marrow further stimulated. The doctor says, "this beautiful and simple experiment we owe to a German physician, with whom I had the pleasure of repeating it here very frequently last summer." In Pfluger's Archives of Physiology is recorded several cases of operations on the brain. "A very clever, lively, young female dog, which had learnt to shake hands with both forepaws, had the left side of the brain washed out through two holes on the 1st of December, 1875; this caused paralysis of the right paw. On being asked for the left, the dog immediately laid it in my hand. I now demanded the right (says the Professor), but the creature only looks at me sorrowfully, for it cannot move it. On my continuing to press for it, the dog crosses the left paw over and offers it to me on the right side, as if to make amends for not being able to give the right." You would think that was enough torture to inflict upon one affectionate little creature; but, no; on the 13th of January more brain was sucked out with a pump. Even that was not enough; for on February 15th more was extracted, and on March 6th some more. You will wonder why it did not die: well, it did, for the last operation killed it. Fifty-one dogs had their heads pierced in several places, and portions of the brain washed out by this process, which was repeated again and again; the animals being kept in sore pain and trouble, as we can well imagine, as long as they survived, which was sometimes for week or months. Further details are given of what are called interesting experiments on a delicately formed little bitch, the left side of whose brain was extracted; the hind feet were them clamped with sharp pincers, which caused doleful whining, piteous howling, and foaming at the mouth. The poor creature soon became blind, and shortly afterwards died. "The brain," says the Professor, "was found on dissection to resemble a newly hoed potato field." Another dog who had had five holes bored in its head, and nearly half the brain extracted, lived from February 14th to March 15th. In several of these cases the animal became blind on one eye, and -enter- 5 in order to correctly estimate the failure of sight in this blind, or fast becoming blind eye, the Professor took out the other eye. "On the 8th of November, 1875," he says, "two holes were bored in the head of a bull dog, and the brain washed away; the animal became blind on the right side; I therefore, on December 11th, took out the left eyeball, so causing complete blindness." On the 10th of January, 1876, some more of this poor creature's brain was destroyed, and on the 5th of February some more; this time on the opposite side. A few days later this one more unfortunate victim sank from exhaustion. Here is another strange experiment, also recorded in Pfluger's Archives. The spinal cord of a strong grey poodle was cut on the 27th of February, and again on the 13th of March, 1875. The second cutting caused fearful ravages; the bladder becoming paralyzed, and the rectum protruded. As it appeared that it could not live long, PREPARATIONS WERE MADE TO PERFORM UPON IT FURTHER EXPERIMENTS! but the dog died before the preparations were completed. Here is another strange experiment, recorded by the operator himself in the Revue Nationale, who tells us that he fastened several large dogs on a table and beat them with a heavy wooden mallet, striking the animals thirty-two times on one side, and again thirty-two times on the other, after which he dislocated both shoulders and fastened the limbs behind the animals' backs. He adds that he did this without anaesthetics, so that he might know how much pain was inflicted from the creatures' cries, and also because, he adds, we know the generous nature of the dog, who will at night lick the hand that in the morning had been employed in striking him with a heavy wooden mallet. At page 204, of the Report of the Royal Commission on Vivisection, you will find an experiment on an animal under curare (the most cruel of all poisons, and which, although it paralyzes motion, only heightens sensation), is recorded. The subject was a small docile dog, which, a few minutes after the drug was injected under the skin, staggered on its fore paws, walking on the tips of its toes until it fell over, frothing at the mouth and weeping abundantly. Its windpipe was then slit open and the nozzle of a bellows connected with a gas engine used for artificial respiration inserted. The side of the neck, the side of the face, the side of the foreleg, and interior of the belly, were then dissected out, and the sciatic and other nerves exposed and irritated with galvanic shocks. No anaesthetic was used, and the agony the poor creature endured must have been awful; yet it was continued for ten hours, at the end of which time the operators left for their homes; but they did not release the subject of the experiment, or end its sufferings by death. It was purposely left helpless B6 and mutilated as it was, in order that they might resume their investigations next day without preliminary delay. When the next day came the poor dog was dead; the machine was at work (as it is, I am told, in these laboratories often night and day), but it was pumping air into and out of a dead body. Here is a pathetic scene, recorded by Dr. John Clarke at the Church Congress. A surgeon operated on a dog, cutting out a part of the bowels and stitching the ends together. The operation was done under anaesthetics; but operations on the abdominal cavity entail at best much suffering, even when the patient receives the most assiduous nursing; but what about the nursing of a vivisected animal? It is left fastened to a board, generally the board on which it has been dissected. The second night after the operation in the case in question the animal lay there groaning and crying in pain. Its cries attracted another dog in the laboratory which was waiting the same fate. This one broke loose from its tether and went to help its wounded companion. It first gnawed through the cords that bound it, and then thinking apparently that the dressings were the cause of the pain, the dogs tore them off. They then ran around the laboratory together through the night, until the wounded one dropped from exhaustion, and was found in a dying condition from peritonitis at ten o'clock the next morning. It may be alleged that these are exceptional experiments, not likely to be repeated, but I cannot admit that such is the case. The last experiment was the one it was proposed to repeat upon a vast number of dogs at our University Buildings; and it is not many weeks since a French surgeon poured boiling lead into a dog's ear, regardless of the frantic screams and struggles of the poor creature, who tore its limbs in vain efforts to escape. I said this kind of thinking is going on every day, and it must be so when you have your laboratory and your licence and your stables and your cages and your dogs and cats and rabbits and horses and assistants and onkometers and onkographs aud the various instruments supplied by the Scientific Instrument Company, which I am assured does a large trade. The vivisecting professor must do something to justify his existence and deserve his pay in that capacity, and here is a description of what he does, which I quote from the pen of an eye witness and participator, who repented his share in the proceedings, as I make bold to think most must do when advancing years forces them to calm reflection, and, as in many instances, to bitter retrospection.* "I venture to record,' says Dr. Hoggan, *When Dr. John Reid met his friend Fergusson (afterwards Sir William) in the street, he burst into tears and exclaimed, "This is a 7 "a little of my own experience in this matter, part of which was gained as an assistant in the laboratory of one of the greatest living experimental physiologists. In that laboratory we sacrificed daily from one to three dogs, besides rabbits and other animals, and after much experience I am of opinion that not one of those experiments on animals was justified or necessary. The idea of the good of humanity was simply out of the question and would have been laughed at, the great aim being to keep up with, or get ahead of, one's contemporaries in science, even at the price of an incalculable amount of torture, needlessly and iniquitously inflicted on the poor animals. During three campaigns," he adds, "amidst the horrors of war, I have witnessed many harsh sights, but I think the saddest sight I have ever witnessed was when the dogs were brought up from the cellar to the laboratory for sacrifice. Instead of appearing pleased with the change from darkness to light they seemed seized with horror as soon as they smelt the air of the place, divining apparently their approaching fate. They would make friendly advances to each of the three or four persons present, and as far as eyes, ears, and tail could make a mute appear for mercy eloquent, they tried it in vain. Were the feelings of experimental physiologists not blunted, they could not long continue the practice of vivisection. They are always ready to repudiate any implied want of tender feeling, but I must say they seldom show much pity; on the contrary, in practice they frequently show the reverse. Hundreds of times I have seen when an animal writhed with pain, and thereby deranged the tissues during a delicate dissection, instead of being soothed it would receive a slap and an angry order to be quiet and behave itself. At other times, when an animal had endured great pain for hours without struggling or giving more than an occasional low whine, instead of letting the poor mangled judgment on me for my cruelty to animals." He was a fine, handsome powerful man, in the prime of life, and the grave suddenly yawned at his feet. He was doomed to die, and shortly, of cancer of the tongue, an organ in the region of which his vivisections had been mainly directed. -- Professor Syme, probably the greatest operator of this century, the Napoleon of Surgery, lived to denounce vivisection as cruel and useless. -- Pirogoff, the great Russian surgeon, tells us how his dying dog, in midst of his sufferings and at the point of death, fixed his plaintive eyes upon his master, and made an effort to give a last sign of recognition to one who tells us how he suffered when he remembered the tortures he had inflicted upon hundreds of other dogs. He says, "My heart was full." -- Professor Haller records a precisely similar experience; so does Dr. Crisp; and so does Sir Charles Bell, who greatly regretted one or two experiments he was compelled to perform in order to illustrate his discovery made from the anatomy only of the spinal nerves. He says, "It is but a poor manner of acquiring fame, to multiply experiments on brutes and take the chance of discovery; we ought, at least, to get at truth without cruelty, and to form a judgment without having recourse to torture."8 wretch loose to crawl painfully about the place in reserve for another day's torture, it would receive pity so far that it would be said to have behaved well enough to merit death ; and, as a reward, would be killed at once by breaking up the medulla with a needle. One of the most revolting features of the laboratory was the custom of giving an animal on which the professor had completed his experiment, and which had still some life left, to the assistants, to practise the finding of arteries, nerves, &c., in the living animal, or for performing what are called fundamental experiments upon it; in other words, repeating those which are recommended in the laboratory handbooks."* "I have known," says Dr. Allix, the well-known French veterinary surgeon, "dogs die of sheer terror in anticipation of their doom before the vivisector had time to commence his operations." "The experiments lately performed on female dogs will continue *Baron Weber describes a visit which he paid to a large physiological laboratory when the students and professors were away on vacation. He says he was led into the cellars, where iron boxes are kept for securing the dogs till wanted; they were capable of holding fifty dogs. He asked the conductors where they came from. "Oh, from the dealers and so on," with a grin. The Baron advises those who are fond of animals not to let their dogs go unguarded in the streets. One intelligent-looking dog, with evident forebodings, had gnawed a considerable hole in one of the oaken doors of his cage, in the hope of escape. The Baron's guide said it would not help the blackguard, for if he got loose he could not get out of the place. The long tables were smeared with blood. He also describes the torture troughs, and remarks that the last dog who died in this way had been honoured with a memento mori, for on one of the ends of the box a student had drawn in chalk the head of a pretty little dog with angel's wings attached to his shoulders, and the legend written underneath, "Requiescat in pace." On asking if the animals were rendered insensible before being experimented on, the Baron was told that they were all poisoned with curara. "My guide now led me into another very small, cold room, in which were two large freezing boxes. One, a large, round tub, my guide said, was 'for freezing a live dog till he became quite stiff.'" A cold shudder creeps over one when one thinks of the poor terrified and whining animals, after being kept for weeks in these gloomy cellars, being thrown at last into a tub to be frozen stiff. Dogs frozen in this way at intervals, live to the sixth day.--See Report of the Imperial Rudolph Institution for 1869, p. 112. Dr. Leffingwell records the following exhibition, recently made before an American audience. "It was affirmed on one occasion by a Professor of Physiology before his class, that the fur of animals prevents radiation of animal heat and is thus a protection against cold, and that an animal deprived of fur, or with that fur rendered useless by varnishing, would suffer if exposed to extreme cold." No one out of a lunatic asylum could doubt this; yet three animals were brought in,--one shaved, one varnished, one untouched; the three were then packed in ice. No anaesthetic was given ; their piteous moaning gradually grew fainter, and at last ceased altogether. They were then unpacked; one was dead, the two others, frozen stiff, were resuscitated for other experiments, i.e., FURTHER TORTURE, ON ANOTHER DAY. 9 tinue to haunt and distress me to the last day of my life," says Dr. De Noe Walker, late army surgeon, who gave evidence before the Royal Commission. "As soon as the poor mother had given birth to a litter of puppies, the vivisector visited her on her bed of straw, whereupon, moved by the finest feelings of her nature, she looked up into his face, her dilated pupils beaming with joy and expectant sympathy. Up he lifts her and presently excises all her mammary glands. The next day she is again visited by her tormentor, but on seeing him her terror is indescribable. The poor puppies were of course starved to death. "It is marvellous and astonishing," says Professor Goltz, "to find that a dog that had served for some seven experiments and whose hind quarters were completely paralyzed, and whose spinal marrow had been destroyed, the animal suffering besides from fatal peritonitis, was still capable of maternal feelings for its young. She unceasingly licked the living and the dead puppy, and treated the living puppy with the same tenderness as an uninjured dog might do." "I will take," says Mr. R. T. Reid, in his speech in the House of Commons, "a series of experiments performed by Professor Rutherford of the University of Edinburgh, and reported in The British Medical Journal. These experiments were thirty-one in number ; no doubt there were hundreds of dogs sacrificed upon other series of experiments, but now I am only referring to one set. There were in this set thirty-one experiments, but no doubt many more than thirty-one dogs were sacrificed. All were performed on dogs and the nature of them was this. The dogs were starved for many hours, they were then fastened down, the abdomen was cut open, the bile duct was dissected out and cut ; a glass tube was tied into the bile duct and brought outside the body. The duct leading to the gall bladder was then closed by a clamp, and various drugs were injected into the intestines at its upper part. The result of these experiments was simply nothing at all--I mean it led to no increase of knowledge whatever, and no one can be astonished at that ; because these wretched beasts were placed in such circumstances--their condition was so abnormal--that the ordinary and universally recognized effect of well-known drugs was not produced. These experiments were performed without anaesthetics." Sir W. Ferguson, in his evidence before the Royal Commission, gives an instance of a dog who was crucified for several days, and brought into the class from time to time to show how the experiment was going on. Evidence was also given that dogs and rabbits had the nerves that govern the muscles of the throat divided, so that they could not swallow the food that was placed before them ; they kept on continually munching, but all the same they died of hunger. Dr. Crisp, in his evidence before the same Commission (Q. 6,157), alludes to the well-known cases of vivisection that were practised at the veterinary schools of10 Alfort, Lyons, and Toulouse. Sixty-four operations were performed upon the same living horse ; eight students would be engaged on the same animal at the same time ; five or six horses were used up in this way in a week ; and not anaesthetics were employed. The operations commenced at six in the morning, and ended at six at night. The eyes were cut out, the teeth punched out, the hoofs torn off, the body fired, and every conceivable operation upon nerves, arteries, veins, bladder, and skull, was performed upon the groaning, writhing beast ; and it was considered highly creditable to the young students if they could keep the animal alive until the last, i.e., until six at night. Here is a report from an eye witness, Dr. Murdoch, of what actually occurred upon one occasion. "A little chestnut mare, worn out in the service of man, had unfortunately survived the numerous tortures of the day and no longer resembled any creature of this earth. Her thighs were cut open, the skin torn away, ploughed through with hot irons, harrowed with dozens of setons, the sinews cut through, the hoofs torn off, and the eyes pierced. In this blind and powerless condition the miserable creature was placed, amid laughter, upon its bleeding feet, to shew those present who were operating upon seven other horses, what human skill could perform before death released their victim." It seems incredible, but it is a fact that Abdul, the celebrated beauty, the horse that bore the late Emperor of Austria at his coronation, was, at the close of his career, worn out and feeble, subjected to this hellish process. Dr. Carpenter mentions in his work on Physiology, a professor who inserted a tube into a dog's stomach and then filled it with boiling water. A number of cases are also reported where dogs were covered with turpentine and then set fire to (burnt alive). Others, where full-grown sheep dogs have been immersed up to the neck in boiling water, and kept as long as they would live afterwards; others, where they were kept for weeks without food; others, where quite a number of dogs were skinned alive. The Professor fully describes the process, complains of the difficulty he experienced in flaying the paws and head, and tells us that he kept them in cotton wool so long as they would live after the operation. Others, where dogs and cats were subjected to atmospheric pressure until they became as stiff kidneys were cut out and the animals kept alive as long as possible ; others, where the bladder was ligatured to prevent the discharge of urine, the gullet tied to prevent sickness after emetics or poisons had been administered, and other where the natural vents had been permanently clamped ; others, where animals were baked alive or trephined and their brains sucked out with a force pump or burnt out with hot wires ; others, where dogs were suffocated and brought to life again and again, and kept alive for weeks and 11 months for a repetition of the process. Similar experiments on apes, monkeys, cats, rabbits ; in short on every creature that has life and can feel, are recorded ; while other unfortunate animals were submitted to an unintermitting torture of every conceivable description (without injuring vital parts) for weeks, merely to ascertain how much actual pain it took to kill them. And so on, horror upon horror's head accumulating, until one is sick with grief, indignation, and disgust at the whole business. I think I have said and quoted enough to show that the science of which the vivisector is in pursuit, is not true science, and that the pain inflicted by him on his innocent victims is not slight, but atrocious to the last degree. Let us now see what is meant by the assertion that anaesthetics are employed. Dr. Hoggan says that anaesthetics have proved the greatest curse to vivisectible animals, and I entirely agree with him. The public would not tolerate vivisection for a day if they did not believe that the animals were rendered insensible, and the plain fact is that they are not rendered insensible ; more than half the licences dispense with anaesthetics. It is the public who are anaesthetised,--it must be so ; for in many experiments, to render the animal insensible would be to defeat the object of the operator, such as those, for instance, connected with the reflex action from the sensory nerves ; those connected with the glandular secretions, as in Hughes', Bennett's, and Rutherford's, experiments on the liver ; again, those on digestion, and those on the temperature of the heart and arteries, and those in which it is necessary to use a gas engine for artificial respiration ; those on the phenomena of pain ; the boiling, baking and stewing alive experiments ; drowning, starving to death, alcoholisation, and feeding on substances which are incapable of sustaining life. It is the same when the effects of drugs and poisons have to be tested ; and also in a numerous class of experiments which require time--days, weeks, or months--for their completion. The animal, if it goes to sleep, goes to sleep in health, in ease, to awake in torment that can only end with its most wretched life. And again, when an operation is performed and the animal is kept alive, often in great agony, in order that the results may be observed, as in numberless operations and in all pathological experiments. Besides it is most difficult to render an animal insensible and at the same time keep it alive. Vomiting frequently interrupts the process, during which the animal comes round, and my experience with chloroform on dogs is that as soon as they are insensible they cease to breathe, and this experience is borne out by that of Professor Pritchard of the Royal Veterinary College, a gentleman who has had more experience in this direction than any man living, who says, in effect, that as soon as the animal is insensible you find that it is dead. "They appear for some time not to be under the influence of it at all, and then suddenly they come under the influence of it, and we find it12 impossible to bring them round." The practical consequence of this is, as Dr. Hoggan has remarked, "that complete and conscientious anaesthesia is seldom even attempted, the animal getting at most a slight whiff of chloroform, by way of satisfying the conscience of the operator or of enabling him to make statements of a humane character." Dr. Walker's evidence before the Royal Commission was to the same effect. He said, "It is quite true that anaesthetics are used, but if by that you understand that while the animal lived and was experimented on he was throughout insensible, it is the greatest delusion that ever was." Physiologists are well aware of these facts, hence you find it stated that they occasionally use ether ; but it is very difficult, owing to the conformation of face and the necessity for tying the mouth up, to give ether to dogs, the animals principally operated on ; you require to smother them, and if the anaesthetic is inter mitted for a moment they come round ; and we consequently find it stated that the ether has been supplemented by morphia injected under the skin, which, although it stupefies, does not prevent the animal from feeling. "Ils sent la douleur," as Bernard says. Or, worst of all, curara--"the hellish wourali," as Lord Tennyson very properly calls it,--a drug which makes it impossible for you to give chloroform safely, or to say whether the animal is insensible or not, since all the muscles of expression are paralyzed, and which, while it paralyzes motion, actually increases the animal's susceptibility to pain--pain described by Claude Bernard himself as "the most atrocious the mind of man can conceive." So much for anaesthetics and the slight amount of pain inflicted by vivisectors. Now let us see what benefits the human race, our noble selves, have derived from these diabolical torments inflicted upon our innocent and helpless fellow-creatures. Dr. Hoggan says the idea of benefit to the human race would be laughed to scorn by the vivisector, the sole object being to get ahead of one's contemporaries in science. I do not say that any benefits would justify us in inflicting these torments ; they would no more justify us than an increased price would justify the man who skinned cats alive in order to preserve the gloss of their coats. But I want to know what they are and where they are. I confess I do not know, although I have tried hard to find out. "My soul Assures me humanity is wisdom, And they who want it, wise as they may seem, And confident in their own sight and strength, Reach not the scope they aim at." If you ask those who support vivisection what this Joanna Southcote of science has brought forth, they either talk unmitigated nonsense or favour you with vague, unmeaning generalities which are little less absurd. Here is a specimen of the latter which I cull from a recent letter by an able practitioner, apologising for the system : "Have any of your correspondents," this 13 gentleman says, "thought seriously of the law of prey and the struggle for life which is going on everlastingly in the world around us ? Tennyson's 'Nature red in tooth and claw' depicts in not too vivid colouring the scene of the cosmos. Do we not see how all through the realm of animal life destruction and suffering are the mans by which advancement is made from a lower to a higher and more complex organization ; how the principle of sacrifice seems to run like a shining thread through the web of the universe, interwoven into its very order. When we stand on the place where innumerable multitudes of living sentient things fall a prey to the conditions of development which are set up by the Maker, surely we shall not be unwilling to yield to a few earnest seekers after truth the means of gaining that knowledge which is to lessen so considerably that sum of suffering which is one of the heaviest curses of the world." The writer continues : "Our sympathies for the mangled victims of the sportsman's pleasure are shadowed by the lurid picture which Miss Cobbe's impressionist brush makes for us ; and yet the horrors of the laboratory are a mere fiasco in extent to the dreadfulness (sic.) of the deeds which are done in the fields for our own good and pleasure. In the light of the latest results of brain surgery ; of protective inoculations ; of the discoveries of Virchow, Pasteur, Lister and Ferrier, one is bound to admit the needfulness of experiments if scientific medicine is to advance." And so on ; but what does it all mean ? We are not savages contending against a hostile tribe who would torture us ; we are not engaged in a struggle for life with wild beasts who would tear us limb from limb ; even if we were, torture would not be justifiable. But just conceive the shame of it,--the pity of it. The animal we principally sacrifices is our best friend,--Byron said he never knew but one, and that was his dog Boatswain ;-- our faithful companion who loves, honours and obeys us ; who has given his life for us a thousand times ; who is eager at any moment to imperil life and limb in our service ; who has even been known to die of grief on his master's grave, and to starve to death in the open rather than cease to guard his dead body. Let me beg of you, if only for the honour of our noble profession, to think of the sin involved--of the cruelty involved--of the treason, of the cowardice, of the utter pitilessness involved--as Miss Cobbe has remarked, in tying down this faithful friend, on a torture trough, and slowly mangling its brain, its eyes, its entrails, until after hours--it may be days or weeks--of the most exquisite torture, he perishes in a degree of agony of which we can form no conception. Surely, if there is a future--surely, if man is responsible--surely, if it is the merciful that shall obtain mercy,--it is not kind of us to allow our misguided friends to go on with this bloody work, or to bow down to those eminent men in our own profession who would conduct our14 youth into the same path which, if there be any truth in religion, can but lead to destruction. Ye therefore who love mercy, teach your sons To love it too. The springtime of our years Is soon dishonoured and defiled in most By budding ills, that ask a prudent hand To check them. But alas! none sooner shoots If unrestrained, into luxuriant growth Than cruelty, most devilish of them all. Mercy to him that shows it is the rule And righteous limitation of its act By which heaven moves in pardoning guilty man; And he that shows none, being ripe in years, And conscious of the outrage he commits, Shall seek it AND NOT FIND IT, in his turn. Compare, I say, the horrible tortures which I have described and thousands of others of a similar character which are going on day and night in the licensed laboratories of this country and abroad, with the shot of the sportsman or the sudden death in hot encounter, which is the fate of so many of the lower animals, and tell me if it is not simply absurd to declare that "the horrors of the laboratory are a mere fiasco in extent to the dreadfulness of the deeds of the sportsman," or those of nature herself. Besides, if the cruelties of sport are to be deprecated, how much more must all right-minded persons condemn deliberate, cold-blooded and prolonged torture, no matter for what selfish purpose it may be perpetrated? As to the discoveries by vivisection that have benefited the human race, it has been proved over and over again that Pasteur's inoculation, both in anthrax and hydrophobia, have done infinite harm and not the slightest good ; Lister's antiseptic system was worked out, as everyone knows, in the hospital, at the bed side and, to the best of my belief, quite independently of experiments on animals--in fact, they would have been quite out of place ; and as to Ferrier's operations upon dogs' and monkeys' brains, why, such operations have taught us nothing but what equally good and better authorities have, and I believe with justice, declared to both false and misleading. How then is it, you will very naturally inquire that the British Medical Association should pass a resolution declaring "that experiments on living animals are of inestimable benefit to man and animals, and that the continuance and extension of such investigations is essential to the progress of knowledge, the relief of suffering, and the saving of life." How indeed! Well, the passing of such a resolution, which in my opinion is a libel on the British Medical Association, is accounted for, first, by the fact, to which Mr. Jonathan Hutchinson, the proposer, alluded, that probably not one in one hundred of those present had ever performed any experiments on animals at all ; and I will add, since they were educated and refined gentlemen, that they also probably had not the remotest idea of what they were doing; secondly, by the 15 fact that, owing to the shortness of the notice, equivalent to no notice at all, the resolution was sprung upon the meeting, and there was consequently no discussion and no opportunity of opposition ; and third, that those who were present and who were opposed to vivisection did not like to appear singular, and as one of them remarked to me, "be the only ones to stand out." Let us see now what arguments were adduced in favour of this ridiculous proposition. Mr. Hutchinson said, first, that the members of the Association ought to pass the resolution because those persons who practised vivisection were exposed to a certain amount of odium and ought to be protected. Second, that experiments on animals were not cruel, because nothing deserved the definition of cruelty which had for its object the alleviation of suffering. Third, that Sir William Gull had said that "there was no cruelty comparable to ignorance;" and fourth, that those who were opposed to vivisection were like certain whelk shells turned the wrong way. Dr. Ransom, the seconder, merely added that the right to vivisect was a matter of privilege or liberty, and "the price of liberty was eternal vigilance,"--in fact it was "whelks and liberty" over again. But what did it all amount to? Persons who practise such cruelties as I have described must be expected to be exposed to odium ; and it is certainly not the business, even if it were in the power, of the British Medical Association to protect them. Moreover, cruelty is cruelty with whatever object it may be perpetrated ; and it is certainly not the business, even if it were in the power, of the British Medical Association to protect them. Moreover, cruelty is cruelty with whatever object it may be perpetrated ; and it is an insult to common sense to pretend that the man who flays dogs alive by the score is not cruel simply because he says he is trying to find out something about the functions of the skin. Sir William Gull's pompous remark really meant nothing at all ; and the eccentric persons who are compared to sea shells turned the wrong way are, as Sir John Stuart Mill has remarked, really the excellent of the earth ; they are the men and women who accomplish all good and useful ends, not by going with the stream like dead fish, but by buffeting the tide. No, Sir, no good ever came of vivisection ever since the world began ; and in my humble opinion no good ever can. Never mind what physiologists say ; as Ouida has remarked, the arrogance, the conceit, the sophisms of the so-called scientists of to-day are as like the arrogance, the conceit, and the sophisms of the Bidas and Torquemadas of old, "as the Physiological Laboratory is like the Torture Chamber of the Inquisition." We have got rid of one, and we shall get rid of the other. Meantime, never let it be said that we as a Profession were on the side of wrong, of cruelty, or injustice and oppression. The main task of civilization has ever been the vindication of the rights of the weak. Animals have rights (so much is conceded by our laws), and men have duties towards them ; and for us to ignore the one, or counsel neglect of the other, is simply to proclaim ourselves enemies of the human race and foes to its destined progress.16 The following are the Author's replies to the arguments brought forward in favour of Vivisection, during debate at the close of his paper :-- "NIHIL UTILE QUOD NON SIT HONESTUM." THE CIRCULATION OF THE BLOOD. IT is true that Harvey was a vivisector, but it is not true that he discovered the circulation of the blood by means of vivisection; on the contrary, so long as he confined his attention to vivisection he was continually wading through blood, agony, and torture only to arrive at doubt, uncertainty, and contradiction. Here are his own words : "When I first gave my mind to vivisection as a means of discovering the motions and uses of the heart, and sought to discover these from actual inspection and not from the writings of others, I found the task so truly arduous, so full of difficulties, that I was almost tempted to think with Frascatorius that the motion of the heart was only to be comprehended by God, my mind was therefore greatly unsettled, nor did I know what I should myself conclude, nor what believe from others." He adds "I was led to distrust the existing belief of the course of the blood by CONSIDERING THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE VALVES OF THE VEINS (which of course could only be studied on the dead body). It was plain that the common doctrine that the blood moved to and fro in the veins outwards from the heart and back again was incompatible with the fact of the direction of the valves which are so placed that the blood could only move in one direction." Now, as Dr. Bridges, the Harveian orator for this year (1892), has pointed out, "Servetus and Colombo had demonstrated before Harvey that the blood passed from the right ventricle through the lungs to the left side of the heart; and Cesalpino had shewn that in consequence of the arrangement of the mitral and aortic valves, the flow of blood must necessarily be from the left ventricle towards the various organs of the body." This could not be demonstrated on the living body, as Dr. George Macilwain, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, remarked in his evidence before the Royal Commission (Blue Book, p. 96), "You could not discover the circulation in a living body; I do not see how it is possible to do so; if you had a dead body then it is so easy to discover the circulation of the blood, that it is difficult to understand how it was not done before (Harvey's time), because if you inject the arteries you find that the fluid is returned by the veins." That is the simple truth; whereas, if you attack a living animal, you are at once blinded by the blood which gushes forth at the first incision, and can make nothing out. "Harvey himself," says Dr. Lauder Brunton in his Gulstonian Lectures (British Medical Journal, March 17, 1877), "was led to form his ideas regarding the course taken by the blood from the position of the valves 17 of the veins, and might possibly have been able to discover it exactly without making a single experiment." Similar evidence before the same Commission was given by Dr. Acland, Regius Professor of Medicine at the University of Oxford; and "The more Harvey's immortal work is studied," says Dr. Bridges, "the more palpable is the fallacy that his discovery resulted from any such process of direct inspection as vivisection is supposed to give. Comparison of structures--direct observation of structures--these supplied Harvey with his materials, and profound meditation did the rest." THE CURE (SO-CALLED) OF HYDROPHOBIA. It is true that Pasteur discovered, if we can call it a discovery, his so-called cure for hydrophobia by vivisection ; but it is not true that his so-called cure is any cure at all. On the contrary, it is pretty clearly established by now, that Professor Michel Peter's observation, made years ago, is strictly correct : "M. Pasteur ne guerit pas la rage, il la donne,"-- "he does not cure hydrophobia, he gives it." Here are the latest figures in proof thereof, which I quote from an excellent address on the subject, delivered at the recent Church Congress by Dr. F. S. Arnold, M.B. and B. Ch. Oxon :--"The report of the French Conseil Superior de l'Hygiene shows that from 1850 to 1885, the average annual mortality from hydrophobia in France was 23; from 1885 to 1890 inclusive, after Pasteur started his inoculations, there was a yearly average of 39 deaths in the same country, and under precisely similar conditions." "In England the deaths from hydrophobia from 1880 to 1884 inclusive, were 153, while those from 1885 to 1889--years during which many persons bitten by dogs were sent from this country to Pasteur--were 159, giving full addition of one to the yearly average." In addition to these conclusive facts, showing the utter failure of Pasteur's inoculations to diminish the number of deaths from hydrophobia, we have the fact that close upon 240 persons have died after having submitted to his treatment, and many of these clearly in consequence of it. THE PREVENTIVE TREATMENT (SO-CALLED) OF ANTHRAX. It is true that Pasteur discovered his so-called preventive treatment of anthrax by experiments on animals, but it is not true that his inoculations have been of any service, or anything, when faithfully carried out, but a source of danger and disaster wherever they have been adopted. Indeed so clearly has this been demonstrated, that his system has been emphatically condemned by the German and English Commissioners appointed to inquire into it, and actually prohibited (as it ought to be in this country) by the Hungarian Commission, and for the following reasons :--1--Because the spores of anthrax are so indestructible that, once started, it is almost18 impossible to get rid of them ; they will survive immersion in solutions of the most powerful chemical, such as corrosive sublimate and carbolic acid, and will even resist the action of boiling water (unless the ebullition is continued for upwards of five minutes--see report of experiments in Bacteriological laboratory, Berlin, quoted in Medical Press); and because they will also live in pastures for years, through all weathers, and prove as fatal both to man and beast at last as at first, 2--Because when the spores and bacilli of this microbe are injected into the cellular tissue of a healthy animal, its blood, its nasal and buccal mucous discharges, its excrement, and secretions are speedily swarming with bacilli, and it is at once scattering the seeds of this malignant and loathsome disease wherever it goes. 3--Because it is simply absurd to suppose that any protection can be gained in this way, because one attack of anthrax, malignant pustule, and splenic fever, as it is also called,--unlike scarlet fever, measles, and such like diseases,--confers no immunity against another attack. 4-- Because even the advocates of the system do not claim protection beyond a short period (a few months), and insist that the operation must be constantly repeated. 5--Because ten per cent. of the animals, even under favourable, circumstances, die, and those who recover do so with their health permanently damaged. 6--Because the flesh, the milk, the butter, and cheese of such inoculated animals are contaminated and unfit for food. 7--Because the operation has proved fatal to a vast number of animals. M. Paul Bouillier, for instance, says that inoculation for anthrax has had but one result--that of causing the death of ten times more animals in France than are lost annually in the natural manner. Among hundreds of examples, he cites these. M. Grandchamps, he says, lost 5,000 francs worth of horses and cows from inoculation. M. Fournier inoculated 400 sheep, of which 90 died ; the major of St. Germain and M. Marcel le Brun lost between them as many sheep as have died in thirty Communes where no inoculation goes on, and 45 times more than were lost by five other farmers who own sheep in the same district where no inoculation is practised. It is by millions, he says, that we must count the losses in France from anthrax inoculation. It is said that the system has since been perfected ; but M. Luteaud, in a recent communication, tells me that French farmers have had such disastrous experience, that they now refuse to allow their animals to be inoculated ; and it is not long since the brothers Pankaljeff, Russian millionaires, allowed Dr. Bardach to inoculate their stock, as a result of which proceeding in two days 3,552 sheep died, 1,200 horned cattle likewise perished, and also hundreds of horses.--(Journal de Medicine, Paris, 1889). Professor Peter tells us that at about the same time inoculation was practised upon 4,564 sheep at Kachowa in Southern 19 Russia, of which 3,696 died--(Provincial Medical Journal, May, 1890) ; and from a report in The Standard for July 9th this year (1892), I find that in New South Wales, where M. Pasteur's representatives inoculated a flock of 12,524 sheep, 3,174 died. 8--Because, when these things do not happen, it is simply because the vaccine used has been sterilized down to the innocuity of rain water, and can neither protect or injure ; on which point Dr. Klein, in his Supplement to the Twelfth Annual Report of the Local Government Board (p. 208) remarks :--"Is a cultivation in which in course of time the bacillus anthracis, at first forming a copious growth, degenerates, and in which no spores had been formed, and further which cultivation loses, as we know, its power to infect with virulent anthrax animals when inoculated,--that is to say, such a cultivation as M. Pasteur's vaccine professes to be,--is such a cultivation, I say, perfectly ineffective too, in giving the animals some sort of immunity against further inoculation with natural material? The answer is, "Yes ; IT IS PERFECTLY INEFFECTIVE." And finally, as an eloquent writer has observed, "Accepting vaccination, however, as a preventive from one disease (smallpox), how will it be when we and our cattle employ twenty similar preventives for twenty other diseases? Is it really to be believed that the order of things has been so perversely constituted as that the health of men and beasts is to be sought, not, as we fondly believed, by pure and sober living and cleanliness, but by the pollution of the very fountains of life with the confluent streams of a dozen filthy diseases?" Mr. Fleming indites a psalm of triumph over the prospect of a boundless field of inoculations just opening to the activity of medical men and veterinary surgeons, who will go forth like so many sowers to scratch the people and cattle instead of the ground, and drop cultivated virus by way of seed, or possibly tares, as the case may prove. Are we then , our oxen, our sheep, our pigs, our fowls,--(that is to say, our bodies and the food which nourishes them)--all to be vaccinated, porcinated, equinated, caninised, felinised, and bovinated, once, twice, twenty times in our lives, or every year? Are we to be converted into so many living nests for the comfortable incubation of disease germs? Is our meat to be saturated with "virus," our milk drawn from inoculated cows, our eggs laid by diseased hens,--in short, are we to breakfast, dine, and sup upon disease by way of securing the perfection of health? God forbid! THE LOCALISATION OF BRAIN DISEASE. It is true that Professor Ferrier has performed numerous vivisectional operations upon the brains of apes and other animals, and has in consequence arrived at certain conclusions20 with regard to the functions of certain definite portions of the cerebrum ; but it is not true that these experiments have resulted in benefit to the human race, or that the conclusions are trustworthy, or that he has given us any guide on which we can depend in operating upon the brain. On the contrary, cases of brain tumour that are at once accessible and capable of being localised are so extremely rare, that the benefit to the human race of such brain surgery must in any case be very small. Again, those physiologists who have repeated Ferrier's experiments deny his conclusions, and it is a fact that the only positive knowledge we have as to the functions of the brain has been derived from careful observation of human patients during life, and careful post mortem examinations of those who have succumbed after death. Let us examine these points a little in detail. Patients suffering from brain tumours are not very numerous; nevertheless the Morbid Growths Committee of the Pathological Society have collected and tabulated fifty-four cases ; of these only two, even under the most favourable circumstances (i.e., with a certain knowledge of the locale of the tumour) seemed on post mortem examination to have been suitable for operation ; and Dr. Goodhart, physician to Guy's hospital, who is a great pathologist, says that in thirteen years of post mortem work he did not remember seeming a single case in which the tumour ws at once accessible and capable of being localized.--(Pathological Society's Transactions, quoted in The Medical Press, Jan. 26th, 1887). He very naturally adds, "That in the region of cerebral tumours other than inflammatory, it therefore seems very doubtful if surgery, has any future worth mentioning before it." Speaking on the same point, the Editor of The Medial Press remarks, "That if such cases (prospecting for brain tumours) proved fatal, the jury must give a verdict against the surgeon who operated ;" and the Editor of The Lancet (November, 1883) says that, "If Dr. Ferrier's suggestions meet with much practical response, it is to be feared that the cerebral localisation will soon have more deaths to answer for than lives to boast of." It is clear, therefore, that in cases other than inflammatory, or resulting from direct injury, where the history of the case, the heat, the pain on pressure, and other local symptoms would guide us, that there is not very much to be done in the way of brain surgery, and that we cannot possibly have derived the benefit which is claimed as a result of Ferrier's experiments on monkeys. Speaking on this point Sir W. Bowman says, "Vivisections upon so complex an organ as the brain are ill calculated to lead to useful or satisfactory results:" and Ferrier himself, in the preface to his Treatise on the Functions of the Brain, says, "No one who has attentively studied the results of the labours of the numerous investigators in this field of research 21 can help being struck by the want of harmony, and even positive contradictions, among the conclusions which apparently the same experiments and the same facts have led to in different hands." "Indeed experiments on the lower animals, even on apes, often lead to conclusions SERIOUSLY AT VARIANCE WITH WELL ESTABLISHED FACTS OF CLINICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL OBSERVATION." Again, Ludimar Hermann, Professor of Physiology in the University of Zurich, says, "Physiological experiments conducted in these regions (of the brain) are most indefinite. The usual plan of investigation, viz., that of applying stimuli to the brain substance, leads either to negative results, or, if electrical stimulation is used, to results which, owing to the unavoidable dispersal of the currents in numerous directions, are not sufficiently localised to form the basis for trustworthy conclusions." And Dr. Kingsford (M. D., Paris), says, "The conditions under which experimenters are compelled to work render the results liable to great misconception and error. Thus, in order to reach special tracts and areas of the brain, they are forced to push their instruments, whether heated or otherwise, through the superficial membranes and tissues of the hemispheres of the brain lying beneath the skull, and by these acts of laceration or denudation many complications are set up which often seriously interfere with the conclusions sought, making it difficult to determine what proportion of the results obtained may be due to secondary and unavoidable injuries." On the same point Dr. Charcot, in his work on the To[ography of the Brain, after citing cases, has also said, "These examples are enough to show that, particularly as regards brain functions, the utmost reserve is necessary in drawing inferences from animals to man ;" and Professor Goltz, some of whose experiments on the brains of dogs I have quoted, says, "It is not often that physiologists agree on matters relating to the physiology of the brain." Charcot and Petres in France,--Hitzig, Munk, nad Hermann in Germany.--Luciani and Tambourini in Italy,-- and Doctors Schoefer and Goodhart in England--all differ from Ferrier in the conclusions drawn from his vivisectional experiments; and Professor Munk, in his book "Functionem der Grosshirnrinde," besides rejecting the conclusions of Flourens, Fritsch, Hitzig, Caville, Douet, Nothnagel, Schiff, Hermann, and Goltz, speaks of Ferrier's certainty in his own results as being only equalled by the impossibility of the slightest faith being placed in any of the results by any one who examines his researches ; and Ludwig, whose laboratory at Leipzic is the largest in the world, compares these experiments to injuries to a watch by means of a pistol shot ;* * See Hermann's "Human Physiology," translated by Gamgee.22 while the Editor of The Lancet (Nov. 10th, 1883), commenting on these facts, remarks : "Experiments led Flourens and all the chief physiologists of the day to the conclusion that no function was specially performed in any one geographical region of the cortex (of the brain), but that every part subserved the functions of which any was capable, and these experiments were made with as much care and as much skill as those which have led Fritsch, Hitzig, Ferrier and others to conclusions diametrically opposite. Moreover, in the full light of these latter researches, one of the most distinguished physiologists of the present day has come to conclusions not far removed from those of Flourens, and the author of the most popular text book of physiology now hesitates between the two opinions." It is thus evident that experiments are hopelessly at variance with each other, and that we can draw no safe conclusions from what they have done. Are we, then, to repeat, their experiments? God forbid! that would only render confusion worse confounded. No ; if we wish to get at the truth in this matter, we must simply carefully observe the symptoms of patients suffering from disease of the brain during life, and compare these symptoms with the lesions detected in the cerebral substance after death ; that is the only sure and safe guide to the truth, and it is to it that we owe all that we know FOR CERTAIN now of the localisation of the functions of the brain. Speaking on this point, Charcot says : "The only really decisive data, touching the cerebral pathology of man are, in my opinion, those developed according to the principles of the Anatomico Clinical Method. That method consists in ever confronting the functional disorders observed during life in man, with the lesions discovered and carefully located after death. To this method, I may justly say, WE OWE WHATEVER DEFINITE KNOWLEDGE WE HAVE OF BRAIN PATHOLOGY." He adds, "As for the localisation of certain cerebral functions, this method is not only the best, but the only one that can be employed." Again, Dr. Laborde, Professor of Practical Physiology, Paris, says : "The first victory of science over the impenetrable mysteries of the nerve functions--that most brilliant victory, the discovery of the exact seat of aphasia--was the result of bed side experience, which alone could accomplish it." He adds, "The study of this organ, the brain, if it is to bear fruit, MUST BE MADE ON MAN." Ferrier himself adds, the decisive settlement of such points must depend mainly on careful clinical and pathological research. "Experiments have led to different results in different hands." Dr. MacEwen, of Glasgow, located and operated on cases of brain disease with extraordinary success, guided only 23 by observation at the bed side and post mortem examinations, before Ferrier's experiments were heard of ; and Herman Ludimar, Professor of Physiology in the Zurich University, after experimenting on dogs, says, "The best method of investigation which is possible is the observation of cases of disease in the human subject in which the exact nature of the lesions is accurately ascertained after death." Again, Professor Charcot points out in his " Lecons sur les Localisations dans les Maladies Cerebrales," that "The utmost that can be learned from experiments on the brains of animals is the topography of the ANIMAL brain, and that it must still remain for the science of HUMAN ANATOMY AND CLINICAL INVESTIGATION to enlighten us in regard to the far more complex and highly differentiated nervous organization of our own species ; and, in fact, it is from the department of clinical and post mortem study that so far all our best data for brain localisation have been secured." Again, "Painstaking and thoughtful observers of cerebral diseases in man were actively and fruitfully at work in this direction more than ten years before the experimenter had sacrificed a single animal to the quest, and it has been repeatedly pointed out by those who are qualified to judge, that Nature continually presents us with ready-made experiments of the most delicate and suggestive kind, impossible for mechanical artifice to realise, on account of the conditions under which artifice must necessarily work."--(See Kingsford in Science, a monthly journal, for Feb. 7th, 1884). THE ANTISEPTIC TREATMENT OF WOUNDS. It is true that Sir Joseph Lister (in his evidence before the Royal Commission) stated that he had made experiments on animals in connection with his antiseptic system : but it is not true that such experiments have resulted in benefit to the human race, or that the antiseptic treatment of wounds is in any way due to such experiments. On the contrary, as Mr. Lawson Tait has pointed out, Sir Joseph's experiments with carbolized catgut as a ligature for arteries, while answering admirably in the horse and calf, failed miserably when tried on human beings, and "has cost many lives ;" while the treatment of patients with antiseptic dressings was carried out in the wards of the Infirmaries of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and London, upon patients suffering from all kinds of wounds, bruises, and putrefying sores. Such investigations were, without doubt, perfectly legitimate ; were on right lines ; and to them is due, and not to vivisection, all that we know of the antiseptic system. As to Hunter's treatment of aneurism, this was adopted, as Sir James Paget has pointed out (see Hunterian Oration, 1887), "Not as the result of any laborious physiological induction (experiments on animals) ; it was24 mainly derived from facts very cautiously observed in the wards and dead-house." Von Graefe assured me himself that he was led to adopt his treatment for glaucoma by noticing that eyes on which he had operated for artificial pupil, became softer in consequence of that operation. He said nothing whatever about experiments on animals, and I do not believe that he made any until he had tested and proved his operations on the patients in his Augen Clinique. Those detailed in the Times are so manifestly superfluous, clumsy, and apt to mislead, that I need not say anything more with regard to them. Galvani's discovery of electricity was due to experiments on dead frogs--"dalle morte rane"--not on living animals ; vivisection had nothing whatever to do with it. The anaesthetic properties of ether and chloroform were discovered by experiments upon human patients, not by vivisection of animals. Koch's inoculations with tubercle, which were adopted from experiments upon animals, have led to death from initial fever, the infection of the whole system of patients who merely suffered from localised disease, and to failure and terrible disappointment of patients subjected to it. Vivisection was not needed for the discovery of the properties of nitrate of amyl, nor indeed, so far as I can make out, of anything else ; and, after all, "It is not whether such and such a discovery was made by vivisection, but whether vivisection was indispensable to that discovery?" If there are any such discoveries, either made or to be made, I must candidly confess I do not know of them ; in fact, if anything could exceed the hideous cruelty of the whole business, it would be the childish absurdity of the claims to benefit which are constantly put forth by the advocates and promoters of the system. NOTE ON ANTHRAX.--The health and vital powers of the animals subjected to real inoculation are so depressed, that they die in very large proportion from various other diseases from which non-inoculated animals are free. This statement is founded upon experiments which were carried out in Buda-Pest and Kapuvar, in the report of which, quoted by Surgeon-general Gordon, I find the following :--"We cannot overlook the fact that after protective inoculation the deaths in which post mortem examinations indicated other diseases, such as pneumonia, pericarditis, catarrh, distoma, strangulus, and other diseases, occurred exclusively amongst the inoculated animals, and from a practical point of view it is pretty much the same whether the loss be caused by anthrax or other diseases." professors Koch and Klein and the Hungarian Commission have already unequivocally condemned the system, and Professor Peter, the well-known successor to Trosseau, declares that it is high time to raise a cry of alarm, and take steps to stop a practice which is indefensible in theory and disastrous in results. ACGould "THE FRIEND OF MAN--THE PREY OF THE VIVISECTOR." READ 'The Animals' Friend' 2d Monthly, including Children's Supplement. BOTH FREELY ILLUSTRATED. Policy--AGAINST ALL CRUELTY. Beautiful Bound Volumes, 2/6 each, post free. PUBLISHERS: GEORGE BELL & SONS, 6, York Street, Covent Garden LONDON, W.C.The London Anti-Vivisection Society, 32, Sackville Street, Piccadilly, London, W. Founded 1876. OBJECT--THE TOTAL ABOLITION OF VIVISECTION. MEANS EMPLOYED.--Lectures, Public Meetings, the Circulation of Papers and Pamphlets bearing upon Vivisection ; Petitions to Parliament. "Heartily sympathising with your efforts."--Extract from a letter from H.M. The Queen to the Secretary of this Society. Lord Shaftesbury.--"Vivisection "is an abominable sin." Justice Hawkins.--"I abominate vivisection ; should rejoice to see it legally suppressed." Sir Henry Irving.--"Fully in sympathy." The Anti-Vivisection Cause has had the support of Tennyson, Robert Browning, Thomas Carlyle, Cardinal Manning, Canon Liddon, Canon Wilberforce, General Sir Evelyn Wood, Bishop Fraser, Bishop Moorhouse, Bishop Barry, the Rev. C. H. Spurgeon, and other eminent men. FUNDS to protect the animals are URGENTLY NEEDED. Legacies should be left to " The London Anti-Vivisection Society." This is most important. Patrons : The Duke of Portland The Dowager Countess of Kintore The Dowager Duchess of Manchester The Dowager Marchioness of Ormonde The Countess of Lindsey The Earl of Lindsay The Countess of Lindsay. The Countess of Dundonald The Countess of Caithness The Countess of Roden The Countess of Norbury The Countess of Munster Lord Ernest Hamilton Lord Hatherton, C.M.G. Lord Leigh Lord Robartes The Bishop of Argyle and the Isles The Lord Bishop of Ontario Bishop Hellmuth Lady Archibald Lady Colquhoun Lady Anne Campbell The lady Madeleine Keith-Falconer The Lady Maud Keith-Falconer Sir Henry Hawkins Lady Hawkins Sir John Heron Sir J. Naesmith Bart. General W. C. E. Napier Canon Wilberforce Rev. Preb. Webb-Peploe Prof. Lawson Tait, M.D., F.R.C.S. James Sant, Esq., R.A. The Annual Report and Literature free on Application. The Committee most earnestly appeal for aid to enable them to carry on a more Vigorous Campaign. OFFICES : 32, SACKVILLE STREET, PICCADILLY, LONDON, W. Treasurer :--DR. WALL. Secretary :--SIDNEY G. TRIST. 3.98.lican plied confirmed drunken women with as much spirits as they could swallow, and applied a lighted match to their mouths in the endeavor to produce spontaneous combustion.--Zoophilist, Jan. '88, p. 147. Experiments in Scotland on six boys in a children's hospital with the drug paraldehyde--similar to chloral nad equally dangerous.--B. M. J., March 9, '89, P. 515. (Experiments afterward "continued on a cat and frogs.") Extensive series of experiments in 1890, on patients in the Insane Asylum at Voralburg, Austria. They experienced great suffering and begged that the treatment should not be continued. It was then carried on by force. The narrative was taken from the Report of the doctor who made the experiments (inoculations) and published in the pamphlet "Medical Experiments on Human Beings" by M. Voight of Leipsig, Germany.--1890. A German physician inoculated seven of his patients with crysipelas--the account being given by a physician in a lecture at Cambridge, Engl, which was one of a series arranged for the Church of England Young Men's Society and the Y. M. C. Association. The account was published in the Cambridge Chronicle and University Journal of March 14, 1890. "Not a word was uttered by anyone condemnatory of human experimentation." (None who heard it expected, of course, they would fall victimsto the practise.) Experiments on hospital children in Germany with an (electric) induction current; subjects, infants newly born to children of six years.--Provincial Medical Journal, May 2, 1891, p. 272. Injection of saliva of tuberculous animals into animals and a man, causing abscesses and paralysis.--Zoophilist, giving as authority the Gaz. de Osp. Nov. 21, 1891. Thirty-six experiments on children in St. Olga's Hospital Moscow, with various drugs.--P. M. J., May 2, 1892, p. 273. The cruel experiments by electricity and drugs on the exposed heart of a boy, August Wittman, in the Royal Surgical Hospital in Munich, is described at length in the pamphlet of Dr. Koch (the elder). It was translated and appeared in the Zoophilist, p. 101 in Sept. 1893. Experiments on fourteen children in Foundling Hospital at Stockholm, because "calves were hard to procure and keep." Detailed in a lecture by Dr. Carl Jansen before the Society of Swedish Doctors, May 12, 1893.--Zoophilist, Aug. '93, p. 82. "O, most of those things were done abroad," one exclaimes. So animal vivisection was first done abroad. It is now done as cruelly in American as abroad. (We furnish the records free.) And now that the subject of Vivisection is being thoroughly agitated, the vivisectors will take warning from the opposition that is growing up against it and we are not likely to find out immediately what really is being done with the patients in hospitals, for they die and can make so sign. Vivisection must be made unlawful. England has found that Restriction furnished no remedy for its abuses. It would be the same with America. We have quoted only from the records of recent years. Prior to these dates given we have the records of operations more inhuman even than these. There is no law to prevent their repetition anywhere. A Living Dog Bound Down for Experimentation. From La Physiologie Operatoire.--CLAUDE BERNARD. Published by the Illinois Anti-Vivisection Society, Aurora, Ill. ANTI-VIVISECTION Print. VIVISECTION AND HOSPITAL PATIENTS. There are people so constituted they recognize no animal rights. Affection, fidelity, happiness, innocence, appeal in vain to their sensibilities. The Supreme Ego demands and accepts the long drawn out, cruel and experimental sacrifice of the most admirable dumb life, without a twinge of conscience or an impulse of gratitude. And yet they claim the remarkable anomaly of mental construction that can view animal anguish with indifference, but human suffering with the keenest and most tender solicitude. Now, for the sake of argument, grant that animal suffering and sacrifice is in accordance with the law of infinite justice; that human suffering justly demands the most desperate measures for its alleviation; that we may set aside the common instincts of humanity and relieve the body at the expense of the soul--there is another danger connected with vivisection which is almost unknown to the body politic, and this is the danger to that part of humanity which is helpless, ignorant and largely pauperized--the homeless and friendless patients in the hospitals. In the early part of the present year (1894) the Victoria St. and International Society for the Protection of Animals from Vivisection published a second and enlarged edition of "Experiments on Hospital Patients," prepared by Mark Thornhill, late Judge of Sakarumpore, one of the clearest and most versatile writers on the subject. Mr. Thornhill cites numerous cases of this kind giving in each case his authority-- largely the records of the experimenters themselves. They comprise instances where drugs were administered or operations were performed with a purpose entirely foreign to the benefit of the patients and having no relation to the disorders effecting them, and from these we extract the following: Patient suffering from a painful skin disease. Cure purposely delayed in order to demonstrate to the students that nature alone, without treatment, would not effect it.--British Medical Journal, Jan. 7, '82. "Beautiful experiment" of inducing erysipelas in rabbits--and MEN.--B. M. J., Dec. 29, '83, p. 1298. Bargligi, and Italian experimenter, bought children of poor parents and inoculated them with matter from a leprous tumor.--Aug. Hirsh's Handbuch der Historisch Geographischen Pathologie, 2nd Abtheilung P. 32, 1883. The story of Mary Rafferty who was experimented upon and died in the Good Samaritan Hospital at Cincinnati, Ohio, has been widely published. She was admitted to the hospital suffering from some disease or accident on account of which portions of the skull were removed, leaving the brain exposed. Her recovery appearing hopeless, the attending physician experimented on the "functions of the brain" by thrusting needles therein and stimulating by galvanic or electric shocks-- following the experiments of Dr. Ferrier on cats and monkeys. Her death was attributed to these experiments.-- Condensed from Zoophilist, Dec. 1883. (The operators do not describe the actions of the human patient under this treatment, but one of Ferrier's victims, a cat, "screamed, gnawed its own legs and uttered long-continued cries." "A dog became mad with in half an hour.") Calabar bean having been found to produce epileptic fits in rabbits, was tried on human beings with similar results. --Wood's Therapeutics, p. 319. Experiments on patients with drugs by nine different physicians and surgeons; also with alcohol by five English physicians on persons of all ages, including children.--Ringer's Hand-book of Therapeutics, pp. 342-3, '86. Slowly dying patient in Edinburgh Hospital experimented upon until death ensued.--Journal of Physiology, Vol. XI, p. 109. Producing a loathsome disease by inoculation with matter from sores of persons suffering from it.--B. M. J., Jan. 9, '86. Experiment of producing convulsions in a woman by tickling and prickling her feet.--B. M. J., March 25, '87. In June, 1891, Professor Cornea in a paper on Cancer Grafting, read at the Academy of Medicine, Paris, described cases of grafting matter from a cancerous tumor on to the healthy breasts of two women, and the German papers generally justified the operations for the "advancement of science."--Condensed from Zoophilist. Found in Medical Press No. 2588, Dec 5, 1888. M. Victor Meunier states that Dr. [?] To the Medical Profession. DEAR SIRS :-- To the following statement we would respectfully ask your kind attention: At the World's Fair in Chicago, in 1893, a small exhibit, showing the practices of vivisection, was arranged. The crowd of eager inquirers (whose earnest attention it attracted) and the well nigh endless letters of inquiry since received, assure us that not only this important subject is not generally understood, but that it is fast becoming one of the leading questions of the day. We find there are many physicians to whom the atrocities of vivisection, as now practiced, are still an unknown story, while there are others who emphatically deny the statements we present. In prosecuting our determined agitation, our zeal is kindled by the testimony of eye-witnesses, and the personal records of experimenters;--while our bulwark of support is in the decision and co-operation of many of the great Lights who, in England and elsewhere, adorn your most honored profession. We therefore feel exceedingly sure of our position; for the cruel system which we attack has been condemned and repudiated by men of exceptionally brilliant experience, whose judgment is of special value in that, having practiced vivisection, they now condemn with fullest understanding, not only its cruelty but its uselessness as well. Indeed, no discussion regarding this momentous question can be conclusive which does not accord place to the opinions thus deliberately formed by the eminent authorities whom we are privileged to quote, as follows: Dr. Charles Bell Taylor, F. R. C. S., Fellow of the Medical Society of London, in an address before the Medico Chirurgical Society, Nottingham, England, Nov. 16th, 1892, stated: "Galvani's discovery of electricity was due to experiments on dead frogs--dalle morte rane--not on living animals. Vivisection had nothing whatever to do with it. "The anaesthetic properties of ether and chloroform were discovered by experiments upon human patients, not by vivisection of animals. "After all, it is not whether such and such a discovery was made by vivisection, but whether vivisection was indispensable to that discovery.--2-- "In fact, if anything could exceed the hideous cruelty of the whole business it would be the childish absurdity of the claims to benefit which are constantly put forth by the advocates and promoters of the system. "No good ever came out of vivisection since the world began, and in my humble opinion no good ever can. "The opening of living animals has done more to perpetuate error than to enforce the just views taken from nature and from the natural sciences. "Experiments upon living animals have never been the means of discovering truth. On the contrary they have frequently led the sugeon astray." He furthermore adds that he cordially detests the horrid system of cutting open living, quivering, sentient bodies, as sentient as our own, in the supposed interest of science; and that he does so on three grounds; first, on account of the great cruelty involved; next, on account of its demoralizing influence; and lastly, because the results obtained were so unsatisfactory, so very meagre, so constantly misleading. Dr. John H. Clark, in "our Meanest Crime" says: "So far from vivisection saving human beings from being experimented upon, it actually necessitates it." We quote from others, as follows: "I have been trying for many years to find out what the blessings are that vivisection has conferred on the race, but I have not succeeded." . . . "The question is one which the Christian church cannot afford to overlook. The iniquity is of great and constantly increasing magnitude."--DR. EDWARD BERDOE, M. R. C. S. (In London Globe, Aug. 3, 1892.) (Address to chapter of Rugeby, Oct. 15, 1891.) "These experiments are done frequently in a most reckless manner, and if known to the public would bring the reputation of certain scientific men far below what it should be. I have reasons to believe that sufferings incidental to such operations are prolonged in a very shocking manner." --SIR WILLIAM FERGUSSON, Bart., F. L. S., late Surgeon to the Queen "Vivisection is to my mind a desecration of the highest objects to which the scientific mind can aspire, to the lowest and most barren modes of inquiry." --GEORGE MACILWAIN, F. R. C. S. Claude Bernard (the greatest vivisector of France) acknowledged: "Without doubt our hands are empty today." + Prof. Lawson Tait, G. R. C. S., the foremost abdominal surgeon of England, says concerning the claim for vivisection: "The more I know of the question the more fully convinced do I become of the verdict that will ultimately be passed upon it both by the public and by the medical profession. For the physiologist working upon the living animal, there are two strong objections; there is a strong and wide-spread public sentiment, and he tabulates results of the most uncertain and even quite contradictory kind. "As regards the discovery of the circulation of the blood by Harvey, * * * my answer to the question 'whether he made any substantial contribution to his + See "Uselessness of Vivisection." The reader is also referred to the exceedingly valuable pamphlet, "The Futility of Experiments with Drugs on Animals," by Dr. Edward Berdoe, Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians at Edinburgh; Member of the Royal College of Surgeons, England; Licentiate of the Society of Apothecaries, London; Member of the British Medical Association; Gold Medallist in Medicine, Medical Scholar of the London Hospital, etc., etc., etc. Price 10c each. Address, New England Anti-Vivisection Society, 15 Court Square, Boston, Mass. --3-- success by his experiments on living animals' is obtained from his own writings, and I say that he made no such contribution; indeed far from it, for he was often led astray by his vivisections; and it seems to me, as a skilled anatomist, that the circulation of the blood could not be either discovered or demonstrated by any other method than the use of the injecting syringe, the microscope and a dead body. "With regard to the efficacy of nitrate of amyl in angina pectoris, having had occasion some years ago to watch its employment in certain cases, I was so alarmed at its violence and uncertainty that I would never again sanction its use. "Concerning the results of brain surgery . . . . . the most brilliant results were obtained ten or twelve years ago by Dr. William MacEwen of Glasgow, the greatest living surgeon, and he devised successful operations entirely by the symptoms of his patients. "Concerning the tying and torsion of arteries, I am in a position to speak with some authority, because I myself have performed experiments on living animals and have found how futile they are." In speaking of abdominal surgery, that being his specialty, Prof. Tait says: "The great reduction of mortality in this direction is due wholly to methods such as only experiments on human patients could indicate. Experiments on animals could and did teach nothing, for thousands of animals every year have been experimented on for centuries, and nothing whatever has been learned from the wholesale vivisection. I have had, as is well known, some share in this advance, and I say without hesitation that I have been led astray again and again by the published results of experiments on animals and have had to discard them altogether." Prof. Tait speaks in the strongest terms of disapproval of Pasteur's remedy for hydrophobia and Koch's remedy for tuberculosis. In conclusion, Prof. Tait says: "I urge against vivisection the strong argument that it has proved useless and misleading, that in the interest of true science its employment should be stopped, so that the energy and skill of scientific investigators should be directed into better and safer channels. I hail with satisfaction the arousing which is evident in the public mind on this question, and I feel confident that before long the alterations which I have had to confess in my own case will spread among the members of my useful profession." In regard to the carbolic ligature concerning which vivisectors have made so many boasts, Prof. Tail writes, in a letter dated July 21st, 1882: "If the carbolic ligature had never been tried on animals, where it seems to answer admirably, it would never have been tried on human patients, where it failed miserably and has cost many lives." In a letter to the Birmingham Daily Post, Dec. 12th, 1884, he writes: "Like every member of my profession I was brought up in the belief that by vivisection had been obtained almost every important fact in physiology, and that many of our most valued methods of saving life and diminishing suffering had resulted from experiments on the lower animals. I now know that nothing of the sort is true concerning the art of surgery, and not only do I not believe that vivisection has helped the surgeon one bit, but I know that it has often led him astray." "I believe the whole method of experiments on animals, is scientifically speaking, absolutely uncertain and untrustworthy. Vivisection is most surely doomed. I have yet to hear of a single case of discovery made by experiments on helpless animals which might not just as well be ascertained by clinical investigation." --DR. F. S. ARNOLD, Manchester, Eng. In Speech at Church Congress, Oct., 1892. --4-- "No sufficient analogies exist in the animal kingdom from which to draw useful conclusions." & --SURGEON GENERAL GORDON, M. D. C. B., Hon. Physician to the Queen. "I am opposed to Vivisection. I consider it brutal and useless." R. B. MCCLEARY, M. D., Galesburg, Ill. "Vivisection is horribly cruel and practically useless." --J. M. STEWART, M. D., Pres. Peoria County (Ill.) Scientific Association. "No reliable, no satisfactory evidence of the normal function of any organ can be obtained by vivisection, while the poor dumb victim is writhing in agony! Nor can accurate judgment be formed, or legitimate conclusions drawn of physiological processes under the profound anaesthesia requisite to obliterate sensation and voluntary motion.--TIMOTHY DWIGHT STOWE, M. D., Mexico, N. Y. "I do not consider there is any excuse for vivisection under any circumstances whatever. There is diabolical knowledge that only degrades and leads downward. People ought to be warned against employing a physician who practices or approves it. ++ There are things that are dearer than life. We can conceive of things even more sacred than that of prolonging life. The whole diabolism leads astray and prevents the minds of those who pursue the ignus fatuus from being receptive of truths that would humanely help suffering humanity." JAMES W. THOMSON, New York. "It is contrary to the best methods of hygiene, sanitation and dietetics, and the proper study of therapeutics and materia medica. It is entirely opposed to the sentiment of advancing civilization. It is inhuman." R. N. FOSTER, M. D., Chicago, Ill. We have in our possession similar statements from many medical men who, in the strongest terms of which language is capable, denounce Vivisection as useless, cruel, barbarous, inhuman. (Mailed to any address on receipt of 5 cents in stamps, by the Illinois Anti-Vivisection Society, Aurora, Ill.) Over 500 Physicians and Surgeons in the United States have affixed their signatures to our Petition for the Total Abolition of Vivisection--and fully as many more in the Old World are reported from reliable sources as having denounced the practice in unequivocal terms. + We believe there must be many physicians to whom an esprit de corps (imposing silence) will become less binding than a personal obligation to uphold with us so great a moral issue. * The first Vivisection in the United States was done in the University of Buffalo before the class in Physiology by Dr. J. C. Dalton in 1851. Buffalo News, May 3, 1896. "American is honeycombed with the hideous practice, and many believe that the very future of civilized society hangs in the balance, to rise or fall with the spurning or acceptance of this hideous excrescence upon the body politic by it." ELLIOTT DE BELLEVILLE PRESTON, M. D., Boston, Mass., May 14th, 1896. & Hence the infamous Ohio bill, which, recognizing the misleading dissimilarities between animals and men, demanded criminals for victims of experimentation. ++ It is becoming more and more a familiar question both here and abroad concerning the family practitioner: "Is he a Vivisector?" It is well known to some of us that owing to the exposure of his cruel experiments a New York physician admitted that he had lost two thirds of his practice + List of names and addresses also furnished. * See "Vivisection as a Method of Education in American Colleges and Universities." Also "Alfort," sent on receipt of 5 cents in stamps, by the Illinois Anti-Vivisection Society, Aurora, Ill. --5-- Prof. Henry J. Bigelow, M. D., late Professor in the Medical School at Harvard, says: "The horrors of vivisection have supplanted the thrilling fascination of the old unetherized operation upon the human sufferer. . . . Their recorded phenomena, stored away by the physiological inquisitor on dusty shelves, are mostly of as little present value to man as the knowledge of a new comet-- contemptible compared with the price paid for it in agony and torture. For every inch cut by one of these experimenters in the quivering tissues of the helpless dog or rabbit or guinea pig, let him insert a lancet one-eighth of an inch into his own skin; . . and whenever he seizes with ragged forceps a nerve or spinal marrow, the seat of all that is concentrated and exquisite in agony, or literally tears out nerves by their roots, let him cut only an eighth of an inch further, ans he may have some faint suggestion of the atrocity he is perpetrating, when the guinea pig shrieks, the poor dog yells, the noble horse groans and strains-- under . . . . the cold blooded cruelties now more and more practiced under the authority of science. "It is dreadful to think how many poor animals will be subjected to excruciating agony as one medical college after another becomes permeated with the idea that vivisection is a part of modern teaching, and that to hold sway with other institutions, they, too, must have their vivisector, their mutilated dogs, their guinea pigs, their rabbits, their chamber of horrors to advertise as a laboratory." Dr. Philip G. Peabody, of Boston, Mass., testifies as follows: "I have for years past personally witnessed an immense amount of vivisection of all kinds, from the least to the most terrible, and of many kinds of animals, from the horse to the guinea pig. I have never yet in all my experience seen any anaesthetics in, or about, or in use in, any laboratory, with one exception. I have a personal acquaintance with many vivisectors, including a number of the best known ones in this country and Europe. I have hundred of times conversed with them. No vivisector has claimed, or pretended, to use any anaesthetic, in conversation with me. They have always freely admitted that they never used them." * Dr. Peabody tells us the one exception mentioned was that of a dog undergoing for about two hours a very agonizing experiment, and to stop his howls (as he was informed) a small rubber vessel was for a few times balanced some distance from his nose, and for a few seconds at a time it seemed to relieve his agony. "The use of this chloroform," he adds, "told me more eloquently than volumes would have done, how utterly false was the pretense that animals are saved from suffering by anaesthetics. As a famous English doctor said; 'It is the public who are anaesthetized, not the animals.' " A well-known writer says: "The man who cuts a hoof from a living horse is capable of any crime that does not require courage. Knowledge of every nerve and vein, of every cartilage and joint, can be obtained by the dissection of those who have ceased to feel. Millions of living animals have been cut in pieces. Millions of experiments have been tried. All the nerves have been touched; every possible agony has been inflicted." The merciless brutality which led a student at Alfort, near Paris (the Horse's Hell, so-called), when questioned, to reply that he was "firing a horse's nose as a pastime" (the wretched animal immovably secured, unetherized, in a heavy iron framework), can be easily cultivated, nay, is being cultivated, developed, in different American institutions today. There can be no question but that lawless, * No reference is here made to the use of the pitiless curare--"hellish woorali"--as Tennyson called it. --6-- cruel indulgence caters to and develops the worst tendencies possible to human nature. + Prof. Lawson Tait, President of Mason's Science College, Birmingham, England, stated at the Church Congress, "It is a satisfactory matter to know that the Council of Mason's College will have none of it (vivisection), and that the governing body of the New University College, of Nottingham, has recently decided similarly, and the Medical School of Queen's College is now united entirely with the Science School of Mason's College." John Fletcher, M. D., Lecturer on Physiology and Medical Jurisprudence at the Edinburgh Medical School, said: "None of the functions of animals need be seen in action in order to be perfectly well-understood; none certainly will be exhibited in action in the present lectures. During many years' experience in lecturing on this subject, and in delivering courses of more than ten or twelve times the duration of those proposed at present, I have never yet found it necessary in a single instance to expose a suffering animal, even to students of medicine, and I certainly shall not begin now." (Thank God, several of our American colleges have already caught this humane idea.) "I would shrink with horror," said Dr. Edward Haughton, B. A., M. D., of the Royal Commission," from accustoming large classes of young men to the sight of animals under vivisection. Science would gain nothing, and the world would have let loose upon it a set of young devils." & "Kingsley speaks of the 'sleeping devil that is in the heart of man.' But you may say it is the lower nature which we possess in common with the carnivora. It is just this: . . that the sight of a living, bleeding and quivering organism most undoubtedly does act in a peculiar way upon what Dr. Carpenter calls the emotiono-motor nature in us. I know that many men are superior to it, but I beg to say that if we are talking of legislation we are not to legislate for the few but for the masses, who, I submit, are not always good." PROFESSOR ROLLISTON, before the Royal Commission. Dr. Anthony gave his testimony to the same purpose, and said: "There is a morbid curiosity which is well-known to medical men with reference to operations of all kinds. There are a certain number of persons who are very fond of coming to see different operations at the hospitals. I look upon that, and particularly upon the desire of seeing these operations on animals, as something very, very morbid indeed." We want a law to make such crimes an offense. At the International Congress, recently held at Buda Pesth (1896), the votes in support of Dr. Forster and Herr Warnus' motion, were: For the total abolition of vivisection.....177. For restriction.....17. The point in Dr. Forster's speech which was voted upon and accepted was: 'Vivisection ought to be prohibited by law as a criminal offense." + When the terrible experiments performed in the Veterinary Department of the University of Pennsylvania (under the direction of Professor Zuill, a graduate of Alfort,) were reported to the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, by the well-known veterinary surgeon Dr. Gadsden, such was the tyranny of science that not even an arrest of the persons engaged in this awful business could be secured. & How many of our recent murderers, like Almy, Carlisle Harris, Durant, the White Chapel murderer, Holmes, etc., etc., received the unconscious inspiration of their terrible ending during their medical studies. --7-- Last winter (1896) a bill was presented to Congress, which, asking for Restrictive measures for the District of Columbia, aimed at lessening the abuses incident to this terrible practice. In Massachusetts, about the same time, in response to urgent inquiry as to what was being done in our colleges and universities, a bill was likewise presented to the legislature asking for inspection by suitably appointed persons. These bills, presented by very able counsel, and having the determined support of many names of great influence, were both defeated by those who wished neither inspection nor restriction. The following from a report before the committee in Washington explains itself: EXTRACT FROM REPORT SHOWING EXISTENCE OF ABUSES. 510 FIFTH STREET N. W., WASHINGTON, D. C., APRIL 15, 1896. HON. J. H. GALLINGER, United States Senate: It was my lot for a number of years to be engaged in the microscopical division of the Army Medical Museum and I saw practiced the most inhuman and barbarous mutilations of the dumb animals under the supervision and with the sanction of the United States officers in charge. A desired part or section of the animal would be removed, not under anaesthesia, and the poor beast would be then placed back in its cage or vessel until it suited the convenience of the operator to help himself to another portion, so long as the animal would survive these tortures. I have thus seen animals with eyes, section of brain and other parts removed, and kept in reserve for future experiments for a number of days, and all for the verification and repetition of results obtained and published years ago. These unnecessary horrors, practiced openly with sanction of United States medical officers, make me think that stringent laws are needed to restrict such proceedings. None should be permitted not calculated to give additional useful information, and then under perfect anaesthesia, and under the supervisor of a board of competent men assigned to that duty. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, L. E. RAUTERBERG, M. D. A recent writer, repudiating as useless the practices of vivisection says: "The medical problems which confront us today are truly appalling. Witness the sudden deaths as daily reported--the insanity, the paralysis, the heart failure overtaking those in life's prime--also the acute and semi-invalidism which overshadows so many homes. Some broken law running through these lives, with its attendant suffering, is evidenced in them all. The diseases which afflict us are not God-given --inherent in our nature. The air we breathe, the food we take, the mental strain which saps the life--these are the avenues by which disease approaches. It is for true Scientific Investigation (not vivisection)--working along the lines of inquiry as to the causes (and the remedy) of these afflictions, to reveal and emphasize to us the conditions which shall assure to suffering humanity that full degree of health which it is our birth right and our privilege to claim and enjoy. Knowledge to benefit mankind must come, not by experiments which debase the--8-- operator and inflict anguish untold upon the lower creation, but by presenting to the world that higher standard of possible health which shall inspire adequate desire to live in accordance with those benign laws which alone make possible its attainment. If, as has been said, our personal responsibility for any evil must be measured by our lack of effort for its removal, must not those who refuse to voice the wrongs of these helpless creatures, hold themselves in large measure responsible for the abuses heaped upon them? Gentlemen, we appeal to you to lend us your valuable assistance, and thus strengthen the ever-increasing majority who demand that this great stain upon civilization--casting its dark shadow also upon your honored profession--shall be investigated and checked; and we would respectfully urge that this matter be laid before your medical societies and that some definite action concerning the same shall be taken, which shall help hasten the day when these abuses and cruelties shall cease, and when more humane and more reasonable methods of research shall characterize every effort to relieve human suffering. We are looking anxiously for the time when eminent American physicians shall follow the example of New England's great surgeon, Dr. Henry J. Bigelow, in denouncing before their medical societies, and elsewhere, the terrible cruelties inflicted in useless vivisection. GEO. T. ANGELL. Respectfully submitted by the President and one hundred and twenty-five Vice-Presidents of the Illinois Anti-Vivisection Society. FOR SALE BY THE ILLINOIS ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY, AURORA, ILL. Price $1.00 per 100 LONDON ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY, 32, Sackville Street, London, W. Hospitals & Vivisection. A complaint has recently been made against anti-vivisectionists on the ground that they have done great injury to hospitals by calling attention to the fact that vivisection is practised in the medical schools attached to most of these institutions. On this account, the opponents of vivisection have been attacked, in the usual manner, by accusations of ignorance, inconsistency, sentimentalism, and so forth. Now, I do not propose to defend anti-vivisectionists from these charges, nor to enter into the vexed question of their merits or demerits. These are entirely beside the point, seeing that it is not the qualities of anti-vivisectionists, but the nature of vivisection that is of real moment to us all. Granting, for the time being, everything and anything that their worst enemies have said of them, the great question which lies at the root of the whole controversy still awaits an answer from the conscience and reason of civilised humanity : --Can man be held justified in pushing his advantage over the animals to the extent of torturing them for his own ends; and if so, on what foundation are we to place the principles of justice, mercy, or chivalry towards the weak ; and how can we then reasonably claim respect for a law of right as distinct from that of might? In other words, what basis is left for a moral law at all, if we assert the right of man to torture the weakest of his fellow-beings? This is a question that we are bound to consider, whatever be the faults and foibles of agitators who assert that animals have at least a claim to be held exempt from torture at our hands. I now propose to insert an extract from a paper on this subject, because in it the authorities for the statements made 2 are carefully given, and these I have had verified by reference to the works quoted. Pro-vivisectors are fond of assuring those who have not informed themselves on the subject, that experiments on living animals are not at all cruel; that vivisectors are singularly kind and humane men, who may safely be trusted not to commit any act of inhumanity. As a reply to such assurances, one can but remind vivisectors of their own words; of published descriptions of their experiments in their own books, papers, and physiological journals. Readers may judge if the experiments are cruel. Is it cruel, for instance (to quote the article before referred to)--"Is it cruel to take a number of dogs, to burn and scald them to death by pouring boiling hot water on different parts of their body, several times in succession, or by covering them with turpentine and setting fire to it?" (Royal Commission Report, Dr. Carpenter, Q. 5,616). Vivisectors have done this. Is it cruel to cut open the stomach of a dog, to insert the ear of a live rabbit and fasten it there until it was eaten away by the gastric juice of the dogs stomach? (Dr. Noe Walker, Q. 4,888). Vivisectors have done this. Is it cruel to cut open the bellies of cats, cut away some of their intestines, slice off parts of their livers, and leave them to die after intense suffering lasting over twenty-nine days? (Royal Commission Report, Dr. Legg, pp. 372-373, also 256-257). Vivisectors have done this. Is it cruel to saw open a skull of a monkey, cut into some parts of its brain, thrust red-hot wires into the opening, inject acids of various kinds into the cavities, and keep it alive in this state for weeks or months? (Experiments by Dr. Ferrier, Royal Commission Report, p. 226, pp. 166-169. Reports of Wakefield Lunatic Asylum, Appendix to Royal Commission Report). Vivisectors have done this. This, aye, and worse than this, if it is possible to conceive." This, of course, is but a glimpse of the terrible world that is revealed to the student of physiological works; and nothing but a study of those works can possible give an idea of the awfulness of the 3 tortures, inflicted, of the number of animals tortured (generally to disprove the assertion of some rival physiologist); or of the perils and sinister consequences to which this practice is rapidly leading. Most persons, who give their money to hospitals do so under the supposition that it is used solely to aid the sick and poor. It is only common justice that they should at least be made aware that almost every one of the larger hospitals in London and the provinces has attached to it a Medical School, where licensed vivisectors pursue their researches on the bodies of living animals. It is also a question for the consideration of subscribers, whether the arrangement is satisfactory for the patients, seeing that even medical men are human, and therefore liable to the particular temptations of their profession; and liable, moreover, to feel those temptations exactly in proportion to the interest which they take in their work, and in the general problems of medical science. Let us remember that these men--no worse, indeed, but presumably not much better than other people have become perfectly familiar with the scenes of the laboratory, where animals re "put to the question" in true mediaeval fashion, in order that they may yield up, under the torture, some of nature's secrets; let us remember that these students of science have been daily schooled by their work and its associations, to justify this attempt to buy their knowledge at the expense of living creatures; let us remember that, imbued with this idea, and thoroughly used to the sight of intense suffering, they go to the bedside of poor and ignorant patients, who lie practically at their mercy; and then let us ask ourselves whether the temptation to test the results of recent laboratory researches on these patients must not be overwhelmingly strong. It does not follow, of course, that the temptation is often yielded to; nevertheless, it is notorious that scandals on this subject have arisen, and it can hardly be thought satisfactory that matters should be so arranged as to place the medical 4 attendants at hospitals under a constant and importunate temptation of this kind. After all, if, as pro-vivisectors hold, the good of the important many may be justly purchased by the infliction of agony on the unimportant few, there is, in truth, no real dereliction from that principle if a vivisectional doctor should try to acquire valuable medical knowledge by means of the suffering of some obscure, ignorant, and perhaps useless patient. Is that the view taken by supporters of hospitals? If not, there is every reason why they should refuse to subscribe to any hospital whose directors cannot assure them that no vivisection is practised in their medical schools. I have attempted to give a faint idea of the nature of vivisection on the evidence of vivisectors themselves, and I ask for a dispassionate consideration of the subject in its moral aspects, and in its bearings on the whole question of moral obligation; and I deprecate the favourite syllogism to which the arguments of most pro-vivisectors can be reduced, viz., anti-vivisectors are sentimental and ridiculous faddists, therefore vivisection is justifiable and laudable. LONDON ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY. Secretary, SIDNEY G. TRIST, 32, SACKVILLE STREET, LONDON, W. Price 1s. 3d. per hundred, Post Free, to be had of the Secretary, of whom may be had also a list of publications on the subject. RECORDER PRINTING Co., 31, Church Street, Stoke Newington, N.LONDON ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY, 32, Sackville Street, London, W. THE SANCTUARY OF MERCY. IN studying the relation of the human to the animal races, I have been greatly struck by the different spirit displayed by writers as regards this question -a question profound in its importance both to man and beast, but which, nevertheless, has scarcely yet risen into the realm of human speculation and morality. Ore seldom meets with any definite and fully thought-out statement on the matter : the disposition of the writer is displayed in chance utterances, passing allusions, which indicate the nature of the feeling rather than formulate an opinion. As yet, little or no attempt has been made to civilise our relationship with the teeming, eager life that swarms around us, a life infinitely more multitudinous and far-spread than our own, filling the world with more pangs and joys and fears and sensations, in one day, than its human inhabitants can produce in a year. Although, as yet, the whole dramatic, pathetic existence of these multitudes is practically unknown to us, I have found in almost all the poets -and invariably in the very great ones -a tender sympathy and sense of kinship with these creatures of the earth and air. Poets and seers have shown that their hearts are large enough to include in their sympathy not only the dog and horse - so full of appeal in their generous fidelity to man -but the poor, hunted, despised creatures, whose very existence is an affront to our noble selves, whose poor little lives may be torn and tortured out of them by any savagely-ingenious device that our High Superiority may discover for the infliction of a dreadful death upon the helpless "little brothers" whom St. Francis loved so tenderly. Our poets have felt, in flashes, by the very compulsion of the poet's heart, the great, beautiful truth of universal kinship, the unity of all life and its profound mystery; a love that stops at no poor barriers of genus and species, but goes out broadly and beneficiently, as some great wind of spring that thaws the aching earth and releases the ice-bound streams, and calls forth flowers and green2 things and all the joy of the world. In this we must see the image of our hope. We are striving, in this wonderful age, to find a cure for human wretchedness, to break down miserable barriers of class and creed, to unite the human race in bonds of brotherhood, to stimulate the sympathies and calm the strife and suffering of the human lot. In this revolt against injustice and cruelty, are the unfortunate animals to be eternally left out in the cold? Are we to proclaim peace and goodwill to all men and yet remain the savage tyrants and tormentors of the beings who stand most in need of mercy, from their utter helplessness? The inconsequence, the treachery, the meanness of such exclusion must strike every generous heart and sound intellect merely when it is stated! Peace and goodwill to all that live -surely that must be the watchword of the future. Be my benediction said, With my hand upon thy head, Gentle fellow creature! When shall we be able, as a race, to repeat in one great chorus those tender words of Mrs. Browning? In our present efforts towards a nobler, juster, kinder relationship of man to man we shall learn many things, discover many errors and many moral truths little suspected. And of these I think the greatest and the least suspected in its full meaning and amplitude is that of our kinship and our duty to the creatures who have to find in us their Providence. By whatever means and methods we may strive towards a better social state, let it never be forgotten that, in the last resort, salvation lies in the heart of man, or nowhere; and that all things which tend to harden that human heart, to bind it in a frosty spell of pitiless self-seeking -no matter how much the results may seem to be our temporal advantage -must, perforce, help to destroy the impulses and sympathies that make for peace social happiness. That which teaches us to torment the weak for any purpose whatsoever, and to inflict not swift death but slow torture on any living thing, will assuredly help to annul the efforts, however earnest and however wise, that may be made to establish peace and justice among the suffering nations. Strange that a thing so obvious should need insisting upon! It is sheer madness to ignore the very source and life-spring of human weal or woe -the heart and brain of man. Yet of this madness the present generation is guilty, since it allows learned -enter- 3 professors, on the plea of doing good to our bodies, to ruin our souls; since it still permits a law to remain on the Statute Book which gives a licence to physiologists to take a living, trembling creature -dog, cat, rabbit, frog -to tie it down on a board or trough, and there to cut it open and dissect its nerves and organs 1 : pierce its brain with red-hot wire, 2 fill its veins with gelatin, prussian blue, or any other substance that may seem good to its tormentor 3 : to cause inflammation of bones by inserting a red-hot needle as deeply as possible, 4 bake it alive, 5 pierce its liver with a needle, 6 inflame its eyes be piercing and the drawing a thread through the cornea 7 : inoculate the same sensitive organs with virus till they rot away in a putrefying sore 8 : inoculate horrible diseases into the blood 9 : create agonising inflammation of tissue 10 : inflict the lengthened horrible suffering of rabies 11 : make learned researchers in the "paths of sensation" 12 and the nature of pain 13 -experiments that go on often for hours, and often require the victims to be kept alive in its agony for days and even months. 14 And all this is done ostensibly in the interests of mankind! All this is done to make human existence pleasanter and more comfortable! Verily, I think that vivisectors are doing their level best to make human life absolutely intolerable! Can any man be really willing that agony so shocking shall be undergone on the off-chance of his gaining something from it? If he cannot endure that thought for himself, if his very 1 Prof. C. S. Boy's Experiments, as reported in the Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, May 23rd, 1881, &c., &c. 2 Prof. David Ferrier, "The Functions of the Brain." 3 Handbook for the Physiological Laboratory, pp. 97, 104, 113. 4 Handbook for the Physiological Laboratory, p. 159. 5 Drs. Lauder-Brunton and Theodore Cash, October number of "THE PRACTITIONER," 1884. The animals baked were dogs. 6 Handbook for the Physiological Laboratory, p. 160. 7 Handbook for the Physiological Laboratory, pp. 160-1-2. 8 Dr. E. Klein, F.R.S., "Further Report on the Etiology of Diphtheria." (Appendic B) I quote this not from original work (which cannot be obtained at British Museum), but from various writers who have succeeded in obtaining it. 9 BRITISH MEDICAL HOURNAL, 1891, &c., &c. 10 BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1882, Feb. 11, p. 645. 11 Dr. Borel, in the PALL MALL GAZETTE, August, 1889, &c., &c. 12 (a) Prof. David Ferrier, "Functions of the Brain." (b) JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY, vol. xiii, p. 773, December, 1892, &c. 13 Mantegazza, "Fisiologia del Dolore" (Physiology of Pain) 14 (a) Baron Weber, "Torture Chamber of Science." (b) Royal Commission, QQ. 416, 5362, &c., &c.4 manhood revolts, as it surely must revolt, at the idea of this wholesale martyrdom for his sake, how can he bear to doom his fellow-men to the same intolerable burden. Good heavens! Of what unholy amalgam of flint and steel do the vivisectors supposed human hearts to be made, that they dare to tell us they commit such deeds on our behalf, tempting our baseness with promises of gain? What an insult is that bait! To what low, ungenerous qualities in us does the learned physiologist make his only too successful appeal! Every day, with out consent, under our laws, all over the Christian and civilised world, this anguish of dumb creatures is being suffered. And let it not be forgotten that vivisection is practised at an ever-increasing rate, as the official returns show, and that it grows more ruthless and more terrible every year, as by the very law of our nature it is bound to do, unless some reaction sets in, unless some great national outcry is made against the practice of State-licensed cruelty. For the honour of human nature, let us abolish it in justice to these helpless ones : do not let us wait until we do it in sheer terror for ourselves! The practice is gradually extending to human subjects who are poor and helpless enough to be safely used in that capacity. Are we to sit still and acquiesce till human vivisection becomes an open and "respectable" industry? Surely the people of England who possesses so powerful a voting influence will not be so blind as to let it go on unopposed. Their own interests, if nothing else, ought to rouse them to resist. They have but to question candidates for elections, and to refuse to vote for those who will not oppose the practice, and the law which charters it would have to be repeated. It is because these savageries are committed by men who are respected and admired that they are so terribly dangerous to our national morality, and to our progress, in all its aspects. The crimes of acknowledged criminals are ominous enough, but they need scarcely be considered in comparison with the chartered and applauded cruelties of men (probably honestly believing themselves to be not only justified but active in well-doing) who are looked up to as distinguished members of an honourable profession, and who are creating a moral standard -or rather destroying one -with every breath they draw. Can this be called exaggeration if we remember that such men as these spend their whole lives in subjecting gentle and unoffending creatures to the tortures of the damned? If only man and women could realise but -enter- 5 for one moment those tortures, I am convinced that the practice of vivisection would be swept away in a great burst of national fury before another year had passed! But alas, nothing can reveal that hell on earth to the multitudes of men and women, absorbed, perforce, in their business and in their own many griefs. But let it be remembered that the animals in their anguish have no redress, no possibility of appeal, of combination, no consolation of faith, hope, or religion ; none of the exaltation of voluntary sacrifice. There is nothing for them but the dark unimaginable horror of dumb, hopeless, ghastly suffering. Dr. Hoggan tells us that after going through three campaigns where he saw many a sad sight, he saw none sadder than when the dogs were brought up from the cellars to be vivisected, the poor creatures appearing terrified, as if they knew that some cruel fate awaited them. They would try to appeal for mercy by begging, or licking the hands of their pitiless torturers ; but always in vain.1 Once it is recorded that the students were touched by the appeals of a poor little fox terrier, and tried to persuade the professor to spare it ; but the learned gentleman said that he would teach them to give way to no such maudlin sensibility, and he vivisected the creature cruelly then and there, and also kept him to serve for further experiment on the following day.2 People often talk judicially and "moderately" about vivisection, as if it were a question merely of human welfare and of medical science. Let me entreat those who take that view to try to realise the fate of a creature, seized and bound by strong ruthless hands, and tortured slowly cleverly, delicately, exquisitely, sometimes with the muscles of the larynx cut,3 so that the operator shall not be disturbed by its groans and cries ; sometimes under the spell of the "hellish drug" curare (so called by Tennyson), which holds every muscle still and stiff -though the victim lies unbound in his trough -so that movement or utterance is impossible, while at the same time the whole elaborate network of sensory nerves is left free -nay, according to some experts, with heightened sensitiveness -to perform their terrible work of conveying sensation through the delicate, branching fibres to all parts of the agonised body ; 1 Letter to the Morning Post, Feb. 2nd, 1875. 2 Told to a friend of Miss Cobbe by a student who was present at the experiment -"The Modern Rack," by Frances Power Cobbe. 3 Prof. Schiff, on "The Physiology of the Digestion." Quoted by Baron von Weber, in "The Torture Chamber of Science."6 a network that seems to form a horrible garment of anguish in which the creatures lies still and stark in an unimaginable martyrdom.1 If after really understanding and conceiving all this, men and women could continue to sanction vivisection, then I think we should be driven to the awful conclusion that the average human being is so black and savage at heart that the sooner he is swept into nothingness the better " a creature beyond praying for -and not worth the effort of prayer! But they decree or acquiesce in, the vivisectors having very cleverly and consistently managed to slur over the awful facts with graceful euphemisms -to put it mildly- so that vivisection is actually becoming to many another name for Science herself -Science the gentle and beneficent! I firmly believe that some day it will be recognised by all that vivisection is, in fact, the arch-enemy of Science, whose teaching has ever been that Nature is one is essence, and that her laws are harmonious and not contradictory ; but if her laws are not contradictory, how can it possibly be that what is morally wrong should be scientifically right, that what is cruel and unjust should lead us to peace and health? We have never yet found this to be the rule in any other case. Why should there be an exception in this? Are there special natural laws in favour of the physiologist, that he alone should be held justified in pursuing legitimate ends by illegitimate means? Suppose Art were also to set up a claim to follow her sublime vocation by torture : suppose Religion reasserted her ancient privilege of enforcing her teaching by fire and sword. If one profession or calling may do evil that good may come, why may not all follow this Jesuits' creed? Science herself cries out against the false doctrine, the blasphemy of the vivisector. If he be right -if we must act as friends in order to gain angelic ends -then life is intolerable and preposterous ; moral beauty is a sham, and goodness a foolish dream. There is no alternative. Yet those who swear allegiance to the medical priesthood profess an unshaken belief in moral law and progress. They profess this belief, while their actions proclaim their conviction that by the torture of the weak the strong will 1 The celebrated vivisection, Claude Bernard, thus describes the effects of curare: "We shall see this death which seems to us to arrive so calmly and so free from pain, is on the contrary accompanied by the most atrocious sufferings that the mind of man can conceive. . . . . In this motionless body, behind that glazing eye, and with all the appearances of death, sensibility and intelligence persist in their entirety." -REVUE DES DEUZ MONDES, Ch. ii., p. 173, and Ch. iv., p. 182, of bound number of the periodical. -enter- 7 be benefited and blessed -in other words, that there is no such things as moral law. Let me entreat these upholders of the new priesthood to study the works of their masters -to place side by side, for instance, Dr. Klein's frank and repeated assertion that he cared nothing for the anguish of the animals 1, or Richet's explanation of the vivisector's motives 2, with Wordsworth's well-known lines- Never to blend our pleasure or our pride With sorrow of the meanest thing that feels. or Pope's- Wider and more wide, th' o'erflowings of the mind, Take ev'ry creature in, of every kind. or his reproach to man- Of half that live the butcher and the tomb, Who, foe to Nature, hears the general groan, Murders their species and betrays his own. or Cowper's- I would not number on my list of friends (Though graced with polished manners and fine sense, Yet wanting sensibility) the man Who needlessly sets foot upon a worm ; or Shakespeare's- How shalt thou hope for mercy, rendering none? and the reproof to the queen in Cymbeline, who wished to try the effect of drugs upon the lower animals- Your highness shall from this practice but make hard your heart. -Cymbeline, Act I., sc. vi. Can any sane, any generous mind doubt which is the truer and the better and the more trustworthy spirit ; which will lead us straighter and further along the path of progress and peace ; that of the vivisector or that of the poet? It is this prophetic, universal element, this moral clairvoyance, that gives that large, tender, stirring quality to the work of the true poet, convincing as nothing else convinces, for we feel that it comes straight from the very source of Truth itself. We are bound to believe that he gives is good counsel when he bids us treat the poor beasts with tenderness and pity, and extend to them the sanctuary of human kindness 1 See his evidence given before the Royal Commission. 2 ". . . . this scientific curiosity, which alone animates him, is explained by the high idea he has formed of Science. This is why we pass our days in fetid laboratories, surrounded by groaning creatures, in the midst of blood and suffering, bent over palpitating entrails." -Prof. Richet, in REVUE DES DEUZ MONDES, Feb. 15th, 1883. 8 and kindship. Let the vivisector say what he will, both reason and conscience tell us that there is no alternative to this conviction, except that this accursed universe is but the Devil's playground, wherein we are at once his playfellows and his victims ; his victims in that we are doomed to suffer in so cruel a fashion the pangs of hunger, cold, anxiety, strife, toil, parting, disease, degradation, madness : his playfellows in that we imitate and join him in his ghastly business by inflicting in our turn, and for our own ends, pain unspeakable on those helpless ones, obviously our next of kin, whose weakness tempts the coward in us and inspires the fiend, while it leaves us seemingly unpunished, and free to wield our power for savage uses worthy of our leader! It seems strange, indeed, that the human mind can be completely seduced form a truth which nevertheless it cannot fail to recognise when it is clearly placed before it. Yet from such a truth the vivisectors and their party have managed to seduce us! I defy any one who admits the existence of a moral law at all to deny that in the long run we shall lose and not gain by committing a deliberate wrong. I challenge such a person to honestly deny that the wrong and the cruelty so committed will in some way and at some time have to be expiated by ourselves and our descendants. In how tremendous and profound and terrible a sense the following lines from Shelley are true -literally, bitterly, piercingly true, with the dreadful certainty of a law of Nature, mankind will some day have to learn as regards this, "our meanest crime." Those who inflict must suffer, for they see The work of their own hearts, and that must be Our chastisement or recompense. LONDON ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY, Secretary -SIDNEY G. TRIST, 32, SACKVILLE STREET, LONDON, W. Price 2s. 6d. per hundred, Post Free, to be had of the Secretary, of whom may be had also a list of publications on the subject. RECORDER PRINTING CO., 31, Church Street, Stoke Newington, N. -enter- [A Bill for the Vivisection of condemned criminals was presented to the Ohio Legislature in the winter of 1893-4. It was framed by Dr. J. S. Pyle, of Canton, O., and approved by several ministers and other professional men in that city.] THE USELESSNESS OF VIVISECTION. OPINIONS OF LEADING PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS. The following expressions of opinion could be multiplied in length and number almost indefinitely from the writings and speeches of medical men as eminent as any of those defending the practice of Vivisection. Within a few months over 500 Physicians and Surgeons in the United States have affixed their signatures to the Petition for the Total Abolition of Vivisection, and fully as many from the Old World are reported from reliable sources as having denounces the practice in unequivocal terms. The American List (name and location), secured by the Illinois Anti-Vivisection Society (Aurora, Ill.,), will be furnished free by application to the Secretary. Bowman's Standard Work on Physiology: "Vivisections upon so complex an organ as the brain are ill-calculated to lead to useful or satisfactory results." Matthew Woods, M. D., Philadelphia, Pa., in an open letter to ANTI-VIVISECTION: "The minds of some of the best observers are lost to medicine because of following the false trail of vivisection." Sir Charles Bell, in Nervous System of the Human Body: "The opening of living animals has done more to perpetuate error than to confirm the just views taken from anatomy and the natural motions" Albert Leffingwell, M. D., Summit, N. J., in Lippincott's Magazine, Aug., 1884: "The result of experimentation in many directions is to plunge the observer into the abyss of uncertainty." Speech of Dr. Chas Bell Taylor, F. R. C. S at Nottingham, Nov. 16, 1892: "No good ever came out of vivisection since the world began; and in my humble opinion, no good ever can." *-2- Dr. Edward Berdoe, M. R. C. S., in the London Globe of Aug. 3, 1892: "I have been trying for many years to find out what the blessings are which vivisection has conferred on the race, but I have not succeeded;" and in a speech at Budapest, Hungary, July 21, 1896, he said: "It is only necessary to turn over the pages of the different journals oh physiology to see that the greater part of the experiments on animals have no, or only the remotest, connection with the arts of medicine or surgery." Dr. Morgan Davies (Hounsditch), in a letter to Miss Frances Power Cobbe, Oct. 12, 1892: "Not only could we dispense with it (vivisection), but I firmly believe we should get on much more rapidly and securely without it." Jas. Macauley, A.M., M.D., London, in his Prize Essay: "More useful information can be obtained by observing the force of the heart as indicated on the delicate dial of a balance chair, than from all the experiments of vivisectors." Dr. J. M. Stewart, Prest. of the Peoria County (Ill.) Scientific Assn.: "Vivisection is horribly cruel and practically useless." Dr. J. F. Wilkie, of Oshkosh, Wis., graduate of Rush Medical College, writes, to the Illinois Society, Jan., 1894: "As a physician, I consider vivisection futile and of no consequence to the medical profession." Prof. Lawson Tait, F. R. C. S E., foremost abdominal surgeon of England, and once a vivisector, at a meeting in St. James' Hall, London, May 26, 1892: "In the art of surgery, the practice of vivisection has done nothing but wrong." Dr. Tait long ago wrote a pamphlet entitled "The Uselessness of Vivisection," besides many letters, which have been published, and he has made many speeches reiterating these statements up to the latter part of 1896. Wm. R. D. Blackwood, M. D., Philadelphia, Pa., in a published letter March 27, 1894: "It is physically impossible that other than misleading and false doctrines should be the result of the cruel and degrading work of vivisection." Edward Haughton, M. D., in the Zoophilist (London), Oct. 10, 1893: "I have yet to hear of a single case of discovery made by experiments on helpless animals which might not just as well have been ascertained by clinical investigation." Dr. F. S. Arnold (Manchester), in a speech at Church Congress, Oct., 1892: "I believe the whole method (experiments on animals) to be, scientifically speaking, absolutely unsound and untrustworthy * * Vivisection is most surely doomed." John Fletcher, M. D., of Edinburg Medical School, in Introductory Lecture (London), pp. 11-12: "During many years' experience in lecturing (on physiology) . . I have never yet found it necessary in a single instance to expose a suffering animal for the purpose of elucidating any point in physiology." James H. Payne, M. D., of Boston, in a letter to ANTI-VIVISECTION, March 1, 1895: "I am wholly opposed to vivisection. It is useless, wicked, cruel, barbarous and infamous. It is worse than useless. It fills the mind with false and brutal ideas. No good ever came from it and never will. It demoralizes the sensibilities and unfits one for the demonstration of real scientific truth. I pray you may prosper in your good endeavors to obliterate the hideous practice from the whole earth." * -enter- -3- John H. Clarke, M. D., &c., in "Our Meanest Crime," a paper read at the Church Congress at Folkestone, Oct. 6, 1892: "So far from vivisection saving human beings from being experimented upon, it actually necessitates it." Surgeon-General Gordon, M. D. C. B., Hon. Physician to the Queen. -"In the performance of vivisectional experiments, structural and other differences between the several orders of animals experimented upon and the human species are in many respects found to be so absolute that experimenters themselves confess the inapplicability to the latter of results obtained from the former. Animals are subjected to diseases from which man ix exempt, and exempt from others to which he is subject. The conditions of man are further rendered peculiar to himself by circumstances of civilization, social or official life, heredity, idiosyncrasy, and temperament. In respect of all these, no sufficient analogies exist in the animal kingdom from which to draw useful conclusions. -Extract from letter to Sec. London A.-V. Society. PROF. HENRY J. BIGELOW, M. D., (late) Professor of Surgery in Harvard University, in Annual Address before Massachusetts Medical Society, June 7, 1871: "How few facts of immediate considerable value to our rave have of late years been extorted from the dreadful sufferings of dumb animals, the cold-blooded cruelties now more and more practiced under the authority of science!" JOHN ELLIOTSON, M. D., F. R. S., in Elliotson's Human Physiology, p. 428: "A course of experimental physiology, in which brutes are agonized to exhibit facts already established is a disgrace to the country which permits it." DR. CHARLES BELL TAYLOR, F. R. C. S. and M. D., Fellow of the Medical Society of London, in an Address, Nov. 16, 1892, before Medico Chirurgical Society, Nottingham: Galvani's discovery of electricity was due to experiments on dead frogs- "dale morte rane" -not on living animals; Vivisection had nothing whatever to do with it. The Anaesthetic properties of ether and chloroform were discovered by experiments upon human patients, not by Vivisection of animals. Koch's inoculations with tubercle, which were adopted from experiments upon animals, have led to death from initial fever, the infection of the whole system of patients who merely suffered from localized disease, and to failure and terrible disappointment of patients subjected to it. Vivisection was not needed for the discovery of the properties of nitrite of amyl, nor indeed, so far as I can make out, of anything. After all, "It is not whether such and such a discovery was made by Vivisection, but whether Vivisection was indispensable to that discovery?" If there are any such discovers, either made or to be made, I must candidly confess I do not know them. In fact, if anything could exceed the hideous cruelty of the whole business, it would be the childish absurdity of the claims to benefit which are constantly put forth by the advocates and promoters of the system. -4- THE TRUE MOTIVE FOR VIVISECTION. As Dr. Hodge says anti-vivisectionists have no conception of the true motives for Vivisection, we give the declaration of the "motives" as put forth by "eminent vivisectors:" Dr. L. Hermann, Professor of Physiology, Zurich: "The advancement of our knowledge, and not utility to medicine, is the true and straightforward object of all Vivisection. No true investigator, in his researches, thinks of their practical utilization. Science can afford to despise this justification with which Vivisection has been defended in England." -Die Vivisectionsfrage," Leipsic, 1877. Charles Richet, M.D., Professor of Physiology, Paris: "I do not believe that a single experimenter says to himself when he gives Curare to a rabbit, or cuts the spinal cord of a dog, 'Here is an experiment which will relieve or cure the disease of some men.' No, he does not think of that. He says to himself, 'I will clear up on obscure point, I will seek out a new fact.' " -REVUE des Deux Mondes, Feb. 15, 1883. Prof. E. E. Slosson of the University of Wyoming (Laramie, Wyo.,), in the New York Independent of Dec. 12, '95: "A human life is nothing compared with a new fact in science. "The most curious misconception is that the Humane Society seems to think that the aim of science is the cure of disease, the saving of human life. Quite the contrary, the aim of science is the advancement of human knowledge at any sacrifice of human life. "We can hardly expect a man who is devoting his own life to research into rare phenomena will hesitate to use the lower animals when necessary for the advancement of his purpose. If cats and guinea pigs can be put to any higher use than to advance science, we do not know what it is. We do not know of any higher use we can put a man to." NATIONAL PETITION FOR THE TOTAL ABOLITION OF VIVISECTION. Instituted by the Illinois Anti-Vivisection Society, Aurora, Ill., to which please send all signatures. Vivisection is the Cutting, Poisoning, Burning, Freezing, Smothering, Breaking the bones, etc., of Live Animals, by Medical "Scientists," and is done all over the World. To dAte, May 25, 1897, we have 20,755 signatures including those of 531 Physicians. Ten Cents from each Petitioner will aid in publishing and distributing Literature. I am Opposed to Vivisection and hereby Petition for its Total Abolition. NAME, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO. AND STREET, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOWN, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .STATE, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . This Petition, as an expression of public opinion, will serve to haste and influence the necessary state legislation upon this question. Published by the Illinois Anti-Vivisection Society, Aurora, Ill., 35c per 100.New Issue, Revised by the Author VIVISECTION: IS IT JUSTIFIABLE? BY CHARLES BELL TAYLOR, DOCTOR OF MEDICINE, FELLOW OF THE ROYAL COLLGE OF SURGEONS, FELLOW OF THE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON, LATE PRESIDENT OF HTE PARISIAN MEDICAL SOCOETY. 1898. PUBLISHED BY THE LONDON ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY (The Oldest Total Abolition Society in the World), 32, SACKVILLE STREET, PICCADILLY, LONDON, W. SIDNEY G. TRIST, Secretary. "HEARTILY SYMPATHISING WITH YOUR EFFORTS." Extract from a letter from H. M. the Queen to the Secretary of this Society. Price 1d. ; post fee, 1 1/2d."A STRANGER WITHIN OUR GATES." - THE PREY OF THE "BRAIN SPECIALIST" VIVISECTOR. JEAN M. CHARCOT, M.D., the celebrated Physician to the Salpetriere Hospital, Paris, who experimented on the patients, thus wrote: "Experimentation with animals that are nearest to man - still more with those far removed from man in the zoological scale - cannot, however faultless its technique, however definite its results, solve finally the problems raised by the pathology of the human brain. In brain it is, above all, that we differ from animals. That organ attains in man a degree of development and of perfection not reached in any other species," - The Forum, New York, August, 1888. VIVISECTION: IS IT JUSTIFIABLE? BY CHARLES BELL TAYLOR, F.R.C.S.E. AND M.D. EDIN., FELLOW OF THE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON; LATE PRESIDENT OF THE PARISIAN MEDICAL SOCIETY. An Address delivered before the Medico-Chirurgical Society of Nottingham, November 16th, 1892. MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN. I have long thought that any advance we may hope to make in the direction of civilization, any step towards the amelioration of the evils of existing conditions, must be mainly by way of the recognition of rights - not only the rights of men and women who may be less fortunately placed than ourselves, but also the rights of those poor relations of ours whom we call animals, and to whom we owe so much of our enjoyment of life, so much of our well-being, so much of our prosperity, and but for whose cheerful and willing aid the business of the world could not be carried on. I must insist that it is our duty to treat these humble fellow-creatures of ours with the utmost kindness, care, and consideration, and that such duty is no less sacred than that which binds us in any of our social relations. It is true that the exigencies of our nature compel us to kill animals for food, and also in self-defense; but we are bound to make such death as swift and painless as possible, and nothing - absolutely nothing, to my mind - can justify deliberate, prolonged, and cold-blooded torture of any of them.* I need not dwell on upon this point; the principle is admitted on *"The right to kill and the right to torture are essentially different, and the assertion that one right covers and includes the other, is simply childish. The whole agitation against vivisection rests on the position that between death, a quick and easy death, and the infliction of pain so severe and prolonged as to be fairly called torture, there is a great gulf fixed, and that the right to inflict the one by no means carries with it the right to inflict the other. The existence of this gulf is admitted by the common sense of mankind, and is shown, for instance, by the discontinuance of legal torture as compared with the persistence of capital punishment. Vivisectors have never ventured to meet their opponents fairly and squarely on this ground, - to lay down that the infliction of pain amounting to torture is unjustifiable, and to assert that they do not in fact inflict it. They do not do this because they know very well that to make such an assertion, and to base their cause upon it, would be to deliver themselves into the hands of the enemy." - ARNOLD.2 all sides; it is embodies in our laws against cruelty to animals, and the sentiment finds a ready response in all hearts which are not dead to the instincts of common humanity. Nevertheless we are told, and especially of late, that we must forego this claim of our animal friends to exemption from torture, in the interests of supposed interests of certain gentlemen, who assure us that they are in the pursuit of science; that the pain they inflict is trifling to a degree; that anaesthetics are for the most part employed, and that they have made discoveries which have benefited the human race. It therefore behoves us to ascertain how far these statements are worthy of credence, and to what extent, if at all, they may lead us to condone acts and deeds which we should certainly, d priori condemn as atrocious to the last degree. Well, here is a specimen of what is meant by the pursuit of science from a vivisector's point of view. It is called a moral experiment. "I inspired," says Dr. Brachet, Professor of Physiology at the Ecole de Medicine, of Paris, "a dog with the greatest aversion for me, by plaguing or inflicting some pain or other upon it as often as I saw it. When this feeling was carried to its height, so that the animal became furious as soon as it saw or heard me, I put out its eyes. I could then appear before it without its manifesting any aversion. I spoke, and immediately its barkings and furious movements proved the passion which animated it. I therefore destroyed the drum of its ears and disorganized the internal ear as much as I could, and when an intense inflammation which was excited had rendered it deaf, I filled up its ears with molten wax. It could no longer hear at all. Then I went to its side, spoke aloud, and even caressed it, without its falling into a rage; it seemed even sensible of my caresses." Dr. Brachet repeated the same experiment on another dog, and assures us that the result was always the same. Here is another, also called a moral experiment, which I quote from a speech by Dr. Shaw, delivered quite recently before the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland, "The operator began by treating the animal kindly and winning its love and confidence. When these were secured he cut off an ear of the dog, who looked astonished but manifested no resentment. Next day he cut off a paw, and a few days afterwards another. Thus he went on from one outrage to another, slashing and stabbing till the experiment was complete. It was astonishing how much the animal endured before his confidence was gone and his love turned to hate. After the second paw was removed he continued to gaze up into his master's face, and to lick the hand that maimed him." Here is another which belongs to the same category, and is recorded by Baron Weber, a distinguished scientist, who tells us that a German gentleman cut out the puppies from a pregnant bitch and laid them 3 before the mother. He wished, he said to ascertain whether she would exhibit affection for them such as is usually displayed when they are born in the natural way. When Mr. Lawson Tait announced the fact that the peritoneum was capable of digesting the immature foetus in cases of ectopic gestation, he tells us that certain German vivisectors put his assertions to the test by cutting out the immature puppies of pregnant bitches and stitching them in the cavity of the peritoneum. "I recall to mind," says Dr. Latour, who ws present at the time a poor dog, the roots of whose vertebral nerves Majendie desired to lay bare to demonstrate Bell's theory which he claimed as his own, "the dog mutilated and bleeding twice escaped from under the implacable knife, and threw its front paws around Majendie's neck, licking, as if to soften its murderer and ask for mercy. I confess, " says Dr. Latour, "I was unable to bear that heart-rending spectacle."* A similar scene is recorded by a student who was present at an experiment in this country. The dog, alarmed at the awful preparations, sat up and begged for its life of each assistant in turn. The students, moved at this patheticappeal, endeavored to save the poor creature, and offered to buy it, or do anything in order that it might be set free, but in vain; it was cruelly tortured, and reproduced at the next lecture for a repetition of the process, under which it died. "Repeated electrical stimulation," says the Editor of The Lancet (Sept. 17th, 1881), "appears to produce in rabbits a state of tetanus arresting respiration, which may be kept up artificially." In respect of dogs, the following account is given of those experimented on by M. Richet. "In the dogs," he says, "the electricity employed was not sufficiently powerful to arrest respiration, and death was due to elevation of temperature. The ascent of the thermometer was extremely rapid, so that after the tetanus had lasted for half-an-hour, the lethal temperature of 111 or 112 degrees Fahrenheit was reached. The proof that the increased body heat was the cause of death, was furnished by the fact that if the animals were kept cool by artificial means they will bear for more than two hours extremely strong currents, which cause severe tetanus without dying for some days. The breathing is so frequent that it is hardly possible to count it, and so feeble that scarcely any air enters the thorax." These miserable animals were thus subjected for two hours at a time to currents of electricity which caused such intense agony of cramp and heat together, that they either expired with their blood fourteen degrees above the * The same man, M. Majendie, lecturing to his class on one occasion with a toy greyhound fawning on his knee, remarked, "Gentlemen, the skin is a sensitive organ." He then slashed his pet with a sharp bistoury, the creature uttered a piercing cry. "That scream, gentlemen," said the eminent professor, "proves the truth of my assertion."4 normal temperature, i.e., simmered as it were in their own vital fluid, or lingered for a day or two, having been kept cool by ice baths and other artificial means during their hideous torture. An eminent London physician, in the Appendix to the Report of the Royal Commission, describes an experiment, of which the following is a brief summary. The subject, a dog, having been rendered motionless with curare, had its windpipe cut open, a nozzle inserted, and artificial respiration maintained by means of bellows; its head was then partially flayed, its spinal marrow cut through, needles dug into the exposed marrow, and shocks given by galvanic battery. The nerves which lead from the brain to the heart were then burnt away, and the spinal marrow further stimulated. The doctor says, "this beautiful and simple experiment we owe to a German physician, with whom I had the pleasure of repeating it here very frequently last summer." In Pfluger's Archives of Physiology is recorded several cases of operations on the brain. "A very clever, lively, young female dog, which had learnt to shake hands with both forepaws, had the left side of the brain washed out through two holes on the 1st of December, 1875; this caused paralysis of the right paw. On being asked for the left, the dog immediately laid it in my hand. I now demanded the right (says the Professor), but the creature only looks at me sorrowfully, for it cannot move it. On my continuing to press for it, the dog crosses the left paw over and offers it to me on the right side, as if to make amends for not being able to give the right." You would think that was enough torture to inflict upon one affectionate little creature; but, no; on the 13th of January more brain was sucked out with a pump. Even that wa snot enough; for on February 15th more was extracted, and on March 6th some more. You will wonder why it did not die: well, it did, for the last operation killed it. Fifty-one dogs had their heads pierced in several places, and portions of the brain washed out by this process, which was repeated again and again; the animals being kept in sore pain and trouble, as we can well imagine, as long as they survived, which was sometimes for weeks or months. Further details are given of what are called interesting experiments on a delicately formed little bitch, the left side of whose brain was extracted; the hind feet were then clamped with sharp pincers, which caused doleful whining, piteous howling, and foaming at the mouth. The poor creature soon became blind, and shortly afterwards died. "The brain," says the Professor, "was found on dissection to resemble a newly hoed potato field." Another dog who had had five holes bored in its head, and nearly half the brain extracted, lived from February 14th to March 15th. In several of these cases the animal became blind on one eye, and 5 in order to correctly estimate the failure of sight in this blind, or fast becoming blind eye, the Professor took out the other eye. "On the 8th of November, 1875," he says, "two holes were bored in the head of a bull dog, and the brain washed away; the animal became blind on the right side; I therefore, on December 11th, took out the left eyeball, so causing complete blindness." On the 10th of January, 1876, some more of this poor creature's brain was destroyed, and on the 5th of February some more; this time on the opposite side. A few days later this one more unfortunate victim sank from exhaustion. Here is another strange experiment, also recorded in Pfluger's Archives. The spinal cord of a strong grey poodle was cut on the 27th of February, and again on the 13th of March, 1875. The second cutting caused fearful ravages; the bladder becoming paralyzed, and the rectum protruded. As it appeared that it could not live long, PREPARATIONS WERE MADE TO PERFORM UPON IT FURTHER EXPERIMENTS! but the dog died before the preparations were completed. Here is another strange experiment, recorded by the operator himself in the Revue Nationale, who tells us that he fastened several large dogs on a table and beat them with a heavy wooden mallet, striking the animals thirty-two times on one side, and again thirty-two times on the other, after which he dislocated both shoulders and fastened the limbs behind the animals' back. He adds that he did this without anaesthetics, so that he might know how much pain was inflicted from the creatures' cries, and also because, he adds, we know the generous nature of the dog, who will at night lick the hand that in the morning had been employed in striking him with a heavy wooden mallet. At page 204, of the Report of the Royal Commission on Vivisection, you will find an experiment on an animal under curara (the most cruel of all poisons, and which, although it paralyzes motion, only heightens sensation), is recorded. The subject was a small docile dog, which, a few minutes after the drug was injected under the skin, staggered on its fore paws, walking on the tips of its toes until it fell over, frothing at the mouth and weeping abundantly. Its windpipe was then slit open and the nozzle of a bellows connected with a gas engine used for artificial respiration inserted. The side of the neck, the side of the face, the side of the foreleg, and interior of the belly, were then dissected out, and the sciatic and other nerves exposed and irritated with galvanic shocks. No anaesthetic was used, and the agony the poor creature endured must have been awful; yet it was continued for ten hours, at the end of which time the operators left for their homes; but they did not release the subject of the experiment, or end its sufferings by death. It was purposely left helpless 6 and mutilated as it was, in order that they might resume their investigations next day without preliminary delay. When the next day came the poor dog was dead; the machine was at work (as it is, I am told, in these laboratories often night and day), but it was pumping air into and out of a dead body. Here is a pathetic scene, recorded by Dr. John Clarke at the Church Congress. A surgeon operated on a dog, cutting out a part of the bowels and stitching the ends together. The operation was done under anaesthetics; but operations on the abdominal cavity entail at best much suffering,, even when the patient receives the most assiduous nursing; but what about the nursing of a vivisected animal? It is left fastened to a board, generally the board on which it has been dissected. The second night after the operation in the case in question the animal lay there groaning and crying in pain. Its cries attracted another dog in the laboratory which was waiting the same fate. This one broke loose from its tether and went to help its wounded companion. It fist gnawed through the cords that bound it, and then thinking apparently that the dressings were the cause of the pain, the dogs tore them off. They then ran round the laboratory together through the night, until the wounded one dropped from exhaustion, and was found in a dying condition from peritonitis at ten o'clock the next morning. It may be alleged that these are exceptional experiments, not likely to be repeated, but I cannot admit that such is the case. The last experiment was the one it was proposed to repeat upon a vast number of dogs at our University Buildings; and it is not many weeks since a French surgeon poured boiling lead into a dog's ear, regardless of the frantic screams and struggles of the poor creature, who tore its limbs in vain efforts to escape. I said this kind of thing is going on every day, and it must be so when you have your laboratory and your licence and your stables and your cages and your dogs and cats and rabbits and horses and assistants and torture troughs and gas engines for artificial respiration, and onkometers and onkographs and the various instruments supplied by the Scientific Instrument Company which I am assured does a large trade. The vivisecting professor must do something to justify his existence and deserve his pay in that capacity, and here is a description of what he does, which I quote from the pen of an eye witness and participator, who repented his share in the proceedings, as I make bold to think most must do when advancing years forces them to calm reflection, and as in many instances, to bitter retrospection.* "I venture to record," says Dr. Hoggan, * When Dr. John Reid met his friend Fergusson (afterwards Sir William) in the street, he burst into tears and exclaimed, "This is a 7 "a little of my own experience in this matter, part of which was gained as an assistant in the laboratory of one of the greatest living experimental physiologists. In that laboratory we sacrificed daily from one to three dogs, besides rabbits and other animals, and after much experience I am of opinion that not one of those experiments on animals was justified or necessary. The idea of the good of humanity was simply out of the question and would have been laughed at, the great aim being to keep up with, or get ahead of, one's contemporaries in science, even at the price of an incalculable amount of torture, needlessly and iniquitously inflicted on the poor animals. During three campaigns," he adds, "amidst the horrors of war, I have witnessed many harsh sights, but I think the saddest sight I have ever witnessed was when the dogs were brought up from the cellar to the laboratory for sacrifice. Instead of appearing pleased with the change from darkness to light they seemed seized with horror as soon as they smelt the air of the place, divining apparently their approaching fate. They would make friendly advances to each of the three or four persons present, and as far as eyes, ears, and tail could make a mute appeal for mercy eloquent, they tried it in vain. Were the feelings of experimental physiologists not blunted, they could not long continue the practice of vivisection. They are always ready to repudiate any implied want of tender feeling, but I must say they seldom show much pity; on the contrary, in practice they frequently show the reverse. Hundreds of times I have seen when an animal writhed with pain, and thereby deranged the tissues during a delicate dissection, instead of being soothed it would receive a slap and an angry order to be quiet and behave itself. At other times, when an animal had endured great pain for hours without struggling or giving more than an occasional low whine, instead of letting the poor mangled judgment on me for my cruelty to animals." He was a find, handsome, powerful man, in the prime of life, and the grave suddenly yawned at his feet. He was doomed to die, and shortly, of cancer of the tongue, an organ in the region of which is vivisection had been mainly directed. --Professor Syme, probably the greatest operator of this century, the Napoleon of Surgery, lived to denounce vivisection as cruel and useless.-- Pirogoff, the great Russian surgeon, tells us how his dying dog, in midst of his sufferings and at the point of death, fixed his plaintive eyes upon his master, and made an effort to give a last sign of recognition to one who tells us how he suffered when he remembered the tortures he had inflicted upon hundreds of other dogs. He says, "My heart was full."--Professor Haller records a precisely similar experience; so does Dr. Crisp; and so does Sir Charles Bell, who greatly regretted one or two experiments he was compelled to perform in order to illustrate his discovery made from the anatomy only of the spinal nerves. He says, "It is but a poor manner of acquiring fame, to multiply experiments on brutes and take the chance of discovery; we ought, at least, to get at truth without cruelty, and to form a judgment without having recourse to torture." 8 wretch loose to crawl painfully about the place in reserve for another day's torture, it would receive pity so far that it would be said to have behaved well enough to merit death; and, as a reward, would be killed at once by breaking up the medulla with a needle. One of the most revolting features of the laboratory was the custom of giving an animal on which the professor had completed his experiment, and which had still some life left to the assistants, to practise the finding of arteries, nerves, &c., in the living animal, or for performing what are called fundamental experiments upon it; in other words, repeating those which are recommended in the laboratory handbooks."* "I have known," says Dr. Allix, the well-known French veterinary surgeon, "dogs die of sheer terror in anticipation of their doom before the vivisector had time to commence his operations." "The experiments lately performed on female dogs will continue * Baron Weber describes a visit which he paid to a large physiological laboratory when the students and professors were away on vacation. He says he was led into the cellars, where iron boxes are kept for securing the dogs till wanted; they were capable of holding fifty dogs. He asked the conductors where they came from. "Oh, from the dealers and so on," with a grin. The Baron advises those who are fond of animals not to let their dogs go unguarded in the streets. One intelligent-looking dog, with evident forebodings, had gnawed a considerable hole in one of the oaken doors of his cage, in the hope of escape. The Baron's guide said it would not help the blackguard, for if he got loose he could not get out of the place. The long tables were smeared with blood. He also describes the torture troughs, and remarks that the last dog who died in this way had been honoured with a memento mori, for on one of the ends of the box a student had drawn in chalk the head of a pretty little dog with angel's wings attached to his shoulders, and the legend written underneath, "Requiescat in pace." On asking if the animals were rendered insensible before being experimented on, the Baron was told that they were all poisoned with curara. "My guide now led me into another very small, cold room, in which were two large freezing boxes. One, a large, round tub, my guide said, was ' for freezing a live dog till he became quite stiff.' " A cold shudder creeps over one when one thinks of the poor terrified and whining animals, after being kept for weeks in these gloomy cellars, being thrown at last into a tub to be frozen stiff. Dogs frozen in this way at intervals, live to the sixth day.--See Report of the Imperial Rudolph Institution for 1869, p. 112. Dr. Leffingwell records the following exhibition, recently made before an American audience. "It was affirmed on one occasion by a Professor of Physiology before his class, that the fur of animals prevents radiation of animal heat and is thus a protection against cold, and that an animal deprived of fur, or with that fur rendered useless by varnishing, would suffer if exposed to extreme cold." No one out of a lunatic asylum could doubt this; yet three animals were brought in,--one shaved, one varnished, one untouched; the three were then packed in ice. No anaesthetic was given; their piteous moaning gradually grew fainter, and at last ceased altogether. They were then unpacked; one was dead, the two others, frozen stiff, were resuscitated for other experiments, i.e., FURTHER TORTURE, ON ANOTHER DAY. 9 continue to haunt and distress me to the last day of my life," says Dr. De Noe Walker, late army surgeon, who gave evidence before the Royal Commission. "As soon as the poor mother had given birth to a litter of puppies, the vivisector visited her on her bed of straw, whereupon, moved by the finest feelings of her nature , she looked up into his face, her dilated pupils beaming with joy and expectant sympathy. Up he lifts her and presently excises all her mammary glands. The next day she is again visited by her tormentor, but on seeing him her terror is indescribable. The poor puppies were of course starved to death. "It is marvellous and astonishing," says Professor Goltz, "to find that a dog that had served for some seven experiments and whose hind quarters were completely paralyzed, and whose spinal marrow had been destroyed, the animal suffering besides from fatal peritonitis, was still capable of maternal feelings for its young. She unceasingly licked the living and the dead puppy, and treated the living puppy with the same tenderness as an uninjured dog might do." "I will take, " says * Mr. R. T. Reid, in his speech in the House of Commons, " a series of experiments performed by Professor Rutherford of the University of Edinburgh, and reported in The British Medical Journal. These experiments were thirty-one in number; no doubt there were hundreds of dogs sacrificed upon other series of experiments, but now I am only referring to one set. There were in this set thirty-one experiments, but no doubt many more than thirty-one dogs were sacrificed. All were performed on dogs and the nature of them was this. The dogs were starved for many hours, they were then fastened down, the abdomen was cut open, the bile duct was dissected out and cut; a glass tube was tied into the bile duct and brought outside the body. The duct leading to the gall bladder was then closed by a clamp, and various drugs were injected into the intestines at its upper part. The result of these experiments was simply nothing at all--I mean it led to no increase of knowledge whatever, and no one can be astonished at that; because these wretched beasts were placed in such circumstances--their condition was so abnormal--that the ordinary and universally recognized effect of well-known drugs was not produced. These experiments were performed without anaesthetics." Sir W. Ferguson, in his evidence before the Royal Commission, gives an instance of a dog who was crucified for several days, and brought into the class from time to time to show how the experiment was going on. Evidence was also given that dogs and rabbits had the nerves that govern the muscles of the throat divided, so that they could not swallow the food that was placed before them; they kept on continually munching, but all the same they died of hunger. Dr. Crisp, in his evidence before the same Commission (Q. 6, 157), alludes to the well-known cases of vivisection that were practised at the veterinary schools of * Now Sir Robt. T. Reid, Q.C., M.P., Ex-Attorney-General.10 Alfort, Lyons, and Toulouse. Sixty-four operations were performed upon the same living horse ; eight students would be engaged on the same animal at the same time ; five or six horses were used up in this way in a week ; and no anaesthetics were employed. The operations commenced at six in the morning, and ended at six at night. The eyes were cut out, the teeth punched out, the hoofs torn off, the body fired, and every conceivable operation upon nerves, arteries, veins, bladder, and skull, was performed upon the groaning, writhing beast ; and it was considered highly creditable to the young students if they could keep the animal alive until the last, i.e., until six at night. Here is a report from an eye witness, Dr. Murdoch, of what actually occurred upon one occasion. "A little chestnut mare, worn out in the service of man, had unfortunately survived the numerous tortures of the day and no longer resembled any creature of this earth. Her thighs were cut open, the skin torn away, ploughed through with hot irons, harrowed with dozens of setons, the sinews cut through, the hoofs torn off, and the eyes pierced. In this blind and powerless condition the miserable creature was placed, amid laughter, upon its bleeding feet, to shew those present who were operating upon seven other horses, what human skill could perform before death released their victim." It seems incredible, but it is a fact that Abdul, the celebrated beauty, the horse that bore the late Emperor of Austria at his coronation, was, at the close of his career, worn out and feeble, subjected to this hellish process. Dr. Carpenter mentions in his work on Physiology, a professor who inserted a tube into a dog's stomach and then filled it with boiling water. A number of cases are also reported where dogs were covered with turpentine and then set fire to (burnt alive). Others, where full-grown sheep dogs have been immersed up to the neck in boiling water, and kept as long as they would live afterwards; others, where they were kept for weeks without food; others, where quite a number of dogs were skinned alive. The Professor fully describes the process, complains of the difficulty he experienced in flaying the paws and head, and tells us that he kept them in cotton wool so long as they would live after the operation. Others, where dogs and cats were subjected to atmospheric pressure until they became as stiff as boards, and their brains ran like cream ; others, where the kidneys were cut out and the animals kept alive as long as possible ; others, where the bladder was ligatured to prevent the discharge of urine, the gullet tied to prevent sickness after emetics or poisons had been administered and others where the natural vents had been permanently clamped ; others, where animals were baked alive or trephined and their brains sucked out with a force pump or burnt out with hot wires ; others, where dogs were suffocated and brought to life again and again, and kept alive for weeks and 11 months for a repetition of the process. Similar experiments on apes monkeys, cats, rabbits ; in short on every creature that has life and can feel, are recorded ; while other unfortunate animals were submitted to an unintermitting torture of every conceivable description (without injuring vital parts) for weeks, merely to ascertain how much actual pain it took to kill them. And so on, horror upon horror's head accumulating, until one is sick with grief, indignation, and disgust at the whole business. I think I have said and quoted enough to show that the science of which the vivisector is in pursuit, is not true science, and that the pain inflicted by him on his innocent victims is not slight, but atrocious to the last degree. Let us now see what is meant by the assertion that anaesthetics are employed. Dr. Hoggan says that anaesthetics have proved the greatest curse to vivisectible animals, and I entirely agree with him. The public would not tolerate vivisection for a day if they did not believe that the animals were rendered insensible, and the plain fact is that they are not rendered insensible ; more than half the licences dispense with anaesthetics. It is the public who are anaesthetised,--it must be so ; for in may experiments, to render the animal insensible would be to defeat the object of the operator, such as those, for instance, connected with the reflex action from the sensory nerves ; those connected with the glandular secretions, as in Hughes Bennett's, and Rutherford's experiments on the liver ; again, those on digestion, and those on the temperature of the heart and arteries, and those in which it is necessary to use a gas engine for artificial respiration ; those on the phenomena of pain ; the boiling, baking and stewing alive experiments ; drowning, starving to death, alcoholisation, and feeding on substances which are incapable of sustaining life. It is the same when the effects of drugs and poisons have to be tested ; and also in a numerous class of experiments which require time--days, weeks, or months--for their completion. The animal, if it goes to sleep, goes to sleep in health, in ease, to awake in torment that can only end with its most wretched life. And again, when an operation is performed and the animal is kept alive, often in great agony, in order that the results may be observed, as in numberless operations and in all pathological experiments. Besides it is most difficult to render an animal insensible and at the same time keep it alive. Vomiting frequently interrupts the process, during which the animal comes round, and my experience with chloroform on dogs is that as soon as they are insensible they cease to breathe,and this experience is borne out by that of Professor Pritchard of the Royal Veterinary College, a gentleman who has had more experience in this direction than any man living, who says, in effect, that as soon as the animal is insensible you find that it is dead. "They appear for some time not to be under the influence of it at all, and then suddenly the come under the influence of it, and we find it 12 impossible to bring them round." The practical consequence of this is, as Dr. Hoggan, has remarked, "that complete and conscientious anaesthesia is seldom even attempted, the animal getting at most a slight whiff of chloroform, by way of satisfying the conscience of the operator or of enabling him to make statements of a humane character." Dr. Walker's evidence before the Royal Commission was to the same effect. He said,"It is quite true that anaesthetics are used, but if by that you understand that while the animal lived and was experimented on he was throughout insensible, it is the greatest delusion that ever was." Physiologists are well aware of these facts, hence you find it stated that they occasionally use ether ; but it is very difficult, owing to the conformation of face and the necessity for tying the mouth up, to give ether to dogs, the animals principally operated on ; you require to smother them, and if the anaesthetic in intermitted for a moment they come round ; and we consequently find it stated that the ether has been supplemented by morphia injected under the skin, which, although it stupefies, does not prevent the animal from feeling. "Ils sent la douleur," as Bernard says. Or, worst of all, curara--"the hellish wourali," as Lord Tennyson very properly calls it,--a drug which makes it impossible for you to give chloroform safely, or to say whether the animal is insensible or not, since all the muscles of expression are paralyzed, and which, while it paralyzes motion, actually increases the animal's susceptibility to pain--pain described by Claude Bernard himself as "the most atrocious the mind of man can conceive." So much for anaesthetics and the slight amount of pain inflicted by vivisectors. Now let us see what benefits the human race, our noble selves, have derived from these diabolical torments inflicted upon our innocent and helpless fellow-creatures. Dr. Hoggan says the idea of benefit to the human race would be laughed to scorn by the vivisector, the sole object being to get ahead of one's contemporaries in science. I do not say that any benefits would justify us in inflicting these torments ; they would no more justify us than an increased price would justify the man who skinned cats alive in order to preserve the gloss of their coats. But I want to know what they are and where they are. I confess I do not know, although I have tried hard to find out. "My soul Assures me humanity is wisdom, And they who want it, wise as they may seem, And confident in their own sight and strength, Reach not the scope they aim at." If you ask those who support vivisection what this Joanna Southcote of science has brought forth, they either talk unmitigated nonsense of favour you with vague, unmeaning generalities which are little less absurd. Here is a specimen of the latter which I cull from a recent letter by an able practitioner, apologising for the system : "Have any of your correspondents," this 13 gentleman says, "thought seriously of the law of prey and the struggle for life which is going on everlastingly in the world around us? Tennyson's 'Nature red in tooth and claw' depicts in not too vivid colouring the scene of the cosmos. Do we not see how all through the realm of animal life destruction and suffering are the means by which advancement is made from a lower to a higher and more complex organization ; how the principle of sacrifice seems to run like a shining thread through the web of the universe, interwoven into its very order. When we stand on the place where innumerable multitudes of living sentient things fall a prey to the conditions of development which are set up by the Maker, surely we shall not be unwilling to yield to a few earnest seekers after truth the means of gaining that knowledge which is to lessen so considerably that sum of suffering which is one of the heaviest curses of the world." The writer continues : "Our sympathies for the mangled victims of the sportsman's pleasure are shadowed by the lurid picture which Miss Cobbe's impressionist brush makes for us ; and yet the horrors of the laboratory are a mere fiasco in extent to the dreadfulness (sic.) of the deeds which are done in the fields for our own good and pleasure. In the light of the latest results of brain surgery ; of protective inoculations ; of the discoveries of Virchow, Pasteur, Lister and Ferrier, one is bound to admit the needfulness of experiments if scientific medicine is to advance." And so on ; but what does it all mean? We are not savages contending against a hostile tribe who would torture us ; we are not engaged in a struggle for life with wild beasts who would tear us limb from limb ; even if we were, torture would not be justifiable. But just conceive the shame of it,--the pity of it. The animal we principally sacrifice is our best friend,--Byron said he never knew but one, and that was his dog Boatswain ;-- our faithful companion who loves, honours and obeys us ; who has given his life for us a thousand times ; who is eager at any moment to imperil life and limb in our service ; who has even been known to die of grief on his master's grave, and to starve to death in the open rather than cease to guard his dead body. Let me beg of you, if only for the honour of our noble profession, to think of the sin involved--of the cruelty involved--of the treason, of the cowardice, of the utter pitilessness involved--as Miss Cobbe has remarked, in tying down this faithful friend, on a torture trough, and slowly mangling its brain, its eyes, its entrails, until after hours--it may be days or weeks--of the most exquisite torture, he perishes in a degree of agony of which we can form no conception. Surely, if there is a future--surely, if man is responsible--surely, if it is the merciful that shall obtain mercy,--it is not kind of us to allow our misguided friends to go on with this bloody work, or to bow down to those eminent men in our own profession who would conduct our14 youth into the same path which, if there be any truth in religion, can but lead to destruction. Ye therefore who love mercy, teach your sons To love it too. The springtime of our years Is soon dishonoured and defiled in most By budding ills, that ask a prudent hand To check them. but alas ! none sooner shoots If unrestrained, into luxuriant growth Than cruelty, most devilish of them all. Mercy to him that shows it is the rule And righteous limitation of its act By which heaven moves in pardoning guilty man ; And he that shows none, being ripe in years, And conscious of the outrage he commits, Shall seek it AND NOT FIND IT, in his turn. Compare, I say, the horrible tortures which I have described and thousands of others of a similar character which are going on day and night in the licensed laboratories of this country and abroad, with the shot of the sportsman or the sudden death in hot encounter, which is the fate of so many of the lower animals, and tell me if it is not simply absurd to declare that "the horrors of the laboratory are a mere fiasco in extent to the dreadfulness of the deeds of the sportsman," or those of nature herself. Besides, if the cruelties of sport are to be deprecated, how much more must all right-minded persons condemn deliberate, cold-blooded and prolonged torture, no matter for what selfish purpose it may be perpetrated ? As to the discoveries by vivisection that have benefited the human race, it has been proved over and over again that Pasteur's inoculation, both in anthrax and hydrophobia, have done infinite harm and not the slightest good ; Lister's antiseptic system was worked out, as everyone knows, in the hospital at the bed side and to the best of my belief, quite independently of experiments on animals--in fact, they would have been quite out of place ; and as to Ferrier's operations upon dogs' and monkeys' brains, why, such operations have taught us nothing but what equally good and better authorities have, and I believe with justice, declared to be both false and misleading. How then is it, you will very naturally inquire that the British Medical Association should pass a resolution declaring "that experiments on living animals are of inestimable benefit to man and animals, and that the continuance and extension of such investigations is essential to the progress of knowledge, the relief of suffering, and the saving of life." How, indeed ! Well, the passing of such a resolution, which in my opinion is a libel on the British Medical Association, is accounted for, first by the fact, to which Mr. Jonathan Hutchinson, the proposer, alluded, that probably not one in one hundred of those present had ever performed any experiments on animals at all ; and I will add, since they were educated and refined gentlemen, that they also probably had not the remotest idea of what they were doing; secondly, by the 15 fact that, owing to the shortness of the notice, equivalent to no notice at all, the resolution was sprung upon the meeting, and there was consequently no discussion and no opportunity of opposition ; and third, that those who were present and who were opposed to vivisection did not like to appear singular, and as one of them remarked to me, "be the only ones to stand out." Let us see now what arguments were adduced in favour of this ridiculous proposition. Mr. Hutchinson said, first, that the members of the Association ought to pass the resolution because those persons who practised vivisection were exposed to a certain amount of odium and ought to be protected. Second, that experiments on animals were not cruel, because nothing deserved the definition of cruelty which had for its object the alleviation of suffering. Third, that Sir William Gull had said that "there was not cruelty comparable to ignorance ;" and fourth, that those who were opposed to vivisection were like certain whelk shells turned the wrong way. Dr. Ransom, the seconder, merely added that the right to vivisect was a matter of privilege or liberty, and "the price of liberty was eternal vigilance,"--in fact it was "whelks and liberty" over again. But what did it all amount to? Persons who practise such cruelties as I have described must be expected to be exposed to odium ; and it is certainly not the business, even if it were in the power, of the British Medical Association to protect them. Moreover, cruelty is cruelty with whatever object it may be perpetrated ; and it is an insult to common sense to pretend that the man who flays dogs alive by the score is not cruel simply because he says he is trying to find out something about the functions of the skin. Sir William Gull's pompous remark really meant nothing at all ; and the eccentric persons who are compared to sea shells turned the wrong way are, as Sir John Stuart Mill has remarked, really the excellent of the earth ; they are the men and women who accomplish all good and useful ends, not by going with the stream like dead fish, but by buffering the tide. No, Sir, no good ever came of vivisection ever since the world began ; and in my humble opinion no good ever can. Never mind what physiologists say ; as Ouida had remarked, the arrogance, the conceit, the sophisms of the so-called scientists of to-day are as like the arrogance, the conceit, and the sophisms of the Bidas and Torquemadas of old, "as the Physiological Laboratory is like the Torture Chamber of the Inquisition." We have got rid of one, and we shall get rid of the other. Meantime, never let it be said that we as a Profession were on the side of wrong, of cruelty, of injustice and oppression. The main task of civilization has ever been the vindication of the rights of the weak. Animals have rights (so much is conceded by our laws), and men have duties towards them ; and for us to ignore the one, or counsel neglect of the other, is simply to proclaim ourselves enemies of the human race and foes to its destined progress. 16 The following are the Author's replies to arguments brought forward in favour of Vivisection, during debate at the close of his paper :-- "NIHIL UTILE QUOD NON SIT HONESTUM." THE CIRCULATION OF THE BLOOD. IT is true that Harvey was a vivisector, but it is not true that he discovered the circulation of the blood by means of vivisection : on the contrary, so long as he confined his attention to vivisection he was continually wading through blood, agony, and torture only to arrive at doubt, uncertainty, and contradiction. Here are his own words : "When I first gave my mind to vivisection as a means of discovering the motions and uses of the heart, and sought to discover these from actual inspection and not from the writings of others, I found the task so truly arduous, so full of difficulties, that I was almost tempted to think with Frascatorius that he motion of the heart was only to be comprehended by God, my mind was therefore greatly unsettled, nor did I know what I should myself conclude, nor what believe from others." He adds "I was led to distrust the existing belief of the course of the blood by CONSIDERING THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE VALVES OF THE VEINS (which of course could only be studied on the dead body). It was plain that the common doctrine that the blood moved to and from in the veins outwards from the heart and back again was incompatible with the fact of the direction of the valves which are so placed that the blood could not only move in one direction." Now, as Dr. Bridges, the Harveian orator for this year (1892), has pointed out, "Servetus and Colombo had demonstrated before Harvey that the blood passed from the right ventricle through the lungs to the left side of the heart ; and Cesalpino had shewn that in consequence of the arrangement of the mitral and aortic valves, the flow of blood must necessarily be from the left ventricle towards the various organs of the body." This could not be demonstrated on the living body, as Dr. George Macilwain, Fellow of the Royal Commission (Blue Book, p. 96), "You could not discover the circulation in a living body ; I do not see how it is possible to do so ; if you had a dead body then it is so easy to discover the circulation of the blood, that it is difficult to understand how it was not done before (Harvey's time), because if you inject the arteries you find that the fluid is returned by the veins." That is the simple truth ; whereas, if you attack a living animal, you are at once blinded by the blood which gushes forth at the first incision, and can make nothing out. "Harvey himself," says Dr. Lauder Brunton in his Gulstonian Lectures (British Medical Journal, March 17, 1877), "was led to form his ideas regarding the course taken by the blood from the position of the valves 17 of the veins, and might possibly have been able to discover it exactly without making a single experiment." Similar evidence before the same Commission was given by Dr. Acland, Regius Professor of Medicine at the University of Oxford ; and "The more Harvey's immortal work is studied," says Dr. Bridges, "the more palpable is the fallacy that his discovery resulted from any such process of direct inspection as vivisection is supposed to give. Comparison of structures--direct observation of structures--these supplied Harvey with his materials, and profound meditation did the rest." THE CURE (SO-CALLED) OF HYDROPHOBIA. It is true that Pasteur discovered, if we can call it a discovery, his so-called cure for hydrophobia by vivisection ; but it is not true that his so-called cure is any cure at all. On the contrary, it is pretty clearly established by now, that Professor Michel Peter's observation, made years ago, is strictly correct : "M. Pasteur ne guerit pas la rae, il la donne,"-- "he does not cure hydrophobia, he gives it." Here are the latest figures in proof thereof, which I quote from an excellent address on the subject, delivered at the recent Church Congress by Dr. F. S. Arnold, M.B. and B. Ch. Oxon :--"The report of the French Conseil Superior de l'Hygiene shows that from 1850 to 1885, the average annual mortality from hydrophobia in France was 23 ; from 1885 to 1890 inclusive, after Pasteur started his inoculations, there was a yearly average of 39 deaths in the same country, and under precisely similar conditions." "In England the deaths from hydrophobia from 1880 to 1884 inclusive, were 153, while those from 1885 to 1889--years during which many persons bitten by dogs were sent from this country to Pasteur--were 159, giving full addition of one to the yearly average." In addition to these conclusive facts, showing the utter failure of Pasteur's inoculations to diminish the number of deaths from hydrophobia, we have the fact that close upon 240 persons have died after having submitted to his treatment, and many of these clearly in consequence of it THE PREVENTIVE TREATMENT (SO-CALLED) OF ANTHRAX. It is true that Pasteur discovered his so-called preventive treatment of anthrax by experiments on animals, but it is not true that his inoculations have been of any service, or anything, when faithfully carried out, but a source of danger and disaster wherever they have been adopted. Indeed so clearly has this been demonstrated, that his system has been emphatically condemned by the German and English Commissioners appointed to inquire into it, and actually prohibited (as it ought to be in this country) by the Hungarian Commission, and for the following reasons :--1--Because the spores of anthrax are so indestructible that, once started, it is almost18 impossible to get rid of them ; they will survive immersion in solutions of the most powerful chemicals such as corrosive sublimate and carbolic acid, and will even resist the action of boiling water (unless the ebullition is continued for upwards of five minutes--see report of experiments in Bacteriological laboratory, Berlin, quoted in Medical Press) ; and because they will also live in pastures for years, through all weathers, and prove as fatal both to man and beast at last as at first. 2--Because when the spores and bacilli of this microbe are injected into the cellular tissue of a healthy animal, its blood, its nasal and buccal mucous discharges, its excrement and secretions are speedily swarming with bacilli, and it is at once scattering the seeds of this malignant and loathsome disease wherever it goes. 3--Because it is simply absurd to suppose that any protection can be gained in this way, because one attack of anthrax, malignant pustule, and splenic fever, as it is also called,--unlike scarlet fever, measles, and such like diseases,--confers no immunity against another attack. 4-- Because even the advocates of the system do not claim protection beyond a short period (a few months), and insist that the operation must be constantly repeated. 5--Because ten per cent. of the animals, even under favourable circumstances, die, and those who recover do so with their health permanently damaged. 6--Because the flesh, the milk, the butter, and cheese of such inoculated animals are contaminated and unfit for food. 7--Because the operation has proved fatal to a vast number of animals. M. Paul Bouillier, for instance, says that inoculation for anthrax has had but one result--that of causing the death of ten times more animals in France than are lost annually in the natural manner. Among hundreds of examples, he cites three. M. Grandchamps, he says, lost 5,000 francs worth of horses and cows from inoculation. M. Fournier inoculated 400 sheep, of which 90 died ; the mayor of St. Germain and M. Marcel le Brun lost between them as many sheep as have died in thirty Communes where no inoculation goes on, and 45 times more than were lost by five other farmers who own sheep in the same district where no inoculation is practised. It is by millions, he says, that we must count the losses in France from anthrax inoculation. It is said that the system has since been perfected ; but M. Luteaud, in a recent communication, tells me that French farmers have had such disastrous experience, that they now refuse to allow their animals to be inoculated ; and it is not long since the brothers Pankaljeff, Russian millionaires, allowed Dr. Bardach to inoculate their stock, as a result of which proceeding in two days 3,552 sheep died, 1,200 horned cattle likewise perished, and also hundreds of horses.--(Journal de Medicine,Paris, 1889). Professor Peter tells us that at about the same time inoculation was practised upon 4,564 sheep at Kachowa in Southern 19 Russia, of which 3,696 died--(Provincial Medical Journal, May, 1890) ; and from a report in The Standard for July 9th this year (1892), I find that in New South Wales, where M. Pasteur's representatives inoculated a flock of 12,524 sheep, 3,174 died. 8--Because, when these things do not happen, it is simply because the vaccine used has been sterilized down to the innocuity of rain water, and can neither protect or injure ; on which point Dr. Klein, in his Supplement to the Twelfth Annual Report of the Local Government Board (p. 208) remarks :--"Is a cultivation in which in course of time the bacilius anthracis, at first forming a copious growth, degenerates, and in which no spores had been formed, and further which cultivation loses, as we know, its power to infect with virulent anthrax animals when inoculated,--that is to say, such a cultivation as M. Pasteur's vaccine professes to be,--is such a cultivation, I say, perfectly ineffective too, in giving the animals some sort of immunity against further inoculation with natural material? The answer is, "Yes ; IT IS PERFECTLY INEFFECTIVE." And finally, as an eloquent writer has observed, "Accepting vaccination, however, as a preventive from one disease (smallpox), how will it be when we and our cattle employ twenty similar preventives for twenty other diseases? Is it really to be believed that the order of things has been so perversely constituted as that the health of men and beasts is to be sought, not, as we fondly believed, by pure and sober living and cleanliness, but by the pollution of the very fountains of life with the confluent streams of a dozen filthy diseases?" Mr. Fleming indites a psalm of triumph over the prospect of a boundless field of inoculations just opening to the activity of medical men and veterinary surgeons, who will go forth like so many sowers to scratch the people and cattle instead of the ground, and drop cultivated virus by way of seed, or possibly tares, as the case may prove. Are we then, our oxen, our sheep, our pigs, our fowls,--(that is to say, our bodies and the food which nourishes them)--all to be vaccinated, porcinated, equinated, caninised, felinised, and bovinated, once, twice, twenty times in our lives, or every year? Are we to be converted into so many living nests for the comfortable incubation of disease germs? Is our meat to be saturated with "virus," our milk drawn from inoculated cows, our eggs laid by diseased hens,--in short, are we to breakfast, dine, and sup upon disease by way of securing the perfection of health? God forbid ! THE LOCALISATION OF BRAIN DISEASE. It is true that Professor Ferrier has performed numerous vivisectional operations upon the brains of apes and other animals, and has in consequence arrived at certain conclusions 20 with regard to the functions of certain definite portions of cerebrum ; but it is not true that these experiments have resulted in benefit to the human race, or that the conclusions are trustworthy, or that he has given us any guide on which we can depend in operating upon the brain. On the contrary, cases of brain tumour that are at once accessible and capable of being localised are so extremely rare, that the benefit to the human race of such brain surgery must in any case be very small. Again, those physiologists who have repeated Ferrier's experiments deny his conclusions, and it is a fact that the only positive knowledge we have as to the functions of the brain has been derived from careful observation of human patients during life, and careful post mortem examinations of those who have succumbed after death. Let us examine these points a little in detail. Patients suffering from brain tumour are not very numerous ; nevertheless the Morbid Growths Committee of the Pathological Society have collected and tabulated fifty-four cases ; of these only two, even under the most favourable circumstances (i.e.,, with a certain knowledge of the locale of the tumour) seemed on post mortem examination to have been suitable for operation ; and Dr. Goodhart, physician to Guy's hospital, who is a great pathologist, says that in thirteen years of post mortem work he did not remember seeing a single case in which the tumour was at once accessible and capable of being localized.--(Pathological Society's Transactions, quoted in The Medical Press, Jan. 26th, 1887). He very naturally adds, "That in the region of cerebral tumours other than inflammatory, it therefore seems very doubtful if surgery has any future worth mentioning before it." Speaking on the same point, the Editor of The Medial Press remarks, "That if such cases (prospecting for brain tumours) proved fatal, the jury must give a verdict against the surgeon who operated ;" and the Editor of The Lancet (November, 1883) says that, " If Dr. Ferrier's suggestions meet with much practical response, it is to be feared that the cerebral localisation will soon have more deaths to answer for than lives to boast of." It is clear, therefore, that in cases other than inflammatory, or resulting from direct injury, where the history of the case, the heat, the pain on pressure, and other local symptoms would guide us, that there is not very much to be done in the way of brain surgery, and that we cannot possibly have derived the benefit which is claimed as a result of Ferrier's experiments on monkeys. Speaking on this point Sir W. Bowman says, "Vivisections upon so complex an organ as the brain are ill calculated to lead to useful or satisfactory results :" and Ferrier himself, in the preface to his Treatise on the Functions of the Brain says, "No one who has attentively studied the results of the labours of the numerous investigators in this field of research 21 can help being struck by the want of harmony, and even positive contradictions, among the conclusions which apparently the same experiments and the same facts have led to in different hands." "Indeed experiments on the lower animals, even on apes, often lead to conclusions SERIOUSLY AT VARIANCE WITH WELL ESTABLISHED FACTS OF CLINICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL OBSERVATION." Again, Ludimar Hermann, Professor of Physiology in the University of Zurich, says, "Physiological experiments conducted in those regions (of the brain) are most indefinite. The usual plan of investigation, viz., that of applying stimuli to the brain substance, leads either to negative results, or, if electrical stimulation is used, to results which, owing to the unavoidable dispersal of the currents in numerous directions, are not sufficiently localised to form the basis for trustworthy conclusions." And Dr. Kingsford (M.D., Paris), says, "The conditions under which experiments are compelled to work render the results liable to great misconception and error. Thus, in order to reach special tracts and areas of the brain, they are forced to push their instruments, whether heated or otherwise, through the superficial membranes and tissues of the hemispheres of the brain lying beneath the skull, and by these acts of laceration or denudation may complications are set up which often seriously interfere with the conclusions sought, making it difficult to determine what proportion of the results obtained may be due to secondary and unavoidable injuries." On the same point Dr. Charcot, in his work on the Topography of the Brain, after citing cases has also said, "These examples are enough to show that, particularly as regards brain functions, the utmost reserve is necessary in drawing inferences from animals to man ;" and Professor Goltz, some of whose experiments on the brains of dogs I have quoted, says, "It is not often that physiologists agree on matters relating to the physiology of the brain." Charcot and Petres in France,--Hitzig, Munk, and Hermann in Germany,--Luciani and Tambourini in Italy,-- and Doctors Schoefer and Goodhart in England--all differ from Ferrier in the conclusions drawn from his vivisectional experiments ; and Professor Munk, in his book "Functionem der Grosshirnrinde," besides rejecting the conclusions of Flourens, Fritsch, Hitzig Caville, Douet, Nothnagel, Schiff, Hermann, and Goltz, speaks of Ferrier's certainty in his own results as being only equalled by the impossibility of the slightest faith being placed in any of the results by any one who examines his researches ; and Ludwig, whose laboratory at Leipzic is the largest in the world, compares these experiments to injuries to a watch by means of a pistol shot ;* * See Hermann's "Human Physiology," translated by Gamgee.22 while the Editor of The Lancet (Nov. 10th, 1883), commenting on these facts, remarks : "Experiments led Flourens and all the chief physiologists of the day to the conclusion that no function was specially performed in any one geographical region of the cortex (of the brain), but that every part subserved the functions of which any was capable, and these experiments were made with as much care and as much skill as those which have led Fritsch, Hitzig, Ferrier and others to conclusions diametrically opposite. Moreover, in the full light of these latter researches, one of the most distinguished physiologists of the present day has come to conclusions not far removed from those of Flourens, and the author of the most popular text book of physiology now hesitates between the two opinions." It is thus evident that experimenters are hopelessly at variance with each other, and that we can draw no safe conclusions from what they have done. Are we, then, to repeat their experiments? God forbid ! that would only render confusion worse confounded. No ; if we wish to get at the truth in this matter, we must simply carefully observe the symptoms of patients suffering from disease of the brain during life, and compare these symptoms with the lesions detected in the cerebral substance after death ; that is the only sure and safe guide to the truth, and it is to it that we owe all that we know for CERTAIN now of the localisation of the functions of the brain. Speaking on this point, Charcot says : "The only really decisive data touching the cerebral pathology of man ae, in my opinion, those developed according to the principles of the Anatomico Clinical Method. That method consists in ever confronting the functional disorders observed during life in man, with the lesions discovered and carefully located after death. To this method, I may justly say, WE OWE WHATEVER DEFINITE KNOWLEDGE WE HAVE OF BRAIN PATHOLOGY." He adds, " As for the localisation of certain cerebral functions, this method is not only the best, but the only one that can be employed." Again, Dr. Laborde, Professor of Practical Physiology, Paris, says : "The first victory of science over the impenetrable mysteries of the nerve functions--that most brilliant victory, the discovery of the exact seat of aphasia--was the result of bed side experience, which alone could accomplish it." He adds, "The study of this organ, the brain, if it is to bear fruit, MUST BE MADE ON MAN." Ferrier himself adds, the decisive settlement of such points must depend mainly on careful clinical and pathological research. "Experiments have led to different results in different hands." Dr. MacEwen, of Glasgow, located and operated on cases of brain disease with extraordinary success, guided only 23 by observation at the bed side and post mortem examinations, before Ferrier's experiments were heard of ; and Herman Ludimar, Professor of Physiology in the Zurich University, after experimenting on dogs, says, "The best method of investigation which is possible is the observation of cases of disease in the human subject in which the exact nature of the lesions is accurately ascertained after death." Again, Professor Charcot points out in his "Lecons sur les Localisations dans les Maladies Cerebrales," that "The utmost that can be learned from experiments on the brains of animals is the topography of the ANIMAL brain, and that it must still remain for the science of HUMAN ANATOMY AND CLINICAL INVESTIGATION to enlighten us in regard to the far more complex and highly differentiated nervous organization of our own species ; and, in fact, it is from the department of clinical and post mortem study that so far all our best data for brain localisation have been secured." Again, "Painstaking and thoughtful observers of cerebral diseases in man were actively and fruitfully at work in this direction more than ten years before the experimenter had sacrificed a single animal to the quest, and it has been repeatedly pointed out by those who are qualified to judge, that Nature continually presents us with ready-made experiments of the most delicate and suggestive kind, impossible for mechanical artifice to realise, on account of the conditions under which artifice must necessarily work."--(See Kingsford in Science, a monthly journal, for Feb. 7th, 1884). THE ANTISEPTIC TREATMENT OF WOUNDS. It is true that Sir Joseph Lister (in his evidence before the Royal Commission) stated that he had made experiments on animals in connection with his antiseptic system : but it is not true that such experiments have resulted in benefit to the human race, or that the antiseptic treatment of wounds is in any way due to such experiments. On the contrary, as Mr. Lawson Tait has pointed out, Sir Joseph's experiments with carbolized catgut as a ligature for arteries, while answering admirably in the horse and calf, failed miserably when tried on human beings, and "has cost many lives ;" while the treatment of patients with antiseptic dressings was carried out in the wards of the Infirmaries of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and London, upon patients suffering from all kinds of wounds, bruises, and putrefying sores. Such investigations were, without doubt, perfectly legitimate ; were on right lines ; and to them is due, and not to vivisection, all that we know of the antiseptic system. As to Hunter's treatment of aneurism, this was adopted, as Sir James Paget has pointed out (see Hunterian Oration, 1887), "Not as the result of any laborious physiological induction (experiments on animals) ; it was 24 mainly derived from facts very cautiously observed in the wards and dead-house." Von Graefe assured me himself that he was led to adopt his treatment for glaucoma by noticing that eyes on which he had operated for artificial pupil, became softer in consequence of that operation. He said nothing whatever about experiments on animals, and I do not believe that he made any until he had tested and proved his operations on the patients in his Augen Clinique. Those detailed in the Times are so manifestly superfluous, clumsy, and apt to mislead, that I need not say anything more with regard to them. Galvani's discovery of electricity was due to experiments on dead frogs--"dalle morte rane"--not on living animals ; vivisection had nothing whatever to do with it. The anaesthetic properties of ether and chloroform were discovered by experiments upon human patients, not by vivisection of animals. Koch's inoculations with tubercle, which were adopted from experiments upon animals, have led to death from initial fever, the infection of the whole system of patients who merely suffered from localised disease, and to failure and terrible disappointment of patients subjected to it. Vivisection was not needed for the discovery of the properties of nitrate of amyl, no indeed, so far as I can make out, of anything else ; and, after all, "It is not whether such and such a discovery was made by vivisection, but whether vivisection was indispensable to that discovery?" If there are any such discoveries, either made or to be made, I must candidly confess I do not know of them ; in fact, if anything could exceed the hideous cruelty of the whole business, it would be the childish absurdity of the claims to benefit which are constantly put forth by the advocates and promoters of the system NOTE ON ANTHRAX.--The health and vital powers of the animals subjected to real inoculation are so depressed, that they die in very large proportion from various other diseases from which non-inoculated animals are free. This statement is founded upon experiments which were carried out in Buda-Pest and Kapuvar, in the report of which, quoted by Surgeon-general Gordon, I find the following :--"We cannot overlook the fact that after protective inoculation the deaths in which post mortem examinations indicated other diseases, such as pneumonia, pericarditis, catarrh, distoma strangulus, and other diseases, occurred exclusively amongst the inoculated animals, and from a practical point of view it is pretty much the same whether the loss be caused by anthrax or other diseases." Professors Koch and Klein and the Hungarian Commission have already unequivocally condemned the system, and Professor Peter, the well-known successor to Trosseau, declares that it is high time to raise a cry of alarm, and take steps to stop a practice which is indefensible in theory and disastrous in results. "THE FRIEND OF MAN--THE PREY OF THE VIVISECTOR." READ 'The Animals' Friend' 2d. Monthly, including Children's Supplement. BOTH FREELY ILLUSTRATED. Policy--AGAINST ALL CRUELTY. Beautiful Bound Volumes, 2/6 each, post free. PUBLISHERS: GEORGE BELL & SONS, 6, York Street, Covent Garden, LONDON, W.C.The London Anti=Vivisection Society, 32, Sackville Street, Piccadilly, London, W. Founded 1876. OBJECT--THE TOTAL ABOLITION OF VIVISECTION. MEANS EMPLOYED.--Lectures, Public Meetings, the Circulation of Papers and Pamphlets bearing upon Vivisection ; Petitions to Parliament. "Heartily sympathising with your efforts."--Extract from a letter from H.M. The Queen to the Secretary of this Society. Lord Shaftesbury.--"Vivisection is an abominable sin." Justice Hawkins.--"I abominate vivisection ; should rejoice to see it legally suppressed." Sir Henry Irving.--"Fully in sympathy." The Anti-Vivisection Cause has had the support of Tennyson, Robert Browning, Thomas Carlyle, Cardinal Manning, Canon Liddon, Canon Wilberforce, General Sir Evelyn Wood, Bishop Fraser, Bishop Moorhouse, Bishop Barry, the Rev. C. H. Spurgeon, and other eminent men. FUNDS to protect the animals are URGENTLY NEEDED. Legacies should be left to "The London Anti-Vivisection Society." This is most important. Patrons : The Duke of Portland The Dowager Countess of Kintore The Dowager Duchess of Manchester The Dowager Marchioness of Ormonde The Countess of Lindsey The Earl of Lindsay The Countess of Lindsay. The Countess of Dundonald The Countess of Caithness The Countess of Roden The Countess of Norbury The Countess of Munster Lord Ernest Hamilton Lord Hatherton, C.M.G. Lord Leigh Lord Robartes The Bishop of Argyle and the Isles The Lord Bishop of Ontario Bishop Hellmuth Lady Archibald Lady Colquhoun Lady Anne Campbell The Lady Madeleine Keith-Falconer The Lady Maud Keith-Falconer Sir Henry Hawkins; Lady Hawkins Sir John Heron Sir J. Naesmith, Bart. General W. C. W. Napier Canon Wilberforce Rev. Preb. Webb-Peploe Prof. Lawson Tait, M.D., F.R.C.S. James Sant, Esq., R.A. The Annual Report and Literature free on Application. The Committee most earnestly appeal for aid to enable them to carry on a more Vigorous Campaign. OFFICES : 32, SACKVILLE STREET, PICCADILLY, LONDON, W. Treasurer :--DR. WALL. Secretary :--SIDNEY G. TRIST. 4.98 TENTH THOUSAND. Does Science need Secrecy? A REPLY TO PROF. PORTER AND OTHERS OF HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL BY ALBERT LEFFINGWELL, M. D. CAMBRIDGE, MASS. WITH STATEMENT CONCERNING VIVISECTION, BY PROF. W. T. PORTER, REPRINTED FROM "THE BOSTON TRANSCRIPT." PROVIDENCE, R. I. 1896. TENTH THOUSAND. Does Science need Secrecy? A REPLY TO PROF. PORTER AND OTHERS OF HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL BY ALBERT LEFFINGWELL, M. D., CAMBRIDGE, MASS. WITH STATEMENT CONCERNING VIVISECTION, BY PROF. W. T. PORTER, REPRINTED FROM "THE BOSTON TRANSCRIPT." PROVIDENCE, R. I. 1896. DOES SCIENCE NEED SECRECY? A REPLY TO PROFESSOR PORTER BY ALBERT LEFFINGWELL, M. D., M. Sc. Formerly Instructor of Physiology, Polytechnic Institute, Brooklyn, N. Y. To what extent can scientific authority be implicitly received as the foundation of belief regarding the subject of Vivisection? It is certain that for the great majority of men and women, all statements concerning it are wholly beyond the possibility of verification by personal experience. Regarding its extents or its methods, its pain or painlessness, its utility to humanity or its liability to abuse, the world bases its judgment, not upon knowledge, but upon faith in the accuracy, the impartiality, the sincerity of the men who, standing within the temple of science, know with certainty the facts. One might suppose that here was the welcome opportunity to demonstrate that science can have nothing to conceal; that her symbol is a torch and not a veil; and that above all professional preference and all partisan zeal stands fidelity to accuracy, and the love of absolute truth. Nevertheless, it is my purpose in this paper to question the wisdom of too implicit faith; to suggest the expediency of doubt; and to point out why statements which may have the support of high scientific authorities, should sometimes be received with great caution and careful discrimination. And yet I cannot see the slightest reason why everything that concerns a scientific method or purpose should not be plainly and accurately set forth. Generally The substance of this article was read before the Annual Meeting of the American Humane Association, Minneapolis, September 26, 1895, and was printed in the Boston Transcript, September 28, 1895.4 this is the case. If a new telescope of unusual power is desired by a university, Wealth is not asked to give it in order that wealth may be increased by lunar discoveries. When an astronomical station is established on the Andes, or an expedition fitted out for the North Pole, we all know that science only will be the gainer--not commerce or art. The one exception to an almost universal rule, the one point where truth is veiled in obscurity for the public eye, is when we come to the vivisection of animals. Everywhere else science seems mindful of her mission, and asks only that with increasing radiance the light may shine. Why should vivisection offer an exception to this ideal? That it seems impossible to tell the whole truth about it is evident to every person who understands the facts. The London Lancet, for example, recently praised a biography by Prof. Mosso, in which that Italian physiologist--as the Lancet remarked, "wisely" said,--"It is an error to believe that experiments can be performed on an animal which feels." A few weeks ago Professor Mosso sent me a manuscript copy of this same essay, in which the sentence appears in slightly different form : "It is an error to think that one can experiment on animals that have not lost sensation ; the disturbance produced by pain in the organism of the animal is so great that it renders useless any observations." Now here is the utterance of a man of science, trained in the accuracy of the laboratory, occupying one of the foremost positions in Europe as a physiologist, and his words, stamped with the approval of the leading Medical journal of England, may presently be floating through the American press. How is the average reader to question a statement like this? Nevertheless, it is absolutely untrue. One can perform experiments "on an animal which feels ;" they have been done by the thousand by Bernard, Magendie, Mantagazza, Brown-Sequard, and others ; I have seen scores of these myself. No more unscientific sentence was ever written than this statement that one cannot do what is done every day ! What the Italian physiologist might truthfully have written was this : "It 5 is an error to believe that physiological experiments, requiring the aid of delicate instruments, can be performed upon an animal which is not made incapable of muscular effort." If he had then gone on to say to what extent he effects this by means of anaesthetics, to what extent by the use of narcotics, and to what extend the poison of curare is administered to paralyze the motor nerves, leaving sensibility to pain untouched, we might have had a scientific statement of fact. As it is, we have--what? An untruth due to ignorance? An error due to carelessness? I do not know. Perhaps the physiologist was thinking to intently of his own special lines of inquiry to note the significance of his words ; but what shall we say of a great scientific journal in England which could quote the untruth as "wisely" said? Is even verbal inaccuracy "wise" where science is concerned? There was recently given out by Dr. William Townsend Porter, the assistant professor of physiology in Harvard Medical School at Boston, one of the most astonishing statements concerning vivisection that ever appeared in public print. The accuracy of Dr. Porter's statement was vouched for by five other leading professors in the same institution-- Drs. Henry P. Bowditch, W. T. Councilman, W. F. Whitney, C. S. Minot and H. C. Ernst ; men whose scientific reputation has imparted to their affirmations an immense authority throughout the country. They put forth what they asserted was a "plain statement of the whole truth" concerning experiments on living animals. He, perhaps, is a rash man who ventures to question any assertion supported by names like these. But it is the duty of every lover of scientific truth to point out errors wherever he may find them, no matter how shielded by authority or intrenched by public opinion ; and I propose, therefore, to make use of this professional manifesto as an illustration of the fallibility of even the highest scientific expert testimony. I think it can be proven that although this declaration rests on such high authority, it is nevertheless permeated wit mis-statement and error ; that certain assertions have been made without due 6 authority, and certain facts of pith and moment most singularly omitted, or most carelessly overlooked. And if full reliance cannot be given to assertions made by men of the highest fame, then the whole question is as far as ever from permanent settlement. I. In the first place Professor Porter does not well when he denies (as he seems to do) that the practice of experimentation upon living animals has ever led to abuse. "The cruelties practiced by vivisectors are paraded in long lists, with the assurance that they are taken directly from the published writings of the vivisectors themselves." Well, is this assurance untrue? "These long-drawn lists of atrocities that never existed,"--can these be the words of a devotee of scientific truth? What does Professor Porter mean by them? What other meaning is possible for the average reader to obtain than that he intended to deny that atrocious experiments were anything but a myth? "Never existed?" Why, both in Europe and America, but especially abroad, I have personally seen most awful cruelty inflicted upon living animals, simply for the purpose of illustrating well-known facts or theories that had not the faintest conceivable relation to the treatment and cure of disease. No facts of history are capable of more certain verification than the tortures which have marked the vivisections of Magendie and Bernard, of Bert and Mantagazza, and of a host of their imitators. "It is not to be doubted that inhumanity may be found in persons of very high position as physiologists ; we have seen that it was so in Magendie." This is the language of the report on vivisection by a royal commission, to which is attached the name of Professor Thomas H. Huxley. Says Dr. Eliotson, in his work on Human Physiology (p. 448), "I cannot refrain from expressing my horror at the amount of torture which Dr. Brachet inflicted. I hardly think knowledge is worth having at such a purchase." But take American testimony on this point. Dr. Henry J. Bigelow, for many years the professor of surgery in Harvard Medical School, of whom Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes has said, that he was "one of the first, if 7 not the first, of American surgeons," gave the annual address before the Massachusetts Medical Society a few years ago, Therein he called attention to the "dreadful sufferings of dumb animals, the cold-blooded cruelties now more and more practiced under the authority of science ! . . . Watch the students at a vivisection. It is the blood and suffering, not the science that rivets their breathless attention. . . . It is dreadful to think how many poor animals will be subjected to excruciating agony as one medical college after another becomes penetrated with the idea that vivisection is a part of modern teaching ; that to hold way with other institutions they, too, must have their vivisector, their mutilated dogs, their chamber of horrors and torture to advertise as a laboratory." Does any one imagine that Dr. Bigelow here refers to "atrocities that never existed?" The American Academy of Medicine includes within its membership men who are as well informed as any in the medical profession. At the sixteenth annual meeting, held in Washington four years ago, Dr. Theophilus Parvin, one of the professors in Jefferson Medical College of Philadelphia, gave the Presidential address. Speaking of physiologists, he says that there are some "who seem, seeking useless knowledge, to be blind to the writhing agony and deaf to the cry of pain of their victims, and who have been guilty of the most damnable cruelties without the denunciation by the public that their wickedness deserves and demands ; these criminals are not confined to Germany or France, but may be found in our own country." Is this the statement of an "agitator?" Well, President Parvin graduated as a physician some years before Dr. Porter was born, and I fancy that he knows of what he speaks. And that physiological experimenter who, defending the utility of vivisection, forgets or denies the existence of atrocity, may be on dangerous ground. Cases have been known where merciless occupation has induced an atrophy of the sense of pity ; and its first symptom is unconsciousness of cruelty, and blindness to abuse. II. But quite as strange as any assertion in this 8 "plain statement of the whole truth" is the implied suggestion that abuse is impossible because everything is so openly done ! "These loud outcries to put an end to the frightful scenes daily enacted within the open doors of the most enlightened institutions of learning," --surely there is a false impression conveyed by these words which their writer should hasten to correct. "Within the open doors!" To whom are the doors of the physiological laboratories open? Why, no feudal castle of the middle ages was ever more rigidly guarded against the entrance of an enemy than physiological laboratories are secured against the admission of unwelcome visitors. To some of the largest laboratories in the United States, no physician even, can gain entrance unless personally known. If the Bishop of Massachusetts and the editor of any leading newspaper in the city were to apply for admittance at Professor Porter's laboratory during a vivisection, would the doors swing open as to welcome guests? Would they be invited to come again and as often as desired, without previous notification? I commend the experiment. Of course a certain degree of this seclusion is necessary and wise. That which I criticise is the implied denial that any secrecy exists and this reference to "open doors." And if doubt still lingers in the minds of any who read, a conclusive experiment will not be difficult to make. Let him but knock at these "open doors" when vivisection is going on. III. We are informed, too, by these scientific authorities that by so simple a method as "a scratch on the tail of an etherized mouse" and subsequent treatment, "the priceless discovery was made which has at length banished tetanus from the list of incurable disorders." That is an unscientific statement simply because it is untrue. Tetanus, or lockjaw, was never in "the list of incurable disorders" --if uniform fatality is meant ; and it certainly has not been taken out of the list by any "priceless discovery" whatever. Consult Aikin, Wood, Fagge, Gross--consult any medical authority whatever of ten years ago--and you find the recoveries from tetanus averaged at that time from 9 ten to fifty-eight per cent. of those who were attacked. Now, what might change has been wrought by the "priceless discovery?" Well, I take up the London Lancet of Aug. 10, 1895, and I find an English physician tracing "all procurable published and unpublished cases of tetanus treated by anti-toxine," and they number just thirty-eight, of which twenty-five were recoveries and thirteen were deaths. I take up the New York Medical Record for Aug. 24, 1895, and I find a correspondent stating that he "can discover in the recent medical literature but six or seven cases in all where anti-toxine or tetanine has been used successfully, and they were all by foreigners." To call that a "priceless discovery," which is not in general use to-day, which in four years has made no better record than this, and with which the report of hardly a single cure can be found in American medical annals within the last five years,--is that a scientific statement? Is it worthy of the reputation of men who allowed it go forth to the world backed by the eminence of their names? IV. "It is asserted," says Professor Porter, "that living animals, without narcotics, helpless under the control of poisons which, it is alleged, destroy the power to move while increasing the power to suffer, are subjected to long, agonizing operations, in the hope of securing some new fact, interesting to the scientific mind, but without practical value." This is one of the most curious and ingenious sentences I have ever read. Its inaccuracy depends on only two words, "without narcotics." No critic of vivisection ever made use of those words in any such statement ; and I respectfully challenge Professor Porter for reference or quotation. It cannot be given. But, if instead of the words "without narcotics," Professor Porter had written "without anaesthetics," then he would have made a precise, accurate and true statement of what undoubtedly has been charged. Could any reader imagine that such a charge was true, and that it might exactly apply to some operations carried on in the laboratories of Harvard Medical School? "Helpless under the 10 control of poisons which destroy the power to move, while increasing the power to suffer," writes the physiologist, in seeming amazement at the mendacity that could coin such a wicked lie ! Yet that statement is entirely true. The name of that poison is curari or woorara ; the orthography is by no means fixed. "Woorari," says Dr. Ott (who has personally made use of it in the physiological laboratory at Harvard Medical School), "is able to render animals immovable . . . by a paralysis of the motor nerves, leaving sensory nerves intact." The properties of this singular poison have been carefully investigated by Claude Bernard, whose work on experimental science may be seen at the Boston Public Library. "Le Curare," he says, "detruit le mouvement, en laissant persiste rla sensibilite" (p. 298) / "Curare destroys the power of movement, although sensibility persists." Under the influence of this agent the animals upon which the physiologist may be working are "exactly as if solidly fixed to the table, are in truth chained for hours" (p. 310). Does it know what is going on? "When a mammal is poisoned by curari, its intelligence, sensibility or will power are not affected, but they lose the power of moving." (p. 296). Do they suffer? Is it true, this statement which Professor Porter tells us is "asserted," but which he does not--except by innuendo-- deny, that animals are "helpless under control of poisons which destroy the power to move, while increasing the power to suffer?" Well, Claude Bernard was one of the greatest physiologists of this century, and he shall tell us. Death by curare, he says, although it seems "si calme, et si exempte de douleur, est au contraire, accompagnee des souffrances les plus atroces que L' imaginaton de l' homme puisse concevoir,"--sufferings the most atrocious that the imagination of man can conceive! "In that corpse without movement and with every appearance of death, sensibility and intelligence exist without change. The cadaver that one has before him hears and comprehends what goes on about him, and feels whatever painful impressions we may inflict." (p. 291) Is an animal ever "curarized" in the Harvard Medical School? We shall presently see. 11 V. Throughout the entire manifesto the word "narcotics" is constantly used apparently as a synonym for "anaesthetics;" we read for instance of "a rabbit narcotized with chloral," a "narcotized dog," etc., but not once of an "anaesthetized" animal. Let us see exactly what these terms indicate. In the physiological laboratory five different substances are largely employed for producing certain effects in animals used for experiment. Of curare I have just spoken. Chloroform and ether are known as "anaesthetics ;" that is, agents which, pushed sufficiently far, produce a degree of the most absolute insensibility to pain. But the trouble with these anaesthetics in the laboratory is their liability to cause the sudden death of the animal experimented upon ; and this is often most annoying and inconvenient. The temptation therefore is great to substitute for these anaesthetics certain "narcotics" which create a degree of torpor, though they do not prevent pain. Opium (or morphia) and chloral are the agents thus used. An animal treated with either may be said to be "narcotized." But is the creature thus narcotized, sensitive to the pain of cutting, for example? Take opium. Claude Bernard, the great French physiologist, asserts that sensibility exists even though the animal be incapable of movement ; "il sent la douleur, mais il a, pour ainsi dire, perdu l'idee de la defense ;" he feels the pain, but has lost, so to speak the idea of defending himself. Do surgeons use morphia to prevent the pain of a surgical operation? Or take chloral. It is a narcotic ; it tends to produce sleep. Is it an anaesthetic? Dr. Farquharson of St. Mary's Hospital says in his "Guide to Therapeutics" (p. 195) : "Recent observation goes to show that chloral is in no sense a true anaesthetic. . . . Chloral having no influence over sensory nerves, has no power, per se, of allaying pain." Dr. Wood of Philadelphia seems disposed to think that "in very large doses" chloral will produce insensibility to pain ; but he adds that unless the amount employed be so large as to be almost poisonous, "this anaesthesia is in most cases very trifling."12 For use in the physiological laboratory, the dose for a rabbit is fifteen grains, or one gramme. What shall we say of most painful experiments upon rabbits, "lightly chloralized" with one-tenth the ordinary dose? Such investigations were made by Professor Porter himself, at the Harvard Medical School, and within the last two years. VI. And this brings me to a point upon which I am loth to touch, since it would seem to involve the most positive contradiction of statements made by scientific men of the highest authority. Speaking in the plural number for his five associates, Professor Porter has said of vivisections, causing pain, that "such investigations are rare. None such have been made in the Harvard Medical School within our knowledge." This assertion has been widely copied, and is almost universally believed. The Boston Transcript doubtless echoed the sentiment of the public when it declared in its editorial columns that "the character and standing of the medical men whose names are given as responsible for this explanation to the Boston public forbid any questioning of its statements of facts." What is the value of authority if one may assume to disbelieve in a case like this? Here is the assertion of six scientific teachers. For the general public, nothing would seem to remain but unquestioning acceptance, and implicit belief. But a great English thinker has said that doubt is the very foundation of science, since "without doubt, there would be no inquiry, and without inquiry, no knowledge." In the interests of scientific truth, I venture here, to suggest doubt rather than credulity. We have an assertion which is either true or false. I doubt its truth. I affirm that evidence exists that experiments have been made in Harvard Medical School under the following circumstances : 1. Animals have been "curarized," and in that condition vivisected. Curare is not an anaesthetic, but simply prevents the animal from moving, while remaining entirely sensible to pain. 2. Animals have been "very lightly narcotized" and in that condition vivisected. There is no evidence that animals "lightly chloralized" are insensible to pain. 13 3. In the majority of published accounts of experiments, there is no mention whatever of anaesthetics being used. In a few instances only, there is reference to the administration of ether before the preliminary cutting, often followed later by use of curare. 4. The majority of these published investigations, so far as I have been able to discover, relate to curious questions in physiology, and have no perceptible relation to the treatment or cure of human ailments. For proof of these statements I refer to the published accounts of various experimenters themselves, concerning their own investigations. Most of them may be found in somewhat rare volumes entitled, "Collected Papers, Physiological Laboratory of Harvard Medical School." 1. DR. OTT ON THE ACTION OF LOBELINA. "The number of my experiments was six, and all were made on rabbits. . . . Into the left jugular had been bound a canula, through which the poison was injected toward the heart. (Exp. I.) As the injection of the poison caused struggling . . . I used curare to paralyze the motor nerves. (Exp. II.) Rabbit, curarized, vagus irritated. (This experiment lasted thirty minutes.) From another series, we may quote the Exp. VIII. Dog ; vagi and sympathetics cut ; artificial respiration, etc. "The above experiments were made in Professor Bowditch's laboratory at Harvard Medical School." There is no mention of anaesthetics. 2. DR. OTT ON THE ACTION OF THEBAIN. "In all cases of poisoning by thebain, the functions of the sensory nerves remain unimpaired till death, as convulsions are always excited by touch, up to that period." (p. 5.) "I have made use of the beautiful method of Brown-Sequard in cutting off the action of the poison on the lower segment of the spine," etc. "The experiments on the circulation were twenty-six in number and were made on rabbits. . . . Artificial respiration was kept up. . . . Curare was used." Dr. Ott makes no mention of anaesthetics. "It is well known," says Dr. Ott, "that the irritation14 of a sensory nerve causes an excitation of the vaso-motor centre, which is indexed by a rise of pressure. The following experiment was made : Ludwig's gimlet electrodes were screwed into the atlas and occiputal bone (the skull of a rabbit) for direct irritation ; vagi cut ; curare ; sciatic nerve prepared ; vaso-motor centre irritated through a sensory nerve three seconds ; directly irritated for eleven seconds." The entire experiment lasted twenty-five minutes ; the pressure rose from 150 to 186 and 198. Dr. Ott adds : "As indirect irritation always produces a rise of pressure, the sensory nerves and the conductors of their impressions are not paralyzed." (p. 12.) Will someone assert that this was a "painless" experiment? Where was it done? "The above experiments were made in the physiological laboratory of Professor Bowditch at the Harvard Medical School." 3. DR. WALTON ON THE EPIGLOTTIS. Case IX. "Dog ; epiglottis excised ; watched six days ; coughed at almost every attempt to eat or drink. Case X. Large dog ; epiglottis excised ; observed twenty-one days ; choked in swallowing liquids and solids at every trial." "The experiments were performed in the laboratory of Harvard Medical School." A dog, strangling in all attempts to swallow food for a period of three weeks can hardly be said to undergo "a painless experiment." 4. DR. HOOPER'S EXPERIMENTS. "The following experiment was made in order to ascertain whether an upward movement of the cricoid cartilage was necessarily associated with increased capacity of the larynx." Small dog ; curarized ; artificial respiration ; pharynx plugged ; a cord ties around the head and jaw in front of the ears to compress the cotton and the passages leading upward. Trachia divided ; a tubulated cork secured in upper end. "It may be questioned certainly how far an experiment of this kind can be applied to the living human larynx, or with what logical justice we can draw conclusions from it." "The experiments recorded in this paper were performed in the physiological laboratory of Harvard Medical School." Of another series of ninety-four experiments upon nine different dogs, it is 15 stated that they were etherized "during the early part of the operation." If one desires to see the picture of a dog "thoroughly etherized or chloralized," fastened immovably, its throat cut, and its larynx dissected out and tied up with a string -- an experiment from the physiological laboratory of Harvard Medical School -- let him consult one of Dr. Hooper's papers. 5. VASO-MOTOR EXPERIMENTS UPON FROGS, BY DR. ELLIS. "All the frogs were curarized. . . . The sciatic nerve laid bare and cut in the upper part of the thigh." Dr. Ellis tells us that "many frogs were used ;" that "different frogs vary greatly in their susceptibility to different forms of electrical irritation ;" that "each animal is a law unto itself ;" that "the individual peculiarities of different frogs and the varying conditions to which they are subjected add perplexing elements to the problem ;" that "very delicate apparatus was employed ;" that in some instances a "curious result was obtained by striking the abdomen rapidly for a short time, causing the force of the heart-beats to much diminish ;" that sometimes the little creature's heart becomes "enormously swollen with blood, as shown by the great rise in the lever ;" that shocks were "given once every second" in certain cases, and that "very beautiful records can be taken." No doubt ; no doubt. All this may be interesting to the physiologist ; but what practical results were obtained? "We cannot believe," says the Harvard manifesto, "that such inquiries are ever taken without . . . the conviction that the benefit to humanity will far outweigh whatever suffering they may cause to the animals." These are beautiful words ! Let Dr. Ellis state the results of his own experiments in his own way : "The results of our experiments point to the existence of a vaso-dilator as well as a vaso-constrictor mechanism in the frog!" That is all. The "benefit to humanity" was about as much as would come from the discovery of a silver mine in the moon. 6. DR. BOWDITCH'S EXPERIMENTS ON THE VASO-MOTOR NERVES. "After some preliminary experiments on other animals, it was decided to employ cats in this research, since 16 adult cats vary less than dogs in size, and are much more vigorous and tenacious of life than rabbits or other animals usually employed in physiological laboratories. The latter point is one of considerable importance in experiments extending over several hours. The animals were curarized and kept alive by artificial respiration, while the pheripheric end of the divided sciatic nerve was stimulated by induction shocks, varying in intensity and frequency. . . . The experiments were so prolonged that it seemed important to give to the air thrown through the trachial canula into the lungs a temperature as near as possible to air respired through the natural channel. . . . "The cat to be experimented upon was first etherized by being placed in a bell-glass with a sponge saturated with ether, and then secured, "the head being held in an ordinary Czermak's rabbit-holder. The sciatic nerve was then divided. In some cases the cat was allowed to recover from the effect of the ether, and the experiment postponed some days ; in others, a half-per-cent solution of curare was put into the circulation while the animal was still etherized." (The effect of the curare would be to render the animal motionless, after recovery from the ether ; it has no other use.) In all, there were 909 observations made upon "about seventy cats."* In one experiment "a tetanic stimulation was applied for fifteen minutes to the sciatic nerve. The result was a constriction steadily maintained during continuance of the irritation." If there were any results for "benefit of humanity" in these investigations, they are not recorded. These experiments were made at Harvard Medical School ; and I submit that they were by no means "painless." 7. DR. BOWDITCH'S EXPERIMENTS ON NERVES. These were made upon cats "in the laboratory of Harvard Medical School." "The animals were kept under the * In the Boston Transcript of Feb. 10, 1896, the Dean of Harvard Medical School was reported as denying that cats were used for vivisections, and as affirming that although connected with the School since his graduation he had "never seen or heard of a cat being in the building." It is indeed strange that the fame of Dr. Bowditch's researches upon these "seventy cats" did not even reach his associate in the same building! 17 influence of a dose of curare just strong enough to prevent muscular contractions ; while artificial respiration was maintained, and the sciatic nerve constantly subjected to stimulation sufficiently intense to produce in unpoisoned animals, a tetanic contraction of the muscles. In this way it was found that stimulation of a nerve lasting from one a half to four hours (the muscle being prevented from contracting by curare) did not exhaust the nerve." The foregoing quotation is from an address given before the American Association for Advancement of Science, August, 1886--nine years ago. If any great "benefit to humanity" has resulted from them, it has not yet been made public. Were these experiments "painless?" 8. DR. ERNST'S RESEARCHES INTO RABIES. In the "American Journal of Medical Sciences" for April, 1887, there appears an account of certain investigations into the nature of rabies and hydrophobia, made by Dr. Harold C. Ernst of the Harvard Medical School. Some thirty-two rabbits were inoculated with rabies, and all of them died of this terrible disease. Without touching upon the question of utility in this particular instance, I submit that by his own account of these investigations, they were by no means "painless." 9. EXPERIMENTS OF PROF. PORTER, ON THE SPINAL CORD. In the "Journal of Physiology" for April 6, 1895, appears a long and elaborate article on the "Path of the Respiratory Impulses," by Professor William Townsend Porter, of the Laboratory of Physiology in the Harvard Medical School, the author of the preceding manifesto. Taken in conjunction with his assertion regarding painful vivisections that "none such have been made in Harvard Medical School within our knowledge," this paper would seem to offer a very curious and significant illustration of scientific forgetfulness. The object of Professor Porter's experiments was the confirmation of a purely physiological hypothesis ; one which had no reference whatever to the cure or treatment of human ills. His researches embraced at least sixty-eight experiments, and full details of fifteen18 are given in this essay. In seven of these fifteen experiments --all involving most painful mutilations--light doses of morphia or chloral were administered instead of anaesthetics ; in one experiment the dose is not given, and in another there is no mention of any "narcotic" of any kind. Even when ether was given, it was not as a rule used throughout the experiment. Some examples will be of interest ; the italics are mine. "I have separated the cord from the bulb in eight rabbits and six dogs, all fully grown. . . . Artificial respiration was kept up a long time. . . . The animals were all very lightly narcotized." Exp. I. Dec. 19, 1893. "The fourth ventricle was laid bare in a large, lightly chloralized rabbit, and the floor of the left side of the medium line burned away with small hot glass beads. Respiration continued on both sides in spite of repeated cauterizations." Exp. II. Dec. 15, 1893. "Most of the left side of the floor of the left ventricle of a rabbit, lightly chloralized, (not over 0.1 g.), was burned away." (This was one-tenth the usual dose of chloral.) Exp. XXIII. Feb. 27, 1894. Dog narcotized with morphia. Cervical cord exposed its entire length ; severed at the sixth cervical vertebra, and the posterior roots of the cervical nerves cut. (An exceedingly painful experiment.) Exp. LXVI. Nov. 20, 1984. Rabbit, "lightly narcotized with ether." Left phrenic nerve "was seized near the first rib and torn out of the chest." . . . "I have made such experiments on thirteen rabbits and one dog, and the result has always been the same." A beautiful engraving gives the respiratory curve of this rabbit, "the left phrenic nerve of which had been torn out. . . . The stars denote struggling." Exp. LI. May 3, 1894. "At 10.30 a middle-sized dog received 0.2 g. morphia. Half an hour later, the left half of the spinal cord was severed. . . . Animal being loosed, showed a paralysis on the left side. . . . At 19 4.30 the dog was bound again and the abdomen opened." Why was the dog "bound again?" No mention of "narcotic" or anaesthetic during further steps of the experiment. Exp. XXV. Mar. 3, 1894. Dog ; given 0.15 grammes morphia sulphate ; tracheotomized, spinal cord severed at sixth cervical vertebra ; artificial respiration. Exp. XLIX. May 1, 1894. "At 10 A. M. the left side of the spinal cord of a rabbit, narcotized with ether, was cut. . . . At 4 P. M., 5 1/2 hours after, breathing was bilateral. . . . On opening the abdomen . . . diaphragm was once more exposed and cut in two pieces." . . . (No mention of anaesthetic or narcotic during latter half of experiment, "5 1/2 hours later.") Exp. LII. May 4, 1894. Spinal cord of rabbit narcotized with ether, cut on left side. . . . Seven hours later he was in good condition and kicked vigorously as he was again put on the board. The abdomen opened in the median line . . . phrenic nerve was now cut, etc." There is no mention of narcotic or anaesthetic during the latter part of the operation, "seven hours later" when the rabbit "was again put on the board," kicking vigorously, to have its abdomen opened. Exp. LVI. May 14, 1894. Rabbit, etherized nad tracheotomized. Spinal cord cut ; artificial respiration ; "The narcotic was stopped. On turning the rabbit and opening the abdomen," etc. Why was not the abdomen opened before "the narcotic was stopped?" Exp. LXI. Nov. 8, 1894. The right half of the spinal cord of a full-grown rabbit was severed . . . the phrenic nerve cut . . . artificial respiration, etc." There is no mention whatever of either narcotic or anaesthetic being used in this experiment. "Other experiments could be added but they seem unnecessary," says Professor Porter. We agree with him. There are few laboratories in Europe better equipped for vivisection than the scene of all these experiments. In one of his works, Dr. Ott pays a tribute to the inventive genius 20 of Prof. Henry P. Bowditch of Harvard Medical School, who, it seems, has contrived a new device for holding immovably the head of an animal to be vivisected. "It consists of a fork-shaped iron instrument, the points of the fork united by an iron bar . . . which is passed behind the canines (teeth) and bound fast by a strong cord which is fastened over the jaws. When the iron rod is fastened to the prongs, the handle is inserted into the screw-sliding points of the upright rod of a Bernard holder," in which device certain straps prevent the dog "from retracting his nose." But how can a dog retract his nose if insensible? Why should he wish to retract his nose if he is suffering nothing? "I sometimes fear," said Dr. Theophilus Parvin in his address before the American Academy of Medicine, "that this anaesthesia is frequently nominal rather than real ; else why so many ingenious contrivances for confining the animal during operations, contrivances that are not made use of in surgical operations upon human beings?" These were Boston vivisections. They were not done thousands of miles away in some distant European laboratory, but here at home. Should they have been left in the quiet secrecy of physiological literature? Then assuredly their existence ought not to have been explicitly denied. What judgment are we entitled to pass upon this manifesto? Was it, indeed, what it claimed to be--"a plain statement of the whole truth?" No. A "statement of the whole truth" would not have carefully mentioned "a scratch of the tail of an etherized mouse," and made no reference to other investigations of infinitely greater import carried on in their own laboratory. A statement of the whole truth would not have referred to "narcotics" as though they were identical with "anaesthetics ;" it would not have left hidden the use and purpose of curare ; it would not have referred to "open doors," when there are no open doors ; it would not have 21 proclaimed to the public as a "priceless discovery" for the cure of tenanus, an agent of which not five cases of successful employment in this country can be found in medical literature. And above all, a plain statement of the whole truth would never have declared that no painful vivisection had been made in Harvard Medical School "within our knowledge," in the face of the evidence I have given in this paper. I am not an anti-vivisectionist, for I believe in the practice, when it is rigidly guarded against all abuses, limited to useful ends, and subject to public criticism and the supervision of the law. But I cannot believe that science ever advances by equivocation or gains by secrecy. If, in the opinion of scientific experts, certain phases of vivisection can only go on by being concealed and kept from the world's judgment and criticism, then I fear the time may come when society will question the expediency of all such methods, not because they are invariable useless, not because they are always cruel, but from higher considerations than those that affect man's relations to the animal world. For science can exist without more vivisection ; but there are some things without which society itself cannot exist. (From the Boston Evening Transcript, July 13, 1895.) CONCERNING VIVISECTION. BY WILLIAM TOWNSEND PORTER, M.D., Ass't Professor of Physiology, Harvard Medical School. [THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS MADE AT THE SUGGESTION OF DR. H. P. BOWDITCH, DR. W. T. COUNCILMAN, DR. W. F. WHITNEY, DR. C. S. MINOT AND DR. H. C. ERNST, PROFESSORS IN THE HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL, IN ANSWER TO MANY REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO EXPERIMENTATION ON LIVING ANIMALS.] Readers of the daily prints are aware that a few misinformed individuals are making a persistent effort to bring about a popular agitation against the experimentation on living animals. The newspaper letters and other communications put forth by these persons dispute the necessity of vivisection, affirming that the knowledge secured by this means is not essential to the progress of biology, and therefore without substantial value for medicine, a department of general biology on which the public welfare and the happiness and prosperity of every citizen depend. It is charged that experimental studies of the functions of living animals have no purpose save the gratification of an ignoble ambition, or the satisfaction of an idle and vicious curiosity. It is asserted that living animals, without narcotics, helpless under the control of poisons which, it is alleged, destroy the power to move while increasing the power to suffer, are subjected to long, agonizing operations in the hope of securing some new fact, interesting to the scientific mind but without practical value. The cruelties practiced by vivisectors are paraded in long lists, with the assurance that they are taken directly from the published writings of the vivisectors themselves, and distressing pictures are drawn of the work of eminent professors in great universities. In short, and organized effort is making to persuade the uninformed that men who spend their lives in laying the broad and deep foundations on which alone a rational medicine can rest are wanting in common humanity, and that the medical profession, whose work it is to lessen the suffering in the world, looks with indifference on useless and truly revolting cruelties done before its very eyes.* It is true that the evident exaggeration of these charges will alone discredit them with many who have no special knowledge of the procedures so fiercely attacked, and who therefore cannot perceive that the weapons of these agitators are garbled facts, downright perversions, and misleading excerpts from professional writings beyond the comprehension of the untrained. It is true that the public mind will hardly be persuaded *The italics in this paper are not in the original. They are herein employed not for emphasis, but merely to indicate certain inaccurate affirmations or suggestions to which the especial attention of the reader is directed. 23 that teachers in medicine have less mercy towards dumb animals than men of other callings. And yet these reiterated charges of cruelty, these long drawn lists of atrocities that never existed, these loud outcries to put an end to the frightful scenes daily enacted within the open doors of the most enlightened seats of learning, absurd though they be, do positive harm. The least of the evil that they do is that they publicly attack the character of investigators and teachers in the medical profession; the greatest, that they seek to destroy the freedom of learning, and to make impossible that patient search for fundamental truths which has raised medicines from the slough of empiricism to the level of an applied science. It is the duty of medical men to meet these mischievous attacks by A PLAIN STATEMENT OF THE WHOLE TRUTH. Experiments on living animals may be divided into three classes. In the first class may be placed those experiments in which the animal is narcotized before the operation is begun and is killed while still insensible to pain. This class includes almost all vivisections in physiology, i.e., almost all experiments which determine directly the functions of living organs, and almost all pharmacological experiments, those which determine the action of remedies on living organs. An example is the cutting of the pneumogastric nerve in the rabbit, fully narcotized with chloral, in order that the action of this nerve upon the respiration may be studied. The second class consists of experiments in which the operation is made during full unconsciousness and the animal then allowed to recover. The following illustrations will make plain the purpose of such work. In a narcotized dog an opening is made through the abdominal walls into the stomach and a short silver tube inserted. The narcotic is stopped. In a few days the wound heals completely. The pain of the wound is usually so slight that even the appetite of the dog is not affected. Very exceptionally the wound takes an unfavorable course. In such cases, the dog, if seen to be suffering, is killed. This opening into the stomach enables the physiologist to determine with much accuracy the digestibility of foods, the nature and the amount of absorption from the stomach, the length of time that food remains in this organ, the effect of remedies upon its functions, and many other matters of the first importance. A second illustration is found in the experiments of the pathologist. A narcotized rabbit is inoculated with the virus of hydrophobia and the symptoms of the disease thus induced are carefully noted. The knowledge thus secured enables the pathologist to decide whether a dog which has been killed after biting several persons in a paroxysm of supposed madness was really rabid. If the dog was mad indeed, the inoculation of an animal with a small portion of the dog's spinal cord brings on the previously determined characteristic symptoms of the disease. The fact of rabies is thus made certain, and there is still time, so slowly does the rabies develop in the human species, to save the lives of the bitten persons by inoculation with the attenuated virus. Yet another illustration. The bacteriologist makes a scratch in the tail of an etherized mouse, touches the scratch with a wire covered with the germs of tetanus (lockjaw), and learns the course of the disease in this animal. He then endeavors, by the injection of various substances, to arrest the fatal march of the disease. It was in this way that the priceless discovery was made which has at length banished tetanus from the list of incurable disorders. The third class of vivisections is that in which no narcotic is given. Many operations require no anaesthetic because they inflict little or no pain. An example is the injection of diphtheria toxine into horses, in order that the serum of their blood may be used to destroy the diph- [diphtheria]24 theria bacillus in the very tissues of the sick. Other operations of this class do cause pain. Painful vivisections, when made at all, are made for the sake of determining functions that are temporarily suspended by narcotics. Here truth is gained at the expense of suffering because there is no other way. Such investigations are rare. None such have been made in the Harvard Medical School within our knowledge. We cannot believe that such inquiries are ever undertaken in any university without the most careful consideration of their probable value and the conviction that the benefit to humanity will far outweigh whatever suffering they may cause to the animals employed. It is asserted that vivisection is not necessary. This we deny. Vivisection is the unavoidable consequence of two incontrovertible propositions : the first, that there can be no adequate knowledge of the whole without adequate knowledge of the parts which compose the whole; the second, that the functions of the complex organs which compose the higher vertebrate, cannot be clearly made out by the study of dead organs or by the observation of the non-vivisected animal. It would be easier to create the science of strategy from observations on dead soldiers than to produce the present knowledge concerning the circulation of the blood from a study of the dead blood-vessels. Whole series of phenomena are hidden alike from the student of lifeless tissues and from the outside investigator who confines himself to man or the non-vivisected animal. Thus, the work done by every organ in the body depends on the quantity of blood with which it is supplied, and this depends, other things being equal, on the pressure of the blood within the arteries. No means exist of measuring accurately the pressure of the blood in men or non-vivisected animals. Only when the measuring apparatus is connected directly with the blood-vessels of the living animal can any certain knowledge concerning one of the most important factors in the life of the organism be secured. So the fundamental problem of the distribution of the blood can be solved only by vivisection. Instances of the practical value of the knowledge gained by vivisection are almost numberless. The discovery of the restraining action of the pneumogastric nerve upon the heart disclosed a previously unsuspected attribute of nervous tissue, threw a searching light far into the gloom and still enshrouds the higher functions of the brain, and left an ineffaceable mark on practical medicine. This discovery was solely the fruit of vivisection. It is now but twenty-five years since the physiologist Hitzig stimulated certain areas on the exposed brain of a narcotized dog and observed that each stimulus caused a particular group of muscles to contract. This experiment has given a mighty impulse to the diagnosis of cerebral disease, has opened the almost superstitiously dreaded brain to the surgeon's knife, and has rescued many who once were thought beyond the reach of art.* * The latest statistics regarding brain-surgery are of interest to the medical profession. In an address before the New York State Medical Society, January 29, 1896, Dr. M. Allen Starr gives the results of operations for brain tumor so far as recorded in the medical literature of this country and Europe up to January 1, 1896. There have been, it seems, 162 cases operated upon, in 72 of which the tumor was removed, and the patient recovered. In 90 other cases the tumor was either not found or the operation was a failure. Dr. Starr points out that only about one case in fourteen is open to operation ; and with the final result of operations for the cure of epilepsy, about which we hears so much a short time ago, he is "exceedingly disappointed." 25 It is not to be disputed that the certain cure of any sick man depends on the accurate determination of his disease. It cannot be denied that a clear conception of the normal functions of a part is the necessary basis for the recognition of the abnormality of function which constitutes disease. It follows that the cure of disease must be founded on the knowledge of the normal functions of the body. It has been pointed out that this knowledge has been gained and must continue to be gained largely from experiments on living animals. Vivisection is therefore an indispensable aid to the practice of medicine and the progress of medical science and an indispensable agent in the preservation of the public health. Cruelty is the intentional infliction of unnecessary pain. By far the greater number of vivisections cause no real suffering, because the animals employed are made insensible to pain. The occasional vivisections in which narcotics are not used because they temporarily suspend the functions to be studied are not cruel. The pain they inflict is necessary to the better knowledge of the functions of the body and necessary therefore to the better preservation of the lives of man and of domestic animals. Countless multitudes of animals are slaughtered daily, without narcotics, to furnish food. This is not thought cruel. Other animals are mercilessly hunted down because their furs keep off the cold. Even this is not thought cruel. Yet the professional scientist, highly educated, carefully trained, laboring with small material reward for the advancement of learning and the public good, is held up to public condemnation, because, in the pursuit of those truths which underlie the successful fight against disease, he finds it necessary to study the functions of unconscious animals and very, very rarely to perform operations in which suffering cannot wholly be avoided. The statutes of the Commonwealth prescribe the penalties to be inflicted on those found guilty of cruelty to animals, and on those who seek to disturb their fellow-citizens in the pursuit of their lawful occupations. The physiologist and the pathologist take their stand within the common law, ready at any time to submit to the impartial verdict of competent judges the method by which they endeavor to teach and to advance the science and the art of medicine. Boston, July 12, 1895. The foregoing article is reprinted in full that readers of the paper which precedes it may verify its quotations.EXTRACT FROM THE ANNUAL ADDRESS READ JUNE 7, 1871, BEFORE THE MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOCIETY, BY HENRY J. BIGELOW, M.D., PROFESSOR OF SURGERY IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY. "How few facts of immediate considerable value to our race have of late years been extorted from the dreadful sufferings of dumb animals, the cold-blooded cruelties now more and more practiced under the authority of science! The horrors of Vivisection have supplanted the solemnity, the thrilling fascination, of the old unetherized operation upon the human sufferer. Their recorded phenomena, stored away by the physiological inquisitor on dusty shelves, are mostly of as little present value to man as the knowledge of a new comet, . . . contemptible, compared with the price paid for it in agony and torture. For every inch cut by one of these experimenters in the quivering tissues of the helpless dog or rabbit or Guinea-pig, let him insert a lancet one-eighth of an inch into his own skin, and for every inch more he cuts let him advance the lancet another eighth of an inch, and whenever he seizes, with ragged forceps, a nerve or spinal marrow, the seat of all that is concentrated and exquisite in agony, or literally tears out nerves by their roots, let him cut only one-eighth of an inch further, and he may have some faint suggestion of the atrocity he is perpetrating when the Guinea-pig shrieks, the poor dog yells, the noble horse groans and strains - the heartless vivisector perhaps resenting the struggle which annoys him. . . . If a skillfully constructed hypothesis could be elaborated up to the point of experimental test by the most accomplished and successful philosopher, and if then a single experiment, though cruel, would forever settle it, we might reluctantly admit that it was justified. But the instincts of our common humanity indignantly remonstrate against the testing of clumsy or unimportant hypotheses by prodigal experimentation, or making the torture of animals an exhibition to enlarge a Medical School, or for the entertainment of students, not one in fifty of whom can turn it to any profitable account. The limit of such physiological experiment, it its utmost latitude, should be to establish truth in the hands of a skillful experimenter, with the greatest economy of suffering, and not to demonstrate it to ignorant classes and encourage them to repeat it. The reaction which follows every excess will in time bear indignantly upon this. Until then it is dreadful to think how many poor animals will be subjected to excruciating agony as one Medical College after another becomes penetrated with the idea that vivisection is a part of modern teaching, and that, to hold way with other institutions, they, too, must have their vivisector, their mutilated dogs, their Guinea-pigs, their rabbits, their chamber of torture and of horrors, to advertise as a laboratory." Copies of this pamphlet may be had through the address below. Price, six cents each, post-paid, or ten copies for fifty cents. Address: P. O. Box 215, Providence, R. I.THE ABOLITIONIST. THE JOURNAL OF The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. No. 9. VOL. IV.] DECEMBER 15, 1903. [PRICE 2d. Annual Subscription, 2s., or post free, 2s. 6d. Our friends are requested to order THE ABOLITIONIST through their Newsagents. Orders may also be sent to the office of the BRITISH UNION, 14, St. James's Barton, Bristol, where postal orders should be made payable to Miss Florence Baker. Copies can be obtained from Messrs. Hazell, Watson and Viney, Ld., 52, Long Acre, London, W.C. THE ABOLITIONIST will appear on the 15th of each month, and will contain at least 8 pages of letterpress. Communications for the Editor to be addressed, The Editor of THE ABOLITIONIST, 14, St. James's Barton, Bristol. CONTENTS. SOME LESSONS OF THE BAYLISS TRIAL - BY DR. BOURCHIER ... PAGE 97 THE GOSPEL OF THE PASTEUR INSTITUTE-I. ... ... ... 99 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE "SHAMBLES OF SCIENCE" ... ... 101 NOTES ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 102 CORRESPONDENCE ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 104 BRITISH UNION CHRONICLE ... ... ... ... ... ... 106 SOME LESSONS OF THE BAYLISS TRIAL. BY DR. BOURCHIER. IN the Coleridge-Bayliss libel case the victory has been to the vivisectors; but there are some victories that are as ruinous as defeats, and I believe, in the long run, the vivisectors will find their victory to have been of this order. For the trial has shown up, as nothing else could have done, the futility and the contradictions of the Act which is commonly known as the "Vivisection Act," although it was originally designed, as its official title shows, as an Act for the prevention of cruelty to animals. Before entering upon the question of the trial itself it may be useful to refer, very briefly, to what the law really is, which is set forth in this Act passed in 1876. It was in the first place conceived to restrict the practice of vivisection, but every restriction is so balanced by a corresponding proviso that the original intent is absolutely nullified. Briefly, the most important restrictions are: that a vivisector holding a license is required to use an anaesthetic during the whole time that he is making an experiment with any animal. And: that he must kill the animal as soon as the experiment is concluded, before it recovers consciousness and the effect of the anaesthetic entirely passes off. But these restrictions are nullified by the provisos which follow them, namely, that under a certain special certificate the vivisector is exempt from killing the animal he has used for an experiment before it recovers from the anaesthetic; and under another special certificate he is not required to use an anaesthetic at all. In the last returns of the Inspector, published in June, 1903, we find that 175 certificates were held exempting the vivisector from killing the animal he has used after an experiment. And 226 certificates dispensing with anaesthetics altogether. The special points brought out in the trial are: 1st. That without in any way infringing the Act, Professor Starling was able to perform a painful operation on a dog calculated to cause inflammation in an important internal organ; that he was able to keep this animal in a cage, suffering more or less from being deprived of the use of this organ for two months; then to perform a second operation, and having done this, to hand over the animal to another vivisector to use as he thought fit. Professor Ernest Henry Starling, Sworn. Examined by Mr. Rufus Isaacs. . . . . . . Q. "Now do you remember performing an experiment on a dog in December, 1902? A. Yes. . . . A. Shall I describe it? Q. If you will. A. I make a small cut in the wall of the belly about two inches long, and then bring 'out the duct; put a ligature of thread round it; tie it tight, drop it back into the cavity of the belly, shut up the skin and dress the wound, and put the animal back into its cage. . . . . . . Q. Did the dog recover completely from this operation? A. Yes, without any accident at all. Q. Within how long a time would it be that the dog would be completely recovered? A. Oh, at the end of a week. The wound was healed at the end of ten days, and it was possible to leave off all dressing. The animal was like a normal animal. Q. Did it show any signs of suffering or anything of that kind from the time to February, when the next examination was made? A. No, no signs of suffering towards the end of that time. Towards the end of January I noticed, when I looked at it, that it has this twitching on that side; as it walked it had a little switching on the left side. . . . . . . Q. Mr. Lawson Walton. Do you accept that view that Dr. Bayliss has given that the handing over of a dog to which an experiment has been applied to another operator for a further experiment is a mode of at once destroying it under the Act? A. That is a legal point. Q. At all events that is what was done here. A. Yes. And I am prepared to defend it. Q. You think that you were justified in doing it? A. Certainly. It was a question of using this dog, which was to be killed, to demonstrate something on it whilst it was being killed, or to take a brand new dog and kill it for this very purpose. it was simply a question of taking one dog instead of two."98 The Abolitionist. [DECEMBER 15, 1903. (Extract from verbatim report of the trial.) Professor Starling swore in the witness-box, further, that both his operations had been performed under an anaesthetic. But, had he chosen to do them without an anaesthetic, he would have been protected by the Act, as he holds (or did hold in 1902, according to the returns) a special certificate allowing him to dispense with the use of anaesthetics, and also one freeing him from the necessity of killing the animal before it recovered from the anaesthetic. We are constantly assured that all painful experiments are performed under anaesthetics, but if this is the case, how is it that, according to the returns for 1903, 226 certificates allowing anaesthetics to be dispensed with were held by vivisectors? 2nd. It was admitted by Dr. Bayliss that he took over this animal from Professor Starling and used it for a demonstration before students lasting (if we include the time occupied in preparing the dog, by cutting open the neck, inserting tubes in the wounds, etc.) for an hour and a quarter. It was on this particular demonstration that the whole question of the libel action turned. Dr. Bayliss does not happen to have provided himself with a certificate allowing him to do experiments without anaesthetics ; therefore if he gave this demonstration on an animal that was not in a state of unconsciousness, he went beyond his own certificates and broke the law. In the witness box he declared, on oath, that the animal was unconscious the whole time. The Lord Chief Justice and the Jury accepted his evidence, which has therefore passed beyond the reach of our criticism. But, had he chosen to take out a certificate authorising him to do operations without an anaesthetic, the Act would have protected him, even if that animal had been conscious all through the hour and a quarter of torture. We do not war against individuals. We war against the principle of vivisection and against the Act which protects the vivisectors on every side. That Dr. Bayliss or another should or should not have broken the law in a matter of detail is of small consequence compared with the fact that, provided the vivisectors hold the proper certificates, the law allows them to practise any cruelty they choose. We are not concerned with the details in this matter ; whether a Dr. Bayliss cuts and mutilates and destroys an animal with the help of an anaesthetics or without them. What we are concerned with is, that the law of this land enacts that any of these self-styled scientists who provide themselves with certificates from the House Secretary are entitled to practise the most refined cruelties without anyone have the right to interfere to prevent them. In this particular case, if Dr. Bayliss had held a certificate allowing him to experiment without anaesthetics, there would have been no possibility of libelling him ; he would have been within his rights ; he need not even have attempted to prove that his animal was unconscious. 3rd. One is struck by the difficulty, the impossibility even, for the general public to obtain any first-hand knowledge of what is constantly going on in the laboratories. To gain admission to them, the two Swedish ladies were obliged to become students of the Women's School of Medicine. For the ordinary observer who wishes to judge for himself what this practice is round which controversy has raged now for many years, it is impossible to gain admittance. Since the law sanctions and upholds and protects vivisection, why has it to be carried on practically in secret? As the law stands, it was no doubt inevitable that the libel case, as a libel case, should be lost. But, in justice to the two ladies who, during this trial, have stood out so nobly as the champions of our cause, many points should have been cleared up in cross-examination which were passed over in silence. On one side there were the inconsistencies of some of the plaintiff's witnesses ; on the other certain facts which were contained in their interrogatory were never laid before the Jury. In the first category is the evidence of Dr. Dale and Scuffle, the laboratory attendant. Scuffle swore that he saw Dr. Dale kill the dog, either with chloroform or with A.C.E. [?mixture]. Dr. Dale himself swore that he killed it by plunging a knife into its heart. Only one of these two statements could be true. One or other of these two witnesses was inaccurate, and therefore to be discredited. Sir Victor Horsley maintained that the demonstration was absolutely necessary to enable the students to understand and remember a certain physiological law. But Dr. Bayliss admitted that his twice repeated demonstration was a failure both times, and therefore useless, although so necessary. One of the plaintiff's witnesses, a lady, admitted that this lecture was the first she had attended, but her evidence was not challenged on this account, although it was suggested that Miss Lind af Hageby was not a good judge of what she saw in the laboratory, because she had not sufficient experience, had not attended a sufficient number of lectures previously. Another of the witnesses had only attended two lectures before the one in question and neither was her evidence challenged. In Miss Lind af Hageby's evidence she said that she had attended one hundred lectures, out of which fifty were accompanied by demonstrations, twenty being cutting operations, or technically vivisections. And yet the Counsel on her side, in his address to the Jury, laid stress on the statement that it was the first vivisection she had seen, suggesting that this was an excuse for her being mistaken in what she saw. Several witnesses who were in a position to support other points of Miss Lind af Hageby's evidence were never called at all. Among them Dr. Stephen Smith, who had attended a lecture in the same theatre in which the anaesthetic A.C.E. was used, and was prepared to swear that the characteristic smell was most powerful all over the theatre. Mr. Pritchard and Mr. Sutcliffe Hurndall, veterinary surgeons, who were prepared to give evidence on the question of the administration of anaesthetics to animals, were not called into the witness-box at all. All these omissions tended to prejudice the evidence of these two ladies ; in face of the number of witnesses called on the other side. There is one fact that forces itself to the front in the whole episode of this trial, and that is the enormous value and importance of the book "Shambles of Science." That the vivisectors have recognised it as a powerful and dangerous weapon, not to be made light of, is amply proved by this campaign undertaken to crush it. Anyone who has followed the evidence and noted the sequel cannot fail to see that the libel action was brought, not against any society, not against any honorary secretary or public speaker, but against this book. The vivisectors have thought it worth their while to bring their whole power against it to try to crush it, and to drive its authors out of the country. They are not ignorant of its power, if we are, and we shall be playing into their hands if we allow it to be taken from us. The whole battle array of the libel suit, with Sir Victor Horsley in the witness box and Lord Lister in the audience, was directed against this work. All the sneers and abuse and discredit that were showered upon it and its authors ought to show us its importance. One had only to listen to the scathing DECEMBER 13, 1903] The Abolitionist. 99 eloquence of the plaintiff's counsel when he dealt with the "Shambles of Science." One had only to note the venom in his cross-examination of its author, on points that had nothing to do with his libel action, to understand that it was this book and not the Hon. Stephen Coleridge that was on its defence. And, immediately after the trial was decided in Dr. Bayliss's favour, his solicitors sent round to the publisher (Mr. Ernest Bell, the Chairman of the Committee of the National Anti-Vivisection Sociey), threatening to institute proceedings against him unless he immediately gave up to them all the copies (there were, I believe, over 3,000) that remained in his possession. Mr. Bell, in face of this threat, chose the better part of valour : gave up the 3,000 copies, and fell on his knees to beg Dr. Bayliss's pardon for having dared to print it. This is Mr. Bell's correspondence with Dr. Bayliss's solicitors :-- "THE VIVISECTION LIBEL CASE. "To the Editor of THE DAILY CHRONICLE. "SIR,--May we ask you to be good enough to give publicity in your columns to the following undertaking and apology which we have obtained from the publisher of 'The Shambles of Science,' a work intimately associated with the above action? We may state that the terms of Mr. Bell's undertaking have been complied with. " 'To Dr. W. M. Bayliss, " ' St. Cuthberts, " ' West Heath Road, Hampstead, " ' and to " ' Messrs. Hempson, " ' 35, King Street, " ' Cheapside, E.C. (his solicitors). " ' November 30th, 1903. " 'I, the undersigned Ernest Bell, of 5, York Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C., the printer and publisher of a book entitled "The Shambles of Science," the authors of which are Lizzie Lind af Hageby and Leisa K. Schartau, and which book contains therein certain matter libellous upon Dr. Bayliss, hereby acknowledge that I have given instructions for the withdrawal from circulation of all copies of such book, and hereby undertake that no further copies of such book shall be printed or published by me, that the circulation of such book shall cease, and that all copies in stock and withdrawn from circulation shall be handed over to Messrs. Hempson, Dr. Bayliss's solicitors, and I hereby express to Dr. Bayliss my sincere regret for having printed and published the book in question. " 'Dated this 25th day of November, 1903. " 'ERNEST BELL. " 'Witness : Henry Rayment.' "In the interests of truth and of science it is desirable that it should be publicly known that the circulation of the book has been suppressed.--We are, etc., "HEMPSONS, "Solicitors for Dr. W. M. Bayliss. "35, King Street, Cheapside, E.C., November 28th." We could have wished the book a more valiant protector. But fortunately for the "Shambles of Science" the authors have not given up their copyright ; so that, although Mr. Bell's 3,000 copies may be burnt in the market-place by Dr. Bayliss, the book is not lost. "In the interests of truth," if not "of science it is desirable that it should be publicly known" that Mr. Bell has no power to suppress the circulation of this book. Mr. Bell is not the authority by whom books are suppressed in this country, neither is he the owner of this book, or of anything more than the 3,000 copies he has handed over. THE GOSPEL OF THE PASTEUR INSTITUTE. A VIVISECTOR ON THE NEW LIFE FOR MAN. I. SOME of the old Greek legends convey spiritual truths of lasting importance to the welfare of man. Such is the legend of Er, the son of Armenias, in Plato's Republic, in which Plato presents the substance of his faith in the high density of man as an immortal soul, and the solemn responsibility which it involves to live the higher life. "Deeming that the soul is immortal (he says) and capable of bearing every evil and receiving every good, we shall keep close to the upward path and practice in every way justice and wisdom." This eternal truth in the old Greek legend comes home to us forcibly after reading a very modern book, "The Nature of Man," the original and striking work of the coryphaeus of the Pasteur Institute, Professor Elie Metchnikoff. Professor Elie Metchnikoff is the most brilliant representative of the new priesthood of the laboratory, which hold their services and offer up the sacrifices of tortured animals in the vivisecting laboratories of the world, and have their central temple in the Pasteur Institute in Paris. High priest of the Temple which has for its Holy of Holies the mausoleum of Pasteur, with its altar of white marble and its figure of a dove descending (suggesting that even a dove is useful for the holy sacrifice of vivisection), and the Greek letters Alpha and Omega (suggesting that the wisdom of the vivisector's laboratory is the final wisdom, and that the religious ideas once represented by such symbols are finally obsolete and may be appropriated by the new worship, the worship of all-powerful science). Professor Metchnikoff has a brand-new evangel -- good news for mankind--to offer, and he offers it with a confidence for which it would not be easy to find a parallel, considering the nature of the good news set forth. He offers nothing less than a new view of human nature and a new life for mankind. Another Greek legend of which the reading of this new gospel reminds us is the legend of Medea, dealing with the daughters of Pelias. Medea, a lady almost as skilled in magic as the magicians of the Pasteur Institute, persuaded the daughters of Pelias to cut their father in pieces and boil him in a caldron in order to restore him to youth and vigour. Medea's convincing argument was that she had already shown them that this could be done successfully with an animal--that she had already shown them a ram changed into a lamb by the same process. The daughters of Pelias believed her and followed her advice. The result was, as everyone knows, the death of Pelias, which was not followed by the promised restoration to life. The vivisectors and their allies are trying to persuade mankind in the twentieth century to try the same experiment with human nature. They want us to take our higher civilisation, the gradual product of many centuries, which with all its faults is progressing in all that belongs to the higher life, and to let them deal with it in similar fashion. Like Medea they point to their experiments on animals as a proof of their wonder-working power, and they want us to let them destroy the old life of humanity in order that it may be restored a better and renewed life by the all-powerful magic of the science in which they ask us to put our faith. This is a big proposel, and mankind in general, and the English nation in particular, will not, we think, be inclined to act like the daughters of Pelias ; but will, before they reject the old gospel of the higher life and100 The Abolitionist. [DECEMBER 15, 1903. accept the new gospel of human life, according to Metchnikoff, desire to know something more about the new life which the hierarchy of vivisection so confidently urge them to take in exchange for the old. This desire is anticipated by Professor Metchnikoff, who, as representative of the new hierarchy and evangelist of the new life, is absolutely confident both in its attractiveness, its feasibility, and its ultimate acceptance by mankind. Professor Metchnikoff has certainly the first qualification for an evangelist of the new gospel ; he has no misgivings, he knows it is absolutely the way, the truth, and the life, and he sets it forth with no little ability. The teachers of the old order -- the men of the old science, equally with the men of the old religion -- recognise to-day the vastness of the mystery of human nature and its environment. They recognise with regard to the environment that they are, even the greatest of them--even a Newton-- like children picking up shells on the beach with the depths of the great ocean of knowledge far beyond them. They recognise the greatness of the mystery and the little advance made as yet towards its understanding and interpretation. They recognise this no less with regard to that which lies nearest to us and is most open to our examination, our own human nature. They feel the mystery of man, and those who are foremost in the science of psychology, which is the science of man, feel to-day the mystery and admit that the science is still in a very rudimentary stage, and its achievements still tentative, not final. If this is so with regard to the mystery of the nature of man, still more is it the case with regard to the mystery of the nature of God, with regard to which all considerable religious thinkers would still accept the language of St. Paul, "Now we see in a glass darkly," "now we know in part." But the study of bacteriology and the discoveries of the Pasteur Institute have changed all that. Professor Elie Metchnikoff has no misgivings. What he knows is certain, and what he does not know may be safely dismissed as valueless. Thus the old thinkers, and thinkers who to-day follow the same lines, took note of the fact of the God-consciousness of man as a fact of some importance in attempting to arrive at any knowledge of human nature. The religious consciousness, the religious self, the hidden man of the heart, seem to them a part of human nature. They feel the necessity in examining the constitution of man of taking note of this fact, the fact of the religious experience of mankind, in its immense continuity, and this fact would be probably admitted to-day by most religious thinkers to be the final authority of faith, "the voice of God in the universal heart of man." These inner and universal experiences, which are the foundations of all religion, could not, such thinkers feel, be left out of account in any attempt to explain human nature. They are actually a part of the constitution of man and of enormous influence on the actual life of man, so that a view of human nature which excluded them from consideration would be a little like a performance of "Hamlet" with the omission of the protagonist. Professor Metchnikoff is not of this opinion. He differs from the long array of the best minds of the human race in the past and the present, and he differs confidently. His chapter on "Religious attempts to combat the ills resulting from the disharmonies of the human constitution" is cocksure throughout. "A future life has no single argument to support it." "The idea of a future life is supported by not a single fact, and there is much evidence against it." Another chapter on philosophical remedies asserts that "the systems of philosophy all or nearly all deny the existence of a future life and the immortality of the soul." He himself simply dismisses God and the God-consciousness of man from his examination of human nature. He finds no difficulty in this procedure. It is enough that this is the way of science, and therefore is logical, easy, and decisive. Science he uses throughout for the science he accepts, and he never reflects that other men of science, not exactly inferior to him in mind or scientific reputation, for instance Lord Kelvin, differ from him altogether. His own view, the view of a mind trained in the vivisection laboratory, is science and must be accepted, for "before it is possible to reach the goal (i.e., the happy Pasteurian ideal of life for man) mankind must be persuaded that science is all powerful, and that the deeply rooted existing superstitions are pernicious." To establish this revolution by which all-powerful science is to assume the throne of the Almighty will require, he recognises, no little effort, and in particular a revolution in the mode of education, by which we suppose he means that the study of physiology, bacteriology, and all that belongs to the bodily nature of man, considered as the whole of human nature, must take the place of religion, ethics, and all that conflicts with the Pasteurian ideal. The progress towards that ideal will need compulsion, he fully recognises. "In the progress towards the real goal of life men will lose much of their liberty." "As knowledge becomes more and more extensive and exact, freedom to neglect it will be more and more limited." He instances "freedom to neglect inoculation against smallpox, to spit on the floor, or to let dogs run loose without being muzzled," as freedom that will have to be stopped. He evidently contemplates a huge official tyranny of what he calls science, which will institute the closest inquisition into the details of private life, and will put down individual freedom with a strong hand. We may expect the day in the future, he evidently thinks, when a Metchnikoff will be as powerful over individual and family life as a Torquemada was in the past. this new faith in so-called science is to supply the place of religion as the power of life, and the Pasterian ideal of progress is to satisfy all the needs of man. "Recognition of the true goal of life and of science as the only means by which that goal may be a ttained would form an ideal round which men might unite; they would group themselves around that, as in former days men were held together by religion." It is time to give some salient points in the view of human nature which leads Professor Metchnikoff to think that the life of man in the future will be lived under the sway of science, which is to make men satisfied to relinquish liberty, and accept the beneficent dominion at present seen in germ in compulsory inoculation for smallpox and plague, which will one day happily embrace all the serums which the diligence of the bacteriologists has discovered, or may go on to discover. The question, "What is man?" brings before most thinkers the imperfection of our knowledge and the extreme difficulty of definition. It is quite easy to Professor Metchnikoff, who answers in the name of science, "Is not man a being unlike other beings, made in the image of God, animated by the divine breath, and immortal? No, science answers. Man is a kind of miscarriage of an ape. . . . His brain is the seat of processes that are very complex and much higher than those of other animals, but those functions are incompatible with the existence of an immortal soul." The old solemn questions, so full of mystery--"whence? whither"" are both equally simple to the great Pasteurian mind whose ipse dixit IS science. "Whiter are we going?" That question above all other things has DECEMBER 15, 1903.] The Abolitionist. 101 absorbed the attention of man, and naturally so, for it is less important to know our origin than our destiny. "Does death mean absolute extinction, or is it a gateway leading to a new and everlasting life?" The reply of the oracle is again quite decided. "Death brings absolute extinction, and it seems unbearable because of the condition in which it surprises us. It comes before man has finished his physiological development and when the instinct of life is still strong." This difficulty, that man does not regard extinction with equanimity (which we are somewhat surprised to find that he does recognise, and even lay much stress upon), is a difficulty to which Professor Metchnikoff applies himself, apparently because he believes he has a perfect solution. That man will accept with perfect equanimity the scientific doctrine that he is the chance product of an unconscious universe he never doubts at all. And that saves him the formidable task of dealing with the religious consciousness of mankind. But that man will need some inducement to accept the new gospel of annihilation in place of the old gospel of immortality he does recognise, and he sets himself to work confidently to supply the inducement, which with the rest of our criticism we are obliged to hold over till next month. (To be continued.) THE CREDIBILITY OF THE "SHAMBLES OF SCIENCE." THE Bayliss Case, on the almost incredible surrender of which by a defence that seemed to ride for a fall the extraordinary letter of Mr. Coleridge, in the Times of December 11th sheds a curious light, has temporarily discredited our cause with the general public, but has nevertheless done two good things. It has drawn the attention of the public to the education in vivisection which is now claimed as an absolutely necessary part of the education of students in physiology. This is the minor good - a minor good only, as the fact was already well known to anti-vivisectionists, though not to the general public. The major good is the establishment, for every unbiased and reasoning mind that has followed carefully the details of the trial, of the scrupulous veracity of the authors and the general credibility of the records of facts in the most important book to expose the growth of demonstrations in vivisection with which we are acquainted--the book known as the "Shambles of Science." Though very well written in parts that book has faults of style and method -- it relies too little on its simple and vivid record of facts, and seeks too anxiously and eagerly to impose the writers' views and feelings on their readers. It could be enormously improved by the removal of all this superfluous matter, so as to leave their natural force to the vivid descriptions of the treatment of animals by English physiologists with which the book abounds. Attempts at sensational effect, such as the title of the book, merely lessen the force of the records of eye-witnesses, which is the really valuable feature of the volume. The minuteness and exactness of detail which characterize the descriptions need no addition of personal feelings and personal views to assist their effect, which such an addition indeed only obscures and weakens. But when all is pointed out that the independent critic can find to blame in the book, it remains a trustworthy record of facts such as enables an intelligent reader to see clearly what is going on. If one reads intelligently, one must see clearly the progress of vivisection as an educating power, and the effects on the higher nature of the students, on the sense of compassion, of mercy, of justice, the atrophy of which must do vastly more harm to the community than can be compensated by any doubtful gain of physiological knowledge this kind of education might conceivably confer. To speak of the establishment of the general credibility of the book by the recent trial will seem somewhat superfluous to those who have read it carefully and are competent to pronounce an opinion from internal evidence on the trustworthiness of the contents. But it is worth noting that the impression of perfect veracity produced by the record of what the authors saw is corroborated by the effect of the trial in testing a single record, to discredit which every effort was made by the vivisectors and their allies, but which emerged undamaged from a cross-fire of hostile cross-examination, an evidently honest and conscientious attempt to record actual experience. We are not dealing with the question whether the dog was actually properly anaesthetised or not. The most honest and competent observer may be mistaken. It is highly probably that if two of the most blameless, wise and conscientious clergy, either of the Established Church or of the Free Churches, had occupied the places and shared the experience of Miss Lind and Miss Schartau, they would have come to the same conclusion. It is even highly probable that if celebrated veterinary surgeons, like Mr. Sutcliffe Hurndall and Mr. Pritchard, had taken the places of these Swedish ladies, they would have arrived at the ladies' conclusion, inasmuch as they did practically arrive at the same conclusion, from a study of the ladies' evidence--a strong corroboration, we may observe, of the credibility, though not, of course, an absolute establishment of the inferences of that evidence. But the question of the perfect anaesthesia or the perfect consciousness of the dog--which again shades off into possible varying degrees of anaesthesia or of consciousness - is one evidently so difficult to decide with certainty, so difficult to decide even with any strong probability, that we do not quarrel at all with the decision of the jury. They did their best, and considering that the witnesses were women and foreigners, and that a chivalrous atmosphere of pro-vivisection Hooliganism pervaded the Court, the verdict was easy to foretell. What we wish to draw attention to is the fact that the Swedish witnesses adhered without faltering to the account they had given, and quite unconsciously brought out, by their unstudied and straightforward answers to long and severe cross-examination, that the chapter in the "Shambles of Science," of which the experiment in question was the subject, was not only not an exaggeration or over-coloured picture of what they saw ; but that their actual experience, to which they adhered unshaken, would have justified a more detailed, and more highly coloured account. That is to say, in one out of the long series of demonstrations which these eye-witnesses recorded in their book, their record has been proved in open court to be less extreme, less highly coloured than their experience justified. No doubt it has been decided that they were mistaken in the inferences they drew from their experience, that they may have misunderstood the twitchings of the chorea that follows distemper for the movements of consciousness, but the evidence of the vivisectors themselves admits the fact that there were movements amounting even possibly to the arching of the back of the anaesthetised dog, and so establishes the veracity of the Swedish ladies, though other evidence led the jury to the102 The Abolitionist. [DECEMBER 15, 1903. conclusion, which may be accepted, that the movements, though real, were not the movements of consciousness. All we contend for is that a solid basis of fact was proved to underly the witnesses' statements, and that their unfaltering adherence to their account of what they say, supported by the admissions of the vivisectors, establishes their veracity, while one must admit that from a conflict of experts' opinions there has emerged a decision which contradicts their conclusion. It may be objected that these ladies were biased, being anti-vivisectionists. But everyone is more or less biassed on a question like this, and the bias is certainly not less strong on the part of the vivisectors, who have the interests of their reputation and their trade interests to support, and are necessarily moved by pecuniary considerations that do not exist for the anti-vivisectionists. Those who remember the Ferrier-Yeo trial in 1881, when the prosecution was overthrown by the discovery that the editors of the British Medical Journal and the Lancet, the two great rival medical journals, had independently altered the independent reports of two highly qualified medical men, had struck out the name Yeo in these reports, and without any valid reason substituted the name Ferrier throughout, will probably understand what we mean when we say that the miraculous is always at the command of the vivisectors. The same interposition of the miraculous--to preserve the good physiologist from harm --took place much more recently in 1898, when Dr. Cecil Shaw, who had taken the credit for an experiment on a rabbit, proved, when the fact that he was without the licence necessary for the experiment led to an awkward demand for explanation, to be really Dr. Lorrain Smith, who had got a licence. This power to invoke the miraculous which our vivisectors are too modest to claim, but do clearly, as a matter of fact, possess and exercise, ought to have made their anti-vivisectionist critics much less confident about trying conclusions with them in the law courts. That the vivisectors are not necessarily always accurate in the statements they give concerning anaesthesia has been proved repeatedly. The Morning Leader of December 8th, in an exceedingly able leader entitled "The Brown Dog," points out that "just as the high character of the vivisectors is no safeguard against cruelty, so the accuracy of the vivisectors' own accounts of what they consider 'anaesthesia' is an equally illusory foundation for the too prevalent popular idea that vivisectors employ anaesthetics which prevent the possibility of suffering. The valuable thing, we repeat, which has been really established by the whole evidence in the Bayliss-Coleridge case, is the general credibility of the "Shambles of Science" as an honest record of actual experience. IN the one case tested the record is found to fall something, though not much, short of the actual experience, in fulness of detail and vividness of colouring. The proved basis of fact in this account of a demonstration, tested in court, may be inferred in the accounts of the numerous demonstrations recorded, and it is to be hoped that so valuable a collection of facts will not be lost to a cause which certainly cannot afford to lose any advantage in its struggle with the miracle-workers of the vivisecting confraternity. NOTES. A REALLY charming anti-vivisection story, "The Tale of a Dog," has appeared in the Christmas number of Harper's Magazine. It is by no less a writer than the witty Mark Twain. The opening pages involve a joke about long words, which does not much appeal to us, but the main story of the dog who saves his master's child from fire, and whose own puppy is afterwards vivisected, by consent of the same master, with the uttermost sang-froid, while the poor dog dies of a broken heart, is altogether true to life, and deeply affecting. MISS COBBE requests us to inform our readers that the statement in the Daily News of December 4th, that she had subscribed to the Coleridge Fund, was false. Miss Cobbe sent 10s. to the publisher of the Daily News on December 2nd, with orders to send her the equivalent number of copies of whichever issue should contain Miss Lind's letter, then in the editor's hands. The transfer of this 10s. to the Coleridge Fund has been an unpleasant mystery. It is still more so since the editor of the Daily News has failed to publish a disclaimer sent him by Miss Cobbe with urgent request for immediate publication. VIEWED in the light of recent events, it is gratifying to find that the vivisecting fraternity have received what they will doubtless regard as a severe check. For twenty-two years one of their chief leaders, Professor Sir Michael Foster, M.P., had been one of the secretaries to the Royal Society. The result was that a large part of the scientific communities read to and published by that Society were those of vivisectors, and that young men following physiology and pathology, with experiments on animals, were early rewarded with the F.R.S., while older and distinguished men in other walks of science were passed over. Not long since Sir Michael Foster resigned the secretaryship--not as he did his seat in Parliament, to take it up again on being asked, but for good and all. Then of course it became necessary to elect a successor, and the Council of the Royal Society nominated Sir Archibald Geikie, a distinguished man, but not a vivisector, to the post. The fraternity of animal experimentationists were in arms. They drafted and issued a circular, signed with some of the names seldom absent from such a document issuing from that side, soliciting the Fellows to elect Professor W. D. Halliburton, a licensed and certificated vivisector from 1887, as Sir M. Foster's successor. One paragraph of the circular ran thus :-- "It appears to us highly desirable to adhere to the time-honoured usage of electing to one of the two Secretaryships a Fellow whose work is completely biological in character, and one in active pursuit of such work. Apart from other cogent reasons, the sheer extent of the contribution by biology to the publications of the Society makes it important that one of the two Secretaries should be a biologist, and in the fullest sense of the term." By reading "vivisector" for "biologist" the real meaning of this request is seen. It is encouraging to know that it was refused. By a vote of 125 to 41 Sir Archibald Geikie was elected, and we confidently expect that one result will be a diminution of the prominence so long given to vivisectional experiments in the proceedings and annals of the Royal Society. THERE was a crowded meeting of the Humanitarian League at Essex Hall, Strand, on Thursday night, November 12th, when a discussion on vivisection opened with the reading of a very thoughtful paper by Edward Carpenter, in which it was maintained (1) that a great amount of severe pain is yearly inflicted by vivisectors ; DECEMBER 15, 1903] The Abolitionist. 103 (2) that while the scientific results of vivisection are inconsiderable, great medical advances have been made by rational and hygienic methods ; (3) that vivisection, while contributing little to our knowledge, violates what is still more valuable, our sense of sympathy and kinship with sentient fellow-creatures ; (4) that the science of the future will altogether discard such methods of research as are based on animal torture. Among those who took part in the debate were Mr. George Greenwood, Mr. George Bernard Shaw, and Mr. J. Frederick Green. Mr. Carpenter's paper will be published win the Humane Review. THE excellent Animals' Defender of Boston (from the direction of which we regret to see that Mr. J. M. Greene is retiring after seven years' good service) contains the following pertinent remarks, in answer to the boast of a Dr. Osler that "the sentiments of the medical profession strongly condemn experiments upon patients." The Animals' Defender quotes the following examples of such experiments from a paper read before the New York Academy of Medicine, December 1st, 1887, which was received with expressions of great interest, followed by a long discussion, but without one word of condemnation :-- " At a meeting of the NEW YORK ACADEMY OF MEDICINE' held Dec. 1st, 1887, a Dr. J. W. Stickler of Orange, New Jersey, presented a paper upon ' Foot and Mouth Disease as it affects Man and Animals.' He had conceived the theory that this epidemic disorder, so fatal to certain animals, had a particular relation to scarlet fever ; and that if human beings were inoculated with the virus of this animal disease, it might render them immune to the infection of scarlatina. To test the theory--one, by the way, utterly discredited and forgotten at the present time,--Dr. Stickler made a number of 'experiments' of the most dangerous kind upon children entrusted to his professional care. The New York Medical Record of Dec. 10th, 1887, prints, as its leading article, this paper in full, the confession- so to speak--of the experimenter himself. "The first victim of this human vivisector was a little boy, eight years of age, who had never had scarlet fever, and who was in perfectly good health. First, the lad was inoculated with the virus of foot-and-mouth disease, an ailment very fatal to certain domestic animals. After his recovery from this, he was deliberately exposed to the infection of scarlet fever, one of the most terrible of diseases to which children are liable. The experimenter shall tell the story in his own words. " ' He was then taken to a house in which there was a boy, sick with scarlet fever. . . . His parents, being poor, the pillow upon which the patient lay had not been changed since the beginning of the sickness. This pillow was placed over the face of the boy who had been inoculated, and held there for some time. He was then made to inhale the breath of the patient.'* " Now, what do American fathers and mothers think of such experiments, if secretly made upon their own children? Because these parent were ignorant and 'poor,' is the experiment to be condoned? Is it any excuse to tell us that, after all, the lad did not suffer from scarlet fever, although he was forced by strong arms to run the risk of infection? If this child had taken the disease and had died from it, does Dr. Osler think that the details of that scientific murder would ever have come to light? " A second victim of this scientific experimenter upon the bodies of human beings was a little girl, only four years old. The vivisector tells us that he inoculated her in the arm,-- " ' with a small quantity of foot-and-mouth virus. On March 13 her temperature rose to 103 degrees F. Her mouth * New York Medical Record, Dec. 10, 1887, p. 728. was sore ; . . . she complained of a pricking sensation in her throat ; she had a slight headache.'* 'She was afterwards directly exposed to the infection of scarlet fever in the same way.' "+ The point to be borne in mind is that these examples of truly murderous scientific investigation, are not simply the crimes of individual doctors, but that in no recorded case have the assembled medical men in America, Germany, or France condemned or even questioned the rightfulness of the researchers' experiments, unblushingly divulged to them in conclave by the offenders. AN important long letter by Dr. Greville MacDonald (whose very able and suggestive book, "The Religious Sense in its Scientific Aspects," we cannot, from lack of space, deal with in the present number) appeared in the Pilot of November 28th. Dr. MacDonald denies that he is an " Anti-vivisectionist in the ordinary sense of the word," and, to show his absence of bias, uses some blame to the advocates of our cause which, in our opinion, is unjust. But he makes two very weighty observations to which his eminence as a medical man gives additional value. They are these :-- But I cannot allow to pass unchallenged the statement that experiments upon living animals are necessary to the teaching of physiology. The practice of such demonstrations began in my student days, and experiments were made before our eyes to instruct us in facts that we had already learned from our text-books and of which we had never questioned the truth. John Hunter, perhaps the greatest surgeon and physiologist that ever lived, laid it down as a rule that an experiment on a living animal which had established a new fact, should never be repeated. I grant that, in these days of anaesthetics, he might think differently, though I doubt if his great mind could brook the waste of time and opportunity for real teaching that these experiments involve. Even under anaesthetics, dissections on live animals are revolting to a sense that lies very near the ethical sense ; and the less the student becomes familiarised with horrible sights that are not necessary to his education--and these are many enough, God knows !--the better will it be for the work of his life in the alleviation of suffering and the cure of disease. I believe there is evidence in abundance that the students of those medical schools where the misery of suffering is least regarded in the physiological laboratories evince the least gentleness in handling the patients in the hospitals. In some of the continental schools, this recklessness in the use of patients as material for teaching and practice is as obvious as it is appalling. And the following noble profession of faith coming even from a man who believes in the " services of science" :-- For my part I would rather the whole world were anti-vivisectionist and the progress of science, notwithstanding her services to suffering humanity, arrested, than that the people should cease to progress in that attribute of their profounder welfare, the love of man ; an attribute that can never, I think, be sound, if it does not embrace the love of beast. The cruelties of sport, fashion and science are greater blots upon our humanity than the crime against which the state contends. And we shall not lessen such cruelties in any better way, perhaps, than by setting our own house in order. Harley Street, W., GREVILLE MACDONALD, M.D. November 21st, 1903. THE British Union is to be congratulated on having secured the services of the Rev. Dr. Warschauer as * New York Medical Record, Dec. 10, 1887, p. 728. + Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, Dec. 22, 1887, pp. 607-609.104 The Abolitionist. [DECEMBER 15, 1903. Lecturer for a definite period. Since his appointment he has visited Bath, Sheffield, Hull, Wrexham, Llandudno, Liverpool, and Bradford-on-Avon, besides several smaller meetings in Bristol and its neighbourhood. Dr. Warschauer is not only a very eloquent, but a very convincing speaker. Demands upon his time are increasing, and it would be well if those wishing to secure his services would apply as early as possible to the Secretary of the British Union, 14, St. James's Barton, Bristol. WE are pleased to be able to record the success of ttwo of the contributors to THE ABOLITIONIST. The Bristol Times and Mirror of October 19th contains the following paragraph :-- ANTI-VIVISECTION.--The Society for the Abolition of Vivisection, 23, Northumberland Avenue, London, W.C., having offered two prizes of eight and five guineas respectively, for the best and second best essay on "Vivisection : Why it should be Abolished," the first prize has been awarded to Mr. Maurice L. Johnson, Bristol ; and the second to Miss Helen Bourchier, M.D., London. The adjudication was made by Dr. Josiah Oldfield, of Harley Street, London. A FURTHER Branch has been added to our list, entitled The Conway Valley, the Hon. Secretary being Miss Annie Parry, of Ty Gwyn, Llandudno. CANCER is one of the numerous diseases which not only repulse the whole forces of medical science, but assume the offensive, and steadily gain ground. So far, bacteriology has accomplished nothing. The only weapon that has proved at all effective against this malignant disease is the knife, and that only in a very early stage of the disease. The use of radium, for which there is a great demand at some cancer hospitals, and the varied treatment with light, are directions in which hope of a cure may reasonably be entertained ; but the money that ought to be spent in these directions is squandered on cancer research by means of experiment on animals--in other words, vivisection. Here we have another of the many directions in which vivisection hinders medical progress. In the Bradsh w Lecture at the Royal College of Surgeons, on December 9th, Mr. Morris fully supported our view. "During the last ten or fifteen years cancer research has been too exclusively directed to microbes and too little to cancer." The agencies which were the invariable and unconditional cause of cancer had never yet (he said) been properly investigated. Mr. Morris concluded by the important statement that the best medical opinion was convinced of the local origin of cancer, and of the comparative curability when the disease was removed early and completely. Inadvertently Mr. Morris observed that "innumerable attempts which had been made to convey the disease from one patient to a second had been unsuccessful, though successful in the case of white mice." This sums up neatly all the vivisectors have accomplished in all these years of experiment--they have given cancer to white mice. This is exactly like the record of the Pasteur Institute, which has at last succeeded, not in curing a single disease, but in giving a foul disease to monkeys. How characteristic the achievements of vivisection ; it always brings harm to animals ; it tortures them in order to find out how to give them agonising diseases ; and it does not by all this cruelty cure men. If it effects anything, it is to give men disease. The laboratory rabies in men is the one certain result of Pasteur's anti-rabic inoculations. THE following excellent letter from Lady Wolseley appeared in the Daily Mail. The conclusion hits the nail on the head. 'VIVISECTION OF ANIMALS. "TO THE EDITOR OF THE 'DAILY MAIL.' "Sir,--I wish some of your vivisectionist correspondents would inform us why, when operations are performed on animals which are said to be entirely under the influence of anaesthetics, it is still considered necessary to muzzle them to prevent their biting, to gag them to prevent their howling,, and to strap them down to prevent their moving. "I have known human beings operated on without being strapped to the operating board. "These precautions with regard to animals point to the operator having a firm belief in the inefficacy of the anaesthetic. "L. WOLSELEY. "Glynde, Lewes." AN excellent letter from a highly-values contributor to THE ABOLITIONIST appears in the Daily News of Decem ber 4th :-- FROM "THE DAILY NEWS," DECEMBER 4TH. SIR,--It is quite impossible to anaesthetise efficiently with A. C. E. mixture, either a dog or a human being, without the smell of the anaesthetic permeating the room and making itself obvious to anyone with a normal sense of smell. It is a deplorable thing that the Lord Chief Justice should have addressed to the jury observations tending to minimise the importance of this essential point. His lordship's position naturally invested his utterances on the subject with weight in the minds of the jury, who would not realise that, owing to his want of practical knowledge on the subject, his pronouncements were entitled to no weight whatever. The plaintiff's admissions as to his standard of truth and honour and obedience to the law, where a vivisectible animal was concerned, have surely an importance bearing on the whole case. His letter in your columns shows further what manner of man he is.--Yours, etc., Manchester. F. S. ARNOLD, M.B. Oxon. OBITUARY. By the death of Lord Stanley of Alderley on December 10th, England loses a model landowner, and the British Union a Vice-President who warmly sympathised with our cause. A remarkably charitable and quietly religious man, Lord Stanley of Adlerley was only one more instance of innumerable instances that show that the anti-vivisectionist is the truest of philanthropists. CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of THE ABOLITIONIST. December 1st, 1903. SIR,--The movement against vivisection cannot be stayed by the result of the recent trial. It is based on the ethical evolution of mankind, and no verdicts in law-courts can reverse the judgment which humanity will ultimately pass on the system of subjecting live animals to scientific experiments. The position of the vivisector is not one that makes him fit to judge whether the dogs under his knife suffer pain or not. He can no more lay claim to be an unbiased observer than could slave-owners of the abuses of slavery ; prison authorities, in days gone by, on the effects of torture ; or employers of the dangers of child-labour in factories. The best of motives and scientific qualifications do not exclude the vivisector from the weaknesses and shortcomings of human nature. Habit and prejudice are as potent in the vivisector as in other men when professional and economical interests are concerned, and the practice of vivisection naturally tends DECEMBER 15, 1903.] The Abolitionist. 105 to blind the vivisector to the signs of suffering in the animal he is operating upon. Granted that anaesthetics are being used, the matter does not end here. The personal attention and discernment which are essential for the maintenance of deep surgical anaesthesia is, as a rule, not given to vivisected animals, and the difference in this respect between a surgeon, whether veterinary or otherwise, and an experimentalist, is great. The vivisector is sometimes far more unconscious than the "animal under anaesthesia." The facts with regard to the methods of experimentation in the physiological laboratories of University College which have been acknowledged are perhaps of far greater importance than those which were denied. The history of the brown dog, as told by the scientific experts themselves, has already convinced many, who before doubted the inhumanity of physiological research, of the full justification for the work of anti-vivisection. We learn that an operation was performed on the brown dog on December 3rd, that it lived for two months without the full use of its pancreas--the secretion of which Sir Michael Foster describes as being "of predominant importance in digestion" ("Life of Claude Bernard," p. 53), that it lived in a cage, that it had distemper, and suffered from a nervous disease. On February 2nd a new operation was performed on the belly of the animal, which was then handed over to another vivisector, who proceeded to open its neck, and performed yet another experiment. When vivisector number two had finished, the brown dog was handed over to a research student especially interested in the state of the animal's pancreas. The research student has stated on oath that he was the ultimate executioner of the dog ; but he says he killed it by "thrusting a knife into its heart," whilst the laboratory attendant, who swears he was present, declares that it was killed by chloroform or the A.C.E. mixture. The statutory obligation, that an animal shall be killed as soon as the object of the experiment has been attained, is, for the purposes of the physiological laboratory, carried out by subjecting the animal to further experiments, provided the animal is "under anaesthesia" (see second day's evidence). This is an interpretation of the law which even those who do not object to legal experiments on animals may hesitate before accepting. Among the many mistakes concerning our evidence and position in the anti-vivisection trial which have been circulated by the press--especially the pro-vivisectional --there are a few which we should like, with your permission, to refute in the columns of your paper. A great deal of stress has been laid upon our statement that the experiment on the brown dog was the first demonstration we had attended. This was a mistake in our case, but is true of one of Dr. Bayliss's witnesses, who, according to her own evidence, had never seen an operation or an experiment on a living animal before. Since the autumn of 1900 we have studied physiology, and when saying, as we did in the witness-box, that we had attended no "real vivisection" demonstration in London before February 2nd, we put ourselves in the position of the physiologist who does not like to give the name "vivisection" but to a limited class of the great number of biological experiments. It should be known, however, that before that date we had witnessed the results of private vivisection, hundreds of inoculations, smaller experiments on rabbits, guinea pigs, frogs and mice on the Continent and in England, and that we had seen animals, including dogs and human beings, under anaesthesia, also tracheotomy on human beings. After the 2nd of February we have seen a great many vivisections for demonstrational purposes and also operations on human beings, which experience was added in forming our opinion of the manner in which the experiment of February 2nd was carried out in University College. We have been much criticised for not having raised an objection at the time of the experiment in question. It must be borne in mind that we wished to see vivisection as it was carried out before students independently of any remonstrances, though, indeed, we have drawn attention to an instance in which other students than ourselves remonstrated with a professor. It is indeed strange to read such an indictment of our behaviour as that quoted from a weekly paper. "The eye-witnesses repeatedly observe in silence tortures which a word would have ended, nay, they even withhold that word because it would have ended them." We have not observed tortures in silence, we have spoken in our book, "The Shambles of Science," which is an indictment against a system and not against individuals. We waited to pronounce our opinion till we considered that we had learnt enough. Nor were we spies, for we pursued our studies openly and published our full names and address. Mr. Ernest Bell has felt himself constrained to sign an undertaking, prepared for him by Dr. Bayliss's solicitors, withdrawing the third edition of the book, and expressing his regret to Dr. Bayliss. Apart from that portion of the book which has become associated with the libel action, we, as its authors, reserve to ourselves the right to protest against any conclusions with regard to the rest of the book which might be inferred by his action. As representatives of the largest Anti-Vivisection Society in the world, we have felt bound in the interest of our cause to make these explanations. We are, Sir, etc., L. LIND AF HAGEBY. L. K. SCHARTAU. To the Editor of THE ABOLITIONIST. SIR,--My nerves are altogether undisturbed by the "drum ecclesiastic" which you beat so vigorously in your last issue. I have been too used to that music during more than forty years of controversial life to be much affected by its discords. Because I denounced the introduction of the odium theologicum into the vivisection controversy, you administer to me a double dose of the same virus, based on allegations for which you do not, and could not, adduce any evidence ; and, having cried "Atheist" in your loudest tones, you wind up with the edifying statement that we "are engaged in a great practical work of moral reform, and we cannot afford to quarrel among ourselves." For myself, I shall decline all co-operation with persons who are thus bringing the cause, which is so unfortunate as to have them among its champions, into contempt ; and whose outbursts of unreason are likely to result in little beyond the alienation of the more thoughtful of those who have not yet taken sides on the question, and the occasional endowment of vivisection at the expense of anti-vivisectionists. "Florence," 11, Abbeville Road, Sincerely yours, Clapham Park, S.W. J. J. LEVY. November 26th, 1903. [We publish Mr. Levy's reply to our criticism of his hostile review of "The Shambles of Science," and we are not surprised to find that it further justifies the accusation of injustice and intolerance we made against his review. We expressed, nevertheless, our willingness to co-operate, sinking all differences of opinion on the subject of religion, with any who agreed with us in respect to the practice of vivisection. Mr. Levy declines all co-operation. As regards the charge he makes against us of odium theologicum, it is not only unjust, it is manifestly ridiculous. We did not call him an atheist, as we do not know that he ever claimed that title ; but we do call his attitude towards the authors of the "Shambles of Science" odium atheologicum anti-religious rancour--an attitude which insists on the untrustworthiness of those who accept the supernatural. What we objected to was the gross injustice of Mr. Levy's review of a book which gave a very careful, and from internal106 The Abolitionist. [DECEMBER 15, 1903. evidence a very trustworthy, account of the place of vivisection in medical education in England to-day. Mr. Levy wrote down the authors of the book as untrustworthy, without attempting to prove their untrustworthiness by examining their statements of what they had seen at the demonstrations they attended. This was gross injustice. He ignored the bulk of the book, and treated a mere fringe of personal opinions on religion and science as if it were the whole volume. And he left us with only one explanation of the cause of this gross injustice, an explanation he himself supplied in the following passage : "If such is the influence of the supernatural of mystical" [ef. the previous sentence, quoted from Howell's, and accepted as satisfactory by Mr. Levy, viz, "It is very interesting to note how corrupting anything supernatural or mystical is. Such things mostly happen either in the privity of people who are born liars, or else they deprave the spectator so, through his spiritual vanity or his love of the marvellous, that you can't believe a word he says,'], "when acting alone, how much more is it so when it is reinforced," etc. Now what is the meaning of this but that the authors of "The Shambles of Science," being believers in the supernatural, were corrupted by its influence, and their evidence rendered untrustworthy ? Is this anti-religious intolerance, or is it not ? We think most of our readers will agree that it is. Odium theologicum and odium atheologicum are mere phrases to describe the same thing--intolerance of the opinions of others on religion where they differ from our own. If such an attack as Mr. Levy's were to be made by a religious Anti-Vivisectionist on the trustworthiness of witnesses against vivisection who openly denied the supernatural, on the ground of their denial of the supernatural, we should condemn it, exactly as we condemned Mr. Levy's, as downright intolerance issuing in injustice. And in this instance the injustice to the book was gravely increased in its effects by the circumstances. A trial was coming on in which the ladies whose trustworthiness Mr. Levy sought to discredit were the principal witnesses on the side that opposed vivisection. What effect on a jury was the knowledge likely to have that Mr. Levy, himself an Anti-Vivisectionist, had read their book and found their witness untrustworthy ? Nay, we may now add, what effect may it actually have had on the verdict, if even one member of the jury was impressed by Mr. Levy's review ? If Mr. Levy can show any other meaning to the authors, primarily because of the corrupting influence of the supernatural, we will gladly acknowledge that we have misunderstood him, and sincerely regret the misunderstanding. Injustice is not Mr. Levy's habitual attitude, nor, as far as we know, anti-religious intolerance. Yet the injustice of condemning Miss Lind and Miss Schartan as untrustworthy is manifest enough, and the cause of this injustice, in the theory adopted by Mr. Levy, "how corrupting anything supernatural or mystical is," seems manifest enough too. --Ed. ABOLITIONIST. BRITISH UNION CHRONICLE. WREXHAM. FROM THE "NORTH WALES GAZETTE," NOVEMBER 27TH. A largely attended meeting was held at the Public Hall, Wrexham, on Friday evening, in connection with the Wrexham and District Branch of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. Mr. S. Moss, M.P., presided, and there were also on the platform the Rev. Dr. Warschauer, Dr. Stephen Smith (author of "Scientific Research"), Col. and Mrs. Hutton, Miss Holland (Brynygrog), etc. The Chairman said he had been requested to express their regret at the absence of the Hon. S. Ormsby Gore, M.P., who had telegraphed stating that owing to an unforeseen political engagement at Gainsborough he was unable to be with them. Further letters of apology for non-attendance and sympathising with the movement had also been received from Mrs. Price, Rhiwlas, and the Revs. P. W. Sparling, R. Peris Williams, H. J. Huffadine, and M. O. Evans. He did not think it was essential for him to explain the anti-vivisection movement that night. It was against what they supposed to be unnecessary cruelty inflicted upon living animals in the interests of science. Animals were tortured, sometimes under anaesthetics and sometimes not under them, with a view of discovering new methods of alleviating human suffering and improving scientific research and knowledge in the matter of their own human anatomy. Some of them believed however, that God desired the happiness of all dumb creatures, and some believed that even a dog was entitled to protection from the hands of the vivisector. Some of them also believed that scientific knowledge could be purchased at too great a cost, and when that cost involved the suffering of the dumb brutes given into their charge, that it was a matter and a method with which they for themselves entirely disapproved. Personally he had no wish to attack persons or individuals, but he did attack principles, and the whole of his nature revolted against the idea that human science must be advanced at the cost of the sufferings of those around them unable to protect themselves--(hear, hear). He did not attack men but he certainly did attack measures, and the law as it at present stood, which permitted the mutilation of dumb animals in a way which created a perfect revolution in one's feelings, was one which was unfit to remain on the statute book of the country--(cheers). Those speakers who would follow him would discuss the matter more from a scientific standpoint than himself ; he simply spoke of vivisection as an ordinary human being--one of the crowd--who was a great lover of animals, who loved the dogs and the rabbits which were operated upon, and who considered it a direct contravention of every human and religious instinct in one's nature that those creatures should be subjected to the tortures which scientific men deemed necessary in the so-called interests of science--(cheers). It was his opinion that whatever was cruel required a great deal of justification, and he had not heard that any of the records of the vivisectionists had been justified by the results obtained. He took no bigoted view of the matter ; it might be that if a vivisector proved to him that without cruelty and inflicting pain and punishment and subsequent torture he could really improve science in the matter of the alleviation of human suffering, he would probably have very little to say, but up to the present he had not been convinced that such was the case, and they did know of certain instances where vivisection had subjected animals to terrible pain, and as long as that existed they should sympathise with the poor brutes. Those who had religious instincts and feelings believed that God never intended the animal to be treated in such a manner, and it was their duty to put an end to the system of vivisection which obtained in this country. He did not say anything illegal was taking place, but if the general public knew the state of things which existed, as the law permitted them, they would say that those things ought not to be, and whenever they could reach down to the great heart of the public of the country, he felt sure there would be such a response as would remove from the statute book the law which allowed the poor suffering animals to be mutilated in the interests of science. He might say he had come to that meeting at some inconvenience because he felt it to be his duty as a public man to show on which side he stood in that matter, and so long as his views were as they were, he would endeavor to appear as often as possible on all platforms to oppose vivisection--(applause). The Rev. Dr. Warschauer said he had the honour of standing before them as the representative of a movement which was popularly supposed to have just sustained a blow under which they ought to reel, but somehow, although according to all rules of the game, they ought to be sitting in sackcloth and ashes, they were doing nothing of the kind, and were going to resume their propaganda more enthusiastically than ever. They were not one whit discouraged from pursuing the work of a righteous cause, directed to the attainment of the highest good, not only in the interests of the animals but of all humanity, for he believed that nothing of a cruel nature could be done without the infliction of harm and hurt upon one's own moral and spiritual nature. If they could convince their own minds that the practice was opposed to the highest interests of humanity, he would ask them to give something more than their approval to the movement, ans to assist in stamping out such a terrible stain upon their civilisation as soon as possible. Nothing could do that except public opinion, and if they could persuade themselves that the Lord of pity and mercy could pronounce His blessing on vivisection his words had been wasted ; but he contended that they could never picture Christ pronouncing his blessing upon organised cruelty and the infliction of long-drawn agony for the futherance of science. He was trying to show them that the practice was a great wrong and an abominable sin, and he would ask them to support the cause as earnestly and enthusiastically as they possibly could--(cheers). Dr. Stephen Smith said it was claimed that two great treatments had been discovered by means of vivisection, the first being Dr. Pasteur's treatment of hydrophobia. Hundreds of French patients had been treated by the famous doctor, who contended that his discovery had been the means of saving scores of lives. But was such actually the case ? Previous to the discovery, the mortality from hydrophobia in France was about 30 a year, but the following year it was 36, and has been steadily increasing ever since. The second discovery was anti-toxin treatment for diphtheria, and statistics had been produced showing its beneficial results, but if they looked at the facts, they would find the DECEMBER 15, 1903] The Abolitionist. 107 deaths in England and Wales before the discovery in 1895 to be 188 per million, and that since that time the mortality had steadily increased to 268, or half as much again. Col. Hutton, in proposing a vote of thanks to the speakers, said he was especially grateful to Mr. Moss for his presence that evening at such great inconvenience, and he hoped the result would be that everyone present would join the movement, and give it their heartiest and warmest support. The motion was seconded, and carried by acclamation. WILTSHIRE. INAUGURATION OF THE WILTSHIRE SECTION. The Anti-Vivisection Campaign begun in Bradford-on-Avon on the 25th of November, and lasting ten days, came to a conclusion on Friday afternoon, the 4th of December, at the Town Hall, when, at 3 p m, a Public Meeting was held. The Chair was taken by the Rev. Joseph Wain, M.A., of Trowbridge. The speaker was the Rev. Dr. Warschauer. Mr. T. A. Williams, of Bristol, was also present. The meeting commenced with prayer offered by the Rev. E. Mansfield Potter, M.A., of Bradford-on-Avon, who is a new and enthusiastic recruit to the Anti-Vivisection Cause, and a member of the Wiltshire A.-V. Society. The Chairman, in opening the proceedings, made a short but earnest speech, in which he drew attention to the fact that the meeting convened that day was for the formal inauguration of the new Wiltshire Section of the British Union. He then read out assurances of regret for absence from J. Bateman Dashwood, Esq., and Mrs. B. Dashwood, of the Grove, Freshford, Bath ; the Misses Leakey, Bath ; Mr. and Mrs. W. Harbutt, Bathampton ; and others. A telegram from Miss Florence Baker, Secretary of the British Union, was read : "Sorry cannot come. Wish you every success." The Rev. Dr. Warschauer, who was received with cheers, delivered an instructive and eloquent address, chiefly based upon the Coleridge libel case, in which he pointed out that the judge especially emphasised the fact that the case before the jury was a question of libel or not libel, not the right or wrong of vivisection. He (the speaker) averred that there were things better worth having than libel damages--to wit, a clean conscience (cheers)-- and went on to describe the signs of consciousness or unconsciousness in animals under anaesthesia. Dr. Warschauer concluded a long and able speech by pointing out how immoral, how criminal, was the standing Act of Parliament legalising vivisection, and called upon the meeting to pass a resolution that it should be abolished. (Loud cheers.) Mr. T. A. Williams spoke ably on antitoxin and hygiene. After a few more words from the chairman, a resolution was proposed by Mr. Williams, and seconded by Mr. Harris, of Bradford, that the present meeting condemned vivisection as immoral, cruel, and a crime which should be abolished. Carried. Mrs. Bernard Wentworth, Hon. Secretary, rising, proposed a hearty vote of thanks to the Rev. Joseph Wain for acting as chairman, to Dr. Warschauer for the powerful speech to which the meeting had listened, and to the Rev. E. M. Potter. This was seconded by Mr. Williams, and the meeting concluded at 4.45 with the benediction. The Petition to Parliament was signed, and one new member was enrolled. A collection was also made towards the funds of the Wiltshire A.-V. Society. HULL. ANOTHER NEW BRANCH OF THE UNION. During the early part of November Mr. T. A. Williams remained in Hull, speaking at many meetings, and he also occupied the pulpit of the Mission Church, by kind invitation of the Vicar, the Rev. H. Watts, M.A. The reverend gentleman made an interesting announcement at a public meeting, saying that his attention was first drawn to the subject while at Birmingham some years ago, when Mr. T. A. Williams waited upon him, nad left some literature of his Society. On November 10th, a Public Meeting was held in Clarendon Hall, presided over by W. Stephenson, Esq., when the Rev. Dr. Warschauer, M.A., was the chief speaker. As a desire had been expressed that a Branch of the British Union be formed in Hull, Mr. Williams asked all those who were in sympathy with the proposal to stay behind the public meeting. More than one hundred persons stayed to join the Branch. A Provisional Committee was appointed, and Mr. H. W. Cox, an earnest worker in our cause, was unanimously appointed Secretary. More formal meetings of the newly-formed Branch will shortly be held, and the British Union are thus able to add another Branch to the growing number of those committed to the uncompromising policy of the total abolition of vivisection. The Eastern Morning News gave excellent reports of the meetings, and also inserted letters from our friends supporting the work of Mr. Williams while in the district. BATH. FROM "THE BATH HERALD," NOV. 19TH, 1903. ANTI-VIVISECTION MISSION IN BATH. In connection with the mission work of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (Bath and Counties branch), the Vicar of St. John's Lower Weston, the Rev. J. C. Church, and Mrs. Church gave an "At Home" on Monday afternoon in the Church Room, for the purpose of hearing an address from Mr. T. A. Williams, of Bristol, which was well attended and highly appreciated by the audience. FROM "THE BATH CHRONICLE," NOV. 21ST, 1903. THE ANTI-VIVISECTION MEETING IN BATH. The second of the "At Homes" promoted under the auspices of the Bath and Counties branch of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, which has held a series of very successful meetings during this, the mission week of the local organisation, was held last (Friday) evening in the library of the New Church, Henry Street, when a large gathering were entertained by the Rev. and Mrs. S.J. Cunnington Goldsack, the minister of the church. Mr. Goldsack was in the chair. Mr. T. A. Williams, of Bristol, met with a cordial reception, and gave an able address on the subject, emphasising the good work done for the cause in that locality by Miss Eva Tanner. BRISTOL. FROM "THE WESTERN DAILY PRESS," NOV. 20TH, 1903. A CROWDED ATTENDANCE. At the offices of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, on Wednesday mid-day, there was a numerous attendance to listen to a lecture by Mr. T.A. Williams, entitled, "VIvisection and Modern Reforms." The chair was taken by Mr. W. H. Bale. A discussion followed, and Mr. Williams was heartily thanked. BURY. On Saturday and Sunday, November 7th and 8th, Mr. Reed was at Bury, where, through the efforts of Miss Wright, a public lecture was delivered. Mr. T. Hill presided at the Club Rooms, stating that it was the first time in that district that the subject of vivisection had been dealt with. Mr. Reed spoke for over an hour. Then there was a discussion, the questions put being answered to the satisfaction of the audience. A long report of the address appeared in the Bury Times during the week. CANONBURY, N. HARECOURT LITERARY SOCIETY. Through the energy of the Secretary of the Society for the Abolition of Vivisection, Northumberland Avenue, a lecture was delivered by Mr. J. H. Reed before the members of the above society, in the Lecture Hall, St. Paul's Road, Canonbury, London, N., on Thursday November 3rd. There was a good attendance of members, presided over by the Rev. H. Elvet Lewis. CHESTER. Another request from Chester for the service of Mr. J. H. Reed being received, he spent from November 17th to the 23rd taking part in various meetings, interviewing tradespeople and others, getting signatures to a petition, etc. On Sunday, November 22nd, after speaking in the Friends' Meeting House in the morning, he was the speaker at the P.S.A. in the afternoon in the Congregational Church, Upton. There was a good attendance of members, presided over by Sydney Clarke, Esq., who introduced the speaker as a Delegate from the Anti-Vivisection Society, whose views were largely unknown to the members of that P.S.A. Mr. Reed then delivered a stirring address on the need for the total Abolition of Vivisection. YARMOUTH. MR. J. H. REED'S WORK. During the past month in addition to sermons, lectures, getting signatures, etc., Mr. Reed has written for the Press on our Cause. In addition to the letter in the Chester Observer, another appeared in the Daily News, and a long article, over 3,000 words in length, appeared in the Yarmouth Mercury. It gave many reasons why Vivisection should be abolished and no doubt will do good in stirring up thought on the subject in the Eastern Counties.108 The Abolitionist. [DECEMBER 15, 1903. The British Union for Abolition of Vivisection. (In Alliance with the London Anti-Vivisection Society.) President: Miss FRANCES POWER COBBE. Vice-Presidents: The Lady VICTORIA CAMPBELL. The Dowager Countess of DARNLEY. The Countess of RAVENSWORTH. The Viscountess BOLINGBROKE. The Right Hon. Viscount HARBERTON. The Lady WIMBORNE. The Lady BATTERSEA. The Hon. SEYMOUR F. ORMSBY GORE, M.P. Lady KEMBALL. Sir CHARLES and Lady SKELTON. L. A. ATHERLEY JONES, Esq., K.C., M.P. Col. SANDYS, M.P. THOMAS BAYLEY, Esq., M.P. ROBERT CAMERON, Esq., M.P. SAMUEL MOSS, Esq., M.P. SAMUEL SMITH, Esq., M.P. JOHN NORRIS, Esq., K.C. Mrs. CHARLES THOMAS. Mr. and Mrs. FRANK MORRISON. Mrs. ADLAM. Mr. and Mrs. R. LLOYD PRICE. W. M. ROSCOE, Esq., J.P. Parliamentary Representative:--L. ATHERLEY JONES, Esq., K.C., M. P. Hon. Secretary Mrs. ROSCOE. Co. Hon. Secretary: J. LEE OSBORN, Esq. Hon Treasurer: JOHN F. NORRIS, Esq., K.C. Secretary: Miss FLORENCE BAKER. Headquarters of the Union, 14, St. James's Barton, Bristol. Hon. Correspondents: Countess BALDELLI, Florence. Countess BAYARD DE VOLO, Austria. Princess MELE BARESE, Naples. Madame VAN EYS, San Remo. Dr. PAUL FORSTER (Member of Reichstag), Berlin Herr FLIEGEL, Zurich. Herr Dr. ED. RITTER VON LISZT, Vienna. Mrs. BROWN, Palermo. Dr. MATTHEW WOODS, Philadelphia. Miss SNOW, Connecticut. Miss DEIGHTON, Cannstadt. Frau F. VON ERLENTHAL, The Tyrol Hon. Members: Mrs. RATHBONE. Miss CARRINGTON. Madame LILLI LEHMANN. Mrs. KENNERLEY RUMBORD (CLARA BUTT). Mrs. KITCHIN (Deanery, Durham). Mrs. E. STUART PHELPS WARD. Miss GENEVIEVE WARD. Miss DOLORES DRUMMOND. Rev. F. B. MEYER, B.A. WALTER HADWEN, Esq., M.D., etc. Federated Societies of British Union: BANGOR, CARNARVON, AND DISTRICT BRANCH.--Hon. Sec. Mrs. GASQUOINE, St. Oswald's Upper Bangor. BATH AND COUNTIES BRANCH.--Sec., Miss EVA TANNER, 6, Wood Street, Bath. BRISTOL AND SOMERSET FRIENDS' ANTI-VIVISECTION COMMITTEE. --Hon. Sec. F. C. HUNT, Esq., 2, Felix Road, Stapleton Road, Bristol. BRISTOL AND WEST OF ENGLAND ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY (CENTRAL SECTION OF UNION).--President, JOSEPH STORRS FRY, Esq. Hon. Sec., Mrs. ROSCOE: Co-Hon. Sec., J. LEE OSBORN, Esq., 14, St. James's Barton, Bristol. CONWAY VALLEY ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY.--Hon. Sec., Miss ANNIE PARRY, Ty Gwyn, Llandudno. EASTERN COUNTIES BRANCH (GREAT YARMOUTH).--Hon. Sec., Mr. BRUCE LEACH, 21, Market Place, Great Yarmouth. ELECTORAL ANTI-VIVISECTION LEAGUE (LONDON).--Hon. Sec., Miss SQUIRE. Sec., Rev. J. FLEMING SHEARER, 92, Ladbroke Grove, North Kensington, London, W. LIVERPOOL AND DISTRICT ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY.-- President, Rev. THEODORE A. HOWARD. Hon. Sec., Miss PENNELL, 9, Brougham Terrace, Liverpool. MACCLESFIELD ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY.--Hon. Sec., Mrs. RENSHAW, Park Lane, Macclesfield. MIDLANDS ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY.--President (pro tem.), PRICE LEWIS, Esq. Hon. Sec., Mr. W. H. RICHARDS, Rose Hill, Coalbrookdale, Salop. NORTHAMPTON ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY.--Hon. Sec., Miss R. E. SHARWOOD, 12, Watkin Terrace, Northampton. NORTH OF ENGLAND BRANCH.--Hon. Secs., Miss EDITH PHILLIPS and the Rev. F. S. MITCHELL, Canklow, Cutcliffe, Rotherham. NORTH WALES ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY.--President, R. LLOYD PRICE, Esq. Hon. Sec., Miss ATKINSON. Sec., Mrs. CATTERMOLE, FRONDIRION, Dolgelly. PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION.--Hon. Sec., L. ATHERLEY-JONES, Esq., K.C., M.P Parliament Mansions, Victoria Street, London, S.W. SHEFFIELD ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY.--President, Lady SKELTON. Hon. Sec., Miss PHILLIPS, 32, Rutland Park, Sheffield. SURREY BRANCH.--President, R. J. LLOYD PRICE, Esq., of Rhwilas. Hon. Sec., Miss EDITH FREEMAN, 37, Lansdowne Gardens, South Lambeth, S.W. WALTHAMSTOW AND LEYTON ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY.-- Hon. Sec., Miss WADE, 45, Stafford Road, Walthamstow WESTON-SUPER-MARE BRANCH.--President, Rev. C. J. SENIOR. Hon. Sec., Mrs. RIDGE, Innisfallen, Trewartha Park, Weston-super-Mare. WILTSHIRE ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY.--Hon. Sec., Mrs. BERNARD WENTWORTH, The Grove, Freshford, Nr. Bath. WREXHAM AND DISTRICT ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY.--President, Sir ROGER PALMER. Hon. Sec., Miss HOLLAND, Bryn-y-Grog, near Wrexham. YORK ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY.--President, Rev. Canon FAUSSET, D.D. Hon. Sec., Mr. RICHARD HAWKIN, 27, White Rose Street, Hexby Road, York. LIST OF PUBLICATIONS OF THE BRITISH UNION FOR ABOLITION OF VIVISECTION. Orders, with Cash, to be sent to MISS BAKER, 14, ST. JAMES'S BARTON, BRISTOL. Single Copies. Per doz. The Modern Rack. Collection of Essays. by F. P. Cobbe 1s. Dr. Hoggan's Letter to the Morning Post 1/2d. 2d. Humane Work of German and other Vivisectors. (Treatment of Patients in Hospitals) 1d. 6d. Light in Dark Places. (With Illustrations.) By F. P. Cobbe Gratis. Selections from Evidence of Royal Commission 6d. Vivisection Explained. By F. P. Cobbe 1/2d. 6d. Good Americans on Vivisection. (Extracts) 1/2d. 2d. A Drama of Inoculation. (Leaflet.) 1/2d. 2d. Ways and Means to Stop Vivisection. By F. P. Cobbe 1/2d. 2d Failures; or, What Vivisection has not Achieved 1/2d. 3d. The Bishop of Durham on Vivisection 1/2d. 3d. Lady Paget's Address on Foundation South Wales Branch 1d. 4d. The Significance of Vivisection. By F. P. Cobbe 1/3d. 2d. Vivisection or Restriction? Gratis. The Claims of Vivisection. By Dr. G. H. Brand 1/2d. 6d. The Sufferings of Animals under Vivisection 1/2d. 3d. The Anti-Toxin Treatment of Diphtheria. By Dr. W. R. Hadwen 1d. 9d. Dr. Koch and the Cattle Plague 1/2d. 3d. Single Copies. Per doz. Official Shufflings on Vivisection 1/2d. 4d. On the Ethics and Consequences of Vivisection 1d. 6d. Dr. Brand on Vivisection 1d. 6d. The Two Dreams. A Story for Juveniles 1/2d. 4d. My Doctor Tells Me. Curare 1/2d. 4d. My Doctor Tells Me. Anaesthetics 1/2d. 4d. In the Long Run. By F. P. Cobbe. 1/2d. 2d. Old Torture and New. By F. P. Cobbe 1/2d. 2d. Killing and Torturing 1/2d. 3d. Appeals to the Poor Law Guardians of England. By Mabel Cook Gratis. Plain Words on an Important Subject 1d. 6d. The Importance of the Deputation to the Home Secretary 1/2d. 2d. Vivisection at the Brown Institute 1/2d. 2d. The Brown Institute: A Study 1/2d. 4d. Principles of the British Union 1d. 6d. The Plague and the Bacteriologists 1/2d. 3d. Why we Object to the Act of 1876 1/2d. 3d. Abolition and Christian Duty 1/2d. 4d. What Vivisection Really Is 1/2d. 2d. Why We Protest Against Vivisection 1/2d. 2d. Enteric and Typhoid in South Africa 1/2d. 4d. The Enthusiasm of Humanity as Exhibited by Medical Science 1/2d. 4d. The New Bacteriological Laboratories 1/2d. 3d. Dr. Leffingwell's Encouragement 1/2d. 4d. The Indian Plague Commission 1/2d. 2d. Single Copies. Per doz. How Plague Scares are Manufactured 1/2d. 2d. A Retrospect 1/2d. 3d. Chronology of the Anti-Vivisection Movement for Twenty-five Years 1d. 9d. Address on Vivisection by Miss Blanche Atkinson 1/2d. 2d. The Fallacy of Restriction 1d. 1s. 0d. Why We Have Founded the British Union 2d. 1s. 6d. What I Saw at the Pasteur Institute 1d. 6d. Some Recent Vivisection Practices in English Laboratories. By Dr. Hadwen - 1s. The "Spinal" Dog By Dr. H. J. Bourchier - 6d. The First Annual Report of the Indian Pasteur Institute - 6d. Vivisection Immoral and Inexpedient - 6d. A Medical View of the Vivisection Question 3d. 2s. The Friend of Man. By F. P. Cobbe 2s.6d. - Twenty Years of Vivisection in England 2d. 1s. 6d. Experiments on Animals 1/2d. 4d. Pasteurism Exploded 1/2d. 4d. Abolition and Restriction - 2d. POSTERS. LARGE Single Copies. Per doz. Per 100. Have Pity 6d. 3s. 6d. 26s. Mangling Done Here 6d. 3s. 6d. 26s. Printed for the BRITISH UNION, 14, James's Barton, Bristol, by HAZELL, WATSON & VINEY, LD., 52, Long Acre, London, W.C. DECEMBER, 1903. No 6 Septembre 1888. Bulletin DE LA SOCIETE FRANCASIE CONTRE LA VIVISECTION ... La vivisection est un crime... Victor Hugo. SOMMAIRE PARTIE OFFICIELLE Assemblee generale du 27 juin 1888. -- Discours du President. -- Rapport de M. Paul Combes, secretaire general. - Necrologie. - Rapport de M. Serle. -- Conference antivivisectionniste interantionale de Londres. PARTIE NON OFFICIELLE Discours de Mile Maria Deraismes. -- Communication de M. Melzger. -- Liste des membres. PARIS AU SIEGE SOCIAL DE LA SOCIETE FRANCAISE CONTRE LA VIVISECTION 3, quai Voltaire, 3 STATUTS DE LA SOCIÉTÉ ART. 1er. — Il es fondé à Paris une société qui a pout but de réformer les abus résultant de la pratique de la Vivisection en France. ART. 2. — Cette société prend la dénomination de Société française contre la Vivisection. ART. 3. — Le programme de la Société est arrêté de la façon suivante : 1e Provoquer, par tous les moyens légaux, un movement d'opinion capable d'éclairer les pouvoirs publics sur les dangers que la pratique de la Vivisection fait courir au progrès des moeurs nationales; 2e Obtenir des pouvoirs publics la meilleure législation possible contre la Vivisection. ART. 4. — On est admis dans la Société, sans distinction de sexe ni de nationalité, sur la présentation d'un membre de la Société. — Le Conseil d'administration a toujours le droit de veto. — Le nombre des membres est illimité. ART. 5. — La cotisation annuelle est fixée pour chaque membre à la somme de cinq francs, rachetable par une somme une fois payée de cent francs. ART. 6. — La Société est administrée par un Conseil d'administration de trente membres nommés pour trois ans, en assemblée générale, au suffrage universel par voie d'élection, et renouvelables annuellement par tiers. A l'expiration de la première et de la deuxième année, les membres sortants sont désignés par la voie du sort. Les membres sortants sont indéfiniment rééligibles. Sont seuls éligibles les membres figurant sur la liste des membres fondateurs dont il sera parlé en l'article 8 ci-après. ART. 7. — Le Conseil se compose, au début, des trente membres qui se sont entendus pour assurer la formation de la Société, et pour définir le but qu'elle doit poursuivre. Le Conseil détermine à sa guise la composition de son bureau. ART. 8. — Il confère le titre de membre honoraire, celui de donateur, de fondateur ou de membre correspondant aux personnes qui, par leur patronage, par des dons, ou par une propagande active, auront rendu à l'oeuvre des services signalés.! Pour la désignation des membres fondateurs, il est libre dans ses choix. Il confère ce titre à la suite d'un vote au scrutin secret, et à la majorité absolue de seize voix. ART. 9. — Le Conseil d'administration nomme dans son sein un trésorier qui rend ses comptes une fois par an au moins. ART. 10. — En cas de dissolution, l'emploi du reliquat disponible est réglé par une assemblée générale convoquée à cet effet. Les statuts ci-dessus ont été adoptés à l'unanimitè dans les séances des 12 mai et 1er juin 1883. Tout sociétaire fait acte d'adhésion aux présents status et s'interdit d'en provoquer la modification. Le Conseil d'administration, dans l'intérêt de la lutte à soutenir, a seul qualité pour en provoquer la revision. Extrait de l'autorisation du gouvernement. Le Ministre de l'Intérieur , Vu la demande présentée par les membres fondateurs de l'association intitulée : Société française contre la Vivisection, en voie de formation à Paris, à l'effet d'obtenir l'autorisation administrative ; Vu les status de cette Société ; Vu l'article 291 du Code pénal ; Vu la loi du 10 avril 1834, ARRÊTE : Article premier. Est autorisée la formation de l'association dite : Société française contre la Vivisection, dont le siège est à Paris. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fait à Paris, le 28 janvier 1884. Pour le Ministre de l'Intérieur, Le Sous-Secrétaire d'État, Signé : MARGUE. [Next Page] La Société française. contre la Vivisection ouvre un concours pour l'obtention d'un prix de quinze cents francs, offert par Mme la Comtesse de Noailles, pour couronner le meilleur ouvrage contre la Vivisection. Les concurrents sont invités à traiter le sujet à tous les points de vue qu'il comporte : historique de la question, science, morale, résultats pratiques, etc. Les mémoires, d'une étendue d'environ 2 à 300 pages in-8, devront être rédigés en français et accompagnés d'une devise répétée dans un plu cacheté renfermant le nom et l'adresse de l'auteur. Ces mémoires serond reçus, jusqu'au 1er juin 1890, au siège de la Société française contre la Vivisection, 3, quai Voltaire. Celle-ci fera du mémoire couronné, et à ses frais, une première édition de mille exemplaires au plus, dont cent seront offerts, à titre gracieux, à l'auteur, qui gardera tous droits ultérieurs à condition de maintenir le titre de son livre sous le patronage de la Société. Dr. Cenourer (?) Senator Priere d'inserer Avis.---Il est ouvert un concours pour l'obltention d'un prix de quinze cents frances, offert par Madame la Comtesse de Noailles, pour couronner le meilleur ouvrage contre la Vivisection. Les memoires devront etre deposes, avant le 1er juin 1890, au siege social de la Societie francaise contra la Vivisection, 2, quai Voltaire, ou les concurrent peuvent s'addresser des a present pour plus amples informations. PARTIE OFFICIELLE Assemblee generale SEANCE DU 27 JUIN 1888. Presidence de M. Eschenauer (de Cette). Prennent place au bereau, comme assesseurs: MM. le baron de Knyff et Destrem, vice-presidents; M. Paul Combes, secretaire general; M. Serle, tresorier; Mme Petti, secretaire-adjointe, et M. Benjamin Bryan, secretaire de la Societe antivivsectionniste de Londres. La seance est ouverte a trois heures et demie. M. le President donne lecture d'un telegramme de Mlle Maria Deraismes qui, appelee en hate aupres d'un parent malade, s'excuse de son absence. Il a ecrit immediatement a M. Metzger pour le prier de prendre la parole. M. Monnier de la Motte ecrit pour se desister comme candidat a nommer pour faire partie du Conseil d'administration. M. le President pronounce l'allocution suivante: Discours du President. Mesdames et Messieurs, Nous formons une societe fraternelle fondee sur le principe tres simple que la vivisection est un mal, et nous allons jusqu'a croire qu'il est fort peu de personnes pour nous le contester. Dans tous les cas, si les animaux pouvaient parler -- et que ne sommes-nous au temps ou ils parlaient, -- nous sommes tres convaincus, et les uns et les autres, qu'ils l'acclameraient. On dit bien, et nous avons entendu de tres savanta physiologistes le soutenir, qu'on se fait illusion sur la sensibilite des animaux <>; qu'elle est beaucoup moindre qu'on ne le suppose generalement, qu'elle est presque nulle, par exemple, chez la grenouille.nouille. Mais ceux qui l'affirment n'ont jamais essayé de se mettre dans la peau de la grenouille out de tout autre animal viviséqué. Il est vrai que cela leur serait tout aussi difficile que de nous persuader de l'insensibilité, même relative, des victimes et de la sensibilité de l'opérateur. D'ailleurs, le cheval, le chien, ne sont certes pas des animaux inférieurs ; ce sont les meilleurs amis, les plus utiles coadjuteurs de l'homme ; ils peuvent même, sur certains points, lui être proposés pour modèles ; témoins l'apologue suivant : TURC Ture était un fidèle chien, Le meilleur qu'on pût, pour gardien. Placer contre sa porte. Quand son maître disait : apporte, Obéissant, il accourait. Il était vraiment, trait pour trait, Du jour même de sa naissance, Un type de reconnaissance. Sensible au moindre des bienfaits, Il vous prodiguait les effets D'un zèle infatigable. Discret, non moins qu'aimable, Il serait, je crois, mort de faim, Plutôt que de toucher à rien Qu'il ne lui fût permis de prendre, Acceptant tout sans rien prétendre. Brave enfin autant qu'avisé, Le plus méchant, le plus rusé Aurait en lui trouvé son maître, Lent à hurler, prompt à paraître. Ami lecteur, entends-moi bien, Permets-moi de tout dire en somme : Quoi de meilleur dans l'homme? Le Chien. . . . Soit, dira-t-on : La vivisection est un mal ; mais c'est un mal nécessaire, oui, nécessaire à la connaissance exacte des phénomènes physiologiques, nécessaire à la thérapeutique, à la guérison de l'homme. L'oserai-je dire ? Nous en attendons encore la démonstration péremptoire. Pour mon compte, et je crois être l'interprète de tous nos collègues, j'ai peine à croire que la nature consente à nous révéler les secrets que nous prétendons lui arracher par la violence, en provoquant en elle des perturbations profondes qui l'altèrent, la mettent artificiellement en contradiction avec elle-même. Mais, à [Next Page] — 5 — supposer même que certaines de ces expériences aient contribué pratiquement au progrès de la science et de l'art de guérir, à tout le moins faut-il, de toute évidence, reconnaître que ce résultat une fois acquis, bien constaté, c'est pure cruauté;, cruauté toute gratuite, de recommencer, même pour en faire la démonstration. A supposer même que les animaux inférieurs ne souffrent guère, vous ne sauriez douter que la vie ne leur appartienne en propre, qu'ils n'aiment à vivre et que nul n'ait le droit de les torturer, de les faire mourir par simple dilettantisme plus ou moins scientifique. A ce sujet, et nous autorisant d'un texte de loi déjà ancien pour la protection des animaux, nous serions tentés, plusieurs d'entre nous, de proposer de nouvelles mesures législatives qui tout au moins provoqueraient une enquête sérieuse et impartiale sur le fait même de la vivisection. J'en parlais, il y a peu de temps, à un de mes amis, député de Paris, promoteur infatigable et très lettré en économie politique comme en philosophie, et il me donna raison sur ce point. En attendant, l'opinion s'émeut, et nous enregistrons volontiers les manifestations de ceux-là mêmes qui autorisent la vivisection ou qui en font usage. Exemples : un des plus habiles professeurs de la docte Faculté, qui, à l'ouverture de Congrès de Grenoble, qu'il présidait, s'est acquis un nouveau renom par un discours très remarqué contre la vivisection...humaine, il et vrai : « J'ai voulu essayer de la vivisection sur un chien. La pauvre bête m'a regardé d'un tel air que je n'ai pu continuer. Ce regard me poursuit; j'en avais froid dans le dos. » Je signale ce trait aux poètes : il y aurait là matière à une belle et pathétique inspiration dans le genre de celle de Victor Hugo célébrant le crapaud meurtri, épargné par l'âne, de Victor Hugo, qui, je pense, n'était ni « femmelette » ni « petit esprit » et qui nous disait, vous le savez tous: La vivisection est un crime. — Un autre docteur, praticien éminent, expérimentateur déterminé, après nous avoir fait ces jours-ci, à la Société d'Anthropologie, une communication détaillée sur les effets foudroyants, éprouvés par de pauvres chiens, d'un poison des plus subtils employé par certains sauvages pour leurs flèches de chasse, — et on a tout lieu de penser, sur de bons indices, que, moins barbares en cela que certains peuples civilisés, ils ne s'en servent point à la guerre, — ce docteur ajouta : « J'aurais pu continuer et varier mes essais : un juste sentiment d'humanité m'a retenu. » Souhaitons à ce sentiment d'humanité, m'a retenu. » Souhaitons à ce sentiment une forte progéniture... dans l'intérêt de celle des chiens. Et maintenant, Mesdames, Messieurs, qu'avons-nous à faire ? Il- 6 - ne s'agit pas de geindre et de se battre les flancs : « Le bien, a dit un philosophe bien connu, quoiqu'il s'appelât « l'Inconnu », ne fait pas de bruit, et le bruit ne fait guère de bien. » Il s'agit encore moins d'injurier personne ; il s'agit, ce me semble, avant tout, d'entretenir un salutaire mouvement dans les esprits - et tous, vous y êtes appelés, - d'eclairer l'opinion, de la déterminer à se pronocer en connaissance de cause sans reculer jamais devant la libre discussion. Ce n'est pas la liberté qu'il nous faut crindre ; c'est bien plutôt le fanatisme : le fanatisme de la science ne vaut pas beuacoup plus que celui de l'ignorance, le fanatisme est partout où règne l'absolutisme du moi. L'homme vraiment convaincu écoute avec calme ses adversaires pour les mieux réfuter. Eh bien, de ces convaincus, nous en comptons bon nombre, et, pouquoi ne pas le dire ? surtout parmi les dames. Une d'elles, la comtesse de Noailles, qui, il y a dix ans, a généreusement ouvert, sous les auspices de La Société protectrice des animaux, un concours en faveur de nos principes, nous a envoyé dernièrement une somme de 3,000 francs pour en faire la propagande, Mlle Wild, son obligeante intermédiaire, membre zélé de notre Conseil, s'est aussitôt mise à l'oeuvre vaillamment pour seconder nos efforts. Nous envoyons partout force brochures, et des meilleures : les conférences de MM. Combes et Metzger, de Mme Kingsford sont du nombre. Nous faisons appel aux hommes, aux femmes de coeur et de science qui se sentiraient portés à soutenir notre cause dans les journaux les plus accrédités. J'ai nommé Mme Kingsford, Dr de la faculté de Paris, femme d'un pasteur anglais : comment nous taire sur les regrets que nous laisse à tous sa mort prématurée ? Ceux-là mêmes qui, comme moi, n'ont connu qu'en passant cette femme aimable et vraiment distinguée, ne sauraient l'oublier. Nous ne pouvions mieux honorer sa mémoire qu'en vous proposant de la remplacer par une ardente et intelligente amie de notre cause, Mme de Morsier, qui, malgré les occupations dont elle est surchargée, surtout pour l'oeuvre si importante, si profondément humanitaire des Libérées de Saint-Lazare, a bien voulu accepter vos suffrages, pour nous rendre, comme elle me l'écrit, tous les services qui seront en son pouvoir. Nous serons heureux de la voir prendre une part active à nos séances. Enfin, nous savons le regret de nous séparer momentanément, je l'espère, de M. Scott, rappelé en Angleterre, et de M. Monnier de la Motte, qui, obligé de ménager sa santé, donne ainsi qu'il me l'a réécrit depuis nos convocations, sa démission définitive. Il n'en reste - 7 - pas moins des nôtres et, pour preuve, il m'a remis un don en faveur de notre Sociétaire général. Rapport de M. Paul Combes SECRÉTAIRE GÉNÉRAL Mesdames et Messieurs, Dire que nous marchons à pas de géants serait fort exagéré. Les bottes de sept lieues coûtent extrèmement cher, et, malheureusement, jusqu'à ces derniers temps, notre Société n'était pas riche. Or, vous le savez, de même que la sang entretient la vie et la vigueur du corps, de même les sociétés comme la nôtre ne vivent et n'agissent que par l'argent. Augourd'hui, grâce à l'intervention de notre zélée collègue, Mlle Wild, et à la générosité de Mme la comtesse de Noailles, notre anémie pécuniaire est un peu moins sensible : nous avons du « trois pour cent » dans les veines. Tel est le fait saillant et important de l'année. Mais, en dehors de cet heureux événement, notre Société n'est pas sans avoir donné des témoignages de sa vitalité. Notre participation au Congrès de Londres, où nous avons été dignement représentés par M. Serle, a affirmé une fois de plus notre communauté de vues et d'efforts avec les sociétés soeurs. Je demanderai même, à cette occaion, qu'un rapport officiel de notre délégué à Londres figure dans notre prochain Bulletin. A l'imitation de ce qu'ont fait les sociétés anglaises, nous serions fort désireux de faire passer dans la législation nos scrupules antivivisectionnistes, et la discussion d'un projet de loi restrictif de la vivisection a occupé cette année la plupart des séances du Conseil de notre Société. Or, ici, je ne puis me borner à enregistrer les faits ; mon devoir est de les apprécier. J'affirme que, étant donné l'état de l'opinion publique en France, toute tentative auprès des pouvoirs publics et législatifs, en vue de réglementer la vivisection, est fatalement condamnée à l'insuccès. L'exemple de l'Angleterre ne pouve rien, ou plutôt il démontre— 8 — la différence des milieux. En Angleterre, une puissante fédération de sociétés antivivisectionnistes, disposant de moyens d'action considérables, argent et influences, a suscité un mouvement d'opinion qui a contraint le parlement à édicter une loi restrictive de la pratique de la vivisection, — loi néfaste !... nos collègues anglais le reconnaissent aujourd'hui, car, en réglementtant la vivisection, elle a régularisé la position des vicisecteurs. Est-ce là le but que nous poursuivons?... Nous n'obtiendrions même pas l'attention des pouvoirs publics, et c'est tant mieux ! Pourquoi? Parce que l'opinion publique n'est pas préparée, parce que l'opinion publique est ou indifférente ou favorable aux vivisecteurs, par ignorance, ne connaissant pas le véritable état de la question. Et comment voulez-vous qu'elle le connaisse? Qu'a-t-on fait pour l'éclairer? Rein! ou si peu de chose, que cela a simplement servi de prétexte aux vivisecteurs pour déverser sur leurs adversaires le ridicule et l'accusation d'ignorance. Est-ce à dire, qu'il n'y ait rien à faire? Bien loin de là! Les premiers qui ont été protester timidement contre la torture judiciaire et l'esclavage ont été taxés également de sentimentalité ridicule. Qu'en est-il résulté? Cette sentimentalité à subjugué le monde, et aujourd'hui, chez toutes les nations vraiment civilisées, la torture judiciaire et l'esclavage sont des énormités indéfendables. Aujourd'hui la vivisection, ces usurpation, ces tendances à l'absolutisme, ont toujours une durée éphemère. Il n'y a rien d'absolu, et les prétentions à l'infaillibilité ont le don d'exaspérer la raison humaine qui, dans tout homme, a conscience de sa caducité, de sa faiblesse, de ses tâtonnements nécessaires. Messieurs, la science contemporaine se prépare un 89 terrible Les Bastilles intellectuelles ne sont pas plus durables que les autres. Ceci soit dit pour vous convaincre que, si la vérité est avec nous,—et notre coeur comme notre raison nous en donnent l'espoir,—cette vérité triomphera. Mais, pour cela, objecte-t-on, il serait bon que nous eussions le concours des médecins, d'hommes compétents. Hélas! Je parlais, tout à l'heure, de Bastilles intellectuelles ! Mais vous ne savez donc pas qu'il existe une véritable féodalité scientifique?...Que tout médecin, tout homme de science doit foi et hommage aux très hauts et très puissants seigneurs de la science — 9 — officielle, sous peine d'être excommunié, c'est-à-dire déclaré incompétent ? Le Dr. Péter, un clinicien de premier order, ose formuler de justes objections contre la prophylaxie de la rage par les inoculations de moelle de lapin. Le chimiste Louis Pasteur n'a qu'à se lever et à traiter ce médecin de « personne incompétente » pour que toute l'Académie de Médecine soit honteusement de son avis. Lorsque Claude Bernard mourut, on trouva dans ses papiers des notes contredisant la théorie pastorienne de la fermentation. M. Berthelot les publia. Grande colére de M. Pasteur, qui se tira d'affaire en disant : « Claude Bernard ! Incompétent ! » Ils n'admettront la compétence de personne, sachez-le bien ! Eux seuls sont compétents! C'est dans leurs livres qu'il faut chercher la preuve de leur ignorance et de leurs mensonges. Telle est la tâche que je me suis imposée et que je poursuit sans relâche depuis plusieurs années. Mesdames et messieurs ! quelle riche moisson et que nous sommes forts ! Écoutez plutôt. Claude Bernard reconnait lui-même, dans tout le cours de ses ouvrages, que « si les principes de la méthode expérimentale sont identiques dans les sciences de la v ie et dans les sciences des corps brut, les procédés différeront nécessairement à raison de la nature spéciale des phénomènes de la vie qui nous offrent une délicatesse très grande et une mobilité extrême (1). » C'est avouer implicitement que la méthode expérimentale, logique dans son principe, est pratiquement inutilisable dans les sciences de la vie. Les travaux de Claude Bernard montrent que le physiologiste expérimentateur était constamment obligé d'avoir recours à l'anatomiste et à l'histologiste, et que, sur ce nouveau terrain, lorsqu'il rencontrait l'erreur, c'était par suite de son attachement aux idées préconçues de la physiologie expérimentale. Citons un fait entre mille rappelé par M. le professeur L. Ranvier, non suspect de partialité, et dont la valeur scientifique est incontestée (2). Claude Bernard avait cherché à expliquer la structure des glandes salivaires et était arrivé à ce résultat que « les éléments qui, chez le chien, composent les trois glandes salivaires fonda- (1) Revue des Cours scientifiques, 19 mars 1970, p. 247. (2) Les membranes muqueuses et le système glandulaire. Leçons faites au Collège de France (année 1883-4) par le professeur L. Ranvier. Journal de Micrographie, Mars 1884, p. 144 et suiv.— 10 — mentales, parotide, sous-maxillaire et sublinguale, sont absolument semblables : leurs cellules ne présentant aucune différence (1). » « Or, dit M. Ranvier, il est incontestable que les trois glandes du chien présentent des cellules de formes différentes. L'analyse histologique jette le plus grand jour « sur la structure des différent glandes salivaires et sur les modifications que ces glandes éprouvent dans des conditions physiologiques et pathologiques déterminées. » On ne pourrait en dire autant de la méthode expérimentale ! « Grâce à l'analyse histologique, ajoute M. Ranvier, nous ne nous arrêtons plus « à cette conclusion déplorable qu'il n'y a pas de rapport nécessaire entre la forme et la fonction, et que ces glandes, sécrétant des liquides absolument différents, sont absolument conformées de la même manière. » Cette conclusion déplorable est justement la grande erreur de l'école expérimentale, qui ne veut pas avouer l'immense variété des organismes et des phénomènes vitaux, parce que cela même réduit à néant toute sa méthode. Voilà où conduit cette assimilation de tous les organismes. « Arrivé à ce résultat erroné que les cellules des glandes parotides, sous-maxillaires et sublinguales du chien sont semblables, dit M. Ranvier, Claude Bernard eut l'idée de rechercher si les cellules des glandes salivaires des oiseaux étaient aussi semblables à celles de mammifères. Pour cela, il choisit comme objet d'étude la glande linguale du canard. Je ne sais pas au juste comment il a procédé; il a dû examiner une coupe qu'il représente dans la figure publiée dans son livre. Je suppose, d'après cette figure, qu'il avait envoyé chercher une tête de canard chez le marchand voisin et employé l'alcool comme liquide durcissant, puis fait des coupes. Pour le vérifier, j'ai fait le même chose, hier. On m'a apporté une tête de poulet, fraiche encore et très bonne pour la cuisine, mais provenant d'un animal tué depuis deux ou trois jours. J'ai enlevé avec beaucoup de soins, la glande parotide, l'ai placée dans l'alcool et, au bout de quelques heures, j'ai fait les coupes. Or il y a une analogie complète entre la figure donnée par Claude Bernard et les coupes que j'ai obtenues de la glande commissurale du poulet mort depuis deux ou trois jours. » Or — phénomène qui s'oppose à toute assimilation entre les oiseaux et les mammifères —24, 48 heures ou trois jours après (1) Claude Bernard, Physiologie expérimentale appliquée à la médecine. [Next Page] — 11 — le décès, les cellules glandulaires des oiseaux disparaissent. « Les glandes des mammifères song infiniment plus résistantes, et les glandes parotides, sous-maxillaires et sublinguales du chien, conservées sur l'animal mort pendant deux jours, traitées par l'alcool, et examinées sur des coupes, donnent encoure des préparations où l'on peut reconnaître les caractères des éléments. Si Claude Bernard avait été un histologiste, et non physiologiste, il aurait fait cette expérience comparatife et aurait vu les différences entre les glandes parotide, sous-maxillaire et sublinguale du chien et celles des oiseaux... Claude Bernard, qui prenait tant de précautions quand il s'agissait de physiologie, n'en avait plus du tout pour l'histologie; reconnaissant à fond les difficultés de son métier, il ignorait les difficultés métier voisin. » (L. Ranvier.) C'est-à-dire que Claude Bernard consacrait tous ses soins à une méthode décevante et féconde en erreurs et méprisait quelque peu l'histologie, cette science de précision qui a fait faire à la biologie ses progrès les plus considérables et les plus assurés. Ne nous étonnons donc pas trop si, chaque jour, les progrès de l'histologie renversent les assertions que Claude Bernard avait fondées sur la physiologie expérimentale. Les innombrables erreurs dues à l'emploi de la méthode expérimentale en biologie n'ont pas empêché ses partisans de proclamer l'immense supériorité de cette méthode sur l'observation clinique. « Non seulement Magendie n'avait ni le goût, ni le génie de l'observation clinique, il en professait le dédain et affectait de nier tout ce que l'observation médicale avait amassé de fait et d'explications, de conceptions justes et profondes, trop souvent altérées, il est vrai, par l'esprit de système, mais non moins réelles, malgré cet alliage d'erreurs. Magendie niait la médecine; il ne pouvait en inspirer le culte à son jeune élève : Claude Bernard (1). » Celui-ci c'est défendu avec beaucoup d'énergie du vouloir « substituer la hysiologie des laboratoires à la clinique de l'hôpital. » Il convient même que « c'est toujours à l'observation clinique qu'il faut venir se retremper, si l'on ne veut pas se laisser égarer et faire fausse route. » Ce qui ne l'empêche pas d'affirmer couramment « que tout phénomène, quelle que soit son espèce, présente un déterminisme nécessaire que la méthode expérimentale seule peut nous faire connaître. « Et un mot, ajoute-t-il, les sciences des êtres vivants sont ap- (1) Dr. Chauffard, de l'Académie de médecine, Claude Bernard. — Sa vie et ses oeuvres (Revue des Deux Mondes, 15 novembre 1878, p. 273).— 12 — pelées à devenir expérimentales comme celles des corps bruts ; et je crois que, par son évolution naturelle, la médecine tend nécessairement à l'état expérimental (1). » Or le Dr Gubler, professeur à la Faculté de Médecine de Paris, quoique partisan d'un emploi modéré de la méthode expérimentale, fait très bien ressortir, en ces termes, l'infériorité scientifique de cette méthode, comparativement à l'observation clinique : « Sans parler des faiblesses de l'expérimentateur, de ses illusions, des interprétations erronées, des conclusions hâtives, des applications prématurées; sans tenir compte des contradictions entre les autorités les plus recommandables; sans insister sur l'assimilation impossible des résultats observés chez des grenouilles et même des mammifères herbivores, à ce qui se passe chez l'homme, je signalerai d'autres conditions défectueuses. Beaucoup de phénomènes sont difficiles à saisir ou sont impossibles à constater chez les animaux. Les premier degrés passent inaperçus ; quant aux phénomènes subjectifs, ils échappent presque entièrement. Comment reconnaître chez eux les troubles légers de la sensibilité tactile dans ses différents modes, ainsi que des sensibilités spéciales? Comment savoir s'ils éprouvent de l'engourdissement, des douleurs fulgurantes, des mouches volantes, de la photopsie, ou bien de la céphalalgie, du délire, de l'amnésie et de la torpeur musculaire ? Et, remarquez-le bien, l'existence de la torpeur musculaire ? Et, remarquez-le bien, l'existence de tels symptômes au début des expériences ne saurait s'induire de la circonstance qu'ils deviennent évidents dans les périodes plus avancées, car les effets des agents mis en oeuvre sont souvent inverses, selon que l'action est légère ou violente. On ne s'étonnera donc pas si j'avance que, dans un grand nombre de cas, les expérimentateurs ont méconnu les premiers stades des effets provoqués intentionnellement, et que leur attention ne s'est fixée que sur les manifestations grossières des désordres occasionnées par des substances médicamenteuses ou toxiques. A ne tenir compte que des résultats obtenus, on serait plus d'une fois tenté d'admettre une grande similitude d'action entre les agents les plus opposés, entre le nitrate d'argent et l'atropine ou l'aconitine, entre l'opium et la strychnine, entre la ligature des veines et la saignée des artères. « L'observation clinique conduit à de tout autres conséquences. Ici les troubles sont plus nombreux, plus faciles à observer; le malade intelligent les accuse dès leur début et sait en donner la formule (1) Claude Bernard, L'Évolution de la médecine scientifique (Revue des Cours, 19 mars 1870, p. 243). [Next Page] — 13 — exacte. Il n'y a pas d'expérience qui puisse tenir lieu de ces renseignements, surtout quand le médecin est le sujet de sa propre observation. Les lésions spontanées ont aussi sur les traumatismes intentionnels un avantage incontestable, c'est de se présenter quelquefois plus simples et plus dégagées de toute complication pouvant fausser le résultat. Par exemple, une petite hémorragie sur le trajet encéphalique du nerf vague démontrera mieux l'influence de ses racines sur la triple fonction respiratoire, circulatoire et digestive, que ne ferait une incision de la substance de l'isthme, laquelle incision, supposant une solution de continuité des méninges, de la colonne vertébrale, des muscles et de la peau, entraine des désordres capables de masquer les symptômes propres à la lésion des origines du pneumogastrique (1). » On a fait grand bruit, et l'on a surtout beaucoup abusé de la découverte de l'innervation vasomotrice et des circulations locales par Claude Bernard, au moyen de la méthode expérimentale. Or « ces circulations locales, un célèbre clinicien, Graves, les avait déjà reconnues, et ses Leçons cliniques contiennent d'admirables pages à ce sujet; on aurait tort de les oublier ; elles montrent ce que peut l'interprétation fidèle de ces expériences que la nature accomplit incessamment sous nos yeux dans l'évolution des maladies. » (Dr Chauffard, endroit cité, p. 287.) Ne nous étonnons donc pas de voir des hommes comme M> Coste appeler la pathologie : « cette grande lumière de la science physiologique »; — l'illustre maître Fr. Lallemand, montrer dans une thèse tout le parti qu'on peut tirer des fait pathologiques pour éclairer les questions de physiologie; enfin, Hippocrate proclamer le premier que « les connaissances les plus positives en physiologie ne peuvent venir que de la médecine ». Vous voulez des médecins dans vos rangs pour avoir plus d'autorité. Voici ce que les médecins eux-mêmes pensent de leur science. Je cite textuellement. Le Dr Barthe : « Les médecins sont des aveugles qui frappent sur le mal avec un bâton. » (Mém. de Mme Dubarry.) Le Dr Frappart : « J'ai un profond dégoût de la médecine et des médecins... Votre science est dans l'anarchie, votre profession est en décadence, votre métier est sur le bord de l'abime, vous n'avez point de corps médical; vous vivez dans la haine, dans le (1) Gubler, L'observation clinique et l'expérimentation physiologique (Revue des Cours scientifiques. 10 avril 1869, p. 294). — 14 — mépris les uns des autres, la déconsidération vous envahit de toutes parts. » Le célèbre Bichat : « La matière médicale est, de toutes les sciences, celle où se peignent le mieux les travers de l'esprit humain. » (Anat. gén., Consid. générales.) Marchal de Calvi : « Il n'y a plus en médecine, et, depuis longtemps, ni principes, ni foi, ni loi. » (France méd. et pharm.) Claude Bernard, dans un de ses cours au Collège de France : « La médecine, que je suis chargé de vous enseigner, n'existe pas. » Dr de Breyne : « C'est quelquefois un vrai châtiment de la Providence que de tomber entre les mains des médecins, qui vous exécutent savamment, consciencieusement et promptement. » (Essai analyst. sur la doctrine des éléments morbides, p. 336) Le docteur Philippe Hecquet : « Les médecins se préparent des remords pour l'avenir, et, sur leurs vieux jours, ils forment une confrérie de pénitents. » Voilà, Mesdames et Messieurs, ce qu'il faut dire partout. Lorsqu'on saura, en France, que la prétendue médecine des vivisecteurs est elle-même une maladie, qu'il faut traiter, — non pas par le ridicule, comme le faisait Molière, — mais par le fer rouge, l'opinion publique se soulèvera, et sous cette marée montante, la légion des vivisecteurs sera submergée. C'est la foule qui remporte les victoires. Ce ne sont pas des artilleurs qui ont pris la Bastille, c'est le peuple, c'es l'indignation publique. C'est l'indignation publique qui détruira la vivisection, et toutes les pratiques du charlatanisme scientifique! ————————— NÉCROLOGIE — Mme Anna Kingsford, Docteur en Médecine de la Faculté de Paris, avait consacré son existence à la lutte contre la vivisection. C'est uniquement dans ce but qu'elle avait pris ses grades en médecine. Elle a écrit des mémoires très estimés sur la question : Roi ou Tyran ! réfutation d'un article du Dr Charles Richet; De l'Inutilité de la Vivisection, etc., etc. Elle a été enlevée, à la fleur de l'âge, par une maladie de poitrine. —————— [Next Page] — 15 — M. le Dr Louis Combet est un des rares médecins qui ont eu le courage de se déclarer adversaires absolus de la pratique de la vivisection. Adjoint au maire de Lyon, il a profité de sa situation pour protester publiquement, toutes les fois qu'il en a trouvé l'occasion, contre cette pratique. Sa mort est une grande perte pour notre cause. ————————— M. Van der Hucht, correspondant de la Société de Victoria Street, en Hollande, a écrit de nombreux ouvrages ayant pour objet la protection des animaux et l'antivivisection. Sa veuve, à laquelle nous adressons nos sympathiques condoléances, a aussi écrit dans le même sens. ———————— Rapport de M. Serle TRÉSORIER Mesdames et Messieurs, J'ai encore l'honneur de vous présenter l'exercice de l'année 1887. Au 1er janvier nous avions en caisse la somme de 777 fr. 10. Les cotisations reçues pendant l'année forment la somme de 830 francs, ce qui fait un total de 1,607 fr. 10. Les dépenses qui sont détaillées ci-après montent à 981 fr. 80, il nous restait donc en caisse au 1er janvier 1888 la somme de 625 fr. 30. Nous avons perdu des membres pendant l'année qui vient de s'écouler. La mort des uns, le départ des autres ont fait quelques vides dans nos rangs. D'un autre côté, une noble et généreuse donatrice, Mme la comtesse de Noailles, en nous faisant une offrande de 3,000 francs, nous encourage à faire des efforts plus énergiques que nos moyens restreints ne nous permettaient jusqu'ici de la faire. Loin donc de nous décourager, puisque nous gardons l'élite, ceux qui ne se lassent pas, laissez-moi vous dire avec l'un des orateurs de l'assemblée de la Société américaine contre la Vivisection : « Je suis amené à croire que la tâche de cette Société, pendant plusieurs années, sera la tâche ingrate en apparence de se borner à mettre en avant ses opinions, et de placer dans les mains du public des oeuvres qui, peu à peu, l'obligent à y apporter son attention. » — 16 — RECETTES ET DÉPENSES DU 1er JANVIER 1887 AU 31 DÉCEMBRE 1887 Recettes: En caisse au 1er janvier 1887 777 10 Cotisations reçues 830 » TOTAL DES RECETTES 1.607 10 Dépenses: Loyer du bureau 280 40 Gages et étrennes du concierge 82 » Imprimeur 208 » Dépenses de poste, trésorier et secrétaires 113 05 Commission et frais de recouvrement 56 80 Payé pour la salle, rue de Lille 57 » Salle pour conférence de M. Metzger 10 » M. Destrem pour l'Arbitre 75 » Abonnement au Novoé Vremia 34 » Zoophilist, Champion et journaux 57 95 Frais divers 7 60 TOTAL DES DÉPENSES 981.80 En caisse, le 1er janvier 1888 625.30 Le trésorier, P. SERLE. Vérifié et trouvé exact : F. PETTI. L. LINDSAY. AVIS IMPORTANT Nos collègues sont instamment priés d'adresser à M. SERLE, trésorier, 22, rue Matignon, Paris, le montant de leur cotisation, pour éviter à la Société des frais onéreux de recouvrement. — 17 — Conférence Antivivisectionniste internationale de Londres. La Société française contre la vivisection a été officiellement représentée à la Conférence antivivsectionniste internationale qui s'est tenue à Londres, le 30 novembre 1887, par M. Serle, son trésorier. D'après le compte rendu officiel de cette conférence, publié par le Zoophilist du 2 janvier 1888, M. Serle a pris la parole en ces termes : «La Société que je représente prend part avec grand plaisir à cette confeérence. La Société française n'a jamais oublié l'aide qu'elle a reçu, à l'origine de la Société, de Victoria Street. Leur programme est le même, elles ne se contenteront pas de demimesures, leur mot d'ordre est ne se contenteront pas de demimesures, leur mot d'ordre est : « La vivisection est un crime », et elles cherchent l'abolition totale de cette pratique. Le peuple est moins au courant de la question en France qu'en Angleterre. Aux funérailles de Victor Hugo, des ouvriers en voyant passer la bannière de la Société française, crièrent : Vive la vivisection ! non par esprit d'opposition, mais comme un salut à l'emblème qui portait pour inscription « Société CONTRE la vivisection ». Ceux qui criaient ne se rendaient évidemment pas compte de la signification de ce mot. Seuls les étudiants du quartier latin montrèrent quelque opposition. En France, la compassion envers les animaux est presque une religion. C'est au point que dernièrement on a trouvé nécessaire de faire une ordonnance défendant aux enfants de caresser dans la rue des chiens qu'ils ne connaissaient pas — ce qui se voit constamment — de crainte d'être mordus. Le sentiment qu'on éprouve à leur égard est assez semblable à celui de Claude Bernard, qui ne voyait en eux que des serviteurs utile, des moyens de nourriture, ou des moyens d'instruction. Pour Claude Bernard la granduer de l'idée détermine la moralité de l'acte. De là à expérimenter sur l'être humain, il n'ya qu'un pas, et c'est ce qui se fait trop souvent dans les hôpitaux, notamment à la Salpétrière. Il n'y a pas de raison qui puisse arréter les expérimentateurs dans la voie de la cruauté, du moment qu'ils auront couvert leur malsaine curiosité du pavillon de la recherche scientifique. » 3— 18 — Vote. L'Assemblée procède au vote pour le remplacement des membres sortant du Conseil d'Administration. Résultats du scrutin : 53 votes émis. Sont élus membres du conseil pour trois ans : M. Anderholdt, M. Eschenauer (de Cette), Mlle Bishope, Mlle Lindsay, M. Paul Combes, M. Serle, Mlle Maria Deraismes, Mme de Morsier, Mme Desinge-Carpentier, M. Léon Duez. Après la proclamation du résultat du scrutin, Mme Émilie de Morsier, parlant au nom de lady Caithness, duchesse de Pomar, met au service de la Société française la publicité dont cette femme éminente dispose par sa Revue l'Aurore, qui a pour mission de chercher à faire la lumière sur toutes les questions qui intéressent le progrès de l'humanité. « Sans doute, dit-elle, il faut respecter les travaux consciencieux des hommes de science, mais on a tort de vouloir séparer les questions intellectuelles des questions de morale, c'est pour avoir opéré ce divorce que les écoles scientifiques modernes se sont engagées dans une voie qui semble aboutir à la négation de toute spiritualité. L'homme qui n'a développé en lui que l'intelligence et la raison n'est pas complet, l'âme et le coeur ont aussi leur mot à dire dans les questions humaines. Un problème très intéressant à étudier pour cette Société serait celui du rapport de la vivisection avec la morale et les moeurs. Ce n'est pas impunément que la jeunesse est élevée à considérer des pratiques cruelles et brutales comme légitimes, et à accepter tout ce qui est couvert par le mot orgueilleux de science. Il y a des lois de rétribution terribles dans les choses, et les savants eux-mêmes nous ont appris qu'un acte a une tendance à se répéter. La cruauté dans un domaine développe la cruauté, ou tout au moins l'insensibilité, dans un autre. On oublie trop que l'intelligence sans la sagesse peut faire fausse route, or la sagesse est cette lumière spirituelle qui est chargée de surveiller les empiètements de la curiosité terrestre. Les droits de la science doivent être limités par ceux de la morale. » De chaleureux remerciements sont adressés à la Directrice de l'Aurore pour ses offres bienveillantes de publicité. M. Metzger fait ensuite une très intéressante communication que l'on trouvera in extenso dans la seconde partie du Bulletin. M. Bryan, le secrétaire général de la Société antivivisectionniste de Londres, dit : qu'il est heureux d'attester, par sa présence, la communauté de vues et d'efforts qui unit les Sociétés de Paris et de Londres. Cette union est d'autant plus nécessaire que les principes de la vivisection sont internationaux et ont besoin d'être réfutés partout. En Angleterre, la loi restrictive de la vivisection, quoique insuffisante, a apporté du moins quelques entraves à cette pratique. Mais c'est l'abolition absolue que poursuit la société anglaise, se fondant sur l'inutilité complète de la vivisection. La séance est levée à 5 heures et demie. Le Secrétaire général, Paul COMBES. [Next Page] — 19 — PARTIE NON OFFICIELLE —————— SOCIÉTÉ CONTRE LA VIVISECTION ASSEMBLÉE GÉNÉRALE ___________ Discours de Mlle Maria Deraismes. Notre époque est éprise de science, c'est un bien. Elle est dupe du scientisme, c'est un mal. Le scientisme est à la science ce que le simili est au métal pur. Le scientisme doit son développement, d'abord à la crédulité publique qui s'est reportée de la légende, dite sacrée, à tout ce qu'abrite la rubrique scientifique ; ensuite, à cette poussée effrénée des appétits vers la réussite, la renommée, la fortune. C'est à qui, dans cet encombrement général, opérera sa trouée et forcera l'attention publique. Cette affectation de la connaissance approfondie de la nature des choses s'étale dans toutes les manifestations de l'intelligence. En politique, en art, en littérature, chacun essaie de faire croire qu'il opère sur des données certaines fournies par l'expérience. Ce mot expérience, qui signifie expérimentations réitérées, épreuves et contre-épreuves, impose au public qui n'y va pas voir et qui alors agrée toutes les découvertes proclamées, en se disant qu'il ne peut y avoir là de supercherie puisqu'elles s'appuient sur des faits incontestables. Et c'est particulièrement dans cette branche qui traite de la médecine que nous avons vu défiler les réclames les plus tapageuses, les plus dignes de Nicolet. Théories microbiennes appliquées au choléra, à la phtisie, à la fièvre typhoïde, prophylaxie de la rage/. La seule annonce de cette dernière a, sans examen préalable, obtenu toute créance. Une souscription nationale s'est immédiatement ouverte, et l'enthousiasme irrationnel est allé si loin qu'on en a fait une affaire patriotique. M. Pasteur, je crois, en a recueilli près de deux millions, et l'institut contre la rage est fondé. Pour nous, jusqu'à présent, ce qui nous revient de plus clair de cette fondation est l'extermination de la race canine, car les mesures prises par la police y équivalent. — 20 — Certes c'est là la prophylaxie la plus sûre. Mais on n'y avait pas pensé, tant elle est simple. Cela nous eût dispensé de la souscription et de l'édification et l'Institut Pasteur. Nous aurons à y revenir. Les travaux de M. Pasteur procèdent de la physiologie expérimentale dont la méthode est la vivisection. Nous nous élevons contre la vivisection au nom de l'humanité et au nom de bon sens. Les physiologistes nous toisent du haut de leur taille et avec un profond dédain nous disent : « Vous n'êtes que des ignorants, vous êtes dépourvus de l'esprit scientifique et vous ne comprenez rien au progrès. » — Nous, nous répondons, sans nous émouvoir : « C'est parce que nous voulons le progrès que nous rejetons votre méthode. Afin de donner le change, vous confondez à dessein, ce qui est parfaitement distinct. Science et méthode song deux. » Qu'est-ce qu'une science? C'est la connaissance d'une vérité; je dis une vérité, car, si nous étions en possession de la vérité universelle absolue, vérité qui contïent toutes les autres, nous n'aurions plus d'inconnues à dégager et le problème serait résolu. Malheureusement, nous avons tout lieu de croire que cette vérité générale, éternelle, nous échappera toujours. Nous n'avons donc que des bribes de vérité, et nous cherchons à en tirer le meilleur parti. C'est vérités partielles, évidemment secondaires en comparaison de la vérité suprême, forment un cumulus de connaissances acquises, auquel chaque savant désire ajouter quelque chose. Pour procéder du connu à l'inconnu, on a recours à certains procédés, certains moyens; on choisit de préférence la voie la plus directe, la plus courte. Ce mode de recherche s'appelle méthode. Or il y a de bonnes et de mauvaises méthodes. Les premières font avancer les sciences, les secondes les font reculer. Il est donc de notre devoir de signaler ces dernières comme pernicjeuses et comme contraires au but qu'on veut atteindre. Que l'esprit humain ait la noble ambition de pénétrer l'essence des choses, de saisir les lois de la nature, c'est son droit et son devoir, et le progrès en résulte. Mais il ne faut pas que cette soif inextinguible de savoir l'égare à ce point d'obscurcir son judgement de lui faire prendre ses désirs pour des réalités. Le grand problème de la vie est, sans nul doute, digne d'occuper les esprits les plus élevés et le développement de la médecine tient évidemment aux progrès de la biologie. La biologie emprunte ses éléments à toutes les sciences qui la précèdent, de plus, elle a ses caractères spéciaux, caractères supérieurs qui sont la pensée et la conscience. August Comte, dans sa classification des sciences, [Next Page] — 21 — la met au faite de la śerie et en fait la base de la sociologie. Je ne suis pas positiviste, mais je dois reconnaître qu'une société ne peut être logiquement constituée que si elle est conforme à la nature de ceux qui la composent. L'étude de la biologie se divise en deux branches comme vous le savez : l'anatomie, d'une part ou étude sur l'organisme à l'état statique, c'est-à-dire de repos, et la physiologie, d'autre part, l'étude sur l'organisme à l'état dynamique, en d'autres termes, en fonctionnement. Longtemps la physiologie s'est appuyée, exclusivement, sur l'anatomie et les observstions cliniques, bien que l'expérimentation sur les corps vivants remonte trés haut. Mais alors ce n'étaient que quelques tentatives isolées pratiquées par quelques savants et ce mode d'investigation n'était pas classé dans l'enseignement régulier. C'est à partir des XVIe, XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles que la vivisection s'est généralisée, sans cependant s'imposes encore. Au XIXe siècle, elle prend un grand essor avec Magendie, aujourd'hui elle fait loi. Cette faveur inconsidérément accordée à une déplorable méthode est due à l'assimilation établie entre l'expérimentation des corps vivants et l'expérimentation des corps bruts. C'est là qu'est le point de départ de l'erreur. Erreur fondamentale devant engendrer toutes les autres et que nous ne devons pas perdre de vue si nous voulons exercer une saine critique. Les physiologistes se sont dit : « L'anatomie est insuffisante, ne nous représentant que les organes au repos. L'observation clinique ne nous offre que les phénomènes et les symptômes extérieurs dont les causes nous restent cachées ; nous en sommes réduits à les soupçonner. La médecine actuelle est donc conjecturale. Pour substituer la certitude à la conjecture, il nous faut descendre dans ce milieu organique, surprendre les lois qui régissent les action vitales. C'est alors que, les connaissant, nous pourrons provoquer les causes, déterminer les phénomènes et modifier l'organisme à notre gré ; la médecine expérimentale viendra compléter; la médecine expérimentale viendra compléter la médecine d'observation. » C'est fort bien, l'intention est excellente. Si nous pouvions plonger notre regard dans intérieur des corps organisés et en étudier le fonctionnement sans en rien déranger, nous serions sûrs de fonder une médecine de certitude. Mais tel n'est pas notre cas. On ne pénètre pas dans un corps vivant comme dans un immeuble. Les issues naturelles sont insuffisantes. Nécessité est de recourir à des moyens violents et de porter le désordre là où on veut étudier l'ordre; en un mot de bouleverser le lieu même objet de l'inspection. Le grand tort des physiologistes, je le répète, est— 22 — donc de soutenir que l'expérimentation sur les corps vivants est aussi possible que sur les corps bruts. Et voyez la contradiction : Claude Bernard a écrit, lui-même, que les corps bruts étant dénués de la spontanéité dont jouissent les corps vivants, les manifestations de leurs propriétés sont rigoureusement liées aux conditions physicochimiques qui les environment, et expérimentateur peut les modifier à son gré. « Tandis que dans les corps vivants les phénomènes se produisent dans une harmonie réciproque telle, qu'il paraît impossible de séparer une partie de l'organisme sans provoquer un trouble dans l'ensemble, chez les animaux supérieurs en particulier, dont la sensibilité est plus exquise, l'expérimentation amène des réactions, des perturbations encore plus considérables. » Cette déclaration est nette, ce qui n'empêche pas celui qui l'a exprimée de recommander la vivisection. Tant il est vrai que l'esprit de système égare les intelligences les mieux douées. Cette déclaration de Claude Bernard avait été formulés bien auparavant par les Cuvier, les Bichat et plus récemment par Nélaton; et les faits du temps présent confirment leurs jugements. On a beau répéter qu'il n'y a qu'une seule mécanique, qu'une seule physique et qu'une seule chimie dans l'univers et que les corps vivants sont soumis à leurs lois comme tout le reste, il n'en est pas moins vrai que, dès qu'apparait la vie, tout un ordre de phénomènes spéciaux qui ne relèvent pas des sciences précitées se manifestant et déconcertent l'expérimentateur en rendant impossible l'expérimentation sérieuse. Mécanique, physique, chimie sont insuffisantes à définir la vie et c'est justement cette différence immense qui distingue les corps vivants des corps inertes qui a engendré les systèmes l'archée avec Van Helmont, de l'âme avec Stahl, du principe vital avec BOreu, Barthez, etc., etc., etc. La vérité est que les savants se trouvent aux prises avec un facteur inconnu qu'ils sont impuissant à définir et qu'ils qualifient vaguement, faute de faire mieux. Les vivisecteurs ne se découragent pas. Ils nous diront : la physiologie expérimentale ne fait que commencer. Dans l'avenir, elle répondra à toutes nos espérances. Nous leur répondons que le mode d'investigation employé par la physiologie étant faux, il ne peut que multiplier les erreurs. Avec cette méthode, tout progrès est impossible. La raison en est simple, elle égare l'esprit de l'expérimentateur qui n'étudie que sur un état qui n'est ni celui de la santé, ni celui de la maladie, car on ne peut qualifier de maladie — 23 — un état, artificiellement obtenu et qu'aucun cas de pathologie naturelle ne peut produire. Vous pouvez pratiquer votre méthode cinquante et cent ans encore, le point de départ étant faux, toutes les expériences seront fausses et auront les plus funestes effect dans la thérapeutique. Il est inutile que vous entriez dans des développements et des explications pour nous convaincre. Nous connaissons vos ouvrages, vos déductions et vos inductions. Tout cela est correct, parfait. Vous démontez aux yeux du lectuer un organisme tout comme une horloge, ressort par ressort, rouage par rouage, vous en décrivez les fonctions et c'est bien simple pour celui qui ignore dans quelles conditions vous étudiez; vos conclusions seraient parfaites et rien n'y manquerait si votre point de départ, j'insiste, n'était vicieux. Dans un raisonnement, quand les prémisses sont erronées, les conséquences le sont également, malgré l'enchaînement rigoureux des termes. Donc, nous vous arrêtons à la majeure la déclarant vicieuse. Pour vous tirer d'affaire et nous confondre, il ne vous reste qu'à nous opposer vos succès en médecine pratique. Depuis les cinquante dernières années, la vivisection a été cultivée, poursuivre avec une ardeur telle, qu'aidée des travaux du passé, elle a dû donner de sérieux résultats? Hé bien, dans toutes les occasions où votre intervention est à même de faire éclater la supériorité de votre méthode, vous essayez des échecs. S'agit-il des épidémies, vous émettez la théorie des microbes, théorie absolument stérile et des plus contestables d'ailleur. Les microbes sont-ils conséquence ou cause de la maladie? Quelle que soit la réponse, les gens continuent de mourir, comme devant. A Lorient, récemment, la fièvre typhoïde fait invasion dans un détachement de cavalerie casernant dans cette ville. Sur huit cents hommes, cent succombent, c'est un huitième. Le moment était opportun de tuer le microbe. Dans un province du Midi, les habitants boivent des vins intoxiqués par la falsification, quatre-vingts tombent maladies, les médecins sont appelés. La plupart d'entre eux, il me semble, ne devaient pas ignorer les progrès dus à la physiologie expérimentale, et devaient se trouver en mesure de donner un diagnostic à peu près éxact. Tous commencèrent par dire que c'était une grippe; puis, les symptômes prenant un caractère alarment, les susdits médecins déconcertés ajoutèrent, après coup, que cette grippe était infectieuse. Onze malades furent portés en terre. Alors le public— 24 — s'émeut. On fait une enquête, et l'on constate, après autopsie, que les morts ont été victimes d'un empoisonnement. Dieu sait! si l'on a expérimenté les poisons sur les animaux ! Paul Bert demande à partir au Tonkin. Je le vois, dans un banquet, une semaine avant son départ : il rayonnait, persuadé que, grâce à son séjour par là, il serait à même de rendre les plus grands services à la science et à son pays. C'était un vivisecteur convaincu. Il était descendu, suivant l'expression consacrée, dans l'intérieur des organismes; il y avait cherché les lois qui régissent les actions vitales; il devait pouvoir modifier le milieu à son gré. Pauvre homme! Il avait si peu acquis, qu'il ne put se défendre contre une influence climatérique, et qu'une femme médecin, Mme Bibard, qui faisait partie de sa suite, mourut quinze jours après son arrivée. Voici de quoi ouvrir les yeux aux plus aveugles. La fin de l'empereur d'Allemagne n'est-elle pas, en ce sens, significative? Nous assistons alors à un spectacle aussi grotesque que lamentable. Les sommités sont appelées, et, naturellement, elles se disputent : Y-a-t-il cancer, n'y-a-t-il pas cancer? Les uns veulent procéder à la trachéotomie dans le plus bref délai, les autres qu'elle a été faite trop tôt, celui-là, qu'elle a été faite trop tard; seul, l'opérateur affirme qu'elle a été faite à temps, il est dans son rôle. Cette triste comédie se répète au sujet de l'ablation du larynx, et, pendant qu'on dispute comme des Byzantins, l'empereur meurt. Mort, ceux qui procèdent à l'autopsie déclarent, dans leur rapport, qu'il y avait cancer; mais que le cancer, étant du larynx, le diagnostic était rendu d'autant plus difficile, que, dès le début, les cartilages du larynx étaient atteints. Ce qui démontre qu'o vivisectionne en vain des millions d'animaux, sans arriver sûrement, non pas à guérir, mais même à diagnostiquer et à définir un mal, témoin celui du prince allemand. Et cependant, dans cette circonstance, tous les cerveaux des facultés médicale étaient tendus. Chaque célébrité se pressait le front pour en faire jaillir une inspiration, une idée. Car, en cette circonstance, l'enjeu était, en cas de réussite, une renommée universelle et une fortune sans précédent. On me dira : il était irrémissiblement perdu; soit, mais au début, ne pouvait-on pas enrayer le mal? Il est vrai qu'au préalable il eût fallu savoir quel il était. Et, ce qu'il est bon de signaler, c'est que la physiologie jouit d'une grande faveur en Allemagne, qu'elle y est très étudiée. A Heidelberg, il existe un institut de physiologie qui comblait d'aise — 25 — Claude Bernard. Berlin a une chaire de physiologie, et, dans tout le pays, on en rencontre un grand nombre. De tels fait me paraissent concluants. Mais revenons à M. Pasteur, le soi-disant guérisseur de la rage. Le déclaration quasi-naïve qu'il vient de faire au Conseil l'hygiène de la Seine, nous a pénétrés d'étonnement. A des gens qui lui demandaient quelques éclaircissements sur les symptômes de la rage, il a répondu, et son aveu est précieux à conserver, que le diagnostic, même pour les plus experts, était très difficile, parce que, fréquemment, des animaux atteints pouvaient rester six mois, même plus, sans donner aucun signe rabique. Sur ce, cette réflexion spontanée a dû se présenter à l'esprit de tous, « mais comment M. Pasteur ose-t-il alors déclarer quéris les malades qu'il a traités pendant un mois, six semaines au plus à son lenteur de l'incubation chez certains sujets est reconnue depuis longtemps. Aussi, un bon nombre des clients de M. Pasteur meurent-ils d'hydrophobie quelques jours après la proclamation de leur guérison et de leur sortie. D'après les symptômes de ces derniers, les inoculations pastoriennes ne seraient pas seulement impuissantes, mais, ce qui est pis, seraient pernicieuses; loin de guérir la rage ou de la prévenir, elles la communiqueraient. La vérité est que la prophylaxie de la rage a été agréée avec enthousiasme par le public, sans que so inventeur en ait donné une démonstration irréfragable. Sa parole a suffi. Là-dessus, on nous répond que les nombreuses découvertes faites antérieurement par le savant ont établi son autorité et inspiré une légitime confiance. A ce propos, je me rappelle que M. Gatineau, député d'Eure-et-Loir, trop tôt enlevé à la république et à ses amis, disait un jour, dinant à la maison : « Je ne conçois rien à la réputation de M. Pasteur et je me demande sur quoi elle se fonde? » Et, comme certains de nos hôtes protestaient, il reprit : « Jugez vous-mêmes : je me trouvais dans mon département, juste au moment où M. Pasteur faisait des expériences de vaccination, une épidémie régnant sur les bestiaux inoculés sont morts. » Peu de temps après ce que nous avait raconté le député de Dreux, un vétérinaire de cru le répétait dans une lettre publiée par la presse. Plus tard, il faisait une conférence à Paris sur le même sujet. Il peut bien en être de ces découvertes comme de la prophylaxie de la rage. Enfin, lorsqu'une succession de défaites, dûment enre--26- gistrées, en prouveront l'inanité, il faudra bien se décider à désaffecter la fameux institut qui n'est, au demeurant, qu'une usine de virus. Un journal russe, Le Novoë Vrémia annonce que ses compatriotes se refroidissent a l'égard du système Pastorien. Les laboratoires leur content très cher et ils reconnaissent la traitement inefficace. Voici à quelles cruelles déceptions devait aboutir ce grand élan de confiance non motivé. Les praticiens vivisecteurs se font aussi honneur des progrès de la chirurgie. Il n'ont pas ce droit. La chirurgie doit ses progrès à l'emploi des anesthésiques, qui privent de sensibilité les sujets. Dans ces conditions, elle a osé tout tenter. Délivrée de la crainte du tétanos, elle est arrivée à des résultats inespérés. Que les physiologistes passionnés de vivisection renoncent donc à s'approprier ce qui ne leur appartient pas. Il ressort de tout ce qui précède que le chemin le plus sûr des découvertes en physiologie est encore l'anatomie et la clinique. Dans les hôpitaux, les autopsies, après la mort des malades, fournissent aux médecins qui les ont soignés, l'occasion de vérifier l'exactitude de leurs diagnositcs. En ce qui touche la physiologie cérébrale, le vingtième fascicule du supplément du grand dictionnaire vient corroborer notre opinion. Dans les études des localisations encéphaliques, le découverte du centre fonctionnel de la faculté du langage est une conquête de la clinique. Là, où la méthode vivisectrice a échoué avec Flourens, la méthode anatomo-clinique a réussi à faire jaillir une vérité. MM. Vulpian et Charcot, ayant fait les mêmes recherches, déclarent que c'est à la clinique que la doctrine des localisations doit d'avoir pris rang dans la pathologie cérébrale. Il est bien évident que, si nous avions une conception plus nette et plus élevée de la justice, nous n'aurions pas besoin de recourir à des preuves de l'inanité du système. Personne de voudrait assumer sur soi cette responsabilité de faire souffrir atrocement et indéfiniment des êtres qui sont si près d'être nos égaux que les plus supérieurs d'entre eux valent peut-être bien les derniers d'entre nous. Des êtres sans lesquels toute civilisation eût été impossible, sont, conséquemment, auxiliaires du progrès. Mais, comme notre conscience ne s'est pas encore élevée à cette hauteur, que toutes nos protestations, au nom des sentiments humanitaires, sont considérées des sensibleries, signes d'un petit cerveau, nous devons rester sur le terrain scientifique et utilitaire, et là nous avons la partie belle. — 27 — Malheureusement nous rencontrons des résistances. Qui nous les oppose? Ce sont ceux qui tirent de la méthode incriminée par nous honneur et profit. D'abord ceux qui la professent et l'enseignent dans les chaires de physiologie, et leurs suppléants, désireux de luer succéder un jour; les employés de service, les écrivains scientifiques traitant de la matière dans de gros volumes, les professeurs rédigeant des manuels de laboratoire à l'usage de l'étudiant vivsecteur; les rédacteurs de revue spéciale, les étideurs qui les publient; les fabricants de ces jolis instruments de tortures savamment combinés et toujours perfectionnés; puis, enfin, pour clore, toute cette foule qui croit à l'efficacité de la méthode et qui ne veut pas en démordre pour sauver son amour-propre. Jusqu'aux célébrités médicales qui, n'approuvant pas le méthode, ne s'élèvent pas contre elle, dans la crainte de paraître dépourvues de l'esprit scientifique. Trop d'intérêts sont donc en jeu pour espérer, de longtemps, avoir raison de ces pratiques honteuses pour la science. Il est toujours très difficile, sinon impossible, de faire revenir les homme des erreurs qu'ils ont cultivées toute leur vie comme autant de vérités et sur lesquelles ils one fondé leur renommée. Quelquefois, à la fin de leur carrière, ils s'aperçoivent, avec amertume, qu'ils ont bien pu errer, mais la plupart se gardent de la confesser. On a reproché à Magendie le scepticisme dans lequel il était tombé. Rien cependant de plus concevable. Après avoir transformé l'art médical en art tortionnaire, et avoir fait périr dans des tourments inexprimables des milliers d'animaux sans parvenir à prolonger l'existence humaine d'une minute, il devait, à la longue, après toute une suite de déceptions, considérer l'ensemble de ses travaux comme une sanglante ironie. Mais tel est l'orgueil humain, qu'il a préféré perpétuer l'erreur que de reconnaître qu'il s'était trompé. L'aventure de Gil Blas est éternellement vraie. En service chez l'illustre docteur Sangrado, dont les moyens curatifs de bornent exclusivement à la saignée et la boisson d'eau, Gil Blas voit que tous les clients de son célèbre maître meurent, sans exception, comme des mouches. Peu aguerri dans le métier et encore naïf : Maître, dit-il au docte Sangrado, tous nos malades succombent, toute la ville murmure, n'y aurait-il pas moyen de changer notre pratique médicale? J'y ai pensé, reprend. Sangrado, car on dirait vraiment que mes malades se font un malin plaisir de refuser la guérison; mais, si j'abandonnais ma méthode, mes ennemis se réjouiraient et se moqueraient de moi, car j'ai fait un livre dans— 28 — lequel je vante et j'exalte l'excellence de la saignée et de l'eau prise en boisson. Il me faut donc soutenir mon livre quand même. Et cet argument paraît à Gil Blas d'une logique irréfutable. Et l'illustre Sangrado continue de peupler les cimetières. Cette histoire est toujours une actualité; malheureusement, tous les princes de la science ont fait des livres, des traités, allez donc leur demander de les jeter au feu. Quand on considère impartialement et consciencieusement le monument de la science médicale, on reconnaît qu'il ne représente pas seulement un enchaînement de vérités péniblement acquises par le travail des siècles, mais une accumulation de matériaux divers hétérogènes, contradictoires qui, bien que superposés dans un ordre chronologique, n'en sont pas plus adhérents pour cela. Pour quelques vérités fondamentales qui ont tenu bon, que d'erreurs occasionnées par des idées préconçues, des jugements précipités, des affirmations hâtives, des désirs de découvrir pris pour des découvertes; des hypothèses annoncées comme des certitudes. Que de génies se sont égarés ainsi! Broussais n'en est-il pas un exemple ? En thérapeutique ne s'est-il pas entièrement fourvoyé? Le Sangrado de Lesage ne semble-t-il par le précurseur? Broussais signale dans les phénomènes physiologiques le rôle de l'irritabilité, seule capable, prétend-il, de leur donner une explication positive ; pour la combattre, Broussais ne voit que la saignée. Lui et son école ont fait couler presque autant de sang que les guerres de l'empire; ces moyens, dit révulsifs, ont anémié des générations entières; si les génies peuvent se tromper à ce point, que sera-ce des médiocres ? Mais voici qu'une doctrine merveilleuse s'élève en ce moment, bien capable, suivant ceux qui la professent, de rendre vaines toutes les autres. Désormais les études anatomiques, cliniques, expérimentales seront supprimées. La volonté suffit à tout. Cette théorie de la volonté surprendrait même Schopenhauer qui ne l'avait pas prévue. Elle consiste, cette doctrine, dans l'hypnotisme et le suggestionisme; perfectionnements du magnétisme pur et simple. Il s'agit pour le médecin, d'après cette méthode originale, d'ordonner au malade de se bien porter. Toute la difficulté consiste à avoir la volonté assez puissante. Il est bien certain que nous voyons, tous les jours, des volontés fortes primer des volontés faibles, l'histoire est toute remplie de ces influences favorables ou funestes exercées par des individus sur d'autres individus. Mais qu'une volonté agisse sur son propre organisme — 29 — efficacement par ordre et commandement de la volonté d'autrui, voilà qui ne s'est jamais vu. Signifier au sang qu'il ait désormais à circuler normalement, à une tumeur de se fondre, à un cancer de disparaître, c'est bel et bien un miracle. Et nous ne croyons plus guère aux thaumaturges! Cependant, quelque inacceptable que soit la doctrine, elle trouve des adeptes, je dirai plus, des fanatique qui, sur un simple énoncé et des séances plus théâtrales que scientifiques, tombent dans l'enthousiasme sans en demander plus. Nous constatons donc, à nouveau, cette somme de crédulité disponible que nous avons signalée au début. J'allais oublier qu'un cas de rage avait été guéri, suivant la Revue des sciences hypnotiques, par la suggestion. Que devient alors M. Pasteur, lui et son institut? Ce qui est bizarre et inquiétant, c'est que ces diverses découvertes et ces méthodes perfectionnées qui s'imposent de plus en plus tendent à rabaisser l'humanité. La vivisection la rend injuste et féroce envers ce qui lui est inférieur; la suggestion lui enlève toute responsabilité, c'est-à-dire, le plus noble de ses attributs. Toute méthode que réprouve la conscience la plus éclairée ne saurait être le chemin de la vérité; cela est si vrai qu'aucune de celles que nous avons citées n'a donné de bons résultats : l'erreur n'ent donnant que de mauvais. Avant de leur accorder créance, soumettons donc tour les systèmes à l'examen d'une saine critique et, selon les principes de la philosophie moderne, expression de la raison, ne tenons pour certain que ce qui est démontré. ——————————— COMMUNICATION DE M. METZGER ————— Pour étudier les résultats d'une fonction normale et essentielle d'un être organisé, il faut que cet être soit placé dans les conditions, normales aussi, où cette fonction doit s'accomplir, qu'il ne lui soit imposé aucune souffrance, aucune gêne pendant l'expérience. C'est là, je me permets de le dire très haut, ce qu'on oublie, trop fréquemment dans les études physiologiques. En mettant même de côté tout sentiment de pitié et d'humanité à l'égard de nos infé-rieurs du règne animal, en ne se préoccupant que de la poursuite de la vérité scientifique, on peut affirmer, sous la forme la plus générale, que les souffrances cruelles, que les tortures qu'on inflige habituellement aux animaux sur lesquels on fait des expériences, faussent tellement la marche de toutes les fonctions organiques, que les conclusions qu'on prétend tirer de semblables recherches ne peuvent être que faussées aussi et que dénuées de tout caractère réellement scientifique (1). Ce qui ajoute à la valeur de ces paroles remarquables, c'est que l'auteur — homme de très grand mérite — qui a eu affaire à des médecins distingués, dit un peu plus loin : « Je n'ai jamais été contredit, lorsque je disais que, pour étudier un mécanisme, animé ou inanimé, il ne fallait pas commencer par le mutiler. » Si, après cela, on nous demande pourquoi la plupart des médecins, loin de s'élever contre les mutilations qui sont presque toute la vivisection, semblent, au contraire, en être de fervents adeptes, nous ne pourrons mieux répondre qu'en rapportant ce que disait L. Figuier, à propos de la glycongénie : « On ne me fait aucune idée, dans le public, de l'empire, on plutôt du despotisme absolu qu'exerce aujourd'hui, dans les régions scientifiques, une doctrine établie ou patronnée par l'Académie des sciences. Cet empire est tel que ni maîtres ni élèves ne peuvent s'y soustraire, au grand dommage de la science. A celui qui ose se heurter à un tel obstacle, on peut dire avec le poète : Lasciate ogni speranza (2). » Je me suis permis ces citations, parce qu'il me semble qu'elles viennent corroborer les paroles éloquentes que vous ont fait entendre tout à l'heur MM. Eschenauer et Combes, et aussi parce qu'il est bon de montrer les petites ambitions mesquines — et antiscientifiques — qui se cachent parfois sous le masque de la science. J'aborde maintenant un autre point. Nous combattons la vivisection et les vivisecteurs. Mais ceux-ci ne sont pas hommes à se laisser attaquer sans se défendre : il faut voir avec quelle hauteur ils traitent les ignorants assez malappris pour oser s'élever contre des prétentions qui leur paraissent insoutenables en droit comme en science. Il ne sera donc pas inutile de nous arrêter un moment à l'examen des arguments à l'aide desquels les partisans de la physiologie (1) G. A. HIRN. La Thermodynamique, p. 14, Paris, 1887. (2) Année scientifique, 1858, p. 290. — 31 — expérimentale essaient de justifier, à leurs yeux, et aux yeux du public, des études que nous réprouvons. Que l'on combatte le mal, à la bonne heure; que l'on réclame la pitié et la justice pour tout ce qui souffre ou est susceptible de souffrir, rien de mieux. Mais encore faut-il que les armes dont on se sert soient appropriées au but que l'on poursuit. Sinon, on risque de frapper dans le vide, de faire du tort à la cause dont on s'est constitué le défenseur, qui sait? de la compromettre peut-être. Craintes chimériques, dira-t-on. Non pas. Certaines exagérations de langage, certain faits — les un tout récents, d'autres un peu plus ancients — on très certainement nui, dans l'esprit de beaucoup de personnes, à l'oeuvre de protection dons nous voulons tous le triomphe. Mais revenons aux vivisecteurs. Leurs arguments sont de deux sortes : ceux que, faute de mieux, j'appellerai agressifs, et ceux qui sont plutôt défensifs ou justificatifs. Parlons des premiers : Vous protestez contre les vivisecteurs et les vivisections, nous dit-on, vous abhorrezz les souffrances que, dans l'intérêt de la science et en vue du bien-être humain, nous infligeons à un certain nombre d'animaux. Soit. Mais si ce que nous faisons vous répugne au point de vous surexciter parfois jusqu'à l'extravagance, pourquoi donc ne vous élevez-vous pas avec la même énergie contre tant d'autres pratiques qui ne sont guère moins douloureuses que les opérations auxquelles nous soumettons les sujets de nos expériences? Ainsi, c'est par centaines de mille et par millions que les animaux domestiques : étalons, taureaux, béliers, etc., sont annuellement mutilés; les uns, parce que l'opération qu'on leur fait subir les rend plus calmes et plus dociles; les autres, parce que c'est une manière d'améliorer la quantité et la qualité de la viande ou de la laine pour la production desquelles on les élève. L'intérêt matériel, l'argent, serait-il par hasard d'un plus grand prix à vos yeux que la science qui est notre but? Et sinon, pourquoi garder tous vos anathèmes pour nous, vivisecteurs, qui les méritons moins ,— notre but étant d'un ordre plus élevé, et les animaux sur lesquels nous opérons en nombre infiniment moins considérable — que ceux qui ne se proposent d'autre fin que de grossir leurs bénéfices? Vous tolérez également qu'on coupe la queue des brebis et des chiens. Vous supportez qu'on raccourcisse les oreilles des pauvres toutous. Vous ne vous opposez pas à la chasse ni à la pêche. Vous ne prohibez pas les courses de taureaux ni les courses de chevaux. Vous enfermez en d'étroites cages, pour leur vie durant, des ani-— 32 — maux qui sont faits pour le grand air, les vastes espaces, la liberté : depuis les oiseau, navigateurs aériens, jusqu'aux fauves, hôtes des déserts. Vous en transportez d'autres d'un climat chaud ou brûlant dans un climat froid ou tempéré, et réciproquement : d'où la phtisie qui les ronge, l'inanition , le mal du pays, la mort. Non seulement cela. Vous entretenez, vous nourrissez les haines internationales. Vous applaudissez aux paroles enflammées de vos poètes et de vos orateurs, excitant, exaltant les sentiments guerriers de leurs compatriotes, et leur montrant par-dessus les fleuves et les monts, les belles provinces, les riches plaines, les champs fertiles, les vignobles enviés, grande et magnifique proie promise aux vainqueurs. Aussi voyez. L'Europe se transforme de jour en jour en une immense salle d'armes toute hérissée d'instruments de mort. Les nations, debout, fiévreuses, attendent dans une anxiété poignante le signal qui les fera se ruer les unes sur les autres pour s'entr'égorger dans une mêlée furieuse. Qui oserait affirmer que demand ne sonnera pas le clairon d'alarme pour une tuerie telle que l'histoire n'en présente point d'aussi formidable? Voilà ce que vous avez fait ou laissé faire. L'inquiétude est partout et de tous les instants. la misère et la douleur nous débordent; des enfants ont faim et ne peuvent se rassasier; des mères pleurent, parce que, faute de nourriture, leur lait s'est tari . . . . . Et vous osez venir, avec des grands airs de pudeur effarouchée, vous déchaîner contre les prétendues horreurs de la vivisection! . . . Pharisiens que vous êtes! Et vous croyez que la science s'arrêtera devant « l'idiosyncrasie hystérique et le pharisaïsme » de ceux qui, ne faisant rien pour empêcher le sang humain de couler sur les champs de bataille, voient également couler, avec une parfaite indifférence, le sang des animaux, lorsqu'il s'agit d'une surproduction de viande et de laine . . ., et ne s'émeuvent et ne se scandalisent que du moment où la souffrance a pour but le progrès scientifique! Voilà comment Heidenhain, un vivisecteur émérite, défend la physiologie expérimentale. J'ajoute que, non content de ces généralités, il fait une charge à fond contre l'Angleterre, ce pays étant celui qui, entre tous, a fait preuve de persévérance, d'énergie et de volonté pratique dans la lutte pour l'abolition de la vivisection. L'Angleterre, dit-il, n'a jamais reculé devant la nécessité d'écraser les peuples sous son pied d'airain, lorsque son intérêt était en jeu. Les Indiens d'Amérique fondent, à sou approche, comme au — 33 — soleil fond la neige. Dans les Indes Orientales, les races qui s'opposent à sa marche envahissante s'éteignent peu à peu. D'autre part, elle oblige les Chinois à se laisser lentement empoisonner par l'opium indien. Que d'un côté de la balance on place l'existence d'un numbre incalculable d'hommes, et de l'autre la puissance et le bien-être de l'Angleterre. . . le premier ne pèsera pas le poids d'une plume! M. Renard, un savant français, ne ménage pas davantage l'Angleterre. Après avoir parlé des « trois cents millions de poison ingurgité par droit de guerre à tout un peuple », et du « choléra instantanément apporté à des milliers d'Européens, pour que quelques ballots de coton arrivent plus vite à Londres », : « Vous vous étonnerez peut-être que ce soient les mêmes hommes, auteurs de ce calamités, qui ont fait des lois draconiennes contre tout savant qui essaierait, sur un animal vivant, une expérience destinée à soulager l'humanité. » Que valent de tels arguments et qu'y répondrons-nous? — Qu'ils ne sont que spécieux, cela saute aux yeux. Que, par cela même, ils ne portent pas, c'est incontestable. Est-ce à dire que nous puissions ou devions fermer les yeux aux faits qu'on nous jette à la face? — En aucune façon. Mais, dirons-nous à tous ceux qui pensent comme lui, depuis quand donc le mal qui se fait dans un domaine, excuse ou justifie-t-il le mal qui se fait dans un autre? Est-ce que la misère et l'espèce de servage qui pèsent encore sur des millions d'Européens diminuent en rien l'horreur que nous inspire l'esclavage des nègres. Est-que la brutalité d'un charrétier autorise le vivisecteur ou un homme quelconque à être brutal? Non, n'est-ce pas? Vous voyez donc bien que les fait ci-dessus rappelés portent à faux, ne prouvent rien, absolument rien en votre faveur, pas plus qu'ils ne prouvent contre ceux qui combattent les cruautés qui se commettent dans « les chambres de torture de la science ». Pour que vos attaques atteignissent les ennemis de la vivisection, il faudrait que vous établissiez que, soit de leur parole, soit de leur plume, ils excusent ou justifient les iniquités ou les horreurs qui se commettent envers les hommes et les animaux. Mais cette preuve, vous ne l'apportez pas. Au reste, à supposer que vous l'eussiez apportée, vous n'auriez nullement, je le répète, démontré la légitimité des expériences physiologiques, mais simplement l'illogisme de ceux qui s'y opposent. La défense de la vivisection par Heindenhain — sorte de contre-attaque à notre adresse plutôt que défense proprement dite — man-— 34 — que donc le but que l'auteur s'est proposé. Retenons-en toutefois cet enseignement : la nécessité qui s'impose à nous tous de nous trouver à l'avant-garde, avec les hommes de bien, de progrès, de dévouement, partout où il s'agit d'oeuvres de protection humaine. Ce sera la meilleure réponse à faire a des insinuations malveillantes, et le meilleur d'attirer à nous les hommes de bonne volonté. Un mot encore, et j'ai fini. Dans la seconde partie de son ouvrage, Heidenhain vante les nombreux avantages qui résultent pour l'homme de la vivisection. Nous n'examinerons pas pour le moment le bien ou le mal fondé de ses affirmations à cet égard. Mais ce qu'il importe de remarquer, c'est que Heindenhain parle des abus de la vivisection et de la légèreté de certains vivisecteurs. Et savez-cous quel est le vivisecteur qu'il désigne nommément comme s'étant fréquemment rendu coupable, soit d'abus, soit de légèreté? CL. Bernard, oui, Cl. Bernard lui-même. Or, si vous vous rappelez avec quelle sévérité celui-ci a jugé les procédés, aussi bien de ses contemporains que de ses prédécesseurs, vous comprendrez quell foi il convient d'ajouter aux assertions de ceux qui prétendent que les abus et les excès n'existent que dans notre imagination, et vous voudrez, avec plus d'énergie que jamais, lutter contre cette débauche de tortures, ce dévergondage scientifique dont la vivisectien et l'occasion. —————————————— LE MESSAGER DE LA PAIX REVUE MENSUELLE Dirigée par Lady CAITHNESS, duchesse de Pomar Prix du numéro: 50 centimes ABONNEMENT: Prix unique pour toute l'Union Postale, Un an: 5 francs. ————— Nota. — Madame la duchesse de Pomar a mis le Messager de la Paix au service de la cause de L'Antivivisection. Cette revue est donc en quelque sorte un organe mensuel de la Société Française contre la Vivisection. On s'abonne en envoyant un mandat ou un bon de poste de 5 francs, au Directeur de la Librairie Universelle, 41, rue de Seine, Paris. ENVOI DE NUMÉROS SPÉCIMENS SUR DEMANDE — 35 — LISTE DES MEMBRES de la Société française contre la Vivisection Présidents d'honneur: Alphonse Karr, P. Viguier. Présidente d'honneur: Mme la comtesse de Nouailles. Membres à vie: S. A. R. la princess Eugénie de Suède et Norvège, Stockholm. Abbadie, Mme d', 120, rue du Bac. Allard, Mlle J., 66, rue de Rennes. Amet, vice-amiral, 58, rue de Rennes. Caithness, Mme, 15, avenue des Champs-Élysées. Cobbe, Mlle F. Power, Hengwrt Dolgelly (Angleterre). Effinger Wildegg, la baronne de, l, Graben, Vienne (Autriche). Gordon, Mme, 46, Prince's Gate, Londres. Irville, d', au Chapître, Rouen. James, Mme, 10, Pelham place, Londres. Jardin, Mme, 16, rue Doudeauville. Kennet, R. Barlow, Petersfield, Hants (Angleterre). Lembke, Mme J., 2, Thorwaldsensvej, Copenhague. Montléard Saxe-Courland, Mme la princess de, Graben, 12, Vienne (Autriche). Noailles, Mme la comtesse de, 44, Warrior Square, Hastings (Angleterre). Schwartz, Mme la baronne de, Khlepa Canea, île de Crète (Turquie). Scott, C. Newton (F.), 22, rue de l'Arcade. Trouselle, R., 65, avenue du Bois-du-Boulogne. Wentworth, Mlle, Castle Down House, Hastings (Angleterre). Membres d'honneur: Abbadie, A. d', membre de l'Académie des sciences, 120, rue du Bac. Aberigh-Mackay, le révérend (F.), 12, avenue de l'Alma. Bishop, Mme et Mlle, Torquay (Angleterre). Blowitz, de. Boëns, le docteur H., Charleroi (Belgique). Bryan, Benjamin, l, Victoria Street, Westminster, Londres. Buet, Charles, 18, avenue de Breteuil. Combes, Paul (F.), 41, rue de Seine. Craven, Mme Augustus, 28, rue Barbet-de-Jouy. Falateuf, Oscar, 5, boulevard des Capucines. Hoggan, le docteur, 7, Trevor Terrace Rutland Gate, Londres. Ménard, Louis, docteur ès-lettres, 2, place de la Sorbonne. O'Meara, Mlle, 15, rue Washington. Scholl, Aurélien (F.), 42, rue de Clichy. Viguier, Paul, 9, avenue Carnot. Voigts-Rhetz, de, 19, rue du Dôme, Strasbourg. Membres titulaires: Abinger, Lady, 46, Cromwell Gardens, Londres. Adelso-Monteaux (F.), 10, rue Notre-Dame-de-Lorette. Ader, J., rue de Lubeck.-36- Aderholt, le Dr (F.), 16, avenue Mac-Mahon. Aderold, Mme (F.), 16, avenue Mac-Mahon. Agry, Mme Marie, Audeoux, par Besançon (Doubs). Agry, Just, Audeoux, par Besançon (Doubs). Argillet, Mme, 30, avenue de Messine. Auldjo, Mme, 1, Rutland Gate, Londres. Avisse, Mme, 60, rue François Ier. Baruard, Mme Caroline, 2, Marlborough Villas, Richmond Hill Surrey (Angleterre). Bélière, 30, rue du Faubourg-Saint-Honoré. Bernard, Mlle T. Claude, 15, rue Princesse. Bernard, Mme veuve Claude, 15, rue Princesse. Bishop, Mlle (F.), Torquay, Devon (Angleterre). Bishop, Mme (F.), Torquay, Devon (Angleterre). Blot, Mme, 190, rue de Rivoli Bohrmann (F.), 1, cité Trévise. Boubée Simon, rédacteur au Gaulois. Bouillé, Mme la comtesse J. de, 44, rue du Bac. Bourdon Saint-Clair, Honfleur (Calvados). Breitreiter (Mlle), 6, Clifton street, Brighton (Angleterre). Brown, Ormiston, 14, boulevard Bonne-Nouvelle Brunet, Mme E., 3, place d'Eylau. Buisson, 18, rue Vivienne. Burton, Lady, présidente de la Société protectrice des animaux, à Tries e. Burton, Mlle, 188, boulevard Hausmann. Busnach, 10, boulevard de Clichy. Cadet (P.), 8, rue Montesquieu. Carme, Mme, 4, rue de Tarente. Chabran, Mlle, Saint-Médard, près Saint-Galmier (Loire). Chatelain, Mme, place d'Armes, à Luçon (Vendée). Chavée-Leroy, à Clermont-les-Fermes, par Bucy (Aisne). Chopard, C. Didier, à Enghien (Seine). Chrétien, Mlee Edmée (F.), 20, rue de la Michodière. Chrétien, Mlee Thérèse (F.), 20, rue de la Michodière. Coëtlogon, Mme la comtesse René de (F.), 7, avenue du Bois-de-Boulogne. Corey, Mme, 167, rue de Rome. Crépuy, 19, rue du Quatre-Septembre. Cuif, Alex.-F., 46, route de Saint-Mandé, à Saint-Maurice. Dandin, Mme, château de Boissy-le-Bois, par Chaumont-en-Vexin (Oise). Darcus, le Dr, 7, rue Poisson. Davenport, 32, rue Washington. Davenport, Mme (F.), 32, rue Washington. David, Mme L., rue de la Gare, Vésinet. Dehen-Dahlmann, Mme, 71, rue Nollet. Dellia, J., place Doublet, à Bergerac (Dordogne). Denain, Mme, 220, rue de Rivoli. Deneuve, G. (F.), docteur en médecine, 73, boulevard Saint-Germain. Deraismes, Mlle (F.), 72, rue Cardinet. Desinge-Carpentier (F.), 64, boulevard de Strasbourg. Desinge-Carpentier, Mme (F.), 64, boulevard de Strasbourg. Desinge-Carpentier, Mlle, 64, boulevard de Strasbourg. Desinge, Alfred (F.), 64, boulevard de Strasbourg. Destrem (F.), 39, rue de Châteaudun. Dicop, M. G., 11, avenue Ledru-Rollin. Dollfus, Mme D., 6, rue de Rome. Driesens, M. V., rue de l'Église, à Hélmomes, Lille. Duez, L.(F.), 8, rue Montesquieu. Dugué, pharmacien (F.), 122, rue du Faubourg-Saint-Honoré. Duquénel, Mme, 17, rue Washington. -37- Edwards, rédacteur au Matin, 25, rue d'Argenteuil. Engel, Arthur (F.), 29, rue Marignan. Engel-Dollfus, Mme, 29, rue Marignan. Eschenauer (F.), 149, boulevard Saint-Germain. Este, Mme la baronne d', 32, rue Washington. Este, le baron d', château de Billière, à Pau. Fauvety, Charles (F.), 24, avenue Pereire, à Asnières. Feresse-Deraismes, Mme (F.), château des Mathurins, à Pontoise (Seine-et-Oise). Fergusson-Home, Mme. Ferronnays, Mme la comtesse F. de la (F.), 34, cours la Reine. Fitz-William, Mlle, 22, rue de l'Arcade. Fonteilles, Mme la marquise de, 44, rue du Bac. Fourré, Irené, à Tourcoing (Nord.) Frémicourt, Mlle de, 2, rue Vignon. Fresson, 16, place Vendôme. Fresson, H., 16, place Vendôme. Gérente, 2, rue Le Regrattier. Gérente, Mme, 2, rue Le Regrattier. Gérente, Mlle, 13, avenue de l'Observatoire. Gessler, N. de, 4, rue Meissonier. Giëdroyc, le prince Romuald (F.), chambellan de S. M. l'empereur de Russie, 3, rue de Galilée. Godbert jeune, à Reims. Godbert, Mme, à Reims. Gordon, Mme, 48, Prince's Gate, à Londres. Gros, Mme L., à Wesserling (Alsace) Gros-Hartmann, à Wesserling (Alsace). Guénat, Mme veuve Closier, 10, rue des Jeuneurs. Guitard, F., 96, rue Lafayette. Hilst, à Compiègne. Hockmeyer, Mlle, 3, Dagmar Villas, Norwood, à Londres. Holman, le Dr (F.), 16, avenue Kléber. Hugues, Clovis, député, 24, rue Saint-Louis-en-l'Ile. Huitrado, V., à Mexico. Jan, Mme, 5, rue Adam, à Cherbourg. Janssen, A., 166, boulevard Saint-Germain. Jerard, 23, rue des Arts, à Pau. Johnston, A., château de Mesnes, par Saint-Aignan (Loir-et-Cher). Keogh, Mme, 204, rue de Rivoli. Klinker, Carl., Alton Cottage, Norwood, à Londres. Knyff, Mlle A. de, 32, rue Washington. Knyff, le baron E. de, 32, rue Washington. Kœchlin, Mme, au Vignoble Mulhouse. Kœchlin, Mme Oscar, à Dornach (Alsace). Lafarge, Mme de, château de Saint-Concord (Ardèche). Lamarche, 53, rue Notre-Dame-des-Champs. Lanyer, Mme, 15, place Malesherbes. Lax, Mlle, 17, rue Joubert. Lefebvre, Mme, 99, boulevard Haussmann. Lindsay, Mlle L. Lwowna (F.), 3, avenue Poniatowski, à Maisons-Lafitte. Livois, Mlle, 7, rue Victor-Hugo, à Boulogne-sur-Mer. Loiseau, 13, rue des Treilles, à Vanves. Mac-All, Mme, 28, Villa Molitor, à Auteuil. Maillefer, Mme de, 95, boulevard Malesherbes. Maitland, E. Mannheim, rue Saint-Georges. Maréchal, 49, rue Claude- Bernard.-38- Marochetti, le baron (F.) 24, rue Marignan. Mathieu, Mlle, a Marzy, pres Nevers (Nievre). Meyer, Mme, 8, rue des Pyramides. Montfaucon, le baron de, 25, avenue Marigny. Morell, le baron de, 22, rue Washington. Morel, Mlle, place d'Armes, Montbeliard (Doubs). Morsier, Mme de, (F), 71, rue Claude-Bernard. Mossmann, le D, a Tours-sur-Marne. Motte, de la (F.), 10, rue de la Promenade, a Asnieres. Nattes, Mme la marquise de, 28, avenue Montaigne. Nesme, Mme, a Saint-Cheron (Seine-et-Oise). Nouveau, 5, passage Saulnier. Olive, 22, rue du Bouloi. Pages, Mme la baronne de, 30, place de la Madeleine. Patorne, Mme, 35, rue Neuve-Bernicourt, Saint-Quentin (Aisne). Perigny, Mme Forestier de, 32, rue Washington. Petit, 11, avenue Ledru-Rollin. Petti, Mme (F.), 27, rue de Berlin Pingray, 51, rue de Clignancourt. Pinguet, 36, place d'Armes, a Douai. Pioger, greffier a la cur d'appel, 17, rue Fontaine-Saint-Georges. Poillon, ingenieur, a Clamart (Seine). Ponge, Mme Le, 73, rue de Grenelle. Pont, A. de, 3 boulevard du Roi, a Versailles. Prudhomme, 12, rue de la Plage, a Mers (Somme). Prudhomme, Mme, 12, rue de la Plage, a Mers (Somme). Rambures, Mme la marquise de (F.), 44, rue du Bac. Renno, Mme, 7, rue Damesne, a Fontainebleau. Rerolle, Mme, a Saint-Cheron (Seine-et-Oise). Rieder, Mme J., a Wesserling (Alsace). Riffel, Mme, 12, rue Bertholet. Riviere (F.), redacteur au Gaulois. Roman, ingenieur en chef, a Perigueus (Dordogne). Romand-Laissaroff, Mme la baronne de, 10, avenue Percier. Rouviere, Mme La, 99, route de Darnetal, a Rouen. Rouet, Mme, 91, rue Lemercier. Sagne, Mlle, 27, rue Saint-Paul. Santeuil, Mme de, 2, rue de Fleurus. Serle (F.), 22, rue Matignon. Serle, Mme, 22, rue Matignon. Servoisier, Mlle, 2, rue des Beaux-Arts. Soltykoff, le prince Pierre (F.), 4, rue Boissy-d-Anglas. Soltykoff, Mme la princesse, 4, rue Boissy-d'Anglas. Soltykoff, le prince Alexis, 4 rue Boissy-d'Anglas. Soltykoff, le prince Dmitri, 4 rue Boissy-d'Anglas. Soltykoff, le prince Jean, 4 rue Boissy-d'Anglas. Sontsoff, Mme, 60, rue Francois Ier. Sorbier, 11, avenue Ledru-Rollin. Standish, Cecil. Stephenson, Mlle, 10, Pelham place, Thurloe Square, a Londres. Tascher de La Pagerie, de, Petite-Fresnan, a Saint-Quentin (Aisne). Tavernier, A. (F.), redacteur a l'Evenement, 15, rue de Laval. Tevis, le general C., 61, avenue Friedland. Thiaudiere, G. (F.), Gencay (Vienne). Thiaudiere, Mme, Gencay (Vienne) Thom (F.), ancien chirurgien general d l'armee anglaise, 5 bis, rue du Dome. Thoren, le baron de, Auckland Villa Southsea (Angleterre). Thury, Mme la comtesse Hericourt de, 17, rue Saint-Dominque. -39- Tillbrook, Mme, Tillington House, Stafford (Angleterre). Troubetzkoy, Mme, la princesse, 10, rue d'Offrement. Troy, H., 3 rue Lafourie-de-Montbadon, a Bordeaux. Van der Hucht, Mme, Baarn, (Hollande). Van Eys, Mme, San Remo (Italie). Vianelli, Mme, 14, place Malesherbes. Vignot, J., rue du Rempart-Villeneuve, a Perpignan. Warest, A. (F.), a Thiais (Seine). Weber, le baron Von, 8, Amalien-Strasse, a Dresde. Wild, Mlle (F), 4, avenue des Ternes. -------- COMPOSITION DU BUREAU POUR 1888 : Presidente d'honneur : Alphonse Karr, P. Viguier. Presidente d'honneur : Mme la comtesse de Noailles. President titulaire : M. Eschenauer (de Cette). Vice-Presidents : M. le baron de Knyff, M. Hippolyte Destrem. Secretaire general : M. Paul Combes. Secretaire adjointe : Mme Petti, faisant fonctions de secretaire generale. Tresorier: M. serle, au siege social, 3, quai Voltaire a Paris. -------- Brochures distribuees par les soins de la Societe francaise contre la Vivisection. Bulletin de la Societe francaise. Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 et 6. Lawson Tait. — L'Inutilité de l'expérmentation sur les animaux comme méthode de recherche scientifique. (Traduit de l'anglaid.) Brochure in-8. Mme Kingsford, Dr en médecine de la Faculté de Paris. — De l'Inutilité de la vivisection. Brochure in-18. J. Ch. Scholl. — Apologie de la vivisection, examen d'un article de M. Richet. Mlle Francis Power Cobbe. — Lumière dans les ténèbres, illustré. Traduit de l'anglais par Jules Ch. Scholl. Brochure in-8. Arthur Massé. —Après le chien, l'homme. Esquisse historique. Brochure in-18. Arthur Massé. —La Physiologie de la douleur. Résumé des expériences d'un vivisecteur. (Traduit de l'anglair.) Brochure in-18. L'Opinion du cardinal Manning sur la vivisection. Envoyé gratis sur demande adressée à M. Ch. Newton Scott, 22, rue de l'Arcade, à Paris. Plus d'animaux! par Mme Mathilde Van Eys.Conseil d'Administration pour l'année 1888 (Renouvellement du 27 juin 1888) sortants en 1889. Mme Petti, 27, rue de Berlin Mme Wild, 4, avenue des Ternes Mme la comtesse Fernand de La Ferronnays, 34, cours La Reine M. Arthur Engel, 29, rue Marignan Mme d'Este-Davenport, 32, rue Washington Mme la comtesse René de Coëtlogon, 7, avenue du Bois- de-Boulogne Mme Aderholdt, 16, avenue Mac-Mahon Mme la marquise de Rambures, 44, rue du Bac M. Dugué, rue du Faubourg-Saint-Honoré, 1222 M. Desinge-Carpentier, 64, boulevard de Strasbourg sortants en 1890. Prince Romuald Giëdroyc, 3, rue Galilée M. Alfred Desinge, 64, boulevard de Strasbourg M. H. Destrem, 39, rue de Chateaudun M.le baron de Knyff, 32, rue Washington Mme la duchesse de Pomar, 51, rue de l'Universite M. Aurelien Scholl, 42, rue de Clichy M. Scott (Ch. Newton) 22, rue de l'Arcade Mme. Feresse-Deraismes, 72, rue Cardinet M.Ch. Riviere (Ladiane) 9, boulevard des Italiens ( Gaulois) sortants en 1891. M. le D'Aderholdt, 16, avenue Mac-Mahon Mlle E. Bishop, Hayne, Croft road, Torquay, Devon. M. Paul Combes, 41, rue de Seine Mlle Maria Deraismes, 72, rue Cardinet Mme Desinge-Carpentier, 64, boulevard de Strasbourg M.L. Duez, 8, rue Montesquieu. M. Eschenauer (de Cette), 149, boulefard Saint-Germain Mlle Lina Lwowna-Lindsay, 3, avenue Poniatowski a Maisons-Laffitte (Seine-et-Oise) Mme de Morsier, 71, rue Claude-Bernard M. Serle, 22, rue de Matignon MEMBRES FONDATEURS eligibles au Conseil d'administration, aux termes de l'article 6 des statuts. M. Warest. - M. Adelson-Monteaux - Mlles Edmee at Therese Chretien M. bohrmann - M. le baron Marocheetti. Paris - Typ. Paul Schmidt, 20 rue du Dragon.FATHER DAMIEN. The Prince of Wales Proposes that his Works should Live after Him. This morning, at Marlborough House, the Prince of Wales presided over the first meeting of the committee for promoting a memorial to the late Father Damien. Among those present were the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Manning, the Duke of Norfolk, the Duke of Westminster, Baron Rothschild, M.P., the Lord Mayor, and Mr. John Morley. The Prince of Wales said that the heroic life and death of Father Damien had not only aroused sympathy in this country, but it had gone deeper; it had brought home to us that the circumstances of our Indian and Colonial Empire oblige us in a measure to follow his example, not only for foreigners, but for our own fellow subjects. India, with its 250,000 lepers, and our colonies with their increasing victims to a loathsome disease, had a far stronger claim on our aid than the poor natives of the Hawaiian Islands could ever have on the young Belgian priest who had given his life for them. To mark our debt to him, as well as our sympathy with his noble self- sacrifice, be proposed to this committee a memorial scheme embracing three objects. The first was A MONUMENT TO FATHER DAMIEN on the spot at Molokai where his remains were interred; the second was the establishment of a leper ward in London, probably attached to some London hospital or medical school, and the endowment of a travelling studentship to encourage the study of leprosy; the third was a full and complete inquiry into the question of leprosy in India, where there were about 250,000 lepers and no adequate means of dealing with the evil. The second part of the scheme required some consideration or explanation; but a special study of leprosy was acknowledged to be necessary, and the fewer the cases that occurred in this country the more important it was that they should be studied by specialists. If leprosy were communicable, we ought to seek to limit as far as possible the chance of its spreading. While leprosy had been increasing in India and teh colonies it had steadily decreased in Norway, and that decrease was attributed by specialists to the measures for isolation which had been enforced. It had been thought that private philanthropy should undertake this mission, and he did not doubt that if this committee put its hand to the work, the objects set forth by the committee of the College of Physicians would be attained, perhaps more speedily and more thoroughly than if they were entrusted to THE ALREADY OVERBURDENED GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. Mr. E. Clifford proposed that a monument to Father Damien should be erected on the spot where his remains are interred. He read an interesting letter from Brother James, giving an account of Father Damien's last moments. The Duke of Westminster seconded the resolution, which was agreed to, as were those which followed. Sir James Paget moved the second resolution in favor of a leper ward in London and a travelling studentship, which Mr. J. Hutchinson seconded. Sir W. G. Hunter proposed the third resolution in favor of complete inquiry into the question of leprosy in India. Cardinal Manning seconded this resolution, and it was supported by the Rev. Hugh B. Chapman. An executive committee was appointed; Sir A. Borthwick and Mr. Lawson were appointed treasurers; and it was announced that subscriptions would be received at the following banks: -The London and Westminster, Messrs. Coutts, and Sir Samuel Scott and Co.DIGESTION, DISORDERED LIVER, [pon] the Vital Organs, Strengthening the Muscular System, [e] keen edge of appetite, and arousing with the Rosebub of [e]. These are "facts" admitted by thousands, in all classes and Debilitated is that Beecham's Pills have the Largest Sale with each box. Sold everywhere. BEECHAM, St. Helen's, Lancashire. [M] TO BUY [inea]; Single Tooth, 2s, 6d. Five years' war- the Queen's Household, No. 1, Ludgate-hill (over Messrs Removed from No. 41. ., 53, Holborn-viaduet, E.C. Manufacturers of [he] Elite of Europe. Catalogues sent free on application. [st], coolest, and most comfortable tennis shoe made. SHOES, warranted not to crack. London Agents –– Fenchurch-street, E.C., 70, Regent-street, W. LONDON & [et], E.C. CROWN BOOT CO., 202, Regent-street, W. and CO. (Limited), the Largest Makers in th[e] [e] to Five Guineas. Design and full particulars post free, [ington]-causeway, S.E., and Branches. [8]d. and 1s. 6d. per 1b. Pure––no Chicory. Delivered [ghout] London. [IMITED], 3, Jewry-street, London, E.C. CHINA AND GLASS, BOOTS, AND MANTLES, , Wandsworth-road, and Priory-road. Easy terms to good 20s. ––JAMES BROWN, Manufacturer, 32, Black- [dest] Maker, Largest Sale, Best Make. Established 1857. [NDUSTRIES] & DONEGAL INDUSTRIAL FUND, . "H.H. Homespuns," "Hygeia, the Perfect Underwear," [fs], Underlinen, "Kells' Embroideries," Price Lists post free. K. SMART, Bullion Dealer and Money Changer, the highest market value. 19. Westbourne-grove, W. [ntral] Agents in every town in the United Kingdom [nd] postal order for 3 lb. Sample, delivered free. CO., LIMITED, 3, Jewry-street, London, E.C. and 12. Water-laue. Blackfriars. STAMFORD-HILL. ––Only £25 cash; no law costs; no survey fees or other expenses. For Sale, a few attractive, well-built Dwelling-houses, in one of the best roads in Stamford-hill; three minutes from the station on G.E.R., and from St. Ann's-road Station (Midland Railway); workmen's trains to City, King's-cross, &c., 2d. a day return; seven rooms, washhouse. gardens, bay windows, and every comfort; for one or two families; lease 93 years; price only £25 cash, and the balance may be paid at £1 12s. 6d. a month. Mr. M. Woolf, 20, Wormwood- street, E.C. TO Let, Shop and two Parlours in ladies' wardrobe; capital position; long established. 18, Great Coram-street, Russell-square. WOOD-GREEN. –– Three freehold Houses; rental value £90; cost £2,500 to build; price £1,000; owner leaving England. H. Smallman, auc- tioneer, 792, Holloway-road, N. HOUSES, LAND, &c., WANTED. HOUSE wanted, good condition, within four- mile radius of London-bridge; six or eight rooms. Nemo, 5, Thomas-street, Camberweil, S.E. APARTMENTS TO BE LET. ACCOUCHEMENT in the house of good Nurse, eight miles from London; terms moderate. M., St. Margaret's House, Linkfield-road, Isleworth. BEDROOM Comfortably furnished for gentle- man; attendance; no extras; easy access to West End and City; 7s. weekly; buses pass the door. 233, Maida Vale, W. BEDROOMS for respectable gentlemen, from 4s. per week, Cripplegate Temperance Hotel, Lower Whitecross-street, near Wood-street, City. Bicycles free. CLAPHAM Common (Adjoining). –– Furnished Apartments; piano, gas, h.-c. bath; train, bus, [] Grandison-road, Westside, Clapham-common, THE VIVISECTION OF HORSES. (THIS IS KNOWN AS THE "ALFORT TRACT.") THE TRUTH CONCERNING VIVISECTION. AS GATHERED FROM EYE WITNESSES. WITNESSES: PHILIP G. PEABODY, M. D., A. M., LL. B., BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS. GEORGE BAUDRY, M. D., FOND DU LAC, WIS. DR. HENRY J. BIGELOW (now dec'd) BOSTON, MASS. MR. JAMES COWIE, V. S., LONDON, ENG. GEORGE FLEMING, F. R. C. S., AND PREST. ROYAL COLLEGE V. S., LONDON, ENG. HERBERT T. REID, F. S. A., F. R. S. I., LONDON. MR. T. A. WILLIAMS, LECTURER AND ORGANIZER, LONDON, ENG. MR. GEORGE CHEVERTON, V. S., LONDON. PUBLISHED BY THE ILLINOIS ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY, AURORA....ILLINOIS....U. S. A. 1897.How You May Help To Stop Vivisection. The majority of the American public is at present completely hoodwinked on the subject of Vivisection. It has been led to believe three gross falsehoods-- 1. That the practice is a rare and occasional one only. 2. That great benefits to the Healing Art have been derived from it; 3. That anaesthetics are invariably employed. Were it not for the belief in these three fallacies, the whole monstrous system of scientific torture of animals would be stopped in a week by a national outcry. This being the case, it is the duty of everyone, whether young or old, rich or poor, man or woman, to labor to spread a knowledge of the truth concerning Vivisection as now practiced in a large portion of the civilized world. To do this effectually, it is necessary to be prepared, by study of the subject, to converse upon it on fitting occasion with friends and acquaintances. But it is also extremely useful to induce every one who can be reached to read some of the various pamphlets and leaflets wherein all the facts of the controversy are carefully stated and the falsehood of the three excuses offered for Vivisection abundantly exposed. The best way to distribute these papers--especially during the summer months of general movement--is to place a few of them, judiciously selected, in the reading rooms and drawing-rooms of hotels, in clubs and public reading-rooms, in the waiting-rooms of railway stations and the cabins of steam-boats. In all these places travelers are glad to find something fresh to read; and the persons in charge of the rooms are generally well disposed to accept the gifts of literature so offered. A trifling gratuity at the stations will further secure care of the papers. Besides this method of work (which is most earnestly recommended to all our friends whenever they travel), the following hints are offered as likely to be useful under other circumstances: When you read in any magazine or newspaper an article concerning Vivisection, write to the Editor and express your approval or disapproval as the case may be. Even if your letter be not published it will show the Editor the views of his readers on the subject. Subscribe to papers which oppose Vivisection in preference to others. If you should be an author of books, or a contributor to periodicals, refer to the subject earnestly whenever you may reasonably do so. Ask your clergyman or minister to preach on humanity to animals, especially touching on Vivisection, and if the sermon be a good one, endeavor to print and circulate it. Subscribe only to Hospitals which have not Medical Schools licensed for vivisection attached to them; and on the staff of which there are no Vivisectors. If you belong to any Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, insist upon the subject of Vivisection being taken up as the most important topic wherewith such a Society should concern itself; and speak strongly at all times of the baseness of cultivating tender feelings towards animals, drawing out their affections to us, and then abandoning them to be tortured. Teach all children under your care to despise those cowardly and selfish motives of action which are commonly urged as justifying Vivisection. Unless you happen to be a trained physiologist, decline to argue on the Utility of Vivisection. Stand firmly on the moral ground of the wickedness of the practice. Adapted from a leaflet by FRANCES POWER COBBE. THE TRUTH CONCERNING VIVISECTION. Important to the People of both America and France. SWORN STATEMENTS OF EYE WITNESSES. Concerning an example of Vivisection in America, we have the following from the New York World of February 21, 1892: "An eyewitness of the experimentation at the veterinary department of the University of Pennsylvania (a competent judge as well as a person of veracity), says that he was ushered into a room with windows far above the ground, to debar the curious from looking in. "The door was unlocked to permit him to enter, and locked again when he was within. He supposed there was to be a regular examination of students, but to his surprise found there were to be operations of a most revolting description. "A horse was before him, tied with a halter. The first pupil was told to drive a seton into the shoulder of the horse--a most painful operation; the second was asked to perform tracheotomy--making an opening into the windpipe--and a third to drive a seton into the hind flank. By this time the horse had been 'hobbled,' that is, so tied that it could not move, and the next student was told to dissect the various nerves of the foot. No anaesthetic of any description was given to the horse, and when the demonstrations were finished and the professor was asked by the visitor what would be done with the animal, he replied: 'We leave it here, and if it is alive in the morning we go on with other experimentations.' "It should be said that Prof. Zuill (the instructor) is a graduate of ALFORT, near Paris, and that at this and similar institutions, as many as twelve horses are operated upon each week, and, if the horse lives to endure them, sixty-four operations are performed on each." When Prof. Zuill's proceeding was reported by the well-known veterinary surgeon, Dr. Gadsden, to the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, such was the devotion to "Science" no arrest could be secured. Following is a description of the scenes witnessed at Alfort, France, in the summer of 1895, by Philip G. Peabody, Esq.,* of Boston, Mass., and his companion, George Baudry, M. D., the latter a gentleman of French descent and familiar *[Philip G. Peabody, A.M., LL.B., M.D., President of the New England Anti-Vivisection Socy., President of the National Constitutional Liberty League; President of the National Scientific Family Culture Institute; Vice President of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; Vice President of the Illinois Anti-Vivisection Society.]-4- with the French language. We quote a part of the sworn statement of Dr. Peabody and Dr Baudry as given to the Boston Transcript of July 20, 1895: "On May 16, I went, with Dr. Baudry, to the Ecole Veterinaire at Alfort. I saw many horses and other animals intended for vivisection, and, at a later day, (saw them) actually being vivisected. The establishment consists of many acres of land and a large number of buildings. . . Dr. Chauveau, the head of the veterinary schools of France, has published an account of a series of most agonizing MACHINE FOR FASTENING HORSE, IN USE AT ALFORT. "No.1." This is a new invention by a man named Lang whom I know well. It can be turned over on the side and upside down, and is very ingenious for preventing horses from struggling; it is in daily use at Alfort, and I have seen animals in it frequently; the fastening of a horse in it, in the usual way, causes very great agony, and the unfortunate animal groans in a most distressing way. -PHILIP G. PEABODY. experiments on the spinal cord in which, in one series of experiments, he used eighty horses and asses. "On June 3d we again called at Alfort; we learned that about one hundred different experiments are performed there on each horse. Four horses are vivisected at one time, and eight boys are at work vivisecting each horse at the same time. These experiments begin at six o'clock and last until about noon. "On June 10th we again called at this hell for horses, and witnessed this most horrible vivisection of three horses; many of the hundred experiments are repeated -5- by each student, making probably two hundred experiments actually performed on each horse; when the end approached each of these wretched animals looked more like a piece of live meat that like anything on this earth. I took a complete record of each of these experiments and have it before me but will not sicken the readers of the Transcript by giving the list. We saw no anaesthetic in use or about the laboratories or elsewhere, and in answer to our question the highly intelligent attache whose express duty it is to show visitors about and give them information, told us that no anaesthetics were used there, as the animals were so securely bound as to be incapable of resistance and anaesthetics would be wholly unnecessary. [In his published "Experiences" Mr. Peabody gives a list of over 100 of the operations mentioned, taken from "Exercises de Chirurgie Hippique," by P. J. Cadiot, Professor of the Veterinary School, written for the express use of the (boy) students at the school.] State of New Hampshire, July 17, 1895. Carroll ss. Then personally appeared the above-named Philip G. Peabody, A. M. LL. B., and George Baudry, M. D., and made oath that they have read the foregoing paper, know the contents thereof, and that they know the same to be true. Before me, DANA J. BROWN, Justice of the Peace [We are largely indebted to the Zoophilist (London) for the following: In the London times of August 8th, 1863, a letter from its Paris correspondent contained many frightful details of cruelties to animals in Physiological Laboratories, after which the correspondent proceeded to give an account of the veterinary vivisections then going on an Alfort, as follows: "At the Veterinary College of Alfort a wretched horse is periodically given up to a group of students to experimentalize upon. They tie him down and torture him for hours, the operations being graduated in such a manner (this is given on the authority of Dr. Guardia, of the Academy of Medecine) that sixty and even more may be performed before death ensues. . . . At Lyons . . . the removal of the hoof, which causes frightful suffering, is practised upon the living horse, once by each pupil, on the day on which he passes examination." At Toulouse, there is also a veterinary college where, there is reason to suppose, the same agonizing operations are carried on. In 1866, after an attempt had been made to prevent the recurrence of these proceedings, George Fleming, F. R. G. S., F. A. S. L., afterwards President of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, London, describes, in a prize essay, what he saw at Alfort, from which we extract as follows: "We take our illustrations from the clinique of the Imperial School at Alfort, vouching that it is not an overdrawn picture. Mondays and Thursdays are the operation days, and generally eight horses are provided for this purpose on each of these days. A section of pupils is put to each animal. Each student is called upon to rehearse eight distinct operations; so that, altogether, a single animal has to -6- submit to sixty-four attacks of cutting instruments, or burning—each attack painful, nearly all of them actively so, and all in one day. These students are scarcely under the control of any one—though a professor now and then makes his appearance from the forenoon up to three o'clock. From six o'clock in the morning until three or four in the afternoon is occupied in completing this long and dreary list of operations. "After scores of cuttings of all descriptions the exhausted animal is then thrown down and the next series of operations begins. Among these are: HORSE FASTENED IN HOLDER. "No. 2." This illustrates another kind of holder much older than Nos. 1 and 4, This animal seems to have had all four of its legs amputated at the knee joints for some "humane," and surgical purpose no doubt: the fact of his being fastened in a holder shows beyond a doubt that he is alive and unaesthetized: moreover, I was told in the most emphatic way that anaesthetics were never used and were never necessary because the animals were so tightly fastened as to be incapable of moving. P. G. P. Puncturing the cornea of each eye; cauterizing with the firing iron every part of the body which may ever be supposed to require that painful and last resource— for example, long and deep lines along the course of the spine, the shoulders, the quarters, over the articulations, the whole of the limbs, etc.; division of the nerves of sensation in each leg; removal of the lateral cartilages of the hoof; amputation of the ears; and often, to finish up with, tenotomy, or division of the flexor tendons of all the limbs. Other minor operations are, of course, not forgotten in this awful program; but I have only mentioned those which seem to be most -7- worthy of notice, without seeking to magnify the horrible detail. "From the rising of the sun until near its setting these bloody deeds have been enacted, and every session the walls of that enclosure have witnessed an amount of slaughter and torture which almost eclipses the gladiatorial shambles of Imperial Rome. Need I say that the sight furnished by these eight poor animals. when this so-called 'dexterity' has done its work, is not to be paralleled by a battle field when the excitement has passed away, or in the customs or ceremonies of the most savage nations. Their ghastly appearance is indescribable, and if any life is left it but exaggerates and distorts their hideousness." In an address by Dr. Henry J. Bigelow, Professor of Surgery in Harvard University before the Massachusetts Medical Society (published in Our Dumb Animals, January 1872,) occurred the following: My heart sickens as I recall the spectacle at Alfort, in former times, of a wretched horse, one of many hundreds broken with age and disease, resulting from lifelong and honest devotion to man's service, bound upon the floor, his skin scored with a knife like a gridiron, his eyes and ears cut out, his teeth pulled, his arteries laid bare, his nerves exposed and pinched and severed, his hoofs pared to the quick, and ever conceivable and fiendish torture inflicted upon him, while he groaned and gasped, his life carefully preserved under this continued and hellish torment, from early morning until afternoon, for the purpose, as it was avowed, of familiarizing the pupil with the motions of the animal." In 1867, a deputation went to France from England (sent, we believe, by the R. S. P. C. A.) for the purpose of appealing to Napoleon III., who was then on the throne, to interfere in the matter. The Emperor replied that he would lay the appeal before a commission, but their report pronounced the multitudinous operations to be "necessary," and nothing was done. In 1877 Mr. James Cowie, a humane and eminent English veterinary, visited Alfort. He reports what he saw thus (p. 11): "I witnessed on both occasions most of the operations already, and in course of being performed, as described by Mr. Fleming, which it is unnecessary to recapitulate. As an example, I shall relate only two cases which more especially drew my attention on the first occasion. One of the horses, whose bowels were still reeking, had just died under the torture of the knife. Its tormentors had commenced cutting into the larynx, continuing down into the aesophagus, trachea, to the thorax and abdomen, exposing the internal organs. It appeared that the whole of these had been deliberately dissected and examined, which must have occupied several hours, during which the wretched creature must have suffered a lingering, painful death. "The other unfortunate animal had for some time been under the torture of its merciless enemies, and was still alive. The hoofs and soles had been cut into and wrenched off, which left the feet one shapeless mass of gore; its head was hardly discernible from gashes; a red hot iron was applied to the various parts of the body, making deep, fantastic-shaped corrosions. By the time this poor creature was so much exhausted (although unbound, for the bandages had been removed, as no longer necessary) as to be unable to make any show of resistance. A shiver came occasionally over its body, and it would every now and again raise its-8- mangled head, and look back woefully and wistfully to its tormentors as if pleading for mercy." Mr. Cowie at once began an agitation in which he succeeded in having the matter brought before the French Cabinet, and an order was issued by the Minister of Agriculture and Commerce directing that only four operations should be permitted upon the living animals—the seton, the bleeding, tracheotomy and trepaning. "No. 4" This illustrates the same holder as No 1, and simply shows the animal in a different position, a very painful one as will readily be seen. The "twitch" may be observed on his nose.—P. G. P. From that time until the summer of 1895, when Mr. Peabody several times visited the institution, it was supposed these instructions were being carried out. Following Mr. Peabody's revelations of the work at Alfort the Committee of the Victoria St. Society, London, engaged the services of the eminent veterinary surgeon, Mr. George Cheverton, to visit Alfort and report upon what he might find there. He proceeded to Paris and after considerable trouble and delay gained entrance to the demonstrating theatre of the Veterinary School. We extract from his report as follows: "The grounds are very extensive and the buildings and stables all that could be desired . . . I saw an operation being performed, WITHOUT ANAESTHETICS upon a horse. The four legs were -9- bound together tightly by rope, one student sitting on the head, another on the neck and a third on the shoulder, whilst a fourth operated for disease of the hoof, cutting away a large portion. THE GROANS OF THE POOR CREATURE WERE SOMETHING APPALLING." Later Mr. Cheverton visited several veterinary surgeons who had been pupils at the school and was informed that "Vivisection of the kind reported by Mr. Peabody was carried out under the strictest seal of secresy and in the presence of a few pupils of the fourth year, who themselves have the greatest interest not to divulge their experience. I was also informed that the Minister of Agriculture officially forbids it, and should he or any of his officials put in an appearance the poor creature under torture would be dispatched before the visitor arrived at the Chamber of Horrors. . . . No anaesthetics are used." The Zoophilist concludes: "How the barbarity of practicing on the living animals has crept back into the school is yet unknown. But that it has done so to the extent described by Mr. Peabody in his harrowing account of his visit and that of Dr. Baudry to Alfort, there is, unfortunately, no room to doubt. All our efforts must be directed to obtain the reversion to the rational system (Under which English veterinary surgery has attained its high eminence) of practice on dead carcasses only, and to the final prohibition of the unutterably cruel manglings which brutalize the students and turn the noble animal they have tortured into 'the likeness more of a piece of living meat than of any animal on this earth.'" "It is, indeed, a momentous fact that a graduate of this hell of horses has come to America and is actually teaching embryo horse doctors, after the manner of things in use at Alfort. His name is Zuill, and he exploits himself in Philadelphia behind locked doors, in a building having windows near its roof, so as to prevent what goes on there from being known outside. It is exceedingly difficult to gain access to these places anywhere. In America and in England vivisection is concealed and guarded like the crime it is. On the continent it is less timidly carried on. I know from my own experience that vivisection at every laboratory I have ever visited is not done behind open doors (as vivisectors claim) but very secretly."—Philip G. Peabody. In regard to the vivisection of other animals, Mr. Peabody says, in the same sworn statement: "On May 16 of this year (1895) at Alfort, France, Dr. Baudry and I saw animals being vivisected and on hand for vivisection so numerous that it was utterly impossible to count them. Some idea of the number may be found when I say that in one room we counted thirty-five cages, many containing four to five animals in each cage; eight or ten animals could have comfortably lived in each cage; these cages are part of the structure, being permanently built in the room. Dogs, cats, sometimes with broods of kittens, rabbits, guinea pigs, parrots, pigeons, horses and mules were all there; one dog had four or five puppies. In another room in the same institution we counted twenty-eight, and in a third room twenty-four cages of dogs; several cages contained rabid dogs—in one case two rabid dogs being actually confined in the same cage. Many other rooms full of animals existed at this same institution, which I will not mention further than to say that we saw several hundred animals there, all intended for vivisection, and we failed to go into half of the rooms. On June 1 of this year (1895) we were shown through the Pasteur Institutein Paris, and found the whole place, consisting of many buildings, literally alive with animals; in one room we counted, one hundred and twenty-seven cages, some containing twenty animals in a cage, all of which had been experimented on; we counted eighteen dogs (which animals they frequently deny having there), all of which had been inoculated with rabies - some or all - in the eye. We saw sheep, goats, rabbits, guinea pigs, rats, chickens and pigeons. We saw one laboratory where fourteen men vivisect at the same time. None of these animals, except the dogs, include those experimented on with rabies, which latter are kept in another room. We saw fully one thousand five hundred animals in this one institution, and we did not visit nearly all of the rooms." We now quote from Mr. Peabody's book, the facts of which are also included in the sworn statement: On June 4th, Mr. Peabody and Dr. Baudry visited the laboratory of Prof. Dastre at the Sorbonne, where were a vast number of animals under experiment, and others awaiting their doom. The dogs howled in agony hours after the operations upon them had ceased. The same day at another laboratory, one of the largest in France, they saw a larger black dog undergoing a blood pressure experiment; "the most terrible and agonizing of all possible vivisectional experiments;" the victim had been under this operation for hours and was "still in the trough when we left," at 6:25 o'clock. On June 5th they visited the same place and similar operations were still going on. That same day, June 5th, they visited the Paris School of Medicine, containing the laboratory of Prof. Richet, which has been the scene of some of the most terrible vivisections on record. Prof. Strauss also has a laboratory there, and countless numbers of animals are constantly sacrificed to science. On June 11th, the two investigators gained entrance to the Laboratory de Pathologie et Therapeutique Generales, in the same building as the School of Medicine, where were enacted similar scenes - profuse vivisections on large numbers of animals and no anaesthetics in any case. In the meantime, on May 22 (1895), Mr. Peabody visited the physiological laboratory of Prof. Schiff at the University of Geneva, Switzerland. He says: "There I saw a vast number of animals, far beyond the possibility of counting in the limited time I had then, but showing the vastness of the system as a part of which such a large number of animals was kept on hand. Some years ago it was stated that Schiff vivisected ten dogs each week at Geneva; ten dogs a day would seem not to be an exaggeration now for this institution. [It will be recalled by many anti-vivisectionists that the notorious Prof. Schiff retreated from Florence, Italy, in 1877, as the result of the agitation consequent upon his cruelties there. This agitation began in 1863. Miss Cobbe (of course) was concerned in it, and received the hearty cooperation of most of the English residents and nearly the whole old noblesse of Florence. It was subsequently taken up by the devoted Countess Baldelli and maintained incessantly until Schoff departed from the city. -- ED.] Mr. Peabody, on May 29th (1895), visited the laboratory of Prof. Goltz, at Strasbourg, Germany. His speciality is the most awful vivisections in brains, spinal cords, and spines of monkeys and dogs. THE PASTEUR INSTITUTE. AN ENGLISH GENTLEMAN TELLS WHAT HE SAW THERE IN THE SUMMER OF 1894. In the London Echo of Aug. 1, appears an article written by a well-known resident of London, whose truth and veracity are unquestioned. We extract from it the most important details, as follows, in his own words: "Why not go to Paris and see the much-talked-of Pasteur Institute?" said a friend of mine, Mr. Philip G. Peabody, attorney and counsellor-at-law, son of the highly-respected Judge Peabody, of New York; "you would be able to tell your English countrymen something about Pasteurism, and this might be of use, especially in view of the interest excited over the proposed 'Institute of Preventative Medicine' for London, and the great opposition to it that was displayed." And so it came to pass that at ten o'clock on the morning of July the 14th, and carrying an introduction from an English Member of Parliament, I stood outside the famous 45, Rue Dutot. The building stands in its own grounds, which are exceedingly well kept, and at first sight there is nothing to indicate the character of the pace, except that running along the front of the building, immediately over the first story, can be read in large stone letters the words "Institut Pasteur." We knocked at the door of a well-built iodge, and my interpreter explains that "Monsieur is an Englishman who wishes to see the laboratories of M. Pasteur and his inoculations." I present my card of introduction, when I am politely informed that the 14th being a National Fete day no inoculations will take place, and the next day being Sunday no patients are treated then, but if I will come on Monday morning I shall be shown around. But, hark ! listen to those dogs so furiously barking, not the bark of freedom, or frolic, or joyous life. The spot whence comes the noise is hidden by trees, and beautiful verdure makes the place deceptive, but that barking, when it strikes upon the ear freezes the blood with fear and dreadful anticipation of possible danger, it is so unlike anything heard from the dog when in freedom. These are the dogs that inoculation has driven mad and only wait their turn to be stewed into cultures, to be further squirted into the blood of the credulous. Mr. Williams then tells of his prompt return on the following Monday to the Institute. Men, women and children were present to receive the deadly hydrophobia virus in their veins. Dr. Roux, the son-in-law of Pasteur, was present. Mr. Williams says: He showed us the rooms devoted to cuiltivation of anthrax, Asiatic cholera, and the rabies culture; he pointed out that the building was divited into numerous laboratories, which were used by students and professors; and he pointed out with evident pride his own laboratory, in which I observed a little pug dog which Dr. Roux explained had just been inoculated. This was evidently the first "job" after breakfast, and as I patted the little fellow my imagination followed him through the different stages of the poison with which he had just been inoculated, until, in a few days, he would become a raving and dangerous prisoner in one of the cages which I knew to be somewhere hidden in the grounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In several of the rooms were lying about the dissected bodies of animals, and also numbers of them still living, who would be the next subjects for examination, and who were then only waiting the final completion of the slow process of poisoning to bring about their lingering and cruel deaths. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "But where, Doctor," said the interpreter at my request. "are the pens where the larger stock of animals is kept? Monsieur wishes to see them." But Dr. Roux was obdurate in refusing to show them, as I think, because of the expression of tenderness on the part of the ladies; but these pens were what I most desired to see. I had read descriptions of the laboratories, and followed closely the system through its many stages. I wanted to see the victims, so that I could tell my countrymen what the erection of the "Institute of Preventive Medicine" in London involved in suffering to the animals. "Interpreter, please inquire at the lodge and see if I can come early in the morning to see around the pens," said I, and so the following morning for the third time I stand at Pasteur's great gate behind which exists that mighty living tomb of so many sentient creatures. I am shown a side path, and the attendant unlocks the gate, which I notice is carefully fastened again behind us, running along the length of the grounds. On our right hand are a dozen houses which might easily be mistaken for stables; these are opened and I enter. They are crowded with cages, baskets, &c , which contain animals in different stages of inoculation; these are removed day by day, as the various viruses develop, until they reach the final stage, which to many of them will be a slow process of "rotting to death." There are hundreds of rabbits, ducks, guinea pigs, fowls, rats, mice, &c. Some of these have young, developing disease in them. We enter a very high iron building. I walk up and down it, for it is divided into sections, many of which contain a dog whose barking is terrible to hear. I do not recognize in these furious, desperate creatures man's faithful friend. I count twenty-two of them. They are, indeed, appalling to see. Many valuable breeds are among them. One poor wretch has torn and scarred his nose and face in vain attempts to tear away the iron network that exists between it and those who look upon it. He will most likely die soon, die "driven mad." Leaving the dog, we turn to the left of the grounds, and enter a long room. In doing so we pass between two horses. I inquire what they are kept for, and am told they have been inoculated. Further to my right I see what may be a cow-house, but do not enter it. Looking around I see two cats. These are still at large, even though they have been inoculated, as it is found they die too quickly if confined to cages. In that long room just mentioned I am amazed at the number of animals kept; there could not have been much less than a thousand, whole cages of rabbits, which I read from a label had been inoculated with the "cholera virus," and bearing the name of Dr. Metchinkopp. I see the rabbits so paralyzed in their hind-quarters that they cannot move, and they look up to you through glazed eyes - a picture of helpless suffering. Fowls lie slowly dying of tuberculosis. I saw hundreds of eyes red with inflammation, the result of inoculation in the sensitive organ of sight. I count thirty bodies thrown out into different corners of the room, evidently of those whose long sufferings have mercifully ceased in the previous night. I walk across the grounds, and stop before a large stove-like looking thing in a corner; it is the crematorium which Pasteur had erected to burn the bodies of the deliberately-cultivated diseased victims of this much disputed scientific system. Set the fire going, for, look ! - as I hold my nostrils against the most unwholesome stench that ever assailed the sense of man - I count fifty animals awaiting fuel. the busy flies are there, as previous visitors have described, and it seems quite possible for them to carry on their feet and wings the germs of disease, to the danger of the community outside the Institute; and there is the heap of rubbish, consisting of broken culture glass, tubes, and wads of cotton wool. The existence of this heap has been denied, so I stoop down and pick up a culture glass, which I determine to bring away as some evidence of truth I beg to submit to my readers the following proofs that Pasteurism is by no means unanimously accepted by the medical profession. Mr. Philip Serle, the secretary of the French Society against vivisection, who lives at Paris, told me that there was a steadily growing feeling against Pasteurism on the part of many leading Paris medical men. Dr. Lutaud declares "Pasteur does not cure hydrophobia; he gives it." Further, I have a list of names and addresses of 263 persons who have died of hydrophobia after undergoing Pasteur's alleged preservative. This will be sent to anyone who applies to Benjamin Bryan, Esq., Westminster. And, moreover, wherever an institute has been erected the disease of hydrophobia has increased in dogs and men. Dr. Dolan seems justified in his assertion "that far from lessening the sum of human misery, Pasteur has increased it," while our English Dr. Charles Bell Taylor, F. R. C. G., which has afflicted men of science for centuries." After leavihg the Pasteur Institute I was fortunate enough to obtain a card of admission to the Paris School of Medicine, where dogs and monkeys are vivisected by the hundred, and every diabolical cruelty inflicted, without even the need of a license. The building is very large, and as I stood in the court-yard I could hear the barking of dogs kept for the immediate use of the students and working physiologists. I am anxious to visit Professor R-'s laboratory, and so, pushing open a door, I find myself in a larger room filled with the apparatus of torture. An attendant who resents my intrusion came forward, but my card allows me to visit any of the rooms, or attend any demonstrations or lectures. Presently a student comes in; we introduce ourselves, he through his bad English, I through my equally bad French. He explains to me that there will be no demonstrations by Professor R-, who is, indeed, out of Paris until November. But what, then, means those dogs about the premises? I had counted thirty. Monkeys, ten in number, were gibbering from their cages; frogs - "God's gift to the vivisector," as one of them claimed them to be - were there in scores, and three ducks were waddling about a water vessel that stood four feet high from the ground. Oh ! these few animals were for the more industrious students who did not go in for recreation, whether of an innocent character or not, but who rather chose to stay and hack away at these living creatures. I was too late that day to see any experiment. "Monsieur must come again and we will show him," said the obliging student; so I walk around and examine the various tools of the physiologists's working life. For the first time in my life I see the "internal machine" used in producing "artificial respiration," which prevents the animal dying under torture according to the law of its own existence. It is much more elaborate in design than any drawing of it I have ever seen; near by was a large gas lamp used in the production of power necessary to work it. I saw one of the many vivisecting tables still dripping with the blood of its day's victim. I must leave the place with its terrible associations of suffering. As I go out of the courtyard at the other angle to which I entered, I hear the sound of a howling dog coming from a room over whose door I read, "Directeur des Travaux de Physiologie." I enter, but my admission is challenged by two professors and two assistants; my card is again presented, and I am allowed to remain. The dog, a large Newfoundland, is already bound securely to the table by strong cords to each of his legs; he struggles violently and shakes and rocks the heavy table, but to no purpose; he cannot escape. At his side one of the professors is injecting chloral, which is no true anaesthetic. Presently a knife is taken, the skin of the animal is cut carefully open down to the skull, but what is that curious instrument in the assistant's hands? He heats it at a gas jet, and a current is set in motion that produces a red heat at the top, and with this he sears the flesh of the mutilated animal; the electric cautery thus prevents the poor lacerated creature from mercifully bleeding to death. I had never expected to smell the burning flesh of a living animal, and it came to me that day with a terribly new experience. A brass plate was screwed upon the skull of the animal, and a hole was made through to the brain with a circular saw, and into this hole was poured an electric current from a battery on the other table; look to it, or the dog, a very powerful one, will escape, all bleeding and torn as he is. With the plunging of the animal the whole arrangement of screws, &c., have become unfastened; two men hold him and they fit the plate again and turn more currents of electricity into that brain. Will he never die? I think to myself; and my impulse is to end its misery with my pocket-knofe; but no, that will never do, and so I watch for more than two hours these infamies perpetrated in the name of Science. I never could have believed, had I not heard it, that it was possible for any animal to express human anguish as that one did through that time or torture. that dog groaned as I should have groaned; the thing is simply indescribable. I wish those groans could be heard for five minutes by every English man and woman; if so, vivisection would be prohibited by the consensus of our common humanity, and so, sick and horrified, I left the place, the victim still in the hands of his merciless torturers. What this practice is in France it is in England; the geography of it makes no difference to the thing itself. I am not permitted to see inside the English laboratory; I have managed to get inside a French. This inquisition is in our midst today - only it is one of Science, and every good man, and woman who can realise its work in all its naked truth and hideousness will be against its remaining with us. It is infamous in its morale - some experts say dangerous - and misleading in its science, and the people must make it illegal in law. - Yours, &c., T. A. WILLIAMS. 48 Martin St., St. Paul's, Bristol, Eng., July 28 1894 ------ From a pamphlet written by HERBERT J. REID, F.S.A., F.R.S.I. (London), who visited the Institut Pasterur Feb. 22 and 23, 1894, we copy the following account of a scene in the laboratory where rabbits are trepanned in order to obtain virus for iuoculation: Upon an ordinary deal table stands a board, with four iron eyelets affixed, one at each corner. Upon the board is placed the healthy rabbit, held by Jupille. Four leather thongs are produced, and slip-knots being made, they are passed over the fore and hind legs of the trembling animal. No anaesthetic is given. The unfortunate creature being now bound and completely helpless is ready for trepanning. The assistant holds the head, the operator uses a pair of sharp, surgical scissors, with curved blades, and clips off all fur from the head, which is then moistened with an antiseptic lotion. He next makes an incision about 3/4-in. to 1-in. in length, laying bare the skill. A little instrument is then inserted, which serves the purpose of keeping the skin of the rabbit recently cut, open, and facilitates the coming operation. The wretched creature's skull is now completely bare, and the operator produces his trephine, an instrument used to cut out a circular portion of the skull. It is worked by a little handle at the side, this movement acting upon a circular saw at the base, and some 30 revolutions are sufficient to pierce the bone. When this has been effected, the piece of bone, about 1/4-in. in diameter, is removed with a small instrument, and the animal's brain is exposed to view. The prepared virus is then injected into the brain; a couple of stitches put through the skin closes the wound, and the rabbit is then removed to its pen, there to linger in incalcuable suffering for ten days, dying slowing of artificially- induced paralytic rabies. When it is dead its spinal marrow will in its turn serve to inoculate other healthy rabbits, and thus the succession of virus is secured, as also the continuity of daily suffering and torture for the victims. When I remarked the absence of chloroform, I was told it was used when necessary for dogs, but never for rabbits, as its effect would be more painful and injurious to the rabbit than the actual operation of trepanning. The conclusion is this - the rabbit is weakly, and can offer but little resistance; moreover it is not accustomed to bite. The wretched animals I saw inoculated on Friday, February 23, are today lying upon their sides in their pends, slowly dying of paralytic rabies, their hind legs extended and powerless, but their eyes turned pleadingly towards the visitor. On Monday next, 5th of March, they will have ceased to suffer. Their spinal marrow will on that day be ripe for use for the maintenance and succession of rabic virus by inoculation. The virus is prepared in the following manner: - In a metal trough a rabbit, dead at the tenth day from inoculation, is extended. With a keen blade the skin is carefully cut open from the head the length of the body. Next the skin is partially removed, exposing the flesh, which in its turn is carefully cut off, exposing the spine. This operation is most carefully performed, as is also the subsequent one of opening the backbone to expose the spinal marrow. After this the spinal marrow is removed, usually in three portions, and, affixed to a piece of thread, is suspended in a large phial, at the bottom of which is caustic potash, which absorbs all moisture. The phials are then removed to a dark room, heated to 23 deg. Centigrade, and the contents are used the next day for preparing the fluid to be inoculated into human beings. The next operation is to remove the rabbit's congested brain, which is taken into a dark room, placed in a phial, and with a small quantity of very weak sterilised veal broth, is triturated; it is then forthwith injected into a healthy rabbit's brain, after trepannation, as already described. _________ DR. DULLES ON PASTEURISM The New York Mail and Express of June 25, 1894, announced that Dr. Charles W. Dulles, of Philadelphia, had just made a contribution of great value to medical knowledge on the subject of hydrophobia, and quoted the following passages: "The number of cases of hydrophobia that occur in this country is happily small. It would doubtless be smaller still but for the exploitation of the Pasteur Institute, conducted by Gibier, in New York, and of its feeble imitator, conducted by Lagorio, in Chicago. These institutions and the newspapers that in times past have published sensational accounts of cases of so-called hydrophobia, have in a mild way reproduced some of the conditions which make France the hotbed of hydrophobia, as well as of hystero-epilepsy. But the psychological make-up of Americans is less favorable to the development of the germs of hydrophobia or those of hystero-epilepsy than that of the French, and consequently there is less of both than there is in France. "There the history of the last six years differs but little from that which I described to you in my last report. As then, so now, the number of deaths in France is greater than it was before. Pasteur just ten years ago (in May, 1884,) boasted to a newspaper reporter: 'Whoever gets bitten by a mad dog has only to submit to my three little inoculations, and he need not have the slightest fear of hydrophobia.' The year before he made the boast there were four deaths from hydrophobia in Paris (the Department of the Seine), the year after, when he had practiced his preventive medicine for six months, the deaths from hydrophobia leaped at once from four to twenty-two. The oscillations indicate that Pasteur's method has undoubtedly increased the number of deaths from hydrophobia. I have indicated what has taken place in France, and can assure you that there has been no diminution in the number of deaths from hydrophobia in any part of the world since Pasteur's infallible cures were inaugurated; and at the same time there has been added to these a large number of deaths due to inoculation with the virus of what ought to be called 'Pasteur's disease.'" The Mail and Express concludes by remarking:- "As this is not the opinion of a quack or of a notoriety seeker, it deserves the widest publicity, so that it may strengthen and reassure thousands who live in constant dread of 'mad dogs and hydrophobia.'' __________________ The fact that the Pasteur Laboratory is on French soil - instead of American - and that the proposed new Institutes of Preventive Medicine are to be located in England and India - does not diminish our duty, as Americans, in the premises. We should aid our English friends in this fight by every means in our power, unflagging and to the bitter end. PUBLISHED BY THE ILLINOIS ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY, AURORA, ILL. Anti-Vivisection Print. ADDITIONAL AMERICAN VIVISECTIONS. ABBREVIATED FROM "EXPERIMENTERS' OWN PUBLISHED REPORTS [Vivisection is practiced all over the United States, in Colleges and Universities and in many schools of Children and Youth. It will be readily seen by the following record from the experimenters' published reports that anaesthetics are frequently not used - Curare being the oppositive of an anaesthetic.} Dr. A.M. Phelps, of New York, twisted and bound the legs of dogs in unnatural positions; forced the leg of one dog over its back, binding it, and sealing it in plaster-of-paris; kept it thus 145 days. The above illustration is an exact copy of the drawing accompanying the article written by Dr. Phelps and published in "Laboratory Researches." They who know the pain of a limb even a short time in a cramped position can imagine the sufferings of this dog. Dr. Phelps also attempted to graft the leg of a living dog upon that of the shortened leg of a boy, in the New York Charity Hospital (1892). The suffering of this dog, a small spaniel, was largely commented upon at the time. Its fore leg was mutilated and fastened to the limb of the boy. The dog was encased in solid plaster dressing so he could only move head and tail; the vocal cords were cut, so he could only "moan pitifully." The "experiment" was not successful. Both boy and dog were subjected to a season of severe and needless suffering. Dr. B.A. Watson of Jersey City, in his book describes experiments upon 141 dogs that he "hoppled," raised to a height of 24 feed and dropped upon ridges of iron. The backs of some were broken. Some of the dogs lived only a few hours and others for days in terrible suffering. (Sept. 1890). This is called "Traumatism." The following descriptions of experiments may be found in the Nine Circles (published by the Victoria St. Society P.A.V., 20 Victoria St., London), which gives its authority (the medical record) in every instance: P. 18. William Halstead of New York tried "circular suture" experiments, opening the abdomen, drawing out a portion of the intestine which is sewn in a loop and placed in the abdominal cavity. "Some German experiments were not considered successful on account of small size dogs and inability to bear the suffering." (1890).OPINIONS OF NOTED PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS. Dr. Edward Berdoe, M.R.C.S., in the London Globe of Aug. 3, 1892; "I have been trying for many years to find out what the blessings are which vivisection has conferred on the race, but I have not succeeded;" and in a speech at Buda-Pesth, Hungary, July 21, 1896, he said: "It is only necessary to turn over the pages of the different journals of physiology to see that the greater part of the experiments on animals have no, or only the remotest, connection with the arts of medicine or surgery." Dr. Morgan Davies (Hounsditch), in a letter to Miss Frances Power Cobbe, Oct. 12, 1892: "Not only could we dispense with it (vivisection), but I firmly believe we should get on much more rapidly and securely without it." Jas. Macauley, A.M., M.D., London, in his Prize Essay: "More useful information can be obtained by observing the force of the heart as indicated on the delicate dial of a balance chair, than from all the experiments of vivisectors." Dr. J.M. Stewart, Prest. of the Peoria Count (Ill.) Scientific Assn.: "Vivisection is horribly cruel and practically useless." Dr. J.F. Wilkie, of Oshkosh, Wis., graduate of Rush Medical College, writes, to the Illinois Society, Jan., 1894: "As a physician, I consider vivisection futile and of no consequence to the medical profession." Prof. Lawson Tait, F.R.C.S.E., foremost abdominal surgeon of England and once a vivisector, at a meeting in St. James' Hall, London, May 26, 1891: "In the art of surgery, the practice of vivisection has done nothing but wrong." Dr. Tait long ago wrote a pamphlet entitled "The Uselessness of Vivisection," besides many letters, which have been published, and he has made many speeches reiterating these statements - up to the latter part of 1896. Wm. R.D. Blackwood, M.D., Philadelphia, Pa., in a published letter March 27, 1894: "It is physically impossible that other than misleading and false doctrines should be the result of the cruel and degrading work of vivisection." Edward Haughton, M.D., in The Zoophilist (London), Oct. 10, 1893: "I have yet to hear of a single case of discovery made by experiments on helpless animals which might not just as well have been ascertained by clinical investigation." Dr. F.S. Arnold (Manchester), in a speech a Church Congress, Oct., 1892: "I believe the whole method (experiments on animals) to be, scientifically speaking, absolutely unsound and untrustworthy * * Vivisection is most surely doomed." John Fletcher, M.D., of Edinburg Medical School, in Introductory Lecture (London), pp. 11-12: "During many years' experience in lecturing (on physiology) . . I have never yet found it necessary in a single instance to expose a suffering animal for the purpose of elucidating any point in physiology." James H. Payne, M.D., of Boston, in a letter to ANTI-VIVISECTION, March 1, 1895: "I am wholly opposed to vivisection. It is useless, wicket, cruel, barbarous and infamous. It is worse than useless. It fills the mind with false and brutal ideas. No good ever came from it and never will. It demoralizes the sensibilities and unfits one for the demonstration of real scientific truth. I pray you may prosper in your good endeavors to obliterate the hideous practice from the whole earth." _______________________ Published by the Illinois Anti-Vivisection Society, Aurora, Ill., 15c per Doz., post paid. VIVISECTION. - A DESCENT INTO HELL. "I have not the heart to plead for the utility or the morality of vivisection any longer. I had written a dozen folios successfully, as I thought, refuting Mr. Maitland's statements, with the exception of one or two minor points re inspection, concerning which I had been misinformed. It was, however, gently suggested by one who had the right to advise that, before sending off the MS., it might be well to avail myself of an open invitation to witness in person some stock experiments on living animals, especially frogs. I did so. A pledge of absolute secrecy was demanded and given; and he who so demanded was wise in his generation. One afternoon of Whit-week I descended into hell. [*entered a laboratory*] Of what I saw I may not speak, save that it was eloquent enough of what had been done before, and what would be done afterwards. I came out into the sunshine of the outer world sickened, shocked, and revolted beyond measure: the twittering of free and happy birds seemed but to thrill the air with tremendous agony - and such agony so miserably meaningless and inexpressibly pitiful was that I had left behind. I thought drearily of inquisition tortures for the good of souls; I had thought of theological casuistries anent the bloody vicarious sacrifice for the salvation of mankind. Alas, how blind we morals are ! "It simply remains to add that up to the present the intellectual judgment of this question is unchanged; but I refuse to condone that against which my heart and conscience rebel. I do not pronounce hastily, and must reconsider the matter in all its bearings, which will be a work of time. I am conscious that, in the words of Mrs. Besant, 'some prices are too dear to pay for life;' and the licensed dissection of living animals is one of them. "'Pain in man Bears the high mission of the fail and fan; In brutes 'tis purely piteous.' "Meanwhile, chiefly to Edward Maitland, but also to Mrs. Besant and A. Maconachie, my thanks are due for, however indirectly, causing me to confess an error accessory to crime" - AMOS WATERS, in the Agnostic Journal, June 25th. ____________________________ Published by the VICTORIA STREET SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANIMALS FROM VIVISECTION, UNITED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE TOTAL SUPPRESSION OF VIVISECTION, 20, VICTORIA STREEET, S.W. 7.92