Calendar No., 1144. 
54th Congress, } 
Ist Session. f 
SENATE. 
t Report 
\ No. 1049. 
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
May 26, 1896.—Ordered to be printed. 
Mr. ter, from the Committee on the District of Columbia 
submitted the following 
REPORT: 
[To accompany S. 1552.] 
The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred 
the bill (S. 1552) for the further prevention of cruelty to animals in the 
District of Columbia, have examined the same and beg leave to report: 
The bill is designed to supervise and restrict, not to prohibit vivi- 
section in this District. That its true purpose and meaning may be 
understood, the text of the bill, introduced by Senator McMillan and 
referred to your committee is given, as follows: 
A BILL, for tuß further prevention of cruelty to animals in the Distinct of Columbia. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That hereafter no person shall perform on a living animal any 
experiment calculated to give pain to such animal, except subject to the restrictions 
hereinafter prescribed. Any person performing, of taking part in performing, any 
experiment calculated to give pain, in contravention of this act, shall be guilty of 
an offense against this act, and shall, if it be the first offense, be liable to aTpenalty 
not exceeding one hundred and fifty dollars, and if it be the second or any subsequent 
offense, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court by which he is tried, to a penalty 
not exceeding three hundred dollars, or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 
six months. 
Sec. 2. That the following restrictions are imposed by this act with respect to the 
performance on any living animal of an experiment calculated to give pain to such 
animal; that is to say: 
(a) The experiment must be performed with a view to the advancement by new 
discovery of physiological knowledge, or of knowledge which will be useful for saving 
or prolonging life or alleviating suffering; and 
(b) The experiment must be performed by a person holding such license from the 
Commissioners of the District of Columbia as is in this act mentioned; and 
(c) The animal must, during the whole of the experiment, be completely under 
the influence of ether or chloroform to prevent the animal feeling pain; and 
(d) The animal must, if the pain is likely'to continue after the effect of the anaes- 
thetic has ceased, or if any serious injury has been inflicted on the animal, be killed 
before it recovers from the influence of the anaesthetic which has been adminis- 
tered ; and 
(e) No experiment shall be made upon any living creature, calculated to give pain 
to such creature, in any of the public schools of the District of Columbia; provided 
as follows, that is to say: 
First. Experiments may be-performed under the foregoing provisions as to the use 
of anaesthetics by a .person giving illustrations of lectures in medical schools, hos- 
pitals, or colleges, or elsewhere, on such certificate being given as in this act here- 
after mentioned, that the proposed experiments are absolutely necessary for the due 
instruction of the persons to whom such lectures are given, with a view to their VIVISECTION. 
acquiring physiological knowledge or knowledge which will be useful to them for 
saving or prolonging life or alleviating suffering; 
Second. The substance known as urari or curare shall not, for the purposes of this 
act, be deemed to be an amesthetic; and 
Third. Notwithstanding anything in this act contained, no experiment calculated 
to give pain shall bis performed on a dog or cat, except upon such certificate being 
given as in this act mentioned, stating, in addition to the statements hereinbefore 
required to be made in such certificate, that for reasons specified in the certificate 
the object of the experiment will be necessarily frustrated unless it is performed on 
an animal similar in constitution and habits to a cat or dog, and no other animal is 
available for such experiment; and an experiment calculated to give pain shall not 
be performed on any horse, ass, or mule, except on such certificate being given as in 
this act mentioned, that the object of the experiment will be necessarily frustrated 
unless it is performed on a horse, ass, or mule, and that no other animal is available 
for such purpose; and 
Fourth. Any exhibition to the general public, whether admission be on payment 
of money or gratuitous, of experiments on living animals, calculated to give pain, 
shall be illegal. 
Any person performing or aiding in performing such experiment shall he deemed 
to be guilty of an offense against this act, and shall, if it be the first offense, be 
liable to a penalty not exceeding one hundred and fifty dollars, and if it be the 
second or any subsequent offense, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court by 
which he is tried, to a penalty not exceeding three hundred dollars or to imprison- 
ment not exceeding six months; and any person publishing any notice of any such 
intended exhibition by advertisement in a newspaper, placard, or otherwise, shall be 
liable to a penalty not exceeding ten dollars. 
A person punished for an offense under this section shall not for the same offense 
be punishable under any other section of this act. 
Sec. 3. That the Commissioners of the District may insert, as a condition of grant- 
ing any license, a provision in such license that the place in wTiich any such experi- 
ment is to be performed by the licensee is to be registered in such manner as the said 
Commissioners may from time to time by any general or special order direct: Pro- 
vided, That every place for the performance of experiments for the purpose of 
instruction shall be approved by the said Commissioners, and shall be registered in 
such manner as the said Commissioners may from time to time by any general or 
special order direct. 
Sec. 4. That the Commissioners of the District, upon application as hereinafter 
prescribed, may license any person whom they may think qualified to hold a 
license to perform experiments under this act. A license granted by them may be 
for such time as they may think fit, and may be revoked by them on their being sat- 
isfied that such license ought to be revoked. There may be annexed to such license 
any condition which the said Commissioners may think expedient for the purpose of 
better carrying into effect the objects of this act, but not inconsistent with the pro- 
visions thereof. 
Sec. 5. That the Commissioners of the District may direct any person performing 
experiments under this act from time to time to male; reports to them of the result 
of such experiments, in such form and with such details as the said Commissioners 
may require. 
Sec. 6. That the Commissioners of the District shall cause all registered places to 
be from time to time visited by inspectors without previous notice, for the purpof* 
of securing compliance with the provisions of this Act, and shall appoint an. 
authorize an agent of the Washington Humane Society to make such inspection, and 
may also appoint such special inspectors as they may think fit, either permanently 
or temporarily, who may be willing to act as such inspectors gratuitously. 
Sec. 7. That any application for a license under tliis-y act, and for a certificate to be 
given as in this act mentioned, must be signed by three physicians duly licensed to 
practice and actually engaged in practicing medicine in the District of Columbia, 
and also by a professor of physiology, medicine, anatomy, medical jurisprudence, 
materia medica, or surgery in the medical department of any duly established and 
reliable school or college in the District of Columbia: Provided, That when any per- 
son applying for a certificate under this act is himself’ one of the persons 
to sign such certificate, the signature of some other ol such persons shall be substi- 
tuted for the signature of the applicant. 
A certificate under this section may be given for such time or for such series of 
experiments as the person signing the certificate may think expedient. 
A copy of any certificate under this section shall be forwarded by the applicant to 
the Commissioners of the District, but shall not be available until one week after a 
copy has been so forwarded. 
The Commissioners of the District may at any time disallow or suspend any certi- 
ficate given under this section. 
Sec. 8. That the powers conferred by this act of granting a license or giving a VIVISECTION. 
certificate for the performance of an experiment on living animals may be exercised 
by an order in writing, under the hand of any judge ol a court of record having 
criminal jurisdiction in the District, in a case where such judge is satisfied that it is 
essential for the purposes of justice in a criminal case to make such experiment. 
This bill was referred by the committee to the Commissioners of the 
District of Columbia for their opinion. The Commissioners ordered a 
public hearing on the subject, after which they appointed a committee, 
consisting of Surg-Geu. George M. Sternberg, United States Army, Dr. 
William C. Woodward, health officer of the District, and Mr. Henry B. 
F. Macfarland, to consider the bill and report what modifications, if 
any, were desirable. 
This committee could not agree, as the medical men insisted that no 
legislation whatever was needed, while Mr, Macfarland endeavored to 
carry out the intention of the Commissioners. Lhe result was that 
Drs. Sternberg and Woodward submitted protests against the proposed 
legislation, while Mr. Macfarland advised the enactment into law of 
the modified bill, which your committee have unanimously agreed to 
report, and which was prepared to meet the objections which had been 
raised to particular provisions of the original bill. 
It is proper to say at the outset that there is a sharp difference of 
opinion among medical men as to the value of vivisection. 
The ultra scientists assume to find in it the key to the great mystery 
of life, and loudly proclaim that the discoveries already made warrant 
the claim that human suffering is to be mitigated and human life greatly 
prolonged through the instrumentality of torture and experimentation 
upon the lower animals. On the other hand, multitudes of educated, 
humane physicians, who have learned by patient research and large 
experience the value of other methods to secure the same results, deny 
that any real advances have been made in medical knowledge in the 
laboratory of the biologist, while at the same time they deprecate and 
denounce the cruelties inflicted upon dumb animals by vivisectionists. 
It was claimed before your committee that surgery of the abdomen 
has been brought to its present high standard through vivisection, and 
yet it is a fact that Dr. Lawson Tait, the greatest oyariotomist in the 
world, is on record as saying that “Instead of vivisection having in 
any way advanced abdominal surgery, it has, on the contrary, retarded 
it.” It is also claimed that through vivisection the so called antitoxin 
serum was discovered, and that through its use the mortality from 
diphtheria has been greatly reduced. On the other hand, many of 
the most eminent physicians affirm that the chief value that antitoxin 
possesses is the commercial value to those who deal in it, and that it is 
not yet demonstrated that it has any special curative value in the 
treatment of true diphtheria. 
It is pointed out that one writer on the subject, who asserts that since 
the introduction of antitoxin a much larger proportion of cases of diph- 
theria recover than formerly, gives away his argument by saying 
that— 
It was not long after tlie discovery of tire specific infecting agent of diplitlieria 
that it became a matter of almost daily occurrence to find this bacillus in throats 
whose clinical appearance was not that of diphtheria, and further its absence was 
noted in cases that presented the typical pseudo-membrane, the former class showed 
us beyond a doubt that mild cases of diphtheria are common, and probably have not 
been recognized as such in the past. these cases should always he isolated. 
It needs no argument to prove that it tlie old-fashioned sore throat 
and follicular tonsilitis are to be called diphtheria, the proportion of 
cures, whether with antitoxin or the other remedies so well known to 
the profession, will be much greater than formerly. The opponents of VIVISECTION. 
IV 
antitoxin quote such men as Dr. Joseph Winters, of the Willard Parker 
Hospital of New York, who has had very large experience in this 
matter, and who has declared: 
Some months ago I hoped and expressed, in company with the rest of my associates 
here, that a specific for the toxin of diphtheria had at last been discovered. My 
experience of the three months, a personal experience, dealing with 150 cases at the 
hospital, has been a sad—an extremely sad—disappointment. I am here as the result 
of that experience, and I regret extremely to say it, to oppose the antitoxin treat- 
ment of diphtheria. I have watched for three months and say that not a single case 
of septic diphtheria has shown one sign of improvement under antitoxin treatment. 
Dr. Winters then called attention to the fact already cited, that sore 
throats and tonsilitis are being called diphtheria, and added: 
A man was brought in; he had a slight tonsilitis; he received antitoxin; he’s on 
the list. Almost every case examined bacteriologically comes hack to the hospital 
from the board of health as diphtheria. 
Then, so says the report, Dr. Winters described in detail the unfavor- 
able results of antitoxin as they had come under his observation—the 
great rise in temperature, the unnatural position of the head, and the 
agonizing pains in the joints. He instanced several death-bed scenes 
in a dramatic way, and the doctors listened with rapt attention. On 
the 21st day of the present month Dr, Winters read another paper on 
the subject before the New York Academy of Medicine, in which he 
attacked the use of the serum either to cure or prevent the disease. 
He began his address by saying that antitoxin had been given to the 
world as a specific for diphtheria, and that it had failed to meet expec- 
tations. In many cases it had affected the patients in exactly the 
opposite way, and had caused cardiac troubles that had led to death. 
It acts on the nervous system, causing paralysis, and affects other 
organs of the body. 
Scores of other eminent physicians could be quoted who hold the same 
views, thus conclusively demonstrating that the claims of vivisection- 
ists that they are entitled to the credit of this wonderful discovery (!) will 
have more force after it has been shown that antitoxin is of any real 
value. The writer of this report, who modestly claims to possess a 
slight degree of medical knowledge, and who indulges the hope that 
this remedy for diphtheria may yet be found to be one of genuine 
merit, and that through its use the ravages of this dread disease may 
be greatly lessened, has carefully investigated the subject and is con- 
vinced that antitoxin is still on trial, a view concurred in even by 
many medical men who believe that its value in the treatment of diph- 
theria will ultimately be proved and accepted, but who naturally are 
rather skeptical in view of the fate that befel Koch’s lymph, Brown- 
Sequard’s Elixir of Life, and many other widely heralded medical fads. 
More space has been given to this phase of the question than may 
seem necessary, but inasmuch as the average vivisectiouist starts out 
with the assertion that the opponents of vivisection propose to limit 
scientific investigations that have resulted in such wonderful discoveries 
as that of antitoxin, it is certainly proper to state both sides of that 
interesting question. And it may be added in this connection that 
the alarming stories about hydrophobia that the disciples of Pasteur 
(vivisectionists) relate have, in the opinion of a considerable part of the 
medical profession, little if any foundation in fact. Hydrophobia is a 
disease so rare that many physicians in large practice for a quarter of 
a century and more have never seen a case, and yet the Pasteur Insti- 
tutes are crowded with people bitten by dogs entirely free from rabies, 
and so-called science (?) encourages the delusion. 
One of the most instructive addresses ever delivered on the subject VIVISECTION. 
of vivisection was by the distinguished Professor Theophilus Parvin, of 
Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, before the American Academy 
of Medicine, of this city, May 4, 1891. This distinguished scientist 
refused his assent to every claim set up by vivisectionists that scientific 
knowledge could only be made certain through experiments on the 
lower animals. He described a class of vivisectionists 
Who seem seeking useless knowledge, to be blind to the yviithing 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 and the profession that their wick- 
edness deserves and demands. These criminals are not confined to Germany or 
France, to England or Italy, but may be found in our own country. 
He aro-ued that vivisection should be restricted by law, “and in every 
case, so far as possible, the animal during and subsequent to the opera- 
tion must be preserved from pain.” In discussing Koch s alleged cure 
for tuberculosis and Pasteups preventive inoculations for 
this noted physician ventured the prediction that 
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that before many years the average 
results from antihydrophobic and antituberculous inoculations will be of such an 
unfavorable character that they will give one of the strongest arguments against 
vivisection. 
This was spoken in 1891, and it is instructive to recall the fact that 
the “antituberculous inoculations” of Koch, over which the medical 
profession literally lost its head, were long ago relegated to the tomb 
of forgotten things. Just how soon other ot the great triumphs of 
vivisection will share the same fate time alone can tell. 
Turniuo' aside from the technical discussion ot the question, it will be 
instructive to try to ascertain what vivisection really is,and what both 
the advocates and the opponents of the practice affirm in regard to it. 
As an appendix to this report will be printed an elaborate hearing 
before a subcommittee of this committee, held on the 17th day of April 
last, in which both sides of the question were argued by learned and 
able men. It is proper to say that the advocates ot \ ivisection were 
permitted to add to the report a large amount of material not submitted 
at the hearing, and to some extent the same privilege was accorded to 
the friends of the bill. , . ~ 
It will be observed that the bill is restrictse, not prohibitive, and 
yet the memorial adopted by the Medical Society of the District of 
Columbia starts out with the misleading statement that 4 an effort is 
bein°- made by certain citizens of this District to secure the passage ot 
a bill to prevent experiments upon living animals ” What wonder is 
it that the same memorial characterizes the writings of antrvivisec- 
tionists BiS 
from the writings of certain physicians who oppose vivisection are 
“garbled.” This is neither argument nor fair controversy. The lines 
are clearly drawn between those who believe in the unrestricted torture 
brute creation, and those who would, so far as possible, piotect 
the horse the dog, and the cat from barbarities the mere mention of 
which makes the blood curdle in the veins of every man and woman who 
is unwilling to make a sacrifice of human sympathy and human tender- 
ness on the altar of so-called scientific investigation. 
Probably no bill was ever presented to Congress which received the 
indorsement of so distinguished a list of men and women as this one. 
The city was not canvassed thoroughly, but in two days the names of 
several hundred men and women were secured, representing the lead- 
ers in every department of human activity in this great capital. 
the names are to be found the following, who seem to have VI 
VIVISECTION. 
been strongly influenced by the “sensational nonsense” of the anti- 
vivisectionists: 
Justices John M. Harlan, H. B, Brown, David J. Brewer, E. D. 
White, E. W. Beckham, and George Shiras, jr., of the Supreme Court 
of the United States j Justices Walter S. Cox, A. B. Hagner, and C. C. 
Cole, of the supreme court of the District of Columbia. 
Chief Justice W. A. Eichardson and Justices C. C. Kott and Law- 
rence Weldon, of the United States Court of Claims. 
Bishop John J. Keane, rector of the Catholic University of America; 
Bishop Henry Y. Satterlee, Bishop John F. Hurst, Archdeacon Thomas 
S. Childs, Eev. Dr. Alexander Mackay Smith, rector of St. John’s; 
Eev. Dr. Eaudolph H. McKim, rector of Epiphany; Eev. Dr. John H. 
Elliott, rector of the Ascension; Eev Dr. J. A. Aspinwall, rector St. 
Thomas’s Church; Eev. Dr. Tennis S. Hamlin, pastor Church of the 
Covenant; Eev. Dr. Byron Sunderland, pastor First Presbyterian 
Church; Eev. Thomas C. Easton, pastor Eastern Presbyterian Church; 
Eev. Dr. Frederick D. Power, pastor Vermont Avenue Christian 
Church; Eev. Dr. Oliver A. Brown, pastor Foundry M. E. Church; 
Eev. Dr. Frank Sewall, pastor Kew Church; Eev. Dr. J. G. Butler, 
pastor Memorial Church; Eev. Dr. Alexander Kent, pastor People’s 
Church. 
Gen. and Mrs. Kelson A. Miles, Mrs. U. S. Grant, Mrs. George Hearst, 
Mrs. John Davis, Mrs, A. W. Greely, Mrs. L. Z, Leiter, Mrs. Madeleine 
Vinton Dahlgren, Mrs. W. M. Stewart, Mrs. S. Powhatan Carter, Mrs. 
Florence Murray, Mrs. Eobert Anderson, Mrs. George Shiras, jr., Mrs. 
H. B. Brown, Miss Emma Morton, Mrs. Henry M. Teller, Miss Oliver 
Eisley Seward, Mr. and Mrs. A. L. Barber, Mr. and Mrs. Henry F. 
Blount, Mr. and Mrs. Henry B. F. Macfarland, Mrs. Benaiah L. Whit- 
man, Gen. and Mrs. Eufus Saxton, Gen. John G. Parke, Gen. D. S. 
Stanley, Gen. J. S. Fullerton, Gen. H. V. Boynton, Gen. James H. 
Watmough, ex-Senator Charles F. Manderson, ex-Senator John B. Hen- 
derson, Eepresentative Charles L. Henry, ex-Justice Andrew Wylie, 
ex-Commissioner John W. Douglass, Mr. Crosby S. Koyes, Mr. Theo- 
dore W. Koyes, Mr. S. H. Kauffmann, Mr. John E. McLean, Mr. John 
Joy Edson, Mr. B. H. Warner, Mr, Charles J. Bell, Mr. Samuel M. 
Bryan, Mr. James E. Fitch, Mr. John B. Wight, Comptroller James H. 
Eckels, Mr. E. Eoss Perry, Mr. Enoch Totten, Mr. W. D. Davidge, 
Mr. Jere M. Wilson, Mr. Mahlon Ashford, Mr. Kathaniel Wilson, Mr. 
Anthony Pollok, Mr. Calderon Carlisle, Mr. J. Hubley Ashton, Mr. 
J. C. Heald, Mr. Halbert E. Paine, Mr. Eeginald Fendall, Mr. Benja- 
min Butterworth, Mr. Samuel Maddox, Mr. J. J. Darlington, Mr. A. 
G. Eiddle, Mr. Henry E. Davis, Mr, Chapin Brown, Mr. H. Eandall 
Webb, Mr. John Sidney Webb, Mr. William A, Gordon, Mr, J. Holds- 
worth Gordon, Mr. William Henry Dennis, Mr. W. He din Woodward, 
Mr. Leigh Eobinson, Mr. E. E. Lee, jr., Mr. Montgomery Blair, Mr. 
Frank T. Browning, Mr. William Stone Abert, Mr. Story B. Ladd, Judge 
Thomas F. Miller, Mr. Crammond Kennedy, Mr. John Cassels, Mr. and 
Mrs. Charles M. Ffoulke, Mr. and Mrs. Horace S. Cummings, Mr.W. M. 
Poindexter, Mr. Maxwell Woodhull, Elliott Coues, A. M., M. D., etc., 
late professor of anatomy, Kational Medical College; Dr. F. A. Gard- 
ner, Dr. S. S. Stearns, Dr. James A. Freer, Dr. Eeginald Munson, Dr. 
L. E. Eauterberg,Dr. S. I. Groot, Dr. Leigh Yerkes Baker, Dr. Water- 
man F. Corey, Dr, Charles B. Gilbert, Mr. A. S. Pratt, Mr. William D. 
Cabell, Maj. E. H. Montgomery, U. S. A,; Maj. Frank G. Smith, U. S. A.; 
Maj. Eobert Craig, U. S. A.; James A. Bates, U. S. A.; David A. Irwin, 
U. S. A.; Theodore Mosher, U. S. A.; Mr. and Mrs. Francis E. Leupp, VIVISECTION. 
VII 
Mrs. Albert T. Salter, Frances B. de Krafft, Mr. and Mrs. William D. 
Windom, Mr. E, A. Carman, Mr. Seaton Perry, Messrs. Harris and 
Shafer, Mr. James Lansburgh, Mr. Charles W. Needham, Mr. John B. 
Cotton, Mr. F. W. Pratt, Mr. and Mrs. Charles A. Boynton, Mr. 
Andrew Langdon, Mr. Robert I. Fleming, Mr. John Tweedale, Miss 
Euth G. D. Havens, Mrs. Clara Bewick Colby, Mr. August Burgdorf, 
Mr. and Mrs. J. Walter Fewkes, Mr. A. G. Heaton, Mr. Charles S. Brad- 
ley, Mr. William Ballantyne. 
It is to be regretted that the limits of a committee report will not 
admit of the introduction of a mass of instructive material on hand 
bearing on this subject. It- would be interesting to cite the thousands 
of names of leading physicians, clergymen, educators, and others who 
have unsparingly denounced some of the practices of vivisectionists. 
It warms the heart to know that men like Chief Justice Coleridge, Hr. 
Morgan Dix, Dr. Phillips Brooks, Alfred Tennyson, Robert Browning, 
John G. Whittier, and a host of other distinguished clergymen and 
humanitarians, living and dead, have given the v eight of their words 
and influence against the practice; and it is also instructive to know 
that out of 1,239 replies from physicians in Aew 1 ork and Massachu- 
setts to an inquiry made by the American Humane Association in 1895 
28 were evasive, 243 were in favor of unlimited vivisection, and 968 were 
against it. This would seem to effectually dispose of the charge so 
freely made that those who advocate the proposed legislation are sen- 
timentalists and sensationalists, and that they are striking a blow at 
medical freedom and scientific progress. 
The very essence of the protest against the ciuel practices of some 
vivisectionists is found in the utterance of Rev. Hi. Hix in a letter to 
Philip G. Peabody, esq., of Boston, as follows: 
I have read accounts of the tortures inflicted in the name of science on the crea- 
tures committed to our care or placed in our power bj a Divine Providence, and 
they have made me sick at heart for weeks together. I shall never peruse these 
frightful statistics again. I have also read what arguments are made in extenuation 
or recommendation of the practice, and their only effect as been to strengthen my 
conviction that man is capable of becoming the most barbarous and most merciless 
of all agents. , . , ~ , 
I gladly join with anyone who protests against the abuse of our power over con- 
fiding and intelligent animals. 
The lower creation is a deep mystery Ihere are in 1* intelligent and sensitive 
heino-s with virtues which man may well imitate, and with qualities which inspire 
affection. God has given us dominion over them and powers which we ought not to 
abuse; and when I go into His presence I wish to be able to tell Him that I abhor, 
detest, and protest against the tortures of these poor creatures under the pretense of 
thereby benefiting our own lordly race. 
You may make what use you please ot this lettei. 
The opponents of the proposed legislation broadly affirm that it is 
uncalled for, unnecessary and mischievous. They claim that the require- 
ments of the bill are already complied with, and at the same time argue 
that its enactment into law will interfere with it nob entirely stop further 
scientific researches. It is difficult to this reasoning, for if the 
bill contemplates only what is now in practice, no harm can possibly 
come from the law. It is also claimed by the medical officials \\ 110 
directly represent the Government that Congress has no right to place 
them under the supervision of inspectors to be appointed by the 
Commissioners of the District of Columbia. Mobile it is not conceded 
that any Department is beyond the power of Congress to regulate it as 
Congress may see fit, yet to obviate this objection the bill has been so 
changed as to place the appointing power in the hands of the President 
of the United States instead of the Commissioners of the District of 
Columbia, as was first contemplated. VIII 
VIVISECTION. 
From the fact that great and unnecessary cruelties are inflicted upon 
animals in foreign countries and in some of the States of the American 
Union by vivisectiouists, it is reasonable to suppose that the District 
of Columbia is not entirely free from the abuse. If, however, as was 
claimed before your committee, such is the fact, the bnactmeut of a law 
on the subject will do no harm, while if the abuse exists 1 g d restric- 
tions are imperatively demanded; and the fact can be ascertained abso- 
lutely only by such impartial inspection as would be made by the 
inspectors provided by the bill. 
It is universally conceded that in some European countries, and espe- 
cially in France and Germany, the most atrocious cruelties are perpe- 
trated upon animals in the name of science; but in some quarters it has 
been asserted that such cruelties are unusual in this country. In Eng- 
land, as a result of investigations by a royal commission, vivisection is 
under governmental restriction, and it is doubtless carried on in a more 
humane way than formerly. It will be instructive to ascertain some of 
the practices now in vogue by modern vivisectiouists. 
From “A clinical and experimental study of massage,” by Dr. A. 
Oastex, in Archives Generates de Medecine for January and February, 
1892, the following is extracted: 
Thanks to Dr. Ch. Richet, I made in his laboratory last summer various experi- 
ments on dogs. 
First experiment.—Large watch dog. Extended on the vivisecting table on its 
stomach—the four limbs and head fastened, but not too tightly. * * * With a 
large, empty stone bottle I strike a dozen violent blows on the thighs. The animal, 
by its cries, more and more violent, indicates that the bruise is great, and vividly 
felt (p. 9). 
Second experiment.—Large hound. The animal is fixed like the former. Placing 
myself at a certain height, that my mallet may strike with greater force on the part 
to be experimented upon, I give, with all the strength of my right arm, twelve suc- 
cessive blows with a great, wooden mallet, some on the deltoid, some on the shoulder, 
some at the back, some in front. As in the first case, this dog indicates by his cries 
that the bruises are very painfully felt, after which he falls into a sort of sleep, 
broken by moans, for ten minutes. After this again he awakes agitated, and seems 
to suffer more than the first dog. 
Sixth experiment (July 18,1890).—A large watch dog. I try, at first ineffectively, to 
dislocate the shoulder. I only succeeded in dislocating the elbow and in fracturing the 
right carpus by torsion. Four days afterwards the animal is worse, has diarrhea, and 
the eyes are glazed. 
* * * It is the more interesting to see the animal use his forepaw, etc. 
Seventh experiment.—Large hitch. We proceed without anaesthetics, thinking that 
they have nullified previous experiments. The animal is fastened on the vivisecting 
table. I dislocate successively both her shoulders, doing it with some difficulty. 
* * The animal, which appears to suffer much, is kept in a condition of dislo- 
cation for about half an hour. It struggles violently in spite of its bonds. * * * 
The autopsy shows that on the left shoulder there had been a tearing out of the small 
tuberosity and of all the adjoining skeleton (p. 21). 
Eighth experiment.—Poodle dog. * * * Replaced on the table with chloral. I 
dislocate his two shoulders. The animal utters screams of suffering. I hold him for 
twenty minutes, with his two shoulders dislocated and the elbows tied together 
behind his back (p. 22). 
In the London Echo of August 1, 1894, is a letter signed “T. A. Wil- 
liams, 48 Martin street, St. Paul’s, Bristol,” which will bear repetition. 
It describes a visit to the Pasteur Institute in Paris, and is as follows: 
At 10 o’clock on the morning of July 11, carrying an introduction from an English 
Member of Parliament, I stood outside the famous 25 Rue Dutot, Paris 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 place, 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 are 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 shoAvn 
round. VIVISECTION. 
IX 
On Monday July 16, I was taken direct to the spacious room assigned to those 
waitino- their’daily inoculations; some forty persons were already there, and these 
quickly increased until there could not have been less than a hundred present. Sev- 
eral nationalities and nearly all ages were represented. 
While eno-ao-ed in conversation with a case from Ireland, I was suddenly sum- 
moned by the attendant, as the inoculations lor the day were about to commence. 
I was shown to a seat behind the operators ; some 70 to 80 inoculations ol men, 
women, and children were performed in about thirty or forty minutes. I reseutly a 
door was thrown open and in walked Dr. Roux who by the way, is Pasteur’s son- 
in-law, and holds the very lucrative position ol director of the institute under him. 
He was to conduct ns over the building. 
A GRUESOME SIGHT. 
In several of the rooms were lying about the dissected bodies of the 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. At the sight of these animals the 
two ladies who formed part of the company being conducted by Dr. Roux shrank back 
with horror depicted upon their faces -But where Doctor said my interpreter, 
at my request, '‘are the pens where the larger stocks of animals are 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 but these 
pens were what I most desired to see. 1 had read descriptions of the laboratories, 
and followed closely the system through its many stages. “Interpreter, please 
inquire at the lodge and see if I can come early in the morning to see round the 
pens,”said I; audio 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. lam shown a side path, and the attendant unlocks 
a 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 mis- 
taken for stables. These are opened and I enter They are crowded with cages, bas- 
kets, etc., which contain animals in different stages of inoculation. Ihese 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, etc 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. Ido 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 him and those who look upon him. He will most likely die soon-die 
' Leav?n“the do-s, we turn to the left of the grounds and enter a long room. Here 
& o > 
i am 
kept; there could not have been much less than a thousand; whole cages o rabbits, 
which I read from a, label had been inoculated with “ cholera virus;” and bearing 
the name of. Dr. Metchnikoff. I see the rabbits paralyzed in their hind quarters so 
that they can not move, and they look up to you through glazed eyes-a picture of 
helpless suffering howls lie slowly dying of tuberculosis. I saw hundreds of eyes 
red with inflammation, the result of inoculation in their sensitive organs of sight. 
I count thirty bodies thrown out into different corners of the room, evidently of those 
whose lonu sufferings have ceased in the previous night I walk across the grounds, 
and stop before 'a large stove-like object m accruer; it is the crematorium which 
Pasteur has had erected to burn the bodies of his diseased victims of this much- 
disputed scientific system. 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. 
amazed at the number of animals 
at THE PARIS SCHOOL OF MEDICINE. 
After leavin" the Pasteur Institute I was fortunate to obtain a card of admission 
to the Paris School of Medicine, where dogs and monkeys are vivisected by the him- X 
VIVISECTION. 
dred, and every diabolical cruelty inflicted without the need of license. The build- 
ing is very large, and as I stood in the courtyard 1 could hear the barking of dogs 
kept for the immediate use of the students and the working physiologists. I am 
anxious to visit Professor K ’s laboratory, and so, pushing open a door, I And 
myself in a large room filled with the apparatus of torture. An attendant explains 
to me that there will be no demonstrations by Professor E , who is, indeed, out of 
Paris till November. But what, then, mean those dogs about the premises? I had 
counted thirty. Monkeys, ten in number, were gibbering from their cages, fro«-s— 
“God’s gifts to the physiologist,” as one of them claimed them to be—were’there in 
scores, and three ducks were waddling about in a water vessel that stood four feet 
high from the ground. These few animals were lor 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. * * * But I saw one of the 
many vivisecting tables still dripping with the blood of its day’s victim. 1 must 
leave the place with its terrible associations of suffering. 
WHAT HAPPENED TO A DOG. 
As I go out of the courtyard at the other angle to which I had entered, I hear the 
sound of a howling dog coming from a room over whose door I read, “ Directenr des 
Travaux de Physiologic.” I entered. The dog, a large Newfoundland, is already 
bound securely to the table by strong cords to each of his legs; he struggles vio- 
lently, and shakes and rocks the heavy table, but to no purpose, he can not escape. 
At his side one of the professors is injecting chloral, which is no true anassthetic. 
Presently a knife is taken, the skin of the animal is cut open between the ears, the 
flesh 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 ani- 
mal; 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 as 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 cir- 
cular 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, etc., 
becomes 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 pocketknife; but no, that will not 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 that it was possible for any animal to express 
human anguish as that one did through that time of 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 concensus of our common humanity, and so, sick and 
horrified, I left the place, the victim still in the hands of his merciless torturers. 
A recent issue of the Yew York Herald contained the following 
description of the revolting cruelties practiced in France and Germany 
by vivisectionists: 
Is it right to drill holes into the skulls of animals, to boil them, roast them, tor- 
ture them, inflict them with all sorts of hideous diseases? To a question boldly put 
in this way humanity would answer with an unqualified No! But when the ques- 
tion is modified so as to read, Is it right to do all this in the interests of medical 
science? humanity hesitates. 
It has been ably shown in the columns of the Paris Herald that there is no doubt 
a large body of reputable and even kindly medical men who hold that vivisection, 
even when it entails all these horrors, is a necessary instrument of science and a 
potent adjunct to the art of healing. In short, in the nineteenth century the ver- 
dict of science for the modern rack, as Miss Frances Power Cobb has accurately 
named it, is as unanimous as was the verdict of religion in the fifteenth century for 
the ancient rack, t hen, as now, what seemed at stake was the salvation of man- 
kind. A race saved from disease seems quite as noble a conception as a soul saved 
from hell. The broader views of even the narrowest theologian of to-day, however, 
would decide that the ancient rack was not really available for the salvation of indi- 
viduals. W hen will medical men reach the same opinion about the modern rack? 
In the evolution of morals progress has always been marked by the attainment of a 
wider horizon of sympathy for sentient things and of recognition of their rights. 
The ancient world had no sympathy for slaves, because slaves had no rights. The VIVISECTION. 
XI 
mediaeval world had no sympathy for Jews and Mohammedans, because infidels had 
no rights. We have seen in our day the rising tide of acknowledged rights cover, at 
least in theory, the whole world of human existence. We have every reason to pre- 
dict that it will eventually cover the whole world of sentient existence. 
BECAUSE ANIMALS HAVE NO RIGHTS. 
Certainly if an ordinary man could bring home to himself on the unimpeachable 
testimony of men employed in vivisection what vivisection really is, the only people 
who could possibly uphold it would he those who hold that animals have no rights. 
In the august name of science dumb creatures have been burned, baked, and frozen, 
starved to death, flayed alive, saturated with inflammable oil and set on fire, pierced 
with nails, crushed and tormented in every possible way. Human ingenuity has 
taxed itself to its fiendish utmost to devise sooie new torture to see what curious 
results would follow. 
Dr. Brachet, of Paris, by various torments, inspired a dog with a rational and 
consistent hatred for himself. “When the animal became furious, whenever it saw 
me, I put out its eyes. I could then appear before it without the manifestation of 
any aversion. I spoke, and immediately its anger was renewed. I then disorgan- 
ized the internal ear as much as I could, and when intense inflammation made it 
deaf, then I went to its side, spoke aloud, and even caressed it without its falling 
into a rage.” 
The German Von Lesser “plunged a dog for thirty seconds in boiling water.” He 
“scalds another four times at various intervals.” Dr. Cartex, of Paris, fastens a 
dog to the dissecting table without any merciful intervention of anaesthetics, and 
stands above it with a large empty stone bottle. 
“I strike wnth all my strength a dozen violent blows on the thighs. By its vio- 
lent cries the animal shows that the blows are keenly felt.” His compatriot, Majen- 
die, used to cut the stomach out of living dogs. Mantegazza, of Milan, with a 
refinement of cruelty, chose animals who were either pregnant or nursing their 
young. To produce the extreme degree of possible pain he invented a new machine, 
which he gayly called his “tormentor,” and placed in it victims which had been 
first “quilted with long, thin nails,” so that the slightest movement was agony, and 
then racked them with added torments—tore them and twisted them, crushed them, 
lacerated them—hour by hour, till crucified nature could endure no longer and sent 
death as a tardy relief. In his own words, he continued these experiments day by 
day for a year, not with pity, not with repugnance, but “with much delight and 
extreme patience.” 
LEFT SIDE OF HER BRAIN GONE. 
All literature can present no more pathetic story than this, which is told by the 
German professor, Goetz: “A young female dog which had learned to shake hands 
with both forepaws had the left side of the brain washed out through two holes. 
On being asked for the left paw the dog immediately laid it in my hand. I now 
demand the right, but the creature only looks at me sorrowfully, for (through the 
loss of the left side of the brain) it can not 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 paw.” 
Another eminent gentleman made experiments to test the affection of his dog. 
He gouged out his eyes, and yet the animal still came at his call. He submitted it 
to all forms of hideous torture until nature brought death to its relief, and the noble 
brute died licking the hands of its master. 
Dr. Noe Walker tells of another scientific enthusiast, whom he had seen take up 
a mother dog from its young, cut off its mammary glands (its breasts), and put it 
down, mutilated, bleeding, and dying, among its little ones, whom it could no longer 
feed, but only licked in its last agony. 
No layman, no laywoman especially, can read stories of this kind without being 
moved, even to tears. There is not an element of pathos lacking. And the men 
who do these deeds and chronicle them afterwards, are they fiends? Not at all. 
They are kindly, amiable, well-meaning persons, who at least believe that they are 
actuated by a noble desire to lessen the sum of suffering in the world. Dr. Bige- 
low, late professor of surgery at Harvard University, may well say, “If hospital 
service makes young students less tender of suffering, vivisection deadens their 
humanity and begets indifference.” 
A European journal recently described an operation wherein the spinal cord of a 
dog was destroyed by thrusting a steel probe into the spinal column. The animal 
evinced its agony by fearful convulsions, but it was permitted to utter no cry that 
might evoke sympathy, for previous to the demonstration its laryngeal nerves had 
been cut. XII 
VIVISECTION. 
INOCULATION FOR PROLONGED DISEASES. 
It is claimed by the advocates of vivisection that anaesthetics are frequently em- 
ployed to relieve the pain of the operation. But even if this were so, they could do 
little. A considerable portion of medical investigation at present consists in the 
production of disease in which the puncture of inoculation is a trifle, while the 
resulting disease is attended with acute and prolonged suffering. Some experiments 
last for over a year. The few moments of actual operation are not worth mention- 
ing in comparison with what follows. Moreover, insensibility is rarely induced even 
in the moments when the pain is most acute. A mere whiff of chloroform might 
cause the death of an interesting subject. Instead of chloroform, curare is usually 
administered. 
And what is curare? It is a drug which keeps the animals still by depriving 
them of motion. It does not bring unconsciousness. It does not lessen pain. On 
the contrary, Claude Bernard complacently informs us that it “ causes the most 
atrocious sufferings which the imagination can conceive.” Yet the same authority 
remarks, without any expression of regret, that its use in vivisection is so universal 
that it may always be assumed to have been used in experiments not otherwise 
described. 
The Paris Herald has recently been calling attention to the barbarities inflicted at 
the Alfort Veterinary School. It quotes from a pamphlet published by Mr. Philip 
G. Peabody, president of the Anti-Vivisection Society of Boston, who obtained 
admission to this institution last year: 
“Incredible though it may seem, eight boys are actually at work vivisecting each 
horse at the same time. This is not at all an unusual or exceptional vivisection. It 
is done many times every week at this institution in its entirety. In fact, Professor 
Cadiot, the ruling genius of the laboratory, explained to me that many of the usual 
experiments were omitted the day I was there, June 10, owing to the heat and 
approach of summer. I saw about forty different experiments on the horse in ques- 
tion, and as many were repeated by each of the eight boys. Isa w about one hun- 
dred surgical experiments actually performed on this one living horse. During the 
latter part of the time, perhaps for one hour, Dr. Chauveau, the inspector-general 
of all the veterinary schools in France, was present, and he also took a small part in 
the work.” 
DEXTERITY IN TORTURING A BAY MARE. 
Mr. Peabody buttresses his own testimony with that of another witness, who tells 
this story : “A little bay mare, worn out in the service of man, one of eight, on a cer- 
tain operation day, having unfortunately retained life throughout the fiendish ordeal, 
and looking like nothing ever made by the hand of God—with loins ripped open’ 
skin torn and plowed by red-hot irons, riddled by setons, tendons severed, hoofless, 
sightless, and defenseless—was exultingly reared on her bleeding feet, just when 
gasping for breath, and dying, to show what dexterity had done in completing its 
work before death took place.” 
In consequence of this report the Victoria Street Society for the Protection of Ani- 
mals from Vivisection sent Mr. George Cheverton, an eminent London veterinary sur- 
geon, to investigate, with the result that full credence is given to Mr. Peabody’s 
statements. 
Begin on yourselves, O, vivisectionists, and the world will respect you more than 
it would it you confine your studies to the unconsnlted members of the brute crea- 
tion. A willing victim is preferable to an unwilling one. More than that, a human 
victim is preferable to an animal, A celebrated Scotch physiologist who tortured 
thirty-six dogs to ascertain the property of a drug, was obliged to confess to the Royal 
Commission that what happened to a dog could only suggest what might happen in 
the case of a man; to make anything certain it would be necessary to try it on a 
man. 
In 1892, Canon Wilberforce, in a public address in London, sharply 
denounced the practice of vivisection, for which he was called to 
account by Henry Sewill. The following correspondence, extracted 
from the London Zoophilist, between Mr. Sewill and Canon Wilber- 
force, should be read by every man, woman, and child in the United 
States i 
40 Wimpole Street W., June 23, 1892. 
Sir : In the Times of to-day appears an account of the annual meeting of the Society 
for the Protection of Animals from Vivisection. It is there stated that in moving the 
adoption of the report you characterized vivisectors as “human devils.” If tins be VIVISECTION. 
XIII 
a correct version of the words you employed you have placed yourself under an obli- 
gation either to substantiate or to withdraw and apologize for this expression. 
By vivisectors can only he meant the class of physiological investigators engaged 
in experimentation upon animals. These investigators are convinced of the neces- 
sity of such experimentation, not only for the advancement of medical science, but 
for the elucidation of the phenomena of nature upon which human progress depends. 
In this conviction physiologists are supported by the highest intellects of the world, 
including, with scarcely an exception, the great mass of scientific experts who are 
alone fully qualified to form a correct judgment in such a matter. 
The cultivation of science, as it is pursued by the physiological investigator, 
demands the utmost devotion and willingness to endure self-sacrifice. The one aim 
must be to elicit truth for truth’s sake. Such labor is very seldom in any worldly 
sense remunerative and rarely gains either applause or popularity. Those who have 
the privilege of the friendship of practical physiologists, and are best aide to esti- 
mate their individual worth, must feel deep indignation to find men among the select 
few in modern society that lead, in every sense of the word, noble lives, stigmatized 
in the terms you have stated to have employed. Those terms are uncharitable, 
unjust, and libelous. Their spirit is entirely opposed to the teaching of Christianity 
and of that Church in which you hold so distinguished a position. 
I am, sir, yours, faithfully, 
Henry Sewill. 
Rev. Canon Wilrerforce. 
Deanery, Southampton, June 27, ISD2. 
Sir; The quotation from the Times to which you refer, consisting of two words 
only, is obviously a most unfair report of an entire speech. I did not say in that 
indiscriminate manner, that all persons who practiced vivisection were “human 
devils.” lam aware that many apparently succeed in escaping moral contamination 
from the atrocious deeds they do in the name of science, and I am prepared to take 
your word for it that persons capable of inflicting excruciating tortures upon help- 
less animals live in other respects “noble lives.” 1 did say. and I emphatically reit- 
erate it, that persons who were capable of doing certain deeds, ivhieh I enumerated, 
such, for example, as leaving a dog crucified to the torture trough, kept alive by arti- 
ficial respiration, in agony unspeakable, throughout the long hours of the night, and 
sometimes from a Saturday to a Monday, while they themselves retired to the rest 
and comfort of their own homes, hoping to find their subject alive for further experi- 
ment upon their return to the laboratory, were acting as “inhuman devils.” Ido 
not stand alone in the opinion. The Rev. Dr. Haughton (Question 1888, Royal Com- 
mission, 1876) said: “I would shrink with horror 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.’’ 
Yon say that the spirit of my statement is “entirely opposed to the teaching of 
Christianity,” etc. I reply that the so-called “cultivation of science,” as it is prac- 
ticed by the physiological investigators, “is entirely opposed to the teaching of 
Christianity;” is based upon the rankest materialism, and appeals to the lowest 
instincts of man; and, as to “the Church in which I hold a position,” etc., I thank 
God that some of its most eminent representatives have organized within it a league 
for the “total abolition of the practice of vivisection.” And the Bishop of Man- 
chester, himself no tyro in science, preaching on behalf of this league, exposes him- 
self to your “deep indignation,” for he, too, stigmatizes vivisectors as men “who 
use God's dumb creatures as the subjects of tortures which could only be called 
diabolical, and who gain their knowledge by the degradation of their moral charac- 
ter,” and with these sentiments I cordially agree. 
Our contention is that the public has been blinded by scientific dust thrown into 
its eyes, and that multitudes are wholly unaware of the unspeakable and fiendish 
cruelties that are perpetrated in the name of science. 
The public is taught to believe that vivisections are rare; that animals subjected 
to them are under anaesthetics, and that the discoveries made by the process are of 
infinite value. The public has not realized that 3,000 doctors signed a memorial 
declaring that an important series of experiments could not be carried through 
while animals are under anaesthetics; that the archvivisector, Shiff, has been honest 
enough to say: “It is nothing hut hypocrisy to wish to impose on oneself and others 
the belief that the curarized animal does not feel pain.” 
Let us glance at some of these so-called “experiments,” and judge whether men 
endowed with ordinary sensibilities and imaginations could perform them without 
temporarily transforming themselves into “inhuman devils.” * * * They include 
baking, freezing, burning, pouring boiling oil on living animals, saturating them 
with imflammable oil and setting them on fire, starving to death, skinning alive, cut- VIVISECTION. 
ting off the breasts while giving milk, gouging out the eyes, larding the feet with 
nails, forcing broken glass into ears, intestines, and muscles, making incisions in the 
skull and twisting about a bent needle in the brain, etc. (vide The Nine Circles, 
Swan Sonnenschien & Co., Paternoster Square, in which chapter and verse are given 
for every experiment described, and a careful perusal of which will provide abundant 
justification for the expression of which you complain). 
One of these “practical physiologists,” whom you estimate so highly, desired 
recently to ascertain whether it was possible to pour molten lead into a man’s ear 
when drunk without causing him to shriek. For this purpose he procured several 
dogs, and the reports says “he administered an anaesthetic composed of a solution 
of chloral and morphine to reduce the dog to the supposed condition of a drunken 
man. In spite of this precaution it appears that when the molten lead penetrated 
the ear of one of the animals, accompanied by a frizzling sound, the wretched beast 
struggled violently, and its howls were so dreadful that even the garcons du labora- 
toire, accustomed as they are to painful spectacles, were strongly affected.” 
The second dog, though similarly anaesthetized, was so horribly tortured that it 
actually burst the thongs which bound it to the torture trough. 
Again, could anyone but an “inhuman devil” perform the following: 
“At the late Medical Congress, held in Berlin, a Chicago professor performed, 
before the assembled doctors, some experiments upon a dog. A French journal, in 
describing it. says that the professor roared out, ‘ Hand me over that dog.’ The 
unfortunate animal was brought into the room carefully muzzled, and with its legs 
tied down. The professor then proceeded to pump the poor beast full of sulphureted 
hydrogen gas. ‘Now, gentlemen,’ he shouted, ‘the gas will issue from his mouth in 
a stream, and I will set fire to it.’ A lighted match was set to the dog’s mouth, with 
no result; a second, a third, a whole box full, and nothing came out of it but burn- 
ing the hair on the dog’s jaws.” Then came the second part of the experiment. 
‘“Now, gentlemen,’ said the professor, ‘you will seethe effect when the gas has 
been pumped into the bowels when they have been wounded.’ He then produced a 
loaded revolver and fired a bullet into the xvretched animal’s abdomen. The dog yelled 
piteously, and the bleeding creature was subjected to a repetition of the gas injec- 
tion. The rest of the story was too horrible to tell even in the pages of an English 
medical journal.” (Philadelphia Ledger, December 16, 1890.) 
The list of Dr. Brown-Sequard and M. Chauveau’s experiments on the spinal 
marrow are too terrible to describe in extenso. The following will serve as a 
sample: 
“ To ascertain the excitability of the spinal marrow, and the convulsions and pain 
produced by that excitability,” the studies were made chiefly on horses and asses 
who, he says, “lend themselves marvelously thereto by the large volume of their 
spinal marrow.” M. Chauvean accordingly “ consecrated 80 subjects to his purpose.” 
“The animal,” he says, “is fixed on a table. An incision is made on its back of from 
30 to 35 centimeters; the vertebrae is opened with the help of a .chisel, mallet, and 
pincers, and the spinal marrow is exposed.” 
Several experiments similar to the foregoing are described. In some the spinal 
marrow was burned through with red hot wire. The electrical stimulation was 
increased. The spinal marrow tetanized (i. e. convulsed) during three minutes. The 
vagus several times stimulated. The operations on the rabbit extended over eleven days. 
The wound in the back had suppurated and the stimulation of the exposed nerves 
was added to by electrodes being fastened to each hind leg causing tetanus (i. e. 
convulsions) of the back extremities. (Pfluger’s Archives, 1888, pp. 303, et seq.) 
Again, “ Fifty-one dogs had portions of the brain hemisphere washed out of the 
head, which had been pierced in several places. This was repeated four times; 
the mutilated creatures and their behavior having been studied for months. Most of the 
animals died at last of inflammation of the brain ” (p. 415). “ Interesting experi- 
ment” on a delicately formed little bitch: Left side of brain extracted; wire 
pincers on the hind feet. Doleful whining; the little animal began again to howl 
piteously; soon afterwards foamed at the mouth (p. 417). The same dog last oper- 
ated upon on the 15th of October; since then blind: died on November 10. “The 
dissected brain resembles a lately-hoed potato field” (p. 418). Little bitch last 
operated upon on the 26th of May, and made nearly blind; died on the 7th of July.” 
Do you imagine that 1 should consider myself under an obligation to apologize for 
stigmatizing the dastardly perpetrator of the following abomination an “inhuman 
devil ?” 
Professor Goltz says that it was “marvelous and astonishing” to find that a dog 
that had served for some seven experiments, and whose hind quarters were completely para- 
lyzed, 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.” (Pfluger’s Archives, Vol. IX, p. 564.) 
I contend that the language does not exist in which it would be possible to be VIVISECTION. 
XV 
“ uncharitable, unjust, and libelous,” in speaking of such “a labor to elicit truth for 
truth’s sake.” 
For Paul Bert’s reports of his disgusting experiments in amputating the breasts of 
a goat and other animals see Comptes de la Societe de Biologic, Paris, 1883, p. 193. 
“I wrote,” he says, “to communicate to the society the results that 1 have 
obtained by the ablation of mammae in animals. Dogs and rabbits with their six or 
eight mammae are unable to survive these experiments.” 
I certainly do not envy you “ the privilege of the friendship of practical physiolo- 
gists,” such as these. 
Perhaps you will say that these experiments were performed by foreigners, and 
not by the “select few in modern society that lead, in every sense of the word, noble 
lives.” Then let me refer you to the Report of the Royal Humane Society, 1865, pp. 
31-66, for an English experiment, which is only one out of thousands: 
“Experiment 19:—A terrier was deprived of air by plunging its head into liquid 
plaster of paris; respiratory efforts commenced at one minute thirty-five seconds, 
and ceased at four minutes, the heart beating till live minutes. On examining the 
lungs the white plaster was found throughout the bronchial tubes.” Seventy-six of 
these experiments were made. (Report of the Royal Humane Society, 1865, pp. 31-66.) 
And the following: Dr. Angel Money reported a series of experiments in which 
he irritated the brain and intestines of a number of “anaesthetized curarized ani- 
mals” by electricity, sliced away their brains, and made “ windows ” in their bowels. 
(British Medical Journal, August 1, 183.) 
Dr. Bradford, of University College, Loudon, has mutilated the kidneys of dogs. 
First, he removed a portion of one kidney, which operation must necessarily be of 
an exceedingly painful nature. At intervals, varying from a fortnight to six weeks, 
the entire other kidney was also removed, thus leaving the animal with only a por- 
tion of one kidney. After the second operation the animal became emaciated, and died 
at a period varying according to the size of the remnant of kidney remaining. 
Sometimes the dogs lived a fortnight, sometimes six weeks. (Proceedings of Physio- 
logical Society, March 21, 1891.) 
The following quotation from Mr. R. T. Reid’s speech in the House of Commons, 
April 4, 1883, refers to English experiments: “I will take one instance from certain 
experiments performed by Professor Rutherford, and reported in the British Medical 
Journal. 1 refer to the series of experiments commenced December 14, 1878. These 
experiments were 31 in number; no doubt there were hundreds ot dogs sacrificed 
upon other series of experiments, but now I am only referring to one set, beginning, 
as I say, on the 14th December, 1878. There were in this set 31 experiments, but no 
doubt many more than 31 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 
placed into the intestine 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 circum- 
stances—their condition was so abnormal—that the ordinary and universally recog- 
nized effect of well-known drugs was not produced. These experiments were performed 
without anaesthetics—the animals were experimented upon under the influence of a 
drug called curare.” 
And now, sir, what “phenomena of nature upon which human progress depends” 
have been elucidated by these brutal and degrading tortures? What victory over 
disease can your “scientific experts,” who, yon say, “are alone fully qualified to form 
a correct judgment in such a matter,” point to as the result of vivisection ? Can they 
cure cancer, consumption, scrofula, or lupus? Is it not a fact that the boasted dis- 
coveries of one year are the ludibrium of the next? in spite of the unspeakably 
cruel experiments of Professor Ferrier, your “scientific experts” do not even yet 
know the true function of the cerebellum; and the experiments of one physiologist 
are often pronounced by another to be utterly useless. Harvey testifies himself that 
the discovery of the circulation of the blood was due to anatomy, and not to vivisec- 
tion. Some of the most skillful living operators have told me that their skill was 
attained by dissection of the cadaver, and not by vivisection. Sir Thomas Watson 
told me himself that it was constantly necessary to unlearn at the bedside the les- 
son taught in the laboratory. Majendie’s holocaust of victims resulted in disastrous 
failure when his conclusions were tested on the human body. What has humanity 
gained from the unparalleled cruelties of Koch, who is compelled to keep a special 
crematorium to dispose of the corpses of his victims; or from the so-called discov- 
eries of Pasteur, who has apparently succeeded in producing a new form of disease, 
rabbles paralysis 1 The report signed by Sir J. Paget, Sir J. Lister, Dr. Burdon Sand- 
erson, and others, informs us that “ under the intensive method deaths have occurred 
nnder conditions which have suggested that they were due to the inoculations rather VIVISECTION. 
than to inf callow from rabid animals.” At Milan three men died of rabbies after treat- 
ment at the Institute Kobico, and the dog by which they were bitten was declared 
by Professor Pasteur himself not to have been rabid. Professor Peter says: “M. Pas- 
teur does not cure rabies; he gives it.” And in the Times (November 16, 1888) I 
read that “in the case of one man sent over to Paris from this country there is 
reason to believe that the hydrophobia from which he died was rather the result 
of his inoculation than of the original bite.” 
You say “the investigators are convinced of the necessity of such experimenta- 
tion.” I reply that an increasing number of intelligent Englishmen, undeterred 
by what has been -well termed (I believe by the late Lord Shaftesbury) “the inso- 
lence of physiological science,” are convinced of the iniquity, the uselessness, and 
the peril to the human race of such experimentation, and they are determined to do 
their utmost to render the practice in this country, at least, wholly illegal. 
I am, sir, yours, faithfully, 
Basil Wilberforce. 
Turning to our own country, we find abundant evidence of the work 
of the modern vivisectionist, unrestrained by law and uniudueuced by 
popular opinion. Great institutions of learning in the States of New 
York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Illinois, and Pennsylvania have made 
numerous contributions to the sum of suffering inflicted on inoffensive 
and helpless animals, some of which are too brutal to be reproduced. 
In the Harvard Medical School cats seem to be the favorite animal for 
purposes of experimentation. In the Collected Papers of that institu- 
tion there are records of a vast number of agonizing experiments, of 
which more than 900 were on cats. 
Dr. Walton, at one of the laboratories of Harvard, is said to have 
made a number of experiments on the excision of the epiglottis. Here 
are two of his experiments: 
Case 9.—Dog; epiglottis excised; watched six days; coughed at almost every 
attempt to eat or drink. 
Case 10.—Large dog; epiglottis excised; observed twenty-one days; choked on 
swallowing liquids and solids at every trial. 
B. A. Watson, A. M., M. D., a prominent physician of Jersey City, 
made a number of experiments on dogs. He conceived the idea of 
hoisting a dog up to the ceiling and dropping it upon its back on iron 
bars in such a manner as to produce concussion of the spine. Some 
of the dogs lived from a week to ten days. He experimented upon 
141 dogs. 
Commenting upon Dr. Watson’s experiments, which were published 
in pamphlet form, the British Medical Journal denounced the experi- 
ments as utterly useless as regards human surgery or pathology, and 
added: 
There is a callous indifference shown in the description of the sufferings of the 
poor brutes which is positively revolting. 
In the International Journal of the Medical Sciences for October, 1887, 
Dr. W. S, Halstead, of New York, has an article entitled “An experi- 
mental study on circular sutures of the intestines,” from which the 
following is taken: 
Experiment A.—Small young dog. Operated on January 18, 1887. Needles with 
dulled ends employed for sewing. Circular resection of intestine. Two rows of 
interrupted stitches passed as deep as but not including any portion of submucosa— 
suture of muscular coat. The stitches tore badly (particularly those of the first 
row) and had to be frequently retaken. 
January 23. Dog found dead. Autopsy: Suppurative peritonitis; sutures had 
given way completely. 
Experiment B.—Medium-sized dog. Operation January 18, 1887. To include in 
each stitch a thread of submucosa. Irrigation with solution of corrosive sublimate, 
1:1000. Glass clamps; suture, catgut. Two rows of interrupted stitches. The dog 
was killed on the 19th of February. VIVISECTION. 
XVII 
Experiment C.—Operation January 20,1887. To reverse about one foot of intestine. 
* * The dog died of shock a few hours after operation, etc. 
To satisfy my curiosity, I made Experiments D, E, and F. 
Experiment 1) was on a small brindled and Avhite bulldog (pup). Found dead the 
day after the operation. Autopsy: Complete slough of flaps and gaping of circular 
wound. 
Experiment E was on a “large, long-haired dog.” This animal died on the eleventh 
day after the operation. * * * The experiment necessitated a good deal of stitch- 
ing. It died of gangrene. 
Eight experiments were performed on dogs with “Lembert’s stitches.” No. 1, 
“evidently dying of starvation,” was killed. No. 2 was “not lively after operation,” 
and was killed on the twelfth day following. When examined it presented abnormal 
and diseased conditions, the result of the experiment. Nos, 3, 4, and 5 all “died 
within two or three days of the operation from purulent peritonitis.” No. 6 died 
under the operation, which was carried on for two hours on a “ young, small, brindled 
dog.” No. 7 was found dead two days after the operation connected with the experi- 
ment “to isolate loop” had been performed upon it. No. 8, a “rather large black 
and white dog,” was subjected to experiment on January 8, 1887, also “to isolate 
loop of intestine.” On the 9th it was “ evidently starving to death.” Its abdomen 
was reopened and “many and very strong adhesions” were found to have resulted 
from the treatment it had been subjected to. 
In another group 15 dogs were dealt with, some of which died from the effects of 
the experiment, and others were killed when they appeared to be dying from 
starvation. 
In summing up Ms experiments, Dr. Halstead significantly remarks; 
I shall not record the rest of my experiments on circular sutures of the intestines, 
because most of them seem now rather absnrd to me, and none of them admit of 
classification. 
Dr. AlbertLeffingwell, in LippincotPs Magazine, says: 
There is a certain experiment, one of the most excruciating which can be per- 
formed, which consists in exposing the spinal cord of the dog for the purpose of 
demonstrating the function of the spinal nerves. * * * This experiment, which 
we are told passes even the callousness of Germany to repeat; which every leading 
champion of vivisection in Great Britain reprobates for medical teaching; which 
some of them shrink even from seeing themselves from horror at the torture 
necessarily inflicted; which the most ruthless among them dare not exhibit to the 
young men of England—this experiment has been performed publicly again and again in 
American medical colleges without exciting, so far as we know, even a whisper of 
protest or the faintest murmur of remonstrance. The proof is to be found in the 
published statements of the experimenter himself. In his Text Book of Physiology, 
Professor Flint says, “We have ourselves frequently exposed and irritated the roots 
of the nerves in dogs, in public demonstration, in experiments on the recurrent 
sensibility.” 
This is the experience of a single professional teacher, but it is improbable that 
this experiment has been shown only to the students of a single medical college in 
the United States; it has doubtless been repeated again and again in different 
colleges throughout the country. 
Just tMnk of a dog (a description of which will be found in the 
Laboratory Researches of Dr. A. M. Phelps) with his foreleg strapped 
to his back, with pressure at the joint, and the muscles and ligaments 
put upon the stretch; then done up in a plaster-of-parisbandage, carried 
forward onto the neck, making a stiff collar which kept his head always 
to the front and prevented him from gnawing away the bandages. He 
was kept in this suffering condition for one hundred and forty-five days, 
and was then killed! ’ 
Beyond a doubt vivisection is grossly abused in the United States. 
As the humane editor of an American medical journal exclaimed: 
. History records some frightful atrocities perpetrated in the name of religion, but 
it has remained for the enlightenment and humaneness of this century to stultify 
themselves by tolerating the abuses of the average physiological laboratory—all 
conducted in the name of science. 
Is it to be wondered at, in view of what is daily happening in this 
country, that a man of the strong human sympathies which characterize 
S. Rep. 1049 2 XVIII 
VIVISECTION. 
Col. Robert G. Ingersoll should, in writing to bis friend, Philip G. Pea- 
body, of Boston, denounce vivisection in the following startling and 
perhaps extravagant language? 
Vivisection is the Inquisition—the Hell—of Science. All the cruelty which the 
human—or rather the inhuman—heart is capable of inflicting, is in this one word. 
Below this there is no depth. This word lies like a coiled serpent at the bottom of 
the abyss. 
We can excuse, in part, the crimes of passion. We take into consideration the 
fact that man is liable to be caught by the whirlwind, and that from a brain on fire 
the soul rushes to a crime. But what excuse can ingenuity form for a man who 
deliberately—with an unaccelerated pulse—with the calmness of John Calvin at 
the murder of Servetus—seeks with curious and cunning knives, in the living, quiv- 
ering flesh of a dog, for all the throbbing nerves of pain ? The wretches who commit 
these infamous crimes pretend that they are working for the good of man; that they 
are actuated by philanthropy, and that their pity for the sufferings of the human 
race drives out all pity for the animals they slowly toi’ture to death. But those who 
are incapable of pitying animals are, as a matter of fact, incapable pitying men. A 
physician who would cut a living rabbit in pieces—laying bare the nerves, denuding 
them with knives, pulling them out with forceps—would not hesitate to try experi- 
ments with men and women for the gratification of his curiosity. 
To settle some theory he would trifle with the life of any patient in his power. 
By the same reasoning he will justify the vivisection of animals and patients. He 
will say that it is better that a few animals should suffer than that one human being 
should die; and that it is far better that one patient should die, if through the sacri- 
fice of that one several may be saved. 
Brain without heart is far more dangerous than heart without brain. 
Have these scientific assassins discovered anything of value? They may have 
settled some disputes as to the action of some organ, but have they added to the use- 
ful knowledge of the race? 
It is not necessary for a man to be a specialist in order to have and express his 
opinion as to the right or wrong of vivisection. It is not necessary to be a scientist 
or a naturalist to detest cruelty and to love mercy. Above all the discoveries of the 
thinkers, above all the inventions of the ingenious, above all the victories won on 
fields of intellectual conflict, rise human sympathy and a sense of justice. 
I know that good for the human race can never be accomplished by torture. I 
also know that all that has been ascertained by vivisection could have been done by 
the dissection of the dead. I know that all the torture has been useless. All the 
agony inflicted has simply hardened the heart of the criminals, without enlighten- 
ing their minds. 
It may be that the human race might be physically improved if all the sickly and 
deformed babes were killed, and if all the paupers, liars, drunkards, thieves, villains, 
and vivisectiouists were murdered. All this might, in a few ages, result in the pro- 
duction of a generation of physically perfect men and women; but what would such 
beings bo worth—men and women healthy and heartless, muscular and cruel—that 
is to say, intelligent wild beasts? 
Never can Ibe the friend of one who vivisects his fellow-creatures. Ido not wish 
to touch his hand. 
When the angel of pity is driven from the heart; when the fountain of tears is 
dry—the soul becomes a serpent crawling in the dust of a desert. 
Indications multiply that the next demand in the name of science 
(that much-abused word) will be that human vivisection shall be per- 
mitted. It is shown that already children have been inoculated with 
loathsome poisons, for purposes of experimentation. Prof. B. E. Slos- 
son, of the University of Wyoming, recently published a remarkable 
article in the New York Independent on that subject, in which he pro- 
pounds this inquiry: 
Is scieuce worth the cost? Is a life for a life too high a price? 
And then he answers: 
No one who knows the value of learning would say it is. 
This man continues : 
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, and we believe, on good 
authority, that he is of more value than many sparrows. A human life is nothing 
compared with a new fact in science. VIVISECTION. 
XIX 
Professor Slosson expresses contempt for those who are foolish 
enough to think that the aim of science is the cure of disease and the 
saving of human life. Quite the contrary, for he declares that— 
Th« aim of science is the advancement of human knowledge at any sacrifice of 
human life. 
That seems to be explicit and unmistakable, and it naturally recalls 
the fact that on the 3d day of November, 1894, a bill drawn by Dr. J. S. 
Pyle, of Canton, Ohio, was introduced into the Ohio legislature, the 
first section of which read as follows: 
That all persons sentenced to death by any court having jurisdiction in the State 
of Ohio, shall be held as subjects for experimental research; that such experiments 
shall be conducted in the interest of science and society, and shall be regulated by 
approved rules of humane treatment to avoid all unnecessary pain; that in the 
preparation for such experiments where pain would be occasioned, anaesthetics 
shall be administered to the extent of complete insensibility to pain, and during the 
progress of the experiment narcotics shall be judiciously used to allay any pain, and 
the condemned person shall not be maltreated in any way; that after the'concl union 
of such experiments, the criminal shall again be anaesthetized and put to death 
"while in a deep sleep and entirely insensible to pain; that the executioner shall be 
an expert physiologist duly appointed and authorized by the State, and that appoint- 
ments to execute and conduct such experiments, shall be vested in the governor, and 
shall consist of one executioner and five assistant physiologists, with a like number 
of deputies, who shall hold their offices for the term of good behavior, except upon 
proof of incompetency; and no one so appointed shall be removed without sufficient 
cause, which shall be left to the discretion of the governor, and that all appoint- 
ments to fill vacancies, caused by death, resignation, or removal, shall be made as 
prescribed in the foregoing. 
Strange as it may seem, this proposition received tbe indorsement of 
7 clergymen, 2 editors, and 5 lawyers. Dr. Pyle is an ardent advocate 
of vivisection, and be doubtless thinks, as some of the young physicians 
of the present day are arguing, that its logical and final result will not 
be attained until living men, women, and children take the place of the 
brute creation on the dissecting tables of the human butchers who advo- 
cate this murderous scheme. 
The present bill seems reasonable and wise, the leading provisions 
of which are so clearly set forth by Mr. Henry B. P. Macfarland in a 
recent letter to the Washington Times, that it is made a part of this 
report. Mr. Macfarland says: 
First, the bill does not prohibit, or “ virtually” prohibit, vivisection in the District, 
except in the public schools. It was not stated at the Senate hearing on Friday that 
it was now practiced in the public schools, but it is known that it is practiced in pub- 
lic schools elsewhere, and it is desirable to prevent that practice from ever being 
introduced here, if it is not already here. But all the vivisection which the oppo- 
nents of the bill will admit to be now carried on in the District of Columbia will go 
right on without the slightest restriction if the bill becomes a Jaw, for all the so-called 
inoffensive classes of vivisection are expressly exempted from the requirement of the 
use of an,“esthetics, and, according to the opponents of the bill, no other classes of 
vivisection are carried on here. 
The language of the bill is, “The animal must, during the whole of the experi- 
ment, be completely under the influence of ether or chloroform sufficiently to prevent 
the animal from feeling pain, excepting only, that in so-called inoculating experi- 
ments or tests of drugs or medicines, the animal need not be anaesthetized nor killed 
afterwards; nor in tests of surgical procedure need animals be kept completely anaes- 
thetized during the process of recovery from the surgical operation. Otherwise than 
this the animal must be kept from pain during all experiments.” 
The “ so-called inoculation experiments” are those of which the opponents of the 
hill make their boast, covering as they do all such work as is involved in the produc- 
tion of “ antitoxin,” for example. They claim that they are not severely painful, 
and are very useful. Most of what they claim for vivisection is based on such 
experiments, for they do not like to tell the public about the torture experiments. 
They claim that there is practically no other vivisection than this and the other com- 
paratively harmless kinds carried on in Washington. 
. Taking them at their word, we concede that this kind of experimentation can go 
right on without anaesthetics, while we ask in the bill that more painful vivisection XX 
VIVISECTION. 
shall he carried on only under the use of anaesthetics. No form of vivisection is to 
he prohibited to medical men or scientists, hut they must use anaesthetics for torture 
experiments. Surely there can be no reasonable objection to this, even on the part 
of vivisectors. 
Second. The other important feature of the hill is section 6, which reads fcthat 
the President of the United States shall cause all places where experiments on living 
vertebrate animals are carried on in the District of Columbia to he from time to time 
visited and inspected, without previous notice, for the purpose of securing compli- 
ance with the provisions of this act; and to that end shall appoint four inspectors, 
who shall serve without compensation, and who shall have authority to visit and 
inspect the places aforesaid, and who shall report to the President of the United 
States from time to time the results of their observations therein, which shall he 
made public by him.” 
This is made necessary by the fact that there is no other way of ascertaining what 
is actually being done in the experimental laboratories except by the visitation of 
inspectors at unexpected times. If, as the vivisectors say, all their work is humane, 
they ought to welcome such inspection, and if it is not they need it badly. They 
objected to the original provision in the bill because it required the Commissioners 
to appoint the inspectors, while most of the vivisectors here are Government officers, 
but they can not object to supervision by the representatives of their chief superior, 
unless they really mean to say that they consider themselves above all law and 
authority, which would be too un-American for official servants of the people to 
admit. 
Third. The other provisions of the bill are simply to prevent private individuals 
from practicing vivisection without a license from the Commissioners of the District 
of Columbia, to be obtained on certificate from medical men that they are suitable 
persons for such work, and also to prevent exhibitions to the general public of 
vivisection. 
This is all there is to the bill, which ought to have the support of every humane 
person. The very fact that the vivisectors are opposing so moderate and reasonable 
a measure confirms the suspicion that they are doing in Washington the terrible 
things vivisectors are doing elsewhere in the United States and publishing in med- 
ical journals and books. Finally, if the Washington Hunmue Society could reach 
this matter under existing law it would not be appealing to Congress for this legis- 
lation. But it is because vivisection is held to be outside the humane laws that this 
bill is being pressed by those who believe that no man, however humane he is, is fit 
to be trusted with absolute, unregulated, and unsupervised power over sentient 
creatures. 
Your committee esteem it a special privilege to bear cheerful testi- 
mony to the self-sacrifice and benevolence of the medical profession as 
a whole. Devoting their lives to the alleviation of human suffering 
and the cure of disease, so far as that can be accomplished by human 
instrumentalities, they deserve and should receive encouragement and 
support from the general public, and no legislation should be enacted 
that would unnecessarily hamper them in their pursuit of useful knowl- 
edge, but at the same time it must be conceded that such of them as 
claim the right to torture and destroy the brute creation in the investi- 
gation of alleged new discoveries in physiological science should cheer- 
fully place themselves under such restrictions and supervision as the 
wisdom of Congress may deem advisable and necessary. Doubtless 
many vivisectionists exercise the greatest possible care to minimize the 
sufferings of the poor creatures upon whom they experiment, but, on 
the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that others ar6 utterly 
regardless of the amount of unnecessary torture which they inflict. 
While the former class do not need legal enactments to govern their 
conduct it is manifestly the duty of the lawmakers to see that laws are 
enacted that will reach those who are less considerate and humane, and 
who are apparently deaf to the moans and cries of the helpless victims 
whose bodies are mutilated and tortured, not only in pursuit of primary 
knowledge but also to illustrate facts long before established, and which 
can as well be taught didactically as otherwise. 
In concluding this report it is proper to say that, while the commit- 
tee was unanimous in recommending it, the writer of the report can 
alone be held responsible for its phraseology. Notwithstanding all that VIVISECTION. 
XXI 
lie has endeavored to do for the medical profession in the District of 
Columbia he has already been characterized as an enemy to mankind 
by a few of the ultra advocates and teachers of vivisection, and he is 
fillip prepared for a deluge of denunciation from that source, which 
he has no desire to ask the other members of the committee to share. 
Recognizing the right of vivisectiouists to hold tenaciously to their 
honest opinions and convictions those who differ from them should be 
granted the same privilege, keeping in mind the fact that it was no 
less an authority than the world-renowned Dr. Forbes Winslow, editor 
of the London Journal of Psychological Medicine, who declared: 
In my opinion, vivisection has opened up no new views for the treatment and cure 
of diseases. It is most unjustifiable and cruel, and in no way advances medical 
science. Ido not believe in many of the so-called experiments made by these “fad- 
dists,” especially those relating to brain operations on monkeys and the consequent 
theory of cerebral localization. I have probably more experience than many of 
these experimenters who have given their opinions to the world as based on what 
they have done, and I beg leave to express my utter disbelief in the usefulness of 
such experiments, and to discredit their being followed by any good results to man- 
kind or to science in general. 
Your committee report the followiug amended bill, and recommend 
its passage: 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Bepresentatires of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That hereafter no person shall perform on a living vertebrate 
animal any experiment calculated to give pain to such animal, except subject to the 
restrictions hereinafter prescribed. Any person performing or taking part in per- 
forming any experiment calculated to give pain in contravention of this act shall be 
guilty of an offense against this act, and shall, if it be the first offense, be liable to a 
penalty not exceeding one hundred and fifty dollars, and if it be the second or any 
subsequent offense shall be liable, at the discretion of the court by which he is tried, 
to a penalty not exceeding three hundred dollars, or to imprisonment for a period not 
exceeding six mouths. 
Sec. 2. That the following restrictions are imposed by this act with respect to the 
performance on any living vertebrate animal of an experiment calculated to give pain 
to such animal; that is to say: 
(а) The experiment must be performed with a view to the advancement by new 
discovery of physiological knowledge or of knowledge which will be useful for sav- 
ing or prolonging life or alleviating suffering; and 
(б) The experiment must be performed by a person holding such license from the 
Commissioners of the District of Columbia as is in this act mentioned, or by a duly 
authorized officer of the Government of the United States or of the District of 
Columbia; and 
A BILL for the further prevention of cruelty to animals in the District of Columbia. 
(c) The animal must, during the whole of the experiment, be completely under the 
influence of ether or chloroform sufficiently to prevent the animal from feeling pain, 
excepting only that in so-called inoculation experiments or tests of drugs or medi- 
cines, the animal need not be amesthetized nor killed afterwards, nor in tests of surgi- 
cal procedure need animals be kept completely anajsthetized during the process of 
recovery from the surgical operation. Otherwise than this the animal must be kept 
from pain during all experiments; and 
(d) The animal most, if the pain is likely to continue after the effect of the anaes- 
thetic has ceased, or if any serious injury has been inflicted on the animal, be killed 
before it recovers from the influence of the anaesthetic which has been administered; 
and 
(e) No experiment shall be made upon any living creature, calculated to give pain 
to such creature, in any of the jmblic schools of the District of Columbia; juovided 
as follows, that is to say: 
First. Experiments may be performed under the foregoing provisions as to the use 
of anaesthetics by a person giving illustrations of lectures in medical schools, hos- 
pitals, or colleges on such certificate being given as in this act hereafter mentioned; 
that the proposed experiments are absolutely necessary for the due instruction of 
the persons to whom such lectures are given, with a view to their acquiring physio- 
logical knowledge or knowledge which will he useful to them for saving or prolong- 
ing life or alleviating suffering. 
Second. The substance known as urari or curare shall not, for the purposes of this 
act, be deemed to be an anaesthetic; and XXII 
VIVISECTION. 
Third. Notwithstanding anything in this act contained, no experiment calculated 
to give pain shall he performed on a dog or cat, except upon such certificate being 
given as in this act mentioned, stating, in addition to the statements hereinbefore 
required to he made in such certificate, that for reasons specified in the certificate 
the object of the experiment will he necessarily frustrated unless it is performed on 
an animal similar in constitution and habits to a cat or dog, and no other animal is 
available for such experiment; and an experiment calculated to give pain shall not 
he performed on any horse, ass, or mule, except on such certificate being given as in 
this act mentioned, that the object of the experiment will be necessarily frustrated 
unless it is performed on a horse, ass, or mule, and that no other animal is available 
for such purpose; and 
Fourth. Any exhibition to the general public, whether admission be on payment 
of money or gratuitous, of experiments on living animals, calculated to give pain, 
shall be illegal. 
Any person performing or aiding in performing such experiment shall be deemed 
to be guilty of an offense against this act. and shall, if it be the first offense, be 
liable to a penalty not exceeding one hundred and fifty dollars, and if it be the sec- 
ond or any subsequent offense, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court by which 
he is tried, to a penalty not exceeding three hundred dollars or to imprisonment not 
exceeding six months; and any person publishing any notice of any such intended 
exhibition by advertisement in a newspaper, placard, or otherwise, shall be liable to 
a penalty not exceeding ten dollars. 
A person pquished for an offense under this section shall not for the same offense 
be punishable under any other section of this act. 
Sec. 3. That the Commissioners of the District may insert, as a condition of grant- 
ing any license, a provision in such license that the place in which any such experi- 
ment is to be performed by the licensee is to be registered in such manner as the 
said Commissioners may from time to time by any general or special order direct: 
Provided, That every place for the performance of experiments for the purpose of 
instruction shall be approved by the said Commissioners, and shall be registered in 
such manner as the said Commissioners may from time to time by any general or 
special order direct. 
Sec. 4. That the Commissioners of the District, upon application as hereinafter pre- 
scribed, may license any person whom they may think qualified to hold a license to 
perform experiments under this act: Provided only, That a license shall not be granted 
to any person under the age of twenty-five years, unless he be a graduate from a med- 
ical college, duly authorized to practice medicine in the District of Columbia. 
Sec. 5. That the Commissioners of the District may direct any person performing 
experiments under this act from time to time to make reports to them of the methods 
employed and the results of such experiments, in such form and with such details as 
the said Commissioners may require. 
Sec. 6. That the President of the United States shall cause all places where exper- 
iments on living vertebrate animals are carried on in the District of Columbia, to 
he, from time to time, visited and inspected without previous notice for the purpose 
of securing compliance with the provisions of this act; and to that end shall appoint 
four inspectors, who shall serve without compensation, and who shall have authority 
to visit and inspect the places aforesaid, and who shall report to the President of the 
United States from time to time the results of their observations therein, which shall 
be made public by him. 
Sec. 7. That any application for a license under this act, and for a certificate to 
he given as in this act mentioned, must he signed by three physicians duly licensed 
to practice and actually engaged in practicing medicine in the District of Columbia, 
and also by a professor of physiology, medicine, anatomy, medical jurisprudence, 
materia medica, or surgery in the medical department of any duly established reli- 
able school or college in the District of Columbia; Provided, That when any person 
applying for a certificate under this act is himself one of the persons authorized to 
sign such certificate, the signature of some other of such persons shall be substi- 
tuted for the signature of the applicant. 
A certificate under this section may be given for such time or for such series of 
experiments as the person signing the certificate may think expedient. 
A copy of any certificate under this section shall be forwarded by the applicant to 
the Commissioners of the District, but shall not he available until one week after a 
copy has been so forwarded. 
The Commissioners of the District may at any time disallow or suspend any cer- 
tificate given under this section. 
Sec. 8. That the powers conferred by this act of granting a license or giving a 
certificate for the performance of an experiment on living animals may be exercised 
by an order in writing, under the hand of any judge of a court of record having 
criminal jurisdiction in the District, in a case where such judge is satisfied that it is 
essential for the purpose of justice in a criminal case to make such experiment. VIVISECTION. 
XXIII 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
Health Department, District of Columbia, 
Washington, May 27, 1896. 
Sib: We desire to invite your attention to one of the statements which appears in 
your report upon the hill for the regulation of vivisection in the District of Colum- 
bia (as printetl in the Evening Star, May 26, 1896), which indicates that the subcom- 
mittee having this bill in charge has been misinformed as to the proceedings of the 
committee appointed by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to draft such 
a bill as might be needed to regulate vivisection in this District. We would hesitate 
to accept the published statement as correct, and would wait for the issue of the 
official copy of the report, but the statement to which we are about to call your 
attention is so inaccurate that it may be possible to correct it before such report 
is printed. We are constrained, therefox-e, to invite your attention to the following 
facts at this time: 
The article wffiich appeared in the Star, referring to the report of your committee, 
says: 
“ It first gives the text of the original McMillan bill, stating that after a hearing 
before the District Commissioners it was referred by them to a committee consisting 
of Surg. Gen. George M. Sternberg, U. 8. A., Dr. William C. Woodward, health 
officer of the District, and Mr. Henry B. F. Macfarland, ‘to consider the bill and 
report what modifications, if any, were desirable.’ This committee could not agree, 
as the medical men insisted that no legislation whatever was needed, while Mr. 
Macfarland desired to carry out the intention of the Commissioners. The result 
was that Drs. Sternberg and Woodward submitted protests against the proposed 
legislation, while Mr. Macfarland advised the enactment into law of the modified 
bill, which your committee have unanimously agreed to report, and which he had 
prepared to meet the objections which had been raised to particular provisions of 
the original bill.” 
The actual facts in the case are as follows: 
Surgeon-General Sternberg drafted a bill for the regulation of vivisection in the 
District of Columbia and submitted it to the committee. In the opinion of the 
undersigned, a majority of the committee, this bill was as far-reaching in its pro- 
visions as it was proper to make it in the absence of any known conditions, either 
present or prospective, requiring legal restrictions; it did not, howrever, meet with 
the approval of Mr. Macfarland. The undersigned therefore proposed to enter into 
■any investigation which Mr. Macfarland might suggest, in order to discover what 
were the conditions which demanded any modification of the bill drafted by General 
Sternberg, or, in fact, which demanded any legislation upon the subject. To this 
proposition Mr. Macfarland declined to accede. We therefore “agreed to disagree,” 
and submitted separate reports. The undersigned did not feel able, in the absence 
of any definite knowledge as to the conditions which demanded legislation, to draft 
a bill which would meet the conditions which were alleged to exist, but which had 
not yet been demonstrated. 
It will be seen from the above statements that the majority of the committee agreed 
upon a bill, and, further, ottered to make any investigation which might be suggested 
by the representative of the Washington Humane Society to discover what modifica- 
tions of this bill, if any, were needed; but the representative of the Washington 
Humane Society, Mr. Macfarland, declined to accede to the measure proposed or to 
enter into any investigation of the subject. 
It is believed that it will only be necessary to call your attention to the above dis- 
crepancy between the facts as they exist and as they are stated in your report in 
order to have the necessary correction made. 
Very respectfully, Geo. M. Sternberg. 
Wm. C. Woodward. 
Hon. J. H. Gallinger, 
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 
United States Senate, 
Washington, D. C., May 29, 1896. 
Gentlemen : I have received your valued favor of the 27th instant, and have care- 
fully considered its contents. I see nothing in it that makes it necessary to.alter 
that passage of the report to which yon refer, and which is correctly quoted in the 
Washington Evening Star of May 26. 
The only official report of what your committee did to which I have had access 
completely sustains the statement which you have challenged. The Commissioners 
of the District of Columbia, in a communication dated March 14, 1896, and XXIV 
VIVISECTION. 
addressed to the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, stated that your 
committee had been appointed by them, and had considered the McMillan bill, and 
that as a result they transmitted letters from Dr. Sternberg and Dr. Woodward, and 
a draft of a modified bill prepared by Mr. Macfarland. 
Dr. Sternberg, in his letter dated February 1, 1896, and addressed to the Commis- 
sioners, says, referring to the McMillan bill: “As stated to you, no facts have come 
under my observation or to my knowledge which will justify you in presenting a 
bill upon this subject for the action of the Congress of the United States; ” and the 
rest of his letter is simply an elaboration of this protest. Dr. Woodward, in his 
letter dated February 25, 1896, and addressed to the Commissioners, says: “ The 
proposed law is not called for by conditions at present existing in this District, nor 
are there any conditions likely to arise demanding the enactment of such legislation 
as a preventive measure. I see no reason why the Congress of the United States 
should be asked to give its time to the consideration of such a law in the absence of 
any conditions, present or prospective, that will likely be rectified by it.” 
The remainder of Dr. Woodward’s letter only condemns in detail the proposed 
legislation. No substitute measure is even mentioned, much less recommended, by 
either Dr. Sternberg or Dr. Woodward. The attitude taken in these communica- 
tions is precisely the same as that assumed by Dr. Sternberg and his supporters at 
the hearing before the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the District of 
Columbia, where he and they opposed all legislation on this subject. It will be 
remembered that, in answer to a direct question, Dr. Sternberg unhesitatingly stated 
that no legislation was necessary or desirable. I have no reason to believe that 
either of you has held any other position throughout this controversy. 
Therefore, if any such proposition as you mention was proposed by you in the 
meeting of your committee it must have been so tentative or so irrelevant as not to 
have been seriously considered, and the fact remains that you were protesting against 
legislation while Mr. Macfarland was endeavoring to construct legislation. 
This came out clearly at the hearing before the subcommittee of the Senate Com- 
mittee on the District of Columbia, when Dr. Sternberg alluded to the so-called 
draft of “A bill to regulate vivisection,” said to have been submitted by him in 
your committee discussions, and Mr. Macfarland, who was present, required and 
obtained the admission from Dr. Sternberg that it exempted in terms from its oper- 
ation all medical men and Government officers, who are the only persons carrying 
on vivisection in the District of Columbia, according to your claims. Such a propo- 
sition could not have been seriously considered by anyone, and it does not appear 
to have had even your unqualified support. 
With a view to placing this matter before both parties in interest, I will take the 
liberty to print this correspondence in connection with the report. 
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, yours, 
J. H. Gallinger. 
Drs. Sternberg and Woodward, 
Washington, D. C, UNITED STATES SENATE. 
COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
VIVISECTION 
HEARING ON THE BILL (S. 1552) FOR THE FURTHER 
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS IN 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
WASHINGTON: 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
1896. VIVISECTION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
The subcommittee met at 2 o’clock. 
Washington, D. 0., April 17, 1896. 
Present: Senators Gallinger (chairman of subcommittee), McMillan, 
Bacon, Wetmore, Martin, and Gibson. 
Mr. Curtis, of the House Committee on the District of Columbia,, 
was also present at the hearing by request of the Senate Committee, 
Senator Gallinger. As time is very valuable to most of us, we trust 
you will be as concise as possible. At the same time, it is the desire of 
the subcommittee to treat both sides with the utmost fairness and 
courtesy and to allow as much time as is required to present properly 
both sides of this question. I will take the liberty to inquire of the 
parties representing each side of this question what their wishes are in 
regard to the length of time to be allowed, and we will endeavor to 
make an arrangement as to the division of the time that will be satis- 
factory to each. 
Mr. B. Boss Perry. What total time would the committee feel 
disposed to give1? Then we can divide it. 
Senator Gallinger. The question has been submitted to the chair- 
man of the subcommittee as to whether it would not be the proper thing 
for the advocates of the bill to have the opening argument, and then a 
brief time for rejoinder. I think that is a reasonable request, and is the 
usual course in hearings of this nature. How many are to be heard on 
each side? 
Mr. Perry. We desire three men to be heard on our side—two in 
opening and one in closing. 
Senator Gallinger. How much time do you desire for yourself and 
the other two? 
Mr. Perry. To properly present this subject would require a good 
deal of time, probably more than you can give. In that case we will be 
able to give only a skeleton argument. 
Senator Gallinger. Do you desire, Mr. Perry, to make the closing 
argument? 
Mr. Perry. I propose to open, Mr. Kennedy will follow, and Dr. 
Leffiugwell will close. 
Senator Gallinger. Dr. Sternberg, I believe you represent the 
opponents of the bill. What are your wishes? 
Dr. Sternberg. Mr. Chairman, we did not know of this hearing 
until to-day, and were compelled to come here without any previous 
preparation. We will be governed entirely by the time that will be 
given. I should say that whatever time is granted to the other side 
will be acceptable to us, and that we will select three from our side to 
speak if that is the number that will present the other side. I feel 
very sure that we will find it difficult to conclude the hearing to-day 4 
VIVISECTION. 
if so many gentlemen are to speak. I know there is a delicacy on the 
part of the chairman to limit the time that the parties interested in a 
great question like this may desire to occupy. 
Senator Gallinger. Then, Mr. Perry, would an hour be satisfactory 
to yourself and the gentleman who is to follow you, giving additional 
time to Dr. Leffingwell to close? 
Mr. Perry. I think so. 
Senator Gallinger. Dr. Sternberg, would an hour be satisfactory 
to your side? 
Dr, Sternberg. I think so. 
Senator Gallinger. We will then proceed with that arrangement. 
One hour will be given to the advocates of the bill, one hour to the 
opponents of the bill, and then Dr. Leffingwell in closing will be 
.allowed—how much time do you desire, Doctor? 
Dr, Leffingwell. About twenty-five minutes. 
Senator Gallinger. Then twenty-five minutes will be allowed to 
Dr. Leffingwell to close. That arrangement will give the advocates of 
the bill a little more time, but somebody has to close and I think cour- 
tesy usually grants that to the advocates of a bill. Suppose we allow 
the opponents an hour and a quarter. Is there any objection to that, 
Mr, Perry? If we are not able to get through to-day, we will come 
to-morrow. 
Mr. Perry. That will be satisfactory. 
Senator Gallinger, Before the hearing commences I would like to 
request the people present to observe the utmost quiet during the hear- 
ing. I, myself, am very desirous of being instructed on this subject, 
and I know the other members of the committee are as well. We will 
endeavor to have the hearing conducted very orderly. 
Before Mr. Perry proceeds, I desire to introduce as part of this hear- 
ing certain letters which I have received both for and against this bill. 
I will read the names of the writers and will ask the clerk to have the 
letters themselves printed as a part of this report. 1 have received 
letters in favor of the bill from the following; Dr. T. A. Wales, Elmira, 
IN. Y.; Dr. James Neil, 1712 Madison avenue, New York, N. Y.; Dr. 
Thomas G. Morton, 1421 Chestnut street, Philadelphia, Pa.; Dr. Ed- 
ward W. Avery, 10 Hancock street, Brooklyn, N. Y.; Dr. Matthew 
Woods, president of the American Autivivisection Society, 118 South 
Seventeenth street, Philadelphia, Pa.; Dr. Frank Woodbury, 218 South 
Sixteenth street, Philadelphia, Pa.; Dr. William G. Hartley, 335 West 
Thirty-fourth street, New York City, N. Y.; Dr. Beverley O. Kinnear, 
150 West One hundred and twenth-eighth street, New York, N. Y.; Dr. 
W. S. Tremaine, 410 Elmwood avenue, Buffalo, N. Y.; Dr. Isaac D. 
Meacham, Binghamton, N, Y.; Dr. L. W. Cole, Springfield, Mass.; Dr. 
J. H. Helmer, Lockport, N. Y.; Dr. Samuel Sexton, 12 West Thirty-fifth 
street, New York, N. Y.; Dr. Allan Mott Ring, Arlington Heights, 
Mass.; Dr. Edwin A. W. Harlow, Wollaston, Mass.; Dr. A. S. McClean, 
Springfield, Mass.; Dr. W. P. Roberts, Minneapolis, Minn.; Dr. Ed- 
ward Frankel, 217 East Seventeenth street, New York, N. Y.; Dr. E. 
L. Draper, 180 Walnut street, Holyoke, Mass.; Dr. E. H. Hawks, Lynn, 
Mass.; Philip G. Peabody, A. M., LL. 8,, president of the New Eng- 
land Antivivisection Society, Boston, Mass.; Cynthia Fairchild Allen, 
secretary Illinois Anti vivisection Society, Aurora, 111.; Dr. 0. H. 
Brockway, Worcester, Mass.; Dr. Israel T. Hunt, Boston, Mass.; Dr. 
W. O. Bouton, 320 Fifty-seventh street, Chicago, 111.; Dr. Jesse Myer, 
Kingston, N. Y.; Dr. H. D. Champlin, 455 Clark avenue, Cleveland, 
Ohio; Dr. L. E. Rauterberg, 510 Fifth street NW., Washington, D. O.; VIVISECTION. 
5 
Dr. Clinton Wagner, 19 East Thirty-eighth street, New York, N. Y.; 
Dr. John H. Holmes, superintendent of the Humane Society of Mis- 
souri, St. Louis, Mo. In opposition to the bill I have letters from the 
following: Dr. H. P. Bowditch, professor of physiology, Harvard Med- 
ical School, Boston, Mass.; Dr. William Patten, professor of zoology 
and general biology, Dartmouth College, Hanover, N. H. 
Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I learn that Dr. Leffingwell must leave 
town this evening. May I ask if it will be possible to conclude this 
hearing this evening? 
Senator Gallinger. I will say that as an individual member of the 
subcommittee, I will stay until half past C o’clock if necessary. 
Mr. Perry. Then I will take twenty minutes, Mr. Kennedy twenty 
minutes, and Dr. Leffingwell twenty minutes in closing. 
Senator Gallinger. I think that will be satisfactory. 
STATEMENT OF MR. R. ROSS PERRY. 
Mr. Perry. It must be very apparent to you, gentlemen, that upon so 
large a subject as this little else can be done in the time allowed than 
to present the mere outlines of our position in order that you may pon- 
der upon them at your leisure. Perhaps the members of the committee 
may not all be aware of the history of this movement. This is not its 
initiation. 
About 1876 the agitation was begun in England, and such statements 
were there published in the press with respect to the experiments con- 
ducted in Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Milan, and other European cities as to 
induce the English public to consider the nature of these experiments. 
The matter was brought before Parliament by the introduction of a bill 
designed to repress vivisection. A commission was appointed by Par- 
liament, and this commission sat for some months examining prominent 
physicians of England and the Continent who were in favor of and 
engaged in this practice, and also those who were opposed to it, besides 
others who were not physicians, but who were interested in the subject. 
The report of that commission is contained in a volume which I will 
ask the committee to examine. The bill which ultimately passed Par- 
liament was based upon the report of that commission. That bill has 
been in force in England since 1876. 
This bill is the first one which has ever been introduced, so far as I 
know, in Congress upon this subject. It is not so much to our reproach 
that this is true as would appear, because we must recollect that Eng- 
land is centered in Loudon, There is probably no city in the world 
where a great movement can be so promptly effected as in London. 
There is no country in the world so centralized as to its capital as Great 
Britain is. Accordingly, there were interested in the discussion of this 
question in London the very foremost men in England among the nobility 
as well as the medical profession; and among the people at large it 
excited the greatest interest. 
In this country the fact that so humble a person as myself is the first 
one to speak here to-day upon this subject is to be regretted, I think, as 
is also the fact that in this country we are not organized as they are in 
England, The friends of this bill in Massachusetts do not come to Con- 
gress to effect a reform. They direct their attention to Boston. The 
same is true as to the people of New York and other large centers. 
The object of this bill is to restrict all forms of vivisection. It has 
keen urged in connection with this subject that these physicians, many 
of them, are engaged in experiments which do not involve pain. Suffice 6 
VIVISECTION. 
it to say in respect to that, that the position we occupy is this, that no 
one should be at liberty without any control from the law to practice 
torture upon conscious animals. That is what our vivisection bill means. 
It is a measure which is designed to prevent the inlliction of torture 
upon conscious animals. A word may be said in regard to this general 
subject of torture, and only a word. I have had occasion to speak 
before the Commissioners of the District of Columbia on this subject, 
and I would have the members of this subcommittee to read what I 
have said. If there is no objection I will submit what I then said as a 
part of my remarks at the present time. 
Senator Gallinger. We will be pleased to have you do so, Mr. 
Perry. 
Mr. Perky. I had some doubt, until I came here this afternoon, as 
to the extent to which vivisection had reached in the District of Colum- 
bia. That doubt has been dissipated. I think there can be nothing 
offensive in my noticing the presence here of the Surgeon General of 
the United States Army, of the president of the Medical Society of 
the District of Columbia, of certain professors in local medical colleges, 
and of others, doctors I presume, with whom I am not acquainted. 
And these gentlemen are here, I take it, to oppose a bill that simply 
seeks to regulate vivisection. 
I might talk here for hours, and yet I could say nothing to you which 
would be so potent as this presence in urging the necessity of this bill. 
So far as I am advised, this is the first bill that has ever been intro- 
duced in the Congress of the United States to in any degree protect 
animals from the infliction of what everyone must admit to be most 
horrible, inexpressible torture. It is not to the credit of the American 
nation that this is a fact. 
I sent over, some months ago, to England and procured there the 
book which 1 hold in my hand; it is a report of the Royal Commission 
on Vivisection, printed in 1876, a little before the date of the first 
English act upon the subject. When this subject was agitated in 
England, it appealed to a public which responded at once through the 
utterances and the activity of its foremost men. The evil to be reme- 
died was so great that Catholic and Protestant, the dignitaries of the 
English Church, of the bench and bar, members of the nobility, of the 
medical profession—such men as Professor Huxley, to mention one 
name only—many, many, responded; the British Parliament consti- 
tuted a royal commission to inquire into this matter. This commission 
sat for months and they took (I have this book of double pages here) 
over 300 pages of testimony. Finally there was a report made, signed 
by the names which my friend Mr. Kennedy has read, including that 
of Prof. T. H. Huxley, unanimously indorsing the principle of restrict- 
ing, of confining the right of pursuing these terrible experiments; one 
member of .the commission, Richard Holt Hutton, submitted a supple- 
mentary report, in which he urged that domestic animals, such as dogs 
and cats, should especially, for certain reasons which he gave, be exempt 
from any experimentation whatever. 
About twenty-five years ago that law was passed in England, and 
it is the law there to-day. Now, I say, it is not to our credit that here 
in America this bill should be the first one that has ever been intro- 
duced in the Congress of the United States upon this subject. To-day, 
so far as I know, there is no law anywhere in this country, from the 
Atlantic to the Pacific, or from Canada to Mexico—no law anywhere 
which interferes with the most heartless man in the infliction of un- 
namable cruelty, if only he says that he performs these experiments in 
the name of science. VIVISECTION. 
7 
This bill is not my bill. I want to say, before I speak of the bill 
itself, some words which I can not omit in justice to myself, and which 
I think express a profound truth. I want to say, in the first place, that 
lam not here in any professional capacity. But Ido say that, after an 
experience of almost thirty years at the bar, during which I have 
represented a great many clients—men, women, and children—l never 
in my life stood before my fellow-man feeling a deeper interest in any 
cause than I feel in that which I do represent here. I do feel that, 
weak as my tongue may be, it has to speak for dumb mouths; I do feel 
that no man could ever appear for more helpless, suffering clients than 
these silent creatures whose mouthpiece I am. I pity that man who 
can not feel what I feel. lam unwilling to believe that any of these 
men here do not feel with me. No man who has known the faithful 
love of a dog, who has had the service of a horse—the jiatient, uncom- 
plaining service of a horse—can fail to feel as I feel. If there be among 
you one who can not so feel, I pity him and pass on. 
I recollect one of Charles Readers novels—l think it is called “Foul 
Play”—whose plot involves the wrecking of a ship and the casting away 
of the hero and heroine upon an island. There are two sailors cast 
away at the same time; one is so much injured that a few hours after 
lie reaches shore he dies, and is buried near a brook. The other one, 
also hurt, lingers on for some time, plainly failing daily. One day the 
lovers go off to a distant hill to see if they can discern any signs of a 
sail; coming back they miss the sailor at the tent, nor can they find 
him in his accustomed haunts. Finally they think of the grave of his 
fellow-sailor, and there they see him stretched out on the grave, Charles 
Reade says, “ almost as faithful as a dog.” 
I speak for these helpless friends and servants and fellow-creatures, 
gentlemen, and I must say for myself—l must say here, speaking for 
them—if it were possible to accomplish it, 1 should urge nothing less 
than what is demanded by the foremost men to-day in England who 
are not engaged in this pursuit; I should urge, I say, nothing less than 
the total prohibition of it, as a thing that in its very nature must recoil 
upon those who practice it, upon those who witness it, and, through 
them, upon the whole body politic. 
* As we grow older I think we become more appreciative of the sacred- 
ness of mere life. I think men do not want to wantonly kill anything. 
We can not give life, and we do not want to take away what we can 
not give. Concede, as conceded it must be, that life may be taken— 
for we may take the life of men in self-defense, we may take the animals 
for our food—and yet it remains a pregnant fact, which I think we do 
not give sufficient thought to, that there are hundreds of millions of 
our fellow-men who believe in a religion which regards mere life as so 
sacred that its votaries are not allowed to destroy a living thing. This 
is a significant fact, and perhaps we may learn something even from 
the Hindoos in this connection. 
But, be that as it may, I say that it seems to me that nothing can be 
urged in favor of torture. There is nothing that can draw healthy life 
or sustenance from torture. It is something which absolutely poisons 
any fruit, if you may call it fruit, that it can produce. Why is it we see 
everywhere that this horrible thing—torture—is repudiated as society 
advances and as civilization increases ? Why was it that it was thought 
necessary a hundred years ago, when the Constitution of these United 
States was framed, or rather when the first amendments were added, 
to make torture the subject of a special amendment? Why was it that 
the eighth amendment to the Constitution provided that cruel and 8 
VIVISECTION. 
unusual pains should not be inflicted? Why is it that they are not 
inflicted to-day in any civilized country? Why is it that not over a 
hundred years ago when a man was convicted in England of treason 
he was drawn and then hanged, and then cut down and disemboweled, 
and then his bowels were burned before his face, and then he was quar- 
tered ? Why is it that this is not the law to-day ? 
Why is it that in this country there has blossomed, as I think, the 
fairest flower of the legislation of to-day—this exquisite law that reaches 
sweet hands of mercy down to these animals, and says that no one 
shall inflict cruelty upon them? Is not the answer simply this? Is it 
not that men—not sentimental men, but statesmen, both those who are 
framing the laws of a nation, and also those who are developing these 
laws, have recognized the fact that although cruel and unusual pains 
may be nothing more than criminals deserve, yet because legislation 
has something more to think of than the suffering of the criminal, these 
pains can not be inflicted? While it is true that the criminal would 
suffer, the inflicters would suffer in greater degree than the criminal, 
and there would follow from those who looked at that cruelty—there 
would follow a horror of it at first, and then a xfleasure in it, and from 
the pangs of the one criminal there would spring the seeds of other 
crimes. Those who witnessed it would first shudder, then enjoy, then 
imitate. That is the reason of it. 
Do not tell me that I am talking of any sentimentality when I am 
speaking of what statesmen, who presided over the birth of the Consti- 
tution of the United States, estimated at so great value that they made 
an amendment specially designed to cover it. 
Now, let me tell you why this is so important a truth, and in doing so 
I will read from an author whom gentlemen on the other side will not 
dissent from. It is well to recollect the rock from which we were hewn. 
What does Professor Huxley say man originally was? I read from his 
pamphlet on agnosticism: 
I know of no study which is so inutterably saddening as that of the evolution of 
mankind as it is set forth in the annals of history. Out of the darkness of pre- 
historic ages man emerges with the marks of his lowly origin strong upon him. He 
is a brute, only more intelligent than other brutes; a blind prey to impulses, which, 
as often as not, lead him to destruction; a victim to endless illusions, which make, 
his mental existence a terror and burden and fill his physical life with barren toil 
and battle. 
I say that is where we started. According to you scientists, that is 
where we started. To what point have we come? I do not want to 
speak with any rhetoric to you to day of the attainments of the men of 
the nineteenth century. You can look back through the ages and see 
humanity flowering in self sacrifice, in generosity, in all of those mental 
and moral qualities which distinguish the men of to-day from this brute— 
our father, as Professor Huxley says. 
It has been said by those of that school that the chastity of women 
has grown out of the thousands who have been stoned to death for 
adultery. I take your own school. Just pause a moment; think of 
these long, dark centuries during which this xioor creature, man, is toil- 
ing up through blood, suffering, ignorance, and tears, and finally, after 
this almost infinitely slow x>rocess, getting only a little advanced, only 
a little away from all this horrid instinct, this genius which he has for 
torture and which only he, so far as I know, has forever with him. It 
is a curious thing, a mysterious thing. There is the feline tribe among 
the lower animals, and man among the highest, only those having this 
instinct of torture, this pleasure in the inflicting and beholding of 
suffering and of blood. VIVISECTION. 
9 
Now, I say we have gotten by these struggles, we have painfully 
gotten, from Huxley’s prehistoric man up to the man of the nineteenth 
century, and I say it is important for the preservation of the race that 
we at least stay there. What is there still in us of this animal? I 
have chosen as an answer the following utterances at large intervals of 
time and from men of different nationalities in order that you may see 
how perfectly impersonal they are; they were not called forth by any 
urgency of pending discussion. 
Plato says in the ninth book of his Republic: 
The wild beast in our nature starts up * * * and walks about naked. * * * 
Even in good men there is such a latent wild beast nature which peers out in sleep 
I read next from a French author of our own century, Edgar Quinet. 
He here uses the word sin, not in its theological meaning, but as signi- 
fying a violation of moral law. He says: 
When thou dost sin, what dost thou ? Know that thou returnest to the ages of 
the world when conscience did not yet exist. The old nature continues to mutter 
at the bottom of human nature. If man makes no effort to maintain his position, 
he falls back among the inferior beings that preceded him, from whose midst he has 
emerged. By crime he precipitates himself from the summit of the scale of beings 
and falls below the very worm of the earth. 
Is not that true? Is there a man here who does not know its truth? 
What have you to say about Oscar Wilde? I will not give other 
instances. What have you to say of such, if that is not true? What 
have you to say about the common expression, “If you scratch a Rus- 
sian you tickle a Tartar?” Do not you all know? Does not every man 
here know that this civilization of to-day is a veneering; that it is a 
crust; that underneath all this film there are these passions, these 
fires? There is this brute animal nature from which we emerged, and 
which is still so strong in us. Now, I say, gentlemen—l say, if this is 
true, then any practice which tends to destroy the result of so many 
thousands of years of suffering, and advancement through suffering, 
ought to be considered very carefully before it is sanctioned. We 
ought to be very apprehensive, indeed, of legalizing or permitting to go 
unchecked any such practice, if a probable result will be the destruction 
of this fruit of the centuries on which our civilized life depends. 
Now, Ido not want to be merely asserting things; it might be said that 
such assertions were only my own opinions. I want to quote from men 
who have considered this general subject at different ages and among 
different peoples. Perhaps you will recollect in “Cymbeline” that 
the Queen, on one occasion, requests the court physician to procure for 
her certain poisonous drugs. He asks her what she is going to do with 
them. She answers that she wants to experiment with them upon liv- 
ing animals to try their beneficent or deleterious effects; not, she says, 
of course, on man, but on the viler animals. Shakespeare’s great mind 
only glanced at this subject. This was the only occasion he ever 
touched this thing. I have been unable to find in his writings any other 
reference to this horrible thought of vivisection. But when Shake- 
speare’s mind turned to that there was almost the mind of Almighty 
Hod turned to it. 
What does the physician say in answer to the Queenf He says, first, 
of herself: “Your Highness shall from this practice but make hard 
your heart.” That is what Shakespeare thought of it, and the only 
thing he says of it is, not that you will advance science with it, but 
“Your Highness shall from this practice but make hard your heart.” 
That is the only thing you will get out of the blood and the suffering of 
these poor creatures, but you will surely get that—you will make hard 10 
VIVISECTION. 
your heart. What else does he add1? The wrong you do will not be 
only to yourself, “besides, the seeing of these effects will be both 
noisome and infectious.” Now, think a moment. Of all the words in 
the English language can you get two which more absolutely tell what 
this thing is than those two—noisome and infections'? Shakespeare 
says the seeing of it is noisome. What does “noisome” mean? I need 
not tell these gentlemen, who, I suppose, all know Latin. In the tongue 
from which it is taken it means hurtful, but that is not the end of it— 
it makes hard the heart of the man who does it; it is hurtful to those 
who witness it; but it is something worse than that—it is infectious. 
You had better have about you the smallpox or the yellow fever. If 
there are here any of you who do these things before children in schools, 
you had better infect them with the smallpox and the yellow fever than 
do these damnable things before them, because Shakespeare says they 
are infectious, and you are poisoning the fathers and mothers of the 
coming generation. 
But I have one more man whose words I want you to hear—a man 
who, in England the other day, wrote a phenomenal book on social evo- 
lution; who tried to show how society was making its advances slowly 
through this very principle of evolution. He shows, I think, conclu- 
sively, that there is inherent in society a life of its own which we can 
only modify to some extent; that this life goes on developing from cen- 
tury to century. And what does he say is the principle of this life? 
The principle of altruism—of having some regard for other things 
higher than ourselves. He says that each generation of men make 
sacrifices the good of which can never accrue to that generation; they 
have to make these sacrifices exactly as a girl matures, marries, and 
goes through the pangs of maternity for the good of the race. It is 
an instinct in her which she can not resist; society lives and progresses 
only through this instinct of altruism which its members respond to. 
What does Mr, Kidd say in the note at the foot of page 162 of his 
book on Social Evolution? 
The arguments which have been used on both sides of this question have a special 
interest, inasmuch as they serve to bring out in a striking light that general absence, 
already remarked upon, of any clear conception as to what the function of the 
altruistic feelings really is. The opponents of vivisection have hitherto based their 
case on the peculiar grounds of the alleged absence of any considerable benefit to 
medical science from the practice. The advocates of vivisection, on the other hand, 
based their case on the equally precarious ground that because the benefits to med- 
ical science have been large, obstacles should not be placed in the way of vivisection. 
It is evident, however, that neither side touches what is the real question at issue. 
If society is asked to permit vivisection, the ouly question it has to decide is whether 
the benefits it may receive from the practice through the furtherance of medical 
science (even admitting them to be considerable) outweigh the injury it may occa- 
sion through the weakening of the altruistic feelings it tends to outrage. 
The reason, however, why the question is not usually put thus simply and 
directly in the controversial literature which this subject so plentifully provokes, 
is, apparently, that we have no clear apprehension as to what the real function of 
the altruistic feelings is. Their immense importance is accordingly justified by 
instinct rather than by reason, and consequently such justification comes almost 
and exclusively from that section of the population whose social .instincts are 
healthiest. 
There, I say, is the verdict of a man whose book has been recognized 
as an epoch-making book, a man of the foremost reputation to-day in 
England, and I trust that his fame has, to some extent, been diffused 
in this country. His judgment agrees exactly with the argument which 
I have been urging here. Any benefit which may result from this 
practice is outweiglied by the injury which is done to the feeling of 
humanity—the altruistic feeling, as he terms it—upon which social 
progress rests. 11 
VIVISECTION. 
Gentlemen, I felt that I had to say this much in order to express my 
own position upon this question. 
It is exceedingly important that you should have this general feeling 
upon the subject when yon come to deal with the bill that is before you. 
Now, what is this bill1? The bill is a concession on the part of society, 
so far as this District is concerned, at least, a concession that this prac- 
tice may be pursued. All that is asked now by the friends of this 
measure is that some limit may be put upon the practice. It is asked, 
in the first place, that no experiments involving pain shall be permitted 
in the public schools, where they are poisonous and infections. It is 
asked, in the Second place, that no such experiments may be permitted 
unless they are done under license. It is admitted that they may be 
done for the sake of scientific experimentation. It is admitted that they 
may be done for the detailed purposes mentioned in the bill, and all that 
is asked is that they may not be done indiscriminately; that they may 
not be done by unauthorized persons; that they may not be done in 
improper places. 
I am at a loss to conceive what arguments can be urged against this 
bill as it is. If I were speaking in favor of a bill absolutely prohibit- 
ing this practice, and it were retorted upon me that there were benefits 
derived from this practice of vivisection of animals which could not be 
derived in any other way, I should reply that those are benefits which 
can not be bought at the price which we must pay for them. Benefits 
might be derived from the dissection of criminals. It may be that 
idiots could be devoted profitably to a scientific purpose, but so far 
there is a repugnance in the human mind to cutting up even an idiot 
alive. Ido not believe that anyone has yet proposed to cut up live 
idiots, but I do say that if we destroy pity, which it took thousands of 
years to develop, we have much to fear from the cruelty of a man who 
has brain but no heart. It is so hard to climb. It is so easy to fall. 
It is only this century which has begun to appreciate what torture 
means. The lawyers on this committee will recall that it is only within 
this century that legal torture has been abolished. In England a form 
of punishment for treason, which protracted life in order that the final 
taking away of it might be more painful, continued to be inflicted until 
this century. In 1787 Lord Brskine arose in the House of Lords to 
advocate a bill designed to prevent the infliction of suffering as a means 
of punishment. He was laughed at by that foremost legislative body 
of Europe when he undertook to say that the torture of animals was a 
thing to be avoided as an evil. From that day to this there has been 
great advancement. Whatever position the man of to day occupies 
above the position he occupied at the beginning of this century is 
due to the fact that there has been developed a feeling of humanity 
which never existed before. The fact that all the countries of this 
World have been brought together by means of the steamship, the rail- 
road, the telegraph, and the cable but emphasizes the truth that all 
members of this human family are brothers. If you want an example 
of that you have only to turn to the public sentiment which has devel- 
oped lately in favor of the Armenians, 
I will not consider how in the development of the race we came to 
the position that the infliction of torture is an evil. I say it is a fact 
Which we all admit; it is a fact that the founders of our Constitution 
admitted when in the eighth amendment they said that cruel and 
unusual punishments should not be inflicted. To-day the man who 
advocates the infliction of torture has to maintain that proposition 
against public sentiment. We all know that in ancient times it was 12 
VIVISECTION, 
permitted to vivisect men, I have read that even in the last century 
criminals were given over by the authorities for the purpose of vivi- 
section. Who would propose to do that to-day? If it was proposed 
to-day by anyone in this country to vivisect a man, with liis own con- 
sent even, you gentlemen can imagine the public sentiment that would 
be aroused. How, the only thing that can be said with respect to the 
difference between torturing a man and torturing animals is this: It 
is said that if you torture animals it is only doing that which comes to 
them in the ordinary course of their lives. They rend and tear each 
other, and when they become sick are left by their companions to die. 
They do die, finally, in solitude and hunger. 
To show how feeble that argument is, you have only to take the 
Indian. Each one of these facts exists with respect to man, as they 
exist wi th respect to animals. What attention would you give to a man 
who said that the right to torture man existed on account of those facts ? 
If you can not justify the torture of man from the fact that among the 
savages these evils come to him, how can you justify the torture of ani- 
mals by reason of the same facts ? 
You may ask me what right I have to assume that these things are 
being done every day. I have the right to assume it in the highest 
degree, because when we introduce a bill intended to put this thing 
under control of the law, the Surgeon-General of the Army of the United 
States comes here to oppose it, and the leading representatives of the 
medical societies of the District of Columbia come here to oppose it. 
We come here favoring the passage of a bill which simply seeks to put 
torture under the control of the law; that is all—not to say that it shall 
not be done. We do not believe that anyone who calls himself a scien- 
tist should be allowed, with absolute immunity and under no control, 
to do these things which I believe no man can think of for a moment 
without having his blood curdle. I have the right to assume that that 
is a great evil from that very fact. 
I pick up any book on physiology and what do I see? I see records 
of experiments where they take any principal nerve in the structure of 
an animal and trace its path to the brain, and try to localize it in some 
particular part of the brain. If you want to know what this is, read 
the latest German book on the subject, translated into English. It is 
in what we to-day call psychology that you will find those experiments 
which involve the most torture. Dr. Leffingwell may have occasion to 
speak on that point. I can not do so, save to say that one experiment 
referred to in every book on anatomy is this: They take a large quad- 
ruped, such as an ass, a horse, or a dog, securely fasten the animal, and 
cut down to the spinal column. Then with a mallet and chisel they 
cut away the spinal column until the spinal cord itself is uncovered, 
when with a needle or knife they prick that substance which is so sen- 
sitive that its culmination in the medulla oblongata is the very seat of 
life. I say you have these men doing that to animals here in this 
District. I observe the doctors smile. I should like, if I had time, to 
call your attention to their text-books and to read here an account 
published by themselves—that is, by a man in their own profession, 
a doctor in Vienna. He takes an animal and cuts into the spinal col- 
umn and then drives a wire probe through the spinal cord. These are 
experiments that you can read in any book on physiology or psychology. 
If any of you have had the nerve of a tooth killed, you can have 
some very meager idea of the excruciating pain attending those experi- 
ments upon nerves. Doubtless you remember how, even after the nerve 
had been deadened with cocaine, when the dentist put his instrument 
into the cavity what pain there was. What must it be when the nerve VIVISECTION. 
13 
is not deadened? And these experiments I have referred to are not on 
small nerves such as are found in a tooth, but upon the spinal cord itself. 
I say, gentlemen, these things ought to be regulated by law. Why 
should they not be? We are met, first, by the assertion on the part of 
these gentlemen that scientists propose to-day to take up the position 
from which theology has been driven. They say, “ Because I call 
myself a scientist, my conscience is supreme; let me torture as I please; 
let science protect me in every iniquity that I may conceive.” I say, 
gentlemen, that that claim was driven out of the world by the French 
revolution in the first place, and by the American Constitution in the 
second place. 
In Jersey City there was a doctor who stretched iron bars across the 
floor of his room and then took a number of dogs and dropped them 
down so that they would strike on their spinal columns against the 
iron bars. A leading medical journal of England, in commenting upon 
that experiment, described it as fiendish and atrocious. Now, are we 
to assume that that man is a unit—is only one? Even if he is the only 
one, is he to be allowed to go on ? 
Now one other thing. It is proposed by the Surgeon-General of the 
Army of the United States that you gentleman shall pass a law for the 
United States, and in that same law shall say that its servant and those 
under him are to be exempt from the operations of that law. He would 
conduct a little shop of his own down there—a United States shop in 
which United States law shall not apply. The Surgeon-General of the 
Army has no more right to practice torture than I have. Ido not know 
of any law in this District that does not apply to the Surgeon-General’s 
Office as well as to the Halls of Congress. I can not kill a man here in 
this Capitol without being liable for it. Why should he be exempt 
from the law? 
Senator Gallinger. You have consumed twenty-two minutes, Mr. 
Perry. Whom do you desire to follow you? 
Mr. Perry. Mr. Crammond Kennedy. 
Senator Gallinger. Mr. Kennedy, whom do you represent? 
Mr. Crammond Kennedy. 1 represent the friends of this bill, just 
as Mr. Perry does. 
Senator Gatlinger. Do you live in this city, Mr. Kennedy? 
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir; I practice law here, 
Mr. Perry. You understand, gentlemen, I am not here in a profes- 
sional capacity. lam not here as a lawyer, but as a citizen. 
Mr. Kennedy. If it please you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the 
committee, I want to read a statement of Mr. Henry B. F. Macfarland, 
who whs appointed a member of the committee of three by the Com- 
missioners of the District of Columbia to prepare a bill for the regula- 
tion of vivisection. Mr. Macfarland’s statement is as follows: 
STATEMENT OF HENRY B. F. MACFARLAND, MEMBER OF THE 
COMMITTEE OF THREE APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSIONERS 
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO PREPARE A BILL FOR 
THE REGULATION OF VIVISECTION IN THE DISTRICT OF 
COLUMBIA. 
Gentlemen of the Committee : After the public hearing upon the 
McMillan-Henderson bill for the further prevention of cruelty to ani- 
mals in the District of Columbia, the Commissioners of the District of 
Columbia, satisfied that some measure of that sort embodying the 
principles of restriction and official inspection of vivisection should be 14 
VIVISECTION. 
enacted into law, requested Surgeon-General George M. Sternberg, 
United States Army, Dr. William C. Woodward, health officer of the 
District of Columbia, and myself to act as a committee to consider 
the McMillan-Henderson bill and report what modifications, if any, 
should be made in it as the basis of their report to Congress, the bill 
having been referred to them by Congress for a recommendation. 
I accepted the invitation and endeavored in good faith to carry out 
the design of the Commissioners. The committee held two meetings, 
at both of which the other two members of the committee occupied the 
position that no legislation on the subject was desirable or necessary. 
At the first meeting they contended that the Commissioners had 
appointed the committee, not to prepare a bill, but to consider whether 
any legislation was necessary and desirable, and took the stand against 
it which they held throughout the consideration of the matter. The 
Commissioners of the District of Columbia, being asked after the first 
meeting of the committee to restate their purpose, did so, stating that 
they desired the committee not to investigate the subject generally, but 
to consider and report upon the McMillan-Henderson bill. I then 
endeavored, but without success, to get my colleagues to take up the 
bill, section by section, and propose amendments to it. They insisted, 
however, that there was no occasion for such legislation, and that they 
could not and would not take part in its preparation, and finally we 
agreed to disagree, and to submit individual reports to the Commis- 
sioners of the District of Columbia. Accordingly my colleagues sub- 
mitted protests against the proposed legislation, and I submitted the 
McMillan-Henderson bill with certain modifications. 
The Commissioners adopted none of the reports, but reported in favor 
of the McMillan-Henderson bill with certain amendments, which, if 
adopted, would seriously impair its value. The Commissioners evi- 
dently intend to recommend the principles of the bill, but the amend- 
ments they suggest, if adopted, would make those principles inopera- 
tive as to the most important purposes of the bill. For example, their 
amendments do away with the requirement for the use of anaesthetics 
in any case, and also exempt from the purview of the measure all the 
Government laboratories, where it is conceded most of the vivisection 
practiced in the District of Columbia is carried on. 
The modifications in the McMillan-Henderson bill proposed in my 
report to the Commissioners contain all the concessions which the 
opponents of this legislation can reasonably ask, I availed myself in 
preparing them of all the objections which were made at the public 
hearing before the Commissioners, and by my colleagues in the two 
meetings of the committee of three, and they are the utmost that can 
be granted without yielding the principles of the bill or making them 
ineffective. 
The first modification limits the application of the measure to u ver- 
tebrate” living animals, instead of including all living animals as in 
the McMillan-Henderson bill. 
The second modification exempts from the requirements of license 
and registration all duly authorized medical officers of the Government 
of the United States, or that of the District of Columbia, and the 
official laboratories in which they work. 
The third modification exempts from the requirements that anaesthet- 
ics shall be employed in all cases: first, so-called inoculation experi- 
ments; second, tests of drugs and medicines; third, experiments in 
recovery from cases of surgical procedure. These three exemptions 
cover all the classes of vivisection which are admitted by the vivisectors VIVISECTION. 
15 
to be carried on in the District of Columbia. If it is true, as they 
claim, that no other classes of vivisection are practiced here, they ought 
to be entirely satisfied with the exemption of these cases from the 
requirement that anaesthetics shall be employed. Nor can they rea- 
sonably object to the requirement that anaesthetics should be used in 
cases of more painful experimentation, if it should be discovered that 
they now exist here or if they should be hereafter introduced. 
The fourth modification simply provides that no license for vivisec- 
tion shall be issued to anyone under 25 years of age who is not a grad- 
uate of a medical school. 
The fifth modification provides for reports to the Commissioners 
of the District of Columbia by licensed vivisectors on the methods 
employed by them in their experiments, as well as their results. 
The sixth modification vests the appointment of the inspectors of 
vivisection provided tor in the bill in the President of the United States 
instead of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, and omits 
the requirement that one of them shall be a member of the Washington 
Humane Society. This is intended to meet, and it is believed does fully 
meet, the objections raised, first, that Government officers ought not to 
be subjected in their vivisection work to the supervision of inspectors 
appointed by the municipal officers of the District of Columbia; and 
second, that none of the inspectors should necessarily be taken from 
the membership of the Washington Humane Society. The Govern- 
ment officers (already exempted by the second modification from the 
requirement of license and registration on the ground that their official 
status attests their character and competency, and that the location 
of the Government laboratories is well known) can not certainly object 
to the inspection of their work by inspectors appointed by the Presi- 
dent of the United States, who is the official superior of all Govern- 
ment officers, and who would doubtless appoint as inspectors men of 
similar standing to that of those who are appointed as members of the 
Board of Indian Commissioners or the Boards of Visitors to West Point 
and Annapolis, who serve, like the inspectors contemplated in the bill, 
gratuitously, and as a matter of public duty. Unless the vivisectors 
connected with the governmental service are to be considered above 
the law, or a law unto themselves, in this matter, no valid objection can 
be raised to placing their work under the same official inspection as 
that provided for similar work by private individuals. In view of the 
fact that Congress has created and maintains by annual appropriations 
the Government laboratories in which their work is carried on, as well 
as the offices that they themselves hold, no argument is needed to show 
that they are entirely under the control of Congress. 
If the bill as modified in the draft submitted by me to the Commis- 
sioners should be adopted, vivisection could be carried on in the District 
of Columbia (except in the public schools where it is forbidden) by pri- 
vate persons, licensed by the Commissioners of the District of Colum- 
bia, in places registered by the Commissioners of the District of 
Columbia, and by duly authorized medical officers of the Government 
of the United States, and that of the District of Columbia in govern- 
mental laboratories under the requirement that in experiments on ver- 
tebrate living'animals the subjects shall be under the influence of 
anaesthetics, except in the cases of so-called inoculation experiments, 
of tests of drugs and medicines, and of recovery from surgical pro- 
cedure, licensees to report to the Commissioners of the District of 
Columbia their methods and results, and all vivisection to be subject 
to the inspection of four inspectors, to be appointed by the President 16 
VIVISECTION. 
of the United States, to whom they shall report, and who shall make 
their reports public. The bill as thus modified would not interfere 
with any of the vivisection now admitted to be carried on in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, but would provide for the detection of any more 
painful experimentation, if such is being practiced here (and that fact 
can only be ascertained by official inspectors visiting places of exper- 
iment at unexpected times), or of such more painful experimentation, if 
not now practiced, but hereafter introduced. The present vivisectors 
may be as humane as they claim to be to-day (although this can only 
be determined by official inspection), but they may become less humane 
to-morrow, and their successors may practice cruelty. Nothing but 
official inspection by disinterested persons visiting laboratories, when 
they are not expected, can give the supervision absolutely required. 
STATEMENT OF MR. CRAMMOND KENNEDY. 
Mr. Kennedy. I desire to state in the interest of both sides of this 
question that I have been instructed to say by the friends of this bill 
that they are willing to have it amended so as to exclude inoculation. 
I desire to state this so that it may not be necessary to discuss that 
phase of the bill. It may save a great deal of time not only to our med- 
ical friends but also to ourselves. We have been told that vivisection 
includes inoculation, and in order to do away with that objection we 
have submitted to the amendment. 
Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, there is one subject upon which I had 
not time to touch, but which I would like to mention. It is left in the 
power of the experimenter to say whether he shall give chloroform or 
not. 
Mr. Kennedy. As a lawyer, I must express my concurrence with what 
Mr. Perry says in regard to the Surgeon-General. The idea that because 
he is in the service of the Government in the capacity of a physician— 
for which he is paid—he should not be subject to supervision in making 
experiments upon living animals, that he should be outside the pur- 
view of the law in what he is engaged in doing—l do not want to use 
a harsh word—but that strikes me as monstrous. 
We have here printed a bill which is the result of the conferences 
and the consideration given by our representative, Mr. Macfarlaud, in 
the meetings to which he has referred in his report. The committee 
will find this amendment on the second page of the bill, in section 2, 
paragraph (ft) after the word “mentioned” add the following: “or by 
a duly authorized officer of the Government of the United States or 
of the District of Columbia.” Also amend paragraph (c) so that it 
shall read as follows: 
(c) The animal must, during the whole of the experiment, be completely under the 
inllueuce of ether or chloroform sufficiently to prevent the animal from feeling pain, 
excepting only that in so-called inoculation experiments or tests of drugs or medi- 
cines, the animal need not be anaesthetized nor killed afterward, nor in tests of surgi- 
cal procedure need animals be kept completely anaesthetized during the process of 
recovery from the surgical operation. Otherwise than this the animal must be kept 
from pain during all experiments; and 
Then, in section 6 on the fourth page of this bill, in order to meet the 
objection of the Surgeon-General and his associates, that their experi- 
ments as Government officials upon animals, of whatever kind they may 
be, ought not to be subject to the inspection of the Commissioners of 
the District of Columbia, we have consented to amend the bill so as to 
place the power of attending experiments and making inspection in the 17 
bands of tbe President of the United States. The amendment reads 
this way: 
VIVISECTION. 
Sec. 6. That the President of the United States shall cause all places where experi- 
ments on living vertebrate animals are carried on, in the District of Columbia, to he, 
from time to time, visited and inspected without previous notice, for the purpose of 
securing compliance with the provisions of this act; and to that end shall appoint 
four inspectors, who shall serve without compensation, and who shall have author- 
ity to visit and inspect the places aforesaid, and who shall report to the President 
of the United States from time to time the results of their observations therein, 
which shall be made public by him. 
Now, that word “vertebrate” is inserted at the beginning of the bill 
to obviate another objection—a proper objection, in my opinion—which 
was made to the bill in its original form. 
Senator Gallinger. In line 3? 
Mr, Kennedy. Yes, sir. 
Senator Gallinger. Jnst at this point may I ask a question? Have 
the amendments which Mr. Macfarland has suggested been accepted by 
the parties whom yon represent? 
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir. How much time have I, Senator? 
Senator Gallinger. Twelve or thirteen minutes. 
Mr. Kennedy. I want to read, if you please, a portion of the report 
which the commission to which my friend, Mr. Perry, alluded, made to 
Parliament. Now, it will be clear to the committee, from the names of 
the gentlemen who were charged by Parliament with this investigation 
and report, that it could not have been in more competent hands. The 
commissioners were the Eight Hon, Viscount Gardwell; the Eight Hon. 
Lord Winmazleigh; the Eight Hon. W. E. Forster, M. P.; Sir J. B. 
Karslake, M, P.; Prof. Thomas H. Huxley, John Eric Erichsen, esq.; 
Pichard Holt Hulton, esq. Before that commission, in the thorough- 
going way in which such matters are handled by the mother country, 
there appeared hundreds of distinguished physicians and surgeons who 
Were carefully examined in regard to vivisection as practiced in Great 
Britain and on the Continent of Europe. 
Senator Gallinger, Mr. Kennedy, will you please tell the commit- 
tee the date of that report? 
Mr. Kennedy. The date is January 8, 1876, and it is coincident, or 
almost coincident, with the passage of the act to which ray friend, Mr. 
Perry, alluded as having been law in England for the past twenty 
years. 
Senator Gallinger. Was that a unanimous report, or were there 
two reports made? 
Mr. Kennedy. The report was unanimous, except that Mr. Eichard 
Holt Hutton made a report of his own, concurring in the report of his 
colleagues, but going further than they went in certain particulars. In 
the interests of humanity he held that, on account of the close rela- 
tions between man and the household animals—the dog and the cat— 
those animals should be exempted altogether from experiments of 
this kind. I say fireside friends, for in most houses in England the 
dog lies on the mat before the fire, and it is said the only person who 
ever disputed a chair with Her Majesty was Her Majesty’s favorite 
greyhound. 
In the highlands of Scotland this sometimes happens: A shepherd 
is out on the mountains and a snow squall ripens into a three-days’ 
storm. The shepherd seeks shelter, leaving his faithful dog to 
care for the sheep. By some divine instinct—l mean if you doctors 
believe in God—by some divine instinct the dog that the shepherd 
leaves on the hills watches over the sheep; if it is springtime he does 
viv 2 18 
VIVISECTION. 
not lose a single lamb. In one case 500 sheep with a few early lambs 
were left with one collie, and after a three days’ storm the shepherd 
found every one of them on the lee side of a precipice, not one lost—not 
even one of the lambs. If you were to talk to that shepherd about vivi- 
secting his collie he would tell you to go to the hottest place outside of 
heaven. 
Senator Gaelinger. That must be Washington to-day. 
Mr. Kennedy. Now, gentlemen, a sentence or two from this report. 
These doctors do not seem to know that there is a thoroughly delined 
scientific opposition to vivisection. Some of the greatest living phy- 
sicians and surgeons are not in favor of restricting vivisection but of 
abolishing it. 
Lawson Tait has published a pamphlet in regard to the uselessness 
of vivisection, in which he discusses the subject with his usual thorough- 
ness. If there is no objection I would be pleased to make this pamphlet 
a part of my remarks. 
Senator Gaelinger. The committee will be glad to have the pamph- 
let of Professor Tait to consult. 
Mr. Kennedy. The title of the pamphlet is “The Uselessness of 
Vivisection as a Method of Scientific Research,” It is by Lawson Tait, 
F. R. G. S., etc. The paper was read before the Birmingham Philo- 
sophical Society, April 20, 1882, and has been reprinted from the 
society’s transactions by the Victoria Street Society for the Protection 
of Animals from Vivisection, which society has united with the Inter- 
national Society for the Total Suppression of Vivisection. The offices 
of the latter society are 1 Victoria street, London, England. I mention 
these facts so that anybody who desires to verify the reference may be 
able to do so. Dr. Tail’s statement is as follows: 
I need not go into the general history of vivisection, for it hardly bears upon the 
question to which I desire to limit myself; hut I think it advisable to formulate a 
a few preliminary conclusions before i come to my immediate subject, in order that I 
may clear the way for discussion and show at once the grounds upon which I stand, 
for I find myself in a position adverse to the view adopted by the great majority of 
my professional brethren. 
I dismiss at once the employment of experiments on living animals for the pur- 
pose of mere instruction, as absolutely unnecessary, and to be put an end to by 
legislation without any kind of reserve whatever. In my own education I went 
through the most complete course of instruction in the University of Edinburg with- 
out ever witnessing a single experiment on a living animal. It has been my duty as 
a teacher to keep myself closely conversant with the progress of physiology until 
within the last four years, and up to that date I remained perfectly ignorant of any 
necessity for vivisection as a means of instructing pupils, and I can find no reason 
whatever for its introduction into English schools, save a desire for imitating what 
has been witnessed on the Continent by some of our most recent additions to physi- 
ological teaching. In Trinity College, Dublin, the practice has been wholly pre- 
vented, and on a recent visit to that institution I could not find, after much careful 
inquiry, the slightest reason to believe that any detriment was being inflicted upon 
the teaching or upon those taught. 
The position of vivisection as a method of scientific research stands alone among 
the infinite variety of roads for the discovery of nature’s secrets as being open to 
strong prima facie objection. No one can urge the slightest ground of objection 
against the astronomer, the chemist, the electrician, or the geologist in their ways of 
working, and the great commendation of all other workers is the comparative cer- 
tainty of their results. But for the physiologist working upon a living animal 
there are the two strong objections—that he is violating a strong and widespread 
public sentiment, and that he tabulates results of the most uncertain and often 
quite contradictory kind. 
I do not propose to deal with the sentimental side of the question at all, though no 
one can doubt it is a very strong element in the case as maintained by public opinion. 
I shall deal simply with the inquiry: Has this method of scientific research—vivisec- 
tion—contributed so much to the relief of suffering or to the advance of human 
knowledge as to justify its continuance in spite of the manifest objections to it? 
My own answer I shall try to give in the following pages, merely premising that an 
answer to justify vivisection must be clear and decisive, must be free from doubt of VIVISECTION. 
19 
any kind, and, above all, it must not assume the protection of a “ privileged mys- 
tery.” This is a question, I maintain, which can be discussed by an educated layman 
just as well, perhaps better, as by a physician or a surgeon or a professional physiolo- 
gist. It is a question chiefly of historical criticism, and we must have a conclusive 
answer concerning each advance which is quoted as an instance, how much of it has 
been due to vivisectional experiment and how much to other sources, and this amount 
must be clearly and accurately ascertained. It will not do, as has been the case in 
many of the arguments, to draw such a picture as that of an amputation in the sev- 
enteenth century and one performed last year, and say that the change is due to 
vivisection. We might just as well point to the prisons of the Inquisition and then 
to one of our present convict establishments and claim all the credit of the change 
for the fact that our judges wear wigs. The real questions are: What advances in 
detail are due to vivisection? Could these advances have been made without vivi- 
section? If vivisection was necessary for elementary and primitive research is it 
any longer necessary, seeing that we have such splendid and rapidly developing 
methods in hundreds of other directions? Have we made complete and exhaustive 
use of all other available methods not open to objection? And, finally, are the 
advances based upon vivisection of animals capable of being adapted conclusively 
for mankind, for whose benefit they are professedly made? 
It must be perfectly clear that to answer all these questions specific instances must 
be given, and that they must be analyzed historically with great care. This has 
already been done in many instances, and I am bound to say, in every case known to 
me, to the utter disestablishment of the claims of vivisection. 
Take the case of the alleged discovery of the circulation of the blood by Harvey, 
and it can be clearly shown that quite as much as Harvey knew was known before 
his time, and that it is only our insular pride which has claimed for him the merit 
of the discovery. That he made any solid contribution to the facts of the case by 
vivisection is conclusively disproved, and this was practically admitted before the 
commission by such good authorities as Dr. Acland and Dr. Lauder-Brunton. The 
circulation was not proved till Malpighi used the microscope, and though in that 
observation he used a vivisectional experiment his proceeding was wholly unneces- 
sary, for he could have better and more easily used the web of the frog’s foot than 
its lung. It is, moreover, perfectly clear that were it incumbent on anyone to 
prove the circulation of the blood now as a new theme, it could not be done by any 
vivisectional process, but could at once be satisfactorily established by a dead body 
and an injecting syringe. In fact, I think I might almost say that the systemic 
circulation remained incompletely proved until the examination of injected tissues 
by the microscope had been made. 
But supposing we grant, for the sake of argument, that such an important dis- 
covery had been made by vivisection, and by it alone, there still remains the all- 
important question, Is it necessary to use such mediaeval methods for modern research ? 
No one can doubt that the rude methods employed in Charles the Second’s 
reign for obtaining evidence—the rack, the boot, the thumbscrew, and the burning 
match—were occasionally the meansof accomplishing theends of justice, butneed we 
go back to them now? The very necessity for ending them brought into use fresh 
and far less fallible methods, and I am inclined to make the claim for physiology, 
pathology, and the practice of medicine and surgery that the very retention of this 
cruel method of research is hindering real progress, that if it were utterly stopped 
the result would certainly be the search for and the finding of far better and more 
certain means of discovery. To urge its continuance on the ground that it was 
useful in the seventeenth century is just as reasonable as to ask the astronomer to 
go back to the cumbrous tackle by which Huyghens first worked his lenses. 
If the method of obtaining evidence by torture was occasionally successful, there 
can be little doubt that as a rule it failed and led the inquirers astray. So I say it 
has been with vivisection as a method of research; it has constantly led those who 
have employed it into altogether erroneous conclusions, and the records teem with 
instances in which not only have animals been fruitlessly sacrificed, but human lives 
have been added to the list of victims by reason of its false light. 
Those who have recently advocated vivisection seem to have forgotten or to have 
ignored this most fatal objection, and as a rule they have indulged in a line of argu- 
ment which is little more than assertion. For the purpose of this paper I have gone 
parefully over a large mass of literature upon the subject, and find that the bulk of it 
18 altogether beyond criticism, because it does not deal with fact. Thus in a recent 
address on the subject by Professor Humphry, of Cambridge, there is a long list of 
advances in medicine and surgery, every one of which is attributed to vivisection solely 
because some experiments were mixed up in the history of each instance; but not 
an effort was made to show that the advances were due to vivisection. The proper 
Method for the discussion of this subject is to take up a number of special instances 
aud to subject them to careful criticism, chiefly by historical evidence, and as soon 
as the advocates of vivisection do this successfully I am prepared to grant their case, 
-but hitherto they have failed. 20 
VIVISECTION. 
Serial literature during the last few months has been singularly fertile in articles 
on the question of vivisection, and one commanding attention as an editorial is to he 
found in Nature of March 9. 
There the a priori argument for the vivisection is put in the familiar illustration 
that “it would be more reasonable to hope to make out the machinery of a watch by 
looking at it than to hope to understand the mechanism of a living animal by mere 
contemplation.” Unfortunately there is a fault in the analogy, and it may be far 
more truly put in the converse, that it would be wholly impossible to repair the 
damaged movements of a watch by experimenting with an upright pendulum clock. 
There is a perfectly parallel dissimilarity between the functions and the diseases of 
animals and those of man. 
In the same article is a quotation from the article of Sir William Gull, to the effect 
that the experiments of Bernard, in baking living dogs to death in an oven, hav’e 
opened the way to our understanding the pathology of fever. In zymotic diseases 
the elevated temperature is not a cause of the disease but its consequence, and the 
answer to the argument is that not a single contribution of any kind has yet been 
made to the cure of scarlet fever. Its course can not be shortened by one hour. 
Medicine is powerless for the cure of zymotics, while hygiene is all powerful in their 
prevention, and the medicine of the future lies wholly in this direction. Drugs are 
impotent, but sanitary laws can and will banish all these diseases when they are 
completely understood and fulfilled. 
The article continues that “between 1864 and 1867 seven new drags were added 
to the of which at least the two most useful, carbolic acid and phy- 
sostigma, are due to vivisection.” Upon the question of new drugs I can speak only 
with great reserve, for such a wholesome scepticism concerning drugs has been intro- 
duced by the medical schism of homeopathy that I look upon all new drugs with 
great suspicion. Sir William Gull himself says he has not much belief in drugs. I 
fear most new drugs do more harm than good; some of them, such as chloral, most 
certainly have done so. I can not learn that physostigma is of any practical service, 
and I have shown in my published writings that carbolic acid has done far more 
harm than good. Perhaps it would have been better if we had never heard of it. 
The question of the investigation of the actions of drugs by experiments on animals, 
I have to confess, is a very difficult one, because after we have found out what they 
do in one animal we find that in another the results are wholly different, and the 
process of investigation has to be repeated in man. Not only so, but in human indi- 
viduals the actions of drugs in very many cases vary so much that each fresh patient 
may form really a new research. Pharmacy forms, therefore, at least, a very shaky 
argument for vi\ isection. 
Finally, the editor of Nature deals with the argument of proportion, which is 
stated to the effect that the proportion of pain inflicted by vivisection bears but a small 
ratio to the pain relieved by the discoveries effected in that way. But if this ques- 
tion be examined historically, as it must be for the sake of justness, it will be found 
that the argument is all the other way. To take the case of Perrier’s experiments, 
if the history of the point be examined, even from the period of Saucerotte till now, 
the number of experiments recorded is perfectly awful, and we can easily imagine 
that many more were performed and not put on record. Concerning the arteries this 
is still more true ; and it is, to say the least of it, very doubtful if any permanent 
good has been done by them. What we do really know about both of these matters 
with certainty has been derived from the post-mortem examinations of our failures 
in human subjects and not from vivisection experiments. 
In a work published within the last few weeks by a distinguished member of this 
society, Dr. George Gore, entitled “The Scientific Basis of National Progress,” and 
at page 80 will be found the following sentence: 
“The antivivisection movement is but one of the phases of the ever-existing con- 
flict between the advancing and retarding sections of mankind.” 
I do not know whether I belong to the antivivisection movement or not, but I cer- 
tainly can not rank myself with those who attribute to vivisection the merit which 
distinctly belongs to other causes. So far lam an antivivisectionist most thoroughly. 
Similarly, I do not know whether or not I am to be regarded as belonging to the 
“retarding section of mankind.” If lam so classed I fear I shall be in company as 
strange to me as I shall be objectionable to it. But my relief is great as I read fur- 
ther in Dr. Gore’s book and see upon what grounds he has built his conclusion, I 
have never heard that Dr. Gore has conducted any vivisection research himself, and 
therefore I assumed that he took his argument from some other source. He was kind 
enough to give me his reference for the following statement, which he makes at 
page 81 
“ Ferrier’s comparatively recent vivisection experiments have already enabled 
medical men to treat more successfully those formidable diseases, epilepsy and 
abscess of the brain.” 
His authority is an anonymous article in the British Medical Journal of Novem- 
ber 19, 1881, in which a series of cases is given in support of this extraordinary VIVISECTION. 
21 
statement. Tlie purport of it is that the experiments of Ferrier have led to greater 
certainty in applying the trephine for the removal of depressed fractures, etc., which 
had produced serious symptoms, or for the relief of matter in cerebral abscesses. 
I do not propose now to go into this very wide and difficult question, because I 
shall have a fuller opportunity on another occasion. I shall only say that Terrier's 
first experiments were published in 1873, and that previous to that time a large 
number of cases are on record where the seat of injury was ascertained with perfect 
accuracy by simpler and less misleading methods—in one case by myself in 1868, 
The a priori difficulties in the application of Terrier’s conclusions are enormous 
and, as it seems to me, insuperable; and, after a most careful historical considera- 
tion of the illustration quoted by Dr. Gore, my verdict is most decidedly that of not 
proven. 
The application of the trephine for the treatment of epilepsy is, of course, abso- 
lutely limited to cases where the disease is the result of injury to the skull. No one 
has ever dreamed of applying it to other cases. I find that the first operation of 
this kind was performed in 1705 by Guillaume Mauqnest de la Motte with partial 
success, and it was repeated with complete success by Mr. Birch, of St. Thomas’s 
Hospital, in 1804. Between 1804 and 1865 there are 50 oases on record (collected by 
Dr. dames Russell, British Medical .Journal, 1865), and of these 44 recoi ered, the 
results being satisfactory in 39 of them. This paper of Dr. Russell’s was published 
years before any of Terrier’s experiments were undertaken, and the results of tre- 
phining for epilepsy published since are not so good as those published bj Dr. Rus- 
sell. The most recent contribution to the subject is a paper by Mr. J. T. West, who 
asks the question, “Are our indications in any given case, either of paralysis or 
epilepsy, sufficiently precise and well marked to warrant us in recommending the 
use of the trephine at a particular point of the skull?” And he answers it thus: 
“It will be a long time before it is definitely settled, but such cases as those alluded 
to give encouragement.” This answer of a practical surgeon is very different from 
that of Dr. Gore. 
Even if the conclusions which are attributed to Dr. Terrier’s researches were to be 
regarded as ipdisputable, my answer would be that they might have been arrived 
certainly would soon be enormously extended, if our clinical research were 
conducted upon reasonable and scientific principles. The chief reason of the slow 
advance of the arts of medicine and surgery is the reckless waste of the material so 
plentifully supplied by disease, and the first remedy will consist in the subdivision 
of the labor, a remedy against which, unfortunately, the medical profession protests 
most vigorously. . 
It is of course perfectly impossible to deal with all of the illustrations in lavor ot 
vivisection which have recently been advanced in the limits of an ordinary paper, 
and I prefer to take those which deal with points of practical utility, rather than 
with such as have as yet only a possibility of being useful in the future. I shall 
deal, therefore, at present chiefly with the illustrations which have been gathered 
from the field of practical medicine and surgery, for in them, of course, the public 
see the strongest arguments. If it is publicly announced, as has been done of late 
very widely, that human diseases have been cured and human suffering lessened by 
experiments on the lower animals, the public must therein see a strong argument 
for vivisection. But such announcements are open to the test of historical exami- 
nation, and to this I propose to subject the most important of them. lam equally 
open to discuss in the same way those points of less apparent usefulness, the matters 
of mere physiological discovery, on some future occasion, if it should arise, but as 
with these the only defense can be that some day they may prove of service, it is 
clearlv best to deal first with those for which an actual and not merely a potential 
utility is claimed. 
Those of my professional brethren who take the other side may probably complain 
that I have selected a lay audience for the discussion; but the answer is that by the 
circulation of pamphlets and by communicated paragraphs in newspapers they have 
already taken the initiative, and I am but meeting them on their own ground. 
I am quite well aware that I am one of a small minority of my profession in my 
view that vivisection is useless as a method of research, but the answer I am dis- 
posed to offer on this point is that not one in a hundred of my professional brethren 
have ever seriously examined the question. Ninety-nine take for granted the state- 
ments of the hundredth, and he, in turn, has not gone into the matter upon that 
side from which alone a safe answer can be given—that of historical criticism. 
The dispute, as 1 have already said, is not to be settled by mere statement of 
opinion, one way or the other; nor is it a question of authority. On the argument 
of authority a very singular answer has been given by the supporters of vivisection 
in the case of the late Sir William Fergusson, who stated in his evidence before the 
royal commission that in his opinion nothing had been gained for surgery by experi- 
ments on the lower animals—an opinion which I entirely indorse. During his life- 
time Sir William Fergusson had heaped upon him all the distinctions which his 22 
VIVISECTION. 
Queen, his country, and his profession had it in their power to bestow. He was the 
titular head of his profession, its most successful operator, one of its greatest anat- 
omists, its most widely employed practitioner, its most successful teacher, the author 
of its principal text-hook on surgery—hut now, when he is dead, we are told he was 
not a scientific surgeon, because he did not believe in vivisection. Nobody said this 
in his lifetime, and so late as 1873 he was elected president of the British Medical 
Association, over all the profoundly scientific surgeons of the metropolis. I share 
Sir William’s opinions concerning vivisection, and I am quite coutent to rank with 
him on that account as an unscientific surgeon. 
_ A pamphlet has recently been published in this town on The Influence of Vivisec- 
tion on Human Surgery, by Mr. Samson Gamgee, in which the proposition is set 
forth that without experiments on living animals “scientific surgery could not have 
been founded, and its present humane and safe practice would have been impossible.” 
Mr. Gamgee supports this proposition by a series of instances which we may presume 
are the best and strongest he could find. These I tabulate as follows, and 1 shall 
discuss them historically in this order: 
I. Treatment of injuries of the head, and the theory of contre-coup. 
11. Amputation of the hip joint. 
111. Paracentesis thoracis. 
IV. Subcutaneous tenotomy. 
V. Treatment of aneurism, ligature, and torsion of arteries. 
VI. Transfusion. 
VII. Abdominal surgery. 
VIII. Function of periosteum. 
IX. The ecraseur. 
X. Detection of poison. 
Mr. Gamgee tells us that the Acad&nie de Chirurgie gave out the subject of contre- 
coup, and its influence in injuries of the head, as the subject for a prize competition, 
and that the prize was obtained in 1778 by M. Saucerotte, whose essay was based “on 
literary research, clinical observations, and twenty-one experiments on living dogs.” 
He omits, however, to make any estimate of the value of the experiments on the dogs, 
which seems to me to be absolutely nothing; and he quite forgets to mention that the 
theory of contre-coup had been completely established for nearly two centuries 
before, and had been particularly the subject of Paul Ammannus, of Leipsic, who 
wrote a well-known work, De resonitu sen contra fissura cranii, in 1674, in which tre- 
panning is recommended at the point of contre-coup, as had been practiced by Paul 
Barbette, of Amsterdam, thirteen years before that. The theory of contre-coup, 
and the fatal practices arising from it, are happily now buried in oblivion, in spite 
of Saucerotte’s vivisection, and would never again have been alluded to but for Mr. 
Gamgee’s unfortunate resurrection of them. 
The modern verdict concerning fractures of the skull is given tersely in Mr. Flint 
South’s words, “The less done as regards meddling with them the better,” and, “A 
knowledge of counter fractures is quite uncertain.” In fact, nothing could be more 
unfortunate than the selection of M. Saucerotte’s experiments as an illustration of 
the value of vivisection, for they were performed for a purpose which was long ago 
recognized as futile, and in support of a practice universally condemned, 
M. Saucerotte says: 
“Pour 6tablir le diagnostic des lesions des differentes parties du viscere, j’ai cru 
devoir prendre la voie de I’experience et de I’observation. Ce ne sont point ici des 
consequences hasardees, ce sont les resultats de faits pfinible, que formeront, ce 
que j’espere, un foyer Jumineux, dont les rayons rfipondront le plus grand jour sur 
la pratique.” 
He anticipated many of Ferrier’s experiments by more than a hundred years, and 
when he trephined the skulls of dogs and injured their brains on the right side, he 
found that they became somewhat feeble on their left sides, and vice versa, a fact 
that had been established by pathology long before. His idea of imitating the 
injury of contre-coup was to pass a knife right through the substance of the brain 
till it impinged on the inner surface of the skull opposite the trephine hole, a most 
absurd experiment, as the contre-coup injures at the opposite surface only, and not 
necessarily at all the intervening brain substance, 
Reading his experiments they seem so like Ferrier’s that I fancy if Dr. Ferrier 
had known of the existence of this essay he would have found little need to repeat 
its work. 
Many of the conclusions of Saucerotte’s experiments are eminently absurd, and, 
save that of the decussation of the fibers, which was known before, I can find few 
that have been since accepted, and those that have been he candidly avows were 
previously observed in cases of disease. Finally, the conclusions concerning treat- 
ment of injuries of the head which he draws from his experiments are not. such as 
would be listened to in modern surgery, and it is certain that if they were ever 
acted upon they must have had results almost uniformly disastrous. VIVISECTION. 
23 
The fact is that the whole run of vivisectional experiments on the brains of animals 
now extending over hundreds of years, have given no sort of assistance to the eluci- 
dation of the physiology of that wonderful organ, so contradictory have been the 
results. On this subject Dr. W. B. Carpenter, who curiously enough has recently 
appeared as an ardent supporter of vivisection, says, in the seventh edition of his 
standard work on the Principles of Human Physiology, page 645, “ The results of 
partial mutilations are usually in the first instance a general disturbance of the 
cerebral functions; which subsequently, however, more or less quickly subsides, 
leaving but little apparent affection of the animal functions, except muscular weak- 
ness. The whole of one hemisphere has been removed in this way, without any evi- 
dent consequence save a temporary feebleness of the limbs on the opposite side of the 
body, and what was supposed to be a deficiency of sight through the opposite eye. 
* * * So far as any inferences can be safely drawn from them these experiments 
fully bear out the conclusion that the cerebrum is the organ of intelligence,” a con- 
clusion which surely has never been doubted, since it was first the object of the then 
savage club to destroy the intelligence of a foe by cracking his skull. Continuing 
his researches on such experiments as those of Saucerotte and Perrier, Dr. Carpenter 
tersely sums up the prima facie objections to them, objections which seem to him as 
they seem to me, to be fatal to their utility: 
“It is obvious that much of the disturbance of the sensorial powers which is occa- 
sioned by this operation is fairly attributable to the laying open of the cranial 
cavity, to the disturbance of the normal vascular pressure, and to the injury neces- 
sarily done to the parts which are left by their severance from the cerebellum.” 
Dr. Marshall Hall also pointed out long ago that injury to the dura mater is an 
important factor in the results obtained. 
11. Amputation op the hip joint. 
At page 8 of his pamphlet, Mr. Gamgee makes the astonishing statement that this 
operation was only attempted after it was proved safe by vivisection. The authority 
he has been kind enough to give me for this is a brief sentence in the preface to the 
ninth volume of the Memoires de de Chirurgie, written by the secretary- 
general and published in 1778. 
• But the first hint we get of amputation of the hip joint is from a German surgeon 
named Vohler, who was in practice about 1690. It is doubtful if he ever performed 
it on a living patient, but it is on record that he tried it on the dead body. But 
it was performed by M. la Croix, of Orleans, in 1748, not only on one limb, but on 
both limbs of the same patient, the first operation being successful and the second 
almost so. This was nearly thirty years before the publication of the vivisection 
of dogs; and there are many other cases of success previous to Mr. Gamgee’s alleged 
origin of the operation, one being by the celebrated Ker, of Northampton, in 1773; 
and, as Mr. Gamgee has published a large book on amputation of the hip joint, it 
is surprising that he did not know something more about the history of the operation. 
111. Paracentesis Thoracis. 
Mr. Gamgee makes another most unfortunate selection in the case of William 
Hewson, who based a theoretical operation for pneumothorax upon experiments on 
living dogs and rabbits so long ago as 1769. He made a wound in the side of the 
chest and admitted air into the pleura, where no air ought to be, and then he oper- 
ated to get it out again. When such a condition is brought about in man and no 
vital organ seriously injured, the patient gets perfectly well without any operation. 
I can not learn that Hewson’s operation for the removal of air has ever been per- 
formed on man. When pneumothorax occurs from disease it is generally associated 
with conditions necessarily fatal, for which no operation is advisable. On this point 
the greatest authority, Dr. Bowditoh, of New York, says: 
“1 have operated once in pneumo-hydrothorax, with temporary relief and com- 
parative ease for several days. Many theoretical objections may be urged against 
the operation in such a case; but as the operation can do no harm and may give much, 
relief, I shall operate again in such a case.” 
The proceeding is therefore doubtful, the conditions are extremely rare, pure 
pneumothorax, such as Hewson invented his proceedings for, never needs it, and 
therefore his experiments on living dogs and rabbits were useless. 
Finally, tapping for the removal of fluid in the chest was practiced long before 
Hewson’s time, and therefore his research was needless. Hewson really based his 
proposal on this well-known practice, but in this he was anticipated in the most 
favorable cases—those of wounds—for Anel, of Amsterdam, published quite the same 
proposal in 1707, and it has been uniformly condemned by every writer on military 
surgery since, because the removal of the air merely induces bleeding. Anel devised 
a syringe for the purpose, which has been revived as the modern aspirator. Had Mr. 
Gamgee known anything of Dominic Anel he would never have mentioned William 
Hewson. 24 
VIVISECTION. 
IV. Subcutaneous Tenotomy. 
I have traced the history of the surgery of tendons, and I can not see the slightest 
reason to attribute any of the advances in this department to the alleged vivisections 
of John Hunter. I can not find any record of these experiments, beyond the allu- 
sions to them by Drewry Ottley and Palmer in his life of Hunter. 
The same accident which happened to Hunter in 1767 happened to the first Monro 
in 1726, and from the latter instance a very marked advance in surgical practice was 
at once made, and a contrivance invented by Monro himself for his own case is still 
in use and goes by his name. No such advance was made from Hunter’s accident or 
from his vivisections. In their histories of the progress of orthopoedic surgery Little 
and Adams make no such claim for Hunter. Adams points out clearly, and with 
justice, that Hunter established the principles on which subcutaneous surgery is now 
conducted; but these he established from clinical observations, not from experiments 
upon animals. And in his lecture on “Ruptural Tendons” (Vol. I, p. 436), Hunter 
says not one word about his vivisections, or any conclusions he derived from them 
as to the method of repair of tendons. If he ever made any such experiments he must 
have placed very little value upon them. 
If we trace the development of tenotomy we find that Hunter’s experiments had no 
influence upon it at all. They were performed, it is said, in 1767. But the first 
tenotomy was not performed till 1784, by Lorenz, at Frankfort, and then the condi- 
tions were absolutely in defiance of the principles of subcutaneous surgery. It was 
done by an open wound, and this practice was continued with hardly any modifica- 
tion till far on in this century. In fact, as Adams points out, it is from 1831 that the 
commencement of scientific tenotomy dates, at the hands of Stromeyer. If this is 
so, and Adams makes his case out most conclusively (Club-Foot, 1873), how utterly 
useless Hunter’s experiments on dogs must have been, to lie forgotten and unnoticed 
till unearthed in Mr. Gamgee’s pamphlet of 1882, one hundred and fifteen years after 
they were performed; or how singularly careless and inattentive to the teachings of 
vivisection the medical profession must be that they should allow this immense dis- 
covery to lie neglected from 1767 till 1831. 
To bring forward so rash an illustration as this for the value of vivisection is to 
cast a terrible slur at the profession of surgery, a slur which I do not think at all 
deserved if the true history of such advances is carefully investigated and the 
moving causes of them properly credited. 
V. Treatment of Aneurism, Ligature, and Torsion of Arteries. 
Mr. Gamgee alludes to the oft-quoted story of the Hunterian operation for aneurism 
as a proof of the aid vivisection has given to surgery. This illustration has been so 
completely and so often destroyed that it is absolutely unnecessary to allude to it 
further than to explain that Hunter modified Anel’s operation merely because he found 
the artery near to the seat of disease would not hold the ligature, and the patients 
bled to death. As the arteries of animals never suffer from the disease in question 
experiments upon them could not have helped Hunter in any way whatever. Sir 
James Paget, who has lately appeared as an ardent advocate for vivisection, and, 
therefore, may be appealed to by me as a witness not biased to my view, has recorded 
his opinion in the Hunterian oration given at the College of Surgeons in 1877, that 
Hunter’s improvement in the treatment of aneurism “ was not the result of any labo- 
rious physiological induction; it was mainly derived from facts very cautiously 
observed in the wards and deadhouse.” In this opinion Sir James Paget is undoubt- 
edly correct. 
Concerning the tying and torsion of arteries I am in a position to speak with some 
authority, because I have myself performed experiments on living animals, and 
have found how futile they are and how uncertain and untrustworthy are their 
results. Mr. Gamgee tells us that some local worthies, who were distinguished by 
early performances of serious operations, practiced their ’prentice hands on living- 
animals. This is not scientific experimentation, but culpable and wholly unneces- 
sary cruelty. It is on the dissecting table that a surgeon prepares his hand for his 
work, and not on the bodies of living animals. I have never known nor heard of 
such an instance before, and I trust there are no more to be quoted. Any surgeon 
who did this now -would, I am sure, receive a universal condemnation from his 
professional brethren. 
Mr. Gamgee quotes Jones’s experiments on the arteries of animals as an instance 
of a valuable contribution to surgical progress by experiments on animals, and Ido 
not think any more complete illustration could be quoted in support of the useless- 
ness of vivisection as a method of scientific research than that of the history of the 
physiological and pathological processes to be observed in arteries. If we consider 
the question from what some would call the purely scientific side, that is, apart alto- VIVISECTION. 
25 
gether from any practical bearings it may have for the relief of human sufferings 
and the cure of human disease, it consists merely of a mass of observations in which 
each observer contradicts some other. Upon this subject I wrote as follows so long 
ago as 1865 : 
“John Hunter warned surgeons to avoid injuring any of the coats of an artery, 
and to this effect advised that the ligature should not be drawn so tight as to cat 
them; while many of his contemporaries and successors dreaded any injuries so much 
that they used all sorts of clumsy contrivances to avoid it—such as pads of lint and 
bits of cork inserted betAveeu the arteries and ligature. Again, Travers, in his exper- 
iments on ligatures of arteries, demonstrated that Jones was quite wrong when he 
insisted that it was necessary to divide the inner coats, and Mr. Dalrymple, of Nor- 
wich, proved by his experiments that while simple and continued contact of the 
parietes of a vessel, without the slightest wound of any of the coats, was sufficient 
to produce permanent adhesion and obliteration, yet that division of the internal and 
middle coats without continued coaptation invariably failed to produce adhesion, 
Hodgson says that he can not substantiate Jones’s statement that division of the 
coats is essential, and strongly supports the opinion that coaptation of the walls, 
without rupture of any of the coats, will produce occlusiou. The theories of Dr. 
Jones were strongly supported by Professor Thompson, his teacher, but were strongly 
opposed by Sir Phillip Crampton, who insisted that the division of the coats not only 
was unnecessary, but that it frequently defeats its own object.” (Medical Times and 
Gazette, 1865.) 
I quote this at length to show that fifteen years ago I found authorities differing 
so much on this scientific question that I thought it advisable to institute a new 
series of vivisectional experiments to decide it. The experiments performed by 
myself only added to the confusion, though nobody saw that at the time. What we 
Were working at was to get quit of the ligature altogether, and to secure arteries by 
a temporary compression of some kind without injuring the coats. Acupressure 
promised to accomplish this, but it failed, for reasons I need not enter into here. 
The desire to get quit of the ligature was due to the fact that after a vessel was tied 
one end of the ligature was cut off and the other left hanging out of the wound, 
where it remained for weeks, sometimes for months, and occasionally (as in Lord 
Nelson’s case) for years. 
The amazing thing is that with all the experiments made upon animals nobody ever 
thought of cutting both ends of the ligature quite short and closing the wonndover 
it. As a matter of fact, from the time of Ambrose Parh to that of Simpson, an inter- 
val of over three hundred years, we went bungling on with experiments on animals 
When the whole thing lay clear before us. It was the successful experiments of Baker 
Brown and Thomas Keith upon women suffering from ovarian tumors which showed 
us that if we use pure silk, cut the ends of the ligature short, and close the wound 
carefully over them, success will be certain. Yet, not content with this, we hear of 
fresh experiments on animals with carbolized catgut, chromicized catgut, kangaroo 
tendons, and other novelties, which speedily die out when applied to human beings. 
In the case of the arteries, therefore, experimentation on animals has proved to be 
“science, falsely so called.” What we have done in this direction is entirely the 
result of clinical experience, and that only. 
VI. Transfusion. 
This operation was not initiated, as asserted by Mr. Gamgee, in the second half of 
the seventeenth century by Dr. Lower, of Oxford, nor was it at first proposed as a 
legitimate surgical operation at all. It was proposed, and in all probability was 
really practised, by the alchemists of the sixteenth century as an attempt to obtain 
for the wealthy aged a renewal of their lease of life, alter the theory and legend of 
Eaustus. Certain it is that allusions to it are frequent, though the first actual 
account of its performance is given by Andr6 Libavius, professor of medicine at 
Halle (Helmst. 1602), as having been performed by him in 1591, the blood of a young 
healthy man being transfused into a man aged and decrepit, but able and willing to 
Pay for the supposed advantage. In the early part of the seventeenth century it 
Was a good deal discussed from this point of view, forgotten for a while, and then 
after the Restoration it was reconsidered, and a great deal written about it in this 
pountry and on the Continent. An extremely interesting allusion to the experiments 
is to be found in the wonderful Diary of Samuel Pepys: 
“November 14, 1666. Dr. Crooue told mo that at the meeting at Gresham College 
to-night (which, it seems, they now have every Wednesday again) there was a pretty 
experiment of the blood of one dog let out (till he died) into the body of another on 
°ne side, while all his own run out on the other side. The first died upon the place, 
and the other is very well and likely to do well. This did give occasion to many 
pretty wishes, as of the blood of a Quaker to be let into an Archbishop, and such 
iike; but, as Dr. Croone says, may, if it takes, be of mighty use to man’s health, for 
Hie amending of bad blood by borrowing from a better body. 26 
VIVISECTION. 
“ 16th. This noon I met with Mr. Hooke, and he tells me the dog which was filled 
with another dog’s blood at the college the other day is very well, and like to be so 
as ever, and doubt not its being found of great use to men, and so does Dr. Whistler, 
who dined with us at the tavern.” 
The scheme of transfusion in all the experiments of the seventeenth-century 
•descriptions of which I have seen was to take arterial blood from an animal and pass 
it into the veins of another, and that this was successful is not surprising. But this 
has never been attempted in modern times upon man. It certainly would not be 
justifiable; because, to interfere with a large artery—and a large artery would be 
required—in a man is always an extremely risky thing. Dr. Lower, who is Mr. 
Gamgee’s authority, in 1667 injected or tried to inject arterial blood from a lamb into 
a man, but the operation was so badly done that 1 do not believe any blood really 
passed. If Bepys’s idea could have been carried out, of transferring some of the 
peaceful blood from the arteries of a member of the Society of Friends, for the 
replacement of the turbulent and brutal spirit of Archbishop Laud, some good might 
have been done, much of the terrible history of that time need not havebeen written, 
and I might not have appeared here as a critic of such experiments. But no such or 
any other good result was obtained. A large army of experimenters rushed into the 
field, a fierce controversy took place; but before the eighteenth century dawned 
the whole thing was discredited and forgotten. Mr. Flint South gives a succinct 
history of the matter, and tells us that it was revived by the plan of mediate trans- 
fusion in the early part of the present century. The former experiments were fruit- 
lessly repeated and others tried. The result is that the operation has a very insecure 
hold on professional opinion. I have seen it performed seven times, without success 
in a single instance. I have twice been asked to do it, and have declined, and both 
patients are now alive and well. We hear a great deal of cases in which patients 
have survived after transfusion has been performed, but we hear little or nothing of 
its failures. Personally, I have no confidence in the proceeding. 
VII. Abdominal Surgery. 
Mr. Gamgee alludes to a vivisection experiment made by John Shipton, and pub- 
lished in 1703, as having laid the foundation for the recent advances of abdominal 
surgery, which are attracting the admiration of the whole professional world, and 
the instances he quotes date so late as 1880. If Shipton’s experiment has been so 
fertile, why has the crop been delayed for one hundred and seventy-seven years? 
But even hex*e Mr. Gamgee is wrong in his history. The whole progress of abdomi- 
nal surgery dates from the first successful case of ovariotomy performed by Robert 
Houston in 1701. Failing to see the lesson taught by this, and led astray by vivi- 
section, no further success was achieved till 1809, by Ephraim McDowell, and it was 
not till 1867 that any substantial gain was made. Disregarding all the conclusions 
of experiment, Baker Brown showed us how to bring our mortality of ovariotomy 
down to 10 per cent; and again, in 1876, Keith proved that it might be still further 
reduced. The methods of this reduction were such as only experience on human 
patients could indicate; experiments on animals could and did teach nothing, for 
operations have been performed on thousands of animals every year for centuries, 
and nothing whatever has been learned from this wholesale vivisection. 
As soon as Keith’s results were established abdominal surgery advanced so rapidly 
that now, only six years after, there is not a single organ in the abdomen that has 
not had numerous operations performed upon it successfully. 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 
I have had to discard them entirely. 
Speaking of some recent attempts which have been made to operate on cases of 
cancer of the stomach, Mr. Gamgee says: 
“Warranting, as such cases do, the placing of cancer of the stomach amongst dis- 
eases curable by the knife, do they not also justify the vivisection of dogs by Shipton 
and Travers, who, by their experiments, laid the first scientific foundation of intra- 
abdominal surgery?” 
Such a statement as this must be so completely qualified as to be regarded as alto- 
gether inaccurate. No form of cancer is yet known ever to havre been cured, either 
by operation or anything else. If removed it invariably returns, and in all these 
cases of cancer of the stomach quoted by Mr. Gamgee, save one, the disease speedily 
returned and killed the patients. The one exception has not yet been under trial 
long enough to enable us to give an opinion. Doubtless it will have the same end 
■as the others. VIVISECTION. 
27 
The history of the development of our knowledge of the formation and growth of 
bone is extremely interesting, because it shows how completely misleading are the 
conclusions based upon vivisectional experiments, and how perfectly the secrets of 
nature may be unraveled by a careful and intelligent examination of her own experi- 
ments. No one can look now at a necrosed bone without seeing how completely 
the whole story is there written. The history also exemplifies the fact that it is 
not only the purely practical details of surgery which are independent of vivisection 
for their development, but what are called the more scientific developments of physi- 
ological knowledge are equally possible without its aid, and are often retarded by 
its misguidance. 
The first real observer in this department was Jean Guichard Duverney, born in 
1648, Avho achieved such distiuction that Peyer, in a dedicatory epistle, says to him, 
“ Sempiterna te (Duverneyum) quondam trophcea manebunt et Regi vestro, Acade- 
naiae Urbique gloriosum erit tantum aluisse civem.” He studied closely, and wrote 
a great deal about the anatomy, physiology, and surgery of bones, and in his books 
te fully describes the method of growth and ossification of bone, its dependence for 
its nutrition and growth upon the periosteum; the only thing ho lacks is the micro- 
scopical knowledge of modern times. He also performed vivisections, not upon the 
periosteum but on the medulla, and they led him into most erroneous conclusions. He 
cut through the thigh bone of a living animal, and repeatedly plunged a stylet into 
the medulla, and the animal gave evidence of great suffering. The marrow, he 
therefore concluded, received a great number of nerves, which passed through the 
canals in the bone, but which existed only in his imagination. As long as he kept 
to his clinical observations and anatomical dissections he reached exact conclusions, 
but as soon as he entered the arena of vivisection he went all astray. 
The next author of note was Francois Hunauld, born in 1701, who published in 
1730 Recherches Anatomique sur les Os du crane de I’homme, in which he describes 
the utmost accuracy the ossification by the membranes, between which the 
cranial bones are developed. The only errors he made were hypothetical descrip- 
tions of things he could not have seen without a microscope, and that he evidently 
had not used. 
Next comes Robert Nesbit, a Scotch surgeon, settled in London, who published in 
1736 an essay entitled “ Human osteogeny, explained in two lectures.” 
He was the first to demonstrate the construction of bone by the now familiar 
experiment of dissolving out the mineral matter, and leaving, as he most accurately 
says, a spongy substance altogether different from cartilage. Cartilage he referred 
to its proper function; but he describes it as vascular, in this showing the want of 
microscopical investigation; but concerning the process of ossification he had got 
Quite as far as we have at the present day. He tells us that in the blood, or in a 
liquid separated from it, there is an ossifying fluid, a fluid containing the material 
Out of which bone is built up, composed of parts whichare not sensible; that when- 
ever nature determines upon an ossification within a membrane, from which all 
tones are developed or in a cartilage, she directs by some means, the nature of 
Vrhich we are ignorant of, a larger quantity of blood to the vessels of the mem- 
branes, so that they become distended and visible, whereas before they were invisi- 
ble. He describes the process of ossification only with such errors as are due to the 
absence of the microscope, and says: “Thus the membranes (periosteum) and the 
cartileges are the reservoirs in which the osseous particles are deposited and molded.” 
He denied the existence (and quite correctly) of an internal periosteum which had 
become about that time a matter of great contention. 
The celebrated discovery of the property of madder for staining growing bone, 
'vhen used as food by animals, was published by John Belchier in the Philosophical 
Transactions for 1736, and he fully disclosed thereby the method of growth of bone 
Horn periosteum, and many other most interesting and valuable discoveries concern- 
lQg bone. 
Between 1739 and 1743 Henri Louis Duhamel-Durnonceau published eight memoirs 
the growth and repair of bones, largely based on the suggestive discovery of 
Belchier. Up to this time the formation of callus was thought to be due to an effu- 
sion of osseous juice—a belief which pervaded the surgical teachings of a distin- 
guished professor of the University of Edinburgh so late as my own student days— 
but Duhamel proved its real origin. He also completely established the fact that 
bones grow in thickness by the addition of osseous layers originating from the 
Periosteum. 
Duhamel performed many vivisections, but it is quite clear from his own descrip- 
tions that they were failures and did not help him. He says himself that his con- 
tusions were based on sections which he made of specimens of fractures which 
in the collections of Winslow, Moraud, and Hunauld. In fact, to any intelli- 
gent observer who looks at a preparation of necrosis it is evident that no vivisection 
needed to show the whole process and growth of repairs of bone; and, even if 
VIII. Function of Periosteum. 28 
VIVISECTION. 
vivisection were necessary, history displays with certainty that Syme and Ollier, to 
whom Mr. Garngee attributes the merit of these discoveries, were only uselessly 
repeating the attempts of Duhamel more than a century old, and were only attempt- 
ing to establish what had long before been proved. 
Since Duhamel’s time thousands upon thousands of experiments upon animals are 
on record, some to prove that the periosteum has nothing whatever to do with the 
formation of bone or with the production of callus, and others to prove that we owe 
everything to the periosteum, and yet it has been settled absolutely only by the 
experiments of disease upon our own bodies, and not by experiments on animals. It 
would be really amusing to read the account of the researches of Sue, Bordenave, 
Delius, Dethleef, Kongeroux, Haller, and countless others, were not the humor of 
their mutual contradictions sadly marred by the accounts of the tortures they 
inflicted uselessly on myriads of animals. 
The experiments of Dethleef, of Gottingen, in 1752 were far more scientific than 
those of Mr. Syme in 1837, and the conclusions of both seem to me to be equally 
erroneous. At any rate, Mr. Syme did not help us one bit in advance of Duhamel 
and Fongeroux. Haller made numerous vivisectional experiments, and he was the 
most distinguished physiologist of his time, yet he records his conclusion that the 
periosteum has nothing whatever to do with the formation of bone, and as a proof 
of this he quotes the formation of exostoses on teeth. The fact is, that as long as 
dependence was placed on vivisection, so long did one experimenter investigate 
after another fruitlessly, and with conclusions absolutely contradictory. On patho- 
logical research alone has the true conclusion been established. Haller made a 
long series of vivisectional experiments, published in two memoirs, and trium- 
phantly proved that the periosteum can have nothing to do with the formation of bone. 
He concluded from his vast array of experiments that bone grew from the middle and 
not from the outside, together with many other absurdities, only to be matched in 
the modern researches of Bennett and Rutherford on the function of the liver, also 
based on fallacious vivisections. 
The whole of the physiology and pathology of bone have been laid bare by the 
accident of the pigs of the dyer with whom Belchier dined, by microscopic research, 
and the observations of disease. Yet Hunter and Stanley thought it necessary to 
confirm the conclusions of the madder stain by such a clumsy device as fixing a ring 
of metal round the growing bones of a young animal, letting the ring remain for 
months or years, and then examining to find—what? Absolutely nothing, save that 
the ring had been more or less covered, just as it would have been on a tree, thus 
only repeating Duhamel’s conclusions. Other observers bored holes in bones and 
filled them with metal plugs and shot to find only that the conclusions of disease, 
that long bones grow from the epiphyses, is absolutely correct. Then we come to 
Mr. Syme’s paper in 1837, “On the power of the periosteum to produce new hone.” 
Mr. Syme almost every week was in the habit of cutting through great thicknesses 
of new bone attached to and growing from the periosteum to get at dead old bone 
from which the periosteum had been separated; and the new bone, being between 
the periosteum and the old bone, must of necessity have grown from the periosteum; 
there was nothing else it could grow from. Therefore, if Mr. Syme found it neces- 
sary to cut up animals to find out what was constantly staring him in the face, he 
was a profoundly unscientific surgeon, whose researches were as badly conducted 
as they were useless. 
When Mr. Garngee read his paper at the local medical society and quoted these 
experiments of Mr. Syme, I said that, as far as I could recollect, the fact was that 
their conclusions had been absolutely upset by Mr. Goodsir, who did not make experi- 
ments upon animals, but followed a far more scientific method of research—micro- 
scopic examination. On refreshing my memory 1 find this is the case. In a paper 
read before the Royal Society of Edinburgh in answer to Mr. Syme, Mr. Goodsir 
shows that Mr. Syme’s method of research was so bad that the experiments could 
not be performed accurately. Mr. Syme was preeminently an unscientific surgeon, 
for he knew nothing of the microscope; in fact it may be doubted if he ever looked 
through one. Mr. Goodsir, on the contrary, may be looked upon as the father of 
modern histological research. He proves conclusively that Mr. Syme’s experiments 
were absurd in their conception and futile in their application. Mr. Goodsir’s con- 
clusions are, on the contrary, uniformly accepted, and as to his method he says that 
they were made upon shafts of human bones which had died—museum specimens, 
just as Duhamel’s were. They showed that while the periosteum is the matrix and 
machine by which the new bone is made, the real agency is in the layer of osteal 
cells, and so he finally solved the riddle. He did this by microscopic and patholog- 
ical research. He condemned the employment of vivisection as useless and mislead- 
ing, and to him we owe the completion of Belcher’s and Duhamel’s research—a com- 
pletion which was hindered for a century by the blunders of vivisectiouists. 
After this I need not stop to discuss the useless repetition of Mr. Syme’s experi- 
ments, with variations by Ollier, of Lyons, for that would be merely a waste of 
time. VIVISECTION. 
29 
IX. The Ecraseur. 
Mr. Gamgee quotes the introduction of the ecraseur as an instance of the influence 
of vivisection on the progress of human surgery. No more unfortunate instance 
could he quoted. The principle of the instrument is that it crushes and tears the 
tissues instead of cutting them as by the knife. The surgical aphorism that “ torn 
arteries don’t bleed ” was in existence long before M. Chassaignac was horn, and if he 
had based his employment on that alone he could have done all that his instrument 
has effected. But unfortunately he performed experiments upon animals, and imme- 
diately he was led astray. I once saw the leg of a favorite dog amputated at the hip 
joint on account of disease, and when the limb was removed not a single vessel bled, 
find the main artery was tied only as a matter of precaution. In the human subject 
1 have seen twelve or fifteen arteries tied in the same operation, lor with us the 
smallest arteries bleed and require to be secured. Our arteries act in ways alto- 
gether different from those seen in the lower animals. Their pathology and physi- 
ology are absolutely different, as may be seen in the frequency of apoplexy and 
aneurism with us, and the almost complete immunity from them of all the lower ani- 
mals, even in extreme old age. Hunter tried his best to induce aneurism to the 
lower animals and failed. Injuries to arteries in the lower animals are repaired with 
the utmost certainty and readiness, hut in man it is altogether different. It may be 
easily imagined, therefore, that M. Chassaiguac’s application of the ecraseur to the 
lower animals was found wholly misleading when man was the subject, and now in 
human surgeryits utility is extremely limited; that is, it is entirely confined to opera- 
tions where only very small arteries are divided. Speaking for my own practice, I 
may say that it might be dispensed with and npver missed. 
Mr. Gamgee’s quotation of its application to the ovarian arteries of the cow is 
peculiarly unfortunate, seeing that when it was used for the same purpose in the 
human subject it had speedily to be given up on account of its failure. 
X. Detection of Poison. 
A great deal has been made of the successful experiments recently performed by 
the medical experts for the conviction of Lamson, for that worst of all crimes, the 
most unpardonable, murder by poisoning. At first sight this does seem a case in 
"which experiments upon animals may he justified. Certainly anything and every- 
thing ought to be done to convict a poisoner, and if nothing short of that would do, 
I would advocate the performance of a hecatomb rather than that such a scoundrel 
as Lamson should escape. So late as a few weeks ago I made a reservation on this 
point in my condemnation of vivisection as a method of research, hut it seems to me, 
from a closer consideration of the facts of the case, that it forms really a very strong 
argument for the complete abolition of vivisection, and, at the same time, unfor- 
tunately, it is a matter of grave reproach to modern science. 
Fortunately the conviction of a poisoner is almost certain. If he is not a doctor he 
commits the crime so clumsily that he can not escape. If he is a doctor he must have 
an interest in the victim’s death, is almost certain to he in pecuniary difficulties, and 
is sure to have had a had character previous to his great crime. The only difficulty 
lies in the proof of the presence of the poison. With all poisons but the alkaloids 
this is a matter of such ease that failure is impossible, and as the alkaloids are 
almost exclusively in the hands of chemists and doctors the limitation of their use is 
Very close. 
The most notorious case in which an alkaloid was used, or supposed to have been 
used, by a poisoner was that of Parsons Cook. The alkaloid was supposed to be 
strychnine, and I say supposed because I rise from the perusal of that trial with much 
doubt as to whether Parsons Cook really died of strychnine poisoning. Certainly I 
can not accept it as proved, and I think if the trial were to occur now the same 
evidence which convicted Palmer would probably break down. lam perfectly sat- 
isfied, however, that Palmer received substantial justice. 
In Palmer’s case the principal witnesses for the prosecution were the late Dr. 
Alfred Swayne Taylor, and the late Sir Eobert Christison, certainly the greatest 
toxicologists of this century. Strychnine was not discovered in the body of Cook, 
and Dr. Taylor had to admit that the best tests then known were insufficient to dis- 
cover one-fiftieth of a grain, and that even half a grain might remain undetected 
amongst food in the stomach. Palmer was sentenced to death upon the 27th of May, 
1856, and in July of the same year a method of chemical analysis was published by 
Copney in the Pharmaceutical Journal, by which one five hundred thousandth of a 
grain of strychnine could be detected with certainty after separation. In his evi- 
dence Dr, Taylor admitted that the experiments he had performed upon animals 
strychnine were practically worthless for any application to man, and in the 30 
VIVISECTION. 
report of the royal commission of 1876 he condemned such experiments, particularly 
those which are directed toward the discovery of an antidote to snake bite. 
Strychnine was discovered in 1818, and was first used as a poison in 1831, and again 
in the case of Mrs. Sergison Smith in 1847, and it was no new matter the toxicologist 
had to do with in the trial of Palmer. It must be regarded, therefore, as a matter for 
deep regret that it was not till after the trial and execution of Palmer that the chem- 
istry of strychnine was exhaustively examined, and definite and certain tests for it 
obtained. At the trial there was a sort of competition among the vivisection!sts, and 
Serjeant Shee actually urged as an argument for the defense that his witnesses had 
performed ten times more experiments to prove that there was no strychnine than 
the witnesses for the prosecution had performed to prove what never was proved, 
that strychnine was used at all. Yet in two months cfiemical processes were devised, 
without the slightest aid from vivisection, which detected half a millionth of a grain 
with certainty. 
At the trial Professor Christisou said that another alkaloid was known, of a deadly 
poisonous character, which it was impossible to detect, but under the judge’s direc- 
tion he refused to make its name known. There were really many alkaloids of a 
deadly poisonous character at that time quite well known, and aconitine was one. 
The first case to bring this poison under notice as a criminal agent was in 1841, and 
the notorious Prichard destroyed his victims with it in 1865. Dr. Penny, of Glas- 
gow, resorted to experiments on animals in order to bring the crime home to Prichard, 
and succeeded. Yet I have looked in vain for any record of a research for a method 
which will detect aconitine with certainty by chemical analysis, as strychnine can 
be detected, and Dr. Stephenson admitted in evidence that there was no such test. 
I daresay such a method will be shortly published, and what I desire to point out is 
that this discovery ought to have been made long ago in the interest of public safety, 
not only with regard to aconitine, but with regard to many other alkaloids which 
may be used in the same Avay, and which can not be discriminated from aconitine, 
even by experiments on animals. At present when need arises we must go back to 
the uncertain method of experimenting upon animals. But this is not science, if by 
that word we are to speak of exact knowledge. The very weakness of this method 
has led to a serious infraction of the principles of our judicial proceedings, for the 
home secretary announced in the House of Commons only a few nights ago that the 
Government, in a case such as Damson’s, could not allow the proceedings of the med- 
ical experts for the prosecution to be watched by other experts on behalf of the 
defense. 
This is altogether unfair, for with such an uncertain and inconclusive method as 
that of experimentation on animals two men, even if appointed by the colleges of 
physicians and surgeons, and not by the treasury, may be mistaken, whereas by 
chemical or spectroscopic analysis mistakes are extremely unlikely, and the more 
observers there are the better. 
The general conclusion, therefore, is that for such purposes experiments on ani- 
mals should be entirely prohibited, and that an exhaustive research should at once 
be undertaken at the expense of the State, upon the spectrum and chemical analysis 
of all substances which may be used for criminal purposes. There is no known 
substance of constant character which has resisted the chemists’ effort to identify 
it when it has been properly investigated. 
If all these alkaloids had been subjected to an exhaustive investigation as strych- 
nine was after Palmer’s trial, there would have been no need to revert to vivisection 
in order to convict Damson, and I do not think it would now be contended as 
necessary for the detection of a poisonous dose of strychnine that experiments on 
animals should be made. Vivisection in this case is therefore not the weapon of 
science, but is the refuge of incomplete work. 
I have now gone over all the points urged in favor of vivisection as contributory 
to surgical advance as given in Mr. Gamgee’s pamphlet, and with the result, to my 
mind, of proving that in every instance the claim is groundless. Had I time at my 
disposal 1 could examine in detail numerous other claims equally fallacious. So far, 
indeed, as I have already said, I have not met with a single case capable of substan- 
tiation, not even the most recent—that of Pasteur’s discovery of the prevention of 
zymotic diseases in domesticated animals by inoculation of cultivated virus. 
In the Nineteenth Century for March will be found an article by a well-known 
veterinary surgeon, Mr. Fleming, on this subject. He describes the ravages of such 
diseases as anthrax, splenic fever, rinder-pest, swine plague, etc., among the animals 
which form our food supply, and I admit the accuracy of his statements. Quite 
recently Mr. Pasteur has discovered, and his statements have been amply confirmed, 
that the specific organisms which form the poisons of these diseases may be so arti- 
ficially cultivated as to be capable of producing by inoculation a mild form of the 
original disease, which mild form is largely protective from the severe and fatal 
form of the same malady. In fact there is a perfect analogy between this discovery 
of Pasteur and that of Jenner. VIVISECTION. 
31 
The argument is that by their inoculation the zymotics of domestic animals may 
be stamped out, and the claim is that it is a great advance brought about by vivisec- 
tion. But on a little examination it seems to me that both argument and claim 
break completely down. If it is really an advance from vivisection, then those who 
benefit are the animals experimented* upon, and that may be legitimate enough— 
they at least would share largely in the benefit. 
But the case must be examined from another side. There are some twenty zymot- 
ics among our domestic animals to be provided against. Are we to have each of 
them inoculated some tenor twelve different times, each time for a different disease? 
The affirmative reply possesses a strong pecuniary interest for a veterinary 
but a practical man will only smile at it. 
But, to go deeper into the question, we find another and a much stronger objection. 
Such a process as protective inoculation must always be an inefficient and a tempo- 
rary measure. To take the case of vaccination and smallpox, it is beyond dispute 
that vaccination protects the individual to a large extent from smallpox, but it does 
Dot protect the community, as may be seen from the ravages it is making at the 
present time in neighboring towns and counties. The machinery of vaccination 
never can be so perfect as to stamp out the disease, and it must be regarded purely 
as a temporary expedient. The real agent for the stamping out of smallpox is the 
machinery of a system of sanitary police, such as we have here; and even on the 
small scale in which we have had it for six years it has worked marvels. It will 
stamp out not only smallpox, but every other zymotic at the same time, and by the 
same measures, and then we need not trouble about vaccination—certainly it need 
not be compulsory. 
But the case is still stronger with the lower animals. With them, as with us> 
civilization has introduced zymotic poisons which are absolutely unknown to the 
Wild animal, and the reasons are not far to seek. In my capacity as one of the man- 
agers of a large public institution, I had recently to investigate the cause of an 
endemic of swine plague, and I found a state of matters which had caused at the 
Same time typhoid fever in a human patient. 
Look at the arrangements of an ordinary British farmyard, and then believe that 
it is a matter of no wonder that rinderpest destroys the cattle and diphtheria the 
farmer’s children. The animals spend their lives in houses not lighted and not ven- 
tilated, or walk about in a mass of seething filth, on one side of which stands the 
farmhouse, every room reeking with the stench of the cattle yard. 
When it begins to dawn on the mind of the British public that all these diseases,, 
both for man and animals, are absolutely preventable by the simple means of secur- 
ing fresh air, pure water, and abundant light, they will be banished. Meantime 
inoculation may, and probably will, prevent individuals being attacked, but it will 
not stamp out the diseases, and it must be regarded as really a retrograde proposal 
When we have in our hands the means of complete prevention. 
I hope I have thus made it clear that deeply as I feel the strength of the objection 
to the practice of vivisection upon the various grounds I indicated a»t the beginning 
of my paper, I urge against it a far stronger argument than these—that it has proved 
useless and misleading, and that in the interests 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 rousing which, 
is evident in the public mind upon this question, and I feel confident that before 
long the alteration of opinion which I have had to confess in my own case will 
spread widely among the members of my useful profession. 
Mr. Kennedy. Sir William Ferguson, president of the Koyal Acad- 
emy, himself a yivisector, and said to have been one of the greatest of 
rnodern surgeons, testified that the advantages of experiments upon 
living animals have been greatly overrated. 
Senator Gallingee. Can you furnish the committee with the exact 
text of the statement of Sir William Ferguson? 
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir. 
Senator Gallingee. Then I wish you would leave it with the rej)orter. 
Mr. Kennedy. This is from the report of the royal commission on 
Vivisection, and as Sir William Ferguson’s testimony covers the entire 
ground of vivisection, I would be glad to have the committee read it 
entire. The examination of Sir William Ferguson is as follows: 32 
VIVISECTION. 
EXAMINATION OF SIR WILLIAM FERGUSON BEFORE THE BRITISH 
ROYAL COMMISSION ON VIVISECTION. 
Chairman. You are sergeant-surgeon to the Queen?—Yes. 
And .surgeon to King’s College Hospital?— Yes. 
And a fellow of the Eoyal Society?— Yes. 
Has your attention been drawn to the subject which this commission has been 
appointed to consider?— Yes; it has. 
Have you had much personal experience about it?—A great deal in my earlier 
life. 
Not so much latterly?— Not so much latterly. 
What is your opinion, generally speaking, upon the subject as to its necessity or 
utility ?—I have an idea that a great deal that has been done has been of service in 
regard to physiology and human knowledge, bnt that it has not been of that immense 
value to human nature that some claim for it. 
Are you of the opinion that there lias been recently a great development of the taste 
for this sort of investigation?—Yes; I am impressed with that opinion. 
And are you of opinion that that taste has been accompanied by a corresponding 
amount of utility?—No; I doubt if there has been a corresponding amount of utility. 
Now, are experiments which involve suffering carried to a greater extent than they 
need be?—I think so. 
In what respects?— There is continued and, in my estimation, useless repetition. 
"When once a fact which involves cruelty to lower animals has been fairly recognized 
and accepted, it seems to me that there is no necessity for a continued repetition of 
experiments to display that fact. 
When an experiment has once decided a question, you think it should be left 
there?— Yes; unless there is some good reason for reviving the subject. 
Unless there is some reason to think that some new element has come under view 
which requires a new experiment to solve it?—Quite so. 
Now, with regard to those new experiments, is it a matter for considerable judg- 
ment whether they ought to be tried or not?—Yes; I think it requires a very high 
style of judgment to do a rational experiment under such circumstances. 
And that therefore the number of persons who oiight to perform such experiments 
is at any rate very limited?— Comparatively limited. 
Can you give us any instances in surgical history which would illustrate these 
positions?— Such instances as I can think of seem to me to have been after the fact 
rather than prior to the fact. Some of the most striking experiments that have 
been performed upon the lower animals with reference to surgery have really been 
already performed, not experimentally, but on the best judgment, on the human 
subject, and proved on the human subject; and therefore there is scarcely any neces- 
sity for the repetition of such operations on the lower animal to prove the fact. 
In recent times there has been more said and written to catch the public mind than 
there used to be on the subject; and I have observed that frequently certain opera- 
tions in surgery have been referred to as having been developed in consequence of 
experiments performed on the lower animals. Now, John Hunter, who was one of 
our greatest physiologists, and allowed to be one of our greatest surgeons also, and 
may be said to this day to stand at the head of what is called scientific surgery in 
this country, is especially celebrated for an operation which he devised on the arteries. 
That operation for sixty or eighty years stood as one of the most brilliant in surgery; 
and in so far as 1 have been able to make out (and I have inquired into the subject), 
Hunter’s first experiment, if it might so be called, was done on the human subject, 
and it was long after he had repeated his operation on the human subject and others 
had repeated it that the fashion of tying arteries on the lower animals originated or 
was developed. That fashion was quite justifiable at the time. It is no longer now 
justifiable; but in regard to the surgical aspect of the case, the experiment might 
have been left entirely untouched, for Hunter had already experimented and devel- 
oped the fact on the human subject. 
Then, in short, in this particular case the experiments that were tried oji living 
animals did not establish the fact; they were only useful, if at all, for illustrating 
it a posteriori?— Quite so. 
Now have the great performers of these painful experiments on animals been gen- 
erally great surgeons?—No; I am not aware of any great surgeons having been very 
great experimenters on the lower animals. In this countrswe think that the experi- 
ments which Sir Astley Cooper performed on the lower animals were interesting; 
but they were some of these very operations which I have referred to after the 
development of the operation on the human subject. Of course, he is one of those 
great surgeons who did perform such operations satisfactorily for the time, but lam 
not aware that any very expert operator on the lower animals has made himself VIVISECTION. 
33 
thereby an expert operator on the human subject; nor am I aware that a great 
operator on the human subject has ever prided himself on being a good operator on 
the lower animals. 
We have heard the name of a very celebrated surgeon, Mr. Syme. What was his 
practice?—My recollection of Mr. Syme’s scientific investigations leads me to think 
that Ids operations on the lower animals were chiefly on dogs and rabbits, to ascertain 
certain views regarding the life and death and growth of bone. He used to perform 
a number of operations of that kind, but, though the detail of them was interesting 
enough at the time, I am very doubtful now whether these experiments had any 
special beneficial influence on the practice of surgery. 
Mr. Syme was himself very unwilling to perform these experiments, was he not?—He 
lived to express an abhorrence of such operations, at all events, if they were not use- 
ful. I think at the time he performed them he was willing enough, because he thought 
that he had a great object in view. 
But his ultimate authority was strongly on the other side?—Strongly on the other 
side, as expressed in a special report of his own in association with some gentlemen 
interested in veterinary surgery and physiology. 
Have you a copy of that?—Yes; I have got a copy of it. About the year 1867 Mr. 
Syme and other gentlemen had been asked to give their opinions regarding the sub- 
ject of vivisection, and there is a report published in the fortieth volume of the 
Veterinarian (1867) to this effect; 
“We have great satisfaction in publishing the following important protest: ‘We, 
the court of examiners for Scotland of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, 
desire to express our opinion that the performance of operations on living animals 
is altogether unnecessary and useless for the purpose of causation. James Syme, 
chairman ; James Dunsmure, M. D., president of the College of Surgeons in Edin- 
burgh; J. Warburton Bcgbie, M. D.; John Lawson, president of the Royal College 
of Veterinary Surgeons; B. Cartledge, M. R. C. V. S., member of council of K. C. 
V. S.; William Cockburn, M. R. C. V. S.; William Robertson, M. R. C. V. S.; 
Charles Seeker, M. R. C. V. S.; James Cowie, M. R. C. V. S. I fully concur in the 
above. John Wilkinson, principal veterinary surgeon to the forces. 
No man, perhaps, has over had more experience on the human subject than Mr. 
Syme, and I believe, from knowledge that every man is acquainted with, that he 
investigated by experiments on living lower animals, partly with a view of develop- 
ing features in reference to the human subject, but more, in fact, in regard to physi- 
ology than with regard to practical surgery; and I myself Lave a strong opinion that 
such an expression coming from Mr. Syme (and he must have passed the middle 
period of life at that time) was a mature and valuable opinion. 
Did I rightly understand from you just now that your own opinion in mature life 
Was much less favorable to these experiments than it was when you were young?— 
Ves; because I had not the same grasp of the subject at that time. I was more, per- 
haps, influenced by what other people had done, and by the wish to come up to what 
they had done in regard to such matters; but the more matured judgment of recent 
years has led me to say to myself, now, that I would not perform some of the opera- 
tions at this present time that I performed myself in earlier days. 
Do you think that these experiments on the lower animals have contributed very 
uiuch to mitigating the pain and removing the suffering of the human race?—l do 
Uot think that they have. I think they have been of great value in many respects, 
but certainly 1 can not think that they have led to the mitigation of pain in the 
human subject. 
But that, in point of fact, they have been much more pursued by persons who are 
Uot practical surgeons than by persons who are?— Decidedly. Even with reference 
to the subject of "chloroform the best and chief experiments were made on the human 
subject; all the experiments on the lower animals have been done since the experi- 
ments were conclusively applied to the human subject. 
When chloroform was introduced by Sir James Simpson he tried many of the 
experiments on himself, did he not?— Yes; he did when he was trying the effects of* 
chloroform. Of course, anaesthesia was iS.vised prior to that time. 
Are you able to tell us whether there is reason to believe that experiments upon 
animals, on the supposition that they may be necessary, are performed with all the 
care and all the regard to the sufferings of the animals that there ought to be?—I 
could not give a precise answer to that; but the impression on my mind is that 
"these experiments are done very frequently in a most reckless manner. 
In a manner that, if it were known to the public at large, would call for inter- 
ference on their part ?—Yes; and would bring the reputation of certain scientific men 
furbelow what it should be. 
We have been told that, speaking generally, experiments of this sort are performed 
ufith the greatest possible consideration for the animal, and with the greatest indis- 
position to inflict at least protracted suffering. Do you believe that to be the 
case?— Gentlemen may fancy that, but I do uot think that they fulfill that idea. 
YIY 3 34 
VIVISECTION. 
Indeed, I have reason to imagine that such sufferings incidental to such operations 
are protracted in a very shocking manner. I will give you an illustration of an 
animal being crucified for several days perhaps; introduced several times into a lec- 
ture room for the class to see how the experiment was going on. 
Do you believe that to be done not only on the continent of Europe, but also in 
this country?—l believe it to be done in this country, from what I have heard, 
Mr. Erichsen. For what purpose?—Some physiological experiments which the 
teacher might be interested in at the time. 
Chairman. You think that if the public really knew what was actually going on 
in this country at this time they would expect an interference on the part of the 
Crown and Parliament?—l do think so just as much as with reference to the disin- 
terring of dead bodies years ago. 
Have you got in your mind any particular mode in which you think the Crown and 
Parliament could usefully interfere?—In a very vague way certainly. 1 think it 
could only be done by a judicious representation to men engaged in science that they 
must be careful how they resort to such experiments, and how they enconrge the 
performance of them by those who are younger and less informed than themselves. 
You have just now referred to the subject of anatomy. Do you think that any 
interference with experiments upon living animals of the nature of that which was 
introduced in regard to anatomy could be usefully applied?—l believe there might 
be some sensible jurisdiction, but it would be a difficult thing to point out one to 
please all parties. 
But without attempting that impossibility, do you see your way to some interfer- 
ence wTith these experiments?—! think that an expression of some views from the 
Government and from the Houses of Parliament would have a very wholesome effect; 
that a man would then very likely run the risk of losing caste and character if he 
went beyond certain bounds. 
For that purpose it would be necessary, would it not, that there should be pub- 
licity ?—Publicity is much better than privacy in regard to these matters. 
Would you see any objection to the application to this su l>ject of the same general 
enactment as has been applied to anatomy?—lt would be a much more difficult sub- 
ject to legislate upon ; the held is so extensive. There is a large amount of thought 
associated with the matter, giving rise to features that we can not connect with the 
mere taking bodies from the grave and dissecting them. Men of a very superior 
stamp might have thoughts in their minds, and the desire to develop these thoughts 
by experiments that really would be of great value to the human subject, and it 
would be I think a great pity that such a man should be entirely trammeled. But 
if you had reason to think that a man of enthusiastic mind was indulging too freely 
in these thoughts in that way, it might be well to bring him to his senses, to show 
him that he was only working in ignorance as it were. 
Should I rightly represent your views if 1 said that you think there is some great 
need for a remedy, but that the application of that remedy is difficult?—Yes. 
It would require, therefore, great consideration and care ?—Yes. 
Nevertheless, that if the public knew all that is to be known on the subject, they 
would be likely to demand some remedy?— Yes; I think they would. 
Lord Wimmakleigh. You have stated that you consider that experiments involv- 
ing cruelty to animals have been too frequent, and that they have not led to the 
mitigation of pain, generally speaking; but I presume you did not mean to say that 
they have not led to the successful treatment of complaints, or the mitigation of 
human suffering at all?— With reference to that I may perhaps speak more confi- 
dently regarding surgery than other departments in my own profession, and in sur- 
gery I am not aware of any of these experiments on the lower animals having led to 
the mitigation of pain or to improvement as regards surgical details. 
But we have had statements here by a very high medical authority that there 
were several branches of medical science which have been entirely ascertained by 
means of these experiments. We have had brought to our attention, for instance, 
the circulation of the blood and the action of the heart?—Of course, everyone admits 
those, but then that is a bygone thing. 
And on the liver and the kidneys and the nerves, we have been assured here that 
very great knowledge has been obtained, which could not possibly have been 
obtained except by vivisection?—Well, I suppose we must admit that, but I have no 
very strong impression on my mind as to the very great value of some of these experi- 
ments. I do not think, referring to the most recent experiments that have been 
made, that you can form a very accurate opinion as to the actions of nature from 
looking through the walls of the abdomen at the liver. You get a window cut in 
the side of the abdomen, and get the gall bladder laid open, and you look at it, or a 
physiologist looks at it, and watches it a certain number of hours or days, but the 
animal is put into such an extraordinary condition by all that has been done that I 
can not say that I have very great confidence in the results of such an experiment. 
But do you think that the same knowledge would be obtained by operations on the 35 
VIVISECTION. 
human body?—No, certainly not; but a great distinction should be drawn between 
the two, I think. Very often certain operations are performed on the lower animals, 
and these experiments are used in a way that they never would be used in the 
human subject. 
Mr. Forster. What you meant by your answer, I suppose, was that the abnormal 
conditions of the experiment in which the animal was put made it very doubtful 
what was the advantage of the experiment?—Exactly. The opinion in my mind 
with regard to that might be illustrated from what we have all lelt. At the begin- 
ning of the week you have felt as well as you have ever done in your life; at the end 
of the week you are knocked down by some kind of fever, and then every function 
in your body is disturbed and there is nothing in accordance with normal or healthy 
nature. Now, for my own part, I say that an experiment performed on my body at 
the beginning of the week, and one performed at the end of the week, under such 
circumstances, would be totally different and would lead to different results. There 
Would not be that kind of precision in the results that ought to be considered 
essential, unless, indeed, you are experimenting to ascertain the difference between 
health and disease. 
Lord Wimmarlkigh. With the opinion that you hold on the subject, would you 
think it safe to abolish altogether experiments on living animals with a view to 
obtaining thorough surgical or medical knowledge?—No; I certainly would not go 
that length of restraining rational men from doing that which they thought right; 
but I would enjoin great caution. 
Supposing that this commission was to recommend certain restrictions upon these 
experiments, could you suggest to us any mode by which you could distinguish use- 
ful and necessary experiments from those which yon think involve cruelty and 
which are of no use to the human race?—ln general "terms I have done that already; 
but in regard to other ways, 1 think you must still leave a margin for a man’s judg- 
ment, and if he chooses to display very bad judgment, he must just suffer as other 
men do who display very bad judgment in all the ordinary transactions of life. But 
it would be well that there should be some kind of superintendence, such as is indi- 
cated by you; let the man know that if he goes to excess he will fall into a low caste. 
That is to say, you would leave it to the impression made on the public mind, and 
hot to any legislative enactment. Does not your suggestion amount to that?— Yes; 
that is a fair view of it. I might give you au illustration of that. Perhaps it might 
he disputed, but my own idea is (and Mr. Erichsen, perhaps, would confirm me in that 
view) that so far as the treatment of human beings in hospitals is concerned (I say 
it with all respect to continental practitioners) there is, so to say, more humanity 
and kindness displayed in English hospitals than there is in hospitals abroad—in 
certain countries abroad, at all events—and that I attribute largely to the circum- 
stance that every man practicing in au English hospital is largely amenable to the 
observation and opinions of those who take interest in these hospitals; whereas in a 
foreign hospital, so far as I can understand, the man is himself the sole arbiter. He 
may do what he chooses and there is nobody to interfere, and it will not injure his 
position in social life or practice; whereas if a man in this country was to get a 
character for roughness and rudeness and want of courtesy to his patients, to a cer- 
tainty that man would soon feel that he had lost caste in the general community, 
and losing caste, he would not have that position that he otherwise should. 
The object of this commission is ffrst of all to ascertain what is the extent to which 
what is called vivisection is carried on in this country; the second object is to ascer- 
tain what is the way in which it should be treated in the future. Now, I collect from 
what you have just stated to us that you are opposed to legislation on the subject. 
Is that so? And would you prefer to leave it to the influences which you have just 
mentioned?—There might be, I think, an opinion expressed on the subject by the 
great authorities in the country, but I should be very reluctant to coerce scientific 
men to give up their investigations. They are considered of very much importance 
I>y many. 
You would not, for instance, recommend that any particular officer should be 
directed to attend on every occasion when such experiments were made?—No; I think 
It would be a most offensive thing to men of science in this country that that should 
be done. 
You would be satisfied, then, if this commission were to express its opinion very 
strongly on the subject and leave it for the consideration of the public?— That would 
eoine up to my views and feelings on the subject. 
Mr. Forster. The proposition has been made that the legislation should bring in 
the principle of licensing—that is to say, licensing men who are supposed to be 
Qualified for making experiments—to try them. Has that suggestion come before 
yon?—I have heard it. 
What do you think about it?—lt is very questionable. 
When you say that high authorities should express an opinion on the subject, you 
fecan the legislature?— Yes; or the Government. 36 
VIVISECTION. 
But you think that it should be a mere opinion, without attaching any penalty to 
persons who went contrary to that opinion?—ldo not see my way to a penalty, 
excepting that penalty which I have referred to again and again—that a man must 
suffer iu public estimation according to his acts and deeds. 
Is it not the case that a great many of these experiments are tried by men of 
science iu their own apartments?—l believe so. 
Then public opinion would not reach those men, would it?— Yes; it would have its 
effect in a short time. 
You think it would be known that they did try the experiments?— Yes; of course 
there is the Society for the Suppression of Cruelty to Animals, that would interfere; 
just iu the same way as when a person ill uses one of his own family. If that goes on 
largely it is found out by the public at last and the person suffers accordingly. 
Are you aware that the present cruelty to animals act is not supposed to apply to 
these experiments, because of the definition of “animals?”—Yes, 1 am awareof that 
feature. 
Do you see any objection to enlarging that definition so as to include wild ani- 
mals?—lt would be a great advantage, 1 think, to do so. 
So as to throw, as it were, the onus probandi on the man to show that he had a 
proper object iu the experiment?— Quite so; and to make him aware that the life of 
the wild animal is as precious to itself as the life of the domestic animal. 
The fact that that might iu some degree hit the sportsman would not be an argu- 
ment against it, you think?—No; that is the poor device of some people to stop all 
these inquiries; I do not think it is an argument at all. 
You have studied anaesthetics a great deal, I suppose?— Yes. 
Do you know anything of this wourali? Do you consider it an anaesthetic or 
not?—Forty years ago I used to use it frequently as a poison. 
Do you thiuk it is an anaesthetic ?—I am not aware that we have the smallest proof 
to that effect. 
My reason for asking that is, that in this handbook of physiology there are a great 
many experiments described, generally speaking, at least often they are suggested 
to be made under the influence of this wourali. You would not consider that that 
could be depended on as an amesthetic?—Certainly not. My recollection is to the 
effect that it generally killed outright, and very speedily. 
I suppose the fact that it is in itself a poison prevents the question being solved 
whether it is an amesthetic or not, in the same way as in the case of chloroform, 
because no human subject ought to take it.—It has never been used or put before 
the profession iu such a way that it could be used on the human subject as an ames- 
thetic, so far as I know. The way in which it was tried forty years ago was to put 
a little of it under the skin of a rabbit and see the rabbit die iu a minute or two. 
And you never saw it applied to the human subject?—No; I haA’e never known it 
used for the human subject. 
We are told that the reason why it is recommended in experiments is not that it 
makes the animal insensible to pain, but that it makes the animal still and quiet. 
Do you know whether that is the case?—I should doubt very much its making the 
animal insensible. Ido not know it of my own knowledge, but I have very strong 
ideas with reference to these experiments performed under amesthesia as being far 
less valuable. Ido not go in with that view, which is very prevalent, that these 
experiments may now be permitted because we have got anaesthesia to prevent the 
pain. The experiment is not of the smallest value during its performance. You 
can not make a perfect experiment on the animal until it is in its normal condition. 
That does not imply that you do not think that the animal is made as insensible 
to pain as the human subject would be?—I fancy so. Ido not think that there is 
much difference. 
What you mean is that if a man tries his experiment of course he hopes it will 
be a successful one; whereas you thiuk that the amesthetic may so derange the 
animal as to prevent its being successful?—It would be difficult for them to see 
what they want to see under amesthesia, because the animal is no longer itself. An 
experiment on the human subject, for example, to whom you have given an anaes- 
thetic, chloroform, say, goes this length—-that the person is rendered insensible, and 
you may do any kind of painful thing to that individual for the time. That proves 
what I say. But further than that the anaesthetic has no other value, because when 
a person, having undergone an ordinary surgical operation, recovers from it, then he 
suffers just the same in every respect as if ho had not had chloroform at all during 
the performance of the operation. 
In the after suffering you mean?—In the after suffering; and there, I think, there 
is a great weakness on the part of those who try to make it appear that vivisection 
of the lower animals may now be more readily clone than it could be before, because 
an experiment at the time of the animal being insensible is really of little or no 
value. 
Several of the witnesses before us have said that they think that amesthetics VIVISECTION. 
37 
ought to be employed wherever they could, and that the animal should be killed 
before it woke up to sensation. What have you to say to that?—l myself can not 
understand these experiments as a surgeon; I do not see what value they can be of 
at all. 
You think the fact that the animal was under at least the temporary influence of 
a powerful poison would throw great doubt upon the whole nature of the experi- 
ment?—Upon the value of the experiment I think it would. I have no doubt what- 
ever that in the case of a rabbit or a dog you could make it so insensible that you 
might cut out all its bowels, and the animal would never express pain by any mental 
or physical indication. Then, of course, you know what would happen after that. 
As far as regards an experiment for merely enabling an operator to do an opera- 
tion, that is to say. for a surgeon, you would say that such an experiment would be of 
very little use, or that it would be very doubtful whether it would be of use?—l think 
this is an instance which I would pnt at once to any man who is trying an experi- 
ment of that kind intended to be applied to the human subject, because we have 
had more experiments performed on the human subject than have ever been per- 
formed on the lower animals during anaesthesia. 
Hut that objection of yours to that kind of experiments would hardly apply, would 
it, to experiments that were physiological, such as the discovery of the circulation 
of the blood, because these are experiments to see the actual process within Ihe 
human body?— That 1 think is right enough, but I do not see that it is applicable; 
moreover that is a wrought out subject. 
But am I right in rather gathering this from your evidence, that although you 
would not say that no future experiments of this kind might be useful, or even under 
certain circumstances necessary, yet you attach less value to them than many other 
members of your profession, for two reasons; first, because the actual experiment 
itself puts the animal into an abnormal condition; secondly, that anaesthetics when 
used, would in addition put the animal into an abnormal condition?—I have no 
strong ideas about the experiment itself apart from anaesthesia, though in some 
instances I believe dogs laid hold of suddenly and violently, and pinned down on a 
hoard, get into such a violent and excited state that you have not the animal in its 
normal condition. 
Mr. Erichsen. In reference to a remark that you have just made, I will ask you a 
question, because it is novel to me. Is it the case that dogs are ever “ pinned ”to 
hoards, or that animals are crucified, as you said in another part of your evidence?— 
1 have not myself seen it, but I have heard of it frequently, and I have had brought 
Under my notice in the last nine months the case of two dogs being strapped to 
hoards (1 meant pinned to them in that sense) at Norwich, and a surgeon went up 
and cut the straps so as to let the creatures have some kind of relief. Let me also 
draw your attention to this—you know that frogs are not strapped; they are pinned 
and tied; pinned more frequently than in any other way. 
With regard to surgical experiments, you have had immense experience, as we all 
know, not only in surgery itself, hut also in the education of young surgeons, and 
in watching the process of many surgeons through life. Is it your experience or not 
that surgeons perform operations upon living animals with a view of accustoming 
themselves to operations, so as to acquire dexterity in operations on the human 
subject?—lt is not my experience. I have heard it said that it might be done. 
But it is not your experience that it is so done in this country?— Certainly not. 
I gather from you that it is not the habit of surgeons to practice vivisection for 
the purpose of acquiring dexterity upon human beings?— Certainly not in this 
country. 
And that it would be useless to do so, because the condition of the tissues is very 
different?—Yes; the surroundings are so very different that I should place no 
confidence in any man who acquired additional experience in that way. 
A great many of the most eminent surgeons in this country, Sir Charles Bell, Sir 
Astley Cooper, Sir Benjamin Brodie, Mr. Travers, Mr Lawrence, and others, have 
all performed experiments of various kinds upon animals; these have been to eluci- 
date a certain definite point, and in the hope of adding something or other to the 
general stock of human knowledge?— They have also been performed by gentlemen, 
such as these, to aid in the development of special views of their own, and, so far 
as I have been able to judge, very legitimately. 
You stated, I think, that opera tions in surgery were not usually first of all performed 
upon animals and then upon the human subject.—Yes; I have a very strong impres- 
sion to that effect. I have thought over it again and again, and have not been able 
to come to a conclusion in my own mind that there is any single operation in 
surgery which has been initiated by the performance of something like it on the 
loAver animals. 
The operations that have been performed on the lower animals, with a view of 
elucidating similar procedures upon the human subject, have all been performed 
those operations had been done on the human subject?—-Invariably. Whatever 
uas been done after is a matter of curiosity. 38 
VIVISECTION. 
AVe are told that some of these experiments have thrown great light upon practi- 
cal surgery, as, for instance, Mr. Jones’s experiments upon the kind of ligature to 
use upon the arteries; that before his time John Hunter used broad ligatures, and 
that bad results followed the use of those ligatures, and that the experiments per- 
formed by Mr. Jones threw great light upon the proper sort of ligature to use, and 
were consequently of use to surgeons. What is your view as to that?—Jones's 
experiments were of considerable value to surgery at that particular time, but they 
have all been done again and again. 
And it would not be proper to repeat them?—Certainly not. 
That is a past matter; but at the time they were of great service to surgery?—Up 
to this day, I may say with regard to that point, practical surgeons seem to have as 
much difference of opinion as to the best kind of ligature as they had in Jones's day. 
Experiments have been made of late years on that very point by Mr. Lister, of 
Edinburgh?— Yes; and by many others. 
Mr. Forster. Experiments on animals or on the human subject do you mean?—On 
animals and on the human subject. Experiments are going on on the human subject 
daily just now; but these are rational experiments—quite legitimate. 
Mr. Erichsen. Experiments on the human subject—that is to say, after the 
operation—one surgeon uses one kind of ligature and another another?—Yes; it is 
the object of the experiments to ascertain what is best. But in saying that Ido 
not mean to say that it is a reckless operation as to human life. 
I am not at this moment speaking of the indirect influence that experimentation 
on the lower animals has on the progress of surgery, but we have been told that 
certain observations, such as those which are made in what may be termed patho- 
logical experimentation, the production of inflammation, lor instance, in the web of 
a frog’s foot, and so forth, have had a very direct bearing (and no doubt they have) 
upon the progress of medical science. Have such experiments, in your opinion, had 
any direct bearing upon the progress of surgical practice?— Well, I do not think it. 
I was as familiar as most people with these experiments, and I can not say that I 
have been much impressed with the value of them. 
Has your own practice been very much influenced in any way whatever by what 
has been observed in this way in tlie lower animals, or has it been the result of your 
own clinical and pathological observation on the human subiect?—Chiefly the latter; 
and since I have been indoctrinated with the usual views that are held in this coun- 
try, I can not say that I have had my mind opened up by experiments to any increase 
of knowlege on this subject. 
I suppose we may say this, that medicine is based not only upon physiological, 
but also upon clinical, observation and pathology?— Yes. 
And in your ojunion is clinical observation and pathological observation of more 
service to practical surgery than experimental physiology?— Yes. There is a precision 
in the one while the other is largely theoretical. 
Mr. Hutton. Have you seen anything of the experiments for the transfusion of 
blood to which Sir James Paget referred in his evidence?—l think I may have seen 
once or twice the transfusion of blood from one human being to another, and I have 
knowm it in my experience again and again. 
Can you say whether the experiments on animals on that subject were, in your 
opinion, essential to the determining of the proper conditions for that transfusion ?—I 
do not think they would be of the smallest practical value. 
Yon were a witness, were you not, of that experiment at Norwich which has been 
alluded to?—No, I am happy to say 1 was not; 1 was a witness in the trial. 
But, iu your opinion, the attempt to determine the effect of absinthe and alcohol on 
the stomach by transfusing it into the veins of an animal was a perfectly useless 
experiment?—l think it was grounded upon incorrect views altogether. There is no 
strict analogy between tiro two, particularly when you want to put that analogy in 
association with a similar thing in the human body. 
And did I rightly understand you to say that Mr. Jones’s experiments on the liga- 
tures had not determined the question at all of the kind of ligature best suited for 
the arteries?— That is so. The controversy has been going on ever since, and variety 
of opinion still exists. 
Experiments on the human body are much more efficient for the purpose than 
experiments on the arteries of animals?— The ordinary operations, I would hardly 
call them experiments, are much more efficient. All such experiments have been 
founded on reason, and without any risk to the human being. 
Do you know anything of this handbook of Dr. Sanderson’s?—I have heard a good 
deal about it, but I have purposely rather avoided it. 
You can not give any opinion on the experiments described in it?—I have heard 
something about them. I fancy a large number of them are such as ought not to be 
sanctioned. 
Sir John Karslakk. Would you let me know what are the grounds upon which 
you state the opinion that there is a great deal of reckless practice of vivisection 39 
VIVISECTION. 
going on at the present time?—I hear young men who are pupils, or have recently 
been pupils, speaking of what they have seen in the theaters, lecture rooms, and 
laboratories of those who profess to teach physiology. 
Could you point out to the commission particular theaters or lecture rooms or lab- 
oratories in which you have heard that these practices prevail?—l could not be 
precise. 
Could you give us some clue by which we could get evidence for the purpose of 
ascertaining to what extent they prevail?—l can only do it in very general terms. I 
should recommend inquiries to be made at any of the physiological institutions in 
London and elsewhere. 
Is it from what you have heard of what goes ou at those theaters and laboratories 
that you have formed the opinion that there is a great deal of reckless practice of 
vivisection prevalent at the present time?—Yes; ant I might have seen it in the 
papers, too. In some of the Edinburgh papers recently there has been a letter from 
“A Citizen of Edinburgh,” in which he questions the propriety of the system by 
which, when they are building a new university in Edinburgh, it should appear con- 
spicuously that very careful provisions are being made for the lower animals that are 
to be kept in the institution for the purpose of performing experiments upon them. 
I think that is proof enough to show the estimation in which in certain quarters 
that style of practice is held. 
My question was rather pointed to the prevalence of the practice, and the sources 
from which we could ascertain whether it does prevail, and if so, to what extent?— 
I think the best authority I can refer you to is the best and largest of the teaching 
institutions in London 
Chaikmax. Your opinion is that the value of these experiments has been altogether 
exaggerated?—l do hold that opinion. 
But that if in the hands of the principal scientific men of this country public 
opinion would be a sufficient check upon them?—Yes; that is my impression. 
And that the notion of being generally reputed to be very indifferent to suffering 
would be such as to prevent any of them continuing so or becoming so, even if they 
would otherwise have been disposed to become so?— Yes; I think public opinion 
would have a large influence upon the practices of such men. 
For that purpose it would be necessary, would it not, that something should be 
known about the proceedings that were going on in the different theaters and lecture 
rooms?—lt would certainly be beneficial to your investigation that you should 
know that. 
But for the influence of public opinion upon scientific men it would be necessary 
that public opinion should have something to form itself upon, would it not?—Yes. 
That is to say, unless the public knows what is going on it can neither form nor 
express any opinion upon it?—Quite so. 
And your opinion, as I understood you, is that at this very moment there is a great 
deal going ou in this town which, if the public did know, would excite them very 
much?—That is my impression from what I hear. 
And public opinion is, in the present state of the law and practice of the country, 
quite unable to bring itself to bear upon it?—Yes. 
Something, therefore, must be done in order to enable that public opinion to pro- 
duce the effect that you speak of, must it not?—Possibly you gentlemen might bring 
before you some of the most intelligent of, say, the young members of the profes- 
sion or the senior students of the profession who have recently been attending lec- 
tures and demonstrations on physiology, and from them perhaps you would get the 
information. 
But I want to draw your attention to a different point. You have said that some- 
thing requires to be done to check what you consider an amount of cruelty now 
going on?—A^es. 
But when pressed upon the subject as to the particular mode of doing that you 
expressed a hope that public opinion would have a sufficient influence to bring about 
that result?— Yes. 
Then what I have pointed out to you is that under the present state of our law 
and of our practice these things appear to be going on, and yet public opinion 
appears to have no opportunity of operating, because it does not know what is going 
on?— Yes. 
It will therefore, according to that view, be a consideration for this commission 
whether they should not recommend some change in the law and practice hy which 
everybody who does these things shall hereafter be subject to some influence of pub- 
lic opinion; is not that so?—Yes. 
That would point to some change in the law?—At all events, to an expression of 
opinion from some of the highest sources in the Kingdom. 
But an expression of opinion which should not be brought to bear upon the prac- 
tice of a person who is permitted to continue the practice without the knowledge 
of the public would be inoperative, would it not?—We have already in some degree 40 
VIVISECTION. 
referred to that. First of all, I would suggest that if you gentlemen were to have 
information sufficient to convince you that such practices are going on to an extent 
that you do not think should be permitted, it would be for you to recommend to the 
Government to either say or do something on the subject. Then I think 1 would say 
as to the next part of your question that in the present state of the law we have the 
Society for tbe Suppression of Cruelty to Animals keeping a constant watch upon 
such matters, and a person amenable to the law at. this present time for cruelty to 
animals would be still more likely, I think, to be put in the right course, or to have 
his practices suppressed altogether, if it were done under stronger sanction than 
there is at this present time. There is a common law at this present time, but we 
should have some additional expression indicating that the Government could not 
tolerate this s'ort of thing in this country. 
At the present moment there is. according to your belief, much going on somehow 
or other which ought not to go on?— That is my impression. 
And that probably the law and the practice, as it stands at present, is not suffi- 
cient to prevent it?—lt does not reach it at the present time. 
And that which you would recommend would be, 1 suppose, that some change in our 
law and practice should be made which would enable us to reach it?— Quite so. 
And then, so far as the most eminent scientific men are concerned, you think that 
after that had been done, public opinion would have sufficient influence with them?— 
The fear of an unfavorable opinion, 1 think, would have great influence with them. 
Then, with regard to other persons than those eminent scientific people, it might, 
perhaps, be necessary for some severer measures to be taken with regard to them, 
might it not?—Yes; if there was excessive cruelty or an excessive want of common 
humanity. 
Supposing a comparatively ignorant person, from whose experiments no real good 
could reasonably be expected, were nevertheless to practice such experiments; do not 
you think that something stronger than public opinion might be brought to bear upon 
liim?—I think there would be some difficulty in applying that to people in the posi- 
tion of quacks and bouesetters, and so forth; because you might arouse in the mind 
of the public the feeling that the man was a persecuted man; that the whole pro- 
fession had gone against him, and you might make rather a martyr of him than 
otherwise, and probably an elevated martyr. 
In fact, you would suggest that if the commission did recommend any further 
proceedings, they should take care not to exceed the limits of public opinion, not to 
go beyond what public opinion might be expected to support?— Yes. I think when 
you are referring to that subject, I may say that it has struck me that it would be 
well, with a view to what may be the result of this investigation which you are 
engaged in, if the attention of the governors of medical schools were called more 
forcibly to the subject than at this present time; that there might be certain gov- 
ernors in each school who should take an interest in the matter, and see that there 
was no unnecessary cruelty in a part of the institution where it is admitted generally 
that there must be a certain amount of cruelty for special purposes. 
But that is limited to the great hospitals and scientific schools, is it not?— Yes; it 
would be limited to them. But Ido not think there is much of this that goes on 
irrespectively 7of these schools. Ido not think that there is much amateur physiology 
going on in this country. 
But if there was, it would be still more necessary, would it not, to provide a 
remedy 7 in that case?—Yes; if that was ascertained, it would be a very important 
thing. 
Mr. Fokstek. 1 think you said that you think what goes on that ought not to go on 
is mainly at the large institutions?—So far as I can make out. I believe that here 
and there there are outsiders, so to say (I speak of them with respect), who are not 
actually in those institutions. They are zealous and talented men, and take oppor- 
tunities of their own where they can, and 1 think it would be a pity to restrain even 
these men so long as it was seen that they were under a wholesome influence. 
Has it ever occurred to you whether, as regards these large institutions, it might 
not be well to put them under the obligation to make a public report of the experi- 
ments that they were performing?—That has occurred to me. It might be a very 
good rule to make. 
Take, for instance, what is going on now; we hear different accounts, and it is very 7 
difficult to know accurately what is going on, and therefore it is very difficult for 
public opinion, in any reasonable manner, to operate upon them; but supposingthey 
were under an obligation to declare what they7 had done, and why they had done it, 
then public opinion could form, could it not, a reasonable judgment?—l think that 
in legislation on the subject it would be a very important thing to have some view 
of that kind developed. It had a very wholesome effect on the conduct of dissecting 
rooms, for instance. Now, there can not be a subject in a dissecting room without 
there being a proper account of it, where it has come from, how long it has been 
there, etc. VIVISECTION. 
41 
At the present moment they are compelled to keep an account of dead human bodies ? 
Yes; and if there is a large piece of a body lying there that can not he accounted for, 
the individual that has that piece, the professor of anatomy, is immediately amenable 
to the law, and the law is very stringent. He would have his license taken from him, 
and his school, so far as the teaching of anatomy was concerned, would be put an end 
to. There is a very wholesome regulation of the practice with reference to that 
matter. 
And in the same manner, I suppose, it would he possible to say that a report must 
he made day by day of any experiments on a living animal, and why it was done?— 
At certain dates. Day by day would be, perhaps, too much officiousness; hut I have 
thought in my own mind that it would be quite possible that you should have an 
inspector of these experiments, just as they have an inspector of anatomy; and 
that just as the common law enables the authorities to send detectives in certain 
directions to ascertain who may be in certain houses, so they should be able to send 
men who should say, “I should like to see the number of dogs and rabbits or cats 
about this placed' I think that would have a very wholesome effect. 
Chairman. There was a great excitement about anatomy, we are told (and many 
of us are old enough to remember it), when the law was in its old state?—tes. 
That excitement was entirely put down by the changes which have since been 
made, and there is no public complaint any more on the subject. Do you think that 
something analogous to that might be adopted if there should be reason to believe 
that things are done in this matter which would not be satisfactory to the public if 
they knew of them?— Yes; 1 think it would be a very wholesome thing to do, if this 
commission were satisfied that these practices were carried to an exorbitant extent. 
In other words, if they were satisfied that there was sufficient occasion?—Yes. 
Mr. Kennedy. Some time ago this subject was discussed before tbe 
Anthropological Society of Washington. At that meeting we had a 
glib young doctor who declared that such and such things had stamped 
out certain diseases that prevailed among cattle. 1 have kept cattle 
all my life as a man, and I can say that if there is one thing more than 
another that will stamp out disease or, better yet, prevent it, it is sani- 
tation. If our doctors would turn their attention more to sanitation 
among human beings more cures would be effected, and less disease 
contracted. 
Now what we want to secure by this measure is simply governmental 
inspection, that is all, land no humane man or true over of science can 
object to that. Simply inspection, with a report as to the result of 
those experiments. 
Another scientist—my friends on the medical side know this man— 
Dr. Burdon-Sanderson, says that the state of things he would like to 
see established with reference to physiological research is such as 
would unquestionably discourage the making of experiments by anyone 
except persons trained in a school of physiology. This bill provides 
that only persons who are licensed shall perform these experiments, 
and the bill also prescribes the qualifications necessary for a license. 
Dr. Lyman Playfair’s bill, which Dr. Sanderson recommended, was 
objectionable in the view of the commission because it would have pro- 
hibited experiments for the purpose of demonstration, even under com- 
plete anaesthesia. That is, he went so far in his opposition to vivisec- 
tion for the purpose of demonstrating proved facts that he would have 
had the English Parliament abolish it entirely in all schools and col- 
leges when done for the purpose of demonstration. 
Dr. George M. Sternberg. Gentlemen of the committee, I have 
the honor to submit for your consideration the following reasons for 
objecting to the legislation proposed by Senate bill 1552: 
(1) So far as I know no evidence has been presented to show that 
Unnecessary and cruel experiments upon the lower animals are being 
performed in the District of Columbia. 
(2) Punishment for cruelty to animals is already provided for by law. 
(3) It is an unjust reflection upon those engaged in scientific research 42 
VIVISECTION. 
work to suppose that they are less humane than other members of the 
community, and that special legislation is necessary to cause them to 
administer anaesthetics to animals subjected to painful experiments. 
(4) Such legislation would be offensive class legislation, inasmuch as 
it prescribes the use of anaesthetics in scientific “ experiments,” but 
fails to provide for the use of anaesthetics in the painful cutting and 
crushing operations upon male colts, calves, pigs, cats, etc., which are 
constantly practiced by farmers, veterinary surgeons, and others; and 
it takes no account of pain inflicted upon the lower animals for “sport” 
or for gain. 
(5) The progress of scientific medicine has been largely due to 
experiments upon the lower animals, and the restrictions upon such 
experiments proposed by this bill would have a very unfavorable effect 
upon the further development of our knowledge in all departments of 
biological research. 
In support of the last statement made, I submit for your consideration 
and ask to have made a part of my remarks a paper recently read by 
me before the Anthropological Society of this city. 
Senator (lalltnger. That will be done. 
STATEMENT OF GEORGE M. STEENBERG, M. D., LL. D., SURGEON- 
GENERAL UNITED STATES ARMY. 
The advancement of knowledge in all departments of science depends 
largely upon the application of experimental methods of research for 
the solution of the problems which present themselves. 
The efforts of philosophers to determine by processes of reasoning 
the elementary substances in nature and the laws governing natural 
phenomena have been futile. Even if, by a happy guess, the truth has 
been divined, an experimental demonstration is usually necessary before 
this is made evident. Science is founded upon observation and experi- 
ment, but very often the evidence of our senses can not be relied upon 
in the absence of an experimental demonstration of the truth of the 
observation made. During a journey across the desert we think we see 
a lake, but the experiment of trying to approach it convinces us that 
it was a mirage. We are convinced that we feel a cinder in our eye; 
investigation shows that the sensation is caused by congested blood 
vessels and that the cinder which caused this condition is no longer 
present. 
A sound is heard like the distant ringing of church bells, but the 
experiment of closing the ears shows that it is subjective, and we recall 
the fact that some quinine pills were taken a few hours before. If, how- 
ever, we had never heard that such an effect results from taking qui- 
nine, we would be at a loss to account for the phenomenon, and following 
the nonscientific post hoc ergo propter hoc method of reasoning, might 
conclude that it was caused by eating beans for breakfast. A priori 
this might appear quite as probable as the suggestion that the phenom- 
enon was due to the quinine pills taken before breakfast. Evidently a 
question of this kind can only be settled by a series of experiments. 
These would develop the facts that in the absence of beans for break- 
fast a similar result followed when a corresponding dose of quinine was 
taken before breakfast, and that when no quinine was taken, ringing in 
the ears did not follow the eating of beans. 
These few examples will serve to illustrate the proposition that knowl- 
edge depends upon observation—under which term I include all kinds 43 
VIVISECTION. 
of sensual impressions—verified by experiment, i. e., by experience. 
Webster gives the following definitions of the word experiment: 
(1) A trial deliberately instituted; an act or operation undertaken in order to dis- 
cover something unknown, or in order to test, establish, or illustrate some allied or 
known truth; practical test; proof. 
(2) Instruction gained by experience; experience. 
The child learns by experiment that it can not reach the moon; that 
sugar tastes good; that the stove burns, etc. The savage learns by 
experiment that certain kinds of wood are good for bows, and other 
kinds for arrows; that Hint and obsidian may be chipped into suitable 
shapes for arrow points; that certain roots are good to eat, and others 
are not. The farmer learns by experiment that certain soils are adapted 
to certain crops; that increased returns are obtained by rotation of 
crops, etc. 
The artist learns by experiment that the blending of certain colors 
gives a certain desired result; that the effect he is aiming at may be 
attained by a certain method of applying his colors upon the canvas, etc. 
By means of the experimental method the chemist has succeeded in 
analyzing air, earth, and water, which were regarded by the ancients 
as elements, and has learned to manufacture in his laboratory, by syn- 
thetic processes, many of the complex organic substances found in 
nature. By experiment the physicist has demonstrated the persistence 
of force and the correlation of the various modes of motion known to us 
as heat, electricity, etc. He has learned to recognize the elements of 
the chemist in distant suns by means of the spectroscope, and has 
recently shown us that certain ethereal vibrations may pass through 
wood and metal as light rays pass through glass. 
In like manner biologists and physicians have established the facts 
which constitute our knowledge of biology in all its branches. Used 
in its broadest sense this term includes animal and vegetable physi- 
ology, animal and vegefable pathology, etiology, morphology, embry- 
ology, psychology, and sociology. Now, it is evident that all questions 
relating to these various branches of biological knowledge must be 
determined by the observations of living organisms and by experiments 
upon living plants and animals. To some extent the study of mor- 
phology and of pathology constitutes an exception to this general rule, 
inasmuch as these branches of biological science also call for the dis- 
section of dead plants and animals. Our knowledge of animal and 
vegetable histology, of human anatomy, and of the results of disease 
processes has been obtained in this way, and could not have been 
obtained in any other way. But the dissection of dead plants and 
animals can not determine the functions of the various anatomical 
elements and organs revealed by such dissections, although aided by 
the microtome, differential staining methods, the microscope, etc. Nor 
can the study of the results of disease processes in the post mortem 
room and in the pathological laboratory settle questions relating to the 
etiology of a disease, its mode of transmission if infectious, its clinical 
history, or its treatment. These are the questions which most concern 
the practical physician and his patients, and scientific medicine depends 
upon their solution by scientific methods, i. e., by observation and by 
experiment. 
Without doubt the progress of medicine and of science generally 
has been greatly retarded by too great a reliance upon conclusions 
drawn from individual observations, without submitting these conclu- 
sions to the test of experiment. The liability to error results {a) from 
the unreliability of conclusions based upon sensual impressions; (b) 44 
VIVISECTION. 
from hasty adoption of the post hoc ergo propter hoc argument; (c) 
from the fact that the observation is not submitted to a proper control. 
Illustrations have already been given of the first source of error (a). 
Under the influence of superstition, fear, narcotics, or a lively imagina- 
tion, delusive sense impressions may give rise to a belief in ghosts and 
phantoms of various kinds; or a cerebral congestion may bring up in 
the usually well-balanced mind a subjective apparition which it is dif- 
ficult to believe is only a figment of the brain, {b) The unjustifiable 
inference that a certain result is due to some antecedent circumstance, 
in the absence of any satisfactory scientific demonstration of a casual 
connection between the two events, is a source of a large share of 
the error which exists not only among the ignorant, but also among the 
educated classes in civilized countries. The methods and deductions 
of science make their way but slowly, and the exactions of scientific 
demonstration are but little understood by those who are not engaged 
in-scientific research. 
In medicine this unscientific credulity is unfortunately not confined 
to the laity. Over and over again remedies have been lauded as specifics 
by well-meaning physicians upon the supposed clinical evidenceobtained 
in a limited number of cases, and have been proved to be useless when 
submitted to the test of a more extended and unprejudiced trial. 
Science not only demands an experimental demonstration, but hesitates 
to accept such a demonstration as conclusive unless it has been verified 
by one or more unprejudiced observers who are known as reliable and 
who record all of the steps of their experimental research. 
On the other hand, the non scientific constantly arrive at conclu- 
sions from insufficient data and are disposed to resent any intima- 
tion that the evidence they advance in support of their conclusions is 
inadequate. 
In scientific experiments the same causes under uniform conditions 
are expected to give uniform results; and the relation of cause and 
effect is determined by control experiments (c), which sliow that in the 
absence of the supposed cause, all other conditions being the same, the 
effect is not produced. 
In clinical experiments contradictory results are obtained and false 
deductions made from a failure to recognize the essential conditions of 
scientific experimentation, and also because of the difficulty in secur- 
ing uniform conditions and a proper control experiment. For example: 
A certain medicine is affirmed to be a specific for pulmonary tubercu- 
losis and is being tested to determine its value in the treatment of this 
disease. In the first place we must inquire who has made the test; 
whether it is an interested party who proposes to make money or 
reputation; whether the diagnosis in the cases reported as cured was 
made by a competent and disinterested physician; whether the cases 
were in the early stage of the disease or otherwise; what was the 
family history, the personal history, and the environment of each case; 
what other treatment was carried on at the same time. 
A properly conducted scientific test requires that the results claimed 
be controlled by placing two or more similar cases under identical con- 
ditions and observing whether a decided difference in the progress of 
the disease or of recovery is manifest in the cases treated by the method 
under consideration as compared with those not treated. Evidently 
these ideal conditions for arriving at just conclusions can not, as a rule, 
be obtained in clinical medicine. But in hospital practice it is some- 
times possible to conduct experiments as to the value of proposed 
methods of treatment in which an approximation of these conditions is VIVISECTION. 
45 
attained; and scientific medicine lias been greatly advanced by care- 
fully conducted experiments of this kind and by a comparison of the 
collated results of the treatment of large numbers of patients by special 
methods. But in many cases a more satisfactory demonstration may 
often be made by experiments made upon the lower animals. As a 
typical scientific experiment of this kind, made by a master in the 
application of the experimental method, 1 beg leave to quote the 
following account of an experiment by Pasteur: 
On June 13, 1881, Pasteur communicated the results of his famous 
experiment at Ponilly-le Fort, near Melon. He says: 
On the sth of May, 1881, we inoculated, by means of a Pravaz syringe, 24 sheep, 
1 goat, and 6 cows, each animal with 5 drops of an attenuated culture of the anthrax 
bacillus. On the i7th of May we reinoculated these animals with a second virus, 
also attenuated, but more virulent than the tirst. 
On the 31st of May we proceeded to make a very virulent inoculation in order to 
test the efficacy of the preventive inoculations made on the sth and 7th of May. 
For this experiment we inoculated the 30 vaccinated animals, and also 24 sheep, 1 goat, 
and 4 cows, which had not received any previous treatment. 
The very virulent virus used on the 3lst of May was obtained from spores preserved 
in my laboratory since the 21st of March, 1877. 
In order to make the experiments more comparable, we inoculated alternately a 
vaccinated and a non vaccinated animal. When the operation was finished all of 
those present were invited to reassemble on June 2, i. e., forty-eight hours after the 
virulent inoculation was made. 
Upon the at rival of the visitors on June 2, all were astonished at the result. The 
24 sheep, the goat, and the 6 cows which had received the attenuated virus all pre- 
sented the appearance of health. On the contrary, 20 of the sheep and the goat, 
which had not been vaccinated, were already dead of anthrax; 2 more of the non- 
Vaccinated sheep died before the eyes of the spectators, and the last of the series 
expired before the end of the day. The nonvaccinated cows were not dead. We 
had previously proved that cows are less subject than sheep to die of anthrax. But 
all had an extensive oedema at the point of inoculation, behind the shoulder. Cer- 
tain of these cedematous swellings increased during the following days to such 
dimensions that they contained several liters of liquid, deforming the animal. One 
of them even nearly touched the earth. The temperature of these cows was elevated 
3° C. The vaccinated cows did not experience any elevation of temperature, or 
tumefaction, or the slightest loss of appetite. The success, therefore, was as com- 
plete for the cows as for the sheep. 
Since this convincing experiment was made anthrax inoculations have 
been made on a large scale in France and in other parts of Europe, in 
which this disease has for many years caused enormous losses among 
the flocks and herds. 
The result of anthrax inoculations made in France by Pasteurs 
method during the past twelve years has recently (1894) been sum- 
marized by Chamberland. The veterinarians who made the inocula- 
tions were each year called upon to answer the following questions: 
(1) dumber of animals inoculated. (2) Number of deaths from first 
inoculation. (3) Number of animals dying within twelve days after sec- 
ond inoculation. (4) Number of animals dying of anthrax within a year 
after protective inoculations. (5) The yearly average loss before inocu- 
lations were practiced. The total number of animals inoculated during 
the period to which this report refers was 1,788,677 sheep and 200,962 
cattle. The average annual loss before these protective inoculations 
Were practiced is said to have been about 10 per cent for sheep and 5 
Per cent for cattle. The total mortality from this disease among inocu- 
lated animals, including that resulting from the inoculations, was 0,94 
per cent for sheep and 0.34 per cent for cattle. Chamberland estimates 
that the total saving as a result of the inoculations practiced has been 
5,000,000 francs for sheep and 2,000,000 francs for cattle. 
, Another equally brilliant experimental demonstration is that made 
by Pasteur before a commission appointed in 1884 to investigate his 46 
VIVISECTION. 
method of conferring immunity against hydrophobia. He inoculated 
19 dogs in the presence of this commission as a test experiment. 
These animals had been rendered refractory by his method. The 19 
protected animals and 19 control animals, obtained from the public 
pound without any selection, were tested at the same time. The test 
was made upon some of the animals of both series by inoculation 
with virulent material upon the surface of the brain, and upon others 
by allowing them to be bitten by rabid dogs, and upon still others by 
intravenous inoculations. Not one of the protected animals developed 
hydrophobia; on the other hand, 3 of the control animals out of 6 
bitten by a mad dog developed the disease, 5 out of 7 which received 
intravenous inoculations died ot rabies, and 5 which were trephined 
and inoculated on the surface of the brain died of the same disease. 
With r. ference to his first inoculations in man, Pasteur says: 
Making use of this method, I had already made 50 dogs of various races and 
ages immune to rabies, and had not met with a single failure, when, on the 6th of 
July, quite unexpectedly, three persons, residents of Alsace, presented themselves 
at my laboratory. 
These persons were Theodore Vone, who had been bitten on the arm 
on July 4; Joseph Meister, aged 9, bitten on the same day by the same 
rabid dog, and the mother of Meister, who had not been bitten. The 
child had been thrown down by the dog and bitten upon the hand, the 
legs, and the thighs; in all, in fourteen different places. Pasteur com- 
menced the treatment at once, and had the satisfaction of reporting to 
the Academy of (Sciences in March of the following year (1886) that 
the boy remained in perfect health. Since this time Pasteur institutes 
for the treatment of hydrophobia have been established in all parts of 
the civilized world, and the statistical reports published justify the 
belief that when the treatment is instituted at an early date after the 
bite, and is properly carried out, its protective value is almost absolute. 
At the Pasteur Institute in Paris 9,433 persons were treated during 
the years 1880 to 1890, inclusive. The total mortality from hydropho- 
bia among those treated was considerably less than 1 per cent (0.61). 
In 1890 416 persons were treated who had been bitten by animals proved 
to be rabid, and among these there was not a single death. In 1891 
the number of inoculations was 1,539, with a mortality of 0.25 per 
cent; in 1892, 1,790, with a mortality of 0.22 per cent; in 1893, 1,648, 
with a mortality of 0.36 per cent; in 1894, 1,387, with a mortality of 
0,50 per cent. 
While the experience of the individual, for reasons stated, is very 
apt to lead him to false conclusions, and in the case of those not trained 
in scientific methods has comparatively little value, the combined 
experience of a considerable number of individuals, if they have reached 
a uniform conclusion, is entitled to great consideration. Yet even in 
this case experience teaches that, owing to x’recouceived notions, par- 
tisan feeling, or other causes, an erroneous conclusion may be reached 
and may be generally accepted as truth until the light of science dis- 
jiels the illusion. 
What has been said will, I trust, make it apparent that progress in 
the biological sciences calls for experiments upon living things. Vege- 
table physiology, vegetable patholgy, and scientific agriculture are 
based upon experiments upon living xdants. The questions which have 
been solved and which remain to be solved in this department of bio- 
logical research are innumerable, and owing to the important economic 
interests involved liberal support is given to those engaged in investi- 
gations relating to plant diseases and their x>invention, and to the VIVISECTION. 
47 
various problems relating to soils, climates, manures, field crops, etc., 
which in this country claim the special consideration of the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture and of the agricultural colleges of the several 
States. 
As connected with agricultural interests, the Department of Agri- 
culture has also given much attention to investigations relating to the 
cause and prevention of the infectious diseases of domestic animals, 
and the Bureau of Animal Industry in this Department is charged not 
only with these investigations, which have led to results of the greatest 
value, but also with the execution of the measures which have been 
proved to be most efficacious for preventing the spread of these infec- 
tious diseases. Now, all of our precise knowledge of the etiology and 
prevention of these diseases is based upon vivisection experiments; 
and the thousands and hundreds of thousands of sheep, cattle, horses, 
ami swine which have been saved to their owners in this country and 
in other parts of the civilized world are to be placed on the credit side 
of the account against the comparatively small number of animals of 
the same or of other species which have been sacrificed in attaining 
the knowledge which has enabled us to make this great saving. Before 
going any further it will be best to explain that while the term vivi- 
section originally related only to cutting operations upon living animals, 
its use has been extended by those who have been led to enter upon a 
crusade against experiments upon living animals so that it now includes 
all experiments to which they are subjected. Thus the injection of a 
culture of one of the pathogenic bacteria under the skin of a guinea- 
pig becomes a vivisection experiment. 
It is by experiments of this kind that our knowledge of disease 
germs has been acquired and without such experiments it would be 
absolutely impossible to distinguish between the harmless bacteria 
which abound in nature and the deadly germs of tuberculosis, cholera, 
typhoid fever, puerperal fever, glanders, swine plague, hog cholera, 
anthrax, etc., wddch to day are as well known in pathological labora- 
tories as are the indigenous plants in our fields to the well-informed 
botanist. Our knowledge of the toxic, medicinal, or harmless character 
of the higher plants has been gained by experiment. Those who first 
attempted to make a salad of lobelia or of belladoua leaves no doubt 
paid dearly for their experience, and in general it is best to make a 
test upon one of the lower animals before consuming an unknown 
plant, root, or berry unless our botanical knowledge enables us to say 
with certainty that it belongs to a harmless family. So also with the 
low plants known as bacteria. While some are harmless others pro- 
duce the most deadly toxic substances, and as human life is too valu- 
able and sacred to be sacrificed in experiments designed to test the 
question as to pathogenic potency, we resort to experiments upon 
the lower animals. Without doubt experiments have resulted in an 
immense saving of human life as well as in the advancement of scientific 
knowledge in all departments of biology. Yet the ultra antivivisec- 
tionists insist that they are unjustifiable, and, if they had their way, 
would enact legislative measures calculated to entirely arrest all 
profitable research in this the most important department of human 
knowledge. 
If there had been no experiments upon the lower animals in the past 
would to-day be in utter darkness and given over to vain theories 
as regards the specific causes of the infectious diseases and many funda- 
mental facts in physiology, phycology, medical and surgical therapeu- 
tics, and general biology. 48 
VIVISECTION. 
Happily, the painful dissections which were made by the enthusiastic 
explorers in this field of investigation are seldom called for at the pres- 
ent day, and by the use of anaesthetics suffering on the part of the ani- 
mals subjected to experiment is avoided to a large extent. 
That those who devote themselves to biological studies are less sus- 
ceptible to humane sentiments than their fellow men and women, that 
they indict unnecessary pain with indifference, or that, as has been 
charged, they take a cruel pleasure in the sufferings of the helpless vic- 
tims of their experiments, I believe to be an unfounded calumny based 
upon ignorance and an excited imagination on the part of those who 
have arrayed themselves in opposition to experiments on living animals. 
As a matter of fact, these experiments have been conducted for the 
most part by members of the humane profession of medicine in the 
interest of humanity; and, as already stated, they form the basis of 
the scientific medicine of the present day. 
i have thus, in a general way, indicated the objects and results of 
vivisection experiments. There are those who deny that any impor- 
tant results have been obtained in this way. Such a position can only 
be taken by one who is grossly ignorant of the present status of the 
biological sciences, and a course of elementary lectures would be neces- 
sary for his enlightenment. That results have not always equaled the 
expectations of the experimenter, and that many useless experiments 
have been made, can not be denied. But this is true in all departments 
of scientific investigation. The chemist or the physicist, when disap- 
pointed in the results of experiments undertaken for the solution of 
some problem relating to matter or force, renews the attack by devising 
new experiments and new apparatus. In like manner, too, the biologist 
and the scientific physician, when foiled in their efforts to elucidate the 
problems which confront them, and profiting by the experience gained 
in their unsuccessful experiments, often succeed in the end by repeat- 
ing their experiments under different conditions or by devising new 
methods of research. 
In biology, as in other departments of scientific research, it has often 
happened that experiments conducted in the first instance simply to 
gratify that scientific curiosity which seeks to explain all things have 
led to practical results of the highest importance. A notable example 
of this is found in the experiments of Galvani, which demonstrated 
the fact that two metals in contact give rise to an electrical current 
which causes a contraction of the muscles in the legs of a frog. It is 
unnecessary to point out to this audience the immense practical results 
which have followed the demonstration of this fundamental fact, which 
has relations both to physical and to biological science. A more recent 
but equally notable example of practical results following scientific 
investigation is the discovery of the antitoxins. Already we have 
evidence in several infectious diseases that the immunity, of longer or 
shorter duration, which follows an attack is due to the presence in the 
blood of an albuminoid substance developed during the attack. This 
we call an antitoxin, because it has the power of neutralizing the toxin 
produced by the pathogenic bacteria to which the disease is due. This 
remarkable and unexpected discovery has resulted from experiments 
made in the first instance for the purpose of testing various methods 
of producing artificial immunity, and of explaining the phenomena 
connected with natural and acquired immunity. 
All of the experiments relating to this subject have been made upon 
the lower animals and the knowledge gained could not have been 
obtained in any other way. Already we have experimental evidence VIVISECTION. 
49 
that in animals which have an acquired immunity against dij)htheria, 
tetanus, cholera, erysipelas, vaccinia, hydrophobia, pneumonia, and cer- 
tain other infectious diseases, there is present in the circulating fluid an 
antitoxin, upon which their immunity depends. And it seems probable 
that this is true as regards other infectious diseases. The researches 
of Behring, of Berlin, and Eoux, of Paris, have led to a practical appli- 
cation of this knowledge in the treatment of diphtheria, and the value 
of the method is now well established by clinical experience. There is 
also satisfactory evidence of the value of the tetanus antitoxin in the 
treatment of tetanus, and good reason to believe that in the near future 
success will be attained in the treatment of several other infectious 
diseases by means of an antitoxic serum obtained from animals upon 
"Which a high degree of immunity has been conferred by repeated 
injectious of pathogenic bacteria or their toxic products. 
These results open up a new vista for scientific medicine. And the 
exact knowledge which has been obtained of the biological characters 
of the best-known pathogenic bacteria enables sanitarians to give defi- 
nite advice with reference to disinfection and other measures of pro- 
phylaxis. Preventative medicine is thus placed upon a scientific basis 
and no doubt a great saving of human life has already resulted from 
the practical application of the knowledge already acquired. But 
there are still many biological problems awaiting solution which call 
for continued investigation by experimental methods, and earnest 
Workers in all parts of the civilized world, in biological and pathologi- 
cal laboratories equipped for the purpose, are zealously devoting them- 
selves to the solution of these problems. It is very discouraging to 
students of biology and to all those who are well informed as to the 
objects and results of vivisection experiments to see an organized effort 
on the part of certain well-meaning but ill-advised persons to restrict 
progress in this department of scientific research by legislative enact- 
ments, which assume that students of biology are not controlled by 
the humane instincts which are characteristic of civilized man, and that 
espionage and legal penalties are required to prevent them from inflict- 
ing unnecessary pain upon the animals which are the subjects of their 
experiments. 
By way of supplementing what I have said in my statement, and 
speaking of the terrible things connected with the torture of conscious 
animals, I would add that I am prepared to state that the torture of 
conscious animals is something we all most decidedly object to in 
every possible way, and if it is necessary to enact laws in this District 
to prevent the torture of conscious animals, certainly it is the business 
of this committee to take the necessary steps to that end. I think, in 
the first place, evidence should be presented to this committee that 
such torture is being carried on in the District at this time. There are 
plenty of important things to occupy Congress, without its being asked 
to legislate unless facts are presented that call for legislation. 
Senator Gallinger. At this point I would ask if you deny that 
torture is inflicted ? 
Dr. Sternberg. I do not deny that torture may have been inflicted. 
I wish to state that I believe torture is inflicted, but not by scientists. 
This is what I object to in this bill: It proposes to supervise the sci- 
entist in the experiments he makes, while the farmer may apply a 
clamp to the most delicate organ of his colt or calf and there is no 
restriction. The veterinary surgeon is not restricted in any way in 
performing any operation on the horse. If any legislation is enacted 
against the torture of conscious animals, it should include all animals. 
TIT i 50 
VIVISECTION. 
Senat or Gaelinger. At this point, Doctor, let me ask about Dr. 
Eauterberg, from whom I read a letter charging that cruel experiments 
were performed some years ago in the Surgeon-General’s Department. 
What is Dr. Kauterberg’s standing in the profession? 
Dr. Sternberg. I have no knowledge of Dr. Eauterberg. 
I would say with reference to myself that I have been Surgeon- 
General of the Army of the United States for three years. During that 
time I am positive no such experiments as are specified in the bill 
have been made without the use of anaesthetics. The whole proposition 
is someting new to me, and the matter should be investigated before 
we accept it as evidence. I would say that the laboratories of the 
Surgeon-General’s Office are open to inspection. If any reputable 
person in the city desires to visit our laboratories and see what is done 
there, he will not be refused. There is nothing to be concealed. 
As to those cruel experiments, accounts of which Mr. Perry spoke of 
and in regard to which he read a cutting from a physiological journal, 
I would say that 1 have not seen the papers; but, in the first place, I do 
not believe that any surgeon or experimenter would think of making 
such an experiment without the use of anaesthetics. In the second 
place, the spinal cord is not sensitive. This idea that pain increases 
from the extremities of the nerves up to the brain is a fallacy. 
Senator Bacon. Have you demonstrated that by experiments upon 
yourself? 
Dr. Sternberg. We have plenty of evidence. Ido not think it 
necessary to make an experiment upon myself. I have run my probe 
into a brain to see if it could be felt. There is no sensitiveness of the 
spinal cord. 
Senator Gaelinger. To what extent would you carry that? Do you 
mean to say that an injury to the spinal cord would not produce pain? 
Dr. Sternberg, If you had pressure upon the Sf)inal cord it would 
produce paralysis and prevent the feeling of pain. 
Senator Gaelinger. But unless that paralytic condition were pro- 
duced. there would be pain, would there not? 
Dr. Sternberg. I think not. I simply say, Mr. Chairman, that 
these horrors that are spoken of I have never seen. With reference to 
the Government laboratories, Mr. Perry takes the position that there 
must be something horrible that we want to cover up. I say that we 
have nothing to conceal, but we object to this legislation just as much 
as the Treasurer of the United States would object to having the Com- 
missioners of the District of Columbia send a representative to count 
his money for him. We object to having our laboratories placed under 
the inspection and direction of the Commissioners of the District of 
Columbia, but it is not because we are doing anything that we are 
ashamed of doing. 
Senator Gaelinger. Do you object to the Surgeon-General’s Office 
being subject to the provisions of the law or being subject to inspection? 
Dr. Sternberg. WTe object to this bill. 
Senator Gaelinger. You do not answer my question. I want to 
know whether your objection is to the law itself, or only to so much of 
the law as will make your office subject to inspection. 
Dr. Sternberg. Well, we do not consider any legislation necessary. 
We contend that there is nothing being done in the Government labora- 
tories of this city which calls for legislation, and we will be glad to 
prove that to the satisfaction of the committee. 
Now with reference to the conference upon the bill before the District 
Commissioners. Both Dr. Woodward and myself thought there was no VIVISECTION. 
51 
necessity for legislation, and so said. But at the second meeting I 
submitted a draft of a bill prohibiting vivisection experiments in the 
public schools, but it was not acceptable to Mr. Macfarland. I finally 
sent that draft to the Commissioners. 
With retereuce to the question as to the necessity for legislation of 
this character here in the District of Columbia, I desire to call your 
attention to what the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 
in the city of New York thinks about this. This is an extract from a 
journal called Our Animal Friends, which is the official organ of the 
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: 
During the long experience of our society it has been found that nothing obstructs 
our work more surely than attempted needless special legislation, and it rarely 
happens that a session of the legislature passes without the introduction of some 
well-meant bill, the only certain effect of which would be to weaken, and not to 
strengthen, the present excellent laws for the protection of animals. The bill above 
quoted is distinctly of that class; and we shall now proceed to show (1) that the 
evil which it is intended to correct does not exist in this State; (2) that the existing 
law is amply sufficient to prohibit its introduction and to suppress it if it should be 
introduced, and (3) that the bill, if it should be enacted, would have no other effect 
than to weaken the provisions of the present law in this very matter of vivisection. 
Since November last we have had repeated statements made to us that vivisection 
has been practiced in three ot the public schools of the State. These three are the 
only schools against which the charge has been brought. In one of them the evi- 
dence is so absurdly self-contradictory as to prove the whole story to be a mere canard, 
and an investigation into the other two has proved the charge to be equally unfounded. 
The principal of one of the schools writes in the following explicit terms, “ Vivi- 
section never has been and never is likely to be practiced in our school; ” and the 
principal ot the other writes, not less explicitly, “ No demonstrations or experi- 
ments upon living animals have ever been performed here.” As these are the only 
Schools in whichsomuch asarumorof the practice of vivisection has reached us, and 
as we believe it would not be possible for that practice to be introduced into any part 
ot this State without some report of it reaching the office of our society, we feel 
ourselves at liberty to affirm with confidence that vivisection is not practiced in the 
public schools of the State of New York. It follows, as a matter of course, that no 
law is required for the suppression of a practice which does not in fact exist. 
Our next point is that the present general law of the State is amply sufficient for 
the suppression of the practice if it did exist. Section 655 of the Penal Code enacts 
that “ a person who * * * tortures * * * or unjustifiably injures, maims, 
mutilates, or kills any animal, whether wild or tame, * * * or who willfully sets 
on foot, instigates, engages in, or in any way furthers any act of cruelty to any ani- 
mal, or any act tending to produce such cruelty, is guilty of a misdemeanor.” In 
order to exclude the plea that vivisection is not ‘‘unnecessary torture,” and does not 
constitute the misdemeanor of “ cruelty,” the tenth section of chapter 375 of the 
laws of 1867 distinctly restricts the practice of vivisection to one single class of per- 
sons, and regulates the conditions under which alone it may be practiced. 
The language of the law is this: “Nothing in this act contained shall be construed 
to prohibit or interfere with any properly conducted scientific experiments or inves- 
tigations, which experiments shall be performed only under the authority of the 
faculty of some regularly incorporated medical college or university of the State of 
New York.” Only under the authority of an incorporated medical school or uni- 
yersity can vivisection be practiced in this State, and, since the “ authority ” of these 
institutions does not extend to any other school, nor to any person whomsoever not 
belonging to such organizations, it follows that neither a public-school teacher nor 
any other person not belonging to some incorporated medical school or university, 
can practice vivisection under our present law without committing a criminal misde- 
meanor for which he may be punished. The enactment ot any new law to prohibit 
mhat the present law sufficiently prohibits would be mere surplusage. 
But it would be worse than surplusage, for it would be more than likely to unset 
we the present law by raising doubts of its construction, and consequently of its 
application in cases concerning which there is no present dispute. At present no 
°ne pretends, nor can pretend, that any person not acting under the authority of a 
medical college or university can lawfully practice vivisection in this State; but if 
the first section of the proposed bill should be enacted what would lie the effect? 
mnce it forbids public-schoolteachers to practice vivisection only in the presence of 
their scholars or other minors, would it not be reasonably inferred that such teachers 
are henceforth to be at liberty to practice it, provided only that their scholars or 
°tker minors are not present? We do not say that the inference would be justifiable 
aor that the courts would ultimately sustain it, but what we do say is that the VIVISECTION. 
enactment of the proposed bill conld have no other eflect than to unsettle the con- 
struction of a law which is amply sufficient, and concerning the construction of 
which there has hitherto been no question. 
Another not less undesirable result might follow the enactment of this super- 
fluous and wholly unnecessary bill. Besides the public schools of the State, there 
are many hundreds of private schools, which are not included in the scope of the 
bill. Suppose the teachers of those schools should contend that a law which forbids 
vivisection only in public schools is clearly not intended to apply to private schools, 
and should thereupon jnoceed to introduce vivisection into their course of instruc- 
tion in physiology ? Again we say that we do not believe that such a contention 
would be ultimately sustained by the courts; but we do say, as before, that a merely 
superfluous law would have the eflect of bringing the present unquestioned law into 
dispute. 
For these reasons—because the nefarious practice of vivisection in the public 
schools does not exist in the State of New York; because the present law is amply 
sufficient for its suppression if it did or should exist; and because the only eflect 
of the proposed law, so far as vivisection is concerned, would be to bring the present 
law into doubt, and so to weaken its efficiency. Therefore, we are constrained, with 
entire respect for the promoters of the measure, to hope +hat it not be passed 
by the legislature. 
On the subject of the aisoection of dead anlmais, or parts of animals, in schools 
we are not called to speak. That subject belongs exclusively to parents and educa- 
tors. Our work is the protection of living animals, not the use which may be made 
of their dead bodies. Nevertheless, since the killing of animals for the purpose of 
dissection is included in the proposed bill, and since the law forbids the “unjustifi- 
able killing” of animals, as well as cruelty to them while alive, and our society is as 
much bound to prevent unjustifiable killing as to prevent cruelty, we may permit 
ourselves to say a word on this subject also. The question is whether the humane 
killing of an animal for dissection is “ unjustifiable,” and the answer must be that it 
is not necessarily unjustifiable. If the dissection is lawful and beneficial to human 
beings, then it is as justifiable to kill an animal for that purpose as to kill it for 
food. 
Now, no one pretends that the dissection of a dead animal is wrong per se; con- 
sequently the whole question turns on the right or wrong of dissection in schools; 
and here we would advise the friends of the proposed measure not to be too precip- 
itate, less they injure the very cause they have at heart. We agree with them that 
even the dissection of dead animals in schools for young children is utterly useless, 
and even harmful; but we do not believe that public opinion will sustain a measure 
forbidding all dissection in schools of an advanced grade. There must be some 
discrimination, or the whole movement will presently be discredited as a piece of 
theoretical legislation, unworthy of respect or obedience. Something, too, we sub- 
mit, must be left to the discretion of teachers, who are the best judges of the sort 
of instruction which is adapted to their pupils. This, however, as we have said, 
does not belong to our special responsibility, and we gladly leave it to those who 
are most concerned. 
Now, I do not doubt that cruel experiments have been done at times, 
but I do believe that the medical profession can be trusted to adminis- 
ter an anesthetic whenever it may be necessary. To say that the 
scientist must give an anesthetic seems to me to be offensive legisla- 
tion. You do not say to the sportsman that he must administer an 
anesthetic when he shoots a bird, nor do you tell the fisherman that he 
must immediately kill the fish that he catches. A prominent New York 
surgeon once said to me that he could not bear to go fishing and to play 
a fish and keep it for half an hour on a sharp hook; it was too cruel. 
Senator Bacon. Doctor, I want to ask a question for information. 
I want to know whether the fact that an animal is subjected to ether 
or chloroform makes the experiment less instructive from that fact. 
Dr. Sternberg. In most experiments it would not. 
Senator Gallinger. Just one other question, Doctor. You spoke 
of special legislation; in what way do you bring this bill under that 
term? Special legislation is in contradistinction to general or public 
legislation. This is for the District of Columbia, is it not? 
Dr. Sternberg. Yes, sir; but this bill does not seem to apply to 
the general public; it is only for scientists. It strikes me as being class 
legislation. VIVISECTION. 
53 
Senator Gallinger. Your idea, then, is that if legislation applies to 
a profession it is special. 
Dr. Sternberg. Yes, sir; to a profession and not to the general 
public. I have had no opportunity to look over this modified bill, which 
is now submitted by the members of the Humane Society, as I under- 
stand it, to be substituted for the original bill. The time at my disposal 
would not permit me to traverse it now, but if you will permit me I 
would like to submit a statement after having examined that modified 
bill. 
Senator Gallinger. I am going to take the liberty of printing Mr. 
Perry’s statement before the Commissioners of the District in connec- 
tion with his remarks here, and your supplementary statement can be 
printed in the same way. 
Dr. Sternberg. I wish to speak for one moment upon the parlia- 
mentary report from which our friends have quoted. As I understand 
it, a good many opinions were published in that report, among which 
were many that were not in favor of the conclusions that have been 
stated here. I think it will be found that a good deal of evidence on 
the other side was given there. I would say that since the enactment 
of that law in England much progress has been made in the realms of 
science all over the world, and England has not had a large share in 
the progress that has been made with reference to science. Our friends 
on the other side have brought forward the testimony and opinions of 
a number of physicians and scientists, some of whom we do not recog- 
nize as such great authorities as our friends seem to think. Lawson 
Tait is a very great surgeon, but in regard to the science of physiology 
I do not know that he is accepted as such a very great authority. 
Senator Gallinger. I wish to ask a question about Lawson Tait. 
He is a very distinguished ovariotomist, is he not? 
Dr, Sternberg. I believe so. 
Senator Gallinger. Is it true that his proportion of cures is remark- 
able—greater than that of any other ovariotomist? 
Dr. Sternberg. lam not prepared to say as to that. His success 
is due, in my judgment, simply to his thorough attention to details. 
Senator Gallinger. I simply have some knowledge that I have 
developed from my investigations. I know Lawson Tait has been at 
outs with you scientists on some points. His record shows that the 
number of his cures has been large and that he has been very success- 
ful as a surgeon. 
Dr. Sternberg. I think at the present time Lawson Tait’s methods 
are practiced all over the world, but he did not develop along other 
lines. 
Senator Gallinger. Doctor, whom do you desire to follow you? 
Dr. Sternberg. Dr. D. E. Salmon, of the Bureau of Animal Indus- 
try, will follow me. 
Senator Gallinger. Dr. Salmon will be heard now. 
STATEMENT OF DR. D. E. SALMON. 
Dr. D. E. Salmon. Mr. Chairman, one of my principal objections to 
this bill is that it proposes to limit scientific investigation and 
education. 
I want to say, from ray knowledge of the movement to secure legisla- 
tion to stop vivisection, that the object aimed at is to stop all experi- 
ments. The advocates of it are willing to take what legislation they 54 
VIVISECTION. 
can get to begin with, but they will not be satisfied except with legis- 
lation that will stop all experimenting. If these people here to-day in 
favor of the bill will speak their honest minds upon this subject, I am 
satisfied they will say the same thing. Now, the bill which was intro- 
duced—the bill which we have in the Senate here—is the only bill which 
we can discuss intelligently. 
I assert, as one who has been engaged in investigations of this class, 
that it is impossible to carry on experiments of any kind under that 
bill. I believe it was drawn with the intent and purpose of absolutely 
stopping all investigation and experimenting. 
Now, I want to just say a word as to what vivisection is. We talk 
a great deal about vivisection, and those who have discussed the ques- 
tion have been very eloquent, but it is very difficult to know what they 
are talking about. If you will examine this bill now before the Senate 
you will find that it does not speak of vivisection, but of experiments 
upon living animals. Ami when the term vivisection is used it includes 
all experiments upon animals whether they involve cutting or whether 
they do not. 
Senator Gallinger. Dr. Salmon, could you inform me as to tbe 
relative mortality in the so-called zymotic diseases between ten years 
ago and the present time? 
Dr. Salmon. There is a very great difference in some diseases and 
not in others. I have no statistics with me on that point. With diph- 
theria it has been demonstrated by statistics that the intelligent use of 
antitoxin has reduced the death rate more than 50 per cent. 
Senator Gallinger. Is that not denied by leading physicians'? 
Dr. Salmon. Yes, sir; everything is denied. 
Senator Gallinger. Is it not true that the beneficial results of 
antitoxin are open to serious question to-day? 
Dr. Salmon. Well, as to diphtheria I can prove by statistics the 
value of treatment with antitoxin. 
Senator Gallinger. For the benefit of the committee will you 
kindly tell us just what relation there is between vivisection and the 
discovery of antitoxin. 
Dr. Salmon. Without vivisection it would have been impossible to 
have discovered antitoxin. In the first place they could not have dis- 
covered the germs of diphtheria without vivisection, and every step in 
the study of immunity and in showing the curative effect of antitoxin 
was dependent niton such experiments. 
Senator Gallinger. Is the committee to understand that you are 
opposed not only to the original bill but also to the so-called amended 
bill? In other words, are you opposed to any legislation? 
Dr. Salmon. I am opposed to any special legislation on this subject. 
Senator Gallinger. Dr. Stiles will be heard next, and then the 
hearing will be closed by Dr. Leffingwell, of Boston. 
STATEMENT OF DE. CH, WAEDELL STILES, 
Zoologist of Bureau of Animal Industry and Correspondant Etranger de I’Academic, 
de Medecine (France). 
SUMMARY. 
I. The opinions which investigators in medical and biological sciences have 
expressed upon the subject of vivisection should be given more weight than the 
opinions expressed by practitioners and medical students not especially trained in 
research work (p. 55). Submission of printed “Statement in behalf of science,” 
with introduction by the presidents of Harvard University, of the Massachusetts VIVISECTION. 
55 
Institute of Technology, and of the Massachusetts Medical Society, and signed by 
forty American investigators and teachers in medical and biological sciences (p. 56). 
Address on the same subject by A. L. Loomis, M. D., LL.D. (p. 61). Resolutions 
adopted by the Congress of American Physicians and Surgeons, 1894 (p. 87). Reso- 
lutions concerning Senate bill 1552, passed by the Joint Commission of the seven 
Scientific Societies of Washington, D. C. (p. 88). Editorial on Senate bill 1552, 
printed in the Medical News (p. 88). Editorial on Senate bill 1552, printed in the 
American Medico-Surgical Bulletin (p. 89). Extract of article in the Journal of 
the American Medical Association (p. 91). Discussion of the bill by Dr. Busey, 
president of the District Medical Society (p. 91). Letter by Dr. D. E. Salmon, Chief 
of the Bureau of Animal Industry (p. 96). 
11. The use of names of physicians by the antivisection agitators (p. 98). Sub- 
mission of letter by Dr. Dawson, stating that his name is being used without his 
consent (p. 98). 
111. Discussion of the bill (p. 99). Section 1: Theuseof the term “vertebrate” in this 
and other sections; cold-blooded vertebrates should not be placed in the same cate- 
gory with the warm-blooded vertebrates (p. 99). This is class legislation, directed 
against science, but exempting sport (pp. 99-100). 
Section 2a prevents the confirmation by scientists in this District of discoveries or 
alleged discoveries made elsewhere (p. 100); it prevents our repeating an experiment 
for our own knowledge and experience (p. 100); the term “ physiological ”is alto- 
gether too narrow, the word “ biological ” should be used in case this section stands 
(p. 100); the last half of the paragraph seeks to divorce abstract science from applied 
science, which is contrary to experience (p. 100); citation of the history of trichinosis 
in opposition to this danse (p. 100). 
Section 2b together with section 4 is class legislation in favor of doctors of medi- 
cine and doctors of veterinary medicine and against candidates and graduates in 
science and philosophy (p. 101); the sections are based upon an ignorance of the 
training in different departments of science (p. 101); it affects certain specialists in 
the employ of the Government (p. 101); it will be a great disad vantage to university 
students who are doing advanced work in biology, physiology, pathology, bacteri- 
ology, and who are candidates for degrees (p. 101). 
Section 2c excludes valuable experiments (p. 101); a law to compel vivisectors to 
use anaesthetics is as uncalled for as one compelling surgeons to use anaesthetics 
(p. 102); the provision regarding surgical operations is almost prohibitory (p. 102); 
the former occurrence of cruel experiments in foreign countries has no bearing upon 
the case in hand (p. 102); vivisectors are more sensitive to the sufferings of man and 
animals than are the anti vivisectors. 
Section 2: This provision is always carried out, hence no call for legislation (p. 102), 
Section 2e: No vivisection is going on in the public schools, hence no call for legisla- 
tion upon this point (p. 103). Submission of letter by Mr. Hay, of the Central High 
School (p. 103), and Professor Powell, superintendent of the Washington schools 
(p. 103); the term “public schools” is given a new meaning in this bill (p. 104); 
■econd paragraph is not called for (p. 104); the provision of the third paragraph 
•hould be left to the decision of the investigator (p. 104); the next paragraph is based 
upon sentimentality and ignorance (p. 104); no public exhibitions take place (p. 104). 
Section 5 would lead to the premature publication of half-finished experiments, 
and is unjust to science and to the public (p. 104); experiments are published in final 
reports (p. 104). 
Section 6: Protest against inspection, reasons being given (p. 104); dangerous to 
operator, might result in pain to the animal. No provisions as to the qualifica- 
tions of inspectors are specified; comparable to an inspection of the private sick room. 
Section 7: Another case of class legislation direct against biologists (p. 105); danger- 
ous delays in cases of hydrophobia and glanders (p. 105). 
IV. Investigations in the Bureau of Animal Industry in which animal experimenta- 
tion has been used (pp. 105rl07). 
V. Report of the Boston hearing, which bears directly upon many questions 
connected with the present bill. (Manuscript has not yet been received.) 
Dr. Stiles. In tlie first place, I wish to submit that the question of 
vivisection is not one to be decided by counting noses, even by compar- 
ing the number of physicians who favor vivisection with the number of 
physicians who are opposed to it. While there is no doubt that if this 
question were submitted to a vote of the medical fraternity at large the 
Vast majority would favor vivisection, it is equally certain that a clear 
distinction should be made between the opinions expressed by men 
who are engaged in research work and in teaching, and the opinions 
expressed by those medical students and practicing physicians who 56 
VIVISECTION. 
have never entered into research work and who, whatever maybe their 
ability as practitioners, are not accustomed to the conditions governing 
investigations. 
The investigator is thoroughly at home in the particular subject he 
is studying; he knows the history of that subject, the failures and suc- 
cesses of former investigators, the necessity of exact methods of work, 
the chances for error, the exacting demands which science makes for 
the minutest details, etc. After he has completed his investigations, 
he draws his general conclusions from the detailed data at hand, includ- 
ing not only the results obtained from his own experiments and per- 
sonal experience, from published text-books, and from the more 
popular medical journals, but also from the detailed accounts of the 
experiments of other workers, published in the special journals devoted 
to his particular branch of work, which are read by the practitioner 
only in exceptional cases. 
The practicing physician, on the other hand, takes the general con- 
clusions reached by the investigators, rarely suspecting the minute 
details which have been considered in drawing those conclusions. Nor 
is this in any way a reflection upon the ability of the practitioner, but 
rather a necessary result of the difference in training which these two 
classes of men undergo. The physician has been trained in general 
principles, diagnosis, and treatment; the investigator has been trained 
not only in general principles, but also in the details upon which these 
general principles are based. I therefore maintain that the opinions 
which investigators have expressed upon this subject should have much 
greater weight than the opinions which you have received from any 
number of practicing physicians, no matter to what school they belong 
or from what college or university they have been graduated; and as 
an offset to any adverse opinions which may have been sent to your 
committee by noninvestigating practitioners, even of the highest stand- 
ing, I desire to call your attention to the various memorials and protests 
which have been forwarded to you, signed by practical investigators, 
and to submit the following printed statement, signed by 40 American 
investigators, as representatives of various American scientific and 
medical societies and services: 
The sciences which have to do with animal experimentation are physiology, phys- 
iological chemistry, pharmacology, medical chemistry, toxicology, morphology 
(including anatomy and embryology), bacteriology, pathology, medicine, and sur- 
gery, These sciences are largely represented in this country by the American Phys- 
iological Society, the American Society of Morphologists, the American Anatomical 
Society, the American Society of Naturalists, the American Society of Physicans, 
and the American Society of Surgeons. 
In December last the presidents of the above societies were invited to appoint 
members of a joint committee to sit in Philadelphia on the occasion of the annual 
meeting in that city of several of these associations. 
The accompanying “statement in behalf of science” was adopted by this joint 
committee of thirty-four members, and is now published over their signatures, with 
the addition of several names of persons specially qualified to speak on the subject, 
but not members of the committee. It sets forth the importance of animal experi- 
mentation for the advancement of medicine, and may be accepted as an authorita- 
tive expression of expert opinion on this question. 
Boston, February 24, 1896. 
Charles W. Eliot, 
President of Harvard University. 
Francis A. Walker, 
President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 
Frank K. Paddock, 
President of the Massachusetts Medical Society. VIVISECTION. 
57 
“Vivisection.”—A Statement in Behale of Science. 
So long ago as the autumn of 1866 there were published in New York denuncia- 
tions of the practice of making upon living animals those scientific observations and 
experiments which are commonly called vivisections. During the following twenty- 
nine years there have appeared, from time to time, at one or another place, similar 
denunciations, more or less sweeping and violent. Of these some condemn vivisec- 
tion altogether and others in various of its phases. Some call for its total abolition 
and others for its material restrictions. Some are labored essays and others are 
brief “tracts” or “leaflets,” intended more easily to arrest the attention. Most of 
these publications, however, have this in common, that they seek to fortify argument 
with strenuous appeals to emotion, and in some the tone ot invective rises to a 
shrillness little short of frantic. In these publications, too, there often figure 
extracts from scientific writings; and, in many cases, these extracts are so garbled 
that only ignorant or reckless animosity could be accepted in excuse for their seem- 
ing bad faith. 
During the past twenty-nine years these attacks have hut little disturbed the 
calm of biology and medicine in this country; but, from time time, it has seemed 
wise to take some notice of them, inasmuch as the common sense of some members 
of a changing community is liable to be led astray as to a subject which is Largely 
technical in its nature. The following statement, therefore, is added to its prede- 
cessors. Its signers, however, are well aware that they can hardly hope to make 
any statement or to draw any conclusion which some antivivisectionist agitator 
will not promptly denounce as false or immoral. 
Science is simply common knowledge made precise, extended, and transmitted 
from generation to generation of trained observers and reasoners. The biological 
sciences study in the most varied ways the bodies and the lives of men, ot animals, 
and of plants. The applied sciences utilize knowledge thus obtained for the every- 
day good of mankind, and one of these applied sciences, medicine, brings biological 
discoveries to bear upon the prevention and cure of disease and injury. As experi- 
ence grows incessantly, the fact which has laboriously been established with no 
other thought than the noble one of advancing knowledge may be applied, the next 
day or the next century, in the most practical way by some iuventor or physician, 
and in the application new facts may come to light which will markedly extend the 
boundaries of knowledge. 
Therefore, in the slowly woven fabric of achievement, pure science and applied 
science, biology and medicine, have always been warp and woof. Let either be 
destroyed, man’s life shall go threadbare. 
To show this, a few out of many striking examples may suffice. 
Not very long ago the red clover was imported into a British colouy to which it 
was not native. The plant throve when planted, but its flowers set no seeds, so 
that fresh seed had to be brought from the mother country. The disappointed farm- 
ers consulted people who had given up their time to the study of plants and insects— 
botanists and “ bug hunters,” in fact. Pure science told the practical farmers that 
the long-billed bumblebees which sucked honey in every English clover field also 
carried pollen from flower to flower, and thus fertilized the plants, and that it was 
useless to try for crops of imported red clover, unless bumblebees were imported 
also. 
No less enlightening is the history of one of the greatest and most modern of the 
developments of science. Near the end of the last century Dr. Galvani, an Italian 
professor of anatomy, set himself to investigate the cause of a newly discovered fact, 
namely, that the muscles of the legs of freshly killed frogs jerked forcibly when their 
nerves were worked upon by the taking of a spark from an electrical machine. This 
investigation, which does not sound momentous, he undertook “in order to discover 
the hidden properties” of the nerves and muscles “and to treat their diseases more 
certainly.” To the jerks of Galvani’s frogs’ legs we owe the discovery of the galvanic 
battery and current, which are named after him; the telegraph and ocean cable, with 
their immense influence upon civilized life in peace and war; the transfer to miles of 
distance of the vast working power of Niagara Falls. It is a fitting, if slight, dra- 
matic touch that the traveler in Italy who passes the night at Bologna, where Galvani 
worked and taught, will perhaps put up at a hotel directly opposite the professor’s 
modest house, and will see that the tablet which records the experiments made within 
is lighted up at evening by the electric light, which also owes its existence to a search 
for the hidden “properties” of frogs’ legs. 
Two hundred years ago there lived at Delft, in Holland, a well-to-do Dutchman 
named Antony van Leeuwenhoek. He had been a “dry-goods clerk” in his youth, 
and had no learned or professional training. Van Leeuwenhoek took to making and 
polishing, for his own use, very small and very strong magnifying glasses, because 
he was full of what some antivivisectionists sneer at as “scientific curiosity.” The 58 
VIVISECTION. 
Dutchman's glasses were very superior, and with them he looked at the most mis- 
cellaneous things; among these, at ditch water and at particles from the surface of 
his own teeth. He found that such matters were swarming with living things of 
many kinds, and described them and other things so well that he became famous; 
and princes, who were not ashamed to be interested in “mere science/' sent for him 
and his glasses to instruct them. Among Van Leeuwenhoek's discoveries were the 
minute things now called bacteria, or microbes, and known to be living plants. The 
physicians were prompt to guess that diseases might be due to the ravages of the 
new forms of microscopic li fe first seen with decisive clearness by Van Leeuwenhoek; 
but no proof of this was forthcoming, and the idea was abandoned by most, amid 
the laughter of many at this fad of the doctors. More than a century went by. The 
bacteria, as objects of pure science, were more and more studied. The microscope 
was bettered more and more from the simple magnifying glass of Van Leeuwenhoek. 
With the advance of chemistry and of other sciences all known means of studying 
minute living things became greatly improved; and now the idea that many diseases 
were caused by minute living things was taken up afresh and carried to triumphant 
demonstration by a number of medical men and biologists, among the latter by Pasteur, 
whose recent loss is mourned by the world, and whom an eminent American humani- 
tarian sneered at, not many years ago, as an “ obscure druggist." The proof that many 
diseases are caused each by a particular kind of microbe was obtained by vivisec- 
tion; for the proof consisted in inoculating animals with the special microbe in 
question, to the practical exclusion of others, and noting that the animals took the 
disease, perhaps died of it. As some only of the results of the knowledge thus 
gained by experiment upon animals, it may be noted that the prevention of cholera 
has been made more certain, and that great numbers of patients, largely children, 
have been saved from death by the antitoxine treatment of diphtheria. But every 
child thus saved to-day owes his life not only to medicine, but to biology; not only 
to the observations and the vivisections of Klebs and Loeffler and Koch and Pasteur 
and others, but to the “mere scientific curiosity" of that old lens polisher of Delft, 
who spent time in prying into ditch water and particles from the surface of teeth. 
Early in the last century, at a country parsonage in England, there worked a 
pious and gifted man, the Rev. Stephen Hales, D. D., rector of Farringdon, in Hamp- 
shire. Dr. Hales achieved the uncommon distinction of becoming' both an excel- 
lent clergyman and a famous biologist. Nor was it to any easy branch of observation 
that he gave such time as he could spare, but to difficult themes of experimental 
physiology, both vegetable and animal. He studied, among other things, the pres- 
sure of the sap in plants and the pressure of the blood in the vessels of animals. 
In order to investigate the blood pressure, he did a number of indispensable vivi- 
sections upon horses, sheep, and dogs. Each animal was tied down, an artery was 
opened and connected with a pressure gauge, and the true pressures, and their 
variations, were for the first time properly observed and recorded. No doubt, had it 
been possible, the excellent Hales would have drugged his animals to quiet their 
pain ; but modern methods for this purpose were not discovered till long afterwards, 
bo that in those days both man and beast faced the surgeon’s knife without such relief 
as they afford. By the work of Hales our knowledge of the circulation of the blood, 
which his famous compatriot, Harvey, had discovered, received an essential addition; 
nor is there any reason to suppose that Hales ever doubted the morality of the pro- 
ceedings by wliich he satisfied his “scientific curiosity." Were he to return to life 
and to repeat his experiments, even with all modern improvements, he certainly 
would be surprised at the reception he would meet with in some quarters. 
Since the time of Hales those changes in the blood pressure have carefully been 
studied which are produced in various states of the system, and by various drugs. 
More than a century after Hales, some vivisections were performed by Mr. Arthur 
Gamgee, to test the effect upon the blood pressure of a certain volatile chemical— 
the nitrite of amyl. It was found that the pressure appeared to be greatly lessened 
by this drug. Some of these experiments were witnessed by Dr. T. Lauder Brunton, 
at that time resident physician to the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, and now an 
eminent medical practitioner and professor in London. During the winter of 1866-67 
there were in the wards of the infirmary several patients who suffered from the dis- 
order called breast-pang, or angina pectoris, which is characterized by paroxysms 
of hard breathing and of terrible pain over the heart. In observing these cases, Dr. 
Brunton saw reason to think that the attack was accompanied by a high blood pres- 
sure in the arteries. He remembered the vivisections in which he had seen the 
effects upon the arterial pressure of the nitrite of amyl. Fie caused his patients 
to inhale a few drops of the volatile drug. The pain generally disappeared, and 
the nitrite of amyl became very soon a recognized agent for the relief of one of the 
most acute forms of human suffering. 
Every victim of angina, who carries this drug about with him for use at any 
moment, owes his exemption, first, to the scientific physician; second, to the phar- 
macologist—that is, the scientific student of the action of drugs, who, for the good VIVISECTION. 
59 
of man, sacrificed animals in studying the effect of drugs upon tire blood pressure; 
and, third, to the clergyman and physiologist, Hales, who a century before had given, 
some pain to animals in studying the science of the circulation, apart from any 
direct application to the cure of human ailments. Nor is this all; for the experi- 
ments of Hales were based upon the knowledge acquired through vivisection by the 
physician Harvey, who by this means settled much relating to the motions of the 
heart and blood in animals, which settlement, in turn, depended upon the work of 
the famous Greek physician, Galen, who seventeen centuries ago proved by vivisec- 
tions, against his professional opponents, that blood is naturally contained in the 
arteries. 
Of thenumerous improvements in practical medicine and surgery, which are theout- 
come of experiments upon living animals we could not speak at length without expand- 
ing a brief statement into a book. We will instance further only the vivisections by 
which, at the time of the Napoleonic wars, Dr. J. F. D. Jones ascertained the proper 
Way to tie a wounded artery, and thereby afforded the means to military and civil 
practice of saving very numerous patients from bleeding to death; the experiments 
of the still living surgeon, Sir Joseph Lister, as the result of which surgery has been 
revolutionized in our own day; the quite recent vivisections, as the result of which 
the cure of the disease called myxoedema has been discovered, which cure consists in 
the administration or transplantation of the thyroid gland; and the vivisections in 
the seventeenth century relating to the transfusion of blood, as the result of which 
women in child-bed have repeatedly been rescued from impending death from “flood- 
ing after delivery.” 
Experience shows, therefore, that it is impossible to disentangle pure science from 
applied science; that vital human interests are benefited by “scientific curiosity,” as 
Weil as by work more directly practical; and that this general law holds good for those 
sciences, pure and applied, which deal with man as such, and with the other living 
things upon the earth. Without physiology, pathology, and their allies, which 
investigate the laws of life by experiments upon living creatures, practical medicine 
would be in worse than mediaeval plight; for before the Middle Ages the genius of 
the Greeks had inaugurated the practice of experimental physiology, with results 
of value for all time. 
Therefore the use of animals by mankind for scientific purposes takes its place 
beside those other uses of them for the good of man which involve imprisonment, 
enforced labor, death, and, in some cases, suffering. That society asserts with prac- 
tical unanimity the right to kill and inflict pain upon animals for its own purposes 
is shown by the legal view of cruelty as the unjustifiable infliction of suffering. 
Were every infliction of pain as such punishable as cruel, the painful operations, for 
instance, required to make animals docile, or to fit them to be food, would be abol- 
ished. In every great civilized country these operations of the farm-yard aggregate 
millions in each year. 
Happily, of the very various procedures known collectively as vivisections, many 
are painless; in others the suffering is trivial, whether the animal be killed or remain 
alive; and in the great majority of the rest some drug may be given to quiet pain, 
or insensibility may be produced by sudden operation. There remains, however, a 
limited proportion of cases, which may be of great importance, where the results of 
experiment would be endangered by any means that could be taken against suffering. 
In these cases the animal must suffer, though often far less than would be supposed, 
for the benefit of man, as does the gelded horse or the wounded game. 
Common sense requires, therefore, that investigations in biology and medicine 
shall proceed at the expense, when necessary, of the death and suffering of animals. 
If these sciences are not to be extinguished, they must be transmitted from genera- 
tion to generation, they must be taught, and, like all the other natural or physical 
sciences, they must, at institutions of the higher learning, be taught by demonstra- 
tion. No one would think favorably of a student of chemistry who had never han- 
dled a test-tube, or of a student of electricity who had never set up a battery. The 
young astronomer sees the stars and planets themselves through the telescope. So 
do serious students of biology or medicine see for themselves the structure of the 
body, see for themselves the workings of that structure through the experiments of 
the physiological or pathological laboratory or lecture room, just as, if medical stu- 
dents, they see disease in the wards of hospitals, and look on or assist at the surgical 
operations performed upon men, women, and children. No models and pictures can 
replace such teaching. From this last fact there is no escape. It is rooted in the 
constitution of the human mind. No mother would knowingly allow her children 
to ride behind a locomotive engineer who had never seen the workings of an actual 
engine. Surely, the physician who does his best to guide the living mechanism along 
the path of safety should be taught its natural workings as exactly and as fully as 
possible, otherwise he may not understand its workings in disease. 
Happily, the cases where the animals seen at demonstrations must undergo more 
than brief or trivial pain are even rarer than in cases of pure research. In the very 60 
VIVISECTION. 
great majority of demonstrations the creatures can be kept free of pain until they 
are killed. As to whether or no, under given circumstances of research or teaching, 
an experiment involving pain should be performed, is a matter which should rest 
with the responsible expert by whom or under whose direction the thing would be 
done; otherwise, in a matter involving the interest of the community, those who 
know would be directed by those who do not know. For any experiment improp- 
erly conducted, the person responsible is liable under the general laws against the 
maltreatment of animals. In fact, American biologists and physicians are no more 
inclined than other members of the community to culpable negligence toward their 
fellow-creatures. The work of science goes on; but those who are responsible 
desire, and see to it, that the work be painless, so far as admissible. No intelligent 
man or woman should give heed to the denunciations of those few ill-informed or 
headstrong persons who have been drawn into one of the least wise of the agitations 
which beset modern society. 
Signed: 
S. Weir Mitchell, M. D., Philadelphia, Pa., Member of the National 
Academy of Sciences. 
J. G. Curtis, M. D., Professor of Physiology, College of Physicians and 
Surgeons, Columbia College, New York. 
W. H. Howell, M. D., Professor of Physiology, Johns Hopkins Univer- 
sity, Baltimore, Md. 
H. P. Bowditch, M. D., Professor of Physiology, Harvard Medical School, 
Harvard University, Boston, Mass. 
W. T. Porter, M. D., Assistant Professor of Physiology, Harvard Medical 
School, Harvard University, Boston, Mass. 
J. W. Warren, M. D., Associate Professor of Physiology Bryn Mawr Col- 
lege, Bryn Mawr, Pa. 
R. H. Chittenden, Ph. D., Professor of Physiological Chemistry, Yale 
University, New Haven, Conn. 
V. C. Vaughan, M. D., Professor of Hygiene and Physiological Chemistry, 
Medical Department of Michigan University, Ann Arbor, Mich. 
John Marshall, M. D., Dean of the Faculty of Medicine and Assistant 
Professor of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. 
S. B. Ward, M. D., Professor of Theory and Practice of Medicine and 
Hygiene, Albany Medical College, Albany, N. Y. 
William Pepper, M. D., Professor of Theory and Practice of Medicine 
and of Clinical Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. 
S. C. Busey, M. D., President of the Medical Society, District of Colum- 
bia, and Emeritus Professor of Theory and Practice, Medical Depart- 
ment of Georgetown University, Washington, D. C. 
Henry M. Lyman, M. D., Professor of Principles and Practice of Medi- 
cine, Rush Medical College, Chicago, 111. 
E. J, Janeway, M. D., late Professor of Principles and Practice of Medi- 
cine, Bellevue Hospital Medical College, New York, N. Y. 
Ch. Wardell Stiles, Ph. D., Zoologist, Bureau of Animal Industry, 
U. S. Department of Agriculture, and Professor of Medical Zoology, 
Georgetown University, Washington, D. C. 
William Patten, Ph. D., Professor of Biology, Dartmouth College, Han- 
over, N. H. 
William T. Sedgwick, M. D., Professor of Biology, Massachusetts Insti- 
tute of Technology, Boston, Mass. 
H. C. Ernst, M. D., Professor of Bacteriology, Harvard Medical School, 
Harvard University, Boston, Mass. 
Theobald Smith, M. I)., Pathologist to the Massachusetts State Board of 
Health, and Professor of Applied Zoology, Bussey Institute, Harvard 
University, Cambridge, Mass. 
A. C. Abbott, M. D., First Assistant Director, Laboratory of Hygiene, Uni- 
versity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. 
J. J. Abel, M. D., Professor of Pharmacology, Johns Hopkins University, 
Baltimore, Md. 
A. R. Cushny, M. D., Professor of Materia Medica and Therapeutics, Medi- 
cal Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 
H. C. Wood, M. D., Professor of Materia Medica and Therapeutics, Univer- 
sity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. 
Frank Baker, M. D., Superintendent of National Zoological Park and 
Professor of Anatomy, Georgetown University, Washington, D. C. 
Harrison Allen, M. D., Professor of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy, 
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. 
G. A. Piersol, M. D., Professor of Anatomy, University of Pennsylvania, 
Philadelphia, Pa. VIVISECTION. 
61 
Signed—Continued. 
C. S. Minot, S. D., Professor of Histology and Embryology, Harvard Medi- 
cal School, Harvard University, Boston, Mass. 
Henry F. Osborn, M. D., Professor of Biology, Columbia College, New 
York. 
C. O. Whitman, Ph. D., Professor of Zoology, University of Chicago, Chi- 
cago, 111. 
William H. Welch, M. D., Dean of Medical Faculty and Professor of 
Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 
T. M. Prudden, M. D., Professor of Histology and Pathology, Columbia 
College, New York. 
R. H. Fitz, M. D., Professor of Theory and Practice of Medicine, Harvard 
Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, Mass. 
George M. Sternberg, M. D., Surgeon-General U. S. Army, Washington, 
D.C. 
J. Rufus Tryon, M. D., Surgeon-General U. S.Navy, Washington, D.C. 
Walter J. Wyman, M. D., Surgeon-General U. S. Marine-Hospital Service, 
Washington, D. C. 
Daniel E. Salmon, D. V. M., Hon. A. R. C. V. S., Chief of Bureau of Animal 
Industry, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 
G. Brown Goode, M. D., Assistant Secretary of Smithsonian Institution, in 
charge of U. S., National Museum, Member of the National Academy 
of Sciences, Washington, D. C. 
W. W. Keen, M. D., Professor of Principles of Surgery and Clinical Sur- 
gery, Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, Pa. 
William Osler, M. D., Professor of Clinical Medicine, Johns Hopkins 
University, Baltimore, Md. 
J. Collins Warren, M. D., Professor of Surgery, Harvard Medical School, 
Harvard University, Boston, Mass. 
To this statement I would add the following presidential address by 
A. L. Loomis, M. D., LL. I)., delivered at the third meeting of the Con- 
gress of American Physicians and Surgeons: 
This third meeting of the Congress of American Physicians and Surgeons is a most 
memorable occasion, since it has established the success of an undertaking which 
aimed to unite in one representative body groups of acknowledged experts in all 
departments of medicine and surgery. It is, however, no longer an experiment, for 
the record of work done places it high in the list of scientific associations. Its 
broadeninginfluences upon American medicine and surgery have already been felt and 
acknowledged. The vast extent of modern medical research, the various objects of 
separate interest which it includes, and the limitations of human intellect have 
made it necessary that there should be groups of workers in many different depart- 
ments. 
It is clear that one mind can not advance medical knowledge except by an 
infinitesimal degree. In ages when strong minds were few and intercourse limited 
men must needs have been more than human to have accomplished much more than 
their masters did. For nearly a thousand years the history of medicine may be 
traced by a few names. Schools were founded on men, not on principles, until 
loyalty to one's master, the founder of a school, became stronger than truth. 
Even as late as the sixteenth century Galen, Hippocrates, and the Arabic authori- 
ties were the teachers of medicine throughout the civilized world. From the 
crumbling ruins of abstruse theories and the wrecks of individual systems has 
become a scientific scepticism, which is to-day the most striking characteristic of 
medical thought—a scepticism which doubts not for the sake of doubting, but which 
demands proofs and counter proofs, which scans facts, not men. and which learns to 
recognize truth, from whatever source it comes. 
It is this which is making modern medicine truly scientific and giving to modern 
investigation an individuality which thinks and decides for itself. It is this spirit, 
this love of truth, dominating such gatherings as this, which, during the past two 
decades, has been shaping medical thought and investigation. It is this keeping 
in close touch with one another’s work that is giving to modern medicine its freshness, 
special activity in investigation and rapid growth, which is inspiring medical work- 
ers with a community of thought and action, and which is bearing fruit of the 
greatest promise. On such an occasion as this, in the presence of so many trained 
and skilled workers, it seems fitting that I should direct the current of thought to 
the lines of investigation which have made the discoveries of the last quarter of the 
nineteenth century possible. 
'THE influence of animal experimentation on medical science. 62 
VIVISECTION. 
From the beginning of history to the present century medicine has been either 
absolutely denied a place among the sciences or else branded as inexact, empirical, 
and laggard in its development and progress. Although dealing, as it does with 
the most complex problems of human existence, where, as in no other science, every 
law of nature is controlled and modified by that unknown force we call vitality, 
medicine has, nevertheless, from the very first, been forced to meet the demand for 
complete knowledge. To it alone the answer “we do not yet know all” has been 
denied. 
No greater misconception has ever gained footing in the public mind than the 
belief in disease as an entity—an evil spirit to be exorcised or driven out by drugs. 
The superficial observer recognizes only results and gross phenomena; he is content 
with knowing the end, never asking for causes. For him motion and quiescence as 
shown by his senses are the ultimatum; factors and forces have no place in his 
mental processes. Yet, these are precisely what science seeks to define, and until 
he has made the first analysis of terms, established absolute variations of quantity 
and quality, and determined the fixed ratio of forces, the scientific worker is not 
content. 
In determining then the influence of any one factor in the development of medical 
science, results can not be measured by the perfection of the whole, but must be esti- 
mated solely by the degree of advance toward the completed investigations. 
The specific problems with Avhich medical science deals are thus seen to be ques- 
tions of the relative influence of multiple forces on the production of given results. 
When Galvani recognized electric force in the twitching muscles of his dismembered 
frogs and Volta was lead thereby to the development of apparatus for the continuous 
production of this mysterious agency there was no hint whatever of the far-reaching 
influence of electricity in modern medicine. Yet history showsthat one discovery was 
the direct result of the other and that every electrical device for the relief of disease 
has its origin in those quivering batrachian limbs. 
Only the deepest ignorance can fail to recognize that the forces concerned in the 
simplest changes of inorganic nature are so numerous, and their relations so complex, 
that they defy recognition under uncontrolled conditions, while in the organic world 
the task is even more hopeless. Experimentation, therefor, in which one or more of 
the involved forces can be controlled or predetermined and eliminated becomes an 
absolute necessity in all scientific investigation. However clear the mental analysis, 
however accurate the logical demonstration from cause to effect, it is possible by 
experiment alone, under controlled conditions, to prove that no involved force has 
•been overlooked; that the premises were true and the conclusions therefore ultimate. 
The truly scientific investigator is an analyst and purist, who seeks to establish the 
values of single in place of combined forces. His results are therefore primarily 
isolated facts, and their value not immediately evident. Often, indeed, their rela- 
tions are so remote and their values so contingent upon yet other undetermined truths 
that they gain but scanty recognition, if, perchance, they are not totally ignored, 
and finally forgotten. Meanwhile, the brazen dicta of some mere observer, who only 
sees most superficial relations and blindly accepts an assumed possibility as demon- 
strated fact, gain unhesitating credence. Yet the scientific experimentator alone adds 
to our store of knowledge and power for good. He seeks for truth and truth alone. 
However isolated or unrelated hisresults may seem he sees in each a potential value. 
The smallest discovery thus not only has its own peculiar merit, but points the way 
to other hidden truths, although it may often be difficult to connect the several links 
in the long chain of progressive knowledge. 
The world might still be standing in dumb awe and barbaric fear of Jove’s thunder- 
bolts had not Franklin’s kite decoyed the blinding force and locked it in his Leyden 
jar. Thus bound, and under predetermined conditions of action, it was brought 
within the power of scientific investigation. 
Is it not strange that medicine should be denied the right to follow those impera- 
tive methods of scientific research which are so unquestionably accorded to every 
other science? 
It lias been assumed that the medical investigator finds ample opportunity for 
experimentation in studying diseases under the ordinary conditions of human life. 
Recognition, however, of the fact that experiments are never isolated, but in con- 
tinuous and consequent series; that unknown quantities are determined, as in solving 
algebraic equations, by successive eliminations, and that ultimate values are ob- 
tained only from experiments involving but a single unknown terra, at once indicates 
how uncertain, and hence valueless, conclusions drawn only from clinical experience 
must be. If further proof be desired, it is found in the wrell-known uncertainty and 
variability of disease processes, and the associated systemic reaction. Scientific 
experimentation thus demands conditions under which the largest possible number 
of the involved factors can be controlled or known. For medical science these con- 
ditions can only be found in a healthy organism. This science must therefore either 
stand still or investigate the mysteries of life where life holds its myriad forces in 63 
VIVISECTION. 
perfect harmony. Thus, it seeks not primarily to discover cures for disease, but 
rather to separate the multiple factors ot disease and to lix the relations of such 
factors to the forces under our control hy which they may be modified. It is not a 
little surprising that, with an appreciation ot the necessity lor experimentation, 
men should for so long have preferred to he its subjects, and that even to-day so 
many refuse to yield the place to animals. For example, in widespread epidemics 
We note the effects of an infection on perhaps half a million of human beings, with 
a great sacrifice of human lile On the other hand, we study in laboratories the 
cause of the epidemics with comparatively small sacrifice of animal life. 
In entering upon the consideration oi this subject I fearlessly lay down this pr op- 
osition, confident that it states your unanimous verdict as representatives of medical 
science on this continent. That every distinct advance, every established principle, 
and every universally accepted law of medical science has been in the past and will 
he in the future the indirect, if not direct, result of animal experimentation. I 
ask you to review with me some of the more obvious and conclusive proofs oi this 
P The imperative lines of our investigation may he broadly classed under four heads: 
1. Experiments to determine the functions and normal relations of the organs com- 
posing the physical economy. . ... , . 
2. The causes of those perversions of function present m the condition designated 
3. The nature of morbid processes and the relation ol their causes to the conse- 
quent systemic reactions. . 
4. The protective aud curative influence upon these processes of agencies under 
our control. , , . ~ , , , 
In this review I shall follow an historical order, and present man appendix detailed 
accounts of all experiments to which reference is made. 
It is not too much to claim that during the latter half of the present century the 
results obtained from experiments on animals have done more than all the observa- 
tions of the preceding centuries to raise medicine from conditions of vagueness to 
conditions of exactness. From the time of Aristotle, J who proved that the blood, 
brain, and spinal marrow in animals have no sensation, down to the present day 
animal experimentation has been practiced hy all investigators who have gained any 
definite knowledge of the more important phenomena of animal life. 
Galen,2 however, must always be regarded as the pioneer in this line of investi- 
gation. He may he said to have laid the foundation stone of medical science. By 
his experiments on living animals he showed that arteries contained blood, that the 
lungs passively follow the movements of the chest, and that the diaphragm, although 
important, is not the only muscle of respiration. I urthermore, hy section 
of the spinal chord and the recurrent laryngeal nerve, he demonstrated the nervous 
control of the voice aud explained the mechanics of respiration. By various 
methods he greatly advanced the knowledge of the structure and functions oi the 
alimentary canal, demonstrated the movements of the stomach and the peristalsis 
of the intestines, and laid the foundation of onr present extensive knowledge oi the 
functions of the brain and spinal chord. The results oi his experimental work are 
“as conclusive now as when he first made them, and retain to-day their lull i nine ; 
in fact, they are the only part of his vast labor which has stood the test oi modern 
investigation. The knowledge of the circulation and respiration which was gained 
hy his experiments on animals in the second century was the foundation and a uei es- 
sary preliminary to Harvey’s complete discovery of the circulation, in the m ven- 
teenth century. His experimental labor was the only work that survived the fluctu- 
ating medical systems of the Dark Ages, with perhaps two exceptions, mz. hirst, 
Vesalius,3 who in the sixteenth century created for medicine a solid foundation by 
transforming anatomy into an exact science, found that the action oi the heart 
miaht he continued for some time by inflating the lungs of animals with air alter 
the chest cavity was opened, and published in 1543 his discovery ol artificial respira- 
tion. Secondly, E. Columbus,-* in 1559, by direct experimentation on living animals, 
discovered thepulmonary circulation. In fact, from Galen s time till Harvey s great 
discovery, with these exceptions, little experimental work was done, ami during 
most of this period medicine, instead of advancing toward a science, became more 
and more the plaything of theorists and impostors. ... . ■ . 
Harvey » following the practice of Vesalius and Columbus of making anatomical 
examinations of theliving parts according to experimental methods, established, m 
1620 his great doctrine of the circulation of the blood. As it has been frequently 
denied that his discovery rested entirely on animal experimentation, I have given 
in the appendix his own quaint and detailed account ot it, which I ani sine is qui o 
enough to silence all question on this point. By a long senes of careimly con- 
ducted experiments on animals, and by that alone, he unraveled the system o ie 
circulation and established a discovery which more than any other influenced the 
future of medicine and surgery. It needed only the microscopic demonstration ol 64 
VIVISECTION. 
the capillary circulation by Malpighi,6 and his demonstration of the circulation in 
the lung of a living frog, to make the solution of the great vital problem complete. 
The next series of important and epoch-making experiments on animals were 
applied by Galvani7 and Volta8 to the nervous system. Each investigator was in 
error in his explanation of the results obtained by his researches, but their great 
discovery was not lost on account of the wrong interpretation which they gave to 
it, for their experiments on the electric condition of the nerves and muscles of ani- 
mals established an epoch in the history of the physiology and pathology of the 
nervous system which led to brilliant results a century afterwards. 
The first attempt to continue life for an indefinite period by artificial respiration 
was made by Robert Hook9 in 1664. He showed that “by inflating the lungs of 
animals with a bellows and then allowing them to collapse, an artificial respiration 
might be established which could be kept up for a long period.” Artificial respira- 
tion, according to Hook’s method, was afterwards practiced by Brodie10 and others 
for the purpose of studying the action of the heart and blood vessels, and for resus- 
citating asphyxiated animals. The principle established by these experiments on 
animals was later applied to the human subject, and is now a recognized means of 
preserving life in cases of asphyxia and of resuscitating the newly born. 
The countless experiments on living animals, carried on during the seventeenth 
century in all the medical centers of Europe, on the action of the heart, the circu- 
lation, absorption, secretion, and respiration produced a fund of knowledge without 
which the brilliant advances of the eighteenth century would have been impossible. 
By experiments on birds, frogs, and insects, Boyle,11 near the close of the seven- 
teenth century (1670), showed that atmospheric air is necessary to the maintenance 
of life, as he found that air which had been breathed by animals for some time 
became finally unfit for respiration, so that the animals died. 
Priestley12 continued Boyle’s experiments on air vitiated by respiration, establish- 
ing the fact that by growing plants in the vitiated air it becomes regenerated and 
is again fit to breathe. It remained, however, for Lavoisier,13 following Hook’s and 
Priestley’s experimental methods, to establish at that time the true composition of 
atmospheric air and to develop the real basis of respiration, viz, the absorption 
of oxygen and the exhalation of carbon dioxide. This discovery opened an entirely 
new field in the study of respiration, and laid the foundation of our present knowl- 
edge of the respiratory processes. 
The injection of fluids into the blood vessels of animals was first performed by 
Dr. Christopher Wren,14 of Oxford. He employed an infusion of opium, and pro- 
duced narcotism in the injected animals. His experiments in this line were soon 
followed by those of Richard Lower,15 who, in 1666, performed the first transfusion 
of blood in animals, and the following year Dr. Denis16 performed the same experi- 
ment on man. Mr. Boylel7 afterwards elaborated the method of transfusing blood 
from one animal to another, and showed that death from hemorrhage might be pre- 
vented by such transfusion. These experiments led later to the establishment of 
the practice of transfusion for certain conditions of bloodlessness, a principle which 
to-day occupies a prominent place in life-saving methods. 
After Galen’s experiments on the nervous system of animals the labors of investi- 
gators were chiefly confined to anatomical studies of the nervous system, and little 
or no advance was made in the knowledge of its function until the middle of the 
eighteenth century, when Haller proved, by numerous experiments in cutting and 
irritating nerves, “that all motion in the human body proceeds in a great measure 
from the brain and its annexed cerebellum and spinal marrow.” He also demon- 
strated that when the peripheral end of a severed nerve is irritated the muscle to 
which it is distributed contracts. Soon after, Sir Charles Bell18 commenced his 
experiments on the spinal cord and nerves of animals in order to determine the func- 
tion of the cerebrum and cerebellum, but after long labor reached no satisfactory 
result. Ten years later, however, while experimenting on facial nerves, in his 
attempts to demonstrate the existence of a great system of respiratory nerves sepa- 
rate from those of sensibility and voluntary motion, he established the important 
fact that the seventh cranial nerve is a nerve of motion, and the fifth a nerve of sen- 
sation. This discovery has been fruitful of practical results both in medicine and 
surgery. 
Although Bell did not believe in animal experimentation as a source of knowledge, 
and employed it only to prove or confirm his anatomical studies, nevertheless his 
experimental work is the only part of his labor which has remained. The classifica- 
tions and fascinating theories which he so ingeniously constructed on the basis of 
his anatomical studies are hardly known to neurologists of the nineteenth century. 
Magendiel9 inaugurated the present century by a series of most brilliant experi- 
ments. He recognized the dangers of adopting theories based on imperfect knowl- 
edge and devoted himself accordingly to eliminating these imperfections by experi- 
ments on living animals. “The love of knowledge for its own sake was the impulse 
which dominated all his work. He claimed that all science was inductive and con- 65 
VIVISECTION. 
sequently founded on experiment, and maintained thattlie science of life necessitated 
animal experimentation.” 
By a series of carefully conducted experiments on tlie spinal cord, in which he 
divided successively the anterior and posterior roots of the spinal nerve, he demon- 
strated the difference between the motor and sensitive nerve roots. In this way the 
distinct endowment of the two kinds of nerve libers was established. Once placed 
on this footing the study of nerve physiology was greatly increased in efficiency 
and extent. Thus, by applying the galvanic stimulus to a spinal nerve above and 
below the point of section, its mode of action was determined by the excitability of 
its motor and sensitive libers. He employed the same methods in the study of the 
cranial nerves, both externally and at their roots. In fact every branch of inoscu- 
lation was scrutinized by the same means. 
It is hardly possible to estimate the importance of the change thus introduced 
into the study of the functions of the nervous system and the facilities which were 
thus supplied for further investigation. “This distinction between the spinal nerve 
roots was of the utmost importance, for it indicated a general plan of arrangement 
for the nervous system throughout the body. It became immediately a subject of 
criticism and verification for all the leading investigators of Europe and the result 
was a complete acceptance of Magendi’s discovery.” Magendi not only cleared np 
much that was vague and uncertain in the physiology of the nervous system, hut he 
established methods of experimenting on the action of medicinal agents, and was 
the first to demonstrate conclusively that “poisons act on the spinal cord through the 
circulation, and not by means of the lymphatics and nerves.” His results, obtained 
by experiments on animals with strychnine, quinine, iodine, and a long list of medic- 
inal substances, enabled him to lay the foundation of the doctrine that remedies 
exert their special action upon special structures and organs, a doctrine which was 
afterwards further developed by Claude Bernard, and is now the accepted view 
regarding the action of all medicinal agents. He further demonstrated so thoroughly 
and clearly the action of strychnine on the spinal cords that subsequent investigations 
have added but little to his results. 
Magendie entered upon the investigation of all subjects with a sort of skepticism 
that demanded proof and counterproof. In his studies of the functions of organs 
he was forced to experiment on animals, and we may rightly fiegard him as the 
originator of the modern system of animal experimentation. Following the path 
which his great teacher had made so brilliant, Claude Bernard,-" by dividing the 
sympathetic nerve in the neck of the rabbit, observed that the blood vessels in the 
ear of the corresponding side became enlarged, and demonstrated by a series of 
similar experiments that the size of the blood vessels is under the control of par- 
ticular nerves which cause them to contract and dilate. 
I demand from all opponents of animal experimentation recognition of the follow- 
ing fact. In all this long list of investigations not a single experiment was directed 
immediately to the discovery of a cure for a disease, but solely to the determination 
of physiological functions and the normal action of the vital processes, as indicated 
under the first head of our classification, and to defining the specific influence of 
given substances upon healthy living organisms, as indicated under the fourth head 
of our classification. It would have been impossible at that time even to guess just 
what valuable results were to come from these discoveries. Yet these experimentu- 
tors fully understood, what everyone must understand who expects to comprehend 
the purpose of medical science, that the practice of medicine is by principle and not 
by precept. Each worker recognized that the truth he sought was only a part of 
medical science and each by his discoveries marked an epoch in that science. 
It were a task for days even to tell the things we are now able to do upon the 
basis of Bernard’s discovery of the vasomotor nerves, and the story of the specific 
action of drugs is no shorter. It is probably a conservative statement to say that, 
excluding the medicinal foods, 90 per cent of all our medication is made definite and 
valuable by this principle alone, which occupies the same position toward medicine 
as does Newton’s law of universal attraction toward physics. 
Although Brodie31 had done much experimental work on the action of medicines 
without reaching any satisfactory results, it was not until Claude Bernard applied 
his experimental methods that the true action of drugs was fully understood. His 
work on digitalis offers a most excellent illustration of the relative values of the 
experimental and clinical methods of study. Numerous observers had previously 
recognized that digitalis made the heart’s action slower, and therefore regarded it 
as a cardiac sedative. This conclusion Bernard proved to he the direct opposite of 
the truth, showing by experiments on animals, in which the drug was the only dis- 
turbing force, that its effect is not sedative, hut, on the contrary, stimulating and 
tonic, rendering the action of the heart more powerful and increasing the tension of 
the blood vessels. The rules for its use in disease were thereby revolutionized, and 
the results obtained by the use of this drug in so many diseased conditions were for 
the first time made certain. The necessity of investigating the action of drugs upon 
YTV 5 66 
VIVISECTION. 
animals, in which the experiments could be controlled and varied, was thus conclu- 
sively proven by Bernard’s work; and his methods were soon adopted by other 
investigators, by whom our knowledge of the action of remedies has been made 
definite to a degree that could never have been attained by mere observations of 
their effects upon man. 
Thus modern therapeutics, emancipated from the bondage of empiricism, stripped 
of its chains, in which every link of personal interpretation differed from its fel- 
lows, no longer wounding friend as well as foe by aimless blows in the dark, stands 
forth a young but growing Hercules, bearing in place of the old barbaric club a 
magazine rifle with telescopic and microscopic sights, the ammunition box of which 
holds not drugs alone, but a manual of directions, wherein are written the truths 
which our modern priests, offering sacrifices on the altars of science, have given to 
mankind to save them from their infirmities. 
Still the tale goes on: Magendie, Bernard, and Louget established by their experi- 
ments the doctrine of recurrent sensibility, which was followed by the great discov- 
ery of Marshall Hall22 of the reflex action of the spinal cord. He observed that 
after the removal of the brain in animals the limbs were still capable of motion; and 
he showed by further experiment that the spinal cord acts independently of the brain 
as a medium of communication between the integument and the muscles. The same 
form of activity was afterwards found to be very widely extended in the nervous 
system. Legallois23 and Flourens24 showed that the medulla has its own centers 
of reflex action, and is either directly or indirectly an essential to the continuance of 
life. 
There is to-day no more important department of nerve physiology than that in 
connection with the vasomotor nervous system. It has been studied and developed 
by many observers, but, as just mentioned, was practically established by Bernard’s 
experiments. It solved not only some of the most important and difficult problems 
of physiology, but made intelligible many unexplained pathological changes. The 
relation of disturbances of the surface circulation to diseases of the internal organs; 
the mechanism of local congestion; the recovery of nerves from the exhaustion of 
over-stimulation by rest; the varying effects produced by different kinds of electric 
stimuli, and much similar knowledge, mark the fruit of a long series of experi- 
ments made along the line so clearly marked out by Bernard. Each one of these 
series rested on the work of some preceding experimenter; together they form a 
continuous line of development which can be traced directly to the work done in 
Galani’s laboratory in 1789. 
We turn now to experiments falling more directly under our third class. It is 
extremely suggestive as well as interesting to note that the order in which these 
discoveries came most clearly indicates that all investigators were working toward 
the relief of human suffering as their one great object. Anatomy and physiology 
could not be ignored, but pathology and etiology were forced to give place to 
therapeutics. 
John Hunter26 in 1785, by his experiments on the arteries of dogs, established the 
fact that injuries to healthy arteries were soon repaired, and that ulceration of 
arteries after ligature only occurred in such as were primarily diseased at the point of 
ligation. These experiments led him to apply the ligature, for the cure of aneurism, 
to the healthy portion of the artery above the point of dilation. For more than a 
century his experiments on canine legs have borne fruit an hundredfold in saving 
human lives and limbs. 
Hunter first learned by experiments on pigeons and young pigs “ that the growth 
of bone takes place mainly from the exterior and is probably produced by the nutri- 
tive power of the periosteum.” Subsequently this question was further examined 
experimentally by Howship,26 Flourens,27 Heine,28 Murray, and others. 
Mr, Syme29 endeavored to ascertain “ whether the periosteum possesses the power 
of forming new osseous substance independently of any assistance from the bone 
itself. He extirpated the middle portion of the radius of a dog with its periosteum 
and found, as Sir Astley Cooper had previously done, that after the recovery of the 
animal there was no bony union, but a ligimental band running from one extremity to 
the other.” 
Leopold Ollier,30 by transplanting portions of the periosteum, demonstrated the 
power of the membrane to produce new bone and showed that in the resection of 
bone, if the periosteum is left, new bone will be developed in from one to three 
months. Following the teachings of his animal experiments, he introduced the 
operation of resection for diseased bone, one of the most important discoveries in 
surgery, which inaugurates a new era in surgical procedure. The practical results 
of his discovery are to-day fully approved by surgeons in the management of injuries 
or disease of the bones and joints. 
As we witness some capital operation performed at the present day without pain, 
almost bloodless, followed neither by fever nor suppuration, we may ask how far 
these great results are due to experiments on animals. The anaesthesia of chloro- VIVISECTION. 
67 
form was discovered through experimentation on a low form of animal life, the ant. 
The illustrious Simpson practiced and perfected his use of chloroform on animals 
before he anasstheticized his first patient. While its discovery as an anesthetic can 
not be claimed as altogether due to experiments ou animals, its great uses in surgery 
would be incomplete but for such experiments. The same is true of that other great 
alleviator of pain, the hypodermic, which was first used by Mr. Earn!31 on his sport- 
ing dogs. He says; “ I feared that hypodermic injections might excite suppurative 
inflammations in the subcutaneous tissue, but when I found from experiments on 
dogs that this was not the case, I gained confidence that justified their use on man.” 
Whether Ambrose Pgve made experiments on animals before using the ligature on 
man is not clear, but all the steps which were necessary to perfect this discovery, 
and all the other means for arresting hemorrhage from bleeding vessels, have been 
the results of experiments on animals by Hunter,33 Jones,33 benjamin Travers,34 
Bryant,3s and a long list of eminent surgeons during the past century. 
Robert McDonnell states that great as are these triumphal epochs in surgery 
which have rendered operations painless and bloodless, the practical surgeon of 
to-day values even more highly those antiseptics which render convalescence after 
operation free from fever and suppuration. 
These three great epochs alone are sufficient to exalt animal experimentation to 
the first place as a means of scientific advancement, nor can they be obscured by 
the multitude of brilliant discoveries that are showering upon us with a bewilder- 
ing rapidity in these latter days. 
1 can not help again calling your attention to the peculiar significance of the fact 
that etiology, which by right should have come first in the study of disease, has 
hitherto marched but haltingly in the rear, because it must depend upon, animal 
experimentation alone for its development. It is unfortunate that a false sentiment 
has sought by every possible means to retard and check the progress of those who 
essayed this path of investigation. 
The first step in this important field of research was taken in 1850, when a com- 
mission of the medical association of the “Eure et Loir” proved that splenic fever 
could be communicated from one animal to another by inoculation; and the first 
hint of bacteriological study was given when Davaine36 and Eayer found constantly 
in the blood of animals so inoculated little thread-like bodies. 
At about the same time Professor Virchow37 furnished definite knowledge of the 
inception and prevention of parasitic diseases by a series of experiments on animals 
to determine the origin, nature, mode of development, and communicability of 
trichinosis. Through these investigations the medical profession first became aware 
of the existence of a fatal and heretofore unknown disease, and were at the same 
time made acquainted with its source and maimer of production. 
M. Villemin38 inaugurated a new and important era in medicine when he estab- 
lished the fact that tuberculosis is an infectious disease. By laboratory experiments 
he found that general and fatal tubercular infection is produced in animals when 
they are inoculated with crude tubercular matter from the human subject. His 
experiments in this line were soon confirmed by other investigators, and led directly 
to all the far-reaching results, determining the modes by which tubercular infection 
can be propagated. Villemin’s discovery revealed endless possibilities aud was 
followed by similar investigations of many infectious diseases. 
The invaluable studies of Pasteur 39 introduced us into “a new world of strange 
knowledge.” His insight into the doctrine of fermentation carried him far beyond 
the agencies of microscopic organisms in fermentative processes. He not only 
isolated and obtained pure cultures of these organisms, but also studied their life 
history, and, by methods which had served him in all his previous investigations, 
placed bacteriological science on a firm basis. He demonstrated that if the cause 
of an infectious disease be a self-multiplying germ from the outside world, the habits 
of the living enemy can be studied in its outside relations, and that definite knowl- 
edge may thus be obtained as to its biological affinities. No work has ever promised 
greater things to the world than does that of Pasteur. 
The knowledge obtained by observation, previous to the middle of the present 
century, concerning the changes effected by disease now began to be examined from 
a new point of view, Pasteur’s methods of experimentation were adopted and 
practiced by investigators all over the world, and his doctriue that the cause of 
infectious diseases was to be sought in self-multiplying germs was everywhere 
accepted. 
The crowning glory of Pasteur’s work came with the discovery of attenuation of 
bacterial toxic products, the possible results of which defy the imagination. In the 
record of human industry there is no work of richer or grander promise. Yet it is 
a work which, from the very nature of the case, was possible only by experiments 
on living animals. 
The endless possibilities of research which the new doctrine of infection suggests 
to the mind of the pathologist was the beginning of the most brilliant era in the 68 
VIVISECTION. 
science of medicine since it lias existed. It would not lie possible in tbe time 
allotted to me even to refer to all the investigations which have been made along the 
line so clearly defined by Pasteur. 
I must pass by even the list of diseases over which victory has been made possible, 
in order that I may speak briefly of those in which practical results are already 
attained or in sight. The time is here when abstract scientific principles are bearing 
concrete fruit in the prevention and cure of disease. 
The application of Pasteur’s doctrine by Mr. Lister to the antiseptic treatment of 
wounds, an application which was enforced by Mr. Lister’s eminent skill as an 
experimenter, has been a full confirmation of this principle. The germs which 
Pasteur imprisoned in his test tubes wore liberated by Lister’s genius. Together 
they have put to flight the horrors of surgery, and forever stand guard when the 
surgeon plunges his knife into the sleeping flesh or binds up the torn and mangled 
body. 
The discovery of the bacillus tuberculosis by Koch40 marks another brilliant 
effort in medical science. The details of the work by which he reached this great 
discovery are too familiar to be repeated here, but it was only accomplished by 
Pasteur’s method of continuous animal experimentation. It has not merely revolu- 
tionized our knowledge of tuberculosis, but has enabled us to understand and explain 
the morbid processes of tubercular disease. The stimulus which Koch’s work gave to 
investigation in all countries is bearing fruit in the departments of preventive medi- 
cine and therapeutics. The light which flashed from his laboratory was the dawn 
of hope that is already breaking into the day of certainty, when wTe shall hold a 
prevention and cure of tuberculosis in our grasp. 
Following the line of Pasteur’s work on the attenuation of bacterial toxic products, 
Kitasato41 and Behring4* in their experiments on the immunity and cure of tetanus 
have given definite knowledge of the prevention and cure of infectious diseases, 
which goes far toward the realization of the hope inspired by the work of Koch on 
the toxic products of the bacillus tuberculosis. 
Within the past two decades animal experimentation has accomplished more in the 
field of cerebral location than all the preceding centuries of carefully recorded cere- 
bral symptoms studied in tie light of post mortem observations. It has opened to 
surgeons an entirely new field of operations. Until the middle of the present 
century the brain was described as a single organ, and physiologists attributed to its 
functions no special localization. To day the areas of motion and of special sense 
and. to a limited extent the mental areas also, have been definitely placed. Most, if 
not all, of this knowledge has been derived from experiments on the brains of living 
animals. From the time when Fritsch and Hitzig43 reported their faithfully recorded 
and startling experiments in this new field of research, giving such complete details 
of their experimental procedure that other investigators could easily follow and test 
their accuracy, numerous workers have been adding to our knowledge, until we now 
have definite and safe rules by which we may localize many cerebral lesions. Any 
discrepancies which have been claimed as invalidating this line of work, Dr. Ferrier44 
states will be found on careful examination to be more apparent than real, and that 
experiments on animals under conditions selected and buried at the will of the 
experimenter ar« alone capable of furnishing precise data for sound inductions as 
to the functions of the brain in its various parts. 
The surgeons have not not been slow to make this knowledge practical in skill- 
fully devised operations. The region beyond the skull is no longer forbidden ground. 
The hopeless, because powerless, inactivity that once watched in wondering silence 
the meaningless signs of conflict within the mind’s temple, has now given place to 
a keen activity that boldly enters the inner court to seize the offender even at the 
base of the altar. 
As we review the history of the experimental work which has placed medicine in 
the list of the sciences we are impressed with the fact that while each line of research 
was carried on for its own results, nevertheless most of the discoveries remained 
apparently barren until subsequent discoveries invested them with an unexpected 
importance. 
The fatal error of critics of experimental work is their demand that every experi- 
ment shall bear fruit immediately. Few if any of them seem to be familiar with 
scientific methods. They constantly wander from the real issues to the moral or 
morbidly sentimental aspect of the question. 
It seems evident from the history that I have spread before you in this brief and 
fragmentary manner, that most, if not all, of the real advances in medicine have 
been made possible through experimentation. The only point open to discussion, 
then, from either moral or ethical point of view, is, what price should be paid by 
the world for the benefit received. This review of what our profession has thus far 
done to serve mankind in this field is not a plea for mercy—not a bribe to tempt a 
captious public. My voice has proved a recreant servant if any tones of doubt or 
fear have marred this exposition. Its every part is cause for pride. In such a sketch, VIVISECTION. 
69 
however cursory it may be, each point reflects the light of noble purpose and over- 
flows with promise of better things to come. So long as the moral and spiritual 
development of mankind remains the supreme purpose of creation, medical science 
can claim equal honors with the science of God, and in the conflict with physical 
evil must he the flrst to meet the foe. Until Infinity repeals the edict which gave 
man power over all created things, the right to claim the serAnce of the brute crea- 
tion, although it takes the life of the animal or tears it limb from limb, can never 
be denied to him who dtwotes his life to the serArice of mankind. 
In this defense of animal experimentation results have not been made prominent 
with any purpose to conceal methods. We are fully prepared to count the cost and 
to meet the question, Does the end justify the meansf As devotees to medical 
science, we yield precedence to none in honesty and lawfulness of purpose, or faith- 
fulness of service in the bitter conflict humanity ever has waged and ever must wage 
against pain and disease. We, too, ha\re hearts that love and pity, that ache, and 
sometimes even break beneath the loads they bear. We glory in our experimental 
work because we know the tenderness of cruelty, the balm of pain, the life whose 
birth is only in the throes of death. Must, then, our conflict cease? Our weapons 
be laid aside because selfish ambition has now and then made fiends of men? 
Since philosophers first learned to trace “with their golden pen on the deathless 
page” heroic deeds of men, humanity has never failed to offer its first homage to 
those who gave their liAres for others. As the servants of such a science we can fear- 
lessly appeal to all intelligent men for a just criticism. From the ignorant Ave 
expect to only censure, but from those who in “the valley of the shadow 
of death” have learned to know what manner of men Ave are, I have faith to believe 
the reply will come: We haA’e trusted you Avith the liAres of our loved ones; we 
intrust to you God’s dumb creation. 
NOTES. 
1 Aristotle.a History of Animals. Aubert and Wiramer’s edition. 
Book 11, Chapter 11, section 44, vol. i, p. 272. (In the Chameleon) “When cut 
open respiration continues active for a long time, and there occur very slight move- 
ments in the heart; and contractions take place not only and especially in the region 
of the ribs, but also in the other parts of the body.” 
Book 111, Chapter XIX, section 90: “ In no animal has the blood any feeling when 
touched, any more than the excretions in the belly; nor has the brain or marrow,?) 
when touched, any feeling. 
2On Practical Anatomy and Experimental Physiology. De Anatomicis Adminis- 
trationibus. Galeni Opera Omnia, Kuhn’s edition, vol. ii, pp. 651-706. 
An in Arteriis Natura Sanguis Contineatur. Galeni Opera Omnia, Kuhn’s edition, 
vol. iv, p. 703. Is blood naturally contained in the arteries? 
“For we have often exposed the large arteries convenient for this purpose, and 
asked the disciples of Erasistratus whether the artery thus exposed did not seem to 
contain blood. They were obliged to confess that it did, both because Erasistratus 
asserted that the blood passed into the arteries when they were uncovered, and 
because the fact was evident to the senses; for having placed ligatures on both ends 
of the inclosed portion of the artery, and made an incision into the vessel between 
them, I showed that the artery itself was full of blood.” 
Book VIII, Chapter II: “There is a form of respiration which is considered to be a 
natural (i. e., involuntary) as opposed to a psychical (i. e., voluntary) function, and 
in which the lower parts of the chest and hypochondria are seen to be plainly in 
motion, but the upper parts sometimes not at all and sometimes obscurely. This is 
accomplished hy the diaphragm aloue, which is a muscle not only in structure but 
in function also.” 
“But our teachers were wrong in believing the diaphragm to be the sole mover of 
the chest in respiration, expanding it when itself in contraction, and when itself in 
relaxation permitting the chest to collapse, for they did not explain how we are 
able to blow out vigorously or to vocalize. They thought that when the ample 
movements of the chest, which we see in running and in all such sharp gymnastics, 
are accomplished by the energy of the diaphragm.” Galen goes on to say that no 
account was taken of the intercostals or muscles of forced breathing. 
Book VIII, Chapter III: The technique of the dissection and experimental physi- 
ology of the muscles of respiration is here given, and ihe anatomy of the two sets 
of intercostals is described. The experiments are done on pigs because their voices 
are so strong that effects can be well observed. 
a The extract from Aristotle, Galen, Vesalius, Columbus, and Malpighi were kindly 
furnished by Prof. J. G. Curtis from his library. 
Z)The Avord marrow, juvsAo?, is used by Aristotle indifferently for the marroAV of 
the bones and the spinal cord, the functions of which latter were unknown to him. 70 
VIVISECTION. 
In the external intercostal muscles are divided first and then the internal, the 
voice and forced breathing are abolished. 
Galen uses large pigs so that opening the pleura may be avoided, and advises one 
to practice well on the cadaver before experimenting. This demonstration of the 
use of the intercostal muscles Galen claims as new and original with him. 
Booh VIII, Chapter IV: Next he proves that the intercostal muscles owe their 
power to the intercostal nerves. For this purpose all these nerves are exposed near 
the spine and ligatured, but not so tightly as to bruise or sever the nerves. The 
ligatures on the nerves if moderately tight (1) paralyze the intercostal muscles, (2) 
prevent forced breathing, (3) abolish the voice. All these functions return when the 
ligatures are removed. 
Book VIII, Chapter V: If the nerves now called the vagi are destroyed a hoarse 
sound like a snore may still be produced; but if the intercostal muscles are para- 
lyzed there is no hoarse sound at all. 
Paralysis of the intercostal muscles maybe effected not only by (1) section of their 
fibers, and (2) injury of their nerves, but by (3) excision of their ribs, and by (4) sec- 
tion of the spinal cord at the beginning of the back, between the seventh cervical 
and first dorsal vertebra?. This section of the spinal cord is found to paralyze every 
muscle below except the diaphragm, and also to render the animal voiceless. In 
an animal breathing . only by the diaphragm, after section of the spinal cord at 
the beginning of the back, section of the phrenic nerves is seen to be followed by 
the contraction of certain accessory muscles at the upper part of the chest. In 
another animal Galen cut the phrenic nerves in the neck, and found that while 
the diaphragm was paralyzed, the intercostal muscles continued to act. In experi- 
ments where the spinal cord was cut at the beginning of the back, the upper and 
lower parts of the thorax might be seen to move—the lower by means of the 
diaphragm, the upper by means of accessory muscles. 
In Book VIII, Chapter VI, the technique of cutting the spinal cord is given 
minutely. Galen sometimes used sucking pigs for this purpose. "When the spinal 
cordis divided longitudinally from above downward, directly in the middle line, not 
one of the intercostal nerves is paralyzed, either to the right or left, nor the lumbar 
nor crural nerves. But if the cord is divided transversely only one-half way, on 
either the right or left side, all the nerves of the injured side are immediately para- 
lyzed.” Hemisection of the cord reduces the volume of the voice one half; complete 
section produces complete aphonia. 
Book VIII, Chapter VII; Excision of the ribs destroys forced breathing and the 
voice as much as section of muscles or of nerves. Galen describes the technique of 
this excision. It must be subperiosteal, and he cautions against piercing the pleura. 
The impression received is that not all of the ribs are to be removed. 
Book VIII, Chapter IX : Section of the spinal cord at its commencement, or below 
the first, second, or third cervical vertebrae totally paralyzes respiration and the 
whole of the body below; if below the sixth vertebrae the animal can still use 
the diaphragm, and if cut farther down other muscles of respiration remain intact. 
The lower the section the greater the number. 
sAndreae Vesalii, Bruxellensis, 1543. De Humani Corporis Fabrica. Lib. Septem, 
De Vivorum Sectione: 
‘‘ In order that the life of an animal may be restored, an opening should be made 
in the trunk of the aspera arteria (trachea), into which a cauula of reed is inserted 
and this blown through; for on slight inflation in the living animal the lung swells up 
to the size of the thoracic cavity, and the animal breathes after a fashion. The heart 
then resumes its force, and its motion varies with beatitiful diversity. The lung 
being inflated from time to time, the motion of the heart can be well examined, both 
by sight and touch, and the trunk of the great artery (aorta) which extends along 
the back can be examined also in the thoracic cavity or as far as the lumbar vertebrae. 
“ Nothing appears more manifest to you than the rhythmic beat of the heart and 
arteries, which, being observed for a time, the lung sliould be inflated again. By 
this artifice, than which nothing I have discovered in experimental physiology 
(literally anatomy, but with more than its present meaning) pleases me more, much 
knowledge of the changes in the pulse may be obtained; for when the lung has 
remained flaccid for a time the pulse or motion of the heart and arteries is seen to be 
undulating, creeping, or vermicular, but, the lung being inflated, the pulse becomes 
large and rapid and shows remarkable inequality. 
“I may say that this is the experiment by which I demonstrate to the best advan- 
tage to the candidates in medicine the nature of every kind of pulse.” 
4Realdi Columbi, De Re Anatomica. Venetiis, MDLIX, page 177, 1. 10-20. 
“There are two cavities in the heart; that is, two ventricles, not three, as it 
seemed to Aristotle. One of these is to the right, the other to the left; the right is 
much larger than the left and contains natural blood, while the left contains the 
vital. Moreover, it is easy to satisfy oneself by observation that the substance of the 71 
VIVISECTION, 
heart which incloses the right ventricle is thin, and that the left is thick; this is 
partly for the sake of equilibrium, and partly in order that the vital blood, which is 
very thin, may not exude. For between these ventricles there is a septum through 
which almost all think that a passage is open for the blood from the right ventricle 
to the left, and that the easier, because on the way the blood is attenuated for the 
purpose of the generation of the Adtal spirits. But they are much out of the way; 
for the blood is carried through the pulmonary artery to the lung, and there under- 
goes its attenuation; thence, along with air, it is carried through the pulmonary 
vein to the left ventricle of the heart; which fact no one has hitherto noticed, or 
left recorded, although it is most worthy of the attention of all.” 
Page 178, 1. 31-38: “ Indeed, I think just the opposite, namely: That the pulmo- 
nary vein is to carry blood, mixed in the lungs with air, to the left ventricle of 
the heart; which is as true as truth itself; for if you will examine not only in the 
cadaver but likewise in the living animal, you will find always this (vein) filled 
with blood, which would by no means be the case if it were merely for air and 
vapors.” 
Page 224, 1. 16-21: “Verily, I beseech you, oh, candid reader, studious of the 
learned, hut most studious of the truth, to experiment upon animals and to dissect 
them alive. Try, I say, whether what I have said agrees with the facts; for in these 
animals you will find the pulmonary vein full of blood, not filled with air or smoky 
fumes, as they call them, please God! Only the pulse is lacking.” 
6 Harvey’s works. Sydenham edition, page 19: 
“When I first gave my mind to vivisections 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 Fracastorious, that the motion of the heart 
was only to be comprehended by God. For I could neither rightly perceive at first 
when the systole and when the diastole took place, nor when nor where dilation and 
contraction occurred, by reason of the rapidity of the motion, which in many ani- 
mals is accomplished in the twinkling of an eye, coming and going like a flash of 
lightning, so that the systole presented itself to me now from this point, now from 
that; the diastole the same; and then everything was reversed, the motions occur- 
ring, as it seemed, variously and confusedly together. My mind was therefore 
greatly unsettled, nor did I know what I should myself conclude, nor what believe 
from others; and I was not surprised that Andreas Laurentius should have said that 
the motion of the heart was as perplexing as the flux and reflux of Euripus had 
appeared to Aristotle. At length, and by using greater and daily diligence, and col- 
lating numerous observations, I thought that I had attained the truth, that 1 should 
extricate myself and escape from this labyrinth, and that I had discovered what I so 
much desired, both the motion and use of the heart and the arteries. Since which time 
I have not hesitated to expose my views upon this subject, not only in private to 
my friends, but also in public, in my anatomical lectures, after the manner of the 
academy of old.” 
From a biographical sketch of Harvey in the Philosophical Transactions, London, 
Abridgement, 1809, page 319: 
“He shows, by experiments made on living animals, that the motion of the heart 
is performed by the contraction of its muscular fibers; that the auricles contract 
first, and thereby propel the blood into the ventricles; then the ventricles contract, 
whereby the blood is driven into the arteries; being prevented from returning into 
the auricles by the situation and connection of the valves. Now, as by repeated 
contraction of the ventricles more blood is constantly propelled into the arteries 
than can be supplied by nourishment thrown into the veins (as appears upon calcu- 
lation), and, as moreover, the arteries can not receive blood through any other chan- 
nel but the veins, it follows either that the veins must be quickly emptied, and the 
arteries, on the contrary, every moment more and more distended; which, however, 
is not the case; or that the blood must flow back again from the arteries into the 
veins by certain secret passages, or by pores of the flesh, or by mutual anastomoses 
of the arteries and veins. He demonstrated that the last-mentioned communication 
takes place in the lungs. Again, as along the course of the arteries more blood is 
sent from the heart to all parts of the body than is necessary for the nourishment of 
those parts, he infers that the superflous blood is returned by the veins (that they 
may not he left empty) from the fact that no blood is found in the veins if the great 
artery be tied. On the other hand, if a ligature be placed on the vena cava at the 
place where it joins the right auricle, it will immediately become distended in a 
very surprising manner. Moreover, it must be evident to every one (he observes) 
who considers the situation and connection of the valves, that the blood passes 
from the smaller branches of the veins into their trunks, and from thence to the 
heart.” 72 
VIVISECTION. 
6M. Malpighi. Opera Omnia. Lugduni Batavarum. Apud Petrum Vander Aa. 
Bibliopolam MUCLXXXVII, Vol. 11. De Pulmnihus Epistola 11, page 328: 
“These things being apparent as regards the mere structure and connection [of the 
lungs], microscopic observation discovered still more wonderful things. For if the 
heart is still pulsating the contrary motion of the blood is to be observed in the ves- 
sels, although with difficulty, so that the circulation of the blood is plainly to be 
detected, and can be made out even more successfully in the mesentery and in the 
other large veins contained in the abdomen. The blood then [entering] an [air] cell 
by the impulse through the arteries, as one or another conspicuous branch passes by or 
ends in a cell, rains down, finely broken up, as though poured out, and thus multi- 
tudiuously divided loses its ruddy color, and, carried sinuously about, is scattered on 
all sides until it lands at the walls and angles [of the air cells] and the branches of 
the veins, which take it up again. 
“Nothing more could be seen in the living animal operated upon; hence, I had 
believed that the body of the blood broke out into an empty space and was gathered 
together again by an open-mouthed vessel and by the help of the structure of the 
walls [of the air cells]. • The basis for this view was offered by the tortuous movement 
of the blood, diffused as it was in various directions, and by the gathering of it 
together at a definite point; nevertheless, my faith was shaken by the [appearance 
of the] dried lung of a frog, which, as it happened, had retained the redness of the 
blood in its smallest parts (vessels as I found them afterwards); for by the aid of a 
more perfect glass there appeared to the eye no longer points which looked like the 
skin called shagreen, but in place of them minute vessels mingled together ring- 
fashion; and so great is the divarication of these vessels, as they spring here from 
vein and there from artery, that there is no longer any order preserved, but they 
appear as a network made up of the prolongations of the two [main] vessels. This 
network not only occupies the entire area [of the air cell], but extends to the walls 
and blends with the efferent vessel, as I was able to observe repeatedly, although 
with great difficulty, in the oblong lung of the tortoise, which is likewise mem- 
branous and diaphanous. Hence, it was made apparent to the senses that the blood 
was divided up and flowed through tortuous vessels, and was not poured out into 
spaces, but moved always through little tubes, and was scattered owing to the mul- 
titudinous bends of the vessel. Nor is it any new thing in nature for the terminal 
mouths of vessels to be joined together, since in the intestines or other parts the 
same plan is followed; and, even more wonderful though it may seem, the upper ends 
of veins are joined with the lower ends [of others] by anastomosis, as was very well 
observed by the most learned Fallopius. 
“ In order, however, to obtain and verify the foregoing results, tie theturged lung 
with a string, at its junction with the heart, as it protrudes from an open frog and 
while it is everywhere abundantly flushed with blood; for such a lung when dried 
will continue to have its vessels swollen with blood, which then you will see exceed- 
ingly well by examining them against a horizontal sun with a microscope of a single 
lens. Or you may use another method in looking at the vessels. Place the lung 
upon a plate of crystal illuminated by the light of a lantern from beneath through a 
tube; employ for this a microscope of two lenses, and there will be visible to you 
vessels arranged in rings, and by means of the same disposition of instruments and 
light you will observe the movement of the blood through the said vessels, and, by 
varying the amount of light, you will be able to contrive for yourself other things 
which defy description by the pen.” 
7 ands Account of some discoveries made by Mr. Galvani, of Bologna, with experi- 
ments and observations on them. In two letters from Mr. Alexander Volta, F. R. S., 
professor of natural philosophy in the University of Pavia, to Mr. Tiberius Cavello, 
F. R. S. Read January 31, 1793. (Philosophical Transactions, London, 1793, pp. 
10-44.) 
The fact that these letters are written in old and very bad French renders a cer- 
tain freedom of translation necessary. 
In speaking of the Commentary of Galvani. entitled “Aloysii Bononhe Galvani 
de Viribus Electricitatis in Motu Musclari Commentarius, 1791, 4to; de 58 pages, 
avec quatere grandes planches,” Volta says; “It contains one of the most beautiful 
and surprising discoveries, and the germ of many others. 
(1) “ Dr. Galvani, having dissected and prepared a frog in such a manner that the 
legs were attached to the spinal cord only by the exposed crural nerves, and having 
cut off the rest of the body, saw that he excited lively movements in the legs, with 
spasmodic contraction of all the muscles, each time that a spark was drawn from the 
conductor, not only on the body of the animal but upon every other body and in 
every direction (the legs being at a considerable distance from the large conductor 
of the electrical machine, and under certain other circumstances which I shall 
explain further on). 
“The required circumstances were, therefore, that the animal thus dissected should 
be in contact or very near some sort of metal or other good conductor, sufficiently 73 
VIVISECTION. 
extended, and better yet, between two similar conductors, one of which should be 
turned to the extremity of said legs or some one of their muscles, the other toward 
the spine or the nerves. It was also very advantageous that one of these conductors 
(which the author distinguished by the names of “nerve conductor” and “muscle 
conductor ”), and preferably the latter, be in free communication with the floor. It is 
in this position, especially, that the legs of the frog, prepared as has been described, 
received violent shocks, and twitched and struggled with vivacity at each spark of 
the conductor from the machine, although it was quite far distant, and although 
the discharge was made neither on the nerve conductor nor on the muscle conductor, 
but on any other equally distant from them, having all communication for the trans- 
mission of such a discharge, for example, on a person placed in the opposite corner 
of the room.” 
(5) “I applied myself with considerable attention to determine what was the 
least electric force necessary to produce these results in the frog intact and full of 
life, as well as one dissected and prepared in the manner described, which Mr. 
Galvani had omitted to do. 1 chose the frog in preference to any other animal, 
because it is endowed with great vitality and is easily prepared. Moreover, I have 
made experiments upon other small animals, with the same end in view and with 
about an equal success. To properly estimate the value of the electric force, I 
thought it proper to subject the animal, destined for experiments of this kind, not 
to the return currents occasioned by the atmosphere, but to the direct electrical dis- 
charges, now by a simple conductor, now by a Leyden jar, in such a manner that all 
the current should go through the body of the animal. To this eifect I was careful 
to hold it isolated in some manner or other, and more often by fastening it with pins 
to two plates of soft wood, supported by glass columns.” 
(8) “Thus we have, in the legs of the frog attached to the spinal column solely by 
the uncovered nerves, a new kind of electrometer, since electric discharges which 
givg no indications with the ordinary machines give marked signs with such an 
animal electrometer.” 
(11) “Mr. Galvani did not stop here in these truly astonishing experiments on the 
frog. He extended them with success not only to other cold-blooded animals but to 
birds, in which he obtained the same results by means of the same preparations, 
which consisted in disengaging one of the principal nerves from its envelope, where 
it entered a member susceptible of movement, arming sucb a nerve with a piece of 
metal and establishing a communication by means of a conducting arc of the nerve 
and its muscles” (with the machine). 
(12) “He also very happily discovered, and demonstrated in a very evident man- 
ner, the existence of an animal electricity in all or nearly all animals.” 
(19) “ Experiment A. I caught with forceps the ischiatic nerve a little below its 
insertion in the thigh and applied wires, a piece of money, or other metallic plate; 
a little higher up upon the same nerve, carefully dissected from its attachments 
and held up by a thread, or supported by a plate of glass, a stick of beeswax, or 
of dry wood, or any other poor conductor. Then applying the body of a Leyden 
jar very feebly charged to said forceps, I carried the arc into contact with the other 
metallic plate and saw that the discharge was made, which, though not strong 
enough to give the least spark, caused all the muscles of the thigh and leg to become 
convulsed and twitch more or less impetuously. This was true of the nerve through- 
out the entire leg, or any part of the nerve projecting beyond it, when in the course 
pursued by the current in its transit, though but a small portion of the nerve be 
irritated, this, nevertheless, was sufficient to occasion contraction of the muscles.” 
9An Account of an Experiment, made by Mr. Hook, of preserving Animals alive 
by blowing into their Lungs with Bellows. Philosophical Transactions, London, No. 
28, page 539; 
“I did, therefore, heretofore give this illustrious society an account of an experi- 
ment I formerly tried of keeping a dog alive after his thorax was all displayed by 
the cutting away of the ribs and diaphragm, and after the pericardium of the heart 
was also taken off; but divers persons seeming to doubt of the certainty of the 
experiment (by reason that some trials of this matter made by some other hands 
failed of success), I caused at the last meeting the same experiment to be shown in 
the presence of this noble company, and that with the same success as it had been 
made by me at first, the dog being kept alive by the reciprocal blowing up of his 
lungs with bellows, and then suffered to subside, for the space of an hour or more 
after his thorax had been displayed and his aspera arteria (trachea) cut off just 
below the epiglottis and bound upon the nose of the bellows.” VIVISECTION. 
10 The Croonian Lecture on some Physiological Researches, respecting the Influ- 
ence of the Brain on the Action of the Heart and on the Generation of Animal Heat. 
By Mr. B. C. Brodie, F. R. S. Read December 20,1810. Philosophical Transactions, 
Loudon, 1811, Volume XI, page 36: 
“In making experiments on animals to ascertain how far the influence of the brain 
is necessary to the action of the heart, I found that when an animal was pithed by 
dividing the spinal marrow in the upper part of the neck respiration was immedi- 
ately destroyed, but the heart still continued to contract circulating dark-colored 
blood, and that in some instances from ten to fifteen minutes elapsed before its action 
had entirely ceased. I further found that when the head was removed the divided 
blood vessels being secured by a ligature, the circulation still continued, apparently 
unaffected by the entire absence of the brain. These experiments confirmed the 
observations of Mr. Cruikshank (Phil. Trans., 1795) and M. Bichat (Recherches Phy- 
siologiques sur la Vie et la Mort) that the brain is not directly necessary to the heart, 
and that when the functions of the brain are destroyed the circulation ceases only in 
consequence of the suspension of the respiration. This led me to conclude that if 
respiration were produced artificially the heart would continue to contract for a still 
longer period of time after the removal of the brain. The truth of this conclusion 
was ascertained by the following experiment; 
“ Experiment 8.—I divided the spinal marrow of a rabbit in the space between the 
occiput and the atlas, and having made an opening into the trachea, fitted into it a 
tube of elastic gum, to which was connected a small pair of bellows, so constructed 
that the lungs might be inflated and then allowed to empty themselves. By repeat- 
ing this process once in five seconds, the lungs being each time fully inflated with 
fresh atmospheric air, an artificial respiration was kept up. I then secured the blood 
vessels in the neck, and removed the head by cutting through the soft parts above 
the ligature and separating the occiput from the atlas. The heart continued to 
contract, apparently with as much strength and frequency as in the living animal. 
I examined the blood in the different sets of vessels and found it dark colored in the 
vense cavse and pulmonary artery and of the usual florid red color iu the pulmonary 
veins and aorta. At the end of twenty-five minutes from the time of the spinal ipar- 
row being divided the action of the heart became fainter, and the experiment was 
put an end to.” 
"New Pneumatic Experiments about Respiration, by the Hon. Robert Boyle. 
•(Phil. Trans. Lond., No. 62., p. 2011.) 
The account of these experiments is so long that it will be impossible to reproduce 
it here. The headings, or “titles,” of the different chapters will give a sufficient 
insight into the experiments themselves. The air pump, then newly invented, was 
■employed in nearly all of them: 
The first title: Observations on the lasting of Ducks included in the Exhausted 
Receiver. 
The second title: Of the Phamomena afforded by Vipers in an Exhausted Receiver. 
The third title: Of the Phsenomena afforded by Frogs in an Exhausted Receiver. 
The fourth title: Of the Phenomena afforded by a newly kittened Kitling in the 
Exhausted Receiver. 
The fifth title: Some Trials about Air usually harbored and concealed in the Pores 
•of the Water, etc. 
The sixth title: Of the Phenomena afforded by Shell Fishes in an Exhausted 
Receiver. 
The seventh title: Of the Phenomena of a Scale Fish in an Exhausted Receiver. 
The eighth title: Of two Animals with large Wounds in the Abdomen, included 
in the Pneumatic Receiver. 
The ninth title: Of the Motion of a Separated Heart of a Cold Animal in the 
Exhausted Receiver. 
The tenth title: A Comparison of the Times wherein Animals may be Killed by 
Drowning or Withdrawing of the Air. 
The eleventh title: Of Accidents that Happened to Animals in Air Brought to a 
•Considerable Degree, but not near the utmost of Rarefaction. 
A Digressive Experiment Concerning Respiration upon very high Mountains. 
The twelfth title: Of the Observations produced in an Animal in Changes as to 
Rarity and Density made in the selfsame Air. 
The thirteenth title: Of an Unsuccessful Attempt to prevent the Necessity of 
Respiration by the Production or Growth of Animals in our Vacuum. 
The fifteenth title: Some Experiments showing that Air, become unfit for Respira- 
tion, may retain its wonted Pressure. 
The seventeenth title; Of the Long Continuance of a Slowworm and a Leech alive 
an the Vacuum made by our Engine. VIVISECTION. 
75 
The eighteenth title: Of what happened to some Creeping Insects in our Vacuum. 
* * * * * * ■ * 
The nineteenth title: Of Phenomena suggested by Winged Insects in onr Vacuum. 
* * * * * * * 
The twentieth title: Of the Necessity of Air to the Motion of such small Creatures 
as Ants, and even Mites themselves. 
12 Joseph Priestly’s Experiments on Respiration. Philosophical Transactions, Lon- 
don, Vol. LXII, p. 147. Read March 5, 12, 19, 26, 1772. 
His first experiments were upon “ fixed air” (carbon dioxide), and for the purpose 
he used “insects and animals which breathe very little,” and frogs. 
He then tried different methods for restoring air, in which candles had been 
burned, to its former state, such as the effects of heat, cold, and condensation. 
Page 166: 
“Though this experiment failed, I flatter myself that I have accidentally hit 
upon a method of restoring air which has been injured by the burning of candles, 
and that I have discovered at least one of the restoratives which nature employs for 
this purpose. It is vegetation. . . 
“On the 17th of August, 1771,1 put a sprig of mint into a quantity of air in which 
a wax candle had been burned out, and found that on the 27th of the same month 
another candle burned perfectly well in it. 
“ This restoration of air I found depended upon the vegetating state of the 
for though I kept a great number of the fresh leaves of mint in a small quantity ot 
air in which a candle had been burned out, and changed them frequently, for a long 
space of time, I could perceive no melioration in the state of the air.” 
**** * . * * 
Page 181: “ That candles will burn only a certain time is a fact not better known 
than it is that animals can live only a certain time in a given quantity of air, but 
the cause of death of the animal is not better known than that of the extinction of 
flame in the same circumstances.” 
Priestly noticed that plants put into air tainted by putrefaction grew vigorously, 
and at page 193 he says; “ This observation led me to conclude that plants, instead 
of affecting the air in the same manner with animal respiration, reverse the effect of 
breathing, and tend to keep the atmosphere sweet and wholesome when it is become 
noxious in consequence of animals living and breathing or dying and putrefying 
in it.” . . 
He fully proved his conclusions by experiments upon mice, and the experiments 
will be found in detail in the article from which I have quoted. 
i:iTraitd fißmentaire de Chimie par Lavoisier. 3d ed., 1801, t. ii, p. 173. Experi- 
ences sur la Respiration des Aniraaux, et sur les Changemens qui arrivent a Pair en 
passant par leur poumon. . ~ 
“ I confined in a convenient apparatus, of which it will be difficult to give an idea 
without recourse to figures, 50 cubic inches of common air. I introduced into this 
apparatus 4 ounces of very pure mercury, and proceeded to the calcination of it by 
keeping up for twelve days a degree of heat almost equal to that which it is neces- 
sary to make it boil. 
* * * * * * * 
I observed that the air which the vessel contained was diminished by 8 or 9 cubic 
inches. 
# * * * * * 
This air thus diminished would not precipitate lime water, but it extinguished 
flames, and caused animals placed in it to perish in a little while. 
****** 
In the preceding experiment the mercury in calcining had absorbed the better 
part,—the respirable part—of the air, and had left the mephitic or nonrespirable.” 
* * * * * * * 
By reduction he “reestablished the air to almost exactly the state it had before 
calcination—that is to say, the state of common air. This air, thus reestablished, no 
longer extinguished flame, no longer killed animals which breathed it. 
then, is an example of the very complete proof at which one can arrive by 
means of chemistry, the decomposition of the air and its recomposition. It evidently 
6First! That five-sixths of the air which we breathe, is, as I have already announced 
in a preceding memoir, in a mephitic state—that is to say, incapable of maintaining 
the respiration of animals and the combustion of bodies. 
Second. That the surplus—that is to say, one-sixth only of the volume of atmos- 
pheric air, is respirable. 
Third. That in the calcination of mercury this metallic substance absorbs the 
healthful part of the air, leaving only the mephitic. 76 
VIVISECTION. 
Fourth. That in bringing these two parts of the air thus separated together, 
the respirable part and the mephitic part, one makes again air like that of the 
atmosphere.” 
14 An account of the method of conveying liquors immediately into the mass of 
the blood. By Mr. Oldenburg. Philosophical Transactions, Loudon, No. 7, p. 128. 
(Abridgment, Vol. I, p. 45.) 
“ In this account it is asserted that the discovery of a method of conveying liquor 
immediately into the mass of the blood is due to Dr. Christopher Wren, at that time 
Savillian professor in the University of Oxford. The method which he followed was 
to make a ligature on the veins, and having made an opening into them on the side 
of the ligature toward the heart, to introduce into them slender syringes or quills 
fastened to bladders (in the manner of clyster pipes) containing the matter to be 
injected; performing the operation upon pretty big and lean dogs, that the vessels 
might be large enough and easily accessible. These experiments were made at dif- 
ferent times upon several dogs. Opium and the infusion of crocus metallorum were 
injected into the veins of the hind legs of these animals. The opium soon stupified 
though did not kill the dog; but a large dose of crocus metallorum induced vomiting 
and death in another dog. These experiments are more circumstantially related 
by Mr. Boyle in his excellent book on Usefulness of Experimental Philosophy, Part 
11, Essay 11, pages 53-55.” 
A letter from Ur. Timothy Clark. (Phil, Trans., Lend., No. 35, p. 672.) 
Dr. Clark here gives the time of the infusing of liquors into the blood by Dr. Chris- 
topher Wren, showing that it Avas done in the house of the French ambassador, Due 
de Bordeaux, in the year 1657. 
16 16 In a letter from Dr. Timothy Clark, in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 35, 
page 672, it is stated that Dr. Richard Lower was the first Avho performed trans- 
fusions on brutes, and that the French anatomist, Dr. Denis, was the first who 
tried it on man; that the account of Dr. LoAver’s experiment was published in 
the Philosophical Transactions for December, 1666, but nothing was heard of Dr. 
Denis’s operation until March, 1667. 
Richard Lower and Dr. King appear to haAre been the first who performed the 
experiment of transfusion of blood. The account will be found in De Corde, item 
de motu et colore Sanguinis et Chyli in eo transitu, 1669. 
17 “The method observed in transfusing the blood out of one animal into 
another.” By the Hon. Robert Boyle. Phil. Trans. Lond., No. 20, page 353. 
(Abridgment 1809, Vol. I, p. 128.) 
“The method here described was first practiced by D. Lower, of Oxford. Take 
the carotid artery of the dog or other animal whose blood is to be transfused into 
another of the same or a different kind, and separate it from the nerve of the eighth 
pair, and lay it bare above an inch. Then make a strong ligature on the upper part 
of the artery not to be untied again ; but an inch beloAv, viz, toAvai’d the heart, make 
another ligature of a running knot, which may be loosened or fastened as there 
shall be occasion. Having made these tAvo knots draw two threads under the 
artery between the two ligatures, and then open the artery and put in a quill, and 
tie the artery upon the quill very fast by those tAvo threads, and stop the quill 
with a stick. After this make bare the jugular Amin in the other dog about an inch 
and a half long, and at each end make a ligature with a running knot, and in the 
space betwixt the two running knots draw under the aucav two threads as in the 
other; then make an incision in the vein, and put into it lavo quills, one into the 
descendant part of the Arein, to receive the blood from the other dog, and carry it to 
the heart; and the other quill put into the other part of the jugular vein which 
comes from the head, out of Avhich the second dog’s own blood must run into the 
dishes. 
“These two quills being put in and tied fast, stop them with a stick till there be 
occasion to open them. All things being thus prepared, tie the dogs on their sides 
toward one another so conveniently that the quills may go into each other (for the 
dogs’ necks can not be brought so near but that you must put two or three several 
quills more into the first two to convey the blood from one to another). After that 
unstop the quill that goes down into the first dog’s jugular vein, and the other quill 
coming out of the other dog’s artery, and by the help of two or three other quills 
put into each other, according as there shall be occasion, insert them into one 
another; then slip the running knots, and immediately the blood runs through the 
quills as through an artery, very impetuously. And immediately, as the blood runs 
into the other dog, unstop the other quill coming out of the upper part of the jugu- 
lar Amin (a ligature being first made about his neck, or else his other jugular vein 
being compressed by one’s finger) and let his own blood run out at the same time 
into dishes (yet not too constantly, but according as you perceive him able to bear 
it) till the other dog begins to cry and faint and fall into convulsions, and at last 
dies by his side. VIVISECTION. 
77 
“Then take both quills out of the dog’s jugular vein and tie the running knot fast 
and cut the vein asunder (which you may do without any harm to the dog, one 
jugular vein being sufficient to convey all the blood from the head and upper parts 
by reason of a large anastomosis, whereby both jugular veins meet about the larnyx). 
This done, sew up the skin and dismiss him, and the dog will leap from the table 
and shake himself and run away as if nothing ailed him.” 
18Sir Charles Bell. Nervous System of the Human Body. Third edition, London, 
1844. 
Page 24: “It was necessary to know, in the first place, whether the phenomena 
■exhibited on injuring the separate roots of the spinal nerves corresponded with what 
was suggested by their anatomy. After refraining long, on account of the unpleas- 
ant nature of the operation, I at last opened the spinal canal of a rabbit and cut the 
posterior roots of the nerves of the lower extremity; the creature still crawled, and 
there were no convulsions of the muscles of the back, but on touching the anterior 
fasciculus with the point of the knife the muscles of the back were immediately 
convulsed.” 
Page 25: “Every touch of the probe or needle on the threads of this root was 
attended with a muscular motion as distinct as the motion produced by touching 
the keys of a harpsichord. These experiments satisfied me that the different roots, 
and different columns from which those roots arose, were appropriated to different 
offices, and that the notions derived from anatomy were correct.” 
Page 26: “On finding this confirmation of the opinion that the anterior column 
of the spinal marrow and the anterior roots of the spinal nerves were for motion, 
the inference presented itself that the posterior roots were for sensibility. But here 
a difficulty arose. An opinion prevailed that ganglions were intended to cut off 
sensation; and every one of those nerves, which I supposed were the instruments 
of sensation, have ganglions on their roots. 
“ Some very decided experiment was necessary to overturn this dogma. 1 selected 
two nerves of the encephalon; the fifth which had a ganglion, and the seventh which 
had no ganglion. On cutting across the nerve of the fifth pair on the face of an ass 
it was found that the sensibility of the parts to which it was distributed was entirely 
destroyed. On cutting across the nerve of the seventh pair on the side of the face 
of an ass the sensibility was not in the slightest degree diminished. 
“By pursuing this inquiry I found that the sole organ of sensation in the head 
and face is a ganglionic nerve. Ganglions were therefore no hindrance to sensation, 
but on the contrary a necessary accompaniment to a nerve of sensibility; and thus 
my opinion was confirmed that the ganglionic roots of the spinal nerves were the 
fasces or faciciculi for sensation.” 
Page 28: “The nerve of the fifth pair was exposed at its root in an ass the moment 
the animal was killed, and on irritating the nerve the muscles of the jaw acted 
and closed with a snap. On dividing the root of the nerve in a living animal the 
jaw fell relaxed. Thus its functions were no longer a matter of doubt; it was 
proved to be at once a muscular nerve and a nerve of sensibility. And thus the 
opinion was confirmed that the fifth nerve is to the head what the spinal nerves are 
to the other parts of the body, in respect to sensation and volition.” 
19 Magendie. Experiences sur les fonctions des racines des nerfs rachidiens. Jour, 
de Phys., 1822, page 276: 
“A second, a third experiment gave me exactly the same result. I commenced to 
regard it as probable that the posterior roots of the spinal nerves could well have 
functions different from the anterior roots and that they were more particularly 
destined for sensibility.” 
Page 279: “I have repeated and varied these experiments upon several species of 
animals. The results which lam about to announce have been confirmed in the most 
complete manner, be ifc for the anterior members or for the posterior. I shall pursue 
these researches and give a more detailed account of them in a future number. It is 
sufficient for me to be able to announce to-day as positive that the anterior and the 
posterior roots of the nerves which take origin from the spinal cord have different 
functions; that the posterior seem more particularly destined for sensibility, while 
the anterior seem more especially connected with movement.” 
20 L’Oeuvre de Claude Bernard. Paris. Bailliere. Logons de Physiologie; Sub- 
stances Toxiques. 
Systeme Nerveux. Recurrent sensibility. Vol. 1., pages 25-112. 
Discovery of function of sympathetic in the neck, pages 317-327. 
Page 320: “However, the phenomena following section of the cervical branch of 
the great sympathetic are not limited only to the pupil. I have found that at the 
same time there is acceleration of the circulation in all the corresponding half of 78 
VIVISECTION. 
the head, the temperature of which rises, the skin becomes more sensitive, and the 
arterial pulsation is stronger on this side and the vessels are dilated.” 
For Bernard’s work on the action of digitalis, see Action Physiologique de la 
Digitale et de la Digitaline. (Gourvat, 4°, 74 pp., 1870.) 
21 Brodie, B. C. Experiments and observations on the different modes in which 
death is produced by certain vegetable poisons. Communicated by the Society for 
Promoting the Knowledge of Animal Chemistry. Read February 21, 1811. (Philo- 
sophical Transactions, London, 1811, Vol. XI, p. 178.) 
22 On the reflex function of the medulla oblongata and medulla spinalis. By 
Marshall Hall, M. D., F. R. S. L. and E., etc. Read June 20, 1833. (Philosophical 
Transactions, 1833, p. 644.) 
“The first experiment which I made was upon the turtle. The animal was decap- 
itated in the manner usual with cooks, by means of a knife, which divided the sec- 
ond and third vertebrae. 
“The head being placed upon the table for observation, it was first remarked that 
the mouth opened and shut, and that the submaxillary integument descended and 
ascended, alternately, from time to time, replacing the acts of respiration. I now 
touched the eye or eyelid with the probe. It was immediately closed. The other eye 
closed simultaneously. I then touched the nostril with the probe. The mouth was 
immediately opened widely, and the submaxillary membrane distended. This effect 
was especially induced on touching the nasal fringes situated just within the ante- 
rior part of the maxilla. I passed the probe up the trachea and touched the larynx. 
This was immediately followed by a forcible convulsive contraction of the muscles 
annexed to it. Having made and repeated these observations, I gently withdrew the 
medulla and brain. All the phenomena ceased from that moment. The eye, the 
nostril, and larynx were stimulated, but no movement followed. 
“The next observations were made upon the other parts of the animal. The limbs, 
the tail, were stimulated by a pointed instrument or a lighted taper. They were 
immediately moved with rapidity. The sphincter was perfectly circular and closed; 
it was contracted still more forcibly on the application of the stimulus. The limbs 
and tail possessed a certain degree of firmness or tone, recoiled on being drawn from 
their position, and moved with energy on the application of a stimulus. On with- 
draAving the spinal marrow gently out of its canal, all these phenomena ceased. 
The limbs were no longer obedient to stimuli, and became perfectly flaccid, having 
lost all their resilience. The sphincter lost its circular and its contracted state, 
becoming lax, flaccid, and shapeless. The tail was flaccid and unmoved on the 
application of stimuli. 
“These experiments afford evidence of many important facts in physiology. It 
proves that the presence of the medulla oblongata and spinalis is necessary to the 
contractile function of the eyelids, the submaxillary textures, the larynx, the sphinc- 
ters, the limbs, the tail, on the application of the stimuli to the cutaneous surfaces 
of mucous membranes. It proves the reflex character of this property of the medulla 
oblongata and spinalis, and the dependence of these motions upon the reflex func- 
tion. It proves that the tone of the limbs and the contractile property of the 
sphincter depend upon the same reflex function of the medulla spinalis—effects not 
hitherto suspected by physiologists. 
“On another occasion, having removed the head of a frog, I divided the spine 
between the third and fourth vertebra, and separated the upper portion of the 
animal from the lower. There were then the head, the anterior extremity, and pos- 
terior extremity, with their corresponding portions of medulla, as three distinct 
parts of the animal. Each preserved the reflex function. On touching the eye it 
was retracted, and the eyelids closed, while similar phenomena were observed simul- 
taneously in the other eye. On removing the medulla these phenomena ceased. On 
touching the toe of one of the anterior extremities, the limb and the opposite limb 
equally moved. On removing the spinal marrow this phenomenon ceased, also. 
Precisely similar efforts were observed in regard to the posterior extremity. 
“One of the most remarkable of the phenomena attached to the reflex function in 
animals is that presented by those muscles of the hedgehog (Erinaceus Europaeus) 
by means of Avhich that animal assumes, in certain circumstances, the form and firm- 
ness of a ball. The reflex function seems specially to connect the roots of the spine 
with the muscles. If the animal be examined under the influence of hybernation, 
the reflex function continues for some hours after the brain has been renmved; the 
panniculus carnosis, the limbs, the tail, the larynx, the sphincter ani, remain excit- 
able, and retain a degree of tone. These phenomena cease on removing the medulla 
spinalis. 
“In the case of the decapitated young hedgehog, after all gasping had ceased, 
motions of the larynx are still excited on irritating the nostrils, or on irritating the 
medulla itself; just as the peculiar motions of the trunk are excited on irritating the 
limbs, tail, or spines, or the spinal marrow. 79 
VIVISECTION. 
“Nor are we without evidence that the same principles obtain in the human sub- 
ject. The condition of the infant born without cerebrum or cerebellum, and breath- 
ing from the influence of the medulla oblongata alone, is precisely that of the reflex 
function, with the addition of respiration. Such a case has been witnessed and 
described by Lawrence. ‘The child moved briskly at first, but remained quiet 
afterwards, except when the tumor was pressed, which occasioned general convul- 
sions. It breathed naturally and was not observed to be deficient in warmth until 
its powers declined. I regret that, from fear of alarming the mother, no attempt 
was made to see whether it would take the breast. A little food was given it by the 
hand. It voided urine twice the first day, and once a day afterwards. It had three 
dark-colored evacuations. The medulla spinalis was continued for about an inch 
above the foramen magnum, swelling out into a small bulb, which formed the soft 
tumor on the base of the skull. All the nerves from the fifth to the ninth were con- 
nected to this/ This brief detail is full of interest. The respiration was natural, 
the medulla oblongata being entire. Swallowing was affected when food was 
bi’ought into contact with the pharynx; the sphincters performed their functions; 
the limbs were moved when the skin was first impressed by atmospheric air There 
was no indication of sensation, the child remained quiet after the first brisk move- 
ments, and no event is mentioned which ooiild establish the existence of voluntary 
motion. The acts of swallowing and of the expulsion of the urine and faeces, with 
the functions of the larynx and of the sphincters, belong distinctly to the excito- 
motory system.’’ 
23 Oeuvres de Legallois avec des notes de M. Pariset. (Paris, 1824, t. 1., p. 64.) 
“ Respiration does not depend upon the whole brain, but upon a quite circum- 
scribed part of the medulla oblongata, which is situated at a little distance from the 
occipital foramen and toward the original of the nerves of the eighth pair (or pneu- 
mogastrics). For if one opens the cranium of a young rabbit and extracts the brain 
by successive portions, from before backward, by cutting slices, one can remove in 
this manner all of the brain, so called, and afterwards all of the cerebellum and a por- 
tion of the medulla oblongata. But it (respiration) ceases suddenly when one comes 
to include in the section the origin of the nerves of the eighth pair.” 
24Eecherches Experimentales sur les ProprhStes et les Functions du Systems 
Nerveux dans les Animaux Yert6brds par P. Flourens. (Paris, 1842, p. 55.) 
“ GENERAL CONCLUSIONS OF THE CHAPTER. 
“Sec. VI. 1. The results obtained upon reptiles and mammals reproduce then and 
confirm the results given by birds; 
“With destruction of the cerebral lobes coincides constantly loss of volition and 
perception; 
“With destruction of a single lobe, loss of vision in the opposite eye; 
“With the destruction of the cerebellum, loss *(of the power) of jumping, flight, 
walking, standing, etc.; 
“ With destruction of the medulla oblongata, of the spinal cord, of the nerves 
(coincides), loss of muscular contraction and, in consequence, loss of movement, and 
death. 
“2. Contractions, the immediate excitation of contractions, the association of 
these contractions in movements of the whole body, the coordination of these move- 
ments in jumping, flying, walking, or standing, etc., the willing of these movements, 
sensations, perceptions, all these phenomena are then independent; the organs from 
which they are derived, distinct; their isolation, manifest; their localization, 
demonstrated.” 
§ 11, page 189: “1. We have seen in the preceding chapter that the medulla oblong- 
ata is, in all these classes (mammals, birds, frogs, reptiles, and fishes), the organ 
which is the prime mover or the chief exciter and regulator of the inspiratory move- 
ments. It is, moreover, in all these classes, the organ immediately productive, 
through the nerves, of the inspiratory movements, particularly of the face and 
head; lastly, it is, in fine, in fishes, as I shall show, the prime moving organ, and 
the organ immediately productive of all respiratory movements. 
“2. The medulla oblongata is then, in all the classes, the essential and primordial 
organ of the respiratory mechanism; it is the exclusive organ of this mechanism in 
fishes.” 
(25) An account of Mr. Hunter’s method of performing the operation for the cure 
of popliteal aneurism. Sir Everard Home, hart. (Works of John Hunter, with 
notes by J. F. Palmer. 4 vols. London, 1835. Vol. iii, p. 596.) 
Mr. Hunter, finding an alteration of structure in the coats of the artery previous 
to its dilatation, and that the artery immediately above the sac seldom unites when 
tied up in the operation for aneurism, so that as soon as the ligature comes away 
the secondary bleeding destroys the patient, was led to conclude that a previous 80 
VIVISECTION. 
disease took place in the coats of the artery, in consequence of which it admitted 
of dilation capable of producing an aneurism. But not satisfied with the experi- 
ments on frogs given by Haller, in support of the opinion that weakness alone was 
sufficient to produce the dilatation, he resolved to try the result in a quadruped, 
which, from the vessels being very similar in structure to those of the human sub- 
ject, would be more likely to ascertain the truth or fallacy of Haller’s opinion. 
Mr. Hunter’s account of the experiment (ibid., vol. i, p. 544): 
“However, whatever may have been either the remote or immediate cause” (of 
aneurism), “it must, in fact, in all cases arise from a disproportion between the force 
of the blood and the strength of the artery, the coats being weakened so as not to 
be able to support the force of the blood in its passage along its canal, which there- 
fore gives away. This weakness of the coats of the artery would appear, in most 
cases, to depend on disease, for accidents, coeteris paribus, have generally the power 
of recovery. As a proof of this, I will relate an experiment made to ascertain the 
truth of the existence of the mixed kind” (of aneurism), “which was supposed to 
arise from a partial destruction of the coats of an artery, and that the remaining 
coat being too weak to sustain the force of the circulation, gave way and distended. 
That the artery might have the full force of the blood’s motion, I chose the carotid, 
as being near the heart. 
“ One of the carotid arteries of a dog, for an inch in length, was laid bare, and its 
coat removed, layer after layer, until the blood was seen through the remaining 
transparent coat, and I had gone as far as I dared; I then left the artery alone for 
three weeks, when I killed the dog, expecting to find a dilatation of the artery as had 
been asserted; but to my surprise the sides of the wound had closed on the artery, 
and the whole was consolidated to and over it, forming a strong bond of union, so 
that the whole was stronger than ever.” 
Volume 111, page 598: “ Mr. Hunter, from having made these observations, was led 
to propose that in this operation” (for popliteal aneurism) “the artery should be 
taken np in the anterior part of the thigh, at some distance from the diseased part, 
so as to diminish the risk of hemorrhage, and admit of the artery being more readily 
secured, should any such accident happen. The force of the circulation being thus 
taken off from the aneurisraal sac, the progress of the disease would be stopped; and 
he thought it probable that, if the parts were left to themselves, the sac, with its con- 
tents, might be absorbed, and the whole of the tumor removed, which would render 
any opening into the sac unnecessary, 
“Experiments and observations on the growth of bones, from the papers of the late 
Mr. Hunter.” (Published by Mr. (afterwards Sir Everard) Home, in the second vol- 
ume of the Transactions of the Society for the Improvement of Medical and Chi- 
rurgical Knowledge.) (Ibid., vol. iv, p. 315.) Read October 4, 1798: 
“It was some time anterior to the year 1772 that Mr. Hunter began to investigate 
this subject, and an account of the experiments and observations was given to me 
to copy in that year, as a part of his future lectures. 
“Du Hamel has published a vefy ingenious theory upon the growth of bones, 
which he endeavored to support by experiments tending to prove that bones grow by 
the extension of their parts. With this doctrine Mr. Hunter was not satislied, and 
instituted experiments to determine the truth of Du Hamel’s opinion. 
“ Mr. Hunter began his experiments by feeding animals with madder, which has the 
property of tinging with a red color that part only of the hone which is added while 
the animal is confined to this particular food. He fed two pigs with madder for a 
fortnight, and at the end of that period one of them was killed; the bones, upon 
■examination externally, had a red appearance; when sections were made of them, 
the exterior part was found to be principally colored, and the interior was much less 
tinged. 
“The other pig was allowed to live for a fortnight longer, but had no madder in 
its food; it was then killed, and the exterior part of the hones was found of the 
natural color, but the interior was red. 
“He made many other experiments of the same kind upon the increase of the thick- 
ness of the neck and head of the thigh bone. From thence it appeared that the 
addition of new matter was made to the upper surface, and a proportional quantity 
of the old removed from the lower, so as to keep the neck of the same form and 
relatively in its place. 
“To ascertain that the cylindrical bones are not elongated, by new matter being 
interposed in the interstices of the old, he made the following experiment: Hebored 
two holes in the tibia of a pig, one near the upper end and the other near the lower; 
the space between the holes was exactly 2 inches; a small leaden shot was inserted 
into each hole. When the bone had been increased in its length by the growth of the 
animal the pig was killed, and the space within the two shot was also exactly 2 
inches. 
“This experiment was repeated several times on different pigs, but the space be- 
tween the two shot was never increased during the growth of the bone. VIVISECTION. 
81 
‘‘Besides these experiments on the growth of hones, he made others to determine 
the process of their exfoliation.’7 
* * * * * * * 
“Bones, according to Mr. Hunter’s doctrine, grew by two processes going on at 
the same time and assisting each other; the arteries bring the supplies to the bone 
for its increase; the absorbents are at the same time employed in removing portions 
of the old bone so as to give to the new the proper form. By these means the bone 
becomes larger without having any material change produced in its external shape.” 
2(3 Experiments and Observations on the Union of Fractured Bones. By John How- 
ship, esq. Read March 17, 1817. (Medico-Chirurgical Transactions. London, 1818, 
vol. ix, p. 143.) 
Page 145: “The followiug experiments were made upon rabbits, selected at about 
the age of 12 mouths, the period at which, from their beginning to bear young, they 
may be considered to have nearly attained their full growth.” 
Six experiments were performed. 
Page 170: “Having at length completed the account of my obsevations upon 
fracture, I shall now lay before the society the conclusions drawn from the above 
inquiry, which will close the present paper. 
“The first effect of fracture is extravasation of blood into the surrounding soft 
parts, the quantity poured out varying according to the degree of contusion or com- 
plication.” 
Page 171; “ The blood effused in fracture suffers various degrees of change; but 
under all circumstances it forms the medium in which the ossific process is established.” 
Page 172; “ The mode of progress in the ossific process seems to indicate a degree 
of caution, as if a principal object was to guard against the possibility of the least 
disturbance or motion between the parts of the bone subsequent to the act of union.” 
The circumstances of the fracture evidently regulate the quantity and seats of the 
ossific deposit. In simple transverse fracture with little contusion where the bone 
is immediately reduced and the limb kept perfectly quiet the degree of internal lac- 
eration will be small, the effusion of blood inconsiderable, and the ultimate deposit 
of bone moderate in proportion.” 
Page 173: “In oblique fracture, where the bones have suffered more violence at 
the moment of accident and are retained with more difficulty when reduced, the 
effusion of blood will be greater, and the quantity of ossific matter formed will be 
also more abundant.” 
27Flourens P. Recherches sur la formation des os. (Compt. rend Acad. d. Sc., 
Paris, 1844, xix, 621-625.) 
28 Heine, B. Ueber die Wiedererzeugung neuer Knochenmasse, und Bildung never 
Knochen. (J. d. Chir. u. Augenh. Berlin, 1836, xxiv, 513-527, also Gaz. Med. de 
Paris, 1837, v. 386-388.) 
39Syme. Trans. Eoy. Soo. Edin., 1836, vol. xiv, p. 158. 
30 Ollier, L. Des moyens cbirurgicaux de favoriser la reproduction des os apres les 
resections; de la conservation dn perioste; resections sous-p6riostees; de la conser- 
vation de la couclie osseuse peripbirique; evidement des os. (Gaz. bebdom. de Med. 
Paris, 1658, v. 572, 651, 733, 769, 853, 899.) 
Ollier, L. Recberches experi men tales sur la production artificielle des os, on moyen 
de la transplantation due perioste et sur la r6g6n6ratiou des os, apres les rdsections 
et les ablations completes. (J. de la pbysiol. de 1 ’homme, Par., 1859, ii, 1169, 468.) 
Ollier, L. De la transplantation des elements anatomiques dn blasteme sous-peri- 
osteal; formation des petitess grains osseux dans la region oil ont 6te sem6s ces 61e- 
ments. (Compt. rend. Soc. de biol., Par., 1860, 3 s., i, 108.) 
Ollier, L. Nouvelle demonstration de la regeneration osseuse apres les resections 
sous-periostees articnlaires. (Bull. gen. de tberap., etc., Paris, 1870, Ixxix, 258-261.) 
Du Perioste an Point de Yue Physiologique et Cbirurgical, communication faite an 
congres medical de Lyons le 28 September, 1864, par M. Ollier, chirurgien en cbef de 
l’H6tel-Dieu de Lyon. (Gaz. bebdom. de Med., Paris, 1863, 2 s., ii, 82,116, 152,195.) 
“Proposition first: That tbe periosteum produces osseous tissue by a normal devel- 
opment, in tbe order of its proper anatomic elements. The deeper layer, composed 
of protoplasmic cells, possesses this property, and to this layer I have given the 
name osteogenic.” 
VIV 6 82 
VIVISECTION. 
“I first repeated the experiments of my predecessors, hut in studying the role of 
the periosteum with Du Hamel in fracture, or Heine and M. Flourens in resections, 
I have recognized that it was difficult to determine the part played by the divers 
elements of the bone in the act of reproductions.” 
“I isolated the different tissues; I studied them separately, either in their normal 
situation, preserving the while their anatomic relations, or displacing and trans- 
planting them into distant regions. I experimented with the periosteum, the mar- 
row, cartilage, bone, and the adjacent tissues, muscles, and tendons, and 1 arrived 
at results which permit the setting forth of propositions which I believe sufficiently 
exact to prevent all controversy. 
“I commenced with the periosteum, which I detached from the bone; I first dis- 
sected up a piece of this membrane, 5 or fi centimeters long, from the tibia of a rab- 
bit ; 1 rolled it around the limb amongst the muscles and under the skin, and I obtained 
bone, or rather osseous prolongations of varied form. I produced bone in a circle, 
in a spiral, in a cross, etc., and finally I gave to the new bone any form I desired, 
and for this purpose 1 had but to fix the periosteum iu a predetermined way; after 
from twenty to twenty-five days (iu the rabbit, the cat, or the dog; I found new bone 
of the form of periosteum, or to speak more correctly, I found the periosteum ossified. 
“This experiment seemed to me fundamental; it furnished simple and irrefutable 
proof of the osteogenic property of the periosteum; and it answered the greater part 
of the objections which had been offered to the doctrine of Du Hamel, from the lime 
of Haller to Bichat. 
“ It proved that the periosteum produces bone of itself, independently of the neigh- 
boring tissues; and from a surgical point of view it promised new resources in 
autoplasty; it also showed us the manner in which ossification takes place in abnor- 
mal regions. But I did not stop at this first experiment, which I saw was so signal. 
Being anxious to obtain results of surgical value I modified it so as to make it still 
more convincing, and by means of it answered all objections that it was possible for 
me to foresee. 
“After having detached and fixed my shred of periosteum among the muscles, I 
left it to live, or at least to form certain adhesions during three or four days; then, 
finding that it had become ossified, I detached from the bone 4 or 5 mm. of the entire 
depth of the periosteum in a manner to interrupt all connection between the perios- 
teum and bone. I established then, that, in spite of this interruption, the periosteum 
continued to ossify, and that new bone, independently of the normal bone, was formed 
there. 
“But rhis did not yet satisfy me. To answer at once all possible objections, I 
conceived the idea of transplanting the periosteum into distant regions, immediately 
after its separation from the bone. 
“1 transplanted it from the leg to the forehead or back, and I saw that this mem- 
brane carried with it everywhere its osteogenic property. Everywhere I engrafted 
the periosteum new bone was formed; this was not an unformed mass of calcareous 
particles, but a bone formed of the characteristic elements of osseous tissue, hollow- 
ing itself out into spaces in its interior, and having after a certain time a veritable 
canal containing medullary substance, and surrounded by a compact layer.” 
31 Mr. Rand. A New Method for the Treatment of Neuralgia by Subcutaneous 
Injection, 1855. 
32 John Hunter, loc. cit. 
33 A Treatise on the Process Employed by Nature in Suppressing Hemorrhage from 
Divided and Punctured Arteries. (J. F. D. Jones. B°, Lend., 1802.) 
I have been unable to find the above treatise, but the following account of the 
experiments is given by Travers, loc. cit., page 440: 
“Jones ascertained that the effusion of lymph from the wound inflicted by the 
ligature was sufficient, even if the ligature were removed upon the instant to obstruct 
the artery. By including a loose thread along with the artery in the ligature he 
readily withdrew the latter after the infliction of the wound. In one instance he 
succeeded with a single ligature, and in several instances with two, three, or four, 
made at a small distance apart. The lymph effused was in proportion to the extent 
of the section, or if this was incomplete, the union was equally so. He was led to 
canclude that the complete circular section of the internal coat was indispensable to 
union, and the success which attended his experiments led him to conjecture that in 
some surgical cases removing the ligature as soon as it was made would be an effi- 
cient operation. This suggestion, the value of which he left to be determined by 
future experiments, was caught at with eagerness by his readers, and by many con- 
sidered to be the essence of his publications.” 
In a footnote the following quotation is given from Jones, page 136: 
“I leave the fact, viz.—(the complete obstruction of an artery consequent upon the VIVISECTION. 
83 
momentary application of a ligature), for those who have opportunities of applying 
it in practice when all the circumstances which determine its success or failure shall 
have been fully ascertained by further experiments on brutes.” 
34 “ Observations upon the ligature of arteries and the causes of secondary hemor- 
rhage.” Benjamin Travers. (Medico-Chirurgical Transactions, vol. iv, p. 435.) 
Read October 26, 1813. 
Page 439: “It is curious to observe the revolution which has taken place within 
a few years in this branch of surgical practice since experimental inquiry has fur- 
nished the true explanation of the principle upon which the ligature acts. Mr. 
Hunter and the surgeons who after him practiced the operation for popliteal aneu- 
rism were in the habit of applying the ligature with force only sufficient to bring 
the sides of the vessel in contact; and some included an extraneous body, as a piece 
of cork or wood or a roll of linen, to prevent the lesion of the artery in the act of 
tightening the ligature. The fear of cutting the coats of the artery was uppermost 
in the minds of all, and next to this the fear of quickening the process of ulceration 
and the casting off of the ligature.” 
Page 443; “The original experiment of Jones, in whatever light we view it, is of 
unquestionable importance, and deserves to be highly appreciated. While its occa- 
sional failure demonstrates that the apposition of the cut surfaces is essential to the 
certain obliteration of the vessel, its occasional success establishes that, coeteris 
paribus, it can not with this precaution fail of its intention.” As a basis for the 
statements made in this paper, Travers performed five experiments upon the ligatur- 
ing of arteries, using the ass, dog, and horse. 
In another paper on the same subject, which appears in Volume VI of the Trans- 
actions of the Medico-Chirurgical Society, page 632, he records nineteen other 
experiments. 
The first eight were undertaken “ to ascertain the earliest period at which the liga- 
ture might be removed and the artery wounded without hemorrhage.” 
Page 643: “The experiments next to be related give the operation of the Com- 
pressor, and were undertaken with a view to determine its merits as a surgical instru- 
ment, comparatively with the ligature. Professor Assalini, of Milan, who lately 
visited this country, entertains a preference for the practice of compression in the 
operation for aneurism. He had employed it with success in three cases of pop- 
liteal aneurism.” 
Experiment XV.—“I wished to know the effect of leaving the compressor upon the 
vessel and the time in which it was liberated by ulceration.” 
Page 658; “In contemplating the removal of the ligature at a given time it 
becomes essential to ascertain if this can be done with equal security when a branch 
is contiguous as when at a distance. With this view I made the following experi- 
ments (Exp. XVI-XIX): 
Page 662: “The practical application of the facts and deductions contained in 
this and my former essay (Vol. IV) will probably be the subject of a future commu- 
nication to the society. 
“It is, however, in my judgment, a subject too important to be lightly disposed 
of; and it carries with it, in reference to surgical practice, a responsibility too seri- 
ous to justify a rude and hurried trial of its merits.” 
3B “On the torsion of arteries as a means of arresting hemorrhage, with experi- 
ments.” By Thomas Bryant, F. R. C. S. (Medico-Chirurgical Transactions, 1868, 
vol. li, p. 199.) 
Page 203; “I propose to relate seriatim the experiments I have made upon the dog, 
horse, and human subjects to test the value of torsion, and to observe the process by 
which the vessels so treated become permanently sealed.” 
Experiment 1 (February 4, 1868).—“ I divided the left femoral artery of a dog just 
below Poupart’s ligament, and twisted the cardiac end by ‘free’ torsion four times 
with success. During this time the distal end was held by forceps and when these 
were removed hemorrhage occurred; the bleeding extremity was, however, seized 
by forceps and twisted four complete revolutions; all bleeding at once ceased, and 
by the seventh day the wound had united. 
“The dog was killed the 11thday after the operation.” 
Experiment IV (February 11, 1868).—“! cut down upon and divided the right com- 
mon carotid artery of a dog. I applied ‘free’ torsion to the cardiac end, making 
three revolutions without success, and accordingly seized the vessel again and 
twisted it four times more. Hemorrhage was at once arrested. Three complete 
twists were then given to the distal end of the artery and no bleeding followed. 84 
VIVISECTION. 
“On the second day the dog was quite well, he had taken his food as usual, and 
appeared in no way disturbed by the operation. On the following day the animal 
was destroyed. 
“It must be noticed that in this case, as in the second experiment, three rotations 
of the artery were not sufficient to arrest bleeding; four proved successful in both 
cases.” 
Experiment VII {March 17,1568).—“I cut down upon and divided the left common 
carotid artery of a horse; applied two pairs of torsion forceps transversely to the 
vessel, and divided the artery midway between them, leaving an inch of artery on 
the distal side of each pair of forceps. With a third pair of torsion forceps 1 then 
seized the extremity of the artery at its cardie end, and twisted it seven complete 
revolutions. I then removed the instrument that fixed the vessel, and not a drop of 
blood escaped; the pulsations in the vessel were very strong. The same treatment 
was then applied to the distal end with a like result. It was certainly something 
astonishing to see the great vessel fill out and pulsate after the operation without one 
drop of blood escaping; and although the animal plunged somewhat during and 
after the operation, the success was most complete. The animal was allowed to live 
for forty-eight hours, and then killed,” 
36Rayer and Davaine. (Bull de la Soc. de Biol, de Paris, 1850.) 
“ In the blood are found little thread-like bodies about twice the length of a blood 
corpuscle. Those little bodies exhibit no spontaneous motion.” However, no impor- 
tance was attached to their presence. 
Davaine. Nouvelles recherches sur les infusiores du sang dans la maladie con- 
nune sous le nom de sang de rate. (Compt. rend. Soc. de Biol. 1863. Par. 1864, 3 
S. V., 149-152.) 
37The life of the Trichina. (Monograph) 1864, p. 21. By Rudolph Virchow, 
M. D., Ph. D. Translated by Rufus King Brown, M. D. 
The author states that he received from Ur. Zenker some of the muscle of a girl 
who died of trichinosis and also some of the flesh of the pig that caused her disease. 
“A rabbit fed with the trichiua from the girl died in a month with its flesh full of 
them. Some of its flesh was given to a second rabbit. It also died in a month. With 
this meat three other rabbits were fed. Of these, two died at the end of the third 
week, and the other in the fourth week. To another animal the meat of this was 
fed. As it ate but little it lived six weeks. In all these the muscles after death 
were found filled with trichina: Even in the smallest particle of their meat several 
were found.” 
38 Cause and nature of tuberculosis. J. A. Villemin. Gaz. hebdom. de med. Par. 
1865, 2 s., ii, 795. 
1. “Tuberculosis is the effect of a specific agent, of a virus, in a word. 
2. “This agent should be found, as its congeners, in the morbid products which it 
gives rise to by a direct action upon the normal elements of the tissues affected. 
3. “Introduced into an organism susceptible to it, this agent should then repro- 
duce itself, and reproduce, at the same time, the disease of which it is the essential 
and determining cause. 
“Experimentation is undertaken to confirm these inductive conclusions. The 
results are as follows: 
“First series: Of two rabbits one is inoculated with two little fragments of tuber- 
cular tissue and pus from a lung cavity. The other is kept as a control. The two 
were placed under like conditions of existence. At the autopsies the inoculated 
rabbit was found to be infected, while its mate showed absolutely no sign of tubercle. 
“ Second series: Four rabbits were inoculated with tubercular matter, and when 
killed all of them were found infected. Two other rabbits, which had been kept 
with these and afterwards used for physiologic purposes, presented no trace of 
tuberculization.” 
From these experiments Villemin draws the following conclusions: 
1. Pulmonary phthisis (as tubercular diseases in general) is a specific infection. 
2. Its cause is an inoculable agent. 
3. The inoculation can easily be made from man to the rabbit. 
4. Tuberculosis belongs, then, to the class of virulent diseases, and should have 
a place in the nosologic table, along with syphilis, but better, perhaps, with glan- 
ders and farcy. 
Continuing his experiments to the third series, three pairs of rabbits were taken 
and one of each pair inoculated. Two of the pairs are put in the same cage. At 
the autopsies those not inoculated show no signs of tuberculosis. 
S9De I’attdnuation du virus du cholera des poules, par M. L. Pasteur. (Comptes 
Rendus, t. xci., p. 673.) VIVISECTION. 
85 
Chamberland. Le charbon et la vaccination charbonneuse d’aprhs les travaux 
recents de M. Pasteur. (Paris, Tignol, 1883, p. 9et seq. Translation for New Syden- 
ham Society, 1886, p. 551 et seq.) 
“ The experiments were commenced in the early days of August, 1878. They con- 
sisted at first in feeding certain lots of sheep with lucerne which had been watered 
with artificial cultivations of the bacterium of anthrax full of the parasite and its 
spores. Notwithstanding the immense number of the spores of the bacterium swal- 
lowed by all the sheep of each lot, many of them, often after having been distinctly 
ill, escaped death. A smaller number died with all the symptoms of spontaneous 
anthrax after a period of incubation which might extend to eight or ten days, 
although at the end the disease took on the almost sudden characters frequently 
noted by observers, who have thus been led to believe in a very short period of 
incubation. 
“The mortality was increased by mixing with the food, sprinkled with the spores, 
sharp-pointed objects, especially the pointed extremities of the leaves of dried 
thistles, and above all the beards of ears of barley cut into small fragments about a 
millimeter long. 
“It was of great importance to ascertain whether the autopsy of animals dying 
under these conditions would show similar lesions to those observed in animals 
dying spontaneously in stables, or in Hocks penned in the open air. The lesions in 
the two cases are identical, and their nature authorized the conclusion that the dis- 
ease begins in the mouth or pharynx.” 
De Tattenuation des virus et de leur retour a la virulence, par M. L. Pasteur avec 
la collaboration de MM. Chamberland et Roux. (Comptes Rendus, t. xcii, p. 429.) 
“I have made known in papers recently published the first example of the attenua- 
tion of a virus by experimental means alone. It seems probable that the oxygen of 
the air is the chief cause of these attenuations, that is to say, of these diminutions 
in the facility with which the microbe multiplies; for it is clear that the various 
degrees of virulence are identified with the varying power of the parisite to develop 
in the economy. The virus of anthrax, being one of the best studied, must be the 
first to attract our attention. A mycelial growth of the bacterium entirely free from 
spores can be maintained in contact with pure air at a temperature between 42° C. 
and 43° C. 
“After an interval of about one month the cultivation is found to be dead, that is 
to say, fresh broth inoculated with it remains completely sterile. On the day before 
that on which inability to grow is noted, and on every preceding day during the 
month, reproduction of the growth is, on the contrary, easy. 
“With regard to its virulence, we discover this remarkable fact: After remaining 
for eight days at a temperature of 42° to 43° C., and ever afterwards, the bacterium 
has lost its virulence; at least its cultivations are inocuous to the guinea pig, the 
rabbit, and the sheep, three of the animals most likely to contact splenic fever. We 
are, therefore, by using a simple artifice in cultivating, able to produce not merely 
an attenuation of virulence, but a suppression which is apparently complete. More 
than this, we have the power of preserving and cultivating the terrible microbe in 
this inoffensive condition.” 
EXPERIMENTAL, APPLICATION OF THE METHOD (OF INDUCING IMMUNITY). 
“M. Pasteur proposed that 60 sheep should be used for this experiment, and con- 
sented that the request be made of the president of the Agricultural Society to extend 
the experiment to 10 cows. He foretold that all sheep not protected by inoculation of 
attenuated virus would die, and that all the cows not so protected would be at least 
made ill, and that some wrould die when inoculated with a very virulent virus, 
while all the protected sheep would survive the inoculation with this very virulent 
virus, and that the cows would not be made ill. Ten sheep were not to be dealt with 
in any way, but kept for ultimate comparison with the inoculated sheep.” 
For further work done by Pasteur on immunity consult Sur la rage, par M. Pas- 
teur avec la collaboration de MM. Chamberland et Roux (Comptes Rendus, t. xcviii, 
p. 1229) and M6thode pour prevenir la rage apres morsure, par M. L. Pasteur. 
(Ibid., t. ci, p. 766.) 
40 The Etiology of Tuberculosis, by Dr. Robert Koch. Translated by Mr. Stanley 
Boyd in Microparasites in Disease, pages 157-160. Infection experiments with tissue 
containing tubercle bacilli; 
“The inoculation was effected by making a small incision in the abdominal wall 
of a guinea pig with the scissors, inserting the point of the scissors to form a pocket- 
like subcutaneous -wound about a half centimeter deep. Into this little pocket a 
fragment of the inoculation substance about the size of a millet or mustard seed was 
pushed as deeply as possible. On the following day the inoculation wound was 
always united, glued together, and showed no reaction. Generally it was not till 
after a couple of weeks that a visible swelling of the lymphatic glands next the seat VIVISECTION. 
of inoculation occurred, usually the inguinal glands on one side, and at the same 
time induration and the development of a nodule took place in the inoculated wound, 
which up till then had remained perfectly healed. After this the lymphatic glands 
enlarged rapidly, frequently to the size of a hazelnut, the nodule at the seat of 
inoculation then generally broke, and became covered with a dry crust, beneath 
which was a flat ulcer with a cheesy floor, discharging very slightly. The animals 
began to lose flesh about this time, their coat became bristly, dyspnoea set in, and 
they died generally between the fourth and eighth weeks, or they were killed within 
the same space of time. In some instances the inoculation substance was inserted 
into a pocket-like wound in the skin of a rabbit also. But, as the course of the dis- 
ease was not so constant and rapid as in the guinea pigs after subcutaneous inocula- 
tion, I inoculated rabbits afterwards only in the anterior chamber of the eye. 
“The following inoculations were carried out in the way above described: 
“1. Miliary tuberculosis: Tubercle of the pia mater, very rich in tubercle bacilli; 
6 guinea pigs. Of these 1 died five, 2 six, and 2 seven weeks after inoculation. The 
sixth was killed in the eighth week. In all the animals the lungs, liver, and spleen 
were highly tubercular, and the inguinal glands had undergone caseation. 
“2. Miliary tuberculosis: Gray nodules in the lungs, with fairly numerous tuber- 
cle bacilli; 6 guinea pigs. Three died in the sixth week; the rest were killed some 
days later. All tubercular, as in No. 1. 
“3. Miliary tuberculosis: Grayish yellow nodules from the spleen and kidneys, 
with not many tubercle bacilli; 6 guinea pigs. Died in the sixth and seventh weeks. 
All tubercular, as in No. 1. 
“4. Miliary tuberculosis: Gray nodules from the lung, fairly rich in bacilli; 3 
guinea pigs. Two died in the sixth, 1 in the seventh week. All tubercular, as in 
No. 1. 
“5. Miliary tuberculosis: Gray nodules from the lung containing few bacilli; 5 
guinea pigs, 2 rabbits, at the root of the ear. One guinea pig died after eight weeks; 
the remainder were killed some days later. All were tubercular. The rabbits killed 
after ten weeks had caseous lymphatic glands at the root of the ear and in the neck, 
tolerably abundant gray nodules in the lungs, a few in the kidneys and the spleen. 
Five more guinea pigs were inoculated with the tubercles from the spleen of one of 
the guinea pigs. Three of these died in the eighth week. The two remaining were 
killed the same week, and all found tubercular. Some of the cheesy glandular sub- 
stance from a rabbit was rubbed up with water and injected into the peritoneal 
cavity in two rabbits. When these two animals were killed after eight weeks tuber- 
culosis of the omentum, spleen, and liver was found, together with a fair number of 
gray nodules in both lungs. 
“6. Caseous pneumonia and tuberculosis of the meninges: Two guinea pigs inocu- 
lated with the cheesy substance from the lungs, in which there were numbers of 
bacilli. The animals died in the fifth and sixth weeks. All tubercular. 
“7. Lungs showing caseous infiltration with many bacilli: Six guinea pigs. The 
first died after six weeks. The remainder were very ill at the time and were killed 
a few days later. All tubercular. 
“8. Phthisical lungs with cavities, intestinal ulcers, and cheesy mesenteric glands: 
Two guinea pigs were inoculated from the contents of cavity containing a fair num- 
ber of bacilli, and four more from the meseuteric glands, which were very full of 
bacilli. The latter died in the fifth and sixth weeks. Of the first two, one died in 
the sixth week and the other was killed a few days later. All tubercular. 
“9. Caseous bronchitis and intestinal tuberculosis: Five guinea pigs were inocu- 
lated from the lung substance, in which there was a good number of bacilli. Two 
of them died in the eighth week. The remainder were killed before the end of the 
same week. All tubercular. 
“10. Phthisical lungs with cavities: Four guinea pigs inoculated from the consol- 
idated lung tissue, in which were only a few bacilli. Three of them died in the 
seventh and eighth weeks, the last not till the twelfth week. All tubercular. 
“11. Phthisical sputum : Niue guinea pigs were inoculated at different times with 
fresh sputum containing a varying number of tubercle bacilli taken from three dif- 
ferent patients. Some of the animals died before the eighth week. Some were then 
killed. They were all tubercular. 
“ 12. Phthisical sputum dried for two weeks: Three guinea pigs. Two died in the 
sixth week. The third was killed at the same time. All tubercular. 
“13. Phthisical sputum dried for two months: Three guinea pigs, killed after five 
weeks, and tubercles found in lungs, liver, and spleen. 
“14. Tuberculosis of the uterus and tubes: Six guinea pigs inoculated with cheesy 
material from the tubes. Two animals died at seven weeks. The others were killed 
in the ninth week. All tubercular. 
“28. With lung tubercles from a second monkey, dying of spontaneous tubercu- 
losis, two guinea pigs were inoculated and died of tuberculosis in the eighth and 
ninth weeks. From these guinea pigs again two guinea pigs and one rabbit were VIVISECTION. 
inoculated. They were killed in the sixth week, as they seemed already ill, and they 
were found to be already tubercular. 
‘‘Two more guinea pigs were inoculated from the same monkey with lung tubercles 
which had been dried and kept for three days. They, too, were killed in the sixth 
week, and found tubercular. For the infection experiments just detailed (including 
13 not quoted) 79 guinea pigs, 35 rabbits, and 4 cats were used altogether, and the 
inoculation of these animals resulted in tuberculosis without exception.” 
4i and 42 Experiments on the immunity and cure of tetanus in animals. (Zeitschr' 
f. Hygiene u. Infections-Krankheiten. 12, 1892, 45-57. By Dr. Behring.) 
“In November, 1890, I, in an announcement with Mr. Kitasato, stated that with 
the blood of a rabbit rendered immune from tetanus, we could prevent mice from 
taking the disease, and if they had been infected we could cure them. 
“ The certainty of the cure and the immunity of even such animals as had received 
more than a hundred times the dose of the fatal infection, exceeded our greatest 
expectation. If in the manipulation no technical mistakes were made, unfavorable 
results were entirely excluded.” 
Here the author states that the practicality of this method was suggested by his 
experiments in diphtheria, and that he and Dr. Kitasato arranged to do all they 
could to perfect the new method so it could be used for larger animals than mice, 
and especially that it might be used to render the human body immune from tetanus. 
They were stimulated to their research by the belief that they had a method which 
was applicable to different infectious diseases. Drs. Kitasato and Behring carried 
on their investigations separately, but each assisted the other where possible. 
The successful use of IC13 in diphtheria led Dr. Behring to apply it for the purpose 
of rendering immune from tetanus. 
The author states that the experiments upon rabbits were very successful, and that 
the experiments were among the easier tasks which a bacteriologist had to perform. 
The first requisite of success being an exact knowledge of the action of the culture 
relatively to the filtrate. In one month Dr. Behring received eight cultures from Dr. 
Kitasato and tested the effectiveness of them on mice and rabbits. He gives an 
account of the last of these cultures. It was received November 15,1891, in bouillon 
and stood in the culture ten days. 
“ Upon opening the paraffin the odor characteristic of tetanus was given off, and 
a microscopical examination revealed an abundance of bacteria and spores.” 
43 Archiv fur Anatomic. 1870. On the electrical irritability of the cerebrum. By 
G. Fritsch and E. Hitzig. 
Page 308: “In the first experiment we used unnarcotized animals—dogs—but later 
narcotized, and proceeded to open the skull in as level a spot as possible. Then 
with the sharp, round bone forceps we removed either the entire half of the skull, 
or only the part covering the frontal lobe of the brain. 
“In most cases after experimenting on one hemisphere we removed the other half 
of the skull in exactly the same way. In all these cases, after one dog had died of 
hemorrhage through a small injury to the longitudinal sinus, we left a long bridge 
of bone to protect it. 
“ Now the dura, which had been left intact thus far, was slightly cut and grasped 
with the forceps and laid back to the edge of the skull. Hereupon the dog expressed 
violent pain by whining and characteristic twitohings. 
“ But later, when it had been exposed to the air for a longer time, the remainder 
of the dura mater was rendered far more sensitive, a circumstance which in carry- 
ing out the experiment had to be taken carefully into consideration. However, we 
could shock in any degree thepia. through mechanical or any other irritation, with- 
out the animal manifesting sensation.” 
After giving a description of the electrical apparatus used, the authors continue: 
“ The following are the results which we give as a summary of a very great num- 
ber of experiments on the brain of the dog, which harmonize for the most part to 
the minutest detail, without describing all the experiments: 
“A part of the convexity of the cerebrum of the dog is motor, and another part is 
not motor. The motor part is placed, as it is generally expressed, more to the front, 
the nonmotor lies toward the back. 
“Through the electric stimuli of the motor part one obtains combined muscle 
contraction of the opposite half of the body.” 
44Ferrier. Functions of the brain, 1886, p. xxii. 
The following resolutions regarding vivisection were adopted by the 
Congress of American Physicians and Surgeons, and are respectfully 
called to the attention of your committee: 
[Transactions of the Congress of American Physicians and Surgeons, Vol. 111, 1894, p. XXI.] 
Dr. William H. Welch, of Johns Hopkins University, called attention to the fact 
that a hill had been presented in Congress forbidding experimentation on animals 88 
VIVISECTION. 
in tlie District of Columbia, and there was a probability of the favorable report of 
the bill. He moved the adoption of the following, viz: 
Whereas the attempts in other countries to regulate by legislation the practice of 
experimentation upon animals have proven most disastrous to the progress of med- 
ical science and art: 
Resolved, That the Congress of American Physicians and Surgeons enter their most 
earnest protest against any legislation tending to interfere with the advancement of 
medicine by means of experiments upon animals conducted by properly qualified 
persons. 
Resolved, That a copy of these regulations, signed by the president and secretary 
of this Congress, be sent to the Speaker of the House and presiding officer of the 
Senate, and to the proper committees of the Senate and House. 
The resolutions were adopted. 
The papers which I have thus far submitted treat the subject from 
a general standpoint, while the following resolutions, adopted by the 
Joint Commission of the seven Scientific Societies of Washington, refer 
directly to the bill now before Congress: 
Resolved, That the joint commission of the scientific societies of Washington, 
composed of the officers of the several scientific societies of the city, most earnestly 
opposes the legislation proposed by Senate bill 1552, entitled “A bill for the further 
prevention of cruelty to animals in the District of Columbia.” 
Resolved, That in the opinion of this commission the proposed legislation is unnec- 
essary and would seriously interfere with the advancement of biological science in 
this District; that it would be especially harmful in its restriction of experiments 
relating to the cause, prevention, and cure of the infectious diseases of man and of 
the lower animals; that the researches made in this department of biological and 
medical science have been of immense benefit to the human race, and that, in gen- 
eral, our knowledge of physiology, of toxicology, and of pathology, forming the 
basis of scientific medicine, has been largely obtained by experiments upon living 
animals, and could have been obtained in no other way. 
Resolved, That physicians and others who are engaged in research work having 
for its object the extension of human knowledge and the prevention and cure of 
disease are the best judges of the character of the experiments required and of the 
necessity of using anaesthetics, and that in our judgment they may be trusted to con- 
duct such experiments in a humane manner, and to give anaesthetics when required 
to prevent pain. To subject them to penalties and espionage, as is proposed by the 
bill under consideration, would, we think, be an unjust and unmerited reflection 
upon a class of men who are entitled to our highest consideration. 
Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to each member of the Commit- 
tee on the District of Columbia in the House of Representatives and the Senate of 
the United States, and to the District Commissioners. 
I certify that the foregoing is a correct copy of resolutions passed by the joint 
commission of the scientific societies of Washington at the meeting held on Febru- 
ary 19, 1896. 
J, Stanley-Brown, Secretary. 
The following editorial in the Medical News of February 15, 1896, 
also refers directly to Senate bill 1552: 
THE ANTIVIVISECTION BILE IN CONGRESS. 
In another column we print a detailed account, by our special correspondent, of 
the hearing before The District Commissioners on Senate bill 1552, to which we invite 
the careful consideration of the medical and scientific professions. The hill is 
printed in full, together with a list of the Senate and House committees through 
whose hands this bill will pass before it reaches the floor for general consideration. 
These details are given with a purpose. First of all, the medical men of the country 
should know the exact contents of the hill, and the edition printed by Congress is so 
limited that it is impossible for our Washington confreres to obtain a sufficient 
number of copies for distribution. In the next place, it is important for the medical 
profession to know exactly who the Senators and Congressmen are to whom this bill 
has been referred for careful consideration. These Senators and Congressmen should 
he informed by the medical and scientific men of their respective States of the 
absolute absurdity of this bill and of its injustice to science, and we urge that mem- 
bers of the profession in the States from which these Senators and Representatives 
come take immediate action and bring the proper information to the attention of 
each and every member of the two committees. 
The suggestion made by our special correspondent that this movement in Washing- 89 
VIVISECTION. 
ton may be the beginning of a national movement is worthy of attention. The bill, 
though primarily intended for the District ot Columbia, is not one of merely local 
interest, and if not killed in committee will give the antivivisectors in various parts 
of the country an unduly exaggerated idea of the justice (!) of their movement. 
This local bill is one of national interest to the medical profession. If it is reported 
to the Senate and the House we may expect to see similar and even more radical bills 
presented to many of the State legislatures within a short time._ Let us all unite, 
therefore, in making a national fight at Washington, and in giving this bill such a 
severe and total defeat that it will never again be allowed to see daylight. 
We desire to call particular attention to several points in the bill. I irst ot ail, the 
bill is misnamed. The title should read; “A bill for the prevention of advance in 
medical science in the District of Columbia, and for the prevention of the applica- 
tion of discoveries already made.” This exactly expresses the result the bill would 
attain if allowed to become a law. The question naturally arises whether the bill 
could be amended so as to suit all parties. To this we reply in the most emphatic 
No! The bill is too radically wrong to permit of satisfactory amendment. 
The very general character ot the hill should, attract attention! lhat hereafter 
no persons shall perform on any living animal any experiment calculated to give pain 
to such animal, except subject to the restrictions hereinafter prescribed.” Any bring 
animal! That statement is sweeping; and our friends who proposed the bill could 
not have realized all it implies. 
Section 2 deserves especially close attention, for it absolutely prohibits all experi- 
mentation in bacteriology; it practically compels the use of ether or chloroform in 
every hypodermic given to animals, and in the preparation of vaccine; by the pro- 
visions of this section experiments to test dogs for hydrophobia are also excluded. 
But of all the faulty provisions, section 6is the extreme par excellence. The Com- 
missioners of the District are to appoint an agent of the Humane Society to inspect 
the laboratories; “special inspectors—who may be willing to act as such inspectors 
Gratuitously,” are also provided for. It is but natural that the most hysterical 
fanatics will make application for such appointment, and wo would thus see the 
surG-eons-o-eneral of the Army, Navy, and Marine-Hospital Service, as well as the 
chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry made subject to supervision by a local 
society composed of persons who are absolutely ignorant of the conditions governing 
the experiments upon which they would report. . . 
Section 5, providing for reports of experiments to be made to the Commissioners, 
is equally harmful, and would lead to premature publication through the daily 
newspapers of half-finished results. , . . 
The press reports of the hearing before the Commissioners show that the vivisec- 
tionists condemned brutality as well as did the antivivisectionists, and all thinking 
men will agree with them in this. It lias not yet been shown, however, that such 
brutality exists in this country, as the antivivisectionists would have us believe. 
Washington is the best place in the country to fight this question out to the finish, 
for this bill, and any similar bill would seriously handicap the workings of the four 
sanitary departments of the National Government, i. e., the Marine-Hospital Service, 
the Bureau of Animal Industry, and the medical services of the Army and Navy, and 
any legislation which affects their work, more especially the work of the Bureau of 
Animal Industry, will also affect the State boards of health throughout the country; 
for at the present moment the Bureau is furnishing tuberculin and mallein to many 
of these boards. The present bill would result in stopping this supply of material 
now used in many States. The attention of the State boards is called to this point, 
and we urge them to immediately enter urgent protests against any legislation ot 
this or of similar character. . , 
Washington is perhaps the center of animal experimentation in this country at the 
present moment, and we can rely upon our scientists there to oppose this measure to 
the full extent of their influence, but as we would all be affected more or less directly 
by national legislation, it behooves the medical profession and the scientific world 
generally to move in this matter with promptness. ... 
The legal question of making governmental departments subject to revision and 
inspection by the District Commissioners, or by volunteer inspectors of a local society 
of laity, is a point for careful consideration. 
Tke following editorial in the American Medico-Surgical Bulletin for 
March 7, 1896, was also called forth by Senate bill 1552: 
THE DEMAND OP SCIENCE—VIVISECTION. 
Physicians and others interested in the progress of scientific medicine will do well 
to take note of the organized effort which is now being made in the District of 
Columbia and in the State of Massachusetts to secure the enactment of laws for the 
restriction of experiments upon the lower animals. It is scarcely necessary to call 90 
VIVISECTION. 
attention to the fact that without such experiments there could be no scientific 
biology, and medicine would have no scientific basis. Our knowledge of physiology,- 
of toxicology, and of the action of many important medicinal agents has been largely 
gained in this way. Our precise knowledge of the etiology of a considerable number 
of the infectious diseases has been obtained by inoculating susceptible animals with 
pure cultures of the various pathogenic bacteria, and could have been obtained in no 
other way. By such experiments the demonstration has been made of the specific 
pathogenic power of the anthrax bacillus, the spirillum of relapsing fever, the; 
tubercle bacillus, the glanders bacillus, the diphtheria bacillus, the streptococcus of 
erysipelas and of puerperal fever, the micrococcus of pneumonia, etc. 
The prevention of hydrophobia by Pasteur's method, the treatment of diphtheria 
by the antitoxin, the production of bovine vaccine virus, and other practical appli- 
cations of the knowledge already obtained would be impossible if those who are 
urging antivivisection legislation could have their way. We can not stop to enum- 
erate the various important practical benefits which surgery has derived from animal 
experimentation ; but it is evident that the experience gained in this way as regards- 
the comparative safety of different methods of ligating arteries, of closing wounds 
of the intestines, etc., has resulted in great improvements in surgical technique and 
in the saving of numerous valuable lives. 
Yet, there are those who maintain that no valuable results have been attained by 
experiments upon the lower animals, and the antivivisection literature, together 
with much sensational nonsense, contains quotations from the writings of certain 
physicians which appear to support this view. No doubt these quotations, to a cer- 
tain extent, are garbled, and in their proper connection would not give such pos- 
itive testimony as to the ignorance of the physicians to whom they are credited. 
For, to deny the importance and value of the results which have been obtained by 
experiments upon the lower animals, is to give evidence of lamentable ignorance as 
regards the present position of the biological sciences, and especially of scientific 
medicine. But the argument that no results of importance have been attained, in 
view of the unimpeachable evidence to the contrary, is no longer given a very 
prominent place in antivivisection literature. This seeks rather to carry on the 
propaganda, which had its origin in England more than twenty years ago, by exag- 
gerated accounts of the cruelty of the exjmriments performed; and the susceptibil- 
ities of many well-meaning and estimable members of the community have been 
aroused by the harrowing details of experiments which they are led to believe are 
frequently repeated in biological and pathological laboratories, but which few of 
those who devote their lives to research work in such laboratories have ever witnessed. 
That physicians and others engaged in investigations having for their object the 
promotion of human knowledge and the prevention or mitigation of human suffer- 
ing are less humane than the members of the societies which have been organized for 
the prevention of cruelty to animals can not be admitted for a moment. To pass 
laws subjecting them to penalties and to espionage by persons ignorant of the nature 
and objects of their experiments, as is proposed, would not only seriously hamper 
research work in all lines of biological investigation, but would be an uncalled-for 
reflection upon the humanity of those members of the medical profession and others 
who are engaged in investigations of this nature. As a matter of fact, anaesthetics 
are habitually administered in all experiments which involve an amount of pain- 
worthy of consideration; but they are not considered necessary in trifling opera- 
tions, such as the administration of a hypodermatic injection or the vaccination of 
a calf for the purpose of propagating vaccine virus. 
It is difficult to understand why these mischievous attempts should be made to 
secure legislation the effect of which would be to restrict scientific investigation, when 
there is such a broad field in other directions in which the crusade might be carried 
on with greater propriety. The trapping of animals for their furs is going on in all 
parts of the world, and the victims are held for hours, or even days, in the sharp 
jaws of the trap before they are finally dispatched. The huntsman leaves his uncap- 
tured wounded game to a lingering death. If he is a humane man, he quickly kills 
the wounded bird or animal when captured, and it has not been thought necessary 
to pass laws requiring him to do so. The fisherman plays the bass or salmon with a 
sharp hook in its mouth for an hour or more, and no one protests, but the teacher of 
biology is to be prevented by act of Congress from exhibiting the circulation of the 
blood in the blood vessels of the mesontary of a curarized frog. The farmer, by a 
cutting or crushing operation, castrates his colts, calves, sheep, and pigs, and capons 
are made by a painful cutting operation, but no one proposes legislation requiring 
the use of anaesthetics in the performance of these operations. Under these circum- 
stances, it is not surprising that members of the medical profession in general resent 
the officious meddling of the antivivisectionists in matters regarding which they,, 
as a rule, have no personal knowledge or responsibility. 91 
VIVISECTION. 
To this may be added the following extract from the Journal of the 
American Medical Association reprinted in the Washington Post for 
February 10, 1896: 
ANTI VIVISECTION BILL. 
The deplorable ignorance of the lay public on the subject of vivisection was very 
forcibly shown at the hearing granted last week by the Commissioners of the Dis- 
trict to those interested in Senate bill 1552, entitled “ A bill for the further preven- 
tion of cruelty to animals in the District of Columbia.” It was obvious that none 
of those who spoke in favor of its passage had the slightest conception of the sub- 
ject under consideration, but it was apparent that sentiment and sympathy, born of 
impressions made by exaggerated antivivisection publications, actuated their mis- 
guided and deluded championship of the bill. 
In the absence of knowledge of the subject, no one should chide these good-hearted 
men and women for the position they assume with respect to vivisection, and until 
those who are engaged in this branch of necessary scientific research explain to them 
how carefully, kindly, and accurately their work is performed, together with the 
incalculable benefit obtained in saving human life and preventing the ravage of dis- 
eases, will the oft revived “fad”—opposition to vivisection—crop up. 
The General Government yearly makes large appropriations for the conduct of sci- 
entific prevention of diseases and death in man, beast, and vegetation, and the val- 
uable work done, with the more valuable and far-reaching results consequently 
obtained by the Departments of Animal Industry, United States Marine-Hospital 
Service, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, United States Army and United States 
Navy, and the laboratories of the different colleges and hospitals, are sufficient to 
prove that vivisection is necessary, and that any restriction of its practice will seri- 
ously impede scientific research and higher education. 
Education of the masses, and particularly the misinformed opponents of this 
branch of research, and not acts of Congress, is what is necessary to silence object- 
ors. The provisions and restrictions in the pending bill are sufficiently absurd and 
ridiculous to warrant its publication in full for criticism by the scientific world. 
Prominent among those who were present with unanswerable argument against 
the passage of the bill were Drs. Samuel C. Busey, president of the medical society; 
Kleinschmidt, Magnifier, Cook, Somers, and Woodward; Surgeon-General G. M. 
Sternberg, U. S. A.; .1. J Kinyoun, United States Marine-Hospital Service; Walter 
Reed, United States Army Medical Museum; D. E. Salmon, Chief of the Bureau of 
Animal Industry; Dr. de Schweinitz, of the bxo-chemic laboratory; V. A. Moore, 
pathologist; Wardell Stiles, medico-zoologist; and Dr. Schroeder, director of experi- 
ment station, United States Department of Agriculture. 
The bill will never become a law, for Congress will appreciate the impropriety of 
retarding medical research and scientific investigations by the supervision of unin- 
formed laymen. 
STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT OF THE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
Dr. Busey. Gentlemen, I came here expecting to hear the subject of 
vivisection discussed, but I have been entertained with a long speech 
which has characterized the medical profession in general as brutes, as 
insensible of any sentiment or emotion of humanity, and as probably 
coming to the ultimate end of dissecting criminals and idiots alive. I 
believe that I am here in the interest of humanity, that broader and 
wider humanity, which includes all mankind. lam certainly here in 
the interest of that applied science which is the most beneficent of all 
sciences—medicine. I am not here to defend brutality or cruelty, but 
to tell you as plainly as I can what vivisection is, what it has accom- 
plished, what it will continue to accomplish, the benefits that have been 
derived from it to mankind, the millions of lives it has saved, the suf- 
fering it has abated. Ido not propose to analyze the bill that is before 
you. I simply want to call your attention to two provisions in it. 
In answer to the first gentleman, who said it was simply to regulate 
cruelty, I refer you to section 2, line 11: 
The animal must, during tbe whole of the experiment, he completely under the 
influence of ether or chloroform to prevent the animal feeling pain; and 
(d) The animal must, if the pain is likely to continue after the effect of the ames- 
thetic has ceased, or if any serious injury has heeu inflicted on the animal, be killed 
before it recovers from the influence of the anaesthetic which has been administered. 92 
VIVISECTION. 
While it is claimed that this bill is to regulate and to restrain vivi- 
section, those two clauses mean that it shall be positively prohibited. 
Mr. Kennedy. Unless subjected to anaesthetics. 
Dr. Busey. I mean what I say. That those two clauses mean the 
absolute prohibition of vivisection. It maybe that in many instances 
the animal could be destroyed without interfering with the experiment, 
but in a large number of instances the experiment would be cruelty 
unless the animal was restored to life, because it is only in the after 
■effects of the experiment that any advantage is to be seen or derived. 
Then again, section 6 prescribes that there shall be appointed inspectors, 
authorized agents of the Washington Humane Society, to make such 
inspections, and may also appoint such special inspectors as they may 
think fit, either permanently or temporarily, who may be willing to act 
as such inspectors gratuitously. 
This is authority to appoint inspectors, not because they have any 
knowledge of the thing itself, but because they are enthused by some 
emotion or sentiment to determine upon the propriety, the expediency, 
the cruelty, or the humanity of a series of investigations, and that is to 
be voluntary and gratuitous service. 
Thus, taking those two sections in the bill, it is as exclusive and as 
prohibitory and just such a measure as one of the speakers said if he 
had his own way he would carry into effect. So that while the bill 
undertakes to restrain and to grant privileges to scientific investiga- 
tion, it is so drawn, and so shrewdly drawn, that in its operation it will 
be absolutely effective in arresting, restraining, abolishing all investi- 
gations of the sort. 
Now, the point, so far as I can see it, is that those who have spoken 
do not really know what vivisection is. 
Late in the autumn of 1895 the members of the Congress of American 
Physicians and Surgeons, deeming this a matter of grave importance, 
determined to appoint a committee of the very best medical men in this 
country to lay this matter fairly before the public. I have a list of that 
committee here, composed of men who are above reproach in any way 
whatsoever, who, if they are not members of the Humane Society, 
belong to a humane profession, and have accomplished much valuable 
work in their profession in the various parts of this country, thus 
saving many millions of lives. I will read the names, as they are men 
of distinguished reputation and have accomplished valuable scientific 
work—far more than those whose names have been mentioned here 
and urged with so much force as being autivivisectors. They are as 
follows: 
(Here Dr. Busey read the list of members of the Joint Commission 
on Vivisection, given above in “Vivisection: A Statement in Behalf of 
Science.”) 
Kow, Mr. President, to continue. Let me call your attention further 
to some more important benefits, to show you why biologists and med- 
ical men should not be denied the right of scientific research. That is 
all that we claim, and that for humanity. Medical investigation can 
not be limited to the ordinary conditions of human life. Medicine did 
not advance, and has not advanced, except through animal experimen- 
tation. All the great advances that have contributed so much to health, 
to society, and to life, have found their origin in the results deduced 
from vivisection or animal experimentation. It is true that many times 
experiments have been performed without any immediate practical 
result, but the results were recorded, and men in after years, some- 
times a century afterwards, have availed themselves of those same VIVISECTION. 
93 
experiments, perhaps repeated them, and reaffirmed them, and applied 
them to practical medicine, with the most satisfactory results. Clinical 
observations and experience would be hopelessly fallacious but for the 
evidence which the vivisectionists have brought to our knowledge. 
Then I may lay down these propositions, first, that animal experimen- 
tation has determined the functions and normal relations ot the organs 
composing the animal economy, which could not have been determined 
in any other way except by experimentation upon living animals. 
Again, animal experimentation has determined the causes of those 
perversions of function presented in conditions designated diseases. 
We could not have been able at any time to have determined what 
disease was, or to have distinguished diseases, or to have followed 
them irom their initial causes without such experiments. 
Again, experiment has determined the nature of morbid process and 
the relation of their causes to consequent systemic actions. That is 
equally plain, and thus is made up the whole system of clinical medi- 
cine which includes the knowledge of the nature of diseases and 
knowledge of the symptoms and the cause of the diseases, and the 
knowledge of the agencies with which we are to combat these diseases. 
Without this we would be utterly powerless to treat any disease. We 
might be even worse, utterly powerless to recognize the difference 
between diseases. Simply take that disease, now so prevalent here, 
typhoid fever. Less than a hundred years ago, not further back than 
1830, it was confounded with typhus fever, which we now know, through 
experimentation, is a very different and more curable disease. In fact, 
our whole knowledge of typhoid fever, as to its cause, how to eradicate 
it, and how to cure it, is due to animal experimentation. Then to 
proceed, Galen demonstrated that arteries contained blood. He demon- 
strated the movements of respiration; he demonstrated the movements 
of the bowels by experiments upon living animals. Harvey discovered 
the circulation by vivisections. Galvani, as I have called your atten- 
tion before, discovered the application of electricity to nervous dis- 
eases. Certainly no more important discovery has occurred at any 
time than that one discovery of Galvani, and no more satisfactory 
results, which have brought wealth and fortune and comfort to the 
world, have ever been made than that one single experiment by Galvani. 
Hook, by vivisection, discovered and demonstrated artificial respira- 
tion, which enables us to-day to restore the asphyxiated, which has 
saved many stillborn children, which has saved many from drowning, 
which has saved persons every day from asphyxiated conditions. 
Boyle discovered that atmospheric air—by vivisection, I want you to 
understand—was necessary to maintain life. 
Priestley discovered, by vivisection, that oxygen was absorbed from 
the air, and that the carbon dioxide was exhaled in the expired air. I 
need not stop to tell you of the importance such results have been. 
Wren discovered transfusion—that process by which we can convey 
blood from the living animal into sick persons and keep them alive, 
resuscitating them. This discovery has saved an innumerable number 
of child-bearing women from death, when every drop of blood had 
nearly run out of their bodies. Haller and others, by vivisections, dis- 
covered the difference between the sensory and the motile nerves; that 
all motion in the human body proceeds from the brain and its annexed 
cerebellum and spinal marrow. He thus laid down the foundation for 
further researches which have led us so far, indeed, that we can now 
distinguish the diseases in different parts of the nervous system and 
treat them with great success. 94 
VIVISECTION. 
Magendie followed these experiments with others; and then came 
Claude Bernard, who determined the precise relations of certain drugs 
to certain functions, through experiments on living animals. He eman- 
cipated medicine from empiricism and placed it upon a purely scientific 
physiological basis. Marshall Hall followed this very soon afterwards 
with the discovery of the reflex action of the spinal cord, and John 
Hunter demonstrated how arteries were repaired when ligated, and 
thus affording the opportunity to us to save life by ligating arteries in 
diseases wherein before they were unavoidably fatal. 
And then followed the discovery by Ollier of the power of the perios- 
teum to reproduce bone, by showing that if the periosteum is left bone 
might be reproduced. Then came Simpson with the discovery of chloro- 
form, which has mitigated suffering, which has saved pain, which has 
prolonged life, which has saved millions of lives. It was the result of 
vivisection. And then followed vivisections which brought to us the 
method of administration of medicine by the hypodermatic method. 
Ambroi.se Pare demonstrated the application of the ligature to arrest 
hemorrhage. 
I could not tell you what have been the benefits of these discoveries to 
the human race, how much they have added to life, how much they 
have added to happiness, how many millions have been saved to man- 
kind, and the value of the experiments within the past two decades 
upon living animals, which have enabled us to locate the functions of 
the brain—to locate them so accurately that wn can trace diseases in 
other parts of the body to the precise locality of the brain—which has 
opened a new and promising field to surgery, by which people who 
formerly died, or who were left worse perhaps than dead, living simply as 
animals, have been restored to such life that they are again useful, and 
is leading up to the point that we may be enabled to save the lives of 
that vast number of people who are suddenly stricken with apoplexy. 
I have now reached the period when bacteriology began. I shall not 
say much, but leave it to General Sternberg, who will follow me. I 
want to call your attention to a few of the ordinary relations of cells to 
disease and to life. To animal experimentations we are indebted for 
the discoveries in cellular pathology by Virchow. Yillemin studied 
the causes of tuberculosis, and Pasteur has filled the world with amaze- 
ment by the brilliancy of his investigations, which have not only con- 
tributed to the wealth of France, but to the saving of millions of human 
lives. 
Following his investigation came Lister, who has made surgery so safe 
that there is little or no harm in it, and who has brought into the field 
of the surgical knife organs and parts of the body beyond the concep- 
tion of man’s brain. There was no man living before Lister who had 
the courage to enter the cavities which we do now with almost absolute 
safety. These results were obtained by vivisection upon living animals. 
Then followed Koch, whose name is familiar to you all, who still lives, 
as does Lister, and is still pursuing his work at Berlin. He discovered 
the bacilli of tuberculosis and cholera and taught us how to diagnose 
tuberculosis long before it has reached the period when death is inevi- 
table. So followed others, Behring more recently. 
Preventive medicine is indebted exclusively and solely to the results 
which vivisection has taught us. To-day we would not be able to tell 
you how to prevent the contagious diseases that visit us at periods, how 
to cure them, how to limit their prevalence, how to save the life of the 
young, which is more important, perhaps, than saving it among the 
old. 95 
VIVISECTION. 
Let me, before I close, tell you one instance in this city where the 
results of vivisection have been brought directly home to us. 
Perhaps a year ago a lady with a pet dog was bitten on one of her 
fingers. So far as she knew, the dog was well. She suffered nothing 
from it, but some of her friends suspected the dog might be rabid, so 
the dog was killed and buried, and then some other friends still urged 
that there might be danger, and a physician was called. She had no 
symptoms of disease—hydrophobia has no definitely distinct clinical 
picture until the last symptoms come. One is never able to detect it 
in the initial conditions unless he can connect the wound with a rabid 
dog. In this instance there was no evidence of the rabid dog, nor 
evidence that the young lady was affected; nevertheless, friends insisted 
that she should be sent, with the doctor’s consent, to Pasteur’s institute 
in Hew York, the hydrophobic institute. In the meantime the doctor in 
charge resurrected the dog and took from him poison which was injected 
into guinea pigs by vivisection. In the course of some days, a week or 
ten days, this young lady still being at the hospital, those pigs became 
rabid. It was immediately telegraphed to that hospital that the result 
of those experiments had proven that the dog was rabid just in time 
for them to commence effective treatment that saved her, and the physi- 
cian in the hospital sat with her that whole night to save her life from 
that disease. That is one instance. Is not that one life worth all the 
dogs that ramble and crowd this city’s streets! But that is not all. 
Another instance in this same city where a dog, a pet dog, a favorite 
dog, a dog belonging to a family of four children and father and mother, 
became so affectionate that it attracted the attention of the father, and 
he called the attention of his doctor to the fact that this dog had recently 
become so affectionate; he wanted to be fondled all the time, and kissed 
and licked them. The doctor said, “Send that dog away.” That dog 
was tested whether he was rabid or not. He was found to be rabid and 
killed. Thus were saved four children and perhaps father and mother 
from hydrophobia by vivisection that was performed upon guinea pigs. 
And then I might tell you of another, but more lamentable, instance 
where a lady was bitten, and where the vivisections were not done until 
too late, and she lost her life from hydrophobia. All these instances 
have come to us within a year past in this city. 
I will now close by reading a single paragraph by the late lamented 
Dr. Loomis, of Hew York, speaking on this same subject: 
In this defense of animal experimentation results have not been made prominent 
with any purpose to conceal method. We are fully prepared to count the cost and 
to meet the question, “Does the end justify the means?” As devotees to medical 
science we yield precedence to none in honesty and loftiness of purpose, or faithful- 
ness of service in the hitter conflict humanity ever has waged and ever must wage 
against pain and disease. We, too, have hearts that love and pity, that ache and some- 
times even break beneath the loads they bear. We glory in onr experimental work 
because we know the tenderness of cruelty, the balm of pain; the life whose birth is 
only in the throes of death. Must, then, our conflict cease; our weapons be laid aside 
because selfish ambition has now and then made fiends of men? Since philosophers 
first learned to trace “with their golden pen on the deathless page” heroic deeds of 
men, humanity has never failed to offer its first homage to those who gave their lives 
for others. As the servants of such a science we can fearlessly appeal to all intelli- 
gent men for a just criticism. From the ignorant we expect to receive only censure, 
but from those who “in the valley of the shadow of death” have learned to know 
what manner of men we are, I have faith to believe the reply will come: “We have 
trusted you with the lives of our loved ones; we intrust to you Gods dumb creation.” 
Dr. Stiles. The following letter by Dr. Daniel B. Salmon, Chief of 
the Bureau of Animal Industry, United States Department of Agri- 
culture, was printed in The Washington Post of February 4,1896, and 96 
VIVISECTION. 
refers directly to Senate bill 1552 and to the address by Mr. E. Eoss 
Perry, delivered before the District Commissioners and afterwards 
circulated in pamphlet form. (See p. set seq.) 
Editor Post: It is with much surprise that 1 read the editorial in Sunday’s Post 
(February 2) with the caption, “A defense of vivisection.” I presume it was called 
out by the agitation now in progress in this city, which has for its object the sup- 
pression of experimentation upon living animals. It is a subject which certain 
members of the so-called Humane Society have had under consideration for several 
years, and they now come before Congress with a bill, deliberately drafted, which 
apparently has the sanction of the National Society, and which, while pretending 
to regulate experimentation, is really intended to suppress it. 
We had a right to suppose that a society which prates so loudly about altruism, 
morality, and ethical principles generally, would see to it that they could not be 
charged with misrepresentation or deception when asking for legislation so important 
and so far-reaching in its results. Although it was at first stated that the whole 
object was to secure only proper restrictions on experiments, there was no serious 
attempt, at the hearing before the District Commissioners, to deny the charge that 
their deliberately planned bill would absolutely prevent any useful experiments being 
made. The bill is so radical, so uncalled for, so monstrous in its provisions, that 
there was no defense of it attempted. Each speaker, including Mr. Perry, the eloquent 
attorney who appeared for the bill, contented himself by saying, “ This is not my bill/ 
“I am not here to defend this particular bill,” “This bill is not as I would have 
drawn it,” etc. 
The arguments in favor of this bill consisted of glittering generalities on the 
wickedness of torturing dumb animals for mere curiosity, on our duty to protect 
these helpless creatures from suffering, and on the effect upon the vivisector, and 
through him upon society, in causing insensibility to suffering, immorality, and 
viciousuess. 
DR. DANIEL E. SALMON’S LETTER. 
AS TO SHAKESPEAREAN AUTHORITY. 
The latter point Mr. Perry proved to his satisfaction by a quotation from Shakes 
peare, whom he likened to a God in his knowledge and perception of all subjects 
which received his attention. As a scientific man I object to the proposition to 
modify my opinions on scientific questions at the beginning of the twentieth cen- 
tury and to make them accord with the writings of a dramatist of the sixteenth 
century, as interpreted by a member of the legal profession in the height of a great 
forensic effort. And as a believer in morality I should hesitate to accept indiscrimi- 
nate quotations from Shakespeare as a guide for modern life and principles. 
The way to decide whether vivisection has this effect npon vivisectors is to inves- 
tigate the vivisectors and determine whether as a class they are brutal, vicious, 
degraded, and whether they exert a pernicious influence upon society. I happen to 
know personally the principal vivisectors of the United States and some of those of 
the European countries, and I deny emphatically, and without any mental reservation 
whatever, that vivisection by the scientist has any such effect. 
Whether it would have that effect in case the assumptions of the humane society 
and the writer of the Post editorial were correct, that it is simply torture carried on 
by hard-hearted men to gratify their curiosity and to furnish them diversion, I shall 
not stop to inquire. These assumptions, so far as they apply to vivisection in the 
District of Columbia, are false and a cruel slander upon the modest, patient, self- 
sacrificing, persistent scientists who are giving their days and their nights, their 
lives, their everything to the cause of true humanity in seeking the cause and the 
cure of the many terrible madadies which afflict both man and the lower animals, 
causing untold and inexpressible wretchedness, pain, and suffering. Is it proposed 
to blacken the reputation of these men and put upon them the stigma of brutality 
and cruelty on the demand of a few people who practically know nothing of the 
subject and Avhose enthusiasm and fanaticism are due principally to having regaled 
themselves for months upon the horrible and blood-curdling stories prepared or sent 
out by the English Anti vivisection Society ? 
WHAT IS ITS TENDENCY? 
Are we to accept these biased statements of alleged cruelties, conducted in other 
parts of the world, many of them before the days of amesthetics, when there is no 
opportunity to hear the reply of the men whose reputations are impugned? Above 
all, are these assertions to be applied to our own scientists in Washington, whom 
we know and esteem, and is their work to be stopped without a careful inquiry as to 
whether such action would be really in the cause of humanity and civilization, or VIVISECTION. 
97 
■whether it might not tend toward ignorance and the maintenance of suffering? In 
the name of science, and speaking for the investigators of the present day in this 
city, I protest with all the emphasis and indignation of which I am capable against 
the assumption that they are cruel, that they torture the animals upon which they 
experiment, or that they are guilty of the needless infliction of pain. 
They are cruel in the eyes of supersensitive and hysterical persons because their 
experiments necessarily cause pain; but, as was admitted by Dr. Leifingwell, the 
principal witness brought in favor of the bill, pain is an incident to this life, and 
there are occasions where its infliction is justifiable. To hold otherwise would be 
for legislators to revolutionize society as at present constituted and put in jeopardy 
the existence of the human race. We inflict the most terrible pain upon animals 
by certaiu operations universally practiced for economic reasons, and we ship mil- 
lions of animals every year long distances by rail and boat, where they are crowded, 
bruised, maimed, exposed to hunger and thirst, and finally slaughtered by a painful 
process. This is done in order to supply food for the support of human life. The 
scientist makes experiments upon a comparatively few animals, causing no greater 
pain, and he does this to obtain the knowledge and the means of saving human life, 
and animal life as well. In this the scientist has a better defense than society at 
large, because we could obtain food from the plants of the field and the vegetables 
of the garden, but there is no other means under heaven yet revealed to man by 
which disease caii be investigated and the cures of disease discovered and prepared 
but by experiments and operations upon animals. 
THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN. 
Mr. Eoss Perry, in his eloquent appeal for legislation, some legislation, any legis- 
lation, spoke of the sacredness of life in general, and with menacing tones and finger 
of scorn he warned those who would take this life of the terrible nature of their 
offense. Unfortunately for the clear perception of those who listened, he failed to 
make any distinction between the life of a man and the life of a dog, or between the 
life of the dog and the life of the flea which torments the dog. It must be evident 
to all thinking persons that a line must be drawn somewhere or the food of man, and 
even man himself, would be devoured by this inferior life, the exuberant multipli- 
cation of which he finds it necessary to repress on every side and by every means at 
his command. 
And who is best fitted to draw this line, the scientist who makes a life study of 
this branch of knowledge, or the well-meaning ladies of the Humane Society, whose 
overwrought imaginations picture to them cruelty and torture where none exists? 
If any life is sacred it is the life of man, and true humanity consists in guarding 
the bodies of men and women from disease and suffering, even, if need be, at the 
expense of the lower creatures. These self-styled humanitarians have, however, 
forgotten the suffering and anguish and grief of mankind in their frantic efforts to 
protect the dog, the cat, the mouse, etc., from the vaccinating lancet and the hypo- 
dermic needle of the vivisector. According to them there is no defense for the man 
who saves a child at the expense of a rabbit, or for him who by experiments upon 
animals brings out a reliable and certain preventive for so mysterious and fatal a 
disease as was hydrophobia but a few years ago, and thus saves thousands of human 
lives. So desperate have they become in their efforts to discredit the discoveries 
made by experiments upon animals that they deny the existence of such a disease as 
hydrophobia; they deny the value of tuberculin; they deny the curative effects of 
the autitoxine in diphtheria and tetanus; they deny the utility of the discovery that 
tuberculosis is a contagious disease which is caused by a living germ; they are even 
prepared to make the sweeping denial that any good has come from all the progress 
in bacteriological knowledge during the last twenty years. 
How can legislators and health boards and society at large deny these things? 
How can tuberculosis be eradicated from dairy herds except by testing with tuber- 
culin? How can glanders be eradicated except by the use of malleiu for diagnosis? 
How can the mortality from diphtheria be kept at a minimum except by the use of 
antitoxin? How can we determine in time for treatment whether the dog which 
bites a child or an adult is rabid except by inoculating a rabbit or other animal? 
How can we prepare the material to treat those who are thus bitten except by pro- 
ducing the disease in rabbits? What hope is there outside of vivisection that any 
relief will ever be discovered for the 150,000 people who annually suffer and die in 
this country of consumption and other forms of tuberculosis, and for the thousands 
who are victims of other bacterial diseases? What hope for the millions of animals, 
horses, cattle, sheep, and swine, which now suffer and die from the contagious 
diseases of animals? 
If the Humane Society has its way, all investigations and all work of this character 
VIVISECTION THE ONLY HOPE. 
YIY 7 98 
VIVISECTION. 
will be stopped. It will be impossible to prepare the material for preventing hydro- 
phobia in persons known to have been bitten by rabid dogs; it will be impossible to 
prepare antitoxin for the cure of diphtheria or any other disease; it will be impos- 
sible to even prepare animal vaccine for guarding against smallpox; we can no 
longer use tuberculin for testing dairy cows for tuberculosis, nor make the one 
reliable test which is necessary to determine if a dog has hydrophobia. 
Such legislation would indicate that our regard for the brute was superior to our 
love for mankind; it would be placing the claims of the horse, the dog, the guinea 
pig, the mouse, even, above those of the child; it would be an outrage on suffering 
humanity in this country, and a stumbling-block to the cause of science the world 
over. 
PUBLIC SENTIMENT IN THE MATTER. 
I can not believe after Congress has encouraged the development of science and 
research in this city to an extent which compares favorably with what is seen in the 
most advanced nations of the world, that it Avill now call a halt and turn the hand 
of progress backward on the dial to the point it left a quarter century ago. The 
great mass of the people of Washington must certainly be too enlightened and by 
far too intelligent to allow such arguments as have been made, based as they are 
upon weak philosophy and a false idea of what constitutes humanity, to influence 
them in asking for such action. 
It is a good lime to remember that the person who cries “ stop thief” the loudest is 
not always the most honest man in the crowd, and in like manner the persons who 
proclaim their humanity, their superior sensibilities, their intense morality from the 
housetops may be no more phenomenal in these respects than others who are more 
modest and less demonstrative. . 
The Post says that “society can well afford to dispense with the cutting up of live 
animals before the pupils of the public schools.” As the Post has the facilities for 
obtaining information on this subject, will it please inform its readers if live animals 
are now, or ever have been, cut up before the pupils of the public schools of Wash- 
ington? If so, will it kindly state exactly how these exhibitions were conducted, 
who was responsible for them, and whether the District authorities could or could 
not prevent them witliout additional legislation? The scientific men of this city are 
not clamoring for such exhibitions, nor would they countenance anything of the kind 
which involved cruelty or torture. Such exhibitions, moreover, are demonstrations, 
not experiments. They are designed to illustrate facts which are already well 
known—not to discover any truth or principle. They may be abolished in the public 
schools, if they are practiced there, without any direct injury to scientific research 
or humanity, and without further legislation. 
The, prohibition of demonstrations in the public schools is apparently but an insig- 
nificant part of the programme of the people who are now asking for legislation. 
Nothing but the complete destruction of scientific research in this field of knowledge 
accords with their present frame of mind, and this they will never accomplish if the 
conservative element in society gives the subject the attention which its importance 
demands. 
D. E. Salmon. 
11. In the next place, I desire to draw to your attention the fact that 
the list of physicians which the Illinois Anti vivisection Society has pub- 
lished under the heading “The courage of conviction,” and which has 
probably been brought to your attention, should be taken cum grano 
salis, and a clear distinction should be drawn between two classes of 
signatures. The name of Dr. Charles F. Dawson, of Washington, D. C., 
appears on that list, and I desire to submit the following letter show- 
ing that his name is used without his knowledge or consent: 
Washington, D. C., February 9,1896. 
Dear Doctor: In reference to the matter to wbicb you called my attention, i. e., 
the use of my name by the Illinois Anti vivisection Society in the list of physicians 
over which the expression “The courage of conviction” is printed (p. 9, Summary 
of Work from June, 1894, to June, 1895, printed at Aurora, 111., 1895), I desire to 
state that my name has been used without my knowledge or consent. 
You have undoubtedly already noticed that two different classes of signatures are 
included in this list, as is shown by the two paragraphs at the top of the page, 
which read as follows: 
“We give below the names of physicians who put their names on the anti vivisec- 
tion registry list at our World's Fair anti vivisection exhibit, and those who have 
since signed the petition for the total abolition of vivisection. 99 
VIVISECTION. 
“ It must be borne in mind that we can only reach a comparatively small number 
of the sum total of physicians in the United States. Considering this fact, we feel 
that we are doing well among the profession.” 
I signed the registry list at the World’s Fair under the impression that it was 
merely a visitors’ list, such as was to be found at many other exhibits at the fair. 
By signing the visitors’ list I expected that the Antivivisection Society would send 
me its literature, and this it has done at odd intervals. 
I wish to state most emphatically, and without any mental reservation whatever, 
that I never intended that my name should be used by the society as being opposed 
to vivisection as practiced by scientific men to-day. I am, of course, opposed to 
wanton cruelty of all kinds to animals, instances of which we see daily practiced on 
the street, but after years of experience in two of the most important laboratories 
of this country I am thoroughly of the conviction that the vivisection practiced by 
scientists is perfectly justified. 
In conclusion, I would state that the publication of the list above referred to, of 
physicians who have the “courage of conviction,” including two entirely distinct 
sets of signatures, in order to increase the apparent, though not real, support of the 
antivivisection movement, seems to me an excellent illustration of the tactics now 
followed by the antivivisectiouists. 
Assuring you of my most hearty cooperation in opposing the present uncalled-for 
agitation known as the “anti vivisect ion movement,” now supported by persons 
whose good intentions exceed their information on the question at issue, I remain, 
Very truly, yours, 
Charles F. Dawson, M. D. 
Dr. Ch. Wardell Stiles, 
Washington, I). C. 
111. There are a number of extremely objectionable points both in the 
original bill and in the proposed substitute bill which has to-day been 
submitted to the committee. It seems almost unnecessary to discuss 
further the original bill, which, by its provisions, would not only prohibit 
medical investigations, but which would prevent the practical applica- 
tion of discoveries already made; a bill which would absolutely prohibit 
the investigations in economic entomology looking to the destruction of 
insect pests, which are responsible for so much damage to the agricul- 
tural interests of the country; a bill so radical in its nature, so decep- 
tive in its wording, that it is only calculated to bring law into contempt. 
My remarks will therefore be confined to the substitute bill. 
Section 1: In the substitute bill the word “vertebrate” has been 
inserted. The term vertebrate includes both cold-blooded animals 
(fish, amphibia (frogs), and reptiles (snakes, turtles, etc.), and warm- 
blooded animals (birds and mammals), and its use here is totally unjus- 
tified from a scientific standpoint. It is absurd to place the cold-blooded 
animals, in which we find a lowly organized nervous system, with the 
warm-blooded animals in one category so far as paiu is concerned. 
Many of the experiments which scientists perform upon the cold-blooded 
animals are no worse than the cold-blooded animals perform upon them- 
selves. To take a familiar example: If a scientist were to capture a certain 
lizard, known to biologists under the name Anguis fragilis and to delib- 
erately break the body in two, the antivivisectionists would denounce 
this as an act of brutality; to name such an experiment as brutal would, 
however, be ridiculous, for this animal possesses the faculty of breaking 
itself in two, and frequently does so. For instance, if this animal is 
caught by the tail, it will calmly leave its tail in the possession* of its 
captor and crawl off. 
Furthermore, the experiments performed by vivisectors upon fish, 
amphibia, and reptiles are no more cruel than the daily practices of 
fishermen. If the scientists are to be deprived of these animals in ex- 
periments, then it would be only consistent to pass a law that fishermen 
should be compelled to kill the fish immediately after taking them out 
of the water, to forbid the use of living frogs as bait, to forbid the placing 
of live lobsters in boiling water in preparing them for the table, etc. 100 
VIVISECTION 
The legislation here proposed is a class legislation, against science, 
exempting sport. 
Section 2a: “The experiment must be performed with a view to 
the advancement by a new discovery of physiological knowledge or of 
knowledgewhich will be useful for saving or prolonging lifeor alleviating 
suffering.” 
There are several very unjust provisions in this section. 
First. The words “by a new discovery” exclude the confirmation 
by scientists in this District of discoveries, or alleged discoveries, made 
at different times, in different places by various workers. If a discovery 
has been made and published by a German or a Frenchman, it should 
be confirmed by other investigators in other countries under other 
environments, and legislation against such thorough confirmation of 
actual or alleged discoveries would leave us in the dark on many ques- 
tions, or compel us to accept published accounts which we might not 
consider sufficiently established. Furthermore, occasion might easily 
arise where it would be advisable to repeat an experiment made else- 
where, not so much for the purpose of confirming the result itself, but 
for the purpose of our own personal instruction, in order to watch all 
the stages of the experiment. The repetition of this experiment might 
have an influence in determining the course to be pursued in some other 
experiment we had under advisement, and to legislate against such 
repetition would handicap us in our work. 
Secondly, the term “physiological” in this section is altogether too 
narrow and does not cover the cases of experimentation. If the section 
stands at all, the broader term “biological” should be substituted. 
Thirdly, in connection with the last half of the paragraph it should 
be noticed that the tendency of this expression, “of knowledgewhich 
will be useful tor saving or prolonging life or alleviating suffering,” is 
not in accord with the history of scientific progress, for it assumes that 
abstract science can be divorced from applied science. 
This is utterly impossible and inadvisable, and in support of this 
statement I would respectfully refer to the “Statement in behalf of 
science,” given above, also to the discoveries given in Dr. Loomis’s 
address under the first class (see p. 63), and would add the following 
illustration to show that we do not know what moment a point estab- 
lished as what some people refer to as “mere scientific curiosity” may 
in an unexpected manner and at an unexpected time suddenly be found 
to be of the greatest practical value: 
The history of trichinosis.—ln 1835 Prof. Richard Owen, of London, 
described a minute worm, under the name Trichina spiralis, which had 
been found in a human cadaver. It was afterwards found by various 
other persons, and in 1847 the same worm was found in American hogs 
by Professor Leidy, of Philadelphia. The medical and scientific frater- 
nities of the world, however, looked upon this worm as a mere zoologi- 
cal curiosity rather than as the cause of a serious disease, and no one 
ever suspected that it would one day play an important role in the 
commerce between America and certain European countries. In 1850 
Herbst discovered that this worm is transmissible from one animal to 
another when a mammal infested by the parasite is eaten by another 
mammal. Still the worm and its life history were “matters of zoological 
curiosity” (abstract science). Rot until 1860 was it known that this 
parasite was the cause of a disease which physicians had up to that 
time confounded with typhoid fever, but which Professor Zenker, of 
Leipzig, showed to be distinct. But no sooner had Zenker discovered 
the etiology of the disease than he was able to see the source of infer,- VIVISECTION, 
101 
tion, for his patient had eaten pork, and the discoveries (“merematters 
of zoological curiosity”) of Leidy and Herbst became matters of great 
importance (applied science), discoveries afterwards confirmed by 
numerous other authors (Virchow, Leuckart, and others). 
Other similar examples could be cited. The scientist is forced to sup- 
port the view that abstract science can not be divorced from applied 
science, and to protest against any legislation which, like the last half 
of section 2a, tends to separate the two. 
Section 2b, together with section 4, is most unjust; for while section 
2b authorizes medical officers of the Government to perform experi- 
ments, it does not accord the same liberty to scientific men who are not 
medical officers, and section 4 expressly excludes students, candidates, 
and graduates in science and philosophy under 25 years of age (unless 
they are graduates in medicine), while it permits a doctor of medicine 
and evidently also the doctor of veterinary medicine under 25 years of 
age to experiment upon animals. 
In the name of zoologists, I enter a most urgent protest against the 
passage of these sections, which are based upon a total ignorance of 
the value and meaning of the doctor’s degree, the training which men 
in different lines of scientific work undergo, and the class of men 
engaged in animal experimentation. 
In the first place, in the vast majority of universities of this country, 
the man who takes a degree as doctor of science or doctor of philosophy 
has been obliged to do original investigation in order to obtain his 
degree, while this is not the case with the degree of doctor of medicine. 
Other things being equal, therefore, the doctor of science or the doctor 
of philosox>hy upon receiving his degree is better trained for the pur- 
pose of carrying on animal experimentation than is the doctor of 
medicine or doctor of veterinary medicine, and there is no justice in 
preventing the former from using animal experimentation in his work. 
Again, in the laboratories of the Bureau of Animal Industry, United 
States Department of Agriculture, we have at the present moment, or 
have had within the past few years, eight men employed as chemists, 
histologists, zoologists, etc., who were not graduates in medicine, but 
who are frequently obliged to use animal experimentation in their work. 
The clauses cited would prevent certain of these men from carrying out 
their official duties, no matter how competent they might be in their 
particular branch of work. 
Secondly. The candidate for the degree of doctor of science or doctor 
of philosophy must present an original thesis on his major subject before 
he can receive his degree. If he takes this degree with physiology or 
biology as major subject, the proposed legislation, in case the candidate 
is under 25 years of age, would exclude his using animal experimentation 
in the preparation of his thesis, and this would result either in rendering 
many theses in these branches of little or no value, or in greatly limiting 
the number of subjects from which the candidates might choose. The 
legislation would also exclude advanced undergraduate work in which 
animal experimentation is used—a most unjust provision, since this 
preliminary training is most valuable to men who intend later to enter 
scientific work, and since many valuable discoveries have been made by 
students and candidates in the preparation of their theses. 
Section 2c excludes some valuable and necessary experiments in 
which the use of anaesthetics is out of the question. Fortunately, the 
number of such experiments is exceedingly limited; but, though limited 
in number, they are none the less necessary or valuable. This section 
might also be interpreted to exclude experiments upon lower animals 102 
VIVISECTION. 
when the subject has been “pithed,” although this operation would ren- 
der it as insensible to pain as amesthetics would do. 
It is as senseless to pass a law compelling' men to administer anes- 
thetics in experiments as it would be to pass a law compelling a sur- 
geon to give anesthetics in a surgical operation. Cases arise in both 
lields where it is impossible to use anesthetics—fortunately, only excep- 
tionally. Furthermore, not only would and does the common sense of 
humanity lead a worker to give anesthetics whenever possible, but 
their administration is in the vast majority of cases more conducive to 
the quiet, ease, and success of the experiment. 
The clause “nor in tests of surgical procedure need animals be kept 
comxdetely anaesthetized during the process of recovery” leaves a loop- 
hole by which our well-intending and uninitiated friends supporting 
this bill might seriously interfere with our work. The question of the 
use of anaesthetics should, in experiments as in surgical operations in 
hospitals, be left entirely to the judgment of the operator. 
No doubt the early experiments performed without anaesthetics and 
possibly a few later experiments performed in foreign countries will be 
brought to your attention in support of this clause. I would respect- 
fully submit that evidence of this kind is of no more value in support of 
this bill than would the atrocities in Armenia or during the Spanish 
Inquisition be valid arguments in support of a bill to regulate the reli- 
gious services of churches in the District of Columbia. I submit that it 
will be ample time to legislate upon this subject when our well-intending 
but misled friends, who are unconsciously placing themselves on record 
as opposed to advance in medicine, succeed in showing that abuses in 
this line exist in the District of Columbia—in other words, when they 
show some cause for legislation. 
The legislation proposed is an insinuation by the supporters of the 
bill that the persons who give up their lives to research work in bio- 
logical lines, often running great personal danger, are less humane in 
feelings than are those persons who, though not acquainted with the 
details of our work, are desirous of placing restrictions upon us. And 
the so-called “antivivisection literature” fully warrants the assertion 
that this insinuation often rises to a declaration. 
As a practical experimenter of considerable experience in this line 
for one of my age, with an intimate personal acquaintance with many 
vivisectors of Europe and America, 1 am firmly of the conviction that 
the training and experience of investigators render them even more 
sensitive to the sufferings of other people and other animals than are 
our friends who oppose us. There is, however, this great difference 
between them and us: We look beyond the suffering of a few dozen, a 
few hundred, or a few thousand rabbits, dogs, cats, rats, etc., and see 
the sufferings of thousands upon thousands of human beings of the 
present and future generations. 
In all ray experience in the laboratories of Pasteur, Koch, Schulze, 
and Leuckart in Europe, or in the laboratories of the Bureau of Animal 
Industry of this city, or in ray visits to other laboratories of this coun- 
try, or in my personal associations with vivisectors of no less than nine 
different nationalities, I have never heard sentiments which could com- 
pare in brutality and narrowness with those expressed in a hearing 
upon this bill before the District Commissioners by one of its most 
ardent supporters, i. e., to the effect that all they demand is that the 
experimenters shall submit to the same fate as the animal upon which 
they experiment. 
Section 2d is uncalled for. Its provisions are always carried out, and VIVISECTION. 
it is as useless to make this a law as it is to declare that a hunter should 
kill the game he shoots. The points covered in this section can be 
fairly left to the ordinary feeling of humanity in the experimenters. 
Section 2e: If there were any call for the legislation proposed in this 
section, the section would be supported by scientific men. Regarding 
the point at issue I submit the following letters by Professor Powell 
and Mr. Hay: 
Office of Superintendent of Public Schools, Franklin School, 
Washington, D. C., April 24, 1896. 
Dear Sir : In answer to your favor of the 16th instant, I beg to say as follows: 
First. Vivisection does not take place in any form in any of the public schools of 
the District of Columbia by authority. 
Second. Vivisection has never been practiced in the schools of the District of 
Columbia, so far as I have been able to ascertain after the most diligent inquiry. 
Third. No legislation is necessary on this subject, because the authorities of the 
schools are radically opposed to vivisection except by experts for scientific purposes, 
and will do everything in their power without legislation to prevent its occurrence 
in the public schools. 
I suspect that if it has been thought by anyone that vivisection is practiced, the 
impression has come from the fact that much dissection is practiced in the teaching 
of physiology, as our method of teaching is objective whenever it can be made so. 
Every school, therefore, draws heavily upon the neighboring markets for specimens 
of eyes, lungs, brains, joints, sections of bone and muscle, etc. 
I am yours, very respectfully, 
W. B. Powell, Superintendent. 
Dr. Ch. Wardell Stiles. 
Zoological Laboratory, Central High School, 
Washington, D. C., February 24, 1896. 
Dear Sir; In reply to your inquiry of recent date regarding the practice of vivi- 
section before the classes in my department at the Central High School, I can state 
positively that nothing of the sort has ever occurred. 
The animals studied in the first-year classes are brought to the laboratory in the 
living state when practicable, and are so studied. When it is found necessary to kill 
them, chloroform, chloral, or alcohol is used, and the class receives the animals dead. 
So far as I can now remember the death struggles have never been witnessed by a 
class. 
The list of animals which are dissected is as follows: Earthworm, crayfish, insect, 
clam, and fish. The class very rarely has time to study the warm-blooded animals. 
The birds, however, are well represented in our collection by skins and skeletons, 
and it is from these the work is completed. 
In the fourth-year class of candidates for the Normal School more thorough work 
is done, and in addition to the above-mentioned types the frog is usually dissected, 
and sometimes also the pigeon. 
For work with both these animals complete insensibility is secured by the thorough 
use of chloroform, or, in the case of the frog, by pithing. It is unnecessary to add 
that from either of these methods there has never been a case of resuscitation dur- 
ing the dissection. 
The only instances of the dissection of a mammal which I have any remembrance 
of are as follows: Two years ago a cat was killed for the purpose of obtaining the 
skeleton, and advantage was taken of the procedure to show to those in the room 
the different organs of the cat in their natural position. Three or four boys were 
the only spectators, until near the end of the demonstration two or three of the girls 
came into the room and looked on. It was after school hours, and was not done for 
the benefit of any class. 
The second instance was during the session of 1894-95. To show to a class of boys 
who were doing special work in zoology the distinguishing characteristics of the 
didelphia and monodelpbia, I dissected before them a freshly killed opossum and a 
cat. Both animals were as dead as chloroform could make them, and only these 
boys saw the dissection. 
Hoping these facts may be of value to you in defeating the antivivisection bill, 
I am, very truly, 
W. P. Hay. 
Dr. C. W. Stiles. 104 
VIVISECTION. 
First. I desire to direct attention to the point that “medical schools, 
hospitals, and colleges” are here included in the expression “public 
schools.” Many peojde, including vivisectors, have expressed them- 
selves “ against vivisection in the public schools,” but I submit that the 
expression “public schools” does not include “medical schools, hos- 
pitals, or 'colleges,” and any such petitions which may have been pre- 
sented to the committee should not be considered as referring to higher 
institutions of learning. The Humane Society has failed to show any 
necessity for legislation governing the “ medical schools, hospitals, or 
colleges.” 
The Humane Society has failed to show the necessity for legislation 
upon this subject. 
Second. This is a point which should be left entirely lo the investi- 
gators I fear legislation of this kind might seriously impede men in 
some important experiments. Furthermore, this calls upon Congress 
to express an official expert opinion upon a subject which physiologists 
and chemists have not yet demonstrated. 
Third. This section is based upon sentimentality, old maids having 
a fondness for cats, and some people believing that dogs are almost 
human. The scientist can not allow such ideas to enter into his work. 
Hot only is the dog a convenient animal for experimental purposes in 
certain cases, but if sentimentality is to enter into the question at all, 
we ought to be glad to turn a few of these useless, disease-breeding, 
and injurious, ownerless street curs to some account. Why a disease- 
producing and property-destroying ownerless cur or a kicking mule 
should have any more consideration from Congress than a cow, pig, 
rabbit, chicken, or pigeon is not clear to the scientist. 
Much has been said about the faithfulness of “ old dog Tray,” but 
when one studies the diseases he produces and the property he destroys, 
one is compelled to admit that the dog is a greater curse than blessing, 
a greater enemy than friend, and more treacherous than faithful. 
Fourth. If any public exhibitions occur, they should be suppressed. 
I have never heard of any such things and do not see that the Humane 
Society has shown the necessity for legislation upon this point. 
Section 4: This is discussed above with section 2. 
SectionS: Hot only is this section absurd on the ground that the 
Commissioners, not being trained in animal experimentation, are inca- 
pable of judging either the methods employed or the results obtained, 
but the section is unjust and dangerous. It would lead to the prema- 
ture publication of alleged results only half established and to news- 
paper scandal. 
Furthermore, at the end of a series of experiments, the experiments 
go on record in the scientific journals, and they are, therefore, made 
public to a class of people which is able to judge them on their merits. 
Section 5 is one which under no circumstances should be allowed to 
pass. 
Section 6: Asa practical “ vivi sector ” I protest most urgently against 
any such official inspection as is here proposed. My protest is based 
upon the following grounds: 
1. In certain experiments, such as tests for hydrophobia, the operator 
takes his own life in his hands during the work, and it is only just to 
him that he should be allowed his entire and undivided attention for 
the operation. Sudden interruption by outside parties, either friends 
or foes, might easily result, and surely would result sooner or later, in 
distracting the attention of the operator from his dangerous work, and 
this might result fatally to the operator or his assistants, or defeat the 
experiment or lead to unnecessary pain to the animal. 105 
VIVISECTION. 
If an operator has, for instance, given an animal sufficient anaesthetics 
to carry it through a given operation, a sudden interruption could easily 
delay the operation, thus leading to the recovery of the animal to con- 
sciousness before the operation is completed. More anaesthetics would, 
of course, be at hand, as is always the case, but a distraction by sudden 
interruption could very easily cause the operator to lose sight of the 
condition of the animal for a moment. 
2. In case of a delicate cutting operation the undivided attention of 
the operator is necessary, not because of any danger to himself, but 
because of the possibility of a slip of the knife which would require that 
the operation be repeated upon another animal. 
We must have absolute freedom from distractions while we are in an 
experiment, and the sudden appearance, at a critical moment, of outside 
parties would assuredly lead to a momentary distraction. 
3. Unless it is assured that the inspectors are professionally educated 
men, acquainted with the conditions of research work and capable of 
judging of the necessity of the inspection, this system of inspection 
will be open to the same objection as the following proposal made in 
England some years ago: 
[Extract from Keport of Koyal Commission on Vivisection.] 
It has been proposed to prohibit experiment except in public halls, to which a cer- 
tain portion of the nonprofessional public shall at all times have access. It appears 
to us that this proposal would, if carried into effect, tend to frustrate the experiment 
as regards its usefulness, and, perhaps, as regards the effective administration of 
anaesthetics also, since the most essential requisite for the conduct of a delicate 
experiment is that the person who makes it should be free from any mental interrup- 
tion or disturbance; while the presence of ignorant spectators could do nothing to 
secure the real humanity of the experiment. An animal may be suffering exquisite 
torture, and yet (so far as we know) the worarl poison may. by its effect upon the 
motor nerves, prevent the exhibition of any feeling. Or, on the other hand, an ani- 
mal may make every demonstration of suffering, while the real sensation is destroyed. 
In the human subject, when chloroform is employed, or when by an injury to the 
spine the connection with the brain is interrupted, it sometimes happens that all 
the outward manifestation of pain is exhibited, when the patient afterwards dis- 
claims having experienced any sensation of it. These effects are perfectly familiar 
to the instructed, but would be simply misleading to the uninitiated. (Blue Book, 
1876, C. 1397, p. xix.) 
4. In all probability professionally educated men would not lend tbeir 
services to sucb a system of espionage. The views expressed by the 
supporters of the bill justify the apprehension that persons extreme 
in their views and antagonistic to scientific work would be urged for 
appointment as inspectors. 
5. The proposition to thus subject scientists to espionage in their 
work is as unjust as would be a proposition to provide for an inspection 
of the amphitheaters of hospitals during critical surgical operations, or 
of the private sick room during the visits of family physicians, in order 
to see that anaesthetics were used or that the patients were properly 
nursed. 
Section 7. Here, again, we find the conspicuous ignorance as to the 
class of men engaged in animal experimentation. Why a professor of 
anatomy is accepted, but not one of histology, pathology, embryology, 
zoology, biology, etc., is a narrowmindedness which is absurd. 
The "third paragraph is one which might cause serious delay in im- 
portant cases, such as tests for hydrophobia and glanders, which might 
result fatally to the patient who, if the test had been performed in 
time, might have lived. 
IV. The following brief statement of investigations by the Bureau of 
Animal Industry, though not complete, is sufficient to set forth the 106 
value of animal experimentation to the agricultural and commercial 
interest of the country: 
VIVISECTION. 
Division of Animal Pathology. (1884-1896.) 
Ihe discovery of the power to produce immunity with sterilized cultures. 
Investigations into the various methods ot protecting swine against swine pi a cue 
and hog cholera by inoculations. 
• a^0ns t° determine if the disease of cattle existing in the United States 
in 1884 was identical with the contagious pleuro-pneumonia of Europe. 
Vle discovery of the bacillus ot swine plague, the determination of its power to 
resist disinfectants, and the methods for preventing the spread of the disease. 
Investigation to determine if the vaccine for the disease known as rouget of swine 
could be used to prevent hog cholera. 
Ihe determination ot several varieties of hog cholera and swine plague. 
b® discovery ot the specific cause of Texas fever, the way it is transmitted from 
the Southern to Northern cattle, and consequently the development of methods by 
which cattle from the infected districts in the South maybe shipped to the Northern 
markets without spreading the disease. 
The discovery of the cause of a destructive disease in turkeys and the method by 
which the disease is transmitted. 
Experiments which have shown that a disease of cattle known as the cornstalk 
disease is not a contagious disease. 
Ihe determination of rabies in outbreaks of cattle disease, the nature of which was 
heretofore not understood. 
The diagnosis of rabies in a large number of dogs in the District of Columbia and 
vicinity. 
Many investigations which have shed much light upon the variability of infectious 
diseases, and upon the efficiency of attenuated, filtered, and heated cultures, blood 
serum from immune and healthy animals in producing immunity against infectious 
diseases 01 animals, such as hog cholera and swine plague. 
. ie discovery of pathogenic bacteria resembling the swine-plague bacillus in the 
air passages of a large percentage of the domesticated animals. This is important 
in explaining the cause of sporadic pneumonia. 
Investigations into the pathology of diphtheria in poultry. 
Investigations into the pathology of sporadic pneumonia which have been of great 
value commercially, as it has frequently been diagnosed contagious pleuro-pneumonia. 
Extensive investigations into the nature of glanders, anthrax, symptomatic anthrax, 
and tuberculosis, which have been of great value in enabling a positive diagnosis to 
be made and means afforded for preventing their spread to other animals, and pos- 
sibly man. ’ 1 
[Present chief, Dr. V. A. Moore; former chief, Dr. TheoboM Smith.] 
Biochsmic Laboratory. (1890-1896.) 
[Dr. E. A. de Schweinitz, chief.] 
Isolation of the poisons of the hog-cholera germ and their relation to immunity 
from this disease. J 
Isolation of the poisons of the swine-plague germ and their relation to immunity. 
t' urther study of the poisons of the glanders bacilli and their relation to immunity 
and the practical use of mallein. J 
Further study of the poisons of the tuberculosis bacillus and the practical value 
and use of tuberculin. 
. isolation and study of the attenuated tuberculosis bacillus and its relation to 
immunity. ' 
The isolation and study of an attenuated diphtheria bacillus. 
rpf16 Fusibility of the transmission of disease by oleomargarine, etc. 
I he immunizing property of the blood serum from animals vaccinated against the 
nog-cholera and swine-plague germs. 
Ihe curative value of the serum of animals immune to tuberculosis. 
Zoological Laboratory. (1891-1896.) 
Experiments upon the life history of various animal parasites, as: 
Determination of the life history and American intermediate host of the o-iant 
thorn-headed worm (.Echinorhynchus gig as) of hogs. 
Refutation of the supposed direct development of the adult cestodes (particularly 
Momezta exp ansa and M. planissima) of cattle, sheep, and allied animals/ 
[Dr. Ch. Wardell Stiles, chief.] VIVISECTION. 
Demonstration of the nontransmissibility of Tcenia saginata to sheep, thus exclud- 
ing mutton as source of infection of man by this tapeworm. 
Numerous experiments on the transmissibility and nontransmissibility Oi various 
scab mites from one animal to another. 
Studies on the life history of the large American Fluke (Fasciola magna) ot cattle. 
Numerous experiments upon trichinosis in order to determine the duration of 
“pickling” necessary to render trichiuous pork wholesome. 
Experiments in the determination of doses oi certain anthelmintics. 
Experiments upon the vitality of the eggs ot certain parasites. 
V. A bill very similar in some respects to the bill now before yon was 
recently introduced into the Massachusetts btate legislature. It was 
finally decided that there was no cause for legislation upon this subject. 
As many points brought out in the Boston hearing have a direct bear- 
ing upon the present bill now before you, I desire to submit the report 
of the Boston hearings as an appendix to the above remarks, in case 
the manuscript arrives in time. 
I would further state that memorials are on their way from various 
scientific societies protesting against this bill, and in view ot the per- 
nicious effect which the medical and scientific men in the District believe 
the passage of this bill would have upon research work, not only here 
but elsewhere, I would most respectfully suggest that the decision of 
the committee be delayed until the medical and scientific men of the 
entire country have an opportunity to express their views. 
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES W. DABNEY, ACTING SECRETARY 
OF AGRICULTURE. 
Mr. Dabney submitted the following statement in writing: 
1 have the "honor to invite your attention to certain provisions of the 
bill S. 1552, “A bill for the further prevention of cruelty to animals in 
the District of Columbia.” The principal purpose of the bill as dis- 
closed by its several sections is to restrict and prohibit those experi- 
ments upon animals without which it is impossible to obtain the tacts 
required for the advancement of the biological sciences, and particu- 
larly for understanding the nature of disease and discovering the best 
means for its prevention and cure. As the Bureau ot Animal Industry 
of this Department is charged by law with the duty of investigating 
and controlling animal diseases, and as it has made and is making 
more extensive investigations ot said diseases than any other institu- 
tion in the United States, the work of said Bureau would be directly 
and seriously affected by legislation such as is proposed in this measure. 
The bill, while ostensibly local legislation, would affect principally the 
work of the Executive Departments, and more particularly the scien- 
tific investigations of the Department of Agriculture. 
1. The bill provides that hereafter no person shall perform on a living 
animal any experiment calculated to give pain to such animal, and it 
makes any person guilty of an offense who performs or takes part in 
any such experiment which in any way contravenes the provisions .of 
this bill, and for such offense, if the first, he is liable to the excessive 
penalty of $l5O fine; or if the second offense he is liable to a fine of 
$3OO or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months. These 
extreme penalties would discourage investigators; they would cause 
hesitation and delay in the performance of necessary experiments, for 
no one would enter upon a series of researches until he had satisfied 
himself that he could carry them through without even a technical 
violation of the act, and that he could satisfy even unfriendly inspectors 
that there was no technical violation. 108 
VIVISECTION. 
Such hesitation and delay is fatal to experimental work of the char- 
acter performed in this Department. It often requires months, some- 
times years, to find an outbreak of disease of the right type and with 
the affected animals at the proper stage to yield results to the investi- 
gator. If it is a contagious disease, the experimental animals must be 
exposed to or inoculated with the liquid excretions or tissues of the 
affected individual, and this must be done under a variety of condi- 
tions. Such material is perishable, and when found must be used at 
once. The experiments for which it is suitable must be immediately 
planned and executed, otherwise the valuable material is lost. Hence 
the desirability of leaving investigators free from unnecessary restric- 
tions and of encouraging them to their best efforts by recognizing 
their valuable contributions to the cause of humanity. The effect of 
this section would be to place experimentation upon animals under the 
ban of the law, to put a stigma upon it, and to cause those engaged in 
such researches to expend a large part of their energy and ability to 
avoid infraction of the numerous restrictions. 
2. It is provided in section 2, paragraph a, that such experiment 
must be performed with a view to the advancement by new discovery 
of physiological knowledge or of knowledge which will be useful for 
saving or prolonging life or alleviating suffering; that is to say, it 
forbids all experimentation to confirm the results obtained by others or 
to determine whether their results are exactly accurate or whether such 
conclusions apply under the conditions which obtain in this country. 
This provision at once prohibits a large part of the necessary experi- 
mental work of this Department and would seriously cripple the 
remainder. Every experiment becomes an offense which does not lead 
to an immediate practical result. It so happens, however, that no one 
experiment can give such results except in extraordinary cases. Science 
is built up by degrees; we progress a step at a time, and many experi- 
ments must be made to determine the facts in the case before we can 
foresee the results. If the experimenter must stop to consider whether 
he can demonstrate to the satisfaction of a court that each individual 
experiment was “ performed with a view to the advancement by new 
discovery of physiological knowledge or of knowledge which will be 
useful for saving or prolonging life or alleviating suffering,” it is not 
likely that he will accomplish much by his work, 
3. “The experiment must be performed by a person holding such 
license from the Commissioners of the District of Columbia as in this 
act mentioned.” The substitute bill adds the words “or by a duly 
authorized medical officer of the Government of the United States or 
of the District of Columbia.” The provision in each bill is objection- 
able. The first-mentioned bill makes the work of this Department 
dependent upon the action of the Commissioners of the District of 
Columbia, and would allow these Commissioners to dictate as to the 
persons who should be employed in this scientific work. The substi- 
tute bill allows experiments to be performed by a duly authorized medi- 
cal officer of the Government of the United States without a license. 
This would still exclude a large proportion of our men engaged in experi- 
mental work, who, while graduates in science and perfectly competent, 
could not be considered medical officers. It appears from an examina- 
tion of the records that some of our best men in the past would not have 
been allowed to serve under this provision. 
4. The bill provides that— 
Notwithstanding anything in this act contained, no experiment calculated to give 
pain shall he performed on a dog or cat, except upon such certificate being given as 
in this act mentioned, stating, in addition to the statements hereinbefore required 109 
VIVISECTION 
to be made in such certificate, that for reasons specified in the certificate the object 
of the experiment will be necessarily frustrated unless it is performed on an animal 
similar in constitution and habits to a cat or dog, and no other animal is available 
for such experiment; and an experiment calculated to give pain shall not be per- 
formed on any horse, ass, or mule, except on such certificate being given as in this 
act mentioned, that the object of the experiment will be necessarily frustrated unless 
it is performed on a horse, ass, or mule, and that no other animal is available for 
such purpose. 
Section 7 provides: 
That any application for a license under this act, and for a certificate to be given 
as in this act mentioned, must be signed by three physicians duly licensed to prac- 
tice and actually engaged in practicing medicine in the District ot Columbia, and 
also by a professor of physiology, medicine, anatomy, medical jurisprudence, materia 
medica, or surgery in the medical department of any duly established reliable school 
or college in the District of Columbia: Provided, That when any person applying 
for a certificate under this act is himself one of the persons authorized to sign such 
certificate, the signature of some other of such persons shall be substituted lor the 
signature of the applicant. 
A. copy of any certificate under this section shall be forwarded by the applicant 
to the Commissioners of the District, but shall not be available until one week alter 
a copy has been so forwarded. The Commissioners of the District may at any time 
disallow or suspend any certificate given under this section. 
These provisions prevent the use of five species of animals in experi- 
ments, excejff upon special certificate being- given. The form of this 
certificate and the manner in which it is to be obtained or given are 
indefinite, and it can not be clearly understood from the language of 
the bill what kind of a certificate is intended. The fact that an appli- 
cation for a certificate must be signed by three physicians and by a 
professor in a medical college makes the work of an Executive Depart- 
ment of the United States Government dependent again, in this instance, 
not only upon the Commissioners of the District, but upon the action 
of individuals in the District of Columbia who have no connection 
either with the United States Government or the District government. 
Such a provision is, I believe, unprecedented in legislation affecting the 
Executive Departments. 
The language quoted makes it plain that a certificate must be given 
for each experiment, or certainly for each series of experiments, made 
upon any of the animals mentioned. As these certificates are not avail- 
able until one week after a copy has been forwarded to the Commis- 
sioners of the District, experiments upon these animals are practically 
prohibited. As before explained, experiments can not be planned or 
performed until the material to be used in such experiments is obtained, 
and such material being perishable, a delay of a week would lead to its 
total loss, and thus prevent the experiment being carried out. This 
refers to experiments with contagious diseases or with animal parasites, 
which are the principal ones conducted under the direction of the 
Bureau of Animal Industry. 
All investigation concerning the diseases of horses, asses, and mules 
would practically be stopped by the proposed legislation, and the test- 
ing of horses with raallein to determine if they are affected with glan- 
ders would only be possible after a week’s delay to obtain a certificate. 
Glanders is one of the diseases which it is the duty of the Bureau of 
Animal Industry, in cooperation with the Commissioners of the District 
of Columbia, to eradicate from the District. If a suspected horse is 
found it should be tested at once. A delay of a week gives an oppor- 
tunity for the escape of the animal from supervision, and is under any 
circumstances a hardship to the owner, as well as a peril to the people 
and horses exposed to the affected animal. Efforts to control conta- 110 
VIVISECTION. 
gious diseases must be prompt and vigorous if they are expected to 
bring success. Suck legislation as is proposed in the bills mentioned 
would make the eradication of glanders impossible. 
o. It is provided in section 4 of the substitute bill that a license shall 
not be granted to any person under the age of 25 years unless he be a 
graduate from a medical college duly authorized to practice medicine 
in the District of Columbia. 
This provision eliectually excludes from experimentation any graduate 
in science under 25 years of age unless he is duly authorized to prac- 
tice medicine in the District ot Columbia. It would at once stop some 
of the experiments now in progress, and if it had been enforced in 
past years would have prevented a large proportion of our scientific 
employees from doing this class of work. Taken in connection with 
paragraph h of section 2, which provides that experiments must be 
performed by persons holding a license from the Commissioners of the 
District or by a duly authorized medical officer of the Government of 
the United States or of the District of Columbia, it is readily seen that 
young men, graduates in zoology or in other collateral sciences, could 
not make experiments even if they were competent and in the service 
of an Executive Department of the Government. 
0. The bill also provides that the Commissioners of the District may 
direct any person performing such experiments under this act from time 
to time to make reports to them of the result of such experiments, in 
such form and with such details as the said Commissioners may require. 
The substitute bill makes this report cover the methods employed as 
well as the results of the experiments. This provision is objectionable, 
because it makes the employees of an Executive Department subject to 
the directions of the Commissioners of the District in making their 
reports. It permits reports to be called for before the investigations 
are completed, and the official work of these experts might be stopped 
at any time by a demand from the Commissioners fora report as to the 
methods being employed and results of the experiments, 
I would respectfully suggest that it is improper, and not in accord- 
ance with precedent, for the employees of an Executive Department of 
the Government to report directly to the Commissioners of the District. 
Their report should be made to the head of the Department, and if 
any report is to be made to the Commissioners it should be made by 
or transmitted through the head of the Department. Even this wmuld 
be objectionable, as the work of the Departments should not in any 
way be subject to or dependent upon the local authorities. 
7. It is provided in section 6 “ that the Commissioners of the District 
shall cause all registered places to be from time to time visited by 
inspectors, without previous notice, for the purpose of securing compli- 
ance with the provisions of this act, and shall appoint and authorize an 
agent of the Washington Humane Society to make such inspection, 
and may also appoint such special inspectors as they may think fit, 
either permanently or temporarily, who may be willing to act as such 
inspectors gratuitously.” 
The substitute bill provides: 
That the President of the United States shall cause all places where experiments 
■on living vertebrate animals are carried on, in the District of Columbia, to be, from 
time to time, visited and inspected without previous notice, for the purpose of secur- 
ing compliance with the provisions of this act; and to that end shall appoint four 
inspectors, who shall serve without compensation, and who shall have authority to 
™ I”sp®ct' the Places aforesaid, and who shall report to the President of the 
United States from time totime.the results of their observations therein, which shall 
he made public by him. VIVISECTION. 
It must be plain that the results of all of these limitations and 
restrictions and of this espionage will be the prevention of scientific 
research rather than its regulation. As long as this Department is 
directed by Congress to make investigations of animal diseases, and to 
provide for their suppression and control, the Department should be 
left free to carry on such work in such manner as may seem best to the 
Secretary of Agriculture in order to attain the end in view. The 
Department must always be under the direction of responsible officers 
who may be called upon by the President at any time for information, 
and a board of inspection composed of persons not in the Government 
service and who serve gratuitously, is not needed, and would not be in 
the interest of efficient service. 
8. An apparent concession is made in section 2, paragraph c, which 
provides: 
That in so-called inoculation experiments or tests of drugs or medicines, the ani- 
mal need not he amesthetized nor killed afterwards nor in tests of surgical procedure 
need animals be kept completely anaesthetized during the process of recovery from 
the surgical operation. 
This concession is, however, apparent rather than real. The investi- 
gator remains subject to all the other limitations of the bill. (1) If not 
a duly authorized medical officer of the Government of the United 
States or of the District of Columbia, he must first obtain a license. 
(Sec. 2 h.) (2) His application for a license must be signed by three 
physicians duly licensed to practice medicine and actually engaged in 
practicing medicine in the District of Columbia, also by a professor of 
physiology, medicine, anatomy, medical jurisprudence, materia medica, 
or surgery in the medical department of any duly established reliable 
school or college in the District of Columbia. (Sec. 7.) (3) The Commis- 
sioners may require the place where the experiments are made to be reg- 
istered. (Sec 3.) (4) If under 25 years of age and not duly authorized 
to practice medicine in the District of Columbia, he can not obtain a 
license. (Sec. 4.) (5) He must, if authorized to experiment at all, con- 
fine his experiments to the advancement, by new discovery, of physi- 
ological knowledge or of knowledge which will be useful for saving or 
prolonging life or alleviating suffering. (Sec, 2 a.) (G) If the experiment 
is to be made upon a dog. cat, horse, ass, or mule, a certificate must be 
given (it is not specified by whom) stating, in addition to certain other 
statements, that for specified reasons the object of the experiment will 
be necessarily frustrated unless it is performed on an animal similar 
in constitution to a cat, dog, horse, ass, or mule, and that no other 
animal is available for such purposes. (Sec. 2, par. e, 3d part.) (7) Any 
application “for a certificate to be given as in this act mentioned must 
be signed by three physicians duly licensed to practice and actually 
engaged in practicing medicine in the District of Columbia, and also 
by a professor of physiology, medicine, anatomy, medical jurisprudence, 
materia medica, or surgery, in the medical department of any duly 
established reliable school or college in the District of Columbia: Pro- 
vided., That when any person applying for a certificate under this act is 
himself one of the persons authorized to sign such certificate, the sig- 
nature of such other of such persons shall be substituted for the signa- 
ture of the applicant.” (Sec. 7.) (8) Such certificate shall not be 
available until one week after a copy has been forwarded to the Com- 
missioners of the District. (Sec. 7.) It is not stated to whom the 
application for this certificate shall be made. (9) The investigator 
must hold himself ready to report at any time to the Commissioners of 
the District both the methods employed and the results of the experi- 112 
VIVISECTION. 
ments, in such form and with such details as the said Commissioners 
may require. (Sec. 5.) It makes no difference how premature the 
report may be, or how damaging to the investigator to publish it before 
the results are completed, there is no recourse. (10) The investigator, 
his animals, methods, and experiments are to be subject to the constant 
inspection and espionage of four inspectors, to be appointed by the 
President, who shall serve without compensation, and who shall report 
to the President the results of their observations. (Sec. 6.) 
It can hardly be supposed that a scientific man could master all of 
these requirements and limitations of the law without embarrassment 
and injury to his work, or that he could conduct a series of experi- 
ments to a successful issue without contravening some of them and 
making himself liable to the extreme penalties provided for such an 
offense. The assertion that the effect of either the original bill or the 
substitute will be simply to regulate experiments and prevent abuses 
are absurd in the light of an analysis of the provisions. The effect 
will be practically prohibitive, and there is good reason to believe that 
this is the result aimed at by those who drafted the bills. 
It appears that this bill (S. 1552) was formulated by the antivivisec- 
tion committee of the Washington Humane Society (Annual Report, 
1895, p. 24), and I am informed that a substitute bill has more recently 
been proposed by the said antivivisection committee. An examination 
of the proposed substitute does not, however, disclose any material 
modification of the provisions existing in the original bill. Both have 
evidently been drawn by persons hostile to scientific investigations 
which must be made through experimentation upon animals. The 
sentiment of the society which procured the drafting of these bills is 
well summarized in the report of its president for the year 1894. He 
said— 
The subject of vivisection [experiments upon animals] has been frequently before 
your executive committee during the past year, and but one sentiment has been 
expressed, viz, that of utter abhorrence and condemnation of the inhuman practice 
which, according to the oft-expressed opinion of the best physicians and surgeons, 
is of no practical value to science or medicine.| ■ (p. 18.) 
It is not surprising that people holding such views should endeavor 
to graft them upon the legislation of the country, and we must bear in 
mind the fact that those who drafted these bills are hostile to experi- 
mentation and desire to abolish rather than to regulate it. 
The investigations which the Bureau of Animal Industry has made 
have been so successful as to attract the attention of the scientific world, 
and they have required constant experimentation upon animals. Some 
of those experiments have been painful to the animals operated upon, 
but they have been in charge of scientific and humane persons who have 
exerted themselves to prevent any unnecessary suffering. Such exper- 
iments which are intended to supply the knowledge required for pro- 
tecting our domestic animals from disease, and for securing a food supply 
from them uncontaminated by disease, and which also contribute to the 
prevention and cure of human maladies, are less subject to the charge 
of cruelty, even though they cause pain, than are the ordinary practices 
of dishorning, emasculation, branding, and slaughtering, all of which 
are countenanced for economic reasons and cause more pain than do 
scientific experiments. So long as we admit that an animal may be 
caused to suffer the intense pain of castration in order that it may be 
more economically raised and better suited for the service of man or for 
the production of edible meat, so long as we permit millions of delicate 
calves to be burned with a red-hot iron upon their sensitive skins in VIVISECTION. 
113 
order that they may be identified, and so long as we admit that animals 
may be killed by painful processes to supply us with food, it is incon- 
sistent to say that they can not be used in experiments necessary for 
the advancement of knowledge, the relief of suffering, and the saving 
of property and life. 
The first investigations of this kind which this Department was 
directed by Congress to make related to the diseases of swine, and 
these investigations have been continued until those diseases which 
cause the principal losses are well understood and can be controlled by 
the application of proper measures. 
The Bureau of Animal Industry was established principally to avert 
the great danger which threatened our cattle industry from the exist- 
ence on our territory of that cattle plague known as the contagious 
pleuro-pneumonia of bovine animals. Other countries had struggled 
with it in vain, but it had never, up to that time, been eradicated from 
any country in which it had gained a considerable distribution. The 
nature of the disease, and the best methods of controlling it were 
imperfectly understood. The experiments made here upon animals 
gave sufficient information, however, to enable those charged with the 
work to mark out a systematic and scientific plan of operations, which 
led to the complete eradication of the disease in less than five years. 
Although four years have passed since this work was completed, the 
predictions of the scientists have been fulfilled to the letter, and no 
cases of the disease have been found during that time. Previous to 
this work being undertaken the disease had existed constantly and 
extensively for more than forty years, and many persons had become 
so accustomed to it that they freely predicted its immediate reappear- 
ance, even if it was stamped out. 
An illustration of the absolute necessity of experiments upon animals 
to settle contested questions relating to disease may be drawn from the 
existing restrictions of the British Government on the American cattle 
trade. Although there has been no pleuro-pneumonia in this country 
for over four years, the British inspectors frequently condemn our cattle 
as being affected with that disease. The American inspectors and many 
European veterinarians hold that the disease actually discovered is 
ordinary pneumonia arising from exposure during the ocean voyage. 
How then can this difference of opinion between the British and Amer- 
ican officers be settled ? Hot by clinical observation, not by discussion, 
not by diplomacy, for all of these have been tried. A scientific and 
incontestable demonstration could be made by exposing healthy cattle 
to those said to be affected with contagious pleuro-pneumonia. This 
would be a final and unanswerable test, but no such test can be secured. 
They have limited experimentation upon animals in Great Britain by 
law. Objections have been raised to such an experiment, and this ques- 
tion can not be brought to a final issue. If the bill under discussion 
should unfortunately fecome a law, an experiment could not be made 
at the seat of the United States Government to settle this important 
question, even should it become possible for other persons to make the 
experiment here. The experiment would be calculated to give pain; it 
would not be an inoculation experiment or a surgical procedure, and, 
consequently, it would be necessary, according to this bill, to keep the 
animals in the experiment, say 20 head of cattle, completely under 
the influence of ether or chloroform for the three or four weeks during 
which the animals might feel more or less pain. Such a requirement 
is absurd and impossible of fulfillment. 
This is not an unusual or overdrawn case. It is only an illustration 
ViV 8 114 
VIVISECTION. 
of contested or unsolved questions frequently coining before this 
Department for solution, and which it is of the greatest importance to 
the agricultural industry to have settled reliably and permanently. 
Another great work which the Bureau has done by experimenting 
upon animals is the elucidation of the nature, the mode of dissemina- 
tion, and the means of preventing the disease known as Texas fever 
of cattle. This disease was causing enormous losses to farmers by 
death of their stock, was demoralizing the cattle industry of a number 
of Western States and Territories, and was causing such fatality among 
cattle en route to foreign countries that the propriety of admitting our 
animals was questioned and the insurance during the summer months 
was advanced to 10 per cent of the value of the animals. Now all of 
this has been changed; outbreaks of Texas fever in this country are 
rare and unimportant, and the insurance on export cattle has been 
reduced to 1 per cent or less. 
These are only a small part of the results accomplished by the Bureau 
of Animal Industry through this kind of experimentation. Such 
researches are difficult, and they are successfully conducted only where 
the conditions are favorable and where the investigators are stimulated 
by friendly encouragement and support. It may be safely said that 
under hostile legislation, classifying such experiments as a form of 
cruelty, surrounding them with numerous limitations and restrictions, 
subjecting the experimenter to the espionage of intolerant inspectors, 
and threatening him with excessive penalties for infractions of any of 
the many requirements, the success which we now point to with pride 
would not have been achieved. 
There are still many problems relating to animal diseases which must 
be investigated and solved by this class of experiments before the animal 
industry can yield to our farmers an adequate return. Agriculture 
demands and should receive all the assistance which can be given to 
it by the most advanced scientific methods employed under the most 
favorable conditions. We find to-day many of the dairy herds affected 
to the extent of 70 to 90 per cent with tuberculosis; we find the swine 
fed upon the refuse milk of such dairies affected Avith the same disease, 
and we haVe every reason to believe that much of the tuberculosis in 
people comes from the same source. Is the Bureau of Animal Industry 
to be interrupted and hampered in its study of this and other diseases 
by legislation alleged to be for the prevention of cruelty to animals rvhen 
the promoters of tliis legislation have failed to show that any improper 
experimentation has been conducted or is likely to be conducted in the 
District of Columbia1? 
Are the vital interests of agriculture in the whole United States to 
be made subservient to the demands of an over-zealous and intolerant 
local society, which appears incapable of taking a broad and liberal 
view of this subject? Are we prepared, in order to protect a few dogs, 
cats, and other animals from sufferings less than these animals usually 
undergo when they die a so-called natural death, to have legislation 
enacted which would withdraw the efforts of the scientists who are 
working for the relief of the hundreds of thousands of men, women, and 
children who now die annually in this country from preventable diseases ? 
Are the millions of animals which suffer and die from animal plagues 
every year less worthy of attention than the few Avhich die with less 
pain in the research laboratory? These questions appear not to have 
occurred to those who are advocating this legislation. The effort to 
limit, obstruct, and prohibit such experiments, although it originates 
from humane societies, is not in the cause of true humanity; it ignores VIVISECTION. 
115 
the interests and sufferings of mankind and would perjmtuate these suf- 
ferings to carry into effect what is clearly an erroneous view of what 
constitutes kindness and humanity to the lower animals. 
It the legislation already enacted for the prevention of cruelty to 
animals in the District of Columbia is shown to be insufficient for this 
purpose, and additional legislation is thought desirable, this legislation 
should be so framed as not to affect the Executive Departments of the 
United States Government, and under no circumstances should local 
legislation be allowed to interfere with, demoralize, or prohibit the 
important scientific investigations which are specifically authorized by 
Congress for the benefit of the great agricultural industry of the whole 
country. 
Agriculture at this time needs the encouragement and assistance 
which the experimental work of the Bureau of Animal Industry is 
bringing to it. Much has already been accomplished, but even greater 
results are promised in the near future. It is an age of science and 
progress, and all other industries are rapidly advancing through scien- 
tific research. Should not our farmers receive all possible aid from 
the same source? 
STATEMENT OF DR. WALTER WYMAN, SUPERVISING SURGEON* 
GENERAL MARINE-HOSPITAL SERVICE. 
Dr. Wyman submitted the following statement in writing: 
Referring to Senate bill 1552, for the further prevention of cruelty to 
animals in the District of Columbia, the effect of which, if enacted into 
law, will materially retard scientific work in the interest of humanity, 
I wish, by way of protest, to invite attention to the practical results 
which have been obtained by the use of antitoxin in the treatment of 
diphtheria, which results would have been unattainable if science had 
been restricted in the manner proposed in this bill. The Marine-Hos- 
pital Service was one of the first agencies in the United States through 
which the antitoxic serum was prepared and distributed. A school of 
instruction was opened in its laboratory for the benefit of municipal and 
State health officers, and by act of Congress the Bureau was directed 
to cooperate with the health officer of the District of Columbia in the 
prevention of diphtheria. A collective investigation in order to show 
the practical results of the work has been conducted by the Bureau, 
and the following statistics have been obtained: 
In 109 cities of the United States, with a total population of 11,125,000 
(according to the census of 1890), from 1891 to 1894, inclusive, there 
were 131,020 cases of diphtheria and croup, with 51,820 deaths, a mortal- 
ity of over 39 per cent. This is a fair estimate of the mortality of the 
disease without the use of antitoxin. In 1895, 5,125 cases of diphtheria 
and croup are recorded as having been treated with antitoxin with a 
mortality of 552 or 10.7 percent, and during the same period and in 
the same localities 2,930 cases were treated without the use of antitoxin 
with a mortality of 1,110 deaths, a death rate of 40 per cent. 
Additional statistics in further illustration of the value of antitoxin 
might be readily cited here, but will appear in other communications. 
These are sufficient to demonstrate the value of this remedy, which 
could not have been prepared under the restraints proposed by this bill. 
I have been informed that it has been suggested to amend the bill 
so that it shall not affect experimental inoculations, but there is no con- 
sistency in making such exception, for it is well known that animals 116 
VIVISECTION. 
suffer as much from the after effects of experimental inoculation as from 
the minor operations connected with vivisection. The same principle 
which would prevent the bleeding of a horse for the purpose of obtain- 
ing the antitoxic serum should prevent his inoculation for the purpose 
of producing it, or the inoculation of any animal with any germ of dis- 
ease which will cause illness. Had this principle prevailed there would 
have been no discovery of the bacillus of cholera, upon which the sup- 
pression of that hitherto irrepressible disease has become a scientific 
and practical possibility. In fact, I may add that the quarantine 
methods of the present day, through which epidemic diseases are 
excluded from the United States by scientific disinfection, have their 
basis in these experiments. 
STATEMENT OE DR. J. J. KINYOUN, PASSED ASSISTANT SURGEON, 
MARINE-HOSPITAL SERVICE. 
Dr. Kinyoun submitted the following statement in writing: 
I have the honor to invite attention to a certain bill introduced in 
the Senate (S, 1552), which has for its object the restriction and con- 
trol of on animals. This bill, if it becomes a law, will 
materially affect the scientific research work of the laboratory of the 
Marine-Hosxntal Service as well as that of the Medical Department of 
the Army and Navy and the Bureau of Animal Industry. The reasons 
given by the x>romoters of the bill for need of such legislation is the 
fact that there now exists in the District of Columbia the aforesaid 
biological laboratories in which experimentation and vivisection of ani- 
mals are performed. It is also claimed that in these laboratories the 
infliction of pain and unnecessary cruelty upon animals is constant 
and of common occurrence. 
Further, it is claimed that such exx>eriments are performed in public 
schools and the medical colleges. The biological laboratories of the sev- 
eral Departments of the Government located in the District of Colum- 
bia have been established by acts of Congress, and have for many 
years received its sanction. It is quite remarkable, if such a condition 
of affairs exists, that no notice has been thus far taken by Congress 
save favorable action in funds for the continuance of 
investigations. It has been heretofore stated to me by persons who are 
now the most ardent advocates of the bill that the object of this agita- 
tion is to have enacted some law bearing upon vivisection and animal 
experimentation which will allow these persons to suxmrvise and control 
all research work in these laboratories, with the ultimate jmrpose of 
abolishing it altogether. lam convinced that the same sentiment and 
purpose exists now as formerly, because similar expressions have been 
recently made by the advocates of the bill. 
I have been connected with the laboratory of the Service, as you 
well know, since its institution (1887), and have been in a great measure 
responsible for the character and manner of conducting the investiga- 
tions therein. On account of these allegations I feel it my duty, both 
to the Service and myself, to call in question these statements with 
regard to the cruel manner in which the research work of the labora- 
tories is performed. It will not be necessary to review in detail what 
has been accomxdished since the institution of the laboratory, because 
much of it is a matter of record, but to state that our researches have 
been in the line of investigations relating to the cause and x>revention 
of quarantiuable diseases and other matters jmrtaining to the public 
health. These investigations have been made subjects of reports to VIVISECTION. 
117 
the Bureau, and are a matter of record. Many of the subjects investi- 
gated in laboratory, by reason of their nature, required experimenta- 
tion upon animals, for without such it would have been impossible to 
arrive at any conclusion of value. Our present methods of manage- 
ment of the contagious and infectious diseases rests entirely upon such 
laboratory investigations. Notwithstanding the wonderful progress 
made in the prevention of diseases during the past twenty years— 
especially those designated as acutely contagious maladies—it has 
been stated by the opponents of vivisection and experimental research 
that all the knowledge for our guidance has been gained in the broad 
lines of common experience, and little, if any, benefits to the human 
race have been added by these cruel and awful experiments. These 
allegations are not worthy of being called arguments, for to anyone of 
unbiased mind the record should speak for itself. 
To better illustrate what has been done with one disease in particu- 
lar, let us consider the status of the disease diphtheria. The lesson 
taught by the year 1895 should bear some little conviction, even to the 
most skeptical. During the past six months the Bureau has been 
engaged in a collective investigation showing the prevalence of and 
mortality from diphtheria and croup in the cities of the United States 
having a population of 25,000 and over. In 109 cities, having a popu- 
lation of 11,125,000, there occurred, from 1891 to 1894, inclusive, 131,620 
cases of diphtheria and croup, with 51,820 deaths—a mortality of over 
39 per cent. In 1895, in the same cities, there occurred 45,690 cases, 
with 11,640 deaths, or a death rate of 25 per cent as compared with the 
average 39 per cent of the four years previous. It is also remarkable 
that the diminution of the death rate has been in those cities where 
the diphtheria antitoxin has been in extensive use, and has remained 
stationary in others where its use was limited. The greatest diminution 
appears in the cities of New York, Brooklyn, Washington, St. Louis, 
Chicago, and Boston, where a large quantity of antitoxin has been 
used. This does not imply that antitoxin has been used in every case 
occurring in these places where the death rate has been lower. To 
form some estimate of the actual value of the remedy for the control 
of diphtheria, as well as for reducing the death rate, I have tabulated, 
from reports sent to this Bureau by health officers and other authentic 
sources, a number of cases treated with antitoxin, which I hope will 
be convincing arguments in favor of the remedy. In 1895, 5,125 cases 
of diphtheria and croup were treated with antitoxin, with a death rate of 
552, or 10.7 per cent, while of 2,936 cases occurring synchronously in 
the same places there were 1,110 deaths—a mortality of 40 per cent. 
In addition to the above, I have also collected 2,400 cases which have 
been exposed to diphtheria or were found to have the diphtheria 
baccilli in their throats. These were immunized with the remedy, with 
the result of 19 mild cases occurring, and the majority of those within 
two days after the injection, and in none of these were unpleasant 
results noticed. Prof. William H. Welch, of Johns Hopkins Univer- 
sity, has collected 7,166 cases of diphtheria occurring in Knrope from 
1894 to 1895, which were treated with antitoxin, with a mortality of 17 
per cent against 2,279 cases occurring synchronously not treated with 
antitoxin, with a death rate of 42 per cent. Compiling these two reports 
we have 12,332 cases treated with antitoxin, with a mortality of 14 per 
cent against 5,215 cases not treated with antitoxin, with a mortality of 
41 per cent. From the study of the reports received from the 109 cities, 
having a population of 11,125,000, it would be safe to infer that there 
have occurred in the United States during the past five years over 
250,000 deaths from diphtheria and croup. If antitoxin could have 118 
VIVISECTION. 
been obtained and used in all cases of diphtheria occurring in the 
United States during the past five years, it would be safe to say that 
there would have been saved at the lowest estimate 150,000 lives. These 
five years rex>resent an epoch in the x>reveution and treatment of dix>h- 
theria, for it was during this time that Behring, Eoux, and their 
collaborators were xiatiently pursuing their labors with this xmrpose in 
view. The reports of the efficacy of the remedy are not confined to 
this country. The same come from all parts of the world. One of the 
most striking is submitted by Ur, Monod, director of the public health 
department of France: 
M. Henri Monod, of the public health department of France, has recently commu- 
nicated to the Academy of Medicine certain statistics which have an important hear- 
ing upon the value of the antitoxin of diphtheria. In 108 towns of 20,000 inhabitants 
and over, with an aggregate population of 8,150,000, the average number of deaths 
from diphtheria during the first six months of the seven years 1888-1894 was 2,627. 
In the three months, November, 1894, to January, 1895, thelnstitut Pasteur distrib- 
uted over 50,000 supplies of antitoxin serum, and this supply, which was maintained, 
was made available not only for the well-to-do, but also for those who by reason of 
poverty were compelled to receive it by means of gratuitous distribution. Now, in 
the first six months of 1895 the number of deaths from diphtheria in the same 108 
towns was only 904, or a diminution at the rate of 65.6 per cent. The rate of diminu- 
tion, month by month, went on almost uniformly from one of 56.2 per cent for the 
month of January to 47.5 per cent for the month of June. On these data alone a 
saving of 15,000 lives would have been effected during the first half of 1895. 
Notwithstanding this array of facts presented in regard to diphtheria, 
many of the advocates of this proposed legislation—l may say the 
majority—are unwilling to admit that the use of such a remedy is of 
value or the means of producing it justifiable. To better illustrate the 
undercurrent of feeling which is entertained regarding the value of 
such experiments conducted upon animals for the xirevention and cure 
of diphtheria, I call to mind an incident which occurred in this city 
about two and one-half years ago. I had consented to appear before a 
certain society for the purpose of stating what had been accomxdished by 
the scientific researches of the laboratories in the prevention of disease. 
On explaining the value of our methods in preventing diphtheria, I was 
told by several female antivivisection!sts that they would sooner let a 
child die of diphtheria than to save its life by the sacrifice of a guinea pig. 
I hope none of them were mothers. To further illustrate this peculiar 
order of mind, or rather disorder of mind, I beg to recall an order which 
emanated from this Bureau, directing me to investigate the claims made 
for the treatment of cholera by cobra venom. This substance was 
claimed by Perroux, of Calcutta, to be an infallible remedy against 
cholera, and that it had been used by the mountain tribes of India for 
many years in the treatment of disease with wonderful success. In car- 
rying out the spirit of the order, and in order to arrive at the proof, 
it became necessary to resort to experiments upon animals. This fact 
happened to be mentioned by the daily press simply as a news item. A 
few days thereafter I began to receive anonymous letters, two of which 
I wish to submit as evidence: 
Letter No. 1. 
You vile, merciless, rascally fiend. I judge from your name you are a nasty 
Frenchman with no heart and without a God. If you think you will be permitted 
to set up a place of torture in this country for poor animals yon are vastly mis- 
taken. You will have to betake yourself to the vile and Godless country from which 
you came or to the hell to which you are destined, and if you wish to indulge in 
such fiendish performances when you reach the latter place—which I hope you will 
soon—unless you repent, you will have an opportunity with kindred fiends of tor- 
turing yourself through the endless ages of eternity. lam a woman who despises 
brutes and all brutal actions. VIVISECTION. 
Letter No. 2. 
119 
When pain—the most awful sensation of the human frame—exists let its allevia- 
tion or study prove the sole lawful guide to future cases. 
Only the most damnable fiend cloaked in human form ever lifted the knife in vivi- 
section. May the curse of an all-merciful God rest upon you. Laugh, sneer, such as 
you do; but may every agony your hellish minds and hand inflicts be trebled upon 
yourself in this world and the one to come and upon all like you. May your death- 
bed be such a scene of horror that all will forsake you. May God's curse be upon you. 
In conclusion I wish to quote the words of Professor Welch, who has 
spoken so clearly and forcibly on the value of the antitoxin treatment 
of diphtheria: 
The principal conclusion which I would draw from this paper is that our study of 
the results of the treatment of over 7,000 cases of diphtheria by antitoxin demon- 
strates beyond all reasonable doubt that antidiphtheritic serum is a specific curative 
agent for diphtheria, surpassing in its efficacy all other known methods of treatment 
for this disease. It is the duty of the physician to use it. 
The discovery of the healing serum is entirely the result of laboratory work. It 
is an outcome of the studies of immunity. In no sense was the discovery an acci- 
dental one. Every step leading to it can be traced, and every step was taken with, 
a definite purpose and to solve a definite problem. 
These studies and the resulting discoveries mark an epoch in the history of medi- 
cine. It should be forcibly brought home to those whoso philozoic sentiments out- 
weigh sentiments of true philanthropy that these discoveries which have led to the 
saving of untold thousands of human lives have been gained by the sacrifice ot the 
lives of thousands of animals, and by no possibility could have been made without 
experimentation upon animals. 
STATEMENT OF DR. ALBERT LEFFINGWELL, OF CAMBRIDGE, 
MASS. 
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen : If I had been asked to speak to-day 
in behalf of a measure that should abolish vivisection in the District 
of Columbia, I should have refused without a moment’s hesitation. It 
is the misfortune of our language that a single word must include every 
phase and form of investigation into the phenomena of what we call 
life; that we must use it for experiments that are absolutely painless, 
and for those involving torments as acute and prolonged as the imagi- 
nation can conceive; for experiments of great utility as well as those 
which have not the slightest conceivable relation to the treatment of 
disease or to any practical end. It has always seemed to me that care- 
ful distinctions were never more necessary than in according approval 
or condemnation to a practice of such infinite variety, and that in view 
of the great problems which environ the science of medicine, some vivi- 
section must continue. For many reasons, I am glad to support the 
measure now under your consideration. It does not impede in any way 
the proper use of animal experimentation. It is not an attack upon the 
medical profession to which 1 have the honor to belong. Its one aim 
is to bring the practice out of the obscurity in which it is concealed 
to-day, to place it in the hands of proper individuals, and to put it under 
legal regulation and the supervision of the State. 
Let us look somewhat closely at this bill. Is it either a true or fair 
statement to assert that this measure is in opposition to scientific 
investigations! Why, sir, we are dealing with written words that are 
as plain as any in the English language. In the first place, this bill 
permits any experiment whatever upon certain classes of living animals 
when such experiment can be begun and completed without the causa- 
tion of pain. This is a very broad permission, Mr. Chairman. It is 
asserted by physiologists that the vast majority of experiments for 120 
VIVISECTION. 
teaching purposes may be wholly without pain by the use of anes- 
thetics; and it this statement is accurate, we have a large class of 
vivisections, perhaps a majority of vivisections, which this bill does 
not prohibit, and seeks only to keep in proper hands. In the second 
place, tins measure does not prohibit inoculation experiments and what 
are known as bacteriological investigations, even where this class of 
experiments involve the causation of a certain degree of pain. Think 
for a moment what this means. All those varied investigations of 
science which have resulted in the discovery of the antitoxins, all 
experiments concerning diphtheria, tetanus, consumption, and other 
goriii diseases, are, so tar as I can perceive, unaffected by the provisions 
of this bill. Thirdly, we come to experiments upon living animals, 
where certain surgical operations are made in order that their utility 
or uselessness may be first demonstrated before trying them upon man. 
buch experiments as these may be made under anaesthetics, but the 
pain of healing must often be severe, as severe certainly as a man 
would suffer under like circumstances; and yet it is permitted by this 
bill. Fourthly, we have here no hindrance to whatever tests of drugs 
or medicines physicians or chemists may desire to make. 1 confess, 
Sir, that to me this bill seems to go to the farthest extreme of concession 
in the anxiety of its framers to yield to the wishes of scientific men so 
far as may be consistent with the principle of legal supervision. Why 
it concedes everything of utility. It asks only that the law shall be 
above the individual; that abuse and wanton cruelty shall be impossi- 
ble a crime; that the methods and results of all experiments 
shall be officially made known, and that the privileges of experimenta- 
tion shall be given only to trained and qualified men. 
We are told, Mr. Chairman, that there is no necessity for such a meas- 
ure as this. That depends upon whether vivisection is capable of abuse. 
1 confess that from those who oppose legislation of any kind I have never 
heard one word in condemnation of the awful atrocities that have stained 
the practice of vivisection. But it seems to be a law of nature, that 
wherever you find unlimited power you find in due time that power 
abused; and no facts of history are more capable of verification than the 
unspeakable cruelties practiced in vivisection by eminent men in coun- 
tries where the practice is not controlled by law. Why, both in Europe 
nier*ca> t have personally seen torment, exquisite and prolonged, 
inflicted upon living animals, not for any purpose of beneficent discov- 
ery but solely to demonstrate, over and over, facts as well known as the 
alphabet. Not long since one of the leading vivisector professors in a 
New Fork medical college told me of most sickening experiments per- 
formed by one ot his associates in the laboratory to which he belonged. 
Yet nothing could be done—the law does not penetrate there. We are 
becoming a byword, even among physiologists, for our indifference. Dr. 
Derail! Yeo, the professor of physiology in King’s College, London, in 
an article of the Fortnightly Review, protested against English physi- 
ologists being held responsible for the cruelties of other lands. “Why 
repeat,” he says, “the oft-told tale of horrors contained in the works of 
Claude Bernard, Paul Bert, Brown-Sequard, and Richet in France, of 
Doltz in Germany, Mantagazza in Italy, and Flint in America V7—coup- 
ling thus the name ot an American physiologist with the names of some 
of the most inhuman and brutal vivisectors that ever walked the earth, 
borne five years ago, in this city of Washington, Prof. Theophilus Par- 
vm, Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, delivered the 
presidential address before the American Academy of Medicine; and, 
calling attention to the subject of vivisection, he asserted that there were VIVISECTION'. 
121 
investigators “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 denuncia- 
tion of the public and of the profession that their wickedness deserves 
and demands. These criminals are not confined to Germany or France, 
to England or Italy, but may he found in our own country.” “ Crimi- 
nals” and “ damnable cruelties” are strong words, Mr. Chairman, to be 
used by the president of the Academy of Medicine in regard to Amer- 
ican physicians or the practice of vivisection in American laboratories. 
Take another expression of opinion. In his recent work on “ The 
Meaning and Method of Life,” Dr. George M. Gould, late editor of the 
Medical Hews and a strong advocate of vivisection, by the way, 
declares that it “must be regulated by law.” * * * “The practice 
carried on by conceited jackanapes to prove over and over again already 
ascertained results, to minister to egotism for didactic purposes—these 
are not necessary and must be forbidden.” Well, that is what we are 
asking by this bill, that qualified men and not “conceited jackanapes” 
shall have the right to vivisect. Sometimes it is asserted that no 
unnecessary pain is ever indicted. Talking on this subject with a 
professional physiologist, he told me that on one occasion he was in a 
laboratory when the professor desired a bit of animal intestine to use 
in one of his experiments. It would have been easy to have had an 
assistant kill a rabbit by knocking it first on the head, but that would 
have occupied half a minute’s time. “Give me a rabbit,” he called to 
the assistant, and, taking in his grasp the struggling creature, he 
plunged the blade of a pair of scissors in the abdomen, cut it open as 
one would cut a piece of cloth, thrust in his hand, tore out the entrails, 
cut off what he wanted, and dung the writhing and mutilated creature 
under the table to die in agony. That is what comes from unrestricted 
vivisection, and that cruelty is possible in any laboratory in Washing- 
ton to-day; so far as any law is concerned that alone could make it a 
crime. When Dr. Klein, of London, was asked by the royal commis- 
sion in regard to his use of anaesthetics he admitted that he used them 
only for personal convenience, that lie had “no regard at all” for the 
suffering of the animals, “no time, so to speak, for thinking what the 
animal will feel or suffer.” Why, sir, there is no ingenuity of torment, 
no method of agony that has not been employed wherever vivisection is 
wholly unrestricted by law or public sentiment—not for the benign pur- 
pose of discovering some new means of ameliorating human misery, 
but solely to gratify an atrocious lust, an inhuman curiosity. 
And now' let us consider the objections to this bill. It is said that no 
cruelty has been proven in the District of Columbia; that here there 
are no abuses. Sir, the absence of any lec’al restrictions in regard to 
this practice is of itself a grave abuse. To close the doors of labora- 
tories where vivisection is going on and then to demand proof of any 
abuse of vivisection there is a method of argument which I do not 
care to characterize. “But this is an attack on the medical profession.” 
Honseuse. With equal good reason the great insurance companies or 
the savings institutions of Hew York or Massachusetts might complain 
that their integrity is impugned because the State government demands 
at regular intervals a report of their financial administration. But 
laws requiring the supervision and restriction of vivisection “have 
stopped medical progress in Great Britain,” says the Surgeon-General; 
“all recent discoveries have been made on the Continent where vivisec- 
tion is without restraint.” I should like to hear Dr. Sternberg make 
that statement before the British Medical Association. It is curious, too, 122 
VIVISECTION. 
that lie does not perceive that this method of argument has a double 
edge. If the very moderate degree of supervision which obtains in 
Great Britain has there put an end to medical advance, how about the 
United States where there has been absolute freedom of experimenta- 
tion during the past twenty years! What new discoveries of great 
recognized value in the cure of disease have come out of American lab- 
oratories? Notone. But I do not admit for an instant the implied 
inferiority of the medical profession in Great Britain. It was my for- 
tune some years since to spend a year in the London hospitals and a 
yet longer period on the Continent; and nowhere in Europe is sick and 
suffering humanity treated with the kindness, the sympathy, and the 
skill which are shown in England, Ireland, and Scotland; nowhere in 
Great Britain would be tolerated an hour the brutality and indifference 
manifested in certain hospitals of those countries where vivisection is 
absolutely without restraint. 
But it has been suggested, Mr. Chairman, that the members of the 
medical profession and scientific men generally stand as a unit in 
opposing the principle of this bill. No statement could be further from 
the truth. Not long ago I had the honor to be appointed on a commit- 
tee of medical men whose object was to test public sentiment in this 
respect. A circular was drawn up embodying various phases of opinion 
and sent out to the leading scientists and educators of this country, to 
certain representative names in Europe, and to every physician in New 
York and Massachusetts who had been in practice of his profession 
over fifteen years. Well, sir, only 18 per cent of the physicians con- 
fessed themselves in favor of absolute nonrestraint in this matter of 
vivisection, and no less than 61 per cent favored the principle of this 
bill. Let me quote a portion of what they signed: 
We believe that the common interests of humanity and science demand that vivi- 
section, like the study of human anatomy in the dissecting room, should he brought 
under the direct supervision and control of the State. The practice, whether in 
public or in private, should be restricted by law to certain definite objects and sur- 
rounded by every possible safeguard against license and abuse. 
Sir, the first signature to that statement of opinion, heading a long 
list of eminent physicians and medical teachers, is the name of one 
who stands first among those whom science venerates to day—the name 
of Herbert Spencer. In support of that position I read the names of 
physicians and surgeons of the highest prominence—men who believe 
in vivisection, but not in its cruelties; men whose genius and skill have 
been devoted for years to the relief of suffering humanity. Can you 
believe, sir, that if supervision and restriction of vivisection meant 
injury to that art to which these men have devoted their lives they 
would have given approval to that principle which underlies the meas- 
ure we ask you to enact into law ! 
And, finally, Mr. Chairman, we ask for this bill your careful consid- 
eration because it is in line with the legislation, which during the last 
hundred years has made for the advancement of civilization. It is a 
strange and sad commentary upon the innate selfishness of human 
nature that not one forward step in the progressive development of 
humanity has ever been made without opposition from some whose 
supposed interests were in the way. It is not a century since the gov- 
ernmental inspection of insane asylums and private u madhouses” was 
first instituted against the protests of their keepers, and no worse 
atrocities are recorded in history than those revealed when those secret 
cells and dungeons were thrown open to the light of day. The State 
assumed the supervision of prisons and jails and swept out of exist- VIVISECTION. 
123 
ence the torture of criminals by their keepers under guise of necessary 
discipline and restraint. In the great coal mines of Great Britain 
fifty years ago women and girls, naked to the waist, and half-grown 
children pushed and drew in darkness and danger far beneath the 
surface of the earth their burdens of fuel. The law made it illegal, and 
women and children were taken out of the mines. The law penetrated 
the factories of Great Britain, found children working fourteen hours 
a day at their looms and weeping at their tasks; and although any 
interference with the privileges of manufacturers was most bitterly 
resented by such statesmen as Cobden and Bright, yet even against 
their protests the law threw about infancy and womanhood its protect- 
ing arm. 
Until twenty years ago there was nothing to prevent a shipowner from 
loading his craft as deep as cupidity might suggest and sending it to 
sea, often to disappear forever from the sight of men. To day that is for- 
bidden, and the commonest sailor knows that his life is safer because 
the law has intervened in his behalf. Two years ago, while passing 
through the stock yards at Chicago, my attention was attracted to a 
pen of animals so horribly diseased that every moment of permitted 
life seemed almost a cruelty. “These are animals that the inspector 
has condemned as food,” said the official who accompanied me. “Yet 
up to ten years ago just such animals as these were butchered without 
inspection and their flesh sold as food; there was nothing to prevent 
it.” It is hardly eighty years since the first bill preventing the wanton 
cruelty upon domestic animals was introduced into the Parliament of 
Great Britain, and it was greeted with shouts of laughter and jeers of 
scorn. Sir, the whole history of social progress may be read on the 
statute books in those laws which condemn cruelty, which limit power, 
which restrain the strong and protect the weak. Let us add another 
chapter to that record of advancing civilization which this closing cen- 
tury shall have to its account. Let vivisection go on; but only under 
wise and careful restrictions, permitted only to competent and trust- 
worthy persons, and subject to the supervision of government, to the 
control of law. 
Appendix. 
REPORT OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS. 
Office of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, 
Washington, March 14, 1896. 
Dear Sir : The Commissioners have the honor to make the following response upon 
Senate hill 1552, “For the further prevention of cruelty to animals in the District 
of Columbia,” which was referred to them at your instance for their examination 
and report. 
They recommend that the bill be amended as follows, and favorably acted upon: 
Change the title to read as follows: “A bill to regulate vivisection in the District 
of Columbia.” 
Strike out the following paragraphs; “C ” and “D” of section 2; all of section 5; 
all of section 6 after the word “act” in line 22; all of lines 20 and 21 in section 7. 
Add a new section as follows: 
“ Sec. 9. That the provisions of this act shall not apply to experiments or operations 
conducted under the authority of the heads of any Executive Department of the 
General Government.” 
They transmit herewith copies of communications on the subject of the bill received 
by them from Snrg. Gen. George M. Sternberg, United States Army, and W. C. Wood- 
ward, M. D., health officer of the District of Columbia, to whom they submitted the 
bill with request for their views thereon. They also transmit herewith a copy of a 124 
VIVISECTION. 
bill modified as suggested by Mr. H. B. F. Macfarland, who accepted the invitation of 
the Commissioners to be one of a committee composed of Surg. Gen. George M. Stern- 
berg, the health officer, and himself, to confer upon the bill with the object of arriving 
at some common understanding on the subject, and advise the Commissioners of their 
conclusions. 
Very respectfully, John W. Ross, 
President Board of Commissioners D. C. 
Senator James McMillan, 
Chairman Committee on the District of Columbia, 
United States Senate. 
REPORT OP THE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
February 25, 1896. 
Gentlemen: Referring to a bill for the further prevention of cruelty to animals 
in the District of Columbia (S. 1552), I have the honor to submit the following 
report: 
The title of the bill is misleading, in that its true purpose is the restriction of viv- 
isection in the District of Columbia, and it should be so entitled, as it does not in 
any way deal with cruelty to animals, except as such cruelty is inflicted in what is 
popularly known as vivisection. Should this measure become a law, the restriction 
of vivisection thereby would amount to almost prohibition, as, for one reason, sec- 
tion 2 (c and d) provides that the animals must, during the whole of the experiment, 
be completely under the influence of ether or chloroform, and that if the pain is 
likely to continue after the effect of the anaisthetic has ceased, or if serious injury 
has been inflicted upon the animal, it must be killed before it recovers from the effect 
of the amesthetic. This would render necessary the use of ether or chloroform even 
if an animal is to be subjected to an hypodermic injection or to vaccination experi- 
ments, in which case the use of anaesthetic is certainly more dangerous and probably 
more terrifying and painful to the animal than the experiment itself. Most of the 
experiments in bacteriology (which includes nearly all of the vivisection done in this 
District) and a very large proportion of those for other purposes require that the 
animal shall be kept alive sometimes for weeks after the effect of the anaesthetic 
has passed off, in order to determine what the result would be. The requirements 
of paragraph (d) would, therefore, abolish all operations of this character. 
The system of certificates provided for in section 2 (e) is calculated to expose to 
the penalties of the law persons who are entirely innocent of any intentional viola- 
tion of it. The provision for such certificates is uncalled for, in that the bill does 
not provide for the review of such certificates by any competent authority, leaving 
the matter, therefore, entirely to the judgment of the operator, as it would be if he 
were not required to give such certificate. The provision of this paragraph, page. 3, 
lines 10 to 24, granting especial protection to dogs, cats, horses, and mules, is 
apparently without reason. While they are not usually used for purposes of vivi- 
section, I am not aware that these animals are more sensitive to pain than rabbits 
and guinea pigs. The penalty provided in section 2, page 4, lines 3to 10, seems 
entirely unnecessary, as section 1 provides a penalty for “ any person performing, 
or taking part in performing any experiment calculated to give pain in contraven- 
tion of this act.” 
Section 3 is a rather remarkable innovation in District law, placing, as it does, the 
laboratories and experimenters connected with the War Department, the Treasury 
Department, and the Agricultural Department under the jurisdiction of the Commis- 
sioners of the District of Columbia. 
The provisions of section 4 grant to the Commissioners of the District entirely too 
much discretion as to the issuance of licenses. Under this section it would be pos- 
sible for them to absolutely prevent experiments by any particular individual, whether 
an officer of the Army, Navy, or Marine-Hospital Service, and, in fact, to absolutely 
prevent any vivisection in this District. 
The provisions of section 5 will probably deter any person from conducting any 
original investigations in this District, as under these provisions the Commission- 
ers of the District of Columbia, on complaint of some one as to the alleged cruel 
nature of the experiment, might require a report that would lead to the premature 
exposure of the results sought and obtained. 
Section 6, which requires the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to "appoint 
or authorize an agent of the Washington Humane Society” to visit places in which 
experiments are being conducted, is uncalled for. lam not aware that the Wash- 
ington Humane Society numbers among its members a single person who is competent 
to judge as to the methods of performing the various operations which are included VIVISECTION. 
125 
in vivisection so as to be able to determine whether the pain inflicted is or is not 
warranted; nor is it likely that they will be able to secure such a person as their 
agent in this matter. the further authority granted to the Commissioners “to 
appoint such special inspectors as they may see fit, either permanently or tempora- 
rily, who may lie willing to act as such inspectors gratuitously” is calculated to do 
harm should the Commissioners ever elect to avail themselves ot the authority thus 
conferred. Persons who are willing to render services of this character gratuitously 
are usually able to render such service as is worth just what is paid for it. 
Section 7 refers to an application lor a certificate as in this act mentioned. lam 
unable to discover, however, any provision in the bill for any certificate which would 
require an application for it, the only certificate referred to being apparently those 
to be furnished by the experimenter. It is possible that the distinction between 
certificates and licenses has not been drawn as clearly as the makers of the bill 
intended. . . 
luuouuou. # , , . . . , . 
The proposed law is not called for by conditions at present existing in tins District, 
nor are there any conditions likely to arise demanding the enactment of such legis- 
lation as a preventive measure. As far as vivisection in the public schools is con- 
cerned, it can be easily prevented by the school authorities without special legislation, 
if it is ever likely to occur. Those in this District practically familiar with the 
methods of vivisection, and with the results which have been and are hereafter to 
be obtained therefrom, are, as far as I have been able to discover, uniformly ot the 
opinion that this measure is uncalled for and calculated to do harm. 
I see no reason why the Congress of the United States should be asked to give its 
time to the consideration of such a law in the absence of any conditions, present or 
prospective, that will likely be rectified by it. I therefore recommend that it be 
returned with an adverse report. 
Very respectfully, Wm. C. Woodward, M. D., 
y 1 ' ’ Health Officer. 
Hon. Commissioners District of Columbia. 
REPORT OE THE SURGEON-GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES A I;MY TO THE COMMIS- 
SIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OK COLUMBIA. 
War Department, Surgeon-General’s Office, 
Washington, D. C., February 1, 1896. 
Gentlemen; Owing to want of time and frequent interruptions I was not able to 
present my views with reference to Senate hill 1552 as fully as I desired. It seemed 
to me that the first thing for yon to consider is whether any legislation is necessary 
in the District upon this subject. As stated to you, no facts ha/ve come under my 
observation or to my knowledge which will justify you in presenting a bill upon this 
subject for the action of the Congress of the United States. Certainly if any legis- 
lation is called for it ought not to restrict research work in the various pathological 
laboratories in this city under the direction of different branches of the Government 
service, over each of which there is a responsible head, whose knowledge of the 
experiment made and the objects in view enables him to form a better judgment with 
reference to experiments conducted under his general direction than could any non- 
expert inspector. The only justification, from my point of view, tor recommending 
legislation of the kind proposed would be the knowledge on your part that cruel 
experiments are being performed in the public schools of the District (e, section 1), 
or that public exhibitions of “Experiments upon living animals calculated to give 
pain” (section 4) are being made. 
I have no knowledge of any such experiments. No doubt much sensational litera- 
ture will be presented for your consideration, by members of the Antivivisection 
Society, which has been gathered from all parts of the world. Whatever may be the 
value of this evidence it has no hearing upon the question of legislation in this Dis- 
trict, unless it can be shown that similar cruelties are being practiced here, and that 
those engaged in experimental research do not administer amcsthetics to the domes- 
tic animals when they are subjected to the painful experiments. 
You will also have presented for your consideration arguments based upon the 
view that animal experimentation in the past has not yielded results of importance 
to the human race. The extract which I read from the London Lancet shows that 
this argument has been abandoned by the antivivisectionists in England. It can 
only be honestly maintained by a very ignorant person. To present the facts in full 
which show the immense value of results heretolore obtained and the great promise 
for the future would require a volume. The scientific medicine of to-day is founded 
upon such, experiments, which have enabled, us to demonstrate the exact cause ot a 
considerable number of infectious diseases, to point out the way of preventing 
these diseases, of protecting men and animals by inoculations with attenuated virus, 
and, in certain cases, to cure a very large proportion of those taken sick. 126 
VIVISECTION. 
I beg leave to present for your consideration a few facts to offset tbe wild state- 
ments of the autivivisectionists, who maintain that our experiments have had no 
practical utility. 
The result of anthrax inoculations made by Pasteur’s method in France during the 
past twelve years was summarized by Chamberlaud in 1891. He reports the total 
number of animals inoculated during this period as 1,788,677 sheep and 200,962 cattle, 
and estimates the total saving, as the result of the inoculations, as 5,000,000 francs 
for sheep and 2,000,000 francs for cattle. 
Another infectious disease in which Pasteur's method has been employed with 
success is rouget, or hog erysipelas. Chamberland states that as a result of the pro- 
tective inoculations practiced with Pasteur’s ‘‘vaccines” the mortality from this 
disease in France has been reduced from about 20 per cent to 1.45 per cent. 
Hutyra reports that during a single year (1889) 48,637 pigs were inoculated with 
Pasteur’s vaccines in Hungary with a loss of 0.29 per cent, while the losses upon the 
same farm in previous years averaged from 10 per cent to 30 per cent. 
Pasteur reported in 1894 his success in conferring immunity against hydrophobia 
in 19 dogs inoculated in the presence of a commission appointed for the purpose as a 
test experiment. These animals had been rendered refractory by his method. The 
19 protected animals and 19 controlled animals, obtained from the public pound with- 
out any selection, were tested at the same time. The test was made upon some of 
the animals of both series by inoculation with virulent material upon the surface of 
the brain, and upon others by allowing them to be bitten by rabid dogs, and upon 
still others by intravenous inoculations. 
Not one of the protected animals developed hydrophobia; on the other hand three 
of the controlled animals out of six bitten by a mad dog developed the disease, five 
out of seven which received intravenous inoculation died of rabies, and five which 
were trephined and inoculated on the surface of the brain died of the same disease. 
With reference to his first inoculations in man, Pasteur says: 
“Making use of this method, I had already made 50 dogs of various races and ages 
imrmine to rabies, and had not met with a single failure, when, on the 6th of July, 
quite unexpectedly, three persons, residents of Alsace, presented themselves at my 
laboratory.” 
These persons were Theodore Vone, who had been bitten on the arm on July 4; 
Joseph Meister, age 9, bitten on tbe same day by the same rabid dog, and the mother 
ofMeister, who had not been bitten. The child had been thrown by the dog and 
bitten upon the hand, the legs, and the thighs, in all in fourteen different places. 
Pasteur commenced the treatment at once and had the satisfaction of reporting to 
the Academy of Sciences in March of the following year (1886) that the boy remained 
in perfect health. Since this time Pasteur institutes for the treatment of hydro- 
phobia have been established in all parts of the civilized world and the statistical 
reports published justify the belief that when the treatment is instituted at an early 
date after the bite, and is properly carried out, its protective value is almost abso- 
lute. At the Pasteur Institute in Paris 9,433 persons were treated during the years 
1886 to 1890, inclusive. The total mortality from hydrophobia among those treated 
was considerably less than 1 per cent (0.61). In 1890, 416 persons were treated who 
had been bitten by animals proved to be rabid, and among these there was not a 
single death. In 1891 the number of inoculations was 1,539, with a mortality of 0.25 
per cent; in 1892, 1,790, with a mortality of 0.22 per cent; in 1893, 1,648, with a 
mortality of 0.36 per cent; in 1894,1,387, Avith a mortality of 0.50 per cent. 
The most brilliant recent achievement in this field of investigation is that which 
has led up to the knowledge of the antitoxins, and especially of the antitoxin of 
diphtheria, which is now being extensively employed in the treatment of this dis- 
ease Avith the most satisfactory results, as is shown by the folloAving extracts from 
recent publications in medical journals; 
“A collective investigation recently undertaken by the Deutsche Medicinischo 
Wochenschrift for the purpose of determining the status of the antitoxin treat- 
ment in Germany yielded the following results: The report deals with 10,312 cases 
of diphtheria, all of which were treated betwmen October 1, 1894, and April 1,1895. 
Of this number, 5,883 were treated with antitoxine and 4,479 without it. The mor- 
tality in the former group was 9.6 per cent, while in the latter it was 14.7 per cent. 
Of 2,566 children, between 2 and 10 years, the fatality under the serum treatment 
was 4 per cent, while the death rate among the others not so treated was 15.2 per 
cent. Of 696 patients over 10 years of age treated with serum only 1 per cent died, 
the mortality among the others betAveen these years not so treated being 3.7 per 
cent.” 
“At a recent meeting of the Paris Academy of Medicine, Monod (Medicine 
Moderue, 1895, No. 101, p. 783) presented statistics demonstrating the influence upon 
the mortality from diphtheria in France exerted by the antitoxin since its employ- 
ment from November, 1894. The following figures represent the number of deaths VIVISECTION. 
127 
from diphtheria during the first six months in eight years in 108 French cities hav- 
ing a population of more than 20,000: 
Average. 
1888-1894 
1895. 
469 
205 
466 
187 
499 
155 
442 
160 
417 
113 
333 
84 
Total 
2, 656 
904 
It will be seen from tbe above statement that during the first six months in the 
year 1895 after the introduction of the antitoxin treatment the number of deaths from 
diphtheria in the 108 French cities referred to was 1,552 less than the average for the 
preceding ten years, and we are justified in concluding that a considerable portion 
of this saving at least is due to this new method of treatment. Does not this justify 
the sacrifice of the lives of some hundreds of guinea pigs or other animals? Will 
those who accuse us of brutality in our efforts to save the lives of these innocents 
still insist that our experiments are unjustifiable, and that horses must not be used 
for obtaining this curative serum, or guinea pigs for testing its exact value? 
I shall not further tax your time and patience, but remain, 
Very respectfully , yours, 
Geo. M. Sternberg, 
Surgeon-General United States Army. 
The Commissioners of the District of Columbia. 
REPORT OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 
Washington, D. C., April 84, 1896. 
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a. letter addressed to you by 
D. E. Salmon, the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry; J. R. Tryon, Surgeon- 
General United States Navy; George M. Sternberg, Surgeon-General United States 
Army, and Walter Wyman, Surgeon-General United States Marine-Hospital Service, 
asking that the National Academy of Sciences he called upon to express an opinion 
as to the scientific value of experiments upon the lower animals and as to the prob- 
able effect of restrictive legislation upon the advancement of biological science. 
The letter of these gentlemen is supplemented by an expression of your desire that 
the National Academy of Sciences should report or make suggestions upon the sub- 
ject. In accordance with your request, I have the honor to submit to you the follow- 
ing report as the unanimous expression of the opinion of the National Academy of 
Sciences: 
Biology is the science of living organisms and tissues, and must therefore advance 
by means of observations and experiments made upon living beings. One of its most 
important branches, viz, physiology, or the science which deals with all the phenom- 
ena of life, from the activity of bacteria to that of the brain cells of man, forms the 
foundation upon which the science and practice of medicine are built up, since a 
knowledge of the bodily functions in their normal state is essential for the under- 
standing and treatment of those derangements of function which constitute disease. 
The fact that the pursuit of physiology consists chiefly in the study of physical 
and chemical phenomena as manifested by living beings, makes it necessary that 
physiology should be studied by experimental methods. The physiologist, no less 
than the physicist and the chemist, can expect advancement of his science only as 
the result of carefully planned laboratory work. If this work is interfered with, 
medical science will continue to advance, as heretofore, by means of experiment, for 
no legislation can affect the position of physiology as an experimental science; but 
there will be this important difference, that the experimenters will be medical 
practitioners and the victims human beings. 
That animals must suffer and die for the benefit of mankind is a law of nature, from 
which we can not escape if we would, and as long as man claims dominion over the 
brute creation, and asserts his right to kill and mutilate animals in order to obtain 
food and clothing, and even for purposes of amusement and adornment, it is surely 
unreasonable to wage a humanitarian warfare against the only kind of pain-giving 
practice that has for its object the relief of pain. 128 
VIVISECTION. 
The death of an animal in a physiological laboratory is usually attended with 
less suffering tuan is associated with so-called natural death, for the discovery of 
anaesthetics has extended its beneficent influence over the lower animals as well 
as over the human race, and in modern laboratories anaesthetics are always employed, 
except when the operation involves less suffering to the animal than the administra- 
tion of the anaesthetic (as in the case of inoculations), or in those instances in which 
the anaesthetic would interfere with the object of the experiment. The sufferino- 
incident to biological investigations is, therefore, trilling in amount, and far less 
than that which is associated with most other uses which man makes of the lower 
animals for purposes of business or pleasure. 
As an offset to this trilling amount of animal suffering are to be placed incalcu- 
lable benefits to the human race. From the time when Aristotle first discovered the 
insensibility of the brain to the time when the latest experiments in the use of anti- 
toxin have largely robbed diphtheria of its terrors, almost every important advance 
in the science of medicine has been the direct or the indirect result of knowledge 
acquired through animal experimentation. 
It is, of course, conceivable that persons whose occupations lead them to sacrifice 
animal life for scientific purposes may at times pay too little regard to the suffering 
which they inflict, but the Academy understands that even those who advocate 
restrictive legislation by Congress do not claim that such abuses exist in the District 
of Columbia, and until evidence of this sort is presented it would seem to be the 
part of wisdom to leave the regulation of research in the hands of the governing 
bodies of the institutions in which the work is going on. The men engaged in this 
work are actuated by motives no less humane than those which guide the persons 
who desire to restrict their action, while of the value of any given experiment, and 
the amount of suffering which it involves, they are, owing to their special training, 
much better able to judge. When the men to whom the Government has entrusted 
the care of its higher institutions of research shall show themselves incapable of 
administering them in the interest of science and humanity, then, and not till then, 
will it be necessary to invoke the authority of the National Legislature. 
I have the honor to be, sir, yours, very respectfullv. 
, Wolcott Gibbs, 
President National Academy of Sciences. 
Hon. Jacob H. Gallinger, 
Chairman of the Subcommittee, etc. 
MEMORIAL ADOPTED BY THE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA, 
AT A MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY EVENING, APRIL 22, 1896. 
Having been informed that an effort is being made by certain citizens of this Dis- 
trict to secnre_the passage of a bill to prevent experiments upon living animals 
(Senate bill 1552), we respectfully submit for your consideration the following facts 
and arguments in opposition to this bill; 
First. We do not hesitate to assert that without such experiments there could be 
no scientific biology and medicine would have no scientific basis. Our knowledge 
of physiology, of toxicology, and of the action of many important medicinal agents 
has been largely gained in this way. Our precise knowledge of the etiology of a 
considerable number of the infectious diseases has been obtained by inoculating 
susceptible animals with pure cultures of the various pathogenic bacteria, and could 
have been obtained in no other way. By such experiments the demonstration has 
been made of the specific pathogenic power of the anthrax bacillus, the spirillum of 
relapsing fever, the tubercle bacillus, the glanders bacillus, the diphtheria bacillus, 
the streptococcus of erysipelas and of puerperal fever, the micrococcus of pneumonia, 
etc. The prevention of hydrophobia by Pasteur’s method, the treatment of diphthe- 
ria by the antitoxin, the production of bovine vaccne virus, and other practical 
applications of the knowledge already obtained would be impossible if those who 
are urging antivivisection legislation could have their way. 
We can not stop to enumerate the various important practical benefits which sur- 
gery has derived from animal experimentation, but the experience gained in this way 
as regards the comparative safety of different methods of ligating arteries, of closing 
wounds of the intestines, etc., has resulted in great improvements in surgical 
nique and in the saving of numerous valuable lives. 
Yet, there are those who maintain that no valuable results have been attained by 
experiments upon the lower animals, and the antivivisection literature, together with 
much sensational nonsense, contains quotations from the writings of certain physi- 
cians which appear to support this view. No doubt these quotations to a certain 
extent are garbled, and in their proper connection would not give such positive tes- 
To the Congress of the United States: VIVISECTION. 
129 
timony as to the ignorance of the physicians to whom they are credited; for to deny 
the importance and value of the results which have been obtained by experiments 
upon the lower animals is to give evidence of lamentable ignorance as regards the 
present position of the biological sciences, and especially of scientific medicine. But 
the argument that no results of importance have been attained, in view of the unim- 
peachable evidence to the contrary, is no longer given a very prominent place in anti- 
vivisection literature. 
This seeks rather to carry on the propaganda, which had its origin in England more 
than twenty years ago, by exaggerated accounts of the cruelty of the experiments 
performed; and the susceptibilities of many well-meaning and estimable members of 
the community have been aroused by the harrowing details of experiments which 
they are led to believe are frequently repeated in biological and pathological labora- 
tories, but which few of those who devote their lives to research work in such 
laboratories have ever witnessed. 
Second. So far as we know, no evidence has been adduced that cruel and unneces- 
sary experiments are being performed in this District, and, in our judgment, the 
proposed legislation is not only unnecessary, but would seriously interfere with the 
progress of scientific investigations now being carried on in the various Government 
laboratories in this city and in general with the advancement of scientific medicine. 
Third. That physicians and others engaged in investigations having for their 
object the promotion of human knowledge and the prevention or mitigation of 
human suffering are less humane than the members of the societies which have 
been organized for the prevention of cruelty to animals we do not believe. To pass 
laws subjecting them to penalties and to espionage by persons ignorant of the nature 
and objects of their experiments, as is proposed, would not only seriously hamper 
research work in all lines of biological investigation, but would be an uncalled-for 
reflection upon the humanity of those members of the medical profession and others 
who are engaged in investigations of this nature. As a matter of fact, anaesthetics 
are habitually administered in experiments which involve an amount of pain worthy 
of consideration, but they axe not considered necessary in trifling operations, such 
as the administration of a hypodermatic injection or the vaccination of a calf for the 
purpose of propagating vaccine virus. 
Fourth. It is difficult to understand why these mischievous attempts should he 
made to secure legislation the effect of which would be to restrict scientific investi- 
gation, when there is such a broad field in other directions in which the crusade 
might be carried on with greater propriety. The trapping of animals for their furs 
is going on in all parts of the world, and the victims are held for hours, or even days, 
in the sharp jaws of the trap before they are finally dispatched. The huntsman 
leaves his uncaptured wounded game to a lingering death. If he is a humane man, 
he quickly kills the wounded bird or animal when captured, and it has not been 
thought necessary to pass laws requiring him to do so. The fisherman plays the bass 
or salmon with a sharp hook in its mouth for an hour or more, and no one protests, 
hut the teacher of biology is to be prevented by act of Congress from exhibiting the 
circulation of blood in the blood vessels of the mesentery of a curarized frog. 
The farmer, by a cutting or crushing operation, castrates his colts, calves, sheep, 
and pigs, and capons are made by a painful cutting operation; but no one proposes 
legislation requiring the use of anaesthetics in the performance of these operations. 
Under these circumstances the proposition to subject those engaged in scientific 
research work, which calls for the performance of experiments upon the lower animals, 
to espionage and penalties, as is proposed in the bill referred to, appears to us to be 
an unjust discrimination against a class of men who are entitled to the highest con- 
sideration. We therefore respectfully protest against the enactment of any such 
legislation. 
Samuel C. Busey, M. D., 
President Medical Society, District of Columbia. 
This memorial was unanimously adopted. 
Samuel S. Adams, M. D., 
Recording Secretary. 
PROTEST OF THE JOINT COMMISSION OF SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES OF WASHINGTON, D. C . 
Dear Sir : In accordance with instructions from the Joint Commission of the Scien- 
tific Societies of Washington, I have the honor to invite your attention to the accom- 
panying resolutions, unanimously adopted by the commission at a meeting held on 
February 19, 1896. 
Respectfully, J. Stanley Brown, 
Secretary. 
Hon. James McMillan. 
YIY 9 130 
VIVISECTION. 
Resolved, That the Joint Commission of the Scientific Societies of Washington, 
composed of the officers of the several scientific societies of the city, most earnestly 
opposes the legislation proposed by Senate bill 1552, entitled “A bill for the further 
prevention of cruelty to animals in the District of Columbia.” 
Resolved, That in the opinion of this commission the proposed legislation is unnec- 
essary and would seriously interfere with the advancement of biological science in 
this District; that it would be especially harmful in its restriction of experiments 
relating to the cause, prevention, and cure of the infectious diseases of man and of 
the lower animals; that the researches made in this department of biological and 
medical science have been of immense benefit to the human race, and that, in gen- 
eral. our knowledge of physiology, of toxicology, and of pathology, forming the 
basis of scientific medicine, has been largely obtained by experiments upon living 
animals, and could have been obtained in no other way. 
Resolved, That physicians and others who are engaged in research work having for 
its object the extension of human knowledge and the prevention and cure of disease 
are the best judges of the character of the experiments required and of the necessity 
for using anesthetics, and that in our judgment they may be trusted to conduct such 
experiments in a humane manner, and to give anesthetics when required to prevent 
pain. To subject them to penalties and to espionage, as is proposed by the bill 
under consideration, would, we think, be an unjust and unmerited reflection upon a 
class of men who are entitled to our highest consideration. 
Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to each member of the Com- 
mittees on the District of Columbia in the House of Representatives and Senate of 
the United States, and to the District Commissioners. 
PROTEST OF THE ORANGE MOUNTAIN MEDICAL SOCIETY OF NEW JERSEY. 
Orange, N. J., March 6, 1896. 
Sir: The undersigned, your petitioners, are physicians in regular standing, prac- 
ticing in Essex County, N. J., and are members of a medical society known as the 
Orange Mountain Medical Society. 
At a stated meeting of the Orange Mountain Medical Society held on the 6th of 
March, 1896, it was resolved that in the judgment of this society a certain bill intro- 
duced in the Senate of the United States on January 14, 1896, entitled “A bill for 
the further prevention of cruelty to animals in the District of Columbia” is mis- 
chievous in character and calculated to impede scientific research and to hamper 
and discourage physicians in their efforts to discover the true causes of disease and 
ascertain the best remedies for the alleviation of human suffering. 
It was further resolved that this society draw up a petition setting forth in brief 
what they esteem to be the more pernicious features of the aforesaid bill, and place 
the same in your hands, with the prayer that you give the same due and careful con- 
sideration, and with the further prayer that in case you are convinced that the pas- 
sage of the said bill by the Senate of the United States shall be an ill-advised 
action, you will exert your influence, both as a member of the highest legislative 
body of the land and also as a member of the Committee on the District of Colum- 
bia, to defeat the passage of the said bill and to prevent the same from becoming 
a law. 
It hardly seems necessary to remind you, honored sir, of the great and satisfactory 
advances which scientific medicine has made of recent years, since this is a fact 
known to all intelligent men. But it is probably not so well known that the basis 
of this great advance is the study of disease in the lower animals as well as in man. 
Scientific medicine may be said to have made a beginning in the discovery of the 
circulation of the blood by Harvey in 1620. This discovery was made by the “fre- 
quently looking into many and various living animals.” Jenner’s discovery of the 
vaccination against smallpox, whereby millions of human lives are annually saved 
and the most dreadful of diseases has well nigh been swept out of existence, was 
due to studying a disease which prevails among neat cattle, and so on through a 
long list of remarkable achievements down to our own day, when the antidotes to 
hydrophobia, tetanus, Asiatic cholera, diphtheria, and anthrax have been discovered 
and rendered available for the benefit of suffering humanity, and great progress has 
been made toward similar discoveries in reference to tuberculosis, erysipelas, septi- 
caemia, and cancer. 
In view of this splendid record and of the fact that it is better that many of the 
brute creation should be sacrificed rather than that one human life should be lost, we 
respectfully urge that every honorable means should be employed to defeat a bill 
whose passage would tend to vastly increase instead of diminish the sum total of 
suffering and disease among both men and animals. VIVISECTION. 
131 
Legislation such as is contemplated by the framers of the aforesaid bill would in 
our opinion tend to set back the progress of civilization by relegating the science 
and art of medicine to the superstition, ignorance, and fanaticism of the dark ages, 
from which it is now, after three centuries of painful toil, just freeing itself. 
Your petitioners believe and teach that no animal should be needlessly or wan- 
tonly sacrificed; that the slightest unnecessary pain inflicted upon an animal is 
unscientific and cruel. They assert, however, that the learned gentlemen who con- 
duct these scientific experiments are actuated by unselfish devotion to science and 
love of their fellow-men. These investigators are, therefore, in our opinion, the best 
judges of what is and what is not needless cruelty, and their work should, therefore, 
in our opinion, never be hampered by any supervision on the part of any nonmedical 
or unscientific persons. 
We think that our position will appear the more reasonable when it is remembered 
that the sum total of animals used in scientific experimentation is insignificant when 
compared to the millions of living creatures daily slaughtered for human food, hunted 
for human pleasure, or destroyed to beautify our dwellings or afford ornaments to the 
dress of our most fastidious ladies. 
Eather than weary you with many other reasons which might be advanced against 
the passage of the aforesaid bill, your petitioners prefer to rest their cause upon your 
well-known philanthropy, your love of fair dealing, your appreciation of the noble 
achievements of scientific medicine, and lastly upon the fact, proof of which can be 
readily furnished, that the allegations of the cruelties of vivisection are gross exag- 
gerations and have no existence in fact. 
We also believe that you, honored sir, will be pleased to receive an expression of 
opinion upon this matter from physicians practicing in your own county and in the 
State of New Jersey, many of whom are well known to yon personally, and all of 
whom are your constituents and well-wishers. 
With renewed assurances of our distinguished consideration, we remain, 
Your obedient servants, 
Wm. 13. Graves, Jno. J. H. Love, M. Campbell, Win. D. Eobinson, Wrn. H. 
Eisk, G. M. Wend, Milford Ennyon, W. H. Holmes, J. K. Bradshaw, 
F. L. E. Tetreault, E. P. Francis, W. D. Garrett, D. E. English, Wm. 
H. White, Thomas S. P. Fisch, J. S. Brown, H. B. Whitehorno, Wil- 
liam H. Van Gresou, H. E. Matthews, Wm. Pierson, Chs. H, Bailey, 
Thos. W. Plarvey, Geo. N. Van Wagenen, Eichard C. Newton, Wm. 
J. Chandler. 
Hon. James Smith, Jr., 
United States Senator from New Jersey, Washington, D, C. 
RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION. 
Whereas the members of the American Medical Association recognize the fact that 
the development of scientific medicine has resulted largely from experiments upon 
the lower animals; and 
Whereas anesthetics are liabitually administered to animals subjected to painful 
experiments; and 
Whereas restrictive legislation is in our opinion unnecessary and opposed to the 
continued progress of medical science; and 
Whereas it is an unjust reflection on the humanity of those engaged in animal 
experimentation to enact laws requiring them to use amesthetics and appointing 
inspectors to see that they do so; and 
Whereas far more unnecessary pain-is constantly being inflicted upon the lower 
animals for sport and for gain than in biologic and pathologic laboratories; and 
Whereas no evidence has been presented by those who advocate restrictive legis- 
lation showing that abuses exist in the District of Columbia; and 
Whereas results of great practical importance have been obtained by experiments 
on the lower animals made in the Government laboratories in the District of Colum- 
bia : Therefore be it 
dissolved, That the American Medical Association earnestly protests against the 
passage of Senate bill 1552, entitled “A bill for the further prevention of cruelty to 
animals in the District of Columbia,” or any modification of this bill, unless it shall 
first be shown by an impartial investigation that cruel and unnecessary experiments 
are being performed in the District of Columbia, and that existing laws do not pro- 
vide suitable jimiishment for cruelty to the domestic animals. 132 
VIVISECTION. 
Resolved, That copies of these resolutions, attested by the signatures of the presi 
dent of the American Medical Association and of its committee appointed to draft 
these resolutions, be sent to the chairman of the Committees on the District of 
Columbia in the House of Eepresentatives and Senate of the United States. 
Beverly Cole, M. D., San Francisco, 
President American Medical Association. 
Nicholas Sunn, M. D., Chicago, 
President-elect American Medical Association. 
Wm. Osler, M. D,, Baltimore. 
J. McFadden Gaston, M. D., Atlanta. 
Geo. M. Gould, M. D., Philadelphia. 
Donald McLean, M. D., Detroit. 
May 6, 1896. 
MEMORIAL OF THE ASSOCIATION OF MILITARY SURGEONS. 
Philadelphia, May IS, 1896. 
The undersigned, members of the Association of Military Surgeons of the United 
States, now holding its sixth annual meeting in the city of Philadelphia, respect- 
fully join in the protest of the American Medical Association, as set forth in the 
accompanying resolutions adopted by that representative body of American physi- 
cians and surgeons at their recent meeting in the city of Atlanta: 
Resolutions adopted by the American Medical Association, May 6, 1896; 
Whereas the members of the American Medical Association recognize the fact that 
the development of scientific medicine has resulted largely from experiments upon 
the lower animals; and 
Whereas anaesthetics are habitually administered to animals subjected to painful 
experiments; and 
Whereas restrictive legislation is in our opinion unnecessary and opposed to the 
continued progress of medical science; and 
Whereas it is an unjust reflection upon the humanity of those engaged in animal 
experimentation to enact laws requiring them to use anaesthetics and appointing 
inspectors to see that they do so; and 
Whereas far more unnecessary pain is constantly being inflicted upon the lower 
animals for sport and for gain than in biological and pathological laboratories; 
and 
Whereas no evidence has been presented by those who advocate restrictive legisla- 
tion showing that abuses exist in the District of Columbia; and 
Whereas results of great practical importance have been obtained by experiments 
on the lower animals made in the Government laboratories in the District of 
Columbia: Therefore, be it 
Resolved, That the American Medical Association earnestly protests against the 
passage of Senate bill 1552, entitled “A bill for the further prevention of cruelty 
to animals in the District of Columbia,” or any modification of this bill, unless it 
shall first be shown by an impartial investigation that cruel and unnecessary experi- 
ments are being performed in the District of Columbia, and that existing"laws do 
not provide suitable punishment for cruelty to the domestic animals. 
Among the names attached to this memorial are the following: Col. Louis Read, 
surgeon-general of Pennsylvania, president Association of Military Surgeons, United 
States; A. L. Gihon, M. D., Medical Director United States Navy (retired), president 
elect Association of Military Surgeons, United States; Col. Charles H. Alden, Assist- 
ant Surgeon-General, United States Army, vice-president Association of Military 
Surgeons, United States; Col. Nicholas Senu, surgeon-general of Illinois, ex-president 
Association of Military Surgeons, United States; Gen. F. C. Thayer, surgeon-general 
of Maine; Gen. George A. Bowen, surgeon-general of Connecticut; Gen. John F. 
Fulton, surgeon-general of Minnesota; Maj. George Henderson, surgeon-general Dis- 
trict of Columbia National Guard; Gen. F. W. Byers, surgeon-general of Wisconsin; 
Gen. JamesL. Priestley, surgeon-general of Iowa; Lieut. Col. Charles M. Woodward, 
surgeon-general of Michigan (retired); Lieut. Col. Leonard B. Almy, medical director 
Connecticut National Guard. 
MEMORIAL,OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON. 
Washington, D. C., May 15, 1896. 
The Philosophical Society of Washington, through its committee appointed for 
that purpose, respectfully protest against the legislation proposed for the restriction 
of animal experimentation in the District of Columbia, for the following reasons: 
First. No satisfactory evidence has been presented showing that abuses exist in 
this District calling for legislative action by the Congress of the United States. VIVISECTION. 
133 
Second. We recognize the fact that the progress of science in all departments of 
biological research, and especially the advancement of scientific medicine, depends 
upon experiments made upon living animals. 
Third. We believe that those engaged in scientific investigations are the best 
judges of the necessity for experiments made by them, of the animals upon which 
such experiments should be made, of the methods to be employed, etc. 
Fourth. We regard the proposed legislation not only as unnecessary and unwise, 
but as an unjust reflection upon the humanity of those who resort to animal experi- 
mentation for the solution of numerous and important biological problems which 
remain undetermined. 
F. W. Clarke, President. 
Bernard R. Green, 
W. C. Winlock, 
Secretaries, 
Washington, May 7, 1896. 
To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States : 
The Entomological Society of Washington respectfully hut most urgently protests 
against the proposed legislation embodied in Senate bill 1552 and in the proposed 
substitute bill recently presented to the Senate Committee on the District of 
Columbia. 
MEMORIAL OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETV OF WASHINGTON. 
The protest against the original bill, while directed against many of the provi- 
sions preserved in the proposed substitute, is based chiefly upon the ground that said 
bill would effectually prohibit all investigation in economic entomology into the 
best methods of meeting and destroying the numerous insect pests which cause so 
much damage to the agricultural interests of the country. 
Although the insertion of the word “ vertebrate ” in the proposed substitute bill 
completely frees us in our entomological investigations from the pernicious legisla- 
tion which threatens our colleagues in vertebrate zoology and medicine, we still 
respectfully but urgently protest against the passage of the bill upon the following 
grounds: 
First. While not directly affected by the provisions of the bill we, as well as the 
rest of the community, would be indirectly affected. 
Second. As scientific men, accustomed to the conditions governing scientific 
research work, we see provisions in said substitute which will greatly hamper 
specialists in vertebrate zoology and medicine in their investigations. 
Third. Personal acquaintance with our colleagues and personal knowledge of the 
class of work they are doing and of the dangers to which they are often subjected 
in their experiments, convince us that thexHoposcd legislation is uncalled for, unjust, 
and only calculated to bring law into contempt. 
Fourth. Accepting the expression “cruel experiments” as meaning experiments 
upon animals in which there is an unjustifiable infliction of pain, we declare that 
we know of no cruel experiments which have ever been performed in the District of 
Columbia by any of our colleagues. 
Fifth. We are firmly of the conviction that if any “cruel experiments” should be 
pe> formed by any men the rebukes and contempt which such men would justly earn 
and receive from their own colleagues would be much more effectual in preventing 
a repetition of such experiments than any system of espionage, fine, or imprisonment. 
Sixth. We see no difference in principle between the system of espionage proposed 
in the bill and a proposition to institute an inspection of the amphitheaters of hos- 
pitals during critical surgical operations or an inspection of the private sick room 
during professional calls by family physicians. 
Seventh. We see no more necessity for passing a law that experimenters shall 
administer amesthetics whenever possible than a law compelling surgeons to use 
anaesthetics in operations. In both fields of work occasions arise when chloroform 
or ether can not be used; in both fields of work the common sense of humanity 
would naturally lead the operator to use anaesthetics if possible, even if the ques- 
tion of utility were set entirely aside. 
Eighth. The bill prevents the confirmation in the District of alleged scientific dis- 
coveries made elsewhere, a provision which can result only in prolonging agony and 
causing death in many cases. 
Ninth. As zoologists, we fail to see why a cat, a disease-spreading dog, a horse, 
ass, or kicking mule is any more worthy of the special attention, deliberation, and 
consideration of the United States Congress than is the cow, hog, rabbit, or chicken. 
Tenth. The reports to be made by investigators, as provided for in the bill, would 
lead to the premature disclosure of conclusions only half established. 134 
VIVISECTION 
Original signatures. 
Have signed similar protests or memorials in other 
societies. 
C. L. Marlatt, Ist asst, entomologist, IT. S. Dept, 
of Agriculture, president of the Entomological 
Society of Washington. 
L. O. Howard, entomologist, U. S. Dept, of Agri- 
culture, curator Dept, of Insects, TJ. S. Nat. Mus. 
F. H. Chittenden, asst, entomologist, H. S. Dept, 
of Agriculture. 
Chas. Richards Dodge, special agent fiber investi- 
gations. 
E. A. Schwarz, investigator, Division of Entomol- 
ogy, TJ. S. Dept, of Agriculture. 
Henry G. Hubbard, investigator, Dim. of Ento- 
mology, IT. S. Dept, of Agriculture. 
Theo. Pergande, asst, entomologist, U. S. Dept, 
of Agriculture. 
Frank Benton, investigator, Div. of Entomology, 
IT. S. Department of Agriculture. 
D. W. Coquillett, investigator, Division of Ento- 
mology, IT. S. Dept, of Agriculture. 
August Busck, IT. S. Dept, of Agriculture. 
Alfred G. Masius, U. S. Dept, of Agriculture. 
,^‘ Tratt, expert, Division of Entomologv, 
H. S. Dept, of Agriculture. 
Martin L. Linell, aid, Dept. Insects, IT. S. Na- 
tional Museum. 
Wm. H. Ashmead, investigator in TJ. S. Dept, of 
Agriculture, and custodian Hymenoptera in 
U. S. Natl. Museum. 
Ch. Wardell Stiles, zoologist, Bureau of Animal 
Industry; lionorarycustodian Helm Collections, 
IT. S. Nat. Mus. Foreign correspondent of the 
French Academy of Medicine. 
(Also in' Biological Society.) 
Sylvester D. Judd, IT. S. Dept, of Agriculture. 
(Also in Biological Society.) 
B. E. Fernow, chief Div. of Forestry, IT. S. Dept, 
of Agriculture. 
(Also in Biological Society.) 
Geo. B. Sudworth, dendrologist, Div. Forestry, 
IT. S. Dept, of Agriculture. 
(Also in Biological Society.) 
Erwin F. Smith, asst, pathologist, 11. S. Dept. 
Agriculture. 
(Also in Biological Society.) 
Theo. Holm, asst, pathologist, IT. S. Dept, of 
Agriculture. 
‘Also in Biological Society.) 
E. A. de Schweinitz, chief chemist, Bioohemic Lab., 
Dept, of Agr.; prof. chem. and tox., med. Dept., 
Columbian tlniv. 
(Also in Biological Society.) 
Theo. Sill, prof, zool., Col. Univ. 
Whereas Senate bill No. 1552, entitled “ A bill for the further prevention of cruelty 
to animals in the District of Columbia,” is pending in the Congress of the United 
btates; and 
we’the Medical Society of the State of Pennsylvania, are fully convinced 
that this restrictive legislation, should it become a law, would seriously cripple the 
eltorls of the earnest scientific investigators of the District of Columbia (and indi- 
rectly ol the United States), and would retard the progress of medical science in its 
beneficent efforts to alleviate suffering and diminish the ravages of disease: and 
Whereas cruelty to animals is not practiced in the District of Columbia by those 
scientists who unselfishly and with great personal risk strive to increase our knowl- 
euge ol disease and of the methods of its prevention and cure: Therefore, be it 
-r, solved, That the Medical Society of the State of Pennsylvania hereby urge the 
Pennsylvania delegation in the Congress of the United States to use all honorable 
means to defeat the said bill or any similar restrictive measure. 
. Resolved, That copies of these resolutions, attested by the secretary of the Med- 
ical Society of the State of Pennsylvania, and signed by the president, be sent to 
each member of tbe Pennsylvania delegation in Congress, and to the chairman of 
tte Gommittees on the District of Columbia of the Senate of the United States and 
of the House of Representatives. 
Wm. S. Foster, 
President of Medical Society of Pennsylvania, Pittsburg. 
W. B. Atkinson, 
Secretary of Medical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 
Harrisburg, Pa., May 19, 1896. 
MEMORIAL OF THE PENNSYLVANIA MEDICAL SOCIETY. 
MEMORIAL OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS. 
The Association of American Physicians, assembled in annual session at Washing- 
ton, D. C., May 2, 1896, by unanimous vote and by the appended signatures of its 
officers and members, hereby records its most earnest protest against such legislation 
as that proposed by the bill entitled “A bill for the further prevention of cruelty to 
animals in the District of Columbia”—Senate bill 1552—in so far as this legislation 
embodies measures intended to control and restrict experimentation upon animals 
5 , m,tbe Government laboratories, the medical schools, and other institutions 
of the higher learning in the District of Columbia. In making this protest the associ- 
ation begs to present to the members of Congress the following considerations: 
Experimentation upon animals is an absolutely indispensable and the most impor- 
tant method of investigation of the properties of living organ isms, and of the infiueu ces VIVISECTION. 
135 
which modify these properties. The science and the art of medicine are based upon 
the knowledge of the structure and the functions of living matter, and consequently 
in large part upon knowledge which has been obtained by experiments upon animals 
and which could have been gained in no other way. _ 
The benefits to mankind of the knowledge thus acquired are of inestimable value. 
To mention only a few of the results obtained within recent years by animal experi- 
mentation, attention is called to the discoveries which have revolutionized surgical 
practice by the introduction of antiseptic methods of treatment, which have rendered 
infrequent the occurrence of childbed fever, which have made it possible to prevent 
the development of hydrophobia after the bite of rabid animals, which have furnished 
an efficacious method of cure of the otherwise incurable disease, myxcedema, and 
which, by the antitoxin treatment, have greatly lessened the fatality of diphtheria. 
Bv these and similar discoveries derived from experiments upon animals, untold 
thousands of human lives have been rescued which would otherwise surely have 
P The saving of animal life itself and the consequent commercial profits resulting 
from knowledge gained by experiments upon animals have been enormous, ihe 
benefits derived from experiments upon animals largely go to the improvement ot the 
public health and the . prevention of infectious diseases. Their immediate value is 
often not recognizable by the individual, unless lie has informed himself upon sub- 
jects which are in large measure of a technical nature and belong to the study ot sci- 
en require a volume to set forth adequately the results, beneficial to man- 
kind and to animals, of knowledge derived from experiments on animals, ihe asser- 
tion of many opponents of vivisection that knowledge obtained from animal experi- 
mentation, and which could be obtained in no other way, has been of little or no 
benefit to mankind can be referred only to ignorance or to willful misrepresentation. 
Never was there a time in which experimental medicine gave promise of results so 
important for the welfare of mankind as those which we may reasonably expect in 
the near future, and never was there so little justification as at present to hamper 
in any way the work of those engaged in searching by the experimental method tor 
means of preventing and curing disease. 
Obvious as are such beneficial results of animal experimentation as those speci- 
fied—and many other similar instances might have been cited by way of illustra- 
tion—it should"' be borne in mind that the full significance of the importance and of 
the results of experimentation upon animals for the biological and the medical 
sciences can be adequately appreciated only by those who possess special knowledge 
of these sciences, and that it is only those who are thus informed who can fully 
realize the injury which would be inflicted upon these sciences and upon medicine 
hv such legislation as that contemplated in this bill. Upon this matter it is the 
voice of science and of medicine, which is likewise the voice of true philanthropy, 
which should he heard and which should control legislative action, and not that 
of those who, however worthy their impulses, however high their social position, 
however great their knowledge in other departments, do not possess that special 
knowledge which renders them competent to judge of the merits ot this question. 
The voice of science and of medicine, so far as it receives authoritative utterance, 
is overwhelmingly opposed to legislation of any kind which would take in any meas- 
ure the direction of experimental medicine and physiology out of the hands ot those 
who on account of their special fitness have been chosen by the authorities ot our 
higher institutions of learning and of research to convey instruction and to conduct 
investigations in these departments. Unnecessary and offensive in the highest < Legree 
would it he by any system of official inspection, such as that proposed m this i 
and which might readily be used as a system of outrageous espionage, or by legisla- 
tion of any kind, to attempt to dictate or control how, and by whom, and tor what 
purposes, and under what conditions, and upon what animals in the laboratories 
and the institutions of the higher learning experiments shall be made, the decision 
as to these matters should be left wholly to those in charge of these institutions,^ 
who are the ones most competent to judge of them. . , , ~, 
Those enlaced in the Government laboratories, in the medical schools and the 
universities”of this country, in teaching and in investigations which require experi- 
mentation upon animals, can he safely intrusted with this function. To say the 
least they are not less humane than are those who advocate legislation to control 
and restrict animal experimentation in these institutions. The assertion which has 
been made bv anti-vivisectionists, that experimentation on animals brutalizes tfiose 
who witness and practice it, is an insult, without shadow of foundation, to a class 
of scientific workers devoted to the investigation of problems of the highest import- 
ance to the welfare of mankind. Their efforts are to secure the desired knowledge 
by infliction of the least possible needless pain upon animals used tor experimenta- 
tion, and we do not hesitate to assert that this solicitude to avoid the infliction ot 
unnecessary pain renders them more susceptible than the average man o ac ua 
cruelty to animals. 136 
VIVISECTION. 
We have been unable to learn that there has been a single instance in which abuse 
has been made of the practice of animal experimentation in the Government labora- 
tories, the medical schools, or the universities of the District of Columbia. Any 
legislation which proposes in any way to control, restrict, or interfere with animal 
experimentation in these institutions is, therefore, unnecessary, as well as offensive 
to those who are engaged in the scientific investigations conducted therein. 
If there be any doubt as to the opposition of the great body of scientific men 
and of physicians to such legislation as that proposed in this bill, we beg that Con- 
gress will not take action favorable to this bill or to any similar one until suffi- 
cient time has been given I'or a full expression of opinion from scientific and medical 
associations throughout this country, for the matter is one not merely of local 
interest, but may concern the future progress of the biological and medical sciences, 
and of preventive and curative medicine throughout this country. 
Officers: 
A. Jacobi, M. D., President, New York City. 
Henry Hun, M. D., Secretary, Albany, N. Y. 
William W. Johnston, M. I)., Treasurer, Washington City. 
G. Baumgarten, M. D., Councilor, St. Louis, Mo. 
J. E. Graham, M. D., Councilor, Toronto, Canada. 
Committee: 
William H. Welch, M. D., Baltimore, Md. 
William Pepper, M. D,, Philadelphia, Pa. 
Victor C. Vaugan, M. D., Ann Arbor, Mich. 
Robert T. Edes, M. D., Boston, Mass. 
Theobald Smith, M. D., Poston, Mass. 
Francis Delafield, M. D. 
W. Gilman Thompson, M. I). 
Francis P. Kinnicutt, M. D. 
W. H. Draper, M. D. 
M. Allen Starr, M. D. 
Charles L. Dana, M. D. 
Edward G. Jeneway, M. D. 
W. M. Polk, M. I)., LL. D. 
Andrew H. Smith, M. D. 
A. Brayton Ball, M. D. 
George L. Peabody, M. D. 
I. Adler, M. D. 
Wm. H. Thomson, M. D. 
A. A. Smith, M. D. 
William T. Lurk, M. D. 
S. Weir Mitchell, M. D.,LL. D. 
Members: 
Saml. B. Ward, M. D., Professor Theory and Practice of Medicine, Albany 
Medical College. 
Robert T. Edes, Resident Physician Adams Neuric Asylum. 
I. E. Graham, Professor Practice of Medicine, Toronto University. 
Wm. H. Thomson, Professor Practice of Medicine, New York University. 
Geo. M. Sternberg, Surgeon-General, U. S. A. 
S. C. Busey, Washington City. 
J. F. Alleyne Adams, Pittsfield, Mass. 
Wm. P. Northrup, Adjunct Professor Diseases of Children, Bellevue Hos- 
pital Medical College, New York. 
L. J. Meltzer, M. D., Member of American Physiological Society, Society 
of Naturalists, New York Academy of Medicine, etc. 
James J. Putnam, M. D., Professor of Diseases of the Nervous System, 
Harvard Medical School. 
M. Howard Fussell, M. D., Instructor of Clinical Medicine, University of 
Pennsylvania. 
Theobald Smith, M. D., Professor in Harvard University; Pathologist to 
the State Board of Health of Massachusetts. 
Andrew H. Smith, M. D., Professor Post-Graduate Medical School New 
York; Physician to Presbyterian Hospital. 
D. Webster Prentiss, M. D., Washington, D. C. 
G. M. Garland, M. D., Boston Mass. 
H. B. Lafleur, Assistant Professor of Medicine and Clinical Medicine, 
McGill University. 
Simon Flexner, Associate Professor of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Uni- 
versity; Resident Pathologist, Johns Hopkins Hospital. VIVISECTION. 
137 
F. B. C. Shattuck, Professor of Clinical Medicine, Harvard University. 
R. H. Fitz, Professor of Theory and Practice, Harvard University. 
VV. T. Councilman, Professor of Pathanatomy, Harvard University. 
Harold C. Ernst, Professor of Bacteriology, Harvard University. 
T. M. Rotch, Professor of Diseases of Children, Harvard University. 
Elbridge G. Cutter, Instructor in the Theory and Practice of Physic, 
Harvard University. 
A. Lawrence Mason, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Harvard 
University. 
Francis H. Williams, Visiting Physician, Boston City Hospital. 
Charles F. Folsom, Visiting Physician, Boston City Hospital. 
Henry P. Walcott, Chairman State Board of Health. 
F. T. Miles, M. D., Professor of Physiology and Clinical Professor of 
Nervous Diseases, University of Maryland. 
Thos. G. Latimer, M. D., Professor of Theory and Practice of Medicine, 
College of Physicians and Surgeons, Baltimore. 
Wm. Osler, M. D., Professor of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, 
Baltimore. 
Henry M. Hurd, M. D., Superintendent of the Johns Hopkins Hospital; 
Professor of Psychiatry of the Johns Hopkins University. 
John J. Abel, M. D,, Professor of Pharmacology, Johns Hopkins Uni- 
versity. 
I, E. Atkinson, M. D., Professor of Materia Medica and Therapeutics, and 
of Clinical Medicine, University of Maryland. 
S. D. Chew, M. D., Professor of Practice of Medicine, University of 
Maryland. 
Henry M. Lyman, A. M., M. D., Professor of the Theory and Practice of 
Medicine, Rush Medical College, Chicago. 
I. N. Danforth, A. M., M. D., Professor of Theory and Practice of Medi- 
cine and Dean of the Northwestern University Woman’s Medical School. 
Frank Billings, M. S., M. D., Professor of the Theory and Practice of 
Medicine and of Clinical Medicine, Northwestern University Medical 
School, Chicago, 111. 
F. Forchheimer, M. D., Professor of Diseases of Children, Medical Col- 
lege of Ohio, University of Cincinnati. 
Jas. T. Whittaker, M. D., Professor of Theory and Practice, Medical Col- 
lege of Ohio, University of Cincinnati. 
B. K. Rachford, M. D., Professor of Physiology, Medical College of Ohio, 
University of Cincinnati. 
J. George Adami, M. A., M. D., Late Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, 
Professor of Pathology in the Faculties of Human and Comparative 
Medicine of McGill University. 
A. C. Abbott, M. D., Laboratory of Hygiene, University of Pennsylvania. 
B. Meade Bolton, M. D., Director of the Municipal Laboratory, Phila- 
delphia, Pa. 
Nathan Peppe, M. D., LL. D. 
M. Howard Fussell, M. D., Instructor in Clinical, Medicine, University 
of Pennsylvania. 
J. P. Crozer Griffith, M. D., Clinical Professor, Diseases of Children, 
University of Pennsylvania. 
John Guiteras, M. D., Professor of Pathology, University of Pennsylvania. 
H. A. Hare, Professor of Therapeutics and Materia Medica in the Jefferson 
Medical College of Philadelphia. 
H. C. Wood, Professor of Therapeutics, University of Pennsylvania. 
J. Minis Hays, M. D. 
Frederick P. Henry, M. D., Professor of the Principles and Practice of 
Medicine and of Clinical Medicine in the Woman’s Medical College 
of Pennsylvania. 
Morris Longstreet, M. D. 
Arthur V. Meigs, Physician to the Pennsylvania Hospital. 
J. H. Musser, M. D., Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine, University 
of Pennsylvania. 
Wharton Tinkler, M. D., Physician to the Philadelphia Infirmary for 
Nervous Diseases. 
Louis Starr, M. D. 
James Tyson, M. D., Professor of Clinical Medicine, University of Penn- 
sylvania. 
J. C. Wilson, M. D., Professor of the Practice of Medicine and of Clinical 
Medicine in the Jefferson Medical College; Physician to the Pennsyl- 
vania Hospital, the German Hospital, and the Jefferson Hospital. 138 
VIVISECTION. 
Charles S. Bond, M. D., Richmond, Ind. 
Charles Cary, M. D., Buffalo, N. Y. 
James Stewart, M. D., Montreal, P. Q. 
W. E. Fischel, M. D., St. Louis, Mo. 
George Dock, M. D., Professor of Medicine, University of Michigan. 
Norman Bridge, M. D., Philadelphia, Pa. 
MEMORIAL OF THE CHEMICAL SOCIETY OP WASHINGTON, D. C. 
Washington, D. C., May 14, 1896. 
To the Honorable the President of the United States Senate. 
Dear Sir : In view of the proposed legislation now before the Senate in the form 
of a bill entitled “An act for the further prevention of cruelty to animals in the 
District of Columbia/’ which, however, is practicallyan act to limit, and eventually 
stop, all experiments upon animals in the District of Columbia, the Chemical Society 
of Washington, including among its members a number of the most prominent chem- 
ists in the country, desires to present to the Senate of the United States a formal 
and positive protest against the enactment of any legislation upon the subject of 
vivisection. 
The laws at present on the statute books of the District of Columbia, if properly 
carried out, will apply to all cases of cruelty to animals which exist in this District. 
The proposed bill is objectionable for very many reasons. The penalties prescribed 
for the infraction of the law are preposterous. An expert who did not happen to 
possess a permit from the District Commissioners for the performance of experiments 
upon animals might suddenly have placed in his hands material, the dangerous char- 
acter of which could only be determined by an immediate experiment upon an ani- 
mal. Should such a test be made without a license, though possibly the lives of 
hundreds of people were involved, the experimenter would be subject to an enormous 
fine and imprisonment for having in the interests of humanity inoculated a guinea 
pig or a rabbit or some other animal without a formal permit from the District 
Commissioners. 
While the majority of the members of our society are not directly engaged in 
experiments in which animals are used, we know that in certain lines of work toxi- 
cology, materia medica, biochemistry, and the like animal experimentation is abso- 
lutely necessary for the advancement of knowledge. 
The agitators of the proposed legislation have not been able to show a single 
instance of cruel experiments conducted in the District of Columbia, either in any 
of the laboratories or medical colleges or public schools, consequently there is no 
need for any law on the subject. Furthermore, Washington is becoming the center 
of education for the entire United States. Four large universities are located here; 
several more are in prospect, and the proposed legislation would hamper and eventu- 
ally destroy all possibility for advanced post-graduate work in the biological sciences, 
and indirectly in all allied branches. 
We therefore, collectively as a society, and individually as members, desire to pro- 
test strenuously against any legislation on the subject of vivisection, deeming it to 
be unwise, unecessary, and in direct opposition to the spirit which has for a number 
of years actuated the United States Government to encourage the advance of science. 
We hold further that such legislation would be a direct contradiction of the well- 
known practical results that have already been obtained by scientific investigations 
conducted under the Government, which have made possible the saving of many 
dollars’ worth of property and many human lives. 
Yours, very respectfully, 
E. A. de Schweinitz, Ph. D., M. D., 
President Washington Chemical Society. 
W. D. Bigelo w, Ph. D., 
W. G. Brown, Ph. D., 
Vice-Presidents. 
A. C. Peale, M. D., 
Secretary. 
Charles E. M unroe, Ph. D., 
W. P. Cutter, B. S., 
H. N. Stokes, Ph. D., 
V. K. Chesnut, B. S., 
Fred. P. Dewey, Ph. 8., 
Members of the Executive Committee. 139 
VIVISECTION. 
MEMORIAL OF THE DETROIT MEDICAL AND LIBRARY ASSOCIATION. 
Detroit, Mich., May 23, 1896. 
Dear Sir : At a meeting of the Detroit Medical and Library Association held 
May 18, 1896, it was unanimously resolved, that: _ 
Whereas the passage of the bill now pending in Congress, directed toward the 
abolishment of vivisection in the District of Columbia, will seriously impair the scren- 
tific experiments of the Smithsonian Institute, and the investigations of the differ- 
ent scientific departments of the Government, located at Washington: 
Therefore this society requests that you, as the representative of our State, vote 
against such bill, and use such influence as you may deem proper to insure its defeat. 
Dr. C. Bonning, 
Dr. Guy S. Keifer, 
Dr. B. P. Brodie, 
Committee. 
Willis S. Anderson, 
Secretary. 
Hon. James McMillan, 
United States Senator, Washington, D. C. 
MEMORIAL op the medical society of the county OF NEW YORK. 
New York, April 27, 1896. 
At a meeting of the Medical Society of the County of New \ ork, held on the above 
date, the following resolutions were offered by Dr. E. H. Grandin, and unanimously 
adopted; . . , . ... 
Whereas organized movements for the abolition or serious restriction ot tlie prac- 
tice of scientific experimentation upon animals are now being made in this country; 
Whereas a bill is now before Congress, which, if passed, would seriously hamper 
such scientific investigation in the laboratories of the District of Columbia; and 
Wheras vivisection has established many facts of benefit to the human oiganism 
when diseased; and . . 
Whereas scientific vivisection aims simply at the determination ot new tacts 
which similarly may benefit mankind: Therefore, be it . . 
Resolved, by the Medical Society of the County of New York, that scientific vivi- 
section is essential to improvement in the ways and means of curing disease; and 
Be it further resolved, That the Medical Society of the County of New York depre- 
cates favorable action on the bill now pending before Congress. 
Edward D. Fisher, M. D., President. 
Attest: 
Chas. H. Avery, Secretary. 
MEMORIAL OF THE ESSEX DISTRICT MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 
Newark, N. J., April—, 1896. 
Resolved, That this society views with great disfavor the bill recently introduced 
into the United States Senate aimed against vivisection entitled “A bill for the fur- 
ther prevention of cruelty to animals in the District of Columbia;7 and 
Resolved further, That this society request our Senators, the Hon. James Smith, jr., 
and the Hon. William J. Sewell, to exert their influence in every honorable way to 
defeat the passage of the said bill. 
Edward J. 111, M. D., President. 
Archibald Mercer, M. D., Secretary. 
BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS REPRESENTING THE STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF 
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
Meadville, Pa., May IS, 1896. 
Dear Sir: There is a bill before the Senate which aims to restrict vivisection. 
Those members of the medical profession who believe in progress and scientific 
methods of investigation are unanimously opposed to legislation tending to restrict 
vivisection. The men who are engaged in this work are men who have no other 140 
VIVISECTION. 
object than to advance the science of medicine and surgery, and find out methods of 
relieving suffering. All of the modern operations on the brain, on the abdomen, on 
the thorax, on the kidney, on the womb, besides many others, have been first prac- 
ticed on the animals, and the operations thoroughly worked out in that way before 
attempts were made on human beings. Surely it is better that some animals should be 
destroyed rather than that the first operations should be practiced on human beings. 
Then again, take all the discoveries of Pasteur and the new methods of treating 
diphtheria, besides many other diseases, and these methods of treatment, which have 
been so successful, would have been impossible by any other method than by experi- 
menting upon animals. All the severe experiments on animals are done under 
chloroform. 
I hope that yon will see fit to oppose this hill in every way. It will be a severe 
blow to scientific investigation when vivisection is restricted in any way. Anything 
you may do to defeat the hill will be esteemed as a great personal favor hy 
Yours, truly, 
W. D. HaxMaker. 
Hon. M. S. Quay, Washington, D. C. 
LETTERS. 
1729 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, February 18, 1896. 
My Dear Sir: I believe that I have the honor of addressing a doctor as well as a 
Senator. I desire particularly to call your attention to the bill now before Congress 
(Senate No. 1552'( limiting scientific research by prohibiting vivisection excepting 
under such restrictions as to nullify its value. 
I beg to point out especially the value of recent laboratory researches on the vari- 
ous antitoxines, particularly those of diphtheria, tetanus, and hydrophobia, which 
have resulted in distinct and immense advances in medicine; and, in addition to 
this, to the as yet incomplete researches in reference to typhoid fever, yellow fever, 
scarlet fever, and many other zymotic diseases. 
In his recent paper on a study of seven thousand cases of diphtheria, Professor 
Welch, of Johns Hopkins, has stated distinctly that the diphtheria autitoxine, which 
has saved so many thousands of lives already, is the direct result of such laboratory 
researches largely, though not wholly, consisting of experiments upon animals. 
In addition to this, the early and almost all other advances in antiseptic surgery 
and nearly all our knowledge of bacteriology, to which we owe such immense strides 
in the last few years, have come from experiments upon animals. Had this been 
prohibited in Europe and America, we should be in the relative darkness of fifty 
years ago. How great is that darkness only physicians know. 
It would be peculiarly unfortunate if such a bill were to be passed by Congress 
for two reasons. The District of Columbia is the center of a great deal of scientific 
activity especially designed to investigate and prevent or cure many diseases of 
animals, and the poor beasts themselves will sutler immense detriment if such 
investigations be prohibited. The animals might well cry out to be saved from 
their friends if their diseases are to be left in their present unsatisfactory condition. 
Moreover, if Congress passes such a law, it will be used as a lever all over the 
country to have similar laws passed in other States. 
Trusting that you will use your great influence against the passage of this bill, I 
have the honor to be, 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
W. W. Keen, 
Professor of Surgery, Jefferson Medical College. 
Hon. J. H. Gallinger, 
Committee on the District of Columbia, 
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 
May 23, 1896. 
Dear Sir : Inclosed you will find resolutions passed at the last meeting of the 
Detroit Medical and Literary Association in reference to the antivivisection hill 
now pending in Congress. 
I trust you will give this matter your personal attention, as it is one of great 
importance, not only to the medical and scientific world, hut to the people who are 
to-day reaping the benefits of knowledge acquired hy means of experimentation 
upon the lower animals. VIVISECTION. 
141 
Should this hill pass it will be a serious blow to the progress of medicine; and we 
feel that you ought to interest yourself in behalf of progress. 
Yours, sincerely, 
Willis S. Anderson, M. D. 
Hon. James McMillan, 
Washington, D. C. 
Plattsburg, N. Y., April 20, 1896. 
Dear Sir: I understand a bill is now before your committee for the restriction of 
vivisection in the District of Columbia. I am familiar with the provisions of this 
humane measure, and ask you, for humanity’s sake, to give it your unqualified 
support. 
Yery respectfully, 
C. C. Schuyler, M. D. 
Hon. James McMillan, 
Washington, D. C. 
Office of the Humane Society of Missouri, 
For the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Animals, 
St. Louis, April 14, 1896. 
Dear Sir; Information has reached me that there is now before both Houses of 
Congress a bill for the restriction of vivisection in the District of Columbia, and 
that the same has been referred to a subcommittee of which you are a member. 
You will pardon me for addressing you upon this subject, but it is one in which I 
am deeply interested. 
The society, of which I am superintendent, has on several occasions, by vote of 
its executive committee, stamped its disapproval upon vivisection as now conducted, 
and I therefore write you asking in the name of humanity that the bill be pushed 
forward and made a law. 
Very respectfully, yours, John H. Holmes, Superintendent. 
Senator James McMillan, 
United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 
Elmira, N. ¥., April 9, 1896. 
Dear Sir; It will please many of your friends outside your own State if you will 
do what you can to promote the passage of the bill to control vivisection in the 
District of Columbia. And among them I count myself. 
Yours, very truly, T. A. Wales. 
Hon. J. H. Gallinger, United States Senate. 
New York, April 9, 1896. 
Dear Sir: I am informed that there is a hill before both Houses of Congress for 
the restriction of vivisection. I have read carefully the four provisions of said bill, 
and am fully in accord with them, and as to such experiments being tolerated in 
public schools, I can not conceive of any but evil results therefrom (and I have been 
in active practice forty-six years). 
Hoping that you may see fit to use your valuable influence in support of this bill, 
I am, yours, very respectfully, 
James Neil. 
Senator J. H. Gallinger, Chairman, 
1421 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, March 30, 1896. 
My Dear Sir : I desire simply to say a word in favor of the hill for the further 
prevention of cruelty to animals, etc., which I understand is before your committee. 
I have carefully considered the bill and can not find anything in it which is not 
proper or an injury to science. Such a hill was before the Pennsylvania legislature 142 
VIVISECTION. 
many years ago, and it had the approval of those who had previously been opposed 
to any legislation, but for one reason or another it failed of passage. 
I do not see what objections can be fairly presented to the liberal and just bill 
which is in your committee’s possession. 
Respectfully, Thomas G. Morton, 
Surgeon to the Pennsylvania Hospital, etc., and Member 
Board Education Philadelphia, etc. 
Hon. J, H. Gallinger. 
16 Hancock Street, Brooklyn, April 10,1896. 
Dear Sir: I write you in reference to the bill before you to restrict vivisection in 
the District of Columbia. I think the bill contains wise and wholesome provisions 
and should be passed. lam in favor of vivisection for scientific purposes, but not 
to gratify curiosity. Children are rushing to the study of biology to gratify a love 
of the startling and wonderful, which results in blunting the sensibilities and in 
smothering the finer feelings of our nature. 
Very respectfully, 
Edward W. Avery, M. D. 
Hon. J. H. Gallinger. 
118 South Seventeenth Street, Philadelphia, March 31, 1896. 
Gentlemen : Will you kindly permit me to impress upon you the importance of 
the bill having for its object the prevention of vivisection and the exhibition of 
vivisected animals in the public schools. 
You can not be unaware of the great cruelty already, in the name of instruction, 
inflicted upon the lower animals, yet, dreadful as this is, it may be as nothing in 
comparison to the demoralization wrought upon the plastic minds of children by 
familiarizing them with deliberate animal mutilation. 
As we write these lines, knowing from long study what vivisection means, we can 
hardly realize that there are men so base or shortsighted as to want such a barbarous 
practice introduced into the curriculum of our noble public schools. 
If we did not know into what baleful convictions and practices the habit of vivi- 
section leads most of its victims, we would reject the report as being beyond belief. 
Do not, we implore you, accept the testimony of culprits in defense of their crime, 
but read the inclosed circular by Canon Wilberforce, a man as distinguished in science 
and pedagogy as he is in theology, then act as God guides you, and save our children 
from the sight of this cruel infamy. 
Respectfully, yours, Matthew Woods, 
President of American Antivivisection Society, 
Messrs. Gallinger, McMillan, and Bacon. 
218 South Sixteenth Street, Philadelphia, March 31, 1896. 
Dear Sir : I have been expressly requested to address you in favor of a bill for 
the further prevention of cruelty to animals in the District of Columbia. 
I desire to say that I consider legal restriction of the practice of vivisection of 
animals to be necessary and right, and that the bill appears to me to be moderate in 
its requirements and not likely to interfere with medical teaching. 
Very respectfully, yours, 
Frank Woodbury. 
Hon. Jacob H. Gallinger, 
Chairman of Committee of the United States Senate, Washington, D. G. 
New Yoke City, April 9, 1896. 
Dear Sir: The bill before Congress for the restriction of vivisection, of which 
you are chairman, I hope will meet with your approval, and that you will do all you 
can to report favorably. 
Very respectfully, yours, Wax. G. Hartley, M. D., 
335 West Thirty-fourth street. 
Senator J. H. Gallinger. VIVISECTION. 
143 
150 West 128 th Street, New York, April 1, 1896. 
My Dear Sir: After coming to a realization of the unnecessary pain inflicted upon 
the brute creation by physiological investigators and medical professors, I consider 
it a duty toward suffering animals to protest against any vivisectional experiments 
which have not first been decided upon by a board of leading laymen, united with 
the leading medical men in every city. Further, no painful operation upon animals 
should be performed without anaesthetics; that the constant sight of pain inflicted 
is apt to harden even humane men and to brutalize the student. Lastly, all labora- 
tories should be registered, and the operators licensed, and inspectors appointed to 
thoroughly inspect them. 
Respectfully, yours, Beverley O. Kinnear, M. D., 
University of Pennsylvania, 1870. 
Hon. George Curtis, 
Rouse of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
Buffalo, N. Y., April 9, 1896. 
Senator : I have been asked to express my opinion in regard to the bill now before 
Congress for the restriction of vivisection in the District of Columbia. I beg to say 
that lam heartily in favor of it. I have given this subject some study, and lam 
quite convinced that a great deal of vivisection is unnecessary and cruel. I hope a 
bill will pass restricting it. 
Very respectfully, yours, W. S. Tremaine, M. D., 
University of Pennsylvania, 1859. 
Senator J. H. Gallinger, 
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 
Binghamton, N. Y., April 9,1896. 
Dear Sir : I wish to state that I am decidedly in favor of the bill for restriction 
of vivisection. 
Yours, respectfully, 
Isaac D. Meacham. 
Senator J. H. Gallinger. 
Springfield, Mass., April 10, 1896. 
Dear Sir: I see there is a bill now before both Houses of Congress for the restric- 
tion of vivisection in the District of Columbia, and I desire to add my earnest wish 
that such restriction may meet with success, for from personal knowledge I know 
there is daily being performed operations upon dumb animals which are not only 
brutal, but entirely unnecessary, and for my part I would not only restrict but 
would entirely abolish vivisection as utterly unnecessary and frightfully cruel, only 
going to demonstrate facts which have been proven thousands of times already and are 
known to the entire medical profession. I sincerely hope the bill will pass and thus 
prevent much unnecessary suffering to animals, and meet the approbation of thou 
sands of kindly feeling men, and tend to make better men in the world and prevent 
much suffering to helpless animals, now entirely at the mercy of ambitious, but as 
well totally heartless men. 
Very respectfully, L. W. Cole, M. D., 
No. 159 State street, Springfield, Mass. 
Hon. J. H. Gallinger, Senator. 
Lockport, N. Y., April 14, 1896. 
Dear Sir : I notice that there is a hill before your committee restricting vivisec- 
tion, by putting safeguards around it, in the District of Columbia. I sincerely hope 
your committee will hold firmly to this bill. In the name of science, great cruelties 
have been inflicted upon animals, until it has become a fad in many cases. I am 
persuaded that many have practiced vivisection more for the purpose of getting their 
names in the papers than for science. 
* J. H. Helmer, M. D. 
(A graduate in 1847.) 
Hon. J. H. Gallinger. 144 
VIVISECTION. 
New York, April 10, 1896. 
Dear Sir ; I understand that a bill restricting vivisection is before the Senate. I 
wish to attest to the value of a bill of that kind, and hope it will pass. 
Sincerely yours, 
Samuel Sexton, M. D. 
Hon. J. H. Gallinger, United States Senate. 
Arlington Heights, Mass., April 9,1896. 
My Dear Sir ; I understand that in a few days the bill for the restriction of vivi- 
section in the District of Columbia will come before your committee, and I trust you 
will think it worthy of your closest attention and consideration, and that you will 
urge upon Senators McMillan and Bacon the great importance to the cause of human- 
ity and a higher civilization that the committee, as a whole, should vote for the bill. 
The bill is fair and just, and no humane physician, physiologist, or scientist should 
attempt its defeat. 
In the name of our poor, dumb, helpless fellow-creatures I respectfully ask you to 
aid this bill in becoming law. 
I am, very truly, yours, 
Allan Mott-Ring, M. D. 
Senator J. H. Gallinger. 
Wollaston, Mass., April 9, 1896. 
Dear Sir : As there is now a bill before both Houses of Congress for the restriction 
of vivisection in the District of Columbia you are doubtless receiving the opinions 
of physicians. I would respectfully present this as my opinion; Wherever vivisec- 
tion is practiced there will always be more or less “infernal inhumanity” on the part 
of some persons, notwithstanding the restrictions of the law. Hence in all medical 
schools vivisection ought to be abolished. 
Very truly, yours, 
Edwin A. W. Harlow, A. M., M. D. 
Senator J. H. Gallinger, 
Springfield, Mass., April 10, 1896. 
Dear Sir : The bill in the hands of your committee on restricted vivisection has my 
hearty approval. The Report of the American Humane Association on vivisection 
in America, 1895, gives the names of 400 professional men who favor vivisection, if 
without pain. I need not trouble you with any argument. 
Your obedient servant, 
A. S. McClean, M. D. 
Senator J. H. Gallinger. 
Folklore and Best Thoughts, Century Building, 
Minneapolis, Minn., April 10, 1896. 
My Dear Doctor and Sir : My attention has just been called to a bill now before 
your committee relating to restriction of vivisection in the District of Columbia. If 
it becomes necessary to have such a humane measure indorsed by the people, I would 
gladly sign or circulate a petition in our section of the nation. I feel to say that for a 
Government such as should be, “of, by, and for” ourselves, that it is deplorable that 
the time has come when we must needs appeal to our servants—our Representatives— 
to pass laws of restriction over any class of inhuman humanity. 
You already know how persistent I have been for four years in our great rescue 
work. I may also say that lam an antivaccinationist, and believe it to be one of 
the prolific causes of tuberculosis. My wish is that you, while your pugilistic col- 
league, Mr. C., is drawing his sword to smite off the ears of Spain and Tom Reed or any 
other brother, will succeed in your resolutions for humanity. Now, may I ask you to 
wire me the moment we get Fort Stanton donation. I want our papers here to be 
early in the race to proclaim the glad tidings. I see by this morning’s Washington 
news that the committee have reported favorably on admitting New Mexico. Dr. 
Nichols informs me that the society is on the eve of getting off its kilt skirts and don- 
ning walking suit. I see our old Kennebec Journal, of Augusta, Me., gives you a 
modest send-off in their issue of April 6. VIVISECTION. 
145 
I mail you to-day our last Folklore, which has just arrived from the press. I 
wish you would send me $5 and a dozen names to whom I can mail the magazine for a 
year. I have had a “rocky” time of it to keep the publication afloat, and only for 
the kindness of Dr. Nichols, of Boston, could not have done it. 
Let us hear from you. 
Cordially and fraternally, 
Dr. W. P. Roberts. 
Hon. J. H. Gallinger, 
United States Senator, Washington, D. C. 
217 East Seventeenth Street, New York, April 11, 1896. 
Dear Sir: I venture, unsolicited, to raise my voice in favor of the passage of the 
bill at present before Congress for the restriction of vivisection in the District of 
Columbia, for the reason that all vivisection that may be necessary for physiological 
experiment or demonstration can be performed under the act. The days when such 
experiments were considered an imperative necessity are fortunately gone by, and 
further I may state it as my opinion that many of them as nowadays performed are 
useless, perfunctory, and cruel. Particularly would Ibe in favor of the adoption of 
the third clause, which prohibits such experiments in the public schools. 
Very respectfully, 
Dr. Edward Frankel, 
Consulting Surgeon City Hospital. 
Hon. J. H. Gallinger, 
United States Senator. 
180 Walnut Street, Holyoke, Mass., April 12, 1896. 
Dear Sir: Having received notice that the bill for the restriction of vivisection 
is now before both Houses, I gladly avail myself of the opportunity to express my 
views upon the subject. 
From my knowledge of vivisection I am thoroughly opposed to it, and believe that 
in the majority of cases the moral harm more than overbalances any scientific gain 
wThich might accrue from it. 
The provisos of the bill which relate to the licensing of experiments, the anaes- 
thetizing of the animals, and the prohibiting of all vivisection from the public 
schools have my heartiest indorsement. 
Yours, truly, 
E. L. Draper, M. D. 
Mr. J. H. Gallinger. 
Lynn, Mass., April 11, 1896. 
Dear Sir: I see that the “ Bill for the restriction of vivisection in the District of 
Columbia ” is before your committee. I desire to interest you in opposition to this 
bill, first, because it is conceded by the highest medical authority that “ vivisection 
subserves no good purpose and has only theory to support it;” second, because of 
its baneful effects on the moral nature of the operators—the young are by nature 
given to thoughtless cruelty, and need repression in this direction. It is impossible 
to estimate the debasing effects of such practices, and when the ablest operators 
doubt whether any permanent benefit to science results from this inhuman practice, 
is it not wise to hesitate and take time to become familiar with all the facts possible 
before allowing this bill to become law? 
In the interest of humanity, I ask yon to vote against it. 
Very respectfully, 
E. H. Hawks, M. D. 
Senator J. H. Gallinger. 
The New England Antiviyisection Society, 
Boston, Mass., April 6, 1896. 
Dear Sir: Being advised that you desire some authoritative opinions against 
vivisection, I take pleasure in sending to you those accompanying this letter, in the 
hope that they may prove useful to you and to the cause. 
Very respectfully, yours, 
Philip G. Peabody, President. 
Hon. J. H. Gallinger, Senate. 
VIY 10 146 
VIVISECTION. 
Aurora, 111., March 31, 189. 
Dear Sir: I am informed you are a member of the committee in the Senate hav- 
ing in charge the bill for the restriction of vivisection in the District. The Illinois 
society stands for total prohibition, hence can not officially indorse the bill of our 
Washington friends, but its secretary can appeal to you as an individual and urge 
your earnest support of this restrictive bill. I note by the reports of the speeches 
of its opponents that they have entirely misrepresented its provisions, claiming it 
would prevent all vivisectional experiments. If it did do this, then the Illinois 
society could indorse it. 1 have carefully studied the bill and contend that it is an 
excellent restrictive bill, calculated to amend the known cruelties and abuses of 
unrestrained vivisection. The whole question of scientific research is attracting 
much attention all over the world, and we are really on the eve of a mighty contest 
over it—a contest that few realize except those directly interested. Let me beg of 
you to listen to the merciful pleadings for justice to the helpless that must arise in 
the breast of every thoughtful individual, and thus lend your influence to stay the 
wanton waste of life under conditions which not only inflict great and needless 
cruelty, but which also harden the hearts of men to suffering both dumb and human. 
Yeryxiuly, yours, 
Cynthia Fairchild Allen, 
Secretary Illinois Antivivisection Society. 
Hon. J. H. Gallinger, 
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 
April 13, 1896. 
Dear Sir: I am informed that a bill for the restriction of vivisection in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, whose provisions I have just read, is now in the hands of your 
committee. Permit me to say that I earnestly hope that the bill will pass. That 
proper legislation is necessary to regulate the practice of vivisection I am thoroughly 
convinced, and believe that the bill now before Congress, if it becomes a law, will 
not only be in the interest of humanity, but will allow such operations on the bod- 
ies of living animals as are needful to the progress of medical and surgical science. 
Respectfully, yours, 
C. H. Brockway. 
Hon. J. H. Gallinger. 
National Life Insurance Company of Vermont, 
Boston, April IS, 1896. 
My Dear Sir; As you are by profession a physician, I will not waste any of your 
time by any arguments pro or con on the subject of vivisection. As you are of course 
very well aware, it is a mooted question to-day among many scientific men of the 
highest rank as to whether deductions made from observations gathered from vivisec- 
tions are not largely unreliable, fallacious, and in many cases absolutely misleading. 
But let this bo as it may, there should be no question as to the horrible barbarity of 
the process as it is generally performed in the physiological laboratory before the class 
and the absolute needlessness of it. There is no necessity of demonstrating every 
physiological or anatomical fact by repeating endlessly experiments which demon- 
strated certain facts perhaps decades ago, and which have been detailed in text- 
books for a generation. And, as the fact usually is, these experiments are repeated 
before classes who are unfitted by their limited amount of scientific knowledge to be 
thoroughly able to appreciate the facts they are supposed to fix in their minds. The 
whole thing is based on false premises, and as practiced largely at present serves 
simply as an excuse for an instructor to perform a brilliant (?) experiment upon a 
defenseless animal, inflicting thereby indescribable suffering until death mercifully 
ends the barbarity, and the class are none the wiser after it is all over than they were 
before in the great majority of the cases, but infinitely more brutal and careless of 
life. Mankind in general are by natural instinct savage and brutal enough already, 
without having this put before them ad libitum, as is too often the case at our schools 
of medicine. I hope that you will set your face and influence sternly against any 
influence which may be brought to bear to defeat the bill for the restriction of vivi- 
section, and that you will lend your great influence in favor of its passage. 
With the highest respect, your obedient servant, 
Israel T. Hunt, M. D. 
Hon. J. H. Gallinger, 
United States Senator from New Hampshire 
and Chairman Subcommittee on Vivisection. VIVISECTION. 
147 
320 Fifty-seventh Street, Chicago, April 12, 1896. 
Dear Sir: I understand that there is a bill now before Congress for the restric- 
tion of vivisection in the District of Columbia and that you are chairman of the 
Senate subcommittee appointed to deal with this question. I wish as a physician 
to express myself as favoring the passage of the bill. I believe that vivisection of 
animals is altogether too general and too often performed needlessly to demonstrate 
well-known facts, and is also very often performed without anaesthesia where anes- 
thesia might well be employed. I believe that witnessing painful experiments and 
the needless suffering of animals will tend to the injury of the finer impulses and 
sympathies, especially of the young, and might well be done away with in public 
schools. lam heartily in favor of the appointment of inspectors to see that the 
provisions of the proposed bill are enforced. I believe that I voice the sentiment of 
a large part of the medical profession upon these questions. Hoping the bill will 
pass and the good work continue, 
Respectfully, 
W. C. Bouton, M. D. 
Instructor in Neurology, Northwestern University Medical School. 
Senator J. H. Gallinger. 
Kingston, N. Y., April 11, 1896. 
Dear Sir: Kindly allow me to express to your committee having in charge the 
bill in relation to the restriction of vivisection in the District of Columbia, my sen- 
timents as being most decidedly in favor of its passage, and pray you to report it 
favorably. The sacrifice of animal life in the interests of humanity is undoubtedly 
right and proper, but in so doing to subject them to torture and the infliction of 
unncessary pain and suffering is inhuman, cruel, and unbecoming a Christian people. 
Yours, respectfully, 
Jesse Myer, M. D. 
Hon. J. H. Gallinger. 
455 Clark Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, April 14,1896. 
Dear Sir: I write to you personally to urge the passage of the bill for the 
“Restriction of vivisection in the District of Columbia,” the provisions of which are 
as follows: 
(1) “All animals used in painful experiments must be completely anaesthetized 
during the whole operation.” This is no more than right and just to the animal 
operated upon, and amesthesia in no way militates against the success of scientific 
experiments. 
(2) “ All places where these experiments are performed must be registered, and 
all operators licensed.” This will do away with much useless and needless experi- 
mentation by inexperienced students who merely wish to gratify a morbid curiosity 
and simply perform experiments that have been verified time and time again by 
embryonic professors throughout the country. 
(3) “ That no such operations be allowed in the public schools.” It goes without 
argument to say that this is a most admirable clause; public exhibitions of vivisec- 
tion only tend to foster and bring out the innate brutality and animal ferocity which 
lie dormant in every human being’s nature. 
(4) “That inspectors be appointed to enforce these provisions.” A wise clause; 
for where no fear of detection exists there will be no obedience to the commands of 
the law. 
I most heartily indorse any provisions tending to restrict the useless maiming and 
mutilation of animals for scientific or any other demonstrations. 
Very respectfully, H. D. Champlin, M. D., 
Professor of Neariatry, Cleveland University of Medicine and Surgery. 
Senator J. H. Gallinger, 
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 
510 Fifth Street NW., 
Washington, D. C., April 15, 1896, 
Hon. J. H. Gallinger, 
United States Senate : 
I have promised a lady, very much interested in the hill relating to vivisection 
now under consideration by your committee, to address you on the subject in a few 
brief words. 148 
VIVISECTION. 
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 animal under the supervisions 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 repeti- 
tions 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 supervision of a board of competent 
men assigned to that duty. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
L. E. Rauterberg, M. D. 
New York, April 15, 1896. 
Sir; In support of a bill of the Humane Society restricting vivisection, I desire 
to say that so far as I can determine the majority of the members of the medical 
profession would cordially favor its provisions, if an opportunity were given them to 
express their views, for the reason that the progress of medical science would in no 
way be impeded by its enforcement should it fortunately become a law. Further- 
more, the brutalizing effect on the minds of the young which cruelty of that kind 
invariably engenders will no longer be possible. 
Especially will the prohibition of vivisection in all schools and colleges not medical 
receive the hearty support of physicians, as they believe that such instruction will 
serve no good, useful, or practical purpose to those who do not intend to enter the 
medical profession. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
Clinton Wagner, M. D., 
Late Professor New York Post-Graduate Medical School and the University of Vermont, 
Formerly Surgeon and Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel United States Army. 
Hon. Senator J. H. Gallinger. 
Office of the Humane Society of Missouri 
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Animals, 
St. Louie, April 14, 1896. 
Dear Sir; Information has reached me that there is now before both Houses of 
Congress a bill for the restriction of vivisection in the District of Columbia, and 
that the same has been referred to a subcommittee of which you are a member. 
You will pardon me for addressing you upon this subject, but it is one in which I 
am deeply interested. 
The society of which I am superintendent has on several occasions, by vote of its 
executive committee, stamped its disapproval of vivisection as now conducted, and 
I therefore write you asking in the name of humanity that the bill be pushed for- 
ward and made a law. 
Yery respectfully, yours, 
John H. Holmes, Superintendent. 
Senator J. H. Gallinger, 
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 
Boston, February 6, 1896. 
Dear Sir: Though not one of your constituents, I take the liberty of writing to 
you with regard to a bill for regulating vivisection, which, I suppose, will follow the 
course of the other medical bills and be referred to the subcommittee of which you 
are chairman. My reason for so doing is that everything done in the National Cap- 
itol in the way of local legislation for the District of Columbia attracts more atten- 
tion all over the country than the acts of any one of the various State legislatures. 
The antivivisection agitation, though vigorously conducted both in Europe and 
America during the past twenty years, has in nearly all oases been rendered futile 149 
VIVISECTION. 
by the sound common sense of the community. In England alone, of all civilized 
countries, has a restrictive law been enacted, which, although it has indicted a seri- 
ous blow upon English physiology, has by no means satisfied the antivivisectiouists, 
who are now loudly clamoring for absolute prohibition. 
Indeed, there seems to be no middle ground on which a position can be safely taken. 
Either physicians must be lett free to study and teach their art, at any necessary sac- 
rifice ot animal life, and, like the rest of the community, be held accountable under 
the general laws against cruelty for any abuse of their freedom, or vivisections must 
be absolutely prohibited. In this case, consistency would require a similar prohibi- 
tion of all other practices which involve suffering to animals, for, in the words of a 
recent writer in Nature, “ It is irrational folly to waste the energy of humanitarian 
feeling in a warfare against the only kind ot pain-giving practice which is directed 
toward the mitigation of pain.” 
An inquiry into the actual methods ot physiological research in use in the District 
of Columbia and elsewhere through the country will, I am sure, convince your com- 
mittee that the abuse which this bill seeks to correct does not exist, and that the 
claim of the members of the Humane Society, to be actuated by motives more humane 
than those by which the medical profession is guided, is one which will not bear 
examination. 
Although the agitators for the prohibition or restriction of vivisection are in many 
cases conscientious in their opposition to the practice, as a source of animal suffer- 
ing, yet they fail so entirely to comprehend the subject in its wider relations that 
their conduct affords an admirable illustration of the way in which “ conscience 
without common sense may (in the words of Mr. Roosevelt) lead to folly, which is 
but the handmaiden of crime.” 
Trusting that the bill in question will not get beyond your committee, 
Yours, very truly, 
H. P. Bowditch, M. D., 
Professor of Physiology, Harvard Medical School. 
Hon. J. H. Gallingek, 
Washington, D. C. 
Hanover, N. H., February 11, 1896. 
Dear Sir: At the last annual meeting of the American Society of Naturalists 
held in Philadelphia December 26-28, 1895, the undersigned was appointed by the 
American Society of Embryologists one of a committee'to represent their interests 
in case legislation was initiated with the intention of preventing or restricting the 
freedom of animal experimentation. ° 
As one ot jour constituents and as a worker in a college in which you have shown 
great interest, I venture to present for your consideration, as chairman of the sub- 
committee before whom the anti vivisection bill 1552 will appear, the following: 
It is our belief that any legislative restraints upon the freedom of animal experi- 
mentation would greatly hinder research and wholly prevent the proper teaching of 
many sciences fundamental to medicine. Such restriction would constitute a direct 
attack upon the freedom of learning, and would destroy an essential part of the 
university idea. 
To prevent research and demonstration on living animals would be as fatal to 
progress in ttm biological sciences that form the foundation of the science of human 
anatomy, physiology, and medicine as would the prohibition of laboratory teaching 
and experimentation in physics and chemistry. 
The right to experiment on living animals is not abused in this country now, nor 
is it likely to be. Such experiments are performed, Avith very rare exceptions, by 
educated, humane, and intelligent men, in whom the ambition to alleviate suffering 
is as great as in those well-meaning but misinformed persons who would bar the most 
effective way of doing so. 
Those most active in the anti vivisection movement are unfitted by temperament or 
training to understand the nature ot the experiments performed or to appreciate their 
value in interpreting the vital processes in man. 
The representations made in antivivisection publications concerning the methods 
aims, and results of vivisection are absurdly exaggerated and distorted. 
Very te\AT of those avlio experiment on li\ring animals have occasion to perform 
painful operations on highly organized animals in the full possession of their 
sensibilities. 
Untrained persons are easily led to belie\re that certain experiments are very pain- 
ful that in reality are performed on animals incapable of feeling pain or such as are 
decapitated or chloroformed. 
The persons under whose supervision operations more commonly called vivisection 
ai e performed are the most competent ones to decide when the practice is being 
abused, and their own sense of humanity and self-protection can be relied upon to 150 
VIVISECTION. 
suppress it more effectively than untrained persons likely to he appointed for the 
purpose. 
In our judgment no law could he framed that would properly discriminate between 
painful and painless operations, or between those of great and of minor importance 
to mankind. There is no Avay to discriminate between what is commonly called 
“vivisection” and the numerous experiments much more frequently performed upon 
the lower animals that not even the most sensitive antivivisectionist would look 
upon as harmful or painful in any way, hut which may be of incalculable value to 
man in ways that it is rarely possible to foresee. 
There is, in our opinion, no method by which wide-sweeping legislation could be 
effectively enforced, because there would be such a wide difference between the 
spirit, the letter, and the interpretation of the law. 
Consistent legislation would necessitate the prohibition of the capturing, wound- 
ing, or killing of any wild animal, bird, or fish tor the sake of sport. 
The interest aroused in the biological sciences and the progress made during the 
last fifteen years in the United States has been very great, and bids fair to place our 
work in the near future abreast of the best that is being done abroad. Any legisla- 
tion that interfered with the freedom of research would be likely to send our ablest 
workers to foreign universities, and would seriously interfere with future progress in 
those sciences. 
We sincerely hope that your honored committee will, in its wisdom, recognize the 
very serious results that would follow the encouraging of any legislation likely to 
interfere with the freedom of research, or that would precipitate on our State legis- 
lators a shower of antivivisection bills more likely to work incalculable harm than 
to bring about the result for which they were framed. 
I remain, dear sir, very truly, yours, 
William Patten, 
Professor of Zoology and General Biology, Dartmouth College. 
Hon. J. H. Gallinger, 
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 
Washington, D. C., January IS, 1896. 
My Dear Senator: I am very much obliged to you for sending me a copy of Sen- 
ate bill 1552. It is admirable. It protects both the animal and the human race 
and that is all that any reasonable person can ask, whether vivisectionist or anti" 
vivisectionist. I would simply suggest a new section, which I think will strike you 
as proper, somewhat in this form: “Medical officers of the United States Army, 
Navy, or Marine-Hospital Service shall be licensed under this act when the Surgeon- 
General of anyone of these departments shall certify to the propriety and the neces- 
sity of such license being given.” 
The reasons for this section are very obvious. The Army has a medical school now 
in full operation in the District, and 1 think the Navy and Marine-Hospital Service 
have likewise something of the kind. It is .scarcely consistent with the dignity of 
their office, commissioned as they are byr the United States, that they should have to 
be certified to by members of the profession who know nothing about them. In fact, 
I am not quite sure but that it would be proper to authorize the chiefs of these 
Bureaus to give licenses to medical officers of their respective corps without having 
to go to the Commissioners at all. The chiefs of the several corps might be required 
to notify the Commissioners that they had given such licenses. It would be humili- 
ating to United States nudical officers to have to go to civilians to be certified to. 
All the States that require physicians to be licensed before being allowed to practice 
medicine within their limits specially except United States Army, Navy, and Marine- 
Hospital medical officers. 
Thanking you for your kindness, I am, 
Yours, sincerely, William A. Hammond. 
Dear Sir: My attention has been called to a bill before Congress relating to the 
restriction of vivisection in the District of Columbia. 
179 Dearborn Street, Buffalo, N. Y., April 11, 1896. 
Anything done with a purpose of securing a more humane treatment of our animal 
friends seems to me most commendable. May I not beg your earnest efforts in behalf 
of the bill? You will thus confer a favor upon, 
Most sincerely, 
E. E. Burnside, M. D 
Hon. James McMillan. 151 
VIVISECTION. 
Weedsport, N. Y., April 9, 1896. 
Dear Sir : As a physician and surgeon of thirty years’ experience, I humbly petition 
that you use your influence for the bill now pending to restrict the barbarous and 
useless practice of vivisection in the District. The practice is brutal and brutalizing 
to all concerned in it. It makes brutes of those who should be kind and humane in 
the practice of the healing art. Humanity suffers as well as the poor animals. 
Yours, for humanity, 
Ira D. Brown, M. D. 
Hon. James McMillan. 
Natick, Mass., April 10, 1896. 
My Dear Sir: Permit me to express to you the conviction that there is a wide- 
spread and growing belief that vivisection ought to be restricted, and I trust that 
the District of Columbia bill with reference to this subject will receive the indorse- 
ment of your committee. In thousands upon thousands of cases vivisection is prac- 
ticed to gratify curiosity and to redemonstrate well-established truths. True science 
does not demand so much cruelty and indifference to the weak and helx»less, and 
every reasonable check and limitation should be exacted. I believe a very large 
majority of the active, practicing physicians are opposed to unlimited vivisection. 
It is only that portion of the profession, as a whole, identified with schools and col- 
leges and public institutions that are advocates of the present system. 
Yours, very truly, 
Edgar S. Dodge, M. D, 
Hon. James McMillan. 
New York City, March SO, 1896. 
My Dear Sir: I am informed that there is a bill before the Senate for the restric- 
tion ot vivisection in the District of Columbia, and that opinions opposed to the 
practice of vivisection might prove of some avail in securing the passage of this 
law. I for one, as a practicing physician, am glad to take any and every opportunity 
of condemning the,practice of vivisection. There may be said to be three classes of 
physicians and physiologists—one which believes in unlimited vivisection, a second 
which believes in restricted vivisection, and a third those who are utterly opposed 
to all vi visection. Although I enroll myself in the latter class, still from a practical 
point of view I should be willing to accept a restricted vivisection as a medium 
course in lack of anything better, and earnestly hope that your own broad feelings 
of humanity will induce you to listen to the plea of those who are opposed to vivi- 
section. There is a much larger number of physicians opposed to vivisection than 
would at first appear, but they are silent because on the negative side, and because 
those on the affirmative are active and aggressive. 
Trusting that you will pardon what may seem on my part as a somewhat voluntary 
expression of opinion, but is given solely for the purpose of aiding what I believe to 
be in the line of the truest humanity and for the best interests of the profession 
which I represent, 
1 am, most truly, yours, William J. Morton, 
Professor of Menial and Nervous Diseases in the New York 
Post-Graduate Medical School and Hospital. 
Senator McMillan. 
Detroit, Mich., April 13, 1896. 
Dear Senator McMillan : I am greatly interested in the passage of the bill now 
before Congress to restrict vivisection in the District of Columbia. I have become 
somewhat familiar with the main features of the bill and believe its passage would 
remove the objections of humane people to vivisection as practiced for purely scien- 
tific purposes. 
Very respectfully, yours, W. X. Ninde. 
New York, April 4,1896. 
Dear Sir: I understand that there is a bill pending in the Senate of the United 
States in regard to the regulation of vivisection in the District of Columbia. I have 
not been presented with a copy of the bill, and I do not therefore know its require- 
ments, but I have been requested by Mrs. Totten, of Washington, to write yon an 
expression ot my views, as a member of the medical profession, on the subject 
involved. 152 
VIVISECTION. 
First. I think vivisection of animals ought to be regulated by law, and that only 
teachers of physiology or graduated physicians making experiments for the purpose 
of benefiting human beings by their investigations, should be allowed to practice 
vivisection. 
Second. I think all laboratories and lecture rooms where vivisection is practiced 
ought to be subject to inspection, such inspection to be conducted by men of medi- 
cal or scientific education who are totally unconnected with the institution where 
the experiments are conducted. 
Third. I think vivisection should only be practiced upon animals under the influ- 
ence of anaesthesia, in all cases where it is possible, and where not that a peaceful 
death ought to be accorded to the sufferer as soon as the experiments are ended. 
Humanity, through the medical profession, has, I believe, been greatly benefited by 
experiments on animals in the hands of experts, but I utterly deprecate any repeti- 
tion of experiments on facts thoroughly well proven, or the placing of the dangerous 
power of torturing animals in the hands of any but experts of the highest character. 
Yours, respectfully, 
D. B. Sr. John Roosa. 
Hon. Senator McMillan, 
Senate Chamber, Washington, D. C. 
List of prominent signers of the petition for the bill to regulate vivisection in the District of 
Columbia. 
Justices John M. Harlan, H. B. Brown, David J. Brewer, E. D. White, R. W, 
Peckham, and George Shiras, jr., of the Supreme Court of the United States; Jus- 
tices Walter S. Cox, A. B. Hagner, and C. C. Cole, of the supreme court of the Dis- 
trict of Columbia; Chief Justice W. A. Richardson and Justices C. C. Nott and 
Lawrence Weldon, of the United States Court of Claims; Bishop John J. Keane, 
rector of the Catholic Univeisity of America; Bishop Henry Y. Satterlee, Bishop 
John F. Hurst, Arch Deacon Thomas S. Childs; Rev. Dr. Alexander Mackay-Smilh, 
rector of St.Johns; Rev. Dr. Randolph H. McKim, rector of Epiphany; Rev. Dr. 
John H. Elliott, rector Church of the Ascension; Rev. Dr. J. A. Aspinwall, rector 
St. Thomas Church; Rev. Dr. Tennis S. Hamlin, pastor Church of the Covenant; 
Rev. Dr. Byron Sunderland, pastor First Presbyterian Church; Rev. Thomas C. 
Easton, pastor Eastern Presbyterian Church; Rev. Dr. Frederick D. Power, pastor 
Vermont Avenue Christian Church; Rev. Dr. Oliver A. Brown, pastor Foundry M. E. 
Church; Rev. Dr. Frank Sewall, pastor New Church; Rev. Dr. J. G. Butler, pastor 
Memorial Church; Rev, Dr. Alexander Kent, pastor People’s Church; Gen. and 
Mrs. Nelson A. Miles, Mrs. U. S. Grant, Mrs. George Hearst, Mrs. John Davis, Mrs. 
A. W. Greely, Mrs. L. Z. Leiter, Mrs. Madeleine Vinton Dahlgrcn, Mrs. W. M. Stewart, 
Mrs. S. Powhatan Carter, Mrs. Florence Murray, Mrs. Robert Anderson, Mrs. George 
Shiras, jr., Mrs. 11. B. Brown, Miss Emma Morton, Mrs. Hemy M. Teller, Miss Olive 
Risley Seward, Mr. and Mrs. A. L. Barber, Mr. and Mrs. Henry F. Blount, Mrs. Beuaiah 
J. Whitman, Gen. and Mrs. Rufus Saxton, Gen. John G. Parke, Gen. D. S. Stanley, 
Gen. J. S. Fullerton, Gen. H. V. Boynton, Gen. JamesH.Watmongh, ex-Senator Charles 
F. Mauderson, ex-Senator John B. Henderson, Representative Charles L. Henry, 
ex-Commissioner John W. Douglass, Mr. Crosby S. Noyes, Mr. Theodore W. Noyes, 
Mr. S. H. Kauffmann, Mr. John R.McLean, Mr. John Joy Edson, Mr. B. H. Warner, Mr. 
Charles J. Bell, Mr. Samuel M. Bryan, Mr. James E. Fitch, Mr. John B. Wight, Comp- 
troller James H. Eckels, Mr. R. Ross Perry, Mr. Enoch Totten, Mr. W. D. Davidge, 
Mr. Jere M. Wilson, Mr. Mahlon Ashford, Mr. Nathaniel Wilson, Mr. Anthony Pollok, 
Mr. Calderon Carlisle, Mr. J. Hubley Ashton, Mr. Halbert E. Paine, Mr. Reginald 
Fendall, Mr. Benjamin Buttcrworth, Mr. Samuel Maddox, Mr. J. J. Darlington, Mr. 
A. G. Riddle, Mr. Henry E. Davis, Mr. Chapin Brown, Mr. H. Randall Webb, Mr. 
John Sidney Webb, Mr. William A. Gordon, Mr. J. Holdsworth Gordon, Mr. William 
Henry Dennis, Mr. Leigh Robinson, Mr. R. E. Lee, jr., Mr. Montgomery Blair, Mr. 
Frank T. Browning, Mr. William Stone Abert, Mr. William Redin Woodward, Mr. 
Story B. Ladd, Judge Thomas F. Miller, Mr. Crammoud Kennedy, Mr. John Cassels, 
Mr. and Mrs. Charles M. Koulke, Mr. and Mrs. Horace S. Cummings, Mr. W. M. Poin- 
dexter, Mr. Maxwell Woodhull; Elliott Cones, A. M., M. D., etc., late professor of 
anatomy, National Medical College; Dr. F. A. Gardner; Dr. S. S. Stearns, Dr. James 
A. Freer, Dr. Reginald Munson, Dr. L. E. Rauterberg, Dr. S. I. Groot, Dr. Leigh 
Yerkes Baker, Dr. Waterman F. Corey, Dr. Charles B. Gilbert, Mr. A. S. Pratt, Mr. 
William B. Cabell, Maj. R. H. Montgomery, U. S. A.; Maj. Robert Craig, U. S. A.; 
James A. Bates, U. S. A.; David A. Irwin, U. S. A.; Theodore Mosher, U. S. A.; Frank 
G. Smith, U. S. A. VIVISECTION. 
153 
The bill (S. 1552) as reported: 
A BILL for the further prevention of cruelty to animals in the District of Columbia 
Be it enacted by the Senate and Rome of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That hereafter no person shall perform on a living vertebrate 
animal any experiment calculated to give pain to such animal, except subject to the 
restrictions hereinafter prescribed. Any person performing or taking part in per- 
forming any experiment calculated to give pain in contravention of this act shall be 
guilty of an offense against this act, and shall, if it be the first offense, be liable to 
a penalty not exceeding one hundred and fifty dollars, and if it be the second or any 
subsequent offense, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court by which he is tried, 
to a penalty not exceeding three hundred dollars, or to imprisonment for a period 
not exceeding six months. 
Sec. 2. That the following restrictions are imposed by this act with respect to the 
performance on any living vertebrate animal of an experiment calculated to give pain 
to such animal; that is to say: 
(a) The experiment must be performed with a view to the advancement by new 
discovery of physiological knowledge or of knowledge which will be useful for sav- 
ing or prolonging life or alleviating suffering; and 
(h) The experiment must be performed by a person holding such license from the 
Commissioners of the District of Columbia as is in this act mentioned, or by a duly 
authorized medical officer of the Government of the United States or of the District 
of Columbia; and 
(c) The animal must, during the whole of the experiment, be completely under the 
influence of ether or chloroform sufficiently to prevent the animal from feeling pain, 
excepting only that in so-called inoculation experiments or tests of drugs or medi- 
cines the animal need not be anaesthetized nor killed afterwards, nor in tests of sur- 
gical procedure need animals be kept completely anaesthetized during the process of 
recovery from the surgical operation. Otherwise than this the animal must be kept 
from pain during all experiments; and 
(d) The animal must, if the pain is likely to continue after the effect of the anaes- 
thetic has ceased, or if any serious injury has been inflicted on the animal, be killed 
before it recovers from the influence of the anaesthetic which has been adminis- 
tered; and 
(e) No experiment shall be made upon any living creature, calculated to give pain 
to such creature, in any of the public schools of the District of Columbia, provided 
as follows; that is to say: 
First. Experiments may be performed under the foregoing previsions as to the use 
of anaesthetics by a person giving illustrations of lectures in medical schools, hospi- 
tals, or colleges on such certificate being given as in this act hereafter mentioned, 
that the proposed experiments are absolutely necessary for the due instruction of the 
persons to whom suchi lectures are given, with a view to their acquiring physiological 
knowledge or knowledge which will be useful to them for saving or prolonging life 
or alleviating suffering; 
Second. The substance known as urari or curare shall not, for the purposes of this 
act, be deemed to be an anaesthetic ; and 
Third. Notwithstanding anything in this act contained, no experiment calculated 
to give pain shall be performed on a dog or cat, except upon such certificate being 
given as in this act mentioned, stating, in addition to the statements hereinbefore 
required to be made in such certificate, that for reasons specified in the certificate 
the object of the experiment will be necessarily frustrated unless it is performed on 
an animal similar in constitution and habits to a cat or dog, and no other animal is 
available for such experiment; and an experiment calculated to give pain shall not 
be performed on any horse, ass, or mule, except on such certificate being given as in 
this act mentioned, that the object of the experiment will be necessarily frustrated 
unless it is performed on a horse, ass, or mule, and that no other animal is available 
for such purpose; and 
Fourth. Any exhibition to the general public, Avhether admission be on payment 
of money or gratuitous, of experiments on living animals, calculated to give pain, 
shall be illegal. 
Any person performing or aiding in performing such experiment shall be deemed 
to be guilty of an offense against this act, and shall, if it be the first offense, be 
liable to a penalty not exceeding one hundred and fifty dollars, and if it be the 
second or any subsequent offense, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court by 
which he is tried, to a penalty not exceeding three hundred dollars, or to imprison- 
ment not exceeding six mouths; and any person publishing any notice of any such 
intended exhibition by advertisement in a newspaper, placard, or otherwise, shall 
be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten dollars. 154 
VIVISECTION. 
A person punished for an offense under this section shall not for the same offense 
he punishable under any other section of this act. 
Sec. 3. That the Commissioners of the District may insert, as a condition of grant- 
ing any license, a provision in such license that the place in which any such experi- 
ment is to he performed hy the licensee is to he registered in such manner as the 
said Commissioners may from time to time hy any general or special order direct: 
Provided, That every place for the performance of experiments for the purpose of 
instruction shall he approved hy the said Commissioners, and shall he registered in 
such manner as the said Commissioners may from time to time by any general or 
special order direct. 
Sec. 4. That the Commissioners of the District, upon application as hereinafter 
prescribed, may license any person whom they may think qualified to hold a license 
to perform experiments under this act: Provided only, That a license shall not he 
granted to any person under the age of twenty-five years, unless he he a graduate 
from a medical college, duly authorized to practice medicine in the District of 
Columbia. 
Sec. 5. That the Commissioners of the District may direct any person performing 
experiments under this act from time to time to make reports to them of the methods 
employed and the results of such experiments in such form and with such details as 
the said Commissioners may require. 
Sec. 6. That the President of the United States shall cause all places where experi- 
ments on living vertebrate animals are carried on, in the District of Columbia, to 
he from time to time visited and inspected without previous notice for the purpose 
of securing compliance with the provisions of this act; and to that end shall appoint 
four inspectors, who shall serve without compensation, and who shall have author- 
ity to visit and inspect the places aforesaid, and who shall report to the President 
of the United States from time to time the results of their observations therein, 
which shall he made public hy him. 
Sec. 7. That any application for a license under this act, and for a certificate to 
be given as in this act mentioned, must he signed hy three physicians duly licensed 
to practice and actually engaged in practicing medicine in the District of Columbia, 
and also hy a professor of physiology, medicine, anatomy, medical jurisprudence, 
materia medica, or surgery in the medical department of any duly established reli- 
able school or college in the District of Columbia: Provided, That when any person 
applying for a certificate under this act is himself one of the persons authorized to 
sign such certificate, the signature of some other of such persons shall he substituted 
for the signature of the applicant. 
A certificate under this section may he given for such time or for such series of 
experiments as the persons signing the certificate may think expedient. 
A copy of any certificate under this section shall be forwarded by the applicant 
to the Commissioners of the District, hut shall not he available until one week after 
a copy has been so forwarded. 
The Commissioners of the District may at any time disallow or suspend any certifi- 
cate given under this section. 
Sec. 8. That the powers conferred by this act of granting a license or giving a cer- 
tificate for the performance of an experiment on living animals may he exercised hy 
an order in writing, under the hand of any judge of a court of record having crim- 
inal jurisdiction in the District, in a case where such judge is satisfied that it is 
essential for the purpose of justice in a criminal case to make such experiment. iibex, 
Abbott. Dr. A. C., 60,137. • 
Abel, Dr. J. J., 60,137. 
Abert, Dr. William Stone, 152. 
Adami, Dr. J. George, 137. 
Adams, Dr. Samuel S., 129. 
Adler, Dr. 1., 136. 
Agriculture, Department of, opposed to 
antivivisection bill, 107. 
Alden, Col. Charles H., 132. 
Allen, Cynthia Fairchild, 4,146. 
Allen, Dr. Harrison, 60. 
Almy, Lieut. Col. L. 13., 132. 
American Medico-Surgical bulletin,B9, 90. 
American Medical Association, resolu- 
tions of, 131. 
American Physicians, memorial of Asso- 
ciation of, 134. 
American Physicians and Surgeons, ad- 
dress before, 61; resolutions of, 87. 
American Society of Naturalists, 143. 
Ammannus, Paul, quoted, 22. 
Anderson, Mrs. Robert, 152. 
Anderson, Dr. Willis S., 139. 
Animal inspection, 123. 
Animal Industry, Bureau of, 47. 101,109, 
113.114. 
Animal Pathology, Division of, 106. 
Anthropological Society of Washington, 
discussion before, 41. 
Antitoxin, 54,115,126. 
Ashford, Mahlon, 152. 
Ashton, J. H., 152. 
Ashmead, William H., 134. 
Aspinwall, Rev. Dr. J. A., 152. 
Atkinson, Dr. I. E., 137. 
Avery, Dr. Charles H., 139. 
Avery, Dr. Edward W., 4,142. 
Bacon, Hon. A. 0., present, 3; remarks of, 
50, 53. 
Bailey, Dr. Charles H., 131. 
Baker, Dr. Frank, 60. 
Baker, Dr. Leigh Yerkes, 152. 
Ball, Dr. A. Braytou, 136. 
Barber, Mr. and Mrs. A. L., 152. 
Bates, James A., U. S. A., 152. 
Baumgarten, Dr. G., 136. 
Behring, researches of, 49, 68. 
Bell, C. J., 152. 
Bell, Sir Charles, 64. 
Benton, Frank, 134. 
Bernard, Claude, experiments in baking 
living dogs, 20, 65, 66, 94,120. 
Bert, Paul, 120. 
Bigelow, Dr. W.D.,138. 
Bill for the further prevention of cruelty 
to animals, 154. 
Billings, Dr. Frank, 137. 
Biochernic Laboratory, work of, 106. 
Blair, Montgomery, 152. 
Blount, Col. and Mrs. H. F., 152. 
Bolton, Dr. B. Meade, 137. 
Bond, Dr. Charles S., 138. 
Bonning, Dr. C., 139. 
Bouton, Dr. W. C., 4.147. 
Bowditch, Dr. H. F., 5, 60,149. 
Bowen, Gen. George A.. 152. 
Boyle, Hon. Robert, 64, 76, 93. 
Boynton, Gen. H. V.. 152. 
Bradshaw, Dr. J. K., 131. 
Brewer, Mrs. Justice, 152. 
Bridge, Dr. Norman, 138. 
Bright, John, opposed to factory laws, 123. 
Brinton, Dr. T. Lauder, 58. 
Brockway, Dr. C. H., 4, 146. 
Brodie, B. C., 65, 78. 
Brodie, Dr. 8.P., 139. 
Brown, Chapin, 152. 
Brown, Dr. Ira D., 150. 
Brown, Dr. J. S., 131. 
Brown, J. Stanley, 88,129. 
Brow n, Mr. Justice, 152. 
Brown, Mrs. H. 8., 152. 
Brown, Rev. Dr. O. A., 152. 
Brown-Sequard, 120. 
Brown, Dr. W. G., 138. 
Browning, Frank T., 152. 
Bryan, S. M., 152. 
Burdon, Dr. Sanderson, 41. 
Bureau of Animal Industry, 47,101,109, 
113,114. 
Burnside, Dr. E. E., 150. 
Busck, August, 134. 
Busey, Dr. Samuel C., statement'of, 91, 
129. 
Butler, Rev. Dr. J. G., 152. 
Butterworth, Hon. Benjamin, 152. 
Byers. Gen. F. W., 132. 
Cabell, William 8., 152. 
Campbell, Dr. M., 131. 
Carey, Dr. Charles, 138. 
Carpenter, Dr. W. 8., as an advocate of 
vivisection, 23. 
Carlisle, Calderon, 152. 
Carter, Mrs. S. P., 152. 
Cassels, Col. John, 152. 
Cattle, American, in Great Britian, 113. 
Champlin, Dr. H. D., 4,147. 
Chandler, Dr. William J., 131. 
Chemical Society of Washington, memo- 
rial of, 138. 
Chesnut, Y.K.,138. 
Chew, Dr. S. D., 137. 
155 156 
Childs, Archdeacon Thomas S., 152. 
Chittenden, E. H., 60. 
Chittenden, F. H., 134. 
Clarke, Prof. F. W., 133. 
Class legislation, 53. 
Cobden, opposed to Bristish factory laws, 
123. 
Cole, Dr. L. W., 4, 143. 
Cole, Dr. Beverly, 132. 
Cole, Judge C. C., 152. 
Columbus, E., 63. 
Commissioners of the District of Colum- 
bia, hearings before, 6, 13; report of, 
123, 53. 
Cooper, Sir Astley, 66. 
Coquillett, D. W., 134. 
Corey, Dr. Waterman F., 152. 
Coues, Dr. Elliott, 152. 
Councilman, Dr. W. T., 137. 
Cox, Judge Walter S., 
Craig, Maj. Eobert, 152. 
Cummings, Mr. and Mrs. Horace S., 152. 
Curtis, Don. G. M., present, 3. 
Curtis, Dr. J. G., 60, 69 (note). 
Cushny, Dr. A. E., 60. 
Cutter, Dr. G. El bridge, 137. 
Cutter, W. P., 138. 
“Cymbeline” (Shakespeare’s), referred 
to, 9. 
Dabney, Hon. Charles W., acting Secre- 
tary of Agriculture, statement of, 107. 
Dahlgreu, Mrs. M. Y., 152, 
Darlington, J. J., 152. 
Davidge, W. D., 152. 
Davis, Henry E., 152. 
Davis, Mrs. John, 152. 
Dawson, Dr. Charles F., 98. 
Delatield, Dr. Francis, 136. 
Denis, Dr., 64. 
Dennis, William Henry, 152. 
Detroit Medical and Library Association, 
memorial of, —. 
Dewey, F. P., 138. 
Diphtheria, 54, 115, 117; experience in 
French cities, 127. 
Dock, Dr. George, 138. 
Dogs, experiments on, 20, 66. 
Dodge, Charles Eichards, 134. 
Dodge, Dr. Edgar S., 151. 
Douglass, Hon. J. W., 152. 
Draper, Dr. E. L., 4, 145. 
Draper, Dr. W. H., 136. 
Easton, Eev. T. C., 152. 
Eckels, Hon. J. H., 152. 
Edes, Dr. Eobert T., 136. 
Edsou, John Joy, 152. 
Eliot, President C. W., 56. 
Elliott, Eev. Dr. John, 152. 
England, agitation begun in, 5; royal 
commission appointed, 5; legislation 
enacted, 5; report of commission, 6; 
result of antivivisection law in, 53. 
English, Dr. D. E , 131. 
Entomological Society of Washington, 
memorial of, 133. 
Ernst, Dr. Harold C., 60, 137. 
Erskine, Lord, advocates bill to prevent 
barbarous punishments, 11. 
Fendall, Eeginald, 152. 
Fergussou, Sir William, 21; statement 
of, 32. 
INDEX. 
Fernow, B. E., 134. 
Ferrier’s experiments, 20. 
Fiscli, Dr. T. S. P., 131. 
Fischel, Dr. W. E., 138. 
Fisher, Dr. Edward D., 139. 
Fitch, James E., 152. 
Fitz, Dr. R. H., 61, 137. 
Flonrens, 66. 
Folsom, Dr. Charles F., 138. 
Forchheimer, Dr. F., 137. 
Foulke, Mr. and Mrs. Charles M., 152. 
Francis, Dr. R. P., 131. 
Frankel, Dr. Edward, 4,145. 
Freer, Dr. James A., 152. 
Fristsch, 68. 
Fnllerton, Gen. J. S., 152. 
Fulton, Gen. John F., 132. 
Fussell, Dr. M. Howard, 137. 
Galen, 93. 
Gallinger, Hon. J. H., remarks of, 3, 4, 5, 
17, 49, 50, 52,53, 54. 
Galvani, 57, 64, 66, 93. 
Gamgee, Samson, Influence of Vivisection 
on Human Surgery, 22; statements of, 
disputed, 23-31. 
Gardner, Dr. F. A., 152. 
Garland, Dr. G. M., 136. 
Garrett, Dr. W. D., 131. 
Gaston, Dr. J. McFadden, 132. 
Gibhs, Prof. Walcott, 128. 
Gibson, Hon. Charles H., present, 3. 
Gihou, Dr. A. L., 132. 
Gilbert, Dr. Charles 8., 152. 
Goltz, 120. 
Goode, Prof. G. Brown, 61. 
Gordon, J. Holds worth, 152. 
Gordon, William A., 152. 
Gore, Dr. George, Scientific Basis of Na- 
tional Progress, 20. 
Gould, Dr. George M., his Meaning and 
Method of Life, quoted, 121, 132. 
Graham, Dr. J. E., 136. 
Graudin, Dr. E. H., 139. 
Grant, Mrs. U. S., 152. 
Graves, Dr. William 8., 131. 
Great Britain, vivisection in, 122. 
Greely, Mrs. A. W., 152. 
Green, Bernard R., 133. 
Griffith, Dr. J. P. Crozier, 137. 
Grout, Dr. S. 1., 152. 
Guiteras, Dr. John, 137. 
Gull, Sir William, 20. 
Hagner, Judge A. 8., 152. 
Hales, Rev, Stephen, 58. 
Hall, Marshall, 66, 94. 
Hamaker, Dr. W. D., 134. 
Hamlin, Rev. Dr. T. S., 152. 
Hammond, Dr. William A., 150. 
Hare, Dr. H. A., 137. 
Harlan, Mr. Justice, 152. 
Harlow, Dr. E. A. W., 4,144. 
Hartley, Dr. W. G., 4,142. 
Harvey, discovery of the circulation of 
the blood, not due to vivisection, 18; 
due to vivisection, 58, 63, 93. 
Harvey, Dr. Thomas H., 131. 
Hawks, E. H., 4,145. 
Hay, Prof. W. P., as to vivisection in 
public schools, 103. 
Haymaker, Dr. W. 1)., 139. 
Hays, Dr. J. Minis, 137. INDEX 
157 
Health officer of the District of Columbia, | 
report of, 124. 
Hearst, Mrs. George, 152. 
Heine, 66. 
Helmer, Dr. J. H., 4, lt3. 
Henderson, Maj. George, 132. 
Henderson, Hon. J. JB., 152. 
Henry, Hon. Charles L., 152. 
Henry, Dr. Frederick P., 137. 
Herbst, 101. 
Hip joint, amputation of, 23. 
Hitzig, 68. 
Holm, Theodore, 134. 
Holmes, Dr. J. H., 5, 141, 148. 
Hook, Robert, 64, 93. 
Household friends, 17. 
Howard, L. 0., 134. 
Howell, Dr. W. H., 60. 
Howship, 66. 
Hubbard, Henry G., 134. 
Humane Society, 53, 97,104,112. i 
Humphrey, Professor, statements of, dis- , 
puted, i 9. | 
Hun, Dr. Henry, 136. 
Hunt, Dr. I. T., 4, 146. i 
Hunter John, experiments on dogs, 66. 1 
Hurd, Dr. Henry M., 137. | 
Hurst, Bishop John F., 152. 
Hutton, Richard Holt, 6,17. 
Hutyra, 126. 
Huxley, Prof. Thomas H.,6; quoted, 8, 9. 
Illinois Antivivisection Society, 98. 
Irwin, David A., U. S. A., 152. 
Jacobi, Dr. A., 136. 
Jeneway, Dr. E. J., 60,136. 
Johnston, Dr. William W., 136. 
Joint Commission Scientific Societies of 
Washington, resolutions of, 88,129. 
Jones, Dr. J. F. D., 59. 
Journal of American Medical Associa- 
tion, 91. 
Judd, Sylvester D., 134. 
Kauffmann, Mr. S. H., 152. 
Keane, Bishop John J., 152. 
Keen, Dr. W. W., 61; letter, 140. 
Keifer, Dr. Guy S., 139. 
Kennedy, Crammoud, statement of, 16, 92, 
146. 
Kent, Rev. Dr. Alexander, 152. 
Kiasato, 68. 
Kidd, J. H., Social Evolution, quoted, 10. 
Kinnear, Dr. B. 0., 4,143. 
Kinnicutt, Dr. F. P., 136. 
Kinyoun, Dr. J. J., statement of, 116. 
Klein, Dr., 121. 
Koch’s discovery of bacillus tuberculosis, 
68,94. * 
Ladd, Story 8., 152. 
Lavoisier, 64. 
Lee, R. E., jr., 152. 
Leeuwenhoek, Antony van, 57. 
Leffingwell, Dr. Albert, remarks of, 4, 97, 
-119. 
Legallois, 66. 
Legislation unnecessary, 50,51. 
Leidy, Professor, 100. 
Leiter, Mrs. S. Z., 152. 
Linett, Martin L., 134. 
Lister, Sir Joseph, 59; antiseptic treat- 
ment of wounds, 68, 94. 
Longstreet, Dr. Morris, 137. 
Loomis, Dr, A. L., address of 61, 91. 
Love, Dr. John J. H., 131. 
Lower, Richard, 64. 
Lurk, Dr. William T., 136. 
layman, Dr. H. M., 60,137. 
McClean, Dr. A. S., 4,144. 
McDonnell, Robert, 67. 
Macfarland, Henry B. F., statement of, 
13,124. 
McKim, Rev. Dr. Randolph, 152. 
Mackay-Smith, Rev. Dr. Alexander, 152. 
McLean, Dr. Donald, 132. 
McLean, John R., 152. 
McMillan, Hon. James, present, 3. 
McMillan-Henderson bill, 14. 
Maddox, Samuel D., 152. 
Magendie, 64, 65, 66, 94. 
Malpighi, 64. 
Manderson, Gen. C. F., 15 
Mantagazza, 120. 
Marine-Hospital Service, 116. 
Marlatt, C. L., 134. 
Marshall, Dr. John, 60. 
Martin, Hon. Thomas S., present, 3. 
Masius, Alfred G., 134. 
Mason, Dr. A. Lawrence, 137. 
Massachusetts legislature, bill before, 107. 
Matthews, Dr. H. E., 131. 
Meacham, Dr. I. D., 4,143. 
Medical News, editorial from, 88. 
Meigs, Dr. Arthur V., 137. 
Medical Society of the District of Colum- 
bia, memorial of, 128. 
Miles, Dr. F. T., 137. 
Miles, Gen. and Mrs. N. A., 152. 
Military Surgeons, memorial of Associa- 
tion of, 132. 
Miller, Judge Thomas F., 152. 
Minot, Dr. C. S., 61. 
Missouri Humane Society, 142. 
Mitchell, Dr. S. Wier, 60. 
Monod, Henri, 118. 
Montgomery, Maj. R. H., 152. 
Moore, Dr. Y. A., work of, 106. 
Mortality in United States, 115. 
Morton, Miss Emma, 152. 
Morton, Dr. Thomas G., 4,142. 
Morton, Prof. William J., 151. 
Mosher, Theodore, U. S. A., 152. 
Mott-Ring, Dr. Allan, 144. 
Munroe, Charles E., 138. 
Munson, Dr. Reginald, 152. 
Murray, 66. 
Murray, Mrs. Florence, 152. 
Myer, Dr. Jesse, 4,147. 
National Academy of Sciences, report of, 
127. 
Neil, Dr. James, 4,141. 
New Jersey, memorial of the Essex Dis- 
trict Medical Society of, 139. 
Newton, Dr. R. C., 131. 
Nqw York, memorial of the Medical So- 
ciety of the County of, 139. 
Ninde, Bishop W. X., 151. 
Nott, Judge C. C., 152. 
Noyes, Crosby S., 152. 
Noyes, Theodore W., 152. 
Ollier, Leopold, 66, 94. 
Orange Mountain Medical Society of New 
Jersey, protest of, 130. 
Osborn, Dr. Henry F., 61. 158 
INDEX 
Osier, Dr. William, 61,132,137. 
Our Animal Friends, quoted, 51. 
Owen, Prof. Richard, 100. 
Paddock, Frank K., 56. 
Pain, 50. 
Paine, Halbert E., 152. 
Pare, Ambrose, 67. 
Paracentesis thoracis, 23. 
Paris Academy of Medicine, 126. 
Parke, Gen. John G., 152. 
Parviu, Prof. Theophilus, 120. 
Pasteur, experiments of, 45, 46, 67, 68, 85, 
94,126. 
Patten, Dr. William, 5, 60,150. 
Peabody, G. L., 136. 
Peabody, Phillip G.,4,145. 
Peale, Dr. A. €., 138. 
Peckham. Mr. Justice, 152. 
Pennsylvania Medical Society, memorial 
of, 139. 
Pepper, Dr. William, 136. 
Pergande, Theo., 134. 
Perrout, called vile names by correspond- 
ents, 118,119, 
Perry, Air. R. Ross, remarks of, 3, 4; 
statement of, 5,13,50, 96, 97,146. 
Philosophical Society of Washington, 
memorial of, 132. 
Piersol, Dr. G. A., 60. 
Pierson, William, 131. 
Plato, quoted, 9. 
Playfair, Dr. Lyman, 41. 
Poindexter, W. AL, 152. 
Polk, Dr. AY. H., 136. 
Pollock, Anthony, 152, 
Porter, Dr. W. T., 60. 
Powell, Supt. W. B , as to vivisection in 
the public schools, 103. 
Power, Rev. Dr. F. D., 152. 
Pratt, A, S., 152. 
Pratt, Fred. C., 134. 
Prentiss, Dr. D. Webster, 136. 
Priestley, 64, 93. 
Priestley, Gen. J. L., 132. 
Prudden, Dr. T. M., 61. 
Public schools, vivisection in, 15,103. 
Putnam, Dr. James J., 136. 
Quay, Hon. M. S., 135. 
Quinet, Edgar, quoted, 9. 
Rachford, Dr. B. K., 137. 
Rand, 67. 
Rauterberg, Dr. L. E., 4,148-152. 
Read, Col. Louis, 132. 
Reade, Charles, quoted, 7. 
Reed, Dr. Walter, 91. 
Richardson, Judge W. A., 152. 
Eichet, 120. 
Riddle, A. G., 152. 
Ring, Dr. Allan Mott, 4, 144. 
Risk, Dr. William H., 131. 
Roberts, Dr. W. P., 4, 144. 
Robinson, Leigh, 152. 
Robinson, Dr. William D., 131. 
Roosa, D. B. St. John, 152. 
Rotch, Dr.T.M., 137. 
Roux, researches of, 49. 
Royal commission, members of, 17; report 
of, 53,105. 
Runyon, Dr. Mifford, 131. 
Salmon, examination ofj 53, 61, 95, 96; let- 
ter to Washington Post, 96,127. 
Satterlee, Bishop Henry Y., 152. 
Sancerotte, M., quoted, 22. 
Saxton, Gen. and Mrs. Rufus, 152. 
Schools, vivisection in, 15,103. 
Schroeder, Dr., 91. 
Schuyler, Dr. C. C., 141. 
Schweinitz, Dr. E. A. de., 91, 138. 
Schweiuitz. Dr. E. A., work of, 106,134. 
Sedgwick, Dr. W. T., 60. 
Senn, Dr. Nicholas, 132. 
Sewall, Rev. Dr. Frank, 152. 
Seward, Miss Olive Risley, 152. 
Sexton, Dr. Samuel, 4, 114. 
Shakespeare’s “Cymbeline,” referred 
to, 9. 
Shiras, Airs. George, jr., 152. 
Shiras, Air. Justice, 152. 
Sill, Prof. Theo., 134. 
Simpson, used chloroform on animals, 67, 
94. 
Smith, Dr. A. A., 136. 
Smith, Dr. Andrew H., 136. 
Smith, Erwin F., 134. 
Smith, Frank G., U. S. A., 152. 
Smith, Hon. James, jr., 131. 
Smith, Dr. Theobald, 60, 106,136. 
Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Ani- 
mals, New York, 51. 
Spinal cord, experiments on, 50. 
Stanley, Gen. D. 8., 152. 
Starr, Dr. M. Allen, 136. 
Starr, Dr. Louis, 137. 
Statement in Behalf of Science, 57. 
Stearns, Dr. S. S., 152. 
Sternberg, Dr. George AL, Surgeon-Gen- 
eral, U. S. A., remarks of, 3, 4; referred 
to, 6, 12, 14, 16; statement of, 41, 61, 94, 
121, 124, 127. 
Stewart, Dr. James, 138. 
Stewart, Mrs. W. M., 152. 
Stiles, Dr. Ch. Wardell, statement of, 54, 
55, 60, 95; objections to present bill, 99; 
work of, 106, 116, 134. 
Stokes, H, N., 138. 
Sudworth, George 8., 134. 
Sunderland, Rev. Dr. Byron M., 152, 
Surgeon-General United States Army, 125. 
Syme, 66. 
Tate, Prof. Lawson, F. R. C. S., statement 
by, 18; his college experience, 18; vivi- 
section a unique method, 18; cures of, 
53. 
Teller, Airs. H. M., 152. 
Tetreault, Dr. F. L. E., 131. 
Thayer, Gen. F. C., 132. 
Thompson, Dr. W. Gilman, 136. 
Thomson, Dr. William H., 136. 
Tinkler, Dr. Wharton, 137. 
Torture, 49. 
Totten, Enoch, 152. 
Tremaine, Dr. W. S., 4,143. 
Tryon, Dr. J. Rufus, Surgeon-General, 
United States Navy, 61, 127. 
Tyson, Dr. James, 137. 
Van Greson, Dr. William H., 131. 
Van Wagenen, George N., 131. 
Vaughan, Dr. V. C., 60,136. INDEX 
159 
Vesalius, 63. 
Villemin, 67, 94. 
Virchow, Professor, 67, 94. 
Vivisection, object of bill is to restrict, 
5, 6; no law against, on this continent, 6; 
modifications in bill for, 15, 16; first 
operation, when performed, 21; other 
experiments, 21; most recent contribu- 
tion on, 21. 
Volta, 64. 
Wagner, Dr. Clinton, 4,148. 
Walcott, Dr. Henry P., 137. 
Wales, T. A., 4,141. 
Walker, President Francis A., 56. 
Ward, Dr. S. 8., 60,136. 
Warner, B. H., 152. 
Warren, Dr. J. Collins, 61. 
Warren, Dr. J. W., 60. 
Washington Humane Society, 15. 
Washington Post, 95. 
Watmough, Gen. J. H., 152. 
Webb, H. Pandall, 152. 
Webb, John Sidney, 152. 
Welch, Dr. William H., 61, 87,117,119,136. 
Weldon, Judge Lawrence, 15? 
Wend, Dr. G. M., 131. 
Wetmore, Hon. George Peabody, present, 
3. 
White, Dr. William H., 131. 
Whitehorne, Dr. H. 8., 131. 
Whitman, Prof. C. 0., 61. 
Whitman, Mrs. B. J., 152. 
Whittaker, Dr. James T.. 136. 
Wight, J. 8., 152. 
Wilde, Oscar, 9. 
Williams, Dr. Francis H., 137. 
Wilson, Hon. Jere M., 152. 
Wilson, Dr. J. C., 137. 
Wilson, Nathaniel, 152. 
Winlock, Prof. W. C., 133. 
Wood, Dr. H. C.,60, 137. 
Woodbury, Dr. Frank, 4,142. 
Woodhull, Maxwell, 152. 
Woods, Dr. Matthew, 4,142. 
Woodward, Col. Charles M., 132. 
Woodward, Dr. William C., health 
officer of the District of Columbia, 14, 
51,125. 
Woodward, William Redin, 152. 
Wren, Sir Christopher, 64. 
Wyman, Dr. Walter, Supervising Sur- 
geon-General Marine Hospital, 61; 
statement of, 115,127. 
Yeo, Dr. Gerald, 120. 
Zenker, Professor, 100. 
Zoological Laboratory, work of, 106, 
Zymotic diseases, 54. 
White, Mrs. Justice, 152.