ate so obvious
a fact? Can one imagine that the leading representatives of medical
science in England, the leading teachers and professors in medical
colleges and schools, would have given the evidence just quoted if for
thirty years the "doctors of England" had been flying to the Continent
to escape the stringency of the law of 1876? Should we not have found
some witness before the Royal Commission of 1906 making allusion to
this flight of the doctors of England? It is quite possible that when
the law went into operation, over thirty-five years ago, its working
was less satisfactory than it is to-day. Was it fair to make these
early criticisms annul the evidence given by a large body of
representative men before this Commission of the twentieth century in
favour of the regulation of vivisection by law? Of course such an
editorial tended to strengthen prejudice against legal regulation in
America. It did its work. But can success so achieved ever be worth
of admiration?[1]

[1] The reader may ask why correction of so inaccurate a statement
concerning the English law was not sent to the journal in question.
This was done. A synopsis of all the medical opinions here given and
taken from the evidence given before the Royal Commission was sent to
the editor of the periodical. So fafr as seen, it did not appear.

An editorial in a morning paper would hardly seem worth noticing.
Upon the opinions of its readers it makes its impress, and is quickly
forgotten. But the same untrue assertions will be made again more
than once in order to create prejudice against any legal regulation of
vivisection in America. It has seemed worth while, therefore, to set
forth the evidence of the absolute untruth of such statements,
regarding the English law.[1]

[1] In demonstrating that the English law for the regulation of
vivisection is not there regarded with the disapprobation alleged by
certain writers in this country, I must not be taken as claiming that
the law from a humane standpoint is satisfactory. Until amended as
advised by Dr. Wilson, a member of the Royal Commission, it cannot
adequately protect animals liable to experimentation from hte
possibility of abuse.

The extent to which an untruth concerning vivisection may be worked to
create prejudice against reform is afforded by a curious legend
concerning the late Lord Lister, one of the most eminent men of the
last century.

So far as I have been able to discover, th