rime;
and some of us take the position of the English-speaking medical
profession of forty years ago, that ABUSES AND CRUELTY ALONE should be
the object of attack. If opposition from the first, had been solely
directed against ABUSES of vivisection, could any reform have been
achieved? It is not certain. When Mr. Rockefeller opened his purse on
the vivisection table, he added immeasurably to the strength of the
forces that resist reform. And yet it is difficult to over-estimate
the loss to any cause of such men as Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson, as
Professor William James and Professor Henry J. Bigelow of Harvard
University, or of Dr. Theophilus Parvin of Jefferson Medical
College,--to refer only to the dead. Their criticisms of cruelty were
outspoken, but they could not join in universal condemnation of all
such inquiry into the phenomena of life. Might it not have been
better--even at the cost of a lessened demand--to have kept on the
side of reform that large element in the medical profession which
willingly condemned abuse, but declined to denounce the simplest
demonstration, or the most painless investigation? Of course such an
inquiry will receive different replies. It is ever the easier task to
make condemnation absolute. The thing has been done; the past is
beyond recall. But in looking at the future, we cannot but recognize
the changed attitude of a majority of the medical profession from that
of half a century ago.

The strongest position of the modern physiological laboratory, is its
SECRECY. It occupies in the popular mind almost precisely the place
which was held for centuries by the Inquisition in Spain. There were
men who doubtless objected, then, to the secrecy of the dungeon.
"Trust us absolutely," cried the inquisitor. "Ours is the
responsibility of preventing errors that lead to eternal death. Can
you not leave it to us to decide what shall be done in the torture-
chamber, being assured that NO MORE PAIN WILL BE INFLICTED THAN IS
ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE END IN VIEW?" "Trust us absolutely,"
demands the vivisector of to-day. "Can you dare to question the purity
of our motives, the unselfishness of our aims, the mild and humane
methods of our experimentation? Why should any one wish to disturb the
silence and secrecy in which we carry on our work? Cannot the public
leave it solely to us to determine what pain may be inflicted upon
animals, being certain that no more suffering will be cause