eme antivivisection party concerning all phases of
biological experimentation. The weakest point in the antivivisection
position has always seemed to me the condemnation of every kind of
experimentation on animals, however painless. Yet how is it possible
to expect public agreement with this position in every case? A few
weeks ago, it was announced in the public press, that in one of the
departments of Columbia University in New York, a series of
experiments were being made to determine, if possible, the comparative
food value of two articles in general use. If, for instance, a
certain number of mice were fed from day to day upon pure butter, and
an equal number upon the artificial product known as "oleo-margarine,"
would there be any perceptible difference in growth and general
condition, and, if so, in favour of which group? This is an experiment
upon animals; but it is one against which it would be difficult to
bring forward any objection which the general public would very
eagerly endorse. Distinctions must be made, between that which is
cruel and that which is humane. "AGAINST PERFECTLY PAINLESS
EXPERIMENT," said Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson, "carried out for
purely experimental and great objects by men who themselves regret the
necessity or expediency, and who only act under a strict sense of
duty, no reasonable mind can raise an objection."

On the other hand, let me reiterate acknowledgment of the vast
indebtedness which the cause of humaneness owes to the opponents of
all vivisection. Always and everywhere, the extremist helps in the
progress of reform. But for a few hated and despised abolitionists,
negro slavery might still be a recognized American institution; it was
not Henry Clay or Daniel Webster who did most to hasten its downfall.
That antivivisectionists have made mistakes, perhaps their most ardent
advocate would be willing to concede. On the other hand, how great
has been their service! But for extremists such as Frances Power Cobb
of England and Elizabeth Stuart Phelps-Ward of America and a host of
others whose hearts were aflame with indignation at cruelty and at the
seeming duplicity which denied its existence, the whole question would
have sunk into the abeyance in which in France or Germany, it to-day
exists. They kept it alive. And what have not the antivivisectionists
suffered by detraction, by ridicule, by misrepresentation and personal
abuse! The most eloquent woman to whom I have e