he contecxt, or why
the references to "PROTRACTED AND EXCRUCIATING PAIN" and the
"exhibition of excessive pain to classes" should have been omitted?
How could a writer, sincerely desirous of presenting his readers with
a fair expression of Dr. Bigelow's opinions, have cut out every
reference to the abuses of vivisection? How could he have omitted to
quote such passages as the following, which appear in essays written
during the last year of his life:

"In short, although vivisection, like slavery, may embrace within its
practice what is unobjectionable, what is useful, what is humane, and
even what is commendable, it may also cover, like slavery, what is
nothing less than hideous. I use this word in no sensational sense,
and appeal to those who are familiar with some of the work, in
laboratories and out of them, to endorse it as appropriate in this
connection." (368)[1]

"There is no objection to vivisection except the physical pain it
inflicts." (368)

"No society, however extreme in its views or action, can legitimately
object to painless experimentation, provided it is really painless.
BUT ANAESTHESIA SHOULD BE REAL, AND NOT MERELY NOMINAL OR FORMAL."
(374)

"Vivisection will always be the better for vigilant supervision."
(368)

"There is little in the literature of what is called the horrors of
vivisection, which is not well grounded on truth. For a description
of the pain inflicted, I refer to that literature." (363)

The necessity for brevity of quotation, no one can dispute. But the
ethics of controversy are clear. One or two detached sentences should
never be given as a fair representation of an opponent's views, if the
general tenor of his writings would convey a contrary impression.
Thus to suppress and eliminate, what is it but to garble? In any young
writer, would not such offences against veracity invite the severest
condemnation?

[1] Henry J. Bigelow, M.D., Anaesthesia. Figures following quotations
indicate the pages. Italics not in original.

III.

Another illustration of the unreliability of the volume under review
may be found in its references to the Report of the Royal Commission
on Vivisection. We are told, in the first place--and the untrue
statement is thrice repeated with slightly different phraseology--that
"on the Commission, the antivivisectionists were represented, and
joined in this unanimous report."[2] It would be difficult to make an
a