ffirmation more notoriously untrue. In 1906, when the Commission was
first named, it was a matter of common knowledge that NO
ANTIVIVISECTIONIST WAS REPRESENTED THEREON. This shoudl be evident to
anyong, one reading the following paragraph of the Commission's
report:

"After full consideration, we are led to the conclusion that
experiments upon animals, ADEQUATELY SAFEGUARDED BY LAW FAITHFULLY
ADMINISTERED, ARE MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE AND SHOULD NOT BE PROHIBITED BY
LEGISLATION."[1]

[2] Keen, "Animal Experimentation," p. 294. For repetitions of the
erroneous statement, see pp. xviii and 241.
[1] Report of Commission, p. 57, par. 97.

How could Dr. Keen have dreamed for a moment that any
antivivisectionist would have signed such a recantation? Possibly the
words here italicized explain why this paragraph was not quoted by the
author of "Animal Experimentation." It referred to the conditions of
permissible experimentation which, as yet, do not exist in any
American state.

Of this important report, but a single brief paragraph of two
sentences appears to have attracted the attention of Dr. Keen. It
impresses him so strongly that he parades it no less than three times
in various parts of his book:

"We desire to state that the harrowing descriptions and illustrations
of operations inflicted on animals which are freely circulated by
post, advertisement, or otherwise, are IN MANY CASES calculated to
mislead the public, so far as they suggest that the animals in
question were not under an anaesthetic. To represent that animals
subjected to experiments IN THIS COUNTRY are WANTONLY TORTURED would,
in our opinion, be absolutely false." (Italics not in original.)

"This clear statement," adds the author of "Animal Experimentation" to
one of his three quotations, "should end this calumny" (p. 241.) To
what "CALUMNY" can he allude? The Commissioners are referring only to
experimentation in England, where unauthorized painful experimentation
is contrary to law--certainly not to America, where no Government
supervision of any kind is to be found. Even in England, the words
"IN MANY CASES" limit the application of condemnation. Would the
author have its readers believe that painful or unjustifiable
experiments are never performed? ON THE VERY PAGE OF THE REPORT TO
WHICH HE REFERS US, in a paragraph immediately following that just
quoted, there is reference to a London physiologist of distinction,
who had testified that "h