852

than if it were injected into the veins of one of the 10weIanimals to illustrate its effects upon a human being.

Witness, in cross-examination, admitted that greatbenefits were to be derived from experimenting with thelower animals, and of the lower animals the dog was one ofthe best animals to experiment upon. The dog had astomach very much like the human stomach, and thereforeit was a desirable animal to experiment upon. Witness hadseen experiments made with live frogs, so as to illustratethe circulation of the blood and the contraction of themuscles. These experiments did not involve pain to thefrogs, because the frogs were decapitated first. Experimentswere made repeatedly and frequently with frogs, for thebenefit of students. The introduction of alcohol into thestomach of a dog by a stomach-pump would not have beenpainful, and the fluid would have caused less inconvenienceto the dog if it had been introduced into the stomach.Witness knew from experience he acquired in 1854 withFrench officers with Omar Pasha on the Danube that theexcessive use of absinthe produced "troublesome drunken-ness: ’ He did not know before the experiment of Dr.Magnan that it would produce epileptic fits in a dog.Witness did not know that in consequence of the discoveriesof M. Magnan it had been found that cases which had beentreated as apoplexy, were, in fact, cases of epilepsy occa-sioned by the excessive use of absinthe. Experiments hadbeen made at Edinburgh upon dogs for the purpose ofillustrating the effects of mercury upon the liver of man.In these Edinburgh experiments one side of a dog was cutopen. He was not aware that one side of the gall-bladderwas cut open, and fastened to its side, so that the bile mightflowout. Witness did not know that the Edinburgh experi-ment had proved that mercury had no direct action on theliver. He had read in Taylor’s "Medical Jurisprudence"of a case of a chemist’s assistant who had taken a largequantity of absinthe, and who had shown epileptic symptoms.If Sir James Paget went to witness M. Magnan’s experimentfor the purpose of being instructed by it, he was not aneminent physiologist; Sir James was an eminent surgeon.Sir James Paget allowed the experiment to proceed withouta full discussion of the subject taking place.

Sir W. Fergusson deposed that if absinthe were admi-nistered to a dog in the femoral vein he should consider itwould cause suffering to the animal. He could not saythat the suffering would be acute ; if an incision were madein the thigh of a dog, it would undoubtedly cause pain.He could not see that such an experiment as the opening ofa vein in the thigh of a dog and injecting absinthe into itwould be useful in the interests of science. The effects ofabsinthe upon the human system were very well known inFrance, although they were less well known in England.He considered an experiment like that indicated with a dogwould be an act of cruelty.In cross-examination witness said he did not know that

Professor Ferrier approved of experiments with dogs. Wit-ness had performed experiments himself, but principally forhis own information. Witness had never seen alcohol in-jected into the vein of an animal, or absinthe either. Hedid not know that absinthe administered to an animalwould produce epilepsy; he did not know it now. Ordinarydrunkenness would produce epilepsy. Persons in an epi-leptic condition appeared to be suffering great pain, butthey were totally unconscious. He considered the experi-ment of M. Magnan unnecessary in the interests of scienceand for the benefit of mankind.

Further evidence was offered by the prosecution, but atthe close of the case the Bench intimated that they did notconsider that it had been sufficiently established that Mr.Pitt or Mr. White were present at the experiments or as-sisted at them. The case against those gentlemen accord-ingly fell through. Proceedings against the two remainingdefendants, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Turner, were adjourneduntil Thursday.

THE COLLEGE OF SURGEONS.

ON Thursday, the 10th inst., a most important and some-what stormy meeting of the Council of the College of Sur-geons was held (at which we understand that neither Mr.Southam of Manchester, nor Mr. Alfred Baker of Birming-

ham, found it convenient to be present), in order to considerthe letter from Dr. Pitman, to which we have referred inour article on the Conjoint Scheme. We are happy toannounce that the Council decided to accept the offer con-tained in that letter, and to press forward its 11 EnablingAct of Parliament," and we have also the satisfaction of

knowing that Sir James Paget gave notice of a motion to

the effect that the Council would take into considerationthe appointment of the examiners required by the proposedscheme.

Correspondence.

ELEPHANTIASIS IN NEW BRUNSWICK.

4’Audi alteram partem."

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,-In THE LANCET of November 14th reference is madeto a notice in a Toronto paper concerning the existence ofGreek leprosy in a certain district of New Brunswick.

During a late sojourn in this province of Canada, I wasenabled to obtain several interesting facts in connexion

with the Tracadie lepers, as they are called. The history ofthese poor outcasts is as follows :-About a century ago anumber of emigrants from Normandy settled on the N.E.coast of New Brunswick, in what is now known as Gloucestercounty. Here their descendants have continued to reside,speaking the mother tongue, and maintaining a strict ex-clusiveness as regards their neighbours, so that it is veryrare for any member to marry out of the community. Inconsequence they are all more or less allied by blood re-lationship ; indeed so closely that few families can marrywithout a dispensation, in accordance with the requirementsof the Roman Catholic Church. This constant breeding inand in has told on the general physique, and producedcharacters of degeneracy, by which these French colonistsare distinguished from the other settlers in their neighbour-hood. They subsist moreover to a great extent, especiallyduring the long winter months, on salted fish, which hasbeen said to have been one of the causes of the leprosy.The origin of the disease is very obscure. There is atradition of shipwrecked French sailors having brought itfrom the Levant many years since, whilst its prevalence infamilies created a belief in the disease being contagious.About thirty-five years ago, in consequence of the in-

creasing ravages of the disease, a hospital was erected onan island, and stringent laws were passed by the localgovernment for .the seclusion in this lazaretto of everyperson affected with leprosy. The establishment has sincebeen removed to the mainland, where some thirty or fortyinmates, including both sexes and of various ages, fromchildren to old people, are immured for life in a dismalhospital with an enclosed boundary of a few acres of forestclearing.The late Drs. Bayard and Wilson, of St. John, were de-

puted by the Government to draw up a report on the Tra-cadie lepers, which report is published in the Journal of theHouse of Assembly for 1847. After entering fully into thesymptomatology of the cases, and establishing their specificcharacters with the true elephantiasis Groacoruni, they givetables of the consanguinity of the inmates of the hospital,showing the hereditary nature of the disease, whereby thelatter is clearly traced ; whilst all their researches failed toconfirm the current belief that the malady was contagious.This is the only published medical account of the Tracadielepers known to me. My friend, Dr. Benson, of Chatham,New Brunswick, is familiar with the district, and would nodoubt willingly furnish valuable data to persons interestedin the subject. There is a description of the hospital andits management by the late Governor, the Hon. ArthurGordon, in " Vacation Tourists" for 1863, from which Ihave given a quotation, along with other details, in mywork on °Field and Forest Rambles in Eastern Canada."As far as I could discover, no instance of leprosy has oc-curred in the Tracadie district that was not inherited in