The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-02-22

Or Hare said he would venture 10 assert
that these who were affected by, such an
argument would be more so oy seeing a
little child cutching at Its throat IL the
terrible agony of fever and at the same
time knowing that anti-toxins obtained
from an animal could relieve that torture.
hut that its use was prevented by an act
of Congress. He then took up the subject
of obtaining serum from animals. and ex-
planned the great good accomplished py us
use. SIS
DR. Mary Putnam jacob. of New York.
was the only woman 10 address the com
mittee on either side OF the question. She
read a very able paper on the benefits de-
rived by science from animal experimental
| tiul and ridiculed the attempt to give TO
laymen the control of scientific subject
about which they know nothing. Her ad-
dress was very short and dealt chiefly with
| the arguments that mad peeh advanced D!
| the anti vivisectionists.
DR. Henry p. Bowditch. Professor of
Physiology at Harvard. characterized the
attempt to pass an anti-vivisection law as
case Of misguided philanthropy.
Surgeon General Stcrnbcrg.
Surgeon General Sternherg made few
remarks. which were chiefly devoted to
refutation of statements that have been
|
car1ing experiments conducted in Govern
ment hospitals. .
Prof. Howard a. Kelly. Professor OF
Diseases of Women at Johns Hopkins
| University, in opposing the pending Dill
| described the manner in which various
| delicate operations have been performed
| after being first tried on animals and de-
clared that experiments of this nature have
| saved many human lives which would have
| been forfeited to the trial of new remedies
| or new surgical operations
| Prof. William Osler, Professor OF Prac-
! tice of Medicine at Johns Hopkins briefly
! addressed the committee and supported the
| statements OF those who had preceded him
: as to the loss science would sustain through
the passage of an anti-yivisection Jaw.
He also denied that this practice results
/ in unnecessary cruelty to animals.
DR.. d. E Salmon, Chief of the Bureau
of Animal Industry of the Agricultural
Department, devoted a few minutes TO a
| statement of the many subjects in that de-
| partment the investigation of which would
be hindered by the passage of the pending
! bill
Prof William H. WEIGH, Professor OF
| Pathology at Johns Hopkins University,
made the closing argument for the oppo-
nents OF the measure. He referred 10 the
statements thai have been made that the
| bill does not prevent useful experimental
| ton, and said that in his opinion the
measure attempts far more than its sup
porters claim for It. 1t would be very
si,.. ME tili. he declared, which would sim
ply grant a license for viyisection, but the
pending measure is e complicated one and
is susceptible of several meanings. Prof.
Welcr then took up the various clauses
of the bill in detail, and pointed out the
many requirements which he declared
would prove both vexatious and harmful.
DR.. Albert Leffingwell, NJ. D.. OF Aurora.
n. Y. Secretary OF the American Society
for the Regulation Of Vivisection. summed
up the arguments that had been made in
support OF the bill, and made some refer
| ence to the arguments of the opposition.
The hearing was concluded at $50
! o'clock