experiments on living animals in their courses of instruction." The report was adopted by the Comitia practically unanimously.
I would not have further alluded to vivisection, if at all, on this occasion, were it not that there has recently been manifested what appears to be a "change of tactics" on the part of some of the more courteous and polite leaders of the anti-vivisection movement, which we, as a profession, ought not to ignore. While becoming if anything even more aggressive and unreasonable in their opposition, as well as more rash and imaginative in their statements, and, while still applying language to vivisectors and their practices which is anything but complimentary, they have taken to flattering, patronising, and cajoling the medical profession as a whole, in contrast with these dreadful individuals. The noble chairman at a meeting of one of the anti-vivisectionist societies quite lately made the following remarks: "Let it never be said that they were working against the medical profession. There was no profession for which they had greater respect, regard, or admiration. It was not the 40,000 medical men they opposed, but the 340 vivisectors." Similar sentiments were expressed by the chairman at a meeting of another society. Now, personally, I strongly object to be thus patronised, and I think it would be cowardly if the profession as a body did not speak out boldly and emphatically at this time, and reaffirm our position
