The extensive bleedings formerly recommended in all penetrating gunshot wounds of the chest are now practiced with much greater limitations—indeed, should never be employed simply with a view to prevent mischief from arising. Venesection carried to a great extent does harm by lessening the restorative powers of the frame. It appears to interrupt the process of adhesion between the pleural surfaces and the steps taken by nature to repair the existing mischief, while it leads the injured structures into a condition favorable for gangrene, or encourages the formation of ill–conditioned purulent effusions. When inflammation has arisen, venesection may be joined with other means to control its excessive action, and to give relief, which it certainly does, to the patient; and where hemorrhage is manifestly going on internally, it may be practiced with a view of draining the blood from the system and more speedily inducing faintness, to give an opportunity to the pulmonic vessels to become closed; but, even when thus applied, the general state of the patient will not be unconsidered by a judicious surgeon, nor caution neglected, lest the venesection cause him to sink more rapidly from the additional shock to the system and abstraction of restorative force. Taking away blood certainly does not prevent pneumonia from supervening, but occasionally seems to give the inflammation, when it arises, more power over the weakened structures, or even to cause it to be accompanied with typhoid symptoms. Many cases will be found in the various published records derived from the Crimean campaign, where favorable recovery has taken place after wounds of the lung without venesection being at all resorted to as part of the treatment.