3. “It may be remarked, that those who contend in favour of contagion, from zeal for accumulating proofs, have collected a number of facts from historical records of very unequal authority, and often with little critical skill in discrimination. Of this error their antagonists availing themselves, have selected from the mass the instances most liable to doubt or objection, and have endeavoured, by their manner of arranging them, to place the whole in a ridiculous light; while more important instances are either evasively past over, misstated in the representation, or invalidated by general declamation on the little credit due to historians in matters of physic, or the prejudices prevalent in ancient times of ignorance, and on contradictions to be found in the arguments of those who support the system of contagion.” To this the Doctor adds the great quantity of hypothetical reasoning which has been introduced into the controversy, and above all the unfair dealing of the parties in carrying on the dispute, which has reduced the matter from “a calm inquiry in pursuit of truth, to a wrangling contest for victory.” Lastly he insists, that, had it not been for the misrepresentations and sinister dealings of those who have written against contagion, “the question seems to have been properly resolved in the affirmative;” and he complains greatly of the conduct of the Montpelier physicians in this respect, insomuch that “their misstating of circumstances, and the partiality so evidently discoverable in their narrative of cases, will serve more effectually to remove doubts on the subject, than any arguments that could be used against their hypothesis.”