How may the views of such a writer be attacked after he is in his grave? A physiological casuist would suggest, for instance, that although for forty years connected with a medical school, Dr. Bigelow really knew little or nothing about vivisection except what he had chanced to see in France, although his writings abound with allusions indicative of familiarity with laboratory scenes. It might be asserted, indeed, that "in his later life," the great advocate of reform had changed his views; and as a fair exposition of the new attitude, a brief warning against confounding a painful with a painless experiment would be quoted, after eliminating from the paragraph anything that referred to cruelty or abuse. Is not this exactly what the author of "Animal Experimentation" has done in his attempt to discredit the weight of Dr. Bigelow's protests? He tells his readers that "the opponents of research" quote the Harvard professor's earliest utterances "based on the suffering he saw at Alfort," but that they carefully omit this expression of his later opinions: "The dissection of an animal in a state of insensibility is no more to be criticized than is the abrupt killing of it, to which no one objects. The confounding of a painful vivisection and an experiment which does not cause pain--either because the experiment itself is painless, like those pertaining to the action of most drugs, or because it is a trivial one and gives little suffering--has done great damage to the cause of humanity and has placed the opponent of vivisection at a great disadvantage.... A painless experiment on an animal is unobjectionable." This is all true enough. But can anyone call this paragraph a fair statement of Dr. Bigelow's "later views" on animal experimentation? It is merely a wise caution. Compare this brief quotation with the ninth chaper of the book in the reader's hands. Will anyone, after reading that chapter, maintain that THE THREE SENTENCES JUST CITED AFFORD A FAIR SUMMARY OF THE DEAD SURGEON'S LATEST VIEWS? The reader will note that in the passage just quoted from Bigelow, something appears to have been omitted before the final sentence. On turning to Dr. Bigelow's work, we find this sentence was eliminated from the foregoing quotation. "IF ALL EXPERIMENTS IN PHYSIOLOGY WERE AS PAINLESS AS THOSE IN CHEMISTRY, THERE WOULD BE BUT ONE SIDE TO THE QUESTION."[1] [1] Anaesthesia, by Henry J. Bigelow, M.D., p. 372. Precisely! Then immediately following the words quoted by the author of "Animal Experimentation," the reader will discover another most significant passage which was suppressed by the author of "Animal Experimentation":