I will give two cases in illustration. These cases appeared in a letter in a newspaper correspondence, in which a self-styled reformer of some note undertakes to abuse the regular clergy, and regular doctors, and laud Thompsonism, and natural bone-setting. One of these cases is that of a boy who was born with a club foot. He states in regard to him, that, after the best surgical skill of Philadelphia and New York had been tried upon him in vain, he was brought to the bone-setter, and in the course of a few weeks the boy (then six years old), was perfectly cured. This statement I know to be false. The bone-setter, so far from curing the boy, did him no good. And further, the deformity of the foot has since been relieved, so far as it can be, by the skill of one of those regular surgeons, of whom the bone-setter so modestly said to our wise reformer, “that during a constant practice of more than thirty years he has scarcely found one who understood his business,” while he himself had “not in a single instance,” among all his cases, committed any error. The other case was that of a man of whom it is said that he “was caught by one of his arms by the belt of the picker, and carried over the drum [shaft?] upwards of one hundred times.” The bone-setter “found that his shoulders, ribs and breast, were all badly lacerated—his left arm broken near the shoulder—his right arm broken in three places between the shoulder and elbow, much hemorrhage having taken place—his right knee broken in pieces, and partially dislocated—two of the bones of the toes of his right foot loose in his stockings—a compound fracture of the left leg—one of the condyles of the pelvis, near the back knocked off—his skull fractured above his left eye—his scalp cut to the skull, and rolled up some distance—and his whole body covered with bruises and lacerations.” It is also stated that “the physicians who were summoned, said he could not live an hour, and declined attempting to relieve him.” Perhaps they would have taken this view of the case if the facts had been as our reporter has stated them. But they were not. _Nearly all_ of this statement is false. That the man was carried over that shaft “upwards of one hundred times,” none but a stark-mad reformer is foolish enough to believe—the man’s shoulders, ribs and breast were _not_ “badly lacerated”—his right arm was _not_ “broken in three places,” but only in one, and that not badly—there was _not_ “much hemorrhage,” but almost none—his right knee was _not_ “broken in pieces,” and was _not_ “partially dislocated,” but there was merely a small abrasion of the knee-pan—there were _not_ “two bones in his stockings,” but one small piece of bone in one stocking—there was _not_ “a compound fracture of the left leg,” but a simple one—“one of the _condyles_ of the pelvis near the back” was _not_ “knocked off,” for there is no such thing in the body, and besides, the man himself says that there was no injury of the back, and so says his