[22] Some of my readers will require an explanation of these terms. In a case of fracture the broken ends often slip by each other. We draw therefore upon the two portions to bring them into their proper position. The traction exerted upon the portion the farthest from the body is called extension, while that which is exerted upon the other portion is called counter-extension. So when a bone is dislocated the force exerted in drawing the head of it from its position is called extension, while the force by which its fellow bone is drawn in the opposite direction is called counter-extension. [23] It will be proper for me to state that I had no personal interest in this case, and I became acquainted with the facts in an accidental call upon the family of the patient some time after the accident. [24] Some of the certificates of the bone-setter, like those of other quacks, are of the most unwarrantable character. A physician of great eminence was once called to see a clergyman who had sprained his wrist. The sprain was a bad one, and produced considerable inflammation, and therefore gave him great pain. The treatment which my friend pursued relieved the patient, and nothing was wanting but rest to complete the cure. But he very imprudently and in direct disobedience to his physician’s injunctions, drove a spirited horse on quite a long ride with his lame wrist, and of course renewed in some degree the soreness and inflammation. He now put himself under the care of a bone-setter, and after his wrist got well, forgetting the _gratuitous_ as well as successful services of his physician, this clergyman gave the quack a laudatory puff in one of the public papers. CHAPTER VIII. GOOD AND BAD PRACTICE. One would suppose at first thought, that the difference between the results of good, and those of bad practice in medicine, would be palpable to the most common and superficial observation. But it is evidently not so. Facts in great abundance show that it is far otherwise. The history both of medicine, and of quackery, furnishes many instructive lessons on this subject. If we confine our view to the medical profession, we see often two directly opposite modes of practice praised by their adherents, as being successful in the same complaints. We see the profession and the community both divided on this point, each party asserting with zeal the claims of its favorite system of practice to pre-eminence.