"What disgusted us most, however, was to find before we left the _Emden_ that there _had_ been ample supplies of uninjured dressings all the time. The action station of Dr. L----, the surgeon in question, had been in the stokehold, which was quite undamaged. A bent and twisted ladder or two formed the only obstacles to reaching and utilising the considerable stores of dressings, lotions, etc., which were still available there. Although it was true that the assistant surgeon was missing (he had come on deck after his station in the tiller flat aft had been struck, and was blown overboard by an exploding shell), it was _not_ true by a long way that there was not ample help, skilled and unskilled, available for at least first-aid dressing all around, and on this they had hardly made a beginning." A brief quotation or two from the report of the surgeon of the _Sydney_ may be interesting while on the question of the neglect of the _Emden's_ wounded by their own surgeon. Referring to the wounded which had just been brought aboard, he says: "In cases where large vessels of the leg or arm had been opened, we found torniquets of pieces of spun yarn, or a handkerchief, or piece of cloth bound around the limb above the injury. In some cases, I believe the majority, they had been put on by the patients themselves. One man told me he had put one on his arm himself. They were all in severe pain from the constriction, and in all cases where amputation was required, the presence of these torniquets made it necessary to amputate much higher than one would otherwise have done. _There was little evidence of any skilled treatment before they arrived aboard._" Again he writes: "Some of the men who were brought off to the _Sydney_ presented horrible sights, and by this time the wounds were practically all foul and stinking, and maggots 1/4 inch long were crawling over them, only 24 to 30 hours after injury. _Practically nothing had been done to the wounded sailors_, and they were roughly attended to by our party and despatched to us as quickly as possible." Professional etiquette evidently operated to restrain the surgeon of the _Sydney_ from stating in his report what he thought of these very palpable evidences of neglect on the part of his "opposite number" in the _Emden_. When I met him in the _Sydney_ last winter I heard him express himself in no uncertain language on the subject, but I do not feel at liberty to quote him without his permission, and he has recently returned to Australia. I take it that he reckoned that to his medical brethren, to whom his report was especially addressed, the plain statements of the facts were sufficient to speak for themselves.