VIVISECTIONS CRUELTIES OF TO-DflY. 
[SUMMER OF 1893.] 
As Reported by an Eye=Witness. 
Address of Mr. PHILIP G. PEABODY, A. M., LL. B., 
Of Boston, Mass., at London, June 14, 1893. 
Col. ROBT. G. INGERSOLL 
WITH INTRODUCTION BY 
PUBLISHED BY 
Vhs Illinois I^raqGT] 
AFFECTION. 
INTELLIGENCE. 
COURAGE. 
AMERICAN 
OF THE 
mtllMn sotleig 
For the Protection of Animals from 
Cruel Experiments in the Medical 
Colleges and Elsewhere. 
FIDELITY. 
Organized .June 1. 1802. at Aurora, 111. Incorporated Feb. 25, 1893 
Annual membership 50c. Life membership $10.00. 
Members welcomed from every part of the world 
We appeal for aid to stop this nefarious business. It must cease 
when the people fully comprehend its nature and extent. More money 
is needed for printing and postage to convey the matter to the public 
mind and conscience. Let those disposed to aid the cause of anti- 
vivisection send their donations at once to 
The Illinois Branch of the A. A.-V. S., 
(Literature Mailed Free.) 
104 N. Fourth Street. 
AURORA, ILL. The address of Mr. Peabody has received the high compliment 
in Germany of being translated into German and published in pam- 
phlet form by our anti-vivisection allies in that country. . A LIFE SAVED 
WITHOUT VIVISECTION. 
Col. Ingersoll's Arraignment of Vivisection. 
There are three mysteries about vivisection. First—that any human 
being should have thought of dissecting a living animal. Second—that 
a human being should have actually sought within the quivering flesh 
with knives and probes for all the nerves of pain ; and Third—that the 
people of a civilized country allow their fellow citizens to commit this 
useless and heartless crime. The cruelty is unspeakable, and the knowl- 
edge gained is worthless. Not one fact of importance to the human 
race has been ascertained by these scientific assassins. On the other 
hand, men standing at the top of the medical profession declare that the 4 
vivisectionists have hindered and delayed the progress of surgery. In 
vain the poor animals have been blistered and scalded, roasted and fro- 
zen, Hayed and poisoned. In vain have their nerves been torn and divid- 
ed, their intestines and kidneys and hearts taken from their quivering 
bodies. They have been tortured unto death for naught, All that can 
be said is that the agonies inflicted have hardened the hearts of the 
wretches who inflicted them and excited the pity and detestation of civil- 
ized people. 
It is impossible to imagine an argument in favor of this barbaris m 
the savagery of science. Nothing can be said in its defense. 
What the gladiatorial show was to the Romans, what the Inquisition 
was to the Catholic church, Vivisection is to the scientific pretenders of 
to-day. Back of them all was and is the same infamous, heartless spirit. 
The gladiators were foreigners, the victims of the Inquisition were her- 
etics. and those that suffer the agonies of vivisection are animals. 
Is it possible that, what we call civilization is a veneer or a varnish? 
Does the tiger or serpent of cruelty crouch or coil in the hearts of men ? 
It is bad enough that we kill animals for food - horrible enough that 
life feeds on life. 
But there is almost an infinite difference between vivisection aud 
sudden, painless death, between the man who kids quickly aud the vivi- 
sector who tortures as long as nerves can feel. 
With great force and feeling, with hot and indignant words, Mr. 
Peabody, in his eloquent speech, denounces these scientific criminals. 
In justification of his words he gives the facts within his knowledge and 
experience. It is to be hoped that millions will read his brave and ten- 
der words for the poor victims and his denunciations of tfie crimin ds. 
Most people are in ignorance of the real facts. They generally suppose 
that the animals operated upon are uuder the influence of ether or chlor- 
oform. As a matter of fact the vivisectionists care nothing for the pain 
they inflict. Pity is regarded as childish, as something liable to interfere 
with scientific methods. How monstrous, how terrible it all is—how 
fiendish ; and yet it is pretended that all these horrors are inflicted for 
the sake of man. 
A physician, a surgeon, should not only have a good head, but he 
should have a good heart. He should sympathize with his patient. The 
doctor who practices vivisection has a heart of stone. He is unfit to 
have the care and keeping of a life. He is a kind of wild beast. He 
has made useless experiments upon the living flesh of the helpless. 
He has committed a thousand crimes without an intelligent purpose. 5 
Of what use is it to find how long au animal will live after it has 
been flayed ? Or whether it can survive the loss of a kidney, or a lung* 
or a part of its brain ? Why should the same cruel experiments be 
made thousands of times after the result is known ? And if anything 
of value cau be found by vivisection why should not the poor animal first 
be made insensible to pain ? There are no words strong enough, bitter 
enough, with which to express my abhorrence, hatred and loathing of 
vivisection—of its cruelty and cowardice. To torture the lower will 
never civilize the higher. The vivisector is of less value to the world 
than the animal he destroys. R. G. INGERSOLL. 
Dobbs Ferry, N. Y., Sept. 15, 1893. ADDRESS. 
Given by Mr. Philip G. Peabody, A. M.. LL. B.. of Boston, mem- 
ber of the Massachusetts Bar, at the Annual Meeting of the Victoria 
Street Society for the Protection of Animals Liable to Vivisection, 
held at St. James’ Hall, Regent Street, London. England, on Wednes- 
day. June 14. 1893. The attendance [was very large, and the pro- 
ceedings proved full of interest and encouragement. 
Canon Basil Wilberforce, M. A., took the chair, and was supported 
by Lord Robartes, Gen. Charles Gordon. Walter S. B. McLaren, Esq., 
M. P.: the Rev. Philip Wicksteed, M. A.: Mrs. Charles Mallet, Dr. 
Edward Berdoe, Dr. Edward Haughton. Dr. John H. Clarke, Rev. 
Canon Barker, Arthur Arnold. Esq., Capt. H. Quintanilha, Capt. 
Clark-Kennedy, F. S. A., F. L. S.; the Countess of Camperdown, 
Lady Mount-Temple Hon. Mrs. R. C. Boyle, Ernest Bell, Esq., M. 
A.: F. E. Pirkis, Esq.. R. N,; Miss Marston, Mrs. James, Miss E. 
Elcum Rees, Lester Reed. Esq., P. C. S.. F. I. C.: and the Rev. F. S. 
Ross, B. A., Major H. Bethune. the Rev. R. Everard Blake, Dr. 
George Baudry of Wisconsin, U. S. A.: Major William C. Dummond, 
Lady Eastlake, Major Gen. Grant. Lady Griffin. Major] Ind, Dr. 
Moir. Charles L. Peabody, Esq., John Pickering, Esq., F. R. G. S.: 
Rev. G. Croke Robinson. Lady Gertrude Stock, Rev. J. Stratton, 
and Capt. Henry Toynbee, were present. Letters of excuse were 
read from the Duke of Portland, the Countess of Portsmouth, the 
Bishop of Manchester, the Bishop of Coventry. Bishop Mitchinson. 
Bishop Cramer-Roberts, the Bishop of Nottingham, Lord Coleridg'e. 
Miss Frances Power Cobbe.’ Baron Ernst Von Weber. Mr. G. Rus- 
sell. M. P.: Hon. B. Coleridge, M. P.; Mr. J. E. Ellis. M. P.: Rev. Sir 
George Cox, Admiral Douglas, Dr. William Swan, Mark Thorn- 
hill. Esq.: Dr. C. Bell Taylor, Dr. Frances Hoggan. Dr. John W. 
Fox. Rev. Canon Percy Smith, Rev. Dr. Wilson White, Dr. Shaw, 
and Mrs. Bramwell Booth. 
Mr. Peabody spoke'as follows : Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentle- 
men :—With your permission I will say a few words about myself, not 
that for one moment do I imagine that it will be of interest to you, 
but because I can in no other way apologize for the crudeness and lack of preparation of my speech. For the last two weeks I have been al- 
most incessantly traveling, and for a long time I have not slept two 
consecutive nights in the same place ; it has consequently been sim- 
ply impossible for me to prepare a formal address or even deliberately 
to think over what I wanted to say to you this afternoon. 
In my hand I hold a memorandum of a few points, casually jotted 
down when traveling at the rate of fifty miles an hour, which, with 
your permission, I wish to lay before you for your consideration. 
It is not necessary. I trust, for me to say that this is an occasion to 
me of very great interest. I look on the work of opposing the detest- 
able and cowardly crime of vivisection as the most important work, 
especially at the present time, in which any human being can take 
part.[Cheers.] And inasmuch as this language is frequently used for the 
sake of impressing an audience almost as a figure of speech, I may be 
permitted to intimate that I want to be understood as meaning liter- 
ally exactly what I say. 
If vivisection were productive of precisely the same results as it 
now produces without causing suffering to any animal, assuming for 
the moment that that were possible, I would still say. as now. that I 
believed it to be the most important of all crimes to be attacked. 1 
would have chosen to come here this afternoon as a listener rather 
than a talker. I think I have far more to learn than to impart: but 
as I have been honored by an invitation to address you. I will as brief- 
ly as I may, endeavor to fulfill that pleasure and duty. 
There is no human being who has become so depraved, who has 
fallen so low, who has so unfitted himself for the society of man and 
brute, that I cannot find it in my heart to make some defense or excuse 
for him, or to imagine how under the influence of certain inborn traits, 
and under certain circumstances, not always the same perhaps as with 
him, I might myself have been tempted and fallen, as he had done, 
except those monsters, insane, I believe, with the lust of cruelty, 
whom we call Vivisectors. [Applause.] Believing as I do, that eve- 
ry man—and I include vivisectors, perhaps improperly, under that 
generic term—is the product of his natural disposition and his sur- 
roundings, and does exactly as he must, being, in no sense, a free 
agent, I can have, even towards these wretched men. no feeling of re- 
venge or even of anger. My sentiment, and I believe it to be just, is 
one of profound abhorrence and contempt. I look on these men. for 
more reasons than one, as the most dangerous of all foes to mankind. 
I believe the moral precepts on which they work, and on which alone 
they defend their course.are dangerous, erroneous and absolutely untrue. 
8 9 
I believe that they are persistently and systematically endeavoring 
to poison the minds of men, and ultimately, and at no distant day. 
unless they are put down, will first beg. and then demand human be- 
ings for vivisection. 
Those of us who can read between the lines, already see this de- 
mand nearly formulated : but I can have no feeling as regards them, 
wicked, deceitful and dangerous though they be. but one of disgust 
and contempt—absolutely none of anger. I dwell somewhat on this 
point because I hope to be understood as speaking wholly dispassion- 
ately. Furthermore, I can make the excuse for the vivisector, that, 
owing to a natural disposition, and elements of character largely, I 
believe, due to prenatal influences, and certainly to circumstances 
for which he is in no wise responsible, he does, as do all men, exactly 
as he must. And he is to be commiserated, rather than blamed, that 
he should spend his life in committing a series of crimes of inconceiv- 
able atrocity, unparalelled certainly at the present day, and probably 
in the history of the world, since man has kept a record of events. 
He may, occasionally, do this, as do other criminals commit their 
crimes, with a fairly good motive, although to those who have seen 
him at his pursuit in his laboratory, as I have done, this seems hard 
to believe ; for he takes such an evident pleasure in this awful pas- 
time ! Far more often he hypocritically defends his work by the pre- 
tense of his love of humanity. 
And, right here, let me say something about this element of hypoc- 
risy which is one of the evils of vivisection—relatively small, but 
actually enormous. If it is not a result of “assuming a virtue when 
they have it not,” of continually preaching about their love of man- 
kind driving them to vivisection (and my remarks here apply chiefly 
to the British vivisectors, for their foreign confreres laugh at them 
for this pretense, and openly declare its falseness,) how happens it 
that they are so notoriously unreliable as regards the matter of vera- 
city ? That they are so is so proverbial, and it is so well known that 
they are almost unanimous in this dishonesty, that it is really a very 
remarkable trait of character. Of course, I do not include all vivi- 
sectors in what I say, although the exceptions are marvelously few. 
This hypocrisy has become almost a part of the lives of most of 
these men, and their disposition to falsehood, and in some cases to 
perjury, seems to have followed it so closely that at times they 
even deceive themselves, I fully believe. If this is not a result of 
their hypocrisy, whence comes it ? 
It is too usual a thing to be called accidental. All criminal* are not liars. Other criminals frequently condemn falsehood, especially 
when it is not successful, but I have yet to learn of any word of con- 
demnation from any of this brotherhood for such falsehoods, told 
either by them or in their interest, as, for example, that valuable dis- 
coveries have been made by means of vivisection : that vivisection 
causes very little suffering : that anaesthetics ai-e always used : that 
the number of animals vivisected is trifling : that the use of ether was 
discovered through vivisection, as also the circulation of the blood: 
that Pasteur has saved over a thousand lives, or perhaps over ten 
thousand lives, it makes no difference which; and others too numer- 
ous to mention. 
I fully believe that almost any other hand of criminals who cared to 
retain the appearance of respectability would indignantly drive from 
their midst, confessed falsifiers (one a perjurer) such as at least two 
famous, or rather infamous vivisectors, whose names I forbear to 
mention in the presence of ladies, but which to all friends of the anti- 
vivisection cause are familiarly offensive. 
To a stranger to your country what I mention seems sufficiently 
amazing, hut it is surpassed by the fact that one of these men not on- 
ly is not openly execrated by his fellows—but was, after his offense, 
(which has been published to the world) practically retained in his 
former position of employment in spite of the protest made by people 
who disliked perjury. 
Not only to direct misstatement does this assumption of virtue lead 
hut every disingenuous art and trick and quibble has been used and 
approved, so far as we can tell from any visible sign, by members of 
the brotherhood. Were it not for the evident fact that the defenders 
of vivisection are, as a rule, surprisingly weak in. or to speak correct- 
ly, ignorant of. logic, and unable to see wherein consists evidence and 
proof, words which I use. not in their legal, but in their colloquial 
senses, our cause would have been far more embarrassed by this dis- 
honesty than it has been. Not only every lawyer and every logician, 
but every thoughtful man who has followed this movement sees that 
not one of these men can for one moment defend his side of the case 
without running into errors of fact and logic unworthy of his fresh- 
man year in college. 
For a single example I will refer to the case of the vivisector who 
was pertinently asked if (as was inevitably the result of his argu- 
ment) he would vivisect a child if permitted, and who heroically re- 
plied : Yes. he would operate on a child for its benefit, even if it 
caused it pain. Whether, this reply was born of dishonesty or stupid- 
10 ity matters little. Probably both entered into it. Foolish and inex- 
perienced. indeed, must be the bird that is caught with such chaff ! 
For another example. I will allude to the desperate attempts on the 
part of the vivisectors to persuade the public that the late Poet 
Laureate of England was not an anti-vivisectionist, in the face of the 
most positive proof that he was. and that he had befriended our move- 
ment in every practicable way to the day of his death. Life is poorer 
without Alfred Tennyson. 
"His life was gentle, and the elements 
So mixed in him that Nature might stand up 
And say to all the world : This was a man.” 
But this evasion just noted, of the question of the justifiability of 
human vivisection—perhaps the most important of all questions con- 
nected with the subject—brings me naturally to another point. 
Absolutely no argument can be devised in favor of vivisection that 
will not apply far more forcibly to the vivisection of man than of ani- 
mals. It is a very significant fact that in every case, and there were 
several such, when this fact was brought to the attention of witnesses 
who favored vivisection, before the Royal Commission, no pretense of 
a reply was made. It was every time evaded, although, if I recollect 
aright, not quite so stupidly as in the case I have just recalled. Now, 
what means this evasion ? Had these men taken counsel together on 
this point beforehand, and agreed that to claim the same right to 
vivisect men as animals would be premature in 1875 ? If so, is it still 
premature ? If so. when will it cease to be ? 
This great question. I believe, concerns every human being. That 
these men do not give themselves the greater luxury of human vie 
tims is due to nothing but their cowardice. Absolutely no argument 
which will apply to the vivisection of animals will fail to apply, 
with at least as great and usually with greater force, to the vivisec- 
tion of men. Why will not these men explain themselves and their 
wishes as regards human victims V They dare not. They know 
that we know their wishes in this regard, and to their knowledge, 
that, but for our opposition, the stupidity and selfishness of mankind 
might leave them nothing to fear in openly demanding what they ar- 
dently desire, is chiefly due their venom towards us. The cases of can- 
cer grafting and of other human vivisection of paupers in hospitals 
are familiar to us all. but they fail to satisfy the ardent vivisector. 
A few vivisections secretly perpetrated no doubt gratify him, but he 
will not long be satisfied with anything short of a regular system of 
11 12 
human sacrifices. That freedom from torture is the right of a being 
is dependent not on its form, or intelligence, or ability to speak and 
defend itself, or muscular strength, but on its possessing a nervous 
system capable of feeling pain, is a self evident proposition, an axiom, 
to every one not only with ideas of the rights of animals, but to 
every moderately intelligent man. [Applause.] 
Manifestly, it is an infinite outrage to take and tie to a table an 
animal, capable of suffering, but unable to speak or otherwise defend 
itself, and slowly dissect it alive. Wherein, would these men say, 
lies the difference between man and brute that justifies this ? Is it 
in intelligence ? Is it in ability to speak ? Is it in color? It cannot 
be in shape, for that would justify the vivisection of a deformed man. 
It cannot be in weight for that would justify the vivisection of a man 
larger or smaller than the average. It cannot be in intelligence, for 
that would justify the vivisection of idiots, lunatics, and many of the 
vivisectors. [Laughter.] It cannot be in ability to speak, for that 
would allow the vivisection of deaf and other mutes. It cannot be in 
color, for that would allow the vivisection of negroes and others. 
Then wherein lies, wherein can lie, the difference between man 
and brute that makes it lawful to vivisect the latter and not the form- 
er. I answer, that there is absolutely none, the two being to 
all intents and purposes similar in nervous system, that is to say in 
ability to suffer—which is the only matter of the slightest consequenee 
in this discussion. 
Hence it follows that the only reason the •‘experimenters” vivi- 
sect animals and not men is that they are wretched cowards, seizing 
and cutting up a helpless animal fi’om which they have nought to fear 
provided they secure it in the most approved way—the dog’s most 
violent demonstration frequently being to lick the hand that wields 
the knife—and I’efrain from doing the same with men because they 
dare not, and for absolutely no other reason. 
I am personally acquainted with at least two of the world’s great- 
est and best known vivisectors. and with many obscurer ones. I 
know something of this matter of which I speak. More than one 
vivisector has confessed the truth of it to me, and indeed, its 
truth needs no confession. Every one with the slightest knowledge 
of human nature or of vivisectors. knows that it is so, and that it 
must be so. In a little paper, intended apparently for little readers- 
although it purported to have been read at a recent Church Congress. 
I observe that the writer, speaking of the rights of animals, says he was "at a perfect loss to know in what these rights consist.” This is 
manifestly true of him and of his confreres, and I thank him for the 
admission. 
Now, what follows ? It would not be unreasonable to expect him 
to defer somewhat, on a subject intimately affecting the rights of 
animals to those, and fortunately they are not few, who do know 
something about them. He goes on to say, however, that ordinary 
mortals cannot decide about the justifiability of vivisection ; and 
finally he caps the climax of insolent stupidity by declaring that only 
he and his confreres can decide. This writer also incidentally slander- 
ed the people of this great nation by declaring that “there does not 
exist any national conscience as regards cruelty.” 
Now this gentleman presumably made the best defence of vivisec- 
tion of which he was capable. This is hard to believe, but I think 
we must so consider it. In basing his case then, on the erroneous 
assertion that there exists no national conscience against cruelty, he 
admits that if there is a national conscience against cruelty he is ab- 
solutely without ground to stand on. He thus complacently delivers 
the enemy bound and helpless into our hands. 
While speaking of the Church Congress, may I diverge, and make 
a brief comment on the recent insult there perpetrated on our hon- 
ored leader ? I allude, of course, to Miss Frances Power Cobbe—in 
my judgment, the greatest woman now on this globe, and most cer- 
tainly one of the greatest women that “this royal throne of kings, 
this sceptered isle” has ever produced. [Applause.] 
Of her I speak not, for no words of mine could add to her fame. 
But was it not a most wonderful instance of human audacity, of hu- 
man intrepidity, for the representative of that side on which there has 
always been the most utter disregard of truth, not only in direct 
categorical assertions but in every indirect matter, of that side which 
in this country has actually existed, and now exists only in conse- 
quence of the studied, careful and persistent deception,u in almost 
every possible way, of the people of England, to evade the main ques- 
tion, and actually dare to allude to the fact that technically as I feel 
bound to say, there were errors, which, of course, did not in the least 
affect the main question in one of the many publications on our side? 
It seems to me that if ever insolent bravado reached the sublime, it 
did so then. How appropriate to apply to this high "Priest of Science 
the words: 
“ I tell thee, churlish priest, 
A ministering angel shall this woman be. 
When thou liest howling.” 
13 14 
The man who has the proud distinction of slandering brutally the 
greatest woman of her time is, I am told in his defense, a young man. 
I should have supposed that he must be very, very young indeed; that 
he may be wiser as he grows older is to be expected: that he will be 
less wise is impossible. 
The lack of amiability, not to say decency, of these men, is also a 
proof to the world of one of the results of their practices. The aston- 
ishing venom, recently shown, of one of them, Prof. Huxley, the dis- 
grace of whose acquaintance became naturally, so abhorrent to one 
of the founders of this movement that she simply dropped it, ceased 
to know him, agreed to disagree without one unkind word, is a case 
in point, as showing this: so piqued was this man that he has. in a 
most unusual manner, gone out of his way to make of this incident a 
quarrel. His act was harmless, and is to my mind highly gratifying, 
for it shows that these men chafe and writhe under the personal oblo- 
quy and contempt, which they feel that all estimable men and women 
(including millions who are as yet publicly unidentified with our 
movement) who are aware of their occupation, feel for them solely 
on account of their vile trade. 
This feeling, heretofore greatly underestimated, I have reason to 
believe, on both sides, is, I feel, ultimately to be a most useful power 
for us. The world is beginning to observe smaller things than hereto- 
fore. The embryo doctor who suffered the penalty of death in New 
York a few days ago, for the murder of his child-wife, under ch1- 
cumstances of unusual atrocity, spent the latter part of his life in mak- 
ing an enthusiastic written defence of vivisection. He doubtless de- 
fended vivisection on the same grounds as those on which he justified 
the murder of his wife. This has been noticed, I think, far more 
than would have been the case ten, or even five years ago. We are 
beginning, slowly, to be sure, to gain the attention of the press. Sad 
to say, the time seems long, the movement is slow, there “is no pity 
sitting in the stars” that appears to help us. Discouraging events 
occur one after another, and those of us who have this cause most at 
heart, at least at times, feel very sadly that the end is not yet near. 
I have no doubt however, although I am not of a hopeful disposi- 
tion. that events are going in the right direction, that we are gaining 
ground, and that success, although, as I have said, it is not near, is 
really now in sight in the distance. When the public attention, al- 
ways most difficult to reach in a matter affecting neither the comfort 
nor the pockets of the public, is a little more enlisted. I believe that the movement will progress with a speed that will surprise its most 
hopeful friends, and that when success does come, it will come far 
more I’apidly and far more certainly than we now dare hope. 
So many things combine to make this cowardly crime hateful to 
every lover of justice. A man need have no great mercy in his mind 
to hate vivisection. If he be passably honest, passably just, he must 
condemn it; far better would it be to have every disease run riot 
through this world—far better I believe, to have human existence 
itself cease, than to prolong it at the cost of such detestable, loathe- 
some and cowardly crimes as those in which vivisection, for the most 
part, consists. 
The continual falsehood and deception to which vivisectors in this 
country are driven to defend their trade, is alone enough to deprave 
these men and condemn their practice. The errors to which it has 
Led in medical and surgical practice, waste of time and energy, the 
distress caused to us, who are not “at a peiffect loss to know in what 
these rights (of animals) consist.'5 at the perpetration of injustice on 
them, the infinite cowardice of tying an animal and rendering it in- 
capable of self defence, a cowardice, I have no hesitation in saying 
that no one but an utterly contemptible coward could perpetrate more 
than a single time—more than one man has confessed to me how he 
despised himself for this particular thing at first, until he was suffi- 
ciently depraved to do it without thought—all these elements, once 
known to and heeded by the public, together with the more impor- 
tant facts that the number of animals vivisected is practically infinite, 
having increased so rapidly that in England it has doubled in a little 
over a year, having grown according to the inspector's report, which 
notoriously minimizes both the suffering caused and the number of 
operations from 2661 in 1891 to 3960 in 1892. a very large majority in 
each year being without anaesthetics, the fact that anaesthetics are 
practically never efficaciously used, and that error and not truth is 
learned from the crime—all these elements will combine to bring to 
destruction the vile system and the abject cowards who live by it. 
Their monstrous pretence that life is more important than anything 
else, that every crime may he perpetrated to prolong it. that this ob- 
ject condones every offence, is one most dangerous to mankind at large. 
“Cowards (except vivisectors) die many times before their deaths. 
The valiant never taste of death but once: 
Of all the wonders that I yet have heard. 
It seems to me most strange that men should fear, 
Seeing that death, a necessary end. 
Will come when it will come." 
15 16 
In explanation of my allusion to the largeness of the number of 
animals vivisected I may say that in two institutions which 1 have 
within a few days visited in Paris, in each of which I was expressly 
told that they keep small supplies for daily use only, and replenish 
the tock every day or two, I nevertheless saw. I should say. over a 
thousand animals intended for vivisection or actually undergoing it, in- 
cluding horses, dogs, monkeys, rabbits, chickens, ducks,pigeons, rats, 
mice, guineapigs. frogs and fish, and was told that they had cows and 
cats also; the small cages alone, in each institution, intended, remem- 
ber, for one day's supply, would easily hold, I believe, five thousand 
animals, each the size of a medium sized dog. 
Relative to anaesthetics,I will say that out of a large number of vivi- 
visections extending over several days, and including various different 
kinds of animals, no anaesthetic or pretence of it was used in one single 
case. I saw no anaesthetics in or about either institution, and feel sure 
that none is ever used, except perhaps in some unusual case. When a 
dog is convulsed with agony.he is readily soothed by a caress so as not to 
disturb his tormentor, and usually licks the hand of his torturer. Any- 
one who will observe a vivisector at work, will see not only that, as 
one infamous perjurer inadvertently confessed, he is absolutely re- 
gardless of the suffering to his victim, but that it must be so. His 
cutting, mangling, burning, is frequently, I may say habitually, just 
exactly the same in the case of the living dog as in the case of the 
dead one. 
I have wfithin one week seen animals operated upon on 
Saturday afternoon, when the vivisectors left their laboratory, left 
alive in the laboratory evidently, and as I was told by the operator, to 
remain until the morning, perhaps Monday morning, unless released 
sooner by an accidental death, before undergoing the conclusion or 
continuation of the experiment. 
The simple matter of securing an animal for experiment, so hard 
does it struggle at times, is of itself, a thing causing intense suffering . 
The ropes are frequently drawn so tightly as to dislocate its limbs. 
To commit such appalling acts, as I have witnessed, which are not 
by any means worse than the average, men must be such infinite 
monsters, such cowardly scoundrels, as no fiend which the imagina- 
tion of man has yet depicted could even faintly resemble. If their 
disposition to this awful crime did not unfit them for the society 
their fellows, surely their practice of it would. Insane or criminal 
or both, penal servitude for life, to w'hich far better men have often 
been and are daily being condemned, would be too lenient a punish- 17 
From LaPression Barometrique, by Pall IJkrt, Paris. 18 
ment. These men are in my judgment, guilty not of breaches of good 
taste, or of misdemeanor only, but of the most monstrously frightful 
crimes of which we can conceive, and the effect of their doctrines on 
mankind could hardly be worse if they were leagued in a conspiracy 
to debauch his morals to the uttermost. 
The late Henry Bergh, a profound student and recognized author- 
ity, wrote to me in 1880, and also told me, that he fully believed that 
the suffering caused by vivisection exceeded all suffering caused by 
all other causes collectively. If that were true then, as I fully be- 
lieve it was, it is probably one hundred times greater now. Vivisec- 
tion had hardly commenced in 1880. How this frightful thing began 
has always been, to my mind, a great mystery. Who first thought of 
it ? Who was not only vile enough, but strange enough, to cut into 
a living animal, to settle his impertinent curiosity. I have often wond- 
ered. When that “evil consequence yet hanging in the stars" began, 
“its awful date” was, indeed, an eventful and momentous time. 
The readiness with which each unit of this world's population 
would ruthlessly sacrifice ten thousand or ten million of its fellows 
for the smallest chance of thereby curing its own finger ache is 
strange and awfnl to contemplate. 
Vivisection has caused incalculable mental pain to all lovers of 
justice who know of its existence. Those who love justice are, of 
course, the best and fairest of our race. The suffering of these people 
alone far, far. exceeds in importance any possible results of a benefi- 
cial nature. In comparison with it all the vivisectors of the world 
are of trilling importance. Fortunate it is that no discovery of value 
has ever been made through it. 
I can imagine few greater evils to man than the prolongation of the 
lives of those who are willing to live by means of vivisection. Those 
men live too long as it is. It has caused many millions to doubt the ex- 
istence of a God—millions to disbelieve. Not only does the harden- 
ing of the conscience caused by the habitual disregard of justice 
unfit the vivisector for deciding any question, the decision of which 
requires a just and equitable mind, but the fact that his living is 
made by the commission of this very crime alone would thus unfit and 
prejudice him. Few are the men even among those who honestly 
try to be just, (which vivisectiors do not) whose judgment is not 
more or less obscured by their interests. That physiologists, and 
their mainstay, the doctors, are not always to be found among these 
few, is proven by the wild enthusiasm with which they hailed the 19 
advent of Pasteur's poisonous broth, and Koch's filthy (so called) 
lymph. How came almost the entire body of the physiologists and 
medical profession to so stupidly run astray after these absurd nos- 
trums, if it were not for the hope that the physiologists would have 
more excuse for vivisection and that tbe doctors would speedily he 
employed in inoculating vast multitudes at remunerative wages'? 
I have seen it seriously proposed that every disease that man is 
heir to could be prevented by its appropriate vaccine. Each infant 
as soon as born should be inoculated with every kind of vaccine, and 
would instantly become proof against every disease. Reliable statist- 
ics show that doctors were paid in the period from 1840 to 1889, the 
sum of 3,156,146 pounds sterling for vaccinating paupers alone—over 
thirty millions of dollars. 
Now if there were ten different diseases requiring vaccination in- 
stead of one. assuming it were made compulsory in every case, would 
not the fact that the doctors would receive over thirty millions sterl- 
ing in the same time prejudice their judgment as regarded its de- 
sirability '? Suppose the lawyers of England asked for legislation re 
quiring not only that every man who had a quarrel should employ a 
lawyer, but that every man living should consult a lawyer to obtain 
advice as to the best means of avoiding a lawsuit, and it should turn 
out that this advice instead of preventing the quarrel, should actu- 
ally cause one and thus lead to the employment of the same lawyer a 
second time and many times—then if the lawyer’s were paid out of 
the tax payers’ money for the advice given to pauper clients the sum 
of one-half million pounds sterling [$2,500,000] a year in addition to 
the amounts which they received from clients who were not paupers, 
aud should protest that they were absolutely indifferent to the money 
side of this question, and that their sole object was to benefit the pub- 
lic, whose happiness was their only desii’e. and that their judgment 
as regai'ded the importance and desirability of the proposed law was in 
nowise affecte d by their interest—then we would have a fair parallel 
between the two cases. 
That compulsory vaccination should be possible, that that law should 
be possible, permitting a doctor to forcibly remove a patient whom he 
believes, or declares that he believes, to be ill with certain contagious 
diseases, from his home, (in the execution of wh;ch law your doctors made 
462 mistakes in one short year—that is to say, they ordei-ed the per- 
emptory removal of 462 patients not suffering from contagious disease, 
on the alleged ground that they were so sufferin )—I say that such a law should be possible in this land of England—where I believe human lib- 
erty is more sacred than in any other part of the world, not excepting 
my own country, is one of those anomalies and anachronisms that it is 
simply impossible to explain. 
A few more words, ladies and gentlemen, and I have finished and 
will make way for a better speaker. I may never again have the honor 
of addressing you. Let me beg of you, in the darkest hours, to remem- 
ber that in America as here, there is a body of determined, aggressive 
workers, men and women of influence and ability, among whom I in no 
wise presume to rank myself, who intend to fight against vivisection s ) 
long as life lasts. They will not be put down by abuse, they will not be 
soothed by flattery. Never, I beg of you, be discouraged at the 
magnitude of the work; or at the smallness of the number of workers. 
We have forces on our side that have not yet declared themselves. But 
I have spoken far longer than I intended and must briug these ram- 
bling, disconnected remarks to a close. On the success of the work 
here in England, depends, I believe, more than we dare think. If vivi- 
section be absolutely prohibited here, the first step will have been 
taken towards its prohibition throughout the world. In France, Ger- 
many and Italy, all of which countries I have recently visited, the day 
of prohibition seems very, very far off. The hopelessness, in the near 
future, of stopping vivisection in those countries, in comparison with 
the chances of that desirable condition being reached here in England 
at no distant day, is vcry sad to comtemplate on one hand, but encourag- 
iug on the other. That vivisectors here should be at their wits' end to 
delude the public, and should be driven to pretences for which their 
foreign brethren simply laugh at them, is a most encouraging sign of 
the times, and speaks volumes for the influence and power of the Vic- 
toria Street Society. When vivisection is prohibited here, we shall find 
countries like those I have named, where the barbarian element is still 
strong, asking why England should prohibit a crime which they have 
hitherto not even noticed. The progress from that question must be 
slow, but, I hope, sure. Once show even the people of France, for 
instance, that the vivisectors can give absolutely no reason for vivisect- 
ing apes, horses, dogs and cats, instead of men, except that men are 
stronger, can speak and defend themselves, and that infinite cowardice 
lies behind all their acts, and their work is doomed. Most men care 
little or nothing to save a dog from vivisection, but entertain a decided 
objection to its practice upon themselves. 
I have within a few days looked upon without exception the most re- 21 
pulsive scenes that I have ever witnessed. I may here state, in passing, by 
way of showing that I am not over and above impressionable, that my 
life has been a somewhat eventful one. I have travelled, in distance, the 
circumference of the earth, many, many times. I have been in many 
railway accidents—some appalling ones—and have seen men and women 
killed, mutilated and dying in almost every possible way. I have seen 
and assisted in many surgical operations, when anaesthetics were and 
were not used. I am pretty thoroughly accustomed to scenes of blood 
and agony, so much so that I have supposed that, however much my 
sympathies might be excited, I would and could see nothing in the way 
of suffering that would greatly move me. I have recently learned, 
however, that I was mistaken. I have recently seen sights that sur- 
passed in repulsive hideousuess all that has ever hitherto come across 
my path. 
In one case, in a small animal fastened to a board by four pins 
one in each foot, and a rubber band on its body, an opening about % of 
an inch square was made, through which the heart was forced out, so as 
to determine the action on the heart of a poison which had been previ- 
ously administered. When its heart’s action became faint, its toes 
were cut, its eyes were pricked and pain was otherwise caused. It was 
finally released and moved about with its intestines exposed for an hour. 
A guinea pig to which the same drug was administered was cut open 
with scissors and lived ten minutes. 
A very large dog was fastened to a table with ropes tied to each foot 
and to its head. An incision was made over the region of the carotid 
artery about four inches long. It was dissected out from the surround- 
ing organs, ligatured above, and a glass tube inserted for the collection 
of blood. A sharp probe was driven through its skull. Its head was 
then released and a wire probe put through its side to the heart. To the 
two probes in brain and heart electricity was applied for several minutes. 
The operation lasted over one hour. 
A small dog which had been operated on some days previously, had 
had its eyes experimented on. One side of its head was cut open, ex- 
posing the nerves of the ear and eye which were dissected out. Elec- 
tricity was applied to the nerves. This operation began at three o’clock 
and was still in progress at lia'f past four. 
The most painful part of all this business was the utter disregard of 
the suffering infiicte'h In the physiological laboratory, to which I was 
invited by the presiding genius, the living dog was in every respect treat- 
ed precisely like the dead one. The rough handling and pulling of the 22 
cut ami mutilated tissues, tlie electrifying of the uerves, all was done 
without the slightest regard, apparently, to the fact that each touch 
caused agony. 
Respecting the very common pastime of vivisectors.of conducting elec- 
tricity over a nerve—two things are noticeable. First, the nerve is 
carefully dissected away from the surrounding tissue, so that the electric 
current must pass directly over the nerve itself, and can, by no possibil- 
ity be diverted elsewhere. Secondly, an animal so near death, or so 
stupified, from any cause, as to be absolutely impervious to ordinary cut- 
ting and mangling, will nevertheless give evidence of suffering the most 
agony as the electricity comes in contact with the nerve 
When we consider that it is common experience that the slightes 
touch, or even jarring the threadlike nerve fibre of a tooth causes ex- 
cruciating pain, we may form some very slight idea of what it is to have 
a large nerve trunk thus irritated ; for example the sciatic or spinal 
nerve. The pain of a touch compared with passing a current of elec- 
tricity over it is apparently trivial. Except by such comparison it must 
seem almost infinite to the victim. 
Now I will not insult your intelligence by telling you that all this 
is worse than useless ; that absolutely no good has ever come from it, 
and it is sufficiently demonstrated that none can come. 
“For Justice, all place a temple, and all seasons summer.” The 
cowards who perpetrate these hideous crimes would soon be doomed, 
if we could only convey one-tenth part of the truth to the public. 
Therein must be our work in the immediate future. Let us leave no 
stone unturned, let us leave nothing undone to bring about this desir- 
able condition. Then it must “follow, as the night the day,” that these 
wretches will be driven, as generations ago they should have been, to 
some other less cowardly and less hypocritical means of livelihood,-and 
the words “vivisector” and “criminal” become interchangeable terms. 
So far as in us lies let us each do his utmost to hasten the work. The 
time is surely coming when man will look back on the work of the past, 
and will be appalled at its contemplation. Then and not until then wil 
the world be fit for a civilized race to inhabit, and we will have reached 
the dawn of the ever-nearing day. 
For your kindness and attention, and especially the patience with 
which you have borne with me during my long and tiresome discourse, 
ladies and gentlemen, I thank you a thousand times. (Great Applause.) 23 
OPERATION ON A LIVING DOG. 
This awful experiment, a drawing of which was exhibited some time 
ago on the hoaidings of London, made even some of the vivisectors 
ashamed and they endeavored to deny that it was done upon the living 
animal. They w'ere met, however, by the very natural query : Why 
muzzle a dead dog ? How it was to serve the human race is not stated. etCeutrj. oSecql’i 2JTtemor icif Sitw etCatt Square, 911-i fnuuTice, 
Henry Bergh is dead. ‘His body is buried in peace but his name 
liveth forevermore,’ and while we may not be able, by anything, that 
we can do, to add to the luster of his fame, yet, for the emulation of 
others who might thereby be led to follow1 after his noble way, we ought, 
in each place where there is a Society for animal protection, to build a 
fountain where thirsty dumb creatures may drink, and place on such 
memorial 
ERECTED BY THE WISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY. 1891. 
TO 
HENRY BERGH 
THE FRIEND AND PROTECTOR OF ANIMALS." 
Henry Bergh wrote to Mr, Peabody, Sept. 2, 1880, after the presenta- 
tion of a bill prohibiting Vivisection to the New York Legislature (which, 
as he expected, was rejected): “I may fail again; but I propose to tight the 
question out on this line if it takes all the rest of my life ! I believe 
that these scientific cruelties surpass all other wrongs inflicted on the 
lower animals—collectively.’’ 
J. SIEOMUNDj PRINTER, AURORA, (LL.