A CORRECTION 
OF CERTAIN STATEMENTS PUBLISHED 
IN THE “ZOOPHILIST” 
ALSO 
A CASTIGATION AND AN APPEAL 
BY 
H. NEWELL MARTIN, M.A., M.D., D.Sc. 
Professor in the Johns Hopkins University. 
BALTIMORE 
1885. A CORRECTION 
OF CERTAIN STATEMENTS PUBLISHED 
IN THE “ZOOPHILIST” 
ALSO 
A CASTIGATION AND AN APPEAL 
BY 
H. NEWELL MARTIN, M. A., M.D., D. Sc. 
Professor in the Johns Hopkins University. 
BALTIMORE 
1885. PRESS OF ISAAC FRIEDENWALD. There is issued monthly in England a journal named the Zoophilist, 
endorsed, if statements on its title-page be true, by Societies including 
in their membership many persons whose good opinion is a worthy 
object of desire. 
This journal has for some time devoted its energies to the malicious 
misrepresentation of physiologists and others in Europe who differ in 
opinion from its editors. Its essential untruthfulness having been 
repeatedly exposed, it is possible that its circulation is beginning to 
languish. Whatever the reason, it speaks in the issue of December r, 
1884, of the “ lethargy and indifference which, unfortunately, sometimes 
seem to be creeping over the public mind.” Perhaps to arouse the 
public from this lethargy, it publishes what purports to be an account of 
experiments made by me : an account so glaringly false that exposure 
must have been anticipated. However, by choosing a victim across the 
Atlantic a few weeks at least could be counted on, during which the 
stimulant might act; and that, too, at a period of the year when a 
renewal of annual subscriptions was very desirable. 
Moreover, by a failure to observe that rule of common decency which 
prescribes that a copy of a printed attack on any person shall be sent to 
him by those responsible for its publication, the Zoophilist people have 
gained three months during which to hold me up, undefended and 
unaware, to public obloquy. Only by accident, two or three days 
since, was my attention called to the December number of this scurrilous 
journal. 
The published paper of mine which the Zoophilist takes as a text for 
some two pages of misrepresentation is entitled “ The direct influence 
of gradual variations of temperature upon the rate of beat of the dog’s 
heart.” It was sent by me to one of the secretaries of the Royal Society 
of London, with the request that he present it to the Society. He kindly 
Hid so, and the paper was then, in accordance with invariable custom, 4 
referred to a committee of experts. This committee advised that it be 
printed in full in the Transactions of the Society. The Council of the 
Royal Society subsequently selected it, from among all other papers 
presented to them and dealing with animal motions, as the “ Croonian 
Lecture ” for the year 1883. 
Having this endorsement from the most important body of scientific 
men in Great Britain, I am, naturally, not greatly worried because the 
Zoophilistof my “learned jargon and supposed results.” Had 
it stopped there I should have nothing to say. Its editors are entitled 
to their opinion: this, truly, is not of much weight; were it only honest, 
I should never dream ot meddling with them on account of it. 
The Zoophilist has, however, gone far beyond the boundary which 
separates honest from dishonest argument; it has wilfully so misstated 
my doings as to put those responsible for its publication outside the 
pale of reasonable discussion, and to make it a public duty to expose 
them. I shall therefore address myself to the general public, who have 
a right to know whether, either with or without reasonable cause, I have 
inflicted frightful torments on sensitive creatures. More especially have 
the people of Baltimore who intrust me with the education of their sons, 
a right to know whether I am abusing that trust by teaching them to 
wantonly inflict pain. 
In order to expose the falsehoods of the Zoophilist I must state the 
object and exact nature of the investigation which it pronounces to 
have been the cause of “ most frightful torments.” In so doing I shall 
have to deal with dry, scientific facts, having nothing thrilling or blood- 
curdling about them'. These may seem tedious to the lay reader, 
especially to one used to the highly-spiced fiction of the Zoophilist; but I 
ask a patient hearing, if for no other end than to vindicate my University 
from the charge of having placed one of its most important departments 
under the direction of a callous brute. 
That my experiments, treated of by the Zoophilist under the head of 
“ English and American Callousness,” were practically useful and caused 
but little pain can be easily shown. 
First, as to usefulness: Every one is aware that in very many cases, 
severe fevers result in death. It is well known to medical men that 
most such deaths are due to failure of the heart. This failure is caused 
by too rapid rate of beat, the organ not getting rest enough between its 
strokes for nourishment and repair. This quicker beat might be due to 
any of four or five possible causes, stated more fully in my original 
paper. To ascertain which of them was mainly responsible for it, and 5 
thus throw light upon the proper means to be adopted to save life, was 
the object of my research ; an object which, I am proud to say, I in 
large measure attained. 
Next, as to the amount of pain inflicted: My first endeavor was to 
put out of action, to kill, all parts of the body but the heart and lungs. 
These do not possess consciousness and are incapable of suffering pain 
when the brain is dead. In my paper it is stated that “ the fundamental 
idea on which all my work on the isolated mammalian heart has been 
based is to occlude all vessels of the systemic circulation except those 
supplying the heart itself. . . . The heart and lungs being supplied with 
blood, alone retain their vitality; all extraneous nerve centres, getting 
no blood, soon die with the remainder of the animal.” In the next 
paragraph I state that the animal was, as a preliminary, “placed under 
the influence of chloroform, ether, morphia, or curar6.” To the matter 
of curare I shall return presently. All the animals but two were operated 
on without its use, and while under the influence of some one or more 
of the above-named anaesthetics. In these cases no pain whatever was 
inflicted except, in some, the slight smarting due to hypodermic injection 
of morphia. In order to expose the heart and tie the main arteries, the 
chest of the perfectly unconscious animal was opened; this and the 
death of the brain, which keeps the muscles of breathing at work, made 
the employment of artificial respiration necessary. The whole creature, 
except heart and lungs, having been killed while deeply narcotised, 
blood, whose temperature was varied by carefully devised apparatus, 
was circulated through those organs, and through them only; and its 
effect upon the rate of beat of the heart observed. The heart and 
lungs were left in the chest of the dead dog simply because it formed a 
better receptacle for them than any I could make. So far as the 
experiment proper was concerned they might have been removed and 
placed in any vessel of suitable shape and size. 
After the experiments made under undoubted anaesthetics were com- 
pleted, the apparatus perfected, and those of my pupils who acted as my 
assistants thoroughly skilled, so that all risk of failure was reduced to a 
minimum, two experiments were performed under curar6, a drug the 
power of which to destroy consciousness is still in doubt. The reason 
for making these was that chloroform, ether, and morphia act themselves 
on the heart; and to finally clinch the question as to the influence of hot 
blood on that organ, it was necessary to experiment on a heart which 
had not been exposed to possible alteration by the action of any one 
of them. 
In the two cases in which curar6 was used, a small cut was made 6 
through the skin on one side of the neck, so as to expose a part of the 
jugular vein. This vein was tied, the nozzle of a syringe placed in it, 
and a few drops of solution of curare injected. The skin cut no doubt 
caused a little pain, but not more than that resulting from a cut finger, 
even if a dog’s skin were as sensitive as that of man, which it is well 
known not to be. Tying the vein, inserting the syringe, and injecting 
the curar6 are painless operations. Next the skin in front of the neck 
was divided for a short distance, and through this incision the muscles 
covering the windpipe and the carotid arteries were carefully pushed aside 
(an operation which causes no pain) ; then a tracheotomy tube, such as 
surgeons often place in the windpipe of children threatened by death 
from croup, was inserted in the dog’s windpipe, both carotid arteries 
were tied, and the sensory nerves going from the heart and lungs to the 
brain divided. This whole operation occupied, at the outside, three or 
four minutes; and once the carotids were closed, the supply of blood to 
the brain was reduced to so small a quantity that all feeling was deadened, 
and the animal, in that regard, in the condition of a person in a fainting 
fit. Then the upper part of the chest was opened and the subclavian 
arteries tied. To accomplish this took some three or four minutes after 
the animal had been made almost completely unconscious by tying its 
carotids. 
The brain gets blood only from the carotid and vertebral arteries ; 
the latter are small branches of the subclavians. After the subclavians 
had been tied, total unconsciousness resulted within less than a minute. 
The operation was then completed as in the cases in which anaesthetics 
were given. 
To sum up. In the whole series of experiments no animals, except 
two, suffered any more pain than the skin prick necessary to administer 
morphia hypodermically. In the two exceptional cases the pain was due 
to small incisions through the skin of the neck and the introduction of 
a tracheotomy tube. Within four minutes this pain was nearly (probably 
completely) abolished by tying the main arteries of the brain, and within 
another four minutes was made impossible by the tying up of the 
remaining two small arteries which carry blood to that organ. So that 
within eight minutes from the beginning of the experiment the animal 
was past all possibility of feeling. 
Now let us turn to the account given by my anonymous slanderer in the 
Zoophilist. I shall not characterize as falsehoods any of his statements 
which could possibly have been made through ignorance. When, 
however, he proceeds from the graphic description of imaginary tortures, 7 
to the misstatement of facts concerning which it was impossible for him' to 
be mistaken, I shall not hesitate to brand him as he merits. He is hostis 
huviani generis, and to be treated as such. I shall number consecutively 
such of his falsehoods as I quote, and precede the numbers by that 
monosyllable which the English language provides for use in such cases. 
The Zoophilist. 
“ In the terrible experiments . . . 
which we exposed some time ago, 
it might well have been anticipated 
that the lowest depths of torment 
had been reached. But Dr. Michael 
Foster . . . has found something 
even more outrageously inhuman, 
and has had it published in the 
Philosophical Proceedings {sic) 
of the Royal Society for the year 
1883. These new experiments 
were performed by Professor H. 
Newell Martin, M. D., D. Sc., of 
the Johns Hopkins University.” 
The Truth. 
The paper was not “ found ” by 
Dr. Michael Foster, but sent to him 
by me; he did not “ have it pub- 
lished,” except as one member 
among many of the Council of the 
Royal Society. It is, however, 
possible that the writer makes the 
contrary statements in ignorance, 
and I give him the benefit of the 
doubt. 
“ We do not know whether the 
energetic opponents of scientific 
torture in America are aware of 
these experiments, but at any rate 
they will now become informed 
upon the subject, and will, we 
hope, re-echo in that far-off land 
the deep protest which we now- 
utter against the uncontrolled per- 
petration of experimental opera- 
tions on the dog which it would not 
be an exaggeration to characterise 
as brutal.” 
Whether my “ experimental 
operations ” were brutal, my 
readers must judge for themselves. 
I have placed the facts before them. 
“ It will be seen that . . . the 
animals are said to be placed under 
the influence of chloroform, ether, 
morphia, or curare.” 
By italicising the “or” before 
curar6 the writer insinuates that 
my whole statement is uncandid ; 
he also thus leads up to his own 
falsehoods. 8 
“ But when the fuller details of 
the treatment of each animal come 
to be given, it is stated in four cases 
that the dog to be used was chloro- 
formed during the operation of 
isolating the heart, and in two that 
it was narcotised by morphia in- 
jected subcutaneously. But by 
the expression ‘ after tracheotomy,’ 
which indicates that artificial respir- 
ation was set up, it is absolutely 
certain that each unfortunate beast 
was also curarised,” 
Lie 1. No one of these six ani- 
mals had any curar6, and the 
writer in the Zoophilist knows it. 
Why artificial respiration was used 
I have already explained. 
“ in which condition it would be 
impossible to anaesthetise it.” 
Lie 2. It is perfectly possible to 
anaesthetise a curarised animal, 
and I always give one of the 
undoubted anaesthetics along with 
curar6, when compatible with the 
end in view. 
“We are compelled thus to 
generalise the operations in the 
narrator’s own words, the details 
being too absolutely sickening for 
repetition.” 
Lie 3. The generalisation of the 
Zoophilist, beginning “ In plaiq 
English, what was done,” fills 
seventeen and three-quarters lines. 
Of these, one line and a word are 
quoted from my paper. 
“ An eminent physiologist in- 
orms us, however, that it is far 
more likely to have been the case 
that just as vivisectors have tried 
how much of the brain they 
could remove or destroy without 
extinguishing the life of an animal, 
an attempt was here made to perpe- 
trate a corresponding experiment 
upon the blood circulation.” 
That the informant of the Zoophi- 
list vs, eminent is possible; that he is 
aphysiologist is improbable; that he 
is “an eminent physiologist ” is so 
nearly impossible that I run little 
risk of committing an injustice 
when I characterise this state- 
ment as Lie 4. 
“ In this case, efforts were made 
to keep the animal alive for as long 
a time as possible,” 
Lie 5. The aim throughout was 
to kill all the animal except its 
heart and lungs, as quickly as 
possible. 9 
“ during the whole of which period 
it was undergoing unspeakable 
agony.” 
Lie 6. No one of the animals 
suffered agony ; only two suffered 
pain ; and this slight pain lasted 
less than ten minutes, though the 
experiments continued for hours. 
On the last page of the Zoophilist is the printed statement that it is 
the organ of the Victoria Street Society for the Protection of Animals 
from Vivisection; also a list of the officers of that Society.* 
In that list appears your name, my Lord Chief Justice of England. Do 
you, whose glory it is to be the sworn servant of equity between man and 
man, intend to countenance a journal which exists by and for defamation 
of character? 
Your eminence Cardinal Manning, your name also appears in this 
list; also yours, my Lord Bishops of Winchester, of Bath and Wells, of 
Oxford, and of Liverpool. You venerate and teach a moral code which 
contains the solemn prohibition, “ Thou shalt not bear false witness 
against thy neighbour.” Are you willing to endorse a publication 
which habitually violates that command ? 
You, Sir William Thomson, are a vice-president of this Society. Last 
October you were the honored guest of the Johns Hopkins University, 
and in a special way of its Biological Laboratory. You stood in my 
place in my class-room, day after day, and from it addressed your 
students. Do you believe that my laboratory is organized for the pur- 
pose of wantonly torturing dumb animals and of training students to 
practice such torture ? If not, do you intend to support by your weighty 
authority, as a leader in experimental science, the mercenary scribes of 
the Zoophilist? 
You, princes and princesses, duchesses, marquises, earls, lords, ladies 
and gentlemen, vice-presidents and members of the committee, are you 
willing to remain officers of a society which uses a scurrilous newspaper 
as its mouthpiece ? A copy of this pamphlet will be sent to each of you ; 
you must then decide whether you are willing to continue responsible 
for the propagation of falsehood. 
My fellow-physiologists of the United States, have you no duty in 
this matter ? For some reason our British brethren have to a great extent 
followed a policy of silence in dealing with unfair attacks. For myself, 
*1 rely here on the number published last July, the only one at hand. The copy 
of the December number which I possess had its last page torn off before it 
reached me. IO 
I shall make it my business to expose slander circulated concern- 
ing ipy work whenever I think it desirable. But individual opposition 
to an unscrupulous corporation is not sufficient. The article in the 
Zoophilist which I have shown up in the preceding pages, laid its 
publishers open to trial and conviction for criminal libel. They knew, 
however, that a college professor would not be likely to face the expense 
of such a lawsuit, and have taken advantage of this knowledge. Is it 
not time for us to combine, that we may secure the due punishment of 
such lawless attacks ? 
Further, as official representatives of that science which has for its 
objects the discovery of the phenomena of life, of the conditions of 
health, and the methods of preventing and curing disease in man and 
the lower animals, is it not our duty to protect the general public from 
being led astray by falsehood ? To us the stories of the Zoophilist are so 
incredible, we hardly realize that any one can be deceived by them. 
We must nevertheless bear in mind that persons unacquainted with 
the objects and methods of physiological science, can hardly help being 
imposed upon by such ingeniously falsified statements. No honest man 
or woman finds it easy to believe that, month after month, year after 
year, falsehood upon falsehood should be printed and disseminated 
without some substantial basis of fact. Yet this has been, is, and no 
doubt will be, the aim and policy of the Zoophilist, and this journal is now 
being energetically distributed in the United States. 
If the precise truth concerning every physiological experiment made 
in this country be brought before the public immediately after its 
misrepresentation in any anti-vivisection journal, our science is safe. 
Truth cannot hurt it. Publicity will swell the ranks of its students. 
Legislation impeding our work need not be feared. Human and 
animal disease and suffering will be diminished, life prolonged, and the 
world made better as well as happier, through our researches. If we 
fail to use every effort to protect and promote these researches, are we 
not guilty toward our fellow-men and the lower animals dependent 
on us ? 
Friends and fellow-townsmen, I have placed before you a statement 
of facts which makes it clear that any assertion proceeding from those 
persons who desire to prohibit experiments on animals is open to 
suspicion as regards its truthfulness. 
I have lived and worked among you for nearly nine years in good repute, 
and now that a foreign journal is circulated through this community, 
describing me as a monster glorying in the useless torment of helpless 11 
victims, you may deem it needless for me to notice the charge. But, in 
view of the nature of this attack, the source whence it proceeds, and 
the movement it is designed to initiate, I have felt it my duty to lay 
the matter before you. 
Hereafter, when you may be assailed by charges of inhumanity brought 
against me and those who work with me, if you feel the least doubt as 
to the falsity of such accusations, I beg you to visit my laboratory and 
judge for yourselves of what goes on within its walls. 
February 25, 1885.