ments with this system of shoeing, if it may be so named, I have always found every particle of horn useful, and never could discover that it caused any inconvenience.
At first this important modification of the ordinary mode of arming the hoof gave rise to very animated discussions. It was argued that it possessed very little novelty, and that it was but a slight improvement, or otherwise, on Lafosse's imbedded shoe. There is certainly not much difference if one compares a section of the two methods. Lafosse's we see in figure 197, and Charlier's in figure 198.
 | |
| fig. 197 | fig. 198 |
The shoe of the first-named veterinarian was lighter and narrower, and lay in a space between the sole and crust; whereas Charlier's shoe rested on the crust alone, and was thicker, a trifle wider, and much heavier.
Then grave doubts were entertained as to the amount of injury likely to be inflicted by a rim of iron placed so near the sensitive and vascular parts of the foot. To imbed the thick shoe, so that a portion of the sole might reach the ground, required the removal of so large a piece of the crust, that the union between it and the sole was seriously threatened; the shoe being thicker than the latter, it will be easily seen that to incrust it thoroughly a most extensive chasm had to be made around the margin of the sole, whose attachment with the crust was therefore greatly weakened. This objection appears to have
