180 ON INOCULATION AS A MEANS FOR THE 



Ou these heads the report gives information which we sum- 

 marise as follows: — 



There was a decided ditficulty in carrying out the principles 

 of the general law. Proprietors did not receive any compensa- 

 tion for the compulsory slaughter of their cattle, and. therefore, 

 scrupulously kept the presence of disease in their stock a pro- 

 found secret. Contemporaneous with this fact, exportation being 

 also prohibited, the non-removal of cattle caused a fearful and 

 rapid extension of disease. 



In provincial places, however, different results were obtained. 

 The introduction of diseased cattle ivas prevented. Compensation 

 for slaughter and death ivas cdloived, and in numerous instances 

 the disease was entirely confined to the iiilace inhere it originally 

 hrohe out. In Friesland the precautions were badly observed 

 and disease prevailed extensively. In Zealand the absence of 

 disease was insured by the ol^servauce of the law, and on account 

 of its peculiar situation. In " Groningen and Dreuthe, where 

 all the infected cattle are destroyed, the disease is inconsiderable." 

 With regard to inoculation, the reporters state that it has been 

 employed with success attending extensive trials. " It has been 

 necessary to encouiivge it by providing means for performing the 

 operation at the public expense by rewards to veterinarians and 

 to farmers, and by compensating for loss and injury to cattle 

 which had been inoculated. This was necessary both on account 

 of the reluctance of farmers to disclose the existence of disease in 

 their stock so long as it could be safely concealed, and also because 

 of general prejudice against the remedy. The result of two years' 

 experience of this system in South Holland was that it became 

 well known and generally applied thoroughout the greatest part of 

 the province ; that the apprehension of mischievous consequences 

 diminished; that the preventive power of the remedy was ad- 

 mitted on account of the few instances in which inoculated cattle 

 had been subsequently attacked by tlie disease; that the disease 

 perceptibly diminished in the commune where inoculation was 

 most generally applied, while it continued to exist where little 

 or nothing was done in the application of these means; that ino- 

 culation could be safely resorted to in uninfected stalls without 

 fear of thereby infecting uniuoculated cattle; and that the 

 practice of it in infected stalls, while it secured the healthy 

 cattle from infection, checked the development of the disease ii^ 

 the infected and apparently still healthy." 



There are several points lost sight of by the reporter, and in 

 their absence the arguments in favour of inoculation appear to 

 gain considerable strength. 



The farmers maintained a studied secrecy in reference to the 

 existence of pleuro-pneumonia in their cattle, and by illicit 

 removals, as well as keeping the animals crowded together, the 



