Dehorning. 136 



The proceedings at the trial were given a widespread publicity and 

 an animated newspaper controversy was carried on for several weeks. 

 The greatest difference of opinion was noticeable, the advocates of the 

 practice claiming that it was a positive kindness to the animals, in 

 addition to being a commercial advantage, while many who were 

 opposed to it regarded the operation as one of excruciating torture. 



In view of these circumstances, a Commission was issued on March 

 9, 1892, by the Ontario Government to Hon. Charles Drury, of Crown 

 Hill, Farmer; Richard Gibson, of Delaware, Breeder; D. M. Macpher- 

 son, of Lancaster, Dairyman; Andrew Smith, of Toronto, Veterinarian; 

 Henry Glendinning, of Manilla, Farmer; and J. J. Kelso, of Toronto, 

 Journalist, authorizing and requiring them " To obtain the fullest 

 information in reference to the practice recently introduced into this 

 Province of dehorning cattle, and to make full inquiry into and report 

 with all reasonable speed the reasons for and against the practice, as 

 well by the examination of witnesses as by collecting whatever is 

 accessible of the evidence which has been given by experts dr others in 

 the trials which have taken place on the subject in England, Ireland 

 and Scotland, and in this Pi'ovince, the judgments in the cases tried 

 and any other useful information from any quarter which may be in 

 print or otherwise obtainable." Hon. Mr. Drury was named as chair- 

 man and Mr. Kelso as secretary. 



Evidence before the Commission. 



Evidence was received from the representatives of all the interests 

 affected by the practice, including general farmers, dairymen, drovers, 

 exporters, wholesale and retail butchers, cattle market attendants, 

 tanners, hide merchants, veterinary surgeons, medical practitioners and 

 members of Humane Societies, — ninety-eight in all. 



Of the farmers examined, nearly seventy in number, all who had 

 either performed or seen the operation performed, with three or four 

 exceptions, were strongly in favor of it, the majority stating that they 

 were prejudiced against it on the grounds of cruelty until they gained 

 a practical knowledge of it. Of the farmers opposed to the practice 

 not more than three or four had ever seen the opei'ation but they 

 thought it cruel and unnecessary. 



Evidence as to the loss caused by animals using their horns upon 

 each other was given by cattle buyers and others in frequent attendance 

 at the cattle market, and also by butchers and tanners. 



Among veterinary surgeons a considerable conflict of opinion was 

 found to exist. As in the case of the farmers those who had seen the 



