No. G. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. . 87 



RKPORT OF THE STATK VETERINARIAN. 



Harrisburg, Pa., December 31, 1903. 



Itouoi-able N. li. Critchflcld, Secretary of Agriculture, Ilarrishurg^ 



Pa.: 



Sir: I liave the honor to present to jou this report on the work of 

 the State Veterinarian for the year 1903. With the report of the 

 Veterinary Division of the Department of Agriculture, I have in- 

 corporated a report of the work of the State Live Stock Sanitary 

 Board, for the reason that these two lines of work are so intimately 

 connected that it does not seem possible to disassociate them. 

 While the State Veterinarian is an ofilcer of the Department of Ag- 

 riculture, authority for the control of the infectious diseases of 

 animals is not vested in the Department of Agriculture, but in the 

 State Live Stock Sanitary Board. This Board is composed of the 

 Governor of the Commonwealth, the Secretary of Agriculture, the 

 Dairy and Food Commissioner and the State Veterinarian. It will 

 be seen that while the State Live Stock Sanitary Board is a separate 

 organization, all of its members, with the exception of the Governor, 

 are officers of the Department of Agriculture, and thus it happens 

 that the Board has come to be looked upon as a part of the Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture although, strictly speaking, this is not the case. 



During the year that has just closed, the work that has fallen to 

 me as State Veterinarian and as Secretary of the State Live Stock 

 Sanitary Board, has continued to grow in volume and, I believe, 

 in importance to the well-being of the animal industries of the 

 State. It is pleasing to record the fact that, as heretofore, this 

 work has been carried out in complete harmony and accord with all 

 of the organized agricultural, live stock and public health interests. 

 The live stock owners of the State realize that it is chiefly in their 

 interest that diseases of animals are controlled. It is a great ex- 

 ception to find a live stock owner who is not willing to co-operate 

 heartily and effectively in such measures adopted by authority of 

 the State as may be necessary to repress an outbreak of an infec- 

 tious disease am.ong animals. While this conditoin is one that, theo- 

 retically, seems to be entirely natural, if not inevitable, it is, never- 

 theless, worthy of note for the reason that in many states the most 

 active opposition similar work has had to meet, has been from the 

 owners of animals. There can be no difference of opinion among 



