No. 7. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 651 



THE PENNSYLVANIA STALLION J.AW . 



V,y I»U. CAUL W. GAY, Philadelphia. 



I have advertised the Pennsylvania Stallion Law np one side and 

 down the other, until it seems like an old story, and I hesitate to 

 say any more about it, but for that very reason it does seem desirable 

 to say something about it after a year of operation, and at the request 

 of Mr. Norton and Mr. Bayard, we will take it up for your discussion. 



Stallion laws have been passed in this country by Wisconsin, Min- 

 nesota, Utah, Iowa, and NeAV Jersey, and now Ohio and Kansas are 

 adopting the same things, and I happen to know that Indiana will 

 not be long in falling into line. 



So far as the operation of the law has been concerned in this State, 

 perhaps you have heard criticism after criticism made, and there are 

 some things in the law that require amendment, and they will be 

 amended by the people of Pennsylvania. 



Now, I have had the opportunity this past year of getting at this 

 law from various view points — from the point of view of the men 

 who were responsible for its enactment^ — from the point of view of 

 the men who were responsible for its enforcement, and, lastly, and 

 most important, from the mare owner's point of view. In these views 

 I find certain criticisms that I have already referred to, and I think 

 they come from two sources. 



There are two classes of stallion owners ; the first, are the men who 

 own good horses. They commend the idea of the law, but they claim 

 it does not give them the protection they should have, and with that 

 criticism I sympathize. The other class I cannot sympathize with; 

 they are the men who are pinched by the law. They are men whom 

 the law has permitted the opportunity of standing their horses for 

 public service, and they have no just cause for complaint. 



Now, in regard to this report of the Committee, I would say that 

 it meets with the entire approval of the Department. The report 

 was referred to the Veterinarian before being presented, and has the 

 entire approval of that Department. I know something of this com- 

 mittee and their work. Some of you may be surprised that they do 

 not specify unsoundness, but there is so much latitude in that, so much 

 difference in opinion as to what really constitutes unsoundness, that 

 I think they have very wisely recommended stating in the certificate 

 what particular form of unsoundness the horse is suffering from, 

 and then leaving it to the breeder's option whether to breed to him 

 or not. Nearly all the states agree as to what really constitutes un- 

 soundness; they all have practically the same list. Iowa is unique 

 in that it does not refer at all to unsoundness. 



My observations have led me to believe that we are not justified in 

 raising a certain list of diseases as disqualifying a horse absolutely. 

 There may be cases which would come under the list, which would 

 absolutely not affect a horse from a breeding standpoint, and there 

 are other things besides soundness that make a horse good. We should 

 do nothing to discourage horse breeding in this State. In a general 

 w\ay, I should say disqualify every form of unsoundnes.'^, but you take 

 all the horses in Pennsylvania, and you will find that very few of them 

 are entirely free from one form or another of unsoundness, and in 

 disqualifying these horses for some form of unsoundness, you are 

 disqualifying some of the best horses in thp State. In spite of the 



