1882.] DISEASES OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS. 21 



No one would think of seeking compensation for a rabid animal in 

 which death would certainly have occurred at an early date in any case. 

 Glanders and tuhercidosis are not necessarily fatal, but genuine and per- 

 manent recoveries are rare, and the ap23arent recoveries so commonly 

 seen are but a temjiorary covering up of the poison, to break out again 

 whenever the patient is subjected anew to unhealthy conditions. These, 

 therefore, are especially to be feared, since in these apparently convales- 

 cent conditions as liable to propngate a most dangerous affection, through 

 milk and flesh, etc., to man and animals. The recovery from anthrax, 

 on the other hand, is a full and permanent recovery, and insures the 

 patient against any further attack of the same disease, just as does a 

 first attack of small-pox, rinderpest, or lung jilague. Slaughter for an- 

 thrax, rinderpest, or lung plague would, therefore, abstractly give the 

 owner a much better title to indemnity than would compulsory slaugh- 

 ter for glanders or tuberculosis. If we look at the other side of the 

 question, it will doubtless apjiear that the entire extinction of glanders 

 in a State will be greatly hastened by giving indemnity for the animals 

 killed. If the owner is assured that he can get a reasonable recom- 

 pense for a diseased horse that is almost doomed to die in any case, that 

 may infect himself or his employees fatally, and that he is liable to a 

 fine for exposing in any public place, he will very naturally turn to the 

 authorities for assistance in place of hiding away the disease. In New 

 York it is illegal to use a glandered horse on the public highways, but 

 the enforcement of the law is nobody's business, hence it is a dead letter, 

 and hundreds of glandered horses are kept constantly at work in New 

 York and Brooklyn. To meet such cases you must either employ a staff 

 of inspectors and subject the whole equine population to examination, 

 or you must encourage the owners to report by the promise of indem- 

 nity. For a speedy staminng out of the disease, I believe the ofl'er of an 

 indemnity would be a most valuable measure. I do not think the owner 

 has any just claim to indemnity, but I think, as a matter of expediency, 

 indemnity would work well. 



2d. The history of your two cases, the manifest symptoms of glan- 

 ders in the early stages, and the supervention of glanders in the two 

 horses inoculated by Dr. Liautard, give the most irrefragible evidence 

 that this is the disease you are dealing with. Any delay to test the 

 matter further by additional inoculations seems to savor of obstruction, 

 and would appear to be quite uncalled for. Dr. Liautard appeared as 

 no partisan, and declined to give a diagnosis until he had tested the 

 matter by inoculation. Bias is therefore out of the question. He took 

 the only right course to be followed in doubtful cases, as horses with 

 chronic glanders will improve or remain stationary under rest, good 

 feeding, and good air; delay could therefore serve no good end. It 

 would only strengthen tlie doubts. Inoculation gave the sole means of 

 deciding. The inoculation of two subjects removed the objection that 



