28 BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. [Jan., 



session of the legislature, and we preferred to place it in their 

 hands than to involve Mr. Mcrvvin and the Board in a legal 

 contest and perliaps a considerable expense. We have done 

 all tliat the law required of us, but have failed to secure the 

 object sought for by the law, the protection of the State. 



Mr. Merwin, at the session of 1881, asked of the General 

 Assembly compensation for the loss from quarantine of his 

 horses, and received -1275. , 



A substitute bill was proposed which was not acceptable to 

 Mr. Merwin. It provided that the liorses should be slaugh- 

 tered and if found glandered the loss should be borne by 

 Mr. Merwin ; but if found not glandered Mr. Merwin should 

 receive six Imndred and fifty dollars from the State treasury. 



Uenry G. Newton, Esq., attorney for Mr. Merwin, wrote us 

 July 16th, proposing that Mr. Merwin would furnisli a horse 

 for inoculation, and also furnish a knife for inoculation, the 

 horse to be inoculated by a veterinarian of our choice, and to 

 remain in Mr. Merwin's charge after tlie inoculation. 



We replied that we had already begun legal proceedings, 

 but would refer the matter to the Board. No action was 

 taken l)y the Board when the case was presented. 



The selectmen of Durham have been ke{)t informed of our 

 action in quarantining the liorses of Mr. Merwin, and also 

 when we have given him the notice requiring him to slaugh- 

 ter them. They have expressed no desire to inform them- 

 selves of the' facts in the case, or to sustain the law, but have 

 embarrassed our action in our efforts to secure its enforce- 

 ment. 



The claim made by Mr. Merwin that the Commission should 

 act under the general law instead of under the specific law 

 for glanders has never been accepted by your Commission. 

 The opinion of the Commission, that for glanders we were to 

 act under the specific law, is based upon a knowledge of the 

 intention of the Committee of Agriculture of the General 

 Assembly of 1880, wOio reported both laws, and a knowledge 

 of the intention of the legislature that enacted them, con- 

 firmed by the eminent legal authorities consulted by us. 



The law on glanders, though of priority .in passage, was 



