TENTH ANNUAL. YEAR BOOK-PART IV 117 



The statute originally known as the twenty-eight-hour law was enacted 

 at the third session of the Forty-second Congress and became a law by 

 the approval of President Grant on March 3d, 1873. It was later re- 

 pealed and supplemented by the present law, effective June 29, 1906. The 

 original statute has an interesting history. No less than four bills were 

 introduced and five sessions of congress wrestled with the problem before 

 it was passed. The measure seems to have originated with the New York 

 Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. While the sentiment 

 of congress appeared to be unanimous in favor of the humane treatment 

 of animals in transit, there was some objection to the measure on prac- 

 tical grounds, and there was strong opposition on the legal and political 

 question of constitutionality. In the debate on the latter phase of the 

 subject, some of the most eminent men in congress at that period took 

 part. 



The first bill in the series was introduced by Representative John T. 

 Wilson of Ohio, May 16, 1870, during the second session of the Forty-first 

 Congress. Mr. Wilson was also the father of the bill which finally became 

 a law. Other bills were introduced by Senator Conklin of New York and 

 Senator Henry Wilson of Massachusetts. The necessity of such a law 

 and the conditions leading up to the agitation of the subject,- I have just 

 described. Mr. Wilson went on to say that it had been shown to the satis- 

 faction of the committee on agriculture that cattle shipped from the pro- 

 ducing regions of the west to the eastern markets were confined in the 

 cars from four to five days without food and water. 



In the senate it was stated by Senator Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania 

 that the records kept by Brigham Young showed that an ox weighing 

 1,500 pounds, shipped from Utah, would lose on an average of 230 pounds 

 by the time it reached Chicago. Such were the arguments used by the 

 members who introduced and advocated the bills. 



Aside from the question of constitutionality, several objections of a 

 practical nature were brought forward in the course of the various de- 

 bates. Senator Thurman of Ohio expressed the belief that as it was to 

 the interest of the trade to ship cattle in improved cars, such cars should 

 be provided in time without legislation, and that for the present it would 

 be- a hardship to throw out of use the old cars in which millions of dollars 

 were invested. Others asserted that the law would cause great expense 

 to the railroads and the shippers and that the matter was one which 

 should be left to their control, as the shippers were mostly interested in 

 reducing shrinkage and preventing loss on their animals. This sounds 

 very much like the fallacious argument that is still used sometimes 

 against the government work for the control of contagious diseases — that 

 the stock owners are financially concerned in getting rid of disease and 

 the matter should therefore be left to them. 



Another and sounder agrument, which is applicable in some respects 

 today, was stated by Representative Archer of Maryland, in these words: 

 "Any member of this house who has ever seen any of the cattle yards 

 of this country can imagine what kind of rest cattle would thus obtain 

 and what humanity there would be in placing them in any of these 

 miserable, muddy places. These cattle, after having been detained in 



