BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTEY. 461 



So many animals liad been exposed to the contagion, and there "was 

 such imminent danger of the infection of other States, and even of the 

 ranges of the Territories, while the restrictions on interstate commerce 

 promised to become a source of even greater loss, it was deemed very 

 desirable from a national point of view to use every possible means of 

 stamping out the disease at once and thoroughly. On consideration it 

 appeared that the animal industry law might be so construed as to 

 allow the use of the unexpended part of the appropriation for the slaugh- 

 ter of diseased or exposed animals, providing this was considered as an 

 act of disinfection. Accordingly a letter of inquiry was addressed to 

 the Attorney-General of the United States as follows : 



Departjient of Agriculture, 

 Bureau of Animal Industry, 

 Washington. B. C, April 16, 1885. 

 Sir : I desire to call your attention to the act establishing the Bureaii of Animal 

 Industry, approved May 29, 1884, and to ask your opinion as to the proper construc- 

 tion to 1)6 given the vrords " and in such disinfection and quarantine measures as may 

 bo necessary to prevent the spread of tho disease from cue State or Territory into 

 another," which may bo found just preceding the close of the third section. The law 

 was the result of a demand for a measure for the suppression of the coutagious pleuro- 

 pneumonia of cattle, and while other infectious and contagious diseases of domestic 

 animals were included among those to be investigated and sujipressed, that of con- 

 tagious pleuro-pneumonia Avas regarded as of paramount importance. As this disease 

 is incurable, and the only way of suppressing it is by tho slaughter of diseased and 

 infected animals, I desire to know if, in the sense in which the word " disinfection " 

 is used in the law, I am not authorized to purchase diseased and iufected animals for 

 the purpose of slaughter, i. e., " disinfection." 



The yeterinary profession the world over unites in recommending the slaughter of 

 animals affected with pleuro-ijueumonia as the most essential, in fact the indispen- 

 sable, measure of disinfection for this disease, and this view is now accepted and 

 acted upon by the leading nations of Europe, including Groat Britain, Germany, 

 Holland, Belgium, Switzerland and Trance. 

 An early reply is requested. 

 A^'ery respectfully, 



NOEMAN J. COLMAN, 



Couunissioncr. 

 Hon. A. n. Garland, 



Attorney-General. 



The reply to this letter is given below : 



Departjient of Justice, 



Washington, April 21, 1885. 



Sir: Yours of the 18th instant calls attention to tho act of 1884, chapter 60, en- 

 titled, *' To provide means for the suppression and extirpation of pleuro-pneumonia," 

 &c., and, referring particularly to words giving you power to expend money " in 

 such disinfection and quarantine measures as may be necessary to prevent the spread 

 of disease from one State or Territory into another," asks whether by these words you 

 rro not "authorized to purchase diseased and infected animals for the purpose of 

 slaughter i. c, disinfection." 



At the same time you state that the destruction of animals infected with pleuro- 

 pneumonia is recognized by experts as the only way of putting a stop to the spread 

 of that disease. 



Conceding that this opinion exists and is well founded, I nevertheless think Hint 

 the statute in question does not confer power to purchase and slaughter such anim;! 1?;. 



You will observe that tho statute makes distinction betwixt the District of Colum- 

 bia and other parts of the country, as regards the duties which it assigns to Uiiiicil 

 States officials. In tho former case only are such officials expressly directed " to n-- 

 quire the destruction of infected animals." The officials so empowered are not even 

 in that case such as belong to the Department of Agriculture. They are Commis- 

 sioners of the District; or in other words the local authorities, such as answer to the 

 executive authorities of the States. For the destruction of infected animals within 

 this District, therefore, a co-operation is provided between its legislature (viz.. Con- 

 gress, the statute in question aifording such co-operation), and the local executive. 

 My understanding is, that the same co-operation is intended also where such animals 

 are to be destroyed elsewhere. And I add that inasmuch as Congress has not pro- 



