52 G EEPOET OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGKICULTUllE. 



into the infected district contract tbe disease and suffer with the same 

 symptoms as those which contract it in the non-infected district from 

 exposure to the infection of Southern cattle; and (3) tliat the native 

 cattle of the infected districts enjoy an immunity from this disease, and. 

 as a rule, do not suffer from it, either on their native pastures or when 

 tliey have been driven into the non-i.ufected section. In regard to any 

 pliice in the :nfecte«l district we should be able to estabhsh one or more 

 of the following facts: 



(1) Cattle froin here have caused disease. 



(2) The native cattle of this section do not contract the disease. 



(3) Cattle brouj^iit to this section from the non-infected section of the 

 country contract tlie disease. 



In re;i,ard to any i)lace in the non-infected district we should be able 

 to establish one or more of the following facts : 



(1) Cattle from here do not cause the disease. 



(2) The native cattle of this section, when pastured upon ranges over 

 which cattle from the infected district have recently grazed, contract the 

 disease. 



(3) Cattle brought to this section from non-infected parts of the 

 country do not contract the disease unless they have grazed upon past- 

 ures recently infected by Southern cattle. 



There is a doubt in the minds of many cattlemen whether Texas cat- 

 tle are dangerous from all that section of the State in which cattle 

 brought from the Xortliern States contract the disease known as ac- 

 cliujation fever. In the States farther east, that have been pretty 

 thoroughly investigated, we have not found that there was any material 

 difference in the district indicated b}^ these two classes of facts. We 

 have found that wherever cattle snftered from acclimation fever, there 

 the native cattle were capable of disseminating the disease. It is true 

 that, as we approach the extreme boundary line of the infected district 

 there are many localities which are not infected, and, even in those that 

 are infected, the native cattle have not secured immunity, and conse- 

 sequently do not disseminate the disease. There is, consequently, a 

 belt of country along this boundary line on which but a small propor- 

 tion of the cattle are dangerous to those from farther north or west, but 

 this belt is not many miles wide, and some of the cattle in it may be 

 considered cajuible of infecting others. The emergencies which have 

 arisen during the past year in regard to the movement of cattle from 

 Texas, have made it very im])ortant that a preliiiiinary line at least 

 should be indicated across the State of Texas, which shall show the 

 counties of the State that all attainable information leads us to believe 

 are iVee from any permanent infection, and from which the cattle are in 

 no sense dangerous to those of any other section of the couutiy. 



The following facts were collected hy Mr. E. C. Saunders, jr., from 

 different stock owners who have had experience with cattle in Texas: 



Mr. J. F. Evans, of Sherman, Grayson County, Texas, stated that he 

 had brought IGO line cattle from Northern States to hisxanch in Gray- 

 son County, near Sherman, and that one-half of these cattle have died 

 of Southern cattle fever. He also stated that he had taken a number of 

 iine cattle from the North to his ranch iu the Pan-handle, and none of 

 ihem had died from the disease. He has on several occasions driven 

 large numbers of cattlo.%ora Erath, Grayson, Palo Pinto, Hunt, Fan- 

 nin, Denton, Ellis, Hill, and Nevada Counties to his ranch in Donley 

 County, and states that no disease was caused by them. In the sum- 

 mer of 1881 he took 0,000 cattle from Grayson, Hunt, Tarrant, and 

 Denton Counties to his ranch in Donley County, and no disease re- 



