18 



favor of it, the majority stating that they were prejudiced against it on the 

 grounds of cruelty until they gained a practical knowledge of it. Of the farmers 

 opposed to the practice not more than three or four had ever seen the operation 

 hut the} 7 thought it cruel and unnecessary. 



Evidence as to the loss caused by animals u*ing their horns upon each other 

 was given by cattle buyers and others in frequent attendance at the cattle 

 market, and also by butchers and tanners. 



Among veterinary surgeons a considerable conflict of opinion was found to 

 exist. As in the case of the farmers those wLo had seen the operation and 

 observed its effects were in favor of it, while those who had not seen it were 

 opposed to it. 



Indeed, as regards all the evidence received by the Commission, it might almost 

 be given as the rule that where the operation was properly and skilfully performed 

 those witnessing it, however prejudiced before, became converts to it, while the 

 great bulk of fie opp>sitio.i came from parties not aeqmiatel with the 

 operation, and who entertained exaggerated ideas as to its severity. 



In no case were witnesses able to refer to an instance where a farmer 

 was dissatisfied with the results or willing to give up his right to continue the 

 practice, after having performed the operation. 



In addition to the evidence as to the amount of pain involved in the 

 operation, much evidence was received as to the commercial advantages ac ruing 

 from tlu operation, and emphasising the point that a gieat deal of suffering is 

 prevented by the removal of the horns. 



No fault could be found with the character and bearing of those who 

 testified in favor of the practice. They were men who would readily be 

 selected as representative of the be -it class of farmers, and even those opposed to 

 them on this question willingly testified to their respectability and good standing 

 in the community. 



A great deal of opposition to the practice was met with from members of 

 Humane Societies and others who believed that the operation was purely for 

 commercial considerations and therefore unjustifiable, and that the pain inflicted 

 was excessive. These witnesses were stiengthened in their belief by the 

 judgment of Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice Hawkins, a verbatim 

 report of that adverse decision having been printed and dissributed by the 

 Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. 



