10 



l-.i ' n . - . — ■ 



evidence was given by four veterinary surgeons and three farmers, all of whom 

 had either seen or performed the operation and were convinced that, the benefits 

 were great and the suffering not of long duration. 



In the course of the trial the defendants expressed dissatisfaction with the 

 manner in which the case was being conducted. They complained that they 

 were not receiving a fair hearing, and that the counsel for the prosecution, whom 

 they regarded as a Crown official, was unduly biased against them. 



The Government Appealed to. 



Anticipating the result of the trial and acting on the advice of their counsel 

 they withdrew their defence and, with a number of others interested, waited upon 

 the Ontario Government at Toronto, on February 2nd, 1 892. The deputation 

 was introduced by Dr. McKay, M.P.P. for South Oxford, and consisted of 

 Messrs. E. B. Brown, J. A. Brown, Benjamin Hopkins, Roger W. Hawkins, W. A. 

 Elliott, Brownsville; J. C. Dance, ex-M.P.P., Kingsmill ; Henry Jackson, Glad- 

 8 tone ; Spencer A. Freeman, Culloden ; Francis Leeson, Aylmer ; A. N. Grey, 

 Eden, and E. R'. Cameron, solicitor, London. They were received by Sir 

 Oliver Mowat, Attorney-General, Hon. John Dry den, Minister of Agriculture 

 and Hon. Messrs. A. S. Hardy, G. W. Ross, J. M. Gibson and Richard Harcourt. 

 Mr. Cameron, speaking for the deputation, laid particular stress upon the alleged 

 partiality of the Justices and the unusual energy shown by the Crown in pressing 

 the charges. He begged the government to interfere to save the defendants from 

 still further costs and asked that a Commission be appointed to investigate the 

 whole question of dehorning cattle, claiming that, in a matter affecting the com- 

 munity at large, where there was so much divergence of expert opinion and no 

 precedent to govern the Courts, it was unfair to place the whole cost of defending 

 a prosecution upon two or three men, in addition to branding them as criminals 

 in the event of conviction, which seemed altogether probable in this case. 



In replying to the deputation the Attorney-General pointed out that they 

 were making a most unusual request in asking the Executive to interfere in the 

 administration of justice, an action which he much doubted their jurisdiction to 

 take. Moreover, it would be manifestly improper to express an opinion even on 

 the merits of a case of which only one side had been presented to them. He 

 added, however, that he and his colleagues were much impressed with the argu- 

 ments advanced in favor of an official inquiry into the whole question of dehorn- 

 ing, and if that request had been preferred before this case had come before the 

 Courts it might have been favorably considered, or if after this matter was con- 

 cluded they thought fit to make a like application it should have due weight, 

 but in the present position of the case the Executive did not feel justified in 

 taking any action. 



