105 



bave the operation properly performed. I don't admit the right of dehorning, but even admit- 

 ting that it is necessary in some cases — and I don't presume to say that it might not be — it 

 should be done in a proper manner. It is like everything else — you might drive a horse along 

 the road in such a way as to be guilty of cruelty to the animal. 



Q. That is — what is lawful to be done, if properly done is right, but if improperly done is 

 wrong ? A. Yes. 



Q. So that if you were sitting on the bench trying two cases — if in one case the operation 

 was improperly done you would convict, and if in the other it was properly done you would not 

 be likely to convict ? A. Yes. 



Q. There is the question of necessity and then the way in which it is done ? A. There was 

 no evidence to show that there was necessity to cut off the horns of this herd. There is no 

 ■evidence to show that there was a single vicious cow in the herd. 



Q. Now, following the judgment in the English case, and coming to the question of justifi- 

 cation — it was shown that the animals were increased in value from £1 to £2; stress is laid on 

 that as a justification — do you say that we must confine the advantage to the public generally 

 and exclude the advantage and profit to the owner ? A. My view is this — supposing that by 

 cutting off the horns there was a little less care and attention needed — for instance, in driving 

 cattle from one place to another — this could easily be provided for if proper means were taken — 

 I would say that was not an advantage to the public generally. 



Q William and Stephen York in their evidence have stated that they would be willing to 

 pay a yearly tax of $50 rather than be deprived of the privilege of dehorning their cattle— now, 

 here is a statement from a financial aspect ? A. I am strongly of the opinion that that is not a 

 justifiable cause for the operation. Take the castration of horses, there is a public necessity 

 for that. 



Q. Can you separate private interests from the public interest in dealing with a question 

 of this kind? A. Yes, I think so — special private interests— there is the making of a little 

 extra profit by keeping cows having their horns off, and against that there are certain disad- 

 vantages to the public that make it undesirable to authorize anything of the kind. 



Q. Now, we exported last year 100,000 head of beef cattle from this Dominion. Suppose 

 I were to go to all the breeders in this country and say — gentlemen, I can tell you something 

 you can do that will enhance the value of your cattle $5 per head (an increase altogether of 

 perhaps $500,000) would it not be a necessary result that if the owners gained that amount, 

 there would be a great advantage to the public generally? A. I don't take that view of the 

 case at all, and I would not like to express an opinion upon that point. 



Q Now suppose all the farmers in this county dehorned their cattle and came forward and 

 said the results were worth $50 per year to them, we would say that was a private gain in the 

 first instance ; then we would also say that cattle generally are made more valuable, and that by 

 increasing the wealth of the country to that ex ent, the public good woujd be advanced ? A. I 

 see no fault with that reasoning if it is a justifiable operation. 



Q. Has not that view been taken, that the practice was justifiable, because it meant an 

 increase in the value of the animal ? A. I don't view this question from a money standpoint — 

 I exclude that altogether. What I say is this — if it is shown that milch cows could not be used 

 for the purposes for which they are intended — that is, to give milk, as they have been doing in 

 this county for the last seventy-five years, then I would say that there would be a justification, 

 on the same principle as the castration of horses. It is a question of proportion, but not allow- 

 ing private or individual gain to come into account. It seems to me that the question of private 

 advantage is not, properly, to be considered. There is not a necessity for the operation. It 

 ought to be shown that you could not use the cows safely, and then there might be some argu- 

 ment. If you can't curb and subdue cattle by a little trouble there might be justification. 

 Then I say that even a cow has certain rights that should be respected. 



Q. You say it is more reasonable that the owner should be put to expense and extra trouble 

 rather than that the horns should be taken off? A. Yes. 



Mr. Macpherson. — Would 'hat not apply also to castration? A. No, because we know 

 we can use these cows without dehorning, and it is claimed that we can't use horses in their 

 natural state 



Q. I think you admitted that in some cases vicious animals might be dehorned ? A. What 

 I said was if they can't be controlled in any other way. 



Mr. Glendinning. — Have you seen the operation performed? A. No, I have not, and I 

 would be very sorry to look at it. I would rather take the opinion of experienced men. I 

 think I can use my own judgment to understand that it is impossible to cut off* the horns without 

 causing great pain. I strongly object to the sentiment that William York expressed in this very 

 room at th* time of the trial, that a man can do as he likes with his own. 



Mr. Drury. — Now, in the Norfolk case, twelve or thirteen veterinarians practically said 

 they had not seen the operation, but they judged from a study of anatomy that there must be 

 pain. Others, practical men, say, well no matter about anatomy, we have seen the operation 



