121 



much for them. I believe it was intended that they should be castrated, but I don't think it 

 was intended that horns should be cut off. 



Mr. Hutchinson — It is necessary to castrate them to fit them for the purpose for which 

 they were intended — that is, for human food ? A. Yes. 



Q. Ic is not necessary to cut the horns off in order to fit cattle for the purpose which they 

 were intended ? A. No ; I think not. 



Adam Gordon, township of North Oxford, sworn, said : I am engaged in farming and 

 cattle raising. I have at present 18 cows and some young cattle. I have heard a good deal 

 about dehorning. I do not consider it either justifiable or necessary. 1 have not seen the 

 operation. I have never had a case of loss from hooking. I folio sv the usual method of turning 

 the cattle out in the daytime and stabling at night. I think cattle look better with the horns 

 off, and that dehorning ought to be stopped. 



Mr. Drury — Has your mind been influenced by the idea that there is a good deal of suffer- 

 ing in the operation ? A.I think it is not necessary and that it is cruel. 



Mr. Hutchinson — Would you be satisfied to leave the law as it is now, so that each case 

 shall stand on its own merits ? A. Yes. 



Q. Of course you understand that the law would allow the excuse in the case of a vicious 

 bull ? A. If there is a vicious animal I think it should be kept in the stall, and butchered if 

 necessary, instead of cutting the horns off. 



John Henderson, township of North Oxford, sworn, said : I have been raising cattle 

 for the past twenty-five years, chiefly for dairy purposes. I have 15 cows now. They are not 

 dehorned and I don't intend that they shall be. I am against it. I consider that as the Lord 

 made them that way they should be left so. We get these things to use — not to abuse. 



Q. Then how do you do with your male animals ? A. Well, when the lambs are three 

 days old I cut their tails because they would get so dirty there would be no pleasure with them. 

 I castrate because I believe that is a work of necessity to keep these animals within reasonable 

 bounds. 



Q. You consider dehorning to be unnecessary ] A. Yes. 



Q. Suppose the horns could be taken off simply by unhooking, without earning any pain, 

 do you think it would be right then 1 A. No, I think not. We get them naturally and we 

 ought not to interfere with the order of nature unless it is absolutely necessary. I think the 

 practice should be stopped. It depends largely on how cattle are used whether they are savage 

 or not. You can train an animal by kind treatment. Even in the case of a vicious animal I 

 don't think it is proper to take the horns off. It would be better to fetter it in the stable and 

 send it to market. 



James Ruddick, township of North Oxford, sworn, said : I am engaged in dairying and 

 keep about thirty head of cattle. I have been on a farm all my life. 1 have not seen any 

 dehorning, but I am opposed to it. I think there is no necessity for it. I think it is a very 

 painful operation. If there were no great pain it might be all right. 



Q. Would you say that a money consideration would be a justification for the infliction of 

 pain? A. Well, an increased value would be a justification if the suffering was not too great. 



Q. Do you think the law should prohibit the practice 1 A. Yes ; except in the case of a 

 vicious animal. No one in our neighborhood has dehorned his cattle. 



To Mr. Hutchinson — I would be satisfied to have the law left as it is and if there is 

 unnecessary cruelty that the person should be punished. 



Joseph Cawthorp, Thamesford, sworn, said : I farm a little and have from 10 to 15 head ; 

 my principal business is milling. I have never seen any dehorning. I am opposed to it, as I 

 believe it is cruelty to animals. I have known cattle to get the shell knocked off the horn and 

 they suffer a good deal from that. 



Q. If you saw the operation and did not notice any great indications of pain, the animal 

 starting to eat immediately afterwaids, would you still consider it an act of great cruelty ? A. 

 I hardly think that these animals would go out and eat hay after such an operation, but I think 

 they suffer all the same. I don't think a money consideration is a sufficient reason. Let the 

 people who want hornless animals breed polled cattle. 



Mr. Hutchinson — You agree that every case that comes before the courts should stand on 

 its own merits — you do not desire any change in the present law I A. No. 



Mr. Drury — If it were proved that there is a great deal of suffering caused by the horns, 

 do you consider that as an act of humanity to the animal it would be a justification to take the 

 horns off ? A. I have not seen a great deal of suffering from the horns. 



Q. But suppose that a good many others claim there is ? A. Well, I don't think that would 



