123 



not prohibit it in all cases, because a bull might be vicious, and it would be a pity to do away 

 with it simply on that account. If it is to be done at all it should be done by men of some ex- 

 perience. 



Q. Now, in the neighborhood of Harrietsville farmers say they would pay $50 for the 

 privilege of dehorning, owing to its advantages, would you consider that any justification 1 A. 

 I consider that a farmer who raises cattle does it for money, and if he can do anything to 

 advance the value of his product without giving unnecessary pain he is warranted in doing it. 



Q. Some say that no amount of money compensates for the infliction of pain. Your opin- 

 ion, I understand, is that if the financial gain is in proportion to the pain inflicted the practice 

 would be justifiable ? A. I would say that if you had a valuable animal that could not be kept 

 without it you might dehorn him, but in the case of ordinary cattle I think it would be better 

 to knock them on the head rather than go to cutting off horns. 



To Mr. Hutchinson— I agree that there can be no justification for the infliction of pain 

 unless it is to better fit animals for the purpose for which they were intended. Cattle have 

 been used from generation to generation with their horns on, and I see no pressing necessity 

 now for their removal. I cannot see where the benefit comes in, and I may say a^ain that I 

 cannot understand sensible men like Mr. York and Hopkins taking up such a practice. 1 would 

 be m favor of leaving the law as it is at present. 



