40 



14. Manj of the neighbours with small lots of cattle, either from fear or unbelief, would 

 not inoculate ; but I at length pursuadcd them all to inoculate, after which the disease 

 •which was among their cattle left tliem. I sometime after bought some diseased cattle 

 not knowing they were diseased, and jjut them among the inoculated cattle ; many of 

 these (the diseased) died, but not one of the inoculated cattle took the disease. I then, 

 after several weeks, inoculated the second lot ; then the disease left them. This happened 

 again with the same result. Were I to inoculate again, I should do it in the same way, 

 with the exception that I would not put a knot in the thread ; then I think it would 

 work out, as I killed some of the cattle many months after and the thread was still in 

 and I could not draw it out on account of the knot. 



15. I am much perplexed how to answer this question ; I at present firmly believe in inocu- 

 lation, having good reason to do so. It would no doubt be a very good thing if people 

 would inoculate, but my very belief in its efficacy inclines me to think that it should 

 not be compulsory. If inoculation is efficacious, those who choose to resort to it will 

 be safe and only those. 



117. 



1. About five years ago. 



3. Between forty and fifty. 



■k Diseased ; ten or twelve showed bad symptoms — look di'owsy, thin, eyes dull, &c., 



running at the nose. 

 5. About three or four weeks. 



12. None. 



13. Successfid. 



14. Since the time above mentioned only two have died, and even these I tliiuk were not 



fully inoculated ; none bad now. 



15. No — self interest must introduce the practice. 



118. 



1. About three and a half years ago. 



3. About 3,000. 



4. Ilerd partially diseased, 150 per cent about. 



5. About a year. 



12. A good many ; about 2^ per cent. 



13. Cattle became very dozy and feverish, but ultimately disease disappeared. 



14. A neighbour, a free selector who would not inoculate, lost half his cattle. It is very 



difficidt to prove whether inoculation is efficatious, but in the Company's case the 

 evidence is in favour of its efficacy. 



15. The theory of such an Act would be good, but I do not see how all cases can be met by 



any set of rules or regidations, unless great latitude were allowed and discretionary 

 power in Inspectors or Boards of Directors. 



119. 



1. 1864. 



3. 800. 



4. No disease when inocidated. 



5. Healthy. 



12. None in this instance, but liable to die when swelling if not attended to ; bleeding iu 



the tail is considered an effectual cure. 



13. None died out of the 800 inoculated. 



14. These cattle were exposed to infection, but none took the disease ; consequently, I 

 believe in its efficacy. The cattle should be herded after inoculation for about a 

 fortnight ; if the swelling does not appear great in that time, they may be let loose 

 with safety. I consider the disease contagious. 



15. Yes. 



120. 



1. 1863, 1864. 

 3. 1,000. 



12. No. 



13. Disease immediately left the herd. 

 15. Yes. 



121. 



1. Four years ba.-k. 



3. 1,600. 



4. 5 per cent, showing signs of disease. 



5. Nine months. 



I 



