59 



15. I believe an Act should bo passed as striiif^cnt as any with reference to sheep, a,nd that 

 drovers should be compelled to report themselves to an Inspector in each district they 

 mi"-ht have to pass throuf^h, who should examine the cattle, and, if sound, give a 

 sta'tement to that effect. My reason for insisting on an examination in each district 

 is, that cattle may appear quite sound on leaving a run, and after a few days' driving 

 the disease may be distinctly visible. 



196. 



1. September, 18G4. 



3. About ;W0 liead. . , , 



4. The dis ase was in the cattle at the time of the inoculation. There might have been 



100 or 140 of them had the disease at the time. 



5. The disease commenced about three months before the cattle were inoculated. 



vi There were some died through swellings. I could not exactly say to what extent. I 

 should say about from twelve to twenty or thereabouts, but I did not try any means 

 to cure them. 



13. I believe it was beneficial to the cattle that were free from disease. 



14. I could not say whether the cattle are exposed to the infection after inoculation or not, 

 because the disease has never been amongst the herd since shortly after inoculation. 



16. Yes, if they are inoculated immediately the disease is obsciwed. 



197. 



1. September, October, November, December, 18G3, and January, 1864, 



3. About 1,700 head of a mixed herd. 



4. All more or less affected. A large quantity died during the time disease was in the 



herd. 



5. Two months we had observed disease in the herd. 



12. Very few, if any, deaths from inoculation. When deaths occur it is generally from 



using virus of a beast in a dying state, or quite pm-ple in appearance, say color of port 

 wine. 



13. We have never suffered much since the inoculation. We occasionally find a beast 



slightly diseased. I recollect getting one (a cow) in to slaughter some tAvo years since. 



14. There have been diseased cattle travelling down the river from Queensland many times 

 since. I am not aware of any of ours taking it from them ; but, on the otlier hand, 



my next neighbour, Mr. did not inoculate at the time— nearly every 



one else did -nor do I think he has since. 



15. I am decidedly in favour of inoculation. 



198. 



1. July, 1865. 



3. 1,700. 



4. 20 per cent, showing symptoms. 



5. Three months. 



12. 6 per cent. died. Cut the tail oft' till the blood ran, and it seemed to cure most of 



them. 



13. The disease stopped. 



14. Our cattle were exposed to the infection after the inoculation, but they were not 



affected by it. 



15. Yes, decidedly. 



199. 



1. 29 September, 1868. 



3. About 130. 



4. Apparently healthy, because every animal showing disease during the previous two 

 months had been immediately killed— say, to the extent of fifty head. 



5. Disease first showed itself about beginning of July, 1868 ; but although it was in the 

 herd, I cannot say any beasts were visibly affected, for reasons stated in No. 4, but 

 no doubt many of them were inwardly affected. 



12. Only the four above referred to died with excessive swelling, but whether caused by 

 the inoculation or not I cannot say; post hoc propter hoc, is not an invariable 

 sequence. My opinion from examination of the lungs is, that they were diseased 

 before inoculation, and would have died whether inoculated or not. 



13. The remainder of the inoculated cattle have been healthy ever since, and no cases of 

 disease, except those referred to, have since occurred in my paddocks here, although a 

 few hundred of fresli uninoculated cattle have been introduced from my upper stations. 

 There are three or four cases in which the tops of the tails have dropped off. 



14. From the fact of my having had at least fifty head diseased, and either killed or dying 



before inoculation, and from my having had only five or six cases subsequently to 

 inoculation which have died, and from my paddocks here having been freo from 



