432 BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. [Pub. Doc. 



The third bill provided, in the case of all animals diseased, 

 that — 



If it appears that the animal killed by order of the board was 

 diseased, a sum may be allowed by said board to the owner not ex- 

 ceeding half the amount which would have been allowed if said 

 animal had been free from disease. 



There was, therefore, before the Legislature of last year no bill 

 or petition requesting the payment of full health value. This 

 Board, however, in its report of that year, recommended that, — 



If indemnity is to be paid at all, it should be full. Half measures 

 produce geiierally half results ; and if it were possible to limit the 

 expenditure in this direction to within proper bounds, it might safely 

 be considered that the benefit to the community would offset its cost 

 to them. 



After a careful consideration of our report and these several 

 bills, the committee on agriculture reported the law which sub- 

 sequently became chapter 491 of the Acts of 1894. 



Arguments for and against Compensation. 



First. — The destruction of all animals found actually in' 

 fected^ without any appraisal and without the payment of any 

 compensation. 



Those in favor of this position assert that the policy of this 

 State for the past thirty years until the passage of the act of 

 last year is in favor of this proposition. They further say that 

 such a course is constitutional, because, by the destruction of 

 diseased animals without compensation, the State is not depriv- 

 ing any person of his property without compensation ; that such 

 a diseased animal has no actual value ; that, because the beef 

 and milk products from such an animal are a great source of 

 dan<rer to human beings, the owner should not be allowed to 

 keep it ; that the Legislature may properly declare that such 

 an animal is a public nuisance, and require it to be destroyed 

 without compensation ; and in support of this they cite the 

 decision of the supreme court in the case of the glandered horse 

 before referred to,* where the court stated that it assumes that 

 the Legislature may constitutionally declare such horses to be 

 public nuisances, and "may authorize them to be killed with- 



* Miller v. Horton, 152 Mass. 5-10. 



