520 Tuberculosis in Animals, & its relation to Consumption in Man. 
the effect of getting rid of such animals from all dairies and 
cowsheds regularly and efficiently inspected. 
Such powers, if granted, might be exercised in a very 
arbitrary and oppressive manner. While the cowkeeper in large 
towns would be under strict supervision as to the health of his 
stock, the dairy farmer in rural districts, who sends his milk into 
towns for sale many miles off, would not be subject to such sur- 
veillance, unless powers were conferred on health officials where 
the milk is sold enabling them to enter premises in the district 
of other local authorities and to inspect the cattle. Such powers 
are not likely to be granted, and, even if they were, unless sup- 
plemented with power to deal with suspected animals in the 
district of another local authority, they would be comparatively 
useless. 
The difficulties in the way of legislation for tuberculosis in 
the living animal are sufficiently obvious to cause considerable 
hesitation in dealing with this side of the question. They are 
chiefly, as expressed by Professor Brown in the report above re- 
ferred to, the difficulty of diagnosing the existence of the disease 
and distinguishing it from others resembling it, and the question 
of compensation. In France, the only country in which it is 
treated as a disease of animals, there is no compulsory slaughter, 
and therefore no compensation. The tuberculous animal is iso- 
lated and placed under restrictions so that it can only be moved 
to a slaughter-house, and, when slaughtered, if the meat is con- 
sidered unfit for human food it is destroyed and the owner may 
utilise the skin after disinfection by the inspector. 
If legislation for tuberculosis in the living animal is adopted, 
the orders and regulations applicable to home-bred stock would 
have to be strictly enforced with regard to imported animals. It 
has already been shown how difficult the diagnosis of this v disease 
is, and it would be throwing an undue amount of responsibility 
on inspectors at the ports, where foreign animals not subject to 
slaughter are landed, were they expected to detect all cases of 
tubercle in the short time they have for the examination. 
Under these circumstances, if legislation for tuberculosis is 
earned out in home-bred stock, it will be absolutely necessary 
to prohibit the importation of cattle except for slaughter, 
because the disease is known to exist in the countries from which 
cattle are at present imported into this country. 
Until some solution is arrived at in connection with the 
question of tuberculous meat and milk being used as food, there 
seems little probability that anything will be done as regards 
the disease in the living animal. 
W. Dl'UUID. 
