570 
TURNING OUT HORSES TO GRASS. 
shadow. What can be done? Prohibit the importation of 
cattle from South America? On what ground? The mere 
suspicion of a disease, which may exist, but of the presence 
of which there is no evidence to be obtained without expos- 
ing home-bred stock to contact with the suspected beasts; 
or by the doubtful method of examining the interior of the 
body for traces of an affection, of the precise nature of which 
we know absolutely nothing definite. 
Whichever view of the character of the Texas cattle fever 
be accepted, it seems we are only in the position to choose 
one horn of a dilemma. If cattle on the Pampas are subject 
to an infectious disease, the importation ought to be stopped; 
but if the disease in question is not indicated by any special 
symptoms, how is the proof of its existence to be obtained ? 
Perhaps after all there is not much reason for apprehen- 
sion ; the last lot of South American cattle, if we recollect 
rightly, realised a sum that w r ould scarcely cover the original 
cost and expense of transit, and although we should be sorry 
to hint at a limit to the enterprise of cattle importers, it is 
tolerably safe to affirm that cattle will not be imported from 
the Pampas unless they can be sold here at a fair profit ; and 
ships had better return empty than bring an unremunerative 
cargo. On the contrary, should the South American trade 
grow in extent, and Pampas cattle become as familiar to us 
as German, Dutch, French, and Spanish are now, we must 
be content to incur whatever may be the risk, until it assume 
a tangible form ; and should it ultimately transpire that 
cattle from South America endure the hardship of a long 
voyage, and show no sign of disease on being landed in 
England, and, notwithstanding, subsequently communicate 
a malignant and contagious disease to home cattle, our vete- 
rinary authorities will all need to go to school again to learn 
the why and the wherefore . — Agricultural Gazette. 
“TURNING OUT HORSES TO GRASS. 
“ To the Editor of the Times. 
“ Sir, — Mr. Cartledge has addressed a very sensible letter 
to you on the above subject, which has been answered by 
Mr. Bullock Webster, who seems to take a different view 
of the matter. Permit me to say that I think they have 
both generalised too much, and that the best practice lies 
between them. Mr. Cartledge argues rather against the 
abuse than the use of the system, and though Mr. Bullock 
Webster, ‘not being a rich man, may have found it conve- 
