92 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
We learned of this public hearing on the two bills now being considered by 
this committee only Tuesday, September 25, and we therefore are unable to 
present to you at this hearing the witnesses and their testimony as to why, in 
our opinion, this is bad legislation. 
The very fact that this committee in the closing days of this session is con- 
sidering these bills is indicative that the committee is cognizant of the vast 
amount of cruelty that takes place in the Nation’s experimental laboratories. 
I am appreciative that the committee is aware of this fact, but we in the anti- 
vivisection movement are united in the firm conviction that neither of these 
bills would eliminate one iota of the laboratory cruelties. 
Mr. Chairman, I am attaching to this brief statement two pieces of literature 
which set forth in detail why we are certain that neither of these bills will 
work, with the request that the committee accept them as our testimony. 
Vivisection Versus Regulation 
(By Owen B. Hunt, president, American Anti-Vivisection Society) 
REGULATION IS HARMFUL 
For quite some time various groups connected with the humane movement in 
the United States have been playing around with the idea of curing the evils 
of vivisection by “regulating” it. This regulation would be brought about through 
acts of Congress, which would control the health and comfort of animals await- 
ing vivisection, or having gone through the process. In the actual carrying 
out of the experiments these laws would (according to their promoters) alle- 
viate the agony of the unfortunate animals by use of anethetics. 
But no word is offered in any of these proposed measures which would recog- 
nize vivisection for what it is — a wrong and a crime, in itself. 
Enactment of these proposals into law would in fact give vivisection a recog- 
nition which it has never received before. 
The American Anti-Vivisection Society stands, as it always has done, for 
abolition of vivisection on the ground that it is wrong, cruel, and fruitless. 
Two groups of recent origin purporting to be deeply interested in animal 
humane work, one — the Animal Welfare League of New York, and the other, the 
Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C., have sponsored sepa- 
rate bills and have had them introduced in Congress. Both bills seem to give 
the impression that if enacted into law, they would alleviate virtually all suf- 
fering that animals endure in vivisectional laboratories. Much propaganda in 
the form of hundreds of thousands of pamphlets and letters advocating the 
adoption of these bills has been circulated throughout the United States, prin- 
cipally to people interested in animal humane work and in antivivisection work. 
The public is led to believe that through the enactment of this proposed legis- 
lation, only a limited number of animals could be used for experimental pur- 
poses, that all animals used for this purpose would have to be anesthetized, and 
that no pain or suffering would be endured by the animals during the experiments. 
THE THREE BILLS 
Representative Martha Griffith introduced the bill sponsored by the Animal 
Welfare League of New York. It is H.R. 1937. A companion bill of exactly 
similar wording has been presented by Senator Joseph S. Clark of Pennsylvania, 
in the Senate. It is identified as S. 3088. The bill drafted by the Humane Society 
of the United States, is sponsored by Representative Morgan Moulder, and is 
known as H.R. 3556. An analysis of these bills shows clearly the weakness of 
the contention that pain and cruelty are abolished from the animal laboratories. 
The Griffith bill, H.R. 1937, and the Clark bill, S. 3088, state in the opening 
paragraphs that it is declared to be the policy of the United States that “liv- 
ing vertebrae animals used for scientific experiments and tests shall be spared 
unnecessary pain and fear ; that they shall be used only when no other feasible 
and satisfactory methods can be used to ascertain biological and scientific in- 
formation for the cure of disease, alleviation of suffering, prolongation of life, 
the advancement of physiological knowledge, or for military requirements ; and 
that all such animals shall be comfortably housed, well fed, and humanely 
handled.” This paragraph condones vivisection as necessary, but when we exam- 
ine the statement on page 1, lines 5, 6, 7, and 8, “that they shall be used only 
