HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 95 
Sections 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 give the Commissioner the authority and power 
to suspend the license of the vivisector in the event of a violation, but in all these 
sections, there isn’t one word limiting the power of the Commissioner to rein- 
state the violator. Therefore, it can be accepted in the absence of anything to the 
contrary, that the Commissioner has the power to reinstate the violator when he 
pleases. 
NO ENFORCEMENT POSSIBLE 
It is estimated there are 10,000 to 15,000 animal laboratories in the United 
States that would come within the jurisdiction of either of these bills. It would 
take a minimum of 20,000 people to properly enforce the laws at a cost of approxi- 
mately $50 million annually, yet both bills are solemnly silent on appropriating 
any money for the enforcement of the proposed legislation. None of the torture 
and cruelly now being practiced in animal laboratories would be lessened. But, 
on the contrary, great damage would have been done to the work of the anti vivi- 
section societies throughout the country. Large numbers of people would be 
fooled and lulled into a sense of false security believing that the animals they 
love so well were now being properly treated, and that vivisection was virtually 
abandoned. 
On the contrary, these bills would perpetuate vivisection. Unlike other laws 
presumably relating to cruelty to animals the proposed statutes assume that the 
bad features connected with vivisection can be regulaed. A trick often used in 
dealing with highly controversial legislation, is in the course of the bill’s progress 
to cut out possibly good features and unless close attention is paid to these de- 
tails, the bill can go through after vital portions have been omitted. As a re- 
sult many of the supporters think that they have go what they wanted and go 
on supporing the emasculated measures. This gives us still another reason for 
standing fast for ultimate abolition. 
Write to your Congress and U.S. Senator opposing these bills. A postcard will 
suffice. Simply address them at the House of Representatives, Washington, 
D.C., or the U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C., and state clearly that you are opposed 
to H.R. 1937 ; H.R. 3556; and S. 3088. Ask your Representative of Senator to 
oppose these bills. 
CAN VIVISECTION BE REGULATED?— ENGLAND’S EXPERIENCE 
SAYS “NO” 
Abolition Is the Only Answer 
(By Owen B. Hunt, president. The American Anti-Vivisection Society) 
Various methods are being advocated to deal with the evil of vivisection. 
Some of these proposals relate to legislation — State or Federal. At the present 
time, possible Federal laws are attracting attention. 
The most publicized of these proposed enactments have to do with the regula- 
tion of the practice, not the abolition. The chances of adoption of such pro- 
posals in the near future are very slight. 
Tremendous pressure is usually required to force a law through Congress. 
Offering of a new bill does not necessarily mean very much. The congressional 
practice is to refer the bill to the appropriate committee. The committee does 
not have to do anything about it. Hundreds of bills in every session meet with 
this fate — they lie in committee until the end of the session and automatically 
are allowed to die there. 
The greatest weakness of bills relating to vivisection, and one that fore- 
dooms them, even if they did not contain other deadly flaws, is found in the 
word, “regulation.” They do not condemn vivisection, or treat it as a wrong 
in itself. By such failure they accept it in principle. 
Similar regulation elsewhere has brought about not even reduction in vivi- 
section, but an immense growth over the years. The analysis by several British 
authorities, which we include in this pamphlet, reflects a long history of at- 
tempts at regulation in Britain under the act of Parliament of 1876. They 
examine the similarity of this English law to the Cooper bill, which was pre- 
sented in the U.S. Senate at the last session in 1960. A similar bill was offered 
in the House of Representatives. These bills died with the last Congress but 
now measures have been introduced in the present Congress. 
These criticisms are just as valid when applied to any other regulatory plan. 
The planners approve vivisection by the very fact of undertaking to regulate it. 
This leads to a general belief that the evil may possibly have existed at one 
time, but has now been corrected by law. 
