EDITORIAL. 
679 
lhe Legislature of 1895, however, disregarding the recommendations of the Board* 
enacted a law depriving the Board of the power to use tuberculin as a diagnostic agent, 
without the written consent of the owner, and, as a necessary result, took away from the 
Board the power to continue its systematic inspection. At the same time the price 
which the State must pay for animals destroyed as tuberculous was practicallv doubled, 
lhe passage of this law gave to owners the power of preventing this Board from detect¬ 
ing and destroying diseased cattle for the public good ; thus changing the entire spirit of 
the law from an act to eradicate disease, into an act enabling owners of diseased cattle to 
have only such animals as they desired examined, condemned, and paid for by the 
State at, practically, their sound values. No law, having for its object the removal 
of a widespread but secret danger to the public health, can ever be successful where 
the right of the authorities to make inspection for the purpose of detecting the pres¬ 
ence of the danger is dependent upon the whim or interest of the person having control 
over it. 
At the time when this restrictive act was passed, it was understood to be but a tempo¬ 
rary measure for the period of one year, to enable the owners of cattle to become better 
informed as to the value of tuberculin and the general advantages of the work. Had I 
believed that the law of 1895 was to continue for a period of more than a year, I think 
I then should have declined to continue as a member of the Board. Feeling, however, 
that it was but a temporary check and recognizing that in the meanwhile considerable 
good could be accomplished through the examination of isolated herds, I felt that my duty 
required that I should further continue in my office. 
Soon after the passage of the law of 1895, and after the abandonment of the systematic 
work, the Board inaugurated the system of examining entire herds upon the written re¬ 
quest of the owners. In this way considerable good was accomplished. The disease was 
removed from local centres, and the milk to this extent purified and made safe for human 
consumption. Such a system, if continued, would have been of material good to the 
State, but even then the good accomplished would not have been commensurate with the 
expense, because the Board had no power to prevent the owners from thereafter introduc¬ 
ing diseased animals ; and inasmuch as untested animals could be purchased at a less 
price than those that had been tested, and as the State paid the full value for the animals 
if afterwards found diseased, the owner had no pecuniary inducement to keep his herd 
free from subsequent contagion. 
' The Legislature of 1896, against the express wishes of the Board, and contrary to my 
conviction personally expressed to the committee having the matter especially in charge, 
passed a law which not only continued the restriction of the use of tuberculin, but at the 
same time so limited the manner in which the appropriation could be expended as to render 
it impossible for the Board to continue further even the examination of isolated herds upon 
the owners’ request. 
Under the provisions of the law as it now stands, the Board is not only powerless to 
take any effectual general measures to protect the public food-supply derived from neat 
cattle against contamination by the germs of tuberculosis, but, further than this, when a 
badly diseased animal has been discovered, the fair presumption being that others equally 
as dangerous are in the same herd, the Board is powerless to compel a proper examination 
of that herd to ascertain the fact. Its whole work is now practically limited to the ex¬ 
amination and destruction of animals in which the disease has so far advanced that it can 
be detected by a physical examination made by local inspectors, a large proportion of 
