194 
M. S. ARLOING. 
We are not satisfied with the decree of 1888, either in regard 
to the scientific or to the practical aspects which are present¬ 
ed to our view. 
Indeed, in allowing free circulation to tuberculous animals, 
for the reason that the alterations have not gone beyond the 
affected organ, it implies that the virulent bacilli in these 
animals are never found in the vascular network of the mus¬ 
cles and glands, which in numerous cases would be an extrav¬ 
agant and erroneous assumption.* 
And again, in allowing inspectors such a latitude of judg¬ 
ment in respect to the importance and the extent of tubercu¬ 
lous lesions, there remains an open door for very dangerous 
differences of appreciation and irregularities and errors of 
conduct. We have seen this exemplified in Lyons, when 
the veterinary inspector endeavored to conform to the 
provisions of the official regulations. Dairies are numerous 
in that region, and cattle dealers protested against the sever¬ 
ity exercised in that city, making unfavorable comparisons 
between that and the lenity and consideration practised in 
other places. 
To be simpler and more logical, we would then propose 
to the congress to persevere in the principle of the entire 
seizure and destruction in all cases, without distinction, of the 
condemned cattle. But we must not forget that the opposi¬ 
tion to any measures designed to suppress the consumption 
of tuberculous meats is with an important class of interested 
persons largely and exclusively a question of money, and we 
have also shown that these measures affect one class of agri-. 
culturists more intimately than agriculture itself, pure and 
simple. If we could so alter things that this fact could be 
ignored, then all minds might be brought into a general har-l 
monious co-operation in the matter. In other words, instead 
of leaving those who are entirely dispossessed by the seizure 
of the diseased products to sustain the entire loss, the result- 
* In a Hygienic Congress held in London not long since, Messrs. McFadyean 
and Woodhead reported a case in which the intra-muscular and tuberculous 
deposits existed with some nodules in the lungs only, and a few lymphatic 
glands. 
