490 
W. L. WILLIAMS. 
(2) Diseases in which slaughter may be permitted to ascer¬ 
tain whether the whole or a part of the meat is fit for human 
food or to be used for industrial purposes, or to be destroyed, 
viz.: Food and mouth diseases, tuberculosis, actinomycosis, 
bovis, icterus, milk fever in cows, hydrothorax and ascites, 
all diseases which are combined with high fever, general 
emaciation and debility; for instance, pneumonia, enteritis, 
uteritis, etc.; and over-heated and too young animals, which 
should be kept for further examination. 
(3) Diseases only ascertainable after slaughter, and in most 
cases by the use of the microscope. Under this head he 
enumerates the entozoa, known to affect meat producing 
animals and one bacteriological disease—actinomycosis suis. 
How the essayist managed to draw his lines in such a manner 
is not understood by your chairman. 
It is not clear to us why, under his first class—diseases in 
which animals should be condemned, killed and the carcasses 
effectually destroyed—he should place glanders, which in 
many cases cannot be diagnozed except post-mortem, nor hog- 
cholera, which in its chronic stage may in some cases closely 
stimulate trichinosis, nor can we discover his authority for 
denominating an unborn animal “ diseased ” and condemning 
it to death and destruction. 
Again in his second class he would permit the slaughter 
of animals affected with tuberculosis, a disease admittedly 
transmissible to man and might allow its meat to be sold food, 
while under his first class he would exclude swine-plague and 
hog-cholera, which are certainly not transmissible. Again he 
places septicaemia in his first class and destroys the carcass, 
while uteritis—which is septicaemia beginning in the uterus— 
he would place in the second class and perhaps allow it to be 
used as human food. He would kill a cow with milk fever 
in order to ascertain the suitability of the carcass for human 
food, when we cannot see what new guide for action would 
be revealed post-mortem. Under his third class, without 
stating or suggesting the line of action to be followed as to 
the use of the meat, he places actinomycosis suis, while all 
other bacteriological diseases, even actinomycosis bovis are 
placed in the other two classes. 
