EDITORIAL. 
549 
action against the Live Stock Commissioners of Illinois for the 
sound beef value of one hundred and twenty-five distillery 
cattle affected with actinomycosis, and “tanked” at the 
instance, of the Commissioners, has unavoidably caused a 
fe ieatly increased interest in the subject of meat inspection, 
especially as to the attitude of the Bureau of Animal Indus¬ 
try toward the disposition of the meat of animals affected 
with the disease in question, so far as it relates to inter-state 
or international food supply. 
As a leading witness for the plaintiffs, Dr. R. W. Hickman’s 
evidence in the witness box might be taken as expressing the 
views of his bureau, were it not for the fact that his testi¬ 
mony flatly contradicts the official assertions of the Secretary 
of Agriculture, under whose auspices meat inspection is car¬ 
ried out. It is utterly impossible to harmonize Secretary 
Rusk’s official assertions with the sworn testimony of Dr. 
Hickman, who, as chief inspector at Chicago, the most im¬ 
portant meat inspection point in the country, is virtually chief 
meat inspector. 
Secretary Rusk, in his third annual report, dated October 
27, 1891, says on page 14: “In most, if not all European coun¬ 
tries, inspectors, according to their reports, freely pass for 
consumption the meat of animals affected with foot-and-mouth 
disease, pleuro-pneumonia, localized tuberculosis, actinomyco¬ 
sis, and similar diseases, which, according to the views and 
customs of this country, must be condemned. But all the 
meat for the foreign market is inspected the same as that for 
home consumption.” 
A few days later, his chief meat inspector at Chicago, the 
leading meat inspection point in the nation, deposes as follows: 
Q. (By counsel for plaintiff’s, Mr. 8tevens.)-Suppose an animal had an 
ulcer upon the jaw that was not running; was in good condition; had taken on 
tat rapidly and was thrifty, and was killed and the head thrown away. To what 
extent would the meat of such an animal be at all injurious for food ? A —I do 
not consider it would be. 
Q.~State whether under these circumstances the partaking of that food 
could possibly carry the disease to any of the human family that partook of it ’ 
A.—No, sir. 
\ 
