550 
EDITORIAL. 
Cross-examination by Counsel for Defendants. 
Q.—You have in your professional capacity rejected at times fat cattle for 
export, on the ground that they were not fit for consumption, have you not ? 
A.—I have rejected them on general appearance for post-mortem examination. 
Q.—Suppose they were a fat, hearty-looking lot of cattle, why would you 
reject them ? A.—For the reason I have just given you: subject to post-mortem 
investigation, so I could see. 
Q.—When did you attend the first post-mortem examination of an animal 
affected with actinomycosis ? A. — In Chicago, soon after I came there. 
[1890.—W.] * * * 
Q.—I mean, how many (examinations) have you made yourself, through 
the microscope, of a section of an actinomycotic tumor that came from different 
animals? A.—I think three. 
Q.—That makes four in all during your life? A.—Of different animals 
yes, sir. * * * 
Q.— As a matter of fact, then, have you ever examined microscopically any 
sections from the internal organs of animals afflicted with this disease, to ascer¬ 
tain the presence or absence of these actinomyces? A.—Not specially. * * * 
(Last question rejected.) Q —What limitation do you desire to make to 
your former answer? A.—I want to express the idea that I would not reject it 
(carcass of actinomycotic animal) simply because it had actinomycosis , but I would 
reject an animal as unfit for food on general grounds, whether from an actino¬ 
mycotic tumor or any other tumor that had drained the system. 
q. —Would you consider a fat animal, with a tumor that was discharging 
pus, as fit for human food? A.—If the animal was in a thrifty condition 
yes, sir. 
Q.—Have you ever made an examination upon an animal where the actino¬ 
mycotic tumor was apparently healed, to ascertain whether or not there were 
any lesions or tumors in the internal organs containing these actinomyces ? A—I 
have no doubt there are lesions in the internal organs where the tumor on the 
animal has healed. 1 recall no case where I have made a special examination , but 
I have no doubt that it is a fact. 
This evidence shows a grave want of accord between Dr. 
Hickman and Secretary Rusk, for while the latter says ani¬ 
mals affected with actinomycosis are condemned, the former 
swears positively that he would not condemn an animal at all 
for the disease, and that he does not condemn them, but 
merely rejects them for live export. Why? Dr. Hickman 
has not answered, but it is presumably because he knows that 
European countries raise all that kind of beef at home that 
they desire. What becomes of these rejected cattle does not 
plainly appear, but the only logical conclusion to be drawn is 
that under Dr. Hickman’s orders these rejected cattle (which 
are actinomycotic but to his mind healthy for food) are 
