386 
JOHN M. PARKER. 
After a great deal of discussion in the legislative bodies, a 
compromise bill was adopted giving an appropriation of 
$100,030 for the carrying on of the work, restricting the use 
of tuberculin to such cases as were thought to be diseased on 
physical examination and allowing the farmers full value at 
the time of slaughter, without taking into consideration the 
fact that the animal at the time of slaughter was afflicted with 
tuberculosis. This applied only to cattle that had been in 
the State six months. 
In consequence of the smallness of the appropriation and 
the restrictions placed upon the use of tuberculin this bill 
did not meet with the approval of the supporters of the Com¬ 
missioners, and strenuous efforts were made to have the 
Governor veto the measure ; finally the bill was submitted 
to the Attorney-General for his opinion on the matter. This 
opinion is important, and is of great interest to all interested 
in this question. In his letter to the Governor the Attorney- 
General says: “ Section io, amending Sec. 45 of the Act of 
1894, provides that whenever the Board of Cattle Commis¬ 
sioners, after an examination of contagious disease among 
domestic animals, become satisfied that the public good re¬ 
quires it, they may cause such animals to be killed without 
appraisal or payment, or without expense to the owner.” The 
section further provides that “ if it shall subsequently appear, 
upon post mortem examination or otherwise, that said ani¬ 
mal was free from the disease for which it was condemned, a 
reasonable sum therefor shall be paid to the owner thereof 
by the Commonwealth; provided, however, that whenever 
any cattle afflicted with the disease of tuberculosis are killed 
under the provisions of this section, the full value thereof at 
the time of slaughter, for food or milk purposes, without 
■ 
taking into consideration the fact that the animal at the time 
of slaughter was then afflicted with such disease, shall be 
paid to the owner thereof out of the treasury of the Com¬ 
monwealth, if such animal has been owned within the State 
six months continuously prior to its being killed.” 
The constitutional question arises, says the Attorney-Gen¬ 
eral, upon the provision that when meat unfit for food by 
