TUBERCULOSIS IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
387 
reason of tuberculosis is seized, or cattle with the same dis¬ 
ease are killed, the owner shall receive full value of the car¬ 
cass, for food or milk purposes, “ without taking into con¬ 
sideration the fact that the same is then infected with such 
disease.” 
It may well be assumed that a carcass that is infected or 
an animal that is infected with tuberculosis has practically 
no value for meat or milk purposes. That such was the in¬ 
tention of the legislature is clearly deducible from the pro¬ 
visions of Statutes, 1894, Chap. 491, Sec. 10, of said Statute 
(as amended by the bill in question), authorizing the destruc¬ 
tion of a carcass whenever in the opinion of the inspector it 
is diseased or unfit for food. Section 15 of the same chapter 
makes it a penal offense for anyone to sell or have in his pos¬ 
session, with intent to sell for food, any diseased animal or 
any diseased carcass. Statute, 1886, Chap. 318, Sec. 2, also 
makes it a penal offense to sell the milk of a diseased cow. 
The meat or milk of a cow that has been pronounced unfit 
for sale b} r the legislature, and the sale of which is a criminal 
offense, cannot be regarded as having any market value. 
The sectiomunder consideration, therefore, must be taken 
to authorize and require the payment to the owner of a dis¬ 
eased cow, or an infected carcass, which by the determina¬ 
tion of the legislature is worthless, a value equivalent to the 
value of sound cattle or sound meat. This is not compensa¬ 
tion, it is a gift. 
If it were provided that the Board, having jurisdiction of 
the subject matter, might condemn all suspected meat or kill 
all suspected cattle, leaving it uncertain whether the disease 
existed, the legislature might reasonably provide tliht com¬ 
pensation for cattle so destroyed should be paid without de¬ 
termining the question of disease. But the statute in ques¬ 
tion is not of that character. It provides for a definite 
adjudication as to the existence of disease or otherwise. This 
fact having been determined, the bill provides that the owner 
shall receive “ reasonable compensation ” for cattle that prove 
to be sound, and which were killed under mistake by the 
officers. This is as it should be. But, on the other hand, 
