U. S. VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION. 
475 
them places of horror. Gentlemen, I feel sure that no meat inspection is possi¬ 
ble nor advisable in such places ; we cannot be expected to perform our duty in 
blood and dirt up to our ankles. If civilization should be extended anywhere, 
it is into the slaughter house. But looking at this matter as leniently as possible, 
it remains a duty to condemn these places and to demand the erection of public 
abattoirs by the community. No expense is too large, no sacrifice too heavy to 
accomplish this end. The plan, location and erection of such public abattoirs 
should not be decided upon without the advice of a sanitarian and an architect 
who can properly apply the principles of hygiene to such buildings. 
As to the question, “Who should be recognized as the proper expert in meat 
inspection,” there can be but one answer, namely, the veterinarian. To success¬ 
fully perform both ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection, requires a through 
knowlege of the physiology and pathology of our domestic animals and their 
relation to the human race. As the physician is too much of a specialist to be 
compelled to pursue these studies, the other medical profession should consider 
them. This is specially proper since every educated veterinarian diligently fol¬ 
lows the discoveries of medical science, whereas, the physician is largely igno¬ 
rant of what is going on in veterinary science. 
To employ laymen as meat inspectors, such as stockmen and butchers, is a 
great mistake. I know from personal observation that such men will decide 
according to their feelings and prejudice rather than from their knowledge. If 
asked why they condemn such and such meat, they will say, “I would not eat 
such flesh.” The argument of some authorities on the employment of laymen 
is, that many veterinarians do not know more about it than these men. Now 
that is erroneous. We may candidly admit that many veterinarians of this 
country are not up to a high standard of education; but however little they may 
have gained at the college, they have gone through a systematic course which 
will at least enable them to know why they do so and why not otherwise ; and, 
may I ask, is there any profession in the United States which has a uniform 
standard of education ? Is there not the same difference of general and profes¬ 
sional accomplishments in physicians, lawyers and ministers ? Still, however 
great may be at present the perplexity about everything belonging to meat in¬ 
spection in the heads of some of our legislators and their followers, we may feel 
sure that the whole question will solve itself in time on its natural basis, and 
that the veterinarian of the United States will duly occupy the same position as 
a sanitarian that he effectually holds in European lands. 
Gentlemen, having discussed the principles of meat inspection, it is not 
difficult to apply them to national or international legislation. In the United 
States there seems to be the tendency to deny the right of a single State to enact 
laws requiring meat inspection within its own limits, as this naturally restricts 
interstate commerce. It seems, then, as if the national government is the 
proper authority to carry out such laws. It does not matter much from our 
professional standpoint, whether the national government or the States pass 
such laws. But if there be no uniform law otherwise, we should unite our in¬ 
fluence in behalf of the interested public, to secure a national law, which carries 
with it so much more authority and efficiency. It is to be deeply regretted that 
the bill recently introduced into the Senate by Senator Paddock providing for 
