346 
M. ARLOING. 
different, ought to entail the same result. A proprietor will 
not wish to maintain a tuberculous animal isolated and seques¬ 
trated indefinately ; and, since he cannot remove it except for 
slaughter, he will himself be brought promptly to demand 
that measure. 
In Algeria, then, the administration imposes the slaughter 
of tuberculous animals, while in France it in a manner com¬ 
pels the owner to propose the slaughter of his animal. 
The modus faciendi employed in Algeria can, strictly speak¬ 
ing, render legitimate a demand for compensation ; while, by 
the modus adopted in France, the administration may believe 
itself freed from all obligation to the proprietor. 
Rigorously, this theory can be maintained, for a tubercu¬ 
lous animal is a subject dangerous to the property of others, 
and it is not permitted to any person to wittingly injure any 
one. If the animal that is the source of the injury does not 
disappear by the goodwill of the owner, society has the right 
to exact its destruction. 
But a more conciliatory theory has often been sustained, 
and at Brussels even it was supported by M. Lydtin. There 
can be no doubt that in most cases the disease finds an entrance 
to a building without the knowledge of the proprietor, that 
he is himself the victim of preexisting contagion; so that, in 
imposing upon him a sacrifice for the public good, it is well 
that society should charge itself with a part of the loss. 
Moreover, the efficacy of the law requires that the owners 
of tuberculous animals should not have to run too much 
counter to their own interests in submitting to the obligation 
to report. The only means of diminishing their resistance 
is to establish the principle of compensation in the case of 
slaughter. 
Nevertheless, it seems to us excessive to render the State 
alone responsible for a situation which, frequently, has been 
created by the carelessness of owners. It is to the principle 
of mutuality that recourse must be had—a principle which 
could be applied under the control of the State. It would be 
equally excessive to allow dishonest ( vireuse ) speculation to 
spoil the principle of compensation. 
