50 
REMARKS ON FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE. 
By a “ Midland Counties Veterinary Surgeon.” 
In common with many members of the profession, I have 
been expecting to see, in the pages of the Veterinarian, a 
really scientific article on the origin of foot-and-mouth 
disease, and also a description of the various pathological 
changes which attend its progress or follow in its wake, 
having especial reference to the causes which either increase 
or lessen the virulent form it sometimes assumes. I have 
had a few cases in which that dreaded sequela, sloughing into 
the pedal joints, took place, and in every one of these the 
constitutional irritation ultimately led to a fatal termination. 
Again, as to the legislative measures for its suppression; 
fatal cases are so exceptional that I would ask whether we, 
as a profession, ought not to protest against the stringency 
of some of the regulations now in force to limit its extension 
on the following grounds: 
1st. That the disease is not of such importance as to justify 
the adoption of very stringent measures for its suppression. 
Indeed, it is well known that the majority of affected ani¬ 
mals recover without treatment in the course of a few days. 
2nd. That the restrictions have proved a miserable failure, 
and an enormous cost to the state. 
3rd. Even supposing the restrictions were so carried out as 
to free the country of the disease, and the importation of live 
stock even suspended, have we any just ground for believing 
such efforts would avail to give security against future out¬ 
breaks ? 
4th. Is not the disease an epizootic affection, as truly as 
influenza of the horse; and not only so in Great Britain, but in 
every country on which the sun shines ? If this be not so, 
seeere, it may be asked, is the home of the disease ? and has 
w r hy nation succeeded in successfully exterminating the 
affection ? 
The law, as it now stands, is worse than useless. Let us, 
seek, therefore, for the removal of such grievous and in¬ 
efficient measures of repression as are framed under it. Foot- 
and-mouth disease should be either erased from the Conta¬ 
gious Diseases (Animals) Act, or the clauses relating to it 
very much modified. By all means let it still be penal to 
expose in any public place an animal suffering with the 
disease. Some such alteration of the law, as I have hinted 
