SOCIETY MEETINGS. 
69 
the government. Take the state of Wittenberg for example. 
Parties in that state occupying public positions similar to county 
commissioners here, appoint Mr. So-and-so an inspector, and he 
may inspect for trichinae only. In Prussia it is necessary to re¬ 
ceive instruction for twelve weeks (I think that is the period) 
at an abbatoir and an examination passed, before they are al¬ 
lowed to practice inspection, but he is supposed to call in a vet¬ 
erinarian whenever he thinks that it is a contagious disease, but 
these people, in a great many instances, think they know more 
than the veterinarians (usually quacks do), and take upon 
themselves too much responsibility. In the German army and 
other government positions, they are absolutely qualified men. 
Dr. Moore: Another question : Dr. Peters states that it is 
the common practice of the empiric when he is called and finds 
a case of choke, for instance, which he thinks is going to prove 
fatal, and in which he advises the destruction of the animal and 
its use as food. I would like to know if in such a case any in¬ 
spection is made by other authorities. 
Dr. Peters: Not if he is present before the animal is killed. 
Dr. Stewart: I find in Zuill’s Friedberger & Frohner’s 
book a statement relative to diseases of food animals, that in 
many of the diseased conditions which are likely to destroy 
life, which are not amenable to treatment, they recommend the 
destruction of the animal and the use of the carcass for food 
purposes. For instance, if a cow was suffering from paresis, 
milk fever, or was paralyzed, we may say moribund—would 
recommend that it be killed, dressed and used for food. If a 
cow were suffering from traumatic pericarditis, in which the 
pericardial inflammation was of a purulent character, yet the 
animal was not quite dead, perhaps about to die, certainly could 
not be relieved by treatment—recommend that the animal be 
slaughtered and the flesh used for food. And so in many other 
cases in which, in this country, the flesh would be condemned 
as unfit for food. Viewed from this standpoint American in¬ 
spection is certainly much superior to German or French in¬ 
spection. Animals are so abundant in this country, and the 
price of flesh so low, comparatively, that public sentiment de¬ 
mands its absolute freedom from disease, and would, I believe, 
often transcend the zeal of the inspector, and reject what he 
passes, because their sentiment is not always founded upon 
knowledge. I do not know to what extent inspectors generally 
are governed or influenced by sentiment, but I know that with 
some it is a potent factor. If they would not like to eat the 
