368 
FOURTH INTERNATIONAL VETERINARY CONGRESS. 
which have been in a contaminated centre.'’’ This amendment was 
rejected. 
Prof. Muller proposed the following: 
Animals suspected of contamination must be placed in such 
conditions of isolation as shall prevent their connection with 
other animals of their species, or shall be killed.” 
Mr. Leblanc offered this: 
“ {a) Contaminated animals shall be isolated ; 
“ ( b) But when the disease shall exist for the first time in a 
country, the killing of all the contaminated animals must be 
carried out.” 
It was agreed that the phrase, “suspected of contamination,” 
which is a central idea in this discussion, may, in order to remove 
all the differences of interpretation, be replaced by the word 
“ contaminated ,” to convey the meaning of “ suspected of being 
infected through contagion.” In this case, there are several 
points of discrimination to observe: 
( a ) Animals presenting the evident symptoms of the disease. 
(animaux atteints—evkrante Thieve.) 
(b) Animals which present morbid manifestations, which sug¬ 
gest suspicions of the existence of the disease. ( douteux ou sus¬ 
pects—dev Krankheit verdaclitige Thieve.) 
(c) Contaminated animals — (der Austeekimg verdachtige ); 
these last including those which have been in such conditions that 
it is proper to admit that they mayihave received contagion, or 
that they have been in conditions proper for infection, while they 
yet do not present symptoms which would subject them to be 
considered as affected or suspected .” 
Mr. Pattera moved the striking out of the second part of 
Article 3. 
This was rejected, and the report adopted as engrossed. 
Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7 were then taken up for discussion. 
Mr. Bouley spoke, directing his remarks to showing the value 
of preventive inoculation, and submitted the following mo¬ 
tion : 
“ The experimental proof is to-day furnished, that it is possi¬ 
ble to extend to the organism of bovine animals an actual im- 
