EDITORIAL. 
397 
EDITORIAL. 
VETERINARY INSPECTORS OF MEAT. 
• % 
Our readers will remember that we have in preceding issues 
of the Review frequently urged the necessity of the formation 
of a National Veterinary Sanitary Bureau. It is, therefore, very 
gratifying to us to see no less an authority than that of the 
Medical Record , of this city, endorsing our views, and urging its 
establishment under regulations similar to those we have already 
suggested. 
We agree with our contemporary in all the points he has taken 
in this matter. With him we do not see any necessity for an 
independent board, which would probably not command for its 
labors the support that it would obtain if it was connected with 
either of the existing Department of Agriculture, or, perhaps 
better, the National Board of Health. 
By a recent action of the Secretary of the Treasury, how¬ 
ever, a National Cattle Commission having been appointed, the 
question might arise whether this Commission is not likely to be¬ 
come the nucleus of the V eterinary Board we have been asking 
for. It is claimed, it is true, that the Commission was only 
appointed with the object of taking measures against the bovine 
lung scourge, but we are inclined to believe that its labors will 
not be limited to that disease, but on the contrary, that they will 
be much more comprehensive, and include other diseases which 
are now threatening the decimation of our domestic animals 
generally. 
While considering this question of the regulation of sanitary 
veterinary medicine, we are brought to the consideration of the 
relations existing between the veterinarian and the public health 
in connection with the inspection of meat in reference to its fit¬ 
ness for human consumption as food. A glance at the position 
of the Meat Inspector in European cities, and in our great 
metropolis, will show the difference between the two. 
How are our Meat Inspectors appointed ? What amount of 
knowledge are they required to possess ? With one or two excep- 
