( 4 )
I would here remark that I placed three healthy cows in my stable in the hope of saving
them; they did very well for some time, but even there the disease attacked them; they were
removed without loss of time. A fortnight after however my horse got sick, suffered with the
same symptoms and died in less than eight days. I got the stall thoroughly repaired,
the floor renewed, and all the wood work painted, and all the time it remained unoccupied
(nearly two months). I kept it well aired and smoked, not apprehending infection, I brought a
healthy young mare and kept her in the stall for about twenty days, when she too
sickened in the same way and died. The sufferings of the horses were greater than those
of the, cows ; the throat became affected much sooner.
In one thatched shed, with a kutcha (mud) floor; four calves became diseased and died. I
then placed an old sow in it, and kept her there for about three months; she never got ill, and
when I removed her I had the shed well cleaned and covered with clay and cow dung, and
kept two horses in it up to the day of the late Cyclone, (October 5, 1864) when
the shed was blown down ; the horses were not sick, nor sorry for a single day."
Mr.
Floyd proceeds to recommend, on the authority of a letter to the Illustrated London News
of some time since, Turpentine, and states that the remedy was successfully tried by his neigh-
bour, Mr. Pritchard; to this we shall revert when we notice the mode of treatment of the
disease. He then observes: " The disease from its first stage attracts myriads of flies which
prove very distressing to cows. When Mr. Pritchard's cow got the turpentine and linseed
oil, the total absence of flies was remarkable." Some years ago the disease prevailed in
Russia, and lasted for 5 years. Some parts of Australia has been known to suffer from it.
Natives of the N. W. Provinces say, that whenever it has appeared, it has remained for
4 or 5 years, breaking out between November and January, and carrying off horses and
other animals, as well as cows." This highly interesting account tallies very closely with
the symptoms given by Mr. Rutherford, and it is of importance to note that Mr. Floyd's
description is that of a non-professional person, who described exactly what he saw without
consulting a veterenary surgeon. Further, both these reports were made during last year and
long before the English " Cattle Plague" had made its appearance.
It is worthy of remark here that the cattle treated by Messrs. Greenhill and Rutherford
were invariably brought to the extensive stables over which they preside, were kept in stalls
and boxes adjoining horses, yet the disease was in no instance communicated to horses,
and even with Mr. Floyd's cases before us we cannot but record our opinion that the
disease is not communicable to horses.
Our own observations, and those made by others, who watched the progress of the
Epizootic, are completely confirmatory of the foregoing.
In 1862 Mr. Ladd, who has long been an enthusiast in cattle breeding, had a fine young
cow attacked at his farm at Entally, in the Suburbs ; his description of the disease his cow
suffered from, corresponds closely with the above specified symptoms. She was treated by
a highly intelligent veterinary Surgeon, Mr. Bretherton, who pronounced the disease to
be an uncommon one, and to be essentially a " blood disease." Out of a total of 9 head
of cattle 7 were attacked and died; but it does not appear that the disease spread at this
time. Mr. Rutherford, however, states that he believes he has met with cases occasionally
both in Calcutta and on the other side of the river at Seebpore,* but that these cases
were of a sporadic character and did not spread. Mr. Ladd recognized the disease at the
Exhibition on its first appearance as the same, his cattle had been affected with two
years previously, and warned Mr. Floyd of its infectious nature, and advised him to
remove his cattle at once; but the warning came too late; these circumstances are of practical
importance, as they go far to prove that the Calcutta Epizootic of 1864 was really not as
was generally believed, a new disease, although we are not in a position to assert that it
had been previously known as an Epizootic.
Having thus fully given the symptoms characterizing the Calcutta Epizootic of 1864
we proceed to remark upon other Epizootics which have been rife of late years in different
portions of this country; and we shall be led to the conclusion from the information which
has been submitted by the Chief Officers of extensive districts, that a disease similar to
probably identical to that we have described, has been long known under other denomina-
tions in India, and we shall endeavour to show that at least two distinct Epizootics are, and
have been of frequent occurrence. To quote extensively from the reports which have been sub-
mitted, would be to lengthen this paper to an inconvenient and unnecessary extent. The cor-
respondence has already been published in the Supplement to the Calcutta Gazette of March
12th, 1864. We propose, therefore, to extract only briefly from these letters, premising that
there is a remarkable resemblance in all the descriptions given, so much so that we are com-
pelled to believe that similar Epizootics have been recognized in various Districts and appear to
be equally fatal in all. There are, doubtless, many other and different Epizootics which may
have been confounded with those described ; but we have, we believe, ample evidence to lead
to the conclusion that at least two distinct, highly fatal and infectious, Epizootics have been
described in these reports with considerable accuracy. One of these is the same as the
Calcutta Epizootic of 1864. The other is of a different character, but also well known
in Calcutta. The Districts from which reports have been submitted, comprise a large portion
* Of 13 bead of caettl 13 were attacked and all died.