Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1902-11-06

and shown to be, aHecteu WIN ulseaeo'
at once a menace to itself, to other an
lmals and to the human family.
But, ignoring the views OF extrem-
lists on either side, there are certain
common grounds that all can stana
on. For instance There is disease
among cattle that we call bovine
tuberculosis, under the ravages oil
which animals affected become,
to a greater or less degree, per-
meated with pus formations. With
the knowledge that a COW was
so affected, no one would eat her
flesh or her products. This disease
spreads among the herd, and ultimate
" decimates it, either causing the
death ofthe animals or making them
so improbable that they are sold Tor
slaughter. 1t is desirable that the
state be rid of this disease, il possible,
on account of its injury to herds, It's
unwholesomeness, if not its actual
danger to the human family, The
tuberculin test, in the hands oil
trained men, is a very effective de-
tector OF the disease-the most efiec-
tive thus far known.
So that, after all, the only real con-
tention comes over the question as to
whether the state should take any
part in trying to stamp out the DIS
ease, and if 1t does what the COM
pensation paid to owners should be.
The state might leave the farmers to
fight tuberculosis alone at their own
loss and expense, suffering whatever
hardship might befall them, as others
do who invest in property and take
chances Of its depreciation in value
Again, the state might choose TO re-
gard bovine tuberculosis as apublic
menace, a nuisance, that should be
forthwith suppressed at the cost Of
him who has it in his herd. When
diphtheria or smallpox breaks out,
the state compels the victim and his
family TO do things to protect the
general health, and they are done at
private expense. 1t is urged by some
that cattle are killed under the rule
of eminent domain, and the state
should therefore pay the entire value,
but this is a stretch of that power
that it would not sustain.
As to compensation, it is based on
expediency and sentiment, rather
than the real principles Of law. If a
farmer has an animal that is a source
of danger to other animals, as well
as to mankind, the common practice
would be to require him to put 1t out
of the way at his own loss. That's
the general rule. But bovine tuber-
culosis has been made an exception
because the public has an interest
in protecting its health and wants
steps taken with more expedition
and effectiveness than would be the
case if the cattle owner were left 10
fight his battle alone, without com
pensation from the state, and further
because the disease is so widespread
that the killing of all the animals
affected would work ruin to many
farmer il the state did not come TO
his aid. So it is that the state gives
to the farmer half value for animals
slaughtered by order of the COM
mission.
But the present cry Of the cattle
owner is for full compensation on a
basis OF health. Should he receive
it7 In our opinion, he should not.
He is the one most interested in keep
ing his herd clear OF the disease, The
state offers a premium for negligence
when it pays fun price for cattle
slain. 1t also makes a market for
animals OF questionable value, and
in most instances the owner would
find it easy to soak the treasury. il
he desired. 1t is well known that a
COW OF good physical appearance
frequently proves to be badly tuber-
culous. II she is appraised at full
value before slaughter, is she not over
valued when found to be unhealthy
at the autopsy2 Is it fair that the
state should pay for her as a sound
animal when in fact she is not ? The
expense OF a law that should offer
full compensation would run up into
the hundreds OF thousands annually.
AS an alternative, we renew our
former suggestion, that the proper
basis for compensation is an appraisal
made by disinterested parties before
the animal is killed, as modified by
what the autopsy determines, and
that this full value should, in the
fntarasf If y,uhIfc health aud NJ fha