Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1911-05-31

market. without label, of meat taken t
from such cattle-Aas provoked a
great deal Of criticism. He answers
in an admirably frank manner nearly |
all the queries propounded. The |
facts are laid bare and the public can
Judge for itself whether the existing
law is proper one and whether the /
course pursued under it is one that
the state wants to follow. The peo-
pie desired and deserved to know the
whole truth, which is now, in most
part, laid bare for the first time, and
they can form their own conclusions.
In spite Of the illuminating state
ment of the government veterinarian, |
who also serves ex officio as state in
spector, the case made out by DR..
Brock will not prove thoroughly con-
vincing to all. 1t is now definitely
known that the state is engaged in
the business of taking cattle con-
demned under the tuberculin test and
less degree with bovine tuberculosis;
praised valuation based on the assump-
ton that they are unfit for the ordi-
nary uses of slaughtered animals : TAX
ing the cattle to the Burlington Rem
dering company's plant; Strengthening
them inspecting the carcasses by eye
alone as far as the knife opens them
up placing in the rendering vat those
carcasses wherein the disease is gen
eral or far advanced; passing for use
as human food those carcasses where
in the disease is slight or localized,
according as the inspection reveals 1t !;
selling this latter meat through the
Swift concern to retailers whose
names are not to be divulged, because
it is their own private business"
and by them passed on to the public
without distinguishing mark of any
kind. The question will not down, Is
this kind of business that Vermont
ought to engage in?
The history of former traffic of
similar nature; the steps taken by
courts and legislatures to prevent it
in response to law and sentiment; the
surreptitious weakening of the law in
1908; the care taken to conceal the
identity of he retailers of this meat
now the fact-which DR.. Brock will
not deny-that much Of this forty per
cent of condemned cattle meat is sold
at very low price and packed in
cans; that the attitude of the cattle
department is one of opposition to-
ward labelling this meat-all these
things point to one inevitable conclu.
sion that the department, aware of
the popular feeling in the matter, is
seeking to dispose of this meat,
which it regards as scientifically un-
Objectionable. by secrecy and stealth,
for the saving in money to be gained
thereby. 1t places its own estimate
of what is fit for the public to eat
above what it knows to be the choice
of the public as to what itself should
eat in order to realize few thou
sands of dollars annually to the state
treasury. We submit that this is going
pretty far in the way of paternalism.
Even should we concede every one of
DR.. Brooks premises, we could not
agree with his conclusions, but should
rest our case on the ina]ienable right
of every person to purchase such
meat and such food as appear to suit
HIM, Lot some expert Or inspector,
and that, too, with full knowledge of
the quality of his goods, 50 far as it
can be impaired to him.
1t may be that the depar tment feels
thoroughly sure of its ground. It
may be that science, always assert
i've, can absolutely detect throughout
the entire eatable part of beef car
cass, by such an inspection as it now
receives, the presence of disease liza.
bic to be communicated to the human
being who eats Of it, and cam sepa-
| rate, with ffawless accuracy, In every
case, the good meat from the bad.
We doubt 1T, but it may be so. Com.
pared with the responsibility resting
Ird nd of fha
persons having this burden upon
bles lest ne rush two trains togethe,
by mistake and end a few human
lives ought to rest in calm content
ment: the surgeon who proceeds with
a critical operation that may disprove
his diagnosis ought to be care free
! the juror who relies upon evidence ir
court on which to base his findings OF
guilt in murder case ought to smile
goodnaturedly at his task.
And after all, what is gained by it.
Sixty per cent of the meat, DR.. Rrocl
says, is absolutely unfit to eat Il
there is grain of doubt about the re
malnder - even All 'unreasonabl,
prejudice" on the part of Earg,
number Of consumers-is not the SAT
est and best way to let the othe
forty per cent go with the sixty
Vermoat is not in such dire financial
straits as to gamble with the healtI
of her people, or even to deceive then
into purchasing that which they othe
wise would not. for the sake of few
thousands of dollars annually. Whe
the time comes, we expect the stat
will say this in no unmistakable way