The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-05-21
PAYING FOR DISEASED CATTLE,

II is announced that payment is
about To begin to the owners OF animals
affected with tuberculosis, and which
therefore have been condemned and
killed in this State. This is TO be done
in pursuance of law. But why such
law should bc passed is Il mystery When
anyone has. an animal. a tree, or other
infectious article or substance upon his
premises or in his ownership and care,
the public steps in and determines that.
for the general good, the animal, tree,
or the other thing which is in the
nature of n nuisance, must be destroyed,
When the law went into effect which
provides for The destruction of trees
beyond cure. good many owners of
such trees loudly demanded payment.
The absurdity OF such demand how
ever. was 50 evident that tho demand
WAS not complied with. 1T was seen
10y every one that the tree too badly
affected to be cured was not only OF
no value 10 the owner, but d positive
nuisance and pest TO all other surround
ing fruit trees.
Whenever there is public nuisance
in any part Of the community, the
health officers step in and abate that
nuisance, often requiring the one re-
sponsible for it to pay The cost. This
is generally accepted principle; with
out it there would he extreme difficulty
in preserving the public health and in
maintaining sanitary conditions. Wormy
apples are thrown away by the inspec-
tors, rancid butter is destroyed, milE
that is clearly a menace TO the health
of those who would drink it is split, and
there is no payment for it, just as
there ought to be none.
1t is hard to sec, therefore, on what
principle the law was enacted which
permits Of this payment to the owners
of cattle that were so infected that the
authorities considered the public safety
required the destruction Of those cat
tic. it is unfortunate for the owner
of cattle to find that they are infected
with tuberculosis, or with any other
disease that requires the killing Of the
animal. 1T is unfortunate also for the
owner Of sheep to find scab in his flock,
and yet if scabby animal is found in
a shipment of sheep, the pwner Of that
scabby sheep, so far from being paid
for it, is himself taken up and fined or
put in Jail for having such an animal
in his shipment This fact makes it
all the more singular that a law such
as this was enacted. under which pay
ment is made to owners of cattle so
badly infected that they had 10 be
killed, is being made. We should be
glad to see the question taken Into
court and the law tested, TO see whether
this sort of legislation is valid or not,
If it is it will be great thing for the
sheep men, who will thereby be paid
for destroyed animals if they neglect
their flocks and their sheep have 20 be
killed to stay the infection. They can
then call on the State to pay for such
as are incurably infected with the scab,
and accordingly have to be killed. If IL
is good law for cattle men, it ought TO
be a good law also for sheep men; it
ought also to be good law for owners
Of pest-infected orchards, and for those
responsible for nuisances generally. 1t
seems TO us that the State has entered
upon a dangerous policy in this sort OF
legislation.