The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1911-02-08

short time, and getting it in such a
successful condition, with such a
small amount of money, at the time
the outbreak Of the hog cholera oc-
Cured the past season.
The state veterinarian is often
placed in very embarrassing posi-
ton, where he is called in to Inspect
horses and where CHAMBERS is found.
Section 1884, Chapter IA, Title IL of
the Code says:
whenever, in the opinion of the
state veterinary surgeon the public
safety demands destruction of any
stock, the same may be destroyed up
on the written order of such surgeon,
with the consent of the owner, or
upon the approval of the governor, or
by virtue of such order such surgeon,
his deputy or assistant, or any peace
officer, may destroy such diseased
stock, and the owner thereof shall be
entitled to receive it's actual value
in it's condition when condemned, to
be ascertained and fixed by the state
veterinary surgeon and the nearest
justice of the peace, upon whom they
agree as umpire, and their judgment
shall be final when the value of the
stock, if not diseased, would not ex-
coed twenty-five dollars, but in all
other cases, either party shall have
the right to appeal to the district
court; but such appeal shall not delay
the destruction of the animals"
Section 1886 of the Supplement to
the Code, as amended by the 33rd gen.
eral assembly, reads as follows:
There is annually appropriated out
of any moneys, not otherwise appro-
priated, the sum of eleven thousand
dollars, or SO much thereof as may
be necessary, for the uses and pur-
poses herein set forth; but no part OF
said sum shall be used for the pur-
pose of reimbursing the owner of any
stock destroyed under the provisions
of this chapter"
1t can be readily seen that the two
chapters are conflicting, and when
the parties having affected horses con-
suit their attorney he shows them Sec
ton 1884 and they become convinced
that they are entitled to pay for their
diseased animals. One of two things
should be done by this legislature
either to repeal Chapter 1884, or make
an appropriation large enough, at
least, partially, to reimburse the own
ers for their loss.
There are two sides to the farmers
case: One is that a horse with CLAN
ders has no market value, because he
could not be sold for one cent. No
man would take his horse and expose
himself and family, nor his healthy
horses, even if he received him as a
gift. On the other hand, he might
have some intrinsic value, for a horse
might have chronic CHAMBERS and live
and be apparently in good condition,
although he might be dangerous to
other horses.
Under the existing laws, the state
veterinarian would recommend such
a horse placed under strict quaran-
tine, having him isolated from all 9TH
er animals that might carry the in
lection. This would be done for the
public safety. Now, if it is public
benefit to have the victim placed in
quarantine, and finally killed, why
should not the public help to pay for
at least part Of the loss for the de-
struction of this infected animal? The
loss would be very small to the gen.
eral public, but might be very heavy
to the owner. 1t is often not alone
the loss of the horses that are de-
strOyed, but very often it strikes the
man in the midst of his harvest,
when it would be risky to buy new
horses for some time, or until the
barns, fences, grounds and pastures
become disinfected; neither would it
be possible to induce the neighbors to
risk, their horses on the infected prem
Uses at such time.
Other states pay for the destruc-
tim Of ylandared horses whom killed
by the state. Why should not Iowa
do the same Manson Journal.
When huvinp a cO1uh medicine for