Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1931-10-08
COUNTY AREA
TEST IN COURT
Tuberculin Testing of Cat
tie in Pine County Will
Soon Come to Head.
To be Heard at Center City
Tuesday; Test Petitioned
for First in 1929.


for tuberculosis in cattle in Pine
county is now coming strongly to the
front, the State Livestock Sanitary
Board having instituted action in
court to carry through the law. The
order for a writ of mandamus COM
manding the board of county commits
sioners of Pine county and the county
auditor to enter into an agreement with
the State Livestock Sanitary Board for
the tuberculin testing of all cattle in
the county has been allowed by the
court The matter will be threshed
out before Judge Alfred P. Stolberg
at the court house in Center City,
Chisago county, on Tuesday, Oct.
18th, commencing at 1 p. m.
Asked Test in 1929.
The county area test has been a
burning question amongst cattle own
ers of Pine county for the past three
years. In July of 1929 more than
fifty per cent of the cattle owners
petitioned the county commissioners
for the test. 1t was laid over by the
board at their July meeting and at
the following meeting in August the
commissioners turned down the petit
tion by vote of three to two, Com
missioners John Ettel, E. L. Wilcox,
and Frank w. Stepan opposing it and
Commissioners Nels Oakland and Nels
Matson voting for it.
That action was taken under the
law of 1923-Chapter 269. During
the legislative session of 1881 the
law was amended so that if 100 or
more cattle owners petitioned for the
area test in counties where more than
fifty per cent had previously petit
toned for it the county board should
then enter into an agreement with the
State Sanitary Livestock Board for
the test. The big majority of the
legislature evidently felt that the pc
titioners should have some power
where no action could be secured
through the county board even after
it was obvious that the majority of
the cattle owners desired the test.
Under provisions of this new act
by the Observation-Disclosures $50, laws
of 1881, more than 100 cattle owners
board for. the area test in July of
this year. 1t was laid over by the
commissioners twice in the same
month, the only thing they could do
outside of entering into an agreement
with the State Board for the test.
This action of the Pine county COM
missioners led to the court proceed
ings that have now been instituted.
Though two of the county commits
sioners were for the area test when
it came up in 1929 and likely are
still of the same opinion, it is under
stood that they have joined the other
commissioners in asking that the test
be delayed now, awaiting more pros
porous times. Letters have been
written to the State Livestock SAM
tary Board asking that the test be
withheld for a time but the board
seems determined to go through with
it. Many who favor the area test
seem to think that the State Board
should not be so hasty in enforcing
the law.
About $4,000 Cattle in County.
According to the 1881 tax list of
Pine county there are 42,S79 cattle
in the county. In other counties
where the area test has been taken
it shows that there is generally from
IS per cent to 20 per cent more cattle
than the tax list divulges. Maintain
ing the same average there would be
approximately $4,000 cattle in Pine
county. The area test under the law
is paid for by the county with funds
not otherwise appropriated, and the
cost is not to exceed twenty-five cents
per head of cattle for each tuber-
culin test. The estimated cost to the
county runs all the way from $4,000
to 100000. While the loss to indi-
vidual cattle owners through con-
demned cattle would likely be very
small owing to the good indemnity
and the price received for the carcass
when present market values are taken
into consideration, it will however be
some expense to the county and it is
this expense that many taxpayers
would like to avoid at this time.
Those who want the test now, argue
that the $4,000 Tor whatever ex-
pense the test will incur to the coun-
ty) is not just $4,000 sent out of the
county for it will save money in the
private or individual testing that is
going on more or less all the time,
and which is now paid by the indi-
vidual. They are DESTROYS of having
the area test made, the sooner the
better they argue, and have the county
accredited the same as surrounding
counties. The court action is arous-
Continued on Page 81