Chap. _S¥ g 08 eS
Shelf M Ba tt

----4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
SRR RE

3 Aus £
Bue ALA ee
Mi sen AWG
wh teens
we! rs

ee

at a
Pn wy

oo i] fA

ee." i,
ae ‘

a
a)
mer ei
sf
ta
; re it
| ‘SOY d Vane Vee ire i ' at ; weal Natl aval
vi ; Mi «4! ue
ile 4 ‘ ) “ae ‘
a a | Wid OAKS

' H iu

- t

ie by " ee 4 weno a Ay rane a nd Te) h ay . ile belies ia CesT +Q.' .
We ae ita) Petia: dy Sie, Pet Ne Os al of yee ts
rf, Deri: ae vie S10,

REPORT

ers. |
ne: W€aiS lay ure ah as
\y

Joint Special Committee

TO INVESTIGATE

THE CAUSE OF THE OUTBREAK OF DISEASE AMONG
THE CATTLE AT THE STATE COLLEGE FARM,

The Loss and Disposal of Cattle Therefrom,

AND THE
DOINGS AND CORRESPONDENCE OF THE COMMISSIONERS ON
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES AMONG CATTLE IN RELA-

TION TO THE SAME,

/ : ‘oh TOGETHER WITH THE

Testimony Taken Before the Committee.

AUGUSTA :
SPRAGUE & SON, PRINTERS TO THE STATE.
1887,

STATE OF MAINE.

IN SENATE, February 12, 1887, P. M.

Ordered, Vhat a Joint Special Committee, consisting of Senators Allen
of Knox and Rich of Waldo, with Representatives Walton of Skowhegan,
Libby of Burnham and Adams of Litchfield, are hereby instructed to in-
vestigate the cause or causes of the late outbreak of disease among the
cattle at the State College farm, the loss of other cattle at said farm prior
to that time, the disposal of cattle sold therefrom, and the doings and cor-
respondence of the commissioners on contagious diseases among cattle in
relation to the same. Said committee shall have power to employ a sten-
ographer and to send for such persons and papers as may be necessary to
accomplish the purpose of such investigation: their report to be made to
this legislature as soon as practicable.

Read and passed.
C. W. TILDEN, Secretary.

In HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, \
February 12th, 1887.
Passed in concurrence.
NICHOLAS FESSENDEN, Clerk.

Ml te

Digest sgh 3 a Bg

The undersigned, a majority of the committee appointed by a joint
order of the two Houses of the Legislature to investigate the cause or
causes of the late outbreak of disease among the cattle at the State Col-
lege farm, the loss of other cattle at said farm prior to that time. the dis-
posal of the cattle therefrom, and the doings aud correspondence of the
Commissioners on Contagious Diseases Among Cattle aud in relation to
the same, have attended to that duty and after several hearings and an
exhaustive examination of the facts, beg leave to report, that the disease
from which the herd of cattle at the State College farm was suffering in
March and April, 1886. was tuberculosis, a disease identical with con-
sumption in the human family ; that said disease, according to the evidence
introduced before us, which is made a part of this report, is contagious,
and readily communicated by reason of the constant intermingling of the
different animals of a herd together, and is transmittible from either parent
to its offspring.

‘The date and source of the first introduction of the disease into the
College herd is unknown, but the evidence tends to disclose that it had
existed there for some years, and that it had caused the death of several
‘attle on said farm before the slaughter of the herd in April, 1886.

The outbreak of said disease there in the winter and spring of 1886 was
the most malignant on record, and seems to have been caused by the col-
lecting and intermingling of so many cattle, some of which, at least,
were diseased in close and well-finished stables and by the thorough im-
pregnation of said stables with contagious virus from those and former
diseased animals. Little out-door exercise and concentrated and stimu-
lating food were also potent factors in the rapid extension and progress
of the disease.

This herd, which appears to have been thoroughly inbred, which fact
caused the disease to develop in an unusually severe form.

The disposal of the cattle from said farm for several years past is shown
by the evidence introduced before us and is referred to.

The doings and correspondence of the Commissioners on contagious
diseases among the cattle on said farm, are also herewith submitted in the
evidence introduced. ‘Ibe facts seem to fully justify the destruction of
the entire College herd,

4

In relation to those cattle sold from the College farm for several years
past, if we are allowed by the terms of the order for investigation to make
a recommendation, we must certainly recommend a most careful examina-
tion of those animals, and especially the bulls recently sold therefrom, by
a competent board of cattle commissioners, to the end that every vestige
of said disease, wherever found, may be stamped out and destroyed. As
a committee of this Legislature, we take no part in any controversy aris-
ing out of this matter. Yet we cannot help coming to the conclusion that
the Cattle Commissioners have not given such attention to this case as the
exigency required, and we respectfully suggest that the existing condition
of things may have grown out of the fact that one of the members of said
Commission seems to have held several official positions, the duties of
which were incompatible with each other.

We make the majority report of the Cattle Commission, signed by Dr.
Bailey and Messrs. Bell and Ferguson, a part of the evidence in this in-
vestigation, and, as a consequence, a part of our report, and we respect-
fully call attention to the testimony given in said investigation by Dr. J.
F. Winchester of Lawrence, Massachusetts, a member of the Cattle Com-
mission of Massachusetts, and A. W. Cheever of Dedham, Massachusetts,
also a member of said Board, and others.

The above report is signed by I. C. Libby, who differs from the other
members of the Committee in the recommendation of the examination at
the State’s expense of any apparently well animals and also any reflection
on any member of the Cattle Commission.

Samuel H. Allen, | Committee on the part
Alfred W. Rich, 35 of the Senate.

5S. J. Walton, bp be hld, F
Enoch Adams, Committee on the part

L. ©. Libby, of the House.

io ewe) Ne

Wepnespay, Feb. 23d, 1887.

Lesuiz C. Cornisn, Esq., of Augusta, addressed the com-
mittee :

If you will pardon the intrusion, I will state that Mr. Hall
C. Burleigh has asked me to be present at this investigation.
The matter under consideration is one in which he is deeply
interested, as it affects the cattle interests of the State. I
do not desire to intrude at all, or to interfere with the
course of the investigation. I presume that the committee
will get at all the material facts, but if, after your examina-
tion is completed, any further points may suggest themselves
to me, I should like the privilege of inquiring in regard to
them. This privilege I hope the committee will accord me.

CHAIRMAN Watton: I have no doubt, Mr. Cornish, that
you can have that privilege.

TESTIMONY OF J. F. WINCHESTER.

I reside in Lawrence, Mass., and am a veterinary surgeon
and one of the Board of Cattle Commissioners of Massachu-
setts. I have had a little experience with the disease pleuro-
pneumonia and considerable experience with the disease called
tuberculosis. Pleuro-pneumonia is highly contagious, charac-
terized by lesions of the lung and pleura. It is confined entirely
to bovines and has an indefinite period of incubation, varying
from two to three weeks to ninety days, but has been known to
break out after that period. The first noticeable symptom of

6

the disease is an elevation in the temperature and a cough,
then the symptoms of ordinary lung trouble and pleurisy com-
bined. Those two are associated. It differs from ordinary
pneumonia from the fact that a subject of that disease ordina-
rily gets well or dies inside of a fortnight, while in contagious
pleuro-pneumonia it will be sometimes as long as eight or ten
weeks from the time it begins before resolution takes place,
that is, if they get well. A good many die, because it resists
most any form of treatment or cure. It has been and is a
disease which we fear very much, from the fact that it is so
highly contagious and so hard to control, except by the most
stringent laws. Ido not think they die off so quick with this
disease as with simple acute pneumonia. I think this disease
a little more important than tuberculosis. The characteristic
appearance of a lung after death from this disease is a marbled
appearance, due to thickening of the cellular tissue between
the lobes of each lung, making it have the appearance of mar-
ble, not unlike some beef that you see where the fat and the
meat are pretty well distributed. I am not so sure that it is
not transmitted from the parent to progeny. My experience
with the disease is limited. They may have a chronic condi-
tion of the disease that will last for years, so that it becomes en-
cysted; then, under favorable circumstances, the cyst breaks
and the virus is set free and acts as u source of contagion
again.

I have had considerable experience with tuberculosis in the
last ten years. My experience and learning tell me that it is
both hereditary and contagious. Some authors upon it claim
that the contagiousness of it is a sight worse than its danger
of being hereditary. I think we are justified in accepting that
to be the case. It is a chronic disease; that is to say, it is
slow in its development. It may exist in an animal her nat-
ural life and not be detected, except when dying from some
other cause. It may affect the brain, the lungs, the pleura,
the peritoneum, the intestines, the joints, the genitive organs,
in fact any organ of the body. There is no question that it

is a disease that is transmitted by propagation. It is not con-
tagious unless the tubercles or tubercular deposit is attached
to a mucous membrane, and by atmospheric influence it is de-
veloped so that it starts the virus and that is taken into the
system by some other animal, either by breathing or by diges-
tion. It is due to a specific germ which has been propagated
and inoculated and the tuberculosis produced. It is identical
to the disease in man, tuberculosis. It may be carried from
man to a bovine, and, I think there is evidence now to show,
from bovine to man. That is a pretty hard thing to prove,
because there have been no experiments to that effect. I said
it was contagious when it affected the mucous membrane, be-
cause all mucous membranes are exposed to the atmosphere.
The serous membrane is one that is not exposed, and therefore
if the disease affects that there is no danger of its escaping to
any other animal. It may affect the milk ofa cow. It is not
invariably transmitted from parent to progeny. There are
instances on record where a tubercular animal has delivered
healthy offspring, and they remained healthy through their
life. _Whether those animals transmitted it to the second
generation, I do not know, but it has been known to skip one
generation and be reproduced in the next. The probabilities
are that the offspring will be affected. I have found that to
be the case a number of times. Ihave had three generations
on the same farm, mother, daughter and grand-daughter.
Think there was a herd of ten on that farm and two cases of
the disease on that one farm; but the mother of those two
had been sold. There were three out of the ten affected. That
is a very recent occurrence. Some eight or nine years ago I
was called to a farm and found a cow with tuberculosis among
a herd of forty or fifty. I had her killed and I have not been
called there since. I had a case of the disease in an imported
cow which had been on the farm a week before she was taken
sick and died. I inquired about the offspring of this cow and
could not get any instances or indications of the disease. The
breaking down of the tissue had not occurred in her case, and

8

that is probably the reason why none were affected. She was
three or four years old. She could not have given the dis-
ease to the other animals while in that condition. You must
have the germ, the virus, set free to get the tubercles. That
does not occur until the breaking down of the tissue holding
it. A consumptive cow may throw a healthy calf, and it may
not. I think the largest per cent of tubercular animals are
past five years. It is a chronic disease in the beginning and
does not develop rapidly. If a cow is diseased and the udder
is not affected I do not think you would have any trouble about
using the milk. The udder is at times specially affected. It
is generally accepted that until there is a breaking down of
this membrane, unless the lymphatics are highly diseased, the
beef is a fair quality, kind of second quality beef; that is, if
there is not too much disease of the lymphatic glands. Offi-
cially we have never done anything in regard to the isolation
and quarantining of tuberculosis in Massachusetts, because we
have never been called to but one case since I have been on
the Board, a year ago last October.

Q. Whether you find it often at the slaughter-houses in
Massachusetts where they are slaughtering cattle for beef.

A. I saw a letter written by a gentleman who had been at
a hearing at the State House on this subject, and he made a
strong statement,—that of these old cows, ‘‘skates” I believe
he called them, there was hardly one that did not have some
evidences of the disease. He was not a professional man,
and I do not know what right he had to make that statement.
He said he did not think there was a herd of twenty cows in
all Massachusetts but what had it. But I do not believe that.
I do not consider it a prevailing disease. Every animal I
have condemned I have seen opened. The general appear-
ance of the animals was some fat and some lean. The condi-
tion of the flesh depends a good deal upon what tissues are
involved. The lungs of one animal, particularly, when we
took off the muscles on the bottom of the caul, the periton-
eum, we found lots of little seeds, called tubercles, completely

9

covering that, and the intestines themselves were filled with
the tubercles, also the lymphatic gland filled with them,—all
in different stages of life. You will often find these deposits
in the liver, the lungs, in the joints, sometimes in the brain,
in the spinal cord. These tubercles have the appearance of
little gray beans, like seed, and hitch on to the serous mem-
brane of the lungs, and sometimes the pleura; they then
grow together and become a large mass. When they first
start they are little meaty substances like warts. In the first
stages you get a thickening of your tissues, which is grayish
in color, and then it grows, not very large, about the size of
a millet seed; then they grow together and become soft in
appearance. After a while they get hard, so that they grit
the knife in cutting ; and then again they suppurate and break
down. Usually this is very slow in its development. If the
lung is affected the creature usually has a cough. The creat-
ure must have some deposit in her bronchial tubes caused by
this tubercular growth before the cough comes on. A cow
could have a cough for a great many years from some cause
and live. Ishould not expect to find ordinarily some disease
in the lung of every creature affected with tuberculosis. You
would find some cases where the lungs would be entirely free.
The disease causes lameness of the joints sometimes. This
outbreak in Orono was the most rank of any that I ever knew
or read of. What I know of this is gained by reading. It is
the most virulent case I have ever known. So far as the milk
is concerned, I do not think there is any doubt that the milk
contained the germ of tuberculosis if the udders were dis-
eased.

Q. Suppose the udder was not diseased ?

A. That is a question I would not answer in but one way.
I think the probabilities are that the disease, as it existed
there, affected the milk itself in the last stages.

(). Tell us if, in the first four or five years of this disease,
when the animal’s udder was in good shape, all right and

10

healthy-looking in appearance, the milk would be good or
not?

A. I would not recommend its use. Ido not think the
milk is healthy in tubercular animals in the last stages. If
you start in with a good deal of disease I do not think the milk
would be desirable.

Q. If you were called in a case and condemned a cow
which unmistakably had this disease, would you recommend
to the people of Maine to follow out the progeny of that cow
clear down to the second or third generation, whether appar-
ently well or not?

A. That has been my practice in individual cases. Of
course, officially we do not do it. That is, we have not done
it.

Q. Do you take them well, and kill them?

A. No, sir. I should kill the first one, and if I got stuck on
that I would be a little careful with the next one. I should
consider the milk in such attacks as at Orono dangerous to
use.

Q. In so much as these germs are destroyed by heat, and
milk is more often taken without being heated than any other
part of the creature, in so much greater degree would the
danger be?

A. Yes, sir. By digestion this identical disease could be
thus transmitted to a human being. The disease can be pro-
duced in man by feeding it to consumptive people. I do not
understand that feeding has anything to do with this disease.
I understand that poorly fed animals would be in as great
danger from it as highly fed animals. You have to have the
germ. If, as in the case under consideration, some ten or
fifteen animals had a case of tuberculosis, they would be more
likely to have it in close quarters, because the closer the quar-
ters the more chance to breathe the expired air. Each might
have the disease, and if kept in an airy place would live a
long life to old age. The disease is transmitted to man by
the germ, the bacilli, getting into the system either through

11

the digestive organs or the respiratory organs, or abrasions
of the skin,—any way that will cause the virus to be absorbed
into the blood of the individual. One way is by drinking the
milk of such animals. I cannot tell you whether an animal
sometimes has the disease without affecting the milk at all. I
would not recommend the drinking of milk from an animal
haying the disease. If the disease of the lymphatics had not
advanced far enough, or there were not in that body any well-
developed tubercles, I do not think the beef would be dan-
gerous. That you cannot tell until after the animal is killed.

Q. And it was on that basis that you made this recom-
mendation in your last report to the Massachusetts Legisla-
ture: “The milk and beef of any animals in any stage of
this disease should be proscribed, as it is transmittible to
man.” And those are your sentiments ?

A. Yessir. The largest percentage of these diseased an-
imals are found above five years.

Q. What are the symptoms of disease before that time—
from two to four years ?

A. You would have a cough,—that is usually the first
symptom; you might have a staring look, an unhealthy ap-
pearance of the skin, a lameness, or from very careful obser-
vation you would find some of the lymphatic glands on the
outside enlarged. A cough is not a necessary part of the
disease. The disease can exist in other parts of the body
without the cough. I deem it wise to crush the disease out
as fast as it can be located. I think it a dangerous disease
among cattle, and, more or less, the human race. I have
heard considerable about the case at Orono and have kept run
of it.

Q. There was a herd of 51 animals, and 40 were found to
have this disease in one stage or another. Would you have
deemed it prudent to scatter those animals or any of them
among the farmers of this State for use ?

A. On general principles I would not; but if there was a
contract entered into to supply them it might be a different

12

matter. On general principles I do not think it would be a
wise thing to do. It is a pretty hard question to answer
whether the action of the Commissioners was wise or not in
causing the cattle at Orono to be killed as they were. If I
had found a herd at our State College in the same condition I
should have made the same recommendation.

Q. Supposing you had a mother of a bull calf killed, and
it was found to be in this condition,—lungs loaded with de-
posits of virus, large abscesses in cavities, bronchial glands
greatly enlarged, age eight years. Is that, or not, an ad-
vanced stage?

A. It is. I would expect a calf dropped by that cow to
have the same tendency. There is a pre-disposition to it,
hereditarily. I would not deem it advisable to use that calf
for breeding purposes. With my individual clients I have
recommended that such calves be killed. The disease can be
transmitted from the bull just the same.

Q). If you found that in a herd of 49, 47 were found to
have this disease, and you learned that 11 bull calves had
been sold to various people about the State, coming from this
herd, would you, or not, recommend the killing of those bull
calves ?

A. I think I should. I should deem that 2 wise and pru- -
dent thing, necessary for the safety of the herds of the State.

Q. In regard to this College herd: if they had been situ-
ated up there at Lawrence, and some fellow would come there
and give the College $1,500 for them and put them on an
island, would you not have advised them to be sold?

A. I have been in the same position and told them to kill
the cattle. I should consider it great danger to have those
cattle shipped from one part of the State to another. Ihave
been in just that position, and it was my strong recommenda-
tion not to let those cattle go. Ihave seen the man in the
barn with the money in his hand to pay for them, and still
would not let the cattle go.

15

Q. Now, in regard to this bull calf: you say you would
recommend that animal should not be used for breeding pur-
poses ?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. If that animal was the father of 100 calves, part heifers
and part bulls, would you recommend that those 100 calves
be used for breeding purposes ?

A. I have never seen it traced down that far; but I should
like to know how it would work. I think the tendeney would
be that it would propagate itself.

(). Would you recommend that these 100 calves should be
picked up all over the State and slaughtered,—the bull in ap-
parent good health ?

A. If the mothers of these 100 calves were rugged cows,
I would take my chances of their overcoming the tendency
to propagate the disease from the bull, on account of the dis-
tance it had gone from the bull’s mother,—if the mothers of
the calves were in no way related to the mother of the bull.
If the bull was killed and found to be troubled with that dis-
ease I should recommend the destroying of the whole of the
100 calves. I think you would find the disease in some of the
calves; but by the time you killed 50 and did not find it you
would want to go slower. If the bull is apparently well and
strong, that does not argue that he has not the disease. If this
bull is apparently well now, it develops after that age. If
this bull was killed and found healthy, then I would let the
progeny take their chances, and let them live; but if I found
him diseased, then I should expect to find his progeny dis-
eased. I have killed apparently well animals and found them
diseased. An animal has never been known to recover from
the disease. The milk heated to a boiling point will kill these
germs.

(J. Have you heard any complaint, or of any trouble, either

from doctors or anybody else, as to milk from these diseased
cows being poisonous or hurtful ?

14

A. I think I know of one case, where a man who had long
been troubled with, and family died of, phthisis. I know I
was called to see his cow, and she had a tuberculous udder.
He was living on milk altogether, but he had plenty of money
and had kept himself going by special treatment, and luxuries,
&e. He ultimately went under. I don’t know but what it
may have been a coincidence ; but I should attribute it to the
milk of the cow. Tuberculosis had developed in the udder
of the cow. That is not infrequent. You often say a cow
has the garget, and it may be really an enlargement of the
lymphatic glands from tubercular development. Sometimes
it is hard to dissipate those swellings, and then suspicion is
aroused, because an ordinary case of garget runs away quite
soon. I think an ordinary gargetty inflammation of the udder
is often mistaken for tuberculosis, and in a good many cases
where it is thought to be garget the inflammation is due to
tuberculosis. I think there are more cases than we are aware
of on that account. :

Q. What is the difference in the milk where the cow has the

tuberculosis and where she has the garget ?

A. The appearance of the milk depends a great deal. If
the tuberculosis is in the first stages, before the breaking down
of the tissue, you would not notice any physical difference in
the milk, ordinarily, without microscopical examination, while
in a case of garget, as you well know, there is a marked
physical difference in the character of the milk. After the
tubercles had broken down, the milk would be similar in gen-
eral appearance to ordinary gargetty milk. In such cases it
is highly poisonous.

Q. How about the milk previous to the breaking down of
the tissue ? )

A. It is poisonous at that time.

(). Is it in the incipient stages of the disease?

A. If the udder is affected in the beginning I do not see
why the milk should not be. I think they could have the

15

disease in certain portions of the body, without the milk being
affected at all.

(). There is no danger from taking the disease from a cough
until the tubercles in the lungs break down, is there ?

A. Well, I don’t know. If the cough is due to some irrita-
tion of the bronchial tubes, and the irritation of the bronchial
tubes is due to an exudation that throws the germ off, you can
just as well get it then as to wait for the tubercles. Generally
there is little danger until the tubercles break down. By
coughing the animal might throw out some of the Virus. jogs

Q. Now if the tubercles in the udder have not commenced
to break down, or up tothe time of the breaking down, there
is not much danger from the milk?

A. I should think there was, because the milk is a natural
secretion from the blood, and the blood contains more or less
of that trouble.

(. If four bulls were brought here of the first generation
of the cattle that were killed, ranging from two to four years
old, and they are slaughtered and no signs of tuberculosis
are found in them, does that argue necessarily that the others
are not affected ?

A. No, sir, it does not.
Q. Well, notwithstanding the fact that it shows itself some-
times in the second generation, you would not take the chances

of killing the descendants of those bulls, if you found them
in a healthy condition ?

A. No, sir.

Q. We understand you that it is not always hereditary ?

A. No, sir; there are exceptions.

Q. My point is that, being at the age they are, they might
not, if killed now, show symptoms of the disease; and at a
later period in life these same animals might exhibit signs of
the disease ?

A. That is it exactly.

16

Q. Would there be as much danger to breed from animals
that do not show any signs now of disease as it would be
later on after the disease is developed ?

A. I don’t think there would be so much danger.

Q. Do you think it would be wise to breed from them ?

A. No, sir; I should not, on general principles, as I said at
the start.

Q. It is impossible to say which one of these bulls will
show, and which will not, without a post-mortem examina-
tion, indications of the disease ?

A. You might have some physical examination, but it
would be safer to have a post-mortem one.

Q. Could you tell by a physical examination in a mild
case ?

Ad: Nowsit:

Q. We understand from what you say that these bulls are
not necessarily diseased ?

AOS, BIT.

Q. Now, when can you determine whether an animal has
got the tuberculosis; in what stage has it got to be before
you can determine ?

A. You have got to have disease of the lymphatic glands ;
they are external.

Q. Suppose the lungs are diseased ?

A. In that case you cannot always tell.

Q. How far must it be advanced?

A. You must have enough so that it interferes with the
respiration. There might be one or two tubercles on the
lungs that it would take an acute ear to discover by any
change in the respiration.

Q. How about percussion ?

A. You do not get much change by percussion.

Q. Would you suppose that those animals or any portion
of them take this trouble by contagion ?

A. It is natural to infer that they do.

Q. Would the fact that some of these cows were found to
have tuberculosis at the time they were killed argue that

17

they must have the disease at the time they dropped calves,
three or four years before ?

A. It dues not necessarily follow.

Q. Would you think tubercles might develop in one year ?

A. I should think so; ordinarily three or four months.

Q. Notwithstanding these eleven bulls came out of those
diseased cows that were killed two or three years later, they
might have been well when the calves were dropped ?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I suppose that would depend a good deal on the stage
of the disease at the time those cows were killed. I judge
there is no rule to tell how long the disease was in existence ?

A. That is it. You have got to have very slow develop-.
ing tubercles in the lung before you can tell anything in the
respiration; and you must have a good many and quite
largely developed.

Q. Didn’t you state that the probadilities were largely in
favor of their having the disease, from the fact of their com-.
ing from these diseased animals, whether those animals
apparently or not had the disease when they were dropped ?

A. I don’t know.

Q. And we understand you to say that the cows were not
necessarily diseased from two to four years previous to the
outbreak of the disease ?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. This condition of things, I think you have said, could
come inside of two years ?

A. It is a slow thing ordinarily, but once in a while takes
a quick turn.

Q. Can you tell us the reason why it takes that quick turn ?

A. I suppose the natural condition of the animal has a
great deal to do with it; some are more susceptible to the
action of the virus than others. You can get this virus in the
animal and it will not develop the disease, because he has a
constitution to throw it off; but if he is weak and predisposed

2

18

that way, it will run its course. An animal of streng consti-
tution might take the virus and not take the disease.

Q. Have you read the report and become acquainted sub-
stantially with the facts, so as to give your opinion as to how
many years tuberculosis has existed at the State College?

A. No, sir.

Q. How long has it existed in Massachusetts ?

A. Well, Mr. Cheever has told you that it was at Amherst
12 years ago. Ido not know. My idea is it has existed for
about 13 years.

Q. Now, here is a linthole in the barn, with four places of
ventilation on one side,—that ventilator runs up the sides of
‘the barn to the eaves, where it goes out under the eaves,—

would there be any danger from the snow melting on that
roof and running into the cistern, and the cattle drinking
‘that water?

A. That is to say, the contamination from the animals would
go up and become absorbed in the snow and then come down
again in water. No, sir, I don’t think it would.

Q. I would like your opinion on that.

A. It would really depend a good deal on how much draft
you had there. If there was a good deal of draft, I do not
believe it would have any effect at all. In fact, I don’t believe
it would any way.

Q. There are lots of citizens in this State who would like to
know whether cotton-seed meal fed to the stock would have
_ anything to do with this disease?

A. Hot climates are good for tuberculosis, but I don’t be-
lieve it grows in the cotton-field, and therefore I don’t think
cotton-seed meal has anything to do with it.

Q. How would you account for the rapid spread of the
trouble in that particular herd?

A. I think, from what I know of it, that the lung tissues
were so broken down, and so much virus escaped from each
animal, it was the center of contagion, and the animals being
well bred, closely bred,—the finer bred the animal, the less

19

strong his constitution,—the virus got to work pretty fast,
there being so much of it.

Q. Would there not be pretty good chance for the spread
of the disease in the herd from the animals drinking out of the
same trough?

A. Yes, they could get the disease that way, because it
works just as rapidly in the digestive organs as in the respira-
tory organs.

Q. Don’t you think that this disease had probably existed
there for several years ?

A. My inference would be that it existed there some time.

Q. I would like to ask whether the feeding of cotton-seed
meal to cattle diseased in this way would have a tendency to
hasten the result ?

A. No, sir.

Q. Is it necessary that an animal should have tuberculosis
developed in the lungs, in order to transmit it to the young?

A. No, sir. You may have the disease confined entirely
to the genitive organs.

Q. Must it be developed in any place in the system?

A. It can suit itself about its location. It is not confined
to any organs.

Q. Must the disease have any stage of development in the
animal in order to transmit to the young?

A. I don’t know what the exact period of incubation is.

Q. I want to get at whether there is a constitutional pro-
clivity to transmit, without the tubercles existing ?

A. Yes; there is a predisposition in all animals closely
bred for something or other.

Q. I suppose the disease first exists in the blood ?

A. Yes, sir; and it locates itself anywhere.

Q. The question is whether it could be transmitted while
simply existing in the blood without being located ?

A. That, sir, I could not say.

Q. Is it similar to consumption in people?

A. It is identical.

20

Q. Well, you find parents dying with consumption, and
children never having it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Can you tell any nearer in the disease in an animal than
you can in a man?

A. Yes, ‘sir.

Q. Is the action of the disease in the bovine similar to that
in the man?

A. Identical.

Q. What can you say about recommending the destruction
of animals after three or four years?

A. The only recommendation I have made is that they be
killed, because thus far my observation has been that it has
been handed down from generation to generation, and I have
been justified in killing their progeny, but I knew that those
animals were diseased when their progeny came along. I
never had any occasion to test it where they were dropped
before the disease exhibited itself.

‘Q. Would you not make a greater distinction in the work-
ings of this disease in the animal, than you would in the
human race? Is there not a greater tendency to enlargement
‘ of the glands, and greater deposits.

A. I don’t know much about the pathology of man, but I
say the disease is identical to that in man. I supposed the
workings would be the same.

Q. I understood you to say there was much more danger
of contagion on account of difference in habits of the ani-
-mals and the human race?

Ae Yes; sir.

Q. I think a good many of these questions have been mis-
leading. It has been asked here if a bull that came out of a
‘cow from two to four years old might not have been bred
from a healthy cow. ‘The facts are these. The mother of
these bulls was killed and found diseased, and their off-spring
from two to four years killed at the same time and every one
found to be diseased.

21

A. If the off-spring of these cows killed were found to be
diseased, and they were older than the bull now living or
were at least within six or nine months of his age, I should
recommend the destruction of this bull.

Q. If the off-spring of these animals remained with that
herd, does it necessarily follow that those who went out from
the herd about two to four years before were diseased ?

A, No, sir.

Q. One of those animals that was bred from a diseased
animal does not have the disease. Now, is it possible that
that animal, though the disease is not developed at all, may
transmit it to its progeny ?

A. I understand; that is the question I have answered
that I did not know.

TESTIMONY OF A. W. CHEEVER.

Iam a farmer by education, now connected with a news-
paper and on the Cattle Commission of Massachusetts for a
year and a little over. I have never seen a case of tubercu-
losis in a dead animal. My knowledge of it is by reading
and being taught. Before coming here I inquired of Pro-
fessor Stockbridge, who has been on the Commission nearly
since its organization—20 years, more or less—in regard to
the disease as it has developed itself at the College farm in
Massachusetts, and that is about all I know of the disease
practically. It was introduced on the College farm there in
some Short-horn cattle, I think, about 11 years ago. There
were, Professor Stockbridge tells me, at different times about
sixty Short-horn cattle on the farm, and some 4 or half a
dozen of the whole number, at one time, exhibited evidences
of the disease. At one time 2 or 3 Ayrshire cattle gave evi-
dences of the disease, whether taking it from the Short-horns
or bringing it there themselves originally, I do not know.
Two or three sales or disposals were made from this farm,
Short-horns and Ayrshires, and afterwards a few were found to
be diseased. One, supposed to be all right, except that she

22

refused to breed, was sent to the butcher and killed, and was
found to have the disease in the internal organs. Two Ayrshires
were sold off of the premises, and soon after, or at some
time after, developed the disease; and they were destroyed
or killed. The strong point that Professor Stockbridge
wished to make, on the conservative side of the question,
was that the disease had never spread in the herd beyond the
first animals attacked; it had never spread outside of the
college herd into the two herds into which were sold animals
that had been diseased, and in which the disease developed
while they were in those herds.

Q. Would you go to the herds which had among them the
progeny of any of these diseased cattle, and kill them, down
to the second, third or fourth generation ?

A. I do not feel familiar enough with the workings of
this disease to lay down the rule of action. Think we have
had it in Massachusetts 11 years to my knowledge. On gen-
eral principles, with a willing State to back it up, I would
say weed out every imperfection in all animals and vegetables,
and every thing the farm raises; but with public sentiment
not educated up to that point, the question comes in, where
is the money coming from? I should not feel that at the
present time in our State we would dare to recommend killing
and destroying everything that had been exposed to what we
supposed is that disease. I consider the disease, according
to my reading, contagious—something as glanders is. It
would be a very cheap experiment, and worth the trial, to
select four of the most suspicious animals that have gone out
from this college herd and slaughter them. If they were all
found to be diseased I would begin to examine their progeny
if I could find them. The disease is known as a hereditary
and contagious one, and a dangerous one among cattle. That
is what a part of the authorities say.

Q. You heard read to your associate the condition in which
the mother of a certain bull was found when killed—lungs
loaded with deposits, ete. What would you recommend to
be done with a bull dropped by that cow?

23

A. I would recommend the killing of him.

Q. What would you recommend as to the 11 other bulls
dropped by other members of the herd there, from diseased
mothers ?

A. I do not see why we should not treat them all alike. I
think I should recommend the killing of those eleven. Very
likely that would be the wisest and cheapest course for the
State to take. It would be liable to save a great expense to
the people of the State in the future.

Q. Supposing the bulls were calved from a year and a half
to four years before any knowledge of disease among those
cows was had by anybody in attendance, any one connected
with the animals: would you recommend their destruction ?

A. I should recommend examining end killing some of
them, as the State is able to do it.

Q. For what purpose ?

A. To study the disease.

Q. Would your commission recommend their destruction
in such cases, as a Commission ?

A. We have not done it yet, or anything like it.

Q. Have you known of any commission that has recom-
mended or practiced that system of killing apparently sound
animals ?

A. No, sir. Ido not know of any laws this side of Ger-
many looking to that extreme action. We have never had a
case in Massachusetts that I know of anywhere approaching
the rankness of the case at Orono.

Q. Don’t you think it would be dangerous to have those
eleven bulls scattered over this State, with the pre-disposition
to tuberculosis in them which they must have ?

A. There is certainly a possibility. There is more proba-
bility that they will be dangerous than that they will not be.
If I found in a herd of cattle of mine one case of tubercu-
losis I do not think I should immediately go at work and
destroy the whole herd. Think I should kill none but the
diseased one. Speaking as a farmer, and supposing under
certain conditions that the meat would be wholesome, I should

24

try to get the most out of the diseased one that I could. If
he was fit for beef I should kill him, and if not fit I would
kill him anyhow.

TESTIMONY OF DR. A. R. G. SMITH.

I have been one of the members of Governor Robie’s
Council for the last two years. I went to the College farm
and saw the cattle before they were slaughtered, but not
after. From statements to me I found the herd losing flesh.
Nearly all of them were kept on the same feed; very many
of them had a dull-looking color, hair dead; a portion of
the herd had a bad cough. I examined those most diseased,
and found the lungs quite dull on percussion and the respira-
tion bad, with every indication of tuberculosis as you will
find it in human beings. In my practice as a physician I am
acquainted with those indications in the human family. I
_ found the same indications there in that herd. Nearly all of
the herd showed more or less signs of the disease. Some 12
or 13 were quite diseased, although I examined particularly
only two. Those two I found as I have stated, with some
indications of hectic fever. They were cows. I was there
March 23d. I do not consider consumption in the human
family particularly contagious. I consider it hereditary. If
persons are advancing to death with the disease, and you take
their breath, as you naturally would do in sleeping with them,
T should look upon it as contagious. You most always find
the nurse who takes care of a consumptive to be afilicted
with a cough, even if they do not get the germ seated in
their system and die from it. I have seen healthy persons
who have been companions of consumptives frequently follow
them into consumption.

Q. So if the opportunities were as good to take it from
person to person, as it is from cattle to cattle, through their
eating from the same manger, drinking from the same tank,
you would expect it to be terribly contagious in the human
race ?

25

A. I should. I would not advise for the human family the
use of milk of cows that I had any suspicion were affected
with the disease in any stage. My knowledge of this disease
among cattle is not very great, but my view is that it is pre-
cisely the same as the disease inthe humanrace. I hada case this
summer where a consumptive mother transmitted the disease
to her child by nursing it. The child lived about 6 months
longer than its mother. Children born of consumptive
mothers in my practice and experience have been puny, and
have grown up in that condition if they have lived; the
majority of them died. I think the taint is in the blood and
may skip one or two generations without making itself man-
ifest. I think tuberculosis is dangerous among cattle in this
way: I think it is apt to crop out from one generation to
another, and spread itself in that way. I would not recom-
mend the use of beef from animals that had this disease. I
approve of the policy of the destruction of the entire herd,
and also of the policy of the college in not selling any butter,
milk or beef from that herd after the disease was discovered.

TESTIMONY OF GILBERT M. GOWELL.

I reside at Orono on the State College farm. Have been
on that farm 4 years last April. Ihave had the care of the stock
in question during that time. Think it was in November,
°85, that I first discovered any apparent signs of disease among
the herd. Think in all there were 46 in the herd at that
time. Think there were 26 cows and 2 bulls. The rest were
young, heifers and bulls, except two steers, too young to
come into milk. Sixteen were imported Jerseys and 16
Maine State Jerseys; 8 were Short-horns. During the time
I was there we lost cattle from other disease than this.
April 26, ’83, we lost one Jersey cow. She was ailing for a
few weeks. We thought it rheumatism at first, and called
Dr. Wild, a practicing veterinarian of Bangor, and he was
not able to decide the trouble. He found all the organs in
their usual condition with the exception of the spleen, and

26

that was slightly shrivelled. He was unable to tell what the
cause of it was. November, 83, we lost the cow Bess during
the time of parturition. That was wholly a local cause—
inversion of the uterus. October, ’84, we lost the cow called
Maggie, the one I spoke of to Dr. Bailey as having a cough
when I went to the farm in the spring of 782. She did not have
the cough up to the time of her death ; after that, in the spring,
she became well of the cough, improved very much in appear-
ance, and shortly after came into milk, milking the heaviest
the next year of any cow in the herd. Nearly 2 years later
she ran down and became very much reduced, though no cough
was present. Weslaughtered and buried her. We examined her.
Ihave no knowledge of the disease of which she died. She had
no cough again until her last sickness, then it came back on her.
We had no examination of her by a veterinarian. I never
discovered anything about her to locate any disease. Up to
her last sickness she ate heartily. She was the only cow in
the herd that could consume 20 pounds of hay in a day.
Afterwards I learned the symptoms of tuberculosis, after the
herd became infected with it. Looking back now, I think
the cough that the cow Maggie had was very similar to the
low cough that our other animals had in the years later; and
the loss of flesh was quite similar. She had that cough when
I went there, and it continued not more than 2 or 2 1-2
months. Mr. Rich stated that she had had it before that
time. After she got well of it she did not have it again until
her last sickness, not te my knowledge. We next lost stock
about February 7, ’85. A Short-horn cow had failed to
breed and had not carried a calf for more than a year, and
we sold her for beef toa partyin Bangor. She had no cough.
Within a few days he notified me that the cow was in a very
bud condition, which he described. He said she was ‘‘covered
with bunches inside,” as he expressed it. His statement was
that there were bunches attached to her back and ribs, to the
meat, as well as to the lungs. As he described it, she was
completely filled up with bunches and a mass of matter. I
did not see her. J knew the man and did not doubt his state-

27

ment. The meat was worth 2 cents a pound for feeding
to hogs and the hide was worth something, and I paid back
one half of the money loss. The cow was fat and I had
never noticed any cough. I had not noticed any indications
of disease. She had refused to breed although she was
brought many times to the bull. We next lost the Jersey
Lilly from the stock. She was something over two years old.
She had a calf about that time. She with several other young
animals had stiff necks, and I supposed at the time that it
arose from feeding over a rather high manger. She had a
bunch on her jaw, or right at the throat,—it was not attached
to the jaw. It was quite a large swelling, and I opened it;
it discharged soniewhat. About this time she had a calf and
she continued to lose ground so much that we slaughtered
and buried her. I did not examine her to see what the trouble
was. I supposed the trouble was still local. I should say
the calf when we killed the mother was two or three weeks
old. It was not thrifty, so we simply slaughtered it and laid
it away too.

Q. How many of the young cattle were troubled with
enlarged glands, a swelling about the neck ?

A. I think there were four,—three heifers and one bull.
They were tied on one side of the barn and fed from mangers
constructed for older animals. They all stood together and
were affected in the same way with the stiff necks. I sup-
posed it was the manger, and reduced it.

Q. Was there any change for the better then?

A. With two of them there was, with the other two I
think there was not.

Q. When next did you lose any stock?

A. November, 1885.

Q. Before or after you discovered tuberculosis in the herd ?

A. Before we discovered it. The cow that I spoke of as
coughing in the fall of 1885 was coughing at this time,
November, when we lost those two young heifers, or slaught-
ered them, rather. These are two of the young heifers that

28

had stiff necks. We slaughtered one in November and one
in December.

Q. Did you examine those two?

A. No, sir; any further than the others.

Q. What did you find with regard to the throats of those
animals ?

A. That the glands were somewhat swollen. That was all
the trouble we discovered at the throat, but there was a tend-
ency to carry the head to one side.

Q. Was there not some other appearance of disease about
those cattle?

A. There was a reduction of flesh.

Q. Then the indication was that there was some other dis-
ease besides the swelling of the glands? You did not regard
that as a trouble that would reduce the heifers to the condi-
tion where you were obliged to kill them?

A. I did not know how much they were troubled with that
neck trouble.

. They were running sores?

. No, sir. One of them lost flesh.

. Were their lungs examined ?

. They were not.

. You say only one of them lost flesh?

. Only one of those slaughtered in the fall of 1885.

. Why did you slaughter the other one, if the trouble
was simply an enlargement of the glands and she was in good
condition ?

A. From the fact that her neck was stiff as the other one’s
was, I feared it would result in the same way. She was not
growing, was not thriving, but had not yet become poor as
the other one had.

Q. Had you not called in any one at that time to make an
examination ?

A. Yes, sir. In the spring, at the time the Jersey heifer
was slaughtered, I called upon the veterinarian in Bangor and
gave him the condition of these animals. He thought it
might have arisen from the cause I attributed it to, and told

OFrO Pore

29

me to apply iodine and treat them. I did so, and two of
them, a heifer and a bull, seemed to recover under the treat-
ment. The others did not, although we used it freely. In
the fall he was called to the farm to see another cow, and
saw these animals at that time. He then was of the same
opinion that he was in the spring, that it arose from feeding
from the high manger. That was while these two animals
were in the barn.

Q. This was in November, 1885?

Yes air.

Q. How soon after that did you discover that there was
tuberculosis in the herd?

A. In October or November, 1885, the cow Betsey was
coughing slightly. The cough continued to increase during
the winter, and she lost flesh and became so reduced that she
was slaughtered, as we found her recovery was very doubt-
ful. She lost ground very rapidly after she had the young
calf. I think she was slaughtered the last of January. Her
lungs were found to be,—the lower parts of them,—almost
solid, like cheese ; the upper parts of the lungs were full of
bunches. I think the bunches were almost entirely confined
to her lungs.

Q. Do you doubt these other cattle had the same disease ?

A. I now think those heifers had the same disease, although
their symptoms were different from the symptoms of the ani-
mals we had later affected.

EVENING SESSION.

TESTIMONY OF J. R. FARRINGTON.

Was on State College farm from April, 1872, to 1880.
Lost from stock on the farm the following animals: A calf in
April, 1872, with hoven or bloat; in 1875 a Short-horn bull
(Napoleon). Symptoms, swelling in throat and suffocation.
The swelling was mostly inside, not showing upon the out-

30

side to much extent. In 1877 Duchess of Lakeside was
sick two weeks. ‘The disease or distress seemed to be in
stomach. Sold two cows, Susan and Dora, to Mr. Boardman
in 1876. Know nothing of them since only by hearsay.
Thought of the bull we lost when I heard of the outbreak
of cattle disease at Orono. The two cows Dora and Susan
were bred at the farm. Thought the disease of the bull
might have been caused by a kick.

TESTIMONY OF LAMBERT SANDS.

Was a member of Governor’s Council in March, 1886.
Visited the Orono herd. The stock in new barn did not at
first sight seem affected, though a little rough and thin for so
well kept a herd. Those in the old stable were coughing and
emaciated. Was there but once and by request of Governor
Robie, to see what should be done about the cattle. Was
present when it was decided to kill them. Cannot say how
many cattle in each barn. There were not more than a dozen
in the old or horse-barn. I cannot say as I should at that
time have advised the investigation of the animals sold off the
farm but since have thought it would have been a wise
thing. Did not see any attempt on the part of the College
to conceal anything in relation to the cattle sold from the
farm. Would have had courage to have bought some of the
cattle after the investigation. Cattle were coughing in the
new barn but not continually.

TESTIMONY OF S. C. HATCH.

I was a member of Governor’s Council in March, 1886,
and visited the Orono State College farm, and after con-
sultation at the house went to the new barn where very
little symptoms of disease appeared. In the old barn ©
there was much sign of disease. The cattle coughed and
were rather thin. Went again in April to the farm, when
we decided to have all the cattle slaughtered. There
was, so far as I know, no effort made to inquire about

31

the stock sold off the farm. I was present when the cattle
were slaughtered. The lungs of the cattle killed were filled
with white masses. Can only explain why no effort was
made to investigate the cattle sold by our want of familiarity
with the disease. Don’t know as the matter of authority to do
it was questioned or mentioned. Should have favored such
investigation after we had killed the herd. Mrs. Stetson
wanted the College to pay her back the money she paid them
for the cow and take back the cow. We told her we could
do nothing for her and the College would not for fear of other
calls of the same kind. I should have advised the College
to buy up the cattle sold. There were no funds and we did
not feel free to do it. The Kent bull was brought to the
notice of the Governor. Dr. Bailey has since bought and
killed him.

Dr. Bailey said when he first called he could not discover any
disease till he saw the frozen carcass of adeadcow. Dr. B. said,
Think you are more scared than hurt, till he saw said carcass.

Mr. Fernald heard part of this conversation. Would not
say if Dr. Bailey appeared as a crank. Sold the bull with
enlarged neck to Mr. Sutton of Orono. He killed the bull
thinking he had a stiff neck. Examined the bull’s lung.
Found no sure signs of disease. Thought at first the neck
had enlargement. Dr. B. found no signs of disease till he
saw the dead cow.

President FERNALD said they ran in debt for stock and
improvement, increasing both the debt and assets of the farm
and one would offset the other at any time till the State destroy-
ed the stock, and so now ask the State to appropriate money to
pay this debt in consequence. Doubt if the trustees had a
technical right to purchase the stock.

Mr. GOWELL, resuming, said :

The money to buy the cattle did not come from the State
by appropriation. The farm Committee communicates to me
the wishes of the trustees. No one except Mr. Gilbert has
helped me buy cattle. Other moneys besides that I let them
have went into purchasing fancy stock. Trustees loaned $1000

32

to buy stock. The College has owed me $3400 or $3600.
Has been reduced to $2600. Should estimate that $2500
might now be owed towards the stock.

Don’t feel it necessary to have trustees called on. Dr.
Wilde gave no hint of contagious disease. Can’t say if any
disease existed or has in herds from which we have purchased.

I have looked after the accounts of the farm. Have that
$2504.25 was paid for cattle bought by myself and Mr. Gilbert
by order of the trustees. The College owes me $2600, or so.
The cash accounts of the College also show it. I did not let
the College have it all at one time. The largest sum I let
them have at any one time was $225. The smallest sum
$1.50. I cannot say how much of the money owed me by
the College went to pay for the cattle destroyed. A part of
it did. Four hundred dollars was paid by me in the purchase
of these cattle. Can’t say if there are others to whom the
College owes money used in the purchase of the cattle which
were destroyed. I called Dr. Wilde four times to see such
cattle. I paid him from the farm income. Cannot give an
opinion about the stiff-necked cattle. They had disease
enough so that I called Dr. Wilde. Did not know that Dr.
Bailey could be had without expense. Called Dr. Wilde.
Did not call Dr. Bailey. I have no doubt that Rose 8th had
this disease. She left Short-horn 3 register. Cannot say if
I agree with Dr. Bailey in his report of individual cases of
the slaughtered animals. Seven had been killed before the
general slaughter. Cannot say I think the stiff-necked ones
had tuberculosis. Called Dr. Wilde four times. Do not
know that a herd from which we have purchased cattle has
had tuberculosis. Nan Lizzie was there at the time of the
slaughter. The dams in the herd were as reported by Dr.
Bailey except in one instance. The Kent bull was sold from
the farm to Mr. Kent of Bucksport. Two other bulls sold
had the same sire. Had correspondence with Mr. Kent.
Advised him to retain and use the bull after the disease at
Orono broke out. Princess Alba was bad when killed. None
of her offspring in existence. Soon after Jan., 1886, three

33

others began to cough and were removed to the other barn for
treatment. They were kept there till last of February. Then
nearly all the cattle began to cough. The old cow Pet was
soon killed and lungs found filled with bunches and ulcers ;
the glands of throat also affected. Profs. Balentine and Jordan
were present at the examination of this animal. Immediately
after this the State was notified of the condition of the
herd. Princess Alba and Alice were slaughtered March 12.
The whole herd slaughtered April 21 and 22, 1886. Fourteen
bulls were sold off farm as shown by the books.

(The tabulated statement appended to this, furnished by
witness, is a part of his testimony.)

I received directions by letter in regard to the quarantine
of the cattle. Had directions to separate them and keep
them separate.

Mr. Davis told me he bought a cow from the farm in 1880,
and when killed he found her lungs badly diseased. In 1882
a cow died and I think it may be she had this disease.
When Dr. Bailey arrived and was examining Princess Alba,
and had completed it, I asked him what he found, and his
reply was, ‘‘I shall have to see more than I have seen to
condemn any of this herd.” But after he examined one of the
slaughtered animals he changed his opinion. He did not say
in his first examination that there was tuberculosis, but in an
hour or two he decided that it was tuberculosis. Think his
decision a very correct one. Think the faculty had been
reading up on tuberculosis fora few days before Dr. Bailey
came.

34

SS tS sss ESNihoue
00 c9ss :

|

|

00 OSF | |

00 SI8$ | ‘Teor ) |

(Cumaqnwy Jo ssag “qq Aq porg) |
00 SZT | : “TT '£°S ‘IN ‘889 ‘ON founr Mop) | ‘losuvg ‘uosjeig “I “SIW) ‘98st ‘L “uve

| (purpyooy ut Ea MOD) |
00 OOT ‘s[vo pus AaT[TRA Jo ATT Mog ‘aT[TAtajye MA WOG = sUTIUATeg “MA| “F8sT ‘IL “zepy
00 &Z ‘amaeyy ‘IQAOTO ‘Ing stasoy] ‘zggr ‘z -ydag! ‘I1ZB9 A. ‘nordg *Y] ‘FE8gl “6; “IBA
00 OF ‘“Asinq § ‘aAoTg AMOR ‘[aNUIBS| ‘78st ‘FZ AON) es ‘SImIvog "N| ‘PR8T ‘6L ABTA
00 OF ‘ounr ‘NWT, ‘yoo1g weerg Jo xuLy! Hest ‘el Ae, queAaT ‘stuvog *N] ‘F881 ‘6L ‘ABW
00 09 ‘T88l_ oy 9 » —ABALyooy fours yy | » *U29ty) “O “| ‘EB8T ‘OT “AON
00 09% “‘6L8T UL adeTIOg Aq paseyoand—ssoourrg ‘ame N ‘OsuvET ‘W22LD "OD ‘f| ‘ERs ‘OL “ACN

BOOC: | 2 “Ue “aS “Wag Jo ayeq | “ou pIsay *TasByoIng ‘aTBG Jo a38q
“UIC adoz[109 3381S sUlely Wool} Pl[OS Ss[euWoy jo A1O ST
00 Goes |
00 0€ =|“O'D ‘LV ‘LZ6F ON ‘sMOpBaT 980 AA JO aT[OG “9 'O'L VW ‘66Fe “ON ‘xouoT s,vSuttdg) ‘eget ‘g judy ‘ou01¢) ‘moygng "g "V| *egsl ‘1g “AON
00 0% “H ‘£°S ‘W ‘96g ‘ON ‘eqry sseoultg is a ‘yoorg uvatg Jo xury) ‘eget ‘iT Ae ‘qaodsyong, QUuOM'"N ‘S| ‘eset ‘F9deg
00 ST “Hf S‘W ‘889 ‘ON ‘oung 9 ‘yooig WIved) JO XUT|‘egeT ‘og Wore AL (¢) ‘Mojpy| ‘auojsyoutTy “W'H) ‘eset ‘er Avr
00 St “Hf °S “IN “696 ON ‘Poaptt |" ‘0 “FV “GTO ‘ON “Yoorg wwerD Jo xuLy| “pggr ‘gt eune ‘TaMaLE ‘mos Y OTR MM | ‘Ssst ‘et AeW
00 00T Coury |‘puyptoquing ‘stayyo1g = pavyourtg Aq |porg) ‘OudIg| ‘TI218StH “d N| ‘#88r ‘9 ‘090q
00 ¢9 ‘00g *H H'S “V ‘GE 1OA “UNF At, *(aA0qe vas) snmmsay] “gggT ‘g oUNL/faT[TARIIE TY “ON ‘TOU “4 “| ‘“F88L FZ °990
00 OT “Hf °S W ‘889 ‘ON ‘pz Oleg purrqsiyy ” » —“JOMULT TOATIS| ‘PEs ‘9 3dag ‘ueysdoy, “9118 TN “O *H) “F88T ‘Fe “9deg
00 ¢8 “OO LV ‘G108T ‘ON ‘Aouary, “OO LV ‘96181 ‘ON “axuLTg taais| ‘FEST ‘6z “00d ‘aay ‘sould “Cd "W]| ‘#881 ‘9 “sny
00 & og ‘(aA0q®R aas) sn[nsoy| ‘Fggt ‘Lz [dW ‘oysuIpp a: ‘SUIWUOD ‘IJA| ‘FSRT ‘og Udy
00 OL “OO LW ‘09F2s “ON ‘RFT UeTaFT “0°O “LV ‘96I8T ‘ON GoxULlE tats] “Fest ‘cz ‘qoq *‘1osueg: U22TD “DO “fC FR8T ‘9 Torry
00 ST ‘ssooultg “ad HHS “V ‘c9p69 “ON ‘sninsoy| ‘eger ‘er Ate ‘194gOX Gq, ‘SUINTV “UA| ‘eget ‘oz “sny
00 9 “Hf 'S “W ‘889 ON ‘oune “Hf SW ‘0cs ON ‘pz dia | ‘eget “eT Av “M09, ¥ | TOW “A “eset ‘2o APTA
00 9 “OO LH ‘09%Z5 “ON “te FT UeTo FT “Hf °S ‘W ‘—‘ON ‘Tenuivg) ‘eget ‘eg “qaq see oa ae Sats “S881 ‘OL “G9a
“£y1vd 1dq4O Loy
00 STs “Tf SW ‘30¢ ‘ON ‘PH t9qgng “Hf °S W‘——ON ‘ing 8,peay] ‘zegr ‘e “sn y|‘uoueqa'T 480 AA ‘areprequueyD “4H “AA| ‘28st ‘FZ 220
*dOLL “med “OMG ‘Yqtg jooaewqd) ‘suepsey “IOSVyoINg “avg Jo ayeq

——

‘UNIeY Bd9[[OD 938} UIE WIOIZ Plog saTey jo As03zSI1Py

35

TESTIMONY OF G. W. McALISTER.

Municipal officer of Bucksport. Was called upon by Mr.
Kent in regard to his bull. In March, 1886, called on me to
write to the Superintendent of College farm about the matter.
Thought the bull not fit for breeding purposes. He said he
bought it for that purpose. Mr. Gowell advised the keeping
and use of the bull. Mr. Gilbert wrote to him to use the
bull, but I still advised him not to use him, as it might result
in the slaughtering of his herd and perhaps others in town.

In July he notified me he had a diseased bull and I at once
notified Dr. Bailey. Dr. B. advised Mr. Kent not to use
the bull, decidedly. Dr. B. would not order the destruction
of the bull as he had no knowledge of his coming from dis-
eased stock. Got a letter later that Dr. B. was ill at home.
Later Dr. B. bought the bull for $20 and I agreed to bear
half the expense. The bull was a fine looking animal. Was
not present when the bull was killed and the lungs sent to
Dr. Bailey. Bull was not used at all. Kept the matter
quiet, not conferring with the neighbors. Am a carriage-
maker; worked at blacksmithing 20 years.

Had conversation with Mr. Gilbert on train on liability of
the danger of the spread of this disease. He said that he bad
no reason to change his mind, and if the Kent bull showed no
signs of disease he saw no reasons to fear to use him. He
asked me if Dr. Bailey detected disease in the bull. I told
him he could not. ;

TESTIMONY OF T. G. RICH.

Had charge College farm from 1878 to 1881. Lost 2 head of
cattle, in 1880 a young cow. We called it dropsy; refused
food and drink; bloated up; sick 5 or 6 weeks. Had some
cough; grew thin; was full of water. Saw no signs of
disease. In 1881 another cow 4 years old, was sick.
Sent a man to kill her. He said he found lungs rotten.
Was out to pasture; was barren. Don’t know what came of
her stock-calves. Sold one to Charles Buffum in 1878.

36

Died or was killed next year; examined by the butcher.
Buffum sold her to him. Sold Mr. Davis a cow for beef, in
1880. She was killed and her lungs found affected. Did
not see the lungs of any of these. Maggie 3d had a cough
some time before I turned her over to Mr. Gowell. Sold
one cow to Mr. King of Orono which would not breed. Sold
her for $20. Was told she cost $250.

TuHurspay Eventne, Feb. 24th, 1887.

TESTIMONY OF LYNDON OAK.

I am president of the board of trustees. Have never been
on the farm committee. Iwas present on March 12th when
Dr. Bailey and Mr. Gilbert of the Cattle Commission were
there to make a second examination, as I understood it at the
time, of the condition of that stock. I noticed its condition
myself. There were some 8 cows tied by themselves in the
horse stable. Each one of that number gave unmistakable
evidence of serious disease. The symptoms were nothing
with which I was acquainted. I am not very familiar with
the sickness incident to stock. I was not present when the
animals were slaughtered. I know nothing of the condition
in which they were found. In consequence of being fre-
quently short of funds for the Institution, I urged Mr. Far-
rington, when he was on the farm, to increase his herd of
dairy stock, which would give a sort of perpetual revenue.
Mr. Gilbert, as a member of the board, first made the sugges-
tion to me. He thought it would be good policy for the
College to do more at the dairying business and realize more
from it. We had no money to buy cattle at that time, which
was in ’82, or about that time. I will now state what I
understand to be the facts about the purchase of this herd
of cattle. In conversation with members of the board of
trustees, among whom were Mr. Gilbert and others, and Mr.
Gowell after he came onto the farm, we were confident that

r -
Ee

37

if we got a herd of Jersey cows and used them for dairying
purposes we could accomplish two very important purposes.
And one was that we should have a perpetual revenue to use
for farm purposes, and at the same time we should be in-
structing the students in practical dairying, which I regard as
one of the most important agricultural interests of the State at
this time, and did at that time. But we hadn’t the money to
make those purchases with. Think that was in ’82, or about
that time. We were getting ready for Mr. Gowell to enter upon
that policy. We had made no application for any appropri-
ation for that special purpose, but we had made applications
for purposes often enough to know that we had got to econ-
omize and manage in some way to work that farm along
without special appropriation from the State, to any great
extent, to support it. And wedid as many a farmer does;
we made the best provisions we could to make the farm pay
expenses and pay something over, and in a short time we
reasoned that we could pay for that herd of stock, and that
the stock, with what we paid for it along, would be amply
sufficient in case of any emergency to pay the whole debt
and leave a surplus besides, and the result, so far as we tried
the experiment, proved the soundness of our conclusions in
regard to this matter, and had it not been for that most un-
fortunate occurrence at the College by which it became neces-
sary to destroy that whole herd, one of the finest I have ever
seen anywhere, I think we should have come out all right;
and if we could have that stock replaced now I do not think
we should ever be under the necessity of calling upon the
legislature for a single cent to be expended for farm pur-
poses. I cannot tell the amount of the indebtedness incurred
for the cattle. Authority to hire the money was given by
the trustees. The trustees had no authority to hire it other
than necessity. They delegated the power to hire it to the
farm committee, consisting of Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Thing, and
Mr. Wingate of Bangor. I think the records of the trustees
show the vote by which that authority was given. No special
report was made to the trustees by that committee of their

38

\

doings. We asked them from time to time about it. The
records of the trustees do not show any communication from
that committee as to what was done by them nor how much
money was hired under the general power. I do not know
what security was given to the people of whom they hired.
None was given to my knowledge. The trustees loaned to
the committee $1000 of the funds of the College which we
happened to have at that time at interest at 4 per cent. No
security was given or taken when that thousand dollars was
passed over. The fact was certified to the treasurer. The
farm has paid 4 per cent. The fact of this loan is only
known by a charge on the books. In the report of the
trustees to the first legislature which met after the farm com-
mittee hired this amount, the only mention of the one thousand
dollar item is in the tabulated statement of the amount due
from the College farm. I do not know of any report to the
legislature by anybody as to the balance of the sum which
was hired for the purpose of the purchase of this stock. The
same report as to the thousand dollars was made to the legis-
lature of ’°85. We did not ask that legislature to make an
appropriation for the payment of that debt. We did not
call their attention in any way to the fact that the debt ex-
isted. I do not think it was generally known prior to the
destruction of the herd that it had been bought on credit. I
do not know that any interest has been paid to Mr. Gowell
for the amount hired of him. I had no personal knowledge
of those diseased cattle in the years prior to ’86. [I remember
on one occasion, at a meeting of the trustees, that Mr. Far-
rington said he was sorry to say he had lost a cow. [I cannot
say whether he ever made any report, but I have known the fact
that there have been some few lost. I cannot say from whom
I knew it. I do not know of any definite report that was
made to us of the various deaths in the years prior to ’86.
My recollection is that there has been a full report ae to
the legislature by the farm superintendent.

39

TESTIMONY OF E. E. PARKHURST.

I am a farmer and reside at Presque Isle. I have been one
of the trustees of the State College 2 or 2 1-2 years. Ihave
attended every meeting of the trustees since my appoint-
ment except the first; I am not certain whether I, attended
the first meeting after my appointment. I was at the farm 3
or 4 times after my appointment up to the time I was called
there when the herd was slaughtered. I was called there
this last summer. I was called there and arrived either
Tuesday or Wednesday morning, and the cattle were slaugh-
tered the next day, or half of them were. I examined the
herd at that time. They were then separate. The herd in
the new barn was in good condition, as good as I ever saw it
in, I think; but there were 6 or 8 animals that had been
separated and taken into the horse stable, that were not looking
so well, looking perhaps about as well as our ordinary farm
stock does through the country. I heard them cough. The
indications at that time did not show any disease I was ac-
quainted with. I probably would not have known they were
diseased by looking at them. I noticed that the cattle in the
other barn coughed. I was there the day before they were
slaughtered and in the barn 3 or 4 times, and I heard them
cough every time. From the light I got from examining the
cattle I came to the conclusion it was best to slaughter the
herd. I was in doubt as to a few of them in which they
could not discover the disease. I think they were all killed.
I was not there when they were all slaughtered. I examined
some after they were slaughtered and saw indications of tu-
berculosis. Think I looked at the lungs of every animal that
was slaughtered that day. I had no acquaintance with that
disease before that time. Should say I was notified of the
disease about a month before the slaughter. I met Mr.
Burleigh there the day of the slaughter. I do not want to
state this as a fact, but my impression is that Mr. Burleigh
said to me like this: Mr. Parkhurst, I hope this thing will
be thoroughly investigated—the cause of this disease and

40

everything connected with it shown up. And I agreed with
him in that. I now think it would have been wise to collect
and slaughter the eleven bulls that have been mentioned here
as having gone out from the farm in the time previous to
that. I should not want to breed from them. I do not
recollect that Mr. Burleigh said or intimated at that time that
he thought there was any provision by which the College
could buy in those bulls. I think no one intimated that it
was the duty of the College to buy up those bulls. I under-
stood that the Cattle Commissioners had the matter in charge
at that time. I did not understand that the Governor and
Council had any authority inthe matter. Part of the Council
were there and I think advising. I did not hear them advise
or recommend. I understood they were there for that pur-
pose. When I was summoned there I supposed the trustees
would have something to do with it. After arriving there I
learned better than that. I found that the whole thing was
in the hands of the Cattle Commissioners and that the trustees
were powerless. I went home that night and was not there
the second day when they finished slaughtering. I under-
stood that the trustees had no right to interfere after the
Cattle Commissioners had taken it in hand. I did not under-
stand that the trustees had any right to go and purchase back
those bulls.

TESTIMONY OF N. P. HASKELL.

Reside in Orono. The farm I work adjoins the College
farm. I knew nothing of the existence of disease in the herd
at the College farm until after the matter came out before
the public, and even at that time on going up there I should
not have detected any signs of it. I was present when a part
of the cattle were killed the first day. I examined every
animal that was killed up to the time I left. Part of them
showed unmistakable evidence of being badly diseased ;
others I should not have detected. There were little bunches,
tubercles, as they call them, distributed through different

a

41

parts of the system, in the lungs of a great many, some very
large and some very small. Think I noticed them as large
as my two fists would be and containing matter of some sort.
Those that I saw opened did not have large cavities. The
tubercles seemed to be quite thick. I noticed them adhering
to the ribs of animals in quite a number of cases. I noticed
some indications of the disease in all of the animals, but do
not think I should have detected it in some unless my atten-
tion was particularly called to it. I was present generally
with Dr. Bailey and Dr. Michener, who made the examination,
and noticed things that I should not have if I had been alone.
I saw some of the herd slaughtered that were in the new barn,
the herd that appeared and looked the best. I own Jersey
cattle. I know about the feed and treatment of the cattle at
the College farm. I should say that the care of the cattle
had been the very best and the feed had been such as would
be warranted.

Q. What was the actual condition of the cattle a month
before the disease was known, as you saw them?

A. I called the cattle in extra condition. They were much
fleshier than the ordinary farm stock. There was nothing
about them to me a month before the disease broke out to in-
dicate that there was any disease among them. There never
has been any disease in my own herd. My barn is about 3-4
of a mile from the College barn, in a direct line. The pas-
tures join each other and I think quite likely that the cattle
may have been back and forth, but I do not know in regard
to that. A good many of mine were Jerseys—Jerseys and
high grades. To mature cows 5 years old in full flow of
milk, I will say 4 weeks after dropping of calf, I fed gen-
erally about 4 quarts of Indian meal and 4 quarts of shorts a
day. I let my cows run out in the pasture, but there was
no feed to amount to anything and I was obliged to feed in
the barn. I think the College herd ran out where they could
get the air. I have no knowledge of the disease in my herd.
The symptoms in these cattle were nothing I had ever seen
before or was acquainted with. Since that I have seen the

42

lungs of an animal slaughtered, diseased beyond a doubt.
The animal belonged to a gentleman in Bangor. Think that
animal did not in any way come from the College herd. Tf
do not think I would breed from those bulls that have gone
out. J think it is policy for some one to kill them. I have
taken no precaution to guard my herd from contagion; no
different from my every-day care. The cattle had not been
turned out that spring. As far as I am concerned, I would
not breed from an animal that was diseased, or a descendant
of one that was diseased, if I knew it. If they belonged to
me and I knew they were diseased I would kill them in a
moment.

TESTIMONY OF A. M. SHAW.

I was one of the farm hands and occasionally fed these
animals. Inthe morning they had their fodder of hay. After
they had eaten that they had their ration of grain. Their
grain for a day’s ration was a quart of shorts, a quart of
Indian meal and a quart of cotton seed meal for matured
cows; young cows that were in milk had a quart of shorts
with a pint of Indian meal and a pint of cotton seed. That
is what they give twice a day. That would be two quarts of
each for mature cows. Hay was fed to them 3 times a day.
They were watered twice a day. In the summer time they
were turned out of the barn every day and ran in the pasture
the same as other cattle, and put up nights in the barn. They
were occasionally turned out in the winter season. They
were turned out twice a day to drink and put up after drink-
ing. Probably no herd in the State was kept cleaner than
‘they were. The barn was well ventilated. I never saw any
appearance of disease about the cattle up to a month before
they were slaughtered. The disease appeared to me like a
sudden outbreak. It broke out the first of the winter, I
could not tell just the time. I think snow was on the ground
when the symptoms first appeared. I had not noticed any
cough among the cattle earlier than that except in the cow

—s

a

43

Betsey that has been spoken of. Those others began to
cough a few weeks after that. I have been on the place 4
years last June. I first noticed that the cow Betsey coughed
sometime in the fall of ’85.

TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR HARRIS.

I had the care of this stock and tended it about 2 years.
I had charge of it when the disease broke out. I did not
discover any trouble with the stock any length of time prior
to the outbreak. To the oldest cows we fed a quart of bran
and a quart of cotton seed and a quart of meal twice a day.
I fed it from a list prepared by Mr. Gowell. In connection
with this grain I fed to each cow about 20 pounds of hay a.
day. The animals were turned to pasture in the summer and
put in the barn at night. The young stock was turned out in
the yard for exercise in fine weather in the winter. Occa-
sionally other stock was turned out during the winter. They
were turned out to water twice a day. We fed from the
barn night and morning during the summer. The pasture
did not afford sufficient feed. In the winter time the stock
was watered in the stable. Once in a while, in very fine
weather in winter the older stock was turned out. I noticed
this coughing in the cow Betsey at the time Mr. Shaw spoke
of, and that is all I noticed. This is the first notice I had of
it. That was in the fall of ’85. This cow that coughed
began to lose some flesh before the outbreak of the disease.
The next indication of disease was in the cow Pet. I do not
remember how soon that was. I do not remember bow soon
another was taken.

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE A. BAILEY.

. Are you the Secretary of the Cattle Commission ?

. I was when I was on the Board.

. Your report of this has been put in print?

. It has. bits

. You were called to the State College farm at what time ?

OPoOore

44

A. 5th day of March.

Q. Who invited you to come there?

A. Z. A. Gilbert.

Q. Will you state to the committee what condition you found
the stock in generally ?

A. Fair condition, good condition.

Q. Will you state to the committee what the sanitary con-
ditions were in regard to the care of the stock, the condition
of the barn?

A. As near perfect as I ever saw one, I think.

Q. Will you state to the committee what was the relative
character of the herd of stock, setting aside the disease ?

A. It was a high class of cattle in as fine appearance as I
have ever seen in Maine.

Q. Whether or not you have heard the testimony as to the
feed of these cattle?

A. I have.

Q. Whether or not in your judgment, as a veterinary sur-
geon, you think that the feed of these cattle had anything
whatever to do with the origin or development of the disease
tuberculosis ?

A. I do not in the slightest.

Q. Whether or not from your examination of these cattle
and what you know of the development of this disease there
was anything to excite alarm in the common farmer so as to
summon a cattle commission prior to the time that the disease
broke out?

A.!.The 6th of March, do you mean? Do you call that the
time?

Q. I do not know exactly what the time is. The time it
broke out in their cattle, then, the first one?

A. Of course I do not know when it broke out in their cat-
tle, of my own knowledge. The 6th of March was my first
visit. Of course I have no knowledge of when they showed
the first symptoms of the disease.

Q. You have heard the symptoms from Shaw ?

A. Yes.

45

(J. What would you say as to the ordinary knowledge of a
common farmer, or even a dairyman, as to summoning 4 com-
mission on contagion diseases sooner than they did, from your
knowledge of it?

A. I should say that it ought to have been done sooner
than my call of the 6th of March, from the appearance of
some members of the herd.

Q. And from your knowledge of how the disease has de-
veloped?

A. Ido not know of my own knowledge how it has de-
veloped, only from what I hear of it—no personal knowledge.
On March 6th, when I visited the herd, some of those indi-
vidual cases were so poor that it must have been patent to
somebody, long before that, that there was trouble there.

Q. You have understood what the facts were in regard to
the symptoms prior to that, have you?

AS SY G8:, Sit.

Q. You understand that all the symptoms there were the
cough of the cow Betsey ?

A. I do not quite understand it that way.

Q. How do you?

A. Several besides her that had shown symptoms; they had
become emaciated and died, and been slaughtered, and coughed
—several besides Betsey. Pet had been killed ten days before
I arrived; prominent symptoms of tuberculosis.

QQ. From what you heard and understood, were there any
symptoms in these cattle until the disease developed to show
itself, as you understand it did, that would lead a man to sup-
pose there was a fatal disease lingering in this herd?

A. From what I heard we know now that they recognized
it a long time before in some individual cases.

Q. Who recognized it?

A. Mr. Gowell, himself, as long ago as 1882, in Rose 8th.
I do not know, of course, when she first showed it.

Q. Was there anything else about the rest of the herd other
than this isolated case that would indicate it was a disease of
the herd?

46

A. The personnel of that herd when I was called to see it
‘was as unsuspicious as any herd I ever saw that finally proved
to be diseased. They were as fine looking and as well kept
and cared for as any herd I ever visited.

Q. You went there in your official capacity, did you?

A. I did, the 6th of March.

Q. These cattle were ordered quarantined ?

A Immediately.

Q. Did you take charge of them the same as though they
belonged to an individual ?

A. We issued a written notice to the superintendent and
put them in quarantine at once.

Q. Treated them as though they had been the property of
any farmer ?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Pursued no different course ?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you issue any orders to the trustees in regard to
them ?

A. We did not, for Mr. Gilbert was a member of the trus-
tees himself. He was also chairman of our board, ex-officio.

Q. Do I understand you that the Cattle Commissioners had
full charge of this herd of cattle from the time they went
dhere?

A. Yes, sir, they had full power to do so, under the law.
Q. Were you advised by the Governor and Council?

A. We advised with them in relation to it several times.
Q. Now this herd was killed by your advice, was it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Under your authority ?

A. It was.

Q.

Will you state whether there was any talk at that time
about following up the disease at that time in other cattle?
A. Not at that time.
Q. I want to know whether there was anything said about
following up the disease in the progeny of the cattle at this
time ?

47

A. I do not think there was. The statement was made to
me that the bull calves had been sold and the heifers had been
retained.

Q. What I want to get at is whether the trustees were noti-
tied by you that they must get back the bulls ?

A. Not at all. The first thing in order was the disposition
of that herd. Nothing was said by the Commissioners that
the trustees must go round and get the rest of the bulls.

(The examination of Dr. Bailey at this point was tempo-
rarily suspended. )

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM B. FERGUSON.

I was a member of the Cattle Commission up to Sept. 25th.
I reside in Brewer and am a farmer. I received a letter from
Mr. Gilbert about the middle of March. I suppose that letter
is in Monroe, where I lived before moving to Brewer. He
wrote me about the middle of March saying that he supposed
I had learned through the papers then that there was diff-
culty with the herd of cattle at Orono. And he said when I
was in Bangor I had better, at my convenience, go up, or he
would like to have me go up and look them over. That is
the purport of the letter. I went up alone the 18th of
March and examined the cattle. I stopped over night and
was there a part of two days, the 18th and 19th, and went
back to Monroe. I saw the herd. The new barn contained
the most of them, and as far as looks went they were in good
condition. I noticed a cough about them. I knew enough
about cattle to know that that cough was not right. The
cough itself would be strange for well animals. I do not
think well animals are afflicted with a cough. I had never
before noticed creatures with a cough such as I saw there.
The cough was all I should have noticed about the cattle in
the new barn, and it was evident to me that something wrong
produced it. They had a bad cough and were badly emaci-
ated. J had never seen those symptoms in cattle before, that I
am aware of, not of that disease. No one was with me ex-
cept Mr. Gowell. From every appearance upon examination

48

I was satisfied beyond the possibility of a doubt that those in
the smaller barn were badly diseased. After I returned from
there I wrote to Mr. Gilbert that I had been up and I thought
the quicker those isolated cattle were killed the better. I
received a notice from Mr. Gilbert about the time of the
slaughter, immediately before, saying that a veterinary,
Michener his name is, was coming there, and he would like
to have me there also; that he and Dr. Bailey should be there.
I did not get the notice to enable me to be there sooner than
the second day of the slaughter, in the morning, the 23d, I
think. Probably half of them were killed after I got there.
I examined those animals and saw them dissected. I also.
examined the lungs of several killed the day before. The
worst cases were killed the first day, and it was surprising to:
me that they could live in the condition in which I found
their lungs. I said to Mr. Gilbert those cattle better be
killed, the sooner the better. The cattle killed the second
day showed different degrees of the disease. As far as I
know they were all diseased. A few days before the 20th of
last October I received a communication from Mr. Gilbert say-
ing he would like to have me meet him the 20th of October in
Portland, at a meeting of the board. Iwent. After I got there
I learned from Dr. Bailey that our commissions had expired,
his and mine. They had expired a month before that meet-
ing and there had been no re-appointment at that time. I
had understood that Dr. Bailey was unwell and it was desir-
able to meet at his house. I and Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Bell
met at the City Hotel. We had some conversation there
principally in regard to the extermination of those bulls that
had gone out from the College farm. I had not seen the
Commissioners before since April. We went over to Dr.
Bailey’s house, and Dr. Bailey and Mr. Gilbert had a lively
argument about following up those bulls and having them
destroyed. Dr. Bailey contended that they should be looked
after and destroyed and Mr. Gilbert objected to it, saying
that there was no proof that they were diseased, and that the
law gave no authority. I always received my notice to meet

49

with the Commissioners for any purpose from Mr. Gilbert.
In one or two cases I acted without notice from anybody ex-
cept the municipal officers. Dr. Bailey was chosen secretary
of the board and I understood his duties to be to keep a
record of our doings, the same as the secretary of any other
board.

Q. Did you come to any conclusion at Portland as to what
was best to do with the stock that was out?

A. Iwas out myself then by the expiration of my com-
mission, and of course I was not very officious. Mr. Gilbert
is a member of the board ex-officio and needs no appointment.
Subsequent to our first appointment another was added to the .
Commission, making four on the board. When I got to Port-
land on Oct. 20th I had a consultation in Mr. Gilbert’s room
at the City Hotel, with Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Bell, before we
went to Dr. Bailey’s house. Mr. Gilbert invited us to his
room. Mr. Gilbert said he wanted to prepare our minds for
something that we should get from Dr. Bailey ; he wanted to
prepare our minds for something that Dr. Bailey was crazy
on, to use his phrase. He said he was crazy on those out-
standing bulls. We conversed in his room 30 minutes in
regard to that, then we went to Dr. Bailey’s house and talked.
the matter over there. I was of the opinion that those bulls
should have been before taken care of. I agreed with Dr.
Bailey in that particular and have signed the report which he
has made to the legislature. Mr. Bell, the other Commis-
sioner, also agreed in the propriety of the destruction of the
bulls and also signed the report. I saw the Kent bull in
Bucksport on Oct. 22d. Dr. Bailey said in Portland that in-
asmuch as I lived near hy I had better go down and see the
bull and the party who owned him. Think the matter of that
bull was talked over on the 20th of October. I examined
that bull the 22d. He was in fair condition as to flesh, but
not fleshy enough for beef. He had a staring coat and I did
not like the expression of his countenance, things that I should
not call just right. I have had considerable to do with cattle

f

50

and horses and I can judge as quickly of the healthfulness or
unhealthfulness by the looks of their eyes as by most anything.
I told Kent that I should not use the bull. At our meeting on
the 20th of October, Mr. Gilbert said there was no evidence
that the bull was diseased that he knew of. Dr. Bailey stated
at that time that the bull was out of one of the worst diseased
cows that were killed in the previous April. I understood
that Mr. Gilbert was opposed to having anything to do with
the Kent bull. I saw Mr. Gilbert here at the opening of the
legislature, and I understood him to say that Dr. Bailey had
no business to go down to Bucksport when he did to make the
examination. I think he disputed my right to fees for going
down there on the same errand. I understood him to say that
the board had nothing whatever to do with the Kent bull. I
asked him at that time if he was not going to make a report, and
I think he said he didn’t know. I spoke to him about it here
in this room, the first day of the session of the legislature.
It was my opinion and advice in Portland that those bulls
should be taken incharge and killed ; I thought they had better
not be propagating their kind.

Q. You thought it was Mr. Gilbert’s duty as Cattle Commis-
sioner to gather them up?

A. I haven’t said anything about that.

Q. What is your opinion?

A. I think it was more the duty of the trustees of the
College than anybody else’s. I knew bulls were sold from
the farm, but I knew nothing about them. The first I knew
that the bulls had been sold from the farm was when I was in
Portland. J agreed in Portland that the bulls had better be
called in. Mr. Bell and Mr. Gilbert discussed considerably
in Portland the question of whether or not there was a law
allowing or providing for calling in the bulls. I might have
expressed an opinion that the Commissioners might not have
authority to take animals and kill them unless there was some
evidence of disease. I do not understand that we have a law
authorizing the Cattle Commissioners to go out and destroy an
animal after it has been pronounced sound by proper authori-

51

ties. I understand there is law by which the trustees could
call these cattle in—the law that they themselves do business
there by. When I saw Kent he was very anxious to get rid
of his bull.

Q. Unless there was evidence of disease in these cattle when
they were sold, would you consider that the College was under
any more obligation to buy them back than an individual would
be?

A. Yes; I should, those animals, because they sold them.

Q. If you had sold an animal that was sound and you knew of
no disease upon him or in the herd, and the disease afterwards
developed in the herd and your cattle were destroyed, would
you consider you were obliged to go and buy the cattle you
had sold in a sound condition and that were still in sound con-
dition ?

A. If that disease could be traced back to the breeding ani-
mal I should consider I was under both moral and legal obli-
gation to take him back.

Q. But that question as to whether it is traceable back is an
open question, isn’t it?

A. Perhaps so. Ido not understand it is so among experts.
I understand by veterinary authorities that it is hereditary.

Q. Do you understand that there is any certainty of how
this disease developed in this herd of cattle at Orono?

A. By contagion and by heredity both. I understand
there is no other way by which it can be propagated. I un-
derstand that these cattle were brought from different herds.
Some got it probably by contagion, others by heredity.

Q. Then would you search out the bulls where there was a
hereditary tendency and leave those where the dam died from
contagion? How would you distinguish there ?

A. I should say that the strong probability was that those
bulls were unsound and unsafe from hereditary tendencies.

Q. We will say here is a cow brought into the herd at the
College ; that cow drops a bull one year prior to this conta-
gion; that bullis sold at three months old and goes out.
Afterwards that cow takes this contagion from the rest of the

52

cattle and dies. Do you think the College is under any moral
legal obligation to call in that bull?

A. Perhaps not. If there is no suspicion of the bull I do not
know any reason why they should take him back. But these
bulls bred from cows diseased while they were carrying the
calves I should say the College was under obligation to take
back.

Q. As matter of fact, is there any certainty that any of
these cows were diseased when they carried these calves four
years ago?

A. I could not tell that. I understand that the Kent bull
was really diseased. Dr. Bailey and Dr. Michener are my
authority.

TESTIMONY OF Z. A. GILBERT.

You have alluded here to two reports of the Cattle Commis-
sioners. Allow me to say in connection with this that the
report you have spoken of as a minority report is a record of
the doings of the Commission, required under the law, for
the two years ending the 10th of January of this year.
What you have designated as the majority report does not
purport to cover the work of the board, but simply one
feature of that work, which is the herd at the State College.

By Mr. Libby:

Q. What connection are you of Mr. Gowell, I mean what
relation ?

A. I did not know that I was related to him. I am not
related to him. You mean by kin?

Q. Yes. Is Mr. Gowell connected in any way with you by
marriage. Are you any connection of his in any way?

A. In no way, shape or manner that I know of.

Q. Then you say Mr. Gowell is not your nephew?

A. He is not my nephew.

By Mr. Rich:

Q. Have you got your report made up for the last 2 years?

53

A. That report was made up and presented to the legisla-
ture about the 12th or 15th of January. Jam unable to state
the date that it was laid on your table.

Mr. Libby: The report has been distributed here.

Mr. Rich: I have not received one.

Witness: My report was made up from data kept by Dr.
Bailey and furnished to me for the purpose of making up my
report, covering every item of our doings for the two years
required by the law—every action of the board during that
time. The data were furnished by Dr. Bailey.

Dr. Bailey: We agreed in our reports, as I understand
it, clear up to the matter of the Kent bull.

By Mr. Cornish:

Q. Have you any statement you wish to make to the com-
mittee before any questions are asked ?

A. No, sir.

Q. Very well. Did you receive an order from the legis-
lature to make and file your report?

A. I did.

Q. And you hadn’t filed it at that time?

A. It was in the hands of the printers, in preparation for
presentation, at the time the order was passed through the
legislature.

Q. What time was the order passed through the legisla-
ture?

A. I cannot tell you. The date of the order is in my
valise at the house.

Q. It was not prepared and filed on or before January
10th, as required by the statute ?

A. It was not.

Q. You speak of that as a record of your doings. Did
you ask any of your associates to sign that with you?

Yes. .

Q. Which ones?

A. Mr. Bell, the only associate I had at that time.
Q

A

a

. Did Mr. Bell refuse to sign it?
. He did.

54

Q. On what ground?

A. I was unable to find out.

Q. Did that conversation you had with him in regard to
signing the report take place in the station at Woodford’s?

. No, on the platform.

. Well, at the station?

. At the station.

Did you ever ask him at any other time than that?

. I do not recollect that I did.

When did you first know of the existence of this dis-
ease, or have any suspicions of the existence of it at the
State College ? |

A. I haven’t the date. It was about the time of that fear-
ful blow and blockade on the railroads last winter, the last
days of February, I think.

Q. That was the first suspicion you had of it?

AN Yes, ‘ait:

Q. Have you brought to the committee the letters in your
possession from the other members of your board? Have
you them here?

A. I have the letters of Dr. Bailey.

Q. They are all here, are they?

A. In relation to the cattle at the College?

Q. Yes. I mean in relation to this matter now being in-
vestigated. Those letters are here?

A. They are here.

Q. Have you the correspondence with the other members
of your board ?

A. Ihaven’t. I haven’t been requested to bring papers in
here by any party whatever.

Q. But you knew the terms of the order under which the
committee is acting?

A. I read the order, yes, sir.

Q. And assisted in making up the list of names of persons
to be summoned ?

A. I suggested names of parties whom I thought it would
be well to summon.

SOPOPOPD

55

Q. Now you say your suspicions were first aroused about
the first of March?

A. No, I did not say so.

Q. When was it?

A. I cannot fix the time. It was about the time of that
blockade. That was the first of March or the last of February.

Q. Prior to that time you had no suspicion of it?

A. None whatever.

Q. Had you never had a suspicion of the disease in portions
of the State prior to that time?

A. I have been notified of disease in different portions of
the State probably every year that I have been Secretary of the
Board of Agriculture, and some years many times, in various
sections of the State.

Q. Of tuberculosis ?

A. Of contagious diseases.

Q. Had you prior to that, or within a few months prior to
that, any notice of tuberculosis existing in any other section
of the State?

A. No.

Q. Not in any other herd of cattle?

A. No:

Q. Had you within a few months any knowledge or sus-
picion of any contagious disease in any herd of cattle?
I mean, prior to this outbreak, the first of March, had you re-
ceived any knowledge or information as to the outbreak of
any contagious disease in any herd of cattle in the State?

A. I could not answer that question. I presume I had, as
I formerly stated-—

Q. In any large herd of cattle?

A. As I formerly stated to you, I was receiving from time
to time along—

Q. Can you state to the committee a single instance within
three months prior to the first of March?

A. I cannot, but my letters at home might show it.

Q. You haven’t in mind that it was called specially to your
attention ?

56

A. I could not specify any instance.

Q. (Letter dated February 2, 1886, and marked ‘‘A” shown
witness) Is that your handwriting?

Au. es, sir, it is:

Q. That is your letter?

A., Yes, sir.

(The letter was read in evidence, and is as follows :)

66 A
STATE OF MAINE.

Board of Agriculture, }
North Greene, Feb. 2, 1886.

Dr. Bailey :—What have you to say of a case of death from tuberculo-
sis of an animal kept till the time of her death in the stable with a large
herd of other cattle?

Is it likely to follow herds, and possibly tardily, where an animal has
been sick with it?

Pardon me for troubling you, but I would like information on aboye

points.
Resp’y yours,

(Signed) Z. A. Gilbert.

Q. Now, can you state what herds you had in mind at that
time, and what death you had in mind?

A. I cannot.

Q. Did you receive a reply to that from Dr. Bailey?

A. I think I did.

Q. Have you it in your possession ?

A. I do not know as I shall be able to select the letter at
once. All these letters I have here can go into the hands of
the committee if they desire.

Q. Did you know of the killing of the Gray Nose and Jer-
sey Lily, as they are called? }

A. Ido not know anything about any names. I am ac-
quainted with the killing of the herd of cattle at Orono, but
I cannot specify as to names.

Q. Do you remember when they were killed?

A. Yes. There were two cattle killed by order of the
Commissioners; I cannot state the date, but it was sometime
in March.

57

Dr. Bailey :—The 12th of March.

Witness :—12th of March by order of the Commissioners.
Were you present at the killing of those two?

I was.

Were you present at the examination of them?

I was.

Was tuberculosis found to exist ?

Something Dr. Bailey called tuberculosis.

Up to that time did you know anything about the dis-
ea
. No.

And you saw what he called the evidences of the disease ?
I did.

. Was that Jersey Lily a half sister of the Kent bull?
. I do not know anything about it.

Do you know that she had the same dam, the Princess
Alba?

A. No, I do not know anything about the breed; haven’t
kept the run of it.

Q. After the killing didn’t you realize the fact that that Kent
bull was out of the Princess Alba?

A. I did not know anything about it at that time.

Q. And that the Jersey Lily that was killed was a half
sister ?

A. I didn’t know anything about it until Dr. Bailey informed
me later in the season.

Q. Coming now to the Kent bull, what was the first in-
formation you had as to him?

A. [had a letter from Mr. Kent inquiring of me sumething
in regard to a bull that he bought from the College herd.

Q. When was that?

A. I cannot tell you. It was sometime along in the spring
or summer, but I haven’t the date of it. It was not an official
matter, and consequently I did not make any oflicial record
of it.

Q. Why was it not an official letter ?

PPoropkopopope

58

A. Because it did not call upon me as one of the Cattle
Commissioners.

Q. How did he happen to write to you?

A. I do not know anything about that.

Q. Didn’t you suppose he wrote to you as a member of
the board of Commissioners ?

A. He didn’t address me as one of the Cattle Commissioners.

Q. Does a man have to address you in a matter of that
kind as a member of that board before you take any action
upon the matter?

A. I do not know whether that would be the case or not.

Q. If a man writes to you addressing you as ‘“‘Z. A. Gil-
bert,” or ‘Hon. Z. A. Gilbert,” without putting on ‘* Member”
or ‘‘Chairman of the Board of Cattle Commissioners,” and in-
forms you of a suspicion of diseased animals in his herd, do
you take no notice of the letter?
I do take notice of the letter.
Why didn’t you take notice of that letter?
sea did:
But not officially ?
. I did not officially.
. Do you take notice of the others officially ?
He did not inform me of a diseased animal.
Do you take notice of the others officially ?
I do when I am informed of diseased animals.
Have you that letter in your possession ?
. Ihave not. It was a private letter and I do not keep
them on file. All my official letters are kept on file.

Q. How do you tell whether a letter comes to you in your
private or official capacity ?

A. If it was a letter in regard to a diseased bull I should
suppose it was in an official capacity.

Q. This was not?

A. It was not.

Q. Was it not in regard to a bull he had suspicion about
having the disease ?

Ppererere rer

59

A. In this letter he told me the bull was not diseased.

Q. Why did he write to you then?

A. He addressed me as a brother Patron and asked my
advice.

Q. About using a bull that was not diseased ?

A. About using a bull which was purchased at the College
farm prior to the outbreak of disease there.

Q. Did he at that time state to you anything about whether
he had suspicion of the disease ?

A. He stated to me that the animal was well, that he ate
well, looked well'and appeared well, and that he was well.

Q. And you haven’t taken pains to preserve that letter,
but are simply stating the contents of it now from memory?

A. Iam stating it from memory ; I did not preserve it.

Q. At the time you received that letter had any of the
cattle at the State farm been killed?

A. They had all been killed.

Q. Did you take pains to answer him to ascertain the par-
entage of that bull?

A. I did not at all.

Q. Not the slightest ?

A. Not at all.

Q. Didn’t try to find out whether the mother of the bull
was one of the worst diseased cattle of the herd?

A. I have answered that question.

Q. Did you or not?

A. I say I did not.

Q. Did you take any pains to inform yourself as to the
condition of the bull before replying?

BING:

Q. And this letter you received was immediately after the
killing, was it not?

A. No, sir; I cannot state when it was. My impression
is that it was immediately after the killing.

Q. On what days were the cattle killed there?

A. I think it was the 22d and 23d of April. (Letter
marked ‘*B” shown witness. )

60

Q. Is that the letter which you sent to Mr. Kent in reply |
to his?

A. It is.

Q. What is the date of that?

A. April 30th.

Q. Then prior to April 30th you had received from him
his letter?

A. I presume so.

Q. Then it must have been immediately after the killing.
It seems that you received his letter when the matter was en-
tirely fresh in your mind?

A. Of course it must have been fresh in my mind at that
time.

(Mr. Cornish reads in evidence the letter marked «‘B,”
which is as follows :)

6 ‘B”
STATE OF MAINE.

Board of Agriculture, :
North Greene, April 30, 1886.

Mr. S. N. Kent:—Your letter is at hand. If I were in your place I
should retain and use the bull. As long as he has shown no cough and
no other signs of disease it is safe to conclude he is well. If he is well it

is safe and proper to use him.
Resp’y yours,

(Signed) Z. A. Gilbert.

Q. You have heard the physicians testify, have you not,
that an animal might have that disease and have no cough?
. Yes, might have a cough and no disease.
. But he might have that disease and yet have no cough?
Yes.
So that the cough is not the only symptom?
No.
And not a necessary incident to the disease ?
No, but a usual accompaniment of it.
. But still, not a necessary one?
. Not always.

POPOPOPOP

61

Q. Do you know when the stiff-necked one was killed,
in March, 1885? Were you made acquainted with the fact
that two stiff-necked ones were killed, in March, 1885?

A. No.

Q. And did you know that one of those was half sister to
this very Kent bull ?

A. No, sir, I didn’t know anything about the breed, records
or parentage, or anything about it; nothing at all.

Q. After your correspondence with Mr. Kent, what was
your next correspondence in regard to the Kent bull?

A. I have no recollection of any further correspondence
with Mr. Kent in regard to the bull.

Q. Well, with any member of your Commission ?

A. Ido not know as I could state that correctly. I had
some correspondence with some members of the Commission
in regard to that bull.

QQ. Did you have a letter from Dr. Bailey inclosing Mr.

McAlister’s notice the latter part of July or the first part of
August as to this bull?

A. I believe I received such a letter including Mr. McAlis-
ter’s notice.

Q. And the document which I produce is the notice which
was included ?

A. I could not swear to the notice at all. It was returned
by request to Dr. Bailey. I could not state whether this was
the notice or not.

Q. Did you reply to Dr. Bailey on that matter?

A. I presume I did; I usually replied to his letters, all of
them.

(Letter dated August 10th, 1886, and marked “C” shown
witness. )

Q. Is that the letter which you sent to Dr. Bailey in reply ?

A. I think that is the reply.

(The letter was read in evidence by Mr. Cornish, and is as
follows :)

62

66?
STATE OF MAINE.

Board of Agriculture,
North Greene, Aug. 10, 1886.
Dr. Bailey:

Dear Sir:—Your letter with doc’s at hand. I do not think case war-
ranted a visit from you and they probably took the course they did to get
an examination of the animal at State’s expense. I knew all about the
case.

In regard to my advice to use the bull: it is the only position we ean
take. The bull was sound, so stated, ‘‘and we have no evidence that he
came from any other than sound parentage.”’ The only thing to say is
that he is all right. If he doesn’t feel easy about it, it is none of our busi-
ness; then he must sell him, that’s all.

Yours,

(Signed) Gilbert.

Q. Was not there evidence to you, as a member of the
Board of Trustees of the College, or as a member of the
Cattle Commissioners present at the killing in all your capa-
cities, that he did come of unsound parentage ?

A. There was a possibility, nothing further.

Q. You knew his mother was one of the worst cases, did
you not?

A. I did not at that time.

Q. Could not you by the slightest work have obtained that
information ?

A. I probably could if I had sought it.

Q. But you didn’t try to, did you?

A. Ididnot. I will make a word of explanation here, with
the permission of the chairman, with reference to why I stated
(in the letter) that he should not have visited the bull. The
requirements of the law are that there should be diseased
animals in order to warrant a notice; that that notice shall
come from the municipal officers to the Commissioners. I had
had this bull under my charge. The notice to me was that he
was a well bull, and all right in every respect. There was
only a possibility, a suspicion against him; but the statement
was that he was all right, and, therefore, that was not a matter
for legal notice to the Commissioners, and hence my statement.

——

63

Q. You say you had had the bull under your charge ?

A. Under my notice.

Q. Under your charge as one of the members of the Cattle
Commission, do you mean?

A. No, sir, under my notice; under my notice would have
been a better word, because I had had the bull under consid-
eration.

Q. Under your notice as a Cattle Commissioner?

A. No, sir, as an individual.

Q. You make that distinction all the way through, do you?

A. I make it now.

Q. Were you acting in respect to the Kent bull as a private
eitizen, or as one of the Board of Cattle Commissioners ?

A. In that letter to Dr. Bailey I was acting as a Commis-
sioner. .

Q. And in your letter to Mr. Kent how were you acting?

A. As a private individual, as I was addressed by him.

Q. Then the way in which you act always depends upon the
method by which you are addressed by those who write you
letters ?

A. I do not know about that.

Q. It did in this case?

A. I stated in each case how I acted.

Q. In the letter to Dr. Bailey you said of the Kent bull it
was “none of our business ?”

A. None of our business as Cattle Commissioners.

Q. Doyouthinkthe Cattle Commissioners have no “summary
powers” in such matters?

A. What do you mean by “summary powers ?”

Q. What does the statute mean when it uses the word?

A. I do not know. I ask for information.

Q. What is your construction of it?

A. I could not say. I could not tell what in law is under-
stood by “summary.”

Q. Haven’t any idea what “summary powers” means?

A. No, not definite.

64

Q. Do you mean to say you think the Cattle Commissioners
had no power to act in any case of diseased cattle unless the
municipal officers should call upon them so to do? .

A. Repeat that question.

Q. Do you think that the Board of Cattle Commissioners
had no power to deal with diseased animals in any way, or
those suspected of disease, unless notified by municipal offi-
cers of the town?

A. The only exception that I would make to that is a herd
of stock belonging to the State.

Q. Otherwise they had no power?

A. Otherwise, in a town or municipality where the stock
belonged to a private individual, the Cattle Commissioners
have no power whatever to act in cases of disease unless
called upon by municipal officers.

Q. You are very positive in that position?

A. Iam.

By Mr. Walton:

Q. Did I understand you that this letter (letter marked
‘*B”) was written by you as a private individual to Mr. Kent?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you understand that he wrote to you as a private
individual asking your advice in regard to it?

A. I did. He addressed me as a brother Patron, that is,
a brother Granger.

Q. You wrote this upon one of your blanks as Secretary of
the Board of Agriculture?

A. Yes, sir, I was using that paper in all my ¢orrespond-
ence, private and official, in various official directions. I
have Experiment Station headings to some of my paper, and
I sometimes use that. We have no official paper for the
Cattle Commission.

Q. Yes, but this is official paper for the Board of Agricul-
ture, is it not?

A. Yes, sir, but not the Cattle Commission.

Q. Certainly, but it is all the official paper you have?

A. No, sir, I have some other official paper.

a it i

65

Q. And in connection with the Board of Agriculture ?

A. No, sir, in connection with the Experiment Station.

By Mr. Adams:

(2. Does not your office in the Board of Agriculture make
you an officer also of this Commission ?

A. I so understand it, yes, sir. ‘This office as commis-
sioner is an ex-officio office.

Q. So that would be sufficient for official paper in that ca-
pacity ?

A. Perhaps so, but it was not so designed. It was designed
as an individual.

By Mr. Cornish:

(. Have you any official paper of the Board of Cattle Com-
missioners ?

A. I have not.

(). Has not all your official correspondence as a member
of that board been upon this same paper upon which you
wrote to Mr. Kent?

A. I presume it has. I use that in nearly all of my cor-
respondence, private and ofiicial.

Q. In writing to other men do you make the same distinc-
tion? and when you write to them and sign simply your own
name and without the word ‘‘Commissioner” under it, do you
understand that to be a private correspondence ?

A. Not necessarily so. Sometimes I sign officially and
sometimes I do not; depends upon whom I am writing to.

Q. Then at the other end of the route, when the man re-
ceives that letter with that letter-head and your signature, he
has no means of knowing whether you are writing to him as
a Patron or as a member of the board, has he?

A. I do not know anything about what means he has; he
has only the letter of course.

Q. So far as that goes, have you in any of your correspond-
ence in regard to this Kent bull ever signed your name as
‘‘Commissioner on Contagious Diseases ?”

A. Ido not know. I may and may not.

5

66

Q. You haven’t been very particular about that?

A. No. I am very particular if I am taking any legal
action that it shall be a legal notice; I am very particular
about that.

Q. Now, going back to the question of the power in the
board, you say you so construed the law, and still have no
idea as to the meaning of the words ‘‘summary powers” in
the statute ? Y

A. I do not interpret the law for our action myself. I use
my judgment, but the interpretation of the law has been given
to me by higher authority than myself. Of course I had the
privilege of reading the law and using my judgment in regard
to what the law was, but it has been interpreted and defined
to us by higher authority.

Q. And using your own judgment upon it you so con-
strued it, although the words ‘‘summary powers” are in the
statute ?

A. I do not know whether ‘‘summary powers” are in the
Cattle Commission law or not. I presume the statute will
show.

Mr. Haines :—‘Summary orders.”

Q. ‘Summary orders.” Have you always maintained the
same position ?

A. I have. I think I have. I have no recollection of
maintaining any different position.

(Letter dated April 13th, ’86, and marked ‘*D” shown
witness. )

Q. Is that your signature and letter?

A. Looks like it; yes, sir, that is mine.

(Mr. Cornish placed in evidence the letter marked ‘‘D,”
which is as follows :)

boy)?
STATE OF MAINE.

Board of Agriculture, \
North Greene, Apr. 13, 1886.

Dear Doctor:—Your letters were duly rec’d Monday evening. My
arrangements previously made are such that I cannot go down to Port-
land on Wednesday. I had planned to give some time to that matter next

67

week, andto do it must have my time for other work this week. The
printers are at work on my annual report and J am obliged to keep them at
work.

I don’t want to put our heroic treatment into effect at Orono till we have
letters from other authorities. Write to Billings and others and see what
they will say to the course we proposed.

I don’t think you had better go down to Wesley till we have consulted
together.

Now in regard to scabby sheep. We must hold back about making ex-
pense for the State in such cases. If you are called by municipal officers
you better diagnose the disease and leave the matter right there with the
municipal ofticers to do further as they please. This will throw the whole
responsibility—further than a decision as to the nature of the disease—
on to the officers, where we want it. Sec. 38 of the law says, *‘said offi-
cers may order them killed,” ete.

Sect. 50 gives us the ‘tpower to issue summary orders” but it does not
say we shall. So we will take the easy horn and let the municipal officers
do what they think best, when they and not we must bear the responsi-
bility. Ithink this the proper course and by all means the best course.
I don’t want to take the responsibility of making cost on little flocks of
sheep or pens of pigs. You tell them the nature of the disease and let
them do as they please further. We must be careful how far we go.

Hastily yours,
(signed) Gilbert.

You will not get this till after your interview with the Gov. I would

like to know the tenor of it.
G.

Witness :—That was written to Dr. Bailey because [ con-
sidered he had gone too far, and it was out of caution to him.
He had visited several flocks of sheep, and had ordered them
to be destroyed on his own responsibility singly, and they
were destroyed on that order. Scab in sheep is a curable
disease. We have no rights or authority as a commission to
destroy stock that is diseased with a curable disease.

Q. And is hog cholera a contagious disease ?

A. Tt is;

(Letter dated November 11th, ’85, and marked ‘*E” shown
witness. )

Q. Is that your hand writing?

A. It looks like it.

(Mr. Cornish read in evidence the letter marked ‘‘E”
which is as follows :)

68

66”?
STATE OF MAINE.

Board of Agriculture, 4
North Greene, Nov. 11, 1885.

Dr. Bailey :—Your bili was promptly attended to by me, and presented
in person. At one session since I wrote a letter calling attention to it.
At the last session they drew warrants for other matters, and I supposed
that had been attended to. I did not see the council at the last session, as
they were on a murder case while I was there. Have done alll could. I
don’t like the way we are treated and would resign if I could. I don’t
like the business either.

In all cases of a call to us from municipal officers, please preserve the
eall to file with your bill as authority for the action.

If I understand the Thorndike case we can do nothing for the parties.

In the cases of hog cholera at Saco, think the course is to let the author-
ities take care of the matter. You make your visits only on call, (for the
present at least) and pronounce upon the disease. Sec. 50 of the law gives
us the power to issue summary orders, but it is left to us to judge whether
public safety requires it, and unless it does we are in no way obliged to
act. If at any time we find the municipal officers are neglecting to pro-
tect the public then it becomes our duty to do it ourselves. So you diag-
nose the disease when called upon, and if the officers think it best to prize
and kill, let them do it and collect the damage. If we find them negligent
and public interests not protected, then we will step in and handle the
matter ourselves. This throws the responsibility upon them, and we are
to take it only when we are obliged to.

I go to Boston to-morrow and wish I could stop off at P., but cannot.
If you want me to stop over a train when I come back on Tuesday next—
at Saco or Portland—write me at 13 School St., Boston. I will telegraph
you to strike me on noon train at Woodford’s, and if it finds you at home
we will consult.

Yours,

(Signed) Gilbert.

Witness :—My explanation of that is that in regard to these
unimportant matters where the public safety was all right it
was better to leave them in the hands of the municipal officers.
where the law allows them to be, and let them take care of
them. They could do it cheaper, easier and better than we
could. That was my idea in these unimportant matters where
the public safety was not jeopardized.

Q. Do you think if acase of tuberculosis is brought to your
notice as cattle commissioner, and you learn that it exists in

69

a certain town in this State, that you cannot move one peg
unless the municipal officers see fit to notify you?

A. Idothink so. I have been so instructed by the Governor
and Council of this State.

Q. And you have always acted in that way ?

A. No. There is one exception.

Q. I mean, except the College?

A. Yes, sir, I think so. I do not recollect any case in
which we have not always acted in that way.

Q. Now after this matter was brought to the attention of
vour board by this notice from the selectmen of Bucksport,
did you then think that the Cattle Commissioners of this State
ought to take hold of that matter ?

. I did not.

Why?

. Because that bull was a well bull.

. What information had you as to that?

. I had the information trom the owner of the bull.

. Do you take the information of the letter which you
have described here giving the outward appearance of the
bull, written to you, as you say, a brother Patron, in place
of the official notice given to you in July as a member of the
board of Cattle Commissioners ?

A. Official notice was given to Dr. Bailey.

Q. He was one of the board?

A. Yes, sir; and he went to visit them in accordance with
that notice.

Q. Then would you let that letter which you received the
previous April, as you say a private individual, supersede the
official notice which came to your board ?

A. My knowledge of that animal was that he was a well
animal. I had no other knowledge in regard to that animal,
and consequently that was my position.

Q. Did you have any other knowledge except what was con-
tained in that first letter written to you by Mr. Kent?

A. When?

Q. In April previous.

OrOrOo>P

70

A. At the time the letter was written, do you mean?

Q. When this letter came to your board from Mr. Me-
Alister, selectman of the town of Bucksport, did you at that
time have any notice of the real condition of that oull other
than what was contained in the letter from Mr. Kent of the
previous April?

A. I do not know that I had.

Q. And that letter, you say, was written to you not ofhf-
cially, but as a member of the Patrons?

A. I say so.

Q. And you allowed that letter to supersede this official
notice given to you as a member of the board? Is that so?

A. No, I do not understand it so.

Q. Didn’t you take what you say were the statements in
that letter in preference to what was contained in this notice?

A. I do not recollect what was in the notice.

Q. Did you ever visit the bull?

A. Never. I never visited the bull because I never was
notified he was diseased.

Q. Did you concur in your associate’s visiting that bull?

A. The letter says I did not.

Q. You did not approve of his course then?

A. Yes, I did approve of it. I think I wrote to him saying
that under the notice to him he was justified in visiting the
bull. But the notice was—I do not know how to express it,
but I should say it was a sort of spring, one of those springs
that have been attempted a good many times on the Commis-
sion to get an official diagnosis of a disease at the expense of
the State in an individual case.

Q. And you were very glad to have that suspicion in this
case, were you not?

A. I do not know.

Q. The only information you had was from the previous
letter written to you as a Patron?

A. That is all I recollect now.

Q. Still, you neglected to take any part in the investigation
of the Kent bull case as an officer?

71

A. No, sir. Dr. Bailey went down there and visited,"pro-

fessionally, the same as in all cases of disease.

. At your request?

- On his own responsibility, as he frequently did.

. Did you approve of his action after he did it?

. I was a good deal—

. Did you approve of his action after he did it?

I did.

And thought that he had a perfect right to go there ?

I thought under the call he received that it was his
duty to answer that call.

Q. Didn’t you tell Mr. Ferguson in the State House this
winter that he had no business to go there?

A. Ido not think I did. At least, I do not know why I
should, because I think I had previously written to Bailey
that he was justified in visiting the bull under the notice he
received. I do not recollect that I told Mr. Ferguson that.
I would swear that I have no recollection of telling him so.

By Mr. Libby:

Q. What was the result? Was the bull called sound?

A. Immediately after the visit of Dr. Bailey to the Kent
bull he wrote me of his visit, and this is the letter: ‘*Port-
land, August 8, 1886. ‘*Dear Gilbert: I inclose to you some
documents that I deemed of sufficient importance to receive
my prompt attention, and went to Bucksport on Wednesday
and met McAlister, who took me to Kent’s place. The latter
is a farmer with a large stock of cows from which he supplies

>POPOPOPS

the city with milk, and he also keeps a bull for public service.
This bull he purchased at Orono, and he is apparently a well
animal with a normal temperament and sound lungs as far as
can be tested by percussion, and is about a year old.” That
is all that relates to the bull.

By Mr. Cornish:

Q. Do you know whether or not Dr. Bailey corresponded
with Mr. Gowell after that as to the lineage of this animal?

A. He said he did.

72

Q. Did Dr. Bailey write a letter inclosing that reply from
Gowell?

A. Dr. Bailey informed me that he had corresponded with
Gowell and found that the bull was calved by one of the
cows killed at the College, one of the diseased cows.

(Letter marked ‘‘F” shown witness. )

Q. Is that the letter you received inclosed, do you think?

A. I can tell by reading it through. Dr. Bailey informed
me to that effect. |

Q. Didn’t he inclose a letter from Mr. Gowell?

A. I cannot tell you. He informed me of the fact.

(Mr. Cornish read in evidence letter marked ‘‘F,” as fol-

lows :)
son
Orono, Aug. 9, 1886.
Dear Doctor :—The dam of the young bull was Princess Alba, one of the
two cows we slaughtered in the field near the stable, and whose lungs and
glands you brought into the stable. She was one of the worst cases. You
doubtless remember her condition now. Lungs and glands badly off.
IT am confined to the house by sickness and am writing to you with ex-
treme difficulty.
Most truly,
(Signed) G. M. Gowell.

‘Princess Alba” was the dam of the ‘‘Kent bull’? whose lungs I refer

to, sent to the American Vet. College.
G. Gd. B.

(Letter marked ‘*G” shown witness. )

Q. Is that your hand writing?

A. It is.

(Mr. Cornish read in evidence letter marked ‘*G,” as fol-

lows :) id

STATE OF MAINE.

Board of Agriculture,
North Greene, Aug. 13, 1886.
Dr. Bailey:

Dear Sir :—We haven’t the ghost of a law that will authorize us to inter-
ere with that animal. If Mr. K. don’t think the animal safe to use, it is his
business, not ours. Besides. ‘‘a decision that the animal was unsound when
bought binds the College to refund.”
Remember, the College cattle were the State’s property and we did not
apply the law at all.

| 73

‘We can’t do anything but let the animal alone just where he is, and not
somplicate ourselves with it. It is our only way.
I suppose we better square off with Scribner and settle the matter up.
) He can get more for those cattle to sell them for beef, and he better do it.
| You see Locke and see what he says about it. The sooner we attend to
| it the better. The Gov. is gone, and you ask Locke if we better wait till
he returns or go ahead as soon as we can arrange the matter. Let me
know as soon as you can.

Yours,

(Signed) Gilbert.

Q. You were a trustee of the College, were you not?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And one of the farm committee of the College ?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And had been instrumental in purchasing this whole
herd?

A. Directly and indirectly.

Q. Largely so, had you not?

A. No, sir.

Q. You and Gowell together ?

A. We made one purchase together.

Q. Did you make any alone?

INO, BIE.

Q. Advise as to purchases ?

A. I presume so, as we had a perfect understanding with
each other in regard to all these matters.

Q. Did you have another letter from Dr. Bailey on the 22d
of October?

A. I presume so; I had a good many from him.

Q. Can you find that as readily as you found the last one
you produced ?

A. I do not know. I may have it here and I may not.
Here is one dated October 23d.

Q. Yes, sir. Will you read that to the committee ?

(Witness reads letter dated October 23d, ’86, and marked
~*H,” as follows :)

74

se?
Portland, Oct. 23, 1886.

Dear Sir :—I am in receipt of two letters this morning, one from Dan-
forth, that satisfies me that they have no ‘‘contagious disease” among
their horses, and I do not propose to go. So, knowing no business East,
I will go to Orono almost any day that I can be of service there. The
other letter is trom Mr. McAlister, Bucksport, in answer to my enquiry
if Mr. Kent would consent to have his bull killed, without the interven-
tion of the cattle commissioners, and he replied by saying: “If the State
will give $25.00 the bull shall be disposed of and I will pay the rest of
the bills myself. I make this proposition that the future of the com-
munity may be safe.”

Please answer at once what you have to say to this proposition, as the
Governor has said to me lately, ‘‘consult Gilbert.” I have to request of
you that you will return to me three letters, which I recently enclosed to
you; one from Mr. Scribner, the rest from Mr. Gowell, in answer to my
enquiry regarding the cow ‘Princess Alba,” and last the postal from Mr.
Chase in regard to the sale of cattle at Scribner’s.

Mr. Ferguson called on me the next morning after our meeting, and
told me he had seen Governor Robie in relation to his serving out the re-
mainder of the year, (or until after the report of the commissioners was
made up) and that the Governor had *‘promised him he should be continued
in office. and would forward him papers to that effect.”’ As far as I am
concerned all this ‘“‘backing and filling” has ceased to interest me, and I
have no further objections to offer. Please let me know when you write
if the appraisal and settlement at Scribner’s is satisfactory to you, and if
you are to be at home the coming week.

Tam very truly yours,
(Signed) Geo. H. Bailey, V.S.

(Mr. Cornish proposed to read the McAlister letter in-
closed in the letter of October 23d, but Mr. Gilbert raised
the point that it had not been identified. The letter was
then identified by Dr. Bailey and it was read in evidence by
Mr. Cornish, being marked ‘I,” as follows :)

66?

Bucksport, October 22d, ’86.

My dear Sir:—Yours of the 21st inst. rec’d, and contents noted. I
fully appreciate your position in the case of Mr. Kent of this town and
will co-operate with you and have the bull killed. Now if the State will
give $25 the bull shall be disposed of and I will pay the rest of the bills
myself. I make this proposition that the future of the community may
be safe.

Respectfully yours,

(Signed) G. W. McAlister.

75

P.S. Mr. Kent wishes to get rid of the bull at once as he is to a great

deal of trouble keeping the animal up.
McAlister.

Q. Did you reply to Dr. Bailey, and have you your reply?

A. I have a letter here dated October 27th, which I think
is a reply to that letter.

Q. May I look at it?

A. No.

QQ. You refuse to allow me to look at that letter ¢

A. I do until I read it. (Witness reading letter to him-
self. ) |

Q. Do you refuse to allow me to look at that letter?

A. Ido. Iam dealing with the committee and not you.

Q. And you refuse to allow me to look at the letter?

A. Yes, sir. The letter is mine, written by me, and I will
read it.

(Witness reads letter dated October 27th, ’86, and marked
‘6J,” as follows :)

sey
STATE OF MAINE.
Board of Agriculture, \
North Greene, October 27th, 1886.

Dr. Bailey :—I supposed Mr. Bell would consult you on that unfinished
business after you had heard from the parties again.

I am still where I have been in the matter, and being there, know of
no compromise ground I wish to take. If you and Mr. Bell decide dif-
ferently from my views I must yield to the majority, but not convinced.

In view of the fact that the publie will not use his bull, will not Mr
Kent, with your advice, feed him off for beef?

The settlement with Scribner was satisfactory all around.

Yours,

(Signed) xilbert.

(. You notified Bell and Ferguson to meet you at the City
Hotel in Portland last October, the 20th?

A. I did.

Q. And you met them there ?

A. I did, or they met me there.

76

Q. Did you take them up into your room before going
over to Dr. Bailey’s?

A. I presume I did. We met there for the transaction of
business, and I suppose I should take them to a room.

Q. Did you have any conversation with them as to what
Dr. Bailey proposed to say in his report?

A. I have no special recollection in regard to it, but I pre-
sume we did.

Q. Did you try to influence those gentlemen at all as to
which side they should take ?

A. No.

Q. Not the slightest ?

A. Not in the least. My statement to the Commission
was to this effect: Dr. Bailey had been sick; he hadn’t fully
recovered. He was in a weak condition. I thought to save
him the trouble of a full discussion of this matter by getting
together ourselves and by ourselves talking the matter over
befure going to him, and that was my request and purpose—
that we might have an understanding between ourselves and
thus tax him less than otherwise would be the case.

Q. Then your motive in taking those gentlemen to your
room and talking the matter over in advance was simply a
humane one for Dr. Bailey ?

A. A humane one for him in connection with the necessity
for talking over business while and when we were present
there in Portland at the meeting which was called for that
purpose.

Q. And to save Dr. Bailey the worry of things was the
only object you had, then?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you represent to those associates that Dr. Bailey
had taken grounds that you did not approve of?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you represent to them that you hoped they would
agree with you?

A. Ido not know whether I did or not; I presume I did
hope so.

tt

Q. Did you communicate the fact to them?

A. I should suppose I did; I do not know.

Q. Did you communicate the fact to them that that was
the reason you took them up to the room so as to have them
forewarned and so forearmed ?

A. No; no recollection of it.

Q. Have you the letter from Dr. Bailey with the proposi-
tion to make your reports this year?

A. Ihaven’t it. I took only those relating to the subject
matter under discussion here, under the investigation.

Q. And you did not take the correspondence relating to
the reports ?

A. No, sir; only relating to the subject under discussion.

Q. Would not the ‘‘doings” of the Commissioners come
under the clause ‘‘relating to the doings of the Commis-
sioners” ?

A. Relating to this ?—no, not at all.

Q. You construed it in that way?

A. I did.

Q. And therefore did not bring those letters? =

A. I did not. I was not requested to bring any letters ;
but I did bring those relating to the wording of the order, all
voluntarily on my part.

(Letter dated Dec. 21st, ’86, and marked ‘‘K” shown wit-
“ness. )

Q. Is that the letter which you wrote to Dr. Bailey in
reply to his proposition ?

A. It is my writing. That is my signature and my writ-
ing.

(Witness looking through the letter. )

Q. Is that the letter?

A. I presume it is.

Q. Don’t you know it is?

A. No, I cannot tell until I read it.

Mr. Libby :—Look at it and see.

78

Q. Look at it until you have found out whether it is or
not; look at it sufficiently long enough to tell whether it is
your letter or not.

A. I cannot tell. I will see, getting along with it as fast
as I can.

Q. Iask if that is your letter? [after a pause] You do
not propose to answer my question as to whether that is your
letter until you have read it through? Is that your proposi-
tion? You do not propose to answer whether that is your
letter or not until you have read it all through?

A. I have got other business on hand. Mr. Libby, a mem-
ber of this committee, has asked me to look at this and see.

Q. Will you or not state whether that is your letter before
you have read it entirely through to know its contents?

A. J am satisfied that is my letter.

Q. How long have you been satisfied that that is your
letter ?

A. Long enough to answer it.

(Mr. Cornish read in evidence the letter dated Dec. 21st,
and marked ‘‘K,” as follows :)

wK

STATE OF MAINE.

Board of Agriculture, \
North Greene, December 21, 1886.

Dr. Bailey :—I have only a few minutes at command this morning and
in that time state briefly just how far the law will justify the Commission
in going, in my interpretation of it.

The law gives us no police powers whatever.

On appearance of disease which the municipal authorities fear endangers
public interests they are to call upon us.

If we find contagious disease we are authorized to take charge of same.
If not, we stop right there.

Just there we meet the Kent bull case; you found the bull sound, so
there our jurisdiction under the law stops, and we have no further busi-
ness with the case.

So far the legal bearings of the case, and I want you to repeat to
Goy. just what we have been doing as a Commission, and when you have
told the story of our work, stop.

I know as wellas you there is a bearing beyond this, but it leads us as
a Commission where we cannot go. Yes, and it leads us into that which

79

has noend. We cannot surround and exterminate this disease. It is all
around at the present time. I have just found where there has a valuable
bull died with it only a few weeks ago, and a cow not long since, and
where there is another cow that will die soon. You can never report we
are free from it. Further it is the height of folly, knowing these things,
to single out those College bulls and recommend their destruction for
publie security, when there is the same danger lurking in the same way
all around us.

There is still another view which we,as 2 Commission, must not over-
look, whether professional honor and reputation are jeopardized or not.
How long would it take to raise a good sized earthquake here in our
State if we strike out here and there killing animals well in all outward
appearances? I tell you, Doctor, we can accomplish far more by restrict-
ing our work than we can by taking but a single step that the law does
not plainly require.

Hastily yours, ;
(Signed) Gilbert.

Witness :—I indorse every word of that and stand by it at
this time, and put it in as evidence.

Q. Now, at that time how many other cases of tuberculosis
in this State did you know of?

A, Ihave known of cases—

Q. At that time how many did you know?

A. I have known of cases in this State for 10 or 15 years
back.

Q. How many at that time, when you wrote that letter, did
you know existed in this State?

A. I had just been informed at that time of the death of
a bull which was shown at both of our State fairs last fall.

Q. What other?

A. I had also been informed of the death of a cow.

Q. What other?

A. I had also been informed of another cow that was ema-
ciated,

Q. A poor cow?

A. That was emaciated from a disease which to all appear-
ance was that disease.

Q. How many more?

A. That is all that I have in mind that were meant or re-
ferred to in that letter.

80

Q. Those three are all you had in mind at the time you
wrote that letter?

A. I think so.

Q. Did you know of any other cases existing in the State
at that time besides those three ?

A. No, I do not recollect of any.

Q. What became of the Kent bull?

A. Dr. Bailey stated, and Mr. McAlister stated, that they
killed him. I do not know what became of him. .

Q. When did you first learn or hear the report that he was
dead?

A. I first learned of the fact by a statement of Dr. Bailey.
I had heard previous to that time, a gentleman had told me
that he had heard, that the bull was killed.
. Prior to that time that was the only information ?
. That was all the information I had.
. Who was that gentleman?
Mr. Whitmore of Verona.
He is a member of the legislature ?
. He is, I believe.
. Did you not, after that conversation with Mr. Whitmore,
state to the Committee on Agriculture here one day that you:
didn’t know anything about where the Kent bull was?

A. No, I did not state it in those words exactly. Isaid I
didn’t know what had become of the bull.

Q. When you used the word ‘‘know” you stood upon the
technical meaning of the term?

A. I did, as though I was giving testimony.

Q. Personal knowledge?

A. Yes, as I was before a committee.

Q. But prior to that time you had heard from two different
sources ?

A. No.

Q. From one source?

A. From one source.

Q. That he had been killed?

A. I had heard that he had heard that he had been killed.

OPOorPere

81

Q. Did you have any reason to doubt that ?

A. No, I hadn’t any reason to doubt that he had heard so.

(). Have you ever seen a report of the interview in the
Lewiston Journal—

A. No, sir.

Q. —with you?

A. No,.sir.

Q. And as copied into other papers and the Home Farm ?

A. No, sir, I havea’t seen the Home Farm for four weeks.

(. Have you ever seen the printed account of that inter-
view with yourself?

A. I would have it understood that I am not responsible
for newspapers.

(. I simply ask if you have read it and if you sanction it?

A. I have answered; I haven't read it.

(). Haven’t read it ?

A. I haven’t read the Home Farm.

Mr. Cornish :—I will read the words from the paper.

Mr. Gilbert (to the chairman) :—Is a newspaper article
to be introduced here as evidence ?

Mr. Walton:—O, no, not at all. That newspaper article
cannot be used as evidence in this case.

Mr. Cornish :—I do not offer it for that.’

Q. Did you have any interview with any one purporting to
be a correspondent of the Lewiston Journal ?

A. When and where?

Q. At any time this winter?

A. Yes, I have seen correspondents of the Lewiston
Journal very frequently, and I have had some conversation
with the gentleman before you.

Q. Mr. Dingley ?

A. And also had some conversation with Harry Andrews.

Q. Did you authorize either of the correspondents of the
Lewiston Journal to publish any statement of yours that you
made in this interview ?

A. I authorized—

6

82

Mr. Walton:—If you want to ask the witness if he made
such and such statements to any one I think, as one of the
committee, I shall allow you to do it; but I do not care about
whether he has authorized anybody to publish his statement
or not.

Q. Did you state to any correspondent of the Lewiston
Journal or anybody else as follows, or substantially as fol-
lows: ‘‘I hold that the law gave the Cattle Commissioners no
power to take up the Kent bull after he had been pronounced
sound, without a call from the municipal authorities, and gave
us no liberty to interfere with the other bulls without a call
from the municipal authorities. Last October the Commis-
sioners met in Portland. There Ferguson and Bailey of the
Commission told me that they agreed with me in my inter-
pretation of the law.” Did you ever make that statement?

A. Does your question cover all you have read ?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. It is most too much to answer at once. I cannot retain
that in my mind so as to give an intelligent answer.

Q. ‘I hold that the law gave the Cattle Commissioners no
power to take up the Kent bull after he had been pronounced
sound” ?

A. I did hold it then; I hold it now.

Q. ‘*And gave us no liberty to interfere with the other
bulls without a call from municipal authorities” ?

A. I did, and hold that now, and here state it.

Q. ‘‘Last October the Commissioners met in Portland.”
Did you state that ?

A. What I supposed to be the Commissioners ; yes, what
was left of them came to Portland, and also Mr. Ferguson
and Dr. Bailey.

Q. ‘‘There Ferguson and Bailey of the Commission told
me that they agreed with me in my interpretation of the law”?

A. Ferguson told me, and he has testified so standing there.

Q. Whether you have stated that Ferguson and Bailey
agreed with you in your interpretation of the law, at the
Portland meeting ?

83

A. Yes, I so understood it.

Q. ‘‘And since that time, Mr. McAlister, chairman of the
selectmen of Bucksport, has told me that he agrees with me” ?

A. Yes, I made that statement.

Q. Did you hear Mr. MecAlister’s statement last night ?

A. I did. I met him on the train, going up on the train.
He is an old acquaintance of mine, and I talked various mat-
ters over with him, and among the rest we talked about the
Kent bull. We went over the history of the case and into
the matter, and in the course of the conversation I alluded
to the fact that I understood that the jurisdiction of the law
ceased when the veterinary of the Commission pronounced
the bull sound. And I understood him to accede to that. I
am ready to swear that I honestly and truly understood him
to accede to that. And he further said then: ‘I agree with
you there; but it belonged to the trustees of the College to
take care of the bull.” ‘Very well,” said I, ‘‘the College
trustees never have been called upon to take care of that bull
to my knowledge.”

Q. You heard MeAlister’s statement here last night, did
you?

A. I did.

Q. That he didn’t agree with you, and didn’t intend to say
anything to that purport?

A. J heard that statement, and was very much surprised at
it.

Q. Now, will you produce to the committee all the other
letters and correspondence which you have had with the Cattle
Commissioners ?

A. I will if they ask me to or request it of me.

Mr. Walton:—The order requires us to call for all the cor-
respondence.

Witness :—Mine you have here, and it is for you.

By Mr. Walton:

Q. Is this all the correspondence you have?

84

A. I have got some here in my pocket. It is all the cor-
respondence relating to this cattle affair and to the action of
the Commission connected therewith.

Q. Can you not produce the letter sent to you by Mr.
Kent?

A. I do not think Ican. As I have said before, my private
correspondence is not filed, whereas, all my official correspond-
ence is filed, and I can go and draw upon it any time.

By Mr. Rich:

Q. Do you think you have been as vigilant as you ought to
have been in looking after this disease ?

A. Mr. Chairman, in reply to that we haven't any police
powers whatever.

Mr. Walton :—Answer the question.

A. I do. That is my answer to him.

Q. (By Mr. Rich.) I asked you if you thought you had
been as vigilant as you ought in looking after this disease ?

A. Ido. That was my answer.

By Mr. Haines:

Q. Did ever anybody raise any objection to it?

A. No. As I said before, the Governor and Council gave
us definite instructions in regard to these matters and in re-
gard to this law when we had the foot and mouth disease under
consideration. We consulted them in every detail, and they
gave us instructions, and the legal gentlemen of his Council
at the time from whom those instructions emanated, were
Bolster of Auburn and Locke of Portland.

Mr. Walton :—Whose Council?

A. Governor Robie’s Council.

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM B. FERGUSON, resumed.

Mr. Gilbert asked me if I thought we should be justified
in killing well cattle. I said, No. So much I agreed with
him; but that does not imply that I agreed with him in other
points. I think that should the Commissioners find diseased
animals they would have authority to killthem. For instance,

85

if the Cattle Commissioners should find a glandered horse
being used in the streets of this city, I think the law would
justify and uphold them in destroying that animal, municipal
officers or no municipal officers. That is my position.

By Mr Walton:

Q. And did you claim you could act in such a case
without notice from the municipal officers ?

A. I do claim that.

Q. And to Mr. Gilbert?

A. If that point was raised at all; I do not remember
whether it was raised or not; I would not say it was not.

TESTIMONY OF W. H. JORDAN.

I am director of the Experiment Station. On my way to
Augusta yesterday I learned that an animal had been killed
near Bangor the day before, and from what the party owning
the animal said to the gentleman who gave me the informa-
tion I judged it was probably a case of tuberculosis. I
stepped off of the train at Waterville, thinking this would be
a matter of a good deal of interest in this investigation, and
telegraphed to a gentleman who is a friend of mine to forward
portion of lungs to me at Augusta, and also send statement
as to breed of cow. He sent the lungs, which I will produce,
and this statement in regard to the breed of cow: ‘*This cow
was ten years old and the party I purchased her of two years
ago said he bought her mother of Dr. North, of Augusta,
when a calf. That is all I know of it.”

Q. <A Jersey?

A. Yes. Wishing to know whether the cow had had any
contact with College cattle in any way, I telegraphed to Mr.
Miller this. ‘‘Within four years was dead cow ever served by
J.C. Green’s bull, Bangor City Farm bull, or W. Hall’s bull,”
those being the three bulls in his vicinity that he could get
at. I received from him this reply: ‘‘She never was served
by any one of those bulls; never had any College stock. W.
C. Miller.” The gentleman lives in Bangor and has a farm

86

three miles beyond on the other side of the College. I sent
this telegram with the purpose of getting information as to
whether the cow had had any relation to the College stock
whatever, and I believe this information shows that she had
not.

Q. Who owned that cow?

A. W.C. Miller, who lives on the other side of Bangor
from the College, being about eleven miles from the College.

Q. Lives in Bangor?

A. I think his farm is within the city limits two miles and
a half or three miles out of the city.

TESTIMONY OF Z. A. GILBERT, resumed.
By Mr. Oak:

Q. To your knowledge had either of those three last ani-
mals you described, the bull which died, the cow which died
and cow which was greatly emaciated, any connection, close
or remote, with the College herd ?

A. Not at all. They were over in the western part of the
State.

(The lungs of the animal testified to by W. H. Jordan
were brought in and exhibited to the committee. )

Tuurspay, March 3, 1887.

Frank E. Southard, Esq., of Augusta, appeared as counsel
for Mr. Gilbert at this meeting.

TESTIMONY OF Z. A. GILBERT, resumed.

I think I could facilitate business and state it more rapidly
than it could be drawn out by question alone, or by questions
and answers alone; and if it will be just as satisfactory, I

think I can make it just as intelligible.

Mr. Walton:—If you will do it without arguing your case,
Mr, Gilbert, as you go along, it will be all right.

87

Mr. Gilbert :—I will thank the committee at any time, if
I am not pursuing the proper course, or am not as plain or
definite as I should be, to prompt me.

Mr Walton:—Well, now you can go on and state it.

Mr. Gilbert :—I will say there was one matter that I was
not questioned upon, which I will refer to,

and that was my
connection with the farm committee of the College trustees.
I have been on the Board of Trustees of the State College
for seven years. Immediately upon my assuming those duties,
or having them laid upon me, I was, at the first meeting, I
think, chosen a member of the farm committee. Associated
with me at that time were the Hon. A. M. Robinson, of
Dexter, and the Hon. W. P. Wingate, of Bangor. Later on
there were changes in the Board of Trustees. Mr. Wingate
dropped off, and Judge Bean, of Readfield, came on the
board and was elected a member of the farm committee.
Then Judge Bean dropped off and Mr. Daniel H. Thing, of
Mount Vernon, took his place as trustee and was elected in
his place as one of the committee. Since that time Hon.
Mr. Parkhurst has been placed on that committee, and also,
at the last meeting, I think, General Shepherd of Skowhegan ;
and this committee is composed now of myself and those
two. The business of this farm committee was simply to
look after the regulations of the Board of Trustees as bearing
upon the farm itself as a department of the institution. You
will bear in mind that this farm is a department of the Col-
lege. It is not distinct in any other respect; it is a depart-
ment, the same as the mechanical department, and the other
departments. Consequently, all of the business arrangements
were made in the Board of Trustees, and this farm com-
mittee were delegated to see that they were carried out. And
the farm committee reported their doings, from time to time,
to the Board of Trustees in session at the College, whenever
they were together acting as a joint board of trustees.

Mr. Gowell, the farm superintendent, was placed in charge
of the farm as its superintendent at the time stated. I think
it was in the spring of 1882. His duties were to superintend

88

the work of the farm, carry on the work under plans defined
and conveyed to him by the farm committee.

Mr. Walton:—You mean communicated to him, not con-
veyed ?

Mr. Gilbert :—Yes,—communicated to him by the farm
committee. And it was their business to see that they were
carried out in conformity with directions. For that purpose
they visited it at the regular meetings of the trustees twice
a year; and had an extra meeting of the farm committee,
usually, I believe, every year, in the spring of the year, to lay
out the plans for the season. As the regular meeting of the
Board of Trustees occurs the last week in November, it was
always thought best to visit him at a special meeting.

Mr. Walton :—Now, Mr. Gilbert, will you be as brief as
possible, and come to the point bearing on this case?

Mr. Gilbert :—Well, I thought this matter was brought up
here.

Mr. Walton :—Well, it came up incidentally, and you can
state it in that. way, but no other.

Mr. Gilbert :—I do not care particularly about stating it.

Mr. Walton :—You can proceed.

Mr. Gilbert :—Mr. Gowell carried on the farm, and he was
required to keep an account of stock and take an account of
it twice a year on that farm and keep it carefully recorded.
He was required to keep a full set of accounts, and those ac-
counts were examined by this farm committee every time
they had a meeting at the College—always twice a year, and
sometimes, usually, three times or more. And also care was
taken to examine the bills and accounts and all vouchers, to
see that everything was correctly drawn. ‘This was a critical
examination and carried on without any exception in any year.

The question of raising money to carry on the business of
the farm was referred to.

Mr. Walton:—I do not understand that there has been
even a suggestion made here that the business of the College
has not been properly carried on, by the farm committee and
the other trustees, excepting, incidentally perhaps, such a

89

suggestion has been made that when this disease was dis-
covered there was not such care taken as should have been.
I hardly see how we can sit listening to the fact as to how the
business is conducted at that College. The assumption is
that it was conducted properly. Now, if you in your dis-
closures here should happen to state something that would
lead us to think that it was not conducted properly, you
might hurt your case.

Mr. Gilbert :—Trust me for that. However, I do not care
to refer to it if you do not want it to come in.

Mr. Walton:—I have no objection to your making this
statement, but the only question we raise is this: We are
here to investigate a condition of things—well, we will say
we are here to investigate tuberculosis. Now, anything that
can be said in that connection is proper. For the benefit of
all, I will read the order that we are acting under—or Mr.
Chairman [Senator Allen] will read it, as I have not my
glasses.

(Senator Allen here read the order.)

Mr. Southard :—The only reason that Mr. Gilbert desired
to state anything with relation to the use of money to buy
the stock there at the farm, was because during a lengthy
cross-examination of Mr. Lyndon Oak, at the last session, that
matter was extensively gone into, and for the purpose of
throwing discredit on the trustees of the College. Of course,
if that was not intended and it did not have that effect, we do
not care to go into it.

Mr. Walton :—I thought the cross-examination of Mr. Oak
was quite lengthy, and if I could have seen a point to cut it
off, I would have; but brother Cornish had connected it so
ingeniously that I could not.

Mr. Cornish :—I did not go into the matter of the farm
committee’s management. I simply inquired as to the pur-
chase of this fine-bred stock. Incidentally the farm committee
came in, but the management I did not care to touch upon.
We do not care anything about it, as it has nothing to do
with the case. It simply came up incidentally.

90

Mr. Walton:
with this matter ?

Mr. Gilbert :—In the matter of the farm, you are aware,
the State was aware, that there was no fund appropriated in
recent years to work the farm well. The stock was in very
indifferent condition when I went there, and was a disgrace
to the institution. And we wanted some better stock to
carry on better work. Nota dollar has been appropriated
by the State for that purpose, during my service as trustee ;
and in order to carry on the farm we had to have some stock.
To get the stock we either had to buy the stock on credit, or
borrow the money to buy it with. It was decided that a
portion of the money should be borrowed.

Mr. Libby :—Let me break in here for the benefit of the
trustees of the College and the argument that you are mak-
ing now. I do not presume that this committee’s report will
impeach anything in regard to the trustees’ management of
State College. I suppose we shall answer generally just that
order (referring to the legislature under which the com-
mittee are acting). This other testimony is wholly unneces-
sary. Nobody disparages or places any stigma on the man-
agement of the College, whatever. Let us stick to that little
piece of paper and get through here and go home, like men.

Mr. Gilbert :—I have discussed freely up to the present time
all my transactions with that institution, all the facts I am in
possession of, and at all times I have fully explained to the
trustees all that I have done.

Mr. Walton:—Do you wish to make any further state-
ment to this committee, in relation to the buying of those
cattle ?

Mr. Gilbert :—As I understand it, this committee is inves-
tigating this matter of tuberculosis at the College. Now,
then, if it is understood that this matter is not to be referred
to in this investigation, that you do not call for any testimony
from me in regard to what I have been stating, and it is to
be ruled out absolutely—the College management, and the
farm matters—if you do not want it—

Now can you state all the facts in connection

91

Mr. Walton :—Only so far as the tuberculosis is concerned.

Mr. Cornish :—-Do not you remember, Mr. Gilbert, the
first question I asked you the other night, prior to my examin-
ation, was whether you had any statement which you wished to
make this committee ; and you answered that you had none?

A. Yes, sir; Thad a statement at the opening this evening,
but if the committee do not wish to have it, I am perfectly
willing that it shall go on without it.

Mr. Cornish :—Since the other night you have found one?

Mr. Southard :—Now that is not right. Certainly Mr.
Gilbert is entitled to make any explanation that he chooses
to that bears upon the cross-examination the other night.

Mr. Gilbert :—I have none to make.

Mr. Walton :—You may proceed and make any explanation
in connection with the cross-examination of the other night.

Mr. Cornish :—I never asked a single question about the
farm management or the buying of these cattle on credit.

Mr. Walton :—Well, let him go on.

Mr. Gilbert :—Mr. Gowell was authorized to secure money
to carry on that work. Some of it he borrowed by and with
the consent of the farm committee and the understanding of
himself. That is all to be found in his cash book. It was
put into a fund to work the farm. That was represented on
the books, and it was drawn upon as needed—sometimes it
was to pay for an animal, sometimes to pay for grain, feed,
etc. That was the account with him. Money was not hired
by note, but the account was settled and recognized by the
full Board of Trustees. And Mr. Gowell was required an-
nually to make a report officially of his department to the
Board of Trustees, and it was annually done, read at the
meeting of the Board of Trustees annually, accepted by them
annually, and it was published annually—published in the
College report. I have nothing further to say in that con-
nection.

Mr. Walton:—Do you mean to say you authorized him to
borrow what money he saw fit on the credit of the trustees
of the College, to invest in cattle?

92

Mr. Gilbert :—Not at all. We authorized him, from time
to time, to borrow sums of money needed to carry out our
directions ; not what he was a mind to borrow.

By Mr. Rich:

Q. That, you say, was used for various purposes ?

.A. Sometimes used to pay a meal bill, sometimes used to
pay for a cow; and then the products, the income from butter
made from this cow, the milk sold, and other products sold,
accumulated money, and then it was from time to time paid
back, or portions of it.

QQ. Simply a running account ?

A. A runniug account, that is all.

By Mr. Southard:

Q. A great deal was attempted to be made out of the letter
which you wrote to Mr. Kent, and which you said was un-
official. Now, I would like to know, Mr. Gilbert, if you
have been applied to in a private capacity by people who
have on their places diseases among their animals ?—

Mr. Gilbert :—When do you mean?

Mr. Southard :—At any time recently, or during the time
you have been secretary of the Board of Agriculture ?

A. I have from time to time, all along, been called upon
and consulted in regard to cattle diseases. My intimacy with
people throughout the State led me into a knowledge of the
cattle business, and the leading herds of the State, while I
owned a large herd of cattle myself, and I have from time to
time been consulted in regard to cattle diseases, very fre-
quently.

Mr. Walton :—In your official capacity, or privately ?

Mr. Gilbert :—All privately. Of course, I have been con-
sulted officially, and of that, since I was one of the Cattle
Commissioners, I made an official report.

Mr. Walton:—Let me suggest, Mr. Gilbert, that you
notice the question and answer it. We cannot have so much
put to every question that is asked here, and I say to you,
and to all the witnesses, that you have somebody to represent

93

you here. Now, when the attorney asks you a question, you
answer him and stop.

Mr. Gilbert :—All right.

By Mr. Southard :

Q. How lately have you been consulted, Mr. Gilbert, in
reference to the cattle diseases, in private capacity ?

A. I have been consulted since the last hearing in this
House.

(Y. Do you know of any other of the Cattle Commission-
ers who have been consulted privately in relation to cattle
diseases ?

A. Ido; my associate, Mr. Bailey, has been consulted
privately.

Q. It is a common thing, is it not, for men to come to you
as private citizens, and not as cattle commissioners, and ask
you what to do in relation to diseases that appear among their
herds?

A. It has been within the last two or three years a very
common thing; scarcely a week has passed but I have been
consulted in those connections.

(). With relation to that letter to Dr. Bailey, dated March
10, 1886, in which you spoke of his visit to Buecksport about
the Kent bull,—I want to know if you said anything, after
that letter, to Dr. Bailey about this ?

A. I don’t know that I can recollect what letter you have
reference to.

Q. I mean this letter of March 10, 1886, that has been put
in this case and has been talked about so much. Now, I
would like to know if you had any conversation with Dr.
Bailey, after that, in which the Kent bull and his visit to
Bucksport were referred to, and what you said in relation
to it?

A. I did; I had a conversation with him following that.

QQ. How long after was it?

A. I could not state. It was at our first meeting—soon
after. The question came up there—what was referred to
by me there was that I did not think the case warranted a

94

visit from him. I stated to him that under the call which he
received he was called upon and should have responded as he
did to that call, as it came from the municipal officers properly
representing that there was disease there calling for his atten-
tion.

Q. Did you intend, in writing that letter, to make any
criticism upon his action in responding to the notification of
Mr. McAlister, one of the selectmen of Bucksport ?

A. Not at all. Why I used that word was simply the fact
that the bull had been represented to me as sound. I under-
stood him to be sound. Therefore there was no reason for a
call. That was my point.

Q. Now, what did Dr. Bailey’s report say—(or has that
been put in here) ?

A. That was put in last evening. He reported the bull
sound.

Q. And the previous knowledge that you had of the con-
dition of the bull was what?

A. The bull had been reported to me as sound.

Q. By whom?

A. By the owner.

(). In regard to Dr. Bailey’s first visit to the Orono herd—
will you detail precisely what was done at that time?

A. I think his visit was March 6th, if Iremember correctly.

Q. I would like to know what he did after arriving there?

A. Well, of course, as soon as we could do so, we visited
the barn together, and with Mr. Gowell and Professor Jor-
dan, President Fernald and Professor Balentine, looked the
cattle over deliberately and carefully. Dr. Bailey’s first
statement to me was, he says: “Well, Gilbert, I don’t see any
trouble here; this herd looks to me all right.”

Q. What had he done previously to base these remarks on ?

A. After a time, after looking the herd over and standing
and examining them and watching their breathing, etc., he
finally made some examination by sounding the lungs of two
or three animals—I could not tell you just how many, but
several animals. Finally he came to one animal and his sus-

95

picions were aroused that the animal was not quite right. He
tried her temperature and found it a little elevated ; and
there were some suspicions expressed on her part that there
was trouble with her water. He tried to draw her water, to
show that it was not right, light-colored, etc., as he claimed
the water would show, in consequence of the fever and high
temperature, and he failed to draw her water. Very deliber-
ately we looked the herd over, well over, and he offered ex-
pressions similar to the first.

QQ. Did you hear them?

A. I did.

Q. State what they were?

A. He stated further, “Why, Gilbert, I don’t think it can
be; I don’t see any serious matter here; it cannot be that
there is any difficulty with this herd.” And so we looked
over still farther and watched. And the question was raised
he was inquiring in regard to the cough, if there was any
cough on the part of any of the animals. I think Mr. Gowell
stated that there had been some, but he failed to discover it at
that time. There was vone apparent at that time. Finally,
at the suggestion of—I am not able to say whether it was
Mr. Gowell or Professor Jordan—it was decided that we
should go out into the field and examine the cow that had
been previously killed.

(). What cow was that? Do you remember?

A. I never have tried to remember their names.

Q. Was it the first one that died ?

A. It was the one that died a couple of weeks previous. I
have uot tried to remember the names of those animals.

(). You went out to the field to see that cow?

A. F did not; the others went, Professor Jordan, Mr.
Gowell and Dr. Bailey. They went out and examined the
cow out there—I did not go with them—and brought back
one section of the lung, one lobe of the lung. We all hands
examined it then and there.

Q. Then what did Dr. Bailey pronounce the disease to be?

96

A. After that he went and made further examination of
the animals, and finally diagnosed the disease as plain cases
of tuberculosis, and found several animals affected with it,
by percussion and auscultation.

Q. Was he the only veterinary surgeon there ?

A. He was.

Q. Was tuberculosis suggested before these gentlemen
went out and examined the dead body of that cow?

A. I could not say whether it was or not?

Q. Do not know whether it was talked over or not?

A. No; I would not say.

(2. Did you have any idea that this was tuberculosis at that
time ?

A. No, I had not; I had not had any experience with tu-
berculosis. Of course, I was read up on it, as all our cattle
treatises treat of it; but I had no knowledge of specific cases
of tuberculosis, up to that time.

(). None of these cases, up to that time, had been pro-
nounced tuberculosis by any veterinary surgeon?

A. No; or by anybody else that I ever heard.

(). Well, do you remember how those cattle looked when
they came to the barn that fall, previous to their being killed
in the spring? Did you see them the preceding summer?

A. I did, occasionally. I saw them at the time of the
fair at Bangor, and I saw them at the time of the annual
meeting of the Board of Trustees, the last week in November.

Q. What was the condition of the animals you took to
Bangor to the fair?

A. They were in very fine condition, so much so that they
attracted a good deal of attention.

. Any appearance of disease among them ? :

. Not at all.

. Any cough noticed ?

. Not at all.

How was it with the animals that you left back ?

. The same might be said of those, so far as their condi-
tion was concerned. Of course, we took the choicest animals

>OPrOPO

97

to the Fair; but the ones we left back there were equally
well, or looked as well.

Q. Now, what is the rule followed by veterinary surgeons,
whenever they find the disease called tuberculosis in a herd?

Mr. Cornish :—Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, I have not
raised an objection during the whole process of this investi-
gation; but this man announced himself not to be a veteri-
nary surgeon, and I submit this is not a proper question to
put to him.

Mr. Southard :—Mr. Gilbert has acted, of course, under
the advice of veterinary surgeons; he knows perfectly well
what their rule is, and I think it perfectly competent for him:
to state the advice under which he has acted.

Mr. Walton :—Was not there a veterinary surgeon on the
Cattle Commission ?

Mr. Cornish :—Yes, sir; Dr. Bailey.

Mr. Walton:—Was he not put on it for the purpose of
acting in that capacity ?

Mr. Southard :—I presume he was; but if a veterinary:
surgeon was to have all to do with it there was no need of a.
Commission.

Mr. Walton:—But do you claim that Mr. Gilbert went out
and got the advice of other veterinary surgeons, besides Dr.
Bailey ?

Mr. Southard :—I propose to show that Mr. Gilbert has
had the advice of veterinary surgeons, and knows what their
rule is in such a matter.

Mr. Walton:—Well, Dr. Bailey is to be a witness here.
Wait until he gets through, and perhaps he will state it him-
self. If not, you can putin this class of testimony afterwards.

Mr. Southard :—1 think, then, at this stage of the case,
that is all we will ask Mr. Gilbert.

By Mr. Cornish :

Q. Mr. Gilbert, do you wish to communicate to this com-
mittee the idea that Dr. Bailey did not appreciate the disease
at the State College?

7

98

A. In answer to that I will say that I wish to communicate
to this committee all the facts in my possession that they
want to hear.

Mr. Cornish :—Now, Mr. Chairman, I submit that this is
going too far; we are going into another cross-examination,
such as we had here the last session, page after page. I ask
a simple question and it can be answered ina simple manner.
I submit that you request him to answer my question.

Mr. Walton :—Suppose I request him, and he will not do
it?

Mr. Cornish :—Then hold him in contempt of the com-
mittee.

Mr. Walton :—Have you any objection to answering the
question by Yes or No, that Mr. Cornish has asked?

Mr. Southard :—His answer to one of my questions fully
answered that question, Mr. Cornish. |

Mr. Gilbert :—I would like him to repeat that question
once more, and I will answer you (referring to the com-
mittee).

Mr. Cornish :—I wish to know, Mr. Gilbert, if you ignore
me when I ask you a question? ;

Mr. Walton :—That is not the question you asked before,
brother Cornish.

Mr. Cornish :—No ; but it is one called out by his manner.
The first question was this:

Q. Do you wish to communicate to this committee, Mr.
Gilbert, the idea that Dr. Bailey, the veterinary surgeon,
did not appreciate this disease when he called at the State
College?

A. No.

Q. Do you wish to say that he was at all remiss in his
duty?

A. I have not said so.

Q. Do you intend to say so?

A. I intended to answer the questions just as they were
put to me, and state the facts.

99

Q. Do you mean now for the committee to infer that Dr.
Bailey was at all remiss in his duty ?

A. Mr. Chairman, have I not answered that question ?

Mr. Walton :—Practically, I think you have, Mr. Gilbert.
I do not think you are required to draw any conclusion from
your own statements. You leave that for the committee. I
guess, brother Cornish, he has got you there.

Mr. Cornish :—I don’t think he has. I think you have
got me because you are in the chair, but I don’t think Mr.
Gilbert has got me. I submit to the higher authority.

Q. How long after Dr. Bailey stepped into the barn, that
day when you were with him, was it before he pronounced
tuberculosis to exist in that herd ?

A. I could not state the exact time.

Q. About how long?

A. I can approximate it. I should say it was about one-
half an hour before they went to the field.

Q. How long after they went into the barn was it, approxi-
mately ?

A. They went into the field and made the examination,
and returned and then commenced a re-examination of the
animals.

Q. Do you mean to say that before they went into the
field he did not discover that tuberculosis existed there, so
far as your observation went ?

A. He did not state that he discovered it.

Q. Did he make any examination of the cattle before he
went into the field ?

A. He did.

Q. With any instruments ?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did he try percussion ?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And still did not discover tuberculosis there ?
A. Well, I have answered that question once.
Q. And you still stick to that statement?

100

A. I state the same as I did before.

(. How long was he in the barn before they went out into
the field?

A. About one-half an hour, as near as I can judge.

Q. How many cattle did he examine before he went into
the field?

A. I do not know; several

say two or three.

Q. Do you know which one he examined first ?

A. I could not state. Ido not know the animals by name.

Q. Was it one of the cows?

A. I know which one he tried to draw water from, and
where she stood.

Q. Was it one of the cows he examined first ?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know which lung of the animal he examined
first ?

A. No, I could not state. I don’t remember.

Q. Was Professor Balentine present there ?

A. I think he was.

Q. One question more, Mr. Gilbert, I meant to ask you
the other night. But before we come to that—is what you
have stated here to-night the only explanation you wish to
make regarding your correspondence in relation to the Kent
bull?

A. No; I have some more correspondence in my pocket.

Q. Is that the only statement you wish to make regarding
‘ that correspondence ?

A. Ido not recall anything now.

Q. You stated the other night, in regard to the Kent bull,
that at the hearing before the Agricultural Committee, Jan-
uary 19th, you did not know the Kent bull had been de-
stroyed, did you not?

A. Yes, sir; and I so stated here the other night at your
request.

Mr. Walton :—Have you the letter. Mr. Kent wrote?
Mr. Gilbert :—I put it in testimony the other night.

101

Mr. Southard :—It was a private letter and destroyed with
his private correspondence.

Mr. Cornish :—Yes; alleged private correspondence.

Mr. Southard :—That is unfair.

Mr. Cornish :—You stated the other night, did you not,
that you did not know that the Kent bull had been destroyed ?

A. I so stated to the committee, at that time.

Q. Had you not, on the 15th day of November, 1886,
received a letter from Dr. Bailey, in which he spoke of the
Kent bull having been killed ?

A. No, sir; never received a letter from him, up to this
time, in which he spoke of the Kent bull being killed.

Q. Did you not two days prior to that hearing before the
Agricultural Committee, namely, the 17th of January, have a
conversation with Mr. Bell, in which you spoke of the Kent
bull being killed ?

A. I don’t recollect any.

Q. Do you say that you did not have it?

A. I say I don’t recall any.

Q. Do you recollect testifying before the Agricultural
Committee, on the 2d of February, in regard to tuberculosis,
and stating that Dr. Bailey did not disagree with you pro-
fessionally, and you did not disagree with him professionally ?

A. I stated that I did not disagree with him professionally ;
I did not make the other statement, that I recollect.

Q. Did you not also state that you depended on him, and
left all matters of that kind (tuberculosis) to him, because
you did not pretend to know anything about tuberculosis ?

A. All matters of diagnoses of disease, at all times, every-
where, were left with Dr. Bailey ; and his opinions were con-
sidered at all times by the Commissioners.

Mr. Walton:—Then you did not get advice from other
veterinary surgeons, without he recommended it ?

Mr. Gilbert :—Certainly, we did.

Mr. Walton:—What did you do that for, if you left all
that part of the business to him?

102

Mr. Gilbert:—He corresponded with them by arrange-
ment with us, after talking it over with the President of the
College, and the Governor and members of his Council—
corresponded with veterinarians, the leading veterinarians of
the country, including Dr. Salmon and Dr. Liautard.

Mr. Walton:—That was left for him to do, was it not?

A. That was left for him to do for the Commission, he
being secretary of the Commission. And he did so. We
got replies from them—advice.

Mr. Cornish:—Do you remember, after that statement
which you made to the Agricultural Committee, February
2d, of having another conversation with Dr. Bailey and Mr.
Bell, in another room near by, in relation to tuberculosis and
what you knew about it in the State?

Mr. Southard :—I believe this is tuberculosis at the State
College farm we are investigating. Still, it is not our pur-
pose to object to anything proper they are of a mind to ask.
We want to make a full breast of everything that ought to
be known.

Mr, Walton :—Please repeat your question, brother Cor-
nish.

Mr. Cornish :—I don’t remember the exact phrasing of it.
The stenographer can repeat it.

(Question read by the stenographer. )

Mr. Walton :—It is pretty remote.

Mr. Cornish :—Well, I do not insist on it.

Mr. Cornish :—Mr. Gilbert, you are secretary of the
Board of Agriculture ?

A. Yes,.sir.

Q. And as such, of course, an ex-officio trustee of the
College?

A... Yes, sir:

Q. And ex-officio a member of the Board of Cattle Com-
missioners ? .

A. Yes, sir.

Q. When were you put on the farm committee of the
State College ?

103

A. Sometime during my first term—

Mr. Southard :—I believe this is irrelevant under the rul-
ing of the chair.

Mr. Walton:—Well, you might go on, Mr. Cornish.

Mr. Cornish :—Thank you.

A. Soon after I was elected secretary of the Board of
Agriculture.

Q. In what year?

A. I was elected secretary of the Board of Agriculture on
the 7th day of April, 1880.

Mr. Libby:—Do you think all of those cattle were sick
that you killed there?

A. No; Ido not. I never have thought so.

Q. What proportion of them do you think were sick with
the consumption ?

A. Well, there was from half to three-fourths-—say three-
fourths of them. I would not state very definitely, because
I did not count up—say three-fourths.

. Did you see the most of them killed ?

. IT saw what was killed the first day.

. How many?

. Twenty-two, I think.

. You saw them opened?

. All of those I examined.

. Could you detect disease in nearly all of those you
saw killed?

A. Any one who had ever seen the internal organs of any
animal could detect disease in any one of those. We took
the worst first.

Q. You did not see the well ones killed?

A. No, I did not.

Mr. Rich :—Were there any well ones killed ?

Mr. Walton :—Ask him his opinion of their condition.

Mr. Southard:—Do you mean, Mr. Gilbert, that there
were well animals at the time of the killing?

OPOPOPO

104

A. At the time of the killing there were—veterinarians
can pronounce on that better than I can, although I will
make the statement if you wish me to.

Mr. Libby :—We ask your opinion as a farmer.

A. All right. The veterinarians pronounced indications
of disease, as I understood the case—in fact nearly all of the
animals had been examined before I left, that is, the principal
part of the herd. There were four, as I remember it, good
animals, that did not have indications of disease, that they
did not find indications of disease in.

Mr. Cornish :—That was on the 22d day of April?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And when was it you say only a half to three-fourths
of them were diseased ; how long prior to that time?

A. At that examination. I gave my opinion, not as an ex-
pert, but asa farmer. There were one-half to three-quarters
of them diseased.

Q. But it proved, on examination, that all but four of them
were diseased ?

A. That is what they stated.

Mr. Libby :—Did you notice all these cattle coughed when
you were there?

. No, I did not.

. Were you around the barn considerable, so as to hear?
. I was; I watched that herd pretty closely.

. You do not have an idea that half of them had a cough?
. Yes, I think I heard more than one-half of them cough ;
but there was quite a considerable number of them I had not
heard cough.

Mr. Cornish:—Do you doubt that all but four were
afflicted with disease ?

A. Mr. Counsel, shall I state what I doubt ?

Mr. Southard :—I don’t think you are called upon to state
what you doubt.

Mr. Cornish :—Now, Mr. Chairman, I submit that I have
seen a great many witnesses m court; but I never saw one
that had to be protected so much as this one.

rFOPrPOF

105

Mr. Walton :—I have just been talking to my friends on
the committee about the danger of setting this thing going
again.

Mr. Southard :—Better stop the pendulum.

Mr. Cornish :—I simply want to know this: He gets up
here and says, as a farmer, he thinks three-fourths of those
cattle that were killed were diseased. I ask him whether he
doubts that all but four of those animals were diseased, more
or less?

Mr. Gilbert :—I doubt about their being seriously diseased.

Q. Do you doubt they were more or less diseased ?

A. There was not in those animals any other external ap-
pearances of disease than I spoke of.

Q. Now will you answer my question? Do you doubt that
all but four of those animals were more or less diseased,
when killed ?

A. I don’t think I can answer that question.

Mr. Cornish :—That is all I want to know.

TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL BELL.

I reside in Deering. Have no business at present. Have
been in the retail shoe business some 39 years. I have carried
ona farm some 25 years and had a stock of cattle during that
time. Ihave partially served on the Cattle Commission of
the State of Maine. I mean by that that I have not served
fully with the other Commissioners ; only served a part of the
time. I was appointed one of the Commissioners by the Gov-
ernor. I didnot serve all the time because I was not notified
to, was not informed that my labors were needed on the Com-
mission. J commenced to act in 1884, soon after the break-
ing out of the foot and mouth disease. My commission has
not yet expired. The only information I have in relation to
the herd of cattle at Orono that was slaughtered is what I
saw in the public prints, until the slaughter. I was not at
all notified to act and did not go to the College nor see the
cattle. About the 18th of last October I received a notice

106

from Mr. Gilbert that the Commission was to have a meeting
on Oct. 20th, in the evening, at Portland. I have it here
and it is as follows :

STATE OF MAINE.

Board of Agriculture,
North Greene, October 15th, 1886.

Mr. Bell:—You are requested to meet the Board of Cattle Commission-
ers at City Hotel, Portland, Wednesday evening, October 20th, at seven
o’clock.

Yours,
(Signed) Z. A. Gilbert,

‘Pres‘t.

I went there at the time appointed and found Messrs. Gilbert
and Ferguson there, the commission of the latter having run
out at that time. After being there a few minutes Mr. Gilbert
said to me and Mr. Ferguson that he would like to have us
go up into his room a few minutes. We went up, and when
we were fairly seated in the room he said he wanted to pre-
pare our minds for what was coming before us. It was the
first intimation that I had but that the meeting was to be
there. It seemed by his remark that it was not, but wis to
be somewhere else. He commenced by saying, in substance,
that we were to meet at Dr. Bailey’s and he wanted to pre-
pare our minds before we went there for what we should
probably hear when we got there, from Dr. Bailey, with
reference to the bulls that had gone out from the College
farm. He said Dr. Bailey was somewhat crazy on the sub-
ject, to have those bulls slaughtered ; and he commenced by
saying the bulls were well so far as he knew; that there was
no reason why they should be slaughtered; there was no
evidence that the dams were diseased when the calves were
dropped, and, in fact, if they were, we had nothing to do
with that ; that there was no law that would give us authority
to have anything to do with them, and he thought the best
way was to let them alone. He talked until he expressed his
mind fully bearing upon this point. Perhaps we were there
half an hour. We then went to Dr. Bailey’s house. Of

107

course I had heard nothing before adout the matter. It was
news tome. Aftera few preliminary remarks at Dr. Bailey’s,
with reference to our meeting, the matter at once came up.
Dr. Bailey asked Mr. Gilbert what was going to be done with
the bulls that had gone out from the College herd. Mr.
Gilbert said, Nothing; he did not know anything that could
be done with them; that there was no evidence that the bulls
were diseased. After talking a time in general terms with
reference to them all, Dr. Bailey spoke of the Kent bull. He
had been to see him. Mr. Gilbert told him that he had since
understood that the Kent bull was sound and had been sound,
and he didn’t see as we had anything to do with him at all.
Dr. Bailey made some further statements with reference to
hearing from either Mr. Kent or Mr. McAlister, one of the
selectmen of Bucksport—I think it was Mr. Kent—and atter
considerable talk between the two, it was finally brought down
to the point, by Dr. Bailey, as to what was going to be done
eventually with reference to the report, as the time was draw-
ing near when the report was tobe made. Dr. Bailey said: “If
you will take the ground you do, why, I cannot agree with
you, for I certainly never could sign a report without advis-
ing that those bulls should be examined, and if found dis-
eased they should be put out of the way.” Mr. Gilbert said
there was no occasion for that at all that he could see; that
we had nothing to do with them; that the State did not call
upon us to tell them what we had not done, but simply what
we had done, and he saw no reason why we should refer to
them at all. Dr. Bailey told him his conscience never would
be clear to make a report without making reference to them.
He thought it was absolutely necessary. He thought the
disease could be scattered all through the country if they
were allowed to be used for stock purposes while they came
from such diseased parents as many of them did. He finally
made a proposition to Mr. Gilbert. He said: “I will make
a report and make these recommendations, which we can all
sign, perhaps, or you may have my minutes and make a re-
port to suit yourselves, and if Mr. Bell or Mr. Ferguson are

108

disposed to sign it, all right.” So the matter, so far as the
bulls were concerned, closed. There was a great deal more
said there than I have repeated, but it amounts to this, as I
understand it. It closed up with the proposition of Dr.
Bailey, which Mr. Gilbert neither accepted nor rejected, as I
know of—that is, he did not propose to make any such re-
port as Dr. Bailey desired, and he did not say he would make
such a report as Dr. Bailey recommended him to make by
taking his minutes.

I have had since that time at least two or three talks with Mr.
Gilbert, and perhaps three or four. I went with him to South
Waterboro,’ I think the next day after the meeting, to settle
some matters there connected with a herd, and one or two of
them were destroyed afterwards. I was not present at the de-
struction though, didn’t know anything about it. I hada
notice from Mr. Gilbert to go up there, but got it too late.
But I did go up to settle the business with him, and at that
time, in going and coming, we talked more or less with refer-
ence to these bulls that were out and other matters pertain-
ing to disagreements between him and Dr. Bailey, and each
and every time I talked with him he took one and the same
ground—that he was totally opposed to anything being done
with reference to the bulls that were out, unless it was under
different circumstances than had thus far come before us. I
signed the report made by Dr. Bailey. There is, perhaps, one
point that I have omitted with reference to that meeting.
When I started from the hotel with Mr. Gilbert and Mr.
Ferguson I thought that Mr. Gilbert was probably right in
his view of the matter; yet I questioned the propriety, for
the paltry sum that the bulls were worth, whether or not it
would be prudent to leave them scattered round through the
country as they were. But I did not decide one way or the
other at the hotel. After we got to Dr. Bailey’s ana I heard
the evidence that he produced from his professional stand-
point, that the bulls were diseased, I made up my mind then
and there that it was not safe to let them remain as they were.
After the conversation between Mr. Gilbert and Dr. Bailey,

109

and the argument between them was wound up by each say-
ing all they wanted to in the matter, they referred the case
to Mr. Ferguson and myself, to know what our opinions were.
I decided with Dr. Bailey that I thought it was right that the
bulls should be slaughtered and put out of the way, because
it seemed-to me from the evidence of Dr. Bailey, given from
his professional standpoint, that they must be diseased, from
the parentage from which they came. I never saw these
cattle that were at the College farm and had no personal
knowledge of them whatever. Ido not know that I ever saw
any cattle sick with this disease. When I signed this report
of Dr. Bailey’s I signed it measurably on his knowledge,, but
I cannot say wholly so, because I have read the disease up
and have talked with some other veterinarians, but not to
any great extent. Some little time after going to South
Waterboro’ with Mr. Gilbert I received a letter from Mr.
Gilbert inclosing a letter that was sent to him by Dr. Bailey,
and from him sent to me for me to read in connection with
some remarks in his letter to me. In that he referred to the
bulls, with reference to Dr. Bailey’s feelings to him; and
there were some remarks in the letter with reference to what
his views were. The letter is here. (The letter was read
by the chairman and is as follows) :

North Greene, Oct. 25, 1886.

Bro. Bell:—I inclose letter within from Dr. B. which, after reading his
‘*proposition,” you will please return to me. I have to request that you
see the Dr. and talk the matter over with him as youthink. You need
not let him know I have written you, or that you have seen his letter.
You may say to him I go to Washington county Wednesday, to return
on Saturday. I think there has been about fooling enough over the
Bucksport matter and I want it dried up. I never can consent to have
anything to do with the matter further than as advisory to Mr. Kent.

Yours truly,
(Signed) Gilbert.
Mr. Bell:—After receiving that letter I went to see Dr.
Bailey, and the first question he asked me was whether I had
heard from Mr. Gilbert, saying that he had written hima
letter and had received no answer. I explained it to him by

110

saying he had gone away. He said, “Have you received a
letter from him?” I evaded the question at the time, for I
did not feel as though I ought to inform him, but was finally
obliged to do so or tell an absolute lie, and I told him I had
received a letter from Mr. Gilbert, and told him what the
letter contained. Iimmediately wrote to Mr. Gilbert saying
I had seen Dr. Bailey and Dr. Bailey had cornered me so I
had to explain that I had heard from him (Mr. Gilbert).
Some little time after that I received a letter from Mr. Gilbert
saying that he wanted me to assist in making up the report,
and in substance that the Legislature was anxious to have a
repert from the Commission, and he had written Dr. Bailey
and wanted me to meet him at Woodford’s Corner and go into
the city with him, and then, with Dr. Bailey, to go to Augusta
and make out the report of the doings of the Commission. I
met Mr. Gilbert at the depot at the appointed time, and he
got off the train. I said: “You are not going into the city ?”
He said No, as it was no use; he had heard from Dr. Bailey
and he did not propose to make any report with him, refused
to make any report. We went into the depot and had some
little talk before the train arrived, and then he got on and
came back. In the conversation he asked me if I would go
down to Augusta with him. I told him that I did not feel
willing to sign such a report as he proposed to make; that I
believed Dr. Bailey’s suggestion was a proper one, and I
could not conscientiously sign a report without referring to
these bulls that had gone out from the College herd ; I thought
they ought to be put out of the way and it seemed to be the
duty of the Commissioners to at least recommend it. He said
we had nothing to do with it; that it was none of our busi-
ness; that no evidence of their being diseased was before us,
and he used the same language or similar language to that
which he used at our meeting with Dr. Bailey. I said: “Well,
there is one thing about it, I never have signed any report
that has been made. You have never requested me to do it,
and I do not feel as if I could go this one if I would.” He
told me he did not know what he should do, as nobody but

111

himself felt soabout it. As he and I were the only other ones
on the Commission he thought it was my duty to go with him
and sign the report. I told him I could not do it conscien-
tiously. He said: “There is one thing about it: if you do
not do it I think the Commission will be broken up, and my
opinion is that they will put the State Board of Health on the
Commission.” I said, “Very well, I shall accept the situa-
tion whatever it may be. I don’t propose to do it.” He urged
me very strongly, and finally he said he wanted me to come
down Thursday morning and sign it if I would. If not he
would go down and make the report. I told himif I changed
my mind I would come, and unless I did, I gave him to
understand that I should not. In conversation with him then,
in speaking of Dr. Bailey and the bulls that had gone out
from the College herd, I said: “You know what was done
with the Kent bull, I suppose? You know Dr. Bailey paid
twenty dollars out of his own pocket and had that bull killed.
I understand, besides, that the lungs of the bull were sent to
him and that he found unmistakable evidences of disease, and
he was not satisfied with that, or in other words wanted more
evidence, and he sent a part of the lungs to New York and
has since had testimony from veterinarians there that examined
the lung that there were unmistakable traces of tuberculosis
in the bull.” I don’t remember whether Mr. Gilbert said he
was aware of the fact or not, but I told him as I under-
stood it from Dr. Bailey. When I told him of the Kent bull
J remember that he remarked something like this, that if Dr.
Bailey had minded his own business there would have been
no trouble with the Kent bull. He felt, as I understand him
to say, that Dr. Bailey bad busied himself and had really
made trouble unnecessarily ; that if he had kept quiet there
would have been no trouble about it. I have here the letter
which I received dated Jan. 13th. (The letter was read by
the chairman, and is as follows :)
Skowhegan, Jan. 13, 1887.

Br. Bell :—Meet me at station on down Lewiston train on Monday next,
and go into Portland station with me. The Legislature is in a stew over

112

the fact that we have not madeareport. It must bedoneat once. Ihave
written the doctor to this effect, and have asked him to be at the station
and go to Augusta and fix it up.

Write by Saturday mail that I may know what to depend upon.

Yours,
(Signed) Gilbert.

Mr. Bell :—I met him at the station the following Monday,
the 17th, and had the conversation with him which I have
stated. JI also received from him letter dated Feb. 8th, ’87.

(This letter was read in evidence, and is as follows :)

STATE OF MAINE.

Board of Agriculture, i
North Greene, Feb. 8, 1887. 5

Br. Bell:—I was surprised to find you mixed up with the mischief con-
nected with that cattle disease matter. I don’t know how to account for
it on the estimate I have held of you, and after what you had said to me.
I am sadly shocked over it.

I hope to see you at the Farmers’ Institute at City Hall next Tuesday.
I am now at liberty to reveal a secret bearing on yourself.

Hoping to meet you, I am,
Yours,

(Signed) Z. A. Gilbert.

Mr. Bell :-—After this letter was written I met Mr. Gilbert
at Dr. Bailey’s house, where I went to see Dr. Bailey, and
Mr. Gilbert was there. Mr. Gilbert came out and got into my
sleigh and we went on a short ride, and whether he revealed
the secret to me I do not know; but I accepted what he said
as an explanation of what he wrote, that is, the secret. He
did not say and I did not ask him if that was what his letter
meant. What he told me amounted to this, that so far’ as
my being ignored by the Cattle Commission, he was not to
blame; that it was Dr. Bailey more than himself. Whether
he meant to give me to understand that that was the secret
referred to in his letter or not, I cannot say. But he tried to
relieve himself from any blame in the matter of my not be-
ing countenanced or recognized as one of the Commission,
which I had not been fully ; had not been consulted as other
Commissioners had been. And I felt it somewhat, of course ;

1138

but then, not enough to lay up any hardness at all.. We
never had but one meeting of the board while I was on it.
I have no other letters from Mr. Gilbert except the one
for me to go to South Waterboro’, which is not of import-
ance. Whenever I was called to serve on the Commission
I was called by Mr. Gilbert. There was one case, a glan-
dered horse, where I was called upon by Dr. Bailey, I
think. It was a case in the city. I do not remember that
I ever received any letter from Dr. Bailey. I was on the
Commission with Dr. Bailey three years the thirty-first of
this month. I think Dr. Bailey did ignore me. Ido not
dispute that Mr. Gilbert told me the truth. I signed this
minority report. I read the report and also heard Dr. Bailey
read it. I believed all the things stated in it and that is why
I signed it. I understand that report to give a full account
with reference to the disease at the College. It traces the
disease from mother to offspring, &c., of the cattle in the
herd. Perhaps there is nothing in the report which shows
that these bulls that had gone out from that herd are diseased.
I think the Kent bull was diseased because I heard the letter
read from Dr. Michener with reference to the condition of
the lung, and I had the testimony of Dr. Bailey in regard to
it, and I believed it. I did not see the lung of the Kent bull.
I do not say that Mr. Gilbert stated at the City Hotel that if
the bull was diseased they would have nothing to do with him.
I said that he said that we bad nothing to do with it. He
gave two reasons why, and one was that we had no law and
the other that there was no evidence that the bull was diseased.
He said Dr. Bailey had been and examined the bull and pro-
nounced him well. I think that at the time Dr. Bailey ex-
amined him he had no evidence but that he was well. I
thought the bull was not well for the reason I have given—
from what I have learned from veterinarians in reference to
the disease I thought it could not be possible it could be
sound, being dropped by a dam so full of disease as Princess
Alba ; so it could not be that the calf was free from the disease.

8

114

I did not know whether Princess Alba was sick or well when
she dropped this calf. I did not know anything about the thir-
teen bulls sent out from there, except what I learned from Mr.
Gilbert. I never learned they were sick and have not up to this
time. I believe they are sick. I did not contend with Mr.
Gilbert at the meeting at the City Hotel or afterwards but
that he was right as to the law in regard to the Kent bull; I
did not contend but that he was right. I did not make any
contention about the law at all. Mr. Gilbert said we had no
law; Bailey said he thought we had. If the bull was well I
should have no doubt that the Commissioners had no right to
interfere with him; but I do not think he was weil. I was
not satisfied about his being well. I did not know where any
of these bulls were except the Kent bull, and never had re-
ceived any information. Mr. Gilbert never said anything
about where they were or anything about it. I remember
perfectly in the conversation that evening that Dr. Bailey in-
directly asked where the bulls were, or in other words he
said: “If you will tell me where those bulls are I can prove
to you or show to you that some at least of those bulls will
give evidence of disease.” That was the idea that he pre-
sented. Mr. Gilbert replied that he had nothing to do with
that; he did not, at any rate, tell him where they were. He
did not tell Bailey that he had information as to where the
bulls were at that time. He did not answer the question as
to where the bulls were. He did not pretend that he knew,
directly. I received no notice from Mr. Gilbert as to the
cattle disease at Orono; never heard anything about it ex-
cept what I saw in the papers. Dr. Bailey who lived near
me said nothing to me about it. He was secretary of the
Commission. I understood that Gilbert wrote to Bailey to
go to Orono.

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE H. BAILEY.

By Mr. Walton:
Q. I believe you made a report in full of what you found
there in regard to the disease of those cattle didn’t you?

115

A. Yes, sir; too full, some of them think, I believe. I
endeavored to make a full and fair report of that trouble at
Orono.

By Mr. Allen:

Q. I wish you would state to the committee what occurred
when you went into the stable at Orono in examining those
cattle before you went out into the field to examine the dead
creature ?

A. I went out into the barn and met Prof. Balentine,
Prof. Fernald, Prof. Jordan and, I think, Mr. Gowell, and
some of the men were there looking over the cattle. I looked
them over casually. Ido not think I ever saw a finer lot of
cattle than they were. They deceived me very much, I am
willing to admit now, right on the start, as to their true con-
dition. They looked well and appeared well, and looked full
and sleek, and in good order and flesh, and I listened some
time before I heard a single cough fromananimal. Finally I
asked Mr. Gowell if the cattle did cough; and he told me
that first and last he had heard all of them cough but one. I
kept listening, and one after another coughed. I took the
temperature of several, quite a number of them.

Q. How did you do that?

A. By a thermometer in the rectum, and I found the tem-
perature almost universally in those that I tried about 103.
That of itself is a suspicious symptom of pleuro-pneumonia, or
tuberculosis either. I examined the first cow as we entered
by auscultation and percussion. That was the Princess Alba.
She had a flatulent abdomen and her elbows stood out and
she had some little labored respiration. I examined her on
one side and found no alarming symptom, and said to Prof.
Fernald, “You will have to show me something besides this
to make me condemn her,” and I think I had said before
that, “I think you are more scared than hurt here.” I went
round the other side of Princess Alba and percussed her and
found marked dullness over the whole lung. I think I had
then been in the barn ten minutes. I turned round to Gilbert
and said, “Gilbert, you have got tuberculosis in this herd.

116

You can depend upon that. There is no pleuro-pneumonia
here.” This wasa long time before I went out into the field.
I knew those cattle had tuberculosis before I went out of the
barn. These gentlemen must not think I was such a fool as
not to know that. I asked for the privilege of going out in
the field because I wanted to verify my diagnosis. So after a
while I did go out in the field to see that animal, and that
proved the correctness of my diagnosis. I afterwards gave
more of them careful examination and looked over the herd
very carefully, and I came to a very solid conclusion. That
is the first visit 1am speaking of. It was on March 6th. Not
only from seeing the cattle in the barn, but trom that lung in
the field I knew they had the disease. I had no doubt about
it and told Gilbert so. They had a temperature of 103 and
over. I took the temperature of lots of them. My first im-
pression was that a part of them would have to be killed and
a part of them could be saved. Part of them looked so well
that I thought it was not possible for them all to develop the
disease. That was my first visit. I think that at that visit I
recommended taking out about ten or a dozen of the animals
and putting them in the horse stable, those that I knew were
diseased, and they were moved into the horse stable by them-
selves. They were the worst cases there. A good many of
the others I never examined until the morning of the slaughter.

By Mr. Libby:

Q. Do you think they were all sick?

A. They all proved to be, yes, sir, afterwards.

Q. When you killed these cattle do you think one of us
farmers could have discovered they were sick, by their lungs?

A. Yes; if a farmer had seen the lungs and did not Know
they were sick he had no business to be a farmer any
longer. There were unmistakable lesions in about every
lung.

By Mr. Rich:

Q. Did you see them all?

A. I saw them all except a very few of that herd. There
were two or three that were not opened. Mr. Gowell had

117

some hesitancy. One or two cows were favorites of his and
he did not like to have them cut, and we didn’t open them.
Several were not opened, because they were very thoroughly
diseased, und they were condemned on general principles that
they were not fit to live.

Q. In regard to these cattle: if you did not hear them
cough, would there be any way of knowing they were sick ?

A. That would depend upon circumstances. Some of
them there you could tell. Most anybody who had ever seen
the disease could have identified it in those put in the horse
stable.

By Mr. Libby :

Q. You state that you knew positively ?

A. Yes, sir, I did. If I hadn’t I should not be fit to be on
a cattle commission long, because there were some very
marked cases.

Q. What would be the symptoms of the disease in a fat,
smooth animal? how would you tell the disease ?

A. The same as ina lean one; elevation of temperature,
auscultation and percussion of the lungs, which is all treated
of inmy report. General external symptoms, rough, staring
coat, standing out of the elbows, and rapid respiration if you
move them.

Q. You are speaking of the last symptoms of the disease
now?

Mr. Walton:—He asks you in the case of a sleek-looking
animal.

Witness :—You could tell by auscultation and percussion
of the lungs.

By Mr. Adams:

Q. Do you or not believe you would be able to discover
tuberculosis quite early after the lungs became affected ?

A. O, yes, most any time after the lungs became affected
we ought to be able to diagnose it. By auscultation and per-
cussion we can locate the diseased portion of the lung.

QQ. If you gave the diseased creature a little exercise, what
would be the result ?

118

A. It would be increased respiration.

Q. Noticeable ?

A. Yes, sir. They would have only a portion of sound
lung tissue to breath through, and the breathing would be
more rapid.

By Mr. Rich:

Q. You do not find the flesh to go off until after suppura-
tion ?

A. No, sir. Emaciation is in the later stages as a rule;
emaciation, debility, diarrhcea, set in and follow each other
rapidly.

By Mr. Adams:

Q. Is it a fact that sometimes animals in early stages of
this disease will take on fat more rapidly than when well?

A. Yes, sir, that is the rule in a great many cases.

Q. From all you have read in regard to the contagion of
this disease, from all you know of it in other cases, what do
you say with regard to the contagion as demonstrated by the
facts of the disease at Orono?

A. In all well advanced stages of it I have no doubt about
the contagion. There are stages of it in which I should doubt
its contagion.

(). Have you or not reason to suppose that the disease
made more rapid progress there in the cattle than you have
ever known through your knowledge or from writers—than it
usually does ?

A. Yes, sir, I think this is the most virulent attack I have
ever known or read about; I do not think we have a case on
record where it approached such rapid conclusions as:it did
there. That disease had existed in that herd for a long time.
They had enough there through the terms of the various
superintendents to leaven the whole lump. They had had
animals there with that disease coming down all the way
through, and the animals that Gowell bought and carried
there were brought in contact with those diseased animals.
They were well when.they were carried there, and I have no
doubt about the soundness of the herds from which those

119

animals were bought. When he brought in new ones there
was always enough of the old stock left to infect those brought
in.

Q. Have you or not an idea of the first creature diseased
there ?

A. As far as we are able to trace it, it is given in my re-
port as the cow sold to Mr. Boardman by Mr. Farrington in
"76, ten years ago. That is the first animal to which we have
been able to trace the disease. Mr. Gowell has assisted me
in that.

QQ. Have you been able to trace that cow back to a con-
taminated parentage or herd?

A. I have not.

Q. State to the committee your professional opinion as to
transmitting this disease to the human family through the
milk by disease of the cow.

A. There is no doubt of it on earth, in my opinion, in
many cases; there are certain stages of it where I think it
would be developed.

Mr. Libby :—What would be those stages?

A. I think where you had nothing but miliary deposits it
would be very doubtful about transmitting it by way of the
milk. But I think where the mammary glands are affected,
or tubercles broken down, you may get contamination through
the milk.

By Mr. Adams:

Q. What is this disease, and what is there about it different
from any other disease ?

A. No difference between this disease and consumption in
the humaa family.

(). I mean peculiar to the disease in cattle. What is the
difference between a diseased spot in this and in the disease
of pleuro-pneumonia? I mean right in the tissue itself?

A. In pleuro-pneumonia the lung is congested and solidi-
fied, and we get a marbleized appearance. In tuberculosis
we have different portions of the lung affected, and we
may have a diseased lung and still have left perfectly sound

120

portions of it. Tubercles form and grow, being at first a
miliary deposit, finally progressing until they break down into
pus, which when freed is coughed up and given up in the air
expired by the animal. In this is the bacilli or specific germ,
which is a thread-like particle, or filament, in width about one-
fifth of its length and in length a half or two-thirds the width
of a red blood-corpuscle.

Q. Do you understand that this disease can or cannot be
propagated without one of these filaments ?

A. I understand it cannot by contagion.

Q. And that in all cases of tuberculosis this peculiarity is
found ?

A. Yes, sir; you have got to have that specific germ to
propagate it. I think it is the same identical germ that is in
human consumption. I think we get the same in the human
lung. They both have the same results, and would inoculate
a man from an animal or an animal froma man. The disease
can be transmitted, decidedly.

By Mr. Walton:

(¥. Do you mean to say that the disease itself can be trans-
mitted, or a tendency towards the disease ¢

A. Both. There is a pre-disposition in the very animals
with which we are dealing in this case (in Jerseys) to con-
sumption. Inbreeding has contributed a good deal to that
pre-disposition in that class of cattle. That is, inbreeding
weakens the animal. They have narrow chests and weak
lungs, and are more susceptible to the disease. There is a
great difference in the susceptibility of animals to the disease,
one taking it readily and one resisting it with the same sur-
roundings.

Q. So your idea is that a calf may be dropped with the
germs all developed in the lungs or any part of the calf?

A. Yes, sir; time and time and time and again we have
had cases to prove that. They become diseased in utero.
The very fact of abortion shows that. The case of the Wil-
lard Insane Asylum to which I have alluded in my report

121

shows that calves aborted from diseased cows were full of
tubercles.

By Mr. Adams:

Q. Does, or not, the disease often seize the uterus first?

A. Yes, the uterus, the fallopian tubes and the ovaries
become affected. Ina good many cases the animals fail to
breed, and many did at Orono.

Q. If a cow was diseased in the womb with tubercles, and
should have a calf, in what condition would you expect to
find that calf?

A. I should expect to find it in a diseased condition when
dropped.

By Mr. Walton:

Q. When tubercles first commence to form, isn’t the dis-
ease there in the blood of that animal ?

A. Yes, sir, most certainly.

Q. Then why wouldn’t the milk be unhealthy even so early
as that?

A. The milk in those cases would be more especially im-
pregnated with it if the mammary glands were affected. We
found cows at Orono whose milk was very bitter from the
‘disease.

Q. Suppose a cow appeared healthy, but had the disease
about her and the tubercles had begun to form. She would
have the disease in her blood?

A. Yes, sir, in the later stages.

Q. Then could the milk be properly said to be healthy ?

A. It would be almost impossible to tell just how much
the cow would have to be affected. You would find the germ
in the milk if it was affected.

(J. If the blood was unhealthy through the disease lurking
in the system, must not the milk be more or less affected ?

A. I should expect it to be.

By Mr. Adams:

A. Are, or not, these bacilli found in the early stages of tu-
iberculosis ?

122

A. Yes, sir, they are there all the time, but are not
freed until the tubercles break down and liquefy.

Q. Now, in the early stages of tuberculous deposit these
bacilli are found, and they are the elements of transmitting the
disease ; and would or not there be some danger of transmit-
ting the disease at that time to a child through the milk?

A. Yes, sir, by the milk.

Q. The milk would contain them if the blood did, would it.
not?

A. Yes, sir, most probably.

By Mr. Rich:

Q. When you find bacilli, then, do you not consider the
milk impure ?

A. Most certainly.

Q. Unsuitable to use, and it would be poison to a child ?

A. It would affect a child, because their powers of absorp-
tion are much more active than in grown people. In a mam
what might simply disturb the digestive organs would prove
fataltoachild. There is not a doubt that it is contagious by in-
gestion, as is proved by the disease in the hogs from the offal
of slaughtered cows killed on account of the disease. There
have been a number of experiments of feeding milk to pigs
which have demonstrated and proved the position I take.
Veterinary surgeons have experimented very extensively on
rabbits, guinea-pigs, foxes and other animals, and are able
to propagate the disease in them by it.

By Mr. Libby:

Q. None of the meat would be poisonous if cooked ?

A. That would kill every germ in it and make it harmless.
Heated to 212 will do that.

Q. Do you have an idea that the lungs of this Kent bull
or any part of them would show any disease that a farmer or
any man could detect?

A. I should not think they would. Externally they did
not show any tome. They were sent to me by express, and
until I made the section I failed to discover anything wrong in
them. They looked fair. , |

123

Q. Now don’t you think that under ordinary circumstances,
if that bull had been kept in airy quarters and in a healthy
herd, he might have lived ten years ?

A. He might have lived ten years I will admit. They
sometimes live to a good old age with tubercles in their lungs.
It is a chronic disease, but still is very progressive in a good
many cases. In some cases it might terminate fatally in
three months, what would be galloping consumption ina man.
That Kent bull was out of Princess Alba, and she was one of
the very worst cases at Orono. We killed her in March,
and she dropped the bull Kent had the previous June. And
with the great amount of deposit she had in her lungs when
we killed her—Gilbert said I was crazy to kill her—I do not
think any sane man would advise even unofficially the use of
that bull. His lungs percussed clear, but he had a staring
coat that I didn’t like the looks of; it stood out pretty well
on him. WhenTI saw him in July I do not think anybody
would have discovered any apparent disease about him; but
when I found he was out of Princess Alba I did not think it
was possible that he was fit to serve.

That Kent bull was in bad condition enough, beyond any
doubt on earth, to have transmitted it to his offspring, at the
time he was killed, but I do not think an expert could have made
out enough disease in that bull at the time I first saw him to
condemn him. If I had examined that bull and found no trouble
except in the lung, I should still say that he could have trans-
mitted the disease to his offspring. He had enough in the lung
to transmit it. A bull can do a great deal more mischief ina
year than a cow.

By Mr. Allen:

QQ. Would you advise the killing of those other bulls that
went out from the College farm if they could be found?

A. I would advise just as I always have. I would have
them all inspected and killed if necessary. I would kill
every one that showed the disease. I would not use one of
them or advise any one else to do so under any circumstances,
because I know they were all out of thoroughly diseased

124

dams and I do not think it is right and proper to use them
for stock purposes.

By Mr. Adams:

Q. Suppose you should kill a number of those bulls, find-
ing half of them diseased that you did kill, what would you
recommend about killing the others of them?

A. I would recommend feeding them off for beef. If they
are well enough for that, that is what ought to be done with
them. Ihave seen none of them except the Kent bull. If
there was disease in an animal it could positively be discov-
ered by an autopsy. If an animal were slaughtered and
showed no signs of disease to an experienced eye I should say
it would be perfectly safe to eat it; if there was the disease
germ lurking in the animal’s whole anatomy it would be de-
stroyed by cooking. If such an animal showed no signs of
disease to an experienced eye I should say he was wholesome
and safe; no doubt about it.

Mr. Libby :—A good many of those animals in the College
herd should have been eaten ?

A. Yes, sir, I think so. I know Gov. Robie said if they
would send some of it to him he would agree to eat it. That
is what he told me.

By Mr. Walton:

Q. If that disease is in the blood, is the milk safe at any
time ?

A. I do not regard it so.

Q. And the disease must be in the blood if it begins to
show by a deposit, even if it is simply a bardened material of
the lung?

A. Yes, sir.

(. In other words, if it was not in the blood you would
not find any deposit at any stage?

A. It must be in the blood to find a deposit.

Q. Then, granting that it is in the blood, can the milk
which comes from the blood be healthy and proper food for a
child, in your judgment?

125

A. The milk that was nourished by that impure blood
would be impure milk, most certainly, and while it might not
poison a man, I think it would disturb his digestion. He
might have to drink considerable of it to be affected by it,
but he could drink enough to be. I think if the lymphatics
are affected, even if the tubercles are not broken down, that
the milk would be unfit to use.

By Mr. Cornish:

(. Tell the committee in your own way what took place
between the Commissioners in regard to the Kent bull?

A. I was notified July 27th by an official notice from Mr.
McAlister as chairman of the selectmen of Bucksport to
come to Bucksport and see a bull bought from the College
herd. I went and saw the Kent herd, and as I say to you,
and stated to Gilbert on my return, the bull appeared
well, and I put Kent off by saying I would go and consult
Gilbert and see what could be done. I did not know what
cow that bull was out of, and I immediately communicated
with Gowell and found he was out of one of the worst cases
there. I wrote to Gilbert and he thought the business didn’t
deserve a call from me; he knew all about it before and
said we had no proof that the animal was from diseased par-
entage. I sent Gowell’s letter to Gilbert, that the calf was
from one of the worst cases, supposing he might modify his
view. He did not, however, and said a decision from me
that the bull was diseased would bind the College to refund,
and if Kent didn’t want to use him he could sell him. I was
taken sick in August and had a severe attack of sickness,
confined to the house some six weeks, and in the meantime
nothing was done about it. Finally I saw Gilbert, and Kent
had written to me about it. Gilbert said he would speak to
the Governor and Council about it and see what could be
done. Nothing was done about it. Finally Kent sent me a
letter, which I have here, with a request from Mr. McAlister
that I would present that communication to the Governor and
Council, which was on Oct. 9th.

126

(Witness read letter from McAlister dated Oct. 9th; also
letter dated Oct 8th; as follows :)

Bucksport, October 9, 1886.

Dear Sir:—I enclose Mr. Kent’s letter to you. I trust the matter will
be disposed of at the next session of Governor and Council, that Mr. Kent

may know what to do.
Respectfully yours,

G. W. McAlister.

Bucksport, October 8, 1886.
Dr. Bailey:

Dear Sir—I have been informed that the Governor and Council meet the
14th of this month, and as nothing has been done in regard to that animal
I bought of Mr. Gowell of the diseased herd of the State farm, I thought
IT would write you how I feel about the matter. I cannot believe those
gentlemen can be so unjust as to try and make me lose that animal or so
unwise as to have him kept in this. or any other, county in the State. I
shall be a great loser at the best. I shall lose one year’s service of my
own cows and their calves besides what I might have had from the public,
for I dare not use him. Iam a poor man, my farm is under one thousand
dollars mortgage, and I have worked hard for twenty years grading up
and buying such animals as I thought come within my reach, until I have
a herd of Jerseys I feel proud of, and am not ashamed for any man to see,
even Goy. Robie and his Council, and to have them all swept away in two
or three years by using that bull is more than I could bear; it would ruin
me, for [ am too old a man to begin again where I did begin twenty years
ago, and I have not the means to do any different. If I had had means I
would have killed him long ago, but as it is, Il have kept him in strict
quarantine ever since the disease broke out on the State farm. He has
not been allowed to go with any cattle of any kind, I have hauled water
for him halfa mile all through the drouth, fed him hay and grain all sum-
mer, believing something just and honorable would be done by the State
officers.

I bought him in good faith, took the best of care of him, and to get an
‘animal that would bring certain ruin upon myself and herd, according to
tthe report to Gov. Robie of the Doctors at the State Herd, is, I think, de-
ecidedly unjust and cruel in the extreme for a poor man without some re-
compense from some source. I do not know who may be liable, but it does
look to me there is some one to back this whole thing and some one to
make it good.

Brother Gilbert, Z. A., for such I will call him, for we both belong to
the order of P. of H., advised me to keep him and use him; Mr. Gowell
of the State farm did the same. Wonderif Mr. Gilbert would buy him
for his own herd or for the College farm when they stock up again; if so,
I will keep him forthem. I donot know what the gentleman can be think-
ing about. It would be no worse to have another herd exterminated on the

127

arm than to have two or three towns in Hancock County have this conta-
gious disease and cost the State the same amount of money. There is too
much risk in using him in any community, private or publicly, and he must
be got out of the way some way or other (unless the State officers take
the responsibility upon themselves).

I think it is a shame and imposition to advise the as6 of such an animal.
We can scarcely take up a paper but we see something of this terrible
scourge in some parts of our country, and thousands upon thousands of
dollars is lost by its fatality, and shall we let it spread in our own beloved
State when so small asum (for I only ask for fifty dollars) and a little cau-
tion will put an end to the whole thing?

I think I have had great patience, for I have waited something like six
months to know what disposition would be made with my case by the
Officers of the State, and itis but just and right for them to say what they
will do or if they intend to try to throw the lossupon me. I want to know.
when the Governor and Council meets, what they willdo, that I may know
how to act on my part.

The correspondence with the State officers has been done mostly by Mr.
McAlister and Mr. Cunningham, our town officers; they have taken great
interest in this matter that the disease should not spread in this commun-
ity.

I have great respect for your gentlemanly visit at our place and [ shall
hold you in great esteem as a true and faithful officer of the State.

Hoping that this matter will be justly and honorably disposed of im-
mediately, I will remain,

Very truly yours,
S. H. Kent.

Dr. Dailey :—I presented Mr. Kent’s letter to the Gover-
nor and Council and asked them for their advice about the
matter, but they could only act as advisory to us, and the
matter was finally left to Mr. Hatch, as I understood it.
Nothing was done about it until I received a letter from Mr.
McAlister saying if the State would pay $25 he would have
the bull killed. I made that proposition to Gilbert and he
would have nothing to do with it, and said he had no com-
promise to make. I told McAlister if he would take $20 1
would pay it myself for the privilege of seeing the lungs of
the animal. He accepted my offer and sent the lungs to me
by express. I sent a part of them to New York and kept a
a part of them myself until I could make use of them. I
made a section and found some miliary deposits, and found
tubercles in the lung. I sent the upper lobe of the lung to

128

Dr. Michener. I have the letter stating what he found. I
have more than one letter from him. I consulted him when
my attention was first called to the bull and asked his opinion
about it, and I received this letter in reply to it. (Witness
reads letter).

Dr. Bailey, D. V. S.:

Dear Sir—Your letter of 14th is ree’d. I do not see how any one can.
advise the keeping of said bull for service.

It must be remembered that tuberculosis is held to be hereditary by all
best authorities, both human and veterinary. If this be true, and I believe
it to be so unquestionably, then this particular animal is certainly an un_
safe sire, or to put it differently, is a sire almost certain to propagate the
disease. He should be killed.

Mrs. M. is at present out of the city and my work for the Bureau of
Agricultural Industry will, I fear, keep me from getting down to Maine
this summer.

With kindest regards to all, I am,

Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Ch. B. Michener.

He also wrote me on Nov. 19th. (Witness reads letter of
that date. )

My Dear Doctor :—Your letter ree’d. Ido not remember what L & L
was made to refer to, but most likely ‘“‘lungs and lymphatic glands involved.”
In some cases I used L. L. (without the &) to mean left lung. O. K_
means allright, but Ido not remember now of any grown animals that
were entirely free. ‘Those two cases are probably an error, then.

Iam glad you wrote me concerning this, as it gives me an opportunity
to say that by chance I saw a portion of lung left by you at the Am. Vet.
College, said to be from the ‘‘Kent bull” (Dr. Liautard told me), a calf of
one of the cows of Orono herd. These lungs show unmistakable lesions
of tuberculosis. Why don’t you hunt up all such bulls and have them de-
stroyed? There can be but little doubt that they will all sooner or later
develop this disease. They will serve to extend it in many herds when.
their services are required. The Com’s and the State Veterinarian more
than all will be, I think, directly responsible for every case of such exten-
sion. In the eyes of all veterinarians you will deserve censure if you fail
to follow up each animal. They may yet be usedas beef. Probably your
hands are tied. I think this the case, for I know you well enough to
judge that you are not one to avoid a duty, no matter how unpleasant.
With regards to all, I am,

Sincerely yours,

(Signed) Ch. B. Michener.

129

Dr. Michener was present at the College and acted with me
when the herd was slaughtered. There were alsotwo heifers out
of Princess Alba that had been killed, Jersey Lily and Crummie,
28 and 29 of my post-mortem list. They were killed by Mr.
Gowell previous to my knowing anything about the herd, in ’85
some time, one in March, I think,and one later. Those are the
two stiff-neck heifers, a symptom which they connected with a
high trough. Awry neck is a symptom of tuberculosis. The
glands in the neck become affected and it makes them carry
their necks awry. I heard Gowell testify as to the stiff-neck
heifers. J think they were suffering from tuberculosis, and
their being out of Princess Alba more than confirms me in
that opinion. I first knew where these other bulls were when
Mr. Gowell gave the list to the committee the other evening.
I had not known anything about them before that time. I
had talked with Mr. Gilbert about it at my house, and had
endeavored to have him tell me where they were if he knew ;
I do not know whether he knew or not. I never asked him
directly whether he knew where they were. I told him if he
would show me the bulls I would agree to show tubercles in
some of them, and eat them if I did not.

Q. State what took place at the meeting of the board Oct.
20th at your house.

A. The three commissioners came to my house. I had
been sick, and we had quite a discussion over the subject of
what should be done with those bulls. And I was very urgent
that they should be inspected and something done about them,
and Gilbert was just as urgent that nothing should be done
about them, for which he gave two reasons ; one was that we had
no law that would enable us to have anything to do with them,
and if we did we had no proof, only a suspicion that they
were diseased. Those are the two positions he took. I told
him I thought we had abundant proof after seeing the lungs
of the dam he came from, and knowing that other animals
from the same dam were thoroughly diseased, and I could
not see it in any other light. We could not agree about it.

9

130 ©

The other two agreed with me, and there it hung. I told
Gilbert in regard to the report that if we remained of the
same opinion I did not see how we could sign any report,
knowing that he would not sign any I could make, and I
could not sign any he would make; and the matter was left
there, and nothing was said about it for some time afterwards.
I offered to give him access to all my correspondence and
authorities and let him and Bell make any report they liked
and I would have nothing to do with it, or make a report of
our whole proceedings, if he would sign my recommendation
for the destruction of those bulls.

By Mr. Walton:

Q. Are there any further letters that you have not pro-
duced ?

A. Ihave other letters. I havea letter from Gilbert under
date of Jan. 29th. Ihave other letters from him, some re-
ferring directly and some indirectly to the cases at Orono. I
do not think all the letters I have bear directly upon the
question.

Mr. Walton [After looking at letters] :—-I guess you had
better read them.

(Witness thereupon read letter dated Jan. 29, 1887, as
follows :)

STATE OF MAINE.

Board of Agriculture,
North Greene, Jan. 29, 1887. §.

Dr. Bailey :—Your letter found at College. Am glad to have confidence
confirmed that there was no treachery between you and me. You need
not fear any conspiracy against you at the College for they have always
stood by you, and sworn by your authority at all times. The only trouble
was that lying rascal between you and them.

Isent your Report yesterday. It is exactly in conformity with the
date you kindly sent me save that I left out some cases where there was
no disease found.

I saw McAlister Thursday evening and talked over the bull case. He
says plumply that he agrees exactly with me as to the application of the
law to that—

(The remaining portion of this letter was not to be found among the papers. STENOGRAPHER. |

131

Q. Who was that “lying rascal” referred to in that letter, if
you know?

A. I know quite positively who it was.

Q. Who did you understand it was?

A. Hall C. Burleigh. We had just been writing in refer-
ence to him, and he sent me that back. I had received a
letter from Gilbert after the hearing before the committee
(Witness reads letter dated Jan. 21st, as follows :)

STATE OF MAINE.

Board of Agriculture. \
North Greene, Jan. 21, 1887.
Dr. Bailey:

Dear Sir:—All who heard you the other day before the Committee
understood at once that you was siding for Burleigh in a malicious attack
upon me. It was a great surprise to me that you should do so, for our
relations have been pleasant hitherto throughout our association together,
and I am sorry to have these relations thus marred, not only as between
us, but also to give it away to the public.

Regretting it more than words can express, and still more regretting
that it has gone where it cannot be recalled. My Report is in type.

IT am
Resp’y yours,

(Signed) Z. A. Gilbert.

—I immediately wrote to Mr. Gilbert that there was not a
word of truth in my having any malicious intention toward
him. I had seen him ut the meeting and I shook hands with
him after the meeting, andina day or twoafter I got that letter.
I did not know what it meant, and I wrote him stating it was
understood differently between us, and that was all as far as
I was concerned.

(Witness read letters dated Jan. 25, Feb. 1, 87, and March
13, ’86, as follows :)

STATE OF MAINE,

Board of Agriculture, ;
Augusta, Jan. 25, 1887.

Dr. Bailey :—Your letter of last evening was duly received and it gave
me much pleasure to be assured that there was no intent on your part to
aid Mr. Burleigh with his malicious work against me. I now realize that
I ought not to have countenanced the idea for a moment, but you will, I
know, pardon me for being sensitive when my honesty is assailed and prob-

132

ably I was, and my friends shared it with me, over suspicious on one or
two points. On the whole I think you helped me much more than you
did Burleigh. In fact I do not think you substantially corroborated him
in any particular.

I have taken your data and have made up as accurate a report of our
“doings” as 1 knew how to. Iadd nothing to it whatever, leaving it a
naked statement of what we have done, and I sign it as President of the
Commission. I would be glad indeed to submit it to you before present-
ing to the legislature if there were an opportunity. If you are likely to
come this way soon I will hold it for you to see on information to that
effect. Please let me know.

Allow me to set you aright on one matter. J never had a word of discord
with Mr. Burleigh in my life, and the ‘‘quarrel’’ is wholly on one side.

The decision of the Committee is unanimous in my favor and the case
is dismissed without further hearing.

Doctor, I now have a direct question to ask of you. I have been told
to-day that two of the Commissioners were making up a report of our
doings to be presented to the Legislature. I can’t for a moment believe
you are doing this, and ask you frankly to inform meif you are not doing
it. Mr. Burleigh made the above statement this afternoon.

Now, Doctor, having received the assurance that your friend y feelings
toward me still continue, I wish to assure you of mine in return; and
trusting this confidence is fully reciprocated I am

Resp’y yours,
Gilbert.

Augusta, Me., Feb. 1, 1887.

Dear Doctor :—Enclosed find Dr. Gerrish’s letter which was overlooked
when I wrote last.

I go to Augusta to-morrow and shall go to Portland with this letter
and will call at your house. Fearing I may not find you at home, I send
the letter of Dr. Gerrish by mail.

I want to see you much, for there are matters we ought to talk over,
and must do so. There is lots of lying about you as well as me, and I
know we have both worked faithfully, and events have proved we have
worked efficiently in these matters. ‘ I want to see you about some of these

matters in which we are jointly concerned.
Yours,

G.
STATE OF MAINE.

Board of Agriculture,
North Greene, March 13, 1886.
Dr. Bailey :—I staid up to Gowell’s to complete some work, among the
rest to draw up enclosed papers which I wish you to sign and forward to
Mr. Gowell. They will cover the forms of law in our action.

I ought to be with you in case Dr. Salmon visits the cattle and I see no
other way than that I must.

133

You will bear in mind that my mail from Portland leaves that point on
the 1.20 P. M. train and reaches me at 64 in the evening. If yeu have
occasion to telegraph to me send dispatch to Greene with orders to for-
ward by special messenger. It is a railroad station but they do public
business.

Also send word to Mr. Ferguson, Monroe, and have him go up with us.

Yours,
Gilbert.
I think those are all the letters | have from Gilbert that
bear directly upon the case; they are all I have been able to
finds’ |
(Witness also reads letter dated Oct. 30th, 86, as follows :)

STATE OF MAINE.

Board of Agriculture,
North Greene, Oct. 30, 1886.

Dr. Bailey :—Returning this noon find your letter. Regret your decision
very much for I believe you are doing wrong. You will oblige me by
returning my last letter to you.

Enclosed you will find the letters you refer to.

If you go to Orono please report what you decide upon, for [ have some
business depending upon your action.

Yours,

Gilbert.

By Mr. Gilbert :

Q. Please state what your decision was that that letter
refers to?

A. Yes, sir. The only copy [ have of any letter that I
have ever written you is the letter of Nov. 13, and the decis-
ion I made was that I had decided at that time to withdraw
from the Commission and take no further action as commis-
sioner. That letter I suppose—I am saying what I suppose
now—refers to one I wrote you (Gilbert) Nov. 13th—no, it
does not, because I wrote this afterwards. I do not know
whether it refers to my settling the matter of the bull, or
not.

Mr. Gilbert :—It does?

A. It does, yes, sir.

Mr. Gilbert :—You reported to me that you had decided it.

A. Yes, I decided to pay the $20. The fact was, when I
came down to present the matter of the Kent bull to the Gov-

134

ernor and Council I found my commission had expired on
Sept. 25th. Gov. Robie seemed anxious to reappoint me. I
said he had better continue me for the balance of the year,
and that would leave Governor Bodwell free to appoint whom
he liked. He said he would send the commission to me. I
waited but never received any, I do not know for what reason.
On Nov. 15th, finding I was not going to get any, I wrote to
Mr. Gilbert the letter dated Nov. 15th, which is as follows:

PORTLAND, November 15, 1886.:-

My Dear Sir:—Your letter of Oct. 30th was received during my ab-
sence frem home, and since then I had learned you had gone east, so de-
layed writing you until after I had inspected the College buildings, which
I have now done, returning home on Saturday. I believe every detail of
recommendations, from both Dr. Michener and myself, have been faith-
fully and honestly complied with, and that the stables are in safe condi-
tion as they can be made through the agency of disinfection to receive
stock. In your letter of Oct. 30th you say ‘:you regret my decision very
much, for you believe I am doing wrong.” As that is far from my inten-
tion, I wish you would write me wherein I am doing wrong.

Is it in settling the Bucksport case upon my own privateaccount (after con-
sulting with Mr. Bell, in which he fully concurred with me that some set-
tlement ought to be made), or in urging the settlement of all similar Col-
lege cases upon the best terms possible? If the former I have in no way
compromised the State or the commissioners, Mr. McAlister and myself
each having agreed to pay the amount, to have the case disposed of; and if the
latter, having your decision, both verbal and in writing (Oct. 20th), that
it is none of our business to hunt up the cases, and that (Oct. 27th) ‘you
know of no compromise ground you wish to take, and if you should yield
tothe majority, you would still be unconvinced.”” Ihave decided to take no
farther action as commissioner, and step aside, at a time when I can leave
every case that has so far been called directly to the attention of our board
fully disposed of. In taking this step, I certainly hope I do not misunder-
stand you, Mr. Gilbert, upon any matters connected with the commission,
for while, personally, I have none other than the kindest feelings towards
you, professionally, there is no earthly prospect of my being able to agree
with you, and I cannot consent to remain upon the Board, to be regarded
as a ‘“‘disturber of the peace” or as interfering with the College cases,
either complicating their present embarrassments or their future prosperity.
Having no desire to appear in such a role, “I had rather be right and re-
tire than be wrong and remain,” and shall always believe my duties to the
State to have been conscientiously and faithfully performed, after entering
my earnest and official protest against keeping for service any of the bulls
that have been sold (within the last two years) from the College farm, whose
dams we killed at Orono, and now known by us to have been thoroughly

135

diseased, as the hereditary tendency of such animals would render them
almost certain to propagate the disease. Not relying upon the theory of
heredity, that appears capable of propagation from parent to progeny (by
which we do not mean that actual diseased condition is necessarily pro-
pagated) but more oflen is a diseased condition under trifling influences
to develop the disease or one like it. lam willing to abide by what has
developed in the only case I have been allowed to see, what I advised
before the animal was killed, as well as what has developed since the post
mortem of the bull at Bucksport. and which Mr. Gowell now tells me in
the one he expected would first show lesions of the disease, as his
dam was one of the worst cases at Orono. I believed it to be as much the
duty ot the Cattle Commissioners to prevent disease (when possible to do)
as to stamp it out after it has made its appearance, and, in my opinion, it
would be a God-send to the College, if all the outstanding cases could be
settled upon as liberal terms as the one at Bucksport.

I return the letter you ask for (that of Oct. 27th) and if there are any
others you have written me you would like to have I will return them)
while I am willing to abide by any opinions or statements I have made to
you as the only vindication I shall ever need for any act of mine while

Commissioner for Maine.
G. HH. B.

By Mr. Cornish:

Q. First, Doctor, will you state to the committee the con-
versation you had with Mr. Gowell when you went there the
first time? If you have any memorandum book containing any
of the minutes, just state them.

A. Ihad some talk about the herd, and I took a little
memorandum that morning in the barn on an old prescription
blank. I showed it to Mr. Gowell last week. He said that
was as he recollected it. There is not much to it. (The wit-
ness at this point read the minutes referred to from his mem-
orandum book and said that he had some questions which
Prof. Fernald wanted him to ask Dr. Liautard).

Q. Did you communicate those questions to him ?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Did you receive a reply from him?

A. Idid. I looked for that letter. Mr. Gilbert asked me
for it and I was unable to find it.

Q. Do you recollect the purport of his answers ?

A. Yes; I think I do generally ; he decided that the milk
was dangerous to use in all those cases, and I showed his

136

letter to President Fernald. He saw the letter in answer,
and I have failed to put my hand upon it. He decided in the
affirmative in all those different stages.

By Mr. Walton:

(. While you are on those milk questions, as I have had
some questions handed in in relation to using the milk after
boiling it, Dr. Bailey, I will ask you to state if you think
there is any danger from using the milk under such cireum-
stances.

A. If the milk is boiled, I think it would be rendered per-
fectly harmless, if the degree reached 212, I think that would
kill every disease germ that could possibly be contained in
the milk; there is no doubt of that. That would render it
perfectly safe to use; that is the general advice of veterinary
surgeons,—if they use milk that is from diseased cows, to
take the precaution to boil it.

By Mr. Cornish:

{).. Your views on this matter are carefully embodied in
your report to the Legislature ?

A. Yes, sir; I think they were called so.

Q. Have you any reason to change your views on any
point there submitted ?

A. I don’t know of any change that I wish to make.

Q. Your report does not contain any of the doings of the
Commission other than ‘as relates to this tuberculosis at the
State College.

A. I can explain that very easily. I had only a few days
before furnished Mr. Gilbert with the items of all my visits
as Commissioner during the year 1885-86; he had copied it
in his report. This report of mine was intended for the use
of the United States Veterinary Association, that meets in Phil-
adelphia this month—that Iintended to present to them as a
clinical report of these cases, because they were so interesting.
When I was asked by the House and Senate for the majority
report—as they termed it—I took the report I had made with
some few modifications that I wished to state and presented it

137

simply as a report of the College cases. Mr, Gilbert used
the same thing over again—that I furnished him.

(. The other business you gave him the minutes of?

A. I did. He asked me to go down and make: the report.
I told him the best I could do was to furnish all the data
and he could do it himself, and I would do that cheerfully,
and did do so.

(. Have you anything else in mind you wish to state to
the committee, touching this matter ?

A. I think it would be no more than fair to Mr. Gilbert
and myself. Something occurred in regard to ignoring Mr.
Bell. Two years ago this month Mr, Gilbert and [I were in
Governor Robie’s room, and they wanted to send me up in
Washington County to examine a case of glanders in Topsfield,
along route. I asked Gov. Robie if I should consult Mr. Bell
when I got back. He said no. He says Mr. Bell was-ap-
pointed for a temporary purpose at the time, for the foot-and~
mouth outbreak, and that purpose has been served. That
was the statement he made to Mr. Gilbert and myself. Since
that time I have looked at it as coming from my superior officer,
and I obeyed it. I have seen him in connection with several
things since.

Mr. Bell was asked if he received any notice from me.
Mr. Gilbert is always in the habit of notifying the committee,
and it has been rather left for him to do that. He told me he
was going to calla meeting on the 20th of November. He
has always notified Mr. Ferguson. I never notified Mr. Fer-
guson or Mr. Bell either. They have always come by ne
particular arrangement, but he has always done it.

Q. Have you any other letters touching this matter?
Aus NO.
Q. Who is Mr. Boardman ?

A. He is treasurer of the Gas Company of Bangor ; and in
looking up the first cases that developed upon the College
farm I wrote Mr. Boardman and received his letter.

138

(Letter dated, “Bangor, Dec. 13th, 1886,” was read in evi-
dence, together with inclosure dated Feb. 3d, 1877, as fol-
lows) :

Bangor, December 13th, 1886.
Dr. Geo. H. Bailey,
Portland, Me.
Dear Sir :—You will please find enclosed copy of receipt of J. R. Far-
rington, Esq., as follows:

‘Orono, October 3, 1886,

State College Farm,
Per J. R. Farrington.
“Sold to Henry Boardman,
One red Grade Jersey Cow Five years old for $40.00,
Rec’d Payment by check on Farmers’ Nat. Bank Bangor.

J. R. Farrington.”

P.S. This cow he called Susan, I kept her five years, when she became
‘sick and died with what I called consumption; she gave out all at once,
wasted away and died. I buried her hide and all. She always seemed in
perfect health until about two months before she died.

‘*Bangor, Feb. 3d, 1877.
Received from Harry Boardman
Fifty dollars
on ace’t J. R. Farrington,
Norton & Farrington.”
$50.00.

This was for Cow Grade Durham and I bought her on November 25,
1876. She always had a cough from the time I received her until I sold
her to a butcher March 8th, 1879. She had only one calf and that was a
bull and it died when about 3 weeks old. This cow was when killed
found to be full of tubercles on the liver and lungs and on the ribs and
plates and well up to throat.

You see this receipt was given by Messrs. Norton & Farrington for
J. R. Farrington, as Mr. F, of N. & F. was J. R.’s brother. I was to pay
for the cow in sixty days and so on the date of receipt I was ordered to
pay to them which I did. So this will explain the dates, I think; any way
these are the facts as my books, receipts and orders show them to be,
and I know them to be correct. I would like one of your reports when
they are printed as I no doubt they will be. I also hope this statement
is plain enough and think you will understand it all. Anything more that
I can furnish you I should be glad to do and should be pleased to see
‘you whenever you are in our city and can spare time to call on me.

I Remain Yours Truly,
Henry Boardman.

139

That cow was not mentioned in the post mortem—that was
in 1876, ten years ago; that was the primary case that was
developed upon the College farm.

Q. What you read “1886” should be “1876”?

A. Yes, sir; I think that is an oversight; probably this
was the primary case that developed upon the College farm.

Q. The year of purchasing this last cow was 1877?

A. 1876, he purchased in Nov. 1876, and sold her toa
butcher March 8, 1879, and we believe that to be the primary
case that was developed upon the College farm. The first
case | am able to trace to the earliest case.

Q. Have you any other letters, Doctor, touching this mat-
ter? You put in a great many last night. .

A. I think I put in all that I had relating to this matter.

Q. Have you any other from Dr. Michener?

A. Ihave got a letter that I didn’t read last night, if you
would like to see it—from Dr. Michener. I have one “Oct.
25th, 1886,” which is as follows :

New York, Oct. 25, 1886.

My Dear Bailey :—Y our letter of 15th inst. has been delayed somewhere.
«As you see, I’ve been moving, and that may possibly account for this. Am
very sorry to hear of your sickness and trust you are rapidly gaining
ground now.

I return your letter enclosed to me, and must say that I can form no
opinion whatever from the description given. The statements, no doubt,
are true enough but there is not enough given to enable anyone to form
anything more than a guess at the trouble. Can not understand Gilbert’s
attitude concerning the tubercular bulls. The more I see however of
*“*State Boards” the more convinced I am that they should be made up of a
majority of vets. or entirely of them, Outsiders can not know what these
diseases mean and they fail to see the trouble and cost they entail by such
fool-hardy acts.

With sincere regards to you all and hoping to hear soon of your com-
plete recovery, Iam,

Cordially yours,

(Signed) Michener.
Witness :—That is the only letter I have from Michener
that I did not furnish last night.

Q. Is there any other statement, Doctor, that you wish to
make ?

140

A. I don’t know that I think of anything. I spoke of that
in relation to Mr. Bell because Mr. Gilbert and I both had
that view of it—that we were not to consult him any further.
He was put on fora temporary purpose and given a com-
mission for four years at the time of the foot-and-mouth dis-
ease in 1884. His commission still holds over a year. My
commission expired September 25th, 1886, supposed I was
reappointed by Gov. Robie at that time.

By Mr. Southard :

Q. This Boardman letter was received by you?

A. It was received in answer to my inquiry to give me a
description of those two cows.

Q. At the time of the killing of the State College herd you
had no knowledge of this ?

A. I had heard of the killing of the cows of Boardman in
some indirect way.

Q. Mr. Boardman may have notified the College ?

A. I do not understand it so.

Q. You did not understand the superintendent of the farm
or the trustees had any knowledge of this cow ?

A. No, sir, I do not.

Q. You did decide that this cow had germs of consumption
when she was sold away from the farm?

A. I think she must have had, sir.

Q. That it developed the time Mr. Boardman bought her?

A. Ido; in the light of what has transpired.

Q. Do you think she had germs of disease or predisposition
to it?

A. I should suppose she had germs of the disease in her at
the time. I think she had the germs of the disease in her, in
all probability, when she was sold from the College farm.
Some source must have been prior to that, but I don’t know
what that source is.

Q. Regarding this letter of Dr. Michener’s. What I wanted
to know was whether you represented to Dr. Michener, at
this time, that these bulls had tuberculosis ?

A. J represented the fact to him.

141

Q. Do you think you carried the idea that the cows were
diseased, to him ?

A. I don’t think I did.

Q. Would he pronounce the bull unsafe to use that had
been dropped from a cow that had afterwards contracted the
disease of consumption ?

A. I don’t think he would, sir; I shouldn’t myself, certainly
that would be contrary to my views of it, if I knew she con-
tracted the disease after the bull was dropped. I don’t believe
anything attached to that bull was suspicious on account of
her afterwards having dropped tuberculosed calves.

Q. I would like to inquire something about the propaga-
tion of this disease ; if I understood you correctly last night
it may be transmitted by heredity ?

A. It may by contagion; yes, sir. By ingestion, inocula-
tion, and through the milk. Inoculation would be a species
of contagion ; ingestion, by eating of the meat of tuberculosed
animals. There would be two ways to contract this disease :
first, by heredity ; second, by contagion. Now, in heredity
there would be first a predisposition to the disease transmitted
from the mother or the parent to the child. Some animals
and some men have the power to avoid it. There might be
the predisposition in that germ. Intermarry cattle—cousins—
and it will bring that about.

Q. That would be general in any inbreeding herd in the
State, would it not?

A. Yes, sir, I think so.

Q. There would be another way that it might be transferred
by heredity and that is by an actual transmission of the germ?

A. Yes, sir, by an actual transmission of the germ, I mean
that the calf could be diseased in utero, that the bull would
have the power to infect the calf in the utero; that is well
settled. It can be transmitted by the sire or dam either.

Q. Now, if it is simply a predisposition to the disease, that
never would develop itself as a disease unless there were a
germ came in contact with it?

A. I think that would be necessary.

142

Q. And these germs are very generally in the atmosphere?

A. They are supposed to be; there is quite a number of
theories in regard to germs. Some people think they are of
vegetative origin entirely. Some think that it is due toa
ferment. There is quite a dispute on that point.

Q. They are generally diffused ?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. An animal with no predisposition to tuberculosis that
had the power to throw off these germs would never be affected
by it?

A. It would have more chance to escape; better able to
resist it than if he had not.

Q. With predisposition he would be less able to resist it
and the germ would be more apt to find fertile soil to work
upon?

A. Yes, sir, I think so.

(). Did I understand you last night to say that in order for
this disease to be contagious the germs must be floating?

A. They must be freed from somewhere.

Q. The moment the germ takes root in the body it begins
to develop, does it not?

A. It would be difficult to tell by the looks of the germ
under a microscope just how long it had been developed. It
is a specific virus in tuberculosis—a specific germ, just the
same as a specific germ in glanders and leprosy. We recog-
nize the germ and its appearance under a microscope; they
are different in formation.

Q. So long as there was no breaking down of the tissues,
it would not be contagious in that sense?

A. No, sir; until there is a breaking down of the tissue it
is not, in my judgment, contagious from one animal to another.
Certain stages of it would not be contagious. In the early
stages I should regard it not contagious.

Q. Now, you say that you believe this disease has been on
the State College farm for a good many years?

A. Since that Boardman case; I think it has been there
ever since that time.

143

Q. That would go back to 1876?

A. Ten years.

Q. Do you believe that between 1882 and the outbreak in
1886 there were any active developments of this disease going
on at that time?

A, es, sir) 1do:

Q. In what animals?

A. In the Grade Shorthorn cow that Mr. Gowell had of Mr.
Rich. Tle says, “she was coughing when I came here ;” those
are his own words. One Shorthorn cow—that is, “Maggie
3d.” In another one, “Rose 8th, the Shorthorn that refused
to breed, and upon being slaughtered was found badly
affected,” as I have before told you.

Q. “Maggie 3d,” you say on page 58 of your report, “was
emaciated and coughed badly.” As a matter of fact, do you
know whether she was emaciated ?

A. I take Mr. Gowell’s statement for that entirely.

Q. Did Mr. Gowell tell you at her death she coughed
badly ?

A. I have understood him so or else I shouldn’t have it in
that report. That has been my understanding of it, from
the report I received.

Q. Is it not a. fact that he told you “Maggie 3d” had a
cough when he took her, but she had recovered from that
cough, so that she was apparently all right, and then ran
down, and he killed her in 1884?

A. I made that statement in another place.

Q. I don’t think you have made the statement that she
didn’t cough at the time she died ?

A. I know I have made that statement—that she had de-
veloped a cough and got better of it. That is here some-
where.

Q. If she had developed a cough and got better of that,
what would that symptom be?

A. He says she developed a cough and did good work for
a year or two, and afterwards she pined away and died. I
think, perhaps, by good care that cow was enabled to go

144

along a piece further, and some reaction took place and she
succumbed to the disease.

Q. In other words—the disease that was once active be-
came dormant?

A. I don’t think it ever left her, though. It is not necessary
that the breaking down stop. I think she was able to propa-
gate contagion during all that period. He said she was doing
good work, I have no doubt of that, from the previous condi-
tion, as he described it.

Q. Turn to page 17 and 18 of your report. “Having been
informed by Mr. Gowell, that between the time he became
superintendent and his notice to the cattle commissioners, in
March last, he had slaughtered five other cows besides ‘Mags
gie 3d’ and ‘Rose 8th,’ that all presented the same condition
of glands and lungs as the cow ‘Pet.’” Da you understand
that he told you all those cows presented the same condition
of glands and lungs as the cow “Pet”?

A. I did understand it so,—at that time.

Q. Doctor, you got information from Mr. Gowell and
intended—

Witness :—I stated it in good faith when I read my paper
before the committee. Since that Mr. Gowell has told me
there was an error—having seen the lungs of all those cows ;
and I admitted I thought there ought to be a modification of
that sentence before the committee. I sought to treat him per-
fectly fair in the matter. He bas told me so since.

Q. So that those five cows were not examined ?

A. Not all of them; part of them were.

Q. Do you understand that the lungs of “Gray } Nose” were
examined ?

A. Yes;Ido. Allow me to show you. There isa report.
In getting the history of this case I wrote that as I took it
from Mr. Gowell’s own lips on the morning of March 6th.
(Statement read by witness.) I took that from Mr. Gowell’s
own statement. I will take my oath on that. I think he
must have given me to understand at that time they had tu-
bercular lungs. I won’t dispute anything Mr. Gowell would

145

say tome. I believe him to be a man of veracity. That is
the statement I took from him at the time.

Q. Do you know anything about the bull Mr. Gowell sold
to aneighbor, that he and the neighbor killed, after the killing
of the College herd?

A. No; he called my attention to him in a letter; after
that I never heard anything more about it at all. He said
there was such a case and he would like to have me see it.

(). If the lungs of “Gray Nose” and “Jersey Lily” were not
examined, and they presented the same symptoms—stiff neck
and bunches—that this bull which he sold the neighbor did,
and the bull’s lungs, upon examination, proved not to be
tubercular, what would you say with reference to the lungs
of Jersey Lily and Gray Nose?

A. I should say they were more likely to be diseased than
the bull. Jersey Lily was out of Princess Alba—we know
she was thoroughly diseased. I don’t know what cow the
little hull was out of. I think they would be more likely to
show it than the bull.

(). If those bunches and that stiff neck were symptoms of
that disease, why were not they present in the bull?

A. I never saw the bull. I know nothing about him.

Q. This disease broke out, generally, in the herd, at about
one time?

A. It developed very rapidly along toward the last of it ;
I judge so.

(). In most of those individuals it developed by contagion?

A. That would be impossible for me to say. According
to my theory they were sound when bought, and they must
have been affected in that herd—

Q. Have you made up any judgment as to how long they
were affected ?

A. That would be impossible for any man to do ;—to see
a cow’s lung with lesions in it, and tell how long that cow
had been affected.

10

146

Q. On page 58 of your report—“Glands affected and
coughed. Age three months. Purchased when three days
old, at Oldtown”. Is there any pretention that this heifer
had this disease at Oldtown?

A. I don’t know as there is; I don’t know anything about
it.

Q. You say in your report that the individuals of the herd—
that the herd from which they came—were, so far as you
could ascertain, all right.

A. Yes, sir; as fur as I have been able to ascertain.

Q. When did that Roan Heifer contract this disease ?

A. I think the probabilities all are it was congenital and
hereditary both, from that heifer. That would be my belief
about it. She was killed. I think it must have been congen-
ital and hereditary both. By congenital I mean it was there
when she was born.

Q. Then the herd from which she came is affected by this
disease ? ;

A. I don’t know anything about that, I never was in Old-
town in my life.

Q. If you believe this Roan Heifer to have had this disease
when she was born, don’t you suppose it is in the herd from
which she came?

Witness :—I think it is probably in it.

Q. Why is it you have not investigated that herd ?

A. I had no business with that herd, and never have had a
notice from Oldtown in my life.

(Q. You have not had any more notice that that herd is
diseased, than you have or had, prior to the killing of the
Kent bull, that he was diseased, have you?

A. No; not prior to Jan. 27th. I knew that bull was at
Bucksport.

Q. After Mr. Kent wrote his letter to Mr. Gilbert—after
you went down and saw that bull and pronounced him sound,
did you have any more—

A. I had no notice at all as to where the Roan Heifer came
from; knew nothing about it, don’t know to-day. I had

147

only my official notice to go out and see the Roan Heifer, and
I pronounced her apparently well. A great many diseased
animals can appear well and yet be thoroughly diseased.
They deceived me and the trustees and superintendent of the
farm, in that respect, much indeed.

(. You said they did not deceive you a particle ?

A. I beg your pardon—I said nothing of the kind.

Q. Did not you say—

A. Isaid I had not been in that barn ten minutes when I
was thoroughly satisfied that that herd was affected with tu-
berculosis. I also spoke to Mr. Gilbert, who was in the fur-
ther end of the barn, coming towards me, and I was examining
some cow I said, “Mr. Gilbert, you have got tuberculosis to
deal with here ; there is no pleuro-pneumonia here.” I think
there were others in the barn—some other gentlemen there, I
know. I addressed myself to him at the time.

Q. If this herd came to the barn in the summer of 1885,
looking, as it is said in testimony they did look, you would
_ say from that the same as you said with reference to the Kent
bull—that they were apparently well ?

A. Unless I had something to make me suspect or heard
them cough or saw one standing as Princess Alba was, with
elbows apeak, to give her a better chance to breathe. I don’t
know as I have ever been told about their condition when
they came to the barn.

(). You remember the testimony ?

A. I do not, perhaps, recollect every part of it.

(). You know, generally they were in good condition ?

A. The statement was that they were in as good condition
when I saw them as any herd I ever saw in my life. I think
they must have been in as good condition then as when I saw
them; I do not know that they were better.

Q. Were not they, in all probability, better ?

A. I judge the probability would favor that idea. I did
not see them.

Q. Was not that disease ina stage of advancement that
was rapidly pulling them down?

148

A. It must have finally. It must have concentrated itself
rapidly to produce the lesions I had found.

Q. If one of the cows in that herd had come to the barn,
or a short time after coming to the barn, had developed this
cough, had become emaciated and run down, and the last
week in January had died, or been killed by reason of the
disease, what would you say about the outbreak in the whole
herd? What would you say as to the time when that herd
of cattle contracted that disease ?

A. I don’t think any man could positively state in answer to
that question. I don’t think a man with one of those lungs
on the table, to save his soul, could tell how long it had
been in that condition. Itis.a chronic disease. A man might
have a tubercle in his lung and live a hundred years.

Q. Can not you judge something about the time that this
disease was contracted from the fact that in all those fifty
cattle the disease manifested itself at the same time?

A. I don’t think any man would be justified in doing so.

Q. Is it not an honest inference to draw, in view of the
fact that these animals were all diseased, in this advanced
stage, at this time, that they contracted the disease at the
same time?

A. I do not think that would be a fair inference to draw.
I think some of those may have extended over a long period.
It would be impossible for a man to say.

Q. Do you know, as a matter of fact, when any of those
cattle were bought ?

A. Only from what I have been told.

Q. When do you understand Princess Alba was bought ?

A. In Rockland, 1882 or 1883 ; that ismy recollection about
it. I stated in my report when she was bought. You will find
I gave the date as I received it from Mr. Gowell’s letter.

Q. Mr. Gowell said it was bought in 1884.

A. Whatever he said I should rely upon.

149

Q. You understand that Jersey Lily was bought with her
at the same time in Rockland? Do you take the position that
Jersey Lily received this disease by heredity ?

A. That would be rather an unfair question. I don’t think
any man can decide positively whether she was diseased by
heredity or contagion.

Q. I would like to know whether you think it was under
these circumstances that she inherited that disease, or whether
she caught it?

(The chair ruled that this question was immaterial, on the
ground that inasmuch as the disease had been found to have
existed in the animals, all inquiry as to its manner of origin
was needless. )

Mr. Southard :—The doctor has said in his report, that in
none of the herds from which these cattle were taken was
this disease developed.

Witness :—No, sir.

Mr. Southard :—That it all had its advancement at the
State College farm ?

Witness :—I do not state that.

(). Jersey Lily and Princess Alba were bought together.
Jersey Lily was the daughter of Princess Alba. [I would
like to know from the doctor whether under those circum-
stances he believes this Jersey Lily inherited her disease or
caught it ?

Chair :—If you are testing the doctor’s capacity or knowl-
edge of these things, I have no objection; but the committee
cannot receive any light from such a question, or an answer
to such a question as that.

Mr. Southard :—On page 15, “In no instance have I been
able to learn of a single herd or a single town in Maine from
which these animals were purchased, that down to the present
time have ever been affected with tuberculosis.”

Witness :—Yes, sir; I stated that decidedly. None of
these animals have ever been affected.

(). If it existed in those herds you would learn of it?

150

A. Some of those herds are familiar to me. I have seen
the Briggs cattle in Auburn. I wrote inquiring about the
dam of this cow.

Q. What has veen the result of this inquiry altogether ?

A. In relation to Juno 2d that was sold in Bangor. She
went away, I think, in the previous January, 1886. I think
I received that information from Mr. Gowell and President
Fernald. She was one of that herd, I suppose. They told
me so.

Q. This was after they came to the barn, previous to their
being killed?

A. I don’t know when they came to the barn.

Q. It was the January, before the April?

A. I regard it so.

Q. She was taken away from the herd and carried to Ban-
gor, and she was examined by Dr. Michener?

A. Yes, sir; I understand so.

Q. What was the conclusion with respect to her?

A. He told me he failed to discover lesions of disease about
her. That is what he told me; but she is the mother of one
of these cows that we killed and found disease in April.

Q. I want to know if the fact that she was taken away from
that herd in January, never having been afflicted with the
disease, would not indicate to your mind that the disease was
not contagious at that time?

A. No, sir. There are several things that would lead me to
that opinion. I have never examined the cow myself. She
might appear well to me or Dr. Michener and have a tubercle
se small that we couldn’t diagnose by any external symptoms,
and I don’t think I would be justified in answering that ques-
tion. She is living now, I understand, and the mother of two
bulls that have gone out from the farm; is also the mother of
the cow Susie.

Q. This cow might have caught the disease ?

A. She might have caught it from some other animal. be-
sides her dam.

151

Q. The fact that Juno 2d is not diseased, and the two bulls
she is the mother of, she has not diseased, would indicate that
this Susie did not receive her disease by heredity ?

A. You are asking something that I know nothing about.
I don’t assume that those bulls are all right.

Q. Let us try it. Suppose the fact to be that those two
bulls and that cow are all right, does that indicate that Susie
received her disease by heredity ?

A. As long as she was mixed up in that herd she was in
mighty bad company. She was in bad company because they
had been affected for the last eight or ten years. I take the
ground that the animals—the new cows—when Mr. Gowell
bought them were all sound, as far as I am able to learn. 5o
I am led irresistibly to the conclusion that the disease was
generally developed and confined and generated in that Col-
lege farm. I understood the word generated to mean produc-
ing one’s own likeness—propagation, that is the proper defi-
nition of it. I think it is producing the likeness of one’s own
self. The way the first case appeared, I think there must
have been a prior case to that cow Dora, but we are not able
to trace it any farther than her. I have been unable to. I
exercised all the diligence I was capable of.

(. Don’t the fact that there are no complaints coming from
these bulls, and that they were supposed to be all right going
from that herd prior to the winter that they were killed, in-
dicate that the herd took the disease that winter?

A. No, sir; I do not suppose they are all right myself. I
have no idea they are.

Q. Why don’t you follow them up?

A. Lam going to. I have got full power to do so, and I
propose to avail myself of it.

Mr. Southard :—You might have to find out a number of—

Witness :—I had no authority to find out about them. I
don’t say Mr. Gilbert knew where they were. He didn’t tell
me.

Q. When you wrote for information respecting the cattle,
you wrote Mr. Gowell?

152

A. I have had a great many letters from Mr. Gowell; he
has always answered my inquiries freely. I think Mr. Gil-
bert spoke to me when I went down there. I said if I knew
where they were I would inspect them and look them over ;—
if I didn’t find tuberculosis in some of them, I would be greatly
mistaken.

Q. Is it not somewhat peculiar that if these individuals, that
were taken into that herd at different times, contracted that
disease at the time they were taken in, the disease should
break out all at once in the whole herd?

Witness :—They had the opportunity to contract the dis-—
ease every day that they were there.

A. They didn’t have the opportunity till the breaking-down
process commenced.

(). But you cannot tell how long that breaking-down pro-
cess had been continued ?

A. Not by the appearance of the lung. Dr. Adams and
Dr. Rich will tell you they couldn’t tell you, if they saw a
man’s lungs which had cavities—they couldn’t tell how long
those cavities existed.

(J. There were some of the pigs examined ?

A. One pig.

Q. By whom?

A. By Dr. Michener and myself.

Q. And those pigs had been fed with the milk from that
herd?

A. I don’t know as I am in possession fully of that fact.

Q. Is that what you understood ?

A. I wouldn’t say whether I understood it so or not; I
have forgotten.

Q. Does not Dr. Michener say, in his report, ‘‘that the
swine on the farm that had been fed largely on the milk of
these cows were examined and one pig nearly a year old was
killed and carefully examined, but no traces of the tubercu-
losis could be detected ?”

A. I think that was a supposition; we found no traces of
tuberculosis in that pig. He was a little wheezing-looking

158

pig. Mr. Gowell said he would just as lief have him killed
as not.

(. If tuberculosis had been in an active form in that herd,
before they came on to the farm in the winter, and those pigs
had been fed with their milk, would not, in all probability,
disease have developed itself in the pigs ?

A. I should think, as a rule, it would. It didn’t in that
fellow.

(J. Pigs are very susceptible to it?

A. I can only speak of the one pig I saw.

(). «*The butcher who kills the pigs raised on the farm
states that in some instances the liver has appeared diseased.”
Is it a fact that nine pigs out of every ten have abscesses up-
on their livers?

A. They have a condition of the liver that we very often
call **‘waxy”, and then they have an oily condition. If you
put it on paper it will make it appear as though it was soaked
with oil. Itis lardaceous in character. They have two forms
of liver trouble. I never had any talk with the butcher, that
I know of, about it; I don’t know whether Dr. Michener said
anything to me with reference to it.

(). You say, on page sixteen of your report, that ‘‘if no
animals had ever been sold from the State College herd we
could now report the malady as completely and effectually
stamped out.” Do you mean that?

A. I mean it, sir, in its broadest sense as regards the Col-
lege farm.

(. Do you confine it to that ?

A. I have no doubt that there are a few isolated cases in
Maine that may be affected with tuberculosis. One has de-
veloped since this hearing, in Bangor. The ground I take is
that we are freer than any State in the country. We have
not got one where they have ten in Massachusetts ; one where
they have got a hundred in New York. I got a report from
the College officials in New York showing that of the milk
that is being sold in New York city, 90 per cent of it is tuber-
culosed. Twenty-nine per cent of the deaths in New York

‘

154

hospitals are from tuberculosis and 17 per cent of them can
be traced directly to the use of tuberculosed milk. I do not
mean the malady is completely stopped; but I think if there
were no animals sold from that farm, as far as the College
farm was concerned, we could declare it effectively stamped
out. In addition to that I think there are a few—a very few
— isolated cases. The first case I ever saw in this State, (I
should have to think back sometime). I saw a case of con-
sumption in this State since I have been in practice, (I gradu-
ated in 1879). I think in 1880 an inbred Jersey heifer at
Allan’s Corner; had no connection with the farm. She was
got by her own full brother at the farm.

Q. Do you remember the Deering bull?

A. What Deering bull?

Q. A bull that was afflicted with tuberculosis ; one that Dr.
Salmon diagnosed.

A. At Rolfe’s farm, Dr. Salmon was suspicious of a little
bull; thought he had tuberculose tendencies. He thought he
had better be killed, and at Dr. Salmon’s suggestion that bull
was killed, and his lung was sent to him at Washington for his
inspection. I do not know that that bull developed tuberculosis ;
he had glandular symptoms of tuberculosis. They were very
slight, and I don’t know what his conclusion was; he never
reported; he made the suggestion that that bull had tuber-
culose tendencies. He thought we had better kill that little
bull. We did. That Jersey heifer? well, two cases, I don’t
know whether that proved to be a case or not. Two cases
and the one at Waterboro’ are the only ones I have had my
attention called to, either privately or publicly, in my State,
official or private practice.

(Q. What was it you did with the cases at Waterboro’?

A. We found a very badly diseased cow; I had her ex-
humed to show Mr. Gilbert the lung. It was thoroughly
diseased. She had a little wheezing calf up there two weeks
old, and I decided to kill it because it simply came out of that
cow. She also had two three-year-old heifers whose glands

155

were affected ; we destroyed one of them. Two physicians
were there the day we killed her, and I showed them the con-
dition; she had affection of the glands.

(. What did you recommend Mr Scribner to do with his
cattle ?

A. Mr. Gilbert and I together recommended him to turn
them out to graze, and put them into quarantine for the sum-
mer. I visited them in the fall and found them fat, all of
them. I regarded them as being in a safe condition to sell
for beef at that time, and they were sold, I think. I didn’t go
to the final disposition of the case. Mr. Bell and Mr. Gilbert
attended to it. I have their report; that is all of it.

Q. What has been your view of the law under which you
have acted in taking these animals?

A. Iam very glad to have the privilege of telling you, sir ;
and I never have consulted any attorney on it. But from
what I read,—section 50 of the law says, “The Governor may
when he deems it expedient, appoint commissioners, etc.”
Section 51 also, (Witness here read section 51).

(). Have you ever made any regulations ?

A. We put several herds into quarantine. We have made
a great many regulations in the cases of the foot-and-moutb
disease.

Q. Have you understood your law applied to animals like
the Kent bull, that were apparently well on examination ?

A. Yes, sir, I understand it gave us full power to take that
bull at any time we saw fit, if we deemed him to be a diseased
animal.

(). Did you deem him to be a diseased animal?

A. I wrote to Mr. Gilbert what I found; I stated it fairly
to him. I said “I found the bull apparently well,” and re-
ported my visit to him. I then took pains to ascertain, as near
as I was able to find out, if he was from Prinvess Alba. I made
up my mind that if from that dam he ought to be killed and
never ought to serve a single cow. I believed I had ample
authority to act.

156

Q. You stated last night with reference to the Kent bull
and the other bulls that were out, that you would have the
other bulls immediately examined ?

A. Yes, sir; I would have them examined.

Q. And you would take bulls that appeared diseased and
kill them ?

A. That would be my recommendation ; those that were
not diseased I would advise the owners to feed them for beef,
in the first instance, and if I was satisfied that they were dis-
eased in any way—if they had the slightest taint of disease
about them—I would have the full authority and justification
of having them killed.

(). You presupposed their disease. You are going out to
make an examination of those other bulls. Now, suppose
you find a bull that is apparently all right, what are you going
to do?

A. I should not feel justified in killing that bull without
some other evidence than that. If that bull, mind you, was
out of a cow that I had seen the lungs of, and found them
thoroughly diseased, and I knew that bull was dropped since
that cow became in that condition, I should say, no matter
how well he appeared, off with his head.

Q. Do you know Princess Alba had that disease when she
had that bull?

A. Tamas confident as you are that your name is Southard.

(. How do you know?

A. Because the lesions were so apparent, and they had
such solid adhesions—all solidly united together. Jersey
cows are predisposed to the disease; do not think she could
have been in that condition, without its being an old chronic

case of long standing; she dropped her calf in June before,
and we killed her in March. Particularly predisposed to
this disease, she advanced very rapidly, more so than one that
was not predisposed to it, that would have the power of re-
sistance more than a weak animal. My recommendation has
been to Mr. Gilbert, to have those bulls inspected, and killed

157

if necessary. Mr. Gilbert has a communication from me
containing that recommendation.

(. Under your view of the law you thought it was per-
fectly competent for the Commissioners, if he appeared ap-
parently well, to seize him and have him appraised, and kill
him at the expense of the State ?

A. Ido now; knowing all I have learned since I saw him
at Bucksport. The day I saw him at Bucksport I had no
knowledge that he was even from one of the cows of Orono.
My view was if we found him diseased we had better take
him away.

Q. How did you find him? At that time you believed you
had no authority to kill him?

A. I did not feel justified that day to have that bull ap-
praised, and—

(. That is not the answer. I want to know if you believed
at that time you had any authority to touch that bull.

A. If I believed he was diseased, I believe I had the full
authority to do it. I became satisfied afterwards.

Q. Now, did you or not, at the time you made that exam-
ination of the bull at Bucksport, either you or the Board of
Commissioners, have authority to take him and have him
appraised, and kill him?

A. I did not do it.

Q. Do you believe you could ?

A. Yes, sir; I believe I could, if I believed he was diseased
in any particular.

Chair :—Do you believe you had authority, in the light
you had at that time, to take that bull and kill him [To Mr.
Southard] :—I want an answer to your question, and I
want the Doctor to stop then.

Mr. Southard :—I asked him if he believed the Commis-
sioners had authority, at the time he examined that bull at
Bucksport, and found him apparently well, to take that bull
and have him appraised at the expense of the State.

Witness :—I think I will decline to answer it. My action
shows best what I thought ; I did not feel justified from what

158

I saw down there in having him killed and appraised at the
State’s expense.

Chair :—It is a fair question.

Witness :—If I am obliged to answer it—I should hardly
think I did have the authority that day, knowing what I did
then about it.

Mr. Southard :—Mr. Gilbert was perfectly right at that
time ?

Witness :—When he wrote me back in answer to my letter
that we had no proof he was from diseased parentage, and I
immediately forwarded Mr. Gowell’s letters showing him the
dam was one of the worst cases at Orono, I thought Mr.
Gilbert, when he knew that fact, would say, “if that is the
case, I agree with you that we should dispose of him ;”
but he didn’t say anything of that kind. He then replied if
the bull was unsound it would oblige the College to refund. I
consulted him at once—as has been my custom always.

Mr. Southard :—You don’t believe that the law authorized
you to kill all the animals. We have got two or three letters
from Dr. Bailey to read at this time regarding the law. There
is one dated Portland, Sept. 28th, 1886. This letter is to Mr.
Gilbert from Mr. Bailey. (The letter was read in evidence
and is as follows :)

Portland, Sept. 28th, 1886.

My Dear Sir :—I have heard nothing from you since you went to Water-
boro’, but received a letter this noon from Chase, which is so different
from my supposed understanding with you, I write you at once. When I
last inspected Scribner’s cattle, I told him, and afterwards told you, I
could see no reason why they were not fit for beef, when he replied that
no one would give a cent a pound for them, and we then arranged that we
would get. Deering to buy them, as he was not afraid of them, and thus
end the whole controversy, and Scribner thus get more for his cattle for
beef than he could possibly get if they were condemned and destroyed as
sick cattle. Mr. Chase now writes me, ‘‘Mr. Gilbert came out here to see
the cattle Saturday. I was not here, but he told Mr. Scribner to sell his
cattle his first opportunity and said to him to have the cattle appraised and
whatever they sold under the appraisal, the State and town would make up
to him. The appraisers were there yesterday and prized the whole stock
$255.50. Ithink this is a little more than they will sell for, but not very
much. Mr. Harper Deering said to me he would come and see the cattle

i ed

159

in a day or two, and I have no doubt Mr. Scribner will dispose of them
to him or some one else, ina few days. As soon as he sells them I will let
you know. a Eke) Ce

P. S. Mr. Deering left here about an hour before Gilbert came Sat-
urday, and he did not see him. Now, as I look at this arrangement, we
have had a lot of well cattle appraised, for which we have no ‘‘shadow of
law” for if well we had nothing on earth to do with them, while if ap-
praised at all, it could only be as sick ones, and for which no other price
could be realized by the owners. Now, Chase says he don’t think they
will bring the appraisal and Scribner has the right to dispose of them to
Deering, or some one else, with all the prejudice surrounding them, at any
price he likes, and the State makes good.

Why, if they are jit for beef, as we have decided, what has the State to
do with them any way? Is this the way you understand it? If not, you
may have time now to complete our arrangement with Deering, and net
have the whole thing abort, but if Scribner and Chase understand it as
you do fam completely nonplussed. What is to be done abont Gowell’s
request to go to Orono? Iam able to sit up a few hours a day, but it is
a great exertion to write anything, so please excuse my scribbling, as [am

anxious about the case.
Yours, Geo. H. Bailey.

Witness :—Scribner’s cattle were diseased. Scribner is the
man who owned the cattle at North Waterboro’; not con-
nected with the College herd at all. I swear by that letter
now, and I only wish I had the letter I received from Mr.
Gilbert in reply. I know the tenor of it very well. I dis-
agreed with him about the propriety of appraising animals after
we had lost control of them—after we had discharged them
from quarantine. I did not believe we had any right to have
them appraised at the State’s expense. They were not ani-
mals that had tuberculosis; they were animals that had been
exposed to it, and might have it in their systems at least.

The only calf that we killed at Scribner’s was a little wheez-
ing calf. These other cattle were not from any cow that we
know had tuberculosis, we did not know that the dams were
unsound.

Q. There was a pretty good suspicion, was not there ?

A. It proved not; they recovered at pasture and got well.
The ground I took was we had nothing to do with having
them appraised after that; they were virtually well animals ;

160

we had pronounced them sound as far as discharging them
from quarantine.

Q. When a creature was apparently well you had no right
to proceed against him ?

A. When we took our hands off them we had no control of
them at all.

(. Did the Scribner cattle have this disease or not?

A. They had not; no, sir. The two we killed had it but
the rest of them didn’t have it. They proved not to have it;
after I put them into quarantine. They sold for beef.

(. Did you examine them ?

A. I did percuss the lungs of every one of them.

(. What was the conclusion with respect to them? ,

A. That they were fit to discharge.

(J. I mean at the time you examined them first?

A. There was one,—that Roan Heifer—at that time I re-
garded with suspicion, because she had enlargement of the
throat. Mr. Gilbert didn’t like the appearance of the previ-
ous one. He says “let us recommend them to turn them out.”
He regarded that they were going to be appraised too highly.

QQ. You pronounced the case at that time to be tuberculosis,
did you not?

A. I did—-the old cow—the calf on general principles.

Q. Did you act under the law at Orono?

As Mesisir.

Q. Wholly, did you not?

A. Wholly? No, sir; we put them into quarantine and
conformed to the law strictly in that respect.

Q. What authority was the slaughter of the herd conducted
under ?

A. We did not conform to the law in anything of this—

Q. I want to know by what authority you took charge of
that herd at Orono?

A. We were notified as Cattle Commissioners that there
was a disease in that herd.

(. Was it by the authority of the law or not?

161

A. I don’t know what authority Mr. Gilbert had; I got
my authority from him to go there and act.

Q. How did you act? under the law, or not?

A. The first instance we put them into quarantine.

Q. And what did you do in the next instance ?

A. Kept them in quarantine.

Q. Was that under the law or not?

A. You may regard it either way you like, I am nota
lawyer.

(¥. You are a Commissioner ?

A. I would rather be a good doctor than a poor lawyer any
time. I don’t know anything about the law.

Q. Don’t you claim to know something about the law ?

A. I claim that that law reads so clearly to me that I
understand it.

Q. You may claim that you know the law. You claim that
action at Orono was under the law?

A. We may have departed from the law when we killed
those cattle, inasmuch as they had not been appraised.

QQ. But that was the only thing?

A. I don’t know as I can think of any little technicality
that we let go unobserved.

(Mr. Southard read a letter dated “Portland, Aug. 11th,
1886,” as follows : )

Portland, Aug. 11th, 1886.

Dear Sir :—I went to North Waterboro’ yesterday to see Scribner’s cattle,
and they have much improved in every respect, so much so, that they are
each and all fit for beef inmy opinion. Scribner scouts the idea, however,
and says nobody will buy or eat them,ete. He talks like a fool, and says a
dozen lawyers have told him he had a right to have had his cattle appraised
(all of them), when we killed the heifer, and Judge Tapley tells him that
one should have been appraised at her value when she was well.

His cows have gained much flesh since they have been turned out and
had something to eat, while the oxen are fat, and have gained four inches
each since we were there.

That **bull calf’ at Bucksport, I have written Gowell about, and he tells
me he is out of Princess Alba, one of the two cows I ordered killed when
Mr. Oaks was there, and that proved one of the worst cases on the farm,

a

162

In view of this fact I have no doubt of the policy of having him destroyed.
It was policy that governed our action at Orono, wherever we were in
doubt, and this bull, if allowed to be used, might get a hundred calves
that would become predisposed to tuberculosis by heredity, certainly,
even if this animal remained for a time apparently free from the disease.

We certainly have thus far subjected ourselves to no criticism that
would re-act upon us with such force as this, and justly too, if such a thing
took place, while in case of that cow at Bangor, that Michener pronounced
sound, if covered by a ‘‘sound bull’ she might never produce a calf that
would prove to be infected.

Let me hear from you in regard to this matter, for I have promised Mr.
McAlister that I would take prompt action in this matter, while a ‘‘post-
mortem” of this animal might prove of especial interest to us in regard
to our future action if the same emergency arises. I have no doubt Mr.
Hateh will endorse this action fully, when the matter is explained to him,
in the absence of Gov. Rebie.

Yours respectfully,
Geo. H. Bailey.

Q. Has it been policy that has prompted you in reference
to the Kent buil, or the law?

A. I think it was mighty good policy to have him killed.

Q. Yes, sir; I want to know whether it is policy or law?

A. Iam willing you should know just what the truth was
about the policy of killing the Orono herd now. There was
a good deal of talk at Orono among the Governor and Council
about the policy of killing that herd before we finally decided
whether they were all unsound or not. The proposition came
up, that nobody could tell. The question arose among the
State College trustees, and the Governor and Council, whether
it would be policy to kill that whole herd. I had several
talks with Mr. Gilbert about it. I told him I was in doubt
whether my profession would sustain me in allowing that
herd to be killed, and I wished to correspond with parties to
get their opinions. I corresponded with Dr. Liautard and
Dr. Salmon. When we came to kill the cattle the emergency
did not arise, for every one of them proved to be diseased ;
but the proposition came from the Governor and Council,
whether they were diseased or not they would stand behind
us; they believed it policy to do so; they did not know

~~ a oe

163

when it would be safe to put in fresh cattle, or the milk
safe to use. So they said, ‘‘Let us kill them and wipe them
out.” I wrote Dr. Salmon on that point.

(Letter dated at Washington, D. C., April 8th, 1886, from
Dr. Salmon, was read by witness, as follows :)

Washington, D. C., April 8th, 1886.

Dr. Geo. H. Bailey, 1 Pine Street, Portland, Me. :

Sir—In regard to the herd of cattle at Orono would say [cannot recom-
mend the slaughter of the animals that appear to be perfectly healthy ;
such may be, and may remain, perfectly free from the disease. My advice
would be to destroy all that show signs of disease, thoroughly disinfect
the stables and keep the balance under supervision. If there are no other
quarters in which to put the new herd, it seems to me that they, too, would
be open to suspicion because the stables and grounds must be infected with
the germ of tuberculosis. If the new cattle are to be put immediately
into the same stables and upon the same grounds, will they not too be-
come infected? If the council believe that, as a matter of policy, it is
better to kill the whole herd and start out with a new one, that is a ques-
tion of business and not a professional one. I do not see what I could say
more than this. Ihave given you advice from a professional standpoint
and caunot go beyond that and decide as to the best policy from a business
standpoint for the institution to adopt.

Very respectfully,

A. E. Salmon.

Mr. Southard :—Tbat was before the slaughter. He says
in regard to the herd of cattle at Orono, “I would say I can-
not recommend the slaughter of the animals that appeared to
be perfectly healthy.” He advised that those that appeared
to be perefctly healthy ought not to be killed.

Witness :—That was my proposition to President Fernald
the first time I ever talked with him.

Q. To kill those that proved to be diseased, and those that
bore suspicion to isolate them and keep them apart ?

Al. Yeanaar

Q. Why did you insist that the Kent buil be appraised and
killed at the State’s expense when he appeared perfectly
healthy ?

A. I say to you I did not feel justified at what I saw down
there, to have him appraised and killed at the expense of the

164

State ;—I say that now, and I say that always. I told Mr.
Kent I did not feel justified in having him killed at that time
—both him and Mr. McAlister.

(Letter of March 8th, 1886, was read by Mr. Southard as

follows :)
Portland, March 8th, 1886.

Gentlemen :—Since my arrival home yesterday morning, I have submit-
ted the specimen I took from the lung of Pet to several tests that seem
to my mind to conclusively confirm the diagnosis of tuberculosis, made
by me at Orono, andI am going to Boston this afternoon to consult a
member of my profession, in whom I have great confidence, as to the
future care and disposal of your herd.

While I am at a loss to account for the uniformity of symptoms exhibited
in so large a number of animals as harmonizing with the theory of phthisis,
my mind is still irresistibly drawn to the conclusion, that if my diagnosis
in the case of Pet is correct, that all the preceding cases have been alike,
and that all of the present herd, that are in any way affected, all have
tuberculosis. Not that they are ald affected at the present time, (but such
as are), and right here is where I expect to encounter my chief difficulty
where to draw the line, and be able to say positively, what individual mem-
bers should be destroyed, what number be quarantined, and what propor-
tion of them are entirely above suspicion. The difficulty experienced by
the most skillful veterinarians in the auscultation and percussion of the
lungs of bovines, in these cases, renders every precaution necessary to be
taken to avoid mistakes, and as this is a case of much importance to us
all, I shall endeavor to possess myself of the fullest information and ad-
vice before proceeding further.

« Not that I intend to shirk any part of my duty as Veterinary Officer of
the State, but first having conclusively proven my diagnosis correct, to
then proceed cautiously and humanely as possible in the work before us.

To this end, I ask for the fullest co-operation of your taculty, and for
closest observance of the symptoms of each and every member of the
herd, between now and the time of my next visit of Friday of this week,
by which time we should be able to identify the disease in quite a number
of the animals, beyond any reasonable doubt, and also to regard as free
from suspicion, a certain number that during this time give no evidence of
disease.

Of course, if there are any members of the present herd, from the dams
of either of the cases killed, such as Pet or Betsey, they would become
**self condemned” by direct hereditary tendency, while those calves who are
from dams having no symptoms of disease could be safely retained.

While I have no doubt about condemning the milk of any animal af-
fected, there are considerations regarding the butter, about which we will
get more light before we meet again. In the meantime, believe me,

Yours sincerely,
Geo. H. Bailey, V. S.

ME IT a et PR

a a

165

Witness :—That question arose, I consulted our authorities
on the subject.

(. You believed that this Kent bull was a very dangerous
creature to be at large?

A. I think he was an unsafe creature, I regarded him so.

(). You told he was a dangerous animal somewhere in your
testimony ?

A. I regarded him as an unsafe animal to be at large.

Q. You believed it was the duty of the Commissioners
to immediately take that bull and have him taken care of?

A. Yes, I so advised after I found he came from Princess
Alba. I felt justified in doing it. Knowing that two other
calves from the same cow were also diseased and both killed,
—from Princess Alba—both were dropped before this bull
was, and they were both diseased.

Q. You believed that the duty of the Commissioners was
at once to take charge of that bull?

A. I wouldn’t say as to that.

Q. You believed in doing it just as soon as you could?

A. I think it is always best to act, when we are satisfied
of the presence of the contagion, and talk afterwards. Your
Commissioners ought always to act promptly in such matters.
That is my belief about it. (Letter dated “Kennebunk, Apr.
10th,” offered by Mr. Southard as evidence, and read, as fol-
lows :)

Kennebunk, April 10th, 1886.

Dear Gilbert :—I came out here this morning at the request of the se-
lectmen, and have ridden all the forenoon to see four lots of sheep, all
badly diseased with scab. ‘I'wo of these lots, fourteen in one, and six in
the other, were mere skeletons, and I have ordered them condemned and
buried. The other two lots I have instructed the owners how to proceed
to cure them and disinfect their premises, and have no doubt they can be
saved without any expense to the State. I have cautioned the selectmen
about an appraisal and they are to let me know all about it. I have also
received a very urgent call from the selectmen of Monson and have agreed
to go down there Monday, although I much dislike the trip, but don’t see
any way to avoid it. I have also a letter from Wesley, which I will send
you when I get home, and from what they say I think they must have a
case of glanders, but it is 24 miles from the steamboat landing at Machias-
port, and 37Z miles from any railroad so I think we better ‘stave them off”

166

for awhile anyway. I have heard nothing yet from Salmon or Liautard
but am afraid they may think our proposed action too sweeping to be
fully justified, although I have no doubt of the policy of it from a ‘*money
point of view.”’ Everything seems to ‘t‘come ina heap” lately in the State’s

business.
Yours truly,

Geo. M. Bailey, V. 8.

Witness :—What in that letter do you want to criticise?

Mr. Southard :—What do you?

Witness :—I am at your service, if you have got any ques-
tion.

Q. What do you think of “staving” off a case of the gland-
ers?

A. I communicated with parties (Wesley) and received a
letter from them that satisfied me that they didn’t have it,
and consequently I didn’t go, and they proved not to have it.

Q. You didn’t have that letter at the time you wrote this?

A. No, sir; I did not have the letter at the time I wrote
this.

- Q. You stated that they had a case of the glanders?

A. It was in the winter. I did not know whether they
had or not.

Q. What do you say in that letter?

A. If you will read me the passage you refer to—I am
glad to have you press this matter.

Mr. Southard :—You say, “I have also a letter from Wes-
ley which I will send you when I get home and from what
they say they must have a case of glanders ; but it is twenty-
four miles from the steamboat landing, (M)—thirty-six miles
from any railroad, so I think we had better stave them
off for awhile.” Now, I would like to know—

Witness :—What is the date of that letter ?

Mr. Southard :—April 10th. I would like to know how
you reconcile “staving” off a case of the glanders when you
showed so much anxiety to get hold of this Kent bull?

Witness :—I am very glad you called my attention to it.
The first letter I got from those gentlemen gave me an im-
pression that they had a case of glanders down. I wrote them

167

a set of questions, and I found it was a bad trip to make ; and
I asked them to answer the questions I wrote them and I
would judge whether they had acase. The answer I got
satisfied me they were deceived themselves, and I didn’t go,
and never heard about it from that day to this.

Q. And at that time you were “staving” off a case of the
glanders, from all the evidence you had?

A. The first letter I got from them I judged they might
have a case of glanders. (Letter dated “Portland, Oct.
11th, 1886,” read and introduced as evidence, as follows :)

Portland, Oct. 11th, 1886.

Dear Sir :—I have sent you several communications which are unanswered
for the reason, as I suppose, that you have been away from home. [ also
wrote Gov. Robie, a week ago, but have received no answer, and also
wrote Goy. Elect Bodwell, sending him some documents that were not in
his possession, by all of which I suppose you will say I am getting anxious
about ‘‘pleuro-pneumonia,” and so Tam. Isent youaslip this morning, that
you may have seen. [ also received this morning a letter from Mr. Kent
of Bucksport, complaining that nothing has been done in his ease, and as
you are well aware that I do not feel at all satisfied inyself as to the future
of that and some other cases connected with the College farm, I have
felt like leaving them to your disposal, as you are to remain upon the
Board in any event, while my commission and that of Ferguson will
expire with Governor Robie’s term of office. I understand the Governor
and Council are to meet at Augusta, Wednesday, Oct. 14th, and as I think |
will be able to take a ride by that time, I will come to Augusta, if you
are to be there Wednesday, and see if something cannot be arranged for
our present and future protection, in case anything happens while I am
still a member of the Board. Please let me know if you will be at Augusta,

And greatly oblige
Yours truly,
Geo. II. Bailey.

Mr. Southard :—With reference to the Waterboro’ cattle,
you recommended that they be fed off for beef?

A. I did, finally.

Q. Why didn’t you make the same recommendation with
regard to the Kent bull?

A. I did; I wrote Mr. Kent that I believed that the bull’s
beef was safe to use, after seeing the lung.

Q. Why didn’t you recommend it before you killed him?

168

A. You couldn’t feed him off to beef, after we killed him.

Q. Do you know what I mean by feeding a cow off to
beef? Don’t be funny, because when you are funny you are
out of your element.

Witness :—Selling him for beef, I iademtond you.

Mr: Southard :—I mean that he fattens him.

Witness :—I may have misunderstood you about it. I sup-
posed you said selling him for beef.

Mr. Southard :—We don’t want any fun.

Witness :—We won't have any, I think.

Q. Did you use your influence to get him to feed that bull
off for beef?

A. I would say that I made the suggestion to him upon it.
I am rather inclined to think I did.

Q. What did he say about it?

A. I can’t tell you that. I won’t say positively that I
advised him so to do.

Q. If he were killed at the expense of the State he would
be a dead loss?

A. Yes, sir, he would; as a diseased animal.

Q. You would rather make him a dead loss to the State
than to have Mr. Kent feed him off for beef.

A. That would depend upon the developments ;—whether
he was fit for beef or not. (Letter dated “Portland, Apr.
8th, 1886,” was read, as follows :)

Portland, April 8th, 1886.

Dear Gilbert :—I was expecting to go to Connecticut Monday morning,
but got word from Goy. Robie this morning that he had a telegram from
Frye, that the Department was to send some one from New York to in-

spect the cattle at Orono. So he thinks I had better not go, as I may be
needed here before I could well get back.

The Governor suggests that you go to Augusta, upon receipt of this
letter, and you will then be on the line, so he can telegraph you when we
start, and you go with us from there.

Whoever is coming may be here very soon, but if Salmon could not
come I would rather not had anyone but have ‘‘gorn it alone.”

Yours truly,
Geo. H. Bailey.

169

Chair :—Let me ask a question: do you raise the issue
here that this matter of tuberculosis should not have been
looked into, and all infected cattle destroyed ?

Mr. Southard :—Not at all.

Chair :—What is the issue you propose to raise? That is
what I want to get at so as to see the bearing of the examin-
ation.

Mr. Southard :—We do not believe that this herd during
the summer of 1885 was generally affected with that disease.
We do believe that in 1886, that winter, all the conditions
being favorable, and they being exposed to the cough of
Betsey and Pet, they took the disease at that time, and that
these bulls that have gone from the farm, and this Kent bull,
were all right; and that this cow that has gone to Bangor
was all right.

Chair :—“The proof of the pudding is in the eating of it.”
Do you raise the question that those bulls should not be ex-
amined ?

Mr. Southard :—Not at all; but we do say, Mr. Walton,
that it is entirely unfair to the people of this State and its cattle
interests, to have-this thing go out—that these bulls are dis-
eased.

Chair :—Is it not much better to have the idea go out that
those bulls may be diseased, than it is to undertake to prove
the fact that the whole State is diseased and that it is not
only in the College herd, but that it is scattered all over the
State ? .

Mr. Southard :—Mr. Bailey has tried to make it appear
I say Mr. Bailey and his cbunsel—that this State College at
Orono is the only thing that is spreading this disease over
the State. They spread that out here effectively. We know
a good deal better. It is not all down there ; it has not been
there generally amongst that herd, during all this time.

Chair :—I understand that is conceded—that there are
other cases in the State. The only object I have is that L
desire to know the point that you raise; because, of course,
we want to be able to apply the evidence as it comes along.

170

Mr. Southard :—At present I believe that is not fair to
the owners of those bulls that have gone out, and the people
of the State of Maine. The report that they have tuberculosis
is unfounded.

Chair :—W ould it not be a good plan to examine them and
see whether it is or not? What is the object of spending
two or three days here to prove the fact whether they have
got tuberculosis or not?

Mr. Southard :—How are you going to find out?

Chair :—Go and see whether they have or not.

Mr. Southard :—Are you going to kill them?

Chair :—I don’t know; I am not going to.

Mr. Cornish :—What is the issue now?

Mr. Southard :—The issue is that that herd was not gener-
ally diseased during the summer of 1885; that those bulls are
not diseased in all probability to-day. The issue which has
been attempted to be made by certain persons here is the
issue of Mr. Gilbert’s good faith; that is all. And we want
to show that his practice and what he has stood up to is
sanctioned by law, and by letters from standard veterinary
surgeons. It has been attempted to show that he did not do
his duty.

Chair :—If the trustees of the State College had been as
‘ careful about obeying the law when they authorized a man to
buy stock as they were when that tuberculosis came out, I
do not believe there would have been all of this trouble.
They authorized a man to go out there to buy stock and start
in stock-raising—

Mr. Southard :—They took a part of the interest money
which they had a right to spend—no, they borrowed money.

Chair :—What is the difference whether they borrowed or
not? They furnished it to him in the first place. These
cattle, as I understand, were reckoned as State cattle.

Mr. Southard :—I want to say that Mr. Gilbert acted in
perfect good faith; whatever he did was sanctioned by the
veterinary surgeons. It has been attempted by certain per-
sons to cast a reflection on Mr. Gilbert; and the organ of

t

2 |

this person, in to-day’s issue, states it, in so many words,
that Mr. Gilbert has been sadly negligent, and has been
guilty of a want of good faith. It seems very wrong.

(A letter from Dr. Michener was read, as follows :)

New York, Feb. 21st, 1887.
Z. A. Gilbert, Esq.

Dear Sir :—Owing to the fact that I have been moving the past week,
your letter is as yet unanswered. In my opinion your State acts very
wisely in ordering an examination of descendants of the College herd.
This should be a thorough examination—and in the event of finding any
such descendants affected with tuberculosis, the State could not possibly
do less than purchase and destroy such animals.

There is no reason for destroying the ‘‘entire herds” in which may be
found descendants of the College herd that are affected with the trouble,
as would be advisable in case contagious pleuro-pneumonia was the disease
in question, but only to destroy those actually and unmistakably dis-
eased. It is only in a very few instances that such action as was taken at
Orono is to be sanctioned and sustained. Iam surprised that any should
recommend the destruction of off-spring from the College herd that are
‘“tsound and well and always have been.” Such animals should not be
destroyed—but all such should be examined by competent authorities to
ascertain if in fact they are ‘‘sound and well.” You well know it won’t do
to judge by external appearances, etc.

In my hurry this morning I may not have answered your queries fully,
in which event please write me again and I trust then to have more time
to give you.

Sincerely yours,
Ch. B. Michener, V.S.,
1779 Broadway,
New York.

Witness :—I believe in that; I have always agreed with
this letter.
(A letter from Dr. Salmon was read, as follows :)

Dr. G. H. Bailey,
1 Pine Street,
Portland, Me.

Dear Doctor:— In reply to your favor of the 21st instant, asking for
recommendations in regard to the action that should be adopted with the
outbreak of tuberculosis at Orono, I would give it briefly as my opinion:
Ist, that all animals which show clear evidence of tuberculosis should be
slaughtered at once. 2nd, that those in regard to which there is reason
for doubt should be placed by themselves and carefully isolated, and that

172

constant disinfection should be kept up in their stable. 3rd, that those
which to all appearances are well should be placed, if possible, in a new
stable or on a piece of ground to which the affected animals have not had
access, and should be kept under careful supervision. Any new cases
which should develop among these should be removed as soon as possible.
Of course, the stable where the diseased animals have been should be
cleaned and disinfected in the most thorough manner and no animals allow-
ed in it for a considerable time.

You will notice that my recommendations are such as would be made
for any virulent contagious disease of slow incubation and in which the
virus has considerable power of resistance to external conditions. My
belief is that the more we cut loose from old ideas of tuberculosis being
a hereditary disease, and the more we treat it as a contagious plague the
more successful will be our efforts to control it.

Trusting that these suggestions will prove satisfactory, Iam,

Very respectfully,
D. E. Salmon,
Chief of Bureau.

Witness :—Nobody would argue from that, that the disease
is not hereditary.

Mr. Southard :—Not at all.

(Letter dated “Portland, March 21st, 1886,” was read, as
follows :)

Portland, March 21st, 1886.

My Dear Sir:—Enclosed find Salmon’s letter, by which you will see he
declines the invitation to come to Maine. I have written him upon re-
ceipt of his decision, full particulars of the outbreak and present appear-
ance and condition of the herd.

Now what do you propose? If we are to go there to exterminate all
animals that present lesions of the disease, it is going to be a very nice
distinction to make in some of those cases, and I much regret Salmon’s
decision, as I shall approach a decision in some of these cases with much
reluctance, if obliged to do so single handed. As soon asI hear from
Salmon again I will let you know. .

Yours truly,

Geo. H. Bailey.

Mr. Southard :—It says it never was the intention of any
one to kill apparently well animals.

Mr. Cornish :—Don’t argue the case now.

(Letter dated “Portland, Oct. 16th, 1886,” was read, and
also a postal card from Mr. Bailey to Mr. Gilbert, as follows :)

173

Portland. Oct. 16th, 1886.

Dear Sir:—I am just in receipt of your letter of the l5th, saying you
shall eall “all the board” together on Wednesday evening at City Hotel.
We have been struggling along for a year past with an indefinite number,
but I found out one thing by going to Affgusta, and that was, that both
Ferguson and myself were not members, our commissions having both ex-
pired Sep. 22nd, and I had to be reappointed Wednesday evening, in order
to finish up the business of the year, which I hope to do with a “clean
bill of health.” You can see therefore it will be of no use to notify Mr.
Ferguson, for he is no longer a ‘member of the board.” Not knowing
that you were aware of the fact, I write at once to inform you.

Yours truly,
Geo. H. Bailey, V. 5.

Portland, Oct. 26th, 1886.
Dear Sir:—Be kind enough to give me your answer to the proposition
in regard to Kent’s case, and also other items in my letter of the 23rd.
Mr. Kent is anxious to have the case disposed of, so Mr. McAlister writes.

Yours truly,
Geo. H. Bailey, V. 5.

Q. I want to know if you did, as a matter of fact, see any
position to cover up or conceal anything down there?

A. I never have seen a single thing on the part of any of
the trustees.

Q. Has not Mr. Gilbert given you all the facts you have
asked for?

A. No, sir, he has not.

Q. He is one of the trustees?

A. He is one of the Cattle Commissioners also. You
called my attention, very pointedly, to that case of glanders
where you criticised my action in “staving it off.”

Mr. Southard :—I don't criticise your action, Doctor, in
staving it off, at all. But I want to know why you should
appear to be so very anxious to get at this Kent bull, and at
the same time neglect a case of the glanders?

A. L investigated that case of glanders and found it was
not a case, in my opinion. It was a long route; an expen-
sive one to the State; it proved eventually that I was right.
They wrote me they didn’t have a case. On the subject of
glanders I want to read another letter I have—forwarded to

174

me by Mr Gilbert. “Some time in June there was a case of
glanders reported at Patten. It was a long route,” etc.
Upon the back of the letter I received from Mr. Gilbert I
received an indorsement of his opinion. I found a red hot case
of glanders in the public stable at the hotel, in Patten. Here
is what Mr. Gilbert says upon the back of the letter : “the fore-
going was received after the other letters. I don’t believe
there is any glanders there. We don’t want to incur the ex-
pense of a trip down there ona probable fool’s errand. I
have a pile of letters notifying me of cattle diseases ; but am
staving them off for the cattle to get well.” I want to know
what you have to say to our Cattle Commissioners “staving
off” a pile of letters, from the municipal officers, to allow the
cattle to get well.

Mr. Southard :—I have only to say that I didn’t criticise
your action because you staved—

Witness :—You don’t now, because, in doing that you
would have to criticisé your client. I didn’t know anything
about your client. I told you honestly.

Mr. Southard :—I told you honestly.

Witness :—I investigated the case; it proved not to be a
case of glanders.

Mr. Southard :-—Here is one case where you are very
anxious, another where you are staving it off.

Witness :—I am very anxious when I think my duties lead
me in that direction.

(Letter dated “Portland, August 8th,” was read in evidence
as follows :)

Portland, Aug. 8th, 1886.

Dear Gilbert :—I enclose to you some documents that I deemed of suffi-
cient importance to receive my prompt attendance, and went to Bucks-
port on Wednesday, and met Mr. McAlister, who took me to Mr. Kent’s
place. The latter is a farmer with a large stock of cows, from which he
supplies the city with milk, and he also keeps a bull fer public service.

This bull he purchased at Orono, and he is apparently a well animal,
with a normal temperature and sound lungs as far as can be tested by
percussion, and is about a year old.

He has covered but one cow, and was estopped from further use of him
by orders of Mr. McAlister, until my inspection of the animal.

175

Mr. Kent is a shrewd old man who has carefully read Michener’s report,
and has it all by heart, especially where he expresses the opinion that no
calf from one of those tubereulosed cows at Orono would ever arrive at
maturity free from the disease. He also tells me he has a letter from you,
advising him to use that bull for publie service.

Now, the bull having come from one of the cows we killed, at the Col-
lege farm, I can hardly see my way clear to concur in that advice, but I
have promised Mr. Kent that I would correspond with you at once, and
let him know our decision. I called to see Mr. Hatch at Bangor, and
found him at the County Convention, trying to get nominated for Senator,
so I could not get his ear. What shall we do? Please return the cor-
respondence.

Yours,

Geo. H. Bailey.

Q. You had a conversation with Mr. Gilbert subsequently
to your going to Bucksport ?

A. Not in relation to the Kent bull. The first notice I
ever got was from Mr. McAlister—selectman of the town—
ordering me to go there. I wrote Mr. Gilbert and corres-
ponded with him afterwards, not before.

(). Did you have a conversation respecting your visit down
there?

A. I may have had some time since that; I don’t know
when. I don’t know how late after that.

Q. You never understood him to criticise your action in
answering the request of the Selectmen ?

A. He says in the other letter he wrote me he didn’t think
it warranted a visit or taking action in it.

Q. Did not you have a conversation afterwards in which he
said he did not find any fault with you, personally ?

A. I was taken sick afterwards; I won’t say that we did
not; we had some talk before that.

Q. Just tell what Mr. Gilbert concealed from you?

A. I say that I do not think that he has treated me quite
so fairly as I have him. I think those cases reported to him
—he should have notified me about them. I think “staving
them off” to allow the cattle to get well was the height of in-
discretion. If those cattle had pleuro-pneumonia, or the
foot-and-mouth disease, in twenty-four hours it would have

176

gone over the State. I didn’t “stave off” this case of glanders.
I investigated to see whether it was a case of glanders or not ;
I did not propose to offer this letter unless you pressed me so
hard as you did about the other matter.

(Letters dated Bucksport, Sept. 18, 1886, and Portland, Oct.
7th, 1886, were read, and are as follows :)

Bucksport, Sep. 18, 1886.
Z. A. Gilbert, Esq.

Dear Sir:—-Mr. Kent of this town has a bull he purchased at the State
College farm and he has been kept away from his other cattle tor some
time since last March. Dr. Bailey was in our town and looked the bull
over and was to have the matter settled, what was to be done with the
bull. I enclosed a letter from his wife which explains itself. As Mr.
Kent is keeping the animal up at some considerable expense I hope the
case will be disposed of one way or the other.

The peeple in this section feel that the bull ought not to be used owing
to the fact that all of the cattle on the tarm at the State College were
killed, and as this creature was raised from one of the cows that were
killed, and also the bull, and the Commissioners made such a report
after giving the subject careful consideration, it seems but justice that the
bull sold to Mr. Kent by the State ought to be treated the same and killed
and not wait until the disease is transmitted to other cattle and then have
him and the whole herd killed. I presume you have had the matter care-
fully considered, and will you please advise at to the result.

Respect. yours,
G. W. McAlister.

Chair. Selectmen.

Portland, Oct. 7th, 1886.

My Dear Sir:—In view of the near approach of your assuming the
office of Governor of Maine, together with your well recognized leader-
ship in everything pertaining to our cattle interests, will I trust be
deemed sufficient excuse for my intrusion upon your notice at this time,
of the constant danger by which we are menaced, in consequence of the
recent importations and outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia at Quebec, and
throughout the West, and of which I entertain a most serious apprehen-
sion. The State Authorities of Massachusetts are moving promptly in
the matters, and I enclose to you a cut from this morning’s paper, re-
lating thereto. Ialso enclose notice of the disappearance of 250 head
last Sunday at Chicago. I also send you the October number of the
American Veterinary Review, Page 311, with the request that you forward
the paper to Hon. Z. A. Gilbert, at North Greene, as soon as you have
read it.

177

You are no doubt aware of the recent prompt disposal by the Canadian
Authorities of a valuable herd of Hereford and Angus cattle at Quebec,
but [ have information that two herds of cattle who have been in the im-
mediate neighborhood of these infected cattle, were allowed to be taken
to the Ohio State Fair. where they were advertised last week to be sold
at auction upon the Fair Grounds, but the permission to sell was with-
drawn, as soon as the managers learned of the outbreak at Quebec. ‘There
are also some remnants of tuberculosis, in connection with the College
herd at Orono, which in my opinion should be promptly disposed of, and
to which I have earnestly called the attention of Governor Robie and his
Council, but which for some reason do not seem to receive their co-opera-
tion and support. The Attorney Generai of Massachusetts has decided
that the Cattle Commissioners cannot act separately in these matters, and
there are other cases recently called to my attention, but which I cannot
well communicate in this letter. I hope to receive your co-operation and
aid in the enforcement of what little law we have. a subject I deem of vast
importance tousall. While I remain,

Sincerely yours,
Geo. H. Bailey, V. S.
Hon. J. R. Bodwell.

Chairman :—Is there any other gentleman present who
desires to ask the doctor any question? This is a public hear-
ing and if any gentleman desires to ask any questions for in-
formation he is at liberty to do so.

President Fernald said that he knew Dr. Bailey had man-
aged the case very judiciously, carefully and wisely.

Mr. Southard :—He had the co-operation of the trustees
and of the Governor and Council.

Chairman :—The doctor evidently understands that he had
the co-operation of the trustees, and he has distinctly stated
that with one exception he had no fault to find with them
whatever. Am I right?

Dr. Bailey :—That is true, sir.

Q. I would like to know if at the time that herd of cattle
was killed at Orono you found anything kept back by Mr.
Gilbert whatever ?

A. No, sir; he acted with the fullest and most hearty co-
operation. He never failed to give me all the facts up to the
time of the Kent bull. We have acted harmoniously in every

instance until we came to that, I except the case of the Kent
bull. 12

178

TESTIMONY OF M. C. FERNALD.

Q. Has the milk from the College herd been used in the
families and boarding-houses on the College farm prior to the
herd being destroyed?

A. The milk was not used at the boarding-houses; it was
used in Mr. Gowell’s family and supplied to one or two fam-
ilies on the farm. The janitor got his milk there and I think
the assistant farm superintendent had his milk from the farm ;
but the other families had not had the milk from the College
farm for three or four years. When Mr. Rich was there the
milk was supplied to the boarding-houses and to the families
on the College premises, but since Mr. Gowell has had charge
that has not been the case. It was not used after the nature
of the disease was suspected, so faras I know. ‘The use of
the milk before the disease was detected had no bad effect
upon the persons using it that I ever learned. After it was
known that there was trouble in the herd the use of it was
abandoned.

TESTIMONY OF MR. GOWELL.

There was a family of small children at the janitor’s and —
also at a farm hand’s. The milk was used up to the
time of the notification of the Cattle Commissioners, March
5th. Children and adults used the milk up to that time.
Quite young children used of the milk. I have not heard of
their being sick from it. After the herd was declared dis-
eased, I gave the milk from the better animals to the pigs and
that from the poorer ones we threw away. We never dis-
covered there was any difficulty arising from its use, and dur-
ing all the years past raw skim milk had been used as pig
feed. At first it was told by the man who slaughtered the
hogs that there was trouble with them, and that statement
went out. I went to him. I think I went to him after the
slaughter of the cattle, relative to it. He said our hogs were
not different from those that he bought from other parties. So
there was no foundation for the statement. For the first two

179

or three years President Fernald’s family was supplied with
butter from the milk. During ’85 up to January first from
sixty to seventy pounds of butter a week were made on the
place. That was mostly disposed of in Bangor. — Sales of
butter were made up to the time of notice to the Commis-
sioners, when our suspicions were aroused.

TESTIMONY OF HALL C. BURLEIGH.

Chairman: —Have you any knowledge, Mr. Burleigh, in
relation to the facts that we are required to examine into?

Mr. Burleigh :—I do not know that I can throw any light
on what has already been said. It would be merely taking
up time. I was there when the killing occurred and I looked
at all there were of them. Those in the south end I should
think were the worst. I did not see those in the other ead
killed, but came home. I should disagree as to the appear-
ance of the cattle in the barns. I saw them when the Com-
missioners were first called. I think I could not have stayed
in that barn long without discovering disease there.

Chairman :—How would you have discovered it ?

Mr. Burleigh :—The first thing that would have attracted
my attention would have been the manure that was behind
the cattle. That is something I always watch very closely.
The dropping was very dry and appeared like that of cattle
having a fever. Their condition was very good for a dairy
herd of cattle. I went into the barn in the morning. I think
Mr. Gowell went up with me fn the forenoon. In the after-
noon I noticed labor in the breathing and a certain uneasiness
among soine of the cattle, and my impression is now there
were some of them that had not been considered affected.
They were in the new barn. Some of them seemed to be
laboring very hard and breathing as you will often see them
when they are hurried up hill, or something of that kind. I
went into the cellar and saw the same state of things in regard
to the dropping from the cattle—very dry.

Chairman :—Didn’t a good many of these animals look as
though they were good for beef?

180

Mr. Burleigh :—There was one steer that was killed whose
meat looked very nice indeed, and if he had not been in that
herd, if I had seen him killed on another farm, I should not
have hesitated to eat it. He did not appear to have so much
about his lungs as the others. ‘T'wo steers were killed while
I was there. The other steer was very much more diseased.
One was what we consider a very pretty carcass of beef.

Chairman :—Was it your judgment to kill those cattle?

Mr. Burleigh :—Yes, sir, by all means. I should have
thought the Commissioners, Governor Robie and the whole
concern that had anything to do with it very remiss in their
duty if they had not killed them. I had heard about this
disease before, but never saw a case of it that I know of.
This stock was mostly Jersey and some Shorthorns. A Short-
horn is what we sometimes call a Durham. I did not notice
any Herefords there. I think there was abundant law to take
up those bulls and either quarantine or destroy them, as the
Commissioners thought fit to do.

TESTIMONY OF MR. GOWELL resumed.

The Jersey Lily did not have a “bad cough” at the time she
died. Her lungs were not examined at all. That heifer and
Brownie were not examined. The only two that were ex-
amined were the two cows that were slaughtered in the spring
of ’86.

Dr. Bailey :—If you had been present you would have
noticed that I had made the modification. He told me after-
wards there was a mistake about it. I admitted he was more
likely to be right than I. The impression has gone out here,
and it has been generally entertained for a day or two, that I
did not.recognize that disease and did not know it until after
I had gone into the field and seen the lung of that cow. Prof.
Balentine, will you please state whether that is true or not?
I merely ask you to state such facts as you know yourself.

Prof. Balentine :—I will say from remembrance that the
first that I heard, Dr. Bailey said he was sure the disease was

181

tuberculosis, and | am satisfied from what had been told him
that he knew what the disease was before he went iato the
field at all. The tirst that he said, that I heard, was after he
came back from the field. He had not made a thorough ex-
amination of the herd at the time he went into the field. As
my remembrance of it is, he had examined the Princess Alba
on one side and had supposed that he would not find her dis-
eased. That was on the right side. When she was slaugh-
tered that lung proved to be sound. When he came back I
asked him to examine the cow again, and he did so on the left
side, and as soon as he commenced on her he said, “ There is
trouble here,” and I am thoroughly satisfied that Dr. Bailey
understood what he was about there.

Mr. Southard :—You say the right lung was practically
unaffected.

Dr. Bailey :—I think he has got that reversed.

Prof. Balentine:—One of the lungs was free when she was
slaughtered. No one in my hearing at the first examination
questioned Dr. Bailey’s professional skill in determining the
character of that disease, at the first examination.

(The following papers and correspondence were identified,
and read in evidence. )

MAINE COLLEGE FARM.
Superintendent’s Office, }
Orono, Me., Sept., 7, 1885.
Mr. Kent:

Dear Sir :—I will ship the ealf by railroad Wednesday forenoon and he
will probably arrive at your station towards night, same day.

Payment received in full.

The sire of this calf is ‘‘Ginx of Cream Brook,” registered in the ‘tA.
J.C. Club.”

His dam is the cow ‘Princess Alba” registered in the “M.S. J. C.
Association.”

I should like to hear how you are pleased with him when you receive
him.

Respectfully,
G. M. Gowell,
Supt.

182

(Affidavit of Seth W. Kent.)

To whom it may concern: This is to certify that I purchased of Mr. G.
M. Gowell, Supt. of the College farm, one bull calf on ur about Sept. 7,
1885, and during the month of March my attention was called to the dis-
ease among the cattle at said farm and also the action taken to destroy
said herd. I being anxious in reference to my own herd of cattle, having
some 20 cows and was trying to improve the stock, I wrote Mr. Gilbert,
Sec. of the Board, asking his advice as to using the bull for stock pur-
poses, (as the sire was Ginx Cream Brook, registered in the ‘tA. J. C.
Club,” and the dam is the cow Princess Alba, registered in the M. S. J.
C. Association, and were both killed.) I was very anxious to have good
authority as to using him. Mr. Gilbert wrote me advising me to keep
the bull and use him. I called the attention of the Selectmen of the
town of Bucksport to the matter, being very anxious as to the future of
my herd, and they were very much opposed to his being used. This was
some time in May, 1886. In July, 1886, I gave the municipal officers of
Bucksport a written notice that I had good reason to believe that I had a
diseased animal in my herd, and soon after Dr. Bailey, in company with
the municipal officers, visited my place, and made an examination of the
bull, and while he would not pronounce him diseased he was much
opposed to his being used; and after some correspondence with Dr.
Bailey the bull was killed and the lungs sent to Portland to Dr. Bailey,
he sending me twenty dollars to aid in getting him out of the way and
having him killed.

Mr. Ferguson visited my place and he advised the killing of the bull
and not to be used for stock purposes. ,

Bucksport, Feb. 1st, 1887.
Seth N. Kent.

I certify that as far as I have had anything to do with the aforesaid
animal, the foregoing statement is true.
G. W. McAlister,
Chair. Selectmen.

U. S. Department of Agriculture,
Bureau of Animal Industry.
Washington, D. C., March 18th, 1886.

Hon. M. C. Fernald,

Pres. Me. St. College,
Orono, Maine.

Sir: Your letter of the 12th instant to the Commissioner of Agriculture
has been referred to me for reply. I should be very glad to give you any
assistance in my power but find it impossible to leave Washington during
this season of the year. I have no doubt that Dr. Bailey’s diagnosis is
correct and I think he will be able to give you all the professional advice
that is necessary.

183

I should advise you to have all animals slaughtered that show symptoms
of the disease and to move the others to a different stable, if possible, in
any case to have the stable in which the animals have been standing
thoroughly cleaned and disinfected.

Very respectfully,
D. E. Salmon.
Chief of Bureau.

Oldtewn, Me., March 2d, 1887.

The cow recently killed by W. C. Miller of Bangor, the lungs of which
were sent to Augusta, was bred by me and sold to the said Miller two years
ago. She was froma cow which I bought of Michael Hanson, then of
Palmyra. The bull that sired this cow killed by Mr. Miller was bred by
Benj. Stevens of Stetson, and sold to Wm. Smart of Parkman. This dis-
eased cow was in no way connected to Dr. North’s herd as has been

erroneously stated.
Sanford Stevens.

Portland, Aug. 2, °86.

Dear Gilbert: Yours of yesterday received. Of course I went to Orono,
just as I wrote you last Sunday. (and I knew you had not received my
letter when you wrote), so not hearing from you to the contrary T went
way down there Monday afternoon, aud out to Orvuy in the rain ou ‘lues-
day morning to find myself April fooled. I wrote you I had notified
Gowell, and he was looking for us both.

I hate to go right back, but I suppose we might as well attend to what
we have to now as anytime, but I can hardly see any need of notifying
Ferguson, as he went there last week on his ‘‘ own hook” and staid two
days, but Gowell says he cannot see what for! I have a letter from Salmon
giving me his recommendations in full, and the only thing he suggests
different trom what I proposed to do at our first meeting, is in regard to
disinfection of the stables. So I can hardly see why we need him. Of
course we shall be criticised. We were in the “foot-and-mouth” cases, if
you recollect, but we made out to live through it, and in the present case,
I am ready to take action now, as I shall ever be, and as willing. I have
written nothing more for the Home Farm, and am not liable to say any-
thing of which you will not fully approve. I have written the selectmen
of Wesley for full particulars of their case, and when I hear from them
will decide what to do. I shall leave here Monday noon for Orono.

Geo. H. Bailey.

Portland, April 15th, °86.
Dear Gilbert:
We waited for you all the rorenoon yesterday, and not until afternoon
did I get your letter. Governor Robie still thinks he can get Salmon here
and I prepared a request for him to come, which is to be forwarded to

184

Frye. All agree that we should be criticised if we should recommend the
indiscriminate slaughter of the herd. As soon as Salmon is heard from I
will notify you, but answer please before three days. Shall you be in Au-
gusta the 27th, when the Council meets?
Yours truly,
Geo. H. Bailey.

Portland, 12th, 1886.

Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of the 18th, probably written
before you received my second letter written yesterday, or you certainly
would not say to me as you do that ‘we have no evidence that this bull
came from any other than sound parentage” as I enclose you Mr. Gowell’s
letter in reply to miné asking what cow was the dam of the young bull at
Bucksport. After reading my letter of the 11th if you still adhere to the
same opinion I shall abide by it for the present, but I know it will not
satisfy the selectmen of Bucksport of whom Mr. McAlister seems to be a
very intelligent man, and fully disposed to press this case to a satisfac-
tory conclusion. As to their call on me to attend this case. If *‘you do
not think it warranted a visit from me” how am I to distinguish between
what I ought to attend and those I had not? For I have never received a
call apparently more in earnest than this one, and one in which I felt my-
self it was my duty to attend when I came to kuow the calf was from the
herd at Orono.

His dam now proves to have been ‘*Princess Alba” one of the worst, if
not the very worst case at Orono, and her lungs presented all the lesions
possible for tuberculosis to assume. This was the case Balentine told you
I called a “beautiful case.” I think now it is important that we agree
upon some action to be taken, although if you still adhere to your present
position, I can not now see my way clear to do so, but am willing to
allow the matter to lie for the present or lay it before the Council for their
opinion if you think well of so doing.

We have so far encountered no criticism in our management of the
Commission we cannot successfully defend, and as my term of office will
probably expire with Governor Robie’s ‘term of office” I would not like
to make a mistake now.

I am yours sincerely,
Geo. H. Bailey.

Portland, Oct. 29th, 1885.

Dear Sir: I am in receipt of yours of the 27th, containing four letters,
three of which were from Etna and one from Kennebunkport, neither of
which were sent for by me as they relate to matters which have been long
since settled. If you will refer to my letter again you will notice that I
specified three letters, the first from Scribner (which you asked to keep a
little longer) the next from Mr, Gowell in relation to Kent’s bull, and a ;
postal from Mr. Chase. ‘hese are a part of my records, and may be of

—
C
or

service tome. Mr. Bell did call on me on ‘Tuesday, and I showed him
MeAlister’s letter, and while he fully agreed with me that the proposition
was a liberal one on Mr. Kent's part, and ought to be settled, we were not
at all sure we had a **quorum of the board” as, if Mr. Ferguson is a mem-
ber as he says he is (Governor Robie having continued his coiinission),
we could not be certain whether he would concur with your views or
ours, upon a final vote, although he said to me informally he thought
every one of the young bulls should be killed or castrated. Consequently
no action was taken officially, but another letter from Mr. Kent, request-
ing immediate action on his case, precipitated action upon my part, and
rather than have avy more disagreement or vexation about this case (and
you still opposing any compromise whatever), I concluded to offer to Mr.
McAlister to settle the matter upon my own private account, and am just
in receipt of his letter of acceptance of my offer, and the bull will be
killed at once. This action upon my part will in no way compromise the
Commissioners, or commit them to any future action in regard to other
cases that may arise similar to Mr. Kent’s, after I am no longer a Com-
missioner. The cost of settling the matter as I have I shall regard of no
consequence to me, compared to the result that will be attained, and I
shall feel that I have discharged my duty, in the only case connected with
the College farm that I have been allowed to know anything about. I
can see-no- good to be accomplished by going over the ground, as regards
our difference of opinion upon these particular cases, for they are so far
apart that there is no probability that either of us could draw up a report
that both of us would sign. Besides if Ferguson is still a member, you
will have the legal and proper number (three) still upon the board to
make up a majority report. As for my own action about these cases, I
am perfectly willing to await what develops and results, as the only vin-
dication I shall need, either at the hands of the College or the State.

As soon as I can go to Orono to inspect the buildings, I will make to
you my final report of what I find, as Mr. Gowell writes me the dressing
will all be moved from the cellar within a few days.

[am yours truly,
Geo. H. Bailey, V. S.

Majority Report of Commissioners for
Maine on Contagious Diseases

of Animals.

j-

To the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House
of Representatives.

The extensive and disastrous outbreak of tuberculosis at
the State College Farm was for the first time brought to
my attention during the first week in March, 1886, at which
time I received a telegram from Z. A. Gilbert, chairman of
the “Board of Cattle Commissioners,” to go at once to Orono
and inspect the College herd, which at that time numbered

over fifty head of thoroughbred Jersey and Short-horn cattle.

Arriving at the farm, I for the first time met with President
Fernald, Professors Balentine and Jordan, and Mr. G. M. Gow-

ell, the efficient Superintendent, who afforded me every facil-

ity to examine the animals, and from whom I received such
information and history of their cases as enabled me promptly
to come to the conclusion that a large proportion of the ani-
mals were affected with tuberculosis, perhaps better known
to the public at large as phthisis pulmonalis or consumption.
The result of subsequent examinations and consultations with
the State and College officials, and finally with Dr. C. B.
Michener, who was detailed for this service by the Commis-
sioner of Agriculture at Washington, culminated, as is now
well known, in the condemnation and destruction of the whole
herd. As this is the first case on record in which an entire
herd of anything like this number and value have ever been
destroyed as the result of official investigation, and as some
most remarkable and interesting features of the disease have
developed in tracing its origin and progress, I feel obliged to
go at some length into such dry details of individual cases as
have a direct bearing upon some animals connected with the
College herd, which are now in my opinion a constant menace

(189)

190

to the future cattle interests of Maine. The outbreak at
Orono has probably invited more gratuitous criticism and at-
tention from stock owners and the general public than would
have attached to any other public or private enterprise, owing
in great part to the prominent position to which the State
College has attained as a teacher and promoter of scientific
advancement and progressive farming in this State; and I
believe the Trustees and Faculty of the Institution, as well as
the Cattle Commissioners, should challenge and invite the full-
est inquiry and investigation into both causes and results, to
which the public are justly entitled.

At the time of my first visit | found the buildings in which
the cattle were contained were among the best and most com-
modious I had ever visited, and that every provision for the
maintenance of perfect health among its occupants had been
fully and amply secured. An abundance of sunlight and pure
water, scrupulous cleanliness, sufficient and wholesome nu-
trition, thorough drainage, and ventilation so perfect that the
air was almost as pure inside the barn as out,—all contributed
to the uniformly fine appearance of this high-bred herd, which
proved so deceptive (upon further investigation) that, had it
not been for the persistent and pathognomonic cough by
which they one by one betrayed their real condition, I should
have much doubted the correctness of my decision. The
rough coat and arched spine, the difficult and labored res-
piration, the sunken eye and pendulous abdomen, with ex-
treme debility and emaciation, were nearly all absent in this
herd, the judicious attention to hygiene, and the untiring care-
taking of their faithful Superintendent, accounting in a great
measure for the slow but sure development of the disease, a
circumstance that so long deceived the attendants and College
officials themselves as to their true condition. Many of the
animals were also pregnant, and it is a well-known fact that
increase of the tubercular growth is then held in abeyance,
the energies of the nutritive processes of the body being di-
verted to the nourishment and growth of the fcetus, while af-

mm

|

191

ter parturition the system is for a time debilitated, and rapid
extension of tubercle is favored. Individual members of the
herd were of great excellence, several cows having “butter
records” of 164 pounds per week, while 150 pounds of “gilt-
edged” butter was heing sold in Bangor market weekly.
About ten days before my visit the Jersey cow Pet, No. 40,
P. M., fourteen years old, had become so emaciated that she
had been killed, and lay frozen in the field adjoining the sta-
bles, and this cadaver furnished me with ample opportunity
to verify my diagnosis. From this cow I obtained the lungs,
and a cross-section of the pulmonary tissue revealed the pres-
ence of numerous yellow tubercles, large and small cavities
filled with a muco-purulent mass, others with caseous mate-
rial. The lungs presented the identical lesions afterwards
found in most of the animals at Orono, and of the peculiar
metamorphosis which tubercles undergo, those of caseous de-
generation afford the most favorable conditions for infecting
the expired air of diseased animals. At the time of my sec-
ond visit, March 12th, from among ten or twelve cows I had
previously ordered isolated from the others, I selected two
Jersey cows, Princess Alice, No. 44, P. M., and Princess
Alba, No. 27, P. M., (the latter I then regarded as a typical
case), and had them destroyed for post-mortem examination.
Princess Alba had a temperature of 103 3-5°, marked emacia-
tion, and dullness on percussion over the right lung, while aus-
cultation clearly disclosed humid crackling or gurgling rales.
The autopsy revealed an extraordinary amount of disease.
The lung, pericardial and pleural membranes were loaded with
deposit, which hung like bunches of grapes, exhibiting a
perfect case of what is known as “angleberries.”
parts there was scarcely a remnant of proper lung-structure
detectable, while others contained large tubercles filled with
caseous material and also cavities connecting with bronchia,
whose contents had been expectorated or absorbed. The
bronchial glands in this case had attained enormous dimen-
sions, the thymous weighing several pounds, and altogether

In some

192

the lesions were as extensive and varied as in any subsequent
autopsy. I shall have occasion to speak particularly of this
cow again as the dam of the “Kent bull” of Bucksport. The
lungs of Princess Alice were studded with miliary tubercles
scattered throughout them, while the bronchial lymphatic
glands contained calcified material that grated under the knife
when attempting to cut it. Mr. Gowell wrote me on March
20th: “There is not a very marked change in many of the
cattle, but in others, particularly those isolated in the stable,
the process of ‘wearing out’ is going on actively, and every
day’s developments go to sustain my conviction and opinion
expressed before notifying the ‘Board of Commissioners’
that the entire herd was doomed. Unpleasant as it was, I
was forced to recognize the truth.”

On April 6th, the Commissioners met with the Governor
and Council, at Orono, when the herd was again inspected and
final action recommended at an early date. I then suggested
to Governor Robie the propriety of requesting the Hon.
Norman J. Colman, Commissioner of Agriculture, at Wash-
ington, to send Professor Salmon, or some other expert ex-
aminer from his office, to consult and advise with the Cattle
Commissioners, as to the proper disposal of so valuable a
herd. The request was promptly complied with and Dr. Ch.
B. Michener, Professor of Cattle Pathology and Obstetrics at
the American Veterinary College of New York was detailed
for this service.

How well that service was performed, was the subject of a
personal letter from Gov. Robie to Commissioner Colman, in
whicb was conveyed the high appreciation of the State and
College officials of the great value of Dr. Michener’s timely
and professional assistance. Personally I am resting under
renewed and lasting obligations, for sound counsel and advice,
relieving me in a great measure from the responsibilities de-
volving upon me as Veterinary Officer of the “Board of Com-
missioners on Contagious Diseases.” Dr. Michener arrived
April 21st, and on the 22d and 28d, after a careful and criti-

193

cal examination of every animal in the herd, it was found
necessary to condemn them all, when they were forthwith ex-
peditiously and humanely killed, and the post-mortems, openly
made in the presence of the Governor, prominent physicians,
stock-owners, reporters und others interested, the autopsies
in every instance revealing the fact that the disease had been
correctly interpreted, and that every animal presented unmis-
takable lesions of tuberculosis.

Much unfriendly comment has already been indulged in in
regard to these cases by parties who entertained crude and
erroneous ideas upon the subject, and it has been stated that
too “much science,” book farming, concentrated food, “cot-
ton-seed meal,” &c., were each or all the cause of their de-
struction, but having been put in possession of the formula
and amount of feed furnished, I am able to state that there is
no foundation in fact for any such allegations, and that the
true cause lies “far and beyond” all such considerations. In
no instance were over three pounds per day of cotton-seed
meal furnished to cows giving a full flow of milk, and heifers
carrying their first calf (Primiperas) have never received a
particle, while the post-mortem appearance of the latter ani-
mals presented fully as severe lesions of tubercles as the former,
and calves which had never received any other nourishment
than their mothers’ milk were found to be thoroughly dis-
eased. No writer of the period has given to posterity so
classical a description of these devastations among animals as
Virgil in his “Georgics.”

‘‘Not whirlwinds from the sea so frequent rush,
Big with storm, as pests mid cattle rage,
Nor individuals sole disorders seize,
But, suddenly, whole flocks, with every hope,
At once, and, from the youngest, all the race.”

In my earnest endeavors to trace the origin of the disease
among the College herd, I was surprised to find that as long
ago as 1876, Mr. J. R. Farrington, who was then Superin-
tendent of the State farm, sold to Mr. Henry Boardman, of

13

194

Bangor, two cows that proved a few years later to result in
chronic cases of tuberculosis. Mr. Boardman, who for
many years has carried on an extensive milk-farm near Ban-
gor, has very kindly furnished me with the details of the
purchase and disposal of these cows, so that I am enabled to
establish the fact that these were the primary cases developed
upon the College farm. Mr. Gowell writes me, under date of
January 11th, “I presume you have now sufficient proof to
show that the disease was on the farm when Mr. Farrington
was here. I have looked in every direction for light previous
to 1876, but have been forced to give it up.” So it would
seem to be settled that the disease has been smouldering in
this herd for at least ten years, only to lift its hydra-head the
past season, and cause the total destruction of the entire herd.
On October 3rd, 1876, Mr. Farrington sold to Mr. Board-
man one red grade Jersey cow, five years old, named Su-
san, for $40.00, and on November 25th, 1876, sold him a red
and white grade Durham cow, called Dora, for $50.00. Mr.
Boardman tells me ‘this latter cow always had a cough, from
the time he received her’ until he sold her to a butcher, March
8th, 1879, and when killed was feund to be full of tubercles,
on the liver and lungs, and on the ribs and plates well up
to the throat.” Upon Mr. Boardman’s attention being called
to the matter he refunded the butcher $38.00 of the amount
paid him, and the carcass of the cow was sold to “boil out”
at “one and a half” cents per pound. Mr. Boardman kept
Susan five years, (during which time she failed to breed)
when she wasted away and died of consumption, and he had
her buried “hide and all,” and these are the only cases that
ever proved diseased upon his premises, in an experience in
dairying extending over many years, in which he has always
kept from ten to forty cows. Right here, a very significant
fact presents itself, proving conclusively to my mind, that the
cows sold to Mr. Boardman were predisposed to the disease
when they left the College farm, by a letter received from
Mr. Gowell, under date of March 20th, 1886, in which he

195

says, “I have learned of several animals, aside from Mr.
Boardman’s, that were sold from the herd six or seven years
ago and slaughtered that were found to be far gone with dis-
eased lungs. These statements have been brought to me by
purchasing parties. Last fall I sold a young bull to a neigh-
bor, to-day he tells me the bull has a “stiff neck” and small
bunch behind ear. These are the symptoms of disease shown
by our heifers that I told you of. I told him I would notify
you when you came again. Will you not arrange to remain
here an additional day and attend to the case? I am anxious
about it.” Two items of this important statement attract my
attention, and these I have underlined. The first :—that sev-
eral animals aside from Mr. Boardman’s sold six or seven
years ago “were found far gone with the disease,” would
carry them back to 1879 and ’80, just about the same time
Boardman’s cow Dora was found to be thoroughly diseased,
and unquestionably from the same source. The second :—that
the young bull sold to his neighbor had a “stiff neck.” Mr.
Gowell had previously told me of this symptom among some
young heifers, which at the time he attributed to feeding out
of high troughs, and I had explained to him that it is only
in exceptional cases that in the course of this malady altera-
tions are not found in the lymphatic glands of the head, neck
or chest, especially in the submaxillary, parotid and thoracic,
(which would give young animals the appearance of stiff
neck) as well as in the lymphatic glands.

Mr. Farrington remained Superintendent of the State Farm
until 1878, when, after serving another year as “Instructor of
Agriculture,” he received the responsible appointment of
Superintendent of the State Reform School, which position
he now holds. At the close of 1877, Mr. Farrington turned
over to his successor, Mr. Timothy G. Rich, thirty-four ani-
mals, comprising seven Short-Horns, eight Ayrshires, nine
Jerseys, ten Grades, and his last annual report to the Trustees
of the Maine State College becomes so important, in the light
of subsequent events, that I give place to his full statement
of the names and value of stock then upon the College farm.

196

Short-Horn cow Cornelia, 11 years old..........
og heifer Cornucopia, 3 years old.......
si ‘¢ Duchess of Maine, 3 years.....
fe ealf Cornucopia, 2nd, 3 months old..
ve bull Napoleon, 3rd, 2 years old......
Es ‘¢.» Dirigo, 19. months, olds... 5624 ae!
a ‘¢ calf Duke of Maine, 3 months old,

Ayrshire bull Hiempsal, 4 years old............

oo cow Olee. 6 years, Old). 00 wuphona eh kane
of ‘op Isabel. 7 years Old soja candy fin tlie
66 Sk OM VIA. Sx VORTS Ol diiid.s. ten aapecr en ore De
be ‘¢ QOleeannee, 2 years old ...........
ss ‘. Oletta,, 15 aonths, Old Jrsysin!! cictens in she
ss heifer calf Olivia, 2nd, 5 months.......
ss sé Isabel, 2nd, 3 months old....
Jersey, full Elarrys.2. veers Old 6s Seip ie amistad bsp
ss 6s calf, Harry, 2nd, 6,.months old... .....«\.
ss = sé tS Prince Peter, 2nd, 6 months old..
fF cow, Lebel: ORES ONG 5 Sidiaw. speiccbintarsestiue
sss. Pride of, Lachine,.8 years old... <.«:.\.i0.
<<, heifer Hepay.,.3 yearsiold, .\. 0-6 fein eter
6 ‘¢ Pride of the Island, 17 months old..
se ‘¢ Hester Hart, 17 months old........
‘6... colt: Helen, ..LO monthe olds ic) sits etavebasiores
Grade Short-Horn heifer Maggie, 3rd, 3 years old,
‘Ayrshire heifer Jennie, 19 months old.....
és cc Gipsey, 2nd, 19 months old,
ss Jersey cow, Maggie, 8 years old.........
ae J 65 \ TO eey jd SHOALS OLA ysiiers: <inot,, ays
Ee os ‘c:. Gipsey,.5. years ald. sy ./n,..6 6%
ce ce fh May aoypams Old). cei s,s of

ss «¢ heifer Topsey, 2nd, 17 months old. .
‘ Rs ‘¢ Topsey, 3rd, 10 months old..
One. tworgears? old. ateer, ows sre «ts fh dWeteisid cape is

Number of -animagis, 54. “Valle... coe «semen

$150 00
125 00
150 00

25 00
150 00
50 00
25 00
125 00
200 00
150 00
140 00

250 00
200 00
200 00

100 00

ae

197

Mr. T. G. Rich made his first annual report as Farm Super-
intendent in 1878, when the number of the herd was stated
to be twenty-five, and the value, $1165.00. Mr. Rich’s second
annual report was in 1879, at which time the herd numbered
twenty-seven head, seven of these being calves one year old
or less, and no value is given. Mr. Rich’s third annual report
was in 1880, at which time the herd numbered thirty-six,
seventeen of which were calves one year old or less, and no
value given. Mr. Rich’s last annual report was in 1881, at
which time the herd numbered twenty-eight head, fourteen
of them being calves one year old or less, and no value given.
Mr. Rich’s own reports, given almost “verbatim,” as I now
present them, would leave him as making a most unfavorable
showing of his management of farm affairs, were it not as I
now understand it, that the Trustees, yielding to the ‘‘popular
demand” that the hay crop be increased, and the farm be put
upon a paying basis, if possible, gave such instructions to Mr.
Rich. In pursuance of such demands, Mr. Rich disposed of
quite a number of thoroughbred animals, selected by his pre-
decessor, selling them at a great deduction from cost as well
us their actual value at the time, and replaced them with
cheaper cattle. But the fact still remains that Mr. Rich
must have known that he had a “contagious disease” of some
kind to contend with, and if he had killed or sold the entire
lot, it would have proved a “blessing to the State.” He did
sell several animals from the herd, (according to Mr. Gowell)
that upon “being slaughtered were found to be far gone with
the disease.” He himself killed an Ayrshire in 1880, that
he tells me “coughed and pined away,” and another at
pasture in 1881, that died from an “unknown trouble.” He
turned over to Mr. Gowell, in 1882, the grade Short-Horn
cow Maggie 3rd, afterward killed, who was coughing when he
let her go; he also turned over Rose 8th, the thoroughbred
Short-Horn cow that failed to breed, and upon being slaugh-
tered was found to be badly affected, and last but not least,
he turned over Hepsy and “Helen Hart,” (No. 5, Post-mor-

198

tem report) the latter cow the mother of ¢éwo bulls sold from
the farm, now coming two and three years old, and also
Helen’s calf (No.6 P.M.) “Helen Hart” was out of “Hepsy
Hart” and she out of Hebe, a Jersey cow, that refused to breed
and fell away in flesh in Mr. Rich’s hands, and he sold her to
a butcher in 1879, for twenty-two dollars, which was less than
ten per cent of what Mr. Farrington paid for her, he having
bought her of Dr. Boutelle in 1874, for two hundred and fifty
dollars. Iam in possession of all the College reports of Farm
Superintendent from 1866, for twenty years down to Mr.
Gowell’s last report in 1886, and in but a single instance do
I find any mention of the loss of one animal, either by acci-
dent or disease, excepting that Mr. Farrington, in 1875,
reports the loss of the Short-Horn bull Napoleon (sire of
Maggie, dam of Maggie 3rd), 5 years old, “who died from
an unknown disease that appeared to be an affection of the
salivary glands,” and in 1877, he lost the Short-Horn cow |
“Duchess of Lakeside” from gastritis (inflammation of the
stomach. )

President Wm. P. Wingate, in his report to the Senate and
House of Representatives, in 1881, announced Mr. Rich’s
resignation and the appointment of Mr. G. M. Gowell, then
President of the State Board of Agriculture, and said, “Mr.
Gowell is fully in sympathy with the purposes of the College,
and has a clear apprehension of its importance as a part of the
educational system of the State. He is a progressive and
successful farmer, and in matters pertaining to agriculture in
Maine is abreast with the best thought and practice of the
times. It is believed that he possesses special qualifications
for the position.” Mr. Gowell’s first annual report was in
1882, when the stock was composed of twenty-five cattle,
“one pair of oxen, seventeen cows, two bulls, two yearling
steers and two heifer calves. Included in the above are the
following thoroughbreds: one Short-Horn bull, one year old ;
one Jersey bull, one year old; three Jersey cows and two
Short-Horn cows. The larger part of the herd is a pure cross

199

between the Jersey and Ayrshire breeds,” the Jersey predom-
inating. In 1883, he says, “Earnest efforts have been made
to improve the stock, and there are now forty cattle, twenty-
four of them being thoroughbred. The Short-Horn herd con-
tains five animals. The A. J. C. C. herd consists of eight, and
of ‘Maine Jerseys’ there are twelve. Among the members of
these herds I am free to say there is not an inferior animal.
In the breeding of Short-Horns, the aim has been to unite, so
far as possible, the qualities of growth, thrift, and flesh with
the ability to produce milk. In breeding both classes of
Jerseys, constitutional vigor and rich milking powers have
been sought for. The remainder of the herd are of a cross
between the Jersey and Ayrshire breeds.” In 1884, Mr.
Gowell’s third annual report says, ‘‘The herd of cattle con-
sists of forty-two animals, thirty-seven of which are thorough-
bred. Of these, five are Short-Horns, nineteen are ‘Maine
Jerseys,’ and thirteen are ‘Cattle Club’ Jerseys. Among the
Jerseys are some large producers, of good breeding, partak-
ing largely of the blood of the great butter families of the
world. Most of the cows are young, many not having ma-
tured yet. The young animals have mostly been bred upon
the farm, and are vigorous, well-developed specimens of their
respective breeds. Sales of young bulls to farmers, for breed-
ing, have been frequent, but the heifers have mostly been re-
tained, as the farm is yet under-stocked.” In 1885, Mr.
Gowell reports, ‘*There are upon the farm forty-six cattle,
forty of them being thoroughbred. Of these, eight are
Short-ITorns, sixteen are ‘Maine State’ Jerseys, and sixteen
are ‘Cattle Club’ Jerseys. Approved bulls are at the head
of these herds, and the young animals produced are of much
excellence. Twenty-six cows and heifers are now in milk.”

Mr. Gowell’s last report, of 1886, has just been published,
and his summary says: ‘*The herd numbered fifty-one ani-
mals before its destruction. Forty-eight of them were regis-
tered thoroughbreds, and the remaining three were cross-
bred Jersey-Ayrshires. Of the forty-eight thoroughbreds,

200

ten were Short-Horns, seventeen were ‘Maine State Jerseys,’
and twenty-one were ‘American Cattle Club Jerseys.’ These
animals, or the stock from which they were bred, had
mostly been selected in different localities, where desirable
specimens could be found, and placed here within the last five
years. The aim had been to secure the best animals obtaina-
ble, and as the result of this selection and breeding the herd
had attained a very high degree of excellence.” No values
are placed upon the herds in any of the years since Mr.
Gowell has been Superintendent. The following report of
Dr. Michener will be read with interest in this connection :

269 W. 38TH STREET, NEw YORK, April 29, 1886.
To His Excellency, Frederick Robie, Esq., Governor of Maine:

DEAR SrtR:—Pursuant to an order from Hon. Norman J. Colman,
United States Commissioner of Agriculture, I started on the 19th instant
for Orono, Maine, to advise with your State Veterinarian, Dr. George H.
Bailey, as to what disposition should be made of the cattle belonging to
the State College farm. - Arriving there before the State authorities, I
had ample time to study carefully the history and surroundings of the
herd.

From G. M. Gowell, Superintendent of the farm, I learned that for the
past eight or ten years there occurred an occasional death among the cat-
tle, and as nearly as I could judge from his description, these animals
were affected with the same disease that prevailed at this examination.

The trouble was evidently a pulmonary one, a more or less persistent
cough, irregular or hurried breathing and emaciation being witnessed
in all.

I was first led to examine the hygienic surroundings. The barn is a
large one and has ample room for the stock. It is well lighted and
thoroughly ventilated, the air being surprisingly pure as I entered the
building early in the morning. The stalls are kept very clean, as the
animals themselves show. ‘Che manure is thrown in the basement, but a
free current of air prevents any appreciable odor from arising to the
stable. The feeding is judicious in every sense, and the food, both grain
and hay, is of the best quality.

From the history of the previous cases, and upon examining a few of
the cattle that presented the most marked symptoms, I was able to
diagnose the disease as tuberculosis, beyond any reasonable doubt.

Upon the arrival of the State authorities it was decided to destroy
some of the worst cases for post-mortem purposes. The animals thus
selected were some that State Veterinarian Bailey had previously exam-
ined and placed by themselves in the horse barn. I will refer to some

sete

201

of them by name and give the lesions presented. Cow Pansy presented
numerous miliary tubercles throughout the left lung, and in the right
were masses of tubercular deposits of various sizes, situated chiefly near
the apex of the lung. ‘These masses had become cheesy or calcareous.

Hyacinth presented smaller aggregations of grayish white nodules
throughout the substance of both lungs.

Flossy—both lungs affected; in the right lung near its center was no-
ticed a large abscess, due to softening and breaking down of tubercular
deposits. The left humero-radial, or elbow joint, was considerably enlarged
and had given rise to lameness during the past few months. ‘The knee
joint of the same leg was first involved, but now appeared healthy. ‘The
synovial membrane and extremities of the humerus and radius were in a
diseased condition, but presented no calcareous deposits or appearances
of rheumatoid arthritis. The prepectoral and brachial lymphatic glands
were found to contain much cheesy and calcareous matter.

Cows Edith, Crummie, Mildred, Blanch, and others showed extensive
granulations on the costal and pulmonary pleurze, which in some instances
firmly united the lungs to the ribs.

Helen Hart, in addition to similar lesions of the thoracic organs, re-
vealed well-developed tubercles in the udder. Some of these had broken
down and their contents was discharged into the milk sinuses, and tainted
the milk—a fact that had been observed by those in charge for some days.

It does not appear necessary for me to detail the lesions found in indi-
vidual cases beyond this, except to remark that other organs of the body
were frequently involved—liver, intestines, etc. The calves presented
mostly diseased conditions of lymphatic glands and intestines; diarrhcea
aud other digestive disorders being here most marked.

Out of the forty-seven (47) head destroyed, all (four or five calves were
not examined, but were killed because of being the offspring of diseased
dams, and having occupied the infected barn,) presented symptoms which,
as you are probably aware, were accurately interpreted in every instance,
even where but very small and deep-seated portions of lung tissue were
involved.

The uniformity of these symptoms and pathological lesions must prove
to all thinking minds (whether little or nothing is known of the appear-
ance of the disease in question) that there existed in each individual
member of the herd one and the same disease.

‘That this disease is both hereditary and contagious seems also patent
from the fact that calves scarcely one month old were plainly affected,
and that those animals recently bought and placed with the diseased
cattle show upon post-mortem examination the initial lesions of this
malady.

In answer to those who contend that this disease was caused by im-
proper feeding, or lack of sufficient ventilation and exercise, it is only
necessary to remind you that tuberculosis, like small pox and similar dis-
eases, is a specific malady, one that can only be spread by coming in
contact in some way with its special and determined infecting agent.

202

The assertions that cotton-seed meal had anything to do with the origin
or spread of this disease are simply ridiculous.

Taking into consideration, then, the facts that a very large proportion
of the herd (all, we might almost say) were affected with a disease com-
municable not only from animal to animal, but from animal to man; that
in the future, death after death would occur yearly; that scarcely by any
possibility could calves be raised from any of these cows that would
reach maturity free from this pestilence; that animals purchased else-
where and placed with this herd would (as past experience proves) soon
become diseased; and that the barn itself is now infected, and must be left
vacant for a considerable period; parts of it (floors, etc.) removed and
burned, and a thorough and repeated disinfection be resorted to,—it be-
comes apparent to all, I think, that the only safe and proper course to
pursue was the one advised, i. e., the slaughter of the entire herd.

Some of the meat might have been used as food had it not been for the
prejudice that was so generally felt against it. For some time it has
been impossible to sell even the butter from these cows, and I was assured
by every one likely to know, that under no circumstances could a pound
of the meat be disposed of now, or even months later.

The swine on the farm, that had been fed largely on the milk of these
cows, were examined, and one pig nearly a year old was killed and care-
fully examined, but no traces of the tuberculosis could be detected. ‘The
butcher who kills the pigs raised. on the farm states that in some in-
stances the liver has appeared diseased. In conclusion, I can only recom-
mend that when other animals are purchased, care be taken to buy from
the herds where the disease has never existed, and that each animal be
examined, at the time of purchase, by your State Veterinarian.

Very respectfully,
CH. B. MICHENER, V. S.,
Inspector Bureau of Animal Industry.
I fully concur with the above report.

GEO. H. Battery, D. V. 8:;
Commissioner for Maine on Contagious Diseases of Animals.

The buildings have been disinfected through the agency of
carbolic acid, sulphuric acid, copperas solution and fumes of
burning sulphur. Those parts of the floors upon which ani-
mals stood were removed and replaced by new material.

The quarantine was raised by the following communication

Nov. 18, 1886:
PORTLAND, Nov. 18, 1886.

To the Trustees of the Maine State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts:

This is to certify that on November 10th I visited Orono to inspect the
buildings that had contained the Jersey herd destroyed by order of the
Cattle Commissioners, and find that all the recommendations and require-

203

ments prescribed by Dr. Michener and myself have been faithfully com-
plied with, and believe the buildings to be in a safe condition to introduce
new stock, as it is possible to make them through the agency of disin-
fectants and thorough ventilation. The means adopted meet my entire

approval.
Gro. H. BAILEY, D. V.5.,

State Veterinary Surgeon.

Mr. Gowell writes to me, under date of December 13th,
1886, in reply to my inquiry, ‘*Mr. Rich turned over to me
quite a lot of young steers that I sold within the next few
months, excepting one pair that I kept a year or over. He
also left some seven or eight cows. The most of them were
kept by me during the next year. Four of them were kept
until 1884, two were kept until 1885, and one, Helen Hart,
(No. 5, P. M.) until last spring. As I have previously told
you, the old Short-Horn cow was coughing in 1882, when 1
came here. By good feeding she seemingly recovered, at least
the cough ceased, and she did choice work for a year or more,
when she again failed and was destroyed. No examination was
made of her after slaughtering. Another of these cows was Rose
8th, of the Short-Horn Herd Book—a young cow—she refused
to breed and becoming fat was sold for beef, and upon being
butchered was found badly affected, as I have before told you.”
So, to state it plainly, Mr. Gowell received from Mr. Rich
in 1882 a ‘‘legacy of corruption” that has already cost the
State thousands of dollars, when, if at that time he had
promptly destroyed this meagre and worthless ‘‘band of non-
descripts,” and thoroughly disinfected his premises, the splen-
did herd he afterwards so prudently selected and so carefully
reared upon the College farm would undoubtedly have been
alive and well to-day—alike creditable and profitable to the
State—instead of having found a nameless sepulchre upon
the banks of the Penobscot. It is but simple justice to Mr.
Gowell to say that he purchased only the most approved ani-
mals ‘*whenever and wherever” they could be bought to the
best advantage, and the ‘‘personnel” of the herd at Orono
was the best endorsement he could have asked, that they were
critically and intelligently selected, but when he had collected

204

them together and domiciled them with the contaminated mon-
grels he had of Rich, he led them into the presence of a ‘‘pesti-
lence that walketh in darkness, and a destruction that wasteth
at noonday.” In no instance have I been able to learn of a
single herd or a single town in Maine, from which these ani-
mals were purchased, that down to the present time have
ever been affected with tuberculosis, and I am led irresisti-
bly to the conclusion that the disease that finally consumed
the entire herd at Orono was generated, developed and con-
fined within the boundaries of the College farm, and if no
animals had ever been sold from the herd, we could now
report the malady as completely and effectively stamped out.

The old cow Hebe, the ‘‘Jonah” of the College lot, was
purchased from Dr. Boutelle, and I believe the purity and
freedom from disease of his herd has never been called in
question. Two cows, Juno 2nd and Juliette, came from
Briggs & Son, Maple Grove Stock Farm, and their herd are
clean and healthy, to my own personal knowledge. Mr. B.
F. Briggs writes me from Auburn, ‘Pet, the dam of Juli-
ette, was sold to a neighbor of ours. She was, to the day of
her death, a perfectly healthy and strong cow, and all of her
descendants have been, and so have the descendants of Juno
2nd.” Several came from Winthrop, and I have never heard
of a ‘*Maine State Jersey” having tuberculosis in the town
they came from, and it is so with all the others; the ‘*fountain
head” was pure until mixed up with the polluted herd at
Orono. There is plenty of ‘‘food for reflection” in such start-
ling evidences of contagion as these cases afford, which should
be well considered by prudent men, in the purchase of animals
to increase their herds or to lay the foundation of new ven-
tures in that direction. The evidence all goes to show that
the animals purchased by Mr. Gowell, were not only sound
when he bought them, but were from sound parentage, and
that they were themselves affected by contact with the old
members of the College herd, while their produce would have
a tri-fold tendency to disease by contagion and heredity and
also through the agency of the milk. Outside of these bulls

205

that have been distributed about the State, there is not a single
case remaining above ground, that has ever been reported to
me, since I have been a member of the Board of State Com-
missioners. We have no contagious disease prevailing in
our State to-day, and it is not true that ‘‘there are a few
towns in Maine where losses by this disease have not oc-
curred.” It is a ‘‘false alarm” to have that statement go out
with the endorsement of the College officials, who must have
been furnished their information by some party either design-
edly or who rnew nothing of the facts. If it were true, how-
ever, there would be all the more reason why the Commis-
sioners should be empowered to stamp it out. In an official
experience for the past five years upon the board, I have never
but once had my attention called to what proved to be a case
of phthisis, and that was the outbreak last May in a small
herd of native cattle at North Waterboro’, where an old and
diseased cow, purchased in Shapleigh, had been introduced
into the herd, and slightly affected a few heifers; one three-
year old and the weanling calf from the old cow were de-
stroyed, the buildings disinfected, and all settled at a very
small expense to the State. In my private practice I have
as yet seen only an isolated case, that of an inbred Jersey
heifer, whose sire was her own ‘‘full brother,” and she was
afterwards destroyed. In reference to the Short-Horn cow,
Rose 8th, refusing to breed, which was also the case with the
cow Susan, sold to Mr. Boardman, and the thoroughbred Jer-
sey cow ‘‘Hebe,” about whom I shall have more to say here-
after, it is a fact well recognized among veterinarians, that a
large number of phthisical animals only exceptionally breed,
or they remain totally sterile; and this absence of the pro-
creative faculty has been indicated by many authorities, and
especially by Roloff, as one of the symptoms of tuberculosis.
**W hen the ovum is infected by the father or mother, it does not
become developed, or its developement is of short duration.
In such a ease, coition will be unfruitful, or if the infection is
due to the mother, she will be rendered completely sterile.”
If the foetus is infected during its development, it usually be-

206

comes diseased and perishes before birth, being generally ex-
pelled from the uterus by abortion.

Having been informed by Mr. Gowell that between the
time he became Superintendent and his notice to the Cattle
Commissioners, in March last, he had slaughtered five other
cows besides Maggie 3rd and Rose 8th, that all presented the
same condition of glands and lungs as the cow Pet, I have
since learned the first one of them that he caused to be de-
stroyed was the grade Short-Horn cow Maggie 3rd, killed in
the autumn of 1884. This cow was bred upon the farm from
a COW purchased in Orono, and was about ten years old when
killed. She was one of the cows turned over to Mr. Rich by
Mr. Farrington in 1878. The next was the thoroughbred
Short-Horn cow Rose 8th, slaughtered in 1885. This cow
was put upon the farm by Mr. Rich, when she was but a few
days old, and was bought with her dam in the town of Stark.
The Jersey heifers ‘‘Gray Nose” and ‘‘Jersey Lily” were
also killed in 1885. <‘*Gray Nose” was bred upon the farm
and was out of Hyacinthe, one of the condemned cows, (see
No. 3, post-mortem report) and at the time of killing was
about two and a half years old. Jersey Lily was purchased
when about one year old, in Rockland, Me., together with her
dam ‘‘Princess Alba” (before referred to as the dam of the
Kent bull) and was about two years and nine months old
when killed. The Jersey heifer Brownie was also killed in
1885. She was bred upon the farm, was two years and three
months old when killed, and her glands and lungs were both
affected. Her dam was Juliette, (No. 32, P. M. reports).
The Jersey cow Betsey was killed in January, 1886. Betsey
was bred by the late Samuel Guild of Augusta, and was
bought by Mr. Gowell in 1883, and at the same time he of-
fered Mr. Guild a very large price for her dam. Pet was
killed February 21st, 1886, about ten days before I was noti-
fied of the outbreak upon the farm. Pet was bred in Saga-
dahoe County, and was bought by Mr. Gowell in 1882.

This summary shows that these seven cows had succumbed
to the disease since Mr. Gowell had been in charge and _pre-

———

207

vious to any notification to the Commissioners, all of which
presented the same morbid appearance and lesions as were
found in the lungs of Pet (the cow I held the post-mortem on
at my first visit), thus establishing the fact beyond all con-
troversy, that they were all the victims of tuberculosis, the
entire absence of the characteristic marbled appearance formed
by the exudation and consolidation of lymph into the inter-
lobular cellular tissue of the lung disposing entirely of the
pre-existing theory of contagious pleuro-pneumonia, of which
latter terrible scourge we have never yet had a case in Maine.
The State of Maine, however, in common with other New
England States, is seriously menaced by the near proximity of
this highly contagious disease, the only remedy for which, in
my opinion, lies in the swift enactment of such wise provis-
ions of law as shall anticipate emergencies only too likely to
arise. There are now no provisions of law whatever to pre-
vent the bringing into the State of cattle affected with either
contagious pleuro-pneumonia or tuberculosis, and I believe
our only safety depends upon promptly closing the borders of
our State against every State or Territory in which conta-
gious diseases are known to exist. We prohibit the importa-
tion of European cattle except under a quarantine of ninety
days. For the same reason precisely we should prohibit the
movement of cattle out from an infected State or district, ex-
cept under a quarantine of similar length. Every argument
that can be advanced in support of the one is equally valid
for the other, and if we allow this plague to reach our State,
it will matter little whether it has come from Liverpool or
New York: its virulent and deadly effect will be the same.
Governor Bodwell struck the ‘‘key note” when he said in his
inaugural address: ‘*Fuller authority should be given to the
State to destroy at once all cattle known to be affected with
the disease. The owners will not do the work of destruction
themselves on account of the direct loss incurred, and there-
fore the Government, as a general safeguard to the herd of
the State, should assume the task and the cost of instant de-
struction when the disease is ascertained to exist. One

208

neglected case, that might have cost the State fifty dollars to
destroy, would possibly entail a loss of many thousands of del-
lars to our cattle growers. It has cost England millions of
dollars in her efforts to extirpate the disease, and if the con-
tagion should break out among our vast herds on the West-
ern plains, the loss would be incalculable. Beside guarding
our own State by proper enactments on the subject, [ recom-
mend that Congress be memorialized to take the utmost care
and precaution, through the national power, to prevent the
importation and spread of the disease.”

The public cannot have forgotten the urgent warning they
received by the importation of ‘‘Foot and Mouth Disease” at
Portland, during the winter of 1883, showing that even the
‘‘broad Atlantic” offers no barrier to the approach of bovine
scourges from ‘‘across the sea,” while the alarming increase
and concentration of pleuro-pneumonia at Chicago has become
of sufficient importance to invoke national legislation. The
last census gives the number of cattle in Maine as 334,421,
and the total value of live stock as $16,499,376, while the
national investment in cattle alone is $1,200,000,000.

There was a direct loss to the State of between three and
four thousand dollars by the destruction of the College herd,
and an appropriation has been asked for to restock the farm.
I believe there are many reasons why this claim should be
allowed, and some such improved breeds of cattle purchased
as the past experience, the present embarrassments, and the
future prosperity of the College demand. The farm has
been brought by the present management into a high state of
cultivation, and was never so well and thoroughly equipped
as now for the safe and convenient handling of its abundant
harvests, while the addition during the past year of another
barn affords spacious and ample accommodations for sufficient
stock to consume their entire crop of hay and grain upon the
premises, thus enabling the farm to furnish an abundance of
‘s*home-made” fertilizers, which shall always exceed in value
those of chemical production, however honestly compounded.
There will, moreover, be no need of going outside of Maine

209

‘to procure suitable cattle to stock the farm, for the enterprise
and forethought of our most prominent stock-raisers have, by
careful selection and importation, raised the standard of our
beef supply until there is no good and sufficient reason why
Maine should not produce all the beef we need, and of su-
perior quality to any we can purchase in the markets of the
great West, while the splendid exhibition of cattle at our re-
cent State and New England Fairs, have never been excelled
either in ‘‘quality or quantity” in this country or Europe.
While endeavoring to fully and faithfully present the etiology
and termination of the College cases, I believe no better op-
portunity will ever be afforded me than now to discuss the
causes and symptoms of the disease that has obtained so seri-
ous 4 foothold in our State, offering only such testimony as,
while instructive and convincing, is also susceptible of the
highest proof.

Walley, a very eminent English authority, RAYS s< ** he
insidious nature of tuberculosis has perhaps had much to do
with the comparative slowness with which professional and
public opinion has been directed to it, but the strides which it
has made and the hold which it has gained on our stock render
it one of the most important questions affecting the future wel-
being of the bovine species. Looking-at an individual tuber-
cle we might be led to despise its comparative insignificance,
and to ignore its deadly meaning ; but when we see thousands
upon thousands of these knots existing in the organism of a
single animal, a truth is forced upon our minds which we can-
not refuse to recognize—that we have to deal with an insidi-
ous, implacable and deadly foe; and independently of its
ultimate fatality, I think I may with safety say, that no
morbid substance known to the pathologist is so protean as
tubercle in the number of functional derangements to which it
gives rise.”

By common consent it seems to be conceded that Jerseys
and Sbhort-Horns are most subject to tuberculosis. Animals
that are in-bred, of a lymphatic temperament, attenuated

14

210

figure, light barrels and narrow chests, are undoubtedly more
predisposed to tubercle than those in which conformation
may be said to be more perfect. The Ayrshires and Hols-
teins, are, as a rule, quite free from it, but under the influence
of a change of climate they become particularly predisposed.
The solid colored and more hardy breeds, such as the Here-
fords, Sussex and Devons, seem to be peculiarly exempt
from disease, and it is claimed that the polled Aberdeenshires
never develop it, however closely bred. The bovine tribe,
however, is pre-eminently disposed, equally so with man; and
next in order is the common rabbit. Pigs are very prone to
tubercle, and also poultry. Tubercle is rarely seen in the
sheep, cat or dog, and I have never seen a case of it in the
horse. Phthisis means a wasting away, sometimes called
pining, but of late years the term has been mainly restricted
to that species of wasting disease which consists in the occu-
pation of the lungs by tubercular matter. In the bovine
species tubercle is remarkable for it enormous deposit in
the lungs, although other parts are freely affected.

Tubercle may be confined to a non-vascular, gray, semi-
transparent nodule, varying in size, in the lower animals,
from a millet seed to that of a hen’s egg. The conversion
of the gray tubercle to the yellow is the most common retro-
gressive change. These tubercles, in a majority of cases,
sooner or later, soften and liquefy into a condition that admits.
of their expulsion or escape through the bronchial tubes which
communicate with the trachea; there being left in the lung in
each case an excavation, a cavity or vomica. These vary
greatly in size; as they may also vary in number. They
may be no bigger than a pea, or they may be large enough
to contain a pint or more of fluid. Opening into these cavi-
ties there is always one, and there are generally several, per-
vious bronchial tubes, which seem as if they had been cut off
just where they enter the cavity, but you never, or very
seldom, find a blood-vessel thus entering into the cavity;
occasionally, but of very rare occurrence, a considerable

0
3!

211

blood-vessel does get laid open during the formation of a
vomica, and then copious and fatal hemmorrhage may ensue.
The true reason why bronchial tubes open into these cavities,
and blood-vessels do not, is to be found in the natural differ-.
ences between these two sets of vessels, in respect to their
structure. The blood-tubes yield readily to external pres-
sure, and are pushed aside, while the bronchial tubes are
neither so easily compressed, nor do they carry any coagula-
ble fluid, but their open mouths remain at a point where the
tubercular matter stopped, and afford a channel, through
which the same matter, after it has liquefied, finds its way
toward the trachea.

_ According to Niemeyer, tubercular matter, when once de-
posited, increases in quantity, until at length it liquefies by a
sort of fatty degeneration. The tubercular matter becomes
soft, breaks down, and is ultimately expelled through the
bronchi, trachea and mouth. It is a remarkable and very
important fact, that tubercles when they affect the lungs, are
not deposited at random, but in the upper lobes. It is here
also that they first ripen and grow soft, and become ready
for expulsion through the bronchi and trachea, and it is here
also that we have the largest vomica. These facts have a
most important bearing upon a correct diagnosis, in cases
that might otherwise be doubtful, for the converse of this is
true of common inflammation of the lungs. Pneumonia affects
by preference the lower lobes, and there is much practical
advantage in knowing these points of contrast.

In health, the lungs of bovines, weighing only between six
and seven pounds, are so buoyant that they float upon the
water, while with lungs invaded with tubercular formations,
they often weigh fifty or sixty pounds, and immediately
descend to the bottom when placed in water. The liver is
also very apt to undergo remarkable changes. It sometimes
enlarges by becoming full of adipose matter whieh greases
the hands and scalpel when it is cut open, the entire gland
becoming soft, losing its natural red tint and assuming a pale

212

fawn color. Sometimes the cut surface of a liver has a whit-
ish and glistening appearance and is then called a waxy liver,
and this condition was observed in several members of the
Orono herd. Tubercle kills by destroying the structures,
and consequently the functions, of organs in which it is
deposited.

The symptoms of tuberculosis in cattle, in its earliest
stages, are sometimes involved in more or less obscurity.
Prominent among these are unthriftiness, with a diminished
and capricious appetite. The animals are easily fatigued, and
have a weak and hoarse cough, that is almost diagnostic, the
skin is sensitive and dry, and the coat staring, the mucous
membranes are pale, the digestive organs are weak, and they
are prone to tympanitis. There is increase of temperature,
with a variable pulse. The milk is deteriorated in quality,
being blue and watery, and contains a larger proportion of
alkaline salts; but is less rich in nitrogenous matters, and fat
and sugar, than in health, proving that assimilation is defect-
ive. In herds predisposed to tubercle they often become
lame from some unassignable cause, when the post-mortem
examination proves that it is due to tubercular inflammation of
a joint. Flossy (No. 22, P. M.,) was a marked case of this
species of lameness in the College herd. If the animal is
compelled to walk quickly there is labored respiration, which
becomes so prominent as to assume the abdominal character,
if the pleura is invaded by disease. Nymphomania, or exces-
sive sexual desire, is also frequent, but the animal is sterile;
as the malady develops, the cough becomes more persistent
and easily induced, and accompanied by muco-purulent expec-
toration. The animals are apathetic and sluggish in their
movements. Emaciation proceeds more or less rapidly,
extreme debility ensues, the eyes are sunken and brilliant, the
mouth is open and drawn back at the angles, the spine is
arched and tender, and the breath, as death approaches,
becomes cadaverous and fetid. Percussion gives dullness in
some parts of the chest, and in others the normal resonance, ,

213
f

although the members of my profession do not possess equal
advantages with human practitioners, of **free and easy” access
to the chest wall, owing in great part to the thick skin and hair
of animals, as well as the wide distribution of the ‘‘serratus
magnus” muscle posterior to the scapula—while the sound
resulting from the first gentle tap upon or beneath the clavicle
in the human patient often only too clearly reveals lesions
that seal the fate of a valuable life.

Auscultation reveals an altered respiratory murmur ; it is
louder in some places than in others, and of a harsh and rush-
ing sound. Instead of the normal vesicular murmur, we find
the ‘‘dry crackle” which is associated with incipient tubercle,
the cavernous or bronchial sounds which occur during the
passage of air into or out of a cavity in the lung, and the
bumid crackling or gurgling rales, which are pathoguomonic
of advanced tuberculization, and heard during the later stages
of nearly all cases of consumption. Large crepitation depends
upon the passage of air through liquids, but when pus or
liquid matter of any kind is collected in 2 vomica, which com-
municates freely with the trachea thorough pervious bronchi,
the bubbles produced by the entrance and exit of air will be
still more numerous and large; and a sound is then produced
which the word gurgling well expresses. Whenever, there-
fore, we hear gurgling during respiration or during the act of
coughing, we conclude we have a cavity. Another constant
accompaniment of progressive phthisis is emaciation, and if,
without any apparent cause, an animal grows thin and weak,
with a quick pulse and labored respiration, these indications
are pregnant with meaning that tubercular disease is at work
in the lungs, and is’ consuming life. The detection of the
disease is sometimes difficult. It is easy when the tubercles
are numerous, large or far advanced; difficult when they are
scanty in number, thinly scattered and individually small, and
in the latter case would not cause any appreciable deviation
from the natural resonance of the chest on percussion, or
from the natural smooth, equable rustle of the breathing.

214

The disease always terminates fatally, if the animal be per-
mitted to linger on, and it dies ina state of extreme marasmus.
The International Veterinary Congress, held at Brussels, in
1883, to discuss the Influence of Heredity and Contagion on the
Propagation of Tuberculosis, in summing up their labors,
arrived at the following conclusions.

Ist. Tuberculosis has been observed in all warm-blooded
animals submitted to domesticity or deprived of their liberty.

2d. Tuberculosis in animals and mankind presents analo-
gous manifestations, in the living as in the dead creature.

3d. The course and termination of the disease in mankind
and animals is the same.

4th. The masses of tubercle, and especially the sputa of
the phthisical, produce tuberculosis in animals, when these
matters are introduced through the respiratory or digestive
apparatus. or through a deep wound. Tuberculosis inocu-
lated from man to animals, may in its turn be transmitted
from one animal to another, and always produces tuberculosis.

5th. Tuberculosis of man and of animals is transmitted by
heredity.

6th. The disease is contagious in man and animals.

7th. Clinical observations prove the transmission of tuber-
culosis from animals to man by consumption of the milk of
phthisical animals.

8th. Tuberculosis of animals and man is rare in cold cli-
mates. It is most frequent in southern countries; the trac-
ings of the geographical propagation of the disease in man
and animals is nearly parallel.

9th. It is evidently proved that a pathogenic microbe, hav-
ing the same morphological and biological characters, exists
in the tubercle of man and in that of animals. This organ-
ism, whether it be developed in man or animals, may induce
tuberculosis when, cultivated in a pure state, it is conveyed
to the animal possessing the necessary receptivity. Accord-
ing to Koch, the bacteria of tubercle manifest themselves in
the form of threads of extreme tenuity, in length scarcely
one-half the diameter of a red blood-corpuscle, and in breadth

—

215

at most one-fifth of their length. They are non-motile, with-
out proper motion, and form spores which are developed dur-
ing the life and in the body of the affected creature. They are
never mixed with micrococci or other bacteria in tuberculous
centres protected from the air. First and foremost among pre-
disposing causes in the propagation of tuberculosis, among
bovines, is its hereditary tendency.

According to Walley, ‘*Hereditary tendency may be divided
into direct and indirect: the former when it is transmitted by
a sire or dam to its immediate progeny, the latter when only
transmitted to the second or third generation—constituting
atavism. No predisposing cause with which we are ac-
quainted exercises such a potent influence in the production
of tubercle as this: from sire to son, from dam to offspring,
from generation to generation—often an unbroken succession
—the fatal tendency is transmitted; the more consanguinity
is multiplied, the more the tendency is increased, and the
greater the virulence of the resulting products. No animal
whose bistury is tainted, even in the slightest degree, or in
whose system there exists the least suspicion of tubercle,
should be used for breeding purposes.” The disease is so in-
sidious in its attacks that, when you think you are all right, it
inay appear in a grand-child of what was considered a very
healthy animal, and outbreaks will occur years after all has
been seemingly healthy, or it may lie dormant in an apparently
healthy parent only to be regularly and certainly produced in
their offspring.

Dr. J. H. Stickney, of Boston, one of our best men, and
a graduate of human as well as veterinary medicine, tells me
of an interesting case in point in western Massachusetts.
A client of his had sold a young bull, with ‘‘a long pedigree”
at ‘‘a long price,” and before being delivered the youngster
had developed a slight cough. Upon Dr. Stickney’s attention
being called to the case, he at once pronounced it tuberculosis.
The dam of the bull was shown him, and after a critical exam-
ination of her, the Doctor failed to discover the slightest

216

indication of disease about her, but when he came to examine
the grand-dam, who had been purchased at one of the ‘*“New
York sales,” he found her lungs and glands to be thoroughly
invested with tubercle. This aroused the suspicion of the
owner that the animal possessed the hereditary taint when
he purchased her in New York, and upon ascertaining from
what herd the animal was contributed to the sale, he visited
the farm, only to find his suspicions well grounded, and that
tuberculous animals were regularly disposed of whenever the
primary symptoms became apparent. These men are always
on the alert with regard to animals they breed, and are always.
anxious to dispose of them whenever they show any suspicious
or morbid symptoms. In this way ‘‘suspects” find their way
into sound herds, only to communicate to them the germs of
the transmissible diseases with which they are affected.

Professor Law, of Cornell University, in his report to the
Department of Agriculture, of the contagious diseases of our
domestic animals, says that ‘‘twenty, thirty, and even fifty
per cent of certain herds that supply New York City with
milk are affected with this disease. In some country dis-
tricts can be shown large herds with ninety per cent subjects
of tuberculosis.”

Some startling discoveries have also recently been made by
the State ‘‘hoard of health” at San Francisco, California.

The ‘‘board” accompanied by a veterinary surgeon, inspected
ten or a dozen dairies reported to them, and from one of them
a cow suffering from consumption was purchased for the pur-
pose of experiment. Dr. E. V. Hopkins, who is regarded
as a microscopic specialist of high reputation, was engaged to:
make examination upon the milk of the consumptive animal.
‘‘The analysis was made,” explained the doctor, ‘‘with a view
to discovering whether the bacilli, or the consumptive disease
germs, are found in the milk of the diseased animal. If these
germs are found in the milk, then the disease is capable of
being transmitted to the persons who use the milk. The cow
was brought to me on December Ist, I think, and we kept

217

her about two weeks. I made several experiments during
that time,as these will indicate”—exhibiting a box of microscop-
ical glass slides carefully labelled. ‘*I allowed the milk first to
stand two days, until the cream had thoroughly risen to the
top. One drop of this cream sufficed to prepare four slides.
In order to bring the bacilli to view and distinguish them
from surrounding matter, it was necessary to strain them.”
Dr. Hopkins here slipped one of the prepared slides, upon
which a drop of the milk had been dried, on his microscope
of 1500 magnifying power, and adjusted it for the reporter's
eye. The milk presented an almost transparent appearance,
and against it as a background there were to be counted a
half-dozen reddish lines, perhaps an eighth of an inch long,
apparently. ‘*These colored lines which you see,” said Dr.
Hopkins, ‘‘are the disease germs of consumption. Trans-
mitted in the living form to a person or other living being,
they are liable to plant the fatal disease. The bacillus is a
division of the bacteria, one of the very lowest forms of liv-
ing vegetable life which exists in the blood, flesh and various
forms of animal and vegetable life. According to the most
advanced developments of medical science, it is held that all
infectious diseases are due to the presence of bacteria—eacl»
disease has its representative species of the bacteria. The
bacillus is long and tube-like, made up of infinitesimal spores,
only made visible by the most powerful microscopes. Thus
diphtheria, typhoid fever, leprosy, consumption, cholera and
other contagious diseases have their separate germs which, to
the eye of one understanding their nature and character, are
recognizable and distinguishable one from the other. Other
diseases, such as scarlet fever, measles and erysipelas, are due
to micrococci, a round-celled form of bacteria. But those
you see in the microscope are the disease germ of consump-
tion, and from which the disease is developed. From all of
the analysis of the milk from this consumptive cow I have
found these bacilli.”

‘‘And would the disease be transmitted to those who use
the milk merely oy the drinking of it ?”

218

‘That would depend upon the health and delicacy of the
organs of the person who drinks the milk. For children and
babies, whose stomachs are yet delicate and susceptible to dis-
ease, the transmission cannot be avoided. Any baby who
should drink this milk could not avoid being inoculated with
consumption. With healthy adults, whose organs are less
susceptible, the danger is less, though the germs will attach
themselves to any organ which is weak.”

‘‘How many dairies have you thus examined ?”

‘‘Five, thus far.”

‘‘And in the milk of how many did you find the bacilli of
consumption ?”

‘In four. That, of course, is a startling discovery. It is
but just, however, to state that I chose dairies which I
thought most likely to have diseased cattle.”

‘‘Was the milk that you examined taken from any one
special cow ?”

‘“‘No; IL took the milk as it was delivered from door to
door. The dairy proprietors were informed of the discovery
and they have promptly separated the diseased cows from the
others, I am informed. Of course a cow may be in the first
stages of consumption and have no outward appearances and
yet promulgate the germs. There may be only one diseased
cow in the dairy. Yet the fuct remains that after this cow’s
milk has been mixed with that of many others of the herd,
I find in one‘drop of the mixture the germs of the deadly
-disease.”

Dr. Hopkins had also prepared microscopical slides with
minute portions of liver, blood, udder and lungs of the dis-
-eased cow that had been killed. All showed the bacilli, and
the liver revealed a perfect mass of germ clusters.

Steele, a prominent English author, says, ‘‘Tubercle and
-cancer are hereditary disorders, and the immature cancer or
tubercle elements may have been transmitted from the parent,
and have remained in a dormant state, until surrounding
conditions become favorable to the display of their full vigor.
This view seems to derive support from the fact that just as

219

jn due time each feature of development appears in the pro-
‘geny as in the parent, so tubercle appears at a fixed age,
which is the same in each.”

Dr. Krunitz, on heredity, remarks, ‘‘After having sustained
considerable losses for many years, owing to the employment
of phthisical animals for breeding purposes, the owner re-
ferred to got rid of the scourge which had so long ravaged
his cow-shed, by selling his bulls, and gradually ceasing to
breed from cows which, until then, had been used for this
purpose.” A remarkable case, proving the transmission of
the disease from the male parent to progeny is published by
‘Zippelius. ‘*A stock breeder purchased a bull, and with him
served ten of his cows. The bull was found to be affected
with tuberculosis, and for this reason was killed. All the
ealves of the ten cows which had been put to this bull had
eventually to be slaughtered because of this affection. The
first symptoms of the disease in the calves were manifested
when they passed to adult age.” And so in human statistics
it is a fallacy to suppose that youth is considered the harvest
time of consumption, or middle age the extreme limit of the
period within which the whole crop is garnered, the post-
mortem records of many hospitals showing that a large per-
centage of persons who die over sixty years of age are af-
flicted with pulmonary consumption; less between the ages
of ten and forty, than it is between the ages of forty and
seventy. It is said ‘‘that forty is the old age of youth, and
fifty is the youth of old age.” The seeds of disease being
sown early, the malady matures later in life. According
to abstracts prepared by Goring, on the sanitary condition of
animals in Bavaria in 1878, 5052 tuberculous cattle were ap-
portioned as follows :

65 were less than a year old;

551 were from one to three years ;
1730 were from three to six years ;
2360 were more than six years.

220

Although it is very rare that tuberculosis commences dur=
ing foetal life, yet it is notorious that a tuberculous cow trans-
mits to its descendants a predisposition to the disease. Wil-
liams says that ‘‘it is not only hereditary but congenital, and
I have seen a calf three months old, which had thriven well
until within two or three days of its death, filled with caseous,
calcareous and gray tubercular tumors. ‘In this calf the whole
of the serous membranes were aftected, which must have been
formed in utero. The mother of this calf seemed a healthy
animal, but was of spare form and had a capricious appetite.
Adam relates an instance from among many others in which
the lesions of the disease were observed in a calf which died
a few hours after its birth, the mother at the time being
affected with tuberculosis. Semmes relates five cases of
phthisis which he met with in fcetuses of cattle, and says:
these cases sufficiently prove that tuberculosis may be de-
veloped during the embryonic period, and that it is readily
transmitted through heredity. Muller slaughtered a calf de-
rived from a tuberculosed cow. At the autopsy, several nodules.
were found on the costal and pulmonary pleura, and the
lymphatic glands (greatly increased in volume) had under-
gone caseous degeneration. Muller concluded from these
facts that the disease is transmitted from mother to progeny,.
and that the latter from the moment of birth may possess not:
only the predisposition, but even present the patent lesions
of the malady. Gerlach thought that heredity had so much
influence in the propagation of tuberculosis, that it was suffi-
cient to have a few tuberculous bulls in a herd to infect the
whole, especially if in-and-in breeding was the rule. George
Fleming says that ‘‘animals descended from tuberculous par-
ents inherit a special predisposition to the disease. As there
is every reason to believe that the malady is hereditary, cattle
having any tendency to it should not be bred from. We may
specially consider, as causes inherent to the development of
the predisposition, the ever-increasing mass of connective
tissue in improved and improving breeds of cattle and pigs,

221

more and more specialized for the production of milk and fat.
That exaggerated activity of the vegetative life in the absence
of proportionate muscular exertion—that fatty degeneration
which is met with in most of the tissues of these animals—
does it not remind one of hot-house plants?” In human med-
icine an analogous if not identical opinion has been enter-
tained from the earliest times to the present day, and it is
indeed astonishing that in the presence of this evidence the
existence of a predisposition to, as well as the hereditary
transmission of the malady should not have been accepted
without discussion. Niemeyer admits the frequent occurrence
of an inherited disposition to pulmonary phthisis, and holds it
to be a cardinal fact, that the most essential element in the
production of phthisis is constitutional predisposition. The
contagiousness of tuberculosis has been admitted from very
remote times by many eminent pathologists, while others have
questioned or denied its existence. My experience with the
recent cases at Orono has greatly strengthened and confirmed
the conclusions to which my teachings and belief had been
previously directed, that the disease is both contagious and
hereditary.

The Maine State Board of Health, in a concise and instruc-
tive circular, recently published, on the Contagious Dis-
eases of Animals, say that tuberculosis or the ‘*Pearl Disease”
of cattle is essentially the same disease as human consump-
tion. It is both contagious and hereditary, but contagion, in
animals at least, is a greater factor in its propagation than
heredity. Of the domestic animals, cattle and swine show
the greatest predisposition to tuberculosis ; though others are
liable to contract the disease when exposed to its infection.
Between tuberculosis and pleuro-pneumonia there are many
points of resemblance. Both are contagious, the period of
incubation in tuberculosis is long, and it may be in pleuro-
pneumonia; fever and the lung symptoms are common to
both, and the disease in both often assumes a concealed form,
dangerous to the remainder of the herd from the difficulty of

222

its recognition. When either disease is suspected), the deter=
mination of its character should be made by the veterinary
surgeon. Dr. Salmon, Chief of Bureau of Animal Industry,
says, “An animal may be infected by a particle of contagious.
matter floating in the atmosphere and so small as to be invis-
ible to the naked eye; but in a few days or weeks, when the
period of incubation is passed, every drop of blood and every
particle of flesh in the infected animal may become as virulent
as the original infecting particle, and every breath exhaled is.
loaded with infectious atoms which carry disease to other
subjects. A diseased animal may, therefore, be looked upon
as a factory which goes on manufacturing and distributing:
contagion, day and night, in enormous quantities.

Dr. Blaine, Assistant Physician to the Willard Asylum for
the Insane, at Willard, N. Y., has recently contributed to the
“Medical Record” a paper on bovine tuberculosis; its com-
munication by ingestion, inhalation and hereditary transmis--
sions; also its dangers to the public health, in which he gives
a full account of the sudden outbreak of tuberculosis, where+
by the Asylum sustained a loss of nearly two hundred head:
of valuable Holsteins. Dr. Blaine says, ‘‘I now wish to eallk
your attention to certain clinical observations that were made
by myself of the herds at the Willard Asylum, extending
over a period of two and one-half years. During the fall of
1883 tuberculosis broke out in an acute form in the Asylum
herd, which consisted of about one hundred head of milch
cows and forty head of young stock, most of which were of
Holstein blood, and with the exception of a few head, all
were in excellent condition and thought to be in perfect
health. During the summer months, however, a number of
the cows were noticed coughing, which attracted some atten-
tion, but nothing of a serious nature was suspected until late
in the fall, when those that had been noticed coughing began
to emaciate, presenting in general a very bad appearance ;:
the hair seemed dead, having lost its gloss, standing erect,
cleaving from the skin. Their eyes were sunken and pre-
sented a heavy appearance. The animals did not move aboub.

223

and usually lingered behind on going to and from pasture,
and if hurried, they seemed exhausted from want of breath.
My attention was called to them, and on examination I found
in several cases an entire absence of respiratory murmur over
the greater portion of either lung, and where the respiratory
murmur was perceptible I detected moist rales, and in places
the rales had assumed a resonant character, which indicated
consolidation. A severe diarrhcea had now developed, which
was very offensive, and the milk supply had gradually les-
sened for several months. Finally it was thought best to kill
one of the feebler ones, and ascertain the true nature of the
disease.

Case I. The animal chosen for examination was eight
years old, of Holstein blood, and one year previously would
have weighed 1,200 pounds. On the post-mortem, the animal
was found highly tuberculous, and there seemed to be no
organ ia the body free from the disease. The lungs were
voluminous and double their normal weight. They were
completely adherent on either side, and the left lung on sec-
tion seemed to be one mass of tubercular deposit. Small
vomica had formed in some places, in other places the deposit
wus calcified, and in still others, cheesy. The bronchial
glands were three to four times their normal size and degen-
erated. Numerous tubercles the size of hazel-nuts and
smaller, were found upon either surface of the diaphragm,
and the liver was found at least three times its normal size
and contained large masses that would equal in weight several
pounds. On cross-section it revealed large cavities filled with
a muco-purulent mass. The bowels were covered with tuber-
cles, and in a state of subacute inflammation. All of the
abdominal organs were more or less affected, also the milk-
bag, which contained several large deposits, some of which
were calcified, and others softened and in a semi-purulent
state. All the glands throughout the body were enlarged,
and in places degenerated.

Case IT was that of a Holstein six years old, much ema-
ciated, and suffering from a chronic diarrheea. No respiratory

224

murmur was heard over the right side of chest-wall except at.
the apex. General enlargement of the superficial lymphatic
glands, also of the sub-maxillary and thyroid. Post-mortem
examination: Lungs completely adherent on either side,
and differing in no respect from those in Case No. 1. The
lungs, with the heart and deposit intact, were removed and
weighed,which weight equalled thirty-nine and_ one-half
pounds. Deducting the weight of the normal lung and heart
intact, we find about twenty-four pounds of tubercular de-
posit. The liver was double its normal size, and on section
large quantities of muco-purulent fluid escaped; the mesen-
teric glands were degenerated, and the bowels were com-
pletely studded with tubercles about the size of peas. The
milk-bag contained one large deposit between its two lobes
which was calcified. The finding of these two animals so
badly diseased, there being others that were failing and man-
ifesting similar symptoms, naturally created a great amount
of anxiety on the part of the medical superintendent, Dr.
Chapin, who requested that I should make an examination of
the whole herd. On making such an examination, twenty-
four were found manifesting symptoms of the same disease,
besides several that were considered questionable. Finding
so many diseased, they being the property of the State, it
was thought best to seek advice from one of our State veteri-
narians, as to what means were best to adopt. Professor
Law, of Cornell University, was sent for. After making
careful examinations of the herd, he reported that twenty-six
were diseased, and that he considered several suspicious, as
they manifested some symptoms of the disease, although he
was unable to detect anything abnormal on auscultation. He
advised the killing of all those that were diseased, the isola-
tion of those that were considered doubtful, and a thorough
disinfection of the stables. Having in the herd a full-blooded
Holstein bull, it was considered quite essential to know if he
was affected, although he had not manifested any symptoms of
the disease. Upon careful examination nothing abnormal
was detected. Professor Law’s examinations were made

225

March 22, 1884. Many of the diseased animals remained in
the herd for several weeks, when the herd was again exam-
ined by myself. I found those that only a few weeks pre-
vious were considered doubtful had now developed positive
symptoms of the disease, and still others were found that
seemed quite suspicious. The bull, at this time, appeared
to be failing in flesh, but manifested no positive symptoms.

On May 22d and 23d twenty-eight of the most advanced
cases were killed. On examination all were found affected,
but not all to the same degree. The organs principally af-
fected were the serous membranes, the lungs, liver, bowels,
and the milk-bag in many cases. A number of them were
affected to an equally great degree as the two cases I have al-
ready reported. Examination was again made of the herd on
June 10th, and others were found manifesting the usual symp-
toms ; the bull was again examined and it was very apparent
that he was affected, although he had not manifested any
cough, but he was rapidly losing flesh. He was then weighed
and was found to weigh 2,456 pounds. He was again weighed
on July 10th, and his weight was then 2,290 pounds, and as
at this time it was very evident that he was also affected, it
was decided to kill him. On post-mortem we found a large
deposit in the central portion of the left lung, and numerous
small tubercles upon the left pleura. The bronchial glands
were greatly enlarged, and on cross section were found calci-
fied. There were many tubercles upon the peritoneum and
bowels. The liver in this case seemed free from disease.
Upon the glans penis were several small tubercles, and in
one place it appeared as though several had coalesced and had
broken down, leaving a cicatrix. Had this been ulcerated,
one might have thought it a soft chancre.

Leaving the herd at present, I wish to call your attention
to the calves that were born during the winter and spring of
1883-84. Writers tell us that it is not an unusual occurrence
for animals well advanced in tuberculosis to abort. This
seems to be true, as such was the case in this herd. I

15

226

observed that eight calves were prematurely born, two of
which required assistance at birth, as the mothers were much
exhausted. One of the two that was removed was in about
the eighth month of gestation. This foetus on examination
was found saturated with tubercles, some of which were as
large as peas, and on drawing a knife across them they were
found calcified. Tubercles were found in the liver, bowels,
diaphragm and chest-wall, there being none observed upon
the lungs. The mother of this calf was killed some weeks
afterward and was found highly tuberculous, the disease be-
ing well advanced to the third stage, or stage of suppuration.

No. 2 was from a diseased mother, also in about the eighth
month of gestation. On examination I found the liver, dia-
phragm and bowels quite thickly studded, but the tubercles
were much smaller than in the preceding case. Of the other
six prematurely born, I was able to examine only two, as the
other four had been destroyed before I was acquainted of the
fact. One of the two, however, that I did examine was found
to have a tuberculous liver.

During the winters and springs of 1883-84 and 1884-85,
fifty-three calves were born to the herd, and each one was
examined with reference to the disease. Twenty-nine of the
number were found tuberculous in some of the viscera. The
greater number of the calves were killed within five weeks
after birth, and the whole number before the expiration of
four months. I will only call your attention to the most in-
teresting cases. One calf killed at the age of five weeks was
found highly tuberculous. The liver was double the nor-
mal size and covered with tubercles. On cross section it was
found to contain a large vomica, filled with at least one pint
of fluid of a muco-purulent character. Tubercles were also
found upon the pleural surface of the left lung; also an ex-
tensive deposit in the apex of the same lung. The mesen-
teric glands were enlarged and cheesy. The bowels were
thickly studded and ina state of subacute inflammation. This
calf had suffered from a severe diarrhcea for several days, and
had failed considerably in flesh.

227

The mother of this calf was killed shortly afterward, and
was found badly diseased. Among the organs affected was
the milk-bag, which contained a large tuberculous abscess.
In this case does it seem possible for the disease to have been
acquired wholly after birth? To my mind it does not seem
possible that the disease could have developed with sufficient
rapidity to produce an abscess of the liver in such a limited
time. However, I am of the opinion that the intestinal le-
sions were produced, to a great extent, from the milk of its
mother, as undoubtedly the milk must have contained ele-
ments of the disease.

In another calf, seven weeks old, the left lung was adher-
ent to the ehest-wall at the apex, where there was a large
tubercular deposit. Also there were many small tubercles
upon the lungs and in other places. ‘The liver and bowels
contained many tubercles of the size of peas, and on cross
section were found in a state of cheesy degeneration. In the
remaining cases the lesions were not as marked, but the dis-
ease was none the less apparent.

You now have the history of the herd up to June, 1884,
and we find that nearly one-half of the herd of milch cows
has been disposed of, all that were supposed to be diseased
having been killed. The remainder of the herd were ob-
served from time to time, and examinations repeated every
twenty to thirty days; and upon each examination new cases
were discovered, which were immediately removed from the
herd, as it was thought they could be fattened and made use
of.

The sorting out and feeding continued for several months,
and at the time of killing many had not gained at all, while
others had taken on considerable flesh ; but upon killing only
five were found fit for use, and four of these were slightly
diseased in some of the viscera.

During the spring of 1885 a number of young heifers,
which had been kept upon another portion of the farm, were
with calf by the bull killed in June previously. Before put-
ting them with the old herd they were examined, and many

228

of them were found diseased. It was deemed advisable to kill
them. The calves of these heifers were all diseased, the dis-
ease in one calf being traced directly to the bull, as the mother
was found unquestionably healthy. The remainder of the
young herd which had been exposed to the disease were put
with the remaining portion of the milch cows, and the com-
bined herds now numbered forty head. The examinations
were still continued from time to time, during the summer
and fall of 1885, and occasionally one was found manifesting
the usual symptoms of the disease. This procedure was con-
tinued until the spring of 1886, when it was thought advis-
able to feed the remainder of the herd. During the past
summer all were killed except ten, which have been killed
during the past month, and in nearly every case disease could
be found in some of the viscera, and some were badly dis-
eased, as I will show you from specimens that I have here.
The specimen that I wish to show you is very interesting,
inasmuch as it shows that one is not able, at all times, to tell
whether or not the animal is diseased. You will observe that
the disease, in this case, is confined wholly to the bronchial
glands, there being no other organs affected—that is, as far
as I have been able to determine. Auscultation of the lungs
in this case revealed nothing abnormal, but the superficial
lymphatic glands were not enlarged, and the animal had man-
ifested a cough. The bronchial gland, in a healthy cow, is
about four or five inches long, about one inch wide, and one-
half inch in thickness. Here we have a specimen, removed
from a Holstein cow nine years old, in which we find the
gland is about ten to twelve inches in length and nearly six
inches in thickness. This, on section, we shall find in some
places calcified, and in others cheesy. I also have other
specimens here, removed from another case, in which no
disease could be found except in the glands, and these with-
out apparent enlargement.

During the winter of 1883 the Asylum purchased a full-
blooded, registered, Holstein bull-calf, from one of the leading
breeding firms of this country. This bull was kept from the

229

herd until old enough for breeding purposes, and then only
came in contact with the herd as occasion required. This
animal thrived until April last, when I noticed that he began
to manifest symptoms of the disease. He was examined at
frequent intervals during the summer, and each examination
confirmed the previous diagnosis. He was killed on Novem-
ber 16th, last. Previous to being killed he weighed nearly
two thousand pounds. On post-mortem I found the left sub-
maxillary gland enlarged and suppurating, the thyroid gland
enlarged and calcified, and several deposits in the left lung
about the size of walnuts; also tubercles upon the peritoneum
and bowels. The liver, in this case, was free from disease.
The glands and portions of the lungs I have here for your
inspection.

The only possible objection that could be raised regarding
the care of these animals was that of ventilation. The stables
were kept scrupulously clean, being washed out daily, and
there were no cess-pools about the barns or yards. The
barns are situated upon a side-hill, thus affording the best
possible drainage.

Their food was of the best of hay, corn fodder, bran and
vegetables. In the spring of 1884 all of the animals were
removed from the barns and put in pasture, and open sheds
built for their protection.

During the following winter the animals were confined in
the barns only during the time of feeding and milking, they being
out during the day and protected at night by sheds open on
one side.

Also in the breeding of this herd of stock there was the
greatest amount of vigilance exercised in order to avoid in-
breeding. Frequeut changes were made in the bulls; new
cows were bought from time to time of the farmers through-
out the country, and these crossed with the Holstein bulls,
and at the time of the outbreak of the disease about one-
third were animals that had been purchased. In my mind it
does not seem possible that the disease, or dyscrasia, had
been inherited in all cases. Therefore, if the disease was not

230

inherited in all cases, it must necessarily have been acquired ;
and if acquired, through what channel did the disease enter
the animals’ system ?

There appear to be only two channels in which it could
have entered, the one by inhalation, the other by ingestion.
In order to prove that the disease is communicated by inhala-
tion, we have to resort to experiments, but by ingestion we
have many striking examples in which it is plainly shown
that the disease is acquired by the use of milk and meat of
tuberculous animals. In proof that the disease may be ac-
quired by the ingestion of tuberculous substances, allow me
to call your attention to the Asylum herd of swine, which
numbered nearly three hundred head. These animals were
kept in different yards. In one, the breeding sows; in
another, the half-grown pigs; and in the third yard, which
was adjoining the slaughter house, were kept the large hogs
which were being fattened. The hogs in this latter pen had
access to the offal from the slaughter house, where a number
of tuberculous cows had been killed. Later in the fall a
number of the large fat hogs died suddenly in full strength,
and on post-mortem were found highly tuberculous. The
disease, however, did not present the same pathological con-
ditions as in the cows. The disease seemed more especially
confined to the abdominal viscera and the glandular system,
the lungs being rarely affected. In those cases that died
suddenly I found a tubercular peritonitis, to which was attri-
buted the cause of death. During the killing season many
were found diseased, there being metastatic abscesses in dif-
ferent portions of the body, but more especially in the side ;
and in the sows the rudiments of the milk-bag were often the
seat of abscess. Also the joints were frequently affected,
many of the hogs, both large and small, became lame. Dur-
ing the winter a number of them became partially paralyzed in
their hind parts. The paralysis progressed, and finally they
were unable to use their hind limbs at all, and for several
days three of them moved about, walking upon their fore
limbs and dragging their hind parts. Still they were fat and

231

seemed to eat equally as well as the others. Finally they
were killed, and on post-mortem the bodies of the vertebra
in different portions of the column were found to have under-
gone caseous transformation. The cord at these points was
softened, and in some cases completely obliterated.

After the killing of all the swine that had access to the of-
fal, and disinfecting the yards, we have since had no more
disease in the herd.”

There is a remarkable similarity in the symptoms and post-
mortem appearances of the Willard herd and that of the
State College, and proves conclusively that any other course
than that adopted at Orono, in the disposal of their cases,
would have been suicidal to the best interests of the State.
With the comparative freedom from disease we now enjoy, it
would seem like inviting disaster for us to hesitate, or par-
ley longer, to recommend immediate action on the part of the
proper authorities, to stamp out every vestige of disease re-
maining in our State, and in this respect, as in all others, to
live up to the proud motto emblazoned on our ‘‘State shield”
and still continue to ‘‘lead the way.” Fleming says, ‘*The
influence of contagion on the propagation of tuberculosis has
been affirmatively solved, for we have furnished ample proof
of its hereditary transmission ; this transmission being nothing
more than the infection of the ovum or feetus through the
medium of the parents. The reality of the infective action
of the disease has already been demonstrated as well as its
transmissibility from one individual to another in the special
case of ascendant or descendant. As there is, however, a
difference between the transmission of a disease from the pro-
ducing animal to the product, on the one hand, and from an
individual to another simultaneously existing, on the other
hand, we are compelled to draw a distinction between heredi-
tary transmission and contagion, properly speaking; and we
cannot forbear from treating, in a special manner, of the con-
veyance of this disease throtgh actual contact, that is, frem
one individual to another, both existing at the same time and
enjoying life essentially independent of each other. The

232

morbific principle may arrive in the organism by the respira-
tory or the digestive tract; the inspired air, the food, or the
drink may be the medium; and the contagion may also be
transplanted by means of the generative organs (through
copulation) or by accidental means, by wounds.” Stahl has
witnessed tuberculosis develop in five bulls in one stable,
which were kept for the service of a commune. These bulls
were not related in any way by parentage, and he attributes
the outbreak of the disease to the purchase of a tuberculous
bull, which, by its presence, iafected the others.

Renner reports that a pregnant cow, newly purchased,
was placed beside a tuberculous cow. The calf produced by
the former was apparently healthy at birth, but five or six
weeks afterwards it was attacked by shiverings, fever, fits of
coughing and great dyspnea. The tuberculous cow was
killed, and soon after the calf showed evident symptoms of
tuberculosis. In 1864, Villemin, with a view to study the
infective action of human tuberculosis, made some important
experiments that produced a profound sensation in the scien-
tific world, and came to the conclusion that tuberculosis is an
infectious and specific malady, capable of being transmitted
from men to animals, and from one man to another. <A Ger-
man veterinarian, Albert, contributed a very thoughtful and
interesting paper in 1880, on the tuberculosis of cattle as an
infective disease, and says, “Although heredity is unques-
tionably a very important cause in the generation of this dis-
ease among cattle, still it does not suffice to explain the great
extension which the same acquires among them; especially is
it insufficient in answering for the eruption of the disease
among cattle in stables where no breeding takes place, or
where the young animals are brought in from other farms.
In such stables other causes must be brought into action, and
these are the transmission of the disease from one animal to
another. I have observed that when there is in a stable one
individual which contains in its organism the conditions
necessary to the extension of the disease—tubercular pro-
cess in the lungs—the disease extends to the other animals

233

in the same stable which have been there for a sufficient
period.” He cites a case on a farm where were kept from
‘‘twenty-four to twenty-six head of cattle. In 1864, the owner
bought a calf to bring up, the mother of which died a few
years later of tuberculosis. This calf developed very poorly
for the first two years of its life, and was killed in the fall of
1869. In the course of the following winter, many of the
cattle began to cough, and among them, two, A and B, so
severely that my services were requested. I found all the
animals in an apparently healthy condition; only A and B
were noticed to cough. At this time I knew nothing of the
breeding, or the phenomena seen in the above mentioned
calf, which had been slaughtered.

All the animals on the farm coughed during the winter of
1870-71, at which time the two cows, A and B, began to
emaciate so much that it was considered advisable to kill them.
The autopsy revealed the general characteristics of tubercular
pneumonia, and tuberculosis of other organs. Basing my
opinions upon the previously mentioned experience, I made
no hesitation in pronouncing all the cattle in this stable that
coughed afticted with tuberculosis, and I advised the owner
to get rid of them all.” Chauveau has already observed that
heifers which feed out of the same trough become tuberculous
whenever a phthisical animal is found among them. Grad
quotes evidence to prove in the most conclusive manner that
not only is the disease communicable by cohabitation of healthy
with diseased cattle, but that stalls and stables may become
so contaminated by animals suffering from tuberculosis, that
they infect sound cattle which afterwards inhabit them, until
thoroughly disinfected. Toussaint, Professor at the Toulouse
Veterinary School, made numerous experiments to demonstrate
the contagiousness of tuberculosis. For these investigations,
which required thousands of animals, he employed pigs, rab-
bits and cats, as the disease is more surely and rapidly de-
veloped in them. ‘The fluid expressed from the lungs of a
tuberculous cow was that which he employed. He injected
into four rabbits ten drops of this fluid, which was nearly

234

transparent. He afterwards heated the fluid to a tem-
perature of 58 degrees for ten minutes in a water bath, and
inoculated four pigs and four rabbits with it. All these
animals became tuberculous, and the four which had been
inoculated with the heated material perished even more
rapidly than the others. Three rabbits were inoculated at the
base of the ear, with the transparent mucus that flowed from
the nose of a phthisical cow. In about two weeks there
appeared a tuberculous nodule at the seat of inoculation, and
the lymphatic glands were turnefied. Seventy days after
inoculation the rabbits were killed, and in their lungs were
found tubercles, the majority of which were gray and some
were already undergoing caseation.

That the sputa from people afflicted with tubercular con-
sumption contains elements capable of infection, has been
placed beyond all doubt. Experiments made by Dr. Tap-
peimer, and published in Virchow’s Archives, are of great
interest. The animals experimented upon were made to
breathe for several hours daily in a chamber in the air of
which fine particles of phthisical sputem were suspended.
The sputem having been mixed with water, the mixture was
atomized by a steam atomizer. In all cases the sputa were
from persons with caviters (vomica) in their lungs. Dogs
alone were employed in the experiments, since they very
rarely suffer from tuberculosis. The result was, that of
eleven animals experimented on, with one doubtful excep-
tion, after a period varying from twenty-five to forty-
five days, all, being killed, presented well developed miliary
tubercles in both lungs; and in most of the cases tubercles
were present to a smaller extent in the kidneys, and in some
cases also in the liver and spleen. Dr. Reiche of Berlin
sums up his observations on the infectiousness of the breatir
of persons afflicted with tuberculosis as follows: “In these
cases the disease was transmitted to ten children by a nurse
who had the habit of sucking at and blowing into the mouths
of such little ones as were born asphytic. There was no as-
certainable disposition to tuberculosis in any of the ten chil-

235

dren. All these children were brought into the world by the
nurse Sanger, between April, 1875, and May, 1876. This
nurse suffered from tubercular consumption at the time. In
July, 1875, an examination of her lungs revealed cavities in
the same, and she raised purulent ichorous sputa. She died
from the disease in July, 1876. Nurse Sanger had the habit
of removing the mucus from the babies’ mouths by means
of suction with her own; and in general treated children in a
manner which rendered it possible for the expired air from
her own lungs to get into theirs by kissing, etc.”

From the clinical observations already cited as well as the
numerous experiments which have been made, tending, as
they do, to establish the infections character of the malady
under consideration, it evidently results that tuberculosis is a
contagious malady, equal in infectiousness to glanders and
contagious pleuro-pneumonia. Inoculation has also demon-
strated that the tubercular matter preserves its virulence
through three or four removes; and successful inoculations
have been made with tubercular matter from a patient who
had been dead for thirty-six hours, and with sputa which had
been in a dried condition for twenty days.

When we come to consider the transmission of the disease
through the use of milk, we reach a point of vital importance
to every man, woman and child in the community, and the
conviction that the consumption of the milk of phthisical
cattle constitutes a veritable danger is gradually penetrating
society, and daily gaining ground. ‘The first intimation that
some infectious elements were contained in the milk of cows
having this disease is due to Gerlach, the most noted of Ger-
man veterinarians, and late director of the Royal Veterinary
Institute at Berlin. Having a cow afflicted with tuberculosis,
that still gave milk, it was resolved to use the same to test
the question whether the milk from such a cow is capable of
producing a similar disease in young animals when fed upon
it. The cow was seven or eight years old, much emaciated,
respiration difficult, and had a rough, weak cough. After a
lapse of three months the cow was killed. The emaviated

236

condition had gradually increased, the milk-secretion likewise
diminishing ; although the animal received all the nourish-
ment she could consume. The autopsy disclosed numerous
tubercles of various dimensions upon the inner thoracic
walls, the diaphragm and mediastinum. The lungs were
voluminous and double the normal weight. A healthy, well-
nourished calf, eight days old, was fed with the milk from
the above-mentioned cow, for a period extending over one
and two-thirds months. Neither phenomena indicating the
presence of disease, nor disturbance of the nutritive functions
were observable. The calf was killed one hundred days after
the experimental feeding began, and upon post-mortem, tuber-
cles were found in the lungs, and miliary tubercles were seen
in the loose interlobular tissue. The bronchial lymph-glands
were much enlarged and inwardly disturbed by many puru-
lent and caseous cavities.

Gerlach says, ‘*There is every reason to prohibit the use of
milk from cows affected with tuberculosis, and especially for
infants, who mainly rely upon this fluid for their subsistence,
and whose powers of absorption are very active.”

The milk from a tuberculous cow had been used for some
time in a cooked condition, but the cow finally became so bad
that it was decided to give the milk to the hogs, but uncooked.
The farmer’s wife noticed that the young pigs (four or five
months old) fed upon this milk did not appear to thrive well,
and as, in the course of a few weeks, three died, I was re-
quested to make an examination of the last one. I found the
pig much emaciated. The mesenteric glands were enlarged,
and found filled with tuberculous mass, with tubercles in the
liver. In the course of a few weeks the remaining pigs of
the litter also died, and were found tuberculous on being
examined.

The following case of transmission of bovine tuberculosis
to man is related by Dr. Stang of Amborach: A_ boy, five
years old, apparently strong in constitution and descended
from healthy parents, whose progenitors were exempt from
hereditary disease, was attacked with scrofula, and died in

237

four weeks from miliary tuberculosis of the lungs and enor-
mous hypertrophy of the mesenteric glands. When making
the autopsy, it was accidentally ascertained that some time
before, the parents had to destroy a cow, which, according
to the testimony of the veterinary surgeon, was affected with
pulmonary phthisis. The animal had been a good milch cow,
and for a long time the boy had received a quantity of the
milk, immediately after it was drawn.

At the annual meeting of the National Veterinary Associa-
tion, held in London, in 1883, Dr. Hopkin said: ‘I had an
assistant who came to me from one of the islands on the coast
of Scotland. The family from which he was derived was
healthy and strong; but when two of his sisters were young,
the herd of cattle became affected with tuberculosis. These
girls were fed upon the milk of these cattle. The two
brothers, who were more fond of whiskey than milk, are
still hale and healthy—the sisters are lying in their graves,
victims to tuberculosis.”

Dr. Frank S. Billings of the University of Nebraska, one
of our best pathological specialists, says, ‘‘This question of the
specific infection of milk from tuberculous cows is no trifling
matter: on the contrary, é¢ is one of life and death. How
many thousand babies are yearly brought up on the bottle
with cow’s milk? All the fond parents ask is, that the milk is
from one cow. This guaranteed, they appear to feel perfectly
satisfied. No one seems yet to have thought that a trust-
worthy and expert guarantee of the hygienic condition of the
cow giving the milk was necessary. We make great de-
mands, and get terribly excited about the purity of our water
supply. We spend millions of dollars to keep the fountains
pure and to prevent all foreign admixtures on its passage to
us. Is it not as much our duty to examine into the purity
of the fountains from which comes our milk supply? We
cannot but repeat our assertion that every State board of
health should be liberally supplied with funds to be used ex-
clusively for experimental purposes, and in every State there
should be a station for such purposes.” These cases should

238

be more than sufficient to call the attention of every reflecting
man and woman to the fact that tuberculosis is not only a dis-
ease, the disposition to which is transmissible from parent to
offspring, both human and animal, but that it is, under cer-
tain circumstances, a highly contagious and infectious disease.
They tell us in warning words that we must not only be most
careful in selecting our partner for life, but in the selection
of a nurse for children, and, when necessary, the cow from
which we are to give them milk. Our own State board of
health says: ‘*Feeding experiments have conclusively shown
that tuberculosis may be transmitted by means of the milk
and flesh of diseased animals. Therefore prevention has to re-
gard both the danger to other animals and to man. The
milk from cows with this disease, even in its earliest stages,
or when suspected, should never be used for human food.
The flesh should never be used unless the disease is in its
earliest stages and is so localized that the tubercular growth
can be entirely removed.”

Fleming says, ‘‘The circumstances which may preserve man-
kind from the harmful action of the milk are, happily, more
easy to realize than those which should completely guarantee
us from the danger likely to be incurred from consuming the
flesh of tuberculous animals. It is, nevertheless, true that
we do not know the special character which would allow us
to distinguish, either by the naked eye, or by the aid of
chemical or ordinary physical analysis, healthy from infected
milk, while, on the other hand, obligatory search for the tuber-
cle bacillus in all milk would be an excessive and impracticable
measure. To prohibit the sale of milk of cows presenting
symptoms of tubercular phthisis would be without result, the
milk not being subjected to sufficient control, so far as its ori-
gin is concerned. The recommendation not to use the milk
until it has been boiled has more likelihood of being observed,
and is more certain of success than that relative to cooking
the flesh. Milk is a fluid which heats uniformly, so that we
may admit that in boiled milk every specific principle of
tuberculosis, as well as the virus, is destroyed. In addition,

—_——

239

the milk from different animals is usually mixed, so that the
activity of the virus in virulent milk is in this way attenuated
by its commingling with healthy milk. This attenuation may
be so great that the mixture is altogether inoffensive. Lastly,
it should be recognized that the milk of every tuberculous
cow is not fatally charged with the contagious principle of
tuberculosis ; although we cannot deny that the milk of such
cattle should be very infective, if the disease is localized in
the udder (mammary glands.) Degive, professor at the
Brussels Veterinary School, relates the case of a cow which
had the localizations of tuberculosis in the mamma. ‘‘A
brown cow, of a delicate constitution, but a good milker, was
attacked by a violent inflammation of the left half of the
udder, which resisted every kind of treatment. The udder
increased in size, and the secretion of milk was completely
suspended. Ina few weeks the cow commenced to cough
and to breathe with difficulty—phenomena which were soon
complicated with manifestations of fever. The diagnosis was
pulmonary inflammation. The animal was killed, and on ex-
amination of its body there were found tuberculous nodosities
on the pleura, as well as in the udder, where they were in
great number.” These symptoms conform precisely with
those exhibited in the case of ‘‘Helen Hart,”(No. 5 P. M.,)
and she is the dam of two of the bulls sold from the College
farm. It results from the observations collected up to the
present time, and from a consideration of the natural condi-
tion of things, that the dairies which supply milk warm from
the cow, intended to be given directly to children, offer the
greatest danger to the public health. In these establishments
they do not rear the cows they employ, but buy them, always
endeavoring to obtain those which yield the most milk, and
these they milk excessively. In regard to the use of the
meat, Zundle is of the opinion that, so far as injury or danger
from the use of such flesh is concerned, up to the present time
only theoretical considerations, based on imperfect experi-
ments which are opposed to the facts derived trom close ob-
servation, have been invoked. The discovery of Koch, he

240

adds, shows that the parasite of tuberculosis is only met with
in the pathological productions characteristic of this malady,
and are not diffused, like certain other of the infectious dis-
eases, throughout the whole of the juices of the body, nor
yet of the blood; and it is for these reasons that the bacilli
are not found in the flesh. As a result, says this learned
principal veterinary surgeon of Alsace Lorraine, it follows
that the practice hitherto pursued should be in no way modi-
fied, and that, as in the past, only the flesh of wasted and
wholly infected animals should be interdicted for food; the
utilization of that which is derived from cattle less diseased
may be allowed, if it be recommended to consume it only
after it has been well cooked. Some Short-Horn steers,
slaughtered at Orono, which had been kept for experimental
feeding, were as ‘‘handsome and wholesome” as any Chicago
or eastern beef, and I regarded it as a sacrifice of just so
much marketable product, when they were put into the
trench and destroyed. These steers had gained a pound and
a half a day, from the time they were calves, and the lesions
in them were very slight, mostly confined to the maxillary
and lymphatic glands.

«sPost-MortEM” Notes oF CoLLEGE Herp.

Pansy, 1. (No. 1.)

Cyst in centre of left lung. Apex affected, right filled
with miliary tubercles. Age 8 years. Bred in Bowdoin.
Dam, Model. Produce, Mildred, (No. 2, P. M.), Hyacinthe,
(No. 3), and a bull calf that was affected and coughed when
but three days old.

Mildred, I. (No. 2.)

Adhesions of both lungs to costal pleura, badly affected.
Age5 years. Bred in Bowdoin. Dam, Pansy, (No. 1).
Produce, ‘‘Mildretta of Orono,” (No. 4) and bull sold, now
coming 3 years old, both bred on College farm.

241

Llyacinthe, 1. (No. 3.)

Both lungs affected. Tubercles in right. Age 4 years.
Bred in Bowdoin. Dam, Pansy, (No. 1). Produce, ‘*Gray
Nose,” (No. 47).

Mildretia of Orono. (No. 4.)

Affected with tubercles. Age 1 year. Dam, Mildred,
(No. 2). Bred on College farm.

«“Ficien Hart.” No.5.)

Both lungs and mammary glands affected, so that her milk
was tainted. Age 8 years. Bred on College farm. Dam,
‘“‘Hepsy Hart.” Grand dam, Hebe. Produce, heifer calf,
(No. 6), and two bulls, coming 3 and 4 years old, both bred
on College farm.
flelen’s Calf. (No. 6.)

Affected with miliary deposits in both lungs. Age 8
months. Dam, ‘‘Helen Hart,” (No.5). Bred on College
farm.

‘*Hesta Hart of Orono.” (No. 7.)

Affected with tubercles and cough. Age 1 year. Dam,
‘‘Hesta Hart.” Grand dam, ‘‘Hebe.” Bred on College
farm. ‘*Hesta Hart” died in giving birth to ‘‘Hesta Hart of
Orono.”

‘‘TIugo Pauline.” (No. 8.)

Affected with tubercle in right lung size of hen’s egg. Age
7 years. Bred on College farm. Dam, ‘Pride of Lachine,”
Grand dam, Hebe. ‘‘Hugo Pauline” was sold from the herd
when one week old, passed through several hands, and was
re-purchased by Mr. Gowell in January, 1885.

Collie, I. (No. 9.)

Right lung affected with tubercles. Age 9 years. Bred
in Winthrop. Produce, Tinney, (No. 10), and Collie, 2nd,
(No. 13).

Tinney, 1. (No. 10.)
Both lungs affected with tubercles. Age 7 years. Bred
in Winthrop. Dam, Collie, (No. 9). Produce, Eizeletta

16

242

(No. 11), Tinetta, (No. 14), Tinney’s calf, (No. 15) and

bull sold now coming 38 years old.

Hizeletta, I. (No. 11.)

Tubercle (size of hen’s egg) in right lung. Left lung
affected. Age 5 years. Bredin Winthrop. Dam, Tinney,
(No. 10). Produce,’ Blanch (No. 12) and ‘bull calf”
(No. 163.)

Blanch. (No. 12.)

Both lungs badly affected. ‘«Grapes” (angle-berries) and
abscess in right lung. Age 3 years. Bred on College farm.
Dam, Eizeletta, (No. 11). Produce, (No. 16) bull calf,
affected, coughed badly and debilitated.

“Oollse,, 2nd.'? (NO. 13:))
Thyroid and maxillary glands affected. Age 2 years.
Bred on College farm. Dam, Collie, (No.9). No produce.

Tinetla. (No. 14).
Glands affected. Coughed. Age 1 year. Bred on Col-
lege farm. Dam, Tinney, (No. 10).

“«Tinney’s Calf.” (No. 15.)

Parotid glands affected, coughed badly and emaciated.
Age 3 months. Bred on College farm. Dam, Tinney, (No.
10). .
‘‘Blanch’s Calf.” (No. 16.)

Glands affected, stiff neck. Age 9 months. Dam, Blanch,
(No. 12). Bred on College farm.

‘“‘ Hizeletta’s Calf.” (No. 164.)
Coughed badly. Age 10 months. Dam, Eizeletta, (No. 11).
Bred on College farm.

Highland Belle. (No. 17.)

Badly affected in both lungs and liver. Age 6 years.
Bred at Bowdoinham. Purchased in 1882. Produce, Edith,
(No. 18) and bull, sold, now coming 3 years old. Bred on
the farm.

Edith. (No. 18.)

Both lungs badly affected, and pleural adhesions to ribs.
Age 3 years. Dam, Highland Belle, 2nd, (No. 17). Bred
on College farm.

‘* Belle of West Meadows.” I. (No. 19.)

Affected with tubercles in both lungs. Age 11 years.
Imported in her dam from the Isle of Jersey. Produce,
‘‘Maid of West Meadows,” (No. 20), and one bull, sold.
Bred on College farm.

‘*Maid of West Meadows.” I. (No. 20.)

Affected with tubercles. Age4years. Bred in Rockland.
Dam, ‘‘Belle of West Meadows,” (No. 19). Produce,
Flossy, (No. 22).

‘* Belle of West Meadows’ Calf.” (No. 21.)
Glands affected. Coughed badly. Age 8 months. Dam,
‘*Belle of West Meadows,” (No. 19.) Bred on the farm.

Flossy. (No. 22.)

Lame in left shoulder. Right lung greatly affected with
large abscess, left lung and bronchial glands also much
affected. Age 2 years. Bred on College farm. Dam,
‘*Maid of West Meadows,” (No. 20). No produce.

Tulip 4th. I. (No. 23.)

Large tubercle in right lung, both affected. Age 8 years.
Bred at Oldtown. Produce, Tulip’s heifer calf, (No 24),
Berry, (No. 39), and one bull, sold, now coming 4 years old.
Bred on College farm.

Tulip’s Calf. (No. 24.)

Glands affected, with cough. Age4months. Dam, Tulip
4th, (No. 23). Bred on College farm.
Thresa. (No. 25.)

Tubercular depesits in both lungs. Age 3 years. Bred
on College farm. Dam, Rose 6th, (No. 48). Produce,
heifer calf, (No. 26). Rose 8th was killed in 1885.
‘‘Thresa’s Calf.” (No. 26.)

Miliary deposit in both lungs. Age 5 months. Dam,
Thresa, (No. 25). Bred on the College farm.

244

‘« Princess Alba.” I. (No. 27.)

Lungs loaded with deposit, angle-berries, large abscess
and cavities, with bronchial glands greatly enlarged. Age 8
years. Purchased in Rockland. Produce, Jersey Lily (No.
28), Crummie, (No. 29), and the Kent bull.

‘Jersey Lily.” I. (No. 28.)

Stiff neck, emaciated and bad cough. Age 2 years and 9
months. Purchased in Rockland. Dam, ‘Princess Alba,”
(No. 27). Killed by Mr. Gowell in March, 1885.
Crummie. (No. 29.)

Adhesions to costal pleura on left side, both lungs affected.
Age, about 2 years. Dam, ‘Princess Alba,” (No. 27).
No produce. Bred on College farm.

Juno 2d. I. (No. 30.)

Sold to Mrs. Stetson of Bangor. Purchased in Auburn in
1883, when 2 years old. Dam, Effie. Produce, Susie,
(No. 31) and two bulls, sold, all bred on College farm.
Susie. (No. 31.)

Both lungs affected with miliary deposits. Age 2 years.
Dam, Juno 2d, (No. 30). Bred on College farm.

Juletie. 0. No. 32.)

Both lungs affected with tubercles, also lymphatic glands.
Age 7 years. Purchased in Auburn of Briggs and Son. Dam,
Pet. Produce, Brownie, (No. 33).

Brownie. (No. 33.)

Stiff neck, glands enlarged, both lungs affected. Age 2
years and3 months. Dam, Julette, (No. 32). Bred on Col-
lege farm. Killed by Mr. Gowell in March, 1885.

“Gray Nose.” (No. 34.)

Stiff neck, lungs badly affected, emaciation and cough.
Age, 2 years and 6 months. Dam, Hyacinthe, (No.3). No
produce. Bred on College farm. Killed by Mr. Gowell in
March, 1885.

Betsey. I. (No. 35.)

One of the worst cases of tubercular formations and ab-
cess at Orono, both lungs affected. Bought by Mr. Gowell

245

in Augusta, in 1883. Killed in January, 1886. Produce,
Nan Lizzie, (No. 36).
“‘Nan Lizzie.” (No. 36.)

Right lung badly affected with tubercles and cavities. Age
2 years. Bred on College farm. No produce.

Clover. I. (No. 37.)

Both lungs affected with tubercles. Age 14 years. Bred
in Brunswick. Produce, Clover’s Pet, (No. 38) and Hattie,
sold 3 years ago when a calf.

‘‘QClover’s Pet.” (No. 38.)

Slightly affected in left lung, calcareous deposit in bron-
chial glands. Age 2 years. Dam, Clover, (No. 37). Bred
on College farm. Produce, Clover’s Pet’s calf, (No. 39).
“*Clover’s Pet’s Calf.” (No. 39.)

Tubercles in both lungs, bad cough. Age 8 weeks. Dam,
Clover’s Pet, (No. 38). Bred on College farm.

Pet.) Hs. GNos-40.)

Large tubercles and abscess, both lungs badly affected.
Age 14 years. Bred in Bowdoin, and bought by Mr. Gow-
ell in 1882. Produce, Old Pet’s calf, (No. 41) and one bull,
sold, now coming 4 years old. Killed by Mr. Gowell, Feb.
21st, 1886.

‘Old Pet’s Calf.” (No. 41.)

Lungs affected, bad cough. Age 9 months. Dam, Old
Pet, (No. 40). Bred on College farm.

Juno. I. (No. 42.)

Large abscess in right lung. Left generally affected. Age
11 years. Purchased in Rockland. No produce.

Mollie. I. (No. 48.)

Right lung affected with tubercles of the size of a hen'‘s
egg. Age 6 years. Bred in Howland. Purchased in 1885,
Princess Alice. I. (No. 44.)

Lungs studded with miliary tubercles, calcification of bron-
chial lymphatic glands. Age 54 years. Killed March 11th,
Bred in Bowdoin.

246

Bess Pet. I. (No. 45.)

Both lungs affected. 2 years old. Dam, Bess. Bred on
College farm.

Augusta Boy. I. (No. 46.)

Affected with tubercles in both lungs. Age4 years. Bred
in Augusta, and placed in the herd September, 1835.
Maggie 3d. (No. 47.)

Emaciated and coughed badly. Age 12 years. Bred on
College farm. Killed by Mr. Gowell in the autumn of 1884.
Rose 8th. (No. 48.)

Short-Horn Herd Book cow. Refused to breed, and was
sold to a butcher, and her lungs found badly affected. Bred
at Stark, and bought with her dam when but a few days old.
Killed by Mr. Gowell. Produce, Thresa, (No. 25).

Berry. (No. 49.)

Thoroughbred Short-Horn steer. Glands affected. Coughed.
Age 2 years. Dam, Tulip 4th, (No. 23). Bred on College
farm.

Bright. (No. 50.)
Thoroughbred Short-Horn steer. Glands affected, with
bad cough. Age 19 months. Purchased when 4 days old.

Roan Heifer. (No. 51.)
Glands affected, and coughed. Age 3 months. Purchased
when three days old at Oldtown.

The dams of eleven of the ‘‘bulls sold” from the farm are:

‘sHelen Hart,” No. 5, the dam of two.

Collie, No. 9, the dam of one.

Belle of West Meadows, No. 19, the dam of one.
Mildred, No. 2, the dam of one.

Highland Belle, 2nd, No. 17, the dam of one.
Tulip, 4th, No. 23, the dam of one.

Old Pet, No. 40, the dam of one.

Princess Alba, No. 27, the dam of the ‘‘Kent bull.”
Juno, 2nd, No. 30, the dam of two.

247

The post-mortem report I furnish above has been the
result of considerable labor to prepare, but I believe it will
well repay every one interested, to give it a careful perusal,
as bearing directly upon the young bulls that have been sold
from the College farm. Take the ‘‘Hebe” family as an ex-
ample: I regard Hebe as a typical case, and the real ‘‘skel-
eton in the closet” of the College cases. ‘*Helen Hart,” No.
5, is the dam of two bulls sold from the farm, now coming
3 and 4 years old. ‘Helen Hart” was out of Hepsy Hart
and she out of Hebe. ‘‘Hesta Hart of Orono,” No. 7, was
out of ‘*Hesta Hart” and she out of Hebe. ‘*Hugo Pauline,”
No. 8, was out of ‘*Pride of Lachine” and she out of Hebe.
‘‘Helen’s Calf,” No. 6, was out of ‘‘Helen Hart,” gran-
dam Hebe, and Hebe is the old Jersey cow that re-
Sused to breed, and which Mr. Rich sold for $22, she hav-
ing cost the State a few years before $250.00. Reduced to
the military tactics of Orono, I should say that ‘*Helen Hart”
enlisted at the ‘*beginning of the campaign” in the ‘‘infant-ry
service,” with Mr. Farrington, in 1877, and was turned over
(with other ‘‘pensioners”) at the close of his command in
1878, into the ‘‘hospital department” of Mr. Rich, where, af-
ter serving through a ‘‘hard siege” of four years, together with
alot of ‘*diseased and disabled veterans,” she joined the ‘‘new
recruits” of Mr. Gowell in 1882. As a member of the ‘*full
band” she served all ‘*through the war,” and was turned over
to the State Commissioners in March, 1886, when she was
‘smustered out,” and soon afterwards died from the ‘‘effects of

‘a wound, contracted while in the *‘service of the State.” She

left two ‘‘sons of veterans” who are, no doubt, still **willing
and anxious” to serve, but as the ‘‘war is over,” I have to
recommend that they be put on the ‘retired list” as soon as the
‘¢necessary orders” can be given. Try the ‘Collie” family hy
the same test, for Tinney, No. 10, is the dam of one of these
bulls, now coming 3 yearsold. Tinney was out of the old cow
Collie, No. 9, Tinetta, No. 14, was out of Tinney, and she
out of Collie, Eizeletta, No. 11, was out of Tinney, and she

248

out of Collie. ‘*Tinney’s Calf,” No. 15, was out of Tinney,
and she out of Collie. Blanch, No. 12, was out of Eizeletta,
grandam Tinney. ‘‘Blanch’s Calf,” No. 16, was out of
Blanch, great-grandam Tinney. ‘*Kizeletta’s Calf,” No. 164,
was out of Eizeletta, great-grandam Collie, and Collie 2d,
No. 18, was also out of Collie. No. 12, No. 13, No. 14, Neo.
15, No. 16, No. 164, and the bull sold, were all bred upon
the College farm. Look over the post-mortem notes oppo-
site each member and see how you like them. Blanch (one
of the very worst cases at Orono), with her dam Eizeletta, her
grandam Tinney, and her great-grandam Collie, stood ‘‘side
by side.” Four generations of ‘*Winthrop Jerseys,” all splen-
did animals as far as appearances went, but whose lungs are
a “‘mass of corruption,” as were all their produce, together
‘*with their uncles, their cousins and their aunts.” Do
you wonder, then, that the ‘“‘warp and woof” of tubercle
was woven into the *‘bonesand muscle” of the entire herd,
and that they all came honestly by the disease? Take
the case of ‘*Belle of West Meadows,” No. 19, she is
the dam of one bull sold, now coming 3 years old. ‘*Maid
of West Meadows,” No. 20, is out of ‘‘Belle of West Mead-
ows,” ‘*Flossy,” No. 22, is out of ‘*‘Maid of West Meadows,”
and she out of No. 19. ‘*Belle of West Meadows’ Calf,” No.
21, is also out of No. 19, and the whole jot are diseased.
Mildred, No. 2, is the dam of one bull sold now coming 3
years old. Mildred is out of Pansy, No. 1. Hyacinthe,
No. 38, is out of Pansy, <‘‘Mildretta of Orono,” No. 4, is
out of Miidred and she out of Pansy. ‘Gray Nose,” No.
34, is out of Hyacinthe, and she out of Pansy. ‘‘Highland
Belle, 2nd,” No. 17, is the dam of one bull sold, now coming
3 years old. ‘‘Highland Belle, 2nd,” is also the dam of
Edith, No. 18. Both bred on the College farm. A bad lot.
“Tulip, 4th,” No. 23, is the dam of one bull sold, now com-
ing 4 years old. <‘‘Tulip’s Calf,” No. 24, is out of Tulip,
4th, and Berry, No. 49, is also out of Tulip, 4th, all diseased.
Old Pet, No. 40, is the dam of one bull now coming 4 years

249

old. Old Pet is also the dam of ‘*Pet’s Calf,” No. 41.
Princess Alba, No. 27, is the dam of the Kent bull. ‘‘Jer-
sey Lily,” No. 28, is out of Princess Alba, and Crummie,
No. 29, is also out of Princess Alba. The ‘*Kent bull” is the
only one of these animals from which I have yet had the
pleasure of seeing the lungs and glands, and these plainly
show the primal formation of the tubercular deposit from
different centres, while his dam was ‘‘rotten to the core.”
Last but not least is Juno, 2nd; she is the dam of fwo bulls
sold trom the farm, now coming 2 and 3 years old. Juno,
2nd, also produced Susie, No. 31, all bred on the College
farm. Juno, 2nd, was sold from the farm to Mrs. Stetson of
Bangor, and although examined by Dr. Michener last April,
who failed to discover any unsoundness at that time, I con-
sider her a dangerous animal to be at large. I also failed to
discover any unsoundness about the Kent bull in July, but
four months later his lungs showed unmistakable lesions of the
disease. The above nine cows, excepting Juno, 2nd, were all
killed at Orono, and all found thoroughly diseased, and are
the dams of eleven bulls, all now in service in this State, and
it will be noticed that they are each the dams of from one to
four other calves which we killed at Orono, who were also
badly diseased, and still Iam told we have no proof, only a
suspicion that these young bulls (for which the College has
received about $350.00) are themselves diseased. In the
above statement, I have had nothing to say, recollect, about
the sires of the above bulls, that would surely contribute to
and intensify the hereditary taint. In the male, tubercle is
also deposited in the generative organs; in the structure
of the testicle, producing orchitis; in the tunica vaginalis,
producing dropsy (hydrocele), and in the structure of the cord,
producing schirrus. What say you, farmers of Maine, do
you wish to patronize these bulls, or have them come in con-
tact with your ‘flocks and herds,” or do you think the State of
Maine can afford to issue that kind of stock, and then refuse
to redeem their depreciated and worthless coupons? Although
it has been my constant endeavor to keep this report within

250

the strictest limits conformable with what the importance of
the subject demands, yet as I approach the close of a docu-
ment that may appear lengthy and tedious to many readers,
I feel that I should fall far short of my duty to others, were
I to refuse to comment upon the cause of an apparent delay
in pronouncing the ‘*College cases” fully and safely disposed
of, which results from the first and only ‘difference of opinion”
with any of my associates, inan experience of five years of earn-
est and successful labor to free our State from such contagious
‘diseases as, very fortunately for us, have been ‘few and far be-
tween.” On July 27th, 1886, I received a legal notice from Mr.
G. W. McAlister, one of the municipal officers of Bucksport,
to take immediate and official action in reference to one bull
purchased in the falt of 1885, by Seth N. Kent, from the herd
of the State College at Orono. I went at once to Bucksport
and found a yearling bull; while he was apparently well, I
advised his being kept apart from other animals, and on no
account to be used either for public or private service. As
the advice conflicted with that previously given by another
member of our Board, I interested myself at once, to have
the matter reconciled and disposed of. I wrote to Mr. Gow-
ell on August 7th, to know what cow was the dam of Mr.
Kent’s bull, and on August 8th, received his reply that ‘the
animal was out of Princess Alba, No. 27, whose lungs and
glands were badly affected, she was one of the worst cases at
Orono.” On August 25th, I again wrote Mr. Gowell,
asking him how many bulls had been sold from the College
herd, since he had been Superintendent, whose dams we killed,
and were known to be diseased. On August 28th I received
the following reply :—‘‘Dear Sir: The calf was sold to Mr.
Kent last September. It was about four months old at that
time. Price paid, $20. Within the last four years fourteen
bulls and bull calves have been sold from the farm. Eleven
of them were bred from cows that we killed. The dams of
two others could be regarded with suspicion, as they were
taken from the herd because of ‘refusal to breed’ and un-

251

known trouble, although examined by Dr. Wilde, post-mor-
tem. These bulls were sold for something like $350. Many
of them being but a few days old, explains the low price,
together with the desire to benefit the farmers by selling low ;
‘farmers’ prices’ our motto. Ten of these bulls were sold
previous to 1885—nearly two years ago—and must have been
used a great deal already ; those sold in 1885 probably have
been used limitedly. The Kent bull is the last one that went
out.” On October 13th, at the request of Mr. Kent, I brought
the case before the Governor and Council at Augusta, and
also wrote to Dr. Michener, reporting the case, and asking
for his opinion. August 19th, I received his letter, dated
New York, ’86, saying, ‘‘Your letter of the 14th is received.
I do not see how any one can advise the keeping of said bull
for service. It must be remembered that tuberculosis is held
to be hereditary, by all the best authorities, both human and
veterinary. If this be true, and I believe it to be so unques-
tionably—then this particular animal is certainly an unsafe
sire—or to put it differently, is a sire almost certain to propa-
gate the disease. He should be killed.” On October 22nd,
I received a proposition from Mr. McAlister, who from the
first had taken much interest in the matter, saying, ‘‘If the
State will give $25 the bull shall be disposed of and I will
pay the rest of the bill myself. I make this proposition that
the future of this community may be safe.” This proposition
was rejected, and finally, through the united efforts of Mr.
McAlister and myself, the bull was killed about November
Ist, and the lungs and glands sent to me for examination. I
retained a portion and sent the anterior lobe of the right lung
to the American Veterinary College of New York. The fol-
lowing is a copy of a letter from Dr. Michener, dated New
York, November 19th, 1886:

My Drar Docror:—Your letter received. Lam glad you wrote me
concerning this, as it gives me an opportunity to say that by chance I saw
a portion of the lung sent to American Veterinary College from the
‘Kent Bull,” (Dr. Liautard told me) a calf of one of the cows of Orono
herd. These lungs show unmistakable lesions of Tnberculosis. Why
don’t you hunt up all such bulls and have them destroyed? There can be

252

but little doubt that they will all sooner or later develop this disease.
They will serve to extend it in many herds where their services are re-
quired. ‘Che Commissioners, and the State Veterinarian more than all—
will be, I think, directly responsible fur every case of such extension. In
the eyes of all veterinarians you will deserve censure if you fail to follow
up each animal. They may be yet used for beef. Probably your hands
are tied. I think this the case, for I know you well enough to judge that
you are not one to avoid a duty, no matter how unpleasant.

(Sd) Cu. B. MICHENER, D. V. S.,

Chief Inspector of Bureau of Animal Industry,
U. S. Dep’t of Agriculture.”

These are no ‘‘idle werds,” they are the matured judgment
and opinions of a man who is a leader, and a teacher in that
humane profession to which I have the honor to belong, and
I have been thus particular to offer the correspondence in
this case, for the reason that the *‘Kent bull” is the only one
described by Mr. Gowell in his letter of August 28th, that
I have yet seen, or of which I have any knowledge of their
present whereabouts, but as the proper disposal of all the
others pivots on this one case, the position I take can now be
fully understood, which is, that no one of these outcasts should
be allowed to cohabit with other animals or to propagate
their kind, and that every one of the vagabonds should be
promptly inspected and destroyed, either for beef or other-
wise as circumstances shall develop. It was Shakespeare
who said ‘*Diseases desperate grown by desperate appliances
are relieved, or not at all.” What these animals have inher-
ited they can surely transmit, and by a decree as unchang-
able as the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth
not, ‘‘the iniquities of the fathers shall be visited upon the
children unto the third and fourth generations.” In conver-
sation recently with Governor Bodwell, he said that he ‘‘con-
sidered that the animals sold out of the Orono herd, to go
into other herds, should have been looked after long ago, and
that proper measures are necessary to prevent further spread
of the disease.” Iam told by others who differ with me as
to the proper disposal of the outstanding cases at Orono,
first, that the law gives the Commissioners no police powers

253

whatever, that only on appearance of disease which the
municipal authorities fear endangers public interests, they
are to call upon us. According to this, no matter how much
personal knowledge the Commissioners may have of the pres-
ence of any contagious disease, the law says ‘*‘Hands ofl”
until some owner who does not recognize the disease has
notified some town officer who does know the law, that he
suspects contagion. ‘*To be forewarned is to be forearmed,”
and if this be true, the sooner the Commissioners are ‘*clothed
with power” to act promptly. and to dispense with ‘‘red
tape” while contagion is being sown broadcast all over our
State, the better it will be for the community. ‘The first
essential in any attempt to control contagious diseases is the
power to enter upon premises and inspect the stock wherever
it may be. Without such power the existence of contagious
diseases cannot be determined. Owners frequently have no
means of determining the nature of a malady from which their
animals may be suffering, and oftener still they may be satis-
fied as to the character of their afiliction, but prefer that
others should be kept in ignorance of it. With either breed-
ing herds or milk dairies the business of the owner is gener-
ally destroyed as soon as the public learns that the animals
are affected, and consequently, the endeavor to keep the
public in ignorance of it is an effort for self-preservation. The
second objection to the issuing of summary orders in these cases
is ‘‘that we have no proof (only a suspicion) that these Col-
lege bulls are diseased.” If the facts that I have collected,
presented and grouped ‘‘around and about” every one of these
animals is not deemed a good and suflicient answer to the lat-
ter allegation, then I am ready to believe that there is no ab-
surdity so great but that it will find some champion to de-
fend it.

GEO. H. BAILEY, D. V. S., Portianp, ME.,

Secretary and Veterinary Surgeon of Board of Commissioners
on Contagious Diseases for Maine.

254

Having been put in possession of all the above facts, we
hereby fully concur in the above report.

W. B. FEReuson, Commissioners for Maine on
SAMUEL BELL, Contagious Diseases of Animals.

Cu. B. MicHener, D. V. S.,
Professor of Obstetrics, Cattle Pathology, Materia Medica,
Therapeutics and Hygiene, American Veterinary College
of New York.

FREDERICK Henry GerrisH, M. D.,
President Maine State Board of Health.

A. G. Youne, M. D.,
Secretary State Board of Health.

PorTLAND, Sept. Ist, 1886.

ON ee, A:

PAGES.
Bailey, George H., letters from, to Z. A. Gilbert, 71, 74, 134, 158, 161,
165 167, 168, 172, 173, 174, 183, 184

letter from, to J. R. Bodwell...------+.+e+e+++ 176

letter from, to College faculty ..........+++++- 154

testimony Of........scecccscccccncrccccece 43, 47, 114
Bell, Samuel, testimony Of. ......cccescccccscccccscscsncsscccves 105, 114
Boardman, Henry, letter from, to G. H. Bailey...-....-.+eeeeeeee 138
Burleigh, Hall C., testimony Of.......eeeeccceccesccccccsevccncess 179
Cheever, A. W., testimomy Of.......esccsscncccccccsecccccsccccecs 21, 24
Conclusions Of COMMIULCCE =. wien e ce ccs cieiciscccccvienseccsnuseesess 3, 4
Cornish, L. C., appears as counsel for Hall C. Burleigh........--- 5
Farrington, J. R., testimony of.)..--.5,...+-2-+5++¢ Bia ONAN sixtakd 29, 30
Ferguson, William B., testimony Of ...---+- +++ eeeeeeeeeees 47, 52, 84, 85
Fernald, M. C., testimony Of......2ceeccceeecccc cece ccccescccues 31, 178

Gilbert, Z. A., letters from, to George H. Bailey, 56, 62, 66, 68, 72, 75, 78.
130, 131, 182, 183

letters from, to S, N. Kent ....--.-ceeccececesceeee 60

letters from, to Samuel Bell......--.+-++- 106, 109, 111, 112

testimony Of ....--.eeeeee cece cecccecceneees 52, S4, 86, 105

Gowell, Gilbert M., letter from, to George H. Bailey..-..-.+-.++++ 72
letter from, to Mr. Kent...---+.eeseeeeeeeeeees 181

testimony Of........-. 25, 29, 31, 33, 178, 179, 180, 181

Harris, Arthur, testimony Of ....... eee ee cece cere eee eeeeeeeeenes 42
Haskell, N. P., testimony Of «6.2... ee eee eee ee cee eee eee e rete tenes 40, 42
Hatch, S.C... cccceceeecccccc ccc cere taccceccneeeeeeecnseseeeeees 30, 31
History of cattle sold from College farm ...---+-+-+++eeeeeeeeeees 34
Jordan, William H., testimony Of «.....eeeeeeeeee cece eee eeeee eens 85, 86
Kent, S. N., affidavit Of ..-....e cece cece cee cence eeeeceereececens 182
letters from, to Geo. H. Bailey .---- +--+ +--+ eeeeee eres 126

McAlister, G. W., letters from, to Geo. H. Bailey .------+--++++++ 74, 126
letters from, to Z. A. Gilbert «..++.-e-eeeeeeeeee 176

testimony Of ....... ee ee cence eee rete eeee ee ceenes 35

256

PAGES.
Michener, C. B., letters from, to Geo. H. Bailey.......--..+--++. 128, 139
letters from, to Z. A. Gilbert ..........--eeee eens iy
Oak, Lyndon, testimony Of .......--2e cece cece cece cece tec en cece - 36, 38
Parkhurst, BE. B., testimony Of «62s s.00 <0 cowie ee ne vin cinteie en» vale wm aie 39, 40
Report of majority of Commissioners of Maine on Contagious Dis-
CASESHOL A TILDE Setersteroiaieliete\ataele aleiat «late clalolelet=telollavelo\el sretekeleletele\-yalelafatsters 189
Rich..T. -G., testimony Of. ie vaste ute ek woes +e wis amine eons ona em 35, 36
Salmon, A. E., letter from, to Geo. H. Bailey .............------ 163, 171
letter from, to M.C. Fernald............-. sedalsversiotate 182
Sands, Lambert, testimony Of .--.-+-++-+++ eee cess aie ialot brattend tate eat aisle 30
haw,” Ac ML. hestimGtiy OF << 'ce os ave's wa ace 4 0 v'n chet eelnie pietaleins (alae ote 42, 43
Smith, Ae Re Gs. COSHMTOMY Ogee rerele eli ie le elelo eteie eyetetale olat olsiniete i=in =e 24, 25
Southard, Frank K., appears as counsel for Z. A. Gilbert.---..-..- 86
Stevens, Sanford, statement of ......--.....-. phate alee eie/eleleterctetatsieleters 183

Winchester, J. F., testimony Of .........2s2cccerccsecescceccercss 5, a

STATE OF MAINE.

IN SENATE, March 10, 1887.
Reported by Mr. ALLEN, from the Joint Special Committee to Investi-
gate the Cattle Disease, and on his motion laid on the table and ordered
printed, together with the testimony which is submitted as part of the
report.
C. W. TILDEN,

Secretary.

iy: oe eats Bains ae) ys eee, Le ta
ie Cremtada ical iar. 059 2) (His C8 Fae YE OEE
cy é4 “ } y ” bias rey

yeas o evntl OKA IE

wipe tek tod iy nhktariagh), Labeaitt Foyt alight CON ih Niger tex
dayetonc: be pliind Ata ae HPAL (6: Atty eel Ge Tule outa abtaly “an

Bd) RO RE Ae Mae ana BA Khai erate hi Artal bia cok i

rae Rr en . | |
| weaker 3

hy

J
:
,

>