EDITORIAL ARTICLES. 143

discharge the duties of efficient meat inspection. It is obvious that no one who has not a knowledge of animal diseases is qualified for such an appointment, but it is equally apparent that to carry out in a reliable manner the work of meat inspection will demand a degree of pathological skill which cannot safely be assumed to be possessed by every qualified veterinary practitioner. Candidates will have to be subjected to a searching written and practical examination bearing on the special duties of meat inspectors-a practice which we believe is now followed in making such appointments in France.

THE DISHORNING OF CATTLE.

ACCORDING to a recent judgment delivered by Lord Coleridge and Mr Justice Hawkins, in the case of Ford v. Wiley, the practice of dishorning cattle is a cruel, unreasonable, and unnecessary abuse of the animals operated upon, is therefore illegal, and ought to be suppressed. During the course of last year, in the Justiciary Appeal Court held at Edinburgh, with reference to a similar case, judgment was given by Lords Young, M'Laren, and Rutherford Clark, to the effect that the operation of dishorning was not one of cruelty within the meaning of the Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and therefore that it was not illegal. Accordingly, at the present moment the dishorning of cattle is a perfectly legitimate operation when practised in Scotland, but it is illegal when performed in England. The decision given by the English judges is regrettable, not only because it is undesirable that there should exist such a grave anomaly in the administration of the law in the two countries, but also because the judgment appears to be based on principles that may, with very little straining, be applied to the interdicting of what have hitherto been regarded as most legitimate surgical operations.

In connection with the decision given by the English Court, it may be asked, \Vhat are the circumstances that render an operation cruel as opposed to painful? It is inconceivable that the veterinary surgeons who gave evidence for the prosecution in the case of Ford v. Wiley, and who almost every day of their lives perform on the lower animals painful operations, could have intended to support the proposition that every painful operation deserves the epithet cruel. These witnesses would, we have no doubt, promptly reply to the point here raised by saying that a painful surgical operation practised on one of the lower animals is cruel when it is unnecessary.

But what is to be the criterion of necessity in these cases? In the first place, it may be contended that man is not justified in performing a painful operation on one of the lower animals, or at least one of our domesticated animals, except in circumstances similar to those that warrant the infliction of pain on a human being-that, in other words.

144 EDITORIAL ARTICLES.

the operation is forbidden except when it is designed to be of benefit to the individual operated upon. No veterinary surgeon could entertain this view and conscientiously continue to practise his profession. But there can be no doubt that it was the evidence of veterinary surgeons that mainly secured the English judgment against dishorning, and they ought therefore to be prepared to state clearly what are the circumstances that warrant man in performing a painful surgical operation not designed simply to benefit the animal itself.

As a matter of fact, almost all our most painful veterinary operations are performed mainly, if not entirely, with the view of rendering the animal more valuable to its owner-more serviceable for the purpose to which it is put, or worth more money if the owner desires to sell it. That is the object and the only justification of castration of our horses, bulls, rams, and boars; and it is, of course, known to everybody that the eminent veterinary witnesses who declared dishorning a cruel and unjustifiable operation do not refuse to castrate an animal, although the latter operation, in the case of the horse at least, must be quite as painful as the act of dishorning.

Much trouble, apparently, was taken to convince Lord Coleridge and Mr Justice Hawkins that dishorning is a very painful operation. But this evidence was beside the point unless it is held that all painful surgical operations on the lower animals are forbidden except for the relief or cure of disease. That the operation is painful cannot be gain­said, but it may be submitted that the evidence given on this head did not come very consistently from those who with an ecraseur remove the testicles from an unchloroformed stallion. It surely cannot be seriously maintained that castration is not an extremely painful opera­tion; and those who practise and justify the operation thereby give in their adhesion to the view that dishorning is not necessarily cruel or unjustifiable because it is painful. One is therefore driven to con­clude that the veterinary witnesses in the case cited must be opposed to dishorning, not simply on the ground of its being painful, but because they regard the operation as useless for the purpose in view, or because they consider that this purpose could be attained by less painful means.

I t must be frankly admitted that these are perfectly cogent objec­tions; but while entertaining the greatest respect for the opinion of the veterinary witnesses on matters belonging to their own profession, we may humbly point out that, where the issue to be tried is whether dishorning does or does not add to the animal's value by facilitating the fattening process, their evidence loses all its special weight. As Lord Young very sensibly said in giving judgment in the Scotch case, certain farmers are of opinion that their legitimate interests are served by cutting off the horns of certain animals, and that is accordingly done by people who are sagacious enough to attend to their own interests to the best of their judgment and knowledge. So that it

EDITORIAL ARTICLES. 145

simply comes to this. Certain farmers whose practice it is to feed their cattle in open courts-a method that is, we believe, generally admitted to be the most healthy and natural for the animals-believe that the animals thrive better and fatten more rapidly when their horns have been removed, and they accordingly practise the operation or have it executed for them. A number of veterinary surgeons, eminent no doubt in their own profession, but with no experience worthy of mention on this particular point, come forward to prove that the practical farmer is quite mistaken in these notions. It seems to us that the veterinary evidence here was just as impertinent and out of place as that of a farmer would be in a case relating to the appropriate treatment of a particular disease. We deprecate in the strongest possible manner the wanton infliction of pain on even the meanest of the lower creatures. But at the same time we hold that man is justi­fied in the performance of such an operation as castration, even when it is executed solely for the purpose of increasing the animal's fatten­ing properties and selling value; and we cannot conscientiously in this respect draw any distinction between castration and dishorning. This position is, of course, assailable by those who regard castration .and various other recognised veterinary operations as cruel and unwarrantable, but that, we know, is not the opinion of the veterinary ·experts who have declared against the dishorning of cattle, and there­fore we contend that they have unwittingly taken up an altogether illogical position.

There is still another phase of this question to which attention ought to be called. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has thought it to be its duty to prosecute in cases where farmers inflict pain, not wantonly, but in performing what they consider a justifiable operation-justifiable in that it increases the economic value of the animals operated on. What does the Society think about the pain inflicted upon thousands of animals in this country in the practice of horse-racing, fox-hunting, and field sports in general? To reflect upon the lingering pain daily inflicted through rabbit-trapping, partridge-shooting, and the like, is enough to make even the most callous shudder.

The Law and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals apparently wink at this form of cruelty, and yet most people will agree that the pain here inflicted is far less necessary than that of ,dishorning.

K