STOCK DEPARTMENT INQUIRY.

Otago Witness, Issue 2205, 4 June 1896, Page 15

STOCK DEPARTMENT INQUIRY.

The inquiry into"the action of the Stock department in prohibiting the milk from Mr Thomas Johnston's cows from being sold for human consumption was ' resume 1 at the Courthouse, Palmerdton, on the 27th ult. at 10.30, before Major Ktddell, S.M., and Mr Andrew M'Kemnv, J.P. Mr Solomon appeared for the petitioners at whose instance the inquiiy was instituted, and Mr'D. M. Findlay for the Stock department. The examination of John Duncan, which was commenced on Tuesday afternoon, was resumed. Witness said in his opinion theie was no necessity for stopping the sale of Mr Johu'ton's milk on the date it was stopped. He had seen cattle of other farmer* inspected by the dairy inspector in the same condition as Johnston's, and the milk was not prohibited from sale. He examined the milk etrpplieiby Johnston's cattle before and after the aaTtrwas/ stopped. He found no serious irnpuri-ftiesj£rft-so as to render it unfit for manufacturing dairyvgraduice. ■*ByJSr Findlay : Witness did not see anything different in Mr Johnston's milk to other milk. A sample of all the milk was sent up to him from all suppliers from time to time for examination. The samples were always identifiable. He was familiar with the disease of cowpox. It was called variola. The disease was simply little sores or small pimples on the teats. These were the outward symptoms. Sores generally followed the pimpleß. He could not say bow long the disease ran if not disturbed, but with cows in use it might lest one or two month 3. The upper part of the teat and the lower part of the udder were most affected. The sores took an irregular shape. They never broke cut until the cowa were milkad. The sores might lie dormant in heifeiy until they calved. Nothing like a blister took place from cowpox. He was not aware that cowpox rendered the milk unfit for human consumption. He had never found it so in all his experience. He never heard any complaints about Johnston's milk which was sent to the factory. He was quite prepared to use Johnston's milk. All the farmers' cowb roundabout were in the same condition. He would nob say that they had cowpox, but they had cracked teats. He was not aware of any instances of cowpou in Flag Swamp about February 16, but

there were some cracked teata. He heard of Johnston's milk being stopped the day afterwards. Witness wont to see Johnston's cattle once or twice with JefferJs, and he also saw them in company with Robertson and M'Gill. He went to Johnston's about the 4th of March. He went to all the trouble about Johnston's cattle because he was a slock owner, and he thought that ne might be subjected to the same unjust" persecution that Mr Johnston had been subjected to. He did not know when the petition was first issued, nor did he know who wrote or dictated the petition. It did not emanate from him. He posted tha petition to Wellington at the Palmerston Post Office, and wrote a covering note at tho request of J. K. Robertson, one of the positioners. Witness got a report from Mr Hamilton about a week after he saw the cattle. The petition wtvs in circulation up to a dayor two before it went away. Hamilton's report was not made known to the petitioners. Nobody bad seen it but himself. The report was to be kept private for the parpobe of the inquiry if the inquny came on. Mr Robertson got a telegram from Sir Ritchie in answer to tho petition. Witness wrote & reply for Robertson.

Mr Fiiidlay read the reply, which was as follows :— " I have to cknowledge receipt of wire (memo, dated tith) stating that Mr Ritchie will hold inquiry, and on behilf of petitioners thank you foe same. After coanulting v/ith other petitioner?, desire you to undenUud that if it can be arranged wiih-iut expense wo would like inquiry to be held un the general ground of the effect of the working of the acts on the dairy inrtusVy, and that it take the form of a commission with someone to sit as umpire, and to report on the matter with o. view of sugg.' sting how lite act could best be amended and impjoved iv the diiection desired by pstitionera.** Witness stated that he also wrote the following letter to Mr Ritchie, for Mr Robertson :-- I have to hand a letter from you dated April 7, 1896— n0 number given. I beg to state that I have not signed, neither have I any knowledge of, any petition for an inquiry into the conJuct of the Inspector of Stock in preventing Thomas Johnston, of Flag Swamp, sending milk from unhealthy cow« to the dairy factory." About the time Johnston's milk supply was stopped it decreaeed the supply to the factory by 34Dlb to 3501b a day. When he examined the cows he milked some of them. Some of the cows had cracked teats. I When he went to Johnstou's place first thera was ! no matter coming from the cowa' teats. Some of the cows were just about dry wheu he saw them. That was from natural causes. He should not pay that they were going dry from mammitis. He did not fpol any hard lumps on the cows' udders. He did not make a detailed examination of the cows. Alexander Cameron, farmer, of Flag Swamp, who resided next to Johnston s, said he roinsnv bered the milk from the latter's cows being condemned. He saw the cows tho next day. The cows looked well, but some of th-m had sore teats. There was a kind of scab or a soutf on the te^ts of those tbat had sore teats. Ho could not say how many cows had sore teats. He did not go to Mr Johnston's to examine the cows ; he went to see Mr Johnston. The place i 3 perfectly clean —good enough for cows in any part. | By Mr Findlay : Witness had never seen cowpox^ He signed the petition, which was brought j to him by Mr Jefferis. j Ronald Jefferis, farmer, of Flag Swamp, stated that he managed the Flag Swatnp branch of the Palmeraton Dairy Factory. He lived next to Mr Johnston. Ho was an experienced mm among rows, and had been amongst them all bis life, On the 19th of February he heard of the milk of Johnston's cows being condemned. He had not examined the cows before the milk was stopped, but he did so on the following night. He then examined all the cows. There were two or three cows that were pretty bad with sore teate, and three or four more had slightly sore teats. It was not true that matter was exuding from the teats. He saw the cows as they were being milked. There could not have bsen matter on the teats without his noticing it. He thoroughly examined the cows' outward appearance. Had he come from a strange district and examined the cows he could not have said that they had had cowpox at all, judging by the cores or cracks on their teats. He could not say tbat any of JohnEton's cattle were suffering from cowpox on the the night he examined them. In his op'nion they had had cowpox, but when he visited the yard [ the cowpix was dead, and seemed to have run its courae. Only the crack in the tc-ats remained. James K. Robertson, farmer, stated that he had 50 yeavs' experience among cows. He examined Johnston's cows on the 4th March. He did not examine them very carefully. bufrf>uffi-' cicntly so to s-peak as to their he lth. None of the cows were then suffering from cowpox. He could ree no indications of their having suffered from it recently. About five or six were suffering from cracked teats. The cracks were all clean sorea, with a black mark on the sores. Thera was no matter coming from the teato. He did not see the cows milked. In his opinion there was no justification for Mr Johnston being prohibited from selling bis milk. He had aeen other cows in the neighbourhood in a similar condition, and their milk was going to the factory without the mspactor or anybody else saying anything against it. He did not tbink that any cracked teats were the lesult of cowpox The truces of cowpox would remain after the pox was dead for two or three weeks. If Mr'Johnston's cows had had the cowpox the pox must have been d?ad two or three weeks before he saw them. Johnston's premises were tolerably cloan— as clean aa 00 per cent, of the stockyards in Otnco. By Mr Findlay : Witness did not handle the cows at all. He never saw a pock mark on the teat of a cow. The marks were always at the root, of the teat or in the udder. There was no sign of cowpox. The cracks were "on the teata. That \vas his leason for thinking that there were not a sign of covypox. la rare cases he was aware that the pox joined each other. Such cases were considered bad ones. Generally cowpox runs from eight to ten days ; but as fresh pox sometimes came out tne marks might be on the cows longer. Witness could not say who told him about the petition. Tho first time be heard about it he was in Mr Duncan's factory. Ho s,ud he could not believe that a veterinarian would condemn the milk of cows that were in the same condition as Mr Johnston's ware.- Mr Duncan acted as amanuensis for witnees. He could uot say what reply he got to the petition. Witness dictated I tha letter produced, asking for a general inquiry to ! be held into the working of the Dairy Industry Act. In the petition the petitioners only asked for an inquiry into the conduct of the inspectors There was no arrangement with the rest of the | petitioners with regard toaskingforachangein the chaiacter of the inquiry. He asked for the general inquiry on his own responsibility, but the petitioners approved afterwards of what he had done. He sifiued the petition because Johnston's milk was stopped from consumption of any soit. He did not sign it because it was stopped going to the factory. He considered it better to have no inquiry at all than one by Mr Ritchie. Robsrt Stringer, fanner, of Flag Swamp, stated that he was a near neighbour of Mr Johnston's. He saw Mr Johnston's cattle the second or third evening after the milk was stopped. He had bsen all his lifetime among cattle, and cowpox was no stranger to him. He could not say that there was no pox on the cattle at all, became he did not handle them. They looked as if they might have bad the cowpox before, or they might not have had it. Their teats were cracked. There was no discharge of any sort from the teats tlwt he could

see. He had seen cattle in the same condition very commonly whose milk had been used without ill effects up to the present time. 9 He did not think there could have boon any reason for the milk being stopped from sale. Witness considered Johnston's premises in very good condition. Ho did not think any other ntockyard in Flag Swamp was in as good condition.

By Mr tfiodlay : Witness's cows were troubled with cowpox some time ago. That (Wednesday) morning ouo of the milkers told him that he had two or three pustules on the back of his I hand. He did not send any milk from infected I co \VB to the factoiy after he was told by Mr Bruce and Mr Patk not to do to. He was careful in the treatment of the cows. He had been treating them before the inspectors came. Ha did not know of any disease in Johnstou's cows at that time, but he had heard that cowpox was about. Johnston's cows were being milked at the time he was there. He just looked at them round tho yard. He was not asked to go over, but went over of his own accord. He did not examine the teate carefully, but only looked at them. They were in the same state as many that were suffering from cowpox. To Mr Solonion : Some of his cattle that he was allowed to sell the milk from were in the same condition as Johnston's. Hugh M'Gregor, veterinary surgeon, Hawksbury, stated that he graduated at Edinburgh in 1852, and had a large amount of practical expaiiencft amongst cattle both here and at Home. Oowpox was very prevalent bjth at Home and here. Ho examined Johnston's cattle on March 4 last. They may have been suffering from cowpox before he saw them, but there weie no pox marks on thorn when he did see them. At the time he Baw them there was no reason why their milk should be prohibited from sale. If they had been affected with cowpox, it must have died out before he saw them. If the teats were crocked by cowpox there would be a scar. He could se9 no scar, but there were marks where thpie. had been a scar. When he saw Joh as ton's premises they weie clean. , By Mr Findliy : On the 4th of March he did not handle the cattle, but he looked at those that had craoks on the teats. He could tell cowpox in any stage. v Ronald Jefferis (recalled) said, in bis opinion, there was no justification for prohibiting the use of the milk from Mr Johnston's cows at the time he saw them. About two-thirds of the cattle appeared to have nothing at all the matter with them. By Mr f indlay : Witnoss was in Mr Duncan's -employ at the time he inspected the odws. He was Mr Duncan's brother-in-law. He saw the cows when they were being milked, and there was no matter coming from the teats. At the time Mr Johnston's milk supply was stopped it was on the increase; so that however bad the cows may have been they were im.proving< This closed the case for the petitioners. Mr Findlay asked Mr Solomon if he was going to call Mr L»ug, and the latter replied that he was not, but Mr JPiudlay could do so if he pleased. After some discussion as to who should call the witness, who wanted to get away, Mr Findhy agreed to do so on the understanding that he should be allowed to open his case afterwards. Joseph Tilson Jj&ng, Government dairy "instructor and inspector, who was then called, stated that he vißiled Mr Johnston on or about the 15th or l*sth of February for the purpose of inspecting his dairypreinises and cows. When h« called the cows were being milked. Mr Johnston was just finishing milking a cow, and witness waited till he was at liberty. Witn«es asked him in what condition his dairy cows wore in. He said they were all healthy, except that some of them were suffering from cowpox. Witnees asked him if he was doing anything for the disease, and Johnston replied Yes, ami stated that he was putting something on the teats to heal them, when Johnston got up from milking the cow, witness noticed red matter on hi* hands, as if the cow had sore teats. He had a good look round the whole of the herd, and he noticed that most of the cows had been affected with cowpox, In some of the cows the pox had prutty well died away ; but in the case of six or seven cows the disease was Not being a veterinary surgeon he had never looked upon cowpox as very damaging to dairy stock. He therefore told Mr Johnston that he did not think badly of his cows ; but knowing that Mr Park,, the Government veterinary surgeon, was about Duuedin he decided bave a conversation with him about the disease. The result of that conversation was that he intimated to Mr Bruce, the stock | I inHpector for the district, that the disease was at ! Mv Johnston's farm at Fla<j Swamp. In a case of the sort those were his instructions from the department. The state of Mr Johnston's yard at the time he visited it did not satisfy him. He pointed out to Mr Johnston that it was a very bad thing for milk to have manure so close up to the shed as he had it, and asked him to remedy the matter befoie witness" next visit. Ho did not remember having any dispute with Mr Johnston in the factory. Mr Solomon asked if witness thought it was a necessity to stop the milk supplied by 18 out of 25 cows because some were suffering from cowpox. Witness replied that if the cows were very clean and they were his cows, he would certainly ki-k agunft it. c Mr Solomon : Was there or was there not any i necessity to stop the milk supply from 18 out of 25 cattle? • Witness :I am not an expert. Dou't get out of it that way. Amwer my question. In your opinion 18 out of 25 cows were were healthy ?— No. They were not altogether free from the pox?— The pox was dying. Were they dying or dead ?— I should say they were dying. Why did you say before they were dead ?— I cannot distinguish between a dead cowpock and one that is dying. Can you distinguish the difference between a dead man and one dying?— l may not be able to do that, because I am not a doctor. Will you tell me whether, aa dairy inspector, you formed any opinion as to whether those 18 cows were fit to give milk or not?— No ; I did not form any opinion. You did not tell Mr Johnston not to sell the milk ?— No. Why did you not do tbat ?— Because it was not my instructions to do so. You were perfectly clear that there wa3 cowpox I there ?— Yes. In reply to further questions, witness said he did not report that Mr Jefferis's cows had smallpox. When he looked at his cows, so far as he could see, there was nothing wrong with them. He did not remember what Mr Jefferis said. If he said that he told witness that his cows were bad with cowpox witness did not see anything of it. Mr Solomon : If he said he told you, why did you not report it ? Witness .' Because I did not see it. On being further examined, witness said he understood from what Mr Jefferis said that the i cows had had cowpox, and so far as he could see ] the cows were all right then. Mr Stringer's cattle ! were in the same condition as Mr Jefferis's. He did not retiort their condition. To Mr Findlay : Witness singled out Mr Johnston's cows as being the worst case of deceased cattle at Flag Swamp. Mr Findlay partially opened the case for the Stock department, postponing reference to the law points bearing on the matter till next day. '

, The inquiry was' then adjourned till 10 o'clock next morning. Ths inquiry was resumed on Thursday. Mr Findlay, in opening the case for the department, said the commissioners were to inquire into tho truth of the allegations concerning the actions of certain officers of the department, and it would come within their purview to say whether those officers had exceeded their powers or not. Ifc however, was not roally a paramount consideration as to whether the officials of the department had actually the power to do as they did. Wh»t the commissioners had really to inquire into were the allegations in the petition— namely, that these officials acted in an altogether harsh and arbitrary manner, and foreign to the spirit of the Dairy and Stock Acts. He w*t prepared to meet his learned friend's contention*' as 'to the powers that inspectors have under the acts, and he would show later on veiy clearly that they bad acted completely within their powers. ■In the meantime he approached tho principal allegation of tho petition— that the inspectors bad gone altogother outside of what was right and just in the mattor, and that they had been unneces■arily harsh, and had used their position to trample on this poor man without any cause whatever. There were no definite charges made against the officials. It was left to be assumed merely that tho inspector took the action corup'ained of beonuse the cows had cracked teats. Could it be bs-lieved that the promoters of the petition, if not the actual petitioners, did uotlrnow what the real reason was - namely, that the cows were suffering from cowpox? Johnston, for one, knew perfectly well what the ditease was claimed to be, although one of the chief complaints was that the notice did not state the reason why Uia milk was stopped. It was plain that aome individual or individuals besides Johnston bad been vigorously pushing the agitation against the department — somebody whose name did not happen to appear on the petition, somebody who imagined himself as much injured as the unfortunate Johnston and who had no love for the Stock or Dairy department. Now, on the petitioners' own case, what evidence was there of dreadfully harsh and arbitrary conduct ? It must be assumed that whatever was done by the officials was done in zood faith— was done only with the desire to fulfil their duty and carry out the law. It must also be assumed, too— and tho petition did not suggest the contrary,— that whatever conclusion the inspectors came to concerning the disease was come to in good faith. This being bo, the worst the petitioners could possibly allege was a mistake as to the nature of tha disease. In what did this tenible harshness of conduct tbat had bean complained of consist ? On the 18th of February the inspectors, after being notified by Lung, rode down to visit Johnston's place. They found there, according to the best of their knowledge and belief, that these cows ware suffering from a bad attack of cowpox. Bruce again went down on tha 27th to sea how the animals were getting on, having in the meantime prescribed fe course of treatment for tho cows, under which he found thorn to be progressing towards recovery. Again, .on the 9th of March, he attended at the farm, and released 19, the others being practically dry. He (learned counsel) therefore submitted that the inspectors went about their duties with. th< honest Intention of doing the bent they, could to carry out the law. If they had done wrong, they had only made a mistake. Mr Solomon : That is all I have alleged. Mr Findlay observed that the petition went further. It alleged unnecessary harshness and absolute unfttness on the part of the inspectors for their dutieß. Mr Solomon said the same thing, and there was an effort on the part of the petitioners to show that there was something more than a mistake— that there was a kind of persecution of this man Johnston. He (Mr FindUy) was sure the commissioners would dismiss that idea at once from their minds. Mr Findlay went on to say that the petitioners refused to meet Mr Ritchie, or to give him any information. They then asked for a different kind of inquiry to that I which they originally asked for. That was after they had received an adverse report on the state of Johnston's cows from Mr Hamilton, a veterinary surgeon of Dunedin. They called in Mr Hamilton 1 18 days after the cattle had been condemned, so as to be able to give a nice favourable report j but unfortunately it was an adverse report. As the petitioners had not called Mr Hamilton, the department would have to do so. In the face of Mr Hamilton's report the petitioners still continued the agitation. That showed that there was a feeling of bitterness against the officials of the department that was not warranted by the circumstances. The Government veterinary surgeon thought when he examined the cattle that they were suffering from tuberculosis, and he fully intended to return and teat them thoroughly. He (Mr Findlay) also understood that immediately after the inquiry Mr Park would go ant to Johnston's and destroy some seven or nine of the cattle. These were the cattle which had been stated by witnesses at the inquiry to be in a perfectly good state of haalth. The consequences would have been much more serious to Johnston if his place had been an infected place and the cattle had been quarantined altogether. Looking at the action of the inspectors in a common sense way one would say that they took a course winch was calculated to prevent the spread of the disease, and that was a reasonable course, and one which would inflict the least hardship upon Johnston. They merely stopped the milk from going to the factory and prescribed treatment for the cows. The result of their action, he (learned counsel) was instructed, was a lots to Johnston of about £12. That was all the petition was about— a matter of £X% Mr Johnston would have a further opportunity of finding out whether the department were light when they killed his cattle. Mr Solomon : I submit it is a very improper thing to talk about what tho department are goiug to do in the future. It is introducing a false issue and endeavouring to lead the commissioners to a wrong conclusion by saying that something is goiug to happen chat we cannot poasibly guarantee. It was wanted to lead the commissioners to come to the conclusion that the cattle were diseased by what the officers intended to do in the future. Mr Findlay said Mr Solomon wan not right in what he stated. Mr Park would go into tha witness box and state that the cattle were in such a, state that he must destroy several, ihey were so bad that he had got to do that. Mr Solomon : If you like to put your inspector in the position of saying that the cattle were so bad, and thit he allowed them to go about tot three mouth", you can do so. Mr Findlay said he was instructed that Mr Park left -the matter as it stood because this inquiry was coming on. He thought the commissioners would consider that was a wise action in the conduct of the preseut case. What the depart* ment could have done in connection with thesa cattle brought him to Mr Solomon's contention as regards the powers of inspectors. He sub* mitted that that contention was not altogether correct. Mr Solomon said '"The question which the petitioners asked the commissioners to con* eider was : In the first place. Had Mr Bruce any jurisdiction to give! any such notice?" He (Mr Findlay) submitted that that was not what tha petitioners asked at all. Mr Solomon asked for that, but the commission was not for the purposa of considering whether the iasucctor* had auv ,

Jurisdiction to give such notice, but whether their action was harsh or unjust, or whether they tad uome justification fo.r the action they took. Mr Solomon t What about the clause against the ISfpirit of the act ? ._ _ .__ Mr Findlay < And whether it is contrary to the Spirit of the Dairy Industry and Stock Acts. He proceeded to ask was the -action of the inspectors contrary to the spirit of the Dairy Act. Section $of the act .Said I "No person shall sell, supply, bring, or send to a dairy, factory, or creamery, or to the public .any milk which bus "been near tor in contact with any person, animal, or thine Buffering from or infected with any infectious or Contagious disease," Now upon the petitioners own showing the cattle were Buffering from cow)pox or variola, which was a scheduled disease yxnaa the Stock Act. According to that act, if feome of Johnston's cattle wore diseased the yihoh of them were infected stock | and the Question -was Was it contrary to tho spirit of section 9 of the Dairy Act to prevent a ftian from floingTvhat was laid down there as an Illegal act, fend for which he was liable to a penalty of £50, He (Mr UTindlay) was going to oontend that the Inspectors had jurisdiction to give the notice they save ; bat even if the commissioners were to hold that they had no such jurisdiction their action was quite in harmony with the spirit of the Dairy and Stock Acts. Section Bof the Dairy Industry Act said clearly that it was illegal to supply milk which had been near infected animals or near toereooß suffering from «ny infectious or contagious disease. To Bupply milk from cows suffering from variola was a very bad thing, and all that had fceendone was to prevent Johnston from doing illegal acts. If the inspectors had committed an illegal act of Any kind Mr Johnston had a Temedy, andeould take proceeding again* t the Government for doing wh»t they h*d done. The inspector, he contended, had ample power to give a notice proliibiting the sale of the milk. It was absurd to fcay that the inspector* were tied down to certain procedure kid down in the Stock Act with regard to infected stock. The second paragraph of section 12 of tie Stock Act of 1893 said that an inspector might direct the owner of any diseased or infected Btock to take snch measures with regard to their treatment, or to do such other acts as In the opinion of the inspector should bo necessary to eradicate or check the spread of the disease. 'Now, he contended that under that Section tht inspectors were quite entitled to Bend Johnston tha notioa they did. The Legislature In looking at the spread of ditease in animals <sf late ye*rs had perhaps tie paramount object in view at protecting tha community. It was known that chore was a close -connection between the diseases of animals and the diseases of men, and this had led to legislation in the direction or preventing the .communication of disease from animals to animalg and from animals to man. What he contended was ahown plainly by the schedule in " The Stock Act Amendment Aotl8B5." In the act of 1893 certain diseases are mentioned, and in the schedule of the 1895 act variola had been added. The schedule said] "Variola, and also any tumour or growth which, In the opinion of an inspector, is of a malignant or recurrent nature, and such fes to render unfit for human consumption the ilesb. or milk of the animal Buffering therefrom." There could be, therefore, no doubt that the inspectors were acting within their powers by Stopping tile supply of milk. With regard to the action of tnaXegißlatnro in preventing the spread pf these 'diseases, learned counsel pointed oat that this legislation was really in the interests of the farmers themselves, and it was the desire of the Stock department to do everything they possibly oould to help on the dairying industry, and to flee that the cattle in Now Zealand and those that were to be exported were as good as they could possibly be. The department, indeed, wished to help fanners to obtain a better knowledge aa to the prevention of disease for their own good, and it was to be hoped, that the present inquiry would , Jbring oat that the department had been acting with that object in view in the present caee. It was no doubt hard for a man to. get over his present loss, but it was very necessary in a -case of this kind that one .should suffer for the benefit of the many. It was this feeling of present loss that was respon- . eible for this matter being brought before the commissioners. Mr Findlay proceeded to quote from "Steele on the Ox" with reference to cowg>ox,.and also from Williams on the same subject, and said that it was clear' from their description of the disease that those who gave evidence on behalf of the petition did not give any adequate description of the disease, and were not in a position to judge whether Johnston's cattle were suffering from cowpox. The evidence that Would be given on behalf of the department mould show that the cracked teats were a very different kind of tlii gto what the witnesses for the petition would lead the commissioners to believe, and the commissioners wonld have no hesitation in taking expert evidence in preference to that given by .witnesses who made a hasty survey of the cows. In concluding, Mr Findlay eaid that ihe whole of the evidence lor the petitioners had not proved that the inspector* had gone outside of what was fair and reasonable, and there was nothing before the commissioners to show that their" conduct was unjustifiable. It had jbeen practically admitted by the witnesses themselves, that the cows were suffering from a scheduled disease at the time the milk was •topped. That slonq, without the evidence of the experts, was -quite sufficient to enable the commissioners to report to his Excellency the Governor that there was no truth in the allegations contained in the petition. Learned counsel then proceeded to call evidence, i John Leslie Bruce, inspector of stock, stated that on the 17th of February last he received a "wire" from Dairy Instructor Latg, in consequence of which he inspected Johnston's premises In company' with Mr Park, the Government veterinarian. Johnston yarded the cows at witness's request, and he bailed up five or six. They found them badly affected with severe nlceration of the teats; and on handling them to ae certain the internal aspect of affairs, instead of extracting milk theyextract-ed a yellowish liquid, probably mixed with pus. At this stage they saw that the case was a rather serious one. Instead of bailing up more cows they walked" carefully through the herd. Findiug they were all more or less affected with the external eruption, and quite a number of them showing signs of internal disease, they decided that nothing else j could be done but to take action respecting the j wbota herd. Mr Park asked Mr Johnston why lie bad not reported the matter, and informed him that it would be necessary to stop the Bale of his ' milk for the time Deiog-s alao ihat by boiling it he might nse it for feeding the calves. Mr Park j likewise gave a prescription for the treatment of j the cowi, which witness ordered on Johnston's { behalf. He posted the notice stopping the milk to ; Johnston on the 19th of February. On February 27 he called at Johnston's again, and found the ] lows in the stockyard, Hie cowe were improvioa j

very rapidly. At the Dase of the teats the scabs had to a very great extent disappeared. On one or two cowb he saw "that the disease had not j ceased, fr«Bh eruptions having occurred about the ' centre of the teats. He told Johnston that tlie cowb wera processing favourably, and that he I thought that in nine or ten days more a considerable number of them might be released, but that j it "would be foolishness to think of releasing them at tho time of his visit. He also informed Johnston that he would call again in nine or ten ! days. He did call again on the 9th of March, and j again found the cows in the stocky ai d. They had improved very welt in the meantime. Johnston stated that three of the cows had become dry, and pointed them out to witness. Two witness took exception to as still suffering from an affection of the teats. He bailed up one of the cowb to satisfy .himself as to the result of the internal disease. He found the quarter dry, still swollen, and quite hard, but nothing could be extracted. This being as be anticipated ho felt quite safe. in releasing those that had recovered from the external disease. He then gave Johnston the pencilled memo, produced releasing certain of the cows. On the 9th of March, after witness had removed tho restriction on the sale of the milk, Johnston mentioned the seriousness of Ms loss. Witness replied that he w»s very sorry for him, and asked him to give an idea of his milk supply for a little time previously. On the 18th of February witness underBtood from- Johnston that 24 cows were in milk. He then took a note of the milk supply from the Ist to the 18th of February. He produced the note that he took at the time. The fibres gave a daily average of about 55 gallons. Witness estimated the loss to Johnston at about £12 11s 9d. The quantity of milk stated was considerably below the average for 24 cows if on good feed. On the 18th of February Johnston appeared to be perfectly aware that the cows were suffering from cowpox, and Bhowed witness and Mr Park a pustule on his hand. Witness was perfectly sure that the cows were suffering from variola on the 18th and £7th of February. He did not hear any- ; thing from Johuston about cracked teats. The first he saw about oraoked teats was in a letter in \ the Otago Daily Times. There could be no doubt ! about distinguishing between variola and simply cracked teats. On the firat inspection the cows were suffering from an advanced attack of variola, principally at ihe base of the teats. Ihe scabs •or pustules had run together. On February 27 he saw that there had been -a recurrence of the ■ disease lower down, showing decided pustules which were unmistakable in his opinion. The ♦juption waß about midway down on the teat. Witness's experience of variola was that the pustules generally appeared at the base of the teat. The vows that were handled were evidently suffering acute pain. On February 18 witnessed euspected tuberculosis on some of the cattle, and he reported bo to Chief-inspector Ritchie. He produced the report in question. Johnston's statement that if he kicked up witness could make it very bad for him -was incorrect. Witness said nothing to that effect. Mr Park was present at all witness's conversations with Johnston. Variola was a disease mentioned in the schedule of the amended act. By Mr Solomon : Witness was not a veterinary surgeoDj but he was an experienced man among cattle. He knBW that, tuberculosis had always been a scheduled disease. Gowpox had not Always been a scheduled disease. From 1893 Ito 1895 no restrictions were placed upon I milk from bows suffering with cowpox. Witness had studied cowpox from books and from observation. On Febmary 18 five cows were "picked out indiscriminately from the rest of tlie herd. In witness's opinion the whole of the herd were in about the same condition. In his opinion it was necessary to stop the sale of the milk from the whole of the herd. He could not discriminate between the cows. On the 18th February the disease was mending. In the bulk of the herd the disease was in an advanced condition. Witness did what he thought was proper to prevent the spread of the disease. He did not separate some of the cattle from the others, because it was contrary to the spirit of the act to do so. If same of the cows were infected according to the act the whole herd was infected. On the 9th of March— the day he released tho cows— he heard that there was going to be a row about his action. He suspected that three or four of the cows had tuberculosis. There was no immediate danger from those cows, as they were dry; In the case of Mr Stringer, witness stopped the sale of the milk from two of the cows, a* the others were better. He did not examine tha whole of the cattle. He understood from Mr Stringer that the others had recovered. He saw the whole of the herd at a distance. To Mr Findlay j Witness reported to the department that Stringer's cows had also been affected. Archibald Park, M.R.C.V S , and Government veterinarian, Baid on the 38th of February he accompanied Mr Bruce to Mr Johnston's farm. Twenty-fiv« cows were yarded, »nd they bailed up five or six. Witness examine J them carefully, by handling the udders principally. All those that were bailed up wore suffenng from cowpox. Associated with that disease were hard indurated nodules in the body of the gland of several. One or two had acute mammitis from the cowpox, The condition of these cattle was so bad that before putting any more into the bail he decided to examine the balance of the herd in the yard. Finding that there were not two f-ound cowsin the whole herd, he suggested to Mr Bruce that it was .no use dealing in a half-and-half way with the herd. He suggested to Mr Bmro that he had better stop the milk supply to the factory until the cowa were convalescent. Re alao said that he would return and maTko n more careful examination, as the acute inflammation of cowpox was disguising more serious Jeaions. Mr Johnston wanted him to define the dhease the cowswer-esufferiogfrom. Johnston w,i? apparently perfectly well aware that it was cowpox, but witness declined to commit hime^'f, because of the complications he had referred to. Witness left the matter in Mr Bruce's hands, intending to return in about a fortnight. In the meantime an anonymous letter appeared in the Otngo Daily Times, signed "Defence." After reading that letter and learning that a petition was being carried round the district for signature, he decided not to examine the cattle until his action was vindicated in one wav or the other. In the meantime he rpfeived a telegram from Mr Bruce 'that certain «.f the cattle were improving, and asking waeu La would be- able to exanrinethem. Witness- ei-nl a leply to Mr Bruce to use his own discretion He subsequently wrote to Mr Bruce asking him to reject any cow that had induration or nodules in the body of the gland. On the 18th of Eebtuary the cattle that were handled weie in acute pain. Witness sew some pus or matter when milking the cows. He &Ibo saw some matter lyii g on the loose stones in ' the byre where the entile stood to be milked. . The uddera of the mest ciiieased of the cows that j were handled were inflamed. There were large ! scabs oja some of the te^ts About tho efce of »

halfpenny, and other smaller scabs. Some of the scabs were knocked off and were ulcerating. In the case of one cow the irritation was so great that by licking Leraelf with her tongue she had tho gland covered with* blood. Witness told Jolmston it would take about a fortnight or three weeks for the majority of the cows to recover. Ho suspected other diseases in the cattle— namely, tuberculosis and actinomycosis. When he again saw the cattle his suspicions as to the diseases were fully confirmed. If the cows had variola the matter would be liable to be mixed with the milk. Johnston's cattle were the worst lot of cattle he had seen for the lait five and twenty years so far as the affection was concerned. Witness was not aware of auy individual case in which the disease had been communicated to human beings by the consumption of milk from cows affected with variola. The effect ou children would be to produce diarrhoea and debility. Mr Solomon (to witness) : Can you give me any authority to show that milk from a cow suffering Ironi cowpox can communicate disease of any sort to human beings 1 Witness : Yes. Mr Solomon asked witness to name an authority. Witness replied that Klein was an .authority on j the question referred to, and in answer to further questions stated that Klein said that diphtheria 1 could ba produced by milk from cows suffering t from some eruptive disease of the udder. KUiu i had also proved that the dineases which would communicate ailments from cows to human beings were different from cowpox. Witnets cited the following quotation from what was known as the [ Hendon case : — " Theße cows were affected with an I eruptive disease on the teats and udder which, I though offering a certain resemblance to cowpox, ! was, nevertheless, distinctly different f<om it. The similarity consisted in the fact that the eruption appeared on the teats and udder, that it commenced as red papules, that it showed ve»iculations, and that these dried up into brown-black crusts covering the sorea ; but here the resemblance terminated." Mr Solomon : What authority have you for saying that the milk from a cow suffering from cowpox will produce diarrhoea ? Witness : All medical works—" The Practice of Medicine," by Aitken, for instance. Do you say that Aitken says that ? Where do you get your authority for that statement ? — Fjom experience. You have told us you have never seen a ca3e ?— I have teen diarrhoea. But where do you get your authority that children taking milk from cows suffering with smallpox suffer from dianrhcea? — All the authorities are agreed. I cannot point out any particular authority. Oould any other diseases be communicated by milk?— Yes; scarlet fever. You bad serious reason to believe that these cowa were suffering from tuberculosis ?— I had. You allowed them to go at large although you had serious reason to believe that they were suffering from tuberculosis ?— Yes. The milk from cows suffering from tuberculosis may communicate a fatal disease ?— Yes, if used. And yet you, the Government veterinary suy•geon of this colony, allowed those cows, which you had reason to believe would communicate a fatal disease to human beings, to go at large ?—? — Yes, because the milk was stopped. Why did you do that ?— Becxnse I wanted one disease to subside before I demonstrated the existence of the other, and as I wanted to deal leniently with your cli«nt. You must remember I warned Mr Bruce not to allow those cows suffering f rum tubercle to go into the dairy again. You allowed those cows to go at large to spread consumption throughout the community, What do you say to that?— l left them to examine them again. In reply to further questions, witness stated that if the inquiry ha.i been held in the early part of May the cowa wonld have been destroyed then. He was waiting till tho inquiry waa over before destroying them. Mr Solomon : Was the health of the public a secondary consideration ? "Witness : Yes ; till this inquiry was over. Knowing that they might communicate consumption?—l have to allow for that danger. I will destroy some of the cows to-morrow, and then satisfy myself about the others, and if they ans Buffering from tubeicle I will also destroy them. Inth* meantime the public have got to take care of themselves ?— Exactly. In reply to Mr JTindlay, witness said about five weeks atfo he was told to hold himself in readiness for an inquiry. He came down here for the purpose at the end of April. The disease that Klein spoke of as the Hendon disease belonged to that class of eruptive diseases that appeared on theinammary gland of the cow. it had -not been settled yet by authorities whether the Hendon disease was cowpox pure and simple or something else. Ike disease in Johnston's cows had many of the appearances of cowpox. There was also the Edinburgh disease. It was not definitely settled whether that was cowpox or not. If the milk wa6 contaminated with the virm of cowpox it would have the same effect on a child's throat as a man's hand, and -night prove fatal. Alexander Hamilton, veterinary surgeon, of Dunedin, stated that he was asked to see some cows at Johnston's on the 7th March, at Mr Duncan's request. He saw 25 head of cattle in the stock yard, He examined the udders ana teats. There were small, dry sores on the udders, and cracked teats. He believed that the cowb had been worse some time previous to his seeing them. If it was stated that the cows were affected with variola on the 18th of February, it might possibly have been so. - Witness could not say that any of them were affected with variola when he saw them. He found lnammitis existing in seven of the cows. In one case the disease was very bad. In the other cuses the difcease had run into the chronic stage. He tried the teats of some of the cows. He got a little milk from all of them with one exception. The milk was very poor, and a little discoloured. Tho&e suffering from mamrnitis were nearly dry. Three or four of tha cows at that time were not fit for dairy cows, and the whole seven should have been rejected for dairy purposes. The seven cows that had mammitis also had tuberculosis witness thought. He judged that they had tuberculosis by the symptoms. He >\ ould not consider the opinion of a man reliable, who, after ex<»miuiug the cows about the same time that witness did, said that the cattle were healthy cattle with clettn skins and bright eyes, and only suffering from cracked teats.

By Mr Solomon i Witness did not observe anything the matter with 17 of the cows. Only seven, mote or leas, had cracked teats. He did not see any symptoms leading him to believe that the cows had variola a fortnight before. They might have had variola, but he did not thiuk so. Samuel S. Cameron, M.R.0.V.5., and abattoir insnector for the Dunedin Cornoiation. Baid he

examined some cows belonging to Mr Johnston on Wedneaday morning. Mr Findlay t Can you say from your examination whether or not it could possibly be true that those cows were a healthy lot of cows in February and March last? Witnass : Some of thoee I examined would not be healthy, I should imagine. Could you say from any evidence you saw whether the cattle had recently been Buffering from variola ?--I could not say definitely from an examination of the cattle alone. I saw on two cattle what had the characteristic appearance of an old pockmark— there was a pitted depression on the upper part of the teat. You know something of tha Eendon casef— Yes. \ Are you aware whether there is any difference of opinion among authorities as to whether that was cowpox or something else ? — Ye3 ; there is a difference of opinion. Some of the authorities hold what? — Klein and some others hold that the eruptions on the udders of the cows was a bovine manifestation of ecarlet fever. j Then those authorities who hold that it was cowpox —which I understand you to say- hold that this cowpox would communicate this fever, or whatever it was, to human beings ?— Yes. Mr Solomon: Is thare any authority in wnich it is stated that the drinking of the milk of cows affected by cowpox has produced any disease ?— By inoculation. Is there any authority stating that the drinking of milk has produced disease ?— ln the Edinburgh case it was stated : "An eruptive disease appeared amongst certain cows in a dairy farm in Edinburgh, the milk of which had been distributed amongst the consumers (in an educational establishment in that city) a form of febrile sore throat, which could not be recognised as either scarlatinal or diphtheritic. Dr Sims Woodhead and Mr T. M. C>tteri!l clearly proved the connection of this malady with the milk of that dairy farm ; more than that, on the suspension of the consumption of the milk the epidemic quickly disappeared. When the use of the milk was I recommenced sore throats of a similar character appeared again. Then all the milk was boiled before use when the epidemic similarly yielded." It wa 1 - also held by some during the discussion in the British Medical Journal that that eruptive ! disease vi as true cowpox. j Did you ever hear it suggested that milk from a cow Riiffering frum cowpox would give children diarrhoea, or what Mr Park describes as debility ? — If the milk was impregnated by the discharge from a cowpox ulcer it would virtually be of a \ eeptic character and would cause intestinal disturbance. What do you mean by septic t- Of a foul character. Inoculated with a germ ?— Yes. Dr Nealo, the next witness, said that if a man drank milk inoculated with vaccine matter <md the milk passed over an abrasion it was possible for him to become affected with variola. By Mr Sploinon: Witness had never known such a case in his life. He had uever heard of a case of diarrhoea being produced by drinking jnilk from a cow suffering t'rom cowpox. I This concluded the evidence for the Stock department. i Learned counsel having addressed the commissioners, the Chairman (M«jor Keddell) intimated that they would forward their report on the matter to the Government.