THE DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2249, 8 April 1897, Page 4

THE DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT.

EXCLUSION 1-RO.U GKIAT liRITAIN OS FOKEIGN ANIMAL Dlb^ASlS. On the lsL cf January l:\sb there came iato force an scb of the Imperial P.*riiiinent which Cinnot fail to exercise a pole it beneficial iaflaenca upon the live stock interests of the United Kingdom. 'Iks enactment referred to is " The Diseases of Animals Act 1896," under the provisions of which no cat;le, .sheep, or goats are admitted iuto any part of Great Britain aud Ireland beyond th-j port of landing. There is still liberty to land the aaimals at British ports 3live, but it is now absolutely compulsory for importers to slaughter sea-borne stock at the place of discharge from the sbip, and thus ihe gates leading inland are finally barred against the live stock of other countries — foreign and colonial Those who for many years opposed til's just and necessary confession to the breeders of live stock in the Home country held their opinions with an intensity and expressed thi-m with a fervour which did not animate either the thoughts or the utterances of Ite many who after much careful reflection, it may be against their own predilections, had come to the conclusion that the time had arrived when a distinction was imperatively needed between coniuivrcial treetrade and freetrade in animal diseases. It may well be ask?d what were the arguments used upon which reliance w<:s paced lor the unreetiicted importation oi live s'oek, regardless of the necessity for the exclusion or ioreign snimal diseases ? Leading articled and correspondence ia the columns of Home agricultural journals during the past three years leave no manner of doubt as to the motives and influences which actuated two inconsiderable oi the community iv their Vcht-ment uDpositioutothepasnDg.it (♦)awionhß;>ro'« c ctio.i et the va'unble her^s and flocks of Ihi country against visitations of devas <t ug diseases suck as have been over and over again borae to Hum and disseminated by imported animals. Toe extreme Radical fection ot politicians argued that the proponed measure was a covert and iusidioua attempt to revive a protectionist policy, but their contention was based on a quibDle, and notoriously failfd to arousu the sympathy &l d support of the rna-scs, who -a they failed to excite to action ir opposition. But under the law previously in force it was permibtible to lind cattle and sheep in store i condition, consigned from any country, snd designed for feeding up to fat marked condition by British feeders. Accordingly a confidecable trade sprang up in im:>or(ation3 o[ store stccir, and as might have been uxpict'-d, cisca c es wpit- br^ufht with them. The cLeap purchase of thete imported stores advantaged only graziers and feeders iv two or three coutheastern English counties, and eimilsrly two or three in Sculland. aud from these qaartt rs the protestations against prohibition were loud snd continuous, f.hfe clique of prote-t < ;r e knowing well all the while the risks to the health of the valnabie herds and flecks native to Great Britain and Ireland involved. In furtherance of their object they sought to parade it as an unfriendly proceeding towards other countries, notably trie United States, Canada, and Argentina. Now it is difficult to understand how any of these countries can be prejudicially ?fft;cted by the passicg of tbe act of Parliament under notice. Each of them boasts of the ability to prcduce and export at low values unlimited quantities of grain and rtfcer feediugafi'ffs. Why not fatten their surplns livestock before exportation ? The freight per head on stores is the same as oa fatted stock, and therefore it would be apparently more expedient for farmers in those countries to fatten their auimala before sending them to Great Britain to be fattens! end finished on imported food, t.t, a vi-ry conpiderable proportion of the materials used in tteir firal preparation iniiofc c»raa trom the same sources. Neither settlers ia the

j United States, Canada, or Argentina can take umbrage a,t the alteration of the British law effecting the trade in live stock, which neceihitates only altered methods of management on the parb cf breeders and feeders on the spot. In an editorial in the Field, January 2, the case is put in » uuthhell. ''It appears 10 us," ib is remarked, "that ib would be au infinitely nvre foupiMe and eeouonrc method of procedure for . the American stock-owners to mature the animals at horn" and SGnd us the finished article in tbe shape of beef aud mutton tliau t) transport the store stock and the feediog stnffs for the British farmer to complete tbe operation. ! The re-vlb of the ivform wh:ch has come into , operation se>ms more likely to bene.6t than hurt tcse exporting cjunt;ies. So long «s they pozse=s the choice ot sending the anirra's a'ive or in carCAse form to the chemhed British markets, I their lot is scarcely c\lculated to evoko much , s}tnputhy. Moreovei, ib is important to beariu mind that, tie British. t.tore market has been )i*rt'ally loat to them solely on account of the di^pos bion of their oargi es to carry with them dis r ases o" a m j'-t destructive char<.'t j r." Tha trade, however, it appears, advantaged exporting countries, and A r geutiaa as a parr.ioii paul was thought to be adversely affected by ! ihe prohibitory enac'ment. The Argentina fheep-breed^rs, as represented by Senor Carlos GueiTf ro, no doubt playing upon the sympathy , with which tMeir interests would Ye regarded in that quarter, appealed to the Lincoln Longv/ooi SLk^p A>jociation to use their influence with tLe Rrihbh Government to have the conoitiocs of the new Diseases in Animals Act modified so as to exempt sheep from South ' America irom oomijul'ory slaughter at the port of landing. "Instead of having our sheep killed nine days after arrival, aj at present," writes Sf.n f -r G .erivro, "I would suggest thtt they bo s ucl tne girzing purp ,?• s s'u uid the ,'-t\to of thf oai'kftt aB ihe time ot tl c r :vrriv,-\l reader an alternative course expeaient." Tho reply ssnt by th-i Lincoln Association admirably met and disposed of the appeal. " The council desire me," the secretary writes, "to express their re&ivt tnat in the interest of stockbreeders and owners of this country gf.r.e.*all.y it fehould hfve been found necessiry for a while t'j stop tha importation of livcj *.uimal*i [!'or tho purpose intimated] from abroad, aud rhey do not think that anything they could do at tho ' present time could lead to a rev;>i\«al of recent legislation upon the poiLt." As if to f urLher emphasise the futility of any attempt to rcpjal the primary condition of the ne»v acS, it> is added: "A: d the agricaltursl societies and principal breedr? and owners of brock were una-ii-mcius ss to the necessity for the passing of ih's Di's^a^es of Animals Act and urgad it upon the Government." j TLe Bri^i-h breeders of live ftock may well rejoice that at last, after 3e'.ra of agitation aud discussion, their flocks aud herds are now practically assured against forfi<;n diseases and jcomges, whilo iuteudirg* .mproveis ot stock in aU cinlisr-v-? coittjtiie^ may j >iv in the jubilation, for I* ih to the United Kingdom tLey htve t3 tarn in search of the mest perfect atud aaimals ia the kuown wurld.