ljotwCT!' 
 
 HOUSE OF THE No. 1751 
 
 OHlVfwSITY OF ILtlHOU 
 
 18 MAR 1915 
 
 DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS 
 
 SUBMITTED BV THE 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION ON ECONOMY 
 
 AND EFFICIENCY 
 
 TO THE 
 
 HONORABLE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF 
 THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 
 IN GENERAL COURT ASSEMBLED. 
 
 February' 15, 1915. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 WRIGHT & POTTER PRINTING CO., STATE PRINTERS, 
 
 32 DERNE STREET. 
 
 1915. 
 

 
 • •-i. 
 
 
 
 ' • -■ 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / ; • 
 
 
 V , • 
 
 • r.i *;* :> «• j 
 
 » i. > • ‘ * f • ' 
 
 - ' ; 
 
 / ... k 
 
 -*• % «. , , . *<' v f . - • • 
 
 \» •* - f si 
 
 - r * 
 
 «# / 
 
 
 
 
•: 
 
 i 
 
 3 5 
 
 hi 13 £ d 
 
 fc- 
 
 [Ordered printed on motion of Mr.-Quinn of Swampscott.] 
 
 Ux '• -• : . \ . "" ' • • ' • • • ‘ '? 
 
 ' • r. ■ 
 
 f Cfte Commontoealtft of 9^a0$a tbumt$. 
 
 j ! r. - • ' 
 
 Commission on Economy and Efficiency, 
 
 Room 110, State House, Boston, Feb. 15, 1915. 
 
 To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of 
 
 Massachusetts in General Court assembled. 
 
 In compliance with an order adopted by the House of Representa¬ 
 tives Jan. 13, 1915, and by the Senate in concurrence Feb. 9, 1915, 
 said order providing “ that the Commission on Economy and Effi¬ 
 ciency be directed to furnish to the General Court copies of all docu¬ 
 ments and papers presented to the Governor and Council in respect to 
 the recent investigation of the Department of Animal Industry and 
 the removal of the commissioner therefrom,” the Commission on 
 Economy and Efficiency submits herewith the following documents and 
 papers: — 
 
 1. Copy of “Report on the action taken by the Department of 
 Animal Industry to extirpate the foot-and-mouth disease in Massa¬ 
 chusetts, submitted to His Excellency the Governor and the honor¬ 
 able Council, by the Commission on Economy and Efficiency, Dec. 
 23, 1914.” 
 
 Report contains copies of the following documents which are not 
 submitted as separate documents: — 
 
 (a) Copy of telegram sent from Albany, N. Y., by Dr. William T. 
 White, an agent of the Massachusetts Department of Animal In¬ 
 dustry, to “Fred F. Walker, 138 State House, Boston, Mass.” 
 
 (b) Copy of letter dated Nov. 6, 1914, from “United States Depart¬ 
 ment of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry, Washington, D. C.,” 
 to “Mr. Fred F. Walker, Commissioner of Animal Industry, Boston, 
 Massachusetts,” signed by “J. R. Mohler, Acting Chief of Bureau.” 
 
 (c) Copy of letter dated Nov. 11, 1914, from “The Commonwealth 
 of Massachusetts, Council Chamber,” to “Mr. Fred F. Walker, 
 Bureau of Animal Industry, State House, Boston,” signed by “ E. F. 
 Hamlin, Executive Secretarv.” 
 
 1 V 
 
4 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 2. Copy of transcript of notes taken at the hearing given by the 
 Commission on Economy and Efficiency to Mr. Fred F. Walker, Com¬ 
 missioner of Animal Industry, at Hoorn 110, State House, Boston, 
 Monday, Dec. 21, 1914, at 2.30 p.m. 
 
 3. Copy of letter dated Dec. 14, 1914, from “The Commonwealth of 
 Massachusetts, Office of Department of Animal Industry,” to the 
 “Commission on Economy and Efficiency,” and signed by “Fred F. 
 Walker, Commissioner.” 
 
 (3a) Copy of schedule dated Dec. 12, 1914 (inclosure submitted 
 with No. 3), showing list of herds condemned and destroyed by the 
 Commissioner of Animal Industry, because affected with or exposed to 
 foot-and-mouth disease. 
 
 4. Copy of memorandum showing a summary of the total number of 
 each type of animal condemned and destroyed by the Commissioner of 
 Animal Industry, because affected with or exposed to foot-and-mouth 
 disease as of Dec. 12, 1914. 
 
 5. Copy of memorandum relative to the appraisal of cattle destroyed 
 on account of foot-and-mouth disease belonging to the herd of J. W. 
 Ellsworth and the herd of H. Levine, both of Worcester, Mass. 
 
 (5a) Copy of memorandum relative to the appraisal of cattle de¬ 
 stroyed on account of foot-and-mouth disease belonging to the herd 
 of W. B. Fearing, Hingham, Mass. 
 
 6. Copy of schedule showing payments on account of foot-and- 
 mouth disease up to Dec. 1, 1914. 
 
 7. Form used by “The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Office of 
 Department of Animal Industry, State House, Boston,” which owner 
 of animals affected with or exposed to foot-and-mouth disease signs. 
 
 8. Copy of letter dated Dec. 15, 1914, from “The Commonwealth of 
 Massachusetts, Office of Department of Animal Industry,” addressed 
 “To the Honorable Board of Commission on Economy and Efficiency,” 
 signed by “Fred F. Walker, Commissioner.” 
 
 (8a) Copy of telegram (inclosure with No. 8) dated Nov. 5, 1914, 
 from H. E. Paige, Amherst, Mass., to Fred F. Walker, State House, 
 Boston. 
 
 (8b) “F. I. Form 93 B ” (inclosure with No. 8), “ L nited States De¬ 
 partment of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry.” 
 
 9. Copy of letter dated Dec. 16, 1914, from “The Commonwealth of 
 Massachusetts, Commission on Economy and Efficiency, Room 110, 
 State House, Boston,” to “Thomas J. Boynton, Esq., Attorney 
 General, State House, Boston,” signed by chairman of the commission, 
 requesting an opinion on No. 7. 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —No. 1751. 
 
 5 
 
 10. Copy of extract from daily journal of the Massachusetts Com¬ 
 mission on Economy and Efficiency, dated Dec. 19, 1914. 
 
 11. Form “The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Office of Depart¬ 
 ment of Animal Industry, State House, Boston” — modified form not in 
 use prior to Dec. 21, 1914. 
 
 12. “F. I. Form 99 B, United States Department of Agriculture, 
 Bureau of Animal Industry.” 
 
 13. Copy of letter dated Dec. 16, 1914, from “The Commonwealth 
 of Massachusetts, Commission on Economy and Efficiency, Room 110, 
 State House, Boston,” to “United States Department of Agriculture, 
 Bureau of Animal Industry, Washington, D. C., Chief of Bureau,” 
 signed by the chairman of the commission. 
 
 14. Copy of letter dated Dec. 26, 1914, from the “ Department of 
 Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry, Washington, D. C.,” to the 
 chairman of the Commission on Economy and Efficiency, Room 110, 
 State House, Boston, signed by A. D. Melvin, Chief of Bureau. 
 
 15. Copy of two extract's from the daily journal of the Massachusetts 
 Commission on Economy and Efficiency, dated Dec. 21, 1914. 
 
 16. Copy of memorandum relative to payments made in the fiscal 
 year 1914 by Commissioner Walker to Langdon Frothingham, M.D.V., 
 chairman of the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Veterinary 
 Medicine, for expert services relative to work performed by the 
 Massachusetts Department of Animal Industry. 
 
 17. Copy of memorandum relative to payments made in the fiscal 
 year 1914 by Commissioner Walker to L. H. Howard, M.D.V., member 
 of the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Veterinary Medicine. 
 
 18. Copy of legal references in relation to the Massachusetts De¬ 
 partment of Animal Industry. 
 
 19. Book issued by “The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Depart¬ 
 ment of Animal Industry, Laws relating to Contagious Diseases of 
 Domestic Animals, 1912.” 
 
 t 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 COMMISSION ON ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY, 
 
 Francis X. Tyrrell, Chairman. 
 
 Thomas W. White. 
 
 Russell A. Wood. 
 
■ i ‘ 
 
 - € 
 , - 
 
 >•- 
 
 
 
 
 
REPORT ON THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF 
 ANIMAL INDUSTRY TO EXTIRPATE THE FOOT-AND- 
 MOUTH DISEASE IN MASSACHUSETTS SUBMITTED TO HIS 
 EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR AND THE HONORABLE COUN¬ 
 CIL BY THE COMMISSION ON ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY 
 DEC. 23, 1914. 
 
 Dec. 23, 1914. 
 
 To His Excellency David I. Walsh, Governor, and the Honorable Council, State 
 
 House, Boston. 
 
 Gentlemen: — Acting in accordance with chapter 719 of the Acts of 
 the year 1912, as amended by chapter 698 of the Acts of the year 
 1914, and with the power and authority therein contained, the Com¬ 
 mission on Economy and Efficiency respectfully submits the following 
 report relative to the work of the Department of Animal Industry in 
 its effort to extirpate the foot-and-mouth disease in Massachusetts. 
 The investigation upon which this report is based was made on the 
 initiative of this commission. 
 
 The foot-and-mouth disease, which is extremely contagious although 
 not fatal, has swept over the State, resulting in the killing of 5,161 
 cattle and other live stock by agents of the Massachusetts Department 
 of Animal Industrv. 
 
 t/ 
 
 According to the testimony of Commissioner Walker of the Depart¬ 
 ment of Animal Industrv, in conference with the Commission on 
 Economv and Efficiencv, the first intimation he had of the recent 
 epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease in this Commonwealth was on 
 November 5, and on December 12 the last known case was disposed of. 
 The destruction of cattle and other live stock by the Department of 
 Animal Industry during this period has been appraised by the Federal 
 and State appraisers for an aggregate amount of $106,820.75. 
 
 The fighting and extirpating of this disease devolved upon the 
 Massachusetts Department of Animal Industry, and in surveying and 
 investigating the work to stop the epidemic this commission has called 
 into conference the head of that department, Commissioner Fred F. 
 Walker, Dr. F. C. Field, agent in charge of quarantine stations, and 
 Myron T. Carrigan, the cattle appraiser for the Commonwealth; Dr. 
 
8 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 James T. Ryder, who is in charge of the Federal Bureau of Animal 
 
 Industry, stationed in Boston, was also interviewed. All records and 
 
 material in any way connected with the campaign against the disease 
 
 have been carefully examined. 
 
 «/ 
 
 This commission is of the opinion that the plans adopted by Com¬ 
 missioner Walker were neither comprehensively nor intelligently 
 thought out. The work was handicapped by the fact that the com¬ 
 missioner is not a veterinarian. Mr. Walker should have availed him¬ 
 self and made good use of all the facilities which the Commonwealth 
 provides by getting in touch with such experts as are now members of 
 the State Department of Health and with the Attorney-General, with 
 whom he should have conferred in regard to the rights of the Com¬ 
 monwealth. 
 
 At the outset, this commission contends that the disease should 
 never have been allowed to spread over this State, and Commissioner 
 Walker was at fault in not taking sufficient precautions in time. 
 
 . The Brighton stockyards, according to the testimony of Com¬ 
 missioner Walker, were not quarantined until November 5, the date 
 of the reporting of the first case of the foot-and-mouth disease in this 
 State by an agent of the Department of Animal Industry. Mr. 
 Walker testified before this commission that he had knowledge of the 
 existence of the disease during the month of October in States from 
 which cattle are shipped to Massachusetts. On October 21 Dr. 
 William T. White, an agent of the Massachusetts Department of 
 Animal Industry, sent a telegram from Albany, which read as fol¬ 
 lows: — 
 
 1914, Oct. 21. 
 
 Fred F. Walker, Rm. 138 , State House, Boston, Moss. 
 
 Have just seen Wills. He informs me foot and mouth disease found among 
 hogs at Buffalo three weeks ago. None since. Disease exists in Behrin Co., 
 Mich., and St. Joseph Co., Ind. Possible shipments of cattle through Buffalo 
 may have gone to Brighton; will get further news, if any. 
 
 White. 
 
 Wills is the State veterinarian for New York. Mr. Walker states that 
 he could get no confirmation of this report from Dr. James T. Ryder, 
 who is in charge of the Federal Bureau of Animal Industry at Boston. 
 So far as his testimony is concerned, no further effort was made by 
 him to ascertain if the disease actually existed in the Buffalo stock- 
 vards. He further admits that he knew of the existence of the disease 
 in Michigan, Iowa and northern Indiana, October 15. 
 
 Mr. Walker testified that upon receiving the notice from Dr. White, 
 he immediately took steps to have a most careful ante-mortem 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE — No. 1751. 
 
 9 
 
 examination made of any animal that arrived in Massachusetts from 
 New York. While this was a precautionary measure and shows that 
 the commissioner feared that the disease might come by way of New 
 York State, it was not a drastic enough step to be taken at that time. 
 If the quarantine had been declared immediately upon receiving the 
 information dated October 21, it is probable that Massachusetts would 
 have been saved a great expense. It was negligence on the part of 
 the commissioner to omit to verify the reports and rumors he had re¬ 
 ceived of the existence of the disease in other States. 
 
 According to a statement of Mr. Walker, the first case of foot-and- 
 mouth disease in Massachusetts was reported by a telegram dated 
 Nov. 5, 1914, signed by Dr. Henry E. Paige of Amherst, which stated 
 that the disease probably existed in the herd of George L. Henry of 
 Amherst. Mr. Walker’s testimony regarding his visit on the next day, 
 in company with Dr. James T. Ryder, to the herd of George L. Henry, 
 where the disease was diagnosed, gives the commissioner’s own version 
 as to how the epidemic found its way into this State. He say its 
 was — 
 
 Determined through our conversation with Mr. Ilenry that the cattle in his 
 herd were a part of a shipment that was made from Oneida, N. Y., to Brighton, 
 from which place the animals in which, he found the disease had been shipped 
 to Amherst. 
 
 We concluded that there was every probability that, inasmuch as the infec¬ 
 tion must have existed in the cattle at the time they were in Brighton, the 
 exposure had infected other cattle, and we made it our first business to locate 
 the herds to which cattle had been distributed from Brighton on October 28 and 
 November 4, with the result that we eventually located 40 herds of cattle to 
 which it is more than probable the infection was spread to Brighton. 
 
 The disease once in Massachusetts, this commission feels that the 
 business methods adopted by Commissioner Walker are open to 
 criticism. He is clearly empowered under section 6, chapter 90 of the 
 Revised Laws, and amendment thereto, to act promptly in relation 
 to animals affected with a contagious disease. Attention is directed to 
 the following portion of section 6, chapter 90, Revised Laws: — 
 
 Section 0. If the board (commissioner) or any one of its members or agents, 
 by examination of a case of contagious disease of domestic animals, is of opinion 
 that the public good so requires, it or he shall cause the diseased animal to be 
 securely isolated or to be killed without appraisal or payment. . . . 
 
 Notwithstanding the provisions of law, Mr. Walker proceeded to put 
 in force methods that were in direct violation of the statutory pro¬ 
 visions governing the handling of contagious diseases in animals. 
 He proceeded without statutory authority and entered into an agree- 
 
10 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 ment with the Federal authorities to create a board of appraisers com¬ 
 posed of one Federal and one State appraiser, whose plan of work 
 was based upon Mr. Walker’s instructions and advice. Otis H. For- 
 bush of Acton, suggested and recommended by Commissioner Walker 
 as a Federal appraiser, was accepted by the United States Bureau of 
 Animal Industry as its representative; Myron T. Carrigan of Concord, 
 a business partner of Commissioner Walker, was selected by him to 
 act as appraiser for the State. Neither of the board of appraisers is a 
 veterinarian. 
 
 The arrangement to have the Commonwealth and the Federal 
 government equally represented on the board of appraisers was due to 
 an agreement whereby the State and Federal government should share 
 the expense of suppressing the disease. Attention is called to a letter, 
 dated Nov. 6, 1914, from the United States Department of Agri¬ 
 culture, Bureau of Animal Industrjq Washington, D. C., to Com¬ 
 missioner Walker, in which terms of agreement for sharing expense are 
 outlined by that bureau. A copy of the letter is appended. The 
 second communication, a copy of which is appended, is an order 
 passed by the Governor and Council on November 11, authorizing the 
 acceptance of the proposal of the Federal Bureau of Animal Industry. 
 
 In their work the appraisers have turned over to Commissioner 
 Walker no data or facts concerning their appraisals other than the 
 number of cattle and live stock and the estimated value of same. 
 In case of later disagreements or legal complications the State would 
 not have such information as would be absolutely necessary in de¬ 
 termining the value of animals killed or as to the length of time such 
 animals were owned in the Commonwealth. 
 
 Furthermore, the form which is used by the appraisers and signed 
 bv them and the owner is virtually a bill of sale, and as such had no 
 business to be in use. It was issued without first being submitted to 
 the Attorney-General. It reads as follows: — 
 
 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 
 
 Office of Department of Animal Industry, 
 State House, Boston. 
 
 .(Place) 
 
 ..(Date) 
 
 This is to certify that I have this day sold the United States Department of 
 
 Agriculture and the Massachusetts Department of Animal Industry. 
 
 affected with or exposed to foot-and-mouth disease, at an appraisal of. .. 
 
 dollars, sound value, of which I agree to accept 50 per cent, as compensation 
 on the part of the Commonwealth. 
 
 (Signed) ... 
 
 .... . _. . . (Owner.) 
 
 (Signed)... ^.... ............ 
 
 (Appraiser.) 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —No. 1751. 
 
 11 
 
 The commissioner’s unbusinesslike methods are emphasized by the 
 fact that notwithstanding he had no authority under existing law r s to 
 make appraisals for animals killed on account of foot-and-mouth 
 disease, he drew up a form, in substance a bill of sale, without sub¬ 
 mitting same to the Attorney-General. He states that he relied upon 
 private counsel. Since Mr. Walker’s conference with this commission 
 on December 14, the form referred to has been discontinued and a new 
 form substituted. 
 
 The following is a detail of the aggregate already suggested: — 
 
 The total number of slaughtered cattle,.1,101 
 
 The total number of slaughtered fowl, ..1,687 
 
 The total number of slaughtered hogs,.2,360 
 
 The total number of slaughtered goats,. 4 
 
 The total number of slaughtered sheep,. 9 
 
 Total number killed,.. . .5,161 
 
 No payments have yet been made nor have owmers of slaughtered 
 stock been given any definite information as to when reimbursement 
 will come. x4n expenditure of $6,544.20 to provide for the incidental 
 work in connection with the stamping out of the foot-and-mouth 
 disease has been paid from the regular maintenance appropriation for 
 the fiscal year 1914. 
 
 This commission finds that in every instance investigated the 
 appraised value of live stock is greatly in excess of the assessed value. 
 The appraised maximum value of a cow was $88 and the minimum $49. 
 It is well to note that in cases where tubercular-infected cattle have 
 been killed, a statutory maximum of $40 is allowed. 
 
 Myron T. Carrigan of Concord, the appraiser representing the State, 
 appeared before this commission and testified that he is a business 
 partner with Commissioner Walker in the buying and selling of 
 thoroughbred cattle. He estimates that their annual business is 
 between $1,000 and $2,000. This commission does not intend to 
 criticize the honesty or integrity of Mr. Carrigan, but it does suggest 
 that such an appointment leaves the Commissioner of Animal In¬ 
 dustry open to a just criticism. The remuneration of Mr. Carrigan is 
 $10 a day and expenses. According to Mr. Carrigan’s testimony the 
 appraisers estimate the value of the live stock and return their finding 
 to the State department, but in no instance did the board of appraisers 
 attempt to obtain the assessed value of the stock. Moreover he 
 stated that the appraised value of cow r s was based upon a dairy value; 
 and notwithstanding this, the amount of milk given by each cow was 
 
12 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. [Feb. 
 
 # 
 
 in each instance based upon the word of the herdsman or owner, 
 without an effort of verification from records. 
 
 According to Commissioner Walker’s statement, some of the cattle 
 owned by George L. Henry of Amherst had not been in his pos¬ 
 session over a week, and yet they were appraised and provision made 
 for reimbursement. 
 
 Again, although Commissioner Walker is not a veterinarian, he said 
 in his testimony before this commission, “ Dr. Ryder and myself made 
 an examination of cattle and confirmed diagnosis made by Dr. Paige.” 
 
 On Monday, November 9, Commissioner Walker went to Washing¬ 
 ton to confer with Chief Melvin of the Department of Agriculture. 
 He states: “I took up with Dr. Melvin the problem in Massachusetts, 
 the principal feature of which, it seems to me, was a satisfactory and 
 proper adjustment of the damages that would result from the presence 
 of the disease in Massachusetts.” 
 
 The method has been to kill all cows in a herd where any cases of 
 disease existed. No autopsy has been held on cows not believed to be 
 diseased. The unaffected cows were killed as a precautionary measure. 
 This policy of total annihilation has proved most expensive and does 
 not seem warranted. 
 
 According to Commissioner Walker’s testimony, there have been 48 
 herds infected in this State, eight of which, in his own words, “ As near 
 as we can estimate they became infected because of the careless move¬ 
 ment of the people associated with the herds.” 
 
 The amount for which the State will eventually be responsible is still 
 further complicated. It was agreed that the State and the Federal 
 Bureau of Animal Industry should appoint jointly a property appraiser 
 whose duty should be to estimate the damage done to property other 
 than live stock. While it was the custom of the appraisers of live 
 stock to view condemned or diseased cattle for purposes of appraisal 
 before they were slaughtered, no property appraiser viewed any build¬ 
 ing or any other property destroyed or damaged by agents of the 
 Department of Animal Industry. The property appraiser had not 
 even been appointed up to the time when the epidemic was supposed 
 to have been stamped out. There is no detail or documentary evi¬ 
 dence showing the extent of the damage or destruction of property by 
 the agents of the Department of Animal Industry. It will be almost 
 impossible for the property appraiser to measure or figure the extent 
 of the damage and to estimate its value. There is opportunity for the 
 Commonwealth to suffer by this arrangement owing to changes in the 
 condition of the property. 
 
 In conclusion, this commission finds that the expense occasioned the 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —No. 1751. 
 
 13 
 
 Commonwealth because of the epidemic is problematical, and this 
 because of the utter lack of detailed documentary information which, 
 had proper business methods obtained in the Department of Animal 
 Industry, would have been gathered, compiled and utilized. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 COMMISSION ON ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY, 
 
 Francis X. Tyrrell, Chairman, 
 Thomas W. White. 
 
 Russell A. Wood. 
 
 United States Department of Agriculture, 
 
 Bureau of Animal Industry, 
 
 Washington, D. C., Nov. 6, 1914. 
 
 Address repty to Chief of Bureau of Animal Industry, and refer to U. 251.20. 
 
 Mr. Fred F. Walker, Commissioner of Animal Industry, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Sir: — Concerning the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, you are 
 advised that with Ohio, Wisconsin, Massachusetts and Iowa added to 
 the list, there are now ten States under quarantine to date on account 
 of the presence of this disease. Please find inclosed B. A. I. Order 
 229, and orders including Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Ohio and Iowa 
 are issuing. 
 
 The department is calling in all of its men possible from other lines 
 of work, and putting them at foot-and-mouth disease eradication, just 
 as rapidly as it can do so. Until we can get men in the field in Massa¬ 
 chusetts, please make your best endeavor to limit its spread, as the 
 present outbreak is the worst this country has ever experienced, and is 
 going to require the most earnest and intelligent work by the State, as 
 well as by the Federal Bureau of Animal Industry. 
 
 A rigid State quarantine should be promptly inaugurated on all 
 premises where the disease is found, as well as on the highways leading 
 by and into infected farms, to prevent the movement, trailing or 
 driving of cattle, sheep, other ruminants and swine over such highways. 
 
 There appears to be a tendency in most infected localities, on the 
 part of veterinarians as well as others, through acquaintance, friend¬ 
 ship or position, to claim the privilege of seeing cases of the disease. 
 It is therefore important that veterinarians and owners be instructed 
 in the matter of such dangers. 
 
 Veterinarians engaged in making inspections should be equipped with 
 
14 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 rubber coats, hats, gloves, boots, and bichloride of mercury tablets, 
 and directed in their conscientious use. 
 
 The bureau is glad that it has you to look after the work in Massa¬ 
 chusetts, as 3 r our training and judgment are considered a valuable asset 
 for success through efficient co-operation. 
 
 The plan under which the department is operating in the various 
 States is as follows: — 
 
 The department will pay 50 per cent, of the appraised value of 
 slaughtered live stock, destroyed hay, straw and parts of stables, 50 
 per cent, of disinfecting expenses, digging and burial expenses, and will 
 pay all salaries of bureau employees, their livery hire as may be 
 necessary, traveling and subsistence expenses, and rental of offices, 
 which will practically amount to more than two-thirds of the expenses 
 being borne by the government. 
 
 Please present this matter to the Governor for his approval and 
 agreement, as applying to the State of Massachusetts. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 Inclosure. 
 
 (Signed) J. R. MOHLER, 
 Acting Chief of Bureau. 
 
 The Commomvealth of Massachusetts, 
 
 Council Chamber, Boston, Nov. 11, 1914. 
 
 Mr. Fred F. Walker, Bureau of Animal Industry, State House, Boston. 
 
 Dear Sir: — At a meeting of the Governor and Council held to¬ 
 day, the proposal submitted by you of the United States Bureau of 
 Animal Industry, — to pay 50 per cent, of the appraised value of live 
 stock, destroyed hay, straw and parts of stables, 50 per cent, of 
 disinfecting expenses, digging and burial expenses, to pay all salaries of 
 bureau employees, their livery hire, traveling and subsistence ex¬ 
 penses and rental of offices, — was approved, and you were au¬ 
 thorized to accept in the name of the Commonwealth the foregoing 
 agreement. 
 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 (Signed) E. F. HAMLIN, 
 
 Executive Secretary. 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —Xo. 1751. 
 
 15 
 
 Chapter 90, Revised Laws. 
 
 Section 6. If the board or any one of its members or agents, by examina¬ 
 tion of a case of contagious disease of domestic animals, is of tbe opinion that 
 the public good so requires, it or ne shall cause the diseased animal to be securely 
 isolated or to be killed without appraisal or payment. An order for killing shall 
 be issued in writing by the board or any of its members, may be directed to an 
 inspector or other person, and shall contain such direction as to the exam¬ 
 ination and disposal of the carcass and the cleansing and disinfection of the 
 premises where such animal was condemned as the board or commissioner con¬ 
 sider expedient. A reasonable amount may be paid from the treasury of the 
 commonwealth for the expense of such killing and burial. If, thereafter, it 
 appears, upon post-mortem examination or otherwise, that such animal was 
 free from the disease for which it was condemned, a reasonable amount therefor 
 shall be paid to the owner by the commonwealth. If any cattle which are con¬ 
 demned as afflicted with tuberculosis are killed under the provisions of this 
 section, the full value thereof at the time of condemnation, not exceeding forty 
 dollars for anj^ one animal, shall be paid to the owner by the commonwealth if 
 such animal has been owned within the commonwealth six consecutive months 
 prior to being killed, or if it has been inspected and satisfactory proof has been 
 furnished to the board by certificate or otherwise that it is free from disease, 
 and if the owner has not prior thereto, in the opinion of the board, by wilful 
 act or neglect, contributed to the spread of tuberculosis; but such decision shall 
 not deprive the owner of the right of arbitration as hereinafter provided. 
 
 Section 6, Chapter 90, Revised Laws, extended Chapter 646, Acts of 1913. 
 
 An Act relative to Compensation to the Owners of Animals killed on 
 Account of being afflicted with Glanders. 
 
 Be it enacted, etc., as follows: 
 
 Section 1. If any horses, asses or mules -which are condemned as afflicted 
 with glanders are killed, under the provisions of section six of chapter ninety 
 of the Revised Law's the full value thereof at the time of condemnation, not 
 exceeding fifty dollars, for any one animal,, shall be paid to the owner by the 
 commonwealth, if such animal was owned within the commonwealth twelve 
 consecutive months prior to being killed, and if the owner thereof has not, in 
 the opinion of the commissioner of animal industry, contributed to the spread 
 of glanders by any wilful act or neglect. 
 
 Section 2. If an owner entitled to compensation under the provisions of 
 this act cannot agree with the commissioner of animal industry as to the value 
 of the animal killed, the value shall be determined by arbitration in the manner 
 provided by section tw'enty-six of chapter ninety of the Revised Law's. 
 
16 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 TRANSCRIPT OF NOTES TAKEN AT THE HEARING GIVEN BY 
 THE COMMISSION ON ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY TO MR. 
 FRED F. WALKER, COMMISSIONER OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY, AT 
 ROOM 110, STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 
 14, 1914, AT 2.30 P.M. 
 
 The three members of the Commission on Economy and Efficiency 
 
 */ %, 
 
 were present; Mr. Fred F. Walker was also present. 
 
 Chairman Tyrrell. In opening, Mr. Walker, I would like to have 
 you make a statement to this commission covering in brief the history 
 of the hoof-and-mouth disease, and in doing that I would like to have 
 you cover it in detail from Alpha to Omega, from the beginning to the 
 end, or, if the end is not in sight, up to the present time. 
 
 Mr. Walker. You mean in so far as it applies to Massachusetts? 
 
 Mr. Tyrrell. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Walker. The first intimation that I had of the presence of 
 the disease in Massachusetts was received on November 5, about 12 
 o’clock, when I was in receipt of a telegram from Dr. Henry E. Paige 
 of Amherst that stated —• To be exact its words were: “James and I 
 feel confident of the presence of foot-and-mouth disease in the George 
 Henry herd, Amherst.” James, by the way, is his brother, Dr. James 
 P. Paige of Amherst. Immediately on receipt of that information 
 from Dr. Paige, I communicated with Dr. James T. Ryder, who is in 
 charge of the Federal Bureau of Animal Industry stationed in Boston, 
 advising him of the notification, and arranged with him to go to 
 Amherst. We tried to arrange to go that afternoon, but found there 
 was no train that would take us there before dark, so we arranged to 
 go the following morning on the 8.07 train, which we did. 
 
 We were met by Dr. Paige at the station in Amherst and went 
 directly to the farm of George L. Henry, where Dr. Ryder and myself 
 made an examination of the cattle and confirmed the diagnosis made 
 by the Doctors Paige. Dr. Ryder and myself returned to Boston, and 
 that very night we began securing from the several dealers at Brighton 
 a sales list covering the two previous weeks in Brighton, it having 
 been determined through our conversation with Mr. Henry that the 
 cattle in his herd were a part of a shipment that was made from 
 Oneida, N. Y., to Brighton, from which place the animals in which 
 we found the disease had been shipped to Amherst. 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —No. 1751. 
 
 17 
 
 We concluded that there was every probability that, inasmuch as the 
 infection must have existed in the cattle at the time they were in 
 Brighton, the exposure had infected other cattle, and we made it our 
 first business to locate the herds to which cattle had been distributed 
 from Brighton on October 28 and November 4, with the result that 
 we eventually located 40 herds of cattle to which it is more than 
 probable the infection was spread from Brighton. 
 
 There have been 48 herds infected in the State, 8 of which, as near 
 as we can estimate it, became infected because of the careless move¬ 
 ment of the people associated with the herds, either owners or helpers 
 about them, who, because of their curiosity, had gone to other herds 
 in which infection existed and had doubtless, in our opinion, carried 
 i* to their own herds eventually. 
 
 Mr. Wood. That would be negligence, wouldn’t it? 
 
 Mr. Walker. It would be perhaps carelessness or lack of in¬ 
 formation on their part. Of course, you gentlemen perhaps will 
 understand that it is very difficult — it is absolutely impossible for 
 me at this time or for anv one to sav in the first instance how the 
 disease came to Massachusetts, because it has not been definitely de¬ 
 termined. Our best opinion is that it came by way of this shipment 
 to which I have referred. Our best opinion in reference to the herds 
 that have become infected, other than those that were exposed in 
 Brighton, is that some member of the family or of the help have 
 visited other farms, or possibly some outsider who had been to an 
 infected farm had come there to visit, or something of that kind. 
 
 It seemed to me, immediately I knew that the disease was reallv in 
 the State, that the most speedy methods for its control should be 
 adopted. However, I felt that this was a matter of State and national 
 importance, and I made application to the executive department for a 
 hearing before the Governor and Council for the purpose of the 
 passage of an order which would satisfactorily quarantine the different 
 farms in the State. The Governor appeared to appreciate the serious¬ 
 ness of the situation and agreed to call a special session of the Council 
 for the Saturday afternoon following the Thursday that I was in 
 Amherst. 
 
 Realizing that this was a matter of State and national importance, 
 and wishing to do the very wisest thing possible, I asked some twenty- 
 five men representing the largest stock-owning and stock-handling 
 industries, slaughtering establishments, and also representing the 
 veterinary profession, to meet me at the State House Saturday fore¬ 
 noon, in order that I might put the situation before them and ask their 
 advice in reference to the subject. 
 
18 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 Mr. Tyrrell. \ou mean the forenoon of the afternoon that you 
 appeared before the Governor and Council, which was November 7. 
 
 Mr. Walker. I am just a little confused on the dates. Thursday 
 was the 5th, I am very sure. Friday was the 6th and Saturday the 
 7th. I took the liberty to say to those people that I had asked them 
 to come there to act as a committee of one in advising me as to my 
 clear course under the present conditions, and I frankly stated to them 
 that at the conclusion of their remarks I should, of course, reserve the 
 right to do as I saw fit, but I wanted their opinion on the subject. 
 I had formed a very definite idea as to just what I should do. I 
 realized that such action would involve many enterprises of great 
 importance in the State, and I wanted to give them an opportunity, 
 the representatives of those enterprises, of placing before me any 
 objections that they might feel in reference to the proposed action on 
 my part, in order that I might take them under consideration before 
 submitting my plan to the Governor. To save time, I may say that 
 that assembly, highly representative as it was, agreed unanimously on 
 the plan that I have previously outlined and to which I referred there, 
 which was to place the State under the strictest sort of quarantine. 
 The quarantine was to apply to every animal in the State and to 
 every farm in the State, and would prevent the movement of any 
 animal on the part of any owner from one building to another, pro¬ 
 vided that movement had to be made on any public highway or by-way. 
 
 I came before the Governor and a delegation of the Council that 
 Saturdav afternoon about 1.50 o’clock, and the Governor and Council 
 unanimously approved an order that I had submitted which provided 
 as I have outlined. 
 
 In the meantime, our several agents throughout the State were being 
 equipped with rubber outfits and furnished instructions as fast as 
 they were assembled as to what barns to go to in the several sections 
 of the State; and, may it be said to the credit of the stockmen in 
 Brighton, a most complete list was furnished us of their sales. Every 
 co-operation possible was enjoyed on our part from them, and we 
 began the most strenuous task of locating and examining some 2,000 
 cows that had been distributed from Brighton within the two weeks. 
 Perhaps that is an overestimate. I should say that 1,800 would be 
 more correct. As a result, as I have before stated, we located the 
 disease in some 40 herds in which there were cows that had come 
 from Brighton within the two weeks. 
 
 The following Monday, in view of the enormity of the situation, it 
 seemed to me absolutelv necessarv that I should be in direct touch 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —No. 1751. 
 
 19 
 
 with the authorities in charge of the live-stock sanitary work at 
 Washington, and accordingly I wired them to ascertain if Chief 
 Melvin or his assistant would be at the office on Tuesday. I received 
 notification that they would be, and I left for Washington Monday 
 night. I took up with Dr. Melvin the problem in Massachusetts, the 
 principal feature of which, it seemed to me, was a satisfactory and 
 proper adjustment of the damages that would result from the presence 
 of the disease in Massachusetts. I outlined my plans to Dr. Melvin, 
 which were, as had been the custom in other States, that an appraiser 
 should be appointed by the government and one by the State to adjust 
 the value of live stock destroyed. 
 
 I might say right here that on the occasion of a previous outbreak 
 in Massachusetts, although there were official appraisers, it had been 
 the custom of the manager of affairs at that time to direct the agent, 
 the veterinary who went out on the job and who discovered the case, 
 to make an appraisal with the owner and to clean up the business on 
 his own hook. I happen to know that in some instances that appraisal 
 was not at all satisfactory from the viewpoint of the owner. In some 
 instances it was not at all satisfactory from the viewpoint of the State 
 and the nation. Therefore, it seemed to me that this matter of 
 appraisal was of great importance from the viewpoint of our State 
 and our citizens, and therefore I recommended to Dr. Melvin that 
 two appraisers be appointed, who should be the most highly qualified 
 men available in their line, who should be men of absolute and un¬ 
 questioned integrity, and who, above and beyond everything else, 
 should have no personal interest in reference to the appraisal except 
 to be just to the owner, the Commonwealth and the nation. Dr. 
 Melvin asked me if I had any recommendations to make as to who 
 should be appointed on the part of the nation, and I told him that I 
 had. I accordingly recommended Mr. Otis H. Forbush of Acton. 
 Perhaps I should not say what Dr. Melvin said. Does that interest 
 you? Dr. Melvin later communicated with his agent in Boston and 
 asked him to investigate the recommendation made by me. As a 
 result of the investigation of Dr. Henry E. Brown, who was then in 
 charge of the United States government foot-and-mouth work in this 
 section of the State, Mr. Forbush was eventually appointed by the 
 government. Mr. Myron T. Carrigan of Concord was named by 
 me to act as an appraiser on the part of the State. 
 
 Mr. Wood. Is he a veterinary? 
 
 Mr. YV alker. He is not — neither of them are. Thev were ad- 
 
 * 
 
 vised, these two appraisers, that they were to meet the owner of the 
 
20 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 property and, if possible, act with him as a board of appraisers, in 
 order to avoid and eliminate any possibility of later contention that 
 they were not properly treated, and in order that if the appraisal 
 made by these men was not up to his expectation, he might know 
 from them why they made the appraisal as they did. This board of 
 appraisers, these two appraisers rather, went to Amherst. I cannot 
 give you, Mr. Chairman, the exact dates right off hand. 
 
 Mr. Tyrrell. That is not material. 
 
 Mr. Walker. They went there, I think, the following Thursday, 
 in order that they might start on the work. I went out with them, 
 introduced them to the first man whose property they were to look 
 over, and in a general way, so far as I knew, explained to the owner 
 and the appraisers what course would probably be followed. Whether 
 or not the appraisers ever adopted my plans in the conduct of their 
 work I do not know, because I did not think my duties extended 
 beyond instructing them, or rather, in a general way, advising them. 
 
 The herds at Amherst, North Amherst and Granby that were then 
 known to be affected were appraised and immediately destroyed. In 
 connection with the slaughter of these cattle, I took that matter up 
 with the national authorities at the time of the former outbreak in 
 Massachusetts. There had been some very regrettable experiences 
 incident to the slaughter of the cattle, because of the fact that that 
 slaughter had been in some cases in the hands of inexperienced men, 
 or rather, perhaps young men who had not had any experience at all, 
 and who did not appreciate the seriousness of the situation, w r ith the 
 result that some cattle were wounded and escaped, and some were 
 mutilated in various ways, all of which was to the discredit, of course, 
 of both the State and nation who were carrying on the work. In 
 order to avoid any such possible procedure this time, I arranged with 
 the Federal authorities that one man who is regularly employed in 
 our department and who is specially qualified for such work, because 
 he has been for many years of his life a butcher, should have entire 
 charge of the slaughter, and where it was possible for him to attend 
 to it himself that he should do so; if not, that he should delegate some 
 man in whom he had confidence to do the work right. In short, I 
 localized the responsibility on Agent Charles J. Daly, and I am very 
 proud to say that not in one single instance has there been the slightest 
 slip-up so far as the slaughter is concerned. Hardly more than one 
 bullet has been used on any animal, and in a very few cases only has 
 our work been supervised, or watched rather, by the agents of the 
 Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and in those cases 
 those agents have commended our efforts very highly. 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —No. 1751. 
 
 21 
 
 Mr. Tyrrell. What was the nature of the communication that 
 
 _ * 3 
 
 you received from Dr. Paige of Amherst relative to the Henry herd 
 being affected with this disease? Was it a telephonic communication 
 or a letter? 
 
 Mr. Walker. It was a telegram. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Tyrrell). Have you got that telegram? A. I have 
 at the office. 
 
 Q. What was the date of that telegram? A*. November 5. 
 
 Q. That was the first information you received that the hoof-and- 
 mouth disease was in Massachusetts? A. Yes, or even suspected of 
 being here. 
 
 Q. Did you receive from one of your agents a communication on 
 October 21 stating that the hoof-and-mouth disease was found in a 
 herd at Buffalo, New York? A. I received a telegram from Dr. 
 William T. White, who is an agent of our department and who was in 
 Albany on the 21st of October, stating that he had been advised that 
 the foot-and-mouth disease existed in the Buffalo stockj^ards. I think 
 those were the words of the telegram. 
 
 I immediately called up the office of the Federal Bureau of Animal 
 Industry at Boston, Dr. Ryder in charge, and asked him if he had 
 knowledge of the existence of the disease in Buffalo. He said he had 
 not heard it was there. Except for the fact that Dr. White had re¬ 
 ferred directly to Dr. Mills of New York, who is State veterinarian for 
 New York, I should have been inclined to believe that it was an 
 erroneous report entirely, and in the absence of the confirmation of the 
 report on the part of the Federal Bureau, as they had supervision 
 especially over the Buffalo stockyards, and are the authority on which 
 we depend to guard our lines, our State lines, you understand. How¬ 
 ever, realizing the seriousness of the situation, the possible seriousness, 
 I immediately took steps to make the most careful ante-mortem exam¬ 
 ination of any animal that arrived in Massachusetts from New York. 
 
 Q. Just on that point there. The law provides that any cattle 
 coming from out of the State shall be thoroughly examined and in¬ 
 spected. You made the statement that, to the best of your knowledge 
 and belief, this disease was brought in by cattle that came over the 
 New York line into the Brighton stockyards. Why wasn’t the disease 
 determined on the arrival of the cattle in the Brighton stockyards 
 prior to their being shipped from the Brighton stockyards throughout 
 the State? A. Because, Mr. Tyrrell, the period of incubation for foot- 
 and-mouth disease is usually estimated at from 3 to 25 days. There 
 was not the slightest evidence of the presence of the disease in those 
 cattle in Brighton. They were, because of my earlier advice from 
 
9.9 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 New York, especially carefully examined, — earlier advice from Dr. 
 White, — not only as they are usually examined by the tuberculin 
 test, but, in addition, they were given a most careful ante-mortem or 
 physical examination. 
 
 Q. What is the date of the last shipment of the New York cattle 
 from the Brighton stockyards? A. I don’t believe I understand you, 
 Mr. Tyrrell. I might say for your information that there is a great 
 number of cattle arriving in Brighton every week, depending some¬ 
 what upon the market. There is quite an average arrival of dairy 
 cows, — cows that the State department makes examination of, — and 
 that number varies from 350 to 700 perhaps. At that particular 
 time of year there are quite heavy shipments, and there are in the 
 neighborhood of 500 or 600 cattle in Brighton every week from various 
 points. Of that 500 or 600, possibly there may have been 50 from the 
 State of New York, there may have been 100, but just casually esti¬ 
 mating I would say there were perhaps 50. There is George Henry 
 and George Smith and a man named Trask. Those three men are the 
 principal shippers from New York, and they usually have one carload 
 apiece and sometimes two carloads. 
 
 Q. Isn’t it fair to assume that, inasmuch as you were notified by 
 one of your agents as early as October 21, some care should have been 
 exercised in the shipments from New York State? A. Your question, 
 Mr. Tyrrell, smacks of a declaration that I have seen more of than I 
 want to and more of than I appreciate, because it is not quite fair. 
 I don’t mind it coming from you, but I mind it coming from misin¬ 
 formed people saying that I was notified from New York. Now, the 
 notification that I had from New York was of just the same character, 
 if you call it a notification, as you would receive if one of your men 
 were out about the State and observed or heard something that would 
 be of interest to you as commissioner here. It was not an official com¬ 
 munication in any sense of the word. It was rather a friendly tele¬ 
 gram. It was just what I wanted him to do — what I highly approved 
 of. It was not, as has been intimated in some newspapers, an official 
 notification. However, immediately on the receipt of that notification 
 we will call it, we redoubled our efforts, especially in reference to the 
 New York shipments. The law provides that these animals must be 
 examined and tested, — these out-of-State animals, — that a tuber¬ 
 culin test and a physical examination must be made. In addition to 
 that, I had instructed our men in charge of the work at Brighton to 
 make most careful ante-mortem or physical examinations of all these 
 New York cows that came in, also of the hogs or anything that might 
 come from there, in order that if there should be a case we would 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —No. 1751. 
 
 23 
 
 discover it. I also asked the co-operation of the Federal Bureau to an 
 extent that we had never enjoyed before. I asked them to delegate 
 men to go to the market and assist, or supplement if you will, our 
 examination, in order to take what I believed was all the precaution 
 necessary to take at that time, and in order to prevent the distribu¬ 
 tion from that market of a diseased cow, all the time realizing the 
 possibility that there might be a case in the incubative form that we 
 would not discover. 
 
 Incidentally, it will be interesting for you to know, I am sure, that 
 up to the time of the present outbreak, it had been stated positively 
 to me by the government officials, they having a great deal of experi¬ 
 ence with the foot-and-mouth disease, and I recognizing them as an 
 authority, that the incubative stage of the foot-and-mouth disease is 
 from three to six days. Now it is said by those same authorities that 
 the incubative stage is reckoned to be from three to twenty-five days. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. White). How long had Henry of Amherst had these 
 cows in Brighton before you knew it? A. Just off hand, they were 
 shipped we will say Thursday of this week. They were not reported 
 to me until the following Saturday. Just a week he had them up there. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Tyrrell). What was the earliest date of your com¬ 
 municating with the Federal authorities relative to the foot-and-mouth 
 disease? A. On October 21, when I got this wire from Dr. White. 
 
 Q. Have you a copy of that communication? A. I called him up 
 on the telephone. They have an office in Boston, with which we are 
 in constant touch. 
 
 Q. You communicated with them prior to November 6, when they 
 communicated with you and admonished you to be careful of the 
 disease? A. The admonishing was the other way. That letter, al¬ 
 though it is dated November 6, was not received in our department 
 
 until November 8. In the meantime and prior to its receipt, we had 
 
 started on our own initiative a State-wide quarantine that is much 
 stiffer and better than that recommended by them, and which caused 
 Dr. Melvin to commend me most highly. 
 
 Q. Are you permitting cows to be sold now? A. Yes, for immediate 
 slaughter, and in the non-infected areas, — the areas in which the 
 disease has not developed at all in this outbreak or any other. We 
 are allowing the movement of cattle other than those for slaughter, 
 but only under a permit system, under the provisions of the order 
 that was approved by the Governor and Council, which order states 
 
 that no cattle may be moved except by permission from our depart¬ 
 
 ment. 
 
 Q. Is Henry to be reimbursed for the cattle? A. They have been 
 
24 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 appraised. Whether or not he will be reimbursed depends upon the 
 Legislature and Congress. 
 
 Q. Had he owned them six months? A. He had not owned them 
 ten minutes that I know of. 
 
 Q. Doesn’t the law provide that, in order to be reimbursed by the 
 Commonwealth, a person must be the owner of the cattle for six 
 months? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Did you acquaint the Governor and Council of that fact when you 
 went before them prior to the issuance of the order that the owners of 
 condemned cattle should be reimbursed by the Commonwealth? 
 A. No; I don’t know as I can make my attitude before the Governor 
 and Council qtiite clear to you. Perhaps I did not make it clear to 
 them, but I think I did. The only proposition that I put before the 
 Governor and Council in the first instance was this, — the adoption of 
 an order for quarantine; and later I had, as per that letter there, a 
 communication from Washington, outlining the proposed plan on the 
 part of the National Department of Agriculture, to the effect that the 
 government should eventually pay half the appraisal and the State 
 half, and that communication requests that I get the sanction of the 
 Governor and Council to such an agreement, or something to that 
 effect. I took that letter to the Governor and Council, and they, I 
 think, fully appreciated that it was not quite within their province to 
 say whether the State would or would not pay 50 per cent. However, 
 they did advise me to act agreeably to the suggestion made by the 
 National Department of Agriculture, which suggestion, gentlemen, as 
 I understand it, does not carry any positive implication that either 
 the nation or the State would pay anything for these cattle. 
 
 Now, those cattle are killed and buried under the provision of our 
 law which says, “ Cattle infected with or exposed to a contagious 
 disease may be killed and buried without appraisal or payment there¬ 
 for.” This whole matter of appraisal and adjustment of this affair is 
 per that agreement that you just handed Mr. White. That agreement 
 the owner signs and it is accepted by him, — by the owner, — under 
 the clear understanding that at the moment he signs it there is no ob¬ 
 ligation on the part of the Commonwealth to pay him a cent. 
 
 Q. Who authorized the issuance of this certificate marked Exhibit A? 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —No. 1751. 
 
 25 
 
 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 
 
 Office of Department of Animal Industry, 
 State House, Boston. 
 
 Fred F. Walker, Commissioner. 
 
 (Place) 
 
 (Date) 
 
 This is to certify that I have this day sold the United States Department of 
 
 Agriculture and the Massachusetts Department of Animal Industry. 
 
 affected with or exposed to foot-and-mouth disease at an appraisal of. 
 
 dollars, sound value, of which I agree to accept 50 per cent, as compensation on 
 the part of the Commonwealth. 
 
 (Signed).. 
 
 (Owner.) 
 
 (Signed).. 
 
 (Appraiser.) 
 
 Mr. Walker. I did, making a copy of the agreement offered by the 
 Eederal authorities, and a similar document to that was presented to 
 the owner. 
 
 Q. Isn’t that virtually a bill of sale from the owner to the Common¬ 
 wealth? A. It is, in my opinion. However, I had submitted that 
 before any of them were signed. 
 
 Q. Submitted them to whom, Mr. Walker? x4. To a lawyer friend 
 of mine whom I considered an authority on the subject. He said that 
 there was nothing in connection with that that would in the slightest 
 way involve the Commonwealth in an obligation to the owner. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Wood). Who was the lawyer? A. I would just a little 
 rather not tell. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Tyrrell). You know the powers of this commission at 
 a conference — any information must be forthcoming? A. Yes, I know. 
 
 Q. Who in your opinion is the legal officer of the Commonwealth? 
 A. The Attorney-General. 
 
 Q. Why wasn’t this referred to the Attorney-General? A. I will 
 stand for it if you say I erred in not referring it to the Attorney-Gen¬ 
 eral. I am frank to say that at the time this whole affair was precip¬ 
 itated and put into execution the several matters were rushed through 
 rather hastily. I acted, Mr. Tyrrell, in reference to that matter prin¬ 
 cipally and primarily on the copy of the Federal government, which 
 copy was furnished me in Washington by Dr. Melvin, and the explana¬ 
 tion was there made to me by Dr. Melvin, very clearly, that in the 
 signing of this agreement on the part of the owner no obligation was 
 assumed by either the Federal government or the State. 
 
 Q. The Governor’s Council authorized you to act for the State in 
 this matter? A. I think you have a copy of the order. 
 
26 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 [Mr. Tyrrell reads order of the Council, marked Exhibit B.J 
 
 Q. You were authorized to act as an agent for the Commonwealth, 
 and you gave that authority to your appraiser in signing this docu¬ 
 ment? A. My best understanding and that of the owner of the cattle 
 is that that is simply an agreement on the part of the owner to accept 
 the appraisal therein described in the event of funds being available 
 to meet the same. 
 
 Q. Is this commission to understand that you view that document 
 there in the light of being an agreement and not a bill of sale? A. I 
 do most certainlv. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Wood). To be an agreement shouldn’t your name be 
 on there as the Commissioner of Animal Industrv? Shouldn’t vour 
 name be on there to make that anything like a legal document? A. I 
 understand if it were made a binding legal document that it would 
 have to have the signature of some State official. 
 
 Mr. Wood. There is not the signature of a single State official on it. 
 
 Mr. Tyrrell. The appraiser is the agent for the Commissioner of 
 
 Animal Industrv. 
 
 %! 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Wood). Didn't you know that prior to the outbreak 
 of this disease in Massachusetts the disease was raging in Michigan 
 on August 1, and also in some other States? A. I did not know it 
 until about October 15. 
 
 Q. What States did you know it was raging in on October 15? A. It 
 was first announced publicly that the disease had been discovered at 
 Niles, Michigan on October 15. That was the general announcement 
 in the newspapers throughout the State. 
 
 Q. What other States did you understand had the disease? A. I 
 understand it was in Southern Michigan and Northern Indiana. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether or not it was in Ohio? A. I don't recall 
 that at that time it had been officially announced as being in Ohio. 
 
 Q. Do we have cattle coming from Michigan and Indiana into 
 Massachusetts? A. Very, very rarelv. There are beef cattle, steers, 
 etc., shipped from those States, from Michigan, Indiana and all the 
 western States. 
 
 Q. Then you knew on October 15 that States from which Massa¬ 
 chusetts gets live stock had this disease in them? A. Yes, and in con¬ 
 nection with that inquiry I think it is pertinent that I say to you, for 
 your information, that I understand my duty to be primarily that of 
 a State officer, to guard and defend the live stock conditions within the 
 State, and that I depend almost unqualifiedly and explicitly upon the 
 National Bureau of Animal Industry to protect our borders from ship¬ 
 ments from infected areas. 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —Xo. 1751. 
 
 27 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Tyrrell). Mr. Commissioner, to go back to Exhibit A, 
 this agreement or bill of sale—is that an exact copy of the form sent to 
 aggrieved parties? A. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, that is an exact copy 
 of the supply of blanks furnished the State’s appraiser when he goes 
 out to make an appraisal, and on which he gets the signature of the 
 owner of the property, if possible, in order to make a record in our 
 office that on the date mentioned the owner of the cattle agreed to 
 their value as being so many dollars. 
 
 Q. Then it is a fact that this agreement or bill of sale appears on 
 the official stationery of your department? A. Yes, it is on there. 
 
 Q. Does the owner who signs that agreement retain a copy of it? 
 Are there two copies made? A. I don’t know of one being retained by 
 the owner. I don’t know that the owner ever did retain a copy. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Wood). There are two copies, one for the United States 
 government and one for your department? A. The United States 
 government has a different form. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. White). Is this a duplication, so far as the reading 
 goes, of the United States form? A. It is practically. 
 
 Q. Do they have a separate form which the owner signs too? A. 
 Thev don’t worrv about the owner. 
 
 %j «/ 
 
 Q. You said you had two copies made by the appraiser — one is 
 given the United States government and you retain this one. Is that 
 true? A. If I said anything about two copies of such an agreement as 
 this, I was referring to the copies that would be signed by the owner, 
 one representing his agreement to accept from the United States, and 
 one representing his agreement to accept from the State; but so far 
 as the State goes, only one is signed. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Tyrrell). You have in your department 57 agents, I 
 believe? A. Yes, I think perhaps more, Mr. Tyrrell. 
 
 Q. You have 57 agents and about 21 regular officials, and you have 
 a large number of agents giving part time? A. The 57 that you refer 
 to are on a per diem basis, giving part time. There is something like 
 20 who are regularly employed. 
 
 Q (by Mr. W ood). How are the 57 appointed? A. They are ap¬ 
 pointed depending upon the need. 
 
 Q. Who names them? A. They are taken from such veterinarians 
 as are recorded on the civil service list as available for service bv the 
 Commonwealth. At the time I came to the service of the State there 
 were no civil service restrictions. The following June the Governor 
 and Council passed an order which provides that veterinarians in the 
 employ of the State or cities thereof should be registered under the 
 civil service act. I was unfamiliar with the personnel of the agents 
 
28 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 of the department at that time, and incidentally the Civil Service 
 Commission said to me: Now, such men as are employed regularly, 
 are employed occasionally, or likely to be employed — that is just 
 the term he used — as veterinarians for the department may be 
 registered prior to this law going into effect without competitive 
 examination. Therefore, as I said, with little knowledge of the per¬ 
 sonnel of the agents, I asked one of the men in the department who 
 knew the men all over the State to prepare a list that would include 
 all veterinarians that had been or were likely to be employed as 
 agents of the State, and he submitted such a list, and that is what 
 the 57 comprise. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Tyrrell). Isn’t it a fact that they are nominated by 
 the mayors and boards of selectmen? A. That is another matter, Mr. 
 
 Tvrrell. 
 
 %/ 
 
 Q. Would you call the veterinarian out in Somerville who works 
 part time for you — would you call him an agent? A. Yes, I would 
 call him an agent occasionally. There is an inspector of animals in 
 Somerville who is an agent. He is appointed by the City of Somer¬ 
 ville to be an inspector of animals and meat. His appointment is sub¬ 
 ject to my approval. 
 
 Q. What report does your department receive from the condemning 
 officers of the cattle that is to be destroyed? A. We received during 
 this last outbreak usually a letter from the men confirming the previous 
 suspicion that it is a case of foot-and-mouth disease. Sometimes it was 
 simply a telephonic communication. 
 
 Q. Is that all that you receive as to the value of these cattle? 
 A. Oh, no. We have a statement from the veterinarians who acted dur¬ 
 ing this outbreak. Our veterinarians have usually acted with the Federal 
 men; that is, in certain cases where we were suspicious our men and 
 the Federal men would go together. As soon as it was determined by 
 them or by either that it was a positive case, report to that effect was 
 made to our office, by telephone or telegram. The appraisers would 
 then go to that place, make the appraisal, and arrangements for the 
 trench and the killing were rushed as speedily as possible. 
 
 Q. Do you receive a complete detailed report? A. Yes; we receive 
 a report stating that there are 22 head of cows, 2 heifers, 1 bull and 
 10 hogs on this place infected with foot-and-mouth disease. 
 
 Q. That is all they notifv you — that there are that number of cows 
 infected? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. They don’t notifv you as to the condition of the cows — whether 
 or not they were Holsteins? A. Just cows. 
 
 Q. You receive no notification as to the quality. of the cows — 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —Xo. 1751. 
 
 29 
 
 whether or not they are dry or milk-giving cows, or as to the quantity 
 of milk they give? A. No. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Wood). Does the hoof-and-mouth disease affect the 
 milk? A. It is said to. It affects the quantity of the milk. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Tyrrell). So far as your department is concerned, 
 you have no information to show when a cow is appraised why the 
 appraisal was fixed at a certain price? A. Yes, we have the most 
 absolute and indisputable evidence in the person of the men who fix 
 the price. If you knew the quality of the men who go out and make 
 these appraisals you never would — 
 
 Q. So far as documentary evidence is concerned, you have not a 
 particle of evidence in your department to show whether a cow is 
 worth $10 or S100? A. We have the statement of the owner that there 
 were 20 cows at a certain price. 
 
 Q. Other than that you have no information as to the cows? A. Xo. 
 
 Q. What investigation have you made to determine the length of 
 time condemned animals were owned prior to their being destroyed? 
 A Not any investigation. 
 
 Q. Then you have not a particle of evidence in your department as 
 
 to whether or not the cattle were owned for one dav, ten davs or ten 
 
 vears. A. That is absolutelv correct. 
 
 %! 
 
 Q. Then there is no way for the incoming Legislature to determine, 
 if they see fit, whether the cattle infected with this disease have been 
 owned for at least six months. There is no way of giving them any 
 information to determine whether or not an appropriation should be 
 granted for that number of cattle which have been condemned and 
 destroyed. A. I think there is if they want to take the trouble to 
 find it. We have not any documentary evidence. 
 
 Q. You have not made any investigation? A. We don’t consider it 
 necessarv. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Wood). Supposing the appraisers should die? A. There 
 is the documentary evidence that they agreed to the value on the day 
 they were there. 
 
 Q. But the State pays the bills. Supposing the two appraisers 
 should die, how would these cases be settled? A. How could they be 
 settled any better if they did not die? 
 
 Q. I mean in case of dispute. Suppose the State raises the question 
 that an excess price was granted for a herd of cows. There is no 
 record made of whether or not those cows were Jerseys. Supposing 
 some one comes in and says that those cows were oyer-appraised? 
 A. There is that possibility. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Tyrrell). The law specifically states that the owner 
 
30 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 of the condemned cattle must be in possession of them and own them 
 for a period of six months in order to be reimbursed. The incoming 
 Legislature might override this order of the Governor and Council. 
 They agree to pay 50 per cent, of the value of the cattle, and there 
 is not a bit of documentary evidence in your office to show the length 
 of time they were owned by the owner prior to being destroyed. 
 A. I don’t understand that the Governor and Council — and I don’t 
 think they understand that they have obligated the State by their 
 vote. Have you the letter from the Lnited States Bureau to me that 
 I submitted to the Council? 
 
 Q. That is under date of November 6? A. Yes; in that, as I recall 
 it, the United States Bureau did not ask the Governor and Council to 
 obligate the State to pay 50 per cent., or any part of that, but rather 
 asked me to get the Governor and Council to agree, tacitly, as it were, 
 to a 50-50 basis of settlement. I think if you should ask the Gov¬ 
 ernor and Council if they had agreed to pay 50 per cent, of the ap¬ 
 praised value, they would say no. 
 
 Q. I want to read the three last paragraphs on page 2 of the letter 
 from the United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal 
 Industry, under date of November 16, 1914, to Fred F. Walker, Com¬ 
 missioner of Animal Industry, Boston, Mass. [Mr. Tyrrell reads the 
 paragraphs in question.] A. The word “plan,” Mr. Chairman, is the 
 one word of importance in that letter, — in that whole thing. The 
 Department of Agriculture, in my opinion, has no authority to say 
 what the United States Government will or will not do. The plan 
 of procedure as herein outlined is, “ Get your Governor and Council to 
 agree to that plan.” 
 
 Q. Pardon me, Mr. Walker. Doesn’t that letter read that “that is 
 the plan we are now operating under?” The plan under which the de¬ 
 partment is operating in the various States is as follows. A. At that 
 time Dr. Melvin made it more than clear to me that the whole thing 
 was problematic. He said, “We have not a dollar. We have not really 
 money enough to get the preliminary work under way in a satisfactory 
 manner.” The “plan” is the whole thing, — the 50-50 basis. I take 
 exceptions to that inference that the government will pay 75 per cent., 
 because, as a matter of fact, we are doing more than they are, — quite 
 a bit, in my opinion. They are not figuring 75 per cent. They are 
 just dividing it half and half so far. 
 
 Q. Then you accept the figures of the appraisers without question? 
 A. Yes, unqualifiedly. 
 
 Q. What examination is made into the history of the cows that have 
 been condemned and slaughtered? A. The history of the case is gone 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —No. 1751. 
 
 31 
 
 over carefully. That is one of the principal branches of work of our 
 agent, who goes there to inquire minutely into where the cows come 
 from, if any had left the herd, etc. He gets the best history of the 
 case that he can. 
 
 Q. Does he submit that history to your department? A. If it 
 develops that it is at all interesting he does. If he goes to your barn 
 he gets in touch' with you as the owner. He says, “Now, Mr. 
 Tyrrell, what have you got here?” You say, “I have 10 cows. I 
 raised them all on the place. I have not bought one for 10 years, and 
 I have not sold one for 10 years.” You might say, “I have 10 cows 
 and I bought them all within two years.” 
 
 Q. (by Mr. White). Don’t you require each of your agents to keep 
 a record of his doings? A. Oh, yes. 
 
 Q. He has that on file? A. We have it on file. We have records of 
 his every-day work on his expense slips and other ways. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Tyrrell). Relative to the award of damages to prop¬ 
 erty — who passes on that? A. That is a matter yet to be determined. 
 It has been proposed by me and agreed to by the local agent that there 
 should be a contractor who should visit the premises where property 
 has been destroyed, make measurements, calculations, etc., and sub¬ 
 mit estimates relative to the*value of the property destroyed. 
 
 Q. Who passes upon that? A. The man in charge of the disinfect¬ 
 ing gang, subject to the supervision of his superior, the chief in charge 
 of the bureau here. Incidentally, we recently had the pleasure of 
 having here a more than ordinary expert from Washington, who made 
 a study of the disinfecting plant. 
 
 Q. Has he got expert knowledge as to building? I suppose you 
 mean he passes on what is to be destroyed in order to make a clean 
 disinfection. A. That is supposed to be within the knowledge of the 
 gang foreman who is in charge of the work. However, no case is left 
 as completed until his work has been supervised by some man bigger 
 than he is, and the biggest and best man we can get on that work is 
 the man we have. We recently had a man from Washington. He 
 goes over these places, perhaps. One of the men I send out goes and 
 looks it over, and if there are any cracks or any rotten lumber that 
 seems to be a danger it is ripped out. 
 
 Q. There is no limit placed upon the amount of property destroyed? 
 A. Safety first is the plan, Mr. Chairman. In fact, we have one set of 
 buildings now, and it will require a great deal of deliberation on the 
 part of the State and Federal authorities to determine whether or not 
 it would be advisable to burn the structures rather than disinfect them. 
 It happens to be a hog ranch at Rehoboth, and they are built on hard 
 
32 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 IFeb. 
 
 plans to properly disinfect. The owner is to clear out the litter so we 
 can see it and determine about it. 
 
 Q. Isn’t it a fact that the Commonwealth will have to reimburse for 
 all property destroyed? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Has there been any estimate as to the cost of this work? A. 
 That is what I was coming to a few moments ago. There is in process 
 the appointment, on the part of the State and Federal authorities, of a 
 contractor who is supposed to be qualified to accurately estimate the 
 value of the material, etc., and the cost of administering the same. 
 
 Q. The work of demolition has gone on without being passed upon 
 by anybody? A. The work of demolition has gone on because of its 
 necessity. The owners of property cannot get the disinfecting crews 
 there quick enough. They want them to come right off. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Wood). Has that gone on without any record being 
 made of it? A. Oh, no. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Tyrrell). Has that gone on without having same 
 supervised — without having expert knowledge as to what the re¬ 
 placement would cost? A. It has gone on under the direction of the 
 foreman, and it has been absolutely necessary to destroy such portions 
 of the property as would permit of thorough disinfecting. The disin¬ 
 fecting crews are in charge of men and under the supervision of men 
 who have expert knowledge relative to the amount of material neces¬ 
 sary to destroy in order to thoroughly disinfect the place. Where you 
 and I are confused, I guess, is on whether or not there is any record 
 of the material destroyed being kept. A record of the material de¬ 
 stroyed is kept. Now, then, it is proposed to appoint an expert who 
 will visit these premises, take the records submitted by the man in 
 charge of the job when the thing was destroyed, confirm his reports 
 from a view of the place, and make accurate estimate of the cost of 
 the material and the cost of replacing it. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Wood). Who is the man who makes the report? Is 
 
 he a contractor? A. The veterinary in charge of the disinfecting crew 
 
 makes the report to headquarters in reference to the material de- 
 
 stroved. 
 
 */ 
 
 Q. Will you submit to this commission one specimen copy where 
 your head clerk or veterinary submits a record? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Tyrrell). From the information that you have at your 
 office can you estimate what it will cost the Commonwealth to replace 
 property that has been destroyed? A. No, I cannot, Mr. Tyrrell. 
 
 Q. Or that is to be destroyed? A. There has not been a single esti¬ 
 mate made of the value of property destroyed or of the cost of reinstat¬ 
 ing same. 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —No. 1751. 
 
 33 
 
 Q. Then it is purely problematic what that is going to cost? A. 
 Yes. 
 
 Q. You stated one case there — what is the name of the town? 
 A. Rehoboth. 
 
 Q. Wherein you thought it would be advisable to burn down the 
 buildings. A. I don’t think I ever thought so. I said that it was 
 being very deliberately considered — the method of satisfactorily dis¬ 
 infecting those premises, and it had been recommended by some that 
 the premises be burned. 
 
 Q. Who recommended that they be burned? A. A representative 
 of the Federal Bureau who was with me the other day. He said, 
 “Walker, you will never clear this thing up until you burn it.” 
 
 Q. How many cows would that barn tie up? A. That was a piggery. 
 It was a perfectly awful place. They were nothing but shells at the 
 most. They had to go in there and scrape and spray and tear out. 
 It is difficult to determine whether or not it would not be cheaper to 
 burn it all up. We would then have a thorough job. On the other 
 hand, in my opinion quite a percentage of the property there can be 
 saved and satisfactorily disinfected. 
 
 Q. You had considerable of this disease in Worcester County? A. 
 Yes, there were several cases in Worcester. There were two cases in 
 Grafton and one in Paxton. I think he is Mr. Ellsworth. He is a 
 brother of our former friend, J. Lewis. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. White). This is J. W.? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Tyrrell). Have you visited these places where the 
 different herds were destroyed? A. I went to Amherst and visited 
 the Henry herd, as I told you. I went to the Taylor herd in North 
 Amherst the day the appraisers were there, and I went to this Re¬ 
 hoboth job. 
 
 Q. Was the Taylor herd a blooded stock? A. Frankly, we have not 
 had an outbreak in a single thoroughbred herd in the State. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Wood). Have you been paying thoroughbred prices? 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Tyrrell). Can you explain how it is that your ap¬ 
 praisers have appraised some herds at $50 or less, and other herds they 
 have appraised as high as $90? A. I don’t know how much of a 
 farmer you are, but I assume you know that there is a great margin in 
 the quality of cows. There is just as much difference as there is in 
 overcoats. 
 
 Q. It depends upon the appraisers? A. No, it depends upon the 
 cattle, — not on the appraisers. 
 
 Q. You have nothing in your department to show the breed of the 
 
ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 34 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 cattle, or the milk-giving qualities, or whether or not it would be good 
 meat? A. No. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Wood). When do you propose to release your extra 
 men? A. That is rather hard to say. I did say I was going to release 
 one on Saturday night, but I did not get in touch with him. I am to 
 release him to-night. 
 
 Q. Do you consider the epidemic now over? A. I think I can safely 
 say yes. I would not be surprised if we had a few straggling cases. 
 We have not had a new case for a week. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Tyrrell). Has the thought suggested itself to you, or 
 do you feel that there may be people aggrieved who were not owners 
 of cattle, but were abutters to property where infected cattle was kept? 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Wood). Wasn’t that the question you asked me this 
 morning or yesterday, in regard to people coming in and requesting 
 your advice? A. What I asked, Mr. Wood, was as to what you con¬ 
 sidered my duty when an owner who had had his place quarantined 
 and who had lost the sale of his milk and had his beef tied up incident 
 to quarantine, came and said that he wanted satisfaction from some¬ 
 body. You, I think, agreed with me that I had no authority, as I 
 have stated to them, to say what he might or might not do, but that 
 I could say to him that it was his privilege to make such claim against 
 the Commonwealth or against any individual thereof as he saw fit. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Tyrrell). Did you so advise? A. I did not advise. 
 Men have said to me repeatedly that I want this or I want that, but 
 I have always said: “Understand me not to be advising you. Under¬ 
 stand me to have no authority to direct that you submit a bill or 
 anything of the kind.” I said, “It is your privilege to do it.” They 
 go on in a rather hysterical manner as to what they are going to do, 
 etc. I have said to them that it was their privilege to submit such 
 claims to the Great and General Court as they saw fit, that I had no 
 authority to pass on them or recommend them, one way or the other. 
 One of my best men, Dr. Field, the most honest fellow imaginable, 
 said something of that character to a man down in Mendon, only to 
 have him call me up on the next day and announce to me that Dr. 
 Field said that if he would send in a bill for his milk which was 
 destroyed the State would pay him. He did not say that, because he 
 does not say those things, and I don’t say them. 
 
 Q. Mr. Walker, will you please submit to this commission a copy 
 of the telegram that you received from Dr Paige? A. Yes, Mr. 
 Tyrrell. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. White). Can you get a copy of the agreement that the 
 owners signed with the government? A. Yes. 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —No. 1751. 
 
 35 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Wood). What is your recommendation in regard to 
 meeting these bills — have a special appropriation set aside for them 
 and have them present their claims to the Legislature? A. I don’t 
 know as I am an authority on that subject. I had thought in a gen¬ 
 eral way you or some other authority would eventually demand from 
 me a statement of actual expenditures, actual indebtedness pending, 
 so far as we could compute it, and that you would make a recom¬ 
 mendation to the Legislature for the passage of a bill covering such 
 expenditures, if it seemed wise for you to do so. If it did not, it 
 seemed to me that it would probably be the duty of some person 
 whose property had been destroyed to make a petition to the Legis¬ 
 lature. I do not consider that it would be my business to demand an 
 appropriation from the Legislature, because I think there are higher 
 authorities than I who are supervising the State’s finances. 
 
 Q. What was your appropriation for animal extermination last 
 year? A. $171,000. That was for the office work and the general 
 appropriation; $160,000 for animals. 
 
 Q. What did you spend of that amount for the fiscal year? A. We 
 have not got our report made up. We are working on it now. We 
 have until December 10. 
 
 Q. Will there be a balance, do you think? A. I am very sure of it. 
 
 Q. You don’t know what will be available from that appropriation? 
 A. No, I don’t know; but I know we have a balance, so we are all 
 right. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Wood). Do you consider that document there which is 
 signed by the owner and the appraiser a bill of sale? A. I consider it 
 simply a record of agreement. I am very frank to say that we dispute 
 the fact that that was copied from the United States Bureau’s docu¬ 
 ment of a similar character. If I was constructing one myself and 
 had to do it over again, I would draft it in different terms. It seems 
 to me that perhaps you or any citizen, seeing it for the first time, 
 might be just a little confused as to its real purpose. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Tyrrell). You are not qualified to pass on this; 
 neither am I or anybody else. I don’t believe there is an owner in 
 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, who signed one of those cer¬ 
 tificates, but felt that it was a bill of sale for his cattle. A. We buried 
 137 for one man. He was in the office the other day and expressed in 
 no uncertain terms that it was not a bill of sale. They do not under¬ 
 stand it so, because they know, every one of them, that there is not a 
 cent to cover it. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Wood). Do they reserve their rights to appeal? A. 
 They give up and say, “ I will accept that much.” 
 
36 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 Q. Does the State reserve the right to pay less? A. That is for the 
 State to say. The State has the right to pay nothing under the law 
 now. I think the Legislature has the right to pay 10 per cent, of that 
 amount or nothing. 
 
 Q. Do you think they have to go to the Governor and Council? 
 Don’t you think that section 6, chapter 90 of the Revised Laws covers 
 these cases? [Copy of section 6 handed Mr. Walker.] A. That is 
 what I have been sure of all the time, gentlemen, — that our position 
 was unqualifiedly tenable, — that this document here was rather, from 
 many viewpoints, unnecessary when viewed from the standpoint of 
 actual conditions to-day. This is the law under wdiich we killed those 
 cattle. The other day there -was a man in Rehoboth who said that 
 the appraisers and the wdiole State government might go somew'here 
 where it is warmer than it w^as right there at that time. He said, 
 “I will have nothing to do with you.” The appraisers had told him 
 wdiat they w'ould agree was a fair price for his cattle. He, in turn, 
 announced that he was going to have a considerable amount more than 
 that mentioned, and they came aw r ay and reported that no agreement 
 ^vas reached. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Tyrrell). What are you going to do in the event of 
 the Legislature deciding to pay those who owned cattle more than six 
 months prior to their being destroyed? A. I am going to leave it to 
 that same Legislature to ascertain in their own way which cattle were 
 owned six months. 
 
 Q. You don’t think it is your duty to give the Legislature that in¬ 
 formation? A. No. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. White). You might, I presume, if they take that 
 attitude, tell them to make their agreement with the United States 
 government on the 50-50 basis. A. Certainly. 
 
 Q. I imagine the government would have not made any such 50-50 
 arrangement, with the understanding that they should assume the 
 entire cost of the out-of-State cattle. I presume they w r ould not, but 
 still that is none of our business. 'We can still assume that we don’t 
 have to pay a nickel under the law. We don’t have to pay a cent. 
 A. It may be determined by the Legislature whether or not they will 
 pay. 
 
 Q. In other words — perhaps my understanding is wrong — this 
 appraisal is only for the purpose of giving the Legislature information 
 as to wdiat they can settle agreeable to the parties for. If they want 
 to settle regardless of the parties, they can fall back on the old law. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Wood). How many cases were there where agreements 
 were not reached? A. Not any. This man thought it over night, 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE — Xo. 1751. 
 
 37 
 
 and he could not find us quick enough the next day to sign the paper. 
 The appraisers also signed. In the meantime some good neighbor had 
 dropped in on him and read the provisions of section 6, and under 
 that section his cattle would have been killed. 
 
 Q. (by Mr. Tyrrell). Don’t you believe that every man who 
 signed that agreement signed it in good faith that the Commonwealth 
 would reimburse him? A. I have not talked on that subject, but one 
 man who signed it (that is the man we killed the 137 cows for) said, 
 “What do you think the chances are of our getting compensation from 
 the State or nation?" I said, “I think it is excellent." 
 
 Q. Would you sign a statement such as this, if you owned cattle, 
 without thinking that you were to be reimbursed for the loss of that 
 cattle? Let us meet the issue fair and square. Isn't it a fact that 
 that is obtained under false pretenses? A. That is obtained under 
 section 6. 
 
 Q. Has section 6 been quoted to those whose cattle has been de- 
 
 stroved? A. The fact that there was no monev available has been 
 */ */ 
 
 quoted. 
 
 Q. I want to ask you if your agents quoted section 6, chapter 90 of 
 
 the Revised Laws prior to destroying property? A. I don’t know that 
 
 thev did. 
 
 «/ 
 
 Hearing closed at 4.30 p.m. 
 
 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 
 
 Office of Department of Animal Industry, 
 State House, Boston, Dec. 14, 1914. 
 
 Commission on Efficiency and Economy, State House, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Gentlemen : — In pursuance with my agreement with you, I am 
 pleased to submit herewith record of animals destroyed because 
 affected with, or exposed to, foot-and-mouth disease, together with the 
 appraised value of same, of which value it is generally understood 
 Massachusetts will pay 50 per cent., if such payment is agreeable to 
 such officials of the Commonwealth as have jurisdiction over its 
 expenditures. 
 
 The before-mentioned appraisals have been made with a full under¬ 
 standing on the part of the owners that payments of amounts agreed 
 upon was dependent on later action of national and State governments. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 (Signed) FRED F. WALKER, 
 
 Commissioner. 
 
38 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY 
 
 [Feb 
 
 List of Herds condemned by the Commissioner of Animal Industry because affected 
 with or exposed to Foot-and-Month Disease, December 12, 1914. 
 
 Name of Owner. 
 
 Address. 
 
 Date 
 
 con¬ 
 
 demned. 
 
 Appraisal, 
 Number Animals. 
 
 Date 
 
 killed. 
 
 Angel!, H. B.. . 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 j Rehoboth, . 
 
 Dec. 4, . 
 
 §2,400, . . . . 
 
 32 cattle, $75. 
 
 Dec. 8. 
 
 Barney, A. H., 
 
 Rehoboth, . 
 
 Dec. 4, . 
 
 $23,710, . . . . 
 
 2,033 hogs, $11.12+. 
 $1,800 
 
 24 cattle, $75. 
 
 $30 
 
 3 goats, $10. 
 
 Dec. 9-10-11. 
 
 Benson, Walter, 
 
 Granby, 
 
 Dec. 4, 
 
 SI,958, . 
 
 32 cattle, $58 T V 
 
 10 hogs, est. $10. 
 
 Dec. 12. 
 
 Blodgett, Chester B., 
 
 West Boylston, . 
 
 Nov. 14, . 
 
 $300, .... 
 
 6 cattle, $50. 
 
 Nov. 24. 
 
 Boston, City of, 
 
 Deer Island, 
 
 Nov. 12, . 
 
 $3,300, .... 
 
 43 cattle, $76+. 
 
 Nov. 20. 
 
 Brothers, F. S., 
 
 Bellingham, 
 
 Nov. 10, . 
 
 $1,050, .... 
 
 17 cattle, $61+. 
 
 $70 
 
 70 fowl, $1. 
 
 Nov. 18. 
 
 Brothers, I. J., 
 
 : Bellingham, 
 
 Nov. 10, . 
 
 $560, .... 
 
 8 cattle, $70. 
 
 $30 
 
 3 shoats, $10. 
 
 cioc 
 
 100 fowl, $1.25. 
 
 Nov. 17. 
 
 Brown, O. R., 
 
 Swansea, 
 
 Nov. 17, . 
 
 $4,750, .... 
 
 56 cattle, $84+. 
 
 Nov. 22-23. 
 
 Clarrage, M. R., 
 
 Lynn, . 
 
 Nov. 14, . 
 
 $921, .... 
 
 16 cattle, $56+ 
 
 2 hogs, est. $10. 
 
 Nov. 28. 
 
 Coburn, 0. J., 
 
 Dracut, 
 
 Nov. 13, . 
 
 $6,500, .... 
 
 87 cattle, $74+. 
 
 $1,830 
 
 130 hogs, $14 i 1 3 . 
 
 $34 
 
 34 fowl, $1. 
 
 Nov. 26. 
 
 DelMastro, D., \ 
 
 Davis, D. W., . . / 
 
 Belmont, 
 
 Nov. 8, . 
 
 r $300, .... 
 
 6 cattle, $50. 
 
 • 8102 
 
 2 cattle, 849. 
 
 4 fowl, est. $1. 
 
 Nov. 19. 
 
 Dumas, L. M., 
 
 Shrewsbury, 
 
 Nov. 22, . 
 
 $705, .... 
 
 10 cattle, est. $67.50. 
 
 3 hogs, est. $10. 
 
 Nov. 25. 
 
 Ellsworth, J. W., 
 
 Worcester, . 
 
 Nov. 27, . 
 
 $1,130, .... 
 
 13 cattle, $86+. 
 
 Dec. 4. 
 
 Fay, T. J., J 
 
 Swampscott, 
 
 Dec. 2, . 
 
 $2,400, .... 
 
 39 cattle, $61+. 
 
 Dec. 5. 
 
 Fearing, W. B., 
 
 202-W 
 
 Hingham, . 
 
 Nov. 14, . 
 
 $10,350, .... 
 
 142 cattle, est. $72+. 
 
 6 swine, est. $10. 
 
 $11 
 
 11 fowl, $1. 
 
 Nov. 30. 
 
 Forrest, John, . . . j 
 
 Stoneham, . 
 
 Nov. 19, . 
 
 $915, . 
 
 10 cattle, est. $88. 
 
 28 fowl, est. $1. 
 
 Dec. 1. 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE—No. 1751 
 
 39 
 
 List of Herds condemned by the Commissioner of Animal Industry because affected 
 with or exposed to Foot-and-Mouth Disease, December 12, 1914 — Con. 
 
 Name of Owxer. 
 
 Address. 
 
 Date 
 
 con¬ 
 
 demned. 
 
 Appraisal, 
 
 Number Animals. 
 
 Date 
 
 I . killed. 
 
 Flanagan, M. J., 
 
 Attleboro, . 
 
 Dec. 3, . 
 
 $365, .... 
 
 4 cattle, est. $50. 
 
 16 swine, est. $10. 
 
 Dec. 11. 
 
 Gates, N. A., 
 
 Danvers, 
 
 Nov. 13, 
 
 $480, .... 
 
 8 cattle, $60. 
 
 $15 
 
 32 fowl, est. $47. 
 
 Nov. 28. 
 
 Godck, M m 
 
 Chicopee, 
 
 Xov. 10, . 
 
 $226. 
 
 2 cows, est. $80. 
 
 60 fowl, est. $1. 
 
 Nov. 16. 
 
 Goodale, A., Est., . 
 
 West Bovlston, . 
 
 : 
 
 Nov. 15, . 
 
 $1,670, .... 
 
 23 cattle, est. $72. 
 
 1 hog, est. $10. 
 
 2 fowl, est. $1. 
 
 Dec. 2. 
 
 Grosvenor, D. C., . 
 
 Auburn, 
 
 Nov. 12, . 
 
 $1,600. 
 
 22 cattle, est. $71. 
 
 2 hogs, est. $10. 
 
 Nov. 25. 
 
 Heland, G. F., 
 
 Dracut, 
 
 Dec. - 
 
 $3,086.50, 
 
 39 cattle, est. $72.73. 
 
 25 hogs, est. $10. 
 
 Dec. 12. 
 
 Henry, Geo. L., 
 
 Amherst, 
 
 Nov. o, . 
 
 $1,895, .... 
 
 19 cattle, est. $86. 
 
 6 shoats, est. $10. 
 
 89 fowl, est. $1. 
 
 Nov. 14. 
 
 Johnson, Emma M., 
 
 Grafton, 
 
 Dec. 1, . 
 
 $900, .... 
 
 17 cattle, $52+. 
 
 $30 
 
 7 sneep, $4.50. 
 
 Dec. 31. 
 
 Jordan, H. G., Co., 
 
 Hingham, . 
 
 Nov. 18, . 
 
 $495, ... 
 
 9 cattle, $55. 
 
 $216 
 
 16 swine, $13.50. 
 
 Nov. 30. 
 
 Jourdan, A. H., 
 
 Gratton, 
 
 Nov. 16, . 
 
 8890 
 
 * 12’cattle, $58+ 
 
 8 swine, est. $10. 
 
 36 fowl, est. $1. 
 
 Nov. 23. 
 
 Kelly, 0. A., . 
 
 Worcester, . 
 
 Nov. 6, . 
 
 $3,900, .... 
 
 65 cattle, $58+. 
 
 8 pigs, est. $10. 
 
 Nov. 21. 
 
 Leonard, S. F., 
 
 Brighton, 
 
 Nov. 6, . 
 
 - 
 
 Nov. 10(U. S.). 
 
 Levine, H., . . 1 
 
 Brodie, Annie, 
 
 Worcester, . 
 
 Nov. 23, . 
 
 f $1,161, ... 
 
 13 cattle, $88+. 
 
 11 fowl, est. $1. 
 
 < $355 
 
 4 cattle, $75+. 
 
 53 fowl, est. $1 
 (2 short). 
 
 Dec. 2. 
 
 Levine, M., 
 
 Worcester, . 
 
 Nov. 10, . 
 
 $1,300, .... 
 
 18 cattle, $68+. 
 
 70 fowl, est. $1. 
 
 Nov. 22. 
 
 Lenzi, E., 
 
 Sod bury, 
 
 Nov. 30, . 
 
 $1,225, .... 
 
 20 cattle, $57. 
 
 5 hogs, est. $10. 
 
 32 fowl, est. $1. 
 
 Dec. 5. 
 
 Loring, Homer, 
 
 Ashland, 
 
 * 
 
 Nov. 13, . 
 
 $1,790, .... 
 
 26 cattle, $68+. 
 
 Nov. 27. 
 
40 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY 
 
 [Feb 
 
 List of Herds condemned by the Commissioner of Animal Industry because affected 
 with or exposed to Foot-and-Mouth Disease, December' 12, 1914 — Con. 
 
 Name of Owxeb. 
 
 Address. 
 
 Date 
 
 con¬ 
 
 demned. 
 
 Malone, John, . . ] 
 
 Granby, 
 
 Nov. 8, . 
 
 McDonald, James, . 
 
 Brockton, 
 
 Nov. 12, . 
 
 Moody, H. H., 
 
 Granby, 
 
 Nov. 17, . 
 
 Newell, O. D„ 
 
 North Attlebor¬ 
 ough. 
 
 Nov. 21, . 
 
 Noon, John, 
 
 Rehoboth, . 
 
 Dec. 8, . 
 
 Ollila, M., 
 
 Maynard, 
 
 Nov. 14, 
 
 Paquette, V., . 
 
 S-wansea, 
 
 Nov. 11, . 
 
 Parker, C. M. & T. B., . 
 
 Warren, 
 
 Dec. 1, 
 
 Sumner, W. L., 
 
 Attleboro, . 
 
 Nov. 6, . 
 
 Painter, A. H., 
 
 
 
 
 Brogna, N., 
 
 
 Medford, 
 
 Nov. 20, . 
 
 Young, F. S., . 
 
 
 
 
 Taft, C. A., . 
 
 Mendon, 
 
 Nov. 5, . 
 
 Taft, G. M„ . 
 
 Mendon, 
 
 • 
 
 Nov. 18, . 
 
 Taylor, L. H., 
 
 Amherst, 
 
 Nov. 5, . 
 
 Tripp, Isaac, . 
 
 Westport, 
 
 Nov. 11, . 
 
 Vinnicum, G. W., . 
 
 Swansea, 
 
 Nov. 17, . 
 
 Wolfson, Louis, 
 
 Watertown, . 
 
 Nov. 21, . 
 
 
 
 
 Appraisal, 
 Number Animals. 
 
 Date 
 
 killed. 
 
 -$3,157.50, . 
 
 39 cattle, $76.50. 
 175 fowl, est. $1. 
 
 Nov. 16. 
 
 $450, . 
 
 6 cattle, $75. 
 $66.25 
 
 Nov. 27. 
 
 53 fowl, $1.25. 
 
 $1,890, 
 
 26 cattle, $70. 
 
 50 fowl, est. $1. 
 
 $325, . 
 
 6 cattle, est. $50. 
 2 swine, est. $10. 
 
 Dec. 3. 
 . j Dec. 3. 
 
 $1,350, . 
 
 19 cattle, $70+. 
 
 $600, . 
 
 11 cattle, $54+. 
 
 $50 
 
 50 fowl, $1. 
 
 $ 2 , 200 , 
 
 24 cattle, est. $63. 
 
 44 swine, est. $10. 
 250 fowl, est. $1. 
 
 $225, 
 
 4 cattle, S56J. 
 $1,550, 
 
 21 cattle, est. $67. 
 
 2 pigs, est. $10. 
 
 103 fowl, est. SI. 
 
 4 turkeys, est. $3. 
 
 [ $875, 
 
 15 cattle, est. $51. 
 
 1 hog, est. $10. 
 
 $35 
 
 <j 30 fowl, est. $0.80. 
 
 1 hog, est. $10. 
 
 $625 
 
 13 cattle, est. S45+. 
 
 3 swine, est. $10. 
 
 $585, 
 
 9 cattle, $52+. 
 
 2 pigs, est. $10. 
 
 $ 1 , 001 , 
 
 13 cattle, $77. 
 
 $621.50, . 
 
 8 cattle, est. $73+. 
 35 fowl, est. $1. 
 
 $ 2 , 000 , . 
 
 14 cows, est. $90. 
 
 2 oxen, est. $60. 
 
 2 sheep, est. $15. 
 
 1 goat, est. $10. 
 
 31 swine, est. $10. 
 150 fowl, est. $1. 
 
 $1,900, . 
 
 21 cattle, est. $84. 
 125 fowl, est. SI. 
 
 $525, 
 
 6 cattle, est. $82+. 
 30 fowl, est. $1. 
 
 Dec. 11. 
 Nov. 27. 
 
 Nov. 25. 
 
 Dec. 4. 
 
 Nov. 18. 
 
 Dec. 2. 
 
 Nov. 17. 
 
 Nov. 28. 
 Nov. 13. 
 
 Nov. 23. 
 
 Nov. 23. 
 
 Dec.[3. 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —No. 1751. 
 
 41 
 
 From the list of herds condemned by the Commissioner of Animal 
 Industry the following detail is shown: — 
 
 Number of cattle,.1.099 
 
 Number of oxen,. 2 
 
 Number of swine,.2,360 
 
 Number of fowl,.1,683 
 
 Number of turkeys,. 4 
 
 Number of sheep, .'. 9 
 
 Number of goats,.* 4 
 
 Miscellaneous total,.5,161 
 
 48 herds. 
 
 Total appraisal of all classes of animals shows an aggregate valuation 
 of 8106,820.75. 
 
 Because of the many instances of lump valuation or appraisal of 
 different classes of animals, separate totals of different classes for 
 purpose of dividing the aggregate appraisal is not possible. The 
 attempts made in the list are arbitrary and do not represent matters 
 correctly. 
 
 On page 2 of the list submit ed by Commissioner Walker, J. W. 
 Ellsworth of Worcester was credited with 13 cattle killed, appraised 
 at $86 plus per head. Total appraised value, $1,130. 
 
 On April 1, 1914, in the office of the assessors, Worcester, a lump 
 assessed valuation w T as given the following live stock of Ellsworth: — 
 
 13 horses. 
 
 12 cows. 
 
 2 swine. 
 
 20 fowl. 
 
 Total valuation lumped at $1,600. 
 
 On page 3 of the list above referred to, H. Levine of Worcester was 
 credited with 13 cattle killed, appraised at $88 plus per head. Total, 
 $1,144. 
 
 On April 1, 1914, H. Levine was shown to have owned live stock 
 appraised at a lump value of $200. This stock included at the time 
 of assessment the following: — 
 
 1 horse. 
 
 6 cows. 
 
 Total valuation lumped at $200. 
 
42 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 One hundred and forty-two cattle belonging to the herd of W. B. 
 Fearing, Hingham, Mass., killed on November 30 because of the 
 hoof-and-mouth disease, were appraised at $10,350, or approximately 
 $72 plus per head. Six swine were also killed on the same date for 
 the same cause and were appraised in total at $60, or $10 a head. 
 
 On April 1, last, W. B. Fearing owned 66 cows and 8 swine. In 
 the office of the local assessors the cattle were valued for purposes of 
 assessment, in total, $2,500, making a per capita assessed value of 
 $37.87 plus. Eight swine were valued at $50, or a per capita value of 
 $6.25. 
 
 Note. — See page 2 of document providing list and valuation of 
 cattle slaughtered because of hoof-and-mouth disease. 
 
 Paid on Account of Foot-and-Mouth Disease up to December 1, 191 4 
 
 G. A. Allen, .... 
 
 $158 00 
 
 Eagle Publishing, 
 
 
 $6 50 
 
 American Cultivator Company, . 
 
 50 40 
 
 Daily News Publishing Company, 
 
 4 10 
 
 American Multigraph Company, 
 
 5 00 
 
 D. DelMastro, 
 
 
 35 00 
 
 Amesbury Publishing Company, 
 
 8 00 
 
 L. M. Dumas, . 
 
 
 16 18 
 
 E. Anthony & Son, . 
 
 22 40 
 
 Enterprise Rubber Company, 
 
 
 401 20 
 
 Spence Babbitt, 
 
 10 75 
 
 Fall River Daily Herald, . 
 
 
 15 00 
 
 F. S. Bancroft,. 
 
 169 72 
 
 F. C. Field, . 
 
 
 202 00 
 
 G. W. Bickell, .... 
 
 110 97 
 
 H. S. Gere & Sons, . 
 
 
 5 00 
 
 H. Beadreau, .... 
 
 34 00 
 
 Globe Newspaper Company, 
 
 
 15 00 
 
 F. C. Blakely, .... 
 
 8 70 
 
 O. S. Gordon, . 
 
 
 14 00 
 
 H. W. Boisseau, 
 
 110 00 
 
 G. G. Hall, . ... 
 
 
 19 10 
 
 Boston American, 
 
 70 00 
 
 G. G. Hall, 
 
 
 23 50 
 
 Boston Daily Advertiser, . 
 
 10 50 
 
 E. L. Hannon, 
 
 
 9 50 
 
 Boston Transcript, . 
 
 30 00 
 
 C. H. Hanson, 
 
 
 24 85 
 
 Boston Herald, 
 
 150 00 
 
 Havei’hill Gazette Company, 
 
 
 3 75 
 
 Boston Jewish American, . 
 
 3 00 
 
 H. G. Jordan, . 
 
 
 74 00 
 
 Boston Journal, 
 
 15 00 
 
 Orange Judd Company, 
 
 
 33 60 
 
 Boulger Shoe Company, 
 
 5 00 
 
 G. O. Joyce, 
 
 
 4 00 
 
 C. A. Boutelle, 
 
 60 00 
 
 E. Keenan, 
 
 
 63 00 
 
 Bridgewater Independent, 
 
 3 00 
 
 -Kimball, . 
 
 
 10 88 
 
 Mildred E. Brown, . 
 
 10 00 
 
 E. Knobel, 
 
 
 154 93 
 
 W. H. Brownell, 
 
 25 00 
 
 - Lamper, . 
 
 
 6 50 
 
 Brockton Enterprise, 
 
 4 50 
 
 L. L. Leighton, 
 
 
 37 75 
 
 Budget Company, 
 
 25 00 
 
 Lowell Sun, 
 
 
 6 00 
 
 E. A. Cahill. 
 
 199 69 
 
 T. E. Maloney, 
 
 
 80 60 
 
 H. D. Clark, .... 
 
 29 20 
 
 F. C. Marion, . 
 
 
 122 10 
 
 W. M. Clarrage, 
 
 41 40 
 
 Jas. McDonald, 
 
 
 12 50 
 
 O. J. Coburn, .... 
 
 12 00 
 
 H. J. McGuinness, . 
 
 
 66 85 
 
 Codman Farm, 
 
 153 75 
 
 L. McLean, 
 
 
 4 50 
 
 L. D. Conroy, .... 
 
 38 45 
 
 J. K. Mason, . 
 
 
 25 00 
 
 A. M. Cullin, .... 
 
 5 50 
 
 Merrimac Clothing, . 
 
 
 19 30 
 
 G. Curtis, .... 
 
 3 37 
 
 -Mahoney, 
 
 
 6 00 
 
 M. T. Carrigan, 
 
 212 17 
 
 Mitchell & Company, 
 
 
 4 25 
 
 C. J. Dailey, .... 
 
 190 43 
 
 S. S. Miller, . 
 
 
 29 25 
 
 Daily Times Print, . 
 
 4 00 
 
 M. L. Miner, . 
 
 
 13 75 
 
 Gladys DeWolf, 
 
 9 03 
 
 J. N. Murray, . 
 
 
 8 50 
 
 S. E. DeWolf, .... 
 
 27 75 
 
 North Adams Herald, 
 
 
 9 00 
 
1915.] HOUSE - 
 
 -No. 1751. 
 
 
 43 
 
 North Adams Transcript, . 
 
 S3 
 
 50 
 
 Home Soap Company, 
 
 S49 
 
 00 
 
 H. E. Paige, .... 
 
 142 
 
 95 
 
 E. M. Howlett, 
 
 22 
 
 60 
 
 J. B. Paige, .... 
 
 189 
 
 10 
 
 M. A. Howlett, 
 
 45 
 
 13 
 
 C. H. Paquin, .... 
 
 84 
 
 65 
 
 Iver Johnson Sporting Goods 
 
 
 
 A. L. Parker, .... 
 
 50 
 
 00 
 
 Company, .... 
 
 85 
 
 68 
 
 T. A. Parker, .... 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 Jewish Daily News, . 
 
 6 
 
 00 
 
 Peabody Press, 
 
 6 
 
 50 
 
 Telegram Newspaper Company, 
 
 5 
 
 62 
 
 H. W. Pierce, .... 
 
 95 
 
 89 
 
 Telegram Publishing Company, . 
 
 5 
 
 75 
 
 C. H. Perry, .... 
 
 277 
 
 46 
 
 W. L. Thayer, .... 
 
 10 
 
 20 
 
 Austin Peters, .... 
 
 41 
 
 52 
 
 Thompson Hardware Company, 
 
 2 
 
 40 
 
 B. D. Pierce, .... 
 
 92 
 
 45 
 
 M. S. Townsend, 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 A. H. Reed, .... 
 
 49 
 
 58 
 
 Wm. Ward, .... 
 
 78 
 
 89 
 
 W. S. Plaskett, 
 
 27 
 
 00 
 
 W. T. White, .... 
 
 116 
 
 61 
 
 C. H. Playdon, 
 
 201 
 
 75 
 
 B. O. & G. C. Wilson, 
 
 48 
 
 00 
 
 Post Publishing Company, 
 
 140 
 
 00 
 
 -Wbittemore, 
 
 13 
 
 98 
 
 Republic Publishing Company, . 
 
 50 
 
 00 
 
 B. H. Wiggin Company, . 
 
 240 
 
 00 
 
 Ricketson Baggage Express, 
 
 24 
 
 00 
 
 Worcester Rendering Company, . 
 
 25 
 
 00 
 
 A. M. Robbins, 
 
 14 
 
 10 
 
 Wright & Potter Printing Com- 
 
 
 
 A. M. Robbins, 
 
 8 
 
 25 
 
 pany, ..... 
 
 133 
 
 36 
 
 J. H. Roberts, .... 
 
 74 
 
 77 
 
 J. B. Kelsea Company, 
 
 6 
 
 00 
 
 J. W. Robinson, 
 
 15 
 
 00 
 
 McManus Brothers, . 
 
 8 
 
 00 
 
 Salem Evening News, 
 
 4 
 
 75 
 
 
 
 
 Marian H. Sargent, . 
 
 5 
 
 25 
 
 $7 
 
 ,158 
 
 41 
 
 Mary E. Sargent, 
 
 112 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 Petty Cash, .... 
 
 163 
 
 34 
 
 -Sheridan, .... 
 
 S35 
 
 00 
 
 R. E. Sargent, .... 
 
 5 
 
 75 
 
 Springfield Union, 
 
 3 
 
 98 
 
 Sentinel Printing, 
 
 2 
 
 00 
 
 Smith-Green Company, 
 
 34 
 
 65 
 
 M. F. SeweD. 
 
 26 
 
 86 
 
 F. P. Sturgis, .... 
 
 140 
 
 36 
 
 W. H. Shannon, 
 
 118 
 
 67 
 
 -Sullivan, .... 
 
 52 
 
 80 
 
 A. G. Sheldon, 
 
 75 
 
 75 
 
 Taunton Inn, .... 
 
 153 
 
 80 
 
 A. C. Holman, 
 
 99 
 
 81 
 
 
 
 
 THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 
 
 FRED F. WALKER 
 COMMISSIONER 
 
 OFFICE OF 
 
 Department of Animal Industry 
 
 STATE HOUSE. BOSTON 
 
 .(Place) 
 
 .(Date) 
 
 This is to certify that I have this day sold the United States Department of 
 
 Agriculture and the Massachusetts Department of Animal Industry. 
 
 affected with or exposed to foot-and-mouth disease at an appraisal of. 
 
 Dollars, sound value, of which I agree to accept 50 per cent as compensation on 
 the part of the Commonwealth. 
 
 (Signed). 
 
 (Owner) 
 
 (Signed) 
 
 (Appraiser) 
 
44 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 
 
 Office of Department of Animal Industry, 
 
 State House, Boston, December 15, 1914. 
 
 To the Honorable Board of Economy and Efficiency , State House, Boston. 
 
 Gentlemen: — In compliance with the request made by you I 
 enclose herewith copy of telegram received from Dr. Henry E. Paige, 
 of Amherst, on November 5, which te’egram was the first notification 
 
 1 received of the presence of foot-and-mouth disease in Massachu etts. 
 
 I also enclose copy of United States Bureau of Animal Industry 
 “F. I. Form 93B,” which form was handed to me by Dr. A. D. 
 Melvin, Chief of that bureau, at Washington, D. C., who made the 
 suggestion that I draft a similar form to be signed by owners and the 
 State’s appraiser, indicating the willingness on the part of the owner 
 to accept, approved on the part of the appraiser, the amount thereon 
 stated as the sum representing the value of animals to be destroyed on 
 the premises of the owner signing the form, because affected with or 
 exposed to foot-and-mouth disease. The form used by this depart¬ 
 ment, as you will observe, although not an exact copy, is substantially 
 such. 
 
 Very respectfully yours, 
 
 (Signed) FRED F. WALKER, 
 Enclosures. • Commissioner. 
 
 2 HS MF 24 Paid. 11.29 a.m. 
 
 Amherst, Mass., Nov. 5, 1914. Filed 11.15 a.m. 
 
 Fred F. Walker, State House, Boston, Mass. 
 
 James and I feel certain of the existence of foot-and-mouth disease 
 among cattle on premises George Henry. Everything placed under 
 strictest quarantine. 
 
 H. E. Paige. 
 
 F, I. Form 93 B. 
 
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 
 
 BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. 
 
 This is to Certify that I have this day sold to the United States Department 
 
 of Agriculture.affected with or exposed to foot-and-mouth 
 
 disease at an appraisal of.Dollars, sound value, of which I agree 
 
 to accept 50 per cent as compensation in full from the said Department. 
 
 (Signed). 
 
 Place 
 
 Date 
 
 (Owner) 
 
 8—2822 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —No. 1751. 
 
 45 
 
 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 
 
 Commission on Economy and Efficiency, 
 
 Room 110, State House, Boston, Dec. 16, 1914. 
 
 Thomas J. Boynton, Esq., Attorney-General, State House, Boston. 
 
 Dear Sir: — This commission hands you herewith copy of a form 
 prescribed by the Department of Animal Industry distributed to and 
 filled in by owners of cattle slaughtered in he recent attempts made 
 by the Commonwealth and the Federal government to stamp out the 
 hoof-and-mouth disease among live stock within this State. 
 
 The commission requests the opinion of your office upon the follow¬ 
 ing points: 
 
 1. Definition of the legal nature of such document when filled and 
 signed as provided. 
 
 2. General or statutory power, if any, of the Department of Animal 
 Industry, to provide for such certificates. 
 
 3. Nature and extent of rights and obligations, if any, and between 
 what parties, arising from certificate properly executed in compliance 
 with form as enclosed. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 (Signed) FRANCIS X. TYRRELL, 
 
 Chairman. 
 
 Saturday, Dec. 19, 1914. 
 
 Air. Roger Sherman Hoar, of the Attorney-General’s department, 
 called Chairman Tyrrell on the telephone, and the following is the 
 gist of the statement made by him: 
 
 That he received a communication from this commission, requesting 
 an opinion as to whether or not the document used by Air. Fred F. 
 Walker, Commissioner of Animal Industry, in his campaign against 
 the foot-and-mouth disease in Alassachusetts, is a bill of sale. Air. 
 Hoar was of the opinion that it could be given that construction, but 
 thought it would not be advisable for the Attorney-General’s depart¬ 
 ment to go on record as handing down an opinion to that effect, unless 
 this commission insisted upon same, for it might create a great deal of 
 trouble for the Commonwealth which should, if possible, be avoided. 
 
 Air. Hoar further stated that Air. Walker had conferred with him, 
 and after such conference the document referred to was greatly 
 modified, so that in its present form it could not be considered a bill 
 of sale. Air. Hoar also stated that the Federal form was recently 
 modified. 
 
46 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 The modification of these forms is worthy of more than passing 
 notice by this commission, inasmuch as the modification of both forms 
 has taken place subsequent to this commission’s directing attention to 
 the danger of the document in its original form. 
 
 Modified form not in use prior to Dec. 21, 1914. 
 
 FRED F. WALKER 
 COMMISSIONER 
 
 THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 
 OFFICE OF 
 
 Department of Animal Industry 
 
 STATE HOUSE, BOSTON 
 
 (Form for Agreement.) 
 
 .(Place) 
 
 .(Date) 
 
 I hereby agree to accept as compensation in full from the Commonwealth of 
 Massachusetts, in the event that the Legislature appropriates funds out of which 
 payment can be made, fifty (50) per cent, of the appraised valuation of all 
 animals destroyed (of property destroyed or damaged in disinfecting), on 
 account of the existence of contagious foot and mouth disease, which appraised 
 
 valuation is.Dollars. 
 
 This agreement is made without prejudice to my right, if any, to receive fur¬ 
 ther compensation from the United States. 
 
 (Signed). 
 
 (Owner) 
 
 The foregoing is a correct statement of the valuation as appraised by me. 
 
 (Signed). 
 
 (Appraiser) 
 
 F. I. Form 99 B. 
 
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 
 
 BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. 
 
 I hereby agree to accept as compensation in full from the United States, in 
 the event that the Congress appropriates funds out of which payment can be 
 made,.dollars, which is 50 per cent of the valuation of all ani¬ 
 
 mals destroyed on account of the existence of contagious foot-and-mouth disease. 
 
 (Signed). 
 
 (Owner) 
 
 Place. 
 
 Date. 
 
 8—2836 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE—No. 1751. 
 
 47 
 
 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 
 
 Commission on Economy and Efficiency, 
 
 Room 110, State House, Boston, Dec. 16, 1914. 
 
 United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry, Washing¬ 
 ton, D. C. 
 
 Chief of Bureau. 
 
 The Massachusetts Commission on Economy and Efficiency, es¬ 
 tablished by an act of the Legislature for the purpose of investigating 
 the management and finances of all commissions, boards and under¬ 
 takings of the Commonwealth, is now engaged in an investigation of 
 the foot-and-mouth disease in this State. 
 
 In order to complete the work it is absolutely necessary that this 
 commission have a copy of all the correspondence between the Massa¬ 
 chusetts Bureau of Animal Industry and the Bureau of Animal 
 Industry of the United States Department of Agriculture on this 
 subject. 
 
 You will confer a great favor upon this commission by submitting 
 at the earliest possible moment the material referred to in this com¬ 
 munication. Thanking you in advance for same, I remain, 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 (Signed) FRANCIS X. TYRRELL, 
 
 Chairman. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, 
 
 Bureau of Animal Industry, 
 
 Washington, D. C., Dec. 26, 1914. 
 
 Mr. Francis X. Tyrrell, Chairman, Commission on Economy and Efficiency, 
 
 Room 110, State House. Boston, Mass. 
 
 Dear Sir: — I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 
 16th instant requesting 'copies of all correspondence between the 
 Massachusetts Bureau of Animal Industry and the Bureau of Animal 
 Industry of the United States, in order that you may complete certain 
 investigations which you are now making. As this correspondence is 
 undoubtedly on file in one of the offices of your State institution, I 
 would suggest it be obtained there. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 (Signed) A. D. MELVIN, 
 
 Chief of Bureaxi. 
 
48 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 Extract from the Daily Journal of the Commission on Economy 
 and Efficiency, Monday, Dec. 21, 1914. 
 
 Chairman Tyrrell, in conference with Commissioners White and 
 Wood, stated that it was called to his attention that Mr. Myron T. 
 Carrigan of Concord, who was acting as appraiser for the Department 
 of Animal Industry in the campaign against the foot-and-mouth 
 disease, is a business partner of Fred F. Walker, Commissioner of 
 Animal Industry. This information was obtained by the chairman on 
 Saturday evening, December 19. After discussing this matter with 
 the commissioners the chairman suggested that Myron T. Carrigan 
 be summoned to appear before this commission on this date, and in 
 compliance with that suggestion got in communication with Mr. 
 Carrigan over the telephone. Mr. Carrigan stated that he would be 
 at the rooms of the commission this afternoon shortly after three 
 o’clock. 
 
 Extract from Daily Journal of the Commission on Economy 
 and Efficiency, Monday, Dec. 21, 1914. 
 
 In response to a telephonic communication earlier in the day, Mr. 
 Myron T. Carrigan of Concord conferred with the full board at 
 5.15 p.m. 
 
 It developed at this conference that the business of Mr. Carrigan, 
 who has been serving as an appraiser for the Department of Animal 
 Industry in the epidemic of the foot-and-mouth disease, is that of 
 farming and cattle buying. Examination of Mr. Carrigan developed 
 the fact that his principal occupation is that of buying and selling 
 cattle, and that the farming is but secondary, inasmuch as such 
 farming provides for the furnishing of feed for the cattle raised, bought 
 and sold. 
 
 Mr. Carrigan stated that he was a business partner of Mr. Fred 
 Freeland Walker in buying, raising and selling blooded stock, and that 
 the extent of this business was between one and two thousand dollars 
 annuallv. 
 
 c- 
 
 He stated that no attempt was made to determine the value of 
 cows as milk producers other than the word of the farmer or herds¬ 
 man. No records were examined to determine the amount of milk 
 produced by the destroyed cattle, notwithstanding the fact that on the 
 milk-giving cows the appraised price was fixed as to its dairy value; 
 that no records were made other than to show the number of cattle 
 killed and the appraisal price on same; and that wherein they found 
 any of the cattle affected, even in cases where a single instance of the 
 disease was shown, the entire herds were killed off. 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —No. 1751. 
 
 49 
 
 He stated that he received for his services $10 per day and ex¬ 
 penses. His concluding statement was that he felt that they had the 
 disease under control, if not entirely exterminated. 
 
 Payments made in the past year by Commissioner Walker to 
 Langdon Frothingham, M.D.V., for expert services relative to work 
 performed by the Department of Animal Industry, whose name does 
 not appear in P. D. 90. (Dr. Frothingham is at present chairman of 
 the Board of Registration in Veterinary Medicine.) The payments 
 are divided into four main divisions: (1) personal payment, which is 
 in the nature of a monthly retainer, (2) amounts paid to the doctor 
 for laboratory assistance, (3) amounts paid to same for care of animals, 
 (4) amounts paid same for laboratory supplies and feed for animals. 
 
 
 Retainer. 
 
 Laboratory 
 
 Assistance. 
 
 Care of 
 Animals. 
 
 Laboratory Supplies 
 or Food. 
 
 Dec., 1913, ...... 
 
 $250 00 
 
 $24 50 
 
 $22 00 
 
 $8 09 Lab. Sup. 
 
 Jan., 1914, .. 
 
 250 00 
 
 10 00 
 
 22 00 
 
 12 80 (feed for animals). 
 
 Feb., 1914, . 
 
 150 00 
 
 10 00 
 
 22 00 
 
 11 35 Lab. Sup. 
 
 Mar., 1914, ...... 
 
 250 00 
 
 10 00 
 
 22 00 
 
 27 32 Feed and Lab. Sup. 
 
 Apr., 1914, . 
 
 250 00 
 
 10 00 
 
 22 00 
 
 1 00 Lab. Sup. 
 
 May, 1914, . . 
 
 250 00 
 
 10 00 
 
 23 00 
 
 5 00 Lab. Sup. 
 
 June, 1914, . 
 
 250 00 
 
 10 00 
 
 20 00 
 
 8 00 Lab. Sup. 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 10 00 Feed. 
 
 Julv, 1914, ...... 
 
 250 00 
 
 - 
 
 27 00 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 [ 12 00 Lab. Sup. 
 
 Aug., 1914. 
 
 250 00 
 
 10 00 
 
 22 00 
 
 8 70 Feed. 
 
 Sept., 1914, ..... 
 
 250 00 
 
 22 00 
 
 22 00 
 
 2 25 Lab. Sup. 
 
 Oct., 1914,. 
 
 250 00 
 
 10 00 
 
 20 00 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 10 80 Feed. 
 
 Nov., 1914, . 
 
 250 00 
 
 10 00 
 
 24 00 
 
 ✓ 
 
 
 
 
 
 [ 2 40 Lab. Sup. 
 
 
 $2,900 00 
 
 $136 50 
 
 $268 00 
 
 $119 71 
 
 $2,900 00 
 136 50 
 268 00 
 
 119 71 
 
 $3,424 21 Grand total. 
 
 During the year past L. H. Howard, M.D.V., a member of the 
 Massachusetts Board of Registration in Veterinary Medicine, employed 
 as consulting veterinarian to the Commissioner of Animal Industry, 
 received a total of $1,744.66 for services. 
 
 No regular stipend was arranged, — particular payments being 
 made by mutual agreement between the doctor and the Commissioner 
 of Animal Industry. 
 
50 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 Cattle Bureau 
 abolished. 
 
 Department 
 of Animal 
 Industry 
 established. 
 
 Powers and 
 duties of 
 Commissioner 
 of Animal 
 Industry. 
 
 Re sects. 4-7, 
 ch. 90, R. L.; 
 cf. sect. 3, ch. 
 116, Acts 1902; 
 sect. 1, ch. 220, 
 Acts 1903; ch. 
 329, Acts 1908; 
 ch. 474, Acts 
 1909; ch. 6, 
 Acts 1911; 
 sect. 4, ch. 608, 
 Acts 1912; ch. 
 329, Acts 1913. 
 
 Cf. sect. 4, ch. 
 608, Acts 1912; 
 cf. also ch. 646, 
 Acts 1913, in 
 
 References in re Animal Industry. 
 
 Section 1, Chapter 608, Acts of 1912. 
 
 The cattle bureau of the state board of agriculture is hereby 
 abolished. 
 
 Section 2, Chapter 608, Acts of 1912. 
 
 A department is hereby created to be known as the Department 
 of Animal Industry. 
 
 Section 4, Chapter 608, Acts of 1912. 
 
 The commissioner of animal industry shall have the powers and 
 perform the duties heretofore conferred and imposed upon the 
 board of cattle commissioners and the chief of the cattle bureau, 
 and shall have supervision of contagious diseases among domestic 
 animals in the city of Boston: but no orders or regulations made by 
 him under authority of sections four and seven of chapter 90 of the 
 Revised Laws, or of section seven of the said chapter, as amended 
 by section 1 of chapter 297 of the Acts of 1911, shall take effect 
 until approved by the governor and council. 
 
 Section 4, Chapter 90, Revised Laws. 
 
 The board may from time to time make orders and regulations 
 relative to the prevention, suppression and extirpation of conta¬ 
 gious diseases of domestic animals, and relative to the inspection, 
 examination, quarantine, care and treatment or destruction of 
 such animals which are affected with, or have been exposed to, 
 such diseases, and relative to the burial or other disposal of their 
 carcasses and the cleansing and disinfection of districts, buildings 
 or places in which such contagion exists or has existed. It shall also 
 from time to time make and prescribe forms for records of inspec¬ 
 tors, certificates of examinations, notices and orders of quarantine, 
 orders for killing and burial, and for returns of inspectors which 
 are required by this chapter. All orders and regulations made by 
 the board shall be entered on its records, and a copy thereof shall 
 be sent to each inspector in the city or town to which the orders 
 or regulations apply, and be published by him in such manner as 
 the orders or regulations may prescribe. 
 
 Section 6, Chapter 90, Revised Laws. 
 
 If the board or any one of its members or agents, by examination 
 of a case of contagious disease of domestic animals, is of opinion that 
 the public good so requires, it or he shall cause the diseased animal 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —Xo. 1751. 
 
 51 
 
 to be securely isolated or to be killed without appraisal or pay¬ 
 ment. An order for killing shall be issued in writing by the board 
 or any of its members, may be directed to an inspector or other 
 person, and shall contain such direction as to the examination and 
 disposal of the carcass and the cleansing and disinfection of the 
 premises where such animal was condemned as the board or com¬ 
 missioner consider expedient. A reasonable amount may be paid 
 from the treasury of the commonwealth for the expense of such 
 killing and burial. If, thereafter, it appears, upon post mortem 
 examination or otherwise, that such animal was free from the dis¬ 
 ease for which it was condemned, a reasonable amount therefor 
 shall be paid to the owner by the commonwealth. If any cattle 
 which are condemned as afflicted with tuberculosis are killed under 
 the provisions of this section, the full value thereof at the time of 
 condemnation not exceeding forty dollars for any one animal, shall 
 be paid to the owner by the commonwealth if such animal has been 
 owned within the commonwealth six consecutive months prior to 
 being killed, or if it has been inspected and satisfactory proof has 
 been furnished to the board by certificate or otherwise that it is 
 free from disease, and if the owner has not, prior thereto, in the 
 opinion of the board, by wilful act or neglect, contributed to the 
 spread of tuberculosis; but such decision shall not deprive the 
 owner of the right of arbitration as hereinafter provided. 
 
 Section 10, Chapter 90, Revised Laws. 
 
 If animals are brought into this commonwealth from places out¬ 
 side, which, in the opinion of the board, are infected, they may be 
 seized and quarantined by the commissioners at the expense of 
 their owners or consignees, so long as the public safety requires; 
 and, if in their opinion safety so requires, they may cause such 
 animals to be killed without appraisal or payment. 
 
 Section 28, Chapter 90, Revised Laws. 
 
 Contagious diseases, under the provisions of this chapter, shall 
 include glanders, farcy, contagious pleuro-pneumonia, tuberculosis, 
 Texas fever, foot-and-mouth disease, rinderpest, hog cholera, 
 rabies, anthrax or anthracoid diseases, sheep scab and actinomycosis. 
 
 Section 33, Chapter 90, Revised Laws. 
 
 Xo compensation shall be allowed by the commonwealth to an 
 owner of condemned cattle who has failed to comply with the rea¬ 
 sonable regulations of the board relative to cleanliness, ventilation, 
 light, disinfection and water supply. An owner of cattle who 
 refuses to comply with any such regulation shall be punished by a 
 fine ol not more than fifty dollars. 
 
 re payment of 
 sums not ex¬ 
 ceeding by 
 statute S50 for 
 horses, mules 
 and asses con¬ 
 demned as 
 afflicted with 
 glanders. 
 
 Amended by 
 ch. 6, Acts 
 1911, including 
 mange as a 
 contagious 
 disease. 
 
52 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 Cattle bureau 
 of state board 
 of agriculture 
 abolished. 
 
 Department of 
 animal indus¬ 
 try created. 
 
 Commissioner 
 of animal in¬ 
 dustry to be 
 appointed for 
 a term of three 
 years. 
 
 Salary, etc. 
 
 Powers and 
 duties of. 
 
 Slje (EflmmmtuieaUI) of fHaBHarljuoetto. 
 
 LAWS RELATING TO CONTAGIOUS DISEASES OF 
 
 DOMESTIC ANIMALS. 
 
 Acts of 1912, Chapter 608. 
 
 An Act to abolish the Cattle Bureau of the State Board 
 
 of Agriculture and to create a Department of Animal 
 
 Industry. 
 
 Be it enacted, etc., as follows: 
 
 Section 1 . The cattle bureau of the state board of agriculture 
 is hereby abolished. 
 
 Section 2. A department is hereby created to be known as the 
 department of animal industry. 
 
 Section 3. The governor, with the advice and consent of the 
 council, shall appoint as the head of the said department a com¬ 
 missioner of animal industrv, who shall hold office for a term of 
 three years from the date of his appointment, and upon the expira¬ 
 tion of the term of office of such commissioner, or upon the occur¬ 
 rence of a vacancy in said office, the governor shall appoint a suc¬ 
 cessor for a like term. The commissioner of animal industry shall 
 receive an annual salary of thirty-five hundred dollars and the 
 amount of his necessary expenses, and he may appoint a clerk at 
 an annual salary of twelve hundred dollars. 
 
 Section 4. The commissioner of animal industry shall have 
 the powers and perform the duties heretofore conferred and imposed 
 upon the board of cattle commissioners and the chief of the cattle 
 bureau, and shall have supervision of the matter of contagious 
 diseases among domestic animals in the city of Boston; but no 
 orders or regulations made by him under authority of sections four 
 and seven of chapter ninety of the Recused Laws, or of section 
 seven of the said chapter, as amended by section one of chapter 
 two hundred and ninety-seven of the acts of the year nineteen 
 hundred and eleven, shall take effect until approved by the gov¬ 
 ernor and council. The commissioner shall make a written report 
 on or before the tenth day of January of each year to the general 
 court. 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —No. 1751. 
 
 53 
 
 \ 
 
 Section 5. Section eleven of said chapter ninety, as amended 
 by section one of chapter five hundred and fifteen of the acts of the 
 year nineteen hundred and eight, is hereby further amended by strik¬ 
 ing out the words “chief of the cattle bureau of the state board of 
 agriculture ”, in the ninth and tenth lines, and inserting in place 
 thereof the words: — commissioner of animal industry, by striking 
 out the words “but no such notice shall be required in the city of 
 Boston relative to glanders, fare}" or rabies, which shall be cared 
 for by the board of health of said city’’, in the thirteenth to the 
 sixteenth lines, both inclusive, and by striking out the words “chief 
 of the cattle bureau”, in the nineteenth line, and inserting in place 
 thereof the words: — commissioner of animal industry, — - so as to 
 read as follows: — Section 11. The board of health of a city or 
 town, any member or agent thereof or any other person who has 
 knowledge of or reason to suspect the existence of any contagious 
 disease among any domestic animals in this commonwealth, or 
 that any domestic animal is affected with such contagious disease, 
 whether such knowledge is obtained by personal examination or 
 otherwise, shall immediately give notice thereof in writing to the 
 commissioner of animal industry, or to an inspector of animals for 
 the city or town where the animal is kept. Whoever fails to give 
 such notice shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred 
 dollars. Upon the receipt of such notice by said inspector, he shall 
 proceed as provided in sections nineteen to twenty-two, both in¬ 
 clusive. Upon receipt of such notice by the commissioner of animal 
 industry, he shall inspect or cause his agent to inspect such animal, 
 and thereafter shall proceed as provided in section six. 
 
 Section 6. Section twelve of said chapter ninety, as amended by 
 section one ot chapter one hundred and forty-three of the acts of 
 the year nineteen hundred and eleven, is hereby further amended 
 by striking out the words “ chief of the cattle bureau of the state 
 board of agriculture”, in the fifth, sixth and eighth lines, and in¬ 
 serting in each instance in place thereof the words: — commissioner 
 of animal industry, and by striking out the last sentence, so as to 
 read as follows: — Section 12. The mayor and aldermen in cities, 
 except Boston, and the selectmen in towns shall annually, in March, 
 nominate one or more inspectors of animals, and before the first day 
 of April shall send to the commissioner of animal industry the name, 
 address and occupation of each nominee. Such nominee shall not 
 be appointed until approved by the commissioner of animal in¬ 
 dustry. 
 
 Section 7. The provisions of chapter ninety of the Revised 
 Laws, as amended, relating to inspectors of animals in cities and 
 towns shall apply to any person or persons officially performing the 
 functions of an inspector of animals in the city of Boston, except the 
 
54 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 provisions with reference to the nomination, approval and com¬ 
 pensation of inspectors of animals. 
 
 Section 8. The clerks, stenographers, consulting veterinarians, 
 agents and assistants, who are registered at the time of the passage 
 of this act under the civil service as clerk, stenographer, consulting 
 veterinarian, agent or assistant of the cattle bureau of the state 
 board of agriculture, shall be transferred by the civil sendee com¬ 
 missioners from the said bureau as such clerk, stenographer, con¬ 
 sulting veterinarian, agent or assistant to the department of animal 
 industry, without further qualification. 
 
 Section 9. So much of section three of this act as authorizes 
 the appointment of the commissioner of animal industry shall take 
 effect upon the passage of this act, and the remainder of the act 
 shall take effect upon the appointment and qualification of the com¬ 
 missioner of animal industry. 
 
 Section 10. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent herewith are 
 hereby repealed. [Approved May 20 , 1912. 
 
 Note. — Since, by the provisions of section three of the above 
 chapter, the powers and duties heretofore conferred and imposed 
 upon the Board of Cattle Commissioners and the Chief of the Cattle 
 Bureau of the State Board of Agriculture now devolve upon the 
 Commissioner of Animal Industry, the words “Commissioner of 
 Animal Industry” should be substituted for “Board of Cattle Com¬ 
 missioners” or “Chief of the Cattle Bureau” wherever found in the 
 laws which follow. 
 
 Revised Laws, Chapter 90. 
 
 Of the Board of Cattle Commissioners and of Contagious 
 
 Diseases of Domestic Animals. 
 
 Board of cattle 
 commissioners. 
 Superseded by 
 chap. 608, 1912. 
 
 Clerks, officers, 
 agents, etc. 
 Modified by 
 1912, 608, § 3. 
 
 Section 1. [There shall be a board of cattle commissioners con¬ 
 sisting of three persons, one of whom shall annually, in May, be 
 appointed by the governor, with the advice and consent of the 
 council, for a term of three years from the first day of the following 
 June. The governor and council may remove any member of the 
 board and mav revoke the commissions of the entire board if, in 
 their opinion, the public safety will permit. Each member of the 
 board shall receive, as compensation, not more than five dollars a 
 day for each day of actual service and his actual travelling expenses 
 which have been necessarily incurred.] 
 
 Section 2. The board may appoint a clerk who shall receive 
 such compensation, not exceeding five hundred dollars a year, as 
 the board may determine. It may also from time to time appoint 
 officers, agents and assistants, who shall have the authorit} r and 
 powers of inspectors under the provisions of section twenty-three 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —No. 1751. 
 
 55 
 
 shall receive such compensation as the board may determine and 
 may at any time be removed by the board. 
 
 Section 3. The board shall keep a full record of its doings and Records and 
 
 report. 
 
 shall annually, on or before the tenth day of January, or sooner if Modified by 
 required by the governor, make a report thereof to the general 92 ’ 6 ^ 8 ’ §4 ‘ 
 court, an abstract of which shall be printed in the annual report of 
 the state board of agriculture. 
 
 Section 4. The board may from time to time make orders and Regulations, 
 
 record of. 
 
 regulations relative to the prevention, suppression and extirpation Modified’by 
 of contagious diseases of domestic animals, and relative to the 1J12,608,§ 4 * 
 inspection, examination, quarantine, care and treatment or destruc¬ 
 tion of such animals which are affected with, or have been exposed 
 to, such diseases, and relative to the burial or other disposal of their 
 carcasses and the cleansing and disinfection of districts, buildings or 
 places in which such contagion exists or has existed. It shall also 
 from time to time make and prescribe forms for records of inspectors, 
 certificates of examinations, notices and orders of quarantine, orders 
 for killing and burial, and for returns of inspectors which are required 
 by this chapter. All orders and regulations made by the board 
 shall be entered on its records, and a copy thereof shall be sent to 
 each inspector in the city or town to which the orders or regulations 
 apply, and be published by him in such manner as the orders or 
 regulations may prescribe. 
 
 Section 5. The board may establish hospitals or quarantine Hospitals and 
 stations, with proper accommodations, wherein, under prescribed a uarantine - 
 regulations, animals selected by it may be confined and treated lor 
 the purpose of determining the characteristics of a specific contagion 
 and the methods by which it may be disseminated or destroyed, 
 and may direct inspectors to enforce and carry into effect all regu¬ 
 lations made from time to time ror that purpose. 
 
 Section 6. If the board or any one of its members or agents, isolation, etc., 
 by examination of a case of contagious disease of domestic animals, anfmais. ed 
 is of opinion that the public good so requires, it or he shall cause 
 the diseased animal to be securely isolated or to be killed without 
 appraisal or payment. An order for killing shall be issued in 
 writing by the board or any of its members, may be directed to an 
 inspector or other person, and shall contain such direction as to the 
 examination and disposal of the carcass and the cleansing and dis¬ 
 infection of the premises where such animal was condemned as the 
 board or commissioner consider expedient. A reasonable amount 
 may be paid from the treasury of the commonwealth for the expense 
 of such killing and burial. If thereafter it appears, upon post 
 mortem examination or otherwise, that such animal was free from 
 the disease for which it was condemned, a reasonable amount there¬ 
 for shall be paid to the owner by the commonwealth. If any cattle 
 
56 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 Examinations 
 by the board 
 under oath. 
 
 Aid by 
 sheriffs, etc. 
 
 Quarantine 
 of imported 
 animals. 
 
 which are condemned as afflicted with tuberculosis are killed under 
 the provisions of this section, the full value thereof at the time of 
 condemnation, not exceeding forty dollars for any one animal, shall 
 be paid to the owner by the commonwealth if such animal has been 
 owned within the commonv/ealth six consecutive months prior to 
 being killed, or if it has been inspected and satisfactory proof has 
 been furnished to the board by certificate or otherwise that it is 
 free from disease, and if the owner has not, prior thereto, in the 
 opinion of the board, by wilful act or neglect, contributed to the 
 spread of tuberculosis; but such decision shall not deprive the 
 owner of the right of arbitration as hereinafter provided. 
 
 Section 8. The board may examine under oath all persons who 
 are believed to possess knowledge of material facts relative to the 
 existence or dissemination, or danger of dissemination, of contagious 
 diseases among domestic animals, or relative to any other matter 
 within the provisions of this chapter and each member of said 
 board, for the purposes of this chapter, shall have all the powers 
 vested in justices of the peace by chapters one hundred and sixty- 
 one and one hundred and seventy-five to take depositions, to 
 compel witnesses to attend and testify before said board and to 
 administer oaths. Witnesses shall receive the same fees for attend¬ 
 ance and travel as witnesses before the superior court. The expense 
 of procuring the attendance of such witnesses shall be paid by the 
 commonwealth. Copies of the records of said board, or of any 
 order or regulation issued by it or by any of its members, if duly 
 certified by its clerk, and any certificate by its clerk of the issuing, 
 recording, delivering or publishing of such orders or regulations 
 under the provisions of section four, shall be competent evidence 
 of such fact in any tribunal. 
 
 Section 9. A member of the board or an inspector may 
 require sheriffs, constables and police officers to assist him in the 
 performance of his duties, and sheriffs, constables and police officers 
 shall upon request assist such commissioner or inspector and shall 
 have the same powers and protection, while engaged in the perform¬ 
 ance of their duties, as peace officers. 
 
 Section 10. If animals are brought into this commonwealth 
 from places outside, Which, in the opinion of the board, are infected, 
 they may be seized and quarantined by the commissioners at the 
 expense of their ov/ners or consignees, so long as the public safety 
 requires; and, if in their opinion safety so requires, they may cause 
 such animals to be killed without appraisal or payment. 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —Xo. 1751. 
 
 57 
 
 (Section 11 of Chapter 90 of the Revised Laws, as amended by Chapter 
 
 608, Acts of 1912.) 
 
 Section 11. The hoard of health of a city or town, any member Notice of sus- 
 
 v poctod coiitS” 
 
 or agent thereof or any other person who has knowledge of or reason gious disease 
 to suspect the existence of any contagious disease among any rommissioner 
 domestic animals in this commonwealth, or that any domestic?*^™ 1 
 animal is affected with such contagious disease, whether such 
 knowledge is obtained by personal examination or otherwise, shall 
 immediately give notice thereof in writing to the commissioner of 
 animal industry, or to an inspector of animals for the city or town 
 w*here the animal is kept. "Whoever fails to give such notice shall 
 be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars. Upon 
 the receipt of such notice, by said inspector, he shall proceed as 
 provided in sections nineteen to twenty-two, both inclusive. Upon 
 receipt of such notice by the commissioner of animal industry he 
 shall inspect or cause his agent to inspect such animal, and there¬ 
 after shall proceed as provided in section six. 
 
 (Section 12 of Chapter 90 of the Revised Laws, as amended by Chapter 
 
 608, Acts of 1912.) 
 
 Section 12. The mayor and aldermen in cities, except Boston, inspectors of 
 and the selectmen in towns shall annuallv, in March, nominate one ammals - 
 or more inspectors of animals, and before the first dav of April in cities, one 
 
 7 inspector to bs 
 
 shall send to the commissioner of animal industry the name, address a registered 
 and occupation of each nominee. Such nominee shall not be ap- see e chap n 378, 
 pointed until approved by the commissioner of animal industry. 1 Acts of 1908 ' 
 
 Section 13. A city or town shall, for each refusal or neglect inspectors of 
 of its officers to comply with the requirements of the preceding pointment of, 
 section, forfeit not more than five hundred dollars. Said board may boar 
 appoint one or more inspectors for such city or town, and may 
 remove an inspector wdio refuses or neglects to be swmrn or who, 
 in the opinion of the board, does not properly perform the duties of 
 his office and may appoint another inspector for the residue of his 
 term. 
 
 Section 14. An inspector shall be sw’orn to the faithful per- — oath of; 
 formance of his official duties, and shall receive a reasonable com¬ 
 pensation from the city or town for which he is appointed. If he 
 is appointed by the board of cattle commissioners, his compensation 
 shall be fixed by said board, shall not exceed five hundred dollars 
 a year, and shall be paid by the city or towm for which he is ap¬ 
 pointed. In towms having a valuation of less than two and one- 
 
 1 Chapter 378 of the Acts of 1908 reads as follows: In all cities, at least one of the in - 
 spectors of animals appointed under the provisions of section twelve of chapter ninety 
 of the Revised Laws shall be a registered veterinary surgeon. 
 
58 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 Inspectors of 
 animals, 
 records of. 
 
 — duties of. 
 
 Inspection 
 of domestic 
 animals. 
 
 Certificate 
 of healthy 
 condition. 
 
 Quarantine 
 of infected 
 animals. 
 
 half million dollars, one-half of such compensation, not exceeding 
 two hundred and fifty dollars for each inspector in any one year, 
 shall be paid by the commonwealth. 
 
 Section 15. An inspector shall keep a record of all inspections 
 made by him and his doings thereon, and shall make regular returns 
 thereof to the board. The board shall prescribe the form in which 
 and the times at which such records and returns shall be made and 
 it may at any time inspect them and make copies thereof. 
 
 Section 16. An inspector shall comply with and enforce all 
 orders and regulations which may be directed to him by the board 
 of cattle commissioners or by any of its members. If he refuses or 
 neglects so to do, he shall be punished by a fine of not more than 
 it may five hundred dollars. 
 
 Section 17. Said inspectors shall make regular and thorough 
 inspections of all neat cattle, sheep and swine found within the 
 limits of their several cities and towns, except as provided in section 
 eleven. Such inspections shall be made at such times and in such 
 manner as the board shall from time to time order. They shall also 
 from time to time make inspections of all other domestic animals 
 within the limits of their several cities and towns if thev know, or 
 have reason to suspect, that such animals are affected with or have 
 been exposed to any contagious disease, and they shall immediately 
 inspect all domestic animals and any barn, stable or premises where 
 any such animals are kept whenever directed so to do by the board 
 or any of its members; but the provisions of this section shall not 
 apply to the inspection of sheep or swine slaughtered in wholesale 
 slaughtering establishments, or to the obtaining of a license for the 
 slaughtering of such sheep or swine. 
 
 Section 18. An inspector who is satisfied, upon an examination 
 of an}" neat cattle, sheep or swine, that they are free from contagious 
 disease, shall deliver to the owner or to the person in charge thereof 
 a written certificate of their condition, in such form as the board 
 shall prescribe, signed by him, and shall enter a copy of said cer¬ 
 tificate upon his records. 
 
 Section 19. An inspector who, upon an examination of a 
 domestic animal, suspects, or has reason to believe, that it is affected 
 with a contagious disease shall immediately cause it to be quar¬ 
 antined or isolated upon the premises of the owner or of the person 
 in whose charge it is found, or in such other place or inclosure as 
 he may designate, and shall take such other sanitary measures to 
 prevent the spread of such disease as may be necessary or as shall 
 be prescribed by any order or regulation of the board. He shall 
 also deliver to the owner or person in charge of such animal, or to 
 any person having an interest therein, a written notice or order of 
 quarantine signed by him, in such form as the board shall prescribe, 
 and shall enter a copy of said notice upon his records. 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —Xo. 1751. 
 
 59 
 
 Section 20. Such notice or order may be served by an officer 
 qualified to serve civil process, or it may be delivered by the in¬ 
 spector to the owner or person having an interest in the animal 
 concerned or to the person in charge of such animal, or it may be 
 left at his last and usual place of abode or may be posted upon the 
 premises where said animal is quarantined or isolated. A copy 
 thereof, with the return of said officer or inspector thereon that 
 such sendee has been made, shall be competent evidence in any 
 couit that such quarantine has been imposed. If an animal has 
 been so quarantined, it shall remain in quarantine until the further 
 order of the board or of one of its members. 
 
 Section 21. If animals have been quarantined, collected or 
 isolated upon the premises of the owner or of the person in posses¬ 
 sion of them at the time such quarantine is imposed, the expense 
 thereof shall be paid by such owner or person; but if specific animals 
 have been quarantined or isolated under the provisions of section 
 five or section nineteen for more than ten days upon such premises, 
 as suspected of being affected with a contagious disease, and the 
 owner is forbidden to sell any of the product thereof for food, or 
 if animals have been quarantined, collected or isolated on anj r 
 premises other than those of such owner or person in possession 
 thereof, the expense of such quarantine shall be paid by the com¬ 
 monwealth. 
 
 Section 22. An inspector who has caused a domestic animal 
 to be quarantined, as provided in the preceding section, shall im¬ 
 mediately give a written notice thereof, with a copy of the order of 
 quarantine, to the board, and shall give such information to no 
 other person. 
 
 Section 23. An inspector, duly qualified, may enter any build¬ 
 ing or part thereof or any enclosure or other place where an animal 
 is kept, for the purpose of inspecting or examining such animal and 
 may examine or inspect the same. Whoever prevents, obstructs 
 or interferes with such inspector or other person having the power 
 and authority of an inspector in the performance of any of his duties 
 as provided herein, or whoever hinders, obstructs or interferes with 
 his making such inspection or examination, or whoever secretes or 
 removes any animal, for the purpose of preventing it from being 
 inspected or examined, shall be punished by a fine of not more than 
 one hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than sixty 
 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. 
 
 Section 24. Inspectors shall, in addition to their inspections of 
 animals for contagious diseases, examine the barns, stables or other 
 enclosures in which neat cattle are kept, with reference to their 
 situation, cleanliness, light, ventilation and water supply, and the 
 general condition and cleanliness of the said neat cattle, and shall 
 make a detailed report, with names and residences of owners, to 
 
 Service of 
 notice of 
 quarantine. 
 
 Expense of 
 quarantine. 
 
 Notice of 
 quarantine 
 to board. 
 
 Entry on 
 premises. 
 
 Examination 
 of barns, etc. 
 
60 
 
 Penalties. 
 
 Assessment 
 of damages. 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. [Feb. 
 
 the board, which shall embody it in its annual report to the general 
 court. 
 
 Section 25. An animal which has been quarantined or isolated 
 by order of the board of cattle commissioners or of any of its 
 members or agents, or of an inspector, shall, during the continuance 
 of such quarantine or isolation, be deemed to be affected with a 
 contagious disease. Whoever knowingly breaks or authorizes or 
 causes to be broken a quarantine so imposed, or whoever, contrary 
 to such order of quarantine or isolation, knowingly removes an 
 animal or authorizes or causes it to be removed from a building, 
 place or enclosure where it is quarantined or isolated, or whoever, * 
 contrary to an order or notice of quarantine, knowingly places or 
 causes or authorizes to be placed any other animal or animals 
 within a building, place or enclosure where an animal is quarantined, 
 or in contact therewith, or whoever knowingly conceals, sells, 
 removes or transports, or knowingly causes or authorizes to be 
 concealed, sold, removed or transported, an animal, knowing or 
 having reasonable cause to believe that it is affected with a con¬ 
 tagious disease, or whoever knowingly authorizes or permits such 
 animal to go at large upon any public way within this common¬ 
 wealth, or whoever knowingly brings or authorizes or permits to be 
 brought from another country, state, district or territory into this 
 commonwealth, an animal which is affected with or has been 
 exposed to a contagious disease, or whoever disobeys a lawful order 
 or regulation of the board of cattle commissioners or of any of its 
 agents or inspectors in the performance of their duty under the 
 provisions of this chapter, shall be punished by a fine of not more 
 than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than 
 one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment. 
 
 Section 26. If the owner who is entitled to compensation under 
 the provisions of section six for the destruction of an animal affected 
 with tuberculosis cannot agree with the commissioner condemning 
 the same as to its value, the value shall be determined by arbitrators, 
 one of whom shall be selected by the commissioner and one by the 
 owner, or if the owner neglects or refuses for twenty-four hours to 
 select one the arbitrator already selected shall select another, and 
 if such arbitrators cannot agree, they shall select a third arbitrator. 
 Such arbitrators shall be sworn faithfully to perform the duties of 
 their office, and shall determine the value of such animal according 
 to the provisions of section six; and the full value, so determined, 
 shall be paid to the owner as provided in said section. Either party 
 aggrieved by the doings of the board or of any of its members, 
 under the provisions of section six, or by the award of such arbi¬ 
 trators, may file a petition for the assessment of his damages in the 
 superior court for the county in which such animal was killed or 
 in the county of Suffolk. Such petition shall be by or against the 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —Xo. 1751. 
 
 board of cattle commissioners, and a copy thereof shall be served 
 upon the respondent or, if the petition is against said board of cattle 
 commissioners, upon one of the commissioners, in the same manner 
 as other civil process. The petition shall be filed in the clerk’s 
 office of the superior court within thirty days after the killing of 
 such animal or animals and shall be subject to the provisions of 
 sections fifty-six and seventy-four of chapter one hundred and sev- 
 ent 3 r -three and the petition may be tried in the same manner as 
 other civil cases. If, upon the trial, it is determined that such animal 
 was not affected with the disease for which it was condemned, 
 reasonable compensation may be awarded therefor, and if the owner 
 recovers damages in excess of the amount previously awarded to 
 him by the arbitrators or allowed to him by the commissioners, he 
 shall recover costs; otherwise he shall pay costs. The damages, 
 costs and expenses incurred by the commissioners in prosecuting or 
 defending such action shall be paid by the commonwealth. 
 
 (Section 27 of Chapter 90 of the Revised Laws, as amended by Section 2 
 
 of Chapter 515, Acts of 1908.) 
 
 Section 27. Whoever kills an animal or causes it to be killed, 
 with the consent of the owner or person in possession thereof, upon 
 suspicion that it is affected with or has been exposed to a contagious 
 disease, and who, upon the inspection of the carcass thereof, finds 
 or is of opinion that it is affected with a contagious disease, shall 
 forthwith notify such owner or person in possession thereof, and 
 the chief of the cattle bureau or an inspector of animals for the 
 city or town in which such animal was kept, of the existence of 
 such disease, and of the place where the animal was found, the 
 name of the owner or person in possession thereof and of the dis¬ 
 posal made of such carcass. Whoever violates the provisions of 
 this section shall be subject to the same penalties as are provided 
 in section twenty-three. 
 
 (Section 28 of Chapter 90 of the Revised Laws, as amended by Section 1 
 
 of Chapter 6, Acts of 1911.) 
 
 Section 28. Contagious diseases, under the provisions of this 
 chapter, shall include glanders, farcy, mange, contagious pleuro¬ 
 pneumonia, tuberculosis, Texas fever, foot-and-mouth disease, 
 rinderpest, hog cholera, rabies, anthrax or anthracoid diseases, 
 sheep scab and actinomycosis. 
 
 Section 29. Whoever fails to comply with a regulation made, 
 or an order given, by the board of cattle commissioners or by any 
 of its members, in the discharge of its or his duty, shall be punished 
 by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment 
 for not more than one j r ear. 
 
 Notice to 
 be given of 
 contagious 
 diseases. 
 
 Contagious 
 
 diseases 
 
 defined. 
 
 Penalty for 
 disobedience 
 of order of 
 board. 
 
62 
 
 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 
 
 [Feb. 
 
 Certain cattle 
 not to be driven 
 on streets, etc. 
 
 Use of 
 tuberculin 
 restricted, 
 etc. 
 
 Tests free to 
 citizens. 
 
 Compensation 
 for animals 
 tested with 
 tuberculin. 
 
 No compensa¬ 
 tion to violators 
 of regulations. 
 
 Enforcement 
 of provisions. 
 
 Killing and 
 rendering of 
 horses, etc. 
 
 Section 30. Texan, Mexican, Cherokee, Indian or other cat¬ 
 tle, which the board has reason to believe may spread contagious 
 disease, shall not be driven on the streets of a city or town or on 
 any road in this commonwealth, or outside the stock yards con¬ 
 nected with any railroad in this commonwealth, contrary to an 
 order of the board, and they shall be kept in different pens from 
 those in which other cattle are kept in all stock y r ards in the com¬ 
 monwealth. Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall 
 be punished by a fine of not less than twenty nor more than one 
 hundred dollars. 
 
 (Section 31 of Chapter 90 of the Revised Laws, as amended by Chapter 
 
 322, Acts of 1903.) 
 
 Section 31. Tuberculin as a diagnostic agent for the detection 
 of tuberculosis in domestic animals shall be used only upon cattle 
 brought into the commonwealth and upon cattle at Brighton, 
 Watertown and Somerville; but it may be used as such diagnostic 
 agent on any animal in any other part of the commonwealth, with 
 the consent in writing of the owner or person in possession thereof, 
 and upon animals wdiich have been condemned as tuberculous upon 
 physical examination by a competent veterinary" surgeon. Such 
 tests by the use of tuberculin shall be made without charge to 
 citizens of the commomvealth, and in all other cases the expense of 
 such tests shall be paid by the owners of such animals or by the 
 person in possession thereof. 
 
 Section 32. A person w T ho has animals tested with tuberculin 
 shall not be entitled to compensation from the commonw-ealth for 
 any animals which react to the tuberculin test unless they have 
 been tested by the board of cattle commissioners or its authorized 
 agents, acting as such at the time of the test, and such testing shall 
 be subject to the supervision and control of the board. 
 
 Section 33. No compensation shall be allowed by" the common¬ 
 wealth to an owner of condemned cattle w'ho has failed to comply 
 with the reasonable regulations of the board relative to cleanliness, 
 ventilation, light, disinfection and w"ater supply. An owner of 
 cattle who refuses to comply- with any such regulation shall be 
 punished by- a fine of not more than fifty'- dollars. 
 
 Section 34. The superior court shall have jurisdiction in 
 equity to enforce the provisions and restrain violations of the pro¬ 
 visions of this chapter. 
 
 Section 111, Chapter 75, Revised Laws. 
 
 Section 111. A person, partnership or corporation engaged in 
 or desiring to engage in the business of killing horses, or in.the earn¬ 
 ing on of a melting or rendering establishment, shall annually, in 
 
1915.] 
 
 HOUSE —Xo. 1751. 
 
 63 
 
 March, apply for a license to the board of health of the city or 
 town in which such business is to be carried on. The application 
 shall be in writing and signed by the person or persons who desire 
 to carry on such business, or, if the applicant is a corporation, by 
 a duty authorized officer thereof. It shall state the names in full 
 and the addresses of all the persons who desire to carry on such 
 business, or, if a corporation is the applicant, the names of all the 
 officers thereof and the street or other place where the business is 
 to be conducted. The board of health of a city or town may grant 
 such licenses after it is satisfied that the applicants have a suitable 
 building and plant in a situation approved by said board and that 
 they have suitable trucks or wagons for the removal of dead ani¬ 
 mals. The license shall state the name of the licensee, the situation 
 of the building or establishment in which the business is to be 
 carried on, and shall continue in force until the first day of April of 
 the year next ensuing, unless sooner revoked. The board of health 
 shall keep a record of such licenses which are granted by it, and 
 shall notify the board of cattle commissioners of the granting of 
 any such license, giving the name and address of the licensee. The 
 fee for a license shall not exceed one dollar, and a license majr be 
 revoked at any time by the board of health. Licensees shall report 
 to the board of cattle commissioners, in such form and at such 
 times as it may order, every animal received by them which is 
 found to be infected with a contagious disease. No unlicensed 
 person shall carry on the business of killing horses or of melting and 
 rendering. So much of section twenty-five of chapter ninety as 
 provides that no person shall knowingly sell an animal with a con¬ 
 tagious disease shall not apply to any person who sells such animal 
 to a licensee under the provisions of this section, if such animal is 
 to be killed or rendered at the establishment of such licensee. "Who¬ 
 ever violates the provisions of this section shall be punished by a 
 fine of not more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment for 
 not more than ninety days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. 
 
 Acts of 1907, Chapter 243. 
 
 An Act relative to the Notice required by Law to be given 
 by Boards of Health, Corporations and Persons in Certain 
 Cases. 
 
 Be it enacted , etc., as follows: 
 
 Section 1 . The notice required by section seventj^ of chapter 
 fifty-six and by sections one hundred and one hundred and eleven 
 of chapter seventy-five of the Revised Laws to be given by boards 
 of health, corporations or persons to the board of cattle commis¬ 
 sioners shall be given to the chief of the cattle bureau of the state 
 
 Boards of 
 health to keep 
 record of 
 licenses 
 granted, and 
 notify chief of 
 cattle bureau 
 of all licenses 
 granted, and 
 names and 
 addresses of 
 licensees. See 
 chap. 243, Acts 
 of 1907. 
 
 Licensees to 
 report all cases 
 of contagious 
 diseases to 
 chief of cattle 
 bureau. See 
 chap. 243, Acts 
 of 1907. 
 
 Notice to be 
 given chief of 
 cattle bureau. 
 
3 0112 098432641 
 
 Ji 
 
 64 
 
 ECONOMY, AND EFFICIENCY. [Feb. 1915. 
 
 board of agriculture; and the penalties for failure to give such 
 notice to the chief of the cattle bureau shall be the same as are 
 specified in the said chapters for failure to give such notice to the 
 board of cattle commissioners. 
 
 Section 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage. [Ap¬ 
 proved March 25, 1907. 
 
 Inspection, 
 etc., of places 
 where neat 
 cattle, etc 
 kept, etc. 
 
 are 
 
 Report. 
 
 Penalty. 
 
 Certain 
 powers of the 
 board of health 
 not affected. 
 
 Chapter 381, Acts of 1911. 
 
 An Act to provide for the Inspection and Regulation by 
 the Cattle Bureau of the State Board of Agriculture of 
 Places where Neat Cattle, Other Ruminants or Swine 
 
 ARE KEPT. 
 
 Be it enacted, etc., as follows: 
 
 Section 1 . The chief of the cattle bureau and his agents are 
 hereby authorized to enter and inspect all barns, stables, pastures, 
 yards and other places where neat cattle, other ruminants, or swine 
 are kept. The chief of the cattle bureau may make and enforce all 
 reasonable rules and regulations respecting the sanitary condition 
 of such barns, stables and other places, and of the neat cattle, other 
 ruminants and swine kept therein, such rules and regulations to be 
 subject to approval by the governor and council. 
 
 Section 2. The state board of health, the dairy bureau, and 
 boards of health of cities and towns shall report to the chief of the 
 cattle bureau any and all cases brought to their attention where 
 barns, stables or other enclosures, in which neat cattle, other rumi¬ 
 nants or swine are kept, are found to be in an unsanitary condition. 
 
 Section 3. Whoever prevents or hinders the chief of the cattle 
 bureau or any agent thereof from exercising the powers hereby con¬ 
 ferred shall be punished by a fine of not more than fifty dollars or 
 b} r imprisonment for not more than thirty days. 
 
 Section 4. Nothing in this act shall be construed to nullify or 
 affect the powers and duties of boards of health conferred upon 
 them by sections sixty-seven to seventy-four, inclusive, of chapter 
 seventy-five of the Revised Laws, and by sections sixty-nine to 
 seventy-two, inclusive, of chapter one hundred and two of the 
 Revised Laws. [Approved May 1, 1911.