the public opinion referred to above. After having made the discovery of the disease as aforesaid, and brought the knowledge of the fact to your department, which, so far as we know, has never discovered a case of pleuro pneumonia, either in this State or any other, the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry appeared at Chicago and proposed to co-operate with the State in its endeavors to suppress the spread of, and extirpate the disease. Carefully, step after step was taken until the public mind, especially the great live stock interests of the great commercial city of Chicago, began to realize the fact that the disease had really found a foothold in Illinois. You proposed to the Governor of the State cooperation, and submitted the regulations of your department upon the subject of pleuro-pneumonia for our inspection. The regulations, such as they were, did not entirely meet with our approval, and, in accordance with our suggestions, modifications were made, and, as modified, they were accepted by the Governor. We were very glad to have the co-operation of the United States, both because of the means the treasury would afford to aid us in fighting the disease, and because we and our people believe it was the duty of the Government of the United States to heartily co-operate with the people of any State in its efforts to suppress and extirpate this National pest, which was allowed to enter our country through its own inefficient quarantine regulations at the sea board more than forty years ago. Our law has provided for quarantine regulations, for inspection and for the control and management of the disease far more specifically and definitely than any law on the subject yet provided by the United States, and, so far as we know, than by any other State in the West. We have endeavored strictly to adhere to these rules of co-operation. We have never understood, however, neither did the Governor of the State, as he has said to us, ever understand, and in fact the tone of communication to the public shows that you never understood that, because the disease was found to exist on any premises or in any place, that all cattle exposed to it were to be immediately slaughtered. It is true, the law of the State of Illinois provides for the slaughter of animals diseased and animals exposed to disease, and in the ordinary cases of the appearance of the disease on a farm or premises where but few cattle, as in most instances not to exceed three or four would be involved, it might have been expedient to have resorted to immediate slaughter, but as to the cases in Cook county, where, upon examinaton and test, but a limited number were actually diseased while thousands had been exposed, it was considered by the Board, as it was by the Governor, anything but good sense to rush in and slaughter healthy cattle simply because they had been exposed, while under our system of quarantine we were entirely able to prevent the spread of the disease as we did. Do you suppose the people of Illinois or the Governor of the State would have justified us in slaughtering 3,000 head of cattle, cows and steers, quarantined in the distillery sheds as they were, simply because they had been exposed,

without making any effort whatever to save the State unnecessary loss? Had your suggestions, as they now appear to the public in your communication, been followed, it would have been discovered that probably out of the 3,000 head slaughtered, not to exceed 5 per cent. would have been found on post-mortem examination to have been diseased. We should thus have been in the position of forcing the State to a liability anywhere from $125,000 to $150,000 for cattle which, on inspection after slaughter, would have appeared to the public mind to have been entirely healthy, and while you, with your large appropriations and the wealth of the general Government, can afford to sneer at our economical ideas, we considered that this was an element that necessarily entered into our calculations, especially as we were early informed by the Bureau. of Animal Industry that we could expect no help from the general government to pay for these healthy animals. You know, and the public shall know through this communication, that, through agents on the ground, you coincided with us in the view we took of the moderate and conservative course adopted on that occasion. You were present, through your accredited agents, on the spot, and knew every step that was taken by the Commission, as well before as after co-operation had been established between the State and the United States. You are now pretending before the public, in your recent communication, to views about the matter that you and your subordinates know perfectly well are entirely different from the views you expressed at that time.

Nothing you have said in your recent offensive communication shall drive us from a due sense of the responsibility of the position we hold toward the people of this State in discharging the delicate duties imposed upon us by the statute. We have given to it our best judgment and our best services, and are gratified to inform you that we have met with official recognition from the Governor of the State in his last message, and we shall adhere to what we believe to be a conservative and common sense course in dealing with this National and fearful pest. Indeed, we hold our duties to be of such character as to be above the region of political buffoonery, and are at a loss to know why you, or any man, should seek to avail himself of such circumstances and such an occasion to parade himself before the country. It becomes our painful duty to state that after the departure of the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry from Chicago, we found ourselves thrown in official connection with a person designated to represent you, as well as the Bureau, whose habits of insobriety were so notorious, that we felt obliged to call your attention through the Chief of your Bureau to that fact, which we did, both by letter and in person. When informed of his appointment by the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, we protested against it, fearing he would bring disgrace upon the Commission, and were assured that his prompt removal would follow any recurrence of such habits. Not only this, but in response to the imputation you have seen fit to cast upon our integrity, it is no more than due

now that we should inform you, as we have before informed you of those habits, in addition to the public accusation within your knowledge, which existed against him regarding the discharge of his duties while acting as an inspector of the Bureau of Animal Industry in the State of Missouri. Yet, you chose to have your department represented by such an agent. Under such supervision the United States has been represented under the rules of cooperation in this important matter since the departure of the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, and, doubtless, through information furnished by him, you were led into the misstatements you have given to the public through your recent communication to the Governor. As to the condition of the Shufeldt distillery sheds the facts are not as you have stated them. We presume the alleged facts were communicated to you by the gentleman we have been compelled to allude to above. Before discussing the rules governing the cooperation between our State and the United States, we notice the conclusion of your communication. You state: "To this end I would respectfully suggest that you cause the order of the Board in regard to refilling the Shufeldt sheds to be revoked; that the cattle in those sheds be immediately slaughtered, and that this Department be given the opportunity to practice such disinfection as is desirable and possible under the circumstances." We did suppose that a gentleman filling the position you are at present occupying, whose duty it is to be thorougly familiar with the powers at his command to suppress contagious pleuro-pneumonia, would also familiarize himself with the laws of the respective States upon that subject. If you had taken this precaution in the case of Illinois, you would have discovered that your suggestions to the Governor were puerile. Do you not know that the Board of Live Stock Commissioners of the State of Illinois was created by an act of the Legislature; that its duties are defined by law; that its powers are ample, so far as the law has conferred power upon the subject, and that the Governor of the State would have no more right to revoke an order made and established by this Board, than any private citizen? If you had had the discretion to have communicated privately upon this subject to His Excellency, as you should have done, and not have paraded yourself before the country, the Governor would perhaps have advised you that this Board is governed by law, and not by the orders of the Governor.

We now wish to show the public that your communication is an entire misrepresentation as to our acts under the rules of cooperation between the United States and this State. We have already noticed briefly your first complaint regarding our alleged delay in slaughtering diseased animals, and have probably said sufficient upon that subject, since we were led to believe by your agents, upon the ground, that you approved our course in that respect.

Your second complaint refers to rule 13 upon the subject of inoculation. You say: "It was expressly stipulated that inocula

tion should not be practiced in Illinois." This we conceive to be a malicious misquotation by you to deceive the public. That the country may have the benefit of the wise (?) rule you have prescribed upon that subject, we here quote it entire: "Inoculation is not recommended by the Department of Agriculture, and it is believed that its adoption with animals that are to be afterwards sold to go into other herds would counteract the good result which would otherwise follow from the slaughter of the diseased animals. It will not be practical in this State." We have never been able to understand the object of this so-called rule. The last sentence was added by your Chief on the ground, before the rules were approved by the Governor, and is as follows: "It will not be practical in this State." You charge that we have violated that rule. What are the facts, which the public shall know? These quarantined distillery sheds were under the control of duly appointed deputy sheriffs paid by the general government, and as much under your control as ours. Any orders relative to their action given by you or your agents have been and are now cheerfully obeyed. Yet you say, "a veterinary surgeon was allowed to enter the Phoenix distillery stables and permitted to inoculate a portion of the steers belonging to Nelson Morris." Who was this veterinarian? It is an incontrovertable fact that no veterinarian acting under our authority did this, and in your communication you say that you did not protest against this at the time because you saw no immediate harm could result from it. If there was any violation of the so-called rule, it was not by our authority or knowledge, and, if you knew of it at the time, you should have called our attention to it. These are indisputable facts to which we call your special attention as well as the attention of the public.

Rule 8 provides, as quoted in your communication, that "quarantine restrictions once imposed are not to be removed by the State authorities without due notice to the proper officers of the Department of Agriculture." Certainly, that is the rule. Has this Board ever violated it? When did this Board remove quarantine from the Phoenix, or the Shufeldt, or any other distillery sheds? It is a fact in regard to the Phoenix distillery, that before the expiration of quarantine on that distillery, the owners came and asked of this Board the right to occupy the sheds, which request was refused. On, or before, the expiration of the time of the quarantine restrictions, the owners of the Phoenix distillery entered upon the premises and burned up the sheds on their own account. This was done with the consent of this Board, and at the recommendation of the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry. Quarantine upon any other premises, farm, place or shed has not been removed to this day. On the contrary, when quarantine ran out by limitation, in every instance, we have, under the State law, renewed it. How groundless and false that accusation before the public! This we are able to establish by unquestionable proof if necessary. You complain that notice was not given you. How could notice be given of an act that never took place? L. S.-8

What you seem to lack is correct information of what is going on here in connection with the means that are being used, and the efforts we are making to limit, confine and exterminate pleuropneumonia.

Rule 12 provides: "All necessary disinfection will be couducted by the employés of the Bureau of Animal Industry." You say: "This rule is not only an agreement on our part to carry out the necessary measures of disinfection, but, having been accepted by you (the governor), it becomes an agreement on the part of the State of Illinois that we should have the privilege of conducting this disinfection." Certainly that's very plain. Why did you not conduct it, or give directions as to how it should be done? Do you suppose that that rule would be considered by any sensible man, or any court, to mean that the State of Illinois abdicated its rights and duty to disinfect any premises? The rule is understood, doubtless, by the Governor, as by the Board, and as we presume it will be by a sensible public, that it was only an agreement on the part of the United States to cooperate, but not to exclude Illinois from any effort upon the subject. Now what are you able, through your agents here, to show you have done? Time and again you were invited to do this. It was insisted upon that you should do it. You will be unable to show that in any instance you have disinfected any shed, or any premises, or any locality. Not only this, but you will be unable to show that you have ever given any directions about how it should be done, although repeatedly requested so to do. We therefore consider it quite unbecoming in you to indulge in criticisms before the pub. lic upon this question of disinfection, either in connection with the Shufeldt distillery, or any other establishment in the city of Chicago. Having failed thus far to discharge your duties in that respect, did you suppose that Illinois would stand by and use no effort at disinfection? Did you suppose the State of Illinois, under such circumstances, would wait for scientific investigation, which seems to attract your attention more than the existence of pleuropneumonia itself, or shall the State, through its Board of Live Stock Commissioners, use the best means attainable? This the State has done. The State has been disinfecting premises heretofore, and before this Board was created.

In regard to the Shufeldt distillery sheds, which seems to be your special subject of vexation, and which you have sought to magnify before the country, as we honestly believe, not in the true interest of the honest efforts of this and other boards of different States, to fight this disease, to quiet public alarm in regard to it, and to do all possible to keep it within the limit of regulation without unnecessarily alarming public feeling, as your communication manifestly does, we wish now to quote clause second of rule 9 of your regulations, and beg leave to state that it is a rule you either ignorantly or designedly suppressed in your communication. It reads as follows: "When possible, all infected