-NRLF 
 
REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ONTARIO COMMISSION 
 
 ON THE 
 
 DEHOENING OF CATTLE. 
 
 PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 TORONTO : 
 PRINTED BY WARWICK & SONS, 68 and 70 FRONT ST. WEST. 
 
 1892. 
 
a 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Dehorning of Cattle: vagk. 
 
 Origin of, in Ontario. — Trial at London. — Ontario Government appealed to. — Decision 
 at Trial. — Commission appointed. — Organization. — Scope of the enquiry. — Meetings 
 held. —Summary of the evidei. / 9-18 
 
 Anatomy of the Horn : 
 
 Microscopic examination 19-20 
 
 RKA80N8 FOK THE PRACTICE : 
 
 Quietness. — More easily handled and less dangerous. — Less liable to suffering. — Value 
 
 increased, steers, dairy cows. — Evidence on this point referred to 20-23 
 
 Amount of Suffering : 
 
 The Humane aspect. —Extracts from the evidence 23-2-5 
 
 Suggested Remedies Instead of Dehorning: 
 
 Tipping. —Knobbing. — Dehorning only vicious animals.— Prevention of growth. — 
 
 Removal of the Embryo Horn 26-28 
 
 Horns in Relation to Age : 
 
 Possibilities of fraud. — Evidence quoted 29 
 
 Dehorning as a Custom ' 29 
 
 Legal Decisions : 
 
 Law against cruelty. — Summary of the different trials.— First Irish case, Brady v. 
 McArgle.— The appeal, S. P. C. A. v. Callaghan.— Scottish Courts, Renton v. 
 Wilson. — Euglish case, Ford v. Wiley. — The appeal, (Lord Chief Justice Coleridge). 
 — Scotch case appealed. — Irish case, IS'ewland v. McDonagh 30-42 
 
 <Jorrespondencb : 
 
 Circular letter issued. — Replies received. — State Agricultural Stations.— In favor of. — 
 
 Opposed to the praotice. — General letters on dehorning 43-."52 
 
 AGRICrLTURAL STATION8 : 
 
 Results of Dehorning experiments.— Wisconsin Station.— Effect of dehorning milch cows 
 on the production of milk and butter. — Further experiment. — Arkansas Experiment 
 Station. — Cornell University Station. — .Minnesota Experiment Station. — Dominion 
 
 Experimental Farm. — Horns in their relation to milk and cream 53-68 
 
 Conclusions and Recommendations 69-73 
 
 Evidence : 
 
 Toronto, April 20.— Tilsonburg, May 10, 11.— Brownsville, May 11. -Tilsonburg, 
 May 12.— Harrioteville, May 13.— London, June 1-3.— Toronto, June 14-17.— 
 Ottawa, July 6-8. — Ingersoll, July 21 75-123 
 
 312297 
 
COMMISSIONERS. 
 
 Hon. Charles Drury, Farmer, Crown Hill. 
 Andrew Smith, Veterinarian, Toronto. 
 Richard Gibson, Breeder, Delaware. 
 D. M. Macpherson, Dairyman, Lancaster. 
 Henry Glendinning, Farmer, Manilla. 
 J. J. Kelso, Journalist, Toronto. 
 
 Commission. — "To make full enquiry into and report with all reasonable 
 speed the reasons for and against the practice of Dehorning Cattle recently intro- 
 duced into this Province, as well by the examination of witnesses as by collecting 
 whatever is accessible of the evidence which has been given by experts or others 
 in the trials which have taken place on the subject in England, Ireland and Scot- 
 land and in this Province, the judgments in the cases tried, and any other useful 
 information from any quarter which may be in print or otherwise obtainable." 
 
Toronto, November 15th, 1892, 
 
 To the Honorable John Dryden, 
 
 Minister of Agriculture. 
 
 Sir, — I have the honor to transmit herewith, to be presented to His Honor the 
 Lieutenant-Governor, the Report of the Ontario Commission on the Dehorning of Oattle. 
 
 I have the honor to be, Sir, 
 
 Your most obedient servant, 
 
 CHARLES DRURY, 
 
 Chairman. 
 
REPORT 
 
 OP THE 
 
 COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED TO MAKE ENQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 PRACTICE OF 
 
 DEHORNING- CATTLE. 
 
 To the Honorable George A. Kirkpatrick, 
 
 Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario : 
 
 Your Commissioners, appointed on the Ninth day of March, 1892, to consider 
 and report upon the Practice of Dehorning Cattle, desire to state that they have 
 completed their labors and beg to submit herewith the conclusions they have 
 arrived at, together with the evidence received, both orally and by letter, the 
 various legal decisions affecting this question, the reports of investigations con- 
 ducted by Agricultural Experiment Stations, and other information collected by 
 them 
 
ORIGIN OF THE PRACTICE IN ONTARIO 
 
 The circumstances leading to the appointment of a Commission are as 
 follows : 
 
 The practice of dehorning cattle appears from the evidence to have been 
 first introduced into this Province in the year 1 888, by Messrs. Kinney and Johnson, 
 farmers, of South Norwich, Oxford county. It was not however, adopted to 
 any great extent until February, 1890, when Mr. Chauncey Smith, a farmer's son 
 residing in the township of Dereham, Oxford county, on returning from a visit 
 to the State of Illinois, where the practice prevailed, set an example by dehorning 
 his father's herd. In a short time this example was followed by Mr. Smith's 
 neighbors, many of whom became warm advocates of the practice. 
 
 Considerable controversy arose as to the amount of pain involved in the 
 operation, and in February, 1891, Mr. W. V. Nigh, a farmer of Avon, Middlesex 
 county, was prosecuted before two Justices of the Peace at London on the charge 
 of cruelty. The case was dismissed on the evidence of ten witnesses that the 
 operation was a beneficial one and the suffering of short duration. 
 
 The practice continued to extend, and the services of Messrs. Chauncey 
 Smith and W. A. Elliott, who had made a study of the operation, were frequently 
 in demand. Mr. Smith stated in evidence that he had dehorned 250 head, while 
 Mr. Elliott gave the number of cattle he had operated upon to be about 400. The 
 great majority of these operations took place in Oxford, Norfolk and Elgin coun- 
 ties, and although dehorning has been tried experimentally in various parts of 
 the province, the practice is largely confined at present to the district mentioned. 
 
 Trial at London. 
 
 Acting on behalf of the opponents of the practice, Mr. Charles Hutchinson, 
 Crown Attorney of Middlesex, instituted proceedings in January, 1892, against 
 Messrs. William York, sr., W. A. Elliott and Edward York, charging them with 
 cruelty to animals in having cut off the horns of the cattle of the first named defend- 
 ant. The case was called at the Interim Sessions, London, on January 6th, before 
 Messrs. Smythe and Lacey, Justices of the Peace for the county of Middlesex. Mr. 
 Hutchinson conducted the prosecution, while Messrs. E R. Cameron and R. M. C. 
 Toothe appeared for the defence. In view of the importance of the case the 
 defendants asked that it be tried before a full bench of magistrates, but this 
 was not conceded. Evidence for the prosecution was given by two veterinary 
 surgeons, one medical practitioner, two butchers and five farmers, none of 
 whom had ever seen or performed the operation, but who believed from the 
 structure of the horn that the pain would be very great. For the defence 
 
10 
 
 l-.i ' n . - . — ■ 
 
 evidence was given by four veterinary surgeons and three farmers, all of whom 
 had either seen or performed the operation and were convinced that, the benefits 
 were great and the suffering not of long duration. 
 
 In the course of the trial the defendants expressed dissatisfaction with the 
 manner in which the case was being conducted. They complained that they 
 were not receiving a fair hearing, and that the counsel for the prosecution, whom 
 they regarded as a Crown official, was unduly biased against them. 
 
 The Government Appealed to. 
 
 Anticipating the result of the trial and acting on the advice of their counsel 
 they withdrew their defence and, with a number of others interested, waited upon 
 the Ontario Government at Toronto, on February 2nd, 1 892. The deputation 
 was introduced by Dr. McKay, M.P.P. for South Oxford, and consisted of 
 Messrs. E. B. Brown, J. A. Brown, Benjamin Hopkins, Roger W. Hawkins, W. A. 
 Elliott, Brownsville; J. C. Dance, ex-M.P.P., Kingsmill ; Henry Jackson, Glad- 
 8 tone ; Spencer A. Freeman, Culloden ; Francis Leeson, Aylmer ; A. N. Grey, 
 Eden, and E. R'. Cameron, solicitor, London. They were received by Sir 
 Oliver Mowat, Attorney-General, Hon. John Dry den, Minister of Agriculture 
 and Hon. Messrs. A. S. Hardy, G. W. Ross, J. M. Gibson and Richard Harcourt. 
 Mr. Cameron, speaking for the deputation, laid particular stress upon the alleged 
 partiality of the Justices and the unusual energy shown by the Crown in pressing 
 the charges. He begged the government to interfere to save the defendants from 
 still further costs and asked that a Commission be appointed to investigate the 
 whole question of dehorning cattle, claiming that, in a matter affecting the com- 
 munity at large, where there was so much divergence of expert opinion and no 
 precedent to govern the Courts, it was unfair to place the whole cost of defending 
 a prosecution upon two or three men, in addition to branding them as criminals 
 in the event of conviction, which seemed altogether probable in this case. 
 
 In replying to the deputation the Attorney-General pointed out that they 
 were making a most unusual request in asking the Executive to interfere in the 
 administration of justice, an action which he much doubted their jurisdiction to 
 take. Moreover, it would be manifestly improper to express an opinion even on 
 the merits of a case of which only one side had been presented to them. He 
 added, however, that he and his colleagues were much impressed with the argu- 
 ments advanced in favor of an official inquiry into the whole question of dehorn- 
 ing, and if that request had been preferred before this case had come before the 
 Courts it might have been favorably considered, or if after this matter was con- 
 cluded they thought fit to make a like application it should have due weight, 
 but in the present position of the case the Executive did not feel justified in 
 taking any action. 
 
11 
 
 The Trial Resumed. 
 
 On the following day, February 3rd, the case was resumed at London, and 
 Mr. Cameron, for the defence, stated that they did not intend to offer any 
 further evidence before the magistrates, but simply have witnesses sign their 
 depositions. 
 
 The case was then adjourned for judgment until February 8th, and on that 
 day the magistrates gave the following decision : 
 
 First— We find the horns referred to in the information were cut off by W. A.. Elliott, 
 assisted by Edward York, ordered and permitted by William York, the owner. 
 
 Second— Said horns were cut off close to the head, thus cruelly torturing the cows of 
 William York ; and no precautions were taken to lessen the pain of the operation, or to protect 
 the cows afterwards from the consequences of said cruelty. 
 
 Third— It does not appear to us from the evidence there was any necessity to cut off the 
 horns of these cows. 
 
 Fou th — Neither does it appear that doing so was an advantage to them, but the whole 
 evidence leads to the conclusion that it was a decided disadvantage to each individual cow to 
 have the horns cut off. 
 
 Fifth— There being no advantage to the cows to compensate for the torture and suffering 
 endured by them, there should be adequate advantage to the public generally, and here in our 
 opinions the defence has equally failed to make it appear that such is the case. 
 
 Sixth— But on the contrary, cutting off the horns of milch cows and other cattle, instead of 
 being an advantage, may be the means whereby fraud may be perpetrated upon the general 
 public. It is shown in the evidence that after a cow is about five years old the horn is the 
 surest means of telling its age, consequently a fraudulent dealer may more easily deceive and 
 palm off upon the purchaser an old animal with its horns cut off, also in judging their breed and 
 milking qualities. 
 
 '1 he decision is that each of the defendants be fined $50 and costs forthwith and in default 
 o c payment, one month in the county jad. 
 
 Mr. Cameron gave notice that the judgment would be appealed against at 
 the next General Sessions of the Peace. 
 
 The proceedings at the trial were given a widespread publicity and an 
 animated newspaper controversy was carried on for several weeks. The greatest 
 difference of opinion was noticeable, the advocates of the practice claiming tha t 
 it was a positive kindness to the animals, in addition to being a commercial 
 advantage, while many who were opposed to it regarded the operation as one of 
 excruciating torture. 
 
 A COMMISSION APPOINTED. 
 
 In view of these circumstances, a Commission was issued on March 9 by 
 the Ontario Government to Hon. Charles Drury of Crown Hill, Farmer ; Richard 
 Gibson of Delaware, Breeder; D. M. Macpherson of Lancaster, Dairyman; 
 Andrew Smith of Toronto, Veterinarian, Henry Glendinning of Manilla, 
 Farmer, and J. J. Kelso of Toronto, Journalist, authorizing and requiring them 
 "To obtain the fullest information in reference to the practice recently introduced 
 into this province of dehorning cattle, and to make full enquiry into and report 
 with all reasonable speed the reasons for and against the practice, as well by the 
 
12 
 
 examination of witnesses as by collecting- whatever is accessible of the evidence 
 which has been given by experts or others in the trials which have taken place 
 on the subject in England, Ireland and Scotland, and in this province, the judg- 
 ments in the cases tried and any other useful information from any quarter .vhich 
 may be in print or otherwise obtainable." Hon. Mr. Drury was named as chair- 
 man and Mr. Kelso as secretary. 
 
 Organization. 
 
 The first meeting of the Commissioners was held in Toronto on Tuesday, 
 April 19, Hon. Charles Drury presiding and all the members being present. In 
 proceeding with the enquiry it was found that the reasons given for the practice 
 were, that the operation increased the value of the animal to the owner, and that 
 it prevented the cattle from inflicting suffering upon each other. The ground of 
 opposition was, briefly, that the pain inflicted in the operation was excessive and 
 out of proportion to the benefits sought to be attained. 
 
 It was decided to hold meetings at central points in the Province where 
 dehorning had taken place, to issue a circular letter to the Directors of the various 
 United States Agricultural Experiment Stations and others having a knowledge 
 of the question, and to collect the various legal decisions affecting the practice 
 given in Great Britain and elsewhere, together with all other available informa- 
 tion likely to be useful in arriving at a conclusion. 
 
 Scope of the Enquiry. 
 
 In the examination of witnesses the Commissioners sought to ascertain what 
 commercial advantages accrued from the operation; what were the humane 
 considerations as shown by the conduct of the animals towards each other before 
 and after the operation ; the amount of pain inflicted by the operation as 
 judged by the anatomy of the part, the actions of the animal during and 
 following the operation, and the probable duration of the suffering ; the effect 
 upon the general condition as evidenced in the flow of milk,loss of appetite or weight 
 or undue rise of temperature ; the possibility of fraud as to age when the horns 
 were removed ; the extent to which knobbing or tipping the horns was service- 
 able as a preventive of goring ; the best age, the proper season and the most 
 suitable instruments for the operation if it should be permitted ; the relative 
 advantages of taking the horns off when developed, preventing their growth by 
 means of caustic at two weeks old. or cutting out the embryo horn at the age of 
 a month or six weeks — in fact the Commissioners endeavored to elicit 
 information on every phase of the question. 
 
13 
 
 MEETINGS HELD. 
 
 For convenient reference the following summary might be given of the 
 meetings held by the Commission. The evidence of witnesses will be found in 
 the appendix to this report: 
 
 Toronto, April 20. — The Commissioners, on the invitation of Dr. Smith, 
 
 visited the Ontario Veterinary College at 10 o'clock and examined the anatomy 
 
 of the horn. At 11 o'clock the members returned to the Parliament Buildings 
 
 and received evidence from the following gentlemen : 
 
 Ex. -Aid. Garrett Franklani, Cattle Exporter. 
 
 A. J. Thompson, Cattle Exporter. 
 
 W. W. Hodgson, Lessee, Toronto Cattle Market. 
 
 It was decided to hold the next meeting at Tilsonburg on Tuesday, May 10, 
 and to advertise in the local papers that all parties opposed to or in favor of the 
 practice would be given a hearing. 
 
 Tilsonburg, May 10. — The Commission met in the Town Hall, Tilsonburg, 
 at 2.30 p.m., when the following came forward and gave evidence in favor of thd 
 
 practice : 
 
 Thomas Rutherford, Farmer, Dereham Township. 
 Oliver Dorland, Farmer, Dereham Township. 
 James F. Cohoe, Farmer, Middltton Township. 
 Isaiah W. Elliott, Farmer, Dereham Township. 
 Frank E. Stover Dairyman, North Norwich Township. 
 Wm. Shepherd, Farmer, Middleton Township. 
 Willoughby Rosehart Farmer, South Norwich Township. 
 L. A. Brown, Veterinary Surgeon, Aylmer. 
 
 Tilsonburg, May 11. The Commissioners met at 8.30 a.m. and took con- 
 veyances for a drive to surrounding farms in Oxford county where cattle 
 had been dehorned. Hon. John Dryden, Minister of Agriculture, who had ar- 
 rived the previous evening, accompanied the Commissioners, and Mr. W. A. Elliott 
 acted as guide. The farms visited were, Messrs. A. L. Scott's, Middleton ; and D. T. 
 Smith's, Thomas Rutherford's, Edward York's and Roger Hawkins', all in the 
 township of Dereham. At each of these places all the cattle were found to have 
 been dehorned, and the owners declared themselves as quite satisfied that the 
 animals, both in behavior and general condition, were better off than before. 
 
 At 2.30 the same afternoon, at Edward York's farm, Brownsville, the Com- 
 missioners witnessed the operation of dehorning performed on six animals by W. 
 A. Elliott, assisted by Edward York and a farm hand. The first animal operated 
 upon was a two-year-old bull. It was placed in an ordinary stanchion in the 
 stable, and its head firmly secured with a rope passed around the neck and nose 
 and drawn tight by means of a tackle (three pulleys) in the hands of Mr. York. 
 The assistant held the head to a block to secure additional steadiness, and when 
 
14 
 
 one horn was off, quickly turned the other side for the convenience of the oper- 
 ator. Mr. Elliott used a fine tenon saw, eleven teeth to the inch, well sharpened 
 and oiled, and removed the horns in an average time of 5i to 6 seconds for each 
 horn, the whole operation occupying about two minutes. Other animals operated 
 upon were a two-year-old heifer, a six-year-old cow, an eleven-year-old cow and 
 two a<?ed cows. After the operation the cattle were turned into the yard in or- 
 der that the Commissioners might observe their movements. While there was no 
 doubt considerable pain during the actual sawing, the only evidence of it observ- 
 able was a flinching of the eyes and a contraction of the muscles of the body. 
 In no case was there any moaning or unsteadiness of movement, and on regaining 
 their liberty the animals walked out and proceeded to eat hay and turnips, giving 
 no great indication of suffering. In the case of the bull there was consider- 
 able bleeding for some time afterwards, but from the older animals hardly 
 a spoonful of blood escaped. The veterinary surgeons present, Drs. Brady and 
 Brown, were requested to make a note of the temperature of each animal and 
 they stated that there was no appreciable difference as a result of the operation. 
 
 In order to illustrate the ease with which dehorned cattle could be fed, Mr. 
 York turned sixteen animals into an open shed and placed some feed in a trough 
 running along one side of the building. All the cattle crowded good-naturedly 
 in, each getting its fair share of food, without any of the unruliness so often 
 complained of in the case of horned cattle. 
 
 The Commissioners also visited the farm of Mr. Roger Hawkins, a short dis- 
 tance away, where they witnessed eighteen dehorned cattle drinking at one time 
 from a water tank about seven feet in diameter, the whole herd being watered 
 in ten to fifteen minutes 
 
 Returning to Mr. York's office the Commission held a meeting and received 
 evidence from the following farmers, all favorable to the practice : 
 
 Spencer A.. Freeman, Culloden. 
 Francis Leeson, Malahide. 
 John Fulton, Dereham. 
 John H. Reed, Dereham. 
 Andrew L. Scott, Middleton. 
 Chauncey Smith, Dereham. 
 
 Tilsonburg, May 12. The Commission resumed the hearing of evidence 
 in the Tilsonburg Town Hall when the following witnesses were heard : 
 
 Benjamin Hopkins, Dereham township. 
 
 Edwin D. Tillson, Tilsonburg. 
 
 Charles Bodwell, Tilsonburg. 
 
 Albert Derough, Tilsonburg. 
 
 John Sheahan, North Norwich. 
 
 Thomas Prouse, Dereham. 
 
 Enoch B. Brown, Dereham. 
 
 Louis Bate, Houghton. 
 
 Hiram B. Kinney, South Norwich. 
 
15 
 
 Daniel T. Smith, Dereham. 
 Henry Helmka, Brownsville. 
 Alexander Lapier, Bayham township. 
 Roger W. Hawkins, Dereham. 
 Ira Harris, Dereham. 
 William Brac'y, V.S., Tilsonburg. 
 
 With the exception of Messrs. Tillson and Bodwell, all the witnesses were 
 
 strongly in favor of the practice. 
 
 Harrietsville, May 13. The Commission met at Harriets ville on Friday 
 morning and after a brief visit to William York's farm, where some forty de- 
 horned dairy cows were seen, a meeting was held in the Harrietsville hall. Evi- 
 dence was given by the following farmers • 
 
 Edward York, Dereham township. 
 
 Henry Jackson, North Dorchester. 
 
 Richard Tooley, M. P. P., Harrietsville. 
 
 James C. Dance, ex-M.P.P., South Dorchester. 
 
 William V. Nigh, Avon. 
 
 James Rouse, Dorchester. 
 
 Robert Facey, Harrietsville. 
 
 Joseph Franks, Dorchester. 
 
 Benjamin Cook, Avon. 
 
 John C Lawr. Dorchester. 
 
 William McCredie, South Dorchester. 
 
 Jacob Keesler, South Dorchester. 
 
 R. 0. McKinney, Aylmer. 
 
 John M. O'Neill, South Dorchester. 
 
 James Meikle. South Dorchester. 
 
 William Shackelton, Harrietsville. 
 
 All were in favor of the practice except Messrs. Cook and Lawr. 
 
 London, June 1. The Commission opened its enquiries at London on 
 Wednesday afternoon, the meeting being held in the County Court House. The 
 following gave evidence : 
 
 John Geary, London township. 
 Chas. S. Tamlin, V.S., London. 
 W. A. Elliott, Dereham township. 
 Levi Fletcher, Lambeth. 
 John Dicey, White Oak. 
 William S. York, Dorchester. 
 William Dicy, White Oak. 
 
 All were in favor of the practice with the exception of Dr. Tamlin. 
 
 London, June 2. The hearing of evidence was resumed and the following 
 
 testified : 
 
 Benjamin Cook, Avon. 
 T. V. Hutchinson, M.D., London. 
 Lorenzo Stevens, London East. 
 James Day, North Oxford. 
 Henry Golding, Thamesford. 
 James H. Wilson, V.S., Loudon. 
 Edward York, Dereham. 
 Caleb H. Millson, White Oak. 
 William H. York, Dorchester. 
 Stephen York, South Dorchester. 
 
 Of these, the first six witnesses were opposed to the practice. 
 
16 
 
 London, June 3. On resuming Friday morning, Mr. Charles Hutchinson, 
 Crown-Attorney for the county of Middlesex, was examined and a deputation 
 was received from the London Humane Society, consisting of Rev. Dean Innes, 
 Rev. Canon Davis, President Perrin and Mr. Talbot MacBeth. 
 
 Toronto. June 14. The Commission met at the Rossin House, Toronto, at 
 3 o'clock, and heard a deputation from the Toronto Humane Society, consisting 
 of Messrs. S. G. Wood, W. A. Sims, Mervyn Mackenzie, George Taunt and Dr. 
 McCausland. Evidence was also received from— 
 
 Bertram Spencer, M.D. , Toronto. 
 Joshua Ingham, Cattle Buyer, Toronto. 
 Henry Wickson, Butcher, Toronto. 
 
 All were opposed to the practice. 
 
 Toronto, June 15. On Wednesday the Commission received evidence from 
 the following gentlemen : 
 
 John Mallon, Butcher, Toronto. 
 William Booth, Butcher, Toronto. 
 Sylvester Halligan, Cattle Dealer, Toronto. 
 Aid. John Hallam, Hide Merchant, Toronto. 
 David Walker, Caretaker, Cattle Market, Toronto. 
 William Kelly, Butcher, Toronto. 
 •William Mole, V.S., Hamilton. 
 John Willis, Humane Officer, Toronto. 
 E. A. Thompson, Inspector of Hides, Toronto. 
 
 Of the above Messrs. Hallam, Mole and Willis were opposed to the practice. 
 
 Toronto, June 16. The following witnesses were heard : 
 
 Cornelius Flanagan, Cattle Buyer, Toronto. 
 T. A. Mjlne, V.S., Toronto. 
 William Crealock, Wholesale Butcher, Toronto. 
 Thomas McCausland, M.D.. Toronto. 
 S. R. Wickett, Tanner, Toronto. 
 Alfred O. Beardmore, Tanner, Toronto. 
 William Levack, Wholesale Butcher, Toronto. 
 George Taunt, Toronto. 
 
 Of these, Messrs. Milne, McCausland and Taunt were opposed to the practice. 
 
 Toronto, June 17. In view of statements made by witnesses, the Com- 
 missioners visited the Toronto cattle market for the purpose of observing the 
 extent of the injuries inflicted by horns in transit and in the yards. The mar- 
 ket was unusually large, about 1,200 cattle having arrived during the previous 
 niodit. Two hours were spent in examining the various bunches of cattle, and 
 many animals were found to be suffering from the attacks of their fellows. Sev- 
 eral cases of broken horn were also seen. 
 
17 
 
 Ottawa, July 6. The Commission met in Ottawa on Wednesday evening 
 and made arrangements to visit the Dominion Experimental Farm on the follow- 
 ing morning. 
 
 Ottawa, July 7. The Commissioners drove to the Experimental Farm, 
 where they were met by Prof. Jas. W. Robertson, Dominion Dairy Commissioner, 
 and escorted over the premises. Fourteen steers that had been dehorned in the 
 spring and last fall were seen, after which a meeting was held in the farm office 
 and the evidence of Prof. Robertson and Robert W. Elliott, herdsman, was re- 
 ceived. 
 
 In the afternoon a meeting was held in the Russell House, Ottawa, when evi- 
 dence was given by W. C. Edwards, Esq., M.P.,and Senator Read, of Bellevi lie. On 
 the following day several of the Commissioners visited Mr, Edward's farm at 
 Rockland and inspected his system of feeding dehorned steers loose in large 
 stables, with a view to saving manure in the best possible condition. 
 
 In deference to the wishes of Mr. Hutchinson and Mr. Benjamin Cook, the 
 Commission decided to hold a meeting at lngersoll on Thursday, July 20, and to 
 formally summon a number of farmers known to have spoken against the prac- 
 tice, but who were unwilling to testify voluntarily. 
 
 lngersoll, July 20. The Commission held a meeting in the Town Hall and re- 
 ceived evidence from the following : 
 
 William Stirton, Dereham township. 
 John Mitchell, Dereham township. 
 Murray Smith, North Dorchester. 
 Foster Wilson, Dereham township. 
 Adam Gordon, North Oxford. 
 James Ruddick, North Oxford. 
 Joseph Cawthorp, Thamesford. 
 Thomas Hogg, North Oxford. 
 Wm. W. Sutherland, East Nissouri. 
 Edwin Cass well, lngersoll. 
 
 With the exception of Mr. Sutherland, all were opposed to the practice. 
 
 THE EVIDENCE. 
 
 Evidence was received from representatives of all the interests affected by 
 the practice, including general farmers, dairymen, drovers, exporters, wholesale 
 and retail butchers, cattle market attendants, tanners, hide merchants, veterinary 
 surgeons, medical practitioners and members of Humane Societies, — ninety-eight 
 in all. 
 
 ' Of the farmers examined, nearly 70 in number, all who had either performed 
 or seen the operation performed, with three or four exceptions, were strongly in 
 2 (D.O.) 
 
18 
 
 favor of it, the majority stating that they were prejudiced against it on the 
 grounds of cruelty until they gained a practical knowledge of it. Of the farmers 
 opposed to the practice not more than three or four had ever seen the operation 
 hut the} 7 thought it cruel and unnecessary. 
 
 Evidence as to the loss caused by animals u*ing their horns upon each other 
 was given by cattle buyers and others in frequent attendance at the cattle 
 market, and also by butchers and tanners. 
 
 Among veterinary surgeons a considerable conflict of opinion was found to 
 exist. As in the case of the farmers those wLo had seen the operation and 
 observed its effects were in favor of it, while those who had not seen it were 
 opposed to it. 
 
 Indeed, as regards all the evidence received by the Commission, it might almost 
 be given as the rule that where the operation was properly and skilfully performed 
 those witnessing it, however prejudiced before, became converts to it, while the 
 great bulk of fie opp>sitio.i came from parties not aeqmiatel with the 
 operation, and who entertained exaggerated ideas as to its severity. 
 
 In no case were witnesses able to refer to an instance where a farmer 
 was dissatisfied with the results or willing to give up his right to continue the 
 practice, after having performed the operation. 
 
 In addition to the evidence as to the amount of pain involved in the 
 operation, much evidence was received as to the commercial advantages ac ruing 
 from tlu operation, and emphasising the point that a gieat deal of suffering is 
 prevented by the removal of the horns. 
 
 No fault could be found with the character and bearing of those who 
 testified in favor of the practice. They were men who would readily be 
 selected as representative of the be -it class of farmers, and even those opposed to 
 them on this question willingly testified to their respectability and good standing 
 in the community. 
 
 A great deal of opposition to the practice was met with from members of 
 Humane Societies and others who believed that the operation was purely for 
 commercial considerations and therefore unjustifiable, and that the pain inflicted 
 was excessive. These witnesses were stiengthened in their belief by the 
 judgment of Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice Hawkins, a verbatim 
 report of that adverse decision having been printed and dissributed by the 
 Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. 
 
19 
 
 ANATOMY OF THE HORN. 
 
 From the various authorities on the subject, the following information has 
 been gathered concerning the anatomy of the horn : 
 
 The outer shell or horn proper is a continuation of the skin or hide, and 
 under the microscope has the appearance of a bundle of pressed hair. lb is 
 moulded upon a central core of bone, which projects from the frontal bone. In 
 the young calf the nucleus of bone inside the rudimentary horn moves freely on 
 the bone of the forehead, adhering and hardening as age advances. This central 
 bone becomes hollowed oat when it passes a certain age, and it is then lined by a 
 delicate membrane, which is the continuation of the membrane that lines 
 the chambers of the nose. The cavity in the horn core is a part of the system of 
 air chambers which serve to lighten the head without altering its size or shape. 
 When the horn is removed the brain is still protected from thi air by an inner 
 plate of bone. The bone of the horn has an exceedingly rough, uneven surface, 
 which holds firmly the fibrous and vascular membrane, known as the 
 matrix of the horn shell. The blood required for the nourishment of the bone 
 is furnished by capillary vessels passing into the bone from the deep layer of the 
 periosteum, and the nerve trunk enters the horn on the inner front near the eye 
 and thence branches off into numerous nerve filaments. There is but little 
 sensibility in the bone, and as there is none in the horn, it follows that it is only 
 in the part, between the bone and the horn that any considerable pain would be 
 caused by an operation upon a healthy animal. No proof can be given of the 
 capacity for suffering contained in the horn nerves. Some veterinarians claim 
 that from the nature of its function and the fact that there is no active process 
 of waste and repair going on, the horn is not likely to be endowed with a great 
 degree of nervous sensibility ; others again emphatically contend that the part 
 is highly sensitive and that the operation is accompanied by the keenest pain that 
 could well be inflicted. The form and length of the horn varies in different 
 animals, and there is also a considerable variation as to the size of the cavity in 
 
 the horn. 
 
 A Microscopic Examination. 
 
 A microscopic examination was made by H. A. McCallum, M.D., Professor 
 Western University, London, Ont., at the request of Mr. E. R. Cameron, of Lon- 
 don. His report reads : 
 
 Dear Sir : — I made a microscopic examination, as requested, of the cow's horn. It is com- 
 paratively nerveless. One bundle enters in front bur. I do not believe its functions to be com- 
 mon sensation or pain, but rather nutrition, locality, temperature and pressure sense. 
 
 The cu'tingof bone is a comparatively painless operation and I cannot think cows suffer 
 during the dehorning operation. 
 
 With reg;tid to dressing the bone after the operation, I should protest against any. The 
 blind spaces would be filled by blood immediately after the cutting, and healing here by "blood 
 
20 
 
 clot" would be the most scientific method, (the method followed by Prof. Halstead at Johns Hop- 
 kins' hospital, Baltimore). If dressing were applied it would prevent free drainage in the case 
 of formation of pus and endanger the cow's life as well as cause great suffering. It would be 
 impossible to keep the wound aseptic by dressing and antiseptic ointments, hence no dressing 
 but free drainage would be best. Yours truly, 
 
 London, dune 30, 1892. H. A. MoCalldm, M.D. 
 
 REASONS FOR THE PRACTICE. 
 
 It may reasonably be supposed that such a practice would not meet with 
 hearty endorsation from intelligent agriculturists unless there were important 
 and undoubted advantages arising from it. Among the chief arguments 
 advanced by witnesses in favor of dehorning were the following : — 
 
 Dehorned cattle are quieter and thrive better in consequence ; they are more 
 easily handled ; are less dangerous to man and to each other ; are less liable to 
 su tiering both on the farm and in transit ; their value is increased. 
 
 Quietness. 
 
 On the first paint there is no clashing of opinion, all the evidence going to 
 show that the operation subdues the animal, removes a restless or turbulent 
 disposition, and replaces viciousness with docility and tractability. This is most 
 marked in the case of bulls. While previous to dehorning the lives of attendants 
 were in constant jeopaidy, after the operation the animals were handled with 
 ease and safety. A glance through the evidence of farmers also shows a change 
 of conduct in the herd, particularly when passing through lanes and gates, and at 
 the watering trough. Instead of the chasing, goring and butting that formerly 
 prevailed, and the single tile, with bosses in rotation, the animals walk along 
 quietly in a body like a flock of sheep, and having no more desire to molest than 
 they have to be molested. At the watering trough, instead of one or two 
 standing guard and preventing the approach of the weaker cattle, all crowd 
 in together and proceed at once to satisfy their thirst. The Commis- 
 missioners had an opportunity of judging of this at Mr. Roger Hawkins' farm, 
 where eighteen animals drank at once from a tank seven feet in diameter. Such 
 altered conditions were claimed to be advantageous alike to dairying and beeting 
 stock, the sense of quiet and security enabling the cattle to better assimilate their 
 food and thus give a larger and richer yield of milk as well as show rapid 
 improvement in putting on flesh. W. C. Edwards, Esq.,M.P., who dehorned 30 steers 
 as an experiment and carefully noted the results, says on this point : " The effect 
 was to make them as quiet as a Hock of sheep. It took away all their evil nature 
 and made them settle down t« make beef." 
 
21 
 
 More Easily Handled and Less Dangerous. 
 
 Evidence was submitted to show that hornless cattle could be more easily 
 handled, and at a considerable saving of labor. In feeding and watering, driving 
 to and from pasture, shipping by rail, and handling at the markets, the change of 
 conduct rendered the work of caring for the animals lighter than before, and 
 fewer men were required to look after them. It was also pointed out that the 
 removal of the horns does away with an element of danger to which farmers and 
 their families have always been exposed. The possession of horns by domestic 
 cattle has always been, more or less, a source of dread, suffering and death to 
 mankind, and many witnesses spoke of injuries and narrow escapes they had 
 sustained, as well as the constant liability of their children to such attacks. Much 
 stress was also laid upon the fact that cattle frequently inflict serious injury upon 
 each other, and that this danger no longer exists when the horns are removed. 
 Especially in the markets and station yards is the vindictive spirit of cattle 
 noticeable, owing largely to the fact that the animals are strangers to each other, 
 and have been rendered irritable by long journeys and privation. 
 
 Less Liable to Suffering on the Farm and in Transit. 
 
 If it is true that there is considerable commercial loss involved in cattle 
 hooking and chasing each other, there must, in the same act, be a great amount 
 of pain inflicted. Many farmers testified as to cases of prolonged suffering occur- 
 ring in this way, and the consensus of opinion was — in the case of dairy cows 
 more especially — that the aggregate of suffering in an average lifetime was far 
 greater than that inflicted in the removal of the horns. Men like Messrs. W. W. 
 Hodgson, William Levack and Sylvester Halligan, in constant attendance at the 
 cattle market, were also strongly of opinion that even in the shorter life of cattle 
 raised for beef, more pain was caused bj^ the horns than would be inflicted in their 
 removal. 
 
 Their Value is Increased. 
 
 A considerable variety of evidence was received tending to show that the 
 commercial value of the animal is greatly increased by the operation. It is 
 claimed that the dehorned and therefore quiet animal sooner reaches a prime 
 condition than a beast that is habitually wild and unsettled, either by its own 
 possession of horns or the proximity of other horns. It is also more likely to be 
 free from bruises at the time of sale, and would, in consequence, command greater 
 favor with the butcher. This increase in value was estimated by witnesses at 
 from $5 to $8 per head. Tanners also stated in evidence that the damage caused 
 to hides by hooking was from 20 to 25 per cent., and this is avoided by the 
 removal of the horns. In feeding steers for export the benefit was claimed to be 
 
22 
 
 great, as dehorned cattle could be fed loose in open sheds, they required less- 
 space, less food and less labor, while at the same time the manure could be saved 
 to greater advantage. 
 
 Dairy Cows. 
 
 Dairymen further claimed that dehorning was a valuable expedient in the 
 care and management of dairy cows, and experiments made at the agricultural 
 stations, together with the experience of farmers, indicate that the milk yield is 
 not diminished for more than one or two milkings after the operation, while it 
 was pointed out that the increased quiet secured in the herd resulted in a larger 
 and richer flow. In feeding, watering and stabling there is economy of food and 
 labor, and much less liability of accidents. Many of the witnesses who advocated 
 the practice are prominently identified with the cheese industry of Oxford 
 county, and after one and two years' experience, they stated, without any reser- 
 vation, their confident belief that the advantages attainable by the practice are 
 vastly out of proportion to the pain inflicted. Two of the witnesses claimed that, 
 from a financial standpoint, the absence of horns from their herd was worth $50 
 per year, while the president of the Western Ontario Dairymen's Association 
 stated that if he were buying 100 dairy cows he would gladly give $200 more 
 for them without than with horns. The fact, also, thai at several of the agricul- 
 tural experiment stations, all dairy cows are dehorned must be taken as evidence 
 that the advantages are regarded as important by the scientific men of the 
 profession. 
 
 Evidence as to Increased Value. 
 
 From the evidence received the following statements might be quoted a* 
 indicating, to some extent, the commercial interests involved : 
 
 Jas. W. Robertson, Dominion Dairy Commissioner: "The additional profit in feeding steera 
 for market is considerable, owing to economy of labor. The increased gain might range from $8 
 up, owing to extra quiet, saving in labor, feeding in sheds and so on." 
 
 W. C. Edwards M.P. : "W.ien the steer-feeders of Ontario get into the way of it, and 
 feed loose in the buildings such as we have erected for the purpose, it wdl be millions of dollars 
 annually in the pockets of our farmers, in the saving of manure and the economy of feed and 
 labor." 
 
 William H. York, farmer in Middlesex county : "Rather than havethe horns back again 
 on my d dry cows I would be willing to pay an annual tax of $50." Stephen York, 
 in endorsing rhis statement, adds : " I am quire satisfied that the benefit is worth that 1 have 
 lost ab .ut #10 a year for the last twenty years in bloody milk, and I believe that most of this 
 loss was caused by horns " 
 
 William Levack. Toronto, a wholesale butcher, handling about 5,000 head of cattle per year 
 for the local trade : " We have a great deal of loss from bruises and damaged hides Very 
 often we have to cut away the flanks and briskets altogether. The injured part swells up, and 
 the blood gathers there, making itinto a jelly. My loss in this way is from $1,000 to $1,500 
 every vear." . . 
 
 William ^realock, Toronto, also a wholesale butcher : "lam in favor of dehorning trom a 
 business standpoint, hecau-e the weaker animals get bruised, sometimes to the extent of $10 a 
 bullock There is always one or more injured in every carload, with an average loss of $10 
 
 Cornelius Flanagan, Toronto, an extensive cattle exporter : " I would prefer cattle without 
 horns on account of their freedom from bruises. The injury in this way is about $5 per carload. 
 
23 
 
 Ertward A. Thompson, hide inspector Toronto : " I should say that out of 50,000 hides 
 handled by my office annually the number damaged by horns would be 2,5 0, and at 50c. per 
 hide the total loss per year would be about Si 250. 
 
 Samuel R. Wickett, tanner, Toronto : " We handle 5fl hides a day, and 1 think there is 
 fully 25 per cent, that sh"\v more or less damage from horns. I would say th*t the actual de- 
 preciation in the value of the H(J0 hides we handle every week would be ab"Ut $45 " Mr. Alfred 
 Beardmore said that he thought Mr. Wickett's estimate was about right, and that the loss was 
 a serious one to the tanners of the province. 
 
 AMOUNT OF SUFFERING. 
 
 With regard to the amount of suffering involved in the operation, farmers 
 and others accustomed to the care of cattle, who had either seen the operation of 
 dehorning or had performed it themselves, testified that the animals did not 
 apparently suffer much pain at the time or afterwards, that they manifested no 
 symptoms of shock, but partook of water and food immediately, and that the 
 secretion of milk was not diminished or changed for more than a day. Veterinary 
 surgeons and medical practitioners, also, who had made a study of the operation, 
 gave it as their opinion that the pain is practically over after the operation, and 
 that the discharge of matter from the head, referred to by so many witnesses, 
 was not necessarily indicative of continued suffering. On this point William 
 Brady, V. S., Tilsonburg, says: " I have seen a mucous discharge, but that is a 
 discharge that nature provides for the healing of the wound. There was no pus 
 discharge in any I have seen, but in one or two cases after the scab had formed 
 over the parts, I found, upon raising the scab, a very small quantity of pus lodged 
 underneath it. A mucous discharge is no sign of pain, even if it were running 
 down the face ; it is simply the exudation of matter that is closing up the part." 
 
 James Clark, F.R.CV.S., Scotland : " A great deal of stress and alarm is 
 put on the fact that we have sometimes a discharge of matter from the frontal 
 sinuses. I admit that it is better to avoid this, if at all possible, and if attention 
 is paid to the comfort of animals it will be found that the percentage of these 
 cases will be very small. In every day practice the presence of matter is of little 
 consequence ; it does cause discomfort and retard the healing process, but does 
 not necessarily interfere with a good and successful recovery." 
 
 On the other hand, a number of veterinary surgeons, some of them 
 eminent in their profes-ion, looking entirely at the anatomy of the part, have 
 asserted in positive terms that the operation must be one of excruciating pain, 
 and their evidence, given in various legal cases affecting the practice, has heen a 
 strong factor in arousing opposition. In the English trial, Prof. Waliey, Principal 
 of the Royal Dick's Veterinary College, Edinburgh, in the course of his evidence 
 said: "Inflammation must arise where the sinus has been cut through. The 
 ordinary bone cannot be said to be sensitive, for you would not feel the saw going 
 through your leg, but you would when it went through the tissues. It is the 
 sensitive tissues in the horn that, when cut through, causes the intense pain to 
 
24 
 
 the animals. It is like cutting through the quick of your finger. There would 
 be at the time extreme pain, and for many days after, a fortnight, and probably 
 longer in some cases." Prof. McCall, Principal of the Glasgow Veterinary College, 
 Prof. Pritchard, President of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, London, 
 Prof. Cox, a former president of the college, and a number ot others, stated that 
 they had heard and agreed with the views expressed by Prof. Walley. 
 
 Such testimony was strongly emphasised by witnesses before the Com- 
 mission, who, without professing any expert knowledge of the question, were 
 fully convinced that the practice was a cruel and barbarous one. 
 
 Broken Horn. 
 
 A large number of witnesses judged from having seen a broken horn that 
 the suffering in dehorning would be proportionate, but other witnesses who had 
 seen both the operation and the horn broken accidentalh', claimed that several 
 horns could be removed with the saw with less pain than that caused by one 
 broken horn. The force necessary to break a horn must give a severe wrench to 
 the head, resulting in some instances in the fracture of the skull, while at the same 
 time a large surface of nerve tissue is exposed to the air, and the lacerated 
 condition of the wound produces great irritation. 
 
 Blow upon the Horn. 
 
 The fact that a blow upon the horn causes great pain to the animal was also 
 
 used as an argument against dehorning. In this case, however, the pain is caused 
 
 more by the shock given to the head through the leverage of the horn. H. H. 
 
 Haaf, of Chicago, writing on this subject, says : — 
 
 '' If the animal sustains a charge or blow on the head or horns, or makes a charge with one 
 horn, the second story, the cross bone and the partitions or walls between the frontal sinuses 
 and the parietal bone make the head an almost perfect catapult or battering ram. Nothing in 
 the shape of flesh and blood can withstand the onset, but it is a horse of another color when 
 flesh and blood in the shape of a smart active boy hurls a stone or chunk of wood and sti'ikes 
 the horn. In this case the springing of the parts at the suture produces intense agony, not so 
 much by knocking off the shell or bone horn as by communication to the brain caused by the 
 unequal blow on the one side and the suddenness of the shock." 
 
 The Humane Aspect. 
 
 While many of the Humane Societies have expressed strong opposition to the 
 practice as being cruel and unnecessary, it is a remarkable fact that all who favor 
 it claim that it is a humane operation and in the bsst interests of the animals 
 themselves. The following are only a few of the statements made as to the 
 humanity of the practice, and coming as they do from men occupying important 
 public positions they are entitled to careful consideration : 
 
 James W. Robertson, Dominion Dairy Commissioner: " In taking off the horns a great 
 deal of suffering, otherwise spread over a period of years, is reduced to a sensation of pain for a 
 
25 
 
 moment or two. I believe there is greater pain from hooking than from dehorning. Then an 
 animal often suffers keenly from fear of being hocked. I have known them to bellow and show 
 great distress although there was no actual injury inflicted on the body." 
 
 W. C. Edwards, M.P. : " I believe it is more humane to cut the horns off a lot of steers, 
 and allow them to feed in their natural way, loose, than to tie up an animal on a hard floor 
 and keep it confined in a narrow stall for six months." 
 
 Hon. Robert Read, Member of the Dominion Senate : " I have looked into the dehorning 
 question pretty carefully and I believe it would be humane to the cattle to take the horns off." 
 
 I. P. Roberts, Director of the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station : " If by 
 hurting one animal for a few moments we can prevent it from inflicting many severe and painful 
 \vounds and hurts on many other animals for many years T feel that it is an act of humanity to 
 take the horns from the offending animals." 
 
 Walter J. Quick, Director of the Colorado State Agricultural College : " The main advant- 
 age of dehorning is the prevention of cruelty among animals. I consider that the suffering in- 
 flicted by the operation is justified by the results, outside of any financial consideration." 
 
 Frank E Emery, Agriculturist of the North Carolina Station : " It is a humane operation 
 between beast and beast, that is, the pain inflicted on a domineering cow or steer seems less 
 than is produced by such a beast in a single day on the quieter ones of a herd with the use of 
 the horns." 
 
 Clinton D. Smith, Director of the Minnesota Experiment Station : "The pain attendant 
 upon the operation seems to cease within a very few moments after the operation." 
 
 S. M. Tracy, Director of the Mississippi Station : " There seems to be no suffering after- 
 wards, and there is less danger from injury to each other." 
 
 C. S. Plumb, Director of the Indiana Station : " In some cases animals struggle or bellow- 
 but more from fright than from pain. I do not believe, from observations taken under the 
 supervision of a trained veterinarian, that there is any considerable pain." 
 
 F. A. Gulley, Director of the Arizona Station : " The suffering inflicted by the operation is 
 so slight that I do not think it worth considering. T not only believe the operation to be a 
 humane ope, but I think it not humane to allow animals to use their horns to punch and gore 
 each other during their natural lives, " 
 
 J. A. Myers, Director of the West Virginia Station : " There is a slight fever in some cases, 
 but from a humane standpoint I think it (the operation) an advantage." 
 
 Tait Butler, Veterinarian of the Mississippi Agricultural Station : "The operation cannot 
 be performed without producing considerable pain for the short period of from ten to twenty 
 seconds ; after that space of time the pain is certainly slight." 
 
 W. A. Henry, Director of the Wisconsin Station : " I am confident that the act of dehorn- 
 ing is humane and beneficent, and can prove it by the action of our herd to any reasonable 
 person." 
 
 Joseph' Hughes, M.R.C.V.S., Professor in the Chicago Veterinary College : "I favor the 
 practice from a perfectly humanitarian standpoint. It prevents the goring of animal by animal, 
 and does away with the bullies." 
 
 W. A. Harris, stockbreeder, Kansas : "The pain is evidently acute during the actual oper- 
 ation, but I think the suffering is greatly aggravated by our imagination." 
 
 Albert E. Menke, Director of Arkansas Station : " The operation must be considered pain- 
 ful, but there is no evidence that the pain is excessive after the operation is over." 
 
 Prof. Baird, of the Royal Dick's College, Scotland : " It is much better that all animals 
 should by dehorning sutler a li'tle for a day or two, than that the weaker should be constantly 
 subjected to torture by their stronger neighbors." 
 
 Thomas Greaves, F.R.C.V.S., Manchester, Eng.: "It is my firm opinion that the prevailing 
 notion that the operation is attended with great pain i3 exaggerated, and that much of this sup- 
 position has its base in sentiment." 
 
26 
 
 SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVES. 
 
 .Many persons opposed to the practice of dehorning have claimed that knob- 
 bing or tipping the horns of viciously-disposed animals is sufficient to meet all 
 reasonable requirements. " Knobbing " is the placing of brass or wooden knobs 
 on the points of the horns, while " tipping " is cutting off the sharp points to the 
 extent of an inch or an inch and a half. 
 
 The evidence shows that these precautions may prevent the more serious 
 form of injury, but they do not, it was generally admitted, change the disposition 
 of the animal or prevent it from doing damage. Some views expressed along 
 this line were as follows : 
 
 Robert Gillett, farmer, Norfolk, England : "I have tipped horns for the last thirty or 
 forty years. I never found any benefit from it. Q. Then why did you continue it so long ? 
 A. It was our custom. Q. By tipping with aflat end, or a knob that makes the blow glance 
 off, were they not prevented from injuring one another? A. Not a bit, sir. 
 
 Robin Cook, farmer, Norfolk, England : "I trie 1 tipping ten or twelve times, and it 
 made no difference to the animal. They rush at one another just the same. I even tried i4 
 after 1 found out it was no go >d." 
 
 (The above was given in evidence in the English case of Ford v. Wiley.) 
 
 Spencer A. Freeman, farmer, Culloden, Ont. (Before the Commission) : "I am in favor 
 of dehorning 1 commenced at first with cutting off the tips of the horns ; this was not 
 altogether successful as there was the same tendency to knock each other about. I tried again 
 by taking a little more off the horn, but f unrl they c uld hook as much as ever in the course of 
 a year or so, and 1 then decided to have the horn taken off. 1 had a colt that was ripped up 
 and I attributed it to the cattle, even after the horns had been tipped. I am satisfied there is 
 wiore pain in taking off the tips of the horns of a two-year old to reach the quick than there ia 
 in dehorning." 
 
 George W. Curtis, Director of the Texas Agricultural Station, says : "I have tried knob- 
 bing and tipping and consider both practically worthless with vicious animals." 
 
 Frank E. Stiver, dairyman, North Norwich, Oxford county : "I have bought cows with 
 wooden knobs on ; of couise they could not do as much harm, but 1 do not think the disposi- 
 tion was in any way changed." 
 
 Isaiah W. Elliott, farmer, Oxford county : "I tried putting knobs on the horns of twenty 
 or thirty cows. It prevented them from tearing, but did not preveut them from but ing or 
 hooking." 
 
 Frank S. Emery, agriculturist, North Carolina Agricultural Station: "Animals witk 
 knobbed horns, wnile less dmgerous, can and do make just as much distu.b,tnce in a herd *s 
 though no knobs were on them." 
 
 ■6" 
 
 Dehorn Only Vicious Animals. 
 
 Again, it was urged that only the vicious should be dehorned and that the 
 quieter animals should be allowed to retain their horns. To this argument, 
 which seems at a first glance to be a reasonable one, all the witnesses favoring 
 the practice raised the objection that it would not meet the case. In every herd 
 they say, there is a master or boss who compels submission on the part of all the 
 others. The removal of one boss, simply means that another takes its place. 
 
21 
 
 while the dehorned animal is at once subjected to general attack. Substantiat- 
 ing this the following, among other opinions, might be referred to : 
 
 W. V. Nigh, farmer, Avou, Ont. : "t dehorned a vicious cow. and when I saw how little 
 she suffered and the way in which the others went for her I decided to take the horn3 off the 
 whole lot." 
 
 Joseph Franks, farmer, Dorchester, Ont. : " I bought two dehorned cows, and these two 
 are attacked more than any other in the herd." 
 
 Thomas Rutherford, farmer, Delmer, Ont. : "At tir3t the quiet one3 were allowed to keep 
 their horns, but these became bossy, and [ decided to have all the horns taken off." 
 
 Prevention of Growth. 
 
 A number of witnesses who believe that horns are undesirable, advocated the 
 
 prevention of their growth by means of chemicals. There are at present two or 
 
 three chemical preparations on the market which are advertised to prevent the 
 
 growth of the horn if properly applied, and the information obtained by the 
 
 Commission seems to indicate that this method is attended by a considerable 
 
 degree of success. 
 
 John Fulton, farmer, Oxford county, says : " I would recommend chat the operation be 
 performed on calves by means of caustic ; the best time to apply it is in the fir t week. There 
 does not seem to be auy suffering more than an itching of the part. I tried caustic on eleven 
 calves, some were a good job ; on one or two there were stubs, and on one of the animals one 
 horn was left." 
 
 John H. Reed, fanner, Oxford county : "I do not like to dehorn my cows because I am 
 attached to them. I tried the liquid preparation on calves of three days old, but this was only 
 a few days ago, and I could not speak as to the success 01 the experiment." 
 
 L. A. Brown, V.S., Aylmer, Ont. : "I have used potash caustic on about 30 calves three 
 weeks old and under. In some cases it was a success. All that was necessary was to cl p the 
 hair from the budding horn and thoroughly apply the caustic. I consider, however, that the 
 best results are secured by removing the horns from the grown animal." 
 
 Les'ie H. Adams, Farm Superintendent, Wisconsin Agricultural Station, writes: ''In ad- 
 vertisements of chemical fluids it is often claimed that the application is painless, but our obser- 
 vations do not coincide with any such statement. The application of a fluid powerful enough to 
 destroy so large a surface as the button on the calf's head must produce a g'eat deal ot pain, 
 and the calves show this by nervous movements of the head and attempting tj rub the irritated 
 spot." 
 
 Prof. H H. Wing, of the Cornell Agricultural Station, writes: "We have made several 
 trials with stick caustic potash and the indications are that it is going to be the most succes ful, 
 the most humane, andth- 1 easiest method o' growing hornless cattle." 
 
 Prof. I. P. Roberts, Director of the Cornell Station : " Prevention by means of stick caustic 
 potash is a good thing, but it should be done before the calf is t.vo weeks old " 
 
 Walter J. Quick. Director, Colorado Agricultural Station : " I have tried disbudding and 
 prevention <>i the growth of the hum oy means of the chemical dehomer. I consider these 
 methods the proper means of dehorning as they are comparatively painless." 
 
 Cli ton D. Smith, Director, Minnesota Experiment Station: "If the use of caustic on calves is 
 effective 1 should prefer that method." 
 
 C. S. Plumb. Director, Indiana Station : " I usually remove the horn by the application of 
 a little caustic potash, just as it appears upon the surface of the skin. In my experience calves 
 do not show any indicati .n of pain, and it would save lots of trouble in the future." 
 
28 
 
 Removal of the Embryo Horn. 
 
 Disbudding, that is, the cutting out of the embryo horn when the calf is from 
 three to seven or eight weeks old, has, by a number of veterinarians and scien- 
 tific agriculturists, been advocated as preferable to dehorning later on, their im- 
 pression being that the operation is less painful at an early age. None of the 
 witnesses examined by the Commission had any experience in this direction, but 
 from the collected information the following opinions might be quoted : 
 
 Prof. Walley (in the English trial) : "As soon as the small horn cones on the young ani- 
 mal you have only to make an incision and take a knife and remove the core. The horn does 
 not grow again, or if it does it will be very imperfect. The suffering caused is infinitesimal." 
 
 Prof. Macqueen, Glasgow Veterinary College : "The operation, if performed at a 1 !, should 
 be done on the animal before it is six or eight months old. This prevents the horns growing 
 and the operation is comparatively painless." 
 
 Prof. Wallace, Agriculturist of the University of Edinburgh : " The best time to perform 
 the operation is when a well-fed calf is almost a month or six weeks old. 'J lie horns are then 
 budding and protruding through the skin. The knife used should go deep enough to remove 
 the whole of the base of the limpet-like horn, and with it a little of the skin all round to make 
 sure that no growth of " scaurs " should afterwards occur." 
 
 James Law, F.R.C.V.S., Cornell University Agricultural Station : " The operation as 
 practiced on the budding horns of a young calf is much less painful." 
 
 S. M. Tracy, Director, Mississippi Station : "The best time to operate is when the horn can 
 be felt distinctly, buc I have taken them off at all ages." 
 
 R. R. Dinwiddie, V.S., Arkansas Station : " Disbudding under three months is preferable, 
 either with the gouge or caustic. There is less pain and the results are as good." 
 
 Joseph Hughes, M.R.C.V.S., Chicago Veterinary College : " I think disbudding would be 
 less painful and would meet all requirements." • » 
 
 George W. Curtis, Director, Texas station : " Removing the buttons from calves I do not 
 think any less painful than dehorning. We mind it less, however, for the reason that the animals 
 are smaller and weak, and cannot make so much show of resistance or pain." 
 
 H. H. Haaf. Chicago : "The operation of dehorning calves is the most peculiar, the most 
 particular, and the most severe operation in the whole category of dehorning cattle." 
 
 James Clark, F.R.C.V.S., Coupar Angus, Scotland: "Calves can be dehorned at two or 
 three months old, but in clumsy hands might be made a more painful operation than it really is 
 in older animals, from the fact that the horn is not properly formed, and a considerable portion 
 of skin necessarily requires to be removed." 
 
 Arkansas Experimental Station bulletin, August, 1883: "The operation on calves is less 
 objectionable and should be preferred to the more serious and painful operation on older auimals. 
 It is best performed when the calves are from three to seven or eight weeks old, soon after the 
 horn shows itself above the skin. Removal of the small, movable button of horn is not sufficient 
 to prevent further growth, but part of the soft, spongy bone beneath should also be removed. 
 A circular gouge— the ordinary punch formerly used for cutting gun wads — is the only instru- 
 ment necessary. By a rotatory movement the skin is cut down to the bone around the base of 
 the horn, and" by depressing the hand and slight lateral motion the bone is easily removed for a 
 sufficient depth. The skull wall is, at this age, solid at the base of the horn and very thick, 
 soft osseous tissue filling up the space which afterwards, by absorption, becomes part of the 
 frontal sinus. Bleeding usually ceases spontaneously ; if excessive, it may be controlled by cold 
 water or pressure by pad held in place by a bandage. The only after treatment is to keep the 
 part clean by occasional washing with an antiseptic solution, such as carbolic acid, one part to 
 fifty of water. Dehorning, after the fourth or fifth month must be clone by the saw, as the 
 horns are then usually too large to admit the use of the gouge. 
 
 (Many of the witnesses expressed a fear that the removal of the bone in 
 calfhood would develop in the animal a tendency to bunt, and that if such should 
 prove to be the case many of the advantages of the operation would be lost.) 
 
29 
 
 HORNS IN RELATION TO AGE. 
 
 An argument strongly urged against dehorning was that the removal of the 
 horns encouraged fraud as to the age of the animal. With the revolving years 
 the horns of cows and steers acquire a succession of rings, which, after the 
 second year, become permanent and serve as a means of estimating the age. The 
 growth of a new coat of hair is contemporary with the development of an extra 
 thickness of horn, while the cold season corresponds to a period of comparatively 
 interrupted growth. Hence the alternations of rings and grooves that mark the 
 age on the horns from the third year onward. 
 
 The removal of the horns, it was claimed, removed all indications of age* 
 and also tended to conceal the natural coarseness of the animal, thus enabling un- 
 scrupulous parties to practice deception in disposing ,of their stock. In answer 
 to this objection, the farmers and cattlemen favoring dehorning, said that while 
 possibly a man buying a few head of cattle each year might be deceived, those 
 accustomed to handling cattle could readily calculate the age by the condition of 
 the teeth and the general appearance. The following might be referred to as- 
 representative opinions on this point : 
 
 Benjamin Hopkins, dairyman, Oxford county : "I would not think there was any danger 
 from fraud owing to the removal of the horns. In judging an animal I would look at its mouth ; 
 it might nut be possible to tell its age exactly, but the condition of the teeth is a good indica- 
 tion. " 
 
 Enoch B. Brown, farmer, Brownsville, Ont. : " There is no danger of fraud ; the teeth are 
 marked like a horse's and you can judge from the general appearance. It is true that the teeth 
 are sometimes affected Ly the nature of the soil on which the animal pastures, but if the teeth 
 are gone she would not be much use anyway." 
 
 Daniel T. Smith, farmer, Dereham, Oxford county : "Anyone accustomed to cattle would 
 not be deceived in the age of an animal that had no horns." 
 
 Joshua Ingham, cattle buyer, Toronto : " There would not be much danger from fraud, be- 
 cause if the tee h are good the cow is all right." 
 
 Cornelius Flanagan, cattle buyer, Toronto: "I don't think a man who knew his business could 
 be taken in. If you were to take any beast and put its head in a bag, I could tell you about its, 
 age from its general appeara c i " 
 
 DEHORNING AS A CUSTOM. 
 
 The practice of dehorning cattle seems to have first originated in Ireland 
 about twenty- three years ago, and to have spread from there to Scotland. In 
 both these countries it is extensively carried on at present. In England a 
 number of farmers in the county of Norfolk adopted the practice about the year 
 1885, and it was carried ^on there until a decision was given in May, 1889, 
 pronouncing the practice illegal. In the United States it was introduced about 
 ten years ago, and owing to the publications and lectures of H. H. Haaf of 
 Chicago, Prof. Henry of Wisconsin, and the endorsation of a number of the 
 agricultural experiment stations, it has spread with great rapidity during the past 
 
30 
 
 five years. Ifc is now a common practice in Iowa, Wisconsin and Illinois and on 
 the large ranches and stock farms of the Western States, and the number of cattle 
 dehorned is said to he over one million. In Canada it has been carried on to a 
 limited extent during the past four years in the western part of this Province and 
 also in Quebec. 
 
 VARIOUS LEGAL DECISIONS. 
 
 Looking at the practice from a legal aspect, the Commissioners find that it 
 has been the subject of litigation from the year 1874 to the present time. The 
 first important case of which we have been able to find a record occurred in 
 Ireland in February, 1884, and since then, in Great Britain, six appeals from 
 magisterial decisions have been carried to the higher courts. The result has been 
 that the Irish and Scottish courts have affirmed the legality of the practice, while 
 in England Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice Hawkins have con- 
 demned it as illegal and subject to serious penalties. 
 
 The Law against Cruelty. 
 
 The Dominion statute against cruelty to animals, under which prosecutions 
 were brought, reads as follows : 
 
 "Eve'yone who wantonly, cruelly, or unnecessarily beats, binds, ill-treats, abuses, over- 
 drives, or tortures any cattle, poultry, dog, domestic animal or bird shall, upon summary 
 conviction b fore two justices of th peace, be liable to a .penalty not exceeding $50, or 
 imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months. 
 
 In the English law it is enacted : 
 That "• if any person shall cruelly beat, ill-treat, over-'rive, abuse or torture, or cause or 
 procure to be cruelly beaten, ill treated, over-driven, abused or tortured any animal" such 
 offender shall be subject to such punishment as is prescribed by that statute. 
 
 Summary of British Trials. 
 
 The following brief note of the various cases will show at a glance how the 
 
 matter stands : 
 
 Ireland, 1884 — Brady v. McArgle. Magistrate refused to convict. Exchequer division 
 held that conviction should have been entered. (Baron Djwse and Mr. Justice Andrews,) 
 
 Ireland, 1885— Callaghan and McEvoy v. the S P. C. A. Three magistrates at the petty 
 sessions held that they were bound to convict in accord mce with the above decision. Commou 
 pleas division of the High ' ourt of Justice overruled this, and held that the operation, skihuily 
 perf 'rined, did not come within the meaning of the Act. (Chief Justice Morris, Mr. Justice 
 Harrison and Mr. Justice Murphy.) 
 
 Scotland, 18SS - Penton v. Wilson. Acquitted by the sheriff-substitute. C se appealed to 
 a higher court, and the sheriff-substitute sustained. (Lords Young. McLaren and ItuJierford 
 Clark.) 
 
 England, 1K88 — Ford v. Wiley. Admitted by a board of five magistrates. Higher court 
 held that conviction should have been entered. (Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice 
 Hawkins.,) 
 
 Sctland. 1891 — Penton v. Wilson. Appealed to a higher court, and the two previous 
 decisions unanimously confirmed. (The Lord Justice Clark, Lords McLaren, Irayner, Well- 
 wood and Kyllachy.) 
 
 Ireland, 1891 — Newland v. McDonagh. Two magistrates refused to convict. Higher 
 court sustained this decision. (The Lord hief Justice, Mr. Justice O'Brien, Mr. Justice 
 .lohnson, Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Jusiice Gibson.) 
 
31 
 
 United States, 1886 — llinois Humane Society v. Haaf. Tried at Chicago ; case dismissed. 
 About the same time the Pennsylvania Sooietv for the i retention of Cruelty to Animals prose- 
 cuted a fanner named Horst. ■ he case was submitted to a j'iry, who dismissed the action, but 
 imposed one-half the cos*s on the defen hint an<l one-half on the Society. 'The last prosecution, 
 to date in the United states was decided June, 1892. The Wesiern Pennsylvania Humane 
 Society brought an action against a fanner near Pittsburg. The defence had a large numb r of 
 witnesses, many of whom tes ified that the cattle, wht-n dehorne I, would herd together like 
 sheep, never fighc, and put on flesh better ; also, that the pain of t e operation lasted only a 
 few moments. A verdict of acquittal was brought in by a jury. 
 
 Canada, 1*90 — The Montreal S. P. C. A. brought an action against J. L. SheDard. a farmer 
 of A'>ercorn, Qiubac. The case w;n tried bjfore four Just ces of tlie Peace, wh > dismissed it 
 with costs against the Society on the evidence of 22 witnesses tha r tin operation was a beneficial 
 one ; the defendant, however, voluntarily paid hi- own costs. In the early part of the follow- 
 ing year W. V. Ni^h was prosecuted on the same charge at L<n Ion, » mtario. befoiv two 'ustiees 
 of the Peace, wh » dismissed the case without costs In January. 1S9 i, Willi nn Z >rk, Elvvu' I 
 York and W. \. El do it were prosecuted at London, Ont., before two Justices, convicted, and 
 fined $50 and costs each. 
 
 First Irish Case. 
 
 The first case of dehorning brought before the courts, of which a record is 
 
 obtainable, was that of Brady V. McArgie in Ireland. 
 
 The defendant, McArgie, was summoned at the instance of Thos. F. Brady, 
 Hon. Secretary of the .Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, for 
 ' having caused the horns of certain ca'tle to lie cut off and otherwise ill-treated 
 them on the 25th of February, l«8f, at Greenan, in the county of Meath, Ireland." 
 
 The case was heard before Mr. George McCar hy, R. M., sitting alone as 
 justice at a petty sessions held at Drunic onrath on the li)th of March, 18<S4«. 
 After hearing the evidence for and against of seven witnesses, the magistrate 
 declined to convict, on the gro:nds that in his opinion the act was not cruelty 
 within the f ir meaning of the statute, and that the custom of dehorning cattle 
 greatly prevailed among the farmers of the district to enable them to get a larger 
 price for their beasts. He accordingly dismissed tue case on the merits. 
 
 At the request of counsel for the complainant, the magistrate agreed to state 
 
 a case for the opinion of the Superior Court on the question of law whether the 
 
 acts proved came within the statute, and the question for the consideration of the 
 
 court was : 
 
 Whether the magistrate was wrong in point of law in dismissing the case, or whether he 
 should have convicted upon the above facts '/ 
 
 Exchequer Division. 
 
 This case next came before the Exchequer Division, April 19, 188-t, the 
 
 presiding judges being Baron Dowse and Mr. Justice Andrews. Both these 
 
 justices concurred in the decision that the magistrate ought to have convicted, on 
 
 the ground that the act was an offence within the meaning of the Act. 
 
 His Lordship Baron Dowse pointed out that it was not contended that these 
 acts were done for the sake of the cattle. Alter dealing at some length with 
 the interpretation of the word "cruelty," he continued:—"! cannot hold that 
 what is here complained of better fits or makes the animal more serviceable 
 for the use of man. I think the acts were unreasonable and unnecessary, 
 and are consequently forbidden by law. The acts were done for convenience, 
 it is said. Convenience of whom? Of the mm who chooses to feed his 
 eattle in a narrow yard, or in a particular manner aud in a confined place. 
 
32 
 
 Tn my judgment the acts cannot be said to be done to make the animal more 
 serviceable for the use of man. They were done for the convenience of particular 
 individuals, and for their contingent profit, and under special conditions, and 
 under circumstances of limited and by no means general application. There are 
 some markets in England where beasts are preferred without horns, but if there 
 were other markets where, that they might be more easily fattened they were 
 preferred without eyes, would that justify or excuse any person in depriving the 
 animals of their eyes ? . . Nobody can contend that it was absolutely necessary 
 to cut off these horns, and in my view it was eminently unreasonable. . . Once 
 the cruel act is unreasonable and unnecessary — and, in my opinion, the act here is 
 both one and the other — the prosecution ought to succeed. On the facts as laid 
 before us the magistrate should have convicted. The case must, therefore, be 
 sent back to him, with the opinion of the Court that he was bound to convict, 
 and as this is a case of the first impression in this country, we shall give no costs 
 of the argument." 
 
 Mr. Justice Andrews, in agreeing with "His Lordship, held that the dehorning 
 of cattle in the manner proved constituted an offence under the statute. 
 
 The case was, therefore, remitted to the magistrate with this opinion. 
 
 S. P. C. A. v. Callaghan. 
 
 The next Irish case came before Magistrates McCarthy, Bovvlby and Everard 
 at the petty sessions, George's Cross, county Meath, on November 25, 1884. 
 Two farmers, Messrs. Callaghan and McEvoy were charged with cruelty to 
 animals, in having dehorned 13 and 16 cows respectively. The counsel for the 
 complainant (S. P. C. A.) called upon the magistrates to convict, relying upon the 
 decision in Brady v. McArgle. The magistrates stated they were bound to convict 
 in accordance with the decision quoted. They found, however, that in the case 
 of individual cattle, the operation was not improperly or unskilfully performed 
 and they would not have convicted in these cases had they not been of opinion 
 that the decision of the Exchequer Division applied and ruled every case where 
 an animal is dehorned. 
 
 In respect of the justification relied upon by the defendants, the magistrate* 
 stated that they arrived at the conclusion that the operation increased the market- 
 able value of the animals, that it rendered them quiet and tractable and less dan- 
 gerous to man and each other, that no practice causing less pain could be substi- 
 tuted for it, and that the advantages attainable by the practice were vastly out 
 of proportion to the pain inflicted thereby, provided that the operation was skil- 
 fully performed. 
 
 The case was then submitted to the Common Pleas Division of the High 
 Court of Justice for a decision as to whether the practice of dehorning cattle was 
 one of cruelty to animals within the meaning of the Act. On the bench were 
 Chief Justice Morris, Mr. Justice Harrison and Mr. Justice Murphy, and all three 
 concurred that the operation skilfully performed could not be held to come within 
 the meaning of the Act. 
 
 Chief Justice M( rris in his judgment said: I am of opinion t..at dehorning 
 of cattle skilfully and properly performed is not an offence within the meaning 
 of the Act, which is directed altogether against acts of cruelty. . . . Though 
 in dehorning skilfully performed, the pain inflicted appears tome on the evidence 
 to be very temporary, yet it does appear to me to be substantial ; but looking at 
 the suffering in reference to the object with which it is inflicted it cannot in my 
 
IS 
 
 opinion be considered unnecessary, for the object is reasonable and adequate. 
 
 . . In cases like the present where there is no appeal, this court though 
 entertaining every respect for the decision of a court of concurrent jurisdiction, 
 cannot follow it in a case dealing with such important interests as the present! 
 and which in my opinion very clearly should be decided with the appellants. 
 . . . The prosecution by a society like the prosecutors should in my judgment 
 be carefully, perhaps jealously watched. Most laudable in its inception and 
 objects, it has a tendency to fall into the hands of over-active officials, or to be 
 urged on by individuals seeking to impose an undue extension of a general act 
 their own idiosynacrasies on society. The vivisection Act is important as showing 
 that legislation was necessary to restrain within certain limits painful expert 
 ments. If the opponents of dehorning cattle desire to check or restrain its oper- 
 ations in a similar way they must resort to legislation. 
 
 Mr. Justice Harrison said that it appeared from the evidence that the prac- 
 tice had commenced about twenty years ago and was prevalent in many parts of 
 Ireland. He was of the opinion after considering the conclusions arrived at by 
 the magistrates and reading over the evidence, that the practice was a reasonable 
 one, and necessary for the proper carrying on of the system of straw yard winter 
 feeding, largely and profitably practiced in many parts of Ireland. He was fur- 
 ther of the opinion that the fact that the operation was attended with pain was 
 not sufficient to constitute it a cruel or criminal act within the meaning of the 
 statute. Regard must be had to the use to be made of cattle. One of such uses 
 was for food for human beings, and if this practice was advantageous in making- 
 cattle thrive better in store feeding and be more safely conveyed in transit it 
 could not be held to be an act within the statute being done to make the animal 
 more serviceable for the use of man. 
 
 Mr. Justice Murphy held that in a case of this kind self-interest would pre- 
 vent any farmer from resorting to a practice, where the result was merely to 
 cause useless pain or torture to the animals. Great pain and suffering would, 
 necessarily reduce the condition of the animal, and unless they very soon 
 recovered the farmer would lose in the sale. The defendants had produced evi- 
 dence to show that the pain caused by the operation was very brief ; that the 
 animal feeds very soon after the operation ; that it throve better than animals 
 from which the horns were not removed ; that in transportation dehorned animals 
 suffer less, the cattle with horns being liable to suffer from being gored one by 
 the other ; and that in the English markets to which they resort for sale the 
 animals dehorned bring £2 per head more than animals of the same weight and 
 quality would with horns on . . . The purpose for which the act was done 
 was to make the animal more serviceable for the use of man, and therefore the 
 statute did not apply, and the court had no more right to interfere with farmers 
 in the performance of this operation than they had to prevent them from cutting 
 their horses. The operation in either case might be performed so unskilfully or 
 recklessly that unnecessary pain might be caused and the act would then be 
 cruel and within the statute, but if performed with ordinary skill and care it 
 was perfectly legal. 
 
 In the Scottish Courts. 
 
 In Scotland in the case of Renton v. Wilson three decisions were given by 
 different courts, all affirming the legality of the practice. Additional im- 
 portance attaches to this from the fact that the last decision— that of the 
 Scottish Court of Appeal — was given subsequent to the English finding of 
 illegality. 
 
 3 (D.C.) 
 
34 
 
 First Scotch Case. 
 
 George Wilson, cattle dealer, Cupar-Fife, was on the (5th of March, 1888, at 
 the instance of Roht. W. Renton, summoned before one of the sheriff-substitutes 
 of Fifeshire at Cupar, charged with a contravention of the Act for the Prevention 
 of Cruelty of Animals in having dehorned 37 oxen, the property of Donald Rob- 
 ertson. Among the facts held proved by the sheriff-substitute were the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 The cattle 'referred to in the complaint were dehorned by the respondent 
 acting on' the instructions of Donald Robertson, farmer, Mayfield, near Cupai, the 
 owner of the cattle, with the assistance of four other men. The horns were sawn 
 off close to the head by the respondent, the skin at the base of the horn being 
 first cut with a knife to permit of the saw getting close to the skull. The opera- 
 tion caused profuse bleeding and the animals appeared to suffer considerable pain 
 during it, as evinced by their bellowing. The sawing through of each horn occu- 
 pied about a minute. The operations took place on January 7th and January 
 23rd. 
 
 On January 28, the oxen were seen by Principal Walley, of the Royal Vet- 
 erinary College, Edinburgh, and Mr. John E. Grey, V. S., Edinburgh They 
 furnished a report setting forth that they inspected two lots of nine and 28 that 
 bore evidence of having been recently dehorned. In each case the horns had been 
 removed close to the skull and in one animal the sinuses of the head had been 
 opened. The report continued : " A considerable quantity of blood and purulent 
 matter had in most cases escaped from the wounds and had dried on the hair at 
 the sides of the head and face, and several of the animals, a white bullock in par- 
 ticular, were standing with the nose protruded and shrunken in the flanks and 
 had the appearance of having suffered from the effects of the operation. The 
 removal of the horns had in some cases been effected so close to the skull as to 
 necessitate cutting through the skin of the head. We are of opinion that the 
 operation must have caused much pain and been the means of much subsequent 
 suffering and being performed in the manner described was a grossly cruel opera- 
 tion and quite unnecessary for all. practical purposes." 
 
 A number of professional and practical witnesses were examined both for 
 the prosecution and the defence and the result of their evidence may be shortly 
 summarised as follows : 
 
 It was held as proved that the cells of the horn core are lined with a delicate 
 membrane which is extremely sensitive and vascular,? particularly at the base of 
 the horn where it is continuous with the lining of the sinuses of the head. 
 Between the core of the horn and the outside horn covering is another delicate 
 sensitive membrane continuous with the true skin of the head and the most sen- 
 sitive part of the body of the animal. That intense pain was caused by cutting 
 through these structures as well as subsequent suffering from inflammation, 
 increased in case of injuries to the horn, by there being no relief from swelling 
 owino - to the hard nature of the surrounding substances. That in the cattle in 
 question the sinuses of the head had in each case been laid open which led to 
 greater risk of inflammation. It was also held as proved that in many places the 
 objects sought to be attained by dehorning were met either by separating the 
 vicious and weak animals by putting wooden balls or pieces of wood on the 
 horns or by what is known as " tipping," namely cutting off the tip of the horn 
 just above the quick ; that these methods had proved satisfactory in those dis- 
 tricts, and that thousands of cattle of all breeds so treated, came weekly into the 
 Edinburgh cattle market. 
 
35 
 
 On the other hand it was held proved for the defence that the dehorning of 
 cattle was regularly practised by farmers and breeders of cattle in Fifeshire, 
 Kinrosshire, Perthshire, Forfarshire and Kincardineshire" That the objects for 
 which the operation was performed were the safety of the animals of the herd 
 which frequently suffered painful and serious injuries through goring and butting, 
 and were often prevented from feeding by the stronger cattle when the horns' 
 were allowed to remain and also for safety in carriage by sea or rail, the horns 
 being a source of great discomfort and danger to other cattle. So far as tried 
 knobbing and tipping had not been found satisfactory by the defendants as a 
 means of preventing goring. It was further proved that the respondent had 
 considerable experience in dehorning cattle, and was frequently employed by 
 farmers and breeders in the county of Fife to perform this operation ; that it was 
 performed skilfully, and in a manner frequently adopted in the county. 
 
 The sheriff-substitute, in his finding was largely gui'ded by the following 
 principle laid down in the case of Lewis v. Fermor, in the Court of Queen's Bench, 
 England, March 1887: " A person who with reasonable care and skill performs 
 on an animal a painful operation, which is customary, and is performed bona fide 
 for the purpose of benefitting the owner by increasing the value of the animal, 
 is not guilty of the oftence of cruelly ill-treating, abusing or torturing the animal 
 within the meaning of 12 and 13 Vict. cap. 92, sec, 2, even though the operation 
 is in fact unnecessary and useless." He held that the principle laid down applied 
 to the present question, and that even assuming the operation of dehornino- to 
 be unnecessary, the respondent was not guilty of a contravention of the Act, and 
 he accordingly acquitted him. 
 
 The High Court. 
 
 The case was then taken to the High Court of Justiciary for an opinion on 
 the question of law : — 
 
 1. Whether the sheriff-substitute was right in adopting the principle laid down in the case 
 of Lewis v. Fermor as applicable to the present case ; and 
 
 2. If not, do the facts above set forth infer a contravention of the Act 13 and 14 Vict 
 cap. 92. 
 
 This appeal came before Lords Young, McLaren and Rutherford Clark. 
 
 Rankine, for the appellant, claimed that in this case the sheriff-substitute 
 had erred in acquitting the respondent, the operation performed being both cruel 
 and unnecessary. Dickson, for the respondent, held that the sheriff-substitute 
 was right.^ The operation was necessary and was performed by persons who 
 had a legitimate interest and object in view. It was no doubt a painful 
 operation, but was not done wantonly or in order to ill-treat or abuse the animal. 
 
 The Finding. 
 
 Lord Young said he was of opinion that the judgment of the sheriff in this 
 case was right. He would not express an opinion as to the propriety of what was 
 done to these cattle — none whatever. For anything he might say, the operation 
 might be not only very unnecessary— the object being attainable otherwise and 
 without pain — or might even be a very bad operation — very wrong — not merely 
 attaining a good end in an unnecessarily painful way, but in every view a bad 
 operation. According to the facts stated in the case by the sheriff, it appeared 
 that the farmers in a certainly not unimportant district of the country were of 
 opinion that their legitimate interests were served by cutting the horns off certain 
 animals, and that was accordingly done, and to such an extent that there were 
 
36 
 
 professional men engaged in performing this operation of dehorning, and this 
 prosecution was against a professional man who had been employed by the owner 
 of cattle to dehoi n them. He was of opinion that this was not a case of cruelty 
 within the meaning of the Act, and to come to this conclusion he required no 
 authority from decisions in similar cases. The Act would certainly apply to 
 wanton and malicious cruelty where the object was to cause suffering to the 
 animal, but there were many acts which had a certain amount of cruelty associated 
 with them and which had been referred to in the course of the argument — 
 castrating horses, spaying of sows and preparing of capons — which did not, 
 however, amount to cruelty within the meaning of the act, though there were 
 many people, no doubt who considered these to be very cruel operations under 
 all circumstances. In conclusion he said:— "The statute does not pretend to 
 interfere with human life to such an extent, or with the judgment of those who 
 are pursuing their own affairs intelligently and to the best of their judgment, 
 as the farmers in Fifeshire have been doing, although in the opinion of others 
 more numerous than themselves they may be mistaken. I am therefore of 
 opinion that this appeal ought to be dismissed." 
 
 Lord McLaren and Lord Rutherford Olark both concurred in this decision. 
 
 The English Case. 
 
 The next trial in chronological order was in England, that of Ford v. Wiley, 
 sometimes called " the Norfolk case." At the Blofield petty sessions, on Nov. 26, 
 1888, J. C. Wiley, a Norfolk farmer, was summoned at the instance of the Royal 
 Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to A.nimals for having unlawfully and cruelly 
 tortured 32 bullocks by dehorning them. Mr. Wiley admitted having performed 
 the operation and afforded every facility to the officers of the society for ascer- 
 taining how it had been done and in what state the animals operated upon had 
 been left. The case was heard by a board of five magistrates. For the prosecu- 
 tion evidence was given by the informant and thirteen distinguished professors 
 and members of the veterinary profession, while fifteen farmers testified in favor 
 of the practice. The pain of the operation was placed in a very strong light by 
 the professional men, the anatomy of the horn being fully described. Prof. 
 Walley, of the Royal Dick's Veterinary College, Edinburgh, was examined at 
 greatest length and in the course of his evidence said : " Every tooth of the saw 
 as it tears through this structure causes excruciating pain, and the inflammation 
 following the operation produces great and prolonged suffering." "It is like cutting 
 through the quick of your finger." This evidence was concurred in by other 
 veterinary experts, and could not fail to carry great weight. 
 
 For the defence, however, Mr. Gidney pointed out that the learned professors 
 were obliged to admit that they had no experience in dehorning beyond surgical 
 operations, while he could show by the evidence of practical men that the 
 operation prevented the cattle from suffering a great deal of injury, and that 
 from a humane point of view it was desirable that it should be performed in the 
 interests of the animals. The suffering and pain which they inflicted upon each 
 other was far greater, he contended, than that which they underwent by the 
 operation of dehorning. Witnesses for the defence, all practical farmers, then 
 testified that dehorning, in addition to increasing the value was beneficial to 
 the animals themselves, as it prevented injuries from goring ; that they had 
 tried tipping and knobbing the horns without success, and that while suffering 
 was caused by the operation it was not so great as they had previously imagined, 
 and was not in their opinion out of proportion to the benefits secured. 
 
The case was dismissed, the following being the decision of the justices :— 
 
 We were of opinion that the appellant had proved that the dishorning of the cattle in these 
 cases had caused considerable pain and suffering to the animals. 
 
 We were satisfied that the respondent had exercised ordinary care in the performance of 
 the operation. 
 
 We considered it as proved that the practice of dehorning cattle had been carried on in a 
 part of the county of Norfolk to a considerable extent during tne past three or four years. 
 
 Also that the results attained by dehorning could not be obtained by merely tipping the 
 horns as suggested by some of the witnesses called by the appellant. 
 
 We do not believe that the respondent had any cruel intention in performing the operation 
 but that he acted under the honest belief that it was for the benefit of the animals themselves, 
 and as well for the benefit of himself as a grazier, and that the object he had in view could 
 not be attained by any other known method. 
 
 We accordingly dismiss the information laid against him, without costs. 
 
 We were of opinion that upon the evidence adduced by the appellant it is advisable in 
 dehorning cattle that the operation should be performed at an early age. 
 
 The magistrates, at the request of the Royal Society for the Prevention of 
 Cruelty to Animals, stated a case for the opinion of the judges of the High Court 
 of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, on the following question :— 
 
 " Is the operation of dehorning cattle as proved to have been performed in this case justi- 
 fiable having regard to section 2 of 12 and 13 Vict. eap. 92 ? " 
 
 Before the High Court. 
 
 The case then came before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice 
 Hawkins on April 12, 1889. Mr. Lumley Smith, Q.C., argued the case for the 
 appellant, and Mr. Winch, Q.C., for the respondent. The rights of man over the 
 dumb creation were discussed at length, and their Lordships gave judgment revers- 
 ing the decision of the magistrates, and holding distinctly that the practice of 
 dehorning was unlawful. In arriving at this conclusion they attached great 
 importance to the expert testimony given by Prof. Walley and other veteri- 
 narians, and held that the suffering inflicted was out of all proportion to the 
 commercial considerations of the operation. Lord Coleridge denounced the 
 practice as detestably brutal. In giving a definition of the term " cruelty " he 
 says : " The mere infliction of pain is not cruelty, for in medicine and surgery it is 
 necessary and lawful to inflict pain. Necessary pain is limited to what may 
 fairly be inflicted on animals in order to enable them to attain their due degree 
 of development or become fitted for ordinary use." Cruelty he defined to be 
 unnecessary abuse or unnecessary ill-usage by which the animal substantially 
 suffers. Dehorning he considered unnecessary. For twenty years or more the 
 practice had been entirely disused throughout England and Wales, and it had 
 not been thought necessary to perform it on any of the millions of cattle which 
 the farmers of England had reared and sold to be eaten. Necessity, to constitute 
 an excuse under the Act, did not simply mean that the object of the operation 
 could not be otherwise secured. There must be some proportion between the 
 object and the means. To put thousands of cows or oxen to the hideous tortures 
 described in the evidence in order to put a few pounds more into the pockets of 
 the owners was an instance of utter disproportion between the result and the 
 practice described — was barbarous and unlawful. 
 
 Mr. Justice Hawkins said that while he should have been quite content to 
 express cordial concurrence in the judgment of the Chief Justice the importance 
 of the question to a large community led him to express his own independent 
 views as to it. To support a conviction it must be proved that the pain or 
 suffering had been inflicted in fact, and that it was inflicted cruelly. That the 
 operation of dehorning as described in this case was accompanied by excruciating 
 torture was beyond all question, and anyone who could willingly inflict such 
 
38 
 
 suffering, unless under the direst necessity, must indeed be cruel at heart and insen- 
 sible to every dictate of humanity. . . . The legality of a painful operation must 
 be governed by the necessity for it, and even where a desirable and legitimate 
 cbiect is sought to be attained the nature of the operation and the pain caused 
 thereby must not so far outbalance the importance of the end as to make it clear 
 to any reasonable person that it is preferable that the object should be abandoned 
 rather than that the suffering should be inflicted. Dehorning was an operation so 
 torturing that one shuddered to think that men could be found to perform it. 
 He failed to see the necessity or reason for the operation. If an owner to enhance 
 the value of his cattle by 20s. or 40.s. mutilated them at an expense to the 
 animals of excruciating torture how could this be said to be necessary or 
 reasonable ? Evidence that such an operation was unnecessary was also to be 
 found in the fact that throughout vast districts both in England and Scotland 
 thousands upon thousands of horned cattle were to be seen, many herding 
 together peacefully enough, grazing in the .same fields, confined in the same yards, 
 feeding, thriving and fattening together. While occasionally one of such animals 
 might give a little more trouble than the rest, was not this abundant proof that 
 dehorning was not necessary for the benefit of the animal, or to render it fit for 
 all legitimate purposes of its owner, and that tipping or knobbing had been found 
 to be and were practically sufficient. He strongly dissented from the principle 
 laid down in the case of Lewis v. Fermor. He dissented from any notion that a 
 mistaken belief, however honest, that the law justified a painful operation when 
 in truth it did no such thing, would operate as an excuse at all, except perhaps 
 in mitigation of punishment. It followed then from what he had said, and the 
 reasons he had given, that in his opinion the practice of dehorning was a 
 cruel, unreasonable and unnecessary abuse of the animals operated on, and 
 therefore was illegal and ought to be suppressed, and that the magistrates ought 
 to have convicted the respondent. 
 
 The Scotch Case Appealed. 
 
 The Scotch case of Renton v. Wilson was carried to the Scottish Court of 
 Appeal under the name of Todrick v. Wilson, on March 3, 1891, and in the inter- 
 val the decision of the English Court had been given. On the bench were the 
 Lord Justice-Clerk, Lords McLaren, Trayner, Wellwood and Kyllachy. The facts 
 as given in the previous case were recited : 
 
 Graham, Murray, Wallace and Chisholm for the appellant claimed that great 
 pain was caused even though the operation was carefully performed, that the 
 same results could largely be attained by other means, and that the pain inflicted 
 was out of all proportion to the benefits said to be derived from it. These two 
 points being clearly established, the respondent should have been convicted. 
 This was the view taken of the Act in England in the case of Ford v. Wiley. 
 
 Comrie Thomson and Oi*r for the respondent, held that the judgment of the 
 sheriff-substitute was right and should be affirmed. The facts set forth clearly 
 distinguished this case from the English case. That was practically a special 
 case. The facts there shewed that the operation was clumsily and cruelly per- 
 formed and that it was almost entirely unknown in England. 
 
 The finding of the court was a unanimous confirmation of the two previous 
 decisions. The views of the various judges may be given briefly as follows: 
 
 Lord McLaren in delivering judgment stated that in a previous complaint 
 against the same respondent, Renton v. Wilson, it was determined that the dehorn- 
 
39 
 
 ing of cattle performed in circumstances set forth in the case, did not amount to 
 a contravention of the statute. In a case whieh afterwards came before the High 
 Court o'' Justice in England a court consisting of the Lord Chief Justice and 
 Mr. Justice Hawkins, they came to a contrary conclusion on the facts laid before 
 them, and the case which was now to be decided was instituted he understood 
 with a view to having the question of the legality of dehorning considered by a 
 court differently constituted and consisting of a greater number of judges. . . 
 What we have here to consider is not the question ol the expediency of prohib- 
 iting dehorning of cattle, but whether the practice is prohibited by being 
 included in the general enacting words of the .statute, namely, cruelly ill-treat- 
 ing, abusing or torturing animals . . . . I am of opinion that the language 
 of the statute is not in fair and just construction applicable to the case of the 
 operation of dehorning, when performed with skill and for the legitimate 
 purpose of preventing the cattle from injuring one another. . . . 
 
 Continuing, he said he was disposed to give the greatest weight to the 
 decision of a co-ordinate English court, and he had no desire in any way to criti- 
 cise the opinions of the eminent judges by whom the case of Ford v. Wiley was 
 decided. He was not sure that he should dissent from the reasoning or the con- 
 clusions embodied in those opinions as applicable to the case before the English 
 Court, because he observed that the learned judges were agreed in holding it 
 proved that the operation of dehorning was neither necessary nor cus- 
 tomary in England. In their view of the facts, dehorning was treated as a purely 
 experimental proceeding, not productive of benefit to the owners of the animals, 
 and a cause of needless and therefore cruel suffering to the animals themselves. 
 He might hardly repeat that the facts as laid before them pointed to a very dif- 
 ferent conclusion, and while their decision was necessarily different in its legal 
 consequences from the decision of the Supreme Court in England, it did not 
 appear to him that there was any fundamental difference in the principles of 
 interpretation which had been applied by the courts of England and Scotland 
 to the construction of this statute. Assuming in accordance with the sheriff- 
 substitute's finding that the dehorning was performed with skill and without 
 the infliction of unnecessary pain, he was of opinion that the respondent had not 
 rendered himself liable to a criminal prosecution, and that the judgment of the 
 sheriff-substitute ought to be affirmed. 
 
 Lord Trayner said that owing to the importance of the question he had 
 carefully considered the argument as well as the various cases cited. The reasons 
 given for the judgment in Ford v. Wylie, as far as not based on the particular 
 facts there found proved, seemed to him inadequate and inconclusive, while the 
 judgment in Lewis v. Fermor appeared on the other hand, to be well founded both 
 in sense and law. He was therefore of the opinion that the question should be 
 answered in the negative. 
 
 Lord Wellwood said that the question submitted was one of law and not of 
 fact. The facts as found by the sheriff-substitute were that the operation was 
 skilfully performed, that it effectually prevented the animals from injuring each 
 other, and was for the benefit of the cattle, and that other remedies do not so 
 effectually prevent cattle from injuring each other. In this state of the facts he 
 had acquitted the respondent. . . . In order to justify conviction the inade- 
 quacy of the object must be such as would lead any reasonable and humane man 
 capable of weighing evidence, to hold that the pain inflicted was out of all pro- 
 portion to the object in view. On the facts stated he could not hold that the 
 sheriff-substitute's decision was wrong, on the contrary he thought it was right. 
 
 Lord Kyllachy agreed that the facts of the case as found by the sheriff-sub- 
 stitute left no room for doubt as to the propriety of the sheriff's judgment. He- 
 
40 
 
 found as a matter of 'fact that the operation of which they had heard so much 
 was not merely useful in the interests of the owner of the cattle, but was also 
 useful and even necessary in the interests of the beasts themselves. In these 
 circumstances it was plainly impossible to affirm that the operation was one 
 which came within the scope of the statute unless indeed it was to be held — which 
 nobody had suggested — that the statutory offence was committed by the mere 
 infliction of pain. 
 
 The Lord Justice-Clerk said that while it was not necessary for him to express 
 an opinion he wished to say that the view he took of the case was entirely in 
 accordance with the opinions which their Lordships had expressed. 
 
 The appeal was therefore dismissed and the decision of the inferior judge 
 affirmed. 
 
 The Latest Decision in Britain. 
 
 The last case that found its way to the higher court was that of Newland v. 
 
 McDonagh, in Ireland. James McDonagh, of Carlanstown, was charged before 
 
 two magistrates at Kells, county Meath, with having caused the horns of 26 
 
 oxen to be cut off on the 17th of April, 1890, which, it was alleged, was cruel 
 
 treatment within the meaning of the act for the prevention of cruelty to animals- 
 
 The case occupied several days before the magistrates, and a large number of 
 
 witnesses were examined. The magistrates dismissed the summons, but stated a 
 
 case for the opinion of a higher court. The case then came before the Queen's 
 
 Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, Ireland, consisting of the Lord 
 
 Chief Justice, Mr. Justice O'Brien, Mr. Justice Johnson, Mr. Justice Holmes, an d 
 
 Mr. Justice Gibson, and they delivered judgment on May 6, 1891, upholding the 
 
 legality of the practice. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice, in delivering judgment, reviewed the facts as found 
 by the magistrates. In summarising the decisions already given, there were, he 
 said, ten judges who had pronounced an opinion in favor of the legality of the 
 practice, and four who held a different opinion, and if they were to have regard to 
 the reasons given in two other cases, although not cases of dehorning, arising out 
 of the same section of the Act of Parliament, the statistics of judicial opinion 
 showed that fourteen judges were in favor of the legality of the practice. This 
 court was not bound by those decisions, as there was no right of appeal from 
 them, but, of course, they would examine their reasons with the deference due to 
 distinguished tribunals. They brought an absolutely open mind to the considera- 
 tion of the subject, as none of the present tribunals had until now pronounced any 
 judicial opinion on the subject. What, then, was the test by which they were to 
 define cruelty within the meaning of the statute ? It was conceded that it must 
 be something more than the mere infliction of pain. This was obvious, as there 
 were many operations which caused great pain, but yet were perfectly lawful. 
 The Solicitor-General contended that in cases, even where the object was justifi- 
 able, it must be attain <1 by means the least painful that could reasonably be 
 employed. Mr. Justice Wightman, in Birds against Parsons, defined the cruelty 
 intended by the statute the unnecessary abuse of any animal ; and in a later case, 
 Mi - . Justice Grove defined it as unnecessary ill usage, by which the animal 
 suffered. Lord Morris, in the case before the common pleas, said he preferred this 
 hitler definition, which included two propositions, viz., that the pain must be sub- 
 stantial ami tie' suffering unnecessary. In his (the Lord Chief Justice's) judgment, 
 those definitions were substantially correct, and though there was a difference of 
 phraseology, thej^ were all substantially the same. Now, it could not with any 
 
41 
 
 show of reason be contended that the question of necessity was to be determined 
 by regard merely to what was necessary for the animal itself. Where were they 
 to find justification for pain inflicted upon an animal ? By a reference, in his 
 opinion, to the objects for which cattle were given to mankind — cattle were given 
 to man for his use, amongst other uses that they might be fattened, trafficked in, 
 killed, and eaten. An}^ operation that adapted them for the purposes for which 
 they were placed at man's disposal was not cruelty within the statute, provided it 
 was performed under the honest and reasonable belief of its usefulness for those 
 purposes, and with reasonable care and skill, and not attended with such suffering 
 as men of ordinary humanity would consider disproportionate to the object sought 
 to be attained. In the case before Lord Coleridge and Mr Justice Hawkins, the 
 judges seemed much impressed with the fact that dishorning had been discon- 
 tinued throughout nearly the entire of England and Wales. Now, if it had been 
 found that the practice of dishorning had been discontinued in Ireland generally, 
 and was practised in onby one part, in one county, as was the case in England, he 
 would have had the greatest difficulty in affirming its legality; but it appeared 
 that the practice of dishorning had been carried on to a considerable extent in 
 Scotland, and was widely prevalent throughout Ireland. It was largely practised 
 in Meath, Louth, Dublin, Kildare, Monaghan, Westmeath, Queen's County, Carlo w, 
 Roscommon, Galway, and in other counties. The counties he had mentioned 
 \#ere the principal fattening districts of Ireland. The practice also appeared to 
 be daily extending. One of the witnesses stated it had increased all over Ireland 
 four or five times since the last decision, and that its suppression would cost the 
 country nearly half a million of money per annum. It appeared, also, that the 
 practice of dishorning conferred advantages on the owner of the cattle, on the 
 community at large, and on the cattle themselves — that dishorning of cattle 
 increased their market value, and that its suppression would cause the country 
 very serious loss Dishorned cattle throve and became quiet. They were mure 
 easily handled, less dangerous to man and to each other, and less liable to injury 
 when on pasture or in transit. Anyone who has seen anything of cross-channel 
 traffic -knew that cattle suffered grievously from the injury inflicted on each other 
 by goring. The advantages conferred by dishorning on the owners of cattle and 
 on the community did not seem to weigh at all with Lord Coleridge and Mr. 
 Justice Hawkins; but if this court were to dismiss those advantages altogether 
 from consideration they would be ignoring the objects for which cattle were given 
 to man. The advantages conferred by dishorning on the owner and on the com- 
 munity at large, as well as on the cattle themselves, must be taken into considera- 
 tion in determining the reasonableness and adequacy of the objects of those who 
 performed the operation, and, in his judgment, having regard to the evidence 
 given as to the character of the operation of the no doubt very great, but very 
 temporary, pain which attended it, and the motives and objects of those who got 
 it performed, and the results which followed from its performance, the magistrates 
 were justified in coming to the conclusion that the pain was not inflicted without 
 good reason. As to the nature of the suffering inflicted, he might refer to an 
 observation of Mr. Justice Murphy in Callaghan's case : — " In a case of this kind 
 self-interest would prevent any farmer from resorting to a practice of this nature 
 if the result were merely to cause useless pain and torture. Great pain and 
 suffering would necessarily reduce the condition of the animal, and unless they 
 were soon recovered the fanner would lose in sale. The Solicitor-General 
 contended that what was called disbudding was a less painful and more reason- 
 able method of dishorning, but that contention was challenged by witnesses for 
 the defence. Disbudding was not practised to any considerable extent, and 
 though, perhaps, less painful than dishorning, the question the court had now to 
 
42 
 
 determine was whether dishorning, skilfully performed, was or was not unreason- 
 able. Lord Young, in the Scotch case of Renkall v. Wilson, said the statute " did 
 not intend to interfere with human life to such an extent, or with the judgment 
 of those who were pursuing their own affairs intelligently and to the best of their 
 judgment, as the farmers in Fifeshire had been doing, although in the opinion of 
 others more numerous than themselves they might be mistaken." These observa- 
 tions applied with considerably more force to Ireland. The practice of dishorning 
 was far more widely prevalent in Ireland than in Scotland. In his judgment the 
 present prosecution was not within the scope and provisions of the Act of Parlia- 
 ment. To attempt to apply it to a case where it was sought to suppress a method 
 of carrying on their business sanctioned by the great body of the representatives 
 of the principal industry of this pastoral country would, in his opinion, be to do 
 that which was never contemplated by the statute or legislature. For these 
 reasons be was of opinion that the magistrates were correct in point of law in 
 dismissing the case, and that the respondent should have his costs. 
 
 Mr. Justice O'Brien, concurring in the judgment of the other members of the 
 court that the decision of the action of the magistrates was right, and that the 
 prosecution should be dismissed, observed that with all that could be said on 
 behalf of the practice of dishorning, its alleged necessity, and the fanciful millions 
 that would be lost to the country if it were stopped, he could not personally 
 deliver his mind from the uneasy consciousness that it was, after all, a brutaJ 
 business, with which some persons would have no concern for the world, and that 
 it was an invasion upon the rightful dominion which man had received over 
 animals, carrying with it a commission not less of mercy than of power towards 
 the humble servants of his will, in virtue of which he was appointed to be their 
 master and not their cruel tyrant. . He was of opinion, however, that the statute 
 had not declared that dishorning bona fide for the purpose of increasing the 
 value of the cattle was a practice that should be prevented. 
 
 Mr. Justice Johnson said it was their duty merely to determine whether the 
 magistrates had correctly decided the case in point of law, and in his opinion 
 they had. 
 
 Mr. Justice Holmes held that the operation referred to in the summons in this 
 case was not an act of cruelty within the meaning of the Act. The pain caused 
 by dishorning was not greater, perhaps, than that to which human beings were in 
 the habit of voluntarily submitting themselves for the purpose of altering and 
 improving a feature or the form of a limb. 
 
 Mr. Justice Gibson also held that the justices had evidence to justify the 
 decision at which they had arrived. That being the case, it was not his province 
 to go behind their findings on the facts. 
 
 Judgment was accordingly entered for the respondent, with the costs of the 
 case stated. 
 
 Counsel for the appellant — The Solicitor-General, Mr. G. V. Hart, Q.C., and 
 Mr. W. P. Ball (instructed by Mr. George Keogh). For the respondent — Messrs. 
 Walker, Q.C., Ross, Q.C., and Kenny, M.P. (instructed by Messrs. Reeves & Son). 
 
 Legal Cases Reviewed. 
 
 It will be observed that the question of dehorning has been adjudicated upon 
 by twenty eminent judges of Great Britain, in addition to a large number of 
 lower magistrates. The subject was argued in all its bearings, and as a result we 
 find that sixteen judges declared the practice to be legal, while four judges pro- 
 nounced it to be illegal. In the United States, although several prosecutions 
 have taken place they have in each instance ended in acquittal. In Canada in 
 minor courts, there have been two acquittals and one conviction. 
 
43 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 In order to obtain as much information as possible, the following circular- 
 letter was drawn up and sent to the Directors of all the United States Experiment 
 Stations, to prominent stockmen and others known to be more or less interested : 
 
 COMMISSION ON DEHORNING. 
 
 Toronto, Ontario, April 27, 1892. 
 
 Members. 
 
 Hon. Chas. Drdry, Chairman. 
 J. J. Kelso, Secretary. 
 Andrew Smith, V.S. Richard Gibson. 
 D. M. Macpherson. Henry Glendinning. 
 
 Dear Sir, — -His Honor the .Lieutenant Governor of this Province in Council has been 
 pleased to issue a Commission, with instructions to obtain all available information, and report 
 upon the practice of Dehorning' Ca tie, recently introduced in Ontario. 
 
 We therefore take the liberty of applying to you — as one having large exper'ence in cattle 
 — for any information which may be in your possession, and which you may be willing to place 
 at our disposal. Answers to the following questions, therefore, or such of them as are within 
 vour knowledge, will be great y appreciated. 
 
 In reply, kindly number answers to correspond with questions : 
 
 1. Do you favor dehorning ? 
 
 2. Have you practiced it — if so, how long, and on about how many head 1 
 
 3. At what age do you prefer to perform the oneration ? 
 
 4. Are there %igns of suffering during or immediately following the operation ? If so, what '. 
 
 5. Does much bleeding or other discharge follow the operation ? 
 
 6. Have you known any animals to die from dehorning — if so, how many 1 
 
 7. How long does it take the animal to fully recover from the effects of the operation \ 
 
 8. After the wound is healed over, does the part remain sensitive or become callous ? 
 
 9. A year after the operation would the animal, if touched or hit lightly upon the spot 
 where the horns had grown, shrink and show signs of pain ? 
 
 10. What instrument is used 1 If a saw is used, is the sawing done towards the crown or 
 outwardly — which is preferable ? 
 
 11. Is any dressing used after dehorning, an if so, what ? 
 
 12. If the operation is performed, how close should the horn be taken off? 
 
 13. Have you known of horses sheep, pigs or cattle being seriously or fatally injured by 
 goring — and is the number, in your opinion, large ? 
 
 14. Does dehorning increase the value of the animal over animals not dehorned ? 
 
 15. Have you tried knobbing or tipping as a preventive of goring — if so, are those methods 
 successful ? 
 
 16. Is disbudding, in your opinion, less painful than dehorning, and would it be sufficient 
 to meet all reasonable requirements 1 
 
 17. If only animals known to be vicious were dehorned, would that be sufficient? 
 
 18. What, briefly, are the advantages of dehorning ? 
 
 19. Do you consider that the suffering inflicted by the operation is justified by !he results, 
 outside of any financial consideration ? 
 
 20. Do you believe the operation to be a humane one, in view of the general results ? 
 
 21. (Remarks on points not covered by questions.) 
 
 .). J. Kelso, Secretary, 
 
44 
 
 REPLIES RECEIVED. 
 
 ( >f the replies received the Directors of twelve State Agricultural Stations 
 wrote that they had superintended dehorning experiments and were satisfied that 
 it was a desirable practice, while several others favored it although they had no 
 personal experience. The Directors of eleven State Colleges replied that they 
 had no experience, while the Directors of three other State Colleges wrote that 
 they had not seen any experiments, but were opposed to the practice. From 
 prominent veterinarians, stock-breeders and farmers about twenty letters were 
 received in favor of the practice, while three breeders wrote against it. It 
 might be added that in only two cases is opposition expressed after having seen 
 the operation. The more important letters, summarized as far as possible, might 
 be given as follows : 
 
 State Agricultural Stations. 
 
 In Favor of D&homing. 
 
 I. P. Roberts, Director, Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Sta- 
 tion : — <: I have practiced dehorning for about five years and on about 1,000 head. 
 The age is immaterial. The operation is somewhat similar to pulling a tooth. 
 Sometimes we use carbolated vaseline afterwards. A little skin should be re- 
 moved with the horn. Dehorning increases the value of the animals by several 
 dollars per head. Disbudding by means of stick caustic potash is a good thing, 
 but it should be done before the calf is two weeks old. Briefly, the advantages 
 of dehorning are increased production, diminished danger, reduced losses and 
 above all the prevention of the pain all animals inflict upon those which are 
 weaker. Most certainly it is a humane operation or I would not have it per- 
 formed." # 
 
 H. H. Wing, Professor of Dairy Husbandry in the Cornell Station: — " We 
 have made several trials with stick caustic potash and the indications are that it 
 is going to be the most successful, the most humane and the easiest method of 
 growing hornless cattle. The operation of dehorning does not cause the animal 
 to shrink in milk, nor does it affect the amount of fat or total solids in the milk. 
 Any operation to the animal that does not disturb these functions, cannot very 
 perceptibly disturb the animal as a whole for we know that the flow, of the milk 
 and the percentage of fat in the milk are very easily affected by any material 
 interference with the animal economy." 
 
 James Law, F. \l. C. V. S., Cornell Station : " As practised with the saw 
 through the root of the horn, and through the skin rather than the horny 
 structure, the operation is certainly no more painful than castration, and is quite 
 as justifiable. As practised with the sliding knife at one blow it is far less painful; 
 as practised on the budding horns of the young calf it is a'so much loss painful. 
 Cows become more quiet and docile without horns, and if naturally disposed to 
 fatten they sometimes run to fat at the expense of milking qualities. This 
 argument is really in favor of dehorning as showing a lessening of the waste by 
 exercise and excitement, and the alleged evil can be obviated by feeding a highly 
 nitrogenous food in a sloppy form. In some comparative experiments with a 
 variety of the strongest caustics I have had unsatisfactory results, except with 
 
45 
 
 caustic potash and sulphuric acid, and the attendant and prolonged pain and the 
 danger of accidents from the extension of caustic by rubbing, etc., were such as 
 to render the process much more painful and objectionable than operation with 
 the knife. While I would not for a moment endorse the dehorning of cattle in 
 a brutal way, through the thick horn rather than through the skin, nor at a 
 wrong season, and without protection such as tar, to keep the flies from deposit- 
 ing their larvae in the wound ; nor the dehorning of part of a herd only to be 
 hereafter abused by the remainder, I am fully confident that properly performed 
 this operation is a highly beneficial one, and its few acknowledged drawbacks are 
 far more than counterbalanced by its advantages." 
 
 Walter J. Quick, Director, Colorado Agricultural College: "I have observed 
 the operation frequently, and noted results. I consider the proper age to perform 
 the operation is any time between calving and ten months old. I have never 
 seen or known of any dressing being used. In sawing, the closer the horn is 
 taken off the better. If the skin is cut a little there is no harm done, and the 
 greater flow of blood will cyme from this broken skin. I have tried disbudding 
 and prevention of the growth of the horn by means of the chemical dehorner, 
 which is very litt T e more than caustic potash. I consider these methods the 
 proper means of dehorning, as they are comparatively painless. In the former 
 the button can be removed as soon as it is large enough to be found ; in the latter 
 the best time to apply is within three weeks old. I consider that the suffering 
 inflicted by the operation is justified by the results, outside of any financial 
 consideration. I believe there is as much suffering prevented as there is caused 
 by the operation. Horns are considered by some to be a necessary evil : I con- 
 sider them an unnecessary evil." 
 
 Frank E. Emery, Agriculturist, North Carolina Station (views endorsed by 
 Prof. J. It. Chamberlain) : " Appetite does not seem to be impaired by the 
 operation, and often, with no other data than the milk record, one could not say 
 positively when the operation took place. Animals with knobbed horns, while 
 less dangerous, can and do make just as much disturbance in a herd as though no 
 knobs were on them. Dehorning results in a more comfortable and quiet feeling 
 among the herd, hence we expect less interference with the milk yield and 
 fattening, and less danger to men from handling the bull." 
 
 Clinton D. Smith, Director, Minnesota Experiment Station : " I have prac- 
 tised the operation for years on dairy cows and on steers just prior to the winter 
 feeding, probably one thousand head together. If the use of caustic on calves is 
 effective I should prefer that method — otherwise about three years old or older. 
 A fine-tooth butcher's saw is the best. The horns should be sawn off about 
 quarter of an inch inside of the union of the hide and horn and in a plane parallel 
 with the circle of union. We usually put some tar on a piece of muslin two inches 
 square and place this upon the stub of the horn. Dehorning enables farmers to 
 keep more animals with the same amount of help by putting them without tying 
 in yards ; it makes the whole herd more quiet and tractable. I have frequently 
 seen ten steers drinking from the same trough sixteen feet long, without an. 
 attempt to crowd or push each other." 
 
 S. M. Tracy, Director, Mississippi Station : " I have performed the operation 
 during the past four years on at least 500 animals. The best time to operate is 
 when the horn can be felt distinctly, but I have taken them off at all ages : as 
 close to the head as possible, cutting half an inch or so below where the skin 
 joins the horn. Brass knobs prevent goring, but do not prevent fightino\ 
 Dehorning secures greater docility, less danger from injury to each other, anil 
 
40 
 
 fully twice as many animals can be kept and fed in the same amount of barn 
 or lot space. I have never known any one who has practised dehorning on a 
 • ige scale who would be willing to discontinue the work." 
 
 R. R. Dinwiddie, Veterinarian, Arkansas Station : " I have experimented on 
 about twenty head and am in favor of dehorning. Disbudding under three 
 months is preferable, either with the gouge or caustic. There is less pain and 
 the results are as good. The advantages of the operation are: it partly prevents 
 accidents, and facilitates feeding where many animals are unconfinsd or tied close 
 together. I believe the operation, as a rule, is a humane one. 
 
 C. S. Plumb, Director, Indiana Station : "I usually remove the horn by the 
 application of a little caustic potash just as it appears upon the surface of the 
 skin The horn of a yearling is removed with less pain than that of a six months 
 old animal for the reason that the sensitive tissue comes up around the base of 
 the horn in the younger animal much further and has to be cut through. There 
 is a very trivial amount of blood escapes during dehorning. The horn should be 
 taken off about half an inch below where the flesh comes up around the base. I 
 thoroughly believe in disbudding. In my experience, calves do not show any 
 indications of pain, and it would save lots of trouble in the future. Dehorning 
 promotes docility, prevents goring and similar injury either to cattle or to men, 
 enables proprietors of bulls to handle them with greater ease and safty, enables 
 one to stable a much larger number of animals within the same enclosure, enables 
 the weaker ones of a herd to secure a reasonable part of their rations, in the 
 winter enables animals to bunch together and keep warmer and thus economise 
 in the use of food ; dehorned cattle, ship with greater safety than horned ones if 
 in closed cars or vessels." 
 
 W. A. Henry, Director, Wisconsin Station : " The practice of dehorning 
 cattle, both dairy cows and steers, is exceedingly common in this State. In some 
 sections fully two-thirds of the cattle have their horns removed. The practice 
 was entered on here and there by enterprising farmers and dairymen, who were 
 driven to it by injuries to stock by goring, and the frequent loss of human life 
 through fractious bulls. Neighbors usually protested at first, but after a little 
 gladly accepted the lesson and put it into practice on their own farms. The 
 usual plan in this State is for some one to go about the country dehorning herds, 
 charging such prices as will bring him three or four dollars a day for the work. 
 Last fall in looking over the cattle coming into the Chicago stock yards I estimated 
 that fully a third of the animals which I saw that day were dehorned. Obser- 
 vation from the car window show that the practice is common in Illinois, Iowa 
 and Nebraska. 
 
 George W. Curtis, Director, Texas Station : " In removing the horn, saw 
 from the top of the crown downward and outward, following the natural curve 
 of the head, so as to leave the animal polled in appearance. The saw should get 
 close to the base, even taking in a little skin, as in sawing too far from the head 
 the bleeding will continue longer and may result fatally. 1 have tried knobbing 
 and tipping and consider both practically worthless with vicious animals. 
 Removing the buttons from calves I don't think any less painful than dehorning. 
 We mind it less, however, for the reason that the animals are smaller and weak 
 and cannot make so much show of resistance or pain. When practiced for 
 vicious or unruly animals and for feeders, the results certainly justify much 
 more pain than is given in the operation." 
 
 F. A. Gulley, Director, Arizona Station : " I have practiced dehorning for 
 five years — on 100 head experimentally and 2,000 head on a ranch. If cattle 
 are driven or heated just before the operation they are apt to bleed considerably. 
 
47 
 
 If handled quietly the bleeding does not as a rule amount to much. The wound 
 will discharge from five to sometimes as long as thirty days; rarely more than 
 ten days pass, however, before the wound dries over and heals up, if the animal 
 is in thrifty condition when the operation is performed, the weather not too hot 
 nor too cold, and flies or other insects do not breed in the sores. Have never 
 lost animals by the operation except in one case where two or three very thin 
 weak animals were exposed to a severe cold storm a day or two after the opera- 
 tion. Occasionally an animal will have a pretty sore head, but it seems to work 
 off after a time without any ill effects." 
 
 John A. Myers, Director, West Virginia Station, and Luther Foster, Director 
 of the South Dakota Station, write in favor of the practice, for reasons covered 
 in the above replies. 
 
 General Letters Favoring the Practice. 
 
 Joseph Hughes, M. R. C. V. S., Professor of Anatomy, Chicago Veterinary 
 College : " Broadly speaking, I favor dehorning ; there is not much bleeding if 
 properly performed; a liUle suppuration generally follows. It takes from three 
 to five weeks before the part is fully healed. The horns should be taken off as 
 close to the head as possible so as to get below the horn matrix, which is exceed- 
 ingly sensitive and vascular, and to prevent any unsightly knobs growing after- 
 wards. I think disbudding would be less painful and would meet all require- 
 ments. Dehorning prevents the goring of animal by animal ; does away with 
 the bullies, consequently gives a chance to the weaklings which exist in every 
 herd, and on this account assures a greater uniformity as a result of the quietude 
 which it secures. In Great Britain, where the eye is used instead of the scale in 
 measuring live weight, a dehorned bunch of cattle command a higher figure on 
 account of their evenness and generally-improved appearance." 
 
 M. Stalker, State Veterinary Surgeon, Iowa: "I have had little practical 
 experience in dehorning cattle, though I have had pretty extensive opportunities 
 for noting its effects. I have made it a point to make careful inquiry into the 
 results following the operation, as well as to get at the after-effects as to fattening 
 qualities, etc. I find the instances of unfavorable results are comparatively few. 
 The practice of dehorning is quite common in our State, and I think I have never 
 talked with a farmer who had his cattle dehorned, but he spoke in high praise 
 of its results. The benefits are particularly noticeable where large numbers are 
 kept together, in the less amount of fighting and irritable conduct. We have 
 some bulls on the College Farm that we have dehorned in order to make them 
 less dangerous with their horns. The operation completely cures them of all 
 inclination to be cross either to men or to other cattle." 
 
 Arthur Johnston, farmer and stock-breeder, Greenwood, Ontario : " Until 
 very lately I have been violently opposed to dehorning, but the more I think 
 about it, the more I have been convinced that it is, in very many ways, desirable. 
 I had a young bull, about fifteen months old, with very badly up-turned horns, 
 and just at the time your Commission was sitting in Toronto it occurred to me 
 to try the experiment of dehorning on him. I got my veterinary and he sawed 
 them off quickly with a rather dull meat-saw. The suffering, while the sawing 
 lasted, was very great indeed — distressing to witness, but it only lasted about 
 ten minutes. To my surprise there was very little loss of blood, almost none, of 
 any account. When the actual sawing was finished the great pain seemed to 
 subside at once, and the bull went into his sta I and began to eat at once, as if 
 nothing had happened. I watched him closely during the following six days, 
 
48 
 
 and I saw absolutely no change on him, in any way. He fed quite as well, and 
 he Lost nothing in condition; but seemed to thrive, as formerly, to the full. At 
 the end of one day and night, the appearance of the horns (parts left) was as if 
 it had been done months ago. The bull's appearance is much improved on 
 account of his having had bad horns. ' It took away that distinctive short horn 
 character, however." 
 
 Tait Butler, Veterinarian, Mississippi Station: " To justify such an opera- 
 tion either the comfort of the animal or its value t'> man must be enhanced. If 
 a number of animals are to be kept together in an mclosure of small dimensions, 
 ■(a shed for instance,) these two objects are obtained by dehorning and, therefore, 
 the operation is not cruelty if properly performed. Under other conditions 
 it may be termed cruelty. I think the operation cannot be performed without 
 producing considerable pain for the short period of from ten to twenty seconds for 
 each horn. After that space of time the pain is certainly slight. Animals begin 
 eating immediate!}* after the operation, and the secretion of milk is rarely 
 influenced to any appreciable extent. However, the manner in which the opera- 
 tion is performed has something to do with the amount of pain experienced by 
 the animal. The pain, while it lasts, is as severe as that produced by castration, 
 but it is not so long in duration, nor fraught with such serious consequences as 
 evidenced by the absence of serious sequelae. The structures are sensitive, 
 but not especially so when the incision made by the saw is through the frontal 
 bone. If made through the horn proper, the sensation is equally as great, and 
 owing to the low recuperative powers of the part, the wound does not heal 
 rapidlv. If through the matrix of the horn the pain appears to be more severe. 
 In other words, if the incision is made through the frontal bone so that con- 
 siderable of the skin surrounding the horn — say a ring from half an inch to one 
 inch wide — is taken off with the horn, the wound heals more quickly and the 
 pain is less severe. To sum up, when the operation is properly performed, and 
 with proper motives I deem it not only not cruelty, but also humane." 
 
 A. D. Stevenson, New Hampton, Mo. : " I have been a practical dehorner 
 for six years, and during that time have dehorned nearly eight thousand head of 
 cattle — all ages and sizes from four months old to twenty-five years — and never 
 lost one by the operation. I prefer to do the work from six months old to one 
 year. They suffer some while the operation is being performed, but it does not 
 last long. They will bleed but very little if they are not hot, and the operation 
 is performed right. Have known of some dying that were operated upon when 
 very hot and not properly done. It will take from six to eight weeks for the 
 wound to heal. The skull grows up sound and solid — will skin over and hair out 
 if properly done. Once healed the head is as sound as any other part. I prefer 
 the saw and I do not use any dressing. There is a proper place to take every 
 horn off at. On cattle three years old and older, take off as little skin with the 
 horn as possible, but be sure you cut on the skin all the way round. On younger 
 cattle, take from a quarter of an inch to a half, according to age. They are worth 
 from two to five dollars per head more atter dehorning. Would rather dehorn at 
 six months old than disbud, as I think there is less pain and better work. If you 
 dehorn any, dehorn all. Afterwards, they feed better, water better, ship better 
 look better, fatten better, everything better and nothing worse. I consider the 
 suffering is nothing when compared with the benefit." 
 
 W. T. Gardner, farmer, St. Louis Station, Quebec : "As I have assisted in 
 dehorning cattle and also in handling them afterwards, [ respectfully submit my 
 candid opinion on the subject as briefly as possible. I was opposed to it till I saw 
 
49 
 
 It tried, and I freely admit that it is a great improvement. With the proper 
 appliances the operation is a very speedy one. After the animal is secured about 
 half a minute to each horn (or thereabouts) and out they go, and most of them 
 will go to eat or drink as if nothing had happened. Some will take longer to 
 heal than others, but very few will miss a meal from the effects of the operation, 
 and when the cattle are all in the yard together the improvement is very plain. 
 The wicked ones, instoad of spending their time chasing round the timid ones, 
 will eat their feed and let the others eat, about the same as sheep. And with 
 bulls the dehorning is particularly necessary, thereby lessening the danger to life 
 and property, and I think it should be made compulsory to dehorn all bulls over 
 -a year old." 
 
 Walter H. Brown, Manager Newberry Stock Farm, Cassville, Wis. : " On 
 the 1st of February, 1888, we dehorned eighty head, sixty-five cows, balance 
 yearlings and two year olds. There were thirty cows giving milk and they did not 
 seem to mind the operation, not even falling off in their milk. Those that were 
 coming in all did well ; there was not one in the eighty lost a meal or a nio-ht's 
 sleep. In sawing off the horn you want to go close to the head, leave a little hair 
 on the horn. There is not a farmer for miles around here but has his cattle 
 dehorned. There is a liquid that you can rub on the young calf just where the 
 horn starts, which absorbs the substance of the horn. It must be applied before 
 they are four weeks old. We applied it" to one of our calves last spring, and it 
 proved effectual, I think it is nothing more than some strong acid. I would 
 favor experimenting a little on the calf." 
 
 C. L. McComber, Deer Park, Illinois : " I am, and have been for six years, en- 
 gaged in the business and have dehorned hundreds of head. The best age is at 
 two and three years old for cattle which are to be kept for a number of years. The 
 reason is, the nearer the horn is developed the neater and surer the object will be 
 attained. While the operation is being performed no doubt there is pain, but it is of 
 short duration. There cannot be any pain after, as cattle will immediately o-o to 
 grazing. Occasionally some blood follows the operation, especially if cattle are in a 
 heated condition. Young cattle bleed more than older ones. I never knew an 
 animal to die from it. I use a narrow saw-blade about seven teeth to the inch ; 
 stand in front, hold cattle in a stanchion and use f inch rope properly adjusted 
 round head and drawn out with set of blocks, (three pulleys). I use hot tar, es- 
 pecially in late spring, say March or April. Saw as close to the head as you can. 
 Chicago dealers will pay ten to fifteen cents per hundred more for dehorned cat- 
 tle to send on east. There is no use in cattle having horns in a country where 
 they are protected from beasts of prey. No one would feel safe if an insane man 
 was running around with a pitchfork in his hands — no telling how soon he might 
 hurt some one — cattle are the same." 
 
 A. J. Gardner, Eddyville, Iowa : " With a few rare exceptions I have never 
 known any bad effects to follow dehorning. If the animal is in a thriving con- 
 dition and the operation is properly done, it will generally go on grazing in a few 
 minutes after being released, as if nothing had happened". The animaf does not 
 appear to shrink but very little, if any at all. I have even had cows 
 .dehorned without checking their flow of milk in the least. Some cows, however, 
 will shrink in their milk for about a week. The exceptions are generally where 
 the operation is unskilfully performed or where the animal is in a weak or un- 
 thrifty condition. Aside from the injuries and suffering inflicted by horned cat- 
 tle on one another, I will mention one or two advantages in dehorning. In the 
 first place they have no fear of one another and consequently will thrive bet- 
 4 (d.c.) 
 
50 
 
 ter. At the watering trough or tank two or three of the stronger cattle will not 
 monopolise it all while the weaker ones may have to wait for half an hour or 
 more, but all will crowd up and drink side by side like so many sheep. Likewise 
 in winter where cattle are not stabled, but run loose in an open shed or other 
 shelter ; one-half the amount of shelter is amply sufficient, as they crowd up so 
 much closer together, and there is no danger of the weaker ones being driven out 
 in the storm. In the case of bulls I consider that it is especially desirable that 
 they should be deprived of their horns. I have known of several serious, and 
 one or two fatal accidents to happen by bulls that were supposed to be perfectly 
 safe, which would not have happened had they been dehorned. The same reasons 
 that apply in the case of bulls are equally applicable to all other horned cattle, 
 onh r in a less positive and urgent degree. Again, when cattle are dehorned it is 
 perfectly safe to allow them to run in the same barnyard or pasture with horses 
 and colts, which is a great convenience, especially on a small farm." 
 
 Messrs. Reid and Ullrich, veterinary surgeons, Decatur, Illinois : " We favor 
 disbudding at one month if possible. In dehorning there is considerable pain 
 during the operation ; some hemorrhage, but not dangerous. Any antiseptic lotion 
 may be used as a dressing. We have not done much operating ourselves as farmers 
 usually do it in the various vicinities at such a price that we cannot afford to 
 compete. This illustrates the simplicity of the operation." 
 
 John A. Moore, cattle breeder, Kansas City, Mo : " I have dehorned 5,000 
 during the past four years. I think disbudding is the best method to pursue. 
 In dehorning I have tried all kinds of ' special ' saws and clippers, but I find a 
 stiff back, fine-cut tenon saw the best. Knobbing is not a success nor is the de- 
 horning of the vicious ones only. Advantages of the practice are safety, quietness, 
 better looks, convenience in handling, economy of space in feeding. I believe it 
 is humane to the cattle to take the horns off." 
 
 W. A. Harris, cattle breeder, Linwood, Kansas : " If a calf is to be operated 
 upon I would much prefer the caustic potash method, which, if properly done 
 when the calf is three or four days old, is the true solution of the question for 
 the breeder. I might say, however, that naturally polled cattle fight among each 
 other and cause abortion by butting, which dehorned cattle never seem to learn, 
 and the latter are much to be preferred." 
 
 Wallace Estill, cattle breeder, Estill, Mo"; " The value of dehorning depends 
 on whether you want cattle for feeding or grazing. If wanted to graze in more 
 than carload lots I wouldn't care to have the horns off. If wanted to feed in 
 close lots or sheds, they should be off by all means. If scrubby, mean or coarse, 
 it will uniform them very materially and take away largely that mean appear- 
 ance so common to the scrub. I consider that any bunch of cattle looks very 
 much neater after the horns are off." 
 
 Opposed to the Practice. 
 
 C. L. Ingersoll, agriculturist, Nebraska Experiment Station : " Generally 
 speaking T am not in favor of dehorning. I have observed more than 5,000 de- 
 horned cattle. Knobbing or tipping is usually effective in preventing goring. In 
 my opinion to dehorn vicious animals would be sufficient. I do not consider it a 
 humane practice." 
 
51 
 
 David McKay, secretary Brookside Farm Company, Indiana: " ^performed 
 the operation once — twenty years ago — on fifty head. I am not in favor of it. 
 There are signs of pain during the operation and for about three weeks after- 
 wards. After dehorning I used rosin and hemp to fill up the cavity and seared 
 with a hot iron to stop the flow of blood. Dehorning makes cattle better for 
 shipping purposes. I think the best way to dehorn is to use a good registered 
 polled bull of any of the polled breeds. It spoils the look of any horned animals 
 to take off the horns in full bloods." 
 
 E. W. Rowland, V.S., Monroe, Wis. : " It is not an operation of necessity, 
 but one of fancy and it will only be a short time until the ones advocating it 
 now will be ready to condemn it. First, because fat cattle that have been 
 dehorned will not sell for as much as those that have not. Second, the horn 
 is the ordinary thing by which the age of cattle is told, and when they are 
 taken off this is removed and the cows will be a drug on the owner's hands 
 when he tries to sell them. Third, they are much more trouble about the 
 fences as they can get their head through a smaller place and will then push 
 their bodies through and rub off their hair. If they had had horns on they 
 could not have got their eads in the hole at first. Fourth, cattle fall off in 
 milk and lose flesh ; in some cases even die from the operation. Fifth, it is a 
 very painful thing, causing the cattle to struggle violently to get away and if 
 they are allowed to remain standing they will throw themselves down and show 
 in every way possible that they are suffering the most excruciating pain. Sixth, 
 it does not offer the smallest amount of benefit to the owners or the poor brute 
 that has to stand the suffering. A farmer not far from here had his cows' horns 
 sawed off and then tried to sell them, and had to take less than what he was 
 originally offered, besides losing one cow from the operation. The leading 
 veterinary surgeons of this country and Europe say that it is unnecessary and 
 cruel. I have never seen an animal that had been dehorned, but the informa- 
 tion that I give is from good reliable men." 
 
 John Clay, of Clay, Robinson & Co., cattle buyers, Chicago stock yards : 
 " Personally, I am opposed to dehorning. I cannot give you the relative numbers 
 of dehorned cattle that come to Chicago, although it is fair to say that the prac- 
 tice during the past two years has been a favorite one. So far as price is con- 
 cerned it makes no difference. Our buyers take hold of horned cattle just as 
 freely as those that are polled. Some of my neighbors out on the range are 
 taking the horns from their calves when they brand them. This is working very 
 well and seems to be a painless operation. Still, my experience on the range leads 
 me to think that cattle are best left with the horns on them, I admit, of course, 
 that in the case of bulls and range cows, and such like, that are fed in yards, de- 
 horning is somewhat advantageous, but in all other cases I consider it unneces- 
 sary and at the same time exceedingly painful and brutal under the present sys- 
 tem." 
 
 Henry E. Alvord, director Maryland Experiment Station : " I do not favor 
 dehorning. I have not practiced it, and my objections are, therefore, theoretical. 
 In twenty-five to thirty-five years' experience, I never had a serious case of gor- 
 ing. Have tried knobbing successfully as a precaution. If by ' disbudding ' is 
 meant the removal of the horn ' button ' or germ from the young calf, I kuow 
 from experience and observation that it is a very simple operation, and accom- 
 plishes in the best possible way, the object of dis or dehorning. As ordinarily 
 done, I do not regard dehorning as humane. If no horns is the object, breed 
 polled cattle or ' dis-bud ' by all means." 
 
52 
 
 William Warfield, cattle breeder, Lexington, Kentucky : " I have never seen 
 the operation performed, therefore can give no facts in' regard to it or its effects 
 of my own knowledge. After forty-nine years' of experience on a farm with all 
 kinds of stock, I have never had an animal injured by goring, and can see no 
 necessity for dehorning." 
 
 C. A. Goesmann, director Massachusetts Agricultural station : " I do not con- 
 sider dehorning a desirable practice. I do not see how it can increase the value 
 of cattle. I regard knobbing or tipping as quite successful in preventing goring. 
 Disbudding would be better than dehorning, or, at most, vicious animals might 
 be dehorned." • 
 
53 
 
 AGRICULTURAL STATIONS. 
 
 The Results of Dehorning Experiments Conducted in United States 
 
 Experiment Stations. 
 
 Following will be found the results of dehorning experiments conducted at 
 the Wisconsin, Arkansas, Minnesota and Cornell University Agricultural Experi- 
 ment Stations, and as the effect of the operation upon the health of the ani- 
 mal as well as its effect with regard to the milk flow and the weight were care- 
 fully noted, the conclusions arrived at will be found of value. An interesting 
 article is also appended, showing the effect of a chemical compound on the 
 buddino- horn. 
 
 Effect of Dehorning Milch Cows on the Production of Milk and Butter. 
 
 In the fifth annual report of the Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station, 
 Mr. F. G. Short gives an account of some dehorning experiments on March 16, 
 1888, from which the following is taken : 
 
 Twelve cows, in groups of four each, were selected from the herd and con- 
 fined by themselves. As it was natural to suppose that the change in the milk, 
 if any, would be most marked with cows giving rich milk, the cows selected for 
 the first experiment were grade Jerseys giving milk with an average fat content- 
 of between four and five per cent. 
 
 The cows were led into the stable one at a time and secured in a common 
 stanchion, as though they were about to be milked. A halter was put on, the 
 head drawn up as high as possible and turned to one side. With a sharp saw 
 the outside horn was removed ; the head was then shifted and the other horn 
 taken off. 
 
 All of the animals struggled, but not violently; and in no case did a cow 
 throw herself, or make any cry as of pain. As soon as the horns were off the 
 animal was released and bran was immediately offered them to see if they would 
 accept food. Sylvia was the only one who refused to eat. The loss of blood was 
 very small, especially with the older cows. Daisy 2nd was the only animal from 
 whose horns the blood spurted. In her case a fine stream of blood spurted from 
 her left horn, nearly two feet, the flow lasting about fifteen minutes. The rest 
 of the cows did not bleed enough to cause it to drop from the head. 
 
 To prevent irrit tion to the wound by the animal striking her head against 
 the side of the stanchion, the cows were afterwards tied with halters, the 
 stanchion being left open. Four days after the dehorning, March 20th, there was 
 a slight discharge of pus from Sylvia's left horn ; also from Jessie's right horn. 
 Aside from this discharge, the wounds healed rapidly and at the present time 
 are perfectly healed. 
 
 It is a well known fact that comparatively slight causes will have a marked 
 effect on the milk production of the cow. We might expect therefore that de- 
 horning would have an immediate effect on the quantity and quality of milk 
 produced, after the operation, when compared with that produced before dehorn- 
 ing. In this case, with one exception, the average daily yield, the weekly yield 
 per cow and the total amount of milk given by the twelve animals is less in the 
 
54 
 
 period after dehorning than in the six days preceding the operation. This 
 shrinkage may In' due to two causes: first, the natural shrinkage of the milk 
 yield, and second, the shrinkage caused by dehorning. From records extending 
 over twelve years and including over 100 cows, Dr. Sturtevant, of the New York 
 Experiment Station, calculated that the natural falling off in milk for each month 
 from calving is about 9 per cent, of the yield of the preceding month. Applying 
 this rule to the above figures, we see that the natural falling off in milk would 
 be very nearly 21.20 lbs. 
 
 If, then, the cows had not been dehorned, they would under normal 
 conditions have given 1,156.92 lbs. They actually did give 1,101.49 lbs. We 
 have then the loss of 55.43 lbs. of milk as a result of dehorning twelve cows ; or 
 a loss per cow of 4.02 lbs. of milk in six days. 
 
 On the other hand, as a result of dehorning, we have a gain of 2.4 pounds of 
 butter fat. This is an unlooked for result, but it serves to confirm the fact that 
 any disturbance of a cow's condition is sho^n in a marked manner in the yield 
 of milk and butter. Also, that from this experiment we cannot draw any con- 
 clusions as to the effect of dehorning on the yield of butter. Further experi- 
 ments must be made before we can decide this point. 
 
 There was an average rise in temperature of only a fraction of a degree, a 
 result as easily brought about by the preliminary handling as by the actual de- 
 horning. 
 
 Conclusions. — We have, then, as a result of dehorning twelve cows : first, a 
 slight falling off in the milk yield ; second, an increase in the fat, and third, an 
 increase in the temperature of the animal denoting a slight degree of fever for a 
 few days after the operation. While these results are not conclusive, yet they 
 indicate that dehorning a well fed, healthy cow is not by any means a serious 
 operation, and unless further experiments show a more marked injurious effect 
 on the animal than the one given above, the question of dehorning cows will de- 
 pend entirely on the practical advantages to be derived from it. If by dehorning 
 we can insure an economy in feed and storage as has been claimed, and if at the 
 same time there is no perceptible falling off in quality and quantity of the milk ; 
 then the operation will be one of personal convenience. One thing should, how- 
 ever, be taken into account, and that is the condition of the animal. A cow that 
 is poorly fed, or out of condition is certainly in no condition to undergo an 
 operation of any sort, nor will there be any benefit derived from it. The ques- 
 tion of injury to the constitution or temperament of the animal can only be 
 settled by experiments on a large number of animals extending over several 
 years. 
 
 A Further Experiment. 
 
 In the report of the following year for the same station (Wisconsin), the re- 
 sults of a further experiment are given as follows by Prof. S. M. Babcock, chief 
 chemist : 
 
 In the fifth annual report of this station Mr. Short has considered the effect 
 of dehorning upon milk production, the results of his experiments being that 
 there was scarcely any change either in yield of milk or its quality. In his 
 experiment the cows were dehorned before noon, several hours before milking, 
 so that they had considerable time to recover from the excitement occasioned. 
 From what is known concerning the susceptibility of a cow to very slight 
 changes in the conditions under which the milking is performed, it is probable 
 
55 
 
 that the effect of dehorning upon the milk would be most marked if the cow 
 were milked immediately after the operation and while she was still excited by 
 it. An opportunity for testing this was offered this last spring when it was de- 
 cided to dehorn the remainder of the station herd. There were at this time ten 
 cows to be dehorned, all of which were giving milk. The cows were dehorned 
 April 24th, in the evening, just before milking. All of the cows were dehorned 
 before any of them were milked. The time intervening between the dehorning 
 of the tirst cow and the beginning of the milking was about one-half an hour. 
 
 There was a very marked difference in the behavior of the different cows, 
 some of them being scarcely affected, while with others the effect was decided. 
 With all the cows that fell off either in yield or quality, there was at the follow- 
 ing milking an improvement, this being more marked in the per cent, of fat than 
 in°the yield of milk. In some cases this was sufficient to entirely obscure the 
 immediate effect. The same tendency was observed in Short's experiment, in 
 which the falling off in the milk was more than compensated for by improved 
 quality so that, although giving less milk in the week following dehorning the 
 total yield of fat was larger than before. It is probable that the slight fever 
 which followed the operation, as shown by the temperature of the animal, may 
 have caused the milk to be somewhat richer in fat. That something of this kind 
 may occur is shown by tests made at the New York Experiment Station at 
 Geneva of milk from cows that had been upon the cars for two or three days, 
 the first milking afterwards being abnormally rich. In another case where cows 
 had become feverish from improper food a similar effect was produced. In the 
 dehorned cows, whatever the cause may have been, the effect was not permanent, 
 both the yield and quality having reached the normal amount by the end of one 
 week, by which time also the temperature of the animal had become normal. 
 
 It is interesting to note in this connection, the effect of excitement caused by 
 dehorning upon other cows that were in the stable when the operation was per- 
 formed. A few of these cows were where they could see the operation, while 
 others only came in contact with the dehorned cows after the horns were re- 
 moved. None of the cows bellowed when the horns were being removed, and 
 only two of them struggled violently. The feed for all of the cows was the same, 
 and no cause is known which would affect the yield of milk except sympathetic 
 excitement caused by contact with the dehorned cows, and yet the milk yield, of 
 these cows was diminished almost as much on the evening that the dehorning 
 was done as was that of the dehorned cows. On the following morning these 
 cows gave about their usual amount of milk. 
 
 Usually when cows have been dehorned at the station, the operation has 
 been performed in the morning, several hours before the next milking. By ex- 
 amining the milk yield for the milking following, we find no falling off in the 
 yield for the cows not dehorned, showing that, in those cases, any excitement 
 occasioned by the dehorning had either subsided or had failed to produce the re- 
 sult corresponding to that in the experiment mentioned above. The fact seems 
 to be that excitement of this kind rapidly subsides, and does not affect the yield 
 -of the cow if she has become quiet before milking. 
 
56 
 
 Arkansas Experiment Station. 
 
 The fifth bulletin of the Arkansas Experiment Station, issued in August, 
 1888, gives the results of a dehorning experiment mace under the directions of 
 Mr. Albert Menke. It states : 
 
 The subject of dehorning having become one of great interest, we undertook 
 a series of careful experiments with a view to clearly observing the pathological 
 changes produced in the animals, and also to notice what effect the operation had 
 upon the composition of the milk. From the result it is obvious that the milk 
 
 Plate I. Section of Horns Amputated at Base. 
 Fig. n ».„ 
 
 Fig 1. — Cow three years old. 
 Fig 2. — Cow four years old. 
 
 A. — Epidermis. 
 
 B. — Coriuin. 
 
 C. — Bony core, of horn. 
 
 D. — Cavity of horn oore. 
 
 Plate TI. Section and side view of Horns of Calf four Months old. 
 
 i 
 
 A. — Cartilaginous horn core partly ossified. 
 I'.. — Its p riosteal covering. 
 C. — Corium. 
 D. — Epidermis. 
 E. — Artery, 
 
 did not materially change in the proportion of fats to solids not fat. Thephysio- 
 ogical results were observed by Dr. Dinwiddie, while the chemical analyses were 
 made by Messrs. Twombly and Collingwood. 
 
 Amputation of the horns was performed at this station on seven subjects, in 
 
57 
 
 all of which the physiological condition of the animals was noted for some time 
 prior and subsequent to the operation, while two were under special observation 
 with reference to the effect produced on the milk secretion. 
 
 The animals were all kept, as nearly as possible, under similar conditions 
 before and after being dehorned, in order that whatever changes might be observed 
 could reasonably be regarded as effects produced by that operation. 
 
 Cow No. 1, four years old, native stock, arrived on farm June 18th ; was 
 weighed and examined as to temperature, pulse and respiration every third day 
 till July 5th. 
 
 The record shows a steady decrease in weight from the day of arrival up till 
 the 26th of July, while the average temperature was 102.5° F. The pulse and 
 respiration in cows vary so much under the influence of digestive and other physi- 
 ological processes, as well as external conditions of temperature, etc., that they 
 cannot in general (at least so far as their frequency is concerned) be regarded as 
 much diagnostic value. 
 
 July 5th cow No. 1 was secured in stanchion and horns amputated by knife 
 and saw. Slight bleeding occurred from two small vessels at the anterior part 
 of the stump, but soon ceased spontaneously. After sponging, the wounds were 
 covered by carbolized cotton and a bandage applied. 
 
 July 9th the bandage was removed and new dressings applied. The dis- 
 charge was slight and healthy in character. The parts after this were smeared 
 with grease toprevent adhesion of dressings, the outside of bandage being also 
 covered with tar ointment to prevent the attacks of flies. The wounds were 
 sponged and dressings renewed every five or six days. 
 
 Granulations began to spread and narrow the openings in the stumps in 
 about two weeks after the operation, while the discharge gradually diminished in 
 a month. 
 
 June 9th a calf four months old with horns projecting about one inch, base 
 broad and movable, was thrown and feet tied together with a rope. A circular 
 incision was made around the base, and the horn along with the spongy bone 
 tissue beneath, to the depth of about one-quarter inch, removed by an ordinary 
 bone gouge. Hemorrhage was repressed by tincture of iron and the parts covered 
 by cotton and bandage. After the first dressing they were left uncovered and 
 merely smeared with tar ointment. There was little discharge from the wounds 
 and healing ensued in about six weeks. 
 
 June 20th, calf six weeks old, horns about one-half inch long, soft and freely 
 movable, was thrown down and held with head on the floor, and the embryo horns 
 taken out, along with some of the bone beneath, by means of a circular gouge — 
 the ordinary punch formerly used for cutting gun wads. This instrument, when 
 sharp, answers every purpose for the operation on calves. 
 
 There was but little bleeding or struggling, and the whole proceeding did 
 not occupy more than three minutes. The holes were covered by cotton, without 
 any bandage. So far as could be observed, the operation on these two calves 
 produced no effect on their appetite or weight. The wounds necessarily sup- 
 purate and take several weeks to heal, but the operation is less serious and much 
 more easily performed than on the older animal, and the ultimate result equally 
 satisfactory. 
 
 In the case of the first two cows there was a gradual and constant loss of 
 weight, both before and after dehorning, which was probably clue to change or 
 
58 
 
 deficiency of pasture or to excessive heat, causes which were in operation through- 
 out the whole experiment. No part of this loss can, therefore, with certainty, be 
 attributed to the operation of dehorning. 
 
 The appetite of the cows was not at any time interfered with. 
 
 The degree of fever, indicated by the thermometer, showed in one case a rise 
 of temperature to 105° F. The normal temperature of cattle (taken in the 
 rectum) may be placed at 102° F. 
 
 Although these experiments were conducted in the tiy season, and therefore 
 under unfavorable conditions, the results show that amputation of the horns, 
 either in calves or grown animals, is followed by only slight constitutional dis- 
 turbance 
 
 So far as has yet been observed removal of the horns has no effect in deteri- 
 orating the quality of the milk. 
 
 From our analyses it is seen that the butter producing elements of the milk 
 are not diminished while the cows are suffering from the effects of the operation, 
 and it is even less likely that this should occur after they have recovered. 
 
 The practice of dehorning, however, is always open to the charge of cruelty, 
 and on this account is not likely to ever become general. 
 
 The operation on calves is less objectionable in this respect, and should 
 always be preferred to the more serious and painful operation on older animals. 
 
 It is best performed when the calves are from three to seven or eight weeks 
 old, soon after the horn shows itself above the skin. Removal of the small mov- 
 able button of horn is not sufficient to prevent further growth, but part of the 
 soft, spongy bone beneath should also be removed The circular gouge before 
 mentioned is the only instrument necessary. By a rotatory movement the skin 
 is cut down to the bone around the base of the horn, and hy depressing the hand 
 and slight lateral motion the bone is easily removed for a sufficient depth. 
 
 The skull wall is, at this age, solid at the base of the horn and very thick, 
 soft osseous tissue filling up the space which afterwards, by absorption, becomes 
 part of the frontal sinus. Bleeding usually ceases spontaneously ; if excessive, it 
 may be controlled by cold water or pressure by pad held in place by a bandage. 
 
 The only after treatment is to keep the part clean by occasional w T ashing 
 with an antiseptic solution, such as carbolic acid, one part to fifty of water. 
 
 Dehorning, after the fourth or fifth month must be done by the saw, as the 
 horns are then usually too large to admit the use of the gouge. 
 
 The method of restraint found to be most satisfactory in these experiments 
 was by the use of a stanchion constructed in the usual manner, the neck being 
 imprisoned between two vertical pieces of two by four scantling. In order to 
 restrain the movements of the head the end of a long § inch rope was converted 
 into a halter. This is done by making a small loop on the end of the rope. After 
 laying this over the neck just behind the ears, the rope is doubled about three 
 feet from its end and the doubled portion passed through the loop from behind 
 forwards and drawn tight over the nose. The head was then drawn close to the 
 second upright of the stanchion on the right to which the rope was fastened by 
 several turns around it, the remainder being carried over the neck and secured to 
 the second upright on the left. 
 
 By this means, although the head was not absolutely fixed, sufficient steadi- 
 ness was obtained to allow free -working to the saw on both sides. 
 
59 
 
 Amputation may be performed by the saw alone, but the use of the knife 
 at the first and last points of the operation causes less pain to the animal and 
 leaves a cleaner cut surface. 
 
 The best time to operate is in the spring, fall, or winter. When a large 
 number of cattle are dehorned at one time they should not be kept crowded in 
 the same stable. 
 
 Although our experience with dehorning is insufficient to warrant us in 
 recommending the practice on any extensive scale, the results of these experiments 
 must be considered as favorable to the operation when performed on suitable 
 subjects. 
 
 The conclusions arrived at may be thus formulated : 
 
 (1) The operation requires some care, but is not difficult or dangerous. 
 
 (2) The wounds heal favorably as a rule, although in exceptional cases and 
 when the operation is improperly performed, continued suppuration and chronic 
 inflammation may ensue and seriously interfere with the health of the animal. 
 
 (3) In cases that progress normally, from three to four months may be given 
 as the time which elapses before complete healing occurs. 
 
 (4) When amputated at the proper place the horns do not return. 
 
 (5) The constitutional disturbance is not severe, and is manifested by a slight 
 and temporary rise of temperature, with probably, in most cases, a slight decline 
 in weight and milk secretion, lasting over the first week or so. 
 
 (6) The quality of the milk is not injuriously affected. 
 
 (7) The operation must be considered painful, but there is no evidence that 
 the pain is excessive after the operation is over. 
 
 On calves we conclude that — - 
 
 (1) The operation is less painful than in adults. 
 
 (2) When removed as above directed the horns do not return. 
 
 (3) There is little constitutional disturbance manifested. 
 
 (4) When the animal is healthy the wounds heal favorably in about six 
 weeks or two months. 
 
 Chemical Compounds for Preventing the Growth of Horns on Cattle. 
 
 In the eighth annual report of the Agricultural Experimental Station of the 
 University of Wisconsin, for the year ending June 30, 1891, the following article, 
 on the Removal of Horns by Chemical Compounds, is contributed by Leslie H. 
 Adams, Farm Superintendent. 
 
 The chemical compounds prepared by Mr. John March of Shullsburg, Wis. 
 and by Messrs. Lewis & Bennett of Bloomington, Wis., have been tried at the 
 Station with satisfactory results. They were tried on a number of calves at 
 different ages during the fall of 1889, with a view to obtaining definite knowledge 
 as to the manner and proper age of application. It was found in a majority of 
 instances that the best results were reached when the compound was applied 
 as soon as it was possible to locate the little horn button on the calf's head, which 
 usually can be done when it is but three or four days old. From our experi- 
 ence it would seem that the dehorning compound should be fresh, and the 
 
00 
 
 contents of the bottle well mixed before using ; otherwise only partial success 
 may be reached. The hair should be clipped from about the embryo horn with 
 scissors, and the chemical applied with the rubber cork, wet with the fluid, 
 and rubbed hard over the button until it has penetrated the horn germ. When 
 the germ has become soft, having an inflamed appearance, sufficient material 
 has been applied. Care should be taken that no fluid runs down the calf's 
 head, for the material is very caustic. 
 
 In our tests, in several instances, the fluid was applied to but one horn 
 button, the other being left untreated. The effect usually was to entirely stop the 
 growth of one horn, while the other grew naturally. The calves were sold to a 
 farmer not far distant, who agreed to keep them until grown that we might see 
 the effect of the treatment. Fig. 35 was redrawn from a photograph of a grade 
 Jersey heifer at two years of age, showing that the right horn, to which the com- 
 
 
 Fig. 35. —Head of 2 year old grade Jersey heifer, showing effect of using chemical dehorner in preventing 
 
 the growth of the right horn. 
 
 pound was applied, never developed. Fig. 36 shows the left horn (with the 
 shell removed) naturally developed, while the right side of the head to which the 
 chemical was applied has not only failed to develop the horn, but even the heavy 
 base which grows out from the skull to support it. This failure to develop not 
 only the horn but its natural support, raises the query of whether a hornless race 
 of cattle could not be developed by using the dehorning compound for a number 
 of generations. 
 
 In advertisements of chemical fluids it is often claimed that the application 
 is painless, but our observations do not coincide with any such statement. The 
 application of a fluid powerful enough to destroy so large a surface as the button 
 on the calf 8 head must produce a great deal of pain, and the calves show this by 
 
61 
 
 nervous movements of the head and attempting to rub the irritated spot. From 
 our experience in applying the liquid and also in cutting out the horns with 
 instruments, we believe that when used the fluid should be applied to as young 
 calves as possible, since the older the calf grows the more it seems to suffer when 
 the horns are removed. 
 
 Fig. 36. — Skull of another grade Jersey heifer, showing how by the application of chemicals, the horn and 
 the base of the skull which supports it, have failed to develop. 
 
 Cornell University Station. 
 
 The agricultural experiment station in connection with Cornell University 
 gives the following account of a dehorning experiment in its 37th Bulletin, 
 December, 1891 : 
 
 We have received so many inquiries in regard to this practice that it has 
 seemed worth while that we should give a brief outline of our experience in this 
 bulletin. We have made it a practice, for the past six or seven years, to dehorn 
 our cows as soon as they come into the dairy, and at the present time there is no 
 animal having horns on the farm. While for the most part the horns have been 
 removed by students and others who have never even seen the operation per- 
 formed, we have as yet to meet the first case where there has been any ill effect 
 
62 
 
 following the operation. The last time the operation was performed was on 
 Nov. 5, 1891, at which time, among others, five cows in milk were dehorned. 
 Three of these were heifers under two years old, two were mature cows that had 
 been purchased in the neighborhood; all were comparatively fresh in milk. 
 One had only been milked six days. The cows dehorned were very little 
 affected by the operation, with the exception of the cow Pandora. She fell off 
 three pounds upon the day on which she was dehorned, and six pounds more on 
 the following day, after which she nearly regained her normal flow. The varia- 
 tions in the case of the other cows were extremely trivial, and some of the cows 
 not dehorned varied quite as much, and that, too, on the same days. The average 
 variation of the five dehorned cows was a little less than four pounds in the 
 whole period of eleven days, while the average variation of the seven cows not 
 dehorned in the same period was nearly six pounds. This was undoubtedly due 
 to the fact that the average milk yield of the seven cows not dehorned was con- 
 siderably greater than that of the five dehorned cows, but it shows that the opera- 
 tion of dehorning did not cause at least any greater daily variation. 
 
 So much for the immediate effects of dehorning, now as to the time required 
 for recuperation. We find that there was an average daily loss of a little less 
 than one-half a pound for the five cows dehorned, but in the same time the seven 
 cows that were not dehorned gave seven-hundredths of a pound per day less in 
 the last five days. It would seem, then, studying the milk yield in all its 
 relations that the loss in milk yield when cows in milk are dehorned is 
 insignificant. 
 
 The only requisites for successfully performing the operation are that the 
 animal's head should be securely fastened and the operator possessed of courage 
 and a sharp saw. We have ordinarily used what is known by carpenters as a 
 " cut off " saw, that is a small flexible saw with rather fine teeth, others have 
 preferred to use a stiff back saw. The horns should be removed from the head 
 so as to take with them a few hairs all the way round. It is usually of advan- 
 tage to clip off some of the hairs about the base of the horn with a pair of shears, 
 and before beginning the operator should examine the horn and get his bearings, 
 so that when once the operation is begun no stop need be made until the horn 
 comes off; ordinarily but very little blood is lost in the operation, some animals, 
 however, will bleed considerably, and very rarely it is necessary to bind a rag- 
 smeared with pine tar over the stump to stop the bleeding. Animals under 
 three years old that are in good flesh and thrifty growing condition are more apt 
 to bleed freely. It is not necessary that any application be made to the stump, 
 but we have thought it of advantage to apply a little carbolated vaseline ; this is 
 chiefly of benefit in warm weather in keeping away flies. Usually the wound 
 heals up without suppurating, but in about one case in ten some pus will form. 
 We have found it of advantage in such cases to bind on a rag smeared with pine 
 tar as before described. 
 
 Minnesota Experiment Station. 
 
 Bulletin No. 19, March, 1892, of the agricultural experiment station in con- 
 nection with the University of Minnesota, gives the following account of a 
 dehorning experiment conducted by the Director, Mr, Clinton D. Smith, and the 
 Professor of Dairying, Mr. T. L. Hsecker : 
 
 Last summer it was decided by the Regents to place upon the station farm 
 a herd of good dairy cows, selected from natives, thoroughbreds and their grades 
 
63 
 
 In carrying out this purpose some twenty -five cows were purchased during the 
 month of October, and shipped to the station. When they were let into the yard 
 it was noticed that the larger cows drove the smaller from feed and water, and 
 often prevented their drinking unless protected by the attendant. It was 
 apparent that unless some means could be devised to prevent this, serious losses 
 would occur from irregular feeding aud drinking and by premature births. 
 
 It was decided that the quickest and most effectual remedy was dehorning. 
 This is, by many, considered a questionable practice, because of the pain inflicted 
 during the operation. In order that the immediate effects might be studied a 
 comparison was made of the daily yield of milk and per cent, of fat, before and 
 after dehorning. These results were compared with the record of a number of 
 cows not dehorned, but which saw the operation and smelled the blood. 
 
 The cows, Franc, Roxy, Sully, Gran, Clara and Crossy, were over five years 
 old, and Patsey, Rossie and Bettie, over four years, these were dehorned on the 
 ninth of November, 1891. They were fastened in a stanchion, the head drawn 
 forward by means of a halter and small tackle blocks until the neck was extended 
 to its full length, so that the horns were sufficiently far from the stanchion to 
 permit the free use of the narrow bladed butcher's saw which we used. 
 
 The time occupied was about five seconds per horn ; as soon as the horns 
 were removed pieces of cotton cloth smeared with pine tar were placed upon the 
 wounds. Care was taken to saw the horns inside of the outer edge of the skin, 
 removing with the horn a narrow strip of hair. During the operation the cows 
 gave every indication of intense suffering but upon being released no sign of pain 
 was visible. The wounds healed rapidly without any other application than the 
 tar. 
 
 By comparing the yield of milk of the cows dehorned with that of the cows 
 not dehorned it was found that the former gave 22.2 lbs. less during the three 
 milkings after being dehorned, the latter losing 6.2 lbs. The dehorned cows 
 shrinking seven per cent, while the others lost three per cent. 
 
 Comparing the total fat products of these two groups of cows for the same 
 periods we find a much greater discrepancy, the horned cows showing a shrinkage 
 of only three per cent, while the six cows not dehorned lost eleven per cent. It 
 would appear from these observations that while the operation of dehorning may 
 cause a slight temporary variation in the flow of milk and fat content 
 the normal flow and per cent, of fat is quickly recovered, and that cows only 
 seeing the operation and smelling the blood show a greater shrinkage in fat than 
 do the ones dehorned. 
 
 Dominion Experimental Farm. 
 
 In the report of the Dominion Experimental Farm for 1891, Prof. J. W 
 Robertson writes as follows : 
 
 On 3rd December the operation of dehorning was performed on 4 three- 
 year old steers, and on one Jersey bull five years old. Through questions 
 which have been asked at conventions and farmers' institutes, and by letters 
 which have been received, an opinion has been asked repeatedly during the past 
 two years upon the subject of dehorning cattle. Farmers who have sufficient 
 open-shed or closed-in-shed convenience for the fattening of steers if they could 
 be allowed to run loose with safety, have made frequent applications for in- 
 formation. The practice has become common in many of the States of the 
 Union. The references which have been made to it in the columns of the agri- 
 cultural press provoked further curiosity and interest on the part of Canadian 
 
04 
 
 farmers, to learn from some authoritative source in Canada what effect the oper- 
 ation would have. The mode of procedure was to put each steer into the sling 
 which we use for lifting the bulls when the hoofs are to be trimmed. The neck 
 was fastened securely between two upright pieces of scantling, one of which was 
 movable at the top, after the style of the common old-fashioned stable stanchion. 
 The head was then tied to one side. The hair around the base of each horn was 
 clipped off, to permit the cutting to be effected in such a way as to remove a 
 narrow ring of skin with the horn. Leavitt's dehorning machine was used on 
 two horns. It is constructed in such a way as to clip the horn off at one snap. 
 In the case of three-year-old steers, the horns were too hard and tough for one 
 man to use the machine with sufficient quickness of motion. For the other horns, 
 a common fine-tooth carpenter's saw was used. 
 
 The operation on each horn lasted from one quarter to one half of a minute. 
 In the case of two of the steers, the saw cut through an artery, from which a 
 small jet of blood spurted. The wounds on the heads of two of the steers 
 appeared to be acutely painful for nearly a week ; the other two animals did not 
 appear to suffer any inconvenience after the operation was ended. It was not 
 expected that blood would flow so freely from the wounds as it did in the two 
 cases mentioned, and no particular preparation had been made to staunch the 
 flow at once. A cloth covered with coal-tar is probably one of the most accessible 
 and suitable applications which can be made on the ordinary farm. The steers 
 have been fed in box stalls, running loose in pairs, and they seem to be most 
 healthy and gentle since the wounds healed. 
 
 In the case of the Jersey bull, he had become so vicious that the attendants 
 went into his box-stall only at the jeopardy of their lives. Instructions had been 
 given several months previously that no one was to go into his box-stall until 
 after he had been securely tied, For the dehorning operation, the bull was tied 
 in a similar manner to the steers. His horns were sawn off as close to the skull 
 as possible. Not a thimbleful of blood altogether was shed ; and when he was 
 turned loose in his box-stall he acted as mildly as a sheep. 
 
 Horns and their Relation to Milk and Cream. 
 
 In an interesting paper on " Horns and their Relation to Milk and Cream," 
 read last year before the annual meeting of the New York State Agricultural 
 Society, Dr. James Law, of Cornell University, says : 
 
 Horn is made up essentially of gelatine or glue, which also makes up the 
 substance of hair, of sinew, and the non-earthy part of bone. The analysis of 
 gelatine, of hair and of horn, show only the slightest shades of difference. 
 
 In both hairs and horn there is a minute quantity of iron and a trace of fat, 
 but too little to be of any importance. In the fibrous structure of bone, in hair 
 and in horn, there is one material, and if the abstraction of this material from the 
 blood for the formation of horn affects the constitution of the blood so as to 
 favor the secretion of milk, then its abstraction for the formation of bone, sinews 
 and hair, must be equally effective in increasing or improving the milk yield. 
 But large bones and sinews have never been found desirable qualities, either in 
 beef or milking breeds. Indeed, the reverse is notoriously the case, as seen in the 
 spare forms and delicate limbs of the Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Ayrshire, Swiss, 
 Brittany, ami, indeed, all the exclusively milk and butter breeds. Even in the 
 Shorthorn and Holstein cow, which are at once milking and beef animals, the 
 
65 
 
 stnallness of bone in relation to the abundance of muscle and fat constitutes a 
 point of peculiar excellency. On the contrary, who has ever heard of large yields 
 of milk from the breeds of heavy bone and sinew, the Texans, Hungarian or 
 Steppe, the native White cattle of England, or the more modern Longhorned 
 breed ? 
 
 Then as to the hair. Does the full yield of milk and butter coincide with 
 the great development or more active growth of the hair ? The milking breeds 
 which I have named are remarkable for the fineness of the hair, and the thinness, 
 softness and pliancy of the skin, which is another structure almost entirely made 
 up of gelatine. Again, the period of the rapid growth of hair is in autumn, and 
 that of its greatest length in winter, but the largest and best yield of milk and 
 butter is in spring and summer, when the cow has just come in, when the feed is 
 best, the weather wannest, and the growth of hair least- Obviously the effect of 
 the growth of hair on the blood, and the yield of milk, is of no account, if indeed 
 the excess of hair is not absolutely detrimental. 
 
 As if to exclude the idea that the horns can have any favorable influence on 
 the secretion of milk or butter, it is notorious that all, or nearly all, the long- 
 horned breeds of cattle are poor dairy cattle. Among the domesticated cattle in 
 America, the Texan stands out as a prominent example. While the horns aie 
 large enough to have given rise to the hyperbole of " packing the steer in his 
 own horns," the milking, like the fatting qualities, are at the lowest ebb, and the 
 useless brute is rapidly giving place to those breeds that prove profitable for beef 
 and milk. His ancestor, the old Spanish ox, has precisely the same characteris- 
 tics, though living on the other side of the globe. The Algerian, Hungarian and 
 Podolian cattle all show this qualit}^ of horns of enormous length, and none of 
 them yield milk in excess of what is needed for the calf. The ancient cattle of 
 the British Isles, the white cattle of Cb.illingb.am, the black Scotch Highland 
 cattle, and the longhorned Irish and English cattle, are alike remarkable for 
 development of horn, and paucity and poverty of milk. Among the mote modern 
 breeds, the English Hereford stands out as a splendid beef animal with magni- 
 ficent horns, but a small yield of poor milk. It may be objected that all these 
 excepting the English Longhorns and Herefords, are unimproved breeds, and 
 that a heavy milk and butter yield is not to be expected of them. The answer 
 is ready : In spite of or by reason of this neglect, they have developed most 
 extensive and artistic horns, and if the development of horns has any effect in 
 increasing the yield of milk and butter, this selection and survival of the horns 
 should have preserved at least a fair yield of milk. But the exact opposite has 
 been the result. Among cattle with somewhat shorter horns, there are some 
 fair milking breeds. I may name the Devons, the Pembroke, the black Welsh 
 and the Kerry. The last is indeed an admirable milker considering its size, and 
 the others, though not heavy, milkers, yield in the main milk rich in butter. 
 
 Coming now to the breeds furnished with short horns we meet with those 
 that are pre-eminently the best milkers. Of these the Ayrshires, the Shorthorns 
 and the Holsteins need only to be named. All have been long famed as milking 
 breeds, and though to-day many of the most improved Shorthorns have appar- 
 ently lost the quality of milking, it has not been because of any shortening of 
 the horns, but because of feeding exclusively for fat, which has led to fatty de- 
 generation of the muscle as well as of the udder. The Shorthorn was originally 
 and may still be made a splendid dairy cow. The main prerequisites are to feed 
 upon products that contain no excess of fat, starch or sugar, and to furnish all 
 food in an aqueous condition. Among the cattle with short horns have still to be 
 named the Flemish and Norman, the latter of which was once called the best 
 milk cow in the world, the Alderney, Guernsey, Jersey and Swiss, all animals 
 
 5 (D.C.) 
 
66 
 
 with small horns and all famous not only for the abundance of their milk, but 
 for the quantity and quality of the cream. 
 
 If I refer finally to the Polled or Muley breeds it is only to substantiate my 
 position that the horns have no important influence in connection with the milk 
 and butter yield. The Polled-Angus is to-day a poor milker, but it is so for the 
 same reason that the Shorthorn is so. It has been selected and fed so persist- 
 ently for early maturity and rapid fattening that the disposition to yield milk 
 lias been superseded, and it is to-day an exclusively beef breed. But it was not 
 always so, and in the early part of this century the Polled-Angus was quoted as 
 Iding from fifteen to twenty quarts of milk daily, and remarkably rich in 
 m. The Galloway is quoted as yielding six to fifteen quarts daily, which 
 produced from three-fourth pounds to one and one-half pounds butter. The 
 polled Norfolk and Suffolk on the richer pastures of England yield as high as 
 thirty quarts of milk a day and this is unusually rich in butter. 
 
 While therefore the polled cattle can not be claimed as the heaviest milking 
 breed.-, the\ have proved themselves excellent milkers, when selected and fed to 
 develop this quality, and in place of the lack of horns determining a watery milk 
 deficient in cream, they have always been remarkable for the relative abundance 
 and richness of the cream. I am not advocating the {tolled cattle as dairy stock. 
 Some horned breeds, like the Channel Island cattle, are far in advance of them, 
 alike in the yield of milk, in relation to the size of the animal and in the relative 
 amount and richness of the butter. But they are not doomed as dairy breeds 
 because of the absence of horns, as the past record of the Angus and Gallo- 
 way, and the present record of the Suffolk sufficiently testify. 
 
 We have seen, moreover, that the longhorned races of cattle are pre-emi- 
 nently the poor milkers, while the palm for abundance and richness of milk rests 
 with the breeds with small and short horns. But neither long or short horned, 
 nor polled heads are any guarantee of the milking characteristics of a breed nor 
 of an animal. The horns are absolutely unimportant in this connection and the 
 conditions which influence the milk and butter yield must be looked for else- 
 where. 
 
 System and habits affected by removing the horns. — While we have seen 
 that the size of horns or their entire absence has no necessary effect on the milk 
 secretion, it can not be allowed that the removal of the horns has no effect on 
 the animal or its secretions. The results may be divided into immediate and 
 remote. The immediate results are first the shock occasioned by the removal of 
 the horns from an adult animal, and the inflammation that ensues on the seat of 
 the operation. Now these acting on a cow in the full flow of milk will necess- 
 arily produce an immediate diminution in the flow of milk. How considerable 
 and how prolonged such decrease of flow will prove, will usually be determined 
 by the special nervousness and irritability of the animal and by the existing 
 state of health and purity or impurity of the surrounding air. In a very suscep- 
 tible animal the effect of the shock may be greatly prolonged. In an irritable 
 subject the wounds may heal badly, and the same may result from its exposure 
 to extreme cold or to poisonous material in the air or elsewhere. The effect of 
 such unhealthy inflammation in the wound may be to a certain extent perma- 
 nent, as the ill health brought about in this way may permanently impair the 
 action of the udder. 
 
 The other remote effects are mainly connected with the new habits acquired 
 by the animal. 
 
 First. A dehorned cow left in a herd, any of which retain their horns, is 
 ahused and driven about at the will of the latter. The exclusion from desirable 
 food and the constant apprehension and excitement in which a dehorned nervous 
 
67 
 
 animal is thus kept can not fail to materially reduce the milk yield, and to use 
 up in the process of breathing the carbonaceous matter which would otherwise 
 have been devoted to the production of butter. It is wisdom, therefore, to ' : go 
 the whole hog or none " in this matter — to dehorn all the animals kept in the 
 same herd, or to leave all in their natural state. To leave a few dehorned cows 
 in a horned herd and then to complain of the reduced yield of the former is 
 utterly unreasonable. The timid and abused animal in a herd can never reach 
 its full possible yield, and the mingling together of horned and dehorned cattle 
 can only have the effect of impairing the milk secretion of the latter. 
 
 Second. The removal of the horns, by removing the possibility of success- 
 fully attacking other cattle, obviates the disposition to attempt such attack, and 
 fosters a placid, equable, restful disposition. This disposition is of high value, 
 especially in beef breeds and hardly less so in dairy cattle. It lessens at once the 
 nervous excitability, the muscular activity and the breathing, and in so doino- 
 diminishes the expenditure in these directions of the albuminoids or cheese-pro- 
 ducing principles and of the carbonaceous or butter and sugar producing 
 principles. It the materials thus economized could be all devoted to the 
 production of milk the dehorning would be an unalloyed gain for the dairy. But 
 in this case as to the selection of docile, horned animals, the tendency is not all 
 to the production of milk, and unless great care is taken in feeding and manao-e- 
 ment, it is liable to be turned largely to the production of beef, as has happened 
 to the Shorthorns and Polled- Angus cattle. What then? Must we avoid animals 
 that have at once a placid disposition and a good digestion ? Assuredly not. 
 These two qualities are fundamental to all improvement in stock, and to the 
 preservation of all good qualities in dairy or beef stock. It is the duty of the 
 stockowner to guard against any evil that may threaten in connection with these 
 good qualities. The domestication and improvement of stock always introduce a 
 series of drawbacks. If we neglect to watch for and counteract these, our im- 
 proved stock will perish under our eyes, or more commonly retrograde toward 
 their original poor condition. If we want merely to keep around us the hardiest 
 and most vigorous of animals, let us go back at once to the Texas cattle or to the 
 buffalo of the plains. But hardy as such stock is, it would not in these northern 
 States furnish us with a living. We must, therefore, take our improved stock 
 with all their weakness of constitution, their inability to bear exposure and pri- 
 vations, their lack of natural protection instincts, their helplessness as calves, 
 and their predisposition to diseases of the vital organs in age, their tendency to 
 fat rather than milk, and all their other drawbacks, if we would secure a liveli- 
 hood from keeping stock. The more highly cattle are improved the greater the 
 vigilance required to keep them in that straight course of improvement which 
 will be most profitable to us. Eternal vigilance is the price of profit, and if we 
 fail to exercise that, we must look for discomfiture. It is a compliment to the 
 dehorned cow to say that she has a tendency to run to fat. It shows that she 
 has been started so far on a course of improvement, and just as in the case of the 
 Shorthorn which was for so long the standard of all excellence in cattle alike for 
 the dairy and abattoir, we must retain the milking qualities by an aqueous and 
 albuminoid diet, and stimulate the functions of the gland which yields the golden 
 product. I don't stand here to advocate dehorning. I merely aim at a review of 
 the subject in its physiological bearings, and at furnishing the most prominent 
 reasons for and against as viewed from this standpoint. At the same time I am 
 an uncompromising enemy of pointed horns and of the suffering and loss which 
 they occasion. I do therefore strongly advocate a resort to some means of 
 removing the evil. Let the horns be cut square off as far from the points as you 
 can without injuring the quick, and their power for evil will be practically 
 
68 
 
 abolished. Or let a large knob of hard wood or metal be put on the point of 
 each horn and fixed by a peg or screw. Or remove the horns altogether, either 
 as calves or later before the cow comes into milk. Any one of these courses 
 judiciously carried out will be profitable, provided it is followed by intelligent 
 feeding and management. 
 
 Reviewing all the evidence, and considering the weight of testimony showing 
 the increased value and improved conduct of dehorned animals, the Commissioners 
 do not feel that they would be justified in recommending that the practice be 
 prohibited. Taking the advantages into consideration — to the owner, the com- 
 munity at large, and the animals themselves — we have come to the conclusion 
 that the pain inflicted is not out of proportion to the results attained. 
 
69 
 
 CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 It seems to be established beyond reasonable doubt that dehorning, 
 by effecting a change in the disposition of the animal, greatly increases its 
 marketable value, besides enabling the owner to handle his stock with greater 
 ease, economy and safety. This increased value is made up in a variety of ways : 
 In the case of steers raised for the export trade, the owner is enabled to feed loose 
 in large stables and adopt improved methods of saving manure, and, as the unruly 
 disposition has been largely subdued, less food is required in bringing the animal 
 to a prime condition. The stock can also be cared for by fewer men. It was 
 claimed by witnesses in the British trials, as well as before the Commission, that 
 on the English market buyers give about $5 per head more for dehorned animals* 
 owing to the belief that they put on flesh better. Farmers and butchers also 
 testified that they suffered serious loss from the cattle using their horns upon 
 each other. The same advantages in the care and management of dairy stock 
 were claimed by practical dairymen after one or two years experience, and experi- 
 ments conducted by the agricultural stations amply justified their contention 
 that, so far from being seriously interfered with, the milk supply was improved 
 in every way as a result of the operation. 
 
 Outside of any financial consideration we have to consider the comfort of the 
 animals themselves. The Commissioners were much impressed with the evidence 
 that the removal of the horns prevents a good deal of suffering. It was con- 
 tended by witnesses that the aggregate of suffering in the life of a dairy cow was 
 much greater than the suffering involved in dehorning, and with this opinion the 
 Commissioners are inclined to agree. A perusal of the evidence will show thai 
 the suffering occasioned by horns is neither rare nor trivial, and we commend to 
 the consideration of humane people this aspect of the question. 
 
 All the evidence, in fact, goes to show that the possession of horns by cattle, in 
 addition to causing great and prolonged suffering, means a loss in the aggregate 
 of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the farmers of this country. The dairying 
 and cattle exporting industries are two of the most important in Ontario, and 
 anything materially affecting them must affect more or less all classes and 
 interests in the province. The total number of cattle owned in Ontario last year 
 according to the Bureau of Industries, was 1,978,8 15. Of this number 773,234 were 
 milch cows ; 359,318 were store cattle over two years, and 839,547 young and other 
 cattle. The exports of cattle from Canada into Great Britain were 108,289, and 
 the value was $8,623, '202. As the large proportion of this trade goes from Ontario, 
 it will readily be seen that if the statements of witnesses are correct — that dehorn- 
 ing increases the value $5 per head — there would be a total increased value for 
 export cattle from Ontario of nearly $500,000 per year. 
 
70 
 
 The report of the Ontario Department of Agriculture states that last year 
 (1891) there were in operation 838 cheese factories, with 45,066 patrons. The 
 supply of milk was 865,453,574 pounds from 296,196 cows, and the 81,929,042 
 pounds of cheese manufactured was sold for $7 ,056,484. The progress being 
 made by this industry is shown in the fact that the total output was 13,000,000 
 pounds higher than the average for the previous nine years. 
 
 It is not claimed that the operation of dehorning can be performed without 
 suffering, but the real question to be considered is : Are the advantages such as 
 justify the infliction of whatever degree of suffering attends the operation ?' 
 Those favoring the practice concede that there should be proportion between the 
 suffering and the results attained, and that if, in the opinion of men of ordinary 
 humanity, the pain inflicted is excessive, the practice ought to be prohibited. 
 We have already referred to the advantages. In seeking to ascertain the prob- 
 able amount of pain endured by the animal, the anatomy of the horn and head 
 was studied ; expert evidence was received ; practical farmers who had per- 
 formed or witnessed the operation were questioned as to the conduct of the ani- 
 mals during and following the operation, and the Commissioners witnessed for 
 themselves the operation performed on six animals of various ages. They entered 
 upon the investigation rather opposed to the practice than otherwise — certainly 
 none favored it — and they endeavored throughout the enquiry to be impartial 
 and judicial. On witnessing the operation they did not find the evidence of 
 suffering so great as they had expected, and the after effects did not indicate any 
 serious interference with the health or comfort of the animal. This, too, was 
 the conclusion of all the witnesses who had seen the operation. To the 
 veterinary profession one would naturally look for an authoritative statement as 
 to the probable extent of the suffering, but here the divergence of opinion was 
 found to be as wide as in the case of witnesses who had never seen the operation 
 performed — those who were opposed to the practice stated that the suffering 
 would continue for a lengthened period after the operation, but the symptoms 
 which they said they would look for, are, according to the evidence, rarely met 
 with after dehorning. There was a difference of opinion, also, as to whether the 
 matter frequently discharged from the aperture after dehorning was the product 
 of inflammation or merely the ordinary discharge provided by nature for the healing 
 of the wound. The Commissioners, while believing that a discharge of this kind is 
 often aggravated by exposure or neglect, are not inclined to regard it as indica- 
 tive of severe suffering. The degree of sensitiveness contained in the nerves of 
 the horn is also a controverted point on which it does not seem possible to obtain 
 any final decision. 
 
 Admitting, however, all that has been claimed as to the extreme sensitiveness 
 of the structure, the operation is one that is very speedily performed — the average 
 time for removing each horn being from h\ to 6 seconds when performed by an 
 
71 
 
 experienced operator— and the weight of evidence is that once the horn is severed 
 the acute pain ceases. It is impossible to gauge the amount of suffering involved 
 in the healing process, but the fact that farmers who claim that they can tell at 
 a glance when their cattle are sick are unable to see any marked difference in their 
 condition as a result of the operation, is strong presumptive proof that there is 
 not much severe pain. It is a well authenticated principle among dairymen that 
 whatever interferes with the health and comfort of the animals will affect the 
 quality and quantity of their milk, and the fact remains after many careful 
 experiments that dehorning does not materially diminish the milk secretion nor 
 impair its quality. 
 
 Some of the witnesses put forward the view that man is not justified in 
 inflicting pain, even though the object sought is the increased value and useful- 
 ness of the animal as a servant of man. No amount of money, they held, could 
 be weighed against pain, and where an animal was ungovernably vicious and 
 ordinary remedies failed, it should, they thought, be isolated o» slaughtered. Others 
 again, while opposed to dehorning for a commercial advantage, were willing to 
 concede that vicious animals might be dehorned. Bearing in mind the purpose 
 for which cattle were given to man, the Commissioners consider that, provided 
 the pain inflicted is not excessive or of unreasonable duration, and the object is 
 adequate, the operation cannot be held to be a contravention of the Act governing 
 the prevention of cruelty to animals, either in letter or spirit. In cases of this 
 kind, where the question of cruelty is concerned, we believe that the motive 
 should have due consideration, and that where temporary pain is inflicted in the 
 honest desire to attain a desirable end, such an act should not be placed in the 
 same category with the pain and mutilation so often inflicted in moments of base 
 and ungovernable passion. To deny the right of man to inflict pain for wise and 
 reasonable ends is to accord to the lower animals an exemption which the human 
 race does not claim for itself, for we all know that operations of the most painful 
 and crucial character are daily performed upon little children, as well as upon 
 men and women, to remedy physical defects, and give greater enjoyment in life. 
 Then we would call attention to the fact that operations of an admittedly more 
 painful character than dehorning have long been permitted, so that no new 
 principle is involved. The spaying of animals in which the acutely painful oper- 
 ation of removing the generative organs of the female is performed, has been 
 declared by the courts of England as not coming within the meaning of the Act 
 regarding cruelty to animals, and the castration of male animals, also an opera- 
 tion involving great suffering, is by general consent and long-established custom, 
 allowed to be performed. Then, as is shown in evidence, the infliction of 
 unnecessary pain upon an animal means in nearly every case a direct loss to 
 the owner; a benefit to the animal means a benefit to the owner, and v/here an 
 animal is not benefited it will deteriorate, and the consequent loss of product, 
 will cause the farmer to speedily abandon the practice. 
 
72 
 
 The distinction between the infliction of pain and cruelty is one that needs 
 to be emphasised in view of the attitude of some of those who are opposed to the 
 practice. Cruelty is the infliction of pain wantonly and unnecessarily, and the term 
 should not apply to those who believe the justification to be sufficient and who 
 exercise due care to have the operation properly and skilfully performed. At 
 the same time, the operation is one that may be badly and carelessly done, and 
 the unnecessary pain thus inflicted is cruelty. Even though the practice should 
 be declared legal it would still be binding upon all parties to take reasonable 
 precautions to have the work done quickly and properly, and where it is shown 
 that these precautions have been neglected, prosecution and conviction should fol- 
 low under the statute provided in that behalf. After the operation, and while the 
 healing process is going on, there are many ways in which needless pain may be 
 avoided, and although the arm of the law may not always be present to assert the 
 rights of the dumb animal, there is a no less binding duty and responsibility laid 
 upon each one to exercise thoughtfulness and kindness towards the humble and 
 dependent servants of his will. No operation involving pain should be performed 
 carelessly or indifferently, and if this rule were always observed we believe that 
 much of the present opposition to the practice would be withdrawn. 
 
 Although none of the witnesses before the Commission were able to speak 
 with any degree of confidence as to the practice of disbudding, or preventing the 
 growth of the horn, a number of veterinary surgeons and directors of experi- 
 mental stations express the opinion that the operation can be performed in calf- 
 hood with much less pain. The Commissioners, although not prepared to recom- 
 mend that the operation be limited by law to the period of calf hood, would express 
 the hope that continued experiments will be made in this line, and that if it should 
 be definitely demonstrated that these methods are accompanied by less pain, and 
 that the results are equally satisfactory, farmers generally will give them pre- 
 ference over dehorning at a more advanced age. 
 
 Concluding the operation to be one that ought to be permitted, the difference 
 of opinion as to the age at which the operation is best performed is so great that the 
 Commissioners do not feel disposed to recommend any limitation in this respect. 
 It does not appear to make much difference in point of suffering whether the horns 
 are taken off at eighteen months, three years, or six years. After the latter age, 
 however, the horns seem to become less sensitive to the operation. 
 
 The season at which the operation should be performed is very important, 
 all the witnesses agreeing that it is desirable and essential to rapid recovery to 
 avoid the heat and flies in summer, and also cold, rain, wind and frost. The 
 month of November was given by many witnesses as the most desirable season, 
 while October and May were also mentioned as being a suitable time for the 
 operation. 
 
T, 
 
 Recommendations. 
 
 The Commission would therefore recommend as follows : 
 
 1st. — That the practice of dehorning be permitted where performed with 
 reasonable skill, with proper appliances, and with due regard to the avoidance of 
 unnecessary suffering, and that the Ontario Government should bring to the 
 attention of the Dominion Government the desirability of amending the law 
 relating to cruelty to animals, so as to give effect to this recommendation, 
 
 2nd. — That the Ontario Government should direct the management of the 
 Ontaiio Experimental Farm to experiment with chemicals on the horns of young 
 calves and also cutting out the embryo horn, with a view to ascertaining whether 
 these methods are more desirable than sawing off the horns when they have 
 attained their full growth. 
 
 e>* 
 
 Charles Drury, Chairman. 
 Richard Gibson, 
 Henry Glendinning, 
 D. M. Macpherson, 
 Andrew Smith, 
 J. J. Kelso, Secretary. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 EVIDENCE. 
 
 Toronto, Wednesday, Apbil 20, 1892. 
 
 Ex -Aid. Garrett F. Frankland, called and sworn, gave evidence as follows : 
 
 Mr. Drury — I understand, Mr. Frankland, youbave been for many years in the export cat- 
 tle trade 1 A. Yes, since its inception in 1875, and I have gone over personally with the cattle 
 about thirty times. 
 
 Q. You have had opportunities for observing the conduct of cattle on board ships? A. 
 Yes. 
 
 Q. You are no doubt aware that the subject of dehorning cattle has been attracting atten- 
 tion in Ontario during the past few months ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Have you seen much damage on the cars or on the water from the horns of animals ? 
 A. I don't think I could say there was one in a hundred ever damaged by horns. 
 
 Q. Would you say there was one in two hundred 1 A. I would not like to say there was as 
 much as that. I have seen occasionally where an animal has introduced its horn between the 
 railings of the car, and in trying to wrench itself loose has pulled the shell of the horn off. The 
 agony of the poor animal has caused me to think there was great pain. 
 
 Q. Now, if the Commission were satisfied that the process of dehorning could be accom- 
 plished without serious suffering, but admitting that there was some suffering, would you be in 
 favor of establishing the practice us a matter of convenience to the shipper ? A. N T o, I prefer 
 them with the horns on. They are pleasing to the eye and calculated to sell for better prices, 
 unless they are natural muleys, and then there is a development of the head that corresponds 
 with the contour of the animal. 
 
 Q. Now, a witness in the English case claimed that the value of polled cattle over unpolled 
 wss from ten shillings to a pound. Could you make a better sale of polled cattle than un- 
 polled ? A. I don't think I could if the quality and weight were equal. 
 
 Q. Your cattle are all tied up ? A. Yes, but if there are vicious ones in the herd it is the 
 duty of the farmer to remove them. We had to saw die horns off an animal once, and you 
 could hear it bellow for a mile away. 
 
 Dr. Smith. — You .iave not seen much dehorning done ? A. No, only where there was an 
 accident. 
 
 To Mr. Drury. — Now, if you were buying at a point 400 miles west of Montreal — the 
 shipping point— and could buy either polled or unpolled cattle, as a matter of convenience and 
 safety which would you prefer? A. I might like one as well as the other, but we would always 
 keep the two kinds separate! Those without horns can often do as much damage as those with 
 horns. 
 
 Q uld not consider that there was much danger from horned cattle in a 400-mile 
 
 journey 1 A. No. 
 
 Q. A nrl on the vessels there is not much lo^s? They are driven on board and remain tied 
 up until they L r ec across. The number of accidents have not been sufficient to cause me to agi- 
 tate for the dehorning of cattle. 
 
 Q. You would not favor it even if it could b3 proved that there was not much suffering to 
 the animal ' A. 1 would not encourage it at all — 1 would not consider it a step in the right 
 direction. 
 
 Q Then, from the shippers' standpoint, you would say there is no demand for dehorning/ 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Have you noticed in the old country any preference given to polled catrle because they 
 were polled ? A. No, I don't think so. 
 
 Mr. Gibson. — Have you had experience of animals that have been dehorned ? A. Yes, I 
 have fed a few of them. 
 
 Q. Do they feed up faster than the others? A. I doa't think so, and they are an eye-sore 
 to me as I am sure they must be to you. I think its an outrage and cruelty. 
 
Mr. fiixxnivMNT,. — Do you ship bulls to the old country 1 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Rave you any difficulty with them I A. No. they get so fat that tley are not inclined 
 to be disagreeable. 
 
 Q In shipping to Montreal <!<> you send them the same as the others, or do you tie them np ? 
 V. We t'"e them up, l>ur more as a sort of leverage — to help them keep their feet. 
 
 Q. Have you had any of your men hurt in handling bulls ? A. No, not in the past nine- 
 teen vears. 
 
 Mr Gibson. — It is claimed that more cattle could be put into cars without horns? K. I 
 believe they could. 
 
 Q. Why ? A. Because they could be packed better. 
 
 Mr. Drury. — In gathering up cattle, if you put two or three different lots into one yard, 
 would you expect that there might be trouble ? A. Well, if them was die or two vicious ani- 
 mals it would create confusion, but. T have never seen much serious harm from that. 
 
 Q. Would there not be a good < I * a] of contention to see which was master ? A. Just after 
 putting tli* m into the yard there might be a little fighting, but they soon settle down. 
 
 Mr. Macpherson. — Would you consider that a vicious animal would be improved by de- 
 horni t;? A. 1 would recommend the death of the animal rather than dehorning. 
 
 Q. Have you had any experience as to the effect of dehorning upon the disposition of a 
 vicious animal ( A. No. 
 
 Q. Suppose the animal was not i:i lit condition to kill ? A.I would tie him up until he 
 was. 1 would neither have part nor parcel in dehorning. 
 
 Mr. A. J. Thompson was then called and sworn : 
 
 Mr. Drury. — You are a shipper of live-stock to the old country, Mr. Thompson I A. Yes. 
 
 Q. An '. you have been engaged in this business for a number of years ? A. Yes, since its 
 commencement in 1875. 
 
 Q. You have had opportunities of observing the conduct of animals in transportation by 
 land and sea ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. You have heard Mr. Frankland's evidence. Do you agree generally with the position 
 he has taken ? A. There are some points I hardly agree with. With regard to muley cattle, in 
 the old country, I think there is a preference for them with some buyers. 
 
 Q. Is that fur fat or store cattle ? A. For fat stock. We had a 1 t of muleys that we 
 kept entirely separate from the others, and I found that they sold for more than the others. 
 
 Q. Was that on account of the breed, or no horns? A. Because of no horns, I think. 
 
 Q. Are you speaking of the Polled Angus, or the artificially polled cattle ? A. Of the 
 naturally polled — occasional bullocks just as we came across them in the fall. 
 
 Q. Would there be any advantage in shipping if the horns were off? A.I think an extra, 
 bullock could be put into a car. 
 
 Q. But is there not an element of danger from the horns themselves ? A. It makes no dif- 
 ference on vessels, because they are all tied up, but where cattle are fed loose, of course the 
 po led cattle are the safest. 
 
 Q. Would you expect much damage from strange cattle meeting in a small yard ? A. 
 Well, for the first time they occasionally have a little row, but I have never seen any very big 
 set-to. We frequently have cattle break their horns through getting them caught in the side of 
 the car I have a North-west bullock now, last fall it got both its horns injured, and we cut 
 them off. It has done splendidly since and is a grand bullock to-day. 
 
 Q. Who performed the operation? A. Just the men in the stable. 
 
 Mr. MACPHERSON. — In this case did the animal show any symptoms of not eating ? A. 
 Wt 11, he ate all right, but for some weeks he didn't pick up very well. 
 
 Mr. Gibson — Is he a better steer to-day than if the horns had not been taken off? A. 
 I could not tell that. 
 
 Q. ( ompared with the others ? A. He has made more improvement than the cattle that 
 came in with him in the fall. 
 
 To Mr. Drury. — In buying a number of steers would you consider that dehorning would 
 increase the general .fineness _>f the animal ? A. I could not tell that. I have seen a few two- 
 year-old cattle fr. m the North west whero the horns had been cut off an inch or an inch and a 
 half from the base of the head, they appeared to be well developed, but they were unsightly. 
 
 Q. There Mas a stub? A. Yes 
 
 Q. Do you think it is a right thing if the proportion of advantage is considerable, to indict 
 this Buffering ? T >ko emasculation, for instance, you consider that justifiable ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Then, on the same principle, do you believe that man is warranted in inflicting pain if 
 the gain is sufficient to justify it ? A. I would think so. 
 
/ / 
 
 Q In selling cattle in the old country, you say you have better results as a whole from the 
 polled ? A Taking the quality and the weight equal, I think the polled cattle will sell for 
 
 more money. . . ,. . . 
 
 Dr Smith — If the practice, skilfully performed, were allowed in Ontario, do you think it 
 -would he of advantage? A. I think it would be a bent-fit for the reason that a farmer could 
 turn a dozen head into a yard and feed them together with greater safety. 
 
 Q. Would you say that a half per cent— one in 200— were injured by hooking, taking the 
 season's shipment < A. They might average one per cent, and might not. 
 
 Q. Would you be in favor of dehorning? A. 1 think if it could be done without much 
 pain, it would be an advantage all round. 
 
 Q. Have dehorned cattle a greater value for shipping purposes I A. 1 es ; on the linglisn. 
 market I believe they would realize from 85 to §8 per head more. 
 
 \\ . W. Hodgson, lessee Toronto cattle market, was sworn and examined as follows: 
 
 Mr. Drury. Have you been long connected with the cattle market, Mr. Hodgson ? A. 
 
 About ten years. 1 was caretaker from 1882 to 1884, and since then have been les.ee of the 
 
 market. 
 
 Q. What is the system of handling cattle there? A. They arrive in carloads at the plat- 
 form, and are unloaded and driven into yards 30x70 feet. A carload of 18 to 27 head is put into 
 
 each yard. 
 
 Q. What number do you handle in a month in the shipping season ? A. We have had as 
 
 many as 10,000 in a month. 
 
 Q. How long do they usually remain in the market ? A. From G to 48 hours. 
 
 Q. You handle not only cattle on sale but those going through to Montreal? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Do you notice if the cattle fight in the yards ? A. Yes, they do, very frequently. 
 
 Q. Do you think that if all the cattle in the yards were dehorned that good .would result ? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Would there be a benefit to the cattle themselves ? A. Yes. 1 believe it would be a 
 good thing from a humane standpoint. In dehorning there is considerable pain, but that heals 
 ap. Frequently cattle coming into the yards are gored to pieces. I have seen gores 12 inches 
 long right into the flesh, not only one gash, but another animal a\ ill come along and rip up the 
 same gash, making it terribly painful. Some cattle are very timid and the others will set on 
 them and gore them right and left. 
 
 Q. Have you seen cases of broken horns ? A. Yes. I don't suppose there is a day that 
 they don t come in with horns broken. 
 
 Q. Have you seen much damage from horning on railway cars? A. Yes. If there is any 
 space room in the car one bullock will keep all the rest up in one end and do nothing but gore. 
 
 Q. Do you agree that the practice of dehorning could only be justified where the benefit is 
 proportionate ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. And you believe dehorning to be desirable ? A. Yes, from a financial as well as a 
 humane standpoint. The animals are often depreciated in value by bruises through goring each 
 other. Then on the slippery planks in rushing to get away from each other they often fall and 
 spread out, and are practically done for then. 
 
 Q. Con d you make comparisons between animals dehorned and those not dehorned, that 
 oome into the"market/ A. Only the natural polled cattle. Muleys never run at each other. 
 They will stand quietly or lie down. We have had black Galloways, and we never had any 
 trouble in that direction. 
 
 Dr. Smith. — Have you seen animals brought into Toronto that were dehorned ?^A. No. 
 There might be one or two in a week, but not many. 
 
 Mr. Oihson. — It has been suggested that the removal of the horns changes the disposition 
 of the animal. How about those born without horns ? A. Muley cattle may run at each other 
 but a stroke from the head will not hurt like a horn. My experience with muley cattle is that 
 they are not anxious to interfere with each other. Horned cattle seem to desire to gore from the 
 moment they get into the pen. Old cows are continually hook ng. 
 
 Q. How about bulls 1 A. They will light, but as soon as they conquer that ends it. They 
 don't run about goring like steers. But if you had one bull loose and another tied up the loose 
 one would gore the other. 
 
 Mr. Druky. — Would you say from your standpoint of handling a large number of cattle 
 that if dehorning were allowed the good would outweigh the evil? A. I think the benefits 
 would far outweigh the suffering or inconvenience caused to cattle while under the effects of the 
 operation. 
 
 Mr. Smith. — You have no practical knowledge of dehorning ? A. No. But I see the evil 
 effects of the horn. 
 
Mr. Drury. — Assuming that dehorning does involve suffering, would you consider it would 
 be a justifiable thing to iriiiot that suffering in view of the goo ! that would result? A. Yes, 1 
 am satisfied there would be a financial benefit as well as a benefit to the cattle generally. If 
 there were no hooking or chasing a bu lock would increase iu weight 100 to 200 pound . 
 
 Q What number of cattle would pass through the market in a year? A. There must be 
 close on to 100,000 in a year. During the ten years L have been there the total number of a i- 
 mals that have gone through would be about 700,0 0. 
 
 Q. And as a result of y< ur experience with this large number, you believe that dehorning 
 would prevent a great deal of suffering? A. Yes. The suffering at the time would be 
 made up for iu the gain to the herd afterwards. I have seen a great deal of suffering 
 caused by gori g, especially in the case of springers. In one case an animal was ripped up 
 into the calf-bed, ad as far as the bag is concerned i have see one h ndred torn open. 
 
 Q. You are a pretty strong advocate of the practice of dehorning? A. Yes. I v\ould 
 support it because I believe ib would be an advantage to the pro lucer as well as to the shipper. 
 
 Mr. Macpherson. — And to the animals themselves? A. Yes, it would be in the end. 
 There are seme animals that might not need to be dehorned, but in order to prevent any 
 from being gored you would have to adopt the system. 
 
 Q. If the vicious animals wer ■ dehorned the others might nob need it so much? A. A 
 bullock need not necessarily be vici us tube a hooker. Of en the quietest milch cow would 
 be the worst from a hooking standpoint when put in with other cattle. 
 
 Mr. Drury. — Of the animals coming into the market, what perce tay;e would you say is in- 
 jured or damaged by goring ! A. There would be ten out of every hundred more or less injured 
 — or two animals to evcy carload. 
 
 Q. You are sure of that ? A. Yes. It is often necessary for us to remove a bullock from 
 a yard to stop its being injured. Where we see or I ear of a bull ck being set upon we separate 
 it from the rest. 
 
 Mr. Gibson. — What is the proportion of fat cattle and of stockers among those you speak 
 of 1 A. There would be about half of each. 
 
 Q. Do you tiud less fat cattle injured and more stockers? A. The greatest amount of in-' 
 jury is done to fat cattle. 
 
 Q. If you get a load of well-bred cattle don't you find that they are vicious and inclined to 
 hook I A. We find greater necessity for dividing fat cattle than s'ockers. 
 
 Q. You say that 10 per cent, are injured more or less. Would you have the other 90 per 
 cent, suffer by dehorning to do away with the ill-nature of the few ? A. From a financial stand- 
 point I would say that the injury inflicted is quite a item. 
 
 Q. Could you not dehorn the ten per cent, of vicious ones? A. But you can't draw the 
 line. 
 
 Q. If there is so much depreciation of property, do you no" think it would be better to tie 
 the animals up in the cars and in the yards ? A Yes, that would be be'ter than at present. 
 
 Mr. Drury. — Would it be an advantage to the shippers and a humane thing for the cattle, 
 if they were dehorned — as far as the railway journey is concerned ? A. Well, that requires 
 modifying. There are cases where the load will come in all right, where they have not inter- 
 fered with each other ; but again most of the animals are effected by the hooking. 
 
 Q. So that you think it would be an advantage if the horns were off ? A. That is my con- 
 viction in the matter. 
 
 Q. Have you had any experience as a cattle-raiser ? A. No. But I have had experience 
 from childhood with cattle, as my father was a butcher. 
 
 Tilsonburg, Tuesday, May 10. 
 
 Thomas RUTHERFORD, farmer, Delmer, Dereham township, sworn said: I usually keep 
 from twenty to twenty-live cows, and make a specialty of dairving. I dehorned some of my 
 cattle a year ago last February and some 1 st (all. It was a new thing to me until I saw that a 
 neighbor had dehorned his. They looked so quiet it struck me there must be something in it. 
 This was in summer. I waited until the fall and decided that if it was not too much punish 
 merit for the cows it would I e a good thing to have, the horns oil". I got a neighbor — young Mr. 
 Smith— to perform the operation on thirteen head. i his w.is a year ago last February. I was 
 so pleased with the result that I concluded last fall to have the horns off all my herd. At first 
 the quiet ones were allowed to keep their horns, but these became bossy and 1 decided to have 
 all the horns taken oft'. Ore ter quietude resulted. My practice is to stable cattle in winter, in 
 the stanchions chiefly. Injuries have been inflicted by hours in the stanchions. In swinging 
 around one was liable to injure another with its horns. The eyesight of two animals was in- 
 jured in this way. A good deal of damage was done ith horns. 1 have had udders ripped and 
 a '|uarterof the bag destroyed, the animals giving bloody milk. A colt has also been hooked. 1 
 
79 
 
 •was not impressed with the idea that there was great suffering from the operation. I observed 
 pus in some cases where the cavity was large. My experience is that there would be in the 
 course of eight or ten days a mucous discharge until the horn closed over. After the operation 
 the animals did not show syinpr,oms of being sick. They did not fail in flesh or seem to do 
 badly. The pain mist have been alight or they would have shown some signs of it. There was 
 a loss of blood, but not of an consequence ; some more than others. I am more in favor of 
 d. horning to-dav than I was at first. It changes the disposition of cattle and makes them more 
 like sheep. In a herd of horned cattle ihere is always a good deal of contention, and one animal 
 will boss ver another. 1 have observed th it No. 1 will be boss of No. 2 ; No. 2 of No. 3 ; No. 
 3 of No. 4 ; and th^n ap-ain No. 4 will be boss of No. 1. There is a marked improvement in de- 
 horned animals drinking. They crowd around the tank perfectly tight, and there is no delay 
 such as formerly. I have two muley cows, and the dehorned animals are more peaceable than 
 they are. When the horns are taken off they lose conceit of themselves and have no further 
 desire to fight. It the operation could be performed on a calf I would favor that, provided it 
 has the same effect as taking off the horns later on. Either way is better than having horns. I 
 am satisfied with the operatl n, and believe it is a ben tit to the owner and to the animal itself. 
 It takes about two months for the horn to heal completely over, where the cavity is a large one. 
 I would not recommend the operation to be performed in the warm weather. Care should be 
 taken of the animal. 1 have not applied anything after the operation, but if there is a cavity 
 and the weather is cold I would advocate the application of tar or something of that kind. The 
 closer to the head the horn is taken ■ ft' the quicker it will heal up. It does not require much 
 skill to dehorn a cow, but of course there are I otches who would make a mess of anything. I 
 have never timed the operation, but I think a horn could be taken off in five or eight seconds. I 
 believe that a fine-toothed, si iti'-backed saw would be the best instrument. 
 
 Oliver Borland, farmer, Dereham township, sworn, said : I have been engaged in farm- 
 ing for over twenty years past, and usually kept from forty to sixty head of cattle, dairying 
 exclusively. I have dehorned forty head this spring, they were mostly from three years old up 
 to eight i r nine ; I am satisfied with the results Before dehorning, I lost a good deal through 
 cows giving bloody milk, and of en part of the b;:g would become disabled through hooking ; 
 sometimes they would not giv.- milk for a week through being chased and gored. Behorning 
 changes the disposition an. I makes the animals quiet and peaceable. Since taking the horns off 
 there is no trouble in the yard or at the drinking trough. I have not performed the operation 
 my>elf, but have witnessed it. I thought it would be a very painful thing, but do not now 
 regard it as such. The acute pain only seems to last during the five or six seconds of actual 
 sawing. Afterwards they did not s< em to mind it much. The milk supply failed a little next 
 day, and then came up again much the same as before. The operation should be performed by 
 someone who has seen it done quite a bit. I would prefer preventing the growth of horns if it 
 could be done as well as when they are older. The operation is not so severe as some people 
 think. I believe animals 'suffer more from the horns than they do in having them taken off. 
 It is about a month since my cattle were dehorned; the cavity is now closed over in most of 
 them, but not all. I did not notice that one animal suffered ujore than another. It does not 
 seem to make much diffeience whether the animal is old or young. 1 could not say that to 
 dehorn requires as much skill as to castrate, but I would not like to see anyone do it without 
 having some previous knowledge of it. I do not think that a skilful buyer would be deceived 
 as to age in buying an animal without horns. 
 
 James Francis Cohoe, farmer, township of Middleton, Norkfolk county, sworn, said : 
 I am engaged principally in dairying, and keep from sixteen to twenty cows. I have not 
 practised dehorning but am in Favor of it, as it would give room in housing. I lost a valuable 
 horse once through hooking, and have known animals to tyrannize very much over each other. I 
 have not witnessed the operation, and have not seen any dehorned animals. 
 
 Isaiah Wallace Elliott, retired farmer, B reham township, sworn, said : I have had 
 nearly fortv years experience with cattle, ami formerly handled from twenty to twenty-five 
 cows. 1 have known cousidei a le injury o be done through hooking. The idea of dehorning 
 was at first most repugnant to me, though I often wished the horns were off. I opposed the 
 practice when 1 first heard of it, but now believe it is a go d thing, and that there is not the 
 great suffering thai home people imagine. I. do not believe that a buyer would be deceived in 
 the age of an animal when he- hums are off. The good effects of dehorning fully compensated for 
 any pain in the operation. My s. n-in-law had about twenty head dehorned ; the next day they 
 shrank a little and tl.ere was a falling off in the milk, but after that there was not much differ- 
 ence. They look we land are milking well to-day. The horns were taken off last fall. There 
 was some dischange from the head ; I think it. was pus and I attributed it to chaff or something 
 of that kind getting in the horn and setting up an irritation. Nothing was put on to cover up 
 he wound ; but I think it woukl be a g >ud idea to cover it a little, particularly in cold weather. 
 
80 
 
 I consider that the best time to perform the operation is in the fall, after fly time and before the 
 cold sets in. Cattle recently dehorned should be'kept in the stable during cold weather. It is a 
 justifiable practice from the point of benefit to the animals. I have tried putting knobs on the 
 horns of twenty or thirty cows ; it prevents them tearing, but did not prevent them from butting 
 or hooking. My son-in-law, Mr. Freeman, tri< d tipping as a preventive of hooking, but it was 
 not successful, and he had another piece of the horn taken off. In the end he had to have the 
 whole horn off. There was less bleeding when the horn was taken off' close to the head than 
 farther up. There is more pain in losing a horn accidently than in being dehorned. 
 
 Frank E. Stover, dairyman and stockbreeder, township of North Norwich, Oxford 
 county, sworn, said : I keep about 40 head of cattle. I dehorned 11 head early in February 
 this year, two weeks after dehorned three, and the remainder of the herd during the latter part 
 of April. My reason for doing this was that the horns were useless to the animal as well &s 
 dangerous to man, and I judged from the experience of farmers in the neighborhood and in 
 Illinois that the practice was a beneficial one. 1 have suffered considerably from hooking. 
 There were two abortions in my herd during the past two months caused I believe from 
 hooking. Quarters of the bag have been injured and destroyed, and I lost one sheep from 
 hooking. Quietness in a herd is very desirable ; the introduction of strange animals or worrying 
 by dogs is very injurious. I think animals often suffer more from the horns of each other than 
 they would in having the horns removed. I have seen them lie down and bellow with pain 
 from hooking, and they would not do that after the operation. The only evil effects of 
 dehorning I have noticed was in the case of a cow that was dehorned the day after she had 
 aborted her calf. Her systerrr was irr a deranged condition and she did not stand it well. 
 From my experience 1 would say that the benefit to the animal and to the owner would compen- 
 sate for the pain inflicted. I do not think the operation is any worse than pulling a tooth. In 
 one case the animal bled a good deal, and owing to an injury the bleeding started again next 
 day. I stopped this by searing with a hot iron. I have bought cows with wooden knobs on. 
 Of course they could not do as much harm, but I do not think the disposition was in any way 
 changed. I do rrot consider there would be much fraud in selling dehorned animals, aB a 
 practical dairyman would judge by the teeth and the general appearance. An old animal 
 generally has an old look that would be noticed by a buyer of any experierrce. I believe the 
 amount of good justifies the operation. I intend to dehorn the remainder of my herd, and 1 would 
 not do this unless satisfied that it was a benefit. The animals dehorned three weeks ago are not 
 yet cpuite healed over. There is no discharge of pus ; after the operation they took their food 
 as before, and except in the one case I saw no signs of pain. Th^re was a slight falling off in 
 the milk yield, but this did not last long. The dehorning of thoroughbred stock would be a 
 matter of fancy with the owner. If a prize depended upon the looks of the animal it would not 
 pay to take the horns off. If a thoroughbred Durham were dehorned it would not sell for as 
 much as before. 
 
 William Shepherd, farmer, township of Middleton, Norfolk county, sworn, said : I keep 
 16 head of cattle, 7 or 8 of them being dairy cows. I only commenced the practice of dehorning 
 a short time ago. Bad a two-year old cow that pitched into a colt, and I decided to take her 
 horns off. This was abont a month ago. She showed no signs of illness, there was very little 
 bleeding, and the wound is now healed over completely. One heifer I recently traded had a 
 sharp horn, and this morning I cut about an inch of it off. It bled a good deal, but there did 
 not seem to be suffering to any great extent. One of my cows got loose in the .stable and nearly 
 killed another cow In the yard and at the watering trough there is a good deal of trouble with the 
 horns, and some of the underlings will not go over to the water at all. I agree with the previous 
 witnesses and I intend having the horns taken off all my cattle. I knew a man who had all 
 muleys and who got one cow with horns. They could not agree together, and he had to have 
 the cow's horns taken off. If only the vicious animal were dehorned another would soon come 
 forward and take its place. The age of the animal could be judged from her teeth and 
 appearance. I would prefer dehorned animals for milking purposes. 
 
 WlLLOUGHBY Rosehart, farmer, South Norwich, Oxford county, sworn, said : I am 
 engaged in dairying and keep 23 cows. I am in favour of dehorning. I had nine cowa 
 dehorned about the end of February last. I bought one afterwards, she seemed to boss the 
 others, and I decided to ta^e her horns off. I saw no bad results. Next day I took some ttr 
 and plastered over the ends of the horns, and put on a piece of cotton to cover the cavity. I 
 did this with all of rhein. 1 did not see the nine dehorned but they did well. The one I 
 dehorned I stayed for an hour watching the effect, and I could not see the least indication of 
 pain I had two patches of tar ready, after the cow bled a few minutes I applied one of the 
 patches. 1 believe it is a good thing to use the cotton and tar to prevent the action of the air 
 
81 
 
 upon the horn. There may be some preparation better than tar, but I would recommend 
 something being used. The nine dehorned were treated in that way the following day ; two 
 discharged matter, they did not seem to be sick at all. 1 think the bad effects were very small. 
 I was very much opposed to the practice at first, but I believe that the advantages of the 
 practice outweigh the amount of pain inflicted. The practice 1 consider should be legalised. 
 I would have dehorned my herd sooner if the law had been clearer. I have suffered a good 
 deal from horns ; T came very near being killed by a bull once. In the herd animals are 
 constantly goring each other ; two cows have lost quarter of the bag in this way. I do not 
 think that much deception could be practised through the horns being off. Buyers could judge 
 by the teeth and general appearance ; the teeth do not wear down so fast on clay land as on 
 sandy soil, but in judging you have to take the animal as a whole and form an opinion from its 
 general appearance, the rings on the horns are not always a reliable test of the age. I have 
 bought a good many cattle and have gone by the teeth as well as the horns ; it does not require 
 much skill to take off the horns but everyone could not do it. It requires some nerve ; there 
 should be some way of providing that the operation should be properly performed, if the 
 work is done in a bungling and tedious manner the courts would be justified in convicting for it. 
 There is a humane way and a way that is not humane. I had a cow of a very vicious disposition, 
 could not drive her, she chased three men and came very near killing one of them. Taking off 
 her horns changed her disposition, and she is as docile as a lamb now. I have a young red 
 heifer that used to bleed greatly at the nose. It is not troubled this way since dehorning, and 
 the operation seems to have been the making of the animal. 
 
 • 
 
 L. A. Brown, veterinary surgeon, Aylmer, graduate of the Ontario Veterinary College, in 
 practice three years, sworn, said : I performed the operation on about 60 head of cattle. I 
 used a fine saw, and took the horns off as close to the head as possible. I believe this is better 
 than leaving any of the stump, as suppuration rarely occurs when the horn is taken off closely. 
 The largest sinus I have observed after dehorning was in the case of a Holstein bull, the opening 
 being about two inches and taking nearly three months to close over. There was very little 
 discharge. The pain only seemed to last during the actual operation ; I did not use a 
 knife. I consider the operation a beneficial one ; it is painful but only for the moment. 
 After being released the animals show no sign of pain. I have taken the temperature in a few 
 cases but have not noticed much difference. In all that I have dehorned there were no 
 unfavorable results. There were one or two that discharged a slight limpus or mucous for a 
 few days. From my knowledge of the part and of the operation I consider it a good thing in 
 dairying districts, both for the animals and the owner. The operation does not require much 
 skill to perform provided the party understands the business, properly secures the animal and 
 uses a proper saw. While dehorning may be painful it is not cruel, as it is done for a good 
 purpose. More suffering is caused I believe by the offensive use of horns than the animal suffers 
 in having the horns removed. The time in taking off both horns would be 6 to 10 seconds. 
 I have not tried disbudding with the knife, but have U3ed potash caustic on about 30 calves 
 three weeks and under. In some cases it was a success. All that was necessary was to clip the 
 hair from the budding horn and thoroughly apply the caustic : an over applicati n would of 
 course be liable to spread. I consider the best results are secured by removing the horns from 
 the grown animal at about three years of age. I am quite satisfied that the suffering is not 
 considerable. I believe that the best time to perform the operation is in the cold weather as 
 there is less vitality in the horn then than in the warm weather. If the animal were kept in a 
 comfortable stable I do not consider that a covering to the wound is necessary. I have tried 
 an antiseptic application to the cut, and that of course does no harm. 
 
 Wednesday, May 11. 
 
 The mem 1 ers of the Commission assembled at the Mattheson House, Tilsonburg, at 
 9 o'clock Wednesday morning, May 11, and, accompanied by Hon. Mr. Dryden, Minister of 
 Agriculture, started out to visit a number of farms where dehorned cattle were kept. The 
 first stop was made at the farm of A. L. Scott, Middleton township, where a herd of about 
 30 dehorned cattle were driven in from pasture. They came up the lane in a bunch, as 
 quiet and orderly as a tiock of sheep, something which, Mr. Scott said, did not often occur 
 before the horns were taken off. The Commissioners had abundant opportunity for closely 
 inspecting the cattle, and had no fault to find with their general appearance. Mr. Scott, who 
 was present, expressed himself as in every way satisfied with the results of the operation. 
 Other farms visited were those of D. T. Smith and Thos. Rutherford, Dereham township, and 
 at both these places herds of twenty to thirty dehorned cattle were seen, moving about 
 among each other in confined spaces with the utmost harmony. All appeared to be doing well. 
 
 At noon the Commissioners were invited to take dinner at Mr. Edward York's farm, 
 
 6 (D.C.) 
 
82 
 
 mil afti rwards to witness a number of operations. Mr. York, who is an enthusiastic advocate 
 of the practice of dehorning, conducted the Commissioners through his stables and showed 
 them some fifty head of cattle that had been dehorned at various periods during the past 
 two ii'iis. He claimed that in addition to being much more easily handled the animals 
 were in better condition than they would have been if the horns had not been removed. To 
 convince the Commissioners of the ease and rapidity with which the herd could be fed Mr. 
 York turned the animals loose into a large open shed furnished with troughs along either 
 side. When food was brought in the cattle were soon standing in a solid row before the 
 trough, each one getting his due share and manifesting a willingness to let others do the same. 
 
 At 2.30 the Commissioners and a large number of farmers from the surrounding country 
 gathered in the stable where the operation was to be performed. The first animal to be 
 rated on was a two-year-old bull. Mr. W. A. Elliott was the operator, assisted by Mr. 
 York and a herdsman. The animal was placed in the stanchions near the door, and its head 
 drawn into position by means of a rope halter and tackle held by Mr. York. By means of the 
 tackle the head was depressed a little, and the herdsman held it in a convenient position for 
 the operator, turning it quickly for the removal of the second horn. Mr. Elliott used a tine 
 toothed saw , well sharpened and oiled, and with quick and steady hand speedily severed the 
 horns from the head. The actual time for sawing off both horns was 13 seconds. In size the 
 horns were much larger than usual, measuring at the base 2]xii inches. The animal uttered 
 no sound, and beyond flinching during the operation gave no evidence of being in great 
 suffering. Blood spurted from the severed arteries, and the bleeding^continued for sometime 
 after the animal was released. The horn was taken off close to the head, a little of the hair 
 being ;dso removed. 
 
 Other animals dehorned in succession were as follows : Cow, (i years old, time 4^ and 5 
 seconds for removing each horn, size of horn at base 2g x 2\ inches; two-year-old heifer, time 
 for removing each horn 4^ seconds ; aged cow, time 6 and 5i seconds : eleven-year-old cow, 
 time 6§ seconds for each horn ; aged cow, time 6^ seconds each. The temperature was taken 
 in each case by Veterinary Surgeons Brady and Brown. It was J 01, 102 and 103 degrees in 
 the different animals before the operation, and these gentlemen reported thit the increase in 
 t. tnperature after the operation was very slight. Each animal on being deprived of its horns 
 was turned into the yard where the six were subsequently seen by nearly 100 persons, including 
 the Commissioners. In none of these cases was there bleeding of any consequence, and from 
 one or two no blood whatever escaped. All parties agreed that the ordinary signs of suffering 
 were wanting, and that it great pain were still being endured it was not noticeable by any out- 
 ward indications. 
 
 The Commissioners next visited the farm of Mr. Roger Hawkins, where a large herd of 
 dehorned cattle was inspected. Mr. Hawkins had the cattle driven in from pasture to show the 
 Commissioners how peaceably they behaved at the water tank The animals, about 35 in 
 number, came into the yard in a body, and 18 of them drank at once from a tank 7 feet in 
 diameter. This desirable result, Mr. Hawkins affirmed, could only be attained by the removal 
 of the horns. 
 
 The Commissioners then met in the office of Mr. Edward York's farm, at 4 o'clock, and 
 received the following evidence : 
 
 Spencer A. Freeman, farmer, village of Culloden, Oxford county, sworn, said : I am 
 engaged in dairying and keep about twenty-five cows ; I have practiced and am in favor of 
 dehorning ; I commenced at first with cutting off the tips of the horns ; this was not altogether 
 successful, as there was the same tendency to knock each other about ; I tried again by taking 
 a little more off the horn, but found they could hook as much as ever in the course of a year 
 or so ; I then decided to have the horn taken off. I had a colt that was ripped up, and I 
 attributed this to the cattle even after they were tipped ; I have known considerable damage to be 
 done by horns ; my brother was hooked in the eye and had his face torn ; and I was attacked 
 myself by a vicious cow, the horn going through my vest ; I dehorned the herd — twenty-three 
 or twenty-four — the last week in December last ; there was a little discharge after 
 the operation some from one horn and some from another; this did not seem 
 to effect the health of the animal. It took about a month for them to heal 
 up, and during that time they did not appear to be the least bit sick — except one cow 
 that held her nose up against the manger that night and breathed as though she might be in 
 some am : it is an important matter to have quiet in a herd, as it affects the How o f the milk ; 
 chasing by a dog or each other would cause them to fall off in the milk supply ; I noticed a great 
 difference in the conduct of the animals after dehorning ; but 1 could not say there was much 
 difference in the flow of milk ; I turn cows and calves and all into the yard and they feed 
 
 I her like sheep ; they would not do that before dehorning ; I had one muley cow ; she was 
 afra d of the others and would not run with them ; the second day after they were dehorned I 
 
83 
 
 believe she knew it ; she was no longer afrud of them ; and when one cow attacked her she 
 gave it a bunt that knocked the scab off the horn ; one of the principal benefits of dehorning is 
 noticed at the watering trough, formerly one or two would keep the others away, now they 
 all crowd around and drink together like a lot of sheep ; I do not consider the operation to be 
 a severe one ; I am satisfied there is more pain in taking off the tips of the horns of a two-year- 
 old to reach the quick ; I do not think the discharge from the head would affect the milk ; it 
 was not like corrupt matter, and there was no odor such as would come from an old sore ; I am 
 building a new stable and intend in future to keep no animals with horns ; I would not like 
 to see the operation badly performed ; it should be done with proper tools by someone who 
 understands the business ; 1 believe that more pain is inflicted by animals with their horns, 
 than is inflicted in dehorning, 
 
 Francis Leeson, farmer, township of Malahide, Elgin county, sworn, said: I am 
 engaged in dairying and keep fifteen cows : I dehorned my cattle ; previous to last winter I was 
 very much prejudiced against the practice, but I have become a thorough convert to it ; I am 
 satisfied from talks with shippers and with farmers around Brownsv'lle, that it is the right 
 thing to do ; I dehorned some two weeks ago, and they are commencing to heal now ; one of 
 the animals - a bull — bled a good deal at the time, and there was a discharge from the cavity, 
 but it is healing nicely now ; 1 am impressed with the desirability of having quiet in the herd ; 
 I have known animals to become loose in the stanchions and gore each other ; in the yard one 
 of the cows was knocked down by the others ; she commenced to bellow, and all the others got 
 at her and I am satisfied she w uld have been gored to death if my son had not come along and 
 looked after her ; my experience coincides with Mr. Freeman's as to the conduct of the animals 
 at the water trough. If the application of caustic to the budding horns in calves were successful, 
 I would prefer that way. I do not think there is much suffering in dehorning ; I believe it is a 
 justifiable operation both from the standpoint of the owner and of the animal itself. 
 
 John Fulton, farmer, township of Dereham, Oxford county, sworn, said : 1 am engaged 
 in dairying and have had large experience with cattle ; I keep fifteen cows at present ; 1 only 
 dehorned one — three years ago — because of its vicious disposition ; I do not want to dehorn my 
 cattle unless compelled to ; I have raised all the cattle I have on the farm, and have a regard 
 for them, and would not take their horns off if I could help it ; I used dehorning fluid on some 
 of the calves ; some were a good job ; on one or two there were stubs, and on one of the animals 
 one horn was left ; I would recommend that the operation be performed on calves by means of 
 caustic ; the best time to apply it is in the first week ; there does not seem to be any suffering, 
 more than an itching of the part ; I tried caustic on eleven cabes ; some of them are now two- 
 year-olds ; I do not want horns, but some of my cows have been with me for ten or fourteen 
 years, and I will let them keep their horns for the rest of their time ; the damage done by 
 animals to each other justifies, I think, the removal of the horns ; cows are no respecters of 
 persons. I have known a cow tojviciously attack its own mother ; they seem to be most vicious 
 when turned out to grass in the spring. 
 
 John Harris Reed, farmer, township of Dereham, Oxford county, sworn, said : I have 
 been engaged in farming for forty years past, and keep forty-five to fifty head of cattle ; I have 
 seen a good deal of injury done by horns ; I found one of my cows dead once, and I believe she 
 was hurt by the others ; another animal— a thoroughbred Ayrshire — was ruined for milking 
 through being gored ; I tried the liquid preparation on calves at three days old, but 
 this was only a few days ago, and I could not speak as to the success of the experiment ; 
 T do not like to dehorn my cows because I am attached to them ; I would rather try to raise 
 muleys ; I recognize the danger from horns in the stable and yard and from the herdsman's 
 carelessness in leaving animals loose ; if there was not much pain I would consider dehorning 
 justifiable. 
 
 Andrew L. Scott, farmer, township of Middleton, manager of the Bay ham cheese 
 factory, sworn, said : I am in favor of dehorning, and have had the horns taken off twenty- 
 eight head. This is a dairying district ; the Bayham factory has 100 patrons and receives the 
 milk of probably 600 cows ; it turned out 127 tons of cheese last year ; farmers in the neighbor- 
 hood largely depend upon dairying, and this question is one of great importance to them ; my 
 cows were dehorned on I >ecember 30th last ; I agree with previous witnesses as to losses and 
 inju>ies from hooking; disturbances and excitement in the herd prevent animals from giving 
 their full yield of milk ; 1 have noticed that when the cows are brought in by a dog and a boy 
 they do not give as much milk as when I go after them myself ; taking off the horns produces 
 a change in the disposition of the animals, making them more peaceable in every way ; the 
 constant hooking and chasing each other is done away with , and they flock together like sheep. 
 
84 
 
 I have witnessed the operation of dehorning ; there was pain while it was going on, but after-' 
 wards they did not Bee no to be Buffering much ; they all healed nicety in six weeks ; there was 
 no falling off in flesh and no marked difference in the How of milk ; I watched to see if there 
 was any taint in the milk after dehorning, but did not notice anything; I believe that dehorning 
 
 jjood thing for the owners and a humane thing for the animals themselves ; a man who 
 performs the operation in a bungling manner should be liable to punishment, but any one witli 
 a good nerve can do it as well as a scientific man : the practice was introduced into this neigh- 
 borhood about two years ago, and is spreading rapidly : probably fifty per cent of the cows 
 supplying milk to the Bayhana factory are dehorned ; and 1 believe that in another year all will 
 be ; I do not know of anyone who Ins tried dehorning and is now dissatisfied with the results : 
 I see no objection to the milk of a cow that is discharging from the head after dehorning ; the 
 discharge 1 think is simply serum and is not dangerous ; I had a muley cow that became quite 
 a boss after the others were dehorned ; I would not favor performing the operation on animals 
 under two years old— any age after that ; I think the operation should be limited to the fall and 
 I prefer the month of November ; at that time trouble from flies is over and the animals are in 
 
 1 health and strength ; I do not see any particular benefit from the plaster of tar ; I prefer 
 dehorning after the horn is developed, because the animals if allowed to have horns learn to use 
 them, and after taking them away they become helpless in this respect. 
 
 Chat>cey Smith, farmer s son, township of Dereham, sworn, said : I have had a good 
 deal of experience in dehorning and have taken the horns off about 250 head of cattle : 1 started 
 two years ago , I was visiting in the State of Illinois and saw a good de<*l of the practice. 
 It was a rare thing to find a herd of dairy cattle there that was not dehorned ; on coming home 
 I dehorned my father's herd, and since then I have performed the operation for neighbors ; 
 I could not say that I ever saw a case where the animal suffered much from dehorning ; it is 
 not usual to have much lo.-s of blood ; a bull will bleed more than others as it is more full- 
 blooded and the horn is thicker ; my father's herd was the first in the neighborhood to be 
 dehorned ; this was two years ago last February ; people watched them a good deal and saw 
 that they were doing well, were quieter and were giving just as much milk as before ; the fall 
 is the best time for the operation and November is a good month ; in spring cows are not in such 
 good condition ; I would not advocate dehorning being practiced in summer ; I think bulls 
 should be dehorned for greater safety : I never knew a case where parties had their cows 
 dehorned and afterwards were dissatified ; out west the payment for dehorning is ten cents per 
 head for large numbers ; I have refused to operate on a number of cows this spring because 
 they were heavy in calf. 
 
 Tilsoxbukg, May 12th. 
 
 The Commission resumed its sitting in the Tilsonburg town hall on Thursday, May 12th, 
 at 10 o'clock, when the following evidence was received : 
 
 Benjamin Hopkins, farmer, Dereham township sworn, said : I am salesman for the four 
 factories of the Brownsville Cheese Manufacturing Company, and am managing director of the 
 Brownsville factory. I keep 20 dairy cows, and had all my cattle dehorned in November 1890 ; 
 no bad results followed, aud there was no appreciable falling off in the milk. Quiet in a herd is 
 very desirable. I have often been greatly annoyed at the cattle hooking each other coming up the 
 lane and at the gate. Since dehorning there is great improvement in handling them, and a 
 great change in their disposition towards each other. At the water tank they will now come 
 right up as close as they can and drink together — 14 or 15 of them at once. Before, a man had 
 to stand around to drive the boss away and it would take an hour to water them all. I prefer 
 chains to stanchions in securing in the stable, and I have double stalls for the cattle. I believe 
 the operation is a humane one to the cattle as well as beneficial to the owner. I studied up the 
 question and got all the information I could. I made a comparative statement of the milk 
 given by my cows in 1890 and 1891. The total quantity from 18 cows in 1891 was 103,241 pounds, 
 and in 1890 it was 88,521 pounds from 14 cows and 4 heifers ; calling the 4 heifers two cows, that 
 won Id be 16 cows, allowing 1,000 pounds off for each of the 4 heifers would be 4,000 pounds, giving 
 a gain in the year 1891, when the animals were dehorned, of 10,720 pounds, or an average per 
 cow of about 600 pounds. I would not say that this difference was due to dehorning as the pasture 
 might have something to do with it, but I think it was partly due to taking the horns off. I 
 would expect to get more milk from a herd of dehorned animals than from the same number of 
 horned ones. The total quantity of cheese made in the Brownsville factory last year was 145 
 tons. The milk of probably 800 cows goes to that factory — a large number of these animals are 
 dehorned — I do not think as many as half. The men who dehorned their cattle in this 
 neighborhood are good business men, prominent in church and public matters ; they are all 
 thinking men who would not resort to cruel practices and would not favor dehorning unless 
 
85 
 
 they believed it to be desirable in every way. I believe it is justifiable to inflict pain if there is 
 a wise object in view. From the results afterwards and from the quietness of the herd, I am 
 satisfied t have not done anything to the animals that was not for their own good. I prefer the 
 month of November for the operation. I would not think there was any danger from fraud 
 owing to the removal of the horns. In judging an animal I would look at its mouth ; it might 
 not be possible to tell the age exactly, but the condition of the teeth is a good indication. I do 
 not think that dehorning affects the quality of the milk. Where cows are dehorned in winter 
 they should be kept in a comfortable place and not exposed to bad weather. Muleys should 
 not be put in with cows recently dehorned as they are liable to injure them by bunting. I am 
 afraid that where the horns are removed in calfhood the animal will learn to bunt. 
 
 Edwin D. Tillson, Tilsonburg, sworn, said : I have had long experience with cattle and 
 own at present about 120 head, both for dairying and feeding purposes. I have not dehorned 
 my cattle and am rather opposed to it, as T can not see any particular benefit from it. I have 
 had no trouble with my cattle ; 1 only had one cow injured in the past 15 years. My method 
 of feeding is in the stables in the old-fashioned stanchions ; the steers are fastened with chains ; 
 they are fed about six months in the stable and are allowed out for water. I have had no 
 injuries from horns in the stables, and I do not think that if one got lose there would be much 
 harm done. I have a half-dozen water troughs 16 feet long so that four or five head can drink 
 at each. I have not seen the operation of dehorning but look upon it as a cruel practice. Cas- 
 tration is necessary but I do not regard dehorning as necessary. I am doubtful if it is not an 
 injury that will last all their life, t once saw a horn knocked off a steer and I was impressed 
 then that it was a very painful thing. I have great confidence in neighbors who have dehorned 
 their cattle ; they are men of good judgment, and the fact that they favor it would take away 
 a good deal of the objection I have to it in my own mind. 
 
 Charles Bodwell, herdsman, Tilsonburg, sworn, said : I have worked amongst cattle all 
 my life and I have charge at present of Mr. Tillson's herd. I have never seen much injury done 
 by horns, and do not see much disadvantage from them. I never saw the operation of dehorn- 
 ing or the animals after they were dehorned. I do not think it is right or that it is necessary. 
 I believe that to take off the horns spoils the look of the herd. I have known animals to suffer 
 greatly from having their horns broken or knocked off. 
 
 Albert Derough, farm laborer, employed on Mr. Tillson's farm, sworn, said : I saw a good 
 deal of injury done by horns when I worked near St. Thomas, but have not seen much of it at Till- 
 son's. I have seen enough injury to make me wish the horns were off. I saw 40 head that had 
 been dehorned near Harrietsville, and they were quieter than most cattle with horns. 
 
 John Sheahan, farmer, township of North Norwich, Oxford county, sworn, said: I am 
 engaged principally in dairying and keep from 25 to 30 cows. I have not practised dehorning. 
 I have known a good deal of injury to be inflicted by horns, but have not made up my mind 
 whether it would be better to let the suffering from this go on or to take off the horns. If pur- 
 chasing new stock I would prefer to get dehorned cattle. Quiet is very desirable in the care of 
 dairy stock. It appears to me that it would be more humane to kill the germ of the horn in 
 the calf. I believe I could tell a young from an old animal without reference to the horns, and 
 I do not think there could be much fraud as to the age. 
 
 Matthew Dillon, auctioneer, Tilsonburg, sworn, said : I own one cow ; I have not 
 dehorned her and I don't intend to. I think that dehorning spoils the looks of the animals. 
 ( )f course there must be something to commend it or these men would not resort to it. As an 
 auctioneer I have sold about 1,000 head of cattle. I used to be able to judge the age of the 
 cows, but now that they have their horns off it is not so easy, and as an auctioneer I am opposed 
 to lying. 
 
 Thomas Pbouse, dairyman, township of Dereham, sworn, said : 1 am deputy reeve of the 
 township. I am engaged in dairying and have about 05 cows. I have over twenty-five years' 
 experience in this line. I have not practised dehorning, but have been enquiring into it. I 
 have seen a great deal of injury done by horns ; I lost a colt from hooking and havo had several 
 animals ruptured ; my daughter very nearly lost her life through being hooked by a cow, and 
 my little boy also had a narrow escape. At the drinking trough there is much delay and incon- 
 venience through the unruly conduct of some of the animals as they drive each other away ; in 
 every herd there is contention to see which of them will be boss. I brought in e'even new cows 
 last fall and the whole herd seemed to make for the strangers ; two were gored badly. Quiet in 
 
Mi 
 
 the herd is very desirable. I do not believe very much in dogs as drivers. Rings on the horns 
 are not always a reliable indication of the age of an animal. I saw a dehorned cow sold once 
 and it was judged by its general appearance. I would go by the mouth a good deal. Six 
 wrinkles on the horn generally indicate that the animal is eight or nine years of age. Feeding 
 on sandy soil has a tendency to wear down the teeth. My wife is very much opposed to the 
 practice, and 1 thought that from the pain of a broken horn the pain of dehorning would be 
 correspondingly great. I was inclined at lirst to regard it as cruel, but the class of men who 
 have gone into it at Brownsville led me to think it is not. 1 have not seen the operation per- 
 formed, but I believe the pain cannot be very great if the animals do not show the usual signs 
 of suffering. If I were purchasing and had a choice between horned and dehorned cattle. I 
 would choose those without horns. 
 
 Enoch B. Brown, farmer, Dereham township, President of the Brownsville Cheese Manu- 
 facturing Co., sworn, testified as follows: 
 
 Mr. Diurv. — How many cows do your factories represent, Mr. Brown ! A. We have four 
 factories and receive the milk of about 3,000 cows. Dairying is the leading industry in this 
 neighborhood. 
 
 Q. About how many of these cows are dehorned >. A. About 25 per cent. 
 
 Q. How many cows do you keep ? A. About 20 or 25 head. 
 
 Q. Do you agree with the opinions of the previous witnesses as to the benefits of dehorn- 
 ing '. A. Yes ; most heartily. 
 
 Q. V. >u beli • ve it is an improvement to the cattle themselves '. A. Yes, better in every way. 
 
 Q. Have you had experience in shipping cattle >. A. Yes ; when you bring together a lot 
 of strange cat le you have to watch them to keep them from injuring one another. From the 
 shipper's standpoint it would be a great advantage to have the horns off. I have seen trainloads 
 of dehorned steers coming into Buffalo with no marks on them and all as nice and quiet as 
 sheep. Shippers have told me that at Chicago dehorned cattle are worth from 25 to 50 cents 
 per hundred weight more than the others, but I have never seen any special quotations in the mar- 
 ket reports. The difference is in the ease and comfort of handling and the absence of bruises. 
 
 Q. What class of men have dehorned their cattle in your neighborhood ( A. They are all 
 men of some reputation wh ■> would not do it unless they believed it was a good thing. I have 
 never met one of tlmm who did not say he was more than delighted with the results of the 
 operation. 
 
 Q. You are aware of the objections raised that when the horns are off there is danger of 
 fraud as to the age ? A There is no danger, a good judge can easily tell ; the teeth are marked 
 like a horse's, and you can judge from the general appearance. It is true that the teeth are 
 sometimes affected by the nature of the soil on which the animal pastures, but if the teeth are 
 gone she would not be much use anyway. 
 
 Q. You do not regard the operation as a severe one ! A. No. I have had about 50 head 
 dehorned and I never had but one that I thought was affected in the least bv the op ration. I 
 had some steers that were dehorned last fall ; they were out in the field in a co'd rain storm, 
 and there was a yearling that acted as if he was off feed. I think the operation is like pulling a 
 tooth, when its out it's over ; I have never had my animals show signs of pain ; they seem to 
 suffer ten times as much where the horn is broken ; I am very strongly in favor of the opera- 
 tion. 1 think that the man who is humane to his cattle would have them dehorned. It cer- 
 tainly oughl to be done in a proper manner and with proper tools, and the man who undertakes 
 it oughl to know s >mething about it ; I should think anyone doing the job in a bungling \\;r 
 ought to be punished. 
 
 Q. Have you noticwd whe her a young or old animal suffers most ? A. 1 have not noticed 
 
 much difference n the suffering. I he younger ones bleed more. 
 
 Q Do the dehorned animals show any propensity to bunt ' A. No, those done a year ago 
 last November don' seem to have any propensity that way. 
 
 Q Is there much advantage in watering dehorned stock '. A. Yes, they gather round the 
 trough, as many as can get their noses in ; there is more advantage at the trough than in any 
 other respect. 
 
 Q. Should there be any application after dehorning ? A. 1 think a tarred rag would be a 
 good thing and the animals ought to be kept ouc of the cold for some time after. 
 
 Q. Have you tried the effects of caustic on calves '. A. Yes, I tried it on a calf three days 
 old ; another two weeks, and on another about a month or six weeks old. The first was good 
 but the other two were not so good. I think this would be a good thing if they don't learn tin 
 bunting habit. I intend bo experiment further in that line and will of course drop it if I find 
 that they take bo bunting. 
 
 Mr. Gibson. -Mr. Hopkins' evidence goes to show that dehorned cows in 1891 gave an 
 increase 'if about 2,655 pounds of milk more than those in L890, is that your experience '. A. 
 Well, in L890wehad 19 cows that produced 84,970 lbs. , an average of 4,472. The cows wen 
 
87 
 
 dehorned on December 1st, 189U. For the season of 1891 the same nineteen cows, with three- 
 others added, in all 22 cows, gave the following result : Milk delivered at the factory, 99,849 
 lbs, an average per cow of 4,538 lbs. To the statement of 1891 must be added the milk that 
 seven cows would produce in one month, which milk was consumed by 14 calves before being 
 turned out to grass. 
 
 Mr. Drury. — Making allowance for that then, the average would be 4,770, and the differ- 
 ence per cow between the two years would be about 232 pounds — to what do you attribute the 
 increase ? A. 1 attribute it to the fact that the cattle are quieter at feed and at the water trough. 
 Cows kept quiet in the yard and lanes will give more milk than when they are being knocked 
 around with the horns. 
 
 Q Then dehorning represents a money gain to that extent ? A. Yes, besides the increased 
 comfort in handling them. 
 
 Louis Bate, cattle dealer, township of Houghton, Norfolk county, sworn, testified : 
 
 Mr. Drury. —You are engaged in buying and selling cattle, Mr. Bate ? A. Yes, T buy 
 cattle from the farmers and ship them to the Toronto and Montreal markets. 
 
 Q Have you much difficulty from hooking when y<u bring strange lots together ? A. Yes, 
 when we turn 20 or 25 cattle into a yard, tl.ey go to killing one another, and we have to watch 
 them all the time. I have lost money by buying muleys, because they can't defend themselves 
 and all the others will go for them. 
 
 Q. How many cattle is a carload ? A. About 20 is a good load and without horns we could 
 put in "22. There would be less risk in shipping if the horns were off. 
 
 Cj. Have you seen much damage from horns at the market ? A. Yes, the cattle hurt each 
 other a good deal, and if you sell a damaged steer to a butcher he will make a difference in the 
 price afterwards. 
 
 Q. Can you get a better price for hornless animals ? A. Yes, I bought 19 two-year-old 
 steers and one cow, all dehorned, from Mr. Edward York They weighed when sold 1,126 
 pounds, and one year before they weighed 555 pounds. This was a gain of 600 pounds per 
 head in twelve months, and Mr. York told me that no grain or roots had been fed to them. 
 I bought them in August and kept them until October. One clay I found the whole twenty 
 under the shade of one apple tree, and they seemed to enjoy life better without horns. I got 
 $3.75 per hundred for them, which was 50 cents per hundred better than any steers of their 
 class sold for on that day in Toronto. They sold better on account of the fact that there 
 w T asn't a scratch on them. 
 
 Hiram B. Kinney, farmer, South Norwich, Oxford county, sworn : 
 
 Mr. Drury. — Have you dehorned your cattle, Mr. Kinney? A. Yes, I dehorned the first 
 ones three years ago last October. 1 assisted to dehorn a cow four years ago through reading of 
 it being done in the States. I had a good many colts and I thought they would run together a 
 good deal safer. 
 
 Q. Were you satisfied with the results ? A. Thoroughly so. On May 21st last (1891) 1 
 dehorned 27 head. Experience has confirmed me in the desirability of the practice. Before I 
 saw it done I didn't like the idea at all, but after seeing it, I came to the conclusion that they 
 didn't suffer near as much as I thought they would, they continue i to eat as usual and didn't 
 fall off in milk. I used an ordinary fine-toothed butcher's siw, and fastened the animal in the 
 stanchion. 
 
 (Witness produced a section of the skull of a dehorned animal that had died IS months 
 after the operation. The cavity at the base of the horn was found to have completely boned 
 over.) 
 
 Daniel T. Smith, farmer, township of Dereham, Oxford county, sworn, said : [ keep 19 
 cows ; dehorned first in February 1S90, and am perfectly satisfied with the results. The first 
 season after dehorning I had an increase of about 200 pounds of milk per cow ; I was the first 
 man in the neighborhood who had his cattle dehorned. In September before, I visited friends 
 in Kane county, Illinois, 50 miles west of Chicago, and found that the majority of the cows 
 there were dehorned. My son was out there too, and when he came back he proposed to take 
 the horns off our stock. I favored it, but would not let him as I thought it would raise a row 
 in the neighborhood. When I was away my son took off the horns, and the thing was soon 
 talked of all over. We were abused a good deal, but lived through it, and the neighbors after 
 seeing how our cattle thrived followed our example. Anyone accustomed to cattle would not 
 be deceived as to the age < f an animal that had no horns. I agree in general with what the 
 previous witnesses have said. I do not think that dehorning should be done in summer. It 
 should be done with proper tools and by some one who understood the business. 
 
88 
 
 HENRI RelmkA, fanner, Brownsville, sworn, said: r have -'JO head of cattle now, and 
 am in favor of dehorning. Had fourteen dehorned last fall, by Mr. Elliott, and they healed 
 well. Have seen a good deal of injury dmehy horns; had a marc gored badly last summer, 
 have had to go in with a club to keep my cattle quiet. Left the catt e out all night with an 
 open sh( which they cou'd go for warmth. In the morning found two or three were 
 
 inside and all the others C impelled to keep outside. Since dehorning they are all easily taken 
 .•are of, and will lie down peaceably together. I wo ild not take $2 per head and have the horns 
 on again. » 
 
 Ali:\ wni.i; Lapier, farmer, Bayhani township ; sworn, said : I keep lb or 17 head, mostly 
 dairy cows My experience of dehorning is that it is a success. T first dehorned two cows 
 two years ago last April; then fifteen a year ago this spring, and two more this spring. I 
 am positive they are quieter indisposition than they were before dehorning. The first cow 
 I had dehorned was not doing very well before that, and afterwards I noticed quite a differ- 
 ence in her. I knew a case where a cow bled freely from a broken horn, and on sawing 
 off the horn the bleeding stopped. 
 
 Roger W. Hawkins, farmer, Dereham township, sworn, said: lam engaged in dairying 
 and keep about 50 head. I am in favor of dehorning ; first had the horns taken off on Novembe 1 ' 
 20th last ; have had a good deal of loss from horns. I had a cow disembowelled while coming 
 up the lane and she had to be killed ; another cow had its hip broken and I think it suffered 
 more pain than any other animal I ever saw ; also had a number of less serious accidents ; 
 going to the water trough was a great source of annoyance. I have seen more hooking there 
 than at any other place ; since dehorning there is no trouble in that way, and 1 find it very 
 much easier to handle cattle ; I can open the stable door and let the animals come in as they 
 please, tying them up whenever I have leisure. I have not tried caustic but I have taken off 
 the budding horns of three calves with a knife, and I notice that they are starting to grow 
 again. As Mr. Bate said, I have seen 20 cows gather under the shade of one tree or barn, and 
 I think from that the operation is a good thing for dairy cows. The patrons of the cheese fac- 
 tories claim that their supply of milk to the factories is larger than before and that it is better 
 mi«k. I don't approve of turning freshly-dehorned cows in with muleys, as the latter will often 
 atart bunting and cause a second hemorrhage. The fall is the best time for the operation. 
 
 Ira Hark is, farmer, Dereham township, sworn, said : I am engaged in the dairy business 
 and keep 14 head. Had my cows dehorned at the beginning of the year and my experience is 
 that it is a complete success. Have heard the evidence of previous witnesses and agree with 
 them. 
 
 * 
 
 William Brady, V. S. Tilsonburg, sworn, said : I have been in practice here since 1873 
 and have had a large experience with cattle ; have attended to a large number of animals both 
 cattle and horses that have been* injured by horns ; I believe that dehorning is practicable. My 
 opinion befoi-e I saw the operation was that it was not desirable ; since I have seen it a good 
 deal I have become quite convinced the other way. There is a certain amount of pain in the 
 operation. I do not see that it makes any material difference whether animals operated on are 
 old or young. From two to three months is the average time for fully healing up. The heal- 
 ing as a rule is perfect. From what I have seen I consider that the operation is a beneficial 
 one ; it seems to make the cattle quieter and safer in eveiy way. The operation should be well 
 performed and with proper tools. I think the horns should be taken off close to the head, as 
 they will heal more quickly then ; I think that practically the pain is over when the horn is 
 taken off. I \astration I consider to be a much more painful operation than dehorning. An 
 animal would suffer more from a broken horn than from having the entire horn removed 
 quickly ; I have not dehorned cattle myself, but would do it if necessary ; 1 certainly think it 
 very iry to have the operation well done where it is done at all ; there should be a good 
 
 saw. v,;ll oiled each time, and the animal should be properly fastened, so as to lose as little 
 time as possible ; I examined cattle at different times after the operation and did not find 
 any constitutional disturbance. Have had the care of 70 head after dehorning ; I have exam- 
 ined tiie membrane linings of the head. There is a mucous membrane, and we hold that a 
 mucous membrane is not very sensitive ; the most sensitive part is close to the skin and does 
 not extend far in, if it did there would be a formation of pus and suppuration. The wound 
 seems to heal by first hit ntion. I have seen a mucous discharge, but that is a discharge that 
 nature provides for the healing of the wound ; there was no pus discharge in any I have seen, 
 but in one or two cases after the scab had formed over the parts I found, upon raising the scab, 
 a very small quantity of pus lodged underneath. A mucous discharge is no sign of pain, even 
 ;.f it were running down the face ; it is simply the exudation of matter that is closing up the part. 
 
89 
 
 Harrietsville, May 13. 
 
 The Commissioners arrived at Harrietsville shortly after 8 o'clock, Friday, Maj^ 13. Before 
 meeting to receive evidence, the farm of Mr. William York was visited, and as this is the 
 gentleman who was prosecuted at London for allowing his cattle to be dehorned, special interest 
 was taken in the inspection of his herd. The cattle were out on the pasture, but were driven 
 into the stable in order that they might be closely examined. There were about 40 head 
 altogether, and all were without horns. They appeared to be in good condition, and the Com- 
 missioners, in their brief visit, saw nothing but what was of a highly satisfactoi-y character. 
 The hearing of evidence was commenced at 9 o'clock in the Harrietsville hall, a large 
 gathering of farmers from the surrounding country being present. 
 
 Edward York, farmer, Dereham township, Oxford county, sworn, gave the following 
 evidence : 
 
 Mr. Drury. — I understand you are engaged principally in dairying, Mr. York ? A. Yes, 
 I keep from 25 to 30 cows for dairy purposes. 
 
 Q. You have had considerable experience with cattle ? A. Yes, for the past 45 years. 
 
 Q. You have heard the evidence of witnesses, do you agree with them as to the loss and 
 inconvenience owing to horns on dairy cows 1 A. Yes, with regard to the loss, I have sustained 
 greater loss than most of the witnesses speak of. I have lost $ 3u0 in horses and other stock since 
 I began farming, and I have seen one animal kill another with the horns ; they frequently break 
 their horns, and it has become a general and continual annoyance ; then there has been 
 great difficulty at the watering trough. I consider the horns a nuisance to the beast, and not 
 safe for the men ; I had to have a bull shot once, it came so near killing the attendant. 
 
 Q. You have dehorned your cattle ? A. Yes, I started a year ago last November. 
 
 Q. Have you observed a change for the better since the operation 1 A. A very great 
 change. 
 
 Q. What are the advantages you have experienced from the practice ? A. They are quiet to 
 one another, and are safe to horses, men, hogs and sheep. 
 
 Q. From the standpoint of humanity to the animals themselves, do you think that the 
 operation "invofves suffering much in access of the injury they would inflict upon each other ] 
 A. I consider it a humane act to the animal, and saves a great deal of cruelty, besides being 
 more profitable ; I believe they will give more milk, through being kept more quiet, and that 
 the milk will be better than that given by horned cattle. 
 
 Q. Would you say it would be equally effective to prevent the growth of horns in the calf ? 
 A. I would not say that altogether, because I am afraid that in growing up they would learn to 
 bunt. I prefer to have them grow up with the horns and then take them off properly when 
 they are about two \ ears old ; they lose their weapons then and are quieted. 
 
 Q. Do you think there is a possibility of fraud as to age ? A. No ; 1 think there is some- 
 thing in the appearance of an animal that suggests its age ; we get accustomed to looking at the 
 horn, but they can be fixed up by obliterating the rings ; without the horns I would judge 
 largely by the mouth ; if an animal had a good mouth I would say it was a good animal ; and 
 if it was wanted for beef, 1 should think the general appearance would be the main thing. 
 
 Q. Do you think that man is justified in inflicting pain upon domesticated animals under 
 any circumstances } A. Yes ; if the benefits derived are^proportionate. I consider that castra- 
 tion is justifiable, and that dehorning is not so severe an operation. 
 
 Q. How do animals act during the operation ? A. Some o : them don't flinch at all ; others 
 will make as much fuss before as during the operation ; the horns can be removed in from three 
 to ten seconos ; after the animals are let loose it is a rare ca-e where they show pain ; they eat 
 as usual, and next day they appear as well as ever they did. There is about as much difference 
 in the milk yield as there is after a coldish rain storm in warm weather, a little falling off, but 
 not much. 1 have held about 300 or 40<> while they were being dehorned. When the saw 
 starts there is a little flinching, but after the saw is well through, you hardly notice anything. 
 On the second horn the animal is more apt to twist its head, but almost always the pain is only 
 momentary. 
 
 Q. In looking over a herd of cattle could you readily detect a sick animal? A. Yes, in 
 walking up the alley among the animals I could tell at a glance whether they are all in health 
 or not. 
 
 Q. Did you sec any signs of ill-health among those cattle that were dehorned I A. I have 
 only noticed one that didn't do as well as the rest, and we have dehorned sixty. She seemed 
 to lose her appetite for a little while, but afterwards went on all right. Another got hurt and 
 discharged more than they generally do ; 1 knew of three horns that had a discharge from which 
 there was an odor, but the others were simply a mucous discharge. 
 
90 
 
 Q. Saving dehorned jour own cattle and assisted in the dehorning of others; do you say- 
 that the good results are sufficient to warrant the operation '. A.I do — there is no doubt 
 about it 
 
 < v >. What class of men have engaged in the practice ? A. The best class of men — magistrates, 
 church-going people, and leading farmers generally. 
 
 Q. And are they all satisfied with the results ? A. Yes, they are all satisfied that the 
 horns must go. 
 
 Dr. Smith. — Have you noticed if old or young rows sutler most pain in the operation! 1 
 A. The young cattle sutler most, 1 think, for this reason : The horns of young cattle will grow 
 a little, and in order to make a good job of it we remove a little of the tissue and hair. 
 
 .Mr. GlBSON.— Have you known any of your neighbors who have lost animals, or who have 
 had animals that suffered much through dehorning/ A. No, T never knew of a neighbor or 
 farmer who performed the operation and was sorry for it afterwards. If there should be legis- 
 lation on this question, I want to say that 1 consider it is a simple operation. Any man who 
 owns a herd of cows and takes care of them is competent to say how it shonld be done, and will 
 not have them injured unnecessarily. 1 think the matter quite safe in our hands. 
 
 Mr. Drury\ — Supposing there should be legislation, would there be any objection to saying 
 that the operation should be performed by a skilful operator, with proper tools and under proper 
 conditions '. A. I would be satisfied with that, only for one thing — suppose I were to buy a cow 
 to-day or to-morrow, it would be a very inconvenient thing for me to run around looking for a 
 man to perform the operation ; we, as men who have been prosecuted, are sensitive about this. 
 If there are regulations, any man might bring an action against me. 
 
 Q. Take a man for instance, who might get a good saw by going half a mile, but who rather 
 than go that far would use an old bucksaw to perform the operation ? A We would not do that. 
 There is danger of making this thing so tight that some fellow may bring an action any time, and 
 let you in for all sorts of costs. 
 
 Q. You are not w Ring that it should be set forth that the operation must be skilfully per- 
 formed and with proper appliances >. A. I would be willing to go in for that, if it were not for 
 those men — snides, I call them — who are always giving trouble. 
 
 Mr. Gibson. — You admit that the operation requires proper appliances and proper tying I 
 A. The operation is so simple that anyone may undertake it. There may be a mucous or pus 
 discharge, but take the operation ol castration in horses, that doesn't always go right, but you 
 could not blame the man who performed the operation ; things will go wrong sometimes. 
 
 Mr. Glexdinnink. — Do you take the horns off bulls? A. Yes, I never keep a bull now 
 with horns, and I find it has a quieting effect on them. 
 
 Henry Jackson, fanner, Gladstone, North Dorchester, sworn: 
 
 Mr. Drury. — You are engaged principally in dairying, Mr. Jackson? A. Yes, I have 
 thirty-five cows, and have all along been engaged in dairying. Have also bought and shipped 
 considerable cattle. 
 
 Q. You l ave heard Mr. York's evidence — do you agree with him '. A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Are your opinions as pronounced ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. You agree that the operation is attended with comparatively little suffering to the 
 animal 1 A. Yes, it is not so bad as I thought it would have been. Immediately after it is hard 
 to see any signs of pain. I have not dehorned my own cattle. I hesitated because of the trial 
 and thought it would be better to wait. Had arranged to dehorn my herd when Mr. York was 
 summoned. I believe that the operation is a humane one, in that it prevents pain to the animals 
 as a whole. 
 
 <,). What is your experience as a shipper '. A. Well, I handle about 200 head in a year ; 
 when gathered at the station yard they hook and gore themselves ; seveal times we had to 
 drive them apart I have seen them gore terribly bad at Buffalo, and the loss in this way is 
 serious. A buyer woull make a reduction —perhaps five dollars a head — if he notices that the 
 animals are briu 
 
 Q. If all the horns wen- off and you were going round buying, would there be much danger 
 of being deceived as to age ? A. I think not. I would go by the look of he animal and the 
 teeth. 
 
 Q. Then you see no reason whv the practice should not be allowed '. A. No; of course I 
 agree that it should be properly done. It would be brutish to take the horns off with a dull saw. 
 I think all the men in this neighborhood would do it well and properly, and I would not favor 
 having the matter Hunted too ranch. 
 
 Mr. GlBSON. We are not speaking now of a veterinary surgeon, but of a practical man 
 who knows something about it 1 A. Well, it would be a good thine-, i, L ,t it depends on what 
 you mean by a practical man. 
 
 Mr. Dbuby. — Do you consider that dehorned animals are worth more than those with 
 
91 
 
 horns I A. I think dehorned animals will bring more on the market, from being likely to be 
 free from bruises. 
 
 Q. Will animals without horns take up less space in a car ? A. I don't think it makes much 
 difference that way, but I have seen lots of cases where an animal gets down in the car, and in 
 trying to rise will run its horns into the others. Then they often break their horns in the rails 
 of the car. I would like to say that shortly after Mr. York was summoned I went and looked 
 at his cattle and they seemed to me to be all right. 
 
 Richard Tooley, M. P. P., North Dorchester, Middlesex county, sworn : 
 
 Mr. Drlry. — In addition to being a representative in the Local Legislature, you are 
 engaged in farming, Mr. Tooley I A. Yes, 1 farm on a small scale. I used to be ext nsively 
 engaged in the cattle trade. 1 have shipped 1,000 to 2,000 head per year, running through some 
 twenty-five years, and all the way from Chicago to New York. 
 
 Q, You personally supervised the shipment of cattle \ A. Yes, my chief business was in 
 local buying. 
 
 Q. What is the usual conduct of strange cattle when they are brought together ? A. They 
 are liable to be cross and ugly with each other. There is a disposition among them to fight for 
 supremacy, and as a result of that there is considerable damage. Then on the cars there is the 
 damage from hooking, tramping and broken horns. 
 
 Q. Would there be a loss in selling at Toronto market through hooking ? A. Yes, if there 
 was one badly damaged there would be a reduction in the price paid for the animal. Even after 
 the sale of a load of cattle to a butcher, you are still responsible +'or any that may have been 
 bruised I have had to throw off five or six dollars in many cases, through bruises being dis- 
 covered after the load was sold. I would say that about one in forty would be damaged. You 
 very seldom see a load where one is not hurt. We had a case near here where two out of a car- 
 load were killed, and one a loss to the extent of fifteen dollars I can't say that this was 
 altogether from horns as there should have been a man there to take care of them. 
 
 Q. Would you be in favor of taking the horns off if satisfied that it did not involve a con- 
 siderable degree of "suffering ? A. I think if it could be shown to the public at large that a 
 greater amount of good can be accomplished by the practice, and that the suffering is not great, 
 it would be a good thing. 
 
 Q. Are you pe'sonally satisfied that the good is in proportion to the pain inflicted ? A. I 
 am quite satisfied that the pain is very little. I have seen four dehorned, and if I had a herd 
 of dairy cows I would be most decidedly in favor of dehorning them. 
 
 Q. Would you say that'the practice ought to be limited to men having a practical know- 
 ledge of the operation \ A. Well, I think that a man who is a good all-round hand, and is 
 a sensible man, will do it well. I think, of course, it should be done in a proper way. If it 
 could be clearly shown that a man was guilty of wilful negligence, and if damage or loss, or 
 extreme cruelty were shown, then the man ought to be held responsible for it. 
 
 Q. Do you think there is a possibility of fraud as to age without the horns 1 A. I do not 
 think that a man with any experience would be deceived. Of course some might be, but such 
 men would not be able to tell whether they were buying a cow or a steer. 
 
 Q. You believe that if there was much suffering in dehorning, there would be some indi- 
 cations of it I A. Yes, I never had an animal that was in pain that would not show it. 1 
 went to see the operation, as much prejudiced against it as any man in Ontario could be. I 
 considered that it was wrong beyond dispute, but when I knew it was favored by Mr. York, 
 whom I have known for thirty-six years, and who is one of the kindest men I have ever known, 
 1 became convinced that it could not be a wrong or a cruel thing. 
 
 < v ». Is this practice followed by men of good standing in the community ? \ Yes, I can speak 
 of th-ir character in the most positive terms. There is only one thing wrong with them, and 
 that is that they are mostly on the wrong side of politics. They are men of probity and honor, 
 both here and at Brownsville. 
 
 Mr. Gibson. — Have you ever known a man who performed the operation and was after- 
 wards dissatisfied with it ( A. No, they are everyone highly pleased, and say that if they hadn't 
 it done, they would have it done at the earliest possible moment. 
 
 James Charles Dance, farmer, South Dorchester, Elgin county, sworn : 
 
 Mr. Drury. — You were at one time the representative of East Elgin in the Local Legisla- 
 ture ? Yes. 
 
 Q. Are you engaged in dairying, at present:* A. I have been dealing in stock to some 
 extent. Have been dairying of late years, and had over thirty cows last year. 
 
 Q. Do you agree with Mr. York and other gentlemen, as to the inconvenience experienced 
 in handling cattle with horns, and as to the profitable advantages of dehorning / A. Yes. 
 
92 
 
 Q. Do you substantially agree with Mr. Tooley in his evidence as bo the buying and shipping 
 of cattle '. A. Fes. 
 
 Q Ami you say that if the horns were removed it would be of great advantage in shipping ' 
 A. Yes. I was bitterkj opposed to the practice until 1 heard the opinions of men who had some 
 i sperience with it., 1 am n< \\ quite the other way. 1 think the evidence of men of Mr. York's 
 standing would break down any opposition I would have to the practice. 
 
 Q. Taking all the advantages into consideration, as a shipper and dairyman — and looking at 
 the question from the standpoint of the animals themselves, would you say that the practice 
 should be allowed ' A. Yes. 
 
 WILLIAM V. NlGH, farmer, Avon, Middlesex county, sworn : 
 
 Mr. 1m;i i;y — 1 understand you were prosecuted, Mr. Nigh, for dehorning your cattle ) A. 
 Yes, I dehorned my cattle on December 27 and 29, 1890, and in Februaiy, 1891, an action was 
 entered against me. 
 
 <,». How did the case end ] A. It was dismissed. 
 
 Q. What led you to perform the operation '. A. I had a vicious cow that 1 considered had 
 killed a cow that I found dead in the field. With the help of a neighbor I took its horns off, 
 and when I saw how little it suffered, and the way in which the others went for her, I decided 
 io take the horns off the whole lot. They all did well except one cow ; she got fighting and 
 hurt the stump, and it was a considerable time in healing. I cut them wi'hin about half an inch 
 of the head, but I find now it is better to take them off close to the head, as they look better, 
 and 1 think they don't suffer as much I was the first in Middlesex to dehorn. I thought it 
 was a brutal thing until I performed the operation myself, and then I saw that it was not so bad 
 as 1 expected. 
 
 Q. Now, you have an experience of 18 or 19 months, have you ever regretted it :' A. No, 
 I certainly would do the same thing again unless the law says 1 must not. I did not see any 
 signs of illness after the operation ; the milk did not fall off much, and I never had cattle so 
 easily handled in the winter, or that came out so well in the spring. The case cost me about 
 $50, but the improvement in the animals was equal to the expense. 
 
 To Mr. Gibson. — I think that the younger animals suffer more than the older ones. Tf it 
 could be done successfully, I would be in favor of preventing the growth of horns on calves. I 
 would not recommend any preparation being put on the horn after the operation. I put on tar 
 cotton and a woollen cloth over that, making it air tight. Next day on examining it [ found it 
 popped like an air gun. I think that the gas had accumulated in fcije cavity. It took about six 
 weeks for the sinuses to heal over. 
 
 J wies Rouse, farmer, Dorchester, Middlesex county, sworn, testified as follows : I keep 38 
 dairy cows. Have not dehorned my cattle, but have seen the operation performed on two 
 animals. I was sifmmoned as a witness for the Crown in the Yox'k case. I told the constable I 
 would rather be left out, because I had no experience, and I did not want to say anything against 
 Mr. York, as I had known him so long. I believed they would not have done it unless they 
 thought it was a proper thing. I thought it was a cruel thing, but after I saw the operation 1 
 found it was not as bad as I thought. I went to Mr. York's to see the operation, and carefully 
 watched the animal throughout From the time the cow went into the stanchion until it was 
 out in the yard without horns was only a minute. I think a man with any experience among 
 cattle could tell whether an animal was suffering or not. It was far different from what 1 
 expected ; the bleeding was less, and the pain seemed to be only momentary. Then I visited a 
 number of herds that had been dehorned, and the animals all seemed to be doing well. I saw 
 no injury as a result of the opera i n. In fact, my mind now is that if there is no law against 
 it I would have my ca'tle dehorned within 24 hours I think that the law should allow it. It 
 certainly is cruelty to animals in a Luge herd the way they .ore each other. Then if the horns 
 are off a man can go to bed at night feeling that his cattle are in no danger if one or two should 
 get loose. 1 visited Mr. Hawkins' place and saw his herd drinking. 1 counted 11 drinking out 
 of the tank at oncer, and in 8 minutes they were all satisfied ami went away. I have a trough 8 
 feet long, and when I tinned my cattle out to dr nk they were an hour and ten minutes before 
 they were all through 28 of them. 1 am what the London Advertiser calls a "'converted 
 dehorner." If it involved great suffering ] would not advocate it. Everyman I ever heard of 
 is satisfied that it is a benefit to the stock and to the cattle themselves. 
 
 ROB] i; i FACEY, cheese-maker, Hanietsville, sworn, gave evidence as follows : 1 manage the 
 Harrietsville cheese factory. We made 258 tons of cheese last year, aid received the milk of 
 about 1,200 cows 1 am now in favor of dehorning cattle, but thought atone time that it was a 
 cruel practice. 1 changed my opinion by seeing the operation and noting the results as seen in 
 •he cheese factory. Mr. Win. York's cows were dehorned on the 6th of November, and after 
 

 93 
 
 dehorning they gave just as much milk in proportion as the cows that were not dehorned. I do 
 not claim that there was an increase, but I do claim that there was no decrease. Here is the 
 record in the factory books for two weeks of Mr. York's cows, and of my own herd, which was 
 not dehorned : 
 
 Dehorned cows. — Tuesday, 510 lbs. ; Wednesday, 500 ; Thursday, 504 ; Friday (day of 
 dehorning), 475 ; Saturday, 374 ; Tuesday, 485 ; Wednesday, 431 ; Thursday, 382 ; Friday, 
 418; Saturday, 393. The average was 47 2| the week before, and 4214 the week following 
 dehorning. 
 
 Cows not dehorned— Tuesday, 405 lbs ; Wednesday, 360 ; Thursday, 303 ; Friday, 362 ; 
 Saturday, 356. Second week— Tuesday, 403 lbs; Wednesday, 352 ; Thursday, 321; Friday,' 
 353, and Saturday, 296. The average for the first week was 370 1-5, and for the second, 346. 
 
 Mr. Facey. — This record shows that while there was a falling off in Mr. York's case, there 
 was about an equal falling off in the other herd where the horns had not been removed. Mr. York 
 also claimed that his herd had practically nothing to eat the day of dehorning until 4 or 5 o'clock 
 and this should be allowed for. It is my duty to see that we get good milk, free from any 
 taint, at the factory. To detect and reject tainted milk is one of the most important points in 
 cheese-making. I think we would notice it, not only in the odor, b it in the working of the 
 curds. I examined carefully the milk coming from dehorned cattle, but could not see anything 
 the matter with it. I looked specially at the milk the day after the operation, and if I had 
 found the least difference, I would have rejected it or set it aside. We have had bloody milk 
 delivered at the factory, owing to the goring of the udder, and we have had to reject it. 1 
 think the operation should be performed in cool weather and not in fly time. 
 
 Joseph Franks, farmer, Dorchester, Middlesex county, sworn : I keep twenty-five cows. 
 I have not dehorned my cattle, but would have done so last fall if I hadn't intended to dispose 
 of my farm. I saw Mr. Bopkins' cattle and asked him where he got so many muleys and he 
 told me they had been dehorned. I have not lost any animals by hooking, but I have had them 
 badly injured. I do not think that knobbing cures the tendency to hook. I purchased some 
 animals with knobs on and it didn't seem to do much good. I consider that all loss would be p-acti- 
 cally done away with by taking off the horns, and that it would be a perfect pleasure to go up and 
 down among your cattle. In judging the age I do not depend upon the horns. I think if a cow 
 has good teeth she's all right. Cows generally decrease in value after ten years, but some of 
 them are good up to fifteen or seventeen years. I agree with what has been said by other wit- 
 nesses in favor of dehorning. I think there should be some provision that any one making a 
 bungling job of it should be punished, because it is every man's duty to get'the best instruments 
 and have the work well done. The fall I consider, is the best time for the operation. I have 
 a muley cow and when she rushes in to drink, the others seem to know that she is defenceless 
 and won't interfere with her. Then I bought two dehorned cows and these two are attacked 
 more than any others in the herd. 
 
 Benjamin Cook, farmer, Avon, Middlesex county, sworn : 
 
 Mr. Drury. — Are you the owner of cattle, Mr. Cook? A. Yes, I have only about three 
 just now, but have had as many as twenty. Have had to do with cattle all my life. 
 
 Q. Have you had inconvenience from the horns of cattle 1 No, I have not seen enough 
 damage to cattle to justify the present operations. 
 
 Q. Do you let other stock run with your cattle ? A. Yes, but I have a colt that I could 
 not let into the pasture with the cows ; it would run them over the fence. 
 
 Q. You have not dehorned your cattle ? A. No, I see no necessity for it. 
 
 Q. Have you seen the operation performed ? A. Yes, I saw it the other day with the 
 Commission at York's. 
 
 Q. Now, suppose a man believed there was considerable benefit, and assuming that the 
 operation was attended by pain, do you think he would be justified in resorting to itl No, the 
 operation must be a painful one — it certainly is, and it looks to me to be fraudulent. The horns 
 are a splendid guide to the age. 
 
 Q. You think that the buyer would be at the mercy of the seller as to the age of dehorned 
 cattle ? A. Yes, I think he would. 
 
 Q. Have you ever seen cattle horn one another at the watering place ? A. Sometimes they 
 push each other out of the way but I can't say that I ever saw much injury in that respect. I 
 can see no occasion for this dehorning, unless in the case of a vicious bull or cow. In such a 
 case it might be justifiable, but that is no reason for taking the horns off the whole herd. 
 
 Q. Do you consider castration as justifiable 1 A. Yes, it i3 a custom and it is a necessary 
 cruelty. 
 
 Q. Which would you say was most painful to the animal — castration or dehorning ? A. 
 I hard'y think that dehorning is as painful as castration. 
 
94 
 
 Q. [f in evidence it wore shown that shippers and drovers unanimously complain of loss and 
 injury from horns, would you then say that the operation was a justifiable one? A. No, 1 
 cant see that dehorning is justifiable in this age. In shipping cattle I think they ought to be 
 tied up and have room to lie down in the cars. 
 
 Q. But that would involve considerable cost to the shipper 1 A. Can't help that. I think 
 that the dumb animals should be properly treated. In the yards at the stations and markets 
 fchej ought to be tied up and properly watered and fed. 
 
 Q. Sou believe that the circumstances do not justify the pain inflicted. A. Yes, the ani- 
 mal does not deserve such treatment. 
 
 Q. Do you not think thai the pain is during the actual time in taking off the horns ? A. 
 
 I can't say that there was particular evidence of suffering. The cattle started to eat afterwards, 
 but they appeared hungry, and I guess they didn't have much before that. 
 
 Q. You think that an animal may suffer pain and yet go on eating ? A . Yes. 
 
 Q, Do you agr< e that a man who is among cattle constantly will readily pick out one that is 
 sick / A. Yes, 1 think he could notice it. 
 
 Q. Have you seen cases of broken horn .' A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Did that impress you that they suffered a great deal '. A. Yes, they appeared very sen- 
 sitive and almost refused to eat : would hold their head to one side and sometimes getaway in a 
 corner by themselves. 
 
 Q. Now, did you see any suffering of that kind among the cattle at Mr. Y'ork's ? A. No, 
 not so much suffering as from broken horns, but an animal might be suffering considerable pain 
 and yet not show signs of it. 
 
 Q. Is your opinion based upon a study of the animal's head? A. No, but from the cavity 
 it appears to me that there is a close contact with the brain from those openings. I believe 
 there is a thin lining there, and that the nerves that run through the horn must be connected 
 with the brain. The animal may not show it, but the operation must cause stinging pains at 
 times. No man can tell what the suffering may be. 
 
 Mr. Kelso. — You believe that financial benefit would not be a justification for the opera- 
 tion I A. Yes, no consideration of that kind ought to come into the settlement of this question. 
 On moral grounds I can see nothing that justifies dehorning. It seems to me that in this age of 
 civilization we ought nol to inaugurate a new cruelty. 
 
 Mr. Driky. — Would you be influenced by the judgment of men who are of good standing 
 and are respected in the community, who say that they were at first opposed to the practice, 
 but having seen it and its results are now in favor of it? A. No, because these men have 
 made mon y out of these cat'le. They have built fine houses out of their profits and I think 
 they ought to be content to 1 ave the horns on. 
 
 Q. Suppose it can be shown that there is no decrease in the flow of milk of a herd that has 
 been dehorned ? A. Mj' impression would still be that there was no justification for the 
 operation. Two weeks or six weeks after when I find them suppurating under ordinary circum- 
 stances — where they are turned out to rough it — h>w can you come to the conclusion that there 
 is no suffering ? Some time ago I visited Mr. Gracey's farm near Springfield, and some of his 
 cattle had a running sore for six h eeks. He told the men to quit dehorning when they got 
 four done. Two of them looked fairly well — the horns were dried up — but the other two were 
 discharging severely, and I thought they would die. This was in March, a year ago, and they 
 had then been done six weeks. 
 
 Johst C. Lawr, farmer, South Dorchester, Elgin county, sworn, gave evidence as follows : " I 
 have about twenty head and have not practised dehorning. 1 am opposed to it. There are lots 
 of men who would not do it, but they say 1 t others do as they like. I have raised cattle for 
 about forty years and 1 see no necessity for it. I never knew of one animal being killed or seri- 
 ously hurt by the horns. I think, perhaps, there was one sheep killed, but that was all. It is 
 true that some animals will drive the others. I admit that quiet in a herd is a good thing. If 
 I had vicious animals I would get rid of them. I don't want to see the horns taken off. I saw 
 the operation performed the other day at Mr. York s. The anim Is did not seem to suffer much. 
 These men are looking to make an extra dollar or two. Most of those who have dehorned their 
 cattle here are friends and neighbors of mine. They are progressive men, and I have always 
 looked upon them as men of kindly hearts until they started this practice. We have always 
 been trying to go ahead, but I look upon this dehorning business as a step backward. I have 
 made up my mind against dehorning and nothing that I have seen would make me change round. 
 I believe a quiet disposition can be encouraged in animals if you breed for it. 
 
 WillsON McCredie, farmer, South Dorchester, (Reeve of the township), sworn, said : "I 
 have been engaged in dairying, and milked about thirty-three head last year. I dehorned my 
 cattle in November or December last year. Got L. A. Brown, V.S. , of Aylmer, to do the work. 
 
95 
 
 Some time a°-o I got interested in the question, and wrote to parties in the western states about it. 
 These people recommended it, and knowing them to be humane, christian men, I felt that it would 
 be to our i uteres'- t< > do it. 1 got all the informaion I could, and to make sure I engaged a veterin- 
 ary surgeon to perform the operation. I felt that it would be a very painful thing, and if I had 
 been called upon to do it myself, I could not have done it. I was quite satisfied with the results. 
 My cattle did not show any signs of suffering, particularly after the saw left the horn. There 
 was more blood from the younger than from the older animals. I have in my herd four cows that 
 should have been turned off last fall on account of age. However, I dehorned them with the 
 the others, and now they appear five years younger than they did. I consider this partly the re- 
 sult of dehorning as they hadn't as much grain as in the previous year. I am satisfied that the 
 cattle themselves have been gainers from dehorning. They have thrived better ; have had no 
 punishment from each other and have been in a constant state of quiet and peace. Another 
 thing L noticed was this, if (me of my cattle with horns gets its head in the straw stack and 
 theifhears a step, it will back out to see who or what is coming. Since the horns are off they 
 don't care a rap who comes. The sense of security obtained in this way must be a great 
 benefit. The good effects far outweigh the momentary pain of the operation. I don't see 
 that any legislation is necessary on this question, because as the law now stands a person guilty 
 of cruelty can be punished. I think that the man who properly performs the operation should 
 not be interfered with." 
 
 Jacob Keesler, farmer, South Dorchester, Middlesex county, sworn, said : " I own thir- 
 teen head ju>t now dairy stock. Have not dehorned, because I do not see the necessity for 
 it. I think the horn is a guide to the breed and the age. I prefer cattle with horns — don't care 
 much for muleys. Have not had very much loss from hooking. 1 think we ought to stop de- 
 horning, clipping the tails of lambs and docking horses. I would like to see my neighbors give 
 up these things and treat the dumb animals kindly. 
 
 Rudolphus C. McKenney, sworn, gave evidence as follows : '* Am engaged in farming to 
 some extent, and am residing at present in Aylmer. Have lived about nine years in Dakota 
 and handled sixty or seventy head of cattle. There is a good deal of dehorning done there. 
 The percentage would be fully half 1 think. They are adopting the plan of dehorning and 
 allowing the cattle to run loose in the stable." 
 
 John M. O'Neil, farmer, South Dorchester, sworn, said : "I have not had my cattle de- 
 horned, because I thought at first it was a very cruel thing. I went and looked at Stephen 
 York's herd that had been dehorned. They seemed to me to be nice and quiet and to feed nicely 
 together. 1 saw the operation at Edwa d York's place. I watched it closely It seemed 
 a very simple thing, without much punishment and scarcely any bleeding. I am in favor of de- 
 horning n.iwand intend to have my cattle dehorned, as I think it will prevent the punishment 
 they inflict on each other. A year ago I had an animal killed by goring, and besides that it 
 cost me $4 for a veterinary surgeon. Then I had another animal killed three or four weeks ago. 
 
 Jamks Meikle, farmer, South Dorchester, Elgin county, sworn, said : " I keep thirty head 
 of cattle for dairy purposes. Had three dehorned last winter. Am in favor of the operation 
 and intend to dehorn my herd if it becomes law, because I think they do better." 
 
 William Su \ton, herdsman, Harrietsville, sworn, said: " Am employed to look 
 
 after the cattle on - n York's farm. I have held about fifty animals while they were being 
 
 dehorned. I was a little opposed to it at first, but if 1 had a herd of my own now I would 
 have the horns taken off. They get over it quickly and they are much easier to keep. The 
 neighbors all say that our cattle are in better condition now than they ever were before." 
 
 The Commission then adjourned to meet at London on Wednesday, June 1st, at 2.30. 
 
 London, June 1st. 
 
 The Commission resumed the hearing of evidence in the County Court House, London, on 
 Wednesday, June 1st, at 2.30. In the temporary absence ; of the Chairman, Mr. Henry Glen- 
 dinning presided. 
 
 Mr. John Geary, farmer, London Township, being called and sworn, gave evidence as 
 follows : I am President of the Western Ontario Dairymen's Association, and President of the 
 
96 
 
 Weekly Market Association of London. I keep 64 cows and have kept from 125 to 150. My 
 cattle are not dehorned, but I am in favor of the practice. I dehorned from 15 to 25 head about 
 four years ago this spring, and I don't think there is so much pain as in castration. 
 
 Q. J)o you consider that the benefits from dehorning are commensurate with the pain 
 inflicted '. A. Yes; I am quite convinced they are. I believe it is a humane thing to do. 
 When cattle have their horns on some of them are very bossy ; when they go to drink two or 
 three will stand there and prevent the others getting near. Then they are constantly hooking. 
 
 Q. Do you think that dehorning gets over all these difficulties? A. Yes ; we always found 
 that polled cattle were quiet and disposed to be quiet, while horned cattle were unruly and 
 inclined to hook each other. 
 
 Q. Have you had losses owing to the horns ? A. Yes ; I have had them hook each other 
 pretty badly. 1 lost a colt by hooking two or three years ago. I had two horses gored but 
 they got over it. 
 
 Q. You say you have performed the operation and have 64 now that are not dehorned ; 
 how is that ? A. Well, when this trial came up it didn't look like a safe thing to do. 
 I would have dehorned my herd in the spring if this prosecution hadn't been commenced. 
 
 Q. I )o you regard dehorning as a humane act, and believe that the suffering is more than 
 balanced by the good results ? A. Yes, most decidedly. 
 
 Q. If you w T ere purchasing and had a choice between horned and dehorned cattle, which 
 would you prefer ? A. I would certainly give preference to the dehorned cattle. If I were 
 buying 100 head, everything else being equal, 1 would give .$200 more for those without the 
 horns, or about $2 per head. 
 
 Mr. Gibson. — You say you performed the operation ; what is the proper age in your opin- 
 ion ? A. 1 have performed it on calves and yearlings. I tried caustic and could not succeed 
 with it. Perhaps I didn't do it right. I should think the use of the gouge on calves would be 
 more painful than the other method. 
 
 Q. Don't you think it would be better to breed horns off than to cut them off . ? A. They 
 can be bred off, but I don't see the necessity of waiting for that. 
 
 Mr. Kelso. — Would you approve of the dehorning of all the cattle in this province used 
 for dairying ? A. Yes, I think it would be a great benefit to the business. 
 
 Mr. Gibson — What about fraud as to age if the horns were off? A. I don't think there is 
 much in that. 
 
 Q. What time would you consider the best for the operation ? A. April or November, or 
 any cold time would do, provided the animals were kept in a comfortable place. 
 
 Q. As president of the Dairymen's Association, suppose a herd of cows were dehorned in 
 May and had a disharge of pus, would you regard the milk as fit and proper to send to the 
 dairy '. A. I don't think it would damage the milk at all. 
 
 Mr. Kelso. — Are there any cattle dehorned in this neighborhood at present? A. No, but. 
 since the prosecution there has been a good deal of talk in favor of it. 
 
 Charles S. Tamlin, V. S., London, sworn, gave evidence as follows : I have been a 
 veterinary surgeon from three to four years, and completed my studies in Toronto. I have not 
 performed the operation of d horning, nor have I ever seen it done. 
 
 Q. Have you seen any animals that have been dehorned ? A. Yes, I paid two visits to 
 William York's farm for the purposes of the prosecution. 
 
 Q. How long after the operation ? A. The first time was two weeks after, at the request of 
 the president of the Humane Society ; the second time was about six weeks after the operation. 
 There were about thirty cows that had been dehorned. On my first visit I only examined the 
 cattle casually ; seven or eight of them were shaking their heads, and were discharging pus from 
 the cavities. They would not stand to let me touch them. On my second visit three or four of 
 the cows were discharging pus, but I would not consider they were suffering as much as on my 
 first visit. A discharge of pus shows that an inflammatory process has taken place in the cavity 
 exposed by cutting off the horn. This would affect the health of the cow, causing a certain 
 amount of fever, and would also affect the nervous system owing to the more direct contact with 
 the air through the cavities to the brain. By sawing off the horn only the inner wall is left to 
 protect the brain. This inner wall is only ,', to J of an inch in thicknes, while the outside wall 
 is £ to \ an inch thick. 1 think the removal of this outer wall would have a serious effect on 
 the nervous system. 
 
 Mr. Gibson. — Having been sent to examine these cattle did you take the temperature ! 
 A. No. 
 
 Q. If there was a discharge of pus would there not be a rise of temperature ? A. Yes, but 
 there could be a discharge of pus without an increase of temperature. 
 
 Q. Now, as to this pus, how did you know it was pus ? A. From its appearance ; I saw 
 there was a soreness. On pressing my finger on the spot the discharge would ooze out, and I 
 concluded it was pus. 
 
97 
 
 Q. Might it not have been simply a mucous discharge ? A. No, it was not like mucous ; I 
 have no doubt it was pus. This was six weeks after the operation. 
 
 Mr. Kelso. — How much suffering do you consider is connected with the operation ? A. I 
 believe the pain lasts for about eight days after the operation. It would be acute during the 
 actual sawing, slowly going away as healing takes place. 
 
 Mr. Glendinning. — Do you consider that where there is a discharge of pus the milk 
 would be affected. A. Yes, I would think so. If there is a discharge from the nose the cow 
 will lick it, and in that way it would go into the stomach and must affect the milk. 
 
 Q. You say that Mr. York told you there was a falling off in the milk ? A. Yes, he said 
 that they fell off, but that they came up to the usual quantity in about three days. 
 
 Q. Now, if there was fever, would they come up in that way ? A. It is generally an indi- 
 cation that the fever is not very great if the milk comes up so quickly. 
 
 Q. In the case of a vicious bull would you favor dehorning ? A. Yes, if it is very vicious I 
 would say dehorn it ; but 1 don't believe in dehorning simply for the sake of making money 
 out of them. 
 
 Mr. Kelso. — Do you think that animals might be in great pain without giving any indica- 
 tion of it ? A. Yes, there are usually signs, but an animal may be suffering without showing it 
 greatly. 
 
 Mr. Glendinning. — When the horn cavity is completely healed over would it be- with a 
 bony tissue ? A. Yes, The cavity in the horn is at no time during life after development fitted 
 with any substance in it, except the lining membrane and core. The opening is more sensitive 
 at the base of the horn than it is farther up. My opinion is that the horn, if removed, would 
 cause less pain if cut farther up, as there is no sensitiveness in the consolidated portion of the 
 horn. 
 
 Washington A. Elliott, being sworn, said : I am engaged in farming and reside in Dere- 
 ham township, county of Oxford. We have at present from 50 to 75 head of cattle. I have 
 given a good deal of study to the question of dehorning and have taken the horns off about 400 
 head. [ first commenced about two years ago this last winter. A friend of mine from Kansas 
 spoke to me about the benefits of dehorning. I was greatly prejudiced, and ridiculed the idea. 
 J admitted, of course, that it would be a great benefit to have no horns, but I thought to cut 
 the horns off would be great cruelty. After witnessing the operation performed by Chauncey 
 Smith, a neighbor, I was so favorably impressed that I went home and performed it myself on 
 our own herd. I have since done a great deal of it for neighbors, and in consequence <.f the 
 recent prosecution I have looked into the subject pretty thoroughly. 
 
 The first consideration in dehorning cattle is to properly secure the animal. For this pur- 
 pose a strong stanchion is required. This is constructed of two upright scantling, or small 
 round poles five or six feet in length, one of which is stationary ; the other is made last at the 
 lower end, while the upper end can drop back to allow the animal's head to pass in and out. 
 These should not be more than six or seven inches apart when closed. 
 
 A stout rope, in one end of which a ring is fastened, is thrown over the neck so that the 
 ring comes under the throat ; the rope is doubled and the double passed through the ring ; the 
 noose thus formed placed over the nose. This forms a halter, the other end of which is held 
 taut with a windlass or lever. A small set of pulley blocks with a small rope to run them 
 answer very well and are quickly operated. 
 
 The animal is then drawn forward until the shoulders rest firmly against the stanchions. 
 Thus secured there is no chance for moving backwards or forwards or throwing the head from 
 side to side. A block or a carpenter's saw-bench about twenty inches high for the nose to rest 
 upon materially assists the operator. 
 
 The assistant then places himself with his right side against the neck of the animal, his 
 right knee thrown forward under the jaw, the right hand grasping the horn next to him, while 
 his left hand firmly holds the rope under the nose. 
 
 The operator stands facing the animal with his right leg resting firmly against the side of 
 the nose. Then grasping the horn next to him with one hand, he places his saw in position 
 and with a few quick strokes severs it from the head. The assistant then loosens his hold on 
 the horn and throwing his arm over the neck grasps the ear, while the operator removes the 
 second horn in the same manner as the first. 
 
 The animal is then liberated and seldom requires any futher attention, nature quickly 
 repairing the injury, and if properly done there is seldom any scar left to show that there had 
 ever been any horn. 
 
 Should excessive bleeding follow it may be soon stopped by holding a handful of flour on 
 the wound. 
 
 No dressing or covering of any kind is necessary unless the animal should happen to injure 
 itself. 
 
 7 (D.G.) 
 
98 
 
 The saw I used was a carpenter's cut off, number eleven, filed very sharp, with plenty of 
 I level without set, and is well oiled before operating on each animal. 
 
 In cutting the operator should always remove a quarter of an inch or more of the hair and 
 skin with the born If any of the outer shell of the horn is left it will grow and form an 
 unsightly stub. This is more likely to happen with young cattle than old ones. 
 The most desirable season to dehorn is October and November. 
 
 The time required for securing the animal and removing the horns, with the appliances above 
 mentioned, should not occupy more than one or two minutes, while the actual cutting should 
 not require more than ten to twenty seconds to remove both horns, by a skilful operator. 
 
 There can be no excuse for the work being done in a bungling or unskilful manner, the 
 appliances being inexpensive and easily obtained. 
 
 Mr. Glkmunnim;. — Now, have you seen any bad results from the operation? A. No, 
 there have been no bad results, with the exception of two cases where there was a discharge of 
 pus. 
 
 Q. What is your view with regard to the discharge of matter from the wound after the 
 operation '. A. In about 10 per cent, there is a discharge, but it is perfectly odorless and is 
 not pus. It is what I would call a mucous discharge. It is like a colorless jelly. In the two 
 cases I mentioned there was a discharge of pus, and it did not require much ability to tell that 
 it was pus ; the discharge had an offensive odor. Both Dr. Brady and Dr. O'Neil made a close 
 investigation. They had more experience in dehorning than most vets, and they both gave the 
 opinion that it was not pus but a mucous discharge. 
 
 Mr. Kelso. — After the operation have you known many cattle to bellow or make a noise ? 
 A. Only about half a dozen. 
 
 Mr. Gibson. — Are the cattle that were dehorned before the Commission doing well ? A. 
 Yes, they are healing nicely. I saw the bull this morning and he was all right. 
 
 Mr. Kelso. — Is there not a danger after the operation of the animal striking its head 
 against the sides of the stanchion thus causing pain and perhaps a second hemorrhage \ A. They 
 generally know their heads are tender and go carefully. There is not so much danger. Of 
 course where the chains are used this danger would be done away with. 
 
 Q. Would you recommend that regulations should be adopted only allowing the operation 
 to be performed at a certain season ? A. Well, I would not like to see the operation performed 
 in summer. 
 
 Q. Have you had any experience in disbudding ? A. I would rather dehorn two old cows 
 than operate upon a calf with the gouge. I have not tried the caustic fluid. 
 
 Q. What would you say as to licensing or appointing certain men to perform the operation ? 
 A. Well, I would hardly recommend that. It is just like castration — the owners themselves 
 will take care that it is properly done. I think, of course, that a man should be compelled to 
 have the proper appliances. 
 
 Q. Would you say that the practice ought simply to be allowed and no restrictions placed 
 upon it ? A. Well, that is hard to say. I would not like to see it clone unskilfully. 
 
 Mr. Glexdinxing. — You think the matter will regulate itself the same as castration ? A. 
 Yes, I think that if the government decided that the operation must .be performed skilfully 
 by proper parties and with proper instruments, that would be sufficient. I think that any man 
 of kindly feeling and good nerve could do this work without difficulty. 
 
 Levi Fletcher, farmer, Lambeth, Middlesex county, sworn, said : I keep six or seven head 
 of cattle. I have not practised dehorning, but I have seen it done. I think for men like Mr. 
 York, who are making their money out of cows, dehorning is an advantage in the feeding and 
 caring for them. 
 
 Q. You have heard Mr. Elliott's evidence, do you agree with him ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Do you regard it as a humane operation I A. Yes, it prevents cattle doing harm to each 
 other. Have seen a good deal of injury done by hooking. I was opposed to the practice at 
 first, as I thought it a cruel thing, but when I saw the operation I could not see that there were 
 signs of severe suffering. 
 
 John A. Dicey, farmer, White Oak, Middlesex county, sworn, said : I keep 15 head of 
 cattle. I have not performed the operation but I have seen it performed. My impression is 
 that it improves the herd. 
 
 0. Do you agree generally with the evidence of Mr. Elliott and the last witness ? A. Yes, 
 I think dehorning is better for the herds, and that the operation is a humane one. You cannot 
 let horses out among cattle that have their horns on. The practice has been carried on in our 
 neighborhood. At first they were afraid of the law but the cattle were so much better without 
 horns they decided to risk the consequences of taking them off. I don't think the suffering is 
 so great in dehorning as when the animals knock their horns off, or hurt themselves in fighting. 
 
99 
 
 Samuel Charles Millson, farmer, Glenworth, Middlesex county, sworn, said : 1 keep 32 
 cows at present. I had the whole herd dehorned except three muleys. The operation was per- 
 formed three weeks ago last Saturday, and they are all doing well. I did not see any great pain 
 in the operation and since then the only time I noticed pain was when one of the animals 
 attempted to hook another. I think the operation is a humane one — that the benefits are com- 
 mensurate with the pain inflicted. I agree with the last three witnesses. 
 
 Mr. Glendinning. — Was there any discharge from your cattle ? A. Well, five or six have 
 discharged more or less. One or two might be discharging yet, but there is nothing offensive 
 about it. 
 
 Q. Did you notice much pain ? A. When we had dehorned about ten of the herd, I went 
 into the yard to see how they were getting along. They were walking about looking amused at 
 each other, as if they could not understand how it was that the horns were off. They didn't seem 
 to be suffering any pain as far as I could see. 
 
 Q. Who performed the operation for you 1 A. I did it myself. I had never done it before 
 and had not seen it done. 1 saw Mr. York and got some instructions from him. 
 
 Q. What season do you think is the best ? A. Early in the spring would do — any time 
 but fly season. I think most farmers have sympathy enough for their catcle to have the opera- 
 tion clone well. Of course there are careless men in every business, but the great thing is to 
 have proper appliances. 
 
 William S. York, farmer, Dorchester, sworn, said : I keep from fifteen to twenty-five 
 head of cattle. I have not had the operation performed, but I am in favor of it. I have noticed 
 my father's (William York) cattle very closely and my belief is that they have done better and 
 look better than they ever did before the horns were off. I don't think they get any better 
 treatment, but the improvement is owing to increased quietness. I have heard the evidence of 
 Messrs. Elliott, Fletcher and Dicy and agree with them. 
 
 Hiram Dicy, White Oak, Middlesex county, being sworn, said : I am engaged in farming 
 and keep twenty-four head of cattle. I have not seen the operation of dehorning nor have I 
 seen animals that were dehorned, but I think it a desirable thing in view of the injury done 
 through hooking. 
 
 The Commission then adjourned at 5.30 to resume at 10 o'clock the following morning. 
 
 London, June 2nd. 
 
 The Commission resumed the hearing of evidence in the Court House, London, on Thursday, 
 June 2nd, at 10 o'clock. Hon. Charles Drury presided. 
 
 Benjamin Cook, farmer, Avon P.O., Middlesex county, was recalled. He exhibited two 
 pair of horns, illustrating methods for preventing vicious animals from doing harm. One pair 
 was fitted with brass knobs, while the other pair had a wooden bar arrangement, commonly 
 used among farmers. These, he claimed, were sufficient to meet all ordinary requirements. He 
 also exhibited a wooden appliance made in the shape of a "T" for placing upon the head of a 
 vicious bull, being fastened by an iron bolt passing through the tip of each horn. 
 
 In evidence, Mr. Cook said : I think there is great difficulty in telling the breed, as well as 
 the age, when the horns are off. I would have no objection to dehorning if the animal could 
 not be controlled in any other way, but before I would feel justified in encouraging this custom 
 I would have the animal slaughtered. What I object to is taking the horns off an entire herd 
 of thirty or forty animals, whether they are vicious or not, makiug the innocent suffer with the 
 guilty. Mr. Cook then read a statement, of which the substance has been already given. 
 
100 
 
 At the request of Mr. Edward York the following affidavit from Mr. Gracey was read and 
 tiled (alluded to in Mr. Cook's former evidence, on page 93) : 
 
 Statutory Declaration. 
 Dominion of Canada, "^ 
 
 t ounty of Elgin, - In the matter of Dehorning Cattle. 
 To wit : J 
 
 I, Daniel Gracey, of the township of Malahide, county of Elgin, farmer, do solemnly 
 declare that I had five head of cattle dehorned and witnessed the operation. I do not think it 
 can be considered cruel t > dehorn. I saw no bad results from said dehorning. My cattle 
 thrived and did better afterwards. There was no matter or pus formed at the roots of the 
 horns. The horns dried up in two or three days Will have more dehorned if the law allows 
 me to do so. I had at that time no other cattle that could be dehorned. I believe it to be an 
 advantage to the owners of cattle to have them dehorned. 
 
 And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by 
 virtue of the Act respecting extra-judicial oaths. 
 
 Declared before me at Springfield, in the county ^ 
 
 of Elgin, this 28th day of May, A.D. I D Qrac 
 
 1892. J. B. Lucas, f 
 
 A Commissioner, etc. J 
 
 Theophilus V. Hutchinson, M. D., being sworn, gave evidence as follows: I am the 
 Medical Health Officer for th j city of London, and gave evidence in the case of the Queen v. 
 York, for cruelty to animals. I have the general supervision of all sanitary matters and as the 
 sale of milk comes under my notice I visit and inspect about ninety dairies twice a year. 
 
 Q. Have you farmed an opinion as to the necessity or desirability of dehorning? A. I 
 think in some cases it is necessary, but in general I think it is not. I would consider it a cruel 
 operation. While some good might result the proportion is not such as to justify the practice. 
 I would look at the question from the public good, and not from the individual benefit stand- 
 point. Judging from the anatomy of the part I would say that the horn could not be taken off 
 without causing considerable pain. All bones are covered with an inside and outside periosteum. 
 This is not sensitive, but the membrane is. The hard flinty part has very few nerves of feeling, 
 but the moment you strike the opening you sever the membrane and the supply of nerves that 
 run up the horn* and that is highly sensitive. Wherever there is a blood vessel there is a 
 sensory nerve accompanying it. I think there would be more pain and a greater rise in the 
 temperature where the horn is accidentally knocked off, than where it is properly taken off. 
 
 Q. Tu* re are certain indications of pain that would be noticeable at once? A. Yes, such 
 as shaking the head, blowing the nose, sometimes holding the head high ; at other times running 
 around or standing in a corner ; a rise in temperature and so on. You could tell there was 
 pain, but not the degree. 
 
 Q. Suppose that in five and a half seconds the horn was severed completely ; that the 
 temperature was taken before and two hours after the operation without much difference being 
 indicated, and that there were none of the usual signs of pain, what would you conclude ? 
 A. Well, it would take longer than two hours for the temperature to rise — probably until 
 inflammation set in. 
 
 Q. Is the rise in temperature due to inflammatory action? A. Yes, but there are cases, 
 such as fevers, where there would be a rise without inflammatory action. 
 
 Q. So far as you have observed you would not expect a cow that had its horns knocked off 
 to act in the way described >. A. No. 
 
 Q. Is it a fact, that where there is vitality left nature immediately begins to repair the 
 damase ! A. Always. 
 
 Q. Suppose you visited a herd of cows a week after dehorning and found there was a dis- 
 charge, would you immediately conclude that that was pus ? A. No. Pus is the product of 
 inflammatory action. 
 
 Q. Might there be a discharge without inflammatory action ? A. The first process is a 
 discharge of limpus or thin mucous. This closes over the wound and subsequently becomes a 
 tissue of the body — that is, providing the animal is in good health. If the animal is in bad 
 health then the process of repair would degenerate into pus, and the discharge would be inflam- 
 matory. An experienced man can readily distinguish between mucous and pus. 
 
 Q. Now, witnesses say they have observed a discharge of matter and many have come to 
 the conclusion that it was a discharge of pus, indicating inflammatory action i A. A healthy 
 discharge for the covering up of the wound would not ordinarily be noticed. The discharge that 
 would attract attention would probably be pus. 
 
 < L >. Suppose there was no odor? A. Well, from some pus there is no odor. 
 
101 
 
 Q. Would you expect a lessened flow of milk after the operation ? A. Not much for a day 
 or two. 
 
 Q. Suppose the operation were performed at noon, would there be a less flow of milk that 
 evening % A. In the case of accidents I have not noticed much difference until the inflammatory 
 process set in. 
 
 Q. Would you expect a falling off in the milk at night if there had been suffering for several 
 hours before \ A. Yes. I would think there would be some falling off. 
 
 Q. You would not look for much inflammation for say twenty-four hours after the operation, 
 but suppose there was no falling off in the milk yield after that time ? A. I think there m ght 
 be pain without a lessening in the flow of milk, but if there was a rise in the temperature I 
 think there would be a falling off. 
 
 Q. Suppose in your capacity as health officer, you found that an animal was discharging 
 pus, would you find fault with the milk ? A. Yes. Some of the pus would get into the stomach 
 through being licked off the nose and I would decidedly stop the supply of milk while that was 
 going on. 
 
 Q. Have you ever had anything to do with cattle ? A. Yes. I was brought up on a farm. 
 
 Q. You have not teen any animals dehorned ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Have you seen much inconvenience from horns ? A. Horns are an inconvenience of 
 course, but taking it altogether I think that the inconvenience does not counterbalance the 
 cruelty of taking the horns off. 
 
 Q. Would you agree that if the good is in proportion to the pain inflicted, the practice 
 would be justifiable ? A. Well, if it saved life I think it might be justifiable, but not for finan- 
 cial advantage. I have been practising for twenty years and have not been called upon to attend 
 any suffering from hooking 
 
 Mr. Gibson : Do we understand you to say that the cavity would be larger at the base than 
 higher up ? A. Yes, then there is the danger that in cutting close to the head pus may get 
 into the arteries and in that way into the system. 
 
 Q. If there is much bleeding would you regard that as a sign of pain ? A. Not always ; a 
 man might have his nose bleed and yet not suffer. I think there are facilities for fraud when 
 the horns are taken off. Even a butcher might be deceived. 
 
 Q. But what about the teeth ? A. Without the horns I think it would be difficult if not 
 impossible to tell the age within two or three years. 
 
 Mr. Drury : You say then that this matter should be decided upon the gain to the public ? 
 A. Yes. I think that a money consideration should not be brought into the case. 
 
 Q. What about castration and cutting off the tails % A There is no comparison between 
 cutting off sheep's tails and cutting off horns. Then I think there is room for great improve- 
 ment in the method of castrating. Animals ought to be rendered insensible before the operation. 
 About 25c. worth of chloroform used on a horse would deaden all pain. 
 
 Lorenzo Stevens, farmer and bailiff, London township, sworn, gave evidence as follows : 
 1 have had to do with cattle nearly all my life, and I have sixteen head at present. I have not 
 dehorned any cattle and I am not in favor of the practice. I have used brass knobs and found 
 them to work all right. If I found an animal still continued vicious I might be in favor of 
 taking the horns off. I like the look of the horns and I would not like to see them all taken off. 
 I think it must be a very painful operation. 
 
 James Day, farmer, township of North Oxford, sworn, said : I have about 30 years' 
 experience with cattle, and have 22 head at present. I have not dehorned my cattle and 
 don't intend to. 
 
 Q. You gave evidence in the recent prosecution 1 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Has anything occurred to make you change your opinion since then ? A. Only to make me 
 a little more sure that dehorning is wrong. There has been a great deal of talk about dehorned 
 cattle going up to the drinking trough so quietly. Now I have seen four or five horned cattle 
 drink together out of a cauldron kettle. I have seen a little trouble through one or two keeping 
 the others away, but I believe that if animals are used kindly there won't be so much trouble. 
 I don't go as far as some who say that dehorning is a terrible piece of cruelty. It is done quick, 
 of course. I dehorned one cow myself since the trial to see the effect of it. Here's my idea of 
 this thing, it leaves room for defrauding the public as to the age. I honestly can't see any 
 necessity for it. Even with the vicious ones we don't need to go so far. Cutting the tips is a 
 sure thing. I have been a horse doctor for about 21 years, though 1 have not graduated from 
 any college. I have been looking at some of these dehorned cattle and I saw no bad results 
 any more than this, they seemed to be too docile, always moping and seem to have no life ; I 
 would call them idiots. In my experience I have only been called upon to attend one case 
 where a horse was injured from goring and in that case it was the stableman that should have 
 been dehorned for he had been chasing the cow with a pitchfork. 1 put a ring and chain on a 
 
102 
 
 vicious bull once, and he was as docile as could be desired after that. I believe that the hired man 
 causes more vicious animals than anything else. Lots of people don't handle their cattle right. 
 
 Q. Bow did the cow that you dehorned do? A. It healed up nicely. She was vicious 
 before but is not now ; in fact shj is the other way. 
 
 Q. Have you ever heard of cows that were dehorned and that suffered excessively ? A. No, 
 I can't say that I have. 
 
 Q. Do you know of any farmer who has dehorned his cattle and is now dissatisfied ? A. 
 No, they are all satisfied as far as I know. 
 
 Henry Goldino, farmer, Thamesford, sworn, said : I am engaged in general farming, and 
 keep from 30 to 40 head for beefing chiefly. I am opposed to dehorning as I think the catt e 
 are all right without it, except in special cases. 
 
 Q. Have you had cattle or other animals injured by the horns ? A. No ; well I had some 
 sheep injured once. Of course cattle dehorned cannot hurt each other. 
 
 Q. What are your objections to cutting off the horns 1 A. I think it is cruelty, and then 
 the awe is judged by the horns. 
 
 Q. But if there were no horns might buyers not find other means of judging as to the age ? 
 A. I suppose they might. 
 
 Q. Now, you think it is painful ; have you seen the operation 1 A. No, I have only seen 
 two cows that had been dehorned. I think that to tip the horns of vicious animals would be 
 sufficient. 
 
 James H. Wilson, veterinary surgeon, London, sworn, testified as follows: I am a graduate 
 of the Ontario Veterinary College, and have been practising in London for the past 24 years. 
 My practice is among the farmers as well as in town. So far as I can see dehorning is not a 
 necessity. I have not been called upon much professionally for injuries done by horns, 
 only one cow and two or three cases of horses. It may be, as dairymen say, that the animals 
 are quieter after dehorning, but 1 think this is because of the tenderness of the head after 
 the operation. I lived on a farm until I was 20 and we always found tipping to be sufficient. 
 I should say the reason why dehorned animals are so quiet is that they are afraid to come in 
 contact with each other. I would not say there was constant suffering unless when the dehorned 
 part comes in contact with a hard substance. 
 
 Q. Now, if there was a measure of good flowing from this practice would you consider it 
 justifiable ? A. It all depends on the measure of good. I think the practice could only be 
 justified if there was a great amount of good. 
 
 Q. Have you ever been called upon in your practice to take horns off ? A. No, but I 
 have attended several that had their horns broken. 
 
 Q. There were signs of pain ? A. Yes, such as shaking the head, sneezing, switching the 
 tail and stamping the feet. 
 
 Q. Suppose a cow gets her horn broken at six in the morning say, would there be a rise of 
 temperature at 12 o'clock. A. Yes, about three hours after, and there would be a quickening 
 of the pulse. 
 
 Q. If you could get a quickened pulse and a higher temperature what effect would that 
 have on the milk ? A. The milk woul 1 not be as good and there might not be as much. 
 
 Q. You have never seen this operation performed 1 A. No, I don't want to see it. 
 
 Q. "W hy ' A. Because I think it is an outrage upon the animal creation. The membi'ane 
 lining of the horn is highly sensitive, and the horn is supplied with blood vessels and nerves ; 
 these accompany each other. 
 
 Q. You agree that nature immediately begins to repair the wound, and that there is a 
 discharge of mucous I A. Or of pus, sometimes we have healing by first intention, but 1 fancy 
 that in many of these cases it would not heal in that way. Pus would be discharged and it 
 would run down over the wound. 
 
 Q. Would you say that where it is stated there was a discharge of something that that 
 discharge was pus ? A. No, I could not tell that. 
 
 Q. How would you recognise the difference 1 A. Pus is a little thicker, and there is 
 generally a little odor. The wound can only heal through a certain inflammatory process. 
 
 Q. Then suppose the curative process is brought about in this way is there necessarily 
 pain ? A. Yes, there would be some. 
 
 Q. What amount of suffering is involved in the healing over of the aperture ? A. We could 
 not measure it well, but there would be considerable. I don't think there is a necessity for the 
 dehorning of cattle, or that the benefits are adequate. If tht animal were dangerous to man 
 and tipping were not sufficient then it might be justified. I can't see any reason why a quiet 
 animal should have its horns taken off. 
 
 CALEB H. MxxlsoN, farmer, White Oak, sworn said : I keep at present nine head of cattle 
 and have kept from thirty to forty with my brother. I cut tho tips ofi the horns of one of my 
 
103 
 
 cattle and it didn't do as much good as I thought it would. I am in favor of dehorning. My 
 brother had his herd dehorned and I was favorably impressed by the results. 
 
 William H. York, farmer, Dorchester, sworn said : I am engaged in mixed farming, and 
 keep about thirty head or so of cattle. 
 
 Q. You were prosecuted for dehorning ? A. Yes, it was me that made all the trouble. 
 
 Q. What led you to take the horns off? A. I had a boy hooked by a bull, and we decided 
 to take its horns off. It was in cold weather. He did well, but there was considerable dis- 
 charge — more than there would be if I had taken more care of him. I have dehorn 3d bulls for 
 the past five years or so. Then I noticed that Kinney's cattle did well without the horns, and 
 my brother Edward went into it, and said that I would not be sorry if I went into it. When 
 Mr. Nigh was hauled up I asked the lawyer to come down and see the cattle, but he wouldn't 
 do it. The Crown Attorney also refused. Tamlin came down and said he was sent by the 
 Humane Society. I told him I thought it was a humane act to take off the horns. The second 
 time he came he brought Allan, the constable, with him. The cattle had been drinking and 
 perhaps after the cold water they were shaking themselves a little. There was one animal that 
 had knocked the scab off and was discharging. He tried to make out that the critter was 
 tender and flinched. Then they asked me about the one I lost, and I told them she bled quite 
 a bit. About three weeks after dehorning I noticed that this cow was bleeding at the horn. I 
 was in a hurry, and after bandaging it up I left her. When I came back she was past doing 
 anything for. It was about thirty-six hours before she died that I left her. I supposed that 
 she had hurt her horn, and I think she may have had something else the matter with her as my 
 man told me that the carcass smelled considerable after the hide was taken off. 
 
 Q. Are you pleased with the result as far as you are concerned ? A. Yes. I am quite 
 satisfied my cattle won't suffer in any comparison with horned cattle. It makes them quieter, 
 but my cattle are not fools as some of the witnesses try to make out. They take a rap at each 
 other occasionally, but find they can't hurt, and let it alone. We admit there is some suffer- 
 ing, but nothing in comparison with the injury and suffering the horns will do in a year. I would 
 rather pay an annual tax of $50 than have the horns on. I'd be willing to have some regula- 
 tions adopted, but I don't want to have to get a vet. to do this job. My boy saw it done and 
 then went and did it for a neighbor, and I think he did it all right. 
 
 Q. If the operation were done in a loose and careless way with a poor saw, would you agree 
 that the party ought to be punished ? A. Yes. It slould be done carefully, and with as little 
 pain as possible. I cut off the tips of the horn once and that didn't answer. Then I cut off 
 a little more, to the quick, and I thought that was splendid, but it was only good for a short 
 time, until it healed up, and then the critter was able to punch and bruise. I'd rather have 
 the cattle learn to use their horns before they are taken off. I tried the experiment of cutting 
 out the horn in the calf and I made a bad mess of it — one horn was turned up and the other 
 turned down. Then I tried another time searing with a hot iron, but the pain of that is worse, 
 I think, than dehorning. 
 
 Stephen York, farmer, South Dorchester, sworn said : I have been engaged in farming 
 for many years and keep forty-four head of cattle, for dairying chiefly. I had all my cattle de- 
 horned on November 6th last, and am satisfied with the results. The stock has done better 
 than ever before. I never had them come through the winter so nicely. There is not a scratch 
 on them, and they act like a lot of sheep. I had two or three that were vicious before and they 
 are all right now. It is wrong, I think, to dehorn a part of the herd. If it is going to be done 
 at all the horns ought to be taken off the whole herd so as to make them equal. If only a few are 
 dehorned they will become underlings and the others will take advantage of them. I think it 
 was about a week after the operation that Tamlin came down to see the cows. Out of the lot 
 there were only three that were discharging what might be called pus. It smelled a little as if 
 it was from an old sore. In four weeks they were all right. 
 
 Q. Your brother says he would rather pay a charge of $50 a year than be prevented from 
 taking the horn- off. What would you say about that ? A I would do the same thing. I am 
 quite satisfied that the benefit is worth that. I have made an estimate or calculation in my own 
 mind that I have lost about $10 per year in bloody milk, for the last twenty years. I could no: 
 say, of course, that in every instance this was caused by horns, but the majority of it was. Then 
 some of the vets, say they are not called in to attend cases of injuries from horns. We don't 
 call in anybody. We fix them up ourselves or pass them over. We couldn't be sending for a 
 vet. every time. I was opposed to dehorning until I saw how nicely my brother Edward's herd 
 was getting along. When I saw the operation I whs surprised that the cattle didn't make more 
 fuss than they did. I would prefer the fall, just past fly time, for the operation. I don't think 
 it requires a professional man to do this work. Self-interest will prevent a farmer from injur- 
 ing his stock. 
 
104 
 
 London, Friday, June 3rd. 
 
 The Commission resumed its investigation in the Court House at 10 o'clock on Friday morn- 
 ing, June 3rd. 
 
 Mr. Ehward York submitted a statement setting forth that for the defence in the esse of 
 The Queen v. York, the sum of $237 had been expended, in addition to the loss of time and 
 travelling expenses of thirty-three witnesses and others interested. 
 
 Mr. Cha&LBS Hi PC1UN80N, Crown Attorney for the County of Middlesex, being sworn, 
 submitted a statement of the disbursement of $114 received from the Ontario Government for 
 witnesses' and magistrates' fees. He also put in the following statement of facts : 
 
 RE DISHORNING COMMISSION. 
 The Statemknt of Charles S. Hutchinson, County Crown Attorney. 
 
 " I undertook the prosecution of W. V. Nigh at the request of certain respectable and reliable per- 
 sons interested in the welfare of horned domestic animals, whose names I prefer not to mention. Unfor- 
 tunately before the case came to trial, I met with an accident which prevented my attending to the matter 
 myself, and although it was placed in competent hands and I am sure that everything was done that could 
 be reasonably expected, the case for some reason or other miscarried and was dismissed. 
 
 'Some time afterwards, the prosecution against William York and others was brought on under simi- 
 lar influeuces— as an infringement of the Dominion Act relating to cruelty to animals— in dehorning some- 
 where about thirty milch cows, thus cruelly and unnecessarily mutilating the unfortunate animals. In or- 
 der to make sure of the facts before commencing proceedings, I induced C. S. Tamlin, V.S., and Detective 
 Allen to visit the defendant, Wm. York's farm and inspect the dehorned cows, which they did accordingly 
 with the results stated in their evidence before the magistrates. Feeling, therefore, sure of my ground, I 
 caused the three defendants, Wm. York, Edward York, and W.A . Elliott to be summoned to answer te 
 said charge of unnecessary cruelty to these thirty cows by cutting off their horns, and the case therefore 
 came for trial before Justices Smyth and Lacey in this shape, with the result that all three defendants were 
 convicted and fined $50 and costs. They appealed in the ordinary way to the next sessions, which will 
 open on Monday next, when the case would have come before the proper legal tribunal in the mannei pro- 
 vided by the Dominion criminal law, if proceedings had not been stayed by the order of the Attorney- 
 General of Ontario, previous to the appointing of the Commission for inquiring into the propriety, or 
 otherwise, of the practice of dishorning. 
 
 "I wish here to call the attention of the Commission to the fact that the prosecution in question was 
 limited to the acts of cruelty alleged to have been committed upon these particular thirty cows, and did 
 not, therefore, involve the question whether or not dishorning mierhtnot in certain cases be permissible, and 
 it was to make this fact clear that at the second sittings of the magisterial court, I defined in precise para- 
 graphs, the questions intended for the consideration of the Bench in relation to the acts of cruelty charged. 
 
 " I made an appeal to the public for aid which was kindly responded to by many of our leading citi- 
 zens and by outside humane societies, notably of Toronto, Simcoe and Niagara Falls, but unhappily not by 
 our local society, although I attended a meeting of the society and urged as forcibly as I knew how the 
 claims of the domestic cow, to whom we all are so much indebted, to be protected from cruel treatment by 
 cruel, greedy men, and offered my services gratuitously to conduct whatever proceedings might be found 
 necessary. My appeal to the London Humane Society having so completely failed, I had no alternative 
 but to proceed and do my best under somewhat discouraging circumstances. 
 
 " In my appeal I stated the grounds on which I relied for supporting the prosecution, as fully as I 
 could then or can now. I therefore beg to refer the Commission to that appeal of which I ask permission 
 to present a copy. 
 
 " I will merely add that the text of my appeal is to be found in the second paragraph, wherein I state, 
 ' that a farmer when accused lately of cruelty to his cows by dishorning a large number, replied that he 
 had the right to do what he liked with his own property, irrespective of the consequences.' 
 
 "These words I and others heard uttered by Mr. Wm. York. " And itis against this principle I con- 
 tend in behalf of our fellow creatures, the milch cows, who have personal interests as sacred as our own 
 and towards whom no cruelty should be permitted for the sake of mere personal gain. 
 
 Charles Hutchinson, 
 London, June 3, 1892. County Crown-Attorney. 
 
 Mr. Drury. — I see Mr. Hutchinson, that in the indictment of the recent case you speak 
 of the advantage to the animals themselves and to the public generally ; Lord Coleridge, I 
 believe, lays it down that there must be proportion of gain to the suffering. We would like to 
 have your views on this point. You say for cruelly and unnecessarily torturing thirty cows — 
 now one authority says it may be a question as to the manner in which the operation is performed I 
 A. I limit everything to these particular cows — nothing was done for these animals after the 
 operation. 
 
 Q. In one cas*e it might be well done and in another it might not ? A. Assuming that in 
 any one particular case it was proved that the cow was a particularly vicious one and there was 
 do other way in which it could be subdued— still the obligation would rest upon the owner to 
 
105 
 
 bave the operation properly performed. I don't admit the right of dehorning, but even admit- 
 ting that it is necessary in some cases — and I don't presume to say that it might not be — it 
 should be done in a proper manner. It is like everything else — you might drive a horse along 
 the road in such a way as to be guilty of cruelty to the animal. 
 
 Q. That is — what is lawful to be done, if properly done is right, but if improperly done is 
 wrong ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. So that if you were sitting on the bench trying two cases — if in one case the operation 
 was improperly done you would convict, and if in the other it was properly done you would not 
 be likely to convict ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. There is the question of necessity and then the way in which it is done ? A. There was 
 no evidence to show that there was necessity to cut off the horns of this herd. There is no 
 ■evidence to show that there was a single vicious cow in the herd. 
 
 Q. Now, following the judgment in the English case, and coming to the question of justifi- 
 cation — it was shown that the animals were increased in value from £1 to £2; stress is laid on 
 that as a justification — do you say that we must confine the advantage to the public generally 
 and exclude the advantage and profit to the owner ? A. My view is this — supposing that by 
 cutting off the horns there was a little less care and attention needed — for instance, in driving 
 cattle from one place to another — this could easily be provided for if proper means were taken — 
 I would say that was not an advantage to the public generally. 
 
 Q William and Stephen York in their evidence have stated that they would be willing to 
 pay a yearly tax of $50 rather than be deprived of the privilege of dehorning their cattle— now, 
 here is a statement from a financial aspect ? A. I am strongly of the opinion that that is not a 
 justifiable cause for the operation. Take the castration of horses, there is a public necessity 
 for that. 
 
 Q. Can you separate private interests from the public interest in dealing with a question 
 of this kind? A. Yes, I think so — special private interests— there is the making of a little 
 extra profit by keeping cows having their horns off, and against that there are certain disad- 
 vantages to the public that make it undesirable to authorize anything of the kind. 
 
 Q. Now, we exported last year 100,000 head of beef cattle from this Dominion. Suppose 
 I were to go to all the breeders in this country and say — gentlemen, I can tell you something 
 you can do that will enhance the value of your cattle $5 per head (an increase altogether of 
 perhaps $500,000) would it not be a necessary result that if the owners gained that amount, 
 there would be a great advantage to the public generally? A. I don't take that view of the 
 case at all, and I would not like to express an opinion upon that point. 
 
 Q Now suppose all the farmers in this county dehorned their cattle and came forward and 
 said the results were worth $50 per year to them, we would say that was a private gain in the 
 first instance ; then we would also say that cattle generally are made more valuable, and that by 
 increasing the wealth of the country to that ex ent, the public good woujd be advanced ? A. I 
 see no fault with that reasoning if it is a justifiable operation. 
 
 Q. Has not that view been taken, that the practice was justifiable, because it meant an 
 increase in the value of the animal ? A. I don't view this question from a money standpoint — 
 I exclude that altogether. What I say is this — if it is shown that milch cows could not be used 
 for the purposes for which they are intended — that is, to give milk, as they have been doing in 
 this county for the last seventy-five years, then I would say that there would be a justification, 
 on the same principle as the castration of horses. It is a question of proportion, but not allow- 
 ing private or individual gain to come into account. It seems to me that the question of private 
 advantage is not, properly, to be considered. There is not a necessity for the operation. It 
 ought to be shown that you could not use the cows safely, and then there might be some argu- 
 ment. If you can't curb and subdue cattle by a little trouble there might be justification. 
 Then I say that even a cow has certain rights that should be respected. 
 
 Q. You say it is more reasonable that the owner should be put to expense and extra trouble 
 rather than that the horns should be taken off? A. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Macpherson. — Would 'hat not apply also to castration? A. No, because we know 
 we can use these cows without dehorning, and it is claimed that we can't use horses in their 
 natural state 
 
 Q. I think you admitted that in some cases vicious animals might be dehorned ? A. What 
 I said was if they can't be controlled in any other way. 
 
 Mr. Glendinning. — Have you seen the operation performed? A. No, I have not, and I 
 would be very sorry to look at it. I would rather take the opinion of experienced men. I 
 think I can use my own judgment to understand that it is impossible to cut off* the horns without 
 causing great pain. I strongly object to the sentiment that William York expressed in this very 
 room at th* time of the trial, that a man can do as he likes with his own. 
 
 Mr. Drury. — Now, in the Norfolk case, twelve or thirteen veterinarians practically said 
 they had not seen the operation, but they judged from a study of anatomy that there must be 
 pain. Others, practical men, say, well no matter about anatomy, we have seen the operation 
 
10f> 
 
 and don't see the evidences of pain. Don't you agree that pain will give indications of its 
 presence P A. Well, under certain circumstances, I can understand an animal being so com- 
 pletely intimidated that she remains in a sort of dazed condition. 
 
 Q. For the purpose of showing the interest involved could you give us an idea of the costs 
 in the recent trial ? A. I gave my services gratuitously, then there was $114 paid in witness 
 fees, and another $100 was expended, chiefly contributed by private parties. 
 
 Q. Would you say that this practice might be a matter of permission under proper 
 regulations I A. I would say that if the practice were being permitted, it would be most desir- 
 able that there should be certain regulations as to how it should be done, and under what circum- 
 stances ; bur of course I say this without committing myself that it is something that ought to- 
 be permitted. 
 
 Humane Society Deputation. 
 
 The following gentlemen were then introduced by Mr. Kelso as a deputation from the- 
 London Humane Society : The president, Mr. Perrin, Rev. Dean Innes, Rev. Canon Davis and 
 Mr. Talbot MacBeth. 
 
 Rev. Dean Innes said : Wearenot here, gentlemen, to give evidence or to seek to urdulyinflu- 
 ence any decision that may be arrived at. We feel quite certain that your decision will be influ- 
 enced by the evidence submitted to you and not available to us, and we are sure that you will give 
 a decision based upon the best interests of humanity. We desire, of course, that if this practice is 
 permitted it should be surrounded with such conditions that it will only be practised under proper 
 regulations, by persons properly qualified and with instruments suited for the purpose. If 
 it must be done there should be such safeguards as will render it as little painful to the animals 
 as possible. 
 
 Mr. Druey. — Do you suggest that the operation ought to be performed by a professional 
 man I A. The idea of our society is, 1 think, that if performed, it ought to be by parties pro- 
 perly qualified. 
 
 Mr. Drury. — We have enquired of the largely-interested parties in this case as to whether 
 they themselves would object to certain restrictions, and with one exception all have said that 
 they would have no objection. They say, however, we would object to be bound to secure the 
 services of a professional man, but ff a statute were passed it might be made plain that the 
 operation should be performed by a person capable of doing it properly and surrounded by safe- 
 guards calculated to prevent needless pain. 
 
 Rev. Dean Innes. — I think that would embody the views of the Humane Society. In many 
 instances it might be impossible to obtain the services of a regular practitioner or veterinary 
 surgeon, but if dehorning is decided to be desirable and necessary in the interests of the farmer, 
 as w r ell as for the safety of the cattle, it ought to be performed in such a way as will not inflict 
 unnecessary pain. 
 
 Bev. Canon Davis. — Gentlemen, we are thankful for the opportunity of expressing our 
 views, though we may differ of course on this question. I am afraid that if it is left in that way 
 everyone and anyone will think himself capable of performing the operation. We know that in 
 regard to man, it is a medical practitioner, authorized by law, who amputates a limb. We believe 
 there must be pain in taking off a horn, as there would be in taking off a finger, and it does seem 
 to me that the veterinary surgeon, who understands the entire anatomy would be the most cap- 
 able man. I have seen cattle a good deal in the country, and I have observed great pain when 
 a horn is accidently knocked off. I am decidedly opposed to the idea of dehorning, but if it 
 should be necessary to have it done, we desire to point out, that although God has committed the 
 dumb animals to man for his use, it is not his right to inflict unnecessary pain. Therefore, we- 
 consider that if the practice is permitted, it should be done as carefully and with as little suffering 
 as possible. I desire to add also, that the reason why our Humane Society did not back up Mr. 
 Hutchinson, in prosecuting the recent case, was because we were in our infancy, we had no 
 experience in such matters and we had no money in the treasury. It was not, I assure you, 
 through any lack of sympathy with him in the stand he took. 
 
 Mr. Pekrin. — I have nothing further to add, gentlemen. I thank you on behalf of our 
 Society for the kind hearing you have given us. 
 
 Mr. MacBeth. — There is one point I would like to speak of. as to the possibility of this 
 operation being performed with less pain during the infancy of the animal. As a member of 
 the Humane Society, I think I might ask that the Commission give due consideration to this 
 feature of the question. 
 
 On behalf of the Commission, the chairman promised a careful consideration of the points, 
 raised, and the dej>utation withdrew. 
 
107 
 
 It was then decided to adjourn until Tuesday, June 14th, at 2.30 p. m., when the meeting 
 will be resumed in the Rossin House, Toronto. 
 
 The following witnesses were requested to appear before the Commission at London, to give 
 evidence, but they failed to attend : 
 
 Jonathon Dagroat, Avon. 
 David Longfield, Crompton. 
 Joseph Morris, Crompton. 
 Charles Choate, Putman. 
 John Johnson, Avon. 
 
 William Joliffe, Avon. 
 Alex. Crawford, Avon. 
 William Stirton, Brownsville. 
 Murray Smith, Avon. 
 
 Toronto, June 14th. 
 
 The Commission held a four-days session at Toronto, from June 14-17, and received the 
 following evidence : 
 
 Dr. Bertram Spencer, sworn, said : I am a graduate of the University of Toronto, and 
 a member of the College of Surgeons, England. I have been practising in Toronto for the 
 past twelve years ; am a member of the active staff of the Toronto General Hospital, and a 
 lecturer at Trinity Medical College. I am aware of the objectB for which this Commission was 
 appointed. I have studied the anatomy of the horn, and I have had considerable experience 
 also in operations upon human subjects. " _ 
 
 Mr. Drury.— What are your general impressions as to dehorning? A. Without having 
 seen the operation, and without being a sentimentalist at all, my opinion is that it would be an 
 exceedingly painful operation to the animal. I believe that animals have not as highly developed 
 nervous organizations as we have, but I know from what I have seen of cattle that if you strike 
 them on the horn they flinch and draw back ; from that I infer that the horn is very sensitive, 
 and I know that the nerve supply of the horn is very plentiful, i have never seen the opera- 
 tion, but I have seen the horn knocked off, and there are unmistakable signs of pain then. 
 
 Q. Would you expect an increase in the temperature if there is a great amount of pain 1 
 A. Not necessarily ; only where there is inflammation. 
 
 Q. Would pain be indicated by the pulse 1 A. Yes, that would get weak and rapid. 
 
 Q. Now, if you had witnessed the operation, each horn being taken off in about five and a half 
 seconds, and none of the usual indications of suffering, what would you say as to the duration of 
 pain ? A. It would be like pulling a tooth— a sharp pain during the operation, and afterwards 
 no great pain. I think the pain afterwards would be if inflammation set in. 
 
 °Q. Might there be a discharge from the opening that would not be pus 1 A. Yes, 
 there might be a mucous discharge, the membrane secretes mucous, and this might be increased, 
 but that could be seen at once under the microscope. If there were no pus there would be no 
 inflammation. 
 
 Q. Then you say that if the operation is done in about five and a half seconds, the pain 
 would be confined to that time? A. Yes, while the nerves were being severed, and if there 
 were no signs of inflammation afterwards. Where pus forms I would expect pain. 
 
 Q. What would be the effect r f the atmosphere upon the open cavity ? A. In cold or very 
 hot weather, inflammation would be more likely than if it were done in the middle seasons. If 
 the opening were covered over to exclude the air that might be better also. 
 
 Q. What is your opinion as to the rights of man over these domestic animals 1 A. I think 
 that when the Almighty gave us these animals, He meant us to inflict a certain amount of pain, 
 but I believe that any pain inflicted should be necessary pain, and done with as tender a hand 
 
 as possible. . , 
 
 Q. What would you say was necessary pain ? A. If you were going to benefit mankind, 
 such as by the castration of animals, then I think no one can say it is not a justifiable operation. 
 
 Q. Do you agree that there must be a proportion between the amount of good and the 
 amount of pain inflicted 1 A. Yes, I think that is perfectly sound. 
 
 Q. Now, if it were shown that the value of these animals would be increased, say $3. per 
 head, would that be a justification 1 A. I don't think so. If I had a herd of cattle I certainly 
 would not cut off the horns for the sake of making $300. 
 
 Q. We have the evidence of the lessee of the cattle market. I think he said he had been 
 there ten years, and that from 75,000 to 100,000 cattle pass through there every year. He gave 
 as his opinion that not less than ten per cent, of these cattle were injured to a greater or less 
 extent by the horns, and also that in his opinion there was a larger amount of suffering involved 
 by reason of goring, than there would be pain if the animals were all dehorned. Suppose a large 
 amount of pain could be saved to the animal themselves, would that be a justification ? A. I 
 have not seen much damage done— one animal to the other. I can hardly credit the statem nt 
 that ten per cent, would be injured. Of course, if one animal killed another, I think it might 
 be dehorned. 
 
108 
 
 Q, Mr. York said that lie would be willing to pay fifty dollars per year for the right to 
 dehorn, you don't think that should be considered in settling this question ? A. No, his views 
 are naturally one-sided, as he was brought up for doing this. If 1 could see that the amount 
 of pain inflicted by animals upon each other, would equal the amount of pain of the operation, 
 then 1 might modify my views. It seems hard to punish the innocent with the guilty and 
 remove the horns of thirty or forty because one or two are vicious. 
 
 Q. Do you consider that castration and spaying are justifiable 1 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Why is spaying justifiable ? A. Well, if you are feeding these animals you lose a certain 
 amount of profit. 
 
 Q. But you say that an increased money value should not be considered 2 A. Well, spay- 
 ing is rarely done. 
 
 Q. Now, in the case of spaying, if it improved the meat would you consider that justifi- 
 able i A. No . 
 
 Q. How about docking lambs' tails ? A. That is different from dehorning. The tail is 
 cartilage ; you can cut off a pup's tail without his hardly feeling it. I think the castration 
 of lambs and cutting tails is justifiable, and the pain isn't to be compared to dehorning. 
 
 Q. Is it not true that nature begins to heal at once where there is an injury ? A. Yes, 
 lymph is thrown out and the part becomes sealed over gradually. 
 
 Toronto Humane Society. 
 
 A deputation was then received from the Toronto Humane Society, consisting of Messrs, 
 S. G. Wood, W. A. Sims, Mervyn MacKenzie and George Taunt. 
 
 Mr. Sih.s said : Gentlemen, you have been hearing a good deal from the financial, com- 
 mercial and surgical point of view, and we want to present the humane or aesthetic side, for we 
 are afraid that in the clash of other interests the humane aspect will be left out or forgotten. We 
 are interested in securing the humane treatment of cattle in transportation and in the stock 
 yards, and the kind treatment of animals generally. We think that in doing this, we are 
 advancing the best interests of the country. We are glad that the Commission has been 
 appointed, and that it is composed of practical men like yourselves, but we want you not to lose 
 sight of the pain inflicted on the animals. We hope you will allow pain to balance against the 
 amount of gain by the practice. Then if the practice must be allowed, we think the operation 
 should be performed by a skilled veterinary, with proper precautions against blow-flies and 
 other dangers. This is neither commercial nor financial, but humane, and I am speaking now 
 more to the heart than to the head. 
 
 Mr. Drury. — Assuming that we find it a practice that ought to be permitted, would it not be 
 sufficient to say that if there is unnecessary cruelty that person should be liable to prosecution, 
 and that if it is done properly there should not be the same liability ? A. Yes, I suppose so. 
 
 Mr. Woon. — I have only to point out to the Commission that the case in England seems to 
 show that the pain inflicted was very great. The decision against the practice was given by 
 two gentlemen who could not be termed sentimentalists and they expressed very strong opinions 
 as to the character of the practice. 
 
 Mr. Tatnt not being prepared, asked for an opportunity of addressing the Commission on 
 Thursday, which was granted. The deputation then withdrew. 
 
 Jo.suua Ingham being called and sworn, said: I reside in York township and have been 
 engaged in the cattle business for the past thirty years. I have handled as many as 1,000 head 
 per week. My impression from the very first has been that this dehorning business is diametri- 
 cally opposed to all the interests concerned. I think it is all wrong. If we want cattle without 
 horns we could breed them, and it would be only a matter of a year or so until we could get 
 meat, milk and docility. Of course if they must come off right away, the most expeditious way 
 would be to cut them off. It is a revelation to me that dehorned cattle should be more valuable. 
 An animal that slouches along without horns is nothing like an animal with a fine noble pair of 
 horns. 
 
 Q. Have you ever suffered loss from the horns of the cattle you have handled ? A. 1 don't 
 think J have suffered over $5100 loss in my experience. Sometimes they get their horns knocked 
 off, and you can hear them bellow and show signs of great pain. 
 
 Q. Nunc of the witnesses claim it would not be right even if the animals were greatly in- 
 creased in value. What would you say to that ? A. Well, no, I don't belong to the humane 
 
 t v, although I believe that it pays to treat all animals kindly. I don't think from a business 
 view there would be any gain if the horns were off. I think there would be a loss from a 
 dealer's standpoint. 
 
 Q. If dairymen are agreed that from their standpoint there is a great advantage in having 
 hornless cattle, do you think it would bo unreasonable that they should have the right to dehorn 
 
109 
 
 their stock ? A. They would be justified if the pain were so slight as to make it a secondary 
 consideration. I would favor tipping, and then cattle can be prevented doing injury by 
 putting on brass knobbs or a beard across from horn to horn. 
 
 Q. Do you think there is a possibility of fraud as to age if the horns are off? A. Not 
 much ; if the teeth are good the cow is all right. I would judge by the teeth and the general 
 appearance. What we want is to get better blood into our cattle ; it is these old bushwhackers 
 that make the trouble, and I would recommend that they have their horns taken off low down in 
 the neck. 
 
 Henry Wickson, Toronto, sworn, said: I am a retail butcher and have handled cattle in 
 a small way for a good many years. 
 
 Q. Have you ever seen danger from the horns in handling cattle 1 A. We see a good many 
 scratches, but there are bruises from other causes than the horns. The injury to the flesh from 
 horns is not very great. I don't think it would be any special advantage to have cattle dehorned. 
 
 Q. You don't think there is an element of danger from the horns when strange cattle are 
 bi'ought together ? A. Not largely; doubtless they do chase each other a good deal. I have seen 
 mixed loads, where there would be two or three without horns aud these would be subjected to 
 persecution from the others. Then a broken horn is a very painful thing. Of course I have 
 seen cattle hook each other, but they are generally surface scratches. I have not seen enough 
 injury done to make me consider that dehorning is desirable, Cattle often injure themselves 
 by knocking up against gates or posts and this could not be blamed on the horns. 
 
 The Commission adjourned at 5 o'clock to meet on the following morning at 10 o'clock. 
 
 Wednesday, June 15th. 
 
 The Commission resumed the hearing of evidence on Wednesday morning, all the members 
 being present. 
 
 John Mallon, Toronto, sworn, said : I have been extensively engaged in the cattle trade, 
 but at present merely buy for local consumption. At one time I bought up cattle in various 
 parts of the province. 
 
 Q. Have you seen any damage to cattle from horns in bringing them together at the start- 
 ing point 1 A. Yes, from the beginning to the end. 1 have seen the whole sides of cattle des- 
 troyed—not only the beef, but the hide. At the Western cattle market I have always seen two 
 or three out of every carload that would bear marks of horns. There would be 10 per cent, in- 
 jured, more or less, and two or three percent, seriously damaged. This will always happen as 
 long as there are horns." 
 
 Q. Would there be a good deal of suffering from all this ? A. There must be tremend- 
 ous suffering. 
 
 Q. What is your idea as to the pain of the operation ? A. I think it is no more pain to 
 take the horns off a bullock than it is to cut the ears of a dog. We had a cow once that the 
 doctor said was suffering from the hollow horn ; we cut the horns off and, although she was too 
 far gone to recover, the operation did not seem to be a very painful one. 
 
 Q. As a buyer would you be much influenced by the horns in buying ? A. I would look at 
 the body. I would be influenced to some extent by the horns, as a bullock with good horns 
 would look better and heavier than a similar animal without horns. We don't calculate the 
 weight quite so heavy where the horns are off. As to the age, a butcher who understands his 
 business can tell without looking at the horns whether its an old or young animal. The teeth 
 are the main thing. Up to seven years < Id the teeth would be in good condition. 
 
 Q. Do you consider that the amount of advantage would counterbalance the infliction of 
 pain ? A. Yes, by one hundred percent. I believe that the cattle would all be better off with- 
 out horns. They would be better for ordinary use, better for shipping and less dangerous. 
 About ten years ago there was a Mr. Reeves killed here by a two-year-old steer. 
 
 Q. If you were buying would you give a preference to dehorned cattle? A. Yes, because 
 then there would be no injury to the beef or to the hides. 
 
 Mr. Giuson. — Would it not be better to tie up the cattle if you are suffering to the extent 
 of ten percent. A. Yes, it would, perhaps, if you were only handling a small lot, but as a busi- 
 ness there is a great deal of work and trouble about it, and people would not take the time to 
 do it. 
 
 Mr. Macpherson. — You believe the suffering is greater from hooking than from the oper- 
 ation ? A. Yes, over 100 per cent. I look upon dehorning as something like pulling a couple 
 of teeth. 
 
110 
 
 Mr. GLEKDINNINO. —Suppose there was a rake along the brisket, what would be the loss from 
 that .' A. If the animal were slaughtered and sold, it would knock half a cent a pound off. 
 
 William Booth, Toronto, sworn, said : I am a wholesale butcher and handle from thirty- 
 five to forty-five head of cattle per week. I have been in the business about twenty -five years 
 and have had to do with thousands of cattle. I agree with what Mr. Mallon says. I have seen 
 cattle hooked so badly that they were not worth anything. 
 
 < ( >. What is your estimate of the number injured from hooking ? A. I hardly think there 
 would 1' ten percent, injured. There might be some marked that would not be from hooks. 
 Sometimes cattle are injured in the car or in the yards not from horns at all. 
 
 ij. Are you in favor of the practice of dehorning I A. Yes, I think it would be a good 
 thing. I have not seen the operation, but I have seen cattle that were dehorned. To dehorn 
 would do away with a good deal of loss and would save considerable suffering. 
 
 Sylvester Halligan, Toronto, sworn, said : I have been engaged in the cattle trade for 
 the past ten or twelve years, and last year myself and partner bought 19,000 head. I have 
 sometimes sold cattle for local consumption where the butchers would come back and want a 
 reduction on account of damage done by the horns. In a load, two or three will often be sold 
 at reduced rates, perhaps $6 or $8 less. 
 
 Q. Would you say that ten per cent, were more or less injured ? A. Yes, occasionally, not 
 
 always. 
 
 Q. All things considered would you be in favor of dehorning for the beefing trade I A. 
 Yes, from my experience I would be strongly in favor of dehorning. 
 
 Q. Is there much suffering caused in the market through hooking ? A. Yes, a good deal ; 
 it seems to be a rule that if there are two or three in a load that are cowardly, the others will 
 all take a rap at them. You can often see one trying to get into a corner with the others 
 Tifcfir it 
 
 Q. Would it be practicable to tie up the cattle ? A. That is only done in the London, Eng- 
 land, market I think. When I was over there with some cattle, 1 saw some dehorned stock that 
 came from Norfolk. They were lying down like sheep. Whether it was from losing their horns 
 young or not I don't know, but they seemed very quiet. We were trying to separate ours to 
 keep!hem from goring, and it was pretty hard to see good money going fast while the others 
 were lying quiet and contented. 
 
 Q. Did the dehorned cattle sell for more money? A. 1 did not have any experience of 
 that, but I was told the others would be worth more as they would be free from bruises. 
 
 Q. Even assuming that there is a good deal of suffering in the operation, looking at the 
 commercial view of it and the pain indicted upon one animal by another would you think de- 
 horning would be a desirable thing ! A. Yes, I think it would be a humane thing. The ani- 
 mals suffer more from each other than they would from the operation. 
 
 John TTallam, Toronto, sworn, said : I have been an alderman in this city for twenty 
 years. I was interested in the cattle trade once to the extent that I advanced money to buyers. 
 I have also gone over the Atlantic with loads of cattle. 
 
 Q. You heard the last witness speak of the damage from horns— do you agree with him ? 
 A. I think I would in the main, but all drovers will talk that way, because horns are a direct 
 detriment to them in some way or other. Anything they could make more money out of they 
 would favor, even if it were cutting the legs off the cattle. 
 
 Q. Would you agree as to the inconveniences and loss suffered by the trade through horns? 
 A. I think there is a°certain amount of loss, but I believe that the suffering to the beast would 
 be greater through cutting off the horns. I think horns were given for a purpose or they would 
 not be on the cattle. 
 
 Q. If you have not seen the operation performed, why do you think it would be an exceed- 
 ingly painful thing. A. Well, if I were to cut off my finger it would be painful, and I know 
 there is great suffering when a horn is knocked off. ... . 
 
 Q. Now, if you saw the operation and did not notice much outward indication of suffering, 
 would that shake your opinion as to the amount of pain ? A. Well, 1 am not sure. Of course 
 if it proceeded to eat and drink and enjoy itself I would conclude that it was not suffering a 
 
 Q You are known all over the country as one of the leading dealers in hides ? A. Yes. I 
 have been thirty-two years engaged in that line. 
 
 Q Have you had occasion to notice the damage to hides from horns ? A. 1 es. 
 
 Q Would that represent a loss from a commercial standpoint '! A. Yes. 
 
 Q To what extent ( A. If a hide were sixty pounds and there were two or three bad 
 scores it would mean a loss of perhaps fifty cents, or one cent a pound. A hide of sixty pounds 
 
Ill 
 
 would be worth from $2.60 to $3, so that the loss would be one-fifth of one per cent. But there 
 are 150 ways of damaging the hides. The drovers often use prods that pierce the hid j , then 
 there are the barbed wire fences, warbles, and so on. 
 
 t 
 
 Daniel Walker, Toronto, sworn, said : I am the caretaker of the western cattle market, 
 and have been in that position about seven years. I have the oversight of the market and 
 receive yard and weigh the cattle. 
 
 Q. What number of cattle do you handle in a year ? A. As near as I can remember the 
 number last year was 100,892. 
 
 Q. Would there be an average of 80,000 per year during your seven years ? A. No, not 
 •quite that many. Last market day we had sixty carloads including everything. 
 
 Q. Tell us what you think of the damage done by horns ? A. Well, I have often remarked 
 the pain of the cattle from breaking their horns. You will see a bullock droop his head, get 
 into a corner and refuse to eat, and the horn will Meed a great deal. The drovers usually tie 
 up the stump with tar and a rag. I have not yet seen any cattle that were dehorned. 
 
 Q. From your experience would you say that if the operation of dehorning could be per- 
 formed without inflicting great pain it would be a desirable thing % A. Yes, I think so. I have 
 seen cattle kept on the go all the time by the horns. The timid ones are chased by the others, 
 and they seem to pick on the white bulljcks. Some of these cattle are so abused by the others 
 that they will try to jump the fences to get away. 
 
 Q. What is the size of your yards ? A. The main yards are 30 x 50 feet. They are intended 
 to hold one load. We have no yards large enough for two loads. 
 
 Q. Have you ever seen cattle killed by the horns \ A. We found a bullock of Crawford's 
 •dead in one of the yards the other clay with a hole punched in its side and the Inspector said it 
 died from being hooked, though I thought it was a natural death There has been a good deal 
 of damage done by the cattle to each other. We often have to take an animal out of a yard and 
 put it by itself on account of it being set on by the others. 
 
 William Kelly, Toronto, sworn, said : I have been in the cattle business for about forty 
 years. I am a wholesale butcher, and buy at the western market. I am in favor of dehorning 
 cattle, because I think they would thrive better. Most of the trouble from hooking occurs in 
 the country where drovers bring together a lot of strange animals, cows, steers and bulls. They 
 suffer a great deal from the bruises they get, and the flesh swells up and is spoiled for beef. I 
 have seen dehorning done in Ireland, where they would simply cut the skin around the base of 
 the young horn and twist it off. I regard the horns as a serious inconvenience and loss, and' I 
 think that the gain in having them off would be much greater than the pain of the operation. 
 Butchers would give $2 more for a dehorned animal. I don't think there is any danger of 
 farmers or butchers being deceived in the age if the horns were off. They can judge by the 
 teeth and the general condition. I think it is justifiable to take the horns off when the animal 
 is young, but not after it Ins grown four or five years old. 
 
 William Mole, V. S., Hamilton, sworn, said : I am a member of the Royal College of 
 "Veterinary Surgeons, London, England ; I have been in the veterinary business since I was fifteen 
 or sixteen, and graduated in 1876. I have now been two years living in this country. I am 
 strongly opposed to the practice of dehorning cattle ; no useful end can be served by it and it 
 is cruelty in the extreme to dehorn after six months old. If necessary at all, I think disbudding 
 would be the best way. The only good reason that has been advanced is that without the horns 
 they travel better. 
 
 Q. Have you read the proceedings in the Norfolk case ? A. Yes. I watched that case in the 
 interests of the Society for the prevention of cruelty to animals. 
 
 Q. Now in that case witnesses claimed that the practice increased the value of the animals 
 from 30s. to £2. Do you think that was established? A. That was just the opinion of those 
 .men ; they were trying to prove the benefits of the operation. I don't think there i» much 
 financial advantage in the operation. 
 
 Q. Well, suppose there was an increase in value of 30s. would that be sufficient justification \ 
 A. Hardly. 
 
 Q. Is it a question of degree with you — would 60s. be sufficient > A. I don't think that 
 any financial benefit would justify the practice, though if absolutely necessary it might be done 
 when rhey are young. I look at this question from the humane aspect, and think it should only 
 be allowed if it is necessary for the protection of man or of the animals themselves. 
 
 Q. In all these matters would you say th.it the commercial aspect should be dropped out \ 
 A. Yes. I would not clip dogs' ears or horses' tails. 
 
 Q. Now, I understand you wrote an article in this month's Farmer's Advocate, advising 
 farmers to take up the practice of spaying sows l A. Yes The animal is deprived of a natural 
 .function. I don't think it suffers to a great extent and there is a benefit to it. 
 
112 
 
 Q. In that article you go on to say that the practice is desirable because it brings the- 
 product into more favor with the consumer ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. That it adds to the value ? A. Yes. 
 
 < t >. I dan't Bee how you can reconcile this with your position on dehorning ? A. I think it 
 is to the advantage of the animal itself, as it does not loso so much flesh afterwards. 
 
 Q. Isn't the object of that article 10 show that it is to the advantage of farmers to spay? 
 A. Yes. I think that the increased value of the animal afterwards justifies the operation. 
 
 Q. Now, is it a commercial advantage — if you exclude that then it is a question of humanity 
 to the animal ! A. Well, the humanity side is not very prominent there. 
 
 Q. Would you say that to cut off the horns in six seconds would be a more painful operation 
 than the intricate operation performed on a sow in spaying ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Would you say that money value is not to be considered ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Have you ever seen the operation of dehorning ? A. No, but I have seen fractured 
 horns. 
 
 Q. As a professional man, if called upon to attend an animal suffering from injury, you 
 would have no difficulty in telling if it was in pain ? A. I think not. 
 
 Q. Your opinion is that dehorning must be a tremendous shock to the animal / A. Yes, it 
 must be. The bony tissue itself is not of a very painful nature, but the corium is very sensitive 
 and is largely endowed with nervous force. There are also nerves and blood vessels along the 
 outer surface. 
 
 Q. Would the suffering be continued afterwards ? A. Yes. While the wound is healing 
 there would be pain more or less. 
 
 Q. Now if you saw the operation and could not trace any indications of suffering afterwards 
 what would be your opinion ? A. I would be inclined to think there could not be very great 
 pain. I would expect to see certain indications of suffering. 
 
 Q. You speak of the pain afterwards — do you think there will be inflammatory action after 
 the horn is removed ? A. There must be some inflammatory action or there would be no 
 healing. Inflammation is the process that nature has for healing or restoring the part that has 
 become injured. 
 
 Q. Running on for a week or two weeks would you expect to have a discharge of pus ? 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Would that be of a strong odor ? A. If it came from pain it might be of a strong odor. 
 
 Q. The evidence of those who performed the operation was that there was a discharge, but 
 that it was not, as far as they knew, pus — that it healed ovei>in a few days and that bone sub- 
 sequently formed Now, would you say that there must have been suffering during that process ? 
 A. Yes, there must be suffering under the most favorable circumstances. 
 
 Q. Would you say that if this operation is to be performed there should be an after treat- 
 ment '( A. Yes. I think there should be an antiseptic applied. 
 
 Mr. M.wTHERSON. — If there was any considerable amount of suffering would you not expect 
 a decrease in the flow of milk ( A. Yes. I would expect a falling off if there was a disturbance 
 of the nervous system. 
 
 Q. Do you know of any man who has performed this operation and is now opposed to it? 
 A. No. 
 
 Q. You were retained professionally by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to 
 Animals in the Norfolk case ? A. Yes. 
 
 .Ions Willis, Toronto, sworn, said: lama member of the Toronto police force, and for 
 the past tour years I have been special officer for the prevention of cruelty to animals. I have 
 visi ed the cattle market twice a week, to see that no cruelty was carried on there. 
 
 Q. Have you seen much injury done by the horns? A. Yes. Sometimes quite a bit, 
 especially when Btrange cattle get together. Sometimes you will hear them bellow, and there 
 must be some pain in that case. 
 
 Q. Have you ever noticed cases of broken horn ? A. Yes ; it is a rare thing to see a 
 market day without broken horns ami they suffer a great deal in that way. Muleys are quieter 
 asa rule, but 1 have seen some vicious ones. If this operation is allowed at all it should not be 
 done in the warm weather and I think it should be done when the animals are young. There is 
 a loss from hooking, but I don't, think it is sufficient to warrant cutting off the horns close to the 
 head. I have never seen the operation, but 1 should think it would be very painful. 
 
 Eijwakd A. Thompson, Toronto, sworn, said : I am inspector of hides for Toronto, 
 appointed by the Dominion Govi rniuent. Most of the hides sold in Toronto go through my 
 
113 
 
 ■office. I inspected last year nearly 50,000 pieces — hides and calf skins. They are classified as 
 No. 1, 2 or 3. No. 1 is a perfect hide ; No. 2 is damaged slightly ; No. 3 is badly damaged or 
 cut. 
 
 Q. What per cent, of damage would it be safe for you to say could be traced to horns ? 
 A. Well, I should say that out of 50,000 the number damaged by horns would be 2,500 and at 
 50 cents a hide the total loss would be about $ 1,250. 
 
 The Commission adjourned at 5.15 to meet in the same place at 10 o'clock the followinc 
 morning. 
 
 Thursday, June 16. 
 
 Cornelius Flanagan, Toronto, sworn, said : I am engaged in buying cattle for export 
 and have been in the business for about 20 years. One year I handled about 30,000 head 
 altogether. Nearlj 7 300,000 head of cattle must have passed through my hands. I have known 
 a good many cattle to be damaged through being horned by each other, but whether it would be 
 a general benefit to dehorn a portion and leave the horns on the remainder I could not say. 
 If you dehorn a portion you take their weapons away, and if you mix them with horned cattle 
 you place them at the mercy of the others. 
 
 Q. If all were dehorned would it be an advantage to exporters ? A. Likely it would. 
 
 Q. What would you say is the loss caused by horns in bringing cattle to market on the cars ? 
 A. I should say about $5 a carload, but then a good deal of that might be prevented if proper 
 precautions were taken. 
 
 Q. Considering the advantages financially and from the humane standpoint, if the practice 
 could be carried on without the infliction of any considerable amount of pain, do you think it 
 would be a good thing to do ? A. Yes, if you make it a universal thing. I don't think it 
 would be a benefit unless you make everybody do it. Then cattle look larger with the horns on 
 and as our cattle are so'd in the lump, dehorned ones might be estimated at less than they 
 really are If I were buying by the weight and selling by the head as at present I would prefer 
 horned cattle, but from the butchers' standpoint I would prefer dehorned cattle because or the 
 freedom from bruises. 
 
 Q. Do you think a buyer would be deceived as to the age if the horns were off? A. I don't 
 think a man who knew his business could be taken in. If you were to take any beast and put 
 its head in a bag I could tell you about its age from its general appearance. 
 
 Thomas A. Milne, V.S., Toronto, sworn, said : I graduated at the Ontario Veterinary 
 College in 1885. I have no experience in cutting off the horns of cattle, but I have seen part 
 of the horn taken off. I would not condescend to cut the horns off even if required to do so 
 professionally. The horn is porous and full of nerves and I consider that it is as sensitive as the 
 pupil of the eye. The closer you cut it off, the nearer you get to the brain and the worse it 
 would be. 
 
 Mr. Gibson — Can you tell when an animal is suffering ? A. Yes, 1 think so, though there 
 are exceptions. 
 
 Q. If you were to see a cow operated upon what symptoms would you expect ? A. I would 
 expect to see hemorrhage — possibly a teacup of blood — shaking of the head, sometimes moan- 
 ing, getting into a corner and standing there in quietness, pain and disgust. 
 
 Q. Now, suppose you saw none of these symptoms after the operation and noticed that the 
 animal started to eat and went round in the usual way, would you say it was suffering great 
 pain ? A. If an animal acted as you say, with no falling off in appetite or milk yield, I would 
 say there was either disease of the brain or that the temperament was very peculiar. 
 
 Q. Would there be a cessation of pain after the horns were off? A. Most certainly there 
 would be a cessation of acute pain after the severance of the nerves. 
 
 Q. What degree of pain would there be in the healing process ? A. I could not tell, but 
 there must be some pain. We can only judge by the analogy of a human being. I think it is 
 absurd to talk of cutting off the horns — man can't improve upon nature. 1 have heard of a few 
 lives being lost by hooking but I do not regard that as sufficient reason for taking off the horns. 
 
 Q. Would you expect suffering from one animal chasing and hooking another ? A. Yes 
 if you place the weaker ones with the others. 
 
 Q. Now, which would sustain the greatest amount of pain, one that is constantly chased by 
 the others or one that is dehorned quickly with the best appliances ? A. There would be pain on 
 both sides and it would be a question of proportion. Some animals are worse than the others 
 and I think the owner ought to remove the vicious animal. 
 
 8 (D.C.) 
 
114 
 
 Q. But suppose the animal can't very well be removed and it is impossible to overcome its 
 viciousness except by dehorning ? A. Then I would say that the abusive animal might be 
 abused by dehorning. 
 
 Q. Admitting the practice to be allowable, what age do you consider would be attended 
 with teast pain ? A. If I were going to do anything in that line I would try to prevent the 
 growth of the horn medically. 
 
 William Crealock, Toronto, sworn, said : I am a wholesale butcher, and at one time did 
 a good deal of buying through the country. I have been in the business about twenty years. 
 1 am in favor of dehorning from a business standpoint because the weaker animals get bruised 
 sometimes to the extent of §10 a bullock. There is always one or more injured in every car- 
 load with an average loss of $10 to $15. The shoulders and flanks get injure! by the horns and 
 most of the hides are so badly damaged they are put down as third class. 
 
 Q. If you were buying a carload and had a choice between horned and dehorned cattle > 
 would you give a preference to those without horns ? A. Yes, I think I wou'd as there would 
 not be the same bruises and scores. In buying up through the country a lot of strange cattle 
 are brought together. You have often to wait several hours in the station yard and all the 
 time the cattle are hooking each other. I have seen dehorned cattle at the Buffalo market and 
 they acted pretty quiet. Muleys are not run on in the same way that a timid animal is. Of 
 course if only part of the cattle were dehorned the others would be in danger. 
 
 Thomas McCausland, M.D., Toronto, sworn, said : I have been a medical practitioner 
 since 1856. I have not given special attention to the anatomy of the horn, but I should think 
 severing it close to the head would cause great pain. Where the horn is knocked off we know 
 that the pain is very great. This is shown by the shaking of the head, standing still or 
 moving restlessly about and sometimes a serious falling off in the milk. 
 
 Q° Would you say that any serious disturbance in the condition of the animal would be 
 accompanied by a falling off in the milk ? A. Well, the nervous system might not interfere 
 with the organic. 1 should think there might be great pain without any disturbance of the 
 
 secretion of milk. _ 
 
 Q. Now, we are given to understand by specialists that milk is practically a product of the 
 nervous energy, and that in selecting a cow for milking purposes it is desirable to select one of 
 a nervous temperament, because it would be a better milker — that if a cow is chased or disturbed 
 it interferes with the flow of milk ? A. Yes, that might be, and it may change the nature of the 
 milk, as in the case of a mother who hear? some startling news — her milk afterwards has been 
 known to give a child convulsions. 
 
 Q. Do you think that the severe pain would be confined to the operation itself ? A. Yes ; 
 but there would be pain for some time. I should think there would be a danger of ulceration — 
 that is what I would expect, though of course it might heal by first intention. 
 
 Q. What would you say justifies the infliction of pain upon an animal? A. I think we 
 ought to treat an animal the same as we would a man. It has as much right to live as we have. 
 A money consideratiou would not weigh in my mind against the infliction of pain. 
 
 Q. Now, we have the evidence of drovers, dairymen and farmers who all say that there is a 
 great deal of' suffering inflicted by animals ou each other from the horns— that they would be 
 likely to suffer more in this way than in the momentary operat on of removing the horns ; 
 what would you say to that ? A.I lived on a farm for seven or eight years, with twenty cattle, 
 and I never saw a great deal of suffering. I have seen them remove the hair, but not seriously 
 
 hurt each other. . . 
 
 Q. Putting aside the commercial aspect and comparing the pain from hooking and the pain 
 from dehorning, which would you say was worst ? A. I think the hooking could be prevented 
 
 by putting knobs on. . . . 
 
 Q. On the whole the Commission are to understand that you consider dehorning unjustifi- 
 able ? A . Yes. 
 
 Q. If, however, it was found to be a practice that should be tolerated, do you think it should 
 be surrounded with regulations that would provide for its being properly done? A. Well, I 
 don't know that it requires any great skill if the horns have got to come off. 
 
 Samuel R. Wickett, Toronto, sworn, said : My business is that of a tanner, and I have 
 had opportunities of observing the injuries inflicted on the hides by cattle, extending over thirty 
 years. We handle fifty hides a day, and I think there is fully 25 per cent, that show more or 
 less damage from horns. My experience of hides from Chicago is even worse. We bought 
 three carloads there, and we got a tremendous dose of horn hooks. I noticed, too, that the 
 Bmaller hides were the worst, showing that the smaller animals must have been greatly abused. 
 
115 
 
 Q. What would you give as your actual loss from damage caused by horns ? A. I would 
 say that the actual depreciation in the value of 300 hides would be about $45, and there is a 
 weekly loss to that extent. 
 
 Q. Now, if dehorning is an operation not involving an undue amount of pain, do you think 
 it might be justified, looking at the loss and suffering caused by the horns ? A. Yes ; I think 
 if it could be done when the cattle are young it would be desirable. I have seen dehorned 
 cattle at the Chicago market, and there the practice seems to be growing very popular. 
 
 Alfred O. Beardmore, Toronto, sworn, said : I am a member of the firm of Beardmore & 
 Co. , and we have a tannery at Acton. I can confirm all that Mr. Wickett says in regard to the 
 injury done to the hides. Just the other clay our manager sorted out 150 hides, and of these 
 he had to throw out 30. I think the loss is from 20 to 25 per cent. , and that Mr. Wickett's 
 estimate of $45 loss per week is about right. It is a serious loss to us, and it must mean a great 
 deal of pain to the animal. We have noticed, also, that the marks are generallv fresh thus 
 showing that the injuries are chiefly sustained in the cattle markets and trains. 
 
 William Levack, Toronto, sworn, said : I am a wholesale butcher and cattle dealer and 
 have been in the business about 20 years. I slaughter and prepare the meat for retail 
 butchers. I handle about 100 a week, or somewhere about 5,000 in the year. We have a oreat 
 deal of loss from bruises and damaged hides. Very often I have to cut away the flanks' and 
 briskets altogether. The injured part swells up and the blood gathers there, makino- it into a 
 jelly. I have pointed out to Inspector Awde and the humane officer cases where blood was 
 running down the legs of cattle from injuries they gave each other, but they don't want to act 
 in that matter at all, although they are very particular about putting an extra calf into a wa°-on. 
 
 Q. Jf you bought a dozen bullocks direct off a farm you would not expect so much damage \ 
 A. No ; it is where a lot of strange cattle get together they start using their horns. 
 
 Q. Do you favor dehorning ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Would you think there must be a good deal of suffering inflicted on the animals by each 
 other I A. Yes ; I have noticed one animal knock another into the feed box, and there are 
 cases where they have died from this. If you go into a yard two or three that are afraid of the 
 others will follow you around for protection — that shows that there must be a good deal of suf- 
 fering My loss from bruised meat and damaged hides is from $1,000 to $1,500 a year. I am 
 satisfied myself that it is more than that, but 1 would not like to appear to exao-o-erate. 
 
 Mr. George Taunt then appeared before the Commission on behalf of the Toronto Humane 
 Society, and urged that the practice should not be allowed for a merely financial consideration. 
 He quoted the English case in which Lord Chief Justice Coleridge strongly denounced the prac- 
 tice as cruel and unjustifiable, and asked the Commissioners to bring in a finding in accord with 
 the decision in that case. 
 
 The Commission then adjourned at 5 o'clock, to meet again at 8.30 the following mornino- 
 Friday, June 17th, for the purpose of visiting the western cattle market. 
 
 Friday, June 17. 
 
 The Commissioners visited the western cattle market on Friday morning June 17 and 
 spent two hours inspecting the various bunches of cattle occupying the yards. As the market 
 was unusually busy — about eighty carloads of stock having been received — the Commissioners 
 had every opportunity for judging of some of the evils complained of. In almost every yard 
 were one or two animals that seemed to be specially marked out for attack by the herd Gener- 
 ally, and many animals showed evidence of having been severely horned by their fellows." The 
 bruises and cuts were in some cases so severe as to indicate that much suffering must have been 
 caused to the animals, as stated by witnesses. 
 
 Ottawa, Thursday, July 7, 1892. 
 
 The Commissioners met in Ottawa on Thursday, July 7th, all the members beinf in attend- 
 ance. A visit was paid to the Dominion Experimental Farm, where fourteen steers and a bull 
 that had been dehorned were seen. Subsequently a meeting was held in the farm office when 
 evidence was given by Prof. Robertson, Dairy Commissioner, and Robert W. Elliott Herds- 
 man. 
 
11C 
 
 James W. Rokertson, sworn, said : I am Dairy Commissioner for the Dominion, and Agri- 
 culturist of the Central Experimental Farm. Previous to taking my present position I was Pro- 
 fessor of Dairy Husbandry at the Ontario Agricultural College. I have been engaged in agricul- 
 tural work for over six years past. Latterly I have been giving a good deal of attention to the 
 feeding of stock. I am aware of the objects of the Commission, and I have been looking into the 
 question of dehorning cattle owing to the many enquiries I received from farmers all over the 
 country. With regard to the rights of man over the animal creation, I would say that man de- 
 prives domestic animals of their liberty of movement and liberty of breeding and feeding lor 
 his own advantages. All this is justifiable, because it is for the benefit of the keeper. Then 
 there is the humanitarian limit— anything that results in pain without a compensating advan- 
 tage is to be condemned. Any ill-treatment of an animal will prevent it from serving or 
 benefitting its owner. You will rind it all through, that where man inflicts an injury upon an 
 animal, without a compensating advantage to the animal, it will be against his own interests. 
 In brief, the benefit to the animal and the gain to man are identical. 1 would not consider the 
 infliction of pain justifiable, unless it was an improvement to the animal. The dehorning of 
 cattle is justifiable on many grounds. Indiscriminate dehorning would not be a desirable thing 
 in every case. There are some conditions where it would not be a desirable act to dehorn. 
 It is a question largely to be settled by self-interest and environment of the animals. I think 
 in the case of dairy cattle that if the practice of dehorning results in quieter behaviour you 
 would get a larger flow and better quality of milk, and better health in the animal. Perfect 
 quiet and the absence of irritation are very desirable. When a lot of cattle are turned out 
 together there are always a few timid ones, and these will often be scared and hooked by 
 the others. This is more liable to occur when they are passing up lanes, through the gates 
 and at the watering trough. I think the comfort of the animals is promoted by deprn ing 
 them of the means of attack. In the past ages these animals were given horns that they might 
 protect themselves, and as our method of life removes the need of defence the horns are 
 therefore not now needed by the animals. I have seen the operation of dehorning performed 
 on steers and a bull, but not on cows. There is no doubt it is painful while the sawing or 
 cutting lasts, but I think this is mainly from the fright produced in the animal and not so much 
 from the cutting of the tissue. '1 he operation takes from nine to thirty seconds for both horns. 
 After taking the horns off we offered the cattle some meal and all ate readily. Nine continued 
 to feed regularly, but two did not chew their cud for a little time afterwards. In the case of two 
 there was a slight discharge for about ten days, then the wounds healed over and there was no 
 further trouble. In six weeks' or two months the cavity becomes boned over. As to suffering 
 after the operation, I only noticed a condition of dullness — a change of appearance in the eyes 
 and head and ears for a day or two — nothing, however to make the hair or skin show any 
 serious derangement of functions. If there were no greater disturbance in the health of the 
 cows than in the case of our steers, I do not consider that there would be any falling off in the 
 milk after the first day. I think the suffering to the animal is very slight after the horn is 
 severed from the head. 
 
 Mr. Drury — You have given this matter considerable attention ; would you say that you 
 would commit yourself to the practice as one desirable in the interests of dairying ? A. I would, 
 wherever the herds of cattle in being turned out were so confined in area that they were tempted 
 to chase each other. In my opinion the pain inflicted in the operation is not nearly equal to 
 the discomforts inflicted on the animal from being hooked by others. In taking off the horns 
 a great deal of suffering otherwise spread over a period of years is reduced to a sensation of pain 
 for a moment or two. I believe there is greater pain from hooking than from dehorning. Then 
 an animal often suffers keenly from fear of being hooked. I have known them to bellow 
 and show great distress although there was no actual injury inflicted on the body. 
 
 Q. If the practice were allowed would you say there should be safeguards as to how and 
 when the operation should be performed ? A. I think it would be reasonable to say that it must 
 be performed in such a way that there will be no unnecessary pain or suffering inflicted leaving it 
 with the performer to show that he took every precaution. The law should be framed so as to 
 protect the animal from unnecessary pain. 
 
 Q. Have you used clippers in dehorning ? A. Yes ; I tried them on three-year-old steers. 
 I don't think they are as well adapted for taking off the horns as a sharp, fine-toothed saw. There 
 is more or less crushing of the part, and the healing process is not apt to be so quick as after 
 the action of the saw. 
 
 Q. Have you ever tried caustic on the budding horns of calves 1 A. No ; but I have en- 
 quired from those who have and they say that there is an irritation in the head for weeks after. 
 1 am inclined to think that the sum total of suffering would be greater than simply dehorning 
 later Oil. Then they are more likely to develop bunting proclivities when dehorned as calves. 
 
 Mr. GlBSON — At what age and at what season of the year would you say the operation is 
 best performed? A. For steers, one to two years old. As to the season, the extremities of 
 
117 
 
 heat and cold should be avoided. I should say from the end of March to May, and from the 
 end of September to November. In the case of the bull we dehorned, it completely tamed him 
 and he has shown no signs of viciousness so far since. 
 
 Mr. Drury — When you performed this operation were you aware that you were liable to be 
 prosecuted for cruelty ? A. i recognised that the Humane Society had the right to prosecute, 
 but I did not think they would be successful. I performed the operation for the benefit of the 
 farmers who were making enquiries for information. I intend to dehorn some cows for the same 
 purpose and will also try the effects of caustic. 
 
 Mr. Gibson — Have you ever heard of anyone who has tried this operation and been dis- 
 satisfied with it ? A . No ; neither on account of its bad effect on the animals nor bad influence 
 upon himself, attendants or family. Then I am satisfied that they pay 25 to 30 cents more per 
 hundred weight for dehorned cattle at Chicago owing to their freedom from hook marks and 
 bruises. This fact alone indicates that there must be a great deal of pain inflicted upon the 
 animals by the horns. 
 
 Dr. Smith — Should the Government decide to allow this operation, do you think there 
 would be a danger of it being practised without discrimination. Say, a man cutting the horns 
 off perfectly docile cows under the supposition that they would give more milk afterwards ? A. 
 I don't think so. No one has been deterred from the operation so far on account of fear of 
 prosecution ; and I do not think that a favorable finding by the Commission would encourage a 
 reckless extension of the practice, or its adoption by farmers without due cause. 
 
 Mr. Macpherson — Would you say there would be a gain of $1 per cow from dehorning ? 
 A. I think the benefit per cow would be much more than that in the year. The additional 
 profit in feeding steers for market is considerable owing to economy of labor. The increased 
 gain might range from f 8 up, owing to extra quiet, saving in labor, feeding in sheds and so on. 
 1 recommend strongly the dehorning of every bull that shows the least tendency to viciousness. 
 They are not injured at all for breeding purposes, and the increased safety of the attendants is 
 worth more than any possible pain or harm to the animal. As a general thing self-interest 
 will prevent a man from inflicting unnecessary pain, and I consider that the Commission would 
 be safe in recommending that the practice be allowed to be carried on under certain restric- 
 tions. 
 
 Robert W. Elliott, sworn, said : I am herdsman in the Dominion Experimental Farm, 
 and performed the operation of dehorning on a number of steers. We used the clippers on two 
 herds and the saw on all the others. The quickest time we made was nine seconds for two horns. 
 We dehorned nine this spring and five last fall — one Jersey bull five years old, four three-year 
 olds, four two-year olds and five yearlings. The date we dehorned last was May 13. Judging 
 from these fourteen I would say the suffering is least in yearlings and over five years old. 
 
 Mr. Drury. — Do you think the cattle were improved in their conduct by dehorning ? A. 
 Yes, decidedly. From what I have seen I would be in favor of the practice. The bull we de- 
 horned was dangerous to take out, and after the horns were off he would tremble when anyone 
 went into the stall, leeling he was so helpless. 
 
 Q. Did you observe the appearance and conduct of the cattle for a few days after the opera- 
 tion % A. Yes ; the worst ones didn't regain their appetite for about a week — three out of the 
 fourteen. One bled considerable and lost a little in flesh. We had to stop the bleeding with a 
 hot iron. Some of them had a discharge of matter for about two weeks. 
 
 Q. Now, having performed this operation and watched these cases, do you still say that you 
 favor the practice and consider that if you were an owner of cattle your interests would be 
 advanced by adopting it? A. Yes, I should think so. 
 
 Afternoon Meeting. 
 
 The Commission met at 2.30 the same afternoon in one of the parlors of the Russell House, 
 for the purpose of receiving the evidence of W. C. Edwards, M.P. , and Senator Read of 
 Belleville. 
 
 William Cameron Edwards, Rockland, Ontario, sworn, said : I am a member of the 
 House of Commons for the County of Russell. My business is that of a lumberman, but f am 
 also largely interested in farming. We raise a good many cattle and have about 350 head now. 
 Last autumn we dehorned 34 feeding steers, and we just shipped them a few days ago to the 
 English market. 
 
llcS 
 
 Mr. Drury. — Whal was your leading idea in doing this '. A. Well, I read a good deal about 
 it in the agricultural papers and also the trials in the old cuuntry. The thought of dehorning 
 was at first very repulsive to me, but I have been studying the question of saving manure in the 
 most approved method, and I came to the conclusion that the proper way to save manure was 
 under the cattle. I therefore built a stable 30x80 and 16 feet deep, and decided to fatten a 
 number of steers loose in it. When the building was complete T got a man to drive in the cattle, 
 and the tirst thing they did was to begin to tear each other to pieces. I saw then that with the 
 horns on. my scheme was going to be a failure. I wrote to Prof. Robertson about dehorning, 
 ami also went to Montreal and had a long consultation with several of the large cattle shippers, 
 all of whom spoke approvingly of it. We then borrowed Prof. Robertson's tools and took the 
 horns olf on December 13. Although I was at home I did not see the operation, as I purposely 
 avoided it. However, I questioned the man who performed it, very closely, and from all he told 
 me and from the results following the operation, I believe it is more humane to cut the horns 
 off a lot of steers and allow them to feed in their natural way loose, than to tie up an animal on 
 a hard floor and keep it confined in a narrow stall lor six months or more without any freedom 
 or relaxation. The natural condition in which to keep an animal is loose. In this cold climate 
 cattle must be housed in winter time in comparatively narrow limits, and the most natural and 
 humane way is to let them run loose. Bumptious steers particularly would tear each other to pieces 
 with their horns if allowed this natural freedom, and in my opinion it is a positive kindness to 
 deprive them of these dangerous weapons. 
 
 Q. What was the effect of the operation on your steers ? A. It made them as quiet as a 
 flock of sheep. It took away all their evil nature and made them settle down to making beef. 
 Then as to the profit of dehorning feeding steers. — They are more cheaply fed so far as labor is 
 concerned. The manure from them is saved in the best possible way and they make a greater 
 gain for the feed given, as there is a certain amount of food wasted in keeping up that fiery, 
 restless spirit they show before dehorning. Generally our cattle recover from the effects of the 
 operation very rapidly. Only two of them showed any symptoms of real sickness, and even they 
 were soon over it. 
 
 Q. Now, Mr. Edwards, as a business man have you been satisfied with the operation ? A. 
 So much so that we have put up another building to double our operations this year. When 
 the steer feeders of Ontario get into the way of it and feed loose in buildings such as we have 
 erected for the purpose, it will be millions of dollars annually in the pockets of our farmers, in 
 the saving of manure and the economy of feed and labor. Generally adopted I think it would 
 mean a gain of ten or fifteen million dollars. I believe it is the biggest advance yet in modern 
 agriculture. 
 
 Q. How far do you think a man has a right to do as he likes with his own property in the 
 shape of a domestic animal ? A. So far as dehorning is concerned I do not think a man would 
 have a right to do it if the operation was of a very serious nature. 
 
 Q. Would you say that an additional value of $5 per head warranted you in inflicting pain? 
 A. No ; I don't think that any money compensation would justify it if there was undue suffer- 
 ing. My view of it is this — the natural condition is to allow an animal to be loose — it never was 
 intended that an animal should be tied up. In a wild state the horns were given to the animal 
 as a means of defence. He is now a domestic animal, and if he uses these weapons to destroy 
 his neighbors the proper thing, instead of tying him up in an unnatural state, is to remove the 
 horns. This I would regard as an act of humanity. As to the amount of suffering I think it 
 depends on the expertness with which it is done. If done properly I think it is no more than 
 the prick of a sharp pin would be to you. There is, by far, more suffering involved in the hook- 
 ing of one animal by another than there is in the operation of dehorning. 
 
 Hon. Robert Read, Belleville, sworn, said : I am a member of the Senate of the Dominion. 
 My chief occupation has been that of a farmer, though I have been engaged in other lines. I 
 have been handling cattle all my lite, as many as 500 at a time. I keep about forty-five dairy 
 cows at present. 1 have heard the evidence of Mr. Edwards and agree largely with what he 
 says. I have never dehorned my cattle, but I have three neighbors who have had experience 
 that way with good results. I have seen a great deal of damage done with horns in. my time ; 
 you can see the injury done almost every day. I have looked into the dehorning question 
 pretty carefully, and I believe it would be humane to the cattle to take the horns off. I daresay 
 1 would have dehorned mine only I have been away from home a good deal. As a matter of 
 humanity I think it is a desirable thing and should not be prohibited. 
 
 Friday, Jult 8. 
 
 On Friday. Jnly 8th, the Commissioners paid a visit to Mr. Edward's farm at Rockland, 
 and were very favorably impressed with the system of saving manure. They also had an oppor- 
 
119 
 
 tunity of seeing the bull that had been dehorned, and also of inspecting his celebrated thorough- 
 bred stock. In conversation Mr. Edward's herdsman expressed himself as in favor of the opera- 
 tion for feeding steers. The pain, he believed, was not excessive, while the benefits to the cattle 
 in being allowed to feed loose were very great. 
 
 The Commission decided to hold its next meeting at Ingersoll on Thursday, July 21st, 1892. 
 
 Ingersoll, Thursday, July 21. 
 
 The Commission met in the Town Hall, Ingersoll, on Thursday, July 21st, for the purpose 
 of receiving evidence from the parties oppos d to the practice of dehorning. Mr. Charles 
 Hutchinson was present, and by permission of the Chairman, questioned the witnesses : 
 
 William Stirton, Dereham township, Oxford county, sworn, said : I am a farmer and 
 keep from ten to thirty head of cattle chiefly for fattening. I have been handling cattle on my 
 own account for about eight years. This question of dehorning has been discussed a good deal 
 in our neighborhood, and in my opinion there is no particular necessity for it. I have never had 
 any trouble with my cattle to amount to anything. Sometimes a few scratches are made by 
 horns. I have handled a few dehorned cattle and I don't see any great advantage over the 
 horned ones. The horns are handy to tell the age by, and without the horns an old cow maybe 
 put off for a young one. I am guided by the horns in buying. My belief is that the operation 
 is accompanied by great pain. I have not seen the operation, but I have seen the animals after- 
 wards when the sore was healing up. I saw some last winter two weeks after the operation. 
 They were discharging from the head and the matter was running down the cheek. Then there 
 was one that appeared to be stiff and to be hanging behind the rest. There were about ten 
 altogether, and five or six of them seemed to be pretty bad. I think there is a good deal of 
 suffering while the head is healing up. 1 can't see any great advantage in dehorning, as we have 
 never had any serious accidents from the horns. I am opposed to the practice. 
 
 Mr. Hutchinson. — From your knowledge of cattle generally is there any absolute neces- 
 sity for cutting off the horns, apart from a pecuniary benefit ? A. I would not think so. 
 
 Q. Have you seen anything that could not be avoided by knobbing ? A. No ; I have not 
 seen many that needed knobbing. 
 
 Q. Could those that are a little dangerous be rendered harmless by knobbing ? A. Yes, I 
 think so. 
 
 Q. Suppose this practice were legalised do you think there would be danger to the animals 
 from inexperienced people doing the work ? A. Well, I would not like to say — one might do it 
 as well as another for all I know. If I were going to do it I would have it done in the best way 
 I knew how. There are lots of men would just take the horns off and not look after the animals 
 properly. 
 
 Q. Would this not expose the cattle to a great deal of cruelty ? A. Yes, I should think it 
 would. If this has got to be done it ought to be by men who understand it and have the right 
 tools for the job. 
 
 Mr. Drury. — What is the practice in regard to castration ? A. Well, there are generally 
 some men in each neighborhood who make a specialty of it. 
 
 Q. What is the general character of the men who have had their cattle dehorned ? A. They 
 are a pretty good clas-< of men. 
 
 Mr. Hutchinson. — Isn't it a question of dollars and cents — whether it is profitable or 
 unprofitable to cut off the horns ? (No answer). 
 
 Q. What is the object of your neighbors in favoring this practice ? A. I think they do it 
 to yard closer and to save pain. The cattle must have been hooked, or they wanted to keep them 
 closer, or something of that kind. 
 
 Mr. Glendinning. — Do you know of any man who had the horns taken off and who after- 
 wards regretted it ? A. Well, I have known some who had the horns taken off a few and left 
 them on the remainder. 
 
 John Mitchell, Dereham township, sworn, said : I am a farmer and keep about thirty 
 head of cattle. I never saw the operation of dehorning, and I have no intention of cutting the 
 horns off my cattle. I never lost any animal from hooking except a little pig that was ripped. 
 Whenever I found cows a little vicious I cut off the tips of their horns. I do not see the neces- 
 sity for the dehorning business. 
 
 Mr. Drury. — Do you think that man is justified in inflicting pain for a pecuniary advantage ? 
 A. No. 
 
120 
 
 • J. Do you cub lamb's tails ? A. Yes, 1 think it improves their appearance and adds to 
 their comfort. 
 
 Q. Suppose you can increase the value of an animal $10 or $20, Jo you think that would 
 be justifiable .' A. N T <>, 1 think not, except it increases the comfort of the animals themselves. 
 
 Q. Have you known of injuries indicted by horns ? A. I have heard of them, but I have 
 never seen much. If it were a comfort to the animal to have its horns off I think it would be 
 all right to do it. It would be justifiable to take the horns off a vicious animal, but I don't see 
 the necessity for taking them off nice, (|uiet, innocent cows. 
 
 Mr. Hutchinson. — Is cutting the horns off cows necessary to tit them for the use for which 
 they are intended — the giving of milk, for instance ? A. I think not. 
 
 Q. Is it necessary in the case of steers ? A. I have never seeu such necessity. 
 
 Q. Castration you regard as necessary I A. Yes. 
 
 Q. And that makes a material and important difference ? A. Yes. 
 
 Murray Smith, North Dorchester, sworn, said : I have been engaged in farming for the 
 past twenty-eight years, and keep about 30 head of cattle, chiefly for dairying. A vicious bull 
 might have its horns cut off, but I think the operation as a general thing ought not to be per- 
 mitted. I have had a horse killed by a bull, but outside of that I do not recollect any serious 
 injury having been done by horns. My practice is to stable and chain up at night, letting the 
 cattle out in the yard in the daytime or the pasture field in summer. There are usually one or 
 two bosses in every herd, and the rest keep away from them. I have used knobs to guard 
 against that. I dehorned a bull last winter. We put chains round him in three places and 
 twisted them up tight to secure him well. We took the horns off close to the head and they 
 were two and a half inches through. It took about three-quarters of a minnte for the two horns. 
 I should say there was about a pint of blood afterwards. He seemed stupid for a couple of 
 weeks afterwards. It was about three months before the head was fully healed up. There was 
 a slight discharge from one horn. Judging from that operation I would not have the horns 
 taken off my cows. 
 
 Mr. Drury. — Now, is a man justified in inflicting pain upon a dumb animal simply to 
 increase its money value ? A. I don't think so. 
 
 Q. What do you consider justifies the infliction of pain ? A. Necessity, for one thing. 
 
 Q. Why do you dock lamb's tails ? A. They look better and are more valuable, but there 
 is a big difference between cutting the tails off lambs and cutting the horns off cattle. 
 
 Mr. Hutchinson. — Would you be satisfied to leave each case to stand upon its own 
 merits, so that where unnecessary cruelty was committed the person would be subject to the 
 law ? A. I think so. I had a necessity for cutting the horns off my bull, and I'd be quite 
 willing to leave it to anybody. 
 
 Q. Now, as to cutting lamb's tails, why do you do that? A. Because they look better 
 with them off. 
 
 Q. Is there not a necessity for it ? A. Not as far as I can see, but it makes them look 
 better. 
 
 Q. Then why not cut off the horns ? A. Because that is very painful. 
 
 Q. But doesn't it also hurt the sheep ? A. Not so much. 
 
 Q. Now, the principle laid down by the best authorities is that the pain must be to fit 
 animals for the purpose for which they were intended. Is it in your opinion necessary to cut 
 the horns off cows to fit them for the purposes for which they were intended ? A. No, I don't 
 think it benefits the cow. 
 
 Foster Wilson, Dereham township, sworn, said : I am engaged in farming and have 
 from 60 to 70 steers at present. I buy them at about two years old and keep them for three or 
 four months. I have been in the business about 9 or 10 years. I have heard a good deal about 
 dehorning but I am not in favor of it as I consider it disfigures the animal. It seems to me to 
 be a whim people have got into their heads, and I think the practice will die out in time. A 
 nice pair of horns often help to sell an animal. I have not seen a great deal of loss caused by 
 horns— a few hair scratches — that is about all. 
 
 Mr. Drury — Now, witnesses say that taking the average life of a herd there is more suffer- 
 ing inflicted by the horns than is involved in the operation of removing them. If they are 
 correct, would that be a justihcition — that is, on grounds of humanity? A. I don't think it 
 would be. I don't think it's right or that anything justifies taking the horns off. 
 
 < t >. Have you seen the operation ? A. No. 
 
 Q. If it could be performed without pain to the animal would you favor it? A. No ; I 
 prefer the horns as I think they look better. My neighbors have not had the horns taken off 
 their cattle. I think the law ought to prohibit the practice. 
 
 Mr. Glendinninc — Why do you castrate sheep and hogs— to increase their value ? A. 
 Yes ; to make them more profitable. You can sell a ram or a boar pig, but you can't get as- 
 
121 
 
 much for them. I believe it was intended that they should be castrated, but I don't think it 
 was intended that horns should be cut off. 
 
 Mr. Hutchinson — It is necessary to castrate them to fit them for the purpose for which 
 they were intended — that is, for human food ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Ic is not necessary to cut the horns off in order to fit cattle for the purpose which they 
 were intended ? A. No ; I think not. 
 
 Adam Gordon, township of North Oxford, sworn, said : I am engaged in farming and 
 cattle raising. I have at present 18 cows and some young cattle. I have heard a good deal 
 about dehorning. I do not consider it either justifiable or necessary. 1 have not seen the 
 operation. I have never had a case of loss from hooking. I folio sv the usual method of turning 
 the cattle out in the daytime and stabling at night. I think cattle look better with the horns 
 off, and that dehorning ought to be stopped. 
 
 Mr. Drury — Has your mind been influenced by the idea that there is a good deal of suffer- 
 ing in the operation ? A.I think it is not necessary and that it is cruel. 
 
 Mr. Hutchinson — Would you be satisfied to leave the law as it is now, so that each case 
 shall stand on its own merits ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Of course you understand that the law would allow the excuse in the case of a vicious 
 bull ? A. If there is a vicious animal I think it should be kept in the stall, and butchered if 
 necessary, instead of cutting the horns off. 
 
 John Henderson, township of North Oxford, sworn, said : I have been raising cattle 
 for the past twenty-five years, chiefly for dairy purposes. I have 15 cows now. They are not 
 dehorned and I don't intend that they shall be. I am against it. I consider that as the Lord 
 made them that way they should be left so. We get these things to use — not to abuse. 
 
 Q. Then how do you do with your male animals ? A. Well, when the lambs are three 
 days old I cut their tails because they would get so dirty there would be no pleasure with them. 
 I castrate because I believe that is a work of necessity to keep these animals within reasonable 
 bounds. 
 
 Q. You consider dehorning to be unnecessary ] A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Suppose the horns could be taken off simply by unhooking, without earning any pain, 
 do you think it would be right then 1 A. No, I think not. We get them naturally and we 
 ought not to interfere with the order of nature unless it is absolutely necessary. I think the 
 practice should be stopped. It depends largely on how cattle are used whether they are savage 
 or not. You can train an animal by kind treatment. Even in the case of a vicious animal I 
 don't think it is proper to take the horns off. It would be better to fetter it in the stable and 
 send it to market. 
 
 James Ruddick, township of North Oxford, sworn, said : I am engaged in dairying and 
 keep about thirty head of cattle. I have been on a farm all my life. 1 have not seen any 
 dehorning, but I am opposed to it. I think there is no necessity for it. I think it is a very 
 painful operation. If there were no great pain it might be all right. 
 
 Q. Would you say that a money consideration would be a justification for the infliction of 
 pain? A. Well, an increased value would be a justification if the suffering was not too great. 
 
 Q. Do you think the law should prohibit the practice 1 A. Yes ; except in the case of a 
 vicious animal. No one in our neighborhood has dehorned his cattle. 
 
 To Mr. Hutchinson — I would be satisfied to have the law left as it is and if there is 
 unnecessary cruelty that the person should be punished. 
 
 Joseph Cawthorp, Thamesford, sworn, said : I farm a little and have from 10 to 15 head ; 
 my principal business is milling. I have never seen any dehorning. I am opposed to it, as I 
 believe it is cruelty to animals. I have known cattle to get the shell knocked off the horn and 
 they suffer a good deal from that. 
 
 Q. If you saw the operation and did not notice any great indications of pain, the animal 
 starting to eat immediately afterwaids, would you still consider it an act of great cruelty ? A. 
 I hardly think that these animals would go out and eat hay after such an operation, but I think 
 they suffer all the same. I don't think a money consideration is a sufficient reason. Let the 
 people who want hornless animals breed polled cattle. 
 
 Mr. Hutchinson — You agree that every case that comes before the courts should stand on 
 its own merits — you do not desire any change in the present law I A. No. 
 
 Mr. Drury — If it were proved that there is a great deal of suffering caused by the horns, 
 do you consider that as an act of humanity to the animal it would be a justification to take the 
 horns off ? A. I have not seen a great deal of suffering from the horns. 
 
 Q. But suppose that a good many others claim there is ? A. Well, I don't think that would 
 
122 
 
 be a justification. Horns were put there and I consider they ought to be allowed to stay. You 
 can see the marrow exposed when the horn is broken showing that it is very painful. 
 
 Q. If it were shown that the cows came back to their usual flow of milk after the first day, 
 what would you say '. A. I don't think they would come back so soon, and even so, it would 
 show that they suffered that day. 
 
 Thomas Hogg, township of North Oxford, sworn, said : I am engaged in farming and 
 keep from 30 to 40 head of cattle altogether. 
 
 Mr. Dkuky — Do you consider that dehorning is a practice attended with beneficial results 
 to the owner ! A. Well, 1 have had one or two animals where I think it would be a good thing, 
 luit as a rule I don't think it is proper. I tipped the horns of one or two animals but it didn't 
 prevent them from hooking — it only prevented them from making a deep gore. 
 
 Q. You have not dehorned any cattle ? A. No ; I would not do it even if it were lawful. 
 
 Q. If it were a comparatively painless operation would j t ou do it ? A. Yes ; I might do it 
 then. 
 
 Q. You would prefer the cattle without horns ? A. Yes ; I can't see that they serve any 
 purpose. I am opposed to dehorning except in the case of vicious animals. I have not per- 
 formed the operation nor seen it performed. I have cut the horn right up to the quick, drawing 
 blood a little. That does not stop them from fighting, but they can't inflict so much pain upon 
 each other. 
 
 Q. If you saw the operation and did not notice the same indications of suffering as in the 
 case of a broken horn, would it change your views somewdiat ? A. Yes, I think it would. 
 
 Q . Then if the pain was not excessive and the gain was important, do you think that the 
 financial side should be taken into consideration ? A. Yes; I think it should be. 
 
 To Mr. Hutchinson — I would be satisfied to allow the law to remain as at present. 
 
 William W. Sutherland, township of East Nissouri, Oxford county, sworn, said : I 
 am engaged in farming and raise cattle. I am in favor of dehorning vicious animals. I think 
 it ought to be left an open question with farmers whether they should dehorn their cattle or not. 
 
 Q. Would you say that the amount of suffering caused by the horns might be as great as in 
 the operation of taking them off ? A. Yes ; I think there is more pain from one animal goring 
 another than there would be in dehorning. I have not seen the operation but I don't think it 
 would be as painful as castrating. 
 
 Q. Have you ever made a study of the horn ? A. Yes, a little. The best place to take it 
 off is at the root, because there is only one nerve there which branches out higher up. We 
 have nothing to prove clearly the amount of suffering involved, but from what I have heard I 
 don't think the acute pain lasts more than a few seconds. It is much more painful to have 
 horns knocked off, because a large surface of sensitive nerve is exposed. 
 
 Edwin Casswell, Ingersoll, being sworn said : I have been president and vice-president 
 of the Western Dairymen's Association, and am engaged in the cheese business. I was a dairy 
 farmer in the county of Oxford for five years, and kept from 20 to 30 head of cattle. I have 
 not seen any necessity for dehorning and I have had no serious injury to stock from horns 
 
 Q. Do you consider that dehorning is justifiable '? A. From my standpoint I would say no. 
 Of course I have heard a great deal about it from such men as Messrs. Hopkins, Brown, Facey 
 and York, and I can't understand how they can feel as they do about this matter. They are 
 men whose views are worth considering, but in this case they are acting entirely in opposition 
 to my judgment. I have never seen a dehorned animal and I hope I never shall. 
 
 Q. They say dehorning secures greater quiet in a herd, if that were true would you expect 
 good results to follow ? A. If my cattle were unruly, and by dehorning they were made ruly, 
 that might be an advantage, but my cattle were not unruly. I could take you to two men, one 
 of them when he goes into his yard the cattle all come to him. and the other, they get away as 
 far as they can from him. You can get quietness among cattle by always treating them kindly. 
 Men like Lewis, who come to our conventions, say that kindness is 25 per cent, of the product 
 of the cow. 
 
 Q. Take the case where 16 steers were turned into an open shed and fed loose at a trough, 
 and they treated each other like sheep— if it created that change would you say it was desirable ? 
 A. Yes, it would be a benefit to have cattle quieter. 
 
 Q. You have never had unruly cattle ? A. Yes, there is always the boss cow. I have seen 
 cases where she would stand and keep the others from the drinking trough, but after awhile she 
 gets tired and goes away. 
 
 Q. Do you think that no monetary consideration should enter into this question ? A. I do 
 in the case of dairy cattle. My opinion is that it is an unkind and cruel practice, but 1 would 
 
123 
 
 not prohibit it in all cases, because a bull might be vicious, and it would be a pity to do away 
 with it simply on that account. If it is to be done at all it should be done by men of some ex- 
 perience. 
 
 Q. Now, in the neighborhood of Harrietsville farmers say they would pay $50 for the 
 privilege of dehorning, owing to its advantages, would you consider that any justification 1 A. 
 I consider that a farmer who raises cattle does it for money, and if he can do anything to 
 advance the value of his product without giving unnecessary pain he is warranted in doing it. 
 
 Q. Some say that no amount of money compensates for the infliction of pain. Your opin- 
 ion, I understand, is that if the financial gain is in proportion to the pain inflicted the practice 
 would be justifiable ? A. I would say that if you had a valuable animal that could not be kept 
 without it you might dehorn him, but in the case of ordinary cattle I think it would be better 
 to knock them on the head rather than go to cutting off horns. 
 
 To Mr. Hutchinson— I agree that there can be no justification for the infliction of pain 
 unless it is to better fit animals for the purpose for which they were intended. Cattle have 
 been used from generation to generation with their horns on, and I see no pressing necessity 
 now for their removal. I cannot see where the benefit comes in, and I may say a^ain that I 
 cannot understand sensible men like Mr. York and Hopkins taking up such a practice. 1 would 
 be m favor of leaving the law as it is at present. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 A. 
 
 Anatomy of horn 19 
 
 Age indicated by horn 29 
 
 Attitude of Humane societies 24 
 
 Age to dehorn 72 
 
 Agricultural stations 53 
 
 Amount of suffering 23 
 
 Appointment of Commission 11 
 
 Attorney-General 10 
 
 Appendix . . . ." 75 
 
 B. 
 
 Broken horn 24 
 
 Blow on horn 24 
 
 Bruises to flesh 115 
 
 Brady v. McArgle 31 
 
 Brady, Wm„ V.S 88 
 
 Brownsville meeting . . 14, 82 
 
 Bleeding 82 
 
 British trials 30 
 
 Bunting habit 28 
 
 Best season for operation 72 
 
 Bloody milk 103 
 
 Brown, L.A., V.S 81 
 
 C. 
 
 Commission, appointment of 11 
 
 Members of 11 
 
 Terms of 11 
 
 Contents 3 
 
 ■Correspondence 43 
 
 Alvord, H. E 51 
 
 Brown, Walter H 49 
 
 Butler, Tait, V.S 48 
 
 Clay, John 51 
 
 Curtis, George W 46 
 
 Dinwiddie, R. R., V.S 46 
 
 Emery, Frank E 45 
 
 Estil, Wallace 50 
 
 Gardner, A. J 49 
 
 Gardner, W. T 48 
 
 Goesmann, C. A 52 
 
 Gulley, F. A 46 
 
 Harris, W. A 50 
 
 Henry, W. A 46 
 
 Hughes, Joseph, V.S 47 
 
 Ingersoll, C. L 50 
 
 Johnston, Arthur 47 
 
 Law, James, V.S 44 
 
 McComber, C. L 49 
 
 McKay, David 51 
 
 Moore, John A .... 50 
 
 Myers, John A 47 
 
 Plumb, C. S 46 
 
 Quick, Walter J 45 
 
 PAGE. 
 Correspondence — Continued. 
 
 Rowland, E W., V.S 51 
 
 Roberts, I. P 44 
 
 Reid & Ullrich, V. S 50 
 
 Stevenson, A. D . . 48 
 
 Stalker, M., V.S 47 
 
 Smith, Clinton D 45 
 
 Tracy, S. M 45 
 
 Wing, H. H 44 
 
 Warfield, Wm 52 
 
 Cattle market visited 16, 115 
 
 Cruelty, law against 30 
 
 Definition of 72 
 
 Calves : 27 
 
 Disbudding 28 
 
 Preventing growth of horns 27 
 
 Chemicals 27 
 
 Circular issued 43 
 
 Conclusions 69 
 
 Canada, prosecutions in 31 
 
 Cheese Industry 70 
 
 Cows, dairy .~ 22 
 
 Cook, Benjamin 93 
 
 Callaghan case 32 
 
 Coleridge, Lord Chief Justice 37 
 
 D. 
 Deputations — 
 
 To Government 10 
 
 Toronto Humane Society 108 
 
 London Humane Society , 106 
 
 Dehorning — 
 
 Origin of in Ontario 9 
 
 In other countries 29 
 
 Effects of 69 
 
 Objections to 23 
 
 Character of advocates 18 
 
 Dominion Experimental Farm 63 
 
 Danger Removed 21 
 
 Drinking, conduct while 20 
 
 Dressing the horn 19 
 
 Directors of Agricultural Colleges 44 
 
 Dehorn only the vicious 26 
 
 Day, James 101 
 
 E. 
 Evidence (see next page.) 
 
 Summary of 19 
 
 English case 36 
 
 Export trade 69 
 
 Embryo horn 28 
 
 Experiment stations 53 
 
 Elliott, W. A 97 
 
 Edwards, W. C 117 
 
126 
 
 Fraud, possibility of 
 
 Ford v. Wiley 
 
 Flies, to avoid trouble from 
 
 Feeding loo3e 
 
 G. 
 Government, appealed to . . , 
 
 H. 
 
 Horns — 
 
 Anatomy of 
 
 Age indicated by 
 
 Blow on 
 
 Broken 
 
 Losses by 
 
 Rings on 
 
 Where taken off 
 
 Harrietsville meeting 
 
 Hutchinson, Chas 
 
 Hides, injured 
 
 Hooking 
 
 Haaf, H. H 
 
 Henry, W. A. Prof 
 
 Humane aspect 
 
 Humane to dehorn 
 
 Deputations 
 
 How performed 
 
 Hawkins, Mr. Justice 
 
 I. 
 
 Increased value 
 
 Ingersoll meeting 
 
 Irish cases 
 
 Illustrations 
 
 ... 29 
 
 ... 36 
 
 .. 72 
 
 69, 117 
 
 .... 19 
 .... 29 
 .... 24 
 .... 24 
 .... 69 
 .... 29 
 .... 82 
 . . 15, 89 
 . . 9, 104 
 .... 114 
 .... 21 
 .... 29 
 .... 46 
 .... 24 
 . . . . 24 
 106, 108 
 .... 97 
 .... 37 
 
 69 
 
 . . . 17, 119 
 . ... 31, 40 
 .56, 60, 61 
 
 Judgment in London (Ont.) case. 
 
 _ K. 
 Knobbing 
 
 T L - 
 
 .Law against cruelty 
 
 Law James, V.S 
 
 Legal decisions 
 
 Cases reviewed 
 
 Letters received 
 
 London Humane Society 
 
 London meeting 
 
 Lanes, conduct in 
 
 ™ • M - 
 Meetings held 
 
 Manure, saving of 
 
 Milk, not diminished 
 
 Qua! ity unimpared 
 
 Microscopic examination 
 
 Mucous discharge 
 
 N. 
 
 Nigh case, London, Ont 
 
 Nerves in horn 
 
 Norfolk case 
 
 Newland v. McDonagh 
 
 O. 
 
 Origin of practice 
 
 Ottawa meeting 
 
 11 
 
 26 
 
 .. 30 
 44,64 
 .. 30 
 .. 42 
 .. 43 
 .. 106 
 15, 95 
 .. 20 
 
 .. 13 
 .. 117 
 53, 69 
 .. 53 
 .. 19 
 .. 23 
 
 9 
 19 
 36 
 40 
 
 ... 9 
 
 17, 115 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Organization of Commission 12 
 
 Operation, how performed 82 
 
 (W. A. Elliott's evidence) 97 
 
 Objections to dehorning 12 
 
 Ontario Government 10 
 
 " Dehorning in 9 
 
 P. 
 
 Pus discharge 23 
 
 Pain of operation 23 
 
 Preventing growth of horn 27 
 
 Practice, reasons for 20 
 
 Quietness 20 
 
 R. 
 
 Rings on horns 29 
 
 Renton v. Wilson 33 
 
 Robertson, Jas. W., Dairy Commissioner 63, 116 
 Recommendations 73- 
 
 S. 
 Suffering, amount of 23 
 
 Suppuration 23 
 
 Saving of manure 117 
 
 Sheds, cattle in 116,117 
 
 Season to dehorn 72 
 
 Stations, agricultural 53 
 
 Saw, used 82, 97" 
 
 Scotch case 34 
 
 Scope of enquiry 12 
 
 Smith, Chauncey 84 
 
 T. 
 
 Tanners, views of 114 
 
 Tools used 81 
 
 Toronto meetings 16, 107, 75 
 
 Toronto Humane Society 108 
 
 Tilsonburg meetings 13, 78, S4 
 
 Tipping horns 26 
 
 Trough, cattle at the 20 
 
 Trials, summary of 30 
 
 IT. 
 
 United States prosecutions 31 
 
 No. dehorned in 29 
 
 V. 
 
 Vicious, dehorn only 26 • 
 
 Value increased 21 
 
 Veterinary evidence 18 • 
 
 Veterinary College, visit to 13 
 
 Verdict, London case 11 
 
 W. 
 
 Watering cattle 21 
 
 Why done 20 
 
 When best done 72 
 
 Witnessing the operation 13, 82 
 
 Witnesses (see next page) 
 
 Y. 
 
 Yorks, trial of 9 
 
 York, Edward 89> 
 
 York, William 103 . 
 
 York, Stephen 103- 
 
EVIDENCE. 
 
 
 Witnesses : page. 
 
 Brown, L. A., V.S 81 
 
 Brown, Enoch B 86 
 
 Booth, Wm 110 
 
 Beardmore, A. O 115 
 
 Bodwell, Chas 85 
 
 Brady, Wm., V.S 88 
 
 Bate, Louis 87 
 
 Casswell, Edwin 122 
 
 Cohoe, Jas. F 79 
 
 Cook, Benjamin 93 
 
 Crealock, Wm 114 
 
 Cawthorp, Joseph 121 
 
 Dorland, Oliver 79 
 
 Dance, Jas. C . 91 
 
 Dicey, John 98 
 
 Dicey, Hiram 99 
 
 Dillon, Matthew 85 
 
 Derough, Albert 85 
 
 Day, James 101 
 
 Davis, Rev. Canon 106 
 
 Edwards, W. C 117 
 
 Elliott, Robt. W 117 
 
 Elliott, W. A 97 
 
 Elliott, Isaiah W 79 
 
 Frankland, Garrett F 75 
 
 Freeman, Spencer A 82 
 
 Fulton, John 83 
 
 Flanagan, Cornelius 113 
 
 Fletcher, Levi 98 
 
 Facey, Robt 92 
 
 Franks, Joseph . . . . ' 92 
 
 Geary, John 95 
 
 Gordon, Adam 121 
 
 Golding, Henry 1 02 
 
 Harris, Ira 88 
 
 Henderson, John 121 
 
 Hodgson, W. W 77 
 
 Hutchinson, Chas 104 
 
 Hutchinson, T. V., M.D 100 
 
 Halligan, Sylvester 110 
 
 Hallam, Aid. John 110 
 
 Hogg, Thomas 122 
 
 Hopkins, Benjamin 84 
 
 Hawkins, Roger 88 
 
 Helinka, Henry 88 
 
 Ingham, Joshua 108 
 
 Innes, Rev. Dean 106 
 
 Jackson, Henry 90 
 
 Kelly, William Ill 
 
 Keesler, Jacob 95 
 
 Kinney, Hiram B 87 
 
 Levack, William 115 
 
 Lapier, Alex 88 
 
 Lawr, John C 94 
 
 Witnesses— Continued. page. 
 
 Leeson, Francis 83 
 
 Mallon, John 109 
 
 Milne, T. A., V.S 113 
 
 Mole, Wm., V.S Ill 
 
 Millson, S. C 99 
 
 Millson, Caleb H 102 
 
 Meikle, James 95 
 
 Mitchell, John 119 
 
 McCausland, Thos., M.D 114 
 
 McCredie, William 94 
 
 McKenney, R. C 95 
 
 MacBeth, Talbot 106 
 
 Nigh, Wm. V 92 
 
 O'Neil, John M 95 
 
 Prouse, Thomas 85 
 
 Perrin, D. S 106 
 
 Robertson, Jas. W 116 
 
 Rouse, James 92 
 
 Reed, John H. 83 
 
 Read, Hon. Robt 118 
 
 Ruddick, James 121 
 
 Rosehart, Willoughby 80 
 
 Rutherford, Thomas 78 
 
 Stover, Frank E 80 
 
 Shepherd, Wm 80 
 
 Shackelton, Wm 95 
 
 Scott, Andrew L 83 
 
 Spencer, Bertram, M.D 107 
 
 Sheahan, John 85 
 
 Stevens, Lorenzo 101 
 
 Stirton, .Wm 119 
 
 Smith, Chauncey 84 
 
 Smith, D. T 87 
 
 Smith, Murray 120 
 
 Sutherland, Wm. W 122 
 
 Sims, W. A 10S 
 
 Tamlin, Chas. S., V.S 96 
 
 Tooley, Richard, M.PP 91 
 
 Tillson, Edwin D 85 
 
 Taunt, George 115 
 
 Thompson, A. J 76 
 
 Thompson, E. A 112 
 
 Walker, David HI 
 
 Wickson, Henry 109 
 
 Wickett, S. R 114 
 
 Willis, John 112 
 
 Wilson, James H., V.S 102 
 
 Wilson, Foster 120 
 
 Wood, S.G 108 
 
 York, Edward 89 
 
 York, Stephen 103 
 
 York, Nm. H 103 
 
 York, Wm. S 103 
 
312297 
 
 rt 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY