CO885-8 — Page 134

363

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 885

8

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

516

APPENDIX XXX.

Restrictions on the Importation of Cattle from Canada into the United Kingdom.

23661 02

MEMORANDUM BY THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.

The Resolution adopted by the Canadian House of Commons on the 1st ult., which is to be submitted for consideration at the approaching Colonial Conference, raises an issue of a general character, which has been the subject of public and parliamentary discussion for the past

40 years. Shortly stated, the question is whether: (1) a fixed rule shall be prescribed requiring all imported animals to be slaughtered under official supervision at the port at which they are landed, or (2) a discretionary power may safely be given to a Public Department to dispense with this requirement if they consider it safe to do so.

The latter policy was that which, after much discussion, was embodied in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878-an Act which was subsequently consolidated with others in the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894.

The Act of 1878 provided (Fifth Schedule) that imported animals should be landed at what were to be known as foreign animals wharves, out of which the animals were not to be moved alive, but the Privy Council, whose duties in the matter were subsequently transferred to the Board of Agriculture, were required to relax this provision and to waive the requirement of slaughter whenever they were satisfied, with respect to any country, that

(a.) The laws thereof relating to the importation and exportation of animals, and to

the introduction or spreading of disease; and

(b.) The general sanitary condition of animals therein, were such as to afford

reasonable security against the importation of diseased animals.

The provision of the Act of 1878 remained in force until 1896, but throughout that period various difficulties were found to attend its administration.

Amongst these difficulties may be mentioned-

(a.) The difficulty of diagnosis in the case of the more obscure diseases, and in

their early stages;

(b.) The conflict of expert opinion;

(c.) The impossibility of obtaining prompt, accurate, and continuous information

as to the condition of other countries with regard to disease;

(d.) The invidiousness of the task of drawing distinctions between the statements of one Government and those of another, and of refusing to give credence to the evidence tendered;

(e.) The difficulty of keeping au courant with the changes of the law in other

countries and of relaxations allowed thereunder;

(f.) The impossibility of ascertaining the extent to which the laws of another

country are efficiently enforced and administered.

The first illustration of the difficulties attending the exercise of the duties imposed upon the Department by the Act of 1878 arose in 1879, in the case of the United States, and the latest in 1894, in the case of Canada. In both instances diplomatic correspondence ensued, and somewhat heated discussion arose in non-official circles

517

which promised to continue indefinitely-it lasted for 17 years in the case of the United States-with results by no means favourable to the maintenance of good relations between the various interests concerned.

In the 18 years during which the Act of 1878 was in operation considerable expen- diture was incurred, and great sacrifices were made by stockowners in this country to clear their herds and flocks from disease. In 1877 no fewer than 2,007 outbreaks of In 1889 pleuro-pneumonia were reported, the number of cattle attacked being 5,330. the number of outbreaks was reduced to 47 with 1,646 cattle attacked, whilst in 1895 only one outbreak was recorded with 43 animals attacked.

It was also demonstrated that the mere inspection of imported animals on their arrival could not afford security against the introduction of diseases, especially as regards pleuro-pneumonia in cattle and scab in sheep, animals which had been examined at the ports and passed as healthy having been found to be affected when slaughtered a few days later.

It was, moreover, ascertained that the compulsory slaughter of imported animals at the ports was compatible not only with the maintenance, but even with the rapid development, of the trade.

Thus, in the case of the United States the imports of live cattle, which were 11,538 in 1877 and 68,450 in 1878, when admission into this country was unrestricted, had risen to 276,533 in 1895 and were as many as 403,945 in 1901, although slaughter at the ports was made obligatory in 1879.

In the case of Argentine a trade of considerable magnitude was created and developed under the rule as to slaughter. The imports from that country were only 653 cattle and 22,082 sheep in 1890, but in 1895 they had risen to 38,763 cattle and 306,262 sheep, and in 1899 they were 85,365 catte and 382,030 sheep.

The imports from Canada have remained practically at the same level before and after the enforcement of the rule.

It was in view of these considerations that the Act of 1896 was passed and a statutory condition prescribed, which is applicable at all times and to all countries alike. No question now arises, or has at any time arisen since that date, either as to the sanitary condition of animals in Canada, ns to the laws relating to the admission of animals into the Dominion from the United States and other foreign countries, or as to the administration and enforcement of those laws and of the laws relating to diseases of animals generally.

The disadvantages of the "in-and-out" arrangement in operation between 1878 and 1896 have already been referred to. These are, of course, avoided by the existing law, but, in addition, it may be observed, not only that friction and difficulty are avoided, and the danger of the introduction of disease diminished by the adoption of a fixed rule, but that the sudden dislocation of trade conditions is prevented and uncertainty and insecurity removed. Breeders are able to make their arrangements without fear that they may at any moment find themselves face to face with a large augmentation of the supply of foreign store stock. Graziers can tell with certainty from what sources open to them to supply their requirements. Colonial exporters have a certain knowledge of the conditions under which they have access to the home markets, and they run no danger of a sudden refusal on our part to admit store stock due to some untoward circumstance as regards the prevalence of disease. The value of stable and fixed conditions, from a trader's point of view, is universally recognised, and, as will be seen from the figures cited above, the condition of prompt slaughter at the port is not one which is destructive of trade, or is inconsistent with a largely increased importation of live animals for food.

it is

It may, perhaps, be added that there is nothing in the existing law which is opposed to the Imperial conception. The regulation, and even prohibition, of the movement of animals, in order to prevent the spread of disease, is of almost daily occurrence in the United Kingdom. There has never been a time since operations against contagious diseases were commenced when it could be said that there existed free and unrestricted movement of animals within the limits of the United Kingdom. The importation of animals from Great Britain into Ireland is at times prohibited; regulations requiring the prompt slaughter of Irish swine have on several occasions been made by local authorities in Great Britain, and the movement of animals from one part of Great Britain to another is frequently prohibited.

4 G 4

518