United States Department of Agriculture, 
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY. 
PROTEST AO A INST PROPOSED LEGISLATION RESTRICTING THE 
EXPERIMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE* 
Washington, D. C., May 25, is07. 
Hon. Redfield Proctor, 
Chairman Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 
United States Senate. 
Dear Senator: Permit me to invite your attention to Senate bill 10(53, 
entitled “A bill for the further prevention of cruelty to animals in the District 
of Columbia,”f and to the injurious effect which this bill is likely to have upon 
the scientific investigations of the Department of Agriculture, and of the State 
agricultural experiment stations. The investigation of the diseases of animals, 
their causes, nature, prevention and treatment, is an extremely important work 
in the interests of agriculture, and one which should be fostered and encouraged. 
Such investigations, also, have a most valuable influence in many cases in advanc- 
ing the knowledge of human diseases, but, as they are primarily intended to 
benefit our farmers by diminishing the losses of live stock, I will not dwell upon 
their effect upon human medicine. 
Congress has for many years made provision for the investigation of the dis- 
eases of animals by this Department; large sums of money have been appropri- 
ated for this purpose; an experimental station and a laboratory have been equip- 
ped and maintained; valuable and expensive apparatus has been accumulated; 
expert investigators have been employed, and a vast amount of valuable knowl 
edge has been acquired. This work is not conducted for the benefit of the Dis- 
trict of Columbia any more than for other parts of the country; indeed, the stock 
interests of the District being insignificant, I might say that these investigations 
are made for the farmers of the country at large, and that the District of Colum- 
bia should neither be allowed to control nor interfere with them. 
The bill mentioned, under the guise of a local measure, undertakes to regulate 
these investigations, to state how they shall be performed, to prohibit certain 
kinds of experiments, to make experiments that do not come under the provis- 
ions of the bill an offense punishable by heavy fine and imprisonment, without 
regard to the necessity for the experiments or whether there is any cruelty in 
performing them. It also provides that the Commissioners of the District may 
*Copy of a letter addressed by the Secretary of Agriculture to Hon. Redfleld Proctor, United 
States Senate, relative to the provisions of Senate bill 1003. 
+As favorably reported to the Senate May 13,1897, by the Committee on the District of Colum- 
bia. This bill is similar in terms to Senate bill 1552, of the Fifty-fourth Congress, first session. 2 
direct any person performing such experiments from time to time to make reports 
to them of the methods employed and the results of such experiments, in such 
form and with such details as the said Commissioners may require. In effect, 
then, the hill would take this important and necessary scientific work, which 
has been committed to the Department of Agriculture, and which is maintained 
for the relief of the great agricultural and live stock interests of the country, 
out of the hands of the Secretary of Agriculture, at least to a considerable extent, 
and place it, to that extent, under the direction and control of the officials of the 
District of Columbia. 
No one representing the agricultural interests of the country has urged the 
desirability of this measure or had an ojfportunity to assist in perfecting it. The 
anti-vivisection committee of the Washington Humane Society claims the author- 
ship of the bill, and it is freely asserted that its passage is desired as much for 
its influence as a precedent for State legislation as for its direct effect in the 
District. It, therefore, threatens the work of the State agricultural experiment 
stations almost in the same manner as it does the work of this Department. A 
bill having such far-reaching effects upon the greatest industries of the country 
should not be treated as a strictly local measure, and should be much more care- 
fully considered than this one has been before it is enacted into law. Such a bill, 
if deemed necessary at all, should be drafted by persons in sympathy with 
scientific investigations, and should interfere with such investigations as little 
as possible consistent with the accomplishment of its object, viz, the prevention 
of cruelty. This bill, S. 1063, is the British anti-vivisection act, slightly modi- 
fied to make it applicable to our institutions, and with important safeguards of 
that measure omitted. The original act may have been required in Great 
Britain, and may have been suitable to the conditions existing there. In the 
United States, however, the conditions are different; the law for the prevention 
of cruelty to animals in the District of Columbia is very rigorous, and is not 
limited to domesticated animals, as was formerly the case with the law for the 
prevention of cruelty to animals in Great Britain. There is consequently not the 
same reason for special legislation concerning scientific experiments here, and 
much less for a more drastic measure. 
Briefly, the objections which I would urge to the passage of this bill are as 
follows: 
I. It has not been shown that there have been any cruel experiments performed 
in the District of Columbia, or that any such experiments are now in progress, 
or that there are likely to be any experiments of this character in the near 
future. 
The only allegation of such cruelties having been perpetrated was contained 
in a letter from Dr. A. L. Rauterberg in reference to mutilations of a dumb 
animal which he had seen in the Army Medical Museum. His statement is 
indefinite and does not specify the time, the species of animal operated upon, or 
the person perpetrating the cruel act. 
The records show that Dr. Rauterberg was at one time employed in the Army 
Medical Museum in a clerical capacity, and that he has not been connected with 
that institution for twenty-three years. Responsible medical officers connected 
with the museum testify that there have been no painful experiments performed 
there since 1870, nor, so far as they are informed, previous to that time. Need I 
say, it would not be wise to pass legislation which may retard science and 
interrupt the investigations now in progress and necessary for the control of 
diseases costing our farmers many millions of dollars annually, upon this incon- 
clusive evidence as to something which is alleged to have occurred in the Army 
Medical Museum a quarter of a century ago ? If it is considered necessary to 3 
take any legislative action upon such a statement, this should certainly he pre- 
ceded by a rigid public investigation to determine: (1) The truth of the allega- 
tion; (2) whether the animal was mutilated with the purpose of conducting an 
experiment; (3) whether the mutilation constituted cruelty; (4) whether any 
attempt was made to donvict the party making the experiment of cruelty, 
and if such attempt to convict failed, what were the reasons for the failure; 
(5) whether in case the experiment involved cruelty and were repeated at this time 
the guilty party could not be convicted and punished under existing statutes. 
In considering the advisability of legislation and the character of the legisla- 
tion required there should be a sharp distinction drawn between: (1) Malicious 
cruelty; (2) vivisections for demonstrations in the common schools before 
immature pupils; (3) demonstrations in the medical schools or universities nec- 
essary for the instruction of students of medicine or biology; (4) original inves- 
tigations for the advancement of biological or medical science. These different 
acts are referred to by the advocates of this legislation without much effort to 
discriminate between them, but it must be evident to any one who will give the 
matter some thought that it is not necessary to restrict or prohibit demonstra- 
tions for the instruction of advanced scientific students, or experiments for the 
discovery of new facts in science, in order to prevent malicious cruelty or demon- 
strations in the primary schools. 
II. This bill, if enacted into law, would absolutely prohibit important and 
necessary lines of experiments, and would greatly restrict some others which 
were not prohibited. 
This statement can be confidently made from a reading of the bill, but the full 
extent of the injury whicji it would do could only be determined by experience, 
since all kinds of experiments which may become necessary cannot be foreseen. 
The bill establishes certain restrictions in accordance with which experiments 
must be performed, and if any experiment is made which is in contravention to 
these provisions, or any of them, the investigator is “guilty of an offense against 
this act” and liable to a penalty of $150, if a first offense, or if a second offense 
the penalty may be $300, or six months’ imprisonment. 
Senator Gallinger’s report (S. No. 116) accompanying this bill refers to the 
memorials and resolutions of prominent scientific bodies protesting against its 
passage, as erroneous and misleading in asserting that the bill is intended to 
restrict and prohibit experiments upon living animals. There appears to be a 
difference of opinion as to the effect which the bill is intended to have, but an 
examination of its several sections shows conclusively that those who favor it 
need to make themselves familiar with its provisions not less than those who 
oppose it. For instance, the report says: 
“ It is proper also to say that the greater part of these adverse statements con- 
cern bacteriology only, which is expressly excluded from the operation of the 
bill, and therefore beside the question.” I fail to find any such exclusion of 
bacteriology in the bill as reported from the committee. The only exception to 
which this statement could possibly refer is found in section 2, paragraph (c), 
where it is provided that in “so-called inoculation experiments or tests of drugs 
or medicines the animal need not be anaesthetized nor killed afterwards, nor in 
tests of surgical procedure need animals be kept completely anaesthetized during 
the process of recovery from the surgical operation. ” As it would be impossible 
to keep an animal anaesthetized during the whole time of an inoculation experi- 
ment, the duration of which may vary from one to thirty days, or even longer, 
the effect of this exception is to avoid a complete prohibition of this class of 
experiments, and to allow them to be made subject to all the other provisions of 
the bill. 4 
The first restriction is that “ the experiment must be performed with a view 
to the advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge, or of knowl- 
edge which will be useful for saving or prolonging life or alleviating suffering.” 
Dr. Chas. W. Dabney, jr., Acting Secretary of Agriculture, held, in a letter to 
the chairman of the committee, that this provision forbids all experimentation 
to confirm the results obtained by others, or to determine whether their results 
are exactly accurate, or whether such conclusions apply under the conditions 
which obtain in this country. If this view should prove to be correct, and it 
appears to be in strict accordance with the text of the bill, it would prohibit a 
large part of the experimental work of the Department, bacteriology included, 
and seriously cripple the remainder. The report (No. 116) states that “the bill 
does not bear this limited construction,” but it is difficult to see how a court 
could otherwise construe this plain and explicit language. 
Those who drafted the British law were evidently of the opinion that the 
courts would strictly construe this paragraph for they inserted the following 
exception: 
Experiments may be performed not directly for the advancement by new 
discovery of physiological knowledge, or of knowledge which will be useful for 
saving or prolonging life or alleviating suffering, but for the purpose of test 
ing a particular former discovery alleged to have been made for the advance- 
ment of such knowledge as last aforesaid, on such certificate being given, as is 
in this act mentioned, that such testing is absolutely necessary for the effectual 
advancement of such knowledge. 
For some unexplained reason the anti-vivisection committee of the Washington 
Humane Society omitted this paragraph when they drafted S. 1063, and conse- 
quently this safeguard does not appear in the bill ncfw pending in the United 
States Senate. 
It is not my purpose to analyze the entire bill, nor is this necessary to show 
that it is fatally defective in its present form. Let us return to paragraph (c), 
section 2. “The animal must, during the whole of the experiment, be com- 
pletely under the influence of ether or chloroform sufficiently to prevent the 
animal from feeling pain, excepting only that in so-called inoculation experi 
ments or tests of drugs or medicines, the animal need not be anaesthetized nor 
killed afterwards, nor in tests of surgical procedure need animals be kept com- 
pletely anaesthetized during the process of recovery from the surgical operation. 
Otherwise than this the animal must be kept from pain during all experiments.” 
There is a very simple, very common, and very necessary line of experiments 
made to determine whether an animal contracts or may contract a certain dis- 
ease through certain articles of diet. For instance, we wish to determine 
whether a calf or a pig will contract tuberculosis by eating infected milk which 
has passed through a separator, or whether hog cholera may be spread by the 
separator milk from creameries. The only way to determine this is to feed in- 
fected milk which has been passed through a separator. But if the animal con- 
tracts one of these diseases in that way it will probably become fatally affected; 
it will probably suffer pain. As this is not an inoculation experiment, it contra- 
venes the provisions of the bill unless the animals are kept under anaesthetics 
during the whole course of the experiment, which would be absurd and impos- 
sible. 
Again, we wish to determine whether susceptible cattle will contract Texas 
fever when separated from infected ones by an ordinary board fence. It has 
been held by some that this is impossible, but others hold the opposite view. It 
is important to test the question by actual experiment. Here, again, we would 
contravene the provisions of the bill, because, if the animals contracted the dis- 
ease, they would suffer pain, and, as it is not a “so-called inoculation experi- 5 
ment,” it would be necessary according to the bill to keep the animals completely 
anaesthetized during the whole course of the experiment. Such a proceeding 
would be as impossible in this case as in the other. 
Take another case, such as it is frequently necessary for the Department to 
decide by accurate experiments. We wish to know whether the contagion of a 
disease like bovine pleuro pneumonia may be contracted from stables, or whether 
it must always pass direct from animal to animal through the expired air. To 
determine this, animals must be confined in stables where diseased cattle have 
been. If they contract the disease they necessarily suffer pain, hence, as it is 
not an inoculation experiment, or a test of drugs or medicines or a surgical 
procedure, the animal must be kept for weeks under ether or chloroform, which 
again would be absurd and impossible. 
A fourth case may arise as follows: There is a serious outbreak of an apparently 
contagious disease among horses in a Western State. The State veterinarian 
being in doubt as to its nature sends some blood or a piece of affected tissue to 
the Department, and asks for an investigation and an early report to guide him 
in the measures that should be adopted for the suppression of the outbreak. An 
inoculation experiment is found to be necessary, and a horse must be used. 
Before this inoculation can be made a certificate must be given that the object 
of the experiment will necessarily be frustrated unless it is performed on a horse, 
ass, or mule, and that no other animal is available for this purpose. The appli 
cation for this certificate must be signed by three physicians duly licensed to 
practice and actually engaged in practicing medicine in the District of Columbia, 
and also by a professor of physiology, medicine, anatomy, medical jurisprudence, 
materia medica or surgery in the medical department of a duly established reli 
able school or college in the District of Columbia. After this application is for 
warded to the Commissioners of the District it does not become available until 
a period of one week has elapsed. During this time the material sent for exam- 
ination has putrefied and the investigation can not be made. And yet we are 
told by the Senator that “ the bill under consideration does not interfere in the 
least with inoculation experiments. ” 
These are simple, every-day cases of experiments which would be prohibited 
by this bill. Many others could be instanced, but it is not necessary. I have 
said enough to show that the bill will restrict, and in many cases it will actually 
prohibit, very important investigations. 
III. This legislation is unanimously opposed by the great scientific bodies of 
the United States. 
The bill under consideration is felt by scientific men to be such a blow at 
freedom of research, such an obstruction to the advancement of biology, medi 
cine, and the allied sciences, that all of the great scientific; bodies of the country 
have protested against it. Among these may be mentioned, as having most 
weight, the National Academy of Sciences, The American Association for the 
Advancement of Science, The Society for the Promotion of Agricultural Science, 
The American Medical Association, The Association of American Physicians, 
The American Academy of Medicine, The American Surgical Association, The 
Association of American Medical Colleges, The American Microscopical Society, 
The United States Veterinary Medical Association, The American Public Health 
Association, The American Society of Naturalists, The American Society of 
Morphologists. In addition to these, numerous State medical associations. State 
boards of health, State academies of natural sciences, and the faculties of educa- 
tional institutions have joined in this protest. The united voice of these great 
and conservative organizations can not be safely ignored or disregarded. 6 
The report accompanying the bill assumes that these protests were made with- 
out an examination of the bill, and without an understanding of its effects upon 
research. This assumption is based upon the statement in the protests that the 
hill would restrict, prevent and prohibit experimentation upon animals in the 
District of Columbia, whereas, according to Senator Gallinger, it would not have 
that effect. The organizations mentioned, which include most if not all of the 
investigators of the country, may be considered as having acted intelligently and 
to be better judges of such legislation than persons who have had no experience 
in scientific research. Besides, it has already been shown in this communication 
that the provisions of the bill do restrict this class of experiments, and absolutely 
prevent and prohibit many lines of work. The assumption that these learned 
bodies protested without an investigation and without a knowledge of the bill 
can not be accepted. 
IV. This bill would discourage and injure the investigations of this Depart- 
ment by placing the experts under the espionage of inspectors not connected with 
the Department, by requiring reports to be made in detail to the Commissioners 
of the District of Columbia, by imposing heavy penalties for any experiment 
which varies in any way from the lines laid down in the bill. 
Espionage by inspectors unacquainted with the purposes or necessities of orig- 
nal scientific work in any field can not be agreeable to the expert; and if the 
inspectors should be unfriendly, officious, and inclined to search for slight depar- 
tures from the terms of the hill or to misconstrue the experiments, it would 
become simply intolerable. It may be assumed that the President would make 
a wise selection of inspectors; but no doubt the originators of the bill, the anti- 
vivisection committee of the local humane society, would expect to be repre- 
sented, and might secure representation. In that case would not their anti- 
vivisection principles compel them to obstruct, harass, and prevent experimenta- 
tions upon animals to the full extent of their power ? Could we reasonably 
expect any other course? 
By frequent visits of the inspectors, or any of them, by prolonged investiga- 
tions of the laboratories, and continuously asking for explanations, by repeatedly 
calling through the Commissioners for detailed reports of all experiments, the 
experimental work of the Department might be interrupted and prevented at 
any time, notwithstanding the instructions of the Secretary of Agriculture and 
his desire to speedily accomplish some particular plan for the benefit of the agri- 
cultural interests. An experiment necessary to decide some important question 
connected with our export cattle trade and to save that trade from destruction 
by foreign prohibition might thus be stopped, or an experiment to at once deter- 
mine the nature of an imported contagion such as rinderpest, threatening with 
disaster the whole animal industry of the country, might be delayed until the 
contagion had extended beyond control. 
Again, it is undesirable to divide the authority over the employees of this 
Department between the Secretary of Agriculture and the Commissioners 
of the District of Columbia. Shoxild this bill become a law, the Secretary of 
Agriculture might order an immediate investigation of some important subject, 
but the Commissioners of the District of Columbia could arrest and delay this 
investigation by calling for detailed reports" upon work in progress or which had 
previously been performed. They might at any time prevent or stop certain 
classes of investigations by disallowing or suspending the required certificate as 
provided in section 7. Such a condition of affairs would be unprecedented, and 
destructive to discipline and effective work. 
We could only expect that the experts employed by this Department would 
endeavor to obey the law and conduct the experiments in accordance with its  7 
provisions in order to avoid the penalties. If there was any doubt as to the 
legality, the experiments would not he made. Many tests which would other- 
wise be made would be avoided and the results of the investigations would to 
that extent be inconclusive and unreliable. Who would suffer from these defi- 
ciencies? Not the expert, for his salary would continue unimpaired. Would 
not all the delays, all the deficiencies, all the prohibition of work be so much 
withdrawn from the people of the United States and particularly from the farm- 
ing community? If experiments upon animals are conducted by this Depart- 
ment, it is because the country needs the knowledge obtained in that way, and 
because Congress has directed that such investigations should be made. 
V. It has not been shown that existing law is insufficient to prevent any form 
of cruelty. 
The report accompanying the bill refers to a proposed visit to this country of 
Professor Mantagazza and says: 
Suppose him to visit Washington, and to offer to repeat, for instruction of 
young “experts” in Government laboratories, that series of experiments in can 
sation of pain which made him famous—or infamous—wherever his name is 
known. Should he be permitted to do so? * * * But those who advocate 
this bill do not, and will not, admit that even the eminence or the qualifications 
of Mantagazza justify him in experiments such as he has made. Even a man 
of science must not overstep the boundaries that separate right from wrong. 
It is not to be believed that the possession of a degree in science should confer 
upon any young enthusiast the right to torture animals after the example of 
Mantagazza or others like him, and especially should they not be permitted to 
do this in laboratories supported by taxation of the people of the United States, 
free from inspection or criticism, free from accountability to public opinion, 
free from the control or supervision of representatives of the National Govern- 
ment other than those who are officers of the particular department under which 
the experimenter is employed. 
A cursory examination of existing law shows that such experiments as are 
related in detail in the report are already prohibited, and violations of the law 
may be followed with as severe penalties as are provided in S. 1063. Only prop- 
erly conducted scientific experiments under proper authority are now allowed. 
Provision is also made for the issuance of a search warrant upon complaint by 
any member of the Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals who 
believes and has reasonable cause to believe that the laws in relation to cruelty 
to animals have been or are being violated in any particular building or place. 
I quote certain sections of the Compiled Statutes, D. C. (chapter 67), in relation 
to the Washington Humane Society to show the complete authority which has 
already been enacted for preventing cruelty in any form: 
Sec. 5. Whoever overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, overworks, 
tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, cruelly beats, mutilates, or 
cruelly kills, or causes or procures to be so overdriven, overloaded, driven when 
overloaded, overworked, tortured, tormented, deprived of necessary sustenance, 
cruelly beaten, mutilated, or cruelly kills any animal, and whoever, having the 
charge or custody of any animal, either as owner or otherwise, inflicts unneces- 
sary cruelty upon the same, or unnecessarily fails to provide the same with 
proper food, drink, shelter, or protection from the weather, shall for every such 
offense he punished by imprisonment in jail not exceeding one year, or by fine 
not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars, or by both such fine and imprison- 
ment. 
Sec. 6. Every owner, possessor, or person having the charge or custody of any 
animal, who cruelly drives or works the same when unfit for labor, or cruelly 
abandons the same, or who carries the same, or causes the same to be carried, 
in or upon any vehicle or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman man- 
ner, or knowingly and wilfully authorizes or permits the same to be subjected to 
unnecessary torture, suffering, or cruelty of any kind, shall be punished for 
every such offense in the manner provided in section one. [Sec. 5 of this act.]. 8 
Sec. 0. When complaint is made by any member of the Association for the 
Prevention of Ci’uelty to Animals (Washington Humane Society), on oath or 
affirmation, to any magistrate authorized to issue warrants in criminal cases, 
that the complainant believes, and has reasonable cause to believe, that the laws 
in relation to cruelty to animals have been or are being violated in any particu 
lar building or place, such magistrate, if satisfied that there is reasonable cause 
for such belief, shall issue a search warrant, authorizing any marshal, deputy 
marshal, constable, police officer, or any member of the Association for the Pre- 
vention of Cruelty to Animals, to search such building or place. 
Sec. 15. Nothing in this act contained shall be construed to prohibit or inter- 
fere with any properly conducted scientific experiments or investigations, which 
experiments shall be performed only under the authority of the faculty of some 
regularly incorporated medical college, university, or scientific society. 
Sec. 16. In this act the word “ animal” or “animals” shall be held to include 
all brute creatures, and the words “owner,” “persons,” and “whoever,” shall 
be held to include corporations as well as individuals ; and the knowledge and 
acts of agents of, and persons employed by, corporations in regard to animals 
transported, owned, or employed by, or in the custody of, such corporations 
shall be held to be the acts and knowledge of such corporations. 
The report assumes, page 6, that the great underlying principle for which the 
bill contends is the right of the Government to govern the individual. So far 
as I can see there is no such principle at stake. The right of Congress to pass 
the bill is unquestioned, but whether it is desirable, proper, and for the best 
interests of the country to pass it is a question which should receive careful and 
impartial investigation. I trust that legislation which so seriously affects the 
whole country will not be treated as a strictly local measure, but will receive 
the attention of your honorable committee ; that the voice of agriculture and 
science may be heard by the Senate, and that this objectionable bill will not 
become a law. 
Very respectfully, 
James Wilson, 
Secretary. 
Note.—Copy of Senate Bill No. 1063 is enclosed herewith.