Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President Transmitted to Congress December 7, 1896, and the Annual Report of the Secretary of State
Mr. White to Mr. Foster.
London, November 5, 1892.
Sir: Referring to my dispatch, No. 812, of 29th ultimo, I have the honor to inclose herewith for the information of yourself and the Secretary of the Treasury, a report which has appeared in the Times, and other morning papers of to-day, of the reception yesterday by the president of the British board of agriculture of an influential deputation, headed by the Duke of Westminster, whose object in waiting upon Mr. Gardner was to urge upon him the imposition upon the cattle trade between this country and Canada of the same restrictions as those now enforced against our cattle trade with Great Britain. It will be observed that Mr. Gardner informed the deputation that an order to that effect had been already signed. I may add that his action in the matter is highly commended in most of the leading daily papers.
In this connection I also inclose the report of the reception on the 25th ultimo, by Mr. Gardner, of another deputation asking for the repeal of the contagious diseases animals act (1884), and of the substitution of an act providing for the landing of animals under such restrictions as would make it impossible to spread such diseases.
I have the honor, furthermore, to state that Dr. Wray, our veterinary inspector at Deptford, has informed me to to-day that upon going to the veterinary college yesterday to inspect a lung alleged to have been taken from an American bullock and to be affected by pleuro-pneumonia, he was informed that another diseased lung, which was also shown him, had been received there from a bullock landed at Liverpool from the United States. This lung was alleged to be affected by pleuro-pneumonia, and Dr. Wray himself considers it suspicious, but he has no proof whatever that it was taken from an American animal. On the contrary, our inspector at Liverpool, Dr. Ryder, to whom Dr. Wray telegraphed at once for information in the matter, replied that it had not been brought to his attention by Mr. Smart, the British veterinary inspector there, and that he knew nothing of the case.
With regard to the lung first mentioned, Dr. Wray was unable to find the tag taken from the animal in question, but in any case he considers that the latter was affected by catarrhal pneumonia, not pleuro-pneumonia. Both cases have been cabled to the Department of Agriculture.
I may add that Dr. Wray has given me to understand recently that his efforts to discover the tags attached to animals from the United States, alleged to be diseased, have not been facilitated by the authorities of the Deptford cattle yard. In fact, he rather implies the reverse.
I have, etc.,
The important agricultural meetings which take place this week, will not, we fear, be particularly cheerful gatherings. They will have to discuss many questions, but they will find it hard to discover any facts in the present situation which promise well for British agriculture, or tell of any lifting of the clouds which lower upon it. Among other matters to which attention will be called, both at the meeting of the central chamber of agriculture to-day, and at that of the council of the Royal Agricultural Society to-morrow, is the recent occurrence of several cases of pleuro-pneumonia in Scotland. These are not times in which any further shocks can well be borne by the stricken agriculturist, whether landlord or tenant; least of all, the [Page 339] occurrence of a serious epidemic among cattle. Thanks to a vigorous use of the large powers given by the law to the hoard of agriculture, foot-and-mouth disease was successfully stamped out last spring. That, however, was when Mr. Chaplin was at the head of the board, and it remains to be seen whether the same energy will be shown by the successor whom the vicissitudes of politics have put in his place. The facts of the outbreaks, which are not very generally known, deserve to be made public.
It appears that on September 29 a cargo of Canadian cattle was landed at Dundee from the steamship Monkseaton, and a few days later another cargo from the steamship Hurona, the two cargoes together comprising some 1,200 animals. All these were sold on October 6, and some of them were soon afterwards moved to Lindore’s farm, Fife. There, on October 11, it was reported to the board of agriculture that one of the animals was suffering from pleuro-pneumonia, and the report was promptly confirmed. Directly afterwards another of the Canadians fell ill of the same disease at Arbroath, Forfarshire, and on the 22d a third case was announced at Stewart’s farm, Leckiebank, Fife, the animal being one of those landed from the Hurona. All the animals on the farms in question have since been slaughtered, and it is understood that orders have been given by the board for the slaughter of all the Canadian cattle which arrived in the two ships named. From this it appears that the board regards the incident as most serious, and that great expense and loss have already followed from it. On the most favorable showing, the outbreak has cost an infinity of trouble to the authorities and great loss to the owners of the cattle, and it still remains to be seen whether the measures taken to prevent the spread of the disease will prove successful.
The law which applies to cases of this kind is the contagious-diseases (animals) act of 1878. By the thirty-fifth section it provides that the fifth schedule shall apply to foreign animals, and that schedule enacts (1) that foreign animals are only to be landed at a part of any port, to be called “the foreign animals’ wharf;” (2) that they are not to be moved out of the wharf alive. With regard to this important provision it may be remarked that it affords a complete guaranty against the importation of the particular disease in question, for it appears to have been proved that pleuro-pneumonia, unlike foot-and-mouth disease, can only be conveyed by immediate contact with the animal. But the act is not necessarily of universal application. It provides that when the privy council, now the board of agriculture, are satisfied with regard to any foreign country that the laws of the country and sanitary condition of animals therein are such as to afford reasonable security against disease, then they shall allow animals to be landed without being subject to slaughter. It is to this provision that the attention of all agriculturists and of the board is now being directed, for Canada has till now been deemed to be safe, and a special exception has been made in her favor. The Scotch stock feeders and graziers have shown a fondness for Canadian cattle, hence the large importations, of which those in question are examples. Many of them have also shown a strong desire to import live cattle from the United states, a desire in which they have been very naturally encouraged for a long time back by diplomatic efforts on the part of the United States legation in London, but hitherto without success. Canada, but not the United States, has been believed by the board of agriculture to be free from the disease. It can hardly be argued after the occurrences which we have described that this is now the case.
In dealing with the diseases of cattle, promptitude is of the utmost importance. The infection is so rapid, and the animals are often so quickly moved to long distances, that it is extremely difficult to stamp out a disease when it has once got well hold. It becomes, then, a matter of absolute necessity to use, if only for a time, all the powers and precautions that the law allows; and that, in the present case, means the withdrawal of the exception in favor of Canada. How the disease has been introduced into that country is a question on which we have at present no light; probably it traveled across the border from the United States in some obscure way. But that is not the point of immediate importance. What concerns the inhabitants of these islands at this moment is the fact that pleuro-pneumonia exists in Canada, and the other fact that cargoes of Canadian cattle are actually on their way here. The Peruvian, for example, left Montreal for Glasgow on October 26, with 446 cattle on board, and is due in the Clyde within a very few days. By what is done in the case the public will have a means of judging the administrative capacities of the new minister of agriculture, Mr. Herbert Gardner. Till now there have been scanty opportunities for estimating his fitness for this important post, for when the Gladstonians were in opposition Mr. Gardner can not be said to have made his mark as an agriculturist either in his county of Essex or in the House of Commons, and since he came into office he has only been known from having held various interviews with Scotch stock feeders, and from having recently received a deputation from Deptford.
In the Deptford case it may be readily admitted that Mr. Gardner gave a decision in harmony with good sense and with the universal feeling of agriculturists. Will he do the same in the new case that has arisen? The case, it must be remembered, [Page 340] touches his Scotch friends very closely. They like Canadian cattle, which appears to give them a good profit, and, as some of them told him a few weeks ago, they were inclined to be jealous of the board and to think the local inspector quite good enough for any reasonable emergency. It is pretty certain that the Central Chamber and the Royal Agricultural Society will move in the matter, and, if they do, the public will await with much interest Mr. Gardner’s decision. It will be curious to see which will win the day—the interests of the whole country or those of a class of Scotch cattle raisers, not numerous enough to count in an equitable consideration of the issues, but numerous enough to make a good deal of difference in three or four county elections.
Importation of Canadian cattle.
An influential deputation waited yesterday on the minister of agriculture at 3 St. James square to advocate the prohibition of the importation of live Canadian cattle. The deputation was introduced by the Duke of Westminster, as president of the Royal Agricultural Society, and included Sir John Swinburne, Mr. Clare Sewell Read, Sir J. H. Thorold, Mr. S. P. Foster, Sir Walter Gibey, and other gentlemen. Mr. Chaplin, M. P., and others wrote letters of regret at inability to attend.
The Duke of Westminster said he approached Mr. Gardner to represent the views not only of the Royal Agricultural Society, of which he was this year president, but also of the central and associated chambers of agriculture and the Shorthorn Society. There had been an outbreak of contagious pleuro-pneumonia shortly after the arrival of Canadian cattle at Dundee. Inspection was quite useless. The disease might be latent in the bodies of these animals long before any signs could be detected. The outward symptoms were rapidly seized upon, but, in consideration of the vast number of cattle imported, they could all see the impossibility of adequate inspection. The only exception to the rules required by the contagious diseases (animals) act, 1878, was in favor of countries as to which the board was satisfied of exemption from disease. But animals had been slaughtered at Dundee, and also other animals which had come in contact with them were sentenced to the same fate. He hoped the president would rescind the special regulation under which Canadian cattle were allowed to enter this country. They could not be too grateful for the action of the board of agriculture in the past, and they hoped there would be no breach in the continuity of its policy. The conduct of the board was in striking contrast with the laxity which prevailed some twenty-five years ago, when cattle disease broke out so violently. [Hear, hear.]
Sir John Thorold, representing the veterinary committee of the Royal Agricultural Society, said that the committee had viewed with satisfaction the action of the board in the past, and hoped the board would continue the policy which had been so successful.
Mr. Clare Sewell Read, of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, expressed his regret that the president was not a cabinet minister. He also represented the Farmers’ Club, the Norfolk Chamber of Agriculture, and other bodies. He appeared as a grazier—he hoped, an honest grazier. He had found it difficult to believe from his own experience that the disease had really broken out among Canadian cattle, but on being convinced of the fact he was constrained to ask Mr. Gardner to schedule Canada. The department had exterminated pleuro-pneumonia, which had been rampant for forty years, and he hoped swine fever would also be dealt with in an equally efficient manner. [Hear, hear.]
Sir John Swinburne, president of the Smithfield Club, said that £300,000 had been spent in stamping out the disease, which the department had so effectually done, and fully indorsed all that had been said by the Duke of Westminster and Mr. Read.
Mr. S. P. Foster, of the Shorthorn Society, said he could point to two herds of valuable shorthorns which had to be exterminated. Imported cattle should be in the same category. In Cumberland £8,000 had been spent in putting down the disease.
Mr. Walter Gibey quite agreed with all that had been said by the Duke of Westminster. The tenant farmers of Essex, of whom he was one, never had their store cattle so cheap, and so there was no fear that the restrictions for which they asked would raise the price of cattle.
Mr. Gardner said that he fully recognized the importance of the deputation, not only on account of the great agricultural interests which such societies as the Royal Agricultural Society, the Central Chamber of Agriculture, the Smithfield Club, and the Shorthorn Society represented, but also on account of the many eminent agriculturists among the deputation. The opinion of these societies must carry great weight, and he was sure they would all regret that circumstances should have arisen [Page 341] to make it necessary to consider whether restrictions should be placed upon the importation of Canadian store stock, which had proven so advantageous and profitable. The importance of this store stock was shown by the fact that, whereas the number imported in 1887 was 65,125, the number had risen in 1891 to 107,524. The value of these imports had also increased from £1,135,000 to £1,771,000. It was true that even the last-mentioned amount did not amount to 2 per cent of the aggregate supply of this country. It was also true that the restriction asked for would not be inconsistent with the importation of fat stock for slaughter at the ports. Although, however, these imports formed but a small item in our total of stock, they formed one of the largest items of Canadian imports into this country. But our Canadian friends, even if the restriction were imposed, might send more fat stock than ever, and this course had been advocated by some of the highest authorities. On the other hand, it had been urged that the requirement of slaughter at the ports prevented the realization of so high a price as if they were admitted free. This, however, was not a conclusive argument against the proposed restriction.
The convenience of localities had to be balanced against those of the agriculturists generally of Great Britain. But the fact that half the total imports of Canadian cattle had been brought to four ports—Aberdeen, Dundee, Glasgow, and Leith—was a consideration which any Government would have to weigh carefully in arriving at any decision. He mentioned this with no desire to minimize the inclination of the department to prevent the importation of the disease. The safety of our flocks and herds would as much engage the present board as it had any of their predecessors. [Hear, hear.] The successful action of the board was shown in respect of pleuro-pneumonia by the diminishing figures of cases of that disease. In 1887 there were 618 cases; in 1888, 513; in 1889, 474; in 1890, 295; and last year only 60. In September, 1890, there were 46 outbreaks; in September, 1891, only 11; and in the same month of this year only 2. These results were startling. Even the localities which had suffered would recognize these beneficial effects of the board’s action. It was, therefore, after careful and anxious investigation that they had come to the conclusion that the board had absolutely no alternative but to withdraw the privilege which Canada had enjoyed. [Hear, hear.] The order had already been signed. They had taken this step with the greatest regret, and he was sure the Canadian Government would cooperate loyally with the board. They had no other course than to revert to slaughter at the ports. He desired to remove the impression that the board had been supine. They had been most active ever since rumors of the outbreak had reached their ears. On October 17 they heard that a diseased Canadian animal had arrived. The work involved in connection with the stricken animals and those which had been brought in contact with them was most laborious. Seventy-nine owners in all parts of the country had to be communicated with. Instructions were given on the 17th and on the following day, when the order went, 1,043 out of 1,211 cases had been traced. The traveling staff had exerted themselves admirably.
On October 26 satisfactory information was laid before the board. They had to ascertain the legal obligations under which they lay. Of course, they would have been glad to keep these Canadian cattle alive. Systematic examination was made, and they were assured that pleuro-pneumonia was absolutely unknown in Canada and that the disease was not of that character, and also that there must have been some error of identification. All these conflicting statements had to be taken into account before they felt justified to take the course upon which the board had determined. He had also to take his colleagues in the Government into consultation. But whilst he was anxious to assure the deputation that there had been no unnecessary delay, he also could not but express regret that regard for our agricultural interests had made it essential that the order should go in discharge of the duty which the board had to fulfill. [Hear, hear.]
The Duke of Westminster, in thanking the minister very cordially for the course which he had adopted, mentioned that the value of stock imported from the United States, notwithstanding the restrictions in force, was last year £314,838.
A supplement to last night’s London Gazette contains an order by the board of agriculture revoking the animals (amendment) order of 1892, No. 8, and giving the following new provisions:
“cattle from canada.
“2. Notwithstanding anything in the animals order of 1886, unless and until the board of agriculture otherwise order, chapter 32 (foreign animals not subject to slaughter or quarantine) of the said order shall not apply to cattle brought from Her Majesty’s possessions in North America, and such cattle shall be subject to the provisions of part 1 (slaughtering at port of landing) of the fifth schedule to the contagious diseases (animals) act, 1878, and to the provisious of chapter 30 (foreign animals subject to slaughter) of the said animals order of 1886.
[Page 342]“amendment of article 151 of the animals order of 1886.
“3. The following provisions of this article shall he read in the place of article 151 of the animals order of 1886, and shall be deemed to be article 151 of that order, namely:
“conditions of landing.
“151 (1). The landing of foreign animals at a landing place for foreign animals under the provisions of this chapter is subject to the following conditions:
- “First. That the vessel in which they are imported has not, within twenty-eight days before taking them on, had on board any animal exported or carried coastwise from a port or place in any country other than Her Majesty’s possessions in North America (provision as to which country is made by the second condition of this article), or Iceland, or New Zealand, or the Channel Islands, or the United States of America (provision as to which country is made by the third condition of this article), or the Isle of Man.
- “Second. That in the case of the landing of cattle, the vessel in which they are imported has not, within twenty-eight days before taking them on board, had on board any cattle exported or carried coastwise from a port or place in Her Majesty’s posessions in North America.
- “Third. That, in the case of the landing of cattle or swine, the vessel in which they are imported has not, within twenty-one days before taking them on board, had on board any cattle or swine exported or carried coastwise from a port or place in the United States of America.
- “Fourth. That the vessel in which they are imported has not, within twenty-one days before taking them on board or at any time since taking on board the animals imported, entered any port or place in any country other than Her Majesty’s possessions in North America, or Iceland, or New Zealand, or the Channel Islands, or the United States of America, or the Isle of Man.
- “Fifth. That the animals imported have not, when on board the vessel, been in contact with any animal exported or carried coastwise from any port or place in any country other than Her Majesty’s possessions in North America (provision as to which country is made by the sixth condition of this article), or Iceland, or New Zealand, or the Channel Islands, or the United States of America (provision as to which country is made by the seventh condition of this article), or the Isle of Man.
- “Sixth. That none of the cattle imported have, while on board the vessel, been in contact with any cattle exported or carried coastwise from any port or place in Her Majesty’s possessions in North America.
- “Seventh. That none of the cattle or swine imported have, while on board the vessel, been in contact with any cattle or swine imported or carried coastwise from any port or place in the United States of America.
“(2) And the animals imported shall not be landed at a landing place for foreign animals unless and until—
- “(a) The owner or charterer of the vessel in which they are imported, or his agent in England, or Wales, or Scotland, has entered into a bond to Her Majesty the Queen in a sum not exceeding £1,000, with or without a surety or sureties, to the satisfaction of the commissioners of customs, conditioned for the observance of the foregoing conditions; and
- “(b) The master of the vessel has on each occasion of importation of foreign animals therein satisfied the commissioners of customs, or their proper officer, by declaration made and signed, or otherwise, that all the animals then imported therein are properly imported according to the provisions of this article.
“The order will take effect from November 21.”
At the cabinet council which was held yesterday ministers must have had a good deal to think about, if not to talk about, in addition to the home-rule scheme. It is becoming perfectly clear that Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues will have to decline to take up many of the bills to which they prodigally put their signature when they were in opposition. The practical difficulties they were then able to ignore are now staring them in the face, and everywhere except in Ireland they are doing their best to show that, in the sphere of administration, at any rate, their policy does not greatly differ from that of their predecessors in office. We have already recorded Mr. Asquith’s reassertion in the most emphatic manner of the principle that there was no right of public meeting in Trafalgar Square, a principle which his party had denounced when it was affirmed by Mr. Matthews, Mr. Fowler’s [Page 343] polite intimation to “the unemployed” that it is not the business of the local government board to provide work for them directly or indirectly, and the well-deserved snub which Mr. Campbell-Bennerman has bestowed upon the busybodies who protested against the punishment of the mutinous noncommissioned officers of the First Life Guards as “unnecessarily severe and calculated to render the Government unpopular,” To these we have now to add Mr. Herbert Gardner’s prompt compliance, formally announced in last night’s gazette, with the request urged upon him yesterday by an influential deputation, for the revocation of the exceptional privilege of free entry hitherto granted, under the cattle diseases acts, to live animals coming from Canada and rendered dangerous to British stock by an outbreak of disease to which attention was recently drawn in the columns of the Times. Mr. Gardner, who had previously refused to permit the removal of the restrictions on the live cattle trade imposed at Deptford Market, has once more shown his determination to maintain the policy carried out with excellent results by Mr. Chaplin.
For our part we rejoice that ministers are thus wise enough to refrain from showing that they have “the courage of their opinions,” or, rather, of the opinions their party professed before they found themselves again in place. It is true that if these things had been said and done by the Unionist Ministry they would have been assailed with Radical abuse and twisted by the very men who are now in office into proofs of lack of sympathy with the people. It is equally true that this change of tone on the part of Mr. Gladstone’s colleagues must cause disappointment among various sections of voters. But the main point, so far as the country is concerned, is that the administration of the public departments shall be conducted on sound and well-tested principles, whatever party may be in power. So long as the members of the present Government give proof, by following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, that they take their stand upon such principles, their administrative conduct will meet among Unionists with fair and candid recognition. It is not upon their administration, except, of course, in Ireland, but upon their policy, and especially their Irish policy, that they must be prepared for a determined and unsparing onslaught, which there is good reason to believe they are not even now in a position to confront successfully. Their internal divisions are aggravated by their administrative merits, and it is certain these divisions will assume even a more serious form when questions now discussed in the secrecy of the cabinet or quietly settled by the departments have to be brought forward in the fierce light of the House of Commons. The Lord Chancellor’s speech at the cutlers’ feast at Sheffield last Thursday expressed a hope that social questions might be kept out of the strife of party politics. The aspiration is praiseworthy, but it seems to imply absolute ignorance on Lord Herschell’s part that there was ever such a thing as a Newcastle programme or a London programme.
It was Lord Herschell’s friends and colleagues who dragged social questions into party politics to bolster up the sinking cause of home rule, and to their efforts is due the rise of those wild theories and feverish passions on which Mr. Asquith, Mr. Fowler, Mr. Campbell-Bennerman, and Mr. Gardner have to pour cold water at the risk of alienating the electoral support of the disappointed and deluded. Mr. Gladstone still believes, apparently, in the advantages of “kite-flying.” He has held out to Mr. Arthur Arnold an attenuated hope that something may be done in the course of next session to promote the objects of the Free Land League. But this, like other legislative pledges, will have to wait upon the fortunes of the home-rule bill.
In the sphere of administration, as we have admitted, the present Government have not, except in Ireland, shown any desire to depart widely from the prudent courses of their predecessors. To say this, however, is by no means to say that they do not require watching very closely and the steadying pressure of public opinion. The subject which was brought before the minister of agriculture yesterday, and on which he has come to a wise decision, was discussed some days ago in these columns, when it was pointed out that the outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia among the Canadian store cattle imported into Scotland, involving already most troublesome and costly repressive measures, constituted an irresistible case for the stoppage of the trade until Canada is in a position to produce once more a clean bill of health. The heavy losses incurred in recent years by British farmers, owing to the importation of pleuro-pneumonia, as well as foot-and-mouth disease and rinderpest, and the complete success of the policy of excluding live animals from infected countries, which was most energetically and vigorously carried out under Mr. Chaplin, are facts that can not be explained away.
The deputation which waited upon Mr. Gardner included the Duke of Westminster, Sir John Swinburne, Mr. Clare Read, Sir John Thorold, Mr. Walter Gilbey, and many others connected with the agricultural interest and representing the Royal Agricultural Society, the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture, the Smith-field Club, the Shorthorn Society, the Farmers’ Club, and similar bodies. There was not much room for controversy. It was pointed out that the exemption hitherto granted to Canadian cattle was founded on the assumption that there was no disease in Canada, which was proved not to be any longer the case by the appearance of [Page 344] pleuro-pneumonia among the imported beasts in Scotland. It is greatly to be regretted that we should be compelled to place Canada on the list of infected countries, and Mr. Clare Read declared that his reluctance to believe that the necessity had arisen had only been removed by the most conclusive evidence. Mr. Gardner, in informing the deputation that he had already signed the order annulling the exemption and enforcing slaughter at the ports of entry, did not attempt to minimize the gravity of the obligation that was laid upon his department. The circumstances of the present time are such that to play any pranks with the suffering agricultural interest would be nothing less than criminal, yet Mr. Gardner’s assurance that “the safety of our flocks and herds would as much engage the present board as it had any of their predecessors” will probably dissatisfy some of those who had been led to expect that a Gladstonian government would abolish all restrictions on the import of live cattle. Mr. Gardner’s defense of his department against the imputation of having been “supine” is plausible enough, but it must be remembered that the first notification of the outbreak was given more than three weeks ago, and that in the meantime other cargoes of Canadian cattle might have arrived and been distributed throughout the country. It does not appear that the efforts made to trace and extirpate all the cattle from the infected ships were wanting in energy and success, but this costly, troublesome, and perhaps inadequate remedy is not to be compared with the simple and effective method of slaughter at the ports.
Mr. Gardner cited official figures to show how successful the latter method had been in bringing the last epidemic of pleuro-pneumonia under control. In 1887 there were 618 cases; in 1888, 513; in 1889, 474; in 1890, 295, and in 1891 only 60, while the present year down to the date of the Canadian importation showed a further decline and practically a cessation of the disease. Mr. Chaplin, however, to whom belongs the larger share of the credit of this work, got very little praise for it from his successor’s political associates, and was denounced by some of them as a protectionist trying to keep up the price of meat, for the benefit of the British farmer and at the expense of the British consumer, by the expulsion of foreign supplies. Yet it is easy to see that the losses involved in a protracted epidemic would have a much more serious effect on price of meat than the opening of the ports to live animals could possibly exercise in the opposite direction.