Committee Reports > List of Committees > Seanad > 1934 > Select Committee on Slaughter of Animals Bill, 1933 > Report Proceedings and Minutes of Evidence - Slaughter of Animals Bill, 1933

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

SEANAD EIREANN.

Bille um Ainmhithe do Mharbhadh, 1933.

Slaughter of Animals Bill, 1933.

ROGHA—CHOISTE.

SELECT COMMITTEE.

Dé Máirt, 16° Eanair, 1934.

Tuesday, 16th January, 1934.

TUAIRISG OIFIGIUIL.

OFFICIAL REPORT.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

SENATOR M. F. O’HANLON in the Chair.

Mr. Coffey (Assistant Clerk of the Seanad) attended as Secretary to the Select Committee.

Mr. P. F. Dolan, M.R.C.V.S., D.V.S.M. (Chief Veterinary Inspector, Dublin Corporation) called and examined.

1. Chairman.—May I take it you have no statement prepared and available for the members of the Committee?—I have no statement; I have only a few short notes.

2. Perhaps you will make a statement, then, letting us know some details of your experience in the matter before us and such other evidence as you choose to put forward?—I am the Chief Veterinary Inspector of the Dublin Corporation.

3. Sir E. Coey Bigger.—Do your duties extend to seeing the animals killed?— Yes. In Dublin there are 42,270 cattle killed per year; 275,500 odd sheep, and 113,560 pigs. That would be an average weekly of 813 cattle, 5,300 sheep and 2,184 pigs. This question of humane killing must be considered from the point of view of the bleeding of the animals. The most efficient bleeding takes place in animals bled without any preliminary stunning. I think that is a fact that cannot be got over. I say the most efficient bleeding. In the case of the larger animals stunning is a necessity. It is essential to stun the larger animals for the protection of the workmen and for the proper control of the animal. For cattle, to my mind, there is no reason why the captive bolt should not be made compulsory. I am referring to the captive bolt; I am not referring to other killers. There is a very big distinction between the captive bolt and other stunners like, say, the old Greener, where a bullet was used. I would not recommend the use of any mechanical killer where a bullet is used. In the use of the captive bolt it is very important that it should be under control. If the captive bolt is used without supervision I believe that in time you will have as much cruelty, following the use of the captive bolt, as with the ordinary poleaxe. The captive bolt must be controlled and it must be under supervision if you want to have good results. In addition to that, in public abattoirs the captive bolt should be used by an employee of the local authority. You will get very good results following that procedure. Summed up, I recommend the use of the captive bolt for cattle on the understanding that it is controlled and under supervision. As regards sheep, the most effective method of stunning sheep is the electrical method. There are some objections to the use of the humane killer. Butchers complain that the brain is damaged and this takes away from the value of the head. The use of the electrolethaler or other satisfactory electrical method is very effective for the stunning of sheep. It is most important in the killing of sheep that the sheep should be properly controlled immediately before slaughter. To my mind, it is useless to use the humane killer or the electrical method if sheep are not properly controlled immediately before slaughter. It is my opinion that a large amount of cruelty takes place in the handling of sheep before slaughter. I have heard expressions with regard to the use of the knife for sheep that I do not think are correct. When the knife is used on a sheep there is not much pain. I ought to be careful in making that statement here and I would say preventable pain. In the slaughter of all animals there is pain, and what we require is to eliminate all preventable pain; that is our object. What I want to explain is that I think there is more cruelty in the handling and the control of the sheep immediately before slaughter than in the actual use of the knife. So that in the case of sheep what I would advise, if possible, would be the control of the sheep properly, and then the use of the electrical method. I do not agree with the elimination of pigs from the Bill. I understand that there are objections to the use of the humane killer, or the mechanical means of killing pigs. In short, I believe that pigs should be mechanically killed for municipal or for home consumption. I do not think that these pigs should be eliminated from the Bill. The elimination might take place by a licence from the local authority. I believe that the Act should be operated by the local authority and not by the Guards. I do not believe in giving officers of humane bodies the right to enter all slaughterhouses. I believe the Act should be operated by the local authority. I believe that to get the best results from the humane slaughtering of animals all private slaughterhouses must be eliminated, and that in public abattoirs the factory method of killing animals should be adopted.

4. Mr. Wilson.—Would you explain what that method is?—The present method in all abattoirs is that each butcher kills his own animals, so that you may have a very big number of men killing at the one time, whereas the factory method is that a certain number of men kill all the animals, much the same way as the making of a Ford car.

5. Chairman.—I take it that you have examined the Bill itself?—Yes.

6. Have you any comment to pass in regard to the text of the Bill?—Yes. There is one point there that I think is a dangerous one: the question of fatigue. I think it is a dangerous word for the owners of animals.

7. In what respect?—I think it is a very difficult thing to describe; that is, an animal suffering from fatigue.

8. But some one has to determine it?— It is my opinion that it is a dangerous word to put into a section. I think, too, that the section dealing with the control of the humane killer is weak and that it should be strengthened. I am thinking now of paragraph (a) of Section 2, which says: “That such instrument went out of repair without any negligence or default on his part or on the part of any servant or agent of his.”

9. Where do you think the danger lies in that paragraph of the section?—I do not think it is strong enough. I think it would be very hard to get proper control of the humane killer under that sub-section.

10. You think that would not be a sufficient defence to a prosecution: “that such instrument went out of repair without any negligence or default on his part or on the part of any servant or agent of his”?—I do not think so. I do not think it is strong enough.

11. What is your opinion of paragraph (b) of the same section?—I think that both paragraphs are weak and that they should be strengthened. I contend, in view of what actually happens in slaughterhouses, that it would be difficult for anyone controlling it to prosecute a man who, say, carelessly let the captive bolt go out of repair.

12. You think that these two paragraphs are not sufficiently strong?—Yes.

13. How long have you been associated with this question of the slaughter of animals?—Twenty years.

Therefore, you have had a very wide experience. Senator O’Farrell is in charge of this Bill in the Seanad, and if he addresses some questions to you, perhaps you would be good enough to answer them.

14. Mr. O’Farrell.—I take it that you are entirely in favour of the mechanical stunning of animals so far as cattle and big animals are concerned?—I am in favour of the mechanical method of stunning, if you include the electrical method of stunning, all animals.

15. You have no reservations so far as cattle, horses and big animals are concerned?—Except to see that sufficient precautions are taken to control the use of the captive bolt.

16. You think it is important to keep it in proper order in order to avoid cruelty and inefficiency?—Yes.

17. Has it been your experience that the use of the captive bolt is more efficient than the old pole axe, or has it been otherwise?—The captive bolt is much more efficient than the pole axe. I do not think there is any doubt about that.

18. I take it that it is easier to become proficient in the use of it than in the use of the pole axe?—Of course it is.

19. In the public abattoir in Dublin you are not in a position to compel people to use the mechanical stunner for the slaughter of animals?—No.

20. Except the cattle are for export?— That is so, but they are gradually getting into the use of the captive bolt.

21. As regards the use of the mechanical stunner on cattle intended for export, you have not had any trouble with slaughter men? What I mean is that in those cases they have raised no objection to the use of the mechanical killer?—None whatever.

22. Of course, what we are mainly concerned with in this Bill is the prevention of unnecessary cruelty. In the case of sheep, you are emphatic in saying that the use of the knife does not cause any preventible pain?—What I was trying to explain was that our present method for the handling of sheep and the control of sheep immediately before slaughter causes them much more pain than the use of the knife. To look on at the use of the knife it appears a very cruel method. It cuts through the arteries and large vein, with the result that you have a very big outflow of blood. The loss of consciousness takes place rapidly. The breaking of the neck and other things which butchers do are, to my mind, possibly unnecessary.

23. It does not hasten unconsciousness?—No.

24. In your opinion, does the use of the mechanical killer cause unconsciousness quicker than if the knife only is applied?—I would say that with the use of the mechanical killer animals would become unconscious quicker.

25. There was, for instance, an experiment conducted by two professors of physiology in Edinburgh University and they stated that unconsciousness supervened in four-fifths of a second by shooting and sticking as against 33 1-5th of a second where only sticking was used. Judging by your experience you think they were right?—Shooting, of course, would be a very quick method. I did not think that there would be such a big difference between the two methods, but there would, of course, be a difference in favour of shooting.

26. That was based on an experiment where you had 20 sheep killed by these different methods. Very careful records were taken of the time that elapsed before unconsciousness supervened in each case. In regard to the damage to the brain of the sheep by the use of the mechanical killer, has that much of a commercial value?—It has.

27. What would you get a sheep’s head for at the present time?—10d. or 1/-.

28. Is it true that you could get a sheep’s head for 3d.?—You could get them for nothing, but if you go to a butcher’s shop you will pay 10d. or 1/-for them.

29. To what extent is the brain damaged?—There is a hæmorrhage. When the sheep’s head is opened in the household, the brain is found to be damaged. That is in favour of the electrical method.

30. The head of a very big butchering establishment in Edinburgh states: “Let me state emphatically that there is no destruction of any part of the head as food. This can be proved by a reference to the tripery and head cleaners of the Edinburgh Corporation slaughterhouse, where all my calf and sheep heads were sent to be plotted before being sold.” His contention is that there is no destruction of any part of the head as food?—He is talking about the hæmorrhage.

31. I am talking about destruction to the head?—There is destruction to the head because there is a very deep hole in the top of the head.

32. Then this man is stating what is not correct?—Obviously, because there is a hole through the skull.

33. To what extent is that going to damage it? Would it mean that the brain could not be eaten?—No, I would not say that; the brain can be eaten all right.

34. But it is not nice to look at?—No.

Mr. Wilson.—The housewife would not be looking at it then.

35. Mr. O’Farrell.—Possibly. Do you think, Mr. Dolan, that sheep, for instance, are caused terror by looking at their own kind being slaughtered in their presence? —I have seen some of them terrorised, while I have seen others take it quite dumbly; but I would be totally against the slaughtering of animals in the presence of their kind. By that I mean the slaughtering of one sheep in the sight of four or five others. However, we do not say that there should be a special compartment merely for the slaughtering of one sheep. I do not think it is any harm to bring one sheep into a slaughterhouse where there are carcases being dressed. There is a big difference between that and bringing five or six sheep into a slaughterhouse and killing them one by one in sight of the others.

36. I take it that in any case in which a slaughterman has the desire to avoid slaughtering a sheep in front of other sheep it would be comparatively easy for him to put up a temporary partition, such as a partition made of laths and canvas?— No, I could not agree with that from the point of view of cleanliness. It would be almost impossible to keep such a partition clean.

37. Even temporarily?—Yes. The partition would be splashed with blood and it would be impossible to keep it clean. It is necessary to have a proper permanent structure. I see no objection to having such a structure and I think it should be done.

38. You mention that the Civic Guards should not be used to operate the Bill and that it should be operated by the local authority. Of course, the intention is that the local authorities shall operate the Bill, but that the Gárda Síochána shall be in a position to bring prosecutions. Who would you appoint for that purpose other than the Garda Síochána?—The veterinary surgeons of the local authority.

39. Do you not think that would be a very big task for the veterinary surgeon? For instance, how many private slaughterhouses have you in Dublin?—There are 60.

40. And how many veterinary surgeons are employed by the Corporation?—Seven.

41. Do you think they will be able to exercise proper supervision over all these slaughterhouses?—Of course they will.

42. Would that apply in the case of a town with anything from, say, 300 to 1,000 inhabitants?—Yes.

43. There would not be a veterinary surgeon in each town?—Yes. You must consider that the inspection of the meat is necessary.

44. I am concerned with the question of the practical application of your proposal. Do you think it would be practicable?— Well, the meat must be inspected and this question of humane slaughtering is connected with it.

45. You think that the existing staffs would be able to do that without imposing an undue burden on them?—I cannot answer for the rural areas, but so far as the city is concerned, if we were given the proper power, I think there would be no difficulty in getting it carried out.

46. I see. That is important. As far as the cities are concerned, you think it is practicable to have the local authorities operate the Act?—I think it is wrong to have separate sets of officials coming into the one slaughterhouse. I think it is wrong to give power to different classes of people to enter slaughterhouses.

47. You appreciate, of course, that the final decision as to whether the law is being broken or not rests with the court, no matter who brings the prosecution?— Yes.

48. I noted that you were in favour of the abolition of private slughterhouses, in Dublin at any rate?—I am entirely in favour of their abolition.

49. You think it would be better both from the point of view of cleanliness and of humanity?—Yes, and it would be difficult to handle this question at all until all private slaughterhouses are abolished. I would also say that it should be a Corporation employee who would use the mechanical or humane killer, and that he should be completely under the control of the local authority.

50. Sir Edward Coey Bigger.—On this question of the local authority having complete control over slaughterhouses and of the elimination of private slaughterhouses, do you find much difficulty in inspecting the meat of the animals killed in private slaughterhouses?—We find much more difficulty than in the case of public slaughterhouses.

51. Do you find it more difficult to inspect the meat in private slaughterhouses in Dublin?—Of course, we do.

52. But is it not necessary to notify the local authorities in the case of slaughterings about to take place?—No.

53. Could not the public health authority enforce notification?—No.

54. Surely, they must state the time the killing is to take place?—No, that is not so. There is inspection of meat from slaughterhouse to slaughterhouse, but there is no power to enforce anybody to give notice of the slaughtering of animals.

55. How can you inspect the meat if you are not there when the animal is being killed?—We could not possibly be there in sixty slaughterhouses.

56. That is just the point I want to know. It will open the very big point that the meat of the animals killed in private slaughterhouses is not really efficiently inspected?—That is one of the big arguments in favour of the abolition of these private slaughterhouses.

57. You said that you would like to see this section strengthened—I mean the section concerned with the use of the humane killer. How would you suggest that might be done? Should there be more than one mechanical instrument?— No. My idea in that is to prevent the users of the instrument from throwing it about the slaughterhouse, and leaving it where it would get damp or rusty or remain uncleansed.

58. You think that would be sufficient to strengthen that?—Yes.

59. You also mentioned the electrical method for killing sheep. Is that the method used in the Abattoir?—It is not used in the Abattoir at present.

60. Have you ever used it?—Yes.

61. Why was it given up?—It has not been given up, but this method is only at its beginning. We are gradually getting it into use in the Abattoir. We use it at the moment for pigs.

62. What is your experience of it as regards pigs?—It is an excellent method.

63. Do you find that it takes away all consciousness almost instantaneously?— Yes.

64. Mr. Counihan.—You stated, Mr. Dolan, that you had 20 years’ experience of the slaughter of animals in Dublin and the suburbs. I presume from that that you were in some way connected with the killing of these 42,000 cattle, 275,000 odd sheep and 113,000 pigs killed annually in Dublin?—Yes.

65. Therefore, you must have had a fair experience of the slaughter of animals considering all that length of time, and I would like to take you through the Bill and ask you a few questions. You have covered several points already very fully. At the beginning I should like to have a more detailed explanation with regard to some of the clauses. Take Clause 1 of Section 2. You stated with regard to that that you objected to the terms “suffering, pain and fatigue.” I think it was the Chairman who said that somebody should determine what was meant by suffering, pain and fatigue. Do you not think that “fatigue” would be a very wide expression to put into any Bill, and that it would be likely to give too many opportunities to Civic Guards or to members of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to interfere with the owner of beasts coming along the road and putting him to the expense and inconvenience of coming to the court to prove that the animals were not suffering from fatigue and, possibly, also to the expense of having to bring expert witnesses? From your experience of stall-fed cattle or fat cattle coming along the road, have you not often seen them suffering from apparent fatigue after travelling the first mile after coming out of their stalls because they have started to run?—Yes, and I have often seen them suffering from apparent fatigue within four or five miles of the Market on a Wednesday night.

66. Well, as that clause stands, if a Civic Guard came along, would not the owner or driver of these cattle be liable for prosecution?—Yes. That is why I stated that I thought it was a dangerous word to put into that sub-section.

67. Would you be in favour of eliminating that clause?—No. What I want is the eliminating of the word “fatigue.”

68. Would not the same thing apply to suffering and pain?—No. A man might walk a lame beast in. That would be unnecessary suffering or pain. It would be unnecessary suffering or pain to walk such a beast four or five miles into the market.

69. Would you only be in favour of eliminating the word “fatigue”?—Yes.

70. What would you describe as a lame beast? Supposing a beast had chronic lameness, would you consider it would cause suffering then?—That would depend on what the chronic lameness was due to. There are a great many cases of chronic lameness due to fixation of a joint. That might not be a cause of suffering or pain.

71. Would you leave it to a Civic Guard to determine that?—No.

72. I am thinking of the expense that would be put on the farmer in a case where a beast was suffering from chronic lameness or where it had got its leg broken at some stage of its life but could walk with perfect ease and without suffering although it was lame. That beast would be well able to walk a big distance?—It would be the duty there of the Guards, before they would institute proceedings, to get the opinion of a veterinary surgeon.

73. Mr. O’Farrell.—Is not that the law as it stands? Cannot a man be prosecuted for driving a lame beast?

74. Mr. Counihan.—Yes, without having the opinion of a veterinary surgeon.. Would you be in favour of putting any qualifying words in that sub-section before “suffering and pain”?

Mr. Dolan.—I think that the words should be qualified by saying that the animal should be certified by a veterinary surgeon to be suffering pain.

75. Mr. Counihan.—Sub-section (3) provides that every owner or occupier of a slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard shall cause every animal on the premises for slaughter to be provided, where the animal is confined for a period exceeding twelve hours, with a sufficient quantity of wholesome food and water. Do you approve of that?—I do, for two reasons. The first is that I think no animal should be near a slaughterhouse for more than 12 hours. Secondly, I do not think that an animal should be any longer than that without food. However, that is not very likely. A butcher now-a-days buys an animal on weight, and an animal left longer than that without food will start to waste.

76. Supposing an animal goes into the slaughterhouse on Thursday at 3 or 4 o’clock, the 12 hours would be up at three o’clock the following morning. That animal would have to be slaughtered at nine o’clock. Do you say that that animal should get food then?—He should be fed on Thursday. It would be, perhaps, six hours before coming to the market that that animal would have been fed. He would really be another 12 hours without food. The animal should be fed.

77. Within 12 hours?—Yes, in the slaughterhouse.

78. Have you much experience of animals which have been slaughtered within 12 hours of getting food?—Yes.

79. What is your experience?—Of course, the animal does not get very much food.

80. The Bill says “sufficient food”?— That would be a small quantity. If you gave an animal a big feed, you would be in danger of ruining the carcase from the point of view of consumption.

81. Is it not a fact that cattle who get a lot of food previous to slaughter will not bleed and will not keep?—In summer time, there is danger of putrefaction and you have to be very careful about it.

82. Do you not think that oxen have sufficient food in their stomachs to last 12 hours?—This would be actually 24 hours.

83. But the Bill says 12 hours?—You must take into account the time the animal has been fasting before coming to the slaughterhouse.

84. Have you not seen ruminating animals who have not been fed for 12 or 15 hours chewing their cud? Consequently, they must have plenty of food in one of their stomachs to carry them on?—This is really a question of 24 hours.

85. Twelve hours, the Bill says?—From the time he entered the slaughterhouse.

86. I have seen cattle that have not been fed for 15 hours chewing the cud. They must have had plenty of food in their stomachs to carry them on for a longer period than 12 hours. In view of the damage caused to the flesh by food, would you hold that cattle should not be kept fasting longer than 12 hours?—I should not like to see them fasting for longer than 12 hours after reaching the slaughterhouse, seeing that they have not got food for a long time before that.

87. Seeing that all ruminating animals have plenty of food to carry them on, do you not think that if they got plenty of water, it would meet the case and eliminate the danger of destroying the meat?— You would want to impose some time limit. Instead of 12 hours, let it be 18 hours. An animal could not be left indefinitely without food.

88. Would you say 24 hours?—Twenty-four hours might be a bit excessive, seeing that an animal is without food for many hours before coming to the slaughterhouse.

89. You are assuming that it is. Provided it is not, do you not think that 24 hours would be fair?—Yes.

90. Sub-section (4) refers to the slaughter of one animal in sight of another. The whole contention of the people who object to slaughter in that way is that animals realise by instinct that they are going to be killed when they see another animal being killed?—I do not say that they realise that they are going to be killed, but they believe that there is something wrong. I am in favour of that sub-section. That sub-section is also designed to prohibit the driving of four or five sheep into the slaughter chamber and the knocking of them down one by one.

91. You think that would be eliminated by putting up barriers or separate partitions for holding sheep waiting for slaughter and having a separate slaughter pen outside that?—No. I said that the structure would want to be permanent— that there should be lairs attached to the slaughter chamber. The door would open direct from the lairs to the slaughter chamber and the sheep would be brought out one by one to be slaughtered.

92. You are in favour of doing away with all the private slaughterhouses. There are in Dublin sixty private slaughterhouses. Do you not think that it would involve considerable expense to butchers to construct such a pen in a private slaughterhouse? In a good many cases, they would not have room for a killing pen and a pen for holding live animals at the same time?—It is not a question of expense; it is a question of trouble. It is much easier to drive in four or five sheep at once and kill them than to drive them in singly and kill them. They have to be dragged in singly while four or five will come in at the same time.

93. Chairman.—You think that butchers should be made take that trouble? —Yes.

94. Mr. Counihan.—You say that animals feel there is something wrong when they see others killed. I understand that pigs have been seen to walk into the Dublin abattoir and lick up the blood of other pigs which have been killed? —Pigs would walk in through blood two inches or three inches deep and it would not have the slightest effect on them. But if you kill them in sight of one another, with the noise of the captive bolt, the shouting and the pushing, then you have something amounting to cruelty.

95. It is not the blood but the noise of the bullet and the shouting and shoving that has an effect on pigs?—Blood has no effect on a pig.

96. Would not the effect be the same in shoving and pushing them from a pen into the slaughterhouse? It is very doubtful whether the killing of an animal in sight of another has the effect you would make out?—If you drive five pigs into a pen where there is a lot of blood, it has no effect on them, but knock one pig down in front of the others and you will see the effect on the pigs which are waiting.

97. I thought you said that it was the captive bolt, the noise and the shouting that had the effect and not the actual killing?—Not the actual blood.

98. You spoke about the captive bolt being more effective than the pole-axe. If the pole-axe were operated by a competent, experienced butcher, would there be much difference?—The pole-axe in the hands of an efficient man is a good instrument and works well, but the trouble is to get it in good working conditions and to ensure that it is constantly in the hands of a competent man.

99. Does not the same apply to the captive bolt?—Yes, but it would be easier to control it and to keep it in efficient working order.

100. You would keep the captive bolt for the bigger classes of animals, cows and horses, and not use it in the case of pigs?—Failing the electrical method I would use it on pigs. If the electrical method was abolished for sheep, I would be in favour of using the captive bolt for sheep.

101. What objection would there be to using the electrical method for sheep?— No objection that I can see. I think it is a very fine method to use on sheep, provided that the machinery is in the hands of proper employees.

102. You would still bleed the sheep, cutting their throats and so on, instead of the captive bolt, if you did not get the electrical method?—No; if the sheep was properly controlled before slaughter there might be some case then for direct bleeding without the captive bolt.

103. You said that the sheep’s head is worth from 10d. to 1/- in a butcher’s shop. Is not 1/- considering present prices, a serious consideration for the butcher?—I did not say damage would be done to the whole head, only to the brain.

104. But the brain is an important part of the head?—It would be worth 2d. or 3d.

105. But to a butcher who kills 60 or 70 sheep a week, that sum, spread over the whole year, would run to a considerable amount of money?—It would.

106. The bleeding is quite as humane as the captive bolt for sheep?—I would not go so far. I was using that in favour of the electrical method, and I was using the argument that possibly there was not as much cruelty in the killing of sheep as in the case of other animals.

107. You would have the captive bolt controlled by the local authority?—Yes, everywhere.

108. This Bill would be in operation, when it becomes an Act, all over the country, and the captive bolt would be used in every place except some slaughterhouses that are two miles from a Gárda station. How would the captive bolt be under the supervision of the local authorities in these circumstances?—It could be under the supervision of the veterinary inspector who inspects the meat.

109. But he might have a fairly big district which might include a number of slaughterhouses two or three miles apart. Would that man have the captive bolt in his control, the whole time?—On his visit to slaughterhouses if he found the captive bolt in use not in a proper condition he would recommend that person for prosecution. You cannot have a member of the Gárda standing over every animal that is knocked down in the country.

110. I wanted to find out what you mean by having it under control?—Controlled through the veterinary inspector.

111. But you must leave it with the butcher for the slaughter of animals?— Well, when the inspector visits the slaughterhouse he would inspect the captive bolt and see that it was kept clean and kept in a proper place and so on.

112. I thought you meant that he should have it completely under his control. I agree with what you have said about it now. As to the electrical method of killing, you say it would be very effective in the case of sheep or pigs. Would there be sufficient power to kill cattle through that method?—I have seen it used on cattle, but there would be great danger to the employee. You could never know the way a beast would fall, and it might easily strike a person with its horns.

113. Would not the same apply to the use of the captive bolt?—No, the animal falls at once, but with the electrical method you never know the way the beast would fall. The electrical method for cattle is not complete, and cannot yet be recommended.

114. Sub-section (7) of Section 1 says that no person who is under 16 years of age shall be permitted to remain in a slaughterhouse during the process of slaughtering. Do you approve of not allowing a boy of 16 years of age into a slaughterhouse?—If the age was 14 or 15 I would be more agreeable to it. I do not think there ought to be any difficulty in fixing a proper age limit. There are young people of 15 years of age serving their time.

115. Would you say that a boy, after leaving school, should be eligible for admission to a slaughterhouse? That is about 14 years of age?—If the age was 14 or 15 years I would be more agreeable. I do not think there ought to be any difficulty in fixing an age. There are young people of 15 years of age serving their time.

116. You would think that a boy, on leaving school after the school age, should be eligible for admission to a slaughterhouse. That would be about 14 years of age?—I do not think there should be any difficulty in fixing the age.

117. There is a question here in Section 2 of a fine not exceeding £20, or, on a subsequent conviction imprisonment, upon information made by some person. If a person comes along and gives information that the provision in the Bill is not complied with, then a Guard can prosecute on the evidence of some informer. Do you approve of that?—No, I think the laying of the information should be by a person coming to court and giving the information and if he fails he should incur full responsibility.

118. Take Section 3, sub-section (1). There it is provided that a licence to slaughter, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, shall not be granted except to a person of the age of 18 or upwards who, in the opinion of the sanitary authority, is a proper person to get the licence to use the captive bolt?— I would certainly not have it under 18.

119. Why not under 18? Supposing a boy is apprenticed to the butchering trade, how long would it take him to serve his time?—That depends a lot.

120. Would you make it a hard and fast rule that no one should get a licence to slaughter animals under 18 years of age? —I would.

121. No matter what the circumstances are?—I would.

122. In sub-section (5) a fee not exceeding 5/- may be charged by the sanitary authority for each such licence and a fee not exceeding 1/- for every renewal thereof. Do you think that licensing clause would be workable?—I think it would. My opinion of things of that sort is that when a person is charged for a licence he thinks far more of it. If he gets it for nothing he does not think anything of it. That is my view.

123. Do you think that it is necessary for a qualified butcher, who served his time, to go to the local authority and get a licence? Is it not unfair that a member of the butchering trade should be compelled to get a licence to do that work after he had served his time to business? —Whether the fee be 1/- or 2/- or 2/6, I believe there should be some fee. I believe all people slaughtering cattle should be licensed, that is, for slaughtering and dressing.

124. According to the clauses of this Bill the sanitary authority, in every district, is to be the licensing authority. Supposing a butcher at Swords got ill and that they had to get somebody else to slaughter animals, they may have to look all over the place for the licensing authority? That is obviously wrong. One licence should cover a man for the whole of the Free State.

125. Do you think every butcher should get a licence to continue his work from some local authority?—Not every butcher. Every man suitable in the eyes of the local authority. The local authority should not give a licence to every man. If they think a man is unfit they should not give him a licence.

Chairman.—The Bill does not say the local authority must give him a licence.

126. Mr. Counihan.—No man can slaughter without having a licence from the local authority. The local authority must give a licence for slaughter, and my point is that if some man in one district got all and butchers are not plenty there, they might have to send for another man to do his work?

Mr. Farrell.—It is hardly fair to put these questions to the witness. These are questions which raise matters of law and also involve scientific matters.

Mr. Dolan.—They are matters I am interested in.

Chairman.—The witness can give any information he chooses, but I do not think he should be questioned in too much detail.

127. Mr. Counihan.—Very well, I shall take him now to Section 5. That section deals with the powers of entry and investigation and the powers to enter slaughterhouses, and to make inspections. Do you approve of these visits being made to butchers carrying on their business? Would it be possible for a butcher to carry on his business if he had five or six people visiting him in one day?—I would only give the power of entry to a person authorised by the local authority.

128. Would you wipe out the Guards?— I would wipe out that whole section altogether.

129. Many members of the Committee might not be of that opinion. The authority may be obtained by any office of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Society. Any such person interested could get a permit. He could go to the Minister for Agriculture and get a permit there to enter. What is your opinion as to the working of those unofficial bodies or the effect of their visits in public slaughterhouses?—I think there is great danger. Some of these inspectors would not understand the question of preventible pain or understand what is actual pain.

130. Would not that also apply to the Guards?—Yes.

131. Mr. O’Farrell.—It would apply to the Guards, the judge or the justice who would have to decide the case?—The judge or the justice would have to decide on the evidence before him.

132. Mr. Counihan.—Have you experience of the working of these Acts in other matters outside slaughterhouses— you have charge of a number of horses belonging to the Corporation. Is there any trouble given in regard to the manner in which you work your horses?—The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals gives no trouble whatever in regard to the working of these horses. There is no cause for it.

133. In the opinion of these people, do you ever overload your horses?—No. There have been cases of that in the city, not with the Humane Society or the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, but with the Guards.

134. Would you give us one instance of that——

Mr. O’Farrell.—Is not that outside the scope of this Committee?

Chairman.—Yes.

135. Mr. Counihan.—The Chairman objects to prolonging that, so I had better stop. I see where the expression “animal” means any horse, mare, gelding, pony, foal, colt, filly, stallion, in fact, every animal except fowl and pigs. Why are pigs excluded from the provisions of this Bill? Do you think there is any reason why they should be excluded?—I do not think that the municipally killed pigs should be excluded. There is no reason why municipally killed pigs should be excluded, but in the case of pigs killed for export most of the offal is exported too. With this mechanical and electrical killing I said at the start that you have not got the efficient bleeding that you have without the mechanical killing. That is shown in the small bleedings in the lungs. These lungs are not fit for export. They may be sound and fit for use at home but they are not fit for export. There is there the big objection to the mechanical killing of pigs, but that objection does not operate in killing for home consumption. It is only in the case of pigs for export that it does operate.

136. If they were stunned by the electrical method would they not bleed?

Chairman.—He said no.

137. Mr. Wilson.—In the absence of comment on the use of the captive bolt would you be inclined to eliminate the bolt still?—I would not have the bullet used at all.

138. It must be the captive bolt?—It must. I am talking of the bullet coming from the killer.

139. The Bill does not say a captive bolt; it says a mechanical killer. You restrict it in that way?—The words are “approved by the Minister.” You get over it that way.

140. Then it must be a captive bolt. Now in the absence of this authorised person in the public abattoir using a mechanical killer would you consider that this Bill would function properly in the absence of the authorised assistant or the person in charge of this particular instrument? Your evidence is that you would prefer to see these in the hands of an authorised person authorised there by the local authority?—That is the case in the public abattoir.

141. But in the absence of that you have no means of doing it; it is not law at present and this Bill will not make it law. In the absence of that would this Bill be effective?—It would, I think, but there is great danger of the captive bolt being misused.

142. Why should not the Bill provide some means by which this can be controlled?—The Bill cannot do that.

143. Owing to the great number of slaughterhouses, the Bill, in your opinion, cannot be a success?—I would not say that.

144. This mechanically-operated instrument is not controlled. Even without the control would you be in favour of the mechanical instrument?—I would.

145. Would you eliminate this question of the proviso there in Section 2?

146. Chairman.—Would you indicate what the proviso you refer to is?—“That such instrument went out of repair without any negligence or default on his part or on the part of any agent or servant of his”—I would not eliminate that. What I said was that I would make it stronger. My meaning there was better control and stricter supervision over the use of the mechanical killer.

147. But you say that that is impossible in the present conditions, where there are so many private slaughter-houses?—No; if the inspector entered the private slaughterhouses and found the captive bolt thrown up on the window rusty and dirty I would say that proceedings should be taken against the owner of that slaughterhouse.

148. Ought we not put something into the Bill by which the meat inspector should have the right of supervision over these matters—could we put that into the Bill?—Certainly.

149. That seems to be your opinion or otherwise the Bill will not operate properly. Anybody can say that the thing went out of order and so get off on that plea. You say that a licence given for the slaughtering of animals should apply to the Free State?—Yes, I think so.

150. Then you would eliminate Sections 2 and 3?—No.

151. The licence under these sections is confined under Section 3 (2), which says: “A licence under this section shall be valid only in the district of the sanitary authority granting same.” … You think that is wrong. Would you elminate that proviso?—Yes, there should be some arrangement by which a man could kill in the neighbouring county.

152. I just wanted to get that. Now with regard to these people who may be authorised to go into slaughterhouses, in your opinion, I take it that these would be more or less busybodies?—No, I have not said that.

Mr. O’Farrell.—Senator Wilson is using his own words.

Witness.—A member of the Gárda Síochána knows very little about the slaughtering of animals. He may be a farmer’s son but he may know nothing about slaughterhouses.

153. Mr. Wilson.—Would you confine “any person authorised” to one certain person or would you eliminate that phrase altogether?—I would confine it to the person authorised by the local authority and leave it at that.

154. That is what it is?—It is not. It extends to these societies or persons authorised by the Minister.

155. But they have to be authorised? —No, I would not authorise any society. I would confine it to any person authorised in writing by the local authority. I would not authorise any society or association.

156. Chairman.—Or the Guards?— Yes, or the Guards.

157. Mr. Wilson.—There is just one other question. We want an agreed Bill. Would it not be a better Bill by altering the hours?

Mr. Counihan.—We said 24 hours.

158. Chairman.—Your evidence, Mr. Dolan, has been very detailed. There is one question on which I wanted to examine you. That was the matter referred to by Senator Counihan—that is the employment of the Guards in carrying out this Bill if it becomes law. You said control should be vested in the local authority principally. Therefore, the veterinary surgeon would come in and that would mean extra duties for the veterinary surgeon?—No.

159. But the Bill is going to mean added duties?—No, they have already to inspect the meat.

160. But this would be an added function, it would be the exercising of authority in other respects?—They carry out that duty at the moment to the best of their ability under existing legislation.

161. Well then, it does not mean added duties and consequently there would not be any greater expense to the local authority?—Not in my area, at any rate.

162. As far as your opinion goes, there would be nothing added to their duties? —Not in my area, but I would not express an opinion as to what it would be in other areas.

163. You said in bringing a prosecution it should be necessary to have a certificate from a veterinary surgeon?—That is the question under one section, but I suggested leaving the words “failing to keep such a mechanically operated instrument in a proper state of repair” out of another section.

164. That that should be a sufficient defence on the part of the owner of the animal—that it would be sufficient to produce a certificate that the animal was not suffering from pain. In every case then you would have to have a certificate from the veterinary surgeon. How then would the Act operate and what would it cost from the veterinary point of view?—The general result of cases of that nature would be that you would have an inspector, a layman, giving evidence on the one side and a professional man giving evidence on the opposite side. The justice decides between the two. That is the thing that might often happen.

165. Mr. Wilson.—The lay inspector is often helped by the veterinary inspector? —Not in this case.

166. Take the case of ringbone in a horse?—I think that is a different question. So far as the Chairman’s question is concerned, in my opinion it should be the opposite way.

167. Chairman.—You contend the other thing could be argued too, and that there is a considerable point involved. In every case where proceedings are instituted a veterinary surgeon’s opinion should be submitted in court. It would make control in this respect very difficult. In a case where a veterinary surgeon appears it might reasonably be put forward by the owner as against the prosecution that the animal was not suffering unnecessary pain?—Is it not unfair to put it on the owner to pay the cost of the veterinary surgeon’s certificate?

168. Just the same as it would be a bit unfair in the case of a prosecution to employ a veterinary surgeon?—That might be said. I witnessed a peculiar case a couple of weeks ago on the North Circular Road. A bull was being led along, and the bull to me was perfectly sound and fit for walking. A man on a bicycle—I do not know whether he was an inspector or not—jumped off his machine and shouted at the unfortunate man leading the bull. Apparently he was declaring that the bull was lame on one leg, but I could see no lameness. That is a case in point. Would it not be a hardship on the owner to have to bring a veterinary surgeon along?

Mr. Counihan.—Is not the onus, as a matter of law, in all cases, on the prosecution to prove the case, and why should the farmer be put to the expense of obtaining a veterinary surgeon’s certificate?

Chairman.—My question was put to the witness purely for the purpose of eliciting information.

The witness withdrew.

Mr. Samuel Byrne (President, Dublin Victuallers’ Association), called and examined.

169. Chairman.—I presume, Mr. Byrne, that you have a precis of evidence which you might like to read?—I did not write out anything, but I will speak to a few headings which I have noted.

170. Perhaps you would like to make an introductory statement giving us your experience on the subject-matter of the Bill, and your opinion generally?—This is a Bill for the purpose of making it compulsory to use a mechanical killer. My own opinion is that it is unnecessary because the mechanical killer has been coming into very general use since the fixed bolt was introduced. I always had a very strong objection to the so-called humane killers composed of a gun that fired a loose bullet and in no circumstances would I agree to using one of them. Some nine years ago Professor Mason explained the use of an instrument in which there was a captive bolt it was called, I think, the Temple Cox patent killer. He had it on exhibition at the show. I thought it was a good idea, and I have been using a captive bolt ever since on cattle. I never used it on sheep except for experimental purposes. I find it is the best substitute that has been introduced for a pole-axe. Mr. Patten was the agent, and I recommended him to visit the association. He did so and gave a demonstration before members of the association. There was a demonstration in the abattoir at which members of the trade attended. Ever since that the captive bolt has been generally adopted for cattle. As regards sheep, I do not think the captive bolt is an improvement on the knife sticking; in fact, I do not think it is as good, because the knife sticking is more expeditious and more humane. The sheep’s brain occupies only a small space and a captive bolt may not catch the brain properly, and, therefore, you are liable to inflict more suffering on the sheep than if you used the knife. That is why I exempt sheep and lambs in the case of the mechanical killer. I never actually timed a sheep’s death in the case of sticking, but I think it is almost instantaneous and the blood comes from the sheep very freely. With regard to the use of the captive bolt, occasionally you will see a little splash of blood. I have seen it frequently in the case of pigs when a mechanical killer was used. I always use a captive bolt on pigs and I have noticed the splashes of blood. That was occasionally the case also with cattle, but it is not so perceptible as in the case of pigs. As regards sheep, I would like to give you Professor Craig’s opinion.

171. He will be giving evidence to us later?—I was merely anxious to quote him in support of my own evidence. Taking the captive bolt in comparison with the knife in the case of sheep, I came to the conclusion that the knife was the best method for both sheep and lambs. As regards sub-section (6), I see that its provisions shall not apply to any slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard situate at a distance of more than two miles by road from a barrack or station of the Gárda Síochána. What is the idea of that?

172. What is your view point?—Well, if it is compulsory in one case, it is every bit as necessary to have it compulsory in another case. The fact of a slaughterhouse being two miles from a barrack is no reason why it should be exempted in the case of the mechanical killer.

173. Do you not think there might be more difficulty and trouble created for the Gárda if they had to work outside that area?—What is the object of the Bill?

174. I think you have answered that yourself?—I am merely asking for information. Apparently any man having a slaughterhouse over two miles from the Gárda barrack need not use a mechanical killer.

175. We may assume that your opinion is there should be no limitation in respect of distance?—It is more necessary to have it made compulsory in districts where there would be very few animals killed. Where there are large numbers of animals slaughtered the men engaged become expert and are not likely to make mistakes; but a man who has only a few animals to kill is more likely to make mistakes.

176. You think it should apply to areas outside of the two-mile limit from the barrack?—If there is to be a Bill for the compulsory use of this mechanical killer, it should be general. I think the age might be reduced, because a boy goes to the trade to serve his apprenticeship immediately after leaving school, and he is then about fourteen years old. I do not see why any person who is not engaged there should be in the slaughter yard, even those over sixteen years of age. I would not allow anyone into my premises.

177. Chairman.—Do you think that the age might be reduced to fourteen?—I should say so.

178. Have you anything to say about the Bill? You heard Mr. Dolan’s comment with regard to misuse of the instrument. What views have you on that?—A man who has paid £5 for the instrument is not likely to let it be abused. The Bill states that if the owner took immediate and proper steps to have the instrument put into repair, or to procure another such instrument, that would be a defence.

179. You are agreeing with that defence?—Yes. A man who pays £5 for an instrument is not likely to let it wilfully go out of order.

180. You are agreeing generally with regard to licences?—I would not object to licences provided the fee is not excessive.

181. You do not think 5/- excessive?— Some say it might. It is fixed there as the maximum.

182. What do you think of a butcher being licensed to operate in his own district only?—It should be for the Free State.

183. To the person rather than to the district?—Yes. As Senator Counihan pointed out, if a man had to go from one district to another it would be rather awkward if he had to get a new licence to kill a few sheep or cattle.

184. As to the veterinary surgeon?— The local authority should appoint a veterinary surgeon.

185. You would cut out the Department of Local Government and Public Health? —They do not come in as a rule, except in certain circumstances, such as an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. They have always power to supervise under the various Acts. I do not think there would be any necessity to have anyone there except a veterinary surgeon, or a sanitary officer where there would not be a veterinary surgeon appointed by the local authority. In my district the veterinary surgeon visits the slaughter yards constantly and has a list of the hours from the various people concerned. I told him the hours we kill so that he would not come when we would not be killing. He inspects the cattle, often before they are slaughtered.

186. Mr. Counihan.—Who appoints him?—Dun Laoghaire Borough Corporation.

187. Chairman.—Come to Section 5— Powers of entry and investigation?—With regard to the slaughter and dressing of an animal within view of another animal, I have never seen any apparent terror. In certain circumstances, particularly with cattle, it is absolutely essential to bring in two or three together. Sometimes you get a wild or a vicious beast, and it would be most dangerous to try to get him into the slaughter yard alone. That has occurred with me. You have to bring in two or three animals together.

188. And put down the vicious one in the presence of the others?—Yes.

189. What has been the effect on the others?—They stand there and then walk out quietly. I have seen that myself. Circumstances arise which make it absolutely essential that you must have two or three there.

190. That is in the case of a vicious or wild animal?—Yes. I have never seen them making any fuss on a beast being put down or being dressed. If you let sheep into the yard they would be under your feet when dressing another one.

191. In regard to pigs?—I have no knowledge of pigs. We never have more than one at a time. It is a usual practice to bring in one sheep at a time. It is unusual to have a number of sheep in the yard when dressing one.

192. Mr. O’Farrell.—I have not many questions to ask Mr. Byrne. You use the captive bolt for cattle?—Yes. I think I was one of the first in Dublin to buy the captive bolt, as I believe it is the nearest thing to the pole-axe.

193. You find it more efficient and more certain?—Both instruments are efficient and both have special qualities that are of great benefit in certain circumstances. Sometimes you can use the pole-axe with greater advantage than the captive bolt. At other times you can use the captive bolt to advantage. On the whole the Association has always recommended the use of the captive bolt.

194. Of course, that is the best evidence in its favour, if it is the general opinion? —I mean for local use. I formed the opinion that if you want to keep meat for a long time, or if you want to freeze meat, the captive bolt is not as good as the pole-axe.

195. Have you arrived at that decision as a result of any experiment you conducted?—From observation. I told you of the splashes of blood that I noticed occasionally in the meat. I have never seen that in the case of beasts stunned with the pole-axe. I saw it in the case of cattle killed with the mechanical killer, but it would not be of any account.

196. I take it you are aware that the use of the mechanical stunner is now compulsory in Northern Ireland, England and Wales?—Yes.

197. So that we sell seven-eights of our cattle to people who do not see any difficulty in using it?

Mr. Wilson.—We used to.

198. Mr. O’Farrell.—And that applies also to the people to whom we sell other animals?—What I say is that if you want to keep meat for a prolonged time, or to freeze it, rightly or wrongly, I have formed the opinion that the use of the pole-axe is best. The fact of my using the mechanical killer for over nine years is sufficient evidence to prove that I have not any fault to find with it.

199. In regard to the use of the mechanical killer for sheep, I take it you are aware that it is compulsory in Scotland and Northern Ireland?—There are a great many exemptions under the British Act, as the local authorities have power to exempt.

200. I am not talking now of Northern Ireland and Scotland, where it has been in operation longest?—I could not say whether there is exemption in the North.

201. There are cases in Scotland and in Northern Ireland under the British Act, but the local authorities must first pass a resolution dealing with the compulsory use of the killer in the case of sheep?— There is power to exempt, and exemptions have been granted.

202. You have not heard any complaints regarding the detrimental effect of the killer when used on sheep?—I made no inquiries. Any knowledge I have regarding the slaughter of animals is from my own experience.

203. In regard to the enforcement of the Act, powers of entry and so on, do you not think that if the local sanitary officer is the only person empowered to enter premises, there might be local influence at work occasionally, which would prevent the Bill being properly operated?—I do not think so, if he is an efficient officer.

204. Would you not think that if the Gárda had a right to enter, there would be a greater guarantee as between one butcher and another, if the Bill is to be enforced impartially all round?—I think the veterinary surgeon or the sanitary officer would be quite sufficient.

205. You do not think there is any danger of undue influence being used in certain directions by certain people, or by certain butchers in a small place, where the veterinary surgeon knows everyone, and is a friend of everyone?—I think the man who would be able to exercise that influence on one officer would exercise it on another.

206. Including the Guards?—Yes.

207. You would know, having been in business for a long time?—I know that the man who carries out whatever regulations there are comes off best in the end.

208. That is right. You rather justify the killing of a cow or a bullock in the presence of another. Are you serious about that?—There is no cruelty in it.

209. You suggest that, in your opinion, a steer or bullock can look on without any qualms at one of its kind being slaughtered?—If they had any instinct that they were going to be slaughtered it would be impossible to control them.

210. Supposing a beast does display terror, and that something is very wrong, would you still justify the bringing in of another beast so as to make it easy to bring in the beast to be slaughtered? You agree that some little trouble should be gone to to save beasts unnecessary suffering?—Every precaution is taken to prevent that. There seems to be a great misapprenhension in connection with the slaughter of animals. It must be remembered that if a beast is illtreated it depreciates the value of the meat. Surely no one engaged in the meat trade is going to buy cattle and sheep and to pay men to depreciate the value of his own property? We use every precaution.

211. Supposing cruelty is necessary in order to avoid a little trouble, do you suggest that the trouble should not be taken?—I do not admit that there is any cruelty in one animal being slaughtered in the presence of another.

212. That is your opinion?—It is my experience. It does not occur very often. As I pointed out, it may be necessary under certain conditions, when you have a wild or a vicious beast. If you tried to get him in by himself you do not know what damage would be done. Would it not be crueller to have a man seriously injured by a beast than to allow a beast to witness the slaughter of another beast?

213. Sir E. Coey Bigger.—The only point I wish to direct your attention to is with regard to private slaughterhouses. When an animal is going to be killed in such a premises, do you give notice to the sanitary authority?—No.

214. How do the sanitary authorities know that animale are being killed?—In our district, the veterinary surgeon—the sanitary officer only comes to see if a yard is kept in proper order; he has nothing to do with the inspection of meat—is furnished with the hours on which we usually kill on various days. The sanitary officer has knowledge also of those hours.

215. He is notified?—Yes; but not, of course, in respect of every individual beast that is to be slaughtered.

216. But the hour is notified?—The hour of slaughter. There are certain hours in each day on which we do slaughtering—as a rule, in the afternoon. He has a list of those hours in his office.

217. So the veterinary surgeon can be present?—Yes, and very often is. There are two principal days in the week on which we kill and he is invariably there on these days, but he would not remain the whole time.

218. Are you aware that the sanitary authority has power to make a by-law that they must be notified of the hours at which slaughtering takes place?—I could not say that of my own knowledge, but I had a communication from the department concerned in which I was asked to furnish the hours at which slaughtering usually took place. I immediately sent in the list of the hours.

219. Does that apply to every private slaughterhouse owner?—I imagine it does in our district. I think he wrote to the owner of each yard in the borough and got the required information. He also got a list of the paddocks in which they kept the live cattle and sheep.

220. Then, it is your opinion that the veterinary surgeon and the sanitary authority, that is, the sanitary inspector, would be better than the Guards for the purpose of inspection?—I would have no objection to the Guards, but you should not have anybody outside these. You should not empower any layman or woman to come into a yard at any hour he or she likes. There are a lot of these people and they have queer fads. They have not got sufficient knowledge of the business to qualify them to inspect. I will give you an instance of what occurred to myself, I think, last autumn twelve months. A lady rushed to my door in a great state and said: “See what is coming up here. Look at that animal.” I looked, and I saw a fine bullock walking up the street at his case, with the drover walking quietly after him. He was not in any hurry, and he was allowing the bullock to take his time. The lady asked me if I would get a bucket of water and I told the boy to get it. She would not wait, however, but said that the beast wanted a drink, and she went over to the drover and attacked him. I remained where I was, but the beast walked on into a draper’s shop. When the drover caught sight of the beast going in he left the lady very quickly—I did not catch what he said—and she ran to my door and said: “Oh, my goodness! What am I after doing? What will I do at all?” There was a tram coming down the street, and I said that the best thing she could do was to get into the tram and go away, and she did so.

221. Chairman.—The Bill does not allow such persons to enter a premises. You are satisfied then?—Yes, but that lady might get authority from her society.

222. Not from her society—a society authorised by the Department of Local Government and Public Health. There would have to be a second authority. First, it would be a society or institution which would be authorised and she would have to have authority from that society? —Outside of that, it should be confined to the Guards and to the veterinary surgeon. I would not go any further than the Guards, the veterinary surgeon or the sanitary officer of the local authority.

223. The Gárda Síochána and the local authority—we will leave it at that?—Yes.

224. Mr. Counihan.—I think Mr. Byrne has answered nearly all the questions we need ask him. You approve, Mr. Byrne, of the captive bolt for cattle?— I do.

225. But for cattle only?—Not for sheep or lambs.

226. At the same time, you think that there is too much made of the captive bolt from the humane point of view, and you believe that the pole-axe properly used by a competent person is quite as effective?—If anything, it would be better, but the question of the competent man comes in. I would prefer the mechanical killer myself, generally speaking. If you have a man continually slaughtering with the pole-axe, I would say without hesitation that it is the best instrument. It gives the best results, but in order to avoid anything in the nature of cruelty, I would prefer the captive bolt. I bought the very first one I saw, as I say. I tried it, and I found it efficient and good.

227. Could cruelty not be inflicted by the use of the captive bolt as well as by the use of the pole-axe?—I attended a demonstration in the abattoir of a humane killer. and two bullets had to be fired into the beast.

228. Before it stunned it?—Mistakes can be made with them, too.

229. Mistakes can be made in the use of the captive bolt as in the use of the pole-axe?—Yes.

230. And the pole-axe, if used by a competent person, is more effective, in your opinion, than the captive bolt?—I would say so, but the captive bolt is a mechanical pole-axe.

231. You would not use a captive bolt on sheep or other animals except horses? —Not on sheep or lambs.

232. Or pigs?—I do not know much about pigs. We kill a few and we use the captive bolt to kill them, but you do notice that little splash of blood through the lard and various parts of the animal.

233. You said that you would not confine this Bill, but that you would have it general in its operations?—I would not confine it to any district.

234. You would have the two miles’ provision eliminated?—It is very illogical to say that it is necessary to have compulsion in an area within two miles of the Guards and not necessary outside.

235. You appreciate that it would not be right to have any law on the statute book that cannot be enforced? Do you think that this could be enforced all over the country—that all the provisions of this Bill with regard to the use of the captive bolt should be enforced in every part of the country irrespective of locality?—I would not undertake to answer that question.

236. That is one of the points?—I do not know how you could.

237. Are there not farmers killing pigs and sheep in some parts of the country at present?—That is why I asked what the object of the Bill was. I do not think I got any reply.

238. Chairman.—You did not expect any reply surely? Is the Bill not there to explain its own object?—It does not state the objects.

239. Mr. Counihan.—You are aware that during the last couple of years, since sheep and cattle became very cheap, a number of butchers—we will not say “licensed butchers”—are slaughtering animals for sale in their particular localities?—Yes.

240. And, I presume, that may influence you to a great extent in saying that all the provisions of this Bill should apply to those places?—It is entitled an Act to provide for the humane slaughter of animals and for other purposes connected therewith. Surely a man who is not an expert slaughterer will not slaughter animals as efficiently as a man who is an expert. This Bill will apply only to districts in which you have expert men, men who have served their apprenticeship to the business. These are the men who are to be compelled to use mechanical killers while those who are not experts are left free to kill in any way they like. If the Bill is designed to ensure the humane slaughter of animals all over the country, it is most essential that it should operate in those places where it is likely to be abused, but you make it compulsory for the trained man to use a mechanical killer.

241. Mr. Counihan.—You have explained that, but we want to have your opinion on the other point of view. Take the case of a farmer who has a lot of sheep on hands which he cannot sell to any great advantage. Suppose he started to kill two, three, four or five sheep a week and to sell them to his neighbours, would you compel that man to comply with all the provisions of the Bill?—I do not favour the use of the mechanical killer on sheep.

242. But there are several other provisions in the Bill. Would you have them all apply to such a man?—I think they should, if the Bill is to achieve its object of ensuring the humane slaughter of animals.

243. You admit that the slaughter of animals as carried out at present is carried out as humanely as possible? You do not approve of the mechanical killer. You do not approve of it for sheep and you say that sticking is more expeditious?—Yes.

244. By this Bill, all these animals must be killed with the humane killer and to try to cut down the hardships which would be entailed by the two miles radius from a Gárda Síochána station—for one reason, that a lot of the provisions could not be carried out and for another, that it might inflict a certain amount of hardship on those butchers who set up in a temporary way during such times as we have had for the last two years, when farmers cannot sell their goods in the usual way but instead sell them to their neighbours in their own districts—I suppose a good many members of your association would object? I hear a good deal of outcry against these local butchers, who do not pay rates and are able to work more cheaply?—If we went into that I could keep you here a long time. My point is that if the object of the Bill is to provide for the humane slaughter of animals, it is more essential to have the compulsion in those places in which the men are not experts. That is my point in connection with that. With regard to the marketing of meat. I am always ready to meet any competition.

245. With regard to animals feeling that they are to be slaughtered by reason of witnessing another animal being killed, you do not believe that the animal feels or understands or is in any way conscious that he is going to be slaughtered? —I do not believe they do because they do not seem to pay any heed to it. If they did realise it we could not control them.

246. Did you hear Mr. Dolan’s evidence on that point?—With regard to what?

247. With regard to sheep feeling that they were going to be slaughtered?—I think Mr. Dolan said that he thought they seemed to realise that there was something wrong, but that they did not actually realise that they were going to be slaughtered.

248. Your opinion is—and you have many years experience of the slaughtering of animals—is that they do not realise it?—No, they do not. If they are in any way upset it would be attributable to the fact that they found themselves in strange surroundings and that they are not as much at home as they are out in the fields.

249. With regard to the question of a licence, you think that a butcher should be licensed for carrying on his business?—I would have no objection to that if it is put into the Bill. If this Bill were in operation, you would have something under which you would have to satisfy local authorities that he was a qualified man.

250. Chairman.—They could refuse or suspend the licence?—If I were employing a man I would not require him to have a licence, because I would find out very quickly myself whether he was capable or not.

251. Mr. Counihan.—You think every butcher should be made to pay a fee of 5/-?—That is the maximum. I do not think it would be that much.

252. You agree that there should be a licence?—I would have no objection.

253. Mr. Wilson.—Have you any views in regard to the question of the feeding of animals before slaughter?—The general practice has been to give them any water they require, and just to give them a bit of hay to satisfy their hunger and to keep them from fretting. If you were to give them much food for 24 hours before slaughter it would be really a waste of food. It is all right to give them a little bit to keep them quiet.

254. Would you make it compulsory to give them hay up to 12 hours before slaughter?—Water would be sufficient up to 18 hours. As a rule when you buy cattle they come in from the lairages and they are after being fed in the lairage the night before.

255. On the question of fatigue, is it your opinion that a butcher will slaughter an animal at all if it is very much fatigued?—I would not.

256. You do not think that a clause such as that in regard to fatigue should be put into the Bill?—I do not think it should be in the power of anybody to come in and institute a prosecution against a person because they may think that a beast is fatigued. I think that there should be some proviso as pointed out by Mr. Dolan, providing that there should be a veterinary certificate to show that the beast was suffering from pain. Of course, it would be very difficult to say what was fatigue, fatigue that would justify a prosecution.

257. At present the law is that you can be summoned if an animal is suffering from fatigue, whether it is going to a slaughterhouse or anywhere else. That is the law apart from the Bill. In your opinion is that law sufficient without bringing in a new clause here?—You do ntot want to bring it in again. That is quite sufficient.

258. You do not think that the question of fatigue should be dealt with in the Bill? —I do not think there should be any reference to it at all. With regard to pain, there should be a veterinary certificate produced to show that there was pain, because it would prevent a great number of frivolous prosecutions. You are sometimes brought to court on a frivolous charge and, although the case is dismissed, you are put to a good deal of expense in employing a solicitor, and otherwise. I had a case preferred against myself some time ago and the case was dismissed, but I had to pay £1 to a solicitor. I was brought into court for not having a cart accompanying sheep. The cart was in attendance, but yet the prosecution was brought.

259. That is under the existing law?— Yes. That just shows the frivolous cases that are brought up sometimes.

The witness withdrew.

Mr. H. O’Leary, M.R.C.V.S., called and examined.

260. Chairman.—You understand the procedure, Mr. O’Leary, and perhaps you would like to say something about your experience and make a general statement with regard to the Bill and the matter that is before the Committee?—My experience as a veterinary practitioner has been in the City of Dublin. I may say that I absolutely agree with the Bill as a whole, with the exception of a few points. One is in regard to the feeding of animals before slaughter. I agree with the previous witness that the time should be extended from 12 to 18 hours.

261. You would like the Bill to be amended accordingly?—Yes. I think that the age of 14, when a boy leaves school, would be the proper time to start him at work in a slaughterhouse.

262. Is that for a boy who would be actually in the employment of a butcher? —Yes.

263. Would you suggest that any boy of that age should be allowed to come in to a slaughterhouse?—No, I would not, except a boy who is starting in the business.

264. You suggest that in the case of a boy who is being brought into the business, the age of 14 should qualify him to be present at the slaughtering?—Yes.

265. You do not think there is any necessity to put in any additional proviso setting out the limits of age for any person who is to be present at a slaughtering?—I would not allow anybody under that age to be present.

266. Under what age?—Under 14.

267. Would you allow everybody over 14 to be present?—No, I would not.

268. What age then would you say?—I would not allow anybody to be present except people connected with the slaughter of animals. Then there is the question of inspection and Clause 5 dealing with powers of entry and investigation. I think I would go a little bit further than Mr. Dolan there, and I would allow the Guards to come in.

269. You would exclude institutions and representatives of institutions duly authorised by the Department?—Yes, I would.

270. You would limit it to the local authority and the Gárda Síochána?— I would. I have been making enquiries from some butchers who have been using the captive bolt on all animals, and I was surprised to hear in evidence that some butchers objected to the use of the captive bolt in the case of sheep. I think that there is no objection whatever to its use. I have seen sheep being stunned with it very efficiently. The only damage done was to the brain, and I believe that very few butchers have sale for the brains of sheep. A sheep’s head costs something from fourpence to sixpence, and it is only the brain that is damaged. I certainly should not like to see sheep destroyed in any other way. In the method some slaughtermen put the finger in the wound and on to the spinal cord which they rupture.

271. Mr. Counihan.—That is not always done?—It is sometimes done. In sticking a certain amount of pain must be caused. The effect of touching a highly sensitive organ like the spinal cord and of running the finger along it, must transer a certain amount of pain. There is no danger of that happening in the case of the captive bolt, because the central nervous system is destroyed by the use of it. Then in the case of the use of the pole-axe on cattle, a slaughterman must start at some time or another and he has got to practice on some animal, and there is great danger of transmitting cruelty when he is learning his trade. I believe that some time ago an animal came through a certain village not far from Dublin with a pole-axe stuck in his forehead. That is a terrible thing. There would be no risk of that with the captive bolt. There is no danger whatever of any cruelty provided the instrument is put into a proper position, and anybody should not be allowed to put the instrument in any position except the proper one. What I mean is that if a man is learning his trade he would want to be told by an experienced man how to use it. The head is held in a proper way and there is no danger of its misuse. In the case of the pole-axe the man must swing the axe and just at the critical moment the animal may turn its head one way or another, with the result that the stroke is delivered in the wrong position. These are the principal points I wish to put before you in connection with the Bill. As regards the question of fatigue, I think it is very hard to say when an animal is suffering from fatigue. I think that that provision should be eliminated from the Bill.

272. Mr. O’Farrell.—What is your opinion regarding the terror or otherwise of animals who see others of their kind slaughtered before them?—There is a certain amount of terror, undoubtedly, though I do not think they know that others of their kind are being slaughtered. As regards wild, excited cattle coming into the abattoir and the statement that butchers have to bring in a few others with them, I cannot see why a butcher cannot drive, say, three animals into the slaughterhouse, secure the excited animal and drive the others back into the yard. I do not see why that cannot be done. As regards the slaughter of sheep, I think it would be better if they brought in each animal separately into the slaughterhouse.

273. Mr. O’Farrell.—As regards the vital spot in the head of a bull or a heifer, is it rather a small spot?—No, it is not. You have rather a good area.

274. It has been suggested that the vital point would be covered almost by a golf ball, that is, the vital point where the animal is struck?—By the circumference of a golf ball or by the point of a golf ball?

275. By the circumference?—Yes.

276. Obviously it is much easier to find that with certainty by the use of the captive bolt than by trying to get at it with a pole-axe?—Yes, undoubtedly.

277. So that all the sensible evidence would be in favour of the certainty of the bolt as against the pole-axe?—Absolutely.

278. I take it that sheep, being quieter animals, are generally given to beginners to slaughter?—Yes.

279. So that any lack of efficiency in the case of any butcher beginning his task would be largely practised on sheep? —Yes.

280. To that extent there is really a call for protection for the sheep, even to a greater extent almost than the bigger beast?—I should think so.

281. The application of the knife to sheep is a painful operation, of course?— Yes.

282. Have you any idea of your own or from experience as to the average length of time that it takes unconsciousness to operate under the application of the knife to sheep?—Somewhere around 30 seconds.

283. Sir E. Bigger.—You mentioned that Guards might be present at the slaughter?—Yes.

284. Do you see any administrative difficulty in that—to whom would they report?—They could prosecute and the veterinary surgeon would be called in then to qualify.

285. Chairman.—To qualify?—If they did not use the captive bolt—if a Guard was called in during the slaughter of an animal and if it was not being done properly, or if the captive bolt had not been used.

286. Surely you would not suggest in that case that the evidence should be supplemented?—No; not under such circumstances.

287. Sir E. Bigger.—That is as far as you wish the Guards to interfere?—Yes.

288. Would not this Act be more efficiently administered in the hands of the local authority; they have their veterinary surgeon and sanitary inspector?—Yes, it would.

289. Chairman.—Would it not be better still if it were supplemented by the Guards themselves; would it not be better if you had them operating to insure that it would be efficiently administered?—The only trouble about that is that you have all classes of people going into a slaughterhouse.

290. Only two we are asking—not all sorts of people. Do you rule out the Gárda Síochána?—No.

291. Mr. Counihan.—You said that the captive bolt is a very effective method of stunning sheep?—Yes.

292. And that it should be used in preference to sticking. Did you hear Mr. Byrne’s evidence?—Yes.

293. You disagree with him?—I do.

294. He said that sticking was a very much more humane way of killing a sheep than using the captive bolt and you disagree with that?—I do.

295. Mr. Byrne must have a fair experience and you have only——?—An ordinary knowledge. If you have ever seen a sheep destroyed by the sticking method I put it to you that the animal goes down and struggles on the ground whilst bleeding. When an animal is destroyed with the captive bolt that does not happen.

296. You have heard Mr. Dolan’s evidence?—Yes.

297. Do you agree with his evidence?— I do.

298. As far as I remember he said that sticking was quite as humane a method as the captive bolt?—I do not know that he said that. If he said that I disagree.

299. He approved of the sticking method for sheep?—Yes.

300. The only thing he substituted for that was the electric stunner?

Mr. O’Farrell.—That is not the case.

Mr. O’Leary.—I prefer the electrical stunner to all for sheep.

301. Mr. Counihan.—You do not think anything about the destroying of the sheep’s brain by the use of the captive bolt?—No, because I believe there is very little sale for the brains of the sheep.

302. If the brains are destroyed is not the sheep’s head useless—it will not be bought?—I have examined some heads of sheep stunned by the captive bolt since I got notice of this a few days ago and there is only a little mark going right through the brain, about the thickness of a lead pencil. In some cases, of course, you will find hæmorrhage around the part. The brain for food purposes in such a case is of no value. Otherwise the head is all right.

303. It has been stated that a sheep’s head is worth from 10d. to a 1/-?—I buy a lot of them because I have dogs and I never paid more than from 4d. to 6d. I can get as many as I like from most butchers in town at those prices.

304. What do you reckon the brain would be worth?—A butcher in a good class district told me that he might not sell three sets of brains in a week and he kills up to 150 sheep in the week. He would not sell three sets of brains. They may get 8d. in some cases for the brains of a sheep.

305. Mr. Wilson.—And the head only costs 6d.?—Yes. That is the position.

306. Mr. Counihan.—So that you are destroying the most valuable part of the head by destroying the brain?—It would be cheaper to buy the head than the brains.

307. Do you agree that sheep are sensitive and that they have sense enough to know that they are going to be slaughtered if other animals are killed in their presence?—I do not think they know they are going to be slaughtered, but they suspect that there is something wrong. Animals of all descriptions object to seeing another animal dead. A horse does not like to pass another animal lying dead in a field or on the roadway.

308. Have you read Professor Craig’s statement at some recent prosecution?— Yes.

309. Do you disagree with that?—No, I do not, to a certain extent. They do not know that they are going to be killed.

310. You agree with it?—I agree with it in so far as saying that sheep are not absolutely conscious that they are going to be destroyed, but they know there is something wrong and they are excited when they come in contact with other sheep being destroyed.

311. Mr. Byrne said in his evidence that the strange surroundings would make them feel nervous; that was the only feeling which he believed they had. Do you agree with that? If you change sheep from one farm into another or put them into a horse-box, are they as nervous as they would be in the slaughter-house?—I do not think they would be nervous in the slaughterhouse.

312. In a horse-box they would not have so much noise and rushing about to keep them continually excited?—With so much blood, intestines, heads and everything lying about, they are bound to be excited.

313. Mr. Wilson.—You say that the sticking of a sheep causes more pain than the use of the captive bolt?—Yes.

314. The evidence has been quoted here of a professor in Edinburgh, who said the time in one case was 33 seconds and in the other four-fifths of a second. Do you agree with that?—I do not know about the actual time, but I would say that it would be certainly less.

315. You think it is worth while saving these 32 seconds?—One-fifth of a second’s agony would be worth saving.

316. With regard to the value of the sheep’s brains which, you admit, are destroyed?—Not in all cases.

317. Frequently?—Yes.

318. There are 275,000 sheep slaughtered in the Dublin Abattoir in a year. You might multiply that by a lot for the whole country. If you say that the brains are worth 4d., it is a considerable amount of money. Will you admit that? —The point is that that money is not lost because the butcher will sell the sheep’s head at 4d. and he might charge as much as 8d. for the brains. He may require four heads to get a sound set. The others will afterwards go as dog food. There is no great demand for sheep’s brains.

319. That is because there is a surplus of production. If this country were short of beef everybody would use those things that are now thrown away?—I think Mr. Byrne would be the best man to give evidence on that point.

320. Mr. Byrne objects to the humane killer being used on sheep; he wants to exempt them altogether?—That is not what I say. What I say is that Mr. Byrne would be better able to give evidence on the point as to the amount of sheep’s brains asked for.

The witness withdrew.

Mr. Samuel Byrne recalled and further examined.

321. Mr. Counihan.—What price do you get for sheep’s heads?—In winter time we get from 8d. to 10d. In the summer time we would be glad to sell them for anything.

322. Are they easily sold in winter?— Yes.

323. Have you ever seen the head of a sheep which had been stunned by the captive bolt method?—Yes, I did it myself to see the effect.

324. What effect had it?—In one case where it went right through the brain there was hæmorrhage.

325. And that destroyed the brain?— Yes.

326. Mr. O’Farrell.—You can kill with the captive bolt without shooting through the head by shooting behind the ear?— You must go to the brain. I tried where I thought was sufficiently in on the brain to stun the sheep, but it had not the effect of stunning it. That is why I mentioned that you can be more cruel with the captive bolt in slaughtering a sheep than with the knife. My point is that the knife is more expeditious. This sheep that was only just caught on the point of the brain did not go down at all. It was like a sheep with head staggers. It just got like that and had to be struck afterwards.

327. Are you aware that where the brain is required you shoot the sheep behind the ear and do not spoil the brain then and yet stun it effectively?—I do not know how you can stun an animal with any instrument like that without entering the brain.

328. It is done?—It is not effective stunning. I will go that far, and I think I should know something about them. With any animal it is the brain you must affect to stun it.

329. Mr. O’Farrell.—By using the mechanical bolt in the ordinary way the brain is not destroyed but just rendered unsightly?

330. Chairman.—Is its food value impaired?—A great deal of the brain is used for invalids.

331. Mr. O’Farrell.—It is just rendered unsightly?—Well, in the case of a brain where hæmorrhage sets in, it would be very hard to make it suitable for invalids.

332. Chairman.—Is the taste affected? —I think so. Of course, I am only going on the question of the effective method of slaughter, and, to my mind, the knife is the most expeditious. Of course, with reference to using the mechanical killer behind the ear, if you give a sheep a blow of any instrument behind the ear you will stun the animal just the same as you would stun a rabbit by a blow behind the ear. Any instrument—even a policeman’s baton—will do that.

333. Mr. O’Farrell.—Is not that what I have been trying to say?—Yes, but you do not want a mechanical killer for it. You can stun a sheep in this way but not a beast.

I am speaking of sheep.

Mr. P. F. Dolan, M.R.C.V.S., recalled and further examined.

334. Sir Edward Coey Bigger.—On this question of private slaughterhouses, Mr. Dolan, and the question of notification of the time of slaughtering, about which I asked you before, can bye-laws be made which would make them notify the time of slaughtering?—Any sanitary authority can make bye-laws, but they must be sanctioned by the Local Government Department.

335. But the power is there to make bye-laws?—Yes.

336. Chairman.—They can apply for sanction for the bye-laws but they may not get it?—They can make the bye-laws, but they must be sanctioned by the Department of Local Government and Public Health.

337. Mr. O’Farrell.—Did you say that where the mechanical killer was not practicable the knife only should be used?— What I said was that the use of the humane killer on sheep will not get rid of the cruelty. I contend that there is a lot of cruelty in the case of the sheep before the stunning.

338. Mr. Counihan.—I thought I understood from your answers, Mr. Dolan, that you would not change the present method of sticking sheep for the captive bolt?—I did not say that.

339. Would you prefer the captive bolt to the method of sticking in the case of sheep? Would you strongly recommend it?—I would prefer to go in for the electrical method, and that is why I object to the use of the humane killer for sheep. In answering that question I would prefer to go a step further and use the electrical method.

340. Mr. Wilson.—The local authority can order that particular class or method of stunning under this Bill?—Yes.

Mr. Patrick Courtney (Chief Slaughterman, Messrs, McDonogh and Co.) called and examined.

341. Chairman.—You were here this morning and you understand the line on which we are proceeding?—Yes.

342. Perhaps you would like to make a brief statement with regard to the slaughter of animals and then pass on to the Bill itself?—I have been 16 years a butcher, and I think that the humane killer is a big success. For instance, when you plunge a knife through a sheep’s neck, the sheep is struggling. Sometimes the sheep will get away and fall through loss of blood. That is cruelty. In the case of a beast, the pole-axe may be swung repeatedly, and you will not take the beast off its feet. I have seen that five or six times. With the humane killer, you hold the beast steady, put a two-grain cartridge in, and the beast falls.

343. You have seen the pole-axe swung five or six times unsuccessfully?—Yes.

344. You found yourself missing?—Yes. We slaughter 150 sheep per week, and 27 cattle.

345. What method do you employ in respect to sheep?—I find the humane killer a great success.

346. You use the humane killer with sheep?—I shoot them all.

347. You employed the other method— sticking—in the case of sheep before that? —Yes.

348. What is your experience in regard to pigs?—I think it is the same. It is a great success too. I have seen pigs held up on chains. The pig would be held by one of the shanks and a knife driven into it. The pig is alive, and is roaring.

349. That is very cruel?—Yes. The pig is alive and is stuck up.

350. You use the humane killer?—Yes.

351. You have no experience of the electrolethaler as against the humane killer?—I should not think that it would do any more than the humane killer.

352. Do you wish to pass any comment as to whether animals are affected by the sight of other animals being killed or whether they are affected by the scent of blood?—I do not think that it makes any difference. A sheep is the most stubborn thing on earth. When you pull a sheep in to shoot it, you will see another following it. The other one walks around.

353. That would go to show that it does not know that the other sheep is being brought in to be shot?—It does not know what is going on.

354. Even though there are others slaughtered in its sight?—Yes.

355. What about cattle and the scent of blood?—I have seen them come into a slaughterhouse and lick blood off a rope.

356. What about pigs?—I saw pigs eating the carcases of other pigs.

357. The sight of blood has no effect on them at all?—No.

358. You will notice in the Bill a provision regarding the infliction of unnecessary suffering, pain or fatigue on animals. Have you examined that at all?—I could not say much about that. But as regards the slaughter of an animal in front of another, I do not think that that would make much difference.

359. You think that all this talk about an animal getting very excited at the sight of another animal’s blood is somewhat overdone?—I do.

360. Have you ever seen cattle go wild at the sight of another animal’s blood?— No. I have seen them go wild without any cause whatever. I have seen them going wild when not near a slaughterhouse at all.

361. Your opinion is that they are insensible in their reactions to the slaughter of their own kind?—It becomes natural with some animals to be contrary. I would not say that it is the slaughterhouse that makes animals contrary.

362. Have you any comment to make as regards a slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard being more than two miles away from a barrack station?—I have nothing to say on that.

363. Have you any opinion as to whether a person under the age of 16 years should be permitted to remain in a slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard during the process of slaughtering animals?—I consider that a lad going to serve his time at 14 years of age should be entitled to remain on the premises during slaughter.

364. But as regards ordinary young people, what is your opinion?—That they should not be allowed on the premises.

365. And if they were, what do you think the effect would be?—They might come along and try on another child what they saw taking place in the slaughterhouse. I do not think they should be allowed there.

366. As regards the penalty clause, if a man, say, was prosecuted and pleaded in his defence that the instrument was out of repair through no fault of his, do you think that should be a sufficient defence for him?—If the instrument is properly cared there is no reason why it should go out of repair. Accidents are not likely to happen if the instrument is looked after in a reasonable way and kept in a proper place.

367. How long do the instruments last? —They will last for ever if care is taken of them. The ejector, of course, may get worn out from constant explosions. The barrel may also get worn out. If care is taken with the instrument it should never be out of repair.

368. Coming to the question of licences, would you object to the payment of a small licensing fee?—I would like to be sure of what that means. There are shop butchers as well as slaughterhouse butchers. The shop butcher cuts up the meat, but in the case of many establishments you have the two kinds; that is to say, men have to do shop work as well as slaughterhouse work.

369. But this Bill applies only to the slaughter of cattle. Have you any views on the question of the payment of a small licensing fee?—No. If I am in order I would like to refer to the Jewish method of killing cattle. I think that if the use of the humane killer is going to be made compulsory it should be so all round. It is cruel the way that the Jews are allowed to kill their cattle. A beast is left lying there on the ground for half-an-hour dying except a Christian butcher comes along and kills it. I think that should not be allowed.

370. Would you have regard at all to the religious aspect of that particular question?—I think it is not a question of religion at all. It is a question of cruelty.

371. Have you anything to say with regard to the Mohammedan method of killing cattle?—No. I have seen enough of the Jews though.

372. Have you any comment to make on the section dealing with the powers of entry and investigation, etc.; that is, of Guards going in on the premises as well as the representatives of various humane societies and of the local authorities?—I have nothing to say on that. Personally, I would not object to it.

373. You are of the opinion that if you are doing your duty periodical inspections will not interfere unduly with you?—Yes. That is all that I have to say.

374. Mr. O’Farrell.—I understand that you are the chief slaughter man for a very big business concern here?—Yes.

375. How long have you been using the humane killer?—Practically since it came out.

376. Did you find any trouble in learning the use of it?—None whatever.

377. Do you find any great trouble in keeping it in order?—No.

378. Does it take up a lot of time to keep it in order?—No, only about five minutes’ attention after the use of every 50 cartridges.

379. With regard to its use on sheep, have you had any complaints?—No. We use it every week on 150 sheep.

380. Do you know anything about the assertion that it destroys the selling value of the brain? Have you had any trouble in that respect?—Probably every two months we may get an order for brain.

381. You have not a big demand for sheep’s brains as such?—No.

382. As regards the question whether animals have a dread of the smell of blood, you are aware, I am sure, that that is a matter on which there is a big difference of opinion. On that I will ask you to listen to this short statement: “I do know that cattle have a great objection to the smell of blood and that it has the effect of making them get very excited and into a great temper. The smell of blood seems, at times, to make them almost mad.” Do you agree with that?— I do not.

383. Well, that statement was made by a very big cattle dealer whose two sons, according to himself, are in the butchering business. You do not agree with the statement?—No.

384. Do you kill your cattle in the presence of each other?—What we do is this: The yard is a big one and we run in three cattle. We rope one and hunt the others out. The result is that the beast is not slaughtered in the presence of the other cattle.

385. You made some reference to the Jewish method of slaughtering cattle? Under that method does it take a long time for a beast to die?—The beast would bleed to death if a Christian did not come along and kill it. In my opinion there is a great deal of avoidable cruelty in the Jewish method of slaughtering animals.

386. Mr. Counihan.—You are very much in favour of the captive bolt?—Yes.

387. You have used the pole-axe?—Yes.

388. It was said by an expert examined here that the pole-axe, in the hands of a competent person, would be as humane as the captive bolt?—No, I do not think so. You may be an expert with the pole-axe but you cannot guarantee that you will take an animal down with one blow. You can with the humane killer.

389. Have you seen mistakes made with the humane killer?—No. I have not.

390. If you do not put the gun right up against the forehead of the beast, might there not be a mistake made?— Yes, it might not be properly hit.

391. Could that occur?—Well, you are supposed to hold the gun to the beast’s head.

392. If you did not, what would happen?—Well, the beasts would not be killed.

393. Would not that be the same as giving two blows with the pole-axe?—No.

394. But you would have to do it again? —Yes, but it would not cause as much cruelty.

395. It would go a sixth or an eighth of an inch into the beast’s head. Would not that be cruelty?—It would not sink nearly as much as the pole-axe.

396. You would not agree that a pole-axe in the hands of a competent person would be as effective and as humane as the captive bolt?—No. I would not.

397. You said that pigs, sheep and cattle do not know that they are going to be slaughtered, and do not take any notice on looking at the carcases of other beasts or seeing beasts being slaughtered? —I do not think they take any notice at all.

398. So you would not agree with the provisions of the Bill that cattle should not be slaughtered in the sight of other cattle?—No.

399. In your opinion cattle take no notice of blood, as was stated by some other witnesses before the Committee?— I do not think so.

400. No animals—sheep, pigs or cattle? —I do not think so.

401. So that in your opinion it does not make any difference whether cattle are slaughtered in the sight of other cattle or not?—I do not think so.

402. You believe that butchers should be licensed whether for the slaughtering of sheep, pigs or other animals; you think they should be all licensed?—Yes.

403. Do you think that a butcher who served his time, and got qualified, should be free to practise his trade without having to get a licence from the local authority to do his ordinary day’s work? Should he not be at liberty to do his day’s work and carry on his business without having to apply for a licence? Do you not think it is a certain amount of restriction on a man and also a tax having to pay 5/-, according to this Bill?—It is.

404. Is it not a special tax on a man that he has to pay a special licence for doing his work?—It is only a yearly licence.

405. He will have to pay that licence every year?—Except where the firm that owns the slaughterhouse would pay it.

406. Is it fair that a butcher, a qualified man, should have to apply to the local authority and pay for a licence?—

Mr. O’Farrell.—Motor drivers have to pay for licences.

407. Mr. Counihan.—Do you not think that this licence business would be the cause of inconvenience to most butchers in the country?—I do not think so.

408. This Bill says that the butcher must be licensed by the local authority, and that applies only to the district for which the licence must be got. Suppose, a butcher in Swords got sick and that they had to apply for a butcher in Dublin to take the place of the local man, would it be fair that the Dublin man should have again to pay his licence for working in Swords?—But he would have his licence already.

409. The Bill says the licence will be only operative in the district for which it is got. Do you approve of that?—I do not think that is so.

410. Do you think he should have to search out the local authority there and pay his licence there again?—No, I do not.

411. Mr. Wilson.—Have you any views as to the length of time a beast should be without food before it is slaughtered? —From about 12 to 14 hours.

412. The Bill says 12 hours. Do you think food given to a beast within 12 hours would have a bad effect?—Do you mean before it is slaughtered?

413. It must have food 12 hours before slaughter?——

Mr. O’Farrell.—It must be fasting not more than 12 hours.

414. Mr. Wilson.—Is that a hardship? —Oh, no, I would not say there is any cruelty there. The beast has to be fasting 12 hours in order to get the carcase properly dried up.

Chairman.—If an animal was kept 24 hours without food or water?——

415. Mr. Wilson.—Not without water, but suppose the animal got no food for 24 hours?—Twenty-four hours would be too long.

416. Then you agree with the Bill, which provides 12 hours? Have you ever had any complaint of animals suffering fatigue before slaughtering?—No.

417. Sub-section (2) refers to persons engaged in the driving or bringing any animal to a slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard, and provides that they shall so drive or convey the animal as to avoid the infliction upon the animal of any unnecessary pain or fatigue. Do you think it is necessary to have such a provision as that in the Bill?—I would not think it necessary.

418. Would not the butcher be very anxious to have animals in the very best condition possible?—Certainly.

419. You would not approve of any instrument except the captive bolt. Would you approve of an instrument that shot with a bullet?—No, only the captive bolt.

420. Did you ever see the electrical killer at work?—No.

421. Sir E. Coey Bigger.—You have had experience of the pole-axe and you have had experience of the humane killer?— Yes.

422. How long does it take to get experience of the humane killer?—You would have experience of the human killer if you killed one sheep or other beast.

423. And with the pole-axe?—You might be practising for six months.

424. Six months as against one beast with the humane killer?—You might be lucky with the pole-axe and bring down a beast with one blow.

425. Mr. Counihan.—Have you much experience of the Jewish method of killing?—I have.

426. What is the usual custom?—The beast is brought in in the ordinary way. Then there is a rope placed around three of its legs. Then you wind a winch and the beast’s legs are pulled from under it. Then it is hoisted up and rests partly on its shoulder. The Rabbi comes along and pulls the knife across the throat.

427. Is not the beast tied up?—It is tied by three legs, and only the shoulders and the head are on the ground.

428. You consider that process cruel?— Very cruel.

429. Chairman.—What happens after that?—When it falls heavily to the ground after the legs are pulled from under it, the beast is not able to roar, but it is trying hard to breathe. You could hear it in the lane outside. The Christian butcher then comes along, and if the Christian butcher did not cut the “crack” the animal would live for a long time.

430. Chairman.—Is there any case where the animal is allowed to die without the Christian butcher coming along? Do you know of any case where the Christian butcher was not brought along to complete the slaughter?—I do not know of any such case.

431. Mr. Counihan.—Is it not a fact that the Christian butcher severs the throat with one gash of the knife when the animal is completely stunned?—It must be.

432. It is not necessary to stun the beast to put it unconscious. If the throat is cut would not that be an effective method?—No.

Mr. Quirke.—The Senator is mixing up the cutting of the jugular vein with the severing of the spinal cord. It is the severing of the spinal cord that renders the beast senseless.

Chairman.—The beast would be senseless without that. In your opinion, after the jugular vein is cut the beast might be conscious for a long time and suffering an amount of pain.

433. Mr. Quirke.—Once the spinal cord is severed the beast ceases to suffer?— There is no pain after that.

434. Chairman.—What does the Christian butcher do when he comes along?— He breaks the cord.

Mr. William Fogarty, Tipperary, called and examined.

435. Chairman.—We are glad, Mr. Fogarty, to see you coming all the way from Tipperary to give evidence. Perhaps you would first give us some details as to the experience you have in matters arising under this Bill?—The advice I would be able to give you is more as an agriculturist or farmer than any technical advice. My experience would be chiefly in connection with the slaughtering of pigs. As far as pigs are concerned, we always stun them with the back of a hatchet before they are stuck.

436. Where do you hit them?—In the forehead. A share of cattle are killed at the present time on account of the fact that people are unable to dispose profitably of them at the fairs. People in every district kill a nice little beast or two in the week, and sell it around the country. This Bill would be a hardship on such people. That pigs are not included in this Bill makes a difference. It would be very inconvenient entirely for farmers if pigs were included. For the past 40 years I killed eight or ten pigs every year. I know there are handy men in every district who do the same, and it would be a great hardship on them if they had to purchase a humane killer.

437. That is not the case, as pigs are not included?—Yes.

438. It would be a great hardship, you think—that would be because of the cost of the humane killer or the cartridges?— Yes, the cost of the humane killer would be very hard on such people.

439. What is your experience of the humane killer?—It was only in connection with cattle to be destroyed under the Tuberculosis Act. That is the only experience I have of the humane killer. When I got an invitation to this meeting I questioned a number of people in Thurles last Saturday, people who have been in the butchering trade for over 50 years. I questioned them as to the relative merits of both ways of killing, and they whole-heartedly approved of the pole-axe.

440. What were their reasons?—They said there was no extra cruelty caused by the use of the pole-axe.

441. You are only expressing the opinion given to you?—Yes and I made it my business to inquire.

442. Would you look at Section 1 of the Bill. I am sure a number of questions will be put to you in regard to sub-section (2) as to the matter of pain or fatigue? —I do not see how there would be any question of fatigue.

443. As a farmer, would you tell us what you think of the point about the suffering caused by fatigue?—Well, cattle are driven every day to fairs and these are held on slippery streets and I believe there is more fatigue caused in driving cattle through slippery streets to the railway station than in driving them to the butcher’s yard.

444. That is to say because they suffer pain in one case they should suffer it in the other. The fact that they suffer pain in one case is no reason why they should suffer it in the other?—Well, I think they will not suffer any extraordinary pain through being driven to the butcher’s yard beyond what they would suffer on an ordinary slippery street.

445. Have you any comment to make in connection with sub-section (4): “No person shall slaughter or cause or suffer to be slaughtered any animal or dress or cause or suffer to be dressed the carcase of any animal within the view of another animal.” From your experience what would you say on that point?—Well, sheep are the only ones that would suffer in view of each other. They are the only animals that would be slaughtered in view of each other.

446. What are the reactions of sheep on this?—People say there is no reaction. They are not aware that the other sheep are being slaughtered and the thing does not cause them any pain. For instance, if you take sheep in summer-time when their backs are torn and you bring that sheep outside the pen and in view of the other sheep there you are dressing the back and you find the other sheep are placidly chewing the cud.

447. But they have the experience that you are relieving them?—They should be very up-to-date if they could differentiate between the two operations.

448. What do you think of sub-section (a) of sub-section (6) of Section 1:—“To any slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard situate at a distance of more than two miles by road from a barrack or station of the Gárda Síochána”. What that amounts to is that this Bill will apply to all slaughterhouses within two miles of a Gárda station, and to no slaughterhouse outside that limit?—Then a butcher can do what he likes who is outside the two-mile limit. Such a man would be in a happy position as compared with the other. If the Bill is to be passed it should be passed for everybody. If not, it should be scrapped for everybody.

449. You think it should apply equally outside the two mile radius?—Yes, if it is to apply to anybody.

450. What do you think of sub-section (17): “No person who is under the age of 16 years shall be admitted to or permitted to remain in a slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard during the process of slaughtering any animal …”? Have you any comment to make on that?—I think it would be very hard on a butcher who was going to train his son to his business that he would not be allowed into the slaughterhouse until he was over 16. I do not think a boy would develop any immoral tendencies if he were allowed to go there at the age of 13 or 14.

451. Would you agree to have the limit fixed at 14 years of age?—I would.

452. In regard to letting young people see slaughtering carried out, do you think young people should be allowed to be present when animals are being slaughtered or do you think that would have any bad effect on them?—I have the experience of seeing children of six, seven or eight years of age looking on at pigs being slaughtered. Some of them may be inclined to turn their backs and some of them may not. I do not think it would have any evil effect on them or make them more brutal in after life.

453. You do not think it would make them a bit callous?—Scarcely, except it is in their nature already to be callous.

454. You think that the inherent nature of the youngsters matters much more than the environment?—Except there was some viciousness in the child before I do not think it would matter.

455. Supposing this captive bolt were to be made obligatory within the areas to be set out here, do you think it would be sufficient in the case of failure on the part of the people who owned the slaughterhouse to say it went out of repair?—It would be hard to get a conviction, anyway.

456. This makes it more difficult?—It would be very hard to get a conviction against anybody if they would have any way of getting out of it. They would use every method they could to get out of it.

457. Do you think that the Guards ought to be going around visiting slaughterhouses?—I would not have any objection to the Guards and I know that neither would any butcher, but they would not like to see every Tom, Dick and Harry coming in to see their work under the heading of “authorised person.”

458. Mr. Quirke.—I would like to ask Mr. Fogarty if he agrees that with only cattle included in this Bill that any hardship would be caused. Mr. Fogarty, you say that so long as pigs are not included it would not cause any hardship. Do you think that the Bill would cause any hardship about cattle?—Well, I got information from a number of people in Thurles and they said there would be no undue hardship by using the pole-axe. One man told me he saw thousands of cattle killed by the pole-axe in Birkenhead; he saw thousands of them used in Birkenhead. It was the pole-axe was used there for slaughtering cattle.

459. So you are not in favour of using the captive bolt at all?—No.

460. Is it your opinion that a beast has any power of anticipation—that is to say, if a beast is being driven to the slaughterhouse and sees blood or dead carcases beforehand, that that beast would know, it was to be slaughtered itself?—I believe if the blood were openly before the eyes of the beast that the beast will smell trouble. My experience of that is very wide. I often have heifers calving out in the fields where other cattle are present. Where there is blood they will congregate and roar. If they are in a confined place where blood is before their eyes they will be more inclined to get excited.

461. You believe they will get excited? You believe that they will anticipate or know that they are going to be killed themselves?—They will get excited if blood is there before their eyes.

462. But you cannot say definitely that the animals realise that they are going to be killed?—You will generally see them sweating. I cannot say if they anticipate trouble.

463. Now with regard to the two miles distance, do you believe that that two miles distance will make any serious difference between people living inside and outside the two mile boundary or that it will be considered unequal administration of the law?—Of course in country districts Where you have wide areas between the different Gárda barracks there would be a big section of the country that will be immune from the Bill. It will be no man’s land. In my opinion if the Act is to pass at all, it should be general.

464. Is it not a fact that there are several prominent butchers’ shops in country districts where there are no Gárda barracks at all?—There are no Gárda barracks within five miles of some butchers’ slaughterhouses. Some of these, of course, are improvised slaughterhouses at present where a beast or two would be killed each week.

465. I think you told the Chairman that you were not interested in the matter of the licences. In the town of Thurles supposing this Bill went through and a licence is insisted on for a butcher or slaughterman employed by one butcher and supposing that man got sick or met with an accident and that a butcher had to be brought in from the neighbouring town or village, say from Urlingford to do the slaughtering in Thurles, as the Bill stands at present that butcher would have to go into Thurles and apply for a licence to the Thurles local authority. He would have to pay 5/- for that licence or a sum not exceeding 5/-. He would have to come along again and take out a new licence, even though he had a licence already in another area, before he could take on this purely temporary employment, which might be only for one day. Would not that cause inconvenience?—I believe any butcher who serves his time to his trade should not be under the necessity of taking out a licence at all.

466. You are not in favour of the licensing clause in the Bill?—No.

467. Mr. Counihan.—I take it your interest is mainly from the point of view of the individual who would slaughter animals more or less on a co-operative basis?—Yes.

468. That is, the farmer who would slaughter sheep or cattle when they would be very cheap and sell them to his neighbours at a fixed price?—Yes.

469. Do you think if the provisions of this Bill were applied to everybody slaughtering cattle it would be to the interest of the country as a whole?—I think it would wipe out the trade I have referred to altogether, because it would be impossible for them to keep in touch with the requirements of this Act.

470. And you think that this measure will prevent farmers slaughtering animals and selling the meat locally and that consequently that will raise the price of meat all over the country?—Yes. The only way to get out of that difficulty would be to carry the beast to the nearest town, get it slaughtered by a licensed butcher and then make the best of it. I think it would mean a great deal of loss.

471. Chairman.—The alternative would be to buy a humane killer.

472. Mr. Counihan.—There is more than one alternative. You would have no objection, Mr. Fogarty, to Guards or properly qualified officials visiting a slaughter place? Have you any experience of Guards or societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals—any experience of how they carry on?—I have no personal experience because they do not trouble the country districts.

473. Sir E. Coey Bigger.—You mentioned that at Birkenhead the animals were slaughtered there with a pole-axe. Do you not know that they are now slaughtered with a humane killer?—I am sure Senator Counihan knows my informant on that point.

474. Mr. Counihan.—It was only very recently they adopted the humane killer.

Chairman.—The law changed the practice.

Witness.—The law is not always correct, of course.

475. Mr. O’Farrell.—What part of Tipperary do you come from?—From Mid-Tipperary.

476. You are a farmer?—Yes.

477. So that licences and so on do not apply to your trade?—No, but they apply to the country district around me where they are slaughtering cattle for sale at the present time.

478. Do you kill beasts of any kind?— Nothing but pigs, which I kill for my own use.

479. Are there many slaughterhouses more than two miles from a police barrack in your part of the country?—Where they kill cattle at the present time, there are.

480. Is this a new development?—Yes, a new development for the last five or six months. Farmers kill cattle or sheep and retail the meat.

481. Would you be in favour of extending the provisions of this Bill to a man in that line of business?—I would not, because I think it would wipe them out, and if that line of business was wiped out meat would be dearer in the town.

482. If he had to buy a killer at £5 and cartridges at 4/6 a hundred, a ½d. a beast, would that wipe him out?—It would not be a fair way of business for a man killing only a couple of beasts in the week; he is hardly likely to expend money on a killer.

483. I think you said that the beast is killed by the local handyman?—That is the pig job.

484. Does the farmer kill his own heifers or bullocks?—Yes.

485. Without any previous experience? —They look on at operations in a slaughterhouse for a certain length of time. There is not much pain when the animals are struck with the pole-axe, once they are down.

486. Does it take many strokes to down them?—One stroke. I saw a good many killed by amateur butchers and I never saw a beast struck the second time.

487. You heard the evidence of Mr. Courtney?—I did, and I was surprised to hear him say that it was such a difficult job. He must not be a good shot.

488. Do you think that in the case of a man accustomed to kill a couple of beasts a week it would be a big impost if he had to buy a mechanical killer that would probably last for a lifetime?—I think there would not be any great necessity for it, especially when there is not undue hardship using a pole-axe.

489. Supposing the majority of people agree that there is cruelty involved because of the chances of missing, would you think it fair to ask a man to spend £5 extra?—That is a question I could not answer very definitely. There is a lot of supposition about it.

490. It might be a hardship and it might not?—Either ways.

491. You do not seriously suggest that if instead of buying a pole-axe a man buys a humane killer, that would send up the price of meat?—The humane killer might go wrong much oftener than the pole-axe.

492. It might, if he were a careless man and did not look after the instrument properly. Have you heard that the price of meat rose in Northern Ireland or Scotland because of the operation of an Act similar to this?—I have not heard that.

493. No, nor has anybody else. An Act of this kind has been in operation for four years in Northern Ireland and Scotland and it is now in operation in England. Regarding your general evidence as to whether animals feel pain, and so on, I do not suppose you have made a study of that?—No. I never kill more than one pig at a time, and then I go back to the house for another.

494. Mr. Counihan.—You were asked if you heard the price of meat went up since a measure of this kind was put into operation in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Has it been the usual practice in your part of the country for farmers to go in for the slaughter of cattle?—It has not been the usual practice; it was only recently they started to do it.

495. You know the cause of that and why it is being carried on now?—Of course, I do. You are trying to draw me into the net to a certain extent. So far as the price of meat is concerned, there is no staple price; there is meat sold at 2d., and from that to 10d.

496. It can be sold for very little?—It can be sold very cheaply, anyhow, a lot more cheaply than the butchers will sell it.

497. Would those people slaughter cattle and sell the meat locally if they had to comply with all the provisions of this Bill—if they had to apply for a licence to slaughter animals?—The very fact of having to have slaughterhouses in a certain condition, together with having to purchase a humane killer, would be enough to put them out of business. All the harassing restrictions here would prevent them carrying on.

498. Mr. O’Farrell.—Perhaps you will indicate the restrictions. What restrictions are imposed in this Bill that will mean any extra expenditure except the getting of a mechanical killer and the licence?—Having to keep the slaughterhouse in a certain condition, so that it will be up to date.

499. But that is not in the Bill?—It is set out there that it should be in a certain condition and subject to inspection.

500. But the inspection is for the purpose of seeing that a man has a humane killer?—I understood you would have to have the premises in a certain condition.

501. Sir E. Coey Bigger.—That is already the law.

502. Mr. O’Farrell.—If I am a consumer of meat I would be interested in seeing that you would have your premises in a clean and sanitary condition. Would that not be fair?—I believe it would be.

503. Do you not believe the consumers have a right in this matter as well as the butchers?—Yes, but naturally the butchers would be down on those people who kill animals in the country places, and they would harass them to a certain extent. Naturally people are anxious to have the meat in a good, clean condition.

504. But this Bill imposes no restriction; it merely lays down a certain law by which a humane killer must be used and a licence must be taken out. Would you agree that an incompetent individual, who has no experience, should not get a licence for using a pole-axe?— It would mean that he would have to serve his time for a couple of years, and all that sort of thing would prevent the killing of beasts as it is now being done in the country. If a man kills one beast effectively would that entitle him to a licence irrespective of other qualifications he might have?

505. Chairman.—Your evidence on that point is very important. We have the fullest regard for what you said, because if there is to be an objection that would bear weight against this Bill, it would be if it inflicted hardship on farmers, some of whom are killing their own or their neighbours’ cattle who would have to provide themselves with this instrument. If you contend that that objection could be made to the Bill, it would be a very serious one. Would you seriously contend that where a farmer is killing animals on his own premises, and kills because it pays him to kill, that the expense under this Bill would amount to little more than the purchase of the pistol and cartridges? —Very few of these people would continue to kill cattle if prices are economic later. Therefore, there would be an end to it, and the initial expenditure of £5, small as it may appear, if it were for three or four months until this “thing” is finished—call it any name you wish— would be no use.

506. Chairman.—We never heard it described as “thing” before, and we heard many disguises.

507. Mr. Quirke.—In view of the attitude of farmers towards most of the beasts they rear, do you agree that such men have considerable amount of affection towards animals they bring up, from the time they come into the world until fat?—I believe that is so.

508. Do you believe that when it comes to the time that that man or his family require food it causes an amount of mental suffering to kill an animal for which he has considerable affection?—It should not be the case, because it would be worse if he let his family go hungry. That would cause more suffering.

Mr. O’Farrell.—Political suffering.

509. Mr. Quirke.—Some men kill the thing they love or kill the thing they hate?—Necessity knows no law.

510. If the Bill includes any animals I presume it should apply universally?— It should.

511. How do you propose the humane killer should be used on a pheasant or a partridge?—I suppose they would give them an anæsthethic and then fire at them when on the ground.

512. It would be necessary to get back to using the proverbial grain of salt before shooting them?—You would nearly have to go further than that.

Mr. J. C. Landy (Manager, Irish Co-operative Meat, Ltd.) called and examined.

513. Chairman.—You have had considerable experience in this matter. I know a whole lot about your experience, but perhaps the other members of the Committee do not know as much. Perhaps you would give us some statement?—At present I am managing the Irish Co-Operative Meat Company in Waterford, where we kill cattle, sheep and pigs. I have had considerable experience outside this country, in the Chicago packing houses, in the Argentine, in China and in Russia.

514. Have you prepared any written statement?—I notice that the Bill does not apply to pigs, and in that way I am not as concerned as I would otherwise be.

515. You are concerned in this way, because the Bill may be applied to pigs. We have evidence that tends towards its application to pigs, so that you are free to discuss that view. This Bill is subject to amendment?—I wanted to object to the Bill in its application to cattle. I am not at all in love with either the pole-axe or the humane killer. If I had my way about killing cattle I would kill them in the American fashion.

516. Which is?—With a 4 lb. sledge. The cattle are put into a pen and hit on the head. When hit on the head with a 4 lb. sledge they are stunned. They are then lifted up and bled. That is not the practice here where the pole-axe is used. I have seen millions of cattle slaughtered. I think the method here is the cruellest to the animal. The animal stiffens up when struck and the same thing applies when the humane killer is used. The most humane way is to use the 4 lb. sledge when the cattle are in the pen and the man is standing right over them. The blow need not be heavy.

517. There is not the same margin of error as there is with the pole-axe?—No. The man has to stand in a position where he can hardly miss. I doubt if a man would miss in one out of a thousand cases.

518. Cattle are killed in Waterford?— Yes. We use the humane killer and sometimes the pole-axe. The humane killer gets out of order sometimes. We use it generally. I believe you get better beef by the method where the bullock is hoisted and where his heart is working and pumping. If you kill an animal with the humane killer or with the pole-axe you stop the heart and the blood is not pumping. The Germans have gone into that thoroughly and they advocate stunning, bleeding and hanging up, without stopping the action of the heart. The reason I object is that we may start to kill cattle again. We are stopped at present owing to the restrictions in England. We were killing up to 100 cattle per week until the restrictions came on—I would not like to be stopped from installing the American method by the provisions of this Bill. I think that would be a retrograde step.

519. Has the method there met with universal application in America?—Absolutely.

520. And in a legal sense?—Yes. I never saw the pole-axe used until I came here. I was not in the butchering business before I went away. As regards pigs, I think there is no cruelty whatever in the present method of killing. A pig does not seem to mind his comrades being shackled and hoisted up. In fact, he does not mind blood being in the pen. You see him nosing around if he happens to be there. I do not think pigs are affected at all by a comrade being hoisted in a modern house. As far as pain being inflicted on the animal in the sticking, that is only while the knife is cutting through the skin. In fact, the easiest way for any animal to die is by blood letting. There is no pain beyond that made with the prick of the knife when it enters the skin. Sheep are in a different position. I would not object somehow to the stunning of sheep. It seems rather cruel to get a sheep, put it down and stick it through the neck, as is the common practice. I have never seen sheep stunned.

521. What was the method in America? —They killed them the same as pigs. They are hoisted. An opening is first made in the wool. The method I referred to would not be applicable here, as the plant is a very expensive one.

522. Have you any idea why this country never applied the system of stunning cattle with the 4 lb. sledge? Was it not done in Drogheda?—I put in a plant in Wexford and we had Scotch butchers there, but they preferred to use the methods they were accustomed to, although more work could be done and done quicker by stunning. A butcher’s time is taken up hauling the beast in, putting it down to a ring, either by using the humane killer or the pole-axe.

523. Is not time wasted the other way also?—In the other way any labouring man can drive the animals into the pen, and any intelligent boy can hit them on the head. The beast is then hanging up and bleeding, and the butcher can carry on with other animals. There is a good deal of work to be done besides the stunning and the bleeding.

524. Would you like to run through the Bill and pass comments on it? You have experience of most of the sections?—Yes.

525. What would you say with regard to sub-section (2), so as to avoid the infliction of unnecessary suffering or pain? —It is to the interest of everyone killing cattle or any animal not to subject them to any unnecessary pain. We are all in favour of that.

526. You have already commented upon sub-section (4) dealing with the slaughtering or dressing of a carcase within the view of another animal?—In the case of cattle and sheep I would be in favour of that. Usually there is no necessity for doing it.

527. It might be avoided?—Yes.

528. But there is no great pain or hardship inflicted?—I would not say that in the case of cattle. I think cattle would be rather excited. If there is one thing that you do not want, it is to get them excited.

529. Are they affected by the sight or sense of smell?—Both. In any case by the sense of smell.

530. And that, of course, creates greater difficulty in killing, although there might be no particular pain caused?—I do not think it is a good thing to do, even from the butchers’ point of view. Even if it did not cause pain, it causes the animals to become excited and they will not bleed as well.

531. If an animal is excited it does not bleed as well?—No.

532. With regard to sub-clause (a) of sub-section (6), which sets out that the Bill shall not apply to any slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard which is situated more than two miles by road from a Gárda Síochána barracks, what do you think?— I think it should be universally applied if applied at all.

533. There should be no limitation of distance?—No. I think not. I do not see that it should make any difference whether or not you are two miles from a Gárda station.

534. It is a question of the difficulty of the administration of the Act, if this Bill become an Act. From your experience, do you think that there would be any greater difficulty in administering the Act in a universal way rather than with this limitation of distance?—There possibly would, but if the Act is going to be enacted at all, it should apply generally. We do not want to have cruelty outside two miles from a Gárda station any more than you want it inside.

535. That is true in principle, but it is a question of whether the extra cost and difficulty of administration is worth that?—If it is worth enacting at all, it is worth enforcing all the way through.

536. You heard a question addressed to a previous witness as to whether there were many of these slaughterhouses outside the two-mile radius. We had already heard that there were not many, but I think the previous witness said that there was a considerable number of them. What is your experience?—I do not suppose that there are a great many except that, as the previous witness said, there are a number of people killing cattle now in the country who were not killing before. Otherwise, I do not think that there would be very many outside.

537. Do you wish to pass any comment on the Jewish method of slaughtering cattle and any unnecessary hardship which might be assumed to be caused thereby?—I do not suppose that you can interfere with the Jews. It is part of their religion, and every country I have been in has always given facilities for killing cattle according to the Jewish rite.

538. Have you had experience of the Jewish method of slaughtering?—I have seen it from time to time.

539. We had a witness who said that very considerable pain was caused to an animal by that method?—I would say that there is. The animal is knocked down and tied very tightly so that the Rabbi can draw his sword across the throat. Certainly, an animal gets more rough handling than it does in the case of any of the other methods.

540. Handling as well as the pain caused?—The animal has to be knocked down and tied up very tightly.

541. You hold the opinion that there should be such regard for the tenets of the Jewish religion that one should not interfere?—I think so. I have seen slaughtering for Jews in a great many countries and they have always been allowed to use their own methods. I think it would be very hard to interfere with it. It is an old-established law—a good Mosaic law, I believe.

542. Perhaps you might like to pass comment on sub-section (7) dealing with the allowing of persons under the age of 16 to remain in the slaughterhouse?—I should be opposed to that.

543. What do you think of it?—I do not think that working in a slaughterhouse makes a boy callous in any way.

544. It is not exactly a question of working in a slaughterhouse. It refers to “remain in a slaughterhouse”?—While slaughtering is going on, I suppose.

545. You think there is no point in what the Bill says at all, and that it does not tend to make a boy callous in any way?—I do not think so.

546. Even of any age?—No.

547. With regard to the penalties set out, would you agree that it should be a good defence to say that the instrument was out of repair? That is an interesting part of this section. You mentioned something about an instrument going out of repair. Is it your experience that they do go out of repair?—Sometimes they do.

548. Owing to natural wear and tear? —We always keep a couple of them, but I have seen them go out of repair and especially the captive bolt. The explosive bullet usually stands up better, but the captive bolt pistol does go out of repair, and what it does is to inflict a wound on the animal without stunning it, if anything prevents the bolt from hitting properly. My experience is that the bullet is the more effective of the two.

549. In regard to means of evasion of the law do you think that there is an easy method of evasion supplied in these two sub-clauses by which a person could plead that an instrument went out of repair and that that would be a sufficient defence?—Of course, it would inflict hardship on the small butcher who had paid his £5 if it did go out of repair and he had to kill an animal some other way. It possibly might have gone out of repair after wounding the animal.

550. I take it that you agree with these two sub-clauses?—I would.

551. What is your opinion of the licensing provision?—I agree with that, too.

552. Is it reasonable enough that a person should get a licence at a fee not exceeding 5/-?—Yes.

553. And that such a person shall slaughter only in the district to which the licence applies?—Yes, I would say that.

554. You will probably have some questions on that later from some of the Senators with me. With regard to the question of entering slaughterhouses, who should be the persons duly authorised to enter for investigation?—Duly authorised people.

555. Would you be prepared to accept those who would be duly authorised? Would you allow any person to be authorised? Who should be authorised?—I suppose that certain people in a district would be the authorised people.

556. You would be prepared to admit the Guards?—I would, surely.

557. The representative of the local authority?—Yes.

558. The representatives of these humane institutions and societies?—Yes.

559. You think that would be sufficient?—I think so; that ought to cover it.

560. You agree with the Bill in regard to the matter of enforcing authority?— Yes.

Chairman.—I am sure that Senator O’Farrell would like to address a few questions to you on the points of view you have put forward in a general way.

561. Mr. O’Farrell.—I have very little to ask Mr. Landy. I am interested in this sledge for stunning animals. Do you find that universally effective?—Do you mean the sledge?

562. The sledge for stunning them?—I have seen millions of cattle stunned with it.

563. I take it that it originated in America?—It is used there exclusively.

564. You may have heard or read of the world scandals of 25 years ago about the atrocities in the stockyards of Chicago?—Yes, and they were not true.

565. There must have been a terrible lot of liars about at the time?—Mr. Sinclair was one. I was working there and I know that he was a liar.

566. Was the sledge stunner used at that time?—Yes, always, but he did not say anything about the stunning of cattle.

567. That was not the complaint?—He was talking about sausage and tinned meat.

568. At all events, it was the sensation of the time?—The whole thing was a sensational thing.

569. Mr. Quirke.—It was meant to be a sensation?—Yes. That is what sold his book. The man got his chance. He went into the Hammond plant and worked there during the strike of 1904. He saw conditions there that were not usual in the packing houses. There were green hands from all over the country taken in to break the strike and he probably saw things there that were not common practice at all.

570. Mr. O’Farrell. — The strike breakers were not very effective butchers? —They were not.

571. You object to this driving cane?— I cannot look at it myself. It seems cruel.

572. Does the animal shows signs that he feels it?—Oh, yes. The cane is put through the hole and every muscle in the animal’s body tenses.

573. I think I saw that recommended as being conducive to creating a state of unconsciousness. Does it hasten unconsciousness?—I am not sure whether the animal feels pain or whether it is reflex action from the muscles, but certainly there is some feeling that makes the animal tense every muscle in its body. I think you ought to see it and you will agree with me that it does not look nice.

574. I have seen the pole-axe used but I never saw the cane used after. I take it that you object to it?—I do not like it, but the question is that if you try to bleed an animal without using the cane it may be impossible because it may recover consciousness. It is meant to break the spinal cord to obviate any danger of the animal getting up again.

575. Pigs are not included up to the present in the Bill, but you say that you see no cruelty at present. Is there not a certain amount of cruelty in hoisting a heavy pig up by one leg on to a chain?— I would not say so.

576. There must be some pain, but there is more pain than is necessary in cutting a pig without stunning it than would be the case if it were first stunned?—I do not know but it would probably suffer just as much pain with the stunning because this thing is momentary.

577. Can you stun pigs by striking them on the head?—Yes. I have seen it done. It is done in Holland, I am informed. I was asked by our doctors in Hangkow, China, to experiment with it. I got a hammer for a Chinaman and I sent him in to try to stun the pigs. The result was not a success.

578. Mr. Quirke.—The hammer was not heavy enough, or the Chinaman maybe?— Some of the pigs, anyway, jumped over the railings and got out. It was not a success.

579. Mr. O’Farrell.—Have you seen the electrical method?—I have seen the instrument but I have not tried it.

580. You kill a lot pigs?—We do.

581. I hope you will try it because it is wonderfully effective?—Yes, but it spoils the pluck. The lungs are splashed with blood.

582. It is being used universally for pigs in the Dublin abbatoir?—That is what they say. They used it at Matterson’s and I heard that they had it at Denny’s but they gave it up. Matterson’s seem to be carrying it on at times. I do not think there is any more cruelty in sticking a pig than there is in giving him a shock of electricity. The knife is equally as, momentary as the shock of electricity.

583. It is the same as getting an anæsthetic when you are getting out your appendix or getting it out without it?— Well, you expect to recover in that case.

584. There is one other question, this matter of the continuous association with destruction of life not tending to make children callous. Do you think that continuous association with the taking away of the life of warm-blooded animals is desirable in the case of children?— Perhaps there is no necessity for having young children there but I think in the case of boys who want to learn the trade you want to get them about the age of 14.

585. That is a boy serving his time? —Yes, if they really want to become experts. I do not see any necessity for having younger children there.

586. Are you aware that butchers are not allowed on a jury where there is a capital charge involved?—I have heard of it but that is reckoned as one of those faddist laws. I have known butchers, I have known more butchers than anybody else, and I have never found them any different in their human feelings from any other people.

587. I do not think there is any reflection on the general character of the butchers at all but there is a feeling, I think, that they may tend to be a little more callous than if they followed any other trade?—I do not think there is anything in it. To some people the thought of being mixed up with slaughter at all is very repugnant.

588. Sir E. Coey Bigger.—This evidence regarding the 4 lb. sledge must have been before those who were responsible for the English Bill?—I do not know anything about that.

589. It was not adopted in any case. The method is not in use in England, although they must have had evidence of it?—I am sure they know all about it. I am giving my opinion about it and I have seen as many cattle killed as most people. The reason I mentioned it is that I am opposed to being stopped from using it. In case I were to continue killing cattle in Waterford, I did intend to put in a knocking pen. That is a very narrow pen into which you drive a bullock. There is a man standing over him and the moment he puts up his head he hits him on the forehead.

590. Mr. O’Farrell.—You could not make that mechanical I suppose?—No, I do not think it is necessary. It would be too slow. Where I saw it, there are no mechanical killers. They were killing five or six hundred cattle an hour there.

591. Mr. Counihan.—Judging by your evidence you are in general agreement with the provisions of the Bill except those regarding the compulsory clause?—I am not in general agreement.

592. I said you are in agreement except as regards the first clause, that is in regard to humane killers?—Yes.

593. You are against the captive bolt and you are against the pole-axe? You do not approve of either of them?—I do not disapprove of them where they have to be used, but I think the other method is the best one.

594. That is the 4lb. sledge?—Yes.

595. That would be going back to the old practice in the country which I am inclined to think is a good one. When the farmer killed a pig he stunned it with the back of the hatchet. I have seen pigs killed in the country and I have seen them stunned with the back of the hatchet?— I would object to that on account of what it would do to the pig’s head.

596. You would have cattle and other animals killed with it, all except the pig? —Yes.

597. You said that you preferred the 4lb. sledge to either the pole-axe or the captive bolt?—Yes.

598. I think you stated that you had no experience of the electrolethaler?—No, I never used it. I suppose there is not much use in giving hearsay evidence, but from what the users told me, I am led to believe that it caused the “plucks” to be slashed with blood, and rendered a fair percentage of them unsaleable.

599. On the question of killing sheep, you said that you would prefer to see the captive bolt used on them rather than on cattle?—There seems to be more cruelty in the killing of a sheep on account of the way he has to be caught up on a bench and the knife put through his neck.

600. You say that in the slaughter of pigs the letting of blood is the most humane method of killing them. If you contend that the sticking of a pig is a more humane method, how do you contend that the sticking of a sheep is not the most humane method?—I am talking perhaps more from the packer’s point of view than from the point of view of the ordinary butcher. We take the pig out on a rail to a position where the man is in a position to stick him. It is really a momentary thing.

601. Is not it also momentary in the case of a sheep?—It is not so easy in the case of sticking a sheep.

602. Chairman.—What Mr. Landy was objecting to was the preliminaries to killing.

Mr. Landy.—It takes a long time.

603. Mr. Counihan.—You have the pig a long time in preparation a long time, too?—No, you have not.

604. You have to hook him on to a chain first?—That takes only a short time.

605. I think you will agree with me that it will take just as short a time to put the sheep into a position?—It does not take a long time, of course.

606. No, it does not. You believe it is the best method of killing pigs, but you will not agree that it is the best method of killing sheep. I would like to be clear on that point. Do you still stick to your evidence that sheep should be stunned before being bled?—I am not very positive on that point. It looks to me, in the case of a sheep, from the way he is handled and from the general nature of the animal, as if there were more cruelty about it. Whether it is any more cruel actually, I am not prepared to say.

607. Is a sheep a more intelligent animal than a pig or an ox?—I do not think so.

608. Do you think that sheep or any other animals are conscious that they are going to be killed if they are left in view of other animals being killed or being hung up or dressed?—I know that pigs do not show any signs that they know anything about it. Of course none of us knows whether they do or not, as a matter of fact. I know cattle get very excited when they are in the presence of blood.

609. Even when they meet it crossing the road. That does not show that they know they are going to be killed?—As I said before, we do not know what they know.

610. We have had evidence before from a man engaged in the trade that he has seen cattle coming into the slaughterhouse licking a rope on which there was the blood of the beast that had gone before them?—That is quite possible.

611. That shows that they are not conscious of what is before them?—Some cattle are more excitable than others. For instance, Aberdeen Angus cattle are peculiarly excited.

612. That is a matter of temperament rather than anything else?—Yes, it seems to be in that case. Shorthorns are not nearly as bad.

613. You said that you agree with the licensing of butchers. Is it right, if a butcher serves his time and becomes a qualified journeyman butcher that, before he can get his job, he will have to get a licence to slaughter animals?—I am not so sure about that. It is going to cause a bit of hardship to the butcher and inconvenience to people like ourselves if I have got to have a licence for every man I employ as a butcher. There should be some other method.

614. If some of your butchers got influenza, such as many people have at present, and you had to go up to Kilkenny and order down two or three other butchers, do you think that it is right that you should have to look up the local authority—and you might not be able to get their representative—to see if these butchers were licensed?—I would not want to see that.

615. I think you said you approved of that. You do not, then, approve of the licensing of butchers. You think that if he is a competent butcher he should be allowed to work at his trade?—If he is a competent man he certainly should.

616. Without any restriction in regard to licensing or otherwise?—Yes.

617. Mr. O’Farrell.—He is trying to get you to unsay everything you have said already.

Mr. Landy.—I said if he was a competent man.

618. Mr. Counihan.—In reply to the Chairman you said that you would have no objection to the sanitary authorities, the Civic Guards, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or some other people who would be authorised by the Department of Agriculture, or the Department of Local Government and Public Health acting in these cases. Do you think that it would be in the interests of a business man if he was slaughtering a number of cattle to have people like that coming in every half-hour?

Mr. O’Farrell.—They could not.

619. Mr. Counihan.—Do you think that it would be possible for any man to carry on his business with all these interests interfering with him?—I am just talking from my own point of view and from the point of view of the factory that I manage. I do not care who comes in as far as we are concerned.

620. If they came in and did not know anything about the business and told you that a beast was not being properly treated, that you should use the captive bolt in a certain manner, do you think that they should be allowed to come in and interrupt your business in that way?—No, I would not want to see that.

621. Do you not think it is possible under this clause that that would happen? —It would be.

622. Do you think it right that we should make a law that would make it possible for such a thing to happen?— If people were reasonable it would be all right, but as you say they are not always reasonable.

623. So that you would not have any of these people; you do not object to the sanitary inspector coming in at any time he chooses?—No.

624. You would object to anybody else coming in except the sanitary inspector whom, we presuppose, would be a man who would know what he would be talking about?—Yes.

625. You would not have people coming in who would not know what they were talking about?—I would not like people who knew nothing about it telling me what to do. I am sorry I had not time to read through this. In fact, I was away.

626. You spoke about the Jewish method and you have had a good deal of experience of it?—I have not had much. I have seen it in several places. Of course, we would not have anything to do with it, as they handle their own cattle.

627. The cattle are tied up. There is not a lot of cruelty in tying up cattle?— No. It just means pulling their feet from under them and tying their feet together.

628. Would it not be the same as putting the pigs on the wheel and tying them up?—No.

629. It would not be any more cruel?— I do not suppose there is any great cruelty about it beyond mental cruelty, if we knew that they do suffer that.

630. Evidence was given here that it is cruelty and that the beast should be stunned. Some witnesses were very strong on having the animal stunned before it would be bled or stuck. You stated that blood-letting was the most humane form of slaughter?—That is what I believe.

631. Does not the Jewish butcher cut the whole neck across practically with one blow of his knife?—He does.

632. Is the animal sensible of any pain after that?—No.

633. I cannot see that there would be any cruelty in the Jewish system of slaughter?—I did not say that there was.

634. We wanted to have your evidence as there is other evidence given to the contrary?—I would not say there is any cruelty whatever in tying the cattle up. The animal is subjected to a little more handling than he would be by the method I suggested.

635. As to the feeding of animals before slaughter, do you think 12 hours, as stated in the Bill, is sufficient time to keep an animal fasting?—I think it is rather short. In fact, animals are much better not to have food in them when you are slaughtering them.

636. For what period?—I would say 24 hours.

637. If they are given plenty of water in that time, is it your opinion that they will suffer no hardship for want of food? —I do not think so. In fact, they would be very much better from the butcher’s point of view.

638. Mr. O’Farrell.—But not from the beasts’s point of view?—I do not think there is any cruelty in that, if they have water. It only gives an opportunity to get their insides washed out.

639. That is the butcher’s point of view?—I do not think there is any cruelty in it.

640. We are thinking of the animal for the moment—If the animals have food inside 24 hours I think they are all right. I think it would be better if they would not have any further food and I do not think there is any suffering if they do not.

641. Mr. Counihan.—You agree with that particularly in regard to ruminant animals?—Yes.

642. Evidence was given that if people slaughtering animals had to be licensed it would do away with the occasional butchers and farmers at the present time who are forced by circumstances to kill their own cattle and sell them in the immediate locality. It was stated that it would prevent them doing that work if all the provisions of this Bill were enforced?— As a packing-house manager that is a thing I want to see stopped altogether.

643 You stated that there were very few butchers’ shops or slaughterhouses without two miles from a Gárda barracks?—I would say that there would not be a great many, except possibly at present, when farmers are slaughtering.

644. In your part of the country what would be the distance between Gárda barracks?—Five or six miles.

645. I know cases where there is more. You think there would be no slaughterhouses beyond two miles from a Gárda barracks?—With two miles there would be only one mile in between.

646. Chairman.—Mr. Landy is saying that there would be a very small area not covered by the Bill.

Mr. Landy.—In some cases there might be more than a mile. It might be two miles. In a good many cases it would be less.

647. Mr. Quirke.—I should like to ask Mr. Landy some questions because I more or less followed him around the stockyards of Chicago. I went there looking for a job from Mr. Landy but when I went there I found he was in China. I saw some of the work going on there and I am in perfect agreement with Mr. Landy’s evidence with regard to the 4 lb. sledge. In reply to a question, Mr. Landy stated that he did not agree with the killing of sheep on the same lines as pigs are being killed. I saw pigs being killed there and I must say that, in my opinion, there was very little pain attached to the operation. I do not think, however, that Mr. Landy got the question exactly when he was asked why he would not have sheep killed in the same way. Is it not a fact that one of the reasons why sheep are not killed in the same way as pigs in America is because of the difficulty which would be experienced in using the knife on the sheep on account of the wool?—They are killed in the same way. They kill them on a wheel in the same way. They are put on a rail the same as the pigs.

648. You said it was necessary to lay them down first and separate the wool?— That is here. In America they are killed in the same way as pigs. They are put on a rail and stuck in the same way.

649. Would it not be your idea that the reason why the 4 1b. sledge and the knocking-pen method is not in use in this and other countries is because of the expense which would have to be incurred in the setting up of that particular plant?— That is true.

650. It is your opinion that if the knocking-pen and the necessary plant for the killing could be set up at comparatively small expense in this country, that method would be used as against the captive bolt or humane killer?—I think it would be an improvement both from the meat point of view and from the cruelty point of view.

651. You think that the people generally would favour that if it were not for the expense?—I would, anyhow, as I think it is the best. I showed it to Scotch butchers, and put it in for them in Wexford, and they would not use it.

652. I want to get at the comparison between that method and the method of using the captive bolt. Supposing some association, philanthropic or otherwise, decided in the morning that they would supply that particular plant to any slaughterhouse or butcher that wanted to adopt that method of killing, do you believe the people of the country would then adopt that method as against all methods at present?—I am afraid it would be too expensive. You would have to put up a rail and hoist.

653. Supposing they were supplied free? —All I can say is that it would be an improvement on the present method.

654. You think the people would adopt that method if they got the plant free?— That is very hard to say. We are a very conservative people.

655. We are not sufficiently conservative to refuse anything we get for nothing? —I could not give you any opinion on that. I would say it would be a better method than the present one. You would get your beef better bled.

656. If the people understood that it was a better method, naturally the people, being intelligent as they are, would adopt that method?—I should like to see them doing it, anyhow.

657. Another point that was not quite cleared up was the power of anticipation. You mentioned that cattle get excited at the smell of blood, but that sheep or pigs do not get excited. You also mentioned that certain breeds of cattle, such as Aberdeen Angus, are more excitable in certain circumstances than any other breed of cattle?—Yes.

658. Is it your opinion that the Aberdeen Angus gets more excited, because it is more intelligent, and can anticipate that it is going to be slaughtered?—Instinct, I would call it.

659. Is it really the smell of the blood that has the effect on the beast and not the anticipation?—I think so. Of course, I do not know whether the animal knows anything about death or not.

660. That is your opinion, that it is not merely the anticipation of death, but the smell of the blood?—Yes.

661. In your opinion it does not make children callous if they are allowed into a slaughterhouse while slaughter is going on?—That is my opinion.

622. It is your opinion that it has no more effect on a boy of 12 or 14 years than to be allowed into a butcher’s shop where the carcase is really being cut in pieces?—Not a bit.

663. It is your idea that if the Bill were to extend that far and that children up to a certain age should not be allowed into the butcher’s shop that the Bill should really extend to the table, and that they should not be allowed to see meat on a plate?—I would not go as far as that.

664. To be consistent you must be nearly prepared to go that far?—I really believe it does not tend to callousness at all.

665. Therefore, it should not be included?—Certainly not.

666. Another point that I do not think was cleared up properly was about the licence for the butcher. Is it your opinion that it would cause considerable inconvenience both to the master butchers and to the slaughter men themselves if one of your butchers in Waterford got sick or died and if you had to bring a butcher from Clonmel on a rushed job and he had to look up the local authority and pay 5/- for another licence?—It certainly would cause considerable inconvenience.

667. You believe that in many cases the butcher might disappear with the 5/- and the licence and all?—It could happen.

668. For information’s sake, I take it for granted that if I kept on following you as I did in Chicago I would find you eventually in Mexico, and I will take it for granted that you saw a bull-fight there and the way they speared the bull? —I have heard of it, but I have not seen it.

669. Do you think it would be possible to slaughter sheep by that method, that is to say, by some kind of instrument that would sever the spinal cord at the back of the ears instead of by the humane killer?—It would be possible, of course, but I take it that the main contention in this Bill is that they want something mechanical. They do not want a method that would be dependent on the expertness of the operator. They want something that operates mechanically on the spot.

670. I think you are scarcely right in that, and that you were forced to that conclusion by a remark made by Senator O’Farrell when he suggested that a machine should be used for killing cattle? —No, I think that it is the contention back of the Bill that a man may miss the exact spot and that by missing the exact spot he may cause unnecessary suffering. Therefore, they try to guard against that by having something on the spot which would operate mechanically. That is all right in theory, but I do not think it has everything to recommend it which the people who advocate it think it has. If they were operating it as I have operated it I do not think they would find so much to recommend it as they think they would find, and I think that really a man can be just as expert with the pole-axe or sledge.

671. Mr. O’Farrell.—How does he become expert?—When he is working in the place he can become expert just by looking on.

672. Mr. Quirke.—I take it that a man becomes expert in slaughtering just as a barber becomes expert in shaving?—That means practice, but really a man working in a slaughterhouse and seeing how the slaughtering is carried out can do it practically at the first time of trying.

673. Well, on that point the fact of the matter is, as I am sure Mr. Landy from his experience is aware, there are such things in Chicago and other places in America known as barber colleges. I have gone there several times and I am sorry to say that I would have been glad to have some of the people belonging to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals come along. Apart from that, the only thing I want to ask about is the period of time during which a beast should fast before being slaughtered. Is it your opinion that a beast will suffer more by being fed within a short time before slaughter than it would after fasting for a long time?—No, but I do not think it suffers great hardship by being allowed to fast for a short period before slaughter any more than a human being would suffer great hardship by missing a few meals.

674. I daresay you have seen sheep killed when they had been taken only a short time before off the grass, and that when the sheep was bleeding there was a certain amount of grass and other stuff coming away. May I take it that it is your impression that that caused a certain amount of hardship which would not have been caused if the animal had been fasting for a longer period?—I would not say that, but I would say that the animal should not be full before being slaughtered.

675. The point is as to whether or not it is more painful for the animal to be slaughtered a short time after being fed or after fasting a longer time?—I could not answer that. That would mean that there would be anticipation of slaughter.

676. What I mean to say is that the fact that the grass has to come away when the throat is being cut causes hardship that would not have been caused if the animal had been fasting for a considerable time?—I am afraid I could not answer that.

677. Sir E. Coey Bigger.—I think you said, Mr. Landy, that you were not in favour of a licence provided the person engaged in killing were competent?—Yes.

678. How, without licence, are you to ensure that the person will be competent? Would it get out of the difficulty if the licence were to apply generally?—Well, of course, if it is necessary to have a licence at all it should be so issued that if a man were licensed for one place the licence would apply elsewhere.

679. Unless you have some method of licence you cannot be sure that a person is competent?—You will have to have some method of testing his competence.

680. Mr. Wilson.—The evidence here generally has been that there is no such thing as experience required with the humane killer and that the killing of one animal is sufficient experience with that instrument. It seems foolish, therefore, to ask that a man should be licensed when there is no necessity for experience. Is not that so?—That might be so, but I do not agree that no experience is necessary even with the humane killer.

681. But I mean from the point of view of the Bill?—Yes.

The Committee adjourned at 5 p.m. until Wednesday, 17th January, at 11 a.m.