I beg to second this motion and I hope this measure will be considered with the same calmness and full consideration as this subject has received in this country and in the courts of this country. There is a law in force here which provides a penalty for cruelty to animals, and cruelty is defined as any unnecessary pain or ill-treatment. An organisation in Great Britain, where there is a similar law in force, brought proceedings for the dishorning of cattle.
In England it was decided by the magistrates and upheld by two judges that the dishorning of cattle was cruelty. There then came before the courts in this country a case from the County Meath where a farmer named MacMahon was prosecuted for dishorning his cattle. That was in 1891. The magistrates having taken evidence submitted a number of facts for the consideration of the court. The first fact was that the dishorning of cattle does cause temporary pain; following upon the dishorning there is also some pain. It also found that the cattle which were dishorned were more suitable for the purpose of fattening inasmuch as they throve better. The cattle were quieter and they found that dishorning enabled them to be fed in what are called straw sheds, that is, sheds partly open. In these straw sheds the cattle throve much better than if they were confined within stalls.
There was also a finding, and I see it repeated here by Senator Counihan, that horned animals are considerably injured in transit and that dishorning saves them a very great amount of injury and pain. The question also arose as to the pain and injury which horned animals do to each other if they are put into a straw yard and allowed to gore each other. Everybody knows what a terrible thing it is when one animal gores another. As far as a human being can estimate the pain that an animal suffers from the reaction afterwards is much more than what is suffered through being dishorned. That is to say, the pain of being gored is more than the pain suffered through being dishorned.
That case was fully debated and very wise men came to this conclusion, that it was not cruelty—that the mere infliction of pain was not cruelty, provided it is reasonably necessary for the ordinary use of the animal. If we have control over the animal creation at all then we have the right to use the animals reasonably for the purposes of mankind and it was held in the Irish Courts by three eminent judges that the dishorning of cattle was not cruelty, and the case was dismissed.
Then in Scotland another case came forward following the Irish case. The Scottish judges decided that the dishorning of animals in Scotland was not cruelty. Lord Young, one of the judges said:—
"It is a rather invidious thing that a great industry, properly conducted by people interested in it and having an interest in their own property and their own animals, should be interfered with on humanitarian grounds by other people who have not the same interest in it."
Now what you have on this question of the dishorning of animals is this:— That there were 14 judges in the three countries who offered an opinion and gave their decision upon it. Ten of these judges were of opinion, and so decided, that dishorning was not cruelty and was not an offence under the 1849 Act, which is a very skilfully drawn Act to prevent dumb creatures from being injured. These ten judges decided it was not cruelty and two English and two Irish judges decided it was. Therefore, how the matter stood since 1849 was this, that in England it was illegal to dishorn cattle and in Ireland and Scotland it was not, the fact being that the entire trade in fattening animals was done in Ireland and Scotland and in only one English county.
Other alternative methods were suggested. It was suggested that instead of dishorning the animal that caustic should be put on the head of the calf when a fortnight old so as to dehorn the animal. That was regarded as being absolutely impracticable and for various reasons. One was that horns were given the animals for their protection. Milch cattle are usually bought and sold horned. A man will not be likely to buy a springing heifer unless he can see the horns, because it is the greatest index to the quality of the animal. Moreover it is an ornament, it is a protection and it is a good thing for young calves, early growing cattle and cows to have horns.