Letters to the Editor

AN APPEAL TO BRITISH JEWS: THE REPLY

[To the Editor of the' SPECTATOR.]

SIR,—As an officer of the representative body of the Jews I beg to answer your "Appeal to British Jews" to adopt Mr. Weinberg's invention for casting animals, which is based on the assumption that the methcids at present used are cruel.

The appeal states that Professors Foster and Starling

reported (jointly) twenty-three years ago that the casting was inhumane, but that Professors Hill (1904) and 13ayliss (1923) reported that it was humane. The appeal disposed of the awkward impasse so created by stating that the last-named professors must have used the word " cruelty " in a different sense to that generally applied. I learn that Professor Hill has denied this assumption. Professor Bayliss is dead, but a reference to his and Professor Hill's published reports would have shown that neither of these scientists used the debatable word at all !

The reports are extraordinarily full. They show how carefully these two scientists, examining the same problem independently, and at dates nineteen years apart, watched for every symptom of mental or physical pain on the part of the animals, and reported that the casting—as also the killing itself—was absolutely humane, and was expeditiously performed. It is difficult to appreciate why the appeal should mention these two professors and ignore, say, the report of Mr. Openshaw, a leading London surgeon, which was equally satisfactory, and that of Professors Wood and Barcroft, made (jointly) in 1924, which again upheld the humanity of the Jews in connexion with their slaughter. Nor does this conclude the list.

Here, then, was an overwhelming mass of evidence, much of it absolutely up-to-date, challenging and disputing the adverse report of 1904. Is it conceivable that Professor Starling (Professor Foster died long ago), who, to my knowledge, was aware of this iMportant body of evidence disputing both his findings and the basis of his conclusions, would' have failed to take up the challenge, if he was sure that he could do so successfully ? But in the twenty-three years which elapsed until his own death not a word came from him. There was ample opportunity, for the evidence on _ both sides was constantly quoted in the scientific and general PITSS.

I am entitled to ask that the ordinary rules observed in weighing evidence should be followed in this case. If this be accorded, it would follow that the suggestion that the Jews are using "cruel and indefensible " methods of casting should be withdrawn, and the whole basis of the appeal then disappears.

There remain the series of charges made in the appeal against the Conununity, and its Board of Sehechita; for failing to have Weinberg's machine fully tested. These again, are based on inaccurate information. For ' example, reference is made to the successful demonstration of the machine in London in 1924. I was present. As soon as the crank was turned, there was a crash and rending of wood, a bursting of straps, and the violent kicking of an alarmed animal. It appears that-the whole internal arrangements of the machine had given way ! It was again ready for a further test at the end of 1925. The Setechita Board paid to have it reinstalled- in London, and three animals were passed through in February, 1926.

Again it failed to satisfy ; there was 'a difficulty both in getting animals to enter, and in withdrawing the' carcases (speed in both respects being essential), and further alteratiOns or 'adjustments were required. The Schechita Board had no knowledge of the machine being, for the next twelve months, at Islington ; obviously, it had to be altered, and it was assumed that it was withdrawn for that purpose, and that the Board would be informed when it was ready. It was not, however, until 'May, 1927; that Mr. Weinberg wrote that he had made the necessary adjustments; A month or two later a further " test " was made, but the beasts were tame and quiet. Mr. Hayhurst, Superintendent of the Islington

Abattoir,,and also Mr; Legros, &c., in the presence' of Mr. Weinberg; emphatically stated that they could not

recommend the Board to adopt the machine until at least a hundred animals, including all varieties which would in

the ordinary way be submitted for slaughter, had passed through it.

The Sehechita Board is charged with delaying and avoiding a full test. The correspondence shown to me proves that, since 1925 and right up to date, they have been pressing for one, offering to pay all expenses of transit, supervision, fitting up, and working. In June alone of this year there were three of such pressing letters begging for arrangements for a test and asking for Mr. Weinberg's terms for, the machine

or its user. As a final effort a member of the Schechita Board- ,

was asked to try the effect of personal negotiations. It ts,

understood that his efforts are approaching success, and that the test is likely to take place in a few weeks —I am, 'Sir, &e., 23 Finsbury Square, E.C. 2. CHARLES H. L. EMANUEL. ,

[As regards Mr. Emanuel's first point, it is of course a fact that the physiologists and medical men who have investigated. the matter on behalf of the Jewish authorities have reached conclusions diametrically opposite to those reached by the two physiologists who investigated it on behalf of the Admiralty, and to what is apparently the unanimous opinion of the veterinary professon. There are, however, few observers as careful as the late Professor Starling, and farther the veter-

inary surgeon must be the final authority in a matter of this kind, not only because he is specially qualified for the purpose by his training and experience, but also because he sees Jewish slaughtering on a large scale as it is practised in

the ordinary course of business. It is remarkable that both Professor Leonard Hill and Sir William Bayliss appear to have formed the impression that casting mats are actually used in Jewish slaughtering, whereas (as their inventor, the Super- intendent of the Islington Abattoir, has recently stated), they are not ordinarily used even where they are kept. . Amongst the veterinary surgeons who explicitly recognise the need for reformed methods of casting may be mentioned Professor I-Iobday (Principal, the Royal Veterinary College,

Editor, The _Veterinary Journal, Hon. Veterinary Surgeon to H.M. the King), Professor Wooldridge, Professor Smythe, Professor McCunn, Professor MacQueen (of the Royal Veterinary College), Major-Gen. Sir John Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. Dunlop Young (Chief Veterinary Surgeon, Smithfield Market), Capt Hayhurst (Superintendent Islington Cattle Market and Abattoir), Capt. Ross Grant (Veterinary Repre- sentative of the Australian Government).

In order, however, that our readers may judge for them- selves, we quote the description. given by Professor Starling and Sir Michael Foster

"The animals (bullocks) were in 'a pen adjoining the slaughter- house. A running noose in a chain was thrown over the head-of a bullock, the, other end a the chain being, passed through a ring in the slaughter-house near the floor. The animal was then driven and pulled into the slanghter-house, the neobe being pulled' tight; and-was pushed so as to stand against-the wall. Chains were then passed round the. two feet furthest from the wall and connected by ropes to .a pulley fixed high up on the wall. These ropes were then pulled upon while three Men standing- by the animal 111)1ped to pull it over on its side, and the animal was throWn. In this operation of throwing comparatively little difficulty is experienced- with quiet animals or animals in a bad state of nutrition.. In several cases, however, the animal resisted this operation violently: It Ilashed ifs head to' and fro in its effort to escape, even striking the-ground violently with its head. We were informed that with wild cattle the- operation might take seven or eight minutes, but in none of the cases which we saw did the opliration take more than two minutes. Even under these conditions' the process of throwing wasOften Violent, and' when the carcase was skinned large Superficial"

bruises were in some cases seen on the thighs, hips, and along the back. In order to pull the head down in the operation of throwing we noticed that in some cases, at least, one of the men introduced his fingers between the eyeball and upper eyelid and' dragged upon the upper eyelid in order to force the head back.- The head being

thus secured, a rope was placed in the mouth round the lower jaw, an iron crowbar was passed through this rope and under the Jawi and by the leverage thus obtained, it Was possible to extend the animal's head forcibly aiid to -hold it steady 'while the incision

in the neck was made.'• •

As regards Mr. Emanues second point, it seems-clear-that. the blame for the delay which. has occurred must rest either- on the Board of 'Schechita, on the carcase lintehers, and

slaughtermen, or on the inventor. The case for the Board has been ably stated by Mr. Emanuel, and we shall be pleased to afford either of the other parties a similar opportunity if they wish to make use of our columns.

It is more important, however, to ensure that there shall be no delay in the future than to allocate the blame for delay in the past. The Board of Schechita has on two occasions offered handsome prizesbr humane casting devices, and this .

is greatly to its credit. •We further congratulate the Board on their decision to test Mr. Weinberg's machine again.— ED. Spectator.]