be better prepared, or Dr. Regensburger would, at the end of that time, to formulate some plan. We will have grown in knowledge before that, and I think it would be perhaps well to wait until the second meeting from now, because the Board cannot do anything now as far as legislation is concerned. What power they have they can exercise now. It seems to me that we are jumping ahead of time. If we wait a year or two longer we will be more competent to formulate the bill.

DR. C. A. RUGGLES: A law was introduced into the Legislature, and it went along a considerable distance, and the Governor asked me what I thought a tuberculous cow was worth, and when I expressed the sentiment of the National Board of Health that a tuberculous cow was not worth anything, said he, "That is what I think."

DR. M. REGENSBURGER: Then it simmers right down to the value of a cow and the value of a human being. Now, which is worth more, the cow or the human being? That is what we are here for. We are here not to take into consideration the value of a cow, but to take into consideration the value of human life.

PEOF. A. A. CUNNINGHAM: I have had considerable experience in the examination of milk. During the last five years I think I analyzed, and sometimes microscopically, about two thousand samples of milk. The discussion regarding the inspectors of milk reminds me of a little incident that occurred about three years ago, which I think the present Board of Health of San Francisco should follow. I may be mistaken, but I think they had several milk inspectors; probably one; I don't know whether several or one.

DR. M. REGENSBURGER: They never had any at all.

PROFESSOR CUNNINGHAM: Well, I was engaged by one of the members of the San Francisco Board of Health to make some investigation of the milk question. He said he would supply me with some samples, and I said I would supply myself with others, getting them both from the dairies and from wagons on the street. I received, I think, about forty or fifty samples through this particular member of the Board of Health, and one day when I had examined about twenty-five, five samples were handed to me by a boy. I took them. They were by numbers. I couldn't tell anything about the dairies, but I noticed the peculiar condition of the milk in two bottles. The milk was coagulated, and upon removing the cork I found the bottles had been used for holding carbolic acid, and had not been cleaned. I didn't say anything, but before I had completed the examination of the remainder of the samples of milk I had received through this so-called inspector-because he deemed himself such, and called at my laboratory and showed me his star-out of the balance of twenty odd samples of milk which I received, there were twelve which were in an unfit condition for a chemical analysis. Why? Because the man who took those samples from the dairy wagons did not know the first principles of science regarding cleanliness. He had used dirty bottles. If our Board of Health of San Francisco cannot instruct the authorities, or the persons who have the authority to take these samples, in the method of cleaning bottles, then we had better do without milk inspectors, so far as the ordinary inspector goes. Milk inspectors are very good things when they know their business. I believe in them, but I do not believe in a milk inspector having the authority to take a sample of milk from a wagon, put his hydrometer into it, and declare that the milk is no good, because its specific gravity happens to

go below a certain figure. Therefore, if we are going to have inspectors of milk, I think a very good thing would be for the Board of Health of San Francisco to confer with the Veterinary Department of the University of California. The Veterinary Department of the University is a baby institution. It, however, has several persons upon its Faculty who are noted, not only on the Pacific Coast, but on the Atlantic and over in Europe, and if the present Board of Health would confer with the Faculty of the Veterinary Department of the University, or invite the Faculty to confer with them, we would only be too glad to assist the Board of Health in every possible way in examining the cows, examining the milk, chemically and bacteriologically, and giving our report.

DR. M. REGENSBURGER: I am very glad for the recommendation that Professor Cunningham has made to the Board of Health, but I am not very much pleased to hear a man make assertions that are not true. I would like to ask whether Professor Cunningham was ever paid by the Board of Health for those examinations.

PROFESSOR CUNNINGHAM: I said I received the work privately. Dr. Creeley was the man who came to me.

DR. REGENSBURGER: What right have you to assert that the Board of Health sent you those bottles?

PROFESSOR CUNNINGHAM: A member of the Board of Health did.

DR. REGENSBURGER: You said the Board of Health. I don't like to take up a fight for the Board of Health, but I do hate to see a man rise and make such statements here. Here is a man making statements not true, and I, as one of the members of the Board of Health, won't stand it. If one of the doctors found it convenient, or in his pleasure, to send him milk, that has nothing to do with the Board of Health. I am a member of the Board of Health and had nothing to do with it. He was not paid by the Board of Health, nor authorized by the Board of Health, to make any examination of that kind. And another thing: I think if the Board of Health wanted a milk examination made from a medical standpoint, that a chemical analysis would be a secondary consideration, and I want Professor Cunningham, when he makes an assertion of that kind, to make proof of the assertion.

PROFESSOR CUNNINGHAM: I would like to submit proofs.

DR. J. R. LAINE: I would like to repeat what I said. The City of St. Louis is in identically the same position that the City of San Francisco is, and I do not apprehend that its dairies are maintained within its corporate limits any more than dairies are maintained within the corporate limits of this city. They may extend across the river, in the State of Illinois, or perhaps over the county line. Nevertheless, that municipality makes this condition: "We will grant you a license to bring your milk into this city, but you must maintain your herds and your dairy in such condition as to meet our approval, otherwise we will revoke your license." That is all there is to it.

MRS. HELEN MOORE: I do not see how it is that Alameda can have such excellent sanitary regulations and that over here in San Francisco we cannot have them. I think the mistake lies in American cities looking always to legislatures to do something that they might do themselves. I think this whole matter of milk inspection and market inspection should be attended to right here in the City of San Francisco, and certainly our Board of Health and Mayor should be responsible for it in

some way or other. I should like to ask Dr. Neif, through you, Mr. Chairman, whether the Market Inspector of San Francisco is a veterinarian; if he knows whether he is or not.

DR. NEIF: I would state that I know absolutely nothing as to the qualifications of those gentlemen.

MRS. HELEN MOORE: Those gentlemen are appointed by our Board of Health. Then I ask you, who is responsible for this? Now, we know very well that it is a custom among dairymen here-of course it is to their interest-as soon as they find a cow that is tuberculous, to remove it from their herds. Self-interest will prompt that, but they will tell you frankly that while they do that, at the same time they do not lose anything on that cow, because they sell it for the purpose of making bologne sausages, as has been stated here by Dr. McLean. If we cannot depend upon our Boards of Health to protect us and to carry out sanitary measures, what is the use of appointing them? What is the use of having them at all?

DR. J. R. LAINE: Boards of Health are advisory merely in their functions, and are not invested, as a rule, with any authority further than that, unless it is specially conferred upon them through legislative enactment, and these Boards of Health are given powers to do so much, to advise so much, and other Boards-that is, Trustees or Supervisorsif they choose, approve, and give these recommendations the authority of law, and have them enforced. Otherwise they have no power at all. The enforcement of the laws is not a part of their duty.

MRS. HELEN MOORE: When this thing can be done in Alameda, why can it not be done in San Francisco?

DR. M. REGENSBURGER: The probabilities are the Board of Supervisors in Alameda are more intelligent than the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco.

THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready to vote on this motion of Dr. Regensburger? The motion was that the State Board of Health be requested to formulate a law and present it to the next Legislature, and recommend its passage by the next Legislature, covering the grounds that have been discussed here this evening?

DR. C. A. RUGGLES: I move that the resolution lie on the table until the next meeting of the Sanitary Convention.

DR. BERT ELLIS: I move, as an amendment, that the Board of Health report to the next convention.

THE CHAIRMAN: I will declare that amendment to an amendment out of order.

DR. M. REGENSBURGER: It is a very important question, and I hope it will be carried. I think the amendment to an amendment would be the proper thing; that is, that they formulate a law which they present for approval at the next meeting of the convention.

THE CHAIRMAN: I do not understand that Dr. Ruggles' motion is in the shape of an amendment. He moves to lay this subject upon the table until the next meeting.

DR. C. A. RUGGLES: I did not offer it as an amendment, but as another motion.

DR. BERT ELLIS: I move, as an amendment to the original motion, that the Board of Health be instructed to formulate a law and present it to the next Sanitary Convention.

THE CHAIRMAN: You will first vote on Dr. Ruggles' motion to lay this subject-matter on the table.

(Dr. Ruggles' motion was lost.)

DR. M. REGENSBURGER: I accept the amendment of Dr. Ellis, as an original amendment.

DR. J. T. MCLEAN (of Alameda): If it is allowable to make an amendment to an amendment, I would like to do so. I would like to bring before the convention, that in the meantime, between now and the next State Convention, it is the duty of the State Board of Health to advise the different communities of the State in regard to this matter of home sanitation in connection with milk; send them circulars which shall enlighten them as to the course they should pursue, so as to save their respective communities from the dangers that come to those communities from disease brought by diseased animals.

DR. M. REGENSBURGER: That is a different motion altogether. That comes as a separate motion. That has nothing to do with this amendment. It is not an amendment to an amendment. It is a good motion. I am willing to second it when it comes up in the proper form.

DR. J. T. MCLEAN: I am not tenacious about it, so long as it comes up. THE CHAIRMAN: The vote will be taken on this motion as amended, because the amendment has been accepted by the original mover of the motion, so that it is incorporated in the original motion. You understand that as well as the Chair can state it to you; that is, that the State Board of Health formulate a law, to be presented to the next Legislature, and that they recommend its passage, covering this point about milk inspectors, and that they report the law thus formulated to the next Sanitary Convention.

(Motion carried.)

F. A. NEIF: I have heard a good deal of discussion to-night, not on the subject proper, but simply on small details. Other papers have been read and discussed already on the subject of tuberculosis, but we should all go to the source of the evil; that is, the dairy inspection. To relate one instance: A couple of years ago I was in Paris, and the Government Farm sent for eighty-five Flemish cows; magnificient looking animals. One of them became sick. The veterinary inspector did not make a diagnosis of the case, and Professor Alvord was sent for, and he tried tuberculine and had reaction. The cows were in good condition, every one of them; they were fat and well, with the exception of the one that had shown symptoms of disease. They inoculated every one. think it is a source of evil that we should stop, and not look to the result. It is inspection of the animal, and food supplies generally; not milk alone.

DR. E. N. ROWELL: I would be obliged if you would recall the motion of Dr. McLean. I think it was probably not heard. It was that the State Board of Health be requested to communicate with local boards of sanitary districts, advising them upon the question of protection against disease from milk.

(Motion seconded and carried.)

DAIRY AND MILK INSPECTION.

By E. W. CHARLES, M.D., Health Officer, Palo Alto, Cal.

In the whole realm of medical literature, there is not a single subject more worthy of scientific study and research than the prevention of disease; and in no single line of study is there an opportunity for such grand achievements as in the subject I shall present to this convention. The medical, scientific, and even daily journals have for years had pages devoted to the discussion of bacilli, their cause, effect, and the thing that will kill them without killing the patient who is infested with this minute but much-dreaded enemy of humanity. Koch has given us his antidote for the tuberculosis bacilli, and now comes anti-toxine. The sure death to bacillæ diphtheriticæ, a god-send to the world, if it only accomplishes one tenth as much as it is credited with, should be welcomed and carefully tested by the medical profession; indeed, is being scientifically proved, both in America and on the Continent, to be the treatment for that horrible scourge diphtheria, which has swept its thousands of victims from earth.

While these are important discoveries and worthy of all the research and study given them, and their discoverers will truly merit the world's applause, they are not of more importance than the inspection of dairies and milk. The discovery of anti-toxine may save thousands of lives, but the critical and scientific inspection of dairies, milk, and cows, their quarters and feed, under proper legislative authority, will save millions.

In discussing this problem, the limited time allowed me will, perforce, confine me to statements which I believe to be, on the whole, correct, without quoting statistics or authorities to sustain my position.

The adage, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," is particularly applicable, as in the fullest sense this inspection is for the prevention of disease, and not only one, but many, and of so severe a type that once they have attached their tentacles to man, woman, or child, they never let go their hold until their victim lies cold and pulseless in the arms of death. This is made apparent when we remember that cows are not only infected with tuberculosis, anthrax, diphtheria, and cancer, but many other infectious diseases, any of which may be scattered broadcast by the consumption, not only of milk, but of butter and cheese. The question then arises, are the milch cows of this coast or the United States infected with any disease to a sufficient extent to call for such legislative action as will force the owners of cows and dairies to have only healthy cows, properly housed and fed? A careful review of much literature on this subject leads me to conclude that at least one third of the milch cows of this coast are infected, and that for the whole of the United States 50 per cent are diseased; of the diseased, about one half have tuberculosis, one fourth cancer, one eighth anthrax, the other eighth of the 50 per cent have diphtheria and other infectious diseases.

If such be the case, and I believe I am nearly correct, what a source of infection we have in this vast array of diseased cows scattering broadcast the germs of terrible, and in many cases, incurable diseases. The daily consumption of milk in the United States is not far from 15,000,000 gallons per day; of butter, about 4,000,000 pounds per day,