contain more than 100,000,000 bacteria per cubic centimeter, mostly spore-bearing varieties. The deleterious effects, though striking, were not serious or lasting. However, so long as the danger is suspected, it makes us cautious to keep pasteurized milk cold and use it promptly. We are told that heating destroys great numbers of bacteria in milk, and thus conceals dirt, but Theobald Smith" points out— that from a bacteriological standpoint the pasteurization of milk will not conceal dirt, for the reason that the bacteria that come from the udder or the teats will be destroyed, but the bacteria that come from dirt are largely spore-bearing bacteria and these survive. I believe that we could control the quality of milk quite as well after it was pasteurized by bacteriological counts as before, because certain species only would grow or multiply and the indicators would be much better than to-day. If we examine a plate made from milk for instance nobody can tell exactly whether the bacteria are due to dirt or whether they are due to the multiplication of ordinary lactic acid bacteria, unless a very careful study of that plate be made. As a rule, if nearly all the colonies are alike we say that they are the result of multiplication; if they are quite different then there has been a good deal of dirt added to the milk. Now it seems to me that with pasteurization it would be possible to control the dirt in milk much better than is done to-day. Further, it is said that we must not meddle with nature; that pasteurization is an artificial expedient. Nature never intended milk to be collected, transported, and fed to young mammalian animals one or two days after it leaves the mammary gland. Even when fresh, the milk of one species is not well suited to the needs of the young of another species. In the artificial feeding of infants with cow's milk, we are meddling with nature. When artificial feeding is necessary we must endeavor to obtain fresh, pure milk. If this is not possible the milk should be purified, especially in the hot weather. Each infant is a law unto itself. Pasteurization of all of the milk supply of a community may not be desirable. The clean, fresh milk, free from contamination, may not need it. Special cases may require raw milk, but the general public should be protected against the old, dirty, and uncared for milk which forms the bulk of the supply of large cities. The heating must be done intelligently and under the supervision of the health officer. After heating, the milk is just as liable to serious contamination as before if not more so. It must therefore be carefully guarded, kept cool, and promptly delivered. "Smith, Theobald: Am. Journ. Pub. Health and Journ. Mass. Assn. Bds. Health, vol. 17, 1907, p. 200. Theobald Smith," 1907, expressed the opinion that pasteurization is the inevitable outcome of the future. He says: It seems to me that the real difficulty of the present condition is the transmission of specific disease germs which are not easily controlled by any amount of cleanliness, and these specific disease germs, one and all of them, may be destroyed by the average pasteurization. Sedgwick voices the opinion of many sanitarians when he states that, when all is said and done, I agree with Professor Smith that we have got to pasteurize milk. Cooked milk is the only safe milk and always will remain the only safe milk for the use of mankind. Little by little the idea is spreading that raw milk is apt to be dangerous milk. Theoretically, pasteurization should not be necessary; practically, we find it forced upon us. The heating of milk has certain disadvantages which must be given consideration, but it effectually prevents much disease and death, especially in infants during the summer months. a Smith, Th. : Discussion of Rotch's paper on The pasteurization of milk for public sale." Am. Journ. Pub. Hyg., vol. 17, May, 1907, p. 200. Sedgwick, W. T.: Discussion of Harrington's paper on Some of the ways in which infection is disseminated." Journ. Mass. Assn. bds. health, vol. 14, Feb., 1904, p. 41. INFANT FEEDING. By JOSEPH W. SCHERESCHEWSKY, Passed Assistant Surgeon, Public Health and Marine-Hospital Service. PART I.-INFANT MORTALITY IN RELATION TO INFANT FEEDING. Owing to the long duration of the period of infancy in human beings, as compared to that of the lower animals in general, it is obvious that the opportunity of environment to react upon our development is enormously increased over that afforded in the case of other living beings. The effect of prenatal influences upon our ultimate development receives no further accretions from the moment of our birth, and, apart from those congenital defects and states of debility, whose influence upon life are manifest from the outset, our subsequent growth and development are almost exclusively controlled by our immediate surroundings. More than any other component factor of its environment, food, its form and its methods of administration, are capable of influencing the future development and determining the fate of the newborn child. If this statement be true we should expect to find that an investigation of the mortality rates of infants would furnish some relevant facts in regard to this question. Unfortunately, even at the present time infant mortality and the degree to which such mortality is influenced by improper methods of feeding is not a subject of general knowledge. True, it is known as a matter of casual information that the rate of mortality among the newborn is relatively high, yet few who have not paid attention to the matter realize, as Bergeron so graphically puts it, that the chances of a newborn child surviving a week are less than those of a man of 90; of living a year, less than those of a man of fourscore. Information as to the infantile death rate in this country is difficult to derive, owing to the small number of States within our registra |