It seems to me, therefore, that one thing the people of Iowa need is protection-legal protection against this dishonorable and dangerous class of pretenders, and you will pardon me gentlemen, if I suggest that it has seemed to me that you have been somewhat disposed to waste a good deal of ammunition in criticising some of your own advanced methods of experimentation, diagnosis and treatment rather than in closing up your ranks and making the united effort you should to secure the standing before the law you are so justly entitled to.

But enough on this point. Your "Relation to the Public Health" is a most important one, and is so far recognized by the State as to provide for the appointment of a State Veterinary Surgeon, and to make him a member ex-officio of the State Board of Health.

The State Board of Health and the Dairy Commission have large claims upon you. I hope the time will soon come when the latter, if it does not have it now, will have ample authority and financial aid to enable him not only to determine the butter fat in a given quantity of milk, for commercial purposes, but the sanitary quality of the milk, butter and cheese. I would go much further. I would not limit his function to the dairy, but I would make him a dairy and food commissioner, with adequate legal and financial backing to do thorough work. However, to do his present duty-to insure a wholesome quality of milk, butter and cheese, he must depend very largely, if not almost wholly, upon you. There must be inspection of the herds from time to time, as to their freedom from tuberculosis and other infectious and communicable diseases. Their food and drink, the condition of their stables, the methods of milking and of taking care of and marketing milk. In fact, all the sanitary or unsanitary environments must be known. The intelligent veterinarian is the only person from whom we would expect to get this information.

The State Board of Health and its auxiliaries, the local boards, are under the law charged with supervising and protecting the lives and health of the people; and as there are so many of the infectious diseases of animals that are communicable to man, you will readily see the great interest these boards have in your profession and work.

It is not necessary to take the time even to name the various diseases of domestic animals that are common, or at least communicable to man. You are perfectly cognizant of them.

Because their presence in the animal is a constant menace to the public health, the State Board of Health depends upon your profession largely for protection.

It is the proper function and duty of your profession to insure to the people of the State as early a recognition of, and as effectual protection against, the invasion and spread of these diseases as possible.

A great deal of distraction, demoralization and damage have arisen from the attempts to prove how extensively an animal may be diseased to render it unfit for human or animal food, especially in regard to such diseases as tuberculosis and actinomycosis and their ability to render meat and milk from animals so diseased dangerous.

I think there has been, in settling these questions, too much deference paid to those short-sighted breeders and stockmen who care but little what the ultimate results are so long as they can line their pockets.

Let me read to you what an able, honored and fearless member of your profession said in an address, as retiring president last June-I mean Dr. Harbaugh, of the Virginia State Veterinary Medical Association:

"We have," he says, "to fight a monster which stretches forth its arms in all directions and clutches with its grasp all who can be controlled by fear, favor or value received; and this monster is the wealthy breeding interest which makes a hobby of high-priced pedigreed cattle until it tires of them and then unloads them on the unsuspecting dairyman to infect his smaller herd with tuberculosis. Even from our standpoint there are two sides to this tuberculosis question. The first is the public health, and I care not whether a man believes there is much or little danger in using the milk or flesh of tubercular animals through risk of transmission of the disease to the human being, it is certain that such milk and flesh ought not to be used. Milk is a part of the cow, and therefore animal matter, and if the cow is tuberculous her milk is part of a diseased cow, and should not be used for human food. The same proposition applies to meats from tuberculous animals, no matter how thoroughly sterilized, and it disgusts me to hear our wouldbe veterinary politicians talk of using such meats the same as they do for the lower classes of Europe, when we have meat to spare for the world. No, gentlemen, we are not in Europe,

and do not have to devour diseased products to prevent starvation. Let us be consistent, and fight against all diseased animal products being used for human food.

"Another thing that surprises me is that there are veterinarians occupying high places who have the effrontery to tell us milk from tuberculous herds, when fed to pigs, produces the same disease in them, and that there is little danger of producing it in human beings!

"These are breeders' opinions, whether uttered by veterinarians, agricultural journals or other hirelings. No man who sees the post-mortem lesions of a few tuberculous cows wants milk from any such animals in his house, danger or no danger.

I like Dr. Harbaugh for his sensible views, so fearlessly and forcefully expressed.

The farmers of this State, especially the hog raisers, are appealing to you to protect their swine against the ravages of that fearful disease, hog cholera, that often in a few days sweeps as with the "besom of destruction " not only their hope of added wealth, but often the only means of retaining their homes.

There is one line of investigation and experimentation in connection with this particular disease that I wish to specially emphasize—I mean the great similarity, if not identity, of hog cholera and typhoid fever as it is manifested in the human subject.

Our honored State Veterinary Surgeon, Dr. Gibson, at a late meeting of the State Board of Health, read a most interesting report prepared by Dr. W. T. Wright, of Vail, Crawford county, detailing an outbreak of typhoid fever in a farmer's family near Vail. The father and four daughters, who lived at home, and another daughter who was visiting in the family, were all taken with typhoid fever-only two of the family, the mother and a young son, escaping. The father died-all the others, after a lingering illness, recovered. The well that supplied the family, as well as the stock, with water was situated in the lowest portion of the hog lot. The father and five daughters who were attacked with the disease used freely of this water. The mother and son, who did not use it at all, escaped. Previous to this outbreak of typhoid fever the hogs kept in this lot had had hog cholera in a severe and fatal form. Dr. Wright was led to examine carefully the symptoms present in the hog cholera cases and was struck with the marked similarity between the

symptoms of these typhoid fever patients and the cases of hog cholera, and was driven to the conclusion that there was much kinship, if not identity, between the two diseases.

It seems to me that it would be well for the bacteriologists of the State, physicians and veterinarians to thoroughly test this matter. The presence of typhoid bacillus or one akin to it should, if present, be readily detected in the excreta of the hog during such an attack. Should such identity be established, it would not be hard to adopt more rational methods of prevention and cure. But I cannot particularize any further. If the compliment of an invitation to prepare this paper has emboldened me to proffer advice, to call attention to matters outside my limited sphere, or to presume to tell you "what manner of men' you ought to be, you may simply regard it as a blooming illustration of the saying: "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.'

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS.

The last Biennial Report closed with a partial report of investigations being made of tuberculosis among cattle, and of milk and the tuberculin test.

In July, 1896, the State Dairy Commissioner, upon request of the health officer of the city of Ottumwa, made an inspection of the milk supply of that city and asked the bacteriologist of the Board, Mr. J. Christian Bay, to make bacteriological tests of the milk with a view of ascertaining whether any of the tubercle bacilli could be found in the milk. There were submitted to Mr. Bay a number of samples, some of which were mixed or composite samples, and others from individual cows. Mr. Bay submitted his report to the State Board of Health, from which is reproduced the following, relative to the results of his examinations:

“I have examined, so far, five hundred and sixty-three samples of milk. Of these, three hundred and fifty-nine were from individual cows, and two hundred and four from herds; that is, composite samples.

"The samples were taken in forty or one hundred cubic centimeterbottles, and each bottle was at once marked by the inspector, in such a way that the cow from which it came might be at any time recognized.

"First, the inspector took samples from the milk cans belonging to the different dairymen at the place. If any of these samples were found to be

contaminated, the herd, or rather the milk, was kept in quarantine until the individual cows of the same herd had had their milk examined. Those whose milk gave positive response to the test were ordered removed and their milk prohibited from the market.

"Of the two hundred and four composite samples, four, that is, about two per cent, were contaminated; and of the three hundred and fifty-nine samples from individuals, fifty-one were contaminated, that is fourteen and two-tenths per

cent.

"Should I venture to deduct any results from the facts now recorded, I should emphatically say that bacteriological analysis of milk are not sure criteria respecting the distribution of tuberculosis among cattle. I would say, however, that as long as we do yet know very little of the important laws governing the disease, and as long as the public mind and the public treasury are not prepared to undertake radical measures to eradicate tuberculosis, bacteriological examinations of milk supplies might tend to point out the cores of infections at the different places, and to point out certain--but by no means all-infected cows. Investigations along this line, if properly supported, also tend to deepen our knowledge of the entire question, and certainly are of benefit to public health in so far that the infected milk is prohibited from sale and thus from disseminating the disease. The general public is slow in comprehending scientific facts, and its mind is easily turned against what it does not understand. We, depending upon the public for the support of our work, should be very careful in regard to our proceedings in arresting the spread of consumption. We should reform, but not revolutionize."

Believing that the investigation of the bacteriologist should be supplemented by the application of the "tuberculin" test, it was suggested to the health board of that city that the Governor be requested to send the State Veterinary Surgeon, Prof. M. Stalker, there to apply this test. It was done, and the following is his report:

To the Honorable Board of Health of Ottumwa, Iowa:

GENTLEMEN-I am able to make the following report of work done to date in testing the condition of the dairy herds supplying milk to your city: You will recall the fact that some six weeks ago your board decided to have the character of the milk supply of the city tested. To this end you caused to be made a number of microscopic examinations of milk taken from different herds. These tests were made with special reference to determining whether the cows supplying milk were affected with tuberculosis. First, composite samples taken from the milk supply of the entire herd were examined, and later, milk from individual cows was subjected to microscopic examination. So far as I have been able to collect the statistical results of these examinations, they are as follows:

Herd of F. and H. Michaels, examined twenty-seven, condemned as tuberculous six.

Herd of C. J. Prosser, examined nine, condemned as tuberculous six. Herd of Ed. Daggett, examined forty-three, condemned as tuberculous four.