Dr. Richard Dunning in 1802. He said: "Some with a well feigned expectation of finding them, and therefore, with an ingenious cruelty peculiarly their own, have sought for, on the heads of children lately vaccinated, the approaching horns, and at the same time have, with equally affected seriousness, inquired if a something had not been noticed in their voices, imitative of the bellowing of a cow."

It should be noted that in the period under consideration, the value of the discovery had not been proven to the satisfaction of all, hence that it, like any new theory, would be assailed was to be expected; but such an attempt as that reported by Dr. De Carro, of Vienna, to bring the operation into disfavor, serves to show to what terrible extremes the effort was carried.

"A law suit of the most abominable sort is now going on at Berlin, between a banker of that town and Dr. Wolf. That physician was requested by the banker to vaccinate his children. He complied with the request; but instead of taking vaccine virus he took variolous [small-pox] matter of the most confluent kind. Those two children died during the inoculation. The parents, astonished to see such symptoms produced by the vaccination, made the strictest inquiry, and traced the evil to its origin. A regular charge was brought against that monster, but I do not yet know the result of it.”* The chief danger was then considered to be, and is no less so now, from using virus that was too old, or that taken at an improper stage in the development of the vesicle. The result of the use of such virus is not the introduction of disease into the system, but the creation of a local sore of more or less severity without giving the person any protection. So important was the operation regarded by the physicians in the earlier days of vaccination, that they deemed it necessary to see the patient in a few days afterward to determine whether the result was protective or not. There are numerous persons on whom the operation of vaccination, performed with a point or lancet perfectly clean and free from vaccine

* Medical and Physical Journal, vol. viii, London, 1802.

virus, would cause a sore not less severe than that which often results from true vaccination. Hence, a sore is not unfrequently produced which the subject regards as a vaccination vesicle, when infection from the vaccine matter has not taken place.

Such a person in after years having small-pox, the antivaccinationists flaunt the fact as an instance in which vaccination was not a protection. The assertion which has been made, that by vaccination "humors" are introduced into the system, is probably not true in one case, so stated, in ten thousand. It is true that not unfrequently an eruption, or perhaps pimples, appear for a time after vaccination; but who has not seen the same condition produced in some persons by articles of food like mince pie, strawberries, honey, lobsters, etc., or by the taking of certain medicines? The whole solution of the question is in the fact that some systemic disturbance follows, that manifests itself on the skin or elsewhere; some latent so called scrofulous condition may for a time be brought into activity, or a metastasis of a hitherto unrecognized affection may have taken place, relieving some internal organ by placing its burden for a time upon the skin. This is all there is to the so called cases of "disease introduced by vaccination" that it has been the writer's fortune to On the other hand, the health is not unfrequently improved by vaccination. Eruptions, classed as scrofulous, upon the face and body have been known to disappear as a result of vaccination, which failed to be removed by medical treatment or local application.

see.

The following may be stated as incontrovertible propositions:

1. That all children should be vaccinated before they are one year old.

2. That vaccination with fresh bovine virus, or from the arm of a healthy person, taken at the proper time and in a proper manner, can communicate nothing but the vaccine disease.

3. That a person who has had the vaccine disease is pro

tected from small-pox for a certain number of years afterward.

4. That owing to an unexplained idiosyncrasy the protection afforded by vaccination is, in some persons, exhausted in a few years; hence, revaccination should be occasionally resorted to, especially if small-pox is prevailing.

5. That no reliance can be placed upon the vaccine scar as to how long the protection of vaccination exists.

6. That in a well-vaccinated community small-pox can never become epidemic.

7. That it is the duty of every individual to avail himself of the protection which vaccination affords.

Dr. J. M. Toner puts this idea in the following forcible language: "Parents and guardians have no more right to withhold or neglect to provide vaccination for the children under their protection, than they have to jeopard the lives of these helpless infants by not furnishing them with food or clothing. It is criminal to neglect either, as death may be the consequence; but the failure to provide protection against small-pox seems to be more maliciously wicked than to neglect either food or clothing, as the former may not only cause the death of the child, but may be the means of spreading disease and death among many others; while the evil which arises from the latter, ceases with the death of the victim."

A thoroughly vaccinated person resists all exposure to the infection of small-pox does not contract even varioloid. Many do not understand this, but regard vaccination as only mitigating the severity of small-pox by changing its form to varioloid. Were the latter true we should have epidemics of varioloid as extensive as the epidemics of small-pox in former times. There are, however, occasional individual exceptions to this rule, but they are exceedingly few.

"Dr. Marson, having the greatest experience perhaps of all writers upon this subject, says of the test of vaccination in preventing small-pox: For thirty years we have revaccinated all the nurses and servants who had not had small-pox,

on their coming to live at the small-pox hospital, and not one of them has contracted small-pox during their stay here.'"* But it is unnecessary to multiply the illustrations. Those who desire to study the subject can find trusty records and statistics to prove the marvelous protective power of vaccination. In vaccination and revaccination all may be safely fortified against one of the deadliest foes to mankind.

* Public Health: Reports and Papers of the American Public Health Association, vol. ix, p. 284.

THE PRESENT POSITION OF THE MILK-SUPPLY PROBLEM FROM THE PUBLIC HEALTH STANDPOINT, AND SOME PRACTICAL METHODS FOR SECURING SAFE PUBLIC SUPPLIES.*

BY PETER H. BRYCE, M. A., M. D., SECRETARY PROVINCIAL BOARD OF HEALTH OF ONTARIO, TORONTO, ONT.

GENTLEMEN,During the interval since our last meeting I have been requested to introduce for discussion a paper on "Public Milk-Supplies." In order to properly lay before the association a subject so broad in its practical bearings and so replete with important and interesting details, a paper greatly extending the limits of time allowed for any single subject would be necessary. I shall, therefore, deal briefly with the first part of my subject, in order that I may discuss at greater length those numerous details with which every executive officer of health ought to be familiar.

1. The Use of Milk as a Food. Perhaps nothing will better indicate the importance of guarding this source of foodsupply, than to recall the enormous consumption of what from earliest times has been more or less universally used as food by all nations. It is the natural food of all young mammals, whether human-mammal or beast-mammal. “Milk, from the earliest times," says Dr. Wynter Blythe, "even when its composition was most imperfectly known, has been considered the type of foods." Statistics may be given to illustrate the extent of the use of milk and milk-products.

In the Province of Ontario, 737 cheese factories were

*Read at the nineteenth annual meeting of the American Public Health Association.