temperature of the milk to 45° F. or lower, since warm temperatures favor bacterial multiplication.

In a large part of my own state, and perhaps in yours, the milk is allowed to "cool" in water that is fairly warm. Some dairymen feel that if they put the milk that has the temperature of the cow into a half barrel of water that has a temperature of 70° they are cooling it to a proper extent. In certain districts of this state, where an agent of the State Board of Health of my state made an examination to see under what conditoins milk was produced for our market, it was found that nearly every dairyman had no need of ice, because he had running water that was very cold; but the average dairyman who has no ice and is content to bring his milk down to a temperature of 68 or 70 degrees, according to the weather, is not so fortunate. We all know that unless milk is brought down to 45° F., in a very short time the bacteria which have been introduced into the milk have begun to multiply and the thousands to the teaspoonful have grown to millions. The farmer knows that this means a souring of the milk and an end of its value, so far as sale is concerned. Consequently, he is anxious to get the milk off his hands as soon as possible. The bacteria that cause souring are unfriendly to him, but they are otherwise to the consumer, because they terminate the commercial life of an article that is dirty and unfit for use in any event by causing a change in its consistency and taste, so as to make it nonusable. Milk which contains millions of bacteria to the teaspoonful contains the seeds of infant mortality-a mortality which is very largely preventable through the exercise of even moderate care. These bacteria, first of all, should not be allowed to gain access to the milk, and if they do become introduced, their growth and multiplication should be prevented by keeping the milk as cold as possible.

Why is it we see so much of what is commonly called "cholera infantum” in summer? It is because in summer it is more difficult to keep milk cold. In winter, under ordinary conditions, it keeps cold without anything being done to attain this object, until it reaches the home of the consumer. In summer, unless it has been properly cooled, it starts from the farm with a very high content of bacteria and gains many more while waiting at the railroad station to be placed in the milk car, and, in a very large proportion of cases, it is in the milk car that the product first comes in contact with a lower temperature; but then the mischief has been done.

If the dairyman could keep his milk as cold in summer as in winter, up to the time it reaches the consumer's house, we would not see this enormous increase in infantile mortality which comes with every summer. I want to quote you some figures regarding infant mortality during the summer months. I took off the number of deaths of children under one year of age in every city and town in Germany having a population of more than fifteen thousand. In January, 1905, in all of those places (and they make up the bulk of the German Empire), there were 1200 deaths under one year of age; in February, the number went up to 1300; in March, a little higher

1450; in April, still more 1500; then nothing alarming until we get to May1900-warm weather is at hand. In June, 3200; in July-hot weather-10,700. But this was not the highest figure reached, for we find in August 16,000. Then there was a drop in September to 6500, and in October to 5500. You will see as the warm weather comes on, that the upward curve is gradual until in July and August, it becomes almost a perpendicular line. To what is that mortality due? It is not directly due to the heat, but to the fact that in summer the food which the infants have to depend upon is seeded already when it leaves the barn, and through the favoring conditions of heat has become by the time it reaches the stomach, a poisonous substance which kills off those who cannot bear the ingestion of such matter. What is going on in Germany, is going on everywhere where large populations exist. We have no means of knowing in this country how many deaths there are in January or in August. We can only tell for individual cities where we make a special study. In Boston, during the six months beginning with the first of June last year, the curve ran along about the same as I have shown you. It was fairly high in June; it was very much higher in July and still higher in August, and then fell off again. You will find this true, I fancy, if you will study the records of your own state. It may be asked: What are you going to do about it? In Massachusetts we are trying to do something. Three years ago, the State Board of Health undertook an inspection of our dairies and a competent veterinarian was engaged for the purpose. He began his investigation in a 'district near Boston, and sent in his reports at the end of each day's work. The conditions found were far from commendable, but were about what were expected; but as he proceeded with the work, it became more noised about and many of those who had a proper pride in being reported upon favorably, anticipated his visit and put their premises and cows in proper condition. Frequently he reported that lime for whitewash was in great demand in towns adjoining those in which his work was being conducted, but in many places there was much indifference in this regard. Up to the present time, he has made nearly 10,000 examinations.

or less

During the first year those that could be passed as fair or good were about 30 per cent. In the second year, it was a little over 30 per cent. The third year it came up to about 35 per cent. Unfortunately, in Massachusetts, the state Board of Health has absolutely no authority to enforce cleanliness in the dairies of any city or town in the state. The only authority that has any right to go into a man's dairy and say, "You keep clean and take better care of your cows," is the local board of health. The state board has no authority to compel the local board to do this, either, although it can advise.

We will say

The veterinarian makes his report from a certain town. that one half are clean. The names of the owners of the clean dairies go into the next issue of the Monthly Bulletin, but to those who have foul conditions, letters are sent advising them that it would be better for all

concerned, better for themselves and better for the community, if they would adopt certain suggestions; for example: The cows are dirty, and they should be cleaned; the pigs should not be kept in the same part of the barn; the tie-up needs whitewashing; horse manure should not be used as bedding. At the same time a letter is sent to the local authorities requesting them to compel these people to better the conditions. If a local authority is not particularly interested, nothing is done. A majority of the producers who receive these communications do take some interest and try to clean up. Some say they are freeborn citizens and they can be dirty if they want to. It is more difficult somehow to deal with a man whose people have lived on the spot generation after generation, and if the local authority is not interested that ends the matter. The chairman of the local board has perhaps the dirtiest dairy in town, and it is very evident that he will not go around advising others to clean up when his place is in a nasty condition and is going to stay nasty.

In 1906, 3421 dairies were examined and 31 per cent were found clean and 69 per cent were found to have some objectionable feature. Those which were dirty averaged three to four objectionable conditions to the farm.

In 1907, we went outside of Massachusetts because Massachusetts requires milk from all the New England states and draws also from New York. Our inspector went into Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island and New York. What did we find in Vermont? Taken as a whole, the' dairies in this state, from which milk was shipped into Massachusetts, were in a far better condition than those of the other New England states or New York. One of the matters noted by our inspectors is the health of the cows and the amount of garget which he finds in any herd. When he reports a cow as being afflicted with tuberculosis, especially of the udder, or garget, the State Board of Health may act under the law relating to diseased milk, such being deemed to be adulterated. We have found a good many tubercular cows, and when they are found on the farm of a Massachusetts producer we send a note to the chief of the Cattle Bureau, who issues a warrant to his local veterinarian, who proceeds to the place, and if he finds the cow to be tubercular, he kills her and the owner receives compensation, but not more than $40 for any animal. If garget is found, the producer is warned that if he sends that milk into the market he will be fined for selling milk from a diseased cow. With regard to garget, this may interest you. In the November (1907) issue of the Monthly Bulletin of the State Board of Health facts were presented concerning certain of the sources of the milk supply of Massachusetts beyond the borders of the Commonwealth, and in speaking of Vermont dairies the report said: "The 1167 cows on the 85 farms furnish to the Boston market nearly 7000 quarts of milk daily. In point of general health, this average is very high. Not all of them were examined individually, but of the large number that were examined not one showed any evidence of disease and not an indurated udder was observed." That is the record of Vermont, and

it is one to be reasonably proud of. I suppose that the conditions which were found in the dairies examined obtain to a great extent throughout the state. I refrain from reading the report on certain other New England states. I already have received considerable literature from certain of them, after reporting on the conditions, stating that those conditions did not exist, although found there by our inspector.

I have told you how little real authority the State Board of Health has. It can act only in an advisory way, suggesting to the local boards that they exclude dirty milk from sale; and a number of our cities and towns have adopted rules and regulations bearing thereon which have all the force of law. The local authorities have the right to make regulations, which right is denied the state authority. The local authorities can make a law absolutely excluding from sale any milk from a place which is not kept up to a reasonable degree of cleanliness, and the city of Boston is constantly adding to its rules and intends to enforce them to a greater degree of strictness now that it has been found to be impossible to get at the evil through the legislature. At the last session of our legislature, something like eight or ten bills were introduced in the lower House concerning the legal standards of total solids and fats. These were referred to the committee on agriculture, which heard a great deal of evidence concerning the hardship wrought by the existing standards. They heard of the difficulties with which the dairymen have to deal; and they heard about the conditions under which some of the milk is produced and especially in the neighboring states. Without a suggestion from the health authorities of Massachusetts, the committee on agriculture, made up largely of farmers, presented a bill which recognized the necessity of state supervision of the milk business. This bill gave to the State Board of Health the right to make rules and regulations under which milk should be produced if it was to be offered for sale. The regulations having been made, the State Board of Health would communicate with the local boards and they in turn with the producers, and any man who proceeded to sell milk produced in violation of the regulations would be fined. The bill passed the Senate without real opposition, and went into the House, where it was slaughtered. The House had not learned of the importance of clean milk and there were only nineteen men who voted for it. Since that time the Massachusetts Medical Society has passed resolutions to make it known to prospective members of the legislature how important this matter is. Whether this is going to have any influence remains to be seen. We hope the legislature will see the importance of saving infant life by compelling decent dairying.

It might be supposed that the United States government would act in this regard under the National Pure Food Law, but the United States is not particularly interested in the milk question. The Federal food officials are more interested in determining what constitutes whiskey and whether aniline dyes are harmful in ketchup; and when it comes to the milk question, they show no interest whatever. The definition of milk under the National

Pure Food Law is about as follows: "The clean, fresh product of a healthy cow." Anything that is not in accordance therewith is adulterated milk. Now, much of what is sent into Massachusetts from neighboring states is not pure milk within the meaning of the law, but is adulterated, because it is the stale, dirty product of diseased cows; and on that score I attempted to induce the Washington authorities to exclude the milk of certain dairies, but without results. It took six months of correspondence to find that nothing would be done because of a lact of inspectors, or of appropriation, but it seemed to me because of a lack of interest in the subject, which affords no such opportunities for spectacular effects as the seizure of a car of Durum wheat or a dozen barrels of blended whiskey.

Educate the public to the importance of requiring of the producer that he shall conduct his business in a proper manner, and then you will get what I consider a perfectly safe milk supply. In this country we are hearing a great deal said about race suicide. I think we might take up a much more important subject than race suicide and that is race destruction or race salvation. It is of no benefit to this country to have double the number of births and lose half of the infants before they are one year old. Let us undertake to save those that we have. If we have a birth-rate of 25 and keep 24 of the infants alive, we are doing far better than if with a birthrate of 35 we lose one third of them through improper feeding. With ideal dairying we are going to save thousands of lives that at the present time are sacrificed every year. Vermont is a dairying state and ought to take the lead in this great movement that is sure to succeed sooner or later.

DISCUSSION.

Dr. W. L. Havens, Chester Depot.

Who would have authority in the matter of the cans? I have seen caus at our own station which were too filthy to put milk in and send away.

Hyde.

What is the effect of this on butter? A large part of the milk from Vermont goes into butter.

Kingsbury.

I am interested in regard to the milk with garget. How is it best to take up that condition if the milk from a herd was condemned because it was found in the milk collectively rather than traced to an individual cow? In my experience, you will see indications of garget one day and then no evidence of it whatever, so that it seems to me that it would be arbitrary to condemn a cow's milk occasionally without the knowledge of the individual which might be producing the milk. It seems to me that that