In 215 instances the State Inspectors of Health found that it was the custom of the meat inspector, instead of being present at the time of slaughter, to call later on the same day; in 46 instances, on the same day or on the following day; in several instances, "when sent for," and in 6 instances, "not at all." In 116 instances evidence was found that the meat inspector was sent for previous to slaughtering, but that he did not appear until after slaughtering. In 39 instances this was a customary procedure. In 26 instances it was found that the meat inspector was not sent for until after slaughtering, and that, consequently, he was not present at the time of slaughter. In several instances it was discovered that it was not the custom for the meat inspector to go to the slaughterhouse unless notified that suspicious meat was detected. Thus it will be seen that in many cases carcasses were not legally inspected; consequently, they were not condemned, even though showing evidence of disease.

Other facts disclosed by the investigation are as follows:

In at least 10 instances there was evidence that uninspected animals killed on unlicensed premises were brought to a licensed slaughterhouse to be dressed and inspected. In 3 instances meat that was condemned in one place was removed to another town and there inspected, passed and stamped. In 30 instances there was evidence that meat slaughtered in the absence of a meat inspector was inspected later en route or at the meat inspector's house. In 4 towns this was. the general custom.

In at least 2 instances a licensee who was not the meat inspector was found using the meat inspector's stamp.

In more than 50 instances it was found to be the custom for the licensee, and not for the town, to pay for meat inspection.

In more than 15 instances it was found that the person appointed as meat inspector was the licensee. In 3 instances the inspector was the proprietor's foreman. In 5 instances the meat inspector was an unlicensed proprietor. The qualifications of some of the meat inspectors were found to be as follows:

In 102 towns the meat inspector was either a veterinarian, butcher or an experienced man, well qualified for his position; in 55 towns the meat inspector was a farmer; in 7, a marketman; in 3 towns, a cattle trader; and in 3 towns, a milk producer.

Facts concerning the qualifications of other men were found to be as follows:

"No qualifications" in 33 towns; "not well qualified" in 4; "practising physicians" in 3; "qualifications fair" in 5; "aged, infirm men in 2; while the following qualifications represent a meat inspector in each of 15 towns, respectively:

Postmaster (formerly in meat business); clerk in employ of meat firm; shoemaker; unlicensed graduate in medicine; druggist; hotel keeper; driver of town watering cart; paper hanger; machinist; grocer; plumber; night watchman; optician; and real estate agent.

In making the investigation the State Inspectors of Health visited more than 70 of the larger slaughtering establishments. Of this number about one-third were distinctly objectionable, and 6 were conducting business without licenses. On the other hand, those establishments which in the main showed objectionable conditions were the small slaughterhouses situated in the country districts, there being some 160 which deserved the severest condemnation.

Thirty-two slaughtering places were found to be used for killing condemned cattle.

A separate building was found to be used for slaughtering in 190 instances. On the other hand, in 291 instances a part of a barn, stable or other building was used.

In 5 cities and 94 towns no slaughterhouse was found.

A study of the conditions observed by the State Inspectors of Health in slaughterhouses led to the division of these establishments into three distinct classes: (1) those which merit condemnation; (2) those which are reasonably satisfactory; (3) those which are distinctly objectionable. Of the 370 licensed slaughterhouses visited, 34 merited commendation, 219 were reasonably satisfactory and 117 were distinctly objectionable. Of the unlicensed slaughterhouses discovered, 17 were in good sanitary condition; while, on the other hand, 59 were distinctly objectionable.

In order that slaughtering establishments may be classified as satisfactorily conducted, the following conditions should be required:

1. Preferably, a building somewhat isolated, used only for slaughtering purposes. Slaughtering may, however, be conducted in a portion of a building which is properly separated and securely partitioned from other sections of the building.

(a) The slaughter room should be so constructed that walls and floor can be kept clean. The sides of the room, for a height of 6 feet or thereabouts, should be constructed of such material that they may be kept clean and free from blood, manure and filth of any sort. The floor should be tight and even, so constructed (e.g., drained toward center of room) that it may be easily and thoroughly scraped and washed with scalding water.

(b) Some means should be provided for prompt and proper removal of blood, waste meat and other refuse matter. Drainage water should go to sewers, or, in the absence of a sewerage system, through pipes properly trapped to covered cesspools located at some distance from the building.

(c) Doors and windows should be screened in the fly season.

(d) Provision should be made for proper washing facilities and waterclosets.

(e) Hooks, trimming boards or shelves, poles and other conveniences should be washed with hot water after each usage, and all utensils should be kept clean.

(f) Knives and other instruments used on diseased animals or diseased portions of animals should be sterilized in boiling water containing washing

soda for five minutes before they are used again. (Few butchers keep their instruments clean. It is not an uncommon practice to cut into a tubercular gland, and then continue to dress the carcass with the same knife without first cleaning it.)

(g) A suitable meat room or cooler should be provided, and should be kept clean. (Meat should not be hung in a slaughterhouse until taken to market.)

(h) The room for slaughtering should not be used as a tie-up for animals awaiting slaughter.

(i) Animals condemned because of disease should not be slaughtered in the same place where animals are slaughtered for food.

(j) Cans for refuse matter should be of metal, and provided with covers. 2. An abundant supply of ice and of pure water, preferably running water, hot and cold, should be provided.

3. The meat inspection and slaughtering rooms should be well lighted and adequately ventilated, and there should be a suitable place for the meat inspectors to examine the viscera.

4. If there is a cellar, it should be kept dry and clean.

5. The yard and surroundings should be kept clean.

REPORT UPON THE INVESTIGATION RELATIVE TO THE TREATMENT OF

RABIES.

On May 3, 1909, the following resolve relative to the treatment of rabies was approved by His Excellency Governor Draper :

RESOLVES OF 1909, CHAPTER 72.

RESOLVE RELATIVE TO THE TREATMENT OF RABIES.

Resolved, That the state board of health shall cause suitable provision to be made for the treatment of rabies in man by appropriate remedies, and shall report to the next general court, on or before the tenth day of January, as to the expense and advisability of preparing these remedies under the direction of the state board of health. [Approved May 3, 1909.

In reply to the question submitted, the State Board of Health has the honor to submit the following:

Since 1904 rabies has been unusually prevalent in the Commonwealth, as will be seen when it is stated that whereas in 1904 there was no case of rabies in animals, in either dogs, cattle, horses, pigs, cats or goats, in 1905 there were 103 cases; in 1906, 337 cases; in 1907, 778 cases; in 1908, 557 cases; and in 1909, up to December 1, 168 cases.

As to the number of human beings bitten by rabid animals, there were, in 1905, 12 cases; in 1906, 101 cases; in 1907, 184 cases; in 1908, 134 cases; and in 1909, up to October 27, 77 cases. During the period 1905 to 1909, inclusive, 19 human beings died of rabies.

It is, therefore, apparent that the disease in the present epidemic reached its maximum in 1907, and is now on the decrease.

As regards methods pursued in the treatment of those infected with rabies, a large percentage of cases has been treated either at the State Almshouse at Tewksbury, at the Boston City Hospital or at the Pasteur Institute in New York. For instance, in 1906, 60 cases; in 1907, 78 cases; in 1908, 69 cases; and in 1909, 39 cases were treated at these institutions. The other cases were treated, in most instances, by agents of local boards of health. The inoculation material for use within the State has been secured from the New York City board of health. The expense has been $20 per case. Treatment at the Pasteur Institute in New York is considerably more expensive.

If the matter of supplying inoculation material and treatment to citizens of the Commonwealth were placed under the direction of the State Board of Health, one of three different plans might be pursued:

1. The inoculation material might be manufactured, distributed and applied by agents of the Board;

2. The inoculation material might be purchased from the New York City board of health and applied by agents of this Board; or

3. The inoculation material might be procured free of charge from the Public Health and Marine-Hospital Service in Washington, and applied by regular agents of this Board under its supervision.

Inquiry reveals the fact that to manufacture, distribute and apply rabies virus by the Board would cost at least $5,000 a year. If the material were purchased, the cost would vary manifestly with the number of cases.

In view of the fact that the Public Health and Marine-Hospital Service is prepared to furnish, for the present at least, rabies virus to State boards of health under satisfactory conditions and free of expense, the best method of solving this problem through the State Board of Health would seem to be to secure from the Public Health and Marine-Hospital Service such virus as is necessary, and have it distributed and applied by special agents under the direction of the Board. Under this arrangement the annual expense should not be more than $2,000 per year, except in the presence of a marked epidemic.

WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE.

The State Board of Health presents herewith a report of its doings for the twelve months ended Nov. 30, 1909, under the provisions of laws relating to the protection of the purity of inland waters, as required by chapter 75, section 115, of the Revised Laws.

The Board has received during the year 128 applications for advice with reference to water supply, sewerage, sewage disposal and matters relating thereto. Of these applications, 88 were in relation to water supply, 6 to sources of ice supply, 22 to sewerage, drainage and sewagedisposal systems, 9 to pollution of streams, and 3 to miscellaneous matters.

Water Supplies.

Public water supplies were introduced during the year in the towns of Bedford, Blandford, Pepperell and Plainville, and at the end of the year, of the 354 cities and towns in the State, 192 were provided with public water supplies. All of the cities and towns having a population according to the census of 1905 in excess of 3,500 are now provided with public water supplies, except the towns of Barnstable, Blackstone, Dartmouth, Dudley,1 Templeton and Tewksbury. The cities and towns having public water supplies contain approximately 94 per cent. of the total population of the State.

New supplies were also introduced for the first time in the village of East Brookfield in the town of Brookfield, and in the village of Bondsville in the town of Palmer. These villages are widely separated from the central portions of the towns in which they are situated, and separate works were constructed in each case.

In addition to the towns and villages in which water was introduced for the first time in 1909, extensive additions were made to the sources of water supply in many other cities and towns. Most notable among these is the introduction of a new public water supply in the town of Easthampton, the water supply of which has hitherto been taken from Bassett Brook, a stream which has become inadequate for the supply of the town at all times, and is exposed to much danger of pollution. from the very considerable population living within its watershed. Under advice of the Board an investigation was made for the purpose of obtaining a supply of water from the ground, and as a result of a thorough investigation, carried on under the direction of a committee appointed by the town, a supply of ground water was discovered in the valley of Broad Brook about a mile and a half southeast of the village, which yields by natural flow alone a quantity much greater than the town now requires.

An important addition was made to the water supply of Manchester by the introduction of water from Gravel and Round ponds, and extensive additions were also made to the water supplies of Cohasset, Newton, Woburn and other places. The town of Concord introduced for the first time a water supply from Nagog Pond, a source which had been granted to that town by the Legislature twenty-five years ago.

1 Water works under construction.