32 KANSAS UNIVERSITY QUARTERLY. 



confirmed the statements given in bis report to the State Board. 

 In Oswego, in 1892, an epidemic of diphtheria broke out among 

 the school children. The school ground was divided into two 

 parts, one occupied by the boys and the other by the girls. The 

 water suppl)' for the boys was furnished by a hadrant and that for 

 the girls by a well that had been allowed to become foul. Only a 

 portion of the girls used the well water because it smelled and 

 tasted bad, and close investigation showed that all of the thirteen 

 cases of the epidemic were confined to the girls who drank water 

 from the well, and that about 90 per cent of those who used the 

 water were taken ill with diphtheria. The epidemic broke out 

 within ten days after the school began and there had been no diph- 

 theria in the town previously. The epidemic was of a mild type, 

 and after the well was cleaned there were no further cases. 



The opinions expressed in the letters of the county and city 

 health officers of this state agree almost unanimously that bad san- 

 itary surroundings of various kinds increase the liability to diph- 

 theria. Four mentioned bad drainage and sewerage; eight, bad 

 water; six, damp or foul cellars under dwellings; four, crowded 

 houses; seven, poor ventilation. Other influences which were 

 mentioned were: lack of sunlight, overheating a poorly ventilated 

 and filthy room for some days, burning of leaves within the city 

 limits, and well water from sandstone. A number mentioned bad 

 sanitation in general without specifying any particular sort. The 

 influenc;e of bad sanitation in causing sore throat and thus predis- 

 posing to diphtheria was also mentioned. Scarcely more than one 

 of those who gave any opinion in the matter stated that no relation 

 had been observed between bad sanitary surroundings and diph- 

 theria. 



The question was also asked whether the poor are more liable to 

 diphtheria than the well-to-do. Nineteen were of the opinion that 

 the poor are more liable, and of these twelve specified that the 

 greater liability is due to poor sanitary surroundings. Fourteen 

 thought that there is no special incidence on the poor, and two or 

 three stated that in their opinion the rich are more subject to the 

 disease. Four mentioned "dug-outs" and sod houses as rendering 

 the occupants more liable to diphtheria. 



In the letter of inquiry it was also asked whether any spread of 

 epidemics had been observed to be due to raw milk or any other 

 article of food. Two mentioned poor food in general as favoring 

 diphtheria, and a city physician suggested that the kind of fruits 

 pften sold on the streets by Italian venders might be agents in the 



