OF CHOLERA AND COMMAS, 305 
capacity as Physician to the Council of India) suggested to the 
Secretary of State in May, 1884, that the Government should 
institute a special inquiry into the whole subject. This pro- 
posal was acceded to, and it was arranged that two gentlemen, 
who were exceptionally well qualified to conduct researches of 
this character, Drs. Klein and Gibbes, should proceed to India 
at their earliest convenience. very possible assistance was to 
be accorded to them, both at home and in India, for the prose- 
cution of their investigations, and they were instructed to 
furnish a report to the Government on the conclusion of their 
labours, which was afterwards to be submitted to the considera- 
tion and final judgment of a Committee appointed by the 
Secretary of State for India in Council. 
4. Drs. Klein and Gibbes embarked for India on August 6, 
1884, and visited Bombay, Calcutta, and other cities in that 
country for the purpose of studying the disease. They left 
again for England on December 12, 1884, and towards the end 
of March, 1885, submitted an account of their researches to 
the Secretary of State for India. 
5. Such, briefly stated, appear to be the main incidents 
which have given rise to the preparation of the report, which 
has been submitted to the consideration of this Committee, 
copies of which were placed in the hands of the members under 
cover of India Office letter of June 17, 1885. The ‘ Pro- 
ceedings’ will be found to contain a brief summary of the 
remarks made by individual members at the meetings, together 
with some notes bearing on the subject under discussion which 
were handed to the secretary, and are reproduced in the form 
of an appendix. 
6. While fully accepting the truth of the statement that 
choleraic dejections are generally characterised by the presence 
of comma-shaped organisms, as maintained by Dr. Koch, a 
perusal of the report shows that Drs. Klein and Gibbes directly 
traverse several of Dr. Koch’s conclusions, and, in some cases, 
his statements as to assumed matters of fact. Indeed, the 
correctness of what may be conveniently described as Dr. 
Koch’s three main propositions is emphatically denied by Drs. 
