PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION I. 701 



they therefore strictly and conscientiously carry out the rules of personal 

 cleanliness and disinfection to which I have referred. They are in 

 consequence very little danger to others. Nevertheless they are 

 shunned by all who know them, they are very unjustly persecuted. 

 But after all this is quite natural ; it arises from the fact that the general 

 public has at present no means of distinguishing between a dangerous 

 consumptive and one who is harmless. If the Board of Health would 

 issue certificates to those who are not dangerous, according to the 

 method that I have proposed, the cause of the present persecution 

 would be removed, and persecution would in consequence be less. 



BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS. 

 The proposals I have made are far from perfect, but if they were 

 properly put into operation they would iindoubtedly lessen the spread 

 of tuberculosis from man to man. But steps must also be taken to 

 prevent the spread of consumption to man from infected animals. The 

 question whether man can contract consumption from tuberculous 

 cattle has been widely discussed. You will remember at the British 

 Congress on Tuberculosis, held in London in 1901, Professor Koch 

 stated his conviction, which rested on the safe foundation of carefully- 

 planned experiments, that there was a difference between human 

 tuberculosis and the tuberculosis of cattle, and that human tuber- 

 culosis could not be conveyed to cattle. Touching the converse ques- 

 tion, which is of supreme importance, namely, whether man is suscep- 

 tible to the tuberculosis of cattle, Koch said — " If such a susceptibility 

 really exists, the infection of human beings is but a rare occurrence. 

 I should estimate the extent of infection by the milk and flesh of tuber- 

 culous cattle, and the butter made of their milk, as hardly greater than 

 that of hereditary transmission ; and I therefore do not deem it advisable 

 to take any measures against it." 



Koch's opinion has not been accepted by the greater part of the 

 medical profession. It has, however, received some support from the 

 observations of Kitasato, a very eminent Japanese bacteriologist. 

 Kitasato has pointed out that ever since the history of Japan has been 

 chronicled tuberculosis has been known to exist in Japan, but that 

 nevertheless the cattle of the present day are not infected with tuber- 

 culosis. In Japan the use of cows' milk as a food for infants is unknown, 

 and the Japanese altogether consume very little milk. Intestinal 

 tuberculosis, therefore, which is as frequent in Japan as elsewhere, 

 cannot, in the opinion of Kitasato, be attributed to the ingestion of 

 infected cows' milk. 



The argument of Koch and of Kitasato may be right or it may be 

 wrong, but I am quite sure that it will not affect the present attitude 

 of the public in the matter, for who is there among us that would allow 

 his child to take the milk of a cow that was known to be suffering from 

 tuberculosis of the udders. 



The opinion of most physicians to-day is in agreement with that 

 of Professor Kossel, whose views were summarised at the Congress on 

 Tuberculosis held in Paris in 1905. There are two distinct types of 



