CONTROL OF BACTEEIAL DISEASES 239 



saliva, second-hand clothing dealers, and even rag sorters, 

 all live in average freedom from infections. Doty's testi- 

 mony on this point is as follows: 



The author has carefully investigated the influence of money as a 

 means of infection. The results show that those who are constantly 

 handling money, such as bank officials, do not contract infectious dis- 

 eases any oftener than others. The Treasury Department at Washing- 

 ton furnishes exceedingly valuable information on this subject. Here 

 large quantities of filthy and offensive paper money are being constantly 

 handled and rehandled prior to destruction, and not the slightest evi- 

 dence has been presented at that place to show that infectious diseases 

 are transmitted by this material. Than this, no more important or con- 

 clusive evidence on this subject can be presented. DOTY, " Prevention 

 of Infectious Diseases," p. 10 



Even epidemics in schools of measles, diphtheria, and scarlet fever 

 have been found by the medical examiners of New York City to be 

 caused by mild or incipient cases and by unsuspected "carriers " that 

 is, by contacts of persons and not of things. 



Terminal disinfection (fumigation or disinfection at termination of a 

 disease or of quarantine) was abandoned in Providence in 1905, "except 

 in those very few instances in which the family was willing to wait for 

 two successive negative throat and nose cultures from each of its mem- 

 bers," the idea being that it was a waste of public money to disinfect 

 rooms while members of the family were carrying living diphtheria 

 germs, and there has been no marked increase of recurrent cases. "The 

 New York City Health Department has given up fumigation after cases 

 of infectious disease, as a costly procedure, the inutility of which has 

 been well established." 1 A more conservative opinion is expressed by 

 an eminent authority as follows : " Though the results obtained in some 

 cities since abandonment of terminal disinfection after certain diseases 

 seem to show that heretofore much useless disinfection has been done, 

 it is not felt that the evidence thus far adduced fully justifies its dis- 

 continuance." 2 The idea underlying this position is that if terminal 

 disinfection saves even a few infections, it should not be entirely aban- 

 doned. The above is sufficient to show that this important matter is 

 still an open problem ; for the best light upon which we should consult 



1 American Journal of Public Health, Vol. I (1915), p. 166. 



2 H. S. Hasseltine, United States Public Health Reports (July, 1915), 

 p. 20CO. 



