Xlll 



three weeks ill with the fever. Burning 

 was the best plan for the disposal of ex- 

 creta. Water mains, 25 or 30 years old, 

 should be taken up or cleaned, or looked 

 into. A large amount of impurities must 

 remain in those mains. In other places 

 than Hobart he had seen the mains 

 cleansed with a brush. Dairy inspection 

 in town and country was highly necessary. 

 Many who kept cows did not realise 

 the importance of keeping the dairy and 

 cattle in a cleansed condition. Milk was 

 a highly absorbing substance. The water 

 supply of thecattle should also be inspected. 

 The selection of building sites, dx-ainage, 

 and the pavement of yai'ds were all admir- 

 able. He believed thoroughly in under- 

 ground drainage, and its applicability to 

 Hobart. We were assured there was 

 sufficient water if it were not wasted. It 

 should be seen that the water was not 

 wasted, and the supply might be arranged 

 more advantageously as to area. Per- 

 sonal and domestic cleanliness was of 

 great importance. If people kept them- 

 selves, their houses, and back yards 

 clean they would have better health, and 

 be far less liable to disease. The pans 

 were now found to be far worse than the 

 cesspits, and it was time we tried the 

 water-closet system. When it was re- 

 membered that a pound of sewage would 

 mix with 4,000 or 5,000 gallons of water in 

 the Derwent there was nothing to be 

 afraid of in connection with that system. 



Dr. Benjafield criticised Dr. Sprotfs 

 paper adversely at considerable length. 

 He said that if there was more typhoid in 

 the big houses, those were the houses that 

 had water-closets. He expressed himself 

 as opposed to the water-closet and deep 

 sewerage system. It was erroneous to at- 

 tribute the reduction of typhoid in other 

 cities to di'ains. 



Mr. A. Mault said he listfened to Dr. 

 Sprott's paper with unmixed pleasure, and 

 to Dr. Benjafleld's criticisms with un- 

 mixed astonishment. The latter's argu- 

 ments were captious, and he utterly mis- 

 understood Dr. Sprott. Mr. Mault con- 

 fined his further observations to an ex- 

 planation of the proposed system of metro- 

 politan drainage. 



Alderman G. S. Seabrook stated that 

 the Corporation obtained from Melbourne 

 the apparatus for cleansing the water 

 mains, but it was found it could not be 

 used here because the pipes were not all of 

 the same size bore. If the water-closet 

 system were introduced he had no fear on 

 the score of water. The question of cost 

 was the one which gave him anxiety. 



Mr. R. M. .Johnston said that though 

 an improved sanitation would not pre- 

 vent epidemics it would reduce the 

 death-rate. He believed in deep drainage 

 for a city like this into the deep water of 

 the sea. Let them look at the matter 



from a practical and not a narrow point of 

 view. The town should be made pure 

 and sweet apart altogether from the ques- 

 tion of typhoid. The strong smells, 

 though the least harmless, were very 

 offensive and pr-ejudiced the people 

 against the city. Let us carry out the first 

 stage of our scheme, and extend or correct 

 it in the future as might be necessary. He 

 would say that too little credit was given 

 in the lowering of the death-rate to in- 

 creased skill in treatment and nursing. 



Dr. Sprott, in reply, requested Dr. 

 Benjafield to furnish him with the title 

 of the book containing an adverse criticism 

 of the experiments he had quoted by Drs. 

 Martin and Robertson. 



Dr. Benjafield : Dr. Vivian Poore's 

 " Rural Hygiene," which I now hold in my 

 hand. 



Dr. Sprott, continuing, said that state- 

 ment was like many others made by Dr. 

 Benjafield, not in accordance with fact. 

 He knew the book mentioned, which was 

 a good work on Rural Hygiene, but he 

 wished to inform his audience that this 

 book which Dr. Benjafield had said con- 

 demned these experiments was published 

 in 1S94, while the experiments performed 

 by Drs. Martin and Robertson were noo 

 begun till ilS96, and not completed till 

 nearly the end of 1897. How then could 

 Dr. Benjafield stand up and say that Dr. 

 Poore's book refused to recognise these 

 experiments as being of any value ? He 

 was inclined to believe thcxt Dr. Benja- 

 field had taken upon himself to use 

 Dr. Poore's name to give, weight to his own 

 arguments. It was a great pity that the 

 subject had not been dealt with on its 

 merits in the interest of science and truth. 

 If Dr. Benjafield was a believer in return- 

 ing all sewage to the soil, he had a right 

 to his opinions, but it was not a practical 

 way of dealing with the sewage ;of large 

 cities like London or Glasgow, and could 

 not even be carried out efi'ectually in 

 Hobart. To tell the citizens of these towns 

 they would have to revert to the earth 

 system would be the signal for a rebellion 

 amongst them. It was simply absurd to 

 talk of every householder burying the 

 excreta in his garden or yard ; besides, it 

 has been conclusively proved that the 

 pollution of soil is an important factor in 

 the production of disease. Dr. Benjafield 

 had stated that water closets were the 

 principal cause in the production of typhoid 

 fever, and he instanced the illness of the 

 Prince of Wales as being a case in point. 

 Now Professor Corfield's report shows 

 that he believed the Prince of Wales got 

 typhoid through eating some contaminated 

 food. The W.C. was certainly not at 

 fault. If drainage and sewerage were not 

 the means of reducing the prevalence of 

 typhoid, it was peculiarly interesting to 

 note that in every city there was a marked 



