back to the time when the old ^‘humoral’’ syslem of pathology was Id 
full vogue ; it being supposed, even in the then crude state of knowledge, 
that “contagion’’ was a living entity, the destructive effect of the gas 
was fully recognized. In an old book dealing with nautical matters 
and intended for the guidance of shipmasters it is related that after 
smallpox a room or apartment can be rendered safe by burning “a 
small fragment of brimstone” in the closed apartment. It is the 
impression of the writer that sulphur is one of the agents mentioned as 
having been tried in the cleansing of the celebrated Augean stables, 
prior to the emi^loyment of Hercules to complete the stupendous labor. 
Whether it was burned or whether it was used by other methods is not 
related. Therefore, sulphur as a disinfecting agent certainly has the 
respectability of antiquity to recommend it. 
There has been much disparagement of the germicidal action of sul- 
phur dioxide when employed for disinfecting or sanitary purposes. It 
is well to state in the very beginning that the agent has distinct limita- 
tions. Certainly it can not be denied that it has great activity when 
used intelligently and under favorable conditions. Two principal argu- 
ments have been actively exploited against the employment of sulphur 
dioxide, an'd these are, respectively, its lack of penetrating power and 
its destructive influence upon fabrics or textiles and tissues. But the 
question naturally arises, Is penetrating power a prime essential in a 
disinfecting agent? Take the case of a room or apartment infected by 
occuiDancy of one suffering with a contagious or infectious disease. 
These diseases are usually of comparatively short duration, and are not 
in any sense of the term lingering or long drawn out. The bedding of 
the patient may be soiled, but this soiling is more than apt to be super- 
ficial, and especially in the case of soiling by fecal matter. Soiling by 
urinary secretion may, of course, penetrate deeply, but it is fortunate 
from a sanitary standpoint that the elimination of active pathogenic 
bacteria by the kidneys is rare, and, indeed, in most diseases admits of 
some doubt. 
A much more serious objection to the employment of sulj)har dioxide 
is its destructive effects upon textiles and fabrics. Being employed, as 
has already been noted, in the arts as a bleaching agent, it is very.evi^ 
dent that it is not adapted for the disinfection of such materials as are 
colored by vegetable dyes or by most of the aniline colors. The blue 
dyes of vegetable origin, such as the indigo derivatives, are turned red 
by the action of sulphur dioxide in the presence of moisture. The red 
dyes of vegetable origin, such as madder, are converted into a brilliant 
orange red 5 nor does the damage stop here. The strength of fabrics 
thus subjected to moist sulphur dioxide is seriously impaired, and this 
impairment of strength progresses so long as any of the agent remains 
in the interstices of the fabric. It is easy to understand this when it is 
recollected that the hydrated sujphur dioxide is converted into sulphuric 
acid by oxidation, and the destructive effects of this acid upon all fab- 
