820 
PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION I* 
August, 1894, which have been furnished to me through the courtesy 
of Mr. John Clayton, Town Clerk of Melbourne. These show only 
the number slaughtered and the number condemned, no record having 
been kept latterly of the number affected. Of 17,681 cattle slaugh- 
tered, 169 were condemned as unfit for consumption on account of 
tuberculosis. This is a proportion of 1 in 104*6, so that the number 
warranting seizure now is exactly three-fold the number in 1885. The 
inspection is still a lay inspection, and, assuming it to be equally 
rigorous with that in 1885, this points to a considerable increase in the 
number affected — an increase up to 16*8 per cent., in fact — and I 
would not deny that such an increase has taken place. Mr. John 
Robertson, the inspector at the abattoirs, however, estimates the 
proportion affected to be between 7 and 10 per cent. It must be 
borne in mind that only the better class of cattle are sent to these 
abattoirs, all the “ piners” and beasts suspected by their owners as 
likely to be condemned being sent to private slaughter-houses, of 
which there are about twenty in Melbourne and suburbs, and at 
which there is no supervision or inspection for disease at all. 
Turning to dairy stock, it has long been known — and the fact 
receives confirmation by the Midlothian statistics I have quoted — 
that the proportion of tuberculosis in milch cows is much greater 
than in other classes of stock. In these, too, the tendency to 
generalisation is most marked. If we take a very low estimate 
then, say, 7 per cent., of tuberculosis in dairy cows, and if we assume 
that danger of infection of man only exists when there is generalisa- 
tion, then, taking the Leipsic statistics as a standard (viz., that of 
every 100 cases of tuberculosis 13*8 per cent, are generalised), we 
arrive at the somewhat alarming fact that 1 in every 100 dairy 
cows can convey and is conveying tubercle infection to susceptible 
human beings in our midst. I ask myself, “ Is this known or 
believed?” I cannot answer. I should be sorry indeed to think that, 
if it were known to those in whose hands the conservation of the 
health of human beings is placed, they should be so neglectful of 
their trust. Conversely I ask myself, “ Can it be denied ?” and I 
confidently answer, “No.” Surely, if it is true, some steps should be 
taken to minimise the danger. I am afraid no very satisfactory 
answer could be given to the question, “ What is being done by 
medical scientists to ascertain all the etiological factors in the in- 
creasing prevalence of this dire scourge of humanity ?” With 
typhoid care has been taken to ascertain the sources of infection 
reliably, and to counteract that infection. So with scarlatina, small- 
pox, &c.; but with tuberculosis— a disease responsible for 14 per cent, 
of the whole of the human deaths recorded from all sources of disease 
— a disease affecting all mammals and many other classes to such 
an extent as to be considered a likely factor in the ultimate exter- 
mination of species — what appears to be a certain source of infection 
is totally neglected, and no adequate attempt is made to ascertain how 
such human tuberculosis is attributable to this source. 
My eminent friend, Dr. Springthorpe, the president of this 
section, suggested to me that I should indicate to you the measures at 
present in force in Australia for minimising the dangers of infection, 
from animals. I am sorry indeed that this is beyond my power, for I 
find that in most colonies nothing of the kind is being attempted. 
