CENTRAL VETERINARY MEDICAL SOCIETY. 293 
of water or air has been but obscurely made out, whilst there 
remains a third class, when the intervention of injected air or 
water has seemed unlikely, and where the readiest explanation 
of the outbreak would be afforded if milk apart from air or water 
could be regarded as the source of the disease.” In other words, 
the latter instances could best be explained by regarding the cow 
not merely as an incubator of the germs of disease peculiar to 
her, but as a real factor, or generator also, of those which only 
take effect in the human subject, as in typhoid, scarlatina, and 
the like. In the particular outbreak of disease in question, this 
assumption has been carried to its highest and most dangerous 
altitude; for dangerous it must be to brand a great source of 
food supply with malignant properties on evidence which is not 
only wholly of a negative character, but which is also of the 
most remote description. To accept the view suggested by Mr. 
Power, adopted by Mr. Smee, and so hastily acted upon by the 
Pathological Society, necessitates in a very great measure the 
abandonment of the germ-theory of disease and the acceptance 
of the doctrine of spontaneous generation. But before such a 
sweeping innovation can be entertained it must be clearly shown 
that the failures so repeatedly met with, in tracing out the 
sources of contamination, are not due to a deficiency or misin¬ 
terpretation of facts and phenomena. Moreover, it is most 
likely that had Messrs. Power and Smee been better acquainted 
with comparative pathology, or sought to be informed by those 
who have made cattle diseases their special study, both chemi¬ 
cally and experimentally, they would not have troubled the 
Pathological Society with a hypothesis that admits of the 
clearest refutation. 
Passing to the question of “garget,” I need not trouble you 
with any details as to the pathology of the disease as it presents 
itself to us in an ordinary way, as I am perfectly sure that all 
of you are fully acquainted with it; Mr. Smee’s assertion to 
the contrary notwithstanding. As, however, reference has been 
made by that gentleman to a specific form of “garget,” it will 
be interesting to refer to a recent outbreak of this type of the 
malady, as illustrating the entire absence of etiological and 
indeed pathological relations also, between it and human diph¬ 
theria. The facts are these. In January last, “ garget ” appeared 
in a herd of eighty cows, forming part of a large London dairy. 
As in others of its kind, stale cows were every now and again 
being removed, while fresh “ in calvers ” were at the same time 
imported. During eight weeks no less than twenty of the 
herd became affected with this form of mammitis, and several of 
them so acutely, that it was considered advisable to destroy 
them. Neither age nor condition conferred immunity, and preg¬ 
nant cows as well as stale milkers, and also those recently calved 
were alike attacked. Cows recently imported in a perfectly 
healthy condition became affected in from three to five days 
after their arrival in the shed, thus fixing the incubative period. 
