mucous or dysenteric discharges and other symptoms of imperfect digestion. With others, the cough and uneven respiration indicate the affection of the respiratory organs. Where the lymphatic or mesenteric glands are involved, the animal will not take on flesh and remains long in an unhealthy state. Where the mammary gland is attacked, the diseased part, when cut, is apt to have a reddish hue, and the secreted milk is liable to be contaminated with the tuberculous products. In most cases the milk deteriorates in quality, if it does not diminish in quantity.

When we come to examine into the causes of tuberculosis among cattle, they are found to be very similar to those detected as to man. That it is hereditary, the discovery of the disease in calves, and its tracing in the offspring of unhealthy cattle, abundantly proves.

High breeding, and especially in-and-in-breeding, seems to favor the development of the disease. Animals ill-fed, or kept in large numbers in poorly aired apartments, are most likely to show the disease.

Cows which are abundant milkers, or which are forced in order to secure large returns, are most apt to fall victims to the malady. There is also much probability that an animal seriously affected with tuberculous disease will impart it to other susceptible animals near by. Cases enough are on record to show such transfers, and that a particular stable, or part of a stable, where cases have occurred, seems unhealthy for other animals until full disinfection has been practiced. It may not be so actively communicable as to deserve to be called contagious, as many claim that the cases in which it is communicated are exceptional. They are chiefly, if not entirely, those in which the lungs are so diseased as that the breath is full of infective particles; those in which the discharges from the bowels, as dropped upon the grass, come in contact with grazing animals, or those in which a diseased udder conveys the malady to calves.

Prof. Walley, of Edinburgh, is so pronounced in his views as to that a tuberculous animal is "useless for breeding, dangerous for say dairy purposes, valueless and dangerous as a companion, and its flesh nocuous for human food," and so claims that our whole energy should be directed, not to curing an animal, but to preventing the disease.

Prof. Williams, speaking of those cases in which the tubercular deposits have become masses, says that they are to be viewed as excrescences, and if they are carefully removed and the membranes and

upon

structures in which they are imbedded and from which they grow are carefully dissected from them, the flesh is perfectly good. Others insist that all such flesh shall only be used after thorough cooking. The question as to the use of the milk has been made to depend much the condition of the udder, and upon the presence or absence of tuberculous deposit in it. This is often hard to determine until after death. It is also difficult to see how, in a cow greatly affected in the alimentary canal or in the lungs by a constitutional disease, such a secretion can remain pure. It is now believed by many physicians that the uncooked milk from tuberculous cows is a frequent cause of tuberculosis, and especially of mesenteric tuberculosis, in children. For the prevention of tuberculous disease in animals, the following good rules are given:

"1. All flesh and offal of affected animals, especially in the advanced stages of the disease, should be destroyed.

"2. All suspected animals should be carefully isolated until pathogonomonic signs or tests have become developed.

"3. All actually affected animals should be slaughtered.

"4. All contaminated food, litter, &c., should be disinfected or burned.

"5. All infected houses should be disinfected.

"6. No animal, whose history is tainted even in the slightest degree, or in whose system there exists the least suspicion of tubercle, should be used for breeding purposes.

"7. Great care should be exercised at the period of birth to avoid any influences which will weaken the tissues in adultism.

"8. Breeding animals should be carefully shielded-as far as is practicable against debilitating influences of any kind.

"9. The system of feeding and general management of our highclass stocks should be regulated on a more rational and conservative basis than that on which it at present rests."

The treatment of an animal suspected of tuberculosis, and yet not so affected as to be of no value, should aim at fattening. If the muscular tissues are, to all appearances, healthy, as tubercle is never, as a rule, developed in such tissue, it is not to be rejected as food simply on the fact that masses are found in the abdominal cavity, or that the lungs or glands are diseased. There seems to be stronger evidence that the uncooked milk of animals suspected of tuberculosis should not be used. Yet if there is no tubercle in the udder, there are those who still claim that the milk is not to be condemned.

The fact that tuberculosis in cattle is admitted to be largely on the increase in Europe, in Great Britain and in this country, and that it is an outcome of forced and unsanitary methods, and is especially prevalent among high-bred and pampered stock, should lead all stock raisers to a closer watchfulness over the laws of health which pertain to cattle, not less than to human kind. Pure air, pure water, cleanliness of skin, good bedding, proper food and exercise, and special attention to milch cows, is essential to the preservation of the health of herds.

NOTE. All those circulars as to Contagious Diseases of animals, will soon be printed together, as Circular L., and can be had on application, by postal, to the State Board of Health, Trenton.

LAWS.

The chief laws relating to health passed by the Legislature of 1884 are as follows:

Chapter XXIV.-An act to provide for drainage and sewage in densely-populated districts in which there is a water-supply.

Chapter XLIX.-Supplement to an act entitled "An act to prevent the spread of glanders in horses."

Chapter XC.-A supplement to an act entitled "An act to prevent the adulteration and regulate the sale of milk."

Chapter CXXXVII.-A supplement to an act entitled "An act to limit the age and employment hours of labor of children," etc.

Chapter CLX.-A further supplement to an act entitled "An act concerning the protection of the public health."

Full references to former laws will be found in the Sixth Report, pp. 255-260, and the Seventh Report, pp. 31 and 32.

As throwing additional light on the interpretation of the health laws of this State, and upon the right and the duty of summary authority in so great an interest as the protection of the public health, we are glad to be able to furnish the text of the recent charge of Justice E. W. Scudder, of the Supreme Court, in the case of Hyers v. Cole and others:

GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY-The plaintiff in this action has brought a suit against five different parties for alleged assault upon him, followed by arrest and imprisonment in the lock-up, at Asbury Park. This, it is alleged, took place on the 14th day of September, 1883, and he claims large damages of these defendants for the injury which he has sustained at their hands. The particulars of the occurrence are given by the parties and their witnesses, and the first question for the court and jury to determine, relates to the legal rights of the Board of Health and the police of Asbury Park; their right to inspect premises, and their right to arrest for breaches of the peace.

I do not intend to examine these laws and ordinances at this time critically; it might only embarrass you in the considerations of the facts in this case. It is the duty of the court to tell the jury what the law is, and then it is the jury's duty to apply the facts to the law. After an examination, in the short time I have had, of the charter of Asbury Park, the laws of our State relating to Health Boards, the ordinances of the commissioners or council of Asbury Park, my conelusion is, that the health officers duly appointed, as these appear to have been, under the charter and ordinances, and the laws of our State, had the right to inspect premises, houses and lands adjoining residences in that place. I do not say what further they can do under the charter and ordinances and laws, but they had the right to inspect premises that they might base upon that inspection some action for the abatement of the nuisances, if they existed. In doing this, the inspector, whoever he may be, appointed under the charter and ordinances, must act upon reasonable cause, and that seems to me is the great guard in this case. We have heard much about officers going into people's houses and examining from mere curiosity, as an abuse of private rights, but that is not the question. The question now is, whether a man acting under public authority, duly clothed with the power of the law, has a right to make an inspection where there is reasonable cause to believe a nuisance exists. Whether there is a reasonable cause or not, is, of course, a question of fact for the jury. That is the fundamental point that lies at the basis of this action, whether they had reasonable cause to believe that there was a nuisance affecting public health upon those premises, and whether they made their examination in a reasonable way.

There is another rule of law that is fundamental to these proceedings, and that is this: when an attempt is made to enter upon a man's

premises, officers must make known to him their authority, and why they are there. Any one would resent a stranger entering upon his property and examining his premises, but if he came to you saying, "I am an officer of the law; I have reason to believe, unwittingly perhaps, you have something on your premises that is injuring the health of your family and in that way may spread in the neighborhood and do harm; I am here as a public officer to make the necessary examination; here is the badge of my office, and this is my purpose." A good citizen under these circumstances should not resist the officer and say: "You have no right here," and order him off, but would say, "For the sake of my family and my neighbors, I am willing to submit and give up some of my legal rights in this matter." There are these two points, therefore, to be determined: first, whether there is reasonable cause for the examination, and second, whether he makes known to the party the reason of his official visit. The Health Board law requires that he shall wear the "health badge." Mr. Cole testifies that he had it upon him at the time he entered the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff says he did not see anything of the kind. It may have been there, nevertheless, if he did not see it. These badges are worn on the breast, where they can readily be seen, or if the plaintiff had asked to see his badge of office, it might have been shown, but he asked for a paper, as if he expected some warrant to make the examination; but he was not bound to show him any warrant merely to make an examination; he had not come there to remove the nuisance, but he came as an inspector, as he has testified.

Another rule applicable to this case is this, that in making this inspection the officer must use no unnecessary force himself; and if he goes there with a power and purpose to examine and see whether there is anything wrong, he must go with the manner of a man who has a duty to perform, and not to insult and annoy. He must use no unnecessary force or violence. If, however, he is resisted in a fair examination of the premises, I think he may go as far as it may be necessary to overcome opposition, in order to discharge his public duty. The more perverseness there is in the man opposing him, the greater may be his reason to believe there is something wrong. The Inspector says he saw a heap of manure and it was covered with offensive matter, as he and Dr. Mitchell say, with maggots feeding upon something likely to breed disease. He went to the nearest door and found a man there who, when spoken to, flew into a rage and ordered him off the premises. It would be most natural to suspect, under these facts, that he had something to do with it. Why should a man be so indignant if he were innocent? All he had to do was to say that he had nothing to do with it, in a quiet way, and then, if the officer insisted upon an examination, in the discharge of his duty, it was his duty to answer his inquiries and submit to a proper examination. The officer could insist, in a respectful way, on seeing whether it came from his house. The question then was, whether there was reasonable cause to suspect