say forty such cases. Many very marked indeed. Some in which the immune ones surviving were of pronounced tubercular diathesis, or from what are known as "Consumptive families." In many of the cases I can recall, the association was most intimate, including nursing, all attendance, and sleeping by and with the sufferer. Such care, long continued, involving all the especially favorable opportunities for infection, such as would arise from affectionate, assiduous care by day and night, conjoined with weariness and confinement, and the depression. due to the relationship to the sufferer, and this frequently added to the fact that financial matters were an ever-present dread in many cases. In most of these examples no extraordinary precautions were resorted to to prevent infection, and in some instances from lack of knowledge or from inability, even the most common efforts as to care and disposal of the excrement was not observed. In most, kissing and other tokens of endearment necessitating close and long proximity were usually indulged in.

In a word, while such cases occur to me in memory freely, in which the opportunities for infection have been most intimate, I do not remember to have observed an instance in which, either to the sick or well survivor infection has been transmitted during my fourteen years' practice in California."

* * * "I know three husbands whose wives died of tuberculosis, twenty, six and two years ago. Husbands still living and well. Two wives, I think more, who are living after the death of tubercular husbands."

* * * "My Dear Dr. Hawkes: Your letter of the 8th inst. was received in due time. To questions one, two, three and four, I will answer No. To No. 5 I will say that in my twenty-four years of practice I have never seen one case of pulmonary tuberculosis which had been contracted from another member of the same family, husband or wife or brother or sister. It has so happened that every case that I have seen has either been hereditary or contracted outside of the family, from source not known. In my experience, when wife was taking care of husband, or husband of wife, who had the disease, the care-taker did not contract the disease so far as I have known."

* * * "In twenty or more instances we have recorded cases where neither husband nor wife caring for wife or husband who died of pulmonary tuberculosis died of the disease."

* * * "I can recall scores of instances where a husband or wife has taken care of a husband or wife dying of pulmonary tuberculosis, where the surviving husband or wife remained free from the disease."

* * * "I have known of two instances where the husband took care of two wives who died of tuberculosis and did not contract the disease and die. I have known several others who took care of one wife, dying of the disease, and did not contract the disease."

More than thirty years ago two relatives of my own (not sanguineous) were pronounced by a leading physician of Boston (Dr. l'owditch) to be in the incipient stage of pulmonary tuberculosis. He advised that they leave that inclement climate, giving it as his opinon that they could not live five years if they remained in Boston. Both remained, however, one declaring she "would rather live five years in Boston than twenty-five out West." Both married, and the more delicate of the two is still living in Boston; has full-grown children, and weighs more than ever before, notwithstanding the fact that she has slight hemorrhages each winter, and a cough, with hoarseness to the extent sometimes of complete aphonia. Her sister died of another ailment, not connected with the lungs, twenty years after the time set by the death sentence. Had the present craze on the subject prevailed there at that time, they would have been practically ostracised, shunned and deprived of all the happy social and family intercourse which was their portion during the subsequent years.

There have been millions since in their situation. There are millions now. Shall they be shunned and socially (if not legally )quarantined on the flimsy evidence upon which the opinion is based that tuberculosis is contagious? In the name of humanity, science and common sense I protest.

While riding in a Pasadena electric car a week ago today, four of my fellow passengers afforded a striking object-lesson on the question under consideration.

On one of the outside seats of the car sat an interesting young married couple well known to me. They were evidently very happy: were laughing and talking in the jolliest way during the fifty minutes. of the trip. It was genuine happiness, too; it was not, as is often done, assumed for effect. They were unconscious of my presence or that any one else to especially observe them. He is one of the brightest and wittiest fellows in the world, and she one of the cutest little women in the universe.

of

I first met the gentleman seven years ago in Pasadena. He came from the East on account of ill-health; he had tuberculosis, unquestionably, and a characteristic cough. I did not think he would live two years, if that long. This was the opinion of his friends. About two years ago he married, and is as happy as I described, and is making at least one other happy.

During the whole seven years I have never seen him looking so well as he did that day. I watched them interestedly all the way to the end of the trip, and he did not cough once, notwithstanding he was riding on the outside of the car, without an overcoat. It was so cool that I deemed it wise for me to sit inside.

Now, suppose exclusive laws had prevented his coming to the foot-hills of Southern California where he now has his cosy, happy home? He would surely have died years ago, and the law-makers, and the doctors who instigated their making, could justly be charged with his murder "scientific" and "judicial" though it had been. Yet there are thousands today in situations similar to his seven years ago.

Opposite me sat a man with a cough sounding precisely as I had heard racking him whose case has just been given. He was evidently a stranger-a new-comer. From the number of small grocery packages he had lying beside him on the seat, he was probably a "tenter" taking care of himself. The present craze on the subject of tuberculosis had probably shut the doors of all havens of rest against him. He left the car at Garvanza. As far as appearances went, he did not seem as ill as the other had been. He had apparently at least as good a chance for his life. But according to proposed legislation and the feeling of the people at present on the subject, he would have been denied that chance. How unwise, inhuman and unjust!

He is a lawyer

He came here

The fourth passenger in the picture sat beside me. from one of the large cities of the Mississippi Valley. on account of ill-health. Two years ago I was asked to see him in Los Angeles on account of a considerable hemorrhage, one of several he had had. It was and is my firm conviction that he had tuberculosis. He had lost twenty pounds in weight. I ordered him to the foot-hills, to keep in the open air, and to nve a simple, natural life as nearly as possible. He has had no hemorrhage since; has regained his twenty pounds of flesh; has lost his cough, and is practically a well man, attending daily to his professional duties.

According to present prevailing notions of the disease he would have been branded "Tuberculous," "Contagious," been shunned by the world, and allowed to die, or to wish he were dead.

Thus in that one car on that one trip were at least four persons, ornaments to society, whose lives would have been made wretched, and three of whom would surely have died, had such laws as are now pro

posed been in operation when they first sought the sunny foot-hills of our incomparable Southern California.

I personally know a score or more prominent citizens of Southern California in nearly every profession and walk of life, including members of our own profession, some of them members of this society, who came to California years ago seriously ill with consumption, who are now enjoying good health, and are useful members of society. And I presumed each member of this society having lived here a greater number of years knows of a larger number of such instances than I. Suppose they had been excluded by law?

As was said before, the only evidence that tuberculosis is contagious lies in the fact that animals innoculated with tuberculous matter from a human consumptive, became tuberculous and died.

But if the bacillus tuberculosis is the cause of tuberculosis in these cases it must be the sole and only cause of tuberculosis in every instance. There cannot be two sole causes for one specific result. It is a wellknown fact, however, that, not tuberculous matter merely, but almost any foreign substance, as ordinary pus, ground glass, sand, etc., does the same.

Prof. H. F. Formad, of the University of Pennsylvania, in a lecture delivered before the Philadelphia Medical Society, and published in the Medical Times, says on the subject, after dividing all animals into two classes, the scrofulous and the non-scrofulous, and including in the scrofulous class the tame rabbit and guinea pig and all animals in close confinement, and in the non-scrofulous class the cat, dog and animals at large:

"If the scrofulous animals are inoculated, or have introduced under their skin, any kind of matter, whether tuberculous, diphtheritic or what not, ever to "chemically clean powdered glass," and survive the first results of the experiment, large numbers of them die of tuberculosis. But inoculating the non-scrofulous animals in the same way, that is, under the skin, with pure tuberculous pus, will not produce tuberculosis. This class requires the introduction of the inoculating material into the peritoneum, or the anterior chamber of the eye, whether it be tuberculous pus or the so-called bacilli tuberculosis, in order to produce tubercles in them. And here, again, if other kinds of matter be introduced into the same parts, even to common sand, the results are the same as if tuberculous matter were used."

"True tuberculosis can be produced in non-scrofulous animals. through simple injuries of serous membranes; and this seems to be also well established for men."

"The second exceptional point in the etiology of tuberculosis is the occurrence of miliary tuberculosis secondary to simple inflammation of serous membranes in normal non-scrofulous beings. Experiments. clinical observations, and autopsies sustain this fact. At the same time it appears that inflammatory processes affecting parts of the body other than serous surfaces, do not lead to tuberculosis in non-scrofulous subjects. I will recall here that the anterior. chamber of the eye, which is occasionally used as a point for inoculation with tubercular virus, is also a serous sac. Of the same character is the choroid coat, of which opthalmoscopic examination reveals tubercles so beautifully in cases of miliary tuberculosis."

"There are cases on record of traumatic injuries of the eye-ball in non-scrofulous persons, in which general tuberculosis was a consequence.

“Koch has unquestionably produced tuberculosis in the peritoneum of his cats and dogs." And he "could just as well have used some sand for inoculation, and saved his valuable cultures of the bacillus tuberculosis for inoculation into some other parts of the bodies of the nonscrofulous dogs, cats, rats, etc.

"Why did Dr. Koch inoculate the latter named animals only in the peritoneum and anterior chamber of the eye, while scrofulous animals, (rabbits and guinea pigs) he inoculated indiscriminately in any part of the body? This is a mystery. Let us try to solve it."

"I wish to mention some of our experiments in connection with tuberculosis."

"The experiments on diphtheria, of Prof. H. C. Wood and myself. have shown that those rabbits which did not succumb to the disease within a few days, nearly all died of tuberculosis in the lapse of four to six weeks or more. In order to see whether the diphtheritic material acted specifically in the production of tubercle, or whether the latter was merely the result of inflammatory process, we experimented by inoculating rabbits with non-tubercular and perfectly innocuous foreign material, such as pieces of glass, metal, wood, etc. The result was, in the majority of cases, cheesy, suppurating masses at the seat of inoculation, followed in the course of a month or more by death from tuberculosis."

"Today I can safely testify that Dr. Wood and myself have seen die of tubercular disease proper more than one hundred rabbits out of five or six hundred operated upon, without a single one of these animals having been knowingly inoculated with tubercular matter of any kind, and without any intention on our part to study tuberculosis in them. All rabbits and guinea pigs subjected to injury in any part of the body in the various experiments and surviving the immediate or acute effects of the latter, had, with only a few exceptions, but one fate, viz., to die of tuberculosis, provided they lived long enough after a traumatic interference to develop the lesion in question."