material obtained from the vagina of a heifer three days after she had aborted. On the other hand, no abortion bacilli could be found in the uterus of another heifer a month after she had aborted. It seems probable that, as a rule, the genital organs cleanse themselves by natural means a comparatively short time after abortion has taken place. Almost immediately after abortion and expulsion of the membranes the uterus contracts, and its internal surfaces come into apposition. Its condition is such that it would not be possible to force fluid into it with a pump from the vagina. Apart then, from the probability that disinfection of the uterus by antiseptics is not necessary to rid the organ of abortion bacilli, we are of opinion that it is futile to attempt it by irrigation methods. So long as a discharge continues to come from the genital passages, we think that for hygienic and therapeutic reasons they ought to be cleansed once or twice by the intravaginal injection of tepid antiseptic solutions, such as a 2 per cent solution of carbolic acid or a 1 in 3,000 solution of corrosive sublimate, but not on the ground that the injections will disinfect the uterus. We are of opinion that it will seldom be necessary to continue the injections for more than a month, and that after three months there should be small risk in putting the cow to the bull, provided she is afterwards protected from fresh infection.

Removal and disposal of Animals which have aborted.—It is quite a prevalent custom to feed for the butcher cows which have aborted. It is also customary to sell such cows alive in the open market. The second custom we consider likely to introduce disease to other establishments, unless the animals have ceased to discharge; they should, we think, be kept for at least three months after abortion before being sent for sale.

The first custom is less objectionable than the second, but we think that a breeder will be more likely to get rid of abortion from his herds by keeping such animals than by disposing of them and bringing in new ones before his entire herd is free from the disease. There can be no doubt that in most cases an attack of the disease greatly increases an animal's resistance to future attacks, and that in a large proportion of the affected, probably in the majority, this resistance is sufficient to fortify them against infection during their next pregnancy. It is beyond doubt that a considerable proportion may abort twice in succession, but it is not improbable that inoculation methods may now be successfully employed to exalt their resistance. In the midst of infection there is no better guarantee against the disease than the possession of an immune stock, and for this reason we consider that on infected premises the animals which have already aborted are to be looked upon as valuable assets for purposes of eradication, much more valuable than the new and susceptible animals brought in. We find, however, that a small proportion of cows will not hold to the bull for an indefinite period after abortion, and it may be found better to fatten off such animals, unless they are of high value.

The Keeping of a Special Bull for Cows which have aborted.—We have already stated that we do not consider the bull a factor of the first importance in the dissemination of abortion but that infection by means of a contaminated bull must be looked upon as a distinct possibility. We think, therefore, that there is something to be said in favor of keeping a bull for the service of cows which have aborted, and, when that is not possible, of disinfecting the external genital organs of the bull after he has served such cows. Of course, if the cows can be immunized the same bull might be used for all. We do not think that cows from a clean establishment should be sent even to a clean bull on infected premises, and it is also inadvisable that cows from infected premises