414 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS [Mar. 7

Health Service after a review of the Dorchester county sur-
vey stated that a 30 per cent, improvement had been effected
in the disposal of human waste in Dorchester in 1914. This
improvement had no relation to an extraordinary situation,
such as an epidemic. The change occurred in the ordinary
habits of people in good health, by virtue of their intelligence,
and without the stimulus of fear. In 1915 a similar survey
was made in Anne Arundel county. The survey began in
April, and at that time the county had incurred a considerable
incidence of typhoid fever, enough to assure us before the
survey started that we could not obtain mortality for the
year below that of 19. 1. 4. The results were, however, somewhat
better than in Dorchester county,, in that a larger change was
effected in the sanitation of rural homes. Annapolis, Brook-
lyn and Curtis Bay were not completely surveyed; i. e., not
every home was visited. It is probable that this survey largely
cut down the autumnal incidence of typhoid fever, at all
events the September and October experience was not such as
the situation in April led us to expect. The City of Annapolis
took advantage of this survey to set forward important im-
provements in the water supply and disposal of sewage.

On January 7, 1916, Hon. Phillips Lee Goldsborough, in
his gubernatorial message to the General Assembly of Mary-
land, said concerning these surveys:

"Having met with a demand for the more intimate and
thoroughgoing operations, which these surveys indicate, the
Board should be able to make at least one general survey of a
county each summer, and a school survey each winter.

"The surveys of Dorchester and Anne Arundel cost about
$5, 000, the Anne Arundel survey being the more expensive.

"The Board of Health will have no money for a survey in
1916, for our sanitary districts, being in full operation, will
require the funds which the Legislature has provided.

"An appropriation for $3, 000 for 1916 and a like sum for
1917 would enable them to make a survey of one county each
year. I doubt if the State should adopt a general policy of
appropriating funds for county surveys, expecting counties
themselves to bear no expense on account of such services.
But experience shows that such surveys do involve cost to
the localities, for the surveys are apt to set forward important
public works, particularly sewerage and water works, which
otherwise might be postponed for years. The State can afford
to await its profit in the very frequent event that the authori-
ties of the counties and towns will provide means of their
own to improve the start which the State will have given. "