Professor Giaxa carried out some experiments in 1889 at Naples which appeared to show that the bacilli of cholera and typhoid rapidly disappeared in ordinary sea-water. Other observers at about the same time, notably Foster and Freitag, arrived at an opposite conclusion. In 1894 Professor Percy Frankland, in a report to the Royal Society, declared "that common salt, whilst enormously stimulating the multiplication of many forms of water bacteria, exerts a directly and highly prejudicial effect on the typhoid bacilli, causing their rapid disappearance from the water, whether water bacteria are present or not." It was at this time, when the matter was admittedly in an unsatisfactory stage, that Dr. Cartwright Wood made his experiments.[72] We have not space here to enter into this work. But his conclusions seem to have been amply established, and were to the effect that typhoid and cholera bacilli could, as a matter of fact, exist over very lengthened periods in ordinary sea-water. The next step was to demonstrate the length of time the bacilli of cholera remained alive in the pallial cavity and body of the oyster. Dr. Wood found they did so for eighteen days after infection, though in greatly diminished numbers. This diminution was due to one or all of three reasons: (_a_) the effect of the sea-water already referred to as finally prejudicial to bacilli of typhoid; (_b_) the vital action of the body-cells of the oyster; (_c_) the washing away of bacilli by the water circulating through the pallial cavity.
It will have been noticed that up to the present we have learned that typhoid bacilli can and do live in sea-water, and also inside oysters up to eighteen days, but in ever-diminishing quantities. The question now arises: What is the influence of the oyster upon the contained bacilli? Under certain conditions of temperature organisms may multiply with great rapidity inside the shell of the oyster. Yet, on the other hand, the amœboid cells of the oyster, the acid secretion of its digestive glands, or the water circulating through its pallial cavity, may act inimically on the germs. Proof can be produced in favour of the third and last-named mode by which an oyster can cleanse itself of germs. So far, then, we have met with no facts which make it impossible for oysters to contain for a lengthened period the specific bacteria of disease. Let us now turn to their opportunity for acquiring such disease germs. It is afforded them during the process of what is termed "fattening." By this process the body of the oyster acquires a plumpness and weight which enhances its commercial value. This desired condition is obtained by growing the oyster in "brackish" water, for thus it becomes filled out and mechanically distended with water. But if this water contains germs of disease, what better opportunity could such germs have for multiplication than within the body-cavity of an oyster? "The contamination of sea-water, therefore, in the neighbourhood of oyster-beds may undoubtedly lead to the molluscs becoming infected with pathogenic organisms" (Wood). Yet we have seen that, apart altogether from the individual susceptibilities or otherwise of the consumer, there are in the series of events necessary to infection many occasions when circumstances would practically free the oysters from infection.