No. I. THE EXPENDITURES IN DETAIL Per diem and mileage, Members of the Board, attending one meeting Salaries and travel expenses: Salary State Health Officer Travel expenses State Health Officer Salaries, four Assistant State Health Officers.. Salaries County Agents Salaries, Veterinary Division Travel expenses, Veterinary Division Salaries of Sanitary Patrolmen, Jacksonville, Tam- Maintenance of Executive Office, Jacksonville: Printing, stationery, publications, records, etc., Insurance, and miscellaneous items Equipment and maintenance, County Isolation Hospitals: Dade County Duval County Escambia County Reimbursement for glandered animals Medicines, disinfectants, (typhoid, Key West, 1910.).. Hog cholera serum 3.070.28 9,103.69 No. 2 Statement of money received upon requisition upon the State Comptroller, showing amounts of the requisitions, and the amounts expended monthly by The expenditures of the Board as shown by the itemized statement, were but slightly increased over 1910, omitting the amount expended in the erection of the new building at Jacksonville; and it must not be forgotten that the Legislature of 1911 added to the duties of the Board in a manner which directly called for additional disbursements. Allusion is made and attention is particu larly directed to the free distribution and administration of hog cholera serum to the agricultural interests of the state. REIMBURSEMENT FOR GLANDERED ANIMALS Again, another fact contributing to the sum total of outlay must not be lost sight of: The Legislature of 1911 passed an enactment directing that certain animals killed during an outbreak of glanders in Ocala in 1909 should be paid for out of the funds of the State Board of Health at the full appraised value of each animal destroyed, instead of at a maximum value of seventyfive dollars as the State Statute previously enacted, provided. So, too, in respect to animals killed at Newberry in January, 1911, on account of glanders, but which had not been in the state a year. and, therefore, under the law, did not come within the provision of payment by the state: a special legislative enactment was passed directing payment from the Board's funds, the same as if no such hindrance as to time in the state existed. Incidents such as these, while materially increasing the amount of money expended by the Board during the year, do more: they tend to seriously embarrass the Executive Office in carrying out the provisions of the law which deals with the management of contagious diseases occurring among the domestic animals and live stock of the state, and it can be readily understood how such setting aside of a general law in special instances, will cause irritation on the part of stock owners similarly unfortunate, but who, less favored in legislative influence, are compelled, under the law, to either accept what the General Statutes on the subject directs or receive no compensation whatsoever from the state. That this subject may be the better understood, there is herewith submitted the information 'bearing upon the outbreaks at both Ocala, and at Newberry, in 1911, which was furnished to the Senate Committee on Claims: SYNOPSIS OF PREVALENCE OF GLANDERS AT OCALA, Number of animals tested with mallein Number of healthy animals (all of which reacted to the mallein test.) 104 102 62 All animals reacting to the mallein test, and thus diagnosed as glandered, were killed, buried and covered with lime. Officials in charge of outbreak: Dr. Thomas J. Mahaffy, Veterinarian State Board of Health, assisted by Dr. C. P. Mauldin, of the. United States Bureau of Animal Industry. Owners of animals and reimbursements made, as follows: In those instances where owners were not reimbursed for the loss of any or all animals destroyed, it was found that the conditions specified in Chapter 5933, Laws of Florida, 1909, relating to reimbursement, could not be complied with or the facts necessary to obtain reimbursement could not be established. The Law cited herein provides that in order for the owner to be reimbursed for an animal which has been destroyed by the State Board of Health on account of its being infected with glanders, the animal shall have been owned and kept within the State of Florida one year previous to its condemnation; that the animal shall have contracted glanders in Florida; and that no person shall be paid for more that ten (10) animals in any one year. It is believed by the State Health Officer, and by the veterinarian of the State Board of Health who was in charge of the occurrence, that if ten animals showing glanders in its incipiency by reacting to the mallein test in 1905, had been killed as advised by this office, instead of being sold and scattered through out the county, that the epidemic of 1905 at Ocala would have been prevented; and that the infection was conveyed by an animal belonging to O. K. Grocery Company from the stables of Tompkins & Cobb to the stable of Dr. Guerrant, The following are copies of correspondence in regard to the claim of Messrs. Tompkins & Cobb: From the State Health Officer to the State Comptroller: "Hon. A. C. Croom, State Comptroller, Tallahassee, Florida. My Dear Mr. Croom: Key West, Fla., Sept. 3, 1909. Will you kindly settle the following point for me; Tompkins & Cobb, operating a partnership, a livery business at Ocala, lost 24 (including one animal the property of Mrs. D. W. Tompkins) horses from Glanders. They have each made a claim, individually, for ten horses. Now, is this allowable? It will be remembered that paragraph 3, Section 9, Chapter 5933, Laws of Florida, 1909, reads: 'That no person shall be paid for more than ten animals in any one year.' According to my understanding they owned together the 24 horses. But is it proper to claim that 12 horses were owned by each of the men? or is my understanding correct-that the 24 horses were owned by one individual— a partnership? Another point I would be obliged to you for a ruling on: Mrs. D. W. Tompkins also puts in claim for one horse which it is contended she owns separately from the property of her husband. Now, if she is not a freeholder under the law, and so published according to statute, is her separate claim for this horse allowable? You can appreciate, Mr. Croom, that these points are continually arising, and where there is a question of money payment, many expedients are resorted to, to have the state responsible for claims of this kind. I would be obliged to you for a decision in these matters as early as you can give it to me. Yours very truly, (Signed) JOSEPH Y. PORTER, State Health Officer." Reply by the State Comptroller to the State Health Officer: Tallahassee, Sept. 7, 1909. Upon receipt of your letter of the 3rd instant, I submitted it to the Attorney General for his opinion, a copy of which I herewith enclose you. Yours very truly, Comptroller. The opinion of the Attorney-General, enclosed with the above mentioned letter, is as follows: "Hon. A. C. Croom, State Comptroller, Dear Sir: Tallahassee, Sept. 7, 1909. Replying to your letter of this date, with enclosure from Dr. Porter, and wherein you ask my opinion upon the questions which he propounds, I beg to say that I agree with Dr. Porter, that where a firm-a partnership, loses |