which they were known or found to be infected. The measure is of value,
but logically seems unsound, because the venereal diseases from which
such persons suffer are in no way a greater danger to the public than
the same diseases in the law-abiding subject of any class, and,
furthermore, the Committee have no reason to conclude from the evidence
that convicted persons, as a whole, show a higher percentage of venereal
cases than those who never enter a prison. The Controller-General of
Prisons submitted a schedule showing that the number of prisoners
detained under the Prisoners Detention Act from its commencement in 1916
to 1922 was twenty-eight, consisting of nineteen males and nine females.

(E.) _Social Hygiene Act, 1917._

In the words of the Commissioner for Public Health of West Australia,
who prepared the first comprehensive legislation on venereal diseases in
1915, this Act "can hardly be classed with recent Australian
legislation, for the reason that it provides for no notification of the
disease and no compulsory examination." By this Act infected persons are
required to consult a medical practitioner and go under treatment by
him, or at a hospital; but no penalty is provided, and there is nothing
to compel such persons to do either of these things.

Reference to case 1 in the concrete examples cited above will show the
weakness of the Act. The waitress continued in employment, handling cups
and spoons and cakes, &c. The Medical Officer of Health had every reason
to believe she was infected with syphilis, but, not having the power to
insist on her obtaining medical advice, he could do nothing to enforce
the provisions of section 6 of the Act.

Section 7, making it an offence for any person not being a registered