No. 315.
Mr. Blaine
to Mr. Lowell.
Washington, March 17, 1881.
Sir: On the 7th instant, my predecessor sent you a telegram as follows:
Lowell, Minister,
London:
Published statements of mortality among swine
are false.
EVARTS.
The occasion of this denial was the publication, in the London Times of the 19th ultimo, of an extract from a report made on the 21st of December last by Mr. Crump, then acting British consul at Philadelphia. In this report, after stating that “immense mortality” prevailed among swine by a disease known as “hog cholera,” of which about 700,000 head have died this year (1880) in Illinois, Mr. Crump proceeded to refer to the alleged occurrence of several cases of trichinosis, as though the two disorders were correlated, and narrated certain horrible instances of the latter, ending by announcing the possibility of communicating trichinæ to the human body by adulterations of butter and cheese with fatty products supposed “to be taken from places where hogs die of diseases.”
It is not surprising that such extraordinary statements, directed en bloc against these great classes of American exports, should have occasioned widespread alarm among consumers in Great Britain, and seriously deranged trade therein. So sudden and disastrous, in fact, was the check given to this great and steadily increasing commerce that, as a matter of national importance, this government was moved to a searching investigation of the grounds on which the publication was based; and correspondence has been accordingly had with the British legation in Washington and with the boards of trade of the pork-producing, packing, and shipping centers.
The most positive official assurances reach this Department from all quarters, comprising the extensive swine-growing regions of the West—Illinois, Ohio, and Indiana—that the mortality, even among very young pigs, has been less in 1879 and 1880 than for preceding years, and that the health of full-grown hogs (which are alone packed as pork) has never been better than during the past year. The British minister [Page 516] frankly admits that the statements of Mr. Crump, the acting consul, are exaggerated. The wide publicity given here by the press to all these denials has tended to allay the domestic excitement.
It is, however, to be feared that Mr. Crump’s report may have taken such hold on popular prejudice abroad as to make it difficult to neutralize its bad effects; merely general denial, or counterstatement of facts, rarely suffices to undo a false statement.
In view of all the facts accessible to it, this Department can but reach the conviction that the good faith of Mr. Crump has been imposed upon, and that he has been unwittingly made the tool of designing speculators, to the great injury of legitimate trade. This conviction is strengthened by an analysis of his statements, as well as by a published report of an interview had on the 7th instant by a committee of the New York Produce Exchange with the British consul and vice-consul at Philadelphia, a copy of which report is inclosed herewith for your information. The admissions made by Mr. Crump that he was aware, when he wrote his report, that the mortality among swine in 1880 was not greater than in 1879, and the singular phraseology of his statements by which the general reader would be led to infer that the so-called “hog cholera” is communicable to human beings as trichinosis by eating the products of diseased animals, are points worthy of notice. No scientist need be informed that “hog cholera” or “hog fever,” as the disease is indifferently styled, is a contagious catarrhal pneumonia, analogous to pleuro-pneumonia among neat-cattle, and entirely distinct from trichinosis, which is due to the development in the muscular tissue of minute parasites, but to the popular mind the distinction is far from evident. Had it been Mr. Crump’s specific purpose to cause a panic among the British consumers, by misrepresenting and associating isolated statements, he could hardly have framed his report more appropriately. And, when to all this is added the consideration that the report does not come from the pork-raising and packing centers, where it is the facile duty of the British consular officers to acquaint themselves with all facts bearing on this great branch of international commerce, but from a sea-port through which but a small part of the packed product passes, the ex parte and untrustworthy (if not designedly interested) character of Mr. Crump’s representations, becomes the more apparent.
To illustrate a point, this government would hardly look to its consular officers at Southampton or Cardiff for data respecting commercial transactions at Sheffield or Birmingham, or to its consul at Havre for knowledge of wine adulterations in the wine districts of Bordeaux or Burgundy, and, if received, such reports would most probably be made the occasion of investigation in the competent quarters, rather than be given to the public without verification.
It does not appear that any attempt was made by Her Majesty’s government to ascertain the trustworthiness of Mr. Crump’s report before publishing it in the Blue Book, from which the extract in the Times is taken. Had the consular officers in the hog-raising districts of the west been appealed to, it is entirely improbable that they would have indorsed the prejudiced, incoherent, and sensational declarations of their seaboard associate.
The correspondence had with the British minister here, of which copies are inclosed,* shows how confidently this government has looked to him for denial of the injurious rumor, and his frank response justifies that confidence. In like manner we look confidently to Her Majesty’s Government to aid in establishing the truth of the matter.
[Page 517]This instruction is sent to you to furnish you with material for an intelligent discussion of the subject with Earl Granville, in case the persistence of popular clamor and general distrust in England by reason of Mr. Crump’s ill judged report, notwithstanding Sir Edward Thornton’s admission of its exaggeration, should make it necessary to look to Her Majesty’s Government to give to the denial publicity and equal authority with the publication itself. The injury having been done, no step should be omitted to undo it. Nor is the harm which has been wrought confined to Great Britian. The report has doubtless spread to the continent, and added to the prejudice already created there probably by the same agencies which inspired Mr. Crump’s announcement. The action of the British Government in condemnation of it will influence the feeling in Europe. To this end, contradiction cannot be too positive.
The extent to which you will make use of this instruction is necessarily left largely to your judgment, although it is not thought needful to communicate it in copy. I have not thought it desirable to acquaint you with the many statements in the American press, apparently trustworthy and well informed, which have lately appeared in contradiction of the report, such as the assertion that the Philadelphia consulate has for months past been deluged with anonymous communications injurious to pork-packing interests; and that the British consuls in the western cities have telegraphed to the legation here and to the Philadelphia consulate, correcting Mr. Crump’s misstatements. The American journals are accessible to you, and you can draw your own inferences therefrom. The positive information I possess is sufficient for the purposes of this instruction, and due remonstrance and denial on your part. You are conceived to be in a position to aid in exposing the untrustworthiness and seeming malevolence of the report of which Mr. Crump has unhappily been the medium.
In view of the prohibitory action of the French Government toward importations of American produce, I have suitably instructed Mr. Noyes, to whom you may directly communicate any pertinent facts coming to your own knowledge.
I am, &c.,
- For inclosures, see correspondence with British Legation.↩