With the defeat of the Gambetta cabinet, which was pledged to the withdrawal
of the decree, * * I regret to say that the prospects of an equitable and
liberal settlement of this long-pending question are not now as favorable as
heretofore.
The bill, which was drawn up by the late minister of commerce, of which I
gave you the substance in my No. 107, is still before the Chamber, and will
not, I think, be withdrawn. But it is somewhat doubtful whether the
committee to which it was referred will now report it favorably.
I must state that the renewal of the objection made to the importation of
American pork is not to be attributed solely to the hostile influence of * *
those who have adverse private interests in the matter, but mainly to the
publication in some American papers of supposed fatal cases of trichinosis.
These reports, which have been circulated, unfortunately, by the American
Correspondence, a New York Franco-American weekly sheet, printed partly in
French, are copied by the French papers, and its paragraphs upon American
trichinosis have received a rather wide circulation. I inclose herewith, for
your information, two of these paragraphs, which appeared in the
correspondence of January 28 and February 11.
Many people have called at the legation to ascertain if there was any
foundation for these reports. I have not hesitated to declare that, in my
opinion, they were spurious, and that there was nothing like an epidemic of
trichinosis existing in the United States. It might, however, be useful if I
could speak with official authority from the State Department in the
matter.
[Inclosure in No. 130.—Extract from the
American Correspondence, January 28, 1882.]
trichinosis in the united states.—expert
inspectors out of the question legally.
Like all Americans, we regret that the Chamber of Deputies did not
instruct the government to allow salt provisions from the United States
to he admitted without restrictions, as we were in hopes that they
would, and so expressed ourselves in our last number.
We are confident, at any rate, that the French legislators will continue
to overlook the publication, in papers opposed to free importation, of
numerous cases of trichinosis, more in fact than have really occurred.
Reliance can he placed upon our statement that there were only six cases
last week, of which four were fatal, and but two this, week, which shows
conclusively that trichinosis is a scarecrow, which has been made too
much of.
We also expressed the apprehension that the Chamber of Deputies at Paris
would take offense at being placed by the government on the same level
with American corporations, [Page 151] or
even with the petty legislatures of separate States, with which it is
proposed to treat (and not with the American Congress) for licensing as
experts those persons in America whose duty it will be to issue
certificates of the wholesomeness of such provisions as they may agree
to admit into France.
But it would appear, unfortunately, that such appointments as experts are
contrary to the laws of the United States, as we are informed by a
friend and correspondent, who is a well-known jurist and was, at one
time, a United States judge:
“I call your attention to the text of the law as proposed, which will
require the exporter to produce an inspection certificate from this side
to identify the soundness of the provisions. It will be exceedingly
difficult, if not impossible, to comply with such a requirement, for the
simple reason that in this State and in Pennsylvania, if not in all the
other States of the Union, there are no authorized legal inspectors.
“It is a matter of history that the inspection laws, formerly existing in
this country, requiring the inspection of exports and brands of the
board, on casks, barrels, or. packages, hurt the sale of the article in
the foreign market.
“It is unnecessary to detail the reason, but the abuse was so flagrant
that in New York the constitution of the State forbids forever the
appointment of inspectors or boards of inspection; and so it is in
Pennsylvania.
“Whence is the exporter to obtain the inspection certificates demanded by
the French law? In this country the purchaser must look out for himself.
He has no other protection than the punishment of the person who
knowingly sells putrid or-unwholesome food.
“It is otherwise in France and other foreign countries, whose governments
deem it their duty to add to the common law requirements and a priori evidence that the article offered is
sound.
“It is supposed that perhaps an inspection in the interior, or the place
of manufacture, say at Cincinnati or at Chicago, &c., by private
parties would be sufficient.
“This is a delusive idea. The French bill requires the inspection by a
competent, impartial, and disinterested expert authorized by the local
government; but, whilst there may be voluntary inspectors, they are not
the class to which France looks for the protection of the lives and
health of its inhabitants.
“In the next place, neither of these centers is the point of export. The
shipment to France is made here in vessels loading at this port, but
pending the transit from the interior to the shipboard, on which the
package will leave this country, there are so many opportunities of
fraudulent marks, substitution of packages, and other tricks of trade
that the original certificate, if in all respects correct, would not be
proof of the indentity of the article finally consigned to Havre. Nor
will the French consular certificate of authenticity of signature,
&c., be of any avail. The French market still regrets with sorrow
the certificate of authenticity of the signature to a document,
pretending to emanate from authority, that Fremont’s notorious Memphis
and El Paso Railroad was a duly recognized and saleable stock at the
regular New York Stock Exchange—a paper by which millions of French
money were gathered for an unsafe and judicially fraudulent stock.
“The only remedy for the free export of meat and provisions from here to
France is the absolute and unconditional repeal of the existing
ordinance. The Chamber will not permit a change which can easily be
evaded by illegitimate means. Will it permit a trade in natural course?
This is the question.”
As we go to press we find the following dispatch published in all the New
York papers to-day (January 27), with displayed headings:
fifteen persons
poisoned—trichinosis caused by eating raw ham—three fatal
cases.
Marshall, Minn., January 26.
Great excitement has been caused here by trichinæ poisoning from
eating raw ham.
Fifteen prominent citizens are afflicted, and three have died. An
entire family, consisting of Mr. and Mrs.——— ———, &c.,
&c.
Names and details are given, all which seems flatly to contradict
those sanguine persons who, like ourselves persistently maintain
that the French Government ought to withdraw the prohibitive
decree. It shows, at any rate, that the cases of trichinosis
mentioned by us in our last number were not at all exaggerated.
We say again that these are special and particular cases, and
that they prove nothing in a general way. It should be noted
that in the above instance those who died had eaten raw ham.
In France it is always eaten cooked. Hence
there is no cause for alarm. No uneasiness need be felt either
about the lard in cans, prepared or purchased in quantities by
leading speculators, such as Messrs. Armour, Fowler, &c.,
which they introduee in a roundabout way into France, where it
is consumed without apprehension or suspicion of its American
origin.
[Extract from the American Correspondence
of February 11, 1882.]
speculation and trichinosis.
The movement to bring about a withdrawal of the decrees prohibiting the
importation of American provisions into Europe, and particularly into
France, continues to be carried on under unfavorable circumstances. As
the American Correspondence has been predicting for a year past, the
results have hitherto been negative. Matters are even worse at present,
because speculation has thrust itself so deeply into this question,
which Mr. Levi P. Morton, the American minister, is trying so
strenuously to settle, because he knows what privations the laboring
classes in Europe and what losses the American cattle-raisers are
suffering, by reason of the prohibitive decrees. But the large
speculators do not care much for that. Operators for a rise have
published in certain papers that the decree had been abrogated in France
by the Chamber, simply because a bill has been introduced by the
government, which will soon be buried out of sight, if people believe in
France the exaggerated accounts of trichinosis published in certain
other papers, under sensational headings, like the following:
the poisoned family—the agony
endured by the jaegers at fort wayne, ind.
[Official dispatch to the Evening Telegram.]
Fort Wayne, February 9.
The News says, with reference to the Jaeger family, five in
number, who are suffering from trichinæ poisoning:
“They suffer intensely. No immediate danger is anticipated, but
their ultimate recovery is doubtful. The girl, aged fifteen, and
her sister, aged five, are in a very bad condition. No hopes are
entertained of their recovery. The balance may survive. The
oldest child was working in the country and came home to wait on
the family, and ate once of the diseased meat. She has a very
mild form of trichinosis.”
It will be observed that this does not refer to the same case as
that of which we deemed it our duty to publish the true
particulars, because they had been too much magnified by some
papers. These exaggerations originate with the bear speculators,
who are well aware that if they should only hear in France of
any new cases of trichinosis in this country, they would never
venture to withdraw the prohibitive decrees. For this reason we
desire to caution the French public and government once more not
to attach any credit to exaggerated accounts like the above.