Exiled to California 111

Chapter Seven

Exiled to California

S

ternberg engaged in various bacteriological projects for the National Board 

of Health (NBH) during the spring and summer of 1881. The highly virulent 

Streptococcus pneumoniae was an excellent subject for disinfectant efficacy 

studies, and he tested it against several nongaseous disinfectants in the laboratory at Johns Hopkins University. Through H. Newell Martin he obtained anthrax 

spores from British physiologist and pathologist, Dr. John Scott Burdon-Sanderson, raised his own colonies of anthrax, and made photomicrographs of the deadly 

bacillus. He also studied the micrococci of diphtheria and gonorrhea, and evaluated and described some of the normal microbial flora found in the human urinary and 

gastrointestinal tracts. Louis Pasteur’s research had shown that micrococci, which 

normally inhabit the distal portion of the male urethra, were responsible for the 

decomposition of a urine sample over time. Joseph Lister had demonstrated urine 

taken from a healthy bladder was sterile and remained sterile if not inoculated with 

bacteria from some external source. Considering these two facts, Sternberg collected first flow and mid-stream urine samples in sterile flasks and observed them 

for turbidity indicative of microbial growth. While the first flow samples always 

became turbid with micrococci, variable results were obtained with mid-stream collections. He modified the collection procedure by disinfecting the penile tip—his 

own—with a 3 percent carbolic acid solution before collection. All of these samples remained transparent. For the first time, the value of the “clean catch” urine 

specimen was demonstrated and reported to physicians. Sternberg commented, 

however, that the application of carbolic acid to tender mucous membranes “produced some pain, and a little soreness upon passing urine was felt for two or three 

days.”1

In “A Contribution to the Study of the Bacterial Organisms Commonly Found 

upon Exposed Mucous Surfaces and in the Alimentary Canal of Healthy Individuals,” Sternberg identified, described, and photographed commensal organisms in 

the oral cavity and alimentary tract. This paper was a succinct distillation of his 
112 The Life and Science of Surgeon General George Miller Sternberg 

thoughts, ideas, and laboratory techniques. It was presented in a readable literary 

style and illustrated two of his most valuable assets as a scientist: 

1. the intellectual ability to absorb, understand, and synthesize a continually 

increasing amount of scientific data, and to generate hypotheses that—for 

the time—were remarkably accurate; and 

2. the technical creativity and manual dexterity to solve methodological problems at the laboratory bench.

The importance of these studies was clearly evident to him. “That there are many 

widely distributed forms (species?) which are ordinarily harmless.... It is evident 

that a precise knowledge of the morphology and development...of these common forms is an essential prerequisite to the recognition of unusual forms and to 

the...study of...such forms to any particular disease with which they may be 

found associated.”2 Sternberg suggested that these common bacteria were not 

merely parasites, but also played a vital role in the human body’s daily functions. 

Under certain conditions, pathogenic organisms could overwhelm the body’s 

resisting power and displace this normal flora, and he perceived the degree of 

virulence of an organism was directly related to the route of entry into the body, 

a proper environment for growth, and the organism’s ability to multiply rapidly. Concerning this resisting power, he noted, “It has occurred to me that possibly the 

white corpuscles may have the office of picking up and digesting bacterial organisms when...they find their way into the blood. The propensity exhibited by the 

leucocytes for picking up inorganic granules is well known, and that they may...

assimilate, and so dispose of...bacteria...does not seem to me very improbable in 

view of the fact that amoebae, which resemble them so closely, feed upon bacteria 

and similar organisms.”3 Sternberg would add little to this preliminary hypothesis 

in his book Bacteria; however, he boldly suggested his precedence for asserting 

this idea, worked out by Elie Metchnikoff in 1883, in later years.4

A skilled lab bench technician, Sternberg developed a method for ensuring the 

sterility of liquid culture media. Using quarter-inch glass tubing and a foot-operated 

bellows or Bunsen burner, he manufactured small bulbs with elongated necks that 

could be filled with whatever liquid media he desired, heat sealed, and then sterilized 

in a bath of oil, paraffin, or concentrated salt solution. By using these “Sternberg 

tubes,” as they became known, he could maintain the sterility of his solutions 

indefinitely. This was an advantage over Pasteur’s flasks and even Robert Koch’s new 

plating techniques, and he could always have media at hand because of the easy 

transportability of the tubes.5

At Johns Hopkins, he was comfortably ensconced in the academia of one of 

America’s most progressive institutions. But more than bacterial cultures would 

soon be incubating in the laboratory. In December 1879, Dr. James Cabell, president 

of the NBH, asked Dr. John W. Mallet, professor of general and industrial chemistry at the University of Virginia, to plan a series of water analysis studies. The 

board liked the plan, approved funding, and authorized Mallet to begin work. Like 

his friend and colleague Cabell, Mallet worked and directed his assistants from the 
Exiled to California 113

university in Charlottesville. As the water analysis project progressed, Mallet requested bacteriological support. Initially, Doctors Martin and Edward M. 

Hartwell provided this support, but Sternberg replaced Martin at the beginning 

of March 1881 when the latter was called away. For unknown reasons, Mallet also 

wanted to conduct certain yellow fever experiments in the Baltimore laboratory, 

and he probably thought that since Sternberg was an authority on the subject and 

now a part of his team, he would be glad to participate. But differences between 

Sternberg and Mallet regarding the experimental methods soon developed. Sternberg 

strongly disagreed with Mallet’s approach and said so. He also offered to go to 

a quarantine station, presumably to conduct the experiments, but Mallet never 

responded to the suggestion. By July, this initially professional struggle had degenerated into a largely personal tug-of-war over scientific jurisdiction and control. 

Mallet finally informed Sternberg that he accepted full responsibility for such 

experiments, and the laboratory was to proceed with them.6

Sternberg interpreted the directive as an indication that Mallet regarded him 

in a subordinate capacity. It is doubtful whether the professor could have said or 

done anything that would have provoked Sternberg’s sense of professional position, pride, and dignity more than to suggest such a relationship. It appears, too, 

that this may not have been the first instance in which Mallet gave the major less 

respect than he thought he was due. In a letter written to Dr. Thomas Turner, 

secretary of the NBH, Sternberg stated, “I can not doubt that the earnest remonstrance made by me when Prof Mallet first proposed that experiments with yellow 

fever material should be made in Baltimore, if made by Dr. Martin would have 

induced him to abandon the scheme at once.... He took the ground that I was not 

the equal of Prof Martin & himself but his subordinate. I freely admit that Prof 

Martin is my superior as a physiologist & Dr. Mallet as a Chemist, but do not 

admit that the title of Surgeon U.S. Army is in any way inferior to that of Professor 

of Chemistry or of Physiology....”7 Sternberg quickly communicated this slight to 

Cabell hoping that the board president would adjudicate the situation in his favor. 

Whether Cabell was dutifully closing ranks with a university colleague or just 

remaining above the fray is unclear, but his return telegram made it obvious that 

he also considered Sternberg in a subordinate role: “Apply to Mallet, whatever he 

agrees to will be acceptable to me, but his directions must govern you.”8 Sternberg 

was furious and immediately tendered his resignation from the board to the army 

adjutant general.9

He regained his composure enough on the following day, July 18, to write a 

civil letter to Cabell explaining his proposed methods for conducting the yellow 

fever experiments. This correspondence has not survived, but whatever was said 

stimulated Cabell to ask Mallet to consider a compromise. Sternberg received this 

word from the NBH president, and a note from Mallet that declined any experimental compromise on July 19, after returning from a meeting with Turner in 

Washington to insist his request for relief was forwarded. Sternberg told Cabell, 

“This action was grounded upon your telegram of July 17th.... This telegram placing me directly under the orders of Dr. Mallet made it necessary for me to apply to 
114 The Life and Science of Surgeon General George Miller Sternberg 

be detached from this duty as I am unwilling to serve the Board in a subordinate 

capacity. Some of the younger members of the Medical Corps may not feel as I do, 

in this matter, but being a surgeon of twenty years service & having occupied many 

responsible positions I much prefer my army duties to any subordinate position 

with the Board of Health. I was quite willing to aid Dr. Mallet as Prof Martin’s substitute during his absence, and have made every effort to carry out his wishes, but 

I judge...he considers me under his immediate orders while it had not occurred to 

me that such was your intention until I received your telegram.”10 In conclusion, 

Sternberg thanked him for the “kind and liberal treatment [he] had received...up 

to the time you consented to sacrifice my interests upon the altar of Dr. Mallet’s 

yellow fever experiments. I can not help thinking that this was done without a full 

knowledge of the circumstances & if I have done you an injustice by drawing too 

hasty a conclusion I ask you pardon.”11

Sternberg’s abrupt resignation caught the Surgeon General’s Office by surprise. 

Colonel Crane’s immediate response was to table the document for a couple of 

weeks to allow time to sort out the situation. In the meantime, he told Sternberg to 

take a trip to the beach to cool off. Sternberg dutifully packed up Martha, and they 

spent the next week in Asbury Park, New Jersey. But if Crane thought a few days 

of ocean air and sea bathing would put Sternberg in a more conciliatory mood, 

he did not know Levi Sternberg’s son very well. Sternberg commented that they 

enjoyed the seashore, but he remained preoccupied with the current issue and 

soon became restless with the imposed inactivity. He wrote a farewell to the NBH 

on July 26 just before leaving Asbury Park. He asked the board’s secretary to 

explain to the membership his reasons for leaving and stated, “I should be sorry to 

be considered ungrateful for past favors or to lose the good opinion of my friends 

in the Board & I desire to acknowledge my high appreciation of the consideration 

with which I have been treated during the two years I have been in the service of 

the Board.... I have never been willing to occupy the position of handy man to be 

called upon when needed for miscellaneous work, but have looked upon myself 

as an earnest & industrious worker in the difficult paths of experimental investigation by which we hope eventually to shed some light upon the unsolved problems 

relating to the etiology of epidemic & infectious diseases.”12 He also sent a courtesy 

copy of this letter to Crane. The matter was settled in Sternberg’s mind, and he was 

ready for a new assignment. He hinted to Crane he “would be admirably situated 

for pursuing my studies & experimental researches if stationed at Fort McHenry 

as I would have the use of the library & laboratory at Johns Hopkins,” but then excused himself as he did not know the practicality of the idea or “how far the Surgeon 

General will be disposed to favor me in my desire to continue my experimental 

studies.”13 Over the next five days, however, it appears that the board attempted to 

reconcile the issue in Sternberg’s favor. Sternberg again wrote to Crane asking for 

advice on what he should do if the board asked him to return. He was not only 

willing to consider what they offered, but also ready to accept it, unless Crane 

could give him “a station where I can settle down for two or three years & where I 

will have some facilities for prosecuting the experimental studies in which I am 
Exiled to California 115

interested....”14 Crane replied tersely, “I do not believe you can properly recede 

from the position you have taken and my advice, is, that you do nothing! This 

is the best time for you to dissolve your connection with the ‘National Board of 

Health,’ and resume your legitimate duties as a medical officer of the army. As 

soon as the matter can be discussed with the Surgeon General I will inform you 

of the assignment which will be made for your further station.”15 The deputy surgeon general had lost patience with Sternberg and the idea of his assignment to 

the NBH. For reasons unknown, the discussions to keep Sternberg with the NBH 

rapidly unraveled, and the surgeon general—very likely on Crane’s recommendation—was not inclined to grant him any favors or concessions concerning his next 

assignment. On August 10, Major Sternberg was relieved from duty with the NBH 

and assigned to Fort Mason in the Department of California.16

The scant historical evidence available concerning this incident makes it difficult to clearly understand all of the personal and professional factors involved. 

Certain tentative conclusions may be drawn when the affair is observed on a 

broader scope. Sternberg was a respected soldier and physician with 20 years of 

exceptionally active service. At this point in his career, by today’s standards, he 

would have held the rank of colonel in a hospital command or senior medical 

staff position. His interests in science led him very early in his career down an 

unknown path—and one considered essentially useless—by the majority of his 

Medical Corps colleagues. Combat record aside, Sternberg was an oddity, something of an outcast in the army medical community of the time, but he persevered 

with his work and convictions until technological advancements in science and 

medicine demonstrated he was not as far out in left field as perceived. His clinical 

and epidemiological studies on yellow fever and skills as a microscopist gained the 

attention of the national medical community, and his laboratory investigations in 

Cuba solidified his position as an expert on the disease and as a laboratory scientist. By late 1879, Sternberg clearly recognized his status and expected to receive the 

respect to which this entitled him. From his active involvement with the American 

Public Health Association (APHA), it appears that he was accorded this respect 

from his colleagues in that organization. However, university faculty members, 

who considered themselves professional academicians, may have regarded him 

as a part-time scientist, or an upstart military surgeon with an over-inflated ego. 

Sternberg saw himself as a very serious medical scientist and academician. 

Yellow fever research had brought him to the NBH, and—justified or not—he felt 

a keen sense of ownership over any research bearing on the disease. When Mallet 

proposed conducting yellow fever experiments without Sternberg’s blessing, he 

encroached on the army scientist’s perceived territory and authority. His desire 

to be treated in a professional manner was understandable, yet Sternberg’s vanity 

overcame his own professional standards and good sense in resolving the conflict, 

not only with Mallet, but also with the surgeon general. He kept the Surgeon General’s Office fully informed about the status of the affair and expected support from 

this quarter. But he failed to consider the political impact his resignation would 

have on an organization struggling to establish its credibility in Washington, and 
116 The Life and Science of Surgeon General George Miller Sternberg 

how it would reflect on the Medical Department. The Army and the Medical 

Department had supported Sternberg’s special assignment to the NBH because of 

his superb abilities as a laboratory scientist. It was expected that his performance 

would reflect well on the army and Medical Department, and be their endorsement of the new health agency (the NBH). For Sternberg to unilaterally back out 

because he could not get along with his fellow scientists appeared as dissension 

within the board and only fueled the fire of antagonism the organization was facing 

on Capitol Hill. Barnes may also have been personally irritated with his decision. 

He had been listening to Sternberg complain for years about the importance of 

his research, and the difficulty to pursue it with little support from the Medical 

Department. The surgeon general had assisted in giving him the opportunity and 

support he had wanted for so long, but now Sternberg wanted to quit over an issue 

that was—when considered in the larger scheme—minor. He then had the audacity 

to suggest where his next assignment should be so he could continue the same 

research and requested the NBH loan him the necessary equipment. Barnes was in 

no humor to do Sternberg any favors, a fact reflected in the assignment he selected. 

By ordering him to the Department of California, Barnes essentially exiled him to 

do penance in a scientific desert for being so stubborn and intractable.17

If Sternberg was depressed or felt any remorse over the Mallet affair, as he and 

Martha rode the train west once again, it was only temporary. “The order relieving 

him from his experimental work in the East might have been so discouraging for 

many men that they would have given up the self-imposed task,” Mrs. Sternberg 

noted, “but such was not the case with him.”18 With Crane’s approval, they stopped 

briefly in Cincinnati, where Sternberg read his paper on common alimentary 

organisms to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, before 

proceeding to Indianapolis and then Ellsworth in late August.19

In early September, the Sternbergs were situated in their new quarters at Fort 

Mason on Point San Jose in San Francisco, which was “a charming little house on 

the side of a high bluff, overlooking the bay,” according to Mrs. Sternberg.20 As 

usual, her husband quickly fashioned a laboratory in their home. To furnish it, he 

applied—through Crane to the surgeon general—for microscopical equipment. It 

probably came as no surprise that the request was denied. “I presume...you have 

learned from Genl Crane that the Surgeon General disapproves your application 

for microscopical apparatus. For this I am personally sorry,” wrote a sympathetic 

Joseph Woodward. “I may mention that General Crane showed me your application and asked me what I thought of it. I told him that I hoped it would be granted 

and believed you would make good use of the apparatus.”21 Sternberg was not to be 

denied by his disgruntled chief, so he purchased the equipment himself.

In addition to Sternberg’s clinical duties and participation on various army evaluation boards, he found time to pursue science and literary endeavors. He wrote 

Photomicrographs and How to Make Them, a handbook for the novice photomicrographer and one of the earliest instructional texts on the subject. Sternberg 

provided complete and concise directions on how to collect, stain, and mount bacteria for photographing. He believed—as Koch did—that when the subject was 
Exiled to California 117

appropriate, photomicrographs were superior to drawings and should be made 

and used as proof in scientific investigations. Although the San Francisco 

posting had made his scientific pursuits more difficult, it does not appear that 

they were significantly impeded. His laboratory work, although conducted under 

more austere conditions, was a continuation of the ever-broadening bacteriological 

research he had conducted in Baltimore. In retrospect, the time he spent with the 

NBH had tremendously influenced the direction of his career as a bacteriologist 

and medical scientist. Sternberg became the first laboratory authority in the United 

States to confirm new discoveries in bacteriology. Mrs. Sternberg commented 

more than once that it was a shame so much of her husband’s time was engaged in 

confirming the observations of others. In reality, Sternberg’s technical skills, interests, and objectivity and conservatism as a scientist placed him in this role, one he 

considered critical for medical science advancement. His attempts to demonstrate 

the gonococcus of Albert Neisser and the tubercle bacillus using Koch’s method 

from the spring to the fall of 1882 illustrate these points very well.22

Neisser, a young dermatologist and bacteriologist in Breslau, had demonstrated the 

gonococcus in urethral discharges of male and female patients suffering from purulent 

urethritis and in infants with blennorrhea neonatorum in 1879.23 Although he did not 

prove cause and effect, the gonococcus immediately joined the list of specific bacterial 

disease agents. Sternberg’s interest in the gonococcus originated in Baltimore in 1881, 

after his yellow fever and malarial research was temporarily halted. In 1882, presumably using the methyl-violet staining method advocated by Neisser, Sternberg found 

plenty of micrococci in gonorrheal discharges, but identified them as Micrococcus 

ureae, a common commensal organism of the distal male urinary tract. He conducted 

culture and inoculation experiments anyway, and his commentary on these experiments provided valuable and interesting insight concerning his scientific philosophy 

and methods, and the state of medical research. He initiated his work with culture and 

inoculation experiments with specimens from a case of gonorrhea diagnosed in a soldier at Fort Mason. Unable to produce the disease in dogs or find any willing subjects 

through bribery, he obtained male volunteers through Dr. Joseph O. Hirschfelder at 

the San Francisco City and County Hospital.24 According to Sternberg, “These patients 

consented...with a full knowledge of the possible results, from a desire to please their 

doctor, and under the promise of [a] speedy cure [italics mine] and a suitable recompense in case of successful inoculation.”25

The ethical implications of such experimentation are glaring today, but in 1882 

modern experimental medicine was in its infancy. Ethical responsibility for medical 

experimentation devolved upon the moral character of the individual physician. No 

sanctioned ethical code for medical experimentation existed, and the only guidance 

for appropriate human experimentation came from Claude Bernard who wrote: “It 

is our duty and right to perform an experiment on man whenever it can save his life, 

cure him or gain him some personal benefit. The principle of medical and surgical 

morality, therefore, consists in never performing on man an experiment which might 

be harmful to him to any extent, even though the result might be highly advantageous 

to science, that is, to the health of others.”26
118 The Life and Science of Surgeon General George Miller Sternberg 

Hirschfelder’s volunteers consisted of three bedridden patients who suffered 

from end-stage diseases. Their desire to please Hirschfelder and need for compensation cannot be assessed, but probably influenced their decision significantly. 

Although Sternberg did obtain what he considered informed consent, it is questionable how much of his explanation they understood. That he truly believed 

cure was possible—using urethral injections of mercuric bichloride or zinc sulfate 

solutions—is confirmed by the fact that he swabbed his own urethra with gonorrheal cultures during his research. No cases were forthcoming, but by comparing 

M ureae to the septic micrococcus (S pneumoniae) of rabbits he did show—to 

his satisfaction anyway—that structural and functional differences do exist among 

bacteria. It was, therefore, possible to develop a taxonomic categorization of these 

organisms as advocated by Ferdinand Cohn and Koch. Confident that he had 

made no technical errors, Sternberg wrote about his results. In the introduction of 

this report, he cautioned his colleagues to maintain “a proper scientific conservatism” and not rush to embrace the idea that all infectious diseases were caused by 

specific microorganisms.27 This last statement is incongruous today, but in 1882 

it was plausible because the nature of infection and infectious disease was just 

beginning to be elucidated. Sternberg concluded that Neisser was wrong to claim 

that his organism could be differentiated from other micrococci by morphological 

characteristics and that the gonococcus and M ureae were the same organism.28

On March 24, 1882, Koch demonstrated the tubercle bacillus for the first time 

to colleagues in Berlin.29 His work was published on April 10. By late May, Sternberg 

had read the abstracts of Koch’s work and conducted his own examinations of 

tuberculous material obtained from Hirschfelder. For the next 10 weeks, he 

was repeatedly frustrated by his failure to find the bacillus using Koch’s or Paul 

Baumgarten’s staining methods. He was not alone. Other American and European 

physicians also found Koch’s method too difficult to manage, which led to skepticism and outright disbelief in the German discovery. Sternberg never mastered 

Koch’s technique, but on August 8, he finally demonstrated the bacillus in 

postmortem lung preparations using Paul Ehrlich’s method, a variation on Koch’s 

theme, which he apparently had only become cognizant of at the beginning of 

the month. Cultivating the organism and producing disease in laboratory animals 

were difficult. Although Koch was convinced the bacillus was the specific causative agent of tuberculosis, Sternberg remained unconvinced, a fact that he wrote 

about in a five-article series in the Medical News between July and the end of 

December. His skepticism stemmed not from a lack of faith in Koch’s techniques, 

a man whose intellect and technical competence he greatly admired, but from his 

own understanding of the tubercular disease process, the variability of his repeated 

experimentation, and a healthy scientific conservatism. Tubercular nodules were 

considered to originate from a local inflammation that could be infectious or noninfectious. He was convinced of this because he had seen numerous postmortem 

sections of tubercular lungs devoid of Koch’s bacillus. While Sternberg believed 

in the validity of the germ theory of disease causation, he freely admitted that it 

did not yet rest upon a solid experimental foundation. Negative evidence from his 
Exiled to California 119

own laboratory led him to argue that Koch’s bacillus could be associated with the 

disease, but no undisputed proof of its specificity as an agent existed. Moreover, 

other bacteria apparently could produce tubercular nodules just as easily as Koch’s 

bacillus if they were situated in one of these inflammatory areas. Sternberg 

reluctantly concluded this work in October. Obtaining laboratory animals was difficult, and anti-vivisectionist sentiment—fueled by Mrs. Irvin McDowell, the garrison 

commander’s wife—was strong. Moreover, the large expenditure of time and money 

required and the lack of proper facilities had become too great a burden to continue 

such work. He returned to an old passion, disinfectants, a venture he considered 

more universally lucrative in the long run for public health and bacteriology.30

Not all of the standard disinfectant agents then on the market were equally effective. Some killed bacteria (germicides) while others only inhibited bacterial 

growth (antiseptics), and some—in concentrations or volumes practical for public 

or clinical use—had no effect on bacteria, but were good deodorizers. Some of 

these germicides were also used as therapeutic agents. Sternberg evaluated the germicidal power of many agents at different concentrations and compared his results 

with current clinical experience. His experiments performed on various micrococci demonstrated that the value of these agents depended on the concentrations 

used and the microorganisms to which they were applied.31

This series of investigations was the last he performed at Fort Mason. The year 

1883 would be a busy one for him, but at his desk and in the Surgeon General’s 

Library rather than in the laboratory. Photomicrographs and How to Make Them

and an article on malaria were published in January, the “Germicidal Value of Certain 

Therapeutic Agents” appeared in April, and he was heavily engaged in completing 

the second edition of his translation of Magnin’s Bacteria. Nevertheless, he 

accepted a request from the APHA to report on the value of experimental evidence 

of the etiology of malaria for presentation in November, and, with considerable 

hesitation, one from the William Wood Publishing Company to compose a book 

on malaria and malarial diseases. Sternberg’s complete transition from laboratory 

bench to literary endeavors—at a great distance from required resource materials—

suggests he needed a break from the laboratory, but it would be uncharacteristic of 

him not to have had a professional goal for this transition. One such goal may have 

been to establish himself as the foremost authority in bacteriology in the United 

States by writing the definitive treatise on the subject.32

Sternberg’s translation of Magnin’s work had been well received, and it was an 

instructive handbook to American bacteriologists. By 1883, its contents had become 

outdated and incomplete. In the three years since publication, technological advancements in the cultivation, recognition, staining, and attenuation of microorganisms 

were made; germicides and antiseptics were more clearly defined and understood; 

the list of pathogenic organisms grew considerably longer; and the volume of 

bacteriological literature became massive. Just as he had perceived the need for 

a basic manual on the subject, Sternberg now recognized the need to update it 

for the benefit of his colleagues. Magnin’s original work comprised only the first 

third of the second edition. The remainder originated from Sternberg, a complete, 
120 The Life and Science of Surgeon General George Miller Sternberg 

comprehensive, detailed, and thoroughly understandable tour de force in bacteriology. Probably no other scientist in America—perhaps even in the world—had so 

universal an understanding of this field in 1883, the intellectual ability to synthesize 

and condense this knowledge, and the literary skills to put it on paper. In producing 

a second edition of Bacteria, he ensured that his name and ideas were associated 

with the most current bacteriological knowledge and progress.

Mrs. Sternberg’s status as a widow to a man driven by science changed in style, 

but not in substance in 1883. Her biography contains no comments for this year 

until late in November. Sternberg’s personal papers also provide little information 

concerning his activities, an indication that—apart from routine post surgeon 

duties—he was consumed by his study. By the middle of August, he had completed 

the second edition of Bacteria, and on October 6, he boarded the eastbound train 

for Washington, where he immersed himself in the malaria literature available in the 

Surgeon General’s Library for the next 5 weeks. At first glance, Malaria and Malarial 

Diseases appears as another example of Sternberg’s compulsion to always have more 

work than one scientist could accomplish. A more accurate assessment is that he 

accepted the request as a challenge to write the definitive work on malarial fevers.33

In the fall of 1883, the Army Medical Museum and Surgeon General’s Library 

were about to undergo some major administrative and personnel changes. It was 

proposed that the museum and library be reorganized under one head and the current curator, surgeon David Low Huntington, be reassigned as an assistant to the 

surgeon general. How privy Sternberg was to these changes before his visit is unclear, 

but he apparently attempted to maneuver himself into the curatorship and, presumably, looked to Surgeon General Crane for support. Unfortunately, Crane, who had 

assumed the Medical Department helm from retiring Surgeon General Barnes in 

June 1882, died on October 10, 1883, and Robert Murray replaced him in November. 

Surgeon General Murray opted for John Shaw Billings to assume the combined 

museum and library duties, and Sternberg learned of Murray’s decision before he 

left Washington, DC, for the APHA meeting in Detroit. Sternberg was tremendously 

upset over Billings’ selection. His professional timing—so critical in securing choice 

assignments—had been off since his tenure with the NBH. When the museum’s 

previous curator, surgeon George A. Otis, died in February 1881, Huntington assumed the curatorship. When Joseph Woodward became ill in early 1882, Major 

Charles Smart, Sternberg’s former laboratory colleague who was still working for the 

NBH, was tapped to continue Woodward’s work on the Medical and Surgical History 

of the War of the Rebellion. Now Billings, who had been in Washington since the Civil 

War, was given the dual responsibilities of museum and library, while Sternberg languished in California.34 By the time he returned to Fort Mason, he had mulled the 

entire issue over and over again. On November 27, he prepared a lengthy missal for 

the surgeon general in which he vented his grievances:

“I would respectfully ask your attention to the following statements relating to my future career....It is my earnest desire to devote my time to scientific and literary work and especially 

to microscopical and experimental studies relating to the etiology of infectious diseases. Since 

leaving the National Board of Health, Aug. 23, 1881, I have been obliged to prosecute my 

experimental work at my own expense...in order not to drop out of sight as an investigator, 
Exiled to California 121

in a field in which I have gained some distinction. And this notwithstanding the fact that apparatus of the same kind, purchased with government money, has been for two years lying idle 

[in Washington].

 “With the experience and special training I now have and with proper facilities I...could cultivate this field still more successfully in [the] future and...by such labors accomplish more for 

humanity, for the credit of the Medical Corps of the Army, and for my own reputation than by 

continuing to perform the routine duties of an Army Surgeon. But I am satisfied that it is useless to continue my attempts in this direction...without encouragement and material assistance 

from some source.

“I find also that I labor under great difficulties in prosecuting the literary work which I have 

undertaken on account of my remoteness from libraries and from my publishers.... I would 

further respectfully represent that my Army service has been mostly at remote posts; that I have 

seen my full share of epidemics and Indian wars; that I have had but one brief tour of duty in the 

East (1870–1872); that this was broken by three changes of station and an epidemic of yellow 

fever, that when I accepted a detail as member of the Havana Yellow Fever Commission I made 

considerable sacrifices, and enlisted in the cause of scientific research; that my tour of duty with 

the National Board of Health ought not to have been counted against me as Eastern service as I 

spent the first summer in Havana and the second in New Orleans and I was only in Washington 

during the winter months for the purpose of writing my reports and recuperating my strength.

“I would further respectfully represent that two positions, which I have felt that I had some 

claim to, have been filled by the detail of officers junior to me in the service and both of whom 

had just served a tour of duty in the East. I refer to the position of Curator of the Army Medical 

Museum and to that of a member of the National Board of Health. Either of these details would 

enable me to pursue my microscopical and experimental studies and to continue my literary 

labors under favorable circumstances.”35

The sacrifices Sternberg mentions in relation to the first Havana Yellow Fever 

Commission (unless he is referring to the time he spent away from Mrs. Sternberg) 

remain obscure. Whatever sacrifices he thought he made paled in comparison to 

the recognition he received as a scientist. His complaint about a junior officer, 

Billings, being selected over him for curator must be taken in context. Sternberg 

had no personal or professional animosity toward Billings or any of the other 

museum staff members. His relationship with all of them through the years had 

been one of mutual support and cooperation. However, he felt excluded from 

a club in which he felt he had earned a place—the Mallet affair notwithstanding—but was continually denied membership. That Billings understood this—

and was thinking of Sternberg’s future—is evident in his remarks to him in a 

letter from mid-January 1884: “I am sorry that it has not been found possible to 

meet your wishes by placing you in charge of this department, but I hope I shall be 

able to help you to a part at least of what you want after a little [time?].”36 Whether 

Sternberg’s letter or Billings’ advocacy materially influenced Surgeon General 

Murray’s decision to retrieve him from the west coast can only be speculated, but 

in April 1884, Sternberg received orders to report to Governors Island, New York, 

in the Department of the East.37

The importance of Sternberg’s contributions to the field of bacteriology while in 

California has been glossed over, usually with the statement that he was the first—or 

most likely the first—scientist to demonstrate the tubercle bacillus in America, or it 
122 The Life and Science of Surgeon General George Miller Sternberg 

has been totally missed by historians and biographers. He was the first to demonstrate 

the tubercle bacillus in America. This event, however, was significant to Sternberg and 

other scientists because it validated the work of Koch and Ehrlich and, thereby, supported the existence of a tubercle bacillus, and not because he was the first American 

scientist to do so. Regrettably, the primacy of giving Sternberg a “first” at something—a 

landmark for posterity—has become the focus of his California experience and a roadblock to understanding his true intentions, goals, and accomplishments performed 

under difficult conditions. During his three-year tour at Fort Mason, he persevered 

with his laboratory and literary work upon the tubercle bacillus, a variety of micrococci, and disinfectants. All of these labors had the same two fundamental objectives: 

(1) to materially assist the development of bacteriological science through hypothesis 

testing, reproducing and verifying the work of others, and comparing their experiments with his own; and (2) to educate and mentor American scientists via the written 

word. These are the successes—the firsts he established for bacteriology in America—

for which he should be remembered. While young bacteriologists, like William Henry 

Welch, T. Mitchell Prudden, William Councilman, Herman Biggs, and others were 

studying at the feet of the masters in Germany, Sternberg was already well versed in 

the most current experimental methodology. His many theories, experimental philosophy, and laboratory techniques reached only a limited audience, however, until 

the publication of the second edition of Bacteria. This book, a culmination of all of 

his research and an objective discussion on current bacteriological issues, as well as a 

valuable laboratory manual, launched Sternberg to the forefront, established him as 

an undisputed authority in theoretical and practical bacteriology, and provided the 

groundwork for his magnum opus, a Manual of Bacteriology, published in 1893.38