The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-02-02

py the HFuptlon OF yellow fever In New Or-
leans, presented the most napntpstible facts
deserving Of the consideration III eontagor,-
tst5. New Orleans from Its foundation, It may
be repeated, had been closely connected by
geographical position, commercial inter-
course, languages, and governments, with
both nEular and continental America where
yellow fever had prevailed for centuries under
Spanish French and English rule. vet al wavs
exempt up 70 this period" Now mark care
fully what follows;
Let us suggest this postulate. Suppose
that simultaneously with the first invasion If
yellow fever, near the mouth OF the Missis-
slppi, a handful Of immigrants WHO had five
years previously arrived In the midst of n
vast wilderness. fifteen hundred miles dis
tant, In latitude 8D9 north. nearly 100 north II
New Orleans, ut O time when there were no
steamboats,, when It required several months
to reach the former by the river-I say,
suppose that yellow fever should break out
at both of these remote centres sim-
ultaneously, would 1t be fair to conclude
that personal contagion could, under
events did occur. The town Of aallipo-
lis, on the Ohio river. 3Do north
latitude, settled I'm 1891 by immigrants
from Paris. on on elevated dluvlal formation.
then In the midst Of q vast wilderness. Just
beginning to be settled was In 1896. SEVERELY
visited with yellow fever, attended with black
vomit. The late Professor Potter, of the
University OF Maryland, struck with this
remarkable Isolated epidemic (which
he used to dilate upon in
In his lecturesl, took the necessary steps to
investigate It the very next year after lis
occurrence, when Major Prior, OF the army.
an eye witness, arrived I'm Baltimore from
Gallipolis, and gave tho professor state.
ment IN writing, by which 1t appeared that
half of the garrison and many OF the French
settlers died In ten days from this maady.
This strange event In the desert excited great
surprise ut the time The army report by
the Surgeon General page q refers 30 the
Journal OF q voyage down the Ohio, In 1876,
by Mr.. A. Elliott. This iudicious observer
was witness of Gallipolis to the disease,
which ragged violently, the fatal cases being
generally attended with black vonit. THE
fever could not he says, have been taken
there from the Atlantic States, as my boat
was the first that descended tho river In the
spring. Neither could 1t have been from New
Orleans. as there IL no communication up the
river MT that season OF the year."
Thus the Surgeon General was attracted to
the yellow fever epidemic Mt the isolated spot
where Gallipols was OF that tims and quotes
an eve witness I'm the premises i'm the person
Prof. Potter received bis Information from
Major Prior, Of the army also an eye witness
of this same epidemic of yellow fever.
resume my quotations from DR.. Dowler's
pamphlet:
Orleans In 1863, the character Of which has
not been determined. yet II is highly probable
the disease was not yellow fever Before n
generation had passed away, the yellow fever
having, without doubt, appeared In 1876 as an
epidemic, the numerous writer's who asserted
that the latter year ushered In this disease
for the first time In the city could have In
formed themselves by consulting living wit
nesses as to the material facts Of the case and
would have been eontradicted had they made
erroneous statements as TO the period Of It's
A ,3,. n,,t1 tls..a - NJ
Frasaus, has been quoted by several authors
to show that IL appeared first In New Orleans
in 1896. Among these Is M. Moreau deJonnes
though from his quotation from the former
t7D6 will apply as well us 1906, while contem-
poraneous writer's agree as 10 the former.
Although NJ. Frasaus seems TO represent the
contagion party Of New Orleans long since,
his statement is important as fixing the date
Of the Eruption Of yellow fever In the city.
He says las quoted by Mpreau de Jonues,
Monographs, 1871 that In 1902 the people Of
New Orleans, among whom yellow fever had
appeared six or seven years before considered
II as OF foreign origin, that Ia. 1t had been i'm
ported from the United States (Frasaus Vue
de 10 Colonie, etc. &c. 81, Paris 1909 1t does
not seem that he was positive whether tho
first epidemic was In f795 or In 1876.
eft may be proper TO mention that the late
DR.. Drake states, on the authority OF Richard
ReIf, Esq, Of New Orleans, one Of the Oldest
and most respectable ADglo-American eiti-
zens, that yellow fever occurred, he himself
being q patient, In 1891. Dis. Valley Miss.
ioo.i 1t does not appear from this statement
whether the disease was sporadic or epldem-
ie; probably Ii was the former.
The population of the city, by the census Of
1885, was 1880. by that OF 1888, 1t was 1898
by that of 1903, It had increased to S056
1t is probable that it did not exceed G000 ut
the time yellow fever appeared in 1906. Oi
the mortality OF that year no record has been
seen by the writer. From that period to 1853
1t Is almost certain that several cases have
occurred every year In the city, often only
four or five. During 1896 the basin OF Canal
Carondelet was excavated. The main body
of the canal had been finished previously
The first epidemic from yellow fever with
respect to New Orleans, all agree then Oc
Cured In 1906 but Mr.. Richard Relfs case
at least was one Of the sporadic cases of this
disease previous to that date being attacked
in 1891, five years before. II this be conceded
and there Is no possible way OF evadiDg thu
concession, then the epidemic of an unknown
character which took place at New Orleans
in 1863 may have been yellow fever. 1t haf
prevailed, previous to 1863, in Boston, New
York. Philadelphia, Norfolk, Va, New
Haven, Conn, Providence, Il. l., in Baltimore
and in Charleston. Because the citizens OF New
Orleans did not set up general demurrer II
writing against the published statements
made in 1906, that New Orleans was then 10
the first time invaded by yellow fever, proye
nothing. What was everybodys bushes
was nobodys. Certain it was, however, tina
most credible witness, Mr.. Richard Rel
testified, and this stands on record, that h
himself had yellow fever in New Orleans i
! 1901 DIR. Bowler believes that cases Of vel
low fever have regularly prevailed here eve
| since.
| In support Of the facts related above wit
respect to the epidemic at Gallipolis, wi
add that Of 1897, which occurred Gin the re
mote West, at New Design, fifteen miles fror
the Mississippi river and twenty from "
| Louis. 1t yellow fever carried off more tina
one-fourth of the inhabitants, although n
person during the preceding twelve month
had come to this village from any place q
which the malady prevailed. AS these fact
are attested by DR.. Watkins, who had seen tn
disease in Philadelphia, and as identity {
disease supposes an identity OF cause, 1t
shown indfsputably that fever with tn
pathognomonic features Of typhus icterode
| yellow fever do occur in positions which fol
bid the assumption OF importation" (Sta
Report United States Army, 81
Very respectfully,
G. FL. TEBAULT, M. d.
|
He wouldn't BE Vulgar.
louisville Courier-Journall
There Is an exquisite beau in town who's