Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1892-07-23
A RFIoINDER.
"a ~ DodgeeiNe ClroniaIe.

did the writer the honor, in your
last issue, of denying the facts and
disparaging his conclusions there.
from, as set forth in a recent mum.
Der of the TmBuNE, he thinks that
You will concede his right to "beard
the lion in his den"
First, let it be distinctly under
stood, that he had not then, and has
not now, any "grieyance to yeut;"
that it is not his personal concern,
if people make asses of themselves
OF show themselves idiots; and that
his sole purpose in writing said artl-
Gle was TO state the facts coucisely
and thus to show the u,ter ground
lesslos- Of the marvellous stories Of
sickness and death IN our midst,
banded about by over credulous
victims of fear on the one hand,
and by unscrupulous persons ON the
other, who would thrive on the
1 profits of diverted trade. No
charge is made that you belong TO
either of these classes, although the
captions might think you an honor
airy member Of both; yet il is uu-
fortunate that your article seems to
show that you have an undesirable
talent for erroneous statement if
not for misrepresentation.
You say that no case occurred
within the territory Of the district
Of Mineral Point outside the city
limits and estimated to contain about
5000 inhabitants; or, in our own
cunoas phrase, whatever it may
mean, "that among half OF whom
no case has existed;" and you add,
"if the per cent. Of cases among
this population Of 5000 be about
three-fourtbs Of one per cent. and
about all the cases occurred in that
city with half that population, then
the per cent. would be raised to
about three per cent" DC. BY in
terpo'-.ing another II, you might
have shown a mortality of 100 per
cent. with as much truth ! Why so
modest as not to make that clam2
Is it venial otfense that you belle
the record, suppress the truth, and
interpolate hypothetical facts and
mere assumption? We may asoribe
your misstatements to either veual-
ity, Observation-Disclosures, or malice
DYepea8e. Which should it be?
Having previously gwen the facts
and igures on which his conclusions
were based, it is unnecessary for the
writer to restase them now, but this
muca may be reiterated: That
all told, only thirty,seven deaths
from diphtheria have occurred in
or near this city within a radius Of
six miles during the past year; that
Of this number, eleven occurred
outside Of the city limits and did
not originate within those bounds;
and that only twenty-six occurred
within this city. In computing
the rate of mortality it was shown
TO be nearly three-fourths Of one per
cent. for the 5000 inhabitants Of the
stated district; and if the computa-
ton be based on the population Of
the city alone, the rate would still
be only slightly greater
But the first cases were imported
from abroad aud occurred in Wald-
wick, whence the disease found its
way to this city, and it would be
obviously unfair to exclude the pop
ulation Of that town or Of any other
locality contributing cases TO the
total thirty-seyen deaths, from the
total population supplying the cases
as you 80 innocently try to do.
You further say, that if about al
the fatal cases occurred in that cily
i Why, you knew, as well as you car
know anything from authentic in
formation alone, that nearly one
third Of those cases, j. g, eleven
neither belonged to nor originated
in this city; and yet you have th'