The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-11-11

ination of the tonsils in the case?"
Yes, sir, made thorough examina-
ton. I went through all the steps
which are described in that article and
which I don't think look well in print
and I applied many other tests.
never went there with DR.. Graves but
I saw the case twelve hours before the
other physicians and I think 1 dag
nosed the case correctly. AS to the
presence of membrane on the tonsils 1T
is found in anginosed scariatin sore
throat just as much as in diptheretlc
sore throat and without the use of the
microscope L defy any physician in
Ogden to tell the difference. There are
many other points of similarity.
"Were the family satisfied with your
diagnosis?"
You are misled by that article. 1
did not go there at the request of the
family. I went at the request of the
health officials to investigate the cause
of the disease. I went gratuitously
and I testified frankly before the board
of education. I did not expect to have
such an injustice done me as is certain
ly done in that report but l can stand
it; it's all in professional lifetime. If
you wish l can show you authorities OF
world wide repute here in my library
which substantiate my diagnosis"
The reporter assured the doctor that
his word was sufficient and went to see
DR.. Gordon
He said:
81 went there at the request of the
sanitary inspector and was accompa-
MED by him. DR.. Rich was there at
the same time. On examination we
found swollen glands and a dense mem
| brane covering the tonsils and pharnyX.
Not having a history of the case we
pronounced diphtheria.'
LAS the Standard report has it other
physicians pronounced it scarlatina.
How does that Gomez
There is a form of scarlatina-the
anginose form-Which cannot be dis
tinguished from diphtheria so far as the
throat symptoms are concerned; but
| this form is seldom seen. Furthermore,
this case might have been scralatina
complicated with diphtheria. The main
point. however, so far as the public is
concerned, was whether the disease was
a contagious one or not. l am sure
there was no intention on our part to
give an opinion that would in any way
reflect on DR.. Conroy."
A T. Richie, of Richie Bros, had this
to say about their part in the para
graph quoted:
THE little girl died about o'clock
in the evening. The body was cleansed
and embalmed and antiseptics used
germs of either scarlet fever or diph-
liberia. There was not a particle of
odor about the body that any of us
could detect even before the body was
embalmed. AS to the G. A. R. COM
rades being alarmed over the odor Of
the body. 1 did not know any
thing about it. None Of them
knew that the body was here
so far as l know. They made no COM
plants about it in my hearing. To
further show the inaccuracy of the
article here is the burial permit of the
child. Her name was not simply
Edith Myrtle, but Myrtle Edith Welch,
and she was years old not 49,
Councilman H. C. Wardleigh, who
was present at the G.. A. r. services
referred to was seen by The Herald
man and said that there was no
alarm whatever that he knew of
among the members present. Certain
ly there was none expressed. He was
present through the enGire services and
said that few if any knew of the pres
ence of the other body and if they
did they knew it from being told and
not from any odor