The weekly Thibodaux sentinel and journal of the 8th Senatorial District. [volume] (Thibodaux, Lna. [i.e. La.]) 1875-1898, 1897-10-30
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

Our esteemed contemporary, the
Douallsnnville Chief, devntts much "f
the editorial space ct its last issue To
a discussion of the withdrawal of their
assent by the health authorities Of
Lafourche to the resolutions adopted
at the late conference held IN this
town, in so far as it relates to the nd
! missiua of inmates from the camp of
detention at Avnndale. Tojndge from
the tone and language Of the Chief in
discussing the matter, one would think
that some great question: of state was
invo.vea. or that we'll known princi-
Piles of diplomacy had been tiagrantly
violated, To the great harm and injury
of the good people OF the parish Of
| Ascensinn. III truth and il FACT, no
question Of state il involved, nor has
any principle been violated, nor harm
ur imj,iry done 1" the people of Ascen.
sion.
| The truth Of the natter is, that IL
conferenc. at health officers ot the
parishes Of Ascension. Assumption,
Lafnurche and I'errebonne was called
tn meet in tins town to discuss the
quarantine III general, and not for the
special purpose of determining Yheth-
~ persons detained in camps of disin-
lection should be admitted. Among
other questions presented was that
Of admitting such persons, and upon
this point it was
"Resolved, That it is the sense of
this conference that the parishes here
in represented can safely admit to
their borders persons holding certiti-
Gates Of discharge from detention
camps under the supervision of the
United States Marine Hospital Corps.
and coming directly from said camps
after a detention therein of not less
than twelve days"
For reasons which are gi"en III full
in u communication OF d.. Stark, ad-
dressed to the Times Democrat, and
reproduced in this issue of u paper,
the health authorities of Lafourche
have siuce withdrawn their assent to
this resolution, and refused to admit
persons coming from such camps, and
at once notified the parties to the con-
ference of this action. If the reasons
assigned for the withdrawal are sufi-
cientt to the health authorities of La
tnurche, what tight to complain have
our Ascension friendsf The action of
Lafunrche in no wise interferes with
the right of Ascension to admit per-
sons from the camps. Possibly such
action may have had II moral influence
by which the public confidence In the
efficacy of the work of the camp has
been lessened, but we submit that if
the Laf0nrche authorities reached the
honest conclusion that they had Inju-
aiciously. not to say wrongly, resolved
that it was safe to admit persons from
such camp, it was their bounden duty,
net only to their people but.to the
world, to at once withdraw their
assent from such resolution, and to
publicly proclaim the fact Of with
drawal. 70 have acted otherwise
would have been criminal. The Chief
is kind enough to insinuate that the
L%afuurct.e authorities have displayed
ignorance in the matter, and that their
action springs from that source; i: is
hardly necessary to defend the author
tiles on this score before the people OF
this parish. Besides, the talented ed
Itor of the Chief is n layman, and con-
sequently eminently qualified { crit
else physicians in matters OF scientific
sanitation. But, be that as it NAV.
even c%onceding that authorities
reached their conclusion from Grass
ignorance of the subject matter, it was
nevertheless their duty to recede from
the position taken in conference, the
moment they became convinced O
the error of that position. Not
even a tender consideration for tn.
feelings of the Ascension authorities,
or for the loss of their valuable time
and the heavy expenses incurred by
them III coming to our little city ITO
which they will always be welcOme)
could excuse the Lafonrche authorities
from the discharge of that imperative
duty.
But what has the Chief to say now
that Terrebonne has followed the ex.
ample Of Lafourche in this matter. and
refuses to receive persons from the de-
~tention camp? What has it to say to
the action of its W parish in frs
refusing to admit such persons, and
then modifying it's assent TO the reso-
l%utions Ivy imposing an additional con
dition to their admission ? Does not
the action Of our sister parishes
confiim the wisdom of the action o.
the Latourehe authorities?
Truly, it seem:s to us to be a case 81
where our amiable confrere of the
Chief allowed lis zeal to run away
with bis Judgment, and lie now finds
himself in the %equivocal attitude oil
one who talked too soon, if not toe
much. We must do our confrere the