The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-05-11
A BITTER CRITICISM.

Some days ago The Advertiser had something to say regarding the mista- ken policy pursued by some of the doc tors health officials and newspapers in California in trying to hide the fact that there had been cases of bubonic plague in San Francisco. In a recent issue of The Sacramento Bee there is which points out the injury done the State by suppressing the truth, and two extracts from the editorial may not be uninteresting. Quoting the state effect that there had been doubt about the existence of the disease in that city The Bee says:
 No expert at any time has ever declared there was not plague in San Francisco. Every bacteriologist who has ever ex- amined into the matter has had no hesi- tation in proclaiming the fact. The ableet plague experts in the United States sent to San Francisco by the Government, not only reported that plague existed there, but stated that its own members had dis covered six cases. The State Medical So- ciety has averred it in State Convention There is not reputable physician in California today who will dare 10 declare before body of medical men hat there has not been plague in San Francisco.
 That is certainly caustic language, but it isn't the worst. The Bee states that people in other States and cities have exhibited much distrust of Cali fornia and thus tells the cause of such dlstrust:
 Because her officials and her newspa- peN have lied; because .cey have riu- craNinated in the face of danger; be- cause. in place of taking measures to eradicate the disease. the officials for months did nothing: because the Health Boards of other States would noN believe the Governor of California and it's State Board of Health under oath; because, in the very face of incontrovertible evidence this idiotic campaign of lying has con- tinued until other States are forced tC believe that there must be terrible state of affairs in California, or else the newspapers ana officials would no have lied so shamelessiy in the very faet of facts which no intelligent man could controvcrt and no honest man would deny.
 We do not know of our own knowl- edge that these criticisms of The Bee severe as they are. are justifiable, but we do know that some of the newspa- pers of San Francisco have persistent Ky and continually denied that plague existed in that city. We know, further that only a short while ago the State Medical Board of California sent out an offioial statement that cases of bu- bonic plague existed in San Francisco and that the disease had been there for months. This much we learn from good authority in support of The Bees denunciatory language.
 Taking the facts as they seem to be established. there is no defence for the course pursued by health officials and public journals in San Francisco. The publication of the facts might have worked some slight financial injury tc the city. by defiecting some trade travel and patronage from it, and tha purely selfish reason is the only ont which can be given for suppressing the facts. There would have been some de- crease in the number of visitors. some falling off in the volume of trade. anC some natural hesitation in buying ol receiving some classes of merchandise from the city. and these. so far as wt can see, are the only considerations which have governed the action oi those whose duty it was to ascertain