Yellow Fever in Vera Cruz and Colon in 1882, anti the 
Louisiana State Board of Health Thereon 
in 1882 and in 1883/' 
Hy STANFORD E. CHAIElV?M. D., 
Professor Physiology and Pathological Anatomy, Medical Department 
University of Louisiana. 
On April 17th, 1882, the usual annual Quarantine Procla- 
mation was issued by the Governor of Louisiana, and, in 
compliance with the recommendation on June 8th of the State 
Board of Health, this proclamation was amended on June 
12th. Among other amendments, it was “ provided that the 
port of Vera Cruz, which is known to be at present perfectly 
healthy, shall be exempt from the effect of this proclama- 
tion until the further date of July 1st, 1882.” 
Notwithstanding the superlative strength of the words, 
“known” and “ perfectly,” sanitary authorities, other 
than the State Board, denied that this Board could have 
the knowledge which it proclaimed and therefore strongly 
condemned the above proviso as very dangerous. In 
evidence of this, one report, written immediately after the 
publication of the above proclamation, maintained the 
following views: “The history of yellow fever at Vera 
Cruz justifies the belief that this port is not “ perfectly ” 
free from the disease and that a thorough medical inspec- 
tion of its hospitals, etc., would prove that it was not 
entirely free on June 8th or on June 12th, the dates when 
the State Board and the Governor’s Proclamation pub- 
lished to the world, that “Vera Cruz is known to be at 
present perfectly healthy.” However, it is well known 
that, as it respects Vera Cruz and all ports habitually 
infected with yellow fever, it has always been easy to 
procure certificates from captains of vessels, merchants, 
doctors and even from local sanitary officers and United 
States Consuls to the effect that their port was free from 
yellow fever, when, in truth, it was only comparatively 
free. Dr. Trowbridge, United States? Consul at Vera Cruz, does not believe that yellow canffie imported 
and officers, who thus believe, cahn'ot be ex'pectfcd to be 
as cautious, skeptical and thorough in inspection as if they 
did believe in the danger of infection.” 
Soon after this, another report on the same subject 
maintained that—“ The records of yellow fever prove and 
experience in Cuba is convincing, that very great difficulty 
is encountered, even by a disinterested medical inspector, 
and even when on duty at the very port habitually in- 
fected, in determining—at times when yellow fever is not 
prevalent—that no cases exist. Ordinary evidence (from 
newspapers, merchants, captains, consuls, etc.) does not, 
in such a case, enable one to “ know ” that an habitually 
infected port is free from all cases of yellow fever, and, 
still less does such evidence enable one to “know” that 
such a port is free from the danger of exporting infection. 
In truth, there is much evidence tending to prove that, in 
habitually infected places such as is Vera Cruz, the poison 
is ever present; and that, though it may remain tem- 
porarily dormant and inappreciable, yet this dormant 
poison may be exported and, should it elsewhere find the 
conditions requisite for its revivification and growth, it may 
give rise to a pestilence even at a distant place.” 
These quotations will suffice to show the opposing views 
entertained in 1882 by the State Board on the one hand and 
by other sanitary authorities on the other hand, and also to 
show the reasons why the latter distrusted the former in 
this matter. At last in 1883 conclusive evidence has been 
presented to prove whether this distrust was well founded 
or not. In the meanwhile, it should be remembered that 
the State Board, whose political convictions as to “ State 
sovereignty” rendered the United States National Board 
of Health very offensive to it, has none the less entered into 
very close alliance with the United States Marine Hospital 
Service, and therefore that the evidence of the latter is the 
evidence of a friend. 
The Annual Report for 1883 of this friend contains, on 
pp. 387-391, a valuable report from Assistant Surgeon John 3 
Guiteras. On duty at Vara Cruz in July, 1883, Dr. Guite- 
ras reported that in 1882 fifty-eight cases of yellow fever 
were admitted to the Hospital de San Sebastian, which 
admits males only. Of course, many more cases must have 
occurred in the female population and in those numerous 
males who never become inmates of a hospital. Dr. 
Guiteras’ report further shows that there were admitted 
into this hospital actually more yellow fever patients in 1882 
than in three other of the eight years, 1875-1883 ; and he 
emphasizes the lesson often taught before, yet unheeded by 
the State Board in 1882, that “in Vera Cruz, as in Havana, 
yellow fever is an endemic disease ; it prevails every year, 
and probably there are cases of the disease in every month 
of the year.” Since this evidence renders only probable, 
but does not prove, that yellow fever was present at the 
time (June, 1882), when Vera Cruz was “known to be ” 
“ perfectly healthy,” as alleged by the State Board, it is 
necessary to present additional evidence. 
This has been recently and conclusively presented by 
Dr. Mainegra, of New Orleaus, who was employed for 
special service at Vera Cruz by the United States Marine 
Hospital Service, on the recommendation, as I am assured, 
of the State Board. The proceedings of this Board, as 
published in the Picayune of Sept. 21st, embrace a letter 
from Dr. Mainegra, dated Vera Cruz, Aug. 31st, 1883, to 
the President of the State Board. In this letter is to be 
found the very same lesson taught by Dr. Guiteras and re- 
peatedly by other authorities before as well as since the 
birth of these gentlemen. It is as follows : “ No doubt 
you are informed of the fact that yellow fever prevails here 
the year round, and nothing is said about it at all. Last 
year [1882] seventy-two deaths occurred in this city and 
port, twelve of these in the month of December, the dis- 
ease being considered very mild that year.” When one 
recalls the something, which, in June, 1882, the State 
Board “said about” yellow fever in Vera Cruz, Dr. 
Mainegra’s opening phrase, “ no doubt you are informed 4 
of the fact,” presents an unintentional example of sarcasm 
as amusing as any book of rhetoric contains. 
Having returned from his mission, additional evidence 
of importance was presented to the State Board by Dr. 
Mainegra. This, as published by the Times-Democrat of 
December 6th and the Picayune of December 6th and 7th, 
reports the following pertinent facts : “The Vera Cruz au- 
thorities have heretofore been of the opinion that yellow fever 
is not contagious, and hence report that there is no yellow 
fever prevailing.” Further, a valuable tabular statement 
of the yellow fever statistics of Vera Cruz for the years, 
1881-2-3, shows, as to 1882, that there were 72 deaths by 
yellow fever and 133 additional deaths by diseases of 
which the names are frequently misused to conceal yellow 
fever ; that there were deaths by yellow fever in every month 
of said year ; and that there were more of such deaths in 
June, the very month when the State Board proclaimed to 
to the world its knowledge that Vera Cruz was “ perfectly 
healthy,” than in any other month of the year, with only 
two insignificant exceptions. In June, 1882, there were 
11 deaths from avowed yellow fever, and 14. deaths from 
diseases by which yellow fever is frequently misnamed, thus 
implying the presence in said month of not less than from 
50 to 150 cases of yellow fever. 
On the presentation of these facts by a disinterested 
medical inspector to the State Board the member—who 
had, in June 1882, moved the dangerous proviso, exempt- 
ing Vera Cruz from quarantine because “ known to be ” 
perfectly healthy—was induced to declare to his erring 
Board, that “ these revelations were startling and import- 
ant in view of the clean bills of health and favorable state- 
ments with which the Board of Health had been imposed 
on.” 
It has already been shown that, to sanitary authorities 
other than the State Board, these revelations must have 
been anything rather than “ startling,” and that these au- 
thorities had not for an instant permitted themselves to be 
“ imposed on.” And this fact is but one among many 5 
showing why other health authorities have not given to 
the State Board that confidence which this Board has so 
indignantly claimed was unquestionably due to it Surely 
he, who declared that an opponent was being imposed on 
and was thereby imposing on others, is amply justified in 
his lack of confidence, when his opponent is finally forced 
by proofs to avow that he was “ imposed on.” 
It is earnestly to be hoped, that no sanitary authority 
will again permit itself to be thus deceived, by evidence 
which is easily to be procured—as all who are familiar 
with the history of yellow fever have long known—from 
any habitually infected place, and which is so generally 
false that the health of no community should ever be 
jeopardized by such evidence. 
Colon, Isthmus of Panama. 
In so many other instances, besides the one now stated, 
has the State Board been just as manifestly “ imposed 
on,” that it ought not to be surprised that other sanitari- 
ans failed in 1882 to coincide with its President when he 
stated, that “ he was convinced that there was no yellow 
fever there [viz., at Colon,] at the time the lie Marthe 
was in that port,” p. 328, An. Rpf., 1882. This convic- 
tion was based on two consular letters, to which were sub- 
sequently added a newspaper extract and letters from one 
or two citizens. Assuredly there must have been evidence 
just as strong, and probably much stronger, to induce the 
State Board to proclaim to the world that Vera Cruz 
“was known to be at present perfectly healthy ;” and, 
if “ imposed on” by such evidence in the one case, then 
why not in the other? 
However, whether the State Board was or was not “ im- 
posed on ” as to Colon, was really immaterial to the issue 
raised against said Board. To comprehend this issue 
requires the following brief statement of the pertinent 
facts: Published information, dated Panama, May nth, 
and again June 29th, warned New Orleans that Colon was infected by yellow fever.* On June 18th, the Isle Marthe, 
from this port arrived in New Orleans, and by the 22d its 
ballast had not only been discharged in a thickly settled 
part of New Orleans, but was also, until about August 
16th, used to repair adjacent streets. In the mean time, 
the only four undisputed cases of yellow fever in New 
Orleans, in 1882, occurred and all of them within a stone’s 
throw of this ballast. With good reason, these cases had 
been attributed to another source of infection ; hut when, 
about the middle of August, the attention of sanitary 
officers was for the first time called to the ballast, I, 
among others, held that this ballast might have been the 
source of infection ; that its discharge at a city wharf 
should never have been permitted ; and that it ought to be 
disposed of at once. The State Board deemed itself ag- 
grieved and defended itself by declaring that Colon was 
not infected, and therefore, that the ballast could not be. 
Now, I assert again that, while it has never been proved 
that Colon was not infected, it is immaterial to the issue 
made whether it was or was not. For, the published infor- 
mation about Colon, its geographical position, its increased 
number of ur.acclimated immigrants, etc., were sufficient, 
in the absence at that time of any good evidence to the 
contrary, to cause Colon to be treated as a suspected port; 
in addition and of much more consequence, the Board of 
Health itself was treating Colon as a suspected port, inas- 
much as it was subjecting vessels from there, even the 
Isle Marthe itself, to detention at quarantine. Hence, 
the issue really made was as follows : 
Any Board of Health, which decides that a port is suffi- 
ciently suspicious to quarantine the vessels therefrom, 
ought, beyond question, to decide that the ballast from 
such vessels is sufficiently suspicious to require a rigid pro- 
hibition of its discharge where any person may be exposed 
to risk of infection by it,—and its discharge should be 
* The Annual Report of the Louisiana State Hoard of Health for 1882 attributes this 
information (p.234) to Dr. Nelson, whose veracity is denied on the authority of U. S. 
Consul Jas. Tnorington. It is worth noting, that Dr. Wolfred Nelson of Panama reports 
in the Canada Med. Record 31 cases of yellow fever to November 21st 1883, of whom 22 
died. 7 
much more prohibited into such a centre of population as 
the ballast of the quarantined and therefore suspected He 
Marthe was discharged into. This, the only issue ever 
made, has never been met by the State Board, which, how- 
ever, has in this instance, as in many others, diverted atten- 
tion from the true issue by inventing false ones. In part 
illustration of this fruitful subject, attention is called to 
two quotations from the Annual Report of 1882. 
It is stated, p. 241, that: “ Even if the ballast which 
was accused by the representations of the National Board 
of Health [Drs. Bemiss and Chaille] and the Medical 
Director of the New Orleans Auxiliary Sanitary Associ- 
ation [Dr. W. H. Watkins], of engendering yellow fever 
in New Orleans in 1882,” etc. Now, all thi-ee of these 
gentlemen published reports on the subject, yet no word 
was ever written nor, as I am assured, was ever spoken by 
any one of them, very certainly not by myself, to justify 
this language. No one of us ever “accused'’ this ballast 
of engendering yellow fever ; no one of us ever used lan- 
guage stronger than that -possibly or probably this ballast 
may or might have engendered yellow fever. Such hy- 
pothetical words fail to amount to an accusation. What the 
Board was “ accused ” of was of negligence in permitting 
the ballast from a vessel, which it had quarantined, to be 
discharged into the streets of New Orleans. Let it meet 
this accusation which was and is still made, and not an ac- 
cusation invented by itself to divert attention. 
The second quotation, p. 231, is as follows : 
As the Supervising Inspector of the National Board of 
Health [Dr. Chaille] held the position of one of the Vice 
Presidents of the New Orleans Auxiliary Sanitary Associ- 
ation, and was present when this wonderful discovery of 
the dangerous properties of the ballast was disclosed, it 
was his duty, as an employe of the National Board, to 
have communicated this fact to the State Board of 
Health and, in proof that it was his duty to report, his 
official instructions are correctly quoted as follows: “ In 
case it becomes proper to notify the health authorities of 8 
Louisiana of any danger to its public health, present or 
prospective, you [Dr. Chaille] will do so, in accordance 
with your previous instructions.” 
As already stated, neither I nor anyone else ever had 
or pretended to have possession of any such “ fact ” as 
“ this wonderful discovery of the dangerous properties of 
the ballast ” disclosed. And, language could not worse 
pervert the advocacy of the opinion, shared in by sanita- 
rians generally, that suspected vessels contain suspected 
ballast, and that human life should not he exposed to any 
risks from such ballast. “ Wonderful discovery,” in 
deed ! Language so misapplied, so perversive of truth, 
is enough to sicken the stomach of even a newspaper re- 
porter l Nevertheless, let me get at the issue again in- 
vented to distract attention, namely, my failure of duty in 
neglecting to report the ballast to the State Board. It is 
true I did not report it to the State Board, yet it is also 
true that the President of this Board had no reason, com- 
prehensible to me, for charging me with neglect of duty, 
except to divert attention once more from the neglect of 
duty of his own Board, as involved in the disposal of said 
ballast. For, while it may seem incredible, it is none the less 
the simple truth, that those who first reported this ballast to 
me did so after having given the same information to 
one or more representatives of the State Board and, 
when my informants first reported the facts to me, they 
assured me positively that they had already or would at once 
make the same report to the State Board. What is to be 
thought of a charge of neglect of duty in failing to report 
information which the Board was in possession of before 
myself? My official instructions were to report certain 
facts “ in case it becomes properand most assuredly I did 
not deem it proper to report superfluous information. 
Therefore although not my duty, in this case, to report, 
it was my duty to use my influence in having the suspected 
ballast promptly disposed of, and I deemed this duty dis- 
charged when assured by those whom I trusted, and at the 
very time when the ballast was first reported to me, that it 9 
would be at once removed either by the State Board or by 
the Sanitary Association,—the latter to act separately if it 
failed to secure conjoint action. 
In order that the reader may better comprehend the 
merits of the question, whether neglect of duty was justly 
chargeable to me or to the State Board, I append the follow- 
ing evidence from the President (in 1882) of the Sanitary 
Council of the Mississippi Valley and from the Medical 
Director of the Sanitary Association : 
AJcw Orleans, December Sth, 1883. 
OR. S. E. CHAILLlS: 
Dear Sir—Yours of the 8th inst. is at hand. On the 
same day I communicated to you my suspicion that the lie 
Marthe’s ballast was the source of yellow fever infection, 
I addressed a postal card on the same subject to Mr. Ed. 
Booth, a mQmber of the Conference Committee of the 
State Board,and furthermore I called upon him. I explained 
to him my reasons for requesting that said undisinfected 
ballast should be attended to, and cited the precedent of 
the ballast of the Valparaiso with its sad results in 1873. 
Mr. Booth promised me to call the attention of the Presi- 
dent of the State Board to the same, and I have no doubt 
that he did so. 
Yours most truly, 
Gustavus Devron, M. I). 
New Orleans, December 8tli, i88j. 
DR. S. E. CHAILLfi: 
Dear Doctor—In reply to your note of the 8th, I can 
state that one member of the Board of Health had infor- 
mation in regard to the presence of the ballast from the 
lie Marthe and of its suspicious character, before either 
you, Dr. Bemiss or myself had apy knowledge of it. The 
suspicious nature of this ballast was brought to light by 
Dr. Devron, who called to see Mr. Booth about it while 
the doctor was on his way to the rooms of the Sanitary 
Association. Soon after this, on the same day, the suspi- 
cious facts were reported to me and I at once commenced an investigation. This same day I visited you for consulta- 
tion and found that Dr. Devron had called to see you. In 
returning from your office, I fell in with Dr. R. A. Bayley, 
sanitary inspector of the Board of Health, and gave him 
an account of the investigation. lie was so much inter- 
ested that he requested me to stop with him at Mr. Mark’s 
office and to report to him the facts obtained. 1 went at 
once with Dr. Bayley to Mr. Mark's office and explained 
all I knew, concealing nothing from the representatives of 
the Board of Health. Considering that two of its most 
influential members, Mr. Booth and Mr. Marks and one 
of its sanitary inspectors, Dr. Bayley, had all data I could 
give, I did not trouble myself further. 
I am truly yours, 
W. H. Watkins, M. D. 
Finally, I had additional evidence that the State Board 
was as promptly and fully informed as myself respecting 
the ballast of the lie Marthe.