APPENDIX P.-Commerce of the United States with Germany, etc.-Continued. EXPORTS OF DOMESTIC MERCHANDISE TO GERMANY-Continued. APPENDIX P.-Commerce of the United States with Germany, etc.—Continued. EXPORTS OF DOMESTIC MERCHANDISE TO GERMANY-Continued. APPENDIX Q.-Quantity and value of wine imported from Germany into the United States during each year from 1864 to 1883, inclusive. APPENDIX R.-The American pork question in France. The following letter has been addressed to Mr. De Freycinet, minister of foreign affairs, president of the French cabinet: PARIS, February 5, 1882. DEAR SIR: The important question of the American salted pork meats, which your predecessors often examined and always postponed, is not yet resolved. The decree of prohibition was signed on February 18, 1881. Its object was to struggle against a danger which science declared did not exist. Such a measure suppressed at once in our seaports a branch of trade amounting annually to about 40,000,000 francs ($8,000,000) and deprived the working classes of a wholesome food at a cheap price. After February 18 the French Republican Government saw that it had gone too far: for it was said to General Noyes (at that time American minister at Paris) and to French importers, who had in prospect nothing less than ruin: Do not provoke any agitation; make no noise; be quiet; the decree is only a temporary one, and we are going to repeal it." General Noyes wrote the following reply on April 8, 1881, to the Government at Washington: I have some reason to think that the French Government is more favorably disposed than heretofore towards our application, and I am confident that within two months, perhaps within one month, the order will be annulled." The two months are now long past, but up to the present date nothing has been done, though the preceding cabinets have made an effort to lull the vig ilance of interested people. Recently, I believe, these promises, made in March and April, were renewed to Mr. Levi P. Morton, successor of General Noyes at Paris. Such is my opinion. I can not, however, interrogate Mr. Morton on the subject, nor can he show me his reports. A project establishing the rules of the microscopic inspection-that is to say, offering an impossibility to the trade-was introduced at the Chamber of Deputies by the minister of commerce on November 5, 1881. That project, elaborated with care, was a perfect one; unfortunately, it was unpractical. Then the bill was retired by a decree of the President of the French Republic. Another project was presented to the Chamber by the minister of commerce on January 14 last. This second project proposes to take the place of the prohibitory decree of February, a system of inspection which is neither practical nor logical, but which, however, has the advantage of suppressing the microscope. It was accepted, though imperfect, at Havre, Bordeaux, Marseille, and Lyons just at a time when the minister who proposed it resigned. At present interested people are afraid that, with a new state of things, the question of microscopical inspection will again be agitated, although recognized impossible by the second project. Should that second project be retired and a third one introduced, but to share the fate of its two predecessors, men of good common sense will ask themselves when the result so anxiously desired will be obtained definitely. The American people have been patient up to this time, but that patience is now nearly exhausted. In 1867 Mr. Bigelow, then American minister at Paris, received one day the official order to say to the Imperial Government: "Withdraw your soldiers from Mexico, or we immediately interfere." The French soldiers were immediately withdrawn. If you, sir, do not soon repair the mistake committed during the last year, Mr. Morton, faithful interpreter of his Government, will probably before long say to you: Repeal the decree of February 18, 1881, or we will prohibit the introduction to the United States of your wines and silk fabrics," etc. This, sir, is the impression I received during my last trip in America. You will be able, I am sure, enlightened by your wisdom and patriotism, to save our French trade from the imminent retaliations of the United States. I am, dear sir, very respectfully, APPENDIX S. LEON CHOTteau. NEW YORK, February 1, 1884. Merchants here engaged in export trade state there is a strict prohibition of hog product, even in bond in transit for other countries, in both France and Germany. Switzerland imports through Italy. At Hamburg and Bremen it is permitted, when taken by the same vessel that brought it, if final destination is a Baltic point outside of Germany; but no transshipment permitted. JOSEPH NIMMO, Jr., E. H. WALKER, Statistician, N. Y. Pr. Ex. Chief of Bureau of Statistics. APPENDIX T. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE SUPERVISING SURGEON-GENERAL SIR: In accordance with the request contained in your letter of January 30, 1884. I have to inform you that the total number of seamen treated by the MarineHospital Service for the ten years from 1874 to 1883, inclusive, was 234,353. The total number of deaths from all causes during that period was 4,234. There were no cases of trichinosis reported during that period, or since the organization of the service, so far as the records of this office show. In answer to your inquiry as to whether the class of patients who are treated by this service do not subsist very largely upon pork meat I have to say that they do subsist largely upon that class of food, and it is for the most part salt pork. Very respectfully, JOHN B. HAMILTON, Surgeon-General, Marine Hospital Service. APPENDIX U. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, DEAR SIR: Referring to yours of January 30, 1884, asking certain information relative to sickness or death caused by eating certain articles of food, I have the honor to state that the records of this Department show no fatal case of sickness caused by the eating of pork meats in the District of Columbia. In so far as the question of the relative merits of pork meats compared with other articles of diet is concerned, the only way we have of judging is by the condemnations of unwholesome food. I send you herewith a marked copy of my last published report, which will give you the facts in tabular form. It will be seen that, during the ten years covered, the condemnations of bacon, ham, and pork form but a comparatively small proportion. See pages 13 and 16 of report. Very respectfully, etc., JOSEPH NIMMO, Jr., SMITH TOWNSHEND, M. D., Chief Bureau of Statistics. APPENDIX V.-Statements from the chief health officers of New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore in regard to the total number of deaths in those cities and the number of deaths from trichinosis. OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF HEALTH, Number of deaths in the city of New York during the ten years 1874-1883, and the number of deaths attributed to trichinosis during the same period. |