692 



procedure and many of the main rules continued in j>ractice for the 

 remainder of the century. What is more important is that for the 

 first time doctors and diplomats from the then European powers had 

 met in earnest to discuss common global disease problems. And as a 

 practical matter, diplomacy rather than science "saved the day" for 

 this first congress. Although arguments over rival scientific theories oc- 

 cupied most of the time, the French diplomatic representative who 

 was president of Mi*^ conference continued to seek workable solutions. 

 In addition, the diplomats appeared to have had definite instructions 

 not to vote for either of the extreme scientific positions. Subsequent 

 events and discoveries suggest that this compromise was all to the 

 good.^* 



International quarantine congresses continued to be called. In suc- 

 cession they oc<5urred in Constantinople in 1866, in Vienna in 1874, in 

 Washington in 1881, in Rome in 1885, and in Venice in 1892. Three 

 other agreements which followed in 1893, 1894, and 1897, and which 

 like many of the others dealt with protection against cholera at spe- 

 cific places, were later combined in a single International Sanitary 

 Convention in 1903. 



Estdblishment of a Permament Quarantine Office 



Finally, as knowledge advanced and statesmen agreed on the need 

 for contmued international cooperation, a permanent International 

 Office of Public Hygiene was created. The Office was set up in Paris 

 in 1909 as a result of a 1907 meeting in Rome of twelve major nations, 

 including the United States. According to Russell the advantage of 

 the 1909 convention over its many predecessors was that the inter- 

 governmental correspondence regarding the codes and regulations did 

 not go "* * * through departments of state and foreign affairs * * *. 

 It provided an operating agency outside lay diplomatic channels." ^° 



The disadvantage of the International Office of Public Hygiene 

 in Paris was its functional limitation to only those aspects of public 

 health having to do with quarantine and the notification of cases 

 of communicable disease. Its work was confined to its secretariat and 

 its influence was limited even in the control of epidemics. It was ex- 

 pressly forbidden to "meddle in the administration of the several 

 states" supporting it.^^ With national sovereignty, ports, and bound- 

 aries protected at every point there was still nonmedical resistance to 

 the idea of the International Office of Public Hygiene. The resistance 

 came from Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Great Britain. Great 

 Britain, however, later changed its views and supported the "Paris 

 Office", doing so under the consideraJble pressure of spokesmen for its 

 doctors, who were apparently beginning to give more professional 

 content to their thoughts and recommendations regarding interna- 

 tional health. According to Goodman, the British medical journal, 

 the Lancet, had severely castigated the parochial attitude of the Brit- 

 ish delegation.^'^ 



In this way the "Paris Office" of 1909 became the first international 

 quarantine organization involving the major European powers and 



1* N. M. Goodman. "International Health Organizations." (Philadelphia and New York, 

 The Blaklaton Co., 1952), pages 40--41. 

 ^s Russell, op. cit., page 394. 

 i« Masters, op. cit., page 49. 

 ^^ Goodman, op. cit., pages 81-82. 



