PORK, PROHIBITION OF AMERICAN. 



645 



Hungary and Galicia. The acts were passed 

 by the Bundesrath in virtue of powers con- 

 ferred on it to adopt precautionary measures 

 against the introduction or spread of disease. 

 The Liberal parties, representing the industrial 

 and commercial classes and the consumers of 

 American pork, warmly opposed the restrictive 

 measures. These would never have been passed 

 by the Reichstag, but the latter has no power 

 to rescind them, as the Bundesrath has au- 

 thority to make sanitary regulations. 



The United States Government, in view of 

 the interdiction of American hog-flesh by Eu- 

 ropean countries, proceeded to investigate the 

 question of the alleged perniciousness of Amer- 

 ican pork. The Department of State ordered 

 an inquiry in March, 1881, which was conduct- 

 ed b.v Michael Scanlon, Chief of the Bureau of 

 Statistics of the State Department. The inves- 

 tigation covered trichinosis, hog-cholera, and 

 other diseases of swine, methods of prepara- 

 tion for the market, etc. The asserted preva- 

 lence of hog-cholera was disproved, and it was 

 shown that precautions were taken to prevent 

 any but healthy animals from being brought to 

 the packing-houses. The existence of trichinae 

 was detected in a number of instances, but the 

 proportion was shown to be smaller than in 

 other countries. The statistics of disease in 

 the pork-consuming districts of the Western 

 States, as compared with those of the rural 

 districts of Central Europe, where none but 

 native pork is consumed, show a much greater 

 immunity from trichinosis. The report and 

 the representations based upon it had no effect 

 on the action of Germany and the other Euro- 

 pean countries. Upon the announcement, in 

 February, 1883, that the Imperial Government 

 was about to submit to the Legislature meas- 

 ures for the total exclusion of American pork, 

 the American Government determined on a 

 more exhaustive investigation of the subject, 

 in the hope of averting such action, and an- 

 nounced to the German Government its inten- 

 tion to appoint a competent .commission for the 

 purpose, inviting it at the same time to send ex- 

 perts to inquire into the facts in relation to the 

 supposed danger to health of American pork, 

 either jointly with the commission or inde- 

 pendently. The German Government declined 

 the invitation, giving as the reason that in a 

 matter of domestic sanitary legislation it could 

 not enter into an arrangement which would 

 imply an obligation to accept and be bound by 

 - a state of facts existing outside of its jurisdic- 

 tion. The commission was appointed. It was 

 composed of Prof. Charles F. Chandler, repre- 

 senting the New York Board of Trade ; E. W. 

 Blatchford, representing the Chicago Board of 

 Trade ; F. D. Curtis and Prof. D. E. Salmon, 

 nominated by the Commissioner of Agricul- 

 ture ; and the Commissioner of Agriculture 

 as chairman. The House of Representatives 

 passed resolutions calling upon the President 

 to furnish all documents and information re- 

 lating to the restriction upon the importation 



of American hog products into Germany and 

 France, declaring it to be the duty of the Gov- 

 ernment to act promptly and with energy, 

 since those governments had shown, by de- 

 clining to send agents to test the healthfulness 

 of those products, that the pretended sanitary 

 reasons were not genuine. Secretary Freling- 

 huysen, in a communication to the President 

 in response to the request to lay before Con- 

 gress the diplomatic history of the subject, rec- 

 ommended that no retaliatory or other legisla- 

 tive action should be taken pending the report 

 of the commission, stating that when the Gov- 

 ernment should be in possession of the proofs 

 that American pork was not injurious to health, 

 it could call upon foreign governments to re- 

 move the restrictions, as incompatible with the 

 provisions of commercial treaties. 



One of the incidents of the controversy is 

 a coldness in the diplomatic relations between 

 Germany and the United States. Minister Sar- 

 gent, in a confidential letter to the State De- 

 partment at Washington, explained the pro- 

 tectionist motives of the pork edict. The letter 

 was published with the other documents of the 

 State Department, and reproduced in the " New 

 York Handelszeitung," from which it was re- 

 published in the "North German Gazette," 

 which is a personal organ of Prince Bismarck, 

 with offensive comments based on the pretend- 

 ed supposition that Mr. Sargent contributed 

 the letter to the newspaper. From that time 

 the American minister was the object of con- 

 tinued attacks by the semi-official press, and 

 his social and official relations in Berlin were 

 made so unpleasant that in March, 1884, he re- 

 signed. 



In France the objections to American pork 

 were, as in Germany, founded on the absence 

 of the safeguards against trichinosis prescribed 

 by law for native pork products. The discus- 

 sion passed through several phases. After the 

 promulgation of the restrictive edict a strong 

 opposition was aroused to the exclusion of 

 these cheap food imports. There had been 

 no case of trichinosis from eating American 

 pork within a long period. Men of science 

 pronounced the meat innocuous. Politicians 

 exerted themselves in the interest of the con- 

 suming public to have the interdict recalled. 

 On the other hand, the producing interest was 

 as important and politically active as in Ger- 

 many. It was demonstrated that the parasite 

 is destroyed by cooking, and that therefore, 

 since the custom of eating partly cooked pork 

 was far less prevalent than in Germany, the 

 danger was slight, even from trichinosed meat. 

 Various schemes of microscopic examination 

 were considered, but they were all condemned 

 as troublesome and costly impediments to com- 

 merce and insufficient safeguards against trichi- 

 nosis. At length, in November, 1883, the Gov- 

 ernment repealed the prohibition. The subject 

 was then taken up and warmly discussed in the 

 Chamber. M. Paul Bert repeated the sanitary 

 arguments, and expressed a fear that the dis- 



