Note 207 — PART SECOND. (continued 4)

From the accounts of the most eminent practitioners it appears that the fever of 1798 differed considerably in its nature from that of 1793. In Philadelphia particularly there were many cases that could not bear the stroke of a lancet. In Boston it seems to have partaken more of the nature of the true plague than in other places and other years. The dissections of Drs. Rand and Warren manifest a difference between the effects of it on the body at that time, and what they were in former years. Buboes, carbuncles, or what were thought to be so, and petechiæ, were observed here, as well as in New York. One remarkable case, related in the next section, shows a disposition to induration, very uncommon in the yellow fever, though so common in the true plague that in the former part of this treatise it is taken for the characteristic mark of the disease. None of those eschars called tokens, however, were in any case observed. The disease here bore bleeding much better than at Philadelphia; but mercury was always the most efficacious remedy, where a salivation could be raised. The warm bath was used in some cases with success. Large evacuations were useful, and some patients bore three or four bleedings, with repeated doses of jalap and calomel. The distemper is by one gentleman styled a novel disease, and differing essentially from other bilious complaints. In one case the patient died of apoplexy; and another would probably have shared the same fate, had it not been for timely bleeding. The black vomit was almost inevitably attended with death. The matter evacuated was thought to be extravasated blood from vessels in some cases mortified. The yellow colour was judged merely accidental; but Dr. Lind’s opinion of its arising from a dissolution of the blood seems now to be universally abandoned, and the colour is supposed to arise from a suffusion of bile, owing either to the obstruction of the ducts, or too great secretion.

The names of the gentlemen upon whole authority the above facts stand cannot be mentioned, as permission for so doing has not been obtained. Their authenticity, however, can be proved by undeniable documents.

The origin of the fever at Boston has, as usual, been disputed; but the common opinion is that it was generated. It now appears, however, that, though there are very strong reasons for supposing it to have originated in the place, there are others equally strong for believing that it was imported. It is ascertained that a vessel on board which persons had died with the yellow fever lay in the neighbourhood of the family first seized with the disease in 1798. On the other hand, there were instances of many that were seized with the distemper who had not even left their houses for months previous to the contagious period. This year (1799) there have been unquestionable proofs of the importation of the fever from the Havana. The quarantine, however has kept the infection from spreading; though the state of the atmosphere has been much less favourable to the disease than last year, and has therefore no doubt contributed to preserve the health of the people.

We have been favoured with the following list of those affected with the disease this year at Newburyport:

When taken. Remarks.

Ossytaway June 8. A seaman on board the vessel.

* March 28. do.

* Sol. Haskel July 3. On board while her cargo was discharging, &c.

* His nephew 4. do.

Duggins 5. Present when the ballast was thrown out, also on board.

Tho’s Norwood 6. Worked in a hatter’s shop about 16 rods from the vessel when graving, the wind blowing all or most of the time from the vessel towards shop.

Tho’s Nor’d jun. 6.

* Robert Lord 6.

Stephen Tilton 6. Worked on the wharf where the vessel was hauled in.

Paine 7. Loaded and stowed the vessel for another outward bound voyage. These men lived at Amesbury.

Herbert 7.

* Walleigh 7.

* Miss Dole 9. Worked in a tailor’s shop, by Norwood’s hatter’s shop.

Sally Wood 10. do.

James Wood 11. Along side the vessel, and filled the old bread casks for her outward voyage. He also lived near the wharf.

Widow Waite 11. Doubtful whether her disorder was the fever. Lived at the bottom of the wharf.

* Wm. Thompson 11. Lived at the bottom of the wharf, & was along side of the vessel.

Jona Pearson 13. Kept a store near the wharf, & was along side the vessel.

Danl. Favour jun. 15. Worked near the bottom of the wharf.

Goodhue 15. On board the schooner, and trimmed the sugar casks.

* Rev. Mr. Milton 15. Visited the sick at Norwood’s.

* Mary Dunn 15. Lived at Norwood’s.

Giles Parsons 16. Handled the bags of money that came in the vessel, and counted it. Was along side of the vessel.

* Sol. Currier 16. On board the schooner. Helped to haul her in.

* Sam. Currier 18. On board. Helped to discharge the ballast.

* Greaty 18. On board when the vessel was discharging her cargo.

Mrs. Wood 19. Widow of James Wood, above mentioned.

* Sally Edwards 19. Lived with James Wood.

* Her brother 19. Lived opposite, & often in, Wood’s house during the sickness.

Those marked with asterisks recovered.

“The fever unequivocally the same which prevailed in this town in 1796, and in Boston and Portsmouth the last summer.

“The vessel supposed to have introduced the disease was the schooner Sally, Joseph Gunnison master, which arrived at Bartlett’s wharf on the morning of the 29th of June last, after a passage of 18 days, from St. Thomas’s, where the yellow fever prevailed and was very mortal, with 17 tierces of sugar, and cash in bags. She discharged her cargo before one o’clock on the day of her arrival. In the same afternoon her stone ballast, taken on board at St. Thomas’s, was thrown on deck. On the first of July she was moved to a wharf 10 rods below, and her ballast was thrown on a pier wholly covered with water. This ballast was covered with a viscous substance, which adhered to the fingers, and was very offensive to the people working on the pier. On the same day she was hauled in between the two wharves, and graved, and removed back to Bartlett’s wharf, where she was loaded with lumber for another voyage, on which the sailed the 11th of July.

“It is still questioned whether this fever was imported, or generated in the town. You will find that all who have had it have been connected with that vessel, or lived or worked near where she lay, or visited the sick near the place where the vessel was graved. And undoubtedly there were many persons alike connected and situated who did not take it, although the inhabitants living near the wharf very soon moved away. It is said that there is an old distil-house near the bottom of the wharf, which has not been used for many years, and that the tubs and cisterns are replete with putrid exhalations. I do not know that this fact has been verified. It is also said that back of the store used by the deceased Jonathan Pearson, were brewers’, soap boilers’ and tallow-chandlers’ works which had all been used in the last-spring. This is true; but I do not know that it is evident that any putrid substances were formed there. Dr. Vergnies informs me that there was one case of the yellow fever 2 days before the vessel arrived. In my mind the weight of evidence in favour of the importation greatly preponderates. In 1796 the evidence was very unequivocal that the fever was generated.

“Just before the vessel arrived we had some very warm weather, and the heat was oppressive to the feelings. The thermometer two afternoons was at 90 deg. Perhaps it may not be unuseful to mention that calomel was given liberally. All who recovered were salivated. All who could not be salivated died: and unfortunately some who were evidently salivated died. Since forming my table I find that a Mrs. Plummer who lived near the wharf will die.208 Her case for the first seven days was supposed to be an intermittent fever; then it assumed the symptoms of the yellow fever. She was taken on the 11th July.