View report page

36
and others organising excursions to the seaside, asking them to warn
those going of the danger of eating shell-fish, especially in a raw
condition, and in most instances this was acted upon. In one of the
above cases I found that the boy went with 401 scholars to Littlehampton
011 July 23rd, and that fourteen boys and two girls ate shell-fish,
mussels chiefly ; only the one boy suffered.
During the year I have reported as follows with regard to shell-fish
in relation to typhoid fever:—
(a) In a case in this city and in several cases in other boroughs, a
history of having eaten oysters in Westminster was obtained, and in
view of the possible connection with the illness, I made enquiries as to the
sources from which the oysters were obtained. I submitted the names of
the merchants supplying the tradespeople to the Fishmongers' Company,
who have jurisdiction over all fish brought to London for sale. Eventually
the Company informed me that they had watched certain beds at
Emsworth, known to be polluted, had seen oysters removed from them,
and traced them to Portsmouth and to London (to a merchant supplying
Westminster dealers). Those sent to London were sent under a
designation implying that they came from a pure source. The Fishmongers'
Company promptly seized the oysters which they had traced,
but as the seizure had not been carried out by a sanitary authority, it
appears that no proceedings can be taken in London against the owner
of the incriminated beds. These beds are not the ones the oysters came
from which led to the outbreaks last year at Winchester and elsewhere,
but they adjoin them.
(b) On June 23rd I received a letter from the Medical Officer of
Health of the City of London, stating that, as a result of a communication
that oysters procured from a certain sonrce had been eaten by a person
who thereafter developed typhoid fever, he had seized two sacks
containing 1,600 oysters on the premises of Mr. Ullmann, oyster
merchant, which he believed came from a polluted source. On application
being made for the condemnation of the oysters seized, it wasstated
on behalf of Mr. Ullmann that the oysters seized did not come
from the storage pit (which had been previously condemned, but were
taken straight from the' oyster beds at South Deep. In view of this
statement, the Alderman to whom application was made decided that
samples of these oysters should be examined, both by Dr. Klein and by
anyone whom Mr. Ullmann might employ for that purpose. On
June 25th the further hearing of the summons took place, and evidence
was given that a dozen oysters had been taken from each of the sacks
and submitted to bacteriological examination, with the result that of the
24 oysters thus obtained, 11 were found to contain dangerous bacilli.
The analysis conducted on behalf of Mr. Ullmann practically coincided