(eBook PDF) Examination Review for

Ultrasound: Abdomen and Obstetrics &

Gynecology 2nd Edition
Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-examination-review-for-ultrasound-abdo
men-and-obstetrics-gynecology-2nd-edition/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

(eBook PDF) Examination Review for Ultrasound: SPI 2nd

Edition by Steven Penny

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-examination-review-for-
ultrasound-spi-2nd-edition-by-steven-penny/

Diagnostic Ultrasound Abdomen and Pelvis 2nd Edition

Aya Kamaya - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/diagnostic-ultrasound-abdomen-
and-pelvis-ebook-pdf/

Obstetrics and Gynecology: Maintenance of Knowledge, An

Issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics 1e - eBook
PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/obstetrics-and-gynecology-
maintenance-of-knowledge-an-issue-of-obstetrics-and-gynecology-
clinics-1e-ebook-pdf/

Obstetrics & Gynecology PreTest Self-Assessment And

Review 14th Edition Edition Shireen Madani Sims - eBook
PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/obstetrics-gynecology-pretest-
self-assessment-and-review-ebook-pdf/
Case Files Obstetrics and Gynecology 5th Edition Eugene
C. Toy - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/case-files-obstetrics-and-
gynecology-ebook-pdf/

(eBook PDF) Obstetrics & Gynecology (Diagnostic Medical

Sonography Series) Fourth Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-obstetrics-gynecology-
diagnostic-medical-sonography-series-fourth-edition/

Current Diagnosis & Treatment Obstetrics & Gynecology,

12th Edition Lauren Nathan - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/current-diagnosis-treatment-
obstetrics-gynecology-12th-edition-ebook-pdf/

Johns Hopkins Handbook Of Obstetrics And Gynecology 1st

Edition Linda M. Szymanski - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/johns-hopkins-handbook-of-
obstetrics-and-gynecology-ebook-pdf/

Hesi Comprehensive Review for the Nclex-Pn Examination

- eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/hesi-comprehensive-review-for-
the-nclex-pn-examination-ebook-pdf/
several revisions include an overview of gravidity and parity (Chapter 22), an
improved review of the fetal heart (Chapter 27), and information concerning
fetal alcohol syndrome (Chapter 32). Once more, these are only highlights, as
there are countless improvements to this edition.

Additional Resources
As with the first edition, the review associated with this book does not need
to end with its conclusion. There are several online resources for this book,
including a mock registry examination that can be attempted by using the
code at the beginning of this book and going to
thepoint.lww.com/penny_abobgyn2e. This exam simulator will provide the
user with more intense “registry-like” questions, with topics that can be
selected and answers that provide rationale. Instructors can use the faculty
resources as well, which include an image bank and PowerPoint
presentations.

Final Note
The material contained in this book is deliberately not exhaustive. With
candid prayer for discernment, much care has been taken to explore each
topic, and I have tried to select the most vital information for you as you
study for these complicated examinations. Thus, this book, if used for its
primary purpose of registry review, should emerge to the user as focused and
purposeful. The exclusion of numerical statistics and extraneous facts from
the text—in most regards—is intentional. However, in the pursuit of
exhaustive comprehension, where data or information is critical to more
complete patient care, the list of bibliographical references at the end of each
chapter should provide you with essential aid.
In the classroom setting, many instructors have discovered that the use of
the first edition of this book can certainly be beneficial. This edition will also
provide the instructor with a topic-based review that can identify subject
matter weaknesses. And instructors that offer registry review courses will
find that this book and its resources will offer them a focused tool for
preparing their students for the national certification exams.
For those who have moved beyond national certification, the manner in
which this book has been constructed—with clinical and sonographic
findings highlighted—certainly allows for its application during sonographic
practice. Nevertheless, it is my greater hope that you exploit all relevant
resources in your mission and obligation to provide each patient with the
most favorable care you can afford.

8
 I anticipate that this book will serve you, your students, and your patients
well. I may never meet you face-to-face, but I would like to express gratitude
for the choice that you have made to select this book. I wish you well as you
care for our patients, and my hope is that you have a long-lasting and
prosperous career as a registered diagnostic medical sonographer.

Steven M. Penny

9
I would first like to thank my acquisitions editor, Jay Campbell, for giving
me the opportunity to pursue this second edition and for his confidence in me
as an author. Thanks to all of the workers behind the scenes at Wolters
Kluwer, including my editorial coordinator Lexi Pozonsky and marketing
manager Leah Thompson, and the other members of the staff who make a
project like this come together.

To my parents, Ted and Linda Penny, thank you for all that you have done
for me and my family over the years. I hope that you know that I love you
and that I am grateful for the love you have shown me throughout my life.

To my brother, Jeff Penny, and his family, Tammy, Nick, and Mackenzie—
thanks for your encouragement and for being in my life.

To my coworkers and the leadership at Johnston Community College, thank

you for your companionship and direction over the years. To my past,
current, and future students, thank you for demanding that I continue to
learn, and thank you for allowing me to be your instructor.

To all of my former teachers and professors, thank you for your unwavering
patience.

10
 “By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”
– Ben Franklin

The national certification examinations offered by the American Registry for

Diagnostic Medical Sonography (ARDMS) and American Registry of
Radiologic Technologist (ARRT) are not easy. These exams should be
difficult because they have been created to test your knowledge of a vital
imaging modality that can save people’s lives. Consequently, preparing for
and challenging these exams should not be approached dispassionately.
There are many resources on test taking that you can access at your local
library and online. Below are three basic steps, which include tips for getting
organized, studying, and preparing for these significant certification exams.

Step 1—Get Organized and Schedule the Exam

Both the ARDMS (ardms.org) and ARRT (arrt.org) provide content outlines
for each of their certification examination. In fact, the content of this book is
based on these content outlines, and accordingly this book includes pertinent
information on each topic. However, you can use these content outlines as a
guide for focused study as well. Keep your study materials—which should
include all of the resources you obtained throughout your sonography
education—organized by these content outlines. School lecture notes, note
cards, quizzes, and tests should be organized well before you begin to study.
Once you have organized your study materials, you should apply for the
exam and then try to consider the best time to attempt it. When scheduling
the examination, consider all of your other obligations (e.g., family
responsibilities, vacations, job requirements) and allow for an ample amount
of time to study so that you are thoroughly prepared on examination day. Do
not postpone scheduling the exam. Scheduling the examination will provide
you with a firm date, and it will hopefully help those of you who suffer from
procrastination to focus on test preparation.

11
Step 2—Establish a Study Routine and Study Schedule
Next, since you have your deadline, find a quiet place to study and develop a
study routine and schedule. Your study space should be quiet and free from
distractions, like television and your cell phone (stay off of social media).
The study schedule that you create for yourself should be realistic. That is to
say, do not schedule two hours each night to study if you know that you will
not be dedicated to that schedule. Instead, it may be best to schedule one
solid hour each night. Also, studying in 45-minute increments with 15-
minute breaks may work best for some. You can create your own deadlines
on your schedule and strive to meet them. Be sure to study at least for a few
minutes every day to maintain momentum going into the exam.
The amount of time one requires to study will vary per individual. Only
you know how much time you need to study, so if you struggle with certain
topics, then allow for extra time to focus more attention on those topics. It
may be best to review those topics you are most familiar with first, and as the
exam approaches, review the topics that you struggle with just before your
attempt, with the hopes of making the challenging information more readily
accessible.
Most people know what manner they prepare for an exam best. Some test
takers find flashcard useful, some create their own notes from reading,
whereas others may simply read and choose to gradually answer registry
review questions. A study group may be helpful for some as well.
Nonetheless, the main concern of your studies should be learning the
material and not just memorizing it to pass the exam. By learning the
information, you will most likely be successful on the exam, with the added
benefit of being able to apply your knowledge in your daily clinical practice
as a registered sonographer.

Step 3—Confidently Attempt the Exam

Test anxiety is a challenge for many people. Some tips for reducing anxiety
include eating well, getting plenty of rest and exercise, keeping a positive
attitude, and taking practice tests. The ARDMS offers some tips for exam-
day success, which include getting a good night’s sleep before exam day,
knowing how long it takes to get to the testing center (traffic included), being
early to the testing center, and being familiar with all of the test center
requirements, like testing day registrant identification specifications.
Currently, the ARDMS Sonographic Principles & Instrumentation (SPI)
exam consists of 110 questions, whereas the specialty exams consist of 170
questions. Nearly all of the questions are in multiple choice format. The SPI
exam may also include advanced item type question in the form of a semi-

12
interactive console, which requires the test taker to make adjustments to a
simulated ultrasound machine console. The specialty exams may also include
an advanced item type question referred to as hotspot questions. These
questions require that the test taker use the cursor to mark the correct answer
directly on the image.
Multiple choice questions consist of the stem—which is the question—
and four possible answers to choose from. The correct answer must be
included along with three other options referred to as distractors. You should
read the question cautiously first, and try to answer the question before
looking at the provided choices. If your given answer is provided, it will
most likely be the correct choice to make. If you do not know the answer
immediately, then try to eliminate the choices you know are incorrect. For
these exams, you are allowed to mark questions and return to answer them
later. You can also make changes before final submission. But be careful, it
may be best to not change any of your answers. You should only make
changes to questions that you feel confident you have answered incorrectly
because for many of us our first impulse or guess is correct.

Bibliography
ARDMS.org. Review our tips for examination day success. Available at:
http://www.ardms.org/get-certified/RDMS/Pages/Abdomen.aspx. Accessed
March 16, 2017.
Fry R. Surefire Study Success: Surefire Tips to Improve Your Test-Taking Skills.
New York: Rosen Publishing Group, 2016.
Hill J. Test taking tips to give you an edge. Biomedical Instrumentation and
Technology. 2009;43(3):223–224.
Mary KL. Test-taking strategies for CNOR certification. AORN Journal.
2007;85(2):315–332.
Medoff L. Stressed Out Students’ Guide to Dealing with Tests. New York: Kaplan
Inc, 2008.

13
Preface
Acknowledgments
Test-Taking Tips

SECTION I: ABDOMINAL SONOGRAPHY REVIEW

1 Abdominal Sonography Overview

2 The Liver
3 The Gallbladder
4 The Bile Ducts
5 The Pancreas
6 The Spleen
7 The Urinary Tract
8 The Adrenal Glands
9 Abdominal Vasculature
10 The Gastrointestinal Tract and Abdominal Wall
11 Noncardiac Chest and Retroperitoneum
12 The Face and Neck
13 The Male Pelvis
14 Musculoskeletal Imaging, Breast, and Superficial Structures

SECTION II: GYNECOLOGIC SONOGRAPHY REVIEW

15 Gynecologic Sonography Overview

16 Anatomy of the Female Pelvis
17 The Uterus and Vagina
18 The Ovaries and Fallopian Tubes
19 The Menstrual Cycle

14
20 Postmenopausal Sonography and Sonohysterography
21 Pelvic Inflammatory Disease and Infertility

SECTION III OBSTETRIC SONOGRAPHY REVIEW

22 Obstetric Sonography Overview

23 The First Trimester
24 The Fetal Head and Brain
25 The Fetal Face and Neck
26 The Fetal Spine and Musculoskeletal System
27 The Fetal Heart and Chest
28 The Fetal Gastrointestinal System
29 The Fetal Genitourinary System
30 Chromosomal Abnormalities
31 Multiple Gestations
32 Fetal Environment and Maternal Complications

Answers to Review Questions

Glossary
Figure Credits
Index

15
16
 Introduction
A synopsis of abdominal sonography practice is provided in this
chapter. Accordingly, the subsequent abdominal chapters will build on
the foundation established in this chapter. It is important for the
sonographer to obtain and recognize vital clinical information from
patients, including laboratory results and other data that are obtained
through patient inquiry. This chapter offers relevant laboratory
findings, imaging artifacts, a brief overview of physics and
instrumentation, infection control, and serves as a general abdominal
imaging guide. Lastly, cross-referencing of potential information that
may be encountered on the abdominal certification examination
offered by the American Registry for Diagnostic Medical Sonography
(www.ardms.org) and the abdominal portion of the examination
offered by the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists
(www.arrt.org) has been performed to establish this chapter.

Key Terms
anemia—a condition in which the red blood cell count or the hemoglobin is
decreased
anticoagulation therapy—drug therapy in which anticoagulant medications
are given to a patient to slow the rate at which the patient’s blood clots
ascites—a collection of abdominal fluid within the peritoneal cavity
chromaffin cells—the cells in the adrenal medulla that secrete epinephrine

17
and norepinephrine
clinical findings—the information gathered by obtaining a clinical history
clinical history—a patient’s signs and symptoms, pertinent illnesses, past
surgeries, laboratory findings, and the results of other diagnostic testing
coagulopathies—disorders that result from the body’s inability to coagulate
or form blood clots also referred to as bleeding disorders
computed tomography—an imaging modality that uses X-ray to obtain
cross-sectional images of the body in multiple planes; also referred to as CT
or CAT scan
elastography—a sonographic technique employed to evaluate a mass based
on its stiffness, ultimately providing a prediction as to whether a mass is
more likely malignant or benign
endoscopy—a means of looking inside of the human body using an
endoscope
exudate ascites—a collection of abdominal fluid within the peritoneal cavity
that may be associated with cancer
fluid-fluid level—a distinctive line seen within a cyst representing the
layering of two different fluid densities
gastrin—hormone produced by the stomach lining that is used to regulate
the release of digestive acid
hematocrit—a laboratory value that indicates the amount of red blood cells
in the blood
homeostasis—the body’s ability or tendency to maintain internal equilibrium
by adjusting its physiologic processes
hyperthyroidism—a condition that results from the overproduction of
thyroid hormones
hypothyroidism—a condition that results from the underproduction of
thyroid hormones
intraluminal—something located within the lumen or opening of an organ
or structure
intraperitoneal—located within the parietal peritoneum
Kaposi sarcoma—cancer that causes lesions to develop on the skin and
other places; often associated with AIDS
leukocytosis—an elevated white blood cell count
lymphadenopathy—disease or enlargement of the lymph nodes
lymphedema—build-up of lymph that is most likely caused by the
obstruction of lymph drainage
mass effect—the displacement or alteration of normal anatomy that is

18
located adjacent to a tumor
Morrison pouch—the space between the liver and the right kidney; also
referred to as the posterior right subhepatic space
multiloculated—having many cavities
mural nodules—small solid internal projections of tissue originating from
the wall of cyst
nosocomial infections—hospital-acquired infections
nuclear medicine—a diagnostic imaging modality that utilizes the
administration of radionuclides into the human body for an analysis of the
function of organs or for the treatment of various abnormalities
oncocytes—large cells of glandular origin
paracentesis—a procedure that uses a needle to drain fluid from the
abdominal cavity for diagnostic and/or therapeutic reasons
parietal peritoneum—the portion of the peritoneum that lines the
abdominal and pelvic cavities
pineal gland—endocrine gland located in the brain that secretes melatonin
radiography—a diagnostic imaging modality that uses ionizing radiation for
imaging bones, joints, organs, and some other soft tissue structures
retroperitoneal—posterior to the peritoneum
serosal fluid—fluid that is secreted by the serous membranes to reduce
friction in the peritoneal and other cavities of the body
signs—an objective evidence of a disease such as abnormal laboratory
findings and fever
sonographic findings—information gathered by performing a sonographic
examination
space of Retzius—the space between the urinary bladder and the pubic
bone; also referred to as the retropubic space
standoff pad—a gel pad that is used to provide some distance between the
transducer face and the skin surface, allowing superficial structures to be
imaged more clearly
symptoms—any subjective evidence of a disease such as nausea, weakness,
or numbness
thoracentesis—a procedure that uses a needle to drain fluid from the pleural
cavity for either diagnostic or therapeutic reasons
thymus gland—gland of the immune and lymphatic system located in the
chest
transudate ascites—a collection of abdominal fluid within the peritoneal
cavity often associated with cirrhosis

19
tumor markers—substances produced by cancer cells or organs in response
to cancer
unilocular—having a single cavity
visceral peritoneum—the portion of the peritoneum that is closely applied
to each organ
voiding cystourethrogram—a radiographic examination used to evaluate
the lower urinary tract, where a contrast agent is instilled into the urinary
bladder by means of urethral catheterization
Wilson disease—a congenital disorder that causes a person to retain excess
copper

SONOGRAPHIC TERMINOLOGY AND PRACTICE

GUIDELINES
Before beginning your studies, you must have a fundamental appreciation of
sonographic terminology and commonly used sonographic descriptive terms
(Table 1-1). Abdominal sonograms may be requested for various reasons.
The American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM) publishes the
practice guidelines for an abdominal sonogram on their website at
www.aium.org (Table 1-2).

SONOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION OF ABNORMAL

FINDINGS
The appreciation and recognition of sonographic pathology is vital for the
sonographer. Not only should one be able to recognize the normal
echogenicity of organs and structures, but one must also be capable of
identifying abnormalities. The normal echogenicity of the abdominal organs
from greatest (brightest) to least (darkest) is as follows: renal sinus →
pancreas → spleen → liver → renal cortex → renal pyramids → gallbladder.
Therefore, if the right kidney appears more echogenic than the liver, both the
liver and the right kidney must be closely examined for a cause of this
deviant sonographic finding.

SOUND OFF
The normal echogenicity of the abdominal organs from greatest
(brightest) to least (darkest) is as follows: renal sinus → pancreas → spleen
→ liver → renal cortex → renal pyramids → gallbladder.

20
TABLE 1-1 Sonographic descriptive terms
Sonographic Descriptive
Term Definition Examples
Anechoic Without echoes Gallbladder
Simple renal cyst
Complex Having both cystic and Hemorrhagic cyst
solid components Hepatic abscess
Echogenic Structure that produces Fatty liver
echoes Chronic renal disease
Heterogeneous Of differing composition Graves disease
Diffuse liver metastasis
Homogeneous Of uniform composition Normal liver
Normal testicle
Hyperechoic Having many echoes Cavernous hemangioma
Angiomyolipoma
Hypoechoic Having few echoes Hepatic adenoma
Thyroid adenoma
Isoechoic Having the same Focal nodular hyperplasia
echogenicity

TABLE 1-2 AIUM indications for abdomen and/or retroperitoneum

sonogram
AIUM Indications for an Ultrasound Examination of the Abdomen and/or
Retroperitoneuma
• Abdominal, flank, and/or back pain.
• Signs or symptoms that may be referred from the abdominal and/or
retroperitoneal regions such as jaundice or hematuria.
• Palpable abnormalities such as an abdominal mass or organomegaly.
• Abnormal laboratory values or abnormal findings on other imaging examinations.
• Suggestive of abdominal and/or retroperitoneal pathology.
• Follow-up of known or suspected abnormalities in the abdomen and/or
retroperitoneum.
• Search for metastatic disease or an occult primary neoplasm.
• Evaluation of suspected congenital abnormalities.
• Abdominal trauma.
• Pretransplantation and posttransplantation evaluation.
• Planning for and guiding an invasive procedure.

21
 Searching for the presence of free or loculated peritoneal and/or retroperitoneal
• fluid.
• Suspicion of hypertrophic pyloric stenosis or intussusceptions.
• Evaluation of a urinary tract infection.
An abdominal and/or retroperitoneal ultrasound examination should be performed
when there is a valid medical reason. There are no absolute contraindications.

a
This is a limited list of indications. Other indications exist.
AIUM, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

Pathology is often described sonographically, relative to surrounding or

adjacent tissue. For example, a hepatic mass may be described as
hyperechoic compared to the surrounding echotexture of the normal liver.
Solid tumors may be hyperechoic (occasionally described as echogenic),
hypoechoic, homogeneous, heterogeneous, complex, isoechoic, cystic, or a
combination of terms. For example, a renal mass may be described as a
hypoechoic mass with a central area of increased echogenicity.
Lastly, a cyst must fit certain criteria to be referred to as a simple cyst.
Simple cysts have smooth walls or borders, demonstrate through
transmission, are anechoic, and are round in shape (STAR criteria).
Occasionally, with higher frequency transducers with superior resolution, a
diminutive amount of internal debris may be noted within a simple cyst.
However, cysts that have a large amount of internal debris, septations, mural
nodules, have a fluid–fluid level, or other components may be described as
complex cysts. Cysts may also be referred to as multiloculated or unilocular.
Although simple cysts may not be worrisome, complex cysts may be
followed closely or further analyzed with another imaging modality.

SOUND OFF
A simple cyst should have smooth walls, demonstrate through
transmission, be completely anechoic, and be round in shape (STAR
criteria).

PATIENT PREPARATION FOR AN ABDOMINAL

SONOGRAM
Patients who are required to undergo an abdominal sonogram, and
particularly patients who still have a gallbladder, need to fast for 8 hours,
although some authors suggest that only a 6-hour fast may be warranted.
However, diagnostic studies can be obtained in the nonfasting patient,

22
especially those requiring an emergency sonogram. The purpose of fasting is
to ensure that the gallbladder is distended and to potentially reduce the
amount of upper abdominal gas that may inhibit diagnostic accuracy. For
renal sonograms, the patient is not typically required to fast, although some
facilities may recommend that the patient be well hydrated. This is true
especially if the urinary bladder needs to be assessed sonographically for
intraluminal masses, irregularities, or urinary stones. Diabetic patients need
to be scheduled early in the morning for studies that require them to fast to
prevent hypoglycemic episodes. Abdominal sonography should also be
performed prior to radiographic examinations that utilize barium contrast
agents. For pediatric patients who must undergo renal sonography and
urologic radiographic examinations, such as a voiding cystourethrogram, the
renal sonogram is typically performed first. Small part sonography, such as
scrotal and thyroid imaging, does not require patient preparation. The
sonographic imaging process should be clearly explained to the patient, and a
thorough clinical history obtained prior to performing each examination.

GATHERING A CLINICAL HISTORY AND

LABORATORY FINDINGS
Although the patient–sonographer interaction is exceedingly important, a
review of prior examinations and relevant documents should be performed
by the sonographer before any contact with the patient. Gathering a thorough
clinical history includes a review of reports from previous sonograms,
computed tomography (CT) scans, magnetic resonance imaging studies,
nuclear medicine examinations, radiography procedures, endoscopy
examinations, and any additional related laboratory and diagnostic reports
available. Moreover, sonographers must be capable of analyzing the clinical
complaints of their patients. This practice will aid not only in clinical
practice but also in answering complex certification examination questions.
By correlating clinical findings with sonographic findings, the sonographer
can directly impact the patient’s outcome by providing the most targeted
examination possible. Furthermore, when faced with a complicated, in-depth
registry question, the test taker should be capable of eliminating information
that is not applicable, to answer the question appropriately. Helpful
information can be gathered from patient inquiry and from analyzing the
registry review question at hand.
Although not all patients visit the sonography department with laboratory
results (labs) in hand, sonographers must be capable of analyzing labs when
they are available. For most inpatients and emergency room patients, labs
from blood work and/or a urinalysis will be available. Although an increase

23
in most labs reveals evidence of an abnormality, some lab levels decrease
with certain abnormalities. For example, leukocytosis, or an elevation in
white blood cell (WBC) count, in general, indicates the presence of an
inflammatory response due to infection. Patients who have some form of
“itis” (such as cholecystitis or pancreatitis), or possibly even an abscess, will
most likely have an abnormal WBC count with existing infection.
Conversely, a decrease in hematocrit indicates bleeding. Patients who have
suffered recent trauma or have an active hemorrhage will most likely have a
decreased hematocrit level. Keep these two labs in mind as you study. Other
labs and specific associated pathologies will be included in organ-specific
chapters. A summary of labs can be found in Table 1-3 for quick broad
reference (Table 1-3).

SOUND OFF
Patients who have some form of “itis” (such as cholecystitis or
pancreatitis), or possibly even an abscess, will most likely have an
abnormal WBC count with existing infection.

BASIC PATIENT CARE AND EMERGENCY

SITUATIONS IN ABDOMINAL IMAGING
Sonographers must be capable of providing basic patient care for every
patient equitably and in a timely manner. Although we may spend a limited
amount of time with each patient, we must also be prepared for emergency
situations and know how to respond. Basic patient care includes the
assessment of body temperature, pulse, respiration, and blood pressure if
needed (Table 1-4). Sonographers should be competent at transferring
patients safely from wheelchairs and stretchers to the examination stretcher,
being mindful of intravenous therapy, postsurgical, and urinary catheter
needs. For patients with intravenous therapy, the intravenous fluid bag
should be continually elevated to prevent retrograde flow. For urinary
catheter care, the urinary bag should be placed below the level of the urinary
bladder to prevent retrograde urine flow that could result in a urinary tract
infection. One of the most common causes of nosocomial infections, or
hospital-acquired infections, is the urinary tract infection.

TABLE 1-3 Basic overview of commonly encountered and relevant

laboratory findings for abdominal imaging
Lab Results

24
Alanine aminotransferase ↑ Biliary tree disease
↑ Pancreatic disease
↑ Hepatic disease
Albumin ↓ Liver damage
Alkaline phosphatase ↑ Biliary obstruction
↑ Liver cancer
↑ Pancreatic disease
↑ Gallstones
↓ Wilson disease
Aspartate aminotransferase ↑ Liver damage
↑ Pancreatic disease
Bilirubin ↑ Liver disease
↑ Biliary obstruction
↑ Other systemic disorders and syndromes
λ-glutamyl transferase ↑ Liver disease
↑ Biliary obstruction
PTT ↑ Liver disease
↑ Hereditary coagulopathies
↓ Vitamin K (deficiency)
↑ Anticoagulation therapy
PT ↑ Liver disease
↑ Bleeding abnormalities
↑ Anticoagulation therapy
Urobilirubin (urine test) ↑ Liver disease
↑ Biliary obstruction
Calcitonin ↑ Thyroid cancer
↑ Lung cancer
↑ Anemia
Thyroid-stimulating hormone ↑ Hypothyroidism
↓ Hyperthyroidism
Thyroxine (T4) or free thyroxine ↑ Hyperthyroidism
↓ Hypothyroidism
Triiodothyronine (T3) ↑ Hyperthyroidism
↓ Hypothyroidism
BUN ↑ Renal disease
↑ Renal obstruction
↑ Dehydration
↑ Gastrointestinal bleeding
↑ Congestive heart failure
Creatinine ↑ Renal damage
↑ Renal infection
↑ Renal obstruction
Amylase ↑ Pancreatic disorders
↑ Gallbladder disease

25
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
found himself met by something resembling opposition among his
own ministers. As was his habit, he yielded at first to the advice he
disliked, and promised to do something for French industry. In
November he appointed a new Minister of the Interior, Montalivet,
and lectured him on the slowness of his bureaus in acting for the
good of commerce.[163] From such a mouth such a lesson startled
the hearer, and Montalivet threw himself with zeal into the prescribed
work. To Fouché the Emperor read another lecture compared with
which the discourse to Montalivet was commonplace. Fouché, a
pronounced opponent of Napoleon’s commercial restrictions, during
the Emperor’s absence in Austria distributed too freely his licenses
for foreign trade: “I recognize always the same course in your acts,”
Napoleon wrote him. “You have not enough legality in your
head.”[164]
While thus teaching one minister to cherish commerce, and
another to respect legality, the Emperor listened to Champagny, who
lost no chance of advising the encouragement of neutral trade; and
these three ministers—Champagny, Fouché, and Montalivet—found
a strong ally in the Minister of the Treasury, Mollien, who has left the
recorded opinion that the Imperial system of commercial restriction
was “the most disastrous and the most false of fiscal inventions.”[165]
The bias of Decrès, the Minister of Marine, may be inferred from a
story told by Marshal Marmont,[166] who, coming to Paris at the close
of 1809, called on his old friend and talked with the enthusiasm of a
successful soldier about the Emperor. “Well, Marmont,” replied
Decrès, “you are pleased at being made a marshal; you see
everything in bright colors. Do you want me to tell you the truth and
to unveil the future? The Emperor is mad—absolutely mad! He will
upset us all, and everything will end in a terrible disaster.” Taken in
connection with King Louis’ attitude in Holland, the Cabinet
opposition of December, 1809, amounted to rebellion against
Napoleon’s authority.
At the Cabinet council of December 20 Montalivet made a written
report on the subject of American cotton, which threw so much
blame on the Imperial policy as to call a written contradiction from
Napoleon. “An American vessel,” the Emperor replied the next day,
[167] “coming from Louisiana to France will be well received here, no
act of the government forbidding the admission of American ships
into French ports.” The Americans, he explained, had prohibited
commerce with France while permitting it with Holland, Spain, and
Naples; and in consequence “his Majesty has used his right of
influence over his neighbors because he was unwilling that they
should be treated differently from France, and he has sequestered
the ships destined for their ports;” but no such provision had been
made against American ships entering French ports.
Naturally piqued at an Imperial assertion that he had shown
ignorance of facts that deeply concerned his department, Montalivet
sent to the Treasury for information, with which, a few days
afterward, he routed the Emperor from the field. Unable to answer
him, Napoleon referred his report to Gaudin, Minister of Finance,
with a curious marginal note, which showed—what his ministers
evidently believed—that the Emperor understood neither the
workings of his own system nor the laws of the United States:—
“Referred to the Minister of Finance to make me a report on this
question: (1) How is it conceivable that American ships come from
America in spite of the embargo? (2) How distinguish between ships
coming from America and those coming from London?”
Armstrong obtained immediate and accurate knowledge of this
struggle in council. Only a week after the Emperor wrote his note on
the margin of Montalivet’s report, Armstrong sent home a despatch
on the subject:[168]—
“The veil which for some weeks past has covered the proceedings
of the Cabinet with regard to neutral commerce is now so far
withdrawn as to enable us to see with sufficient distinctness both the
actors and the acting. The Ministers of Police and of the Interior
(Fouché and Montalivet) have come out openly and vigorously against
the present anti-commercial system, and have denounced it as ‘one
originating in error and productive only of evil, and particularly
calculated to impoverish France and enrich her enemy.’ While they
have held this language in the Cabinet they have held one of nearly
the same tenor out of it, and have added (we may suppose on
sufficient authority) the most solemn assurances that the Emperor
 ‘never meant to do more than to prevent the commerce of the United
States from becoming tributary to Great Britain; that a new decision
would soon be taken by him on this subject, and that from this the
happiest results were to be expected.’”
As though to prevent President Madison from showing undue
elation at this announcement for the fiftieth time that the happiest
results were to be expected from the future, Armstrong wrote
another letter, four days afterward,[169] on the new confiscations and
their cause. Frenchmen he said would reason thus: “There is a
deficit of fifty millions in the receipts of last year. This must be
supplied. Why not then put our hands into the pockets of your
citizens once more, since, as you continue to be embroiled with
Great Britain, we may do it with impunity.” Armstrong was angry, and
could not analyze to the bottom the Emperor’s methods or motives.
Thiers, in later years having the advantage of studying Napoleon’s
papers, understood better the nature of his genius. “To admit false
neutrals in order to confiscate them afterward, greatly pleased his
astute (rusé) mind,” wrote the French historian and statesman,[170]
“little scrupulous in the choice of means, especially in regard to
shameless smugglers who violated at once the laws of their own
country and those of the country that consented to admit them.” This
description could not properly be applied to Americans, since they
violated neither their own law nor that of France by coming to
Amsterdam, San Sebastian, and Naples; but Thiers explained that
the Emperor considered all Americans as smugglers, and that he
wrote to the Prussian government: “Let the American ships enter
your ports! Seize them afterward. You shall deliver the cargoes to
me, and I will take them in part payment of the Prussian war-
debt.”[171] Meanwhile the confiscation of American ships helped in
no way the objects promised by Napoleon to Montalivet and Fouché.
At a loss to invent a theory on which neutrals could be at the same
time plundered and encouraged, the Emperor referred the subject to
Champagny, January 10, in an interesting letter.[172] He called for a
complete history of his relations with the United States since the
treaty of Morfontaine. He ordered the recall of Turreau, in whom he
said he had little confidence, and who should be replaced by a more
adroit agent:—
“Have several conferences, if necessary, with the American
minister as well as with the Secretary of Legation who has just come
from London; in short, let me know your opinion on the measures
proper to be taken to get out of the position we are in (pour sortir de la
position où nous nous trouvons).”
“All the measures I have taken, as I have said several times, are
only measures of reprisal.... It was only to the new extension given to
the right of blockade that I opposed the Decree of Berlin; and even the
Decree of Berlin ought to be considered as a Continental, not as a
maritime blockade, for it has been carried out in that form. I regard it,
in some sort, only as a protest, and a violence opposed to a
violence.... Down to this point there was little harm. Neutrals still
entered our ports; but the British Orders in Council necessitated my
Milan Decree, and from that time there were no neutrals.... I am now
assured that the English have given way; that they no longer levy
taxes on ships. Let me know if there is an authentic act which
announces it, and if there is none, let me know if the fact is true; for
once I shall be assured that a tax on navigation will not be established
by England, I shall be able to give way on many points.”
All Napoleon’s ministers must have known that these assertions
of his commercial policy were invented for a momentary purpose. He
had himself often declared, and caused them to declare, that his
Continental system, established by the Berlin Decree and enforced
before the Orders in Council were issued, had a broad military
purpose quite independent of retaliation,—that it was aimed at the
destruction of England’s commerce and resources. As for his
profession of ignorance that England had abandoned her transit
duties on neutral merchandise, every minister was equally well
aware that only six months before, the Emperor had discussed with
them the measures to be taken in consequence of that
abandonment; had sent them the draft of a new decree founded
upon it, and had finally decided to do nothing only because England
had again quarrelled with America over Erskine’s arrangement. The
pretexts alleged by Napoleon were such as his ministers could not
have believed; but they were satisfied to obtain on any grounds the
concessions they desired, and Champagny—or as he was
thenceforward called, the Due de Cadore—sent to Armstrong for the
information the Emperor professed to want.
January 18, M. Petry, at the order of Cadore, called on the
American minister, and requested from him a written memorandum
expressing the demands of his Government. Armstrong drew up a
short minute of the provisions to be made the material of a treaty.
[173] The first Article required the restoration of sequestered property;
the next stipulated that any ship which had paid tribute to a foreign
Power should be liable to confiscation, but that with this exception
commerce should be free. Cadore sent this paper to the Emperor,
and within a few hours received a characteristic reply.
“You must see the American minister,” wrote Napoleon.[174] “It is
quite too ridiculous (par trop ridicule) that he should write things that
no one can comprehend. I prefer him to write in English, but fully and
in a manner that we can understand. [It is absurd] that in affairs so
important he should content himself with writing letters of four lines....
Send by special courier a cipher despatch to America to let it be
understood that that government is not represented here; that its
minister does not know French; is a morose man with whom one
cannot treat; that all obstacles would be raised if they had here an
envoy to be talked with. Write in detail on this point.”
Petry returned to Armstrong with the condemned paper, and
received another, somewhat more elaborate, but hardly more
agreeable to the Emperor. January 25, Cadore himself sent for the
American minister, and discussed the subject. The Emperor, he said,
would not commit himself to the admission of colonial produce; he
wished to restrict American commerce to articles the growth or
manufacture of the two countries; he would not permit his neighbors
to carry on a commerce with America which he denied to himself; but
the “only condition required for the revocation by his Majesty of the
Decree of Berlin will be a previous revocation by the British
government of her blockade of France, or part of France (such as
the coast from the Elbe to Brest, etc.), of a date anterior to that of the
aforesaid decree; and if the British government would then recall the
Orders in Council which had occasioned the Decree of Milan, that
decree should also be annulled.” This pledge purported to come
directly from the Emperor, and at Armstrong’s request was repeated
in the Emperor’s exact words.[175]
Neither the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of the Treasury,
nor the Emperor in these discussions alluded to the proposed
Decree of Vienna, the draft of which was sent to Paris in August,
confiscating all American ships in reprisal for the seizures of French
ships threatened by the Non-intercourse Act. Although that decree
was the point which the Emperor meant to reach, not until January
25—when Champagny, after dismissing Armstrong, reported the
interview to Napoleon, bringing with him at the Emperor’s request
the text of the Non-intercourse Act—did the Emperor at last revert to
the ideas of the Vienna Decree. The long hesitation proved how little
satisfactory the plea of retaliation was; but no other excuse could be
devised for a measure which Napoleon insisted upon carrying out,
and which Champagny had no choice but to execute. The Emperor
dictated the draft of a note,[176] in which the principles of confiscation
were to be laid down:—
“If American ships have been sequestered in France, France only
imitates the example given her by the American government; and the
undersigned recalls to Mr. Armstrong the Act of Congress of March 1,
1809, which orders in certain cases the sequestration and confiscation
of French ships, excludes them from American ports, and interdicts
France to the Americans. It is in reprisal of this last provision that the
American ships have been seized in Spain and Naples. The league
against England, which has the cause of neutrals for its object,
embraces now all the Continental peoples, and permits none of them
to enjoy commercial advantages of which France is deprived. France
will permit it in no place where her influence extends; but she is ready
to grant every favor to the ships of a neutral Power which shall not
have subjected themselves to a tribute, and shall recognize only the
laws of their own country, not those of a foreign government.... If the
Minister of the United States has the power to conclude a convention
proper to attain the object indicated, the undersigned is ordered to
give all his care to it, and to occupy himself upon it without
interruption.”
Perhaps this was the only occasion in Napoleon’s life when he
stood between a nation willing to be robbed and a consciousness
that to rob it was a blunder. The draft of his note showed his
embarrassment. Remarkable in many ways, it required special
notice in two points. The proposed Vienna Decree confiscated
American ships because French ships were forbidden under threat
of confiscation to enter American ports. The note of January 25
suggested a variation from this idea. American ships were to be
confiscated everywhere except in France, because they were
forbidden to enter France. As they were also confiscated in France
because they were forbidden to leave America, the Emperor had
nothing more to demand. His reasoning was as convincing as a
million bayonets could make it; but perhaps it was less Napoleonic
than the avowal that for six months the Emperor had been engaged
in inveigling American property into neutral ports in order that he
might seize it.
Apparently Cadore still raised obstacles to the Emperor’s will. For
some three weeks he held this note back, and when at last, February
14, he sent it to Armstrong, he made changes which were not all
improvements in the Emperor’s text. Indeed, Napoleon might
reasonably have found as much fault with Champagny as he found
with some of his generals, for failing to carry out the orders he
dictated:—
“His Majesty could place no reliance on the proceedings of the
United States, who, having no ground of complaint against France,
comprised her in their acts of exclusion, and since the month of May
have forbidden the entrance of their ports to French vessels, under
the penalty of confiscation. As soon as his Majesty was informed of
this measure, he considered himself bound to order reprisals on
American vessels, not only in his territory, but likewise in the countries
which are under his influence. In the ports of Holland, of Spain, of
Italy, and of Naples, American vessels have been seized because the
Americans have seized French vessels.”
After such long discussions and so many experiments, Napoleon
had become reckless of appearances when he allowed his foreign
secretary to send this note of Feb. 14, 1810, in which every line was
a misstatement, and every misstatement, as far as concerned
America, was evident in its purpose; while apart from these faults,
the note erred in trying to cover too much ground of complaint
against the United States. Napoleon had, in the projected Decree of
Vienna, ordered retaliation everywhere for the confiscation
threatened by the Non-intercourse Act. Made to feel the impossibility
of this course, he changed his ground, continuing to confiscate
American ships in France under the old Bayonne Decree, and
ordering the sequestration of American ships throughout the rest of
Europe on the plea that other countries must not enjoy a commerce
interdicted to France. Cadore’s note abandoned this ground again, in
order to return to the doctrine of the projected Vienna Decree; and in
the effort to give it a color of reason, he asserted that the Americans
had seized French vessels.
Such a letter was a declaration of war six months after beginning
hostilities; and it made no offer of peace except on condition that the
United States should pledge themselves to resist every British
blockade which was not real in the sense defined by Napoleon.
Armstrong wrote to his Government, in language as strong as he
could use, that nothing was to be expected from a policy that had no
other foundation than force or fraud. His angry remonstrances had
embroiled him with the Emperor, and he was on the point of quitting
France. Under such circumstances he did not insist on breaking off
further conversations with Petry, but February 25 he positively
assured Petry that neither would the President and Senate ratify, nor
would he himself as negotiator accept, a treaty in any form which did
not provide reparation for the past as well as security for the future;
[177] and March 10 he replied to the Duc de Cadore in what the
Emperor would have called a morose tone, denying every assertion
made in Cadore’s note,—reminding Cadore that the Emperor had
received knowledge of the Non-intercourse Act at the time of its
passage without a sign of protest or complaint; and, finally, renewing
his old, longstanding grievances against “the daily and practical
outrages on the part of France.”[178]
When the Emperor received Armstrong’s letter, which was
excessively strong, and ended in a suggestion that Napoleon was
trying to cover theft by falsehood, he showed no sign of anger, but
became almost apologetic, and wrote to Cadore,[179]—
 “Make a sketch of a reply to the American minister. It will be easy
for you to make him understand that I am master to do here what
America does there; that when America embargoes French ships
entering her ports, I have the right to reciprocate. You will explain to
him how that law came to our knowledge only a short time ago, and
only when I had knowledge of it did I immediately prescribe the same
measure; that a few days before, I was busying myself with provisions
for raising the actual prohibitions on American merchandise, when the
course of commerce (la voie du commerce) made known to me that
our honor was involved, and that no compromise was possible; that I
conceive America as entitled to prevent her ships from coming to
England and France; that I approved this last measure, though there
was much to be said about it; but that I cannot recognize that she
should arrogate the right of seizing French ships in her ports without
putting herself in the case of incurring reciprocity.”
One must answer as one can the question why Cadore, who had
in his hands Armstrong’s letter of April 29, 1809,[180] officially
communicating the Non-intercourse Act, should not have suggested
to Napoleon that some limit to his failings of memory ought to be
observed. Napoleon’s memory was sometimes overtasked by the
mass of details he undertook to carry in his mind, but a striking
incident always impressed itself there. Mme. de Rémusat[181] told
how Grétry, who as member of the Institute regularly attended the
Imperial audiences, was almost as regularly asked by Napoleon,
“Who are you?” Tired at last of this rough question, Grétry replied by
an answer equally blunt: “Sire, toujours Grétry;” and thenceforward
the Emperor never failed to remember him. The United States in a
similar tone recalled their affairs to the Emperor’s memory by the
Non-intercourse Act; but had this “toujours Grétry” not been enough,
Napoleon’s financial needs also made him peculiarly alive to every
event that could relieve them, and his correspondence proved that
the Non-intercourse Act as early as May, 1809, impressed him
deeply. Yet in March, 1810, he not only convinced himself that this
Act had just come to his knowledge, producing in him an outburst of
national dignity, but he also convinced his Minister of Foreign
Relations, who knew the contrary, that these impressions were true,
and made him witness them by his signature.
 Acting without delay on the theory of sudden passion, the
Emperor signed, three days afterward, March 23, a decree known as
the Decree of Rambouillet, in which the result of these long
hesitations was at last condensed.[182] This document was a
paraphrase of the projected Decree of Vienna of Aug. 4, 1809; and it
showed the tenacity with which Napoleon, while seeming to yield to
opposition, never failed to return to a purpose and effect its object. In
order to carry out the Decree of Vienna in that of Rambouillet he was
forced into a coup d’état. He had not only to expel his brother Louis
from Holland, and annex Holland to France, but also to drive his
ablest minister, Fouché, from the Cabinet.
Of the steps by which he accomplished his objects, something
can be seen in his letters; of his motives, no doubt ever existed.
Armstrong described them in strong language; but his language was
that of a party interested. Thiers recounted them as a panegyric, and
his language was even clearer than Armstrong’s. He made nothing
of the Emperor’s pretence that his seizures were in reprisal for the
Non-intercourse Act. “This was an official reason (une raison
d’apparat),” said Thiers.[183] “He was in search of a specious pretext
for seizing in Holland, in France, in Italy, the mass of American ships
which smuggled for the English, and which were within his reach. He
had actually sequestered a considerable number; and in their rich
cargoes were to be found the means of furnishing his Treasury with
resources nearly equal to those procured for him by the contributions
of war imposed on the vanquished.”
The system of treating the United States as an enemy conquered
in war rested on a foundation of truth; and as usual with conquered
countries it met with most resistance, not from them but from
bystanders. The Emperor of Russia, the kings of Prussia, Sweden,
and Denmark, the Hanse Towns, and King Louis of Holland were the
chief obstacles to the success of the scheme to which they were
required to be parties. King Louis of Holland refused to seize the
American ships at Amsterdam, and forced his brother to the
conclusion that if nothing else could be done, Holland must be
annexed to France.
 For many reasons the annexation of Holland met with little favor
in the Emperor’s family and among his Council. Chief among its
opponents was Fouché, who sacrificed himself in his efforts to
prevent it. Driven to the conviction that nothing but peace with
England could put an end to the Emperor’s experiments on the
welfare of France, Fouché resolved that peace should be made, and
invented a scheme for bringing it about. As Minister of Police he
controlled secret means of intrigue, and probably he acted without
concert with his colleagues; but the motives which guided him were
common to almost all Napoleon’s Cabinet. The only difference
between ministers was, that while Cadore, Montalivet, Mollien, and
Decrès stopped their opposition when it became dangerous, Fouché
undertook to act.
Something of this came to Armstrong’s ears. As early as January
10[184] he reported a remark which he could not understand. “‘Do not
believe,’ said a minister to me the other day, ‘that peace between us
and England is impossible. If we offer to her the commerce of the
world, can she resist it?’” Unknown to Armstrong, Napoleon had
already made an advance to England. For this purpose he employed
Labouchere, the chief banker of Holland, whose association with the
Barings of London fitted him to act as an intermediary. The message
sent by the Emperor through Labouchere could hardly be called an
offer of terms; it amounted only to a threat that unless England made
peace Holland should be annexed to France, and every avenue of
illicit commerce in northern Europe should be stopped. In itself this
message could hardly serve as ground for a treaty; but Fouché,
without the Emperor’s knowledge, sent to London at the same time,
about January 18, a secret agent named Fagan, to suggest that if
Great Britain would abandon Spain, France would join in creating
from the Spanish-American colonies a monarchy for Ferdinand VII.,
and from Louisiana, at the expense of the United States, a kingdom
for the French Bourbons.[185]
This last idea bore on its face the marks of its origin. Fouché had
listened to Aaron Burr, who after years of effort reached Paris, and
presented to the government a memoir showing that with ten
thousand regular troops, and a combined attack from Canada and
Louisiana, the destruction of the United States was certain.[186] The
scheme for placing the Spanish Bourbons on a Spanish-American
throne probably came from the same Ouvrard whom Napoleon
imprisoned at Vincennes, and whom Fouché took into favor.
Labouchere and Fagan went to England, and early in February
had interviews with the British ministers, who quickly dismissed
them. The only impression made on the British government by the
double mission was one of perplexity at the object of an errand
which appeared too absurd for discussion. The two agents returned
to the Continent, and reported the result of their journey. Meanwhile
Napoleon ordered Marshal Oudinot to march his army-corps into
Holland, a step which brought King Louis to immediate submission.
“I promise you,” wrote Louis, “to follow faithfully all the engagements
you shall impose upon me. I give you my word of honor to follow
them faithfully and loyally from the moment I shall have undertaken
them.”[187] While Cadore was still negotiating with Armstrong for an
arrangement with America, he was also employed in framing a treaty
with Louis, which exacted the seizure of all American ships and
merchandise in Dutch ports.[188] Louis came to Paris, and March 16
signed the treaty which by a secret stipulation provided for the
seizure of American property.[189]
Matters stood thus April 1, 1810, when the ceremonies of the
Imperial marriage interrupted for the moment further action.
Napoleon had carried his point in regard to the punishment of
America; but the difficulties he had already met were trifling
compared with the difficulties to come.
 CHAPTER XII.
Napoleon set out, April 27, with his new Empress on a wedding
journey to Holland. In the course of his journey an accident revealed
to him the secret correspondence which Fouché had conducted
through Fagan with the British government. Nothing criminal was
alleged, nor was it evident that the Minister of Police had acted
contrary to the Emperor’s admitted wishes; but since the fall of
Talleyrand, Fouché alone had considered himself so necessary to
the Imperial service as to affect independence, and the opportunity
to discipline him could not be lost. June 3 he was disgraced, and
exiled to Italy. General Savary, Duc de Rovigo, succeeded him as
Minister of Police.
The fate of King Louis was almost equally swift. When he
returned to Holland after promising entire submission and signing the
treaty of March 16, he could not endure the disgrace of carrying his
pledges into effect. He tried to evade the surrender of the American
ships, and to resist the military occupation of his kingdom. He
showed public sympathy with the Emperor’s opponents, and with
riotous popular proceedings at Amsterdam. Once more the Emperor
was obliged to treat him as an enemy. June 24 the French troops
were ordered to occupy Amsterdam, and July 3 Louis, abdicating his
throne, took refuge in Germany. July 8 Napoleon signed a Decree
annexing Holland to France.[190]
The United States at the same time received their punishment for
opposing the Imperial will. The Decree of Rambouillet, though signed
March 23, was published only May 14, when the sequestrations
previously made in Holland, Spain, Italy, and France became in a
manner legalized. The value of the seizures in Holland and Spain
was estimated by the Emperor in arranging his budget for the current
year as follows:[191] American cargoes previously seized at Antwerp,
two million dollars; cargoes surrendered by Holland, two million four
hundred thousand dollars; seizures in Spain, one million six hundred
thousand dollars.
 In this estimate of six million dollars the seizures in France,
Denmark, Hamburg, Italy, and Naples were not included. The
American consul at Paris reported to Armstrong that between April
1809 and April 1810 fifty-one American ships had been seized in the
ports of France, forty-four in the ports of Spain, twenty-eight in those
of Naples, and eleven in those of Holland.[192] Assuming an average
value of thirty thousand dollars, these one hundred and thirty-four
American ships represented values exceeding four millions. Adding
to Napoleon’s estimate of six millions the Consul’s reported seizure
of seventy-nine ships in France and Naples, a sum of nearly
$8,400,000 was attained. In this estimate the seizures at Hamburg,
in Denmark, and in the Baltic were not included. On the whole the
loss occasioned to Americans could not be estimated at less than
ten millions, even after allowing for English property disguised as
American. The exports from the United States during the six months
after the embargo amounted to fifty-two million dollars,[193] exclusive
of the ships; and as England offered a less profitable market than the
Continent, one fifth of this commerce might easily have fallen into
Napoleon’s hands. Twenty years afterward the government of
France paid five million dollars as indemnity for a portion of the
seizures, from which Napoleon by his own account received not less
than seven millions.
Profitable as this sweeping confiscation was, and thoroughly as
Napoleon overbore opposition in his family and Cabinet, such
measures in no way promised to retrieve the disaster his system
suffered from the defection of America. While England protected
American ships in their attempts to counteract his system in Spain,
Holland, and in the Baltic, the Emperor regarded American trade as
identical with British, and confiscated it accordingly; but by doing so
he exhausted his means of punishment, and since he could not
march armies to New York and Baltimore as he marched them to
Amsterdam and Hamburg, he could only return on his steps and
effect by diplomacy what he could not effect by force. The Act of
March 1, 1809, was a thorn in his side; but the news which arrived
toward the end of June, 1810, that Congress had repealed even that
slight obstacle to trade with England made some corrective action
inevitable. The Act of May 1, 1810, struck a blow at the Emperor
such as no Power in Europe dared aim, for it threw open to British
trade a market in the United States which would alone compensate
England for the loss of her trade with France and Holland. Macon’s
Act made the Milan Decree useless.
Napoleon no sooner learned that Congress had renewed
intercourse with England and France, than he wrote an interesting
note[194] to Montalivet dated June 25, the day after he ordered his
army to seize Amsterdam.
“The Americans,” he said, “have raised the embargo on their ships
so that all American ships can leave America to come to France; but
those which should come here would be sequestered, because all
would either have been visited by English ships or would have
touched in England. It is therefore probable that no American ship will
come into our ports without being assured of what France means to
do in regard to them.”
France could evidently do one of three things,—either avowedly
maintain her decrees, or expressly revoke them, or seem to revoke
them while in fact maintaining them. The process by which Napoleon
made his choice was characteristic.
“We may do two things,” he continued,—“either declare that the
Decrees of Berlin and Milan are repealed, and replace commerce
where it formerly was; or announce that the Decrees will be repealed
September 1, if on that date the English have repealed the Orders in
Council. Or the English will withdraw their Orders in Council, and then
we shall have to ascertain whether the situation that follows will be
advantageous to us.”
Assuming that the decrees and orders were withdrawn, and
American ships admitted as neutrals, the Emperor explained how he
should still enforce his system as before:—
“This situation will have no influence on the customs legislation,
which will always regulate arbitrarily duties and prohibitions. The
Americans will be able to bring sugar and coffee into our ports,—the
privateers will not stop them because the flag covers the goods; but
when they come into a port of France or a country under the influence
of France, they will find the customs legislation, by which we shall be
able to say that we do not want the sugar and coffee brought by the
 Americans because they are English merchandise; that we do not
want tobacco, etc.; that we do not want such or such goods, which we
can as we please class among prohibited goods. Thus it is evident
that we should commit ourselves to nothing.”
Again and again, orally and in writing, in the presence of the
whole Council and in private to each minister, the Emperor had
asserted positively and even angrily that “all the measures I have
taken, as I have said several times, are only measures of reprisal;”
yet after assuming that his reprisals had succeeded, and that
England had withdrawn her orders as France should have withdrawn
her decrees, he told Montalivet, as though it were a matter of course,
that he should carry out the same system by different means. This
method of fighting for the rights of neutrals differed but little, and not
to advantage, from the British method of fighting against them.
The Emperor put his new plan in shape. He proposed to
recognize neutral rights by issuing licenses under the name of
permits for a score of American vessels, and for the introduction of
Georgia cotton, the article for which Montalivet made his long
struggle. This measure was to be so organized that the shipments
could take place only in a single designated port of America, only
with certificates of origin delivered by a single French consul also to
be designated; that the ship could enter only at one or two
designated ports of France; that independently of the certificates of
origin a cipher-letter should be written to the Minister of Foreign
Relations by the consul who should have given them; finally, that the
ships should be required to take in return wines, cognac, silks, and
other French goods for the value of the cargo.
Deep was Armstrong’s disgust when an Imperial Decree[195]
appeared, dated July 15, authorizing licenses for thirty American
ships to sail from Charleston or New York under the rigorous
conditions detailed by this note; but the thirty licenses were merely a
beginning. Once having grasped the idea that something must be
done for French industry, the Emperor pressed it with his usual
energy and with the usual results. During the months of June and
July, while annexing Holland to his empire, he worked laboriously on
his new commercial system. He created a special Council of
Commerce, held meetings as often as twice a week, and issued
decrees and orders by dozens. The difficulty of understanding his
new method was great, owing to a duplication of orders not unusual
with him; the meaning of a public decree was affected by some
secret decree or order not made public, and as never failed to
happen with his civil affairs, the whole mass became confused.
Apparently the new system[196] rested on a decree of July 25,
1810, which forbade any ship whatever to leave a French port for a
foreign port without a license; and this license, in the Emperor’s
eyes, gave the character of a French ship to the licensed vessel,
—“that is to say, in two words, that I will have no neutral vessel; and
in fact there is none really neutral,—they are all vessels which violate
the blockade and pay ransom to the English.” In other words the
Emperor’s scheme was founded on his Berlin and Milan Decree and
left them intact except within the operation of the licenses. “For these
[licensed] ships,” he said,[197] “the Decrees of Berlin and Milan are
null and void; ... my licenses are a tacit privilege of exemption from
my decrees, on condition of conforming to the rules prescribed by
the said licenses.” The licenses themselves were classified in thirty
different series,[198]—for the ocean, the Mediterranean, England,
etc.,—and prescribed the cargoes to be carried both on the inward
and outward voyages.[199] They made no distinction between
neutrals and enemies; the license that authorized a voyage from
London was the same, except for its scries, as that which covered a
cargo of cotton from Charleston; and such distinction as appeared,
was limited to imposing on the neutral additional trouble to prove that
his goods were not English. In theory the import of such British
merchandise as would relieve England’s distress was forbidden, and
the export of French merchandise was encouraged, not only in order
to assist French industry, but also in order to drain England of
specie. Especially the sugar, coffee, and cotton of the colonies were
prohibited; but when captured by privateers or confiscated on land,
colonial produce was first admitted to the custom-house at a duty of
fifty per cent, and then sold for the benefit of the Imperial treasury.
 This system and tariff Napoleon imposed on all the countries
subject to his power, including Switzerland, Naples, Hamburg, and
the Hanse Towns; while he exerted all his influence to force the
same policy on Prussia and Russia. As far as concerned the only
neutral, the United States, the system classified American ships
either as English when unlicensed, or as French when licensed; it
imposed Imperial functions inconsistent with local law on the French
consuls in America, and violated both international and municipal law
only to produce another form of the Berlin and Milan Decrees, in
some respects more offensive than the original.
The character and actions of Napoleon were so overpowering
that history naturally follows their course rather than the acts of the
undecided and unenergetic governments which he drove before him;
and for this reason the replies made by Secretary Robert Smith to
the flashes of Imperial temper or policy have not hitherto been
noticed. In truth, Secretary Smith made no attempt to rival Napoleon
in originality or in vigor of ideas or expression. Neither his genius nor
that of Madison shone bright in the lurid glare of the Emperor’s
planet. When Champagny’s letter of Aug. 22, 1809, reached
Washington with its novel views about floating colonies, rights of
search, identity of blockade with siege, and warning of confiscations
in Holland, Spain, and Italy, President Madison, replying through
Robert Smith, Dec. 1, 1809, contented himself with silence in regard
to the threats, and with a mild dissent from the Emperor’s exposition
of the jus gentium. “However founded the definition of M.
Champagny may be in reason and general utility, and consequently
however desirable to be made the established law on the subject of
blockades, a different practice has too long prevailed among all
nations, France as well as others, and is too strongly authenticated
by the writers of admitted authority, to be combated by the United
States.”
A touch of Madison’s humor brightened the monotony of these
commonplaces, but was not granted the freedom which the subject
might have allowed. The President felt no wish to dwell on what was
unreasonable or violent in Napoleon’s conduct. He passed lightly
over the floating colony, ignored the threatened seizure of American
commerce, and fastened on the closing paragraph of Champagny’s
note, which promised that if England would revoke her blockades,
the decrees of France should fall of themselves. This proposition,
defined by Champagny and commented by Armstrong, required that
England should admit the whole doctrine of floating colonies and
siege-blockades. Madison knew it to be impracticable and deceptive;
but he was not bound to go beyond the letter of the pledge, and
although he declined to admit Napoleon among those “writers of
admitted authority” whose law prevailed among nations, he
instructed Armstrong to act without delay in the sense of
Champagny’s suggestion.
“You will of course,” wrote Secretary Smith to Armstrong, Dec. 1,
1809, “understand it to be wished that you should ascertain the
meaning of the French government as to the condition on which it has
been proposed to revoke the Berlin Decree. On the principle which
seems to be assumed by M. Champagny, nothing more ought to be
required than a recall by Great Britain of her proclamation or illegal
blockades which are of a date prior to that of the Berlin Decree, or a
formal declaration that they are not now in force.”[200]
January 25, 1810, Armstrong asked Cadore the question thus
dictated, and received for answer that the Emperor required only the
revocation of the British blockades as a condition of recalling the
Decree of Berlin,—a reply which Armstrong communicated the same
day to Minister Pinkney at London. No further instructions from
Washington seem to have reached the United States Legation at
Paris until news arrived that on May 1 the Non-intercourse Act had
been repealed. No official information of the repeal was received by
Armstrong, but an American who brought despatches from Pinkney
in London brought also a printed copy of the Act of May 1, 1810. In
the want of official advices, probably July 9, Armstrong
communicated the Act of May 1 to the Duc de Cadore in the
unofficial form of a newspaper. Cadore replied that being so entirely
unofficial, it could not be made the ground-work of any government
proceeding;[201] but he took it to the Emperor, and Armstrong waited
for some striking exhibition of displeasure.