But I will not occupy time with further details of the evidence which this inspection furnishes of the vast accumulation of the causes of unhealthiness which exist in New York, and of the wide prevalence of contagious diseases arising therefrom or aggravated thereby.
The next point of inquiry is as to the effect of these conditions upon the public health of the city. Our constituted health authorities claim that notwithstanding this excessive concentration of the causes of disease around and in the homes of half of our population, the death-rate of New York is very low. To properly understand this statement, we must inquire what is the rate of death from inevitable causes.
It has been estimated by careful writers on vital statistics that 17 in 1,000 living persons annually die from inevitable causes. That is, in a community of 1,000 persons living under circumstances such that persons die only from The Normal
Death-Rate old age, cancer, casualties, etc., 17 will die annually, and no more. And this number is the maximum that will die without the occurrence of some disease due to a removable cause. Taking this standard as the absolute necessary death-rate, we can readily estimate the number of unnecessary or preventable deaths which occur in any community.
Says the Registrar-General of England (Twentieth Annual Report): “Any deaths in a people exceeding 17 in 1,000 annually are unnatural deaths. If the people were shot, drowned, burnt, poisoned by strychnine, their deaths would not be more unnatural than the deaths wrought clandestinely by diseases in excess of the quota of natural death—that is, in excess of seventeen in 1,000 living.”
Taking this as the standard, let us see how the death-rate of New York compares with it. It is claimed by the city officials that notwithstanding the vast accumulation of the universally-recognized Death-Rate of
New York causes of disease, New York has a low death-rate. It is not reasonable to suppose this statement true, nor is it true, as will presently appear. It is stated very truly in the City Inspector’s Report for 1863, that “it is only by taking a connected view of a period of years that a correct judgment can be formed of the state of health of a city,” and upon this basis let us determine what is the mortality of New York.
Take the 11 years preceding the last census, viz., 1860, excluding, however, 1854, the year of the cholera. I select this period because it includes the three last census returns, and it is only where we have the census returns with the mortality records that we have accurate data for our estimates. Now, the City Inspector’s own records (reports of 1863, page 192) show that during the period referred to, the death-rate of New York City was never below 28 in the 1,000, and twice exceeded 40 in the 1,000, the average being as high as 33 in the 1,000. These deductions are made directly from the City Inspector’s Reports, and, as they are claimed to be infallible, these conclusions cannot be controverted.
Now, when you remember that the highest death-rate fixed by sanitary writers for inevitable deaths is 17 in 1,000, and that all deaths above that standard are considered preventable, it is apparent what a fearful sacrifice of life there is in New York. Estimated at the very minimum death-rate of the last decennial period, viz.: 28 in 1,000, New York annually lost 11 from preventable deaths in 1,000 of her population, or upwards of 7,000 yearly, on an average, giving the enormous sum total for this period of 77,000 preventable deaths.
It may be urged that cities never can attain to this standard of healthfulness, but English writers maintain that the rate of 17 in the 1,000 is the true measure of the public health, and that even the most populous towns may yet be brought up to it. Nor can we doubt that there is much plausibility in the assertion, when we find the mortality in Philadelphia fall to 18 in 1,000, and that of London gradually descend from 30 in 1,000 to 22 in 1,000.
It is maintained, also, that New York has a lower death-rate than London or Philadelphia. Let us see how far this assertion is sustained by the records of the health authorities of those cities. During the decennial period preceding, but including New York, London, and
Liverpool Compared 1860, and excluding 1854, as in the former comparison, the minimum mortality in London was 20 in 1,000, the maximum 24 in 1,000, the mean about 22 in 1,000. These figures are from the Registrar-General Reports.
The rate of mortality of Philadelphia for the same period was as follows: Minimum 18 in 1,000, maximum 23 in 1,000, mean about 20 in 1,000. These figures are from the report of Dr. Jewell, long the able Health Officer of that city. Placed in their proper relation, these mortality statistics read as follows: The number of deaths to the 1,000 living for the ten years, 1850–60 inclusive, but exclusive of 1854, is for