18 THE HEALTH OF HOBART. 



in England from 1848 to the present time shows a very 

 irregular but very marked tidal action ; but it also shows — 

 and this is the most imj)ortant fact it does show — that up till 

 1875 there was no controlling influence over this tidal action, 

 but that since that date an influence, growing more and more 

 potent as sanitary administration grows more and more efficient, 

 is so controlling the tide as to now almost obliterate all traces 

 of periodical rise and fall. 



If, instead of taking the general death-rate, the death-rate of 

 one of the infectious diseases that are the most amenable to sani- 

 tary eftbrt be taken, this controlling influence is yet more clearly 

 seen. Take typhoid fever, for instance. In Mr. Johnston's table 

 of deaths from the principal specific causes the line for typhoid 

 fever deaths is singularly treated. For the British towns the 

 deaths from this fever are recorded for one year ; for Hobart 

 the mean rate for the last two years is given ; for Sydney and 

 Melliourne the mean of 17 years is taken ; and the rate for 

 Adelaide is not given at all. With such divergence of data no 

 real comparison can be made. But if the rate for the three 

 Australian towns for 1894 be taken, the real condition of the 

 towns mentioned will be, for each 100,000 people : — 



London 17 



Average of principal Scotch towns 25 



Sydney ? 29 



Adelaide 35 



Hobart 50 



Mr. Johnston says : — " In making contrasts of this kind 

 between place and place, conclusions based upon any single 

 form of disease would to a certainty be very misleading and 

 unsatisfactory : the general effect of all forms of preveniible 

 diseases is alone satisfactory and conclusive." This may be 

 true from a statistician's point of view when regarding general 

 healthiness or unhealthiness, but from a sanitarian point of 

 view the real value of statistics is to point out where and how 

 sanitary work is most needed and can best be done. As 

 already mentioned, typhoid is one of the diseases most 

 amenable to the influence of sanitary work, especially drainage, 

 and the figures just given point out that Hobart, though a very 

 healthy place, may be made yet more healthy by the prevention 

 of typhoid. Before the passing of the Health Act in England 

 the average death-rate from typhoid fever was 89 in 100,000, 

 as compared with 21 now. At Sydney it was 102 in 1885, 

 and is 29 now. At Adelaide there has been a corresponding 

 reduction. Why should not similar work be done here ? 



There is a point in connection with the healthiness of Hobart 

 that should be more widely known — its comparative freedon^ 





