BY R. M. JOHNSTON, F.L.S. 21 



Mr. Johnston, in replying on the discussion, said he was 

 glad that the main object of his paper had been accomplished. 

 It was his endeavour to show the distinction between the 

 sanitation of a place and its healthfulness ; that it did not 

 necessarily follow that while the sanitary conditions were not 

 as complete as they might be, rherefbre its health was bad, for 

 during a time being a city might be in a bad state of health, 

 and yet have the best system of sanitation in the world. It 

 seemed to be conceded on all sides that Hobart in the last two 

 or three years had been in a most satisfactory condition as 

 regards its health, but there were differences of opinion as to 

 the causes. He had studied the subject for many years, and 

 still believed that whilst sanitation was valuable in reducins: 

 certain diseases, such as typhoid, the great causes of such 

 diseases were still beyond man's control. The percentages 

 had fallen low in some years before any Health Acts were 

 passed, although he admitted that in England typhoid fever 

 cases had of late years been greatly reduced. Too little credit 

 seemed to be given to the increased knowledge of medical 

 men in the treatment of such diseases, and the improved habits 

 of the people. He agreed with Mr. Mault that sanitary 

 agencies were powerful influences in reducing the number of 

 fever cases, but they were not the only ones, and they did not 

 produce such good results as one should like to see. As to 

 what Major-General Tottenham had said about the returns 

 supplied to and used by statisticians not being reliable, the 

 objection cut the ground from the objector's own feet, as he 

 had quoted such statistics himself. (Laughter.) He would, 

 however, be sorry if the effect of his paper would be that 

 decreased attention M'ould be given in Hobart or anywhere 

 else to the importance of sanitation. (Applause.) 



