202 surgeons' reports — Massachusetts — fourth district. 



waut of (lisci-iniinatioii in the discharge of their duties. No one can question the propriety of the 

 Array regulation requiring the re-examination of all accepted recruits upon arrival at the rendezvous. 

 Yet I do not think it possible for any two surgeons, of equal skill and experience in examining re- 

 cruits, acting separately, to agree in opinion as to the acceptance or rejection of any three hundred 

 or one liundred recruits, even if no fraud is attempted on the part of the recruits; and this disagree- 

 ment should not impugn the accura(;y of judgment of either surgeon. If the numbers are reck- 

 oned by thousands, as has been the case the past two years, this difference of opinion between 

 surgeons is more likely to occur. 



When large numbers of men are to be recruited, frauds are successfully practiced by brokers 

 and recruits. Prominent among those resorted to by brokers has been the substitution of un- 

 sound men for recruits who had been accepted by the surgeon. This has been .effected probably 

 through collusion with the guard having the recruits in charge. These meu, upon arrival at the 

 rendezvous, are very p'operly rejected, but tlie examiuing-surgeon is gravely charged with having 

 accepted recruits " totally unfit for service." No opportunity is aflbrdcd the surgeon charged with 

 dereliction of duty to verify a well-founded suspicion he may have that fraud has been practiced, 

 as the men are summarily discharged from the rendezvous, and in many cases repeat the same trick 

 in another district. 



" Bounty -jumpers," and recruits who repent of having enlisted, have it in their power to de- 

 ceive surgeons at rendezvous or regimental headquarters, and are discharged. Again is the exam- 

 ining surgeon pronounced derelict in accepting a recruit "totally unfit for service." Other causes 

 lor disagreement between surgeons nwght be referred to, but these are sufficient to show some of 

 the embarrassments under which surgeons of boards of enrollment have labored in the discharge 

 of a portion of the duties devolving upon them. In view of the causes thus briefly presented, there 

 would seem to be a propriety, in any future exigency requiring the examination of large numbers 

 of men, that in cases of rejection the examining-surgeon charged with dereliction of duty should 

 have an opportunity to re-examine the recruit prior to the report upon his case. If tliis is not 

 feasible, a full personal description of the rejected recruit should be transmitted to the examining- 

 surgeon, in order that he may compare it with his record. If such a course could have been 

 adopted two years since, many cases of successful fraud would have been exposed, and the parties 

 propefly punished. 



JOS. H. STREETER, 

 Surgeon Board of Enrollment Third District Mansaclmsetts. 



Boston, June 15, 1SC5. 



MASSACeUSETTS— FOURTH DISTRICT. 



Extracts from report of Du. II. J. Bowditoh. 



* * * Whole number examined (drafted men, substitutes, and recruits) 



between the dates of July, 1863, and May, 1865 5, 816 



The statistics of the draft were — 



Number examined 1863, (first draft) 1, 303 



Number examined 18G4, (second di'aft) 402 



.Number examined 1865 10 



Total V 1, 7;5 



Average chest-measurement at inspiration S^i^g inches. 



Average chest-measurement at expiration 32^^^^ inches. 



Maximum girth, inspiration and expiration, (Massachusetts) 13 and 39 inches. 



Minimum girth, inspiration and expiration, (Massachusetts) 28 and 26 inches. 



(Three of these were from New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.) 



