SURGKONs' IJKroHTS PENNSYLVANIA FIFTH DISTRICT. 303 



interested in liaving- every aljleboiiied iniin enrolled and (lie disaliled stricken ofl', so tliar tlie (Jov- 

 ernnient would save time by having a correct enrollr ••ntlist and gain in men wlio would inmudiaely 

 be lurtlieoiiiing when a draft was ordered. 



I believe, also, as a matter of ecouoiny, if bounties are ofl'ercd for recruits, that no draft should 

 be ordered for less than three years. 



J. 11 ALSTON WELLS, 

 Surgeon Board of Enrollment Fourth District of rennnyhania. 

 Philadelphia, Pa., June 15, 1865. 



PENNSYLVANIA— FIFTH DISTRICT. 

 Extracts from report of Dk. J. H. Meaes. 



* * * I received my appointment February 21, 1865, and have had only about 



two mouths' experience iu the examination of men. However, during that time, I have examined 

 eight hundred and seventy-six recruits, substitutes, and drafted men, rejecting out of that number 

 two hundred and thirty-eight on account of mental or physical inaptitude for military service. 



The Fifth District comprises the twenty-second, twenty-third, and twenty-fifth wards of the city 

 of Philadelphia, and Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The three wards of Philadelphia are rural portions 

 of the city, with a mixed population of manufacturers, mechanics, and laborers, and a small propor- 

 tion of farmers. Bucks County is entirely a farming-district. 



The health of the district, generally, has been good, with no especial prevalent disease; although, 

 from the thickly settled city-portions of the district, and among the laboring classes, a large per- 

 centage of those rejected were cases of venereal disease. I noticed no particular affection which 

 disqualified a greater ratio per thousand more than another from military service. 



In reference to paragraph 85, Revised Regulations Provost-Marsbal-General's Bureau, I woidd 

 venture to recommend several changes ; but, as a general rule. It answers in all ordinary cases. 



Many drafted men have claimed exemption, and I think justly, yet cannot be exenijited under the 

 strict letter of section 6, as having " developed tuberculosis." Several cases have come under my 

 notice, which have given me some difiSculty in deciding, whether I could, under section 0, exempt 

 them or not; yet in my own mind I had no doubt the men were unfit for military duties. Such 

 cases were those which, although not '■'■developed tuberculosis,''' would soon become so if exposed to 

 camp-life. I would suggest that section 6 be changed so that the judgment of the surgeon, in all 

 cases where there is a tuberculous diathesis, should decide whether or not the man should be held 

 for military service. 



Somewhat the same objection might be made to that portion of section 11 which reads " chronic 

 rheumatism, unless manifest by position, change of structure, &c., does not exempt." What has 

 been said under section 6, I think, will apply here. The Government will necessarily be obliged to 

 receive a large number of useless men, in my opinion, which section 11 prevents the surgeon from 

 rejecting; for no one will doubt for a moment that there are cases, and not a few, where there is 

 no a[iparent abnormal change in the structure, and yet chronic rheumatism exists to such a degree as 

 should disqualify for military dutj\ The majority of such cases are probably of a syphilitic origin. 

 I am fully aware of the difficulty iu making a correct diagnosis in these cases, and how almost 

 universally rheumatism is used iu feigning disability, and how important it is to avoid deception ; 

 yet I have known instances where the surgeon was obliged to accept a man utterly useless for 

 military pur])oses, and where there was no difficulty iu making the diagnosis. 



Section 13. " Near-sightedness does not exeini)t." This section, it appears to me, would imply 

 that myopia is in no case a ground for exemption. In a large majority of cases, it is doubtless in- 

 sufficient to disqualify. In my examinations, I liave seen but one case which I should have exeni[)ted ; 

 but I have known of many who, in my oiiinion, should be exempted upon this ground. I would much 

 prefci' a man with the " loss of any two lingers of same hand " to one who could not distinguish an 

 object twenty paces distant without glasses. 



In other respects, I would offer no modification to paragraph 85. 1 have merely criticised 



