690 
the following figures and facts are taken. The perusal of his article 
is recommended to those who desire a more extended treatment of this 
l^hase of the subject.® Reference to the report of the Bureau of Cen- 
sus for 1900 shows that the general infantile mortality rate per thou- 
sand in the States which constituted our registration area at that time 
is as follows: 
Table 1. 
District of Columbia 
- 274.5 
Xew York 
159. 8 
Rhode Island 
197. 9 
Connecticut 
156. 8 
T\rn ssa ebn setts 
177. 5 
Afaine 
144. 1 
A" e w Hampshire 
172. 0 
Averment 
122. 1 
Xew .Jersey 
167.4 
Arichigan 
121. 1 
These figures show the 
wide ^ 
rariations to which the 
infantile 
mortality rate is subject in different parts of this country. The low- 
est mortality rate, 121.1 (Michigan), is less than half the highest i 
(Washington, D. C.). 
On comparing them with foreign countries, however, they do not ^ 
strike us as extraordinarily high. The death rate of Washington, j 
D. C., is similar to that of Russia, while the rate of the lowest (Michi- 
gan) corresponds to that of Scotland, but exceeds that of three other 
European countries, viz, Ireland (average of twenty years, 1871 to 
1893, 96.6), Norway (1902, 75.08), and Sweden (1902, 87). 
As is to be expected, our cities show a higher infant mortality rate 
than our States. The census rej^ort of 1900 gives 106 towns and 
cities which have an infant mortality of 175 or over. The maximum i 
infant death rate was shown by Charleston, S. C., with a rate of 
419.5, while Los Angeles, Cal., with a rate of 175, occupied the last 
place. 
The following cities showed a death rate of over 300 per 1,000 
births : 
= 2 . j 
Atlanta, Ga 306. 0 ^ 
Fall River, Mass 304. 7 
Lynclibnrg, Va 301. 7 
Richmond, Va 300. 1 , 
Charleston, S. C 419. 5 
Savannah, Ga 387. 5 
Mobile, Ala 344. 5 
Key West, Fla 311.8 
Biddeford, Me 311.6 
The following large representative cities had an infantile mor- 
tality rate as follows: 
o Harrington, Am. Jour. Med. Sci., Yol. CXXXII, pp. 811-835. 
