rate of the world and publishes it. I scrap-booked these reports during several months, and it was curious to see how regular and persistently each city repeated its same death-rate month after month. The tables might as well have been stereotyped, they varied so little. These tables were based upon weekly reports showing the average of deaths in each 1,000 of population for a year. Munich was always present with her 33 deaths in each 1,000 of her population (yearly average,) Chicago was as constant with her 15 or 17, Dublin with her 48—and so on.
Only a few American cities appear in these tables, but they are scattered so widely over the country that they furnish a good general average of city health in the United States; and I think it will be granted that our towns and villages are healthier than our cities
Here is the average of the only American cities reported in the German tables:
Chicago, deaths in 1,000 of population annually, 16; Philadelphia, 18; St. Louis, 18; San Francisco, 19; New York, (the Dublin of America,) 23.
See how the figures jump up, as soon as one arrives at the transatlantic list:
Paris, 27; Glasgow, 27; London, 28; Vienna, 28; Augsburg, 28; Braunschweig, 28; Königsberg, 29; Colonge, 29; Dresden, 29; Hamburg, 29; Berlin, 30; Bombay, 30; Warsaw, 31; Breslau, 31; Odessa, 32; Munich, 33; Strasburg, 33; Pesth, 35; Cassel, 35; Lisbon, 36; Liverpool, 36; Prague, 37; Madras, 37; Bucharest, 39; St. Petersburg, 40; Triest, 40; Alexandria, (Egypt,) 43; Dublin, 48; Calcutta, 55.
Edinburg is as healthy as New York—23; but there is no city in the entire list which is healthier, except Frankfort-on-the-Main—20. But Frankfort is not as healthy as Chicago, San Francisco, St. Louis, or Philadelphia.
Perhaps a strict average of the world might develop the fact that where 1 in 1,000 of America's population dies, 2 in 1,000 of the other populations of the earth succumb.
I do not like to make insinuations, but I do think the above
