It may be urged that cities never can attain to this standard of healthfulness, but English writers maintain that the rate of 17 in the 1,000 is the true measure of the public health, and that even the most populous towns may yet be brought up to it. Nor can we doubt that there is much plausibility in the assertion, when we find the mortality in Philadelphia fall to 18 in 1,000, and that of London gradually descend from 30 in 1,000 to 22 in 1,000.
[Sidenote: New York, London, and Liverpool Compared]
It is maintained, also, that New York has a lower death-rate than London or Philadelphia. Let us see how far this assertion is sustained by the records of the health authorities of those cities. During the decennial period preceding, but including 1860, and excluding 1854, as in the former comparison, the minimum mortality in London was 20 in 1,000, the maximum 24 in 1,000, the mean about 22 in 1,000. These figures are from the Registrar-General Reports.
The rate of mortality of Philadelphia for the same period was as follows: Minimum 18 in 1,000, maximum 23 in 1,000, mean about 20 in 1,000. These figures are from the report of Dr. Jewell, long the able Health Officer of that city. Placed in their proper relation, these mortality statistics read as follows: The number of deaths to the 1,000 living for the ten years, 1850–60 inclusive, but exclusive of 1854, is for
Min. Max. Av. London 20 24 22 Philadelphia 18 23 20 New York 28 41 33
If, then, New York had as low an average death-rate as Philadelphia, she would have saved 13 in 1,000 of her population during that period, or in 1860, 10,577. These figures may seem excessive, but they are careful deductions from the annual returns of the several cities. And yet it is reiterated year after year by the City Inspector, that “New York City, at this day, can lay claim to the privilege of being numbered with the most healthy in the world.”
With what consummate justice did Dr. Jewell administer this withering rebuke to our pretentious official. “It is unnecessary,” he says, in his report of 1860, “to comment upon this extraordinary statement, when the above figures contradict so positively the assertion. It is to be regretted that the inspector had not availed himself of the above statistical information, which would have obliged him to have presented a widely different statement, although one indicating a more severe pressure of sanitary evils, upon the health of their population, than his report develops.”