New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-07-23
MORTALITY AuOYG SOLDIERS.

II was long ago demonstrated that In time Of
war disease Stays more men than the bullet
Hence no surprise will be created by the an
nouncement that the former agent found 1880
victims among the British troops In the late
conflict in South Africa, while the latter de-
stroyed only 1892 lives. The figures are appall-
ing to one who contemplates for the first time
the disproportion between the preventable and
the legitimate effects OF international conflicts
Yet when one makes further comparisons he is
surprised that the showing for the Boer war Is
so creditable In the Crimean war the French
lost $4,000 men, of whom only 10000 were killed
in battle or died from wounds In the Russo
Turkish war the Gar lost about six men from
disease to one who died the soldiers death
During its brief struggle with Spain over Cuba
this country lost 1855 men from sickness and
only $40 in battle or in consequence thereof
The proportion was more than seven to one
Since there was a great deal Of hasty prepare
ton for that war and very little actual fighting
the preponderance here exhibited may not be
fairly representative. Had hostilities continued
for two or three years the American commits
sary, transport and hospital services would have
been better organized, and the ordinary casual
ties of battle might have been proportionately
more numerous. But even if the South African
war is compared only with the two European
wars just mentioned 1t Will be seen that there
is a remarkable Improvement in the ratio be-
tween the two classes Of deaths.
In time of peace the soldier is as we'll Off
from a hygienic point of view, the civilian.
In fact, mortality statistics would indicate that
he is better off Such is not really the case,
however The small percentage of deaths in the
army is attributable to the fact that recruits are
picked men in respect TO physique, whereas in
sfa Iap.r Of
more or less impaired health and their chances
of,living are not so good as the soldiers. When
war breaks out the conditions are greatly
changed. Troops are obliged to undertake long
marches, and are often inadequately clad
Fatigue renders them more susceptible to the
attack of disease. Exposure TO Dau weather
irregular hours of eating, poor food and pos
sibly some relaxation Of moral selfcOntrol all
conduce to the same result When the stay in a
given locality is likely to be brief, more atten-
ton is given to throwing up breastworks for
defence than to keeping the camp sinks and
drains in a suitable condition or closely scrutin-
izlng the water supply. Locality, climate, sea-
son, and even nationality, all have some in
huence on the result, but the essential and
fundamental trouble is violation OF established
sanitary principles. A man cannot take such
good care Of himself as IL he were at home and
those whose duty II is TO look AFTER his health
are not able TO control the situation as
thoroughly they would. After all, the latter
is the vital point because the soldier is subject
to discipline The responsibility belongs to
others.
An interesting suggestion as to the best way
to reduce mortality from disease during war
is offered by 1.-THE Medical Record" That
periodical remarks that the army surgeon acts
only in an advisory capacity. The decision Of
the commanding officer is paramount. Gener-
ally speaking, he Is more alert TO the peril to
which bis enemy exposes him than to the
causes which in the long run will rob him OF
| the most men, "rhe Record" thinks, therefore
that military hygiene should receive greater
prominence in the education of line officers than
i 1t does now. While this explanation may not