Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1916-09-18
UNITED STATES MoRTuARY STA.
TisTics FOR YEAR 1915 MAKE
SURPRISING SHOWING.
DEATH RATE PER 1000
ONLY 1876 PER CENT
Greatly Below Record For Five-Year
Period-Greater Medical knowledge
and Adoption of Sanitary Rules by
City and State Authorities Assumed
to be Reason For Saving More Lives.

Sam l.. Rogers. of the bureau OF the
census, department of commerce. and
prepared under the supervision OF Rich
ard G. Lappin, chief statistician for VI
tai statistics. shows a death rate of
13.5-the lowest on record-per 1000 es-
timated population of the registration
area of the United States in 1915. This
rate was based on 909.155 deaths re-
turned from % states lin one of which,
North Carolina. only municipalities of
1000 population and over in 1910 We're
included). the District of Columbia.
and Al cities in nonregistration states.
the total population of this area in 1915
being estimated ut $685., 900. or GIL
per cent of the total estimated popula-
ton of the United States.
There is q widespread and Increas-
ing interest turnout the country in re-
spect to vital statistics. The states of
North and South Carolina, which re-
Gently enacted the model law" for the
registration OF births and deaths. were
admitted to the death-registration area
for 1916. increasing the estimated pop
ulation Of the area 10 70.2 per cent of
the total for the United States in that
year.
Loves. Death Rate On Record.
The death rate for 1915. 1875 per L.
600 population, is the low est ever re-
corded. the most favorable year prior to
1915 having been 1914. for which the
rate was 1876. 1t is markedly lower
than the average rate for the fve-year
period 1901 to 1898. wnicn was TO-. The
decrease thus amounts to 1871 per cent,
or almost exactly one-siXth, during n
little more than a decade When M
allowance is made for the addition of
many new states to the registration
area between 1905 and 1915. n the
comparison is confined to the group of
registration states as constituted during
the period l90l-5-the present popula-
ton of which is about one-fourth of the
total for the country-there is still
shown a very considerable decrease,
from 15.s to 14.3 per 1000 population,
or l0.1 per cent. This decrease, on the
basis Of the present population, would
amount to 42.S76 deaths. On the as
sumption hat a corresponding reduc-
ton has taken place thruout the entire
country. this would indicate q saving
| of Approximately 10000 lives in 1915
for the United States as a whole.
The annual report for 1915. to be is
| sued later, will state that changes in
! the e and sen constitution of the
population must be considered before
the exact nature and extent of the low
er general mortality can be understood
"a q: .a-&n;~ 1,nu-or-ar that the PrQ2 4
| progress made during recent years in
| the sciences of medicine and sanitation,
together with the widespread awaken :
ing of the people, turnout the United
States TO the support of public health
| authorities, has resulted in the saving
annually of scores of thousands of lives
| that would have been lost under the
| conditions prevailing only a few years
ago.
Rates For States and Cities.
In the states for which death rates
for 1s01-lsO5 are given, the greatest
| proportional decrease between that Pc
| Rod and 1915 is shown for Rhode Is
| land. le.9 per cent Next in order are
New York, with a decrease OF i4.6 per
cent: New Jersey, 14.3 per cent; Mas
sachusetts, 12.7 per cent; Vermont, 9.S
per cent: Connecticut, 81 per cent In
diana, s.s per cent: New Hampshire. 3
per cent: and Maine. 10 per cent. Mich
iaan alone showed a slight increase,
ight.tenths of 1 per cent.
Among the cities having 100000 or
more inhabitants in 1910 the tendency
Is toward a still greater reduction In
mortality The following-named cities
show, for 1915. decreases OF 20 per cent
or more as compared with the 5-year
psriod 1901 1905: Newark. n. j., 2S.s
per cent: Atlanta. 28.A per cent; New
York City. 25.S per cent; Los Angeles
25 per cent; Jersey City. 24.9 per cent;
Pittsburgh, 23.9 per cent: st. Louis
22.9 per cent; Denver. 22.7 per cent:
| Providence. 22.3 per cent; Paterson
! 21.s per cent: San Francisco, 2l.I per
cent: Fall River. 21.7 per cent; Louis
willie. Eli per cent; and Nashville, 2G
per cent.
1t should be borne in mind that the
| rates here given are crude" rates
! which make no allowance for differ
ences in the sex and age distribution OF
\ the population, and that, Furthermore
the rates for certain localities are ma
\ terially affected by deaths of non-resi-
dents who are attracted to those local.
ties by their favorable climate or by
their superior hospital facilities. Infer
ences in regard to the relative health
fulness of different states and cities
should not. therefore. be drawn with
out more thoro investigation.