[Reprinted from the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal 
of December 22, 1892.] 
ent result from the man who tries to solve the same problem 
by the Massachusetts rates for 1890, as they relate to several 
non-census years." 
The error in the population referred to is at worst 
only one-tenth of one per cent., and the difference in the 
tables of rates is only from one one-hundredth to three 
one-hundredths of one per cent. ; birth-rates 25.83 and 
25.80; marriages 18.98 and 18.96; death-rates 19.80 
and 19.78 ; rates of increase 6.03 and 6.02. 
From the census of 1885 to that of 1890 the increase 
in the population of the State was from 1,942,141 to 
2,238,943, or 296,802, a gain in five years of fifteen 
per cent, in round numbers. It is fair to say, there- 
fore, that the population of 1891 2 is at least 2.6 per 
cent, greater than that of 1890, and that the editor of 
the registration report for the year 1891, in using the 
population of 1890 as a basis for calculating the rates 
for 1891, not only departs from the established and 
universal practice of statisticians but commits an error 
more than twenty times as great as that arising from the 
method which he, on the very preceding page, in his 
inexperience, so cavalierly condemns (28.15 for 27.- 
42 ; 9.68 for 9.43 ; 19.36 for 18.86 ; 20.18 for 19.66 ; 
7.97 for 7.76, if we take the death-rate, 20.18, as given 
on page 115, to be what the editor means and not 20.13 
as stated on page 122). 
This error vitiates statistics on pages 118, 122 and 
132 and makes the deductions from them misleading. 
For instance, "greater," page 118, line 9, should be 
"less"; the conclusions in the second and tmrd para- 
graphs of page 122 are incorrect; " the same as " page 
128, line 6, should be "less than "; and in the same 
paragraph the order of the counties is wrong, as it is in 
the second and seventh paragraphs of page 129 ; 12, 3, 
line 1, and 19.3, line 30, page 129, are too high; 17, 
page 132, line 16, should be 15.63, and 8.3, line 14 of 
the same page, should be 7.58; on page 137, first par- 
agraph, the numbers 11,973 and 37,316 are too small. 
There are also other errors in the report where the 
" originality of treatment " is of another kind, to which 
we will call attention in order to increase what the 
Secretary of State calls the " practical utility " of the 
report. 
"Lower than all of Europe," page 116, line 10, 
should be " lower than that of all Europe "; the fifth 
paragraph of page 116 is very bad English and its 
meaning is ambiguous ; the last paragraph on page 117 
is obscure, and, whether the list of counties is for 1891 
or for ten years, the order is wrong; page 118, line 
9, for " greater than that of the average " read 
"greater than the average" ; page 119, lines 3 and 6, 
1,827 and 2,841 and 1,940 should be 1,829 and 2,778 
and 1,890; page 120, line 4, for 229 read 228; in the 
table on page 122 the death-rates of only twelve coun- 
ties out of fourteen have the decimal point in the wrong 
place; "greater," page 123, line 32, should be "less" 
(16.16-J- as compared with 16.17) ; page 123, line 36, 
for 73.31 and 26.69 read 73.32 and 26.68; page 123, 
line 37, for " ratio of the native born," read " ratio of 
the deaths of the native born"; page 124, line 2, for 
2 Estimated to be 2,298,303. 
THE FIFTIETH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 
VITAL STATISTICS OF MASSACHUSETTS.1 
In 1841 the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 
appointed a committee to urge upon the legislature the 
passage of a law to provide for collecting and publish- 
ing the vital statistics of the State of Massachusetts. This 
committee was seconded by the councillors of the Mas- 
sachusetts Medical Society, and their petitions were 
placed before the General Court in March, 1841. The 
following winter a suitable law was passed and went 
into immediate operation, so that the first report deals 
with statistics of the remaining portion of the year 
1842. 
The Secretary of State entered upon the work with 
enthusiasm. He had the able assistance of Lemuel 
Shattuck, Augustus A. Gould, J. Ingersoll Bowditch 
and Edward Jarvis, in his early endeavors to bring his 
reports up to the highest possible standard of excel- 
lence. For forty-nine years, the high ideals with which 
these men labored were maintained and followed. The 
editing of the reports was placed in the hands of men 
like Curtis, Shurtleff. Gould, Derby, who so established 
the character of the Massachusetts Registration Reports 
as to make them the best in this country and eagerly 
sought for by statisticians in Europe. After the crea- 
tion of the State Board of Health, the reports were edited 
by its secretary or temporarily as approved by the Board. 
The report has just appeared in its fiftieth volume - 
sed quantum mututus ab illo. 
The present incumbent of the office of Secretary of 
State has departed from the established custom of forty- 
nine years, has taken the report from competent hands 
in the office of the State Board of Health, where it 
was edited by the Board's secretary Dr. Abbott, with 
the cooperation of Dr. Walcott and Dr. Draper, and 
has given it to an untried and inexpert editor, "the 
design being " in the words of the Secretary of State 
" to reduce the volume of the statistics as far as may 
be, without impairing their practical utility." The 
editor, he adds, " has performed his work with a liter- 
ary skill and originality of treatment which give to the 
report a fresh interest." 
We quote at length the following paragraph of the 
report, page 114, partly to illustrate the secretary's 
idea of " literary skill," and in part to show the ed- 
itor's " originality of treatment." 
" Now in the census years there is no discrepancy in the pop- 
ulation nor in the rates, but take a non-census year, where the 
population is estimated, and the table for 1889 estimates it for, 
say 1887, 2,058,847, while in the table for 1890 the population 
for 1887 is estimated at 2,060,861, while all the columns devoted 
to ratios differ in the figure obtained by a change in the divisor 
for the different years; and this difference obtains in several 
previous non-census years, so that a man who tries to solve a 
problem on the Massachusetts rates for 1889 gets quite a differ- 
1 Public Document, No. 1, Fiftieth Report of Births, Marriages and 
Deaths in the Commonwealth ; Returns of Libels for Divorce, and 
Returns of Deaths investigated by the Medical Examiners for the 
year 1891. Prepared by the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Edited 
by Francis A. Harris, M.D. Boston : Wright & Potter Printing 
Co., State Printers, 18 Post Office Square. 1892. " Hampshire," read " Middlesex and Hampden "; if 
kidney disease on page 126 has the same meaning as 
is usual, and as diseases of the kidneys on page 131, 
the order of mortality in the third paragraph of page 
126 is wrong; the third paragraph on page 127 is badly 
mixed, whether from the point of view of " literary 
skill " or " practical utility," and it is with some diffi- 
culty that we discover that the source of errors lies in 
the fact that death-rates per 10,000 of population (in 
1889, 1890 and 1891) are confounded with percentages 
of total mortality (1881, 1882 and 1886); page 128, 
line 23, in " total mortality from all causes," strike out 
either " total " or " from all causes " ; on page 128, line 
30, for 1891 read 1890; page 130, line 11, after "less 
than " add " that of " ; it would be more exact, and 
therefore of more "practical utility," to say "deaths 
attributed to influenza " than " deaths from influenza," 
page 130, third paragraph; page 131, line 3 from the 
bottom, .007 is too original a way of expressing the 
difference between 3.4 and 2.7; page 131, last para- 
graph, old age is said to be neither a disease nor a 
cause of death, and in the next paragraph it is three 
times referred to as a cause; page 132, second para- 
graph, for 3,787 and 208 read 3,592 and 175; page 
136, sixth paragraph, for "highest per cent. . . . ex- 
cept in 1887 " read " except in 1885 (3.52), 1886 (3.41) 
and 1887"; page 137, line 4, for 4.2 read 4.5; on 
page 137, second paragraph, the 143 deaths investi- 
gated by the' Medical Examiners and reported to be 
directly or indirectly in consequence of the abuse of 
alcoholic stimulants, as compared with 254 in 1890, 
suggest the question whether the number would not be 
much larger if the original returns were scrutinized 
with the same minuteness as by the method for the 
previous three reports, and as shown in the forty- 
seventh report, pp. 399 to 405. 
We quote another specimen of "literary skill," as 
follows, because, also, we take decided exception to 
the conclusion reached by the editor: 
set of items alone; and, second, because there is such a lack of 
uniformity of returns, many items being omitted and others 
lumped together in a way impossible to separate into their proper 
classes, that the preparation of an accurate table is an impossi- 
bility." 
When we took up the report, knowing the splendid 
possibilities for a half-century review of our vital statis- 
tics, in addition to the usual opportunity afforded each 
year by such a mass of material collected at such great 
cost of time and labor, it was with intense disappoint- 
ment that we saw so much of importance left out, 
thrown away as it were, and so little, comparatively, 
of value recorded in the editorial summary. It seemed 
such a wretched waste. As we put the report down, 
we refer to the editor's second paragraph, page 113, 
both aS another illustration of the secretary's idea of 
" literary skill " and perhaps, by reading between the 
lines, as an explanation why we are called upon to re- 
cord our thankfulness that, under the circumstances, 
the report is so short. The sentence is as follows : 
" It is not intended, however, in this report to present all the 
elaborate tables heretofore presented, where data are arrived 
at by an unending series of sums in long division and by per- 
mutations and combinations of figures, which data are, if to 
any one, of value only to the statistician who might well him- 
self devote the time and labor necessary to ascertaining the 
facts desired." 
The editing of these reports naturally belongs in the 
office of the State Board of Health. If the Secretary 
of State has any other than personal or political reasons 
for his extraordinary course this year, an explan- 
ation from him is now in order. The fact that he is 
not without a sense of humor is shown by his claiming 
for his report a " fresh interest,"- altogether too fresh. 
There are sufficient reasons why the collection, tabu- 
lation and supervision of the original returns of births, 
marriages and deaths should also be in the hands of 
the State Board of Health. But we have not space 
to consider them at present. 
We do not need to further explain our reasons for 
departing this year from our usual custom of publish- 
ing an abstract of the Registration Report, except to 
say that it is with great regret that we are compelled 
to omit it. The volume itself speaks its own loudest 
condemnation. 
" It has been the custom for a few years past to publish a 
table showing an itemized account of the expenses of the medi- 
cal examinations in the different counties. This table is omitted 
this year for the reasons that, first, financial statements properly 
belong to another department, and it is singular to publish one 
r