rations of rejections in Table Numbers 1 are consequently too high. I have therefore prepared, as an appendix to Table Numbers 1, a statement of the numbers examined and rejected for physical disability, compiled from the reports of the provost-marshals.
The tabular statements herewith submitted are:
Table Numbers 1, showing the statistics of rejections for each district, arranged according to the paragraphs of the official list of disqualifying infirmities.
Table Numbers 2 gives the relative rations of rejections per thousand examined in the United States, France, and Great Britain.
Table Numbers 3 gives the statistics of rejections for classes of diseases, arranged in groups corresponding to the paragraphs in the official list of disqualifying infirmities.
Table Numbers 4 shows the statistics of rejections for certain specific diseases in each district.
Table Numbers 5 gives the statistics of examinations and rejections in Great Britain for ten years, from April 1, 1864, to March 31, 1852.
Table Numbers 7 gives the statistics of examinations and rejections in France for thirteen years, from 1831 to 1843.
Although the general results exhibited by those tables compare very favorably with the English and French statistics, the data are by no means sufficient to warrant the deduction of positive conclusions respecting the physical condition of our people . It is to be remembered that these statistics show the result of the first enrollment and draft of our citizens; that the draft took place after two years of war, during which time over 1,000,000 of men had been in the military service, and nearly 200,000 discharged for physical disability, many of whom, as the reports show, were subsequently drafted. It is also to be considered that the physical examinations were made by surgeons in civil life, resident in the several districts, so that the tendency would be to exempt all who had a probable cause for rejection under the regulations.
I believe that the statistics warrant the following deductions:
First. That the official list of disqualifying diseases and infirmities is judicious, and based upon sound experience, and that any material reduction thereof wouthe statistical evidence is that in some particulars the list is too exclusive and rigid. See, for example, the comparative rejections for varicose veins and varicocele in Table Numbers 5.
Second. That, as a general rule, the surgeons have performed their duty according to the regulations.a The exceptions, judging from statistical results, are found in the too liberal construction of paragraphs 4 (acute and organic diseases of internal organs) and 37 (wounds, fractures, and diseases of bones), which are general in their character; and also of paragraphs 5 and 22 (confirmed consumption, loss of teeth), which are specific.
I would, therefore, recommend that the qualifying sentences of paragraphs 4 and 37 be amended, so as to required that the diseases and injuries therein enumerated should be sufficient in degree and so well marked as to leave no doubt of the man's unfitness for the military service.
aSince writing the above one report has been received in which there are a number of rejections for infirmities which are ot included in the official list of disqualifications.