?27
not include the whole of the population of the wards. Mr. Dadachanji has, in his figures for
the population under observation, left out of account 110 people out of the total population of
the four wards, as 62 of these were children under two, 30 had had plague during a previous
outbreak, and 18 were attacked by plague in the outbreak under consideration before inocula-
tions were completed. Lastly, it is to be noted that the number of uninoculated persons who
came under observation amounted to no more than 62. This number is so small that we may
assume that it consisted in large part of persons who remained uninoculated because they were
unfit for inoculation. The mortality among these might naturally be expected to be higher
than in a normal community. As a matter of fact, we find that from May to December 1898
the 62 uninoculated lost 8 persons on account of deaths from general causes while the 1,018
inoculated lost 10.
"As far as we have been able to judge, Mr. Dadachanji's figures have been carefully
collected. A census of the town was taken at the end of 1897, and a complete census of the
inoculated wards was taken again at the time of inoculations. A list of the inoculated and
uninoculated inhabitants was posted up on the door of each house, and each house is said to
have been visited daily by a medical officer who had orders to satisfy himself regarding every
person living in it, and to call out the inhabitants daily for inspection. In this manner the
number of plague cases and deaths, and their distribution between the inoculated and the unin-
oculated were ascertained.
"It will be seen from the table that the effect of anti-plague inoculation manifested itself
here especially in the reduction of case mortality. When we take into consideration the fact
that the uninoculated were a sickly community, we see that it is probable that inoculation
exerted little, if any, effect in warding off plague attacks."
The conclusion arrived at by the Plague Commission, as expressed in the
last sentence, is seen to be founded on the sickly state of the uninoculated com-
munity, a condition of affairs which, presumably by a slip, they "assume" in
one paragraph, and assert to be a "fact" in the next one.
On this point further local enquiry has thrown some useful light. Through
the kindness of Assistant Surgeon Dadachanji it has been found possible to
ascertain the proportion of sick people among the uninoculated, and to exclude
this disturbing element from the comparison now to be made.
The following table shows the distribution of the sick and healthy in the
various streets and the reason for the non-inoculation of the 62 persons now
under consideration:-
	
Name of Street.
Reason for non-inoculation as noted at time of operation.
Total.

Healthy, but absent on duty or business.  
Healthy, but cause of absence not noted.
Pregnancy.
Puerperal state.
Old age.
Sickness.


1
2
3
4
5
6

Dheberwad 
4
1
1
...
2
2
10
Taiwad
2
...
5
...
1
1
9
Machiwad
4
···
1
...
2
1
8
Ghanchiwad
22
3
3
1
2
4
35
Total   
32
4
10
1
7
8
62


Among the 32 in the first column, 8 were policemen or railway servants on
duty; the rest were away on private business and are stated to be healthy.
Those in the second column were likewise healthy. Those in the third and
fourth columns cannot be designated "sickly", but they may be reckoned along
with the 8 actually sick and the aged, as being perhaps specially susceptible to
disease on account of their physical condition. If those in columns 3, 4, 5 and
6 be deducted, we may consider the remainder to be as healthy as the average
inoculated population, and we find then that there were 36 undeniably healthy
people and 26 sickly or in exceptional states of health. The following table
shows how plague affected the persons belonging to these two groups:-