« ForrigeFortsett »
It appears from the preceding table that of the 20,537 white mothers bearing children in California in 1905-1906, 7,683, or 37.4 per cent, were natives of the Golden State; 7,478, or 36.4 per cent, were natives of other states, and 5,376, or 26.2 per cent, were foreign born. The per cents for Southern California, however, differ greatly from those for either Northern or Central California.
South of Tehachapi the great bulk of the white mothers, 59.6 per cent of all, were born in other states than California. In Los Angeles county the per cent foreign born is even greater than the per cent born in California, though in the other six counties south of Tehachapi the California born mothers at least outnumber the foreign born.
North of Tehachapi, especially far north, the bulk of the white mothers were natives of the Golden State, the per cent born here being 54.7 for Northern California and 43.2 for Central California. In each division of Northern and Central California, except only in San Francisco, the per cent born elsewhere in the United States than California is greater, and except for the other bay counties is much greater than the per cent foreign born.
In San Francisco, as in the rest of Northern and Central California, most of the white mothers were natives of the Golden State. In the metropolis, however, the native daughters bearing children are followed closely by the foreign born, the per cent being 41.9 for the former and 39.6 for the latter, while those born elsewhere in the United States than California comprise only 18.5 per cent of all the white mothers. In the other bay counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, and San Mateo), where, as in San Francisco, 41.9 per cent of the white mothers were born in California, the per cent born in other states is about the same as the per cent foreign born, 29.1 against 29.0.
For the metropolitan area, comprising San Francisco and the other bay counties, the per cents of white mothers born in California and in other States are lower than the corresponding per cents for the remaining rural counties north of Tehachapi. Conversely, the per cent foreign born is much higher for the metropolitan area than for the rural counties of Northern and Central California.
VITAL STATISTICS FOR JULY. Summary.— The vital statistics reported for July are as follows: Living births, 1,720; deaths, exclusive of stillbirths, 2,180, and marriages, 1,885. For an estimated State population of 1,882,483 in 1906 the returns for July give the folowing annual rates: Births, 11.0; deaths, 13.9, and marriages, 12.0, per 1,000 population.
As usual, tuberculosis was the leading cause of death, and typhoid fever was the most fatal epidemic disease. Between June and July there was a decline in the proportion of all deaths due to diseases of the respiratory system, but, on the other hand, there was a rise in the proportion for diseases of the digestive system, especially infantile diarrhea.
Causes of Death.-- The following table gives the number of deaths due to certain important causes for the State in July, as well as the proportion from each cause per 1,000 total deaths for both July and June:
41 Malarial fever
2 Other epidemic diseases
18 Tuberculosis of lungs
283 Tuberculosis of other organs
111 Other general diseases
53 Other diseases of nervous system
192 Diseases of circulatory system
264 Pneumonia and broncho-pneumonia.
75 Other diseases of respiratory system.
37 Diarrhea and enteritis, under 2 years.
140 Diarrhea and enteritis, 2 years and over.
36 Other diseases of digestive system.
120 Bright's disease and nephritis
22 Early infancy
51 Other violence
183 All other causes
Proportion per 1,000 :
July. June. 1,000.0 1,000.0 18.8
10.7 129.8 133.2 24.3 24.2 50.9 56.6 28.4 34,0 24.3
82.4 121.1 118.1 34.4 63.5 17.0
Tuberculosis, as usual, was the leading cause of death in July, with diseases of the circulatory and nervous systems next in order. The proportion of all deaths due to pneumonia and other diseases of the respiratory system was much less in July than in June. On the other hand, there was an appreciable rise between June and July in the proportion of all deaths caused by diseases of the digestive system, especially diarrhea and enteritis among young children.
Typhoid fever is again the most fatal epidemic disease in the State. The proportion of all deaths due to typhoid fever was even greater for July than for June, though the proportions for all other epidemic diseases declined.
MENTAL HEALTH OF SCHOOL CHILDREN.
As the end of the school year approached the newspapers brought the usual crop of sad stories with regard to children on whose developing mental faculties the pressure of school work had made serious havoc. At the end of May there began to be occasional reports of children disappearing from their homes, running away from school, and otherwise making themselves subjects for newspaper comment more than at any other season of the year. During June the stories of children, especially girls, who were noted as acting queerly as the result of overwork at school, became more frequent. Toward the end of the month there were a few reported suicides. In most of the cases a direct connection between worry over school work, competition for prizes, and preparation for examinations could be traced. Of course, we realize that there is likely to be considerable sensational exaggeration in such stories. They make toothsome morsels for the sensational newspaper, but there is no doubt that there is a large germ of truth
in most of the stories, and that, unfortunately, there is every year during June an increased number of reported developments of mental disturbance in children because of the burden of school work placed on them at this time.
Almost needless to say, the children who develop such mental peculiarities and degenerate traits are not the robust, either of mind or of body. Especially is it true that in most cases a distinct neurotic family history can be traced. This, of itself, however, should have proved a warning of the necessity of guarding such children against the stress and strain of competitive school work. Unfortunately, little attention is likely to be paid to this. Family physicians, however, usually are aware of the dangers in this matter, and should warn parents of the possibility of morbid results. At this season of the year the medical inspectors of the schools should take special precautions in order to see that any pupil developing even slight mental peculiarities should at once be reported to them. There is serious danger of neglect and delay in this matter. Even with the exercise of all due care it seems not unlikely that in the modern over-strenuosity of education developing brains will suffer occasional lamentable harm. If even a few children, however, each year can be saved from the more serious manifestations of mental disturbance, enough will have been accomplished to reward amply every effort that has been taken.
It is now, while the subject is fresh, that the resolution with regard to prophylactic measures for another year should be taken. There seems no doubt that it will eventually be necessary to instruct the teachers as to the initial symptoms that are displayed in the commoner mental disturbances of children, in order that the strain of study may be then at once interrupted. This is a work that in its far-reaching benevolence will appeal to all who are interested in making child life more happy and less amenable to the stresses of modern civilization. No effort can seem too great, no warning exaggerated, that concerns school children under such circumstances, since it is evident their future careers and life usefulness are at stake.—Journal A. M. A.
The above article is quoted in its entirety, for no part should be left out, as it applies with the greatest force to California schools. It seems to be the effort from primary grade to university to crowd the child's brain to the utmost, and each year we see wrecks, mental and physical, leaving our schools.
The object of education is to make better citizens, and this is defeated by the very efforts put forth for its accomplishment. The medical inspectors should be a part of our school organizations, and the position should be filled by one skilled in diagnosis, deeply interested in child life, and with a willingness to work a little extra time for the good of the cause.
MARTIN REGENSBURGER, M.D., President,
F. K. AINSWORTH, M.D.
San Francisco San Francisco A. C. HART, M.D.
Sacramento WALLACE A BRIGGS, M.D., Vice-President, O. STANSBURY, M.D..
STATE BUREAU OF VITAL STATISTICS. N. K, Foster, M.D., State Registrar..Sacramento | GEORGE D. LESLIE, Statistician....... Sacramento
STATE HYGIENIC LABORATORY. ARCHIBALD R. WARD, D.V.M., Director.....
.University of California, Berkeley
STATISTICS OF MARRIAGES: 1905–1906.
Summary.-Altogether 17,932 marriages were reported to the California State Bureau of Vital Statistics in 1905–1906, the first year covered by the new law requiring marriages to be registered.
San Francisco reported 4,230 marriages, or 23.6 per cent of the State total, despite the loss of records in April, 1906.
There were also over 2,000 marriages for the year in Los Angeles and Alameda counties; between 600 and 1,000 in Santa Clara, Sacramento, and Marin; and between 400 and 500 in Fresno, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Bernardino, and Orange.
For an estimated State population of 1,784,521 in 1905 the 17,932 marriages in 1905-1906 give a rate of 10.0 per 1,000 population, though complete returns from Los Angeles county for the year would make the State rate 11.1 instead.
The marriage-rate is higher for the seven counties of Southern California than for the fifty north of Tehachapi. The rate is also higher for the metropolitan area, comprising San Francisco and the other bay counties, than for the rural counties of Northern and Central California.
Among the individual counties, Marin shows the highest marriagerate, 36.4 per 1,000 population, followed by Orange 18.5, San Mateo 17.9, Sacramento 17.0, and Los Angeles 15.6 (corrected rate). The marriage-rates are also above the State average, 10.0, for the following counties: San Bernardino, Santa Clara, Alameda, Riverside, San Diego, San Joaquin, Fresno, Tulare, Santa Barbara, Stanislaus, and San Luis Obispo.
The statistics indicate that there is a decided tendency for persons living in rural counties to be married at the largest city easily accessible. This seems the readiest explanation of the relatively high marriage-rates not only for the metropolitan area in Northern and Southern California and for Los Angeles county in Southern California, but also for the counties containing such cities as Sacramento, San José, Stockton, Fresno, Visalia, Modesto, and San Luis Obispo.
There is also a counter movement by which residents of very large cities, like San Francisco or Los Angeles, prefer to be married in suburban counties. Thus it happens that the marriage-rates are much higher for Marin, San Mateo, and Alameda counties than for the metropolis itself, and that in Southern California the rate is highest for Orange rather than for Los Angeles county. This movement is particularly marked on San Francisco Bay, where San Rafael, in Marin county, is a veritable Gretna Green, especially, as shown later, for divorcees.
In 13,182 of the 17,932 marriages in 1905–1906, or 73.5 per cent of all cases, the marriage was the first for both parties. The per cent of first marriages is highest, 76.8, for the coast counties of Northern California, followed by 76.2 for the interior counties of Central California and 76.0 for San Francisco.
While 1,958 single men were married to widowed or divorced women, only 1,450 single women were married to widowed or divorced men. In fact, only nine of the fifty-seven counties show exceptions to the rule that there are more unions of bachelors with widows than of maids with widowers.
In 1,342 instances, or 7.5 per cent of all, the marriage was the second or over of both parties. The per cent of marriages where both parties had been married before is particularly high for Southern California, especially outside Los Angeles, and for the bay counties other than San Francisco. Though among the eight minor geographic divisions, San Francisco has the lowest per cent of such marriages, yet the per cent is somewhat higher for the metropolitan area than for the rural counties of Northern and Central California.
Altogether 15,140 or 84.4 per cent of the grooms were single, 1,655 widowed, and 1,137 divorced; while of the brides 14,632 or 81.6 per cent were single, 1,891 widowed, and 1,409 divorced. The widows outnumber the widowers by 236 or 14.3 per cent, and among the divorced the women exceed the men by 272 or 23.9 per cent.
The per cent of widowers is particularly high only in Southern California, especially outside Los Angeles, but the per cent of widows is relatively high, not only in Southern California, but also in both the coast and interior counties of Northern California.
The per cent divorced, both among grooms and brides, is highest for the bay counties other than San Francisco, and next for Southern California, especially outside Los Angeles, being highest south of Tehachapi in Orange county.
Though the per cent of divorced brides is 7.9 for all California and only 7.4 for San Francisco, it is 8.9 for Alameda, 9.0 for Contra Costa, 14.1 for San Mateo, and 15.5 for Marin. It appears, therefore, that the tendency for residents of the metropolis to be married in suburban counties is particularly strong among divorcees.