In 1859 was issued "A Manual of Public Libraries, Institutions, and Societies in the United States, by William J. Rhees," a work originally designed as a continuation of Professor Jewett's Smithsonian Report, but expanded beyond the expected limits, and forming a volume of 687 pages. The information it embodies, though very valuable and full as regards many libraries, is very incomplete, as may be seen from the fact that, while it gives the names of 2902 libraries of all sizes, it records the number of volumes in only 1338 of them, leaving the large proportion of 1561 unreported. The failure to respond to circulars of inquiry was the cause of this deficiency. Its statistics of the size of libraries, dating as far back as 1857, and in many instances still earlier, are now chiefly valuable for purposes of comparison.

In the table now published, the brevity so essential in a work of this kind excludes all mention of libraries numbering less than 10,000 volumes; while it precludes any attempt to commemorate the history, merits, or peculiarities of any of the collections. The thousands of schoollibraries, so widely diffused in this country that in many States one is placed in every school-district (those of New York alone numbering, in 1862, 1,206,075 volumes), would require a volume for the mere record of their statistics.

of information, generally the (unpublished) census returns of 1860.

An attempt has been made to correct the most prevalent source of error in the enumeration of libraries, by calling for a statement of pamphlets as distinguished from bound volumes. It is obviously unfair that libraries which are largely composed of tracts and pamphlets should reckon them against other libraries whose stores consist wholly of bound books.

In the column of information respecting catalogues, a very commendable efficiency will be observed, in comparison with the great European libraries, only one of which (the Bodleian) has a printed catalogue at all approaching completeness.

The statistics regarding the number of attendants employed in libraries, although collected, are not here given, as they fail to afford a fair basis of comparison as to the staff requisite to administer the affairs of a large library. For example, the Boston Public Library has a staff of eighteen officers, while the Astor Library and the Library of Congress employ six officers each. The difference is accounted for in the fact that the former is a lending library, circulating probably more books than any other public institution in the world; while the two latter are libraries of reference chiefly. The statistics as to the time of opening of the different libraries are omitted, for similar reasons. The collection of statistics as to the circulation of the lending libraries, and the average number of readers at all libraries, was relinquished because of the universal ill success which has attended attempts to The countless private libraries of the country-collect specific information upon points which many of them of great extent and value-must also remain unnoticed, save by the remark that, in Dr. Wynne's volume entitled, "The Private Libraries of New York," are found notices of over forty collections of 4000 volumes and upwards; while the number exceeding 10,000 volumes approaches a dozen. The same remark would hold good with regard to the private collections of Boston and its vicinity; while in all parts of the country noteworthy collections of special value attest the zeal and the taste of scholars and amateurs.

The church, parish, and Sunday-school libraries-which exist in still greater numbers, and the aggregate contents of which have been estimated at from five to six millions of volumes can receive but a passing mention.

If we should extend the comparison to smaller collections, it would be found that libraries accessible to the people exist in this country in far greater number than in either France or England, whose population and rank best entitle them, among the European nations, to a comparison with our own. While there are fewer great libraries in the United States, books are much more widely diffused among the people.

The statistics following have been derived from the officers of the libraries themselves, and are up to November, 1863, except in the case of those marked with an asterisk, from which no reports have been received. The figures for these latter have been taken from the latest accessible source

are usually unrecorded, and therefore subject to very wide conjecture.

In stating the size of college or university libraries, only those actually possessed by the institutions are intended, the society-libraries of the students being left to stand by themselves. Thus, Harvard University is properly credited with the libraries of its Law, Medical, and Theological departments, in addition to its miscellaneous library of 104,000 volumes,-swelling its aggregate to 140,000; but no account is taken of the various society and club libraries at Cambridge, which would carry it still higher. The foundation of the same library is given as 1764, instead of 1638, as often stated; because the first library, dating back to the origin of Harvard University, was totally destroyed by fire in 1764, and the formation of the present collection dates from that year. For a similar reason, the Library of Congress, which was burned by the British army in 1814, is reckoned as founded in 1815, when Mr. Jefferson's library was purchased to form the basis of the present collection. The latter library, it may be remarked, has been singularly unfortunate, having again lost 30,000 volumes by fire in 1851,-which partially accounts for its numerical disadvantage in the present table. But the United States will never possess a public library which can fitly be called national, until Congress shall take a more liberal view of the value and importance of such a collection.

Some of the libraries embraced in the table are not "public libraries" in the strict sense of the term, being designed for the special use of members of the institutions whose names they bear. Yet, with regard to all of them it may be said that, for purposes of reference or more extended study, access to their stores is not difficult for any one to obtain.

TABULAR EXHIBIT of the Principal Public Libraries of the United States.-Continued.

The libraries embraced in the foregoing table, with their aggregate of volumes, are thus distributed :

1831

12,000

1844

11,785

455

$450

Yes

Newton Centre, Mass.

1825

11,544

2,000

200

350

None

1836

11,400

319

680

900

None

Number of Libraries of 10,000 Volumes and upwards, in

The aggregate number of volumes in the above 104 libraries is 2,403,477, which is probably about one-fifth the total number of books contained in all the public and educational libraries of the United States.

STATISTICS OF MORTALITY AND SICKNESS IN THE ARMY.
REPORT OF ASSISTANT SURGEON J. J. WOODWARD, UNITED STATES ARMY.
[Illustrated by Diagrams.]

In accordance with instructions from the Surgeon-General, directing him to prepare a brief statement of some of the more important facts with regard to the influence of season and region on the camp diseases of the army, as exemplified by the statistics of the first year of the rebellion, Dr. Woodward submitted the following, under date of September 2, 1863:

The compilation of the medical statistics of the year ending June 30, 1862, has now been completed for some time, and the manuscript of the first volume of the medical history of the war, of which these statistics form a part, will, it is believed, be ready in time to be laid before Congress at its approaching session.

Elaborate statistical tables, with accompanying diagrams, have been compiled separately for each of the great armies in the field, all of which have important bearings upon the subject now under consideration. To present these tables would, however, require a volume of some size, and is, therefore, out of the question at present; I there fore merely offer certain general facts with regard to a few points of interest, such as the mortality rates, the general sickness rate, and the prevalence of a few of the most important diseases during the first year of the war.

MORTALITY RATES.

The general mortality rate of the armies of the United States during the first year of the rebellion was 67.6 per thousand of mean strength, including with deaths from disease those from wounds and injuries. The mortality from disease alone was 50.4 per thousand; that from wounds and injuries of every kind, 17.2 per thouBand.

In contrast with these results, it may be stated that the average annual mortality from disease alone, in the United States Army, during eighteen years of peace, was 24 per thousand; in the United States Army during the Mexican War, 103.8 per thousand; in the British Army during the Crimean War, 232 per thousand; in the British Army during the year 1859, 9 per thousand. It ap pears, therefore, that although the mortality of the army from disease during the first year of the present rebellion was far heavier than that of our own or of the British Army in time of peace, it was much less than that of the armies engaged in the Mexican or the Crimean Wars.

The following table exhibits the monthly mortality rates of the army from July 1, 1861, to June 30, 1962. The armies have been consolidated, for the purpose of comparison, into three great divisions. The first consists of the troops operating on the Atlantic coast between the Appalachian range and the sea, and includes the Army of the

Potomac and the various coast expeditions. The annual mortality from disease alone among these troops was 33.40 per thousand of mean strength. The second consists of the troops operating in the central basin of the continent, between tho Appalachian and the Rocky Mountains, and includes Western Virginia, the armies under Generals Buell, Grant, and Pope, the department of Missouri, with the scattered troops in Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, and the Northwest. The annual mortality from disease alone in this region was 82.19 per thousand.

The third division consists of the troops on the Pacific slope, between the Rocky Mountains and the sea. It includes those serving in Northern and Southern California, Oregon, and Washington Territory. The annual mortality rate was 10.76 per thousand.

It will thus be seen that on the Pacific slope the mortality rate was three times less than on the Atlantic coast, while that of the latter region. was twice and a half less than that of the troops serving in the central region.

The small amount of mortality on the Pacific coast is worthy of attention. The rate is hardly greater than that attributed by British and New England statisticians to young men of similar ages in private life. This exemption is in part due, there can be no doubt, to the fact that on the Pacific coast our troops found themselves under conditions much more closely approximating those of peace than of war. But the rate is so much less than has ever been known in the whole United States Army in time of peace, that an idea of the superior healthfulness of the Pacific coast is at once suggested. The greater mortality of the central region, as compared with the Atlantic coast, would appear to hold a close relationship to the great prevalence of malarious disease in the valleys of the Mississippi and its tributaries which is indicated by the Tables III., IV., and V., showing the monthly rates of camp fever, of intermit tent fever, and of diarrhoea.

The three great regions above contrasted differ not only in their annual mortality rate, but the relations of mortality to season are also quite different.

Thus, on the Atlantic coast, the mortality, after falling off in September, steadily increased during October, November, and December, diminished through January and February, and then steadily increased again through March, April, May, and June.

In the central region the mortality rates became gradually greater from July, 1861, to March, 1862, diminished in April, increased again in May, and diminished in June.

On the Pacific coast a much more fluctuating course was pursued, and quite unlike either of the others, as will be shown in the following table: