2ND SEPTEMBER 1891, Nos. 2117, 2118 L., LOCAL AND MUNICIPAL.

GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS.
LOCAL AND MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT.

READ—the following papers :—

From the Sanitary Commissioner for Madras, dated 30th June 1891, No. 2629-S.
ABSTRACT.—Forwards, with remarks, brief report on vaccination during the year 1890-91.

From Surgeon-Major J. A. LAING, Sanitary Commissioner for Madras, to the
Chief Secretary to Government, dated Madura, 10th August 1891, No. 22-T.

I have the honour to forward letter, No. 417, dated 4th August 1891, from
Surgeon-Major W. G. King in which he has made remarks (some of which appear to
me to be quite uncalled for) on Surgeon Dymott's (the Inspector of Vaccination) report
on vaccination for 1890-91.

2.  Dr. King takes exception to the remarks made by Dr. Dymott with regard to
the success of the work done by District Board vaccinators—vide paragraph 7 of the
Vaccination report, but Surgeon Dymott in his letter No. 3000-V, dated 6th August
1891 (herewith enclosed), clearly shows that he was fully justified in what he stated.
With regard to Surgeon-Major King's remarks on " the highly unsatisfactory method
adopted in vaccination forms in use in the Sanitary Commissioner's office causing
results of primary and re-vaccination cases (necessarily yielding different rates of
success) to be jumbled together in making the totals " it is not stated which forms
he alludes to, but in the annual statements (which are the standard forms prescribed by
the Government of India) submitted with the Vaccination report, the rates of success
of primary and re-vaccination cases in each Circle, Municipality, &c., are shown
separately.

3.  In paragraph 4 of my letter No. 2629-S., dated 7th July 1891, forwarding
the Vaccination report, I mentioned that in 1890-91 there were 35,587 more re-
vaccination cases done than in 1889-90, but in 1889-90 there was also an increase
(although not as great as in 1890-91) in the number of re-vaccinations—5,799 more
re-vaccinations having been performed in 1889-90 than in 1888-89.

4.  In paragraph 2 of Dr. King's letter he states that " the success rate with lano-
line vaccine varies with the amount of practice in the method employed so that where
practice has been prolonged the results are as good as with fresh lymph." In all
methods of vaccination the success rate must vary according to the skill and knowledge
of the vaccinators and this applies especially to every form of vaccination to a much
greater extent than to " lanoline vaccine " operations. In lanoline vaccine operations
the vaccinators have simply to perform the operations, nothing more, but in the other
methods much more is required of the vaccinators, such as the judicious and careful
selection of the lymph, &c. In my remarks on Dr. King's final report, I pointed out
that the statement that the results obtained with lanoline vaccine were as good as those
with fresh animal lymph was not borne out by figures and that a correct comparison
had not been drawn. I trust Government will, however, pardon my again commenting
on this point as Surgeon-Major King in paragraph 3 of his letter requests that " with
the object of preventing misconception as to the efficacy of lanoline vaccine by those to
whom the Vaccination report is forwarded" Government will do him the justice of
circulating this statement also to the officers concerned.