I find it, however, beyond my power to compass in a short address a resumé of my subject which shall be complete, or completely in perspective, or which shall not omit features on which, had time permitted, one would have wished to comment; and I must ask you to remember that only a portion—and that chiefly non-administrative[2]—of the history of this wonderful half century can be embraced within the present address. The survey should, I think, take a panoramic view of the story as it has developed, should note the changes as they have occurred, the obstacles which impeded reforms as well as the reforms secured; and should also, at least incidentally, state—in the light of unfailing historical guidance, as well as of increasing knowledge—the pressing desiderata for more efficient and more rapid future progress. I cannot hope to accomplish this task except to a fragmentary extent, but I am happy to remember that sanitary history in Old and in New England has proceeded largely on parallel lines. The curves of annual death-rates from all causes, from typhoid fever, from tuberculosis, and of the mortality of infants show the closeness of the parallelism of the public health history of England and Massachusetts. The work of the last fifty years was built on preceding pioneer work of men in Old and in New England; and for a complete understanding of this work, a momentary glance is required at the men of this earlier generation and their work. In the old country we speak with reverence of the names of Southwood Smith, Kay, Chadwick, Farr and Simon; and you remember with gratitude the names of Lemuel Shattuck, of Bowditch, of Walcott, S. W. Abbott, and Theobald Smith; and it is gratifying to remember that the epoch-making report of the Massachusetts Sanitary Commission of 1850—to which were attached the ever memorable names of Shattuck, N. P. Banks, and Jehiel Abbott—among its many statesmanlike and far-seeing proposals, recommended a sanitary survey of the State, and referred to the recent English sanitary surveys, with which British sanitation may be said to have begun. _The Utilisation of Lay Workers_ Let me in passing comment on the fact that neither Lemuel Shattuck in Boston nor Edwin Chadwick in London was a physician; but a perusal of their writings shows that they were men of sound judgment, of earnest zeal for their fellow men, with a wide and statesmanlike outlook, ready to search out, to accept and to apply the medical knowledge on which necessarily the prevention of disease is based. They illustrate once for all the need for partnership between all well-wishers of humanity in this work, and the importance of combined effort by the sociologist and the physician, as well as of experts in each branch of sanitation, if all attainable success is to be attained.