Show JH AlU Some Home rather remarkable figures nr are presented In the London Times show enow lug hit i losses lo ses of 0 the tho British army In South Africa during the tho second year o ot tho the campaign The loss lose among the tho officers continued heavy notwithstanding the precautions token against t unnecessary exposures During the tho Oral first year it was at 11 the rate of t per 1000 a l much touch heavier r rIl percentage Il than recorded during the time war During the ho year ar the tho loss In battles battie and from 1 wounds declined to 2181 2194 per Imer 1000 which still Is le heavy considering the nature of oC tho th en engagements ng ments fought froin tron disease among amons the of oc were ere J O tho the first year and 1503 the second d In the tho l war wor was wan 80 50 It If the tho casualties In the tho war wal ere lets comparatively time tho th losses the noncommissioned officers anti men m n were greater than British loss lOlls lossen I en eR during the Ih first year ear of ot the tho Doer I war The rate In the European J con conflict conflict was wall In South Africa It H was 1963 1962 During the second year the rate was 1097 Comparisons noc nr further made be between between tween the British losses lossell In this war and the American losses los In tho tUtu Civil War ar The The figures are Killed or died of ot Africa 18 2103 per 1000 America 1681 idis ISiS 1724 1721 Deaths from disease dl ellae South Bouth Africa America 4 tUI According to thes figures the tho hoer war was isaa during Its first year nt at least comparatively more destructive ot of lifo life than one ot Jt the tho most moat sanguinary wars vars of o history What the time losses have haV been Is perhaps not recorded Hut tho death rate In III time the camps Is late jy I said to tl t amount to the ber of ot about SOD 00 per each 1000 Those campi lire are evidently eId more moore deadly than any flattie ever fought |