266 



POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



a wider meaning than he intends. But there 

 was " unfairness " in the selection of diseases ; 

 "almost without exception these maladies 

 lie very deep in the hereditary tendencies of 

 the race." Well, I suppose death itself may 

 be said to " lie very deep in our hereditary 

 tendencies " ; but, except in some such ex- 

 ceedingly broad sense, I certainly question 

 the accuracy of his assertion. In my tables 

 (see Lippincott's, August, 1884) only fifteen 

 different classes of organic diseases were 

 tabulated, and among them were apoplexy, 

 aneurism, diabetes, insanity, paralysis, can- 

 cer, diseases of the heart, the brain, the kid- 

 neys, and the liver. From these causes only 

 result the deaths of two thirds of the Eng- 

 lish race over the age of twenty years ; and, 

 as a rule, fatality increases with advancing 

 age. Are these maladies "almost without 

 exception " caused by " hereditary tenden- 

 cies"? When the Archbishop of Canter- 

 bury, in the fullness of years, falls dead from 

 apoplexy, is it because " defectives leave 

 enfeebled progeny " ? I certainly differ 

 with your learned contributor on this point. 

 There was no unfairness whatever in con- 

 centrating attention upon organic diseases, 

 provided it was distinctly admitted as it 

 was in the same article that "during later 

 years there has been a diminished mortality 

 in England from the lesser prevalence of 

 zymotic diseases," which nobody in 1884 

 was pretending to " cure." 



One point more. Admitting the justifi- 

 cation of vivisection joer sc, are we compelled 

 to adopt the further evident conclusion of 

 Prof. Hodge that it should be free to pro- 

 ceed to any lengths whatever, as in Conti- 

 nental Europe ? Because certain forms of 

 vivisection are justifiable, are all? It is at 

 this point we part company. He is a brave 

 man who can announce in these days a new 

 theological dogma, that " God clearly gives 

 to man every sanction to cause any amount 

 of physical pain which he may find expedient 

 to unravel his laws." Certainly that is a 

 dogma of the highest import ; everything is 

 justifiable; its far-reaching consequences 

 touch humanity itself. With that doctrine 

 I thoroughly disagree, upheld though it be 

 by so eminent a teacher as Prof. Hodge. 

 Permit me rather to range myself with one 

 whose work for science entitles him to even 

 greater respect. On the wall of my library 

 hangs a printed statement of views concern- 

 ing this very subject, from which allow me 

 to quote. " Within certain limitations, we 

 regard vivisection to be so justified by util- 

 ity as to be legitimate, expedient, and right. 

 Beyond those boundaries it is cruel, mon- 

 strous, and wrong. Experimentation . . . 

 we consider justifiable when employed to de- 

 termine the action of new remedies ; for 

 tests of suspected poisons, for the study of 

 new methods of surgical procedure or in the 

 search for the causation of disease. ... On 

 the other hand, we regard as cruel and 

 wrong the infliction of torment upon animals 



in the search for physiological facts which 

 have no conceivable relation to the treatment 

 of human diseases ; or experiments that 

 seem to be made only for the purpose of 

 gratifying a heartless curiosity. . . . The 

 practice, whether in public or in private, 

 should be restricted by law to certain defi- 

 nite objects, and surrounded by every pos- 

 sible safeguard against license and abuse." 



That statement, sir, is signed by Herbert 

 Spencer. With every word of it I agree. 



Albert Leffingwell, M. D. 

 HAJffiLTON Club, Brooklyn, October 15, 1896. 



INTERPRETATIONS OF MALTHU- 

 SIANISM. 



Editor Popular Science Monthly : 



Sir : I have been a reader of your peri- 

 odical since 1873, and naturally during that 

 time I have occasionally met with statements 

 by some of its contributors that I felt were 

 open to criticism opinions that I thought a 

 little weak. But never through all those 

 years have I met with such a reckless mis- 

 representation as is contained in Helen Zim- 

 mern's first paper, in the September num- 

 ber, on Enrico Ferri on Homicide. In a sen- 

 tence, about the middle of page 682, she 

 says, " Infanticide, elevated to a custom and 

 a method in Malthusianism." Such a state- 

 ment would be unworthy a correspondent of 

 a decent newspaper ; but, that any contributor 

 to the Popular Science Monthly should, what- 

 ever his personal intolerance of the population 

 question, have the temerity to hazard such a 

 false presentment of the theory (axiom I would 

 call it) laid down by the Rev. Mr. Mai thus, 

 and the remedy he suggested, is, to say the 

 least, hardly complimentary to the presuma- 

 ble information or intelligence of its readers. 



The difference in the ratio of increase of 

 population and that of subsistence, which 

 Mr. Malthus, rightly or wrongly, submitted 

 as being a fundamental law, and the remedy, 

 wisely or unwisely, he suggested of deferred 

 marriages, are all that can be laid to his 

 charge. Surely these are not sufficient 

 grounds to justify the accusation against 

 him of advocating "infanticide"! It re- 

 minds one of the old trick of many of the 

 clergy, associating immorality with atheism. 



Certainly, there is now a numerous and 

 rapidly growing class, recognizing the irrevo- 

 cable nature of the law of population, but, at 

 the same time, the impracticability of Mr. 

 Malthus's remedy, who adopt and recommend 

 preventive means. Yet, how even such can 

 be accused of " infanticide " any more con- 

 sistently than others who practice absl'mence 

 (which is just one method of prevention) it is 

 difficult to perceive. 



I feel that this is no occasion for ventilat- 

 ing my own particular views on the population 

 question or Malthusianism ; still, I have al- 

 ways been surprised at observing the avoid- 

 ance of the subject manifested on the part 



