POPULAR MISCELLANY. 



859 



show quite clearly that the opinion conveyed 

 is a tentative one. The fact is, that I have 

 here expressed myself in a way much more 

 qualified than is usual with me ; because I 

 do not see how certain tendencies, which are 

 apparently conflicting, will eventually work 

 out. The purely ethical view of the matter 

 does not obviously harmonize with the polit- 

 ical and the politico-economical views ; some 

 of the apparent incongruities being of the 

 kind indicated by your contributor. This is 

 not the place to repeat my reasons for think- 

 ing that the present system will not be the 

 ultimate system. Nor do I propose to con- 

 sider the obstacles, doubtless great, which 

 stand in the way of change. All which I 

 wish here to point out is that my opinion is 

 by no means a positive one ; and, further, 

 that I regard the question as one to be dealt 

 with in the future rather than at present. 

 These two things the quotations I have 

 given above prove conclusively." 



Valne of the Evidence of Stone Imple- 

 ments. Professor Putnam suggests in his 

 report, as curator of the Peabody Museum of 

 Archaeology, that it will not do to draw too 

 large inferences from the finding of stone 

 implements. That our recent Indians, he 

 says, " used many exceedingly rude stone im- 

 plements can not be questioned, and even to- 

 day, among the Western tribes, stones picked 

 up at random are used for various domestic 

 purposes, and when a camp is changed many 

 such are left, with other things which are of 

 too little value to be taken away. From 

 these facts it is evident that the ruder im- 

 plements and utilized natural forms are 

 not a certain evidence of the period of de- 

 velopment of the people who made use of 

 them. That we, in camping out, are so often 

 forced to make use of stones, shells, bones, 

 and withes of roots or bark, should be con- 

 sidered in drawing deductions from the rude 

 character of any set of implements." 



Responsibility of Criminal Lunatics. 



Dr. S. S. Herrick, of the Louisiana State 

 Board of Health, has published (New Or- 

 leans) a plea in favor of enforcing the re- 

 sponsibility of criminal lunatics, to the extent 

 at least of putting them where they can do no 

 harm. He starts with the obvious proposi- 

 tion that " the welfare of the sane members 



of society is vastly more important than the 

 liberty, or even the life, of a dangerous lu- 

 natic," and expresses the belief that proba- 

 bly at least three sane persons are acquit- 

 ted on the " insanity plea " for every insane 

 criminal convicted. A vast amount of silly 

 sentimentality, he continues, " is effused on 

 criminals, both sane and insane ; as if a few 

 such worthless wretches deserve more con- 

 sideration than the great mass of well-be- 

 haved and respectable people. It is indeed 

 shocking to take the life of a madman, ju- 

 dicially or otherwise ; but it is simply bad 

 management to allow a lunatic to commit 

 an act for which a sane person would be 

 punished, and still worse to risk its repeti- 

 tion." Dr. Herrick objects to capital pun- 

 ishment for any class of criminals ; but he 

 advises that the insane be held amenable 

 to punishment like other criminals, and be 

 made to know that its infliction is sure. 

 This will operate as a restraint upon them, 

 and conduce to security of life and property 

 and to the welfare of the insane. It may 

 be alleged, adds Dr. Herrick, " that the res- 

 toration of penalties upon the insane is a 

 relapse toward the bai'barism of the past. 

 The answer to this is, that by their immu- 

 nity from punishment is demonstrated a 

 deviation from progress, inasmuch as it 

 practically increases crime and provokes 

 violent and unlawful retaliation." 



What is Adulteration. What is the 

 wrong of adulteration if the adulterant is 

 not injurious is shown up by Professor Al- 

 bert B. Prescott, of Ann Arbor, in one of 

 the papers of the Michigan State Board of 

 Health. Adulteration infringes upon the 

 right of every person unrestricted except 

 by considerations of sanitary welfare and 

 public police to decide for himself what 

 he shall eat. " An adulteration is a fraud, a 

 deception, a counterfeit. It is systematical- 

 ly concealed from the purchaser. Its object 

 is to induce people to accept an article which 

 they would not accept for the use then want- 

 ed, if it were not for the deceit. To sell 

 an admixture of coffee and chiccory, if the 

 terms and proportions of the mixture are 

 printed on the wrapper in a way to have 

 them seen by the purchaser is not adul- 

 teration. To sell oleomargarine under its 

 own distinctive name, with no credit bor- 



