106 



SCIEJSrGU. 



[Vol. IX., No. 209 



pint or gallon, as he does solid provisions by ounce 

 or pound. And let his purchases of liquor be de- 

 livered at his home, as openly as his meat and 

 vegetables are. What would be thought of the 

 man who should pack his fill of beefsteak and 

 oysters within his own waistcoat, and leave his 

 family to dine, as best they could, on bare pota- 

 toes? If the beer is good for the husband, a 

 little of it would be equally good for the wife ? 



No articles of consumption are so tampered with 

 by deleterious adulterations as the staples of the 

 bar-room. No articles are sold at such a dispro- 

 portion between the wholesale cost and the retail 

 price. Nothing measured by the yard or weighed 

 by the pound is so vague in quantity as the saloon 

 ' glass.' People sneak behind the lattice-screen, 

 and submit to the extortionate dishonesty for the 

 sake of the privacy of their selfish indulgence. 

 In the higher order of such places the patrons are 

 further attracted by objects of luxury and sen- 

 suality. Gas, gilding, mirrors, statuary, and 

 paintings are lavished on the surroundings. The 

 wretched tippler's home is, of course, dull in 

 comparison with this brilliant vestibule to the 

 temple of vice. 



Prohibition and local option are the measures 

 most widely recommended for the cure of the 

 drink-habit. But the true remedy has not been 

 thought of by the advocates of these worse than 

 ineffective panaceas. The social curse can only 

 be stopped by stopping the liquor-supply at the 

 point where alone it is capable of legislative con- 

 trol. Shut the saloons. Allow no liquor to be 

 sold anywhere to be drunk on the premises. 

 This is the grand summary of a grand revolu- 

 tion. 



This 'prohibition' leaves to every man the 

 due exercise of his personal freed om : it prohibits 

 only the manufacture of drunkards, paupers, 

 tramps, and criminals. 



. The spiders who fatten on the weak frequenters 

 of their glittering nets of doom would have to 

 turn to other employments. I'hey would not be 

 the liquor-seUers of the future. These would be of 

 the class of ordinary honest tradesmen who put a 

 fair price per definite quantity on a definite quality 

 of their wares. Purchasers would be protected 

 as to quality by certified inspection, and as to 

 quantity by the compulsory use of measures in 

 selling. Cut away by these provisions, the source 

 of dishonest profits from the business of the bar- 

 room, and even the proprietors of such establish- 

 ments would speedily relinquish the traffic. 



Prohibition of the use of alcoholic liquors has 

 never succeeded — never can succeed ; for it is a 

 tyranny from which every independent mind re- 

 volts. If a man will play the fool with his brains 



and his means, society cannot stop him ; but it 

 ought not through its licensed agents to facilitate 

 the process. It should, moreover, provide an easy 

 means of family protection from the consequences 

 of drunkenness. Legislation can accomplish this, 

 and nothing more would be necessary. 



To stop the sale of alcoholic liquors for con- 

 sumption on the premises would inconvenience 

 nobody. Phials of any capacity might be obtained 

 for use at home. And the gilding and glitter of 

 the saloon might still be available to reader attrac- 

 tive the tea-room, coffee-room, and reading-room, 

 where families as well as individuals might resort 

 for the cup ' which cheers but not inebriates.' 



B. 



PETER'S ATTACK ON PASTEUR. 



The discussion in the Paris academy of medi- 

 cine, which originated in Professor Peter's recent 

 paper on death by hydrophobia after preventive 

 inoculation, was concluded at the last meeting 

 (Jan. 18). Professor Peter spoke again upon the 

 subject, but in much milder language, and his re- 

 marks may be summarized as follows : — 



When death takes place after preventive inocu- 

 lation, the defenders of Pasteurism recur to an 

 alibi or to extenuating circumstances instead of 

 confessing the truth. For instance, they argue 

 that death was due to some other cause, such as 

 uraemia, meningitis, or albuminuria, but not to 

 hydrophobia. In other cases they admit that hy- 

 drophobia is the cause of death, but they explain 

 it by stating that the patient did not apply for 

 treatment until it was too late. M. Peter does 

 not accept these excuses, and bluntly says, that, 

 if patients die after having submitted to preven- 

 tive inoculation, their death is due to the inocula- 

 tion, entirely ignoring the effects of the rabid ani- 

 mal's bite. Pasteur's method, according to M. 

 Peter, is an ingenious one ; but it should not be 

 applied to man, especially the more recent method 

 of intensive inoculation. The old method, he ad- 

 mits, is harmless though useless ; the new meth- 

 od, he claims, is harmful, even murderous. To it 

 and not to the bites of the rabid animals, he at- 

 tributes the recent death of patients with hydro- 

 phobic symptoms, after preventive inoculation. 



M. Brouardel, in a short matter-of-fact address, 

 said that M. Peter's arguments were utterly illog- 

 ical, and concluded by giving the statistics of re- 

 sults already achieved at Odessa, as follows : out 

 of 101 cases treated by the ordinary method, there 

 were 7 deaths ; out of 35 cases treated by the 

 mixed method, 1 death ; out of 140 cases treated 

 by the intensive method, not one death. This dis- 

 posed of the charge that the latter method is mur- 



