336  Food  Preservatives  in  North  Dakota.  {Am-juiyr;i90h6arm' 
there  was  no  larger  proportion  of  new  emigrants  in  1903  and  1904 
than  there  had  been  for  over  ten  years  before,  and  while  former  emi- 
grants had  in  most  instances  gone  into  the  country  those  of  the 
years  just  preceding  and  during  the  experiment  went  chiefly  into 
the  towns  and  cities.  {Bull.  Amer.  Geograph.  Soc,  April,  1906,  p. 
226.)  Besides  this  the  N.  D.  Board  of  Health  Report  (1903-1904, 
p.  89)  says  that  these  later  emigrants  were  "  very  young  and  pros, 
perous  people,"  and  adds,  '« the  climate  being  exceptionally  health- 
ful." The  facts  are  thus  shown  by  official  records  to  be  the  reverse  of 
what  they  should  be  if  his  explanation  was  a  sound  one.  It  is  the 
invulnerability  of  these  facts  that  makes  partisan  journals  close  up 
discussions  on  the  subject.  It  surely  was  not  pioneer  life  nor  bad 
water  that  increased  the  number  of  deaths  so  largely  and  in  such  a 
sudden  manner  in  Berlin.  If  he  had  shown  that  the  population  of 
North  Dakota  increased  60  per  cent,  in  1904  over  1903  and  120  per 
cent,  in  the  second  of  the  years  he  would  have  shown  that  the  death 
rate  was  steady.  But  the  increase  is  shown  by  the  1905  census  to 
have  been  but  7-4  per  year  since  1900.  The  people  had  been  led  to 
expect  better  health  as  a  result  of  the  raid,  and  the  deaths  were 
more  than  doubled.  The  food  had  been  made  a  better  soil  for  the 
cultivation  of  disease  germs. 
If  Professor  Wiley  is  able  to  show  that  his  chart  of  the  hygienic 
relations  of  foods  and  drugs  is  even  reasonably  probable,  there  can 
be  no  excuse  for  any  person  ever  using  preservatives  in  foods.  It  is 
certainly  the  most  remarkable,  and  entirely  original,  contribution  to 
the  science  of  the  subject  that  it  has  ever  been  my  fortune  to  come 
across.  What  a  pity  it  is  that  he  has  never  once  advanced  a  single 
fact  in  evidence  of  its  merit.  He  gives  it  to  the  world  as  axiomatic, 
in  exactly  the  same  way  as  the  metaphysicians  of  a  former  age  used  • 
to  do  with  their  theologo  mathematical  speculations.  It  would  be 
a  great  boon  to  all  of  us  if  he  would  cite  an  authority  or  two  in 
physiology,  pathology,  or  toxicology  who  ever  entertained  his  idea, 
as  expressed  in  his  drawing.  It  has  never  been  my  fortune  to  dis- 
cover a  physiologist  or  pharmacologist  who  could  so  sharply  distin- 
guish between  foods  and  drugs.  It  is  generally  believed  that  no 
such  line  exists  and  that  they  merge  into  each  other.  Never  before 
was  so  powerful  a  blow  struck  at  the  doctrine  of  Evolution,  provid- 
ing it  is  true,  and  it  surely  should  have  been  shown  to  Herbert 
Spencer  before  he  died.    If  one  single  substance  can  be  named, 
