REPORT 
OF A 
COMMITTEE 
OF THE 
STATE TEMPERANCE ALLIANCE 
Olf 
DR. BOWDITCH’S “ANALYSIS.” 
The liquor dealers of Massachusetts 
are largely quoting and circulating the 
opinions of Dr. Bowditch in favor of the 
use of beer and wine. This, together with 
the reputation of Dr. Bowditch, as a 
man, and as a physician, as well as his of- 
ficial position, as Chairman of the State 
Board of Health, entitle his letter on “in- 
toxicating drinks” to the most careful 
examination. Two hundred and thirty- 
two letters were received by the Board, 
of which one hundred and sixty-tour 
were from Massachusetts physicians in 
answer to an inquiry as to the effect of 
liquors upon life and health. Of these 
answers the Chairman makes this sum- 
mary : 
Very destructive to life and health. .48 
Injurious in a greater or less degree 4-8 
Public health i ot affected in their towns 16 
The people oi their towns very temperate 27 
intoxicating drinks not used in their towns... 5 
Bad on foreigners, but not on natives 4 
Useful in the decline ot life... 1 
Use promotes longevity 1 
Indefinite replies 13 
The remaining sixty-six letters, are 
chiefly from U. S. Ministers and Consuls 
abroad, and others whom they consulted. 
One is from Dr. Day, on inebriates; one 
from Larz Anderson, on wines in Ohio; 
and one from James Mormon, on wines in 
California. Dr. Bowditch calls his letter 
to the Board, an “Analysis of Corres- 
pondence.” The “Analysis,” (except in 
a foot note) contains no reference to the 
medical replies from physicians in Mas- 
sachusetts. 
If we would rightly weish the “Analy- 
sis,” we must first look and see what it 
is that is analyzed. If we do this, 
we shall find so- much space and 
weight given to the opinion of its 
author, and to the views of other auth- 
ors, as to make the name (“Analysis of 
Correspondence”) inappropriate and de- 
ceptive. 
In the publication of the correspon- 
dence of the Board, there is a singular 
omission. Among its correspondents 
were the U. S. Consuls at Manchester 
and Liverpool. Each sent with his let- 
ter, (p. 292, 298 Report of 1871,) a copy 
of the testimony collected by the Convo- 
cation of Canterbury. It was part of the 
correspondence. It was direct to the 
point—based on personal knowledge,— 
largely from experts,—given by great 
numbers of English clergymen, gover- 
nors of prisons and work houses, super- 
intendents of asylums, judges, recorders, 
chiefs and superintendents of police, and 
was, moreover, specially applicable to 
our race and condition in Massachusetts. 2 
Many hundreds of these witnesses tes- 
tify that the beer houses cause the in- 
temperance of England. The first legis- 
lative remedy they propose is “ The to- 
tal suppression of Beer houses throughout 
the country.” 
The length of this document would, 
perhaps, forbid its publication in full, 
but a summary could have been 
given in a single page. Yet this 
testimony is not even named 1 A 
document that ignores so important a 
portion of the evidence is not an “Analy- 
sis of Correspondence.” 
ANALYSIS. 
1. CHARACTER OF THE CORRESPON- 
DENCE. 
Our ministers and consuls abroad can 
hardly escape the social and convivial 
habits of the sociely into which they are 
thrown. They do not come in con- 
tact with admitted intemperance, and 
where there are no statistics, they 
can testify only to what they see. 
Their answers, however, could not 
show a better spirit, or be more free 
from any appearance of intentional error. 
'‘No statistics,” is their almost universal 
answer. We have little confidence 
in individual opinions, without 
the data on which they are based, 
and shall, with few exceptions, waste no 
time on them. We make brief 
reference to revenue returns, that show 
the consumption of liquors, and to the 
few other statistical items. 
2. CRIME. 
(P. 279, report of 1871.) The letter 
of Mr. Russell gives the highest judicial 
testimony to the fact that crime in Ire- 
land comes almost wholly from drink. 
(P- 228.) The letter from the Consul 
at Manchester, England, says :— 
“All thlaw, judicial, police and other author- 
ities in this country concur that a very large p o- 
portion ot the crime, poverty, si< kness and pre- 
mature death is caused by the di inking habits of 
the people.” 
. (R 275.) The Correctional Institu- 
tions of the Rhenish provinces at Her- 
fordt, Hamm and Cologne, report in 
substance that about three-fourths of 
the crime comes from drink. 
(p- 262.) The letter from Berne, 
Switzerland, says, that :— 
Of 53 suicidfs in 1868 eleven were intoxicated 
when they committed the act, or were notorious 
drunkards.” 
(P. 340.) In the Netherlands it is 
said to be shown by statistics, that 
fifteen-sixteenths of the crime com- 
mitted resulted from the use of gin.” 
(P. 271.) “In Denmark, according to 
the inquest of the coroners, 26.5 per 
cent, of those who commit suicide are de- 
clared drunftards.” 
3. CI.IMATE. 
From equatorial countries there are no 
statistics, but the just inference from the 
opinions of correspondents is, that in- 
temperance is less in amount, and mild- 
er in character, in warm, than in cold 
countries. This, however, applies only to 
the native race. Northern races, in warm 
countries, retain their drinking habits 
for generations, if not for centuries, as in 
Ceylon, Australia, and the Southern 
States. 
4. HEALTH. 
The correspondence teaches us very 
little of the effect of drink on health. 
(P. 308, Report of 1871.) In parts of 
the Austrian empire, where intemper- 
ance is especially prevalent, 55.9 per ct. 
of the men are unfitted for military du- 
ty from undersize, or physical infirmity, 
while in the whole empire, 33.5 per cent, 
are rejected. (P. 272.) Out of 507 cases 
of insanity, in the lunatic asylum at Co- 
penhagen, in Denmark, 60 are attributed 
to intoxication. The “opinions” ot the 
effect of drink on health are too varia- 
ble for any general inference. 
5. CONSUMPTION OF LIQUORS. 
The statistics given by the correspon- 
dence are almost exclusively from rev- 
enue returns, and show approximately 
the consumption of liquors. Professor 
Levi’s tables for 1866, as given by the 
United States Consul at Manchester, 
give the consumption in England, Ire- 
land and Scotland, as follows :—(p. 298.) 
'5’ce 
Proof Spirits used 
go 
go 
Per head. 
Engl 
Imp. 
Scotl 
Imp. 
In Gin and Whiskey, 
0.535 
1.659 
0 800 
In Brandy, Bum. &c., 
0.328 
0.188 
0.057 
In Beer and Ale, 
3 393 
1.050 
0 710 
In W>ne, 
0.159 
0.087 
0.064 
In Cider and Perry, 
0,021 
4 437 
2 984 
1.631 
The gallons be’r are. in ' 
England, 896,000,000. 
In Ireland, 46,000,0^0,! 
♦Estimated. 
> or 37 
11* 
8 
(P. 270.) Denmark consumes 6,760,000 
gallons spirits, or 4 1-4 gallons per head, 
besides beer, estimated at 20 gallons per 
head. (P- 305, 306.) The consumption in the 
Austrian Empire is 31,800.000 walls. 
Brandy; 232,500,000 galls. Wine; 170,- 
000,000 galls. Beer; or about one gall. 
Brandy, 6 2-3 galls. Wine, and 5 galls. 
Beer per head. 
(P. 340.) The Netherlands consume 
267,924 Hectolitres, or 7,100,005 galls. 
Gin, or a little over 2 galls, per head. 
6. COST. 
An official estimate from the Internal 
Revenue Department of the United 
States in 1868, sets the amount paid by 
consumers of liquors at from $500,000,- 
000 to $700,000,000. Average $600,- 
000,000. Being $15 per head, or $75 
per family. 
England expended for liquors, in 1866, 
(estimate of Professor Levi,) 89,000,000 
pounds sterling, or $445,000,000. Be- 
ing $15 per head, or $75 per family. 
In Denmark the quantify (in alcohol) 
is greater than in England. 
In Austria about one-fourth less than 
in England. 
In the Netherlands (gin only given) 
about half that of England. 
Prussia and other German States are 
not given, but a fair inference would be 
that their consumption per head was 
about equal to that ot Austria. 
With no pretension to accuracy, we 
estimate the cost per head in all these 
countries at less than half that of Eng- 
land,— say $6.20—or $31 per family, an- 
nually. 
7. DR. BOWDITCH’s CONCLUSIONS. 
The only important practical conclu- 
sions of the “Analysis” drawn not only 
from the correspondence, but largely from 
outside sources, are embodied in these 
two extracts:— 
OUR ANSWER. 
THE CASE STATED. 
The case is this. Dr. Bowditch and 
we are prescribing for the same patient. 
We prescribe water. He prescribes beer 
or wine. The question is, which pre- 
scription is best ? 
As it is the purpose of the “Analysis” 
to sustain, so it is the purpose of this re- 
port to question these two conclusions. 
Our limits do not enable us to do jus- 
tice to the correspondence or to the “An- 
alysis,” nor will it permit us to give addi- 
tional testimony. But for this we pro- 
pose a remedy. The Board of Health 
can have no object but truth, and will 
doubtless publish in their next annual 
report any additional evidence and sum- 
mary of proper limits and character, that 
may be furnished by this Alliance. Every 
impartial enquirer will choose to see the 
evidence and analysis for and against the 
above conclusions, side by side. We 
therefore recommend that the Alliance 
seek this method of providing for the 
deficiencies of our report. 
DR. BOWDITCH S FIRST CONCLUSION. 
1. The “Analysis” gives the following 
“ Cosmic laws” as its first argument:— 
(P. 74.) That “the appetite for stimu- 
lants is one of the strongest of human in- 
stincts.” 
(P. 75, and other pages.) That this 
instinct varies under different influences, 
climate, race, fashion, etc.” 
(P- 75, 76,and Map.) That it is strong- 
est north-and south of certain isother- 
mal lines. 
(P. 79 ) That “the climate of America 
is peculiarly stimulating.” 
(P- 79, 80.) That the influence of race 
is peculiarly strong with the English 
and Celtic races. 
(P. 83.) That American drinking 
fashions are exceptionally bad. 
Answer. Granting the laws as stated 
by Dr. Bowditch, do they prove his case ? 
He thinks they do; we think they do not. 
He thinks they prove the folly of prohibi- 
tion. We think they prove its necessity. If 
the predispositon of race is strong ; if the 
influence of American climate is strong ; 
if the isothermal influence is strong; if 
the influence of our drinking fashions is 
strong, it can hardly be “preposterous” 
to prohibit an enemy so strongly armed. 
The stronger these great “Cosmic laws” 
cu e, and the more fully they combine to in- 
crease the danger of the patient, the more 
stiongly do they demand heroic treatment. 
1. (p. 108.) The proposition of tot '1 abstinence 
from stimulants because intoxication prevails 
widely in the community, seems to me as pre- 
posterous as it would be >o advise universal celi- 
bacy because ot the existence of gross evils in 
connection with those instincts that lead to the 
divine institution of marria/e.” 
2 (p. Ill) “The example set by California and 
Ohio should be followed by the whole country, 
where the vine can be grown. As a temperance 
measure it behooves every good citizen to pro- 
mote that most desirable object. We should a'so 
allow the light imported wines of Europe to be 
introduced free of duty instead of the large one 
now imposed. Instead of repressing the German 
larer beer we should seek to have it introduced in- 
to the present grog shops, and thus sdbstitute a 
comparatively innoxious article for thooe potent 
liquors which now bring disaster and death into 
so many families,” 4 
But the use made of the word “ instinct” 
is wholly new. 
Both children and adults, at first dis- 
like ale, lager, tobacco, opium, spirits, and 
most other narcotics and stimulants. It 
is very loose and unusual to apply the 
term “instinct” to the acquired appetites 
for articles that disgust rather than at- 
tract the natural taste. It is cultivation, 
not instinct, that gives the acquired taste. 
Making new words, or new uses for old 
ones, ought to be confined to works of 
fancy. But call it “instinct” or call it 
what you will, its most striking peculiar- 
ities should have been stated. Other 
appetites when gratified, have a season 
of rest. This never. More requires 
moye. The craving increases with time 
and indulgence. Reason may give warn- 
ing, but appetite never. Here, just here 
is its power. Yet of this fact,—of this 
all pervading law,—of this peculiar char- 
acteristic in which the whole danger lies, 
the “Analyis” says nothing ! 
The argument from instinct pervades 
and dominates the whole “Analysis.” 
The stress laid on it, and not its merit, 
warrants a few more words. In plain 
English, its real meaning is that in creat- 
ing the instinct God gave His testimony 
in favor of feeding it. It means this or 
nothing. If so, His testimony is in favor 
of feeding it, as far as it really craves, 
and is just as applicable to tobacco, 
opium, and the fungus of Kamschatka as 
it is to alcohol. Is Dr. Bowditch ready 
thus to apply" it. If not he rejects the 
key-stone of his argument. 
2. ARGUMENT FROM OTHER STIMU- 
LANTS. 
(P. 103, 104.) The “Analysis” holds up 
the danger from other stimulants as 
a reason for not prohibiting alcohol. 
There are tea. sots, coffee sots, tobacco 
sots, opium sots, and so on through the 
list, and Dr. Bowditch is afraid to expel 
one stimulant, lest it should prompt us to 
use some other. 
Ans. Both he and we would deem it 
good common sense to deal with the dis- 
ease that was present and certain, even at 
some risk from other diseases that were 
distant and doubtful. It is true there is 
danger from other nerve stimulants, but 
it is not true that abstinence from one of 
them leads towards others. No such thing 
occurs until appetite reaches the point of 
disease. The reverse is true. That to- 
bacco increases the alcoholic appetite is 
proverbial. 
3. MEDICINE. 
(P. 92.) We are told that alcohol is 
useful as a medicine. 
Ans. With its proper use for that 
purpose we make no issue. That its 
prescription is too frequent, we greatly 
fear, but we do not see how the ques- 
tion of its use in sickness, affects an 
issue that relates only to its use in health. 
4. INCONSISTENCY. 
The “Analysis” charges the “devotees 
to abstinence” with inconsistency, as they 
only agree in opposing alcohol. On the 
use of other stimulants “they would split 
into innumerable fragments.” 
Ans. the premises, surely, 
if they all agree that one of these is more 
dangerous than any other, the inference 
strongly favors the policy on which all 
agree. If out of ten kinds of nerve stimu- 
lants they can agree to prohibit only 
one,—if they are ready to sacrifice theory 
rather than go beyond the necessities of 
the case, it is a proof of moderation. 
5. POISON. 
(P. 89. 94.) The “Analysis” denies 
that alcohol is “always a poison.” 
Ans. We wish the “analysis” and 
every body else to fix the “poison” 
question to suit themselves. Every one 
who wastes time on the question is 
equally absurd.* Arsenic and prussic 
acid are not “always poisons.” Infin- 
itessimally diluted all poisons lose their 
right to the name. The point at 
which they ought to lose their name is 
“one of the things nobody can find out.” 
DR. DOWDITCIl’S SECOND CONCLUSION. 
The “Analysis” claims for its prescrip- 
tion of Wine and Beer, that it would 
bring two great benefits, viz : 
1. “Avast wine trade,” like that of 
France, Spain, Italy and Germany. 
2. It would diminish intemperance. 
OUR ANSWER. 
1. The extent of the wine trade of the 
Austrian Empire is given in the corres- 
pondence. 
As we cannot give the figures for all 
Germany, let us take as a sample 
the great Austrian Empire. 
(P. 305. Report of 1871.) The wine 
exportation of Austria is stated as fol- 
lows : 5 
1864 (Eimers ol about 12>£ galls, each), 227,366 
1865 “ “ 169 826 
1866 “ “ 161.730 
1867 *• “ 206 713 
1868 *• “ 254 555 
1020,220 
Eimersor 204,044 Eimers per year. The 
government valuation, in other words the 
export valuation or wholesale price as we 
see (P. 307) is eight florins per Eimer, 
making a total value of 1,632,352 florins, 
or in round numbers $800 000 a year! 
This is a great representative wine 
country with thirty-five millions of 
people, and this is a sample of the “vast 
(wine) trade” held up for our admiration ! 
If the nett profit of this vast trade were 
20 per ct. it would amount to the vast 
sum of $160,000 a year 11 We can do bet- 
ter by making loco foco matches for the 
German market. 
2. As a money question only, and suppos- 
ing that as a drink it does neither harm 
nor good, wine should be made debtor to 
every dollar it loses, and creditor by every 
dollar it gains to the people. It loses to the 
people of Austria every dollar which the time 
and labor spent in its cultivation and dis- 
tribution is worth. It gains every do 'lar 
it brings in from abroad. Now, let us ask, 
how much money is the time spent by 
the people of Austria in making and dis- 
tributing (retailing) wine, worth ? How 
much money would it bring, if devoted to 
some other production or manufacture ? 
We attempt no answer. It is now 
worth just as many dollars as are paid 
for the wine by consumers, which at re- 
tail can hardly be less than three times 
the government wholesale prices. If 
labor would be worth the same on some 
other production, the account would stand 
thus : 
Wine,—To the People of Austria, Dr. 
To labor and capital 
employed to produce 
and distribute, 18,- 
600,000 Eimers wine 
at 24 Florins per 
Eimer, 446,400,000 Florins. 
Cr. 
By cash received for 
204,044 Eimers ex- 
ported, at 8 Florins, 1,632,352 Florins. 
By balance charged to 
account of profit and 
loss, 444,767,648 Florins. 
The people of Austria lose 446,400,000 
Florins by the wine “industry” every 
year, and their only consolation is that 
they succeed in foisting a two hundred 
and seventy-ninth part of the loss on the 
people of other countries. 
A vast wine trade would probably do 
for us what it does for Austria. 
THE AMERICAN WINE-LETTERS. 
The Larz Anderson letter (p. 116, 
report of 1872) says :— 
“[ am well assured from my own observation 
that the introduction ard general use of light 
wines have contributed to ti e lessening of intem- 
perance in Ohio. On my return tiome 1 will e t- 
deavor to procure such statistics as may be ob- 
tained, if any exist, relative to arrests, etc.” 
3. Answer. The connection of the 
family of Larz Anderson, who is a son- 
in-law of the late Nicholas Longworth, 
with the wine and brandy business, weak- 
ens, if it does not sufficiently account for 
his opinion. 
The letter of James Morrison (p. 
116) says:— 
“ Before the introduction of native wines, 
drunkenness was very common in California. The 
native wines are now found in nearly every 
household; they have supplanted to a great ex- 
tent tbe use of the stronger alcoholic stimulants. 
.... I think the annual report of the Haik 
A wav Association of San Francisco will furnish 
you the statistical information you desire ” 
4. Answer. The exceptional position of 
California, where but a few years ago 
the mass of the population was made up 
of unsettled adventurers, would be a 
sufficient answer. But aside from this, 
the letter bears internal evidence of the 
looseness and incompetency of the writer, 
and by no means accord with the facts. 
Yet upon the opinions of these two cor- 
respondents the “wine” prescription of 
the “Analysis” largely rests ! 
No feature of the “Analysis” is so curious 
as the elasticity of its faith. In England 
(P. 82) centuries of beer drinking are too 
little time for its prescription to work, 
while in Ohio, California and Frankfort 
twenty years or less is enough. From 
such extremes of faith and credulity the 
Board should have protected its report. 
The Board, or its Chairman, will doubt- 
less see fit to collect further evidence 
from Ohio and California for its next re- 
port. To this end the Alliance, if per- 
mitted, will give such aid as may be in 
its power. 
5. WAGES. 
We have already given an estimate of 
the cost of liquors per head and per 
mily. But in order to see what share of 
wages is spent for liquors we must see 
what the wages are. 
From “Reports frcm her Majesty’s 
Diplomatic and Consular Agents,” (Lon- 6 
If beer brings the laboring classes to 
this position, it is incredible that brandy 
20 years ago did a more infernal work. 
Beer is largely used by all the na- 
tions of northern Europe, but in no 
case does it weaken the brandy “ in- 
stinct.” Russia, Denmark, Sweden and 
Norway in spite of great quantities 
of beer, fortify their food, and some- 
times their tea with spirits. France 
takes the wine presciption in huge 
doses, and yet the “Analysis ” seems 
to admit (p. 100) is going to the bad 
in spite of both medicine and “cosmic 
laws.” Eight gallons a head of the beer 
prescription does not cure Irishmen ; 
eleven gallons do not cure Scotchmen ; 
twenty gallons do not cure Danes, and 
thirty-seven gallons a head do not cure 
Englishmen. Yet in spite of this record 
the “Analysis” urges the wine and beer 
prescription with as much assurance as 
any vender of patent specifics. The an- 
nals of quackery are rich, but they have 
few cases more empirical. 
Actual experiment, therefore, proves 
the failure of the beer and wine pre- 
scription. It has been tried in Germany, 
France, and Britain for centuries ; it has 
been tried on the Scandinavian, Sclavo- 
nic, German, Latin, Celtic, and Saxun 
races, and works so badly that the situa- 
tion described by the U. S. Consul at 
Frankfort is quoted as among its success- 
ful results. 
One conclusion of the Analysis, and 
one only is of present practical impor- 
tance, viz : that the wine and beer busi- 
ness promotes temperance, and should be 
encouraged. We charge, 
1. That on this point no direct question 
was asked, except, perhaps, of James Mor- 
rison, Larz Anderson and a German layer 
beer seller. 
2. That the most important testimony on 
this point was suppressed. 
3. That the analysis is unfair, and its 
conclusions unsupported by the published 
correspondence. 
Every point of scientific enquiry, and 
every experience of other nations, has 
its value. We welcome every such 
contribution. But our first work is at 
home. Our first question is, “What is 
the effect of the wine and beer business 
on our own country and State ? Why 
were not the keepers of prisons, correc- 
tional and reformatory institutions, pro- 
secuting officers and judges of our crimi- 
nal courts consulted ? This has not been 
done. 
don, 1870,) we gather the following es- 
timates of wages :— 
England, average daily wages of adult 
males $1.01 % 
United States, 1.58 
Other countries named above, (accur- 
acy not warranted) about 0.43 
Prof. Levi estimates the working pow- 
er of a family of five persons equal 
to that of two adult males. Tak- 
ing that estimate, and 3D0 working 
days per year, an English family would 
earn $609, and spend one-eighth for li- 
quors ; an American family would earn 
$948, and spend less than one-twelfth 
for liquors ; a German family would earn 
$258, and spend about one-eighth for li- 
quors. 
That a tax on labor to the extent of 
one-eight of its earnings must greatly 
affect food, clothing, &c., is evident, even 
if equally divided. But as some spend 
little, others a fourth, half, or the whole, 
a wide field of pauperism is certain. 
BEER. 
Several correspondents think a change 
from spirits to weaker drinks would, if 
made, be an improvement. 
6. Ans. Nothing is more natural. Beer 
and wine are the alphabet,—the primary 
school, and far less drunkenness and 
violence is there seen. Casual ob- 
servers always jump at the conclusion 
that “if zee could slop” just before we get 
to the stronger drinks it would be an im- 
provement. Further observation always 
dispels the illusion. The “ if” is fatal, 
but with the if, or without the if, it is 
wholly a mistake. Barring the if there 
would doubtless be less of drunken vio- 
lence, but much more waste of time, and 
much more of bar room lounging and bar 
room education. 
FRANKFORT. 
1. The letter from the U. S. Vice Con- 
sul at Frankfort says: (p. 284. report of 
1871.) 
“Twenty years ago tlie city and country were 
full of dram shops, which owing to the improve- 
ment of the beer, and the introduc ion of coffee 
amongst the laboring class, have nearly entirely 
disappeared.” 
7. Our answer is the letter of the U. S. 
Consul at Frankfort. He says :— 
“From the small, compact, ill-ventilated 
villages * * every morning sally out the 
men and women, (and more women than 
men,) to labor in the adjoining fields, or to 
work in the near cities, spending the day 
upon a pittance of bread, and return at 
night into the village at dark to enjoy the 
only meal of the day, and to spend their 
evenings in smoking and drinking their 
beer in crowds or “cliques,” We therefore make an earnest pro- 
test against the action of the Board of 
Health in giving circulation to a docu- 
ment that thus not only ignores the most 
important testimony from abroad, but 
neglects the more direct and conclusive 
Massachusetts testimony within its reach, 
—a document full of error that cannot 
fail to mislead the people', and perpetuate 
not only the evils resulting from ferment- 
ed liquors, but also the evils that come 
f rom every other portion of the traffic. 
We therefore recommend that the Al- 
liance, through the State Board of Health 
or through the Legislature, seek to se- 
cure the publication in an appendix, or 
side by side with the Analysis, of a brief 
compend of the testimony collected by 
the Convocation of Canterbury, on the 
effect of the beer traffic in England, and 
such testimony, with a summary 
thereof, as may be collected in Massa- 
chusetts and other States. 
Our report, long as it is, is only long 
enough to touch a few out of many points. 
No subject demands deeper or wider ex- 
amination. The liquor traffic does more 
than any other agency to fix the moral 
and social position of the people. It 
does more than any other agency to fix 
the financial position both of individuals 
and States. More than any other, it af- 
fects the home comforts,—the food, fuel, 
clothing and habitations of labor. More 
than any other, it affects the politi- 
cal interests pertaining to the ordin- 
ary objects of government. The practi- 
cal question of its treatment, must be 
met. It cannot be avoided. We stand 
but at its threshold. England is but be- 
ginning to move to its consideration. 
From France we are just hearing 
the first notes of alarm.* The 
great German race cannot long con- 
tinue to ignore it. Opposition and south 
side views can do but brief injury. They 
are but the transient eddies of a mighty 
current freighted with the destinies of 
the race. As in the past, so in the fu- 
ture, we shall have periodical wine and 
beer prescriptions and other empiricisms, 
but they will be overborne by the flood 
of facts, and by the rising intelligence of 
the age. 
H. D. CUSHING, 
W. M. THAYER, 
G. S. HALL, 
G. H. VIBBERT, 
E. P. MARVIN. 
*The National Assembly of Frauce have 
constituted the physicians of that body a 
committee, to report on the increasing rav- 
ages of wine and liquor drinking in that 
couutry. Le Constitutionel, one of the 
ablest French papers, says :— 
In all directions its increase is remarked, 
and complaints are made of the disastrous 
effects which it produces on public health 
as well as on public, morality. The habi- 
tues of the taverns and the wine sellers lose 
all inclination for work, they desert the 
workshop during several days of the week, 
and the gains of the other days are entirely 
devoted to the indulgence of their passion 
for drink. Finally life is entirely neglected, 
all idea for saving is entirely abandoned. 
The French race is deteriorating; daily. 
The drunkenness caused by 
wine is less dangerous. Unhappily the 
passage from one to the other is rapid. 
Men begin with wine, soon the pallate is 
palled and asks for strong excitement. Al- 
eohol is taken. In 40 years the consump- 
tion of alcohol has tripled in France.