"31. Do not be careless in any way whatever in connection with fire. The losses in the United States, in 1889, by fires as a result of carelessness amounted to nearly $100,000,000, while in San Francisco for the same year we find that fully 80% of the losses can be attributed to the same source."
Alcohol.—Felix L. Oswald, M.D., gives some very good ideas in Good Health on the alcoholic habit. "'Reform,' says an able political writer, 'is ever unpopular. All wrongs lie in the consent of the wronged, and what with the fierce support of those who thrive on the abuse, and the dull, heavy, ignorant conservatism of the masses, * * * it is a sad delusion to suppose that the cause is won when the argument is made.' An unquestionable preponderance of power, they argue, favors the side of the liquor venders, and in this world, at least, always finds a way to assert itself as right. The last link of that syllogism, however, is a rule with occasional exceptions. No unqualified evil has ever succeeded in maintaining its supremacy, and the evils of the alcohol vice are offset by no benefits. Alcohol has been called 'negative food,' because its physiological influence torpifies the functional energy of the digestive organs, and thus, for a time, renders the toper insensible to the cravings of hunger. The same effect, however, can be produced by a stunning blow, and we might as well claim that the interests of political economy could be promoted by a fierce war, because a knock-down stroke with the butt-end of a musket is apt to lessen the appetite of the afflicted soldier. No real benefit can result from the lethargizing effect of a poison dose, the retardation of the digestive functions being in every case a morbid and abnormal process, avenging its repetition by the fatty degeneration of the tissues and the impoverished condition of the blood. * * * During the horrible flood which a few months ago devastated the two richest provinces of the Chinese Empire, a number of vile marauders eked out an existence by fishing out wreckage and plundering floating corpses. The idea of mentioning the profits of these wretches as a compensating offset to the horrors of a public calamity would justly consign its propounder to the custody of a lunatic commission. Yet, by an exactly analogous line of argument, many of our political economists continue to defend the legal sanction of the liquor traffic. Nay, it might be seriously questioned if the total loss (by fire or water) of a billion bushels of grain would not be financially and morally preferable to their conversion into a life-blighting poison. According to the statistics of the Treasury Department, the alcohol drinkers of the United States (representing hardly one-fifth of the alcoholized nations of Christendom) spent during the last ten years a yearly average of $370,000,000 for whisky, $58,000,000 for other distilled liquors, $56,000,000 for wine, and $140,000,000 for ale and beer; together, $624,000,000 a year. That enormous sum has been far worse than wasted. It has been invested in the purchase of disease. It has been devoted to the development of idiocy, crime, and pauperism. It has turned blessings into a concentration of curses. The general recognition of these facts will seal the doom of the liquor traffic."
Dr. C. E. Spitka expresses some results of science investigating strong drinks:—
"Alcoholism among the ancients was therefore mainly or exclusively known in its acute phases, the drunken frenzy in which Alexander the Great killed Clitus being a familiar example. With the introduction of tobacco and playing cards, the saloon, the cellar-dive, and the bar-room usurped the place formerly held by the inn. The enlargement of cities deprived their inhabitants of rustic sports, and led to their seeking in other and more dangerous channels an escape from mental and physical strain, and a variation of routine monotony. It is generally conceded by those medical writers who are unshackled by prejudice that a certain amount of alcohol can be ingested with perfect impunity. That amount has been accurately determined by Dujardin-Beaumetz in the course of experiments made in the abattoirs of Paris. Transferring the result of his experiments to the human species, he concluded that a man weighing 120 pounds could take the equivalent of two ounces of alcohol a day for years without injury to any organ of the body. But when the amount taken daily exceeds the toleration-point, prolonged abuse is followed by results which are as sinister as they are insidious. In the dead-house of the Philadelphia Hospital, Formad found that, of 250 chronic alcoholists, nearly 99 per cent had fatty degeneration of the liver, 60 per cent had congestion or a dropsical state of the brain, the same proportion an inflamed or degenerated stomach, while not quite 1 per cent had normal kidneys. Of 17 children of drunken fathers observed by Voisin, 3 were idiots, 2 confirmed epileptics, 1 suffered from a congenital spinal disease, and the remainder died in early life with convulsions. Of 11 children similarly descended, cited by Dagonet, 9 died in the same way. Of 117 such births recorded in Alsace-Lorraine, 13 were still-born and 39 died of convulsive disorders shortly after birth. One drunken father had 7 still-born children in succession; another lost 8 of 12 by convulsions. It is not alone as a direct result of inebriety that a defective nervous system is thus transmitted. Even in his sober intervals, he whose nervous system has been shattered by alcohol is liable to have a degenerate or diseased offspring. Of 18 children recorded as born under these circumstances, Voisin found 8 epileptic and 10 idiotic. As if to prove beyond the possibility of a doubt that such degeneracy is due to the alcoholism of the parent, and to that alone, two French investigators, Mairet and Combemale, performed a series of experiments on dogs, by which they showed that the same result which the chronic inebriate is accused of producing in his offspring, through selfish indulgence, can be produced at will in the offspring of lower animals by compulsory induction of the same vice in them."
An English investigation, just completed, puts in tangible form the effect of the use of alcohol, from observations covering 4,234 cases in all walks of life. This report shows that, with men over twenty-five, the intemperate use of alcohol cuts off ten years from life, those who never drink to excess, or use no liquor, living, on the average, ten years longer than those who do. Indulgence, if carried to excess, doubles diseases of the liver, quadruples those of the kidneys, and greatly increases the number of deaths from pneumonia, pleurisy, and epilepsy.
It is not often appreciated how many people die annually from the effects of strong drink. Dr. Norman Kerr, an eminent physician of England, believing the statement of temperance people to be extravagant, that 60,000 people die annually from the effects of strong drink, began as early as 1870 a personal inquiry, in connection with several medical men and experts, expecting to quickly disprove the same. According to their deductions, the latest estimates of deaths of adults annually caused through intemperance is, in Great Britain, 120,000; in France, 142,000; in the United States, 80,000—or nearly a half million each year in three countries aggregating a population of 112,000,000.
Excessive Beer Drinking.—In the earlier part of our work we endeavored to impress on our readers the necessity of regularity and the avoidance of excesses. The last week of 1889 in New York City saw two prominent brewers buried, and two others of the guild were near death. None of them were, or are, over forty-seven years old. Kidney and heart disease were the causes of death in the case of the first two. Similar ailments have marked the other two gentlemen for the grave. The question arises, Was it beer or champagne that caused these diseases? In this connection the statement a physician of Bellevue Hospital once made is not amiss. These are his words: "The worst cases of alcoholic ailments coming under our observation are those resulting from excessive beer drinking."
In appearance the beer drinker may be the picture of health; but in reality he is most incapable of resisting disease. A slight injury, a severe cold, or a shock to the body or mind, will commonly provoke acute disease, ending fatally. Compared with other inebriates who use different kinds of alcohol, he is more incurable and more generally diseased. It is our observation that beer drinking in this country produces the very lowest kind of inebriety, closely allied to criminal insanity. The most dangerous class of ruffians in our large cities are beer drinkers. Intellectually, a stupor amounting almost to paralysis arrests the reason, changing all the higher faculties into a mere animalism, sensual, selfish, sluggish, varied only with paroxysms of anger, senseless and brutal.
That men are the sex most addicted to stimulating but injurious habits is sadly growing less true, and women are finding recourse too often to poisonous invigorators. If one-half of what the doctors are saying all over the country is true, there may soon be a greater need of a temperance reform among the women than there ever has been among the men. Strong drink, however, is not the monster by which the women may be enslaved, but a strong and poisonous drug equally baneful in its effect.