This is a modern-English version of Smoking and Drinking, originally written by Parton, James. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.

SMOKING AND DRINKING.

BY

BY

JAMES PARTON.

JAMES PARTON.

logo

BOSTON:
TICKNOR AND FIELDS.
1868.

BOSTON:
TICKNOR AND FIELDS.
1868.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1868, by
TICKNOR AND FIELDS,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1868, by
TICKNOR AND FIELDS,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.

University Press: Welch, Bigelow, & Co.,
Cambridge.

University Press: Welch, Bigelow, & Co.,
Cambridge.


PREFACE.

The next very important thing that man has to attend to is his health.

The next really important thing that a person needs to pay attention to is their health.

In some other respects, progress has been made during the last hundred years, and several considerable obstacles to the acquisition of a stable happiness have been removed or diminished.

In some other ways, progress has been made over the last hundred years, and several significant obstacles to achieving lasting happiness have been removed or reduced.

In the best parts of the best countries, so much knowledge is now freely offered to all the young as suffices to place within their reach all existing knowledge. We may say with confidence that the time is not distant when, in the United States, no child will live farther than four miles from a school-house, kept open four months in the year, and when there will be the beginning of a self-sustaining public library in every town and village of a thousand inhabitants. This great business of making knowledge universally accessible is well in hand; it has gone so far that it must go on till the work is complete.

In the best parts of the best countries, so much knowledge is now freely available to all young people that it puts all existing knowledge within their reach. We can confidently say that the time is approaching when, in the United States, no child will live more than four miles from a school that is open for four months each year, and when every town and village with a population of a thousand will have the beginnings of a self-sustaining public library. This important effort to make knowledge universally accessible is well underway; it has progressed so far that it will continue until the job is done.

In this country, too, if nowhere else, there is so near an approach to perfect freedom of thinking, that scarcely any one, whose conduct is good, suffers inconvenience from professing any extreme or eccentricity of mere opinion. I constantly meet, in New England villages, men who differ as widely as possible from their neighbors on the most dividing of all subjects; but if they are good citizens and good neighbors, I have never observed that they were the less esteemed on that account. Their peculiarities of opinion become as familiar as the color of their hair, or the shape of their every-day hat, and as inoffensive. This is a grand triumph of good sense and good nature; or, as Matthew Arnold would say, of the metropolitan over the provincial spirit. It is also recent. It was not the case fifty years ago. It was not the case twenty years ago.

In this country, if nowhere else, there's a level of freedom of thought so close to perfect that hardly anyone with good character experiences problems for expressing extreme or unusual opinions. I often meet, in New England towns, people who have opinions that are as different as possible from their neighbors on the most divisive subjects; but as long as they are good citizens and neighbors, I’ve never noticed that they are any less respected for it. Their unique viewpoints become as familiar as the color of their hair or the style of their everyday hats and are just as harmless. This is a significant victory for common sense and goodwill; or, as Matthew Arnold would put it, for the metropolitan spirit over the provincial one. This is also something recent. It wasn’t the case fifty years ago. It wasn’t the case twenty years ago.

The steam-engine, and the wondrous machinery which the steam-engine moves, have so cheapened manufactured articles, that a mechanic, in a village, may have so sufficient a share of the comforts, conveniences, and decencies of life, that it is sometimes hard to say what real advantage his rich neighbor has over him. The rich man used to have one truly enviable advantage over others: his family was safer, in case of his sudden death. But a mechanic, who has his home paid for, his life insured, and a year's subsistence accumulated, is as secure in this respect as, perhaps, the nature of human affairs admits. Now, an American workingman, anywhere out of a few largest cities, can easily have all these safeguards around his family by the time he is forty; and few persons can be rich before they are forty.

The steam engine, along with the amazing machines it powers, has made manufactured goods so affordable that a mechanic in a small town can enjoy enough comforts, conveniences, and basic amenities that it's hard to see what real benefits his wealthy neighbor has over him. The rich man used to have one clear advantage: his family was more secure in case of his sudden death. But a mechanic who owns his home, has life insurance, and has saved up enough to support his family for a year is just as secure in that regard, as far as human circumstances allow. Nowadays, an American worker living outside of a few major cities can easily have all these protections for his family by the time he turns forty, and not many people become wealthy before that age.

We may say, perhaps, speaking generally, that, in the United States, there are no formidable obstacles to the attainment of substantial welfare, except such as exist in the nature of things and in ourselves.

We could say, in general, that in the United States, there are no major barriers to achieving significant welfare, except those that come from the circumstances of life and our own limitations.

But in the midst of so many triumphs of man over material and immaterial things, man himself seems to dwindle and grow pale. Not here only, but in all the countries that have lately become rich enough to buy great quantities of the popular means of self-destruction, and in which women cease to labor as soon as their husbands and parents acquire a little property, and in which children sit in school and out of school from five to nine hours a day, and in which immense numbers of people breathe impure air twenty-two hours out of every twenty-four. In the regions of the United States otherwise most highly favored, nearly every woman, under forty, is sick or sickly; and hardly any young man has attained a proper growth, and measures the proper size around the chest. As to the young girls and school-children, if, in a school or party of two hundred, you can pick out thirty well-developed, well-proportioned, robust, ruddy children, you will do better than I have sometimes been able to do.

But in the middle of so many victories of humanity over both physical and non-physical challenges, people themselves seem to shrink and lose vitality. This isn't just here, but in all the countries that have recently become wealthy enough to purchase large quantities of popular methods of self-destruction. Here, women stop working as soon as their husbands and parents gain a bit of wealth, while children spend five to nine hours a day in school and not in school, and countless people breathe dirty air for twenty-two hours out of every twenty-four. In the regions of the United States that are otherwise the most fortunate, nearly every woman under forty is unwell or unhealthy; and hardly any young man has reached a proper height or size around the chest. As for young girls and schoolchildren, if you can find thirty well-developed, well-proportioned, robust, rosy-cheeked kids in a group of two hundred at a school or party, you’ll do better than I’ve sometimes managed to do.

This begins to alarm and puzzle all but the least reflective persons. People begin to wonder why every creature, whether of native or foreign origin, should flourish in America, except man.

This starts to worry and confuse everyone except for those who think the least. People begin to question why every creature, whether it is native or from another place, seems to thrive in America, except for humans.

Not that there is anything mysterious with regard to the immediate causes of this obvious decline in the health and robustness of the race. Miss Nightingale tells us that more than half of all the sickness in the world comes of breathing bad air. She speaks feelingly of the time, not long passed, when the winds of heaven played freely through every house, from Windsor Castle to the laborer's cottage, and when every lady put forth muscular effort in the polishing of surfaces. That was the time when bread was an article of diet, and the Devil had not invented hot biscuit. The agreeable means of self-destruction, now so cheap and universal, were unknown, or very costly; and the great mass of the people subsisted, necessarily, upon the plain fare which affords abundant nourishment, without overtasking the digestive powers. Terrible epidemics, against which the medical science of the time vainly contended, swept off weakly persons, shortened the average duration of life, and raised the standard of health.

Not that there's anything mysterious about the clear reasons for the decline in health and vitality of the population. Miss Nightingale informs us that over half of all sickness in the world comes from breathing polluted air. She passionately recalls a time not too long ago when fresh air flowed freely through every home, from Windsor Castle to the laborer’s cottage, and when every woman engaged in physical effort to keep surfaces clean. That was when bread was a staple of the diet, and the Devil hadn’t yet invented hot biscuits. The easy ways of self-destruction, now so cheap and widespread, were either unknown or very expensive; and most people relied on simple foods that provided plenty of nourishment without putting too much strain on their digestion. Terrible epidemics, which the medical science of that time could only struggle against, took away the weak, reduced average life expectancy, and raised the overall standard of health.

But now we can all pervert and poison ourselves if we will, and yet not incur much danger of prompt extinction. Indeed, it is hard for the most careful and resolute person to avoid being a party to the universal violation of natural law. Children, of course, are quite helpless. How could I help, at eight years of age, being confined six hours a day in a school, where the word "ventilation" was only known as an object of spelling? How could I help, on Sunday, being entombed in a Sunday-school room, eight or nine feet high, crowded with children, all breathing their utmost? I hated it. I loathed it. I protested against it. I played truant from it. But I was thirteen years old before I could escape that detested basement, where I was poisoned with pernicious air, and where well-intentioned Ignorance made virtue disgusting, contemptible, and ridiculous, by turns.

But now we can all mess ourselves up and harm ourselves if we want, and yet not face much risk of immediate extinction. In fact, it’s tough for even the most careful and determined person to avoid being part of the widespread breaking of natural laws. Children, of course, are completely helpless. How could I, at eight years old, avoid being stuck for six hours a day in a school where the word “ventilation” was only known as something to spell? How could I avoid being trapped on Sundays in a Sunday school room, eight or nine feet high, packed with kids, all breathing as hard as they could? I hated it. I loathed it. I protested against it. I skipped it. But I was thirteen before I could get out of that hated basement, where I was suffocated with bad air, and where well-meaning ignorance made virtue seem disgusting, contemptible, and ridiculous, all at once.

As all our virtues support one another, so all the vices of modern life are allies. Smoking and drinking are effects, as well as causes. We waste our vital force; we make larger demands upon ourselves than the nature of the human constitution warrants, and then we crave the momentary, delusive, pernicious aid which tobacco and alcohol afford. I suppose the use of these things will increase or decrease, as man degenerates or improves.

As all our virtues back each other up, so all the vices of modern life work together. Smoking and drinking are both effects and causes. We waste our energy; we put more pressure on ourselves than what our human nature can handle, and then we look for the temporary, misleading, harmful relief that tobacco and alcohol provide. I suppose the use of these substances will go up or down, depending on whether people get worse or better.

This subject, I repeat, is the next great matter upon which we have to throw ourselves. The republication of these essays is only to be justified on the ground that every little helps.

This topic, I reiterate, is the next big issue we need to focus on. The republishing of these essays is only justified by the idea that every little bit counts.

I think, too, that the next new sensation enjoyed by the self-indulgent, self-destroying inhabitants of the wealthy nations will be the practice of virtue. I mean, of course, the real thing, now nearly forgotten, the beginning of which is self-control, and which leads people to be temperate and pure, and enables them to go contrary to custom and fashion, without being eccentric or violent about it. That kind of virtue, I mean, which enables us to accept hard duties, and perform them with cheerful steadfastness; which enables us to make the most of our own lives, and to rear glorious offspring, superior to ourselves.

I also believe that the next big trend for the indulgent and self-destructive people in wealthy countries will be practicing true virtue. By that, I mean the genuine article, which is almost forgotten now, starting with self-control and leading to temperance and purity. It allows people to go against what’s popular or fashionable without being odd or aggressive about it. This kind of virtue helps us tackle tough responsibilities and carry them out with a positive attitude; it empowers us to live our best lives and raise amazing children who surpass us.

It is surprising what a new interest is given to life by denying ourselves one vicious indulgence. What luxury so luxurious as just self-denial! Who has ever seen any happy people that were not voluntarily carrying a heavy burden? Human nature is so formed to endure and to deny itself, that those mistaken souls who forsake the world, and create for themselves artificial woes, and impose upon themselves unnecessary tasks, and deny themselves rational and beneficial pleasures, are a thousand times happier than those self-indulgent and aimless men, whom we see every afternoon, gazing listlessly out of club-windows, wondering why it is so long to six o'clock.

It's surprising how much a new interest in life comes from denying ourselves a single bad habit. What luxury is greater than self-denial? Who has ever found truly happy people who weren't willingly bearing a heavy load? Human nature is designed to endure and to self-deny, so those misguided individuals who abandon the world, create artificial sorrows for themselves, take on unnecessary burdens, and refuse rational and enjoyable pleasures are a thousand times happier than those indulgent and aimless individuals we see every afternoon, staring blankly out of club windows, wondering why six o'clock takes so long to arrive.

I heard a young man say, the other day, that smoking had been the bane of his life, but that after abstaining for seven months, during which he made no progress in overcoming the desire to smoke, he had come to the conclusion that he was past cure, and must needs go on, as long as he lived. He was going on, when he made the remark, smoking a pipe half as big and twice as yellow as himself. It was a great pity. That daily longing to smoke, with the daily triumphant struggle against it, was enough of itself to make his life both respectable and interesting. During those seven months, he was a man. He could claim fellowship with all the noble millions of our race, who have waged a secret warfare with Desire, all the days of their lives. If he had kept on, if he had not lapsed under the domination of his tyrant, he would probably have ascertained what there was in his way of life which kept alive in him the craving for stimulation. In all probability, he would have conquered the desire at last.

I heard a young guy say the other day that smoking had been the worst part of his life, but after staying away from it for seven months, during which he made no progress in fighting the urge to smoke, he concluded that he could never quit and would just have to keep doing it for as long as he lived. He was smoking a pipe that was half as big and twice as yellow as he was when he made that remark. It was a real shame. That daily craving to smoke, along with the daily battle against it, was enough to make his life both respectable and interesting. During those seven months, he was a man. He could relate to all the millions of people who have fought a secret battle with desire throughout their lives. If he had kept going, if he hadn't given in to his addiction, he probably would have figured out what in his lifestyle kept that craving for stimulation alive. Most likely, he would have eventually conquered that desire.

And such a victory is usually followed by others similar. The cigar and the bottle are often replaced by something not sensual. The brain, freed from the dulling, lowering influence, regains a portion of its natural vivacity; and that vivacity frequently finds worthy objects upon which to expend itself.

And this kind of victory is usually followed by more of the same. The cigar and the bottle are often swapped out for something less indulgent. The mind, free from the dulling, depressing influence, recovers some of its natural energy; and that energy often finds worthy pursuits to engage with.

New York, September, 1868.

New York, September 1868.


SMOKING.

Vaping.

DOES IT PAY TO SMOKE?

BY A FORMER SMOKER.

I have sometimes thought that there are people whom it does pay to smoke: those hod-carriers on the other side of the street, for example. It cannot be a very pleasant thing to be a hod-carrier at this season of the year, when a man who means to be at work at seven A.M. must wake an hour before the first streak of dawn. There is an aged sire over there, who lives in Vandewater Street, which is two miles and a quarter from the building he is now assisting to erect. He must be astir by half past five, in order to begin his breakfast at six; and at half past six he is in the car, with his dinner-kettle in his hand, on his way up town. About the time when the more active and industrious readers of this magazine begin to think it is nearly time to get up, this father of a family makes his first ascent of the ladder with a load of mortar on his shoulder. At twelve, the first stroke of the bell of St. George's Church (it is New York where these interesting events occur) sets him at liberty, and he goes in quest of his kettle. On very cold days, the dinner-kettle is wrapped in its proprietor's overcoat to keep the cold dinner from freezing stiff. But we will imagine a milder day, when the group of hod-carriers take their kettles to some sunny, sheltered spot about the building, where they sit upon soft, commodious boards, and enjoy their repast of cold meat and bread. The homely meal being concluded, our venerable friend takes out his short black pipe for his noontide smoke. How he enjoys it! How it seems to rest him! It is a kind of conscious sleep, ending, perhaps, in a brief unconscious sleep, from which he wakes refreshed for another five hours of the heavy hod.

I sometimes think that there are people for whom smoking is worth it: like those hod-carriers across the street, for example. It can't be very enjoyable to be a hod-carrier this time of year when a guy who plans to start work at seven AM has to get up an hour before dawn. There’s an old man over there who lives on Vandewater Street, which is two miles and a quarter from the building he’s currently helping to construct. He must be up by half past five to start his breakfast at six, and by half past six, he’s in the car, with his lunch pail in hand, heading uptown. Around the time when the more active and hardworking readers of this magazine start thinking it’s almost time to get up, this family man is making his first climb up the ladder with a load of mortar on his shoulder. At noon, the first clang of the bell from St. George’s Church (this is New York, where these interesting events are happening) sets him free, and he goes in search of his kettle. On really cold days, he wraps his lunch pail in his overcoat to keep the food from freezing solid. But let’s imagine a milder day when the group of hod-carriers takes their kettles to a sunny, sheltered spot near the building, where they sit on soft, comfortable boards and enjoy their cold meat and bread. Once the simple meal is done, our elderly friend pulls out his short black pipe for his lunchtime smoke. How he enjoys it! How it seems to relax him! It’s like a conscious nap, maybe ending in a quick, unconscious sleep, from which he wakes refreshed for another five hours of heavy labor.

Who could wish to deny a poor man a luxury so cheap, and so dear? It does not cost him more than ten cents a week; but so long as he has his pipe, he has a sort of refuge to which he can fly from trouble. Especially consoling to him is it in the evening, when he is in his own crowded and most uninviting room. The smoke that is supposed to "poison the air" of some apartments seems to correct the foulness of this; and the smoker appears to be a benefactor to all its inmates, as well as to those who pass its door.

Who would want to deny a poor person a luxury that’s so inexpensive and so precious? It costs him no more than ten cents a week; but as long as he has his pipe, he has a kind of escape from his troubles. It's especially comforting for him in the evening, when he’s in his cramped and unwelcoming room. The smoke that some say “poisons the air” in certain apartments seems to improve the unpleasantness of this one; and the smoker comes across as a benefactor to everyone inside, as well as to those who walk by the door.

Besides, this single luxury of smoke, at a cost of one cent and three sevenths per diem, is the full equivalent of all the luxuries which wealth can buy! None but a smoker, or one who has been a smoker, can realize this truth; but it is a truth. That short black pipe does actually place the hod-carrier, so far as mere luxury goes, on a par with Commodore Vanderbilt or the Prince of Wales. Tokay, champagne, turtle, game, and all the other luxurious commodities are not, taken altogether, so much to those who can daily enjoy them, as poor Paddy's pipe is to him. Indeed, the few rich people with whose habits I chance to be acquainted seldom touch such things, and never touch them except to please others. They all appear to go upon the system of the late Lord Palmerston, who used to say to his new butler, "Provide for my guests whatever the season affords; but for me there must be always a leg of mutton and an apple-pie." Let the Prince of Wales (or any other smoker) be taken to a banqueting-hall, the tables of which should be spread with all the dainties which persons of wealth are erroneously supposed to be continually consuming, but over the door let there be written the terrible words, "No smoking." Then show him an adjoining room, with a table exhibiting Lord Palmerston's leg of mutton and apple-pie, plus a bundle of cigars. If any one doubts which of these two feasts the Prince of Wales would choose, we tell that doubting individual he has never been a smoker.

Besides, this simple pleasure of smoking, costing just one cent and three-sevenths each day, is equal to all the luxuries that wealth can buy! Only a smoker, or someone who used to smoke, can truly understand this. But it is true. That small black pipe actually puts a construction worker, when it comes to luxury, on the same level as Commodore Vanderbilt or the Prince of Wales. Tokay, champagne, turtle, game, and all those other luxurious items aren’t as valuable to those who can enjoy them daily as Paddy's pipe is to him. In fact, the few wealthy people I know rarely indulge in those things and only do so to please others. They all seem to operate like the late Lord Palmerston, who told his new butler, "Provide whatever the season offers for my guests; but for me, it must always be a leg of mutton and an apple pie." If the Prince of Wales (or any other smoker) were taken to a banquet hall filled with all the delicacies that wealthy people are wrongly believed to constantly enjoy, but with a sign over the door saying, "No smoking," then shown to an adjoining room with a table featuring Lord Palmerston's leg of mutton and apple pie, plus a bundle of cigars, it would be clear. If anyone doubts which of these two meals the Prince of Wales would prefer, I tell that doubter they have never been a smoker.

Now the short pipe of the hod-carrier is just as good to him as the regalias could be that cost two hundred dollars a thousand in Havana, and sixty cents each in New York. If you were to give him one of those regalias, he would prefer to cut it up and smoke it in his pipe, and then he would not find it as good as the tobacco he usually smokes. The poor laborer's pipe, therefore, is a potent equalizer. To the enjoyment of pleasures purely luxurious there is a limit which is soon reached; and I maintain that a poor man gets as much of this kind of pleasure out of his pipe as a prince or a railroad king can extract from all the costly wines and viands of the table.

Now the short pipe of the hod-carrier is just as valuable to him as the fancy cigars that cost two hundred dollars a thousand in Havana and sixty cents each in New York. If you were to give him one of those fancy cigars, he would rather chop it up and smoke it in his pipe, and he wouldn't even enjoy it as much as the tobacco he usually smokes. So, the poor laborer's pipe is a strong equalizer. There’s a limit to the enjoyment of luxuries that is reached quickly; and I believe that a poor man gets just as much pleasure from his pipe as a prince or a railroad magnate can get from all the expensive wines and food on the table.

If there is a man in the world who ought to smoke, that ancient hod-carrier is the man. A stronger case for smoking cannot be selected from ordinary life. Does it pay him? After an attentive and sympathetic consideration of his case, I am compelled reluctantly to conclude that it does not.

If there’s a guy in the world who should smoke, it’s that old laborer. You can't find a better example for smoking from everyday life. Does it benefit him? After carefully and thoughtfully looking at his situation, I’m reluctantly led to the conclusion that it does not.

The very fact that it tends to make him contented with his lot is a point against his pipe. It is a shame to him to be contented. To a young man the carrying of the hod is no dishonor, for it is fit that young men should bear burdens and perform lowly tasks. But the hod is not for gray hairs. Whenever, in this free and spacious America, we see a man past fifty carrying heavy loads upon his shoulders, or performing any hired labor that requires little skill or thought, we know that there must have been some great defect or waste in that man's life. The first dollar that George Law ever earned, after leaving his father's house, was earned by carrying the hod at Albany. But with that dollar he bought an arithmetic and spelling-book; which, when winter closed in and put a stop to hod-carrying, he mastered, and thus began to prepare to build the "High Bridge" over the Harlem River, where he made a million dollars by using steam hod-carriers instead of Irish ones. The pipe is one of the points of difference between the hod-carrier content with his lot and the hod-carrier who means to get into bricklaying next spring. Yonder is one of the latter class reading his "Sun" after dinner, instead of steeping his senses in forgetfulness over a pipe. He, perhaps, will be taking a contract to build a bridge over the East River, about the time when his elderly comrade is buried in a corporation coffin.

The fact that it makes him satisfied with his situation is a downside of his pipe. It's shameful for him to feel content. For a young man, carrying a hod is not humiliating, as it's expected for them to take on burdens and do menial tasks. But the hod is not for someone with gray hair. Whenever we see a man over fifty in America carrying heavy loads or doing any low-skilled job, we know there must have been some significant flaw or wasted potential in his life. The first dollar George Law ever made after leaving his father's home was from carrying a hod in Albany. With that dollar, he bought an arithmetic and spelling book, which he mastered once winter came and stopped hod-carrying. This was the start of his preparation to build the "High Bridge" over the Harlem River, where he made a million dollars by using steam hod-carriers instead of Irish labor. The pipe symbolizes the difference between the satisfied hod-carrier and the one who intends to move on to bricklaying next spring. Over there is one of the latter reading his "Sun" after lunch instead of dulling his senses with a pipe. He might be preparing to take on a contract to build a bridge over the East River around the time when his older colleague is laid to rest in a corporate coffin.

Of course, there are vigorous and triumphant men who smoke, and there are dull, contented men who do not. It is only of the general tendency of the poor man's pipe that I wish to speak. I mean to say that it tends to make him satisfied with a lot which it is his chief and immediate duty to alleviate. He ought to hate and loathe his tenement-house home; and when he goes to that home in the evening, instead of sitting down in stolid selfishness to smoke, he should be active in giving his wife (who usually has the worst of it) the assistance she needs and deserves. Better the merry song, the cheerful talk, the pleasant stroll, than this dulling of the senses and the brain in smoke. Nobler the conscious misery of such a home, than the artificial lethargy of the pipe. It is an unhandsome thing in this husband to steal out of his vile surroundings into cloudland, and leave his wife and children alone to their noisome desolation.

Sure, there are strong and successful men who smoke, and there are dull, content men who don’t. But what I really want to discuss is the general trend of the poor man’s pipe. It tends to make him okay with a situation he should be actively trying to improve. He should hate and reject his cramped apartment; when he returns home in the evening, instead of selfishly sitting down to smoke, he should help his wife, who usually has it the hardest, with the support she needs and deserves. Better to share a cheerful song, an enjoyable conversation, or a nice walk than to numb the senses and the mind in smoke. It’s more honorable to face the harsh reality of such a home than to retreat into the artificial stupor of smoking. It’s not right for this husband to escape from his terrible surroundings into a haze and leave his wife and kids to suffer in their miserable situation.

If it does not pay this hod-carrier to smoke, it pays no man. If this man cannot smoke without injustice to others, no man can.

If it doesn't benefit this hod-carrier to smoke, it benefits no one. If this man can't smoke without being unfair to others, then no one can.

Ladies, the natural enemies of tobacco, relented so far during the war as to send tobacco and pipes to the soldiers, and worked with their own fair hands many a pouch. Indeed, the pouch industry continues, though we will do the ladies the justice to say that, as their pouches usually have every excellent quality except fitness for the purpose intended, few of them ever hold tobacco. Does the lady who presented General Sheridan the other evening, in New York, with those superb and highly decorated tobacco-pouches suppose the gallant General has had, or will ever have, the heart to profane such beautiful objects with the noxious weed? It is evident from these gracious concessions on the part of the ladies, that they suppose the soldier is a man whose circumstances call imperatively for the solace of smoke; and really, when the wearied men after a long day's march gathered round the camp-fire for the evening pipe, the most infuriate hater of the weed must have sometimes paused and questioned the science which forbids the indulgence. But, reader, did you ever travel in one of the forward cars of a train returning from the seat of war, when the soldiers were coming home to re-enlist? We need not attempt to describe the indescribable scene. Most readers can imagine it. We allude to it merely as a set-off to the pleasant and picturesque spectacle of the tired soldiers smoking round the camp-fire.

Ladies, who are natural opponents of tobacco, softened their stance during the war by sending tobacco and pipes to the soldiers, even crafting many pouches themselves. In fact, the pouch-making continues, although to be fair to the ladies, their pouches usually possess every quality except suitability for holding tobacco, so few of them actually do. Does the lady who gifted General Sheridan those beautiful and intricately designed tobacco pouches the other night in New York really believe that the brave General would desecrate such lovely items with that disgusting weed? It’s clear from these generous acts by the ladies that they think soldiers desperately need the comfort of smoke; and truly, when the exhausted men gathered around the campfire for a pipe after a long day’s march, even the fiercest tobacco critic must have occasionally paused to question the rationale against such a treat. But, dear reader, have you ever traveled in one of the front cars of a train coming back from the battlefield, when soldiers were returning to re-enlist? We need not try to describe the indescribable scene. Most readers can picture it. We mention it only as a contrast to the charming image of tired soldiers smoking around the campfire.

In truth, the soldier is the last man in the world who should smoke; for the simple reason, that while he, more than any other man, has need of all his strength, smoking robs him of part of it. It is not science alone which establishes this truth. The winning boat of Harvard University, and the losing boat of Yale, were not rowed by smokers. One of the first things demanded of a young man who is going into training for a boat-race is, Stop smoking! And he himself, long before his body has reached its highest point of purity and development, will become conscious of the lowering and disturbing effect of smoking one inch of a mild cigar. No smoker who has ever trained severely for a race, or a game, or a fight, needs to be told that smoking reduces the tone of the system and diminishes all the forces of the body. He knows it. He has been as conscious of it as a boy is conscious of the effects of his first cigar. Let the Harvard crew smoke during the last two months of their training, and let the Yale men abstain, and there is one individual prepared to risk a small sum upon Yale's winning back her laurels.

Honestly, the soldier is the last person who should smoke; simply because, more than anyone else, he needs all his strength, and smoking takes away part of it. This isn’t just a scientific fact. The winning crew from Harvard University and the losing crew from Yale were not made up of smokers. One of the first things a young man is told when he starts training for a boat race is, Stop smoking! Even before his body reaches its peak of health and strength, he'll notice how smoking just a bit of a mild cigar affects him negatively. No smoker who has seriously trained for a race, game, or fight needs to be told that smoking lowers their overall condition and weakens their body's abilities. He knows it. He has been as aware of it as a boy is aware of the effects of his first cigar. If the Harvard crew were to smoke during the last two months of their training and the Yale crew stayed smoke-free, I would bet a small amount that Yale would win back its titles.

A soldier should be in training always. Compelled to spend nine tenths of his time in laboriously doing nothing, he is called upon occasionally, for a few hours or days or weeks, to put forth exertions which task human endurance to the uttermost. The soldier, too, of all men, should have quiet nerves; for the phantoms of war scare more men than its real dangers, and men's bodies can shake when their souls are firm. That two and two make four is not a truth more unquestionably certain than that smoking does diminish a soldier's power of endurance, and does make him more susceptible to imaginary dangers. If a regiment were to be raised for the hardest service of which men can ever be capable, and that service were to be performed for a series of campaigns, it would be necessary to exclude from the commissariat, not tobacco only, but coffee and tea. Each man, in short, would have to be kept in what prize-fighters call "condition"; by which term they simply mean the natural state of the body, uncontaminated by poison, and unimpaired by indolence or excess. Every man is in duty bound to be "in condition" at all times; but the soldier,—it is part of his profession to be "in condition." When remote posterity comes to read of the millions and millions of dollars expended during the late war in curing soldiers untouched by bayonet or bullet, the enthusiasm of readers will not be excited by the generosity displayed in bestowing those millions. People will lay down the book and exclaim: "How ignorant were our poor ancestors of the laws of life! A soldier in hospital without a wound! How extremely absurd!"

A soldier should always be in training. Forced to spend most of his time doing nothing productive, he is occasionally called upon, for a few hours, days, or weeks, to push himself to his limits. The soldier, more than anyone, needs to have calm nerves; the fears of war often scare more people than its actual dangers, and a person’s body can tremble even when their mind is strong. The fact that two plus two equals four is no more certain than the truth that smoking reduces a soldier's endurance and makes him more sensitive to imagined threats. If a regiment were to be formed for the toughest tasks humans can handle over a series of campaigns, it would be necessary to eliminate not just tobacco, but also coffee and tea from their supplies. Each person would have to be kept in what prize-fighters call "condition," which means the body’s natural state, free from harmful substances and unspoiled by laziness or excess. Every person is obligated to stay "in condition" at all times, but for the soldier, being "in condition" is part of the job. When future generations read about the millions spent during the last war to treat soldiers who were unharmed by bullets or bayonets, they won’t be impressed by the generosity shown in those expenditures. Instead, people will close the book and say, "How clueless were our ancestors about the laws of life! A soldier in a hospital without a wound! How ridiculous!"

To this weighty and decisive objection minor ones may be added. The bother and vexation arising from the pipe were very great during the campaigns of the late war. Half the time the smokers, being deprived of their accustomed stimulant, were in that state of uneasy longing which smokers and other stimulators know. Men were shot during the war merely because they would strike a light and smoke. The desire sometimes overcame all considerations of prudence and soldierly duty. A man out on picket, of a chilly night, knowing perfectly well that lighting his pipe would have the twofold effect of revealing his presence and inviting a bullet, was often unable to resist the temptation. Many men, too, risked capture in seeking what smokers call "a little fire." A fine, stalwart officer of a Minnesota regiment, whose natural forces, if he had given nature a fair chance, would have been abundantly sufficient for him without the aid of any stimulant, has told me there were nights when he would have gladly given a month's pay for a light. Readers probably remember the incident related in the newspapers of one of our smoking generals, who, after being defeated by the enemy, heard of the arrival of gunboats which assured his safety, and promised to restore his fortunes. The first thing he did was to send an aid on board a gunboat to ask if they had any cigars. He was right in so doing. It was a piece of strategy necessitated by the circumstances. Let any man who has been in the habit of smoking ten to twenty cigars a day be suddenly deprived of them at a time when there is a great strain upon body and mind, and he will find himself reduced to a state bordering upon imbecility. Knowing what I know of the smoking habits of some officers of high rank, I should tremble for the success of any difficult operation, to be conducted by them in presence of an enemy, if their cigars had given out the evening before; nor could a spy do his employers a better service than to creep into the tents of some generals the night before an engagement, and throw all their cigars and tobacco into a pail of water.

To this serious and major objection, a few minor ones can also be added. The hassle and annoyance from the pipe were quite significant during the campaigns of the recent war. Half the time, the smokers, being denied their usual stimulant, experienced that feeling of restless craving that smokers and others who rely on stimulants know all too well. Men were shot during the war simply because they would light up and smoke. The urge sometimes overshadowed all considerations of caution and duty as a soldier. A soldier on picket duty, on a chilly night, well aware that lighting his pipe would both reveal his location and attract a bullet, often found it hard to resist the temptation. Many men also risked capture in search of what smokers refer to as "a little fire." A strong, capable officer of a Minnesota regiment, whose natural abilities would have been more than enough for him without any stimulant, told me that there were nights he would have gladly traded a month's pay for a light. Readers likely remember the story in the newspapers about one of our smoking generals who, after being defeated by the enemy, heard about the arrival of gunboats that would ensure his safety and help restore his fortunes. The first thing he did was send an aide to a gunboat to ask if they had any cigars. He was right to do that. It was a strategic move driven by the situation. Let any person who typically smokes ten to twenty cigars a day suddenly find themselves without them during a time of great physical and mental strain, and they will feel like they are on the edge of losing their wits. Knowing about the smoking habits of some high-ranking officers, I would worry about the success of any challenging operation they might conduct in the presence of an enemy if their cigars had run out the night before; nor could a spy do a better service for his employers than sneak into the tents of some generals the night before a battle and dump all their cigars and tobacco into a bucket of water.

Of all men, therefore, the soldier is the very last man who could find his account in a practice which lowers the tone of his health, reduces his power of endurance, litters his knapsack, pesters him with a system of flints and tinder, and endangers his efficiency in critical moments. If all the world smoked, still the soldier should abstain.

Of all people, the soldier is the last person who would benefit from a habit that harms his health, weakens his stamina, fills his backpack with clutter, forces him to deal with a system of flints and tinder, and jeopardizes his performance in crucial situations. Even if everyone else smoked, the soldier should still refrain.

Sailors and other prisoners experience so many dull hours, and possess so many unused faculties, that some cordial haters of tobacco have thought that such persons might be justified in a habit which only lessens what they have in superfluity. In other words, sailors, being in a situation extremely unfavorable to spiritual life, ought not merely to yield to the lowering influence of the forecastle, but add to it one more benumbing circumstance. On the contrary, they ought to strive mightily against the paralyzing effects of monotony,—not give up to them, still less aggravate them. There is no reason, in the nature of things, why a sailor, after a three years' voyage, should not step on shore a man more alert in body and mind than when he sailed, and all alive to communicate the new knowledge he has acquired and the wonders he has seen. Why should he go round this beautiful world drugged?

Sailors and other prisoners spend so many boring hours and have so many unused abilities that some strong opponents of tobacco have thought these individuals might be justified in developing a habit that only diminishes what they have in excess. In other words, sailors, being in a situation that's really bad for their spiritual well-being, shouldn’t just give in to the depressing influence of the forecastle, but should add one more numbing factor to it. Instead, they should fight hard against the dulling effects of monotony—not surrender to them or make them worse. There’s no reason, in the grand scheme of things, why a sailor, after a three-year voyage, shouldn’t step onto shore being more alert in body and mind than when he left, eager to share the new knowledge he’s gained and the wonders he’s experienced. Why should he wander around this beautiful world in a haze?

We must, therefore, add the sailor to the hod-carrier and the soldier, and respectfully take away his pipe. I select these classes, because they are supposed most to need artificial solace, and to be most capable of enduring the wear and tear of a vicious habit. Each of these classes also can smoke without much offending others, and each is provided with an "expectoratoon" which disgusts no one. The hod-carrier and the soldier have the earth and the sailor the ocean. But, for all that, the pipe is an injury to them. Every man of them would be better without it.

We should, therefore, include the sailor with the hod-carrier and the soldier, and politely take away his pipe. I choose these groups because they are thought to need relief the most and can handle the negative effects of a bad habit. Each of these groups can also smoke without really bothering others, and each has a way to spit that doesn’t offend anyone. The hod-carrier and the soldier have the land, while the sailor has the sea. But still, the pipe harms them. Every one of them would be better off without it.

But if we must deny them the false solace of their pipe, what can be said of the all-but-universal smoking of persons supposed to be more refined than they, and whose occupations furnish them no pretence of an excuse? We now see painters in their studios smoking while they paint, and sculptors pegging away at the marble with a pipe in their mouths. Clergymen hurry out of church to find momentary relief for their tired throats in an ecstatic smoke, and carry into the apartment of fair invalids the odor of ex-cigars. How it may be in other cities I know not, but in New York a parishioner who wishes to confer upon his clergyman a real pleasure can hardly do a safer thing than send him a thousand cigars of a good clerical brand. It is particularly agreeable to a clergyman to receive a present which supplies him with a luxury he loves, but in which he knows in his inmost soul he ought not to indulge. No matter for all his fine arguments, there is not one clergyman in ten that succeeds in this short life in reducing his conscience to such a degree of obtuseness that he can buy a box of cigars (at present prices) without a qualm of self-reproach. Editors, writers for the press, reporters, and others who haunt the places where newspapers are made, are smokers, except a few controlling men, and a few more who are on the way to become such. Most of the authors whose names are familiar to the public smoke steadily; even the poets most beloved do so. Philosophers have taken to the pipe of late years. Mr. Dickens, they say, toys with a cigar occasionally, but can hardly be reckoned among the smokers, and never touches a cigar when he has a serious task on hand. Mr. Prescott smoked, and O, how he loved his cigar! It was he who, when his physician had limited him to one cigar a day, ran all over Paris in quest of the largest cigars that Europe could furnish. In my smoking days I should have done the same. Thackeray smoked; he was very particular in his smoking; the scent of a bad cigar was an abomination to him. That Byron smoked, and loved "the naked beauties" of tobacco, he has told us in the most alluring verses the weed has ever inspired. Milton, Locke, Raleigh, Ben Jonson, Izaak Walton, Addison, Steele, Bolingbroke, Burns, Campbell, Scott, Talfourd, Christopher North, Lamb, were all smokers at some part of their lives. Among our Presidents, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, General Jackson, and probably many others, were smokers. Daniel Webster once smoked. Henry Clay, down to a late period of his life, chewed, smoked, and took snuff, but never approved of either practice, and stopped two of them. General Grant smokes, but regrets that he does, and has reduced his daily allowance of cigars. Edwin Booth smokes, as do most of the gentlemen of his arduous profession. Probably a majority of the physicians and surgeons in the United States, under forty years of age, are smokers; and who ever knew a medical student that did not smoke furiously? This, perhaps, is not to be wondered at, since doctors live upon the bodily sins of mankind.

But if we have to deny them the false comfort of their pipe, what can we say about the almost universal smoking of people considered to be more refined, whose jobs offer no excuse? We now see painters in their studios smoking while they work, and sculptors chiseling away at marble with a pipe in their mouths. Clergymen rush out of church to relieve their tired throats with a quick smoke, bringing the scent of old cigars into the rooms of delicate patients. I can't say how it is in other cities, but in New York, a parishioner who wants to truly please their clergyman can hardly go wrong by sending them a thousand cigars of a good clerical brand. Clergymen especially enjoy receiving a gift that provides them with a luxury they love, even though they know deep down they shouldn't indulge in it. No matter how eloquently they argue, not one clergyman in ten manages to dull their conscience enough to buy a box of cigars (especially at current prices) without feeling some guilt. Editors, writers, reporters, and others who frequent newspaper offices are smokers, except for a few in charge and a few who are about to become smokers. Most of the authors whose names the public recognizes smoke regularly; even the most beloved poets do. Philosophers have taken up smoking in recent years. Mr. Dickens is said to occasionally enjoy a cigar but can’t really be counted among smokers, as he never smokes when working on something serious. Mr. Prescott smoked, and oh, how he cherished his cigars! He was the one who, after being told by his doctor he could only have one cigar a day, searched all over Paris for the biggest cigars in Europe. In my smoking days, I would have done the same. Thackeray smoked; he was very choosy about it—the smell of a bad cigar was offensive to him. Byron smoked and adored "the naked beauties" of tobacco, as he told us in the most captivating verses inspired by the weed. Milton, Locke, Raleigh, Ben Jonson, Izaak Walton, Addison, Steele, Bolingbroke, Burns, Campbell, Scott, Talfourd, Christopher North, and Lamb all smoked at some point in their lives. Among our Presidents, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, General Jackson, and probably many others were smokers. Daniel Webster once smoked. Henry Clay, up to a late point in his life, chewed, smoked, and snuffed, but never liked either practice and eventually stopped two of them. General Grant smokes, but wishes he didn't, and has cut down on how many cigars he has daily. Edwin Booth smokes, as do most of the men in his demanding profession. Probably the majority of medical doctors and surgeons in the United States under forty are smokers; and who ever met a medical student that didn't smoke heavily? This might not be surprising, since doctors make a living off the physical vices of mankind.

The question is, Does it pay these gentlemen to smoke? They know it does not. It would be gross arrogance in any individual to lift up his voice in rebuke of so many illustrious persons, but for the fact that there is scarcely one of them who does not feel that the practice is wrong, or, at least, absurd. Almost all confirmed smokers will go so far as to admit that they wish they had never acquired the habit. Few of them desire their boys to acquire it. None recommend it to other men. Almost all smokers, who are not Turks, Chinamen, or Indians, appreciate at once the wisdom of Sir Isaac Newton's reply to one who asked him why he never smoked a pipe. "Because," said he "I am unwilling to make to myself any necessities." Nor can any intelligent smoker doubt that the fumes of tobacco are hostile to the vital principle. We smokers and ex-smokers all remember how our first cigar sickened us; we have all experienced various ill effects from what smokers call "smoking too much"; and very many smokers have, once or twice in their lives, risen in revolt against their tyrant, given away their pipes, and lived free men long enough to become conscious that their whole being had been torpid, and was alive again. No, no! let who will deny that smoking is unfriendly to life, and friendly to all that wars upon life, smokers will not question it, unless they are very ignorant indeed, or very young. It will be of no avail to talk to them of the man who lived to be a hundred years old and had smoked to excess for half a century. Smokers have that within which keeps them well in mind that smoking is pernicious. If there are any smokers who doubt it, it is the few whom smoke is rapidly killing; such, for example, as the interesting professional men who smoke an excellent quality of cigars and "break down" before they are thirty-five. It is not honest, legitimate hard work that breaks so many people down in the prime of life. It is bad habits.

The question is, Do these guys benefit from smoking? They know it doesn’t. It would be really arrogant for anyone to criticize so many respected individuals, but the truth is that nearly all of them feel the practice is wrong, or at least ridiculous. Almost all regular smokers will admit they wish they had never picked up the habit. Few want their sons to take it up. None encourage it for other men. Almost all smokers, who aren't Turks, Chinese, or Indians, immediately understand the wisdom of Sir Isaac Newton's response when someone asked him why he never smoked a pipe. "Because," he said, "I am unwilling to create any necessities for myself." Furthermore, no smart smoker can deny that tobacco smoke is harmful to life. We smokers and ex-smokers all remember how our first cigar made us feel sick; we’ve all experienced various negative effects from what smokers call "smoking too much"; and many smokers have, at least once or twice, rebelled against this addiction, given away their pipes, and lived freely long enough to realize that they had been numb and suddenly felt alive again. No, no! Let anyone deny that smoking is harmful to life and supports everything that damages it; smokers won’t question it, unless they are extremely naive or very young. It's pointless to mention the man who lived to be a hundred and smoked heavily for fifty years. Smokers have an inner awareness that smoking is damaging. If there are any smokers who doubt this, they are the few who smoking is quickly harming; like the interesting professionals who smoke high-quality cigars and "break down" before they turn thirty-five. It is not genuine, hard work that causes so many people to collapse in the prime of their lives. It’s bad habits.

Smoking is a barbarism. This is the main argument against what is termed moderate smoking. There is something in the practice that allies a man with barbarians, and constantly tends to make him think and talk like a barbarian. Being at New Haven last September, a day or two before the opening of the term at Yale College, I sat in one of the public rooms of the hotel late one evening, hoping some students would come in, that I might see what sort of people college students are in these times. Yale College hath a pleasant seat. Who can stroll about upon that beautiful College Green, under those majestic elms, without envying the youth who are able to spend four long years of this troublesome life in the tranquil acquisition of knowledge amid scenes so refined and engaging? The visitor is bewitched with a wild desire to give the college two or three million dollars immediately, to enable it to become, in all respects, what it desires, aims, and intends to become. Visions of the noble Athenian youth thronging about the sages of eld, and learning wisdom from their lips, flit through his mind, as he wanders among the buildings of the college, and dodges the colored men who are beating carpets and carrying furniture. In this exalted frame of mind, suppose the stranger seated in the room of the hotel just mentioned. In the middle of the small apartment sat one fat, good-humored, uneducated man of fifty, smoking a cigar,—about such a man as we expect to find in the "office" of a large livery stable. At half past ten a young man strolled in, smoking, who addressed the elder by a military title, and began a slangy conversation with him upon the great New Haven subject,—boat-racing. About eleven, three or four other young men came in, to whom cigars were furnished by the military chieftain. All together they blew a very respectable cloud, and the conversation, being so strongly reinforced, became more animated. Boating was still the principal theme. The singular merits of Pittsburg oars were discussed. A warm dispute arose as to who was the builder of a certain boat that had won a race three years ago. Much admiration was expressed for the muscle, the nerve, and, above all, for the style and method, of the crew of the Harvard boat, which had beaten the Yale boat a few weeks before.

Smoking is a barbaric act. This is the main point against what is called moderate smoking. There’s something about the habit that connects a person with barbarians and tends to make him think and speak like one. Last September, a day or two before the term started at Yale College, I sat in one of the hotel's public rooms late one evening, hoping some students would come in so I could see what college students are like these days. Yale College has a beautiful campus. Who can walk around that lovely College Green, under those majestic elm trees, without envying the young people who get to spend four long years of this chaotic life peacefully gaining knowledge in such refined and engaging surroundings? The visitor finds himself overwhelmed with a wild desire to give the college two or three million dollars immediately, to help it become, in every way, what it desires, aims, and intends to be. Visions of the noble young Athenians gathering around the wise sages of old, learning wisdom from them, flash through his mind as he strolls among the college buildings and sidesteps the workers who are beating carpets and moving furniture. In this elevated state of mind, imagine the stranger seated in the hotel room I just mentioned. In the middle of the small space sat a plump, good-natured, uneducated man in his fifties, smoking a cigar—about the kind of man you’d expect to find in the office of a large livery stable. At half past ten, a young man walked in, also smoking, who addressed the older man with a military title and started a slangy conversation with him about the big topic in New Haven—boat racing. Around eleven, three or four other young men entered, and the military leader supplied them with cigars. Together they created a respectable cloud of smoke, and the conversation, bolstered by their presence, became more lively. Boating remained the main topic. They discussed the unique qualities of Pittsburgh oars. A heated debate broke out over who built a particular boat that had won a race three years earlier. They expressed great admiration for the strength, the nerve, and above all, the style and technique of the Harvard crew that had beaten the Yale crew a few weeks prior.

Nevertheless, it did not occur to me that these smoking and damning gentlemen could be members of the college. I supposed they were young loafers of the town, who took an interest in the pleasures of the students, and were exchanging opinions thereon with their natural chief, the lord of the stable. At length one said to another, "Will Jones be here this week?" The reply was: "No, I wrote to the fellow; but, damn him, he says he can't get here till next Thursday." "Why, what's the matter with the cuss?" "O, he's had the fever and ague, and he says there's no pull in him." This led me to suspect that these young fellows were the envied youths of whom I had been dreaming under the elms,—a suspicion which the subsequent conversation soon confirmed. There was nothing wrong or harmful in the subject of their talk. The remarkable circumstance was, that all the difference which naturally exists, and naturally appears, between an educated and an uneducated person was obliterated; and it seemed, too, that the smoke was the "common element" in which the two were blended. It was the cigar that kept the students there talking boat till midnight with an elderly ignoramus, and it was the cigar that was always drawing them down to his level. If he had not handed round his cigar-case, they would have exhausted all the natural interest of the subject in a few minutes, and gone home to bed. All of them, too, as it happened, confessed that smoking lessens the power of a man to row a boat, and lamented that a certain student would be lost to the crack crew from his unwillingness to give up his pipe.

Nevertheless, it didn’t occur to me that these smoking and condemning gentlemen could be members of the college. I thought they were young slackers from the town, interested in the students' fun, and were discussing it with their usual leader, the lord of the stable. Eventually, one said to another, "Will Jones be here this week?" The reply was: "No, I wrote to the guy; but, damn him, he says he can’t make it until next Thursday." "What’s wrong with the guy?" "Oh, he’s had the fever and ague, and he says he has no energy." This made me suspect that these young men were the envious youths I'd been dreaming about under the elms—a suspicion that was soon confirmed by their conversation. There was nothing wrong or harmful in what they were discussing. The surprising thing was that all the differences that naturally exist and show up between an educated and an uneducated person were erased; and it seemed that the smoke was the "common element" that brought the two together. It was the cigar that kept the students talking about boats until midnight with an older clueless guy, and it was the cigar that always pulled them down to his level. If he hadn’t handed around his cigar case, they would have run out of interest in the topic in a few minutes and gone home to bed. Additionally, they all happened to agree that smoking reduces a man's ability to row a boat and lamented that a certain student would be out of the top crew because he wouldn’t give up his pipe.

Smoking lures and detains men from the society of ladies. This herding of men into clubs, these dinners to which men only are invited, the late sitting at the table after the ladies have withdrawn, the gathering of male guests into some smoking-room, apart from the ladies of the party,—is not the cigar chiefly responsible for these atrocities? Men are not society; women are not society: society is the mingling of the two sexes in such a way that each restrains and inspires the other. That community is already far gone in degeneracy in which men prefer to band together by themselves, in which men do not crave the society of ladies, and value it as the chief charm of existence. "What is the real attraction of these gorgeous establishments?" I asked, the other evening, of an acquaintance who was about to enter one of the new club-houses on Fifth Avenue. His reply was: "No women can enter them! Once within these sacred walls, we are safe from everything that wears a petticoat!" Are we getting to be Turks? The Turks shut women in; we shut them out. The Turks build harems for their women; but we find it necessary to abandon to women our abodes, and construct harems for ourselves.

Smoking pulls men away from spending time with women. This grouping of men into clubs, these dinners where only men are invited, the late-night gatherings at the table after the women have left, the collection of male guests in a smoking room, separate from the women—aren't cigars mainly to blame for these wrongdoings? Men aren't society; women aren't society: society is when both sexes come together in a way that each holds back and motivates the other. That community is already decaying where men prefer to stick together, where they don't seek the company of women and don't see it as the main joy in life. "What's the real draw of these fancy places?" I asked a friend the other evening, who was about to enter one of the new clubhouses on Fifth Avenue. He replied, "No women are allowed in! Once we’re inside these sacred walls, we're safe from everything that wears a skirt!" Are we becoming like the Turks? The Turks confine women; we keep them out. The Turks build harems for their women, but we find it necessary to leave our homes to women and create harems for ourselves.

Humiliating as the truth is, it must be confessed, tobacco is woman's rival, her successful rival. It is the cigar and the pipe (it used to be wine and punch) that enable men to endure one another during the whole of a long evening. Remove from every club-house all the means of intoxication,—i.e. all the wine and tobacco,—and seven out of every ten of them would cease to exist in one year. Men would come together for a few evenings, as usual, talk over the evening papers, yawn and go away, perhaps go home,—a place which our confirmed clubbists only know as a convenience for sleeping and breakfasting. One of the worst effects of smoking is that it deadens our susceptibility to tedium, and enables us to keep on enduring what we ought to war against and overcome. It is drunken people who "won't go home till morning." Tyrants and oppressors are wrong in drawing so much revenue from tobacco; they ought rather to give it away, for it tends to enable people to sit down content under every kind of oppression.

As humiliating as it is to admit, the truth is that tobacco is a woman's competitor, and a successful one at that. It’s cigars and pipes (once it was wine and punch) that help men tolerate each other throughout a long evening. Take away all the means of intoxication from every clubhouse—meaning all the wine and tobacco—and seven out of ten would shut down within a year. Men would gather for a few evenings, as usual, skim through the evening papers, yawn, and leave, maybe head home—a place that our habitual clubgoers only see as a spot for sleeping and breakfast. One of the worst impacts of smoking is that it dulls our sensitivity to boredom, allowing us to keep putting up with what we should be fighting against and overcoming. It's drunk people who "won't go home until morning." Tyrants and oppressors are mistaken to profit so much from tobacco; they should actually give it away, as it helps people sit back and accept all kinds of oppression.

Men say, in reply to those who object to their clubs, their men's dinner-parties, and their smoking-rooms: "Women overwhelm society with superfluous dry goods. The moment ladies are invited, the whole affair becomes a mere question of costume. A party at which ladies assist is little more than an exhibition of wearing apparel. They dress, too, not for the purpose of giving pleasure to men, but for the purpose of inflicting pain on one another. Besides, a lady who is carrying a considerable estate upon her person must devote a great part of her attention to the management of that estate. She may be talking to Mr. Smith about Shakespeare and the musical-glasses, but the thing her mind is really intent upon is crushing Mrs. Smith with her new lace. Even dancing is nothing but an exceedingly laborious and anxious wielding of yards of silk trailing out behind!" etc.

Men say, in response to those who criticize their clubs, their men's dinner parties, and their smoking rooms: "Women flood society with unnecessary fashion items. The moment women are invited, everything turns into a mere fashion show. A party with women is hardly more than a display of clothes. They dress, not to please men, but to compete with each other. Besides, a woman who owns a significant amount of possessions must spend a lot of her focus managing that. She might be chatting with Mr. Smith about Shakespeare and musical glasses, but what she's really thinking about is finding a way to outshine Mrs. Smith with her new lace. Even dancing is just a very strenuous and stressful effort to manage long trails of silk behind her!" etc.

Smoky diners-out will recognize this line of remark. When ladies have left the table, and are amusing themselves in the drawing-room in ways which may sometimes be trivial, but are never sensual, men frequently fall into discourse, over their cigars, upon the foibles of the sex, and often succeed in delivering themselves of one or more of the observations just quoted. As these noble critics sit boozing and smoking, they can sometimes hear the brilliant run upon the piano, or the notes of a finely trained voice, or the joyous laughter of a group of girls,—all inviting them to a higher and purer enjoyment than steeping their senses in barbarous smoke. But they stick to their cigars, and assume a lofty moral superiority over the lovely beings, the evidence of whose better civilization is sounding in their ears.

Smoky diners will recognize this kind of conversation. When the women have left the table and are entertaining themselves in the living room, which might sometimes be trivial but is never inappropriate, the men often start discussing the quirks of women over their cigars and frequently end up echoing some of the observations mentioned earlier. As these esteemed critics sit drinking and smoking, they can sometimes hear the beautiful music coming from the piano, the notes of a well-trained voice, or the joyous laughter of a group of girls— all beckoning them to a higher and purer enjoyment than drowning their senses in harsh smoke. But they stick to their cigars and assume a false moral superiority over the lovely women, whose evidence of a better society resonates in their ears.

Now, one of the subtle, mysterious effects of tobacco upon "the male of our species" is to disenchant him with regard to the female. It makes us read the poem entitled Woman as though it were only a piece of prose. It takes off the edge of virility. If it does not make a man less masculine, it keeps his masculinity in a state of partial torpor, which causes him to look upon women, not indeed without a certain curiosity, but without enthusiasm, without romantic elevation of mind, without any feeling of awe and veneration for the august Mothers of our race. It tends to make us regard women from what we may style the Black Crook point of view. The young man who boasted that he had seen the Black Crook forty-seven times in three months must have been an irreclaimable smoker. Nothing but the dulled, sensualized masculinity caused by this peculiar poison could have blinded men to the ghastly and haggard ugliness of that exhibition. The pinched and painted vacancy of those poor girls' faces; the bony horrors of some of their necks, and the flabby redundancy of others; the cheap and tawdry splendors; the stale, rejected tricks of London pantomimes; three or four tons of unhappy girls suspended in the air in various agonizing attitudes,—to think that such a show could have run for seventeen months! Even if science did not justify the conjecture, I should be disposed, for the honor of human nature, to lay the blame of all this upon tobacco.

Now, one of the subtle, mysterious effects of tobacco on "the male of our species" is that it dulls his perception of women. It makes us read the poem titled Woman as if it were just a piece of prose. It lessens the edge of masculinity. If it doesn't make a man less masculine, it keeps his masculinity in a state of partial lethargy, which makes him view women with a certain curiosity but without enthusiasm, romantic uplift, or any sense of awe and respect for the revered mothers of our race. It tends to make us view women from what we might call the Black Crook perspective. The young man who bragged that he had seen the Black Crook forty-seven times in three months must have been a hopeless smoker. Only the dulled, sensualized masculinity caused by this unique poison could have made men ignore the ghastly and haggard ugliness of that show. The pinched and painted emptiness of those poor girls' faces, the bony horrors of some of their necks, and the flabby excess of others; the cheap and tacky glitz; the stale, rejected tricks of London pantomimes; three or four tons of unhappy girls suspended in the air in various agonizing poses—it's hard to believe that such a show could have run for seventeen months! Even if science didn't support the idea, I would still, for the sake of human dignity, blame all this on tobacco.

To a man who is uncorrupt and properly constituted, woman remains always something of a mystery and a romance. He never interprets her quite literally. She, on her part, is always striving to remain a poem, and is never weary of bringing out new editions of herself in novel bindings. Not till she has been utterly conquered and crushed by hopeless misery or a false religion does she give up the dream of still being a pleasant enchantment. To this end, without precisely knowing why, she turns the old dress, retrims it, or arrays herself in the freshness of a new one, ever striving to present herself in recreated loveliness. Uncontaminated man sympathizes with this intention, and easily lends himself to the renewed charm. Have you not felt something of this, old smokers, when, after indulging in the stock jests and sneers at womankind, you lay aside your cigars, and "join the ladies," arrayed in bright colors and bewitching novelties of dress, moving gracefully in the brilliant gas-light, or arranged in glowing groups about the room? Has not the truth flashed upon you, at such moments, that you had been talking prose upon a subject essentially poetical? Have you never felt how mean and low a thing it was to linger in sensual stupefaction, rather than take your proper place in such a scene as this?

To a man who is honest and well-balanced, a woman always stays a bit of a mystery and a romance. He never takes her too literally. She, for her part, is always trying to stay a poem and never tires of presenting new versions of herself in different styles. Only when she has been completely defeated and broken by unbearable sadness or a false belief does she let go of the dream of being a delightful enchantment. To achieve this, even without fully understanding why, she reworks her old dress, updates it, or puts on the freshness of a new one, always aiming to showcase herself in renewed beauty. A pure man appreciates this effort and easily gets drawn into her renewed allure. Haven't you felt something like this, old smokers, when after trading jokes and sneers about women, you set aside your cigars and "join the ladies," dressed in bright colors and captivating outfits, moving gracefully in the bright gaslight, or grouped beautifully around the room? In those moments, hasn't it dawned on you that you were discussing something ordinary about a topic that is fundamentally poetic? Haven't you ever realized how petty it is to dwell in physical numbness instead of taking your rightful place in such a scene?

It is true, that a few women in commercial cities,—a few bankers' and brokers' wives, and others,—bewildered by the possession of new wealth, do go to ridiculous excess in dressing, and thus bring reproach upon the art. It were well if their husbands did no worse. Now and then, too, is presented the melancholy spectacle of an extravagant hussy marring, perhaps spoiling, the career of her husband by tasteless and unprincipled expenditures in the decoration of her person. But is it wholly her fault? Is he not the purse-holder? Is it not a husband's duty to prevent his wife from dishonoring herself in that manner? When men are sensual, women will be frivolous. When men abandon their homes and all the noble pleasures of society in order to herd together in clubs and smoking-rooms, what right have they to object if the ladies amuse themselves in the only innocent way accessible to them? The wonder is that they confine themselves to the innocent delights of the toilet. A husband who spends one day and seven evenings of every week at his club ought to expect that his wife will provide herself both with fine clothes and some one who will admire them. Besides, for one woman who shocks us by wasting upon her person an undue part of the family resources, there are ten who astonish us by the delightful results which their taste and ingenuity contrive out of next to nothing.

It’s true that a few women in big cities—like some bankers' and brokers' wives—get confused by their newfound wealth and go overboard with their dressing, bringing shame to the art of fashion. It would be better if their husbands didn’t do the same. Occasionally, we see the sad sight of an extravagant woman ruining her husband’s career with her tasteless and irresponsible spending on her appearance. But is it entirely her fault? Isn’t he the one with the money? Isn’t it a husband’s responsibility to stop his wife from embarrassing herself like that? When men are indulgent, women will act silly. When men choose to neglect their homes and the rewarding joys of social life to hang out in clubs and smoking lounges, what right do they have to complain if their wives seek entertainment in the only innocent way available to them? It’s surprising that they limit themselves to the harmless pleasures of getting ready. A husband who spends one day and seven nights a week at his club shouldn’t be surprised if his wife wants to buy nice clothes and find someone to appreciate them. Plus, for every woman who shocks us by spending too much of the family money on herself, there are ten who amaze us with the beautiful things they create from practically nothing.

It would be absurd to say that smoking is the cause of evils which originate in the weakness and imperfection of human nature. The point is simply this: tobacco, by disturbing and impairing virility, tends to vitiate the relations between the sexes, tends to lessen man's interest in women and his enjoyment of their society, and enables him to endure and be contented with, and finally even to prefer, the companionship of men. And this is the true reason why almost every lady of spirit is the irreconcilable foe of tobacco. It is not merely that she dislikes the stale odor of the smoke in her curtains, nor merely that her quick eye discerns its hostility to health and life. These things would make her disapprove the weed. But instinct causes her dimly to perceive that this ridiculous brown leaf is the rival of her sex. Women do not disapprove their rivals; they hate them.

It would be ridiculous to claim that smoking is the source of problems that stem from the flaws and weaknesses of human nature. The main point is this: tobacco, by disrupting and weakening masculinity, tends to hurt the relationships between men and women, reduces a man's interest in women and his enjoyment of their company, and leads him to tolerate and even prefer the company of other men. This is why almost every spirited woman strongly opposes tobacco. It's not just that she finds the stale smell of smoke in her curtains unpleasant, nor is it only that she quickly recognizes its harmful effects on health and life. Those reasons would make her disapprove of smoking. But her instincts make her sense that this silly brown leaf threatens her gender. Women don’t simply disapprove of their rivals; they hate them.

Smoking certainly does blunt a man's sense of cleanliness. It certainly is an unclean habit. Does the reader remember the fine scene in "Shirley," in which the lover soliloquizes in Shirley's own boudoir, just after that "stainless virgin" has gone out? She had gone away suddenly, it appears, and left disorder behind her; but every object bore upon it the legible inscription, I belong to a lady! "Nothing sordid, nothing soiled," says Louis Moore. "Look at the pure kid of this little glove, at the fresh, unsullied satin of the bag." This is one of those happy touches of the great artist which convey more meaning than whole paint-pots of common coloring. What a pleasing sense it gives us of the sweet cleanness of the high-bred maiden! If smokers were to be judged by the places they have left,—by the smoking-car after a long day's use, by the dinner-table at which they have sat late, by the bachelor's quarters when the bachelor has gone down town,—they must be rated very low in the scale of civilization.

Smoking definitely dulls a person’s sense of cleanliness. It’s an unclean habit. Do you remember the great scene in "Shirley," where the lover is speaking to himself in Shirley's own room, just after the "spotless virgin" has left? She seems to have rushed out, leaving chaos behind; but every item shows a clear message, I belong to a lady! "Nothing dirty, nothing soiled," says Louis Moore. "Look at the pure white of this little glove, at the fresh, untouched satin of the bag." This is one of those brilliant touches from a great artist that conveys more meaning than a whole palette of ordinary colors. It gives us such a lovely impression of the sweet cleanliness of the refined young woman! If smokers were to be judged by the places they have left,—like the smoking car after a long day, the dinner table where they lingered, or the bachelor's home when he’s out on the town,—they would score very low on the scale of civilization.

We must admit, too, I think, that smoking dulls a man's sense of the rights of others. Horace Greeley is accustomed to sum up his opinion upon this branch of the subject by saying: "When a man begins to smoke, he immediately becomes a hog." He probably uses the word "hog" in two senses: namely, hog, an unclean creature; and hog, a creature devoid of a correct sense of what is due to other creatures. "Go into a public gathering," he has written, "where a speaker of delicate lungs, with an invincible repulsion to tobacco, is trying to discuss some important topic so that a thousand men can hear and understand him, yet whereinto ten or twenty smokers have introduced themselves, a long-nine projecting horizontally from beneath the nose of each, a fire at one end and a fool at the other, and mark how the puff, puffing gradually transforms the atmosphere (none too pure at best) into that of some foul and pestilential cavern, choking the utterance of the speaker, and distracting (by annoyance) the attention of the hearers, until the argument is arrested or its effect utterly destroyed." If these men, he adds, are not blackguards, who are blackguards? He mitigates the severity of this conclusion, however, by telling an anecdote: "Brethren," said Parson Strong, of Hartford, preaching a Connecticut election sermon, in high party times, some fifty years ago, "it has been charged that I have said every Democrat is a horse-thief; I never did. What I did say was only that every horse-thief is a Democrat, and that I can prove." Mr. Greeley challenges the universe to produce a genuine blackguard who is not a lover of the weed in some of its forms, and promises to reward the finder with the gift of two white blackbirds.

We have to admit, too, that smoking dulls a person's sense of the rights of others. Horace Greeley often sums up his thoughts on this topic by saying: "When a man starts to smoke, he immediately becomes a hog." He likely uses the term "hog" in two ways: as an unclean animal and as someone who lacks an understanding of what is right towards others. "Go to a public event," he wrote, "where a speaker with delicate lungs, who absolutely can’t stand tobacco, is trying to talk about an important issue so that a thousand people can hear and understand him. Yet, there are ten or twenty smokers who have barged in, each with a long cigarette sticking out from their mouths, a flame on one end and foolishness on the other. Watch how the puffing gradually turns the already not-so-pure air into that of some nasty, disease-ridden cave, choking the speaker’s words and annoying the audience, distracting them until the argument gets interrupted or its impact completely ruined." If these men aren’t blackguards, then who are blackguards? However, he softens this strong view by sharing a story: "Brothers," said Parson Strong from Hartford while preaching a Connecticut election sermon during intense party times about fifty years ago, "it has been said that I claim every Democrat is a horse-thief; I never did. What I actually said was that every horse-thief is a Democrat, and I can prove that." Mr. Greeley dares anyone to find a real blackguard who isn’t a fan of tobacco in some form, and promises to reward the finder with two white blackbirds.

Mr. Greeley exaggerates. Some of the best gentlemen alive smoke, and some of the dirtiest blackguards do not; but most intelligent smokers are conscious that the practice, besides being in itself unclean, dulls the smoker's sense of cleanliness, and, what is still worse, dulls his sense of what is due to others, and especially of what is due to the presence of ladies.

Mr. Greeley is exaggerating. Some of the best people around smoke, and some of the worst don't; but most smart smokers are aware that smoking, aside from being inherently unclean, dulls their sense of cleanliness, and, even worse, dulls their awareness of what they owe to others, especially when it comes to treating ladies with respect.

The cost of tobacco ought perhaps to be considered before we conclude whether or not it pays to smoke; since every man who smokes, not only pays his share of the whole expense of the weed to mankind, but he also supports and justifies mankind in incurring that expense. The statistics of tobacco are tremendous, even to the point of being incredible. It is gravely asserted, in Messrs. Ripley and Dana's excellent and most trustworthy Cyclopædia, that the consumption of cigars in Cuba—the mere consumption—amounts to ten cigars per day for every man, woman, and child on the island. Besides this, Cuba exports two billions of cigars a year, which vary in price from twenty cents each (in gold) to two cents. In the manufacture of Manilla cheroots,—a small item in the trade,—the labor of seven thousand men and twelve hundred women is absorbed. Holland, where much of the tobacco used in smoky Germany is manufactured, employs, it is said, one million pale people in the business. In Bremen there are four thousand pallid or yellow cigar-makers. In the United States the weed exhausts four hundred thousand acres of excellent land, and employs forty thousand sickly and cadaverous cigar and tobacco makers. In England, where there is a duty upon tobacco of seventy-five cents a pound, and upon cigars of nearly four dollars a pound, the government derives about six million pounds sterling every year from tobacco. The French government gets from its monopoly of the tobacco trade nearly two hundred million francs per annum, and Austria over eighty million francs. It is computed that the world is now producing one thousand million pounds of tobacco every year, at a total cost of five hundred millions of dollars. To this must be added the cost of pipes, and a long catalogue of smoking conveniences and accessories. In the London Exhibition there were four amber mouth-pieces, valued at two hundred and fifty guineas each. A plain, small, serviceable meerschaum pipe now costs in New York seven dollars, and the prices rise from that sum to a thousand dollars; but where is the young man who does not possess one? We have in New York two (perhaps more) extensive manufactories of these pipes; and very interesting it is to look in at the windows and inspect the novelties in this branch of art? In Vienna men earn their living (and their dying too) by smoking meerschaums for the purpose of starting the process of "coloring." Happily, the high price of labor has hitherto prevented the introduction of this industry into America.

The cost of tobacco should probably be considered before we determine whether smoking is worth it; every person who smokes not only contributes to the overall expense of tobacco for everyone, but also supports and justifies that expense. The statistics surrounding tobacco are staggering, even to the point of being unbelievable. It's seriously claimed in Messrs. Ripley and Dana's reliable Cyclopædia that the average consumption of cigars in Cuba—just the consumption—hits ten cigars a day for every man, woman, and child on the island. On top of that, Cuba exports two billion cigars a year, with prices ranging from twenty cents each (in gold) to two cents. The production of Manilla cheroots, a small part of the trade, employs seven thousand men and twelve hundred women. In Holland, where much of the tobacco for smoky Germany gets made, it's said that one million pale people are employed in the industry. Bremen has four thousand pale or yellow cigar-makers. In the United States, tobacco takes up four hundred thousand acres of prime land and provides jobs for forty thousand unhealthy and hollow-looking cigar and tobacco makers. In England, where there's a duty of seventy-five cents a pound on tobacco and nearly four dollars a pound on cigars, the government makes about six million pounds sterling annually from tobacco. The French government profits nearly two hundred million francs a year from its tobacco monopoly, and Austria gets over eighty million francs. It’s estimated that the world produces one billion pounds of tobacco annually, costing a total of five hundred million dollars. On top of that, you have the cost of pipes and a long list of smoking tools and accessories. At the London Exhibition, four amber mouthpieces were valued at two hundred and fifty guineas each. A simple, small, functional meerschaum pipe costs seven dollars in New York, with prices going up to a thousand dollars; but what young man doesn’t own one? In New York, we have two (maybe more) large factories for making these pipes; it's quite fascinating to peek through the windows and check out the latest designs in this craft. In Vienna, men earn a living (and a dying too) by smoking meerschaums to kickstart the "coloring" process. Fortunately, the high cost of labor has so far stopped this industry from taking root in America.

An inhabitant of the United States who smokes a pipe only, and good tobacco in that pipe, can now get his smoking for twenty-five dollars a year. One who smokes good cigars freely (say ten a day at twenty cents each) must expend between seven and eight hundred dollars a year. Almost every one whose eye may chance to fall upon these lines will be able to mention at least one man whose smoking costs him several hundred dollars per annum,—from three hundred to twelve hundred. On the other hand, our friend the hod-carrier can smoke a whole week upon ten cents' worth of tobacco, and buy a pipe for two cents which he can smoke till it is black with years.

An American who only smokes a pipe, and uses good tobacco in it, can now enjoy their smoking habit for twenty-five dollars a year. Someone who smokes high-quality cigars frequently (say ten a day at twenty cents each) has to spend between seven and eight hundred dollars a year. Almost everyone who reads this will likely know at least one person whose smoking habit costs them several hundred dollars a year—ranging from three hundred to twelve hundred. On the flip side, our friend the manual laborer can smoke an entire week on ten cents' worth of tobacco and buy a pipe for two cents that will last him for years until it turns black from use.

All this inconceivable expenditure—this five hundred millions per annum—comes out of the world's surplus, that precious fund which must pay all the cost, both of improving and extending civilization. Knowledge, art, literature, have to be supported out of what is left after food, clothes, fire, shelter, and defence have all been paid for. If the surest test of civilization, whether of an individual or of a community, is the use made of surplus revenue, what can we say of the civilization of a race that expends five hundred millions of dollars every year for an indulgence which is nearly an unmitigated injury? The surplus revenue, too, of every community is very small; for nearly the whole force of human nature is expended necessarily in the unending struggle for life. The most prosperous, industrious, economical, and civilized community that now exists in the world, or that ever existed, is, perhaps, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Yes, take it for all in all, Massachusetts, imperfect as it is, is about the best thing man has yet done in the way of a commonwealth. And yet the surplus revenue of Massachusetts is set down at only three cents a day for each inhabitant; and out of this the community has to pay for its knowledge, decoration, and luxury. Man, it must be confessed, after having been in business for so many thousands of years, is still in very narrow circumstances, and most assuredly cannot afford to spend five hundred millions a year in an injurious physical indulgence.

All this unbelievable spending—this five hundred million a year—comes from the world's surplus, that valuable fund that needs to cover all the costs of improving and expanding civilization. Knowledge, art, and literature have to be funded with what’s left after paying for food, clothing, heat, housing, and safety. If the best measure of civilization, whether for an individual or a community, is how they use their surplus income, what does it say about the civilization of a society that spends five hundred million dollars every year on a habit that is almost completely harmful? The surplus income for every community is pretty minimal since most of human effort goes into the constant struggle for survival. The most successful, hardworking, frugal, and civilized community that exists now, or has ever existed, is probably the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Yes, all things considered, Massachusetts, with all its flaws, is one of the best achievements humanity has made in terms of a community. Yet, the surplus revenue of Massachusetts is estimated at only three cents a day for each person; and out of this, the community has to pay for knowledge, decoration, and luxury. It must be admitted that, after thousands of years of experience, humanity is still in pretty tight circumstances and definitely can't afford to spend five hundred million a year on a physically harmful indulgence.

It is melancholy to observe what a small, mean, precarious, grudging support we give to the best things, if they are of the kind which must be sustained out of our surplus. At Cambridge the other day, while looking about among the ancient barracks in which the students live, I had the curiosity to ask concerning the salaries of the professors in Harvard College,—supposing, of course, that such learned and eminent persons received a compensation proportioned to the dignity of their offices, the importance of their labors, and the celebrity of their names. Alas! it is not so. A good reporter on the New York press gets just about as much money as the President of the College, and the professors receive such salaries as fifteen and eighteen hundred dollars a year. The very gifts of inconsiderate benefactors have impoverished the college, few of whom, it seems, have been able to give money to the institution; most of them have merely bought distinction from it. Thus professorships in plenty have been endowed and named; but the college is hampered, and its resources have become insufficient, by being divided among a multitude of objects. I beg the reader, the next time he gives Harvard University a hundred thousand dollars, or leaves it a million in his will, to make the sum a gift,—a gift to the trustees,—to be expended as they deem best for the general and permanent good of the institution, and not to neutralize the benefit of the donation by conditions dictated by vanity. Yale, I have since learned, is no better off. At all our colleges, it seems, the professors either starve upon twelve or fifteen hundred dollars a year, or eke out a subsistence by taking pupils, or by some other arduous extra labor. But what wonder that learning pines, when we every year waste millions upon millions of the fund out of which alone learning can be supported!

It’s sad to see how little support we give to the best things when they rely on what we have left over. Recently at Cambridge, while exploring the old dorms where students stay, I got curious about the salaries of the professors at Harvard College—assuming, of course, that such knowledgeable and respected individuals earned a pay that reflected the importance of their roles, the significance of their work, and their well-known names. Sadly, that’s not the case. A decent reporter for the New York press makes about the same as the President of the College, and professors earn barely fifteen to eighteen hundred dollars a year. Even the donations from well-meaning benefactors have hurt the college, as few have actually been able to contribute money; most just want to gain prestige from it. Many professorships have been funded and named, but the college is held back, and its resources are stretched thin by being split among too many causes. I urge readers, the next time they donate a hundred thousand dollars to Harvard University, or leave it a million in their will, to make it a true gift—a gift to the trustees—to be spent as they see fit for the overall and lasting benefit of the institution, instead of limiting the donation's value with conditions driven by pride. I’ve since learned that Yale is just as poorly off. In all our colleges, it seems, professors either scrape by on twelve or fifteen hundred dollars a year or supplement their income by tutoring or taking on some other demanding extra work. But is it any surprise that education suffers when we waste millions and millions every year from the very funds that support it?

It is so with all high and spiritual things. How the theatre languishes! There are but four cities in the United States where a good and complete theatre could be sustained. In the great and wealthy city of New York there has never been more than one at a time, nor always one. How small, too, the sale of good books, even those of a popular cast! One of the most interesting works ever published in the United States is the "Life of Josiah Quincy," by his son Edmund Quincy. It is not an abstruse production. The narrative is easy and flowing, interspersed with well-told anecdotes of celebrated men,—Washington, Lafayette, John Adams, John Randolph, Hancock, Jefferson, and many others. Above all, the book exhibits and interprets, in the most agreeable manner, a triumphant human life; showing how it came to pass that Josiah Quincy, in this perplexing and perilous world, was able to live happily, healthily, honorably, and usefully for ninety-three years! Splendid triumph of civilization! Ninety-three years of joyous, dignified, and beneficial existence! One would have thought that many thousands of people in the United States would have hurried to their several bookstores to bear away, rejoicing, a volume recounting such a marvel, the explanation of which so nearly concerns us all. The book has now been published three months or more, and has not yet sold more than three thousand copies! Young men cannot waste their hard-earned money upon a three-dollar book. It is the price of a bundle of cigars!

It’s the same with all high and spiritual things. How the theater suffers! There are only four cities in the United States where a good, complete theater could thrive. In the great and wealthy city of New York, there has never been more than one theater at a time, and not always that. The sales of good books, even popular ones, are dismally low! One of the most interesting books ever published in the United States is "Life of Josiah Quincy," by his son Edmund Quincy. It's not a complex read. The narrative is easy to follow, filled with well-told stories about famous people—Washington, Lafayette, John Adams, John Randolph, Hancock, Jefferson, and more. Above all, the book presents and interprets a remarkable human life in a very engaging way, showing how Josiah Quincy managed to live happily, healthily, honorably, and usefully for ninety-three years in this confusing and dangerous world! What an incredible achievement of civilization! Ninety-three years of joyful, dignified, and meaningful life! You would think that thousands of people in the United States would rush to their local bookstores to happily grab a copy of such a remarkable story, one that is so relevant to us all. The book has been out for over three months now and has sold fewer than three thousand copies! Young men can't afford to spend their hard-earned money on a three-dollar book. That's the price of a pack of cigars!

Mr. Henry Ward Beecher has recently told us, in one of his "Ledger" articles, how he earned his first ten dollars, and what he did with it. While he was a student in Amherst he was invited to deliver a Fourth-of-July temperance address in Brattleboro', forty miles distant. His travelling expenses were to be paid; but the brilliant scheme occurred to him to walk the eighty miles, and earn the stage fare by saving it. He did so, and received by mail after his return a ten-dollar bill,—the first ten dollars he had ever possessed, and the first money he had ever earned. He instantly gave a proof that the test of a person's civilization is the use he makes of his surplus money. He spent the whole of it upon an edition of the works of Edmund Burke, and carried the volumes to his room, a happy youth. It was not the best choice, in literature, perhaps; but it was one that marked the civilized being, and indicated the future instructor of his species. Suppose he had invested the sum (and we all know students who would make just that use of an unexpected ten-dollar bill) in a new meerschaum and a bag of Lone-Jack tobacco! At the end of his college course he would have had, probably, a finely colored pipe,—perhaps the prettiest pipe of his year; but he would not have had that little "library of fifty volumes," the solace of his coming years of poverty and fever and ague, always doing their part toward expanding him from a sectarian into a man of the world, and lifting him from the slavery of a mean country parish toward the mastership of a metropolitan congregation. His was the very nature to have been quenched by tobacco. If he had bought a pipe that day, instead of books, he might be at this moment a petty D.D., preaching safe inanity or silly eccentricity in some obscure corner of the world, and going to Europe every five years for his health.

Mr. Henry Ward Beecher recently shared, in one of his "Ledger" articles, how he made his first ten dollars and what he did with it. While studying in Amherst, he was asked to give a Fourth of July temperance speech in Brattleboro, which is about forty miles away. His travel expenses were covered, but he had the bright idea to walk the eighty miles and save the stage fare instead. He did this and received a ten-dollar bill in the mail after he got back—the first ten dollars he had ever owned and the first money he had ever earned. He immediately showed that the measure of a person's character is how they use their extra money. He spent all of it on an edition of the works of Edmund Burke and proudly took the books to his room, a happy young man. It might not have been the best literary choice, but it was a decision that marked him as a civilized individual and hinted at his future as an educator. Imagine if he had used that money (and we all know students who would do just this with an unexpected ten-dollar bill) to buy a new meerschaum pipe and a bag of Lone-Jack tobacco! By the end of his college experience, he might have had a beautifully colored pipe—maybe the best one of his class—but he wouldn’t have that little "library of fifty volumes," which would comfort him during his future years of hardship and illness, helping him grow from a sectarian into a worldly man and lifting him from the confines of a small country parish to lead a city congregation. His nature could have been stifled by tobacco. If he had bought a pipe instead of books that day, he might be a mediocre D.D. right now, preaching blandness or silly quirks in some forgotten part of the world and traveling to Europe every five years for his health.

We all perceive that smoking has made bold and rapid encroachments of late years. It is said that the absurdly situated young man who passes in the world by the undescriptive name of the Prince of Wales smokes in drawing-rooms in the presence of ladies. This tale is probably false; scandalous tales respecting conspicuous persons are so generally false, that it is always safest and fairest to reject them as a matter of course, unless they rest upon testimony that ought to convince a jury. Nevertheless, it is true that smoke is creeping toward the drawing-room, and rolls in clouds where once it would not have dared to send a whiff. One reason of this is, that the cigar, and the pipe too, have "got into literature," where they shed abroad a most alluring odor. That passage, for example, in "Jane Eyre," where the timid, anxious Jane, returning after an absence, scents Rochester's cigar before she catches sight of his person, is enough to make any old smoker feel for his cigar-case; and all through the book smoke plays a dignified and attractive part. Mr. Rochester's cigars, we feel, must be of excellent quality (thirty cents each, at least); we see how freely they burn; we smell their delicious fragrance. Charlotte Brontë was, perhaps, one of the few women who have a morbid love of the odor of tobacco, who crave its stimulating aid as men do; and therefore her Rochester has a fragrance of the weed about him at all times, with which many readers have been captivated. "Jane Eyre" is the book of recent years which has been most frequently imitated, and consequently the circulating libraries are populous with smoking heroes. Byron, Thackeray, and many other popular authors have written passages in which the smoke of tobacco insinuates itself most agreeably into the reader's gentle senses.

We all see that smoking has made bold and quick advances in recent years. It's said that the awkward young man known as the Prince of Wales smokes in drawing-rooms in front of ladies. This story is probably untrue; scandalous rumors about famous people are usually false, so it's always safest and fairer to dismiss them unless they are backed by evidence strong enough to convince a jury. However, it's true that smoke is creeping into the drawing-room, rolling in clouds where it once would have dared not send even a whiff. One reason for this is that cigars and pipes have "made their way into literature," where they spread a very appealing aroma. Take, for instance, the passage in "Jane Eyre," where the timid, anxious Jane catches the scent of Rochester's cigar before she even sees him; it's enough to make any seasoned smoker reach for their cigar case. Throughout the book, smoke plays a dignified and attractive role. We sense that Mr. Rochester's cigars must be of excellent quality (at least thirty cents each); we see how freely they burn and smell their delicious fragrance. Charlotte Brontë was probably one of the few women who have an unusual love for the smell of tobacco, who crave its stimulating effects like men do; and as a result, her Rochester always has the scent of tobacco about him, captivating many readers. "Jane Eyre" is the book from recent years that has been most often imitated, leading to a surge of smoking heroes in popular libraries. Byron, Thackeray, and many other well-known authors have written passages where the smoke of tobacco seamlessly blends into the reader's senses.

Many smokers, too, have been made such by the unexplained rigor with which the practice is sometimes forbidden. Forbidden it must be in all schools; but merely forbidding it and making it a dire offence will not suffice in these times. Some of the most pitiable slaves of smoke I have ever known were brought up in families and schools where smoking was invested with the irresistible charm of being the worst thing a boy could do, except running away. Deep in the heart of the woods, high up in rocky hills, far from the haunts of men and schoolmasters (not to speak of places less salubrious), boys assemble on holiday afternoons to sicken themselves with furtive smoke, returning at the close of the day to relate the dazzling exploit to their companions. In this way the habit sometimes becomes so tyrannical, that, if the victims of it should give a sincere definition of "vacation," it would be this, "The time when boys can get a chance to smoke every day." I can also state, that the only school I ever knew or heard of in which young men who had formed the habit were induced to break themselves of it was the only school I ever knew or heard of in which all students above the age of sixteen were allowed to smoke. Still, it must be forbidden. Professor Charlier, of New York, will not have in his school a boy who smokes even at home in his father's presence, or in the street; and he is right; but it requires all his talents as a disciplinarian and all his influence as a member of society to enforce the rule. Nor would even his vigilance avail if he confined himself to the cold enunciation of the law: Thou shalt not smoke.

Many smokers have been influenced by the strict way the practice is sometimes banned. While smoking must be prohibited in all schools, simply banning it and labeling it as a serious offense won’t be enough today. Some of the most unfortunate smoke addicts I’ve known grew up in families and schools where smoking was seen as the worst thing a boy could do, aside from running away. Deep in the woods, high in the rocky hills, far from towns and teachers (not to mention less wholesome places), boys gather on holiday afternoons to secretly smoke, coming back at the end of the day to brag about their daring act to their friends. Because of this, the habit can become so overpowering that if these boys were to honestly define "vacation," they might say it means "the time when boys can smoke every day." I can also say that the only school I’ve ever known or heard of where boys who took up smoking were encouraged to quit was the one where all students over the age of sixteen were allowed to smoke. Still, it has to be banned. Professor Charlier from New York won’t allow a boy who smokes, even at home with his father or on the street, in his school; and he’s right. However, it takes all his skills as a disciplinarian and his influence in society to uphold this rule. And even his vigilance wouldn’t be enough if he only stated the law: You shall not smoke.

To forbid young men to smoke, without making an honest and earnest and skilful attempt to convince their understandings that the practice is pernicious, is sometimes followed by deplorable consequences. At the Naval Academy at Annapolis, not only is smoking forbidden, but the prohibition is effectual. There are four hundred young men confined within walls, and subjected to such discipline that it is impossible for a rule to be broken, the breaking of which betrays itself. The result is, that nearly all the students chew tobacco,—many of them to very great excess, and to their most serious and manifest injury. That great national institution teems with abuses, but, perhaps, all the other deleterious influences of the place united do less harm than this one abomination.

To ban young men from smoking without making a sincere, earnest, and skillful effort to help them understand that it's harmful can sometimes lead to unfortunate consequences. At the Naval Academy in Annapolis, smoking is not only banned but effectively enforced. There are four hundred young men living within strict confines, and the discipline is such that breaking a rule is hard to hide. As a result, nearly all the students end up chewing tobacco—many excessively, which seriously harms them. That major national institution is rife with problems, but perhaps all the other negative influences combined cause less damage than this one issue.

On looking over the articles upon tobacco in the Encyclopædias, we occasionally find writers declaring or conjecturing that, as smoking has become a habit almost universal, there must be, in the nature of things, a reason which accounts for and justifies it. Accounts for it, yes; justifies it, no.

As we review the articles on tobacco in encyclopedias, we sometimes come across authors stating or speculating that since smoking has become a nearly universal habit, there must be a reason that explains and justifies it. Explains it, yes; justifies it, no.

So long as man lives the life of a pure savage, he has good health without ever bestowing a thought upon the matter. Nature, like a good farmer, saves the best for seed. The mightiest bull becomes the father of the herd; the great warrior, the great hunter, has the most wives and children. The sickly children are destroyed by the hardships of savage life, and those who survive are compelled to put forth such exertions in procuring food and defending their wigwams that they are always "in training." The pure savage has not the skill nor the time to extract from the wilds in which he lives the poisons that could deprave his taste and impair his vigor. Your Indian sleeps, with scanty covering, in a wigwam that freely admits the air. In his own way, he is an exquisite cook. Neither Delmonico nor Parker nor Professor Blot ever cooked a salmon or a partridge as well as a Rocky Mountain Indian cooks them; and when he has cooked his fish or his bird, he eats with it some perfectly simple preparation of Indian corn. He is an absolutely unstimulated animal. The natural working of his internal machinery generates all the vital force he wants. He is as healthy as a buffalo, as a prize-fighter, as the stroke-oar of a university boat.

As long as a person lives like a true savage, they enjoy good health without ever thinking about it. Nature, like a good farmer, keeps the best for reproduction. The strongest bull becomes the leader of the herd; the best warrior and hunter have the most wives and children. The weak children don’t survive the challenges of savage life, and those who do are forced to work hard to find food and protect their homes, so they’re always "in training." The true savage doesn’t have the knowledge or the time to remove the harmful things from their environment that could ruin their taste and weaken their strength. An Indian sleeps with little covering in a wigwam that allows plenty of fresh air. In his own way, he is a fantastic cook. Neither Delmonico, Parker, nor Professor Blot can cook salmon or partridge as well as a Rocky Mountain Indian can; and when he prepares his fish or bird, he pairs it with a simple dish made from Indian corn. He is an absolutely unstimulated being. The natural functioning of his body produces all the energy he needs. He is as healthy as a buffalo, a champion fighter, or the stroke-oar of a university crew.

But in our civilized, sedentary life, he who would have good health must fight for it. Many people have the insolence to become parents who have no right to aspire to that dignity; children are born who have no right to exist; and skill preserves many whom nature is eager to destroy. Civilized man, too, has learned the trick of heading off some of the diseases that used to sweep over whole regions of the earth, and lay low the weakliest tenth of the population. Consequently, while the average duration of human life has been increased, the average tone of human health has been lowered. Fewer die, and fewer are quite well. Very many of us breathe vitiated air, and keep nine tenths of the body quiescent for twenty-two or twenty-three hours out of every twenty-four. Immense numbers cherish gloomy, depressing opinions, and convert the day set apart for rest and recreation into one which aggravates some of the worst tendencies of the week, and counteracts none of them. Half the population of the United States violate the laws of nature every time they take sustenance; and the children go, crammed with indigestion, to sit six hours in hot, ill-ventilated or unventilated school-rooms. Except in a few large towns, the bread and meat are almost universally inferior or bad; and the only viands that are good are those which ought not to be eaten at all. At most family tables, after a course of meat which has the curious property of being both soft and tough, a wild profusion of ingenious puddings, pies, cakes, and other abominable trash, beguiles the young, disgusts the mature, and injures all. From bodies thus imperfectly nourished, we demand excessive exertions of all kinds.

But in our modern, sedentary lives, anyone who wants to stay healthy has to work for it. Many people arrogantly become parents despite not being fit for that responsibility; children are born who shouldn't even exist; and expertise saves many that nature would gladly let go. Civilized people have also figured out how to prevent some of the diseases that used to wipe out entire regions and take down the weakest members of the population. As a result, while the average lifespan has increased, the overall health of individuals has declined. Fewer people die, but even fewer are truly healthy. Many of us breathe polluted air and keep nine-tenths of our bodies inactive for twenty-two or twenty-three hours each day. A large number of us hold on to negative, depressing thoughts and turn our day of rest and fun into one that worsens the worst habits of the week, without counteracting any of them. Half the population in the United States goes against nature's laws every time they eat; children, stuffed with indigestion, sit in hot, poorly ventilated or unventilated classrooms for six hours. Except in a few big cities, the bread and meat are often subpar or bad, and the only foods that are decent are those that shouldn't be eaten at all. At most family dinners, after a serving of meat that is strangely both soft and tough, a chaotic spread of elaborate desserts, pies, cakes, and other terrible foods entices the young, sickens the adults, and harms everyone. From bodies that are poorly nourished, we expect excessive effort in all areas.

Hence, the universal craving for artificial aids to digestion. Hence, the universal use of stimulants,—whiskey, Worcestershire sauce, beer, wine, coffee, tea, tobacco. This is the only reason I can discover in the nature of things here for the widespread, increasing propensity to smoke. As all the virtues are akin, and give loyal aid to one another, so are all the vices in alliance, and play into one another's hands. Many a smoker will discover, when at last he breaks the bond of his servitude, that his pipe, trifling a matter as it may seem to him now, was really the power that kept down his whole nature, and vulgarized his whole existence. In many instances the single act of self-control involved in giving up the habit would necessitate and include a complete regeneration, first physical, then moral.

Thus, there's a universal desire for artificial aids to digestion. Therefore, there's a widespread use of stimulants—whiskey, Worcestershire sauce, beer, wine, coffee, tea, and tobacco. This is the only explanation I can find in the nature of things for the growing tendency to smoke. Just as all virtues are connected and support each other, all vices are linked and reinforce one another. Many smokers will realize, when they finally break free from their addiction, that their pipe, though it may seem insignificant now, was actually the force that suppressed their true nature and cheapened their entire existence. In many cases, the simple act of self-control required to give up the habit would lead to a complete transformation, starting with their physical well-being and then extending to their moral character.

Whether the Coming Man will drink wine or be a teetotaller has not yet, perhaps, been positively ascertained; but it is certain he will not smoke. Nothing can be surer than that. The Coming Man will be as healthy as Tecumseh, as clean as Shirley, and as well groomed as Dexter. He will not fly the female of his species, nor wall himself in from her approach, nor give her cause to prefer his absence. We are not left to infer or conjecture this; we can ascertain it from what we know of the messengers who have announced the coming of the Coming Man. The most distinguished of these was Goethe,—perhaps the nearest approach to the complete human being that has yet appeared. The mere fact that this admirable person lived always unpolluted by this seductive poison is a fact of some significance; but the important fact is, that he could not have smoked and remained Goethe. When we get close to the man, and live intimately with him, we perceive the impossibility of his ever having been a smoker. We can as easily fancy Desdemona smoking a cigarette as the highly groomed, alert, refined, imperial Goethe with a cigar in his mouth. In America, the best gentleman and most variously learned and accomplished man we have had—the man, too, who had in him most of what will constitute the glory of the future—was Thomas Jefferson, Democrat, of Virginia. He was versed in six languages; he danced, rode, and hunted as well as General Washington; he played the violin well, wrote admirably, farmed skilfully, and was a most generous, affectionate, humane, and great-souled human being. It was the destiny of this ornament and consolation of his species to raise tobacco, and live by tobacco all his life. But he knew too much to use it himself; or, to speak more correctly, his fine feminine senses, his fine masculine instincts, revolted from the use of it, without any assistance from his understanding.

Whether the Coming Man will drink wine or be a teetotaler hasn't been clearly determined yet; however, it's certain that he won't smoke. That's a given. The Coming Man will be as healthy as Tecumseh, as clean as Shirley, and as well-groomed as Dexter. He won't chase after women, isolate himself from them, or give them reason to prefer his absence. We don't have to guess about this; we can determine it from what we know about the messengers who have announced the arrival of the Coming Man. The most notable among these was Goethe—perhaps the closest we’ve come to a complete human being. The fact that this remarkable person lived his life free from this tempting poison is quite significant; but the key point is that he could not have smoked and remained Goethe. When we get close to him and live with him closely, we realize it's impossible for him to have ever been a smoker. We can as easily imagine Desdemona smoking a cigarette as envision the well-groomed, alert, refined, regal Goethe with a cigar in his mouth. In America, the finest gentleman and most well-rounded, knowledgeable man we've had—who embodied much of what will make the future glorious—was Thomas Jefferson, Democrat from Virginia. He spoke six languages; he danced, rode, and hunted as well as General Washington; he played the violin well, wrote beautifully, farmed skillfully, and was a very generous, loving, humane, and great-souled person. It was his fate, this ornament and source of comfort for his kind, to grow and live off tobacco all his life. But he was too wise to use it himself; or, more accurately, his refined feminine senses and strong masculine instincts were repulsed by it, without any need for rational thought.

There is no trace of the pipe in the writings of Washington or Franklin; probably they never smoked; so that we may rank the three great men of America—Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson—among the exempts. Washington Irving, who was the first literary man of the United States to achieve a universal reputation, and who is still regarded as standing at the head of our literature, was no smoker. Two noted Americans, Dr. Nott and John Quincy Adams, after having been slaves of the weed for many years, escaped from bondage and smoked no more. These distinguished names may serve as a set-off to the list of illustrious smokers previously given.

There is no mention of smoking in the writings of Washington or Franklin; they likely never smoked. So, we can consider the three great figures of America—Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson—as non-smokers. Washington Irving, the first American writer to gain international fame and who is still seen as a leading figure in our literature, was also a non-smoker. Two prominent Americans, Dr. Nott and John Quincy Adams, after being addicted to smoking for many years, broke free from it and stopped altogether. These notable names can balance the list of famous smokers mentioned earlier.

Among the nations of the earth most universally addicted to smoking are the Turks, the Persians, the Chinese, the Spanish,—all slaves of tradition, submissive to tyrants, unenterprising, averse to improvement, despisers of women. Next to these, perhaps, we must place the Germans, a noble race, renowned for two thousand years for the masculine vigor of the men and the motherly dignity of the women. Smoking is a blight upon this valuable breed of men; it steals away from their minds much of the alertness and decision that naturally belong to such minds as they have, and it impairs their bodily health. Go, on some festive day, to "Jones's Woods," where you may sometimes see five thousand Germans—men, women, and children—amusing themselves in their simple and rational way. Not one face in ten has the clear, bright look of health. Nearly all the faces have a certain tallowy aspect,—yellowish in color, with a dull shine upon them. You perceive plainly that it is not well with these good people; they are not conforming to nature's requirements; they are not the Germans of Tacitus,—ruddy, tough, happy, and indomitable. To lay the whole blame of this decline upon smoking, which is only one of many bad habits of theirs, would be absurd. What I insist upon is this: Smoking, besides doing its part toward lowering the tone of the bodily health, deadens our sense of other physical evils, and makes us submit to them more patiently. If our excellent German fellow-citizens were to throw away their pipes, they would speedily toss their cast-iron sausages after them, and become more fastidious in the choice of air for their own and their children's breathing, and reduce their daily allowance of lager-bier. Their first step toward physical regeneration will be, must be, the suppression of the pipe.

Among the countries most addicted to smoking are the Turks, the Persians, the Chinese, and the Spanish— all bound by tradition, submissive to tyrants, lacking initiative, resistant to change, and holding women in low regard. Next to them, we might include the Germans, a noble race renowned for two thousand years for the masculine strength of the men and the nurturing dignity of the women. Smoking is a curse on this valuable group; it diminishes their mental sharpness and clarity, and harms their physical health. On a festive day, head to "Jones's Woods," where you might see about five thousand Germans—men, women, and children—enjoying themselves in a simple and sensible way. Not one in ten people has the clear, vibrant look of health. Most faces look pale and unhealthy—yellowish with a dull shine. It’s evident that these good people aren’t thriving; they aren’t in tune with nature’s demands; they aren’t the Germans of Tacitus—rosy-cheeked, tough, joyful, and resilient. To blame this decline solely on smoking, which is just one of their many bad habits, would be ridiculous. What I argue is this: Smoking, in addition to contributing to the decline in physical health, dulls our awareness of other physical problems and makes us more accepting of them. If our fine German fellow citizens were to toss aside their pipes, they would quickly do away with their heavy sausages too, become more particular about the air they and their children breathe, and cut back on their daily consumption of lager beer. Their first step toward better health must be to give up smoking.

One hopeful sign for the future is, that this great subject of the physical aids and the physical obstacles to virtue is attracting attention and rising into importance. Our philanthropists have stopped giving tracts to hungry people; at least they give bread first. It is now a recognized truth, that it takes a certain number of cubic yards for a person to be virtuous in; and that, consequently, in that square mile of New York in which two hundred and ninety thousand people live, there must be—absolutely must be—an immense number of unvirtuous persons. No human virtue or civilization can long exist where four families live in a room, some of whom take boarders. The way to regenerate this New York mile is simply to widen Manhattan Island by building three bridges over the East River, and to shorten the island by making three lines of underground or overground railroad to the upper end of it. We may say, too, there are circles—not many, it is true, but some—in which a man's religion would not be considered a very valuable acquisition, if, when he had "got" it, he kept on chewing tobacco. Such a flagrant and abominable violation of the Creator's laws, by a person distinctly professing a special veneration for them, would be ludicrous, if it were not so pernicious.

One hopeful sign for the future is that the important issue of physical aids and barriers to virtue is gaining attention and significance. Our philanthropists have shifted from handing out pamphlets to hungry people; at least they now prioritize giving them food first. It's now recognized that a person needs a certain amount of space to be virtuous, so in that square mile of New York where two hundred ninety thousand people live, there must be—absolutely must be—many unvirtuous individuals. No human virtue or civilization can survive where four families share a room, some of which take in boarders. The solution to transform this New York mile is simply to widen Manhattan Island by building three bridges over the East River and to shorten the island by creating three lines of underground or elevated railroads to the northern end. We can also say that there are circles—not many, it's true, but some—where a man's religion wouldn’t be seen as a very valuable asset if he continues to chew tobacco after claiming to have it. Such a blatant and outrageous disregard for the Creator's laws by someone clearly professing a special respect for them would be ridiculous if it weren't so harmful.

The time is at hand when these simple and fundamental matters will have their proper place in all our schemes for the improvement of one another. The impulse in this direction given by the publication of the most valuable work of this century—Buckle's "History of Civilization in England"—will not expend itself in vain. If that author had but lived, he would not have disdained, in recounting the obstacles to civilization, to consider the effects upon the best modern brains of a poison that lulls their noblest faculties to torpor, and enables them languidly to endure what they ought constantly to fight.

The time has come when these simple and fundamental issues will take their rightful place in all our efforts to improve each other. The momentum created by the release of this century's most valuable work—Buckle's "History of Civilization in England"—will not go to waste. If the author had lived on, he would not have ignored the impact of a poison that dulls the best modern minds, putting their highest abilities to sleep and allowing them to passively accept what they should always be resisting.

It is not difficult to stop smoking, except for one class of smokers,—those whom it has radically injured, and whose lives it is shortening. For all such the discontinuance of the practice will be almost as difficult as it is desirable. No rule can be given which will apply to all or to many such cases; but each man must fight it out on the line he finds best, and must not be surprised if it takes him a great deal longer than "all summer." If one of this class of smokers should gain deliverance from his bondage after a two years' struggle, he would be doing well. A man who had been smoking twenty cigars a day for several years, and should suddenly stop, would be almost certain either to relapse or fall into some worse habit,—chewing, whiskey, or opium. Perhaps his best way would be to put himself upon half allowance for a year, and devote the second year to completing his cure,—always taking care to live in other respects more wisely and temperately, and thus lessen the craving for a stimulant. The more smoke is hurting a man, the harder it is for him to stop smoking; and almost all whom the practice is destroying rest under the delusion that they could stop without the least effort, if they liked.

It's not hard to quit smoking, except for one group of smokers—those who have been deeply harmed by it and whose lives are being cut short. For them, stopping will be nearly as tough as it is necessary. No one-size-fits-all solution exists for these situations; each person has to figure out the best way to tackle it and shouldn’t be surprised if it takes much longer than "all summer." If someone in this group manages to break free after a two-year battle, that would be a significant achievement. A person who has been smoking twenty cigars a day for several years and suddenly quits is likely to either relapse or pick up an even worse habit—chewing, drinking, or using opium. It might be better for him to cut back to half the amount for a year and then spend the next year finishing the process—always making sure to live more wisely and moderately in other areas to ease the craving for a stimulant. The more smoking is damaging someone, the harder it will be for them to quit; and nearly everyone who is suffering from the habit is under the illusion that they could stop with no effort if they wanted to.

The vast majority of smokers—seven out of every ten, at least—can, without the least danger or much inconvenience, cease smoking at once, totally and forever.

The vast majority of smokers—seven out of every ten, at least—can, without any danger or much hassle, quit smoking immediately, completely and for good.

As I have now given a trial to both sides of the question, I beg respectfully to assure the brotherhood of smokers that it does not pay to smoke. It really does not. I can work better and longer than before. I have less headache. I have a better opinion of myself. I enjoy exercise more, and step out much more vigorously. My room is cleaner. The bad air of our theatres and other public places disgusts and infuriates me more, but exhausts me less. I think I am rather better tempered, as well as more cheerful and satisfied. I endure the inevitable ills of life with more fortitude, and look forward more hopefully to the coming years. It did not pay to smoke, but, most decidedly, it pays to stop smoking.

As I’ve now tried both sides of the argument, I respectfully want to assure my fellow smokers that it does not pay to smoke. It really doesn’t. I can work better and longer than before. I have fewer headaches. I feel better about myself. I enjoy exercising more and move with a lot more energy. My room is cleaner. The bad air in our theaters and other public places disgusts and frustrates me more, but drains me less. I think I’m generally in a better mood, more cheerful, and satisfied. I handle the inevitable challenges of life with more resilience and look forward to the future with more hope. It didn’t pay to smoke, but, without a doubt, it pays to stop smoking.

DRINKING.

DRINKING.

WILL THE COMING MAN DRINK WINE?

The teetotalers confess their failure. After forty-five years of zealous and well-meant effort in the "cause," they agree that people are drinking more than ever. Dr. R. T. Trall of New York, the most thoroughgoing teetotaler extant, exclaims: "Where are we to-day? Defeated on all sides. The enemy victorious and rampant everywhere. More intoxicating liquors manufactured and drunk than ever before. Why is this?" Why, indeed! When the teetotalers can answer that question correctly, they will be in a fair way to gain upon the "enemy" that is now so "rampant." They are not the first people who have mistaken a symptom of disease for the disease itself, and striven to cure a cancer by applying salve and plaster and cooling washes to the sore. They are not the first travellers through this Wilderness who have tried to extinguish a smouldering fire, and discovered, at last, that they had been pouring water into the crater of a volcano.

The teetotalers admit their failure. After forty-five years of passionate and well-intentioned efforts for the "cause," they agree that people are drinking more than ever. Dr. R. T. Trall of New York, the most adamant teetotaler around, exclaims: "Where are we today? Defeated on all fronts. The enemy is thriving and everywhere. More alcoholic drinks are produced and consumed than ever before. Why is this?" Why, indeed! When the teetotalers can answer that question correctly, they will be on a better path to gaining ground against the "enemy" that is currently so "active." They are not the first people to confuse a symptom of a problem with the problem itself, trying to treat cancer by applying ointments and poultices to the sore. They are also not the first travelers through this Wilderness who have attempted to put out a smoldering fire and ultimately discovered that they had been pouring water into the mouth of a volcano.

Dr. Trall thinks we should all become teetotalers very soon, if only the doctors would stop prescribing wine, beer, and whiskey to their patients. But the doctors will not. They like a glass of wine themselves. Dr. Trall tells us that, during the Medical Convention held at St. Louis a few years ago, the doctors dined together, and upon the table were "forty kinds of alcoholic liquors." The most enormous feed ever accomplished under a roof in America, I suppose, was the great dinner of the doctors, given in New York, fifteen years ago, at the Metropolitan Hall. I had the pleasure on that occasion of seeing half an acre of doctors all eating and drinking at once, and I can testify that very few of them—indeed, none that I could discover—neglected the bottle. It was an occasion which united all the established barbarisms of a public dinner,—absence of ladies, indigestible food in most indigestible quantities, profuse and miscellaneous drinking, clouds of smoke, late sitting, and wild speaking. Why not? Do not these men live and thrive upon such practices? Why should they not set an example of the follies which enrich them? It is only heroes who offend, deny, and rebuke the people upon whose favor their fortune depends; and there are never many heroes in the world at one time. No, no, Dr. Trall! the doctors are good fellows; but their affair is to cure disease, not to preserve health.

Dr. Trall thinks we should all stop drinking entirely pretty soon, if only the doctors would stop prescribing wine, beer, and whiskey to their patients. But they won't. They enjoy a glass of wine themselves. Dr. Trall tells us that during the Medical Convention held in St. Louis a few years ago, the doctors dined together, and there were "forty kinds of alcoholic liquors" on the table. The largest feast ever held under one roof in America, I suppose, was the grand dinner for doctors in New York, fifteen years ago, at the Metropolitan Hall. I had the pleasure of seeing half an acre of doctors all eating and drinking at once, and I can confirm that very few of them—indeed, none that I could see—ignored the drinks. It was an event that brought together all the usual downsides of a public dinner: no ladies, heavy food in excess quantities, excessive and random drinking, clouds of smoke, late hours, and wild conversations. Why not? Don't these men thrive on such practices? Why shouldn't they set an example of the excesses that benefit them? Only heroes offend, deny, and criticize the people whose support their success relies on; and there are rarely many heroes around at the same time. No, no, Dr. Trall! The doctors are great guys; but their job is to treat illness, not to promote health.

One man, it seems, and only one, has had much success in dissuading people from drinking, and that was Father Mathew. A considerable proportion of his converts in Ireland, it is said, remain faithful to their pledge; and most of the Catholic parishes in the United States have a Father Mathew Society connected with them, which is both a teetotal and a mutual-benefit organization. In New York and adjacent cities the number of persons belonging to such societies is about twenty-seven thousand. On the anniversary of Father Mathew's birth they walk in procession, wearing aprons, carrying large banners (when the wind permits), and heaping up gayly dressed children into pyramids and mountains drawn by six and eight horses. At their weekly or monthly meetings they sing songs, recite poetry, perform plays and farces, enact comic characters, and, in other innocent ways, endeavor to convince on-lookers that people can be happy and merry, uproariously merry, without putting a headache between their teeth. These societies seem to be a great and unmingled good. They do actually help poor men to withstand their only American enemy. They have, also, the approval of the most inveterate drinkers, both Catholic and Protestant. Jones complacently remarks, as he gracefully sips his claret (six dollars per dozen) that this total abstinence, you know, is an excellent thing for emigrants; to which Brown and Robinson invariably assent.

One man, it seems, and only one, has been really successful in convincing people not to drink, and that was Father Mathew. A significant number of his followers in Ireland, it’s said, stick to their promise; and most Catholic parishes in the United States have a Father Mathew Society associated with them, which is both a teetotal and mutual-benefit organization. In New York and nearby cities, around twenty-seven thousand people belong to such societies. On the anniversary of Father Mathew's birth, they march in a parade, wearing aprons, carrying large banners (when the wind cooperates), and piling up brightly dressed children into pyramids and stacks pulled by six or eight horses. At their weekly or monthly gatherings, they sing songs, recite poetry, put on plays and skits, act out funny characters, and in other harmless ways try to show onlookers that people can be happy and cheerful, joyfully cheerful, without causing themselves a headache. These societies seem to be a significant and pure good. They actually help poor men resist their only American foe. They also have the support of the most hardcore drinkers, both Catholic and Protestant. Jones casually comments, as he elegantly sips his claret (six dollars per dozen), that this total abstinence, you know, is really great for immigrants; to which Brown and Robinson always agree.

Father Mathew used to administer his pledge to people who knelt before him, and when they had taken it he made over them the sign of the cross. He did not usually deliver addresses; he did not relate amusing anecdotes; he did not argue the matter; he merely pronounced the pledge, and gave to it the sanction of religion, and something of the solemnity of a sacrament. The present Father Mathew Societies are also closely connected with the church, and the pledge is regarded by the members as of religious obligation. Hence, these societies are successful, in a respectable degree; and we may look, with the utmost confidence, to see them extend and flourish until a great multitude of Catholics are teetotalers. Catholic priests, I am informed, generally drink wine, and very many of them smoke; but they are able to induce men to take the pledge without setting them an example of abstinence, just as parents sometimes deny their children pernicious viands of which they freely partake themselves.

Father Mathew used to administer his pledge to people who knelt before him, and when they took it, he made the sign of the cross over them. He didn’t usually give speeches; he didn’t share funny stories; he didn’t debate the topic; he simply stated the pledge, giving it the weight of religion and the seriousness of a sacrament. The current Father Mathew Societies are also closely linked to the church, and the pledge is seen by the members as a religious duty. As a result, these societies are fairly successful, and we can confidently expect them to grow and thrive until a large number of Catholics are teetotalers. I’ve been told that Catholic priests generally drink wine, and many of them smoke; however, they can encourage men to take the pledge without setting an example of abstinence, just like parents sometimes deny their children harmful foods that they enjoy themselves.

But we cannot proceed in that way. Our religion has not power to control a physical craving by its mere fiat, nor do we all yet perceive what a deadly and shameful sin it is to vitiate our own bodies. The Catholic Church is antiquity. The Catholic Church is childhood. We are living in modern times; we have grown a little past childhood; and when we are asked to relinquish a pleasure, we demand to be convinced that it is best we should. By and by we shall all comprehend that, when a person means to reform his life, the very first thing for him to do—the thing preliminary and most indispensable—will be to cease violating physical laws. The time, I hope, is at hand, when an audience in a theatre, who catch a manager cheating them out of their fair allowance of fresh air, will not sit and gasp, and inhale destruction till eleven P.M., and then rush wildly to the street for relief. They will stop the play; they will tear up the benches, if necessary; they will throw things on the stage; they will knock a hole in the wall; they will have the means of breathing, or perish in the struggle. But at present people do not know what they are doing when they inhale poison. They do not know that more than one half of all the diseases that plague us most—scarlet fever, small-pox, measles, and all the worst fevers—come of breathing bad air. Not a child last winter would have had the scarlet fever, if all the children in the world had slept with a window open, and had had pure air to breathe all day. This is Miss Nightingale's opinion, and there is no better authority. People are ignorant of these things, and they are therefore indifferent to them. They will remain indifferent till they are enlightened.

But we can't move forward like that. Our religion doesn't have the power to control a physical craving just by saying so, and not all of us realize yet how deadly and shameful it is to damage our own bodies. The Catholic Church represents the past. The Catholic Church represents childhood. We are living in modern times; we have outgrown childhood a bit; and when asked to give up a pleasure, we want to be convinced that it's for the best. Eventually, we’ll all understand that when someone wants to change their life, the first thing they need to do—the essential and most necessary thing—is to stop breaking physical laws. I hope the day will come when an audience at a theater, noticing a manager cheating them out of their fair share of fresh air, won't just sit there gasping and inhaling toxin until eleven PM, then rush to the street for relief. They will stop the show; they’ll rip up the seats if needed; they’ll throw things on stage; they’ll break a hole in the wall; they will demand fresh air, or perish trying. But for now, people don’t realize what they’re doing when they breathe in poison. They don’t know that more than half of all the diseases that afflict us the most—scarlet fever, smallpox, measles, and all the worst fevers—come from breathing bad air. Not a child last winter would have had scarlet fever if all the kids in the world had slept with their windows open and had pure air to breathe all day. This is Miss Nightingale's opinion, and she’s an authority on the matter. People are unaware of these things, and so they remain indifferent. They will stay indifferent until they are educated.

Our teetotal friends have not neglected the scientific questions involved in their subject; nor have they settled them. Instead of insulting the public intelligence by asserting that the wines mentioned in the Bible were some kind of unintoxicating slop, and exasperating the public temper by premature prohibitory laws, they had better expend their strength upon the science of the matter, and prove to mankind, if they can, that these agreeable drinks which they denounce are really hurtful. We all know that excess is hurtful. We also know that adulterated liquors may be. But is the thing in itself pernicious?—pure wine taken in moderation? good beer? genuine Old Bourbon?

Our sober friends haven’t overlooked the scientific issues related to their topic, but they also haven’t resolved them. Instead of insulting the public’s intelligence by claiming that the wines mentioned in the Bible were just some kind of non-intoxicating liquid, and frustrating everyone with hasty prohibition laws, they would be better off focusing their efforts on the science behind the issue and proving to people, if they can, that these enjoyable drinks they criticize are actually harmful. We all know that excessive drinking is harmful. We also know that counterfeit alcohol can be. But is the substance itself harmful?—pure wine consumed in moderation? good beer? genuine Old Bourbon?

For one, I wish it could be demonstrated that these things are hurtful. Sweeping, universal truths are as convenient as they are rare. The evils resulting from excess in drinking are so enormous and so terrible, that it would be a relief to know that alcoholic liquors are in themselves evil, and to be always avoided. What are the romantic woes of a Desdemona, or the brief picturesque sorrows of a Lear, compared with the thirty years' horror and desolation caused by a drunken parent? We laugh when we read Lamb's funny description of his waking up in the morning, and learning in what condition he had come home the night before by seeing all his clothes carefully folded. But his sister Mary did not laugh at it. He was all she had; it was tragedy to her,—this self-destruction of her sole stay and consolation. Goethe did not find it a laughing matter to have a drunken wife in his house for fifteen years, nor a jest to have his son brought in drunk from the tavern, and to see him dead in his coffin, the early victim of champagne. Who would not like to have a clear conviction, that what we have to do with regard to all such fluids is to let them alone? I am sure I should. It is a great advantage to have your enemy in plain sight, and to be sure he is an enemy.

For one, I wish it could be shown that these things are harmful. Broad, universal truths are as easy to come by as they are rare. The damage caused by drinking too much is so vast and so horrific that it would be a relief to know that alcoholic drinks are inherently evil and should always be avoided. What are the romantic tragedies of a Desdemona or the fleeting, picturesque sorrows of a Lear compared to the thirty years of horror and despair caused by an alcoholic parent? We chuckle when we read Lamb's humorous account of waking up and realizing how he came home the night before by seeing all his clothes neatly folded. But his sister Mary didn't find it funny. He was all she had; for her, it was tragedy—this self-destruction of her only source of support and comfort. Goethe didn’t find it amusing to have a drunk wife for fifteen years, nor did he see it as a joke when his son was brought home drunk from the tavern and later found dead from champagne. Who wouldn’t like to have a clear certainty that what we need to do about these kinds of drinks is to stay away from them? I know I would. It’s a huge advantage to have your enemy clearly in view and to know that he really is an enemy.

What is wine? Chemists tell us they do not know. Three fifths of a glass of wine is water. One fifth is alcohol. Of the remaining fifth, about one half is sugar. One tenth of the whole quantity remains to be accounted for. A small part of that tenth is the acid which makes vinegar sour. Water, alcohol, sugar, acid,—these make very nearly the whole body of the wine; but if we mix these things in the proportions in which they are found in Madeira, the liquid is a disgusting mess, nothing like Madeira. The great chemists confess they do not know what that last small fraction of the glass of wine is, upon which its flavor, its odor, its fascination, depend. They do not know what it is that makes the difference between port and sherry, but are obliged to content themselves with giving it a hard name.

What is wine? Chemists say they don't really know. Three-fifths of a glass of wine is water. One-fifth is alcohol. Of the remaining fifth, about half is sugar. One-tenth of the total amount is still unaccounted for. A small portion of that tenth is the acid that makes vinegar sour. Water, alcohol, sugar, acid—these make up almost the entire composition of wine; but if we mix these ingredients in the proportions found in Madeira, the result is a disgusting mess, nothing like Madeira. The leading chemists admit they don’t know what that last small fraction of the glass of wine is, the one that gives it its flavor, scent, and appeal. They don’t understand what creates the difference between port and sherry, but they have to settle for giving it a complex name.

Similar things are admitted concerning the various kinds of spirituous and malt liquors. Chemistry seems to agree with the temperance society, that wine, beer, brandy, gin, whiskey, and rum are alcohol and water, mixed in different proportions, and with some slight differences of flavoring and coloring matter. In all these drinks, teetotalers maintain, alcohol is power, the other ingredients being mere dilution and flavoring. Wine, they assure us, is alcohol and water flavored with grapes; beer is alcohol and water flavored with malt and hops; Bourbon whiskey is alcohol and water flavored with corn. These things they assert, and the great chemists do not enable us drinkers of those seductive liquids to deny it. On the contrary, chemical analysis, so far as it has gone, supports the teetotal view of the matter.

Similar observations apply to various types of alcoholic and malt beverages. Chemistry seems to align with the temperance movement, stating that wine, beer, brandy, gin, whiskey, and rum consist of alcohol and water mixed in different ratios, with only minor differences in flavoring and coloring. Teetotalers argue that alcohol is power, while the other ingredients serve only to dilute and add flavor. They claim that wine is just alcohol and water flavored with grapes; beer is alcohol and water flavored with malt and hops; and Bourbon whiskey is alcohol and water flavored with corn. They make these assertions, and the leading chemists don't give us drinkers of those tempting liquids any grounds to dispute them. On the contrary, chemical analysis, as far as it has progressed, backs up the teetotal perspective on the matter.

What does a glass of wine do to us when we have swallowed it?

What happens to us after we drink a glass of wine?

We should naturally look to physicians for an answer to such a question; but the great lights of the profession—men of the rank of Astley Cooper, Brodie, Abernethy, Holmes—all assure the public, that no man of them knows, and no man has ever known, how medicinal substances work in the system, and why they produce the effects they do. Even of a substance so common as Peruvian bark, no one knows why and how it acts as a tonic; nor is there any certainty of its being a benefit to mankind. There is no science of medicine. The "Red Lane" of the children leads to a region which is still mysterious and unknown; for when the eye can explore its recesses, a change has occurred in it, which is also mysterious and unknown: it is dead. Quacks tell us, in every newspaper, that they can cure and prevent disease by pouring or dropping something down our throats, and we have heard this so often, that, when a man is sick, the first thing that occurs to him is to "take physic." But physicians who are honest, intelligent, and in an independent position, appear to be coming over to the opinion that this is generally a delusion. We see eminent physicians prescribing for the most malignant fevers little but open windows, plenty of blankets, Nightingale nursing, and beef tea. Many young physicians, too, have gladly availed themselves of the ingenuity of Hahnemann, and satisfy at once their consciences and their patients by prescribing doses of medicine that are next to no medicine at all. The higher we go among the doctors, the more sweeping and emphatic is the assurance we receive that the profession does not understand the operation of medicines in the living body, and does not really approve their employment.

We should naturally look to doctors for answers to such questions; however, the leading figures in the field—people like Astley Cooper, Brodie, Abernethy, and Holmes—all assure the public that no one among them knows how medicinal substances actually work in the body or why they produce the effects they do. Even with a common substance like Peruvian bark, no one understands why or how it acts as a tonic, and there's no guarantee that it benefits humanity at all. There is no true science of medicine. The “Red Lane” of children leads to a place that remains mysterious and unknown; for when the eye can see its depths, a change has occurred that is equally mysterious and unknown: it is dead. Quacks tell us through every newspaper that they can cure and prevent disease by pouring or dropping something down our throats, and we’ve heard this so many times that when someone is sick, the first thing they think of is to "take medicine." But honest, intelligent doctors who aren't beholden to any system seem to be realizing that this is mostly an illusion. We see distinguished physicians treating the most severe fevers with nothing more than open windows, plenty of blankets, good nursing, and beef tea. Many young doctors have eagerly embraced the ideas of Hahnemann, satisfying both their consciences and their patients by prescribing doses of medicine that are almost negligible. The higher we go among doctors, the clearer and more emphatic the reassurance we receive that the profession does not truly understand how medicines operate in the living body, nor do they genuinely support their use.

If something more is known of the operation of alcohol than of any other chemical fluid,—if there is any approach to certainty respecting it,—we owe it chiefly to the teetotalers, because it is they who have provoked contradiction, excited inquiry, and suggested experiment. They have not done much themselves in the way of investigation, but they started the topic, and have kept it alive. They have also published a few pages which throw light upon the points in dispute. After going over the ground pretty thoroughly, I can tell the reader in a few words the substance of what has been ascertained, and plausibly inferred, concerning the effects of wine, beer, and spirits upon the human constitution.

If we know more about how alcohol works than any other chemical substance—and if we have any level of certainty about it—it’s mostly thanks to the teetotalers. They’ve sparked debate, driven research, and inspired experimentation. While they haven’t done much of the actual investigating themselves, they initiated the conversation and sustained it. They’ve also published a few pages that shed light on the contested topics. After thoroughly examining the subject, I can summarize in a few words what has been discovered and reasonably inferred about the effects of wine, beer, and spirits on the human body.

They cannot be nourishment, in the ordinary acceptation of that word, because the quantity of nutritive matter in them is so small. Liebig, no enemy of beer, says this: "We can prove, with mathematical certainty, that as much flour or meal as can lie on the point of a table-knife is more nutritious than nine quarts of the best Bavarian beer; that a man who is able daily to consume that amount of beer obtains from it, in a whole year, in the most favorable case, exactly the amount of nutritive constituents which is contained in a five-pound loaf of bread, or in three pounds of flesh." So of wine; when we have taken from a glass of wine the ingredients known to be innutritious, there is scarcely anything left but a grain or two of sugar. Pure alcohol, though a product of highly nutritive substances, is a mere poison,—an absolute poison,—the mortal foe of life in every one of its forms, animal and vegetable. If, therefore, these beverages do us good, it is not by supplying the body with nourishment.

They can’t be nourishment, in the usual sense of the word, because the amount of nutritious material in them is so small. Liebig, a supporter of beer, says: "We can mathematically prove that the amount of flour or meal that can fit on the tip of a table knife is more nutritious than nine quarts of the best Bavarian beer; that someone who drinks that much beer daily gets, in an entire year, at best, the same amount of nutritious elements found in a five-pound loaf of bread or in three pounds of meat." The same goes for wine; after removing the components known to be non-nutritious from a glass of wine, there’s almost nothing left except a grain or two of sugar. Pure alcohol, despite being derived from highly nutritious materials, is just a poison—an absolute poison—a deadly enemy of life in all its forms, both animal and plant. So, if these drinks benefit us, it’s not because they provide nourishment to the body.

Nor can they aid digestion by assisting to decompose food. When we have taken too much shad for breakfast, we find that a wineglass of whiskey instantly mitigates the horrors of indigestion, and enables us again to contemplate the future without dismay. But if we catch a curious fish or reptile, and want to keep him from decomposing, and bring him home as a contribution to the Museum of Professor Agassiz, we put him in a bottle of whiskey. Several experiments have been made with a view to ascertain whether mixing alcohol with the gastric juice increases or lessens its power to decompose food, and the results of all of them point to the conclusion that the alcohol retards the process of decomposition. A little alcohol retards it a little, and much alcohol retards it much. It has been proved by repeated experiment, that any portion of alcohol, however small, diminishes the power of the gastric juice to decompose. The digestive fluid has been mixed with wine, beer, whiskey, brandy, and alcohol diluted with water, and kept at the temperature of the living body, and the motions of the body imitated during the experiment; but, in every instance, the pure gastric juice was found to be the true and sole digester, and the alcohol a retarder of digestion. This fact, however, required little proof. We are all familiar with alcohol as a preserver, and scarcely need to be reminded, that, if alcohol assists digestion at all, it cannot be by assisting decomposition.

Nor can they help digestion by breaking down food. When we've had too much shad for breakfast, we find that a shot of whiskey quickly eases the pains of indigestion and allows us to think about the future without anxiety. But if we catch an interesting fish or reptile and want to keep it from spoiling, we put it in a bottle of whiskey to bring home as a contribution to Professor Agassiz's Museum. Several experiments have been conducted to find out whether mixing alcohol with gastric juice boosts or reduces its ability to break down food, and all the results indicate that alcohol slows down the decomposition process. A little alcohol slows it down a little, and a lot of alcohol slows it down a lot. It has been demonstrated through repeated experiments that any amount of alcohol, no matter how small, decreases the ability of gastric juice to decompose. The digestive fluid has been mixed with wine, beer, whiskey, brandy, and alcohol diluted with water, while maintaining the temperature of the human body and imitating bodily movements during the experiment; however, in every case, pure gastric juice was found to be the real and only digester, and alcohol merely delayed digestion. This fact, however, required little proof. We all know alcohol as a preserver, and we hardly need to be reminded that if alcohol does help digestion at all, it cannot do so by aiding decomposition.

Nor is it a heat-producing fluid. On the contrary, it appears, in all cases, to diminish the efficiency of the heat-producing process. Most of us who live here in the North, and who are occasionally subjected to extreme cold for hours at a time, know this by personal experience; and all the Arctic voyagers attest it. Brandy is destruction when men have to face a temperature of sixty below zero; they want lamp-oil then, and the rich blubber of the whale and walrus. Dr. Rae, who made two or three pedestrian tours of the polar regions, and whose powers of endurance were put to as severe a test as man's ever were, is clear and emphatic upon this point. Brandy, he says, stimulates but for a few minutes, and greatly lessens a man's power to endure cold and fatigue. Occasionally we have in New York a cool breeze from the North which reduces the temperature below zero,—to the sore discomfort of omnibus-drivers and car-drivers, who have to face it on their way up town. On a certain Monday night, two or three winters ago, twenty-three drivers on one line were disabled by the cold, many of whom had to be lifted from the cars and carried in. It is a fact familiar to persons in this business, that men who drink freely are more likely to be benumbed and overcome by the cold than those who abstain. It seems strange to us, when we first hear it, that a meagre teetotaller should be safer on such a night than a bluff, red-faced imbiber of beer and whiskey, who takes something at each end of the line to keep himself warm. It nevertheless appears to be true. A traveller relates, that, when Russian troops are about to start upon a march in a very cold region, no grog is allowed to be served to them; and when the men are drawn up, ready to move, the corporals smell the breath of every man, and send back to quarters all who have been drinking. The reason is, that men who start under the influence of liquor are the first to succumb to the cold, and the likeliest to be frost-bitten. It is the uniform experience of the hunters and trappers in the northern provinces of North America, and of the Rocky Mountains, that alcohol diminishes their power to resist cold. A whole magazine could be filled with testimony on this point.

Nor is it a heat-producing liquid. On the contrary, it seems to reduce the effectiveness of the heat-producing process in all cases. Most of us living here in the North, who sometimes face intense cold for hours, know this from experience, and all the Arctic explorers confirm it. Brandy is harmful when facing temperatures of sixty below zero; what’s needed then is lamp oil and the rich blubber of whales and walruses. Dr. Rae, who made a few trips on foot through the polar regions and whose endurance was tested more than most, is clear and strong on this issue. He says that brandy provides a brief stimulation but greatly reduces a person's ability to withstand cold and fatigue. Occasionally, we get a cold breeze from the North in New York that drops the temperature below zero, which makes it tough for bus and taxi drivers who have to deal with it while working. On a Monday night a couple of winters ago, twenty-three drivers on one line were incapacitated by the cold, and many had to be carried from their vehicles. It's a fact well-known to people in this field that those who drink heavily are more likely to be numbed and overwhelmed by the cold than those who don’t drink. It seems odd at first to hear that a skinny teetotaler would be safer on a cold night than a big, red-faced drinker who has something to warm himself up. Yet, this seems to be true. One traveler notes that when Russian troops are about to march in very cold areas, no alcohol is allowed. When the men are lined up and ready to go, corporals check every man's breath and send back anyone who has been drinking. The reason is that those who start out under the influence of alcohol are the first to give in to the cold and are most likely to get frostbite. It’s a consistent experience among hunters and trappers in the northern parts of North America and the Rocky Mountains that alcohol weakens their resistance to cold. There could be a whole magazine filled with accounts supporting this point.

Still less is alcohol a strength-giver. Every man that ever trained for a supreme exertion of strength knows that Tom Sayers spoke the truth when he said: "I'm no teetotaller: but when I've any business to do, there's nothing like water and the dumb-bells." Richard Cobden, whose powers were subjected to a far severer trial than a pugilist ever dreamed of, whose labors by night and day, during the corn-law struggle, were excessive and continuous beyond those of any other member of the House of Commons, bears similar testimony: "The more work I have to do, the more I have resorted to the pump and the teapot." On this branch of the subject, all the testimony is against alcoholic drinks. Whenever the point has been tested,—and it has often been tested,—the truth has been confirmed, that he who would do his very best and most, whether in rowing, lifting, running, watching, mowing, climbing, fighting, speaking, or writing, must not admit into his system one drop of alcohol. Trainers used to allow their men a pint of beer per day, and severe trainers half a pint; but now the knowing ones have cut off even that moderate allowance, and brought their men down to cold water, and not too much of that, the soundest digesters requiring little liquid of any kind. Mr. Bigelow, by his happy publication lately of the correct version of Franklin's Autobiography, has called to mind the famous beer passage in that immortal work: "I drank only water; the other workmen, near fifty in number, were great guzzlers[1] of beer. On occasion I carried up and down stairs a large form of types in each hand, when others carried but one in both hands." I have a long list of references on this point; but, in these cricketing, boat-racing, prize-fighting days, the fact has become too familiar to require proof. The other morning, Horace Greeley, teetotaler, came to his office after an absence of several days, and found letters and arrears of work that would have been appalling to any man but him. He shut himself in at ten A.M., and wrote steadily, without leaving his room, till eleven, P.M.,—thirteen hours. When he had finished, he had some little difficulty in getting down stairs, owing to the stiffness of his joints, caused by the long inaction; but he was as fresh and smiling the next morning as though he had done nothing extraordinary. Are any of us drinkers of beer and wine capable of such a feat? Then, during the war, when he was writing his history, he performed every day, for two years, two days' work,—one from nine to four, on his book; the other from seven to eleven, upon the Tribune; and, in addition, he did more than would tire an ordinary man in the way of correspondence and public speaking. I may also remind the reader, that the clergyman who, of all others in the United States, expends most vitality, both with tongue and pen, and who does his work with least fatigue and most gayety of heart, is another of Franklin's "water Americans."

Alcohol is definitely not a source of strength. Every person who has ever trained for a peak physical effort knows that Tom Sayers was right when he said, "I'm not a teetotaler, but when I have something important to do, nothing beats water and the dumbbells." Richard Cobden, whose endurance was tested far more than any boxer could imagine, whose endless work both day and night during the corn-law struggle exceeded that of any other member of the House of Commons, echoed this sentiment: "The more work I have, the more I turn to the pump and the teapot." On this topic, all evidence points against alcoholic drinks. Whenever this has been tested (and it has been tested many times), it has been proven that anyone who wants to perform their very best in rowing, lifting, running, watching, mowing, climbing, fighting, speaking, or writing shouldn't consume a single drop of alcohol. Trainers used to allow their athletes a pint of beer a day; severe trainers permitted half a pint. But now, the knowledgeable have eliminated even that moderate amount and switched their athletes to just cold water, and not too much of that, as the healthiest digester needs very little liquid of any kind. Mr. Bigelow, with his recent publication of the accurate version of Franklin's Autobiography, reminded us of the famous beer passage in that classic work: "I drank only water; the other workmen, nearly fifty in number, were heavy beer drinkers. Once, I carried a large form of types in each hand up and down stairs, while others could only manage one with both hands." I have a long list of references on this issue; however, in these cricket, boat racing, and prize fighting times, the fact has become too well-known for proof. Just the other morning, Horace Greeley, a teetotaler, returned to his office after being away for several days and found letters and backlogs of work that would have overwhelmed anyone else. He locked himself in at 10 A.M. and wrote continuously without leaving his room until 11 P.M.—for thirteen hours. When he finished, he had some trouble going down the stairs due to the stiffness in his joints from sitting for so long, but the next morning he looked fresh and cheerful as if he hadn’t done anything extraordinary. Are any of us who drink beer and wine capable of such an accomplishment? During the war, while writing his history, he consistently completed two days' worth of work each day for two years—one session from nine to four on his book, and another from seven to eleven on the Tribune, plus he did more correspondence and public speaking than would exhaust an average person. I should also remind the reader that the clergyman in the United States who expends the most energy—both in speaking and writing—doing his work with the least fatigue and the most joy is another one of Franklin's "water Americans."

If, then, wine does not nourish us, does not assist the decomposition of food, does not warm, does not strengthen, what does it do?

If wine doesn’t give us nourishment, doesn’t help break down our food, doesn’t warm us up, and doesn’t make us stronger, then what is its purpose?

We all know that, when we drink alcoholic liquor, it affects the brain immediately. Most of us are aware, too, that it affects the brain injuriously, lessening at once its power to discern and discriminate. If I, at this ten, A.M., full of interest in this subject, and eager to get my view of it upon paper, were to drink a glass of the best port, Madeira, or sherry, or even a glass of lager-bier, I should lose the power to continue in three minutes; or, if I persisted in going on, I should be pretty sure to utter paradox and spurts of extravagance, which would not bear the cold review of to-morrow morning. Any one can try this experiment. Take two glasses of wine, and then immediately apply yourself to the hardest task your mind ever has to perform, and you will find you cannot do it. Let any student, just before he sits down to his mathematics, drink a pint of the purest beer, and he will be painfully conscious of loss of power. Or, let any salesman, before beginning with a difficult but important customer, perform the idiotic action of "taking a drink," and he will soon discover that his ascendency over his customer is impaired. In some way this alcohol, of which we are so fond, gets to the brain and injures it. We are conscious of this, and we can observe it. It is among the wine-drinking classes of our fellow-beings, that absurd, incomplete, and reactionary ideas prevail. The receptive, the curious, the candid, the trustworthy brains,—those that do not take things for granted, and yet are ever open to conviction,—such heads are to be found on the shoulders of men who drink little or none of these seductive fluids. How we all wondered that England should think so erroneously, and adhere to its errors so obstinately, during our late war! Mr. Gladstone has in part explained the mystery. The adults of England, he said, in his famous wine speech, drink, on an average, three hundred quarts of beer each per annum! Now, it is physically impossible for a human brain, muddled every day with a quart of beer, to correctly hold correct opinions, or appropriate pure knowledge. Compare the conversation of a group of Vermont farmers, gathered on the stoop of a country store on a rainy afternoon, with that which you may hear in the farmers' room of a market-town inn in England! The advantage is not wholly with the Vermonters; by no means, for there is much in human nature besides the brain and the things of the brain. But in this one particular—in the topics of conversation, in the interest manifested in large and important subjects—the water-drinking Vermonters are to the beer-drinking Englishmen what Franklin was to the London printers. It is beyond the capacity of a well-beered brain even to read the pamphlet on Liberty and Necessity which Franklin wrote in those times.

We all know that when we drink alcohol, it affects the brain right away. Most of us also realize that it harms the brain, diminishing its ability to think clearly and differentiate. If I, at this time, AM, full of interest in this topic and eager to put my thoughts on paper, were to drink a glass of good port, Madeira, sherry, or even a glass of beer, I would lose the ability to continue within three minutes. If I tried to press on, I would likely say things that are paradoxical and extravagant, which wouldn’t stand up to a sober review the next morning. Anyone can test this out. Have two glasses of wine and then immediately tackle the hardest task you ever face, and you’ll see you can’t do it. A student who drinks a pint of the purest beer right before starting math will quickly feel a loss of ability. Or if a salesperson has the foolish idea of "having a drink" before meeting a tough but important customer, they’ll soon find their influence over the customer weakened. Somehow, this alcohol we enjoy makes its way to the brain and harms it. We are aware of this and can observe it. Among wine-drinkers, silly, incomplete, and regressive ideas seem to dominate. The open-minded, curious, honest, and discerning thinkers—those who don’t accept things at face value but are always open to persuasion—tend to be found among people who drink little or none of these tempting beverages. We all wondered why England seemed to think so wrongly and stubbornly cling to those errors during our recent war! Mr. Gladstone has partly explained the riddle. He said in his famous speech about wine that the average adult in England drinks three hundred quarts of beer a year! Now, it is physically impossible for a brain muddled every day with a quart of beer to hold accurate opinions or acquire pure knowledge. Compare the conversation of a group of Vermont farmers sitting on the porch of a country store on a rainy afternoon with that which you might hear in the farmers’ room of a market-town inn in England! The Vermonters don’t have the exclusive advantage, as there’s more to human nature than just the brain and its activities. But in this specific area—in the topics discussed and the interest shown in significant matters—the water-drinking Vermonters are to the beer-drinking Englishmen what Franklin was to the London printers. It’s beyond the capability of a brain clouded by beer to even read the pamphlet on Liberty and Necessity that Franklin wrote back then.

The few experiments which have been made, with a view to trace the course of alcohol in the living system, all confirm what all drinkers feel, that it is to the brain alcohol hurries when it has passed the lips. Some innocent dogs have suffered and died in this investigation. Dr. Percy, a British physician, records, that he injected two ounces and a half of alcohol into the stomach of a dog, which caused its almost instant death. The dog dropped very much as he would if he had been struck upon the head with a club. The experimenter, without a moment's unnecessary delay, removed the animal's brain, subjected it to distillation, and extracted from it a surprising quantity of alcohol,—a larger proportion than he could distil from the blood or liver. The alcohol seemed to have rushed to the brain: it was a blow upon the head which killed the dog. Dr. Percy introduced into the stomachs of other dogs smaller quantities of alcohol, not sufficient to cause death; but upon killing the dogs, and subjecting the brain, the blood, the bile, the liver, and other portions of the body, to distillation, he invariably found more alcohol in the brain than in the same weight of other organs. He injected alcohol into the blood of dogs, which caused death; but the deadly effect was produced, not upon the substance of the blood, but upon the brain. His experiments go far toward explaining why the drinking of alcoholic liquors does not sensibly retard digestion. It seems that, when we take wine at dinner, the alcohol does not remain in the stomach, but is immediately absorbed into the blood, and swiftly conveyed to the brain and other organs. If one of those "four-bottle men" of the last generation had fallen down dead, after boozing till past midnight, and he had been treated as Dr. Percy treated the dogs, his brain, his liver, and all the other centres of power, would have yielded alcohol in abundance; his blood would have smelt of it; his flesh would have contained it; but there would have been very little in the stomach. Those men were able to drink four, six, and seven bottles of wine at a sitting, because the sitting lasted four, six, and seven hours, which gave time for the alcohol to be distributed over the system. But instances have occurred of laboring men who have kept themselves steadily drunk for forty-eight hours, and then died. The bodies of two such were dissected some years ago in England, and the food which they had eaten at the beginning of the debauch was undigested. It had been preserved in alcohol as we preserve snakes.

The few experiments that have been done to trace the path of alcohol in the living body all confirm what drinkers know: alcohol quickly goes to the brain after it leaves the mouth. Some innocent dogs have suffered and died during this research. Dr. Percy, a British physician, recorded that he injected two and a half ounces of alcohol into a dog's stomach, causing its almost instant death. The dog collapsed much like it would if it had been hit on the head with a club. Without wasting any time, the experimenter removed the animal's brain, distilled it, and extracted a surprising amount of alcohol — more than he could get from the blood or liver. It seemed that alcohol rushed to the brain; the blow to the head killed the dog. Dr. Percy also introduced smaller amounts of alcohol into the stomachs of other dogs, which weren’t enough to cause death. However, when he killed the dogs and distilled their brain, blood, bile, liver, and other body parts, he consistently found more alcohol in the brain than in the same weight of other organs. He injected alcohol into the blood of dogs, which caused death, but the harmful effect was on the brain, not the blood itself. His experiments help explain why drinking alcoholic beverages doesn’t noticeably slow down digestion. It seems that when we drink wine at dinner, the alcohol doesn’t stay in the stomach but is quickly absorbed into the bloodstream and rapidly sent to the brain and other organs. If one of those "four-bottle men" from the past had dropped dead after drinking until past midnight, and had been treated like Dr. Percy treated the dogs, his brain, liver, and all the other vital areas would have shown abundant alcohol; his blood would have had a strong odor of it; his flesh would have contained it; but there would have been very little in the stomach. Those men could drink four, six, or seven bottles of wine in one sitting because the sitting lasted four, six, or seven hours, allowing time for the alcohol to spread throughout the body. However, there have been cases of laboring men who stayed consistently drunk for forty-eight hours and then died. The bodies of two such men were dissected in England a few years ago, and the food they ate at the start of their binge was still undigested. It was preserved in alcohol like we preserve snakes.

Once, and only once, in the lifetime of man, an intelligent human eye has been able to look into the living stomach, and watch the process of digestion. In 1822, at the United States military post of Michilimackinac, Alexis St. Martin, a Canadian of French extraction, received accidentally a heavy charge of duck-shot in his side, while he was standing one yard from the muzzle of the gun. The wound was frightful. One of the lungs protruded, and from an enormous aperture in the stomach the food recently eaten was oozing. Dr. William Beaumont, U.S.A., the surgeon of the post, was notified, and dressed the wound. In exactly one year from that day the young man was well enough to get out of doors, and walk about the fort; and he continued to improve in health and strength, until he was as strong and hardy as most of his race. He married, became the father of a large family, and performed for many years the laborious duties appertaining to an officer's servant at a frontier post. But the aperture into the stomach never closed, and the patient would not submit to the painful operation by which such wounds are sometimes closed artificially. He wore a compress arranged by the doctor, without which his dinner was not safe after he had eaten it.

Once, and only once, in human history, an intelligent person has been able to look into a living stomach and observe the process of digestion. In 1822, at the United States military post of Michilimackinac, Alexis St. Martin, a Canadian of French descent, accidentally received a heavy load of duck shot in his side while standing just a yard away from the gun. The injury was terrible. One of his lungs was exposed, and food recently consumed was oozing from a huge opening in his stomach. Dr. William Beaumont, USA, the post's surgeon, was notified and treated the wound. Exactly one year later, the young man was healthy enough to go outside and walk around the fort, and he continued to recover in health and strength until he was as strong and robust as most of his peers. He got married, had a large family, and worked for many years as an officer's servant at a frontier post. However, the opening in his stomach never healed, and he refused to undergo the painful procedure that could have closed it artificially. He wore a compress that the doctor had arranged, without which his meals weren't safe after he ate.

By a most blessed chance it happened that this Dr. William Beaumont, stationed there on the outskirts of creation, was an intelligent, inquisitive human being, who perceived all the value of the opportunity afforded him by this unique event. He set about improving that opportunity. He took the young man into his service, and, at intervals, for eight years, he experimented upon him. He alone among the sons of men has seen liquid flowing into the stomach of a living person while yet the vessel was at the drinker's lips. Through the aperture (which remained two and a half inches in circumference) he could watch the entire operation of digestion, and he did so hundreds of times. If the man's stomach ached, he could look into it and see what was the matter; and, having found out, he would drop a rectifying pill into the aperture. He ascertained the time it takes to digest each of the articles of food commonly eaten, and the effects of all the usual errors in eating and drinking. In 1833, he published a thin volume, at Plattsburg on Lake Champlain, in which the results of thousands of experiments and observations were only too briefly stated. He appears not to have heard of teetotalism, and hence all that he says upon the effects of alcoholic liquors is free from the suspicion which the arrogance and extravagance of some teetotalers have thrown over much that has been published on this subject. With a mind unbiassed, Dr. Beaumont, peering into the stomach of this stout Canadian, notices that a glass of brandy causes the coats of that organ to assume the same inflamed appearance as when he had been very angry, or much frightened, or had overeaten, or had had the flow of perspiration suddenly checked. In other words, brandy played the part of a foe in his system, not that of a friend; it produced effects which were morbid, not healthy. Nor did it make any material difference whether St. Martin drank brandy, whiskey, wine, cider, or beer, except so far as one was stronger than the other.

By a lucky chance, Dr. William Beaumont, stationed out on the edge of the world, turned out to be an intelligent and curious individual who recognized the value of the opportunity this unique situation had given him. He set out to make the most of it. He took the young man into his care, and over eight years, he conducted experiments on him. He is the only person in the world who has seen liquid flow into the stomach of a living person while the drink was still at the person's lips. Through the opening (which remained two and a half inches wide), he could observe the entire process of digestion, and he did this hundreds of times. If the man's stomach hurt, he could look inside and see what was wrong; then, upon discovering the issue, he would drop a corrective pill into the opening. He figured out the time it takes to digest each type of food commonly consumed and the effects of typical mistakes in eating and drinking. In 1833, he published a short book in Plattsburgh on Lake Champlain, which briefly outlined the results of thousands of experiments and observations. It seems he wasn’t familiar with teetotalism, so everything he said about the effects of alcoholic beverages is free from the bias and exaggeration that some teetotalers have clouded this topic with. With an open mind, Dr. Beaumont, looking into the stomach of this robust Canadian, observed that a glass of brandy made the lining of that organ look inflamed, much like it would after intense anger, fear, overeating, or suddenly stopping sweating. In other words, brandy acted as a foe in his body, not a friend; it caused negative effects, not health benefits. It didn’t matter much whether St. Martin drank brandy, whiskey, wine, cider, or beer, other than the fact that one might be stronger than the other.

"Simple water," says Dr. Beaumont, "is perhaps the only fluid that is called for by the wants of the economy. The artificial drinks are probably all more or less injurious; some more so than others, but none can claim exemption from the general charge. Even tea and coffee, the common beverages of all classes of people, have a tendency to debilitate the digestive organs…. The whole class of alcoholic liquors may be considered as narcotics, producing very little difference in their ultimate effects upon the system."

"Plain water," says Dr. Beaumont, "is probably the only drink that truly meets the body's needs. Artificial beverages are likely all harmful to some extent; some are worse than others, but none can be considered completely safe. Even tea and coffee, popular drinks among all groups of people, can weaken the digestive system.... All types of alcoholic drinks can be seen as narcotics, having very little difference in their overall effects on the body."

He ascertained too (not guessed, or inferred, but ascertained, watch in hand) that such things as mustard, horse-radish, and pepper retard digestion. At the close of his invaluable work Dr. Beaumont appends a long list of "Inferences," among which are the following: "That solid food of a certain texture is easier of digestion than fluid; that stimulating condiments are injurious to the healthy system; that the use of ardent spirits always produces disease of the stomach if persisted in; that water, ardent spirits, and most other fluids, are not affected by the gastric juice, but pass from the stomach soon after they have been received." One thing appears to have much surprised Dr. Beaumont, and that was, the degree to which St. Martin's system could be disordered without his being much inconvenienced by it. After drinking hard every day for eight or ten days, the stomach would show alarming appearances of disease; and yet the man would only feel a slight headache, and a general dulness and languor.

He found out (not guessed or assumed, but found out, checking the time) that things like mustard, horseradish, and pepper slow down digestion. At the end of his valuable work, Dr. Beaumont includes a long list of "Inferences," among which are the following: "Solid food of a certain texture is easier to digest than liquids; stimulating condiments are harmful to a healthy system; the use of hard liquor always causes stomach disease if continued; water, hard liquor, and most other liquids are not affected by gastric juice, but leave the stomach shortly after consumption." One thing that seemed to surprise Dr. Beaumont a lot was how much St. Martin's system could be disturbed without him being seriously affected. After drinking heavily every day for eight to ten days, the stomach would show troubling signs of illness; still, the man would only experience a mild headache and some overall sluggishness and fatigue.

If there is no comfort for drinkers in Dr. Beaumont's precious little volume, it must be also confessed, that neither the dissecting-knife nor the microscope afford us the least countenance. All that has yet been ascertained of the effects of alcohol by the dissection of the body favors the extreme position of the extreme teetotalers. A brain alcoholized the microscope proves to be a brain diseased. Blood which has absorbed alcohol is unhealthy blood,—the microscope shows it. The liver, the heart, and other organs, which have been accustomed to absorb alcohol, all give testimony under the microscope which produces discomfort in the mind of one who likes a glass of wine, and hopes to be able to continue the enjoyment of it. The dissecting-knife and the microscope so far have nothing to say for us,—nothing at all: they are dead against us.

If drinkers don't find comfort in Dr. Beaumont's small book, it's also true that neither the scalpel nor the microscope offers us any support. Everything we've discovered about the effects of alcohol through body dissection backs up the extreme stance of strict teetotalers. A brain under the influence of alcohol, as shown by the microscope, is a diseased brain. Blood that's absorbed alcohol is unhealthy blood—the microscope reveals it. The liver, heart, and other organs that have regularly absorbed alcohol all show evidence under the microscope that can be unsettling for someone who enjoys a glass of wine and hopes to keep enjoying it. So far, the scalpel and the microscope have nothing positive to say for us—nothing at all: they’re completely against us.

Of all the experiments which have yet been undertaken with a view to trace the course of alcohol through the human system, the most important were those made in Paris a few years ago by Professors Lallemand, Perrin, and Duroy, distinguished physicians and chemists. Frenchmen have a way of co-operating with one another, both in the investigation of scientific questions and in the production of literature, which is creditable to their civilization and beneficial to the world. The experiments conducted by these gentlemen produced the remarkable effect of causing the editor of a leading periodical to confess to the public that he was not infallible. In 1855 the Westminster Review contained an article by Mr. Lewes, in which the teetotal side of these questions was effectively ridiculed; but, in 1861, the same periodical reviewed the work of the French professors just named, and honored itself by appending a note in which it said: "Since the date of our former article, scientific research has brought to light important facts which necessarily modify the opinions we then expressed concerning the rôle of alcohol in the animal body." Those facts were revealed or indicated in the experiments of Messrs. Lallemand, Perrin, and Duroy.

Of all the experiments conducted to trace the journey of alcohol through the human body, the most significant were those carried out in Paris a few years ago by Professors Lallemand, Perrin, and Duroy, who are well-respected doctors and chemists. The French have a unique way of collaborating with each other, both in scientific investigation and in literature, which reflects positively on their culture and benefits the world. The experiments done by these gentlemen surprisingly led the editor of a prominent magazine to admit publicly that he wasn’t perfect. In 1855, the Westminster Review featured an article by Mr. Lewes that effectively mocked the teetotaler's perspective on these issues; however, in 1861, the same publication reviewed the work of the aforementioned French professors and honored itself by adding a note stating: "Since the date of our former article, scientific research has uncovered significant facts that necessarily change the views we expressed regarding the rôle of alcohol in the animal body." Those facts were revealed or suggested in the experiments of Messrs. Lallemand, Perrin, and Duroy.

Ether and chloroform,—their mode of operation; why and how they render the living body insensible to pain under the surgeon's knife; what becomes of them after they have performed that office,—these were the points which engaged their attention, and in the investigation of which they spent several years. They were rewarded, at length, with the success due to patience and ingenuity. By the aid of ingenious apparatus, after experiments almost numberless, they felt themselves in a position to demonstrate, that, when ether is inhaled, it is immediately absorbed by the blood, and by the blood is conveyed to the brain. If a surgeon were to commit such a breach of professional etiquette as to cut off a patient's head at the moment of complete insensibility, he would be able to distil from the brain a great quantity of ether. But it is not usual to take that liberty except with dogs. The inhalation, therefore, proceeds until the surgical operation is finished, when the handkerchief is withdrawn from the patient's face, and he is left to regain his senses. What happens then? What becomes of the ether? These learned Frenchmen discovered that most of it goes out of the body by the road it came in at,—the lungs. It was breathed in; it is breathed out. The rest escapes by other channels of egress; it all escapes, and it escapes unchanged! That is the point: it escapes without having left anything in the system. All that can be said of it is, that it entered the body, created morbid conditions in the body, and then left the body. It cost these patient men years to arrive at this result; but any one who has ever had charge of a patient that has been rendered insensible by ether will find little difficulty in believing it.

Ether and chloroform—how they work, why they make the body unable to feel pain during surgery, and what happens to them afterward—were the main topics that captured their focus, and they spent several years studying them. Eventually, their dedication and creativity paid off. With the help of clever devices, after countless experiments, they were able to show that when ether is inhaled, it is quickly absorbed into the bloodstream and transported to the brain. If a surgeon were to violate professional standards by removing a patient’s head while they were completely unconscious, they could extract a significant amount of ether from the brain. However, this practice is usually reserved for dogs. Hence, inhalation continues until the procedure is over, at which point the cloth is removed from the patient's face, and they are allowed to regain consciousness. So, what happens next? Where does the ether go? These knowledgeable French scientists found that most of it exits the body through the same way it entered—the lungs. It was inhaled and then exhaled. The remaining ether leaves through other pathways; it all leaves unchanged! That’s the key point: it exits without having left any residue in the system. The only thing that can be said is that it entered the body, caused some issues, and then exited. It took those dedicated men years to reach this conclusion, but anyone who has managed a patient put under ether will likely find it easy to believe.

Having reached this demonstration, the experimenters naturally thought of applying the same method and similar apparatus to the investigation of the effects of alcohol, which is the fluid nearest resembling ether and chloroform. Dogs and men suffered in the cause. In the moisture exhaled from the pores of a drunken dog's skin, these cunning Frenchmen detected the alcohol which had made him drunk. They proved it to exist in the breath of a man, at six o'clock in the evening, who had drunk a bottle of claret for breakfast at half past ten in the morning. They also proved that, at midnight, the alcohol of that bottle of wine was still availing itself of other avenues of escape. They proved that when alcohol is taken into the system in any of its dilutions,—wine, cider, spirits, or beer,—the whole animal economy speedily busies itself with its expulsion, and continues to do so until it has expelled it. The lungs exhale it; the pores of the skin let out a little of it; the kidneys do their part; and by whatever other road an enemy can escape it seeks the outer air. Like ether, alcohol enters the body, makes a disturbance there, and goes out of the body, leaving it no richer than it found it. It is a guest that departs, after giving a great deal of trouble, without paying his bill or "remembering" the servants. Now, to make the demonstration complete, it would be necessary to take some unfortunate man or dog, give him a certain quantity of alcohol,—say one ounce,—and afterwards distil from his breath, perspiration, &c., the whole quantity that he had swallowed. This has not been done; it never will be done; it is obviously impossible. Enough has been done to justify these conscientious and indefatigable inquirers in announcing, as a thing susceptible of all but demonstration, that alcohol contributes to the human system nothing whatever, but leaves it undigested and wholly unchanged. They are fully persuaded (and so will you be, reader, if you read their book) that, if you take into your system an ounce of alcohol, the whole ounce leaves the system within forty-eight hours, just as good alcohol as it went in.

Having reached this point in their research, the experimenters naturally thought about using the same methods and similar equipment to investigate the effects of alcohol, which is the fluid that most closely resembles ether and chloroform. Dogs and humans suffered in the process. From the sweat of a drunken dog's skin, these clever French scientists detected the alcohol that caused his inebriation. They also found it present in the breath of a man who, at six o'clock in the evening, had drunk a bottle of claret for breakfast at half past ten in the morning. They demonstrated that even at midnight, the alcohol from that bottle of wine was still finding ways to exit the body. They proved that when alcohol enters the system in any form—wine, cider, spirits, or beer—the body immediately works to expel it, and continues doing so until it’s gone. The lungs exhale it; the skin releases some; the kidneys do their part; and any other way a foe can escape, it seeks the outside air. Like ether, alcohol enters the body, causes a disruption, and exits without enriching the body in any way. It is like a guest who leaves after causing a lot of trouble, without settling the bill or acknowledging the staff. To make the demonstration complete, it would be necessary to take an unfortunate man or dog, give him a certain amount of alcohol—let's say one ounce—and then distill the same amount from his breath, sweat, etc. This has not been done; it probably never will be; it’s clearly impossible. Enough has been accomplished to allow these diligent and dedicated researchers to assert, almost definitively, that alcohol contributes nothing to the human body but instead leaves it unchanged and undigested. They are completely convinced (and you will be too, dear reader, if you read their book) that if you take in an ounce of alcohol, the entire ounce will leave your system within forty-eight hours, in as good a condition as it entered.

There is a boy in Pickwick who swallowed a farthing. "Out with it," said the father; and it is to be presumed—though Mr. Weller does not mention the fact—that the boy complied with a request so reasonable. Just as much nutrition as that small copper coin left in the system of that boy, plus a small lump of sugar, did the claret which we drank yesterday deposit in ours; so, at least, we must infer from the experiments of Messrs. Lallemand, Perrin, and Duroy.

There’s a boy in Pickwick who swallowed a farthing. “Spit it out,” said the father; and it’s safe to assume—though Mr. Weller doesn’t mention it—that the boy obliged this sensible request. The tiny copper coin, along with a small piece of sugar, provided as much nourishment as the claret we drank yesterday gave us; or at least, that’s what we can deduce from the studies by Messrs. Lallemand, Perrin, and Duroy.

To evidence of this purely scientific nature might be added, if space could be afforded, a long list of persons who, having indulged in wine for many years, have found benefit from discontinuing the use of it. Most of us have known such instances. I have known several, and I can most truly say, that I have never known an individual in tolerable health who discontinued the use of any stimulant whatever without benefit. We all remember Sydney Smith's strong sentences on this point, scattered through the volume which contains the correspondence of that delicious humorist and wit. "I like London better than ever I liked it before," he writes in the prime of his prime (forty-three years old) to Lady Holland, "and simply, I believe, from water-drinking. Without this, London is stupefaction and inflammation." So has New York become. Again, in 1828, when he was fifty-seven, to the same lady: "I not only was never better, but never half so well; indeed, I find I have been very ill all my life without knowing it. Let me state some of the goods arising from abstaining from all fermented liquors. First, sweet sleep; having never known what sweet sleep was, I sleep like a baby or a plough-boy. If I wake, no needless terrors, no black visions of life, but pleasing hopes and pleasing recollections: Holland House past and to come! If I dream, it is not of lions and tigers, but of Easter dues and tithes. Secondly, I can take longer walks and make greater exertions without fatigue. My understanding is improved, and I comprehend political economy. I see better without wine and spectacles than when I used both. Only one evil ensues from it; I am in such extravagant spirits that I must lose blood, or look out for some one who will bore or depress me. Pray leave off wine: the stomach is quite at rest; no heartburn, no pain, no distention."

To provide evidence of this purely scientific nature, we could add a long list of people who, after enjoying wine for many years, have benefited from stopping its use, if there was enough space. Most of us have seen such examples. I know several, and I can honestly say I've never met anyone in decent health who stopped using any stimulant without gaining benefits. We all remember Sydney Smith's strong statements on this topic, which are scattered throughout the book containing the correspondence of that delightful humorist and wit. "I like London more than ever," he writes in his prime (at forty-three) to Lady Holland, "and I believe it's simply because I'm drinking water. Without this, London is nothing but dullness and irritation." The same can be said for New York. Again, in 1828, when he was fifty-seven, he wrote to the same lady: "I not only have never felt better, but I've never felt this good; in fact, I've realized I've been pretty unwell my whole life without even knowing it. Let me share some of the benefits of avoiding all fermented drinks. First, sweet sleep; having never understood what sweet sleep was, I now sleep like a baby or a farmworker. If I wake up, there are no unnecessary fears, no dark visions of life, just pleasant hopes and pleasant memories: Holland House, past and future! If I dream, it’s not about lions and tigers, but about Easter dues and tithes. Secondly, I can walk longer distances and exert myself more without getting tired. My understanding has improved, and I can grasp political economy. I see better without wine and glasses than I did with both. The only drawback is that I feel so euphoric I either have to bleed myself or find someone who will bore or bring me down. Please stop drinking wine; my stomach is completely at ease—no heartburn, no pain, no bloating."

I have also a short catalogue of persons who, having long lived innocent of these agreeable drinks, began at length to use them. Dr. Franklin's case is striking. That "water American," as he was styled by the London printers, whose ceaseless guzzling of beer he ridiculed in his twentieth year, drank wine in his sixtieth with the freedom usual at that period among persons of good estate. "At parting," he writes in 1768, when he was sixty-two, "after we had drank a bottle and a half of claret each, Lord Clare hugged and kissed me, protesting he never in his life met with a man he was so much in love with." The consequence of this departure from the customs of his earlier life was ten years of occasional acute torture from the stone and gravel. Perhaps, if Franklin had remained a "water American," he would have annexed Canada to the United States at the peace of 1782. An agonizing attack of stone laid him on his back for three months, just as the negotiation was becoming interesting; and by the time he was well again the threads were gone out of his hands into those of the worst diplomatists that ever threw a golden chance away.

I also have a brief list of people who, after living a long time without these enjoyable drinks, eventually started using them. Dr. Franklin's situation is notable. That "water American," as he was called by the London printers, who mocked the endless beer-drinking when he was twenty, drank wine freely at sixty, just like many others of good status at that time. "When we parted," he wrote in 1768, at sixty-two, "after we had each had a bottle and a half of claret, Lord Clare hugged and kissed me, saying he had never in his life met a man he was so fond of." This shift from his earlier habits led to ten years of occasional severe pain from kidney stones. Perhaps if Franklin had stuck to being a "water American," he might have added Canada to the United States at the peace of 1782. A painful kidney stone attack kept him bedridden for three months, just as the negotiations were getting interesting; and by the time he recovered, the opportunity had slipped away into the hands of the worst diplomats who ever let a golden chance pass.

What are we to conclude from all this? Are we to knock the heads out of all our wine-casks, join the temperance society, and denounce all men who do not follow our example? Taking together all that science and observation teach and indicate, we have one certainty: That, to a person in good health and of good life, alcoholic liquors are not necessary, but are always in some degree hurtful. This truth becomes so clear, after a few weeks' investigation, that I advise every person who means to keep on drinking such liquors not to look into the facts; for if he does, he will never again be able to lift a glass of wine to his lips, nor contemplate a foaming tankard, nor mix his evening toddy, nor hear the pop and melodious gurgle of champagne, with that fine complacency which irradiates his countenance now, and renders it so pleasing a study to those who sit on the other side of the table. No; never again! Even the flavor of those fluids will lose something of their charm. The conviction will obtrude itself upon his mind at most inopportune moments, that this drinking of wine, beer, and whiskey, to which we are so much addicted, is an enormous delusion. If the teetotalers would induce some rational being—say that public benefactor, Dr. Willard Parker of New York—to collect into one small volume the substance of all the investigations alluded to in this article,—the substance of Dr. Beaumont's precious little book, the substance of the French professors' work, and the others,—adding no comment except such as might be necessary to elucidate the investigators' meaning, it could not but carry conviction to every candid and intelligent reader that spirituous drinks are to the healthy system an injury necessarily, and in all cases.

What can we take away from all this? Should we empty all our wine barrels, join a sobriety group, and criticize anyone who doesn’t follow our lead? Considering everything that science and observation reveal, one thing is clear: for a healthy person with a good lifestyle, alcoholic beverages aren’t needed and are always somewhat harmful. This truth becomes so obvious after just a few weeks of investigation that I suggest anyone who plans to keep drinking these beverages should avoid learning the facts; because if they do, they’ll never again be able to lift a wine glass to their mouth, admire a frothy beer, mix up their evening cocktail, or enjoy the pop and pleasant fizz of champagne with the happy expression they have now, which makes them so enjoyable to those sitting across the table. No; never again! Even the taste of those drinks will lose some of their appeal. The realization will creep into their mind at the most inconvenient times, that this drinking of wine, beer, and whiskey, which we so often indulge in, is a massive illusion. If the total abstainers could get someone reasonable—like that great public figure, Dr. Willard Parker from New York—to compile all the findings mentioned in this article into one small book—the findings from Dr. Beaumont's valuable little book, the French professors’ research, and others—without including any commentary except what’s needed to explain the researchers’ meanings, it would undoubtedly convince every honest and thoughtful reader that alcoholic drinks are harmful to a healthy system, without exception.

The Coming Man, then, so long as he enjoys good health,—which he usually will from infancy to hoary age,—will not drink wine, nor, of course, any of the coarser alcoholic dilutions. To that unclouded and fearless intelligence, science will be the supreme law; it will be to him more than the Koran is to a Mohammedan, and more than the Infallible Church is to a Roman Catholic. Science, or, in other words, the law of God as revealed in nature, life, and history, and as ascertained by experiment, observation, and thought,—this will be the teacher and guide of the Coming Man.

The Coming Man, as long as he is in good health—which he usually will be from childhood to old age—will not drink wine, or, of course, any of the harsher alcoholic beverages. To his clear and fearless mind, science will be the ultimate authority; it will mean more to him than the Koran does to a Muslim, and more than the Infallible Church does to a Catholic. Science, or, in other words, the law of God as shown in nature, life, and history, and as confirmed by experimentation, observation, and reasoning—this will be the teacher and guide for the Coming Man.

A single certainty in a matter of so much importance is not to be despised. I can now say to young fellows who order a bottle of wine, and flatter themselves that, in so doing, they approve themselves "jolly dogs": No, my lads, it is because you are dull dogs that you want the wine. You are forced to borrow excitement because you have squandered your natural gayety. The ordering of the wine is a confession of insolvency. When we feel it necessary to "take something" at certain times during the day, we are in a condition similar to that of a merchant who every day, about the anxious hour of half past two, has to run around among his neighbors borrowing credit. It is something disgraceful or suspicious. Nature does not supply enough of inward force. We are in arrears. Our condition is absurd; and, if we ought not to be alarmed, we ought at least to be ashamed. Nor does the borrowed credit increase our store; it leaves nothing behind to enrich us, but takes something from our already insufficient stock; and the more pressing our need the more it costs us to borrow.

A single certainty in such an important matter shouldn't be ignored. I can now tell young guys who order a bottle of wine and think that makes them "fun guys": No, my friends, it’s because you’re boring that you crave the wine. You have to borrow excitement because you’ve wasted your natural joy. Ordering wine is a sign of bankruptcy. When we feel the need to "have something" at certain times of the day, we are like a merchant who, every day at the stressful hour of two-thirty, has to run around asking neighbors for credit. It's something embarrassing or suspicious. Nature doesn’t provide enough inner strength. We are behind. Our situation is ridiculous; and while we shouldn’t be alarmed, we should at least feel ashamed. Plus, the borrowed credit doesn't increase our wealth; it leaves nothing behind to enrich us, but takes away from our already limited resources; and the more desperate we are, the more it costs us to borrow.

But the Coming Man, blooming, robust, alert, and light-hearted as he will be, may not be always well. If, as he springs up a mountain-side, his foot slips, the law of gravitation will respect nature's darling too much to keep him from tumbling down the precipice; and, as he wanders in strange regions, an unperceived malaria may poison his pure and vivid blood. Some generous errors, too, he may commit (although it is not probable), and expend a portion of his own life in warding off evil from the lives of others. Fever may blaze even in his clear eyes; poison may rack his magnificent frame, and a long convalescence may severely try his admirable patience. Will the Coming Man drink wine when he is sick? The question is not easily answered.

But the Coming Man, vibrant, strong, alert, and carefree as he is, might not always be well. If he climbs a mountain and slips, the law of gravity will have too much respect for nature's favorite to stop him from tumbling down the cliff; and while he explores unfamiliar territories, an unnoticed illness could taint his pure and lively blood. He might also make some generous mistakes (though it’s unlikely) and spend part of his own life protecting others from harm. Fever could flare even in his clear eyes; poison might torture his magnificent body, and a long recovery could seriously test his remarkable patience. Will the Coming Man drink wine when he's sick? That's not an easy question to answer.

One valuable witness on this branch of the inquiry is the late Theodore Parker. A year or two before his lamented death, when he was already struggling with the disease that terminated his existence, he wrote for his friend, Dr. Bowditch, "the consumptive history" of his family from 1634, when his stalwart English ancestor settled in New England. The son of that ancestor built a house, in 1664, upon the slope of a hill which terminated in "a great fresh meadow of spongy peat," which was "always wet all the year through," and from which "fogs could be seen gathering towards night of a clear day."[2] In the third generation of the occupants of this house consumption was developed, and carried off eight children out of eleven, all between the ages of sixteen and nineteen. From that time consumption was the bane of the race, and spared not the offspring of parents who had removed from the family seat into localities free from malaria. One of the daughters of the house, who married a man of giant stature and great strength, became the mother of four sons. Three of these sons, though settled in a healthy place and in an innoxious business, died of consumption between twenty and twenty-five. But the fourth son became intemperate,—drank great quantities of New England rum. He did not die of the disease, but was fifty-five years of age when the account was written, and then exhibited no consumptive tendency! To this fact Mr. Parker added others:—

One important witness in this part of the investigation is the late Theodore Parker. A year or two before his sadly premature death, while he was already battling the illness that ultimately took his life, he wrote to his friend, Dr. Bowditch, about "the consumptive history" of his family starting from 1634, when his strong English ancestor settled in New England. The son of that ancestor built a house in 1664 on the slope of a hill that led down to "a great fresh meadow of spongy peat," which was "always wet all year round," and from which "fogs could be seen gathering toward night on a clear day."[2] In the third generation living in this house, tuberculosis emerged and claimed eight out of the eleven children, all between the ages of sixteen and nineteen. From that point on, consumption became a curse for the family, affecting even the descendants of parents who moved away from the family home to healthier locations. One of the daughters from this family married a tall, strong man and had four sons. Three of these sons, despite living in a healthy area and having safe jobs, died from tuberculosis between the ages of twenty and twenty-five. However, the fourth son became addicted to alcohol—drank large amounts of New England rum. He did not die from the disease and was fifty-five years old when this account was written, showing no signs of tuberculosis at that time! Mr. Parker noted other facts as well:—

"1. I know a consumptive family living in a situation like that I have mentioned for, perhaps, the same length of time, who had four sons. Two of them were often drunk, and always intemperate,—one of them as long as I can remember; both consumptive in early life, but now both hearty men from sixty to seventy. The two others were temperate, one drinking moderately, the other but occasionally. They both died of consumption, the eldest not over forty-five.

"1. I know a family dealing with tuberculosis who has been in a situation like the one I've mentioned for, maybe, just as long. They had four sons. Two of them often drank too much and were always reckless with alcohol—one of them has been that way for as long as I can remember; both were sick in their early years, but now they’re both healthy men between sixty and seventy. The other two were moderate drinkers, with one drinking occasionally and the other moderately. They both died from tuberculosis, with the eldest not even reaching the age of forty-five."

"2. Another consumptive family in such a situation as has been already described had many sons and several daughters. The daughters were all temperate, married, settled elsewhere, had children, died of consumption, bequeathing it also to their posterity. But five of the sons, whom I knew, were drunkards,—some, of the extremest description; they all had the consumptive build, and in early life showed signs of the disease, but none of them died of it; some of them are still burning in rum. There was one brother temperate, a farmer, living in the healthiest situation. But I was told he died some years ago of consumption."

"2. Another struggling family, similar to the one described earlier, had many sons and several daughters. The daughters were all moderate in their habits, got married, moved away, had kids, and died from tuberculosis, passing it on to their children. However, five of the sons I knew were heavy drinkers—some were the worst kind. They all had the typical slim build of someone with tuberculosis and showed early signs of the illness, but none of them died from it; some are still consumed by alcohol. There was one brother who was moderate, a farmer living in a very healthy area. But I was told he died a few years ago from tuberculosis."

To these facts must be added one more woful than a thousand such,—that Theodore Parker himself, one of the most valuable lives upon the Western Continent, died of consumption in his fiftieth year. The inference which Mr. Parker drew from the family histories given was the following: "Intemperate habits (where the man drinks a pure, though coarse and fiery, liquor, like New England rum) tend to check the consumptive tendency, though the drunkard, who himself escapes the consequences, may transmit the fatal seed to his children."

To these facts, we must add one more that is more sorrowful than a thousand others—that Theodore Parker himself, one of the most important lives on the Western Continent, died of tuberculosis at the age of fifty. The conclusion that Mr. Parker reached from the family histories provided was this: "Excessive drinking (where a person consumes a strong, albeit rough, liquor like New England rum) tends to suppress the tendency for consumption, although the drunkard, who avoids the consequences, may pass on the deadly predisposition to his children."

There is not much comfort in this for topers; but the facts are interesting, and have their value. A similar instance is related by Mr. Charles Knight; although in this case the poisoned air was more deadly, and more swift to destroy. Mr. Knight speaks, in his Popular History of England, of the "careless and avaricious employers" of London, among whom, he says, the master-tailors were the most notorious. Some of them would "huddle sixty or eighty workmen close together, nearly knee to knee, in a room fifty feet long by twenty feet broad, lighted from above, where the temperature in summer was thirty degrees higher than the temperature outside. Young men from the country fainted when they were first confined in such a life-destroying prison; the maturer ones sustained themselves by gin, till they perished of consumption, or typhus, or delirium tremens."

There isn't much comfort in this for heavy drinkers; but the facts are interesting and have their value. A similar instance is mentioned by Mr. Charles Knight; although in this case, the poisonous air was more lethal and quicker to kill. Mr. Knight talks in his Popular History of England about the "careless and greedy employers" in London, stating that the master-tailors were the most notorious among them. Some of them would "cram sixty or eighty workers closely together, nearly knee to knee, in a room fifty feet long by twenty feet wide, lit from above, where the temperature in summer was thirty degrees higher than the temperature outside. Young men from the countryside would faint when they were first locked away in such a life-threatening prison; the older ones managed to cope with gin, until they died of tuberculosis, typhus, or delirium tremens."

To a long list of such facts as these could be added instances in which the deadly agent was other than poisoned air,—excessive exertion, very bad food, gluttony, deprivation. During the war I knew of a party of cavalry who, for three days and three nights, were not out of the saddle fifteen minutes at a time. The men consumed two quarts of whiskey each, and all of them came in alive. It is a custom in England to extract the last possible five miles from a tired horse, when those miles must be had from him, by forcing down his most unwilling throat a quart of beer. It is known, too, that life can be sustained for many years in considerable vigor, upon a remarkably short allowance of food, provided the victim keeps his system well saturated with alcohol. Travellers across the plains to California tell us that, soon after getting past St. Louis, they strike a region where the principal articles of diet are saleratus and grease, to which a little flour and pork are added; upon which, they say, human life cannot be sustained unless the natural waste of the system is retarded by "preserving" the tissues in whiskey. Mr. Greeley, however, got through alive without resorting to this expedient, but he confesses in one of his letters that he suffered pangs and horrors of indigestion.

To a long list of facts like these, we could add examples where the deadly factor was something other than contaminated air—like extreme physical exertion, terrible food, overeating, and deprivation. During the war, I heard about a group of cavalry who spent three days and three nights in the saddle, only getting off for fifteen minutes at a time. Each man drank two quarts of whiskey, and they all made it back alive. In England, it’s common to push a tired horse to go the last five miles by forcing a quart of beer down its throat, even when it’s really unwilling. It’s also known that life can be maintained for many years in decent health on a surprisingly small amount of food, as long as the person keeps their system well-saturated with alcohol. Travelers heading to California say that shortly after passing St. Louis, they enter an area where the main food items are saleratus and grease, with a bit of flour and pork added; they claim that human life can't be sustained on this diet unless the body's natural waste is slowed down by "preserving" the tissues with whiskey. However, Mr. Greeley made it through without using this method, though he admits in one of his letters that he suffered from terrible indigestion.

All such facts as these—and they could be collected in great numbers—indicate the real office of alcohol in our modern life: It enables us to violate the laws of nature without immediate suffering and speedy destruction. This appears to be its chief office, in conjunction with its ally, tobacco. Those tailors would have soon died or escaped but for the gin; and those horsemen would have given up and perished but for the whiskey. Nature commanded those soldiers to rest, but they were enabled, for the moment, to disobey her. Doubtless Nature was even with them afterwards; but, for the time, they could defy their mother great and wise. Alcohol supported them in doing wrong. Alcohol and tobacco support half the modern world in doing wrong. That is their part—their rôle, as the French investigators term it—in the present life of the human race.

All these facts—and there are many—show the true role of alcohol in our modern life: It allows us to break the laws of nature without immediate pain and quick destruction. This seems to be its main purpose, along with its companion, tobacco. Those tailor workers would have quickly died or fled without the gin; and those horse riders would have given up and perished without the whiskey. Nature told those soldiers to rest, but for a moment, they were able to ignore her. Surely Nature caught up with them later; but, for that time, they could defy their wise and great mother. Alcohol helped them in acting against nature. Alcohol and tobacco support half the modern world in doing wrong. That’s their role—their rôle, as the French researchers call it—in the current life of humanity.

Dr. Great Practice would naturally go to bed at ten o'clock, when he comes in from his evening visits. It is his cigar that keeps him up till half past twelve, writing those treatises which make him famous, and shorten his life. Lawyer Heavy Fee takes home his papers, pores over them till past one, and then depends upon whiskey to quiet his brain and put him to sleep. Young Bohemian gets away from the office of the morning paper which enjoys the benefit of his fine talents at three o'clock. It is two mugs of lager-bier which enable him to endure the immediate consequences of eating a supper before going home. This is mad work, my masters; it is respectable suicide, nothing better.

Dr. Great Practice usually goes to bed at ten o'clock after returning from his evening visits. It's his cigar that keeps him up until half past twelve, writing those papers that make him famous but shorten his life. Lawyer Heavy Fee takes his files home, studies them until past one, and then relies on whiskey to calm his mind and help him sleep. Young Bohemian leaves the office of the morning paper, which benefits from his talents, at three o'clock. Two mugs of lager allow him to cope with the aftermath of eating dinner before heading home. This is crazy work, folks; it’s a form of respectable suicide, nothing more.

There is a paragraph now making the grand tour of the newspapers, which informs the public that there was a dinner given the other evening in New York consisting of twelve courses, and keeping the guests five hours at the table. For five hours, men and women sat consuming food, occupying half an hour at each viand. What could sustain human nature in such an amazing effort? What could enable them to look into one another's faces without blushing scarlet at the infamy of such a waste of time, food, and digestive force? What concealed from them the iniquity and deep vulgarity of what they were doing? The explanation of this mystery is given in the paragraph that records the crime: "There was a different kind of wine for each course."

There’s a paragraph circulating in the news that states there was a dinner held recently in New York featuring twelve courses, keeping the guests at the table for five hours. For five hours, people sat there eating, spending half an hour on each dish. What could possibly keep human nature going through such a ridiculous effort? How could they look each other in the eyes without feeling embarrassed at the absurdity of wasting time, food, and energy like that? What blinded them to the wrongness and sheer crudeness of their actions? The answer to this mystery is revealed in the paragraph detailing the incident: "There was a different kind of wine for each course."

Even an ordinary dinner-party,—what mortal could eat it through, or sit it out, without a constant sipping of wine to keep his brain muddied, and lash his stomach to unnatural exertion. The joke of it is, that we all know and confess to one another how absurd such banquets are, and yet few have the courage and humanity to feed their friends in a way which they can enjoy, and feel the better for the next morning.

Even an ordinary dinner party—who could make it through or sit it out without constantly sipping wine to keep their brain foggy and push their stomach into overdrive? The irony is we all acknowledge how ridiculous these gatherings are, yet few have the guts and kindness to serve their friends in a way that they can enjoy and truly appreciate the next morning.

When I saw Mr. Dickens eating and drinking his way through the elegantly bound book which Mr. Delmonico substituted for the usual bill of fare at the dinner given by the Press last April to the great artist,—a task of three hours' duration,—when, I say, I saw Mr. Dickens thus engaged, I wondered which banquet was the furthest from being the right thing,—the one to which he was then vainly trying to do justice, or the one of which Martin Chuzzlewit partook, on the day he landed in New York, at Mrs. Pawkins's boarding-house. The poultry, on the latter occasion, "disappeared as if every bird had had the use of its wings, and had flown in desperation down a human throat. The oysters, stewed and pickled, leaped from their capacious reservoirs, and slid by scores into the mouths of the assembly. The sharpest pickles vanished, whole cucumbers at once, like sugar-plums, and no man winked his eye. Great heaps of indigestible matter melted away as ice before the sun. It was a solemn and an awful thing to see." Of course, the company adjourned from the dining-room to "the bar-room in the next block," where they imbibed strong drink enough to keep their dinner from prostrating them.

When I saw Mr. Dickens eating and drinking his way through the beautifully bound book that Mr. Delmonico replaced for the usual menu at the dinner hosted by the Press last April for the great artist—a three-hour affair—when I saw Mr. Dickens engaged in this, I couldn't help but wonder which feast was the most inappropriate—the one he was struggling to enjoy or the one Martin Chuzzlewit had at Mrs. Pawkins's boarding house on his first day in New York. The poultry on that occasion "disappeared as if every bird had taken flight, soaring desperately down a human throat. The oysters, both stewed and pickled, leaped from their large containers and slid by the dozens into the mouths of the crowd. The sharpest pickles vanished whole, like candy, and no one batted an eye. Great mounds of heavy food melted away like ice in the sun. It was a serious and shocking sight." Naturally, the group moved from the dining room to "the bar-room in the next block," where they drank enough strong liquor to keep their dinner from overwhelming them.

The Delmonico banquet was a very different affair. Our public dinners are all arranged on the English system; for we have not yet taken up with the fine, sweeping principle, that whatever is right for England is wrong for America. Hence, not a lady was present! Within a day's journey of New York there are about thirty ladies who write regularly for the periodical press, besides as many more, perhaps, who contribute to it occasionally. Many editors, too, derive constant and important assistance, in the exercise of their profession, from their wives and daughters, who read books for them, suggest topics, correct errors, and keep busy editors in mind of the great truth that more than one half the human race is female. Mrs. Kemble, who had a treble claim to a seat at that table, was not many miles distant. Why were none of these gifted ladies present to grace and enliven the scene? The true answer is: Wine and smoke! Not our wine and smoke, but those of our British ancestors who invented public dinners. The hospitable young gentlemen who had the affair in charge would have been delighted, no doubt, to depart from the established system, but hardly liked to risk so tremendous an innovation on an occasion of so much interest. If it had been put to the vote (by ballot), when the company had assembled, Shall we have ladies or not? all the hard drinkers, all the old smokers, would have furtively written "not" upon their ballots. Those who drink little wine, and do not depend upon that little; those who do not smoke or can easily dispense with smoke,—would have voted for the ladies; and the ladies would have carried the day by the majority which is so hard to get,—two thirds.

The Delmonico banquet was a completely different event. Our public dinners are all set up in the English style; we haven't embraced the idea that what works for England doesn't work for America. As a result, there were no ladies present! Within a day's trip of New York, there are about thirty women who regularly write for the periodical press, and potentially just as many who contribute every now and then. Many editors also receive ongoing and significant help from their wives and daughters, who read books for them, suggest topics, correct mistakes, and remind busy editors that more than half of humanity is female. Mrs. Kemble, who had three reasons to be at that table, wasn’t far away. So why weren’t any of these talented women there to enhance and brighten the occasion? The simple answer is: Wine and smoke! Not our wine and smoke, but that of our British ancestors who created public dinners. The young gentlemen in charge of the event would have loved to break away from the usual practice, but they didn’t want to risk such a significant change on such an important occasion. If it had been put to a vote (by ballot) when the guests arrived, asking whether we should have ladies or not, all the heavy drinkers and old smokers would have quietly marked "not" on their ballots. Those who drink little wine and don't rely on that little, and those who don’t smoke or could easily do without it, would have voted for the ladies; and the ladies would have won by the hard-to-achieve majority of two-thirds.

It was a wise man who discovered that a small quantity of excellent soup is a good thing to begin a dinner with. He deserves well of his species. The soup allays the hungry savage within us, and restores us to civilization and to one another. Nor is he to be reckoned a traitor to his kind who first proclaimed that a little very nice and dainty fish, hot and crisp from the fire, is a pleasing introduction to more substantial viands. Six oysters upon their native shell, fresh from their ocean home, and freshly opened, small in size, intense in flavor, cool, but not too cold, radiating from a central quarter of a lemon,—this, too, was a fine conception, worthy of the age in which we live. But in what language can we characterize aright the abandoned man who first presumed to tempt Christians to begin a repast by partaking of all three of these,—oysters, soup, and fish? The object is defeated. The true purpose of these introductory trifles is to appease the appetite in a slight degree, so as to enable us to take sustenance with composure and dignity, and dispose the company to conversation. When a properly constituted person has eaten six oysters, a plate of soup, and the usual portion of fish, with the proper quantity of potatoes and bread, he has taken as much sustenance as nature requires. All the rest of the banquet is excess; and being excess, it is also mistake; it is a diminution of the sum-total of pleasure which the repast was capable of affording. But when Mr. Delmonico had brought us successfully so far on our way through his book; when we had consumed our oysters, our cream of asparagus in the Dumas style, our kettle-drums in the manner of Charles Dickens, and our trout cooked so as to do honor to Queen Victoria, we had only picked up a few pebbles on the shore of the banquet, while the great ocean of food still stretched out before us illimitable. The fillet of beef after the manner of Lucullus, the stuffed lamb in the style of Sir Walter Scott, the cutlets à la Fenimore Cooper, the historic pâtés, the sighs of Mantalini, and a dozen other efforts of Mr. Delmonico's genius, remained to be attempted.

It was a wise person who realized that starting a dinner with a small amount of delicious soup is a great idea. They deserve appreciation from everyone. The soup calms our inner hunger and brings us back to civility and connection with each other. Nor should we consider a traitor the one who first suggested that a bit of nice and delicate fish, hot and crispy from the fire, is an enjoyable way to start a meal. Six oysters in their original shells, fresh from the ocean, just opened, small yet flavorful, cool but not too cold, complemented by a quarter of a lemon—this was also a brilliant idea, worthy of our time. Yet, how can we adequately describe the misguided person who first dared to encourage people to begin a meal with all three—oysters, soup, and fish? The purpose is lost. The real aim of these starter dishes is to slightly satisfy our appetite to help us eat with ease and grace while encouraging conversation. When a properly composed person has enjoyed six oysters, a bowl of soup, and the usual serving of fish, along with the right amount of potatoes and bread, they've consumed enough for what nature requires. Everything else at the banquet is excess; and since it’s excess, it also becomes a mistake; it diminishes the overall pleasure the meal could provide. But when Mr. Delmonico guided us through his book; after we've savored our oysters, our creamy asparagus in the style of Dumas, our kettle-drums reminiscent of Charles Dickens, and our trout prepared to honor Queen Victoria, we’d only scratched the surface of the feast, while the vast ocean of food still lay before us, limitless. The beef fillet in the style of Lucullus, the stuffed lamb like Sir Walter Scott would make, the cutlets à la Fenimore Cooper, the historical pâtés, the sighs of Mantalini, and a dozen other creations from Mr. Delmonico's skill still awaited us.

No man would willingly eat or sit through such a dinner without plenty of wine, which here plays its natural part,—supporting us in doing wrong. It is the wine which enables people to keep on eating for three hours, and to cram themselves with highly concentrated food, without rolling on the floor in agony. It is the wine which puts it within our power to consume, in digesting one dinner, the force that would suffice for the digestion of three.

No one would choose to eat or endure such a dinner without a lot of wine, which here serves its usual purpose—helping us justify our bad choices. It's the wine that lets people keep eating for three hours and stuff themselves with rich food without ending up in pain. It's the wine that allows us to use enough energy during one meal to digest what would normally take three meals.

On that occasion Mr. Dickens was invited to visit us every twenty-five years "for the rest of his life," to see how we are getting on. The Coming Man may be a guest at the farewell banquet which the Press will give to the venerable author in 1893. That banquet will consist of three courses; and, instead of seven kinds of wine and various brands of cigars, there will be at every table its due proportion of ladies, the ornaments of their own sex, the instructors of ours, the boast and glory of the future Press of America.

On that occasion, Mr. Dickens was invited to visit us every twenty-five years "for the rest of his life" to see how we’re doing. The Coming Man might be a guest at the farewell banquet that the Press will hold for the esteemed author in 1893. That banquet will have three courses, and instead of seven types of wine and different brands of cigars, there will be an appropriate number of ladies at each table, the jewels of their own gender, the mentors of ours, the pride and glory of the future Press of America.

Wine, ale, and liquors, administered strictly as medicine,—what of them? Doctors differ on the subject, and known facts point to different conclusions. Distinguished physicians in England are of the opinion that Prince Albert would be alive at this moment if no wine had been given him during his last sickness; but there were formerly those who thought that the Princess Charlotte would have been saved, if, at the crisis of her malady, she could have had the glass of port wine which she craved and asked for. The biographers of William Pitt—Lord Macaulay among them—tell us, that at fourteen that precocious youth was tormented by inherited gout, and that the doctors prescribed a hair of the same dog which had bitten his ancestor from whom the gout was derived. The boy, we are told, used to consume two bottles of port a day; and, after keeping up this regimen for several months, he recovered his health, and retained it until, at the age of forty-seven, the news of Ulm and Austerlitz struck him mortal blows. Professor James Miller, of the University of Edinburgh, a decided teetotaler, declares for wine in bad cases of fever; but Dr. R. T. Trall, another teetotaler, says that during the last twenty years he has treated hundreds of cases of fevers on the cold-water system, and "not yet lost the first one"; although, during the first ten years of his practice, when he gave wine and other stimulants, he lost "about the usual proportion of cases." The truth appears to be that, in a few instances of intermittent disease, a small quantity of wine may sometimes enable a patient who is at the low tide of vitality to anticipate the turn of the tide, and borrow at four o'clock enough of five o'clock strength to enable him to reach five o'clock. With regard to this daily drinking of wine and whiskey, by ladies and others, for mere debility, it is a delusion. In such cases wine is, in the most literal sense of the word, a mocker. It seems to nourish, but does not; it seems to warm, but does not; it seems to strengthen, but does not. It is an arrant cheat, and perpetuates the evils it is supposed to alleviate.

Wine, beer, and spirits, strictly used as medicine—what about them? Doctors have different opinions on this, and known facts lead to various conclusions. Notable physicians in England believe that Prince Albert would still be alive if he hadn’t been given any wine during his final illness; however, there were those who previously thought Princess Charlotte could have been saved if she had gotten the port wine she desired at the critical moment of her illness. Biographers of William Pitt, including Lord Macaulay, tell us that at fourteen, this unusually advanced boy was plagued by inherited gout, and doctors recommended a remedy involving the same kind of treatment that had affected his ancestor with the condition. We're told the boy used to drink two bottles of port daily, and after maintaining this regimen for several months, he recovered his health and kept it until, at the age of forty-seven, the news of Ulm and Austerlitz dealt him mortal blows. Professor James Miller from the University of Edinburgh, a committed teetotaler, advocates for wine in serious cases of fever; meanwhile, Dr. R. T. Trall, another teetotaler, claims he has treated hundreds of fever cases using cold water for the last twenty years and "hasn't lost the first one"; although, during the first ten years of his practice, when he used wine and other stimulants, he lost "about the usual proportion of cases." The reality seems to be that, in a few cases of intermittent disease, a small amount of wine might sometimes help a patient at a low point in vitality to improve enough to make it through. As for this daily consumption of wine and whiskey by women and others for simple weakness, it's a misconception. In such cases, wine is literally a mocker. It appears to nourish, but doesn't; it seems to warm, but doesn't; it seems to strengthen, but doesn't. It is a complete fraud and perpetuates the problems it's believed to relieve.

The Coming Man, as before remarked, will not drink wine when he is well. It will be also an article of his religion not to commit any of those sins against his body the consequences of which can be postponed by drinking wine. He will hold his body in veneration. He will feel all the turpitude and shame of violating it. He will not acquire the greatest intellectual good by the smallest bodily loss. He will know that mental acquisitions gained at the expense of physical power or prowess are not culture, but effeminacy. He will honor a rosy and stalwart ignoramus, who is also an honest man, faithfully standing at his post; but he will start back with affright and indignation at the spectacle of a pallid philosopher. The Coming Man, I am firmly persuaded, will not drink wine, nor any other stimulating fluid. If by chance he should be sick, he will place himself in the hands of the Coming Doctor, and take whatever is prescribed. The impression is strong upon my mind, after reading almost all there is in print on the subject, and conversing with many physicians, that the Coming Doctor will give his patients alcoholic mixtures about as often as he will give them laudanum, and in doses of about the same magnitude, reckoned by drops.

The Coming Man, as previously mentioned, won’t drink wine when he’s well. It will also be part of his beliefs not to commit any of those sins against his body that can be avoided by drinking wine. He will treat his body with respect. He’ll feel all the disgrace and shame of violating it. He won’t think he’s gaining the greatest intellectual benefit by sacrificing his physical health. He’ll understand that mental gains achieved at the cost of physical strength or skill are not true culture, but weakness. He will respect a strong, healthy, and honest person who stands faithfully at his post, but he’ll recoil in horror and anger at the sight of a frail philosopher. I truly believe that the Coming Man won’t drink wine or any other stimulating beverage. If he does get sick, he will turn to the Coming Doctor and follow whatever treatment is prescribed. After reading just about everything written on the topic and talking to many doctors, I have a strong impression that the Coming Doctor will prescribe his patients alcoholic mixtures as infrequently as he would prescribe laudanum, and in doses comparable to drops.

We drinkers have been in the habit, for many years, of playing off the wine countries against the teetotalers; but even this argument fails us when we question the men who really know the wine countries. Alcohol appears to be as pernicious to man in Italy, France, and Southern Germany, where little is taken except in the form of wine, as it is in Sweden, Scotland, Russia, England, and the United States, where more fiery and powerful dilutions are usual. Fenimore Cooper wrote: "I came to Europe under the impression that there was more drunkenness among us than in any other country,—England, perhaps, excepted. A residence of six months in Paris changed my views entirely; I have taken unbelievers with me into the streets, and have never failed to convince them of their mistake in the course of an hour…. On one occasion a party of four went out with this object; we passed thirteen drunken men within a walk of an hour,—many of them were so far gone as to be totally unable to walk…. In passing between Paris and London, I have been more struck by drunkenness in the streets of the former than in those of the latter." Horatio Greenough gives similar testimony respecting Italy: "Many of the more thinking and prudent Italians abstain from the use of wine; several of the most eminent of the medical men are notoriously opposed to its use, and declare it a poison. One fifth, and sometimes one fourth, of the earnings of the laborers are expended in wine."

We drinkers have long been in the habit of pitting the wine regions against the non-drinkers; however, this argument falls flat when we talk to people who truly understand the wine regions. Alcohol seems to be just as harmful to people in Italy, France, and Southern Germany, where wine is mostly consumed, as it is in Sweden, Scotland, Russia, England, and the United States, where stronger drinks are more common. Fenimore Cooper wrote: "I came to Europe thinking we had more drunkenness than any other country—except maybe England. After living in Paris for six months, my perspective completely changed; I've taken skeptics into the streets and always managed to show them they were wrong within an hour... One time, a group of four of us went out for this purpose; we saw thirteen drunk men in just an hour of walking—many were so intoxicated they couldn't even walk... When I traveled between Paris and London, I noticed more drunkenness in the streets of Paris than in London." Horatio Greenough shares similar observations about Italy: "Many sensible and careful Italians avoid wine; several leading medical professionals are openly against it and consider it a poison. One-fifth, and sometimes one-fourth, of a laborer's income is spent on wine."

I have been surprised at the quantity, the emphasis, and the uniformity of the testimony on this point. Close observers of the famous beer countries, such as Saxony and Bavaria, where the beer is pure and excellent, speak of this delicious liquid as the chief enemy of the nobler faculties and tastes of human nature. The surplus wealth, the surplus time, the surplus force of those nations, are chiefly expended in fuddling the brain with beer. Now, no reader needs to be informed that the progress of man, of nations, and of men depends upon the use they make of their little surplus. It is not a small matter, but a great and weighty consideration,—the cost of these drinks in mere money. We drinkers must make out a very clear case in order to justify such a country as France in producing a billion and a half of dollars' worth of wine and brandy per annum.

I have been surprised by the amount, the emphasis, and the consistency of the testimonies on this subject. Close observers of the famous beer regions, like Saxony and Bavaria, where the beer is clean and excellent, refer to this tasty beverage as the main enemy of the higher faculties and tastes of human nature. The extra wealth, extra time, and extra energy of those nations are mostly spent on dulling the mind with beer. Now, no reader needs to be told that the advancement of individuals, nations, and humanity relies on how they utilize their limited surplus. It's not a trivial issue, but a significant and serious consideration—the cost of these drinks in actual money. We drinkers need to present a very strong argument to justify a country like France producing a billion and a half dollars' worth of wine and brandy each year.

The teetotalers, then, are right in their leading positions, and yet they stand aghast, wondering at their failure to convince mankind. Mr. E. G. Delavan writes from Paris within these few weeks: "When I was here thirty years since, Louis Philippe told me that wine was the curse of France; that he wished every grapevine was destroyed, except for the production of food; that total abstinence was the only true temperance; but he did not believe there were fifteen persons in Paris who understood it as it was understood by his family and myself; but he hoped from the labors in America, in time, an influence would flow back upon France that would be beneficial. I am here again after the lapse of so many years, and in place of witnessing any abatement of the evil, I think it is on the increase, especially in the use of distilled spirits."

The teetotalers are correct in their prominent positions, yet they are shocked, wondering why they haven't been able to convince people. Mr. E. G. Delavan writes from Paris in recent weeks: "When I was here thirty years ago, Louis Philippe told me that wine was the curse of France; he wished every grapevine was destroyed, except for producing food; that total abstinence was the only true form of temperance; but he didn't think there were fifteen people in Paris who understood it the way his family and I did; still, he hoped that the efforts in America would eventually create a positive influence back in France. Now, after all these years, instead of seeing any reduction in the problem, I believe it has actually increased, especially with the consumption of distilled spirits."

The teetotalers have underrated the difficulty of the task they have undertaken, and misconceived its nature. It is not the great toe that most requires treatment when a man has the gout, although it is the great toe that makes him roar. When we look about us, and consider the present physical life of man, we are obliged to conclude that the whole head is sick and the whole heart is faint. Drinking is but a symptom which reveals the malady. Perhaps, if we were all to stop our guzzling suddenly, without discontinuing our other bad habits, we should rather lose by it than gain. Alcohol supports us in doing wrong! It prevents our immediate destruction. The thing for us to do is, to strike at the causes of drinking, to cease the bad breathing, the bad eating, the bad reading, the bad feeling and bad thinking, which, in a sense, necessitate bad drinking. For some of the teetotal organizations might be substituted Physical Welfare Societies.

The teetotalers have underestimated how hard their task is and misunderstood what it really is. It’s not just the big toe that needs attention when someone has gout, even though it’s the big toe that causes all the yelling. When we look around and think about modern life, we have to admit that the whole body is unwell and the whole heart is weak. Drinking is just a sign of the underlying problem. Maybe if we all suddenly stopped drinking, without giving up our other bad habits, we might actually end up worse off. Alcohol helps us cope with our wrongdoings! It keeps us from immediate disaster. What we need to do is address the root causes of drinking, stop the unhealthy habits like poor breathing, bad eating, harmful reading, negative feelings, and flawed thinking that, in a way, lead to poor drinking. Some of the teetotal organizations could easily be renamed Physical Welfare Societies.

The Human Race is now on trial for its life! One hundred and three years ago last April, James Watt, a poor Scotch mechanic, while taking his walk on Sunday afternoon on Glasgow Green, conceived the idea which has made steam man's submissive and untiring slave. Steam enables the fifteen millions of adults in Great Britain and Ireland to produce more commodities than the whole population of the earth could produce without its assistance. Steam, plus the virgin soil of two new continents, has placed the means of self-destruction within the reach of hundreds of millions of human beings whose ancestors were almost as safe in their ignorance and poverty as the beasts they attended. At the same time, the steam-engine is an infuriate propagator; and myriad creatures of its producing—creatures of eager desires, thin brains, excessive vanity, and small self-control—seem formed to bend the neck to the destructive tyranny of fashion, and yield helplessly to the more destructive tyranny of habit. The steam-engine gives them a great variety of the means of self-extirpation,—air-tight houses, labor-saving machines, luxurious food, stimulating drinks, highly wrought novels, and many others. Let all women for the next century but wear such restraining clothes as are now usual, and it is doubtful if the race could ever recover from the effects; it is doubtful if there could ever again be a full-orbed, bouncing baby. Wherever we look, we see the human race dwindling. The English aristocracy used to be thought an exception, but Miss Nightingale says not. She tells us that the great houses of England, like the small houses of America, contain great-grandmothers possessing constitutions without a flaw, grandmothers but slightly impaired, mothers who are often ailing and never strong, daughters who are miserable and hopeless invalids. And the steam-engine has placed efficient means of self-destruction within reach of the kitchen, the stable, the farm, and the shop; and those means of self-destruction are all but universally used.

The human race is currently on trial for its existence! One hundred and three years ago last April, James Watt, a struggling Scottish mechanic, had an idea while strolling on Glasgow Green that turned steam into humanity's tireless and obedient worker. Steam allows the fifteen million adults in Great Britain and Ireland to create more goods than the entire world's population could manage without it. Steam, combined with the untouched land of two new continents, has given hundreds of millions of people, whose ancestors lived in ignorant poverty and were as secure as the animals they cared for, access to the means of self-destruction. At the same time, the steam engine breeds a furious spread of excess; countless beings, driven by strong desires, shallow thinking, overinflated egos, and limited self-control, seem destined to bow to the destructive force of trends and helplessly submit to the even more damaging pull of habits. The steam engine provides them with numerous ways to self-destruct—air-tight homes, labor-saving devices, lavish food, stimulating drinks, intricate novels, and more. If all women dress in the confining styles that are common today for the next century, it’s questionable whether humanity could ever recover; it’s uncertain if there could be another healthy, vibrant baby. Wherever we turn, we see the human race diminishing. The English aristocracy was once thought to be an exception, but Miss Nightingale disagrees. She tells us that the grand houses of England, much like the smaller ones in America, are filled with great-grandmothers whose health is pristine, grandmothers who are slightly worse for wear, mothers who are often unwell and rarely strong, and daughters who are unhappy and hopeless invalids. Furthermore, the steam engine has made effective means of self-destruction available in kitchens, stables, farms, and shops, and these methods of self-destruction are nearly universally employed.

Perhaps man has nearly run his course in this world, and is about to disappear, like the mammoth, and give place to some nobler kind of creature who will manage the estate better than the present occupant. Certainly we cannot boast of having done very well with it, nor could we complain if we should receive notice to leave. Perhaps James Watt came into the world to extinguish his species. If so, it is well. Let us go on eating, drinking, smoking, over-working, idling, men killing themselves to buy clothes for their wives, wives killing themselves by wearing them, children petted and candied into imbecility and diphtheria. In that case, of course, there will be no Coming Man, and we need not take the trouble to inquire what he will do.

Maybe humanity has almost reached its end in this world and is about to vanish, like the mammoth, making way for a more advanced species that will take better care of the planet than we do. We definitely can’t claim to have managed it well, nor could we complain if we got an eviction notice. Perhaps James Watt was born to put an end to humanity. If that’s the case, so be it. Let’s just keep eating, drinking, smoking, overworking, being lazy, with men exhausting themselves to buy clothes for their wives, and wives exhausting themselves by wearing them, while children are spoiled and turned into fools and suffer from diphtheria. If that’s true, then there won’t be a Future Man, and we don’t need to worry about what he might do.

But probably the instinct of self-preservation will assert itself in time, and an antidote to the steam-engine will be found before it has impaired the whole race beyond recovery. To have discovered the truth with regard to the effects of alcohol upon the system was of itself no slight triumph of the self-preserving principle. It is probable that the truly helpful men of the next hundred years will occupy themselves very much with the physical welfare of the race, without which no other welfare is possible.

But the instinct for self-preservation will likely kick in eventually, and a solution to the steam engine will be found before it causes irreversible damage to humanity. Discovering the truth about how alcohol affects the body was a significant victory for the principle of self-preservation. It’s likely that the genuinely helpful individuals in the next hundred years will focus a lot on the physical well-being of humanity, as no other kind of well-being is possible without it.

INEBRIATE ASYLUMS, AND A VISIT TO ONE.

INEBRIATE ASYLUMS, AND A VISIT TO ONE.

There are two kinds of drunkards,—the Regular and the Occasional. Of each of these two classes there are several varieties, and, indeed, there are no two cases precisely alike; but every drunkard in the world is either a person who has lost the power to refrain from drinking a certain large quantity of alcoholic liquor every day, or he is one who has lost the power to refrain from drinking an uncertain enormous quantity now and then.

There are two types of drunkards: the Regular and the Occasional. Each of these types has several variations, and, in fact, no two cases are exactly the same; but every drunkard in the world is either someone who can’t stop themselves from drinking a certain large amount of alcohol every day or someone who can’t control their urge to drink an unpredictable massive amount from time to time.

Few get drunk habitually who can refrain. If they could refrain, they would; for to no creatures is drunkenness so loathsome and temperance so engaging as to seven tenths of the drunkards. There are a few very coarse men, of heavy, stolid, animal organization, who almost seem formed by nature to absorb alcohol, and in whom there is not enough of manhood to be ashamed of its degradation. These Dr. Albert Day, the superintendent of the New York State Inebriate Asylum, sometimes calls Natural Drunkards. They like strong drink for its own sake; they have a kind of sulky enjoyment of its muddling effect upon such brains as they happen to have; and when once the habit is fixed, nothing can deliver them except stone walls and iron bars. There are also a few drunkards of very light calibre, trifling persons, incapable of serious reflection or of a serious purpose, their very terrors being trivial and transitory, who do not care for the ruin in which they are involved. Generally speaking, however, drunkards hate the servitude into which they have had the misfortune to fall; they long to escape from it, have often tried to escape, and if they have given up, it is only after having so many times slidden back into the abyss, that they feel it would be of no use to climb again. As Mrs. H. B. Stowe remarks, with that excellent charity of hers, which is but another name for refined justice, "Many a drunkard has expended more virtue in vain endeavors to break his chain than suffices to carry an ordinary Christian to heaven."

Few people get drunk regularly if they can hold back. If they could, they would; because for most drinkers, drunkenness is just as repulsive as sobriety is appealing. There are some very coarse individuals with heavy, dull bodies who seem almost built to drink, and they lack the integrity to feel ashamed of their decline. Dr. Albert Day, the superintendent of the New York State Inebriate Asylum, sometimes refers to them as Natural Drunkards. They enjoy strong alcohol just for the sake of it; they take a grim pleasure in the confusion it brings to their minds, and once the habit takes hold, only prison walls can save them. There are also some lightweights, superficial people who can't think seriously or aim for anything substantial, and their fears are trivial and fleeting, so they don't care about the destruction they're causing to themselves. Generally, though, alcoholics despise the bondage they've fallen into; they want to break free, have often tried to do so, and if they've stopped trying, it's because they've fallen into the depths so many times that they feel it's pointless to try again. As Mrs. H. B. Stowe wisely points out, "Many a drunkard has spent more virtue in futile attempts to break his chains than it takes for an ordinary Christian to get to heaven."

The daily life of one of the steady drunkards is like this: upon getting up in the morning, after a heavy, restless, drunkard's sleep, he is miserable beyond expression, and almost helpless. In very bad cases, he will see double, and his hands will tremble so that he cannot lift to his lips the glass for which he has a desire amounting to mania. Two or three stiff glasses of spirituous liquor will restore him so far that he can control his muscles, and get about without betraying his condition. After being up an hour, and drinking every ten or fifteen minutes, he will usually be able to eat a pretty good breakfast, which, with the aid of coffee, tobacco, and a comparatively small quantity of liquor, he will be able to digest. After breakfast, for some hours he will generally be able to transact routine business, and associate with his fellows without exciting their pity or contempt. As dinner-time draws near he feels the necessity of creating an appetite; which he often accomplishes by drinking some of those infernal compounds which are advertised on the eternal rocks and mountain-sides as Bitters,—a mixture of bad drugs with worse spirits. These bitters do lash the torpid powers into a momentary, morbid, fierce activity, which enables the victim to eat even a superabundant dinner. The false excitement subsides, but the dinner remains, and it has to be digested. This calls for an occasional drink for three or four hours, after which the system is exhausted, and the man feels dull and languid. He is exhausted, but he is not tranquil; he craves a continuation of the stimulant with a craving which human nature, so abused and perverted, never resists. By this time it is evening, when all the apparatus of temptation is in the fullest activity, and all the loose population of the town is abroad. He now begins his evening debauch, and keeps up a steady drinking until he can drink no more, when he stumbles home to sleep off the stupefying fumes, and awake to the horror and decrepitude of a drunkard's morning.

The daily routine of a chronic drunkard goes like this: when he gets up in the morning, after a rough, restless sleep filled with booze, he feels incredibly miserable and almost helpless. In severe cases, he sees everything double, and his hands shake so much that he can’t lift the glass he desperately craves. A couple of stiff drinks will help him regain enough control to move around without revealing his state. After being up for an hour and drinking every ten to fifteen minutes, he can usually manage a decent breakfast, which, with some coffee, tobacco, and a relatively small amount of alcohol, he can digest. After breakfast, he can generally handle routine tasks and socialize without drawing pity or contempt from others. As dinner approaches, he feels the need to create an appetite; he often does this by downing some of those awful mixtures advertised on the rocks and hills as Bitters—bad drugs mixed with even worse alcohol. These bitters stir his sluggish body into a brief, unhealthy burst of energy, allowing him to eat a hearty dinner. The temporary high fades, but the meal remains, and it now needs to be digested. This calls for another drink every three to four hours, leaving him drained and feeling dull and sluggish. He’s worn out, but not at peace; he craves more alcohol in a way that tired, twisted human nature can never resist. By this time, it’s evening, and all the tempting distractions are in full swing, with all the town’s wayward souls out and about. He kicks off his night of drinking, continuing until he can’t drink anymore, then stumbles home to sleep off the intoxicating haze and wake up to the horror and misery of a drunkard’s morning.

The quantity of spirituous liquor required to keep one of these unhappy men in this degrading slavery varies from a pint a day to two quarts. Many drunkards consume a quart of whiskey every day for years. The regular allowance of one gentleman of the highest position, both social and official, who made his way to the Inebriate Asylum, had been two quarts of brandy a day for about five years. The most remarkable known case is that of a hoary-headed man of education and fortune, residing in the city of New York, who confesses to taking "fifty drinks a day" of whiskey,—ten drinks to a bottle, and five bottles to a gallon. One gallon of liquor, he says, goes down his old throat every day of the year. Before he is fit to eat his breakfast in the morning he has to drink twelve glasses of whiskey, or one bottle and one fifth. Nevertheless, even this poor man is able, for some hours of the morning, to transact what people of property and leisure call business, and, during a part of the evening, to converse in such a way as to amuse persons who can look on and see a human being in such bondage without stopping to think what a tragedy it is. This Old Boy never has to be carried home, I believe. He is one of those most hopeless drunkards who never get drunk, never wallow in the gutter, never do anything to scare or startle them into an attempt to reform. He is like a certain German "puddler" who was pointed out to me in a Pittsburg iron-works, who consumes exactly seven dollars' worth of lager-bier every seven days,—twenty glasses a day, at five cents each. He is also like the men employed in the dismal work of the brewery, who are allowed as much beer as they can drink, and who generally do drink as much as they can. Such persons are always fuddled and stupid, but seldom drunk enough to alarm their neighbors or themselves. Perhaps they are the only persons in all the world who are in any degree justified in passing their lives in a state of suspended intelligence; those of them at least whose duty it is to get inside of enormous beer barrels, and there, in darkness and solitude, in an atmosphere reeking and heavy with stale ale, scrape and mop them out before they are refilled. When you see their dirty, pale faces at the "man-hole" of the barrel, down in the rumbling bowels of the earth, in one of those vast caves of beer in Cincinnati, you catch yourself saying, "Drink, poor devils, drink! Soak what brains you have in beer!" What can a man want with brains in a beer-barrel? But then, you think again, even these poor men need their brains when they get home; and we need that they should have brains on the first Tuesday in November.

The amount of alcohol needed to keep one of these unfortunate men trapped in this degrading situation ranges from a pint a day to two quarts. Many heavy drinkers consume a quart of whiskey daily for years. The daily allowance of one high-status gentleman, socially and officially, who ended up in the Inebriate Asylum, was two quarts of brandy for about five years. The most notable case is that of an elderly, educated, wealthy man living in New York City, who admits to taking "fifty drinks a day" of whiskey—ten drinks per bottle, and five bottles per gallon. He claims that one gallon of liquor goes down his throat every day of the year. Before he can have breakfast in the morning, he needs to drink twelve glasses of whiskey, or one bottle and one-fifth. Yet, even this poor guy can manage to conduct what people with money and free time call business for a few hours in the morning and, during part of the evening, hold conversations that entertain observers who can watch a human being in such bondage without contemplating the tragedy it represents. This old guy never has to be carried home, I believe. He is one of those most hopeless alcoholics who never get drunk, never wallow in the gutter, and never do anything to scare or startle them into trying to reform. He’s like a certain German worker I was shown in a Pittsburgh ironworks, who exactly consumes seven dollars' worth of lager beer every week—twenty glasses a day at five cents each. He’s also like the men working in the grim brewery jobs, who can drink as much beer as they want, and generally do drink as much as they can. These people are always a bit dazed and sluggish, but rarely drunk enough to alarm themselves or their neighbors. Maybe they are the only ones in the world who are even somewhat justified in spending their lives in a state of suspended smarts; at least those whose job it is to crawl inside huge beer barrels and, in darkness and isolation, in a stifling atmosphere of stale ale, clean them out before they’re refilled. When you see their dirty, pale faces at the "man-hole" of the barrel, deep down in the rumbling earth, in one of those massive beer caves in Cincinnati, you might find yourself saying, "Drink, poor souls, drink! Soak your brains in beer!" What does a man need with brains in a beer barrel? But then you think again, even these poor men need their brains when they get home; and we need them to have brains on the first Tuesday in November.

It is that going home which makes drunkenness so dire a tragedy. If the drunkard could only shut himself up with a whiskey-barrel, or a pipe of Madeira, and quietly guzzle himself to death, it would be a pity, but it could be borne. He never does this; he goes home to make that home perdition to some good souls that love him, or depend upon him, and cannot give him up. There are men at the Asylum near Binghamton, who have admirable wives, beautiful and accomplished daughters, venerable parents, whose portraits are there in the patient's trunks, and who write daily letters to cheer the absent one, whose absence now, for the firsts time in years, does not terrify them. They are the victims of drunkenness,—they who never taste strong drink. For their deliverance, this Asylum stands upon its hill justified in existing. The men themselves are interesting, valuable, precious, worth every rational effort that can be made to save them; but it is those whom they left at home anxious and desolate that have the first claim upon our consideration.

It’s that going home that makes drunkenness such a tragic issue. If the drunk could just lock himself away with a whiskey barrel or a bottle of Madeira and quietly drink himself to death, it would be sad, but we could handle it. But he never does that; he goes home and turns that home into a living hell for the good people who love him or depend on him and can’t let him go. There are men at the Asylum near Binghamton who have wonderful wives, beautiful and talented daughters, and respected parents, whose pictures are in the patient's trunks, and who write daily letters to uplift the absent one. Their absence now, for the first time in years, doesn’t scare them. They are the real victims of alcoholism — those who never touch strong drink. For their freedom, this Asylum exists on its hill, justified in its purpose. The men themselves are interesting, valuable, and precious, worth every reasonable effort to save them; but it’s those they left at home, anxious and heartbroken, who deserve our first consideration.

With regard to these steady, regular drunkards, the point to be noted is this: very few of them can stop drinking while they continue to perform their daily labor; they absolutely depend upon the alcohol to rouse their torpid energies to activity. Their jaded constitutions will not budge without the spur. Everything within them gapes and hungers for the accustomed stimulant. This is the case, even in a literal sense; for it seems, from Dr. Day's dissections, that the general effect of excessive drinking is to enlarge the globules of which the brain, the blood, the liver, and other organs are composed, so that those globules, as it were, stand open-mouthed, empty, athirst, inflamed, and most eager to be filled. A man whose every organ is thus diseased cannot usually take the first step toward cure without ceasing for a while to make any other demands upon himself. This is the great fact of his condition. If he is a true drunkard, i.e. if he has lost the power to do his work without excessive alcoholic stimulation, then there is no cure possible for him without rest. Here we have the simple explanation of Mrs. Stowe's fine remark just quoted. This is why so many thousand wives spend their days in torment between hope and despair,—hope kindled by the husband's efforts to regain possession of himself, and despair caused by his repeated, his inevitable relapses. The unfortunate man tries to do two things at once, the easiest of which is as much as he can accomplish; while the hardest is a task which, even with the advantage of perfect rest, few can perform without assistance.

Regarding these consistent, everyday drinkers, it's important to note this: very few can stop drinking while still managing their daily responsibilities; they completely rely on alcohol to kickstart their sluggish energies. Their worn-out bodies won't budge without the boost. Everything in them craves the familiar stimulant. This is even true in a literal sense; from Dr. Day's findings, it appears that excessive drinking enlarges the cells in the brain, blood, liver, and other organs, leaving those cells open, empty, thirsty, inflamed, and eager to be filled. A person whose organs are this way typically can't take the first step towards recovery without temporarily stopping all other demands on themselves. This is the harsh reality of their situation. If he is a genuine drunkard, meaning he has lost the ability to do his work without heavy alcohol consumption, then there's no recovery possible without rest. This explains Mrs. Stowe's insightful remark mentioned earlier. This is why so many thousands of wives spend their days in agony between hope and despair—hope sparked by their husbands' attempts to regain control and despair from their recurring, inevitable relapses. The unfortunate man tries to juggle two things at once; the easier task is as much as he can handle, while the harder one is a challenge that, even with complete rest, few can manage without help.

The Occasional Drunkard is a man who is a teetotaler for a week, two weeks, a month, three months, six months, and who, at the end of his period, is tempted to drink one glass of alcoholic liquor. That one glass has upon him two effects; it rouses the slumbering demon of Desire, and it perverts his moral judgment. All at once his honor and good name, the happiness and dignity of his family, his success in business, all that he held dearest a moment before, seem small to him, and he thinks he has been a fool of late to concern himself so much about them. Or else he thinks he can drink without being found out, and without its doing him the harm it did the last time. Whatever may be the particular delusion that seizes him, the effect is the same; he drinks, and drinks, and drinks, keeping it up sometimes for ten days, or even for several weeks, until the long debauch ends in utter exhaustion or in delirium tremens. He is then compelled to submit to treatment; he must needs go to the Inebriate Asylum of his own bed-room. There, whether he raves or droops, he is the most miserable wretch on earth; for, besides the bodily tortures which he surfers, he has to endure the most desolating pang that a decent human being ever knows,—the loss of his self-respect. He abhors himself and is ashamed; he remembers past relapses and despairs; he cannot look his own children in the face; he wishes he had never been born, or had died in the cursed hour, vividly remembered, when this appetite mastered him first. As his health is restored, his hopes revive; he renews his resolution and he resumes his ordinary routine, subdued, distrustful of himself, and on the watch against temptation. Why he again relapses he can hardly tell, but he always does. Sometimes a snarl in business perplexes him, and he drinks for elucidation. Sometimes melancholy oppresses him, and he drinks to drive dull care away. Sometimes good fortune overtakes him, or an enchanting day in June or October attunes his heart to joy, and he is taken captive by the strong delusion that now is the time to drink and be glad. Often it is lovely woman who offers the wine, and offers it in such a way that he thinks he cannot refuse without incivility or confession. From conversation with the inmates of the Inebriate Asylum, I am confident that Mr. Greeley's assertion with regard to the wine given at the Communion is correct. That sip might be enough to awaken the desire. The mere odor of the wine filling the church might be too much for some men.

The Occasional Drunkard is someone who stays sober for a week, two weeks, a month, three months, or even six months, but at the end of that time, he feels tempted to have just one drink. That one drink has two effects on him: it wakes up the sleeping demon of Desire, and it twists his moral judgment. Suddenly, his honor and reputation, his family's happiness and dignity, and his career success—all the things he valued just moments ago—seem insignificant, and he thinks he’s been foolish for caring so much about them. Or, he might believe he can drink without anyone finding out or without it harming him like it did before. Whatever delusion takes hold, the outcome is the same; he drinks, and drinks, and drinks, sometimes for ten days or even weeks, until the binge ends in total exhaustion or delirium tremens. He then has to go through treatment; he must return to the Inebriate Asylum of his own bedroom. There, whether he’s raving or feeling down, he’s the most miserable person alive; besides the physical pain he endures, he faces the most devastating feeling a decent person can experience—the loss of his self-respect. He loathes himself and feels ashamed; he recalls his past relapses and sinks into despair; he can’t look his own children in the eye; he wishes he were never born or had died the moment he first gave in to this craving. As his health improves, his hopes return; he reaffirms his resolution and returns to his normal routine, subdued, distrustful of himself, and on guard against temptation. Why he relapses again is hard for him to explain, but he always does. Sometimes a problem at work confuses him, and he drinks for clarity. Sometimes sadness overwhelms him, and he drinks to escape it. Other times, good luck smiles upon him, or a beautiful day in June or October lifts his spirits, and he gets caught up in the strong illusion that now is the right time to drink and celebrate. Often, it's a lovely woman who offers him the wine in such a way that he feels he can’t refuse without being rude or admitting something. From talking with the people in the Inebriate Asylum, I'm convinced that Mr. Greeley's claim about the wine served at Communion is spot on. That sip might be all it takes to spark the desire. Just the smell of the wine in the church could be too much for some men.

There appears to be a physical cause for this extreme susceptibility. Dr. Day has once had the opportunity to examine the brain of a man who, after having been a drunkard, reformed, and lived for some years a teetotaler. He found, to his surprise, that the globules of the brain had not shrunk to their natural size. They did not exhibit the inflammation of the drunkard's brain, but they were still enlarged, and seemed ready on the instant to absorb the fumes of alcohol, and resume their former condition. He thought he saw in this morbid state of the brain the physical part of the reason why a man who has once been a drunkard can never again, as long as he lives, safely take one drop of any alcoholic liquor. He thought he saw why a glass of wine puts the man back instantly to where he was when he drank all the time. He saw the citadel free from the enemy, swept and clean, but undefended, incapable of defence, and its doors opened wide to the enemy's return; so that there was no safety, except in keeping the foe at a distance, away beyond the outermost wall.

There seems to be a physical reason for this extreme vulnerability. Dr. Day once had the chance to examine the brain of a man who, after having struggled with alcoholism, got sober and lived as a teetotaler for several years. To his surprise, he found that the brain's cells hadn’t shrunk back to their normal size. They didn’t show the inflammation typical of an alcoholic's brain, but they were still enlarged and appeared ready to absorb alcohol fumes at any moment, reverting to their previous state. He believed this unhealthy condition of the brain was part of why a person who has once been an alcoholic can never safely have even one drop of any alcoholic drink for the rest of their life. He understood why a glass of wine could instantly throw the person back to where they were when they drank heavily. He imagined a fortress that was clear of enemies, tidy, yet unprotected—open wide for the enemy's return—meaning there was no safety except in keeping the enemy far away, beyond the outer walls.

There are many varieties of these occasional drunkards, and, as a class, they are perhaps the hardest to cure. Edgar Poe was one of them; half a glass of wine would set him off upon a wild, reckless debauch, that would last for days. All such persons as artists, writers, and actors used to be particularly subject to this malady, before they had any recognized place in the world, or any acknowledged right to exist at all. Men whose labors are intense, but irregular, whose gains are small and uncertain, who would gladly be gentlemen, but are compelled to content themselves with being loafers, are in special danger; and so are men whose toil is extremely monotonous. Printers, especially those who work at night upon newspapers, are, perhaps, of all men the most liable to fall under the dominion of drink. Some of them have persuaded themselves that they rest under a kind of necessity to "go on a tear" now and then, as a relief from such grinding work as theirs. On the contrary, one "tear" creates the temptation to another; for the man goes back to his work weak, depressed, and irritable; the monotony of his labor is aggravated by the incorrectness with which he does it, and the longing to break loose and renew the oblivion of drink strengthens rapidly, until it masters him once more.

There are many types of occasional drunks, and as a group, they’re probably the hardest to fix. Edgar Poe was one of them; just half a glass of wine would send him into a wild, reckless binge that could last for days. Artists, writers, and actors were especially prone to this issue before they found their place in the world or had any recognized right to exist at all. Men who work hard but irregularly, whose pay is small and uncertain, who would happily be gentlemen but have to settle for being drifters, are particularly at risk; so are those whose work is extremely monotonous. Printers, especially those who work nights on newspapers, might be the most likely to fall into the trap of alcohol. Some of them convince themselves that they need to "go on a tear" every now and then as a break from their exhausting jobs. However, one "tear" just leads to another; the person returns to work feeling weak, down, and irritable; the monotony of their work is made worse by how poorly they do it, and the urge to break free and dive back into the oblivion of alcohol quickly grows stronger until it takes over once again.

Of these periodical drunkards it is as true as it is of their regular brethren, that they cannot conquer the habit without being relieved for a while of their daily labor. This malady is so frequent among us, that hardly an individual will cast his eyes over these pages who cannot call to mind at least one person who has struggled with it for many years, and struggled in vain. They attempt too much. Their periodical "sprees," "benders," or "tears" are a connected series, each a cause and an effect, an heir and a progenitor. After each debauch, the man returns to his routine in just the state of health, in just the state of mind, to be irritated, disgusted, and exhausted by that routine; and, at every moment of weakness, there is always present the temptation to seek the deadly respite of alcohol. The moment arrives when the desire becomes too strong for him, and the victim yields to it by a law as sure, as irresistible, as that which makes the apple seek the earth's centre when it is disengaged from the tree.

Of these occasional drinkers, it's just as true as it is for their regular counterparts that they can't break the habit without taking a break from their daily work. This issue is so common among us that hardly anyone reading this won't think of at least one person who's battled it for many years, often without success. They take on too much. Their periodic "benders," "sprees," or "tears" are all part of a connected chain, each one influencing the next, an outcome and a cause. After each binge, the person goes back to their routine in the same state of health and mindset, only to feel irritated, disgusted, and drained by that routine; and at every moment of weakness, the temptation to seek the deadly escape of alcohol is always lurking. Eventually, the craving becomes too strong, and the person succumbs to it by a force as certain and irresistible as the way an apple falls toward the earth when it’s detached from the tree.

It is amazing to see how helpless men can be against such a habit, while they are compelled to continue their daily round of duties. Not ignorant men only, nor bad men, nor weak men, but men of good understanding, of rare gifts, of the loftiest aspirations, of characters the most amiable, engaging, and estimable, and of will sufficient for every purpose but this. They know the ruin that awaits them, or in which they are already involved, better than we other sinners know it; they hate their bondage worse than the most uncharitable of their friends can despise it; they look with unutterable envy upon those who still have dominion over themselves; many, very many of them would give all they have for deliverance; and yet self-deliverance is impossible. There are men among them who have been trying for thirty years to abstain, and still they drink. Some of them have succeeded in lengthening the sober interval, and they will live with strictest correctness for six months or more, and then, taking that first fatal glass, will immediately lose their self-control, and drink furiously for days and nights; drink until they are obliged to use drunken artifice to get the liquid into their mouths,—their hands refusing their office. Whether they take a large quantity of liquor every day, or an immense quantity periodically, makes no great difference, the disease is essentially the same; the difficulties in the way of cure are the same; the remedial measures must be the same. A drunkard, in short, is a person so diseased by alcohol, that he cannot get through his work without keeping his system saturated with it, or without such weariness and irritation as furnish irresistible temptation to a debauch. He is, in other words, a fallen brother, who cannot get upon his feet without help, and who can generally get upon his feet with help.

It’s incredible to see how powerless people can be against such a habit, while they’re forced to keep up with their daily responsibilities. Not just ignorant or bad people, or those who are weak, but also individuals with good judgment, exceptional talents, high aspirations, lovely, engaging, and admirable personalities, and enough will for every purpose except this. They know the destruction that awaits them, or that they’re already facing, better than the rest of us sinners recognize it; they loathe their bondage more than even the harshest of their friends could hate it; they watch with unutterable envy those who still have control over themselves; many, many of them would give everything they have for freedom; and yet, freeing themselves is impossible. There are people among them who have been trying for thirty years to stop, and still, they drink. Some have managed to extend their sober periods and will live with the strictest discipline for six months or more, only to take that first disastrous drink, losing all self-control and drinking intensely for days and nights; drinking until they have to use drunken tricks to get the liquid into their mouths, as their hands won't cooperate. Whether they consume a large amount of alcohol every day, or huge amounts at intervals, it makes little difference; the disease is essentially the same; the challenges to recovery are the same; the treatment must be the same. A drunkard, in short, is someone so affected by alcohol that they can’t manage their responsibilities without keeping their system filled with it, or without such fatigue and frustration that leads to an overwhelming urge to binge. They are, in other words, a fallen brother who can’t get back on their feet without help and who can usually regain their footing with assistance.

Upon this truth Inebriate Asylums are founded; their object being to afford the help needed. There are now four such institutions in the United States: one in Boston, opened in 1857, called the Washingtonian Home; one in Media, near Philadelphia, opened in 1867, called the Sanitarium; one at Chicago, opened in 1868; and one at Binghamton, New York, called the New York Inebriate Asylum. The one last named was founded in 1858, if the laying of the corner-stone with grand ceremonial can be called founding it; and it has been opened some years for the reception of patients; but it had no real existence as an asylum for the cure of inebriates until the year 1867, when the present superintendent, Dr. Albert Day, assumed control.

Based on this truth, Inebriate Asylums were established to provide the necessary support. Currently, there are four such institutions in the United States: one in Boston that opened in 1857, called the Washingtonian Home; one in Media, near Philadelphia, opened in 1867, called the Sanitarium; one in Chicago, which started in 1868; and one in Binghamton, New York, known as the New York Inebriate Asylum. The last one mentioned was founded in 1858, if we consider the ceremonial laying of the corner-stone a founding. It has been open for several years to admit patients, but it didn’t truly operate as an asylum for treating inebriates until 1867, when the current superintendent, Dr. Albert Day, took over.

The history of the institution previous to that time ought to be related fully for the warning of a preoccupied and subscribing public, but space cannot be afforded for it here. The substance of it, as developed in sundry reports of trials and pamphlets of testimony, is this: Fifteen or twenty years ago, an English adventurer living in the city of New York, calling himself a doctor, and professing to treat unnamable diseases, thought he saw in this notion of an Inebriate Asylum (then much spoken of) a chance for feathering his nest. He entered upon the enterprise without delay, and he displayed a good deal of nervous energy in getting the charter, collecting money, and erecting the building. The people of Binghamton, misled by his representations, gave a farm of two hundred and fifty-two acres for the future inmates to cultivate, which was two hundred acres too much; and to this tract farms still more superfluous have been added, until the Asylum estate contains more than five hundred acres. An edifice was begun on the scale of an imperial palace, which will have cost, by the time it is finished and furnished, a million dollars. The restless man pervaded the State raising money, and creating public opinion in favor of the institution. For several years he was regarded as one of the great originating philanthropists of the age; and this the more because he always gave out that he was laboring in the cause from pure love of the inebriate, and received no compensation.

The history of the institution before that time should be fully detailed to inform a distracted and subscribing public, but there isn’t enough space for it here. The essence of it, as outlined in various trial reports and testimonial pamphlets, is this: Fifteen to twenty years ago, an English adventurer living in New York City, who called himself a doctor and claimed to treat unnamed diseases, saw the idea of an Inebriate Asylum (which was being widely discussed) as a way to make a profit. He jumped into the project quickly, showing a lot of determination in getting the charter, raising funds, and constructing the building. The people of Binghamton, misled by his claims, donated a 252-acre farm for future residents to work, which was 200 acres too much; more unnecessary land has since been added, bringing the Asylum’s total estate to over 500 acres. A building was started on a scale fit for a palace, which will cost around a million dollars by the time it’s completed and furnished. This restless man traveled across the state raising money and generating public support for the institution. For several years, he was seen as one of the major philanthropic innovators of his time, especially since he always claimed he was working on behalf of the inebriate purely out of love and not for any pay.

But the time came when his real object and true character were revealed. In 1864 he carried his disinterestedness so far as to offer to give to the institution, as part of its permanent fund, the entire amount to which he said he was entitled for services rendered and expenses incurred. This amount was two hundred and thirty-two thousand dollars, which would certainly have been a handsome gift. When he was asked for the items of his account, he said he had charged for eighteen years' services in founding the institution, at thirty-five hundred dollars a year, and the rest was travelling-expenses, clerk hire, and salaries paid to agents. The trustees were puzzled to know how a man who, at the beginning of the enterprise, had no visible property, could have expended so much out of his private resources, while exercising an unremunerated employment. Leaving that conundrum unsolved, they were able at length to conjecture the object of the donation. One of the articles of the charter provided that any person giving ten dollars to the institution should be a stockholder, and entitled to a vote at the election of trustees. Every gift of ten dollars was a vote! If, therefore, this astounding claim had been allowed, and the gift accepted, the audacious villain would have been constituted owner of four fifths of the governing stock, and the absolute controller of the entire property of the institution! It was a bold game, and the strangest part of the story is, that it came near succeeding. It required the most arduous exertions of a public-spirited board of trustees, headed by Dr. Willard Parker, to oust the man who, even after the discovery of his scheme, played his few last cards so well that he had to be bought off by a considerable sum cash down. An incident of the disastrous reign of this individual was the burning of one of the wings of the building, after he had had it well insured. The insurance was paid him ($81,000); and there was a trial for arson,—a crime which is easy to commit, and hard to prove. Binghamton convicted the prisoner, but the jury was obliged to acquit him.[3]

But the time came when his true intentions and character were revealed. In 1864, he took his selflessness so far as to offer to donate to the institution, as part of its permanent fund, the full amount he claimed he was owed for services provided and expenses incurred. This amount was two hundred and thirty-two thousand dollars, which would definitely have been a generous gift. When he was asked for the details of his account, he stated he had billed for eighteen years of work in founding the institution at thirty-five hundred dollars a year, and the rest was for travel expenses, clerk pay, and salaries given to agents. The trustees were confused about how a man who, at the start of the project, had no visible assets could have spent so much of his own money while working without pay. Leaving that mystery unsolved, they eventually guessed his motivation for the donation. One of the charter's provisions stated that anyone donating ten dollars to the institution would become a stockholder and entitled to vote in the election of trustees. Every ten-dollar donation was a vote! If this outrageous claim had been allowed and the donation accepted, the brazen scammer would have ended up owning four-fifths of the governing stock and completely controlling the institution's assets! It was a risky play, and the strangest part is that it almost worked. It took the dedicated efforts of a civic-minded board of trustees, led by Dr. Willard Parker, to remove the man who, even after his scheme was uncovered, played his last few cards so skillfully that he had to be paid off with a substantial sum. An incident during this person's disastrous time in charge was the burning of one of the building's wings, after he had insured it well. The insurance paid him ($81,000); there was a trial for arson—a crime that’s easy to commit but hard to prove. Binghamton convicted the defendant, but the jury had no choice but to acquit him.[3]

Such things may be done in a community where almost every one is benevolent enough to give money towards an object that promises to mitigate human woe, but where scarcely any one has leisure to watch the expenditure of that sacred treasure!

Such things can happen in a community where almost everyone is generous enough to donate money for a cause that promises to relieve human suffering, but where hardly anyone has the time to oversee the spending of that precious resource!

The institution, after it was open, remained for two years under the blight of this person's control. Everything he did was wrong. Ignorant, obstinate, passionate, fussy, and false,—plausible and obsequious at Albany, a violent despot at the Asylum,—he was, of all the people in the world, the precisely worst man to conduct an experiment so novel and so abounding in difficulties. If he had a theory, it was that an inebriate is something between a criminal and a lunatic, who is to be punished like the one and restrained like the other. His real object seemed to be, after having received payment for a patient six months in advance, to starve and madden him into a sudden departure. The very name chosen by him for the institution proves his hopeless incompetency. "Inebriate Asylum!" That name to-day is, perhaps, the greatest single obstacle to its growth. He began by affixing a stigma to the unfortunate men who had honored themselves by making so gallant an effort at self-recovery. But let the man and his doings pass into oblivion. There never yet was a bad man who was not, upon the whole, a very stupid ass. All the genuine intelligence in the world resides in virtuous minds. When, therefore, I have said that this individual was an unprincipled adventurer, I have also said that he was signally incapable of conducting an institution like this.

The institution, once it opened, was under this person's control for two years. Everything he did was wrong. Ignorant, stubborn, passionate, fussy, and deceitful—he was charming and sycophantic in Albany, but a tyrant at the Asylum. He was, without a doubt, the worst person to run such a new and challenging experiment. If he had a theory, it was that an alcoholic is somewhere between a criminal and a lunatic, who should be punished like the former and controlled like the latter. His real aim seemed to be, after charging for a patient's care six months in advance, to drive them to leave abruptly through starvation and torment. The very name he chose for the institution shows his complete incompetence. "Inebriate Asylum!" That name today is likely the biggest barrier to its growth. He started by branding the unfortunate men who had bravely attempted to recover themselves. But let him and his actions fade into oblivion. There has never been a bad man who wasn’t, overall, a complete fool. All the true intelligence in the world resides in good people. Thus, when I say this individual was an unscrupulous fraud, I also mean he was utterly incapable of running an institution like this.

While we, in the State of New York, were blundering on in this way, permitting a million dollars of public and private money to be lavished in the attempt to found an asylum, a few quiet people in Boston, aided by a small annual grant from the Legislature, had actually established one, and kept it going for nine years, during which three thousand inebriates had been received, and two thousand of them cured! The thing was accomplished in the simplest way. They hired the best house for the purpose that chanced to be vacant, fitted it up at the least possible expense, installed in it as superintendent an honest man whose heart was in the business, and opened its doors for the reception of patients. By and by, when they had results to show, they asked the Legislature for a little help, which was granted, and has been renewed from year to year ever since. The sum voted has never exceeded five thousand dollars in any year, and there are three men in Boston at this moment reclaimed from drunkenness by the Washingtonian Home who pay taxes enough to support it.

While we in New York were fumbling around, wasting a million dollars of public and private money trying to establish an asylum, a few determined folks in Boston, with a small annual grant from the Legislature, actually set one up and kept it running for nine years. During that time, they took in three thousand people struggling with alcoholism, and two thousand of them were cured! They achieved this in the simplest way possible. They rented the best available house for the purpose, furnished it at the lowest possible cost, appointed a dedicated and honest man as the superintendent, and opened its doors to patients. Eventually, when they showed results, they asked the Legislature for a bit of support, which was granted and has been renewed every year since. The amount granted has never exceeded five thousand dollars in any year, and there are currently three men in Boston who overcame their drinking problems thanks to the Washingtonian Home, and they pay enough taxes to support it.

In an enterprise for the management of which no precedents exist, everything of course depends upon the chief. When you have got the right man at the head, you have got everything; and until you have got the right man there, you have got nothing. Albert Day, the superintendent for nine years of the Washingtonian Home at Boston, and during the last year and a half the superintendent of the Asylum at Binghamton, has originated nearly all that is known of the art of curing the mania for alcohol. He struck into the right path at once, guided by instinct and sympathy, rather than by science or reflection. He was not a professional person; he was simply a business man of good New England education, who had two special qualifications for his new position,—first, a singular pity for drunkards; and, secondly, a firm belief that, with timely and right assistance, a majority of them could be restored to self-control. This pity and this faith he had possessed for many years, and they had both grown strong by exercise. When he was a child upon his father's farm in Maine, he saw in his own home and all around him the evils resulting from the general use of alcoholic liquors, so that when the orators of teetotalism came along he was ready to receive their message. He is one of the very few persons now living in the world who never partook of an alcoholic beverage,—so early was he convinced of their preposterous inutility. Losing his father at thirteen, he at once took hold of life in the true Yankee way. He tied up his few worldly effects into a bundle, and, slinging it over his shoulder, walked to a farmer's house not many miles away, and addressed to him a plain question, "Do you want to hire a boy?" to which the farmer with equal directness replied, "Yes." From hoeing corn and chopping wood the lad advanced to an apprenticeship, and learned a mechanical trade; and so made his way to early marriage, decent prosperity, and a seat in the Legislature of Massachusetts. From the age of sixteen he was known, wherever he lived, as a stanch teetotaler, and also as one who would befriend a drunkard after others had abandoned him to his fate.

In a situation where there are no existing guidelines, everything relies on the leader. When you have the right person in charge, you have everything; and until you find that right person, you have nothing. Albert Day, who served for nine years as the superintendent of the Washingtonian Home in Boston and for the past year and a half as the superintendent of the Asylum in Binghamton, has developed almost everything that is known about treating alcohol addiction. He instinctively found the right approach, led by compassion rather than by science or careful thinking. He wasn’t a trained professional; he was simply a businessman with a solid New England education, who had two key qualities for his role—first, a deep empathy for those struggling with alcoholism; and, second, a strong belief that with the right support at the right time, most of them could regain control of their lives. This empathy and faith had been a part of him for many years, growing stronger through experience. As a child on his father’s farm in Maine, he witnessed the problems caused by the widespread use of alcohol, making him receptive when advocates for sobriety reached out. He is one of the few people alive today who has never consumed alcohol—he was convinced early on of its unnecessary nature. After losing his father at thirteen, he faced life the true Yankee way. He packed his few belongings into a bundle, tossed it over his shoulder, and walked to a nearby farm to ask, "Do you want to hire a boy?" The farmer answered simply, "Yes." From doing farm work like hoeing corn and chopping wood, he progressed to an apprenticeship and learned a trade, eventually leading to early marriage, a decent living, and a seat in the Massachusetts Legislature. Since he was sixteen, he was known wherever he lived as a committed teetotaler and as someone who would help a drunkard even when others had abandoned him.

I once heard Dr. Day relate the occurrence which produced in his mind the conviction that drunkards could be rescued from the domination of their morbid appetite. One evening, when he came home from his work, he heard that a certain Jack Watts, the sot of the neighborhood, was starving with his wife and three young children. After tea he went to see him. In treating this first patient, Albert Day hit upon the very method he has ever since pursued, and so I beg the reader will note the manner in which he proceeded. On entering his cottage he was as polite to him, as considerate of his dignity as head of a household, as he could have been to the first man of the village. "Mr. Watts," said he, after the usual salutations, "I hear you are in straitened circumstances." The man, who was then quite sober, replied: "I am; my two youngest children went to bed crying for food, and I had none to give them. I spent my last three cents over there," pointing to a grog-shop opposite, "and the bar-keeper said to me, as he took the money, says he, 'Jack Watts, you're a fool'; and so I am." Here was a chance for a fine moral lecture. Albert Day indulged in nothing of the kind. He said, "Mr. Watts, excuse me for a few minutes"; and he went out, returning soon with a basket containing some flour, pork, and other materials for a supper. "Now, Mrs. Watts, cook something, and wake your children up, and give them something to eat. I'll call again early in the morning. Good night."

I once heard Dr. Day talk about an experience that convinced him that alcoholics could overcome their dependency. One evening, after coming home from work, he learned that a guy named Jack Watts, known as the town drunk, was starving alongside his wife and three young kids. After dinner, he decided to pay him a visit. In treating this first patient, Albert Day discovered the very approach he would continue to use, so I hope the reader pays attention to how he went about it. When he entered the cottage, he treated Jack with the same respect and consideration he would give to the most important person in the village. “Mr. Watts,” he said, after the usual greetings, “I hear you’re having a tough time.” The man, who was sober at that moment, replied, “I am; my two youngest kids went to bed crying for food, and I had none to give them. I spent my last three cents over there,” pointing to a bar across the street, “and the bartender told me, as he took my money, ‘Jack Watts, you’re a fool,’ and I guess I am.” This was a perfect opportunity for a deep moral lesson, but Albert Day didn’t take that route. Instead, he said, “Mr. Watts, can you excuse me for a few minutes?” and went outside, returning shortly with a basket filled with flour, pork, and other things for dinner. “Now, Mrs. Watts, cook something, wake your kids up, and give them something to eat. I’ll come back early in the morning. Good night.”

Perfect civility, no reproaches, no lecture, practical help of the kind needed and at the time needed. Observe, too, that the man was in the condition of mind in which patients usually are when they make the confession implied in entering an asylum. He was at the end of his tether. He was—to use the language of the bar-room—"dead beat."

Perfect politeness, no blame, no lectures, just the practical help that was needed at the right time. Also, notice that the man was in the typical state of mind that patients usually have when they make the confession that comes with entering an asylum. He was at his breaking point. He was—using the language of the bar—"completely worn out."

When Mr. Day called the next morning, the family had had their breakfast, and Jack Watts smiled benedictions on the man whom he had been wont to regard as his enemy, because he was the declared enemy of Jack Watts's enemy. Now the time had come for a little talk. Jack Watts explained his circumstances; he had been out of work for a long time, and he had consumed all his substance in drink. Mr. Day listened with respectful attention, spoke to him of various plans for the future, and said that for that day he could give him a dollar's worth of wood-chopping to do. Then they got upon the liquor question. In the softened, receptive mind of Jack Watts, Albert Day deposited the substance of a rational temperance lecture. He spoke to him kindly, respectfully, hopefully, strongly. Jack Watts's mind was convinced; he said he had done with drink forever. He meant it too; and thus he was brought to the second stage on the road to deliverance. In this particular case, resting from labor was out of the question and unnecessary, for the man had been resting too long already, and must needs go to work. The wood was chopped. The dollar to be paid for the work at the close of the day was a fearful ordeal for poor Jack, living fifteen yards from a bar-room. Mr. Day called round in the evening, paid him the dollar without remark, fell into ordinary conversation with the family, and took leave. John stood the test; not a cent of the money found its way into the till of the bar-keeper. Next morning Mr. Day was there again, and, seeing that the patient was going on well, spoke to him further about the future, and glided again into the main topic, dwelling much upon the absolute necessity of total and eternal abstinence. He got the man a place, visited him, held him up, fortified his mind, and so helped him to complete and lasting recovery. Jack Watts never drank again. He died a year or two ago in Maine at a good age, having brought up his family respectably.

When Mr. Day called the next morning, the family had already had breakfast, and Jack Watts smiled blessings on the man he used to see as his enemy since he was the declared enemy of Jack Watts's enemy. Now it was time for a chat. Jack Watts explained his situation; he had been out of work for a long time and had spent all his money on alcohol. Mr. Day listened attentively, talked to him about various plans for the future, and said he had a job for him that day chopping wood. Then they discussed the issue of alcohol. In Jack Watts's open, attentive mindset, Albert Day shared the essence of a rational temperance talk. He spoke to him kindly, respectfully, hopefully, and with conviction. Jack Watts was convinced; he said he was done with drinking for good. He meant it too, and this took him to the next stage on the path to recovery. In this particular case, taking a break from work was not an option and unnecessary since the man had been resting for too long and needed to get to work. The wood was chopped. Receiving the dollar payment for the day's work was a daunting task for poor Jack, living just fifteen yards from a bar. Mr. Day came by in the evening, paid him the dollar without comment, engaged in casual conversation with the family, and took his leave. John passed the test; not a penny of that money went to the bartender. The next morning, Mr. Day returned, and seeing that Jack was doing well, spoke further about the future and smoothly returned to the main topic, emphasizing the absolute necessity of complete and permanent abstinence. He helped the man find a job, visited him, encouraged him, motivated his mindset, and assisted him towards a full and lasting recovery. Jack Watts never drank again. He passed away a year or two ago in Maine at an old age, having raised his family respectably.

This was an extreme case, for the man had been a drunkard many years; it was a difficult case, for he was poor and ignorant; and it made upon the mind of Albert Day an impression that nothing could efface. He was living in Boston in 1857, exercising his trade, when the Washingtonian Home was opened. He was indeed one of the originators of the movement, and took the post of superintendent because no one else seemed capable of conducting the experiment. Having now to deal with the diseased bodies of men, he joined the medical department of Harvard University, and went through the usual course, making a particular study of the malady he was attempting to cure. After nine years' service he was transferred to the Asylum at Binghamton, where he pursues the system practised with success at Boston.

This was a serious situation, as the man had been an alcoholic for many years; it was a tough case, as he was poor and uneducated; and it left a mark on Albert Day's mind that could never be erased. He was living in Boston in 1857, working in his trade, when the Washingtonian Home was established. He was actually one of the founders of the movement and took on the role of superintendent because no one else seemed fit to lead the initiative. To handle the troubled lives of these men, he joined the medical department at Harvard University and completed the standard program, focusing specifically on the illness he was trying to treat. After nine years of service, he moved to the Asylum in Binghamton, where he continued the successful methods he had used in Boston.

I visited the Binghamton Asylum in June of the present year. The situation combines many advantages. Of the younger cities that have sprung into importance along the line of leading railroads there is not one of more vigorous growth or more inviting appearance than Binghamton. Indications of spirit and civilization meet the eye at every turn. There are long streets of elegant cottages and villas, surrounded by nicely kept gardens and lawns, and containing churches in the construction of which the established barbarisms have been avoided. There is a general tidiness and attention to appearances that we notice in the beautiful towns and villages of New England; such as picturesque Northampton, romantic Brattleboro', and enchanting Stockbridge, peerless among villages. The Chenango River unites here with the Susquehanna; so that the people who have not a river within sight of their front doors are likely to have one flowing peacefully along at the back of their gardens. It is a town, the existence of which in a State governed as New York is governed shows how powerless a government is to corrupt a virtuous and intelligent people, and speaks of the time when governments will be reduced to their natural and proper insignificance. Such communities require little of the central power; and it is a great pity that that little is indispensable, and that Albany cannot be simply wiped out.

I visited the Binghamton Asylum in June of this year. The location has many advantages. Among the younger cities that have become significant along major railroads, none show more growth or are more attractive than Binghamton. Signs of energy and culture are visible everywhere. There are long streets lined with elegant homes and villas, surrounded by well-maintained gardens and lawns, featuring churches built without outdated conventions. There’s a general neatness and focus on appearances that remind us of the beautiful towns and villages of New England, like picturesque Northampton, romantic Brattleboro, and enchanting Stockbridge, which stands out among villages. The Chenango River merges with the Susquehanna here, so residents without a river in front of their homes will likely have one flowing peacefully behind their gardens. This town's existence in a state like New York highlights how powerless a government can be against a virtuous and intelligent people, and suggests a future when governments will return to their natural and proper insignificance. Such communities need little from the central authority; sadly, that little is essential, and it’s a shame that Albany can’t simply be eliminated.

Two miles from Binghamton, on a high hill rising from the bank of the Susquehanna, and commanding an extensive view of the beautiful valleys of both rivers, stands the castellated palace which an adventurer had the impudence to build with money intrusted to him for a better purpose. The Erie Railroad coils itself about the base of this eminence, from the summit of which the white puffs of the locomotive can be descried in one direction nine miles, and in the other fifteen miles. On reaching this summit about nine o'clock on a fine morning in June, I found myself in front of a building of light-colored stone, presenting a front of three hundred and sixty-five feet, in a style of architecture that unites well the useful and the pleasing. Those numerous towers which relieve the monotony of so extensive a front serve an excellent purpose in providing small apartments for various purposes, which, but for them, could not be contrived without wasting space. At present the first view of the building is not inviting, for the burnt wing remains roofless and void,—the insurance money not having been applied to refitting it,—and the main edifice is still unfinished. Not a tree has yet been planted, and the grounds about the building are little more pleasing to the eye than fifty acres of desert. On a level space in front of the edifice a number of young men were playing a game of base-ball, and playing it badly. Their intentions were excellent, but their skill was small. Sitting on the steps and upon the blocks of stone scattered about were fifty or sixty well-dressed, well-looking gentlemen of various ages, watching the game. In general appearance and bearing these persons were so decidedly superior to the average of mortals, that few visitors fail to remark the fact. Living up there in that keen, pure air, and living in a rational manner, amusing themselves with games of ball, rowing, sailing, gardening, bowling, billiards, and gymnastic exercises, they are as brown and robust as David Copperfield was when he came home from the Continent and visited his friend Traddles. Take any hundred men from the educated classes, and give them a few months of such a life as this, and the improvement in their appearance will be striking. Among these on-lookers of the game were a few men with gray hairs, but the majority were under thirty, perhaps thirty-two or thirty-five was about the average age.

Two miles from Binghamton, on a high hill overlooking the Susquehanna River, stands a grand castle-like building that an adventurer had the audacity to construct using funds meant for a better purpose. The Erie Railroad wraps around the base of this hill, and from the top, you can see the white smoke of the train nine miles in one direction and fifteen miles in the other. When I reached the summit around nine o'clock on a beautiful June morning, I found myself in front of a light-colored stone building stretching 365 feet across, designed in a way that combines function and aesthetics nicely. Numerous towers break up the long façade and serve the practical purpose of creating small rooms for various uses that wouldn’t be possible without wasting space. Currently, the building doesn’t have an inviting first impression; the burnt wing is roofless and empty, as the insurance money wasn’t used to repair it, and the main structure is still incomplete. No trees have been planted yet, and the grounds look little better than fifty acres of wasteland. In the flat area in front of the building, a group of young men was playing baseball, though not very well. Their intentions were good, but their skills were lacking. Sitting on the steps and scattered stone blocks were about fifty or sixty well-dressed gentlemen of various ages, watching the game. These men appeared noticeably superior to the average person, a fact that many visitors seem to notice. Living in that fresh, clean air and enjoying a rational lifestyle—playing ball, rowing, sailing, gardening, bowling, playing billiards, and engaging in gymnastic exercises—they looked as sturdy and tanned as David Copperfield did when he returned from the continent to visit his friend Traddles. Take any hundred men from the educated classes, and let them spend a few months living like this, and the improvement in their appearance would be remarkable. Among the spectators were a few older men with gray hair, but most were under thirty, with the average age probably around thirty-two or thirty-five.

When I looked upon this most unexpected scene, it did not for a moment occur to me that these serene and healthy-looking men could be the inmates of the Asylum. The insensate name of the institution prepares the visitor to see the patients lying about in various stages of intoxication. The question has sometimes been asked of the superintendent by visitors looking about them and peering into remote corners, "But, Doctor, where do you keep your drunkards?" The astonishment of such inquirers is great indeed when they are informed that the polite and well-dressed gentlemen standing about, and in whose hearing the question was uttered, are the inmates of the institution; every individual of whom was till very recently, not merely a drunkard, but a drunkard of the most advanced character, for whose deliverance from that miserable bondage almost every one had ceased to hope. A large majority of the present inmates are persons of education and respectable position, who pay for their residence here at rates varying from ten to twenty dollars a week, and who are co-operating ardently with the superintendent for their recovery. More than half of them were officers of the army or navy during the late war, and lost control of themselves then. One in ten must be by law a free patient; and whenever an inebriate really desires to break his chain, he is met half-way by the trustees, and his board is fixed at a rate that accords with his circumstances. A few patients have been taken as low as five dollars a week. When once the building has been completed, the grounds laid out, and the farms disposed of, the trustees hope never to turn from the door of the institution any proper applicant who desires to avail himself of its assistance. The present number of patients is something less than one hundred, which is about fifty less than can be accommodated. When the burnt wing is restored, there will be room for four hundred.

When I saw this totally unexpected scene, it didn’t even cross my mind that these calm and healthy-looking men could be the residents of the Asylum. The cold name of the institution sets up visitors to expect to see patients sprawled out in various states of drunkenness. Visitors often ask the superintendent, while looking around and peeking into corners, "But, Doctor, where do you keep your drunks?" The shock from these inquirers is huge when they learn that the polite and well-dressed gentlemen nearby, in whose presence the question was asked, are actually the residents of the institution; each one of them was, until very recently, not just a drunkard, but a severe one, for whom almost everyone had lost hope of recovery. Most of the current residents are educated individuals of respectable standing, paying between ten to twenty dollars a week for their stay, and they are actively working with the superintendent towards their recovery. More than half of them served as officers in the army or navy during the recent war and lost control during that time. By law, one in ten must be a free patient; and whenever someone struggling with alcohol genuinely wants to break free, the trustees meet them halfway, adjusting their costs to fit their situation. A few patients are charged as low as five dollars a week. Once the building is complete, the grounds are developed, and the farms are taken care of, the trustees hope to never deny a suitable applicant who seeks the institution's help. The current number of patients is just under one hundred, which is about fifty fewer than the capacity. When the damaged wing is restored, there will be space for four hundred.

Upon entering the building, we find ourselves in a spacious, handsome, well-arranged, and well-furnished hotel. The musical click of billiard-balls, and the distant thunder of the bowling-alley, salute the ear; one of the inmates may be performing brilliantly on the piano, or trying over a new piece for next Sunday on the cabinet organ in the temporary chapel. The billiard-room, we soon discover, contains three tables. There is a reading-room always open, in which the principal periodicals of both continents, and plenty of newspapers, are accessible to all the patients. A small library, which ought to be a larger one, is open at a certain hour every day. A conservatory is near completion, and there is a garden of ten acres near by in which a number of the inmates may usually be seen at work. A croquet-ground is not wanting, and the apparatus of cricket is visible in one of the halls. The chapel is still far from being finished, but enough is done to show that it will be elegant and inviting soon after the next instalment of excise-money comes in. The dining-room is lofty and large, as indeed are all the public rooms. The private rooms are equal, both in size and furniture, to those of good city hotels. The arrangements for warming, lighting, washing, bathing, cooking, are such as we should expect to find in so stately an edifice. We have not yet reached the point when housework will do itself; but in great establishments like this, where one man, working ten minutes an hour, warms two or three hundred rooms, menial labor is hopefully reduced. In walking about the wide halls and airy public apartments, the visitor sees nothing to destroy the impression that the building is a very liberally arranged summer hotel. To complete the illusion, he will perhaps see toddling about a lovely child with its beautiful mother, and in the large parlor some ladies visiting inmates or officers of the institution. The table also is good and well served. A stranger, not knowing the nature of the institution, might, however, be puzzled to decide whether it is a hotel or a college. No one, it is true, ever saw a college so handsomely arranged and provided; but the tone of the thing is college-like, especially when you get about among the rooms of the inmates, and see them cramming for next Monday's debate, or writing a lecture for the Asylum course.

Upon entering the building, we find ourselves in a spacious, attractive, well-organized, and well-furnished hotel. The rhythmic click of billiard balls and the faint rumble of the bowling alley greet our ears; one of the residents might be playing beautifully on the piano or practicing a new piece for next Sunday on the cabinet organ in the temporary chapel. We soon discover that the billiard room has three tables. There’s a reading room that's always open, where guests can access major magazines from both continents and plenty of newspapers. A small library, which really should be larger, is open at designated hours every day. A conservatory is almost finished, and there's a ten-acre garden nearby where several residents can often be seen working. There’s also a croquet ground, and cricket equipment can be spotted in one of the halls. The chapel isn’t finished yet, but enough work is done to suggest it will be elegant and inviting once the next installment of funding comes in. The dining room is spacious and lofty, just like all the public areas. The private rooms are on par, both in size and furnishings, with those of decent city hotels. The amenities for heating, lighting, washing, bathing, and cooking are what we would expect in such a grand establishment. We haven’t reached the point where housework does itself yet, but in large places like this, where one person working ten minutes an hour can heat two or three hundred rooms, the need for manual labor is hopefully minimized. As one strolls through the wide halls and airy public spaces, the visitor sees nothing to break the illusion that the building is a very well-appointed summer hotel. To complete the scene, they might see a lovely child strolling with its beautiful mother, and in the large parlor, some ladies visiting residents or staff of the institution. The meals are also good and well-served. A newcomer, not knowing what the place is, might be confused about whether it’s a hotel or a college. True, no one has ever seen a college as nicely arranged and equipped, but the atmosphere feels academic, especially when you wander among the residents’ rooms and see them preparing for next Monday's debate or writing a lecture for the Asylum course.

This institution is in fact, as in appearance, a rationally conducted hotel or Temporary Home and resting-place for men diseased by the excessive use of alcoholic drinks. It is a place where they can pause and reflect, and gather strength and knowledge for the final victorious struggle with themselves. Temptation is not so remote that their resolution is not in continual exercise, nor so near that it is tasked beyond its strength. There lies Binghamton in its valley below them in plain sight, among its rivers and its trees, with its thousand pretty homes and its dozen nasty bar-rooms. They can go down there and drink, if they can get any one to risk the fifty dollars' fine imposed by the law of the State upon any one who sells liquor to an inmate of the Asylum. Generally there is some poor mercenary wretch who will do it. Until it has been proved that the sight of Binghamton is too much for a patient, the only restraint upon his liberty is, that he must not enter the town without the consent of the superintendent. This consent is not regarded in the light of a permission, but in that of a physician's opinion. The patient is supposed to mean: "Dr. Day, would you, as my medical adviser, recommend me to go to Binghamton this morning to be measured for a pair of shoes? Do you think it would be salutary? Am I far enough advanced in convalescence to trust myself to breathe the air of the valley for an hour?" The doctor gives his opinion on the point, and it is etiquette to accept that opinion without remark. Not one patient has yet visited the town, with the consent of the superintendent, who has proved unequal to the temptation. If an inmate steals away and yields to his craving, he is placed in confinement for a day or two, or longer if necessary. It occasionally happens that a patient, conscious of the coming on of a paroxysm of desire, asks to have the key of his room turned upon him till it is over. It is desired that this turning of the key, and those few barred rooms in one of the wards, shall be regarded as mere remedial appliances, as much so as the bottles of medicine in the medicine-chest. It is, however, understood that no one is to be released from confinement who does not manifest a renewed purpose to refrain. Such a purpose is sometimes indicated by a note addressed to the superintendent like the following, which I happened to see placed in his hands:—

This place is essentially, as it seems, a well-run hotel or temporary home for men suffering from the excessive use of alcohol. It’s a space where they can pause, reflect, and gather strength and knowledge for their ultimate fight with themselves. The temptation isn't so far away that their resolve isn’t constantly tested, nor so close that it overwhelms them. Down in the valley, Binghamton is visible, surrounded by rivers and trees, with its thousand charming homes and a few unpleasant bars. They can go there and drink, if they can find someone willing to risk the $50 fine imposed by state law on anyone who sells liquor to an asylum resident. Usually, there’s some desperate person willing to do it. Until it’s proven that seeing Binghamton is too much for a patient, the only limit on their freedom is that they can’t enter the town without the superintendent's approval. This approval isn’t seen as permission, but as a doctor's advice. The patient essentially asks: “Dr. Day, as my medical advisor, would you recommend that I go to Binghamton this morning to get fitted for shoes? Do you think it would be beneficial? Am I far enough along in my recovery to safely spend an hour breathing the valley air?” The doctor gives his opinion, and etiquette dictates that it’s accepted without comment. Not one patient has visited the town, with the superintendent's consent, who has not been able to resist the temptation. If an inmate sneaks out and gives in to their cravings, they are confined for a day or two, or longer if needed. Occasionally, a patient, aware of an impending craving, requests to have the key to their room locked until it passes. This locking of the door, along with a few restricted rooms in one of the wards, is intended to be seen as a necessary treatment, just like the bottles of medicine in the medicine cabinet. However, it’s understood that no one will be released from confinement without showing a renewed intention to abstain. Such an intention is sometimes shown through a note addressed to the superintendent like the one I happened to see handed to him:—

"Dr. Day:—

Dr. Day:—

"Dear Sir: I cannot let the circumstance which happened yesterday pass by without assuring you that I am truly sorry for the disgrace I have brought on the institution, as well as myself. I certainly appreciate your efforts to guide us all in the right direction, and more especially the interest that you have taken in my own welfare. Let me assure you now, that hereafter, as long as I remain with you, I shall use every endeavor to conduct myself as I should, and cause you no further trouble."

"Dear Sir,: I can't let what happened yesterday go by without expressing how truly sorry I am for the shame I've brought to the institution and to myself. I really appreciate your efforts to steer us in the right direction, especially the concern you've shown for my well-being. I want to assure you that from now on, as long as I'm with you, I will do my best to behave as I should and not cause you any more trouble."

Lapses of this kind are not frequent, and they are regarded by the superintendent as part of the means of restoration which the institution affords; since they aid him in destroying a fatal self-confidence, and in inculcating the idea that a patient who lapses must never think of giving up the struggle, but renew it the instant he can gain the least foothold of self-control.

Lapses like this are rare, and the superintendent sees them as part of the recovery process that the institution provides; they help him break down dangerous self-confidence and reinforce the idea that a patient who experiences a setback should never consider giving up the fight, but should get back on track as soon as they can regain even a small sense of self-control.

The system of treatment pursued here is founded on the expectation that the patient and the institution will co-operate. If a man does not desire to be reclaimed, and such a desire cannot be awakened within him, the institution can do no more than keep him sober while he remains an inmate of it. There will, perhaps, one day be in every State an asylum for incurable drunkards, wherein they will be permanently detained, and compelled to live temperately, and earn their subsistence by suitable labor. But this is not such an institution. Here all is voluntary. The co-operation of the patient is assumed; and when no desire to be restored can be roused, the experiment is not continued longer than a few months.

The treatment approach used here is based on the belief that the patient and the institution will work together. If someone doesn’t want to change, and that desire can’t be sparked in them, the institution can only keep them sober while they’re there. Maybe one day every state will have a facility for hopeless alcoholics, where they will be permanently housed and required to live soberly, earning their keep through appropriate work. But this isn’t that kind of place. Here, everything is voluntary. The patient’s cooperation is expected; and if there’s no interest in recovery, the process isn’t prolonged beyond a few months.

The two grand objects aimed at by the superintendent are, to raise the tone of the bodily health, and to fortify the weakened will. The means employed vary somewhat in each case. The superintendent designs to make a particular study of each individual; he endeavors to win his confidence, to adapt the treatment to his peculiar disposition, and to give him just the aid he needs. As the number of patients increases, this will become more difficult, if it does not become impossible. The more general features of the system are all that can be communicated to others, and these I will endeavor briefly to indicate.

The two main goals of the superintendent are to improve physical health and strengthen the weakened will. The methods used differ in each situation. The superintendent plans to closely study each individual; he aims to gain their trust, customize the treatment to fit their unique character, and provide the specific support they need. As the number of patients grows, this will become more challenging, if not impossible. Only the broader aspects of the system can be shared with others, and I will try to outline these briefly.

It is interesting to observe the applicants for admission, when they enter the office of the Asylum, accompanied generally by a relative or friend. Some reach the building far gone in intoxication, having indulged in one last farewell debauch; or having drunk a bottle of whiskey for the purpose of screwing their courage to the sticking-point of entering the Asylum. A clergyman whom this institution restored told me that he reached Binghamton in the evening, and went to bed drunk; and before going to the Asylum the next morning he had to fortify his system and his resolve by twelve glasses of brandy. Sometimes the accompanying friend, out of an absurd kind of pity for a poor fellow about to be deprived of his solace, will rather encourage him to drink; and often the relatives of an inebriate can only get him into the institution by keeping him intoxicated until he is safe under its roof. Frequently men arrive emaciated and worn out from weeks or months of hard drinking; and occasionally a man will be brought in suffering from delirium tremens, who will require restraint and watching for several days. Some enter the office in terror, expecting to be immediately led away by a turnkey and locked up. All come with bodies diseased and minds demoralized; for the presence of alcohol in the system lowers the tone of the whole man, body and soul, strengthening every evil tendency, and weakening every good one. And this is the reason why men who are brought here against their will are not to be despaired of. Alcohol may only have suspended the activity of their better nature, which a few weeks of total abstinence may rouse to new life. As the health improves, ambition often revives, the native delicacy of the soul reappears, and the man becomes polite, docile, interested, agreeable, who on entering seemed coarse, stupid, obstinate, and malign.

It’s interesting to watch the applicants for admission when they arrive at the Asylum, usually accompanied by a relative or friend. Some come to the building heavily intoxicated, having indulged in one last farewell binge, or having drunk a bottle of whiskey to muster the courage needed to enter the Asylum. A clergyman who was restored by this institution told me that he arrived in Binghamton in the evening and went to bed drunk; before going to the Asylum the next morning, he had to bolster his system and resolve with twelve glasses of brandy. Sometimes the accompanying friend, feeling a ridiculous kind of pity for someone about to lose his comfort, will encourage him to drink; often, the relatives of an alcoholic can only get him into the institution by keeping him drunk until he’s safe under its roof. Frequently, men arrive emaciated and exhausted from weeks or months of heavy drinking; occasionally, someone will be brought in suffering from delirium tremens and will need to be restrained and monitored for several days. Some enter the office in panic, fearing that they will be immediately taken away by a guard and locked up. All come with damaged bodies and demoralized minds; the presence of alcohol in the system lowers the overall condition of both body and soul, reinforcing every negative tendency and weakening all positive ones. This is why men who are brought here against their will should not be given up on. Alcohol may have only dulled their better nature, which a few weeks of total abstinence may revive. As health improves, ambition often returns, the innate sensitivity of the soul reemerges, and the person who seemed coarse, dull, stubborn, and hostile upon entering becomes polite, cooperative, engaged, and pleasant.

The new-comer subscribes to the rules, pays his board three months in advance, and surrenders all the rest of his money. The paying in advance is a good thing; it is like paying your passage on going on board ship; the voyager has no care, and nothing to think of, but the proposed object. It is also one more inducement to remain until other motives gain strength.

The newcomer follows the rules, pays his rent three months in advance, and hands over all his remaining cash. Paying in advance is a smart move; it’s like buying your ticket before getting on a ship; the traveler has no worries and only has to focus on the destination. It also provides one more reason to stay until other motivations become stronger.

Many hard drinkers live under the conviction that if they should cease drinking alcoholic liquors suddenly, they would die in a few days. This is a complete error. No "tapering off" is allowed here. Dr. Day discovered years ago that a man who has been drinking a quart of whiskey a day for a long time suffers more if his allowance is reduced to a pint than if he is put at once upon the system of total abstinence. He not only suffers less, but for a shorter time. The clergyman before referred to informed me that, for two years and a half before entering the Asylum, he drank a quart of brandy daily, and he felt confident that he would die if he should suddenly cease. He reached Binghamton drunk; he went to bed that evening drunk; he drank twelve glasses of brandy the next morning before eleven o'clock; he went up to the Asylum saturated with brandy, expecting to make the preliminary arrangements for his admission, then return to the hotel, and finish the day drinking. But precisely at that point Albert Day laid his hand upon him, and marked him for his own. Dr. Day quietly objected to his return to the town, sent for his trunk, caused the tavern bill to be paid, and cut off his brandy at once and totally. For forty-eight hours the patient craved the accustomed stimulant intensely, and he was only enabled to sleep by the assistance of bromide of potassium. On the third day the craving ceased, and he assured me that he never felt it again. Other morbid experiences he had, but not that; and now, after two years of abstinence, he enjoys good health, has no desire for drink, and is capable of extraordinary exertions. Other patients, however, informed me that they suffered a morbid craving for two or three weeks. But all agreed that the sudden discontinuance of the stimulant gave them less inconvenience than they had anticipated, and was in no degree dangerous. It is, indeed, most surprising to see how soon the system begins to rally when once it is relieved of the inimical influence. Complete recovery, of course, is a slow and long effort of nature; but the improvement in the health, feelings, and appearance of patients, after only a month's residence upon that breezy hill, is very remarkable.

Many heavy drinkers believe that if they suddenly stop drinking alcohol, they would die within a few days. This is completely wrong. There’s no "tapering off" here. Dr. Day found years ago that a person who has been drinking a quart of whiskey daily for a long time actually suffers more if his intake is cut down to a pint than if he stops drinking altogether right away. Not only does he suffer less, but for a shorter period as well. The clergyman I mentioned earlier told me that for two and a half years before entering the Asylum, he drank a quart of brandy every day, and he was sure he would die if he suddenly stopped. He arrived in Binghamton drunk, went to bed that evening drunk, and drank twelve glasses of brandy the next morning before eleven o'clock. He went to the Asylum soaked in brandy, expecting to arrange for his admission and then return to the hotel to continue drinking for the day. But at that moment, Albert Day intervened and claimed him for treatment. Dr. Day firmly insisted that he could not go back to town, had his luggage sent for, paid the tavern bill, and immediately stopped his brandy intake completely. For forty-eight hours, the patient intensely craved the usual stimulant and could only sleep with the help of bromide of potassium. On the third day, the craving disappeared, and he told me he never felt it again. He had other troubling experiences, but not that one; and now, after two years of sobriety, he's in good health, has no desire for alcohol, and is capable of extraordinary effort. Other patients mentioned that they experienced a strong craving for two or three weeks. But everyone agreed that stopping the stimulant suddenly was less uncomfortable than they expected and was not dangerous at all. It’s truly surprising how quickly the body starts to recover once it’s free of that harmful influence. Complete recovery is indeed a slow process, but the improvement in the health, mood, and appearance of patients after just a month on that breezy hill is quite remarkable.

There is an impression in the country that the inmates of such asylums as this undergo some mysterious process, and take unknown medicines, which have power to destroy the desire for strong drink. Among the quack medicines of the day is a bottled humbug, pretending to have such power. It is also supposed by some that the plan which Captain Marryat mentions is efficacious,—that of confining a drunken sailor for several days to a diet of beef and brandy. Accounts have gone the rounds of the papers, of another system that consists in saturating with brandy every article of food of which the inebriate partakes. Patients occasionally arrive at the Asylum who expect to be treated in some such way; and when a day or two passes without anything extraordinary or disagreeable happening, they inquire, with visible apprehension, "When the treatment is going to begin." In this sense of the word, there is no treatment here. In all nature there is no substance that destroys or lessens a drunkard's desire for intoxicating liquors; and there is no such thing as permanently disgusting him with brandy by giving him more brandy than he wants. A drunkard's drinking is not a thing of mere appetite; his whole system craves stimulation; and he would drink himself into perdition while loathing the taste of the liquor. This Asylum simply gives its inmates rest, regimen, amusement, society, information. It tries to restore the health and renew the will, and both by rational means.

There's a belief in the country that the residents of asylums like this go through some mysterious process and take unknown medicines that can eliminate the urge for alcohol. Among the quack remedies out there is a fake bottled product claiming to have such power. Some people think that the method mentioned by Captain Marryat is effective—keeping a drunken sailor on a diet of beef and brandy for several days. There have been stories in the papers about another system where every meal given to the drunkard is soaked in brandy. Patients sometimes arrive at the Asylum expecting to be treated that way, and when a day or two goes by without anything unusual or unpleasant happening, they ask, visibly anxious, "When does the treatment start?" In this context, there isn't any treatment here. In all of nature, there's no substance that can eliminate or reduce a drunkard's craving for intoxicating drinks, nor is it possible to make him permanently sick of brandy by giving him more than he wants. A drunkard's drinking isn't just about appetite; his entire system craves stimulation, and he would drink himself to destruction while hating the taste of the liquor. This Asylum simply provides its residents with rest, structure, entertainment, companionship, and information. It aims to restore health and renew willpower, both through rational methods.

Merely entering an establishment like this is a long step toward deliverance. It is a confession! It is a confession to the patient's family and friends, to the inmates of the Asylum, and, above all, to himself, that he has lost his self-control, and cannot get it back without assistance. He comes here for that assistance. Every one knows he comes for that. They are all in the same boat. The pot cannot call the kettle black. False pride, and all the thin disguises of self-love, are laid aside. The mere fact of a man's being an inmate of an inebriate asylum is a declaration to all about him that he has been a drunkard, and even a very bad drunkard; for the people here know, from their own bitter experience, that a person cannot bring himself to make such a confession until, by many a lapse, he has been brought to despair of self-recovery. Many of these men were thinking of the asylum for years before they could summon courage to own that they had lost the power to resist a physical craving. But when once they have made the agonizing avowal by entering the asylum, it costs them no great effort to reveal the details of their case to hearers who cannot reproach them; and, besides relating their own experience without reserve, they are relieved, encouraged, and instructed by hearing the similar experience of others. All have the same object, the same peril, the same dread, the same hope, and each aids the rest as students aid one another in the same college.

Simply walking into a place like this is a significant step toward recovery. It’s a confession! It’s a confession to the patient’s family and friends, to the other residents of the asylum, and, most importantly, to himself, that he has lost control over himself and can’t regain it without help. He comes here for that help. Everyone knows he’s here for that. They’re all in the same situation. The pot can’t call the kettle black. They set aside false pride and all the thin facades of self-love. Just the fact that someone is living in an alcohol treatment center tells everyone around them that they’ve been an alcoholic, and often a very serious one; because those here understand from their own painful experiences that a person can’t admit to this until they’ve faced enough struggles that they finally despair of recovering on their own. Many of these men contemplated the asylum for years before they could gather the courage to admit that they had lost the ability to resist their cravings. But once they've made that painful admission by entering the asylum, it doesn't take much effort for them to share the details of their situation with listeners who can’t judge them; and by sharing their own stories openly, they find relief, support, and guidance through hearing similar experiences from others. They all share the same goal, the same risks, the same fears, the same hopes, and each one supports the others just like students help each other in the same school.

In a community like this, Public Opinion is the controlling force. That subtle, resistless power is always aiding or frustrating the object for which the community exists. Public Opinion sides with a competent superintendent, and serves him as an assiduous, omnipresent police. Under the coercive system once attempted here, the public opinion of the Asylum applauded a man who smuggled a bottle of whiskey into the building, and invited his friends into his room to drink it. An inmate who should now attempt such a crime would be shunned by the best two thirds of the whole institution. One of their number, suddenly overcome by temptation, who should return to the Asylum drunk, they would all receive as cordially as before; but they would regard with horror or contempt a man who should bring temptation into the building, and place it within reach of those who had fled hither to avoid it.

In a community like this, Public Opinion is the driving force. That subtle, unstoppable power is always either helping or hindering the purpose for which the community exists. Public Opinion supports a capable superintendent and acts like a diligent, ever-present enforcer. In the past, under a strict system attempted here, the public opinion of the Asylum praised a man who sneaked a bottle of whiskey into the building and invited his friends to drink it in his room. An inmate who tried something like that now would be rejected by the best two-thirds of the entire institution. If one of their own, suddenly tempted, came back to the Asylum drunk, they would welcome him just as warmly as before; but they would look at with horror or disdain anyone who brought temptation into the building and made it accessible to those who had come here to escape it.

The French have a verb,—se dépayser,—to uncountry one's self, to get out of the groove, to drop undesirable companions and forsake haunts that are too alluring, by going away for a while, and, in returning, not resuming the old friends and habits. How necessary this is to some of the slaves of alcohol every one knows. To many of them restoration is impossible without it, and not difficult with it. To all such, what a refuge is a well-conducted asylum like this! Merely being here, out of the coil of old habits, haunts, pleasures, comrades, temptations, which had proved too much for them a thousand times,—merely being away for a time, so that they can calmly survey the scenes they have left and the life they have led,—is itself half the victory.

The French have a verb—se dépayser—that means to remove oneself from one’s usual surroundings, to get out of a rut, to drop toxic friends and leave behind places that are too tempting, by going away for a while and, upon returning, not going back to old acquaintances and habits. Everyone knows how essential this is for some people struggling with alcohol. For many, recovery is impossible without it and much easier with it. For those individuals, a well-run treatment center like this is a true refuge! Just being here, away from the cycle of old habits, familiar spots, pleasures, friends, and temptations that have overwhelmed them countless times—just being away for a period so they can think about the places they've left and the lives they’ve lived—is already half the battle.

Every Wednesday evening, after prayers, a kind of temperance meeting is held in the chapel. It is the intention of the superintendent, that every inmate of the Asylum shall become acquainted with the nature of alcohol, and with the precise effects of alcoholic drinks upon the human system. He means that they shall comprehend the absurdity of drinking as clearly as they know its ruinous consequences. He accordingly opens this meeting with a short lecture upon some one branch of the subject, and then invites the patients to illustrate the point from their own experience. At the meeting which I happened to attend the subject of Dr. Day's remarks was suggested (as it often is) by an occurrence which had just taken place at the institution, and had been the leading topic of conversation all that day. At the last meeting, a young man from a distant State, who had been in the Asylum for some months and was about to return home, delivered an eloquent farewell address to his companions, urging them to adhere to their resolution, and protesting his unalterable resolve never, never, never again to yield to their alluring and treacherous foe. He spoke with unusual animation and in a very loud voice. He took his departure in the morning, by the Erie Road, and twelve hours after he was brought back to the Asylum drunk. Upon his recovery he related to the superintendent and to his friends the story of his lamentable fall. When the train had gone three hours on its way, there was a detention of three hours at a station that offered little entertainment to impatient travellers. The returning prodigal paced the platform; found it dull work; heard at a distance the sound of billiard-balls; went and played two games, losing both; returned to the platform and resumed his walk; and there fell into the train of thought that led to the catastrophe. His reflections were like these: "How perfect is my cure! I have not once thought of taking a drink. Not even when I saw men drinking at the bar did it cross my mind to follow their example. I have not the least desire for whiskey, and I have no doubt I could take that 'one glass' which Dr. Day keeps talking about, without a wish for a second. In fact, no man is perfectly cured till he can do that I have a great mind to put it to the test. It almost seems as if this opportunity of trying myself had been created on purpose. Here goes, then, for the last glass of whiskey I shall take as long as I live, and I take it purely as a scientific experiment." One hour after, his friend, who was accompanying him home, found him lying in a corner of a bar-room, dead drunk. He had him picked up, and placed in the next train bound for Binghamton.

Every Wednesday evening, after prayers, a kind of meeting about sobriety is held in the chapel. The superintendent intends for every resident of the Asylum to understand what alcohol is and what effects alcoholic drinks have on the human body. He wants them to realize the foolishness of drinking as clearly as they recognize its destructive consequences. He starts the meeting with a brief lecture on a specific aspect of the topic and then invites the patients to share their own experiences related to it. At the meeting I attended, Dr. Day's discussion was prompted by a recent event at the institution that had been the main topic of conversation that day. At the last meeting, a young man from another state, who had been at the Asylum for several months and was about to go home, gave an impassioned farewell speech to his peers, encouraging them to stick to their commitments and declaring his unbreakable resolve to never, ever give in to their deceptive and enticing enemy again. He spoke with great enthusiasm and at a loud volume. He left in the morning via the Erie Road, and twelve hours later he was brought back to the Asylum drunk. After recovering, he shared with the superintendent and his friends the story of his unfortunate relapse. After the train had been traveling for three hours, it was delayed for another three at a station that offered little to entertain restless travelers. The wayward young man walked the platform; found it boring; heard the sound of billiard balls in the distance; went and played two games, losing both; returned to the platform and started walking again, which led him to think thoughts that resulted in disaster. His thoughts were along these lines: "How perfect is my recovery! I haven’t once thought about having a drink. Not even when I saw men drinking at the bar did I consider following their example. I have no desire for whiskey at all, and I'm sure I could have that 'one glass' Dr. Day talks about without wanting a second. In fact, no one is truly cured until they can do that. I’m really tempted to test myself. It seems almost as if this chance to try myself was made just for me. Here I go, for the last glass of whiskey I’ll ever have in my life, and I’m doing it purely as a scientific experiment." An hour later, his friend, who was traveling with him, found him lying in a corner of a bar, completely drunk. He had him picked up and placed on the next train to Binghamton.

This was the text of Dr. Day's discourse, and he employed it in enforcing anew his three cardinal points: 1. No hope for an inebriate until he thoroughly distrusts the strength of his own resolution; 2. No hope for an inebriate except in total abstinence as long as he lives, both in sickness and in health; 3. Little hope for an inebriate unless he avoids, on system and on principle, the occasions of temptation, the places where liquor is sold, and the persons who will urge it upon him. Physicians, he said, were the inebriate's worst enemies; and he advised his hearers to avoid the tinctures prepared with alcohol, which had often awakened the long-dormant appetite. During my stay at Binghamton, a clergyman resident in the town, and recently an inmate of the Asylum, had a slight indisposition resulting from riding home from a meeting ten miles in the rain. One of the physicians of the place, who knew his history, knew that he had been an inebriate of the most pronounced type (quart of liquor a day), prescribed a powerful dose of brandy and laudanum. "I dare not take it, doctor," he said, and put the damnable temptation behind him. "If I had taken it," said he to me, "I should have been drunk to-day." The case, too, required nothing but rest, rice, and an easy book. No medicine was necessary. Dr. Day has had under his care a man who, after being a confirmed drunkard, had been a teetotaler for eighteen years, and had then been advised to take wine for the purpose of hastening a slow convalescence. His appetite resumed its old ascendency, and, after drinking furiously for a year, he was brought to the Asylum in delirium tremens. Dr. Day expressed a strong hope and belief that the returned inmate mentioned above had now actually taken his last glass of whiskey; for he had discovered his weakness, and was in a much more hopeful condition than he had been before his lapse. The Doctor scouted the idea that a man who has the misfortune to break his resolution should give up the struggle. Some men, he said, must fall, at least once, before the last rag of self-confidence is torn from them; and he had had patients who, after coming back to him in Boston four times, had conquered, and had lived soberly for years, and were still living soberly.

This was the text of Dr. Day's talk, and he used it to emphasize his three main points: 1. An alcoholic has no hope until he completely loses faith in his own willpower; 2. An alcoholic can only find hope through total abstinence for life, both when sick and when healthy; 3. An alcoholic has little chance unless he consistently avoids temptation, the places where alcohol is sold, and people who encourage drinking. He said that doctors were often the worst enemies of the alcoholic and advised his audience to steer clear of tinctures that contain alcohol, which often reignited the dormant cravings. While I was in Binghamton, a local clergyman, who had recently stayed at the Asylum, had a mild illness from riding home ten miles in the rain after a meeting. One of the local doctors, who knew his background as a severe alcoholic (a quart of liquor a day), prescribed a strong dose of brandy and laudanum. "I can't take it, doctor," he said, and resisted the tempting urge. "If I had taken it," he told me, "I would have been drunk today." The case only required rest, rice, and a light book—no medication was needed. Dr. Day had treated a man who, after being a heavy drinker, was sober for eighteen years, only to be advised to drink wine to speed up a slow recovery. This led to a resurgence of his old cravings, and after drinking heavily for a year, he ended up in the Asylum suffering from delirium tremens. Dr. Day expressed strong hope and belief that the returning patient mentioned above had now genuinely taken his last glass of whiskey; he had recognized his weakness and was in a much more positive state than before his relapse. The Doctor dismissed the notion that someone who breaks their resolution should quit trying. Some people, he claimed, must stumble at least once before they lose all sense of self-confidence; he had seen patients come back to him in Boston four times, only to eventually overcome their struggles and live sober lives for years, and they were still sober.

When the superintendent had finished his remarks, he called upon his hearers to speak. Several of them did so. One young gentleman, an officer of the army during the war, made his farewell speech. He thanked his companions for the forbearance they had shown him during the first weeks of his residence among them, when he was peevish, discontented, rebellious, and had no hope of ever being able to conquer his propensity, so often had he tried and failed. He would have left the Asylum in those days, if he had had the money to pay his fare on the cars. He felt the importance of what Dr. Day had advanced respecting the occasions of temptation, and especially what he had said about physicians' prescriptions, which he knew had led men to drink. "If," he added, "I cannot live without alcohol, I would rather die. For my part, I expect to have a struggle all my life; I don't think the time will ever come when it will be safe for me to dally with temptation, and I feel the necessity of following Dr. Day's advice on this point." He spoke in a simple, earnest, and manly manner. He was followed by another inmate, a robust, capable-looking man of thirty-five, who also spoke with directness and simplicity. He hoped that fear would help him to abstain. If he could only keep sober, he had the best possible prospects; but if he again gave way he saw nothing before him but infamy and destruction. He spoke modestly and anxiously, evidently feeling that it was more than a matter of life and death to him. When he had concluded, a young gentleman rose, and delivered a fluent, flower address upon temperance; just such a discourse as might precede a lapse into drinking.

When the superintendent finished his comments, he invited everyone to speak. Several did. One young man, an army officer during the war, gave his farewell speech. He thanked his friends for their patience during his first weeks there when he was irritable, unhappy, rebellious, and felt hopeless about overcoming his addiction, having tried and failed many times. He would have left the Asylum back then if he had had the money for a train ticket. He understood the importance of what Dr. Day said about the circumstances of temptation, especially regarding doctors' prescriptions, which he knew had led people to drink. "If," he added, "I can't live without alcohol, I'd rather die. For me, I expect to struggle my whole life; I don't think there will ever be a time when it's safe for me to toy with temptation, and I know I need to follow Dr. Day's advice on this." He spoke in a straightforward, sincere, and strong manner. Another resident, a strong-looking man in his thirties, followed and also spoke plainly and directly. He hoped that fear would help him stay abstinent. If he could just stay sober, he had the best possible chances; but if he relapsed, he saw nothing ahead but shame and ruin. He spoke humbly and anxiously, clearly feeling it was more than just a matter of life and death for him. After he finished, a young man stood up and gave an eloquent, flowery speech about temperance; just the kind of talk that might come before someone slips back into drinking.

On Monday evening of every week, the Literary Society of the institution holds its meeting, when essays are read and lectures delivered. The course of lectures delivered last winter are highly spoken of by those who heard them, and they were all written by inmates of the Asylum. Among the subjects treated were: Columbus, a Study of Character: Goldsmith; The Telegraph, by an Operator; Resources of Missouri; Early English Novelists; The Age, and the Men for the Age; Geology; The Passions, with Poetical Illustrations; The Inebriate Asylum, under the Régime of Coercion. It occasionally happens, that distinguished visitors contribute something to the pleasure of the evening. Mrs. Stowe, the newspapers inform us, was kind enough some time since to give them a reading from Uncle Tom's Cabin; and the copy of the book from which she read was a cheap double-columned pamphlet brought from the South by a freedman, now the porter of the Asylum. He bought it and read it while he was still a slave, little thinking when he scrawled his name across the dingy title-page that he should ever have the honor of lending it to the authoress.

On Monday evenings every week, the Literary Society of the institution meets to read essays and give lectures. The lectures from last winter received high praise from those who attended, and they were all written by residents of the Asylum. Some of the topics discussed included: Columbus, a Study of Character; Goldsmith; The Telegraph, by an Operator; Resources of Missouri; Early English Novelists; The Age, and the Men for the Age; Geology; The Passions, with Poetical Illustrations; The Inebriate Asylum, under the Régime of Coercion. Occasionally, distinguished guests add to the enjoyment of the evening. Mrs. Stowe, the newspapers tell us, graciously gave them a reading from Uncle Tom's Cabin some time ago; the copy of the book she read from was a cheap double-columned pamphlet brought from the South by a freedman, now the porter of the Asylum. He bought it and read it while he was still a slave, not realizing when he scrawled his name across the worn title page that he would one day have the honor of lending it to the author.

Nearly twelve years have now elapsed since Dr. Day began to accumulate experience in the treatment of inebriates, during which time he has had nearly four thousand patients under his care. What proportion of these were permanently cured it is impossible to say, because nothing is heard of many patients after they leave; but it is reasonably conjectured that two thirds of the whole number were restored. It is a custom with many of them to write an annual letter to Dr. Day on the anniversary of their entering the Home under his management, and the reading of such letters is a highly interesting and beneficial feature of the Wednesday evening temperance meetings. The alcoholic mania is no respecter of persons. Dr. Day has had under treatment twenty-one clergymen, one of whom was a Catholic priest (who had delirium tremens), and one a Jewish Rabbi. He has had one old man past seventy, and one boy of sixteen. He has had a Philadelphia "killer" and a judge of a supreme court. He has had steady two-quarts-a-day men, and men who were subject only to semiannual debauches. He has had men whose "tears" lasted but forty-eight hours, and one man who came in of his own accord after what he styled "a general spree" of three months' continuance. He has had drunkards of two years' standing, and those who have been slaves of strong drink for thirty years.

Nearly twelve years have passed since Dr. Day started gaining experience in treating people with alcohol addiction, during which he has cared for almost four thousand patients. It’s hard to determine how many of them were permanently cured since we often don’t hear anything about many patients after they leave; however, it’s reasonably believed that about two-thirds of the total were restored. Many of them have the habit of writing an annual letter to Dr. Day on the anniversary of their admission to the Home under his care, and reading these letters is a fascinating and beneficial part of the Wednesday evening temperance meetings. Alcoholism affects people from all walks of life. Dr. Day has treated twenty-one clergymen, including a Catholic priest (who experienced delirium tremens) and a Jewish Rabbi. He has seen one elderly man over seventy and a sixteen-year-old boy. He has treated a Philadelphia "killer" and a state supreme court judge. He has encountered men who consumed two quarts a day and others who only had binge episodes twice a year. Some men had "sprees" that lasted just forty-eight hours, while one voluntarily came in after what he called a "general spree" that lasted three months. He has treated alcoholics who struggled with addiction for two years and those who had been dependent on alcohol for thirty years.

Some of his successes have been striking and memorable. There was Dr. X—— of Tennessee, at thirty-five a physician of large practice, professor in a medical college, happy in an excellent wife and seven children. Falling into drink, he lost at length his practice, his professorship, his property, his home; his family abandoned him to his fate, and went to his wife's father's in another State; and he became at last a helpless gutter sot. His brother, who heard by chance of the Home in Boston, picked him up one day from the street, where he lay insensible, and got him upon the train for the East. Before he roused from his drunken stupor, he was half-way across Virginia. "Where am I?" he asked. "In Virginia, on your way to Boston." "All right," said he, in a drunkard's drunkenest manner,—"all right! give me some whiskey." He was carried into the Home in the arms of men, and lay for some weeks miserably sick. His health improved, and the man revived. He clutched at this unexpected chance of escape, and co-operated with all his heart with the system. Dr. Day wrote a hopeful letter to his wife. "Speak not to me of a husband," she replied; "I have no husband; I buried my husband long ago." After four months' stay in the institution, the patient returned home, and resumed his practice. A year after, his family rejoined him. He recovered all his former standing, which to this day, after nine years of sobriety, he retains. His ninth annual letter to his deliverer I have read. "By the way," he says in a postscript, "did you receive my letters each year of the war?" Yes, they reached Dr. Day months after they were written; but they always reached him. The secret of this cure, as the patient has often asserted, was total abstinence. He had attempted to reduce his daily quantity a hundred times; but never, until he entered the Home, was he aware of the physical impossibility of a drunkard's becoming a moderate drinker. From the moment when he had a clear, intellectual comprehension of that truth, the spell was broken: abstinence was easy; he was himself again.

Some of his successes have been striking and memorable. There was Dr. X—— from Tennessee, who, at thirty-five, was a well-respected physician, a medical college professor, and happily married with seven kids. But then he fell into drinking and eventually lost his practice, his teaching position, his property, and his home; his family left him to fend for himself and went to stay with his wife's parents in another state. He ended up a helpless homeless alcoholic. His brother, who heard about the Home in Boston by chance, found him one day lying unconscious in the street and managed to get him on a train heading east. Before he woke up from his drunken haze, he was halfway across Virginia. “Where am I?” he asked. “In Virginia, on your way to Boston.” “All right,” he slurred in the most drunken way possible, “all right! Give me some whiskey.” He was carried into the Home by a few men and spent several weeks sick and in misery. His health improved, and the man started to revive. He seized this unexpected chance to get out and fully engaged with the program. Dr. Day wrote a hopeful letter to his wife. “Don’t talk to me about a husband,” she replied; “I have no husband; I buried my husband a long time ago.” After four months at the institution, the patient went home and resumed his practice. A year later, his family came back to him. He regained all his former status, which he still maintains after nine years of sobriety. I have read his ninth annual letter to his rescuer. “By the way,” he mentions in a postscript, “did you receive my letters each year during the war?” Yes, they reached Dr. Day months after being written, but they always found him. The key to this recovery, as the patient has often stated, was total abstinence. He had tried to cut down how much he drank a hundred times, but it wasn't until he entered the Home that he understood the physical impossibility of a drunkard becoming a moderate drinker. From the moment he grasped that truth clearly, the hold was broken: abstinence became easy; he was himself again.

Then there was Y——, a Philadelphia street savage,—one of those firemen who used to sleep in the engine-house, and lie in wait for rival companies, and make night and day hideous with slaughter. Fearful beings were those Philadelphia firemen of twenty years ago! Some of them made a nearer approach to total depravity than any creatures I have ever seen that wore the form of man,—revelling in blood, exulting in murder, and glorying in hellish blows with iron implements, given and received. It was difficult to say whether it gave them keener delight to wound or to be wounded. In all communities where external observances and decorums become tyrannical, and where the innocent pleasures of youth are placed under a ban, there is sure to be a class which revolts against the invisible despot, and goes to a horrid extreme of violence and vice. This Y—— was one of the revolters. Once in many weeks he would return to his decent home, ragged and penniless, to be reclothed. It is only alcohol that supports men in a life of wanton violence like this; and he, accordingly, was a deep and reckless drinker. His sister prevailed upon him, after many months of persuasion, to go to the Home in Boston, and he presented himself there one morning, black all over with coal-dust. He explained his appearance by saying that he had come from Philadelphia in a coal-vessel. Dr. Day, who had been notified of his coming, received him with that emphatic politeness which produces such magical effects upon men who have long been accustomed to see an enemy in every one who behaves decently and uses the English language in its simplicity. He was exceedingly astonished to be treated with consideration, and to discover that he was not to be subjected to any disagreeable process. He proved to be a good, simple soul, very ignorant, not naturally intelligent, and more capable, therefore, of faith than of knowledge. The Doctor won his confidence; then his good-will; then his affection. Something that was read in the Bible attracted his attention one day, and he asked to be shown the passage; and this was the beginning of his reading the Bible regularly. It was all new to him; he found it highly interesting; and, this daily reading being associated in his mind with his reform, the book became a kind of talisman to him, and he felt safe as long as he continued the practice. After a six months' residence, he went to work in Boston, but always returned to spend the evening at the Home. At the beginning of the war he enlisted. He was in Colonel Baker's regiment on the bloody day of Ball's Bluff, and was one of the gallant handful of men who rescued from the enemy the body of their slain commander. He was one of the multitude who swam the Potomac amid a pattering rain of bullets, and walked barefoot seven miles to camp, The first man that met him there offered him whiskey, Mistaken kindness! Senseless offer! A man who is sinking with fatigue wants rest, not stimulation; sleep, not excitement. "Don't offer me that," he gasped, shuddering. "I dread that more than bullets." Instead of the whiskey, he took twelve hours' sleep, and consequently awoke refreshed, and ready for another day's hard service. At Antietam he had the glory and high privilege of giving life for mankind. A bullet through the brain sent him to heaven, and stretched his body on the field in painless and eternal sleep. It lies now in a cemetery near his native city; a monument covers it; and all who were connected with him are proud to point to his grave and claim him for their own. What a contrast between dying so, and being killed in a motiveless street-fight by a savage blow on the head with a speaking-trumpet!

Then there was Y——, a rough guy from Philadelphia—a fireman who used to crash at the fire station, waiting for rival teams, making the nights and days chaotic with violence. Those Philadelphia firemen from twenty years ago were terrifying! Some of them were more depraved than any humans I’ve ever seen—thriving on blood, celebrating murder, and taking pride in brutal fights with iron tools, both giving and taking blows. It was hard to tell whether they enjoyed injuring others or being injured themselves more. In every society where rules and decorum become oppressive, and where the innocent joys of youth are banned, there's always a group that rebels against the unseen authority, often spiraling into extreme violence and vice. Y—— was one of those rebels. He would occasionally return to his decent home, ragged and broke, just to clean up and get new clothes. Only alcohol could sustain someone in such a reckless and violent life, and he was a heavy, reckless drinker. After months of persuasion, his sister finally convinced him to go to a home in Boston, and he showed up one morning completely covered in coal dust. He explained his appearance by saying he had come from Philadelphia on a coal ship. Dr. Day, who had been notified of his arrival, greeted him with a gracious politeness that worked wonders on someone used to seeing hostility in anyone who acted decently and used plain English. He was extremely surprised to be treated well and to find that he wouldn’t have to go through any unpleasant process. He turned out to be a good, simple guy, very ignorant and not naturally bright, making him more open to faith than knowledge. The Doctor gained his trust, then his goodwill, and finally his affection. One day, he noticed something in the Bible and asked to see the passage, which led to him reading the Bible regularly. It was all new to him, and he found it really interesting. Since his daily reading was linked to his reform, the book became a sort of talisman for him, and he felt safe as long as he kept it up. After living there for six months, he started working in Boston but always came back to spend the evenings at the Home. At the start of the war, he enlisted. He was in Colonel Baker's regiment on the bloody day of Ball's Bluff and was one of the brave few who retrieved the body of their fallen commander from the enemy. He was among those who swam across the Potomac while bullets rained down on them, walking barefoot seven miles to camp. The first person he met there offered him whiskey—such a misguided kindness! A foolish offer! A man about to collapse from exhaustion needs rest, not a pick-me-up; sleep, not excitement. "Don’t offer me that," he gasped, recoiling. "I fear that more than bullets." Instead of whiskey, he opted for twelve hours of sleep, waking up refreshed and ready for another challenging day. At Antietam, he had the honor and immense privilege of sacrificing his life for others. A bullet to the brain sent him to heaven, laying his body on the battlefield in painless and eternal sleep. He’s buried now in a cemetery near his hometown; a monument marks his grave, and everyone who knew him is proud to point to it and claim him as one of their own. What a contrast between dying that way and being killed in a pointless street fight by a brutal blow to the head with a speaking trumpet!

Perhaps, long as this article already is, I may venture to give, with the utmost possible brevity, one more of the many remarkable cases with which I became acquainted at the Asylum.

Perhaps, even though this article is already long, I might dare to share, as briefly as possible, one more of the many remarkable cases I came across at the Asylum.

One Sunday morning, a loud ringing of the front-door bell of the Home in Boston induced Dr. Day himself to answer the summons. He found a man at the door who was in the most complete state of dilapidation that can be imagined,—ragged, dirty, his hat awry, torn and bent, spectacles with one eye gone and the other cocked out of place, the perfect picture of a drunken sot who had slept among the barrels and cotton-bales for six months. He was such a person as we thoughtless fools roar at in the theatre sometimes, about 10.30 P.M., and who makes the lives of sundry children and one woman a long and hopeless tragedy up in some dismal garret, or down in some pestilential cellar.

One Sunday morning, the loud ringing of the front-door bell at the Home in Boston prompted Dr. Day to respond. He opened the door to find a man in a shocking state of disarray—ragged, dirty, his hat crooked, torn and bent, with one lens of his glasses missing and the other askew, looking like a drunken guy who had been sleeping among barrels and cotton bales for six months. He was the kind of person that thoughtless fools sometimes laugh at in theaters around 10:30 PM, and who turns the lives of various children and one woman into a long, sad tragedy in some dreary attic or down in a filthy basement.

"What can I do for you?" inquired the superintendent.

"What can I do for you?" asked the superintendent.

"My name is A. B——; will you take me in?"

"My name is A. B——; will you let me stay?"

"Have you a letter of introduction from any one?"

"Do you have a letter of introduction from anyone?"

"No."

"No."

"We must have something of the kind; do you know any one in Boston?"

"We need something like that; do you know anyone in Boston?"

"Yes; there is Dr. Kirk; I've preached in his church; he ought to know me; I'll see if he does."

"Yes, there’s Dr. Kirk; I’ve preached in his church; he should know me; I’ll check if he does."

In a few minutes he returned, bearing a note from that distinguished clergyman, saying that he thought he knew the man; and upon this he was admitted.

In a few minutes, he came back with a note from that well-known clergyman, saying that he believed he recognized the man; based on this, he was allowed in.

He was as complete, though not as hopeless a wreck as he appeared. He had been a clergyman in good standing and of ability respectable; but had insensibly fallen under the dominion of a mania for drink. For ten years he had been a downright sot. He had not seen his family in that time. A benevolent man who chanced to meet him in New York described to him the Washingtonian Home, made him promise to go to it, and gave him money for the purpose. He immediately spent the money for drink; but yet, in some forgotten way, he smuggled himself to Boston, and made his appearance at the Home on that Sunday morning. Such cases as this, hopeless as they seem, are among the easiest to cure, because there are knowledge, conscience, and pride latent in the man, which begin to assert themselves as soon as the system is free from the presence of alcohol. This man was easily made to see the truth respecting his case. He soon came to understand alcohol; and this alone is a surprising assistance to a man at the instant of temptation. He remained at the Home six months, always improving in health, and regaining his former character. He left Boston twenty-two months ago, and has since lived with perfect sobriety, and has been restored to his family and to his profession.

He was as complete a wreck as he seemed, although not as hopeless. He had once been a respected clergyman with notable abilities, but gradually fell under the control of an obsession with alcohol. For ten years, he had been a full-blown drunk. He hadn't seen his family during that time. A kind man he met by chance in New York told him about the Washingtonian Home, got him to promise to go there, and gave him money for it. He immediately used the money to buy drinks, but somehow made his way to Boston and showed up at the Home that Sunday morning. Cases like this, as hopeless as they appear, are among the easiest to treat because there is knowledge, conscience, and pride still lurking in the man, which begin to surface as soon as he is free from alcohol. This man quickly grasped the reality of his situation. He soon learned about alcohol, which was incredibly helpful for him when facing temptation. He stayed at the Home for six months, consistently improving in health and reclaiming his former character. He left Boston twenty-two months ago and has since lived completely sober, reuniting with his family and returning to his profession.

Inebriate asylums, rationally conducted, cannot fail to be worth their cost. They are probably destined to become as generally recognized a necessity of our diseased modern life as asylums for lunatics and hospitals for the sick. It is not necessary to begin with a million-dollar palace, though it is desirable that the building should be attractive, airy, and large enough to accommodate a considerable number of patients. When the building has been paid for, the institution may be self-sustaining, or even yield a profit. It is possible that the cure of inebriates may become a specialty of medical practice, to which men, gifted with the requisite talent, will devote their lives. The science of the thing is still most incomplete, and only one individual has had much success in the practice. Albert Day is a good superintendent chiefly because he is a good Yankee, not because he is a great scientific healer. It seems instinctive in good Yankees to respect the rights and feelings of others; and they are accustomed to persuade and convince, not drive, not compel. Albert Day has treated these unfortunate and amiable men as he would have treated younger brothers taken captive by a power stronger than themselves. His polite and respectful manner to his patients on all occasions must be balm to men accustomed to the averted look and taunting epithet, and accustomed, too, to something far harder to bear,—distrust and abhorrence of themselves. Others, of course, will originate improved methods, and we shall have, at length, a Fine Art of assisting men to overcome bad habits; but this characteristic of Dr. Day will never be wanting to an asylum that answers the end of its establishment.

Inebriate asylums, when run properly, are definitely worth the investment. They are likely to become just as essential for our troubled modern lives as asylums for the mentally ill and hospitals for the sick. It doesn't have to start with a million-dollar building, but it should be appealing, spacious, and large enough to accommodate a good number of patients. Once the building is funded, the institution could sustain itself or even be profitable. It’s possible that treating inebriates could become a specialized area of medical practice where skilled individuals dedicate their lives. The science behind it is still quite incomplete, and only one person has really excelled in this field. Albert Day is an effective superintendent mainly because he's a good person, not necessarily a great scientific healer. It seems natural for good people to respect the rights and feelings of others; they tend to persuade and encourage rather than force or coerce. Albert Day has treated these unfortunate and kind individuals as if they were younger brothers caught under a stronger power. His polite and respectful attitude towards his patients must be a comfort to those who are used to being looked down upon and mocked, and who also endure something far more painful—self-distrust and self-hatred. Others will surely come up with better methods, and eventually, we’ll establish a refined approach to helping people overcome bad habits; but this quality in Dr. Day will always be essential for an asylum that fulfills its purpose.

The disease which such institutions are designed to cure must be very common; for where is the family that has not a drunkard in its circle of connections? It is true that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure; but not on that account must the pound of cure be withheld.

The disease that these institutions aim to treat must be quite widespread; after all, what family doesn’t have a drunkard among their relatives or friends? It’s true that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but that doesn’t mean we should hold back the pound of cure.

The railroad which connects New York and Binghamton is the Erie, which is another way of saying that I was detained some hours on the journey home; and this afforded me the novel experience of working my way up town in a New York street-car an hour or two before daylight. The car started from the City Hall at half past two A.M., and received, during the first three miles of its course, twenty-seven persons. It so happened that nearly every individual of them, including the person coming home from the Asylum, was out of bed at that hour through alcohol. There were three drunken vagabonds asleep, who were probably taking a cheap lodging in the car by riding to Harlem and back,—two hours and forty minutes' ride for fourteen cents. In one corner was coiled away a pale, dirty, German Jew of the Fagin type, very drunk, singing snatches of drinking choruses in broken English. Next to him was his pal, a thick-set old Charley Bates, also drunk, and occasionally joining in the festive songs. A mile of the ride was enlivened by an argument between C. Bates and the conductor, on the subject of a cigar, which Mr. Bates insisted on smoking, in violation of the rule. The controversy was carried on in "the English language." Then there were five German musicians, perfectly sober and very sleepy, with their instruments in their hand, returning, I suppose, from some late saloon or dance-house. One woman was in the car, a girl of twenty, who appeared to be a performer in a saloon, and was now, after having shed her spangles and her ribbons, going home in dirty calico drawn tight over a large and obvious hoop, under the protecting care of a nice young man. There were several young and youngish men, well-dressed, in various stages of intoxication, who had probably been at the lawless "late houses," singing and drinking all night, and were now going home to scare and horrify mothers, sisters, or wives, who may have been waiting five hours to hear the scratch of their latch-key against the front door.

The railroad connecting New York and Binghamton is the Erie, which means I was delayed a few hours on my journey home. This gave me the unusual experience of riding a New York streetcar shortly before dawn. The car left the City Hall at 2:30 A.M. and picked up twenty-seven people during the first three miles. Almost everyone, including someone coming back from the Asylum, was awake at that hour due to alcohol. Three drunken homeless guys were asleep, probably using the car as a cheap hotel by riding to Harlem and back—two hours and forty minutes for fourteen cents. In one corner was a pale, dirty German Jew, reminiscent of Fagin, very drunk and singing bits of drinking songs in broken English. Next to him was his buddy, a burly old Charley Bates, also drunk and occasionally joining in the cheerful singing. One mile of the ride was spiced up by a heated argument between C. Bates and the conductor about a cigar that Bates insisted on smoking, breaking the rules. The discussion was held in "the English language." Then there were five German musicians, completely sober but very sleepy, holding their instruments, probably coming back from some late bar or dance hall. One woman in the car was a twenty-year-old girl who seemed to be a performer at a saloon and was now, after taking off her sparkly attire, going home in a dirty calico dress stretched tightly over a big and obvious hoop, under the watchful eye of a nice young man. There were several well-dressed young to middle-aged men in various states of drunkenness who had likely been at wild "late houses," drinking and singing all night, now heading home to shock and disturb the mothers, sisters, or wives who might have been waiting five hours to hear the click of their latchkey in the front door.

What a picture did the inside of that car present, when it was filled upon both sides with sleepy, bobbing drunkards and servants of drunkards, the girl leaning sleepily upon her neighbor's shoulder, the German musicians crouching over their instruments half dead with sleep, old Fagin bawling a line of a beery song, and the conductor, struggling down through the midst, vainly endeavoring to extract from boozy passengers, whether they were going "through," or desired to be dropped on the way. It was a fit ending to a week at the Inebriate Asylum.

What a scene the inside of that car was, filled on both sides with sleepy, swaying drunk people and their helpers, the girl dozing against her neighbor's shoulder, the German musicians huddled over their instruments half-asleep, old Fagin belting out a boozy song, and the conductor trying to make his way through, unsuccessfully trying to find out from the tipsy passengers if they were going "through" or wanted to get off along the way. It was a perfect end to a week at the Inebriate Asylum.

THE END.

THE END.


Cambridge: Electrotyped and Printed by Welch, Bigelow, & Co.

Cambridge: Electrotyped and Printed by Welch, Bigelow, & Co.


Footnotes

  [1]
We owe to Mr. Bigelow the restoration of this strong Franklinian word. The common editions have it "drinkers."
  [2]
Life and Correspondence of Theodore Parker. By John Weiss. Vol. II. p. 513.
  [3]
The man and his confederates must have carried off an enormous booty. The local trustees say, in their Report for 1867:—
"Less than two years ago the Asylum received about $81,000 from insurance companies for damage done by fire to the north wing. About $20,000 have since been received from the counties; making from these two sources about $100,000; and, although the buildings and grounds remain in the same unfinished state as when the fire occurred, except a small amount of work done in one or two wards in the south wing, the $100,000 have nearly disappeared…. Aside from the payment of interest and insurance, this money has been expended by Dr. ——, and in just such ways as he thought proper to use it.
"It may well be asked why this is so. The answer is, that Dr. —— assumes and exercises supreme control, and allows no interference, at least on the part of the resident trustees….
"His control and management of everything connected with the institution has been as absolute in fact, if not in form, as if he were its sole proprietor. He goes to Albany to obtain legislation giving him extraordinary police powers, without as much as even informing the trustees of his intentions. When the iron grates for the windows of the lower ward were obtained, the resident trustees knew nothing of the matter, until they were informed that the patients were looking through barred windows. Everything has been done in the same way. He is not known to have had any other official relation to the institution by regular appointment than that of corresponding secretary, and yet he has exercised a power over its affairs which has defied all restraint. He lives there with his family, without a salary, and without individual resources, and dispenses hospitality or charity to his kindred with as much freedom and unreserve as if he owned everything and had unlimited means at his command. In fact, incredible as it may seem, he claims that he is virtually the owner of the institution. And his claim might have challenged contradiction, had his plans succeeded."

Transcriber's Note:

Transcriber's Note:

Minor typographical errors have been corrected without note.

Minor typos have been fixed without any mention.

Irregularities and inconsistencies in the text have been retained as printed.

Irregularities and inconsistencies in the text have been kept as printed.


Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!