while head of the Bureau of Chemistry, is nical ability and sought counsel from such not likely when called to the witness stand to have any difficulty in qualifying as an expert in chemistry, physiological chemistry, pharmacology or just plain medicine. There need be no fears entertained that Dr. Alsberg will fail to "make good." He has the knowledge, the training, and the personal character to enable him to master the details of his new office, and he may be confidently expected to make an earnest, capable and trustworthy official, one who will comprehend the obligations due the American people, and will fearlessly do his duty at no matter what cost in time, effort or personal sacrifice. His manner since his appointment has made countless friends, for he has shown a becoming desire and intention to familiarize himself with the problems he has to solve before expressing himself. Dr. Alsberg deserves the whole souled support of every intelligent person who has sense enough to appreciate the essential difficulties of his position, and kindness enough to want to see him master them. Dr. Wiley's attitude when his attention was called to Dr. Alsberg's appointment was not calculated to increase the height of the pedestal he has so long occupied in the minds of his worshippers. As a matter of fact, his unkind insinuation that Dr. Alsberg was appointed at the behest of corrupt interests, and was in consequence to be expected to serve these rather than the American people, was not only in extremely bad taste, but entirely without foundation. The drug and pharmaceutical trade, to tell the truth as it is, did not know any more about Dr. Alsberg's selection for the position of Chief Chemist than they did about the man himself. To the so-called interests he was an unknown quantity. But President Taft was seeking a man of scholarly and tech men as these: Dr. M. A. Rosanoff, Clark University, Worcester, Mass.; Prof. Lyman Brumbaugh Starkey, Professor of Physiology, University of Southern California; Director Arthur B. Lamb, Havemeyer Chemical Laboratory, New sulting Engineer, New York City; Dr. DaYork University; Col. John Bogart, Con vid Starr Jordan, President, Leland Stanford Junior University; George L. Struter, Professor of Anatomy, University of Michigan; Albert M. Barrett, Professor of Mental and Nervous Diseases in the University of Michigan, and Director of the State Psychopathic Hospital; William H. Nichols, of Applied Chemistry; Marston Taylor President, Eighth International Congress Bogert, President, Section IV, Organic Chemistry, Eighth International Congress of Applied Chemistry; Wilder D. Bancroft, President, Section IX, Proto-chemistry, Eighth International Congress of Applied Chemistry; Erwin F. Smith, in charge, Laboratory of Plant Pathology, Bureau of Plant Industry, Department of Agriculture; P. A. Levene, Member of the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research, Chief of the Department of Chemistry; S. F. Acres, Associate Professor of Chemistry, Johns Hopkins University; Edwin R. Seligman, Columbia University; Herman M. Adler, Pathologist at the Danvers State Hospital, Hathorne, Mass.; Felix Adler, Leader, Society for Ethical Culture of New York; Edwin G. Conklin, Professor of Biology, Princeton University; Geo. A. Hulett, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Princeton. University. These men endorsed Dr. Alsberg and advised his appointment as Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry! Can any one believe that they were acting in behalf of the "corrupt interests"? Certainly not, and Dr. Wiley stultified himself and the good he has done when with the same breath he spoke of Dr. Alsberg's ability as a chemist he also stated that the corrupt and dishonest would rejoice at his appointment. It was mean, unfair and as rank a bit of misbranding as Dr. Wiley ever exposed. When Dr. Wiley was attacked last year, we felt, as doubtless did a great many, that he was a victim of a conspiracy. Here was a man who had had the courage of his convictions, who had fought for what he knew was right, and cared nothing for himself but everything for his principles. We did not hesitate, therefore, to state that we were thoroughly appreciative of the work Dr. Wiley had done; that we deprecated the very evident attempt to discredit clean, honest, fruitful effort, and that to treat a faithful public servant in such a way was far from our conception of a "square deal." Further than this, we referred to Dr. Wiley's untiring efforts which had contributed so materially to the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Law; agreeing that no little part of the credit for what had been accomplished belonged to him; and expressing the hope that as the years went on, the public would realize how much it owed to his zeal and fidelity. only one inquiry-Why? This we mention simply to show that we bear no animosity to Dr. Wiley, but, on the contrary, have held him in deep respect and esteem, and have never failed to recognize his part in a movement that has such an important bearing on the health of the people. In all kindliness, therefore, we hope that Dr. Wiley will not allow his personal hurt to warp his sense of fairness. He has been treated shabbily and has ample reason for feeling pessimistic. But he is not going to correct things by incubating his wrongs or by nursing his wrath. The world has little interest in personal grievances and Dr. Wiley has too great opportunities for helping along a great movement and doing real constructive work to waste any time or effort in keeping his personal injuries before the public. Sooner or later right will prevail but Dr. Wiley will neither hasten the day nor increase the number of his admirers by attacking the honorable men who constitute the Referee Board or by casting aspersions on the integrity and intent of the man who has succeeded him. Nothing wins quicker or more genuine commendation from decent people in general than the spirit of fair play, and there is no better way of displaying this admirable virtue than to give every man who has a duty to perform, the benefit of the doubt; in other words to assume that his motives are as honorable and clean as our own would be under similar circumstances and that success is as dear to him as it would be to us. Dr. Alsberg is a new man. Bravely yet modestly he has entered upon his office and common decency requires that he be al lowed to start his labors without the handicap of hasty and unwarranted criticism. Any other course on the part of those who are interested in his work leaves room for The Health Commissioner of the State of New York is a very important official and though little is heard of him from day to day in the newspapers, much depends on the efficiency and fidelity with which he performs his duties. One of the unfortunate things about the office is that it is political and each incumbent can hope to fill it only as long as the Governor who appoints him. This is wrong for it tends to bring into the position at all too frequent intervals, men who are inexperienced and untried; and although New York State has been favored by the appointment usually of a physician. of great ability and high character, no sooner has he become well qualified to render satisfactory service, than the exigencies. of politics have enforced his official decapitation and placed a new untrained man in the position. The evils of this system were never more evident than at the present time as the term of Dr. Eugene H. Porter ends. Few men who have filled this great and responsible position have ever rendered more conspicuous service to the people than Dr. Porter has during the period of his incumbency. Confronted constantly by ignorance, indifference and active antagonism, Dr. Porter has never faltered, but gone on doing his duty as he saw it and making the most of the means and measures at his command. How efficient and successful he has been is pretty tangibly shown by the fact that New York State's death rate for 1912, which was 14.6 per thousand of population, was the lowest ever known, and a saving of more than 5,000 lives over 1911. The rate for 1908 was 16.3 and that for 1904, 18. The highest mortality was in the maritime district, and the lowest in the southern tier. During 1912 tuberculosis caused 13,600 deaths, a decrease over previous years, the urban mortality from this disease being 154 and the rural 119 per 100,000 population. The number of cases of diphtheria was the smallest on record. Typhoid fever caused 1,135 deaths, scarlet fever 800, measles 1,000, and smallpox 3, 2 of which were in New York City. It is a matter of regret, therefore, that the State should have to lose the services of a man who has qualified himself as Dr. Porter has and who has such a broad and comprehensive grasp of the health problems throughout the State. There are a few who will criticise and condemn the outgoing Commissioner. The best man who ever lived was a victim of the same kind of people. No man who does his work fearlessly and faithfully can escape the ill feeling and hatred of a certain proportion of his fel low men. The penalty of duty zealously performed has ever been the attacks of a certain class. But when one can point to as clean and successful record as Dr. Porter can the shafts and stings of the jealous, envious or disgruntled fade into insignificance. For what he has done with the resources at his command Dr. Porter deserves the hearty approbation of his colleagues and the sincere gratitude of the principal beneficiaries, the people at large. It is a pity that the citizens of New York cannot continue to profit from his knowledge, training and experience. Perhaps some day the people will realize that officials like Dr. Porter are community assets, and will devise some scheme whereby their services can be retained as long as they are needed. Until they do we will go on wasting good faithful servants-and losing valuable time in the solution of many difficult problems-by allowing appointments to these important offices to remain at the caprice of the politicians-commodities for the payment of political debts. The fact that the system has given us a Commissioner as capable as Dr. Porter has no significance, for having served his political purpose, the system has no further interest in him. No consideration of special ability or experience will save him. If he should be reappointed it will be his political utility and not his scientific or administrative ability that will bring this to pass. Consequently the appointment of a capable man is always accidental, and so far as the system is concerned is quite as apt to be otherwise. The pernicious character therefore of such a system is always apparent but it receives especial emphasis when it enforces the retirement of an official as efficient and successful as Dr. Porter has been. |