Oklahoma permits one gallon of spirituous or vinous liquors or one cask of malt liquor at one time.

Oregon permits two quarts of vinous or spirituous liquors or 24 quarts of malt liquors within a period of four successive weeks. South Carolina permits a person to order and receive one gallon of liquor or beverages for his or her own personal use every calendar month.

Tennessee passed a law in 1913 limiting shipments to an individual for personal use to one gallon, but the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Bird v. State, 175 S. W. 554, April, 1915, that this law does not prohibit the personal transportation of quantities greater than one gallon.

Virginia has no restrictions as to quantities as yet. The manufacture of wines and malt liquors (containing not more than 32 per cent of alcohol) by companies now engaged in their manufacture, is permitted for sale outside the State, where the same may be sold legally.

Washington permits receiving within the State by an individual one-half gallon of liquor or 24 pints of beer within any twentyday period.

West Virginia restricts shipments of liquor to an individual to one-half gallon every month.

Further interesting data might be given on this subject, but these statements would seem to show that sentiment in favor of total abstinence has not as yet reached any such proportion as would indicate that a prohibition era is at hand.

An interesting illustration of this is found in the results of a vote taken early in 1916 by the Church Temperance Society, which is the recognized temperance society of the Protestant Episcopal Church. This vote was taken upon the question of so amending the constitution of the society as to practically make it a total abstinence as distinguished from a temperance society, which it has been for many years. One thousand voting papers were sent out to the Bishops of the Episcopal Church and to the members of the society, who are scattered throughout the country. An analysis of the vote made by the secretary at my special request showed that only 510 were sufficiently interested to take part in the vote, as that was

e total number of ballots cast. Of this the number in favor of the amendment was 252, the number against the amendment 258. Of the clergy who voted in favor of the amendment there were 191 in favor and 151 against the amendment. Of the laity 61 were in favor and 107 against. There were 43 bishops who voted, of whom 26 were in favor and 17 against it. I also requested information as to how many of the laity who voted for and against were physicians and also how the vote was distributed with reference to States and to urban and rural communities; this information, however, could not be afforded me.

But the data of this vote, taken among persons who were already enlisted in an active campaign against intemperance and who are among those most interested in obtaining the reign of total abstinence, is of great significance insomuch as a majority of those voting were apparently not convinced of the urgency or desirability of trying to make others abstainers; in addition to this, it must be remembered that there were some 490 who were sufficiently indifferent as not to vote upon the problem, although it is generally recognized that those not voting are satisfied with conditions as they are and would show a very small part actually in favor of the proposition. If this be so in such a voting constituency, it is safe to assume that among the citizens at large there is no general sentiment in favor of compulsory total abstinence such as would warrant us in assuming that such an era is at hand.

May we not hope that our members and those of the local Society of Medical Jurisprudence of Washington (representatives of which are meeting with us) and the learned professional men generally will bend their efforts to enlighten public opinion on the subject of alcohol as it has been enlightened on psychoses with its resultant benefits to all. Then will the public recognize alcoholism and dipsomania as diseases to be treated and entirely distinct from the moderate and normal use of alcoholic beverages which should be subject only to control and curtailment when the interests of society are demonstrated conclusively and incontestably to require it.

CAPTAIN HOBSON FINDS A "FINDING"

This is the finding of the Congress of London, signed by practically all of the great scientists that had assembled there from all over Europe, and I do not believe it has ever been contested:

"Exact laboratory, clinical and pathological research has demonstrated that alcohol is a dehydrating protoplasmic poison and its use as a beverage is destructive to the human organization. Its effect upon the cells and tissues of the body are depressing, narcotic and anaesthetic. For therapeutical purposes its use should be limited and restricted in the same way as the use of other poisonous drugs."-Captain Richmond P. Hobson in a debate before the Republican Club, New York, Feb. 19, 1916.

*

*

The Twelfth International Congress on Alcoholism was held in London in 1909. In no part of the official record of the proceedings does this "finding" appear and nowhere is there any indication that such a subject was under discussion. In what purports to the report of the United States delegation to the Congress is found this passage:

son.

"Although no resolutions were passed, the following statement drawn by Dr. T. D. Crothers of the American delegation was signed by those medical delegate and other doctors whose names are appended."

Then follows the famous "finding" as quoted by Captain Hob

This statement was signed by 26 persons, seven of whom hailed from the United States. There were 56 official delegates alone accredited to the Congress. The individual membership of the Congress included according to the official report some 1,100 persons, and about 200 societies were mentioned in that document as holding membership or being represented.

WHAT THE SCIENTISTS SAY

A short time ago the city of Baltimore was called upon to decide whether or not it would adopt prohibition. Four of the leading physicians of the city united in a public statement in part as follows:

We, the undersigned, physicians and surgeons of the City of Baltimore, endorse the following statement made by Sir William Osler, former chief of the medical staff of John Hopkins Hospital, in his work entitled "Principles and Practice of Medicine," eighth edition, page 396:

"In moderation wine, beer and spirits may be taken throughout a long life without impairing the general health.”

The men who signed the statement were Drs. Wm. H. Welch, W. S. Halstead, Hugh H. Young, and Julius Fridenwald.

The International Physiological Congress held in England in 1898 adopted the following declaration :

The physiological effects of alcohol, taken in diluted form in small doses, as indicated by the popular phrase, "moderate use of alcohol," in spite of the continued study of past years, have not as yet been clearly and completely made out. Very much remains to be done, but, thus far, results of careful experience show that alcohol so taken is oxidized within the body and so supplies energy like common articles of food, and that it is physiologically incorrect to designate it as a poison, that is, a substance which can only do harm and never good to the body. Briefly, none of the exact results hitherto gained can be appealed to as contradicting, from a purely physiological point of view, the conclusions which some persons have drawn from their barely common experience, that alcohol so used may be beneficial to their health.

Dr. Arthur R. Cushing in his text-book of "Pharmacology and Therapeutics" said:

When beers and porter do not derange the digestion, they are most nutritive of all the alcoholic preparations, owing to the

large amounts of carbo-hydrates they contain. Alcohol taken in addition to the ordinary food is either itself transformed into tissue, or undergoes oxidization instead of some substance which in turn is used to build up the body.

Dr. Allan McLane Hamilton ("Nervous Diseases") said:

A substance like alcohol, which is not only a food but a useful medicinal agent, should not thus be lightly and unfairly designated "poison," although when immoderately used it is pernicious. Certain admittedly beneficial sustinants of every-day life might as well be called poisons, among them sugar, which in excess produces serious tissue changes and disease, and which "in a concentrated solution is a powerful cell poison." Even water, which total abstinence poets have delighted to praise in flowing verse, may overburden the heart, the blood vessels and the kidneys, producing an increase in blood tension, if taken habitually in immoderate quantities and may give rise to dilation of the stomach and do a great deal of other harm.

Dr. Walter Ernest Dixon, Professor Materia Medica, etc., Kings College University of London, writing in "The Nineteenth Century” for March, 1910, said:

The secretion of the thyroid gland is esential for the proper working of the body, and both a deficiency of the secretion and an excess are prejudicial to health; the active constituent of the thyroid gland is undoubtedly a poison in excess but not in normal amounts. Alcohol also is a poison in narcotic, but not in physiological dosage. Even so well recognized a food as sugar, which is a normal constituent of the body, when present in the blood in excess, causes disease such as fatty degeneration.

Dr. Ulrik Quensel, the world-renowned Swedish physiologist, in the course of an elaborate treatise said:

As I have developed in the previous chapter a strictly moderate use of alcohol is, according to my opinion, not to be con