alcohol drinks is, in character similar to the retardation which follows the use of vinegar, lemon juice, or other acid fluids or mixtures, such as salads highly seasoned with vinegar."* After this acid is neutralized, he goes on to say, there is no marked retarda ion of the starch-digesting process. Many experiments, like those which Dr. Beaumont had long before made upon Alexis St. Martin, were made upon dogs. Through a fistula, or opening, natural or artificial into the digestive tract of a dog, food was introduced and withdrawn, and examined at every stage of the process of digestion. A careful record of the time occupied, of the secretions induced and their amounts, of the chemical changes that occurred and of the absorption that took place, was made for each experiment, and these were all tabulated. Results reached in other ways were thus confirmed by these direct observations. It had been noticed long before this that alcohol had a curious power of protecting the proteid food taken, so that when alcohol is present "the animal does not need so much nitrogenous food in his diet."† In the record of later experiments by Mendel and Hilditch, on human subjects this "proteid protecting power" was found to be present in men as well as in animals, in consequence of the presence of alcohol. These latter experiments say that "moderate doses of alcohol are oxidized in the body and may thus exercise a sparing action on the metabolism (or conversion into living tissues) of other food stuffs." It was also found, although this phenomenon is not clearly understood, that its presence causes an increase in the elimination of uric acid. In the case of the later experiments made upon men, the subjects selected were as far as possible alike-apart from body weight and individuality. They were neither of them accustomed to the use of alcohol, they were both dieted for three days before any alcohol was administered, the food given was just enough to keep them in a state of health. The doses of alcoholic liquors were very moderate. As a result they found that there was an increased output of uric acid, the protein-sparing action of the alcohol was apparent from the first day and that there was no bad effect of any kind observed. *Journal of Medicine and Science, Jan., 1899—P. 52. "It is seen," say the experimenters, “that side by side with the lesser or greater retardation of digestive proteolysis, [protein digestive power] caused by alcoholic beverages, there occurs an increased flow of gastric juice, rich in acid and of unquestionable digestive power. The two effects may thus normally counterbalance each other, though it is evident that modifying conditions may readily retard or stimulate the processes in the stomach according to circumstances."* The conclusion of the whole matter, as far as is to-day known, is, that alcohol in moderate doses does not produce any noticeable "disturbance in the alimentary utilization of the food stuffs.” This conclusion is in perfect harmony with the results of investigations by such European scientists as Zuntz and Magnus-Levy, regarding the influence of alcoholic drinks—of beer especially “on the digestibility and the utilization of food in the body.”† *American Journal of Physiology, Mar. 1, 1898-P. 208. †American Journal of Physiology, Mar. 1, 1898-P. 209. Longevity of Beer Drinkers. Two instances of notable longevity of beer drinkers, are recorded in recent issues of "Das Bier," published in Munich. In one case, an old man of upwards of 100 years of age, hale and in the possession of all his faculties, appeared to participate in the Easter foot-washing ceremony in that city. He stated that he had been all his life a liberal consumer of beer and was glad to be able to come to Munich and get some of that city's famous brew. The other instance is that of a hearty old gentleman of 86, who has for 66 years been a regular patron of a famous resort in Munich, where he occupies the same seat at the same table, almost daily, and enjoys his beer. LIQUOR AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS. 'N the course of an admirable paper on the “Relations of Federal and State Governments to the Liquor Traffic," Mr. William H. Hirsh, of New York, establishes these positions, to wit:— (1) That the police power does not lie in the twilight zone of doubtful jurisdiction, but is clearly and unquestionably lodged in the separate States and denied to the national government, and should remain in the States. (2) That the regulation of the sale of alcoholic drinks within a State falls under and is subject to this police power and belongs to the State absolutely, and can not be undertaken or interfered with by the National government in any manner, except in so far as an article of inter-State commerce comes under the protection of the Federal government. (3) That there can be no legislation by Congress with respect to the sale of alcoholic drinks within the States. (4) That an amendment of the Constitution providing for legislation by Congress for the regulation of the sale of drinks in the States would be in violation of the fundamental principles of the relation of the Federal government to the State governments, and would encroach upon the police power which was one of the rights and prerogatives plainly and indisputably reserved to the States and always exercised by them, and would constitute a dangerous precedent for further absorption by the National government of powers which essentially go to make up State sovereignty. (5) That liquor in packages constitutes a legitimate article of commerce and as such enjoys all the rights and protection afforded by the Federal government in the exercise of its control of inter-State commerce. (6) That liquor has always been considered as an article of commerce, and no legislation should be enacted or considered by Congress which will remove it from or deny it the benefit of the regulation delegated to the Federal government over articles of inter-State commerce. (7) That in considering any proposition which deals with the restriction or supervision of the liquor traffic or the imposition of additional burdens upon it by way of taxation or otherwise, it should always be borne in mind that liquor has always been, still is and ever should be a recognized article of commerce, and as such should be saved from harsh and confiscatory measures which are condemned both by the letter and spirit of Federal and State constitutions, and should only be subjected to reasonable regulations and a fair share of the tax burdens. Furthermore, neither the official nor the lay mind should ignore or be permitted to forget the enormous sums of money invested in property and commodities especially adapted for the production of malt and other liquors, the many thousands of persons employed in and dependent upon the liquor industries themselves and their kindred and affiliated lines, the stupendous revenue derived from the production and sale of liquor yearly by the Federal and State governments, not to mention the millions upon millions of dollars contributed to both Federal and State exchequers by these industries in former times. The Right to Drink. "The total abstainer has a right to demand that the saloon shall not be maintained as a public nuisance; and the German beerdrinker has a right to demand that he shall not be banished to the milk dairy and the soda water fountain. . . . Is it right to drink wine and beer? It is right for each individual to decide that question for himself and for the community to put such regulations on the sale of wine and beer, and only such, as are necessary to prevent popular excesses and public disorder. In brief, in a community in which religious ideals differ, religious non-conformity, with protection of the common right of all, has been found to be the solution. In a community in which ethical ideals differ, ethical non-conformity, with protection of the rights of all, will be found the solution. It is the only solution possible in a self-governing community."--Dr. LYMAN ABBOTT. MAINE. European Views of Prohibition that Does Not Prohibit. From the Scotsman (Edinburgh.) T is sixty-five years since Maine set the example of State prohibition of liquor. Vermont followed in 1852, Connecticut in 1854, New Hampshire in 1855, and later Massachusetts and Rhode Island; but they all, after an experiment of shorter or longer duration, gave it up. In other States, the prohibition of liquor by law was tried and abandoned-Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, may be cited as examples of good intentions paving the way to common-sense. Even New York State was induced to follow the teetotal lead in 1855; but, thanks to the intricacies of American law, the edict was declared unconstitutional. Among the faithless Maine has long stood faithful. But only in a technical and legal sense; because liquor has always been obtainable in Maine, and the question arose whether Prohibition was a fact or a fraud. On this subject Mr. Joseph Rowntree and Mr. Arthur Sherwell, who must be regarded as among the most sane and sincere of temperance reformers, have spoken with no uncertain voice. It should, of course, be prefaced that under the Constitution of the United States the regulation of the liquor traffic is left to the State Legislatures. In Maine the law has long been a dead letter. This does not mean merely that people in that State may easily buy and consume spirituous liquor; there is a tax actually imposed by the Internal Revenue authorities upon the liquor sold, and regularly collected by the officials. Such a state of things is manifestly dishonest. It amounted, in the words of Messrs. Rowntree and Sherwell, to "the open and shamelss violation of the Prohibition Law, long winked at," which has latterly become an "intolerable scandal." Sooner or later the divergence between the letter of the law and the habits of the people had to be adjusted. The Rev. S. F. Pearson, a Gospel Temperance Reformer of large activities, secured election as Sheriff over both the Republican and Democratic candidates in 1901-1902. He was a sincere and even a fanatical reformer, bent on putting the law into execution, and he died of heart disease in a strenuous struggle to achieve enforcement. His own public statements are on record, and they show that he found on his election in 1900 that "there are 233 licensed (i.e., permitted) |