Newspaper Page Text
Items of Interest Gathered Here and There
Why Cigarettes Are Harmful.
Commenting on a recent reprint from The Lancet,
in which the cigarette is condemned because of the
ease with which it is obtained and used, Claude S.
Woolley, of Baltimore, writes as follows: “The real
point in regard to tobacco is not how much is used,
but the kind and how it is used; that is to say,
how much of it gets into the system. Now, the
cigarette is usually, almost always, inhaled into the
lungs, the pipe and cigar rarely are, and can not
be with any comfort. Thus the cigarette smoke
comes into contact with several square feet of mem
brane, in the lungs, divided from the blood by only
a thin membrane, where very rapid absorption takes
place.
The cigar and pipe, or rather the smoke therefrom,
is brought in the mouth into contact with only a
few square inches of mucous absorbing surface; thus
the amount actually absorbed, excepting that swal
lowed into the stomach, is very small. This is the
real danger of the cigarette, and by its means, used
in this way, the system is soon loaded with narcotic
products, and the nervous system enchained in a
very serious bondage. That these are the real facts,
there is no question, and if the cigarette was used
in the same way that the pipe and cigar are used,
with no inhalation into the lungs, it is more than
likely, that by reason of the mild tobacco that they
usually contain, they would be less harmful than
either of the other forms referred to. It is true
that the fumes of pyroligneous acid from the burn
ing paper might have some irritating effect upon
the mouth and throat, but so far as the tobacco it
self is concerned, they would be less harmful. But
in the form they are at present used, they are in
the long run indeed deadly.”
* «
Automobile Damage to 'Roads.
The prevailing belief that automobiles do con
siderable damage to the highways is asserted to be
erroneous, or at least very much exaggerated, by a
writer in The Automobile (New York, October 31).
We read on the editorial page in this magazine:
“ ‘Give a dog a bad name and hang him’ has sel
dom been better exemplified than in the case of the
accusation against the automobile in the matter of
road damage. It must be conceded once and for all
that the automobile does wear out the roads —the
very best of roads —but whether it does so to any
thing like the extent that those road supervisors
who can only view 7 the matter through prejudiced
eyes would have the rest of the world believe, is a
horse of quite another color. But it has become
quite the fashion to blame the automobile for any
thing and everything, from the spread of the gipsy
moth to a falling off in church attendance, and so
it is that on it falls the entire onus of utterly ruin
ing roadways, which, it must be inferred, would
otherwise last forever. Both the automobile and
the road damage it does are new things, and, as a
consequence, there has been too much of heated ac*
cusation on one hand, with retort in kind on the
other, and far too little calm consideration to have
made any progress possible.
“The road-builder and local taxpayer point with
wrath to newly corrugated surfaces and disinte
grated top dressings that bear the tell-tale imprint
of pneumatic tires, and, in kindred spirit, the auto
ist resorts to the tu-quoque argument, calling at
tention to the road-destroying ruts made by nar
row tires and holes dug by sharp iron hoofs. It is
high time to recognize the fact that roads can not
be used without wearing out, and everything pass
ing over them contributes to the wear to some ex
tent. But w 7 e have been accustomed to the unsightly
and destructive ruts and holes of horse traffic ever
since there has been such a thing as a road; the
damage created by the automobile is something
novel. Hence the primal cause of the road’s rapid
disintegration is overlooked. Unfortunately, how
ever, the automobile takes up the w 7 ork where the
horse leaves off, and, the evidences of its crime
being so different, it is accused of being respon
sible for the entire damage. It does not take an
expert road-builder to show the fallacy of such a
The Golden Age for December 5, 1907.
theory, and any unbiased observer' must admit that
the automobile’s share of damage does not exceed
that of the horse. But a moment’s consideration is
necessary to show that the automobile has advanced
the art of road-building, and the spread of good
roads more than any other single agency.”
* n
A Condemnation of "Expert Testimony”
What is stigmatized as “the scandal of expert
testimony” is caustically treated in the pages of
American Medicine (Philadelphia) for October.
This scandal, the editor declares, is “the shame and
confusion of the medical profession.” There may
have been a time, he admits, when this practice
served the ends of justice fairly well, but at pres
ent it is “fundamentally wrong,” for the experts,
instead of being impartial servants of the court,
independent of either plaintiff or defendant, are
hired by the interested parties. He writes:
“Lawyers have cynically remarked that they can
buy any kind of an expert opinion they want, and
they doubtless reflect a wide-spread popular idea
that if the fee is big enough it molds the opinion
of the expert. This impression is a gross injustice
to the great body of honorable men who have al
ways formed their opinions from the facts. Never
theless, the cases in which the popular impression
appears to be well-founded are so numerous that
they taint all the rest. If the expert witnesses
of the two sides had sense enough to get together
and discuss a case, they would not differ so often.
The profession owes it to itself to end the wretched
system, which has really died already, in that it
has outlived its usefulness. The decaying carcass
smells to heaven. Disinfection is not enough.
Burial is needed.”
That the jury must remain the judges of fact is
regarded by the writer as a necessity and, indeed,
as the foundation of Anglo-Saxon liberty. We de
mand, he says, that our causes be decided by our
peers, not by those in authority over us nor by those
beneath us, but by those who think as we think,
and do as we do, and who can best interpret our
acts. He goes on:
“The jury must be given the exact facts, and when
necessary, the impartial opinions of learned men to
help them understand the facts. Opposing experts
mutually destroy the value of their opinions and
defeat justice. The jury is left to decide for itself
like tossing up a penny —some one way, some the
ether. Not only is society injured by the acquittal
of the guilty, but there is the more horrible possi
bility of unjust convictions resulting from the opin
ions of the experts of the prosecution, as in the
Guiteau case. Experts have enormous influence. It
is not true that the Thaw jurors ‘paid no atten
tion to the alienists,’ for several were convinced
that the accused was insane, and the rest were con
vinced by the other alienists that he was not in
sane.
“Impartial opinions are now demanded by the
very abuses of partisanship. From all over the
world there are suggestions of plans to remove the
expert from the influence of either side. The gen
eral opinion seems to be in the direction of a com
mission selected by the court, but subject to ob
jection by either side. The last suggestion, in cases
of criminal insanity, is to have a permanent board
of alienists, appointed by the Supreme Court after
recommendation by some,medical association. From
this board, a commission acceptable to each side
will be selected to examine into the case and report
its findings to the jury. There will still be differen
ces of opinion, for that w 7 ill be. human, but there
will be no suspicion of bias or dishonesty. In ev
ery trial needing expert advice —surgical, medical,
engineering, or any other, a similar procedure is
demanded. The details can be worked out by the
bar and scientific associations. The matter must be
taken up at once, for the scandal is making a mock
ery of skill and learning.
“Hired experts will always be used by both prose
cution and defense, as a matter of necessity to as
sist in preparing the case, but they must not be per
mitted on the stand as witnesses. There is no rea-
son why they should not be recognized as assist
ants to the attorneys. The accused is entitled to it
as a right, or we will revert to the Dark Ages when
he was presumed to be guilty, forbidden an at
torney, and then hanged. It should be as ethical for
the doctor as for the lawyers. Such an expert
would be recognized as an advocate, but if he is a
witness he must have no connection with either side,
and be as impartial as the judge and jury. No one
doubts the fairness of a judge because he was once
.an advocate, nor would an expert witness be tainted
because he was a hired assistant to the attorney in
some previous case.” —The Literary Digest.
* M
German Ideas of the American Woman.
The interrogatory puzzle or problem of the
American woman, including the “Gibson Girl” and
the “Harrison Fisher Girl,” is discussed at some
length by Max von Brandt, in the ‘ ‘Deutsche Revue ’ ’
(Stuttgart). Mr. von Brandt is a German writer
of authority, and has served in many diplomatic
capacities at home and abroad. He thinks that
in this country several things coi.spire to render
the mothers and daughters peculiar. They are sin
gular both from a racial and social standpoint, and
he endeavors, with true German thoroughness and
ponderosity, to point out the things which dis
tinguish our girls from those of his native land.
He emphasizes the fact that he is speaking merely
of those who are neither African, Chinese, nor
Japanese in origin. He also excludes from his
generalizations those of the Latin and other races
who form colonies in the United States, and never
blend completely with the population. He calcu
lates that there are some 32,641,781 American wo
men of the class he designates, and with scientific
punctilio tells us:
“In the United States there exist Americanized
strata of population derived from the early im
migrants, English, Dutch, French, Spanish, Ger
man, Danish and Scandinavian. The newest addi
tions, of whom rhe majority are Russians, Poles,
Austrians, and Italians, can not be reckoned as
American women. The influence of America has
not entered into the flesh and blood of such. But
even when the class of the American woman is
thus defined, it is impossible to point to a typical
American girl, such as would anywhere be recog
nizable. The ‘Gibson Girl’ is merely a type of
young women often met with, such as the still more
modern ‘Harrison Fisher Girl’ so lecently appear
ing in the lighter literature of the land. In reality
the American women are as specialized by descent,
education, locality, and climate as are the dwellers
in separate provinces of other countries. Every
American man, and still more every American wo
man, are different from each other according as
they live in New York, Boston, Chicago, San Fran
cisco, Baltimore, New 0) leans, or other cities, just
as the Germans are, according as they live in Ber
lin, Hamburg, Cologne, or Munich.”
While the American woman thus varies in type
so that the dress, voice, and countenance of a Bos
ton Guitarist are distinct from the pork-packer’s
child of Chicago, the French creole of New Or
leans, or the aristocrat of New Amsterdam descent,
yet all these American girls have certain common
characteristics, which Mr. von Brandt specifies as
follows:
“There are, however, two peculiarities to be
found in American girls. Whether born or merely
brought up in America, they evidence the same in
dependence of judgment, and the same complete
self-reliance. It is hard to say whether this is the
result of the education in public schools and in the
co-education of colleges, or of their freedom from
that condition of legal and social subserviency to
which the gentler sex is doomed in older countries.
It is with us most frequently the case that the fe
male members of the family are occupied with
providing for and looking to the future, ivhile the
men are making provision for the present, its needs
and its expenses. Such a thing is inconceivable in
the United States. Here, the number of girls and
women who make their own lining is ever increas
ing.”—The Literary Digest.
3