Baltimore Evening Sun (20 January 1912): 6.

The daily thought from “Also sprach Zarathustra”:

In the market place one convinceth by gestures. But reasons make the mob distrustful.

Interesting topics of debate for our village debating societies:

Resolved, That the First Branch of the City Council is even worse than the Second Branch. Resolved, That not more than 10,000 Baltimoreans go so far into liquor every Saturday night that they sleep until 6 P. M. Sunday. Resolved, That the annual death rate in Baltimore is less than that in the average smallpox hospital.

Today is the third anniversary of the cases against the four former Sheriffs who stand charged with gobbling public moneys in violation of the Coustitution. Not one of these cases has yet come to trial. Dilationes in lege sunt odiosæ.

The betting odds in the downtown taverns, as my hired dipsomaniacs bring them in:

1 to 6,000 that He gets the nomination. 400 to 1 that the merit system gets the hemlock.

The plan for the establishment of a theatrical censorship in Baltimore is revolutionary and dangerous: it opens the way for gross and intolerable abuses; it holds a threat over the best plays our theatres have to offer; it gives encouragement to that militant virtue which is the worst of all human vices; it is entirely devoid of excuse, necessity, justification or common sense. Wherefore and by reason of which it will undoubtedly appeal with great force to the First and Second Branches of the Hon. the Narrenverein.

In today’s Letter Column my old friend, the Hon. Henry A. McMains, D O., press agent of the League for Medical “Freedom,” Maryland Branch, performs upon the subject of sewer gas. Some time ago, as connoisseurs of balderdash will recall, he announced the discovery that sewer gas would not cause typhoid fever. Arrested by this announcement, I offered him a picture postcard for the name and address of any ass who thought that it would. Now he bounces into the ring again—this time with proof that, back in 1906, a certain Dr. Horrocks put forward the doctrine that the spray arising from splashing sewage, if carried into houses by air currents, might convey the infection.

Apparently, my great and good friend discerns no difference between sewer gas and sewage spray. Therefore, it is a pleasure to explain to him that the two things are much unlike. Sewer gas, dear fellow, can under no circumstances cause typhoid fever. The disease is caused by the bacilli typhosus, and by the bacilli typhosis only. But the spray from sewage, if a number of such bacilli happen to be in it, may very easily carry the disease—not because it is spray, or because it happens to come from sewage, but simply and solely because of the bacilli in it. Lager beer has the same effect exactly—provided the bacilli be present. And so, too, have bay rum, dishwater, cow’s milk, ice tea, and May wine.

Dr. Horrocks did not believe, nor did he say that he believed, that sewer gas, or even sewage spray, was the cause of typhoid fever. He knew perfectly well that typhoid fever was caused by the bacillus typhosus. All he did say was that the spray—uot the gas—might carry the bacilli. Well, that theory is perfectly defensible. No sane plan denies it. The only question at issue concerns the distance to which the spray may be carried by air currents. Dr. Horrocks, investigating the matter in 1906, came to the conclusion that the distance might be considerable. Later investigators incline to the view that it must be very short. A difference, true enough, but purely a difference in mechanics, and one having nothing whatever to do with the cause of typhoid fever.

Meanwhile, the majority of us, even though we have no belief that sewer gas causes typhoid, still cling to the sanitary plumbing. That is because we object to sewer gas on other grounds—for example, on the ground that it offends the nose. So we try to keep it out of our houses, even at heavy expense, despite the gallant efforts of the League for Medical “Freedom” to let it in. Upon sewer gas, the pediculidae and many forms of bacteria we hunkers pronounce the curse of outlawry. To us they are ferae naturae. We fight them with mallets, antiseptics and sanitary plumbing. We may be extravagant, we may be cruel, we may be sinful—but such is our nature, and we can’t help it. [Private Note.—Let me ask you, my dear McMains, to be more accurate in your quotations hereafter. The article you mention was not in Nature for April 18, 1909, but in the number for April 18, 1907. What was the result? Simply that it took my slaves 24 hours to find the article, at a cost to me of $7.80. True enough, I have barrels of money—but no man likes to waste it in such a way. Thanks for the bottle of Benedictine. Regards to all the allopaths.]

Second reading of the model and bullet-proof divorce bill:

AN ACT to repeal Section 36 of Article 16 of the Code of Public General Laws of Maryland, entitled “Chancery,” subtitle “Divorce,” and to re-enact the said section with amendments:

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland, that Section 36 of Article 16 of the Code of Public General Laws, entitled “Chancery,” subtitle “Divorce,” be and the same is herebt repealed and re-enacted so as to read as follows: 36. Upon the hearing of any bill for a divorce, the Court may decree a divorce a vinculo matrimonii whenever it shall be established that the parties to the action have lived apart, and not as man and wife, for a period of at least three years next preceding the date of the application for such divorce, whether by the wish and act of one party alone or both of them.

36a. No other cause or causes shall be sufficient for the grant of a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, nor shall it be lawful for any court of equity, or any referee, in the course of a hearing of an application for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, to admit any evidence as to the conduct of either of the parties, either before or during the period of separation provided for in Section 36, nor any evidence as to the financial arrangements or transactions between the parties before or during the said period of separation, nor any other evidence tending to explain or account for the said separation, or the causes thereof.

36b. After a divorce a vinculo matrimonii has been granted by the terms of Section 36 and 36a of this Article, it shall be unlawful for either party to the action, whether plaintiff or defendant, to marry either the other party or any other person during the period of five years next following. 36c. Nothing in this Act shall be accepted as repealing or amending Section 14 and 15 of Article 16 of the Public General Laws, entitled “Chancery,” subtitle “Alimony,” or Sections 35, 37, 38 and 39 of Article 16 of the Public General Laws, entitled “Chancery,” subtitle “Divorce.” Section 2. And be it further enacted, That this Act shall take effect from the date of its passage.

Enough arsenic to kill a man to any Baltimorean, not a professional politician, who will come forward with one sound reason for holding that the City Council is worth a darn.