normal. This is an exceptional case, however, but serves very well as an illustration.

President Roosevelt happens to be the only near sighted president this country has ever had.

There are many who can see as well without as they do with their glasses, but without them severe headaches and other reflex troubles would make their lives most unpleasant. It has often been said that some people wear glasses "just for style," but in my experience I have found very few.

There are quite a good many points to which wearers of spectacles should pay more attention, the most important of which is to keep them accurately adjusted. The pupil of the eye should strike the center of the glass, which is almost as important as having the lenses fit accurately. If the lenses are too small the eyes will look through the outer edge and if too large they will look through the inner edge. Often one lens will be higher than the other, which causes the pupils to strike above and below the center, which, of course, should not be the case; and it would be a great deal better if the glasses were not worn at all than to be worn in this condition, as in this case, one eye has to turn up and the other down to obtain clear single vision, and this, you know, is not a natural condition and naturally causes eye-strain, the amount of strain depending upon the strength of the glasses worn, the stronger the lens the greater the strain.

It would not be a bad plan if spectacle wearers would have a good optician straighten their glasses at least once or twice a year, especially if they are required to wear two pairs, one for distance and one for reading, as the frequent interchanging is more liable to get them out of shape than anything else. I have seen quite a good many people whose eyes were bothering them and they thought their lenses needed changing, but I would find, after a careful examination, that the lenses were all right, but the trouble was due to the frame being out of shape, and after they were

357

straightened the trouble would disappear.

It might be well to mention the subject of cleaning spectacles. It is surprising the number of glasses worn that are dusty and dirty, and when such glasses are worn persistently, the straining in an effort to get clear vision may give rise to an irritation and severe inflammation of the eyes. The lenses should always be kept perfectly clean. This can be done with a common linen handkerchief, if not starched too much. The lenses and frame should be given a good bath once or twice a week in ammonia or alcohol, unless they are the cement bi-focal lenses. In that case it would be better to use just plain soap and water, as alcohol or ammonia water will loosen the cement on bi-focals. In wiping the lenses catch the frame or mounting as close to the glass as possible with one hand and work with the first finger and thumb of the other, for with such handling the frames are not so liable to get out of shape. With a little practice one can easily hold and wipe nose glasses without touching the mounting, using only one hand. This is the best way, as there is little chance of bending the mounting or loosening the screws.

Another important point for spectacle wearers to remember is that lenses should be changed every year or two, or after a prolonged illness, or following a severe shock, such as the death of a near relative, etc.

There are a few suggestions and "don'ts" I offer before closing which, although they are not all original, will save one's eyes considerably if followed -the most important of all being proper illumination. Light should preferably come from behind and over the left shoulder, and should not be too dull nor too bright, but just strong enough to be able to see without a strain. If it is too bright or too strong, the pupil is necessarily made smaller, to protect the sensitive retina, which causes a strain on the sphincter muscles of the iris, or color part of the eye, and if too dull, the object will naturally be held closer, which causes an excessive strain on the ciliary or focusing muscle of the eye. In some

cases, however, I realize it is almost impossible to arrange the light so that it comes from behind. Especially is this true in the modern office buildings, where each desk is usually supplied with an individual source of illumination; in this case the light should be either well shaded, or an eye shade worn.

Don't wear other people's glasses; they were probably fitted for other troubles than yours.

Don't read while in a stooping or recumbent position, especially if ill or convalescent, as this causes a congestion of the ocular tissues, which is very harmful.

Don't read while in a moving conveyance, as this causes a strain on the accommodative and fixation muscles.

Last but not least: Don't persist in reading and doing close work without the aid of properly fitted glasses, when you have the slightest reason to believe you are straining your eyes.

W

Who is Dr. Wiley.

ELL, his name in full is Dr. Harvey Washington Wiley, A. M., Ph. D., LL. D. He has been professor in several obscure colleges in Indiana, and in 1871 the degree of M. D. was conferred on him by the Indiana Medical College.

It doesn't appear that he attempted to practice medicine, or that he has fitted himself to do so.

His chief work seems to have been that of chemist. He was appointed State Chemist in Indiana. While in that position he paid considerable attention to the study of glucose and sugar. This happened to attract the attention of the Department of Agriculture at Washington, D. C., and he was appointed supervisor of our national chemical laboratory.

He has certainly made a great deal of noise and created a good deal of attention since he has been in that position. He has succeeded somehow in gaining the confidence of the administration to such a degree that he is practically the dictator of the medical and chemical interests of our Agricultural Department.

He is probably the most influential medical man in the United States in devising policies and legislation for the assistance and protection of the medical fraternity. He is a veritable Caesar in the medical world. How he got there no one seems to know. But he is there, a determined, outspoken foe of proprietary medicines, a vigilant attorney and propagandist for the American Medical Association.

And yet he doesn't seem to be liked very much by his professional brethren. Below I give a sample of what some of his colleagues think of him, quoted from the May issue of the Critic and Guide.

"And now, in our capacity of Iconoclast, we are obliged to shatter another idol. The 'people,' the masses whose sole intellectual pabulum is the newspaper, that inexhaustible source of misinformation, that thesaurus of things that 'ain't' so, are of the opinion that Dr. Wiley is a great chemist. Well, Dr. Wiley is not a great chemist. He is not even a near-great chemist. He has done absolutely nothing for the advancement of the science of chemistry, and in the world. of real chemists-sorry to shock your newspaper-derived opinions-Dr. Wiley has no standing at all. The estimable. doctor is merely an analytical chemist of very ordinary capacities, such as we have hundreds of in every large city. He is probably quite sincere, but is certainly quite mediocre. But ours is a country of mediocrities. In a country in which Chauncey Depew is a great orator, Joe Cannon a great statesman, Elihu Root a great lawyer, John D. Rockefeller a great philanthropist, Eddie Bok a great journalist, Clyde Fitch a great dramatist, James R. Day a great chancellor, S. N. Hallberg a great pharmacist, Frank Billings a great physician-it is not surprising to see Dr. Harvey Washington Wiley figure as a great chemist. "But it is to laugh."

Send 10 cents for sample copy of THE COLUMBUS MEDICAL JOURNAL. If you subscribe this will be credited on your subscription.

359

T

HE big window of my office faces a large school house, and from my desk I can sit and watch the little ones, hundreds of them, come and go. I like to watch them. Pretty little girls and sturdy little boys, ranging all the way from kindergarten age to nine or ten years. Comfortably and nearly always sensibly dressed, they trudge along to and from school, through snow and slush, in stormy weather and fair weather.

Often in rainy weather they come two under one umbrella, two little sisters, two brothers or maybe brother and sister, the older one carrying the umbrella, the younger one holding on, or dodging in and out from under the umbrella as they hurry along. The little girls nearly always pick their way, avoiding the water puddles, the mud and the snow, but the boys-well, did you ever see a real boy walk around a mud puddle or stay on the outside of a big snow drift? Just as the little girls pick out the cleanest, dryest places to walk, so the boys keep a lookout for the muddiest and most watery spots.

And, dear me, what hilarious, good times those little folks do have when they all get together on the playground! Even the little girls, the most dainty of them, forget about keeping shoes and garments clean. And I am glad they do. I hate to see children afraid to enter into good, wholesome, boisterous, outdoor sports for fear of tearing an apron or soiling a dress. When this is the case it is nearly always because the mother has made them afraid, by frequent reprimands, or even punishment, for coming home with a snagged apron or a bespattered dress. She doubtless means well, she wants the children to be clean and tidy, and it is hard work. sometimes to keep them so, but an overfussiness in regard to appearances oftentimes robs children of healthy exercise of lung and muscle, and deprives them

of the keen enjoyment of good, wholesome, romping games.

The ever-clean and snagless dress doesn't belong to the child who plays to her heart's content, and isn't afraid to play. It belongs to that prim little girl that has always been made to sit down quietly and be a lady and has been told that little girls musn't play the games that boys play, and though she always looks very sweet and clean, yet her neatness and her cleanness are at the sacrifice of that natural childish longing for active sport, which gives health and strength. But that other little girl who has never been made a sacrifice to her clothes plays all day long in healthful play, and though at night she may be dirty and tired and tattered and torn, she is yet a happy, healthy little animal, sleeping soundly all night and ready at daybreak for another day of genuine childish happi

ness.

No use to expect a child to play and at the same time keep spotlessly clean and neat. It is impossible for children to play as children naturally love to play, and not sometimes get their dresses torn and more or less soiled. I know it-for didn't I climb trees, slide down the straw stack, walk the rafters in the big barn and jump into the hay mow; didn't I crawl under the barn and explore every nook and corner many times, and help excavate a side hill, making it into a miniature barn with stalls for horses and cows, and a big yard with paths leading to pig pen and corn crib and granary; and didn't I ride the horses, and follow after the plow in the fresh turned earth, and whiz around on the whirl-a-gig, and skin-the-cat on the clothes line, and trot after the big reaper in the harvest field, and ransack the woods, and scramble up and down rocky hillsides, and wade through the brooks and thick grasses wet with dew, hunting violets and daisies and sweet Williams,

dell of Westmoreland County and backed by Health Commissioner Dixon.

The League expended in this contest, and in the agitation leading up to it, about three thousand dollars, and several thousand dollars more were expended by local leagues at Waynesboro, Erie, Bangor, Johnstown, Harrisburg, Pittsburg and elsewhere. One of the largest contributors to the funds of the League was John Pitcairn, one of the foremost business men of Pennsylvania.

While the Watson Bill was before the Legislature a joint debate was held, in which the advocates of vaccination met their Waterloo. The anti-vaccinationists opened the debate with speeches by John Pitcairn, J. W. Seip, M. D.; Porter F. Cope, Zachary T. Miller, M. D., and C. Oscar Beasley, Esq. The advocates of vaccination followed, and spoke a half hour longer. They were represented by Samuel G. Dixon, M. D.; William M. Welch, M. D.; Jay F. Schamberg, M. D.; M. J. Rosenau, M. D.; W. M. L. Coplin, M. D.; Joseph McFarland, M. D., and Seneca Egbert, M. D.,-undoubtedly the most powerful combination of vaccinationists in the United States.

Owing to the action of Governor Stuart in disapproving the Watson Bill the lines are now forming for the great contest which will take place at the Legislative session of 1909.

There is no danger of your correspondent going to jail on account of his refusal to have his child vaccinated. If he has offered to send his child to school he has complied with the law. This ruling was made by former Attorney General Carson, when the case of Mrs. Victoria Moulton, East Lemon, Wyoming County, Penn., was under consideration. She had been twice imprisoned on account of her refusal to have her son vaccinated when ordered to do so by the school and health officials. The Anti-Vaccination League advised her of her rights immediately upon learning of

361

the persecution to which she was being subjected. The courts have confirmed the opinion of the Attorney General.

Your reply to "J. N." is faulty in several other particulars.

Compulsory Vaccination has been forbidden in Utah and West Virginia. In Wisconsin a bill providing for it was vetoed by the then Governor, now United States Senator LaFollette. In Illinois, the Vaccination School Law, and ordinances having the same purpose, have been declared unconstitutional. In Minnesota the law has been amended so as to apply only in the presence of epidemics. In Louisiana there is no such law, and the same is true of many other states; but vaccination is sometimes enforced without any law to back it.

In England, what is known as the "conscience clause" was passed ten years ago. The last Parliament remedied defects in this law, and extended its provisions to Scotland.

Vaccination by direct compulsion is a violation of constitutional and natural rights, but it is frequently exercised, nevertheless, in the United States. Indirect compulsion is not a violation of the Constitution, according to the opinion. of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Jacobson's Appeal from the Supreme Court of Massachusetts.

So far as Pennsylvania is concerned, Governor Stuart alone is responsible for the continuance of compulsory vaccination. The sentiment of the people of the state is overwhelmingly against vaccination, but the Governor is completely. under the influence of a clique of official doctors, who are using him for the promotion of their own selfish interests. The Governor is a man who has always been distinguished for his loyalty to his personal friends, admirable trait which in the present instance has led him into the commission of a very great wrong to the masses of the people. Governor Stuart is himself a bachelor, and