But there is another side to this picture. It is brought out by the comparison of the food of wage-workers here and in Europe. The smallest among the American dietaries of this class examined furnished 3,500 Calories of energy per man per day. The average of seven dietaries of 421 persons in Massachusetts, of factory operatives, mechanics, etc., at moderate work, was 4,415 Calories; and that of four dietaries of mechanics and laborers in Connecticut at severe work, 6,705. In this latter the dietary of the Massachusetts brickmakers with their 8,850 Calories was not included. The average of twenty dietaries of wage-workers in the two States named was 5,275 Calories. In a large number of European dietaries of which I have obtained statistics there are many which range from only 1,700 to 1,900 Calories. Of course these are of relatively poor people. The average of eleven dietaries of poorly fed wage-workers in Saxony and Prussia is 2,290. The average of the same number of dietaries of well-paid mechanics in Bavaria is 3,150. The largest European dietary I have found on record for men in ordinary conditions, even with the severest labor, gives in the neighborhood of 4,500. The American workingmen whose dietaries were examined were better nourished by half than their transatlantic brethren. These comparisons have, I believe, a profound significance.

The dietary statistics above cited, taken with the collateral facts, lead to the inference that ordinary people have with us what only the exceptionally well-fed have on the other side of the Atlantic-the food they need to make the most of themselves and their work. Indeed, is it not safe to say that so far as the facts at hand go, they imply very distinctly that to the American workingman is vouchsafed the priceless gift which is denied to most people of the world, namely, the physical conditions, including especially the liberal nourishment, which are essential to large production, high wages, and the highest physical existence, and that as a corollary he has a like peculiar opportunity for intellectual and moral development and progress? To my own mind, the saddest part of the picture that one sees among the industrious and worthy members of the poorly paid and poorly fed classes in Europe is not the physical want, but the spiritual poverty, the lack of buoyancy, the mute, hopeless endurance of their lives. And, by contrast, the happiest feature in the condition of wageworkers with us is not simply that they have better food, better clothing, better houses, and a better material existence in general, but that they have what these things bring-the vigor, the ambition, the

hope for higher things-and that their effort leads them to the realization of their hope.

The general principle here urged is that liberal food, large production, and higher wages go together. If this be true, the connection between the American's generous diet and his high wages is very clear. The question naturally follows: What is to be done for the future maintenance of the position of our laboring people at home and in their competition with others in the markets of the world? Part of the answer, at any rate, must be sought in a reform in the purchase and use of food. Instead of our present wastefulness, there must be future saving. With increase of population and closer competition with the rest of the world, the abundance which tempts us to our lavishness must grow gradually less, and closer economy will be needed for living on our present plane of nutrition.

How will the coming man be nourished? If he follows the teachings which the science of nutrition will supply and the teachings of economy will enforce, his diet will be better fitted to his wants. If his work be intellectual, he will avoid excess. If it be physical, he will have enough to make the most of himself and his work. He will learn to economize in the purchase and use of his food, and devote that part of his income which he saves thereby to meeting his higher needs. These considerations suggest another question: Has man yet reached his highest development? The poorer classes of people—and few of us realize how numerous they are-the world over are scantily nourished. The majority of mankind live on a nutritive plane far below that with which we are familiar. We may hope for the best culture, not of the intellectual powers, but of the higher Christian graces in the minds and hearts of men, in proportion as the care of their bodies is provided for. Happily, with advance of knowledge comes the improvement of material conditions. May we not hope that the future development of our race will bring that provision for physical wants which is requisite for the best welfare of mind and soul?

In order that this consummation may come to pass, more information is necessary. Its basis must be research of the highest order. The subject is new; in its study we stand upon the borders of a continent of which only a small portion has been explored. In the great European universities investigation is active. In our own country extremely little is being done, and that little is dependent almost entirely upon private munificence for its support. The studies of American food and dietaries referred to above have been maintained chiefly

at private expense. The great need is for abstract inquiry. The underlying problems are the conservation of matter and the conservation of energy in the living organism. We shall not be able to tell how to get the most nutriment for our money and how to fit our food to our actual needs until these problems are more nearly solved. It is the old story, so true and yet so hard to make people believe that the knowledge which on the surface seems least practical is really the most indispensable and the most useful. Part of the inquiry that is wanted can and doubtless will be carried on at public cost, but the kind which reveals the fundamental laws of biological chemistry requires the atmosphere and the appliances of the university and can be accomplished only by the endowment of research. If a sufficient sum could be donated for this purpose it would bring fruit of untold value to the world, and to the donor the richest reward that a lover of his fellow-man can have.

W. O. ATWATER.

THE SLAUGHTER OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES.

AN English writer on railways, in response to a statement of mine that the business of transportation by rail in England was conducted with greater regard to the life and limb of employees than in this country, replied: "Yes, that seems to be shown by statistics, but we in England pay too high a price for the lives thus saved." When asked what he meant by so cold-blooded a remark, he asserted that the cost entailed by the devices to make the business of transportation a safe one placed a value on the lives of railway employees higher than the value placed on the lives of employees in any other department of industry. Whether this be true in England or not—and I know of no way of testing its accuracy-it certainly does not apply to the United States.

The total number of
The number killed

The facts in the case are somewhat startling. railway employees on June 30, 1890, was 749,301. during the twelve months preceding was 2,451 and the number injured 22,396. This means one death for every 306 and one injury for every 30 men employed. Confining the statement to those employees engaged directly in the handling of trains, that is to say, engineers, firemen, conductors, and other trainmen, the results are beyond the experience in any other business or trade. The number of employees of this class was 153,235, and out of this number there occurred during the year 1,459 deaths and 13,172 injuries due to some form of railway accident. This means one death for every 105 and one injury for every 12 men engaged in handling trains. In no other employment, not even in mining, which is a most dangerous occupation, can such results be shown.

It is such facts as these that have given rise to renewed agitation for legislation requiring the use of safety appliances. The Interstate Commerce Commission recently received a petition signed by 10,000 railway employees asking that the matter be taken up with vigorous purpose. President Harrison has interested himself in the matter, and on each succeeding January for three years has sent a special message to Congress calling the attention of that body to the imperative ne

cessity for some action. "It is," he said, "a reproach to our civilization that any class of American workmen should, in the pursuit of a useful and necessary vocation, be subjected to peril of life and limb as great as that of a soldier in time of war." In one respect this demand of railway employees for the protection of the law comes with greater force than a similar demand would come from any other class of workers, for they cannot to any great degree guard against casualties to which they are exposed. They incur the risks while others determine the conditions on which those risks depend. It may be true that an increase of general intelligence will tend to decrease casualties, but no degree of intelligence or of personal care can insure safety in the presence of dangerous conditions. It is this fact which gives to the demand of railway men for legislation a special significance.

But what, it may be asked, is the nature of the accidents to which. railway men are exposed? For upon this depends the decision whether or not the danger of railway employment can be obviated in any degree by the intervention of law. This question may be most easily answered by the insertion of a short table taken from the last report on statistics of railways in the United States. It shows the number killed and injured for each class of accident named, and the percentage of casualties in each class to total casualties:

A glance at these figures indicates at once where the chief danger lies. The total number killed in coupling and uncoupling cars was 369 and the number injured was 7,842; while the total number killed in falling from trains and engines was 561 and the total number injured was 2,363. That is to say, 37.94 per cent of the total number of deaths and 45.57 per cent of the total number of injuries sustained by railway employees resulted while coupling cars or setting brakes.