gal of his wealth. Alcohol is the savings-bank of the tissues. He who eats little, and drinks alcohol in moderation, retains as much in his blood and tissues as he who eats more, and drinks no alcohol."
But, while we thus know that alcohol supplies the place of a certain quantity of food, we do not know how it does so. It is said to be "burnt" in the body, and to make its exit as carbonic acid and water; but no proof has yet been offered of this assertion. Some of it escapes in the breath, and in certain of the secretions; but how much escapes in this way, and what becomes of what remains—in the very large proportion, in the case of the dog previously mentioned—is at present a mystery.
In Steinmetz's "History of Tobacco," p. 97, occurs the following surmise, published nearly twenty years ago, but now established as a matter of fact. He says: "I feel compelled to believe, in advance of Liebig, that alcohol is absolutely generated in the digestive process of all animals. Startling as the theory may seem, the consideration of corroborating facts may, perhaps, induce the reader to think it probable, if not certain. It is well known that all the vegetables we eat contain starch; all the fruits contain sugar. Now, starch can easily be converted into sugar; the process of malting is a familiar instance. . . . The natural heat of the body is precisely adapted, in the healthy state, to effect a fermentation after having changed the starch into sugar, which last is constantly found in the blood. That alcohol has not been found seems to result simply from the fact that it must be sought in arterial blood, or blood which has not lost a portion of its carbon in transitu, through the lungs in the respiratory process."
Now, it happens that Dr. Dupré, in the course of his investigations, discovered that alcohol is found in small quantity in the excretions even of persons who do not touch fermented beverage in any form—that is, the healthy system of the teetotaller brews, so to speak, a little drop for itself. But, if this be the case, it would seem that we have enough already in the system, and therefore there can be no need of having recourse to the bottle or the tap for more, unless the system be a prey to disease. And this applies especially to those who live mostly on vegetable or farinaceous food, who, it may be remarked, are naturally less inclined to alcoholic drinks than those who use animal food—when it becomes particularly dangerous. So that, if the Alliance and the supporters of the Permissive Bill would succeed in their aim, they should convert us all into vegetarians. To drunkards who are anxious to reform, this is a most important consideration.
In conclusion, the most reliable opinion respecting alcoholic drinks appears to be, that the relation of their actions to food is such that, when they are required by the system, they cause a necessity for increased food; but, when not required, they lessen the necessity for food. Now, as Dr. Edward Smith emphatically remarks, the tendency of all food, but particularly of animal food, is precisely in the same
