TOPICS OF THE DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 11863, 17 April 1903, Page 2

TOPICS OF THE DAY.

[Prom Our Speciax, Correspondent.] ! , . J LONDON, March 6. mPAt And Cancer A discussion has beeh in progress in a cmtemKttßiy cn the subject Sunlight artlclf Df Dg £Mtadia.’ Iri one ruw 1» Df P l ? 5 (Melbourhc Health hearth increases the CaUSCS “ increase in the mnnhr t *. us tecess itatii;g an additional S» ? f nitrcgenous food, which accounted for the greater consumption of meat m Austraha. This theory is combated by * f , r >. R Newcome, who claims that fiortrirti 0113 . for \ he constunpln A nstraha art its cheapness and aiihrulatjng character." He poitits oat that in India, “ where the heat is at its greatest, the people maintain their health on farinaceous food, and where this is vaned and abundant they are strong and “^ rg S tlc : bu nl>gbt in countries like Itaiy tod Spam induces indolence.” CertainJv he says, a meat diet is not productive ’of “^ b i Ded „^ ith “ W * her Physical and mental qualities,’ ih the case or the Lapii D wj « l he Pat agonians. Dr Creaswdl claimed that meat-eating give its votaries a greater rapacity for resisting epidemic diseases. Dr Newcome demands proof of that assertion, but himself asserts that there are two diseases increased by eating meat to wit, cancer and influenza. Of the former. hf says, “2,771 cases in nine years, ahd others registered as bronchitis, pneumonia, and other diseases of the respiratory gystem which originated in attacks of influenza, are many mote than We may be led to expect from the climate of Victoria ” As regards deaths from canter in Victoria. he quotes the Victorian YeSr Book to show that m 1897 T74 died from this dread disease* being at the rate of 6.60 for 10,000 living. In New Zealand in the same year the proportion was 5.47. Mr Newcome concludes:—'“ The contrast between the mortality from cancer in England and the Australian colonies, as compared with India, where meat is but little used, is very remarkable, and if the comparison be continued to other countries it will be seen that the prevalence of cancer is in regular proportion to the amount of meat-eating.” We ore evidently in for a battle of cancer statistics, but even if it be shown that in meat-eating cotmtries capcer is more frequently met witn than in lands where cereals form the backbone of the people’s daily food, that would scarce be positive proof that the consumption of meat induces cancel, though it would certainly be father siiggestiVe of a connection between the food and the disease. But, oh! these men of science! They are evidently bent on making us live in an atmosphere of perpetual fear. First they ban the innocent tomato as productive of cancer, then they try to scare us into vegetarianism, but prove to us meanwhile that the whole world swarms with evil bacilli of every terrifying description. The apple’s Cosy cheek may be teeming With noxious germs, the luscious pear full of incipient agony for the eater, and the coveted' £5-Uote the harborage of a dozen kinds of deadly disease. We may not even kiss with Safety on the lips of our loved ones, lest wo give, take, or exchange baneful microbes.

THE MAN FOR GALWAY. Magnanimity is the order of the day with the Ministry, and apparently the House of Commons agrees With that policy so far as concerns the moutb-and-vote traitorous elec-

tors of Galway. Ih the Commons last Monday the! Attorney-General moved that the Speaker issue a new writ for the City of

Galway “in the room of Arthur Alfred Lynch, adjudged guilty of high treason.” There was* he urged, no dubiety as to the

GOOD TIMES AHEAD—FOR LAWYERS.

The legal fraternity had a rare good time a few years ago in connection uith betting in the rings at racecourses. The question to be decided was whether the rings were “places” within the meaning of lie Acts relating to gambling. The Anti-gambling League, headed by the redoubtable John Hawke, argued that they were, and an array of bookmakers briefed eminent coaasel to prove that the rings were not “places.” And after a long trial, costing thousands.

it was decided that the rings were not “places within the meaning of fie Act.” Prior to the big trial hundreds hid been spent in the lower courts by the A.fl- L. in prosecuting individual bookies, attd, taken altogether, the solution of the conundrum “ When it a place not a place ?” was a process infinitely profitable to the' lawyers. If Mr Hawke takes a hint given by Mr Justice Darling the other day, uTe wearers of wig- and gown are like to have another glorious spell. The hint wag given in this way. The Judge Was trying a case in which the plaintiff sought to recover from the defendant sums alleged to be due for bets. The ' defendant’s manager shielded his firm under the Gaining Acts, and WUa successful. But, Said Mr Justice Darling to himj you will probably make the acquaintance of Mr Hawke. ’“ I am not afraid,” replied the manager. The law has terrors only for those Who do not respect it, and this gentleman respects it very carefully. He has an office, and he docs a belting business. But no betting is allowed to be done in the office; that would bo “ resorting to a place.” Business is done by telegram or telephone “out of respect for the law.” Obviously, a long vista is here opened up. Is it to resort to an office to go to a telephone and speak through it to someone in that office? There will be some fat fees for the lawyers before that question is settled. And by the time that is dbne a neW point will have arisen. There will be turf commission agents who, out o' i respect for the law, do business by Ma: conigrams only. Will it be possible tmake out that to send a wireless message through space is to resort to the office of the receiver thereof? The law may not be a “hass,” but it certainly fails to show intelligent anticipation of what science and “respect” for itself in combination may be able to achieve

procedure ■which should be adopted in such a case as this, because it -was regulated by the Forfeiture Act, 1870, which provided that a conviction should operate as a disqualification of the convict for sitting in Parliament. An unbroken chain of precedents showed that in such circumstances it was not usual to suspend the issue of the writ by way of punishing the constituency. There had been five cases between 1889 and 1895—the cases of O’Brieti, O’Donovdh Rossi, John Mitchell, Michael Davitt, and John Daly. These precedents were uniform, and they were based on sound principle, and therefore he begged to move that the writ do issue. . Sir George Bartley, M.P. for Islington, opposed the issue of the writ. Whilst paying all respect to the precedent fetish, he • could not, he said, consent to be bound by it, and as he very properly pointed out, the cases cited by the Attorney-General were not on all fours with the case of Lynch. There was indeed a- very marked difference between Lynch’s affair and the only one of those mentioned at all closely analogous to it—namely, the case of Smith O’Brien. O’Brien became a traitor after he had been elected ; “ Colonel ” Lynch was elected when it was known he was a traitor, and doctors voted for him because he was a traitor. Sir George urged that at the time of the election it was advertised that Lynch was fighting against British soldiers, atid for that reason bis candidature was pressed, arid he was elected. If the House had' the right to I u spend a writ because a few persons in a I strict had been guilty of bribery and cor-

ruption, it wd» the chrty oftte HMM suspend a writ in the cals of a d tj irlmm there Was wholesale treason m mtthijn2 a member. Galway bad. gone out of way, when the country was in trouble, flii culty, and war, to Sect • man whd bad fought against us. the cflnstifalcricy waft steeped in treason, and the lame of the ought to be delayed. Bit George’s opinions wen batted dp by several strong supporter* of the Government, but on a division the athendmfet was rejected by 248 Votes to 45, forty-three of the panority being unionist* ftfid two Radicols. The comment of the ‘ Morning Post’ seems to fit in with the general view of the Government’s action >— - Hie Government must have desired that the mattm* should go through without friction. Possibly, m things axe looking sp blight in Ireland, the Ministers may think that they were well advised. On the other hand, it may bo argued that they have taken the libs of least resistance With the object of keeping the Irish members quiet. If be the case, they have forgotten £bat this is not an Irish but an Imperial qtlestiob. Thlj decision of the House will wsilte a had impression in the colonics. We wonder, too/how it is that while Only forty-five inetebdr* fdt strong enough to take the light comio, so many as 248 supported the Govern meet in their Ikmen table suggestion that even a Qbn-i stituency which defibdatdy returns ft confessed rebel is entitled to bo reprtetated. l Honorable members who halted the Odtenn ment can scatcly hate thought What would thank of their vote.”