sorts of recipes for adulterating beers may be found, and winds with the positive statement that "the brewers of this country port annually 1,000 bags of cocculus indicus and use it in king beer."

. When again asked, in the most polite terms, to demonstrate the th of this last assertion (the only positive statement admitting proof, if true), Mr. Peters, already twice self-convicted of menity, evades the question; refers to Battershall, who holds that rs made of anything else but hops, malt, yeast, and water are lterated; misquotes other authorities and also the arguments of rewers' committee before Congress, and finally calls upon Mr. es to swear that his beers are pure.

. Judged by the ordinary standard of decency, such a sneaking sion of the main question, coupled with an implied personal alt, would have justified Mr. Miles in closing the controversy; instead of that, he offers to pay both for the analysis of any ples of his beers and for the publication of the result of such lysis. At the same time he again demands proof of the only gible charge made by Mr. Peters.

5. Thus cornered, Mr. Peters admits that he told an unqualified sehood when he asserted that the brewers import and use cocculus licus. He ignores the offer of an analysis, thus showing that the plied personal slander as to the purity of his opponent's beer was ply a random shot designed to divert the attention of the assailed. the same time he claims that Mr. Miles singled out the last his series of falsehoods, because that was the weakest point of arraignment, and states that his other charges had not been uted; just as though he had not himself retracted and stamped untrue every other definite charge made by him. With this he ses his holy mission.

Denuded of all misleading quotations, Mr. Peters's charges reve themselves into three absolute falsehoods, and three vague nts suggestive of falsehood. The falsehoods we have disposed Now, as to the hints, there is this to be said:

prewers trude and other similar publications, long since discarded O make room for the scientific works of a Pasteur, Tausig, etc. :

66

Without any scientific training in his vocation, the old-time brewer, who, notithstanding his having used the best materials he could obtain, did not succeed in rewing a good beer, naturally cast about for a preventive of the causes to which e attributed his mishap. A great deal of experimenting, sometimes of the most Osurd character, was the result of this, and it thus happened that nearly every rewer had his own secrets, some of which would to-day be laughed at by the most experienced cellar-boy. Ignorance and superstition usually went hand in hand in hose delightful days of old; and it is nothing to be wondered at, therefore, that wen witchcraft was frequently pressed into the service of the brewer. Thus it as said, to quote but one example of many, that good quality and a large sale of eer could be secured by placing in the vat the thumb of a hanged man and a iece of the rope with which the culprit was hanged. With this we may take ave of the good old days."

This reflects the brewers' opinion of such books, and Mr. Peters ay judge for himself whether they are likely to be guided by the dvice contained in them.

2. Mr. Peters also intimates that because Mr. Langley gave a est to discover a noxious substance in beer, it may be inferred that he brewers use that substance. The absurdity of this deduction is emonstrated in the first part of this very article. Prof. Cornwall ives a minute description of a test applied by him in order to disover substitutes for hops in beer; but he adds that he found no uch substitutes in either the foreign or the domestic beers analyzed y him.

3. Mr. Peters quotes two chemists who claim that the substituon of any grain for barley is an adulteration. He also quotes the eport of the Health Board of the State of New York in support f the charge that rice, wheat, and corn are used in place of barley. he opinion of the two chemists is in conflict with all standard thorities in the science of chemistry, as well as with all lexicoaphical authorities. If Mr. Peters would consult standard works e would find that the universally accepted definition of beer is " ermented saccharine infusion to which a wholesome bitter has been lded;" and in no modern dictionary of recognized merit-certainly

66a

tes the most conclusive evidence, not only of the general purity d wholesomeness of American malt-liquors, but also of the peret legitimacy of the use of any grain, no matter what may be its me. This is all the brewers argued for before a Congressional mmittee; and when Mr. Peters stated that the brewers admitted ere that "beer had to be doctored," he told another falsehood, nich we are charitable enough to attribute to ignorance. This statement pro domo may fittingly be supplemented by the folwing extracts from an article published in The American Analyst, der date of January 28th, 1892, in reference to Mr. Peters's arges:

"A simple perusal of what this sensational preacher said, shows, a glance, that he does not know what he is talking about. Let take a few examples at random from his statements and throw light of common sense upon them. He said he found by alysis rotten corn in Holland gin. As rotten corn is decomposed d therefore contains no sugar, alcohol cannot be distilled from it; n being alcoholic, by what re-agent did this parson-chemist mane to find his alleged rotten corn? It is like the man who claimed have in his museum the sword of Balaam, and when told that laam had no sword, but only wished for one, he added that this is the one he wished for. In Kentucky whiskey he found sulate of zinc, chromic acid, creosote, unslaked lime, and fusel oil. lphate of zinc and chromic acid would not add any desirable ality to whiskey, therefore no distiller would be fool enough to end money for such an addition. Creosote might be found in itation Irish or Scotch whiskey, to give it the flavor of the nuine article derived from the smoky peat on which the malt is ed, but that flavor would hurt the sale of any Kentucky whiskey. port wine the reverend Mendax claims to have found (among her things) mercury and antimony. Both are insoluble, and erefore, if ever present in the port wine, they would be useless, cause they could only be found at the bottom of the vessel.

In

guished between supu ac au vi vi vitro, Citan vi vai vai d tartaric acid and soda. He claims to have found white, blue, d green vitriol, and, besides, the sulphates of zinc, copper, and n. Any ten-year old boy, fresh from school, would laugh at his norance. We did not suppose that any man, who had received education required to occupy a pulpit, could be so ignorant; it. us impossible to believe that a preacher of the Gospel, who claimed be a follower of his Master, would so far forget himself as to ow his blind intolerance to lead him into an open violation of the mth commandment; and we were disposed to credit the more absurd rtions of the tirade to a misunderstanding of the preacher's marks by the reporter; but when, on a second interview, the eacher reiterated his former statements, and boldly admitted that had willfully lied about his pretended analysis, that he had not ade any, but had quoted from a brewers' guide the various ugs and chemicals offered for brewers' use, and jumped at the nclusion that, because these things were so offered, they must cessarily be used for adulteration purposes, we had to believe. e might as well have said that brewers bought coal to adulterate e beer. Many of the articles advertised for brewers' use are reired for cleaning purposes, others for repairs to machinery, and moment's reflection would have shown this to this sensationonger; but he did not want to get at or tell the truth; he needed ghly-colored misrepresentation to smudge his neighbor's character d bring himself into notoriety. The ordinary preaching of the ord by such men as he would not attract attention, and certainly ould never appear in print. As he needs notoriety, that being e only capital in trade of such fellows as he is, he had to tell gross sehoods to attract the attention of the reporters. He has suceded well. He is now known as a most ignorant and unscrupulous famer of other people's reputation, and evidently relies upon his rb and profession to protect him from justly deserved punishert. This, however, will not save him from the scorn and derision

will uuUMTIESB Conviue to avail teiseives Cl Che

edulity and distrustfulness of the public in matters relating to the rity of food, drink, and drugs; but their power for evil is growing s with every public discussion on the subject. Viewed from Is standpoint, the talk of Mr. Peters may be said to have rendered od service to the cause of Truth.