tiously without getting any benefit so far as his general health is concerned. The value of exercise is in proportion to the total amount of work done. The larger the muscles the more work they can do. It is chiefly through using the muscles of the legs and trunk that results for the system as a whole may be secured. Take big movement of the big muscles.

Swinging a pair of light Indian-clubs may be interesting and pretty, but it does not have much to do with the health. Twisting the trunk from side to side, bending forward the back, are types of exercise that bring results. The majority of popular sports call for such movements at these. It is the big movements that count.

MEAT, DRINK, AND THE TABLE

Hunger is an instinct, and an instinct is the log-book of thousands of generations before us-the record of their experiences. Hence it has some authority. It is more likely to be right than the latest health food advertisement.

But there are cases in which we cannot trust to our instincts without danger. The fact that an instinct has come down to us from prehistoric times, when men lived differently from ourselves, makes its directions occasionally out of date. It hasn't adapted itself to any of the special conditions of modern civilization. It sticks in the old rut and calls as strongly as ever for satisfaction; but it does not speak with the same authority. Our present needs may demand something quite different.

Take the case of the average child and the sugar-supply. There's no doubt but that he is too fond of it. His appetite is a very bad guide in that particular matter. But the explanation is simple enough. Remember the high value of sugar as an energy producer. Remember too how rarely it occurs in the simple form in nature. For our aboriginal ancestors sugar was a hard commodity to get; fruits and honey were about the only sources of supply. Yet their bodies needed it. Consequently a strong, instinctive craving for it was developed in them-strong enough to make them ready to surmount obstacles and face danger in its pursuit.

Conditions have altered since then. We are now provided with a practically unlimited supply enormously beyond what we actually need. Yet the instinct remains still loyal to the old rut. All of which throws light upon the

familiar triple phenomenon of child-jam, cupboard, doctor.

Perhaps the most important changes of all, so far as the body is concerned, have come in the matter of our daily occupation-the way we get our living. The "natural" way is the primitive way-hunting, climbing, divingforms of vigorous bodily activity. The body was intended to carry on a large amount of physical work, to be constantly exerting intense muscular effort.

We don't live that way now. The conditions of our industrial civilization have put an end to it. Machinery does most of our heavy work for us. We live by our brains. We walk a couple of miles or so a day and sit in chairs the rest of the time.

But this has not had much effect upon the character of our appetite. We are often hungry for the kind of food that would only suit a body under constant exercise. There are those among us, too, that are inclined to eat more than is good for them: to be candid— who like to stuff themselves. Now stuffing was a normal habit to our ancestors. They had to take their food when they could get it and trust God for the next meal. And it was easy for them to steal away into some quiet retreat and sleep undisturbed until the stomach had done the main part of its duty. The digestive organs, accustomed to coarse work and violent exercise, were able to cope with the situation. Ours are not. Fine headwork and coarse stomach-work don't go naturally together. Here again we meet with a special problem.

Much scientific effort has been expended of late to discover experimentally what kinds of food are best adapted to modern conditions. The results of these experiments are certainly interesting and suggestive: but whether or not they have proved all that is maintained for them is open to question.

One thing, however, they have made perfectly clear, and that is that the majority of us eat a much larger quantity of meat than we need-more, indeed, than we can get any possible good from. Meat twice a day is enough. for anybody, and for most of us, once a day would be better yet. There is no doubt, too, that such foods as grains, nuts, fruits, and vegetables, should take a much more prominent place in our diet than they do. Beyond that it would be dangerous to preach as yet.

No man knows what kind of food or how

much food another man needs unless he be personally well-informed about his caseand he may not know even then. A man's own particular make-up is the prime factor in deciding questions of meat and drink. But there are several ways in which one can tell pretty accurately whether he is getting the most out of his food or not. The first of these is through keeping track of his weight. Everybody ought to know what his own normal weight is the weight at which he accomplishes the most and feels the best. The averages given in a life insurance table will serve in a rough way, but not so well as a table of one's own variations. It often happens that the best weight for a particular individual differs considerably from the general average.

By keeping track of the weight from week to week and comparing it with the standard, every alteration of the general bodily condition can be discovered and attended to. The time will come when every up-to-date bathroom will be equipped with a pair of scales.

Another way of discovering a defective condition of the digestive organs is to thump the pit of the stomach with the finger. If it make you wince and double up, it shows that something is wrong. The presence of gas in the stomach is also a sign of faulty digestion. It means that there is fermentation going on.

Something, too, is indicated by one's state of mind. If you have a feeling of depression and low spirits without any apparent cause, it is time to inquire into the food-supply and what the body is doing with it. A good digestion is a thing to take pride in. It ought to be cherished conscientiously. The trouble with many of us is that just so long as we're not disturbed by what goes on in our alimentary tract, we abuse it outrageously. There will be a price to pay for this sometime. The worm turns; and so does the stomach.

HOW AND WHEN TO EAT

There are a few plain facts about how and when to eat which it would be worth a man's while to keep in mind, even when well.

If you are in a hurry, eat lightly. There is no virtue in gulping down a large meal just because it is meal-time. While the mind is actively engaged in the details and responsibilities of business, the digestive apparatus is in no condition to undertake heavy work. The blood supply is drained off elsewhere, giving all the contribution it can to the brain;

and if a quantity of food be taken in, it simply remains undigested in the stomach.

Worry, hurry, unsettled mind, low spirits, all tend to delay or to stop the activities of the alimentary canal. This has been neatly shown by an X-ray experiment upon the digestion of a cat. A certain amount of subnitrate of bismuth was introduced into its stomach before feeding. This substance is impervious. to the X-rays, but is harmless to the organism. Hence it was possible to watch the action of the stomach while the digestion of food went on there. As long as the animal was kept nervous and excited, all the movements necessary to digestion were stopped.

Students who go at hard head-work immediately after meals often suffer from indigestion. So do letter-carriers and other people whose meals are followed by prolonged physical exertion. Indeed, any kind of effort which forces the blood-flow away from the alimentary region is injurious after hearty eating.

On this account it is worth a very special effort on the part of every man to compass one meal each day which shall be leisurely, uninterrupted, and cheerful. The arguments for this are not based on digestion only; they have to do with the mental health of the individual, and with the welfare of the family as an institution.

The dinner table is the centre of the family life, and the family is the social unit. The common meal draws all its members together under informal and familiar conditions, where mutual interests and companionship are especially promoted. Even if a man have no home of his own, it is his business to make himself a member of some household.

An energetic effort to leave one's work and responsibility behind in the office or at the counter, a leisurely bath and a change of clothes, the deliberate resolution to be agreeable and to make the meal a pleasure for all concerned, even though it costs an effort-this is not only good for the digestion and the whole state of the body, but it also serves a social purpose of the greatest importance.

It is the fashion in some quarters to sniff at the pleasures of the table as if they were essentially of a rather inferior character. Perhaps they do not belong in the loftiest rank, but they are perfectly normal; and more than that, they afford a natural medium for the real interchange of ideas, for real reciprocity.

The after-dinner state of mind exists only after dinner.

T

THE figure of Justice blindfolded seems eminently fitting in this day, not that she may distribute her favors with even hand, but that she may be spared the sight of the crimes committed in her name. The scales balance with mathematical precision in the figures that adorn our court houses, but there the analogy fails.

We cannot properly leave the question of enforcement or non-enforcement of laws to mere individual discretion. Therefore the man behind the law, more than the law itself, has come to be the vital question. We cannot tolerate the theory that every man should become his own court and jury, to determine for himself what laws are to be obeyed and which are to be ignored. The financier of easy conscience deplores the liberties taken with the law by the ordinary highwayman, but does not hesitate to tamper with the statutes against monopolies, combinations, rebates, and pools.

We are sometimes told that laws cannot be strictly enforced without working hardship. As a nation we have long been guilty of indifference and careless thinking on this subject. Enforcement is the best test of a law, and is the road to repeal of a bad law; if unpopular it will not long remain on the statute books.

WRONG METHODS OF SELECTING JUDGES

There is less room for criticism of our judges than of our method of selecting them. The annual salaries of the judges of the courts of record in the various states do not average over $5,000, which is less than the income from a successful law practice. Naturally, able lawyers can hardly be expected to make the financial sacrifice or to adopt the methods necessary to secure a place on the Bench.

The candidates for the judiciary should be se

lected independently of political considerations. The construction and application of law is not properly a matter of opinion or expediency. The law is, to a certain extent, an exact science, and its interpretation should not vary with party preferences. Subserviency to bosses and political bias should be banished from the judicial system.

In short, judges should not be elected. They should be appointed for life, or during good behavior, by the governors of the respective states, upon the recommendation of the Bar associations. They should be required by statute to relinquish, while on the bench, all interest in commercial and business matters, and they should be retired at a specified age on a reasonable salary. They would thus be independent of politics and above the influence of personal business considerations.

OUR GRAND JURIES ARE NOT INDEPENDENT

The jury system is looked upon as an American birthright, but in practice it becomes at times a ready means to subvert justice. The "grand jury" has so far departed from the purpose of its institution as to be, almost uniformly, a mere adjunct of the office of the prosecuting attorney, thus failing to perform the duties to which its members are sworn.

A New York judge recently found, upon investigation, that the average time given to the cases reported to him by a grand jury was six minutes. In many cases the grand juries are too prone to follow the recommendation of the state's attorney in returning a "true bill,” and in such cases, upon the suggestion of a single man, the reputations of honest men may be blasted for life. The grand juries, by the logic of their existence, should be largely independent of the prosecutor, and, in a measure,

of the court itself. Their sworn duty is to investigate any form of lawlessness that comes to their notice, whether specially instructed by the court or not, or whether the matter be presented by the prosecutor. If an officeholder be suspected of wrong-doing, if bribe taking be rumored, if there be indications of unlawful combinations, the grand jury should take the initiative, if necessary. But the average grand jury merely passes on the cases presented by the prosecutor, inspects the county jail, reports to the court, and is dismissed. Even this routine work is often performed in an indifferent and perfunctory manner.

THE FARCE OF TRIAL BY JURY

The petit jury system is susceptible of gross abuse. The jury may be packed by officeholders and their partisans, in return for services rendered. Men, infirm, dull-witted, or even of doubtful honesty, may sit in the jurybox and watch the slowly moving hands of the clock, bored by proceedings which they either view with indifference or are unable to grasp.

The intelligent man of affairs is no more desirous of serving on the jury than is the tricky lawyer to have him serve. He generally pleads press of business and is promptly excused. And so we have the professional juryman showing up in court, term after term, and deciding issues beyond his mental grasp. One judge, at least, has found it necessary to furnish his bailiff a list of talismen with instructions that certain ones should not be allowed to sit on cases in his court, because of their notorious incapacity. Recently a judge, after twice warning two jurymen to keep awake and pay attention to the proceedings, threatened to jail for contempt the first juryman caught nodding.

Existing methods of procedure intensify the evils of the jury system. By the operation of peremptory challenges, the mere exercise of a whim may determine the selection of men to try a case. The defendant in criminal cases (particularly in cases of manslaughter) is allowed an

unreasonable number of such challenges. This encourages the defendant's counsel to attempt to exclude men of force and character-even men of ordinary understanding and mentality-and to substitute men without strength of character or average education, and subject to outside influences. This system, instituted to protect the innocent

and further the ends of justice, has proved a ready shelter for the guilty.

The injustice and folly of the system was disclosed and emphasized in a recent case growing out of the Chicago strikes. Eleven weeks were required to secure a jury to try men indicted for assault; 1,929 veniremen were examined; a venire of 2,000 men was exhausted and another of similar proportions called. Some 1,100 men were rejected for 'cause." Two months and a half were required to find the "twelve good men and true." The lawyers asked nearly a million questions, even devoting half a day to the examination of one man who was at length rejected. Many of the questions propounded reached the utmost height of absurdity, with the result that some 1,800 men failed in an "educational test" that would have disqualified an assembly of scholarly men. The cost to the county, to the date of securing the final juryman, was $16,000; to the date of conviction by the petit jury, $35,000.

The first juror accepted, and several of his associates, were virtually prisoners for two months before the trial proper commenced. This fact alone would tend to make any prospective juror think out a disbarring prejudice. There was nothing complicated about the case; it was simply a murderous assault, recorded in the daily papers and widely read. The common knowledge of such abuses should be sufficient to bring about the doom of the ordinary methods of securing a jury.

All agree that an accused man should be surrounded with every rational safeguard. This should not, however, include the absurd and outrageous methods employed by lawyers in the weeding-out process as applied to jurymen. The very purpose of the rule is to exclude those who may be in any manner prejudiced, and those who, from ignorance or otherwise, are incapable of understanding the evidence and drawing rational conclusions. If the same rule should be applied to courts, we should be afflicted with judges as well as jurors who will not read the daily papers and who cannot reason independently or clearly.

Law and logic seem to part company on the proposition that all who read are so narrowminded that a conclusion once reached would not be changed or modified by testimony. In short, the theory may be correct, but the practice is often an affront to common sense and an outrage upon common justice. The net

result of such methods is to encourage the belief, already prevalent among criminals, that if the wrong-doer have sufficient money to hire a lawyer who knows the ins and outs of this system of criminal procedure, he may defy the law and make of it a mockery. Thus trial by a jury of one's peers is often only trial by a jury of irresponsibles, or by men who are to be given $2 a day as a political reward.

SNAP-JUDGMENT IN POLICE COURTS

A serious abuse of quite another type is found in the lower courts where cases are railroaded through with scant attention. In the police court of a large city in the Middle West, 235 cases were disposed of in a single day. Sentences and discharges were dealt out at the rate of one in less than a minute. In many instances the prisoners were not allowed a hearing and did not even know what disposition had been made of them. Then again, in some instances, cases are continued from day to day and from week to week.

Even

where the offense charged is a misdemeanor, punishable only by a small fine, cases are often continued for the twentieth time, despite the request of prisoners that they be brought to

trial.

It is in the police courts that our foreign element often receives its first impression of American justice. Every community of foreign-born citizens has its leader, or "boss." Often dishonest, he preys upon their ignorance and receives money for the avowed purpose of "greasing the wheels," and "fixing the officers." Of course the money goes into his own pockets, but the newly arrived foreigner believes he has bribed an official. This has become a serious scandal in our large cities. Another evil is the tendency in some police circles to insist that because a crime has been committed some one, guilty or otherwise, must suffer. The records afford instances where men have been convicted to sustain the theories of the police.

IMPORTANT TESTIMONY EXEMPTED

The law, or rule of criminal and civil procedure, which exempts a man from giving testimony that may incriminate himself, is prolific of injustice. It is one of those safeguards provided by law to guard the interests of the innocent, but which works out largely to the advantage of the guilty. An unwilling witness may at any time find refuge behind this privilege and, at the expense of merely im

plied criminality, baffle all inquiry into matters of his knowledge.

The frequency with which justice has been throttled by this device is apparent only to those who are actively engaged in the courts of law. Conviction of bribery is found extremely difficult because, generally speaking, all having knowledge of it are, in a manner, guilty. In prosecutions for offenses involving "graft," those who should be the most valuable witnesses for the prosecution are exempted from testifying. Oftentimes witnesses blushingly pretend an incriminating guilty knowledge, merely to serve their friends or guard their own selfish interests.

un

A law, such as has been placed recently on the statute books of New York, withdrawing the right to refuse to testify on such grounds, should be enacted in every state. The spirit of the present provision could be preserved in such an act by forbidding the subsequent use of such self-incriminating testimony as a basis of criminal action against the witness. Such a change would meet all the demands of justice. It would at the same time make available in all cases the full powers vested in courts to compel unwilling witnesses to testify. The hand of every prosecuting attorney would be 'strengthened, no innocent person would be wronged, and one of the greatest engines of injustice would be demolished.

BONDSMEN ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE

The straw bail bond iniquity is widespread throughout the country. Professional bondsmen, parasites that infest the halls of our court houses, find lucrative occupation in bailing prisoners for fees. If the bondsman can show that he owns the amount of property prescribed by law, the officials are forced to accept him as surety. As the laws now stand, such person may execute a bond one day and sell his property the next, leaving the bond utterly worthless. Often it is suspected by the police and known by the bondsman that the criminal intended from the first to flee. In such cases the professional bondsman sees to it that he shall not suffer. There is need of legislation that will make criminal bonds more binding. The chief feature of such a law should be a provision that when a man becomes bondsman, notice of that fact shall be filed with the county recorder and such bond shall immediately become a lien upon the bondsman's property. The law should further provide that a for