hended if he had not expressed himself so plainly. If the States could not exclude whom they pleased, missionary to the Indians, teacher to the negroes, walking delegate to the workingman, and the like, "then the emancipated slaves of the West Indies have at this hour the absolute right to reside, hire houses, and traffic and trade thoughout the Southern States in spite of any State laws to the contrary." All this in entire distrust of Congress!

The next important commercial case was that of the Wheeling Bridge over the Ohio river. The Court declared it a nuisance, and ordered its abatement unless elevated so as not to obstruct navigation. TANEY dissented because Congress had not acted; in other words, the Chief Justice did not change his position on the exclusiveness of the power of commerce, though in the same year the Court had declared the pilot laws of a State to be valid, on the ground now firmly fixed that matters of commerce which could endure local regulation remained in the States until Congress acted; but otherwise, in matters requiring a general rule for the entire Union the States could not act at all. Indeed, the Chief Justice went to the full extent of his proposition by holding that the Supreme Court could not exercise its own jurisdiction without an act of Congress, so that the judicial department could be prostrated at the feet of the legislative.

As a matter of precedent, TANEY thought the case was similar to that of a dam across a marshy creek in Delaware. MARSHALL and his associates thought such a dam, when erected by the authority of a State law, to be valid though it effectually stopped navigation. Such remains unquestionably the law of the land by repeated decisions of the Supreme Court.

Some of the expressions used by TANEY were not so profound as might have been expected. Thus, he could not "perceive how the mere grant of power to the legislative department of the government [that is] to regulate commerce, can give to the judicial branch the power to declare what shall and what shall not be regarded as an unlawful obstruction; how high a bridge must be above the stream, and how far a wharf may be extended into the water when we have no regulation of Congress to guide us." Such an entire forgetfulness of the language of the third article of the Constitution is a curious comment upon political bias.

The case of Dred Scott cannot be passed over by any biographer of TANEY. The question of citizenship was thought by him to be a very serious one, as the sequel proved it to be. And yet the opinion of TANEY, in Groves v. Slaughter, already alluded to, suf

ficiently indicates what must have been the same Justice's judgment fifteen years later, unless some mental change had occurred. But there was no evidence of the opinions of TANEY changing upon any subject. It is true that he confessed to a change from the time when he stood before MARSHALL and pleaded for Maryland's right to tax importers; but it would be a great error to lay much stress upon that change. It simply clarified the original idea, that the State might act until its action caused a collision with an act of Congress. It is true that TANEY identified the police power and the sovereign power of a State; but this was sufficient reason for all his opinions against the interpretations of the commerce power of the United States, which begun in the Passenger Cases and continued to grow with the country until TANEY's death in 1864.

The opinion in Dred Scott's case begun by identifying the citizens with those who begun the Constitution with the words, "We the People of the United States." The negroes did not frame the Constitution, hence they were not citizens, and could not ask for justice in the Courts of the United States. Yet women could, and still they did not frame the Constitution, except in New Jersey. The same was still more true of children. Hence the Chief Justice was forced on to declare that "every person, and every class and description of person, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body, but none other. It was formed by them and for them and their posterity, but for no one else."

It is not intended here to go into a discussion of citizenship; it is enough to chronicle that TANEY first opposed immigration, whereby the country has been made so rich that no nation wishes to quarrel, and then declared the government has been formed for the posterity of the first settlers and " for no one else."

The judicial ground upon which TANEY proceeded was that the Court could only interpret the Constitution by finding the meaning of its words at the time of its adoption. Such a course would have prevented the justices of a later day from holding that telegrams were commercial intercourse, and is opposed to those traditions of judicial interpretation which prevailed in England when the first settlers brought over so much of the Common Law as applied to their changed circumstances in America.

JOHN B. UHLE.

DANGER OF KISSING.

Reprinted, by permission, from The Medical Summary.

Clean teeth, a pure breath, and healthy mouth should be associated with the act or fashion of kissing, which is, among females of this country, the most fashionable mode of salutation. In England, among almost all classes, kissing is not resorted to as a manner of salutation, and in this respect the English are very sensible. If a well-bred Englishman were to see two young ladies meet on the street and salute each other with a kiss, as is the custom in the United States, he would look at them with either surprise or disgust. When the fashion of kissing is carried to a disgusting extremity, the better plan is to do as little of it as possible. It is not always pleasant or safe for friends or acquaintances to kiss each other when they meet, or every time they meet, for it is not every one who possesses a kissable mouth, and if the person kissed does not possess a sweet mouth and pure breath, the kiss will prove anything but enjoyable, and the fear of getting a whiff of a foul breath, and the taste of a dirty mouth, should teach one to indulge as little as possible in the very doubtful fashion of indiscriminate kissing. There is no doubt that foul diseases are sometimes communicated by this fashion of kissing, and this fact should be kept in mind against promiscuous kissing, and indicates the necessity of washing the lips well after a kiss from one who has not a pure breath, healthy mouth, and clean teeth.

Among individuals there are many who habitually neglect their teeth. To rinse the mouth and brush the teeth is not to them a necessity, and there are, probably, many who, during their whole lives, have never used a tooth-brush. In such cases the particles of food find lodgment between the teeth after each meal, and there remain to endanger as they do, by decomposition and putrefaction, not only the comfort, but the health of the individual. The result of the decomposition and putrefaction of bits of food between the teeth is the production of a very poisonous acid, known to chemistry as septic acid. When this acid is thus formed, the mouth becomes filled with it, and it not only corrodes the teeth and rapidly hastens their decay, but excites a slow inflammation of the gums, causing them to break down and leave the roots of the teeth exposed and bare, giving the mouth the appearance of scurvy. When this acid forms in the mouth it produces sordes, foul tongue and an ill, disagreeeble taste, and when swallowed in the saliva it excites sick stomach and nausea. When very abundant, the septic acid will pass from the stomach into the intestines,

and excite diarrhoea and other disorders of the bowels.

This result is an effort of nature to get rid of the poisonous effects of the septic acid. When this acid is mixed with the saliva, it becomes highly poisonous, and if an individnal whose saliva is thus loaded with septic acid were to bite a person, the one bitten would become seriously poisoned, and the wound made by the bite would become exceedingly sore, painful, and very difficult to heal. Therefore, it is not only conducive to the personal appearance of an individual to keep his teeth in good condition by the careful use of a brush, but absolutely important to his health to keep his mouth clean and free from septic acid, and thereby avoid all the injurious effects produced by it, not only upon the mouth, but upon the general health. Fortunately the good usages of society require some attention to personal purity, but one sometimes meets those who do not think "cleanliness next to godliness," and the public is the sufferer. No one with a mouth made unhealthy by this septic acid should ever kiss another or ever be allowed to kiss little children, and as attractive infants are always at the mercy of each passer-by, mothers should warn their nurses against allowing strangers to kiss their little ones. Young children's mouths are exceedingly susceptible, and there is but little doubt that children, as well as adults, are occasionally poisoned by the habit of indiscriminate kissing. J. B. JOHNSON, M. D.

Washington, D. C

THE GREAT MAJORITY of decisions in the highest courts of New York are accompanied by opinions, many of them of great length. The lawyers themselves are partly responsible for the multiplying of opinions, as they are usually dissatisfied if their cases are simply affirmed or reversed without any expression of the reasons which led to the decision. The judges consume the larger part of their time in preparing opinions, and no doubt much of the delay which leads to the clogging of the calendars is due to the time consumed in this work. A careful lawyer pointed out last week another evil of these long opinions. The judges who render them must necessarily express many ideas not immediately called forth by the case before the court and the consequence is that "dicta "—those half-authoritative expressions dreaded by lawyers-are multiplied.--New York Tribune.

BE NOT IGNORANT of anything in a great matter or a small.— Eccles. v, 15.

UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER.

Before, as well as since John Locke gave to the world his weighty and discriminating treatise on the understanding, mankind labored with the difficulty of understanding each other. Yet the human mind is the most brilliant display in the universe of the evolutionary power of Infinite Nature that I know of.

We may differ very widely from each other in our reasonings, and no less in our pleasures; but this difference, I am inclined to think, is rather more apparent than real, and is principally due to two causes-to lack of discriminating power, and to the meagreness and indequacy of language-rather than to any difference in the fundamental standard both of reason and taste in the human race. In the matter of illogical reasoning there are those who think and act according to the example of others, and base their conclusions thereon with implicit faith, thus saving themselves the pains and trouble of thinking and examining for themselves. Others put passion and prejudice in the place of reason, determined that they shall govern their arguments and actions as it may best suit their humor, interests, or party.

Another class is of those who faithfully attempt to follow reason with the aid of sound logic, but for the want of having large, sound, discriminating common sense, have but a partial view of all that relates to the question to be decided. It may safely be asserted that from this defect no one is, or ever will be entirely free. Some people who are able and competent to reason and investigate, are satisfied with their reasoning and conclusions by saying that the founders or leaders of my party or church are believed to be good and wise men, and, therefore, they accept their doctrines and leadership as satisfactory, or because a certain tenet has been long received in the world, therefore, it is true, or because it is new, therefore it is false, and so on.

Without "looking backward" over the vast field of history, the reader will readily see the force of this from his own experience and observation. Locke said, "that it is only practice that improves our minds as well as our bodies, and we must expect nothing from our understandings any further than they are perfected by habits." And after all the largest knowledge has its limitations, and the question which Pilate asked on a memorable occasion, "What is truth?" can at best be answered only proximately. And this may be in substance what a sect of Greek philosophers meant the "New Academy "-when, upon deciding the same