New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-08-07
may presently come to be thus used is ex-
ceedingly groundless

Mr. Rawlrnson the Sanitary Commissioner
makes in The London Times TWO or three pertinent
suggestions with regard TO tho cholera. The chlet
of prevention now being used, no states. are
founded u pom The hypothesis that 1T is contagious
by means of contact like the scarlet fever or small
pos. That this is not the case Is proved no thinks,
by the fact that sporadic of genuine As'as'c
cholera occurred throughout the English camp dur
iny tue Crimean war. They were not isolated. but
the CAMP hospitals and Baaklava itself we're thor
oughly ccansed and the disease disappeared.
Another fact is tnat shoddy Is manufactured in
Yorkshire from, old clothes brought from Egypt.
Russia and the Mediterranean. TO the amount oil
10000 tons per annum. all Of which arc handled
by many persons, vet not n single case OF cholera
has ever resulted therefrou. Tbs conclusion to bs
drawn from these facts that the poison OF cholera
Is not communicable by personal contact. but by
breathing he air impregnated with the gerus, ana
that these germs feed like typhus fevers on foul or
dscaying matter This theory is sustained by the
fact that during the last visitation OF the plague 10
this country many single deaths in families oc-
curred where the patient had mbibed the disease
else here. and coming into clean. well drained
house died without communicating 1t to any one
The moral # we accept this theory. Isl Quarantine
with discretion bat first last and all the time
Clean.
Here is another name for tho repeated denials
which come from Mr.. Tildvn's friends. IL Is the
invention of Truth, which heads 1T go away
clOser."
The clergyman who recently married Osmond
TsarIe and Minnie Conway Levy in Denver stands
at the altar of Church that has taken high ground
against the marriage of divorced persons. The
General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal
Church has adopted canon whereby the clergy
are positively forbidden to re-marry any person
who han been divorced for any cause save one.
Now even IL the validity OF the brides marriage
with Levy be oDeu TO question In consequence OF
his previous marriage, OsmOnd Tearle had been
divorced. His wife had obtained decree against
him, and under the rule adopted by tho Protestant
Episcopal Church the clergyman was prohibited
from re-marrying him. Probably the clergyman Will
do what brother rector did not long ago In Vir-
ginla after re- marrying man. once prominent In
puslic iife whose wife had obtained q divorce
from hin He will assert that he did not know the
facts of the case Bnt under the circumstances
he ought to have asked whether either person was
divorced. and having learned that both bride and
bridegroom were In that state of life. he should
have declined to proceed with the ceremony. DIR.
Dix recently de6 fined the authorized usage OF the
Protestant Episcopal Church IN these words:
Divorce, with che privilege to re-marry, may be
granted bat for cause only; and then the in
nocent rartv may marry again" The stringent rule
of the Roman Catholic Church is that divorces and
re-marrIage shall be excluded altogether. The
practice of the Protestant denvmnsti1ns to their
shane be II said Is very in. this respect. When
the churches units in diminishing the facilities for
breaking up families AMI homes. thsIe will DO
better prospect of securing uniform marriage and
div orce laws for the United States
The Agricultural Holdings bill which has now
passed the House Of Commons may be said to DO
one of the results OF the great agricultural depres-
sion In England. The measure amended in CON-
mittoe seems intended to hold the scales OF justice
evenly between landlord and tenant. 1t does not.
as IN the case of the Irish Land Act provide ANY
tribunal to which the tenant can appeal for TO
ducti On OF rent Nor does II in any way control tho
right of contract on either de- What rt does is 20
give the tenant right TO compensation for inn |
provrments made by him during bis tenancy ard |
upex banstod at It's conclusion 1t gives the land |
lord no claim against the tenant for deterioration
during his tenancy, does It allow a tenant to
make what alterations aud improvements he likes |
at the landlords cost. What he can do without |
permission 10 defined by the bll and for this no is
entitled TO q return equal Go the cash outlay. |
Certain other ements. such AS new barns and
outbuildiugs, he cannot put up without the land /
lor,'s consent and tor these ne gets not the cash
outlay only but the intrinsic value OF the addi-
tions 40 an improvement to the farm. In some re- /
spects tho House has favored the landlords but on
the whole the bill just measure and An attempt
to deal fairly with both parties.
-