Friendly hints to a Reviewer.—Something more on moist hot air.
By Samuel Jackson, M. D., (formerly of Northumberland.)
To the Editor of the Medical Examiner.
You published my hints on wetting the streets, in the June No.
of the Examiner; you have seen the review of it by Th. Bell,
M. D., in the July No. of the Western Journal of Med. and Surg.,
of which he is a co-editor. He has in spirit if not in sentiment
arraigned me as unphilosophical, confused in mind,* and as justly
suspected of “ murmuring at Providence.” I am very unwilling
to answer the reviewer, and I therefore send you only a rambling
commentary, for it has not been consistent with either my leisure
or taste to spend much time on the subject. I am sorry that I did
not see the review till it was handed me by our friend Dr. Isaac
It seems to us that Dr. Jackson set about his investigations with a confused
set of ideas.”
Parrish, the 26th ult., when your last No. wherein this reply ought
to have appeared, had gone through the press.
As I do not feel that I can safely spare the least portion of my
little reputation for the character of Religious, among a people whom
M. de Tocqueville considers as more religiously persecuting than
any nation of Europe, I shall first defend myself in this vulnerable
quarter. Some physicians have had the fame of making religion
a rail-road to the paradise of a profitable practice; but, alas for
me, poor sinner, I am like Swift, “a hypocrite reversed,” for I am
openly running backward on the same track.
I have wickedly said—££ The wash-
ing of the pavements is a very great
evil whether in winter or in summer,
independently of the dampness it
adds to the atmosphere. If done in
the morning, it annoys passangers by
wetting their feet, and not unfre-
quently the pavements become there-
by covered with ice and dangerous
to all pedestrians: if done in the
evening as it often is, it is sure to
have this effect in freezing weather;
and in the milder, they remain wet
till the next day noon. Now it is a
fact, that there are many sick people
who cannot take fresh air except by
walking, and to them, and indeed to
all delicate people, the damp pave-
ments present a very formidable
obstacle. This is not a hypothesis of
mine, but a stubborn fact from the
lips and hearts of many sickly peo-
ple.”
Now, says the Reviewer, £< this
sounds to us very much like what
some people call 1 murmuring at
Providence.’ He who orders all
things, has ordained rains for a Phila-
delphia winter, and without any
regard to 1 sick people who cannot
take fresh air, except by walking,’
ar to all delicate people, or to Dr.
Jackson’s opinion that it is a great
evil, Providence has ordained freezing-
weather for Philadelphia, and we
cannot see how Dr. Jackson’s strong-
objections to rain and frozen pave-
ments can alter the movements of
Heaven. His remarks apply as forci-
bly against winter rains as against
the use of Schuylkill water. Ac-
cording to Dr. Jackson’s hypothesis
it is wrong to send rain on a winter’s
evening, because if the weather is
cold the pavements will freeze, and if
not cold enough for that, £ they will
remain wet until next day noon.’ Dr.
Jackson evidently thinks there should
be no rain in freezing weather; and
that all winter rains should fall in the
morning, and Providence should send
out a drying sun, to dry up the pave-
ments sooner than next day at noon.
Really we cannot see how Dr. Jack-
son is to be accommodated. Even
if the city authorities of Philadelphia
could be persuaded to bring water
£ from the Lehigh, or the Delaware
far above the Falls,’ the evil would
not be removed, for Providence would
prove to be rather an untractable
subject for reform on the puny reason-
ings of an erring mortal.”
Observe, kind reader, he says—“ this sounds to us very much
like what some people call—murmuring at Providencenot
merely much but very much. I will not say that his replication
sounds very much as though written by St. Dominic’s Chief
Inquisitor. Such a bill of indictment, seems to require a formal
recantation and open repentance, if it be founded in truth. I have
placed the crime and the bill side by side as he has quoted and
written them, in addition to which a few words will suffice. God
has created and governed the world in benevolence and wisdom;
he sends rain, frost, lightning, and storms so as to effect the greatest
possible general good ; yet no man was ever accused of murmuring
because he turned aside the fiery bolts, or invoked or deprecated
rain, as our ministers are ordered to do from the pulpit, pro re. nata.
No one ever heard Mr. Espy called impious because, he would
bring rain into a particular region though he would thus withdraw
it from lands where Providence had sent his clouds. Plave men
not made changes in the earth without this murmuring—levelled
mountains, filled up marshes, dug canals, turned aside rivers ; and
have not the people of Louisville built a huge bridge which the
lawr will soon compel them to unbuild ? (This however is not so
much a murmuring as an open rebellion, for the New Testament
enjoins all men to obey the laws.) Heaven has given the
Reviewer hair and nails and covered his body with a tough hide—
why does he not in his anti-murmuring zeal, leave these all to
nature and go about like Nebuchadnezzar, with a naked body,
“birds claws, and eagles feathers'?”
Heaven has sent fevers into many parts of the earth—would any
court be accused of this “murmuring” if they should forbid the
erection of mill dams or the turning aside of rivers by which the
country would be filled with vapor, malaria thereby rendered more
active, and fevers multiplied ? Has not Providence sent us cases
of small pox the last 50 years, and are we therefore justified in
propagating the disease, or would not the law’ interfere ? Impious
law, which would thus prevent what is so clearly appointed by
the example of heaven itself! ! Men are often observing to each
other that the pavements are too wet or too icy for walking
with safety and comfort, this they do without this “ murmuring”—
would they not be justifiable in preventing their busy-body neigh-
bors from making them wet or icy at times when Heaven had left
them dry and safe ?
But the Reviewer constructs another accusation—“ according
to Dr. J.’s hypothesis, it is wrong to send rain on a winter’s
evening, because if the weather is cold, the pavements will freeze,”
&c. If cons£n/c£we treason against the state is not allowable
in secular courts, I shall hope it cannot be entertained even in the
ecclesiastical court of public opinion, so that we shall come off
unscathed and be able to whistle down the Reviewer with the
good old tune,
Ou courrez-vous done Monsieur 1’ abbe ?
Vous allez vous casser le nez.
0 Doctor, Doctor, where do you run
In haste to break your nosey ?
Let the Reviewer remember the Tale of a Tub and profit by
Jack’s intemperate zeal for religion and his broken nose.
The Reviewer says:—
“That the sprinkling of water, on streets paved with stone cannot
have a baleful influence is manifest from a great variety of facts. Be-
fore the streets of Louisville were paved, the rains of summer caused
a great mortality. This was not on account of the mere humidity of
the atmosphere, for the rains that fall in summer now, make the air as
humid as that of 1822, but without any evil effect. All parts of the
city of Louisville are equally sprinkled by rains, but all parts are not
alike unhealthy. A considerable portion of the city retains its health,
amidst the heats of summer, the blasts of autumn, the sleets of winter,
and the rains of spring, and it is, therefore, evident, that we must look
for something else besides the mere dryness or humidity of the atmos-
phere, as a cause of disease. The drenching rains of summer that fell
for a month, in Lexington, Kentncky, in 1833, and caused a frightful
cholera epidemic, did not affect all parts of that city alike. The rava-
ges of the epidemic radiated from an unpaved portion of the city, but
large squares in Lexington were exempt from the epidemic disease.
But the exempted, equally with the afflicted portions had a humid at-
mosphere. That portion of the city of Cincinnati that is most con-
stantly sprinkled with water from the hydrants is very far from being
the most sickly part of the city. And that portion of Louisville most
constantly sprinkled by water-carts is precisely the most salubrious
part.”
I cannot understand this passage unless the Reviewer means by
disease the koinomiasmatic fevers, for he says,—“ a considerable
part of the city retains its health.” This must be a cant phrase
for an exemption from the fevers of the Western states, for surely
there must have been sickness of various kinds in every part of
the city. Let us proceed then on this assumption. Before the
streets of Louisville were paved, they were no doubt covered for
a long time after heavy rains, by mudholes, as thick as they are
found in the unpaved roads in the vicinity of every city; now to say
that no more vapour arises from such streets than from those that
are well paved and therefore quickly dried, is a glaring absurdity.
This is the ground which, in the confined air of a city, affords
the most vapor. The earth is heated, the water is spread abroad
in shallows and mixed with earth over hundreds of acres—what
more is wanting to produce steam ?
But says the Reviewer, “ we must look for something else
besides the mere dryness or humidity of the atmosphere as a cause
of disease.” Undoubtedly you must if you have fevers, but with
this unknown something and with fevers, I told the Reviewer in my
preface that my reasoning had nothing to do, only so far as they
were rendered worse by an atmosphere too moist. But mark
“ the confused ideas” of which he blames me : he has just said
“ we must look for something besides mere dryness and humidity
as a cause of disease” and yet the very next words are these—
“ the drenching rains that fell for a month in Lexington in 1833,
caused a frightful cholera epidemic.” Jv^xa^tv \vp]xa^v ovyxaip<i>ptv
we have found him, we have found him, let us rejoice together,
said the priests of Osiris—let physicians congratulate with each
other that the cause of cholera has been at last discovered ; it is
nothing but a “ drenching rain.”
He says the disease “ radiated from an unpaved portion of the
city :” it no doubt began there first, for there were the mudholes
and the consequent vapors that gave activity to the mysterious
poison, and had already broken down the strength, the vivida vis,
of the people, thus rendering them more susceptble. Oh, no, no,
says the Reviever, “ the exempted equally with the afflicted por-
tions, had a humid atmosphere.” Did the Reviewer verify this in-
credible assertion by the hygrometer ? Is it consistent with ex-
perience particularly in London, that the muddy parts of a city are
as free from vapor as the paved and dry ? But the portions of
Louisville and Cincinnati that are sprinkled, are not the most un-
healthy, says the Reviewer. Very likely, because in these por-
tions live no doubt the very people who are least exposed to sick-
ness, whose streets are paved and dry with the exception of this
sprinkling—and mark, I no where asserted that sprinkling produc-
ed disease ; I only said that it would, if made general, contribute,
with the washing of pavements, side-yards, back-yards, and alleys,
to the hygrometric state of the atmosphere ; and I left it to the
Society to which it was addressed, to argue, whether it could be in
sufficient quantities to injure the public health.
As to its producing any specific disease, as malarious fever or
cholera, this idea never entered my head. I have to confess how-
ever that I used one unguarded expression or word—“ this impure
water is showered over the streets where mingling with the mias-
ma-gennetic materials there spread abroad, a poisonous exhalation
is diffused thro’ the air.” But here the intelligent reader will see
clearly that by the word miasma I did not mean the malaria of
fevers ; I took the word in its primitive and general sense from
/ximvu to pollute, defile &c. So we may say the air within and
around the cemetery Des Innocens was polluted, breaking down the
health of the vicinage, producing debility, incurable headache,
and nervous tremors, but then there was no specific fever generated
thereby. Malarious fevers did not come into my argument, for
they are scarcely thought of in the interior of Philadelphia.
When I relate from Park, Lind, and others, that different parts of
the African torrid zone are healthy during the dry season, I am not
crazy enough to suppose there was no miasma in the air;
on the contrary, I fully believe there was ; but it was not very ac-
tive till the rains came and the dew point rose to 80 or 90, thus
preventing a salutary perspiration, shutting out oxygen, and de-
pressing the whole vitality. When I spoke of the tremendous
rains of Africa as followed by sickness, I did not mean that water
from clouds was the direct cause thereof, but that it merely af-
forded the material of vapor. It rains and shines in quick succes-
sion and the whole country is therefore a vapor bath.
Some people have no conception of moisture which they cannot
see and feel and shake from their clothes; this seems to be the
Reviewer’s fate thro’ all that he has written ; but my reasoning
supposes water dissolved in the air and not to be seen, felt or as-
certained except by the hygrometer or by its depressing influence
on the body and mind. I spoke of heavy rains, but merely as af-
fording the hypostasis of vapor. It is this and not fogs that Dr.
Willis, Mr. Hopkins, and our own illustrious Dr. John Bell have
supposed was the great remote cause of malarious fevers. But the
Reviewer begins his attack upon me with four separate fogs—the
East, the West, the South, and a certain other fog that dear good
Dr. Wistar used to speak of; and he maintains that they are not
morbific. lie must mean that they do not cause malarious fevers,
for he can think of nothing else. Thus far he is certainly right ;
but if he means that they are never the remote or the exciting
causes of inflammatory disease, he is as certainly wrong. See pro-
fessor Bell’s paper quoted in my discourse.
But why name fogs, a word that is not to be found in my whole
paper ? When vapor is reduced to fog, it is like rain, compara-
tively innocuous in summer. One might suppose that the Review-
er had lived in Boeotia or Abdera where fogs hebetate the mind ;
but as he does not appear to be deficient in other compositions,
and moreover, since by turning to his title page you find him most
honorably allied, you may rather infer that his dullness was tempo-
rary and that he wrote this review during the prevalence of a south
and vaporous wind, the “ plumbeus Auster.” You would not be-
lieve that, unless under some sinister influence, a man of his gravity
would practise the art of punning which he well knows is the lowest
species of wit and never to be used in a grave subject. He calls the
paper he criticises hydrophobous and like a child, “ pleased with a
rattle,tickled with a straw,” he repeats the witty epithet, I shall not
stop to inquire how many times. How he would despise me were
I to call his writing tintinnabulous, in allusion to his name !
Had he not “ set about his review with a confused set of ideas”
in a vaporous air, he would have clearly seen that I did not depre-
cate an abundance of water in our streets, but the prevalence of
invisible vapor, and he would have called my paper—steam fear-
ing. For I said, let the water pour down our gutters in the great-
est abundance, as it passes on rapidly in a narrow stream and has
not time to evaporate and I direct that the scavengers shall
sprinkle before they sweep and scrape, because “ this lays the dust
which is raked into heaps and hauled away before there is time to
do mischief.” And yet he has the hardihood to say that I recom-
mend a broom “ in place of the sprinkling of water,” when in
truth I urge both broom and sprinkling in the same sentence 1
There is one thing, however which I neglected to say—that tho’
light showers and mere sprinkling are injurious, heavy washing
rains in a paved city must be salutary; and there is another thing
which I said unjustly—I called the Schuylkill water pestiferous.
This was certainly a word too strong, but surely I did not mean
that it contained the seeds of the plague, or any other specific dis-
ease, merely that it was fraught with foreign matters inimical to
health. I ought not to have used this word, but in the hurry of
composition some unguarded expression must often escape. Some-
thing too must be conceded to hyperbole a figure that pervades
the best of writing—St. John says that if all the deeds of
the Saviour were recorded, the world would not contain the
books.
Let us say a few words about the wonders of Louisville. He
says “ that before the streets of that city were paved, the rains of
summer caused a great mortality. This was not on account of the
mere humidity of the atmosphere, for the rains that fall in summer
now, make the air as humid as that of 1822, but without any evil
effect.” Whether the air of that city is as humid now, which
means of late years, as it was in 1822, may be judged of by what
the lamented Professor John. P. Harrison says, Phil. Jour. vol.
viii. p. 8.	“ In the opening of 1822, we had an almost unprece-
dented quantity of rain ; and during June, July, August, and Sep-
tember, an unusual succession of heavy and continued showers.
The rain though it fell in excessive abundance and in heavy tor-
rents, seemed to have no effect in cooling the atmosphere. There
was a coolness and sultriness proving very oppressive during the
summer months, which with little or no abatement continued
through the night as well as day.” And Prof. Yandell says,
Trans, of the Amer. Med. Ass. vol. ii. p. 612, that Louisville was
formerly called “the grave yard of the West” but that now it is
esteemed one of the most healthy cities: that it was subject to bil-
ious fevers that rivalled yellow fever in malignity : that the most
fatal of these epidemics broke out in 1822 after a hot rainy season:
that at this time only one street was paved and there were eight
ponds within the limits of the city most of which were dried up in
the course of the summer, exposing foul bottoms to the sun.
Now is it possible under all these circumstances of inordinate
rains and heats and ponds and unpaved streets covered with mud,
that the air was not more humid than at present ? or does the Re-
viewer mean that the sprinkling machines supply the place of
ponds and mud and African rains?
Let us here step aside to observe that in 1819 and 20, the peo-
pie of Louisville enjoyed the benefits of dryness. The summer and
fall of these years, says Dr. Harrison, Phil. Jour. vol. viii, p. 7.
“ were remarkably healthy—they were very dry—but some of the
weather was as warm as that of the subsequent years. In each of
these years little rain had fallen in the spring and early summer
months. The ponds in and near the town were evaporated and
quite free of water before the first of July in each year. The river
was low during both the summers of the above years and there
was deposited on the shores and rocks near the town a considerable
quantity of drift wood and other matter left by the subsidence of
the river and creek.” See here the happy effect of dryness, which
prevented the action of the febrifacient materials left in the ponds,
on the streets, and on the banks of the river. The next two years
were rainy and sickly.
It might be inferred from the Reviewer that Louisville has
more need of sprinkling than most other cities. He says—“ it is
impossible that arid streets and an atmosphere loaded with impal-
pable dust of carbonate of lime, can be salubrious.” There is no such
dust in Philadelphia for which alone I wrote, and therefore, what
doleful effects it might produce, I cannot say; but much other dust
is borne by the lungs without serious injury. Colliers and all who
work in clouds of coal dust are very healthy ; millers are healthy
except their peculiar cough ; in Egypt the blowing sand is so
abundant as to keep almost every one’s eyes sore, yet it inflicts no
other sensible injury; the caravans on the deserts of Asia and Af-
rica, are not much injured in their health by storms of sand, al-
though these are sometimes so thick as to kill suddenly by shutting
out oxygen ; the clouds of thick dust that attend the marching of
armies day after day are not very serious evils. That dust is a lit-
tle annoying, is freely conceded ; and from the Reviewer’s horror
and his desire to sprinkle it down, one might infer that he was as
restive as other people under the yoke of Providence. I have been
told that Cincinnati is paved with a friable carbonate of lime and
that the dust is often intolerable ; if Louisville is thus paved, let
them sprinkle as the choice of two evils.
That some kinds of dust as that of dry-grinders and pearl-work-
ers, is injurious, has been sufficiently proved; but I cannot find that
the citizens of Phila. are set to coughing by the inhalation of street
dust. Nine-tenths of the time, it is not even perceived. Our citi-
zens in riding abroad for their pleasure or health, pass each other
by crowds in Broad Street beyond the pavement where they are
covered with dust, preferring this to the damp and confined air of
the city, wThere dust is comparatively very rare. I cannot remem-
ber that in walking or driving in the streets of Philadelphia I
have been annoyed by dust this summer, yet this is the middle of
August and not a mile of the city is sprinkled by the machine. An
old man who has been in the constant practice of giving advice in
relation to health, will often be obtrusive, hence I cannot help say-
ing to this Louisville Doctor—clean your streets before you
sprinkle them. What in loco cit. says Dr. Yandell the presiding
genius of that city? “ It would certainly be difficult to find any
where more uncleanly lanes and thoroughfares than Louisville pre-
sents. One of the first things that strikes the eye of a stranger is the
neglected condition of our streets. He wonders how the city can
be healthy with such masses of putrescent matters in its midst.”
But he adds—“the streets of the city are wide and cross at right
angles, which secures the most perfect ventilation and favors
their drying fast after rains.” This wTas written only sixteen
months ago. The following four short paragraphs contain a sur-
prising number of errors and rash assertions.
“ But let us survey some other parts of the earth. One of the healthiest
portions of Devonshire, in England, is Torquay. It is a resort for a con-
siderable number of invalids. But the humid state of the atmosphere of
Torquay is notorious.
“The south of Italy has long been celebrated for its salubrity, but it
is no less famous for its humid air, and Rome, the most humid part of
the south of Italy, has the best climate for invalids. Madeira has long
been the shrine of Hygeia, to which pilgrims from all parts of the
world have resorted, but it, too, has an atmosphere that can scarcely be
called dry.
“ In the West Indies the hot, dry months are not healthy. The invalid
is urged to spend all the time he can upon the water, where the atmos-
phere is much more humid than that of the land. A ship may be ‘dry’
but its atmosphere is not.
“ An important fact should also be borne in mind, and that is, that there
are many diseases which are benefitted by humid air, while there are
others injured by it. While, therefore, Dr. Jackson’s hydrophobia
might benefit one set of invalids, it would be deleterious to another.”
The truth is that Devonshire is the south of England, on the
channel bordering France, and of course the air is comparatively
warm; hence a number of situations therein have been sought for
a winter residence—not because the air was supersalubrious, but
because it was warm for an English or Scotchman. It is conve-
nient for those Northern men who cannot leave the island, but did
you ever hear of invalids going there from neighboring France or
any other foreign land ? The Reviewer says “ the humid state of
Torquay is notorious.” Sir James Clarke, the highest authority,
says otherwise—hear him.
“ Here the invalid has the advantage of a considerable tract of
sheltered country, some part of which will afford a protected ride
or walk in whatever direction the wind blows. Torquay is supe-
rior in this respect to every place in our island. Its position also
on the southern declivity of a range of pretty steep hills, com-
posed chiefly of calcareous rocks, renders it comparatively dry.
Hence while Torquay possesses all the advantages of the climate
of this coast, its chief disadvantage, humidity, is felt in a less
degree than elsewhere.”—Cyclop, of Pract. Med., Art. Climate.
As to the south of Italy, did any one ever hear of its salubrity ?
Consumptive, rheumatic, and bronchial patients may go there to
spend a winter, but this is all that can be said in its favor. So
they go to the West Indies, but no father or mother would go to
either place to rear a robust family, and this is the very thing that
my steam-fearing relates to. He says that “ Rome is the most
humid part of the south of Italy.” For this he ought to have
given some proof. Sir James Clarke says it is dryer than Pisa
which is nearly two degrees further north, and yet on the southern
coast. In the country south of the Appenines and below the lati-
tude of Rome down to the toe of the boot, you may find many
places more humid than Rome. It is at Naples and still further
to the south-east, that the moist sirocco blow’s for weeks, relaxing
every fibre and dejecting every mental energy. Whoever would
say “ the south of Italy has long been celebrated for its salubrity,”
would do well to read Dr. Jas. Johnson on “ Change of Air” and
the Rev. Mr. Mathews’ Diary.
He says that in the West Indies “ the hot dry months are not
healthy.” Let him say whether the hot wet months are healthy.
Neither dry nor wet months are healthy in this region unless you
reside in the mountains. If the dry hot months should at anytime
prove the least healthy, it is because they indirectly favor the
generation of malaria and this I mentioned in my preface ; but
look into Hillary on “ Change of Air,” you will find that July and
August were unhealthy in proportion to the quantity of rain; and
Mosely begins his summary of advice to Europeans arriving in
the West Indies thus—“ Living in a house with lofty and spacious
rooms in a dry situation, &c.” As to people seeking their safety
on the water, this is merely the less of two evils, for surely no one
is crazy enough to pretend that a ship in the torrid zone is a
healthy situation. The inmates may not contract the specific
fever of the neighboring land, they may not die, but they will be
broken down in their vigor and elasticity.
He says that Madeira is the shrine of Hygeia and that “it can
scarcely be called dry.” Suppose I too were to guess and rashly
say, it can scarcely be called humid. The pure air from the sea
blows over it and carries away its impurities; and during the hot-
test weather, the sun being in his extreme northern declination,
the island is under the purifying influence of the trade winds.
The island rises rapidly from the coast by a succession of lofty
hills, the soil is desiccative and the streams very rapid. For six
and often for eight months, the silk worm might be fed on the
trees, for during that period it seldom rains except in the moun-
tains.—See Rees’ Cyclop.
Dr. Gourlay, who had resided there eighteen years when he
wrote, says that “ a drop of dew seldom falls except in the higher
parts:” and Dr. Joseph Adams then residing on the island, {Med.
and Phys. Jour, for 1801,) speaking of the charming temperature
says, “ the dryness of our atmosphere is not less remarkable.”
Then he speaks of the absence of fogs and the rapidity of rivers.
Dr. Wilde, p. 89, says the “ dry and balmy air which produces
this never-ending spring, &c.” At p. 113 he says, “with so
little rain and dew, it may naturally be asked, how vegetation can
be so luxuriant”—he means in and near Funchal, where the
foreign invalids reside. The above will help to show that the
Reviewer’s salutary fogs are not to be expected here and that the
island can scarcely be called humid during six or eight months.
But he says it is the “shrine of Hygeia.” Dr. Gourlay thinks
otherwise and says Part III., it is equally the seat of disease as
other countries, and the forms of these are neither few in number
nor mild in their nature.”
But with respect to all these moist places mentioned trium-
phantly by the Reviewer—Torquay, Southern Italy, West Indies,
Madeira—not one of them is rendered useful to invalids by its hu-
midity, or recommended to the sick on account of this property ;
there is not one of them to which a physician in his right mind
■would resort for the purpose of rearing a family in health, lon-
gevity, and vigor. Invalids and aged people run there in winter
to escape frost and chimoniphorous mountain winds, just as they
would cover their belly with pitch to prevent cholera. These
places, they think, have the desirable uniformity of temperature,
and their humidity during the winter, is not as injurious to them
as the evils they fly from. Thus some physicians in England a
few years ago, sent patients to pass the cold weather in cowt-
houses, in order to breathe day and night the milder air from their
cattles’ lungs and bowels, and I believe it is practised in France
to this day; but did the same doctors advise the whole world sick
and well to do the same ?
To his “important fact” that many diseases are benefitted by humid
air, I have only to reply, there is not one in the earth that could
be relieved by air more humid than ours of Philadelphia generally
is in the summer months. Here too, in allusion no doubt to my
story of Capt. Murray’s dry ships, he says “ a ship may be dry
but its atmosphere is not.” 0, wonderful! But may not the
internal atmosphere of a ship be rendered drier by such means as
Capt. Murray used?
The Reviewer says “it seems to us that Dr. J. set about his
investigation W’ith a confused set of ideas and that the confusion
increased greatly towards the close of his paper.” This assertion
he no where attempts to prove unless at p. 11, where he writes as
follows—
“ We have remarked that Dr. Jackson’s confusion increases towards
the conclusion of his essay. He finds it difficult to meet the objection
urged against his views, in the appeal to the genial influence ofshowers
of rain. lie solves the difficulty by declaring that there is no kind of
comparison between ‘pure water from the higher regions, which in its
descent washes and purifies the air,’ and ‘the impure and pestiferous
water of the Schuylkill.’ This then is a surrender of the whole ques-
tion. If Dr. Jackson had started out with the proposition that sprinkling
streets with impure and pestiferous water is injurious to health, he would
have found no one to controvert his position. Truth forces him to
admit that streets may be sprinkled with pure water, without any inju-
rious effect.
“ But there is another important admission in Dr. Jackson’s effort to
meet the fact we have mentioned, an admission that is fatal to his entire
series of speculations. In announcing that falling rain washes out im-
purities from the atmosphere, he admits that a dry air may be unwhole-
some. These impurities spring from the bosom of the earth, and
nine-tenths of them are of a character that may be kept from a breathing
atmosphere, by sprinkling the streets with pure water. The hydrants
and fountains of New York and Boston, are not detrimental to health.”
My whole reasoning goes upon the fact, that an inordinate
quantity of water pure or impure dissolved in the air as it is
during a south wind, depresses the vital powers and is therefore
more or less injurious to health, independently of its favoring the
remote causes of disease. But as I was writing for this city in
particular, 1 spoke of the impurity of our wrnter as an accumulative
evidence, to use a law phrase, against the sprinkling, precisely as
I spoke of miasma-gennetic materials in the streets''; I have no
where admitted, as he asserts, that streets may be sprinkled with
pure wrnter without any injurious effects. No such admission can
be inferred from any part of my paper; not from the case of Capt.
Murray’s ship, Blagden and Fordyce’s experiments, Willis’s
theory, the long extract from Dr. John Bell, nor yet from any
thing in the deaths at the battle of Monmouth. I set out at the
first with this proposition—“that a great excess of heat is
tolerated by the human body without injury, provided there be no
excess of moisture,” and to this proposition I have steadily adhered.
He says “ Truth forces him to admit that streets may be sprinkled
with pure water without any injurious effects.” This is another
constructive accusation and I disdain to answer it; but the
Reviewer might be advised to remember how Peter found what he
wanted in his father’s will—in syllables and letters.
The Reviewer slyly observes that the hydrants and fountains of
New York and Boston are not injurious to health. How could
they possibly injure health on my principles ? They are not
calculated to afford an invisible steam. The water pours up cold
to a certain height, then falls into a basin and runs off under
ground. It has not time to absorb a vaporising heat; and the little
caloric that must be combined, is quickly carried under the earth.
Some little vapor must be produced, but not enough to do any
evil. The same may be said of the hydrants that wash the
gutters.
As to the “ important admission which is fatal to my entire
series of speculations that dry air may be unwholesome and that
rain washes out its impurities,” it is only necessary to say, that
all air, dry or moist, is more or less impure particularly in cities ;
and I freely admit as I did in my paper that rains do wash and
purify it. But I ought to have said heavy rains, for light showers
that merely lay the dust, as does the sprinkling machine, cannot
do this; on the contrary, they never can fail to increase the
impurity of the air—they promote putrefaction and exhalation
which rises around us and is precipitated within reach of our lungs by
the dew, to rise again with the next day’s heat and vapor. This
too must be the effect of sprinkling the streets to any great extent
even wTith the purest water.
That very great man, Dr. Rush, used to teach us that light
showers were always injurious in a sickly season. But the
Reviewer says “ impurities spring from the bosom of the earth
and nine-tenths of them may be kept from a breathing atmosphere
by sprinkling the streets with water.” I prefer the authority of
Dr. Rush. But if this need any support, let us see what some of
the wise and learned physicians of Philadelphia have said on the
subject. Among many questions proposed by the Councils to
these men individually, is found the following :—
“ Is it proper to water or sprinkle the streets before cleaning
them or at any other times ; and what precautions if any would
it be desirable to employ while cleaning the streets and gutters ?”
To this three physicians answered in favor of sprinkling and the
following nine against it.
Professor Dunglison says—“The undersigned can have no facts
to offer. Believing however as he does that the hygrometric con-
dition of the air is much concerned in the production and extension
of disease, he would be disposed to prefer the dry cleaning of the
streets to the moist.” He recommends the flowing of water through
the gutters night and day.
Professor Bache says—“It is proper to water or sprinkle the
streets before cleaning them, if they are dry or dusty ; but not
at other times.”
Professor Gibson—“ The streets should not be sprinkled, but
thoroughly cleaned by opening fire plugs and hydrants and washing
away with a deluge of water all foul matters Desiccation follows
sprinkling and this is believed to be deleterious.”
Dr. J. W. Moore—“ I do not think there is any objection to
sprinkling the streets for the purpose of cleansing them ; but I do
think the practice of watering them in hot weather prejudicial.”
Professor Meigs—“ The use of hose to water the streets at the
discretion of citizens and servants, ought to be forbidden, inasmuch
as in many of the principal thoroughfares, the dust is constantly
kept in a state to favor the rapid decomposition of matters mixed
with it, giving rise not only to unwholesome damp but disengaging
chemical vapours that are injurious to health. If we should be
subject to cholera, we should be safer in a dry than in a damp
city. Our city is too much watered at seasons in which excessive
moisture ought to be avoided As to cleansing the streets, I
advise that they be swept while dry.
Professor Mutter—“ As moisture when combined with heat is
one of the chief sources of malaria, it must be obvious that to
sprinkle a dirty street or alley and allow the surface to dry by
degrees, cannot fail to be injurious to health. This howTever is
very different from a thorough washing, and I advise that the
hydrants be allowed to flow every day or two. Where no hydrants
exist, I believe dry sweeping will be better than sprinkling.”
Professor Sam. Jackson—“In dry weather sprinkling or wetting
the streets before sweeping is required to lay the dust; but the
dust should not be converted into mud which defeats the object of
sweeping.”
Professor Grant—“I consider the practice of watering the streets
during the heat of the day for the purpose of laying the dust &c.
as very objectionable. Every such sprinkling promotes decompo-
sition. I suggest that the citizens should not be permitted to
sprinkle the streets &c.”
Dr. Isaac Hays—“It is proper in very dry weather to sprinkle the
streets before sweeping them ; but it cannot be conducive to health
to keep the streets constantly sloppy.”
While I have such men as these on my side and many others who
ought to be named, I shall feel as confident as did a great actress
of old whom the vulgar exploded and the knights applauded.
------nam satis est equites mi hi plaudere, ut audax
Contemptis aliis explosa Arbuscula dixit.
We shall not quote the next lines, sincerely believing they are
not suitable; for notwithstanding the apparent temper of the Re-
viewer, we believe that its author is a man like Sir Jonas Hanway,
“ whose vices may well be forgiven for the sake of his virtues.”
He has shown some cloudiness of mind, the temporary effect no
doubt of vapor from the sprinkling machine ; and a spice of ill-na-
ture, which may be imputed to a bad state of the bowels, as indi-
gestion and flatus, says Voltaire, in ministers of state, occasion
nearly all the wTars of Europe. He seems to be a religiosissimus
and very irritable on the subject of religion ; now as a few barrels
of oil have been said to smooth down the angry waves, it might
be well for him to take some cod liver.
I have now, Mr. Editor, spent too much time on this subject
and therefore I bid it a final farewell.