The jury have found a verdict in the Pullman-car case
which • exactly confirms our remarks of last week. They declare that Dr. Arthur was burnt while he was affected by " narcotic stupor," that the fire was caused by Mr. Cranston's reading- lamp, and that everything was done that could be done by the officials. Precisely, except watching the car. Dr. Arthur was seen to be stupid by the attendant, yet he was allowed to light a cigar ; and Mr. Cra.nston's lamp was also perceived, yet
• allowed to remain alight. A propos of this case, we should very much like to know the meaning of the moral distinction
• drawn between chloral and alcohol. The friends of Dr. Arthur were shocked at the accusation of drunkenness with wine, but were content to hear of drunkenness with chloral; and the -coroner evidently thought that in pressing the latter view, he was "acting kindly to the family." Why ? As a matter of fact, Dr. Arthur had sunstroke in Ceylon, and drank chloral and beer to allay the pain and tendency to excitement which sunstroke tends to produce; but suppose he had taken alcohol for the same reason P Thousands are drinking themselves to -death with chloral, as its manufacturers well know ; and the idea that the drug is more moral than alcohol has, especially mpon women, the most fatal effect.
Previous page
