Welcome to the Correspondence on Smoking (1928-1929) with Charles G. Pease, M.D. To go to the "Table of Contents" immediately, click here.
This site provides educational material on tobacco effects commonly unknown to the public due to the "tobacco taboo."
Here is the text of correspondence (1928-1929) with and related to activities of the Non-Smokers' Protective League of America.
The NSPLA President, Charles G. Pease, M.D. (1854-1941), was corresponding with clergymen and N.Y. Health Department officials on dealing with tobacco dangers, dangers already well known in medical circles.
Recommended background material preparatory to reading this site includes the
A New York predecessor, Dr. Elisha Harris, had written about New York Health Department experience with tobacco smoking in the 1850's, both generally and in terms of the high rate of smoker diseases treated.

Correspondence on Smoking
With and Among Health Department Officials
and Clergymen on Smoking (1928-1929):
Is There Betrayal of the Human Race
by Departments of Health
and by
Some Members of the Clergy
Practitioners of the "Healing Art"??

Charles G. Pease, M.D.

(New York: Restoration Pub. Co., 1929)

Table of Contents
Overview  3
GBS Quote  4
Anti-Smoking Resolution, 4 Sep 1929  5
Letter to Dr. Pease from W. J. Dilthey, 6 Sep 1929  6
Letter to Wm. J. Dilthey from S. W. Wynne,
Comm'r, N.Y.C. Dep't of Health, 14 Sep 1929
Letter to S. W. Wynne, Comm'r, N.Y.C. Dep't
of Health, from Wm. J. Dilthey, 25 Sep 1929
Letter to S. W. Wynne, Comm'r, N.Y.C. Dep't
of Health, from Dr. Pease, 17 Sep 1928
Letter to S. W. Wynne, Comm'r, N.Y.C. Dep't
of Health, from Dr. Pease, 29 Sep 1928
Letter to F. H. Mann, Treas, Fed Council of
Churches from Dr. Pease, 30 March 1928
Letter to Dr. Pease from S. P. Cadman, Brooklyn
Central Congregational Church, 13 April 1928
Letter to S. P. Cadman, Pres, Fed Council of
Churches, from Dr. Pease, 3 May 1928
Medical References: Addendum, 8 May 192819
Letter to Dr. Pease from S. P. Cadman,
Pres, Fed Council of Churches, 9 May 1928
Commentary, 1 Nov 192923
Letter to Daniel A. Poling, D.D.,
from Dr. Pease, 20 Aug 1929
Tobacco Effects Questionnaire, 20 Aug 192924
Letter to Dr. Pease by Aide of
Daniel A. Poling, D.D., 20 Aug 1929
Letter to Aide of Daniel A. Poling,
D.D., from Dr. Pease, 24 Aug 1929
Letter to Daniel A. Poling, D.D.,
from Dr. Pease, 11 Oct 1929
Letter to Daniel A. Poling, D.D.,
from Dr. Pease, 26 Oct 1929
Letter to W. E. Hicks, Church Editor,
"Brooklyn Eagle," from C. A. Segerstrom,
First S. Baptist Church, 14 June 1928
Medical References: Addendum, Nov 192929
Action Request32
Founding Directors List, 191133
Tobacco Committee34
Law Committee34
Declaration of Rights34


Is the Department of Health Betraying
the Highest Interests of the People?


Ignorance, Prejudice, Personal Habits,
Political Interests, Financial or Other Reasons?

Are We Honest Enough With Ourselves
and With the Human Race to Seek the
Evidence in the Correspondence Herein?

"Dr. Pease Scores Dr. Cadman's Use of Filthy Weed"
(The "Brooklyn Daily Eagle," New York, Tuesday, June 12, 1928).
Read Correspondence Herein, re Smoking by the Clergy

Rev. Dr. Daniel A. Poling's Attitude
Commended in Part and Adversely Criticised in Part


Does the Average Physician Stand Condemned
By his habits of life as an example? The human race has
a glorious destiny to attain unto if it will throw off the bond-
age to harmful customs and habits (Read address by Prof.
Irving Fisher, Fellow, A.P.H.A., Yale University, before
the American Public Health Association, Buffalo, N. Y.,
October 13, 1926: Daniel 1:15-20).


"No offensive truth is properly presented
unless it causes irritation."

George Bernard Shaw


Members of the Public Forum of Brooklyn Heights, Inc., and citizens in meeting assembled at 20 Myrtle Avenue, Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, on this fourth day of September, 1929, have adopted by unanimous vote the following Preamble and Resolution, To wit:

Whereas: Tobacco smoking has greatly increased to the increased discomfort of those not having destroyed the normal sensitiveness of the mucous membrane of the air passages, by personal indulgence in the use of this poison, but are compelled to inhale tobacco smoke in the atmosphere;

Whereas: The smoke from tobacco contains poisonous gases, one of which is carbon monoxide; and that it also contains irritating and deadly oils in a volatilized state which condense on everything they contact with, including the mucous membrane of the air passages of those inhaling atmosphere polluted with the said, smoke from burning tobacco, to the injury of health and endangering of life;

Whereas: The sidewalks of our city are strewn with half-burned matches and cigarette and cigar butts to the shame of a so-called civilized people;

Whereas: The awful loss of life and destruction of property, making an increased cost for fire insurance, as a result of fires started by tobacco smokers, who, Fire Chief Croker stated were responsible for about half the fires;

Whereas: The undermining of the health of adults, and of children whho are poisoned before and after birth as a result of tobacco smoke polluted atmosphere in the home and elsewhere, constitutes a crime in the resulting injury, and

Whereas: The right of every person to breathe and enjoy air uncontaminated by unhealthful or disagreeable odors or fumes, is one of the "inalienable rights" guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and law of the land. Therefore be it

Resolved: That it is the sense of this meeting that the Department of Health, charged as it is with the safeguarding of the rights of the people in relation to health and comfort, shall prohibit, by ordinance, tobacco smoking in public and semi-public places; in business offices, restaurants, hotel dining rooms and lobbies, banquet halls, sleeping, living and dining rooms of homes and everywhere where non-smokers and children have a right to be. And be it further

Resolved: That copies of this Preamble and Resolution be sent to the Commissioner of Health and to the Mayor of this city.

(Signed) WILLIAM J. DILTHEY, Chairman

Miss EMILIE RAPPOLD, Secretary


September 6, 1929.

Charles G. Pease, M.D.
101 West 72nd Street,
New York City

Dear Dr. Pease:

Your very kind letter of September 5th at hand and I thank you very much for the expressions contained therein.

We certainly congratulate you on the good work you are doing and wish you could have an audience over the radio so that the American people could be brought face to face with the injury that tobacco has upon the system and so ably expressed at the Public Forum of Brooklyn Heights, Inc., by you last Wednesday evening in such convincing manner.

In view of the fact that the vote was unanimous for your resolution, is exceptional in a Public Forum, which is a cross section of the American people just as you find them and seldom has a resolution been passed in that organization unanimously, which shows you convinced that audience beyond a doubt as to the merits of your case.

Again thanking you for your lecture and the answering of questions which followed and hoping that we may have the pleasure of seeing you on September 25, 1929, when you can bring the copy of the bill which is to come before Congress and we will vote upon it in order to educate the people regarding its importance.

Yours very truly,
(Signed) WM. J. DILTHEY, Chairman

September 14, 1929

Mr. William J. Dilthey, Chairman
Public Forum of Brooklyn Heights,
8 Clark Street, Brooklyn, N. Y.

My dear Mr. Dilthey:

I am puzzled when I read your letter of September 12th calling my attention to the resolution passed by vour organization after listening to Dr. Charles G. Pease, of 101 West 72nd Street, New York City:


"Resolved, That it is the sense of this meeting that the Department of Health, charged as it is with the safeguarding of the rights of the people in relation to health and comfort, shall prohibit, by ordinance, tobacco smoking in public and semi-public places, in business offices, restaurants, hotel dining rooms and lobbies, banquet halls, sleeping, living and dining rooms of homes and everywhere where non-smokers and children have a right to be."

I am puzzled because, while I have not seen the results of Dr. Pease's research, I have followed with interest what various scientists say about tobacco and I have not yet found that tobacco has proved to be such a dangerous enemy of mankind as your resolution assumes. Even the common-sense observation of those about you will show it is not noticeably dangerous—if dangerous at all.

As for enforcing the restrictions named in the resolution, don't you think that the Department of Health would be interfering with the pursuit of happiness guaranteed citizens by the Constitution?

Ed. Note: No such right exists in the Constitution. What the Constitution really says, precludes nuisances and hazards.

I am sure I should resent being restrained from smoking in the "sleeping, living and dining rooms" of my home. And rightfully so! As for smoking in public places, there are always such places where ardent non-smokers can gather and eat and dance and listen to lectures, etc., without having to smell tobacco smoke.

If there are no provisions for non-smokers at certain gatherings, I assume the individual non-smoker has strength of mind enough to decide whether to forego the occasion and remain undefiled by tobacco fumes or to enjoy the public gathering, and be slightly "contaminated" by nicotine.

Ed. Note: This is the segregationist attitude. That is contrary to the Constitution. See, e.g.,
  • Missouri ex rel Gaines v Canada, 305 US 337; 59 S Ct 232; 83 L Ed 208 (1938)
  • Alford v City of Newport News, 220 Va 584; 260 SE2d 241 (1979)
  • Opinions of Attorney General 1987-1988, No. 6460, pp 167-171; 1987 Michigan Register 366 (1987) (placing nonsmokers "checkerboard style" does not achieve law compliance, an Alford-style unconstitutionality analysis, as the benefit of safety is intended) .
  • Besides, the work of the Department of Health is real and it is earnest—keeping the milk supply pure; guarding the food of millions of men, women and children, stamping out diphtheria, holding other communicable diseases in check, combating the gargantuan smoke menace of thousands of belching chimneys, etc. Doesn't it strike you as a frivolous thing for us to do, to try to enforce an ordinance prohibiting tobacco smoking ''in public and semi-public places, in business offices, restaurants, hotel dining rooms and lobbies, banquet halls, sleeping, living and dining rooms of homes and everywhere where non-smokers and children have a right to be?''

    Ask the organization you represent: Could a sincere public servant divert public money from the necessities of public health work to the non-essentials your organization recommends?

    Sincerely yours,

    (Signed) SHIRLEY W. WYNNE, M.D., Dr.P.H.


    September 25, 1929

    Hon. Shirley W. Wynne, M.D., Commissioner of Health,
    City of New York.

    Hon. Sir:

    Your letter of September 14, 1929, was duly received and read at the open meeting of the Public Forum of Brooklyn Heights, Inc., on the 18th of September, 1929, at which time a committee was appointed for the purpose of drafting a letter addressed to you in reply to your said letter, to be acted upon at the next regular meeting of the said Public Forum.

    We, Hon. Sir, are unable from our point of view to appreciate or understand your professed "puzzled" condition of mind occasioned by the character and purport of the Preamble and Resolution unanimously adopted by the aforesaid Public Forum at its regular meeting on September 4, 1929, a copy of which you acknowledged receipt of; at the same time expressing your disagreement with, or wholly ignoring the vital facts set forth in the said Preamble, and characterizing the said Resolution as "frivolous."

    As freeborn, and as naturalized citizens of this commonwealth, we have certain "inalienable rights" which cannot be so easily brushed aside without our making an effort to maintain them; therefore this communication.

    This entire subject is of such grave importance physically, morally and mentally, that we are impelled to carefully analyze your letter that we may make adequate reply thereto.

    You write, "I am puzzled because, while I have not seen the results of Dr. Pease's research, I have followed with interest what various scientists say about tobacco and have not yet found that tobacco has proved to be such a dangerous enemy of mankind as your resolution assumes. Even the common-sense observation of those about you will show it is not noticeably dangerous—if dangerous at all."

    Do you, Hon. Sir, really believe that "observation of those about" us affords safe evidence that they are not being harmed in the use of tobacco, or morphine, or opium, or other drugs; tobacco being much more deadly than opium?

    Is one's "common-sense observation" so limited and so incapable of recognition that it cannot include the death of General U. S. Grant as a result of tobacco cancer of the throat, the death of his son, General Fred Dent Grant, from the same cause, the death of President McKinley, who, the


    surgeons said would have recovered from the gunshot wound had he not had tobacco heart, the death of Mark Twain as a result of tobacco heart, and the death of a host of others as a result of tobacco addiction?

    It is a well known fact that tobacco smokers are more liable to die when they are victims of disease than are non- smokers, especially is this true in cases of pneumonia and influenza; and this is said to be true of those poisoned by daily or frequently inhaling atmosphere polluted by tobacco smoke, many suffering in silence, as to complain would subject them to hostility.

    The rapid increase of sudden deaths is significant. "Tobacco . . . not infrequently causing sudden death by cardiac paralysis." (Dr. Brunton in his lectures on the Action of Medicine, pages 321-323.)

    Every surgeon knows, or should know, that tobacco smokers are more liable to die when undergoing operations. "They are liable to collapse." (Dr. Bangs, in the Medical Record, New York City.)

    You, Hon. Sir, confess ignorance of what light Dr. Pease is able to throw upon the subject, yet, without seeking to learn, or to accept of his stated offer to you in that direction, made by letter to you under date of September 29, 1928, you seek to dismiss the entire subject as unworthy of consideration.

    You, Hon. Sir, appear to assume the attitude that to enforce restrictions against smoking where non-smokers and children have a right to be, would be to use your words: "Interfering with the pursuit of happiness guaranteed citizens by the Constitution." Does this same interpretation hold good in relation to the use of all poisons and the intrusion of their addictions upon others? If not, Hon. Sir, may we ask: Why not?

    We find nothing in your letter, Hon. Sir, to indicate that the non-smokers have any rights under the Constitution when smokers elect to intrude their irritating, offensive and poisonous smoke upon the non-smokers, but that the smokers have a perfect right to smoke out the non-smokers from places where the non-smokers have a right to be.

    Hon. Sir, just where and how shall this attitude be classified? Will you concur in the opinion, Hon. Sir, that it is self-classifying? A legal opinion upon this subject has been prepared by a member of the New York Bar, a printed copy of which is available.

    May we ask, in view of the tenor of your letter, if the wife in the home has no right to protection? Have the children no right to protection?

    Recently, callers upon a mother, who, with a four-weeks-


    old babe in her arms, was smoking a cigarette, the father also smoking in the room, reported to a non-smoking physician that the babe gave full evidence of being stifled by the smoke. This is not an uncommon occurrence.

    There are various kinds of physical injuries that may be inflicted in the home and all such injuries may be covered by law.

    You write, Hon. Sir, as follows: "I would resent being restrained from smoking in the sleeping, living and dining rooms of my home.'' There are those, Hon. Sir, who are confident that upon further reflection you will come to realize that this resentment on the part of smokers, for which the blame can reasonably be put upon the effect of the poison, should not deprive non-smokers of protection by ordinance.

    Charles B. Towns, who is at the head of the largest sanitarium for drug addicts in the country, makes a strong plea against tobacco, stating that the same method of treatment is employed as that for the opium addiction and that there is the same suffering in coming out of both addictions; he, however, further states that "the opium smoker, smokes in private, he does not discomfort or harm others or excite the curiosity of the young." This indicates a marked difference in the mental and moral effect of these two drugs—tobacco and opium—which should be carefully noted in dealing with the subject of tobacco and of tobacco smoke.

    The question was recently asked: Why is the sale of opium prohibited by law when the sale of tobacco, a more violent poison, is not prohibited? The following answer was promptly given: If our legislators were users of opium, do you suppose there would be any law against the sale of opium?

    Hon. Sir, may we direct your attention to the analysis of tobacco smoke by Vohl and Eulenberg? Also to the effect upon the physical organism recorded by J. W. Seaver, M.D. of Yale University? Also to the outstanding effect recorded by Prof. Hitchcock, of Amherst? Also to the statement registered by the Henry Phipps Institute in relation to tobacco and tuberculosis? Also to the article by Dr. Abbe, Senior Surgeon, St. Luke's Hospital, in relation to tobacco and cancer (Med. Journal, July 3, 1915)? Also to Magistrate Leroy B. Crane [and others], in the matter of tobacco as related to crime? Also to the statements made by Dr. L. Bremer, formerly physician at St. Vincent Institution for the Insane, in regard to tobacco, considered in relation to the 100,000 children in this city reported by the Special Committee as mentally defective? Also to many more authorities including the New York City Department of Health Weekly Bulletin, September 1, 1917.


    Your reference, Hon. Sir, to the existing conditions set forth in the aforesaid Preamble and to the relief sought in the a foresaid Resolution, as "non-essentials," makes it necessary, in the interest of personal and public health and comfort to respectfully take issue with you.

    The guarding of the health of the people by proper sanitation and hygiene; securing pure food and water and keeping the atmosphere free from such poison as tobacco smoke, containing as it does deadly oils and gases; is the only true, safe and effective way of preventing disease.

    Hon. Sir, the aforesaid Resolution is still in force for the reasons stated in the aforesaid Preamble upon which the aforesaid Resolution is based.
    The above letter was reported by Dr. Charles G. Pease, constituting the said committee, at the regular meeting of the aforesaid Public Forum, September 25, 1929, and upon motion from the floor duly seconded and carried, the Chairman of the aforesaid Public Forum was directed to send the said letter to Dr. Shirley W. Wynne, Health Commissioner of New York City; and to send copies to the New York papers and to the Medical Journals.

    Respectfully submitted,
    (Signed) WM. J. DILTHEY, Chairman

    Miss EMILIE RAPPOLD, Secretary,

    101 WEST 72ND STREET
    NEW YORK, N. Y.
    September 17, 1928.

    Hon. Shirley W. Wynne, M. D., Commissioner,
    Department of Health,
    City of New York.

    Hon. Sir:

    I am glad to see in the Bulletin of your Department, of date July 21, 1928, on pages eighty-seven and eighty-eight the statement that the aid of a committee has been asked for to study all phases of the "distinct menace to health in the carbon monoxide in the city streets." But I regret to find that there is no mention of the injury to health resulting from carbon monoxide discharged into the atmosphere of homes and public places from burning tobacco, as per the London Lancet, as follows: "The smoke from one ounce of tobacco in the form of cigarettes


    contains from one to four pints of carbon monoxide gas. The same quantity of tobacco smoked in a pipe produces from two and one-half to five pints of this poisonous gas."

    These reported findings, in the London Lancet, were reprinted in the "New York Times," with an editorial thereon, as follows: "The dizziness experienced by smokers and by those present in a room filled with tobacco smoke is undoubtedly caused by this poisonous gas."

    It must not be forgotten that a large amount of deadly volatilized nicotine oil is present in tobacco smoke, and that it condenses on the mucous membrane of the mouth and air passages, to say nothing of additional poisons found in tobacco smoke by Vohl and Eulenberg.

    The Department of Health is charged with the safeguarding of the health and normalcy of the people; but, in relation to the true character of tobacco and of tobacco smoke and to the immense amount of recorded damage done thereby, the Department of Health maintains silence.

    The attention of the people is not directed by your Department, Hon. Commissioner, to the large amount of scientific literature available at the General Library, and no reference is made to the efforts and labor of various agencies seeking to enlighten and warn the people.

    As members of the human race we are interested in the well-being of our kind. Therefore this open communication.

    We respectfully solicit a full, sincere and adequate reply in relation to the issues involved.
      Respectfully and fraternally yours,
      (Signed) CHARLES G. PEASE, M. D., President.

    NEW YORK, N. Y.
    September 29, 1928.

    Hon. Shirley W. Wynne, M. D., Commissioner,
    Department of Health,
    City of New York.

    Hon. Sir:

    Referring to my official letter of the 17th inst., I regret that, up to this writing, I have not been honored by the courtesy of a reply from you in relation to the full text of my said letter.

    I am sure you will admit, Hon. Commissioner, that my aforesaid letter was a very pertinent and proper one, and that as an officer of this League, a citizen and a tax-


    payer, I am entitled to an adequate reply, not only because of the relationship as between the citizen and public servant, but also because of the injury, injustice and rapid increase of the tobacco smoking evil.

    The tobacco addiction (tobacco is more deadly than opium), given free rein, plus the protection, Hon. Sir, which your reported statement to the Press constitutes, is enthralling our people by leaps and bounds. Surely the prohibition of smoking would not, and could not, Hon. Sir, increase the present rapid pace of the evil, as you, Hon. Sir, in my opinion wrongly, claim it would. Would you repeal all prohibitive laws? Why not, if your basis of reasoning" is correct?

    Permit me to quote, Hon. Sir, from your reported statement to the Press:

    "Excessive smoking is harmful, but it
    is not a public menace by any means."

    Hon. Commissioner, you are undoubtedly sufficiently familiar with our city to have observed that in many public and semi-public places "NO SMOKING'' signs are displayed.

    Has it ever occurred to you, Hon. Sir, that the presence of the said signs is convincing evidence that tobacco smoking where others have to inhale the atmosphere thus polluted and poisoned, constitutes a public nuisance? And that the atmosphere in homes, offices and dining rooms thus polluted and poisoned constitutes a private and semi-public nuisance?

    Hon. Commissioner, is not the perpetration of a nuisance a "menace" to health, especially if it be tobacco smoke, containing, as it does, the deadly carbon monoxide gas, other poisonous gases and a deadly oil which can be easily separated from the smoke and is readily obtainable as an evidence of what condenses on the mucous membrane of the mouth and air passages of those inhaling atmosphere polluted with this smoke?

    Hon. Sir, as per your published statement, you have made the declaration that "to prohibit smoking would be a curtailment of a personal liberty."

    Permit me to quote from a printed legal opinion by a member of the New York Bar for your information: "The smoker generally regards it as a personal right to smoke wheresoever he pleases, and that any restraint which is attempted to be put upon him is an infraction of his 'personal liberty.'

    "Like most convenient phrases 'personal liberty' is much misused and abused. It is generally understood to justify the indulgence of personal habits, personal whims, personal convenience, and personal selfishness. Of course there is no such thing as a one-sided personal


    liberty. It must be mutual or it does not exist. Whatever right one citizen has in a free government, belongs equally to every other citizen. The right to breathe pure air is a natural right and belongs to every human being. It cannot be taken away or conveyed away. The right to protect it from pollution by force, if necessary, beyond doubt exists.

    "It is a general principle of law that any occupation or practise which is annoying or offensive 'to the sense of smell, and which is carried on in a public place where people dwell or have a right to be temporarily, is a nuisance. It is not necessary that the odor be unwholesome; it is enough if it renders the enjoyment of life or property uncomfortable."

    A well-known speaker recently said to me: "I wish they would prohibit smoking at banquets where I have to speak."

    Many persons have told me that they suffered with headache and were made ill, and that their clothing, even their undergarments, were offensive to them the following-day as a result of tobacco smoking at banquets. No comment is needed by me in this relation; the condition speaks for itself from the standpoint of ethics, sanity, refinement and normalcy.

    Hon. Commissioner, in your said reported statement as published, you reflected upon prohibition, declaring that it had caused an increase in the use of alcoholic liquors. In my opinion, the facts do not justify vour statement.

    May I say right here that the liquor drinker does not compel others to drink his poison, but the tobacco addict compels others to inhale his poison.

    Prohibition has rendered a great service in bringing more to the surface, more into evidence, the lamentable mental and deficient moral fiber exhibited.

    Prohibition does not make criminals, as has been wrongly charged. It discovers them! If those who are decrying prohibition would spend the time consumed therein in helping to educate the people up to the standard of prohibition, up to the standard of good citizenship, morality, spirituality and to a sense of the obligation of the individual as an example to the human race, of that which makes for nobility, clean habits, normalcy, manhood, womanhood and refinement, in contrast with indulgence in harmful and malodorous customs which present a picture of moral imbecility, unloveliness, abnormality, a great good would be accomplished.

    Hon. Sir, I am fully aware of the difficulty in prosecuting a righteous claim in behalf of the highest interests of a people, when adverse public servants can take refuge


    and seek security behind such a bulwark of habit as that dealt with herein, or are themselves offenders, or because of political ambitions, or are afraid of offending friends, or are ignorant of the true facts, even when a rapid increase in sudden deaths should have stimulated them to have made an exhaustive investigation ("tobacco . . . not unfrequently causing SUDDEN DEATH by cardiac paralysis."—Dr. Brunton, in his lectures on the Action of Medicine, pages 321-323).

    I have no desire to appear to be caustic or discourteous, but I have a vital duty to perform in the interest of humanity, without respect of persons, as Heaven lends me aid: therefore, Hon. Commissioner, I respectfully ask that you will reply fully and adequately to the full text of my said letter of September 17, 1928.

    Hon. Commissioner, a Fire-Prevention Congress will be held in this city next week. Fire Chief Croker, in a published letter, stated that almost half of the fires—with an awful toll of life sacrificed—were caused by tobacco smokers and as a result of their addiction. This certainly is an added "menace," chargeable to this uncivilized addiction.

    If, Hon. Sir, you are uninformed upon the true character of tobacco and of tobacco smoke, as the majority of the profession appear to be and confessed in the usual statement: "I have never looked it up," I shall be glad to facilitate your investigation of this subject, which is of such vital importance to the human race.

    As all communications on this subject are of public import, this of necessity, is an open letter.

    Awaiting your reply, as requested, I am,
          Respectfully yours, in the interest of humanity,
          (Signed) CHARLES G. PEASE, M. D., President.

    101 WEST 72ND STRFET
    March 30, 1928.

    Mr. Frank H. Mann, Treasurer,
    Federal Council of the Churches of Christ,
    City of New York

    My Dear Mr. Mann:

    I am in receipt of vour letter of the 8th inst., in relation to my failure to identify myself with the movement represented by our organization.

    When the Church purifies itself—which includes the abdication of all members of the clergy who conform to any of the harmful conventionalities and customs of society at large—I shall be glad to give the endorsement which my presence and affiliation would indicate.


    I have the interest of the human race too deeply at heart to render to it other than a love that has in it sacrifice of all perverted appetites and harmful addictions.

    As an ambassador of God, I hold unalterably to the obligation of the individual as an example to the human race of clean, pure, normal, manly, womanly and wholesome living.

    A poison addiction (tobacco is more deadly than opium. See U. S. Dispensatory) can no more attach itself to a truly spiritual life than fungus can attach itself to a healthy tree.

    A clergyman (a tobacco addict), addressing the writer, asked: "Can not a man use tobacco and be right with God?"

    The writer replied: "Absolutely not! The tobacco user is enslaved; God never produced the enslavement. The tobacco user has undergone a psychological change! God never created that psychological change! Therefore that man is not in right relationship with God."

    The said clergyman thereupon not only abandoned the use of tobacco himself, but brought to the writer a smoking judge, that he, too, might be saved from the offensive, unclean, degenerating and morally weakening drug addiction—tobacco, the opium of the West.

    Two pertinent questions present themselves:

    Would angels from Heaven help to keep alive any custom that is harmful to the human race?

    Would emissaries from "hell" help to keep alive customs injurious to humanity?

    These questions are fully answered in the Scriptures. The evidence of the harm resulting from the use of tobacco is obtainable in the mass of scientific literature upon the subject. The use or non-use of this poison identifies the individual in relation to the said questions, in the light of the said evidence. This deduction is arrived at through sincere, logical and prayerful thought, and spiritual illumination. Those who refuse to examine the evidence are, unquestionably, enemies of the human race—consequently enemies of God [I John 4:20,   Psalms 21:9,   66:3,   83:3,   89:11,   89:52,   92:10, and 110:1-2].

    Ed. Note: Dr. Charles Slocum in 1909 had said likewise; Prof. Bruce Fink in 1915 had said likewise.
    Such people are "represented [in the Bible] as members of an army (Ps. 3:7;   27:3;   55:19;   56:2;   59:5;   62:4). It is supposed, and rightly so, that because of their mercilessness and their injustices, they are an obstacle to the achievement of justice in the world, an obstacle to Yahweh's [God's] plan; they fight against Yahweh," says Theology Prof. Jose P. Miranda, Critica a la Filosofía de la Opressión (Salmanca: Ediciones Sígueme (1971).

    The money-changers of old were making the Temple the example of the market place; whereas the Temple was meant to stand for the spiritual life to the people. Jesus gave unmistakable evidence of His denunciation. Were He here today, what would His attitude be toward a tobacco-smoking clergy, church officials, teachers and members?

    As the above subject matter is of public import this, of necessity, is an open letter.

    Sincerely yours, in the interest of humanity and in the service of God,
            (Signed) CHARLES G. PEASE, M. D.
    (Copy Sent to Rev. S. Parkes Cadman, D. D.)


    April 13, 1928.

    Dr. Charles G. Pease,
    101 West 72nd Street,
    New York York City.

    My dear Dr. Pease:

    I have seen your letter which my daughter submitted to me before she went to Atlantic City, and I do not share your views about the viciousness of the habit of smoking. I think it is by pushing these things too hard and being so anxious to clean the outside of the cup that we often neglect the inside.
          Believe me,

            Yours ever,
              (Signed) S. PARKES CADMAN.

    May 3, 1928.

    Rev. S. Parkes Cadman, D. D., President,
    Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America.
    64 Jefferson Avenue,
    Brooklyn, N. Y.

    Scientific facts
    presented herein
    Personal views.

    My dear Dr. Cadman:

    I have your letter of April 13, 1928, in which you state: "I do not share your views about the viciousness of the habit of smoking. I think it is by pushing these things too hard and being so anxious to clean the outside of the cup that we often neglect the inside." This, in commenting upon my letter to Mr. Frank H. Mann, treasurer of the above named organization, under date of March 30, 1928.

    I need not, I am sure, call attention to the fact that when Jesus spoke of the "outside of the cup" (Luke 11:39), He referred to the scrupulous enactment of the churchly ceremonies and formal religious observances, in contrast to the moral or inward life of the professed religious devotees; which inward life, found (as is always the case) outward expression apart from their religious profession, or openly and profanely accompanying their religious profession and possibly occupancy of a "sacred office" on the part of those addressed.

    Jesus also referred to and attacked the outward expres-


    sion of inward uncleanness (tobacco addiction is unclean and immoral, viewed from every standpoint: polluting; polluting the mouth and person, and blighting posterity).

    Jesus said: "Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of your father (outwardly expressed) ye will do." (John 8: 44.)

    Jesus further said: "And because I tell you the truth ye believe Me not." (John 8: 45.)

    Jesus added: "He that is of God heareth God's words; ye, therefore, hear them not, because ye are not of God." (John 8: 47.)

    As a verification of the truth of these words of Jesus I can say that I have never known of an habitual offender against the law who, standing before the Bar of Justice, gave evidence of agreement with the law that convicted him; and I have prosecuted many law violators.

    One's judgment becomes warped under the influence of an intuition-blunting and habit-forming poison (tobacco is more poisonous than opium); therefore one under such control can scarcely be expected to render "righteous judgment" upon his own poison addiction.

    Nor can one whose judgment is warped by prejudice from the standpoint of custom and voluntary ignorance of the scientific facts be relied upon in relation to the highest interests of the human race.

    My dear Dr. Cadman: Whether the word "viciousness" (your own) is used or not used, the facts remain and have not been specifically contradicted by you. "Viewpoints" are all right so far as they are admissible, but they can never take the place of scientific facts or displace scientific facts.

    It is very easy, Dr. Cadman, to assume such an attitude as assumed by you, while failing to present the evidence of the appalling injury to mankind resulting from the "smoking" of a rank and poisonous weed—tobacco—for the production of physical and mental sensations, and for its narcotic effect, on the plea of "pleasure." But where does this practise stand in the light of the life and teachings of Jesus and the apostles? Yes, and from the standpoint of sanity, manhood, womanhood, normalcy and refinement?

    The high position you occupy, Dr. Cadman, makes you a greater influence for good or for evil. Your alleged example of tobacco smoking has been condemned. Can you, Dr. Cadman, take logical issue with the said condemnation? Can you justify your attitude in the light of the Scriptures and of scientific facts?

    I beg of you, dear Dr. Cadman, your support by your personal and official life and work, with a deep consciousness of the iniquity of the eviltobacco addiction—and its entailment upon posterity.

    There are no greater crimes perpetrated in the world to-


    day than indifference and silence, when the human voice should cry out in defense of the well-being of mankind; therefore, dear Dr. Cadman. this is an open letter.

    I ask your careful reading of additional scientific facts in the signed addendum.

    Yours, in the interest of humanity and in the service of God,

              (Signed) CHARLES G. PEASE, M. D.

    Refers to letter addressed to—
    Dr. S. Parkes Cadman, President,
    From Dr. Charles G. Pease,
    May 8, 1928.


    Let us look at some of the devastating, demoralizing and fatal results consequent upon the use of this habit-forming drug—tobacco.

    When one passes from the novice stage in the process of poisoning, to the condition of the addict, he is chronically poisoned.

    The symptoms of the damage inflicted upon the ego (to say nothing of the physical damage) becomes apparent when the masking effect of the narcotic influence of the drug (tobacco) wears off, and the supply of the drug is shut off. The symptoms are: Insomnia, nervousness, great apprehension and frequent fits of anger (L. P. Clark, M. D.). What a condition for a human being to be in! Who are the enticers into this bondage? Do some wear the purloined garb of Heaven?

    Mark Twain died of tobacco hearttobacco, a poison, self administered—what is the verdict?

    Mark Twain's affront offered to the Oxford University in 1909, while waiting for the conferring of an honorary degree upon him in recognition of his literary genius, by deliberately smoking a cigar, knowingly in defiance of tradition and custom; Mark Twain giving the usual poison-taker's excuse that he couldn't wait any longer, was characterized by Dr. James L. Tracy, in a denunciatory article published in "American Medicine," and copied in a column article in the "New York American," August 2, 1909, as "uncivilized" and "characteristic of tobacco smokers" in that "tobacco stultifies men's minds to higher sensibilities."

    Dr. Abbe, Senior Surgeon at St. Luke's Hospital. New York City. stated in his article published in the "Medical Journal," July 3, 1915, that after a careful study of 100 cases of cancer, ninety men and ten women, he found that tobacco causes cancer. Dr. Herbert H. Tidswcll, of England, and others have made confirmatory statements. Is this


    fact of no importance to tobacco smokers who have not yet paid the penalty for their sensuous addiction in some form?

    An army surgeon said to the writer during the World War: "There is a great difference between the smokers and non-smokers among the wounded, and a great difference, too, when going under the anesthetic; so great that I determined to write upon the subject, but then I concluded that it would not be of any use."

    Are not these words of the said army surgeon, realizing all that they imply of degeneracy, an awful indictment of the human race? What kind of a rebuke does the Church call down upon itself?

    I call your attention to the following authentic statement:

    "The cases of serious illness produced by the emanations of tobacco, and by its application even to the unbroken skin are innumerable, and many instances of fatal poisoning by tobacco are recorded, some of these being due to its having been swallowed purposely or accidentally, some to its use medicinally in an enema, and some to its application to eruptions on the skin."—National Dispensatory, Fifth Edition.

    "The use of tobacco not only lessens the efficiency of respiratory movements and the internal distribution of oxygen, but exerts a special deleterious influence on the heart, often disturbing the uniformity of its rhythm and impairing its force: and not unfrequently causing SUDDEN DEATH by cardiac paralysis."—Dr. Brunton in his lectures on the Action of Medicine, pages 321-323.

    The rapid increase in SUDDEN DEATHS—called "heart attack"—occasions little or no comment. Why? Tobacco users, whether physicians, clergymen or laymen, with rare exceptions, refuse to consider tobacco addiction as a factor in the production of any malady or sudden death; they will not reflect upon their own addiction.

    If poison (tobacco is a violent poison) will not do the work of poison, then the word "poison" should be eliminated from every language.

    Dr. Kellogg states that tobacco excites a craving for strong drink, consequently, since 1879, has refused to undertake the case of alcoholic inebriety unless the patient agrees to abandon the use of tobacco also.—Modern Medicine, June, 1899.

    Professor Irving Fisher, Fellow, A. P. H. A., Yale University, states that he and others in giving up tobacco and other harmful customs for recovery from tuberculosis, "did not find it a deprivation, but an emancipation."

    Scientific comparisons show non-smokers to have a large increase in growth, in height, weight, chest girth and lung capacity over habitual smokers, and a marked increase over


    occasional smokers, as per available records (Seaver, of Yale; Hitchcock, of Amherst).

    Why put this poison into the BLOOD STREAM of the human race? Has the "smoker" other than an IGNOBLE-DEFENSE?

    The difference in the effect of opium smoking and that of tobacco smoking upon the moral sense of the addicts is clearly indicated in an article by Charles B. Towns, at the head of the largest sanitarium for drug addicts in the States, and published in a Ne\v York City magazine:
    "If any one thinks that China is the gainer by substituting the one drug habit for the other I beg to differ with him. The opium-smoker smokes in private with other smokers, and is hence not offensive to other people. He is not injuring non-smokers or arousing the curiosity of boys . . . The inhaler of tobacco gets his effect in precisely the same way that the opium-smoker gets his. . . . It may be news to the average man to hear that the man who smokes opium moderately suffers no more physical deterioration than the man who inhales tobacco moderately. The medical treatment which is necessary to bring out a physiological change in order to destroy the craving is the same. The effect of giving up the habit is the same."

    The average tobacco-smoker takes offense (blunted moral sense accentuated) if the constitutional and legal rights of others to breathe pure air is put up as a bar to the tobacco-smoker intruding his selfish and harmful (to say nothing of the befouling) addiction upon others.

    What part does the Church play in this maelstrom of wrong that requires a corresponding condition and quality of heart that admits of and is responsible for such an appalling picture from the standpoint of God's purpose concerning humanity and the establishing of His Kingdom upon the earth?

    One would think that every individual would desire, even from a selfish motive, to have the personal beauty of normalcy—clear, healthful skin; the magnificence of the liquid-bluish-white translucency of the tissue of the eyes illumined by a soul from from bondage—with all that goes with normalcy; all of which is lost in the use of tobacco and other harmful addictions popularised by custom. Is the Church, which should liberate the people, riveting the fetters more securely?

    "The smoking of even a single cigar interferes with an individual's effiriency." (Bulletin of the Department of Health, City of New York, September 1, 1917.)

    "Tobacco lessens muscular strength forty-four per cent." (Lombard). "Lessens mental activity eighteen per cent." (Bush). "Causes color blindness and deafness" (Physician


    to employees of Sante Fe Railroad). "Even men who smoke only one cigar a day I cannot entrust with my fine work" (Luther Burbank).

    Magistrate Leroy B. Crane, of New York City, said: "Out of 300 boys brought before me charged with various crimes, 295 were cigarette smokers. This surely goes to prove that the boys who do not smoke do not stray into the path that leads into the police court . . . Ninety-nine out of 100 boys between the ages of ten and seventeen years old who come before me charged with crime have their fingers disfigured by yellow cigarette stain." Is this a reflection upon the tobacco example of the Church, in retaining a tobacco-smoking clergy?

    In the effort to save our youth from this vice, do we not have to BATTLE WITH THE EXAMPLE? Shall we not contend with those who help to keep alive this poison custom and habit?

    The many cases of impaired health and nervous disorders among women, children and office employees, who are compelled to inhale tobacco smoke polluted atmosphere is an ugly blot upon our so-called civilization, and should cause earnest souls to cry out in the words of William Lloyd Garrison:
    "I will be as harsh as truth and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject I do not wish to think or speak with moderation. No, no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retract a single inch—and I will be heard! The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue to leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead."

    May such words awaken in us a truer estimate of the ungodly and degenerating conditions; and fire all true souls with a zeal, purpose and action that knows no compromise and gives no quarter to an evil thing!

    Earnestly submitted for serious contemplation,
            (Signed) CHARLES G. PEASE, M. D.

    NOTE.—A number of paragraphs in the original letter have been omitted in the above printed copy, as they appear elsewhere herein.

    After the receipt by Dr. Cadman of Dr. Pease's letter on May 3, 1928, Dr. Cadman wrote to Dr. Pease under date of May 9, 1928, as follows:

    "Thank you for your letter and enclosure to which I will give my consideration."

    Upon the receipt of the above Dr. Pease wrote to Dr. Cadman the following:

    "I have your valued favor of the 9th inst., and I thank you for the acknowledgment of the receipt of my letter of May 3, 1928, and for the encouragenent which your assurance that you will give the subject matter presented therein, including the addendum, your consideration, gives me.

    "I gladly place myself at your service for any further information or aid I may be called upon to give you in this relation.

    "The subject is of so great importance to mankind, my interest so deep-rooted, and the impelling power of the Holy Spirit so compelling that I await your further and early communication with hopeful anticipation."

    The fact that the above letter to Dr. Cadman is without reply up to this time—November 1, 1929—speaks for itself.

    August 20, 1929.

    Rev. Daniel A. Poling, D.D.,
    1 West 29th Street,
    New York City.

    Dear Dr. Poling:

    There are those among your admirers who have been disturbed by your reported statement over the radio, i. e., that Christians may smoke tobacco.

    It is felt that such statements rivet the fetters more securely, and in behalf of those who have made the report to me and in behalf of this League, I am addressing you upon the subject and am enclosing a list of questions which are to be sent out, that the entire subject may be viewed from a better standpoint, though it is well understood that the violent poison—many times greater than opium-—so blunts the moral sense that there is little left to appeal to.

    This is the most vital subject of today, and I trust that we may have your reply and also your cooperation.

    Yours, in the interest of humanity and in the service of God,

            (Signed) CHARLES G. PEASE, M. D.



    Addressed to
    The members of the Clergy who say that a person
    may use tobacco and at the same time be a Christian.


    Is the tobacco addict enslaved ? Ans........

    Has the tobacco addict undergone a psychological change? Ans. .......

    If the reply to either question is in the affirmative then the two added questions:

    Did God produce the said enslavement? Ans. .......

    Did God create the psychological change? Ans. .......

    If the questions are answered in the negative, then the added question:

    Is that individual then in right relationship with God and is the example God's purpose concerning humanity? Ans. .......

    Is the tobacco addiction based on selfishness and does that quality underlie all-wrong? Ans........

    Does the use of a poison pacifier and the blowing of poisonous, irritating and offensive smoke from the mouth and nostrils indicate, portray nobility, normalcy, perfection, or moral imbecility? Ans. .......

    Is the said practise, and picture presented, made possible without a quality of heart or of soul that admits of such an addiction? Ans........

    A special committee reports 100,000 children in New York City mentally defective, as per publication thereof, and designated as "problem children."

    Is nicotine which "stands next to prussic acid in the rapidity and energy of its poisonous action," and is being put into the blood stream of the human race, absorbed from the tobacco leaf and deposited from the smoke upon the mucous membrane of the mouth and air passages by condensation, in no way responsible for this horrible blot upon our civilization? Ans........

    Dr. Herbert H. Tidswell, of England, states: "My histories show the low vitality of children born in homes where there was tobacco smoking. The death rate where there was no tobacco smoking is 153 to the 1,000, where there was tobacco smoking, 227 to the 1,000 (tabulations available).

    Dr. Kostral reports that out of 506 children born of women laboring in tobacco factories under his supervision,


    205 died soon after birth; 101 of these dying from that which he states was brain disease with convulsions.

    Dr. Etaenne, of Nancy [France], reports that the death rate of the children born of women laboring in tobacco factories in Nancy is double the registered rate for all other laboring classes, and that the children nursed by mothers who return to the factories during the nursing period are almost sure to die.

    Should not the above limited extracts from recorded facts cause every tobacco-smoker, having any regard for God or man, to cease being an accomplice in this great crime? Ans........

    Can the tobacco addiction fasten itself upon a truly spiritual life any more than funguis cannot attach itself to a healthy tree? Ans. .......

    Is the lifting of a vice to the highest point of teaching and example—the pulpit—a greater menace to humanity than when practised by a layman? Ans. .......

    Which is the greater wrong: degenerating the human race by example, or as progenitor, or homicide, which makes the one slain no worse by the killing? Ans........

    Is the wearing of the robe of Heaven and practising a poison addiction no crime? Ans,.......

    Is silence or the excusing of such an influence upon humanity a greater crime? Ans. .......

    May not a Christian make a mistake or do wrong and immediately pick himself up and go straight and continue to be a Christian? Ans........

    Can a person deliberately, disregardfully, and continuously do that which is harmful to mankind as an example and as a progenitor and at the same time be a Christian? Ans........

    What constitutes being a Christian? Ans. .......

    The above questions are of vital importance to the well-being of the human race and to the establishment of the Kingdom of God upon the earth, and are entitled to sincere, honest and frank replies.

    We read that with God "there is no respect of persons." God, if one may so speak, is a respecter of Truth. Most persons are respecters of persons and no respecters of Truth, when to speak the Truth might endanger one to antagonism or cause loss of human prestige; therefore, most people have no standing with God.
            (Signed) CHARLES G. PEASE, M. D.
            101 West 72nd Street, New York City.
    August 20, 1929


    NEW YORK, N.Y.
    August 20, 1929.

    Dr. Charles G. Pease, President,
    Non-Smokers' Protective League,
    101 West 72nd Street,
    New York, N.Y.

    My dear Dr. Pease:

    In Dr. Poling's absence from the city for the Summertime, I wish to acknowledge your letter of August 20th and its enclosure.

    Dr. Poling was asked the question, "Can a man be a Christian and smoke?" and he answered in the affirmative—that some of the best men and greatest preachers he had known smoke, but that personally he had never used tobacco. He was asked what his personal opinion was and he gave it. Personally he is very much opposed to smoking, and through the great influence he holds among the youth of the country he is making a great fight against it. Just now he is directing his efforts against the current cigarette advertising, and has had several articles published on this subject. Have you read them?

    With best wishes,
        Very sincerely,
              (Signed) VIRGINIA DAVIS,
              Secretary to Dr. Poling.

    101 WEST 72ND STREET
    NEW YORK, N. Y.
    August 24, 1929.

    Miss Virginia Davis, Secretary to Dr. Poling,
    The Marble Collegiate Church, Fifth Avenue, at 29th St.
    New York City.

    My dear Miss Davis:

    I thank you for your very courteous letter of the 20th.

    I am always deeply hurt because of my great desire for the liberation of the human race from everything that harms, when I hear said or read that "some of the best men smoke." If this statement be true then smoking must be one of the qualities that constitute the "best men,'' and the old saying that "a chain is no stronger than its weakest link" is not true, and a vessel provided with a chain having in it a weak link must be accepted as safe because the said chain is pronounced to be a "best" chain.

    I can see no hope for the human race on this basis. It


    is no wonder that Jesus lamented over Jerusalem (Matt. 23).

    The youth cannot be saved from the tobacco vice, overwhelmed as they are by the examples, the clergy riveting the fetters more securely, unless we attack and battle with the examples.

    The tobacco vice is going forward by leaps and bounds and I see no hope in bailing out water from a sinking ship with one hand while pouring in water with the other hand; some of the "best" men only pouring water in.

    I do not attack the cigarette or highball; I attack the tobacco vice wherever it is found, and I do the same with alcoholic liquors.

    To attack the cigarette is to excuse, exempt the pipe and cigar, two of the three emblems of man's shame.

    I must now double my attack upon the members of the clergy, who as examples are betraying the human race and making a burlesque of the spiritual life and are dishonoring Jesus, the Christ. Of the blessed Holy Spirit they can know nothing. To them Romans 8: 11, is, of necessity, meaningless—they turn to a violent poison.

    I have not seen the articles you refer to; I should have liked to have seen them. As to the cigarette advertisements, the attack is mainly only upon the method. I trust that United States Senator [Reed] Smoot's Bill passes.

    Again thanking you, dear Miss Davis, I am,
              Most sincerely yours,
              CHARLES G. PEASE, M. D.

    October 11, 1929.

    Rev. Daniel A. Poling, D. D.,
    210 Madison Ave.,
    New York City.

    Dear Dr. Poling:

    My letter to you under date of August 20, 1929, with list of questions addressed to clergymen enclosed therewith was acknowledged by your secretary, in your absence from town, but not having received any communication from you direct in relation to the said questions I am writing, thinking that perhaps the aforesaid questions may not have been brought to your attention.

    The said letters and the aforesaid questions are to be published, and it is felt that it is only just and right that you should be given the opportunity to reply fully to the aforesaid questions, that it may not be necessary to state


    that you have not given the answers sought, nor passed judgment upon the contents of my letter to your secretary.

    This is one of the most vital subjects of today. Clergymen and physicians are dragging down our youth by example. The indifference shown is equally culpable. This movement will make history, as God is back of it and the impelling power in it.

    Yours in the interest of humanity,
              CHARLES G. PEASE, M. D.

    101 WEST 72ND STREET
    NEW YORK, N. Y.
    October 26, 1929.

    Rev. Daniel A. Poling, D. D.,
    210 Madison Ave.,
    City of New York.

    Is tobacco smoking
    a Christ-like act?

    Dear Dr. Poling:

    You have been brought to mind by the Press report of the 22nd inst., that a Memorial to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church was adopted on the preceding day by the Virginian Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, that seeks the removal of the ban on smoking by the clergy. There were strong protests against the proposed Memorial before its adoption by a small majority.

    The question arises: How much may you be responsible for this effort to add a larger number of examples of this "vice" at the head of the Church which, with few exceptions, gives evidence of being spiritually deficient to the enslavement of our youth as well as that of adult men and women, to the shame of those responsible?

    If it be true that a Christian may smoke, then it follows that tobacco smoking must, of necessity, be a Christ-like act. This attitude, logically, stigmatizes and dishonors Jesus of Nazareth, and calls for a counter influence, which God is bringing to pass through His yielded instrument. This necessarily is an open letter.

    Yours, in the interest of humanity,
          (Signed) CHARLES G. PEASE, M. D.


    141 EAST 55TH STREET
    NEW YORK, N.Y.
    June 14, 1928.

    Mr. W. E. Hicks,
    Church Editor, "Brooklyn Eagle"
    Brooklyn, N.Y.

    Dear Sir:

    Allow me, Mr. Hicks, to express my sincere appreciation to you for the splendid report you gave in the "Eagle" on Dr. Pease's discussion on the dreadful tobacco habit. It hardly seems true that in these days of religious hypocrisy and indifference some one dares to speak his mind. Certainly truth will conquer and the false prophets of today will receive their reward. It is absurd to speak about inward purity when the outside is nauseating, even if Dr. Cadman thinks it is possible.

    Again I thank you, and hope and pray that you will keep up the good work. God bless you!

    Sincerely yours,
    (Signed) C. A . SEGERSTROM.

    NOTE.—Other letters of like character were published by the "Brooklyn Eagle."


    Does a tobacco-smoking physician in his act, his enslavement depict, reveal the quality of intelligence and the moral rectitude that would warrant confidence in his judgment and method of practise, the acceptance of the atmosphere created, and the example presented?

    "'Drinking, even as done in the prohibition manner, is a smaller factor in causing neurotic degenerative state of mind than ever before, but tobacco is becoming a more serious problem. . . . The doctor of tomorrow must have a broader and more general fundamental education,' Dr. Burrill B. Crohn, associate physician at Mount Sinai Hospital, said at the New York Academy of Medicine last night." ("New York Times," October 16, 1929.) Nothing blunts the moral sense and intuition as does tobacco smoking—note the selfish intrusion upon others.

    "United States Has Highest Maternity Mortality of Civilized Nations." (Official report, Memphis, September 18, 1929.) Tobacco consumption largest in United States.

    "Heart Disease and Cancer Increase." ("New York Sun," October 31, 1929.) "Degenerative diseases rapidly increasing." A sad outlook, due to degenerating customs and practices.

    "Americans Held Herd-Minded, by Protestor Snedden. Columbia Sociologist Tells Summer Student Many Have Chronic Infantilism. Affects So-Called Thinkers." ("New York Herald-Tribune," July 25, 1929.)

    "Insanity in United States Is On Increase." (Dr. C. Floyd Haviland, President of the New York State Hospital Commission.)

    "Smoking Robs Women of Beauty." (Dr. Herbert Schlink, Surgeon of the Royal Prince Albert Hospital in Austria.—"New York Times," October 10, 1928.)

    "Sleeping Sickness Caused By Vaccination. (Geneva, August 22, 1928.) Developments of the dread sleeping sickness disease as the result of vaccination was brought to the attention of the League of National Health Committee's Commission today. . . . In the Netherlands the condition is so bad compulsory vaccination in public schools has been suspended."

    New York City Department of Health has only just awakened; its Weekly Bulletin, September 7, 1929, contains the following: "Postvaccinal Encephalitis in Holland, Great Britain and a number of other European countries considerable attention has been aroused by the relative frequency cases of encephalitis have followed smallpox vaccination . . . cases have been reported in United States . . . stupor . . . always present in fatal cases."

    "London, September 21, 1929. Vaccination in England is not only not compulsory . . . is not even recommended . . . After public vaccination the vaccinator must supply medical attention free of charge if the child should be in need of it." ("New York Evening Post," September 21, 1929.) Better sanitation and hygiene alone abated smallpox.

    Vaccination carries an awful toll of deaths, loss of arms and other permanent injuries. Will not all serum injections become recognized as equally harmful? Already they have a lamentable record. Many deaths from tetanus as a result of vaccination, have been reported.

    Can a disinterested "Campaign for the Health of the People" be carried on that would be along the lines of right living in relation to habits, food, air and drink (water being the only legitimate drink outside of milk), which would bankrupt the physicians, or will it be along the line of polluting the blood of the children, as so-called prophylactic treatment to the enrichment of the physicians, producing laboratories and their beneficiaries?

    Shall superstition enslave and put in bondage, in this direction, a people so easily enthralled by customs and habits that they will become shackled by interested [non-impartial] propaganda?

    "Death-Rate Up Through United States." ("New York

    Herald-Tribune," July 22, 1929.) "Infant death-rate here high. Welfare Council puts it as 1 to 12 for Manhattan." ("The New York Sun," October 25, 1929.)

    New diseases have appeared among children that have never been seen before and are not understood (so stated in print). Are any of these conditions to be wondered at in view of the unnatural and "criminal" poisoning of the atmosphere and bodies, and the pollution of the blood stream with dangerous serums and vaccines?

    Are the statements printed on the Health Department toxin-antitoxin posters, as follows, "safe, harmless and lasting," true statements?

    On what reliable authority is the statement "lasting" made? If there is no positive basis for the said statement, then is it honest?

    As to the other two statements, death and serious results are the answers!

    The opinion has been expressed that a Court action should be instituted to restrain the Department from using the words, ''safe and harmless."

    One mother, whose child has been seriously injured in health following the injection, has expressed herself as follows: "I would not want people to know that I had been so foolish."

    Upon asking a serum-injecting physician if he could guarantee that the children will not be detrimentally affected for life, he replied to me, also a physician, "No, but you cannot guarantee that they will be." Here is a positive admission that they are working in the dark, and that the children will have to take their chances. The said physician volunteered the statement that a number of the needles had been "lost," and the flesh had to be cut into to find them.

    An action for $10,000 damages has been instituted against a physician on the basis of this character of treatment. (Names and addresses and particulars are published in the November number of the "Quest," 13 Astor Place.)

    Whereas there has been a tremendous decrease in deaths from contagious diseases, resulting in an average increase in length of life as a result of better sanitation and hygiene, there, lamentably, is a rapid increase in deaths from degenerative diseases, which is a far more serious matter for the human race, but upon which subject, for reasons best known to itself, the Department of Health maintains silence.


    To manifest the same interest in the human race as a fancier exhibits in the care of his animals we must live in

    the consciousness of our obligation to mankind as examples. Love, that has not in it sacrifice of all that harms, is a sad counterfeit.

    "I class cocoa and chocolate with tea and coffee as poisons. The reason is they contain theobromin, which is essentially the same thing as caffeine and thein." (J. H. Kellogg, M. D., Head of Battle Creek Sanitarium.) These drugs affect detrimentally every tissue of the body, coarsening the skin, destroying the beautiful translucent and clear appearance of the eyes, affecting the nervous system, making possible rupture of arterial capillaries, resulting in "stroke" and paralysis. Tobacco will also cause these tissue changes in a more pronounced way.

    The deteriorating effect of these drug (sensuous) addictions upon the human race is clearly recognizable (with one or two exceptions) when we compare the pictures of the public men of today with the pictures of the public men of seventy-five and one hundred years ago. The contrast, to the discredit of the present, is disheartening.

    A true sense of manhood and of womanhood will cause one to stand alone, if need be, in the majesty of individuality in right living. True sociability does not consist in taking poison through a hypodermic needle, sucked from a coarse weed or drunk from a cup, glass or bottle—rather it consists in the interchange of helpful and kindly thought in soul fellowship.

    Flesh, as food, is injurious—affecting all tissues. The veins are the sewer side of the circulation of the blood; they carry the broken down tissue, therefore flesh-eating animals have no endurance—they have momentary strength and fierceness.

    There is the moral and spiritual (Gen. 1:29) side of the question. After man separated himself from God he demanded flesh. The eating of flesh gives assent, in the act, to the brutalization of the men who slaughter the animals. The chickens scream and struggle to break away from the hands of the assassin—there is violence there. If the act was right there would be no resistance or fear.

    Brutalization and violence are the basis of all war, murder and all else that is horrible. All this must cease before the Kingdom of God can be established upon the earth.

    We need earnest souls to turn the tide. Where has the reader enlisted? It has been made very plain that silence in the presence of wrong conditions carries equal responsibility, morally and spiritually, with the penalty which cannot be

    evaded. There are immutable laws. Your enlistment on the side of emancipation is needed.

    Single copies $  .20
    Ten copies1.50
    One hundred copies12.00

    To Induce Wide Distribution.
    (By Mail, Add Three Cents for Each Book.)


    Your Active and Supporting Membership
    Is Desired By the
    Non-Smokers' Protective League of America
    101 WEST 72ND STREET
    NEW YORK, N. Y., U. S. A.


    (Make all checks to carry on the work payable to and address all
    communications to the League, writing full name as above. When
    information is desired, send a stamped and self-addressed envelope.)

    Incorporated in 1911, having as its Directors: Charles G. Pease, M.D., D.D.S.; Burt G. Wilder, B.S., M.D., Professor, Cornell University; Harvey W. Wiley, A.B., A.M., M.D., B.S., Ph.D., LL.D., [Former Admin'r, Food and Drug Administration], Washington, D.C.; Jenkin Lloyd Jones, LL.D., Chicago, Ill.; David Starr Jordan, M.S., M.D., Ph.D., LL.D., Chancellor, Leland Stanford University, Cal.; Winfield S. Hall, Ph.D., M.D., Professor, Northwest University, Cal.; William A. McKeever, M.A., Ph.M., Professor, University of Kansas; James R. Day, D.D., S.T.D., D.C.L., LL.D., Chancellor, University Syracuse; J. W. Seaver, B.A., M.A, M.D., Yale; Thos. B. Stowell, A.M., Ph.D, Dean, University Southern California; Stephen F. Peckham, A.M., Consulting Chemist for New York City; Hon.Wm. H. Douglas, New York City; William R. Chapman; Francis Smith, Member New York Bar; Horace Greeley Knapp; Alphonse Major; Geo. A. Rutherford; Arthur C. Lassweli, A.B., Pe.B.; Charles H. Valentine, Member New York Bar; Twyman O. Abbott, Member New York Bar; Frederick W. Roman, A.M., Ph.D.

    The OFFICERS: Dr. Charles G. Pease, President; Eugenio di Pirani, Professor and Composer, Secretary; Horace Greeley Knapp, Treasurer; Twyman O. Abbott, General Counsel.

    VICE-PRESIDENTS: Professor Henry W. Farnam; Dr. Charles B. Davenport, and twelve others, members of the Board of Directors.

    COMMITTEE ON THE DELETERIOUS EFFECT OF TOBACCO AND TOBACCO SMOKE: J. H. Kellogg, M. D., Member Michigan State Board of Health, Superintendent Battle Creek Sanitarium; Dr. J. W. Seaver; Charles Elihu Slocum, M. D., Ph. D., LL.D.; Professor Henry Montgomery, A. B., A. M., B. S., Ph. D.; Dr. Charles G. Pease, ex-officio, Chairman.

    ON LAWS: Walter H. Bond, Member New York Bar; R. S. Rutherford, New York Bar; Nelson Smith, New York Bar; Twyman O. Abbott, New York Bar, Chairman; Robert K. Wakon, New York Bar.


    FIRST: That the right of every person to breathe and enjoy fresh and pure air, uncontaminated by unhealthful or disagreeable odors and fumes, is one of the "inalienable rights" guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and law of the land.

    SECOND: That tobacco smoking in public and semi-public places is a direct and positive invasion of this right; that it is dangerous to public health and comfort, offensive and annoying to individuals, and an intolerable evil in itself.


    1. Enforcement of laws, ordinances, rules and regulations prohibiting tobacco smoking in all public and semi-public places.

    2. To secure enactment of additional laws, etc., necessary for such purpose or to so restrict that only those who may indulge the habit will be required to inhale tobacco fumes.

    3. Creation of wholesome opinion. Encouraging individuals, whose rights and comfort may be disregarded by tobacco-users, to insist upon proper respect for such rights, and to protect the same from invasion, to the fullest extent guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the land.

    4. To establish branches and auxiliary organizations, also educational departments; publishing and distributing literature, and maintaining lecture-bureaus.

    "Smoking and chewing are equally disgusting habits."John Burroughs


    See reference to Dr. Pease in Surgeon General Report, 2000

    Other Books in This Reprint
    Series on Tobacco Effects
    The Mysteries of Tobacco,
    by Rev. Benjamin I. Lane (1845)
    The Use and Abuse of Tobacco,
    by Dr. John Lizars (1859)
    Tobacco and Its Effects: Report
    to the Wisconsin Board of Health

    by G. F. Witter, M.D. (1881)
    Click Here for Titles of Additional Books