SMOKING.

Evening Star, Issue 4016, 10 January 1876, Page 3

SMOKING.

To the Editor. Sir,—T heartily endorse the reTuiiks of a corr sp.mdent in today's 'Guardian' who 3'gns himself 'Anti-smoker.' There is no doubtsmokers have established asocial tyranny. I'he practice is so universal that those who do not like it, and they are, perhaps, a larger minority than many think, have not the courage to protest. If the question is asked in a railway carriage or to ich, " Do you object ? " the answer i 3 often insincerely and unwillingly in the negative, for one hai the consciousness that the opposite would cause a look of resigned martyrdom when th.>. pipe case is slowly returned to the pooket, or a look implying that the objector is considered a v.?ry disagreeable fellow. Besides the question is often asked with a quiet assumption of acquiescence wh cb it is extremely d iticult to resist. I do not consider myself fastidious, but I think Ihe room in an otherwise nice house, which is devoted to smoking, has always an unpleasant atmosphere, and infects the 'whole house, and as for many bachelor lodgings, they are simply execrable. It is touching to see how many women pieterd "rather to like the smell of smoke," in order to excuse the selfish indulgence of their husbands or brother?, or with the idea, that the toler.ition of this disagreeable habit tend* to keep the latter at home. Men ouyht to be ashamed to be treated like children by women.

I have not been able to discover any good reason why women shonkl not smoke, which is not equally strong against the excessive indulgence of the_ practice by men so common in modern civilisation. The practice considered per is not wrong, and yet its indulgence by women would be against our finest instincts, and would contradict all those notions of purity and cleanliness which we identify wi :h the sex. We would not tolerate the habit among our wives and daughters foi a moment. Do we not in this and many other things exact from them a standard of living, and of self-denial, which we unmaufully shirk ourselves, ami which goes far to justify the extreme position many take as to the subjection of women ? I am not a rabid anti-smoker, and recognise the fact that hundreds of intelligent men indulge the habit in a way neither degrading to themselves, nor disagreeable to non-smokers. What I wish to point out is, that smoking has established a right to all times and which is unreasonable, and which it is time to question.—l am, «c., Moderation. Dunedin, January 7.

The work done by convicts in England in the year 1874 was of the gross value of about 1,240,000. The London correspondent of the * Manchester Guardian,’ writes I hear that the Grown costs in the Baker case amounted to £GBO, but that on the defendant’s solicitor subjecting them to taxation, they were reduced to £l3O. Among the charges that were disallowed was one of a heavy amount to detective officers who had watched the defendant when lie was out on bail to see that he did not escape, and another for inquiries made into the previous character of Miss Dickenson, to ascertain, I suppose, whether the case ought to be persisted in. The o.efeiidanl’s own costs amounted to about £1,500.