VEGETARIANISM.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 3098, 24 May 1892, Page 2

VEGETARIANISM.

« TO THK EDITOR. Sin,—ln Saturday's issue of The Waikato Timks I notice a letter on " Vegetables v. Beef," from a correspondent who calls himself " A Moral Beef-eater." Is morality so rare among beef-eatsrs that this individual so styles himself in order to show that he is a shining exception among his fellows, or does he wish us to infer that he is eminently moral as to be a brilliant example to all who would eeek to attain a like eminence by baef-eatiaij? However, not knowing who he is, his example is unfortunately lost to us. Aβ he takes exception to the personal appearance of some of the speakers at the controversy he refers to, he should at least stand forth himself and show that he is sound in head, wind and limb. Some of the assertions contained in his letter are as remarkable as his pseudonym. For instance, he asserts that one of the speakers claimed Nero as a vegetarian; but as he is not a professional reporter, we must make some allowance for errors and omissions in his report. I have heard of the following being quoted as advocates of a non-flesh diet : Messrs Pythagoras, Plutarch, Seneca, John Wesley, Benjamin Franklin, Swedenborg, John Howard, Shelly, Wordsworth, Professor Newman, Professor Mayor, John Buz-ns and others, but I could hardly fancy Nero as a vegetarian. Again he says: "Carnivorous animals are not only stronger and more capable of prolonged exertion than herbivorous ones, but they are alfo fiercer in their disposition, as if force were superabundant." By this I presume he means that fierceness and force are convertible terms—in order to make men strong and give them force of character you must make them fierce. But are carnivorous animals stronger and more capable of prolonged exertion than herbivorous ones ? If my opponent gives a little thought to the subject he will find that the opposite is the case. Consider, for instance, how capable for prolonged exertion a tiger would be after he had dined on " Moral Beef-eater 1" I think his exertious would be digestive only. It is an undeniable fact that animals useful to man for their strength and power of prolonged exertion are the herbivorous ones. The only exception I can think uf to this rule is the dog ; but the dog can thrive equally well, if nnt better, on a nonflesh diet. With regard to the human race, by far the majority are almost, if not quite, vegetarians, and even in beef-eating England most of the hardest workers got very little flesh meat, and when any real heavy work is to be done, such as hodcarrying, recourse is bad to Irishmen, who have been brought up more or less on potatoes and butter milk. In conclusion, I regret that the " Moral 13eef-eater " is a man of one book. His letter is simply a compilation from a book of Dr. Lethely's. [f ho would road a fo<v other authors, he might get a wider comprehension of the subject, and more rational views. On our side we can quote Darwin. Professor Owen, Cuvier, Linnaeus, Dr. Cheyne, Dr. Carpenter, Sir Lyon Playfair, and other eminent scientific authorities, and a nonflesh diet is every day becoming more and more advocated as a remedy, or rather prevention, of disease. —Yours truly, J-Pen.