game in spite of temptation and longing, to restrain temper and accept the decisions of the umpire without complaint, to take no unfair advantage and indulge in no foul play, to give a square deal to opponents and ask no more for one's own side, to endure defeat with a smile and without discouragement surely this is just the spirit we need in everything. It is vitally important that unsportsmanlike conduct should be ruthlessly stamped out in all competitive sports, and that every team should prefer to lose honorably than to win unfairly.1

(6) Wherever they are taken seriously, athletic contests require a preliminary period of "training," which includes abstinence from sex-incontinence, from alcohol, smoking, overeating, and late hours. The discipline which this involves is an object-lesson in the requirements for efficiency in any undertaking, and excellent practice in their fulfillment. How far athletes learn this lesson and apply it to wider spheres of activity, it would be interesting to discover. In any case, they have proved in themselves the ability to repress inclination and find satisfaction in what makes for health and efficiency; and all who know the implications of "training" have received a subconscious "suggestion" in the right direction.

The other side of the problem is this:

(1) Competitive athletics, if taken seriously,

as, for 1 There has been a good deal of criticism of American intercollegiate athletics on the ground of their fostering unsportsmanlike conduct. A recent paper in the Atlantic Monthly (by C. A. Stewart, vol. 113, p. 153) concludes with this recommendation: “A forceful presentation of the facts of the situation, with an appeal to the innate sense of honor of the undergraduates; such a revision of the rules as will retain only those based upon essential fairness; and a strict supervision by the faculty; — upon the success of these three measures rests the hope that college athletics may be purged of trickery and the spirit of 'get away with it.' A few men expelled for lying about eligibility, and a few teams disbanded because of unfair play, would arouse undergraduates with a wholesome jolt."

example, in intercollegiate contests, - inevitably take more time and energy than their importance warrants. A member of a college football or baseball team can do little else during the season. Studies are neglected, intellectual interests are subordinated, college figures essentially as a group of men endeavoring to beat another college on the field. If a man is bright he may "keep up with" his studies, but his intellectual profit is meager; his energies are being absorbed elsewhere. This phenomenon has given rise to much satire and to much perplexity on the part of college administrations. A few have gone so far as to banish intercollegiate contests, asserting that the purpose of coming to college is primarily to learn to use the brain, not the muscles.

(2) The strain of intense rivalry is too severe on the body. It is now known that the intercollegiate athlete is very probably sacrificing some of his life when he throws his utmost effort into the game or the race. The length of life of the big athletes averages considerably shorter than that of the more moderate exercisers. From the physical point of view, interclass or interfraternity contests, not taken too earnestly, are far better than the intercollegiate struggles. They also have the advantage that far more can participate. The problem before our college authorities and leaders of student sentiment is how to check the fierceness of the big contests - shortening them, perhaps, possibly forbidding entirely the more strenuous and how to provide sports for all members of the college; so that, instead of a few overstrained athletes and a lot of fellows who underexercise, we shall see every man out on the field daily, and no one overdoing. This ideal necessitates far larger athletic grounds than most of our colleges have reserved. It may necessitate the abolition of some of the big contests that have been the excitement of many thousands. But it must not be forgotten that sports

are not life; they are prelude and preparation for life; they must not be allowed to usurp the chief place in a man's thoughts or to unfit him for his greatest after-usefulness.1

Is it wrong to smoke?

Statistics taken with care at many American colleges show with apparent conclusiveness that the use of tobacco is physically and mentally deleterious to young men.2 It seems that smokers lose in lung capacity, are stunted slightly in their growth, are lessened in their endurance, develop far more than their proportion of eye and nerve troubles, furnish far less than their proportion of the athletes who win positions on college teams, furnish far less than their proportion of scholarship men, and far more than their proportion of conditions and failures. It is perhaps too early to be quite sure of these results; but in all probability further experiment will confirm them, and make it certain that tobacco is physically harmful — as has long been recognized by trainers for athletic contests. The harm to adults seems to be less marked; perhaps to some it is inappreciable. And if there is appreciable harm, whether it is great enough to counterbalance the satisfaction which a confirmed smoker takes in his cigar or pipe, or any worse than the restlessness which the sacrifice of it might engender, is one of those delicate personal problems that one can hardly solve for another. But certainly where the habit is not formed, the loss of tobacco involves no important deprivation; its use is chiefly a social custom which can be discontinued without ill effects. Effort should be made to keep the young from forming the habit; college "smokers," where free cigarettes and

1 Cf. Atlantic Monthly, vol. 90, p. 534; Outlook, vol. 98, p. 597.

2 See, e.g., in the Popular Science Monthly for October, 1912, a summary by Dr. F. J. Pack of an investigation covering fourteen colleges. Similar investigations have been made by several others, with generally similar results.

cigars are furnished, should be superseded by "rallies," where the same amount of money could provide some light and harmless refreshment.

The use of tobacco- and particularly of cigarettes has increased very rapidly during the last twenty years. In the United States about two billion dollars annually are now spent for tobacco and accessories; perhaps twenty billion cigarettes a year are consumed. Apart from the matter of health and efficiency, it may be sharply questioned whether such a vast sum should not be more fruitfully expended.

This is not one of the important problems. But, after all, everything is important; and men must, and ultimately will, learn to find their happiness in things that forward, instead of thwarting, their great interests; what makes at all against health and efficiency- when it is so needless and artificial a habit as smoking, so mildly pleasant and so purely selfish - must be rooted out of desire. We shall not brand smoking as a sin, hardly as a vice; but the man who wishes to make the most of his life will avoid it himself, and the man who wishes to work for the general welfare will put his influence and example against it.

H. C. King, Rational Living, chap. VI, secs. I, II. J. Payot, The Education of the Will, bk. III, sec. IV. J. MacCunn, The Making of Character, pt. II, chap. II. W. Hutchinson, Handbook of Health. L. H. Gulick, The Efficient Life. F. Paulsen, System of Ethics, bk. III, chap. III. T. Roosevelt, The Strenuous Life. P. G. Hamerton, The Intellectual Life, pt. 1. H. Spencer, Education, chap. IV. C. A. Greene, The Art of Keeping Well. C. W. Saleeby, Health, Strength, and Happiness. R. C. Cabot, What Men Live By, pt. 1.

CHAPTER XVI

THE ALCOHOL PROBLEM

Of all the problems relating to health and efficiency there is none graver than that of the narcotics. With the exception of tobacco, which is probably, for adults, in moderation but mildly, if at all, deleterious, their use is fraught with serious danger. The exact physiological effects of the several narcotics are different, but their general effect and their attraction for users are similar.

The opium and cola derivatives-morphia, heroin, codein, cocaine are the worst of these habit-forming and health-destroying drugs. And they are being used, not only in the East (to the shame of the Western nations and Japan, that have winked at a traffic very profitable to some of their merchants), but in Europe and America, in an increasing and alarming degree. The harm caused by these drugs is, however, so patent, and enlightened opinion so united in opposing them, that space will not be given here to detail the indictment against them. Their sale is not pushed by such powerful interests as have fostered the use of alcoholic drinks; and by the vigilant enforcement of existing laws they can be kept from general use. If necessary, an international control of the cultivation of the poppy and the cola plant can forever remove this so needless form of human suffering.

With alcohol the case is different. A large minority of opinion in the United States, and the majority opinion almost everywhere else, still clings to the ancient and alluring habit of alcoholic self-narcotization. Attempts will doubt.