And here let us say that in this matter of an inherited appetite there
is a difference of views with some who believe that appetite is never
transmitted but always acquired. This difference of view is more
apparent than real. It is not the drunkard's appetite that is
transmitted, but the bias or proclivity which renders the subject of
such an inherited tendency more susceptible to exciting causes, and
therefore in greater danger from the use of alcoholic drinks than
others.

Dr. N.S. Davis, in an article in the _Washingtonian_, published at
Chicago, presents the opposite view of the case. The following extract
from this article is well worthy to be read and considered:

"If we should say that man is so constituted that he is capable of
feeling weary, restless, despondent and anxious, and that he
instinctively desires to be relieved of these unpleasant feelings, we
should assert a self-evident fact. And we should thereby assert all the
instincts or natural impulse there is in the matter. It is simply a
desire to be relieved from unpleasant feelings, and does not, in the
slightest degree, indicate or suggest any particular remedy. It no more
actually suggests the idea of alcohol or opium than it does bread and
water. But if, by accident, or by the experience of others, the
individual has learned that his unpleasant feelings can be relieved, for
the time being, by alcohol, opium or any other exhilarant, he not only
uses the remedy himself, but perpetuates a knowledge of the same to
others. It is in this way, and this only, that most of the nations and
tribes of our race, have, much to their detriment, found a knowledge of
some kind of intoxicant. The same explanation is applicable to the
supposed 'constitutional susceptibility,' as a primary cause of