_Acute_ diseases are to be regarded as electrically positive, and _chronic_ affections as negative. The exceptions are rare, if any at all. _Malignant cholera_, which is eminently acute, might by some be considered as an exception. In negative diseases, there is a low degree of electro-vitality. And it has been remarked by careful observers, particularly in the Orient, that cholera rages with greatest destructiveness when no special electric phenomena have for long time appeared in the atmosphere, and when the artificial electrical apparatus could be made to yield its sparks only with difficulty, or not at all. And again, after a thunderstorm, when the electric machine works again freely, the cholera is also found to abate quickly, and sometimes very greatly. The inference drawn from these facts has been that the prevalence of cholera is largely owing to a lack of electricity in the atmosphere, and consequently to a want of the animal electricity or electro-vitality in the system of the patient; and thence it might be concluded that cholera implies a negative condition of the system. I think there is a fallacy in this reasoning. There appears to me to be an unwarrantable assumption in confidently attributing the long absence from the heavens of marked electrical phenomena, and the failure of the electric machine to give its spark, to an unquestioned deficiency of atmospheric electricity. Electrical manifestations take place only when the _plus_ and _minus_ conditions are existing, in relation to each other, somewhat near, or not very remote; and the visible phenomena appear when the positive and negative rush together, so as to produce a polar equilibrium. But suppose a _plus_ condition to exist over a wide region, then, everything being _overcharged_, the visible phenomena would be as rare and as difficult of attainment as if all around were negative. How, then, can it be inferred, with any certainty, from such data, that there is a _deficiency_ of electricity, rather than an _excess_ of it? I have not treated a case of cholera; but my own impression of it is, that in the first stage, or during the "rice-water" discharges, the condition of the system is, as in other acute affections, excessively positive; but that, as the collapse comes on, it rapidly subsides into an intensely negative state, thus assuming the chief characteristic of a chronic condition. In the above remarks, I would not be understood to indicate any doubt that the prevalence of cholera is often aggravated or mitigated by peculiar electrical states of the atmosphere. It appears altogether probable that such may be the fact; and I should presume that electrical treatment, properly administered, would be found eminently successful in this fearful malady.