A little printer’s ink will answer the last sentence of our quotation. Simply change the words “lever-action,” and substitute “cranks,” and you will have the following: “A special set of muscles can be trained to such work as the use of cranks, but such development is abnormal and at the expense of other parts of the body.” So the reader can see how a little slip in the type would have changed the whole argument. This discussion could be continued with great interest to both sides if we could only find in some maker’s catalogue of lever machines an attempt to “down” the crank machine on general principles. As it is, it must close for lack of antagonism in so far as broad principle goes. As to the construction of crank machines, the subject is so familiar to every one, and the device is so simple, that it is impossible to write much of an essay on it. With regard to levers, however, the subject is inexhaustible. The most salient features claimed for the clutch machines now in the market are, first, non-dead centre,—that is, even, continuous power; second, entire rest of the legs when power is not required. The objections are chiefly, first, insecurity and entire dependence on the brake found in the absence of all back pedalling; second, non-support of the legs, springs being insufficient to sustain their weight. To the above objections appertaining to the lever and clutch machine, a third may be added,—viz., the complexity of parts, liability to breakage, and danger of accidents therefrom. At one time the advantage of safety was found in the clutch machine almost exclusively, but at the present time we have complete safety elements in certain forms of crank-wheels.