The comparative mortality among abstainers and non-abstainers in several of these companies is shown in the charts exhibited in this section. It is probable that the heavier mortality among non-abstainers as compared to abstainers is not wholly due to the chemical effect of alcohol on the tissues, but in some degree to collateral excesses (especially those resulting in infection from the diseases of vice) and a more careless general manner of living engendered by alcoholic indulgence; that, furthermore, those who indulge in so-called moderation are open to greater temptation to increased indulgence and final excess than those who abstain altogether. It has often been alleged, however, that the lower mortality among abstainers was due solely to a more conservative habit of living, and that this class is largely composed of people in favorable or preferred occupations, such as clergymen and teachers. The experience of the Security Mutual of Binghamton, N. Y., does not support such a postulate. During a twelve years' experience the mortality among the abstainers was one-third that of the tabular expectation, and their occupations were classified as follows: Clergymen 4 per cent. Farmers 19 " " Clerks 15 " " Miscellaneous (earning $15 to $25 per week) 62 " " Mr. Roderick McKenzie Moore, Actuary of the United Kingdom Temperance and General Provident Institution,[7] has this to say regarding the abstainers' class in that company: The total abstainer class was not "nursed" or favored to produce a low mortality. So far as could be determined (and many of the risks came in personal contact with the officers) they were of the same general class as the non-abstainers. They were written by the same group of agents, for the same kind of policies, for the same average amounts, _and were in the same general walks of life_, and of the same general financial condition. They were almost equal in numbers to the general class and did not form a small high grade section of the policyholding body. On the contrary, greater care was exercised in the selection of the non-abstainers because of the less favorable experience anticipated on them, and many borderline risks were accepted in the abstaining class because of a feeling that their abstinence would neutralize some unfavorable factor. UNITED KINGDOM TEMPERANCE AND GENERAL PROVIDENT INSTITUTION OF LONDON HEALTHY MALES--WHOLE LIFE POLICIES 1866-1910 [Illustration: graph] EXPECTED MORTALITY________________________________________100% NON-ABSTAINERS, RATIO ACTUAL TO EXPECTED MORTALITY........ 91% [L]ABSTAINERS, RATIO ACTUAL TO EXPECTED MORTALITY--.--.--. 66% MORTALITY AMONG NON-ABSTAINERS--STANDARD RISKS--37.7% HIGHER THAN AMONG ABSTAINERS