There are those who assert that a man who has suffered with disease of the character last mentioned may marry after the lapse of two or three years from the disappearance of the active symptoms of the malady. Such assertions we consider as most dangerous and pernicious. The individuals who make them are well acquainted with the fact that of all diseases this is the most difficult to eradicate when once the system has become thoroughly infected by it. Not only three years but thirty years may elapse after active symptoms disappear, yet the disease may break out again in a new and still more serious and complicated form. It may even lie entirely dormant or latent in the system of the parent during his lifetime, but break out in all its terrible destructiveness in his children. A man or woman who has once suffered with this fell disease is contaminated for life; and it is a crime for such an one to entail upon innocent, unoffending human beings such a terrible legacy. Such a person has no right to marry; or if married, has no right to perpetuate the results of his sins in offspring. It is _never safe_ to say to a man who has once been infected that he is cured. If a cure ever takes place, it is exceedingly rare. (2) It is a crime against the race. One of the primary objects of marriage is reproduction. As members of the human race, it is the duty of parents to produce a high type of human beings, at least to do all in their power to produce healthy offspring. If they cannot do this, and are aware of the fact, they are guilty of abuse of the reproductive function in bringing sickly offspring into the world to suffer. (3) It is injurious to the contracting parties themselves. If a person has a communicable disease, as syphilis, leprosy, and some bad forms of skin disease, the disease will certainly be communicated to the wife or husband, and so a double amount of suffering will be entailed. The dread disease, consumption, rightly called the scourge of civilization, is now well known to be communicable. A few years ago we were consulted by an old gentleman, a native of Canada, who was suffering with pulmonary disease. We inquired respecting the history of the malady. Said he, "Doctor, it may seem strange, but I believe I _inherited_ consumption from my wife, who died of consumption a few years ago." Excepting the wrong use of the term inherit, we were not prepared to dispute the old gentleman's ideas respecting the origin of his disease. Living in close association for years with his wife, who was slowly dying with disease of the lungs, it was quite possible for him to have received the disease from her. So many cases of this kind have been reported that it is now generally believed by medical men that consumption is communicable from one person to another by the reception into the system of the well person of the exhalations from the lungs of the person affected.