A belief exists that men who abstain from alcohol indulge to excess in some other stimulant. There is some foundation for this belief. Balzac, for instance, abstained from tobacco, which he declared injured the body, attacked the intellect, and stupefied the nations; but he drank great quantities of coffee, which produced the terrible nervous disease which shortened his life. Goethe was a non-smoker, but, according to Bayard Taylor, he drank fifty thousand bottles of wine in his life-time. Niebuhr greatly disliked smoking, but took a tremendous quantity of snuff. A great number of teetotalers "make up for their abstinence from alcohol by excessive indulgence in tobacco," and abuse their more consistent brethren who venture to expostulate with them. John Stuart Mill "believed that the giving up of wine would be apt to be followed by taking more food than was necessary, merely for the sake of stimulation." Sir Theodore Martin, also, thinks the absence of alcohol likely to lead to increased eating, and to an extent likely to cause derangement of the body. The power of alcohol to arrest and preserve decomposition may, it is admitted by temperance writers, retard to some extent the waste of animal tissue, and diminish accordingly the appetite for food; but they contend that the effete matter which has served its purpose and done for the body all that it can do is retained in the body to its loss and damage. "The question comes to be," says Professor Miller, "whether shall we take alcohol, eat less, and be improperly nourished, or take no alcohol, eat more, and be nourished well? Whether shall we thrive better on a small quantity of new nutritive material with a great deal of what is old and mouldy, or on a constant and fresh supply of new material? ... The most perfect health and strength depend on frequent and complete disintegration of tissue with a corresponding constant and complete replacement of the effete parts by the formation of new material."