The best way to effect a change in an obnoxious law, as has been well said, is to enforce the law. The same principle holds in diet: If you find that you are furnishing a sort of food which, eaten unrestrictedly and in their own way, makes your children sick or endangers their health, give them something better. At the meal of which I have been speaking, there was no restraint, no cautions, nor occasion for any: the food was of that strictly natural sort which, while requiring to be well masticated, itself enforced the law. The sharp teeth of the children cut the oats perfectly; there was no stimulation, nor temptation to hurry the food into the stomach without masticating it, no feverish appetency, as with hot, highly-seasoned viands——all wanted to chew the food as much as it “wanted to be” chewed, and, consequently, no appreciable amount of it entered the stomach unprepared for stomach-digestion. For the first time in the lives of these children, since they were weaned, could this be said of them. It can not be said of a single child in America, or elsewhere, who sits at a table supplied with ordinary food. What results from this unnatural manner of alimentation? Indigestion, inevitably, indicated by various symptoms, as, for example, flatulency which is popularly regarded as entirely natural, the odorous emanations from the younger fry being considered evidence of indiscretion instead of what it really is——disease. And what from this? Blood-poisoning, as surely; with aches, pains, feverish spells, with influenza (popularly called “a cold”), which, as can not be too much emphasized, is, strictly speaking, instead of a disease, the effort of Nature to “cure” a disease which otherwise would become so deep-seated as to demand a “run of fever” to eliminate it, and all manner of physical ailments.