As one writer has well said: “Diseases in cold climates are always looked upon as calamities quite independent of climatic conditions; even if ignorant of their causes, pathologists always had an explanation ready. In the case of warm countries, it is otherwise. Without any further inquiry the climate has been blamed as the enemy. The European nations drew around themselves sanitary cordons of quarantine and disinfection against cholera, yellow fever and plague, and for a long time never thought of going right to the source of trouble and improving sanitary conditions in the countries where these diseases had their origin.”
It has really been a base libel upon these countries to blame everything upon the climate and climatic conditions. The heat and humidity may make some diseases more fatal, but at the same time they seem to act as preventative to others which are far more fatal in colder climates. The United States taught the world this lesson at Havana and in Panama, and it has been a valuable one for the world. Brazil has wakened up to this necessity, and now Santos, Bahia, and other cities, as well as the capital, have followed a cleaning-up policy that has brought the death-rate down to where it will compare favourably with other cities of the world.
The United States of Brazil is a republic very much like the United States of America in form. Its constitution is modelled after that of the United States, a Portuguese translation of which was made for them. It differs, however, in some respects. A president, for instance, is ineligible to succeed himself; and even a vice-president, who has succeeded to the presidency, can not be a candidate for that office without a term intervening. The power of the national government is less than that of our own, and the state has greater importance. This condition was made almost necessary in the formation of the republic in order to gain the adherence of many of the states, as they aimed to get as far away from the centralization idea as possible. The great distances separating them likewise, and slow communication between them, has encouraged these differences. In many respects the state governments are too powerful, and the national government too weak. Each state has its own army, although in a measure subject to the national government, but this local militia is more loyal to the state than the national government. The unoccupied land is the property of the various states, instead of the national government as with us, and this has contributed in making the state governments of unusual importance.