EAST INDIA COMPANY

EAST INDIA COMPANY, a famous association, originally established for prosecuting the trade between England and India, which they acquired a right to carry on exclusively. Since the middle of the last century, however, the company's political became of more importance than their commercial concerns.

—The persevering efforts of the Portuguese to discover a route to India, by sailing round Africa, were crowned with success in 1497. And it may appear singular, that, notwithstanding the exaggerated accounts that had been prevalent in Europe, from the remotest antiquity. with respect to the wealth of India, and the importance to which the commerce with it had raised the Phœnicians and Egyptians in antiquity, the Venetians in the middle ages, and which it was then seen to confer on the Portuguese, the latter should have been allowed to monopolize it for nearly a century after it had been turned into a channel accessible to every nation. But the prejudices by which the people of most European states were actuated in the sixteenth century, and the peculiar circumstances under which they were placed, hindered them from embarking with the alacrity and ardor which might have been expected in this new commercial career. Soon after the Portuguese began to prosecute their discoveries along the coast of Africa, they applied to the pope for a bull, securing to them the exclusive right to and possession of all countries occupied by infidels which the Portuguese either had discovered, or might discover, to the south of Cape Non, on the west coast of Africa, in 27° 54' north latitude; and the pontiff, desirous to display, and at the same time to extend, his power, immediately issued a bull to this effect. Nor, preposterous as a proceeding of this sort would now appear, did any one then doubt that the pope had a right to issue such a bull and that all states and empires were bound to obey it. In consequence, the Portuguese were, for a lengthened period, allowed to prosecute their conquests in India without the interference of any other European power; and it was not till a considerable period after the beginning of the war which the blind and brutal bigotry of Philip II. kindled in the Low Countries, that the Dutch navigators began to display their flag on the eastern ocean, and laid the foundations of their Indian empire.

—The desire to comply with the injunctions in the pope's bull, and to avoid coming into collision, first with the Portuguese, and subsequently with the Spaniards, who had conquered Portugal in 1580, seems to have been the principal cause that led the English to make repeated attempts, in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., and the early part of the reign of Elizabeth, to discover a route to India by a northwest or northeast passage—channels from which the Portuguese would have had no pretense for excluding them. But these attempts having proved unsuccessful, and the pope's bull having ceased to be of any effect in England, the English merchants and navigators resolved to be no longer deterred by the imaginary rights of the Portuguese from directly entering upon what was then reckoned by far the most lucrative and advantageous branch of commerce. Captain Stephens, who performed the voyage in 1582, was the first Englishman who sailed to India by the cape of Good Hope. The voyage of the famous Sir Francis Drake contributed greatly to diffuse a spirit of naval enterprise, and to render the English better acquainted with the newly opened route to India. But the voyage of the Edition: current; Page: [2] celebrated Thomas Cavendish was, in the latter respect, the most important. Cavendish sailed from England in a little squadron, fitted out at his own expense, in July, 1586: and having explored the greater part of the Indian ocean, as far as the Philippine islands, and carefully observed the most important and characteristic features of the people and countries which he visited, returned to England, after a prosperous navigation, in September, 1588. But perhaps nothing contributed so much to inspire the English with a desire to embark in the Indian trade as the captures that were made about this period from the Spaniards. A Portuguese East India ship, or carrack, captured by Sir Francis Drake during his expedition to the coast of Spain, inflamed the capidity of the merchants by the richness of her cargo, at the same time that the papers found on board gave specific information respecting the traffic in which she had been engaged. A still more important capture of the same sort was made in 1593. An armament, fitted out for the East Indies by Sir Walter Raleigh, and commanded by Sir John Borroughs, fell in, near the Azores, with the largest of all the Portuguese carracks, a ship of 1,600 tons burden, carrying 700 men and 36 brass cannon; and, after an obstinate conflict, carried her into Dartmouth. She was the largest vessel that had been seen in England; and her cargo, consisting of gold, spices, calicoes, silks, pearls, drugs, porcelain, ivory, etc., excited the ardor of the English to engage in so opulent a commerce.

—In consequence of these and other concurring causes, an association was formed in London in 1599 for prosecuting the trade to India. The adventurers applied to the queen for a charter of incorporation, and also for power to exclude all other English subjects, who had not obtained a license from them, from carrying on any species of traffic beyond the cape of Good Hope or the straits of Magellan. As exclusive companies were then very generally looked upon as the best instruments for prosecuting most branches of commerce and industry, the adventurers seem to have had little difficulty in obtaining their charter, which was dated Dec. 31, 1600. The corporation was entitled: "The Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies." The first governor (Thomas Smythe, Esq.) and twenty-four directors were nominated in the charter, but power was given to the company to elect a deputy governor, and in future to elect their governor and directors, and such other office bearers as they might think fit to appoint. They were empowered to make by laws; to inflict punishments, either corporal or pecuniary, provided such punishments were in accordance with the laws of England; to export all sorts of goods free of duty for four years; and to export foreign coin or bullion to the amount of £30,000 a year, £6,000 of the same being previously coined at the mint; but they were obliged to import, within six months after the completion of every voyage except the first, the same quantity of silver, gold and foreign coin that they had exported. The duration of the charter was limited to a period of fifteen years; but with and under the condition that, if it were not found for the public advantage, it might be canceled at any time upon two years' notice being given. Such was the origin of the British East India company, the most celebrated commercial association of ancient or modern times, and which in course of time extended its sway over the whole of the Mogul empire.

—It might have been expected that, after the charter was obtained, considerable eagerness would have been manifested to engage in the trade. But such was not the case. Notwithstanding the earnest calls and threats of the directors, many of the adventurers could not be induced to come forward to pay their proportion of the charges incident to the fitting out of the first expedition. And as the directors seem either to have wanted power to enforce their resolutions, or thought it better not to exercise it, they formed a subordinate association, consisting of such members of the company as were really willing to defray the cost of the voyage, and to bear all the risks and losses attending it, on condition of their having the exclusive right to whatever profits might arise from it. It was by such subordinate associations that the trade was conducted during the first thirteen years of the company's existence.

—The first expedition to India, the cost of which amounted, ships and cargoes included, to £69.091, consisted of five ships, the largest being 600, and the smaller 130 tons burden. The goods put on board were principally bullion, iron, tin, broadcloths, cutlery, glass, etc. The chief command was intrusted to Capt. James Lancaster, who had already been in India. They set sail from Torbay on Feb. 13, 1601. Being very imperfectly acquainted with the seas and countries they were to visit, they did not arrive at their destination, Acheen in Sumatra, till June 5, 1602. But though tedious, the voyage was, on the whole, uncommonly prosperous. Lancaster entered into commercial treaties with the kings of Acheen and Bantam; and having taken on board a valuable cargo of pepper and other produce, he was fortunate enough, on his way home, to fall in with and capture, in concert with a Dutch vessel, a Portuguese carrack of 900 tons burden, richly laden. Lancaster returned to the Downs on Sept. 11, 1603. (Modern Universal History, vol. x. p. 16; Macpherson's Commerce of the European Powers with India, p. 81.)

—But notwithstanding the favorable result of this voyage, the expeditions fitted out in the years immediately following, though sometimes consisting of larger ships, were not, at an average, materially increased. In 1612 Capt. Best obtained from the court at Delhi several considerable privileges; and among others, that of establishing a factory at Surat, which city was henceforth looked upon as the principal British station in the west of India, till the acquisition of Bombay.

—In establishing factories in India, the English only followed the Edition: current; Page: [3] example of the Portuguese and Dutch. It was contended that they were necessary to serve as dépôts for the goods collected in the country for exportation to Europe, as well as for those imported into India, in the event of their not meeting with a ready market on the arrival of the ships. Such establishments, it was admitted, are not required in civilized countries; but the peculiar and unsettled state of India was said to render them indispensable there. Whatever weight may be attached to this statement, it is obvious that factories formed for such purposes could hardly fail of speedily degenerating into a species of forts. The security of the valuable property deposited in them furnished a specious pretext for putting them in a condition to withstand an attack; while the agents, clerks, warehousemen, etc., formed a sort of garrison. Possessing such strongholds, the Europeans were early emboldened to act in a manner quite inconsistent with their character as merchants, and but a very short time elapsed before they began to form schemes for monopolizing the commerce of particular districts, and acquiring territorial dominion.

—Though the company met with several heavy losses during the earlier part of their traffic with India, from shipwrecks and other unforeseen accidents, and still more from the hostility of the Dutch, yet, on the whole, the trade was decidedly profitable. There can, however, be little doubt that their gains at this early period have been very much exaggerated. During the first thirteen years they are said to have amounted to 132 per cent. But then it should be borne in mind, as Mr. Grant has justly stated, that the voyages were seldom accomplished in less than thirty months, and sometimes extended to three or four years; and it should further be remarked, that, on the arrival of the ships at home, the cargoes were disposed of at long credits of eighteen months or two years; and that it was frequently even six or seven years before the concerns of a single voyage were finally adjusted. (Sketch of the History of the Company, p. 13.) When these circumstances are taken into view, it will immediately be seen that the company's profits were not, really, by any means so great as has been represented. Still it may not be uninstructive to remark that the principal complaint that was then made against the company did not proceed so much on the circumstance of its charter excluding the public from any share in an advantageous traffic, as in its authorizing the company to export gold and silver of the value of £30,000 a year. It is true that the charter stipulated that the company should import an equal quantity of gold and silver within six months of the termination of every voyage; but the enemies of the company contended that this condition was not complied with, and that it was, besides, highly injurious to the public interest, and contrary to all principle, to allow gold and silver to be sent out of the kingdom. The merchants and others interested in the support of the company could not controvert the reasoning of their opponents without openly impugning the ancient policy of absolutely preventing the exportation of the precious metals. They did not, however, venture to contend, if the idea really occurred to them, that the exportation of bullion to the east was advantageous on the broad ground of the commodities purchased by it being of greater value in England; but they contended that the exportation of bullion to India was advantageous because the commodities thence imported were chiefly re-exported to other countries from which a much greater quantity of bullion was obtained than had been required to pay for them in India. Mr. Thomas Mun, a director of the East India company, and the ablest of its early advocates, ingeniously compares the operations of the merchant in conducting a trade carried on by the exportation of gold and silver, to the seed-time and harvest of agriculture. "If we only behold," says he, "the actions of the husbandman in the seed-time, when he casteth away much good corn into the ground, we shall account him rather a madman than a husbandman; but when we consider his labors in the harvest, which is the end of his endeavors, we find the worth and plentiful increase of his actions" (Treasure by Foreign Trade, p 50, ed. 1664)

—We may here remark that what has been called the mercantile system of political economy, or that system which measures the progress of a country in the career of wealth by the supposed balance of payments in its favor, or by the estimated excess of the value of its exports over that of its imports, appears to have originated in the excuses now set up for the exportation of bullion. Before this epoch the policy of prohibiting the exportation of bullion had been universally admitted; but it now began to be pretty generally allowed that its exportation might be productive of advantage, provided it occasioned the subsequent exportation of a greater amount of raw or manufactured products to countries whence bullion was obtained for them. This, when compared with the previously existing prejudice (for it hardly deserves the name of system) which wholly interdicted the exportation of gold and silver, must be allowed to be a considerable step in the progress to sounder opinions. The maxim ce n'est que le premier pas qui coute was strikingly verified on this occasion. The advocates of the East India company began gradually to assume a higher tone, and at length boldly contended that bullion was nothing but a commodity, and that its exportation should be rendered as free as that of anything else. Nor were these opinions confined to the partners of the East India company, they were gradually communicated to others; and many eminent merchants were taught to look with suspicion on several of the previously received dogmas with respect to commerce, and were, in consequence, led to acquire more correct and comprehensive views. The new ideas ultimately made their way into the house of commons; Edition: current; Page: [4] and in 1663 the statutes prohibiting the exportation of foreign coin and bullion were repealed, and full liberty given to the East India company and to private traders to export them in unlimited quantities.

—But the objection to the East India company, or rather the East India trade, on the ground of its causing the exportation of gold and silver, admitted of a more direct and conclusive, if not a more ingenious reply How compendious soever the ancient intercourse with India by the Red sea and the Mediterranean, it was unavoidably attended with a good deal of expense. The productions of the remote parts of Asia, brought to Ceylon, or the ports on the Malabar coast, by the natives, were there put on board the ships which arrived from the Arabian gulf. At Berenice they were landed, and carried by camels 250 miles to the banks of the Nile. They were there again embarked, and conveyed down the river to Alexandria, whence they were dispatched to different markets. The addition to the price of goods by such a multiplicity of operations must have been considerable. Pliny says that the cost of the Arabian and Indian products brought to Rome (A. D. 70) was increased a hundredfold by the expenses of transit (Hist. Nat, lib. vi., c. 23). but there can be little or no doubt that this is to be regarded as a rhetorical exaggeration. There are good grounds for thinking that the less bulky sorts of eastern products, such as silk, spices, balsams, precious stones, etc., which were those principally made use of at Rome, might, supposing there were no political obstacles in the way, be conveyed from most parts of India to the ports on the Mediterranean by way of Egypt, at a decidedly cheaper rate than they could be conveyed to them by the cape of Good Hope.

—But at the period when the latter route to India began to be frequented, Syria, Egypt, etc., were occupied by Turks and Mamelukes—barbarians who despised commerce and navigation, and were, at the same time, extremely jealous of strangers, especially of Christians or infidels. The price of the commodities obtained through the intervention of such persons was necessarily very much enhanced; and the discovery of the route by the cape of Good Hope was, consequently, of the utmost importance; for, by putting an end to the monopoly enjoyed by the Turks and Mamelukes, it introduced, for the first time, something like competition into the Indian trade, and enabled the western parts of Europe to obtain supplies of Indian products for about one-third of what they had previously cost. Mr. Mun, in a tract published in 1621, estimates the quantity of Indian commodities imported into Europe, and their cost when bought in Aleppo and India, as follows:

But the same quantities of the same commodities cost, when bought in the East Indies, according to Mr. Mun, as follows:

Which being deducted from the former, leaves a balance of £953,542 13s. 4d. And supposing that the statements made by Mr. Mun are correct, and that allowance is made for the difference between the freight from Aleppo and India, the result would indicate the saving which the discovery of the route by the cape of Good Hope occasioned in the purchase of the above-mentioned articles. (A Discourse of Trade from England to the East Indies, by T. M., original edition, p. 10. This tract which is very scarce, is reprinted in Purchas' Pilgrims.)

—In the same publication (p. 37) Mr. Mun informs us that, from the beginning of the company's trade to July, 1620, they had sent seventy-nine ships to India; of which thirty-four had come home safely and richly laden, four had been worn out by long service in India, two had been lost in careening, six had been lost by the perils of the sea, and twelve had been captured by the Dutch. Mr. Mun further states that the exports to India since the formation of the company had amounted to £840,376; that the produce brought from India had cost £356,288, and had produced in England the enormous sum of £1,914,600; that the quarrels with the Dutch had occasioned a loss of £84,088; and that the stock of the company, in ships, goods in India, etc., amounted to £400,000.

—The hostility of the Dutch to which Mr. Mun has here alluded, was long a very formidable obstacle to the company's success. The Dutch early endeavored to obtain the exclusive possession of the spice trade, and were not at all scrupulous as to the means by which they attempted to effect this their favorite object. The English, on their part, naturally exerted themselves to obtain a share of so valuable a commerce; and as neither party was disposed to abandon its views and pretensions, the most violent animosities grew up between them. In this state of things it would be ridiculous to suppose that unjustifiable acts were not committed by the one party as well as the other; though the worst act of the English appears venial when compared with the conduct of the Dutch in the massacre at Amboyna in 1622. While, however, the Dutch company was vigorously supported by the government at home, the English company met with no efficient assistance from the feeble and vacillating policy of James and Charles. The Dutch either despised their remonstrances, or defeated them by an apparent compliance; so that no real reparation was obtained for the outrages they had committed. During the civil war Indian affairs were necessarily Edition: current; Page: [5] lost sight of; and the Dutch continued, until the ascendency of the republican party had been established, to reign triumphant in the east, where the English commerce was nearly annihilated.

—But, notwithstanding their depressed condition, the company's servants in India laid the foundation, during the period in question, of the settlements at Madras and in Bengal. Permission to build Fort St. George was obtained from the native authorities in 1640. In 1658 Madras was raised to the station of presidency. In 1645 the company began to establish factories in Bengal, the principal of which was at Hooghly. These were, for a lengthened period, subordinate to the presidency at Madras.

—No sooner, however, had the civil war terminated than the arms and councils of Cromwell retrieved the situation of English affairs in India. The war which broke out between the long parliament and the Dutch in 1652 was eminently injurious to the latter. In the treaty of peace, concluded in 1654, it was stipulated that indemnification should be made by the Dutch for the losses and injuries sustained by the English merchants and factories in India. The 27th article bears, "that the lords, the states-general of the United Provinces, shall take care that justice be done upon those who were partakers or accomplices in the massacre of the English at Amboyna, as the republic of England is pleased to term that fact, provided any of them be living." A commission was at the same time appointed, conformably to another article of the treaty, to inquire into the reciprocal claims which the subjects of the contracting parties had upon each other for losses sustained in India, Brazil, etc.; and, upon their decision, the Dutch paid the sum of £85,000 to the East India company, and £3,615 to the heirs or executors of the sufferers at Amboyna. (Bruce's Annals, vol. i., p. 489)

—The charter under which the East India company prosecuted their exclusive trade to India, being merely a grant from the crown, and not ratified by any act of parliament, was understood by the merchants to be at an end when Charles I. was deposed. They were confirmed in this view of the matter from the circumstance of Charles having himself granted, in 1635, a charter to Sir William Courten and others, authorizing them to trade with those parts of India with which the company had not established any regular intercourse. The reasons alleged in justification of this measure, by the crown, were, that "the East India company had neglected to establish fortified factories, or seats of trade, to which the king's subjects could resort with safety; that they had consulted their own interests only, without any regard to the king's revenue; and in general that they had broken the condition on which their charter and exclusive privileges had been granted to them." (Rym. Fœdera, vol. xx, p. 146.)

—Courten's association, for the foundation of which such satisfactory reasons had been assigned, continued to trade with India during the remainder of Charles' reign; and no sooner had the arms of the commonwealth forced the Dutch to desist from their depredations, and to make reparation for the injuries they had inflicted on the English in India, than private adventurers engaged in great numbers in the Indian trade, and carried it on with a zeal, economy and success that monopoly can never expect to rival. It is stated in a little work, entitled Britannia Languens, published in 1680, the author of which has evidently been a well-informed and intelligent person, that during the years 1653, 1654, 1655, and 1656, when the trade to India was open, the private traders imported East India commodities in such large quantities, and sold them at such reduced prices, that they not only fully supplied the British markets, but had even come into successful competition with the Dutch in the market of Amsterdam, "and very much sunk the actions (shares) of the Dutch East India company." (P. 132.) This circumstance naturally excited the greatest apprehensions on the part of the Dutch company; for, besides the danger that they now ran of being deprived, by the active competition of the English merchants, of a considerable part of the trade which they had previously enjoyed, they could hardly expect that, if the trade were thrown open in England, the monopoly would be allowed to continue in Holland. A striking proof of what is now stated is to be found in a letter in the third volume of Thurlow's State Papers, dated at the Hague, Jan. 15, 1654, where it is said that "the merchants of Amsterdam have advice that the lord protector intends to dissolve, the East India company at London, and to declare the navigation and commerce of the East Indies free and open; which doth cause great jealousy at Amsterdam, as a thing that will very much prejudice the East India company in Holland."

—Feeling that it was impossible to contend with the private adventurers under a system of fair competition, the moment the treaty with the Dutch had been concluded the company began to solicit a renewal of their charter; but in this they were not only opposed by the free traders, but by a part of themselves. To understand how this happened, it may be proper to mention that Courten's association, the origin of which has been already noticed, had begun, in 1648, to found a colony in Assuda, an island near Madagascar. The company, alarmed at this project, applied to the council of state to prevent its being carried into effect: and the council, without entering on the question of either party's rights, recommended them to form a union, which was accordingly effected in 1649. But the union was, for a considerable time, rather nominal than real; and when the Dutch war had been put an end to, most of those holders of the company's stock who had belonged to Courten's association joined in petitioning the council of state that the trade might in future be carried on, not by a joint stock, but by a regulated company; so that each individual engaging in it might be allowed to employ his own stock, servants and shipping in whatever way he might conceive Edition: current; Page: [6] most for his own advantage. (Petition of Adventurers, Nov. 17, 1656; Bruce's Annals, vol. i., p. 518.)

—This proposal was obviously most reasonable. The company had always founded their claim to a monopoly of the trade on the alleged ground of its being necessary to maintain forts, factories and ships of war in India; and that as this was not done by government, it could only be done by a company. But, by forming the traders with India into a regulated company, they might have been subjected to whatever rules were considered most advisable; and such special duties might have been laid on the commodities they exported and imported as would have sufficed to defray the public expenses required for carrying on the trade, at the same time that the inestimable advantages of free competition would have been secured; each individual trader being left at liberty to conduct his enterprises, subject only to a few general regulations, in his own way and for his own advantage.

—But notwithstanding the efforts of the petitioners, and the success that was clearly proved to have attended the operations of the private traders, the company succeeded in obtaining a renewal of their charter from Cromwell in 1657. Charles II. confirmed this charter in 1661, and at the same time conferred on them the power of making peace or war with any power or people not of the Christian religion; of establishing fortifications, garrisons and colonies; of exporting ammunition and stores to their settlements duty free; of seizing and sending to England such British subjects as should be found trading to India without their leave; and of exercising civil and criminal jurisdiction in their settlements, according to the laws of England. Still, however, as this charter was not fully confirmed by any act of parliament, it did not prevent traders, or interlopers as they were termed, from appearing within the limits of the company's territories. The energy of private commerce, which, to use the words of Mr. Orme, "sees its drift with eagles' eyes," formed associations at the risk of trying the consequence at law, being safe at the outset and during the voyage, since the company were not authorized to stop or seize the ships of those who thus attempted to come into competition with them. Hence their monopoly was by no means complete; and it was not till after the revolution, and when a free system of government had been established at home, that by a singular contradiction, the authority of parliament was interposed to enable the company wholly to engross the trade with the east.

—In addition to the losses arising from this source, the company's trade suffered severely, during the reign of Charles II. from the hostilities that were then waged with the Dutch, and from the confusion and disorders caused by contests among the native princes; but in 1668 the company obtained a very valuable acquisition in the island of Bombay. Charles II. acquired this island as a part of the marriage portion of his wife, Catherine of Portugal; and it was now made over to the company, on condition of their not selling or alienating it to any persons whatever, except such as were subjects of the British crown. They were allowed to legislate for their new possession; but it was enjoined that their laws should be consonant to reason, and "as near as might be" agreeable to the practice of England. They were authorized to maintain their dominion by force of arms; and the natives of Bombay were declared to have the same liberties as natural born subjects. The company's western presidency was soon after transferred from Surat to Bombay.

—In 1664 the French East India company was formed, and ten years afterward they laid the foundation of their settlementsat Pondicherry.

—But the reign of Charles II. is chiefly memorable in the company's annals from its being the era of the commencement of the tea trade. The first notice of tea in the company's records is found in a dispatch addressed to their agent at Bantam, dated Jan. 24, 1667-8, in which he is desired to send home 100 lbs. of tea, "the best he can get" (Bruce's Annals, vol. ii., p. 210.) Such was the late and feeble beginning of the tea trade—a branch of commerce that has long been of vast importance to the British nation, and without which it is more than probable that the East India company would long since have ceased to exist, at least as a mercantile body.

—In 1677 the company obtained a fresh renewal of their charter; receiving at the same time an indemnity for all past misuse of their privileges, and authority to establish a mint at Bombay.

—During the greater part of the reigns of Charles II. and James II. the company's affairs at home were principally managed by the celebrated Sir Josiah Child, the ablest commercial writer of the time; and in India by his brother, Sir John Child. In 1681 Sir Josiah published an apology for the company, under the signature of —"A Treatise wherein is demonstrated that the East India Trade is the most National of all Foreign Trades;" in which, besides endeavoring to vindicate the company from the objections that had been made against it, he gives an account of its state at the time. From this account it appears that the company consisted of 556 partners; that they had from 35 to 36 ships of from 100 to 775 tons, employed in the trade between England and India, and from port to port in India (p. 23); that the customs duties upon the trade amounted to about £60,000 a year; and that the value of the exports, "in lead, tin, cloth, and stuffs, and other commodities of the production and manufacture of England," amounted to about £60,000 or £70,000 a year. Sir Josiah seems to have been struck, as he well might, by the inconsiderable amount of the trade; and he therefore dwells on the advantages of which it was indirectly productive in enabling the English to obtain supplies of raw silk, pepper, etc., at a much lower price than they would otherwise have fetched. But this, though true, proved nothing in favor of the company; it being an admitted fact that those articles were furnished at a still lower price by the Edition: current; Page: [7] interlopers or private traders.

—Sir Josiah Child was one of the first who projected the formation of a territorial empire in India. But the expedition fitted out in 1686, in the view of accomplishing this purpose, proved unsuccessful; and the company were glad to accept peace on the terms offered by the Mogul. Sir John Child, having died during the course of these transactions, was succeeded in the principal management of the company's affairs in India by Mr. Vaux. On the appointment of the latter, Sir Josiah Child, to whom he owed his advancement, exhorted him to act with vigor, and to carry whatever instructions he might receive from home into immediate effect. Mr. Vaux returned for answer, that he should endeavor to acquit himself with integrity and justice, and that he would make the laws of his country the rule of his conduct. Sir Josiah Child's answer to this letter is curious. "He told Mr. Vaux roundly that he expected his orders were to be his rules, and not the laws of England, which were a heap of nonsense, compiled by a few ignorant country gentlemen, who hardly knew how to make laws for the good government of their own private families, much less for the regulating of companies and foreign commerce." (Hamilton's New Account of the East Indies, vol. i., p. 232)

—During the latter part of the reign of Charles II. and that of his successor, the number of private adventurers, or interlopers, in the Indian trade, increased in an unusual degree. The company vigorously exerted themselves in defense of what they conceived to be their rights; and the question with respect to the validity of the powers conferred on them by their charter was at length brought to issue by a prosecution carried on at their instance against Mr. Thomas Sandys, for trading to the East Indies without their license. Judgment was given in favor of the company in 1685. But this decision was ascribed to corrupt influence; and instead of allaying only served to increase the clamor against them. The meeting of the convention parliament gave the company's opponents hopes of a successful issue to their efforts; and had they been united, they might probably have succeeded. Their opinions were, however, divided—part being for throwing the trade open, and part for the formation of a new company on a more liberal footing. The latter being formed into a body, and acting in unison, the struggle against the company was chiefly carried on by them. The proceedings that took place on this occasion are among the most disgraceful in the history of England. The most open and unblushing corruption was practiced by all parties. "It was, in fact, a trial which side should bribe the highest; public authority inclining to one or other as the irresistible force of gold directed." (Modern Universal History, vol. x., p. 127.) Government appears, on the whole, to have been favorable to the company, and they obtained a fresh charter from the crown in 1693. But in the following year the trade was virtually laid open by a vote of the house of commons, "that all the subjects of England had an equal right to trade to the East Indies unless prohibited by act of parliament." Matters continued on this footing till 1698. The pecuniary difficulties in which government was then involved induced them to apply to the company for a loan of £2,000,000, for which they offered 8 per cent. interest. The company offered to advance £700,000, at 4 per cent.; but the credit of government was at the time so low, that they preferred accepting an offer from the associated merchants, who had previously opposed the company, of the £2,000,000, at 8 per cent., on condition of their being formed into a new and exclusive company. While this project was in agitation, the advocates of free trade were not idle, but exerted themselves to show that, instead of establishing a new company, the old one ought to be abolished. But however conclusive, their arguments, having no adventitious recommendations in their favor, failed of making any impression. The new company was established by authority of the legislature; and as the charter of the old company was not yet expired, the novel spectacle was exhibited of two legally constituted bodies, each claiming an exclusive right to the trade of the same possessions!

—Notwithstanding all the pretensions set up by those who had obtained the new charter during their struggle with the old company, it was immediately seen that they were as anxious as the latter to suppress everything like free trade. They had not, it was obvious, been actuated by any enlarged views, but merely by a wish to grasp at the monopoly, which they believed would redound to their own individual interest. The public, in consequence, became equally disgusted with both parties; or if there were any difference, it is probable that the new company was looked upon with the greatest aversion, inasmuch as we are naturally more exasperated by what we conceive to be duplicity and bad faith than by fair, undisguised hostility.

—At first the mutual hatred of the rival associations knew no bounds. But they were not long in perceiving that such conduct would infallibly end in their ruin; and that while one was laboring to destroy the other, the friends of free trade might step in and procure the dissolution of both. In consequence they became gradually reconciled; and in 1702, having adjusted their differences, they resolved to form themselves into one company, entitled The United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies.

—The authority of parliament was soon after interposed to give effect to this agreement.

—The united company engaged to advance £1,200,000 to government without interest, which, as a previous advance had been made of £2,000,000 at 8 per cent., made the total sum due to them by the public £3,200,000, bearing interest at 5 per cent., and government agreed to ratify the terms of their agreement, and to extend the charter to March 25, 1726, with three years' notice.

— Edition: current; Page: [8] While these important matters were transacting at home, the company had acquired some additional possessions in India. In 1692 the Bengal agency was transferred from Hooghly to Calcutta. In 1698 the company acquired a grant, from one of the grandsons of Aurengzebe, of Calcutta and two adjoining villages: with leave to exercise judiciary powers over the inhabitants, and to erect fortifications. These were soon after constructed, and received, in compliment to William III., then king of England, the name of Fort William. The agency at Bengal, which had hitherto been subsidiary only, was now raised to the rank of a presidency.

—The vigorous competition that had been carried on, for some years before the coalition of the old and new companies, between them and the private traders, had occasioned a great additional importation of Indian silks, piece goods and other products, and a great reduction of their price. These circumstances occasioned the most vehement complaints among the home manufacturers, who resorted to the arguments invariably made use of on such occasions by those who wish to exclude foreign competition; affirming that manufactured Indian goods had been largely substituted for those of England; that the English manufacturers had been reduced to the cruel necessity either of selling nothing, or of selling their commodities at such a price as left them no profit; that great numbers of their workmen had been thrown out of employment; and, last of all, that Indian goods were not bought by British goods, but by gold and silver, the exportation of which had caused the general impoverishment of the kingdom! The merchants and others interested in the Indian trade could not, as had previously happened to them in the controversy with respect to the exportation of bullion, meet these statements without attacking the principles on which they rested, and maintaining, in opposition to them, that it was for the advantage of every people to buy the products they wanted in the cheapest market. This just and sound principle was, in consequence, enforced in several petitions presented to parliament by the importers of Indian goods; and it was also enforced in several able publications that appeared at the time. But these arguments, how unanswerable soever they may now appear, had then but little influence, and in 1701 an act was passed, prohibiting the importation of Indian manufactured goods for home consumption.

—For some years after the re-establishment of the company, it continued to prosecute its efforts to consolidate and extend its commerce. But the unsettled state of the Mogul empire, coupled with the determination of the company to establish factories in every convenient situation, exposed their affairs to perpetual vicissitudes. In 1715 it was resolved to send an embassy to Delhi, to solicit from Furucksur, an unworthy descendant of Aurengzebe, an extension and confirmation of the company's territory and privileges. Address, accident, and the proper application of presents conspired to insure the success of the embassy. The grants or patents solicited by the company were issued in 1717—thirty-four in all. The substance of the privileges they conferred was, that English vessels wrecked on the coast of the empire should be exempt from plunder; that the annual payment of a stipulated sum to the government of Surat should free the English trade at that port from all duties and exactions, that those villages contiguous to Madras, formerly granted and afterward refused by the government of Arcot, should be restored to the company; that the island of Dieu, near the port of Masulipatam, should belong to the company, paying for it a fixed rent; that in Bengal, all persons, whether European or native, indebted or accountable to the company, should be delivered up to the presidency on demand; that goods of export or import, belonging to the English, might, under a dustuck or passport from the president of Calcutta, be conveyed duty free through the Bengal provinces: and that the English should be at liberty to purchase the lordship of thirty-seven towns contiguous to Calcutta, and in fact commanding both banks of the river for ten miles south of that city. (Grant's Sketch of the History of the East India Company, p. 128.)

—The important privileges thus granted were long regarded as constituting the great charter of the English in India. Some of them, however, were not fully conceded, but were withheld, or modified by the influence of the emperor's lieutenants, or soubahdars.

—In 1717 the company found themselves in danger from a new competitor. In the course of that year some ships appeared in India, fitted out by private adventurers from Ostend. Their success encouraged others to engage in the same line, and in 1722 the adventurers were formed into a company under a charter from his imperial majesty. The Dutch and English companies, who had so long been hostile to each other, at once laid aside their animosities, and joined heartily in an attempt to crush their new competitors. Remonstrances being found ineffectual, force was resorted to; and the vessels of the Ostend company were captured under the most frivolous pretenses, in the open seas and on the coasts of Brazil. The British and Dutch governments abetted the selfish spirit of hostility displayed by their respective companies; and the emperor was, in the end, glad to purchase the support of Great Britain and Holland to the pragmatic sanction, by the sacrifice of the company at Ostend.

—Though the company's trade had increased, it was still inconsiderable; and it is very difficult, indeed, when one examines the accounts that have from time to time been published of the company's mercantile affairs, to imagine how the idea ever came to be entertained that their commerce was of any considerable, much less paramount, importance. At an average of the ten years ending with 1724, the total value of the British manufactures and other products annually exported to India amounted Edition: current; Page: [9] to only £92,410 12s. 6d. The average value of the bullion annually exported during the same period amounted to £518,102 11s.; making the total annual average exports £617,513 3s. 10d.—a truly pitiful sum, when we consider the wealth, population and industry of the countries between which the company's commerce was carried on, and affording by its smallness a strong presumptive proof of the effect of the monopoly in preventing the growth of the trade.

—In 1730, though there were three years still unexpired of the company's charter, a vigorous effort was made by the merchants of London, Bristol and Liverpool to prevent its removal. It has been said that the gains of the company, had they been exactly known, would not have excited any very envious feelings on the part of the merchants; but, being concealed, they were exaggerated; and the boasts of the company as to the importance of their trade contributed to spread the belief that their profits were enormous, and consequently stimulated the exertions of their opponents. Supposing, however, that the real state of the case had been known, there was still enough to justify the almost exertions on the part of the merchants; for the limited profits made by the company, notwithstanding their monopoly, were entirely owing to the misconduct of their agents, which they had vainly endeavored to restrain, and to the waste inseparable from such unwieldy establishments.

—The merchants on this occasion followed the example that had been set by the petitioners for free trade in 1656. They offered, in the first place, to advance the £3,200,000 lent by the company to the public, on more favorable terms; and, in the second place, they proposed that the subscribers to this loan should be formed into a regulated company, for opening the trade, under the most favorable circumstances, to all classes of their countrymen.

—It was not intended that the company should trade upon a joint stock, and in their corporate capacity, but that every individual who pleased should trade in the way of private adventure. The company were to have the charge of executing and maintaining the forts and establishments abroad; and for this, and for other expenses attending what was called the enlargement and preservation of the trade, it was proposed that they should receive a duty of 1 per cent. upon all exports to India, and of 5 per cent. upon all imports from it. For ensuring obedience to this and other regulations, it was to be enacted that no one should engage in trade to India without license from the company; and it was proposed that thirty-one years, with three years' notice, should be granted as the duration of their peculiar privilege.

—"It appears from this," says Mr. Mill, "that the end which was proposed to be answered by incorporating such a company was the preservation and erection of the forts, buildings and other fixed establishments required for the trade of India. This company promised to supply that demand which has always been held forth as peculiar to the Indian trade, as the grand exigency which, distinguishing the traffic with India from all other branches of trade, rendered monopoly advantageous in that peculiar case, how much soever it might be injurious in others. While it provided for this real or pretended want, it left the trade open to all the advantages of private enterprise, private vigilance, private skill and private economy—the virtues by which individuals thrive and nations prosper; and it gave the proposed company an interest in the careful discharge of its duty by making its profits increase in exact proportion with the increase of the trade, and, of course, with the facilities and accommodation by which the trade was promoted.

—Three petitions were presented to the house of commons in behalf of the proposed company, by the merchants of London, Bristol and Liverpool. It was urged that the proposed company would, through the competition of which it would be productive, cause a great extension of the trade; that it would produce a larger exportation of English produce and manufactures in India, and reduce the price of all Indian commodities to the people at home; that new channels of traffic would be opened in Asia and America as well as in Europe; that the duties of customs and excise would be increased; and that the waste and extravagance caused by the monopoly would be entirely avoided." (Mill's India, vol. iii., p. 37.)

—But these arguments did not prevail. The company magnified the importance of their trade, and contended that it would be unwise to risk advantages already realized for the sake of those that were prospective and contingent. They alleged that, if the trade to India were thrown open, the price of goods in India would be so much enhanced by the competition of different traders, and their price in England so much diminished, that the freedom of the trade would certainly end in the ruin of all who had been foolish enough to adventure in it. To enlarge on the fallacy of these statements would be worse than superfluous. It is obvious that nothing whatever could have been risked, and that a great deal would have been gained, by opening the trade in the way that was proposed. And if it were really true that the trade to India ought to be subjected to a monopoly, lest the traders by their competition should ruin each other, it would follow that the trade to America—and not that only, but every branch both of the foreign and home trade of the empire—should be surrendered to exclusive companies. But such as the company's arguments were, they seemed satisfactory to parliament. They, however, consented to reduce the interest on the debt due to them by the public from 5 to 4 per cent., and contributed a sum of £200,000 for the public service. On these conditions it was agreed to extend their exclusive privileges to Lady-day, 1766, with the customary addition of three years' notice.

—For about fifteen years from this period the company's affairs went on without any very prominent changes. But notwithstanding the Edition: current; Page: [10] increased importation of tea, the consumption of which now began rapidly to extend, their trade continued to be comparatively insignificant. At an average of the eight years ending with 1741, the value of the British goods and products of all sorts, exported by the company to India and China, amounted to only £157,944 4s. 7d. a year! During the seven years ending with 1748 they amounted to only $188,176 16s. 4d: When it is borne in mind that these exports included the military stores of all sorts forwarded to the company's settlements in India and at St. Helena, the amount of which was at all times very considerable, it does appear exceedingly doubtful whether the company really exported, during the entire period from 1730 to 1748, £150,000 worth of British produce as a legitimate mercantile adventure! Their trade, such as it was, was entirely carried on by shipments of bullion; and even its annual average export, during the seven years ending with 1748, only amounted to £548,711 19s. 2d. It would seem, indeed, that the company had derived no perceptible advantage from the important concessions obtained from the Mogul emperor in 1717. But the true conclusion is, not that these concessions were of little value, but that the deadening influence of monopoly had so paralyzed the company that they were unable to turn them to account; and that, though without competitors, and with opulent kingdoms for their customers, their commerce was hardly greater than that carried on by some single merchants.

—In 1732 the company were obliged to reduce their dividend from 8 to 7 per cent, at which rate it continued till 1744.

—The opposition the company had experienced from the merchants when the question as to the renewal of their charter was agitated in 1730 made them very desirous to obtain the next renewal in as quiet a manner as possible. They therefore proposed, in 1743, when twenty-three years of their charter were yet unexpired, to lead £1,000,000 to government, at 3 per cent., provided their exclusive privileges were extended to 1780, with the usual notice; and, as none were expecting such an application, or prepared to oppose it, the consent of the government was obtained without difficulty.

—But the period was now come when the mercantile character of the East India company—if, indeed, it could with propriety be at any time said to belong to them—was to be eclipsed by their achievements as a military power, and the magnitude of their conquests. For about two centuries after the European powers began their intercourse with India, the Mogul princes were regarded as among the most opulent and powerful of monarchs. Though of a foreign lineage—being descended from the famous Tamerlane, or Timur Beg, who overran India in 1400—and of a different religion from the great body of their subjects, their dominion was firmly established in every part of their extensive empire. The administration of the different provinces was committed to officers, denominated soubahdars, or nabobs, intrusted with powers, in their respective governments, similar to those enjoyed by the Roman prætors. So long as the emperors retained any considerable portion of the vigor and bravery of their hardy ancestors, the different parts of the government were held in due subordination, and the soubahdars yielded a ready obedience to the orders from Delhi. But the emperors were gradually debauched by the apparently prosperous condition of their affairs. Instead of being educated in the council or the camp, the heirs of almost unbounded power were brought up in the slothful luxury of the seraglio; ignorant of public affairs; benumbed by indolence; depraved by the flattery of women, of ennuchs and slaves; their minds contracted with their enjoyments; their inclinations were vilified by their habits; and their government grew as vicious, as corrupt and as worthless as themselves. When the famous Kouli Khan, the usurper of the Persian throne, invaded India, the effeminate successor of Tamerlane and Aurengzebe was too unprepared to oppose, and too dastardly to think of avenging, the attack. This was the signal for the dismemberment of the monarchy. No sooner had the invader withdrawn than the soubahdars either openly threw off their allegiance to the emperor, or paid only a species of nominal or mock deference to his orders. The independence of the soubahdars was very soon followed by wars among themselves; and, being well aware of the superiority of European troops and tactics, they anxiously courted the alliance and support of the French and English East India companies. These bodies, having espoused different sides, according as their interests or prejudices dictated, began very soon to turn the quarrels of the soubahdars to their own account. Instead of being contented, as hitherto, with the possession of factories and trading towns, they aspired to the dominion of provinces; and the struggle soon came to be, not which of the native princes should prevail, but whether the English or the French should become the umpires of India.

—But these transactions are altogether foreign to the subject of this work; nor could any intelligible account of them be given without entering into lengthened statements. We shall only, therefore, observe that the affairs of the French were ably conducted by La Bourdonnais, Dupleix and Lally, officers of distinguished merit, and not less celebrated for their great actions than for the base ingratitude of which they were the victims. But though victory seemed at first to incline to the French and their allies, the English affairs were effectually retrieved by the extraordinary talents and address of a single individual. Colonel (afterward Lord) Clive was equally brave, cautions and enterprising; not scrupulous in the use of means; fertile in expedients; endowed with wonderful sagacity and resolution; and capable of turning even the most apparently adverse circumstances to advantage. Having succeeded in humbling the French power in the vicinity of Madras. Clive landed at Calcutta in 1757, in order to chastise Edition: current; Page: [11] the soubdahdar, Surajah ul Dowlah, who had a short while before attacked the English factory at that place, and inhumanly shut up 146 Englishmen in a prison, where, owing to the excessive heat and want of water, 123 perished in a single night. Clive had only 700 European troops and 1,400 Sepoys with him when he landed; but with these, and 570 sailors furnished by the fleet, he did not hesitate to attack the immense army commanded by the soubahdar, and totally defeated him in the famous battle of Plassey. This victory threw the whole provinces of Bengal, Bahar and Orissa into the hands of the English, and they were finally confirmed to them by the treaty negotiated in 1765.

—Opinion has been long divided as to the policy of English military operations in India; and it has been strenuously contended that England should never have extended its conquests beyond the limits of Bengal. The legislature seems to have taken this view of the matter; the house of commons having resolved, in 1782, "that to pursue schemes of conquest and extent of dominion in India are measures repugnant to the wish, the honor and the policy of this nation." But others have argued, and apparently on pretty good grounds, that, having gone thus far, England was compelled to advance. The native powers, trembling at the increase of British dominion, endeavored, when too late, to make head against the growing evil. In this view they entered into combinations and wars against the English; and the latter having been uniformly victorious, their empire necessarily went on increasing, till all the native powers have been swallowed up in its vast extent.

—The magnitude of the acquisitions made by Lord Clive powerfully excited the attention of the British public. Their value was prodigiously exaggerated; and it was generally admitted that the company had no legal claim to enjoy, during the whole period of their charter, all the advantages resulting from conquests to which the fleets and armies of the state had largely contributed. In 1767 the subject was taken up by the house of commons; and a committee was appointed to investigate the whole circumstances of the case, and to calculate the entire expenditure incurred by the public on the company's account. During the agitation of this matter the right of the company to the new conquests was totally denied by several members. In the end, however, the question was compromised by the company agreeing to pay £400,000 a year for two years; and in 1769 this agreement, including the yearly payment, was further extended for five years more. The company at the same time increased their dividend, which had been fixed by the former agreement at 10, to 12½ per cent.

—But the company's anticipations of increased revenue proved entirely visionary. The rapidity of their conquests in India, the distance of the controlling authority at home, and the abuses in the government of the native princes, to whom the company had succeeded, conspired to foster a strong spirit of peculation among their servants. Abuses of every sort were multiplied to a frightful extent. The English, having obtained, or rather enforced, an exemption from those heavy transit duties to which the native traders were subject, engrossed the whole internal trade of the country. They even went so far as to decide what quantity of goods each manufacturer should deliver, and what he should receive for them. It is due to the directors to say that they exerted themselves to repress these abuses; but their resolutions were neither carried into effect by their servants in India, nor sanctioned by the proprietors at home; so that the abuses, instead of being repressed, went on acquiring fresh strength and virulence. The resources of the country were rapidly impaired; and while many of the company's servants returned to Europe with immense fortunes, the company itself was involved in debt and difficulties; and so far from being able to pay the stipulated sum of £400,000 a year to government, was compelled to apply in 1772 to the treasury for a loan!

—In this crisis of their affairs government interposed, and a considerable change was made in the constitution of the company. The dividend was restricted to 6 per cent, till the sum of £1,400,000, advanced to them by the public, should be paid. It was further enacted that the court of directors should be elected for four years, six members annually, but none to hold their seats for more than four years at a time; that no person was to vote at the courts of proprietors who had not possessed his stock for twelve months; and that the amount of stock required to qualify for a vote should be increased from £500 to £1,000. The jurisdiction of the mayor's court at Calcutta was in future confined to small mercantile cases; and, in lieu of it, a new court was appointed, consisting of a chief justice and three principal judges appointed by the crown. A superiority was also given to Bengal over the other presidencies. Mr. Warren Hastings being named in the act as governor general of India. The governor general, councilors and judges were prohibited from having any concern whatever in trade; and no person residing in the company's settlements was allowed to take more than 12 per cent. per annum for money. Though strenuously opposed, these measures were carried by a large majority.

—At this period (1773) the total number of proprietors of East India stock, with their qualifications as they stood in the company's book, were as follows:

Edition: current; Page: [12]

—Notwithstanding the vast extension of the company's territories, their trade continued to be apparently insignificant. During the three years ending with 1773 the value of the entire exports of British produce and manufactures, including military stores, sent out by the company to Ind a and China, amounted to £1,469,411, being at the rate of £489,803 a year; the annual exports of bullion during the same period being only £84,9334 During the same three years twenty-three ships sailed annually for India. The truth, indeed, seems to be, that, but for the increased consumption of tea in Great Britain, the company would have entirely ceased to carry on any branch of trade with the east, and that the monopoly would have excluded the English as effectually from the markets of India and China as if the trade had reverted to its ancient channels, and the route by the cape of Good Hope been relinquished.

—In 1781 the exclusive privileges of the company were extended to 1791, with three years' notice; the dividend on the company's stock was fixed at 8 per cent.; three-fourths of their surplus revenues, after paying the dividend and the sum of £400,000 payable to government, was to be applied to the public service, and the remaining fourth to the company's own use.

—In 1780 the value of British produce and manufactures exported by the company to India and China amounted to only £386,152; the bullion exported during the same year was £15,014. The total value of the exports during the same year was £12,648,616; showing that the East India trade formed only one thirty-second part of the entire foreign trade of the empire.

—The administration of Mr. Hastings was one continued scene of war, negotiation and intrigue. The state of the country, instead of being improved, became worse; so much so, that in a council minute by Marquis Cornwallis, dated Sept. 18, 1789, it is distinctly stated "that one-third part of the company's territory is now a jungle for wild beasts." Some abuses in the conduct of their servants were, indeed, rectified; but, notwithstanding, the net revenue of Bengal. Bahar and Orissa, which in 1772 had amounted to £2,126,766, declined in 1785 to £2,072,963. This exhaustion of the country, and the expenses incurred in the war with Hyder Ally and France, involved the company in fresh difficulties; and being unable to meet them, they were obliged in 1783 to present a petition to parliament, setting forth their inability to pay the stipulated sum of £400,000 a year to the public, and praying to be excused from that payment and to be supported by a loan of £900,000.

—All parties seemed now to be convinced that some further changes in the constitution of the company had become indispensable. In this crisis Mr. Fox brought forward his famous India bill, the grand object of which was to abolish the courts of directors and proprietors, and to vest the government of India in the hands of seven commissioners appointed by parliament. The coalition between Lord North and Mr. Fox having rendered the ministry exceedingly unpopular, advantage was taken of the circumstance to raise an extraordinary clamor against the bill. The East India company stigmatized it as an invasion of their chartered rights; though it is obvious that, from their inability to carry into effect the stipulations under which those rights were conceded to them, they necessarily reverted to the public; and it was as open to parliament to legislate upon them as upon any other question. The political opponent of the government represented the proposal for vesting the nomination of commissioners in the legislature as a daring invasion of the prerogative of the crown, and an insidious attempt of the minister to render himself all-powerful by adding the patronage of India to that already in his possession. The bill was, however, carried through the house of commons; but, in consequence of the ferment it had excited, and the avowed opposition of his majesty, it was thrown out in the house of lords. This event proved fatal to the coalition ministry. A new one was formed, with Mr Pitt at its head; and parliament being soon after dissolved, the new minister acquired a decisive majority in both houses. When thus secure of parliamentary support, Mr. Pitt brought forward his India bill, which was successfully carried through all its stages. By this bill a board of control was erected, consisting of six members of the privy council, who were "to check, superintend and control all acts, operations and concerns which in anywise relate to the civil or military government or revenues of the territories and possessions of the East India company." All communications to or from India, touching any of the above matters, were to be submitted to this board, the directors being ordered to yield obedience to its commands, and to alter or amend all instructions sent to India as directed by it. A secret committee of three directors was formed, with which the board of control might transact any business it did not choose to submit to the court of directors. Persons returning from India were to be obliged, under very severe penalties, to declare the amount of their fortunes; and a tribunal was appointed for the trial of all individuals accused of misconduct in India, consisting of a judge from each of the courts of king's bench, common pleas and exchequer; five members of the house of lords, and seven members of the house of commons; the last being chosen by lot at the commencement of each session. The superintendence of all commercial matters continued, as formerly, in the hands of the directors.

—During the administration of Marquis Cornwallis, who succeeded Mr. Hastings, Tippoo Saib, the son of Hyder Ally, was stripped of nearly half of his dominions; the company's territorial revenue was, in consequence, greatly increased; at the same time that the permanent settlement was carried into effect in Bengal, and other important changes accomplished. Opinion has been long divided as to the influence of these changes. On Edition: current; Page: [13] the whole, however, we are inclined to think that they have been decidedly advantageous. Lord Cornwallis was, beyond all question, a sincere friend to the people of India, and labored earnestly, if not always successfully, to promote their interests, which he well knew were identified with those of the British nation.

—During the three years ending with 1793 the value of the company's exports of British produce and manufactures fluctuated from £928,783 to £1,031,262. But this increase is wholly to be ascribed to the reduction of the duty on tea in 1784, and the vast increase that consequently took pace in its consumption. Had the consumption of tea continued stationary, there appear no grounds for thinking that the company's exports in 1793 would have been greater than in 1780, unless an increase had taken place in the quantity of military stores exported.

—In 1793 the company's charter was prolonged till March 1,1814. In the act for this purpose a species of provision was made for opening the trade to India to private individuals. All his majesty's subjects residing in any part of his European dominions were allowed to export to India any article of the produce or manufacture of the British dominions, except military stores, ammunition, masts, spars, cordage, pitch, tar and copper; and the company's civil servants in India, and the free merchants resident there, were allowed to ship, on their own account and risk, all kinds of Indian goods, except calicoes, dimities, muslins, and other piece goods. But neither the merchants in England, nor the company's servants and merchants in India, were allowed to export or import except in the company's ships. And in order to insure such conveyance, it was enacted that the company should annually appropriate 3,000 tons of shipping for the use of private traders; it being stipulated that they were to pay in time of peace £5 outwards, and £15 homewards, for every ton occupied by them in the company's ships; and that this freight might be raised in time of war with the approbation of the board of control.

—It might have been, and indeed most probably was, foreseen that very few British merchants or manufacturers would be inclined to avail themselves of the privilege of sending out goods in company's ships, or of engaging in a trade fettered on all sides by the jealousy of powerful monopolists, and where consequently their superior judgment and economy would have availed almost nothing. As far, therefore, as they were concerned, the relaxation was more apparent than real, and did not produce any useful results. (In a letter to the East India company, dated March 21, 1812, Lord Melville says: "It will not be denied that the facilities granted by that act [the act of 1793] have not been satisfactory, at least to the merchants either of this country or of India. They have been the source of constant dispute, and they have even entailed a heavy expense upon the company, without affording to the public any adequate benefit from such a sacrifice." Papers published by East India Company, 1813, p. 84.) It was, however, made use of to a considerable extent by private merchants in India, and also by the company's servants returning from India, many of whom invested a part and some the whole of their fortune in produce fit for the European markets.

—The financial difficulties of the East India company led to the revolution which took place in its government in 1784. But notwithstanding the superintendence of the board of control, its finances have continued nearly in the same unprosperous state as before. We have been favored from time to time with the most dazzling accounts of revenue that was to be immediately derived from India; and numberless acts of parliament have been passed for the appropriation of surpluses that never had any existence except in the imagination of their framers. The proceedings that took place at the renewal of the charter in 1793 afford a striking example of this. Lord Cornwallis had then concluded the war with Tippoo Saib, which had stripped him of half of his dominions; the perpetual settlement, from which so many benefits were expected to be derived, had been adopted in Bengal; and the company's receipts had been increased, in consequence of accessions to their territory, and subsidies from native princes, etc, to upwards of eight millions sterling a year, which it was calculated would afford a future annual surplus, after every description of charge had been deducted, of £1,240,000. Mr. Dundas (afterward Lord Melville), then president of the board of control, availed himself of these favorable appearances to give the most flattering representation of the company's affairs. There could, he said, be no question as to the permanent and regular increase of the company's surplus revenue; he assured the house that the estimates had been framed with the greatest care; that the company's possessions were in a state of prosperity till then unknown in India; that the abuses which had formerly insinuated themselves into some departments of the government had been rooted out, and that the period had at length arrived when India was to pour her golden treasures into the lap of England! Parliament participated in these brilliant anticipations, and in the act prolonging the charter it was enacted, 1. That £500,000 a year of the surplus revenue should be set aside for reducing the company's debt in India to £2,000,000; 2 That £500,000 a year should be paid into the exchequer, to be appropriated for the public service as parliament should think fit to order; 3. When the India debt should be reduced to £2,000,000, and the bond debt to £1,500,000, one-sixth part of the surplus was to be applied to augment the dividends, and the other five-sixths were to be paid into the bank, in the name of the commissioners of the national debt, to be accumulated as a guarantee fund, until it amounted to £12,000,000; and when it reached that sum, the dividends upon it were to be applied to make up the dividends on the capital stock of the company to 10 Edition: current; Page: [14] per cent., if at any time the funds appropriated to that purpose should prove deficient, etc.

—Not one of these anticipations was realized! Instead of being diminished, the company's debts began immediately to increase. In 1795 they were authorized to add to the amount of their floating debt. In 1796 a new device to obtain money was fallen upon. Mr. Dundas represented that as all competition had been destroyed in consequence of the war, the company's commerce had been greatly increased, and that their mercantile capital had become insufficient for the extent of their transactions. In consequence of this representation, leave was given to the company to add two millions to their capital stock by creating 20,000 new shares; but as these shares sold at the rate of £173 each, they produced £3,460,000. In 1797 the company issued additional bonds to the extent of £1,417,000; and notwithstanding all this, Mr. Dundas stated in the house of commons, March 13,1799, that there had been a deficit in the previous year of £1,319,000.

—During the administration of the Marquis Wellesley, which began in 1797-8 and terminated in 1805-6, the British empire in India was augmented by the conquest of Seringapatam and the whole territories of Tippoo Saib, the cession of large tracts by the Mahratta chiefs, the capture of Delhi, the ancient seat of the Mogul empire, and various other important acquisitions; so that the revenue, which had amounted to £8,039,000 in 1797, was increased to £15,403,000 in 1805. But the expenses of government and the interest of the debt increased in a still greater proportion than the revenue, having amounted in 1805 to £17,672,000, leaving a deficit of £2,269,000. In the following year the revenue fell off nearly £1,000,000, while the expenses continued nearly the same; and there was, at an average, a continued excess of expenditure, including commercial charges, and a contraction of fresh debt, down to 1811-12.

—Notwithstanding the vast additions made to their territories, the company's commerce with them continued to be very inconsiderable. During the five years ending with 1811 the exports to India by the company, exclusive of those made on account of individuals in their ships, were as follows; 1807, £952,416; 1808, £919,544; 1809, £866,153; 1810, £1,010,815; 1811, £1,033,816. The exports by the private trade, and the privilege trade, that is, the commanders and officers of the company's ships, during the above-mentioned years, were about as large. During the five years ending with 1807-8 the annual average imports into India by British private traders, only amounted to £305,496. (Papers, published by the East India company in 1813, 4to, p. 56.) The company's exports included the value of the military stores sent from Great Britain to India. The ships employed in the trade to India and China during the same five years varied from 44 to 53, and their burden from 36,671 to 45,342 tons.

—For some years before the termination of the company's charter in 1813, the conviction had been gaining ground among all classes that the trade to the cast was capable of being very greatly extended; and that it was solely owing to the want of enterprise and competition, occasioned by its being subjected to a monopoly, that it was confined within such narrow limits. Very great efforts were, consequently, made by the manufacturing and commercial interests to have the monopoly set aside, and the trade to the east thrown open. The company vigorously resisted these pretensions, and had interest enough to procure a prolongation of the privilege of carrying on an exclusive trade to China to April 10, 1831, with three years' notice; the government of India being continued in their hands for the same period. Fortunately, however, the trade to India was opened, under certain conditions, to the public. The principal of these conditions were, that private individuals should trade, directly only, with the presidencies of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, and the port of Penang; that the vessels fitted out by them should not be under 350 tons burden; and that they should abstain, unless permitted by the company or the board of control, from engaging in the carrying trade of India, or in the trade between India and China. And yet, despite these disadvantages, such is the energy of individual enterprise as compared with monopoly, that the private traders gained an almost immediate ascendency over the East India company, and in a very short time more than trebled English trade with India! In the report of the committee of the house of lords on the foreign trade of the country, printed in May, 1821, it is stated that the greatly increased consumption of British goods in the east since the commencement of the free trade can not be accounted for by the demand of European residents, the number of whom does not materially vary; and it appears to have been much the greatest in articles calculated for the general use of the natives. That of the cotton manufactures of England alone is stated, since the first opening of the trade, to have been augmented from four to five-fold. The value of the merchandise exported from Great Britain to India, which amounted in 1814 to £870,177, amounted in 1819 to £3,052,741, [this is the amount of the company's exports only, and the sum is not quite accurate. Post]; and although the market appears to have been so far overstocked as to occasion a diminution of nearly one-half in the exports of the following year, that diminution appears to have taken place more in the articles intended for the consumption of Europeans than of natives; and the trade is now stated to the committee by the best informed persons to be reviving. When the amount of population, and the extent of the country over which the consumption of these articles is spread, are considered, it is obvious that any facility which can, consistently with the political interests and security of the company's dominions, be given to the private trader for the distribution of his exports, by increasing the number of ports at Edition: current; Page: [15] which he may have the option of touching in pursuit of a market, can not fail to promote a more ready and extensive demand."

—Besides the restraints imposed by the act of 1813 on the proceedings of the free traders (these restraints were a good deal modified by the act of 3 Geo. IV., c. 80, which was passed in pursuance of the recommendation of the committee quoted above), they frequently experienced very great loss and inconvenience from the commercial speculations of the East India company. The latter had commercial residents, with large establishments of servants, some of them intended for coercive purposes, stationed in all the considerable towns; and the Marquis Wellesley has stated "that the intimation of a wish from the company's resident is always received as a command by the native manufacturers and producers" The truth is, that it was not in the nature of things that the company's purchases could be fairly made; the natives could not deal with their servants as they would have dealt with private individuals; and it would be absurd to suppose that agents authorized to buy on account of government, and to draw on the public treasury for the means of payment, should generally evince the prudence and discretion of individuals directly responsible in their own private fortunes for their transactions. The interference of such persons would, under any circumstances, have rendered the East India trade peculiarly hazardous. But their influence in this respect was materially aggravated by the irregularity of their appearances. No individual, not belonging to the court of directors, could foresee whether the company's agents would be in the market at all; or, if there, to what extent they would either purchase or sell. So capricious were their proceedings that in some years they laid out £700,000 on indigo, while in others they did not lay out a single shilling; and so with other things. A fluctuating demand of this sort necessarily occasioned great and sudden variations of price, and was injurious alike to the producers and the private merchants.

—And besides being injurious to the private trader, and to the public generally, both in India and England, this trade was of no advantage to the East India company. How, indeed, could it be otherwise? A company that maintained armies and retailed tea, that carried a sword in one hand and a ledger in the other, was a contradiction; and, had she traded with success, would have been a prodigy. It was impossible for her to pay that attention to details which is indispensable to the carrying on of commerce with advantage. She may have gained something by the monopoly of the tea trade, though even that is questionable; but it is admitted on all hands that she lost heavily by her trade to India. When, therefore, the question as to the renewal of the charter came to be discussed in 1832 and 1833, the company had no reasonable objection to urge against their being deprived of the privilege of trading. And the act 3 8 4 Wm. IV., c. 85, for continuing the charter till 1854 terminated the company's commercial character, by enacting that the company's trade to China was to cease on April 22, 1834, and that the company was, as soon as possible after that date, to dispose of their stocks on hand and close their commercial business; and the wonderful increase that has since taken place in the trade with the east is the best proof of the sagacity and soundness of the opinions of those by whose efforts the incubus of monopoly was removed.

—From this period down to 1858, when the company was, as a governing body, finally abolished, its functions were wholly political, and the directors were, in truth, little more than a council to assist and advise the president of the board of control During the period now alluded to (from 1834 to 1858) some most important events have taken place in India. The British empire has been increased by the acquisition in 1845 of the territory of Scinde, at the mouths of the Indus; in 1849 of the extensive and fertile country of the Punjab (Five Rivers), in northwest India, between the Sutlej and the Indus; and in 1852 of Pegu and Martaban in Burmah. Being occupied by comparatively brave and hardy races, the subjagation of Scinde and the Punjab was not effected without much difficulty, and after the occurrence of several well-fought battles.

—The period referred to is also distinguished by the ill-advised invasion of Afghanistan in 1849. This unprovoked aggression led to the greatest reverse that has ever happened to the English in India. But the disastrous retreat from Caubul having been avenged, and the prestige of English arms restored, England finally withdrew from the country in 1842. And it is to be hoped that she may never again, unless from the most urgent necessity, attempt to extend her empire in that quarter beyond its present limits.

—A conviction had been for a lengthened period gaining ground that the company's intervention in the government of India had become inexpedient, and that it should be directly administered by the crown. In 1853 a step was taken in this direction by the act 16 8 17 Vict., c. 95, which reduced the number of directors from twenty-four to eighteen, part of which were to be nominated by the crown, and made other changes. It is not easy to say how long this modified system might have gone on, had it not been for the outbreak of the gigantic mutiny of 1857. It would be foreign to our object to introduce details with respect to the origin of this insurrection, its progress and suppression. These are known to all our readers. Here it is sufficient to mention that the incipient prejudice against the company having been strengthened, though without much reason, by the disasters in India, advantage was taken of their occurrence to introduce a bill into parliament for transferring its government from the company to the crown, which soon after (Aug. 2, 1858) became the act 21 and 23 Vict., c. 106. Its commercial had long been sunk in its military and political Edition: current; Page: [16] character. It had subjugated one of the most extensive empires in the world. And though its policy has been in many respects of a very questionable description, it is entitled to the high praise of having vigorously exerted itself to restrain abuses on the part of its servants, to protect the vast population within its dominion, and provide for their well-being.

—This once great and powerful corporation, having existed nearly 275 years, was, after the transfer of its remaining functions to the secretary of state for India in council, finally dissolved in 1873, by the 36 and 37 Vict., c. 17.

EAST INDIES

EAST INDIES, a popular geographical term not very well defined, but generally understood to signify the continents and islands to the east and south of the river Indus, as far as the borders of China, including Timur and the Moluccas, but excluding the Philippine islands, New Guinea and New Holland. China and the Philippine islands were, however, included within the limit of the East India company's peculiar privileges.

—1. Distinction of Castes in India. Inaccuracy of the Representations as to the Inhabitants being unalterably attached to ancient Customs and Practices. We have taken occasion in the preceding sketch of the history of the East India company, repeatedly to notice the small extent of the trade carried on by its agency. It was contended, however, that this was to be ascribed, not to the deadening influence of monopoly, but to the peculiar state of the people of India. A notion has long been prevalent that the Hindoos are a race unsusceptible of change or improvement of any sort; that every man is brought up to the profession of his father, and can engage in none else; and that, owing to the simplicity and unalterableness of their habits, they never can be consumers, at least to any considerable extent, of foreign commodities. "What is now in India has always been there, and is likely still to continue" (Robertson's Disquisition, p. 202.) The Hindoos of this day are said to be the same as the Hindoos of the age of Alexander the Great. The description of them given by Arrian has been quoted as applying to their actual situation. It is affirmed that they have neither improved nor retrograded, and we are referred to India as to a country in which the institutions and manners that prevailed 3,000 years ago may still be found in their pristine purity. The president de Goguet lays it down distinctly in his learned and invaluable work On the Origin of Laus, Arts and Sciences, that in India "every trade is confined to a particular caste, and can be exercised only by those whose parents professed it." (Origin of Laws, etc., English translation, vol. iii., p. 24.) Dr. Robertson says that the "station of every Hindoo is unalterably fixed; his destiny is irrevocable; and the walk of life is marked out from which he must never deviate." (Disquisition on India, p. 199.) The same opinions are maintained by later authorities. Dr. Tennant says that "the whole Indian community is divided into four great classes; and each class is stationed between certain walls of separation, which are impassable by the purest virtue and most conspicuous merit." (Quoted by Mr Rickards, p 6.) This unalterable destiny of individuals has been repeatedly assumed in the dispatches and official papers put forth by the East India company, and has been referred to on all occasions by them and their servants as a proof that the depressed and miserable condition of the natives is not owing to misgovernment, or to the weight of the burdens laid upon them; and that it is in vain to think of materially improving their condition, or of making them acquainted with new arts, or giving them new habits, so long as the institution of castes, and the prejudices to which it has given rise, preserve their ascendency unimpaired.

—But notwithstanding the universal currency which the opinions now referred to have obtained, and the high authority by which they are supported, they are, in all the most essential respects, entirely without foundation! The books and codes of the Hindoos themselves, and the minute and careful observations that have recently been made on Indian society, have shown that the influence ascribed to the institution of castes by the ancients, and by the more early modern travelers, has been prodigiously exaggerated. In the first part of his work on India, Mr. Rickards established, partly by references to the authoritative books of the Hindoos, and partly by his own observations, and those of Mr. Colebrooke, Dr. Heber, and other high authorities, that the vast majority of the Hindoo population may and in fact do, engage in all sorts of employments. It has been further shown that there is nothing in the structure of Indian society to oppose any serious obstacle to the introduction of new arts, or the spread of improvement; and that the causes of the poverty and misery of the people must be sought for in other circumstances than the institution of castes and the nature of Hindoo superstition.

—The early division of the population into the four great classes of priests (Brahmans), soldiers (Cshatryas), husbandmen and artificers (Vaisyas), and slaves (Sudras), was maintained only for a very short period. The Hindoo traditions record that a partial intermixture of these classes took place at a very remote epoch; and the mixed brood thence arising were divided into a vast variety of new tribes, or castes, to whom, speaking generally, no employments are forbidden.

—"The employments," says Mr. Rickards, "allowed to these mixed and impure castes may be said to be every description of handicraft and occupation for which the wants of human society have created a demand. Though many seem to take their names from their ordinary trade or profession, and some have duties assigned them too low and disgusting for any others to perform but from the direst necessity Edition: current; Page: [17] yet no employment, generally speaking, is forbidden to the mixed and impure tribes, excepting three of the prescribed duties of the sacerdotal class, viz., teaching the Vedas, officiating at a sacrifice, and receiving presents from a pure-handed giver: which three are exclusively Brahminical."

—Mr. Colebrooke, who is acknowledged on all hands to be one of the very highest authorities as to all that respects Indian affairs, has a paper in the fifth volume of the Asiatic Researches, on the subject of castes. In this paper Mr. Colebrooke states that the Jatimala, a Hindoo work, enumerates forty-two mixed classes springing from the intercourse of a man of inferior class with a woman of superior class, or in the inverse order of the classes. Now, if we add to these the number that must have sprung from intermixture in the direct order of the classes, and the hosts further arising from the continued intermixture of the mixed tribes among themselves, we shall not certainly be disposed to dissent from Mr. Colebrooke's conclusion "that the subdivisions of these classes have further multiplied distinctions to an endless variety"

—Mr. Colebrooke has given the following distinct and accurate account of the professions and employments of the several classes at the present day. It forms a curious commentary on the "irrevocable destiny" of Dr. Robertson, and the "impassable walls" of Dr. Tennant.—"A Brahman, unable to subsist by his duties, may live by the duty of a soldier; if he can not get a subsistence by either of these employments, he may apply to tillage and attendance on cattle, or gain a competence by traffic, avoiding certain commodities. A Cshatrya in distress may subsist by all these means; but he must not have recourse to the highest functions. In seasons of distress a further latitude is given. The practice of medicine and other learned professions, painting and other arts, work for wages, menial service, alms, and usury, are among the modes of subsistence allowed both to the Brahman and Cshatrya. A Vaisya, unable to subsist by his own duties, may descend to the servile acts of a Sudra; and a Sudra, not finding employment by waiting on men of the higher classes, may subsist by handicrafts; principally following those mechanical operations, as joinery and masonry, and practical arts, as painting and writing, by which he may serve men of superior classes, and although a man of a lower class is in general restricted from the acts of a higher class, the Sudra is expressly permitted to become a trader or a husbandman.

—Besides the particular occupation assigned to each of the mixed classes, they have the alternative of following that profession which regularly belongs to the class from which they derive their origin on the mother's side: those at least have such an option who are born in the direct order of the classes. The mixed classes are also permitted to subsist by any of the duties of a Sudra; that is, by menial service, by handicrafts, by commerce, and agriculture. Hence it appears that almost every occupation, though regularly it be the profession of a particular class, is open to most other classes; and that the limitations, far from being rigorous, do in fact reserve only the peculiar profession of the Brahman, which consists in teaching the Vida, and officiating at religious ceremonies." "We have thus," says Mr. Rickards, by whom this passage has been quoted, "the highest existing authority for rejecting the doctrine of the whole Hindoo community being divided into four castes,' and of their peculiar prerogatives being guarded inviolate by impassable walls of separation.' It is also clear that the intermixture of castes had taken place, to an indefinite extent, at the time when the Dherma Sastra was composed, which Sir William Jones computes to be about 880 years B. C.; for the mixed classes are specified in this work, and it also refers in many places to past times, and to events which a course of time only could have brought about. The origin of the intermixture is therefore lost in the remotest and obscurest antiquity; and having been carried on through a long course of ages, a heterogeneous mass is everywhere presented to us, in these latter times, without a single example, in any particular state, or kingdom, or separate portion of the Hindoo community, of that quadruple division of castes which has been so confidently insisted upon. I have myself seen carpenters of five or six different castes, and as many different bricklayers, employed on the same building. The same diversity of castes may be observed among the craftsmen in dockyards, and all other great works; and those who have resided for any time in the principal commercial cities of India must be sensible that every increasing demand for labor, in all its different branches and varieties of old and new arts, has been speedily and effectually supplied, in spite of the tremendous institution of castes, which we are taught to believe forms so impassable an obstruction to the advancement of Indian industry."

—2. Growing Demand for English Goods. It is difficult to suppose that the directors of the East India company should not have been early aware of the fallacy of the opinions as to the fixedness of Indian habits. So fat, however, as we know, they did not, in this instance, evince any acquaintance with the discoveries of their servants. On the contrary, in all the discussions that took place with respect to the opening of the trade in 1814, the company invariably contended that no increase of trade to India could be expected. In a letter of the chairman and deputy chairman to the Right Honorable Robert Dundas, dated Jan. 13, 1809, it is stated that the small demand for foreign commodities in India "results from the nature of the Indian people, their climate and their usages. The articles of first necessity their own country furnishes more abundantly and more cheaply than it is possible for Europe to supply them. The labor of the great body of the common people Edition: current; Page: [18] only enables them to subsist on rice, and to wear a slight covering of cotton cloth; they, therefore, can purchase none of the superfluities the English offer them. The comparatively few in better circumstances restricted, like the rest, by numerous religious and civil customs, of which all are remarkably tenacious, find few of English commodities to their taste; and their climate, so dissimilar to England, renders many of them unsuitable to their use; so that a commerce between them and England can not proceed far upon the principle of supplying mutual wants. Hence, except woolens in a very limited degree, for mantles in the cold season, and metals, on a scale also very limited, to be worked up by their own artisans for the few utensils they need, hardly any of English staple commodities find a vent among the Indians; the other exports which Europe sends to India being chiefly consumed by the European population there, and some of the descendants of the early Portuguese settlers; all of whom, taken collectively, form but a small body in view to any question of national commerce." (Papers published by authority of the East India Company, 1813, p. 21.)

—The volume from which we have made this extract, contains a variety of passages to the same effect. So confident, indeed, were the company that they had carried the trade to India to the utmost extent of which it was capable, that it was expressly stated, in resolutions passed in a general court held at the India house on Jan. 26. 1813, "that no large or sudden addition can be made to the amount of British exports to India or China," that the company had suffered a loss in attempting to extend this branch of their trade, that the warehouses at home were glutted with Indian commodities for which there was no demand, and that to open the outports to the trade would be no other than "a ruinous transfer of it into new channels, to the destruction of immense and costly establishments, and the beggary of many thousands of industrious individuals."

—Luckily, however, these representations were unable to prevent the opening of the trade, and the result has sufficiently demonstrated their fallacy. The enterprise and exertion of individuals have vastly increased English exports to India—to that very country which the company had so confidently pronounced was, and would necessarily continue to be, incapable of affording any additional outlet for English peculiar products!

—The commercial accounts for 1812 and 1813 were unfortunately destroyed by the fire at the custom house. The trade to India was opened on April 10, 1814; and in that year the declared or real value of the products exported from Great Britain to the countries eastward of the cape of Good Hope, excepting China, by the East India company, was £826,558, and by the private traders, £1,048,132 In 1817 the company's exports had declined to £638,382, while those of the private traders had increased to £2,750,333, and in 1828 the former had sunk to only £488,601, while the latter had increased to £3,979,072, being more than double the total exports to India, as well by the company as by private traders, in 1814! Since then the market has continued progressively to increase. At an average of the six years ending with 1849, the declared value of the exports of British goods amounted to no less than £6,313,668 a year; the declared value of those exported in 1849 being £6,803,274. In 1854, previously to the outbreak, the exports to India had reached the sum of £10,025,969.

—The company stated, and no doubt truly, that they lost a very large sum in attempting to extend the demand for British woolens in India and China, which, notwithstanding, continues very limited. But in their efforts to force the sale of woolens, they seem to have entirely forgotten that England had attained to great excellency in the manufacture of cotton stuffs, the article principally made use of as clothing in Hindostan; and that, notwithstanding the cheapness of labor in India, the advantage derived from England's superior machinery might enable her to offer cotton stuffs to the natives at a lower price than they could afford to manufacture them for. No sooner, however, had the trade been opened to private adventurers than this channel of enterprise was explored; and the result has been, that, instead of bringing cottons from India to England, the former has become one of the best and most extensive markets for the cottons of the latter. We question, indeed, whether, in the whole history of commerce, another equally striking example can be produced of the powerful influence of competition in opening new and almost boundless fields for the successful prosecution of commercial enterprise.

—In 1814, the first year of the free trade to India, the exports of cotton amounted to 817,000 yards, of which only about 170,000 yards, valued at £17,778, were exported by the company' The progress of the trade has since been such, that in 1866 England exported to India 544,699,474 yards of cotton stuffs, and 19,849,460 lbs. twist and yarn, ex. hosiery, lace and small wares, the aggregate declared value of the whole being £12,773,302.

—The demand for several other articles of British manufactures has increased with great rapidity. Notwithstanding all that has been said as to the immutability of Hindoo habits, the fact is not to be denied that a taste for European products and customs is rapidly spreading itself over India; and the fair presumption is, that it will continue to gain ground according as education is more generally diffused, and as the natives become better acquainted with English language, arts and habits. The authenticity of Dr. Heber's statements can not be called in question; and there are many passages in different parts of his journal that might be quoted corroborative of what has now been stated. Our limits, however, will only permit of our making a very few extracts.—"Nor have the religious prejudices and the unchangeableness Edition: current; Page: [19] of the Hindoo habits been less exaggerated. Some of the best informed of their nation, with whom I have conversed, assure me that half their most remarkable customs of civil and domestic life are borrowed from their Mohammedan conquerors; and at present there is an obvious and increasing disposition to imitate the English in everything, which has already led to very remarkable changes, and will, probably, to still more important. The wealthy natives now all affect to have their houses decorated with Corinthian pillars, and filled with English furniture, they drive the best horses and the most dashing carriages in Calcutta; many of them speak English fluently, and are tolerably read in English literature, and the children of one of our friends I saw one day dressed in jackets and trousers, with round hats, shoes and stockings. In the Bengalee newspapers, of which there are two or three, politics are canvassed with a bias, as I am told, inclined to Whiggism; and one of their leading men gave a great dinner, not long since, in honor of the Spanish revolution: among the lower orders the same feeling shows itself more beneficially in a growing neglect of caste." (Vol. ii., p. 306)—"To say that the Hindoos or Mussulmans are deficient in any essential feature of a civilized people, is an assertion which I can scarcely suppose to be made by any who have lived with them; their manners are at least as pleasing and courteous as those in the corresponding stations of late among ourselves; their houses are larger, and, according to their wants and climate, to the full as convenient as ours; their architecture is at least as elegant; nor is it true that in the mechanic arts they are inferior to the general run of European nations. Where they fall short of us (which is chiefly in agricultural implements, and the mechanics of common life), they are not, so far as I have understood of Italy and the south of France, surpassed in any degree by the people of those countries. Their goldsmiths and weavers produce as beautiful fabrics as our own; and it is so far from true that they are obstinately wedded to their old patterns, that they show an anxiety to imitate our models, and do imitate them very successfully. The ships built by native artists at Bombay are notoriously as good as any which sail from London or Liverpool. The carriages and gigs which they supply at Calcutta are as handsome, though not as durable, as those of Long Acre. In the little town of Monghyr, 300 miles from Calcutta, I had pistols, double barreled guns and different pieces of cabinet-work brought down to my boat for sale, which in outward form (for I know no further) nobody but perhaps Mr.——— could detect to be of Hindoo origin; and at Delhi, in the shop of a wealthy native jeweler, I found brooches, ear-rings, snuff-boxes, etc., of the latest models (so far as I am a judge), and ornamented with French devices and mottoes." (Vol. ii., p. 382.)

—As Bishop Heber penetrated into the interior of India, he found the same taste as in Calcutta, for European articles and for luxuries, prevalent everywhere among the natives. Of Benares he writes as follows: "But what surprised me still more, as I penetrated farther into it, were the large, lofty and handsome dwelling houses, the beauty and apparent richness of the goods exposed in the bazaars, and the evident hum of business. Benares is in fact a very industrious and wealthy as well as a very holy city. It is the great mart where the shawls of the north, the diamonds of the south, and the muslims of Dacca and the eastern provinces centre; and it has very considerable silk, cotton and fine woolen manufactories of its own, while English hardware, swords, shields and spears, from Lucknow and Monghyr, and those European luxuries and elegancies which are daily becoming more popular in India, circulate from hence through Bundelcund, Gorruckpoor, Nepaul, and other tracts which are removed from the main artery of the Ganges." (Vol. i., p. 289.)

—Proceeding still farther into the interior of the country, and when at Nusserabad, distant 1,051 miles from Calcutta, the bishop continues his journal in the same strain, viz.: "European articles are, at Nusserabad [near Ajmeer, in the heart of the Rajpoot country], as might be expected, very dear; the shops are kept by a Greek and two Parsees from Bombay; they had in their list all the usual items of a Calcutta warehouse. English cotton cloths, both white and printed, are to be met with commonly in wear among the people of the country, and many, I learned to my surprise, be bought best and cheapest, as well as all kinds of hardware, crockery, writing desks, etc., at Pallee, a large town and celebrated mart in Marwar, on the edge of the desert, several days' journey west of Joudpoor, where, till very lately, no European was known to have penetrated." (Vol. ii., p. 36.)

—As to the character of the Hindoos, their capacity, and even anxious desire, for improvement, the bishop's testimony is equally clear and decided; and as this is a point of pre-eminent importance, the reader's attention is requested to the following statements: "In the schools which have been lately established in this part of the empire, of which there are at present nine established by the Church Missionary, and eleven by the Christian Knowledge societies, some very unexpected facts have occurred. As all direct attempts to convert the children are disclaimed, the parents send them without scruple. But it is no less strange than true, that there is no objection made to the use of the Old and New Testament as a class book; that so long as the teachers do not urge them to eat what will make them lose their caste, or to be baptized, or to curse their country's gods, they readily consent to everything else; and not only Mussulmans, but Brahmans, stand by with perfect coolness, and listen sometimes with apparent interest and pleasure, while the scholars, by the roadside, are reading the stories of the creation and of Jesus Christ." (Vol. ii., p. 290.)—"Hearing all I had heard of the prejudices of the Edition: current; Page: [20] Hindoos and Mussalmans, I certainly did not at all expect to find that the common people would, not only without objection, but with the greatest thankfulness, send their children to schools on Bell's system; and they seem to be fully sensible of the advantages conferred by writing, arithmetic, and above all by a knowledge of English There are now in Calcutta, and the surrounding villages, 20 boys' schools, containing 60 to 120 each: and 23 girls', each of 25 or 30." (Vol. ii, p. 300.)—"In the same holy city [Benares] I visited another college, founded lately by a wealthy Hindoo banker, and intrusted by him to the management of the Church Missionary society, in which, besides a grammatical knowledge of the Hindoostanee language, as well as Persian and Arabic, the senior boys could pass a good examination in English grammar, in Hume's History of England, Joyce's Scientific Dialogues, the use of the globes, and the principal facts and moral precepts of the gospel; most of them writing beautifully in the Persian, and very tolerably in the English character, and excelling most boys I have met with in the accuracy and readiness of their arithmetic." (Vol. ii., p. 388)—"The different nations which I have seen in India (for it is a great mistake to suppose that all India is peopled by a single race, or that there is not as great a disparity between the inhabitants of Guzerat, Bengal, the Dooab, and the Deccan, both in language, manners and physiognomy, as between any four nations in Europe) have, of course, in a greater or less degree, the vices which must be expected to attend on arbitrary government, a demoralizing and absurd religion, and (in all the independent states, and in some of the districts which are partially subject to the British) a laxity of law, and an almost universal prevalence of intestine fends and habits of plunder. The general character, however, has much which is extremely pleasing to me: they are brave, courteous, intelligent, and most eager after knowledge and improvement, with a remarkable talent for the sciences of geometry, astronomy, etc., as well as for the arts of painting and sculpture In all these points they have had great difficulties to struggle with, both from the want of models, instruments and elementary instruction; the indisposition, or rather the horror entertained, till lately, by many among their European masters, for giving them instruction of any kind; and now from the real difficulty which exists of translating works of science into languages which have no corresponding terms" (Vol. ii., p. 409.)

—Even if our space permitted, it would be unnecessary to add to these extracts The facts and circumstances now mentioned, must, we think, satisfy every one that there is nothing in the nature of Indian society, in the institution of castes as at present existing, or in the habits and customs of the natives, to hinder them from advancing in the career of civilization, commerce and wealth. "It may safely be asserted," says Mr. Hamilton, "that with so vast an extent of fertile soil, peopled by so many millions of tractable and industrious inhabitants, Hindostan is capable of supplying the whole world with any species of tropical merchandise; the production, in fact, being only limited by the demand."

—3. Colonization of India. Considerable obstacles were long thrown in the way of Europeans establishing themselves in India, and particularly of their acquiring or holding land. This policy was dictated by various considerations; partly by a wish to prevent the extrusion of the natives from the soil which it was supposed would be eagerly bought up by Europeans, and partly by the fear lest the latter, when scattered over the country, and released from any effectual control, should offend the prejudices of the natives and get embroiled with them. Now, however, it seems to be the general opinion of those best acquainted with India, that but little danger is to be apprehended from these circumstances; that the few Europeans established in it as indigo planters, etc., have contributed very materially to its improvement; and that the increase and diffusion of the English population, and their permanent settlement in the country, are at once the most likely means of spreading a knowledge of English arts and sciences, and of widening and strengthening the foundations of English ascendency. It is obvious, indeed that the duration of the English power in India must depend on a very uncertain tenure unless they take root, as it were, in the soil and a considerable portion of the population be attached to them by the ties of kindred, and of common interests and sympathies. In this respect they should imitate the Roman in preference to the Lacedæmonian or Athenian policy. We formerly expressed the opinion that looking at the density of population in India, the low rate of wages, the nature of the climate, and other similar circumstances, it seemed very doubtful whether it would ever become the resort of any considerable number of English settlers, at least of such a number as would be sufficient, within any reasonable period, to form anything like a powerful native English interest; and we have now to state that these anticipations have been more than realized, and that though the restraints on the settlement of Englishmen in India have been practically at an end since 1834, very few have availed themselves of the privilege. There may no doubt, though we see little reason to anticipate such a result, be a greater emigration to India in time to come; and to whatever extent it may be carried, it promises to be highly advantageous. "We need not, I imagine," said Lord William Bentinck, "use any labored argument to prove that it would be infinitely advantageous for India to borrow largely in arts and knowledge from England. The legislature has expressly declared the truth; its acknowledgment has been implied in the daily acts and professions of government and in all the efforts of humane individuals and societies for the education of the people. Nor will it, I conceive, be doubted that the diffusion of useful Edition: current; Page: [21] knowledge, and its application to the arts and business of life, must be comparatively tardy unless we add to precept the example of Europeans, mingling familiarly with the natives in the course of their profession, and practically demonstrating by daily recurring evidence, the nature and the value of the principles we desire to inculcate, and of the plans we seek to have adopted. It seems to be almost equally plain, that independently of their influencing the native community in this way, various and important national advantages will result from there being a considerable body of our countrymen and their descendants settled in the country. To question it, is to deny the superiority which has gained us the dominion of India; it is to doubt whether national character has any effect on national wealth, strength and good government, it is to shut our eyes to all the perils and difficulties of our situation; it is to hold as nothing community of language, sentiment and interest between the government and the governed; it is to disregard the evidence afforded by every corner of the globe in which the British flag is hoisted; it is to tell our merchants and manufacturers that the habits of a people go for nothing in creating a market; and that enterprise, skill and capital, and the credit which creates capital, are of no avail in the production of commodities."

—In order to facilitate the development of agriculture and the employment of British capital in India, Lord Canning (being governor general) issued a series of ordinances in October, 1861, for the sale of waste lands, and the redemption of the land tax, the object being to effect "the sale of waste lands in perpetuity, discharged from all prospective demand on account of land revenue," and "permission to redeem the existing land revenue by the immediate payment of one sum equal in value to the revenue redeemed."

—Advantage of India to England. The popular opinions in regard to the vast advantages derived by England from the government of India are as fallacious as can well be imagined. It is doubtful, indeed, whether its advantages compensate for its disadvantages India never has been, and never can be, a field for the resort of ordinary emigrants. It has, it is true, furnished an outlet for considerable numbers of well-educated young men of the middle classes, but the fortunes of those who return to spend the evening of their days in England are far short of compensating for the outlay on themselves and on those who die in the service. And there is but little ground to bank that the legitimate trade England carries on with India (we say legitimate, for a considerable portion of English trade with India is carried on upon account of the British troops serving in the peninsula) is greater than it would have been had it continued subject to its native rulers; neither is it by any means improbable that the large public debt of India will, in the end, have to be partially or wholly provided for by England.

—England may flatter her vanity by dwelling on the high destiny and glory of providing for the regeneration and well-being of 190 or 200 millions of human beings; but she has yet to learn whether this be not an undertaking that is greatly beyond her means, and whether, in attempting to elevate a debased and enervated race (supposing that she really make such an attempt) 12,000 miles from her shores, she may not be sapping the foundations of her own power and greatness.

—Nothing during the outbreak of 1857 was more extraordinary than the fact of its having failed to bring forward a single native chief of talent. In every contest the inferiority even of the best drilled sepoys, when brought face to face with Europeans, was most striking. No superiority of numbers gave them a chance of success. They continue to be precisely what they were at Plassey and Assaye.

—Constitution and Government of the East Indies. The present form of government of the Indian empire is established by the act 21 and 22 Victoriæ, cap 106, called "An act for the better government of India," sanctioned Aug. 2, 1858. By the terms of this act, all the territories hereto-fore under the government of the East India company are vested in her majesty, and all its powers are exercised in her name; all territorial and other revenues and all tributes and other payments are likewise received in her name, and disposed of for the purposes of the government of India alone, subject to the provisions of this act. One of her majesty's principal secretaries of state, called the secretary of state for India, is invested with all the powers hitherto exercised by the company or by the board of control. By acts 39 and 40 Viet., cap. 10. proclaimed at Delhi, before all the princes and high dignitaries of India. Jan 1, 1877, the queen of Great Britain and Ireland assumed the additional title of Indiæ Imperatrix, or Empress of India.

—The executive authority in India is vested in a governor general, or viceroy, appointed by the crown, and acting under the orders of the secretary of state for India. By acts 24 and 25 Viet., cap. 67. amended by act 28 Viet., cap. 17, and by acts 32 and 33 Viet., cap. 98, the governor general in council has power to make laws for all persons, whether British or native, foreigners or others, within the Indian territories under the dominion of her majesty, and for all subjects of the crown within the dominions of Indian princes and states in alliance with her majesty.

—The government of the Indian empire is entrusted, by acts 21 and 22 Viet., cap. 97, to a secretary of state for India, aided by a council of fifteen members, of whom at first seven were elected by the court of directors from their own body, and eight were nominated by the crown. In future, vacancies in the council will be filled up by the secretary of state for India. But the major part of the council must be of persons who have served or resided ten, years in India, and not have left India more than ten years previous to the date of their appointment Edition: current; Page: [22] and no person not so qualified can be appointed unless nine of the continuing members be so qualified. The office is held for a term of ten years; but a member may be removed upon an address from both houses of parliament and the secretary of state for India may for special reasons reappoint a member of the council for a further term of five years. No member can sit in parliament.

—The duties of the council of state are, under the direction of the secretary of state, to conduct the business transacted in the United Kingdom in relation to the government of and the correspondence with India; but every order sent to India must be signed by the secretary, and all dispatches from the governments and presidencies in India must be addressed to the secretary. The secretary has to divide the council into committees, to direct what departments shall be under such committees respectively, and to regulate the transaction of business. The secretary is to be president of the council, and has to appoint from time to time a vice-president. The meetings of the council are to be held when and as the secretary shall direct; but at least one meeting must be held every week, at which not less than five members shall be present.

—The government in India is exercised by the "council of the governor general," consisting of five ordinary members, and one extraordinary member, the latter the commander in-chief. The ordinary members of the council preside over the departments of foreign affairs, finances, the interior, military administration, and public works, but do not form part, as such, of what is designated in European governments a "cabinet." The appointment of the ordinary members of the "council of the governor general," the governors of presidencies, and of the governors of provinces, is made by the crown. The lieutenant governors of the various provinces are appointed by the governor general, subject to the approbation of the secretary of state for India.

—Revenue and Expenditure. According to the act of 1858 the revenue and expenditure of the Indian empire are subjected to the control of the secretary in council, and no grant or appropriation of any part of the revenue can be made without the concurrence of a majority of the council.

—The subjoined table gives the total gross amount of the actual revenue and expenditure of India, distinguishing Indian and home expenditure, in each of the ten fiscal years, ending March 31, 1871-80:

—The following table shows the distribution of the revenue and the expenditure over the various presidencies and provinces in each of the two financial years, ending March 31, 1879 and 1880:

—In the budget estimates for the financial year 1878-9, the revenue was assessed at £64,562,000, and the ordinary expenditure at £65,917,000, leaving a deficit of £1,355,000. Besides the ordinary expenditure, a sum of £3,500,000 was set down as probable extraordinary expenditure for public works, raising the total deficit to £4,855,000. The budget estimates for 1879-80 fixed the total revenue at £64,620,000, and the total expenditure at £65,930,000, including £2,000,000 for the expenses of the Afghan war. The excess of ordinary expenditure over revenue in the year 1879-80 was estimated at £1,395,000, and the capital expenditure on productive public works at £3,500,000.

—The following table, compiled from official documents, exhibits the growth of the three most important sources of the public revenue of India, namely, land, opium and salt, in the ten financial years, ending March 31, 1871-80:

—The following table shows the distribution of the three great sources of revenue over the different presidencies and provinces in the financial year ending March 31, 1879:

Edition: current; Page: [23]

—The most important source of public revenue to which rulers in India have, in all ages, looked for obtaining their income, is the land, the revenue from which, in the year before the mutiny, furnished more than one-half of the total receipts of the East India company's treasury. At present, when the necessities of the Indian exchequer require that government should resort more largely to the aid of duties levied on the continually increasing trade of the country, the revenue from land produces not quite so much in proportion, but it still forms two-fifths of the total receipts of the empire.

—The land revenue of India, as of all eastern countries, is generally regarded less as a tax on the landowners than as the result of a joint proprietorship in the soil, under which the produce is divided, in unequal and generally uncertain proportions, between the ostensible proprietors and the state. It would seem a matter of justice, therefore, as well as of security for the landowners, that the respective shares should, at a given period, or for specified terms, be strictly defined and limited. Nevertheless, the proportion which the assessment bears to the full value of the land varies greatly in the several provinces and districts of India. Under the old native system a fixed proportion of the gross produce was taken; but the British system ordinarily deals with the surplus or net produce which the land may yield after deducting the expenses of cultivation.

—In Bengal a permanent settlement was made by Lord Cornwallis, by which measure the government was debarred from any further direct participation in the cultivation of the country. The division of Benares was also permanently settled about the same time. In the northwestern provinces, a general settlement of the revenue was completed in 1840, fixing the amount to be paid by each village for a period of thirty years; and a similar course was adopted in the Punjab. Some of the districts of the Punjab were inadequately assessed at former settlements, and these have therefore been confirmed for a term of ten years only. In many cases these expired in 1874 and 1875, and the revised settlements which were subsequently made were generally for thirty years. It is estimated that in most cases the assessment is about two-thirds of the yearly value—that is, the surplus after deducting expenses of cultivation, profits of stock, and wages of labor. In the revised settlements more recently made it was reduced to one-half of the yearly value.

—In the Madras presidency there are three different revenue systems. The zemindary tenure exists in some districts, principally in the northern circars; the proprietors, of whom some possess old ancestral estates, and others were created land-holders in 1802, hold the land direct from the government, on payment of a fixed annual sum. In the second, the village renting system, the villages stand in the position of the zemindar, and hold the land jointly from the government, allotting the different portions for cultivation among themselves. Under the third, the ryotwar system, every registered holder of land is recognized as its proprietor, and pays direct to the government. He can sublet, transfer, sell or mortgage it; he can not be ejected by the government, and so long as he pays the fixed assessment he has the option of annually increasing or diminishing the cultivation on his holding, or he may entirely abandon it. In unfavorable seasons remissions of assessment are granted for loss of produce. The assessment is fixed in money, and does not vary from year to year, except when water is obtained from a government source of irrigation; nor is any addition made to the rent for improvements effected at the ryot's own expense. He has, therefore, all the benefits of a perpetual lease without its responsibilities, as he can at any time throw up his lands, but can not be ejected so long as he pays his dues, and receives assistance in difficult seasons. An annual settlement is made not to reassess the land, but to determine upon how much of his holding the ryot shall pay; when no change occurs in the holding, theory of is not affected by the annual settlement, and is not required to attend it. The ryotwar system may be said to essentially prevail throughout the presidency of Madras, as the zemindar and village renter equally deal with their tenants on this principle.

—In Bombay and the Berars the revenue management is generally ryotwar; that is, as a rule, the occupants of government lands settle for their land revenue, or rent, with the government officers direct, and not through the intervention of a middleman. Instances, however, occasionally occur in which the government revenues of entire villages are settled by individual superior holders, under various denominations, or by a copartnership of superior holders. The survey and assessment of the Bombay presidency has been almost completed on a system introduced and carefully elaborated about twenty years ago. The whole country is surveyed and mapped, and the fields distinguished by permanent boundary marks, which it is penal to remove; the soil of each field is classed according to its intrinsic qualities and to the climate; and the rate of assessment to be paid on fields of each class in each subdivision of a district is fixed on a careful consideration of the value of the crops they are capable of producing, as affected by the proximity to market towns, roads, canals, railways, and similar external incidents, but not by improvements Edition: current; Page: [24] made by the ryot himself. This rate was probably about one-half of the yearly value of the land, when fixed; but, owing to the general improvement of the country, it is not more than from a fourth to an eighth in the districts which have not been settled quite recently. The measurement and classification of the soil are made once for all; but the rate of assessment is open for revision at the end of every thirty years, in order that the ryot, on the one hand, may have the certainty of the long period as an inducement to lay out capital, and that the state, on the other, may secure that participation in the advantages accruing from the general progress of society to which its joint proprietorship of the land entitles it. In the thirty years revision, moreover, only public improvements and a general change of prices, but not improvements effected by the ryots themselves, are considered as grounds for enhancing the assessment. The ryot's tenure is permanent, provided he pays the assessment.

—The important questions of the propriety of settling in perpetuity the amount of revenue to be paid to the government by landholders, of permitting this revenue to be redeemed forever by the payment of a capital sum of money, and of selling the fee simple of waste lands not under assessment, have been within the last few years fully considered by the government of India. The expediency of allowing owners of land to redeem the revenue has long been advocated as likely to promote the settlement of European colonists; but experience seems to show that advantage is very rarely taken of the power which already exists in certain cases to redeem the rent by a quit payment; and it appears unlikely that such a permission would be acted upon to any great extent, while the rate of interest afforded by an investment in the purchase of the land assessment is as low as at present in India.

—Next in importance to the land revenue is the income derived from the opium monopoly. The cultivation of the poppy is prohibited in Bengal, except for the purpose of selling the juice to the officers of the government at a certain fixed price. It is manufactured into opium at the government factories at Patna and Ghazipore, and then sent to Calcutta, and sold by auction to merchants who export it to China. In the Bombay presidency, the revenue is derived from the opium which is manufactured in the native states of Malwa and Guzerat, on which passes are given, at the price of £60 per chest, weighing 140 lbs. net, to merchants who wish to send opium to the port of Bombay. The poppy is not cultivated in the presidency of Madras. The gross revenue derived from opium averaged, during the ten years, 1869 to 1878, the sum of £8,500,000.

—The largest branch of expenditure is that for the army, equal to the aggregate annual revenue from salt and opium. The maintenance of the armed force to uphold British rule in India cost £12,000,000 the year before the great mutiny, and subsequently rose to above £25,000,000; but after the year 1861 sank, for a short period, to less than £15,000,000. It was £16,793,306 in the financial year 1865-6; £16,329,739 in 1869-70; £15,228,429 in 1873-4; £15,308,460 in 1875-6; £16,639,761 in 1877-8: £17,092,488 in the financial year 1878-9, and £21,712,862 in the financial year 1879-80. The amount of the public debt in India, including that incurred in Great Britain, was £59,943,814 on April 30, 1837. In the course of the next five years the debt was largely increased, and on April 30, 1862, it had risen to £99,652,053. From 1862 to 1868 the government was enabled to pay off some portion, and at the end of the financial year 1868 the total had been reduced to £95,054,858. In the course of the eleven years, 1868 - 78, there was again an increase of nearly £39,000,000 in the total debt.

—The subjoined table shows the amount of the public debt of British India, both the interest bearing and not interest bearing, and distinguishing the debt in India and in Great Britain, in each of the financial years ending March 31, 1871-80:

The total debt in India and Great Britain amounted to £96,194,642 on March 31, 1869, and had increased to £131,728,065 on March 31, 1880. Not included in the latter total were "obligations"—including treasury notes and bills, service funds, and savings bank balances—to the amount of £1,406,620, bringing the entire liabilities up to £153,134,685. The total interest on debt and obligations amounted to £4,954,021 in the financial year 1879-80.

—The currency of India is chiefly silver, and the amount of money coined annually is large. In the ten financial years ending March 31, 1871-80, the value of the new coinage was as follows:

—On July 16, 1861, an act was passed by the government of India, providing for the issue of a paper currency through a government department of public issue, by means of promissory Edition: current; Page: [25] notes. Circles of issue were established from time to time, as found necessary, and the notes were made legal tender within the circle in which they were issued, and rendered payable at the place of issue, and also at the capital city of the presidency within which that place was situated. Under the provisions of further laws, consolidated by a statute known as Act III. of 1871, the issue was regulated in seven descriptions of notes, namely, for 10,000 rupees, or £1,000: for 1,000 rupees, or £100; for 500 rupees, or £50: for 100 rupees, or £10; for 50 rupees, or £5; for 20 rupees, or £2; for 10 rupees, or £1; and for 5 rupees, or 10s. There are ten currency circles, the headquarters of which are at Calcutta. Allahabad, Lahore, Nagpore, Madras, Calicut, Cocanada, Bombay, Kurrachee and Akolah. (Official Communication)

—The following were the total amounts of notes in circulation—calculated at 2s. the rupee—on March 31 in each year, since the introduction of the state paper currency in 1861:

—Nearly two-thirds of the total note circulation are in the currency circles of Calcutta and Bombay. The circulation in Calcutta was to the amount of £6,436,556, and in Bombay to the amount of £3,345,067, March 31, 1880.

—Army. The act of parliament which transferred the government of India to the crown, in 1858, directed that the military forces of the East India company should be deemed to be Indian military forces of her majesty, and should be "entitled to the like pay, pensions, allowances and privileges, and the like advantages as regards promotion and otherwise, as if they had continued in the service of the said company." It was at the same time provided that the secretary of state for India should have "all such or the like powers over the officers appointed or continued under this act as might or could have been exercised or performed by the East India company."

—The following table gives the established strength of the European and native army in British India, exclusive of native officers and followers, March 31 1880:

—In the army estimates laid before parliament in the session of 1880, the strength of the British regular army in India for the year 1881-2 was given as follows:

Returns of the year 1879 reported the combined armies of the native chiefs of India to number 305,235 men, with an artillery of 5,252 large guns.

—Area and Population. The first general census of British India was taken during the years 1868 to 1876. According to the revised returns of this census, the total population numbered 101,096,603, living on an area of 899,341 English square miles, being an average of 212 inhabitants to the square mile. The following table shows the area and population of each of the divisions of India under direct British administration:

—Besides the provinces of India under direct British administration, there are, more or less under the control of the Indian government, a number of feudatory or native states, covering an extent of 573,193 English square miles, with 49,674,827 inhabitants.

—According to the last Edition: current; Page: [26] official reports the native states exceed 450 in number. Various frontier countries, like Nepaul, merely acknowledge British superintendence; while others pay tribute or provide military contingents. New states are gradually drawn within the circle of British supremacy, either for the consolidation or the protection of the existing boundaries. The latest movement in this direction, toward the northwest, was the invasion of Afghanistan, a country of about the size of the United Kingdom, with an estimated population of four millions.

—Including the feudatory states, the total area and population of British India, according to the preliminary results of the census of 1881, are as follows:

—Enumerations to ascertain the religious creed of the inhabitants of India were taken in the various provinces during the years 1868 to 1876; in Berar and the Punjab, 1868; in Oudh, 1869; in Ajmere and Coorg, 1871; and in the remaining provinces from 1872 to 1876. A verification of all these returns with the results of the general census of India furnished the following classification of the leading creeds in the provinces under British administration:

—The British-born population in India, exclusive of the army, amounted, according to a census taken June 15, 1871, to 64,061 persons. Of these there were 38,946 of the male, and 25,115 of the female sex. The largest number, at the date of the census, was in the province of Lower Bengal, namely 16,402, comprising 10,625 males and 5,777 females; the next largest number in the provinces of Bombay, namely 10,921, comprising 6,786 males and 4,135 females; and the next largest number in the northwest provinces, namely 6,910, comprising 3,843 males and 3,067 females. In the central provinces there were, at the date of the census, only 276 British-born subjects, namely, 173 males and 103 females. In the three capital cities of India, the number of British subjects was as follows, at the census of June 15, 1871:

—The occupations of the British-born subjects in India were as follows, at the census of 1871, under the six classes adopted by the English registrar general:

—At the last enumerations there were in British India forty-four towns with a population of over 50,000 inhabitants. The occupations of the adult male population of British India, calculated to number 57,508,150, were classified as follows at the last enumerations:

—In the northwest provinces and Madras the foundation has been laid of a national system of education; while public instruction throughout the whole of India has made great progress in recent years. Three universities, at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, were incorporated by acts of the government of India, in 1857. In the year ending March, 1880, there passed 787 candidates for admission at Calcutta, 1.094 at Madras, and 436 at Bombay.

—Trade and Commerce. The total value of the imports and exports of the Indian empire, including bullion and specie, was as follows in each of the ten fiscal years, ending March 31, 1871-80:

The total imports, if divided into merchandise and "treasure," the latter term meaning bullion and specie, were as follows in each of the ten fiscal years 1871-80:

Edition: current; Page: [27]

—The exports in the same ten years classified as merchandise and treasure, were as follows:

—The amount of bullion and specie imported annually into India is very large; but though it has been greatly on the increase in recent years, it is, on the whole, very fluctuating, especially as regards silver. The following table gives the imports, distinguishing gold and silver, in each of the ten fiscal years, ending March 31, from 1871 to 1880, inclusive:

—The following table shows the exports of bullion and specie, distinguishing gold and silver, in each of the ten fiscal years, ending March 31, from 1871 to 1880, inclusive:

—The imports of bullion and specie into India are mainly from the United Kingdom and from China; while the exports are shipped principally to the United Kingdom, Ceylon, China and South Africa.

—The extent of the commercial intercourse between India and the United Kingdom is shown in the subjoined table which gives the total value of the exports from India to Great Britain and Ireland, and of the imports of British produce and manufactures into India in each of the ten years, 1871-80:

—The staple article of export from India to the United Kingdom is raw cotton; but the quantities, and still more the value of the exports, have been greatly on the decrease within the decennial period. The following table exhibits the quantities and value of the exports of raw cotton from India to Great Britain in each of the ten years from 1871 to 1880, inclusive:

—Next to cotton, the most important articles of export from India to the United Kingdom in the year 1880 were jute, 4,633,327 cwts., of the value of £4,014,699; rice, 6,563,849 cwts., of the value of £3,134,556; tea, 45,138,111 lbs. of the value of £3,072,922; and untanned hides, 463,764 cwts., of the value of £1,616,634.

—The chief articles of British produce imported into India are cotton goods and iron. The imports of cotton manufactures, averaging two-thirds of the total British imports into India, were of the value of £12,835,744 in 1870; of £13,101,645 in 1871; of £13,078,831 in 1872; of £15,020,646 in 1873; of £16,216,491 in 1874; of £15,699,731 in 1875; of £14,934,370 in 1876; of £16,692,865 in 1877; of £15,078,497 in 1878; of £14,415,456 in 1879; and of £22,099,267 in 1880. Of iron the imports amounted to £1,637,584 in 1876, to £1,923,820 in 1877, to £1,767,526 in 1878, to £1,535,901 in 1879, and to £2,415,309 in 1880.

—Next to the United Kingdom, the countries having the largest trade with India are China, the straits settlements, and Ceylon.

—The internal commerce of India has been vastly developed of late years by the construction of several great lines of railways, made under the guarantee of the government. In the year 1845 two great private associations were formed for the purpose of constructing lines of railroad in India; but the projectors found it impossible to raise the necessary funds for their proposed schemes, without the assistance of the state. It was, Edition: current; Page: [28] therefore, determined by the Indian government to guarantee to the railway companies for a term of ninety-nine years, a rate of interest of 5 per cent. upon the capital subscribed for their undertakings; and in order to guard against the evil effects of failure on the part of the companies, the power was reserved by the government to surpervise and control their proceedings by means of an official director. The lands are given by the government free of expense, and the stipulated rate of interest is guaranteed to the shareholders in every case, except that of the traffic receipts of the line being insufficient to cover the working expenses, in which event the deficiency is chargeable against the guaranteed interest. Should the net receipts be in excess of the sum required to pay the guaranty, the surplus is divided into equal parts between the government and the shareholders, until the charge to the government for interest in previous years with simple interest thereon, has been repaid, after which time the whole of the receipts are distributed among the shareholders. The government has the power, at the expiration of twenty-five or fifty years from the date of the contracts, of purchasing the railways at the mean value of the shares for the three previous years, or of paying a proportionate annuity until the end of the ninety-nine years, when all of the lands and works will revert from the companies to the government. In 1869 the government of India decided on carrying out all the new railway extensions by means of direct state agency, that is, without the intervention of guaranteed companies.

—The progress of the railway system in India since 1854 is here shown. Length of lines open for traffic Jan 1, 1854, 21; 1860, 624, 1867, 3,567; 1872, 5,072, 1878, 7,324, 1879, 7,994; 1880, 8,228.

—The number of passengers carried on the railways of India largely increased in the course of ten years, rising from 15,999,633 in 1869 to 43,144,608 in 1879.

—The gross receipts of all the railways during the year 1879 amounted to £11,231,108, while the gross expenses in the same year were £5,858,512, equal to 52.16 per cent of the earnings.

—The total amount of guaranteed capital raised for the construction of railways up to March 31, 1879, amounted to £96,444,666, while the total outlay upon railways, both state and guaranteed, amounted to £119,979,139 at the same date.

—For the year ending March 31, 1879, the number of miles of line of all the telegraphs in India amounted to 18,589; the total receipts were £353,741, and the working expenditure £305,381. At that time there were 250 telegraph offices.

—BIBLIOGRAPHY: Karl Ritter, Erdkunde von Asien, vols 3-5, Leipzig, 1834-7; Thornton, A Gazetteer of the Territories under the Government of the East India Company, 2d ed., London, 1857, Montgomery Martin, British India, its History, Topography, Government, etc., London, 1857; and The Progress and Present State of British India. London, 1862; Bell, The Empire in India, London, 1864; Lott and Hughes, A Manual of the Geography of India, London, 1863; Latham, Ethnology of India, London, 1859; II., A. and R. Schlagintweit, Results of a Scientific Mission to India and High Asia, undertaken between the years 1854 and 1858, etc., vols. 1-4, Leipzig, 1860-66, with Atlas: Zur Erinnerung an die Reise des Prinzen Waldemar von Preussen nach Indien in den J., 1844-6, 2 vols., Berlin, 1855; Von Otlich. Indien und seine Regierung. Leipzig, 1859-61, and Reise nach O., Leipzig, 1845: Andrassy, Reise in O., Ceyton, Java, etc., from the Hungarian, Pesth, 1859: Balbezen, Les A glais de l'Inde. Paris, 1875; Duncan, Geography of India Madras, 1876; The Guide Books of Murray, Bradshaw, etc. The best works on the early history of India are: Lassen, Ind. Alterthumskunde,. 4 vols., Bonn, 1844-62, 2d ed., 1 vol., Leipzig, 1866. Drucker, Geschichte des Alterthums, 3d ed., 2 vols., Leipzig, 1867; Wheeler, History of India during the Hindoo Period 2 vols., London, 1867; Elliott, The History of India, comprising the Massalman Period. 3 vols., London, 1867; Sullivan, The Conquerors, Warriors and Statesmen of India. London, 1867; Wheeler, The History of India from the Earliest Ages, vols. 1-4, London, 1867-75. The history of the Anglo-Indian empire is treated of in the works of Malcolm, 1784-1823, 3 vols., London, 1826; Mill, 5th ed., by Wilson, London, 1855; Elphinstone, 5th ed., 2 vols., London, 1866. Thornton, 6 vols., London, 1842-5; Neumann, Geschichte des engl Reichs in Asien, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1857, and Ostasiat Geschichte, Leipzig, 1861; Torrens, Empire in Asia. How we came by it, London, 1872, etc. The histories devoted to the earliest events are Trotter. The History of the British Empire in India, 1844 to 1862. London, 1865; Arnold. The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration, 2 vols., London, 1862; Kaye. History of the Sepoy War in India, 2d ed., 3 vols., London, 1866-76; Rennie, Bhotan and the Story of the Dooar War. London, 1866; Markham. Statement Exhibiting the Moral and Material Progress and Condition of India, vols. 1-6, London, 1873.

ECONOMY

ECONOMY, Political. (See POLITICAL ECONOMY.)

ECUADOR.

ECUADOR. This state was formerly part of the immense colonial possessions of Spain, and afterward, till 1831, constituted, together with New Grenada and Venezuela, the republic of Colombia. Ecuador had to pass through many an ordeal of civil and foreign war before it was able to give itself a definite constitution. It has frequently modified its constitution of 1835, without ceasing, however, to be a republic. The attempts of Gen. Florés to establish a monarchy proved abortive. The legislative power is in the hands of an elective congress, and the executive power is in a president.

—The president exercises his functions through a cabinet of three ministers, who, together with himself and the vice-president, are Edition: current; Page: [29] responsible, individually and collectively, to the congress. There is no power of veto with the president, nor can he dissolve, shorten or prorogue the sittings of congress. By the terms of the constitution no citizen can enjoy titular or other distinctions, nor are hereditary rights or privileges of rank and race allowed within the territory of the republic.

—Ecuador forms a triangle, bounded by the lesser chain of the Cordilleras, which separates it from Colombia, by the Pacific ocean, and by the river Amazon. The area of Ecuador is estimated at 248,372 English square miles, and its population in 1875 was 1,066,137.

—The public revenue in the year 1876 was reported to have amounted to $1,655,000; and the expenditure to $2,400,000. About one half of the revenue is derived from customs duties on imports at the port of Guayaquil, which produced $838,615. At the commencement of 1877 the liabilities of the republic amounted, according to returns of that date, to about $16,370,000, made up of a foreign debt of $9,120,000, contracted in England in 1855, and internal liabilities, $7,250,000. The standing army is estimated to number 1,200 men, while the navy consisted in 1879 of three small steamers.

—The country is one of the most beautiful. Although situated under the equator, it has every variety of climate, the Cordilleras containing a large number of peaks covered with perpetual snow. Nowhere is the vegetation so luxuriant and so rich in valuable products; the country has minerals of various kinds, but as yet little attention has been paid to working them.

—The foreign commerce of Ecuador is mainly with the United Kingdom, and centres in Guayaquil. The total value of the exports of Ecuador to Great Britain, and of the imports of British produce into Ecuador, was as follows in the five years 1875-9:

The chief articles of export from Ecuador to Great Britain in the year 1879 consisted of Peruvian bark of the value of $1,008,045, and cocoa, of the value of $1,271,365. Of the imports of British produce into Ecuador, cotton goods, to the value of $958,505, formed the principal article in 1879. (See Statesman's Year Book, 1881.)

EDUCATION AND THE STATE

EDUCATION AND THE STATE. The legal right of any state to expend its revenues in the education of the children of its subjects or citizens must be governed by the terms of its constitution. In an absolute government it can have no limit. In a government, like that of Germany, which may be defined as that of absolutism, criticized and to some extent checked by a parliament, it must depend partly on the will of the ruler and to a less degree upon the purpose of the parliament. In a strictly parliamentary government, like that of Great Britain, and, with exceptions which need not here be noted, that of France, it is regulated by the majority in the legislature, or in the controlling house of the legislature. In a representative republican government, like that of the United States and of each state, it depends on the provisions of the constitution, and where these confer discretionary authority, as is the case in most of the state constitutions, upon the will of the legislature from time to time. The broader question of the proper limitations, arising from consideration of the greatest good to the greatest number, or from consideration of the nature of the trust imposed in governments, that should be observed in the establishment, regulation and scope of schools, can only arise in an imperative manner, under the more liberal governments, such as those of Great Britain, France and the United States, or the individual members of the American Union. As a matter of fact it is chiefly under these that the question of the function of the state as to education has been discussed with a direct view to practical results. The present article will be devoted mainly to the question as it presents itself in the United States. Upon that question, however, the principles and policy of foreign nations necessarily throw much light. The avowed purpose of the German system is to extend education up to a certain point, which would be a high one if taken upon any standard applied in the United States, compulsorily to the youth of both sexes, and beyond that point to offer opportunity at very small cost for the highest possible education to all who choose to seek it. All education is assumed to be a state affair, and is either directed by the officers of the state, or is immediately controlled by them. Entire singleness of purpose and practical uniformity of method are required. The state assumes at once the power and the obligation implied in this policy. Each of the smallest divisions—commune or parish—has its local board, above these is the regency, and above these the province; but over all is the central government with its extensive and minute system of inspection, its absolute veto over specific acts, and its strict enforcement of subordination. The necessary funds are provided from a very low rate of tuition from scholars able to pay, from civil appropriations, from endowments, or, in case of deficiency, from local taxation. Every child from seven to fourteen is obliged to attend school, and the neglect or refusal of parents to comply with this requirement is punished by an elaborate system of penalties, sustained by public opinion and sanctioned by long usage. Beyond the age of fourteen direct compulsion ceases, and powerful inducement takes its place. The learned professions are confined to the graduates of the universities; certain civil positions are limited in like Edition: current; Page: [30] manner; all teachers are required to have taken a university degree, and the university can only be reached through the intermediate schools. Up to the age of fourteen the instruction given may fairly be compared to that afforded in the "grammar" schools of the larger American cities. Beyond that the range is practically unlimited. The universities, which are the crowning stage of the general system, are kept within the vigilant general direction of the central government. Throughout the system the complete separation of the church from any authoritative share in education is now a fixed principle, though the comparatively recent date of its adoption—1870—and the conservative disposition of the government in dealing with so delicate a matter still leave considerable actual influence to the clergy.

—In France a principle, in effect the same as that of Germany, is adopted and is being gradually enforced: Compulsory primary education under entire control by the state, and the direct provision or the encouragement and subvention as well as general regulation of higher instruction. The theory of the secularization of education has been ardently advocated and widely favored, but is not completely adopted or applied as yet. Whether it will finally be established is a question too intimately involved in the changing phases of French politics to admit of positive determination. It is probable, however, that the curious tendency of French political leaders to follow almost literally the more striking features of the conduct of their conquerors in the memorable struggle of 1870-71, will be as marked in educational as it has been in military affairs. The temperament and mental qualities of the two nations will enforce some radical differences in methods and in results, but France is apparently moving steadily, and, for the time, very rapidly in the direction of universal, uniform, compulsory primary instruction, and of higher education more and more developed and maintained under the narrow supervision of the central government.

—One significant difference, however, is already to be remarked between the systems of the two nations and the manner in which they are being unfolded. The German system is modeled on that of Prussia, where it originated in the purpose of an enlightened and determined ruler to bring a relatively backward people, surrounded by powerful and jealous rivals, to a condition of general intelligence and practical efficiency that would enable them to take a higher rank both in peace and in war. This people, comparatively homogeneous, and holding, though unquestionably in a narrow and rather bigoted fashion, the doctrines of the Protestant religion, and submitted to its influence toward independent judgment and self-control, were not only permitted but encouraged to press their way in the world of thought, with marked freedom in whatever direction their leading minds should choose. The intervention of the clergy, though active and constant, was never peculiarly repressive, and intellectual enterprise, for its own sake, received a considerable degree of cordial recognition and encouragement. In France, the beginnings of intellectual and political freedom were made in open revolt against political and ecclesiastical despotism, and the revolution was followed by the restoration of both these reactionary forces. The progress that has been conquered since has been steadily and often violently opposed by the party of absolute monarchy and of the Roman Catholic church, and both have been constantly arrayed against the principle of general education. It thus happens that at this time the advocates of general education are forced to make secularization of the school system their objective point, and this necessity introduces elements of confusion, of difficulty and of passion into the problem which it would be very desirable to avoid, and which must retard and perhaps compromise the result. It will be several generations, with every possible success for the movement toward universal instruction, before the French people can furnish the intellectual material for a system as complete, vigorous, well organized and highly developed as the German system. In the meantime, the battle for education is, what it can never be in the United States, a battle with clericalism on the one hand, and with political reaction on the other.

—If now we turn to the American Union we find conditions entirely different from those either in Germany or France, and much more nearly those existing in Great Britain, though differing from these also, and, in all regards, presenting a problem far more easily solved, and the solution of which promises more immediately valuable results. In the first place, the work of popular education in the United States is not now and is not likely ever to be either directly in the hands of the general government or under its close control. Were the popular sentiment of the country less definitely formed or less firmly established for the promotion of education, this fact might be regarded with regret. As it is, it is a hopeful element in the future. If American education may lack something of the symmetry and precision that might be obtained from the initiative of a central government, it will have qualities far outweighing these in value. It will be more free, more varied, in closer harmony with the intellectual needs of different sections and different classes, and will draw its vigor from surer and more enduring sources. The task of imposing general instruction upon the citizens of the country is one which is not required in the United States. By a happy combination of circumstances the necessity for such instruction was early recognized here, and not only has it never been ignored, but the appreciation of it has steadily grown. The early settlers of New England were profoundly impressed by it. They came to found here a state in which every citizen should bear his part, and should be fitted to bear Edition: current; Page: [31] it. The conditions of citizenship were narrow and rigid. No heterogeneous community was intended or expected. The state was to be intimately bound up with the church, and the members of the one were to be the members of the other; but the church as well as the state was substantially democratic, and authority rested largely on the conscience and reason of those over whom it was exercised, but who, also, delegated it. Both religious and civil duties required a certain free exchange of opinion and the instruction that is a condition of such exchange. Schools were provided for at the start, and were carefully and devotedly sustained. The two great colleges of the Union at the present time, widely separated as they now are in methods and purpose, had their common origin in the conviction of the enlightened founders of New England commonwealths that education was, if not a function, a proper object of care for the state. In other states the sentiment in support of public education was not so strong or so general and active, but it existed, in various degrees, and it steadily advanced. The self-government in which every colony largely engaged, and which became complete after the revolution, brought to public life the most keenly intelligent and best instructed men of the comparatively small and homogeneous communities, and these early perceived that the condition precedent of the successful maintenance of representative government was general instruction. Neither the then current ideas, nor the resources then available, were consistent with any elaborate system. The most that could be hoped for or had, and all that was sought, was the widest possible extension of elementary knowledge. This placed those who received it on no very high intellectual plane, but upon a common plane, on which all were fairly equal, and comparatively few were essentially ignorant. The absence of any strong central government and the necessity in each community of providing for its own needs, kept alive the interest of each community, and tended to create that ineradicable and universal belief in the common school which has become traditional in the United States. This tendency, already strong while the population of the Union remained, in substance, native, was intensified when the volume of immigration became large. It was then seen not only that general education was more than ever necessary to bring the mass of voters up to a tolerable standard of intelligence, but that free public schools were the only instrumentality which could be relied on to promote the assimilation of the enormous additions to the population. The immigrants were of diverse nationalities. The two most important bodies were the Irish and the Germans, but there were considerable contingents from other sources. Left to themselves, these people would naturally keep and transmit to their children the ideas, the prejudices, the mental and social habits of the races from which they sprung, and these would ever tend to become more narrow and obstinate in the isolation caused by a surrounding population different and, to some extent, unfriendly. The free public school was not only the best, but the only, means of bringing the children of these parents of various races together and of imbuing all with the general ideas and sentiments that would enable them to act together, in mature life, as one people. Had there been no other raison d'êtrefor the free public school this would have been amply sufficient. Whatever defects or errors may exist in the system in the United States, and they are certainly many, it is not too much to say that the Union as it is to-day, with its vast possibilities of development, its rich promise to the hundred or more millions who are to occupy and possess the continent under its rule, would have been impossible without it. To be convinced of this fact one has only to consider what were the conditions under which the armies of the Union were recruited in the war of the rebellion, and what was the origin of that general, steadfast, potent sentiment of fidelity to the institutions of free government which made vain the gallant and passionate struggle of the southern states; but beyond this must be considered what it is that has so far rendered possible the adjustment of that momentous dispute, the reestablishment of a peaceful and effective Union on the ruins of the southern confederacy, the enfranchisement of a servile race on an equality with their former masters, the beginning throughout the south, of a career of sound industrial and commercial activity and of a rational political existence. Bitter and violent as have been some of the experiences of the Union since the war, the condition of affairs finally arrived at is a marvel in the history of civil struggles, and the forces which have brought it about could never have been called into play but for the free public school throughout the north and its steady progress in the south.

—We have, then, in the United States, the public school firmly established, sustained by an intelligent and ardent public sentiment, destined to extend the field of its influence and to become a constantly more important element in the national life. It may be regarded as secure from even any serious discussion of its right to exist. It has no enemies worthy of attention. Religious prejudice, which alone can be suspected of opposing any barrier to it, is sure, in the future, only to strengthen the popular sense of its value and necessity. The most excessive factional feeling has never dared to assail it. The questions, therefore, which remain to be discussed, are: in what way can the school be made most useful? within what limits can it be properly maintained at the general cost? and at what point should it turn its pupils over to the agencies provided by private educational enterprise? These questions must necessarily engage more and more the attention of our publicists and of our educators. At present, and for some time to come, they must concern only Edition: current; Page: [32] the more populous cities and the more advanced states. For a very large part of the country they can hardly be said to exist, because a very large proportion of the public schools are, and for a considerable period must remain, very crude and imperfect, far within the lowest limit which they should observe, and, from the condition of the population, the available resources and the direction of public sentiment, obliged to fulfill only the lowest functions of which they are capable In districts, for instance, where for eight weeks in the year a scanty attendance is secured for a single school, taught by an inexperienced girl or boy at a pay of $12 to $16 a month, it is quite absurd to suggest the discussions to which reference has been made. But in cities like Chicago, New York, Boston and Philadelphia, the system has reached a point where these questions become imperative; in many others they are important, while the rapid advance of every part of the country in population and wealth constantly extends the area in which they will present themselves for consideration. The tendency of opinion with reference to them among those engaged in the public schools themselves is undoubtedly toward extending the scope of public gratuitous instruction, developing the "high school" and the "college," giving every applicant access to the highest available education. The evidence of this tendency is to be found in the journals devoted to education, in the discussions of public school teachers in their "institutes," in the reports of city, county and state superintendents, and especially in the papers and debates of the annual meetings of superintendents under the auspices of the bureau of education, in the department of the interior at Washington. The tendency is entirely natural. It is the effect of the desire which has given rise to the well-known maxim in law that every court will extend its own jurisdiction as far as it can. But the time has come when the question must be treated from the standpoint of the statesman rather than that of the teacher. The public school in the United States has passed beyond the comparatively narrow field which it once occupied; its maintenance involves the expenditure of a vast sum every year. Its influence upon the political as well as the social life of the people must be more carefully regarded, and its regulation and development should proceed on reasonably defined and comprehensive principles—In a representative republican government, such as that of the United States and those of the several states, there is one simple general rule in regard to the use of the money raised by taxation from the community. It is that it should be employed for those purposes only which are of general necessity or of supreme utility, and which can be attained by the state only, or by the state to a degree or in a way very far superior to those of private effort. Obviously this rule, simple in itself, is not always easily defined or clearly applied. It is, in that regard, like nearly all the general principles which guide the course of government, and which, nevertheless, are of great value. It is the business of the publicist to make such use of them as can be made in the circumstances by which he finds himself surrounded. He has no right to abandon them or to violate them because they can not be reduced to the precision of a mathematical formula, or be adjusted to legislation as readily as an engineer's drawing to a piece of masonry. Between a measure which plainly accords with such a principle and one which does not accord with it at all there are many stages, and from one to the other of these the advance may well be regarded as involving an excusable variation, but it is the duty of the statesman to draw the line firmly at that medium which, though arbitrarily fixed, nevertheless secures a practical compliance with the principle, a substantial gain of its read advantages, and the avoidance of any serious evils arising from its violation. The principle which has been stated clearly justifies the free public school in the several states of the Union, the expenditure of the public revenue for its maintenance, and, under existing circumstances, the appropriation of a reasonable sum from federal taxation for the encouragement and support of schools in those states which are either unable or, for the time, indisposed to maintain them. General public instruction is a recognized need of the republic. As has been pointed out, it has been, so far as it has been carried, fully approved by public opinion. The question now is, how far it can rightly be carried, and how, within the limits set for it, it can be made most fruitful of the greatest good to the greatest number. The radical objection to what is called higher education by the state in the United States is, that it is a direct violation of the principle which has been above laid down. The education afforded in the high schools and public colleges now in existence, and that proposed in the like schools which have from time to time been advocated, is certainly not a work of general necessity, and its utility is very far from being of so elevated and certain a character as to approach very closely to necessity. Just as certainly it is not a work which can not be done by private agencies, and done equally well or very much better. It is not a work of necessity, because it is not requisite for any of the ordinary and essential functions of the citizen's life, as is shown by the fact that the majority of citizens in states where it is conferred at public expense have never enjoyed its advantages, and political life in these states is, nevertheless, above the average in wholesome activity and intelligence. It is further incidentally shown by the fact that many of our most efficient public men who have done service of no mean value, have never had schooling of this character. That it is desirable, no one, probably, will seriously deny, but it is no more desirable than many other things which the state is not, and should not be, Edition: current; Page: [33] called upon to supply. Moreover, however desirable it may be, it is not unattainable without state aid. In this country, and in almost every section of it, any young man or young woman, who values higher education enough to be willing to seek it with energy, patience and self-denial, and who has capacity enough to make a good use of it when obtained, can get it. Again, it is easily seen by any one who will examine any of the free schools for higher education now in existence that a very large proportion, probably much more than one-half, of those who attend them are the children of parents who are entirely able to provide such education at their own proper cost; very many of these would undoubtedly do so if they were forced to. If, then, it be conceded that the state can, as a rule, furnish higher education of a kind as valuable and as perfectly suited to the needs of the scholars as would be obtained from private agencies—a concession which is open to much question—it still remains true that this is not a proper object for the expenditure of the common fund derived from taxation. It benefits too small a class of the citizens, and it benefits a class who least require public aid to secure it. It is argued that those whose children reap the advantages of this sort of public education pay taxes in proportion to their means, which is roughly true, but they do not pay in proportion to what they get, while the poorer class, who get nothing whatever, pay what to them is a very much higher and more burden-some tax. By the operation of the laws which govern the incidence of taxation, and which the intimate intercommunication of modern life makes very certain and remorseless, taxes upon real estate tend to fall more heavily on the poor than on those who are not poor; it even happens in no small number of cases that the taxes of the wealthier are thrown off upon the poorer. There is, then, an obvious injustice in maintaining at public expense schools which those can rarely or never use who are compelled to make the greatest sacrifices in maintaining them.

—If it be conceded that high schools, and those schools which are not accessible to the children of persons of moderate means, may properly be maintained in communities where the tax payers shall have clearly expressed their desire for such use of the school funds, it must still be required that before any such use of the fund be made, the primary schools shall be of the best possible kind, and give ample opportunity for instruction to all children of the age, say from six to fourteen, at which instruction may fairly be made obligatory. It is so closely logical as hardly to need more than statement, that what the state may properly require the parents to submit to their children receiving at a direct loss of time and services, that, at least, the state should provide (1) of the highest practicable character, and (2) in a form entirely available. It is notorious that in no part of the United States is the first of these conditions completely complied with, while in far the greater part of the Union neither of them is complied with. The primary instruction which is supplied in the public schools, even the best equipped and the most carefully arranged, is essentially defective, while even in those communities where the most care has been taken, and the most money has been expended, there is still a very noticeable and much to be regretted want of accommodation for the primary scholars. In the major portion of the country not only is the primary instruction very much below what is known now to be the best, but the schools are wanting as to their number, their sittings, the force of teachers and the needed school equipment. The first work, therefore, to which the state is bound to direct its attention and its energies is, not the creation of so-called "high" schools, but the increase of the number of primary schools and the improvement of the instruction which they afford.

—In this connection the term "primary instruction" is applied, as above indicated, to that which may conveniently be given to the children of the age at which instruction may be made compulsory. What that age should be is an open question, but it may roughly be indicated as from six to fourteen years. These limits might, with profit, be changed in certain cases according to the circumstances of the various communities. Instruction might be begun at an age earlier than six, and it might be desirable to release the child from school at an age earlier than fourteen. It would be quite practicable to commence with the age of four, under a completely organized system, and to teach as much by the age of twelve as the child under the ordinary methods has learned at fifteen, and very much more and of more worth. These are details which would settle themselves, if the correct and fruitful principle were adopted; the important thing to observe is, that the duty of the state is to do all that can be done for the child at as early an age as possible, and that when this has been done, the child may and ought to be turned over to private agencies, which can do the work of further education fully as well, and even better than those that the state can provide. Nor is it a question simply of what preference shall be given to one of two kinds of instruction for either of which the means are easily provided. It is rather a question of what shall be done with a sharply limited sum. There are certain bounds beyond which the public can not be taxed, even for the support of free schools, highly as these are valued and cheerfully as they are usually supplied. The load of taxation is already very heavy in all the older parts of the United States, and its tendency is to grow heavier rather than lighter. We have no such struggle for existence as many of the older parts of Europe experience, but the difficulty of keeping up the standard of comfort to which the great mass of Americans have become habituated is getting to be greater and greater in all of our larger cities, and in very many of our towns and Edition: current; Page: [34] villages. The almost unbroken rise in rents and in the cost of many of the necessaries of daily life, together with the unfortunate but apparently inevitable tendency to extravagance, especially among persons of only moderate income, make the larger average annual earnings or profits of the American worker or American tradesman, go less far in the provision of essentials than a much more modest sum in older countries. In this curtailing of the real resources of the citizen, taxation necessarily bears a very large part. With our present very defective methods of getting public business done, with the lack of accountability and stability, of consistency and permanence, in the local public service, there is but little hope that the burden of taxation will be materially lightened, and the share of the revenue which can be counted on for the public schools is by no means indefinite. It is, therefore, absolutely required that it should be husbanded with great care, that it should be made to yield the greatest practicable results, and that these results should be, as far as possible, to the advantage of the greatest number. Already in some of the most advanced states, and in some of the largest and most liberal cities, there is a notable demand for economy in this direction, which is sure to grow stronger and more imperative. The answer to that demand certainly should not he a decrease in the salaries of teachers, or a general reduction in the cost of the schools, but a concentration of expenditure upon the more essential kind of instruction and the greatest possible development of that.

—The argument for this policy is very far from being a negative one. It is not merely that the state ought not to devote the funds derived from common taxation to a class of schools which are of necessity useful only to a minority of the tax payers; it is that the field of primary education is quite worthy of the utmost that the state can do. It is a common error, that the teaching of children under the age of twelve or fourteen is something which can be safely left to unskilled persons; that it is a comparatively simple work, that it is necessary mainly to enable the pupil to take that which is afterward offered, but that in itself it is drudgery at once to the teacher and to the taught, which may be got through with as best may be. This error is, happily, no longer current among those who have given any considerable study to the subject, or who are entitled to be heard in regard to it; but it exists to an extent which few writers on education know, among those who have the determination of the character of our schools, of the studies that shall be followed in them, and of the manner in which they shall be taught. A close acquaintance with the school officers, and even with the school teachers, of the various states, a direct study of the schools themselves, a knowledge, though but partial, of the views of the average local legislator and the tax payers, would reveal a prevalence of this gravely mistaken notion which is of the utmost consequence in forecasting the future of our public school system.

—The notion is not only mistaken but it is exceedingly mischievous. It tends directly to the neglect of the child at a period when, of all others, he can be most readily, most profitably and most completely taught, and this neglect can never be wholly made up to him. The condition of all valuable instruction is curiosity on the part of the learner, and curiosity is a natural, universal, persistent quality of the mind of the young child. The process of sane and useful education consists in very large part of the direction and satisfaction of this inherent curiosity, which, like every other quality, is developed and strengthened and rendered more active and efficient by legitimate exercise. If, at the age when this quality is strong in every healthy child, the work of learning is made hard or tedious, if the labor of acquisition is made too great for the obvious and appreciated results acquired, the faculty of curiosity is weakened, the instrument with which all future work must be done is blunted. The pupil may afterward reacquire it: his curiosity may be tardily awakened; he may be incited by other motives, such as fear, or emulation, to do the necessary labor of learning, but he will have lost much that he can never regain: his nature will have been crippled or stunted; he will never be so useful to himself or society as he might have been; he will do what he is capable of doing at a disadvantage, with greater effort and with less and less available result. Most of our primary schools ignore to a greater or less degree this most important fact. Children under ten or twelve years are crowded together, in the charge of teachers of immature age, little or no training, defective general education and undeveloped character. To each of these is given a number of scholars greater than the most skillful, alert and experienced teacher could deal with in a manner at all satisfactory. Much is done to benumb, almost nothing is done to awaken, direct or feed the desire of the child for learning. Arbitrary and conventional tasks are imposed. In the larger schools the necessities of the system adopted require rigid and minute uniformity of management. Each class is a part of a closely regulated and interconnected machinery. Individuality is repressed. The incitements of direct and intimate personal intercourse with the more highly developed mind of the teacher is nearly impossible. Classes follow each other in rapid succession; a series of hurried examinations or recitations leaves neither time nor chance for anything but the most monotonous and mechanical action of the pupil's faculties. The progress, such as it is, of each division, is measured by a standard based on that capacity for receiving instruction, thus faultily given, which exists not among the brightest, but among nearly the dullest of the members of the division. The more intelligent are held back; the weakest are driven forward; the progress of all is halting, unnatural and misdirected. That which is taught is necessarily confined to what can be Edition: current; Page: [35] taught under these conditions. The system imposes itself upon those who have the administration of it, whether they will or no. It is idle to think of teaching much that requires adaptation of means and methods by the teacher to the wants, the desires, the suggestions of the pupils' varying minds. The school is a mill which goes on day after day, grinding out as nearly a uniform grist as it can, with very little reference to the grain that is provided for it, or the uses to which its products may be devoted, or of which they may be capable. This is the condition of things in many of the larger schools in the larger cities. In the smaller towns or villages and rural districts, a like result is got by different means. Here the number of pupils is smaller, but the capacity of the teachers is even less. The supervision, which, to some extent, prevents the worst consequences of the bad methods in the larger schools, is generally wanting. The teachers, with little or no conception of the possibilities or requirements of their calling, imitate, as best they can, the model set up for them in the larger schools. The machine is smaller, but it is-still a machine, constructed on the same principle, run for the same ends, and accomplishing its limited purposes with a like hard, mechanical, but more defective regularity. The things taught are of substantially the same nature, but less in number, and usually even less adapted to what should be the object of the primary school. That the result is of considerable worth, and even of great worth, no one who knows the effect of the worst primary schools on the population to which they are directed will deny; what is obvious is, that the result is not nearly as great or as good as it might be, at the same cost of time, money and energy. This proposition is not easily proven by statistics, in the first place, because it is not easily susceptible of mathematical proof; in the next place because such statistics as would throw light upon it are not collected in this country. But it is quite susceptible of demonstration that our public schools turn out pupils very much less fitted for the common duties of life than they might, even after they have passed them through what are, with very doubtful accuracy, called the "upper" grades. Thus every school is supposed to be able to teach the "three R's," that is to say, to enable its pupils to read intelligibly, and to understand ordinary matter, to write legibly and correctly, and to go through with the elementary processes of dealing with numbers. During the last three years there have been competitive examinations for appointment in the New York custom house, based in part on questions in copying from dictation, in numeration and annotation, in addition, in fractions, in grammar, in letter writing and in penmanship. An official report of these examinations up to Feb. 21, 1881, gives the education of 731 competitors, and that of 471, or 64 per cent., is described as "common school." The mean standing of all the competitors; in the subjects named, fairly reflects the standing of these 471. It was, in copying, 74 02 (on a standard of 100); in numeration and notation, only 76.24; in addition, correctness only and not rapidity being regarded, it was but 72.03; in fractions, the problems being of the simplest character, it fell to 37.33; in grammar, it was 69.16; in letter writing, it was 65 66, and was decently high only in penmanship, where it was 80.91. Of the 731 competitors, 123 were appointed, with an average standing of 88.54. Of these, those having "common school education," were only 51 per cent., though they were 64 per cent. of the applicants, and the average age of the appointees was thirty-five years, which indicates that the more recent graduates of the common schools were at a marked disadvantage. These figures give a general idea unfavorable to the proficiency of the pupils in the public schools in the simpler and most valuable branches. A careful inspection of a large part of the papers with special reference to this question very strongly confirms that impression. It reveals, among those definitely traced to the schools, a variety of ignorance, a degree of failure on the part of the schools to fit them for the most common and necessary use of the knowledge pretended to have been imparted, which would be ludicrous if it were not disheartening. As has already been said, this evidence does not prove that the public schools, just as they are, do not do a great deal of good, or are not a great deal better than none, it does not prove that they are not a proper agency for the state to employ to secure the degree of instruction which is absolutely needed by its citizens; but it does prove, and conclusively, that they do not do the work for which they are specially intended, and for which they are specially fitted, as that work ought to be done. The causes for this relative failure are not far to seek. They may be fairly included in the statement that the schools seek to do too much, and do not seek to do that thoroughly which is the most important. And the remedy is plainly to confine their work within narrower limits, and to improve them, with reference to that work, to the greatest possible extent. This involves the surrender of the higher and more costly schools, the increase in number of the schools devoted to elementary instruction, the provision of a larger body of teachers, their better training and adequate supervision. Of these requirements the first is essential to the fulfillment of the others. The development of a complete system of elementary instruction is practically impossible while the present miscalled "higher" schools are maintained. These latter not only absorb a very large share of the money that is needed for the more essential schools, but they create a false standard; they turn the efforts of the teaching force in a wrong direction; they stimulate the desire both of teachers and pupils, not to the mastery of the substantial branches, but to "promotion" along the arbitrary line leading to these "upper" grades or schools. The whole energy of the system should be confined to complete and effective education Edition: current; Page: [36] in the branches really necessary, and progress should be made, not in quantity but in quality. It is true that abolition of the upper schools is called for now only in the system of the larger cities and more advanced towns, but it is the more imperatively called for there, because this system is the model to which the schools in the smaller towns and less important districts are now adapted as much as possible. It is in the larger cities that the more serious evils of the present system are most clearly shown and tend most strongly to increase, and it is from these that the mischievous influence proceeds which constantly tends to produce these evils throughout the country and to prevent a needed and fruitful reform. It is from these that a contrary influence can be extended throughout the rest of the land, and the general system be brought nearer to that which must be created, if we are to get from our schools the full measure of utility that we are entitled to expect. If the reform can be begun in the larger cities and towns by gradually limiting instruction to that of an elementary character, that measure of itself will tend to improve the quality of the instruction given. The false and mistaken goal being removed, the natural effect will be to push toward the goal which is set up with greater zeal and intelligence. The intellectual and moral force of the teaching class, great as it unquestionably is, will cease to be wasted in the vain pursuit of vague or arbitrary objects, and be turned with certain gain in efficiency toward the objects at once more valuable and more attainable lying much nearer. The already considerable number of educators who are weary of the unprofitable pursuit of the multiplied and multiform purposes that they are now required to keep in view, will be encouraged to devote themselves to the simpler, worthier and more practical task presented to them, and they will be steadily re-enforced by others who would gladly adopt a reformed system, but have not the courage or the independence to propose it.

—With the provision of a larger number of elementary schools, must necessarily come an increase in the number and a decided improvement in the character of the teachers employed in them. The schools being more numerous, the classes should be very much smaller, and a teacher should be required to take charge of only so many children as could be brought directly, easily and with benefit under his or her personal direction and influence. This involves an immediate, and, ultimately, a very large increase in the means for training teachers, and the provision of such means is one of the most obvious and proper functions of the state. If it can not be maintained that the state should provide what is now regarded as higher education for all applicants, gratuitously, it can not be denied that it should do all in its power to furnish an adequate supply of carefully chosen, highly trained teachers for the schools which it may establish and sustain. This is not only a legitimate but a necessary function of the state, in which any well-directed expenditure of care and money will be entirely justifiable. This principle has been rather vaguely but very generally recognized throughout the United States and is constantly gaining. Normal schools are already in existence in all but two or three of the states, and in some of them they are generously maintained and of high character. During the decade 1870-79 they increased in number and in attendance fully fourfold, and the tendency is fortunately still strong in the same direction. But there yet remain only too many sections of the country to which the quaint comment of Roger Ascham applies: "It is a pity, that commonly more care is had, yea and that among very wise men, to find out rather a cunning man for their Horse, than a cunning man for their Children. They say nay in word, but they do so in deed: For to the one they will gladly give a Stipetal of two hundred Crowns by the year, and loth to offer to the other two hundred Shillings. God that sitteth in Heaven laugheth their Choice to scorn, and rewardeth their Liberality as it should: For he suffereth them to have tame and well ordered Horse, but wild and unfortunate Children, and therefore in the end they find more. Pleasure in their horse, than Comfort in their children."

—The value of the normal schools varies greatly in the cities and states in which they are now established. The best of them, however, are inadequate to the end which should be kept in view. The average term of instruction is but one year. This, with the necessary allowance for vacations, is but little more than two-thirds of a year, or eight months of direct study. It must be conceded that even in this time much is accomplished, and the graduates of these schools are among the most useful of the teachers now engaged in active work. It must be added, also, that it is in these schools that the better notions of pedagogics have taken root most readily and most firmly, and it is among their pupils that we find the most effective and intelligent application of such notions. It is from these that many of the more thorough and ingenious of the primary teachers have sprung, who have at many widely separated points, established the nucleiof correct and profitable instruction. But no one familiar with the extent and delicacy and difficulty of the art of really good primary teaching, can for a moment suppose that any complete training, or even any satisfactory beginning of such training, can be had in the few months allowed to the ordinary normal school course. If we assume, what is very far from being the case, that the students admitted to the normal school are already fairly grounded in the elements of the studies which they are afterward to teach, the time is still very much too short. As a matter of fact the students are in great part very poorly prepared. At best they generally have only such preparation as can be got in what are called the grammar school grades, and can pass only routine examinations confined to the well defined limits within which they have been drilled. Edition: current; Page: [37] If they could be subjected to searching examinations to test their facile and familiar use of what they are supposed to have learned in the "three R's," it is probable that they would, in the words of Mr. Charles Francis Adams, Jun., to the Quincy scholars under like circumstances, "go to pieces." And it is the testimony of the managers of normal schools that it is often found necessary, not only to review, but to recommence the grammar school course. The material on which the normal schools have to work, though very ill-prepared, is in many respects otherwise exceedingly good. The spirit of the students is generally earnest; they are disposed and accustomed to patient industry, to self-denial, to discipline, and to the practical use of their opportunities. Though often too young, they are intent upon the end they have in view, and have, what is much more precious than mere mental brightness, the capacity for work. With proper means of instruction, sufficient time, the freedom from poverty which is their greatest drawback, and the incentive of a reasonable start in the profession that they have chosen, they are capable of becoming useful and admirable teachers.

—In this connection there is an ample and inviting field for the intervention of the government, and particularly of the federal government. The latter has already, in the military school at West Point and the naval school at Annapolis, given examples of the peculiar excellence of the instruction for special purposes which it can command when it seeks it. There is no reason why it should not undertake the establishment of some like system for the training of teachers. The military and naval schools take their pupils after careful examination; the pupils after supported during the time they are engaged in their studies, and they are at once required to give to the government a fixed time of practical service in the branches for which they have been trained, and are secured a position for life, if they choose to retain it. The justification for this system on the part of the government is that it is the best available for providing officers for the army and navy, which may at any time become absolutely indispensable to the maintenance of the republic. It is not too much to say that the defense and support afforded to the government by an efficient and universal system of public schools are as valuable and even as indispensable as those derived from the army and navy. The utility of the latter is indeed only exceptional and contingent, though entirely established; but the utility of the former is certain, constant, absolute, and will necessarily increase with the growth of the country. The constitutional power of the federal government to establish normal schools can be easily and amply maintained. It is but a specific branch of the power already used in the appropriation of public lands for the maintenance of technical schools, such as agricultural colleges, and for general purposes of education. The federal government would be entirely within its clearly established sphere in either establishing normal schools, or in encouraging their establishment by the states. It could properly and effectively work in both directions. It is hardly desirable, in the present condition of the civil service of the federal government, that it should undertake the direct management of the educational system in any of the states, even though this could be done with the consent of the latter. Nor is it desirable that it should assume at once the task of furnishing trained teachers for all state schools. But it is exceedingly desirable that a definite system should be begun, which should be capable of expansion. This system might with advantage be based on the general principles that govern the military academy. The federal government might undertake the training of a number of pupils, moderate at first, in the art of primary teaching. To render practicable the selection of the most capable and promising, without reference to previous circumstances in life, these students should be supported during the term of study, which should be sufficiently long to admit of the most thorough instruction. They should, of course, be admitted from any part of the Union, and considering the peculiar needs of the southern states, ample provision should be made for colored pupils. They should be held to the most careful and complete compliance with all the conditions of successful study, and should be promptly dismissed if they failed in this compliance or showed incapacity for a fixed degree of excellence in their profession. Upon graduation, they should be assured of employment at a fair salary for a determined period. As the federal government has no schools of its own in which to employ them, an arrangement would have to be made with the states for this purpose; but this would offer no practical difficulty. The best aid that the federal government could afford to education in the states would be in the shape of trained teachers, whose salaries should be paid either by the national, the state or the local governments according to conditions, which could be readily defined. In those states where application, based on the illiteracy of the population, should be made for assistance, the teachers might very wisely be paid wholly by the national government, and this would, of itself, be a field quite sufficient to furnish employment to all the federal teachers that could at first be supplied. When the system had once been fairly established, there would be no lack of demand for the graduates of the federal normal schools. It is now hardly doubtful, that before many years the federal government will take some definite and comprehensive action for the aid of public education in the states. This purpose has already been shown in the propositions submitted in congress, to devote a considerable portion of the revenue from public lands to the support of state schools. These propositions have received the support of leading representatives from all sections of the country, and of all shades of political opinion. They have been brought forward by the representatives of Edition: current; Page: [38] New England states, which would not at all share in their benefits, and which have shown entire willingness and capacity to maintain free public schools of the highest existing order at their own expense. They have been supported ardently by the representatives of southern states, which have been as completely revolutionized by the war for the Union in their ideas and purposes regarding education as in their political and social organization. And to these propositions have been added others, for the appropriation to the support of free schools of considerable amounts from the direct revenues of the treasury, and particularly from those derived from the tax on brewed and distilled liquors. While these measures are in themselves well-intended, and would, in a general way, further the advancement of education where it is most needed, they could not have as wide, as good or as permanent an influence as the system of federal normal schools above suggested. This latter might at least with great benefit be added to the others should they be adopted. The supply of teachers by the national government would relieve the states of an expense far greater than that incurred in training and paying the teachers, since a like number of equally good teachers could not be obtained by the individual action of the state or local authorities at even a much greater cost. On the other hand, the normal schools would enable the federal government to raise the character of the state schools, and to exercise a very desirable influence over them without the slightest direct or improper interference with them. The system would involve no departure from that wholesome principle of entire freedom on the part of the states which it is very important to preserve. For while the graduates of these schools would be trained under a generally uniform system, that system could and should be one which would rather develop their capacity than closely and narrowly direct their specific methods. They would retain the same liberty of personal activity which obtains among the graduates of West Point or Annapolis, who are indeed taught how battles may be fought and armies and ships managed, but who are also especially trained to the apt and ingenious application of all available resources to the various requirements of the situations in which they may be called upon to act. A peculiar advantage which would accrue from this system would be that it would enable the federal government to supply a sufficient body of highly educated and carefully trained persons specially fitted for the work of superintendence of schools, and it is precisely these for which there is now the greatest need throughout the Union. The great body of schools, in fact, are at present practically without skilled supervision, and much of the teaching force which they employ is nearly wholly wasted on this account. A careful, well-equipped and energetic superintendent can multiply the efficiency of even ordinary teachers many times, and his influence may readily make exceedingly valuable what without it would be nearly worthless. Such superintendents are not only rarely employed, but they are very rarely to be found, and when found the chances for their engagement under conditions that would give them all their usefulness is almost impracticable. But if such officers could be furnished by the federal government with little or no cost to the state or local authorities, and if their engagement were made the condition of the aid furnished by the federal government, it can readily be seem that they would soon become a force of great and increasing efficiency.

—In this connection, however, it would be important that the principle already defined regarding the legitimate limit of free public instruction should be carefully observed. The normal schools of the federal government should be devoted to the highest possible training of teachers of the elementary branches, and they should be confined to such training. The federal government, of all others, should faithfully observe and firmly enforce the rule that free public schools should give the best instruction, in those things which are essential to all future citizens, which are accessible to all, and that there they should stop. It can not only be no part of the duty of the central government to furnish "higher education" to a comparatively small proportion of its citizens at the expense of all, but it is clearly its duty to refrain from so doing and to exert all its influence to discouraging such a tendency on the part of the individual governments. Within the field thus limited it would find ample scope for its utmost energies, and it would be one of its most honor able functions to occupy that field worthily. If its influence were steadily and actively directed to providing complete instruction in the elements of education in those common, useful and necessary forms of knowledge and of mental activity for which children within the age, say, of fourteen are fitted, it would do as extensive work in shaping the future character of its people, and one most sorely needed. It can not be too often repeated or too clearly held, that within that age the child has at once the strongest claim upon the aid and guidance of the government, and the greatest aptitude in using them, and that beyond that, if the elementary work be even fairly done, all possible advancement lies within the reach of the great body of young Americans.

—Obviously the acceptance of this proposition bars the way to the entrance of the federal government upon the schemes so freely proposed for the foundation of a national university or for the establishment of a series of colleges throughout the Union. The arguments by which these schemes are supported rest upon a radically mistaken conception of the functions and constitutional powers as well as of the practical capacity of the federal government. Such institutions could not themselves carry out any of the defined purposes for which the constitution clothes the national government with authority, nor are they in any strict sense means necessary or proper to the exercise of the powers Edition: current; Page: [39] conferred. They differ radically and widely from schools intended and conducted to promote the common education needed by all, and they can only give that form of instruction which, on the one hand, the citizen has no right to claim at public expense, and which, on the other hand, the government neither has the right to give nor the means of giving in its best form. All the considerations that have been urged against the misdirection of public funds by states or municipalities in the support of high schools and colleges, apply with even greater force to the undertaking of still more advanced instruction by the federal government. In addition to these are others springing from the organization of the federal government. That organization aims neither at centralization nor permanence, and is opposed to both. The executive is submitted to popular election every four years. The more numerous and powerful branch of the congress is so submitted every two years, and at like periods one-third of the senate is passed upon by the state legislatures, under influences which are well known to be incompatible with consistency, much more with unity in the character of the senate. Under these circumstances, the difficulty of securing in the first instance an adequate plan for a national university would be very great, from the obvious lack of any considerable number of men engaged in the government capable of even understanding the requirements of such a plan, and from the fact that those who may at any one time happen to be so engaged are not secure of remaining long enough to enact the plan, or of exercising a controlling influence upon its character. Any university which can be regarded as possible would from the start be crude, empirical and defective in its character, and would tend gradually or perhaps rapidly to degenerate. Moreover a university is in its nature rather an organism than an organization. It is a thing of complicated purposes, of delicate instrumentalities, of constantly varying and developing needs. Its vital force must be within itself, and it depends for its efficiency, its adaptation to its work, upon the character of those who devote the energies of their life to its service. Such force could not be supplied by act of congress, and if in some measure it should chance to be provided at the outset, it would surely die out under the conditions that would attach to the administration of a government institution. It would be as difficult for congress to set up even the beginnings of a Harvard as for a chemist by uniting the elements disclosed to his analysis to reproduce the germ of a having plant. And in considering this fact, it must be borne in mind that Harvard is but an incomplete growth, the greatest value of which, even now, lies not so much in what it is as in what it has the power to be. Either as an instrumentality of higher education or as a means of promoting original investigation, on both of which grounds the plan has been advocated, a national university would be a singularly faulty contrivance, and destined rather to decay or perversion than to development and increase of usefulness. Similar institutions abroad are hardly models for the United States, since they exist under very different conditions. Those in Germany, which are most often cited, are maintained by a government which, on the one hand, is very nearly despotic and practically permanent, and which, on the other, accords to the universities, within certain broad lines, the greatest freedom. In other words, the government provides secure and uninterrupted means for the universities, to be used largely at the discretion of a permanent force of learned men, whose whole lives are given to the task. Such a scheme in the United States is almost "unthinkable." In France, where there has been far greater permanence and independence in its university than might have been expected from its frequently changing forms of government, the work of the university falls far short of that accomplished in Germany, while the most valuable and distinguished achievements of scholars and students have been due to men wholly unsupported and unaided by the government. In this connection may profitably be considered the history of England, which affords brilliant examples of the vigor and success with which the highest labors of science and scholarship have been pursued with little other encouragement than that supplied by the needs and aspirations of an intelligent people—It may be objected, and with some plausibility, that the obstacles to the successful foundation and maintenance of a national university in the United States arising from the organization of the government, would equally oppose themselves to the successful establishment of adequate normal schools. It is not to be hoped that the elements of instability and of demoralization which inhere in the constitution and in our present political methods could be kept entirely from influencing such schools. But two facts are to be borne in mind in this connection; one is, that the establishment of good normal schools is by far a less difficult task than the foundation of a university; the other is, that it is a task clearly within the constitutional authority and the field of duty of the federal government, and therefore to be undertaken with the best means that can be commanded. It is reasonable to suppose that the project of the supply by the federal government of teachers, thoroughly trained in the art of elementary instruction, would, if properly presented, commend itself strongly to the majority of those in congress who are now disposed to extend federal aid to the public schools of the states Once fairly started, the system would constantly strengthen itself in public opinion, because it would constantly respond to that universal demand for free and universal primary instruction, and it would not offend the principles of justice and of constitutional law as would a national university.

—By the brief outline, which the limits of this article permitted, of the systems of education existing in Germany and Edition: current; Page: [40] in France, it will be seen that the problem presented by the relations of the state to education in the United States is very different from that presented in the nations of which these may be taken as examples. The fact might be further illustrated by reference to the systems of the Scandinavian states, of Belgium and Holland, and of Italy, but this is neither convenient nor necessary. The specific question offered for study here, is how the children of the republic may be given, in the best manner and at the least cost either of the public revenue or of the time and energy of the pupils, the instruction which is needed by all as a condition to the reasonable performance of their duties as citizens. This is the problem, the solution of which has been undertaken by the states, by the municipalities, and by the lesser political bodies, in a more or less earnest manner, by various means, and with widely differing degrees of success. In the prosecution of this effort, the schools in most of the larger communities have extended, under complex influences and without consistent guidance, in directions quite wide of the mark to which they should have been contined. The needs and rights of the majority have been neglected and much money and force have been expended in an attempt to provide advantages by which only a minority, often very small, can profit. The result has been the general adoption of a false standard, the vicious multiplication of studies, the enforcement of arbitrary, conventional and barren methods of instruction, and a lamentable failure to turn out pupils fitted for those very duties which the schools are founded to aid the pupil in discharging. It has been shown that the proper and adequate performance of the function of the schools requires the abandonment of the elaborate, expensive and comparatively useless "upper grades" and "high schools," and the concentration of energy and expenditure upon ample provision for the very best form of elementary instruction, with direct and close attention to imparting practically useful knowledge, and to the training of the child's capacity for the intelligent employment and extension of such knowledge. It has been urged, that to this end the duty of the state—including in that term all the civil authorities having control of the common schools—is to provide a sufficient force of carefully trained teachers. In this important work the federal government is warranted by its constitution and bound by its general obligation as to the maintenance of free institutions, to engage, and it may with advantage establish normal schools for the free training of primary teachers, to be supported while under instruction, and to be employed by the federal government at fair salaries, for a fixed term. It has been suggested that in no other manner can the federal government do such great and valuable service in aid of general education in the states, or exercise so powerful and salutary an influence over the state schools, without in any degree interfering with that perfect freedom of action in the states which is at once demanded by the theory of the Union and required for the best development of education throughout the various states. It has been sought in this way to point out a line of development for the free public schools of the country which will, if steadily pursued, enable them to fulfill the high purpose for which they are meant, and by their success in attaining which they will ultimately be judged. What are believed to be the errors and defects in the system now in vogue have been pointed out in no spirit of depreciation, much less of hostility to the schools, but with a strong desire to aid, as far as may be, in giving them their greatest usefulness, and by directing them to what is thought the satisfaction of the most imperative and permanent needs of the people to secure for them a lasting and constantly strengthening affection and respect. The faults of the present are those of abounding energy misdirected and in danger of provoking unfortunate reaction. But a reform quite simple in its nature is capable of turning this energy into the most fruitful fields, where the harvest will be secure, of the richest, and continually increasing.

EDUCATION

EDUCATION, Bureau of. The government of the United States, prior to 1867, had no concern with the education of the people, further than was evinced in several acts of congress giving public lands to the states for the promotion of school education. A summary of these land-grant provisions, with the amount of land thus located in each state and territory, will be found elsewhere.

—Numerous propositions to establish a national university by act of congress have been made, from the time of Washington to this day, but thus far without practical effect. A national bureau of education, however, was created in 1867, in pursuance of a bill reported by a select committee of the house through its chairman, James A. Garfield, who took a leading part in urging its passage. By act of March 2, 1867 (14 Stat. at Large, p. 434), a department of education, with a commissioner and three clerks, was organized. "to collect statistics and facts showing the condition and progress of education in the several states and territories, and to diffuse such information respecting the organization and management of schools and school systems, and methods of teaching, as shall aid the people of the United States in the establishment and maintenance of efficient school systems, and otherwise promote the cause of education throughout the country." The following year the office of education was converted from an independent department into a bureau, attached to the department of the interior (15 Stat. at Large, p. 92). The commissioner of education is appointed by the president and senate, with a salary of $3,000, and is required to make an annual report to congress of the results of his investigations and labors. These annual reports (of which thirteen Edition: current; Page: [41] bulky volumes have been issued from 1868 to 1881) cover a wide field, and, with the "circulars of information" occasionally issued in pamphlet form, embrace many subjects not directly connected with education. The annual reports, which have more recently assumed a systematic form, are in great part devoted to abstracts of the official reports of school officers of the various states and territories. These are followed by statistical tables in detail, summarizing, by states and territories, the numbers, attendance, instructors, expenditure, etc., in the primary schools, kindergärten, normal and higher schools, commercial colleges, universities, schools of science, theology, law, medicine, etc., throughout the United States. To these are added tabular statistics, also arranged by states, of institutions for the deaf, dumb and blind, charity schools, orphan asylums, industrial and reform schools, museums of art, natural history, etc., and (occasionally) of libraries. The commissioner of education also published in 1876 a valuable "Special Report on Public Libraries in the United States of America, their history, condition and management," a volume of over 1,200 pages. The circulars of information of the United States bureau of education have embodied much miscellaneous intelligence regarding education in foreign countries, with many monographs upon special topics.

—The functions of the bureau of education, though most largely concerned with the collection and diffusion of knowledge respecting educational methods, and the statistics of institutions of learning, have become quite diversified, and its annual expenditure has grown from the insignificant sum of $9,400 in 1868, to $50,000 in 1882 (exclusive of printing). Its special reports, of much extent, relating to education in the District of Columbia (1871), and to the public libraries of the United States (1876), have been highly valued, and the bureau has become a recognized and widely useful medium for the diffusion of intelligence respecting all the varied interests and business of education in this country, as well as in foreign lands. Among topics treated in its circulars of information have been rural school architecture, the teaching of chemistry and physics in the United States, instruction in the countries of Europe, Asia and South America, college commencements, the legal rights of children, foreign universities, compulsory education, the spelling reform, proceedings of the national educational association, etc.

—The commissioners of education since the creation of that office, have been Henry Barnard, March 16, 1867; John Eaton, March 16, 1870.

—There has been collected a valuable though not complete library of works on education, elementary text-books, catalogues, etc., and an extensive series of illustrations of school buildings, school apparatus, etc., forming an educational museum of great interest.

EDUCATION

EDUCATION, Compulsory, a term used to denote the policy of requiring the parents of a state to furnish their children that degree and kind of education assumed as necessary for the citizen. Such a policy involves the liability of the state to provide opportunities for obtaining such an education, in case the parents are unable to do so. As a matter of fact, most civilized nations of modern times have gone very far toward providing such opportunities for all the children of the state, either free of cost (in the free school system), or at a nearly nominal price (in the rate-school system). The question then becomes merely one of compulsory attendance upon the schools so provided in case parents do not choose other schools.

—In its widest sense compulsory education is as old as civilization. Long before a literary education was considered necessary, the nations of the east, Egypt, India, etc., had been in the habit of requiring all parents to train their children in the duties and routine of their caste. Of the classical nations, Athens and Sparta were among the first to recognize in their legislation the right and duty of the state to superintend the education of the children. Sparta carried this principle to its utmost extremes in the system of laws commonly attributed to Lycurgus. The entire training of the male children, after they became seven years of age, was in the hands of the state. A most rigorous system of discipline was enforced during the childhood, youth and early manhood of all male citizens. At Athens, Solon is said to have incorporated the following provisions in his legislation: 1. The boys must be taught to swim and to read; those of the poorer classes must be further trained to agriculture, commerce or some handicraft, those of the richer classes, to music, skill in handling horses, hunting and philosophy. 2. No son is bound to support his father in old age, if the latter has failed to instruct him in some profitable art. At Rome the state undertook no general superintendence of education, but left it almost entirely to the family. The compulsory military service of the early republics had a certain educating force in it, though that, of course, was not its primary object. It was not till long after the downfall of the Roman empire that any traces are found of attempts to provide for the education of the masses. The candidates for the priesthood, and the children of the nobles and of the well-to-do classes of the laity, received a sort of education in the various classes of schools, supported or favored by the church, but the vast majority of the population remained in ignorance which no government even tried to lessen.

—With Charlemagne a new era begins. The idea of securing universal education by a system of compulsory attendance at school seems to have originated with him. At least he was the first to try it on a great scale. Not only did he found schools everywhere, but he expressly enjoined it upon all the bishops that they were to insist on the children of their dioceses all attending the primary Edition: current; Page: [42] schools, and that they were to be instructed not only in religion but also in science, i.e., in reading, writing, arithmetic, grammar and singing. The wreck of his great empire prevented the ultimate success of his plans as he had laid them. But the impulse he gave to the cause of universal education was great and lasting.

—The revival of learning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries awakened a new interest in popular education. The spirit of Protestantism, which had begun to make itself felt in every department of life, was favorable to universal education as likely to break forever the power of the priest-hood over the masses. Eminent thinkers and educators began to insist upon compulsory education as necessary to any great advance in national prosperity. Luther was an outspoken advocate of such a policy. The logical conclusion of all his writings upon education is that it is the duty of the state to provide for the education of all its citizens, and then to compel them to take advantage of the opportunities offered. As early as 1528 the school law of Saxony made it the duty of clergymen to admonish their parishioners to send their children to school, "in order that persons might be educated so as to be competent to teach in the church and to govern." The most interesting school law of the sixteenth century was that issued by Duke Christopher in 1559 for the duchy of Würtemberg. It provided not only that the pastors should admonish their congregations twice each year of the necessity and duty of sending their children to school, but also that the schoolmasters should keep a register of all the boys in the district according to the classes to which they belonged, and that after every recitation the roll should be called, and if the absentees could not give satisfactory excuses they were to be fined according to desert. The enforcement of the law, however, was very negligent. Similar provisions were adopted by many other German states. Compulsory attendance upon religious instruction was nearly universal, and tolerably well enforced. In 1640 the general synod of Würtemberg recognized the necessity of requiring all children to go to school, and resolved that all parents should be fined whose children failed to attend. It was found quite as difficult to enforce this law, however, as the former one, and new rescripts were issued in 1670, 1672 and 1679, to remind parents of their duties. The first law defining the school age of children was given by the duke of Brunswick, who commanded all parents and guardians of children to send them to school from the sixth year of age.

—The thirty years war came near destroying the popular schools entirely, as it nearly put an end to all civilization in many parts of Germany. Duke Ernst. of Gotha, was among the first to resuscitate the public schools. The school law of Gotha, at first an object of ridicule, became later the model of nearly all school laws issued. It provided that all children, boys and girls, in the country as well as in the towns, should be sent to school as soon as they became six years of age, and that the pastor was to keep a register of all children from five to fourteen years of age. All parents who were so "debased, earthly and negligent" as to prevent their children from going to school, after being warned by the pastor should be fined one groschen for every hour the child was absent. The school should be kept the year round six days in the week except. Wednesday and Saturday afternoons.

—The movement in behalf of compulsory education now made steady though slow progress in all the German states. Prussia introduced it in 1732; Bavaria, which was one of the latest, in 1802. Compulsory education has, since the beginning of the nineteenth century, been the general rule in the German states; and it is a remarkable fact, that, in all the fierce conflicts which have been caused by educational legislation, no party has made any serious opposition to the principle, that the state government may and ought to demand that parents should provide some kind of instruction for their children. This kind of legislation in Austria began in the eighteenth century with laws providing that magistrates should send to school teachers twice a year lists of all children entering the sixth year of age, and that the teachers should return monthly lists of absence. Although the school attendance steadily increased, the number of children growing up without education was still very large. After the disastrous war with Prussia in 1866 the Austrian government hastened to introduce a new educational law similar to that of Prussia, providing for the rigorous enforcement of the principle of compulsory attendance. In some provinces it was found extremely difficult to provide for a sufficient number of teachers and schools and to compel the attendance of children. The statistics of school attendance, however, show a steady increase, and there is no systematic opposition to the principle which is now rapidly being carried into effect.

—The cantons of Switzerland, with four exceptions, and the Scandinavian kingdoms, have enacted laws similar to those of Germany; and Denmark, in particular, has had a stringent law on compulsory education in operation since 1814, and has thus effected a remarkably high average education of its entire population.

—In France the public school system was for the first time regulated by the educational law of 1833, which embodied the ideas of Guizot and Cousin. Neither this law, however, nor the subsequent regulations, recognized the principle of compulsory education; and the school attendance, especially in many of the rural districts, continued to be very small. Louis Napoleon favored the principle of compulsion and M. Duroy, his minister of public instruction from 1863 to 1869, was one of its most zealous advocates; but the attempts made to introduce it into the legislation of France had to be abandoned in consequence of the powerful opposition it met with. After the proclamation of the republic in 1870, one of the most enthusiastic champions of Edition: current; Page: [43] compulsory education, Jules Simon, was appointed minister of public instruction; and the new educational law proposed by him, embodied the principle; but the national assembly refused to adopt the law, thirteen of the fifteen bureaus voting against it. The principle is generally advocated in France by the liberals, and opposed by the Catholic party.

—In England public opinion, until very recently, has always been strongly adverse to a participation of the state government in school matters. An important advance toward the principle of compulsory education was, however, made in 1870, by the adoption of a bill brought in by Edward Forster, according to which, within one year, provision was to be made for the education of every child in England and Wales. The question of compulsory attendance was very earnestly discussed in parliament and was finally left to the separate school boards, which were to have a certain discretionary power of enforcing attendance. The policy of compulsion was finally adopted in the elementary education act of 1876, which went into operation Jan. 1, 1877, and which declares that it shall be the duty of the parent of every child between the ages of five and fourteen, to cause such child to receive efficient elementary instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic; the duty to be enforced by the orders and penalties specified in the act. The employment of children under the age of ten, or over that age without a certificate of proficiency or of previous due attendance at a certified efficient school, is prohibited, with certain exceptions.

—The Italian parliament, in 1871, adopted a new school law, according to which elementary instruction is required to be given everywhere free of charge, and attendance at school is obligatory.

—In Belgium and the Netherlands every commune is compelled by law to make provision for a public school; and in Belgium indigent children receive, on application of their parents, gratuitous instruction; but neither of these two states has, as yet, recognized the principle of compulsory education.

—In Russia, Peter the Great desired to make education obligatory; but the obstinate resistance of his subjects who called education their destruction, prevented him from carrying out his design; and the consequence is that Russia is still among the least educated countries of Europe, there being, in 1875, one pupil for about every eighty-six inhabitants.

—Turkey, in 1869, promulgated a law providing for the establishment of a school in every locality, and requiring all children, both boys and girls, to attend it. It is hardly necessary to say that it was not enforced.

—Greece adopted the compulsory system nearly fifty years ago. Its success may be judged by the fact that in 1870, after it had been in operation for thirty-six years, only 33 per cent. of the grown-up men and only 7 per cent. of the grown-up women were able to read and write!

—Spain and Portugal followed the example of Greece, with about the same success.

—In America, twenty-two of the states and territories of the Union have compulsory education laws on their statute books. The right of state authorities to require the attendance of all children at school was asserted at an early date by some of the English colonies. B. G. Northrop, secretary of the Connecticut state board of education, in his annual report for 1871, says that Connecticut may justly claim to be one of the first states in the world that established the principle of compulsory education. Its code of laws adopted in 1650 contained stringent provisions for compulsory attendance; and these provisions, with unimportant modifications, remained in force until the revision of the code in 1810. With the changed conditions of society resulting from immigration, it was found impossible to enforce the law without important additions, amounting in reality to a set of factory laws forbidding the employment of children under fourteen years of age who have not attended school for at least three months in the year, and although a state agent was appointed to superintend the enforcement of the law, yet the success has only been partial.

—As early as 1642 Massachusetts enjoined the selectmen of every town to see that all parents or guardians or masters taught their children, wards or apprentices so much learning as would enable them to read the English tongue and the capital laws, upon penalty of twenty shillings for each neglect therein. A factory law, similar to that of Connecticut, was passed in 1834. The present law compels parents and guardians to send children in their charge between the ages of eight and fourteen, to school twenty weeks every year; and no person can be excluded from the public school on account of race, color or religion. Towns and cities are required to provide for the education of orphans and the children of drunken parents.

—In Maine the school law of the state authorizes towns to make by-laws for the enforcement of attendance of children between six and seventeen years of age, and to annex a suitable penalty, not exceeding $20 for any breach thereof. In New Hampshire an act of the legislature, approved in July, 1871, provides that all parents, guardians or masters of a child between the ages of eight and fourteen, residing within two miles of a public school, shall send such child to school at least twelve weeks each year. Similar acts were passed the same year by the legislature of Michigan and Texas. Nevada passed a compulsory law in 1873, containing the ordinary provisions and providing a penalty of not less than $50 nor more than $100 for the first offense, and not less than $100 nor more than $200 for each subsequent offense. The laws of the other states and of the territories are very similar to those already mentioned. The tendency seems to be very strongly in favor of compulsory school laws. Many educators and statesmen go so far as to demand a national system of compulsion administered directly by federal officers.

—The discussion as to the justification and expediency of compulsory education has been long and interesting. It Edition: current; Page: [44] is safe to say that it is easier to prove that the state has the right to compel the attendance of its children at school than to show that such a policy is generally successful, in the widest sense of the term, and therefore expedient. It has been urged by American opponents that compulsory education is monarchical in its origin and history. The short account given above is a complete answer to any such objection. "Before the peace of Westphalia, before Prussia existed as a kingdom, and while Frederick William was only 'elector of Brandenburg,' Massachusetts and Connecticut adopted coercive education." The Connecticut laws were so stringent that they went to the extreme of taking the child away from the parent altogether, if the latter could not be brought to comply with the laws by fines. The common people of New England demanded a compulsory law. The laboring classes advocated and welcomed it, and the trades unions were nearly unanimous in its favor. The republic of Switzerland has compulsory laws in all but four of its cantons. The present system of Prussia was made efficient by men who were aiming at a free government for that kingdom. The liberal party in nearly every European government is in favor of compulsory education. Such a policy can hardly be called monarchical in its origin, then, since it was first adopted by the colonies of North America; nor in its history, since it has increased in popularity and universality as liberty has advanced; nor in its influence, since it tends to make monarchy less necessary by making republicanism possible.

—A second argument has been advanced against it, that it arrogates new power for the government. This is of course clearly untrue, 1650 is an early date in American history, yet from that time this power has been exercised by the various state governments. And even if the precedent could not be quoted, the right to compel attendance at school might be in a republic subserved under the general head of self-protection, along with quarantine and hygienic regulations. Nor does the objection that it is un-American have any greater force than the one just mentioned. Besides, it begs the whole question. "American" everything must be, which the American people have adopted and retained as a permanent part of their institutions. It has also been urged that it interferes with the liberty of the parents. No more, it may be returned, than many other laws which command universal assent, such as laws punishing the parent for abusing the child, for depriving it of necessaries which he is able to provide, etc. On the other hand, it may be claimed that the child has a right to an education such as will fit it to play a proper part in society, and it is the duty of the parent to furnish this. The state in compelling him to send the child to school does nothing more than secure the latter in its rights. A very common objection is, that such a system inflicts hardship upon many a parent who can neither spare the labor of his child nor pay for decent clothing and books. Such cases can easily be provided for, as they are in all successful systems now in operation. The community can much better afford to pay for clothing and books than to let the child grow up in ignorance. The arguments against the justice and constitutionality of compulsory laws may be fairly considered as answered by the foregoing. A strong plea may be made in favor of their justice, as follows: The state assumes and exercises the right of taxing all classes for the support of the public schools whether they have children to send or not. The state owes it to these tax payers to see that the taxes collected shall be used for the purpose for which they are levied. This is not possible unless it compels the attendance of all children at school. The tax payer, then, has a right to insist on a compulsory law, on the ground that it is necessary in order to enable the state to perform its duty toward him. As a matter of fact in this discussion those who object to compulsory laws on the ground of justice and constitutionality have been left in the minority everywhere,—answered by the logic of events. But the expediency of such laws is by no means so clear. That must be determined for each country by a careful study of the conditions there prevailing. Such laws may be good for one country under one set of conditions, and of no advantage or even of harm to another country with different circumstances. We add a few considerations on compulsory education in our own country.

—Recent compulsory school laws in America have been chiefly remarkable for their utter failure to accomplish any of the results expected of them. Of the twenty-two American states and territories, which have compulsory laws on their statute books, not a single one has been able to report, "they are a success." The same thing is true of similar laws in many other countries. The fact seems to be that compulsory school laws on a large scale have been successful only under conditions which would have made a voluntary system of attendance a success. The whole history of education in civilized countries justifies the claim that wherever plenty of good free schools have been provided, and the parents prevented from employing their children in factories and mines, there the attendance under a purely voluntary system has been as good as the compulsory system has been able to show anywhere, and that wherever a compulsory system has existed without these conditions it has been a failure. Prussia, the classic land of compulsion, provides in its school laws for an abundance of school room, well-equipped school houses, and a high grade of teachers, and her compulsory system is a fair success. Turkey, Greece, Portugal, etc., copy the compulsory features, omitting the essential conditions of success, and their laws are failures. Aside from this, however, a glance at the necessary conditions of a successful system of compulsion from an administrative point of view, will reveal the secret of the failure of American compulsory laws. A compulsory school law can be Edition: current; Page: [45] made effective only on one of two conditions. There must either be such an over whelming public sentiment in its favor that any parent who tries to evade it or officer who refuses to enforce it will fall as it were, under public ban and be exposed to universal execration; or there must be a thorough system of administration which will remove its enforcement from local authorities and put it in the hands of a power able and willing to enforce it, regardless of local influences and prejudices. The latter condition has, indeed, ordinarily been the presupposition of the former. Both conditions are realized to a certain extent in Prussia. The man who attempts to escape complying with the law is looked upon in a certain sense as a criminal. He feels that he is condemned by public sentiment and opinion around him, and feels that he is rightly condemned too. Compulsory education has done in Prussia its perfect work—it has converted involuntary into voluntary attendance. It has been asserted by men of wide and accurate observation that if the question were left to popular suffrage to-day, not one vote in a thousand would be cast against the compulsory laws. And it is an interesting fact in this connection that in all the popular party platforms adopted during the revolutions of 1848, and in all the socialistic platforms adopted since, universal compulsory education forms a prominent plank. Public sentiment, then, in Prussia favors the enforcement of the law. But it must be kept in mind that this public sentiment was not of spontaneous growth, but is the product of the most rigorous administrative system existing in any civilized nation. Frederick William I. of Prussia introduced the compulsory system. He was one of the most despotic monarchs that ever lived. His will was law, and law enforced. The people must go to school, he said, and to school they went, because he introduced an administrative machine which extended from the capital to the remotest village of the kingdom, and of which he was the animating soul. Frederick the Great was too busy in the early years of his reign to devote much attention to school matters. His successor was of too light a turn of mind to appreciate their importance. But the Napoleonic wars, the greatest blessing that ever came to the German people, turned Prussia's attention to her schools, and the system was inaugurated which raised Prussia to the front rank of continental powers. Compulsory attendance was enforced, and has been ever since. It has blossomed and fruited into universal voluntary attendance. But it must not be forgotten, that it was only the thorough enforcement of the law through several generations that brought about the present state, and only the despotic measures of the government that made the enforcement possible.

—If these considerations are just, we have not far to seek to find the reason for the failure of all American compulsory school laws. Both conditions necessary for an efficient law have been everywhere lacking and no attempt made to realize them anywhere. There is not a single section of our country where the public sentiment in favor of such a law is strong enough to secure its enforcement by the local authorities, and there have been no measures taken, worth mentioning, looking toward vesting its enforcement in other hands. Local enforcement is generally a dead letter, and the most utterly dead exactly where it is most needed, viz., in illiterate communities. For the more ignorant the population the less it feels its need of education, and the feebler the efforts it will put forth to secure educational advantages. Our only hope of success by such a system, then, lies in adopting a system of administration in which the execution of the law shall be taken from the local authorities and intrusted to a body of officials depending immediately upon the state, if not upon the national government. There is no probability that such a system will be adopted within any very short period, if, indeed, it ever will be. Direct compulsion, then, will in all likelihood continue to be a failure in the future as it has been in the past.

—A system of indirect compulsion might, however, be very effective. Let the state or general government appropriate a large sum of money, say one dollar per capita, to be distributed among the school districts according to population. Let this money be paid over only on the following condition, viz., that every district shall have presented proofs that it furnishes plenty of school room for all its school population, and plenty of good teachers and a fair amount of apparatus, etc., to be prescribed by a general law; provided, that only such a proportion of the sum due each district shall be paid over to it, as its actual attendance is of its possible attendance, i.e., the attendance of all school children during the whole school year. Such a system will tend to beget that local sentiment in favor of enforcing attendance which is an absolutely necessary condition of success in our American society. For as the actual nears the perfect attendance it will become possible to lighten the local school taxes. It will thus be to the pecuniary interest of every tax payer to insist on the attendance of all school children. The essential elements of the plan have been tried under a variety of circumstances and always with marked success. The system of rewards is more powerful than the system of punishments. And it has been found true of communities as of individuals that they will put forth far greater efforts to secure a reward offered on condition of those efforts, than they will to avoid the fines and penalties (which after all may never be inflicted) for non-compliance with a law. The plan, then, is economical, and, politically, it is in complete harmony with our traditions and institutions—a claim which can not be substantiated for any recent system of successful direct compulsion.

—LITERATURE: Reports of U. S. Commissioner of Education; Reports of State Superintendents of Public Instruction: Special Report on Compulsory Education, by V. M. Rice, Edition: current; Page: [46] Albany, 1867; Report on Compulsory Education, by D. A. Hawkins, New York, 1874; Reports of National Educational Association; Geschichte der Paedagogik, by Dr. Karl Schmidt, 1873-7; Barnard's American Journal of Education; occasional articles in educational periodicals; Education Abroad, by B. G. Northrop, New York, 1873; articles in the various encyclopædias, particularly the one on "Compulsory Education" in Steiger's Cyclopœdia of Education, from which a portion of the historical account in this article is taken.

EGYPT

EGYPT, a country situated in the northeastern part of Africa, celebrated alike for the fertility of its soil and its commercial importance through the long lapse of ages.

—The primitive civilization of Egypt, the oldest known, was effected during a long succession of centuries, under kings called in history the Pharaohs, who were at the head of a social organization, founded entirely upon the system of castes. The sacerdotal caste, whose principal functions were performed by princes of the royal family, was the educated part of the nation; its privileges comprised worship, justice, the levying and collection of taxes, and the entire civil administration. The military caste was charged with the maintenance of order at home and with the defense of the country from foreign enemies. The agricultural caste was devoted to the cultivation of the soil, whose products were subjected to taxes in kind, for the support of the king and of the upper castes Artisans, workmen of all kinds and merchants constituted the fourth class of the nation, a class which by its labor contributed its share to the wealth and the burdens of the state. In each caste, according to historians, trades were hereditary in families, as was also the rank of the family; this was a powerful cause of perfection in the details of the arts, but at the same time it produced the immutability of character which has always distinguished Egyptian society, and which caused it to yield without resistance to the tyrannical rule of its masters and its invaders. This social state, which, after such a lapse of time, seems so extraordinary to us, does not perhaps greatly differ from the present state of the Arabian world, where we find, as in Egypt, a military aristocracy (caste of warriors), a religious aristocracy (caste of the Marabouts), and the fellahs. Although there is no natural or legal barrier between these different classes, almost all the members of the tribe live and die members of the caste into which they were born. India presents the same spectacle, but in a more striking manner; and all the East is imbued, in different degrees, with that principle of fatal inequality which yields only to the principles of liberty, of progress and of justice.

—Egypt tempted the ambition of the Persians (B. C. 526), then of the Greeks (B. C. 332), and, later still (B. C. 29), of the Romans. The latter, after six centuries of rule, made way for the Arabs (638). The Koran determined only its religious destiny; the political sceptre of Egypt passed successively from the caliphs of Bagdad (639), to the Thulunide Emirs (870), to the Ikchidites (934), to the Fatimites (972), then to the Ayoubites (1171), to the Turkoman Mamelukes (1250), to the Circassian Mamelukes (1382), and finally to the Ottomans (1517), whose sultan, Selim I., subjected to his rule the region of the Nile, and by the renunciation of his claims obtained from the last Abbassi caliph, united the spiritual to the temporal power. Since then the sultans of Constantinople have been the chiefs of Islamism. Selim and his successors confided the government of Egypt to a pasha and his beys. This was an age of anarchy and oppression, which lasted till the end of the eighteenth century, when the expedition of Gen. Bonaparte conquered Egypt (1798-1801). The united efforts of England and Turkey having taken Egypt from the French, the porte re-established his sovereignty there, which soon became personified in a Macedonian soldier, chief of the Albanians, afterward celebrated under the name of Mehemet Ali. This able and audacious captain founded his personal power less on the distant and vacillating support of the porte, than upon the extermination of the Mamelukes, his rivals, and upon his own military and administrative genius. His ambition increased with his power. He thought he might be able to achieve his independence and after having spread terror throughout Arabia, he attempted to add Syria to his domains. The victories of Konieh (1832), and of Nezib (1839), gained by his son Ibrahim, while enhancing his own successes, seemed to favor his designs; but immediately after each triumph, the will of Europe arrested the advance of the rebel conqueror. The great powers, devoted to the preservation of the Ottoman empire, as necessary to the equilibrium of Europe, refused to permit the detachment of Egypt, much less Syria, from it. After prolonged negotiations, the sultan Abd-ul-Medjid, who had succeeded his father Mahmoud at a very early age, in 1839, yielding to the counsels of Europe, delivered to Mehemet Ali a firman, dated June 1, 1841, which settled the political constitution of Egypt. The chief provisions of this firman are as follows: The sultan accorded to Mehemet the hereditary government of Egypt, with its old boundaries, as traced on a map annexed. It was provided that the line of succession should be from eldest son to eldest son in the direct male line, the nomination (or rather the investiture) to emanate invariably from the sublime porte. In case of the extinction of the male line, the sultan was to appoint a successor, to the exclusion of the male children of the daughters, who had no legal right or title to succession. Although the pashas of Egypt enjoy the hereditary exercise of government, they are ranked with the other viziers; they are treated as such by the sublime porte, from whom they receive the same titles as those given to any other governor of a province. (Since 1866 they bear Edition: current; Page: [47] the title of khedive.) The principles established by the hatti-scheriff of Gulhane (1839), as well as all the existing and future treaties between the sublime porte and the friendly powers, are to have full force in the province of Egypt. It was to be the same with all laws made and to be made by the sublime porte, due regard being shown to local circumstances and to equity. All taxes and all revenues levied in Egypt are to be raised in the imperial name, and in conformity with the system pursued by the Turkish government. Every year, according to custom, corn and vegetables are to be sent to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. The pasha, or rather the khedive, is to have the right to coin money in Egypt, but gold and silver pieces must bear the name of the sultan, and have the form and value of the coins struck at the mint in Constantinople. Four hundred Egyptian soldiers were to be sent annually to Constantinople. The decorations, flags, insignia and standards of the navy were to be the same as in Turkey. The khedive was empowered to appoint the officers of the army and navy up to the grade of colonel. Above that rank he had to follow the orders of the sultan. The khedive could build no vessel of war without the express and explicit authorization of the sublime porte. Finally it was made the duty of the khedive to follow orders of his suzerain upon all important questions which might be of interest to the country. Mehemet Ali, in his reply of June 25, 1841, accepted these conditions, which united his states, as a vassal fief, to the suzerainty of Turkey. The tribute, first fixed at a quarter of the gross receipts (hatti-scheriff of Feb. 13, 1841), was afterward reduced to 7,560,800 francs, but later on raised again to over twice that amount.

—It was undoubtedly in consideration of the increase of the tribute, that a firman of the sultan, in September, 1867, extended the powers of the viceroy or khedive. The following are the words of the firman: "To my illustrious vizier Ismail-Pasha, Kedervi-el-Masr (sovereign of Egypt), acting grand vizier, decorated with the orders of Osmania and Medjidia, in diamonds. May God continue your glory and augment your power and happiness. On receipt of this imperial firman, learn our decision. Our firman, which accorded the Kedervi-el-Mesr the privilege of inheritance, ordered that Egypt should be governed, in conformity with the character of its people with right and with equity, according to the fundamental laws in force in the other parts of the empire, and based upon the hatti-humayoum of Gulhane. However, the internal administration of Egypt, that is to say, all that concerns its financial and local interests, being within the jurisdiction of the Egyptian government, we empower you, for the preservation of its interests, to make special regulations in regard to this internal administration only, while continuing to observe in Egypt the treaties of our empire. You are authorized to enter into conventions in relation to customs duties, to European subjects, to the transportation of goods and the postal service, upon condition that these agreements do not assume the form of international or political treaties. In event of the contrary, if these agreements should not conform to the above conditions and to our fundamental rights of sovereignty, they shall be considered null and void. In case the Egyptian government should have any doubt concerning the conformity of a contract of this kind with the fundamental laws of our empire, he must refer the matter to our sublime porte before coming to any definite decision. Whenever a special customs regulation in proper form shall be made in Egypt, our government shall be advised thereof in due course concerning it; and in the same way, in order to protect the commercial interests of Egypt in the commercial treaties which may be entered into between our own and foreign governments, the Egyptian administration shall be consulted. And finally, that you may have full knowledge of our will as above expressed, we have ordered our imperial divan to draw up and address to you the present firman."

—In point of fact, save the personal homage, followed by investiture, and a tribute in money and the subsidy of troops in time of war, the khedive, or viceroy of Egypt, governs according to his pleasure. He has his ministers, organizes his administration, collects and dispenses his revenues without the control of the divan.

—The right of succession in the family of the khedive, from eldest son to eldest son, was at first interpreted in the sense of the Mussulman law, that is to say, in favor of the eldest of the surviving descendants, but an imperial decree of 1866 established the succession in the order of primogeniture, as in Christian Europe.

—The administration of Egypt is carried on at present [1882] under the supervision of the governments of France and Great Britain, represented each by a "Controller General" invested with great powers, indicated as follows in a decree of the khedive in seven articles, issued Nov. 10, 1879. Art. 1. The controllers general have full powers of investigation into every public service of the state, including that of the public debt. Ministers and all public officials of every rank are bound to furnish the controllers, or their agents, with all documents they may think fit to require. The minister of finance is bound to furnish them weekly with a statement of receipts and expenditures. Other administrations must furnish the same every month. Art. 2. The controllers general can only be removed from their posts by their own governments. Art. 3. The governments of England and France having agreed that, for the moment, the controllers general will not take the actual direction of the public service, their duties are limited at present to inquiry, control and surveillance. Art. 4. The controllers general take the rank of ministers, and will always have the right to assist and speak at the meetings of the council of ministers, but without the power to vote. Art. 5. Edition: current; Page: [48] When they deem it necessary the controllers may unite with the commissioners of public debt to take such measures as they may deem fit. Art. 6. Whenever they may deem it useful, and at least once a year, the controllers will draw up a report on all questions for the khedive and his ministers. Art. 7. The controllers have the power of naming and dismissing all officials whose assistance is of no use to them. They shall prepare a budget; and monthly statements of all salaries and all resources shall be rendered to them.

—The first controllers general of France and Great Britain were M. de Blignières and Major E. Baring, K. C M. G.: but changes were made subsequently.

—By another decree of the khedive, dated April 5, 1880, there was appointed an "International Commission of Liquidation," composed of seven members. The functions of the commission were defined in the decree as follows: After examining the whole financial situation of Egypt, and hearing the observations of the parties interested, the committee will draft a law of liquidation regulating the relations between Egypt and her creditors, and also between the daira khassa and their creditors. The conditions of the issue of the domain loan are excluded from the deliberations of the committee. The committee will work upon the basis furnished by the report of the committee of inquiry, and will sit for three months after the presentation of their own report, in order to watch, in concert with the English and French controllers general, the execution of the decisions arrived at. The law of liquidation will be binding upon all parties concerned. Representatives of the international tribunals and a delegate from the Egyptian government will attend the sittings of the committee. The preamble of the decree stated that England, France, Germany, Austria and Italy had already declared their acceptance of the law of liquidation, and will collectively request the adhesion of the other powers represented on the international tribunals.

—The English and French controllers general presented their first report, dated Jan. 16, 1880, and sanctioned by the khedive, containing their definite scheme for settling the Egyptian financial situation. They fixed the interest on the unified debt at 4 per cent. Should the revenue from the provinces specially set apart for the service of the debt be insufficient to pay 4 per cent, the deficiency is to be made up out of the general revenue. If, on the other hand, the taxes assigned yield more than 4 per cent., the surplus is to be paid to the holders of the unified debt up to a maximum of 5 per cent. Any further surplus beyond that, is to be applied to half yearly purchases of stock in the open market. Any surplus of general revenue is to be divided as follows: One moiety to the administration, and the other moiety to the service of the debt.

—The list of resources applied to the service of the general debt was settled by the controllers general as follows: Besides the revenues of the provinces Garbiah, Menoufieh, Béhéra and Siout, there are the octroi duties, set down as producing £248,000 for the year; customs, producing £623,000; the tobacco, salt and other direct revenues, calculated to more than cover the unified interest at 4 per cent.

—In the budget for 1880, the first adopted by the "International Commission of Liquidation," the main heads were as follows:

—The capital of the debt of Egypt was returned as follows at the end of 1880:

Not secured by any stipulations on the part of the government is the floating debt of Egypt, the exact amount of which is not known, but which is estimated to be over £5,000,000.

—The army of Egypt is raised by conscription. It consists, nominally, of eighteen infantry regiments of three batallions each, with four batallions of rifles, four regiments of cavalry, and 144 guns. But the number of men contained in the regiments and batteries varies continually, with the exigencies of the service and the state of the finances. At the close of the Russo-Turkish war, in which Egypt participated, the army was reduced to 15,000 men.

—The Egyptian navy comprised, at the end of June, 1880, two frigates, two corvettes, three large yachts for the use of the khedive—one of them, the "Mahroussa," of 4,000 tons, with 800 horse power—and four gunboats, the whole of a burden of 16,476 tons.

—The territories under the rule of the sovereign of Egypt, including those on the Upper Nile and Central Africa, conquered in 1875, are vaguely estimated to embrace an area of 1,406,250 English square miles, and to be inhabited by a population of 16,952,000, of whom about one-third are in Egypt proper. The following tabular statement gives the native population, distinguishing males and females, and inhabitants of rural and town districts, of Egypt proper, according to an official estimate of M. Amici, chief of the statistical department in the ministry of the interior, on Dec. 31, 1878:

Edition: current; Page: [49]

—The area of Egypt proper is estimated to comprise 175,130 English square miles, the annexed and conquered districts, including Nubia, the former kingdom of Ethiopia, and Darfur, being estimated at 1,231,120 English square miles, with 11,434,373 inhabitants.

—Egypt proper is divided from of old into three great districts, namely, "Masr-el-Bahri." or Lower Egypt; "El Wustani," or Middle Egypt; and "El Said," or Upper Egypt—designations drawn from the course of the river Nile, on which depends the existence of the country. These three great geographical districts are subdivided into eleven administrative provinces, and had, as shown in the preceding table, a rural population of 4,948,512, and an urban population of 569,115 at the end of 1878. There are only two considerable towns, namely, Cairo, with 349,883, and Alexandria, with 212,054 inhabitants.

—At the enumeration of 1878 there were in Egypt proper 79,696 foreigners. The foreign population consisted of 34,000 Greeks; 17,000 Frenchmen: 13,906 Italians; 6,300 Austrians; 6,000 Englishmen; 1,100 Germans; and 1,390 natives of other countries.

—The commerce of Egypt is very large, but consists to a great extent of goods carried in transit. In the year 1879 the total value of the imports amounted to 500,216,341 piastres, or £5,156,869, and of the exports to 1,343,905,858 piastres, or £13,854,699. In the year 1880 the total value of the imports amounted to £6,732,500, and of the exports to £13,390,000. To the entire foreign trade Great Britain contributed 53 per cent., and the rest was divided between France, Austria, Italy and Russia, in descending proportions.

—The subjoined tabular statement shows the total value of the exports from Egypt to Great Britain and Ireland, and of the imports of British and Irish produce and manufactures into Egypt, in each of the ten years 1870-79:

—The considerable amount of the exports from Egypt to the United Kingdom is owing, partly to large shipments of raw cotton, and partly to the transit trade flowing from India and other parts of Asia through Egypt, which latter, however, has greatly declined in recent years, owing to the opening of the Suez canal. The exports of raw cotton from Egypt to Great Britain were of the following quantities and value in each of the ten years 1870-79:

—Next to cotton the largest articles of exports from Egypt to the United Kingdom in the years 1870 - 79 were corn and flour. The total corn exports of 1879 were of the value of £1,730,137, comprising wheat, valued at £995,986; beans, £694,988; barley, £34,407; and flour, £4,669.

—The staple article of imports from the United Kingdom into Egypt consists of cotton goods, of the value of £4,290,953 in 1872, of £3,666,942 in 1873, of £1,922,505 in 1874, of £1,558,839 in 1875, of £1,436,232 in 1876, of £1,474,660 in 1877, of £1,255,938 in 1878, and of £1,416,615 in 1879. A part of these imports from the United Kingdom pass in transit through Egypt.

—BIBLIOGRAPHY. Description de l'Egypte, Paris, 1809-13, new edition, 26 vols., 1821-30, Lepsius. Denkmaler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien nach Zeichnungen, etc., Berlin, 1849-59, 9 vols.; Denkmaler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien in photographischen Darstellungen ausgewahlt und mit kurzen Erläuterungen versehen von Lepsius, Berlin. 1874, Brugsch, Monuments de l'Egypte, Berlin. 1857, and Recueil des monuments égyptiens, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1862-3; Mariette, Choix des monuments et des dessins, Paris, 1856; Wilkinson, Handbook for Travelers in Egypt, London, 1847; Lane, An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, 2 vols., London, 1836. 5th ed., 2 vols., 1871; Busch, Reisehandbuch fur Aegypten, Trieste, 1858; Clot-Bey, Aperçu général de l'Egypte, 2 vols., Paris, 1840; Schölcher, L'Egypte en 1845. Paris, 1846; Pruner, Aegyptens Naturgeschichte und Authropologie, Erlangen, 1847; Brugsch, Reiseberichte aus Aegypten, Leipzig, 1855; Von Kremer, Aegypten, Forschungen über Land und Volk, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1863; Hartmann, Naturgeschichte der Nill8amacr;nder, Leipzig. 1865; Billard, Les mocurs et le Gouvernement de l'Egypte, Milan, 1867-8; Fairhold, Up the Nile and home again, London, 1868; Millie, Alexandrie de l'Egypte et le Caire, Milan. 1869; Bernard, Notice géographique et historique sur l'Egypte. Paris, 1868; Rouchetti, L'Egypte et ses progrès sous Ismail - Pascha, Marseilles, 1867; Regny, Statistique de l'Egypte d'après des documents officiels, Alexandria, 1871; Dümichen, Resultate der auf Befehl des Königs Wilhelm I. von Preussen im Sommer 1868, nach Aegypten entsendeten archäolog.-photogr. Expedition, 1 vol., Berlin, 1869; Rossi, Geografia medica dell' Egitto, Livorno, 1870; Stephan, Das heutige Aegypten, Leipzig, 1872; Lüttke, Aegyptens neue Zeit, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1873; Edouard Dorr, L'instruction publique en Edition: current; Page: [50] Egypte, Paris, 1873; Prokesch - Osten, Nilfahrt bis eu den zuciten Katarakten, Leipzig, 1874, Brugsch, Histoire de l'Egypte, Leipzig, 1859, 2d ed., 1875; Paton, A History of the Egyptian Revolution, from the period of the Mamelukes to the death of Mehemed Ali, 2 vols., London, 1863, 2d ed., 1869; Well, Geschichte des Abbasidenkhalifats in Aegypten, 2 vols., Maunheim, 1860-62: Quatremère, Histoire des sultans mameloucks, from the Arabian of Makrizi, 2 vols., Paris, 1837-41; Mengin, Histoire de l'Egypte sous Mehemed Ali, 2 vols., Paris, 1823; Mouriez, Histoire de Mehemed Ali, Paris, 1823, 2 vols.: Jolourez, Bibliothecaegyptica. Leipzig, 1857, Supplement, 1861; De Leon, The Khedire's Egypt, London, 1877; Duff-Gordon (Lady), Last Letters from Egypt, London, 1875; Ebers, Aegypten in Bild und Wort, Stuttgart, 1879; Edwards, A Thousand Miles up the Nile, London, 1877; Smith, The Nile and its Banks, 2 vols., London, 1868; Zincke, Egypt of the Pharaohs and the Khedive, London, 1872; Loftie, A Ride in Egypt, London, 1879; McCoan, Egypt as it is, London, 1877.

ELECTIONS

ELECTIONS, Primary. (See PRIMARY ELECTIONS)

ELECTIVE JUDICIARY

ELECTIVE JUDICIARY. (See JUDICLARY.)

ELECTORAL COLLEGE

ELECTORAL COLLEGE (IN U. S. HISTORY), the name commonly given to the electors (see ELECTORS) of a state, when met to vote for president and vice-president. The term itself is not used in the constitution, nor in the act of March 1, 1792, the "bill of 1800," or the act of March 26, 1804. Its first appearance in law is in the act of Jan 23, 1845, which purported to empower each state to provide by law for the filling of vacancies in its "college of electors"; but it had been used in formally since about 1821. Under the constitution and the laws the duties of the electors, or of the "electoral college," if the term be preferred, are as follows: 1. They are to meet on the day appointed by the act of 1845, at a place designated by the law of their state. No organization is required, though the electors do usually organize, and elect a chairman. 2. The electors are then to vote by ballot for president and vice-president, the ballots for each office being separate. Until the adoption of the 12th amendment, the electors were simply to vote for two persons, one at least an inhabitant of some other state than their own, without designating the office; and the candidate who obtained a majority of all the electoral votes of the country became president, the next highest becoming vice-president. 3. The original ballots are the property of the state, and, if its law has directed their preservation, they are to be so disposed of. The electors are (by the law of 1792) to make three lists, of the persons voted for, the respective offices they are to fill, and the number of votes cast for each. 4. They are to make and sign three certificates, one for each list, "certifying on each that a list of the votes of such state for president and vice-president is contained therein." 5. They are to add to each list of votes a list of the names of the electors of the state, made and certified by the "executive authority" (the governor) of the state. The name of the executive was left ambiguous, because several of the states in 1792 still retained the use of the title "president" of the state, instead of governor. 6. They are to seal the certificates, and certify upon each that it contains a list of all the electoral votes of the state. 7. They are to appoint by writing under their hands, or under the hands of a majority of them, a person to deliver one certificate to the president of the senate at the seat of government. 8. They are to forward another certificate by the postoffice to the president of the senate. 9. They are to cause the third certificate to be delivered to the (federal) judge of the district in which they assemble. The electoral college is then dead in law, whether it adjourns temporarily or permanently, or never adjourns.

—There is no penalty to be inflicted upon the electors for an improper performance of their duties, or even for a refusal to perform them at all. If a vacancy occurs among the electors, by death, refusal to serve, or any other reason, the state is empowered by the act of 1845 to pass laws for the filling of the vacancy, by the other electors, for example. If no such state law has been passed, the vote or votes are lost to the state, as with Nevada in 1864. If a general refusal of the electors of the country to serve should cause no election to result, the choice of president and vice-president would devolve on the house of representatives and the senate respectively.

—For authorities see those under ELECTORS.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

ELECTORAL COMMISSION, The (IN U. S. HISTORY). The act which created this body, which had hitherto been unknown to the laws of the United States, but whose idea seems to have been borrowed from the extra-legislative commissions of Great Britain, was approved Jan. 29, 1877. It is only necessary here to give the first three paragraphs of section second, the rest being matter of detail. Section first provides for the joint meeting of the two houses, the opening of the electoral votes, the entrance upon the journals of the votes to which no objection should be made, and the separate vote by each house on single returns from any state to which objection should be made, with the proviso that no such single return should be rejected except by concurrent vote of both houses. For double or multiple returns the electoral commission was provided, as follows: "§2. That if more than one return, or paper purporting to be a return, from a state shall have been received by the president of the senate, purporting to be the certificates of electoral votes given at the last preceding election for president and vice-president in such state (unless they shall be duplicates of the same return), all Edition: current; Page: [51] such returns and papers shall be opened by him in the presence of the two houses, when met as aforesaid, and read by the tellers, and all such returns and papers shall thereupon be submitted to the judgment and decision, as to which is the true and lawful electoral vote of such state, of a commission constituted as follows, namely During the session of each house on the Tuesday next preceding the first Thursday in February, 1877, each house shall, by viva voce vote, appoint five of its members, who with the five associate justices of the supreme court of the United States, to be ascertained as hereinafter provided, shall constitute a commission for the decision of all questions upon or in respect of such double returns named in this section."

—The section proceeds to specify, though without directly naming them, four justices, those assigned to the 1st. 3d. 8th and 9th circuits, and directs them to select a fifth justice to complete the commission, which should proceed to consider the returns "with the same powers, if any, now possessed for that purpose by the two houses acting separately or together." It is concluded elsewhere (see ELECTORS) that the houses had no such powers, separately or together, and could delegate no such powers to a commission. The question of the legality of the commission itself will therefore not be revived in this article. The commission was to decide by a majority of votes, and its decisions were only to be reversed by concurrent action of both houses. As the senators appointed on the commission were three republicans to two democrats, the representatives three democrats to two republicans, and the justices were so selected as to be two democrats to two republicans, it is evident that the fifth justice was to be the decisive factor of the commission. The radically evil feature of the act was, therefore, that it shifted upon the shoulders of one man a burden which the two houses together were confessedly incompetent to dispose of. The fifth justice selected was Joseph P Bradley, of the fifth circuit, and the commission, when it met for the first time, Jan. 31, 1877, was constituted as follows (republicans in Roman, democrats in italics): JUSTICES, Nathan Clifford, 1st circuit, president; William Strong, 3d circuit; Samuel F. Miller, 8th circuit; Stephen J. Field, 9th circuit; Joseph P. Bradley, 5th circuit. SENATORS, George F. Edmunds, Vt.; Oliver P. Morton, Ind., Fred. T. Frelinghuysen, N. J.: Thos. F. Bayard, Del.; Allen G. Thurman, O REPRESENTATIVES, Henry B. Payne, O.; Eppa Hunton, Va; Josiah G. Abbott, Mass.; Jas. A Garfield, O; Geo. F. Hoar, Mass. Francis Kernan, N. Y., was substituted, Feb. 26, for senator Thurman, who had become ill. The bar, besides the ablest lawyers of both parties in both houses, who appeared as objectors to various returns, was composed of O'Conor, of New York, Black, of Pennsylvania; Trumbull, of Illinois; Merrick, of the District of Columbia; Green, of New Jersey; Carpenter, of Wisconsin; Hoadley, of Ohio; and Whitney, of New York, on the democratic side; and Evarts and Stoughton, of New York, and Matthews and Shellabarger, of Ohio, on the republican side. As the double returns from the four disputed states came to the commission, they were necessarily decided in alphabetical order: Florida, Louisiana, Oregon, and South Carolina: but the principle settled in the case of Florida practically decided all the cases, and longer space will be given to it.

—I. FLORIDA. (For the laws of the United States governing the voting of electoral colleges, and the certification of the result by the state governor, see ELECTORS. IV.) Three returns from Florida were sent to the commission, Feb. 2, by the joint meeting of the two houses: 1, the return of the votes of the Hayes electors, with the certificate of the governor. Stearns, annexed, under the decision of the state returning board, which had cast out the vote of certain polling places; 2, the return of the Tilden electors, with the certificate of the state attorney general, who was one of the returning board, annexed, given according to the popular vote as cast and filed in the office of the secretary of state: 3, the same return as the second, fortified by the certificate of the new democratic governor, Drew, according to a state law of Jan. 17, 1877, directing a recanvass of the votes.

—The line of attack of the democratic counsel upon the validity of the first (republican) return was twofold. 1. They offered to prove that the state returning board, on its own confession, had cast out the votes of rejected precincts without any pretense of proof of fraud or intimidation: that it had thus been itself guilty of conspiracy and fraud, which fraud and conspiracy they had a right to prove on the broad principle that fraud can always be inquired into by any court, with the exception of two specified cases, neither of which applied here, and that the supreme court of Florida had decided the action of the returning board to be ultra vires, illegal, and void. 2. They offered to prove that Humphreys, one of the Hayes electors, was a United States officer when elected, and therefore ineligible. The republican counsel argued that the first return was in due form according to the constitution and laws of the United States and the laws of Florida, that the second return, having been certified only by the electors and by an officer unknown to the laws as a certifying officer, was a certificate of unauthorized and uncertified persons, which could not be recognized or considered; and that the third return was entirely ex post facto, having been made and certified after the date on which the laws directed the votes of the electors to be cast, and when the electoral college was functus officio (see ELECTORAL COLLEGE). Holding that, it the first return was valid, it excluded the other two, they confined their argument to the capacity of the commission to invalidate it. This was denied on the ground that the question was not which set of Florida electors received a majority of the votes cast, for that was a matter which the state itself controlled, and its action could not be examined Edition: current; Page: [52] or reversed by any other state, or by all the other states together; but that the question was, which set of electors, by the actual declaration of the final authority of the state charged with that duty, had become clothed by the forms of law with actual possession of the office: in short, that the commission's only duty was to count the electoral vote, not the vote by which the electors had been chosen. To the general offer of evidence they replied that the consideration of such evidence was, 1, physically impossible, since the commission "could not stop at the first stage of the descent, but must go clean to the bottom," and investigate every charge of fraud and intimidation in all the disputed states, which would be a labor of years; 2, legally impossible, since the law (of 1792) itself prescribed the evidence (the governor's certificate) which was competent, and, when the commission had ascertained its correctness, its work was concluded; and 3, constitutionally impossible, since the commission was not a court and could not exercise judicial powers, which by the constitution were vested in the supreme court and in inferior courts to be established; that the commission was not one of these inferior courts, since an appeal lay to congress, not to the supreme court; and that its functions were ministerial, and confined to ascertaining the regularity of the certificates sent. To the special offer in Humphreys' case they asserted, as the general rule of American law, that votes for disqualified persons were not void unless the disqualification were public and notorious, that voters would never be presumed guilty of an intention to disfranchise themselves, and that the de facto acts of even a disqualified elector were valid. Feb. 7, the commission voted, 1, to reject the general offer of evidence aliunde the certificates, and 2, to receive evidence in the case of Humphreys. Both votes were 8 to 7, Justice Bradley, the "odd man," voting on the first issue with the republicans, and on the second with the democrats. Evidence was then submitted to prove that Humphreys was a shipping commissioner, and that he resigned in October, 1876, by letter to the judge who had appointed him, but who was then absent from Florida on a visit to Ohio. The democratic counsel argued that this was no resignation, since the judge, while absent in Ohio, was not a court capable of receiving a resignation in Florida. To this it was replied that the resignation depended on the will of the incumbent, and took effect from its offer without regard to its acceptance. Feb. 9, by the usual vote of 8 to 7, the commission sustained the validity of the Hayes electoral ticket entire, on the grounds, 1, that the commission was not competent to consider evidence aliunde the certificates, and 2, that Humphreys had properly, resigned his office when elected.

—II. LOUISLANA. Feb. 12, three certificates from Louisiana were submitted to the commission. The first and third returns were identical, and were those of the Hayes electors, with the certificate of Gov. W. P. Kellogg, claiming under the count of the vote as finally made by the returning board. The second return was that of the Tilden electors, with the certificate of John McEnery, who claimed to be governor; they claimed under the popular vote as cast. The democratic counsel offered to prove that the average popular majority for the Tilden electors was 7,639; that the returning board had fraudulently, corruptly, and without evidence of intimidation, cast out 13,236 democratic and 2,173 republican votes, in order to make an apparent majority for the Hayes electors; that two of the Hayes electors held United States offices, and three others state offices, which disqualified them under state laws; that the returning board had violated the state law by refusing to select one of its members from the democratic party, and by holding its sessions in secret and not allowing the presence of any democrat, or even of United States supervisors; that McEnery, and not Kellogg, was legally governor; and they argued that the state law creating the returning board was void, as it conflicted with the constitution by erecting a government which was anti-republican and oligarchical, since the returning board was perpetual and filled its own vacancies. The arguments of the republican counsel were practically the same as on the Florida case, and the commission, by 8 to 7, upheld their view, Feb. 16. Nine successive motions by democratic commissioners to admit various parts of the evidence had been first rejected, each by a vote of 8 to 7.

—III. ORECON. The facts in the case of this state were as follows: The three Hayes electors undoubtedly had a popular majority; one of them (Watts) was, when elected, a postmaster, and the democratic governor (Grover) declaring Watts ineligible, gave his certificate of election to the two eligible Hayes electors, and to Cronin, the highest Tilden elector. The two Hayes electors refused to recognize Cronin, accepted Watts' resignation, and at once appointed Watts to fill the resulting vacancy. Cronin therefore appointed two electors to fill the vacancies caused by the refusals to serve with him: these cast Hayes ballots, and Cronin a Tilden ballot. The result was two certificates from Oregon, submitted to the commission Feb. 21. The first return was that of the Hayes electors, with the tabulated vote of the state, and a certificate from the secretary of state. The second return was that of the Cronin electoral college, with the certificate of the governor, and the attest of the secretary of state. The democratic counsel held that the second return, with the governor's certificate, was legally the voice of Oregon, as the commission had decided in the case of Louisiana, and more exactly in the case of Florida; that it was strengthened by the attest of the secretary of state, who was the canvassing officer by the laws of Oregon; and that it necessarily excluded the first return. The reply of the republican counsel showed that, while they had avoided the Scylla of Florida, they had been equally successful in steering clear of the Charybdis Edition: current; Page: [53] of Oregon. They held that the Florida case did not apply; that there the basis of the decision was, that the commission could only inquire whether the governor had correctly certified the action of the canvassing board appointed by the state; that in Florida and Louisiana the governor had so correctly certified, while in Oregon he had not so certified, but should have done so; and that the commission was competent to make his action conform to the laws of his state. Feb. 23, the commission, by votes of 8 to 7 in each instance, rejected five successive, but various, resolutions to reject the vote of Watts; by a vote of 15 to 0, rejected the second return entirely; and, by a vote of 8 to 7, accepted the first return.

—IV. SOUTH CAROLINA. Feb. 26, two certificates from South Carolina were laid before the commission. The first return was that of the Hayes electors, with the certificate of Gov. Chamberlain. The second return was a certificate of the Tilden electors, claiming simply to have been chosen by the popular vote, to have been counted out by the returning board in contempt of the orders of the state supreme court, and to have met and voted for Tilden and Hendricks. The democratic counsel held that government by a returning board was not republican, and that under Pres. Grant's proclamation of Oct. 17, 1876, declaring part of the state to be in insurrection, military interference had made the election a nullity. No serious effort was made to establish the validity of the second return. Feb. 27, the commission, by a vote of 8 to 7, rejected the offer to prove military interference; by a vote of 15 to 0, rejected return No. 2; and, by a vote of 8 to 7, accepted return No. 1. March 2, 1877, the commission adjourned sine die. (For the successive actions taken by the joint meeting on the commission's decisions, see DISPUTED ELECTIONS, III)

—It would seem no more difficult to impeach the constitutionality of the commission than that of the "twenty-second joint rule," under which so many former counts were made (see ELECTORS); and in that case the legal title given to the new president, through the mediation of the commission, would seem to be on an exact equality with that of Lincoln, Johnson or Grant. The cruelly vicious feature in the scheme was the fact that fourteen members of the commission were practically irresponsible, while the fifteenth was secure in advance of a monopoly of the anger of one party or of the other. In the case of Mr. Justice Bradley the censure was totally undeserved. If the constitutionality of the commission be granted, as it was by both parties, the weight of law, in spite of the brilliant arguments of Messrs, Merrick, Carpenter, Green, and others of the democratic counsel, lay in the republican scale; and even in Louisiana, where the proceedings of the returning board were shamefully, or rather shamelessly, defenseless, the censure should fall not on the commission but on the laws of Louisiana.

—The Proceedings of the Electoral Commission, being Part IV., vol. V., of the Congressional Record, 1877, have been published in a single volume. It contains the arguments of counsel in full, the opinions of the commissioners, the journal of the commission, and all the certificates and objections.

ELECTORAL VOTES

ELECTORAL VOTES (IN U. S. HISTORY). I. 1789. The electoral votes, as counted Monday, April 6, 1789, for the first presidential term, were as follows:

"Whereby," says the official record of the proceedings, "it appeared that George Washington, Esq., was elected president, and John Adams. Esq., vice-president of the United States of America." (See ELECTORS, IV., I).

—II, 1793. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 13, 1793, for the second presidential term, were as follows:

"Whereupon the vice-president declared George Washington unanimously elected president of the United States for the period of four years, to commence with the fourth day of March next, and John Adams elected, by a plurality of votes, vice-president of the United States, for the same period, to commence with the fourth day of Edition: current; Page: [54] March."

—III. 1797. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 8, 1797, for the third presidential term, were as follows:

Whereupon John Adams, of Massachusetts, and Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia, were declared elected president and vice-president.

—IV. 1801. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 11, 1801, for the fourth presidential term, were as follows:

"The whole number of electors who had voted were one hundred and thirty-eight, of which number Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr had a majority; but, the number of those voting for them being equal, no choice was made by the people, and consequently the remaining duties devolved on the house of representatives. On which the house of representatives repaired to their own chamber and the senate adjourned." (See DISPUTED ELECTIONS, I.)

—V. 1805. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 18, 1805, for the fifth presidential term, were as follows:

"The vice president said, 'Upon this report it becomes my duty to declare, agreeably to the constitution, that Thomas Jefferson is elected president of the United States, for the term of four years from the third day of March next, and that George Clinton is elected vice-president of the United States, for the term of four years from the third day of March next.' "

—VI. 1809. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 8, 1809, for the sixth presidential term, were as follows:

"By all which it appears that James Madison, of Virginia, has been duly elected president, and George Clinton, of New York, has been duly elected vice-president of the United States, agreeably to the constitution."

—VII. 1813. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 10, Edition: current; Page: [55] 1813, for the seventh presidential term, were as follows:

"Whereupon the president of the senate declared James Madison elected president of the United States for four years, commencing with the 4th day of March next, and Elbridge Gerry vice-president of the United States for four years, commencing on the 4th day of March next."

—VIII. 1817. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 12, 1817, for the eighth presidential term, were as follows:

"Whereupon the president of the senate declared James Monroe elected president of the United States for four years, commencing with the fourth day of March next; and Daniel D. Tompkins vice-president of the United States, commencing with the fourth day of March next."

—IX. 1821. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 14, 1821, for the ninth presidential term, were as follows:

"The whole number of electors appointed being 235, including those of Missouri, of which 118 make a majority; or excluding the electors of Missouri, the whole number would be 232, of which 117 make a majority; but in either event. James Monroe, of Virginia, is elected president, and Daniel D. Tompkins, of New York, is elected vice-president of the United States. Whereupon the president of the senate declared James Monroe, of Virginia, duly elected president of the United States, commencing with the 4th day of March next; and Daniel D Tompkins, vice-president of the United States, commencing with the 4th day of March next." (See ELECTORS, III., 2).

—X. 1825. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 9, 1825, for the tenth presidential term, were as follows:

Edition: current; Page: [56]

"The president of the senate then rose, and declared that no person had received a majority of the votes given for president of the United States; that Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and William H. Crawford, were the three persons who had received the highest number of votes, and that the remaining duties in the choice of a president now devolved on the house of representatives. He further declared that John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, having received one hundred and eighty-two votes, was duly elected vice-president of the United States, to serve for four years from the 4th day of March next." (For the election of John Quincy Adams by the house see DISPUTED ELECTIONS, II.)

—XI. 1829. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 11, 1829, for the eleventh presidential term, were as follows:

"The result of the election was then again read by the vice-president, who thereupon said: 'I therefore declare that Andrew Jackson is duly elected president of the United States for four years, from the fourth of March next, and John C. Calhoun is duly elected vice-president for the same period.' "

—XII. 1833. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 13, 1833, for the twelfth presidential term, were as follows:

"Whereupon the president of the senate proclaimed that Andrew Jackson, of Tennessee, having a majority of the whole number of votes, was elected president of the United States for four years, from the fourth day of March next; and that Martin Van Buren, of New York, having a majority of votes therefore, was elected vice-president of the United States for the same term."

—XIII. 1837. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb, 8. 1837, for the thirteenth presidential term, were as follows:

Edition: current; Page: [57]

"It therefore appears that were the votes of Michigan to be counted, the result would be, for Martin Van Buren for president of the United States, 170 votes; if the votes of Michigan be not counted. Martin Van Buren then has 167 votes. In either event, Martin Van Buren, of New York, is elected president of the United States." (See DISPUTED ELECTIONS, III.)

—XIV. 1841. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 10, 1841, for the fourteenth presidential term, were as follows:

"The president of the senate then * * * * declared that William Henry Harrison, of Ohio, having a majority of the whole number of electoral votes, is duly elected president of the United States, for four years, commencing with the fourth day of March next, 1841; and that John Tyler, of Virginia, having a majority of the whole number of electoral votes, is duly elected vice-president of the United States, for four years, commencing with the fourth day of March next, 1841."

—XV. 1845. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 12, 1845, for the fifteenth presidential term, were as follows:

The president of the senate then said: "I do, therefore, declare that James K. Polk, of Tennessee, having a majority of the whole number of electoral votes, is duly elected president of the United States for four years, commencing on the 4th day of March, 1845; and that George M. Dallas, of Pennsylvania, having a majority of electoral votes, is duly elected vice-president of the United States for four years, commencing on the 4th day of March, 1845."

—XVI. 1849. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 14, 1849, for the sixteenth presidential term, were as follows:

Edition: current; Page: [58]

"Thereupon the vice-president of the United States declared that Zachary Taylor, of the state of Louisiana, is duly elected president of the United States for the term of four years, to commence on the fourth day of March, 1849; and that Millard Fillmore, of the state of New York, is duly elected vice-president of the United States for the term of four years, to commerce on the fourth day of March, 1849."

—XVII. 1853. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 9, 1853, for the seventeenth presidential term, were as follows:

Whereupon Franklin Pierce and William R. King were declared elected president and vice-president.

—XVIII. 1857. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb 11, 1857, for the eighteenth presidential term, were as follows:

Whereupon James Buchanan and John C. Breckinridge were declared elected president and vice-president. (See ELECTORS, VII.)

—XIX. 1861. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 13. 1861, for the nineteenth presidential term, were as follows:

Edition: current; Page: [59]

Whereupon Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin were declared elected president and vice-president.

—XX. 1865. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 8, 1865, for the twentieth presidential term, were as follows:

Whereupon Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson were declared elected president and vice-president of the United States.

—XXI. 1869. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 10, 1869, for the twenty-first presidential term, were as follows:

Whereupon U. S. Grant and Schuyler Colfax were declared elected president and vice-president of the United States.

—XXII. 1873. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 12, 1873, for the twenty-second presidential term, were as follows:

Edition: current; Page: [60]

Whereupon U. S. Grant and Henry Wilson were declared elected president and vice-president of the United States.

—XXIII. 1877. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 14, 1877, for the twenty-third presidential term, were as follows:

Whereupon Rutherford B. Hayes and William A. Wheeler were declared elected president and vice-president of the United States. (See ELECTORAL COMMISSION; DISPUTED ELECTIONS, IV.)

—XXIV. 1881. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 9, 1881, for the twenty-fourth presidential term, were as follows:

Whereupon James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur were declared elected president and vice-president of the United States.

ELECTORS AND THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM

ELECTORS AND THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM (IN U. S. HISTORY). I. ORIGIN OF THE SYSTEM. On no subject was there such diversity of individual opinion and of action in the convention of 1787 as on that of the mode of election of the president, for the office of vice-president was never thought of until nearly the close of the convention's labors. The two plans, the "Virginia plan" and the "Jersey plan," submitted by the nationalizing and particularist elements of the convention at the opening of its work, agreed in giving the choice of the president to congress; and Chas. Pinckney's plan, which takes the medium between them, made no provisions as to the Edition: current; Page: [61] manner of the president's election. The debate had hardly opened when the diversity of opinion became apparent. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, wished to have a popular election by districts. Sherman, of Connecticut, wished to retain the choice by congress. Gerry, of Massachusetts, apparently at first wished to have electors chosen by the states in proportion to population, with the unit rule; but he afterward settled on a choice of the President by the governors of the states. Hamilton wished to have the president chosen by secondary electors, chosen by primary electors, chosen by the people. Gouverneur Morris wished to have the president chosen by general popular vote en masse. The Virginia plan, as amended and agreed to in committee of the whole, June 19, retained the election by congress. July 17, popular election and choice by electors were voted down, and the choice by congress was again approved, this time unanimously. Two days afterward, July 19, the choice by congress was reconsidered, and a choice by electors chosen by the state legislatures was adopted. Five days afterward, July 24, the choice by electors was reconsidered and lost, and the choice by congress revived. In this form it went to the committee of detail, was reported favourably by them Aug. 6, and again referred to them unchanged Aug. 31. In their report of Sept. 4, less than two weeks before the final adjournment of the convention, this committee reported the electoral system very nearly as it was finally adopted, Sept. 6. In this report of Sept. 4 the office of vice-president was first introduced; indeed, the creation of this office was an integral part of the electoral system. Several amendments offered on the last two days of the convention were rejected, as too late, and the electoral system was a part of the constitution as offered to the state conventions and ratified by them. It will appear from a reconsideration that a choice by congress was the steady determination of the convention for all but the last two weeks of its existence, excepting the five days during which it inclined toward a direct choice of electors by state legislatures; but that its final decision gave the choice of president and vice-president to electors, appointed "in such manner as the legislatures of the states might direct."

—II. DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM. In the inquiry as to what the system was designed to be by its framers, no more is necessary than to take the plain sense of the words used in the constitution, as cited under the fourth head of this article, supplemented in practice by the language of the Federalist, its authoritative exponent at the time, and by the action of the first two congresses, in which the framers of the constitution were numerously represented, fifteen of the thirty-eight signers being members of the first congress, and fourteen of the second.

—1. If any one thing is plain from the constitutional provisions on the subject, it is that the people, in adopting the constitution, voluntarily debarred themselves from the privilege of a popular election of president and vice-president, and all arguments from the aristocratic tendencies of the system are utterly irrelevant, so long as the people do not see fit to alter essentially the language of the constitution. The object was to avoid the very "heats and ferments" which their descendants to their sorrow experience every four years: and to this end the electors were even to meet and vote in their respective states, and not in any central location.

—2. It is also plain that absolute control of the "appointment" of the electors, with the exceptions hereafter noted, was given to the state legislatures. The people refused to exercise it themselves, either in their national or in their state capacity. The words "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct," are as plenary as the English language could well make them. In whatever manner the legislature may direct the appointment to be made, by its own election, by a popular vote of the whole state, by a popular vote in districts, by a popular vote scrutinized by canvassing officers or returning boards, or even by appointment of a returning board or a governor without any popular vote whatever, common sense shows that there is no other power than an amendment of the constitution's express language which can lawfully take away the control of the legislature over the manner of appointment. Any interference with the appointment by congress, in particular, either directly or under the subterfuge of an "electoral commission" is evidently a sheer impertinence and usurpation, however it may be condoned by popular acquiescence in the inevitable. Even the state court of last resort can only interfere so far as to compel obedience by state officers to the will of the legislature.

—3. One exception to the legislature's power, inserted to guard against executive influence, only makes the absoluteness of the rest of the grant more emphatic. The legislature is not to appoint any "senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States" an elector. Where the legislature directs the "appointment" to be made by popular vote, it must be evident that votes cast for the appointment of a person whom the constitution expressly bars from appointment have no existence in law: and the person for whom they were cast can not "appoint" himself anew by resigning his office after the election and thus reviving invalid votes. How the vacancy, if any, is to be filled, must be regulated by the legislature, for the electors themselves have no such power by virtue either of their office or of the constitution.

—4. In one respect congress could legitimately interfere for the purpose of preventing "intrigue and corruption," by naming the day on which the electors should meet and vote. Accordingly the 2d congress, by the act of March 1, 1792, fixed the day for their voting on the first Wednesday in December, and the day of their election "within thirty-four days" preceding it; and the act of Jan. 23, 1845, hereafter given, fixed the day for the appointment of electors. When Edition: current; Page: [62] congress had done this, it was functus officio, and had no more right than a private person to violate the constitution and its own laws, by forcing the admission of votes cast by electors on an unlawful day.

—5. Congress was further given, but for more caution indirectly (in Art. IV, §1, the power to declare the manner in which the action of the state appointing power should be authenticated, and for further caution this was only to be done "by general law". The act of 1792 provided that the votes of the electors should be authenticated by the certificate of the governor of the state. Evidently the courts of the state are the final tribunal to decide who is the governor of the state, and it would have been competent to the power of congress to require from the state court, "by general law", an authentication of the governor's certificate. This has never been done. For congress to omit this portion of its duty, and leave special cases to its own special law and arbitrary, partisan decision, is evidently in flat violation of the supreme law.

—6. The act of 1792 provides that the electors shall make three certificates of all their votes, two of which shall be sent to the president of the senate, one by mail and one by special messenger, and the third shall be deposited with the [federal] judge of the district in which they vote; that if neither of the first two shall reach its destination by the first Wednesday in January, the secretary of state shall send a special messenger for the third to the district judge; and that, if there be no president of the senate at the seat of government, the secretary of state shall receive and keep the certificates for the president of the senate. The transmission of the votes is thus very well provided for.

—7. The president of the senate is to open all the certificates in the presence of the senate and the house of representatives, and the act of 1792 specifies the second Wednesday of February succeeding the election as the day for the performance of this duty. In pursuance of its power to provide for the authentication of state acts and records, it would be perfectly competent for congress to so distinctly specify the necessary authentication of the electors' action and title that there could be no doubt in the mind of the president of the senate as to which papers were certificates, and which were not. In the absence of any such general law, the president of the senate is evidently left without any guide whatever, excepting that which must be the guide of every officer in like circumstances, his own best judgment. It was for this reason, because of the evident impossibility of the passage of a general law to meet the case in 1789, that the convention of 1787 passed the following resolution: "That the senators and representatives should convene at the time and place assigned [New York, March 4, 1789], and that the senators should appoint a president of the senate for the sole purpose of receiving, opening and counting the votes for president". This resolution was ratified with the constitution by the state conventions, and must be taken as expressing the contemporary intention to cover the real "casus omissus," viz, the neglect, refusal or inability of congress to pass a general law for the final authentication of certificates. The intention of the system was that the president of the senate should canvass the votes; in accordance with a general authenticating law, if congress would or could pass such a law; otherwise, according to his own best judgment. The members of the convention were not such bungling workmen as the modern idea of the "electoral count" would make them. They were not so foolish as to entrust the canvass to two independent agents, equal in rank, and without an arbiter in case of disagreement. They had a legislative power in congress and the president, capable of making "general laws" to govern the canvass; they had a single ministerial power, in the president of the senate, capable of carrying the general laws into effect; and they gave to each power its appropriate office. The system never contemplated the refusal of congress to pass a general law with the purpose of using its own laches to gain partisan control over special cases as they arose.

—8. Had congress done its plain duty in the premises, and carried out the system in its letter and spirit, as the convention of 1787 did, it is evident that that honorable body would have been reduced to its proper constitutional position as the official witness and register of the votes which have been declared by the president of the senate in accordance with general law. The constitution says, and need say, nothing of who shall count—only "and the votes shall then be counted"; for, if the orderly succession of steps has taken place according to the design of the system, the "count", in its legitimate and plain meaning, can be done by tellers appointed by the house, by individual members, by the newspaper reporters, or by any one who is able to do simple addition, though the journal of the official witnesses is the authoritative and permanent record of it. It is possible to imagine an unfair and illegal decision by the president of the senate, though no such case occurred while that officer (until 1821) maintained his proper place; and it is easy to see how hard it would be to punish him for such an offense. But it is absolutely impossible to punish congress for a partisan use of its usurped jurisdiction; and yet that body, since it has seized control of the canvass of the votes, has hardly ever, even in appearance, made any other than a partisan use of the power, no matter what party was in the majority. The constitution, by concentrating responsibility, found the safest place for the canvass of the votes, and if left the "count" unassigned and unguarded because there was no need of any other guard than the laws of arithmetic. All the abstruse debate as to the meaning of the simple word "count" has its origin in the determination of congress to give it the meaning of "canvass" and then to seize control of it. For this purpose, the extra-constitutional term "electoral Edition: current; Page: [63] count" has been coined.

—In the endeavor to ascertain the design of the system no attention has been paid to later congressional precedents or to the opinions of political leaders in and out of congress in the past. These may be found in great abundance in the volume called "Presidential Counts", cited below. They are misleading, for 1. congress has manufactured or been led into its own precedents for the purpose of overthrowing the position of the president of the senate, and 2. leaders of all parties have been interested in giving an illegitimate control of the system to congress, which they could influence, rather than to the proper official. But the safe guides, the plain words of the constitution itself, and the precedents of the convention of 1787 and the earlier congresses and presidents of the senate, are very easy of access, and no human ingenuity can extract from any of them a ground for any "objections", "withdrawal to consider objections", or final "voting upon disputed electoral votes" by the congress of the United States. The design of the system was to debar congress from all control over the electoral system, excepting its powers to provide for uniformity of voting, and, always by "general law," for the authentication of the state's appointment of electors for the guidance of the official canvasser; to place upon one man the responsibility which the convention well knew would be divided up and disregarded by congress; and for further safeguard, to allow congress to witness officially the execution of its own general law by the president of the senate. It was unfortunate that the constitution did not debar congress even from this last privilege, from which alone it has gained any foothold in the canvass, and have the count conducted in the presence of the supreme court; for the history of the system is only a long record of gradual usurpation of ungranted powers by congress, until at last the witness has climbed into the judge's seat, suspended the executive officer, and not only tries the law and the facts, but executes judgment as well.

—III. PERVERSION OF THE SYSTEM. (1. 1789-1821.) In this first period there is no instance of a declaration of the electoral canvass by any other power than the president of the senate, and the only open attempt to pervert the system was the federalist "bill of 1800". referred to hereafter. As the certificates which the president of the senate, in the absence of an authenticating law, decided to be valid were opened he passed them to the tellers appointed by the two houses, who "counted" them, in the proper meaning of the word. The certificates of election, which were made out by order of congress from 1797 until 1821, all contained the distinct affirmation that "the president of the senate did, in the presence of the said senate and house of representatives, open all the certificates and count all the votes of the electors" The idea had not yet been taken up that congress, in its capacity as a witness had the right to "object" to the reception of particular certificates. Indeed congress was formally petitioned to do so in 1809(in the case of Massachusetts), and refused. No case of double or contested returns occurred, but a number of informalities are noted in the record by the tellers, which the canvassing officer seems to have considered unimportant. Even when (in 1809) he saw fit to condone so important a defect as the absence of the governor's certificate, the witnesses had or took no power to interfere. In 1797 the legislature of Vermont had failed to pass any law prescribing the "manner of election" of the electors, and the rejection of Vermont's vote would have elected Jefferson and defeated Adams for the presidency. Nevertheless, Adams accepted Vermont's votes as equity demanded, and thus committed the "enormity" of counting himself in, without any apparent thought of objection from any quarter. Had this case of Vermont happened under the modern system of congressional control, only an "electoral commission" could have decided it, for the senate was federalist, and the house republican(democratic). In 1801 Jefferson, though in a case not so vital as that of Vermont, imitated Adams' example. An amendment to the constitution was introduced in congress in January and February. 1798, for the purpose, among others, of giving congress the very power of decision upon "contests" which it now exercises without such an amendment, but this was not adopted nor was it inserted in the 12th amendment.

—But although the forms of the exercise of canvassing power were kept up during this period, its spirit was growing weaker at every count. Its first, last and persistent foe has been the congress of the United States, which the convention strove so hard to shut out from any influence over the electors. The first principal inroad upon its essence came from the innocent and proper appointment of "tellers" by the two houses "to examine the votes". Though these tellers had only the arithmetical powers common to any or all examiners, their quadrennial appointment gradually brought into existence the idea that the "count" at least, whatever its nature might be, was an exclusive prerogative of congress; and the claim of power to "canvass" was only one step further. The second attack was the organization of congressmen of both parties into nominating bodies, whose decisions bound in advance the action of the electors, annulled their right of private judgment, and reduced them to ciphers. (SeeCAUCUS, CONGRESSIONAL.) When this had brought about, in 1801, its natural result of a tie between the two leading candidates (see DISPUTED ELECTIONS. I.), the 12th amendment was adopted requiring the electors to vote separately for president and vice-president, but not altering the system otherwise. This constitutional recognition of the existence of parties fixed the future nullity of the electors and their nullity gradually obscured the position of the president of the senate. Before 1801 no one knew positively what the vote of any elector was until the certificate was opened; after that year the Edition: current; Page: [64] votes of the electors were really known before they were cast, and several months before they were formally counted by the president of the senate. He, therefore, while he continued to follow precedents, did so in a careless and perfunctory way. In 1805 Burr merely broke the seals of the certificates, and handed them to the tellers to be read aloud by them. In 1809 the idea was first suggested openly, though not acted upon, that the houses were met "for a special purpose, to count out the votes", instead of "to witness the canvass of the votes". In 1817 the first "objection" to an electoral vote was offered. Indiana had been admitted as a state after the day fixed for the voting of the electors. John W. Taylor, of New York, objected to the counting of Indiana's votes, and the houses separated to discuss the objection, as they could not do while sitting in the same room. In both houses resolutions were offered, in the senate that Indiana "had a right to vote in December last", and in the house that Indiana's votes "ought to be counted;" but neither house adopted them, and the votes of Indiana were counted without any further interference by congress. But the precedent was remembered. The announcement of Indiana's vote, following the debate upon it by congress, was accepted as propter hoc, as well as post hoc; and from that time it was evident that the last vestige, even pro forma, of the constitutional function of the president of the senate was at the mercy of the first keen-witted or ignorant politician who should suggest that congress, having successfully established its exclusive power to "count" the votes, possessed thereby the power "to decide what were votes." The progressive changes of language in the messages from the two houses announcing their readiness to attend the count, are worthy of notice. They are as follows: (1793-1805) that they are ready to meet one another "to attend at the opening and counting of the votes"; (1809 and 1813) to attend in the opening and counting of the votes"; (1817) "to proceed in opening the certificates and counting the votes," or "to proceed to open and count the votes," the former being that of the senate, and the latter that of the house. These changes are landmarks.—(2. 1821-61.) In 1821 Missouri's votes were disputed (see MISSOURI), and for the first time in our history the power to canvass the votes was claimed for congress. Said Henry Clay in the house: "The two houses were called on to enumerate the votes, and of course they were called on to decide what are votes"; and again: "Would this house allow that officer [the president of the senate], singly and alone, to decide the question of the legality of the votes?" John Randolph, indeed, denounced the new idea of congressional control, and proclaimed the electors to be "as independent of this house as this house was of them"; but his voice was unheeded. Congress had found its opportunity, and seized it, to doubly violate the constitution, first, by usurping the control of the canvass, and second, by refusing to fulfill the charge that "the votes shall then be counted." The votes were not really counted. The houses ordered the president of the senate to declare that "if the vote of Missouri were to be counted, the result would be for A. B.———votes; if not counted, for A. B.———votes; but in either event A. B. was elected." This, with a fine irony, might be called "counting in the alternative" and this was the name which was thenceforward given to the process.

—Congress forgets no precedents in its own favour. It had now discovered that the president of the senate was entrusted with no higher or more responsible duty than that of "opening" the certificates; that its own duty was to count the votes; but that the canvass was under no one's constitutional care. At first congress contented itself with calling attention to the "casus omissus" which its own ingenuity had conjured up. But during all the rest of this period, while considering the various methods of providing for the casus omissus which are given hereafter, congress took care to practically cover the case by asserting and enforcing its control over the canvass.

—In 1837 the vote of Michigan was announced "in the alternative." (See MICHIGAN.) Objections were also made to the votes of six deputy postmasters who had been chosen electors, but congress agreed to receive them. In 1857 the vote of Wisconsin was objected to, (see WISCONSIN), but was counted. It is often asserted that the president of the senate counted it of his own constitutional authority. This is a mistake; his own statement is that he "disclaimed having assumed on himself any authority to determine whether that vote or any other vote was a good or a bad vote." He simply cut off debate while the two houses were together, as he was bound to do; the members of both houses lost their heads; no one moved for a separation of the houses; and the vote of Wisconsin was counted irrevocably in the midst of great disorder.

—At every election after 1821 the tellers assume more and more of the functions of the president of the senate. In 1829 he abandons to them the declaration of the result; in 1845 he transfers to them the breaking of the seals; and the climax, for this period, was reached in 1861, when the house actually appointed a committed to report a mode of "canvassing" the votes, inserting a new word instead of "examining," which had been used since 1793.—(3. 1861-81.) With the canvass of 1865 begins the period when congress, without pausing to debate, began the exercise of an absolute control over the votes of the electors. It did so by refusing to pass the general law which it was empowered to pass the general law which it was empowered to pass, leaving individual cases to be dealt with as party needs might demand. Feb. 6, 1865, the two houses, both under republican control, passed the twenty-second joint rule, which provided that any vote to which objection should be made should be rejected, unless accepted by concurrent vote of both houses. This did not require the president's signature, and seems to have been put into this Edition: current; Page: [65] shape for that reason. No previous American congress has ever been guilty of a more open and unnecessary usurpation than this. The act of Feb. 8 more fairly covered the case by providing that the seceding states named were in such condition on Nov. 8, 1864, that no valid election was held therein, and that no votes from them should be received. Even here the vicious propensity of congress to special legislation was apparent. Senator Collamer's substitute, giving no names of states, but referring in proper and general terms to "any state declared to be in insurrection by virtue of the act of July 13, 1861," was rejected.

—Under the continuing twenty-second joint rule the votes of Louisiana were counted in 1869, and by a further concurrent resolution the votes of Georgia were counted "in the alternative" In 1873, under the twenty-second rule, the vote of Louisiana was rejected by a concurrent vote, the vote of Arkansas and three votes of Georgia for Horace Greeley(dead) were rejected by a non-concurrence, and the votes of Texas and Mississippi were accepted. Jan. 20, 1876, the house having become democratic, the senate repealed the twenty second joint rule. The two houses were therefore left to meet the election of 1876 (see DISPUTED ELECTIONS, IV.) without any law on the subject.

—A very brief consideration of the facts under which the dispute as to the election of 1876 arose, will show that no such dispute could have arisen if the congress had fulfilled its plain duty under the constitution, 1, by passing a "general law," for the full authentication of the electoral votes from the state to the president of the senate, and 2, by keeping its own hands off the canvass. The "count," in its strict and proper meaning, might then have been left safely to the operations of the first rule of arithmetic. But this was not the time for a great constitutional reform; the fifty years' usurpation by congress of power to decide each case arbitrarily as it arose, had left the country with no law to rely upon; the passage of a general law by congress was then an impossibility; and it is matter for congratulation that the lottery which finally decided the presidential election was at least decently clothed in the forms of law. (See ELECTORAL COMMISION.) Of the utter illegality of the electoral commission, of the lack of power in congress to take the appointment of the electors away from the states, there can be no doubt; but there can be no more doubt, on the other hand, that congress committed no greater illegality in passing the electoral commission act that in assuming to "canvass" the votes in 1865, 1869 and 1873, under the twenty-second joint rule. President Hayes was just as illegally "counted in" as presidents Lincoln and Grant, and no more so than they.

—In 1880 congress again counted the vote of Georgia "in the alternative." It had not yet, nor has it yet in 1882, passed any general law to govern the president of the senate in his canvass of the votes and apparently intends still to persist in its traditional policy of waiting for disputed electoral votes, then claiming that there is no general law to cover the case and finally usurping the power to decide.

—IV. LEGAL LIMITATIONS. The constitutional provisions in regard to the electors will be found (see CONSTITUTION) under article II, §1, article IV., §1, and amendment XII. In pursuance of its powers to secure uniformity of voting and to provide for authentication of state records, congress has enacted various provisions to govern the action of the electors. The act of March 1, 1792, provided, 1, that the electors should be appointed in each state in 1792, and every four years thereafter, within thirty-four days preceding the first Wednesday in December; 2, that they should meet and vote on the first Wednesday in December and transmit their votes as heretofore described; 3, that the "executive authority" of each state should certify three lists of the electors, to be annexed by them to their certificates; 4, that the secretary of the state should send for the third list, if the first two were not received before the first Wednesday in January; 5, that congress should be in session on the second Wednesday in February, "that the certificates shall then be opened, the vote counted, and the persons who shall fill the offices of president and vice-president ascertained and declared agreeably to the constitution;" 6, that the certificates shall be delivered to the secretary of state in case there is no president of the senate at the capital. 7, that the electoral messengers shall receive twenty-five cents per mile by the most usual road; 8, that a fine of $1,000 shall be inflicted for neglect to deliver the lists; the remaining sections (9-12) relate to the succession to the presidency. The act of Jan. 23, 1845, fixed the day for the appointment of the electors as the Tuesday after the first Monday of November, and empowered each state to provide for filling vacancies in its "college" of electors, and to appoint a subsequent day for choice of electors when the first election has not resulted in a choice.

—V. SPECIAL ENACTMENTS 1. The act of March 26, 1804, was passed because of the doubt whether the proposed 12th amendment would be ratified in time to control the approaching presidential election. It permitted electors who, at their time of meeting, had not been notified of the ratification of the amendment, to vote twice, once according to the original mode of the constitution, and once according to the amendment, with the proviso that only those certificates should be finally valid which should be in accordance with the constitution as it should be in force on the day of voting. This, though it seems to have been legitimate, as a "general law," was made obsolete by the ratification of the amendment before the election.

—2. It has always been difficult for the upholders of congressional control over the canvass to give a name to their manner of action. They do not act as a legislative body, for the president's veto power is absent; nor as a joint meeting, for the separate existence and organization of the two houses is carefully preserved; and yet, if their independence is maintained, Edition: current; Page: [66] their control of the canvass is manifestly and absolutely dependent on the single chance of the political agreement of the two houses, for if they are controlled by different parties they can not agree in the canvass of disputed votes. No man can say, therefore, whether the two houses are to "agree" in accepting or in rejecting a disputed vote; and this one consideration is enough to stamp a congressional "canvass" as a hopeless absurdity. The strong probability (see RECONSTRUCTION, LOUISIANA, TENNESSEE) that two of the late seceding states would attempt to reorganize themselves without congressional control, caused the introduction and passage, Feb. 6, 1865, of a "joint rule," the twenty-second, which described the manner in which the two houses intended to canvass the votes. It provided, out side of the directions for organization, that "no vote objected to shall be counted except by the concurrent votes of the two houses," thus practically giving the power to reject a state's vote not even to "congress," but to either house—an absurdity which is only one of the least in the idea of a congressional canvass. Under this twenty-second joint rule the electoral votes were canvassed in 1869 and 1873, but it was abolished in 1876, as above stated, when the two houses had fallen to opposite parties.

—3. The act of Feb. 8, 1865, enacted that no electoral votes should be received or counted from the states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas and Tennessee. The reason assigned in the preamble was, that these states had rebelled against the government and were in such condition on Nov. 8, 1864, that no valid election was held therein. President Lincoln signed it "in deference to the views of congress," disclaiming "any opinion on the recitals of the preamble."

—4. The count of 1877 brought the touchstone which, when applied, will always expose the inherent fallacy of a canvass by two independent bodies. The senate was republican and the house was democratic. The difficulty was evaded in this case by the passage of the electoral commission act. It passed the senate, Jan. 25, 1877, by a vote of 47 (26 dem., 21 rep.) to 17 (1 dem., 16 rep.); the house, Jan. 26, by a vote of 191 (159 dem., 32 rep.) to 86 (18 dem., 68 rep.); and was approved Jan. 29. The germ of its idea will be found in the "bill of 1800," hereafter referred to. Both laws are open to the same fatal objection. They are not the "general laws" which congress is empowered to pass touching the authentication of state records, including electoral appointments; they do not come directly or indirectly, under any power which congress is authorized to exercise; and they are simply refusals by congress to give up permanently its usurpation of the power to canvass, even under circumstances which show that the exercise of the power may at any moment become impossible. The fiction that congress was more trustworthy canvassing agent than the president of the senate was long ago exploded; the experience of 1877 shows that extra-congressional agents are no better than congress; and the lesson of experience would seem to be that the canvass should be restored to the only agent from whom a decision, and a prompt decision, is always certain—the president of the senate. Nevertheless, all the remedies now (1882) under consideration retain the the vice of permitting "objections" to electoral votes and decision, in one form or other, by congress. (For the important features of the act see ELECTORAL COMMISSION; for the action of congress under it, see DISPUTED ELECTIONS, IV.)

—VI. PROPOSED LEGISLATION. 1. The Bill of 1800. Jan. 23, 1800, while the federalists controlled both houses of congress senator James Ross, of Pennsylvania, introduced a bill to regulate the electoral count. It provided, in brief for the formation of a "grand committee" of six senators, six representatives, and the chief justice, with power to examine and decide finally, in secret session, all disputes and objections as to electoral votes. Of the four members of the convention which framed the constitution who were then senators, the bill was voted for by only one, Jonathan Dayton, who had taken no real part in the deliberations of the convention itself. The other three, Charles Pinckney, Langdon and Baldwin, denounced and opposed the bill to the end. Pinckney, in his very able speech of March 28, 1800, distinctly declared the design of the constitution to have been that "congress shall not themselves, even when in convention, have the smallest power to decide on a single vote." The bill passed the senate the same day, by a vote of 16 to 12. In the house, John Marshall, Bayard and other federalists united with the democrats in emasculating the bill by giving the "grand committee" power only to take testimony and report it to the two houses without expressing any opinion on it, the return was still to be accepted, unless both houses concurred in rejecting it; and no provision was made for double returns. May 8, the senate amended by providing that a return objected to should be rejected unless both houses concurred in admitting it. Both houses refused to recede the bill was lost.

—2. The Benton Amendment. Dec. 11, 1823, senator Thomas H. Benton introduced an amendment to the constitution providing that each legislature should divide its state into electoral districts; that the voters of each district should vote "in their own proper persons" for president and vice-president; that a majority in an electoral district should give a candidate the electoral vote of the district; that the returning officers should decide in case of a tie vote in any district; and that, if no candidate should have a majority of all the electoral votes, the house should choose the president, and the senate the vice-president, as at present. The amendment at this session was not acted upon.

—Benton subsequently changed it by providing for a second popular election in case of a tie, and in case of a further tie, for the choice of the person Edition: current; Page: [67] having the greatest number of votes in the greatest number of states. It was introduced in this form, June 15, 1844, but was not acted upon.

—3. The Van Buren and Dickerson Amendments. These were introduced in the senate, the latter Dec. 16, by Mahlon Dickerson, of New Jersey, and the former Dec. 24, 1823, by Martin Van Buren, of New York. Both aimed to change the 12th amendment mainly by requiring the electors to be chosen by districts, instead of by general ticket. In the case of a tie vote the Dickerson amendment left the choice of president to the two houses in joint meeting, and of vice-president to the senate; the Van Buren amendment required the electors to be immediately convened by proclamation of the president, and to choose between the candidates having an equal number of votes, the final choice, in case of another tie, being left as at present. Neither amendment provided for disputed or double returns; and neither was acted upon.

—4. The McDuffie Amendment. This was introduced in the house, Dec. 22, 1823, by George McDuffie, of South Carolina, as chairman of a select committee on the subject. It provided that electors should be chosen by districts assigned by the legislatures, or by congress in default of action by any legislature; that the votes should be opened and counted as at present; that in case of a tie the president of the senate by proclamation should reconvene the electors, that the electors should then choose between the tie candidates; that, in the event of another tie, the two houses of congress, voting individually and not by states, should choose the president; that, if no choice was made on the first ballot, the lowest candidate on the electoral list should be dropped at each ballot until but two remained; that, in case of a final tie, the candidate who had the highest vote at the first, or, if not at the first, at the second meeting of the electors, should be chosen; that, if neither of these provisions applied, the two houses should continue balloting until a president was chosen; and that the vice-president should be chosen by the senate, in case of a tie vote for that office. This amendment was debated during the session, but was not acted upon. April 1, 1826, in the house, McDuffie obtained a vote on his resolutions. The first, that the constitution ought to be so amended as to keep the election of president and vice-president from congress, was carried by a vote of 138 to 52; the second, in favor of the "district system" was lost by a vote of 90 to 102; and the subject was dropped.

—5. The Van Buren Bill. April 19, 1824, the senate passed Van Buren's bill, providing that, if objection were made to a return, the return should be counted unless the houses, voting separately, concurred in rejecting it. The bill was not acted on by the house.

—6. The Gilmer Amendment. In each of his messages Pres. Jackson recommended to congress the passage of an amendment giving the choice of president and vice-president to the people. Jan. 31, 1835, in the house, George R. Gilmer, of Georgia, chairman of a select committee on the subject, reported an amendment. It combined the direct choice by the people, and the second popular election in case of a tie, of the Benton amendment, with a provision that, in case of the death of the successful candidate at the second popular election, the vice-president "then in office" should be president. In case of a tie at the second popular election the president was to be chosen by the house and the vice-president by the senate as at present. This amendment was not acted upon.

—7. The Morton Amendment May 28, 1874, senator Oliver P. Morton, of Indiana, chairman of the committee on elections, reported an amendment in seven sections. It provided that the states should be divided into electoral districts, and that a majority of the popular vote of a district should give a candidate one "presidential vote"; that the highest number of presidential votes in a state should give a candidate two votes at large; that the highest number of presidential votes in the country should elect a candidate; that an equal division of the popular vote in a district should nullify the presidential vote of the district, an equal division of the presidential votes in a state should divide the two votes at large, or should nullify them, if there was an equal division between three candidates; that the vice-president should be chosen in the same manner; that congress should provide rules for the election, and tribunals for the decision of contests; and that districting should be done by state legislatures, but that congress might "make or alter the same." In debate it was understood that congress could either adopt the existing courts as tribunals, or create new ones for the purpose of deciding contests. The amendment was debated through the winter of 1875, but was not finally acted upon.

—8. The Morton Bill. Feb. 25, 1875, senator Morton introduced a bill to govern the electoral count. It followed the twenty-second joint rule, except that it provided that, if objection were made to any return, that return should be counted, unless rejected by a concurrent vote of both houses, and that, in case of a double return, that return should be counted which the two houses, acting separately, should decide to be the true one. This was the first provision in our history for double returns. In debate it was agreed that the vote of the state would be lost in case of a disagreement of the houses on a double return. The bill was passed by the senate, and not acted upon by the house. At the next session it was brought up again, Dec. 8, 1875, debated, until March 24, 1876, and then passed by a party vote of 32 to 26 democrats in the negative. The same day a motion to reconsider was entered by a democratic senator and carried April 19. It was then debated until Aug. 5, and dropped. Had it become a law it would have seated the democratic candidates at the following election.

—9. The Buckalew Amendment. This, drawn up by ex-senator Charles R. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, was introduced in the house Feb. 7, 1877, by Edition: current; Page: [68] Levi Malsh, of the same state. It provides for direct popular vote by electoral districts, and assigns to each candidate a proportion of the state's electoral vote corresponding to his proportion of the state's popular vote. It has never been acted upon.

—10. The McMillan System. This system contemplates the nomination of presidential candidates by state legislatures, each nomination to specify whether it shall be classed in "the first presidential canvass," or in "the second presidential canvass"; an election by a majority of the general popular vote; and, in default of a popular majority, a second general election, to be confined to the highest candidate in each "presidential canvass". This last term is another phrase for political party, and its introduction is intended to prevent the possible second election from being confined to two candidates of the same party. The system has only been unofficially proposed in Mr. McMillan's work cited below.

—11. The Edmunds Bill. This bill to regulate the electoral count, introduced in 1878 by senator George F. Edmunds, of Vermont, provided that the electors should be appointed on the first Tuesday of October and should meet and vote on the second Monday of the following January: that each state "may provide" by law for the trial of contests, and the decision shall be conclusive of the lawful title of the electors, that, if there is any dispute as to the lawfulness of the state tribunal, only that return shall be counted which the two houses, acting separately, shall concur in deciding to be supported by the lawful tribunal; that, if there are double returns from a state which has not decided the title of the electors, only that return shall be counted which the two houses, acting separately, shall decide to be legal; and that, if any objections are made to any single return, it shall not be rejected except by the affirmative vote of both houses. The bill was not passed. It was introduced again, Dec. 19, 1881, by senator George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts, but has not yet (1882) been passed. The bill would be perfectly in accord with the design of the electoral system if its code of rules had been still more carefully drawn and made obligatory upon the president of the senate alone; but, by reserving to the two houses, even concurrently, the power at their own partisan pleasure to adjudicate special cases, and even over-ride their own previous enactments, it retains the vicious principle which has been the source of all our difficulties. The difficulty lies, not in the electoral system, but in the determination of congressmen of both houses, and of all parties, to meddle with a duty which the constitution distinctly intended to free from their control.

—VII. INCIDENTAL FEATURES. In 1789 no electoral votes were cast by New York, Rhode Island or North Carolina. The two latter states had not yet ratified the constitution. In New York the anti-federalists of the assembly wished to choose electors by joint ballot; the federalists of the senate insisted upon having half the electors, and no electoral law was passed. Electors were generally chosen by the legislatures in all the states until about 1820-24. In Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia they were chosen by popular vote in electoral districts. In Massachusetts the people of each congressional district nominated three electors, of whom the legislature chose one, and the two electors at large. Occasionally the district system was adopted for a time by other states, but was altered as party interest demanded, as in 1812, when the democratic legislatures of Vermont and North Carolina and the federalist legislature of New Jersey repealed the law for the choice of electors by popular vote just before the day fixed for the election, and assumed the choice themselves. The following legislature of North Carolina re established the district system, and recommended the adoption of the amendment subsequently known as the "Benton Amendment."

—In 1800 the democratic assembly of Pennsylvania wished to choose electors by joint ballot, in order to secure the whole number, while the federalist senate insisted on having seven of the fifteen electors. A bill to that effect was passed, Dec. 1, 1800, just in time to enable the electors to vote, Dec. 3. The "bill of 1800," heretofore mentioned, was aimed at Pennsylvania's vote. In South Carolina, in 1800, the legislature which was to choose the electors was extremely doubtful, even after its meeting. The democrats offered to compromise on Jefferson and Pinckney, which would, as it proved, have made Pinckney vice-president; but the federalists stood to their whole ticket and lost it, 83 to 68. At the count of the votes in February, 1801, Jefferson, the president of the senate, counted the votes of Georgia for himself and Burr, as equity demanded, although the tellers called his attention to the absence of any certificate that the electors had voted for them. The votes of Georgia, however, were not essential to the result. (For the tie vote and its results see DISPUTED ELECTIONS, I.)

—In 1816 three electors in Maryland and one in Delaware, belonging to the almost extinct federal party, neglected to vote, and in 1820 Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Mississippi each lost an elector by death. (See ELECTORAL COLLEGE) One elector in New Hampshire voted for John Quincy Adams for president, so that Monroe did not have a unanimous vote. Missouri, whose final admission only dated from Aug. 10, 1821 (see MISSOURI), chose presidential electors in November, 1820, and their votes were "counted in the alternative," as before mentioned.

—In 1824 the electors made no choice. (See DISPUTED ELECTIONS, II.) The electors were now chosen by poplar vote in all the states excepting Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, New York, South Carolina and Vermont, where they were still chosen by the legislatures. In 1828 and subsequent years electors were chosen by popular vote in all the states excepting Edition: current; Page: [69] South Carolina, where the legislature chose them until 1868.

—Michigan, which was not admitted until Jan. 26, 1837, chose presidential electors in November, 1836, and their votes were "counted in the alternative." No choice of a vice-president was made by the electors. (See DISPUTED ELECTIONS, III) In 1856 the Wisconsin electors were prevented by a violent snow storm from meeting and voting on the day fixed by law (Dec. 3), and met and voted Dec. 4. In counting the votes, Feb. 11, 1857, objection was made to Wisconsin's vote. The president of the senate, senator Mason, of Virginia, decided debate to be out of order; no motion to separate was made; and the vote of Wisconsin was counted. In 1865 the president of the senate, "in obedience to the law of the land" (the act of 1865), refused, when requested, to open the certificates sent by Louisiana and Tennessee.

—In 1869 the votes of Mississippi, Texas and Virginia, which had not been reconstructed, were not received, and the votes of Louisiana were counted. The votes of Nevada were objected to, but the president of the senate refused to entertain the objection, on the ground that it was too late. Georgia, which had been reconstructed, had proceeded to deny the eligibility of negroes to the legislature. Her electors had voted on the second Wednesday in December, as required by state law passed under the confederacy, instead of the first Wednesday, as required by law, and on this ground it was known that objections would be made to their votes. It was therefore arranged by joint resolution to "count them in the alternative." Nevertheless, objection was made to Georgia's vote. It was sustained by the house, and overruled by the senate, and the president of the senate decided that they must be counted in the alternative, decided debate out of order, and refused to allow an appeal from his decision. The vote was finally made up in the midst of disgraceful disorder.

—In 1873 double returns appeared for the first time, from Louisiana and Arkansas. The two houses concurred in counting the votes of Texas (objected to for want of the governor's certificate), and of Mississippi (objected to for want of a certificate that the electors had voted by ballot), and in rejecting the vote of Arkansas, for want of the governor's certificate. By disagreement of the two houses three votes of Georgia for Greeley (dead), and the entire vote of Louisiana were rejected.

—In 1877 the result of the electoral vote was disputed. The facts and mode of settlement are elsewhere given. (See ELECTORAL COMMISSION; DISPUTED ELECTIONS, IV.) In 1881 the electoral votes of Georgia, which were still cast on the wrong day, were "counted in the alternative."

—See (1.) 1 Elliot's Debates, 182, 208, 211, 222, 228, 283, 290, 302; 5 Elliot's Debates, 128, 131, 141, 192, 322, 334, 363, 507, 520, 586. (II.) McKnight's Electoral System; The Federalist, Ixviii,; Story's Commentaries, §1449; 2 Bancroft's History of the Constitution, 169; Rawle's Commentaries, 58, 2 Wilson's Law Lectures, 187; 1 Kent's Commentaries, 262; Phocion's Letters (in 1824, copied in 24 Niles' Register, 373, 411); 5 Elliot's Debates, 541; the arguments and precedents in favor of the power of congress to canvass the votes will be found in Appleton's Presidential Counts, pp. xliv.-liv. (III.) See Annals of Congress for the year required; these are collected in a more easily accessible form in Appleton's Presidential Counts, and the volume entitled Counting the Electoral Votes, (H. of R Misc. Doc., 1877, No. 13). (IV.) 1 Stat at Large, 239 (act of March 1. 1792); 5 Stat. at Large, 721 (act of Jan. 23, 1845); U.S. Rev. Stat. §§ 131-142. (V.) 2 Stat. at Large, 295 (act of March 26, 1804; Counting the Electoral Votes, 224, 786 (the twenty-second joint rule); 13 Stat. at Large, 490 (act of Feb. 8, 1865); 19 Stat. at Large, 227 (electoral commission act). (VI.) Counting the Electoral Votes. 16 (bill of 1800); Annals of Congress (6th Cong.), 126 (Pinckney's speech); Appleton's Presidential Counts, 419 (Ibid.); 7 Benton's Debates of Congress. 472, 473, 480 (the Benton, Dickerson and Van Buren amendments respectively), Counting the Electoral Votes, 711 (the McDuffie amendment); 7 Benton's Debates, 603, (purports to give the amendment, but omits the amendment proper, as to the election of president, and gives only the provisions relating to the elections of vice-president); 12 Benton's Debates of Congress, 639 (the Gilmer amendment); Counting the Electoral Votes, 422 (the Morton amendment); Congressional Record, Feb. 25, 1875 (the Morton bill); North American Review, January, 1877 (the Buckalew amendment); McMillan's Elective Franchise; Congressional Record, Dec. 19, 1881 (the Edmunds-Hoar bill). (VII) Counting the Electoral Votes, and Appleton's Presidential Counts; for Jefferson and the Georgia votes in 1801 see, on the one side, 2 Davis' Life of Burr, 71, and on the other, 1 Democratic Review, 236.

EMANCIPTION

EMANCIPATION, Political and Religious. To emancipate a class of persons is to deliver them from the inferior condition in which they were held and give them the equal rights of citizens. Equality is a natural right. Civil society was established for the purpose of acquiring and preserving it, by putting an end to the abuses of force, the cause of inequality. It is, therefore, a violation of the principle on which society is based to establish or recognize in a state different orders of persons, some of whom enjoy the full rights of citizenship, while others are reduced to a state of subjection. So long as they bear the same burdens, and perform the same duties, all should enjoy the same rights and political advantages.

—This truth is not a new one in the world. Christianity laid down the principle that every man, by the fact alone of his being a man, had the same dignity and the same right to justice and liberty. But how many ages were needed for the ideas introduced into the world by Christianity to germinate and bear fruit! For Edition: current; Page: [70] fully nineteen centuries, difference of religion, of class, color and nationality, continued to serve as pretexts to oppress and deprive of legal protection a more or less considerable part of the population of every country. Freedom of the individual, of conscience and civil equality, are of very recent date.

—It is not a hundred years since Rousseau could justly reproach Frenchmen with assuming the title of citizens without even knowing the meaning of the term, and remind them that the name of subjects was far better suited to most of them. In England the Catholics have enjoyed civil equality only since 1829. The Jews won the right to sit in parliament only in 1859. In France the traces of hate and prejudice of which they were victims have disappeared only since 1830, and the emancipation of Protestants in that country dates only from the revolution. There were serfs in France in 1789, and it required a second or rather a third revolution (1848) to solve the question of slavery. In another order much time was required to put the principles of liberty and social equality into practice with regard to French colonies, for France admitted them to the enjoyment of political rights only in 1870, and she still imposes restrictions on their commerce (though less than formerly), the results of which are injurious to them as they are of doubtful utility to the mother country;—The causes of civil inequality lie in the ignorance of misunderstanding of the natural rights of man. It was when it might be said that the human race had found its true title deeds that these causes lost their influence. The honor of this belongs to the philosophy of the eighteenth century. By preparing the triumph of philosophic reason over religious fanaticism and the final destruction of the feudal system, it became the most active agent of emancipation.

—But, as has been frequently remarked, the ideals of the eighteenth century have been surpassed in our time. As always happens, beyond the progress made, there were still other kinds of progress whose possibility was not at first suspected. Thus Voltaire did not even dream of putting Protestants in France, and still less the Jews, on the same footing with Catholics. He admitted that public offices and employments might be refused them. He found in this monstrous inequality merely a necessary fact, a condition inherent in the social state. In France, in his time, non-Catholics themselves did not dare to lay claim to a share in political life. When the constituent assembly declared, Aug. 21, 1789, that all citizens, being equal in its eyes, were equally eligible to all public places, employments and dignities, non-Catholics were implicitly excluded from the equality thus proclaimed, so that it was necessary, a few months later, to issue a special decree providing that non-Catholics were eligible for all civil and military employments as well as other citizens. The preamble announced, in addition, that the assembly did not decide anything relative to the Jews, the consideration of whose case it reserved. (Decree of Dec. 24, 1789.) So that in laying down the principle of absolute equality, it limited its action to freeing the non-Catholics from persecution.

—This inconsistency is explained easily enough. The chief object of the philosophical controversies of the eighteenth century had been freedom of conscience; but the question had not yet been considered from the purely political point of view. There still existed a state religion in France, and the majority of the constituent assembly wished to maintain it. But the existence of a dominant religion naturally excludes dissidents from offices and public employments.

—The French revolution, which, more than anything else, had the unity of the country in view, was not slow in comprehending that this unity, the source of national power, could not be effectually acquired unless civil equality were granted to all; and by according full and complete equality to dissidents it performed not merely an act of justice, but took a wise political measure.

—Historians have told us what the revocation of the edict of Nantes cost France; but no one, so far as we know, has calculated the material and moral gain to regenerated France, from its proclaiming the equality of religions before the law.

—English statesmen were not mistaken here. The duke of Wellington and the tories associated with him in power in 1829, were not inclined to yield exclusively to the influence of philosophical ideas. When, notwithstanding their antecedents and their personal dislikes, they decided to propose Catholic emancipation, it was because they felt that this was the price of the moral unity of Great Britain, that the sentiment of common liberty and civil equality was the only one in which Ireland could sympathize with England, and the agitation and continual strife would cease only through one of two means; the extermination of emancipation of Catholics. Subsequent events have shown that they were right. England, freed from one cause of internal dissension, regained a liberty of action which contributed to insure her preponderance in Europe, during the years which followed 1830.

—From this experiment and many others we may deduce the principle, that a nation grows in power, in activity, in fruitfulness, in proportion as the same law is in force for all in the broadest and most liberal manner. In France national power has increased in direct ratio to the progress of civil equality; the history of its growth is identical with that of the emancipation of the third estate and the abolition of serfdom. Here, again, humanity and policy were at one. Humanity demonstrated that serfdom—that is to say, to have men attached to the soil, identified with it, looked upon as feudal property, unable to dispose of their goods, unable to leave to their own children the fruit of their labor—was unworthy of a generous nation; and policy showed "that such arrangements are only fitted to enfeeble industry and deprive society of the effects of that energy in labour which the feeling of property is Edition: current; Page: [71] alone capable of inspiring.8quot—These motives, by which Turgot, in 1779, justified the abolition of serfdom in the domains of the king, are the same which were destined to lead to the emancipation of slaves. England had preceded France in this work of emancipation. After Aug. 1, 1838, there were no slaves in the English Antilles, when the provisional government in France decreed immediate and complete emancipation. Every one, beyond a doubt, was agreed on the principle; but on the eve of the resolution of February, the idea of gradual abolition still prevailed, and unconditional abolitionists, who placed humanity and justice before all things, were in a minority.

—EMANCIPATION OFCATHOLICS. In Great Britain. The term Catholic emancipation was given to the act by which the Catholics of the United Kingdom were freed from the political disabilities which excluded them from parliament and all high offices of state; but this act itself was only the completion and consequence of a series of measures intended to restore to the Catholics of England and Ireland the rights of property and individual liberty of which they had been deprived in consequence of the reformation in Great Britain, or rather of the struggles which followed it. Henry VIII., when he separated from the Catholic church, retained its dogmas and discipline. It was only under his successor, Edward VI., that the Anglican church decided in favor of the reformation, which finally triumphed during the reign of Elizabeth after a bloody reaction under Queen Mary. From this period the persecution of Catholics became regular, and assumed a legal form; the basis of all the penal laws which followed, are found in the acts of uniformity and supremacy. The act of uniformity prohibited the use of any liturgy but that of the official church, under pain of confiscation for the first offence, imprisonment for a year for the second, and imprisonment for life for the third. A fine of one shilling was imposed for absence from the state church on Sundays and holidays. By the act of supremacy every beneficed clergyman and every layman in the employment of the crown was obliged to abjure the spiritual sovereignty of the pope and recognize that of the queen, under penalty of high treason for a third offense.

—These penal laws soon became more severe. In 1593 the penalty of imprisonment was pronounced against all persons above the age of sixteen who should fail for one month to appear at church, unless they made an open act of submission and a declaration of uniformity. Catholics filled the prisons. They were ruined by fines or left the country. There were hunters of Catholics who tracked the fugitives.

—Under James I. new statutes deprived the Catholics of the control and education of their children; but while parliament imposed these penalties, the king, personally favorable to Catholics, procured them some tranquillity. This condition of the relative quiet continued under Charles I. and Cromwell, and the penal laws were not enforced till tge restoration of CharlesII. Under his reign, and notwithstanding his sympathies for the Catholics, the testact was passed. It declared all persons incapacitated to fill any public office who refused to renounce the doctrine of transubstantiation (1673).

—In 1679 the Catholics, already excluded from the house of commons, were also excluded from the house of lords. Finally, after the revolution of 1688, though William of Orange was disposed to toleration, Anglican fanaticism ruled without control. Priests were forbidden, under pain of imprisonment for life, to celebrate mass or exercise their functions in England, unless in the house of an ambassador. A priest in countries subject to the crown of England was considered guilty of high treason unless he had taken the oaths of supremacy and uniformity. All persons furnishing him an asylum were guilty of felony, without benefit of clergy.

—Laymen professing the Catholic religion and refusing to assist at the services of the established church, incurred, besides the pains and penalties mentioned above, the loss of their right of exercising any employment, of possessing landed property after the age of eighteen years, and of having arms in their houses. They were forbidden to come within eighteen miles of London, or to go farther than five miles from home without permission. Women might be detained in prison if their husbands did not ransom them; they lost a portion of their dowry. A catholic could not bring a case at law; and a wife could neither be the heir nor the testamentary executor of her husband. Marriages, burials, baptisms, could be officiated at only be a clergyman of the official church—The situation of the Catholics in Ireland was still more frightful. There also the acts of uniformity and supremacy had been forced on the people by the prison and the scaffold. But four-fifths of the population were and wished to remain Catholic. The struggle was prolonged into a war of extermination. Defeated at the battle of the Boyne(1690), the Catholics signed the treaty of Limerick. It was agreed that Roman Catholics should retain the exercise of their religion as under the reign of Charles II., and the king agreed to obtain the most ample guarantees for them. These were refused by parliament. The Anglican bishop of Meath justified this breach of faith by proving, in a sermon preached before the lords justices, that Protestants were not bound to observe the peace concluded with the papists.

—A new parliament, convened in 1695, undertook as its first work to ascertain the condition of the penal laws. A committee appointed for this purpose reported that the principal ones were: 1st, an act requiring the oath of supremacy for admission to all employments; 2nd, an act imposing fines for absence form the services of the established church; 3d, an act authorizing the chancellor to appoint a guardian to the child of every Catholic; 4th, an act prohibiting instruction to Catholics. This legislation served as a point of departure for other acts Edition: current; Page: [72] which expelled Catholic priests and prelates, deprived parents of the right to instruct their own children except through Protestant masters, ordered the general disarmament of Catholics, excluded them from public employments, and repealed the laws which confirmed them in the enjoyment of their property. All this was done at a time when England received the Protestants driven from France, and conferred on them the rights of citizenship. At this period there were three or four millions of Irish Catholics, but, as far as the law was concerned, they existed no longer. It did not recognize that there were, in Ireland, any citizens but Protestants. Things thus continued during the first two thirds of the eighteenth century, so that the earliest events which were the incentive to emancipation were purely political. These events were a consequence of the ideas of independence and national interests common to all the inhabitants of Ireland, propagated by the Protestant, Swift, and before him by Molyneux.

—In 1773 the Catholics esteemed as a great favor an act which, without changing the penal laws in any way, permitted them to take a new oath as a pledge of their loyalty. This act implicitly recognized their existence. About the same time a Catholic committee was formed.

—The spirit of the time had changed, George III., in his zeal for Anglicanism, upheld the penal laws, but parliament practiced toleration in spite of the king, as at a former time it had been intolerant in spite of William III. In 1778 it was provided, on motion of Sir George Saville, 1st, that Catholic priests discovered performing their functions should no longer be subject to the penalties of high treason; 2d, that a son, by accepting the Protestant religion, should no longer be able to despoil his father; 3d, that the power of acquitting property by purchase, inheritance or gift should be restored to Catholics. Nevertheless, at the end of the eighteenth century these just measures excited among English Protestants the most formidable insurrection. On May 30, 1780, 60,000 men, under the leadership of Lord George Gordon, a half-crazy fanatic, besieged the houses of parliament; repulsed by the military they wrecked the housed of the principal members of parliament, attacked and burnt the prisons, assassinated Catholics, and were the cause of a frightful conflagration in the city. When order was re-established, parliament limited itself to furnishing some explanations intended to satisfy public opinion on the interests of the Protestant religion. Things remained as they were before the insurrection.

—The example given in England was followed in Ireland. In 1778 a bill was passed which permitted Catholics to teach and exercise guardianship over their own children. The privilege of living in Limerick or Galway was restored to them. The prohibition of owning a horse worth more than five pounds sterling was done away with. From 1790 to 1793 several bills in succession permitted Catholics to engage in the profession of the law, to receive apprentices, to occupy positions in the army as high as colonel inclusive, to have arms on condition of possessing property of a certain value, to be members of a grand jury and justices of the peace, to hold subordinate civil positions, and, which was of great value, to vote at elections. These acts did away with the obligation of attending Protestant service, even authorised Catholic priests, under certain restrictions, to celebrate mass, and removed the remnant of the restraints on acquiring and holding property. The benefit of these laws was acquired by taking an oath, renouncing allegiance to the pretender, and disavowing the doctrine that contracts with heretics may be broken, and that princes excommunicated by the see of Rome may be deposed and put to death.

—When the pact of parliamentary union was established in 1798 between Ireland and England, the latter promised, as a compensation, to abolish all remaining political disabilities. George III, refused to keep the promise of his minister, and William Pitt resigned his office. Thus deceived, Ireland had the courage to employ only legal means to assert her rights. Under the direction of John Reogh, and soon after of O'Connell, the Catholic association was able to arouse and support one of those great movements of public opinion which, in enlightened and free countries, prepare and necessitate the regular change of institutions. A continually growing minority in parliament were in favour of emancipation. It might have been believed, in 1813, that the cause was about to triumph. The bigotry of George III. had become a characteristic folly, and his successor showed more generous tendencies—The condition of the Catholics of England was improved in the same degree as that of their co-religionists in Ireland. Instead of following, in all its details, the gradual abolition of the restrictions and penalties imposed on them, we shall describe the condition of both on the eve of Catholic emancipation. A Catholic could sit neither in the house of lords nor in the house of commons, he was excluded from every judicial office; the higher grades of service in the army and navy were opened to him by law only since 1816; he had no voice in the vestries, though these assemblies had the right of imposing heavy taxes; he could be neither governor nor director of a bank, nor occupy a number of other honorary or lucrative offices. If a Catholic in Ireland did not possess a freehold of a hundred pounds a year, or personal property to the amount of a thousand pounds, he had not the right to keep arms, he was subject to domiciliary visits, and in certain cases to imprisonment, to the pillory or to flogging; he was excluded from certain occupations, such as that of gamekeeper and gunsmith. If a Catholic died without having appointed a guardian to his children, the chancellor had the right of setting aside the nearest relatives and appointing a Protestant stranger. If a Catholic corresponded with the pope, he became guilty of high treason. Catholic endowments, either charitable or benevolent, Edition: current; Page: [73] were expressly forbidden. A Catholic priest who, even by mistake, should marry a Catholic and Protestant, incurred capital punishment. A Catholic priest was liable to imprisonment if he refused to make known the secrets of the confessional before a court of justice. Finally, to retain their property, to practice their religion, in one word, to profit by all the favorable acts passed since 1778, Catholics were obliged to take the oath of fidelity and renounce the temporal authority of the pope. This résumé does not include certain regulations more vexatious than important, such as the prohibition of pilgrimages, the duty imposed on magistrates of destroying Catholic crosses, paintings and inscriptions.

—Such was the legal position of four or five millions of citizens. We have stated, in the introduction to this article, how the duke of Wellington's government was led to put an end to this state of affairs. On March 5, 1829, Robert Peel laid before the house of commons the emancipation bill, entitled. An act for the relief of his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. Neither the rage of the Protestant party of 1780, nor the enthusiasm of the French revolution, were witnessed at the time, the measure was proposed and voted as a political expedient. The danger of internal dissension, the necessity of decreasing the influence of the priests, as well as of dissolving the Catholic association by granting what it asked for, and the impossibility of continuing the struggle longer, were the motives that the ministry brought to bear. The bill passed the house of lords, by 212 votes against 112, in spite of the opposition of certain bishops, and was finally adopted April 13, 1829. The act or bill of emancipation (Act 10, George IV., chap.vii.) formally abolished all preceding laws, not, however, without certain reservations. Thus, every Catholic could be a member of the house of lords or commons, on condition of his taking an oath of fidelity to the king and the Protestantdynasty, instead of the oath of supremacy and abjuration; of his declaring that he did not consider it an article of faith that princes excommunicated by the pope might be deposed and put to death by their subjects; of his recognizing that the pope had neither civil power nor jurisdiction in the kingdom, and promising to maintain the established church in its privileges and property. By taking the same oath Catholics were allowed to vote at elections for the house of commons, and were eligible to civil and military employments, with the exception of the office of lord chancellor of England or of Ireland, lord lieutenant of Ireland or high commissary to the general assembly of the church of Scotland. Roman Catholics might become members of lay corporations, on condition of taking the above oath and such other oaths as should be required of the members of these corporations, but without being able, while sitting in the same corporations, to cast a vote on questions of presenting an ecclesiastical benefice. No particular oath was required to enable Roman Catholics to possess personal property or real estate, nor for their admission to the army or the navy. The bill at the same time contained a clause directed against O'Connell, elected from the county of Clare. who generously sacrificed his interest to the success of the common cause. The property qualification for voters was raised, in Ireland, from forty shillings to ten pounds, which did not, however, prevent the great agitator from entering parliament.

—The emancipation act was justly considered a great boon. The London Timesremarked that hitherto the union of the three nations was merely nominal; there could be no harmony between the serf and his master, between the suspicious oppressor and his victim. Catholic emancipation was a victory whose consequences would be so many benefits for the remotest generation, for it brought peace and happiness to Ireland and was an element of strength and dignity for Great Britain. Experience has confirmed all this.-In Other Countries. We could not well think not well think of reproaching the pope, when still in possession of the temporal power, with depriving non-Catholics of all political and even civil rights. Civil equality was not compatible with the nature of his government. But we are astonished that in liberal Holland Catholics were so long excluded systematically from the employ of the government in spite of the law of 1798 which emancipated them; that in Sweden, a country where Protestantism is dominant, that is to say. where the right of each one to account only to himself for his faith is recognized dissidents are still excluded from public offices, and citizens professing the state religion are forbidden under penalty of perpetual banishment to embrace another religion.

—It is remarkable that the pretext for the first invasion of Poland in 1768 was the emancipation of the Ruthenians of the Greek rite whom the Catholics held in an inferior political condition. At present, Russia is endeavoring to impose on Polish Catholics the orthodox religion in order to attach them to the throne of the czar and make them forget their own nationality, but we know that every step taken in such a direction leads from the desired end. After similar acts of violence committed in France against the Protestants the only result was to obtain apparent conversions and make the two nations almost irreconcilable.

—In Russia proper, atrocious persecutions were carried on from 1832 and 1855, to favour the progress of the dominant religion. According to Dupretz(Revue des Deux Mondes, 1850, vol. i.) more than five millions of United Greeks, or Greek Catholics, were obliged to join the Russian church. In giving an account of the means employed to effect this end we do not find measures tending to abolish civil equality between the dissidents and the orthodox, and this is easily understood in a country in which the whole nation was subject to the machinery and the external forms of a military government. Resource was had, therefore, to other means; for instance, a ukase of Edition: current; Page: [74] Jan. 2, 1839, granted complete amnesty to persons condemned for robbery or murder, to the knout, to mines, or to the galleys, sa a reward for conversion. Another ukase of March 21, 1840, decreed that every person who should leave the orthodox religion would lose the administration of his own estates, that he could not hold orthodox serfs in his service, etc. The measures decreed under Nicholas I. had nothing of the generous ideas of emancipation which the Russian government applied under Alexander II. to forty millions of his subjects in the question of serfdom. Neither did it in any way resemble the toleration professed by Catherine II., which Voltaire, with a complaisance for which he has been blamed, praised too highly. The illustrious philosopher was scarcely more in the right when, to satirize the morals of Europe, he delighted in lauding the followers of Confucius. Better informed in our time he would, no doubt, have applauded article thirteen of the treaty of peace and alliance concluded at Pekin in 1860, which abolished all penalties and disqualifications affecting Christians in China. But perhaps he would have been less pleased with the clause binding the Chinese government to accord missionaries effectual protection, a protection which appears to be of another kind than that guaranteed to travelers and merchants. He would at least have observed that the conditions of just reciprocity would impose on the French government the obligation of extending a special and effectual protection to bonzes who should try to convert us to the most ancient religion of Asia. It is well to emancipate the members of Christian communities, but for them, as for all others, equality should be the rule.

—EMANCIPATION OF PROTESTANTS. In the general reaction in France which followed the death of Louis XIV., the regent thought of recalling the Huguenots. This inaccurate expression, which was frequently employed in the eighteenth century, was employed to mean the recalling of Protestant refugees to France, and the giving of a civil status to those who had remained in France. Saint-Simon boasted of having made the duke of Orleans abandon this project: he admitted, however, that the legislation of Louis XIV., so harsh toward Protestants, was confused and contradictory, and caused the government frequent embarrassments, especially in questions of marriage and wills. The traditions of the administration had more weight with the regent than the opinion of Saint-Simon. These traditions were represented and upheld especially by a family formerly protestant, that of Phelyppeux, which during almost two whole centuries furnished secretaries of state, under the names of Pontchartrain, Saint-Florentin, Maurepas, La Vrillière. The count of Saint-Florentin, in particular, during a ministry of fifty-two years devoted himself with a rare degree of bureaucratic stubbornness to keeping the protestants under the yoke.

—The honor of having given the first impulse in France belongs to Voltaire. Immediately after a renewal of persecution in the city of Toulouse, noted for the tortures of the pastor Rochette, of the three brothers Grenier, accused of wishing to liberate him, and of Jean Calas, Voltaire called attention to the condition of the Protestants of France, by the success of his efforts, continued during three years, to reverse the decision in the case of Calas, and during nine years in that of Sirven. With the aid of the Duke de Choiseul he endeavored to found at Versoix a manufacturing town whose clock making should rival that of Geneva, and where Protestant workmen should not only enjoy civil rights but even freedom of worship. Voltaire encouraged with all his power writers of his own school and certain tolerant magistrates to publish mémoireson the civil condition of the Protestants, and particularly on the necessity of recognizing their marriages. Rippert de Monclar, Turgot, Target, Condorcet, Gibert de Voisius, Robert de Saint-Vincent, and especially Malesherbes, pleaded the cause of tolerance. Several lawsuits added to the effects of the mémoires. By the law every marriage celebrated according to the reformed rite was null and void. The children born of such a marriage were illegitimate and incapable of inheriting. so that any collateral relation, no matter how distant, might lay claim to the estate of a Protestant provided the claimant was a Catholic or became one. At the end of a century this odious system had introduced inextricable confusion into the situation of 300,000 families, who were without any civil status. The government thus found itself more and more embarrassed from such a state of things. The advent to the ministry of certain tolerant men like Choiseul, and, later, Castries, Breteuil, and especially Turgot and Malesherbes, was calculated to improve the condition of things. Louis XVI. desired to put an end to the disorder by a spirit of kindness and justice. Turgot states that at the moment of his consecration the new king, instead of pronouncing the words obliging him to exterminate the heretics, muttered some confused words, which accords very well with the mixture of generous intentions and weakness which characterized this unfortunate prince.

—The end of persecution was brought about by a more resolute man whose name marks the advent of modern society in France. Lafayette, who had become intimately acquainted in America with Protestantism and the practice of religious liberty, wrote to Washington on May 11, 1785, that he was resolved to take up the cause of his Protestant countrymen, and his illustrious friend encouraged him in this design worthy of them both. Lafayette undertook to examine in person the principal centres of the Protestant population. For this purpose he went to Nimes and attended the Protestant worship in the open air, conducted by Rabant-Saint-Etienue. After the service Lafayette embraced the pastor and engaged him to come to Paris to labor in obtaining civil Edition: current; Page: [75] liberty for his co-religionists. This was the beginning of the political career of Rabaut-Saint-Etienne. His expenses were paid by a subscription, made by the Protestant churches of Nimes, Montpellier, Marseilles and Bordeaux. He came to Paris under the Pretext of publishing his Lettres à Bailly sur Vhintoire primitive de la Grèce. Introduced by Lafayette into Parisian society and to the ministers, the future president of the national assembly was received with curiosity and interest. It was something to get a close view of a man whose profession, which he openly acknowledged, condemned him to death, and who according to the expression of the time was a candidate for martyrdom. With Malesherbes Rabaut prepared the way for emancipation. This minister succeeded in gaining over public opinion through a work which he had written by an academician, Rulhières, more celebrated then than he is now, two volumes of Eclaircissements historiques sur les causes de la revocation de vedil'de Nantes, tirés des archives du gouvernement—The councilors Bretignière and Robert de Saint-Vincent had already laid before the parliament of Paris propositions favoring the Protestants. May 23, 1787, an assembly of notables, of which Lafayette was a member, presided over by Count d'Artois(Afterward Charles X), expressed a unanimous wish to restore their civil status to the Protestants. A petition was presented to Louis XVI., by his brother. At length the edict of reinstatement appeared (Nov. 1787). It was far from restoring to the Protestants the rights accorded them by the edict of Nantes, and to France the glory which she had had of being the first to proclaim liberty to conscience. The reformed religion continued to be prohibited; and, according to the terms of the preamble, the law accorded to the Protestants only "that which natural law forbids us to refuse them, the power to prove their births, their marriages and their deaths". The innovation consisted in this, that the officers of justice and their clerks were charged with registering the marriages, births and deaths in the absence of Catholic priests. This concession was an immense benefit; and the edict, incomplete as it was, does honor to the memory of Lafayette, Malesherbes and Louis XVI. The Protestants of France were no longer outside the pale of society. They appeared in crowds to legalize their condition, and in many places three generations of the same family were seen registering their marriages at the same time. The national assembly completed the work of Louis XVI., Aug 23, 1789, by the following decree: "No one shall be disturbed on account of opinions even on religion, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law." This liberty was at once confirmed, regulated and restrained by the organic law of the first consul (germinal, year X.), which was itself modified and amended by a decree of the president of the republic, dated March 26, 1852.

—Emancipation is not yet complete the world over. It may be considered complete in England and in all the countries inhabited by the Anglo-Saxon race or which are connected with Great Britain, as well as in nearly all Protestant countries. Holland, Prussia, Denmark, Sweden and Norway are almost the only exceptions. In these countries, the Lutheran being the state church, those who are separated from it, whether Catholic or Protestant dissenters are subject to exceptional laws, do not enjoy all the rights of other citizens, and are not admitted to public offices. It is proper to acknowledge that the efforts of government tend to put an end to such an abhorrent state of things, and that the laws voted in 1860 by Sweden show a notable progress.

—In Russia the Protestant population, grouped in compact masses in the Baltic provinces, appears to enjoy as many rights as the orthodox subjects of the czar; still a pressure is exercised to induce, if not to constrain, them to accept the orthodox church.

—In Switzerland, a mixed but a free country, the political emancipation of Protestants is complete even in the Catholic cantons. The cases of mixed marriages, however, still present difficulties of more than one kind, and have caused conflicts between the cantons—Four millions of Austrian Protestants have long been in a difficult and precarious condition, which at one time seemed on the point of becoming more serious on account of the concordat concluded in 1855 between the holy sec and the Vienna government. This act assured a complete preponderance to the Catholic church, with immunities and extensive privileges, created a clerical censorship over publications of every kind, and established ecclesiastical tribunals, which in the case of mixed marriages were able to interfere in a way the most contrary to the rights of Protestants. Happily this concordat was scarcely concluded when it fell into abeyance; if it has never been positively abolished, neither has it ever been completely executed; at present it is almost a dead letter. On the other hand, the imperial patent of Sept. 1, 1859, relating to the Reformed and Lutheran churches in Hungary and its dependent lands, and that of April 10, 1861, concerning Protestants of the rest of the empire, have completed both the civil and religious emancipation of the Austrian Protestants.

—In Italy the civil emancipation of Protestants is also of recent date. Before 1848 only one of the states of the peninsula contained a Protestant population. About 20,000 Waldenses inhabited a few wild valleys of the Alps of Piedmont above Pignerol. Long persecuted, they were at once put in possession of all their civil rights by the French administration, when Napoleon I. united Piedmont to his empire. Since 1814 they have endured an exceptional régime, which closed every liberal career to them and access to public offices. They were finally emancipated in 1848, and given the rights previously refused. At this epoch liberty of conscience existed nowhere else in Italy. Edition: current; Page: [76] The state recognized Protestants only far enough to bring them before tribunals, and there could be no question of civil rights for them. But since the revolutions which have conferred on Italy unity under the government of Victor Emmanuel, in several cities, Milan, Florence, Pisa, Naples, and even in Rome, Protestant communities have been organized, whose members enjoy all the civil and political rights or citizens.

—The situation in Spain is the same. There is a small number of native Protestants in that country, in addition to the congregations composed of foreigners. The law has long condemned their religions meetings and sentenced their members to the severest penalties, but the last revolution put an end to these shameful practices. The constitution of June 1, 1869, which did away with the state religion, declared simply (article 21) that the nation undertakes to maintain the church and the ministers of the Catholic religion, and this constitution establishes, though in indirect terms, the liberty and equality of churches. It guaranteed to strangers (same article) the public or private exercise of their religion, without any limitation but the universal rules of morality and legality, and adds that if a Spaniard professes another religion than the Catholic the preceding rules shall apply to him—Turkey is in advance of Spain. It is known tat in that country each religious community, each nation, Greeks, Armenians, Catholics, govern themselves and administer their own affairs. A considerable number of Armenians (3,000) having embraced Protestantism, found themselves in the most difficult position since 1830. Their former co-religionists rejected them, they were no longer connected with any religion recognized by the state, and were thus without a legal existence, without any rights, without that even of carrying on their occupations. In 1850 an imperial firman put an end to this state of things, and conferred on the Protestant church a legal existence. Since that time the members enjoy all the rights belonging to the other Christian communities of the empire. (See ABOLITION, EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION.)

EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION

EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION, The (IN U. S. HISTORY)The war against the rebellion of 1861 was for nearly eighteen months confined carefully to operations against the armed forces in the field, not against slavery. (See ABOLITION, III.; REBELLION.) During most of this time Pres. Lincoln listened apparently unmoved to importunate demands from extreme abolitionists in all parts of the north for a declaration against slavery. He declared that his paramount object was the maintenance of the Union; that if he could save the Union without freeing any slave, he would do it; that if he could save it by freeing all the slaves, he would do it; and that if he could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, he would do that. It was not until the summer of 1862 that he finally decided that the time had come for striking at slavery. Sept. 22, 1862, without any previous general intimation of his purpose, he issued a preliminary proclamation, warning the inhabitants of the revolted states that, unless they should return to their allegiance before the first day of January following, he would declare their slaves free men and maintain their freedom by means of the armed forces of the United States. This proclamation had no effect, and indeed was hardly expected to have any effect, in bringing back individuals or states to the control of the federal government. A retaliatory proclamation was issued by Pres. Davis, Dec. 23, 1862 ordering the hanging of General Benjamin F. Butler, if captured and the transfer of negro federal soldiers and their white officers to the authorities of the states for punishment.

—The emancipation proclamation proper was issued Jan. 1, 1863. It recited the substance of the preliminary proclamation, in which he had promised to "designate the states and parts of states, if any, in which the people thereof should be in rebellion against the United States," and in which alone emancipation was to take effect; they included all the states which had seceded (see SECESSION). with the exception of the forty-eight counties of Virginia now known as West Virginia, seven other counties of Virginia (including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth) and thirteen parishes of Louisiana including the city of New Orleans). The excepted parts were, "for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued"; as to the district still in rebellion, the proclamation ordered and declared "that all persons held as slaves within said designated states and parts of states are and henceforward shall be free; and that the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons." It enjoined upon the freedmen the duty of abstaining from all violence except in self-defense, and declared that those of their number who were of suitable condition would be received into the military and naval service of the United States. It concluded as follows: "and upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God."

—The validity of such a proclamation is hardly to be seriously questioned, and never would have been questioned but for the natural revulsion from so searching an application of the laws of war in a country which had hitherto enjoyed an almost entire exemption from actual warfare. Its authority is well expressed in its preamble; it was issued by Abraham Lincoln, president of the United States; not by virtue of any powers directly entrusted by the constitution to the presidential office, but "by virtue of the power in him vested as commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and Edition: current; Page: [77] government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion." It must be remembered that the powers of the president as commander-in-chief, subject to the laws of war as recognized by all civilized nations, are distinctly recognized by the constitution; that these powers are brought to life and action by the existence of defensive war or by the exercise of congress of its power to declare war, and are controlled by congress through its action in furnishing or refusing troops and supplies to the commander-in-chief; and that the emancipation proclamation and other war measures are therefore as much the work of the representatives of the people in congress assembled as of their executive officer, the commander-in-chief. (See WAR POWERS.) Among the powers of a commander-in-chief, when governing conquered soil under military occupation, is that of freeing the slaves of the inhabitants. It may even be exercised, subject to the approval of the commander-in-chief, by subordinate commanders. (See ABOLITION, III.) So long, then, as the constitution vests the president in time of war with the powers of a "commander-in-chief," and permits congress to call those powers into life and activity by declaring war, it is hardly necessary to defend the validity of the emancipation proclamation.

—The effect of the proclamation, however, in the absolute abolition of slavery, is a different and more doubtful question; it has been warmly asserted that it had no effect whatever, and theoretically the case against it is very strong. The singular feature of the proclamation is that it purports to free the slaves, not of the soil which was then under military occupation, but of that which was not under occupation, and which, therefore, did not come under the jurisdiction of the president as commander-in-chief. Those portions of Virginia and Louisiana which had been conquered by the forces of the United States, and were under military occupation at the time, were expressly excepted from the operation of the proclamation; and in the states designated for the operation of the proclamation Mr. Lincoln had no constitutional power as president and no physical power as commander-in-chief, to free a single slave. It seems to be apparent, then, that the proclamation had, eo instante, no effect whatever, if we follow its own terms, and that the slaves in the designated states and parts of states were no more free Jan. 2, 1863, than Dec 31, 1862.

—The objection, however, may be obviated if we consider the proclamation as one whose accomplishment was to be effected progressively, not instantaneously, taking effect in future as rapidly as the federal lines advanced. It would then be, as its author doubtless designed it to be, a general rule of conduct for the guidance of subordinate officers in the armed forces of the United States, a conciliation of a large portion of the inhabitants of the hostile territory by interesting them in the success of the federal arms, and an announcement to the world that, without further formal notice, each fresh conquest by the federal armies would at once become free soil. The question whether slavery was abolished by the proclamation or by the 13th amendment has never been directly before the supreme court for decision, but instructive reference to it will be found in the cases in Wallace's Reports cited below. The only cases which hold that slavery was abolished by the proclamation, and instantly, are those in Louisiana and Alabama cited below. (See ABOLITION. III: SLAVERY.)

—The political results of the proclamation are almost beyond calculation and can only be summed up briefly. 1. Foreign mediation by armed force, which had been an important possible factor while the struggle was merely one between a federal union and its rebellious members, passed out of sight forever as soon as ultimate national success was authoritatively defined as necessarily involving the destruction of slavery: from that time any effort by the governments of France and Great Britain to force the government of the United States to recognize the confederate states as a separate slaveholding nation, would have excited the horror and active opposition of a very large and influential portion of their own subjects. 2. In the north it alienated all the weak or doubtful members of the republican party, and made it a compact, homogeneous organization, with well-defined objects, and with sinews toughened to meet the novel and important questions which followed final success. (See RECONSTRUCTION.) The defeats of the administration in the state elections of 1862-3 were the training school in which the party attained the extraordinary cohesiveness which carried it unbroken through the struggle between congress and Pres. Johnson. 3. In the south the fact that such a proclamation was possible, without exciting any greater opposition in the north, seems to have revealed to many thinking men the enormous extent of the political blunder of secession. But three years before, John Brown had been hanged by the state of Virginia, and the north had looked on with general indifference or approbation; now, the promulgation of this proclamation met either with the vehement approval of the dominant party in the north, or with such feeble symptoms of opposition as the resignations of a few subordinate army officers, or the falling off of a small percentage in the republican vote. From this time there was a steady increase in the number of those in the south who fought with the energy of despair, instead of the high self confidence with which they had entered the conflict, and who felt that the leaders, by prolonging the struggle, were only fanning to a hotter flame that most powerful, though sluggish, political force, the wrath of a republic. "See 2 Greeley's American Conflict, 249; Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia, 1863, 834; 2 A. H. Stephens' War between the States, 550; Harris' Political Conflict in America, 833; Pollard's Life of Davis, 477; Schucker's Life of S. P. Chase, 441. 453: McPherson's History of the Rebellion, 220, North American Review, Edition: current; Page: [78] February and August, 1880; authorities under ABOLITION, WAR POWERS, and REBELLION. The text of the two proclamations is in 12 Stat. at Large. 1267, 1268. See also 13 Wallace's Reports, 654; 16 Wallace's Reports, 68; 18 Wallace's Reports, 546; 92 U. S. Reports, 542; 20 La. Ann. Reports, 199; 43 Ala. Reports, 592.

EMBARGO

EMBARGO, ANGARIA, ARRÊT DE PRINCE. These three terms designate three different measures which the government of a country may take toward merchant vessels, whether they belong to its own subjects or to the subjects of foreign nations. These measures have this in common, that they are impediments in the way of freedom of commerce. They present certain differences, which the best authorities, such as Vinnius ad Peckium, De Nav. non excus.; Stypmannus, Ad Jus maritimum, part v, chap. i., 4. 32: Loccenius, De Jure marit.; Targa, Dé Ponderazione maritimme; Galiani, De Doveri de Principi neutrali, have not sufficiently set forth—Embargo is the act of the sovereign power in a country of detaining in its ports in time of war, or even in peace in the anticipation of war, or as a reprisal measure, the ships of subjects, of friends or enemies, of natives or foreigners, together with their cargoes, and of preventing their departure for a longer or shorter time, but without exacting any active service from them.

—The usual object of an embargo is to throw an obstacle in the way of the divulgation of facts which it is to the interest of the power laying the embargo to keep secret, such as preparations for an expedition, a revolt, or the death of a prince or sovereign. Justice and the rights of nations, in accordance with which each is completely independent of all others, can not approve such measures. Hence, a great number of treaties contain stipulations guaranteeing the ships of the nations signing them from embargo. History show that these stipulations have not always been respected. In the wars of the Crimea, of Italy, of 1866, and of 1870-71, European governments did not have recourse to the measure of embargo. Far from laying an embargo upon the ships of the enemy, they allowed them all necessary time to return to their own country. An embargo is sometimes laid before the declaration of war; it is a forerunner of the rupture between two nations. If matters are amicably arranged between the parties, the embargo is raised.

—Embargo does not occasion neutral parties as much damage as does angaria; it causes detention, but does not force the ships on which it is laid into active service and the dangers which accompany it; hence it is not the custom to indemnify their owners.

—The two most recent examples of embargo are that laid by England, on Jan. 14, 1801, upon the Danish, Swedish and Russian ships which were in the ports of Great Britain, and which was only ended by the maritime convention of 1801; and that by France upon Dutch vessels, Nov.7, 1832, which was raised after the capture of the citadel of Antwerp.

—It is customary to stipulate in modern treaties for certain conditions to assure the subjects of the contracting powers established in the country of the other power sufficient time to enable them to leave and to remove the goods which belong to them.

—Angaria, service or labor exacted against one's will,) is the making of a requisition, by a belligerent, of the foreign vessels it its ports or roads, and imposing on them, paying them a remuneration, which detracts in no wise from the arbitrary character of the measure, certain services of war, such as transportation of troops, arms and ammunition, in spite of their rights of neutrality. Angaria imposes an active service upon the vessels on which it is laid; embargo, on the contrary, imposes no active service. Angaria affects all ships which happen to be in a port or road; embargo ordinarily only those of a single nation; it is often in the nature of a reprisal. Very like angaria is the act by which the Prussain government, in the war of 1870-71, scuttled six English merchantmen, which were stationed in the lower Seine. The Prussian government, however, soon took pains to acknowledge that an indemnity was due from it to the proprietors fo these vessels.

—Some modern authors, in the first rank of which may be cited Hautefeuille, Des Droits et des Devoirs des Nations neutres, 2d ed., vol. iii., p. 415, etc., justly inveigh against the doctrines of the publicists of the last century and the early part of the nineteenth, who wished to legitimatize embargo and angaris, by considering them as a law, or as a consequence of the law of legitimate defense, etc. Custom, it is true, has for a long time authorized the practice; but the illegality of such measures is too evident and too contrary to the ideas of justice and morality to survive. It is one of the incontestable rights of sovereignty either to permit or refuse entry to a port, and the power of carrying on commerce there; but the vessel once admitted to sojourn and trade there, it is an arbitrary act to impose any service upon it, such as is authorized by angaria. There does not exist a treaty, a single international act, by which belligerents are authorized to violate the neutrality of ships stationed in their ports. So far from that, in the case of angaria, as in that of embargo, many international conventions stipulate that the ships belonging to the contracting powers shall not be seized. Angaria "is less the exercise of a right than the abuse of power."

—Is the neutral ship impressed by angaria exempt from confiscation if it happens to be taken by the enemy? Hübner, De la Saisie des Bátiments neutres, vol. i., chap. vii., §2, decides this question in the affirmative; but his opinion can not be justified. The captor could not be expected to seek out the causes which have changed a neutral vessel into an enemy's vessel; and the ship taken under these conditions is evidently a fair prize.—"Arrêt de prince" must not be confounded with either embargo or angaria. It consists, Edition: current; Page: [79] although peace may be in no danger, in seizing on the plea of public necessity, a ship, whether it is still at anchor in port or has set out to sea and in the latter case interrupting a voyage already begun. It is a species of angaria in time of peace. An arrêt de prince may proceed from the government of the seized ships, or from a foreign government. In the case of arrêt de prince, the seized vessel is yielded up to its owners, or its value and that of its cargo is paid; whereas embargo terminates almost always in the confiscation of the enemy's property.

EMBARGO

EMBARGO (IN U. S. HISTORY), a prohibition of commerce by nation al authority, which was laid in various forms and at various times from 1794 until 1815. In case of a general embargo American vessels were forbidden to leave port, foreign vessels were required to sail in ballast, or with only such cargo as they had on board at the passage of the act, and coasting vessels were required to give bonds to land their cargoes in American ports only. An embargo aimed at a particular nation was a modification known as a non-intercourse law.

—The possibility of such a suspension of commerce was certainly considered by the convention of 1787 in framing the constitution. Madison, in discussing the power to tax exports, Aug. 21, 1787, spoke as follows: "An embargo may be of absolute necessity, and can only be effectuated by the general authority."

—I. ORDERS IN COUNCIL. The opening of the French revolution, the abolition of all feudal taxes, honors and immunities, the emigration of those nobles not in sympathy with the new régime, and the practical dethronement of the king, were followed, in April, 1792 by a declaration of war by the French republic against Austria and Prussia, whose troops were drawing menacingly near the French boundaries, and whose soil was permitted to be a basis of operations for hostile emigrés. Nov. 15, 1792, the French national convention declared its hostility to any people which should maintain a prince or a privileged order, and four days afterward the same authority offered assistance to every people desirous of recovering liberty. Feb. 3, 1793, the French republic declared war against Great Britain and Holland, and before the end of the year France "had but one enemy, and that was Europe." By land the French arms were steadily successful; by sea, in spite of every public and private exertion in France, Great Britain maintained her accustomed superiority. The rule that "he who is not with us is against us" became the only international law thoroughly respected in Europe, and the steady determination of both the great belligerents, to enforce the rule upon the western continent also is the key to most of the difficulties of the United States during the next twenty years.

—A French agent (see GENET, CITIZEN.) was at once sent to the United States to rouse popular enthusiasm there, and thus compel the government to engage in the war as an active or passive ally of France. May 9, 1793, in direct violation of the treaty of 1778 between France and the United States, the national convention authorized French ships of war and privateers to stop and bring into French ports all neutral vessels loaded with "eatables" or with enemy's goods, which latter were declared good prize. The representations of Morris, the American minister, only obtained a temporary and delusive suspension of the order. June 8, 1793. Great Britain, by orders in council to her navy, directed neutral vessels bound for France with breadstuffs to be seized and brought into British ports, where the cargoes were to be paid for by the government or bonded to be landed in countries at peace with Great Britain.

—Another grievance, closely connected with the general embargo system, was the vexatious right of search and impressment claimed and exercised by British national vessels. American vessels were liable at any moment to be stopped, searched, and deprived of the services of any seamen whom a British lieutenant, backed by a file of marines, might decide to be Englishmen. Great Britain had always persistently denied the right of expatriation and change of allegiance by naturalization, and, now that she was engaged in a life or death struggle with France, she claimed the services on shipboard of all her maritime citizens, at home or abroad, no matter what ceremonies of naturalization, unrecognized by English laws, they might have undergone in any foreign country. Of course, under color of natural resemblance to Englishmen, many native-born Americans were thus forced into the British navy. The right of expatriation was at that time acknowledged by hardly any nation except the United States; but, even in the case of naturalized citizens, the right of search and impressment, vexatious enough in itself, was aggravated by the rigorous and merciless manner of its exercise by British officers of all grades, unrestrained by any probability of the disapprobation of their own government.

—Many of the American politicians who had taken part in the war of the revolution retained a firm faith in the efficacy of restrictions upon British commerce as a means of compelling justice from Great Britain (see REVOLUTION), and Madison introduced into congress, Jan. 4, 1794, a series of resolutions for the imposition of prohibitory duties upon importations from Great Britain. These resolutions, though not finally adopted, laid the foundations of the "restrictive system," which was steadily followed out by the republican party until at culminated in the war of 1812. The republican leaders in 1794, Madison, Nicholas and Giles, admitted that "our trade with Great Britain was one-half our whole commerce, while Great Britain's trade with us was but one-sixth of hers," but they insisted that the exports from the United States were essentials, while the imports were luxuries, and that an embargo, or temporary Edition: current; Page: [80] stoppage of trade, would bear but lightly upon the United States, while it would promptly bring Great Britain to hear reason. While the debates were in progress news was received of a supplementary order in council, which was dated Nov. 6, 1793, but had been kept so secret at first that the American minister was unable to obtain a copy until Dec. 25. By this order neutral ships trading with French colonies were to be seized and brought in for adjudication. The news of this order, which annihilated a profitable commerce at a blow, produced great excitement in the United States, and an embargo, the first of its kind, was laid, March 26, 1794, for thirty days, and soon afterward increased to sixty days. This had hardly been done when news was received of a modifying order in council, dated Jan. 8, 1794, restricting seizures to vessels bound directly for France from her colonies, or carrying goods belonging to Frenchmen. This modification could have had no possible connection with the embargo and yet the receipt of the news so soon after the laying of the embargo seems to have unreasonably strengthened the popular faith in the efficacy of this substitute for war with Great Britain. The embargo act was allowed to expire at the end of its limitation of sixty days, but, by the act of June 4, the president was empowered generally to lay an embargo at any time during the recess of congress until November.

—In the meantime (see JAY'S TREATY) the president had sent chief Justice Jay as minister to Great Britain to obtain redress of all the grievances alleged against that country, and, pending the results of his mission, debate on neutral rights was dropped during the next session of congress, 1794-5. Jay's treaty of Nov. 19, 1794, however objectionable in other points, as in its yielding the rights of search and impressment, at least secured some safeguards for neutral trade Claims for damages for illegal seizures by British cruisers were to be passed upon by commissioners of arbitration; the seizure of an enemy's goods in a neutral vessel was not to forfeit the whole cargo; and provisions, when taken under peculiar necessity, were to be paid for at their full value. These points in the treaty gave comparative security to American commerce while it remained in force, and for the next ten years the restrictive system was dropped. During the troubles with France (see X. Y. Z. MISSION), the act of June 12, 1798, prohibited commercial intercourse with France or her colonies. This, however, was not an embargo, in the Jeffersonian sense of the term, but a preparation for war.

—The articles in Jay's treaty, which related to neutral commerce, expired by limitation at the end of twelve years. The state of affairs at their expiration was even more unfortunate for the United States than in 1794. In 1805 almost the whole civilized world had been drawn into the whirlpool of the successive wars between Napoleon and Great Britain. Sweden, Denmark, the Hanse towns and the United States were the only neutral maritime powers, and were growing rich so rapidly by their almost complete absorption of the carrying trade that their prosperity was a constant eye-sore to British merchants and a temptation to belligerent cruisers. Commerce between France, Spain, Holland and their respective colonies, was carried on in great volume by American vessels, a landing having been formally made in the United States, in order to separate the voyages from the colony and to the mother country. The king's advocate general, in March, 1801, had acknowledged to Rufus King, the American minister to Great Britain, that "landing the goods and paying the duties in the neutral country breaks the continuity of the voyage and legalizes the trade between the mother country and the colony." This was a relaxation of the "rule of 1756," so called from its official promulgation in that year, though it had been practically enforced for twelve years previous. In its full vigor the rule of 1756 prohibited all trade by neutrals with the colonies of an enemy, and allowed British cruisers to capture all neutral vessels engaged in any such trade; the reasons for it were, in brief, that no mother country allowed such trade with its colonies in peace, and that in time of war such a trade was really an interposition in the war by the neutral, and the giving of aid to one of the belligerents.

—In May, 1805, the British court of appeals, in the case of the American vessel Essex, suddenly reversed the former line of decisions, and held that transhipment in a neutral country, if evidently fraudulent, did not break the continuity of the voyage, but left the neutral vessel liable to capture and condemnation. This decision was a signal for a general attack on neutral commerce by British armed vessels, public and private, and in the United States it at once brought the restrictive system to the surface again. April 18, 1806, after a debate of two months, a "non-importation act" was passed, which prohibited, after the following November, the importation of certain specified articles, the productions of Great Britain and her colonies. This measure seems to have been designed to strengthen the hands of William Pinkney and James Monroe, who were appointed in April joint ministers to Great Britain no negotiate a new treaty to succeed those parts of Jay's treaty which were to expire with this year. Dec. 19, 1806, the non-importation act was suspended until July 1, 1807.

—Monroe and Pinkney concluded a treaty Dec. 31, 1806, which confirmed the unexpired articles of Jay's treaty, secured the indirect neutral trade between a belligerent and its colonies by a landing in the neutral country, and exempted provisions from the list of contraband. It again yielded the rights of search and impressment, upon a verbal assurance that they would be exercised only under extraordinary circumstances; and for this reason President Jefferson declined to submit the treaty to the senate for confirmation, and ordered a continuance Edition: current; Page: [81] of the negotiation. This decision, not so much in itself as in the refusal to back it by the instant and industrious preparation of a strong naval force, laid the foundation for most of the difficulties of the following eight years. It confirmed the bent of the dominant party in the United States against the formation of a navy (see DEMOCRATIC PARTY, II., III.; GUNBOATSYSTEM), and it furnished fresh reasons and excuses for the growing anti-neutral disposition of the British government, which was not in the habit of paying any great attention to the remonstrances of arguments of a defenseless nation.

—May 16, 1806, the British government, by proclamation, declared a blockade of the coast of Germany, Holland and France, from Brest to the Elbe, a distance of about 800 miles. Against warfare of this kind Napoleon was powerless; the British islands were entirely beyond his reach, and there was no way to prevent the isolation of his European empire by the British fleets unless he could furnish those fleets with active occupation in some other quarter of the world. From this time, therefore, his consistent design seems to have been to irritate the British government into fresh exhibitions of anti-neutral temper by extraordinary reprisals of his own, in order thus to force the United States at last to assume the burden of a naval warfare against Great Britain, while he should monopolize the glory and profit of the campaigns on land. The game was entertaining to the toreador, and probably to the bull also, but the United States certainly paid the expenses of the entertainment.

—Nov. 21, 1806, after the battle of Jena, Napoleon issued his Berlin decree, in which he, who hardly possessed a vessel of war in blue water, assumed to blockade the British islands. The decree also ordered the seizure of all English property, persons and letters found on the continent. The whole decree, which began the so-called "continental system" of Napoleon, was alleged to be in retaliation for the English abuse of the right of blockade. During the ensuing year, according to Mr. Baring and the American minister to France, General Armstrong, no condemnations took place under the Berlin decree. It served its purpose better by drawing out the British orders in council of Nov. 11, 1807. This extraordinary document totally prohibited any direct trade from the United States to any port or country of Europe from which the British flag was excluded; it allowed direct trade, in American produce only, between the United States and Sweden; it ordered all articles of domestic or colonial production, exported by the United States to Europe, to be landed in England, whence their re-exportation, on paying duties, would be permitted and regulated; and it declared any vessel and cargo good prize if it carried a French consular certificate of the origin of the cargo. Napoleon retorted by the Milan decree, Dec. 7, 1807, in which he declared to be "denationalized" and good prize, whether found in continental ports or on the high seas, any vessel which should submit to search by a British vessel or should touch at or set sail for or from Great Britain or her colonies.

—With this, for a time, both parties paused, for neither could well do or say more. To quote Jefferson's subsequent expression. "England seemed to have become a den of pirates, and France a den of thieves." Both had helped to make neutrality ridiculous. By sea, a British fleet had lately, without declaring war, swooped on the Danish navy and carried it off to England, by land, a French army had lately converted Portugal from neutrality by arriving the royal family to Brazil. The United States and Sweden were the only civilized nations which were now permitted to enjoy a nominal neutrality; the latter was under the open protection of the fleets of Great Britain, and if the latest orders in council were to be submitted to, it was difficult to see, in the matter of foreign commerce, any great difference between the situation of the United States and that of any other British colony. Evidently, if the United States were to maintain rank as an independent nation, some measures of protection to their foreign commerce were imperatively demanded. The dominant party, however, was still opposed to a naval war, and Jefferson, who alone could have controlled his party, was silent; the result was a four years' effort to coerce Great Britain by the restrictive system, ending in the war of 1812.

—II.THE EMBARGO. When congress met in October, 1807, (see CONGRESS, SESSIONS OF). the exercise of the right of impressment by British officers had become almost intolerable. The number of Americans impressed was afterward officially reported by the state department as 4,579 for the period March 11, 1803 - Sept 30, 1810, omitting the time from Sept. 1, 1804, until March 31, 1806, for which the records did not account. Of this number of 1,361 were released. No estimate can be made of the number of impressments never reported to a state department where no redress could be hoped for; but the muster-books of H. B. M. ships Moselle and Sappho, captured in the packet Swallow by Commodore Rodgers in 1813, showed that one-eighth of their crews were Americans; and in another ship, the Ceres, the proportion was one-third, if we may trust the affidavits of released sailors. June 22, 1807, the British frigate Leopard had taken four men out of the United States frigate Chesapeake, after a shamefully feeble resistance. Oct. 19, 1807, the British government by proclamation had called upon all its maritime subjects serving in foreign ships to return to the service of their own country, and had directed its cruisers to enforce their return.

—The proclamation, and the retaliatory orders and decrees of the great belligerents, as far as they had been received, were communicated to congress by President Jefferson in a special message of Dec. 16, as indicating the great and increasing dangers to American commerce, with the suggestion that an "inhibition of foreign commerce" would be of Edition: current; Page: [82] advantage. The act known as "The Embargo" was at once introduced. It was passed after midnight of Dec. 21, after a consideration of four hours in the senate and three days in the house, and became law Dec. 22. A supplementary act of Jan. 9, 1808, provided that coasting vessels should not be allowed to go out without bonds to reland the cargo in some other port of the United States, and that foreign vessels should take out no specie or other cargo, except necessary sea stores. Another act, March 12, 1808, gave the executive authority to grant permission to send vessels to foreign ports to bring home American property, but this was repealed Jan.9, 1809.

—For a time the traditional belief in the efficacy of an embargo induced a sullen submission to it even by those upon whom it bore hardest, and it was formally approved by most of the state legislatures of the republican states. Within six months a great change had taken place. The suspension which the infant commerce of the United States had found tolerable for sixty days in 1794 was intolerable in 1808 to a commerce which had for fifteen years been fattening upon a dangerous but profitable neutrality. The exports, domestic and foreign, from the United States, which had risen from $20, 753, 098 in 1792 to $110,084,207 in 1807, fell in 1808 to $22,430,960. The change was too sudden; it injured not commerce alone, but every interest except domestic manufactures, and in May and June, 1808, Jefferson was constrained to admit that, unless Great Britain should speedily yield the principle of her orders in council, the embargo must be exchanged for open war. It was found that the embargo was quite satisfactory to both France and Great Britain. Napoleon praised it warmly, and even presumed to enforce it by the Bayonne decree, April 17, 1808, which ordered the seizure and sale of American vessels which should arrive in his ports in violation of it. Its surrender of the carrying trade to British merchants, and the consequent transfer of American Capital to Canada and Nova Scotia, were equally pleasing to great Britain.

—In the New England states, in which the remnants of the federal party were now concentrated, the embargo was believed to be unconstitutional, and was so decided by some of the state courts. The ground assigned was, that the unlimited suspension of the embargo was an annihilation of commerce; and was therefore a usurpation of power by congress, which was only authorized by the constitution to regulate commerce; the real reason was evidently the belief that the fundamental basis of the constitution had been violated by a factious and sectional combination of agricultural representatives for the passage of the embargo, which, though it ruined federalist New England, would save the rest of the Union the expense of war. It was therefore increasingly difficult to enforce the embargo in New England. The state legislatures, taking the ground of the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, "intervened" for the protection of their citizens by resolutions expressive of their emphatic condemnation of the embargo. Thus countenanced and emboldened, state judges took an attitude consistently hostile to the embargo, and the federal courts in New England seldom succeeded in finding juries which would convict even for the most flagrant violations of its provisions. Smugglers crossed and recrossed the Canada border almost in organized armies, and defied federal marshals; and, to encourage sea smuggling, an order in council of April 11, 1808, forbade interference by British cruisers with American vessels bound to British colonies, though without clearances. A supplementary embargo act of April 25, 1808, therefore, placed lake, river and bay commerce in the same category as sea-going vessels, and allowed the seizure of any merchandise which should in any way excite the suspicious of the collectors.

—The second session of the 10th congress, which met Nov. 7, 1808, was at first obstinate in its support of the restrictive system. Resolutions to repeal the embargo were voted down by heavier majorities than at the first session, and on Jan. 9, 1809, an enforcing act was passed. By its terms any act done with intent to evade the embargo in any way worked a forfeiture of ship, boat or vehicle and cargo or contents, besides a fine of four times the value of both: collectors were to seize all goods "apparently on their way" to a foreign country; bonds were increased to six times the value of vessel and cargo; and absolute authority to prohibit departure, even when full bonds should be filed, was given to the collectors or the president. The act was published in mourning columns by the federalist newspapers in New England, with the motto "Liberty is dead!" Many collectors resigned, and seizures by others were met by the owners of the goods with suits for damages in state courts. Even in the United States senate a federalist declaration was made that the people were not bound to submit to the embargo act and would not submit to it, and that blood would flow in the attempt to enforce it. In February, 1809, John Quincy Adams, who had resigned his seat in the senate because his support of the embargo was disapproved by his state legislature, gave Jefferson and the other republican leaders an alarming account of the feeling in New England. He stated that the Federalist leaders had now finally decided to break the embargo, that if the federal government should attempt to use force the New England states would temporarily or permanently withdraw from the Union, and that unofficial negotiations had already been opened for British assistance. A sudden panic, attributable either to the statements of Adams, to those of Joseph Story, then a republican congressman from Massachusetts, or to both, seized the majority in congress, and a house resolution was passed, Feb. 3. fixing March 4 for the termination of the embargo. (See KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS; SECESSION; STATE SOVEREIGNTY; ESSEX JUNTO, HENRY DOCUMENTS; CONVENTION, HARTFORD.)

—III. Edition: current; Page: [83] NON-INTERCOURSE SYSTEM. During the month of February the majority recovered in some measure from its panic, and passed, March 1, 1809, the so-called non-intercourse law, to take the place of both the non-importation act and the embargo. It was to continue until the end of the next session, but was revived and continued by the acts of June 28, 1809, May 1, 1810, and March 2, 1811. It forbade the entrance to American ports of public or private British or French vessels, all commercial intercourse with France or Great Britain, and the importation, after May 20, of goods grown or manufactured in France, Great Britain, or their colonies. Its eleventh section was as follows: "That the president of the United States be, and he hereby is authorized, in case either France or Great Britain shall so revoke or modify her edicts as that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, to declare the same by proclamation; after which the trade of the United States, suspended by this act, and by the act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, and the several acts supplementary thereto, may be renewed with the nation so doing". The coasting trade was thus set free, and the trade to other countries than France and Great Britain was allowed, but any naval protection to it was still denied.

—From the end of November, 1808, D. M. Erskine, the British minister at Washington, had satisfied himself, by repeated interviews with Jefferson's cabinet, and particularly with Madison, that they were disposed to deal fairly with Great Britain. On his report, the British foreign office instructed him, Jan. 28, 1809, to withdraw the objectionable orders in council, on three conditions: 1, that all non-intercourse and non-importation acts should be revoked as to Great Britain, and left in force as to France until France should revoke her edicts; 2, that the United States should abandon the trade with French colonies, which was not lawful even in peace, according to the rule of 1756; and 3, that American vessels violating the last condition should be liable to seizure by British vessels. To the first point the American negotiators agreed; the second, they said, rested with congress, but would be completely covered by the non-intercourse law, as applied to France; and the third was unnecessary, as no American shipowner could complain of such a seizure without a confession that he had violated the non-intercourse law. Accepting these explanations, Erskine exchanged three pairs of formal notes, April 17, 18 and 19, withdrawing the orders in council; and President Madison, who had been inaugurated March 4, issued a proclamation, April 19, permitting the full renewal of trade with Great Britain after June 10. As this result placed the United States in just the same position as before the embargo, without any recall of the rights of search and imprisonment, and with the "rule of 1756" as to colonial trade still in force, the general satisfaction over the "Erskine arrangement" was a decided evidence of the lack of success of the restrictive system. But the satisfaction soon disappeared on the receipt of news that the British government had recalled Erskine in disgrace and repudiated his agreement as made in contravention of his express instructions. By proclamation of Aug. 9, 1809, the president therefore re-established the non-intercourse law as against Great Britain. The whole difficulty was ascribed by the federalists to the president's trickiness in taking advantage of the youth and inexperience of Erskine, and the same assertion was repeated in substance by Erskine's successor, Jackson, until the secretary of state refused to hold further communication with him.

—During the whole period from 1800 until 1812 there is an unusual dearth of private correspondence or other similar materials for forming a judgment of the motives of the democratic leaders. They have been charged with subservience to French policy, but their course with Erskine seems to go far to acquit them of a design to subserve any other interests than those of the United States. It is certain that the Erskine arrangement would not have received from accomplices of France the eager welcome which was given to it by Madison and his cabinet. Napoleon was so far from considering the non-intercourse law, even in its first form of application to both belligerents, as offensive to Great Britain or beneficial to France, that he made it the ground of his Rambouillet decree, March 23, 1810, by which 132 American vessels, valued at $8,000,000, which had entered the ports of France or her allies, that is, nearly all the continent, since May 20, 1809, were condemned and sold. The democratic leaders seem to have been the victims, principally, of their own ignorance, and Napoleon's perception, of the naval powers of the United States.

—IV FAILURE OF THE RESTRICTIVE SYSTEM. In January, 1810, Napoleon informed the American minister that the repeal of his various decrees was dependent on the withdrawal by Great Britain of her "paper blockade" of the continent. Toward the end of this session of congress, May 1, 1810, congress passed a new bill to take the place of the non-intercourse act, which was to expire with the session. This bill, while excluding both French and British ships of war from American harbors, left commerce entirely unrestricted, but with the proviso that, if at any time before March 3, 1811, either belligerent should withdraw its objectionable measures, and the other should fall to do so within three months, the president by proclamation should restore the non-intercourse act as to the delinquent power. This act was the first step to the war of 1812. In passing it congress had set a trap for itself, which Napoleon hastened to bait. Aug. 5,he informed the American minister that his decrees were revoked, and would cease to be in effect after Nov. 1, following, "it being understood that the English shall revoke their orders in council, or that the United States shall cause their rights to be respected by the English." The president, Nov. 2, issued a proclamation which accepted this as an absolute Edition: current; Page: [84] revocation, and Great Britain was summoned to imitate it. But, as the French emperor retained all the property confiscated under the Rambouillet decree, as the French prize courts refused to consider the decrees revoked, or to release vessels seized by virtue of them, and as Napoleon's continental system was enforced as rigidly as ever against both England and the United States, the British government refused to admit that any bona fide revocation and taken place. March 2, 1811, the non-intercourse act was revived, by statute, against Great Britain.

—Notwithstanding the long continuance of the restrictive system, the merchant marine under American colors was still large. Licenses to enter continental ports were freely sold by French consuls at high prices. In Great Britain 33,277 licenses to trade with the enemy were granted from 1802 until 1811, according to a statement in the house of commons, and the fraudulent assumption of American papers and colors was so common as to furnish one of the excuses for Napoleon's general seizures of American ships. In parliament Brougham read a circular from a Liverpool manufactory of forged American papers, the price of which was almost entitled to mention in the market reports. "Simulated papers and seals" were a matter of common newspaper advertisement, and in the courts of admiralty it was admitted that, "under present circumstances, it was necessary to wink at them."

—V. WAR. While the United States government had been endeavoring by diplomacy, by embargoes, by non-importation laws, and by non-intercourse laws, to obtain liberty for its commerce to exit; while its mendicant ambassadors had been besieging the French and British courts with expostulations and entreaties; while its merchantmen, unarmed and unprotected, had been seized with impunity to the number of over 1,500 (917 by England, 558 by France, 70 by Denmark, 47 by Naples, and an unreported number of Holland and Spain), the indignation of the people at large had been slowly gathering force until it was now past control. When the new congress met, Nov. 4, 1811, it was found that the federalists had but six senators and thirty-six representatives; that among the democrats most of the "submission men," who were anxious for peace at any price, had been defeated; and that the congress was emphatically a war congress. Its temper seems to have been equally a surprise to the democratic administration, which had grown gray in efforts to shift off war, and to the federalist leaders, who had declared that the government "could not be kicked into a war," and "had no more idea of declared that the government of the house committee on foreign relations sounded a note unusual in recent proceedings. It rehearsed the misdeeds of Great Britain in enslaving American seamen, and capturing every American vessel bound to or from any port at which her commerce was not favored; and declared that the time had come for choosing between tame submission, and resistance by all the means which God had placed within our reach. Preparations for war were at once begun. Between Dec. 24, 1811, and July 6, 1812, nineteen acts were passed, most of them for the increase of the army by the enlistment of 20,000 additional regulars and of 50,000 volunteers, and by drafting 1000,000 militia into the United States service. All this was for the invasion of Canada, which was the prime object of the war. The fact that the war was to be carried on by land rather than by sea was marked by the appropriations, which amounted to $12,000,000 for the army, and $3,000,000 for the navy. of the house committee on foreign relations sounded a note unusual in recent proceedings. It rehearsed the misdeeds of Great Britain in enslaving American seamen, and capturing every American vessel bound to or from any port at which her commerce was not favored; and declared that the time had come for choosing between tame submission, and resistance by all the means which God had placed within our reach. Preparations for war were at once begun. Between Dec. 24, 1811, and July 6, 1812, nineteen acts were passed, most of them for the increase of the army by the enlistment of 20,000 additional regulars and of 50,000 volunteers, and by drafting 1000,000 militia into the United States service. All this was for the invasion of Canada, which was the prime object of the war. The fact that the war was to be carried on by land rather than by sea was marked by the appropriations, which amounted to $12,000,000 for the army, and $3,000,000 for the navy. April 4, 1812, an embargo was laid for ninety days, an act announced by its supporters to be an act announced by its supporters to be an act preparatory to war. The president was brought to coincide with the majority (see CAUCUS, CONGRESSIONAL), and June 18, 1812, war was declared against Great Britain. (See CONVENTION, HART FORD.) June 23, the British orders in council were revoked, but the revocation was as delusive as the revocation of the French decrees had been, for it concluded with the proviso: "That nothing in this present order contained shall be understood to preclude H. R. H., the prince regent, if circumstances shall so require, from restoring, after reasonable notice, the orders of the seventh of January, 1807, and the twenty sixth of April 1809, or any part thereof, to their full effect, or from taking such other measures of retaliation against the enemy, as may appear to his royal highness to be just and necessary." On receipt of this news the British admiral, Warren, proposed a suspension of hostilities, but, as he refused to suspend the right of impressment, and as the revocation did not appear to be complete, the United States rejected the offer, and the war was prosecuted to an end (see WARS, III.) though the final peace did not secure any formal abandonment by Great Britain of the rights of search and impressment, of the "rule of 1756," or of the principle of the orders in council. At first American commerce suffered little more from actual war than it had done from the decrees and the orders in council. But the commerce from the New England states, which was encouraged by the British fleets as a means of obtaining fresh provisions, was irritating to the democratic leaders, who regarded it as an unpatriotic contribution to the support of the enemy. When it was found that the British blockade, as formally declared, May 27 and Nov. 4, 1813, extended only from Montauk point to the Mississippi, leaving the New England Coast free, the dominant party at once introduced a new embargo, Dec. 17, 1813, to continue until Jan. 1, 1815. It not only abolished foreign commerce, but imposed restrictions upon the consisting trade, which had, by collusive captures and ransoms, been made a means of commerce. April 14, 1814, this embargo was repealed, because of the downfall of Napoleon's "continental system" together with his empire.

—The restrictive system disappeared with the Edition: current; Page: [85] repeal of this last embargo. As a measure of offense the utility of an embargo was extremely doubtful at all times. Most historians have denied to it any utility whatever; but Brougham's speeches in parliament in 1812, and the affidavits and memorials of English merchants, ascribe to it, perhaps from motives of self-interest, a remarkable efficacy. Merchants and manufacturers of Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, Rochdale, and Leeds, in their testimony before the house of commons committee in 1812, pained a lively picture of the decrease of trade, the losses of owners, and the suffering of workmen, and charted the whole upon the American embargo. Their complaints extorted from an unwilling ministry the revocation of the orders in council before mentioned. The patent object of these order was to force the trade of the civilized world into British ports, that the duties paid upon them there might sustain the government in its long struggle with Napoleon, and only a real and general English distress could have forced a change in this policy.

—But, whatever may have been the success of the embargo in inflicting injury upon Great Britain, the American government, in enforcing it, was evidently bolding the blade of the sword and striking the enemy with the hilt. It had its origin in the unwillingness of the democratic members of congress, and their agricultural constituents of the south, west and western middle states, to endure the expense of a navy for the protection of foreign commerce. Its final abandonment was due to the discovery that foreign commerce was as necessary to agriculture as agriculture was to foreign commerce. One strong fleet would have been worth it dozen embargoes, but only experience could convince the non-commercial sections of the United States of the truth of this. As the market for breadstuffs, rice and cotton disappeared, the value of an embargo was less perceptible. But, even when it was repealed in 1809, the belief that Great Britain would "Copenhagenize" any American navy which might be formed was sufficient to deter the democratic leaders from anything bolder than non-intercourse laws, until the idea of invading Canada took root and blossomed into a declaration of war. The navy then approved its value at its first opportunity, and its victories put an end to the possibility of any future embargoes. (See UNITED STATES.)

—See, in general, 5 Elliot's Debates, 455; 5, 6 Hildreth's United States (and index); Dwigh's Hartford Convention; American Register, 1806-10; 3-5 Benton's Debates of Congress; 1, 4-6 Wait's American State Papers; 1 Statesman's Manual; 1,2 Stat. at Large. (1.) See 1 Fyffee's History of Modern Europe, 53; Hamilton's Letters of Pacificus, and other authorities under GENET, CITIZENS; 2 Sparks' Life of Gouverneur Morris, 319; 2 Pitkin's United States, 398; Baring's Orders in Council; W. B. Lawrence's Visitation and Search, 4: Trescott's Diplomatic History of the Administration of Washington and Adams, 91:1 Benton's Debates of Congress,458, 498; authorities under JAY's TREATY; 1 Lyman's Diplomacy of the United States, 224; Stephens' War in Disguise, 57;2 Tucker's Life of Jefferson, 2233; Dwight's Hartford Convention, 83: 4 Jefferson's Works (edit. 1829). 169. The act of March 26, 1764, is in 1 Stat. at Large, 400; the act of April 18, 1806, is in 2 Stat. at Large, 379. (II.) See authorities cited above, in general; 3 Benton's Debates of Congress, 640; 1 von Holst's United States, 200; 6 Hildreth's United States, 35; Carey's Olive Brach, 215; 1 Tucker's United States, 532, and 2: 307; Massachusetts Memorial and Remonstrance to Congress (1809); Memorial of W. E Channing; 2 Rives' Life of Madison, 383, 410;3 Randall's Life of Jefferson, 282; Quincy's Life of Quincy, 162; Clay's Private Correspondence, 46; 3 Webster's Works 327; Story's Life of J. Story, 185; 4 Benton's Debates of Congress, 9. The acts of Dec. 22, 1807, Jan. 9, March 12, and April 25, 1808, are in 2 Stat. at Large, 451, 453, 473, 499 respectively. (III) See (as to "Erskine arrangement") 6 Hildreth's United States, 168; Dwight's Hartford Convention, 101; Wait's American State Papers, (1808-9), 461. The acts of March 1 and June 28, 1809, May 1, 1810, and March 2, 1811, are in 2 Stat. at Large, 528, 550, 603, 651. (IV., V) See, of the works cited, under II. and III., Hildreth, von Holst, Benton, Rives, Quincy and Carey; 1 Ingersoll's Second War with Great Britain; 2 Calhoun's Works, 2; authorities under FEDERAL PARTY. II.; CONVENTION, HARTFORD; and CLINTON, DE WITT. The declaration of war is in 2 Stat. at Large,88.

EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION

EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION, converse expressions, denoting the act of removal from one country or state to another for the purpose of residence. The removal is called emigration with reference to the country left, and immigration with reference to the country entered. Migration, a more general term than either, implies simply a change of residence with regard to whence or whither. In this article, however, the term emigration will be used in its broadest sense as synonymous with either of the last, unless the context shows clearly that it is to be distinguished from them.

—HISTORY. Emigration has been the means by which the world has been populated and civilization extended. "It is the practical response which mankind have given in all ages to the command to 'multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it'; or, in other words, it is a necessary result of the increase of population within a limited though cherished space, and of the manifest destiny of our race to people and develop the world." The earliest and in many respects the most interesting emigrations were prehistoric. That in a period long antecedent to all written records, from some land in central Asia, horde after horde of emigrants issued forth in all directions, north, south, east and west, is amply proven by ethnological, archæcological Edition: current; Page: [86] and linguistic evidence. And whether we regard Asia as the original home of all the members of the human family or not, it is certain that the most important of those members, the Aryan stock, had its origin there. Issuing thence it had extended from the Ganges to Iceland long before we have any historic records. Its early history was that of all progressive nomadic peoples. Population soon outgrew the means of subsistence. Their immense herds demanded immense pastures, and forth they went, by hundreds and thousands and probably millions, to seek their fortunes elsewhere. The Celts swept over Europe, penetrating into every part of it, followed by the Germans, and these by the Slaves, while other families went in other directions.

—Of the Semitic nations the Jews particularly have wandered long and far. Their history begins with the command to Abram, "Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee." Abram took his nephew Lot with him, but even these two households were too large to dwell together in unity, and they soon separated. "This separation will always remain a strikingly natural and suggestive picture of the outward movement of society in its primitive elements. There was no want apparently of material resources. 'Is not the whole land before thee?' were the words of Abram; and Lot, lifting up his eyes, saw the plane of Jordan unoccupied and well watered. But there was strike among the servants, quarrels as to pasturings and waterings, with Canaanites and Perizzites dwelling in the land as an additional element of disorder. The kinsmen could not agree or adjust their rule; and separation would be judicious if not necessary. The narrative exhibits the influence of individualism on human affairs—on the affair of emigration as on others. In early times it was found difficult or impossible to make any important progress on the basis of social unity." From this time forward we have a connected and trustworthy account of the wanderings of the Jews. First to Egypt, then through the wilderness to Canaan, subsequently in the various captivities to Babylon and finally over the whole world, and through all time. For even now they are forced to emigrate from Russia or perish at the hands of raging mobs.

—The Greeks ascribed their civilization to immigrants from Phoenicia and Egypt, and it is tolerably certain that several distinct migrations into Greece had occurred before the nationalists took the form they had at the opening of the historic period. The Greeks in their migratory instincts resembled the modern Germanic races. Long before the historic era they had colonized the western coast of Asia Minor, and the islands of the Grecian archipelago. Trapezas on the farthest shores of the Black sea, Cyrene in Africa, and Massilia in Gaul, serve to show the vast extent of country throughout which they planted colonies. Greek emigration differed in many respects from modern emigration. It did not occur in straggling bands of adventurers who settled at different places along the coast, only uniting after a long time into a city or state. Nor was it toward highly civilized countries in whose population the Greeks disappeared, as the Germans in America. On the contrary, the Greek colonists formed from the beginning an organized political body. Their first care upon settling in their adopted country was to found a city and to erect in it those public buildings which were essential to the social and religious life of a Greek. Their colonies were established for the most part either in countries with a scanty population or whose inhabitants were in a decidedly lower state of civilization. The spot for the city was generally seized by force and the original inhabitants either driven out, made slaves, or reduced to the condition of subjects, sometimes, indeed, admitted to a share in the political rights of the new state. Civil dissensions and a redundant population were the two chief causes of the origin of the most Greek colonies. They were usually undertaken with the approbation of the cities from which they issued and under the direction of leaders appointed by them. Many of them became rich and powerful states within a short time, some of them far exceeding the mother states in wealth and power. The success of such colonies offered a constant inducement to the ambitious and energetic at home to follow the example of their predecessors, and thus Grecian institutions and civilization were carried to every part of the Mediterranean. The Phoenicians also were a colony planting people. They even dared to venture beyond the pillars of Hercules into the wide and open Atlantic, penetrating to Britain and the Baltic on the north and, it is supposed by some, around the cape of Good Hope on the south. Rome also planted colonies, but they were not colonies in the Grecian sense of the term. The Grecian colonist when he emigrated left home for good. He transferred his allegiance to the new state and made it the centre of his labor and hopes and aspirations. The colonists usually cherished a feeling of reverential respect for the mother country, which they evidenced by sending deputations to the principal festivals of the latter, and assigning to her ambassadors the places of honor on public occasions. They worshipped the same gods and kept the sacred fire burning which they had brought with them from the public hearth at home. But the colony was politically independent of the mother city and emancipated from its control, and although a war between them was looked upon as a violation of sacred ties, yet difficulties occasionally arose which resulted in bitter feuds and bloody contests. Very different was it with Roman colonies. These were rather military outposts, intended to strengthen Roman power and influence in conquered communities than colonies in the ordinary sense. The colonists retained generally their Roman citizenship, although they were obliged to go to Roman to Edition: current; Page: [87] exercise their right to vote. Rome adopted the plan of colonization at various times for the purpose of alleviating distress at home by removing large numbers of the proletary at once from the bounds of the city. The policy did not result in as permanent an improvement as was anticipated. The proletary increased in numbers more rapidly than the surplus could be absorbed by the foundation of new colonies.

—The last great wave of emigration which swept over western Europe was the one which buried forever the old Roman empire and its civilization. From the time of the invasion of the Cimbri and Teutons into Italy, Rome was constantly employed in keeping back the Germans who had begun to press in from the north along the whole boundary of the empire. Cæsar gives us a graphic description of the character and migratory habits of the Germans, which Tacitus repeats and enlarges in his "Germania." These barbarians poured in upon the Roman state from the north, sweeping all before them, and penetrated even into Africa, where they founded settlements. After the conquest of the ancient empire a new set of states grew up on its ruins, which were finally united into the Holy Roman empire of the German nation, out of which sprang up the modern nations of continental Europe. The later inroads of the Slavonic nations, of the Arabs, of the Hungarians, and of the Turks, respectively, were finally repulsed or checked and the last scene in that gigantic drama known as the "migration of nations" closed, if not forever at least for ages to come.

—The migration of modern nations assumed an entirely different character, though none the less interesting and important. The inroads of the Slavonic nations had lasted down to a late period. They had penetrated to the German ocean on the north and to central Germany on the south. The contest between the Slaves and the Germans lasted for generations, and resulted in favour of the Germans. They either subdued or forced back the Slavonic tribes up to the confines of Poland. Large numbers of Germans emigrated to these conquered districts and settled there as permanent colonists. The northern provinces of the present kingdom of Prussia were at one time almost entirely in the hands of the Slaves, and they became subsequently for generations the colonial lands of the German nation. The other emigrating movements on the continent were rather sporadic and insignificant as compared with the later ones toward the new world. Russia, Hungary and Prussia offered special inducements to immigrants, and consequently excited at times a considerable influx of foreigners. The religious persecutions, like that of the Huguenots in France, forced at times a large emigration from one country or another.

—But modern emigration, on an important scale dates from the time of the discovery of America, though it was not till more than three centuries after that event that it became very large. The discovery of gold and silver in Mexico and Peru excited the cupidity of avaricious Spanish adventurers, and prompted other nations to send out expeditions to explore the unknown regions with the hope of finding similar treasure. This emigration was at first confined to bold and ambitious spirits, animated with a thirst for riches. They had no idea of making permanent settlements, but hoped to acquire wealth in a short time and then return to enjoy it at home. During the seventeenth century, however, a new spirit became manifest. England, France, Holland and Spain vied with each other in their eagerness for colonization. From Canada to Florida a series of colonies was planted, all the above mentioned nations taking part in them. Spain and Portugal planted colonies also in Mexico and South America. We have no means of knowing how many people emigrated to America previous to the year 1820. But the number was by no means small. As early as 1700 large numbers of Germans emigrated from the Rhine districts to America, particularly to Pennsylvania. One of the officials of the last mentioned colony writes, in 1729, "It is clear that the crowds of Germans will soon found a German State" In 1755 another writes: "The Germans come pouring in such numbers(over 5,000 during the last year) that I do not see why they will not soon be in a condition to make our laws for us and determine our language." The outbreak of the revolution interposed a serious hindrance to all immigration of course for years. The European wars breaking out immediately after the close of the former and lasting almost continuously until 1815, absorbed nearly all the surplus population for nearly forty years. Various estimates have been made as to number coming to the United States prior to 1820. Mr. Blodget thought that the arrivals from 1789-94 did not exceed 4,000 year. Dr. Seybert estimated the number at 6,000 a year from 1790 to 1810. Prof Tucker estimated that 234,000 came in from 1790 to 1820 Dr. Loring, of the United States statistical bureau, figured out about 250,000 immigrants from 1775 to 1820. The following table of estimates has been complied from a similar one in the "Encyclopædia Britannica," and indicates by decades the numbers emigrating from Europe to America and Australia:

The figures in the above table are thought to be far below the truth, but they give some idea of the enormous proportions which emigration Edition: current; Page: [88] has assumed in recent times. The emigration during the last decade, 1870-79, far exceeds that of any previous decade, and the indications are that the number of emigrants will rather increase than diminish during the decade now passing. Later data as to the United States is given at the end of this article.

—MOTIVES OF EMIGRATION. It will be seen from the preceding sketch that a great variety of motives have been of influence in exciting and sustaining emigration. Perhaps the most powerful motive of all is the love of movement and adventure which seems innate in the great migrating races. The pressure of population upon the means of subsistence is undoubtedly a prime occasion, and yet it has but little effect on many nations. The population of India would seem to press very closely upon the means of subsistence, for with every failure in the harvests thousands and hundreds of thousands of deaths occur from starvation, and yet no emigration has set in. It is true that an immense tide of emigrating flowed out of Ireland immediately after the famine of 1847, but an almost equal number of Germans emigrated to the United States about the same time. Nor can the immense emigration from 1865 to 1873 be attributed to famine. Neither religious persecution nor civil despotism can explain the phenomenon. It is true, the failure of the revolutions of 1848 was followed by an immense efflux of German emigrants from Europe to America; but a similar efflux took place in the period 1865-73 immediately upon the triumph of nationalism and liberalism in Germany, when the elective franchise had been made as free as in America, and much easier to acquire. Nor will it do to attribute it to the grinding despotism of the military system, for from the very country in which it has been most oppressive there has been absolutely and relatively the least emigration. Prussia sent forth only 100,000 emigrants to America from 1820 to 1870, although it was one of the first of European states to acknowledge the right of unrestricted emigration. We have seen that the discovery of gold in California and Australia provoked a great emigration to those localities. The spirit of speculation drives not only capital but labor also, to all places where the prospect of profit is good. Special inducements held out to immigrants by various governments have been a great exciting cause; such as the exemption from taxation and the gifts of land and money by Peter the Great of Russia, and Frederick the Great of Prussia. The offers of free transportation and gifts of land by the Canadian, Australian and other governments have undoubtedly attracted some. The glowing pictures of emigration agents and of successful friends have been a spur to many. The rude pressure of physical want, then, as exhibited in famines, the love of conquest, religious persecution, civil wars, political despotism, discovery of gold and silver mines, the envy of brighter skies and a more fertile soil, have all acted as occasions of emigration, but nearly all of them have depended for their efficacy upon the migratory instinct, which, existing in a more or less developed state in all human kind, is peculiarly strong in the Aryan races, and especially marked in the Germanic family.

—THE EFFECTS OF EMIGRATION may be considered with reference to three parties, the country left, the country entered, and the migrating persons. As a rule, able-bodied men possessing some capital emigrate. The lowest classes of the people do not have either the inclination to go abroad, or the money to pay their expenses. Only those can be of use in colonies who would be useful at home. The country left, then, becomes poorer in productive classes and in capital, the relation between the rich and the poor more unfavourable, and the contrast between the classes sharper.(Roscher.) A person who emigrates just as he becomes of a productive age represents the investment of so much fixed capital which is transferred from one country to the other. Besides, he generally takes with him capital enough to get a fair start, which is also subtracted from the circulating capital of the country. He leaves behind him a gap which can not immediately be filled by as able a laborer. It is said, for instance, that in Mecklenburg agricultural labor has much deteriorated because the strong men emigrate and the old and children remain at home. As more men than women emigrate a surplus of the latter is left behind, which may have a bad influence on the morals of the community. According to Romelin the large emigration from Wortemberg during the years immediately following 1850 left such a preponderance of women that one-sixth of all the young women who had reached a marriageable age in 1865, would remain unmarried, even if all the marriageable young men were to engage in matrimony.

—The above remarks have reference to individual emigration. The dangers pointed out do not apply to what may be called colonizing emigration, i.e., the transporting of families to some distant part of the world to form colonies which are to remain economically connected with the mother country. In such cases emigration not only provides room at home by removing the surplus population, but there arises at the same time an increased demand for manufactured articles, an increased supply of raw material by means of which an absolute growth of population is made possible. By making provision for the transportation of men, women and children the equilibrium of the sexes at home and of the productive to the unproductive population need not be disturbed. The capital needed will be better employed than if invested at home, for it will bring in greater returns. As a very rare exception an emigration suddenly undertaken, well directed and on a very large scale, may be made to constitute the efficient means preparatory to the abolition of pauperism. Where, for instance, by reason of the subdivision of land into extremely small parcels, farming on a diminutive scale has come to preponderate; Edition: current; Page: [89] where the popular house-industries have been reduced to a miserable condition by the immoderate competition of great foreign manufactures and machinery, the hopelessness of the situation consists principally in this, that every improvement made must be preceded by a concentration of the forces of labor and their combination with the powers of capital, which for the moment renders a great number of those who have been laborers hitherto entirely superfluous. The superfluous laborers must starve enough quantity could be removed at once, the revolution in industry would at once take place. The proletary would disappear for a short time at least, and allow an opportunity to take measures for its permanent abolition.

—The country entered, if already settled, is affected in all directions by any large influx of foreigners. Economically, industry may be quickened and the material resources of the country rapidly developed by the new supply of cheap labour. Our own country affords an excellent instance of this. The immense immigration from 1847 to 1860 made possible the rail road and manufacturing extension of those years. From 1865 to 1873 the incoming tide of foreigners swept toward our machine shops and factories. The Chinese laborers made the Union Pacific railroad feasible. In a word, a large mass of foreigners whose standard of life is permanently lower than that of the natives may have the same effect on industry that improved machines do, i.e. may quicken and stimulate production. But this very advantage, if permanent, brings with it in a very serious danger, viz., a forcing down of the standard of life of the whole laboring class and a consequent deterioration in their character and efficiency. This point has not been sufficiently regarded by economists, The question is not merely regarded by economists. The question is not merely one of production, but also of distribution and of the interests of the masses of the labouring classes. The introduction of radically different elements may destroy the whole race by mixture with the natives; may injure the national life and commerce by the introduction of new economical customs, and debase the civilization of the whole people along with its economical system. The immigration of a different race not likely to amalgamate readily is peculiarly dangerous. It, if at all inferior, will be likely to be regarded with contempt as belonging exclusively to the inferior race. Labor acquires a stigma, and a great social injury is done. The agitation against Chinese immigration into the United States is based upon a blind feeling rather than upon economical and sociological considerations. But that it would bring grave evils with it if it should ever assume serious proportions can hardly be denied. seeCHINESE IMMIGRATION.) Even the emigration of Irish laborers to England and Scotland has been greatly deprecated by thoughtful men of all classes. the Irish laborers, bare-footed and ragged, restricting themselves to potatoes and whisky, have carried their disgusting habits of living in cellars, and of congregating several families together into one room even with pigs as companions, over to England. (Th. Carlyle, "On Chartism") Even John Stuart Mill would have no hesitation in prohibiting such an emigration to prevent the economic contagion spreading to English workmen. The Scottish census report of 1871 contains the most vigorous expressions as to the blasting effects of Irish immigration to Scotland on the condition, character and habits of the native laborers. "With the year 1829," says the report, "the invasion or immigration of the Irish race began, which gradually increased until it reached enormous dimensions in 1840, when railroad building began to assume extensive proportions. This Irish invasion can easily have more ruinous effects upon the Scotch population than even the inroads of the Saxons, Danes and Normans. Already the Irish-born immigrants form from 5 to 15 per cent, of the population of many of our cities, and, if we count their children born in Scotland, from 10 to 30 per cent. The immigration of such a multitude of laborers of the lowest class, with scarcely any education whatever, can have only the most injurious influence. Up to the present time the most of these Irish laborers have not improved in any respect, while it is certain that the Scotch connected with them have been degraded. It is painful to think what the ultimate consequences of this Irish immigration will be for the character and habits of our people and for the future prospects of the country." In another place it continues: "The large proportion of Irishmen in Scotland has undoubtedly had very unfavorable results, and wherever they have settled they have debauched the lower classes, and increased the necessity for forcible police and sanitary supervision." While the fears of the commissioners of the census may have been exaggerated, no thoughtful economist can deny that they had a substantial basis. The same thing has been found to be true in Russia, for instance, where the immigration of certain classes into certain districts has been forbidden on economical grounds. Australia has considered it necessary to protect herself against Chinese immigration, and the United States is preparing to follow her example. These are instances in which the conviction that unsuitable immigration may be dangerous to the public welfare has led to the practical measures of making it difficult or even prohibiting it. The settlement of the Mormons in the United States, and the trouble they have made, show clearly what may happen where the settlers are at the variance with the state entered on cardinal points of doctrine and policy; although they may belong to the same race and speak the same language. And when immigrants introduce heathen customs and observances which, though called religious and claiming toleration, can only be regarded as contrary to civil order, morality and decency, the problem is still further complicated. In all such cases it is easier to prevent the immigration Edition: current; Page: [90] than solve the difficulties it would create.

—Politically, the influence is also likely to make itself felt. A free government rests largely upon tradition. The unwritten constitution is quite as powerful as the written. Such a government is safe only so long as the population is homogeneous and has been born and brought up on the same political atmosphere. Let large foreign elements be introduced, the homogeneousness disappears, a class grows up to which the old watchwords have no significance, with whom the ancient precedents have no weight. A new constitution becomes necessary, if free institutions are to be preserved. But the character of the government has changed with the character of the people. Institutions which were successful with the well-trained and thoughtful New England community can not work with a mixed and ignorant population. A government may lay it down as a maxim that it will not interfere with the exercise of any religious faith. The rule may be observed as long as there is no religious sect which outrages public decency. Let Mormonism appear and the rule must be sacrificed and the religion stamped out, or at least its outward observance. But the principle of religious toleration, at least in its broadest statement, has suffered thereby a rude shock.

—The effect on the emigrant himself is generally good. There is little danger that one who knows how to work and pray will go to the bad in a young agricultural colony. In a wilderness which has not yet been cleared, the greater number of proletarian vices spontaneously disappear. There is here no opportunity for jealousy or theft; little for intemperance, the gaming table, licentiousness or quarrelsomeness. Here labor is a necessity, and the rewards of industry and saving soon take a palpable shape. As the emigrant in such a situation can scarcely help marrying, children far from being a burden soon become companions to their parents in their solitude, and later helpmates in business. The colonist belonging to the lower middle class is most certain of improving his condition. It may, indeed, require many toilsome years before he can feel comfortable himself; but his children, who would probably have led a proletarian life in the mother country, may calculate with certainty on future well-being. The father's small capital, which the outlay for education alone would have exhausted at home, here becomes the seed of a number of prosperous households, (Roscher, "On Population," §249.) It the emigrant goes to a country already tolerably well populated, where a different language from his own is spoken, he may meet with many discouragements, which may have, in isolated cases, a ruinous effect upon him. Having cut loose from all restraints at home, he has nothing except his own sturdy character to keep him in the right path, and it too often proves to be too weak. It is a significant fact that of the suicides in our large cities by far the largest proportion relatively occur among the foreigners. But this is true of individual cases only; the vast majority are able by industry and economy greatly to better their condition socially and economically. Another point is worth consideration. Life in a new and growing country is an education of itself. "It has been frequently observed that colonies are favorable to the development of a democracy. Ancient customs and usages can not be preserved in a colony as at home. Men are of necessity placed on a greater equality since they have to share the same hardships, to overcome the same difficulties and to face the same dangers." What is true of colonies is equally true of a great republic like the United States while it is in the nascent state with abundance of unoccupied land. The competition is keen in all departments, but so many opportunities present themselves at every turn that it can never become oppressive. A share in the government keeps alive political interest, or excites it where before lacking, while the independence of life and action affords the best training for citizenship. Hence we see a capacity for self-government developed even within one generation in emigrants whose ancestors to the farthest remove never possessed such a quality. Such an education must result in making the emigrant worth more to himself and to the world.

—EMIGRATION LAWS. "Every state which regards its members not as serfs but as freemen, who, under its protection, follow out their own purposes, acknowledges of course the right of emigration. Only by such acknowledgment can the rights of its subjects become true rights of freedom, while the prohibition or arbitrary limitation of removal prevents them possibly from the only ground on which they can flourish and bring forth fruit. If in spite of this, however, this or that particular state declares the relation of subject to be indissoluble, it will hardly be able to offer any satisfactory justification for it." The preceding quotation fairly represents the opinion of the authoritative writers on international and political science of the last three generations. And yet the practice has not been at all consistent with this theory. The question as to whether a citizen can expatriate himself, although not the same as to whether he may emigrate, is yet closely connected with it. Even in the United States (of all countries in the world the one where we should least expect it) there was formerly a great difference of opinion on this point. And it was not until 1868 that congress finally decided the question by an act declaring that expatriation was an inherent right of all men. In the same year the United States secured a treaty from the North German confederation acknowledging the right of its citizens to be naturalized in America. (SeeNATURALIZATION.)

—Prohibition of emigration has always been a common device of governments. The idea at the bottom of such prohibitions is different under different conditions. Cæsar forbade all persons of senatorial rank to emigrate out of Italy. In modern times nearly every European state has at Edition: current; Page: [91] one time or another prohibited emigration. Frederick William I. forbade the emigration of Prussian peasants under penalty of death. In Spiers, in 1765, persons of good conduct, good workmen, and of sufficient means, were forbidden to emigrate. The public opinion of modern times is very generally opposed to this compulsion, which would make the state a prison. It might, indeed, be urged with much force that a man who had been educated and protected until he had become of productive age ought not to be allowed to leave the country as soon as he became valuable. Russia and Turkey still keep a prohibition of emigration without permission from the czar and sultan. Most continental states do not permit emigration until the person wishing to go has performed all his obligations to the state and to his fellow citizens. To the former belongs his military service; to the latter the settlement of all his debts. These last provisions seem just and proper. But the statesman who undertakes to prevent persons leaving who are discontented with the political, religious or economical condition of things "should take care lest he act like the physician who prevents the discharge of diseased matter from the sick body and causes it to take its seat in some vital organ." Hence even where emigration is considered detrimental to the country, no governmental condition should be attached to it, except that the person desiring to emigrate should give timely notice of his intention, and receive his passport only after it has been shown that he has fulfilled all his obligations. The immense German emigration, of the last thirty years, though perhaps injurious in some respects to Germany, has in all probability prevented violent revolutions in that country.

—Emigration has, on the other hand, at various times and for various purposes, been favored or compelled by the state. The old Grecian cities used to favor or compel emigration whenever the population became too crowded. In modern times the Russian czars have often transported colonies from one portion to another of their empire, so as to settle up some desolate portion. Theorists and practical statesmen both have favored state aid to emigrants. After such great calamities as the famine of 1846 in Ireland, the cheapest form of assistance is often aid to those who are willing to depart for more favored localities. As a rule, however, positive provisions in favor of individual emigration have but little in their favor. Why should those who remain at home be compelled to pay tribute to those who turn their backs on the fatherland? Those who would have to pay the cost of such aid, viz., the wealthy, are just the ones who under the form of increased wages of the laborers must bear the loss incident upon emigration. Colonizing emigration may very properly be favoured by the state. It is not likely to be directly remunerative, otherwise it might be left to private corporations. But a colony well established and maintaining a connection with the mother country is continual source of advantage to the latter, as we have already pointed out. The principal modern governments have so far favored emigration as to provide for the proper accommodation of emigrants, taking care that they shall not be cheated or abused by the transporting companies. English and German legislation are instances in point. The legislation of Bremen is a model in this respect, and has contributed largely to make that port the chief outlet of German emigration. The minimum space to be allotted each passenger is fixed by law, as also the amount of provisions to be taken along on each passage. The transporting companies are also liable for damages arising from accidents. To prevent any undue exciting of the lower classes, emigration agents are not allowed to carry on their operations in the inland.

—Immigration also has been prohibited by various governments. The most important instances in modern times are those already mentioned. Australia. etc. The general dislike of foreigners characteristic of many nations in history has of course acted as a powerful check on emigration, while the positive laws of such countries as China and Japan kept them for centuries closed to all outside influences. The difficulty of securing protection and acknowledgement of political rights has been another powerful deterrent of immigration, which has disappeared even among civilized nations only within very recent times. The right of state to refuse admission to foreigners was vigorously maintained by oriental nations until they were compelled by force to admit them, and recently the same doctrine has been advocated and practiced by the powerful nations already referred to, Australia and the United States. The right of a state to refuse to accept the criminals, paupers, etc., of another state, must be granted by all right-thinking statesmen, and the right to prohibit all immigration, deemed dangerous or undesirable, can be based on the same principle, viz., self-protection.

—Immigration has however been quite as often encouraged by artificial means as it has been prohibited. According to the legendary account of the founding of Rome, Romulus offered special inducements to immigrants, and in consequence thereof the population increased very rapidly. Cæsar tells us that the Gauls incited the first immigration of the Germans under Ariovistus by offering them one third of their lands in return for aid against their enemies. We have numberless instances of immigration induced by direct offers during the period of the decadence of the Roman empire. In the strife of factions and parties, first one side and then the other appealed to the Germans for aid, offering them land for settlement, if they would respond. The result of the response was the overthrow of the empire. The Britons summoned the Saxons to their and against the Picts and Scots, promising them land for settlement, and the Saxons ultimately became the rulers of the country. In the twelfth century large numbers of the natives Edition: current; Page: [92] of the Netherlands were induced to emigrate to Germany and become farmers, and in the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries to England, and settled there as artisans. During the thirteenth century a multitude of German colonists established themselves in Poland on the domains of the crown and of the church. As a rule they obtained the land in consideration of moderate services and rents which, however, did not begin to run until after eight years nor until after thirty on uncleared lands. Large numbers also emigrated to Hungary and Transylvania, while the French Hugenots, driven from home, were invited to all the independent Protestant countries. Nearly all the remarkable Russian princes from Ivan III. have endeavored to induce Germans to settle in Russia. Peter the Great refused to give up his Swedish prisoners of war because he wanted them as colonists. Catherine planted colonies of foreigners on the Volga and in southern Russia. About 1830 the number of colonists was estimated at 130,009, mostly Germans. The great Prussian rulers have cultivated the policy of immigration on a most extensive scale, and thus maintained the original character of their parent provinces as the colonial land of the German people. It is estimated that Frederick William I. spent 5,000,000 thalers in establishing colonists. Up to 1728, 20,000 new families were received into Prussia alone. Frederick the Great endeavored to retain in the country the strangers who came there periodically. He is said to have settled 42,600 families in 539 villages and hamlets. The Population of Prussia between 1823 and 1840 increased by 751,749 immigrants, without any positive favors shown them, and the greater part of these were not very poor. In Russia, in 1803, the Emperor Alexander promised the colonists a full release from taxation for ten years, a reduction of taxation for ten more, and freedom from civil and military service for all time; besides sixty dessatines of land per family gratis, an advance of 300 roubles for house building, etc., and money to enable them to maintain themselves until the first harvest. Hungary, as long ago as 1723, accorded settlers freedom from taxation for six years and artisans for fifteen years. Nearly all modern states which possess large amounts of unoccupied lands have offered special inducements to immigrants. Australia, Canada and the United States have been particularly distinguished by their liberal offers of land or money, or both. The last named has given land only on condition that the persons taking it should actually occupy it. The great railroad corporations have also made liberal offers and provided exceptional advantages and rates to settlers, and taken special pains to attract immigrants by advertising throughout the world, so far as possible, the advantages of the new countries. Special precautions have also been taken to prevent the abuse of the immigrants on their arrival in this country, which removes of course one of the deterrents of immigration.

—IMMIGRATION INTO THE UNITED STATES. Of all modern nations the United States has received by far the largest number of immigrants. The statistics of immigration have of late years been kept with tolerable accuracy, and they afford a great number of interesting facts for comparison and discussion. We have selected the following for special mention as they serve to illustrate the points previously presented under the "effects of emigration." The vast majority of immigrants are at the most productive age. About 25 per cent. are under fifteen years of age, and less then 15 per cent over forty, leaving more than 60 per cent in the prime of life. The number of males is largely in excess of that of females, the ration varying with the nationality. Among the Chinese only about 7 per cent are females, while their ratio among the Irish is over 45 per cent... and in the total number of immigrants about 38 per cent. About 46 per cent of the whole number, after deducting women and children, were trained to various pursuits, nearly 10 per cent consist of merchants and traders. The extent of the immigration during given years or periods depends upon the business prosperity political quiet and crops on both sides of the ocean. The growth of immigration from 1820 to 1837 was continuous and rapid. It declined for two years following the crisis of 1837, and leaped up again in 1840 to the highest point it had ever reached. The year 1854 marked the culmination of a series of bad crops and political troubles in Europe which had given a powerful impetus to emigration, and the immigration fell off from 427,833 in 1854 to 200,877 in 1855. The crisis of 1857 led to another great falling off, and the early years of the war were marked by a still further decline. Beginning with the year 1863, however, the immigration began to increase again and reached in 1872 the highest point it had ever attained. The crisis of 1873 was followed by a steady decline in immigration until 1879, when it began to increase again, and in 1881 reached the enormous figures of 743,777, with good prospects for a large increase in 1882. The distribution of the immigrants among the states and territories is also interesting. The northern and western states and territories have received by far the largest proportion of these immigrants. The southern states have also begun to encourage immigration, but without any very marked results so far.

—The contribution made to the wealth and population of the United States by immigration has been the subject of interesting and valuable discussions. Ms. Schade estimated that of the 33,589,377 whites in the United States in 1870, more than 24,000,000 were of foreign extraction. Dr Jarvis has conclusively shown the error in Mr. Schede's computations and advanced good grounds for assuming that the foreign population in 1870 (including immigrants and their children to the third generation) did not exceed 10,813,430 while those of American descent amounted to 22,775,947. Their addition to the wealth of the Edition: current; Page: [93] country has also been variously estimated. The estimate as to the amount of money each immigrant brings with him varies from $80 to $150. Assuming the lowest estimate as the correct one, the money brought into the United States by the immigrants up to Jan. 1, 1882, amounted to over $900,000,000. But the economic value of the immigrant arising from the addition to the industrial and intellectual resources of the country is still greater. The estimates here vary also between wide extremes, viz., from $800 to $1.125. Taking the lowest estimate again, the contribution made to our wealth by immigration is increased by about $9,000,000,000. No allowance has been made in this estimate for paupers, criminals, etc., who are a positive loss to the community. Our gain in this immigration is considered by some to have been the loss of foreign countries, by others as so much added to the wealth of the world, owing to the transfer of labor and capital from unproductive to productive fields.

—The subjoined table indicates the total number of alien passengers arriving in the United States in each year since 1820, and the chief countries from which they emigrated. The "total" includes also the immigrants from all other countries besides those mentioned. To obtain the net immigration from the table, about 1 2/3; per cent. of the total aliens should be deducted for those not intending to remain in the United States, except that from 1871 to 1881 the net immigration, instead of alien passengers, is indicated in the table.

Edition: current; Page: [94]

—The preceding table is based on the special report on immigration made by Dr. Loring, in 1871, with subsequent additions from latter reports. The discrepancies which may appear between this table and others may be partly explained by the fact that in some tables the names of those who died on the passage are included in the enumeration, while in others they are not.

—LITERATURE. The literature of the subject is not very extensive. The reports of the bureau of statistics for the United States and of the corresponding departments in Australia, Canada, and the various continental powers, supply the facts of emigration so far as they are known. The reports of the New York commissioners of emigration contain important discussions of theoretical points connected with the subject. "Immigration," by Frederic Kapp, is replete with information, and full of interest. In an article in vol. xxix. of the Atlantic Monthly, Dr. Jarvis criticises some of the positions taken by Mr. Kapp. A summary of the discussion is to be found under the title "Emigration" in the New American Cyclopaedia. The other standard Cyclopaedias contain interesting and valuable articles under the appropriate heads. The principal works on Political Economy all contain valuable discussions of various phases of the subject. Worthy of special mention in this connection are Mill, Roscher and Rau-Wagner, all of which have been freely used in preparing this article.

EMINENT DOMAIN

EMINENT DOMAIN, an original ownership retained by the sovereign, or remaining in the state, whereby land or other private property can be taken for the public benefit. This is the most definite principle of fundamental power of the government with regard to property, and the most striking example of the sovereignty of the people as a corporate body to resume original possession of the soil, where its use is essential to their mutual advantage and the welfare of society.

—Whenever it becomes necessary for the public benefit to open a street, construct a canal, charter a railroad, lay out a park, or perform any other similar act in the interest of the public, and the owners of the property refuse to sell, or ask an exorbitant price for their lands, by the power of eminent domain the state has the right to condemn such property to that public use, and any court having due authority, by issuing its process, may compel the surrender of the property.

—In countries where by the theory of the law all property is held by tenure from the sovereign, the act is regarded merely as the resumption of an original grant, this inherent right of the sovereign having been embraced and carried with the grant as originally made. Under republican forms of government the right of eminent domain is founded on the welfare and prosperity of the people and the common benefit to be derived by the act. In our government this right is conferred by the constitution, and the security of the people confirmed by the fifth amendment to that instrument, to which further allusion will be made hereafter. The constitutions of many of the states likewise provide the right of exercise of this principle, and compensation in an adequate degree for all private property taken for the public benefit and use. This condition is also implied in law, and the custom is universal to pay for property taken from the individual, for the benefit of the public, although the constitution may not expressly provide for the same. The principle of a just compensation is recognized by all nations possessing a constitutional government and by many arbitrary governments in their acts of restitution, relief, etc. The civil code of France, as well as the constitution of the United States, and the constitutions of many, if not all, of the states of the federal Union, recognize the justice of this principle. In the absence of such constitutional provisions the courts have determined the principle to be so fundamental and imperative, that laws not recognizing, or those denying this right to the individual, are deemed void.

—There are, however, distinctions to be drawn between the principle of eminent domain and the exercise of other proscriptive powers by the government. The seizure by a sovereign of private property during a war on account of military necessity; damages to private property in time of war, either from occupation by the enemy or from wanton depredations by its own troops, (though in this last case compensation is sometimes made by special legislation); imposition upon the people of contributions for carrying on the war successfully, in the form of taxation, unless the quota of a single individual be greater than his share; taxation of private property for public use; sale of private property for taxes; destruction of crops or supplies in time of war, to prevent the enemy from obtaining such resources; destruction of property to build dams against great floods; destruction of houses to prevent the spreading of conflagrations; the condemnation of a cemetery or burial ground on the plea of an abatement of a nuisance; the demolishing of property to extirpate disease; the confiscation and consumption by fire of infected clothing or other personal property to aid in the extinction of infections disease; the taking of land for the purpose of straightening a river, and consequent injury to the owner by cutting the banks and removing the trees; the seizure and destruction of property forfeited by violation of law; the forfeiture to the state of the property of a corporation on account of the abuse of its charter powers; the destruction of tools and appliances for criminal purposes; and all such acts done and performed for the public good, safety Edition: current; Page: [95] of the government and security of the people as a community, do not partake of the principle of eminent domain, and do not carry with them the right of compensation.

—With regard to the question as to what constitutes a public use or the number of people that must be benefited to constitute a use as public, it may be stated that it is not necessary or essential that the whole community or any considerable portion of it should directly participate in the benefit to be derived from an improvement, to make the use public. The use to be public, however, must relate to the community, but not to every individual, or to each one equally. It has been laid down as a rule, that should the improvement enlarge the resources, extend the industrial energy or promote the productive power of a moderately large number of the community, the use is a public one. The legislature granting the franchise usually determines, by its act, the number of people to be benefited that constitutes the use public. Waterworks for a particular town, private ways essential to the public use, a public park established in a county where it could prove beneficial only to an adjacent city, are all public uses in strict accordance with the principle of eminent domain.

—It is not essential that the property thus taken should pass into the possession of the public. The government, in nearly all matters pertaining to the improvement of the country and the development of the nation's resources, must perform its administrative and executive work through its agents. Therefore, in strict accordance with this rule of law, the property thus taken may become the property of a private individual, but most generally falls into the possession of a corporation, such as railroad and canal companies. Under no circumstances can the private property of one individual be taken and granted to another; but it is sufficient for the purposes of eminent domain if the use is public, and the public have the privilege of using the same, whether the property taken be in the possession of one or many individuals.

—The most notable example of public use, and where the exercise of the power of eminent domain is most frequently displayed, is in the establishment of means of public conveyance and quick communication between remote points of the state and country. The rapid transportation of passengers and merchandise to different parts of the country forms one of the most essential public uses that could be devised. This is most effectually performed by the construction of railroads, which are compelled by law to transport as common carriers, at all reasonable times, passengers and freight upon all lines of road within the extent of their operation. This labor, therefore, forms a great public use, highly essential to the comfort, convenience and prosperity of each community within its reach; and while its corporation is of a private character, its work is as much for the public use and benefit as if it had been constructed by the authorities of a state, out of the funds of the public treasury. The courts have determined railroads to be public highways, and on this ground have bonds been issued and taxation imposed to aid in their construction, while the receipts collected are for their own use and are handled exclusively by themselves. In the same category are placed other means of transportation for men and goods, such as canals, turnpikes, highways, public roads, bridges and ferries, in aid of which the power of the state has been invoked through the right of eminent domain.

—Before the employment of steam, and when water power was exclusively used in operating mills, it was the practice to encourage the building of the same by delegating to individuals the power of eminent domain by condemning favorable sites for their construction, when the owners of such available locations refused obstinately to sell for that purpose. But this doctrine has undergone a great change, and many of the courts that formerly held the public character of mills and the justness of taking private property, through the exercise of eminent domain, for that purpose, now doubt the constitutionality of statutes providing for such action and with great reluctance enforce the provisions of statutes that appear to be the very extreme of legislative power. As a mill may now be run by steam instead of water, the question is no longer one of necessity but of the comparative cost between the two systems, and consequently is no longer one of necessity but of the comparative cost between the two systems, and consequently is not in the nature of a strict public use. The supreme court of the United States, in a case in error from the state of Massachusetts (Holyoke Co vs. Lyman, 15 Wall, 500), recognized to a limited extent the public use of mills, and the exercise of the right of eminent domain, where, by the nature of the country, mill sites sufficient in number for the public use could not otherwise be obtained.

—Among other uses considered public in connection with eminent domain is that of draining marshes and low lands, by means of which the public health is promoted, as well as valuable land reclaimed. Also the removal of a dam, which so obstructs a watercourse as to produce an overflow of adjacent valuable land, may be accomplished by the same process. Lands for public drains in aid of agricultural enterprises; lands for the construction of drainage sewers in towns, cities and villages; lands for the erection of school houses and for school yards, for necessary buildings, etc.; lands for the establishment of public parks for the promotion of the public health; lands for the building of public roads, for pleasure and recreation as well as for business purposes; lands for the conducting of pure water to the homes of people residing in towns and cities lands for widening and improving public streets; lands for the establishment of public burying grounds and for the suitable enlargement of the same, may all be condemned and taken for such purposes through the exercise Edition: current; Page: [96] of the powers of eminent domain.

—In thus condemning private property for public uses under the principle of eminent domain, the legislature can no so determine the question as to make it absolutely conclusive upon the courts Still the presumption is always in favor of the use declared by the legislature to be public, and if the use is surely a public one, the legislative authority can not be restrained by the courts. This can only be done when there is a well-defined attempt on the part of the legislature to evade the law and procure the condemnation of property to private uses. The rule stands that the legislature is the proper body to determine the necessity of the act, and likewise the extent to which the act can be carried; and the only restraint upon its power is that requiring compensation for the property taken by its mandatory.

—There are, however, restrictions in many of the states in granting special charters and privileges to corporations, and the condemnation of private property to public use is governed almost exclusively by generallaw. Under this system land having been granted to another public use can not be taken by general law, should the act tend to destroy a franchise. Abandoned property, though formerly owned and worked by a corporation, can be taken, but the taking of the portion of a horse railroad, constituting its most valuable possession, can not be taken under general law. A right of way taken and occupied by one road can not be taken by another, when essential to the vitality of a franchise used for the private individual for a public use by the exercise of the power of eminent domain, the assessment of a damages for all such property so taken must be made by a fair appraisement of its value by an impartial tribune. An arbitrary scale of prices can not be made the rule of appraisement. The corporation condemning, or for whom the property is condemned to be converted to a public use, amount of compensation can not be fixed by the sworn statement of the agent of the company and two disinterested freeholders, as provided in certain other property appraisements, because on of the parties is interested in the result, and it would be an evasion of the law. It must be done by a jury or commissioners, or a court without a jury, but the commissioners can not be directly appointed by the legislature without the consent of the owners, or due notice of their appointment having been sent to the owners and an opportunity given for the owners to be heard.

—A legislature can not declare a franchise forfeited and authorize a re-entry, because these interests are property, and can not be taken unless paid for by an amount of compensation established by judicial ascertainment.

—Under the rule prescribing the character of property to be taken, a dwelling house would not be exempt from condemnation more than any other property, but a statute may provide that improvements of a public character shall not take a dwelling house or other necessary buildings. The house, however, must be a bona fide dwelling house, and may include a court yard, office, outhouse and garden, whether attached or not to the main building. An unfinished house in course of erection would come under the rule of exemption. Some statutes exempt gardens, yards, orchards, warehouses and manufactories. A lumber yard would not be exempt, and a garden must be annually cultivated to be exempt. A field with a few fruit and could be condemned. Land used by an iron and tin plate manufactory for depositing rubbish would be exempt. Under the rule a workshop or manufactory would be exempt and a warehouse used in connection with manufactories would be included, though separated by a road.

—In determining the market value of all such property taken by right of eminent domain and for which compensation must be made, the value is not to be estimated at the sum the property might bring at a forced sale, but such a sum of money as the same character of property is worth in the market to parties desirous of purchasing for business purposes. The value must also be determined by the testimony and opinion of competent witnesses value of such property, to constitute them competent witnesses. Nor is the value of the property to be confined to its present use, but its value is to be estimated by the uses to which it may be put, and based on the uses to which men of ordinary business foresight, caution and prudence would usually assign it.

—In those states whose system of laws concedes the fee of public streets and roads to be vested in the adjoining owners and not in the public, or corporate towns and cities, the rule is, that the use of all such streets and highways by railroads is an additional burden and subject to compensation. If no remedy is provided by the act of a legislature authorizing the use of a street by a railroad, the remedy at common law still remains, and the payment of these damages may be enforced in advance. With regard to horse railroads it is held that the use of street by a horse railroad, when laid without disturbing the grade of a street by cutting or filling is a proper modification of an existing servitude as defined by common law, and that no new burden is enforced by reason of a change from a carriage of other vehicle to a car, especially as the horse railroad does not attempt to debar other vehicles from the use of its particular part of the road. However, should it impair access to buildings by changing the grades of streets, compensation under the rule must be made to adjoining owners.

—With regard to the power of the federal government to exercise the right of eminent domain, it is held that the federal government, being an independent sovereignty, possesses the power to condemn lands for public use, within the jurisdiction of states. This principle was clearly defined in Edition: current; Page: [97] the case of Kohel vs. the United States (91 U. S., 367) This decision declared the existence of "an independent power in the federal government to condemn lands of private persons in the several states, for its own public use. That the right is the offspring of public necessity and is inseparable from sovereignty, unless denied to it by its fundamental law."

—It is also held that the federal government and the state governments are each sovereign within their respective spheres, and neither compelled to obtain from the other permission to exercise its lawful powers; and that the right of eminent domain was one of the means employed to obtain lands for public use, and so recognised by the constitution. Judge Cooley, in the case of Trimbley vs. Humphrey (22 Mich., 471), held that the state could not condemn lands for the use of the United States so Hs to bind the United States in the payment of compensation. This of course implies the right of the United States to make its own condemnation in the states for public uses. In the Maryland case of Reddall vs. Bryan (14 Md., 444). the court held the uses of the general government to be co-ordinate with the public uses of the state wherein the land was condemned.

—The fifth amendment to the constitution of the United States provides for the exercise of the power of eminent domain, by providing for the compensation of private lands taken by the United States. This provision was also intended as a security to the states against the encroachments of federal power upon the rights of private citizens. Under the genius of our institutions the federal government can not interfere with the rights of the states in the exercise of their powers of eminent domain within their respective jurisdictions, as the states are separate communities. The constitution restricts this encroachment. The exercise of the right of eminent domain by the federal government to an unlimited degree was strongly objected to by the several states before the formation of the Union, and prevented, in part, some of the states from ratifying the great instrument for a considerable period of time, and a restraining safeguard was early adopted in the fifth constitutional amendment. With regard to the condemnation of lands within a state whose fee is vested in the United States, the rule is, that all such lands when held by the united States as a mere proprietor and not devoted to any special use, are liable to condemnation for public use, are liable to condemnation for public uses, such as streets, highways, railroads, etc. Should the lands the occupied as forts, arsenals, armories, navy yards or other public purposes, they can not be taken for any ordinary public use. This rule was established when the city of Chicago attempted to make streets through the grounds on which Fort Dearborn was located. The streets proposed by the Municipal authorities would cut through some of the public buildings and seriously impair the public use to which the land was devoted. The city was enjoined from opening the streets, and the supreme court of the United States sustained the injunction. (United States vs. Chicago. 7 How., 185.)

—The right of way granted by congress over public lands holds good as against pre-emptors who have failed to perfect their title by fully complying with the land laws of the United States, or against mere squatters. with regard to the right of eminent domain relating to lands owned by states or municipalities, the rule is, that states may be proprietors of lands, and when such lands are taken by the exercise of eminent domain, the state must be compensated like a private individual. When an authority is conferred by legislative act over lands belonging to the state, in the absence of a specific grant or the expression of a design to aid a corporation by the gift lf the land, the rule is generally maintained that such authority is merely a use of lands on payment of a compensation, and the state can recover compensation as an individual proprietor.

—There are however, exceptions to this rule in some of the states, and an authority by legislative enactment to enter upon state lands is presumed to be a devise by the state. In Indiana it has been held that the right granted to make a road between two fixed points, carried with it the right to take the intervening lands belonging to the state, without compensation. Such a privilege, however, could not be assumed over lands already devoted to another public use by the state, and the rule which might correctly apply to vacant lands owned by the states, could not apply to the taking of a franchise or a park, or a road owned by a city and which had been paid for.

—Foreign corporations may be authorized to condemn lands in the state while the improvements may be operated entirely out of the state, but the power must be conferred in express terms, as under a general act permitting condemnation for railroad purpose, a foreign corporation could not condemn land. Nor could the owner institute proceedings against such corporations to recover assessment of damages in accordance with state, but such a corporation occupying the right of way over home roads, could be enjoined from operating its road until the damages of original right of way should be paid. One state can not condemn property or franchises in another state, but a bridge across a river may be condemned by one state up to the line of another.

EMPEROR

EMPEROR. The Sabine tribes gave the name of embratur to their leader in war or pillage. The Romans used the word imperator, and reserved the title for the victorious general, which was bestowed on him upon the field of battle, just as the French at Friedlinger proclaimed Villars marshal of France. It is well known that it was not allowed to bear this title of commander in Rome, and that there could be more than one imperator there at the same time. But after Cæsar had caused himself to be made Edition: current; Page: [98] perpetual dictator by the senate, he had himself saluted as imperator by the people, and permitted Cicero to be so saluted as well as himself. The military power of the imperator was distinct from the imperium with which all magisterial offices were invested by the senate.

—Octavius also declared himself imperator, though he had no fondness for commanding in war. He united the consular and proconsular power with the tribunitial authority; he was pontiff, prince of the senate, so that his was the leading voice, and be attributed to himself a censorship over the morals of others He and his successors favored the title of emperor but little; they preferred prince or Cæsar. It was in the following century that the name of emperor prevailed This title, which in itself only suggested the command of armies, called up as well the idea of all the judicial functions which had accumulated in the person of the prince, but it did not betoken absolute power. In the time of Alexander Severus the jurisconsults pretended that the prince was above the law; but the senatus consultum of investiture only exempted him from the lex Papia, the lex Vorouia, on legacies and inheritances. Trubouian says that the people had conferred their authority upon the prince by the lex Regia. But the people never made such a law. If Tribonian had in mind the law which named the kings of Rome, that law did not imply sovereign authority; and if the lex Regia is the senatus consultum of investiture granted to the emperor, neither does it imply any such authority.

—The senatus consultum which gave the investiture to Vespasian has fortunately been recovered. It only enumerated the magisterial functions of the emperor. The convocation of assemblies, the proposal, sanction and execution of laws, the command of armies, and inviolability, are none of them beyond the prerogative of constitutional sovereigns.

—The despotism of the Roman emperors did not exactly result from the accumulation of power in their hands, for there existed in the senate, in provincial representational and in the laws, enough controlling elements to guarantee liberty, if power had been then, as in modern times, a question of grant. But, the powers being the same, the thoroughly mechanical notion that the ancients had of authority did not give as much play to personal initiative as do modern governments. The despotism of the emperors was further aggravated by the situation which had made the empire a necessity, that is to say, the heterogeneous character of the civilizations and races brought into juxtaposition under the Roman rule, and of which the strongest in numbers were the least capable of self-government.

—The earlier Roman empire of the Flavian Caesars, and even of the first Antonines, was still a Roman magistracy, a dictatorship, but upholding the right of discussion. Otherwise it was military and judicial, and differed essentially from the aristocratic and dynastic royalty that existed among the barbarians. But the more the relations of the empire with the north and east were increased, the nearer did the empire approach that royalty whose name was no hateful to Rome. Adrian established a system of etiquette at his court; Diocletian imitated the eastern kings more and more, to the extent of requiring his feet to be kissed. He did away with public institutions, and thenceforward affairs were transacted secretly and in silence. The Byzantine historians call the emperor indifferently autocrator and basileus, and never call the kinds of Asia anything but basileus.

—The establishment of Christianity, and the addition of Germanic nations to the group of Latin nations already under the discipline of the Catholic church, was the occasion, in the ninth century, of a restoration of the western empire that profoundly modified the features of the first magistracy. The holy Roman empire was a very ingenious conception, of which Voltaire remarked that it was neither Roman nor holy. Whether it was holy or not is certainly open to controversy; but it was undoubtedly Roman, inasmuch as the object of its institution was to unite, in one federal system, all nations of Latin race, speech or education. The sovereignty of the empire among such a diversity of states soon became merely nominal; the kings of France freed themselves from it from the tenth century, although the German government persisted as late as the seventeenth, in treating all the kings of Europe as provincial kings. The empire was therefore limited to Germany and Italy, and even in these two countries the idea of this institution differed widely, while the Italians, attached to their municipal autonomy, only regarded the emperor as the nominal head of the temporal power, and as a mediator, without regal functions, between their domestic governments, the Germans, on the other hand, were disposed to endow the imperial authority with the usual attributes of a national royalty, in order a bring about unity of legislation. The empire had become elective. Moreover up to the sixteenth century the coronation of the emperor at Rome was necessary for his complete investiture. But at the end of the fourteenth century the emperors were hereditarily chosen in the reigning dynasties. Hence the distinction to be met with in authors of the last two centuries between the empire (the German princes and the Free Cities) and the emperor (the nation of which the emperor was hereditary king). The empire made war on the emperor; it was also supported by foreign nations as France, Sweden, etc. The holy Roman empire of the German nation, which came by degrees to be called the German empire, was abolished in 1806. On Jan. 17, 1871, the delegates from the states of the two confederations of Germany, in assembly at Versailles, re-established the "German empire" without alluding to either Rome or Italy, nor consequently to any suzerainty over the other states of Europe.

—How shall we distinguish between an emperor and a king? It is possible to be both at once. Napoleon was king of Italy; the emperor Edition: current; Page: [99] of Austria is king of Hungary; the emperor of Germany is king of Prussia (or rather the king of Prussia is emperor of Germany). At first sight, the choice of title seems arbitrary; by following the empire, however, through its various metamorphoses it will be understood that the adoption of the name of emperor or king is governed by sufficiently strict analogies. The conception of sovereignty in the two cases is not the same.

—In principle, there should only be one emperor, or two at most, one of the east and one of the west, since, according to the imperial idea, the whole civilized world is considered as one republic, governed by the same laws. But as, since the renaissance and the treaty of Westphalia, states are regarded as independent, each nation can give to its chief the title of emperor or of king, according as it approaches or withdraws from the political ideal, represented in pagan times by Cæsarism, and under Christianity by the holy empire.

—Is an empire more despotic than royalty? No, the parliamentary constitutions of contemporary empires and royalties are identical. But at empire is generally considered as a grant, and royalty as a right; a king represents himself, while an emperor represents the people; he is the embodiment of a quantity of collective power which extends to everything. A king is a great lord; an emperor is a functionary. A king may govern through the disposition of subjects by making appeal to their good-will, for he is a privileged person among other privileged persons, lords or commons. But the emperor must govern strictly, because he is a responsible agent. In fact the distinction disappears, because a change of constitution carries away in its rapidity the characteristics of supreme power; but it is plain why such and such a nation imposes upon its dynasty one of the two titles. A new dynasty, which has no ancestry and derives all its force from the law, is rather imperial than royal. A new nation, which has no aristocracy, arrives at a more positive conception of the law, and will demand a king in preference to an emperor.

ENCOURAGEMENT OF INDUSTRY BY THE STATE

ENCOURAGEMENT OF INDUSTRY BY THE STATE—Bounties, etc., General Principles. The word encouragement as here used includes the favors accorded by public administrations in the shape of bounties, money grants, loans or advances, freedom from taxation, etc., to foster any branch of industry, to facilitate any operation or encourage any work that may be considered particularly useful to a country. Bounties, then, are means of incitement used by government, or generally by public administration, in view of certain definite results. It would be a difficult matter to name them all, the more so that the shape they take is very variable, according to the object it is proposed to attain, the country and the times: but what we have to slay will suffice to give a general idea of the subject.

—Great confidence was formerly felt in the efficacy of bounties given by the public authorities. They were even believed in many cases to be a necessity, it might be to induce the commencement of industries altogether new, it might be to give others already existing greater development, it might finally be to give labor in general a salutary activity. Thus governments seldom hesitated when the interests of the country they guided were really the object of their solicitude, to lavish bounties indifferent shapes to the utmost extent of their financial ability. Colbert was a strong advocate of this course, and would have been stronger had he consulted only his love of the public weal and the advice given by some of the first minds of his age.

—People at that time did not sufficiently take into account the natural tendencies of industry and the potential energy of which it is possessed. It was thought necessary to encourage it to produce useful things, whereas the production of such is its natural tendency, its constant pre-occupation, its daily care. It was thought, at the very least, necessary to stimulate it in the paths it was following; and yet the stimulants it brings in its train are incomparably more powerful than those at the disposal of any government. Nor were the resources which it possesses thought of either, nor the magnificent recompense it bestows itself on whoever assists it in its progress. It is but just to add that the potential energies of industry and its internal resources were not as great formerly as they have become in our days, and that it might sometimes be necessary to supplement them.

—As industry and its tendencies have become better known, so has the confidence once felt in the beneficial effect of artificial inducements singularly diminished. It still exists, it is true, in many minds, but no longer with the same life, as generally or as absolutely as it did once. This may easily be seen by the conduct of most European governments. Although these governments are in general much more occupied with the interests of industry than were those which preceded them, because they much better understand their importance, they show themselves much less prodigal of material encouragement. We do not speak here, let it be understood, of that sort of indirect encouragement which they give, or believe they give, at the expense of consumers, by the increase of customs duties, but only of money bounties directly drawn from the public treasury. Bounties of this sort are to-day much less frequent than they have been at certain periods, regard being had to the relative interest displayed by governments in industry and the comparative extent of their resources. No government could be seen now-a-days, unless in exceptional cases, doing for industry what Colbert did with no little regularity: paying with state funds for the importation of certain products or certain industries; drawing by bounties foreign workmen to the country; subsidizing growing establishments; advancing money to silk manufacturers at the rate of 2,000 francs for every loom working, etc. No more could there be Edition: current; Page: [100] seen a government paying about 500,000 francs annually of a gratuity for the exportation of grain alone, with no other special object than then of encouraging agriculture, as for a long time during the last century the English government did1 More credit is given at the present time to that spontaneous activity of industry, whose energy and resources are much better understood than they were formerly. Except in certain special cases where action is taken in view of some great public interest, the direct assistance given to industry is limited to a few honorary rewards or insignificant pecuniary help.

—As for economists, it is scarcely necessary to say that they are for the most part but little in favor of bounties, even when they are not directly hostile to it. Knowing better than other men, because it is the object of their special study, the natural activity of industry, the soundness of its tendencies and the extent of its own resources, they believe that it is always best to leave it to itself, that is to say, to its inborn energy, limiting all help to securing for it freedom, order and security; and that there is often a risk of hindering its advance by interposing in its operations with untimely subsidies.

—However, although this belief is in a certain measure universal among economists, it must be confessed that they do not all possess it in the same degree, or at least that they are more or less absolute in the conclusions which they draw form it. Some seem to condemn subsidies utterly, as being invariably injurious except when they are totally ineffective and useless; others admit them as an exception in certain cases. Without discussing all the different opinions on this point, we shall try to sum up the principles, as they seem to us to result from economic works as a whole, and from the very nature of things.

—As a general rule it may be said, without hesitation, that the system of subsidies given by the state is a bad one. When any sort of work is really useful, that is to slay, demanded by the wants of society, general industry has no need of artificial stimulus to direct its attention to it, the natural stimulus which arises from the demand being sufficient. The encouragement to which it has a right springs, then, from its very source, that is to say, from the satisfaction of the demands to which it has come in answer. It consists in the recompense which it requires and obtains in return for the products which it delivers or the services it renders. The more valuable these services are, the more certain the reward. The more necessary the industry then, by so much the more effective is this natural encouragement. It is perfectly useless for a government to intervene to guarantee it or strengthen it.

—On the other hand, government intervention may sometimes have troublesome results. If the help is extended to an industry the produce of which has already been tried and accepted by consumers, it can only appear superfluous: but besides the impropriety of uselessly expending public money, there is also the risk of stimulating the industry beyond bounds, in such a manner as to drive it sometimes to exceed, in its production, the just limit of the demand. If, on the contrary, the help be given to a failing industry, the product of which seems to be abandoned by the public, it appears in every way to be merely sustaining, very unseasonably, a kind of labor which had better be given up; because it fails to return either to the country or to those who work at it what it costs them. In this case the damage done is twofold; and unproductive industry is being maintained at the expense of the public treasury, the extinction of which would be a benefit.

—We do not even admit that it would be ad advisable and good thing, in the present state of industrial relations, to favor, by money subsidies, the introduction into a country of a kind of work hitherto new to it. The resources of general industry are in our own times sufficiently extensive, and the facilities for communication between peoples sufficiently great, for it to be left to the care of private persons to introduce into their country any foreign industry capable of being acclimatized there. They are at least as interested in that as their government can be, and they are much better judges of the suitability of transplanting the new industry as well as of the fittest means of accomplishing it. As to the necessary resources, if they are wanting to some they will not be wanting to others. Their sum total is already a very sufficient one, and the tendency is still for it to increase from day to day.

—Is it then to be said on that account that official bounties ought to be prescribed in every case? Certainly not. Circumstances could be named in which it is scarcely permitted to doubt their necessity, and it which they have been productive of nothing but good. No writer known to us, for example, has pretended generally and absolutely to deny to the subsidies lavished by Colbert in France, all utility whatsoever. All are agreed, on the contrary, that France owes to them the birth or the development of some of the industries which have made its wealth. Very few will deny that it has been, if not absolutely necessary at least every useful, to subsidize the establishment and spread of savings banks.2 Deprived of all assistance from external sources at their commencement these banks would with difficulty have been established, and yet every one is eger to recognize the immense services they have rendered.

—The necessity or utility Edition: current; Page: [101] of bounties must then be admitted in certain cases. But what are these cases? It would be perfectly impossible to detail them all. All we shall attempt to do is to reduce them to certain principal ones.

—It seems to us at first proper to consider in this matter the country and the times. The necessity for official bounties is greater in a country the less advanced it is in civilization and wealth, and the more imperfect is its social or political organization. It is, to begin with, obvious that the greater the vigor and resources which local industry possesses they less need it has for external assistance, because it is able to undertake more for itself. This consideration would, however, be insufficient if it were not remembered that the countries where industry is least advanced and least rich, are also usually those in which it encounters the greatest obstacles from imperfect laws or vices in social order.

—If a state could be imagined in which freedom of industry was established in its entirety, without restriction or reserve; where the rights of all were, in addition, perfectly and completely guaranteed; we believe that it would be possible then without danger, nay, even with great advantage, to dispense altogether with official bounties of every description. Industry would always be equal to the task of supplying its own wants, it would launch without effort into every sort of useful labor, and would, besides, create for itself all the kindred institutions of which it stood in need. But this condition of perfect industrial liberty is not, unfortunately, that of any people on earth; on the contrary, nations are still, for the most part, far distant from it. Among almost all, the development of industry is retarded by trammels more or less strong; and often also the establishment of the appendant institutions of which industry may stand in need to second its efforts, is forbidden. If attention is paid to it, it will be seen that it is almost invariably some imperfection in social order which has rendered necessary, when it has been really necessary, the active intervention of public authority.

—The bounties lavished by Colbert were, we believe, very useful in some cases. Several very interesting branches of industry would not have been created without them, or, at all events, not till a much later period. But at the same time the utility of these bounties was only relative. It originated at first in the existence of privileged corporations which put in the way of a general development of industry, and particularly the starting of any new business, so many obstacles that private individuals scarcely dared face them, if dependent solely on their own resources, and would in any case have had the greatest difficulty in overcoming them. It sprang also from the absence of any institution of credit capable of aiding the efforts of the pioneers of industry by placing at their disposal the capital they lacked.

—In more recent times, if the savings banks could not be started in France without some special encouragement, it seems to us still to be the imperfections of social order which are to blame. They would not have needed those artificial stimulants if the establishment of companies generally, and joint stock companies in particular, had been less interfered with by the law; and if, on the other hand, there had existed in the country the vast net work of banking institutions which spring up so readily wherever men are free to establish them. In taking notice, then, of the majority of instances where official or external bounties have been necessary to industry, it will be seen that this need arose from an analogous if not an identical cause. It was perfectly just, to our thinking, and perhaps necessary, that in the times of Louis XIV, good writers, those whose works were an honor to their country, should have been rewarded or encouraged by pensions from the public treasury or the privy purse, because the right of property in their works held by those authors was then very little recognized and still less guaranteed them. This was another imperfection in the laws, different from those of which we have just spoken, but producing substantially the same effects. The exercise of their legitimate rights either could not be, or was not wished to be, secured to those authors, and it was more or less made good to them by pensions. Similarly it was but right during all the last century, as the rights of inventors were not secured to them by patents, and as in addition privileged corporations barred their advance at every step—it was but right, we say, nay, even necessary, that government should either grant those inventors some special privileges or subsidies, to assist them. In this latter case, as in the former, it was a sort of making good or indemnifying the wrong done. We do not say, however, that the government of those days reasoned thus, that it recognized the wrongs done and that its precise intention was to atone for them. Not so, but it realized that here had been services rendered which had not been paid for, and it paid for them in its own way when it was well inspired.

—It will be said that it would have been more logical to reform the abuses which were the obstacle to the normal development of industry, or which deprived certain private persons of the exercise of their legitimate rights. Doubtless it would have been more logical, but it would have been less simple and often more difficult to carry out. It is unhappily a matter of experience that in all countries the reform of abuses is slow, wearisome, and almost always bristling with the gravest difficulties, even for those who hold the power in their hands. Was it necessary, while awaiting the disappearance of all these abuses, to abstain from removing here and there, when it was possible, some of their most distressing consequences by bounties or subsidies properly given? We do not believe so. We will only say that official bounties scarcely appear to us to be useful except in similar circumstances, and that in all cases great circumspection should be used in their Edition: current; Page: [102] distribution to avoid interfering with the progress of the very industry which they are designed to assist. In our own days the British government has on several occasions made use of the system of bounties on a grand scale, to repair, as far as lay within its power, the injury caused by great errors formerly committed.

—When the negroes were emancipated in the British colonies there immediately arose there a great scarcity of manual labor. The freed negroes either refused to work, or turned to other employments than those they had formerly been engaged in, to such an extent that the workrooms of the colonists were almost deserted. To supply the want it became necessary to call in all haste free workmen from the countries nearest, and as the colonists had not perhaps all the means necessary to accelerate to the needful extent this movement of immigration, the British government undertook to help it on by powerful bounties. In a certain measure it succeeded. But the bounties it scattered broadcast did not fail to give rise to frightful abuses, which obliged it soon afterward to reconsider on short notice its former measures, to the great injury of all parties interested; so true is it that in following this path of official subsidies, even when the action is taken in view of a clear and pressing necessity, the evil is always found side by side with the good.

—More recently, English agriculture seeming to be hard pressed in its present interests, as it might be to a certain extent, on account of the sudden repeal of the corn laws, which had for so long assured it an artificial price for its production, it was resolved to lessen the damage done, if damage there were, by giving bounties here and there. This was done, notably, by voting a pretty considerable sum destined for distribution in the shape of bounties to aid draining operations.

—In France one of the last trials of the system which has been made on a large scale, was the vote of the constituent assembly, in 1848, of a sum of three million frames to aid the formation of workmen's associations. There was no question then of redressing an injury, the result of former legislative blunders, but a sacrifice to a then dominant prejudice, this sacrifice could not have and had not any but trifling results; therefore we merely remind the reader of it. More recently still, the state was at some expense, which it undertook, however, more circumspectly than it had formerly done, in aiding the establishment of superannuation funds for workmen.

—To sum up: the bounties given by government have rarely been productive of the good effects hoped for by their projectors; they have sometimes hindered the progress of industry and have seldom stimulated it efficiently. Their usefulness and expediency in certain exceptional cases may, however, be admitted. In equity they are only justifiable when they are a species of reparation for an injury formerly done; for otherwise they are a sacrifice unjustly imposed on the tax payers for the benefit of a few. In public economy they are equally unjustifiable except as a sort of makeshift to correct in certain cases the imperfections of the laws.

ENEMY

ENEMY.The ancient Romans had two words to express what we understand by the one word, enemy. They used the word hostis when speaking of a stranger, of a man belonging to a nation which formed no part of the Orbis Romanus. Inimicus was applied only to private hatreds, to enmities between citizen and citizen. Every stranger to the Roman universe was considered an enemy, hostis; and, added the legislation of Rome, may the authority of the laws be eternally against him. Wars, however, were preceded by solemn declarations, which show what persons become enemies in war. These were all individuals belonging to the nation against which war was declared, and even all persons to be met with on its territory.—"Quodque populus Romanus cum populo Hermundulo hominibusque Hermundulis bellum jussit ob eam rem ego populusque Romanus, etc." (Declaration of war from a lost work of Cincius, De Re Militari. Grotius.)

—Here is another declaration of war: "Philippo regi, Macedonibusque qui sub regno ejus essent." Thus war was declared not only against the nation and the king, but also against all the men of the nation and against all the subjects of the kingdom.

—We find the same principles of international law in Greece. Agesilaus spoke as follows, to a subject of the king of Persia: "While we were friends of your king, we acted also as friends in regard to all that belonged to him But now, O Pharnabazus, since we have become enemies, we act as enemies. Since then you wish to be considered as belonging to him. we have the right to injure him in your person." Yet morality sometimes asserted its rights. We meet with its happy influence in all ages and places. The very nations of antiquity, who admitted the right to kill all persons belonging to the nation of the enemy, wherever found, armed or not armed, able to defend themselves or not, allowed no attempts on the honor of wives and daughter—attempts which have thus been subjected, by way of an exception of which humanity may be proud, to the reprobation of the international law of all ages. "What brutality! O gods of Greece," exclaimed Diodorus Siculus; "so far as I can remember, the barbarians themselves did not approve such excesses!"

—We find at Rome a Torquatus transported to Corsica for having committed, in time of war, an attempt of this kind; and Chosro?s, a king of Persia, ordered a soldier to be crucified for the same crime. Hostages were not spared; to take their lives was considered right. Surrender was not sufficient to save life. The Romans were wont to put to death in their triumphs the enemy's chiefs, even although they had become prisoners by capitulation. The triumpher awaited at the capital the news of their execution.

—Were there no limits to the power of the victor over the Edition: current; Page: [103] person of the enemy? From the point of view of the laws of war there seem to have been but few restrictions. We have just called attention to the unanimous reprobation which was attached to certain acts, yet, in point of fact, women, though protected against violence in the beginning became captives, that is to say, the absolute property of a master. It was an admitted principle throughout all antiquity that the prisoner of war became a slave, and the very etymology of this work implied that the unhappy conquered being had been saved, preserved, when the laws of war authorized his destruction. This, according to the publicists of antiquity, was the origin of the word.

—To come down to Christian times. "If we keep before our eyes," says Montesquieu, "on the one hand the continual massacres of Greek and Roman chiefs and kings, and on the other the destruction of people and towns by Timur and Gengis Khan, who devastated Asia, we shall see that we owe to Christianity a certain political law in government and a certain international law in war, which humanity can not sufficiently acknowledge. It is this international law which brought it about that among us victory leaves to the vanquished life, liberty, laws, property." (Esprit des lois book xxiv., chap. iii) This international law did not prevail in a day. Christianity had to make many efforts during the centuries of strife and social transformation which constitute the middle ages, before it succeeded. "The influence of the church, which was so powerful in the middle ages, was not sufficient to stop the belligerents, and to prevent the violence and the cruelty of the acts to which they were addicted." (Vergé, Sur Martens, book viii.; Heffter, Droit International, 1855, p. 127)

—In the eleventh century, in England, at the time of its conquest by the Normans, nothing was respected, neither property nor person; men and women became the prey of the conqueror. The daughters of the noblest families passed into the hands of valets, who had become feudal lords by right of violence and rapine. The former lords were their serfs. Their property was almost entirely confiscated, and helped to establish those great aristocratic houses which to-day own the greater portion of the land in England. In the same century, in the wars between Philip Augustus and Richard Coeur de Lion, each blinded fifteen prisoners by way of reprisal, and sent them back in that state; in Palestine, Richard massacred 2,500 captives.

—Chivalry, that flower of Christianity, realized in and instant in practice the idea of generosity toward an enemy and of loyalty in combat. Ransom was introduced, and is still a boon to humanity. In 1179 Pope Alexander III., or rather the third council of Lateran, suppressed, by a decree, the enslavement and sale of prisoners. Finally, in 1315, appeared the maxim. "No slave in France." (Edicts of 1315, 1318 and 1553.)

—In the seventeenth century occurred the ravages of the Palatinate and the sacking of Magdeburg. However, ideas were progressing. There was always over all, dominating and judging events and actions, the evangelical law, the law of fraternity and humanity, which never permits tranquillity in evil doing.

—Who, to-day according to international law, are considered as enemies in case of declaration of war, and to what treatment are they subjected. A primary distinction and a great advance is this, that there are no enemies except those who take an active part in war, and then only during the progress of the struggle. Hence the following classes of persons should be spared: 1. children, women, old men, and in general all those who have not taken up arms or committed acts of hostility; 2. those who follow in the train of the army, but who are not intended to take part in hostilities, such as chaplains, doctors, surgeons, and vivandieres. To these custom has added quartermasters, drummers and fifers. As for officers and soldiers, "from the moment that they are to severely wounded or so surrounded by the enemy that they are no longer in a state to resist; or when they lay down their arms and ask quarter, the enemy is, as a rule, in duty bound to spare their lives. The only exceptions to this rule are: 1. in extraordinary cases when reasons of war forbid their being spared: 2, if it is necessary to use retaliation or reprisals, 3, if the vanquished is personally guilty of a capital crime, as, for example, of desertion, or if he has violated the laws of war. In all other cases we must consider as prisoners of war the soldiers who fall into the hands of the enemy; and in wars between nation and nation it would be a violation of faith and of the law of nature to put to death all prisoners of war." (Précis, book vii, chap. iv.) Hence there are no enemies except the combatants on both sides, and the quality of enemy, insofar as it authorizes to kill, vanishes the moment strife or resistance is no longer possible. Such is the positive, actual law of nations. It is for this reason that persons who take part in the struggle without making known from a distance their quality of enemy by wearing a uniform, are so severely treated.

—Are all means of destruction against the person of the enemy permitted? Martens states that "the civilized powers of Europe recognize it as absolutely contrary to the laws of war to make use of poison and assassination, or even to put a price upon the head of a legitimate enemy, the case of retaliation alone excepted. Custom and many treaties condemn any kind of arms or open violence which would unnecessarily increase the number of sufferers, (explosive balls, for instance).

—What are the laws of war in regard to the prisoner? "Just as little," says Martens (book viii., chap. iv.), "as natural law permits the killing of the legitimate enemy when he has been vanquished, does it authorize the reducing him to slavery. But it is right to force him to lay down his arms, and to detain him as a prisoner of war until the re-establishment Edition: current; Page: [104] of peace, unless it has been agreed to allow him to depart, wither immediately or at a fixed date. Officers are often released on their word of honor not to serve until they have been exchanged, or during a fixed period, or till peace is declared, and to repair to a given place when summoned to do so."

—Can the members of the nation at war, who are captured, be made prisoners or be considered as such? Evidently not, because, as has been stated, they are not enemies. Martens sums up international law at present as regards them in the following words: "It is contrary to the usages of civilized nations to deprive of their liberty the innocent subjects of the enemy, who have taken no part in hostilities, and to remove them against their will, but it is admissible to force them to give hostages, or to take such hostages by force, to serve as guarantees of an engagement or obligation." And again: "Those who are simply attached to the service of the army, and are not among the number of the combatants, are not received and treated as prisoners of war; on the contrary, it is the custom to send them back to the enemy."

—The taking by assault of towns and fortresses makes no change in the law. Life is due to the garrison. "But if there is no capitulation, and the place is taken by assault, the garrison has to surrender at discretion: then nothing can be asked but life."

—What is the treatment of prisoners of war? M. Verge thus deals with this question in his notes on our author: "Prisoners of war are deprived of their liberty in this sense, that they can not return to their own country, or take up arms again in the war then raging, but they are not subjected to violence or bad treatment, as long as they do not trouble the peace of the state. It is customary to allow officers a greater liberty than non-commissioned officers and soldiers. They are, in general, set at liberty on parol within the limits of a city, and provision is made for their maintenance. Non-commissioned officers and soldiers are placed under more direct surveillance, and their labor may be made to diminish the expense they occasion, but they can not be compelled to enter the army of the nation which made them prisoners." "The effects of captivity upon prisoners of war begin at the time of voluntary surrender, whether conditional or unconditional, and from the moment this surrender has been accepted by the promise of life being spared." "Captivity is terminated by a declaration of peace, by the voluntary submission accepted by the government which took the prisoners, by conditional or unconditional dismissal, or by ransom." (Notes sur Martens)

—What is the law as regards the property of the enemy? "Civilized nations have substituted for pillage and devastation the custom of exacting war contributions, wither in money or in kind under pain of military execution. The payment of these contributions should assure the preservation of property of all kinds, so that the enemy should then buy and pay for whatever he wishes delivered him thereafter, except the services he may demand from subjects, in their quality of temporary subjects." (Martens.) Respect for private property has to be established now only in naval warfare. This was almost effected in 1856, upon the initiative of the United States, which, almost a century ago, in 1785, sanctioned it in a treaty.

—Since the institution of regular armies war tends to become a simple duel between the armed belligerents. The consequence will be ever-increasing fair dealing between enemies. This latter appellation will pertain only to those who resist armed force; and it will not be applicable to these when defeated. Any outrage upon the property of the enemy, as well as an attack of any kind upon an unarmed person, women, children or old men, will still be regarded as a crime, will be subject to punishment, and will be checked, whether directed toward vanquished or victors. This will be the law of justice and civilization, until the word enemy itself shall disappear.

ENGLAND

ENGLAND.(See GREAT BRITAIN.)

ENGLISH

ENGLISH. Wm. H., was born in Scott county, Indiana, Aug. 27, 1822, was representative in congress (democratic) from Indiana, 1853-61, and was nominated for the vice-presidency in 1880 by the democratic party. (See DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY, VI.)

ENTREPRENEUR

ENTREPRENEUR.In taking account of the nature of the agents which co-operate in production, we distinguish, in any business enterprise, the entrepreneur and the workmen. The latter, according as they contribute to the industrial and ornamental art, or to scientific work, take the name of artisan, mechanic, artists, savants, etc. The workmen execute the orders of the entrepreneur, who conceives the enterprise or operation combines the scientific, moral and material elements which it requires, and directs the creation and sale of its products.

—The entrepreneur must then have in a certain measure, the knowledge of the artisan, the savant, the inventor, etc., at least so far as it is necessary for him to apply it: he must be familiar with the manual processes of the workman; must know how to procure the means required for production, to discern the best industrial processes, to choose the men who are to second him, and to procure, by way of credit or of association, the needful capital; and finally, he must direct all these elements of his enterprise with judgment, precision and energy.—"In the course of all these operations," says J. B. Say, "there are obstacles to surmount which demand a certain energy; there are inquietudes to bear which demand firmness; there are misfortunes to be repaired, for which a mind fertile in resources is needed."

—Dunoyer has well portrayed the numerous and important qualities necessary for an entrepreneur. "In the number of powers which exist in man, the first which strikes me," he says, "the one which naturally takes the place Edition: current; Page: [105] at the head of all the others, the one most indispensable to success in every kind of enterprise, and to free action in all the arts, is the talent for business, a talent in which are combined several very distinct faculties, such as a capacity for judging of the state of demand, or of knowing the wants of society; that of judging of the condition of supply, or of estimating the means of satisfying those wants; that of managing with ability enterprises wisely conceived; and finally, that of verifying the previsions of speculation by regular accounts intelligently kept. After this list of faculties relating to the conception and conduct of enterprises, of which the business talent is composed, come those faculties necessary for execution, from which the art talent arises. Such are, practical knowledge of the calling, theoretical ideas, talent for applying them, and skill in handicraft. All these faculties are industrial; * * * but I remark also a great number of moral qualities. Among these may be mentioned a whole class of habits which govern the conduct of persons with regard to themselves, and which in some sort concern only the individual. There may also be distinguished habits of another kind, which more particularly concern society. Power and free action in all kinds of occupations depend, as we shall see, on the perfection of both these classes of moral qualities."

—The entrepreneur is, then, the principal agent in production. He devotes to it his activity, he sacrifices to it his reputation and his honor; but, on the other hand, he may derive form it, with a high salary for his labor and profit on his capital, more or less important advantages which may augment his fortune, and which spring form the qualities with which he may be endowed, the activity he may display, and the risks he has to incur.

—It is because of a failure to take into account all these circumstances, and to have a definite idea of the laws of the variations of profits and wages, and the importance and the reciprocal rights of capital, labor and talent in the distribution of profits, that the working classes have often been led to look suspiciously on the success of the entrepreneurs, and to consider the profits and advantages of the latter as acquired at the expense of the workmen. A more general acquaintance with the principles of political economy would have the effect of correcting this false and dangerous manner of looking at things, and of showing those who live by their labor alone that it is decidedly for their interest that entrepreneurs should be numerous and prosperous; for in this case labor is more in demand and wages rise. We will not say that there is no prejudice on the part of the entrepreneurs, some of whom do indeed seem to think that it is they who maintain their workmen, and that the latter owe them something besides the labor they sell to them. The study of the laws of political economy would not be without use to these persons. By giving them sounder views on all matters, and of their rôle in society, it would serve to strengthen their judgment and intelligence in the conduct of affairs; and to overcome their prejudices, which contribute to alienate their workmen, their natural allies who, before the law of demand and supply, are neither their superiors nor their inferiors, but their equals.

—Carrying on business enterprises by association does not change the nature and the rôle of the entrepreneur, but it lessens them. The various partners share in fact more or less in the conception, the direction, the honor and the responsibility of the business. Nevertheless, whatever be the societary combination, there must be, under penalty of failure, a director or manager possessing most of the qualities we have recognized in the entrepreneur. The value of the business manager determines largely the value of the association.

—Lastly, we will say that every entrepreneur who does not work exclusively with his funds, is the pivot of an association, and that his workmen or those in his employ are partners, who, being bound only by temporary engagements and not being willing to participate in the bad chances, renounce the good ones and content themselves with a compensation regulated by the law of demand and supply.

E. J. L., Tr.

EQUITY

EQUITY, according to the definition given by Aristotle, is "the rectification of the law, when, by reason of its universality, it is deficient; for this is the reason that all things are not determined by law, because it is impossible that a law should be enacted concerning some things, so that there is need of a decree or decision; for of the indefinite, the rule also is indefinite; as among Lesbian builders the rule is leaden, for the rule is altered to suit the figure of the stone, and is not fixed, and so is a decree or decision to suit the circumstances." (Ethics, b. v., c. x., Oxford trans.) "Equity," says Blackstone, "in its true and genuine meaning, is the soul and spirit of all law; positive law is construed and rational law is made by it. In this respect, equity it synonymous with justice; in that, to the true and sound interpretation of the rule." According to Grotius, equity is the correction of that wherein the law, by reason of its generally, is deficient.

—It is probable that the department of law called equity in England once deserved the humorous description given by Selden in his "Table Talk" "Equity in law is the same that spirit is in religion, what every one pleases to make it: sometimes they go according to conscience, sometimes they go according to conscience, sometimes according to law, sometimes according to the rule of court. Equity is a roguish thing: for law we have a measure, know what to trust to; equity is according to the conscience of him that is chancellor; and as that is larger or narrower, so is equity. It is all one as if they should make the standard for the measure we call a foot a chancellor's foot, what an uncertain measure would this be! One chancellor has a long foot, another a short foot, a third Edition: current; Page: [106] an indifferent foot: it is the same thing in the chancellor's conscience."

—This uncertainty has, however, long ceased in that branch of our law which is expressed by the term equity, and, from successive decisions, rules and principles almost as fixed have been framed and established in our courts of equity as in our courts of law. New cases do indeed arise, but they are decided according to these rules and principles, and not according to the notions of the judge as to what may be reasonable or just in the prticular case. Nothing in fact is more common than to hear the chancellor say, that whatever may be his own opinion, he is bound by the authorities, that is, by the decisions of his predecessors in office and those of the other judges in equity; that he will not shake any settled rule of equity, it being for the common good that these should be certain and known, however ill-founded the first resolution may have been.

—In its enlarged sense, equity answers precisely to the definition of justice, or natural law (as it is called), as given in the "Pandects" (i., tit. 1, s. 10, 11); and it is remarkable that subsequent writers on this so-called natural law, and also the authors of modern treatises on the doctrine of equity, as administered in the English courts, have, with scarcely any exception, cited the above passage from Aristotle as a definition of equity in our peculiar sense of a separate jurisdiction. But according to this general definition every court is a court of equity, of which a familiar instance occurs in the construction of statutes, which the judges of the courts of common law may, if they please, interpret according to the spirit, or, as it is called, the equity, not the strict letter.

—It is hardly possible to define equity as now administered, or to make at intelligible otherwise than by an enumeration of the matters cognizable in the courts in which it is administered in its restrained and qualified sense.

—The remedies for the redress of wrongs and for the enforcement of rights are distinguished into two classes, those which are administered in courts of law, and those which are administered in courts of equity. Accordingly, rights may be distributed into legal and equitable. Equity jurisdiction may, therefore, properly be defined as that department of law which is administered by a court of equity as distinguished from a court of law, from which a court of equity differs mainly in the subject matters of which it takes cognizance and in its mode of procedure and remedies.

—Courts of common law proceed by certain prescribed forms of action alone, and give relief only according to the kinds of actions, by a general and unqualified judgment for the plaintiff or the defendant. There are many cases, however, in which a simple judgment for either party, without qualifications or conditions, will not do entire justice. Some modifications of the rights of both parties may be required; some restraints on one side or the other, or perhaps on both; some qualifications or conditions, present or future, temporary or permanent, ought to be annexed to the exercise of rights or the redress of injuries. To accomplish such objects the courts of law have no machinery whatever according to their present constitution they can only adjudicate by a simple judgment between the parties. Courts of equity, however, are not so restrained; they adjudicate by decree pronounced upon a statement of his case by the plaintiff, which he makes by a writing called a bill, and the written answer of the defendant, which is given in upon oath, and the evidence of witnesses, together, if necessary with the evidence of all parties, also given in writing and upon oath. These decrees are so adjusted as to meet all the exigencies of the case, and they vary, qualify, restrain and model the remedy so as to suit it to mutual and adverse claims, and the real and substantial rights of all the parties, so far as such rights are acknowledged by the rules of equity.

—The courts of equity bring before them all the parties interested in the subject matter of the suit, and adjust the rights of all, however numerous; whereas courts of law are compelled by their constitution to limit their inquiry to the litigating parties, although other persons may be interested; that is, they give a complete remedy in damages or otherwise for the particular wrong in question as between the parties to the action, though such remedy is in many cases an incomplete adjudication upon the general rights of the parties to the action, and fails altogether as to other persons, not parties to the action who yet may be interested in the result or in the subject matter in dispute.

—The description of a court of equity, as given by Mr Justice Story, is this. A court of equity has jurisdiction in cases where a plain, adequate and complete remedy can not be had in the common law courts. The remedy must be plain, for if it be doubtful and obscure at law, equity will assert a jurisdiction. It must be adequate, for if at law it fall short of what the party is entitled to that founds a jurisdiction in equity; and it must be complete that is, it must attain the full end and justice of the case; it must reach the whole mischief and secure the whole right of the party present and future, otherwise equity will interpose and give relief. The jurisdiction of a court of equity is sometimes concurrent with the jurisdiction of a court of law, sometimes assistant to it, and sometimes exclusive. It exercises concurrent jurisdiction in cases where the rights are purely of a legal nature, but where other and more efficient aid is required than a court of law can afford. In some of these cases courts of law formerly refused all redress, but now will grant it. For strict law comprehending established rules, and the jurisdiction of equity being called into action when the purposes of justice rendered an exception to those rules necessary, successive exceptions on the same grounds became the foundation of a general principle, and could no longer be considered as a singular interposition. Thus law and equity are in continual progression, and the Edition: current; Page: [107] former is constantly gaining ground upon the latter. Every new and extraordinary interposition is by length of time converted into an old rule; a great part of what is now strict law was formerly considered as equity, and the equitable decisions of this age will unavoidably be ranked under the strict law of the next. (Prof. Millar. View of the English Government.) But the jurisdiction having been once acquired at a time when there was no such redress at law, it is still retained by the courts of equity.

—The most common exercise of the concurrent jurisdiction is in cases of account, accident, dower, fraud, mistake, partnership and partition. In many cases which fall under these heads, and especially in some cases of fraud, mistake and accident, courts of law can not and do not afford any redress; in others they do, but not in so complete a manner as a court of equity.

—A court of equity is also assistant to the jurisdiction of the courts of law in cases where the courts of law have no like authority. It will remove legal impediments to the fair decision of a question depending at law, as by restraining a party from improperly setting up, at a trial, some title or claim which would prevent the fair decision of the question in dispute; by compelling him to discover, upon his own oath facts which are material to the right of the other party, but which a court of law can not compel him to disclose; by perpetuating, that is, by taking in writing and keeping in its custody, the testimony of witnesses, which is in danger of being lost before the matter can be tried: and by providing for the safety of property in dispute pending litigation. It will a so counteract and control fraudulent judgments, by restraining the parties from insisting upon them.

—The exclusive jurisdiction of a court of equity is chiefly exercised in cases of merely equitable rights, that is, such rights as are not recognized in courts of law. Most cases of trust and confidence fall under this head. This exclusive jurisdiction is exercised in granting injunctions to prevent waste or irreparable injury; to secure a settled right, or to prevent vexatious litigation; in appointing receivers of property which is in danger of being misapplied; in compelling the surrender of securities improperly obtained; in preventing a party from leaving the country in order to avoid a suit; in restraining any undue exercise of a legal right; in enforcing specific performance of contracts; in supplying the defective execution of instruments, and reforming, that is, correcting and altering, them according to the real intention of the parties, when such intention can be satisfactorily proved; and in granting relief in cases where deeds and securities have been lost.

—Various opinions have been expressed upon the question whether it would or would not be best to administer justice altogether in one court or in one class of courts, without any separation or distinction of suits, or of the forms or modes of procedure and relief. Lord Bacon, upon more than one occasion, has expressed his decided opinion that a separation of the administration of equity from that of the common law is wise and convenient. "All nations," says he, "have equity, but some have law and equity mixed in the same court, which is worse, and some have it distinguished in several courts, which is better;" and again "In some states, that jurisdiction which decrees according to equity and moral right, and that which decrees according to strict right, is committed to the same court; in others, they are committed to different courts. We entirely opine for the separation of the courts; for the distinction of the cases will not long be attended to if the jurisdictions meet in the same person; and the will of the judge will then master the law."

—Lord Hardwicke held the same opinion. Lord Mansfield, it is to be presumed, though otherwise, for he endeavored to introduce equitable doctrines into courts of law His successor, Lord Kenyon, made use of these expressions. "If it had fallen to my lot to form a system of jurisprudence, whether or not I should have though it advisable to establish different courts, with different jurisdictions, and governed by different rules, it is not necessary to slay; but influenced as I am by certain prejudices that have become inveterate with those who comply with the systems they find established I find that in these courts proceeding by different rules a certain combined system of jurisprudence has been framed most beneficial to the people of this country, and which I hope I may be indulged in supposing has never yet been equaled in any other country on earth. Our courts of law only consider legal rights; our courts of equity have other rules, by which they sometimes supersede strict legal rules, and in so doing they act most beneficially for the subject." In England the principle of separating jurisdictions has been largely acted upon. She has her courts of equity and law, her bankrupt and insolvent courts, and courts of ecclesiastical and admiralty jurisdiction; indeed until lately her several courts of law had in principle, jurisdiction only over certain specified classes of suits. In countries governed by the civil law, the practice has in general been the other way. But whether the one opinion or the other be most correct in theory, the system adopted by every nation has been mainly influenced by the peculiarities of its own institutions, habits and circumstances, and the original forms of giving redress for wrongs.

—In some of the American states the administration of law and equity is distinct; in others the administration of equity is only partially committed to distinct courts; in a third class the two jurisdictions are vested in one and the same tribunal.

—The English equity has some resemblance to the Roman edictal law, or jus praetorium or honorarium, as it is often called. All the higher Roman magistrates (magistratus majores) had the jus edicendi or authority to promulgate edicta. These magistratus majores were consuls, praetors, curule aediles, and censors. By virtue of this power a magistrate made edicta or orders, either temporary and for particular occasions Edition: current; Page: [108] (edicta repentina); or upon entering on his office he promulgated rules or orders which he would observe in the exercise of his office (edicta perpetua). These edicta were written on a white tablet (album) in black letters; the headings or titles were in red: the alba were placed in the forum, in such a position that they could be read by a stander-by. Those edicta which related to the administration of justice had an important effect onthe Roman law; and especially the praetria edicta and those of the curule aediles. That branch of law which was founded on the praetorian edicta was designated jus praetorium, or honorarium, because the praetor held one of these offices to which the term honores was applied. The edicta were only in force during the term of office of the magistratus who promulgated them; but his successor adopted many or all of his predecessor's edicta, and hence arose the expression of "transferred edicts" (tralaticia edicta); and thus in the later republic the edicta which had been long established began to exercise an great influence on the law, and particularly the forms of procedure. About the time of Cicero many distinguished jurists began to write treatises on the edictum (libri ad edictum). Under the experors new edicta were rarer, and in the third century of our era they ceased. Under the empire we first find the edicta of the praefectus urbi mentioned; but these must be considered as founded on the imperial authority (majestas principis), and to have resembled the imperial constitutions. Under the reign of Hadrian, a compilation was made by his authority of the edictal rules by the distinguished jurist, Salvious Julianus, in conjunction with Servius Coraelius, which is spoken of under the name of edictum perpetuum. This edictum was arranged under various heads or titles, such at those relating to marriage, tutores, legata (legacies), and so on.

—By the term praetorian edict the Romans meant the edicts of praetor urbanus, who was the chief personage employed in the higher administration of justice under the republic. The edicta which related to peregrini (aliens) were so named after the praetor Peregrinus, and other edicta were called censoria, consularia, aedilicia, etc. Sometimes an edict of importance took its name from the praetor who promulgated it as carbonianum edictum. Sometimes the honorarise actiones, those which the praetor by his edict permitted were named in like manner from the praetor who introduced them. Sometimes an edict had its name from the matter to which it referred. The Romans generally cited the edicta by parts, titles, chapters or clauses of the edictum perpetuum, by naming the initial words, as unde legitimi, and so on; sometimes they are cited by a reference to their contents. Examples of these modes of citing the edictum occur in the titles of the forty-third book of the "Digest." In our own law we refer to certain forms of proceedings and to certain actions in a like way, as when we say quo warranto, quare impedit, and speak of qui tam actions.

—The jus praetorium is defined by Papinian (Dig. i., tit. i., 7) as the law which the praetors introduced for the purpose of aiding, supplying or correcting the law (jus cicile) with a view to the public interest. The edict is called by Marcianus "the living voice of the jus civile," that is, of the Roman law (Dig. i., tit. i., 8.) The praetorian law, as thus formed (jus prœtorium) was a body of law which was distinguished by this name from the jus civile, or the strict law; the opposition resembled that of the English terms equity and law. In its complete and large sense jus civile Romanorum or the law of the Romans, of course comprehended the jus prætorium; but in its narrower sense jus civile was contrasted, as already explained, with the jus prætorium.

—The origin of the Roman edictal law is plainly to be traced to the imperfections of the old jus civile, and to the necessity of gradually modifying law and procedure according to the changing circumstances of the times. It was an easier method of doing this than by direct legislation. Numerous modern treatises contain a view of the origin and nature of the Roman jus praetorium, though on some points there is not complete uniformity of opinion.

—Böcking. Institutionen. vol. i.; Puchta Cursus der Institutionen, vol. i., p. 293; Savigny Geschichte des Röm. Rechts vol. i; Heffter, Die Oeconomie des Edictes, Rhein Mus für Juris., i., p. 51; E. Schrader, Die Prätorischen Edicte der Römer, 1815.

ERA OF GOOD FEELING

ERA OF GOOD FEELING (IN U. S. HISTORY),a period (1817-23) when the contests of national parties were practically suspended, partly through the exhaustion of one party (the federal party) and partly through the extinction of the surface issues of the past. The termination of the war of 1812 had put an end to every question which had divided the parties since 1800; it left the democrats a triumphant majority, and the federalists a discredited minority; and the new policy of internal improvements and a protective tariff had not yet been developed so far as to form a party issue. Neither of these last projects was supported generally or with any interest by the federalists, but both found their warmest supporters in the northern section of the democratic party.

—The inaugural address of Monroe, in 1817, was exceedingly well calculated to soothe the feelings of the hopeless minority of federalists. It spoke warmly of their peculiar interests commerce and the fisheries; it congratulated the country on the restoration of "harmony"; and it promised the diligent efforts of the president to increase the harmony for the future. The inaugural was a harbinger of a tour which he made through New England during the year, and he was received with enthusiasm by a section which had not seen a president or heard such conciliatory language from a president, since Washington. Party feeling was laid aside, and the leaders of both parties joined in receiving the president and in announcing the arrival of an "era of good feeling." The Edition: current; Page: [109] "good feeling" lasted long enough to give Monroe an almost unanimous re-election in 1820, Plumer of New Hampshire being the only elector to vote against him; but it did not induce Monroe to take any federalists into his cabinet, as Jackson advised and urged him to do.

—The era of good feeling was terminated by the election of John Quincy Adams to the presidency in 1824, the opposition which was formed during his administration, and the development of two opposing national parties. (See DISPUTED ELECTIONS, II.; DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY, IV.; WHIG PARTY, I) During its existence no characteristic is more striking than the torpor which seemed to affect principle in politics, and the extent to which personal feeling seemed for the time to have superseded it. The several factions which supported Jackson, Adams, Crawford and Clay for the presidency, in 1824, hardly pretended to assign to their candidates any distinctive political principles, and one of the candidates, Jackson, was most earnestly supported for his supposed liking for internal improvements and a protective tariff, to which, as president, he proved to be a consistent opponent.

—The best medium for getting the spirit of the "era of good feeling" is 10-24 Niles' Weekly Register; see also 6 Hildreth's United States, 623; 3 Spencer's United States, 309.

ESSEX JUNTO

ESSEX JUNTO, The (IN U. S. HISTORY)About 1781 this name was first applied by John Hancock to a group of leaders who were either residents of Essex county, Massachusetts, or were closely connected with it by ties of business or relationship. The great interests of the county were commercial, and the "Essex junto" was the personification of the commercial interest's desire for a stronger federal government. The ability and the ultraism of the junto made its members peculiarly objectionable to the conservatives and anti-federalists of the state, but the name temporarily died out after the successful establishment of the constitution.

—Upon the first development of the federal party the Essex junto naturally fell into it, and ranked as the most ultra of the federalists. They counted among their number such state leaders as Cabot, the Lowells, Pickering. Theophilus Parsons, Stephen Higginson, and Goodhue; and Fisher Ames, a federalist of national reputation was in warm sympathy with them until his retirement from politics. So long as the federal party was controlled by Washington and Hamilton, the junto's influence in it was very considerable; but when Adams succeeded Washington, its members followed Hamilton rather than the president. (See FEDERAL PARTY.) In his own state the president at once revived the old name of "Essex junto," threw upon its members most of the responsibility for the attempt to force a war upon France in 1798-9, and thus gave them a national notoriety as a "British faction," unworthy of recognition as an American party (See ADAMS, JOHN.) After his retirement from office, in 1801, President Adams was very steadily engaged, for about seven years, in newspaper warfare against the junto and its open or secret allies inhis own state—The beginning of the "restrictive system," and of the New England opposition to it (see EMBARGO), deprived the name almost entirely of its local limitation and made it a synonym for New England federalism. Throughout the rest of the Union, which was almost entirely republican in polities, it became convenient to attribute all the difficulties, in New England, the resistance to the embargo, the alleged intention to secede in 1808, the open councils and suspected designs of the Hartford convention, and the stubborn opposition to the war, to the vague spirit of evil inherent in the "Essex junto" (See CONVENTION, HARTFORD; SECESSION, EMBARGO; FEDERAL PARTY.) See 4 Hildreth's United States, 375, and 5:52, 81, 119:1 Schouler's United States. 469; Lodge's Life of Cabot. 17:4 Jefferson's Works (edit. 1829, letters of April 20. 1812. and Jan. 13. 1813), 172. 184:1 John Adams' Works, 286, and 9:618.

ESTATES

ESTATES, CASTES, CLASSES, ORDERS. Plato, in his "Republic," seeking, by the study of man, to acquire a knowledge of and attain to justice, analyzed the manifestations of the soul, and reduced them to three original faculties: intellect, sentiment and sensation. These three forces of our nature, though unequally developed in individuals, are considered by him to be the strict and complete expression of our being. He takes them, therefore, as the bases of a more general study, and, rising from the individual to society, he reduces all mankind to these three types, and he divides men into three classes, according as one or another of the three faculties predominates in the soul of the individual. These three classes he calls philosophers or magistrates, warriors or gymnasts, laborers or artisans, and gives them the following attributes. To the first, that of the intellect which presides and governs; to the second, sentiment, sympathetic and ardent, which obeys and combats; to the third, the common instinct which subjects external nature to our wants. "The history of human society seems to confirm the truth of this metaphysical analysis. Everywhere the existence has been shown of these three classes, the necessity of which Plato undertook to prove: and experience, in accord with theory, shows us the human race instinctively accepting this natural law, from the remotest epoch in India down to modern times, each nation dividing itself into three branches, we might say into three peoples, superimposed the one on the other, and reserving to each one of these branches a distinct part in the general labor of mankind.

—But this hierarchy in the social body, enduring for centuries or reconstructed after revolution, modifies its character with the progress of civilization, in the lapse of time. The earliest nations looked on this hierarchy as a creation of the Deity, as something Edition: current; Page: [110] providential. At a later period philosophers and legislators thought they detected in it a tendency inherent in man, and they upheld it no longer in the name of an immutable God, but in the name of wisdom and justice to which the personal rights of the individual should yield. Still later, when society had become more mature, this hierarchy was accepted only as a system more or less proper and useful in preserving order and directing nations, till at last equality was proclaimed as a principle by the French revolution.

—Although in ordinary language, the terms castes, classes, estates and orders are frequently used as synonyms, their meanings are different, and relatle to the different origins of these hierarchies. Castes are unchangeable divisions fixed by religious belief, and which have not really existed except in India. The general name of classes is given to all those political divisions founded on conquest or on civil legislation. Estates are merely a modern modification of classes, a more liberal and more philosophical way of calling and looking at them.

—The transformations of which we have just spoken were not successive, and the progress of nations and civilization has not been continuous. Nations have advanced to the realization of what appears to us not to be justice and truth through many vicissitudes. Some succumbed to invasion and conquest, but no change was wrought in their institutions; others grew weak in proportion as equality overcame their social hierarchy, and new races, founding new empires, restored the classes, which had disappeared for a moment; still others preserve their social organization as it is described by the most ancient monuments of their history. Whatever science may say as to their historic origin, the castes of India have always had their roots in the supernatural order. Earthly life, in accordance with the laws of Manu, was nothing to the Hindoo but the inevitable consequence of a previous life, the recompense accorded or the punishment inflicted by God—an unchangeable destiny, against which revolt was either useless or impious. Brahma did not create man: he created three different men, who emanated respectively from his head, his arms and his feet—the Brahman, the Cshatrya and the Vaisya, who alone compose humanity. The stranger, the primitive inhabitant of India, the Sudra or Chandala, was lower than a man, lower than certain animals, reverence for which was enjoined by the law. The contact of this impure creature, the Sudra, his look, even his shadow, defile regenerated men (Dwidjas) who might put him to death with impunity, or use him as a lifeless thing. Only the races issued from Brahma have a right to life here and hereafter, and the world is divided among them. To the Brahman belong science, wisdom and virtue; he is king of the earth; all its products belong to him of right and to the other classes only through his liberality: he prays, he contemplates, is the incarnation of Brahma; he is God himself, obeyed and honored as such, for his words express the divine will. The Cshatrya, under the supreme direction of the Brahman, govern, dispense justice, frame the laws, make war and peace, levy taxes, maintain social order, and the division of castes. Under the term Vaisyas are comprehended the cultivators of the soil, and artisans charged with the feeding of animals, the carrying on of commerce, of acquiring and increasing wealth, etc.

—Could Buddha, by his milder doctrine, have in the long run overcome the rigidity of the dogma of castes? His system of morals which tended to equality would beyond doubt have been powerless to do away with the Brahmanic hierarchy (see BRAHMANISM and BUDDHISM) since the Buddhist considered that the unity and equality of men were to be realized only beyond the tomb and through annihilation. However this may be, the followers of Buddha, conquered and driven from India, were able to gain over to their new religion only the people of China, of the highlands of Asia, Japan, and some other islands. Persia, Judea and Egypt had also their sacerdotal order; but the Magi, the Levites and the priests of Memphis differed profoundly from the Brahmans. They occupied the first rank in society, as intermediaries between man and God, but they were not its predestined sovereigns. All power did not emanate from them; the kings and warriors enjoyed real independence; even laborers had rights which belonged to them personally. The Levite gave council to the chiefs of Israel, but he had no personal authority over them; the priests of Egypt studied the laws and guarded their perpetuity, but they could not encroach on the attributes and the privileges of the two other classes. The historians of Greece admired this priestly organization in which the present reproduced the past, and which was a guarantee of lasting peace.

—Greek society made greater progress than the theocracies of the east. On Hellenic soil, as later at Rome, the city was the origin and the basis of the republic, and within such narrow limits the subordination of class to class could not endure very long. The difference between the conquering and the conquered nation was not very apparent. The Dorians and the Ionians belonged to the same family, spoke the same language, professed the same religion, but neither was able to master the other. The first and most important result of this coexistence of independent and hostile states, in the same region, was to destroy all uniformity of legislation, and to render the formation of a sacerdotal class impossible. The Greek genius, so far removed from the contemplative mysticism of the east, far more occupied with the present condition of man, with his relations to other men, than with his future destiny and his relations to the universe and God, simplified and humanized worship as well as religion. The sacerdotal order became useless in Greece.

—The sacrifices were simply one of the privileges of the aristocratic and warrior class, in whose Lands sovereignty for a long time remained. In Sparta and some other Doric cities, Edition: current; Page: [111] where the influence of Crete and Egypt were considerable, this domination rested on characteristic institutions. The Spartans alone constituted the city, the government and the army; they owned a part of the lands and had a suzerainty over the rest. They guaranteed the integral preservation in each family of its property; they avoided all change in legislation and endeavored to preserve intact the traditions of conquest and of their establishment in the Peloponnesus. The conquered Laconians, scattered around them became the laboring class, who cultivated the lands which were ceded to them on condition of their paying tribute. Thus they provided for the material wants of the Spartans, served as artisans, sailors and auxiliary troops, but had no political existence and were scarcely recognized or protected by the law.

—It was different at Athens: from the earlier centuries the races of Attica mingled, revolutions followed, systems of laws succeeded each other; and a multiplicity of laws, says Vico, soon leads to a democracy. In the seventh century Solon, in his effort to reconstruct society, was unable to take, as a basis and criterion of his division of classes, origin or birth, but simply wealth. Such an arbitrary hierarchy, and one so easy to modify became illusory in a short time. Every citizen had equal rights, was a member of the popular assembly, and could attain to official position in the state. The form of the government never allowed authority to continue in a given group of families, nor privileges to become general. The offices themselves belonged, without distinction, to all, each one might become in turn a soldier, a judge, a legislator, a magistrate; for labor, instead of being a cause of inferiority, was imposed on all citizens. Thus was formed that Athenian democracy whose excesses were censured by the greatest minds of the ages of Pericles and Alexander, by Xenophon, Aristotle, Socrates, Aristophanes, and which excited the irony of Plato.

—The hierarchy of the Roman classes, founded on more absolute principles and sustained by more powerful institutions, resisted for four centuries the most persistent and energetic efforts of the people. Under the kings, and during the earlier period of the republic, the patricians, who without doubt derived their origin from learned Etruria and warlike Sabina, were the active part of the republic.

—After the ancient world had become one, it crumbled to pieces. From the Euphrates to the river Tweed, the provinces, attached to the capital only by bonds which grew weaker every day, and by an administration at once oppressive and powerless, were isolated from each other, and lost by degrees their collective and national life. Abandoned at last to themselves, they opposed no effort to the invasions of the Germanic tribes.

—From this contact of opposing peoples and civilizations a restoration of social classes necessarily resulted. The barbarians, who were warriors impatient of discipline, with no occupation but that of arms, united by their federative tendencies and by interest, found in the provinces of the empire only a sparse population, enfeebled and impoverished, devoted to continuous labor, unaccustomed either to independence or authority. This insured not only the domination of the conquering race, but the union of its chiefs in a body politic, into a superior class, who owned the land, exercised sovereignty over its inhabitants, and reduced to the labors of tillage or of daily industry the dwellers in the country and in the towns.

—One authority alone stood erect amid the ruins of the empire, that of the ecclesiastical order. After the official recognition of Christianity by Constantine, the chiefs of the Christian church had been invested with a temporal jurisdiction which increased continuously through the weakness of the imperial administration Entrusted at first with the government of the faithful and the material interests of their churches, the bishops, by slow degrees, had changed this altogether special authority, and when the barbarians came, they were the protectors and masters of cities, the only municipal and provincial authority capable of resisting the violence of invasion.

—The rapid conversion of the barbarians to Christianity, and the need they had of making use of agents to subject the conquered population to the new organization of society, further increased the political influence of the clergy. Possessing in the name of the church, considerable landed property which they lost but for a moment, the bishops entered easily into a hierarchy which had as a basis and measure property in its different forms. If it be true that feudalism was completely established only in the tenth century, it is none the less true that the principal elements of the feudal regime existed in the west in the beginning of the seventh and eighth centuries, that the spirit of individualism of the Germanic peoples made them look on property from the first as the essential attribute of personality as the first condition of sovereignty and independence: and they graduated the rank, the duties and the privileges of each person according to the origin and the more or less complete control of the property he possessed. The bishops and the abbots were admitted, therefore, into the feudal hierarchy, with the rank of "leudes" and barons, by reason of being great proprietors.

—After the beginning of the fourth century, although the Roman law was universal, the clergy obtained the establishment of special ecclesiastical tribunals, before which alone they appeared. This privilege they preserved after the invasion. The clergy besides demanded and enjoyed new privileges, such as exemption from taxes on their own property, and the establishment of tithes on all other property, tithes imposed and collected by themselves and for their own exclusive benefit.

—Legislation, tribunals and resources of their own could not but put the clergy in a situation independent of and in many respects superior to, the secular aristocratic class. At a certain period of history, Edition: current; Page: [112] when the Germans, having entered orders, occupied all the dignities of the church, when these dignities ceased to be conferred by election in order to be given by the suzerain lords of territory, just like secular emoluments, when bishopries and the papacy itself were transmitted in certain families like a sort of hereditary fief, it was to be feared that a real sacerdotal caste might arise in the bosom of Christianity as in the religions of the east. Certain popes in the twelfth century, and, later, the French kings, raised an obstacle to such a movement. In his struggles against the empire, Gregory VII. endeavored above all things to submit the clergy under the orders of the holy see to discipline, and prevent them from forming a sort of sovereign sacerdotal college in each nation. By the strict enforcement of celibacy, by vindicating the supremacy of the holy see and;the separation of the two investitures, he made the clergy a regular militia, distinct no doubt from the rest of society and invested with numerous privileges, but with access to its ranks for all. The creation of the mendicant orders continued this work and rendered impossible a return to those sacerdotal castes, to the theocratic oligarchies of Asia, composed of a small number of members equal among each other, and sharing in perpetuity the government of the people. "The secular powers on their part, and among them especially the kings of France, when they observed the efforts of the papacy to form, not a caste, but a particular society within a general one, used all their adroitness and all their care to put themselves in the place of the holy see, assume the direction of this great ecclesiastical body, and transform the representatives of the church into spiritual functionaries of the state. While guaranteeing to them the greater part of their privileges, the sovereigns restrained and limited the authority of the clergy, by the granting only of special functions to them, and by the interference and permanent supervision of lay authority, so that it may be said, if the mode of recruiting the clergy and their position, privileged, as regards other classes and subordinate as regards the state, be considered, that they form in modern times a simple corporation rather than a class.

—Is it necessary to add that, among the nations in which the reformation triumphed, the independence of the clergy as a social and political body was enfeebled and disappeared rapidly? The reformers have often been accused of having merely withdrawn their churches from the supremacy of Rome, to subject them more completely to the temporal power of kings; but no other result was possible in the sixteenth century. Royalty had then grown too strong, nationalities had become too matured, the civil power too firmly established. Deprived of the external support of the papacy, the members of the Protestant clerical body became almost immediately magistrates in the spiritual order, and the abolition of celibacy, which at any other time would have produced altogether opposite consequences, only served to cause the clergy to mingle more completely with the rest of society.

—The profound difference existing between the Christian clergy and the sacerdotal castes of antiquity, separate modern aristocracies also from those of Rome and Sparta. Even in countries where the hierarchy of classes was most deeply rooted, another civilization and different beliefs directed societies. Amid social and political diversities there appeared a sincere faith in the unity of the human race and an aspiration toward equality. Sometimes even, as in France and a great part of Italy, the nobility scarcely formed a body politic, a real aristocratic class In Italy, in fact, commerce and maritime republics, the industry of Lombard and Tuscan communes, obtained at an early day a considerable superiority of wealth for the bourgeoisie, and enabled it to attain power, to exercise an extended civil and military jurisdiction and to play a great political role. There existed in France during centuries several classes of nobility foreign to each other; the nobility of the south quasi-Spanish, that of the east, dependent on the empire, that of the great vassals of Burgundy and Brittany, and that of the king: but it was only very late that there was a real French nobility. This want of union, this absence of collective force enabled the third estate, the commercial and industrial class, to rise form material occupations and interests to the liberal professions and public functions. While French chivalry was fighting on all the battle fields of Europe and Asia, careless of the place which it might have retained in the government, the third estate had gradually taken possession of all power of municipal, financial and judicial offices and held so to speak, the monopoly of them. Its ideal was that of the empire.

—For different reasons the nobility of Germany, Spain and England preserved their supremacy longer than that of France. The federal form of the German empire, the division of the territory into a great number of principalities and independent lordships, the organization of diets and the weakness of the central power, enabled the German nobility not only to preserve a large jurisdiction within the more or less narrow limits of their domains, but to preserve also a majority of the attributes of sovereignty, and to leave existing a deep dividing line between the aristocratic and the lower classes of the nation. The long continued national wars which the nobles of Castile and Arragon waged against the Moors, gave them an esprit de corps, a spirit of independence and pride, which long made them the real sovereigns of the kingdom. It required nothing less than the stubborn genius of Ferdinand and of Charles V., aided by the resources of a vast empire and the power of the inquisition, to disorganize and bend to absolute power the haughty descendants of the Goths.

—The Norman barons whom William the Conqueror led into and established in England, had need of mutual assistance of union and organization, in order to overcome Edition: current; Page: [113] the energetic resistance of the conquered population. Being almost equal among themselves, having no power above them but the royal power, in order to preserve their privileges, they were obliged to act collectively to obtain a part of the public authority, to stipulate for general guarantees of permanent and exclusive rights. The English aristocracy sought for and occupied all the public offices, from lieutenancies of counties up to the great dignities of the state; it wrested from royalty supervision and control, by the definite establishment of parliament in the thirteenth century; it obtained the support of the commons by defending the general liberties of the nation, and in according to them rights inferior to its privileges, it is true, but real and practical. Neither the arbitrary attempts of the Tudors and the Stuarts, nor the two revolutions of the seventeenth century, could destroy a social condition founded on the character and origin of the nation; but in England, as on the continent, the increase of wealth, the importance of labor, and the progress of public opinion, left nothing else of value to the hierarchy of classes than what is attached to the external forms of a respected tradition.

—If we wish to find an aristocracy in modern times which recalls the patricians of Rome, we can mention only the Swedish aristocracy. To the material privileges which the nobility of Europe enjoyed, the most absolute monopoly of all the dignities and all the offices of the kingdom, the Swedish nobility added extraordinary personal privileges; every plebeian was prohibited from marrying a noble woman, under pain of confiscation of the property of both parties: some ordinances went so far as to decree capital punishment for inter marriage of classes. (Fryxell, Gustaxus Adolphus.) But such legislation existed only in theory. The kings of Sweden, aided from time to time by peasants and citizens, struggled energetically against the nobles. The last two centuries witnessed despotism succeeding revolt, and political equality was finally established only by the constitution of 1866.

—Thus at all times and in all places, in India, in Egypt, in Greece, in Rome, and in modern Europe, society, obeying a universal instinct, has been composed of three classes, to which it has attributed the rank and role of one of the human faculties mentioned at the beginning of this article. The mistake of the eastern world was in considering these three classes as three races of beings essentially different in origin, nature and destiny; the error of the Pagan world was in sacrificing the most precious rights of man to the general order of an hierarchical society. The humanity of Christianity and the individualism of the Germanic races vindicated the dignity of man, and led the human conscience to proclaim the equality of the rights of man. Such was and such will be progress of humanity.

EUROPE

EUROPE.Though the smallest of the continents. Europe now aways the sceptre of the world. Asia precedes it in the annals of mankind, but the daughter has eclipsed the mother, not because she is younger, but because she has surpassed her in civilization Europe has raised man to his true dignity by developing in him a horror of despotism, her people have spiritualized religion, purified morals, and broken the bonds of mankind. Her sons have freed the sciences from the superstitions which loaded them down and they have widened and deepened them. It is they who have carried art to its sublimest heights. In fine, Europeans conceived the idea of unlimited, indefinite progress, which even if it be not an illusion in part, is the most solid basis of the civilization upon which we so justly pride ourselves. Why is it that Europe has enjoyed and still enjoys such distinction? Let us put aside the explanation of this question which traces everything to a Providence whose motives our intelligence can not comprehend. Let us put aside also that which attributes the government of all things here below to chance as blind as it is capricious, and adhering to that plain method of reasoning which finds everywhere the relation of cause and effect, let us seek out the causes which have produced the superiority of Europe over other parts of the world.

—We do not by any means pretend to discover all of these causes, but there are some which we can not fail to recognize. The first of these is climate. We are not of the number of those who attribute to this agent a power so great that everything must yield to its action: but man is subjected to the influence of the climate in which he lives, excessive heat enervates him: piercing cold weather weakens him. The moderate temperature of the greater part of Europe and especially of that part which first received the benefits of civilization, Greece, Italy, Spain and the central portion of France, has helped the development of the intellectual and moral germs of its inhabitants. At a later period the climatic differences between the north and the south of Europe led to commercial intercourse and to the exchange of the products of one country for the products of another.

—The configuration of the continent of Europe has exerted an equally beneficent influence. No part of it is very far removed from the sea. The Baltic, by means of the gulf of Bothnia and the gulf of Finland, penetrates far into the interior of the northern countries and communicates through three straits and large canals with the North sea, which washes the British and many smaller islands. On the west the Atlantic and the gulf of Gascony bathes a long line on coast from the strait of Gibraltar to the extremity of Norway. On the south the Mediterranean cuts up the land into numerous fertile and picturesque islands, peninsulas and bays, and through the canal of the Dardanelles puts forth the sea of Marmora and the Bosphorus as an arm that afterward enlarges into the Black sea with the sea of Azov as an annex. Numerous routes lead to these seas, rivers accompanied by a cortege of streams which flow much more Edition: current; Page: [114] regularly than most watercourses of other continents. The two kinds of labor which have most contributed to civilization are the cultivation of the soil and navigation.

—Upon this land so highly favored the best endowed races of mankind intermingled. This intermingling has been one of the most potent causes of European progress. We shall not here relate the history of the populating of Europe, nor of the migrations of its inhabitants; but the consideration of the political aspect of the continent of Europe during the different epochs of its history is not without interest.

—The earliest is that of the yellow race of men who were probably of the same origin as the Laplanders. All that we know of this people has been learned from the ruins of their habitations discovered in the lakes of Switzerland and elsewhere. They did not know how to work in the metals, and their age is called the stone age.

—The years 440 to 450 before the Christian era are memorable in the history of Europe. Pericles ruled in Athens, which had just been subdued by Rome under the dictatorship of Cincinnatus. The Etruscans still existed, although more or less enslaved. The Gauls followed the religion of the druids and their sacrifices were defiled with human blood. Spain worked her minds, and began to feel the yoke of Carthage. The rest of Europe was overrun by nomads where it was not covered with forests and swamps.

—Eight or nine centuries later, about the year 476, at the time of the downfall of the last successor of Romulus (Augustulus), German races had taken possession of almost all the entire south and west of Europe. Odoacer had just founded a new empire in Italy. The Visigoths held Spain and France as far as the Loire. The Ostrogoths were in possession of Dalmatia, Servia and a part of what is now Turkey. The north of France was in the possession of Franks. Germany was divided among several Teutonic tribes. The Slaves dwelt to the east of river Oder, and the Celts retained only the peninsula of Brittany and British isles. All was chaos, from which order was not to be drawn for several centuries. And what was the order it produced even then? Feudalism.

—We pass over the centuries that witnessed the formation and development of the middle ages, to consider the picture presented to our view in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, when medieval made place for modern times, when Christopher Columbus, Guttenberg, Luther, Calvin, Descartes and Bacon renewed the face of Europe and created our civilization. The Iberian peninsula was divided into Portugal, Castile, Arragon and Navarre. France had not yet absorbed Burgundy and some other territories. England had conquered Ireland, but Scotland still retained its political independence. Germany constituted the "holy Roman empire," whose powerful ruler then possessed but a limited number of those "states of the crown" which in our day form such an imposing whole, and one possessed of greater unity than the adversaries of Austria are willing to concede. Italy was divided into small states. Genoa, Florence, Milan, Venice, Rome, Naples, Parma and some other places, were capital cities, and were as proud of their independence as the Swiss, the Eidgenosses, their neighbors. Neither Scandinavia nor Russia had played any important part in the affiars of Europe, but Poland was flourishing, and the united provinces of the Low Countries, Which had won their liberty at the cost of rivers of blood, were on the point of astonishing the world by their prosperity.

—Since the end of the middle ages the physiognomy of modern Europe has been clearly enough defined for us to recognize its principle features. When the French revolution broke out in 1789, Spain had acquired Castile, Arragon and Navarre; France had enlarges its boundaries; England and Scotland had become Great Britain; Prussia Austria and Russia had acquired very extensive territory. Poland had already been divided and was soon to disappear, like to holy empire Let us pass over the ephemeral changes which the wars of Europe wrought upon its geographical boundaries; let us pass over the famous treaties of 1815. so often assailed and now perhaps regretted, and endeavor to present a view of the continent (of Europe) as it is.

—The European republic is composed of a considerable number of large and small states. During about half a century, five of the number formed a sort of areopagus which ruled the destinies of the continent by the law of might. This power seems so natural that authors were found to justify this oligarchical domination, to establish the right of the "give great powers." One of their arguments, and, unfortunately, the best they had to offer, was that there would be no more wars, the pentarchy would be able to prevent them.

—It could not even prevent the creation of a sixth great power. Nor do we at all regret this; we only ask that by degrees every state may have a seat in the areopagus of Europe. Meantime we should not attempt to deny this self-evident fact, that France, England, Russia, Austria, Hungary, Germany and Italy are preponderating powers in Europe.

—France is undoubtedly one of the most powerful among them. Her 128,000,000 acres afford ample accommodation for her 36,000,000 inhabitant. Her nationality is firmly established, or, at least, it is strong enough in assimilate the small number of foreigners to be found within her territory. Thus her unity is assured. Her geographical position is excellent, she has a long line of coast, and her frontiers washed by the sea, have scarcely and need of an army to defend them. Finally, her people are warlike, although she nevertheless loves peace and cultivates the arts of peace with sufficient success to secure her a prosperity which a disastrous war aided by revolution and formidable insurrection (1870-71) had not power enough to impair.

—England is the richest country in Europe, Edition: current; Page: [115] and as money is the sinew of war (whatever Machiavelli may say to the contrary), she is much more powerful than the number of her inhabitants would seem to indicate. But little centralized and having no law of compulsory military service, she is not adapted for aggressive warfare, while her insular position, on the other hand, renders it quite easy for her to defend her own. Moreover the ambition of Great Britain is being more and more closely restricted to the domination of the sea—even which she may some day be deprived of. Since all power has completely been absorbed by Parliament, England has abstained as much as possible from taking part in European wars. Her influence also had become merely one of opinion, for just as in private life a man is more frequently esteemed according to the capital he possesses, or the generosity which he displays, so also in politics, a state is reckoned according to the military force it can command.

—Russia's power lies in her immense population, which is said to exceed eighty millions, but her strength has been greatly exaggerated by those who forget that the lever, money, is needed to move this mass. And Russia has not money enough to mobilize all the soldiers she could muster, and so a portion of this mass of population remains inert. It is fortunate that such is the case, for if her power were greater, she would the less easily resist the temptation to abuse it. Will this colossus of the north ever become strong enough to balance the strength of the rest of Europe?

—Austria-Hungary has more than once seemed "on the very verge of dissolution," but fortunately this state is had to kill. It is to be hoped that the dualism introduced in 1867 will consolidate this empire, for it is a necessary member of the European republic. The Hungarians would have very little political wisdom if they were not willing to make every effort and every sacrifice necessary to preserve it, for it is they who profit most by the existence of Austria. As to the Tchechs, who are a little too jealous of Hungary, they can only injure themselves unless they consider themselves, above all things else, As Austrians.

—Germany, into which Prussia shows a tendency to be dissolved, has again tightened the bounds of it stats, and while it has, in certain respects, undergone unification, it still remains a confederation from a political point of view; that is, the right to declare war belongs to a committee in which all the German governments are represented. The new empire is not, therefore, organized for aggression, but inasmuch as it exhibits a much closer union of its various parts than before, it will be stronger for defense. Germany has need of strength, for she has enemies both external and internal; she required great wisdom indeed to avoid the onslaughts of the one and the troubles caused by the other.

—Italy is considered the sixth great power. She numbers between twenty-six and twenty-seven million inhabitants. She has Rome. Her organization has been consolidated. Her opinion is constantly gaining weight in the councils of Europe. Her geographical positions between Austria and France might under certain circumstances, give her a decisive influence, but there is reason to believe that she will not intermeddle in what does not concern her. Let Italy be content to remain mistress of Italy, and encourage her agriculture, industry and commerce, in order that she may safely carry the burden of her debt.

—Let us now pass to those nations that have less pretensions to preponderance in Europe.

—Spain and Portugal are situated at the very extremely of Europe, and although Spain numbers sixteen million inhabitants and is comparatively prosperous despite her so frequent revolutions, it is rather beyond the seas than beyond the Pyrences that she seeks, and with reason too, to exercise her influence over Prussia for instance, where distance renders it impossible for her to enforce her demands.

—Switzerland and Belgium are nearer to the scene of whatever important events may happen in Euroupe; but if their relative weakness did not compel them to abstain, the neutrality, which the public law of Europe imposes upon them, would forbid them to intermingle in the quarrels of other nations. And they have no desire to do so. We have couples them together here, because they are, to all appearances, the two freest states in Europe, despite the difference of their forms of government. By comparing the constitutional Kingdom of Belgium with the federal republic of Switzerland, we become convinced that liberty may reign in countries which are governed by constitutions that have very few points of resemblance.

—The Low Countries also have a liberal, government. This state perhaps even preceded all others in this respect, for it had already given civil equality to all its citizens without distinction, when England was still proscribing Catholics, France Protestants, and Germany the Jews. No matter what certain publicists may say, Holland has nothing to fear for her liberty, no one threatens it, and in case of need she would have powerful supporters. However, we know that she has too pacific a spirit to enter without reason into any aggressive combinations whatever.

—The Scandinavian states, Sweden, Norway and Denmark occupy the north of Europe. Scandinavianism makes a great noise, but is it not after all "much ado about nothing"? So long as Sweden and Norway, united under the same king, remain separated by laws, by customs barriers imposed, and above all by prejudices, we can not consider as serious the advances they seek to make to Denmark. This little country would do well to devote all its energies to the cultivation of the arts of peace, education and industry. Denmark would thus acquire a moral influence far superior to her material power.

—From the northern peninsula we pass to the peninsula at the southeast of Europe. Here Turkey and Greece, however, no longer has anything Edition: current; Page: [116] to fear from her old master. (See Turkey.)

—We have now considered in their order the various states which compose Europe. We should like to submit to our readers some conjectures, regarding the future, but we dare not attempt it; time alone can solve the many questions suggested by the present position of European nations.

EVERETT

EVERETT, Edward, was born at Dorchester, Mass., April 11, 1794, and died at Boston, Jan. 15, 1865. He was graduated at Harvard in 1811, became pastor of a Unitarian church in Boston in 1814, served as representative in congress (whig) 1825-35, was governor of Massachusetts 1835-40, minister to Great Britain 1841-5, secretary of state under Fillmore (see ADMINISTRATIONS, and United States senator, 1853-4. In 1860 he was the constitutional union party's candidate for vice-president.

—See Boston Memorial of Everett; 15 Atlantic Monthly; 100 North American Review; Everett's Works.

EXCHANGE

EXCHANGE, An, may be described briefly as a localized merchants' traders' or dealers' market. Those who do not make buying and selling their occupation do not, for the most part, have direct dealings in any exchange market. As a rule, producers of such articles as are bought and sold on the exchanges sell to dealers who have more or less intimate relations with those markets; and consumers, on the other hand buy of dealers, and do not deal in person "on change." Hence an exchange is almost wholly a traders' market, or a market in which the buying and selling is done by those who make trading their business. It is a great intermediary market, receiving products from producers and advancing them on their way to consumers. It is also a localized market. In every considerable commercial centre are many markets which are not localized. All who make a practice of buying any article that is from time to time offered for sale, and who are accessible to the body of sellers, constitute the market for that article, though their places of business may be remote from one another, and though they may never deal in that article among themselves. An exchange differs from such a market as this in that is localized. The body of dealers find it convenient, not to say necessary, to have a place where they may meet to transact business among themselves. It is this localization which, as much as any other one thing, goes to make an exchange as near an approach as possible to a perfect market. It affords an opportunity to put the entire trading body in possession of the latest intelligence from all kindred markets, and from all other sources, touching the conditions of supply and demand, and it affords the most free scope for the prompt actions of all the forces of competition.

—An exchange may be organized for the purpose of facilitating dealings in any one commodity, or any number of commodities. We have cotton exchanges, sugar exchanges, coffee exchanges, and others, in each of which only one product or commodity is the subject of dealings; and we have produce exchanges where nearly all staple farm products are bought and sold, and stock exchanges where government bonds, railway shares, and stocks of all kinds that have secured recognition in market, are dealt in. Only such commodities as are the considerable commercial importance are made the subject of dealings on change. The number of such commodities is continually increasing as commerce is extended, and the dealings throughout the list come to be so numerous and large as to demand more exclusive attention, and give employment to an increased aggregate of capital. Hence there is a tendency here, as in other fields of human activity to differentiate functions. What began as a produce exchange may become divided into a breadstuffs exchange, a butchers' exchange and a number of other separate organizations. And where there may be no formal dissolutions of the original exchange and no organization of new ones occupying more restricted fields, individuals will confine themselves more and more to selected branches, with the result that a number of really distinct markets will come to exist under one roof and one name, the dealers in each being different from those in any other And this may, in some fields be preferable to the lopping off of branches from the original organization and establishment of separate exchanges. The most signal example of this multiplication of markets in a single exchange is afforded by the London stock exchange. Here there are many groups, in each of which only a limited number of securities are bought and sold and the dealers in any group confine their attention to that one exclusively as a rule and when any one of them removes to another group, it is with the intention of making the removal permanent. Where securities in such great numbers, representing credits, properties and enterprises in all parts of the world, are dealt in this subdivision of one great market into many markets become necessary. No man can become so familiar with all securities as to be deal in all with the requisite intelligence and promptitude. And even if every man could do this, there would still remain the necessity of localizing markets for the different kinds of securities, so that a person wishing to buy or sell a particular stock could know just where to find others wishing to deal in the same stock. The broker may, and generally does, deal in a considerable number of securities, but he does not himself operate on the exchange. When he wishes to buy or sell shares of any particular kind he goes at once to the group in which these shares are embraced, and concludes his bargain with a "jobber." or "dealer," in that group, who has no business relations at all with the public, but only with brokers and other dealers. As a rule, the broker asks the price without saying whether he wishes to but or sell. Accordingly the jobber states his buying price and Edition: current; Page: [117] his selling price, and about half the difference is his margin for profit. So sharp is the competition among jobbers that, if the shares concerned have a pretty firm footing in the market, the difference named is small, affording a margin, usually, of not more than one-sixteenth of 1 percent for profit. Thus the broker may enter any group and, for a moderate compensation, secure the services of a jobber thoroughly familiar with that group, and always at the very heart of the market, ready for action.

—The economic advantages of this differentiation of functions have perhaps, been sufficiently suggested already Dealers or jobbers, on the one hand, can perfect themselves in their several specialties, each having a limited range. Brokers, on the other hand, whose dealings necessarily extend over a broader range, have always at their command the services of trained specialties. What is even more important, perhaps, the formation and localization of special groups enables an investor or vendor to reach, through his broker, the very heart of the market, for any particular security he may with to buy or sell. Demand and supply are thus promptly focalized, and prices as promptly adjusted. So great is the advantage resulting from this arrangement that a comparatively small number of brokers and jobbers transact with case a business which could not otherwise be transacted at all. Exchanges in general afford like economic advantages in their relations to the producing and consuming public. Trained dealers, skilled in estimating supplies and their relations to demand, are brought into direct and sharp competition. Some of these dealers are either agents for the producers of the commodities offered for sale on the exchange—agents compensated by commissions—or speculators who have bought with a view to selling at an advance. These dealers seek to obtain the highest prices possible, and are known in the language of the market as "bulls" Other dealers are agents for consumers, or speculators on the consumers' side of the market, and therefore seek to buy at the lowest prices, and are known as "bears." These opposing forces are always present on every exchange. They bring to the contests in which they engage, superior and highly trained faculties, and the advantage of the earliest intelligence, secured for the most part through the instrumentality of the exchanges themselves, from all the leading markets of the same kind in the world. The result is that prices are promptly adjusted to existing conditions of supply and demand, the wide fluctuations which are especially injurious to original producers and final consumers are in a great measure prevented, and those differences in the price of a commodity at the same time and in the same neighborhood, which indicate the existence of a very imperfect market, become impossible. Their great function is to receive and diffuse with the greatest celerity all those complex influences affecting prices of stable commodities, and thus not only maintain equable markets, but also supply producers with timely and trustworthy evidence of either general excess or deficiency in the supply of any product, so that they may apply the needed corrective in either direction. This function may be, and no doubt it, sometimes perverted. Speculators may produce artificial scarcity and force prices above the level which would be reached under the influence of the ordinary forces of competition alone. But it does not follow because this sometimes happens that exchanges are, on the whole, economically injurious: that they make prices to producers lower and to consumers higher than they would otherwise be: that they afford special facilities for gambling in the necessaries of life, and or levying tribute upon both producers and consumers for which no just equivalent is rendered. It would be as reasonable to infer that railroads are on the whole, economically injurious because those who control them sometimes practice extortion. It would probably be quite as easy to monopolize or "corner" wheat, or corn, or pork, if there were no such thing as a produce exchange. The exchanges, so far from encouraging such operations, afford every possible opportunity to thwart them by giving them early publicity. "Cornering," under the name of engrossing or forestalling, was practiced long before there was a regularly organized produce exchange. The worst that can be said of the exchanges in this regard is, that so long as they perform their legitimate function of supplying the best facilities for buying and selling, they must necessarily afford the best facilities for monopolizing any commodity for which they afford a market. But let that be granted, and it does not follow that exchanges are to be condemned as injurious. A sufficient proof that they are useful institutions is to be found in the fact of their survival and multiplication. Old ones would not survive and new one would not be organized if they were economically more injurious than beneficial, any more than steam engines would be used in greater and greater numbers if there was found to be an economic balance against their use—Exchanges may be incorporated bodies, sometimes under their proper name, and sometimes under the name of chamber of commerce, or board of trade. They are not, however, incorporated for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their chief functions. They do not deal in produce, stocks, etc., in their corporate capacity. Their individual members deal with one another, and for this purpose no charter is necessary. The act of incorporation is serviceable to them only in that it enables them in their collective capacity to own and buy and sell the real and personal property required by the members in the transaction of business, such as grounds and buildings, and to sue and Edition: current; Page: [118] be sued, to the end that they may collect by lawful process the means requisite to the maintenance of their organic character and the discharge of their limited organic functions, and that they may be liable at law for any obligations incurred by them.

—There is no reason to believe that markets answering more or less completely to the description of exchanges have existed wherever any considerable commercial progress has been made. The modern institution, however, involving the deliberate appropriation of a locality or building to the use of an exchange, is believed to have originated about the beginning of the sixteenth century, under the name of "bourse." This name, which is still applied on the continent of Europe to bill and security exchanges, originated, according to one tradition, in the belief that the first gathering of the kind took place in the house of a man named Van der Bourse at Bruges, Flanders. According to another tradition it originated in the belief that the first exchange assembled in a house in Amsterdam, which had three purses hewn in stone over the door. One of the oldest exchange buildings was erected in Antwerp, and was selected by Sir Thomas Gresham as the model of the building in London which, on Jan. 3, 1570, was proclaimed by Queen Elizabeth "The Royal Exchange." This latter exchange has been twice destroyed by fire and rebuilt. The present Royal exchange was opened by Queen Victoria Oct. 29, 1944. It is the most important theatre of bill and security transactions in the world. The most celebrated of the exchanges of continental Europe is the Paris bourse, which was established in 1824. There are now fine exchange buildings in Amsterdam, St. Petersburg, and other European cities. The Merchants' exchange in New York was founded in 1817. Its first building was destroyed in the great fire of 1835. The second was sold to the government of the United States for a custom house. The third is still in use by the exchange. At the present time exchange markets of different kinds of exist in all the important commercial centres of the world.

EXCHANGE AND "FOREIGN EXCHANGES."

EXCHANGE AND "FOREIGN EXCHANGES". Exchange is a term that makes a great figure in political economy. In the view of one school of economists, indeed, it covers the whole domain of economic science; but at least a severe strain is put on the word by including under it the laws of production as well as of the distribution of wealth. No theory of population can well be brought within the limits of exchange; hence some authors who define political economy as the science of exchanges, or of value, are disposed to relegate to another department of sociology of all inquiry into the laws of population. Yet almost all text books of economics do, as a matter of fact, include some theory of population. It may throw some light on the part played by exchange, as distinguished from production in the economy of society, to point to the errors committed by writers who, like Mr. II. D. Macleod, treat bills of exchange, promissory notes, and other instruments of credit and acknowledgements of debt, as themselves constituting wealth—adding pro tanto to the sum of a nation's valuable possessions. There is in this doctrine a confusion between production and exchange. The argument in support of it is, that such instruments have an exchangeable value and must therefore be wealth. The answer is, that when a man borrows say £100 on his promissory note or bill for £105, all that takes place is an exchange between borrower and lender. There is no production of new wealth; £100 in hand is exchanged for £105 at a future time; and the note or bill is only evidence of the claim to the £105. An instrument of credit resembles the title deed to an estate. When a person buys a landed estate, all that is visibly transferred in the first instance, in exchange for the purchase money, is the conveyance or title deed: but what it really bought is the estate, and nothing but an exchange is effected. Doubtless bills of exchange and other instruments of credit may add indirectly to the wealth of a country in two ways: 1. by enabling persons engaged in production to borrow funds which would otherwise have been unemployed and unproductive; 2. by taking the place of coin as media of exchange, and saving the cost of metallic currency. But there are unproductive as well as productive borrowers, and instruments of credit may transfer to prodigals sums that might have been productively employed.

—A large and increasing number of writers in England, Germany, France, Italy, and Belgium refuse to restrict the field even of distribution to the partition of wealth by exchange, which, like J.S. Mill, they regard as only a particular mode of distribution. Adam Smith, in the First Book of the Wealth of Nations, under the head of "natural distribution," treated only, it is true, of the division of the annual produce of a country effected by the exchanges consequent on the appropriation of land, the accumulation of capital, and the division of labor; but in the Third Book he has referred to the distribution effected by laws of property and succession; and both in England and on the continent of Europe there is a growing tendency on the part of economists to extend their investigations to the effects of positive laws and political institutions upon both production and distribution. Nevertheless the topics which have hitherto covered the greatest part of the ground in almost every systematic treatise on political economy, fall under the head of exchange, and in any view of the limits of the science, the importance of the subject can hardly be overestimated.

—It is characteristic of the method of the purely deductive school of economists founded by David Ricardo, that his theory of exchange and value was deduced from the assumption, in his own words, that in the early stages of society the Edition: current; Page: [119] exchangeable value of commodities depends almost exclusively upon the comparative quantity of labor expended on each. If, for example, he said, among a nation of hunters it usually costs twice the labor to kill a beaver that it does to kill a deer one beaver should exchange for two deer. And on this principle he inferred that the value of all things, except those which cannot be increased by industry, depends. But the assumption is plainly an untenable one Labor is too abstract a measure for the minds of uncivilized men to conceive; there is indeed, no regular labor among them, and the produce of the chase is in a great degree governed by chance. The earlier stages of society are regarded by most modern investigators as having been more or less communistic, with little or no individual property; in which case few, if any, exchanges could take place. And if any, they would probably follow the principle of the exchange between Esau and Jacob, of a birthright for a disk of pottage; being determined by the relative urgency of the needs of the parties. Even at a more advanced social stage, at the beginning of settled agricultural life, each family would probably provide for its own wants, and few exchanges would take place within each little community. Regular exchange or traffic seems to have begun, not within the community, whether of hunters, shepherds or farmers, but between different communities, exchanging the special produce of different localities. Such exchanges could not be governed by estimates of labor or cost of production; they would partake of the nature of international exchanges, and fall under the principle which Mr. Mill applies to international commerce and values, namely, demand and supply. Nor would it be difficult to show that in a great modern and industrial society the relative cost of an infinite multitude of commodities in incalculable, and that the hard and fast line drawn by Mr. Mill between international values and the values of things produced in the same country, is untenable. The best general formula for the conditions determining values is, in short, demand and supply. Cost of production, even within the same country, can act on value only by roughly adjusting the supply to the demand, and its action is uncertain and irregular.

—A grave error in both Ricardo's and J.S. Mill's exposition of the principles governing both internal and international exchanges and values seems to have escaped detection. According to the two great writers referred to, the introduction of money makes no difference in the terms on which exchanges are conducted, or in the values of the commodities exchanged. Things, says Mr. Mill that would have been barter, are worth equal sums of money. And he quotes with emphatic approval the words of Ricardo, that "gold and silver, being chosen for the general medium of circulation, are by the competition of commerce distributed in such proportions among the different countries of the world as to accommodate themselves to the natural traffic which would take place if no such metals existed and the trade between them were a trade of barter" An example will show at once the fallacy of this doctrine. Were the precious metals not in circulation in China, and the barter of English cottons, woolens and hardware for Chinese tea, the system of trade between the two countries the demand of China for the manufactures of England might be so small that tea could only be procured by the latter country on the most onerous terms of exchange. But let silver become current as money in China, and the demand of the Chinese for that metal, both for circulation and hoarding, might become so intense that with a given quantity of manufactures England might buy in America enough silver to pay for twenty times as much tea as she got for the same amount of goods by direct barter. Mr. Mill forgot his own doctrine that money differs from all other things in the property that it is the object of a demand to which there is no limit. His reasoning confounds also two very different propositions. It is true, as he argues, that both under a money system and a system of barter the equation of international demand is the fundamental principle of international trade But it does not follow that the reciprocal demand is the same under the two systems; the exchange may be conducted on very different terms, and very different equations may exist under money and barter respectively.

—The transactions, however, which mercantile men generally have in view when they speak of the exchange between different countries, are those technically called the foreign exchanges, in which the balance of international dealings, the prices for foreign bills of exchange and the movements of bullion are the chief objects of consideration. The balance of international dealings and claims, it is now well known, is no mere balance of international trade. In the middle ages the balance of exports and imports between England and the continent was generally in favor of England, for whose wool the continental demand was intense. Yet the balance of international payments was often against England; and that country, though possessing, down to the fifteenth century, mines of precious metal, with difficulty maintained a scanty stock of coin for circulation. The reason was, that the exactions of the pope, the revenues drawn from English benefices by foreign incumbents, and the sums wasted by English kings in continental wars, caused a constant draw on the English currency. On the other hand, in our own age England has maintained a generally favorable balance of dealings with the world, although her demand for foreign commodities has often exceeded that of her foreign customers for her manufacturers, because many other items besides purely commercial exports and imports go to determine the claims of England on the rest of the globe. She receives vast sums in payment on interest on capital invested abroad; she has an Edition: current; Page: [120] immense carrying trade, and her earnings for freight make a large figure inher imports; and she receives, in addition, large payments in commodities from India for the government of that great dependency. Were the United States or France by superior ship building and navigation to deprive England of her carrying trade, the amount of her imports would fall off, the country cutting her out of the business would get the imports she now receives in payment of freight; the exchanges would turn heavily against her, and a drain of the precious metals from her shores would infallibly follow. The case of the United States is different. America is able, in spite of the loss of no small part of her former share of the carrying trade, to maintain a favorable balance of exchange with foreign countries because of their immense demand for her exports.

—The chief rule laid down in treatises on foreign exchanges is, that the premium on a bill of exchange in a foreign country can not in ordinary cases exceed the cost, in freight, insurance and brokers' charges, of sending the sum in actual bullion; and that the discount, in like manner, on a foreign bill can not exceed the cost of transmitting the required amount in gold or silver. Under peculiar circumstances, however, the premium or the discount, it is now well ascertained, may exceed the expense of transmitting the precious metals. Thus at the beginning of the American civil war there was a great anxiety in the United States for gold, and at the same time a very large amount was due from Europe, for which Americans held bills. Had they been willing to wait until the money could be brought over, the discount on the bills could not have exceeded the cost of its transmission. But in their eagerness to realize at once and to get cash, the holders of the bills parted with them on much less favorable terms. The cause of the great rise in England in the premium on bills on the continent, when the news of Napoleon's escape from Elba arrived, was of a different nature. The premium could not have exceeded the cost of sending bullion had the notes of the bank of England been convertible, for any one could have presented notes at the bank demanded cash, and sent it to the continent. But at that time the payment in cash of bank of England notes was suspended, and the notes were depreciated. Hence to the expense of remitting bullion was added a charge proportionate to the depreciation of the notes with which the bills were bought. Again, the discount on foreign bills of exchange may descend below "specie point," as it is called, from distrust. Uncertainty respecting the solvency of the parties bound to meet the bills at maturity or respecting the state of credit in the country on which they are drawn, may lower their price in a degree to which there is no assignable limit.

—It will be seen from what has been said, that the topics coming under the head of Exchange are wide enough without treating it as co-extensive with the entire field of economic science.

EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS

EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS.The conventions entered into sometimes between belligerent powers, to regulate the methods of carrying on war and to determine the hostilities from which the respective armies are to abstain, are generally called cartels. Thus certain parts of territory are declared neutral ground, and contributions to be levied, the repression of marauders, the continuation or the stoppage of commerce and postal service, etc., are agreed upon.

—One of the most important cartels is that relating to prisoners of wr. Engagements are made on both sides to treat prisoners according to their rank and fortune; the bases of this treatment and the price of their maintenance are fixed; finally, arrangements are made for exchanging them. In times long passed not to speak of antiquity proper, it was the rule, with few exceptions, that the prisoner belonged to his captor. The latter gave him his liberty in consideration of a ransom, the amount of which was agreed upon between the interested parties. At that time the exchange of prisoners was very rare, for it could only happen by the merest chance that the man who had made a prisoner of another man had a personal interest to redeem another prisoner, whose fate was at the disposition of his prisoner. But by degrees sovereigns or governments came to form regular armies, and soldiers in their pay captured prisoners only on the account of the state. It was the affair of the state, then, to pay the ransom to redeem its own men, and treat with the enemy in order to fix the price for which it would free those which it had taken itself. Then, by the nature of things, exchanges became easy and frequent.

—It must be observed that two belligerent armies are interested in the mutual liberation of prisoners. Each army is glad to recover the troops which are useful to it and each glad to find itself freed from caring for hostile prisoners and from conducting them to their final destination.

—The first cartels were chiefly cartels of ransom. On both sides, lists of officers of every grade were drawn up, and even of simple soldiers, and the amount of ransom for each grade in the ranks was fixed. Thus in glancing over some of the most ancient cartels mentioned in diplomatic collections, we find that at the end of the seventeenth century there was an enormous disproportion between the prices of men of different grades. A marshal of France, commander-in-chief, or vice-admiral, was generally valued at 50,000 livres tournois; a soldier or sailor at five or seven livres. The price of men being determined, the exchange of prisoners was easily effected at their money value.

—A century later, the development of civilization and philosophic ideas had accustomed governments to consider men as having a personal value independent of their social position. In a cartel of 1780 between France and England, a marshal of France, an admiral, etc., were valued at 1,500 livres; simple soldiers and sailors at twenty five livres. The idea of ransom was no longer uppermost, Edition: current; Page: [121] but that of exchange. Exchange was made as far as possible for men of equal or nearly equal grade. In 1690 a marshal of France would have been exchanged for 10,000 soldiers; in 1780 no one would have thought of offering sixty soldiers for a marshal.

—At the period of the great wars of the French republic, another step in advance was made. The principles of equality which ruled in France caused the rejection of every estimate of a man at a money rate.

—Cartels for the exchange of prisoners are usually concluded directly by the government, that is to say, by commissioners with the plenary powers of the sovereign. Still, commanders-in-chief being always authorized to make military conventions in the name of the state with hostile generals so far as their own command is concerned, it frequently happens that cartels of exchange are concluded between general and general. Even an exchange of prisoners is often made without a count, except of officers who have a greater importance on account of their rank.

—Finally, it has become an invariable custom, as soon as peace is concluded, for the prisoners remaining in the hands of their enemies, to be sent by both sides in complete liberty to their respective countries, without exchange or ransom.

EXCHANGE

EXCHANGE, Rate of. (See BILL OF EXCHANGE.)

EXCHANGE OF WEALTH

EXCHANGE OF WEALTH. Human society was organized originally in accordance with the restricted principle of the community. The community whose essential characteristics are labor in common and the division of its fruits, is, in fact, the simplest and most elementary form of human society. It is a suitable form so long as the men who compose the same group are engaged exclusively in one and the same kind of labor. This is the case with the savage tribes whose only labor is the chase. Animals which work in common, such as the bee, the ant, the beaver, etc., also adopt or conform to this form of society. But it ceases to be sufficient for man the moment he extends his sphere of action, and employs his labor in different ways. Thus it gradually disappeared, as communities enlarged and civilization began; it reappeared afterward only accidentally, and remained always and necessarily confined to small groups of individuals engaged in some one kind of labor.

—This first form of society was succeeded by another, in which men divided among themselves the different kinds of labor, the result of the wants of a growing civilization. In this new system, the germ of which was contained in the primitive communities, production was not in common. Each person chose for himself the kind of work which suited him, and devoted his energies to that alone. He may indeed have associated himself with a few others when the work which he proposed to undertake exceeded the powers of a single man; but all the different kinds of labor in the production of wealth were none the less performed separately. Does this mean that men hereby renounced society and social ties? On the contrary, man became in consequence more than ever a social animal; but the association of men changed in character; it assumed a form at once freer, more varied, and skillful. Instead of working in common, as they could and should have done when the work of production was one and simple, they divided the different kinds of the labor of production which had become more complex, among them. This was a new and more extensive mode of associating and combining their different kinds of labor; then they exchanged the results of these different kinds of labor, which served to complete one another. To the rudimentary system of laboring in common, and sharing the fruits of the common labor, succeeded the superior system of separate kinds of labor, and of the exchange of the products of that labor.

—The adoption of this system, gradually supplanting that of the primitive community, is the true source of man's greatness and power. So long as man is obliged to labor in a community, like the bee, the ant and the beaver, and to share the fruit of this common labor, he does not rise much above these animals, which have, like him—and perhaps in a higher degree than he possessed them in his state of primitive ignorance—the gifts of order and foresight. The savage tribes would perhaps be lower than the troops of beavers and swarms of bees, were it not for the fact that they bore within them, even in the community, the germs of the higher organization which humanity was afterward to attain. From that time onward we find men manifesting a propensity for bartering, trading, and exchanging one thing for another; a propensity which, as Adam Smith justly remarks, is not observable in other animals, and which by degrees produced the division of labor with all its consequences.

—But the disappearance of the system of the community, and the establishment of the system of divided labor which succeeded it, together with the exchange of products, which is at once its point of departure and its necessary complement, were not effected all at once. The change has been slow and gradual.

—We have just seen that the propensity of man for bartering and trading appears even among the savage tribes. The community subsists to divide among its members the much greater part of production and consumption, but exchange takes place in the case of things which are only accessory. The chase is engaged in in common, and is the great industry of the tribe; and the flesh, skin, horns, etc., of the animals killed are divided among the members of the tribe. War, which is at times another branch of industry, is waged in common, and the booty taken from the enemy is divided; but barter is carried on, elsewhere, in the objects of which the separate members of the tribe have acquired exclusive possession. One warrior, who is skilled in making bows and arrows, exchanges the Edition: current; Page: [122] weapons he has made for the skin of a wild beast, which another warrior offers him. A third gives his share of the booty for an ornament, which he intends for his wife. And owing to these exceptional cases of exchange, which become more and more frequent in proportion as the tribe becomes richer and its products more varied, there was some attempt at that division of labor which in time became general.

—Among nations which are simply barbarous, that is to say, which are no longer savage and yet not civilized, the community of production and its fruits is not so absolute as among the primitive tribes, but it is still very great. Whether it be a pastoral and nomadic people, or a people who have already begun to cultivate the soil, the chief wealth is always in common, and their chief labor collective labor. They possess a common herd, which furnishes wool and milk for all; they cultivate the soil in common, and divide the fruits it produces. And this must necessarily be so, for, in this stage of civilization, man is so weak in the presence of the obstacles of all kinds which brute nature puts in his way, that divided labor is impossible.

—"Wherever it has been possible," says Charles Comte, "to observe nations when they began to emerge from barbarism, it has been noticed that they cultivated the soil in common; that its products were placed in public storehouses, and that each family then received a part of them proportionate to its wants. This community of labor and of goods the Romans found in practice among several of the German nations; it was likewise observed among the tribes of North America by the first explorers who visited them; the English who founded the state of Virginia were obliged to have recourse to the same means to bring the soil under cultivation, * * * *," a fact which Charles Comte rightly explains by the powerlessness of man at such a time to subdue the earth, except by the united and energetic efforts of all.

—But even in this barbarous state the system of exchange, which embraces all products of secondary importance, is more extended than it was among the savage tribes, because production is more varied. It afterward extends by degrees, according as civilization progresses and the power of man increases, itself contributing largely to the increase of that power. The system of the community becomes restricted and contracted in the same proportion, without, however, disappearing entirely, even in the most advanced state of civilization. Some primary attempts at exchange are observed in the nascent societies which we see organized into close communities, and some remnants of the primitive community are found even in the most civilized nations.

—It is not, as Adam Smith remarks, a blind instinct that determines men to barter, trade and exchange, but a clear conception of the actual advantages which result from it. In fact, it is no very difficult matter to perceive that it is an advantage for each one to be able to part with his surplus, or that of which he has no present need, and receive in return what he is wanting in. This is what even the most untutored savage can understand. Exchange in early times scarcely extended beyond the things which each had in greater quantity than he needed; it was not until later, that, after having produced the division of labor, it embraced in most cases the sum total of production. The smallest intellect can understand the idea of exchange within these narrow limits. Nor could we understand why the practice of exchange did not spread more rapidly from the very first, did we not reflect that in primitive society it met with many obstacles which impeded its course.

—The practice of exchange as Skarbek well says, in his Théorie des richesses sociales, is subject to three essential conditions: the appropriation, the transmissibility and the diversity of things. To these three conditions we may add a fourth, the liberty and security of trade transactions. But let us first consider the three given by Skarbek.

—If when exchange takes place, "there is always one thing given by one party as compensation for another thing or equivalent value, these values must be previously possessed by the two parties who enter into a contract of exchange. This same principle of equity, which is the basis of exchange, does not admit as legal the exchange of a thing which the party exchanging does not possess by virtue of the right of property: the existence of this right, therefore, forms the first indispensable condition to the introduction and existence of exchange, for if all values were common to all men, if all had the same right to enjoy them, and no person could be excluded from their possession and their enjoyment, there would be no exchange, as ad would have the same right to the values capable of satisfying our wants. The existence of the exclusive right to property is, therefore, indispensable to the establishment of exchange among men."

—The transmissibility of things is no less necessary than their appropriation, and this quality all values do not possess. "A man's talents, intellectual faculties, or his ability to perform some special task, are goods, are real values, which can not be parted with to any one else, giving to the latter the right of ownership in them, for it is impossible for their possessor to divest himself of these goods in favor of another. The light and heat diffused through the atmosphere are also real goods and values indispensable to our existence, but they can not be appropriated by any one because they can not become the exclusive property of any one. This line of reasoning and these examples lead us to the conviction that even the values most precious to man can not become objects of exchange if not transmissible, if they can not be transferred by one man to another in virtue of the right of ownership. The second condition of exchange is the property inherent in things of passing from hand to hand, and of being transmissible, with the right of property."

—Finally, there must be diversity of values, or of exchangeable objects, without which exchange Edition: current; Page: [123] change itself would have no object. "If all the individuals who compose society were equally provided with the things able to satisfy their wants, if all possessed the same values, no one would desire to possess what belonged to others, being sufficiently provided with all things necessary to his existence. There must, therefore, be a diversity of exchangeable things, and men must possess different values, in order that exchange may be practiced among them. This diversity constitutes the third condition indispensable to the existence of all exchange.

—The idea of appropriation, even of individual appropriation, is so natural to man that it is found in all stages of civilization, even among savage tribes. But if private property exists in the earliest society, at least in the case of a certain number of objects, it is, as a general thing, very little respected. The stronger violates the private property of the weaker, even in the same tribe; and à fortiori is it thus outside the limits of the tribe. Under such conditions it is evident that exchange can not easily extend very far. As to transmissibility, although, strictly speaking, it exists in the case of all material values, it is in fact limited, among savage nations, by the general insecurity of circulation and of transportation. War being almost the permanent condition of primitive nations, it is only within their respective limits that the transmission of products can take place. What is true of savage tribes, is also true, though in a less degree, of barbarous nations. In this state of things, there may be a virtual but there can hardly be an effective transmissibility of products, since transmission is impossible except within a very small circle. For the same reason, there is no great diversity. So far as natural products are concerned, diversity can be great only when the nation extends over a large surface, for it is only then that the fruits of the earth are varied; and in the case of the products of human industry great diversity supposes a rather extensive division of labor, which can scarcely be realized within such narrow limits. Thus is exchange limited on all sides in this first stage of civilization. The spirit of violence, hostility and war reigns everywhere, and the general insecurity that results from this hostile spirit is the chief obstacle to the progress of exchange.

—But as soon as security begins to be established among men, the practice of exchange spreads rapidly. It is generally understood, however, that its development may be either favored or impeded by certain advantages or inconveniences of position. The particular circumstances which favor it among certain peoples are well indicated by Adam Smith in the passage which follows. After having shown, by several examples, the advantages of transportation by water over transportation by water over transportation by land, he thus continues: "Since such, therefore, are the advantages of water carriage, it is natural that the first improvements of art and industry should be made where this conveniency opens the whole world for a market to the produce of every sort of labor, and that they should always be much later in extending themselves into the inland parts of the country. The inland parts of the country can for a long time have no other market for the greater part of their goods but the country which lies about them and separates them from the seacoast and the great navigable rivers. The extent of this market, therefore, must for a long time be in proportion to the riches and populousness of that country, and consequently their improvement must always be posterior to the improvement of that country. In our North American colonies the plantations have constantly followed either the seacoast or the banks of the navigable rivers, and have scarce anywhere extended themselves to any considerable distance from both. The nations that, according to the best authenticated history, appear to have been first civilized, were those that dwelt round the coast of the Mediterranean sea. That sea, by far the greatest inlet that is known in the world, having no tides, nor consequently any waves, except such as are caused by the wind only, was, by the smoothness of its surface, as well as by the multitude of its islands and the proximity of its neighboring shores, extremely favorable to the infant navigation of the world, when, from their ignorance of the compass, men were afraid to quit the view of the coast, and from the imperfection of the art of ship building, to abandon themselves to the boisterous waves of the ocean. * * * *." "Of all the countries on the coast of the Mediterranean sea, Egypt seems to have been the first in which either agriculture or manufactures were cultivated and improved to any considerable degree. Upper Egypt extends itself nowhere above a few miles from the Nile, and in lower Egypt that great river breaks itself into many different canals, which, with the assistance of a little art, seem to have afforded communication by water carriage not only between all the great towns, but between all the considerable villages, and even to many farm houses in the country; nearly in the same manner as the Rhine and the Meuse do in Holland at present. The extent and easiness of this inland navigation was probably one of the principal causes of the early improvement of Egypt."

—These natural advantages lose, however, something of their original value, now that human industry has discovered so many means of supplying their place.

—However this may be, with the progress of time and civilization exchange has grown to be almost universally practiced among men. It has, in turn, introduced the division of labor, which is at once its consequence and complement, and which takes place more or less in all branches of industry. These two phenomena, which are intimately connected, constitute the fundamental basis of the industrial order existing in the world to-day. We shall not enlarge upon the advantages which result therefrom with regard to the relative productivity of labor, for these advantages have been sufficiently explained Edition: current; Page: [124] already while treating of the division of labor; but it remains for us here to show some general consequences that particularly belong to this part of the subject.

—Exchange, and the division of labor which flows from it, create between men relations as necessary, and ties as strong and as numerous, to say nothing more, as those which existed between them under the primitive system of the community. It is sometimes said that in society as it now is, man isolates himself—that he separates himself from his fellow-men, to with draw himself into his own individuality. But is he not, on the contrary, because of this division of labor, and of the law of exchange which is connected with it, in a constant and very restricted dependence upon everything that surrounds him? He works for his fellow-men, and they work for him; when the work of production is terminated by each, they exchange its products among themselves. Is there any closer bond of dependence than this? The difference between this new bond and the primitive one is, that the new one is more complex, and incomparably more favorable to the increase of production. There is, however, still another difference in its favor; it is much more susceptible of extension.

—In society in its primitive state production in common and the division of its fruits were necessarily confined within a very restricted circle. By its very nature, which was opposed to expansion, such a system could not extend beyond the limits of one tribe. Thus all social relations of man with his fellows ended here. Everything outside this limit was foreign to him, if not hostile. But from the moment that industry felt the influence of the division of labor and of exchange, the social bonds which it created among men were susceptible of indefinite increase. Provided peace reigns between different nations, exchange may take place from one to the other, just as it takes place within each one of them, and the division of labor may follow the same line of progress. Thus human sociability extends, it does not even stop now at the conventional limits of states; it crosses, if we may say so, mountains and seas, and aims at forming, little by little, upon the earth one immense society, varied in its forms, but always one, embracing the whole human race. Exchange could never have reached the point to which it has come, without the fulfillment of certain necessary conditions. (See CIRCULATION, DIVISION of LABOR, and MONEY; see also COMMERCE, and FREE TRADE.)

EXCISE

EXCISE, a term employed to designate a great variety of taxes. In its more limited and more correct sense it is applied only to taxes imposed on the sale and production of commodities produced and consumed within the country levying the tax. Excise duties are distinguished from customs duties by the fact that the latter are imposed upon commodities when imported into or exported from a country. They are further distinguished from such taxes on consumption as a tax on dogs, on horses and carriages kept for private use, etc., in that the latter are direct, while the excise duties are indirect. (See TAXATION.)

—The excise has been a very important element in all modern systems of finance. It has indeed been by far the most fruitful source of revenue for many nations. It has also been employed as a means of restraining luxury or intemperance by being made so exorbitantly high as to diminish the consumption of the article taxed. The nations of antiquity do not seem to have made very extensive use of this method of taxation. Augustus, it is true, introduced a universal excise duty on whatever was sold in the markets or by public auction. But it did not amount to more than 1 per cent., and was but inefficiently collected. It was exceedingly unpopular, and even Augustus, in order to maintain it, was obliged to declare by a public edict that the support of the army depended in great measure on the produce of the excise. Tiberius reduced it one half and promised to abolish it altogether, although he did not keep his promise. Some of the later emperors availed themselves of the excise to a greater or less extent. But it was reserved for modern times and for industrial states to discover how large a revenue could be derived from this method of taxation.

—When the payments in kind, which in the old agricultural and feudal state had proved amply sufficient to defray all public expenses, were no longer adequate to the demand, the need of some standard of taxation for movable property began to be keenly felt. In the country, under the simple conditions there prevailing, it was not unfair to distribute taxation according to the amount of land held by each individual. But in the cities it was evidently impracticable to concentrate all taxation on real estate. Consumable commodities seemed the most available subjects of taxation. By shifting the burden upon them the city authorities could gain two things. They could prevent the tax collector from interfering in the internal administration of the city, and could also save themselves the trouble of fixing a definite amount for each individual citizen to pay. This last was considered a great saving, especially as these taxes were everywhere regarded as temporary on their first introduction. They became permanent when wars began to be carried on largely by money, and began to leave behind them national debts which demanded a constant source of income for their liquidation. Thus the Netherlands adopted the excise in their was for independence against Spain; Saxony, after the thirty years' war; Brandenburg, under the great elector. Spain had a similar tax in the Alcavala at the time of the Moorish wars.

—It is usual to assign 1643 as the date at which the excise was introduced into England. This is in so far correct as the term excise then appears for the first time, and as the imposts then levied remained a permanent feature of the English revenue system. But excise duties had been in existence long before. There are evidences which prove the Edition: current; Page: [125] existence of an excise on meat as early as the time of Richard I. In the time of John and of Henry III, there was a tax on bread, which was nothing but an excise, in which the price of bread was regulated according to that of grain. Later, in the time of Edward VI., a tax of eight pence in the pound was levied on all woolen goods manufactured in England for sale. But it became so unpopular that the king was obliged to give it up within a year after it was first imposed. From that time on no attempt seems to have been made to introduce an excise until the time of James I., when this monarch imposed a tax of one shilling per chaldron on all coal shipped by water. This was not a customs duty, for it was levied on English coal shipped from one English town to another. Soon after, (1626), Charles I. attempted to introduce an excise on provisions, but was thwarted in his design by the obstinate resistance of parliament.

—In 1643 the revolutionary parliament at Westminster established the first excise. The tax was laid on the manufacture and sale of ale, beer, cider and perry. The king and his parliament at Oxford soon followed the Westminster example. Both parties promised that the excise should be abolished at the close of the war. But when the time came it had proved to be too fruitful a source of revenue to be given up, and it has remained ever since a part of the financial system of Great Britain. In 1647 the excise was extended to meat, bread, salt, wine, sugar, tobacco, and other less important articles. Some of these articles (as wine and sugar) were shortly afterward relieved of taxation. In 1650 the excise yielded about £500,000. At the restoration, the produce of the excise was granted to Charles II. No essential change was made in the excise during the reigns of Charles II. and James II., although the amount realized from it constantly increased. When William III., however, ascended the throne and undertook the costly wars against France, not only was the excise on ale, beer, cider and perry increased, but malt, sugar and wine were added to the taxable articles. The sum realized from it now exceeded £1,000,000, and in Queen Anne's reign reached the sum of £1,600,000. The development of these indirect taxes was exactly similar to that of the customs duties. (See CUSTOMS DUTIES.) Every addition formed a special tax for a special purpose, so that at Anne's death there were twenty-seven branches. Among other objects taxed during Anne's reign, the following may be mentioned; leather, candles, parchment, hops, paper, pasteboard, soap, printed cotton, linen and silk goods, starch, gold and silver wire—During the peaceful reign of George I. war, of course, could no longer pass as an excuse for increasing the taxes, but the government and the aristocracy had so fallen in love with these indirect taxes which fell principally upon the shoulders of the common people and were comparatively easy to collect, that they advanced still farther along the course upon which the long parliament had entered. The number of branches rose to twenty-nine, and the average yield to £2,600,000 per year. The increase in the yield is to be attributed mainly to the increase of population and prosperity. The people, however, hated the tax bitterly; not merely because it made the necessaries of life dearer, but also because the administration was hateful and oppressive. Aside from the restrictions upon production and commerce which can not be separated from any tax on consumption, the needless complexity of the tax, the vast number of laws, the collection by farming, and the decision of disputes by dependent officers, caused wide spread hatred. It can easily be seen how these various influences worked hand in hand to excite public bitterness against the excise; how the obscurity, which necessarily followed from taxing the same object at several different rates and from the number of complicated and ambiguous laws, led to constant violations; how the avarice of the tax-farmers detected these; how these farmers sought to overstep the necessary restraints and to use them if possible to vex and oppress the public, and what an impression condemnations must produce that were made on account of unintentional or ignorant violations. The loud complaints made about this time produced such an effect that the system of farming the taxes was given up. The collection passed into the hands of government officials.

—But the government was not persuaded to limit the sphere of the excise at all; on the contrary, it was constantly enlarged. It was even allowed to encroach upon the field of the customs; without any other effect, however, than simply to increase the labor of the collectors and the vexations to which the public were exposed. In order to diminish smuggling which the high customs had greatly encouraged, certain duties were lowered and an excise also collected upon the articles. The duties on tea were lowered four shillings, on coffee two shillings, and an excise equal in amount to these items imposed. The importation of chocolate and manufactured cacao was at the same time forbidden, and an excise laid on their domestic manufacture. This separation of the imposts, after having been extended to tobacco and spirits, was finally given up in the year 1825.

—Of far greater importance than this event, so far as administration is concerned, was a plan which the famous Walpole proposed in 1733. It was no less than such an extension of the excise system as to do away with the necessity of all other taxes. The hope was expressed that by diminishing the number of taxes simplicity and economy could be obtained in the administration; that by abolishing the customs duties, particularly those on raw materials, and by introducing a régime of free trade, a new impetus could be given to commerce and industry, the necessaries of life could be cheapened, England could be converted into a vast free port, and finally, smuggling could be destroyed and the public revenues increased.

—This plan was not laid before parliament in its completeness at once, but Edition: current; Page: [126] the minister merely attempted to extend the excise to a new commodity; but the knowledge of his intention had gotten abroad, and excited a storm of opposition throughout the whole kingdom. The most exciting scenes occurred in parliament, and the house itself was fairly besieged by the people. The bitterness increased constantly. Walpole himself was in danger of violence. After an exciting contest the minister declared, that, as the law could not be executed without an army, even if parliament should pass it, he would rather give it up than insist on a tax which would endanger England's peace. The joy at the withdrawal of the bill was boundless. The victory of the people, as it was then considered, was celebrated throughout the kingdom with bonfires, illuminations and excesses of all kinds.

—The authorities are not even yet agreed as to the merit of the scheme. One party praises the grandeur of the plan to accomplish free trade, alleviation of industry, and simplicity of administration; the other party condemns the idea of shifting the burden of taxation entirely to the shoulders of the poor. We can not deny that the plan had an element of grandeur in it. It could only have been devised by an able man. But it is hard to see how the excise was to yield so much, if the rates were to be kept low and were not to be imposed on the necessaries of life. Nor is it clear that anything would have been gained if the smuggling had been simply transferred to the excise, and if the cost of living had been increased by increasing the taxes on the necessaries of life—With the rejection of Walpole's plan the English people had shown its reluctance to follow out the excise system to its utmost consequences. But the system was still retained and developed in such a way that it was certainly no better in its results than Walpole's plan would have been. For the advantages which his plan would undoubtedly have offered, namely, simplicity of administration and destruction of smuggling, were given up entirely, while they allowed the disadvantages of indirect taxation to develop themselves in their most objectionable forms. The great wars during the reigns of George II. and George III. compelled them to seek new sources of income, and driven by necessity they picked out the most productive, which were indirect taxes on consumption. At the same time instead of developing the direct taxes simultaneously, they even abolished the most important of all, the general land tax.

—Among the additions to the excise under George III. the most important were a tax on auctions and one on bricks. The rates were in the meantime constantly increased, so that the yield grew regularly from decade to decade, in 1792 to ten millions, in 1800 to fourteen millions, in 1810 to twenty-five millions, and even approached in subsequent years the sum of thirty millions sterling. The excise had now become the most important source of public revenue. This period, the last years of war and the first of the succeeding peace in the early part of this century, was the time when the excise flourished most. But it was also the time when the height of the excise began to be unbearable and in which men began to recognize its defects. Now also, as formerly, it shared the lot of the customs. Both imposts are indeed, aside from the economical effects of the customs, nothing but two branches of the same tree. At the same time with the reform of the customs, Canning began to reform the excise with the aim of producing lower prices for the necessaries of life, and thereby contentment among the laboring classes, and of establishing normal wages and thus cheapening production, and causing a revival of industry and commerce.

—The first commodities upon which the taxes were diminished were malt and salt (1822, 1823 and 1825), then followed glass (1825), cider and perry and brandy (1826), beer from which the tax was entirely removed (1830), printed cloths (1831), candles (1832), soap (1833), starch (1834), paper (1836). It will be seen that after 1830 their zeal in diminishing the taxes abated somewhat, and that it entirely ceased with the year 1836. In 1840, indeed, a general increase of 5 per cent. was resolved upon to cover the deficit in the budget. But the old system was no longer tenable, and with Sir Robert Peel the reform movement began again. The excise was diminished upon glass (1844 and 1845), on auctions (1845), bricks (1850), soap (1853). The war years 1854 and 1855 occasioned an increase in the malt tax, which was again reduced in 1857, and upon brandy which has never been reduced since, though the tax on brandy has been retained from other than financial considerations.

—The number of articles subject to the excise decreased gradually, so that in the year 1850 only malt, hops, paper, soap, brandy and sugar remained, of which the last is hardly worth mentioning as it produced next to nothing. Of these, soap, hops and paper have been freed from the excise.

—It is natural that the produce of the excise should sink under these reductions, and especially on account of the administrative reforms of 1825. It sank in 1830 to less than nineteen millions, and in 1840 to thirteen millions. But the practical rule that reasonable reductions in high taxes on consumption increase the revenue, verified itself here also. The income from the excise rose in 1850 to over fifteen millions, and in 1866 to over twenty millions. Of late years a new excise has been introduced, viz., that on substitutes for coffee. It was introduced, however, to counterbalance a duty laid upon coffee, so that the latter might not act as a protective duty. The taxes now classed under the head of excise include those on chicory, coaches, licenses, malt, race horses, railroads, brandy, and sugar. Some of these, of course, ought not to be classed under that head in a scientific classification, but the income from such articles is so small that it may be practically disregarded. The taxes on brandy and malt and the licenses to persons dealing in those articles amounted in 1866 to Edition: current; Page: [127] nineteen-twentieths of the produce of the excise.

—It would be interesting to consider the part that the tax on each particular commodity made of the whole amount, but the investigation would lead us too far. Worthy of note it is, however, that the excise, after a devious course of two hundred years, has at last become essentially what it was at first, viz., a tax on beer and brandy. We have given this somewhat lengthy sketch of the English excise, because it was the origin of our American excise. The statesmen of the time immediately following the revolution, when they introduced our first excise law, copied the English excise laws almost word for word so far as they dared, and English legislation and English history have been the sources from which all our legislation has drawn its inspiration.

—To show clearly the relative importance of the excise as a financial device, the produce of the English excise has been compared in the following table with that of the customs duties for a series of years, beginning with 1701:

The years printed to the left of the figures and in parentheses in the customs column show the year for which that item is given. The excise has even yielded a larger proportion of the net income than the above table would seem to show; for the customs items of each year contain large sums which were returned as rebates, paid out as premiums, etc., amounting, in some cases, to as much as £2,500,000. It will be seen that the produce from the excise generally exceeded that from the customs from 1780 down to 1825, though it will be remembered that for a hundred years preceding 1825, several items had been counted under the head of excise which belonged properly under the head of customs.

—The history of the excise in the United States is brief. The colonists had inherited from their English ancestors a hatred of this tax in any form. Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Connecticut, however, had been forced from financial considerations to adopt an excise on spirits, and the latter state had even imposed a general excise upon the consumption of all foreign articles. But there was a great reluctance to allowing the national government to levy such an impost.

—Several states had joined in the first congress in recommending an amendment to the constitution, prohibiting the federal government from ever resorting to the excise. But in 1790, in spite of the repugnance exhibited by congress to such a measure, Secretary Hamilton, in an elaborate report, insisted upon the necessity of an excise. He proposed that it be limited to spirits, and aside from financial considerations, he urged the great injury inflicted upon the country by such enormous consumption of intoxicating liquors, and the great advantage it would be to diminish such consumption by high taxes. After a series of exciting debates the law was passed. A tax varying from nine to twenty-five cents per gallon, according to the proof, was imposed on spirits distilled from articles grown or produced in the United States, and a higher tax upon imported spirits. The law was modified in 1792 in the direction of lower rates. In subsequent years the scope of the tax was enlarged under the direction of Hamilton until it included carriages, refined sugars, snuff, auction sales, stamp duties on various instruments of exchange, and some other objects. The opposition to the law, which from the first had been powerful enough to prevent its execution in many portions of the country, finally broke out into open war in the so-called whisky insurrection in western Pennsylvania. After this disturbance was quieted, the country seems to have acquiesced in the payment of the tax. When Jefferson came to the presidency, however, he recommended that the whole system be abolished, and as the revenue from the customs was constantly and rapidly increasing, congress willingly voted for its abolition.

—When the war of 1812 broke out, it again became necessary to resort to the excise. In June, 1813, a bill was passed imposing a tax on distilled spirits in the shape of license money, an excise of four cents a pound on domestic refined sugar, twenty cents on each half-hundred weight of salt, $2 to $20 on carriages, 1 per cent. on auction sales, and a stamp duty of 1 per cent. on all instruments of exchange. These duties were all repeated in December, 1817, and no excise duty was levied by the United States government until the war of the rebellion necessitated a recourse to this measure.

—The present system of internal taxes was inaugurated July 1, 1862. It has embraced, since its origin, taxation upon occupations and trades; upon sales, gross receipts and dividends; upon incomes of individuals, firms and corporations; upon specific articles not consumed in the use: stamp duties, taxes upon various classes of manufacture, upon legacies, distributive shares and successions. It will be seen that the internal revenue system has included many different kinds of taxes. It furnished for a time the greater portion of the national revenue. In the article INTERNAL REVENUE will be found the receipts from Edition: current; Page: [128] 1792 to 1880 from the sources included under the head of internal revenue in the finance report for 1879. In the report above mentioned returns are made for the years 1804-13 and 1821-48. But in no one of these years did the produce amount to as much as $100,000, and that was not raised by means of an excise. Although the system adopted in 1813 was abolished as a system in 1817, yet some of the taxes were retained for a few years longer, but their yield was insignificant after 1820. As we have already said, the returns given in the table in the article INTERNAL REVENUE include also the produce of taxes which can not be classed under the head of excise. At present, however, nearly the whole of the internal revenue is raised by an excise duty on spirits and tobacco. These two articles yielded in 1875, for instance, over 89 per cent. of the total produce of the internal revenue system.

—It will be seen from the preceding sketch that the United States government has been forced to adopt a system of excise during or after each of the three great wars it has waged, and also that it gave up this system in the first two instances as soon as its financial necessities would permit. One reason for this policy of giving up the excise as soon as possible has been mentioned already, viz., the prejudice against such a tax inherited from the colonial period. Another strong reason lies in the fact that the protectionists have always worked earnestly for the abolition of every such tax, as they desire all national revenue to be raised by an impost on imported goods. It is perhaps too early to predict the fate of our present excise. As now constituted it is free from many of the objections which are urged against such taxes. But our revenue is now in excess of the legitimate demands of government, and the various parties opposed to the excise are planning to demand its abolition. Political tradition and prejudice, combined with the active influence of protectionism, will probably ultimately effect its overthrow in the United States.

—The other prominent nations of modern times all derive a large income from the excise. Nor in any of them does there seem to be any inclination to give up this fruitful source of revenue. The new German empire, which resembles our own government in many respects, is tending more and more toward raising all its revenue by indirect taxation, and the greater part of it by the excise. The following table shows the relation between the produce of the excise and the total revenue of four European nations:

—The economical effects of the excise are great and lasting. Like all indirect taxes on commodities, the excise will raise the price of the commodity in the long run by at least the amount of the tax. In most cases it will raise it by more than that amount. Adam Smith, and subsequently, John Stuart Mill, have described clearly the characteristics of an excise. Such a tax makes it necessary to impose restrictive regulations on the manufacturers or dealers in order to check evasions. These regulations are always sources of trouble and annoyance and generally of expense, for all of which, being peculiar disadvantages, the producers or dealers must have compensation in the price of their commodity. These restrictions also frequently interfere with the processes of manufacture, requiring the producer to carry on his operations in the way most convenient to the revenue, though not the cheapest or most efficient for purposes of production. Any regulation whatever enforced by law makes it difficult for the producer to adopt new and improved processes. Further, the necessity of advancing the tax obliges producers and dealers to carry on their business with larger capitals than would otherwise be necessary, on the whole of which they must receive the ordinary rate of profit, though a part only is employed in defraying the real expenses of production. The consumers, of course, must give an indemnity to the sellers equal to the profit they could have made on the same capital if really employed in production. In addition to this, it must be remembered that whatever renders a large capital necessary in a business really limits competition in that branch, and by giving something like a monopoly to a few dealers may enable them to keep up the price beyond what would afford the ordinary rate of profit. Finally, whatever raises the price of a commodity. ceteris paribus checks the demand for it; and since there are many improvements in production, which, to make them practicable, require a certain extent of demand, such improvements are obstructed and many of them prevented altogether. In all these different ways indirect taxes on consumption cost the public much more than the government realizes. Excise duties are, however, in some respects less objectionable in this regard than customs duties. Customs are levied ordinarily on the elements of a commodity before it is manufactured, as well as on the finished product; the excise, generally, only on the commodity ready for market. The latter, therefore, does not require such a long advance of capital as the former.

—The excise, levied on the necessaries of life, produces great and injurious effects on the whole national economy. It may lead to a permanent deterioration of the condition of the laboring classes or to a peculiar burdening of profits, which must be injurious to the increase of national wealth. Many authorities attribute the difference in prices between England and the continent to the high prices of the necessaries of life, brought about by the long-continued system of indirect taxation. Edition: current; Page: [129] And in spite of England's greatness there is little doubt that its middle classes to-day would be more numerous, and the chasm between the rich and the poor less deep, if it had not been for the peculiar form of the excise which for over a century shifted the burden of taxation to the shoulders of the poorer classes.

—The objections to the excise lose their force largely when it is imposed on only a few objects, and those articles of luxury. Of such a character is our present system of excise. Its opponents greatly exaggerate its defects. The hardship it inflicts, when confined to luxuries, as at present, is reduced to a minimum. It has been more economically collected than the customs, and its political and economical effects on the country are far less injurious than those of the former. Our own experience and that of other nations prove that a low excise on articles of luxury which are widely consumed is one of the most productive and one of the least objectionable of all indirect taxes. The history of America, as well as that of England, proves also that low rates are more productive than high rates, as the latter lead to evasion and fraud.

—The excise has often been fixed at a high rate from a desire to use it as a sort of sumptuary device. Adam Smith says that taxes upon luxuries act as sumptuary laws on the sober and industrious poor, and dispose them to moderate or to refrain altogether from the use of superfluities which they can no longer afford. He mentions, among other commodities, intoxicating liquors and tobacco as liable to be consumed in smaller quantities on account of high taxes. This question has been keenly debated in the United States. The prohibitionists, i.e., those in favor of forbidding the sale and manufacture of intoxicating beverages, have uniformly thrown their influence in favor of high duties. One thing is indisputable, that a low duty has been more productive than a high one. One party claims that this is proof that consumption increased under the low duty; the other, that fraud and evasion ran riot under the high duty. It may still be an undecided question whether sumptuary laws are ever of any value, but it would seem less disputable that financial schemes should stand or fall on their own merits instead of on their tendency to act as sumptuary devices—Compare INTERNAL REVENUE.

—LITERATURE. The standard works on political economy and finance all furnish more or less elaborate discussions of the excise. The general encyclopædias offer some valuable considerations upon the subject. W. Vocke's Geschichte der Steuern des Britischen Reichs contains a vast fund of information in reference to British taxation. The above sketch of the excise in England is based largely upon Vocke. McCulloch's Taxation and The Funding System, Tennant's The People's Blue Book, and Baxter's Taxation of the United Kingdom, are all valuable for the study of this question. The reports of the secretaries of the treasury, and, in late years, of the commissioners of internal revenue, are the most valuable contributions to this subject by Americans. The Germans have produced some valuable monographs on the subject during the last ten or fifteen years. Consult files of Conrad's Jahrbücher far Nationalœkonomie, 1867-81.

EXCISE LAW

EXCISE LAW. (See WHISKY INSURRECTION.)

EXCOMMUNICATION

EXCOMMUNICATION, ecclesiastical censure, by which a member of a religious community is excluded therefrom until he has mended his ways. Excommunication, in its essence, therefore, is intended less as a punishment than as a means of improvement. Its origin is lost in the night of time; pagan and Jewish antiquity were acquainted with it, and we must admit that the practice has its foundation in justice. Society does not exceed its right when, seeking to protect itself against those of its members who fail to fulfill the obligations imposed on them, it excludes those who show themselves, after admission to it, unworthy of membership.

—We can not, therefore, reproach the Christian church for having borrowed excommunication, as well as the greater part of its primitive organization, from the synagogue. The synagogue excluded from its meetings those whom, rightly or wrongly, it judged unworthy to take part in them: this was called, being driven from the synagogue, and this disciplinary measure was applied more than once to the early preachers of the Gospel.

—When the first Christian congregations were organized they assumed the same power: but at this time the conditions of admission to the church were in great part moral. It was especially in cases of notorious immorality, easily proven in a small community, that excommunication was pronounced. Thus the Christians of Corinth, on the advice and at the command of Paul, excluded from among them one guilty of incest, who, however, on repenting, subsequently obtained pardon. It must be remarked that the first Christians lived almost in common, and celebrated the holy supper at their frequent brotherly feasts. In case of excommunication this intimate relation with the guilty person ceased. The faithful no longer received him. They avoided speaking to him or meeting him, and would not sit at the same table with him. When, later the Christian church—its members having become very numerous—was persecuted; when, especially after the time of Constantine, violent dogmatic controversies arose, excommunication was resorted to, particularly in cases of apostacy and heresy. The clergy, whose power increased daily, reserved to themselves the right to pronounce sentence of excommunication, a right which in the beginning belonged to the assembly of the faithful, and it became a powerful weapon in their hands. The belief that the church alone could grant pardon, that outside of it no salvation was possible, became more and more prevalent, and led men to Edition: current; Page: [130] regard the excommunicated person as one damned forever unless restored to the fold. Thus excommunication, which in principle was a censure intended to warn the sinner and favor his reformation, while protecting Christian society against corruption, became a punishment, and the most severe of all punishments. Afterward different degrees of excommunication were introduced, the first traces of which are found in the time of St. Augustine, and which have been preserved and precisely distinguished from one another. A distinction is made between the major excommunication which cuts one off absolutely from the communion of the Catholic church and carries damnation with it as a consequence, and the minor excommunication whose only effect is to deprive him of participation in the sacraments. It must be added that the sentence of excommunication may be fulminated against a person, naming him, or in a general manner against all those who have taken part in any act reprehensible in the eyes of the clergy. It may even be incurred ipso facto; that is to say, a believer who commits an act forbidden by the church, under pain of excommunication, should consider himself excommunicated even when no general sentence of excommunication has been pronounced, and he has not been excommunicated by name. The canon law enumerates more than two hundred cases of excommunication ipso facto, and determines, by minute rules, what members of the clergy have the right to excommunicate or to free from excommunication.

—The clergy made frequent and formidable use of the sentence of excommunication in the middle ages more than in any other period of history. The church, which was united to the state in the time of Constantine, finally became confused with civil society, which it not unfrequently controlled. Wielding immense moral power, it made its censure feared, even by the mightiest. The unfortunate man whom it struck with the sentence of major excommunication became an object of terror and contempt to all. All intercourse with him was forbidden. Cut off from the society of his fellows, he met with neither aid nor pity. The hell to which he was doomed began for him here on earth. He recoiled before no penance, no matter how rigorous it might be, to obtain pardon and to be reconciled to Christian society. Thus in those times of dissolute life, feudal tyranny and universal disorder, excommunication often served as a protection to the weak and a powerful curb on the cruel and gross passions of the descendants of the barbarians. Unfortunately the church employed this formidable weapon in defense of its earthly interests, and the extension of its temporal power. From the right which belonged to him of excommunicating all baptized believers, even princes, Gregory VII. pretended to deduce that of disposing of kingly crowns. Believers were bound to avoid all commerce with an excommunicated person, not to greet him, not to talk to nor eat with him. In case of a king they were no longer obliged to obey him; he had no longer the right of requiring the obedience of Christians, for he was no longer a member of Christian society, and his power crumbled the moment the church cut him off from her communion. The conclusion that Christians were not obliged to obey an excommunicated king, which the stubborn genius of Gregory VII carried into practice, was reasoned out so logically that his adversaries were reduced to maintaining that a sovereign could never be excommunicated: while Gallicanism, by a compromise difficult to reconcile with the canon law, maintained that excommunication, a punishment purely spiritual, could not have civil consequences, and that thus the subjects of an excommunicated sovereign could not be absolved from obeying him.

—The church had abused the powerful weapon which it held, and saw it broken in its own hands. Philip the Fair, supported by the states general, twice braved the excommunication launched against him by Boniface VIII., and in proportion as, in all Europe, civil society severed its connection with religious society, it became more difficult to make men respect the sentence of excommunication and its consequences, which soon ceased to inspire terror. The bulls of excommunication launched against the reformers did not sensibly hinder the spread of their doctrines, and this weapon, once so terrible, became less feared every day, and was therefore less and less employed. At present the church seems to fear the use of it, especially in grave cases relating to politics. When its traditions or the rules of its constitution force it to have recourse to excommunication, it carefully omits the mention of names. After the decree by which Napoleon I., May 17, 1809, suppressed the temporal power of the pope and united the states of the church to the French empire. Pius VII. confined himself to excommunicating, in a general manner, the authors of the deed, without even naming the signer of the decree. More recently Pius IX., when he saw his provinces taken away one by one, imitated this example, and, without naming any one, excommunicated all who had contributed to bring about that result. Thenceforth it was for each one to know how far the decree concerned him. Count Cavour, and after him many others, were able to obtain priests to minister to them in their last moments.

—It must not be supposed, however, that the Catholic church has entirely given up excommunication. Thus the Jansenists have organized a church in Holland at the head of which is an archbishop who resides at Utrecht. Whenever the see is vacant the church nominates a bishop, and the newly elected writes to Rome asking the pope to approve his election and bless it. A little later the pope answers him and all those who have contributed to his election by a sentence of excommunication. If, however, excommunication is a thing almost unknown today in some countries, it is not in certain countries where Catholicism has retained more of its ascendency and is Edition: current; Page: [131] still able to execute, at least in part, such a sentence. Thus in Austria, at the end of the year 1862, a person was excommunicated by name on account of heresy.

—This is a fact far from unique. In 1857 M. Braun, an ecclesiastic of the diocese of Passau, was subjected to the major excommunication for refusing to read from the pulpit the bull relating to the dogma of the immaculate conception; in 1856 the pastor of Thonex, canton of Geneva, excommunicated several of his parishioners for having joined an aid society in Geneva which admits as members Catholics and Protestants without distinction. The following year a shoemaker of Budweis, afterward confined as insane in consequence of a medical examination, was excommunicated by his bishop for having maintained that he and he only possessed the power of casting out devils.

—More recently the church has again used excommunication against some of its rebellious children. The council of the Vatican having proclaimed the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope, attempts to resist the decree were made in different countries, notably in Germany, and sentence of ex-communication was passed in very many cases against the Old Catholics, but the sentence could not stop the movement. On the other hand, since the major excommunication may have, if not a civil, at least a social effect, governments have thought of interdicting it. (German law of March, 1873.) In the different Protestant churches the use of excommunication, preserved in the beginning, soon disappeared. The reformers maintained it, and the confessions of faith drawn up in the sixteenth century and the rules of the reformed church made mention of it, but it was maintained only with important restrictions. Thus major excommunication and excommunication ipso jacto were rejected by the Protestants; they preserved only the minor excommunication, which is reduced to non-participation in the sacraments, and which, as it never involved civil disabilities, could be pronounced only by the body of believers. A little later, it is true, in Germany and at Geneva, the right of excluding unworthy members from the Lord's supper was given to the ecclesiastical authorities, but soon fell into disuse. In many places excommunication was replaced by public penance, which was abolished in Pomerania in 1744, and in Prussia in 1746. Würtemberg preserved it, at least in its laws, till 1806. Notwithstanding some attempts made in various parts of Germany to establish a stricter discipline, it may be said that excommunication is unknown to Protestant churches in our day.

—It is not so in the Greek church, where it has always existed. Nevertheless, the orthodox clergy, who never attained the summit of power to which the Catholic clergy formerly rose, have never, like the latter, made a formidable use of excommunication, and it is scarcely ever used at present by them. (See ABOLITION, EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION, SLAVERY, ETC.)

EXECUTIVE

EXECUTIVE, The (IN U. S. HISTORY), the officer whose function it is to see to the execution of the laws which have been made by the legislative. Properly speaking, the whole body of officials, high or low, charged with this function, make up the executive department; but usually the highest in rank is named as "the executive." Thus, in a state, the governor is "the executive," in common phrase, but every officer, whether elected or appointed, down to sheriff or constable, whose office is the execution of the laws, is a part of the executive department. The president for the time being is "the executive" of the federal government. The power of all executive officers is limited and defined by law, generally by the organic law, the state or federal constitution, but in the case of some subordinate offices by statute or common law. This article is confined to the executive of the United States.

—I. THE COLONIAL EXECUTIVE. In considering the executive power of the British colonies which afterward became the United States, it is primarily necessary to forget the present constitution altogether, and to remember that the colonies, as they were a part of the British empire, were under the unwritten. British constitution, and that their common executive, the king, enjoyed far larger powers than any which are ever entrusted to an American executive. His prerogative really comprised all that residuum of originally absolute power of which the growing power of nobles and commons had not yet deprived him, or of which he had not voluntarily divested himself by charters; and, though it by no means equaled the powers of our entire federal government, it compared more nearly with them than with those of the president alone. Thus, the powers to make peace and war, to contract treaties and alliances, to send and receive ambassadors, were all in the king alone, and the king's American assemblies had no more claim to a share in them than his British parliament. The governors of the various colonies were not principal executive officers, but viceroys, representing the king's person and the king's will, though in some of the colonies the governor's power was limited by the charter granted by the king. In Connecticut and Rhode Island the choice of the governor was given to the people.

—The fundamental grievance which led to the American revolution was the effort of this executive, the king, to ignore the legislative in America, the colonial assemblies, as he would not have ventured to do in Great Britain. It is true that the effort came disguised as an assertion of the power of parliament to legislate in all cases for the colonies; but, as there was hardly any attempt to disguise the power of the king to control absolutely, by patronage or direct purchase, the legislation of parliament, the animus of the king's new-born zeal for the privileges and dignity of parliament is easily apparent. It was not so apparent at first to the mass of the colonists, who were ignorant of the corruption of parliament, accustomed to reverence its authority in Great Britain, Edition: current; Page: [132] or not directly affected by the new legislation; and for a long time they and their legislative assemblies were nearly unanimous in acknowledging the general power of parliament over foreign commerce, while denying its power over the domestic affairs of individual colonies. Reflection, however, necessarily showed that there was no logical ground for such a distinction, and that it was impossible to locate and maintain it in practice; and, while the first continental congress acknowledged it explicitly, the second repudiated it altogether. The earlier struggles of the revolution were against the power of parliament to legislate for the colonies, and it was not until July 4, 1776, that the continental congress, by renouncing allegiance to the king, put a formal end to his authority as the executive of the united colonies. (See CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, REVOLUTION, DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.)

—For the next thirteen years the country was practically without an executive. The continental congress, which, by the will of the whole people, had already assumed most of the king's prerogatives, soon passed under the dominion of the state legislatures. The scheme of government which it contrived for the country was subordinated to the likings of the leaders of the legislatures, to whom it was ultimately submitted for ratification. (See CONTINENTAL CONGRESS.) Under the articles of confederation there was no distinct executive (see ADMINISTRATIONS), and congress itself was only an inefficient substitute for it. Its introduction into the new constitution was an evident necessity, and met very little opposition from any quarter.

—II. ORIGIN OF THE PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE. When the convention of 1787 met, there was a general agreement among the delegates that a distinct executive must be provided for, and the only difference of opinion was in regard to its form. Many delegates supposed the feelings of the people to be opposed to even "the semblance of monarchy," and preferred a plural executive, to be composed of one member from each of two or more divisions of the Union. Accordingly, while the "Virginia plan" and the "Jersey plan" agreed in making provision for "an executive," the latter proposed a plural executive, "to consist of—persons," and the former carefully used language applicable to either a singular or a plural executive, without undertaking to settle upon either. Charles Pinckney's plan proposes a single executive, to be called "the president," but this was probably an emendation at a late day of the convention's existence. Hamilton's plan, which was not considered, proposes a single executive, to be chosen by electors, to serve during good behavior, and to be called "the governor" June 4, by a vote of seven states to three: the committee of the whole decided upon a single executive, to be elected by congress for a term of seven years, to be ineligible for a second term, and to have a qualified veto; and in this form the resolution went, with the others, July 26, to the committee for reporting a constitution.

—In the report of the committee, Aug. 6, the resolution was changed only in giving the executive "the style of the president." and "the title of his excellency." The name of president was familiar to the delegates. It had been proposed in 1754 (see ALBANY PLAN OF UNION), and had already been given to the executives (now called governors) of most of the states which had formed constitutions. It was therefore adopted without hesitation. The title of "his excellency" was a different matter, and the delegates struck out a provision so certain to awaken the strongest prejudices of their constituents. The term of office was also shortened to four years, and the disqualification for a re-election was struck out. These latter changes, though made by a vote of ten states to one, have been found to be of very doubtful utility. The manner of the election of the president gave rise to a separate series of difficulties, which are treated elsewhere. (See CONVENTION of 1787; ELECTORS, I.)

—III. POWERS OF THE EXECUTIVE. The powers of the executive are given in full in article II. of the constitution (See CONSTITUTION) They may be divided into three classes, those relating to foreign affairs, those relating to home affairs, and those relating to war. 1. The direction of the foreign policy of the United States is left very much to the discretion of the president, limited by the approval of two-thirds of the senate, which is required for the ratification of a treaty. His appointments of ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls must also be approved by the senate, a majority vote only being requisite. Foreign governments can legitimately have no official knowledge of the intentions or proceedings of the government of the United States, except through the executive; and the executive, as in Jackson's case in 1834, referred to below, has always refused to allow foreign ministers or governments to criticise, or claim any official knowledge of, the president's language to congress in his messages, or the interior workings of the government. The house of representatives has asserted, but never yet established and enforced, its power to refuse appropriations for the execution of a treaty of which it has disapproved. (See JAY'S TREATY.) It has also approved or disapproved, by resolution, of particular points of the president's foreign policy; but such resolutions are always treated by the executive as mere expressions of the opinion of a transient majority of the members, and without any force of law. This trust of power to the executive can hardly be said to have been abused; the foreign policy of the successive presidents has almost invariably been pacific. The general line of neutrality, marked out by Washington in 1793, and followed by Adams in 1798-9, was finally elaborated by Monroe in 1823 into a form which all his successors have closely followed. (See these names, and GENET, CITIZEN; X. Y. Z. MISSION; and MONROE DOCTRINE) In 1834 President Jackson's recommendation to congress of reprisals Edition: current; Page: [133] on the commerce of France, as a "pacific means" of obtaining redress of grievances from that country, nearly involved the two nations in war; but in this case the conduct of France gave abundant excuse for the recommendation. (See also ANNEXATIONS, and paragraph 3, below.)

—2. In domestic affairs the powers of the executive fall into two great classes: the appointment, with the concurrence of the senate, of officers whose appointments are not provided for in the constitution (see CONFIRMATION BY THE SENATE); and the execution of the laws. In the appointing power is included also the power of removal (but see TENURE OF OFFICE); and in case of vacancies during the recess of the senate the president is empowered to grant commissions which shall expire at the end of the next session. Supplementary powers are those of granting reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment; of receiving ambassadors; of convening both houses, or either of them, on extraordinary occasions; and of adjourning congress to such time as he shall think proper, when the two houses can not agree on a time of adjournment. The last-named power has never been exercised.

—3. Closely connected with the duty of seeing that the laws are faithfully executed, is the war power of the president. In peace the execution of the laws is usually a matter of routine and clerical work, and the great mass of the people of the United States live and die without any personal and practical contact with the workings of the executive. Behind this simplicity of execution, however, sleeps the power of the president as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, a power which is roused by the first symptom of organized resistance to the laws, and grows with the extent and possibilities of the resistance (see INSURRECTION, DOMESTIC), bounded, however, by the limitations hereafter specified.

—In foreign affairs the first draft of the constitution, as presented Aug. 6. gave congress the power "to make war," and this was afterward changed into a power "to declare war." The distinction was well understood by the delegates, and is undoubtedly well founded. A state of war does not necessarily include a declaration of war, and where war is made upon the United States with or without a declaration, it is evidently the duty of the executive, as commander-in-chief, to repel force by force, and to use all the means at his command for prompt and effectual resistance. Of course, an ambitious or unprincipled executive would be able to gradually force a foreign country into acts of aggression which would enable him to commit congress to the support of a war which the executive had really begun; but the rapid increase of the population and domestic wealth and interests of the country will probably give all future executives abundant occupation at home, and compel the maintenance of the traditional policy of peace abroad. The dangerous point in our history was from 1830 until 1860, when the country's war power had become very considerable, while its executive was not fully occupied with domestic concerns; and it was just in the heart of this period that President Polk forced Mexico into an attitude of aggression which resulted in the Mexican war and the dismemberment of Mexico. (See ANNEXATIONS, IV.; WARS, V.) In this instance the result was eminently fortunate for the territory which was annexed—Enormous as is the war power of the president, it is entirely the creature of law, even in its highest development. The great limitation upon it is the war power of congress, particularly the absolute power of congress to grant or refuse troops and money to the president. There is no obligation upon congress to vote any supplies whatever beyond what it considers requisite for the government of the country, and in many instances congress has coupled its appropriations for the army with limitations upon the use of the army. (See RIDERS, RECONSTRUCTION.) In time of peace, when the army is reduced to the level of a police force, this war power of congress ceases to apply; in war it is in full vigor, and must of necessity be final and decisive upon the president. The constitution has not made, and could not make, other provision than impeachment for such an unimaginable contingency as the refusal of the executive to make peace when a majority of both houses had pronounced against the war. (See WAR POWERS)

—IV. RELATIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE TO THE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIARY. 1. The constitution requires the president, from time to time, to "give to the congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." This clause has occasioned the annual messages of the presidents at the beginning of each session of congress, and their special messages on other occasions. During the first three administrations the annual message was always delivered in person by the president, after the manner of the king's "speech from the throne" to the British parliament. Thus the main body of the message was addressed to the president's "fellow-citizens of the senate and of the house of representatives," the part relating to revenue and appropriations to the "gentlemen of the house of representatives," and the conclusion to the "gentlemen of the senate and of the house of representatives." At its conclusion the president retired, and the two houses addressed themselves to the composition of an answer, an affair which always gave rise to a long debate upon the intricate shades of meaning in its various sentences. Special messages were sent in writing, though Washington at first occasionally met the senate in person to confer upon executive business. In 1801 Jefferson substituted a written annual message, as more consonant with republican simplicity; but the reason assigned by his political opponents was his consciousness of his inability Edition: current; Page: [134] to speak in public with effect. In 1813 the senate endeavored to revive the early practice by requesting the attendance of the president to consult upon foreign affairs, but Madison declined the invitation.

—In addressing the president, some of the federalists, in 1791, wished to give him the "style" of "His highness, the president of the United States, and protector of their liberties." A burlesque motion was offered from the democratic side that the "style" of the vice-president should be "His superfluous excellency"; and it was finally agreed that communications should be addressed simply to "The president of the United States." In 1792 a clause in the bill passed by the senate for establishing a mint, to place upon the coins "a representation of the head of the president of the United States for the time being," was defeated by a vote of only 26 to 22 in the house. The act of Sept. 24, 1789, fixed the president's salary at $25,000 per annum. This amount was increased to $30,000 by the act of March 3, 1872. An attempt to repeal the act in the following session was vetoed, and failed to pass.

—Direct intercourse between congress and the heads of the executive departments has been the rule since Washington's presidency. His cabinet, except Hamilton, were of the opinion that congress could only communicate with the heads of departments through the president, but the obvious tendency of the opposite plan to facilitate the business of the departments almost immediately compelled the adoption of it. In practice, however, it has been found open to the objection that it leads to informal and uncontrolled intercourse between secretaries and individual members or heads of committees, for the purpose of influencing legislation. To obviate this it has been proposed in congress to vote eats, without votes, in each house, to the heads of departments, in order that they may be in attendance on specified days and explain of defend publicly the legislation which they desire. A provision to this effect was inserted in the confederate constitution in 1861 (see CONFEDERATE STATES), and its chances for adoption by congress seem fair. If adopted, its ultimate influences upon the practical constitution of both the executive and the legislative are as yet beyond calculation.

—For the results of the necessity for obtaining a confirmation of the president's nominations by the senate, see CONFIRMATION BY THE SENATE, TENURE OF OFFICE.

—For the veto power and its influences, see VETO.

—2. After the appointment and confirmation of the judiciary there are no direct official relations between that branch of the government and the executive. Various efforts have been made to bring about such relations, with the view of establishing some power in the judiciary to revise or control the action of the president: but the courts have steadily refused to encourage anything tending to a collision between the judiciary and the executive. Soon after Jefferson's inauguration, suit was brought against the secretary of state to compel the delivery of a commission signed and sealed by the preceding administration; but the supreme court, while it considered livery to be already complete, refused to interfere. In 1807 the counsel for Burr endeavored to compel the president's personal attendance as a witness, but did not succeed. In 1861 the chief justice ordered an attachment for contempt to issue against an army officer for disregarding the writ of habeus corpus, which had been suspended; but when the attachment was returned unsatisfied, the chief justice abandoned further proceedings. In October, 1865, and until martial law had ceased in the south, the supreme court refused to hold sessions in that section. In 1867 the state of Mississippi applied to the supreme court for an injunction forbidding the president to execute the reconstruction acts, but the injunction was refused. (See BURR. AARON; HABEAS CORPUS; RECONSTRUCTION.)

—The general principle in this connection is well stated by Chief Justice Chase in the last case referred to: "The congress is the legislative department of the government; the president is the executive department; neither can be restrained in its action by the judicial department, though the acts of both, when performed, are in proper cases subject to its cognizance." The "proper cases" there referred to are such as are not political in their nature.

—President Jackson has been much censured for vetoing the bill to recharter the national bank in 1832, on the ground of its unconstitutionality, after the supreme court had decided that such a bank was constitutional. His position, as stated in his veto message, was that "each public officer, who takes an oath to support the constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others." The high political excitement of the time obviously carried both parties to extremes. The position of the bank advocates, in its results, would imply that, when the supreme court had once decided that the general idea of a national bank was constitutional, the president would be bound to approve any bank bill which congress might see fit to frame; and the position of the president would equally imply a power in the executive, for instance, to persist in the execution of a law which had been judicially, and finally, pronounced unconstitutional and void. In his political acts the president is responsible only to his own conscience, to the people, and to the representatives of the people under a trial of an impeachment, but his conscience, like that of any other citizen, is bound by the final decision of the constitutional tribunal. The distinction between the official free will and necessity of the executive is extremely difficult to define in theory, but very simple in practice, since the judiciary and executive have always studiously avoided any conflict. (See CONGRESS, JUDICIARY.)

—V SUCCESSION TO THE PRESIDENCY. In the regular course of events the president is succeeded at the end of his term of office by his successor already Edition: current; Page: [135] chosen. The selection of March 4, 1789, by the congress of the confederacy, as the day for the inauguration of the new government, has fixed that day as the beginning of the four years' terms of succeeding presidents; in case of an entirely new election, as hereafter specified, the new president would serve for four years, and "inauguration day" would be changed. In case of the "removal, death, resignation or inability" of the president, his office devolves upon the vice president, and when the disability extends to the vice-president also, congress is empowered to regulate the succession. "declaring what officer shall then act as president until the disability be removed, or a president shall be elected." The act of March 1, 1792, has therefore declared the president pro tempore of the senate, or, if there is no president pro tempore, the speaker of the house, to be the officer upon whom the succession should devolve.—"Removal" can only be effected by impeachment. The act last cited has provided that "resignation" must be in writing, signed by the party, and deposited in the office of the secretary of state. The question of "inability to discharge the duties" of the office presents more possible difficulties. The "inability" of the president may be patent. He may be made a prisoner by an enemy: President Madison was in danger of capture at Washington in 1814, and the capture of President Lincoln was Booth's original plan in 1865. He may visit or retire to a foreign country during his term of office. But who is to decide when lunacy, paralysis or illness of any kind has gone so far as to result in "inability"? How long would the subordinates and party friends of the president be allowed to discharge the duties of the president for him, as the subordinates of Secretary Crawford did during his paralysis in 1823-4, before the vice-president would be entitled to assume the place of the president? No rule can be given until a precedent has actually been made, but as the provision of the constitution is mandatory and addressed to the vice-president, the decision would seem to rest mainly with that officer.

—In order that an officer may be in readiness to take the place of the vice-president, if necessary, it has been customary for the vice-president to retire from the senate a few days before adjournment, and a president pro tempore has then been elected. In 1881 the vice-president declined to retire and permit the election of a president pro tempore, and as the new house had not yet met or chosen a speaker, there was no lawful successor in case of the death of both president and vice-president. The shooting of the president, July 2, 1881, and his possible death, gave some prominence to considerations of the complications which might be involved in the death of both president and vice-president under such circumstances. The administration of the government would probably go on, under direction of the cabinet, until the meeting of congress and the election of a president pro tempore. In extraordinary circumstances, requiring the authority of an executive at once, there seems to be no good reason why the cabinet should not summon an extra session of congress, for, though such a summons would have no authority upon congress, congress would undoubtedly respect it, and the first exercise of the legislative powers would cure all defects of form.

—The greatest danger in the matter of the presidential succession lies in the possibility of a failure to elect, or to settle the result of a disputed election, before the end of a presidential term. The country has twice, in 1801 and 1877, come to the verge of such a possibility. (See DISPUTED ELECTIONS, I, IV.) In 1801 it was proposed by the federalists that a bill should be passed to designate some officer, as the chief justice or the secretary of state, to act as president and order a new election; and by the democrats that the new congress should be convened by proclamation to be signed by Jefferson and Burr jointly, as one of them was president elect. Both programmes were evidently unwarranted by the constitution, but the latter was infinitely less objectionable than the former. It would be no misdemeanor for even a private person to summon congress to an extra session; and if an undisputed majority of both houses chose to obey any summons, however irregular, it is difficult to imagine a decision by the judiciary against the legitimacy of acts of such a congress, because of defects in the form of the summons.

—The 12th amendment to the constitution, which was soon after passed, provided that "the vice-president" should act as president in case of a failure by the house to exercise its right of choice between two or more equal candidates before March 4. In case of a failure to choose both president and vice-president, the senate is evidently to choose the vice-president at once, and that officer is to act as president in case of the house's failure to choose. If the senate also fails to choose a vice-president in time, the whole scheme of the executive is again adrift. In such a case the act of March 1, 1792, has assumed the doubtful power to order a new election, which would probably be submitted to by the country as the easiest escape from the difficulty.

—There are, however, other difficulties unguarded against. In case of a failure to choose by the electors, the house is to choose a president from the three highest on the list. Suppose that in some general break up of party lines, as in 1824, the four highest on the list should be a tie, or, as is much more possible, that the third and fourth candidates on the list should be a tie: who is to decide which of the tie candidates is to resign his pretensions in order to enable the house to choose between the three highest? The case of a closely contested presidential election, in which the few decisive electoral votes are claimed by both parties, as in 1876-7, offers still greater dangers. It was avoided, at that election, by the creation of an electoral commission, but it is highly improbable that this remedy will ever be Edition: current; Page: [136] available again. Apparently, the methods of the presidential election and succession are now the only points in the constitution which can seriously threaten the perpetuity of the Union; in them, if anywhere, lie concealed the germs of disintegration and destruction. They deserve prompt consideration, for, in a country whose population doubles in each quarter of a century, every year increases the difficulty of making amendments to the constitution. (See ELECTORS, ELECTORAL COMMISSION.)

—See IMPEACHMENTS, WAR POWER, RECONSTRUCTION, TENURE OF OFFICE, ELECTORAL VOTES, ADMINISTRATIONS. For popular votes for president, see UNITED STATES.

—See, in general, Story's Commentaries, § 1404; 2 Bancroft's History of the Constitution, 163; de Chambrun's Executive Power; 1 Kent's Commentaries, 235; The Federalist, xlvii.-ii., lxvii.-lxxvii.; Rawle's Commentaries, 147; 2 Wilson's Law Lectures, 187; A. Conkling's Powers of the Executive Department. (I) 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 262, 408; Marshall's History of the Colonies; Lodge's English Colonies in America; Frothingham's Rise of the Republic, 419; 4 Franklin's Works, 282. (II.) 5 Elliot's Debates, 127. 131, 205, 376, 380, and authorities under ELECTORS, 1 Tucker's Blackstone (Appendix), 349. (III.: 1. 2) Hunt's Life of Livingston, 395; 3 Parton's Life of Jackson, 569; and authorities under articles referred to; (3) 1 Elliot's Debates, 226; The Federalist, lxxiv.; Tiffany's Constitutional Law, § 517; Whiting's War Power, 82; 2 B. R. Curtis' Works, 306; Story's Commentaries, § 1485; 1 Kent's Commentaries, 264; and authorities under WAR POWER. (IV.: 1, 2) 3 Jefferson's Works (edit. 1829), 470; 5 Niles' Register, 243, 340; 1 Benton's Debates of Congress, 14, 17, 117, 267, 371; 1 Stat. at Large, 72, and 17: 486 (acts of Sept. 24, 1789, and March 3, 1873); 4 Jefferson's Works (edit. 1829), 463; Rawle's Commentaries, 171; 2 Pitkin's United States, 285; 1 Lloyd's Debates, 511; (8) 1 Cranch's Reports, 137; Tyler's Life of Taney, 420; Schuckers' Life of Chase, 535; and authorities under articles referred to. (V) Story's Commentaries, § 1476. The act of March 1, 1792, is in 1 Stat. at Large, 239.

EXEQUATUR

EXEQUATUR, a Latin word, which means let this be done. It is a decree by which a sovereign authorizes a foreign consul to exercise within his jurisdiction the functions of his office; a decree which is generally attached to the consul's commission, or written on the back of that document. In most countries there are two kinds of consuls: salaried agents, who are forbidden to engage in trade; and others who are merchants, do not always belong to the country which they represent, and who receive no pay. On this account governments generally have a double formula for their exequaturs, the first for consuls who are officials, the second for consuls who are merchants.

—The form of the exequatur varies with the country; most frequently, as in France, England, Spain, Italy, the United States, and Brazil, it is a letter patent, signed by the chief of the executive power, and countersigned by the minister of foreign affairs. In other countries, such as Denmark, for example, the consul simply receives notice that he has been recognized, and that the necessary orders have been given to the authorities where he resides. In Austria only the word exequatur is written on the original commission.

—The government from which the exequatur is asked has the right to refuse it: the refusal may be based on purely political reasons or on personal motives. The government may also withdraw it if it thinks proper. Whatever be the motives which a government may have for depriving a consul of his exequatur, the consul can only conform exactly to the orders given him by the representative of his country. According to circumstances, he will have to retire with his records, or delegate his powers to another acting ad interim, so that his countrymen may not lose the protection to which they have a right.

—The exequaturs of consuls are generally delivered without charge; there are, however, some exceptions.

—A state of war, or a renewal of diplomatic relations, brings the withdrawal or may bring the renewal of the exequaturs of the belligerent powers; some treaties specify the cases in which the exequatur may be withdrawn.

EXPORTS AND IMPORTS

EXPORTS AND IMPORTS. By imports is meant all the merchandise brought into a country from other countries; by exports, all the merchandise which leaves a country for other countries. The imports and exports together constitute the foreign trade, a statement of which is annually made out by those in charge of the customs.

—Formerly, when commercial policy was still more influenced by the ideas of the mercantile doctrine than it is to-day, tables of the exports and imports were drawn up for the especial purpose of showing the difference between these two branches of foreign commerce, a difference which was called the balance of trade. To-day, these tables, which are made public in most countries, and notably in England, France, the United States, and Belgium, where they have been brought to a good degree of perfection, are no longer considered by the administrative authorities as anything but statistical information on commerce, navigation, the course of trade between ports, transit, etc.

—The reader is referred to the article BALANCE OF TRADE for anything which pertains to the false theory which so long induced the legislator to encourage exportation by artificial measures and to hinder importation by innumerable political, diplomatic, administrative, financial and commercial restrictions. We shall confine ourselves here to a few considerations.

—One who studies the nature of exchanges is not slow in perceiving that it is only in exceptional cases, such as where there is trickery, fraud or ignorance, that one of the contracting parties can be injured. In general, in exchange transactions, Edition: current; Page: [137] interests counterbalance each other, the values exchanged are equal. It is consequently difficult to admit that a nation, which is a collection of a great number of individuals, parts with the mass of its products for products of inferior value; hence the official reports which acquaint us with the exports and imports of a country should present no noteworthy difference between the exports of that nation to all other countries and the imports from all other countries to that nation. It would even seem that the difference, if there is any, must of necessity be in favor of the imports, for the reason which leads to an exchange is that one has greater need of the products he receives than of those he parts with, and consequently he must attribute more value to the former than to the latter. In fact, the amount of the imports must necessarily exceed, among all nations, that of the exports. [An apparent exception to this rule occurs in the case of a debtor nation, which, until its foreign debt is paid, sends abroad, besides its other exports, merchandise to pay the interest and principal of its indebtedness to other countries. If, however, we take into account the period from the time of contracting the debt until its final discharge, this case will be found to be no exception to the rule. —E. J. L.] J. B. Say admitted this proposition, and an explanation of it is found in Necker's work on the administration of the finances. "If we estimate," said Necker, "the merchandise we take from foreigners at the prices current within our kingdom, we shall overrate the debt contracted by the state; for the price current is composed not only of the sum paid to the nation which has sold the merchandise, but also of the profit and the interest on the advances of the merchants, and the expenses of transportation and freight which may have been earned by our merchant marine; whence it results that the true balance always inclines in favor of the people under consideration." This has been completely established in the article on BALANCE OF TRADE.

—In the second place, it should be observed that the custom house records only show those exchanges which are manifested by the payment of duties; that they say nothing of the contraband trade so considerable in all countries where there are prohibitions and high tariffs; nothing of the various securities and titles to property which are exchanged between citizens of different nations; nothing, or at least nothing accurate, concerning the daily importation or exportation of specie, especially between countries which border on each other. Now this clandestine movement of merchandise which escapes the eye of the customs officials, this transmission of securities of various kinds, and this constant filtration of specie, must be taken into account in any comparison of imports and exports; and it is another error of the partisans of the doctrine of balance of trade that they fail to do this.

—If, then, we should find in the official statements a notable difference arising either from excess of imports or excess of exports, we must simply conclude, admitting the accounts to be free from any systematic error or any material error in the calculations, that they are not the complete expression of what takes place in the commerce of the nation under consideration, whether because the officials who prepare them must of necessity omit a notable part of the imports and exports, or because their bases of valuation are incorrect, or because they do not include sufficiently long periods in their totals. System and base of valuation have been mentioned under the article CUSTOMS DUTIES. As to extent of the periods of observation, we must consider that the statistical tables are made out yearly for inspection, that the commercial transactions are neither completed nor balanced in the course of these periods, which are artificial in this respect, and that it is necessary to extend the calculations to periods which would include the whole of the reciprocal movements of this commerce between two countries—movements which are influenced by various circumstances, climatic, political and economic. (See BALANCE OF TRADE, SMUGGLING, CUSTOMS DUTIES, COMMERCE, FREE TRADE, VALUE.)

E. J. L., Tr.
JOSEPH GARNIER.

EXPOSITIONS

EXPOSITIONS, Industrial. These began in a very humble way. The first in Europe was opened at the end of the last century, and continued not more than one week. The world was far from anticipating, in that age, the consequences of these great industrial strifes between nations. All their ideas were turned toward war, and in the thoughts even of the originators of the first exhibition, the character of this contest, apparently peaceful, was warlike to the last degree. The French minister of the interior wrote to the departmental authorities: "The exhibition has not been very numerously attended, but it is a first campaign, and that campaign is disastrous to English industry. Our manufactures are the arsenals destined to furnish the most deadly weapons against the power of Britain." Who could then have told that minister that sixty years later England would open to the industry of the whole world in London itself the forever famous crystal palace, and that there, under the auspices of universal peace, France would obtain, without ruin to any one, the greatest of her victories?

—What was at first but a simple contest between individuals engaged in industrial pursuits, tends to become a general periodic assemblage of all the productive forces of the entire world. It is proper, then, to render to the French nation, which was the first to give so many great ideas to Europe, the honor which is its due for the successive organization and development of industrial exhibitions. These great occasions have contributed in no less degree than the genius of that nation itself, to the progress of all industries, and it is probable that they will exercise a considerable influence on the solution of the most important economic questions of the day, by furnishing Edition: current; Page: [138] new elements of comparison which have hitherto been wanting.

—Nevertheless, the first exhibition, that of 1798 in France, was not very successful. France had barely emerged from the intestine and foreign troubles of the first republic; and Frenchmen during that fitful period had fought more than they had worked. Ten or twelve exhibitors only obtained medals; and about twenty honorable mention. Most of the great manufacturing cities of France were not even represented. However, some products worthy of note were exhibited, and the dawn of a better future was perceptible, for the government promised twenty silver medals and one gold medal for the next exhibition. A feeling of war invariably pervaded their councils, this gold medal was to be the reward of the manufacturer who should give the most disastrous blow to English industry.

—The two French exhibitions of 1801 and 1802, following too close upon the first, were not less remarkable as being the date of the appearance of names celebrated in the annals of French industry. Then it was that Jacquard was crowned, for his weaving-loom; Carcel, the ingenious inventor of the well-known lamp; Ternaux, for his woolen stuffs; Montgolfier d'Annonay, for his paper; Fauler, for his morocco leather; Utschneider of Sarreguemines, for his beautiful pottery. In 1802, owing to the peace of Amiens, the exhibition assumed a less bellicose character, and was visited by some eminent English statesmen. The most remarkable feature of it was the appearance of the first cashmere shawls in imitation of those of India, and copied from samples brought home by some officers of the Egyptian expedition. Twenty-two gold medals were then given to the most successful, and from that moment it was easy to foresee that the impetus given would not stop there. That was proved by the exhibition of 1806, which only lasted ten days, but where the number of exhibitors was ten times greater than in 1802.

—Many departments and industries of France which had not contributed anything to former exhibitions, figured creditably in this one. Lyons, Nimes, Avignon and Tarare shone there with a brilliancy, which since indeed has been greatly surpassed, but which created at the time an immense sensation on account of the prolonged absence of the representatives of those cities during the whole of the revolutionary period. Manufactories of cloth suddenly rose again from a long depression. Merino sheep began to be acclimatized in France; Elbeuf, Louviers, Sedan, again soared upward. Mulhouse sent some products. Thomire and Ravrio inaugurated bronze working. Cotton spinning was not yet represented, and it may be said that notwithstanding the encouragements of every kind lavished by the emperor on French industry, it was as yet only a period of learning and of incubation.

—France was quietly preparing, in the laboratories of her savants, the magnificent appliances which have since then raised her manufactures to such a height. Chaptal, Berthollet, Conté, Vauquelin, Thénard, d'Arcet, were all at work endeavoring to extract from science the secret of the new industries which burst upon the world almost simultaneously, when peace restored capital and security to labor; and thus is to be explained the great movement which began with the restoration and which still continues. The first of the three French exhibitions of the restoration took place in 1819, the second in 1823, and the third in 1827. That of 1819 aroused so much interest that the public demanded its prolongation for a month. It seemed as though France divined her new destiny. Progress manifested itself in everything. The number of exhibitors was more considerable than at previous exhibitions; machines, simple and original, bore witness to the genius of the French nation. Collier's shearing machines, Ternaux's cashmere shawls, some beautiful looking-glasses and magnificent samples of silk, marked the advance of the national industry. In 1823 there were renewed efforts; woolens were improved, silks multiplied and gained in quality; muslins, both plain and embroidered in the most tasteful way, appeared for the first time, but woven of fine imported thread. Parisian manufactures, such as paper hangings, bronzes, lamps, furniture, articles of luxury and of taste, shone everywhere. More than sixty-six departments contributed.

—But, of the three exhibitions of the restoration, the last, that of 1827, greatly excelled the preceding two, and it may be said that it was this one which chiefly contributed to the maintenance of the periodic character of exhibitions. It greatly surpassed all the others. Shawls commenced to rank among the most original products of French industry, the manufacture of cloth entered upon that new career in which it was destined later on to achieve such marvelous results; the prints of Mulhouse and of Ronen surpassed the most brilliant that had as yet been seen. The city of Lyons exhibited church ornaments and stuffs for tapestry of the rarest magnificence. The cambrics of Cambrai, the table linen of St. Quentin (Aisne), the manufactures of Roubaix, elicited universal admiration. Flax spinning now first appeared. Lithographing, Parisian cabinet making, and typography, introduced new and original designs. Attention was specially directed to very beautiful steam engines, the monopoly of which it was supposed had up till then belonged to England.

—But it was reserved for the reign of Louis Philippe to present the most brilliant series of exhibitions which have ever done credit to French industries, and to render those memorable shows popular throughout Europe. That of 1834, in grandeur and extent as much surpassed that of 1827, as did the latter all preceding ones. French industry evidently felt itself on a firm footing; new workshops were everywhere established; the spirit of emulation developed under a system of legislation which government investigations tended to render more liberal; new arts sprang into existence, and manufacturing seemed Edition: current; Page: [139] to proceed step by step toward reduction of prices, as being the most assured stimulant to increased consumption. The official reports, which were summaries by the president of the central jury on each of those great occasions, must be read as an exact statement of the progress achieved. That of Baron Thénard was particularly noticeable by reason of the deep research displayed, by the simplicity and sobriety of its style, and by the impartiality of its judgments. The king and the royal family were accustomed from that time to visit repeatedly, and with the most minute attention, all the galleries of the exhibition, lavishing encouragement on all exhibitors, and causing it to be well understood that the tendency of the new reign was pre-eminently pacific and industrial.

—It may be confidently affirmed that from this date industrial exhibitions had indisputably an economically useful character, due to the novelty of the information and to the variety of the facts which they furnished to scientists. These exhibitions would have been mere tournaments without importance, if political economy had not in time educed from them instructive comparisons on the prices of raw materials, on the rates of wages, on the effects of machinery, on the means of communication, and the customs laws of different countries. The proof of it soon came in 1839, when delighted Europe was able to appreciate the master pieces of industry in shawls, cloths, silks, crystal ware and printed goods; when the commissioners awarded prizes to the hydraulic wheel of Fourneyron, to the printing cylinders of Grimpé, to the steels of Jackson, to the pianos of Erard, to the cashmeres of Hindenlang, to Bréguet's chronometers, etc. The number of exhibitors had increased from 110 in 1798 to 3,381 in 1839, and the number of medals awarded, from 26 to 805.

—From this time forward industrial exhibitions counted whole armies of adherents. The limited space allotted them in the court of the Louvre, in the Invalides, in the Place de la Concorde, was no longer sufficient for their purposes. It became necessary, in 1844, to open to them the immense arena of the Champs Elysées, and to accord them a duration of three months. From this time on no one man could suffice to fill the office of judge; every commissioned judge became responsible for his own decisions, and these combined constitute to-day the annals of French manufacture. It is in these valuable collections that some day we shall have to study the history of the development of the different industries of France.

—From 1844 rivalry became general throughout Europe. Exhibitions were instituted in Belgium, in Prussia, in Austria, and in Spain. Every nation in turn manifested a desire to master its forces and to compute the resources at command for representation in these contests now everywhere opened throughout the civilized world. It is just this period between 1844 and the unlucky epoch of 1848 which presents the most varied and the most captivating interest. However imperfect the first attempts of the nations of which we have just spoken, as may be seen from the reports of the commissioners delegated by the French government, it was possible to judge, with a full knowledge of the matter, of the particular character of the chief European industries.

—In spite of the mystery everywhere accompanying the analysis of net cost, it was easy to discover in what the relative superiority of the great manufacturing centres consisted. Thus every country became better acquainted with itself and its neighbors. It was everywhere a complete revclation, and it may be boldly asserted that it was this example of Europe which succeeded at last in arousing England, and gave birth to the idea of a world's fair. This exhibition, as is known, was to have taken place at Paris in 1849. The French government took the initiative, and even hoped, after the violent convulsions of 1848, that France would worthily resume the rank from which she had for the time fallen. But anarchy then prevailed not less in the highest than in the lowest ranks of society. Scarcely was the government's project made known than the protectionist crowd affected to see in it danger to French national interests. Thus was the government thwarted, and, owing to this hostile element, was obliged to abandon the only productive idea which those troublous times had given birth to. The French exhibition of 1849, thus restricted, was nevertheless very remarkable by reason of the manifest progress in all the various branches of industry, and this notwithstanding the calamities which had overtaken them.

—Economists had a very difficult part to play in those critical times. They had to oppose, on the one hand, a herd of ignorant utopists who had swooped down upon society and clamored to make it the vile subject of their experiments; and, on the other hand, the great manufacturers who claimed to have a right of taxation as laborers did to have a right to work. All the laws of political economy seemed to be overthrown: under the pretense of affording protection, each man laid his hand on his neighbor's goods, some to demand bounties, others increased wages, and it soon became impossible to estimate the true value of things in the midst of this confusion of tongues and of these absurd pretensions of various interests. England did not miss the chance of realizing the great idea which the prohibitionists had thus caused to miscarry in France.

—It is from this time, properly speaking, that the new and complete character of exhibitions dates and although that of London left some things to be desired, it will not the less on that account continue to be one of the most important events in the history of political economy. Till then each local exposition had been only a more or less complete inventory of the productive powers of each nation.3 The English, in inviting the whole Edition: current; Page: [140] world to this memorable gathering, afforded all studious men an opportunity of satisfactorily observing the collected products of the world, and of noting the conditions and necessities of production among the different nations. We shall not speak here of the purely technical part of this vast subject, nor of the wonders of the crystal palace, nor of the immense concourse of sightseers who flocked to it from all points, all these interesting details will be found in special works. The capital fact of the universal exhibition was, that it afforded a synoptical view of all the products of the globe, furnished for the first time an opportunity of comparing fabrics of such different origins and natures, and of studying the productive genius of nations in their most elaborate as in their least important works. It was evident that there were no longer any industrial secrets in the world; that mechanical methods were about the same everywhere, and that everywhere also the tendency was to substitute machine power for manual labor. It was shown that wages were higher in the countries where machinery was employed than where hand labor prevailed, and that the surest way of stimulating consumption was to reduce prices by means of improved processes of manufacture.

—The London exhibition proved irresistibly the advantage of low prices in raw materials, and consequently the disadvantage of a customs system which loads them with taxes; it proved at the same time beyond all question what profit would accrue to nations from freedom to exchange such a rich variety of products. Thus, little by little, died away the prejudices held by the adherents of the prohibitory system, who would fain have drawn a line of demarcation between nations never to be crossed. These last, represented by their most skilled manufacturers, distributed the awards with perfect impartiality, honestly recognizing any superiority gained, and with steady hand holding up the veil of the future, no longer regarding labor from the narrow view-point of nationality, but from the height of the principle of freedom of trade.

—It was hoped to obtain on this occasion the secret so much desired of the net cost in all industries; but private interests were aroused, notably those of the middlemen, and this precious element of information was not obtained. Perhaps this is the less to be regretted as net cost prices are essentially variable; but it would have been interesting to have settled them officially for one given time, if for no other purpose than as data for future comparison. However, the most incontestable result of that memorable contest is the progressive tendency to render prices uniform in all the markets of the world, and to their reduction when free trade shall prevail. The exhibition established this also, viz., the futility of dreading competition, that is to say, of industrial rivalry. When industry was confined within the family circle there was a dearth of almost everything, and the result was poor manufactures, at a high cost. In proportion as the field of labor enlarged and as industry extended from the family to the town, division of labor took place and began to supply more completely all wants. And when production had spread from the town to the province, and, after the collapse of all internal obstacles, from the province to the whole state, an immense advance was again made. The only thing left to be desired, but the chiefest of all, is to extend to the whole world that contest too long confined within the narrow limits of the home market. Each nation of to-day has so much the greater need of expansion as it has become more powerful and wealthier, and it would be simply protracting its infancy to confine it within the limits of its boundaries, when the whole human race is standing before it with outstretched arms.

—The universal exposition proved that the greatest nations were the first called upon to take the initiative in effecting that commercial reform which took place in England, and of which the great gathering at the crystal palace was the natural consequence. It is in fact the part of the most advanced nations to overthrow the barriers which separate them from other nations, for they have the most need to do so. What would English industry be without the cotton of the United States, the copper of Russia, or the iron of Sweden? Does not all Europe get its lead from Spain, its beautiful wools from Saxony or Australia, and its silks from France or Italy? What country can to-day lay claim to producing everything? What heaven-favored land would try to reproduce the wines of France or of Spain? If fevers rage in Europe, quinine is brought from America. India rubber, gutta percha, to day essential materials in so many industries, are not indigenous to all shores; the coffee, the cocoa, the tea of our breakfast tables, and nearly all the Edition: current; Page: [141] medicines of all dispensaries, come from the most distant climes. Even for sulphur and salt-petre for making gunpowder France has to go to search in India and Sicily. The peasantry of most European countries scarcely ever eat meat and very seldom white bread, while the plains of Buenos Ayres teem with cattle, and New Zealand, the United States and Russia abound in corn.

—What do all these contrasts mean? That Providence has spread over the whole face of the earth with boundless liberality all that is necessary to the existence and comfort of man. The London exhibition has well shown that there is not a single corner of the world, however despised it may be, that has not its useful tribute to offer, our task is to exchange from pole to pole the bounties of nature. The home of the Esquimaux sends furs, the Sahara furnishes dates and ostrich feathers, some islets lost in the Pacific off the coast of Peru are covered with guano, used as a fertilizer of the reluctant soil of our northern hemisphere. The banks of Newfoundland have their cod, the coasts of Japan their whales. When olive oil and colza fail us, the East offers us sesame and Africa the earth nut; the opium of India pays for the tea of China, and so on of the rest.

—This is the moral of exhibitions: an inexpressible need of peace, reciprocal dependence of nations, abundance of all goods under the rule of liberty, and comparative dearth under the rule of restriction—what the great exhibition of London, the glorious daughter of all preceding and the mother of all subsequent ones, has revealed. We believe that exhibitions have greatly aided the cause of humanity.

EX POST FACTO LAWS

EX POST FACTO LAWS. An ex post facto law is one which operates by after-enactment. These words are usually applied to any law, civil or criminal, which is enacted with a retrospective effect, and with the object in view of producing that effect. In its true application, however, as employed in American law, it relates only to crimes, and signifies a law which retroacts by way of criminal punishment upon that which was not a crime before its enactment; or which raises the grade of an offense or renders an act punishable in a more severe manner than it was when the crime was committed; or that alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender. Such laws are held to be contrary to the fundamental principles of a free government, and the restrictions of the constitution that the legislatures of the several states shall not pass such laws, secures the person of the subject from injury or punishment in consequence of such law. Every law that takes away or impairs vested rights agreeable to existing law, is retrospective and in most cases oppressive. Still there are laws which are just and for the common benefit, relating to a period of time ante-dating their commencement, such as statutes of oblivion and pardon. It is, however, the general rule that no law which mitigates the rigor of the criminal law can be considered an ex post facto law within the prohibition. All laws which are to operate before their making, or to save time from the statute of limitations, or to exempt unlawful acts before their commission, are retrospective. Still such acts may be just and necessary. A broad difference exists between making an unlawful act lawful and an innocent act criminal and inflicting a punishment for it as a crime—The construction of the constitutional provisions prohibiting ex post facto laws as recited in the foregoing comments, has been accepted and adopted by the courts as correct, from an early period in the history of the government. Of the laws which come within the prohibition, it may be said that it is not essential to render them invalid that they should expressly assume the act to which they relate to be criminal or provide for its punishment on that pretext. If a person be subjected to a criminal penalty for the commission of an act, which when committed involved no responsibility, or if it deprived one of any valuable right, such as the pursuit of a lawful business, for the commission of acts which by law were not punishable when committed, the law which so operates will be, in the constitutional sense, ex post facto, although it does not expressly provide that the acts to which the penalty is applied are criminal. To what extent, however, a law may alter the penalty for a criminal offense and apply the alteration to past offenses, is very difficult to determine from the decisions of the courts which have been made concerning it. As the prohibition was enacted for the protection of the accused against arbitrary and unjust legislation, any alteration of the law which tends toward the mitigation of the punishment does not enter within the objection. (Strong vs. State, 1 Blackf., 193; Keen vs. State, 3 Chandler, 109.) The question, however, to determine is, what is to be construed as in mitigation of punishment. Upon this point Cooley on Const Lim, says. "If the law makes a fine less in amount or imprisonment shorter in point of duration, or relieves it from some oppressive incident, or if it dispenses with some severable portion of the legal penalty, no embarrassment would be experienced in reaching a conclusion that the law was favorable to the accused, and therefore not ex post facto. But who shall say, when the nature of the punishment is altogether changed, and a fine is substituted for the pillory, or imprisonment for whipping, or imprisonment at hard labor for life for the death penalty, that the punishment is diminished, or at best not increased by the change made? In State vs. Arlin, the respondent was charged with a robbery which under the law as it existed at the time it was committed was subject to be punished by solitary imprisonment not exceeding six months, and confinement for life at hard labor in the state prison. By the same law he was entitled to have counsel assigned him by the government, to process to Edition: current; Page: [142] compel the attendance of witnesses, to a copy of his indictment and a list of jurors who were to try him. Before he was brought to trial the punishment of the offense had been reduced to six months solitary imprisonment, and confinement at hard labor in the state prison for not less than seven nor more than thirty years. Under the terms of the new act, if the courts thought proper they were to assign counsel and furnish him with process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf. The court assigned the respondent counsel, but declined to do more; the respondent insisted that he was entitled to all the privileges which the old law granted before its change. The court held the claim to be unfounded in law. * * * That the position was wholly untenable, the privileges the respondent claimed having been created solely as incidents of the severe punishment to which his offense formerly subjected him, and not as incidents of the offense. That when the punishment was abolished, its incidents fell with it, and that he might as well claim the right to be punished under the former law as to be entitled to the privileges connected with a trial under it." But in commenting on this opinion, Cooley asks if it may not be suggested whether this case "does not overlook the important circumstance that the new law by taking from the accused that absolute right to defense by counsel, and to the other privileges by which the old law surrounded the trial—all of which were designed as securities against unjust conviction—was directly calculated to increase the party's peril, and was in consequence brought within the reason of the rule which holds a law ex post facto which changes the rules of evidence after the fact, so as to make a less amount or degree sufficient. Could a law be void as ex post facto which made a party liable to conviction for perjury in a previous oath on the testimony of a single witness, and another law unobjectionable on this score which deprived a party when put on trial for a previous act, of all the usual opportunities of exhibiting the facts and establishing his innocence? Undoubtedly if the party accused was always guilty, and certain to be convicted, the new law must be regarded as mitigating the offense; but assuming every man to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty, could such a law be looked upon as 'mollifying the rigor' of the prior law or as favorable to the accused, when its mollifying circumstance is more than counterbalanced by others of a contrary character?"

—In Strong vs. State, the plaintiff in error was indicted and convicted of perjury, which act at the time of its commission was punished by the infliction of not exceeding one hundred stripes. Before the trial the punishment was changed to imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding seven years. The court held this amendment "not to be in the nature of ex post facto law, as applied to the case, as it did not punish that which was innocent when done, or add to the punishment of that which was criminal, or increase the malignity of a crime, or retrench the rules of evidence so as to make convictions more easy." (1 Blackf., 193.)

—With respect to the character of punishment inflicted, in the case of Herber vs, State, 7 Texas, 69, the court held that "among all nations of civilized man from the earliest ages the infliction of stripes has been considered more degrading than death itself." On the contrary, in South Carolina, (State vs. Williams, 2 Rich., 418), a case of forgery, the penalty being death, was changed before final judgment to fine, whipping and imprisonment, and the new law was applied to the case by the court in passing sentence. It thus seems impossible to establish a rule by which the legal mind will abide in determining the question as to what truly constitutes mitigation of punishment where the character of the penalty is changed. And this arises from the diversity of opinion as to the severity and dis grace of punishments as a class.

—With respect to the decision of the court in the case of Hartling vs. People, 22 New York, 105, Cooley (329 Const. Lim.) says: "The law providing for the infliction of capital punishment had been so changed as to require the party liable to this penalty to be sentenced to confinement at hard labor in the state prison until the punishment of death should be inflicted; and it further provided that such punishment should not be inflicted under one year, nor until the governor should issue his warrant for the purpose. The act was evidently designed for the benefit of parties convicted, and among other things, to enable advantage to be taken, for their benefit, of any circumstances subsequently coming to light, which might show the injustice of the judgment or throw any more favorable light on the action of the accused. Nevertheless the court held this act imperative as to offenses before committed. In delivering the opinion the court said 'It would be perfectly competent for the legislature by a general law to remit any separable portion of the prescribed punishment. For instance, if the punishment were fine and imprisonment, a law which should dispense with either the fine or the imprisonment might be lawfully applied to existing offenses; and so the time of imprisonment might be reduced or the number of stripes diminished in cases punishable in that manner. Anything which if applied to an individual sentence would fairly fall within the idea of a remission of a part of the sentence, would not be liable to objection. And any change which should be referable to prison discipline or penal administration as its primary object, might also be made to take effect upon past as well as future offenses, as changes in the manner or kind of employment of convicts sentenced to hard labor, the system of supervision, the means of restraint, or the like. Changes of this sort might operate to increase or mitigate the severity of the punishment of the convict, but would not raise any question under the constitutional provision. The Edition: current; Page: [143] change wrought by the act in the punishment of existing offenses of murder, does not fall within either of these exceptions. If the governor is vested with the discretion to determine whether the criminal should be executed or remain a perpetual prisoner at hard labor, this would only be equivalent to what he might do under the authority to commute a sentence. The act in question places the convict at the mercy of the governor in office at the expiration of one year from the time of the conviction, and of all his successors during the lifetime of the convict. The sword is indefinitely suspended over his head, ready to fall at any time. * * * It is enough to bring the law within the condemnation of the constitution, that it changes the punishment after the commission of the offense by substituting for the prescribed penalty a different one. * * * The law, moreover, prescribes one year's imprisonment at hard labor in the state prison in addition to the punishment of death. As the convict under the law is exposed to the double infliction, it is, within both the definitions which have been mentioned, an ex post facto law. It changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than that which the law annexed to the crime when committed.' This decision is now regarded as the settled law of the state of New York, that a law changing the punishment for offenses committed before its passage, is ex post facto and void under the constitution, unless the change consists in the remission of some separable part of the punishment before prescribed, or is referable to prison discipline or penal administration as its primary object." Cooley holds this rule to be sound and sensible, with the single qualification, that the substitution of any other punishment for that of death, must be regarded as a mitigation of the penalty.

—With respect to mere modes of procedure, a criminal has no more right to insist that his offense shall be disposed of under the law in force at the time it is charged to have been committed, than a party in a civil action has the right to demand the application of the same rule in a civil case.

—The constitution of a state confers upon its legislature the control of legal remedies, and the law-making power exercises that prerogative in adopting and changing legal remedies and penalties for the punishment of crime, according to the demands which appear to arise in the wants and necessities of the public. These changes continuously occur, and therefore all legal proceedings would be thrown in wide confusion if each case should imperatively be conducted in accordance with the rules of practice and before those courts which were in existence when its facts arise. By legislative enactments old courts are abolished and new ones spring into existence. Judicial forms vanish; legal remedies dissolve, while others appear in their stead; new rules of evidence and practice are admitted, and older ones are blotted out; and penalties for crimes committed change frequently in the vast domain of the Union. Nevertheless amid all these changes, under the shield and protection of the national and state constitutions the personal rights of the citizens remain secure, and no act can become a law in fact which dispenses with any of the safeguards with which existing law surrounds the person accused of crime.

—Now with regard to ex post facto laws, it may be remarked that there have been statutes sustained giving the government additional challenges, (Warren vs Commonwealth, 37 Penn. St., 45), and others which empowered the amendment of indictments and applied them to past transactions the same as any similar statute intended merely to improve the remedy, and working no injustice to the defendant, and depriving him of no substantial right. Other than these exceptions the decisions are uniform in upholding the principle that an ex post facto law is imperative when relating to a criminal prosecution.

—With respect to the principle that a trial can not be had under the law in force at the time it is charged that the crime was committed, when a change has been subsequently made, the court, in State vs. Williams, 2 Rich., 418, held that the defendant in any case must be proceeded against and punished under the law in force when the proceeding is had. Commonwealth vs. Hall, 97 Mass., 570, held that a law is not unconstitutional which precludes a defendant in a criminal case from taking advantage of variances which do not prejudice him. In the case of Lasure vs. State, 19 Ohio N. S., 43, it was held that a law was not unconstitutional which reduces the prisoner's peremptory challenges. Gut vs. State, 9 Wall., 35, held the act constitutional which though passed after the commission of the offense, authorizes a change of venue to another county of the judicial district. State vs. Leamand, 47 Me., 426, held the act constitutional which merely modifies, simplifies and reduces the essential allegations in criminal indictments, retaining the charge of a distinct offense. Blair vs. Ridgely, 41 Mo., 63, held an act to be constitutional which required an oath of past loyalty of voters.

—Ex post facto laws are not objectionable, as such, which take into consideration a criminal's past conduct while framing a punishment for future offenses, and graduate the punishment accordingly. The law very frequently provides heavier punishment for a second or third offense than for a first; and in providing such heavier penalties it has been determined as not unreasonable that the previous conviction to be taken into account may have taken place before the law was passed. In all such cases it is not the first offense that is punished, but the one subsequently committed. The statute itself would be void if the offense to be punished had been committed before it had gone into effect, although it may have been committed after its passage.

—With respect to providing heavier penalties for subsequent offenses, Bishop on Criminal Law says: "The rule, however, which forbids an increase of the penalty Edition: current; Page: [144] after the act is performed, does not render void a statute providing a heavier punishment for the second commission of the offense than for the first, though the first took place before its passage, yes when both had occurred before, the consequence is otherwise."

EXPULSION

EXPULSION. (See PARLIAMENTARY LAW.)

EXTERRITORIALITY

EXTERRITORIALITY. By this word is understood the right which representatives of foreign powers have of living in the countries to which they are accredited under the laws of the nation which they represent. Foreign sovereigns in person, ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, in short, all diplomatic persons who represent their sovereign, or the state whose envoys they are near a foreign government, enjoy the privilege of exterritoriality. A sovereign, though he be temporarily on the territory of another power, is nevertheless considered, by a fiction of the modern law of the nations of Europe, to be always on his own territory, and he enjoys all the prerogatives inherent in sovereignty. This privilege does not extend to the princes and princesses of reigning houses.

—Exterritoriality is extended to ambassadors, and certain diplomatic agents, because they represent, to a certain extent, the person of the sovereign whose agents they are: they are considered, during the whole time of their mission, as not having left the state whose envoys they are, and as filling their offices outside of the territory of the power to which they are accredited. This fiction extends also to the families of the ambassador and diplomatic agent, to the members of their suite, and even to their movable property.

—One of the most important prerogatives of exterritoriality is inviolability. It commences the moment the minister puts his foot on the territory of the sovereign to whom he is sent, and makes known his official character. Inviolability brings with it exemption from the jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, and this exemption is founded, not simply on propriety or decorum, but on necessity. Indeed, if ambassadors and diplomatic agents were not protected by the principle of inviolability, their dignity, even their independence, might be compromised; we must not, however, infer impunity from inviolability. "In the practice of nations," says Martens, in case of crime committed or attempted by a foreign minister, the government generally limits itself to asking his recall; if the danger is urgent, it allows itself to seize the person of the minister till the danger is past; if not, it is satisfied with asking for his recall or removal." According to circumstances, when there is violence, or conspiracy against the safety of the state, the sovereign of the country threatened may take any measure required by the necessity of legitimate defense.

—During the exercise of his functions abroad the ambassador or minister does not cease to belong to his country; he preserves his domicile in it as if he were present.

—In France, before 1789, the prerogatives of ambassadors and foreign ministers had not been sanctioned by any written law, but were recognized by custom. The constituent assembly in France, by a decree of Dec. 11, 1789, issued in consequence of a demand addressed by the diplomatic corps to the minister of foreign affairs, declared that it desired in no case to attack by its decrees any immunity of ambassadors and foreign ministers. A decree of the convention declared subsequently that all complaints which might be made against foreign ambassadors should be brought to the committee of public safety; at present, complaints of this kind in France must be addressed to the minister of foreign affairs.

—Certain foreign codes have express provisions on this matter. The code of civil procedure in Bavaria provides that all who enjoy the right of ambassador are exempt from ordinary jurisdiction. The general code of Prussia contains also various regulations on this subject. The civil code of Austria provides that ambassadors, chargés d'affaires and persons in their employ, enjoy all the privileges established by the law of nations and public treaties. According to No. 2, chap. x., of the civil laws of Russia, no judgment can be executed in the residences of ambassadors and diplomatic envoys unless by the agency of these ministers. Most of the codes of the other countries of Europe contain similar provisions.

—BIBLIOGRAPHY. Bynkershoek, De foro legatorum, Lugd. Batav. 1730; Miruss, Europ. Gesandtschaftsrecht, 1847; Berner, Wirkungskreis des Strafges, 1853. pp. 206, etc.; von Bar, Das internationale Prie. und Strof R.: "das Recht der Exterritorialen"; Marquardsen, see words Exterritorialitat in Rotteck's Staatslexikan and Kaltenborn in Bruntschli's Staatsiorterbuch; Oppenheim, Handbuck d Konsulate aller Lander, 1854, chaps xiv. and xv., Jochmus. Handbuch fur Konsula. 1852. pp. 111, etc.

EXTRADITION

EXTRADITION, the delivering up to justice of fugitive criminals by the authorities of one country or state to those of another. The term is modern, for Billot says that it was never used in France in a public act before the decree of Feb. 19, 1791; and Lawrence is unable to find it in the English version of any British treaty or in any law before the extradition act of 1870. The principles on which extradition is based are also of very recent origin. They are not found in the civil law, because they do not apply to the transfer of an accused person from one state to another having a common supreme government, and under the Roman empire there was but one supreme ruler, and the authority, whether at the place where the accused was found, or where the crime had been committed, was the same, namely, the paramount authority of the emperor. Nor does the surrender by a country of its citizens, or even of foreigners who have sought a refuge in it, relying on the right of asylum, find a place in the common law. In the collection of treaties of Edition: current; Page: [145] Barbeyrac, which extends from 1496 B. C. to Charlemagne, treaties of surrender are met with, but they relate to political matters as affecting the safety of the state, and involve high treason and sometimes other felonious crimes; but no treaties for the administration of ordinary criminal jurisprudence are mentioned. Persons who were obnoxious, or banished, or outlawed, could be surrendered under these treaties, and even up to a very recent period offenses of a political nature formed the grounds for demanding the surrender of fugitives. Treaties for the surrender of the regicides were entered into by Charles II. with Denmark (1661) and the States General (1662): and as late as 1849 the refusal on the part of Turkey to deliver up to Russia and Austria, Poles and Hungarians who had escaped into the sultan's territory, broke off all diplomatic intercourse between the porte and those nations. At the present day extradition is an instrument of justice, and not only renders punishment of crime more certain by depriving criminals of a right of asylum in a foreign country and under a different government, but indirectly prevents the commission of crime. "The necessity for extradition grows out of the fact that, except in cases specially provided for by treaty, the penal laws of one country can not operate within the jurisdiction of another," and the advantage of such arrangements is the greater and closer are the relations between two countries. Thus the policy of extradition becomes more apparent when applied to contiguous territories, such as Canada and the United States, than when applied to the United States and Turkey.

—As applied to the United States, extradition may be examined, 1, as between the different states of the Union, and 2, as between the United States and foreign nations.

—Extradition, as provided for in the constitution, is a transaction between separate and independent states, for these states are sovereign within their respective boundaries, save that portion of power which they have granted to the federal government, and are foreign to each other for all but federal purposes. (Rhode Island vs. Massachusetts, 12 Pet., 657.) The constitution says (Art. IV., §2), "A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime;" and a statute passed by congress in 1793 imposes the duty of surrender upon the executive of the state in which the accused is found, and prescribes the form in which demand shall be made for such fugitive. In the interpretation of the constitutional provision, question has arisen on the exact meaning of the words "treason, felony, or other crime." Some jurists hold that such acts only are meant as were criminal either at common law, or by the common consent of civilized nations, at the time the constitution went into effect; others include only offenses of a serious nature; while still a third view extends its operation so as to include any offense against the laws of the state or territory making the demand; and this last view is supported by the weight of judicial decisions. (See citations in Spear, Law of Extrad., p. 267.) Felonies and misdemeanors, offenses by statute and at common law, are alike within the constitutional provision, and the obligation to surrender the fugitive for an act which is made criminal by the law of the demanding state, but which is not criminal in the state upon which the demand is made, is the same as if the alleged act was a crime by the laws of both." (People vs Brady, 56 N. Y. Rep., 182, 187.) Some notable cases arose over the interpretation of this section while slavery was still in existence, Mr. Seward, when governor of New York, against the precedents of the state, refused to surrender persons charged with having stolen slaves, on the ground that the offense charged was not one recognized by common law, by the common consent of civilized nations, or by the laws of the state of New York. Nor has this difficulty passed away with the abolition of slavery; for a large proportion of the cases in which requisition for the surrender of fugitives is made, are cases of statutory offenses, and it is always possible that public opinion in one state may lead to statutes providing for crimes that would not be so regarded in another state.

—Should any doubt arise on this matter the practice of the courts differ. In some states it has been decided that it should be left to the courts of the state making the demand, and a case is cited in Delaware in which a fugitive was surrendered although the courts declared that the offense was only a civil trespass. (State vs. Schlemm. 4 Harrington's Rep., 577.) In New York the courts have passed upon the sufficiency of demands made upon the executive by other states, without regard to the laws of those states. But in either case such proceedings are subject to the final action of the executive, by whom alone surrender can be made.

—Another mooted question is, whether the executive upon whom demand is made may obey it or refuse to obey it, whether his power is discretionary or imperative. In Kentucky the federal courts have decided that the governor has no discretion in the matter, and this would seem to be the general legal opinion. In one case, however, an exception is presented. If the person demanded is in confinement or under prosecution for a breach of the laws of the state to which he has gone, the state may satisfy the demands of her own laws first. Should the executive, under any other conditions, refuse for any reason to issue a warrant for the arrest of a fugitive, there is no power that can compel him to do it.

—The necessary forms to secure the surrender of fugitive criminals are prescribed in the act of 1793. The accused must be indicted in the state in which the crime was committed, or a charge must be brought against him before a magistrate, who, if satisfied that the charge is true, issues a warrant for the arrest of the criminal. Edition: current; Page: [146] A copy of the indictment or affidavit is forwarded to the executive of the state, and he issues to the executive of the state to which the fugitive has gone, a requisition for his surrender. If the executive upon whom requisition is made is satisfied that the papers are regular and the proof of crime sufficient, he is required to issue a warrant for the arrest and delivery of the accused to the agent of the state making the demand. But this action of the executive is not final, for judicial proceedings may be instituted under a writ of habeas corpus, for the purpose of obtaining the discharge of the accused. "The judicial duty to release any person unlawfully arrested, on proper application made for that purpose, is imperative, no matter by what direction or command the arrest was made." The expense attending the surrender of fugitives is borne by the state making the demand.

—International Extradition. If a person has committed a crime and escaped to another country, what is the duty of that country? Should the person be tried by the laws of the country to which he has come, or should he be delivered up to the country whose laws he has broken? The question of the right to demand the surrender of a fugitive criminal has never been definitely determined. Grotius considered that a state is bound to make such surrender; but, on the other hand, Lord Coke contended strongly against the exercise of such power. He shows that the feeling both in England and on the continent at the time he wrote his Institutes, was that "all kingdoms were free to fugitives, and that it was the duty of kings to defend every one of the liberties of their own kingdoms, and therefore to protect them." But the greater number of jurists do not consider it as a matter of right, but prefer to base it on the ground of comity or convenience, and the universal practice now is to surrender fugitive criminals only where there is some special treaty which demands it between the two nations; and in this country power to make such a surrender is conferred upon the executive only where the United States are bound by treaty, and have a reciprocal right to claim similar surrender from the other power. But one exception to this practice has occurred in this country. In 1864, although there was no extradition treaty with Spain, Arguelles, a governor of Cuba, was delivered up to the Spanish minister under authority assumed by Mr. Seward, then secretary of state.

—In practice extradition treaties present two difficulties. Among different nations with different environment and temperaments, there will be found very different conceptions as to what constitutes a crime; and what is regarded as a crime under the laws of one country may not be so regarded by the laws of another. Thus, in Mohammedan countries, up to within recent times, to kill a Christian was no crime; and in Spain to distribute the Bible was until recently a capital offense. Owing to this difference in the morals and consequent legislation among nations, it is usual to enumerate in the treaty the crimes for which extradition may be demanded, and as such offenses must be recognized as crimes by the laws of both contracting nations, the enumeration differs somewhat in different treaties. In general it is mala in se and not merely mala prohibita that are so included, and extradition should apply only to every act which it is the interest of every nation to prevent or punish, and should not be extended to offenses of a local or political character. And while in practice it is customary to follow strictly such an enumeration of crimes as is contained in the treaty, and to limit extradition only to such as are named, it will be seen that some very important questions have arisen over the interpretation of such treaties. The following crimes are mentioned in the treaties between the United States and other nations: arson, assassination, assault with intent to commit murder, burglary, circulation or fabrication of counterfeit moneys, counterfeiting public bonds, stamps, marks of state and administrative authority, etc., embezzlement of the public money, embezzlement by public officers, embezzlement by persons hired or salaried, utterances of forged paper, forgery, infanticide, kidnapping, larceny of cattle or other goods and chattels of the value of twenty-five dollars (found only in the treaty with Mexico), mutiny, murder, mutilation, parricide, piracy, poisoning, rape and robbery. To this list the treaty with Peru adds bigjamy, fraudulent bankruptcy, fraudulent barratry, and severe injuries intentionally caused on rail roads, to telegraph lines, or to persons by means of explosions of mines or steam boilers.

—A second practical difficulty is, that the extraditing power is open to abuse, and an accused person may be wanted to answer, not for a real crime, which might be made the pretext for his surrender, but for another offense, such as one of a political nature, which the laws of the country on which demand is made may not recognize as a crime. It is a generally recognized principle among civilized nations that there can be no extradition for a political crime, though very few treaties contain an express prohibition of such a surrender. And as opinions differ in different countries on what constitutes a political crime, the surrendering nation is very properly made the judge of this question. Of the extradition treaties entered into by the United States, nineteen guard by express provision against their application to political crimes, five are silent on the matter, and one, that with the Two Sicilies, provides that "it shall not apply to offenses of a political character, unless the political offender shall also have been guilty of one of the crimes enumerated in Art. 22;" a very remarkable provision, and, says Mr. Lawrence, one the existence of which with such a state as the Two Sicilies was at that time (1855), is a sufficient condemnation of the whole system of extradition. If, then, extradition may not be had for a political offense, it would stand to reason that to prevent any abuse of the extraditing power, the accused person can be tried only on the charge on which Edition: current; Page: [147] he was surrendered, and on no other. To suppose that he can be tried for any other crime than that for which he was extradited, is to render nugatory all the provisions which confine the treaty, by naming them, to specified offenses; for under any other interpretation one government could claim a prisoner of another, for an extradition crime, and having once obtained possession of him, might try him for an offense of a political nature, for which he could not have been in the first instance extradited. It has been clearly recognized in France that any such proceedings would render extradition an instrument of injustice, and would make it operate against the general law of nations, which does not place political offenses in the category of crimes. And since 1830, a Frenchman guilty of an ordinary crime and also of a political offense, and surrendered by a foreign power, can be tried only for the ordinary crime. But if, after a reasonable length of time after acquittal, or the expiration of the penalty, he is found in the territory, he may then be brought to answer for the political offense. "As acts of extradition are not only personal to the individual who is surrendered, but state besides the fact which gives occasion to the extradition, the individual who is surrendered can be tried only on this fact. If, while the examination for the crime for which the surrender is asked is going on, proofs of a new crime for which extradition might equally be accorded appear, it is necessary that a new demand should be made." Billot, in his Traité de l'Extradition, the best work on the subject, says of this principle: "Here is a rule established as firmly as possible. It is incontestable that the tribunals can try the accused only on the facts for which the extradition has been accorded. This rule is an immediate corollary from the principle, which imposes on the judiciary power an obligation to apply the treaties of extradition—a principle which itself is a direct consequence of the higher principle of the separation of powers. The rule and the principle belong to the very organization of political societies, and must have precedence over every internal law. It is, besides, a necessary condition of the very principle of extradition. Moreover this rule and this principle have always been observed in France." (P. 308.) In no American treaty, however, is it expressly provided that the extradited individual shall not be tried for any offense other than that on which he was extradited. This omission may be due to the fact that it was supposed to be covered by the law of nations, or the dictates of common sense; or, as Mr. Lawrence suggests, because a cession of one privilege does not carry with it universal jurisdiction, nor require that such jurisdiction be expressly negatived as to everything else. But in some treaties, as we have seen, political crimes are excluded, while others declare that the accused shall not be held to answer for acts committed anterior to that for which extradition has been granted, and these provisions act as an indirect check to any abuse under the treaties. It may be added that the principle that an extradited criminal can be tried only for the crime for which he is surrendered, has been generally recognized among the states, and there have occurred cases in which the executive of a state has refused such surrender, on the ground that the crime charged was only a pretext to obtain possession of the accused, who would really be held to answer for another offense not covered by the general rules governing the surrender of fugitives. The English act of extradition (1870) has an article to the same effect.

—In case any complications arise under extradition treaties there can be no question as to what authority is to decide. The federal government alone is the judge of the validity of an extradition treaty, for no state has any treaty power, or any authority to enact or execute laws for the delivery of fugitive criminals to foreign governments. Treaties are international arrangements, and are subject to diplomatic or political and not judicial interpretation: and the provisions in the constitution which declare that treaties have the force of law, and which bring them within judicial cognizance, can only apply to their internal operation and can not affect foreign powers. Congress is, however, competent to make from time to time new provisions for the execution of a treaty, (acts of June 30, 1860, March 3, 1869, and June 19, 1876), and both the United States and Great Britain have been in the habit of passing laws to carry international compacts into effect; but no act of congress or of parliament could with impunity alter the terms or conditions of a treaty that had been entered into in good faith by two sovereign states. Only so far as it operates as a municipal law can it be so altered, or even repealed, as in 1798 our treaties with France were abrogated by congress. Still, the judicial function in executing the conditions of an extradition treaty are important, and act as a check upon the executive department of the government. The executive can not make a delivery until the proper magistrate has considered and acted upon the case, and over these judicial functions the president has no control. On the other hand, the judiciary can not surrender the accused, for that lies within the power of the president alone. Nor can the judiciary bind the action of the president by its judgment. In the famous Vogt case, the president disregarded the decision of the courts, and refused to surrender the prisoner; and his refusal was based upon a construction of the treaty showing that the extent to which extradition treaties apply is a question to be settled by the political department of the government. (12 Blatchford's C. C. Rep., 516.) The judge acts only for individual protection, while the executive passes judgment on the international obligation.

—Some other points of interest must be passed over. Such are the surrender by a nation of its own citizens; what subsequent legislation is required to make effective an extradition treaty that is not self-executing; the surrender of Edition: current; Page: [148] fugitives already convicted of crime, etc. The means of executing extradition, as prescribed by the act of 1848, require a brief notice. Application for arrest may be made before any of the justices of the supreme court, judges of the district courts of the United States, the judges of the several state courts, and the commissioners authorized to act by any of the courts of the United States. Testimony is taken before such judge or commissioner, and, if sufficient, a certified copy is sent to the secretary of state, so that a warrant may issue on the requisition of the proper authorities of the foreign government according to the stipulations of the treaty. But this evidence, to be sufficient, must be such as, according to the laws of the place where the fugitive is found, would have justified his apprehension and commitment had the offense been committed there.

—History. There are traces of extradition measures among the colonial governments (Winthrop's Hist. of Mass., II., 121, 126), and an extradition article was embodied in the articles of confederation, but the law of 1798 finally provided for inter state extradition, and placed the responsibility of executing it upon the executives of the states. In 1792 Mr. Jefferson, in drawing up a project to regulate the relations between the United States and the adjoining English and Spanish possessions, limited extradition to cases of murder only. This project was, however, never carried out, and two years later, in 1794, by the Jay treaty contracted between the United States and Great Britain, persons charged with murder or forgery, at that time capital crimes, might be extradited. (Art. XXVII.) But this article, besides being limited to twelve years, so as to expire in 1806, was not self-executing, and required an act of congress to be effective—which was never passed. But one case arose under that treaty, that of Jonathan Robbins, alias Nash, who was in 1799 delivered up to the English on a charge of murder, on a requisition issued by the president while the judicial proceedings were in progress (Wharton's State Trials, pp. 392-457.) The justice of such a surrender has never been conceded. But apart from some treaties providing for the surrender of deserters from foreign vessels in our ports, the United States was a party to no extradition treaty previous to that with Great Britain in 1843. In this treaty the United States and Great Britain, for the furtherance of justice and the repression of crime, agreed mutually to deliver up to each other, on proper demand and evidence, persons charged with murder or attempt to murder, piracy, arson, robbery, or forgery, committed within the jurisdiction of either, and who, having sought an asylum, may be found within the territory of the other. From 1842 to 1875 the administration of this treaty between the two countries worked smoothly. In 1874-5 it was ascertained, however, that one Lawrence, by himself and others—one of the others having been a United States official, occupying a most responsible position—had been engaged in smuggling silks on a large scale (tempted thereto, undoubtedly, by the enormous duty imposed on the importation of such merchandise); and apprehending detection and punishment, had fled the country and taken refuge in Great Britain. A deep interest was taken in this matter by certain revenue officials of the government, who had previously and disreputably been connected with certain cases of alleged violation of the revenue laws of the country, and which, under certain provisions of the so-called "moiety laws" passed in 1863 and 1867, had brought to them in the form of shares of fines and forfeitures, very considerable profits. With appetites whetted, therefore, by what they had already received, and with the expectation that, as the case developed, a sufficient number of merchant importers worth plundering would be found implicated, extraordinary efforts were instituted to arrest and convict the alleged offenders. The first steps in the furtherance of these objects were to arrest Lawrence as principal and to indict the merchants supposed to be implicated. The latter was easy, and indictments were found against some of the largest and most respectable New York merchants; but the arrest of the principal, who had fled to England, was not so easy: inasmuch as smuggling was not mentioned in the extradition treaty between Great Britain and the United States as an extraditable offense: and furthermore, as a violation of American law, it is not an offense at common law or by statute in any other or foreign country. His extradition was therefore demanded on the charge of forgery—forgery of a custom house bond and affidavit—although, as was afterward proved in court, there was no forgery, in the usual sense of the term, actually committed, the names signed being the names of purely fictitious persons. Nevertheless the pretense fully served the purpose, and Lawrence was delivered up by the British officials, who clearly had not a suspicion that anything other than forgery was involved in the demand for extradition. The whole proceeding was, however, in the nature of a trick, and as such was mean and dishonorable: for it was not forgery for which Lawrence was wanted, or for which there was originally any intent of punishing him, but for smuggling, for which he would not have been extradited by any country. Accordingly, the moment that Lawrence came into the custody of the United States authorities at New York, the United States district attorney in that city, dropping any further pretense about forgery, proposed to put him at once on trial for smuggling; or, more correctly, to proceed against him in a civil action for the recovery of $1,386,400, alleged to he unpaid duties on goods imported. Up to this point, and for months subsequent, the proceedings in reference to this extradited person do not seem to have been made the occasion of any diplomatic consideration; but on May 21, 1875, the president of the United States ordered a reference of the case to the solicitor general for Edition: current; Page: [149] examination, and, pending his report, a stay of all proceedings "except upon the charges" (i.e., forgery) "upon which the said Lawrence was extradited," was ordered. On the 16th of June following, the solicitor general submitted a report to the effect that there was nothing in the extradition treaty of 1842 which inhibited the United States from proceeding against Lawrence for offenses other than for what he had been demanded and surrendered.

—The next step in these proceedings was the arraignment of Lawrence by the United States district attorney of New York, before the United States circuit court, on charges of forgery, not specified in the extradition papers, and also in effect for smuggling. The counsel of Lawrence made answer for him substantially that he was not legally before the court for any such offense, inasmuch as he was not arraigned for the offense for which he had been extradited, and that an extradited offender could not be tried for an offense other than the one for which he was surrendered. The court (Benedict), however, ruled, that this question was not before it: and that it had already been made the subject of an adverse decision; and that even if such a decision had not been made, the court was not precluded from trying Lawrence for any offenses preferred by proper officers against him. "An offender," it said, "can acquire no rights by defrauding justice." "No rights accrue to the offender by flight; he remains at all times and everywhere liable to answer to the law, provided he comes within the reach of its arm."

—There is also another incident worth noticing in this connection. In the account of the decision transmitted by cable to the London press by the New York news agents, the court, referring to the question of its right to try Lawrence for an offense other than that for which he was extradited, is reported as saying: "The court can not regard the order of the president to the contrary, or take notice of any agreement between the English and American governments to that effect:" and this language Lord Derby, in his dispatch of April 11, 1876, quotes, as if he regarded it as authoritative. In the extradition papers pertaining to this matter, subsequently transmitted by the executive to the house of representatives, extracts only were given from the decision of Judge Benedict, and therefore the public had not the opportunity of judging whether the language above referred to and which the British government evidently accepted, was or was not used, as reported. The circumstance, however, that the state department did not transmit to congress the entire document is somewhat suggestive, and naturally prompts to an inquiry whether the then secretary of state (Mr. Fish) did not regard the publication of certain portions of Judge Benedict's opinion as a matter of doubtful expediency, and not calculated to strengthen the position of the Washington cabinet either before the country or the British government.

—The case here rested for nearly a year, when the United States demanded the extradition from Great Britain of one Ezra D. Winslow, a fugitive from the United States, charged with extensive forgeries and the utterance of forged paper. In answer to this demand, Lord Derby, then the British foreign secretary, in turn asked of the United States a simple guarantee, as a prerequisite to a surrender of the fugitive, that he should not, when surrendered, be tried for any offense other than the one specified in the extradition request, and for which extradition was granted; at the same time taking occasion to point out that he was restrained from making the surrender except under such conditions, in virtue of an act of parliament passed August, 1870, of which the following is the substance. "A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered to a foreign state, unless provision is made by the law of that state, or by arrangement, that the fugitive criminal, until be has been restored, or had an opportunity of returning to her majesty's dominions, shall not be detained or tried in that foreign state for any offense committed prior to his surrender, other than the extradition crime proved by the facts on which the surrender is grounded." To this answer of Lord Derby to the American demand for the extradition of Winslow, the American secretary of state replied, that there was nothing in the original treaty which precluded the United States from trying a criminal once surrendered "for any offense other than the particular offense for which he was extradited;" but that, on the contrary, the right to do so under the treaty was fully sustained "by judicial decisions, by the practice of both governments, and by the understanding of persons most familiar with proceedings in such cases;" and finally, that Great Britain, by the act of 1870, had changed the spirit and terms of the original treaty of 1842, and without the assent of the United States had attached to it new conditions. The right to thus modify the treaty, he added, the president can not recognize.

—Although much correspondence on this subject subsequently passed between the two governments (see message of the president of the United States, June 10, 1876, Ex. Doc. No. 173, 1st session 44th congress), no further progress was made; neither party receding from its position. Winslow was not delivered up by the British government, and escaped prosecution, and Lawrence, after having been released on bail, was never again arraigned for prosecution. But as fugitives from justice from the United States have since been delivered up to the latter by Great Britain, and as the British law of extradition stipulates that a criminal surrendered on demand of a foreign state shall not be tried for any other than the extradition crime proved by the facts on which the surrender is granted, the inference is that the claims made by the United States in 1875-6 growing out of the Lawrence case, have been quietly abandoned as untenable.

—The following are the extradition treaties and stipulations entered into by the United States and Edition: current; Page: [150] in force in 1879: Great Britain, Aug. 9, 1842; France, Nov 9, 1843, with a supplementary article Feb. 24, 1845, and another article, Feb. 10, 1858; Hawaiian islands, Dec. 20, 1849; Swiss confederation, Nov. 25, 1850; Prussia and other states, June 16, 1852; Bremen, Sept. 6, 1853; Bavaria, Sept. 12, 1853; Wurtemberg, Oct. 13, 1853; Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Nov. 26, 1853; Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Dec. 2, 1853; Oldenburg, Dec. 30, 1853; Schaumburg Lippe, June 7, 1854; Hanover, Jan. 18, 1855; Two Sicilies, Oct. 1, 1855, Austria, July 3, 1856; Baden, Jan. 30, 1857; Sweden and Norway, March 21, 1860; Venezuela, Aug. 27, 1860; Mexico, Dec. 11, 1861; Hayti, Nov. 3, 1864; Dominican republic, Feb. 8, 1867; Italy, March 23, 1868, with an additional article, Jan. 21, 1869; Nicaragua, June 25, 1870; Orange Free States, Dec. 22, 1871; and Ecuador, June 28, 1872. In addition there are extradition stipulations with the republic of Salvador, May 23, 1870; Peru, Sept. 12, 1870; Belgium, March 19, 1874; Ottoman empire, Aug. 11, 1874; and Spain, Jan. 5, 1877.

—English Extradition. In England extradition is regulated by treaties which are made by an order in council under the extradition act of 1870. The chief provisions of this act are: 1. That a fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered for a political offense, or if he prove that his surrender has in fact been required with a view of trying him for a political offense; 2. Provision must be made that a surrendered criminal shall not be tried for any but the extradition crime, 3. Criminals accused or convicted of offenses in England shall not be surrendered in extradition until they are discharged; 4. There must be an interval of fifteen days between the committal to prison and the surrender.

—AUTHORITIES Spear, Law of Extradition, treats mainly of the American law on the subject; Clarke, Law of Extradition is English; Billot, Traité de l'Extradition, Fiore, L'Extradizione. See Lawrence's Wheaton, and his letters in the Albany Law Journal, 1878. A parliamentary committee made a report on extradition in 1879.

FACTION

FACTION. This word has, unfortunately, formed a part of the political vocabulary in every period of history. Taken in its most rigorous sense it is merely a synonym of party, and reminds us of the groups of competitors who, in the games of the Roman circus, arrayed themselves in different colors and contended with one another for the prize in running, or in trials of strength. But the word also calls to mind the great parties which have agitated political society ever since its foundation.

—At Rome people adopted the color of the victor in the circus; in the combats of public life they soon adopt the passions of the hardiest combatant. And just as the games had their streamers, so also personal ambitions have their standards. It was thus that the first faction was formed under the leadership of Cæsar, which, overcoming its weakness in point of numbers by the boldness of its enterprises, soon became the powerful party which was one day to overrun and rule the empire.

—In the present condition of society can factions, properly so called, be formed? We would like to believe they could not; something extremely odious attaches to-day to the secret machinations which disturb the common peace, and place in power a minority of energetic men whose boldness surpasses their intelligence and knowledge. Public opinion may still perhaps excuse, in history, the bold attempts of the duke de Guise and of Cardinal de Retz; it can make allowance for circumstances in the conflicts of the past, when the leaders of the minority prepared the way for the formation of their parties by a hazardous coup de main. But they now highly disapprove of this substitution of force for reason, of violence for persuasion, even in extreme cases.

—Such, then, is a faction in its generally accepted sense; it is in politics what pirates are to seafaring men. It has been correctly enough defined grammatically as "an opposing league made up of conspirators"; while of parties, on the contrary, we may say that they are groups whose members seek, by the diffusion of their ideas and the success of their doctrines, a triumph which factions demand through their personal audacity or the terror of their victims. In a word, real statesmen are the leaders of parties; factions are made up only of conspirators. In our time this word ought to be expunged, and together with it the idea which it represents. No matter how imperfect our political education may be, and no matter how divided society may appear to be, enduring success, now as in the past, can be achieved only by men of thought. When by reason of the character and temperament of the people of any country authority seems more or less exposed to the attacks of impatient minorities, the victories obtained by factions are always ephemeral. The reaction will be as sudden as the triumph; and opinion, which has too often and too quickly honored these coups de main with the name of "revolution," will inflict upon their authors the penalty of general reprobation.

—A word about "sovereign factions." Power itself may possess the allurements and weaknesses of ambitious minorities. If it feel its strength diminishing, at endeavors with all its powers to Edition: current; Page: [151] affect what by a license of speech has been called a coup d'état—But factious revolutions of either kind should be tolerated, approved or allowed to bear fruit no longer, neither because of the prestige which power gives, nor because of the popularity which courage and talent enjoy.

FACTORY LAWS

FACTORY LAWS. The doctrine so long current in political economy and expressed in the motto, laissez faire, laissez passer, has been thoroughly exploded by the logic of circumstances. No better proof of this could be desired than the factory laws of modern industrial nations, laws which have been of late warmly defended by economists of every school. The reaction begun by Adam Smith against the paternal theory and practice of contemporary governments resulted in an illogical and untenable theory of the state and its functions. "Free competition" was the panacea for all economical ills of society. Every one was to be free to sell his own labor and that of his family where he could obtain most for it, and free to make such contracts as he would or could. As England was the first great industrial state of modern times, so in England the results of such a policy first showed themselves in all their nakedness. The most merciless exploitation of the weaker elements of society by the stronger became the rule. The manufacturers, in their thirst for wealth, paid as little attention to the health of their operatives as they chose. The laborers, in their necessity, were compelled to accept what terms were offered. The labor of the father soon became insufficient to support the family. The mother had to go into the coal mine or factory. It was not enough; the children were sent into the mines and factories. They were compelled to work ten or fifteen hours a day for seven days in the week, in narrow, illy ventilated and dirty factory rooms or in still more un-healthful mines. The result of such work was, of course, the moral and physical deterioration of the children and a steady degeneration of the laborers from decade to decade. The conditions prevailing in Great Britain during the latter part of the last century and the early part of the present century would be entirely incredible were they not well attested by the testimony of unimpeachable witnesses. So crying did the evil become that in 1802 an act was passed "for the preservation of the health and morals of apprentices and others employed in cotton and other mills, and cotton and other factories." This bill owed its passage to the ravages of epidemic diseases in the factory districts of Manchester. The illy fed and over-worked children in the factories formed the very best field for the development and spread of epidemic and contagious diseases. Pauper children were sent in crowds from the agricultural districts of the southern counties to the manufacturing regions of the northern counties. They were apprenticed to the mill owners and mercilessly over-worked and under-fed. The act mentioned subjected all mills employing three or more apprentices or twenty other persons to its provisions. The walls were to be whitewashed, windows enough were to be provided, and the apprentices were always to have two suits of clothing, one to be new each year. Twelve hours were declared to be a day's work, and work was altogether prohibited from 9 P. M. to 6 A. M. These provisions applied only to apprentices, and not to the work of children residing in the neighborhood of the factories. In 1819 children before the age of nine were excluded from the cotton mills, and those from nine to sixteen were not to be employed more than twelve hours a day. In 1825 a bill was passed providing for a partial holiday on Saturday. In 1831 night work in the cotton factories was prohibited for persons between nine and twenty-one years of age; the working day for persons under eighteen was to be twelve hours, and on Saturday nine. In 1833 these provisions were extended to various other kinds of factories. These acts diminished the number of children employed in factories very materially. In 1835 (before the factory acts went into full operation) there were 56,455 children employed in 3,164 factories; in 1838, 29,283 were employed in 4,217 factories, i.e., from an average of over seventeen per factory to less than seven. The movement did not stop here. A mining act was passed which prohibited underground work to children under ten, and to women. In 1844 a new act was passed, providing that children between eight and thirteen should not be employed in textile industries for more than six and a half hours per day. In 1847 ten hours was declared a working day for women and "young persons," i.e., persons between thirteen and eighteen, and they were allowed to work only between 6 A. M. and 6 P. M., one hour and a half to be allowed for meal time. No protected person was to work on Saturday after 2 P. M. Subsequent laws extended these provisions, with some modifications, to nearly every branch of manufacturing industry. In 1874 the minimum age of children was raised to ten years.

—In 1878 a consolidating act was passed, which included in one bill the substance of all previous laws. We can not illustrate the present state of the subject in any better way than by giving this bill in outline. Part I. contains the general law relating to factories and workshops, under the following heads: 1. Sanitary provisions; 2, Safety; 3, Employment and meal hours; 4. Holidays: 5, Education: 6. Certificates of fitness for employment. 7, Accidents. 1. Under the first head, the buildings must be kept in a clean state, and free from effluvia arising from any drain, privy or other nuisance. 2. The second contains provisions for the fencing of dangerous machinery, and restrictions on the employment of children and young persons in cleaning, etc., machinery in motion. 3. A child, young person or woman shall not be employed except during the period of employment fixed as Edition: current; Page: [152] follows: 1st. In textile factories. For young persons and women the period shall be from 6 A. M. to 6 P. M or 7 A. M. to 7 P. M.: on Saturdays, from 6 A. M. till 1 P. M. for manufacturing processes, and 1.30 for all employment, if one hour is allowed for meals; otherwise at 12.30 and 1. Or if the work begins at 7 A. M., it shall end on Saturdays at 1. 30 and 2 P. M. respectively. For meal times two hours at least on week days, and on Saturdays half an hour, must be allowed. Continuous employment without a meal time of at least half an hour not to exceed four and a half hours. For children: employment to be for half time only (in morning or afternoon sets, or alternate days). The work day is the same as above A child must not be employed for two successive periods of seven days in the same set, whether morning or afternoon, nor on two successive Saturdays, nor on Saturday in any week if he has already on one day been employed more than five and a half hours. Nor shall a child be employed on two successive days, nor on the same day in two successive weeks, 2d. In non-textile factories. For young persons and women: period of employment same as before, ending at 2 P. M. on Saturdays; meal times not less than an hour and a half, and on Saturdays half an hour; continuous employment without a meal not to exceed five hours. These regulations also apply to young persons in workshops. For children: half-time arrangements generally the same as before; continuous employment without a meal not to exceed five hours. Women in workshops are subject to the same regulations as young persons, if young persons or children are employed; if not, the period of employment for a woman in a workshop shall be from 6 A. M. to 9 P. M. (on Saturday, 4 P. M.). Absent time for meals, etc., must be allowed to the extent of four and a half hours (on Saturdays two and a half hours). The employment of young persons or children at home, when the work is the same as in a factory or workshop, but no machine power is used, is also regulated, the day being fixed at 6 A. M. to 9 P. M.; for children, 6 A. M. to 1 P. M.; or 1 P. M. to 8 P. M. Meal times in factories or workshops must be simultaneous, and employment during such meal times is forbidden. The occupier of a factory or workshop must issue a notice of the times of employment, etc. No children under ten shall be employed. 4. The following holidays shall be allowed to all protected persons: Christmas day, Good Friday (or the next public holiday), and eight half-holidays, two of which may he commuted for one entire holiday. 5. Occupiers must obtain a weekly certificate of school attendance for every child in their employment 6. Medical certificates of fitness for employment are required in the case of children and young persons under sixteen. When a child becomes a young person a fresh certificate is necessary. 7. Notice of accidents causing loss of life or bodily injury must be sent to the inspector and certifying surgeon of the district.

—Part II. contains special provisions for particular classes of factories and workshops, such as bake houses, print works, bleaching and dyeing works. The third schedule to the act contains a list of special exceptions too numerous to be given in detail.

—Part III. provides for the administration of the law. Two classes of officers are to be appointed by the secretary of state, viz.: 1, inspectors, charged with the duty of inspecting and examining factories and workshops at all reasonable times, and of exercising such other powers as may be necessary to the carrying out of the act: and 2, certifying surgeons, to grant certificates of fitness under the act. Numerous other sections relate to penalties and legal proceedings.

—Part IV. defines the principal terms used in the act. "Child" means a person under fourteen years of age, a "young person" is between fourteen and eighteen; a "woman" means a woman over eighteen. Other sections apply the act to Scot land and Ireland, with a temporary saving for the employment of children under ten and children over thirteen (lawfully employed at the time of the passage of the act). Previous enactments are repealed—It will be seen that the government has taken under its protection the whole class of women, children and youth employed in manufacturing industries. England has not progressed very far in protecting male laborers over twenty-one years of age, although the general provisions relating to the situation, cleaning, ventilation, etc., of factories, and the legal definition of a day's labor, should be considered as the first steps in such a policy. The liberty of combination allowed the laborers is also to be regarded as a negative protection at least.

—Other countries have followed the example of England in protecting the interests of wage laborers. Switzerland, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and several states of the American Union, have more or less developed systems of factory laws. The federal law of Switzerland provides that children under fifteen years of age shall not be employed in factories, and those under seventeen shall not be so employed as to hinder their school and religious instruction. Sunday and night labor is forbidden to persons under eighteen years of age. Pennsylvania fixes the legal day's labor at eight hours in the absence of a special contract, and prohibits the employment of children under thirteen years of age in factories. Minors between the ages of thirteen and sixteen shall not be employed in factories for more than nine months in any one year, nor shall any minors between said ages be employed who have not attended school for at least three consecutive months within the same year. Operatives under twenty-one years of age shall not be employed for more than sixty hours in any one week. Detailed provisions are also contained in the law as to the means of safety to be provided in all branches of industry where they are needed. Massachusetts prohibits the employment of children under ten years of age in manufacturing, Edition: current; Page: [153] mechanical or mercantile establishments. No child under fourteen years of age shall be so employed, except during the vacations of the public schools, unless during the year next preceding such employment he has for at least twenty weeks attended some public or private day school under teachers approved according to law, nor shall such employment continue, unless such child in each and every year attends school for twenty weeks, which time may be divided into two terms of ten consecutive weeks each. Nor shall any child under fourteen years of age who can not read and write be employed in such establishments while the public schools of the town are in session. Minors under eighteen and women may not be employed in factories for more than ten hours per day, nor sixty hours per week. A law, approved April 12, 1882, provides that every person or corporation employing females in any manufacturing, mechanical or mercantile establishment shall provide suitable seats for the use of the females so employed, and shall permit the use of such seats by them when they are not necessarily engaged in the active duties for which they are employed. The provisions in reference to ventilation, cleaning, etc., of factories are similar to those in the English law. It will be seen that Massachusetts has gone farther than any other commonwealth in the classes of protected persons. In addition to factories, mercantile and mechanical establishments are included in the law. Other states allow also many more exceptions than Massachusetts does.

—It is evident from the preceding sketch that the meaning of the term "factory legislation" can not be ascertained by a mere putting together of the meanings of the two words which compose it, but can be understood only by a study of its history (Cohn.) The origin and development of factory legislation point to a limited field which as very far from being coincident with legislation concerning factories. This limited field has in general as its object the protection of wage laborers from those injurious influences which they can not themselves ward off, and, in a narrower sense, from those agencies which most deeply affect the existence of the laborer, especially the protection of those persons who stand most in need of protection, particularly of children; and finally, protection in those branches of industry in which such influences have revealed themselves in the most palpable way. It is characteristic of the empirical course of such legislation that, where it was anything more than a mere pretense, it began in the narrowest sense of the term and approached its logical consequences only after the lapse of generations. Out of the protection of apprentices in cotton factories grew the protection of all children in those factories; out of this grew their protection in other kinds of factories, and out of this last their protection in all mercantile and mechanical establishments as well. (Mass.) The protection of children developed into a protection for women and even for adult men. Protection against the danger of excessive duration of labor developed into a detailed oversight directed not only to the limitation and division of the day, but also to the kind of wages and to provisions against mechanical and chemical dangers of the factories.

—The discussion as to the wisdom of such legislation has been long and excited. Factory laws have been opposed at every stage as being an unwarranted case of interference with the liberty of the individual. Many political economists have protested that the principles of economics forbid any such interference with the freedom of contract. Manufacturers objected that the cost of manufactured goods would be so increased that they could not compete in foreign markets. The laboring classes themselves were opposed to the movement, maintaining that, so far from raising their standard of life, it tended to lower it. Nor can it be denied that each and all these objections have a certain force. Laws which prescribe the age at which labor may be begun, the duration of labor, the conditions under which labor may be carried on, and compulsory attendance at school, need special justification. They interfere with the liberty of the individual, which seems to be contrary to the course of modern political development. In their endeavor to protect him they limit his power over the very agency by which he becomes independent, viz., his own labor, and so they seem to come in conflict with the principles of a sound economy. In their attempt to raise the standard of comfort of the laboring classes they deprive them of certain sources of income, and so their first result is a lowering of the standard of comfort, and they are felt to be oppressive. They interfere, in a word, immediately in the life of the laboring classes, and undertake to counteract by force their tendency to degeneration. And yet they do nothing more than simply apply this force, letting the results take care of themselves. However weighty these arguments are allowed to be, they are overcome by other considerations. In the first place, so far as those provisions relating to the labor of children are concerned, it may be maintained even by those who would limit the functions of the state to the simple one of protection, that such legislation is nothing more than a much needed interference of the state in behalf of the most helpless and oppressed portion of the community. If fathers and mothers become so deadened to every feeling of the obligation of parents to their offspring, as to place their children under such conditions as make their normal development as human beings impossible. If they deprive them of all opportunities for mental, moral and physical education; if they employ them habitually in such branches of industry as lead to their mental, moral and physical deterioration and ruin; surely no more sacred duty rests upon the state than to interfere to protect these children—to protect them not only against their employers, but against their parents as well. The Edition: current; Page: [154] state, then, may undertake to protect minors from the abuse of their parents or guardians. But the principle which justifies interference to protect one helpless and exploited class, justifies interference to protect all helpless and exploited classes. For a long time women were minors in the eyes of the law, and are in reality so yet in all the great manufacturing centres of the world. Their labor was and is exploited as mercilessly by their husbands and lovers as ever that of children was by their parents. Legislation has interfered to protect them from this abuse, fixing the maximum period of labor within any one day and any one week. Such measures can be justified on essentially the same principles as those in behalf of children. The case of adult men is some-what different. To those, however, who maintain that factory laws interfere to an unwarrantable extent with the right of contract, and that adult men and women know what is to their interest better than any set of lawgivers, it may be rejoined that it makes no difference how clearly a man knows what is for his interest if circumstances compel him to close with any contract offered him, which is the case of the ordinary laborer in our modern industry. A laborer in search of work, and needing it in order to earn his next meal, is in no position to require his employer to see that the workshop is healthy or safe, or to dictate any other terms on which he will or will not work. The employer is economically the stronger, and he can exploit the laborer at his will. Here is still another case, then, where the simple theory of protection demands the interference of the state. The conditions of modern industry tend constantly to make the laboring class as a whole more dependent and helpless, and every added year of industrial development makes protection of this class more necessary.

—Factory legislation may be justified not only as a fair response to a demand for protection on the part of helpless classes of the community, but as an essential movement in the interests of society as a whole. Looked at from this standpoint, we may formulate the object of factory laws somewhat as follows: the establishment or restoration of normal conditions of life for the laboring classes, in opposition to those destructive influences by which modern industry especially, although that by no means alone, has destroyed the unity of family, home and education. (Cohn.) It goes without the saying that in a state of society in which the children from the age of five or six years are sent into the mines and factories from daylight till dark, in which the mothers from the time of delivery work all day and half the night in the same places, in which the fathers either do the same or idle away their time living on the proceeds of the labor of their wives and children—it goes without the saying, we repeat, that in such a society there can be no home life, no care and nurture of children, no education, no morality, no health; in a word, none of the conditions necessary to the development of intelligent citizens and to the welfare of free states. Practical statesmen and philanthropists of two generations ago saw clearly that something must be done to counteract the agencies which were sapping rapidly and surely the foundations of family life, reversing the relations of parent and child, of husband and wife, and reducing whole classes of the population to a condition but little, if any, removed from barbarism. They began the work, and it has made good progress. But it is clear that much remains to be done. The next step to be taken is to prohibit the employment of mothers of young children in the factories. Exactly what legislation on this point is practicable does not appear as yet by any means clear, though that something must be done in this direction, and that right early, no one can doubt who knows anything of the conditions prevailing in the great manufacturing centres of the world. In such cases we interfere with the liberty of the laboring classes against their will in the interests of society as a whole. And their objection that their income is thus abridged and their standard of comfort thus lowered, although undoubtedly true of the immediate results, will probably lose its force in course of time, and even if it does not, it ought not to avail against the interest of the commonwealth as a whole—In answer to the manufacturers who urge that such legislation, by raising the price of labor, makes a country unable to compete in the world market with nations which have no such laws, three points may be made: First, it can not be shown, either in theory or practice, that those nations with the lowest wages are best able to compete in international industry. On the contrary, as America has the highest rate of agricultural wages in the world and is yet able to underbid all the world with her agricultural productions, and as England has the highest rate of wages of all the nations which manufacture largely for foreign countries and yet underbids all her competitors with her manufactures, it would seem that supremacy in the world's market and the highest rate of wages are perfectly compatible. Second, the endeavor of the laborers is now directed toward securing an international factory legislation which will place all nations on the same footing in this respect. The federal legislature of the Swiss republic took the first official step toward securing an international system in 1881. Foreign governments were invited to unite with Switzerland in such an attempt. No decisive result has as yet been attained by this step, but it is significant of the progress of events, and marks a decided advance in this subject. Third, a state has other and nobler ends to follow than the accumulation of mere material wealth. The advance of its citizens in intelligence and happiness, in all that distinguishes civilization from barbarism, is of far more importance than supremacy in the world market. Moderate wealth and happy homes are better than a degraded proletary and ability to underbid Edition: current; Page: [155] all competitors in the industrial world.

—Whatever one may think of the arguments on either side, it is certain that factory legislation will not rest where it is, but will advance to new fields and new restrictions. The laborers themselves have taken the matter into their own hands, and by their local, national and international combinations are exercising, whether for weal or woe, a marked influence on the legislation of all civilized nations.

—LITERATURE. Among the sources of information on this topic we may mention: Artisans and Machinery, by P. Gaskell, London, 1836; Die Lage der arbeitenden Klassen in England, by Engel, Leipzig, 1848; Ansichten der Volkswirthschaft aus dem geschicht. Standpunkte, by Wilhelm Roscher; Moral and Physical Condition of the Working Classes, by Dr. Kay, 1832; various Reports of Commissioners appointed to inquire into the working of the factory act by the British parliament; various Reports of English Factory Inspectors; various Reports of Children Employment's Commission to Parliament; yearly Reports of Statistical Bureaus of all civilized nations; Ueber internationale Fabrikgesetzgebung, by Gustav Cohn, in Conrad's Juhrbücher für Nationalokonomie, vol. xxxvii., p. 313, to which reference is made in the body of the above article; Le travail des femmes au xix. siecle, by Paul Leroy-Beaulieu, Paris. 1873; La législation sur le travail des enfants dans les manufactures, by Tallou-Maurice, Paris, 1875.

FAIR TRADE

FAIR TRADE. During the remarkable period of industrial and commercial depression and disturbance that prevailed in Europe and the United States from 1873 to 1878-9, the idea became somewhat popular in England that the special economic troubles which Great Britain then experienced, i.e., a diminution of exports and a consequent depression of her manufacturing industries, were due mainly to the unfair conditions which characterized British international exchanges; or to the lack of anything like reciprocal fairness and liberality, on the part of foreign nations, in respect to matters of trade and commerce in dealing with Great Britain. Thus, it was affirmed, and without the possibility of contradiction, that while Great Britain permitted the free importation into her own ports of nearly all the products of all foreign nations, these same nations at the same time not only imposed heavy and often prohibitory duties on the importation into their territories of the products of British industry, but also, in some instances—as in the case of the beet-root sugar of France—subsidized competition, and even made the underselling of British products in their home market possible by the granting of bounties on exports. It was, therefore, claimed that while the policy of commercial liberality in free trade adopted by Great Britain had been magnanimous, it had proved disastrous, because it was one-sided, and not reciprocated, and that the commercially wise and proper course for Great Britain to take, under such circumstances was to institute and enforce "fair trade," by applying to each foreign country a tariff of duties which would correspond as nearly as possible to the tariff which such country enforced against its imports of British products. The programme of the so-called "fair traders," so far as it was definitely formulated, appears to have embodied the following as its principal features 1. Raw materials of manufacture to be admitted free. 2. Food to be taxed when coming from foreign countries: to be admitted free when coming from British colonies: this taxation to be maintained for a considerable term, in order to give the colonies time to develop their products. 3. Tea. coffee, fruit, tobacco, wines and spirits to be taxed 10 per cent. higher when coming from foreign countries than from British colonies. 4 Duties to be levied upon the importation into Great Britain of the manufactures of such foreign countries as impose prohibitory or protective duties on British manufactures; such duties to be removed or abated in the case of any nation which might agree to remove or abate its restrictions on British imports.

—Nothing, however, resulted from the presentation of these ideas and propositions, except discussion, and this in fact was all that was needed: for discussion soon satisfied the British people generally, that while commercial reciprocity on the part of foreign nations would undoubtedly greatly augment their international exchanges, and while ample warrant and occasion existed for the enactment of such retaliatory tariffs as the "fair traders" proposed, yet such enactments would be far from expedient, and not likely to result in any substantial benefit to British trade, industry or commerce. It was shown, in the first place, that a retaliatory commercial policy on the part of Great Britain against foreign nations, would be more likely to induce further retaliation on the part of the latter, rather than greater commercial liberality; as it was the genial warmth of the sun rather than the piercing blasts of the wind that induced the traveler to take off his coat. Second. That it would not be easy to draw the line between raw material and manufactures, and that any, even indirect, enhancement of the raw materials of British industries, would work to their detriment. Third. That to enhance the cost of food by imposing discriminating duties on food imports, would tend to reduce the size of the loaf to the British workman, and, by increasing the expenses of his living, practically reduce his wages. Fourth. That the so-called luxuries, tea, coffee, tobacco, wines and spirits, were already taxed for purposes of revenue in Great Britain to as great a degree as was expedient Fifth. That government can not create trade, and can not divert it without diminishing it. "When people talk of its being the duty of the government to find markets for their people, what they mean is, that the government shall deprive Edition: current; Page: [156] their people of the markets which they find for themselves." One argument put forth by the "fair traders" in support of their policy, which at first sight appeared rather more plausible than most of the others advanced by them, was that British manufacturers should be in some way compensated for "restricted hours of labor and for exceptional taxation" imposed upon them by home legislation; and that if the legislature choose to place disabilities on particular industries, the country at large should bear the cost, and not the particular industries. To this it was replied, that any such disabilities as cited were not imposed intentionally by the legislature: that the assumption has always been that cheap labor is not necessarily efficient labor; and that any system which tends to the degradation of the working chasses, and prevents them from attaining a certain moral, intellectual and physical standard, directly impairs their physical energy. Hence legislation repressive of such systems was, on the whole, beneficial. But if it could be shown that any statute restrictions on labor or any special disabilities really diminish the efficiency of the industries they affect, it should be the object of reformers to address themselves to the legitimate task of obtaining relief from unwise or unjust laws, and not to extend their operation.

—But the most efficient of all arguments, preferred against the views of the "fair traders," was the record of the progress of Great Britain since it began to relax and finally abandon the protective system. Thus in 1829, soon after the removals of restrictions on commerce instituted by Mr. Hankinson and Poulett Thomson, the declared value of British and Irish exports was $179,000,000; in 1839, it was $266,000,000; in 1849, just after the repeal of the corn laws, it was $317,000,000; in 1859, the year before the French commercial treaty, it was $652,000.000, in 1869, after nine years of the treaty and before the Franco-German war, it was $949,000,000; and in 1880, $1,115,000,000. It was also shown that during the periods when the liberal commercial policy of Great Britain was claimed to have specially acted to her great disadvantage, or from 1870 to 1880, the per capita consumption of staple articles of food—the best barometer of the condition of the people—had greatly increased: tea, from 3.18 lb. to 4.59; butter, from 4.15 to 7.52; bacon, from 1.98 to 15.96; sugar, from 41.4 to 59; and tobacco, from 1.30 to 1.49 Pauperism and convictions for crime had also during the same period materially decreased, and the deposits in the savings banks materially increased. The theory and plans of the fair traders accordingly made little permanent impression on the British public; the government gave no attention to them; and with the revival of domestic industries and foreign trade, the whole subject has ceased to attract interest in Great Britain, or be regarded as of any practical importance.

—Among the more important publications which have appeared in Great Britain on this subject, reference may be made to the following. In favor of fair trade: A Plea for Limited Protection or Reciprocity, by Lord Bateman, pamphlet; an article by Richard Wallace, in the Contemporary Review, March, 1879; an article by Farrer Ecroyd, in the Nineteenth Century, for October, 1880. In opposition to or in refutation of the theory of fair trade reciprocity A Letter by Sir Louis Mallet to Mr. Thom. Bayley Potter, of the Cobden Club, 1879; Free Trade versus Fair Trade, by T H. Farier, 1882; and The Recent Depression of Trade, its causes, and the remedies that hate been suggested for it, by Walter E Smith, Oxford, Cobden prize essay, 1879.

FAITS ACCOMPLIS

FAITS ACCOMPLIS. These words have become a usual phrase in political language, and require no explanation. By faits accomplis are meant questions decided by events, and which are or may or should be considered as ended. There is nothing so indestructible, nothing so immutable, as the past. But when it is said that a thing is a fait accompli, it is ordinarily meant that it is of such a character as to be accepted or submitted to, and that the idea is abandoned of doing away with its immediate results, or effacing its most direct consequences. It is believed that the expression began to have this precise sense in practice, after having been employed by Odilon Barrot in a circumstance of considerable importance in the parliamentary history of the French monarchy of 1830. In the session of March 24, 1836, the cabinet formed by Molé, the month be fore, having announced a policy of conciliation, Barrot said: "I was glad to make note of the words of the new ministry, which invited us to take thought only for the future of the country without wrangling over the past. We have accepted faits accomplis, that is to say, that without renouncing our convictions, without abandoning our political religion, in the presence of a majority whose honor and whose dignity itself were pledged to the measures which have been adopted, we consented not to renew in vain, and at the great risk of endangering the peace of the country, questions for which we could not expect, at present, a solution in accordance with our convictions." These words have become the commentary which on almost any occasion may be given on the doctrine of faits accomplis. Since that time the expression has passed into use to describe facts the discussion of which is abandoned, at least temporarily, and concerning which it is considered sufficient to appeal to history or the future. We see that the idea expressed by these two words is analogous in politics to what is known in law as prescription. Both suppose that time, by its influence alone, legalizes certain acts or certain results to such a degree that it may become allowable, wise or prudent to admit them as beyond question, whatever, in other regards, be the judgment which should be passed on them. This is sometimes a concession Edition: current; Page: [157] demanded by necessity, and sometimes a sacrifice made in the interest of the public good.

—Is it possible to determine, in a general manner, the cases and conditions in which the doctrine of faits accomplis is legitimately applicable? The solution of this question depends on the circumstances. This doctrine is indeed appealed to, according to circumstances, either to sanction obedience to necessity, the surrender of one's claims in the interest of all, or the yielding to force and coming to terms with tyranny. It may serve as an argument to reason or as a pretext to weakness. Like prescription in law it may either support a right or shield its violation It may be the expression of a clever policy which distinguishes in time the possible from the impossible, or a cowardly egotism which prostrates itself before fortune. Sometimes destined to bring peace to a divided nation, it may authorize it to grant what Tacitus calls grande patientiœ documentum. It may in turn be the shame or the salvation of a country.

—In times when the frequent recurrence of revolutions tests the energy and faithfulness of men's characters too severely, the doctrine of faits accomplis should be held rather in distrust than made an habitual rule of conduct. At these times the power of events is such that acquiescence is more common and more to be feared than resistance. Men are but too ready to accept the irrevocable, and this even when there are no calculations of personal interest; the indifference and scepticism, produced by the frequent destruction of hopes, opinions and systems, induce us only too frequently to accept the despotism of facts, that is to say, the idolatry of success. Therefore it is perhaps from the nature of the sentiments which determine us to bend before facts, rather than from the nature of the facts themselves, that we must judge whether we are right or wrong in submitting to them. Conscience is more capable of distinguishing whether we yield through weakness of heart or mind than is reason to pronounce whether the results of events are finally decisive or not; and it is easier to recognize what is worthier than what is more certain. It is nevertheless true that a proper appreciation of circumstances, no matter how difficult it may be, is necessary in order wisely to apply the doctrine of faits accomplis in practice. It can not even be laid down as a principle that the mistakes of the past should never be sanctioned, and that all rights are forever imprescriptible. It is an absolute rule that no injustice should be committed, no right violated. But when the evil is really irreparable, the impossible should not be attempted. There should be no struggle against necessity, when one is intrusted with public interests. The simplest and clearest example is that of war; if victory has pronounced against the right in a just war, it is heroic to resist to the death; but it is not criminal in the conquered to acknowledge his own helplessness, and conclude a peace with the conqueror which will secure the triumph of iniquity. There are circumstances under which the state and the country can not be sacrificed even to right. The last resort of a Brutus and a Cato is no more permitted to nations than to individuals. But civilized nations, devoted to the enjoyments of art and industry, have to guard themselves rather against the inclination to tolerate than the desire to repress injustice. We see, therefore, that the question of the possible and the impossible is always involved in such affairs with the question of right, and that before undertaking to act against injustice itself we must know certainly whether it can be repaired. And still it may be beautiful to ignore this. It is the glory of Poland never to have accepted faits accomplis.

—Of principles of which certain facts may be the violation, examination will unable us to decide which are really sacred, since they are eternal, and which are not essentially inviolable, since they are conventional, and concerning which compromise may be admitted. Thus the persons called legitimists in France consider that in a monarchy the right of the dynasty is of such a character that it should be exempt from the attack of events and remain unmoved in the midst of revolutions. Nevertheless if the countess of Albany had not died without posterity, would there still be a Jacobite party? Without any doubt, the rights of the Stuarts would be buried in oblivion, and no one would dream of reacting against the event of 1688. The right of dynasties therefore, is not proof against time. Suppose, on the other hand, that the edict which revoked the edict of Nantes was still in force in France with the legislation consequent on it, no prescription would have been sufficient to shield this attack on the liberty of conscience, and it would be the duty of citizens to force governments to decree the abolition of these laws condemned by an eternal truth. In such a case submission to the faits accomplis would be a continual complicity.

—When Great Britain, under the influence of a celebrated ministry, abolished the corn laws in 1845 and at the same time effected a great economic revolution, one of its best guarantees against all political revolutions, the cabinet which was the author of these important measures was not able to stand long. Its successors, who followed the same course, soon saw the end of their power; the parliamentary movement restored the enemies of reform to office in 1852. The ministry formed by Lord Derby announced, soon after, the dissolution of parliament. It had not ceased to oppose the recent changes in all commercial legislation, and this question continued to be agitated during the elections But after the votes of the nation had decided it once more, the reforms being thus definitely sanctioned by public opinion, the ministry and its party submitted; they looked on the reforms as faits accomplis, and said no more about them. And while they profited by this, their adversaries had no idea of reproaching them for it. It was reasonable and politic to abandon a cause lost beyond recovery, and which was not one of Edition: current; Page: [158] those which deserved an eternal protest.

—Of all faits accomplis. the most important, and those which give rise to the most difficult questions of this century, are the changes of government. Setting aside the merits of a new government, the forms which it receives, and the principles which it professes, it appears that its existence, when the national consent is not refused to it, is a fact forced on good citizens, and that they have not the right to separate themselves from their country and deny what it recognizes. The more frequent the changes of government are, the more the identity and perpetuity of the state and the country become the only objects of civic duty, and alone command an unchanging fidelity. But this doctrine of a government de facto which is very similar to that of faits accomplis, although justified by the interests of public peace, is not very favorable to the dignity either of nations or of individuals. It aids and encourages too much that readiness to honor the conqueror, to serve the stronger, who hides under the mask of patriotic duty slavish calculations of cupidity or ambition. Hence the evident necessity for those who wish to escape the degrading effects of frequent revolutions, to remind governments that they should bring into esteem the forms and the principles which belong to them. Never have these principles and forms had such need of being present to the mind of an honorable man, as in times which called them in question every moment. Whoever has formed fixed principles, and has identified them with certain constitutional and legal forms, has found that immovable point of support for politics, that inconcussum quid which Descartes looked for for philosophy; he will pass judgment on faits accomplis, even when he shall feel his powerlessness to modify or oppose them, and in the condemnation of that which he is forced to endure he will save his independence of character and dignity of mind. The firmness of individuals is never of higher value than amidst the instability of institutions. Happy are the nations which are only composed of citizens capable of controlling facts by principles.

FAMILY

FAMILY. The state, at its inception, had to do not with individuals only, as the baseless hypothesis of certain philosophers would have us believe, but it found itself in presence of the family, a primitive agglomeration of individuals with its own moral and material unity. Such are the entirely natural limits which are presented to the all powerful action of politics. If the individual exists of himself, if he has a destiny and duties to fulfill, what social authority can without crime do away with that free and responsible personality, hinder the pursuit of this end, or place obstacles in the way of the accomplishment of these duties? How can it claim to be master of the thoughts, the religion, the labor, the savings of the individual? Are not these things which belong to his own individual domain, which are connected with the human person, and which can not be withdrawn from his control by the state without the most odious of all confiscations? And now if the family is necessary to the preservation and development of the individual, if it takes care of his earliest infancy, protects him and gives him moral nutriment, no less necessary than the support of the body; if it constitutes a sacred whole formed by the wants, the sympathies, even the liberty of those whom it develops, how can policy dream of abolishing the family or offering violence to it?

—It is astonishing that a man of genius like Plato, exclusively preoccupied with the unity of the state, could have believed that the abolition of the family would increase the love of country. But he confined to the class of warriors the unnatural régime which abolished the family in his famous ideal republic and replaced it by a gross promiscuousness. By confining the country itself within very narrow limits both as to population and territory, he may, misled by the example of Lacedemonia—an exceptional case and one which was moreover of short duration—have thought, that all the affection of the citizens would be concentrated upon the city. But is this illusion possible for publicists who draw their plans of society in the midst of our vast and powerful agglomerations of individuals in the midst of modern nations, and for Christian peoples? The more the country extends, the more the love of humanity takes the place of a sensitive and cruel spirit of nationality, the more must this broad sentiment, threatened with extinction or coolness on account of its very extent, be rekindled at the hearth of family affection. Under the kindly action of maternal instruction, under the influence of common joys and sorrows, of participation in happiness and misfortune, is formed the faculty of loving with the greatest tenderness, delicacy and strength; the habit of devotion, inspired by mutual affection and by the power of example; and that idea of solidarity, which, commencing with an attachment to the honor of the family name, rises to an heroic pride in the honor of the common country, and is willing to sacrifice all for it. The sentiment of fraternity, which some men have wished to turn against the family in order to extend it to all the members of the human race, acquires a precise meaning and has its origin only in the bosom of the family itself. Is not the quality of father, husband, orphan, mother or widow that which interests and touches us in others, so that we fee, disposed to give them real affection and efficient aid? Are not the most accessible avenues to our heart on that side?

—Almost all communistic sects have sketched for us a picture charged with the evils which spring from the family. The family, they say, renders one egotistical, selfish, and enervates him who yields to its influence. The family renders one egotistical! It would be more just to recognize that it frees man from his isolated self, and his solitary brutality. Is it not true, that, even in countries of the highest civilization, Edition: current; Page: [159] which offer the loftiest objects for affection and the noblest employments for the activity of man, bachelors are considered, and too often justly, as forming the most egotistical part of the nation? The family renders one selfish! There is some truth in this allegation, but let us take the trouble to see if it does not rather redound to the credit than to the blame of the family. Is it not better to work for one's own than for one's self or not to work at all? All society derives profit from these increased efforts and this foresight. Is not the capital necessary for its support and development formed and accumulated in this way? Who, with the exception of a few dreamers, can believe that there could be manifested by the individual, for the sake of his country and humanity alone, the virtue which consists in depriving one's self of all enjoyments, in order to save, and the courage to devote one's self with zeal to thankless and obscure labor? The family enervates, it is said; say, rather, that it softens hearts and that it polishes manners. We are thankful that with the sentiments it nourishes there is no danger of seeing again either the first or the last of the Brutuses, or Peter the Great, sacrificing his son to political necessity. Is it very certain that this is so great a misfortune? Doubtless there exist weak men who are enervated by the pleasures of the family more than they are strengthened by its trials; but should the legitimate repose and happiness be condemned, which we, worn out in the struggles of life, seek under the beloved shelter of the domestic roof?

—The family is the first germ of society, the first school of the sentiments and of duty. The rare attempts at abolishing the family, which the world has witnessed, have strikingly proved that these attempts, always ephemeral, destined in the mind of their originators to strengthen the social bond, turned against society itself. The absence of the family, pitilessly sacrificed, at Lacedemonia, plunged the citizens into the most shameful vices, destroyed arts and literature, and changed a free city into a sort of military convent. A right no less sacred than individual liberty is the property derived from it through the application of its labor, and as an extension of the faculties which constitute the person. No civilization without guaranteed property. Granted; but no property worthy of that name without the family. What would the family be, if it possessed nothing of its own? Hence it is seldom that these two bases of society are not attacked at the same time. It is because the family, with the institution of property which it necessitates, involves a certain inequality of conditions, that it is blamed and its destruction wished for. It is for this very reason that we praise it in the name of political science, and that we wish to maintain it. Inequalities which are founded upon monopoly and privilege are most frequently harmful. Those which arise from the respect given to the variety of aptitudes, of merits and the free development of the best sentiments of the human heart, are the very life of society.

—By protecting the family as well as the individual in its essential rights against the attacks of legislative omnipotence, we do not intend to claim that politics and legislation have no legitimate power over the family. Families have relations with the state, which it belongs to the state to regulate. Thus neither marriage, nor the right of bequeathing property, nor paternal authority itself, is a thing entirely given up to the arbitrary will of individuals. The family has been successively modified and improved. Although this is chiefly due to morals, the action of the law has not been without its effect. Law, governed by a purer morality and the precepts of Christianity, has abolished legal concubinage and punished adultery Law has limited the arbitrary and absolute power of the father of the family, and taken under its protection the life of the child, as it defends its mind against the perverse instruction which, under cloak of the family, might seek to lead it astray and corrupt it. The action of law, purified by religion and by philosophy, has sanctified the rights of woman, her dignity, her equality as a moral person, and protects her against the caprices, the bad treatment or the desertion of her husband. It is the law, finally, which, together with the influence of morals, manners and customs, relegated into the depths of the past the oriental family, with its debasing polygamy; and the Greek family, in which, it is true, the head of the family no longer bought women, and had but one legitimate wife by her own consent and that of her parents, but which permitted a plurality of concubines, and in certain cases authorized the marriage of brother and sister. The law substituted a superior form in place of the Roman family, which made the husband absolute master of the person and property of his wife, gave him the right to condemn her to death, and did not raise the legitimate wife, after she had become a mother, above her own children. The law also greatly modified the feudal family, with its harsh traits and shocking inequalities.

—Politics have also had an effect upon the constitution of the family, and it would not be difficult to render this truth even more obvious by the aid of history. Monarchical power was pleased to borrow its most natural and touching symbol from paternal power, and paternal power itself has played the rôle of absolute monarch. Feudal society and the feudal family were made in the image of each other. The more society is subjected to the artificial arrangements of violence and conquest, the more the animating spirit of the family and the laws which govern it assume a hard and pitiless character. The prohibition of marriages between plebeians and the patrician race at Rome, the absolute subordination of woman and the rights of males in the family of the middle ages, and the almost forced inheritance of professions, afford additional proofs to those already given. The efforts of Christianity and of modern times seem to have been directed toward replacing the family upon its most natural bases. Edition: current; Page: [160] The less politics interferes with the family and the less it believes itself permitted to interfere, the more in general both the nation and the family gain. The principal task of politics is to respect this material and moral condition of the existence and improvement of individuals—the family—and to cause it to be respected. A free nation is composed of free families, and the tyranny of laws introduced into the family only bears witness to the tyranny which reigns in society and the state.

FAREWELL ADDRESSES

FAREWELL ADDRESSES (IN U. S. HISTORY). (I.) In 1792, Madison, at Washington's request, furnished him a draft of an address to the American people on his expected retirement in 1799. Having been prevailed upon to accept a second term of office. Washington again took up, in 1796, the idea of a farewell address to the American people. It was dated Sept. 17. 1796, and though containing portions of Madison's former draft, was mainly the work of Hamilton and Washington. Its most important paragraph was its recommendation of abstention from any interference with European affairs, a principle which has since generally characterized the policy of all American statesmen and given most of its success to American diplomacy. It was further extended in 1823 to include abstention by European powers from interference in American affairs. (See MONROE DOCTRINE.)—(II) At the end of his second term of office, President Jackson issued a farewell address to the American people, dated March 3, 1837. It is a fair summary of the principles on which he had centered the party of which he was the leader. (See DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN PARTY. IV.)

—See (I.) 1 Statesman's Manual (ed. 1858), 69; 4 Hildreth's United States, 685; 1 Schouler's United States, 331; 12 Washington's Writings, 382; 2 Marshall's Life of Washington (ed. 1831), 396; (II.) 2 Statesman's Manual (ed. 1858), 1054; 3 Parton's Life of Jackson, 627.

FARMERS GENERAL

FARMERS GENERAL. Fermiers généraux was the name given in France under the old monarchy to a company which farmed certain branches of the public revenue, that is to say, contracted with the government to pay into the treasury a fixed yearly sum, taking upon itself the collection of certain taxes as an equivalent. The system of farming the taxes was an old custom of the French monarchy. Under Francis I. the revenue arising from the sale of salt was farmed by private individuals in each town. This was, and is still in France and other countries of Europe, a monopoly of the government. The government reserves to itself the power of providing the people with salt, which it collects in its stores, and sells to the retailers at its own price. This monopoly was first assumed by Philippe de Valois in 1350. Other sources of revenue were likewise farmed by several individuals, most of whom were favorites of the court or of the minister of the day. Sully, the able minister of Henry IV., seeing the dilapidation of the public revenue occasioned by this system, by which, out of one hundred and fifty millions paid by the people, only thirty millions reached the treasury, opened the contracts for farming the taxes to public auction, given them to the highest bidder, according to the ancient Roman practice. By this means he greatly increased the revenue of the state. But the practice of private contracts through favor or bribing was renewed under the following reigns. Colbert, the minister of Louis XIV, called the farmers of the revenue to a severe account, and by an act of power deprived them of their enormous gains. In 1728, under the regency, the various individual leases were united into a ferme générale, which was let to a company, the members of which were henceforth called fermiers généraux. In 1759, Silhouette, minister of Louis XV., quashed the contracts of the farmers general, and levied the taxes by his own agents. But the system of contracts revived: for the court, the ministers and favorites were all well disposed to them, as private bargains were made with the farmers general, by which they paid large sums as douceurs. In the time of Necker, the company consisted of forty-four members, who paid a rent of one hundred and eighty-six millions of livres, and Necker calculated their profit at about two millions yearly—no very extraordinary sum, if correct. But independent of this profit there were the expenses of collection, and a host of subalterns to support: the company had its officers and accountants, receivers, collectors, etc., who, having the public force at their disposal, committed numerous acts of injustice toward the people, especially the poorer class, by distraining their goods, selling their chattels, etc. The "gabelle" or sale of salt, among others, was a fruitful source of oppression. Not satisfied with obliging the people to pay for the salt at the price fixed upon it in the name of the king, they actually obliged every individual above eight years of age to buy a certain quantity of salt whether wanted or not. But the rule was not alike all over France; in some provinces, which enjoyed certain privileges, salt was nine livres the one hundred weight, while in others it cost sixteen, and in some sixty-two livres. In some provinces the quantity required to be purchased per head was twenty-five pounds weight, in others it was nine pounds. And yet the provinces, nay the individual families of each province, were prohibited under the severest penalties from accommodating each other's wants, and buying the superfluous salt of their neighbors, but whoever wanted more salt than his obligatory allowance was obliged to resort to the government stores. Besides, every article of provisions that was exported from one province to another was subject to duties called traites. Every apprentice on being bound to a master was bound to pay to the king a certain sum according to the nature of the trade, and Edition: current; Page: [161] afterward a much larger sum on his admission to practice his trade as a master. These few instances may serve to convey an idea of taxation in France previous to the revolution. A lively but faithful picture of the whole system is given in Breton's Histoire Financiere de la France, 2 vols., 8vo, Paris, 1829. The farmers general, as the agents of that system, coming into immediate contact with the people, drew upon themselves a proportionate share of popular hatred. But the revolution swept away the farmers general, and put an end to the system of farming the revenues; it equalized the duties and taxes all over France; but the monopoly of the salt and tobacco has remained, as well as the duties on provisions, cattle and wine brought into Paris and other large towns, called the octroi, and the right of searching by the octroi officers, if they think fit, all carriages and individuals entering the barriers or gates of the same.

—The Roman system of levying taxes, at least after the republic had begun to acquire territory out of Italy, was by farming them out. In the later period of the republic the farmers were from the body of the equestrian order. Individuals used to form companies or associations for farming the taxes of a particular district: the taxes were let by the censors for a period of five years. They were probably let to those who bid highest. These farmers were called publicani, and by the Greek writers telonae, which is rendered by publicans in the English version of the New Testament, where they are appropriately classed with sinners, for they were accused of being often guilty of great extortion. These tax collectors in the province were, however, only the agents. The principals generally resided at Rome, where the affairs of each association (societas) were managed by a director called a magister. The individual members held shares (partes) in the undertaking. There was also a chief manager in the province or district of which the company farmed the tax, who was called promagister.

—There are no means of knowing what proportions of the taxes collected reached the Roman treasury (ærarium). Numerous complaints of the rapacity of the publicani or their agents occur in the classical writers. These publicani were the moneyed men of the late republic and the early empire, and their aid was often required by the state for advances of money when the treasury was empty. Part of the mal-administration probably came from the publicani sub-letting the taxes, which seems to have been done, sometimes at least.

FARMING

FARMING, Large and Small. (See AGRICULTURE.)

FASHIONS

FASHIONS, Political Economy of. Fashion exercises considerable influence on a number of industries, particularly on those pertaining to clothing and lodging. Every change in fashion is a source of profit to some persons and of loss to others. A man who invents a new design or a new combination of colors in dry goods, or a new style of furniture or of coat, and who succeeds in bringing his invention into fashion, may derive great advantage from it, especially if his right to it is guaranteed him. On the other hand, the individuals who possess a supply of articles out of fashion, experience a loss. It is the same with the manufacturers and workmen who devote themselves to the production of these articles, when the new fashion varies sensibly from the old. "It is well known," said Malthus, "how subject particular manufactures are to fail, from the caprices of taste. The weavers of Spitalfields were plunged into the most severe distress by the fashion of muslins instead of silks; and great numbers of workmen in Sheftield and Birmingham were for a time thrown out of employment, owing to the adoption of shoe strings and covered buttons, instead of buckles and metal buttons" (Principles of Population, chap xiii). Thousands of analogous facts might be cited.

—M'Culloch finds in these disturbances occasioned by fashion an argument for the poor-tax. "It may be observed," he says, "that owing to changes of fashion, * * * those engaged in manufacturing employments are necessarily exposed to many vicissitudes. And when their number is so very great as in this country [England], it is quite indispensable that a resource should be provided for their support in periods of adversity." (Prin. of Polit. Econ., part iii, chap. iv.) We do not wholly share the opinion of Mr. M'Culloch on this subject. How, in fact, does fashion operate on certain industries and on certain classes of laborers? It acts as a risk. Now this risk, which may result in losses to the manufacturers and in stoppage of work to the workmen, must necessarily be covered, so that the profits of the one class and the wages of the other may be in just proportion to the average profits and wages in other branches of production. If it were otherwise, if the risk arising from the fluctuations of fashion were not completely covered, capital and labor would soon cease to resort to branches subject to this particular risk. Then, competition diminishing in these branches, profits and wages would not fail to increase until there was compensation for the risk. This being granted, suppose a law intervene to guarantee to the workman a minimum of subsistence during the time he is thrown out of employment in consequence of the variations of fashion; what will result? The risk arising from that cause being partially covered or compensated, the result will be that the wages of the workman will be lowered by an amount precisely equal to the risk covered, that is to say, by the amount of the tax. How then can the tax be of advantage to the workman, since it will not in reality have increased the amount of his resources? Doubtless the workman might have squandered his wages and have found himself destitute when the fashion came to change, and the consequences of the risk to fall upon him. The poor-tax is nothing but an obligatory savings Edition: current; Page: [162] bank, whose funds are levied from his wages, and on which he has the right to draw when out of employment. But must not a bank of this kind, by freeing the workman from the necessity of foreseeing the critical periods and providing for them, perpetuate his intellectual and moral inferiority? Is it not an insurance for which he pays too high a premium?

—J. B. Say looked at the influence of fashion from a different point of view. According to that eminent economist, frequency of changes in fashion occasions a ruinous waste. "A nation and private individuals will give evidence of wisdom," he says, "if they will seek chiefly articles of slow consumption but in general use. The fashions of such articles will not be very changeable. Fashion has the privilege of spoiling things before they have lost their utility, often even before they have lost their freshness: it increases consumption, and condemns what is still excellent, comfortable and pretty, to being no longer good for anything. Consequently, a rapid succession of fashions impoverishes a state by the consumption it occasions and that which it arrests."

—These words of M. Say are evidently most judicious but we need not because of them, or because of the above-quoted observation of Malthus, condemn fashion from an economic point of view; for if fashion causes a certain harm and certain disturbances, especially when its fluctuations are too frequent, in return, it is one of the prime movers of artistic and industrial progress. This will be apparent from a single hypothetical case. Let us suppose that fashion should cease to exercise her influence; that the same taste and the same style should continue to prevail indefinitely, in respect to clothing, furniture and dwellings will not this permanence of fashion give a mortal blow to artistic and industrial progress? Who, pray, will exercise his ingenuity to invent anything new in the line of clothing, furniture or dwellings, if the consumers have a dread of change, if every modification of the fashion is considered an offense, or even interdicted by law? People, in that case, will always to the same things, and, in all likelihood, will always do them, besides, in the same manner. Let the taste of the consumers, on the other hand, be variable, and the spirit of invention, of improvement, will be powerfully stimulated. Every new combination adapted to please the taste of consumers becoming then a source of profit to the inventor, every one will exercise his ingenuity in devising something new, and the activity thus given to the spirit of invention will be most favorable to the development of industry and the fine arts. It will sometimes happen, doubtless, that ridiculous fashions will be substituted for elegant ones; but under the influence of a desire for change, that butterfly passion, as a Fourierite would call it, which gives birth to fashion, this invasion of bad taste would be transient, and people would continually advance by improvement upon improvement.

—On examining the influence which fashion exercises over the development of industry and the fine arts, one becomes convinced that the vivifying impulse which it gives to the spirit of invention and improvement more than compensates for any injury it causes. Besides, fashions have their limits of longevity, whose average may be easily calculated, and which the experience of producers, in lack of a table of mortality prepared ad hoc, is apt in estimating. Rarely does an intelligent manufacturer produce more of any design or shade than the consumption can absorb before this design or this shade is out of fashion; and if, perchance, his prevision has proved incorrect, if the fashion passes by sooner than he had foreseen, he easily finds some way of getting rid of the excess of his merchandise among the large class of consumers who are behind the times. A certain kind of dress goods or a certain that which has become antiquated at Paris, may yet, after two or three years, delight the belles of lower Brittany or of South America.

—We have just pointed out the influence fashion has on production. Let us now consider briefly its characteristics and the causes which determine its variations. Fashion is not alone affected by the physical influence of the temperature of a country and the moral influence of the taste and character of the population, it is also largely subject to the influence of the social and economic organization. The institutions of a people are reflected in it as in a mirror. Consequently, in countries where the abuses of privilege and despotism permit a class considered as superior to maintain their idleness at the expense of the rest of the nation, the fashions are commonly ostentatious and complicated. They are ostentatious, because the privileged orders feel the necessity of dazzling the multitude by the splendor of their external appearance, and of thus convincing them that they are made of superior clay—"from porcelain clay of earth," as Dryden said. The fashions are also complicated, because the privileged class have all the leisure necessary to devote a long time to their toilet, the sumptuousness of which serves, as has been said, to inspire in the vulgar an exalted idea of those who wear it. But let the condition of society be changed; let the privileged ones disappear; let the superior classes, henceforth subject to the law of competition, be obliged to employ their faculties in earning their subsistence; we at once see fashions become more simple; and the embroidered coats, short clothes, dresses with trains or with paniers—in a word, all the magnificent and complicated apparel of aristocratic fashion—are seen to disappear, to give place to attire easily adjustable and comfortable to wear. In a pamphlet entitled. "England, Ireland and America, by a Manchester Manufacturer," Richard Cobden pointed out, in 1835, with much acuteness and humor, the necessities which had operated within a half century to bring about this economic change of fashion. Mr. Cobden depicted the old London merchant with his magnificent costume and his formal manners, and showed how a Edition: current; Page: [163] merciless competition caused the disappearance of this model of the good old times, to substitute for it a modern type, with dress and habits infinitely more economical. "Such of our readers," he says, "as remember the London tradesman of thirty years ago, will be able to call to mind the powdered wig and the queue, the precise shoes and buckles, and the unwrinkled silk hose and tight inexpressibles that characterized the shop-keeper of the old school. Whenever this stately personage walked abroad on matters of trade, however pressing or important, he never forgot for a moment the dignified step of his forefathers, while nothing gratified his self-complacency more than to take his gold-headed cane in hand, and, leaving his own shop all the while, to visit his poorer neighbors, and to show his authority by inquiring into their affairs, settling their disputes, and compelling them to be honest and to manage their establishments according to his plan. His business was conducted throughout upon the formal mode of his ancestors. His clerks, his shopmen and porters, all had their appointed costumes; and their intercourse with each other was disciplined according to established laws of etiquette. Every one had his especial department of duty, and the line of demarcation at the counter was marked out and observed with all the punctilio of neighboring but rival states. The shop of this trader of the old school retained all the peculiarities and inconveniences of former generations; its windows displayed no gaudy wares to lure the vulgar passer-by, and the panes of glass, inserted in ponderous wooden frames, were constructed exactly after the ancestral pattern. * * * The present age produced a new school of traders, whose first innovation was to cast off the wig, and cashier the barber with his pomatum-box, by which step an hour was gained in the daily toilet. Their next change was, to discard the shoes and the tight unmentionables, whose complicated details of buckles and straps and whose close adjustment occupied another half hour, in favor of Wellingtons and pantaloons, which were whipped on in a trice, and gave freedom, though, perhaps, at the expense of dignity, to the personal movements during the day. Thus accoutered, these supple dealers whisked or flew, just as the momentary calls of business became more or less urgent; while so absorbed were they in their own interests that they scarcely knew the names of their nearest neighbors, nor cared whether they lived peaceably or not, so long as they did not come to break their windows. Nor did the spirit of innovation end here; for the shops of this new race of dealers underwent as great a metamorphosis as their owners. While the internal economy of these was reformed with a view to give the utmost facility to the labor of the establishment, by dispensing with forms and tacitly agreeing even to suspend the ordinary deferences due to station, lest their observance might, however slightly, impede the business in hand; externally, the windows, which were constructed of plate glass, with elegant frames extending from the ground to the ceiling, were made to blaze with all the tempting finery of the day. We all know the result that followed from this very unequal rivalry. One by one, the ancient and quiet followers of the habits of their ancestors yielded before the active competition of their more alert neighbors. Some few of the less bigoted disciples of he old school adopted the new-light system; but all who tried to stem the stream were overwhelmed; for with grief we add, that the very last of these very interesting specimens of olden time that survived, (joining the two generations of London tradesmen whose shops used to gladden the soul of every tory pedestrian in Fleet street), with its unreformed windows, has at length disappeared, having lately passed into the Gazette, that schedule of anti reforming traders."

—From this ingenious and clever sketch we can clearly see the necessity which determined the simplification of the fashions of the old régime. This necessity arose from the suppression of the ancient privileges which permitted a member of the corporate body of tradesmen, or a manufacturing mechanic who had attained the rank of master, to pass his time a his toilet or to meddle in the quarrels of his neighbors, instead of giving his attention to his own business: it arose from the extensive growth of competition, which obliged every merchant, every manufacturer, every head of a business enterprise, to take into account the value of time, under penalty of seeing his name finally inscribed under the fatal heading of bankruptcies. A régime of competition does not permit the same fashions as a régime of privilege; and fashion is as sensitive to modifications arising from the interior economy of society as it is to changes of temperature. This being so, it is obvious that it is wrong for a government to attempt to influence fashion by obliging, for example, its servants to wear sumptuous and elaborate apparel. In fact, one of two results follow. Either the state of society is such that the dominant classes find it to their advantage to display a certain ostentation in their dress; and in this case it is useless to impose it on them, or even to recommend it to them. Or the state of society is such that people in all ranks of society have something better to do than to spend a long time over their toilet: in this case, what good can result from the intervention of government in matters of fashion? If sumptuousness of attire becomes general, if men accustom themselves to accord to dress a portion of the time demanded by their affairs, will not society suffer harm? If, on the contrary, the example given above is not followed, if the magnificence of the costumes of the court and the ante-chamber is not imitated, will not this display form a shocking dissonance in a busy community? Will it not produce an impression analogous to that one receives from a masquerade? A government should then carefully avoid Edition: current; Page: [164] interference in this matter. It should follow fashions, not direct them.

—To recapitulate: Fashion, looked at from an economic point of view, exercises on the improvement of production an influence whose utility more than compensates for the damage which may result from its fluctuations. On the other hand, it is naturally established and modified by various causes, among which economic causes hold an important place. When people do not understand the necessities which determine its changes, they establish artificial fashions, which have the double disadvantage of being anti-economic and ridiculous.

G DE MOLINARI.
E. J. L., Tr.

FATHERLAND

FATHERLAND. Toward the middle of the last century a witty French abbe, who was at the same time a humorist and a philosopher, the abbe Coyer, exclaimed, in one of his fits of petulance, "What is there vulgar or harsh in the word patrie (fatherland) to drive it from the language? It is seldom or never heard either in the country or in the cities, still less at the court. Old men have forgotten it, children have never learned it. I look for its use in that crowd of writers who instruct us in what we know already, and I find it only in a very small number of philosophers. A polished man will not write it. It would be much worse if he pronounced it. I ask this citizen who always bears arms. What is your employment? I serve the king, he answers. Why not the fatherland? The king himself was made to serve it. I am outspoken, very much so." Our abbe asks afterward when this word fell into such discredit in France. "It was," he says, "under the ministry of Cardinal Richelieu." "Colbert," he adds, "was well fitted to restore it, but he thought that kingdom and fatherland meant the same thing." This witty and able attack was characteristic of the abbe Coyer, an avowed disciple of Montesquieu, though a Jesuit; an ardent republican, though preceptor of Prince Turenne.

—When the French revolution, so long in preparation, was at length effected, the word fatherland (patrie) regained its popularity. It was enough for a few men clothed with a questionable power to write this word on a flag, and unfurl this flag before the eyes of the multitude, to cause fourteen armies to spring from the earth, so to speak; and these fourteen armies of improvised soldiers defeated the best troops of Europe, the ablest, the best exercised, the most worthy of the confidence of kings. It seemed a miracle. But it came to pass that after having so bravely purged the soil of the father-land from foreign hosts, and justly punished some of the chiefs of the conspiracy gotten up against French liberty, the conscripts, after they became veterans, forgot the fatherland in their dreams of glory. To brilliant successes lamentable reverses succeeded. Should they alone be blamed for these disasters? Before those enterprises were undertaken in search of the vainest of glory, what a weakening of consciences, what scepticism, what a criminal disavowal of the principles in which the France of 1789 had put all its faith! When French soldiers were tainted with the folly of military triumphs. French citizens had once more forgotten the old word patrie (fatherland), or only pronounced it with a disdainful smile. It has not regained favor in France since. No one says, it is-true, as in the time of the abbe Coyer, that he serves the king. That way of speaking has grown antiquated even in France. Men no longer serve the king, but the state. This is assuredly a more noble service, since the notion of the state and that of the fatherland are frequently confounded. Still the two terms are far from being synonymous. Insurrection would never be "the most sacred of duties" as is taught by a celebrated maxim, if the state did not sometimes command what the fatherland for bids.

—The state may be defined as a being of the reason, whose matter and form are equally vague and undetermined. Properly speaking. I know the state only under the form of the individuals who govern in its name. I do not therefore owe it absolute submission under all circumstances. Louis XIV. was able to say: "L'etat c'est moi.'" Every duty, moreover, supposes a moral sanction. I love my God, my family, my country, and I ought to love them. But what kind of worship or love is to be offered to the state? The state is not dear to all noble hearts. This is enough to show that, in political science, as well as in every other science, it is necessary to distrust metaphysics and the mere creatures of the reason. What, on the contrary, is more real than the fatherland; and what more beautiful word is there? The family, in which the father commands, is the most elementary of societies. In other words, domestic life is the first degree of social life. There, as Homer says, "each one separately governs his wives and sons, as does a master." Thus, in the most remote ages whose history we can study, the dii patrii are the penates, the gods of the paternal hearth. Later, the fatherland becomes the city. "Natione Grains an barbaras," says Cicero, "patria Atheniensis ant Lacedemonius" Common interest united different families. Brought together by the necessity of mutual protection, they entered into a pact which made their interests common. From this arose the imperious duty of each one to struggle and if necessary to die for the fatherland of all. In what does virtue consist, if not in the scrupulous fulfillment of some duty? The virtue of the patriot of Athens or Rome was to make an entire sacrifice of himself to his own city, and to treat as an enemy whoever lived in a neighboring city. Later, cities inhabited by citizens of the same race come together to repel an invader from distant regions, and, after a successful use of their allied forces, they elect, or submit to a common chief, according to circumstances. Their agreement gives them strength; this strength assures them peace. During peace a daily exchange of services Edition: current; Page: [165] takes place, and national unity is established. Thenceforth the definition of Cicero is no longer exact; fatherland and nation no longer designate two different things; they designate the same thing differently considered.

—There is no intelligence so rustic that it does not comprehend perfectly the word fatherland. According to some, my fatherland is the land, the territory which I inhabit. This is a definition which is revolting "The Gracchi, the Scipios under the tyranny of Caligula," exclaims the abbe Coyer, "could they regard Rome as their fatherland?" The protest of Chevalier de Jaucourt is no less vigorous: "Those who live under an oriental despotism, where no other law is known than the will of the sovereign, no other principle of government than terror, where no fortune, no life is in safety, those, I say, have no fatherland." In other words, where political liberty does not exist, there is a herd of slaves, not a nation of citizens. It is the privilege of citizens, of free men, to have a fatherland.

—It is felt at once that this language belongs to the eighteenth century; that it announces a social tempest. It is true that the same indifference in regard to the native soil is found in this fragment of an old poet, cited by Cicero. Patria est ubicumque est bene. But this is a mere witticism. I should like to hear from the month of an exile that he lived in a foreign land without any desire, without any regret!

FAVORITISM

FAVORITISM. If favor always rewarded merit, the envious alone would complain; morality and the general interest would be satisfied. We know that this is not the case, and it is precisely because favor is so often bestowed on the unworthy that it is generally looked upon with such ill will.

—In our time, favor plays but a small part in political society, and exactly as its excesses disappear efforts are made, not without result, to reduce its influence still further. When the reign of favor, or rather of favorites, was at its height, no one dreamed of struggling against it. This was during the good old time of unlimited power, when the caprice of an absolute sovereign might raise on the shield and clothe with omnipotence the first man who knew how to please him. Need it be said that this was to raise the evils of despotism to a higher degree? The least enlightened despot knows that he should not venture too far; but his favorite will not always be so circumspect, for he does not risk his crown. It is true that he exposes his life, and more than once populations which could not reach the sovereign have taken vengeance on his favorite, who thus expiated the faults of his short-sighted protector.

—The influence of the favorite is distinguished from that of the camarilla in being manifest, while that of the camarilla is secret.

—Parliamentary rule is incompatible with favoritism. A constitutional sovereign has ministers to whom talent is indispensable if they are to maintain themselves. They dispense favors, but as there is an opposition, this opposition brings about the passage of laws which subject officials to conditions of admission and abolish sinecures. To save themselves from public censure, the ministers avoid committing too evident injustice, or dispensing unmerited favors. In politics, Justice is the daughter of Responsibility.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. (See CONGRESS, EXECUTIVE.)

FEDERALIST

FEDERALIST, The. Immediately after the publication of the constitution Hamilton issued the first of a series of papers by himself, Madison and Jay, in the "Independent Journal" of New York city, in explanation and defense of the new system of federal government. Gouverneur Morris was also invited to take part, but was prevented by private business. The joint signature was at first A Citizen of New York, afterward Publius, and over this signature eighty-five essays were published from October, 1787, until March, 1788, when they were collected in book form under the title of The Federalist. Jay wrote five essays: sixty-three are claimed for Hamilton by his son, leaving fourteen to Madison and three to their joint effort; but Madison is credited by the Philadelphia edition of 1819, corrected by himself, with twenty-nine essays, leaving fifty-one to Hamilton. The Federalist was widely read, and aided materially in securing the adoption of the constitution.

FEDERAL PARTY

FEDERAL PARTY, The (IN U. S. HISTORY). The origin of the party, in the political segregation of the commercial and business elements from the mass of the people, is given elsewhere. (See ANTI-FEDERAL, PARTY.) But though the mass of the party was thus commercial, it had many leaders and an important part of its own body who held very different views. These were most affected by the reflection that the revolution, by taking the United States out of the British empire, had practically taken them out of the family of nations. They desired a place in the civilized world, a recognized rank among nations—nationality—not a league of separate nations. They therefore wished for order, prosperity and an energetic government, not, like the rest of their party, for the sake of commerce and business, but for the sake of the nation. This, the only valuable political element in the federal party, and the precursor of two other and greater parties which were afterward to take part in the seventy-five years' (1790-1865) work of nationalizing the government, was stronger in leaders than in following. The country, which had comparatively little real national feeling as yet, was not ready for it, and the commercial party, which had at first supported it, proved in the end a faithless ally. The history of the party falls naturally into two periods, one (1789-1801) in which the alliance between its two elements, and its own hold upon power, grew yearly Edition: current; Page: [166] weaker, and a second (1801-20) in which it grew less and less influential until it disappeared, its nationalizing principle reviving again with stronger power of assertion in the whig and republican parties. (See those parties; also NATION, UNITED STATES)

—I. 1789-1801. The process of the adoption of the constitution was exceedingly complex. The underlying difficulty was in most cases that of overcoming the repulsive force not only of the two sections, north and south, each of which had many elements ready for separate nationality, but also of the thirteen distinct political units which composed those sections. But on the surface other causes were more actively apparent. At first, while the idea of the former congressional structure governed the deliberations of the convention of 1787, the "large states" pressed the national plan earnestly. After the new political factor, the senate, was introduced, the large states became recalcitrant, and finally ratified the constitution with great reluctance. When, however, the confusion of the conflict had cleared away, it was found that the advantages accruing to large and small states were fairly balanced, and that the substantial fruits of victory had been gathered by the commercial classes, including in that term all interests not agricultural, excepting manufactures, which were as yet of no great importance. It was to their behoof that the control over individual citizens, over the army, over the navy, over taxation for national purposes, over commercial regulations, was to be exercised in future by a federal government, not by a jarring congeries of state legislatures; and their activity, intelligence, influence, and hearty support of the constitution secured to them in 1789 a control of the new federal government so complete that it would be difficult to specify a federal office not then held by a federalist, for even Jefferson and Randolph were professedly of that party. This initial success of the commercial party was due to a fortuitous combination of three assisting circumstances, none of which could fairly be relied upon as permanent. 1. Washington's experience of the confederation during the revolution had predisposed him to favor an energetic republican government, and he therefore became the central figure of the federal party, in spite of his own efforts to stand outside of party. Throughout the northern and middle states the right of suffrage was then very generally restricted to freeholders, the small farmers being the controlling class. With these Washington's name was all powerful, and through its silent influence their support was secured for the ratification of the constitution, and afterward for the federal party. 2. In the south, where Washington's influence was by no means so potent, a weaker but still respectable element, very similar to the last, was brought to the support of the constitution and the federalists by the influence of Madison and others, who were actuated far more by contempt for the extreme weakness of the confederation than by desire for a very energetic government in its place. 3. The opposition (see ANTI-FEDERAL PARTY) was utterly disorganized. Its natural leaders of the Madison class had gone over to the federalists, its only principle of cohesion, opposition to the constitution, had disappeared with the translation of the government to a new form; and those of its members who were chosen to the 1st congress at first followed the prudent course of abstaining from open opposition to federalist measures. We are therefore indebted almost entirely to the federal party, in which, however, the Madison element was as yet included, for all the work of the first session by which the administrative machinery of the government was put into shape as it still remains. The excellent organization of the executive departments, of the federal judiciary, and of the territories, is always with us as a memorial of the administrative ability of the dead and almost forgotten federal party.

—The party had at first been satisfied with the obtaining of order and guarantees for commerce, foreign and domestic; but the remarkable and immediate contrast between the national results of the first or extra session of congress (March 4-Sept. 29, 1789) and the preceding chaos of the confederation had a natural and constant tendency to convert it to nationalizing views. The nationalization of the government had for years been the ruling desire of Alexander Hamilton, Washington's secretary of the treasury, and he now proved his title to the leadership of a party which was but approaching the standard which he had long fixed upon. At the second session of this congress (Jan. 4-Aug. 12, 1790) he offered to the house of representatives his "plan for the settlement of the public debt," which contained several features certain to obtain the support of the party both in its commercial and in its newer nationalizing aspect. Its first recommendation, the payment of the foreign debt in full, was adopted unanimously. The second recommendation, the funding and payment at par of the domestic or "continental" debt, which had fallen far below par, was opposed by members from agricultural districts as a commercial measure which would only benefit speculators, who were busily buying the evidences of debt from holders ignorant of their value. Madison here diverged from the federalists, and urged payment in full to original holders and the market value to holders by purchase; but Hamilton's recommendation was finally adopted. The third recommendation, the assumption of state debts incurred in the revolution, was opposed as a nationalizing measure, designed to degrade the states, to represent them as delinquent debtors, and to attract the permanent support of the capital of the country to the federal government. It was carried in committee of the whole, March 9, by a vote of 31 to 26; but an anti-federalist reinforcement of seven members from the new state of North Carolina turned the scale, and assumption having been reconsidered, April 12, was lost Edition: current; Page: [167] by a majority of two. It was, however, again introduced and carried by a bargain. (See CAPITAL, NATIONAL.) Hamilton's first false step, however triumphant at first view, was in thus springing upon his supporters in congress, without securing the acquiescence of their non-commercial leaders, this sweeping plan of financial reform, which he might easily have made acceptable both to them and to their commercial allies, and a new bond of union between the two. Confident in his own ability and in his own rectitude of intention, he demanded from the Madisonian element a blind support which it would not give, and the result was suspicion and alienation. For the next two years Madison, while supporting many isolated points of Hamilton's policy, is no longer the great federal pillar of debate in the house.

—At the third session of this congress (Dec. 6, 1790-March 3, 1791), two further items in Hamilton's policy were adopted. It is probable that his proposition to assume state debts had been intended to force, by an increase of debt, the prompt exercise of federal powers, and particularly of the power to lay excises, which had hitherto been in the states and was unfamiliar as an appanage of the federal government, though expressly granted by the constitution. (See INTERNAL REVENUE, WHISKY INSURRECTION.) On his recommendation an excise law, laying taxes on distilled spirits, was passed, March 3, 1791, and "The Bank of the United States" was chartered by acts of Feb. 25 and March 2, 1791. This last measure met a strong opposition, led by Madison in the house, and by Jefferson and Randolph in the cabinet. (See BANK CONTROVERSIES, II.) The arguments in its favor show that Ames, Sedgwick and other federalist leaders had now fully assimilated Hamilton's broad construction theory, which defended every attempt to increase the national, as distinguished from the state, power and influence, on the ground of the power granted to congress to pass all laws "necessary and proper for carrying into execution" the enumerated powers. Who was to judge of the necessity and propriety of a doubtful law? Congress itself, said Hamilton and his supporters, governed in the exercise of its discretion by its direct responsibility to the people, and secured from the evil effects of possible error by the conservative influence of the federal judiciary. (See CONSTRUCTION, II.)

—Within the limits of a single congress, then, Hamilton had raised his party from the narrow basis of commercial interest to the broader foundations of nationalization, and he had done it almost unaided. He had taught the commercial classes that their safety and prosperity were best secured by close alliance with the federal government, and they in their turn had so reacted on their congressional representatives as to make them Hamilton's eager followers. Before 1790 we find many half-uttered hopes for a more energetic central government than the confederation; Hamilton and his measures first made "the nation" a political force. It was, indeed, but a blind and vague force as yet, and was destined soon to be rejected by the commercial selfishness which was at first its only available conservator; but the principle survived, and American politics has even since felt the growing impulse which was first directly given by Hamilton's measures. Before the end of the 1st congress, the federal party was fairly committed to a support of his policy, which was in general as follows, though portions of it were never successfully carried out: 1. With a reliance upon agriculture as a basis for exportations and foreign commerce, duties on imports were generally made high, with the view of encouraging infant American manufactures by prohibiting the importation of articles which could be manufactured here, and of drawing a larger revenue from articles whose importation was beyond control. (See PROTECTION.) 2. The power of internal taxation was at once asserted and enforced. 3. The superfluous revenue, after the payment of the debt which had originally compelled the adoption of the first two measures, was to be devoted to the formation of a strong navy which was to protect commerce; and 4, to the increase of the army, and the first opportunity was to be taken to convince ill-disposed states or ill-disposed individuals that both had at last found their master. Such was the magnificent structure which the federal party proposed to erect upon a soil which had been, but a few months before, the shifting quicksand of the confederation. It is not wonderful that the more "high flying" federalists often regretted that the national government had not been made still stronger and the states still weaker, and that they felt considerable distrust of their ability to carry out their plans to the end as the government was then constituted. It is certain that their incautious utterances soon enabled their political enemies to charge them with a design of converting the government into a monarchy or an oligarchy, under the guise of a "higher-toned" government.

—During the 2d congress (Oct. 24, 1791-March 2, 1793) the federal party retained its majority in congress and continued its work of organizing a national government. The postoffice system was completely organized; the army and the tariff were increased; bounties were granted for the encouragement of fisheries; and the president was formally authorized to call out the state militia as a national instrument for enforcing the laws. But before the end of this congress the reaction had begun under the lead of Jefferson, the secretary of state, and his first auxiliaries were drawn from the Madison element which Hamilton had so unluckily estranged. When resolutions censuring Hamilton's official conduct were brought up in the house, late in February, 1793, Madison took an open stand in their favor, and was one of the small minority of seven who finally voted for them. He was now in close and confidential alliance with Jefferson. (See DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY, II.) His Edition: current; Page: [168] loss, which was really the beginning of the end, was under-estimated or contemptuously disregarded by Hamilton, who mistakenly relied upon the still federalist states of South Carolina, Maryland and Delaware to counterbalance Virginia and prevent the formation of a controlling southern party.

—In the 3d congress (Dec. 2, 1793-March 3, 1795) the federalists controlled the senate by a small majority. By a party vote (14 to 12) the seat of Gallatin, of Pennsylvania, was vacated for ineligibility, and the new federalist legislature chose James Ross in his stead, thus making a reliable majority in the senate. In the house the election of the speaker was contested for the first time, and the federalists were beaten by a majority of ten. In such a divided congress it was sufficient success for the federalists to maintain the ground they had already won, but they succeeded further in supporting the president in his proclamation of neutrality between England and France in his management of the French ambassador (see GENET, CITIZEN), and in his suppression of the whisky insurrection.

—In one important respect the prospect for the party was unpropitious. The long conflict between Great Britain and France had begun, in which it was inevitable that the former's most powerful weapon, her navy, would be used to the oppression of American commerce. (See EMBARGO, I.) Here, again, the assumption of the state debts worked for ill, for its increase of the national debt and interest gave the opposition a fair excuse for opposing successfully the formation of a navy which could compel respect, and even embarrassed the federalists very apparently in their attempts to secure this corner stone of a true national policy. This failure to begin a navy in 1794-5 was the real death warrant of the federalists as a political party. Prevented from protecting commerce by force, they were constrained to resort to accommodation with Great Britain (see JAY'S TREATY), and, though this policy of palliation was successful for the time, its inevitable and cumulative effect was to undo Hamilton's work of nationalization, and to degrade the party again to the position of a mere commercial association, dependent on the favor of Great Britain not only for prosperity, but even for existence. This effect was not immediately apparent, however, and the power of the party never seemed greater, even in 1798, than at the close of the year 1796. It had then completely organized the government after its own ideas, had very considerably established the broad construction of the constitution, had compelled even the assurance of a French republican envoy of 1793 to respect the neutrality of the United States, had put down with the strong hand the first symptom of revolt against the federal government, had forced an unwilling house of representatives to carry Jay's treaty with Great Britain into effect, and in the first contested election had seated its candidate, John Adams, in the presidency. (See ELECTORAL VOTES, III.) "Against us," said Jefferson, in his Mazzei letter of April 27, 1796, "are the executive, the judiciary, two out of three branches of the legislature, all the officers of the government, and all who want to be officers." But the party's tenure of power was nevertheless weak. Jefferson had been but three electoral votes behind Adams, thus becoming vice-president; and he alleges that the real vote was 70 to 69, instead of 71 to 68, one republican elector in Pennsylvania having failed to vote, and a federalist having been received in his place. But a far more ominous circumstance was the geographical character of the vote. The federalists had lost South Carolina, and only received two chance votes in the whole south, outside of Delaware and Maryland (see those states), while in the north they had lost all but one of Pennsylvania's votes. Jefferson's ability as a leader and organizer was fast depriving them of the assistance they had at first received from the disorganization of the opposition, and unless some new factor could be found to replace the influence of Washington, his approaching retirement would enable the opposition every year to make fresh inroads further north, and finally to circumscribe the commercial interest within its own geographical limits.

—Indications may be found in the debates that some of the federalist leaders, particularly Fisher Ames, saw their proper course in a conjunction of internal improvements and an energetic naval policy; but the latter was barred by the necessity of providing for the interest of the debt, and the former alone would have demanded a wisdom of self-sacrifice to which the commercial party had not attained. Instead of both, they grasped eagerly at the possibility of war with France (see X. Y. Z. MISSION) in 1798, and used it as a make-shift. In the senate they had a clear majority, and in the house the flame of popular anger, roused by the outrageous demands of the French directory, either silenced or converted most of the republicans, and gave the control of that body also to the federalists. If they had now reduced all other expenses to the lowest possible limits, and put every available resource into the increase of the navy, it was not yet too late to change the course of history on two continents. Party passion, however, and the treasured bitterness of past political struggles, hurried them further. A regular army was at once formed under cover of Washington's nominal command, ostensibly to guard against a mythical French invasion; the passage of the alien and sedition laws was almost avowedly an attempt to suppress the few republican newspapers, whose scurrilous attacks had long been a thorn to the dignity of the federalist leaders; and these needless exhibitions of party zeal more than neutralized the increase of the navy to twenty-four vessels.

—During the 6th congress (Dec. 2, 1799-March 3, 1801), which had been elected in the very crisis of the war fever of 1798, the federalists had a majority in both houses, and yet the symptoms of disintegration Edition: current; Page: [169] in the party became steadily more apparent. Its two wings, the commercial and the nationalizing elements, which had been clamped together only by Hamilton's adroit use of Washington's authoritative influence, were already falling apart. Hamilton was now a private citizen of New York, and was governed more by his hatred for President Adams than by political prudence. Adams, who disliked Great Britain and showed no officious subservience to commercial interests, was the embodiment of that nationalizing feeling afterward more strongly developed in the whig and republican parties. He had earned the distrust of the Hamilton faction by his willingness to make peace with France, when he found that nation earnestly anxious for peace (see ADAMS, JOHN), and the party's embarrassment at this loss of its only available stock in politics was made evident by the anxiety of some of the party leaders either to manœuvre Pinckney into the presidency in place of Adams, or to bring Washington back to the political arena and thus compel Adams to retire. "Believing the dearest interests of our country at stake," and "considering Mr. Adams unfit for the office he now holds," Gouverneur Morris had written to Washington, Dec. 9, 1799, begging him to accept a third term; but Washington was dead before the letter reached him, and the only hope of union in the federal party died with him. His death at this time was peculiarly unfortunate for the federalists, for in this congress a strong federalist representation from the south appeared for the first and last time, John Marshall being its most prominent member. They were rather of the Adams than of the Hamilton school, and if the crash could have been postponed for a new years might possibly have become the southern wing of a real national party, very much like the whigs of after years. But their appearance was too late, and after 1801 they soon fell into the all embracing republican party—This congress represented mainly the war feeling of 1798, and felt little sympathy with the popular discontent at the continued enforcement of the sedition law. The prosecutions under this act were few, but, by a perverse ingenuity, they were chiefly brought in those doubtful middle states which only Washington's influence had ever made secure to federalism. It seems difficult to see anything better than farce in proceedings against a "criminal" in New York, charged with the circulation of petitions against the sedition law, and against another in New Jersey, charged with the expression of a wish that the wadding of a cannon just firing might strike the president behind. But when it is remembered that only the whim of two southern electors in 1796 had saved the federal party from defeat in that year, and that the loss of either New York's or New Jersey's vote would ensure its defeat in 1800, the blindness of the prosecutors seems almost willful.

—All this time Burr, who was superior to Jefferson as an organizer, in the modern American sense of that political term (see BURR, AARON), had been actively at work in the "pivotal" state of New York, and the result of his labors was seen in the spring elections, beginning April 28, 1800, for members of the legislature which was to choose electors in the following autumn. A republican majority was elected, and the hardly smothered ill feeling in the federal party at once broke out. Pickering and McHenry, who, while nominally the president's advisers, had kept up a close and confidential correspondence with Hamilton, were contumeliously dismissed from the cabinet, and Adams threw himself openly upon the anti-Hamilton element, taking Marshall into the cabinet. Hamilton endeavored to defeat this movement by printing, for circulation among southern federalists, a very savage pamphlet attack upon the president, which would certainly have come within the terms of the sedition law, if that act had ever been anything better than a party measure. Hamilton's rhetoric was needless, and the president himself was too late. The spark of nationalization, which had only begun to burn in the south after ten years of federalist government, was not destined to come to a name. The presidential election left the federal party a wreck. The middle states, except New Jersey and part of Pennsylvania's votes, joined the solid column of states south of the Potomac and Ohio, and gave the republican candidates a majority.

—It can not be said that the party, at least its larger commercial element, surrendered the federal government with dignity. The whole session of congress following the election was spent in efforts to save by intrigue something of what had been lost at the polls. The scheme to make Burr president, in order to establish a claim upon the person who was to dispense the offices, is elsewhere given. (See DISPUTED ELECTIONS, I.) At a time when the supreme court had not sufficient business to fully employ it, twenty-three new judgeships were erected, each with its attendant, suite of clerks, marshals and deputies, and filled by the appointment of federalists. (See JUDICIARY.) And, as if to make the object of the law more apparent, the party endeavored, almost successfully, to renew the sedition law, which was to expire by limitation at the end of this session. With all these schemes the non-commercial element of the party, the class represented by Marshall, Bayard and Adams, had very little sympathy or connection, and Adams, while yielding to party demands so far as to appoint federalists to office, seems to have done so with some contempt. After signing judicial appointments until after midnight of his last day of office, whence the angry epithet of "midnight judges," given to his appointees, the president left Washington early in the morning of March 4, 1801, and the control over the national government which it had founded passed from the federal party forever. It still retained control of the judiciary, but the next congress, which was republican, repealed the new judiciary law, in spite of the excited expostulations Edition: current; Page: [170] of the federalists, and in face of the fact that the constitution expressly gave all judges, when once appointed, a life tenure during good behavior.

—During this period the three leading minds of the party, after Madison's defection, were Hamilton, John Adams, and John Jay of New York. Hamilton's natural place was in the small nationalizing element, but he had the entire confidence of the commercial class also, and was apt to incline toward it because of his reliance upon it. Jay and Adams were entirely nationalist, and after 1801 ceased to act as party leaders. Other leaders of a lower rank were Samuel Livermore, and William Plumer, of New Hampshire; Fisher Ames, Theodore Sedgwick, and Caleb Strong, of Massachusetts, (see also ESSEX JUNTO); Roger Sherman, Oliver Wolcott, Oliver Ellsworth, Uriah Tracy, and Jonathan Trumbull, of Connecticut; Rufus King and Gouverneur Morris, of New York; Thomas Fitz Simons, James Ross, and William Bradford. of Pennsylvania; Jonathan Dayton, and Elias Boudinot, of New Jersey; James A. Bayard, of Delaware; John Marshall, and Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia; Robert G. Harper (afterward of Maryland). Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and William Smith, of South Carolina.

—II. 1801-20. During Jefferson's first term of office the crusade against the federal party was carried on with vigor, ability and success. No general eviction of office holders was resorted to; indeed, such a step would have almost brought the operations of government to a stand, for the administrative skill and experience were mainly federalist. Appointments were made, however, as often as vacancies occurred, with scrupulous attention to republican party interests. Every effort was made to disparage the federalists in the eyes of the people. For this purpose the old charge of monarchical tendencies was still brought against them, but it now showed more exactly the animus which really controlled it—the idea that federalists generally had no sympathy with or respect for their constituents; that they claimed elective office on the score of their own innate ability, virtue, or assumed superior qualifications, rather than as representatives of those characteristics in their constituents; and that, in short, they "did not trust the people." Against this insidious method of attack the older federalists, whose early training had been colored by the staid and dignified official life of colonial times, were unprepared to make an adequate defense by formulating a party creed for popular examination, and the case against them really went by default. Athens does not stand alone in her employment of ostracism; that penalty may be applied almost as rigorously with the ballot as with the oyster shell, and it was so thoroughly used at this time that only New England tenacity and commercial interest combined could have hindered its entire success. The older federalist politicians were slowly driven out of politics, and younger men were sternly taught that any adoption of federalist ideas would be an absolute bar or a great hindrance to their advancement.

—The political action of the party was no wiser than its neglect to put its theory before the people. The opposition of the federalists to the repeal of the judiciary law, above referred to, was generally creditable, but it is almost the last point in their party history to which praise can be awarded. They might have fairly claimed as their own almost every measure introduced by the new administration; they preferred to follow a general course of factions opposition to every proposal to increase the strength of the federal government, thus alienating the little remnant of their nationalizing element, and intensifying the commercial character of the remainder of the party. In 1803 their opposition to the acquisition of Louisiana (see ANNEXATIONS, I.) was not concurred in by several of their own party, such as John Quincy Adams in the senate, and Purviance, of North Carolina, in the house, who were elected as federalists, but who, perhaps for that reason, preferred to increase federal power even for the benefit of their opponents. But the leaders generally confined the federalist side of the debates to a recapitulation of former republican arguments, a course certain to estrange the most valuable elements of their own party, and to convince the popular mind that their present professions were no more based upon political principle than their professions in 1793, by their own present admission, had been. Before the end of Jefferson's first term the fortunes of the federal party had ebbed to the point at which they really always afterward remained, though the accession of temporary elements of opposition to the dominant party occasionally gave them a factitious increase of strength. In the presidential election of 1804, federalist electors were chosen only by Connecticut and Delaware, with two from Maryland.

—In February, 1806, the party received an unexpected reinforcement in the person of John Randolph, hitherto the republican leader in the house. He now joined the federalists in opposing the "restrictive system" (see EMBARGO), which weighed heavily upon commerce, but his quarrel was rather with the president than with his former party, and he brought with him but a few personal adherents and no real party strength. From this time the general history of the party is made up of opposition to the embargo and kindred measures, and of efforts, which were now made earnestly, but unfortunately too late, to obtain a strong navy. The opposition to the embargo became so violent as to threaten a disruption of the Union (see SECESSION, I.), but it never was a party opposition; it was a revolt of those engaged in commerce, of their friends, and of their dependents, against the attempts to shackle commerce and make the United States an agricultural country. In the presidential election of 1808 New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, with three electors from North Carolina, were added to the federalist list of 1804. (See ELECTORAL VOTES, Edition: current; Page: [171] VI.)

—During Madison's first term (1809-13) the opposition to the restrictive system continued, and culminated in opposition to the war which followed the abandonment of the restrictive system. By this time the federal party had lost even the pretense of party principle. It had taken refuge in the last resort of a minority, state rights, (see STATE SOVEREIGNTY), and all its arguments were amplifications and exaggerations of the strict construction theory of the republicans. Since its principles were now taken at second-hand, it seemed well that its candidates should be selected in the same way, and accordingly, in 1812, the federalists endeavored to take advantage of New York jealousy of Virginia by supporting De Witt Clinton, of New York, for president, and Jared Ingersoll, a Pennsylvania federalist, for vice-president. The basis of the alliance was opposition to the war with England, though Clinton cautiously abstained from committing himself personally, and after the election took an opportunity to approve the war; but in the presidential election of 1812 the alliance only failed of success because of the growth of the agricultural or backwoods population of the middle states, and particularly of Pennsylvania. To the hitherto federalist list were now added the votes of New York and New Jersey, and three additional votes from Delaware and Maryland; and, though Madison was elected by 128 votes to 89, the 25 votes of Pennsylvania, if that state had followed the lead of New York, would have made Clinton president by a vote of 114 to 103. Even in that event, it is difficult to see of what advantage the result would have been to the federal party. (For the party's further opposition to the war, see CONVENTION, HARTFORD.)

—The most prominent of the federalist leaders during this period were C. C. Pinckney and Rufus King, the party's usual candidates for president and vice-president. Of those who were prominent in the first decade, Ames, Hamilton, Bradford and Tracy were, in 1815, dead; Plumer, John Adams, John Quincy Adams and Bayard were either nominally or really in affiliation with the democratic (republican) party; Marshall had retired to the supreme court; and the others began to confine their ambition to the service of their respective states. In the presidential election of 1816 Massachusetts, Connecticut and Delaware were the only states which cast federalist electoral votes; three federalist electors, chosen by the "district system" in Maryland, did not take the trouble to vote. In congress the few federalists did not attempt even to cast a united vote any longer, and in national politics we may consider the party as dead after 1817. In 1820 it cast no electoral votes. In state politics it survived, though in a hopeless minority, in Maryland and North Carolina; in Delaware and Connecticut it usually controlled state elections until after 1820; in Massachusetts it controlled state elections until its great defeat of 1823, when the state, and even the county of Essex (see ESSEX JUNTO), were carried by the republicans.

—The federalist opposition to the war, which is commonly assigned as the reason for the party's final collapse after 1816, was undoubtedly of great weight; but a deeper influence had long been operating to give the coup de grace to the dying party, even in the state elections which were now its only dependence. Until 1808 manufactures were hardly of any importance in American politics, but the "restrictive system," by keeping British manufactures out of the country, at once began the development of a great manufacturing interest in the United States. For seven years this interest was fostered by the embargo, by the non-intercourse law, and at length by open war, until in 1815 it represented a very considerable invested capital and a large influence in the very citadel of federalism, New England. For a continuance of the restrictive system in the form of high tariffs this interest was dependent upon the favor of the republican party, and it was therefore directly antagonistic to the federal party. It is safe to say that the federal party was finally destroyed by an alliance of agriculture and manufactures. This alliance, indeed, was not permanent. Agriculture was faithless to its new ally, and the manufacturing interest, after thirteen years of unavailing effort to obtain a protective tariff, went over to its old antagonist, and, in conjunction with commerce, and on a wiser political basis, founded a new party. (See WHIG PARTY.) As a federalist, Daniel Webster opposed a protective tariff in 1814 and 1824, and hoped that we would never have a Sheffield or a Birmingham in this country; as a whig, he was as earnest in the opposite direction. But, during these thirteen years, federalism tended more and more to become a social rather than a political cult in New England, Delaware, Maryland and North Carolina, until it finally disappeared with the old age of its more persistent devotees.

—As the small nationalizing element, which, alone had ever given the federalists a claim to the title of a political party, remained in, but not of, the democratic-republican party until about 1828-30, and then fell back again into the national republican (afterward called whig) party, it may be said that the principles of the federal party thus survived it. But the irremediable fault of the original federalist leaders, a fault avoided by their whig and republican successors, was, that they never formulated their cardinal party principles into a creed comprehensible by the mass of voters. He who searches the writings of federalists for such a formulation will search in vain; the party, which was made up of the finest elements of American society, lived upon an instinct, a kind of spiritual recognition, rather than upon defined political principles. Nor can the neglect be properly ascribed to immaturity of political thought; Hamilton was as capable of such a work as Jefferson (see DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY, II.), if he had cared enough for popular conviction to strive for it. After 1801 the ill effects of this neglect were increasingly apparent, but they Edition: current; Page: [172] only drew from federalist leaders angry railings at popular stupidity in not comprehending federalist principles, though these had never been comprehensibly placed before the people. In 1814 a clearer insight seems to have come to some federalists, though too late, and an extract from Barent Gardénier's "Examiner," of March 19, 1814, might serve as an epitaph for his party: "See and feel? Aye, multitudes of the people can do much more. And if we would only talk to them more, and scold at them less, than we do, the good effects would very soon be apparent." [The references to commerce and manufactures are historical only; for the comparative economic advisability of PROTECTION and FREE TRADE, see those articles.]—See DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY; EMBARGO; SECESSION; CONVENTION, HARTFORD; WHIG PARTY; UNITED STATES; and authorities there cited. See also 4, 5, 6 Hildreth's United States; 1 von Holst's United States; Pitkin's United States; Gibbs' Administrations of Washington and Adams; J. C. Hamilton's History of the American Republic; American State Papers; 1-4 Benton's Debates of Congress; Hamilton's Works; John Adams' Works; Marshall's Life of Washington; Washington's Writings; Jay's Life and Writings of John Jay; Sparks' Life and Letters of Gouverneur Morris; Fisher Ames' Works; Quincy's Life of J. Quincy; Adams' Documents relating to New England Federalism; Garland's Life of Randolph; Dwight's Hartford Convention; Story's Life and Letters of Joseph Story; 1 Webster's Works; Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster; Hammond's Political History of New York; Hosack's Memoir of De Witt Clinton; Campbell's Life and Writings of Clinton; Gardénier's Examiner; Carey's New Olive Branch; Van Buren's Political Parties; Seybert's Statistical Annals of the United States, 1789-1818; Sullivan's Letters; Pickering's Life and Correspondence of Pickering; 24 Niles' Register, 97.

FENIANS

FENIANS. Thus the American members of the revolutionary party, which, during the years 1860-70, agitated the forcible separation of Ireland from England, by means of a wide-spread organization known as the Fenian brotherhood, call themselves. The conspiracy of the Fenians owed its important position in the long line of Irish conspiracies against the English government principally to two causes: its distinctively revolutionary tendency and its origin in America. As a revolutionary effort it was the work of a party which had adopted the name "Young Ireland," and which, in opposition to the conciliatory policy of O'Connell, had organized itself as a party of violence. Its American origin is accounted for by the dreadful Irish famine (1845-7), in consequence of which a large number of poor, discontented Irishmen, who bore a traditional hatred toward England, left their native country and came to America in search of a new home. In the course of time these emigrants grew rapidly in number and public influence, and when the war between the north and south began, quite a large number of naturalized Irishmen enlisted in favor of the Union. During the war different causes were at work to arouse the old animosity between the United States and England to such a degree as to make it not at all unlikely that it would result in open hostility between the two countries. A more favorable state of circumstances in furtherance of the schemes of the young Irish patriots could hardly be imagined, and encouraged in view of the difficulties pending between the British and American governments, the Fenian conspiracy was, toward the close of 1861 and the beginning of the following year, organized and began its active operations.

—The name Fenian was taken from the ancient Celtic caste of warriors, the Finna. The organization of the Fenians was, therefore, a society of men who trusted to the force of arms, and the object of the conspiracy is sufficiently indicated by the name. The principal founder of the brotherhood in America was John O'Mahoney, while in Ireland James Stephens took the foremost lead in the movement. It was in America that the organization was first effected, and the United States was from the beginning recognized as the principal base of operations; yet in Ireland secret meetings of Fenians were held as early as the beginning of 1862. In the spring of 1863, John Luby, one of the leaders of the brother hood, came to America as a sort of emissary, where he, together with O'Mahoney, visited the camp of Gen. Corcoran, the commander of the Irish legion in the army of the Potomac, and where he met with the warmest expressions of sympathy for the cause of Ireland. In the fall of 1863 Fenianism had made such progress in the northern and western states of the Union, that O'Mahoney no longer hesitated to call a Fenian convention, which took place at Chicago. A few weeks later (November, 1863), the first number of the paper "The Irish World," published by Luby and edited by O'Leary, was issued, as the organ of the Fenians in Ireland. Practical measures in aid of the movement were not neglected. Emissaries visited all parts of the country in order to enlist volunteers and to perfect the military organization of the brotherhood; armories were established and the men instructed, though with the utmost secrecy, in the use of arms. The American brethren were likewise very active. In the spring of 1864, the first contributions, from the proceeds of the great fair held in Chicago, toward a military fund, were made; and in the fall of the same year a second Fenian convention was held in Chicago, which was attended by delegates from all the states from New York to California. The sudden close of the civil war in the United States in April, 1865, and the disbanding of the army, in consequence of which not only the commanders of the Irish legion, but a large crowd of adventurers, were open to new engagements, hastened the Fenians to take some Edition: current; Page: [173] decided action. But in proportion as the Fenians became more demonstrative and active, the vigilance of the British government was increased, and before the Fenians were ready to take a decided step, their hopes of succeeding before long in their revolutionary enterprise were suddenly dashed to pieces. In the night of Sept. 15, 1865, the police took possession of the building of "The Irish People." took charge of the press, put Luby, O'Leary and O'Donovan Rossa, and other Fenian leaders who were stopping at Dublin, under arrest, and at the same time seized upon the private documents of the Fenians, which at once gave the British government a clue to the secret movements of the conspirators. In consequence of the information gotten by means of these private documents, a number of arrests were made in the southern and western districts of Ireland. Stephens himself fell into the hands of the police. Thus deprived of all its leaders, without encouragement in the shape of sympathetic demonstration on the part of the Irish people, the Fenian brotherhood in Ireland fell to pieces.

—Yet, notwithstanding all this, the Fenian conspiracy was by no means subdued; for the defeat which the Fenian movement had suffered aroused all the latent energy of the brotherhood in America. In October, 1865, a general convention of Fenians was held at New York, which was to inaugurate the establishment of an independent republic on Irish soil. A constitution was submitted and debated, and O'Mahoney was elected president of the new republic. He appointed a minister of war, of the navy, and of finance, and together with his ministers took up his residence in an elegant mansion in New York city, which had been chosen as the temporary seat of government. The first executive measure was the levy of an income tax, by means of which a considerable amount of money came into the treasury. In accordance with the original plans, and in view of the differences still existing between the United States and England, which the Fenians tried to use as a means whereby the breach between the two countries might be widened, and their governments stirred up to open hostilities, a two-fold plan of action was agreed on, on the basis of which O'Mahoney was to take charge of the operations against Canada in the United States, while Stephens was to direct and manage the invasion and revolutionizing of Ireland.

—The winter months were passed in making arrangements for final action. Toward the latter part of February, 1866, the excitement among the people of Ireland again rose very high. The English authorities discovered some traces of the importation of arms and ammunition and the enlistment and drilling of volunteers. During the fore part of March the number of American emissaries who had come to Ireland increased in alarming proportions. Their bearing became daily more threatening, and the symptoms of an impending outbreak were unmistakable. But the English government was on its guard, and once more the energetic measure—the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus—was all that was needed to check the revolution in its inception. Suddenly the strangers, who were suspected by the authorities, had disappeared from Ireland. The few who remained were put under arrest without difficulty, thus the rebellion, the leaders gone, again came to a sudden collapse. The Fenian operations against Canada shared no better fate. In the beginning of June, 1866, the Fenian forces began to gather on the Canadian borders, and in the second week in June an army of about 4,000 or 5,000 men invaded Canada along the coast of Lake Erie. The Fenian troops took possession of a few border towns, but were in the end defeated by the Canadian troops in several engagements.

—This unsuccessful issue proved not only the fact that the Fenian forces were not equal to carry out the great plans of their leaders, but the more important fact, that the government of the United States was not willing to use the Irish discontent in support of any hostile movement against England, and all subsequent attempts on the part of the Fenians only served to prove the same facts. In Ireland, preparations to that end having been made for some time, on March 5, 1867, the rebellion broke out simultaneously in the vicinity of Dublin, in Drogheda and in Kerry. It was the most powerful effort the Fenians made in defense of their cause; yet it resulted, after a few days' struggle, in a complete defeat. The total number of the Fenian insurgents engaged in this struggle did not exceed 3,000 men, and, aside from the destruction of railroad and telegraph lines, the taking of a quantity of arms, and the firing of a few police stations and guard houses along the coast, the insurrection was of no consequence. There were no battles fought. The English troops, who followed up the insurgents, nowhere found a consolidated body of men opposing them. All that the English troops had to do was to capture the fugitives and take possession of the arms and ammunition belonging to the Fenians, which were scattered about in large quantities. The only attempt which the Fenians again made to establish an Irish republic, came to an end which was even more disgraceful. In April, 1867, about forty or fifty Fenians, who had served in the Union army, left New York, in a steamer fitted out for the purpose, to conquer Ireland. In the beginning of June, after sailing about the Irish coast for some time, they landed near Waterford, only to fall, a few hours later, into the hands of the police, without offering any resistance. With this first and only invasion of Ireland the Fenian conspiracy was not of course broken up, but all hopes of again putting the Fenian forces on the offensive were gone. Completely routed in Ireland and America alike, the Fenians finally hit upon the plan of alarming their traditional enemy in his own camp, by arousing the discontent of the Irish laboring classes who were employed in England, especially Edition: current; Page: [174] in the large commercial and manufacturing cities, and thus to subject England herself to the horrors of a civil war. The Fenian conspiracy had now come to its last and most desperate stage, in which it totally lost its political character; its organization was reduced to a state of anarchy, and the further doings of the Fenian combatants were simply the deeds of murderers and incendiaries.

—Two events, characteristic of the further movements of the Fenians, deserve special mention: the forcible liberation, September, 1867, of several Fenian leaders who were under arrest in Manchester, and the attempt to release, December, 1867, two Fenians who had been arrested in London, and were there kept in prison. In Manchester the prisoners succeeded in escaping, but a large number of those who had aided in their liberation were put under arrest, and three of the ringleaders were put to death. In London the Fenians caused an explosion, whereby the outer prison walls and several neighboring houses were blown up, and, though the prisoner was not set free, about fifty persons, who happened to be on the spot, were either killed or wounded. In this case, too, the head of the conspirators was caught and suffered the penalty of death.

—These events mark the last public effort of the Fenians in furtherance of their cause. Although the Fenian conspiracy, as a means of forcibly separating Ireland from England, proved unsuccessful, its effects undoubtedly were of great importance in this, that it hastened the adoption of needful reforms for the removal, in a peaceful way, of the crying evils under which Ireland was then suffering.

FEUDAL SYSTEM

FEUDAL SYSTEM. In treating of this subject we shall endeavor to present a concise and clear view of the principles of what is called the feudal system, to indicate the great stages of its history, especially in England, and to state briefly the leading considerations that should be taken into account in forming an estimate of its influence on the civilization of modern Europe.

—The essential constituent and distinguishing characteristic of the species of estate called a feud or fief was from the first, and always continued to be, that it was not an estate of absolute and independent ownership. The property, or dominium directum, as it was called, remained in the grantor of the estate. The person to whom it was granted did not become its owner, but only its tenant or holder. There is no direct proof that fiefs were originally resumable at pleasure, and Mr. Hallam, in his "State of Europe during the Middle Ages," has expressed his doubts if this were ever the case; but the position, as he admits, is laid down in almost every writer on the feudal system, and, if not to be made out by any decisive instances, it is at least strongly supported not only by general considerations of probability, but also by some indicative facts. This, however, is not material. It is not denied that the fief was at one time revocable, at least on the death of the grantee. In receiving it, therefore, he had received not an absolute gift, but only a loan, or at most an estate for his own life.

—This being established as the true character of a primitive feud or fief, may perhaps throw some light upon the much disputed etymology and true meaning of the word. Feudum has been derived by some from a Latin, by others from a Teutonic root. The principal Latin origins proposed are fœdus (a treaty) and fides (faith). The supposition of the transformation of either of these into feudum seems unsupported by any proof. These derivations, in fact, are hardly better than another resolution of the puzzle that has been gravely offered, namely, that feudum is a word made up of the initial letters of the words fidelis ero ubique domino vero meo. The chief Teutonic etymologies proposed have been from the old German faida, the Danish feide, or the modern German vehd, all meaning battle-feud, or dissension; and from fe or fee, which it is said signifies wages or pay for service, combined with od or odh, to which the signification of possession or property is assigned. But, as Sir Francis Palgrave has well remarked, "upon all the Teutonic etymologies it is sufficient to observe, that the theories are contradicted by the practice of the Teutonic tongues—a feud, or fief, is not called by such a name, or by any name approaching thereto, in any Teutonic or Gothic language whatever." (Proofs and Illustrations to Rise and Progress of Eng. Com., p. ccvii.) Lehn, or some cognate form, is the only corresponding Teutonic term; laen in Anglo-Saxon, len in Danish, leen in Swedish, etc. All these words properly signify the same thing that is expressed by our modern English form of the same element, loan; a loan is the only name for a feud or fief in all the Teutonic tongues. What then is feud or fief? Palgrave doubts if the word feudum ever existed. The true word seems to be fevdum (not distinguishable from feudum in old writing), or feftum. Fiev or fief (Latinized into fevodium, which some contracted into fevdum, and others, by omitting the v, into fevdum) he conceives to be fitef, or phitef, and that again to be a colloquial abbreviation of emphyteusis, pronounced emphytifsis, a well-known term of the Roman imperial law for an estate granted to be held not absolutely, but with the ownership still in the grantor and the usufruct only in the hands of the grantee. It is certain that emphyteusis was used in the middle ages as synonymous with precaria (an estate held on a precarious or uncertain tenure); that precariæ, and also præstitæ or præstariæ, (literally loans), were the same with beneficia; and that beneficia under the emperors were the same, or nearly the same, as fiefs. It may be added that the word feu is still in familiar use in Scotland for an estate held only for a term of years. The possessor of such an estate is called a feuar. Many of these feus are held for 99 years, some for 999 years. A rent, or feuduty, as it is called, is always paid, as in the case Edition: current; Page: [175] of a lease in England; but, although never, we believe, merely nominal, it is often extremely trifling in proportion to the value of the property. In Erskine's "Principles of the Law of Scotland," in the section "On the several kinds of holding" (book ii., tit. 4), we find the following passage respecting feu-holding, which may be taken as curiously illustrating the derivation of fief that has just been quoted from another writer: "It has a strong resemblance to the Roman emphyteusis, in the nature of the right, the yearly duty payable by the vassal, the penalty in the case of not punctual payment, and the restraint frequently laid upon vassals not to alien without the superior's consent." As for the English term fee, which is generally if not universally assumed to be the same word with fief and feud, (and of which it may be the abbreviated form, as we may infer from the words "feoffor," "infeoff" and "feoffment"), it would be easy enough to show how, supposing that notion to be correct, it may have acquired the meaning which it has in the expression fee simple, fee tail, etc.

—The origin of the system of feuds has been a fertile subject of speculation and dispute. If we merely seek for the existence of a kind of landed tenure resembling that of fief in its essential principle, it is probable that such may be discovered in various ages and parts of the world. But feuds alone are not the feudal system. They are only one of the elements out of which that system grew. In its entireness it is certain that the feudal system never subsisted anywhere before it arose in the middle ages, in those parts of Europe in which the Germanic nations settled themselves after the subversion of the Roman empire.

—Supposing feud to be the same word with the Roman emphyteusis, it does not follow that the Germanic nations borrowed the notion of this species of tenure from the Romans. It is perhaps more probable that it was the common form of tenure among them before their settlement in the Roman provinces. It is to be observed that the emphyteusis, the precaria, the beneficium, only subsisted under the Roman scheme of polity in particular instances, but they present themselves as the very genius of the Germanic scheme. What was only occasional under the one became general under the other. In other words, if the Romans had feuds, it was their Germanic conquerors who first established a system of feuds. They probably established such a system upon their first settlement in the conquered provinces. The word feudum indeed is not found in any writing of earlier date than the beginning of the eleventh century, although, as Mr. Hallam has remarked, the words feum and fevum, which are evidently the same with feudum, occur in several charters of the preceding century. But, as we have shown, feudum or feud, in all probability, was not the Teutonic term. "Can it be doubted," asks Mr. Hallam, "that some word of barbarous original must have answered, in the vernacular languages, to the Latin beneficium?" There is reason to believe, as we have seen, that this vernacular word must have been lehn, or some cognate form, and that feud was merely a corrupted term of the Roman law which was latterly applied to denote the same thing.

—We know so little with certainly respecting the original institutions of the Germanic nations, that it is impossible to say how much they may have brought with them from their northern forests, or how much they may have borrowed from the imperial polity, of the other chief element which enters into the system of feudalism, the connection subsisting between the grantor and the grantee of the fief, the person having the property and the person having the usufruct, or, as they were respectively designated, the suzerain or lord, and the tenant or vassal. Tenant may be considered as the name given to the latter in reference to the particular nature of his right over the land; vassal, that denoting the particular nature of his personal connection with his lord. The former has been already explained; the consideration of the latter introduces a new view. By some writers the feudal vassals have been derived from the comites, or officers of the Roman imperial household; by others from the comites, or companions, mentioned by Tacitus (German., 13, etc.) as attending upon each of the German chiefs in war. The latter opinion is ingeniously maintained by Montesquieu (xxx., 3). One fact appears to be certain, and is of some importance, namely, that the original vassali or vassi were merely noblemen who attached themselves to the court and to attendance upon the prince, without necessarily holding any landed estate or beneficium by royal grant. In this sense the words occur in the early part of the ninth century. Vassal has been derived from the Celtic gwas and from the German gesell, which are probably the same word, and of both of which the original signification seems to be a helper, or subordinate associate, in labor of any kind.

—If the vassal was at first merely the associate of or attendant upon his lord, nothing could be more natural than that, when the lord came to have land to give away, he should most frequently bestow it upon his vassals, both as a reward for their past and a bond by which he might secure their future services. If the peculiar form of tenure constituting the fief or lehn did not exist before, here was the very case which would suggest it. At all events, nothing could be more perfectly adapted to the circumstances. The vassal was entitled to a recompense; at the same time it was not the interest of the lord to sever their connection, and to allow him to become independent; probably that was as little the desire of the vassal himself; he was conveniently and appropriately rewarded, therefore, by a fief, that is, by a loan of land, the profits of which were left to him as entirely as if he had obtained the ownership of the land, but his precarious and revocable tenure of which, at the same time, kept him bound to his lord in the Edition: current; Page: [176] same dependence as before.

—Here then we have the union of the feud and vassalage—two things which remained intimately and inseparably combined so long as the feudal system existed. Nevertheless they would appear, as we have seen, to have been originally quite distinct, and merely to have been thrown into combination by circumstances. At first it is probable that, as there were vassals who were not feudatories, so there were feudatories who were not vassals. But very soon, when the advantage of the association of the two characters came to be perceived, it would be established as essential to the completeness of each. Every vassal would receive a fief, and every person to whom a fief was granted would become a vassal. Thus a vassal and the holder of a fief would come to signify, as they eventually did, one and the same thing.

—Fiefs, as already intimated, are generally supposed to have been at first entirely precarious, that is to say, resumable at any time at the pleasure of the grantor. But if this state of things every existed, it probably did not last long. Even from the first it is most probable that many fiefs were granted for a certain term of years or for life. And in those of all kinds a substitute for the original precariousness of the tenure was soon found, which, while it equally secured the rights and interests of the lord, was much more honorable and in every way more advantageous for the vassal. This was the method of attaching him by certain oaths and solemn forms, which, besides their force in a religious point of view, were so contrived as to appeal also to men's moral feelings, and which, therefore, it was accounted not only impious but infamous to violate. The relation binding the vassal to his lord was made to wear all the appearance of a mutual interchange of benefits—of bounty and protection on the one hand, of gratitude and service due on the other; and so strongly did this view of the matter take possession of men's minds, that in the feudal ages even the ties of natural relationship were looked upon as of inferior obligation to the artificial bond of vassalage.

—As soon as the position of the vassal had thus been made stable and secure, various changes would gradually introduce themselves. The vassal would begin to have his fixed rights as well as his lord, the oath which he had taken measuring and determining both these rights and his duties. The relation between the two parties would cease to be one wholly of power and dominion on the one hand, and of mere obligation and dependence on the other. If the vassal performed that which he had sworn, nothing more would be required of him. Any attempt of his lord to force him to do more would be considered as an injustice. Their connection would now assume the appearance of a mutual compact, imposing corresponding obligations upon both, and making protection as much a duty in the lord, as gratitude and service in the vassal.

—Other important changes would follow this fundamental change, or would take place while it was advancing to completion. After the fief had come to be generally held for life, the next step would be for the eldest son usually to succeed his father. His right so to succeed would next be established by usage. At a later stage fiefs became descendible in the collateral as well as in the direct line. At a still later, they became inheritable by females as well as by males. There is much difference of opinion, however, as to the dates at which these several changes took place. Some writers conceive that fiefs first became hereditary in France under Charlemagne; others, however, with whom Mr. Hallam agrees, maintain that there were hereditary fiefs under the first race of French kings. It is supposed not to have been till the time of the first Capets in the end of the tenth century that the right of the son to succeed the father was established by law in France. Conrad II., surnamed the Salic, who became emperor in 1024, is generally believed to have first established the hereditary character of fiefs in Germany.

—Throughout the whole of this progressive development of the system, however, the original nature of the fief was never forgotten. The ultimate property was still held to be in the lord; and that fact was very distinctly signified, not only by the expressive language of forms and symbols, but by certain liabilities of the tenure that gave still sharper intimation of its true character. Even after fiefs became descendible to heirs in the most comprehensive sense, and by the most fixed rule, every new occupant of the estate had still to make solemn acknowledgment of his vassalage, and thus to obtain, as it were, a renewal of the grant from the lord. He became bound to discharge all services and other dues as fully as the first grantee had been Above all, in certain circumstances, as, for example, if the tenant committed treason or felony, or if he left no heir, the estate would still return by forfeiture or escheat to the lord, as to its original owner.

—Originally fiefs were granted only by sovereign princes; but after estates of this description, by acquiring the hereditary quality, came to be considered as property to all practical intents and purposes, their holders proceeded, on the strength of this completeness of possession, themselves to assume the character and to exercise the rights of lords, by the practice of what was called sub-infeudation, that is, the alienation of portions of their fiefs to other parties, who thereupon were placed in the same or a similar relation to them as that in which they stood to the prince. The vassal of the prince became the lord over other vassals; in this latter capacity he was called a mesne (that is, an intermediate) lord; he was a lord and a vassal at the same time. In the same manner the vassal of a mesne lord might become also the lord of other arrere vassals, as those vassals that held of a mesne lord were designated. This process sometimes produced curious results; for a lord might in this way actually become the vassal of his own vassal, and a vassal a lord over his own lord.

—From whatever cause it may have happened Edition: current; Page: [177] (which is matter of dispute), in all the continental provinces of the Roman empire which were conquered and occupied by the Germanic nations, many lands were from the first held, not as fiefs, that is, with the ownership in one party and the usufruct in another, but as allodia, that is, in full and entire ownership. The holder of such an estate, having no lord, was of course free from all the exactions and burdens which were incidental to the vassalage of the holder of a fief. He was also, however, without the powerful protection which the latter enjoyed; and so important was this protection in the turbulent state of society which existed in Europe for some ages after the dissolution of the empire of Charlemagne, that in fact most of the allodialists in course of time exchanged their originally independent condition for the security and subjection of that of the feudatory. "During the tenth and eleventh centuries," says Mr. Hallam, "it appears that allodial lands in France had chiefly become feudal; that is, they had been surrendered by their proprietors, and received back again upon the feudal conditions; or more frequently, perhaps, the owner had been compelled to acknowledge himself the man or vassal of a suzerain, and thus to confess an original grant which had never existed. Changes of the same nature, though not perhaps so extensive or so distinctly to be traced, took place in Italy and Germany. Yet it would be inaccurate to assert that the prevalence of the feudal system has been unlimited; in a great part of France allodial tenures always subsisted, and many estates in the empire were of the same description."

—After the conquest of England by the Normans, the dominium directum, or property of all the land in the kingdom, appears to have been considered as vested in the crown. "All the lands and tenements in England in the hands of subjects," says Coke, "are holden mediately or immediately of the king; for in the law of England we have not properly allodium." This universality of its application, therefore, may be regarded as the first respect in which the system of feudalism established in England differed from that established in France and other continental countries. There were also various other differences. The Conqueror, for instance, introduced here the practice unknown on the continent of compelling the arrere vassals, as well as the immediate tenants of the crown, to take the oath of fealty to himself. In other countries a vassal only swore fealty to his immediate lord; in England, if he held of a mesne lord, be took two oaths, one to his lord and another to his lord's ford. It may be observed, however, that in those times in which the feudal principle was in its greatest vigor the fealty of a vassal to his immediate lord was usually considered as the higher obligation; when that and his fealty to the crown came into collision, the former was the oath to which he adhered. Some feudists, indeed, held that his allegiance to the crown was always to be understood as reserved in the fealty which a vassal swore to his lord; and the emperor Frederic Barbarossa decreed that in every oath of fealty taken to an inferior lord there should be an express reservation of the vassal's duty to the emperor. But the double oath exacted by the Norman conqueror did not go so far as this. It only gave him, at the most, a concurrent power with the mesne lord over the vassals of the latter, who in France were nearly removed altogether from the control of the royal authority. A more important difference between the English and French feudalism consisted in the greater extension given by the former to the rights of lords generally over their vassals by what were called the incidents of wardship and marriage. The wardship or guardianship of the tenant during minority, which implied both the custody of his person and the appropriation of the profits of the estate, appears to have been enjoyed by the lord in some parts of Germany, but nowhere else except in England and Normandy. "This," observes Mr. Hallam, "was one of the most vexatious parts of our feudal tenures, and was never perhaps more sorely felt than in their last stage under the Tudor and Stuart families." The right of marriage (maritagium) originally implied only the power possessed by the lord of tendering a husband to his female ward while under age: if she rejected the match, she forfeited the value of the marriage; that is, as much as any one would give to the lord for permission to marry her. But the right was afterward extended so as to include male as well as female heirs; and it also appears that although the practice might not be sanctioned by law, some of the Anglo-Norman kings were accustomed to exact penalties from their female vassals of all ages, and even from widows, for either marrying without their consent or refusing such marriages as they proposed. The seignorial prerogative of marriage, like that of wardship, was peculiar to England and Normandy, and to some parts of Germany.

—It has been very usual to represent military service as the essential peculiarity of a feudal tenure. But the constituent and distinguishing element of that form of tenure was its being a tenancy merely, and not an ownership; the enjoyment of land for certain services to be performed. In the state of society, however, in which the feudal system grew up, it was impossible that military service should not become the chief duty to which the vassal was bound. It was in such a state of society the most important service which he could render to his lord. It was the species of service which the persons to whom fiefs were first granted seem to have been previously accustomed to render, and the continuance of which, accordingly, the grant of the fief was chiefly intended to secure. Yet military service, or knight service as it was called in England, though it was the usual, was by no means the necessary or uniform condition on which fiefs were granted. Any other honorable condition might be imposed which distinctly Edition: current; Page: [178] recognized the dominium directum of the lord.

—Another common characteristic of fiefs, which in like manner arose incidentally out of the circumstances of the times in which they originated, was that they usually consisted of land. Land was in those times nearly the only species of wealth that existed; certainly the only form of wealth that had any considerable security or permanency. Yet there are not wanting instances of other things, such as pensions and offices, being granted as fiefs. It was a great question nevertheless, among the feudists, whether a fief could consist of money, or of anything else than land; and perhaps the most eminent authorities have maintained that it could not. The preference thus shown for land by the spirit of the feudal customs has perhaps left deeper traces both upon the law, the political constitution, and the social habits and feelings of England and other feudal countries than any other part of the system. England has thence derived not only the distinction (nearly altogether unknown to the Roman law) by which her law still discriminates certain amounts of interest in lands and tenements under the name of real property from property of every other kind, but also the ascendency retained by the former in nearly every respect in which such ascendency can be upheld either by institutions or by opinion.

—The grant of land as a fief, especially when it was a grant from the suzerain, or supreme lord, whether called king or duke, or any other name, was, sometimes at least, accompanied with an express grant of jurisdiction. Thus every great tenant exercised a jurisdiction, civil and criminal, over his immediate tenants: he held courts and administered the laws within his lordship like a sovereign prince. It appears that the same jurisdiction was often granted by the crown to the abbeys with their lands. The formation of manors in England appears to have been consequent upon the establishment of feudalism. The existence of manor courts, and so many small jurisdictions within the kingdom, is one of the most permanent features of that polity which the Normans stamped upon the country.

—In the infancy of the feudal system it is probable that the vassal was considered bound to attend his lord in war for any length of time during which his services might be required. Afterward, when the situation of the vassal became more independent, the amount of this kind of service was fixed either by law or by usage. In England the whole country was divided into about 60,000 knights' fees; and the tenant of each of these appears to have been obliged to keep the field at his own expense for forty days on every occasion on which his lord chose to call upon him. For smaller quantities of land proportionately shorter terms of service were due; at least such is the common statement; although it seems improbable that the individuals composing a feudal army could thus have the privilege of returning home some at one time, some at another. Women were obliged to send their substitutes: and so were the clergy, certain persons holding public offices, and men past the age of sixty, all of whom were exempted from personal service. The rule or custom, however, both as to the duration of the service, and its extent in other respects, varied greatly in different ages and countries—The other duties of the vassal were rather expressive of the relation of honorable subordination in which he stood to his lord, than services of any real or calculable value. They are thus summed up by Mr. Hallam: "It was a breach of faith to divulge the lord's counsel, to conceal from him the machinations of others, to injure his person or fortune, or to violate the sanctity of his roof and the honor of his family. In battle he was bound to lend his horse to his lord when dismounted: to adhere to his side while fighting, and to go into captivity as a hostage for him when taken. His attendance was due to the lord's courts, sometimes to witness and sometimes to bear a part in the administration of justice."

—There were, however, various other substantial advantages derived by the lord. We have already mentioned the rights of wardship and of marriage, which were nearly peculiar to the dominions of the English crown. Besides these, there were the payment, called a relief, made by every new entrant upon the possession of the fief, the escheat of the land to the lord when the tenant left no heir, and its forfeiture to him when the tenant was found guilty either of a breach of his oath of fealty, or of felony. There was, besides, a fine payable to the lord upon the alienation by the tenant of any part of the estate, if that was at all permitted. Finally, there were the various aids, as they were called, payable by the tenant.

—The principal ceremonies used in conferring a fief were homage, fealty and investiture. The first two of these can not be more distinctly or more shortly described than in the words of Littleton. "Homage," says the Treatise of Tenures, "is the most honorable service, and most humble service of reverence, that a frank tenant may do to his lord: for when the tenant shall make homage to his lord, he shall be ungirt and his head uncovered, and his lord shall sit and the tenant shall kneel before him on both his knees, and hold his hands jointly together between the hands of his lord, and shall say thus: I become your man, from this day forward, of life and limb, and of earthly worship, and unto you shall be true and faithful, and bear you faith for the tenements that I claim to hold of you, saving the faith that I owe to our sovereign lord the king; and then the lord, so sitting, shall kiss him." Religious persons and women, instead of "I become your man," said, "I do homage unto you." Here, it is to be observed, there was no oath taken; the doing of fealty consisted wholly in taking an oath, without any obeisance. "When a freeholder (frank tenant)," says Littleton, "doth fealty to his lord he shall hold his right hand upon a book, and shall say thus: Know ye this, my lord, that I shall be Edition: current; Page: [179] faithful and true unto you, and faith to you shall bear for the lands which I claim to hold of you, and that I shall lawfully do to you the customs and services which I ought to do at the terms assigned, so help me God and his saints; and he shall kiss the book. But he shall not kneel when he maketh the fealty, nor shall make such (that is, any such, tiel), humble reverence as is aforesaid in homage." The investiture or the conveyance of feudal land is represented by the modern feoffment.

—The feudal system may be regarded as having reached its maturity and full development when the Norman conquest of England took place. It appears accordingly to have been established there immediately or very soon after that event in as pure, strict and comprehensive a form as it ever attained in any other country. The whole land of the kingdom, as we have already mentioned, was, without any exception, either in the hands of the crown, or held in fief by the vassals of the crown, or of them by sub-infeudation. Those lands which the king kept were called his demesne (the terræ regis of the domesday survey), and thus the crown had a number of immediate tenants, like any other lord, in the various lands reserved in nearly every part of the kingdom. Nowhere else, also, before the restrictions established by the charters, were the rights of the lord over the vassal stretched in practice nearer to their extreme theoretical limits. On the other hand, the vassal had arrived at what we may call his ultimate position in the natural progress of the system; the hereditary quality of the feuds was fully established; his ancient absolute dependence and subjection had passed away; under whatever disadvantages his inferiority of station might place him, he met his lord on the common ground of their mutual rights and obligations; there might be considerable contention about what these rights and obligations on either side were, but it was admitted that on both sides they had the same character of real, legally binding obligations, and legally maintainable rights.

—This settlement of the system, however, was anything rather than an assurance of its stability and permanency. It was now held together by a principle altogether of a different kind from that which had originally created and cemented it. That which had been in the beginning the very life of the relation between the lord and the vassal, had now in great part perished. The feeling of gratitude could no more survive than the feeling of dependence on the part of the latter after feuds became hereditary. A species of superstition, indeed, and a sense of honor, which in some degree supplied the place of what was lost, were preserved by oaths and ceremonies, and the influence of habit and old opinion; but these were at the best only extraneous props; the self-sustaining strength of the edifice was gone. Thus it was the tendency of feudalism to decay and fall to pieces under the necessary development of its own principle.

—Other causes, called into action by the progress of events, conspired to bring about the same result. The very military spirit which was fostered by the feudal institutions, and the wars, defensive and aggressive, which they were intended to supply the means of carrying on, led in course of time to the release of the vassal from the chief and most distinguishing of his original obligations, and thereby, it may be said, to the rupture of the strongest bond that had attached him to his lord. The feudal military army was at length found so inconvenient a force that soon after the accession of Henry II the personal service of vassals was dispensed with, and a pecuniary payment, under the name of escuage, accepted in its stead. From this time the vassal was no longer really the defender of his lord; he was no longer what he professed to be in his homage and his oath of fealty; and one effect of the change must have been still further to wear down what remained of the old impressiveness of these solemnities, and to reduce them nearer to mere dead forms. The acquisition by the crown of an army of subservient mercenaries, in exchange for its former inefficient and withal turbulent and unmanageable army of vassals, was in fact the discovery of a substitute for the main purpose of the feudal polity. Whatever nourished a new power in the commonwealth, also took sustenance and strength from this ancient power. Such must in especial degree have been the effect of the growth of towns, and of the new species of wealth, and, it may be added, the new manners and modes of thinking, created by trade and commerce.

—The progress of subinfeudation has sometimes been represented as having upon the whole tended to weaken and loosen the fabric of feudalism. It "demolished," observes Blackstone (ii., 4), "the ancient simplicity of feuds; and an inroad being once made upon their constitution, it subjected them in a course of time to great varieties and innovations. Feuds began to be bought and sold, and deviations were made from the old fundamental rules of tenure and succession, which were held no longer sacred when the feuds themselves no longer continued to be purely military." But the practice of subinfeudation would rather seem to have been calculated to carry out the feudal principle, and to place the whole system on a broader and firmer basis. It would be more correct to ascribe the effects here spoken of to the prohibition against subinfeudation. The effect of this practice, it is true, was to deprive the lord of his forfeitures and escheats and the other advantages of his seigniory, and various attempts, therefore, were at length made to check or altogether prevent it, in which the crown and the tenants in chief, whose interests were most affected, may be supposed to have joined. One of the clauses of the great charter of Henry III. (the thirty-second) appears to be intended to restrict subinfeudation (although the meaning is not quite clear), and is expressly forbidden by the statute of Quia Emptores (the 18 Edw. I., c. 1). Subinfeudation was originally the only way in Edition: current; Page: [180] which the holder of a flef could alienate any part of his estate without the consent of his lord; and it therefore now became necessary to provide some other mode of effecting that object, for it seems to have been felt that after alienation had been allowed so long to go on under the guise of subinfeudation, to restrain it altogether would be no longer possible. The consequence was, that as a compensation for the prohibition of subinfeudation, the old prohibition against alienation was removed; lands were allowed to be alienated, but the purchaser or grantee did not hold them of the vendor or grantor, but held them exactly as the grantor did; and such is still the legal effect in England when a man parts with his entire interest in his lands. This change was effected by the statute of Quia Emptores with regard to all persons except immediate tenants of the crown, who were permitted to alienate on paying a fine to the king by the statute 1 Edw. III., c. 12. Thus at the same time that a practice strictly accordant to the spirit of feudalism, and eminently favorable to its conservation and extension, was stopped, another practice, altogether adverse to its fundamental principles, was introduced and established, that of allowing voluntary alienation by persons during their lifetime.

—It was a consequence of feudal principles, that a man's lands could not be subjected to the claims of his creditors. This restraint upon what may be called involuntary alienation has been in a great degree removed by the successive enactments which have had for their object to make a man's lands liable for his debts; although, after a lapse of near six hundred years since the statute of Acton Burnell, the lands of a debtor are not yet completely subjected to the just demands of his creditors. This statute of Acton Burnell, passed 11 Edw. I. (1283), made the devisable burgages, or burgh tenements, of a debtor salable in discharge of his debts. By the statute of Merchant, passed 13 Edw. I. (1285), called statute 3, a debitor's lands might be delivered to his merchant creditor till his debt was wholly paid out of the profits. By the 18th chapter of the statute of Westminster the second, passed the same year, a moiety of a debtor's land (not copy-hold) was subjected to execution for debts or damages recovered by judgment. But the lands are not sold: the moiety of them is delivered by the sheriff to him who has recovered by judgment, to occupy them till his debt or damages are satisfied. Finally, by the several modern statutes of bankruptcy, the whole of a bankrupt debtor's lands have become absolutely salable for the payment of his debts. Further, by a recent act (3 and 4 Wm. IV., c. 104), all a deceased person's estate in land, of whatever kind, not charged by his will with the payment of his debts, whether he was a trader within the bankrupt laws or not, constitutes assets, to be administered in equity, for the payment of debts, both those on specialty and those on simple contract.

—An attempt had early been made to restore in part the old restraints upon voluntary alienation by the statute 13 Edw. I., c. 1, entitled "De Donis Condition-alibus," which had for its object to enable any owner of an estate, by his own disposition, to secure its descent in perpetuity in a particular line. So far as the statute went, it was an effort to strengthen the declining power of feudalism. The effect was to create what were called estates tail, and to free the tenant in tail from many liabilities of his ancestor to which he would be subject if he were seized of the same lands in fee simple. The power which was thus conferred upon landholders of preventing the alienation of their lands remained in full force for nearly two centuries, till at last, in the reign of Edward IV., by the decision of the courts (A. D. 1472), the practice of barring estates tail by a common recovery was completely established.

—The practice of conveying estates by fine, which was of great antiquity in England, and the origin of which is by some referred to the time of Stephen or Henry II, was regulated by various statutes (among others, particularly by the 4 Henry VII), and contributed materially to facilitate the transfer of lands in general, but more particularly (as regulated by the statute just mentioned) to bar estates tail. By a statute passed in the 32 Henry VIII., c. 28, tenants in tail were enabled to make leases for three lives or twenty-one years, which should bind their issue. The 26 Hen VIII., c. 13, also had declared all estates of inheritance, in use or possession, to be forfeited to the king upon conviction of high treason, and thus destroyed one of the strongest inducements to the tying up of estates in tail, which hitherto had only been forfeitable for treason during the life of the tenant in tail—Another mode by which the feudal restraints upon voluntary alienation came at length to be extensively evaded, was the practice introduced, probably about the end of the reign of Edward III., of granting lands to persons to uses, as it was termed; that is the new owner of the land received it not for his own use, but on the understanding and confidence that he would hold the land for such persons and for such purposes as the grantor then named or might at any time afterward name. Thus an estate in land became divided into two parts, one of which was the legal ownership, and the other the right to the profits or the use; and this use could be transferred by a man's last will at a time when the land itself, being still bound in the fetters of feudal restraint, could not be transferred by will, except where it was devisable, as in Kent and some other parts of England, by special custom. The person who thus obtained the use or profits of the estate—the cestut que use, as he is called in law—was finally converted into the actual owner of the land to the same amount of interest as he had in the use (A. D. 1535) by the statute of Uses (the 27 Hen. VIII., c. 10), and thus the power of devising land which had been enjoyed by the mode of uses was taken away. But this important element in the feudal system, the restraint on the disposition of lands by will, could no longer be maintained consistently Edition: current; Page: [181] with the habits and opinions then established, and accordingly, by stat. 23 Hen. VIII. (which was afterward explained by the stat. 34 Hen. VIII.), all persons were allowed to dispose of their freehold lands held in fee simple by a will in writing, subject to certain restrictions as to lands held by knight service either of the king or any other, which restrictions were removed by the stat. 12 Chas. II., c. 24, which abolished military tenures.

—Notwithstanding these successive assaults upon certain parts of the ancient feudalism, the main body of the edifice still remained almost entire. It is said that the subject of the abolition of military tenures was brought before the parliament in the 18th of James I., on the king's recommendation, but at that time nothing was done in the matter. When the civil war broke out in 1641, the profits of marriage, wardship, and of most of the other old feudal prerogatives of the crown, were for some time still collected by the parliament, as they had formerly been by the king. The fabric of the feudal system in England, however, was eventually shattered by the storm of the great rebellion. The court of wards was in effect discontinued from 1645. The restoration of the king could not restore what had thus been in practice swept away. By the above mentioned statute, 12 Car. II., c. 24, it was accordingly enacted that from the year 1645 the court of wards and liveries, and all wardships, liveries, primer-seizins, values, forfeitures of marriage, etc., by reason of any tenure of the king's majesty, or of any other by knights' tenures should be taken away and discharged, together with all fines for alienations, tenure by homage, escuage, aids pur filz marrier and pur fair fitz chevalier, etc.; and all tenures of any honors, manors, lands, tenements or hereditaments, or any estate of inheritance at the common law held either by the king or of any other person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, were turned into free and common soccage, to all intents and purposes. By the same statute every father was empowered by deed or will executed in the presence of two witnesses, to appoint persons to have the guardianship of his infant and unmarried children, and to have the custody and management of their property. It was not till after the lapse of nearly another century that the tenures and other institutions of feudalism were put an end to in Scotland by the statutes, passed after the rebellion, of the 20 Geo. II., c. 43, entitled "An act for abolishing heritable jurisdictions;" and the 20 Geo. II., c. 50, entitled "An act for taking away the tenure of ward-holding in Scotland, for giving to heirs and successors a summary process against superiors, and for ascertaining the services of all tenants, etc." Nor have estates tail in Scotland yet been relieved from the strictest fetters of a destination in perpetuity, either by the invention of common recoveries, or by levying a fine, or by any legislative enactment.

—We have enumerated the principal statutes which may be considered as having broken in upon the integrity of the feudal system, considered in reference to the power which the tenant of land can now exercise over it, and the right which others can enforce against him in respect of his property in it. But the system of tenures still exists. The statute of Charles II. only abolished military tenures and such parts of the feudal system as had become generally intolerable; but all lands in the kingdom are still held either by soccage tenure, into which military tenures were changed, or else by the respective tenures of frankalmoigne, grand serjeanty and copyhold, which were not affected by the statute.

—Some of the consequences of tenures as they at present subsist, can not be more simply exemplified than by the rules as to the forfeiture and escheat of lands, both of which, however, have undergone modifications since the statute of Charies II.

—To attain a comprehensive and exact view of the present tenures of landed property in England and thier incidents and consequences, it would be necessary for the reader to enter upon a course of study more laborious and extensive than is consistent with pursuits not strictly legal.

—The notions of loyalty, of honor, of nobility and of the importance, socially and politically, of landed over other property, are the most striking of the feelings which may be considered to have taken their birth from the feudal system. These notions are opposed to the tendency of the commercial and manufacturing spirit, which has been the great moving power of the world since the decline of strict feudalism; but that power has not yet been able to destroy, or perhaps even very materially to weaken, the opinions above mentioned in the minds of the mass.

—We are not, however, to pass judgment upon feudalism, as the originating and shaping principle of a particular form into which human society has run, simply according to our estimate of the value of these its relics at the present day. The true question is, if this particular organization had not been given to European society after the dissolution of the ancient civilization, what other order of things would in all likelihood have arisen, a better or a worse than that which did result?

—As for the state of society during the actual prevalence of the feudal system, it was, without doubt, in many respects exceedingly defective and barbarous. But the system, with all its imperfections, still combined the two essential qualities of being both a system of stability and a system of progression. It did not fall to pieces, neither did it stand still. Notwithstanding all its rudeness, it was, what every right system of polity is, at once conservative and productive. And perhaps it is to be most fairly appreciated by being considered, not in what it actually was, but in what it preserved from destruction, and in what it has produced.

—The earliest published compilation of feudal law was a collection of rules and opinions supposed to have been made by two lawyers of Lombardy, Obertus of Otto and Gerardus Niger, by order of the emperor Frederic Barbarossa. It Edition: current; Page: [182] appeared at Milan about the year 1170, and immediately became the great text-book of this branch of the law in all the schools and universities, and even a sort of authority in the courts. It is divided in some editions into three, in others into five books, and is commonly entitleld the "Libri Feudorum"; the old writers, however, are wont to quote it simply as the Textus, or Text. But the great sources of the feudal law are the ancient codes of the several Germanic nations; the capitularies or collections of edicts of Charlemagne and his successors; and the various coutumiers or collections of the old customs of the different provinces of France.The laws of the Visigoths, of the Burgundians, the Salic law, the laws of the Alemanni, of the Baiuvarii, of the Ripuarii, of the Saxòns, of the Anglii, of the Werini, of the Frisians, of the Lombards, etc., have been published by Lindenbrogius in his Codex Legum Antiquarum, fol. Francof., 1613. The best editions of the capitularies are that by Baluze, in 2 vols. fol, Paris, 1677, and that by Chiniac, of which, however, we believe only the first two volumes have appeared, Paris. fol., 1780. Richebourg's Nouveau Coutumier Général, 4 vols. fol., Paris. 1724, is a complete collection of the contumiers, all of which, however, have also been published separately. All these old laws and codes, as well as the Milan text-book, have been made the subject of voluminous commentaries.

FICTIONS

FICTIONS, in Law and in Political Economy. The part which fictions have played in the history of human society and of political science and thought, is one of the most instructive phenomena that sociology can investigate. They have had a large share in determining not only the political ideas, but the political and legal rights of mankind. It is needless to say we do not refer to fictions in the common meaning of the word as denoting mere fabrications in the sense of falsehoods, nor yet to the fictitious creations of the novelist's imagination. The fictions we have in view may be classed as legal, political and philosophical; some of them, in different aspects, coming under all three heads. Sir Henry Maine, in his work on Ancient Law, has drawn attention to the vast influence which fictions have exercised over the development of society, as affording a means of introducing change and reform into law without breaking with the past and its traditions and solemn forms. But for one of these fictions, one older than positive law in the strict sense of the word, but which fills conspicuous place in the most famous of all legal systems, few early communities could have survived. The disasters and perils surrounding them—war, pillage, famine, fire, disease—were such that families were often left without male heirs, clans without chiefs of the true blood. The sons were slain in battle, or perished early from the hardships to which childhood was exposed, or were taken captive and passed into slavery, or fell victims to the maladies which ravaged the human race in its infancy. Households were thus left without their natural protectors, and, what was deemed a graver evil, without successors to perform the rites of ancestry worship, and to leave male heirs in their turn to perpetuate it. The fiction of adoption whereby a stranger was admitted to the place of a son, with all his rights and obligations, gave the family a defender and head, and preserved its name and honor among the living. As society advanced, the forms of adoption were applied to other ends, as, for instance, to effect the alienation of land by gift and sale. The ancient testament was at first a species of adoption, or of the nomination of a successor to the headship of the family and the administration of its patrimony; and at length was made use of to effect the disinheritance of the natural heir. The civil law of Rome, and the common law of England, were for centuries developed mainly by means of the fiction of a religious adherence to the letter and form of the law, while in substance it was radically changed by novel interpretations. The state of thought which this mode of law reform indicates is especially remarkable. There is the most scrupulous adherence to the outward forms and literal text of the law, while there is no scruple in subverting it in spirit. There can be little doubt that the explanation is to be looked for in the original connection of law with religion, and the consequent sacredness of legal ceremonies and formulas as religious rites and observances. Herbert Spencer says that government and law, were originally, nothing but ceremony. A third term is however necessary to explain their connection. Law was originally religion: religion consisted in forms, obeisances and ceremonies; and law, accordingly, was in the main a mass of ceremonial observances. The idea of the sacred and inviolate character of the form and letter survived after its origin in religion had been forgotten. No change in the ancient order of procedure was permitted, but whatever it could be interpreted to cover was lawful and right. There is no reason to suppose that either the Roman jurisconsults or the English judges were exempt from a reverential regard for the regular procedure and literal terms of the old law, when superseding it in substance, and even when triumphing in the ingenuity by which the change was effected.

—No more curious instance of the length to which legal fictions have been pushed can be cited, than that of the collusive action, called a common recovery, whereby in the reign of Edward IV, the owner for life of an entailed estate was enabled to set aside the statute De Donis, and to alienate the land from the heir. Many reasons concurred to make the barring of entails appear expedient at that epoch. The crown and its lawyers were desirous of making the inheritance and not the life estate only, forfeitable for treason. The ancient principles of the common law, derived by the early judges in a great measure Edition: current; Page: [183] from the Roman jurists, inclined the courts to favor the free disposition of landed property. The courts of law, moreover, were engaged in a fierce struggle with the court of chancery for jurisdiction, and were seeking to extend their powers and remedies, and to attract suitors by fictions, such as the actions of ejectment and common recovery. The expenses attending the war of the roses, and their own extravagant habits, had embarrassed many landed proprietors, and made them anxious to sell; while a middle class in both town and country had become wealthy and were anxious to buy. The judges and great lawyers were themselves great buyers of land and liked to see it brought into the market. But along with all these reasons for sanctioning the fictitious process whereby lands were disentailed, there was a survival in the breasts of the judges of a feeling of the efficiency of the ancient form and letter of the law. For while the transaction would have been held invalid, had a single ceremony or formula been omitted or changed, a close adherence to ancient precedent in outward procedure was allowed to subvert a fundamental enactment respecting inheritance. But a time was sure to come, when a fiction such as that of the common recovery would be intolerable both to public opinion and to that of the legal profession, even for the most expedient and beneficial reform. The intellect of an advanced age revolts against a solemn judicial juggle, as an indecent abuse and usurpation of legislative power.

—Among legal fictions, though of a different kind from the foregoing, may be classed the forged compilations of law of which the middle ages were so fertile. A remarkable instance is that of Andrew Horn's Miroir des Justices, which was lauded by Lord Coke and is still not unfrequently cited by English legal writers, as a valuable and trustworthy repertory of Anglo-Saxon law. Horn was no lawyer, being a fishmonger by occupation, and a chamberlain to the city of London, who lived in the reigns of the three Edwards, and whose compilation is a crude mixture of tradition, fable, and the laws of his own time. Hallam's just sentence on the Mirror for its fictions and forgeries has not deprived it, down to the present day, of authority in the estimation of authors of some reputation even in Germany.

—Among both political and legal fictions we must class the venerable British constitution, which is still in many respects, in outward form, a pure monarchy, while in fact it is a republic, and rapidly becoming a very democratic one. The royal sanction is still given to a statute in terms which sound like the maxim of imperial law, Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem, though the British sovereign has really a less voice in legislation than the humblest elector.

—Of the mixed philosophical and political fiction, the doctrine of the social compact, as the foundation of the authority of government and law, affords an example, which was made especially memorable when the two houses of the English parliament put it forward as the ground of the deposition of James II. The commons resolved that King James, having endeavored to subvert the constitution by breaking the original compact between king and people, and having withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, had abdicated the government and that the throne was thereby vacant. The house of lords, for their part, also framed a resolution that there was an original contract between the king and the people. It may well seem to modern ideas that no such fiction was necessary to justify the deposition of such a sovereign yet Hallam's comment on the resolution is, that it involved "a proposition necessary at that time as denying the divine origin of monarchy, from which its claim to absolute indefeasible authority had been plausibly derived."

—A still more famous fiction and one that may claim to be termed at once legal, political and philosophical, is that of a law of nature, from which flow a number of both political and legal rights. This fiction, the origin of which has been traced by Sir Henry Maine to a mixed Greek and Roman source, contributed much to bring about the French resolution, and the ideas of natural liberty and equality which then spread through the world. It is curious that it has lent its support to opposite conceptions of rights in different countries. In France children are supposed to have a natural right to equal shares in their parents' property. In England an unrestricted testamentary power, whereby the succession of any or all of the children may be defeated is supposed to be a natural right, and has been so denominated by learned writers on jurisprudence. The whole class of so-called natural rights for example, to life, liberty, property, reputation exist only by the sanction of the state and positive law; and they are set aside by the state without scruple when public policy demands it, as, for instance, when it becomes necessary to make citizens fight for their country. As democracy advances less and less regard is now paid to individual "rights" of this sort. It is to an aristocratic legislature that rights of property and independence seem most sacred and founded in natural justice, instead of in simple expediency. Yet the conception that they have a foundation in a law of nature, fictitious as such a basis is, will probably long continue to give effective aid to the opponents of socialism.

—Political economy undoubtedly owed not only its first successes but much of its form in a great measure to the popularity of the doctrine of a code of natural law. Adam Smith drew from it the doctrines in the Wealth of Nations of the "natural system of liberty" by which the province of the state was bounded; of the beneficent tendency of the "natural effort of every man to better his condition," of "the natural order of opulence," and of "natural wages, profit, prices and rent."

—It would not be too much to say that the domain of fiction in human philosophy once far exceeded that of truth, based on inductive investigation and positive Edition: current; Page: [184] evidence. At the same time it would be rash to assert that fiction has not played in several departments of thought a beneficent part. The doctrine of natural rights has without doubt done much for the prosperity and happiness of mankind.

—But the sphere of fiction must steadily diminish as that of inductive and positive science advances and as man's mind itself becomes stronger, clearer and more discerning. Dr. Whewell, in tracing the slow progress of former ages in the physical sciences to the indistinctness and inappropriateness of human ideas on such subjects, laid himself open to the retort that this imperfection of human thought in matters of science was the very thing to be accounted for. Yet there is a sense in which the disciple of Herbert Spencer may accept Dr. Whewell's proposition. In the infancy of the human race the brain of man is small and soft and feeble. It grows larger and more vigorous by exercise, and its increased powers are transmitted to each successive generation to receive further enlargement. Truth advances, and the clouds of fiction recede, not merely because discoveries are made and errors refuted, but because man's cerebral vigor and activity grow, and the faculties by means of which science and philosophy make progress gain strength, in a manner which will become clear to any one who compares the brain of a savage with that of a civilized and educated man.

FILIBUSTERS

FILIBUSTERS (INU. S. HISTORY), a name borrowed from the West Indian freebooters of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the "buccaneers," or "filibusters." In its modern sense it was applied to associations originating in the United States for the ostensible purpose of freeing Cuba and other West Indian or Central American districts from European control or from military dictatorship, but with the ultimate object of annexing them to the United States. Such unauthorized private interventions in the affairs of a foreign state have been common in the history of other nations, and have frequently been followed by the public force of the state, when the private intervention had truly represented public sentiment: instances may be found in abundance in the dealings of Great Britain with Spain, the South American republics, Greece, and Italy, of France with the revolted British colonies in North America, and of Russia with Turkey. The peculiar stigma upon the American filibustering expeditions was, that they were undertaken not for the public welfare, or from generous motives, but for the extension of the area of slavery.

—The acquisition of Texas (see ANNEXATIONS, III.) was really a great and most successful filibustering expedition. Its success stimulated similar efforts in other directions. In December, 1850, Lopez, a Cuban, with a number of associates, including Gov. Quitman, of Mississippi, was arrested for a violation of the neutrality law of 1818; but nothing could be proved against them, and they were released. Early in August, 1851, with 500 men, Lopez sailed from New Orleans and landed in Cuba; but the Spanish authorities routed his forces, executed the leaders Aug. 16, and imprisoned the rest. It was evident that Spain was too strongly entrenched in Cuba to be disturbed by private effort, and subsequent movements in its direction were mainly confined to governmental action. (SeeOSTEND MANIFESTO.) Nevertheless private preparations did not wholly cease, though they never again came strongly to the surface; but President Pierce probably ended them by his proclamation of May 31, 1854, warning all good citizens against taking any part in them.

—Mexico and Cuba being too strong, and other West Indian islands of too small value to make filibustering profitable, there remained only the states of Central America. May 4, 1835, Gen. William Walker (the "gray-eyed man of destiny"), with a Californian company, sailed on a filibustering expedition to Central America. In the latter part of August he effected a landing at San Juan del Sur. on the Pacific coast of Nicaragua. He defeated the government troops captured Granada, the capital, in October, and tried by court martial and condemned to death his principal opponents. He was elected president, but withdrew in favor of Rivas, a native Nicaraguan: and the new government was recognized by the American minister. It proceeded to re-establish slavery and invite immigration from the southern states, but Walker quarreled with his native associates, the other Central American states combined against him, and in April, 1857, he surrendered to an American naval officer, and was conveyed to the United States. He immediately organized another expedition at New Orleans, landed at Punta Arenas, Nov. 25, and was seized and brought to New York by Com. Paulding, of the United States navy. He was released and fitted out a new expedition from New Orleans, Oct. 7, 1858, but was stopped by the federal authorities. Again released, he organized his fourth and last expedition and lauded at Truxillo, in Honduras, June 27, 1860. The president of Honduras, with an overwhelming force, routed and captured him, Sept. 3, tried him by court martial and shot him. His death, and still more the civil war in the United States which began soon afterward, ended filibustering.

—See 5 Stryker's American Register. 179; 14 Whig Review, 353; 2 Wilson's Rise and Fall of the Slave Power. 608; 1 Greeley's American Conflict, 270, 276; 3 Spencer's United States. 516; President's Message, Jan. 7, 1858; Atlantic Monthly, 1859-60 (Art. "With Walker in Nicaragua")

FILIBUSTERING

FILIBUSTERING. (See PARLIAMENTARY LAW.)

FILLMORE

FILLMORE, Millard, president of the United States 1850-8, was born in Cayuga county, N. Y., Jan. 7, 1800 and died at Buffalo, N. Y., March Edition: current; Page: [185] 8, 1874. He was admitted to the bar in 1828, was a whig representative from New York 1833-5 and 1837-43, was elected vice-president in 1848, and became president on the death of Taylor. In 1856 he was nominated for the presidency by the American party("know nothings"), but was defeated. (See ANTI-MASONRY, I.; WHIG PARTY; AMERICAN PARTY.)

—See Barre's Life of Fillmore; Savage's Representative Men, 260: Abbott'sLives of the presidents.

FINANCE

FINANCE, American. The history of American finance is not less unique than the other sides of American history. The subject may be divided into four periods: the colonial; the revolutionary; the first seventy years of peace under the present constitution, extending from 1789 to 1860; and the period of the civil war, ending with the refunding operations of 1881.

—THE COLONIAL PERIOD. The financial history of this period is very instructive, for it is replete with financial experiments. Each of the thirteen colonies directed its own affairs; though often one colony followed the methods of another. Massachusetts took the lead in paper-money experiments and banking, and her example in the former regard was followed by all the others.

—Trade or exchange was needful in the very beginning of colonial existence, and this was accomplished by barter. In New England the aborigines used a money made of shells, called wampum, peag, or wampumpeag, which the colonists adopted and employed among themselves and with the Indians. After a time it became over-abundant, depreciated, and was abolished about 1650. Silver was also used, though usually it was very scarce, and for a long time exchanges were most frequently made in peltry, especially the beaver, in the northern colonies, and tobacco and rice in the southern. It must be noted, however, that exchanges were often made in other products, while the wampum, though more generally employed in the New England colonies than elsewhere, was not wholly confined to them. The specie in the colonies came from Europe along with the immigrants, and from trade with the West Indies. To the latter ports the colonists first shipped peltry, fish and lumber, and afterward pipe-staves, hoops, beef, pork, peas, fat cattle, horses, etc., and brought back, besides silver and bills of exchange, manufactured goods, sugar, molasses, cotton wool and ram. At a later period the specie thus flowing into the country was sent to England to pay for importations from that quarter.

—In each colony taxation was necessary to support the government therein existing. These were laid and collected in various ways. For many years after the colonial governments were founded, there was not enough gold or silver to be found in them to pay the taxes. It was necessary, therefore, to use other things. In the northern colonies beaver skins, wheat, rye, oats, Indian corn, peas, flax, wool, beef, pork, live stock, bullets, codfish and other articles were taken. In the southern, most of these were also accepted, besides tobacco, rice, beeswax and tallow. Storehouses were maintained in which the tax gatherers deposited the public property until it should be wanted or could be sold or exchanged. Taxes were paid in this mode until the issue of paper money; and in some instances afterward, when the supply of paper money became scarce.

—The prices of the articles thus taken were fixed from time to time by the courts or colonial assemblies; and were usually rated much higher than they were worth. By thus fixing the prices of the selected commodities above their true value, they became, so far as this could be done by governmental action, the exclusive currency, and threw out of use the little coin there was in the country. In other words, they destroyed the market for it, and drove it to other lands. Badly as the colonists needed specie, they adopted the worst policy possible to get it; or to retain even what they had.

—The systems of taxation varied greatly in the colonies. In South Carolina, for example, all the revenue that was needed for a considerable period was raised by a tax on imports, in most of the colonies, however, real and personal estate was taxed, an a poll tax also was levied. In Maryland, in 1639, a tax was levied wholly on "personal estates" which was applied in defraying the expense of an expedition against the Indians. In Virginia at one time the colonial resources consisted first of parish levies, "commonly managed by sly cheating fellows, that combine to cheat the public." Secondly, public levies raised by act of the assembly, both derived from tithables or working hands. The cost of collecting this part of the revenue was estimated at not less than 20 percent. Thirdly, a tax on exported tobacco, together with tonnage duties. Maryland, too, levied a tax on the export of tobacco, pork, pitch and flax which the colonists had to pay. The system of taxation adopted by that colony was perhaps the least politic and wise of any of the colonial systems. Immigration was taxed when no need was greater than that of settlers. English rum was admitted free, but that from Pennsylvania was taxed nine pence per gallon.

—Like older nations, the colonies could not escape contracting debts beyond their immediate ability to pay. These were created in consequence of the wars with the French and Indians. To meet the expenses thus incurred, paper money was issued. Massachusetts invented the system in 1690. She had just come out of war with Canada, which had proved as disastrous to her arms as to her treasury. The troops returned unexpectedly to Boston, and the colony had no money to pay them. There was no time to collect it by tax, and it could not be borrowed. The colony had made no provision for paying them, expecting that the enterprise would be successful, and that the soldiers would get their reward by plunder. In this emergency the general court, "desirous," as they say, "to prove themselves just and honest," and considering Edition: current; Page: [186] the "scarcity of money and the want of an adequate measure of commerce," authorized a committee to issue, forthwith, in the name of the colony, £7,000, in bills of credit, from two shillings to five pounds each. The following is a copy of one of the bills:

The bills were, in truth, treasury notes, payable by a tax, and receivable for treasury dues. At the outset they were not favorably received, and would command neither money nor goods at money prices. The soldiers lost heavily, for they were not able to sell these notes for more than twelve or fourteen shillings in the pound. But two years afterward an order was issued declaring that they should pass current within the province in all payments equivalent to money, and in all public payments at 3 percent advance. Thus they were made a lawful tender, for their face, in private transactions, and were received by the treasurer, in whatever payment, at 5 percent premium. They were to be redeemed in a year. The object of this action was to prevent their depreciation; and for twenty years it had this effect. The demand for the bills, when the tax became due, made them worth more than hard money, because a 5 per cent, bonus was attached to them. An order was passed that no more than £40,000 should be emitted, but like most limitations of the kind since established, the order was disregarded. The "scarcity of money" was a constant cry and every additional issue whetted the appetite for more. The whole amount emitted during the first twelve years, including the re-emissions, exceeded £110,000. At the end of that time Hutchinson says that they were as good as silver, and not until 1710 did they much depreciate.

—Of all the colonies South Carolina tested the magical powers of paper money the most thoroughly. It was first issued there after the unsuccessful expedition against St. Augustine in 1703, "following the example of many great and rich countries, who have helpt themselves in their exigencies with funds of credit, which have fully answered the ends of money". The amount put forth was £6,000, which bore 12 per cent interest. To offer them in payment was a legal tender, and if the creditor refused to receive them he lost his debt. "But such refusal never occurred, for the paper was boarded for the sake of the interest." Several thousand pounds more were subsequently stamped, not bearing interest, and were exchanged for the "old currency" in order to get the bills into circulation and to remove the heavy burden of interest." Notwithstanding this change, the bills remained at par, until the subsequent issue of very large amounts caused their depreciation."

—Nine years later, in 1712, South Carolina tried another experiment in issuing paper money. This was the establishment of a public bank, which issued £48,000, called bank bills, to meet the requirements of commerce and of the government. This was lent on landed or personal security for a year, the colony promising to pay gradually (£4,000 annually) until the entire amount was redeemed. By this method the government gained the interest, and the community the benefit of the circulation. The plan was very successfully executed in Pennsylvania, but not equally so in any other colony.

—In Georgia the trustees who managed the colony sent over considerable sums of silver and minor coins to form a currency. Yet the dearth of money was so great, notwithstanding the inflow of the paper circulation of South Carolina, that the trustees sent "sola bills." or bills of exchange, which were promptly paid when they fell due, and their credit was maintained to the end.

—The mode of redeeming paper money was the same in all the colonies, namely, by taxation. In some of them it was redeemed more punctually than in others; too often they were very slow in laying taxes for that purpose. In South Carolina especially, the debtor class, having discovered the advantages of debasing the circulation and swelling prices, loudly clamored for further issues of paper money as the easiest method of discharging their debts. Sooner or later it depreciated everywhere, and heavy losses were sustained. The following distich, though not remarkable for poetic excellence, tells a true tale of the time:

Whenever it was not issued in such amounts as to create a disinclination to pay it, or belief that it would not be paid paper money retained its face value, although there was no specie in the treasury for redeeming it. It is also true that when the colonies issued so much that distrust of the public obligation to pay it sprung up, it depreciated.

—Measures were taken by the English government to prevent the issuing of so much paper money, because it was harmful to the colonies and to trade with Great Britain. But these measures were often suspended, or winked at and so nearly all the colonies continued to employ it until they ceased to be such, and indeed for several years afterward.

—With so much paper money afloat, of varying kinds and values; with the limitation of prices by a law which were rarely correct; with the payment of taxes in kind, and with the use of tobacco, rice, skins and other things as money, besides silver imported from England, the West Indies and other places, one will easily perceive in what uncertainty and confusion was this entire subject of money, how difficult was trade, how great the risk of making contracts payable at a future day both for the debtor Edition: current; Page: [187] and the creditor. To remedy the evil some-what, a proclamation was issued by Queen Anne in 1704, fixing the value of the various kinds of silver coins then circulating in the colonies. This furnished some relief, but could not remove all the evils attending the use of such a heterogeneous currency, so singularly ill regulated by law and custom.

—In respect to the banking institutions of this period these have been considered elsewhere, and therefore but little need be said here. (see BANKING IN THE UNITED STATES.) It may be added, however, that nearly thirty years before the establishment of Colman's bank, "our fathers, "so says a rare tract published in 1714,"entered into a partnership to circulate their notes, founded on land security, stamped on a paper, as our Province bills, which gave no offense to the government then and at that time, when the prerogative of the Crown was extended further than ever has been since."

—Only one other topic remains to complete our account of the colonial finances—that of the coinage. Two mints were established, one in Massachusetts in 1651, and the other in Maryland nine years afterward. The Virginia colonists, finding that glass beads were a better article of traffic with the natives than either dollars or guineas, in 1621 had erected a manufactory for them, "as a mint for the coinage of a current medium of commerce with the Indians." The Massachusetts "mint house" was established in Boston, and though illegal, it existed for more than thirty years. To conceal its business, all the coins were dated 1632. The mint master, John Hull, coined by contract, and grew very rich from the business! The charge fir coining was 5 per cent. The coins reached Connecticut and the other New England colonies, but did not circulate beyond them as money.

—In Maryland the silver money was struck nine pence to a shilling, and the year after the mint began operations, in 1662,"the people were ordered to buy ten shillings per poll of this sophisticated coin and pay for it in good casked tobacco, at two shillings per pound. "This was a hard measure truly, and was repealed in 1676; but it was only the first of a long series of arbitrary acts relating to the monetary circulation, "one of the most fruitful sources," says Maryland's latest historian, "in every people, of discontent, extravagance and crime."

—THE REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD. When the colonies determined to become their own masters, the step seemed bolder from the lack of pecuniary means than from the want of soldiers and munitions of war. At the time this daring determination was reached, perhaps there were not more than $6,000,000 in hard money in all the colonies. Of course no estimate can be exact, but this is the belief of those who have studied the matter well. The colonies had just concluded an exhaustive war on the northern frontier, and were poorly prepared for the conflict with Great Britain.

—The first, and indeed only, source of revenue to carry on the war for a considerable period was paper money. All the colonies, as we have seen, at some time or other of their existence had issued it, and were well acquainted with its virtues and its defects. It has been maintained that this was a very poor way for the continental; congress to raise money "but it may be asked, what other expedient could have been adopted? In the first place, the congress which had declared the independence of the colonies was composed of delegates having no clearly defined authority. Each colony had sent two or more delegates with instructions which they had no right to exceed or disregard. Congress, therefore, had no inherent authority, and the powers of the delegates were not uniform. It is singular that a body possessing so little power, and deriving that little in such a peculiar way, should have achieved so much. It is true that the action of congress was often weak and vacillating; but no chart existed, the members were obliged to feel their way, and to take good care never to run too strongly against the will of the people. The lack of inherent power prevented that body from legislating more wisely than they did on more than one occasion. They dared not tax the people in the beginning to raise means for waging war, fearing that they would denounce the act as a usurpation of power. Moreover such a step would have cooled the war fever. Nothing ever chills the desire to spend money, especially for the benefit of the public, so quickly as an immediate demand for it. Taxation, therefore, was highly inexpedient. As for borrowing, who would loan money to a dozen rebellious colonies? If they failed to achieve their independence, surely the borrower would get nothing; if they succeeded, they would probably to be exhausted to pay. In either event payment to lenders seemed hopeless. The issue of paper money, whether a wise expedient or not, was the only one which our fathers thought they could adopt. They saw no other resource.

—Yet it must be admitted that the people and congress too, quite generally, were in favor of issuing paper money. Said a delegate during one of the debates on this subject: "Do you think, gentlemen, that I will consent to load my constituents with taxes, when we can send to our printer, and get wagon-load of money, one quire of which will pay for the whole?" Other members shared in this view. They all knew that a certain amount of paper money had been issued and circulated by every colony without causing a depreciation in its value; and they believed that congress could do the same thing. They had no intention, at first, of going beyond the safety line.

—The first issue was for $2,000,000, and shortly afterward there was another issue of one-half that amount. Without long delay a third issue appeared, of $3,000,000 more. In about a year from the time the first issue was authorized, the bills began to depreciate. Some who had favored these issues were opposed to further ones, and urged congress to try the experiment of borrowing the money which was now afloat. Edition: current; Page: [188] But the need of funds was so great and no other way of getting them immediately seeming to be open, congress issued more.

—The war was now raging with great earnestness. Independence had been declared, and all hope or desire of making an accommodation with Great Britain had faded away. Congress having become accustomed to issuing paper money, though seeing the evils, or some of them at least, which accompanied the issue of it, proceeded to increase the quantity. Congress could now do whatever was possible in the way of taxing the colonies, but again appeared the fatal weakness of that body. Congress had not the slightest shadow of power to tax anything. All that the members could do was to apportion taxes among the states, and recommend their payment. If the states had responded to this recommendation, the history of the issue of continental paper money would have been very different from what it was. But the truth is, the states had resisted British taxation so successfully that they were not much more inclined to pay taxes to congress than to the king. Paying taxes has never been done very cheerfully, and the colonists could not altogether understand why, if the object of the war was to escape the payment of them to Great Britain, they should be imposed by a different power. This view may seem to betoken ignorance, but it was entertained by not a few persons in those days. The states throughout the war responded very feebly to the call of congress for money. Some of them paid more than others, but rarely did any state pay the full amount requested. One excuse was, because the quotas assigned were unequal. The quotas were based on population, and not on property, and the numbering of the people had been nothing more than a crude estimate. New Hampshire complained that she had only 82,000 inhabitants instead of the higher estimate made by congress, and accordingly asked that the quota assigned to her be reduced. But the reply of congress was an unexpected as it was unanswerable. It was declared that the population of the other states might be as much smaller in proportion as that of New Hampshire, consequently it did not appear that any injustice had been done to her. Congress promised, too, that in the end the exact population of the states should be ascertained and that justice should be rendered to all. Unhappily this promise was not very faithfully kept. Congress continued to push out paper money until more than $200,000,000 were afloat, and then, having completely exhausted the fountain, other measures were devised. The exact amount issued has never been ascertained. Congress told the people that the amount should not exceed $200,000,000, but a much larger sum was forced out.

—With such an enormous quantity afloat, nothing could keep it buoyant. But there were several causes which weighed it down. One of these was counterfeiting. The bills were executed in such a rough way, that counterfeiting was easy. The British government enraged in this ignoble business in order to destroy the value of the money. At one time a shipload of counterfeit paper money was sent over from England, but the vessel was lost on the way. A great many counterfeits were made in New York and other places in possession of the enemy, and pushed into the frightfully swollen stream of circulation. The severest laws were enacted against counterfeiting, but these proved ineffectual. The British ministry never imagined that, if by counterfeiting and other vile arts they should succeed in destroying paper money, the government would be better off, yet this was the case. When it sank out of sight, the government was relived from redeeming it.

—Another cause contributing to the same end was the issue of paper money by the states. That put forth by congress would have fallen quickly enough had the states not issued any, but their action accelerated the downfall of the entire mass. Congress saw this and besought the states to stop issuing it, but this recommendation was not heeded much better than those for the payment of taxes.

—One of the expedients recommended by congress for maintaining the value of paper money, was the enactment of laws by the states limiting or fixing the prices of commodities. This was an old expedient which had been attempted in the early history of the colonies. The price of labor was one of the first things which fell under legal regulation in the history of the Plymouth colony. This idea was now seized by congress and recommended to the states for their adoption. It was one of the many recommendations of that body with which the states cheerfully and promptly complied. The New England states met several times and fixed the prices of commodities, and passed the severest laws against those who should violate the limitations prescribed; but this attempt to regulate prices utterly failed; indeed, there was many a pure-minded but intelligent patriot who declared that the movement would prove useless before any legal action was taken.

—The continental money was a legal tender, and the miseries suffered by the people in consequence of endowing it with this attribute form one of the saddest and most touching chapters in the history of this period. Thousands were reduced from affluence to poverty by receiving payment in depricated or worthless paper What was still worse, the national and individual conscience hardened; and the moral loss was far greater than that which could be reckoned by a money standard.

—Nothing, however, is more certain than that if a paper money be issued and forced on the people they must pay the full price for it; depreciation is a loss which somebody must bear, from which there is no possible escape. The people of the revolution found this out in due time. Depreciation was a tax, and an enormous one, which they were obliged to pay. Every class of creditors was compelled to receive the bills; every person who took them lost while they were in his hands; however much the merchant Edition: current; Page: [189] might charge for his goods to cover prospective depreciation, he was often caught in taking money which he could pay out except at a heavier discount than he had expected to pay; and thus everywhere, and among all classes, depreciation was a heavy and uncertain tax which all were compelled to bear. It was one of the most pernicious taxes to trade and morals that could have been devised.

—When the continental issues became worthless, congress tried one other experiment with it deserving of brief mention. A new issue was put forth based on the credit of the states at a discount of forty dollars of the old emission for one of the new. In this way congress hoped to retire the former issues. Only a small amount of these new bills were put afloat. The people had grown tired of this kind of money and wanted no more in any form.

—When the printing press was stopped, congress resorted to demands for specific supplies from the states. They were asked to contribute food, clothing, munitions of war, etc, and to bring these supplies to certain places. The states were to be credited at prices fixed by persons appointed for that purpose. When this plan failed, the system of seizure was begun. Certificates were given to those from whom things were taken, specifying what they were. Thus congress and the officers of the government who were so careful about exercising power in 1775 had gone almost as far as it was possible to go in 1780.

—Some funds were obtained by loans both at home and abroad, and these will now be described. The money borrowed at home consisted of the bills issued by congress and the states. At an early period of the war, loan offices were established in all the states, and the funds were solicited. But at the very outset congress made the great mistake of offering only 4 percent interest. The interest was to be paid on one kind of loans in specie, obtained from France; and on the other kind in paper money. The former loans were the most popular, and for a time the interest was duly paid is hard money. Nevertheless the total amount obtained in this way was not very large, and did not afford all the relief that congress desired.

—The loans obtained from foreign countries, however, were of the greatest value. At first, Franco sent money and munitions of war secretly, not wishing to arouse the anger of Great Britain. The negotiations were conducted with Beaumarchais, who pretended to be a lover of our country and interested in furnishing us aid. Tobacco was to be sent in payment of the supplies furnished. Spain also advanced money secretly at the same time. When the alliance was formed with France in 1778, she no longer concealed her designs. Turgot stoutly opposed the policy of exciting the British lion, but Vergennes, the minister of state, disagreed with him, and the king was inclined to listen to the latter. Both the king and Vergennes were desirous of humiliating Great Britain, but Turgot was not willing to do this, especially at the heavy price which France must pay. Several loans were granted from time to time; France also guaranteed the payment of another to lenders in Holland. Other loans were obtained in the latter country chiefly through the influence of John Adams. Those in France were negotiated principally by Franklin. Spain was the best promiser and poorest performer of any of the European countries that furnished us assistance. "The Diplomatic Correspondence of the Revolution " published by Jared Sparks, contains a large number of letters giving a history of these foreign negotiations, and the trials of those who were sent to Spain to get funds from that country were very great. After all the abundant promises made by the Spanish government, but little more than $150,000 were borrowed.

—Having now described how the means were raised to carry the country through the revolution, we must describe the financial machinery invented for administering the finances. Soon after the assembling of congress a "board of treasury" was formed, composed of five delegates, but afterward increased to fifteen, to whom was entrusted the transaction of the financial business of congress. A treasurer was appointed, who was not a delegate, and Michael Hillegas of Philadelphia served for several years in that capacity. An auditor and comptroller were appointed. Afterward two chambers of accounts were created, each chamber consisting of three commissioners besides the necessary clerks. The board was reconstructed several time. Two features were adopted in 1779; one of them was the abolition of the comptroller's office, and the other was the addition of three commissioners who were not members of congress.

—At every period of its history the board proved to be very inefficient. Letters received requiring prompt attention were often neglected, whereby the public interests suffered. The accounts generally were very poorly kept. There was no head to the body; the majority of members were delegates to congress, and having duties to perform in that capacity, too often neglected the weightier matters relating to the financial administration of the country.

—Finally, the work of the board was so poorly done that congress determined to entrust the administration of the finances to Robert Morris. He insisted, however, that full power should be given to him to remove all whom he thought unfit for their positions in the treasure office. Some delegates objected to clothing him with so much power. But the times were dark, and they finally yielded. Morris knew that the treasury officers were filled with incompetent servants. He knew that a reorganization must be made and without delay. Congress, however well inclined, would perform the task too slowly. Morris desired power not for the mere sake of having it, but in order to administer the finances with greater success.

—While Morris remained superintendent of finance, a period of little more than three years, he accomplished great things. He was successful in borrowing considerable funds from abroad; Edition: current; Page: [190] and in abolishing the plan of getting supplies by seizure and specific requests. He founded a bank which contributed no slight aid to the government. (See BANKING IN THE U.S.). He was unceasing in his calls on the states for the taxes due by them. The books of the treasury were faithfully kept, and he displayed all the attention possible to every detail of his office. He was severely pressed for funds throughout his period of office, and when every other source failed, he did not hesitate to use his own individual credit, which always stood higher than that of the government.

—After the war closed, congress grew more lethargic than ever, and the states were less inclined to support the government. The articles of confederation were ratified March 1, 1781, but these did not go far toward cementing the states together. Several attempts were made to induce them to yield their power of taxing imports to the confederation, but one or more states always objected, and no state was willing to part with the power unless all were. Rhode Island was the most strenuous objector. Morris exerted his utmost to induce the states to yield, but failed.

—It was while Morris was at the head of the finances that congress first considered the subject of coinage. He sent an elaborate communication to congress, showing what unit ought to be adopted and tracing all the details relating to this delicate matter. Jefferson and Gouverneur Morris also contributed some valuable ideas.

—After Morris resigned, the board of treasury was re-established, for there was no other man to whom congress would confide so much power. But the new board was not more efficient than the former one. They had less to do, for the war was ended, yet there was a vast debt hanging over the confederation, both foreign and domestic and a multitude of unsettled claims, the delay to settle which was embarrassing to many of the owners. But the less that congress and the board did in adjusting these matters, the more imperative became the stronger federal bond which should have the effect of uniting and awakening the energies of the people. Morris resigned early in 1784, and for the next five years chaos reigned in the treasury office. It became at length apparent to all that the work which the continental congress had begun, that body was utterly unable to finish. If creditors were to receive their dues, a new constitution must be formed giving greatly enlarged powers to the general government, especially in the way of providing a revenue to discharge past and future pecuniary obligations.

—THE SEVENTY YEARS OF PEACE, from 1789 to 1860. With the adoption of the federal constitution a new chapter begins in the history of American finance. The first question that confronted congress related to the funding and payment of the revolutionary debt. The leaders of the republic felt that its destiny turned on the solution of that question. Soon after the first assembling of congress, Hamilton, the secretary of the treasury, was directed to consider the subject and make a report thereon at the second session of that body.

—The debt was of two kinds, foreign and domestic. The foreign debt was due to three nations: Holland, France and Spain. The amount due to each of these countries was well known, and also the terms of payment and there was no difficulty concerning its liquidation, for no one thought of repudiating it. The action of the government, therefore, with regard to it was free from embarrassment.

—Unhappily, the fact was otherwise with respect to the domestic debt. This was divided into three branches. One branch covered the expenditures incurred directly by the government. The evidences of it in the possession of creditors consisted principally of certificates of various kinds. In many cases the creditors had parted with them at varying sums much less than their face value. In providing for their payment two questions were raised. The first question was, ought the government to pay any more than the present holders had paid for them? and secondly, if the government ought to pay the full face value, should not the difference between that value and the sum paid by the assignee be paid to the assignor? Hamilton contended that the government ought to pay to the present holders the face value of the certificates without regard to the fact that some of them had been transferred from the original holders. Jefferson and Madison differed from him. The contention grew sharp but, in the end, the view taken by Hamilton and recommended in his report prevailed.

—A second branch of the expenditures concerned the expenditures incurred directly by the states. Hamilton maintained that throughout the revolution congress had repeatedly promised to equalize the burdens of the states and to do justice to them, and that when they relinquished the right to impose taxes on imports, their richest source of revenue, it was with the expectation that the federal government would relieve them from the burdens they had borne in prosecuting the war for independence. The contest over this question was prolonged and bitter. The votes on various propositions relating to it were exceedingly close, and for a long time the final action of congress was regarded with grave doubt. The amount of these debts was supposed to be $25,000,000. Finally, congress agreed to assume an arbitrary amount, $21,500,000, apportioning this sum among the several states. Northern members generally were in favour of assumption; but those from the south were opposed to it. Hamilton succeeded in getting enough votes from the southern section to pass the measure by persuading northern members to consent to the location of the capital on the Potomac, instead of allowing it to remain at Philadelphia where the country very generally supposed it would be permanently located. Thus the national honor was saved and the capital located at Washington.

—The third branch of expenditures consisted of sums advanced to Edition: current; Page: [191] the states by the continental congress, and by the states to that body. It was very difficult to determine the exact amount of these sums, and commissioners were appointed to consider what was due on the one side and other "according to the principles of general equity."

—The first branch of the domestic debt was funded in the following manner: Interest at the rate of 6 per cent, was to be paid on two-thirds of the principal after 1790, and on the balance after 1800; and 3 per cent, interest was to be paid on the interest which had accumulated on this portion of the debt. The government was permitted to redeem 2 per cent, annually of the principal if it desired, and that portion bearing 3 per cent. Whenever it desired.

—The state debts assumed were thus funded Four-ninths bore 6 per cent, interest beginning with the year 1792, three-ninths 3 per cent, interest beginning at the same time, and the remainder, two-ninths, bore interest at 6 per cent, after the year 1800.

—In respect to the third branch, the debts between the states and the federal government were so adjusted that when the final account was made up it stood as follows:

The balances due to the creditor states were funded in the same manner as the second branch of the domestic debt. These are the main features of the domestic debt. These are the main features of the funding system, but there were several others which require too much space to be described.

—Having funded the debt the next step was to provide for its payment. Of course the mode of paying interest was settled in the funding scheme, but not that of paying the debt itself. Prior to 1800 the provisions pertaining to the subject were somewhat complex and inadequate. Hamilton, whose financial genius has never been surpassed, had not discovered the fallacy of the sinking fund theory, for Robert Hamilton had not yet pricked the bubble which Walpole and some of his successors had so industriously blown. Commissioners had been appointed for receiving that portion of the public income obtained from taxes and loans which were set apart and delivered to them for discharging the interest and principal of the debt. But there was no fixed amount for discharging the principal. Another feature of this legislation was, that all the debt purchased or redeemed was considered as drawing interest just the same, which was paid to the commissioners to be applied by them in discharging more debt.

—When Jefferson became president he chose Gallatin for secretary of the treasury. Another law was then passed determining the mode of reducing the debt. This provided that $7,300,000 should be set aside annually for that purpose. This was not a purely arbitrary sum, but was the amount needed for paying the interest and principal that might be discharged during the next two years. In 1803 Louisiana was purchased and $700,000 more were added to the sinking fund.

—During the first ten years of the government the debt was not diminished. Several unusual events happened. The war with the Indians on the frontier, the insurrection in Pennsylvania where the collection of the internal revenue tax on whisky was resisted, the difficulty with the Barbary powers, the unprovoked aggressions of France and England-these events necessitated the expenditure of large amounts of money and prevented a reduction of the debt. With the opening of the century the last cloud disappeared, and without increasing the revenues though the mode of collecting them was considerably changed, rapid progress was made in paying the debt. It rose in value, so that the commissioners could not buy any except at a premium, which they had no right to offer. The sinking fund was larger than could always be applied toward discharging the public indebtedness. Gallatin, in order to place the debt more perfectly under the control of the government in respect to its payment, proposed that a certain portion of the debt on which annuities had been paid should be changed, if the holders consented, into paid-up stock for the balance due, payable at a fixed time, instead of discharging a portion of the principal annually Congress heeded the recommendation, and a considerable portion of the debt was changed into a new form.

—The reduction of the debt continued until the second war with Great Britain, when there was a pause. During the first eleven years of the century $46,022,810 had been paid, and $45,154,189 still remained. Had the war not occurred, the remainder would have been paid in twelve years, but in consequence of that event it was not extinguished until 1834.

—Gallatin's plan of finance at the opening of the war was very simple. He proposed that sufficient taxes should be laid to defray the expenses of the peace establishment, the interest on the old debt and the new one that should be contracted, and that the extraordinary expenses of the war should be paid from loans. The following loans were authorized by congress at the dates given: March 14, 1812, $11,000,000, Feb.8, 1813, $16,000,000; Aug. 2,1813, $7,500,000: March 24, 1814, $25,000,000; Nov. 15, 1814, $3,000,000; March 3, 1815. $18,452,800. Six per cent interest was paid on each loan.

—Gallatin thought that, as our commerce for a time at least would be idle, banks and individuals would readily loan their money to the government, and so they did in the southern and middle states, but not in New England, for in that section the war was not popular. At first, individuals were inclined to loan their money quite freely, and when the subscriptions to the first loan were opened, Gallatin said that the amount was the largest ever offered to the government at 6 per cent, interest Edition: current; Page: [192] by individuals since the formation of the government. But after a few months the inclination of the people to subscribe weakened, and finally, in order to get funds, the government asked lenders on what terms they would make loans. They prescribed terms: and having thus prostrated itself before the feet of the money lenders, the government was obliged to stay there untill the close of the war.

—The reason why the credit of the government sank so low was, because congress was unwilling to lay adequate taxes, such as the occasion imperatively demanded. The best fountain of revenue had dried away, yet congress hesitated to introduce a system of internal taxation, which should have been adopted at the outbreak of the war. Gallatin recommended its adoption in the beginning, but congress would not heed his advice. Had congress introduced a thorough system of taxation at the opening of the contest, instead of waiting until near the close, the sad story never would have been told which the committee of ways and means in 1830 did tell, that for the loans of $80,000,000 obtained by the government during this period they yielded only $34,000,000 after deducting discounts and depreciation.

—Another expedient to which congress resorted during the war of 1812 was the issue of treasury notes. They were receivable for all dues to the government, but no individual was obliged to receive them. They were issued for a year, and bore interest, and were really a loan in anticipation of the taxes. The amount swelled until the close of the war. The amount then outstanding equaled the amount of the last loan authorized, the object of which was to get the means for discharging them. A portion was funded and others were paid for taxes and canceled.

—The total debt contracted from the beginning of the war was $80,500,073,50. The sinking fund was increased to $10,000,000, and once more debt-paying began. Portions of it were extended from time to time at lower rates of interest, and one loan for $5,000,000, to pay awards under the Florida treaty, was obtained at 4½ per cent. The government was not able to pay $10,000,000 into the sinking fund every year, but, aggregating the amount paid, there was a compliance with the law. In 1834 the debt was extinguished.

—Shortly afterward there was a surplus of more than $40,000,000 in the treasury, arising from the sale of public lands. Congress decided to deposit all except $5,000,000 with the states. The amount to be deposited was $37,468,819,97. One-quarter of the amount was to be paid every three months. When the first three-quarters had been paid, a financial tornado swept over the land, the banks keeping the government deposits failed, and the government suddenly found itself on the edge of bankruptcy. The merchants were unable to pay their bonds, and the treasury was reduced from a plethoric state to, utter emptiness. Congress was convened and the members voted to extend the time for merchants to pay their dues, and authorized the issue of treasury notes to defray the expenses of the government. The secretary of the treasury, Woodbury, urged congress to recall the deposits from the states, but the plea was not regarded with favour. It has never been repaid. Congress, however, repealed the law authorizing the payment of the fourth installment.

—The worst of the crisis soon passed away, but every year the government authorized the issue of new treasury notes with which the old ones were redeemed. But the amount outstanding kept growing. A very uncomfortable feeling arose, that in a time of profound peace the government should not be able to pay its expenses. After the public debt was discharged, the expenses were greatly increased. New enterprises of great variety and requiring heavy outlays were undertaken. These were continued just the same after the government was overtaken with reverses. Congress did not seem inclined to retrench. Hence treasury notes were put forth in ever-increasing quantities until 1842, when the amount not redeemed was funded. The same thing was done two years later, when there was another accumulation of them.

—In 1847 war was declared with Mexico and there were more issues of treasury notes and stock. The cost of the war was $63,605,621. After its close debt-paying began and continued until 1837, when the amount unpaid was reduced to a low figure. In that year the tariff was revised and the duties were cut down, but hardly had this been done when another financial tornado swept over the land, the revenues were in-sufficient to pay the expenses of the government and consequently more treasury notes were issued to fill the gap. The revenues did not recover rapidly, though it was quite generally expected that they would, and the treasury notes. In 1860 the debt had grown to about $60,000,000.

—The influence of the secretary of the treasury in directing the national finances at times has been very great; at others, very slight. The treasury department was one of the earliest departments organized, and its province was pretty clearly defined at an early day. When Hamilton was ready to make his first report to the house, he inquired whether he should make it orally or in writing. That body determined to receive it in writing, and the mode then observed has always been followed. But there are many reasons why, besides thus making it in writing, he should appear before either branch of congress whenever asked, and explain it. Such a requirement would necessitate putting men at the head of the treasury department processing a familiar knowledge of the finances.

—When the question of organizing the treasury department was before the house; some members favored the establishment of a board of treasury similar to that which existed during the revolutionary war. Gerry, of Massachusetts, was one of the stoutest defenders of the old system. Yet no one knew better than he its defects, for at one time he was a member of it, and condemned Edition: current; Page: [193] it in plainest terms for its inefficiency. (See TREASURY DEPARTMENT.)

—Alexander Hamilton was first chosen to administer the affairs of the treasury department. How he fulfilled the duties of his position was never more felicitously described than by Webster. "The whole country perceived with delight, and the world saw with admiration. He smote the rock of the national resources, and abundant streams gushed forth. He touched the dead corpse of the public credit, and it sprung upon its feet. The fabled birth of Minerva from, the brain of Jove, was hardly more sudden or more perfect than the financial system of the United States as it burst forth from the conception of Alexander Hamilton."

—He remained in office during Washington's first term and a part of his second. He was succeeded by Oliver Wolcott, of Connecticut, who was an admirer of Hamilton and trod closely in his footsteps. He resigned shortly before the close of Adams' administration, and Samuel Dexter, the secretary of war, acted as the head of the treasury department during the remainder of Adam's term.

—Jefferson appointed Albert Gallatin, who was one of the able financiers that ever occupied the post. He was a worthy successor of Hamilton, and for several years was as influential with his party on all questions touching the administration of the national finances as Hamilton had been with the party he represented. But after a time discord arose in his party, and the influence of Gallatin was weakened. To his honor be it said, opposition to him was caused by his exposure of the misdeeds of the secretary of the navy, who was the brother of Senator Smith, of Maryland, one of the most influential members in that body. Not long after the war broke out with Great Britain, he was sent abroad with two other commissioners to negotiate a treaty of peace. But he did not resign, and William Jones, the secretary of the navy, was temporarily placed in charge of the treasury. He was utterly unfitted for the post, especially at such a critical time when the highest order of financial ability and constant attention to the duties of the office were required. After Gailatin resigned, George W. Campbell, of Tennessee, was appointed. But he had neither the health nor the requisite ability, and soon broke down and reared. While he was in office the business of negotiating loans which was of the highest importance, was very largely confided to Mr. Sheldon, the chief clerk, who was opposed to war, and rejoined over the failure of any plan for getting the sinews of war. No wonder, with such officials the treasury department at this time, that incompetency should have shown itself in very glaring colors!—

When Campbell retired, A. J. Dallas, of Philadelphia, was appointed, and in a short period he restored the national credit. He infused new vigor into his department. He increased the taxes. He took strong and sure steps to restore specie payments. He zealously urged the creation of another United States bank. Madison was desirous of appointing him long before he did, but a section in the senate was unwilling, especially the two senators from Pennsylvania, and so Madison was obliged to wait until the finances reached such a deplorable state that they consented to withdraw their opposition. Hamilton, Gallatin and Dallas—a glorious triumvirate of financiers—were all born on foreign soil.

—When Monroe was elected president in 1816 he selected Wm. H. Crawford, of Georgia, for secretary of the treasury, though he would have gladly kept Dallas had he been willing to serve. Crawford did excellent service during the eight years that he remained at the head of the treasury department. His most noted report is one on the "Bank of the United states and other Banks, and the Currency," made in February, 1820. He was succeeded by Richard Rush of Philadelphia, the appointee of John Quincy Adams. He served during a golden day in our financial history, when expenditures were light, the revenues large, and debt-paying was rapid.

—We now approach a stormy time. When Jackson was elected president, Samuel D. Ingham, of Pennsylvania, was first selected for secretary of the treasury. After serving two years he resigned, and Louis McLane, of Delaware, succeeded him. Ingham's resignation grew out of differences with respect to the management of the public deposits, and the Eaton Scandal. McLane remained long enough to make one annual report and then he too resigned, and Wm. J. Duane of Philadelphia, was appointed. A controversy soon sprung up between him and the president concerning the removal of the deposits, and refusing to resign, he was dismissed. Then came Roger B. Taney, of Maryland, who held the office for a short time, when he was appointed chief justice of the supreme court of the United States. Yet he held the office long enough to accomplish the chief work for which he was selected, namely, to remove the deposits from the United States bank.(See DEPOSITS REMOVAL OF). The place was next filled by Levi Woodbury, of New Hampshire, who continued during the remainder of Jackson's presidential term and through that of his successor, Van Buren. Woodbury was an honest and industrious man, but corruption grew rankly at this period. It was at this time, too that the policy of the government with respect to banking and money was radically changed. (See INDEPENDENT TREASURY).

—There was a change of parties in 1840, and Harrison selected Thomas Ewing of Ohio, for chief of the treasury department. But Harrison died shortly after his inauguration, and with the accession of Tyler to the presidency cabinet reconstruction began. Walter Forward, of Philadelphia, succeeded Ewing, and he remained two years and then resigned. The president was very desirous of having Caleb Cushing, and sent in his name three times to the senate but that body refused to confirm him. John C. Spencer, of New York, was then appointed, but unwilling to execute the wishes of the president concerning the putting of some money into the Edition: current; Page: [194] hands of certain persons in New York—an act which he regarded as illegal—he resigned, and George M. Bibb, of Kentucky, filled out the remainder of Tyler's troubled term.

—Polk chose Robert J. Walker, of Mississippi, who served during the next four years. He is generally regarded as a very able and successful administrator of the affairs of that department. In 1848, when Taylor was elected president, William Meredith, of Philadelphia, became secretary, but he did not remain in office long and was succeeded by Thomas Corwin, of Ohio. He served through Fillmore's term, and was followed by James Guthrie of Kentucky, who filled the post whiled Pierce was president. Buchanan appointed Howell Cobb, of Georgia. He remained there until a short time before the close of that administration, when he resigned, and was succeeded first by Philip F. Thomas of Maryland and afterward by John A. Dix, of New York.

—The revenues of the government during this period of seventy years were derived mainly from loans, duties on imports, internal revenue, and public lands. The history of the loans obtained by the government we have already considered; the other sources of revenue will be more appropriately considered under other heads.(See TARIFF; INTERNAL REVENUE; LANDS, PUBLIC.) In respect to coinage, that topic, though forming an important chapter in the history of American finances, is considered elsewhere and nothing further need be said here. (See COINAGE.) The only feature remaining for us to notice relates to the receipts and expenditures, in regard to which a few words must suffice.

—The estimates of expenditure are first made by various departments of the government and presented by the secretary of the treasury to the house. They are then examined by the proper committee, and appropriations are granted. These expenditures have varied greatly during the different periods of the government. Sometimes they have been made with great wisdom and economy, but too often in an unwise and wasteful manner. We have not space to analyze the expenditures, indeed this would require a volume. Something further, however, will be found under another title.

—THE CIVIL WAR PERIOD. We have now reached the last period in the history of our national finances. These were administered on a grander scale than ever before, but they were less difficult to administer than during the revolutionary period, or the war of 1812. All the machinery for transacting the financial business had been perfected, a system of revenue existed, and though the credit of the government at the outbreak of the war was suffering, there was a vast amount of wealth in the country, and the people responded heartily to every call of the government for support. The funds to carry on the war were derived from loans, demand treasury notes, duties on imports, and internal revenues.

—The first war loan was negotiated under an act approved in February, 1861. The credit of the government was so low that the loan, amounting to $18,415,000, bearing 6 per cent. interest, and running twenty years, could be negotiated only at a discount of $2,019,776.10, or at an average rate of $89.03 per $100.

—Another loan was authorized in summer of 1861 for $250,000,000. The banks agreed to furnish $150,000,000 at par, receiving 7 3/10 per cent, interest, but as the secretary of the treasury required payment to be made in gold, it was very difficult for them to comply, especially to pay the last installment of $ 50,000,000. Indeed, the operation compelled the banks to suspend specie payments; at the same time the independent treasury suspended also. This event took place Dec. 28, 1861. It has been affirmed that its existence at this time was very harmful to the government, because its operations were opposed to those of the banks. The occasion required that if possible both should work together. But, in paying gold, the banks, through the desire of aiding the government to the utmost extent, undermined themselves. Had the law been otherwise, and the treasury been permitted to take other money than specie from the banks, the suspension of specie payments with its long train of evils might have been delayed for a considerable period and possibly never have occurred.

—There were other loans issued during the war, the most noteworthy of which were the nine hundred million loan, known as the ten-forty loan; and the loan for $500,000,000, payable after the five years and running no longer than twenty.

—A large amount of bonds was sold to the banks when the national banking system was created. This indeed was one of the objects of Secretary Chase in founding the system—to make a market for the government bonds. Its essential features were copied from the system existing in the state of New York, the real author of which was the Rev. Dr. McVickar, professor of political economy in Columbia college. In his pamphlet entitled "Hints on Banking" addressed to the legislature of New York in 1838, the system is clearly wrought out, though there are earlier publications from which doubtless he drew some of his ideas. These were the literary product of the derangement of the currency in the war of 1812. (See BANKING IN THE UNITED STATES.)

—The demand treasury notes, more commonly known as legal tenders, were declared to be a legal tender for all debts, public and private, and were issued as a temporary relief to the government. The holders had a right to exchange them for bonds bearing interest, and it was not supposed when the first issue appeared that the amount would be very considerably increased, or that they would remain long in existence. Their constitutionality was questioned in the beginning, and their issue was defended solely on the ground that it was a war measure. But as the government was pressed from time to time for funds, the issues were increased until $450,000,000 had been put forth. Secretary Chase was opposed to issuing them for Edition: current; Page: [195] sometime, but the need of funds became so great that he consented. Afterward, the supreme court of the United States declared that the law authorizing their issue was unconstitutional (Hepburn vs. Griswold, 8 Wall., 603), and subsequently that tribunal reversed the former decision. (Knox vs. Lee, 12 Wall., 453.) The state courts have rendered several decisions on the question, and usually they have sustained the validity of the enactment. (See TREASURY NOTES.)

—The various descriptions of bonds and other forms of indebtedness issued from the opening of the war to June 30,1865, amounted to $3,888,686,575.

—The duties on imports were increased in 1861 and again in 1863. (See TARIFF.) An internal revenue system was devised, from which large sums poured into the treasury. (See INTERNAL REVENUE.) It embraced a wide scope liquors, tobacco, manufactures, stamp duties on a great variety of legal instruments, stamp duties on a great variety of legal instruments, succession taxes, personal income, and other things. These measures, though of great importance, were hurriedly prepared and enacted, for there was not enough time to do the work thoroughly, and the difficulties and hardships growing out of the execution of them were numerous and trying. Yet the people bore much uncomplainingly, the spirit of patriotism ran high, and by slow degrees many of the most serious imperfections of this hasty legislation were removed.

—When the war was over, it appeared that on Aug. 31, 1865, the total indebtedness of the government, excluding the "old funded and unfunded debt of the revolution," and the cash in treasury, was $2,844,649,626.56. This was the highest point it ever reached. The amount of legal tenders then in circulation was $433,160,569. The figures first fell below $400,000,000 in September, 1866, nor have they ever exceeded that amount since. The following table will show the amount outstanding at the close of each fiscal year, which ends the 30th of June. It must be remembered, however, that no account is here taken of the cash in the treasury.

—The debt was very much increased by the suspension of specie payments, which unsettled prices and contributed to the speculation which grew rankly in almost every business. The issue of legal tender notes enormously aggravated the evil. Fluctuations in prices were rapid. When such a state of things exists an additional price is often asked, as a kind of premium to cover the loss from depreciation. This extra charge is an enormous tax which the people paid during the sixteen years that they were using paper money. While the war lasted, speculation centered on gold. Congress attempted to prevent it by legislation, but their action aggravated the movement.

—As soon as the war ended, many expected that the government would immediately return to specie payments. They had conducted their business with this end in view. So did the merchants in the war of 1812. Mr. McCulloch, who was now secretary of the treasury, believed that the true policy was to contract the legal tender notes until their value should be restored to par. This policy was put into execution; but after contraction had proceeded a short time, a loud cry arose against it, congress stopped it, and not until Jan. 1, 1879, did the desired event take place. Another mistake was committed by congress "greater," says a competent authority, "than all other mistakes in the management of the war"—and that was the abrogation by congress of the right to fund the legal tender notes in gold bonds. The taking away of this right from the holders was manifestly unjust to them; and by this act was prolonged the existence of a depreciated monetary circulation and the many ills which inevitably follow in its train.

—Although the government delayed to take the step, the policy of returning to specie payments was not definitively abandoned. At almost every session of congress bills were introduced and discussed relating to the subject and then laid aside. No plan was matured. Finally, a bill was approved Jan.14, 1875 providing for the resumption of the specie payments on 1879., The act provided, among other things, for the accumulation of gold in the treasury. Besides the amount thus obtained through the sale of bonds, the gold current, which had flowed away from us during the war and for several years afterward, changed and began to run hither. The balance of trade in our favor during the immediate years preceding the resumption of specie payments was enormous, and when the time for resumption arrived, the premium on gold had run down to zero, a large amount had been accumulated in the treasury, and the event occurred without the slightest disturbance to any trade or interest.

—Although the government has not possessed the means to pay all the bonds at maturity, there has been no difficulty in refunding those which could not be paid. Most of the loans specified two dates, after the first of which the government might pay if it desired, and by the second of which it must. The government has always consumed these obligations to mean that it will pay when the first period arrives, and it has been desirable for the government to avail itself of this right, because new loans could be obtained bearing lower rates of interest.

—The last bonds refunded bear 38frac12 per cent, interest. The operation consisted in a continuing bonds, which originally bore 5 and 6 per cent, interest, at a lower rate during the pleasure of the government.

—Jan. 1, 1882, the principal items of the public debt were the following:

Edition: current; Page: [196] —There is a law requiring the payment of 1 per cent, of the debt annually, but it has not always been observed. The whole amount paid to the present time satisfies the sinking fund, though until within the present fiscal year there was a deficiency.

—We have now gone over the field except to state the action of the government with reference to the coinage. Its action in demonetizing and remonetizing silver forms an interesting chapter of the period we are considering, but the articles on COINAGE, and PARIS MONETARY CONFERENCE cover the ground so well that nothing further need be added here.

—AUTHORITIES: The Colonial Period: Douglass' Summary, Historical and Political, of the First Planting, etc., of the British Settlements in North America, 2 vols., 1760; Discourse Concerning the Currencies of the British Plantations in America with Regard to Paper Money, by the same author, 1740; A Model for Erecting a Bank of Credit, with a Discourse in Explanation thereof, reprinted at Boston, 1714; Felt's Historical Account of Massachusetts Currency; Bronson's Historical Account of Connecticut Currency; besides which may be mentioned the various histories of the states. In respect to coinage in the colonies, and subsequently, a good account may be found in the Banker's Magazine, for October and November, 1861, prepared by John H. Hickcox. The Revolutionary Period: The author's Financial History of the United States from 1774 to 1789 and the authorities there cited; and Lewis' History of the Bank of North America. The Third Period: The author's Financial History of the United States from 1789 to 1860, and authorities there cited. The Fourth Period: No work has appeared giving a full history of the financial events covered by it. Monographs have been written on many financial events of this period, and there are almost numberless government publications relating to the subject. Spaulding's History of the Legal Tender Money may be mentioned, and Richardson's Practical Information Concerning the Public Debt of the United States.

FINANCE

FINANCE, Science of, the science of the economy which the state must conduct in order to obtain and apply the commodities or services necessary to the proper performance of its functions. It depends immediately upon two other sciences whose conclusions form its starting point; upon political science in the narrower sense of the term, i.e., the science which determines the functions of the state, and upon political economy, which develops the general principles underlying all social economies. As the prevailing theory or practice in reference to the functions of the state changes, the financial system and consequently the science of finance must change. The science of finance will be comparatively simply in a state which derives all its income, like private individuals, from the profits of its own property, such as domains, and which limits its activity as much as possible to simple protection of the citizen. In such a state neither the income nor expenditure exercises any great influence on the economic condition of the country. But the problems become more complex as society develops, as the functions of the state increase, as the system of domains disappears and the system of taxation takes its place; as the income and expenditure grow larger, and the government by its system of raising and applying revenue begins to exercise an ever increasing influence upon the economic development of the state and upon the distribution of the national income. As a consequence the science of finance must develop, must take up the consideration of an ever increasing number of problems, and will not be completed until society has reached its ultimate economical development. As the term is ordinarily used it includes, as our definition indicates, merely the treatment of the economy which the state conducts, as the highest form of compulsory associative economies, i.e., the science of finance treats only of national finance as opposed to local finance. But the course of its development will soon force it to take up the latter subject also. And rightly too; since each state, for example, in our American Union, each country in the state, and each city in the country, has or may have its own system of finance independent of all the others, the consideration of which ought not to be omitted in any tolerably complete presentation of the subject of finance. The same thing is true of local organizations of other countries. The whole subject of local and particularly of municipal finance forms one of the most important subjects in the whole range of political science, and in no other connection can it be so conveniently and thoroughly treated as in connection with the science of national finance.

—The science of finance is a product of modern thought. The scientific investigation of financial subjects seems to have been entirely unknown to antiquity or even to the middle ages. The work of Xenophon on the revenues of Athens was simply a discussion as to how the city might derive sufficient revenue from its own territory without having to depend on foreign sources. His recommendation of a state monopoly of silver mining, and his opinion that the increase of the amount of silver would not diminish its price, are worthy of notice. But Xenophon was not a practical statesman, nor were the other writers whose occasional remarks are met with in classical literature, and so we have no means of ascertaining the theoretical opinions of ancient financiers except by inferring them from their financial institutions and contrivances. We must be careful in drawing such inferences, however, as the devices adopted depended often upon accident rather than upon a thoughtful consideration of what was best. The large income which the principal ancient states derived from the conquest and continued plunder of foreign nations raised them above the Edition: current; Page: [197] necessity of systematically taxing their own citizens on a large scale, and so they were never forced to a thoughtful consideration of the most economical system of providing public revenue by taxation. Both at Athens and at Rome, it is true, some kinds of taxes and other sources of public income were carefully managed; but their financiers never thought it worth while to elaborate rules on the subject or to seek out general principles. The few writings upon financial subjects, therefore, which have come down to us from antiquity, while possessing considerable value to the historian of finance, are of but little importance to the theory of our science.

—The science of finance is not only the product of modern thought, but it is chiefly the product of the thought of two nations, Germany and England. To German economists we owe its systematic form, to English economists the most valuable portion of its contents. A short sketch of the rise and development of the science is necessary to a full understanding of its present condition and prospects. Its history, like that of political economy in general of which it for a time formed a part, falls naturally into two periods, that before and that after Adam Smith.

—In the transition period from the middle ages to modern times, when the revival of learning took place, and when, among other branches, political science was resuscitated, political writers took up finance also. The wide-spread political and economical changes of the time directed attention to the investigation of financial questions. Among these changes we may mention, as promotive of our science, on the one hand, the growing dissatisfaction with the patrimonial conception of the state, the rise of princely absolutism, by which for the first time a really political life was made possible, the revolution in warfare, the introduction of Roman law, particularly of Roman financial law, and the growing need of the state for an increased revenue; on the other hand, the transition from a barter to a money economy, the depreciation of money in consequence of the exploitation of American mines, the general tendency toward paternalism in the economical policy, as is shown by the rise of the mercantile system and the predilection for monopolies and finally, the secularization of the church property in Protestant lands, which among other changes rendered necessary different poor laws.

—As a matter of course the first literary attempts, both of the more pretentious works on political science and of the monographs devoted exclusively to finance, were, and long remained, very defective. The authors naturally enough began with the concrete institutions of their own countries, and with proposals for reforming particular abuses. But their works testify rather to their zeal in compilation than to their thorough knowledge of the subject. They often gave very good but very trite directions as to economy, justice, etc., but they took their illustrations without discrimination from the most opposite political conditions, and showed little insight into the real condition and wants of their times. Nor did the practical men, who began to treat the subject during the sixteenth century, show any greater tendency toward scientific exactness. From the seventeenth century mercantilistic views began to exercise a more and more marked influence upon financial literature. And even in this early period a marked difference appears between the English and German treatment of the subject, which has remained characteristic even down to the present time. English writers have preferred to devote their attention to the investigation of particular subjects closely connected with the questions which were from time to time of great public interest, neither knowing much nor caring to know much of their relations to other subjects. German writers on the contrary, have made a special effort to systematize the results of their investigations, and by a proper subordination of parts to make their knowledge a science. The very dissimilar political relations of England and Germany led their economists to emphasize very different points. The early German authors discuss finance principally in connection with the system of domains and monopolies then in vogue, and gradually make the science of finance a part of cameralistics. This latter science included all the information considered necessary to an officer of the internal administration, and the science of finance came to occupy a prominent place in it. The system of domains was universally accepted by these writers as the principal element in every financial economy. But the development of nations soon compelled a great change in these views. The growing needs of the state demanded a constantly increasing revenue; the domains became more and more unable to meet this demand. The system of direct taxation was still in a very crude condition and generally unpopular with the rulers, because it depended on obtaining the consent of the estates. As a consequence attention was directed more strongly to the development of monopolies and of indirect taxes, like the excise, etc. These subjects are accordingly extensively discussed in the literature of the time. But little change occurs in this development until after the middle of the eighteenth century. Essentially upon the basis of the previous views, although under the influence of the new political and philosophical tendencies, the theory of finance was gradually systematized and worked out in its details. The better writings of this period are therefore of value even now, because they present the principles of administration which were then accepted and which in part still prevail.

—The strictly scientific era of the science of finance did not begin until after the middle of the last century. Three influences affected its development. First, the development of the modern science of political economy, of the theory of free competition, elaborated in the writings of the physiocrats, (Quesnay, Turgot), and more fully in epoch-making Edition: current; Page: [198] work of Adam Smith. Second, the theoretical revolution in jural and political philosophy and in politics effected by Montesquieu, Rousseau and Kant. Finally, the practical revolution in political, social and economical life produced by the French revolution and the events connected with it.

—The physiocrats exercised a stimulating and fruitful influence upon the theory, if not upon the practice, of finance by their one-sided plan of taxation, the principle of an impôt unique, of a single universal tax on land, which was to take the place of all other taxes. Adam Smith, then, threw a new light upon the subject of finance by developing the economical basis of the same in the "Wealth of Nations." Public revenues, from the isolation in which they had been discussed before, were now brought together and treated as a whole, which had the most intimate connection with the greater whole of political economy. Instead of indefinite and variable rules, men were now enabled to lay down definite principles for the preservation of national wealth and national industry. They saw that measures and contrivances were defective, which they had long accepted as perfect. But even Smith, although he had a tolerably complete system of political economy, did not produce a complete science of finance, because he had no fundamental principle upon which to base his theory. This was the natural consequence of his defective theory of the state, particularly of his complete misconception of the universal importance of the state for national life and the limitations of the national economy by the state. But aside from this defect—a very serious one, it is true—Adam Smith made an epoch in this subject by the fifth book of his famous work on the "Wealth of Nations," and exercised a moulding influence, lasting even down to the present day, upon the theoretical conception and treatment of finance, and at least outlined a tolerably complete system of theoretical science. Even the externally close connection into which he brought finance with political economy remains to-day characteristic of all writers except the Germans. And even German thinkers, independent in some respects, are still greatly influenced by Smith.

—The progress of philosophy and the French political revolution led to new investigations in political science as to the functions of the state and the limits of its activity, by which new principles as to the rights of the state were won and preparation was made from another direction for the science of finance. The evil of this movement was the excessive reaction of Kant's school against the eudemonistic tendencies of Wolf and his followers, and against the practice of the state of "good despotism." This reaction led to an unfortunate limitation of the idea of the state which is entirely inconsistent with actualities, and which corresponds with the one-sided and unhistorical opposition of Smithianism to all interference of the state in economical matters. The false theory of Smith and his school in reference to the unproductivity of services, and consequently of the state, favored this fatal tendency. In spite of all, however, the science of finance gained a firmer systematic form, and in consequence of this perfecting of the science a revolution in praxis was begun which is slowly but irresistibly progressing.

—In recent times the Germans have taken the lead in the development of the science. English writers, following Adam Smith, discuss finance as a comparatively unimportant part of political economy, using it principally to afford an application and explanation of economical principles. And although they have done invaluable work in elaborating details, such as the economical effects of taxes and the incidence of various kinds of taxes, the theory of public debts, paper money, coinage, banking, etc., yet they reveal nowhere even down to the present an adequate conception of the importance of finance to political economy. On the contrary, the Germans, although their treatment of the details has been and still is, in many respects, unsatisfactory, have yet elaborated a complete and systematic science of finance which if full of promise for the future.

—The science of finance falls naturally into three divisions. The first discusses the organization of the financial economy, and investigates the general principles which must underlie all financial systems. The second treats of public expenditure, and the purposes for which it may be made. The third treats of public income, and the ways and means of obtaining it—I. The Organization of the Financial Economy. 1. In constructing a financial system we must first have regard to the amount to be expended. This will depend upon the number and character of the functions which the state assumes. This last will vary with the political development of the state. We see, then, how idle the attempt is, which many theorists have made, to fix once for all the sum total of expenditure. One state may be justified in making an expenditure many times greater than that which another state of equal area or even of equal population may make. England may with impunity devote a sum to public purposes which would bankrupt many states of greater population and area. Although we may not lay down a cast iron rule for proper expenditure, we may sum up the purposes for which the modern state devotes money, and such a summary will be found at the close of this section. The science of finance, as such, has nothing to do with determining the functions of the state—a problem which belongs to the science of politics, in the narrower sense of the term. But, inasmuch as no important function of the state can be performed without the expenditure of resources in some form, it follows that determining the functions of the state and providing for their proper performance include the determining of a certain expenditure and of the income necessary to cover it. This last is essentially a problem of finance; and financial science, then, requires that in every revenue system there shall be, first, a detailed and Edition: current; Page: [199] efficient supervision and control of expenditure; second, a rigid observance of the principle of economy; and third, a careful regard for the relation between expenditure and national wealth. Most modern nations have attempted to secure a careful supervision by adopting the system of budgets. The administration lays before the legislature a careful estimate of the sums which in its opinion are necessary to the proper performance of the functions of the state. The latter, in voting or refusing to vote the sums proposed, confirms or rejects the views of the former as to the limits of state interference. In this settlement the administration and the legislature represent the two sides of a business transaction. The former represents the supply of governmental interference which in its view would be advantageous; the latter, the demand of the people for such interference. Their views are likely to be very different. The administration is prone to over-estimate the advantages of the services of the state for the people, and to underestimate the cost (in taxation, etc) which they impose upon the people. The legislature shows opposite tendencies. History has shown that by such a device a fair control of the financial system is secured. By the principle of economy is not meant that the state must limit its activity to the narrowest possible bounds; but simply that in the proper performance of any given function (which it has been decided the state should assume) the least possible expenditure should be made. The third point is a very important one. No mathematical ratio between the expenditure and national wealth can be found. All attempts to do this have failed, as they rest upon a false, mechanical view of the relation of the state to the national economy—a relation which is essentially organic. We may lay down the following as a principle: the greater the economical value of the public service, the more it promotes the productive power of all, the greater the net income of the nation, the larger the proportion of public revenue derived from industrial undertakings, the larger may the public expenditure become both absolutely and relatively. The question might be formulated as follows: May the expenditure increase to such as extent that the sacrifices it demands of the people become very oppressive? The answer would be affirmative, if it has reference to a temporary outgo, and the expenditure promises to be successful, and the particular form of state deserves preservation. But if the condition is to be permanent, if no saving can be effected, if the functions of the state can not be diminished, then the impossibility of raising sufficient revenue proves the impossibility of the continued existence of such a state. Even the assistance derived from repudiation, i.e., violation of legal obligations, will not always afford a permanent relief. In such cases public production must, like private production, cease, because the undertaking no longer pays expenses. 2. But in the construction of a financial system regard must be had, in the second place, not merely to the amount to be raised at any given time, but also to the indubitable fact that the total expenditure of a modern civilized state tends constantly to increase. A glance at the budgets of modern states for the last fifty years will afford statistical proof of this so-called law of the ever increasing functions of the state. The governments of nearly all existing states have taken upon themselves within recent times the management of the postal system, of education, etc, in many cases of the telegraph and the railroad. This tendency must be taken into account. A good revenue system, therefore, must be elastic. It must be able to adapt itself to the growing demands of the state, and, hence, we must condemn all those plans which involve the limiting of the state to one or two sources of revenue. Another point should be considered in this connection, viz., the adjustment between the national and local systems of finance. This varies greatly in our modern states according to the historical development and peculiar conditions of the various nations. In some countries each individual city and country and province has or may have its own system of revenue to provide for its own wants. In others the local organizations are permitted to raise money only by a system of additions to the national taxes. In our own country no state may raise revenue by emitting bills of credit or by laying duties on imports or exports. Practically under our present laws the states are also prevented from establishing state banks as sources or revenue. The municipalities are restricted, in many parts of the Union, as to the kinds of taxes they may levy and as to the amount they may raise by taxation. It will be found by experience in the various countries what particular sources of revenue can be best exploited by the national government and what are best adapted for local organizations, although the science of finance has hardly taken the first step toward a satisfactory solution of this question—one of the most important within its whole field. 3. In the third place, provision must be made in every revenue system for securing an equilibrium between income and outgo. This can be secured permanently only by providing a proper system of income. We must endeavor to ascertain some principles, then, which may guide us in selecting proper sources of income. But these can be found only by investigating what sources of income are best adapted to the various kinds of expenditure. We must classify expenditure, therefore, with a view of deciding upon the sources of income appropriate to each class. This classification leads to the distinction between extraordinary and ordinary income, in the various senses of the word. The sources of income in our modern states are principally taxes and public loans. Our investigation will be limited, therefore, chiefly to these two sources of income, and to deciding which is the appropriate one for any given kind of expenditure. The Edition: current; Page: [200] fundamental principle of this portion of our science is, that income must equal outgo—a principle, the very opposite of that which must prevail in a private or individual economy, in which a man, to remain solvent, must regulate his outgo by his income. The government decides what functions the state will assume, what expenditure is necessary to perform them properly, and then aims to raise the required revenue; while the individual must first find out his revenue before he fixes his outgo. A disregard of this principle results in a deficiency, which, if long continued, becomes chronic, and easily leads to national bankruptcy. The best means of avoiding such a deficiency is to insist upon carefully prepared budgets for short periods of time—one, two or three years. If the estimates for one period are wrong, they can easily be corrected for the next. In deciding upon the sources of income to be used, we must have reference to the kind of expenditure. Expenditure may be classed as ordinary and extraordinary expenditure. These terms are applied in three difference senses. In the first sense, ordinary expenditure is such as occurs regularly in the ordinary course of the government, and can be estimated almost exactly beforehand. Extraordinary expenditure is such as must be made in consequence of some special and unexpected necessity, such as war or a great public calamity. The first kind must be met, of course, by an income of equal regularity and quantity. The second may be met by extraordinary measures, such as treasury notes or the use of public credit in some other form; though in many cases it is better to keen a permanent surplus fund in the treasury to use on such occasions. In the second sense, we have reference to the permanence of the results achieved by the expenditure. We apply in our financial system the idea of fixed and circulating capital. Ordinary expenditure is such as is regularly applied in the process of public production within a financial period, which reappears in the value of its products (public services), and must therefore occur periodically to the same amount. It includes all expenditure for the running expenses of the government. Extraordinary expenditure is such as is made at irregular times, and whose effects extend beyond the current financial period. The outlay may form the basis of a permanent advantage, or it may be necessitated by some great obstacle in the way of political progress, such as an unavoidable war. In the first case it becomes an investment of fixed capital, so that in the subsequent financial periods a less expenditure is sufficient and an increased productiveness results. Such an investment may be made for two purposes. It may be a simple commercial undertaking like that of any private individual, for the sake of the profit connected with it, such as investment in domains, railroads, etc; or it may be for the purpose of improving or establishing the means of performing the functions of the state. All great reforms in administration, the building of free public roads, the improvement of the means of defense, etc., etc, require such investments. The money expended in an unavoidable war has very different results from that expended in the last two cases. It involves a real loss of men and capital. Nor does even a really successful war give us any guarantee of no repetition; on the contrary, it is often merely the prelude to longer and more costly wars. In the third and legal sense, ordinary expenditure is that which is granted. Once for all, for certain purposes, and need not be incorporated in the budget. Extraordinary expenditure is that which must regularly receive the consent of the legislative body. Thus, in England the amount supposed to be actually necessary to the existence of the government, is furnished by a permanent income which, although it may be changed by every parliament, is practically changed very seldom. All other expenditure must be voted regularly by parliament. Now, as has been said, in constructing a financial system, regard must be had to the kind of expenditure which is to be provided for by any given source of income. We may lay it down as a principle, that the ordinary expenditure in the second sense of the term must be met in all cases by ordinary income (i.e., in general, income from taxes); while extraordinary expenditure may be met by extraordinary income (i.e., by the use of public credit). Ordinary expenditure in the third sense must of course be met by ordinary income, while extraordinary may be met by temporary devices of a character suited to the particular object in view.

—II. Public Expenditure, and the Purposes for which it may be made. 1. The financial needs of the state may be divided into two classes; first, its need of things in kind; second, its need of money. In the early periods of political development the need of things in kind predominates. The government needs men to fight, and it simply demands their services without paying them anything in return. It expects the soldiers to arm themselves at their own expense and to provide their own rations while in the field. As the state develops, there is a constant tendency to satisfy its necessities by way of purchase, and in consequence of this its need of money becomes more important than its need of things in kind. But even in our modern money economy there are some cases in which the state can better afford to take things in kind than money. In time of war, for instance, it may become necessary to have more horses, or supplies, and it will often be better to take the things wanted than to take money and attempt to purchase them. All instances of the use of the right of eminent domain come under this head. It is often more advisable to take a piece of ground, for instance, and pay what seems to be a fair valuation, than to attempt to raise money enough to satisfy the demands of the owner, which, as is well known, become exorbitant as soon as the government attempts to buy. 2. From another point of view, the financial needs of Edition: current; Page: [201] the state may be classified as its need of personal services and its need of commodities. The science of finance must investigate the various methods of expenditure necessary to satisfy these needs. Several different systems of securing persons to perform the services have been in vogue at different times and in different countries. The following are the most important: 1st, the German system, according to which all public offices are filled from the ranks of persons who have shown their fitness for the places by prescribed tests, and the appointment gives (after a certain period of probation) a right to the office, and there fore its salary, so long as its duties are properly performed, 2d, the French system, in which the salaried officer, although professionally educated, may be removed at pleasure; 3d, the American system, in which the salaried officers are appointed and removed at pleasure, without any necessary regard to their fitness; 4th, the voluntary system, in which the offices are filled from among those able and willing to perform their duties without salaries. The first system, involving, as it does, educated officials and pensions, seems at first thought to be the most expensive. For the salaries must be large enough to attract and retain men of ability and education. They involve, therefore, a restitution of the costs of education. The officers may not be dismissed, so that they must continue to draw their salaries, even if the circumstances should allow a material reduction of the force. If they give out while performing their duties, they must be supported, and they must finally be pensioned after they become too old for the active service. But there are several points in its favor to be considered. In the first place, we must have regard to the value of the service as well as its nominal cost. A professionally educated civil service will furnish better results by far than an uneducated one. An officer who feels sure of his position as long as he does his duty, and reasonably sure of increased salary or of promotion as a result of marked faithfulness, will do his work far better than one who may be removed at the pleasure of an irresponsible superior. The German system will secure a more honest set of public servants than any of the others mentioned, and so less will be lost by peculation and fraud than under the other systems. It is better than the plan of voluntary offices, for under the latter only the wealthy can enter the public service, and the government would receive a too aristocratic coloring. Thus, although the German system seems to be the most costly, yet it is after all the cheapest and consequently financially the best one. We pass over the further discussion of this point at this place. (See CIVIL SERVICE.)

—A a rule the state can better afford in our modern industrial economy to satisfy its need of commodities by purchase in the open market than by manufacturing them itself. There are some exceptions of this, however. If the state needs peculiar commodities which the commercial industry of the country would not produce except for the state, or if special experiments are necessary which private parties would not make, or if the competition among private firms is not very great, and inspection of the commodities difficult, then the state can generally better produce them itself. Military supplies afford a good example of this; although private parties can often furnish even these on better terms than the government could produce them. Krupp, in Germany, and our own rifle factories in this country, are good instances. In all other cases the state in providing its supplies must simply follow the ordinary rules of private business—buying by contract and en gros. Financial considerations must further determine whether the government shall erect buildings for its business or hire them from private parties. 3. Public expenditure may be divided, from a third point of view, into gross and net expenditure. Gross expenditure includes not only what is consumed in performing the functions of the state, but also what is expended in collecting the sums so consumed. Net expenditure includes only the former of these two items. They should both be carefully indicated in the budgets, as the costs of collection reveal the economy of the financial system and of the administration. It goes without the saying that these costs of collection should be as low as possible, and yet they can never become a determining factor in a financial system. They depend upon a great variety of circumstances, some of which we summarize. Those public economies which derive a large portion of their income from industrial sources, such as domains, forests, mines, factories, railroads, etc., etc., will always have a relatively larger gross expenditure than those which depend on taxes. (Compare English with German finance.) Even of two economies which have the same system the budgets will be very different, according to the systems of administration. The relations of time and place and circumstance have very much to do with determining the ration of gross and net expenditure. In addition to the nominal costs of collection there are to be counted all those sacrifices which the public must make beyond their taxes, and which do not result even in a larger gross income to the state; at costs growing out of illegalities, bribery, bad systems of administration, incomplete control, hindrances to production, etc., etc., some of which are characteristic of states in a backward condition of political development, others arising from the kind of taxes (customs duties, excise, indirect taxes in general). The nominal costs of collection depend: 1st, upon the condition of the whole financial, and particularly of the tax, system, the system of collection, whether by farming, by officers, by local authorities, etc., exercises the greatest influence in this respect; 2d, upon the kind of taxes most employed, whether direct or indirect; 3d, upon local and temporal circumstances, even with the same kind of tax. The moral development of a people, its geographical situation, its communications, Edition: current; Page: [202] its economical condition, the prevalence of great industries, etc., are all of great influence in this respect. The more favorable all these items are, the less may be costs of collection become.

—The purposes for which expenditure is made in the modern state may be classed under three heads; 1, for the executive and legislative departments; 2, for justice and defense; 3, for the general welfare. The executive head must receive an allowance which will not only allow him to live, but to maintain an establishment in some degree of elegance if not of splendor. It is necessary to connect a salary with the office of chief executive in a republic, or it would limit the choice of the people to wealthy men able and willing to undertake the expense. It is also usual in free states to pay a salary to the members of the legislature, for the same reason. In monarchies the income of the sovereign is largely derived from private property, though in many modern states the legislature, considering that royal estates belonged to the government, has taken possession of them and allowed the king a salary, so to speak, instead. Under the head of justice fall all expenses for the courts, for prisons, and penitentiaries; under defense, all outlay for police, detective force, workhouse, foreign representatives, and, most important of all, for the army. In most modern states the army is a necessity, and the best way to provide it is one of the most difficult questions of finance. "In peace prepare for war," is a direction which European states have been following so thoroughly for the last generation that some of them are already on the verge of bankruptcy, and nearly all are seriously impeded in their material progress by the enormous cost of their armies. The militia system is exceedingly costly, because exceedingly inefficient, and can be adopted only by those nations that are reasonably free from war. The American rebellion was the most costly war of modern times, largely because a vast army had to be raised and an enormous fleet built within a short time by a nation practically unacquainted with either. But it may well be doubted whether any great saving would have been effected by having spent large sums for fifty years preceding the conflict, in order to be ready for it, to say nothing of the fact that one party would have had as much advantage from the preparation as the other. But a European nation, such as Germany, may well find it cheaper to keep a large standing army and a still larger reserve (of all able-bodied men) than to rely upon a standing army and conscription, or upon a militia system. The amount of expenditure a nation can apply to its army is measured solely by the value it sets on its national existence.

—Expenditure for the general welfare includes expenditure for inner administration, for economical administration, and for education. Statistics, public health and poor laws belong to the first; coinage, the postoffice, telegraph, state railways, public highways, etc., to the second; schools, art and religion to the third.

—III. Public Revenue, and the Sources from which it may be derived. The ordinary revenue of modern governments is derived from three sources: 1, from agricultural, industrial or commercial enterprises; 2, from fees: 3, from taxes. These three sources must be carefully distinguished, and their relative and historical importance emphasized. When a state manages a public farm, conducts a great commercial institution, like a bank, upon the same principles and for the same purpose as private individuals, viz., to secure a pure income which it may apply to other purposes, it derives revenue from the first source. When it undertakes the exclusive performance of certain functions for its citizens, and charges the persons especially benefited a certain sum, which it fixes without reference, possibly, to the value of the service to the person served, or its cost to the government, it derives revenue from the second source. The postoffice is an excellent example of this source. The postage is the fee. The government charges three cents for forwarding a latter to the address. It may not cost the government one-tenth of that sum, or it may cost ten times that sum. The person served might be willing to pay one hundred times the postage charged, or he might prefer to hire somebody else to forward it because it would be cheaper. But the government fixes its own price and insists upon being allowed to perform the service, and accomplishes its aim by refusing to allow any one to perform it more cheaply. When the state exacts a sacrifice of a citizen without performing any service of a citizen without performing any service for him other than affording the general protection and opportunities which come from his enjoying the privileges of citizenship, it derives revenue from the third source. The fundamental distinction between a fee and a tax lies in the nature of the return made by the government to the individual paying it. Both are contributions to the government, but for the former the payer receives in return a special service, which is not performed for anybody except those who pay for it; while for the latter he receives only a general return which everybody living in the state enjoys, whether he pays for it or not. The revenue from fees is intended to cover the expenses of performing the service. In case the government charges more than private parties would charge, the surplus becomes a tax levied only on the persons availing themselves of these services. In case the revenue is insufficient to pay the cost of service the deficit must be made up by general taxation, and is in so far a gift from the state as a whole to the portion of the community profiting by these services. The same thing is true of the individuals in these classes. Under free competition a man in New York might get his letter carried to Boston for one cent, a man in Texas might have to pay twenty-five cents for the same service; under the present system the former is taxed two cents, which are given to the latter to apply on his postage. A fee, therefore, Edition: current; Page: [203] may contain a tax for the individual, whenever it is higher than what he would have to pay for the same service under free competition, and we must carefully distinguish in every contribution to the government between the fee and the tax.

—1. Revenue from business enterprises. In an early stage of civilization or of industrial development the public revenue must be largely derived from the profits of public property. Land is the most common form at first. Mines are also a common form in early as well as in latter times. A period soon comes in a progressive state when the income from such sources is no longer sufficient, and the main dependence must be placed upon taxation. But even under such conditions the state may retain its domains and even develop similar source of revenue, such as smelting works, factories, banks, canals, railroads, etc. Down to a late date the domains furnished the greater portion of the national revenue in many of the European states, and even at the present time they form an important element in the financial systems of most continental states. The general tendency has been toward selling the farm domains and retaining the forest domains. Of late years the questions of state banks and state railways and canals and telegraphs have been growing more and more important. There has been a marked and growing tendency toward government ownership of all such agencies. The purely financial element, however, has rarely led to government ownership in these cases, although such enterprises generally make good returns on the investment. The income of several European countries from such sources is steadily growing, and it is likely to become more and more important with every advance in industrial development. (See RAIROADS, FORESTRY, PUBLIC LANDS.)

—2. Revenue from fees. The modern state derives a large income from fees, which, as already defined, are contributions made to the state in return for a special service rendered the individual. The theoretical justification of fees lies in the nature and in the results of various functions of the state; their actual existence and historical development are closely connected with the prevailing views of law, of the state, of society and of the national economy, and with the conditions of the same, and charge, therefore, with those views and conditions. The principles laid down, therefore, with reference to fees are not absolute, but temporal, local, and historically relative. What functions the state ought to assume is not a financial question, nor has the science of finance to decide which of its functions it should discharge at general expense of the whole state and which at the expense of the individual most benefited. Historically, in the economically progressive state, a growing tendency has shown itself toward the public assumption of functions performed hitherto by private parties. Such, for example, are the paving and lighting of streets, the furnishing of means of instruction, the establishment of water works, of asylums, etc, etc. At first all such institutions are generally supported by the fees of those most concerned; in course of time, however, a tendency shows itself toward lessening the fee more and more, until, a deficit occurring, the state must support the institution by taxation. The following principle may be laid down in reference to what functions should be supported by fees, and what by general taxation. The more clearly the performance of a certain function redounds to the benefit of particular individuals who can be easily ascertained, the greater the proportion of expense which said individuals should defray by their fees; the less clearly it accrues to the benefit of one individual more than another, and the greater the difficulty of ascertaining the parties benefited, the greater the proportion of expense which the state should bear by general taxation. As has been said above, the fee must not amount to more than the charge private parties would make for performing the service; otherwise it becomes a tax. Many taxes are levied under the form of fees. In all cases where the government requires the performance of a certain act merely for the sake of taxing it, as, for instance, the stamping of deeds, contracts, etc., the so-called fee is really a tax, and should be considered such.

—3. Revenue from taxes. Taxation is the most important and most difficult department of modern finance, and the theory of taxation the most important and the most difficult portion of the science of finance. The latter falls naturally into two divisions—a general and a special: the former treating of the general principles of taxation; the latter, of particular taxes and their special characteristics. The remainder of this article will be devoted to the general division; the special will be treated in the article entitled TAXATION. We shall discuss the general principles of taxation under two heads: 1st, the basis, nature and development of taxation in general; 2d, the fundamental principles of taxation. 1st, The right of taxation, i.e., the right of collecting from subjects compulsory contributions for public ends and purposes, finds its theoretical justification in the absolute necessity for the state, and therefore in its right to existence. From which it follows, that the justification of this right does not belong to the service of finance, but in its economical aspects and connection with the organization of property and industry to political economy, in its political and legal aspects to the science of the state, and in its philosophical aspects to jural philosophy. This point will be further considered, however, at the end of our second division. The nature of a tax has been fully explained in a preceding portion of this article. The development of taxation has kept pace with the industrial development of society. In a primitive and undeveloped state taxes are not to be found. The only thing corresponding to them is the voluntary contribution or gift to the head of the state (prince, chief, etc.), on special occasions. "The government is Edition: current; Page: [204] expected to pay expenses." The conquest of other nations, the proceeds of the public domains, etc., are ordinarily fully adequate to meet all financial necessities. On the other hand, society makes but few demands upon the government. Its members depend more upon themselves, rarely expecting more from the government than protection of life and property. As the industrial order of society is developed, greater demands upon government aid and interference are made. The functions of the government are rapidly multiplied. At first those who expect this aid must pay for it themselves, i.e., the expenses of the additional functions are defrayed by fees. But in course of time the number benefited by these advantages increases, until the want has become "public," i.e., can be satisfied at the expense of the state as a whole. But the more such wants are multiplied, the more impossible it becomes for the domains to furnish the requisite funds. Taxes become necessary, and the greater the amount of money needed, the more extensive and complex does the tax system become. 2d. The fundamental maxims of taxation laid down by Adam Smith have become classical. We produce them here for the sake of convenient reference in our discussion of the subject. They are as follows: 1. The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities, that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state 2. The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor and to every other person. 3. Every tax ought to be levied at the time and in the manner in which it is most convenient to the contributor to pay it. 4. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible, over and above what it brings into the treasury of the state. The last three are simply principles of proper administration and will be discussed later. The first maxim contains implicitly three distinct principles. It finds the justification of taxation in the protection accorded by the state. It lays down a principle of just distribution of taxation, viz., upon every one according to his ability. It proposes a method taxation by which this equal distribution is to be reached, viz., the income tax. It may be safely said of these last that the second is a contradiction of first, and that the third is by no means an axiom, and is not easily demonstrable. The maxim is really a begging of the question, and yet it has been copied and recopied and paraphrased by nearly three generations of successors.

—The fundamental principles of taxation are to serve as a guide in the practical levying of taxes, especially in the choice of the various taxes and in the organization of the tax system as a whole. Every tax is to be tried by these principles, and as far as possible that one chosen which will best satisfy their demands. On account of the great difference in these demands and on account of the practical difficulty of reconciling them with one another, it is very exident that no one tax should be adopted as the sale source of public revenue. On the contrary, a judicious combination of several different kinds of taxes, i.e, a real rax system, seems best adapted to realize our ideal, viz., the greatest practicable agreement of actual taxation with our fundamental principles. These principles are nine in number, divided into four groups as follows: I. Politico financial principles: 1. Adequateness of taxation; 2. Elasticity of taxation. II. Economical principles: 3. Choice of proper sources of taxation, i.e., particularly, discussion of the question whether taxation is to draw only from individual and national income, or also from individual and national capital; 4 Regard for the incidence of taxation, particularly of the various kinds of taxes, upon the tax payer, and a general investigation of the "shifting of taxation." III. Principles of justice or of the just distribution of taxation; 5. Universality: 6. Equality of taxation. IV. Administrative principles: 7. Definiteness as to time, place, manner and equality; 8. Convenience of the same; 9. Economy in collection. It is not usual to include the first two principles in such a summary; but they should be placed first of all, as they are most important of all. They follow from the very nature of the financial economy, and from the principle upon which that is based, viz., that income is determined by expenditure, and must be sufficient to meet it. For not, as the Smithian school of political economy from their particularistic standpoint teach, not "justice toward the individual," not the maxim of universality and equality of taxation, but the fulfilling of the conditions of social life and union, is our fundamental principle—the securing of the means for the preservation of the state and for the performance of its functions.

—1. By" adequateness of taxation" we mean that the income iron taxes must be sufficient to cover the expenses of a financial period, so far as other means are lacking or are impermissible. Taxation must be resorted to after the income from industrial undertakings and the surplus from the fee system have been exhausted, and it must meet the rest of the expenditure.

—2. By " elasticity" is meant that a tax system must contain such component parts (i.e., kinds of taxes) us can adapt themselves to charges in expenditure or can supplement possible deficiencies of other taxes or other sources of income. In consequence of the law of the ever-widening functions of the state, we must demand of the tax system that it shall be able to furnish a constantly increasing revenue.

—3. The "source of taxation" is that economical quantity from which the tax is really paid, and is to be carefully distinguished from thebasis of assessment. The latter term denotes that on which the tax is nominally laid and according to which it is assessed. Thus the so-called property tax, levied on and according to Edition: current; Page: [205] property, is ordinarily is reality an income tax, i.e., it is paid by the property owner out of his income. Where the property is actually diminished from year to year in order to pay the tax, the latter becomes a real as well as a nominal property tax. There are three possible sources of taxation: income or profits; capital, i.e., property used as a means of production; and finally, property in use. It is possible for a tax to be collected from the commodities belonging to each of these three classes of property, or from the money which represents them in the market, in such a way that the sum total of these commodities shall be diminished by the tax.

—The normal source of taxation is national income. By national income we mean the total amount of commodities which come newly into the possession of a nation within a year, and which might have been consumed without lessening the total amount of national wealth at the beginning of the year. In the long run this is the only source from which taxation may draw. A constant or even frequent encroachment on national wealth or capital would soon be stopped by the diminution of the latter. A taxation of national capital, i.e., of the supply of material means of production—or capital in the purely economic sense as opposed to capital in the historico-legal sense—leads necessarily to a limitation of production and to a keenly felt reduction in the standard of comfort. The "sparing of property and capital," the verdict against real taxes on property and capital (i.e., taxes which really diminish property and capital) is, therefore, a universal and highly important principle of the modern theory of taxation. We must keep in mind, however, that a taxation of private or individual capital is not always a taxation of national capital, and that the same objections, therefore, do not apply to a tax a individual which apply to taxes on national capital. Thus a tax on inheritance, while it really diminishes private may not diminish national capital a particle, as it may result in a mere difference of distribution among the citizens. A temperary tax even on national capital or property may be justifiable, in order to support great undertakings on which the existence or continued properity of the nation may depend; as, for instance, to prosecute a necessary war or to introuce much needed reforms in national politics or economy, just as in private business the sacrifice of a portion of the capital or property may be necessary to save the rest.

—4. Regard for the incidence of taxation. The government may determine the basis of assessment or the object upon which the tax is laid, and thereby the person who is to advance this tax in the first place, i.e., the tax payer; but under a system of free competition it has no power to determine the source of taxation or the person who must ultimately bear the tax, i.e., the tax bearer. In reference to the last it may have wishes and intentions, and by its choice of taxes and objects for taxation may do much to realize its wishes and intentions. But what particular private income or property shall ultimately become the real source of taxation, or what particular person shall become the real tax bearer, is determined by the economic process which we call the "shifting of taxation." The latter is the result of a reaction of taxation upon the tax payer. He attempts to get rid of the burden of taxation, either by increasing his income (and therefore regularly by increasing his activity of production) or by collecting from another the tax which he has advanced. This endeavor appears in industry as the shifting of taxation, and expresses itself ultimately in certain changes in production and distribution in the whole national economy. Taxation often distributes itself ultimately, therefore, among the sources of taxation and tax bearers, in a very different way from that in which it was originally levied on the objects of taxation and the tax payers. This ultimate distribution is the important point. It should be consistent with economical principles and with principles of justice. The important problem, therefore, of the theory and praxis of taxation consists in finding out, as accurately as possible, what effects a given tax system or particular kinds of taxes have upon the ultimate distribution of taxation which results from this shifting process.

—Very many theorists, and nearly all practical men, in this sphere of our science have hitherto attributed an undue importance to this process. They see in it a universal panacea for all inequality of taxation, and maintain that every tax, no matter how unjust when first imposed, if it be retained, will in course of time be equalized by this process of adjustment, and hence cease to be unjust. We may call this the optimistic theory. It is well summed up in the motto, "Every old tax is a good one; every new tax, a bad one." However, neither reason nor observation sustains this view. While in many cases such an adjustment as furthers equality does undoubtedly take place, yet in many others it meets very great difficulties, and in some, unsuperable obstacles. It may also be urged against this view that the adjustment often occurs in such a way as to increase inequality. The economically weaker elements of society, being oftentimes unable to shift any portion of their taxation, are further burdened by whatever portion the stronger elements are able to shift from their own shoulder. In any case it is exceedingly difficult to determine what the effect of this shifting process has been, and we have therefore no security that a harmful and unequal system of taxation will distribute itself justly by any process of shifting or reshifting. It is necessary, therefore, to make our system of taxation, from the first, consistent with the principles of economy and justice.—5 and 6. Universality and equality of taxation. The idea of justice in taxation is a purely relative one. A system may be essentially just at one period and under one set of conditions, which under different circumstances would lack every element of justice. In Edition: current; Page: [206] the following we shall speak of just taxation with reference to the conditions of modern industrial life. Our idea of just taxation will depend very largely on our idea as to the present distribution of wealth which has taken place under the régime of so-called free competition. Whoever regards our present system as absolutely right and the only just one, must regard the present distribution of property and income which has taken place under it, as the only proper one. His theory of just taxation will be a system which interferes as little as possible with the actual distribution of wealth in our society. Universality means to him that every citizen, whether his income be large or small, whether it be derived from funds or daily labor, shall be taxed. He must refuse all proposals to remit taxes. Equality of taxation means that every one shall pay an equal numerical proportion of his income as tax, and implies, therefore, a rejection of progressive taxation. But the claim that the existing distribution effected under free competition is the only just one, is, on the one hand, a begging of the question, and, on the other, it ignores the influence of the existing laws of private property which have been inherited from entirely different conditions. The conclusion, therefore, that the present distribution of wealth is a noli me tangere, is unfounded. A second principle has been making its way into theory and practice, which we may call the politico-social principle, according to which taxation is not merely a means of providing revenue for the government, but, in addition, a means of correcting the existing distribution of property. According to this, the rule of universality admits of some exceptions, such as leaving a certain minimum income untaxed. Equality means equal sacrifice; not attempting to realize that, however, by demanding a numerically equal proportional part of all incomes, but by taking a numerically larger proportion with every increase in income, a least within certain limits.

—Two principles have been proposed by which taxation is to be justified and according to which it is to be levied. The first we may call the industrial principle, which would adjust taxation according to "interest," or "service and counter-service." This views the relation of the tax-paying subject to the state as a purely business one. The state performs certain functions, and the individual pays it for such performance. This, of course, is a mere generalization of the fee principle, and is entirely untenable as a general basis for taxation. The second, which we may call the organic principle would regulate taxation according to the ability of the taxed to sustain it. The degree of taxation is determined by the relation between the economic condition of the taxed and the amount of the tax. The justification of taxation lies, accordingly, in the nature of the state and in the relation of the taxed to the state, from which taxation results not as a special counter-service for advantages from the body politic, but as a duty of a member toward the fulfillment of the conditions of the existence and prosperity of the whole to which he belongs. This theory considers the tax as a sacrifice, and equality of taxation is to be established by so adjusting the taxes that they will require an equal sacrifice of all. This is to be accomplished by a system of progressive taxation, i.e., one in which the rate increases with the income. For it is evident that the day laborer who barely earns enough to sustain his family, we will say $400 a year must make a greater sacrifice to pay a 3 per cent. tax, than a capitalist whole income is $10,000 a year, i.e., that $12 is more for the former than $300 for the latter. The first of these principles is naturally the predominating one in all primitive conditions, the second becomes more and more important the more highly the industrial economy is developed.—7, 8 and 9. Definiteness, convenience, economy. These may be called administrative axioms. From our conception of a tax as a sacrifice, it follows, as a matter of course, that every device ought to be adopted to diminish the burden as much as possible consistent with accomplishing our purposes. Definiteness and convenience are really of value only so far as they contribute to economy. Economy in this connection means economy in costs of collection, using that term in its widest sense. We refer to what was said on this point at the close of division II. of this article.

—LITERATURE. At the head of systematic works upon the subject we rank the Finanzwissenschaft, by Adolph Wagner, Leipzig, 1877-82, which was taken as the basis of the foregoing article and largely used in its preparation. It is a revision and rewriting with large additions of the Finanzwissenschaft of Rau. It contains admirable summaries of the literature upon special points as well as upon the subject as a whole. Stein's Lehrbuch der Finanzwissenschaft, Leipzig, 1860; Bergius Grundsatze der Finanzwissenschaft, Berlin, 1865; von Malchus' Handbuch der Finanzwissenschaft, Stuttgart, 1830; von Jakob. die Staatswissenschaft, Halle, 1821; may be mentioned among German works. De Parien, Traité des impots, Paris, 1862-5; J Garnier, Eléments des finances, Paris, 1858; L. Cossa, Elem di scienza della fin., Milan, 1876; are all worthy of notice, and contain summaries of all valuable literature on finance. The English works bearing on this subject will be mentioned at close of article on TAXATION.

FINE ARTS

FINE ARTS, The. The taste for the beautiful, that is to say, the want felt for a certain order and a certain harmony in things form which affect the senses and the intellect, either in sound, color, form or movement, gave birth to the fine arts. To arrange sounds, forms, colors or movements in a manner which shall produce an agreeable impression upon the senses or the intellect, is the object of the musician, the painter, the architect, the sculptor, the poet, or, to use a general Edition: current; Page: [207] term, of the artist. The domain of the fine arts is commonly restricted to painting, sculpture, architecture and music. Some even give the name of art only to the imitation by mechanical means of all forms in their highest degree of natural or ideal beauty. This is what is called plastic art. This word embraces only such arts as drawing, painting, sculpture and architecture, together with engraving and mosaic work. But this definition is evidently too narrow. When a musician or a dancer awakens in the mind a sense of the beautiful, the one by harmonious cadences, the other by graceful and expressive movements, they are artists in the same sense that the painter, the sculptor or the architect is. It is or little importance what may be the material or the instrument which the artist employs to operate upon the senses and the intelligence, provided he succeeds in pleasing them. The fine arts might, therefore, be defined in a general manner as the application of human labor to the production of the beautiful.

—The fine arts are found among all nations, even the most barbarous, but they are more or less perfect, more or less developed, according to the state of civilization and the peculiar aptitudes of the people. The Greeks seem to have possessed in the highest degree the taste for the beautiful, and the faculties necessary to satisfy this elevated want of the senses and the intellect. Hence Greece was for a long time a wonderful studio, in which painters, sculptors, architects, musicians and poets vied with each other in ministering to the ruling passion of an artistic people. Other nations, like the ancient Mexicans, seem to have been entirely destitute of the feeling of the beautiful. The forms of the Grecian statues and monuments are as beautiful as those of the Mexican statues and monuments are hideous.

—Man could make no great advance in the fine arts until after his more pressing wants were satisfied. Music and dancing probably were the first. Although the art of the architect and the sculptor could not be developed before the trade of the mason or the stone-worker, man needed only the graceful play of the limbs to invent dancing, and the free use of his voice or a reed to invent music. It was possible to develop painting, sculpture, and, above all, architecture, only by the aid of the industrial arts. The trade of building must necessarily have preceded architecture. It was the latter's mission to give to each individual edifice the kind of beauty appropriate to its purpose and to local exigencies. In architecture, as in literature, the same style would not apply equally well to all kinds of work. The architect is bound to give, for example, a religious character to a church, a secular character to be theatre or ball room. The Gothic style up to the present time seems to be that which is most appropriate to the manifestation of religious sentiment. In the Gothic cathedral, the ethereal height of the arches, the vast depth of the nave, and the mysterious subdued light from the windows, join with the profound and solemn accents of the Gregorian chant and the grave and majestic tones of the organ, in awakening the sentiment of veneration. The motley style of the renaissance is better calculated to excite mundane and worldly thoughts. Hence it is the one chosen for theatres and ball rooms. The peculiar propensities of nations have naturally exercised a great influence upon the development of the fine arts. A religious and melancholy people alone could have invented Gothic architecture. In Grecian architecture is found that exquisite elegance which marked all the customs as well as all the works of the privileged Hellenic race. The affected and bizarre customs of the Chinese are also found reflected in their architecture as well as in their dress.

—The necessities of climate and the configuration of the ground have exercised a great influence upon the development of architecture, and they have often determined the character of it. Necessities of another order have also operated upon the development of architecture and other arts. Throughout all antiquity is seen the influence which the fine arts exercised over the mind.

—For a long time they were considered as an instrumentum regni, as a means of appealing to and mastering the imagination by terror or respect. The gigantic constructions of the Assyrians and Egyptians—construction, the utility of which we vainly endeavor to discover to-day—had perhaps no other object. These exterior signs of power were then necessary to make a simple-minded people accept the absolute dominion of a race or caste. Those who claimed to be the representatives of divinity upon earth were obliged to show themselves superior to other men, in all that was considered as a manifestation of strength or majesty. The co-operation of the fine arts was indispensable to the display of their power. They needed them to construct their temples and palaces, to ornament them with magnificent decorations, and to fashion their garments and their arms. Architects, painters, sculptors, musicians and poets were not less necessary to them than soldiers and priests in sustaining the imperfect and vicious structure of their dominion. Hence the particular care which governments in all ages have given to the development of the fine arts, and the ostentatious protection which they have accorded them, very frequently to the great detriment of other branches of production. Although, in the past, the fine arts were powerful auxiliaries of politics and religion, as nations have developed intellectually and morally, as their intelligence and sentiments have broadened and become purified, this display has exercised less influence over the minds of the people, and the fine arts have lost their political and religious importance. The taste for the beautiful has ceased little by little to be used as an instrument of domination.

—Economists have put two leading questions on the subject of the fine arts. They have inquired, first, whether the fine arts form a species of national wealth and second, whether the intervention of the government to Edition: current; Page: [208] protect them is necessary.

—Do the products of the fine arts constitute a species of wealth? As regards all that concerns architecture, painting and sculpture, there can be no doubt as to the answer. A building, a statue and a picture are material riches, the accumulation of which evidently augments the capital of a nation. But can as much be said of the products of music and dancing? Can the talent of the musician and the dancer be regarded as productive? Adam Smith says, no; J. B. Say and Dunoyer say, yes. According to Smith's doctrine, the name of products can not be given to things which are ended at the very moment of their formation. To which J. B. Say answers, and rightly, as we think: "If we descend to things of pure enjoyment, we can not deny that the representation of a good comedy gives as much pleasure as a box of bonbons or an exhibition of fire-works. I do not consider it reasonable to claim that the painter's talent is productive, and that the musician's is not so."

—But although J. B. Say recognizes the musician's talent as productive, he does not admit that its products can contribute to the increase of a nation's capital. He states his reasons for this opinion as follows: "It results from the very nature of immaterial products that there is no way to accumulate them, and that they can not serve to augment the national capital. A nation which contains a great number of musicians, of priests and of clerks, might be a nation well endowed as to amusements and doctrines, and admirably well administered, but its capital would not receive from all the work of these men any increase, because their products would be consumed as fast as they were created." (J. B. Say, Traité de téconomie politique, book i., chap. xiii.)

—But does it follow, because a product, material or immaterial, is consumed immediately after having been created, that it does not augment the capital of a nation? May it not augment, if not its external capital, at least its internal capital, or, to make use of Storch's expression, the capital of its physical, intellectual and moral faculties? Would a population deprived of the services of clergymen, administrators, musicians and poets, a population, consequently, to which religious, political and artistic education was wanting, be worth as much as one sufficiently provided with those different services? Would not man, considered at once as capital and as an agent of production, be worth less under the former circumstances than under the latter?

—In his work, De la liberté du travail, M. Charles Dunoyer has completely demonstrated that the consumption of the material or immaterial products of the fine arts develops in man valuable faculties; whence it results that artistic products of the fine arts develops in man valuable faculties; whence it results that artistic production, material or immaterial, can not be considered barren.

—Let us complete this demonstration of the productiveness of the fine arts by means of a simple hypothesis. Suppose her musicians and singers were taken away from Italy, would she not be deprived of a species of wealth, even if these artists were replaced by an equal number of laborers, carpenters and blacksmiths? Italy profits by the work of her musicians and her singers as absolutely as she does from the products of agriculture or of manufacturing industry. In the first place she consumes a part of it herself, and this consumption serves to educate the Italian people by developing their intelligence, by refining and polishing their manners. Then, another part of the products of the fine arts, of which Italy is the nursery, is exported each year. Italy supplies a great number of foreign theatres with its composers, its musicians and its singers. In exchange for their immaterial products, these art-workers receive other products purely material, a part of which they commonly bring back to their own country. What laborer, for instance, would have added so much as Rossini to the wealth of Italy? What seamstress or dressmaker, however capable or industrious, would have been worth as much as Catalani or Pasta from the same point of view? The production of the fine arts can not then be considered barren for Italy.

—The fine arts, then, can contribute directly to augment the capital of a nation, whether material capital or immaterial capital, which resides in the physical, moral and intellectual faculties of the population. They are in consequence productive in the same degree and in the same sense that all the other branches of human work are.

—Artistic production also, like all others, is effected by previous accumulation, the co-operation of capital and labor. In this respect artistic production offers no particular point of interest, except that it gives birth more frequently than any other kind of production, agricultural industry excepted, to natural monopolies. Great artists possess a natural monopoly, in this sense, that the competition among them is not sufficient to limit the price of their work to the level of what is strictly necessary for them to execute it. Jenny Lind possessed a natural monopoly, for the remuneration which she obtained on account of the rarity of her voice, was very disproportionate to what was strictly necessary for her to exercise her profession of a singer. The difference forms a species of rent, in the politico-economical sense of the word, of the same nature exactly as rent derived from land. If nature and art had produced a thousand Jenny Linds, instead of producing but one, it is evident that the monopoly which she enjoyed would not have existed, or that it would have been infinitely less productive. Painters, sculptors and architects possess in their reputation a still more extended monopoly, for it exists and is principally developed after their death. The value of this monopoly depends upon the merit of the artist and upon the quantity of his works. According as the number of works produced by a painter or sculptor is more or less considerable, the price of each one is more or less high. Where the merit is equal, the pictures or statues of the masters who produced the least have a greater pecuniary value than those of Edition: current; Page: [209] the masters whose productions are numerous. Thus, for example, an ordinary picture by the Dutch painter, Hobbema, commonly sells for more than an ordinary picture by Rubens, although Hobbema does not rank so high in art as Rubens. But the former produced only a small number of pictures, while the latter left an enormous number of works. Supposing, also, that the pictures of Ingres and Horace Vernet were equally prized by amateurs, the former would always have a superior pecuniary value to the latter, simply because they are rarer. The differences in the price of objects of art, and the variations which their value in exchange undergoes, notably when fashion takes up again a style which it had abandoned, are curious to study; some valuable ideas are found here in regard to the influence which the fluctuations of demand and supply exercise upon prices, also some interesting information as to the origin, progress and end of natural monopolies.

—After having examined the question of the productiveness of the fine arts, we must now see if this kind of production should be specially directed and encouraged by the government, or should be abandoned to the free action of individuals, like all other kinds of production.

—The Egyptians and all the nations of antiquity condemned to slavery their prisoners of war, and sometimes entire nations whom they had subjugated. They employed these slaves to construct their monuments. We know that the Israelites helped to build the pyramids. But the Egyptian monuments are rather remarkable for their gigantic proportions than for their beauty. It is plain that the object of the people, or rather of the caste which instructed them, was to inspire the mind with awe rather than to charm it. In Greece the products of the fine arts have quite a different character. They bear above all the imprint of liberty. Grecian art was not enfeoffed to a government or a caste. The greatest number of Grecian monuments were built by means of voluntary contributions. The famous temple of Diana at Ephesus, for instance, was erected by the aid of contributions from the republics and kings of Asia, as later was St. Peter's at Rome in part by the money of Christendom. When Erostratus reduced it to ashes, a new subscription was made to rebuild it. All the citizens of Ephesus considered it an honor to contribute. The women even sacrificed their jewels. At Delphos, also, the temple was rebuilt, after a fire, at the public expense. The architect, Spantharus of Corinth, was engaged to complete it, for them sum of 300 talents. Three-fourths of this sum were furnished by the different cities of Greece, and the other fourth by the inhabitants of Delphos, who collected money even in the most distant countries to aid in completing their quota. A certain Athenian added a sum of money for embellishments, which were not included in the original plan. The greater part of the ornaments of the temple were offerings from the cities of Greece or from private citizens. Thirteen statues by Phidias were a gift from the Athenians. These statues were the result of a tenth part of the spoils taken by the Athenians upon the plains of Marathon. A great number of other objects of art commemorated the victories of the different peoples of Greece in their intestine wars.

—A part of the revenue of the Grecian temples was applied to the support of the priests, and another part to the support and embellishment of the edifices. The priests made the greatest sacrifices to ornament the dwelling place of the gods, and these sacrifices were rarely unproductive, for in Greece, as elsewhere, the best lodged gods were always those which brought in the most. The fine arts were also nurtured by the rivalries of the small states, into which Grecian territory was divided, as to which should have the finest temples, statues and pictures. This emulation, pushed to excess gave rise to more than one abuse. Thus it was agreed, after the invasion of the Persians, that henceforth a contribution should be levied upon Greece to defray the common expenses, and that the Athenians should be made the depositaries of it. Pericles did not hesitate to divert these funds from their proper destination, and employ them for the embellishment of Athens. Such an odious abuse of confidence aroused the indignation of all Greece against the Athenians, and was one of the principal causes of the Peloponnesian war.

—The Romans, less happily endowed than the Greeks, from an artistic point of view, did not make such considerable sacrifices for the encouragement of the fine arts. At Rome, as in Egypt, the arts were chiefly employed to display to the eyes of conquered nations the power and majesty of the sovereign people. The construction of monuments of the arts was still among the Romans a means of keeping their troops in habits of work and of occupying their slaves. The taste for the beautiful did not enter much into these enterprises, and art naturally felt the effects of this, Still, under Augustus, there was at Rome a great artistic movement, a movement which was due in great part to the development of communication between Rome and Greece. Augustus caused to be built the protico of Octavia, the temple of Mars Ultor, the temple of Apollo, the new Forum, and many other monuments of less importance. His friends, L. Cornificius, Asinius Pollion, Marcius Philippus, Cornclius Balbus, and his son-in-law Agrippa, erected at their own expense a great number of monuments. Attributing to himself, as is common among sovereigns, all the merit of the advance which the arts had made under his reign, Augustus said, some time before his death: "I found Rome of clay, and left it of marble." At Rome, as in Greece, the statues were innumerable. The greater part of the chief citizens erected statues to themselves at their own expense. The censors endeavored to deprive them of this trifling satisfaction, by forbidding the erection of statues at Rome without their permission. But as this prohibition did not extend to the statues which ornamented Edition: current; Page: [210] country houses, the rich citizens evaded the ordinance of the censors, by multiplying their effigies in their splendid villas.

—At the time of the downfall of the Roman empire, the barbarians destroyed with stupid rage the finest masterpieces of ancient art. The fine arts then disappeared with the temporary eclipse of civilization. But they soon sprang up again, thanks to the expansion of the religious sentiment supported by municipal liberties. Gothic art owes its birth and progress to the Christian sentiment developed in the emancipated communes of the middle age. A fact which is generally ignored is, that the expense of constructing the greater number of the magnificent cathedrals which adorn European cities, was in great part defrayed by voluntary contributions of residents of the city, nobles, bourgeois, or simple journeymen. Nothing is more interesting, even from the simple economic point of view, than the history of these wonders of Gothic art. At a time when poverty was universal, nothing but religious enthusiasm could have decided people to impose upon themselves the necessary sacrifices for their erection. And nothing was neglected to rouse and excite this enthusiasm. The bishop and the priests furnished an example by sacrificing a part of their revenues to aid in constructing the cathedral; indulgences without end were promised those who contributed to the holy work, either by their time or their money. When there was need of it, miracles happened to animate the languishing zeal of the faithful. By casting a glance over the history of the principal cathedrals, one will be convinced that diplomatic skill was no less needed than artistic genius satisfactorily to accomplish those great religious enterprises. At Orleans, for instance, Saint Euverte having undertaken the construction of the first cathedral in the fourth century, an angel revealed to this pious bishop the very place where it should be built. In digging the foundations of the edifice the workmen found a considerable amount of treasure; and the very day of the consecration of the church, at the moment when Sain Euverte was celebrating mass, a resplendent cloud appeared above his head, and from this cloud issued forth a hand, which blessed three times the temple, the clergy and the assembled people! This miracle converted more than seven thousand pagans, and gave a great reputation to the church of Orleans.

—At Chartres, Bishop Fulbert devoted in the first place three years' income and the income from the abbey, to the construction of the cathedral (1220); afterward he collected a considerable sum to continue the work. The pious Matilda, wife of William the Conqueror, was associated with him in his work, and gave the greater part of the lead roofing of the cathedral. A physician of Henry I. built at his own expense one of the lateral portals. Those who had no money gave their work. Workmen of every description voluntarily took part in this enterprise. A great number of the inhabitants of Rouen and of other dioceses of Normandy, provided with the blessing of their archbishop or their bishop, joined the workmen. The troop of pilgrims chose a chief, who apportioned to each his work.

—At Strasburg, great indulgences were promised to the faithful who should contribute to the building of the cathedral. Gifts flowed in from all parts. Still the construction of that magnificent cathedral lasted for nearly four centuries. Commenced in the twelfth century, it was not finished till the fifteenth. The construction of the cathedral gave a great reputation to the stone-workers of Strasburg. These workmen, who furnished the greatest architects of the time, formed in the German empire, as well as in France, a body distinct from that of ordinary masons. Up to the time of the French revolution, they continued to have charge of the repair and preservation of the Strasburg cathedral.

—The cathedrals of Europe, therefore, the most magnificent and most original monuments which it possesses, are due, in a great part, to the zeal and the faith of individuals. Sometimes, doubtless, this faith and zeal were excited by pious frauds; sometimes also the pride of the bourgeois and the workmen were appealed to, to induce them to construct a more spacious and more beautiful cathedral than that of a neighboring and rival city; but in general no recourse was had to coercive measures; there was no levying of taxes to be specially devoted to the construction of churches, the sacrifices which the clergy generously imposed upon themselves and the voluntary gifts of the faithful were sufficient, and assured the multiplication of masterpieces of the Gothic art in an age of universal misery and barbarism.

—In Italy the constitution of a multitude of small municipal republics was singularly favorable to the development of the fine arts. Rivals in commerce, the Italian republics were also rivals in the arts. The rich merchants of Genoa, of Pisa, of Florence and of Venice made it a point of honor to protect the arts and to endow their cities with magnificent monuments. This spirit of emulation seized the popes, and Rome disputed with Florence for the great artists of Italy. The basilica of St. Peter's was commenced; but as the ordinary resources of the papacy were insufficient to complete this immense enterprise, recourse was had to a special issue of indulgences; unfortunately this particular kind of paper, having been made too common, depreciated in value, and ended by being refused in a great number of Christian countries. So the gigantic basilica was never completely finished. With the political and commercial decline of the republics, which spread like a network over Italian soil, commenced that of the fine arts in Italy. The encouragement of despotism has never availed to restore them to the splendor which they had in the time of the municipal republics of the middle age and of the renaissance.

—In France, Louis XIV, thought that in his own interests it was his duty to protect the Edition: current; Page: [211] arts. Prompted thereto by the great king, Colbert founded the academy of fine arts. Unfortunately, the great king and his minister did not adhere to this creation. Louis XIV. spent enormous sums upon his royal dwellings. Under his reign the fine arts became the auxiliaries of war in crushing nations.

—In his learned Histoire de la vie et de l'administration de Colbert, M. Pierre Clément estimated at 165,000,000 livres, money of the period, the sums which Louis XIV. expended in buildings, and in the encouragement of the fine arts and manufactures. The details are as follows:

By taking as a base, adds M. Clément, the mean value of the mark of silver in Louis XIV's time and in 1846, we shall find that the approximate value of the above is about 350,000,000 marks. But when we remember the wonders of Versailles alone, it is probable that all the buildings of Louis XIV., if executed in our day, would cost not far from a billion.

—Still these ostentations expenditures contributed in no way to the progress of the fine arts. Under Louis XIV. art was only a reminiscence of antiquity or of the renaissance. In the eighteenth century, taste in art, fettered by the immutable rules of the subventioned academies, became more and more corrupt. The revolution destroyed official protection, but it was wrong in not stopping there; the vandals of that time placed their sacrilegious hands upon the masterpieces of the past, as if they were suspected of royalism. On the other hand, the ridiculous imitations were reproduced no less ridiculously in the arts. To the corrupt taste of Watteau, Boucher and Vanloo, succeeded the false taste of the school of David. Napoleon did not fail to re-establish official protection. "I wish," he wrote to his minister of the interior, Count Cretet, "I wish the fine arts to flourish in my empire." But the fine arts did not hasten to obey the injunction of the despot, and the imperial epoch was anything but artistic.

—It is a common opinion that modern civilization is not favorable to the progress of the fine arts. As proof in support of this opinion, are cited the English and Americans, who, at the head of industrial civilization, are in a state of inferiority from an artistic point of view. But it is forgotten that all nations are not endowed with all aptitudes, any more than all soils are provided with fertility of all kinds. While certain northern nations obtained as their heritage industrial genius, artistic aptitudes fell to the lot of the southern nations. Certain nations have been for centuries the studios of the fine arts, as others have been the workshops of manufacturing industry. As international exchange becomes more developed, this division of labor will be more marked, and it will facilitate more and more the progress of the fine arts as well as that of the industrial arts. The progress of the arts will be accelerated also by the spread of comfort, which will augment their market, and by the progress of industry, which will place new material and new instruments at their disposal. Fewer palaces, perhaps, will be built, fewer battle pieces painted than in the past, but railway stations and palaces for industrial expositions will be constructed; the splendid and grand landscapes of the new world, which steamships render more and more accessible to European artists, will be painted; and statues will be erected to useful men instead of to conquerors. On the other hand, the use of light materials, of iron and glass for example, renders possible to-day artistic combinations unknown to the ancients. The employment of new instruments, invented or perfected by industry, will give birth to progress in other ways. Has not the multiplication of musical instruments already given an immense impetus to instrumental music? In an artistic sense, as in all others, modern civilization is probably destined to surpass ancient civilization. But if liberty was the essential condition of the progress of the arts in the past, it will be no less so in the future. Like all other branches of production, and more still because of the character of spontaneity which is peculiar to them, and which has given to them the name of liberal arts, the fine arts will progress the more rapidly the sooner they are freed from all protection and all shackles.

FIRE INSURANCE

FIRE INSURANCE (See INSURANCE.)

FISHERIES

FISHERIES. Definition of the term Fishery. To the term fishery must necessarily be granted a wider significance than its derivation seems to permit. By universal consent and usage the industries connected with the capture of whales, turtles, corals and sponges are called fisheries, as well as those which are connected solely with animals grouped by zoölogists with the class of fishes. The exploitation of the products of sea, lake and river constitutes an industry distinct from all others, with methods peculiar to itself. Edition: current; Page: [212] carried on by a class of operatives, appropriately enough called "fishermen," and which can not well be described otherwise than as "the fisheries," or better, "the fishery industry." Inappropriate as, at first thought, it may appear to designate as fisheries the pursuit of seals upon dry land, with clubs and guns, or the dredging of oysters and corals from the decks of steamers, the seeming incongruity disappears when we take into consideration the similarity of method between these industries and other, such as the swordfish fishery and the trawl-net fishery of the German ocean. The most comprehensive interpretation of the term is sanctioned by the usages of the Berlin and London fishery exhibitions, and by that of the tenth census of the United States.

—THE OBJECTS OF THE FISHERY INDUSTRY. In discussing the various kinds of animals, plants and other objects, which are the objects toward which the activity of the fishery industries is directed, it seems most convenient to follow the order of scientific classification.

—Seals, or Pinnipeds. The pinnipeds are divided into three families: the walruses, the eared seals (Otariidæ), and the common seals. The walruses are found only in Arctic seas, and the Atlantic species, formerly ranging down our coast as far as Cape Sable, N. S., is now restricted in American waters to Hudson bay, Davis straits and Greenland. The Pacific walrus still occurs in great numbers in Alaska and northern Siberia, where it is hunted by American whalemen. In 1877 it was estimated that in the preceding ten years at least 120,000 of these animals had been killed by white men in the Arctic ocean and Behring sea, producing about 50,000 barrels of oil and 400,000 to 500,000 pounds of ivory. A considerable number are killed by European whalemen in the North Atlantic, and the Esquimaux of the entire Arctic zone depend largely upon this animal for food, and leather and ivory for manufacturing purposes. The eared seals are of two kinds: the sea lions and the fur seals. The former are used chiefly by the Esquimaux and Indians for food and leather. The latter are the most important of fur-bearing animals. Their skins, when plucked and dyed, command a price of $50 to $80. The most important fur-seal industry is on the Prybilov islands of Alaska, where 100,000 pelts are annually taken by the Alaska commercial company, in accordance with the terms of lease from the United States. Large quantities are also obtained from the Siberian coast, from the islands around Cape Horn, and in the Antarctic ocean. The common seals, of which there are several species on our coast, are valuable chiefly for their skins and oil. The United States does not engage in their capture. There are extensive sealing grounds in West Greenland, where about 90,000 are annually taken by the natives; about Newfoundland, yielding in 1873, 526,000; by Englishmen, and other European seal hunters in the Jan Mayen or Greenland seas, yielding in 1868, at least 250,000; in the White sea, yielding about 100,000; in the Caspian sea, yielding about 130,000. The total annual capture of common seals can not fall far below 1,000,000 individuals, yielding oil to the value of $1,250,000, besides the skins. An immense animal of this group is the sea elephant, (Macrorhinus leoninus), now found chiefly in the Atlantic ocean, though formerly abundant on the west coast of the American continent from California southward. These animals reach the length of eighteen or twenty feet, and one of them yields from 150 to 200 gallons of oil. For more than a hundred years several vessels from New London, Connecticut—formerly also from Sag Harbor and Stonington—have yearly penetrated the ice of the Antarctic ocean to capture these animals at Heard's island and elsewhere. There was formerly an extensive capture of sea elephants on the Californian coast. For a full account of the pinnipeds, and their capture, see J. A. Allen's Monograph of North American Pinnipeds, Washington, 1880, and H. W. Elliott's Monograph of the Seal Islands, a part of the Fishery Census Report, printed in advance.

—Cetaceans. There are two principal groups of cetaceans: those with teeth and with a single blow-hole, the sperm whale, porpoises, etc., and those with two blow-holes, which have the teeth replaced by a sieve-like mass of flexible laminæ—the whalebone of commerce—the right whales, bowheads, finbacks, sulphur-bottoms, etc. The sperm whale, pottfisch, or cachalot. (Physeter macrocephalus), occurs in every ocean, and though preferring warm waters, sometimes approaches close to the Arctic circle. It is one of the most important of cetaceans, yielding large quantities of common oil and a specially fine quality of oil called sperm oil, which, together with spermaceti, is found in the cavities of the ponderous head. Ambergris is a product of the intestines of diseased cachalots. Porpoises, dolphins and blackfish, which are pigmy sperm whales, occur the world over in the open ocean and near the shore. Fifteen kinds have already been discovered in the waters of the United States, the most common of which are the "snuffing pigs," or harbor propoises. (Phocæna brachycion on the east coast, P tomerina on the west), the skunk—or bay—porpoises, (Lagenorhynchus perspicillatus, cast, L. obliquidens, west), and the black-fish, the "caing whale," of Scotland, (Olobicephalus intermedius, east, G. scammoni, west). These are valuable for their oil, particularly that of the heads, which is the porpoise-jaw oil, used in preference to all others by watchmakers and machinists. These animals, particularly the lumbering blackfish, often run ashore in schools of hundreds on certain portions of our coast, a valuable windfall for the inhabitants. The white whale, (Delphinapterus catodon), occurs both in Alaska and on the North Atlantic coast, and is prized both for its fine oil and for its skin which makes the valuable porpoise leather used for mail bags, military accoutrements, etc. The right, or whale-bone whales, are represented in our waters by a number of species. The humpbacks, scrags, sulphur-bottoms Edition: current; Page: [213] and finbacks are large, shy species, much trouble to kill, but yielding fair quantities of common or body oil, though their whalebone is so short as to be of little commercial value. the right whale, and the bowhead, (Balæna mysticetus), are sought chiefly in Arctic seas, the lalttler among the icebergs of the extreme north. The longest slabs of whalebone from an adult bowhead measure from fourteen to seventeen feet. (For details see C. M. Scammon's Marine Mammals of the Northwest Coast and American Whalefishery; San Francisco, 1874.)

—Tortoises. The most important of this group to the United States is the diamond back terrapin, (Malacoclemmys palustris), which occurs in our seaside marshes from Cape Cod to the gulf of Mexico. It is highly esteemed by epicures, and is an important article of commerce. The green turtle. (Chelonia mydas), is a standard article of food, and many hundreds are taken annually at Key West, and in the inlets of Florida and the Carolinas. It affords turtle soup, a standard article of food in the cities of Europe and America. The eggs of this and other sea turties yield a fine oil, which is an article of commerce in South America. The "turtle oil soap" of our markets is, however, made from other substances. The hawkabill turtle, (Eretmochelys imbricata), is a marine species which yields the tortoise shell of commerce. The largest quantities are obtained from the east, the European and Chinese markets being supplied chiefly from Singapore, Manila and Batavia at the rate of 26,000 to 30,000 pounds annually. In 1870 it was imported into Great Britain to the value of $150,000, and from the following countries: Holland, Philippine islands, British India, Straits Settlement, Australia, New Granada, Honduras, West Indies. France, in 1876, imported tortoise shell to the value of $418,000. Certain pond and river turtles are eaten in the United States, and the land turtle, or gopher, (Xerobates carolinus), is one of the chief resources for meat of the negroes of Florida.

—FISHES. The Cod Family. The most important family of fishes, from an economical point of view, is undoubtedly that of the codfishes, which occurs everywhere in the Arctic and temperate waters of the northern hemisphere. The codfish,(Gadus morthua; Swedish, torsk; Norwegian, skrei; German, dorsch, and kablian; Dutch, kabeljau; French, morue, etc.), is found in the North Atlantic and Arctic oceans, from Greenland and Spitzbergen on the north to Virginia and the bay of Biscay. In the Pacific it ranges south to the straits of Fuca on the east, while its limits on the Asiatic coast are not yet known. Everywhere it is the object of extensive fisheries along the shore, and there are important bank fisheries on the banks of Newfoundland, and the other banks along the coast of North America, off the Lofoden islands of Norway, on the shoals in the German ocean, and off the coasts of Ireland and Iceland; in the Pacific, on the banks near the Chumagin islands, and on the Asiatic side. The flesh of the cod is hard, of excellent flavor, is dried with little trouble, so that it may be kept for a long time, and on this account is an important article of commerce, supplying a cheap and nutritious article of food. The oil of the liver is abundant, and useful in the arts as well as in medicine; the roes, salted, form an important article of bait, used in the European sardine fisheries; the swim-bladders form the basis for a fine grade of isinglass, and the skins and tins are made into most useful glues and cements. The other species of the family are useful in similar ways, though the cod is superior to all except in the matter of furnishing material for isinglass and glue, in which it is excelled by the hakes. The roes of the pollock are large, and are by some preferred for bait. The haddock, (Melanogrammus æglefinus), is found in company with the cod in the north Atlantic, though not so widely distributed wither to the north or south. It is highly prized for consumption in a fresh state, though rarely dried. It is a favorite fish for boiling in Europe and in New England, where also it is recognized to be without a rival as a foundation for chowder. The pollock, (Pollachius carbonarius), occurs only in the North Atlantic, its range corresponding closely to that of the haddock, though somewhat more northerly. On account of its darker flesh it is not so highly esteemed as the cod, either fresh or in a dried condition, though many experts believe it to surpass the cod in sweetness and sapidity. The pollock is represented on the west coast of North America by a closely allied species (Pollachius chaleogrammus), which possesses all the economic qualifications of its Atlantic relative. The hakes, (phycis, various species), occur in the Atlantic, over much the same area as the two last-mentioned species, and are captured in large quantities. Next to the cod they are most in demand for salting and drying, their flesh being nearly as while as that of the cod, though of somewhat inferior flavor. When their long ventral fins or "beards" are removed, the uninitiated are unable to distinguish them from cod, and since the introduction of the practice of putting up "boneless fish," cut in strips and packed in boxes, two of the greatest obstacles to the sale of hake under the name of codfish have disappeared. It is but fair to say that conscientious dealers brand their packages with the words "boneless fish," not "boneless codfish," but to the majority of buyers the words have the same significance. The air-bladders of the hakes are large, and immense quantities are used in the manufacture of isinglass. The cusk, (Brosmius brosme), found on ledges and under rocks in localities in the North Atlantic where hake occur, and particularly in Europe, is highly prized as a fish for botling. the ling, (Molva vulgaris), occurs only along the shores of northern Europe, where in is caught with cod and applied to similar uses. There are also several other members of this family, such as the whiting, (Gadus merlangus), of northern Europe, the coal fish, (Pollachius vireus), of northern Europe, and the tomcods, or frost fish, of North Edition: current; Page: [214] America, (Gadus tomcodus of the Atlantic, and Gadus proximus of the Pacific), which have much local importance. The burbot or eel pout, (Lota vulgaris), distributed through the fresh waters of norhtern America. Europe and Asia, is highly esteemed as a food fish on the other side of the Atlantic.

—The Herring Family. The herring family is perhaps of wider importance to mankind than that of the cods, since its representatives are found in every portion of the globe, within the tropics as well as under the Arctic circle, and everywhere constitute an important food resource. They usually congregate in schools, not far from the surface, and are easily caught, particularly at the period of spawning when they assemble in shallow water in closely crowded masses. Two groups, with distinct habits, are found within the family, many species remaining constantly at sea, and spawning on the shallows near the shore, others ascending the rivers in the spring and early summer to deposit their eggs upon the flats—but slightly covered with water—near the sources of the streams in their tributaries. The latter, or anadromous class, give occasion for extensive river fisheries in many parts of the earth, for there are few large rivers in temperate or subtropical regions which have not an abundance of one or more species of the herring family. A well-known example of the latter class is our shad, (Clupea sapidissima), abundant in the rivers of eastern North America, from the St. Johns in Florida to the St. Lawrence, and of late years introduced by artificial processes into the Mississippi and its tributaries. Accompanying the shad are three related species, the spring or branch herring; the alewife of New England rivers, (Clupea vernalis; the glut herring, or blue back, (Clupea antivalis), and the tailor herring or mattawocca, (Clupea mediocris), all of which are of large economic value. Europe has no river fish comparable to the shad, although there are two somewhat similar species in the rivers; one of which, the allice shad, or maifisch of Germany, (Clupea alosa), is sometimes held up as its rival. This fish and the twaite shad, or finte, (Clupea finta), are far inferior in size and flavor to their counterparts on the opposite side of the Atlantic, and are not sufficiently abundant to possess commercial importance. Several attempts have been made to introduce our shad into Europe, and it can not be doubted that by the ingenuity of our fish-culturists this difficult task will yet be accomplished. A fish similar to the shad is said to give occasion for important fisheries in the Yang-tse-kiang and other rivers in China. Of the group confined to the sea, the herring, (Clupea harengus), is the most prominent example, and gives rise to extensive fisheries from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Great Britain, Germany, and Holland. This fish, like the others of the tribe, but pre-eminently among them, is well suited for pickling and smoking, and, thus prepared, is one of the chief food resources of northern Europe. The young of this species is the celebrated "whitebait" ot England, which has of late years been introduced to notice in this country by Blackford, the great fish factor of Fulton market, New York. Within five years numerous establishments for canning young herrings have sprung up in Maine, and "American sardines" are now put up to the amount of nearly $2,000,000 every year. The true sardine of Europe (Clupea pilchardus) has for half a century been the basis of an extensive canning industry in southwestern Europe, and has recently been prepared in canneries on the south coast of England. The young herrings, so immensely abundant, will doubtless soon be utilized in the establishment of a sardine industry in Norway and Sweden, where they are fabulously abundant. On our west coast occur the California herring, (Clupea mirabilis), and the California sardine, (Clupea sagax), which are similar fishes, whose value will doubtless be greater in the future. One of the most important fishes of the United States is the menhaden, or mossbunder, (Brevoortia tyrannus), about 900,000,000 of which are taken annually, to be made into oil and guano. The menhaden fishery, which is on e of the most extensive and remarkable in the world, is carried on chiefly by steamers. Menhaden occur on the west coast of Africa, where, very possibly, an extensive fishery will, in the future, be inaugurated. (For details see Goode's History of the American Menhaden, in Report of U. S. Fish Commission, Part V.) The oil sardine, (Clupea scombrina), of the eastern coast of the Indian peninsula, and the trubu of the Malays, (Clupea toli), are valuable Asiatic species. The latter is extensively captured on the coast of Sumatra for the sake of its roes, which are salted and exported to China. There are many valuable species of this family in the warmer regions of the earth, where, on account of the case of capture they are important articles of local consumption. Certain tropical species are believed with good reason to be poisonous, causing a dangerous sickness (called by the Spaniards of Cuba "ciguatera.") to those who eat them.

—The Makerel Family. The common mackerel, (Scomber acombrus), is one of the most important food fishes of the northern Atlantic, being extensively taken for consumption in a fresh state, by the fishermen of northern Europe, and, in New England and Canada, giving occasion for one of the most important commercial fisheries in the world; pickled herring which have been alluded to as of such importance in the food supply of Europe. The mackerel, like the herring, congregate together in great schools, and are taken, a hundred barrels or more at a time, in the American purse seine. The methods of capture now employed in Europe correspond to those abandoned on this side of the Atlantic half a century ago. Species closely related to the common mackerel are abundant on the coast of California, in Japan, about New Zealand and Australia, and at the cape of Good Edition: current; Page: [215] Hope, everywhere giving rise to fisheries. There are not many other widely important fishes in this family, though all temperate and tropical seas have three or four or more representatives of the family of considerable local importance; particularly is this the case on the east coast of the United States, where occur in greater or less abundance at least twenty-five members of this and the closely related group of Carangidæ, which are marketable, some of which are recognized to be among the choicest food fishes in the world. The pompanoes, (Trachynotus carolinus and allied species), are very highly esteemed, selling at retail in the markets of the large coast cities for fifty cents to $1.50 per pound; these epicurean treasures are taken chiefly south of New York. The Spanish mackerel. (Cybium maculatum), is almost as valuable as the pompano, and is captured in much larger quantities, from Cape Cod southward, especially in the Chesapeake bay, and on the coast of New Jersey. This fish has been successfully propagated by the United States fish commission, and extensive operations in its culture are in contemplation. The tunny, or horse-mackerel, (Oreynus thynnus), is the subject of an extensive fishery in the straits of Messina, and elsewhere in the Mediterranean. Though the number of individuals taken is small, their immense bulk—for their average weight is from 500 to 1,200 pounds—renders the aggregate result of the fishery quite important. This fish is abundant on the coast of New England, but is not at all valued. Large numbers of them are killed annually in the nets and pounds, where they inflict much damage upon the property of the fishermen, but their carcasses are allowed to fall to pieces on the beaches. The various species of albacore and bonito, harpooned so frequently at sea, belong to this family, and many valuable food fishes, such as our crevallé and amber fish, which are collectively of considerable importance to man. Closely allied to the mackerels are the Stromateidæ, the harvest fishes and butter fishes, which are of considerable importance on the Atlantic coast of the United States. The butter fish, (Poronotus triacanthus), the starfish of Norfolk and vicinity, is a favorite in the many seaport towns, and the harvest fish, (Peprilus paru), is in large demand at Norfolk and other southern markets.

—The Salmon Family. The salmons, trouts, chars, graylings and white-fishes are of great importance to the inhabitants of the northern hemisphere, one or more representatives of the group being found in almost every lake, brook or river. These fishes are sedentary in inland waters, except the true salmons, many of which spend a considerable portion of the time between birth and maturity in the estuaries of the rivers in which they were hatched, or at sea, the adults invariably ascending to the headwaters of their rivers when the season of reproduction approaches. The best known of the tribe is the Atlantic salmon, (Salmo salar), once abundant in the rivers of Europe south to France and Portugal, and in those of the United States to the Connecticut, and probably even to the Housatonic and Hudson, now nearly exterminated except in the few streams where stringent protective laws have been enforced. (For details of this and other game fishes see Goode's Game Fishes of North America; New York, Scribner's, 1880-81.) The most important from an economical standpoint is the California, or quinnat salmon, (Oncorhynchus chouicha), which is canned in California, Oregon and Washington, and shipped to all quarters of the globe. California has several other very important species of sea and river salmon, notably the dog salmon, (O. keta); the humpback, (O. gorbuscha); the coho (O. Kisutch), and the nerka (O. nerka). Japan and Siberia have also extensive and valuable salmon fisheries. The chars and lake trouts, though not ordinarily captured by the wholesale, are of much importance, affording food in large quantities, and sport of the most attractive kind. The American lake trout, or Mackinaw trout, (Salvdinus namaycush), is the largest perhaps of this group. The brook trout of eastern North America, (Salvelinus fontinalis), is a prime favorite of angiers. Northern Europe possesses several species of chars, related to our brook trout, prominent among which are the sailbling, (S. salvelinus), and the "ombre chevalier" of the Swiss lakes. The oquassa, or blue-backed trout, (S. oquassa), of the lakes of Maine, is a noteworthy American form. The Dannbe salmon, or huchen, (S. huchu), is also a member of this group. The smelt, (Osmerus mordax), comes in winter from the sea to spawn in the streams from New Jersey to Labrador, and immense quantities of them are shipped to market, packed in ice and snow. It is esteemed a great delicacy. The allied species of Europe, the smelt, or stinte, (O. eperlanus), has a flavor equally fine, but is little prized, chiefly because the fish dealers of Europe do not ordinarily take pains to keep their fish fresh and hard. The surf smelt, (Hypomesus olidus), is an important fish upon the northwest coast of America, as is also the oulachan, or candle fish, (Thaleichthys pacificus), which affords a large quantity of sweet, limpid oil, now being introduced as a substitute for cod liver oil. The capelin (Mallotus tillosus), the lödde of Norway, occurs in immense quantities in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, where it is a favorite food of the codfish. Coming near the shore to spawn in the spring, they give occasion for the extensive spring codfisheries of Labrador. Newfoundland and Finmark. As a bait fish for cod they are, at this season, of great importance. Whitefish of various species, one of the best known being the common lake whitefish, (Coregonus albus), occur in the great lakes of North America, where they give rise to important commercial fisheries, and in other lakes of the new and old world. The gwyniad, the vendace and the pollan of Great Britain, and the madue maræna, schnäpel and felchen of Germany, are well Edition: current; Page: [216] known. The whitefish are delicious in flavour, and are well adapted for transportation in a fresh state as well as for pickling and smoking. They are propagated artificially with much success both in this country and in Europe. The grayling, (Thymallus, various species), are very beautiful and graceful, and therefore celebrated in angling literature. The grayling of the United States, inhabiting Michigan, Wisconsin and Montana, was discovered first about 1867, and has of late years been much discussed. The four families which are of the greatest importance to man, namely the gadoids, cluperiods, scombroids, and salmonoids, having been discussed somewhat at length, it remains to notice briefly the other groups which are of considerable commercial importance. Many families, well worthy of notice, must necessarily be omitted in an essay so much abridged as the preset.

—The Flatfish and Sole Families. The fishes of this groups are of world-wide distribution, and in temperate seas are everywhere of importance as source of food. The largest of the groups is the halibut, (Hippoglossus culgaris), distributed throughout the North Atlantic, North Pacific and Arctic oceans, ranging on the North American coast south to Long Island on the east, and the Farallone islands on the west; while on that of Europe its range is limited by the parallel of 50° north latitude. Its capture in the eastern Atlantic is somewhat casual, but the fisherman of New England carry on extensive halibut fisheries on the offshore banks and in Davis straits; in the stormiest months of winter, as well as in summer, they set their lines hundreds of miles from shore, and the halibut fishery is unquestionably the most perilous pursuit in which seafaring men habitually engage. Halibut are especially well suited for marketing in a fresh condition, since the hardness of their fresh renders it possible to preserve them packed in ice for weeks, without suffering detriment to an extent which would be observed by the ordinary buyer in an inland town. Smoked halibut are highly esteemed throughout the northern United States, while the pickled fins and heads are put up to supply a limited New England market. The turbot, (Rhombus maximus), and the brill, (Rhombus tæxis), are favorite food fishes in Great Britain and the adjoining parts of the continent, and with the sole, (Solea vulgaris), give rise to an extensive fishery with trawl nets. Though attaining a larger size than any of the flounders of our North Atlantic coast, they are yet superior, such as the common flounder, (Paralichthys dentatus), or the flatfish, (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), which are to a great extent neglected by our people. We have no substitute in the eastern United States for the sole, which, in flavour and texture, fax surpasses any of our flatfishes, although we have some magnificent species to which it is zoologically closely similar, tentative experiments have been tried with a view to its acclimation here, and there can be little doubt that this will be accomplished as soon as a really positive effort is made in what direction. The Greenland turbot, so called, (Platysomatichthys hippoglossoides), is brought from Newfoundland by the winter herring fleet, and is often seen in the markets of the eastern cities. It is one of the most delicious of flatfishes, and deserves to be better known. The pole flounder, (Glyplocephalus cynoglossus), inhabits deep holes off the New England coast, where it was discovered in 1877 by the United States fish commission. By many its flesh is highly relished. California has many species of flatfishes in its markets, about all of which pass by the name "sole"; none of them have as yet acquired special renown as a food fish. The turbot of the Black sea, (Rhombus mæoticus), is a species of some importance. The plaice, (platessa culgaris), the scholle of scholleof Germany, is also valued in Europe.

—The Red Perch Family. The rose fish, red perch, or Norway haddock, (eebastes marinus), if of special importance to the natives of Greenland, and considerable quantities are taken in the British provinces and northern New England by shore fishermen, as well as in northern Europe. This family attains its highest commercial importance, however, on our Pacific coast, where under various names, many of them variations of the word rockfish, no less than twenty-eight closely related species occur, all of them highly esteemed for food. A closely related family, (Chiridæ), is also present in great force in that region, six or more species being included in the list of California food fishes. Among these is the cultus cod, or buffalo cod, (Oplaodon elongatus), and several forms of "rock trout."

—The Wrasses and Parrot Fishes. Fishes of the families Labridæ and Scaridæ abound in tropical waters, especially among coral reefs, and with their graceful forms and bright colors are among the showiest and most beautiful of their class. These showy tropical forms are usually dry and flavorless when cooked. There are, however, many less conspicuous species inhabiting temperate water, and a few, a well, in the tropics, which are highly prized for food. In our New England and middle states are the tautog or bluefish, (Tautoga americana), and the cunner, chogset, or blue-perch, (Ctenolabrus adspersus), both captured by hook and line in considerable quantities, and entering largely in local consumption. The scare or scarus of the Mediterranean, (Scarus cretensis), is still highly prized, and in the days of ancient Rome was considered the choicest of fishes, and was introduced from the Troad into the sea between Ostium and Campagua, at great expense, by Elipentius. Coridodax pullus, the butter fish, or kelp fish or New Zealand, is an important food fish; and Lachnolamus falcatus, of the West Indian fauna, the hog-fish of Bermuda, is in many places greatly depended upon in the fish market. The sale of the latter species is forbidden by law in Cuba, on account of supposed poisonous properties of its flesh. It is nevertheless sold in large quantities. Many species Edition: current; Page: [217] of this group are looked upon with suspicion in the tropics, and doubtless at times acquire poisonous properties from their food.

—The Swordfish Family, etc. The members of this family, swordfishes, sail-fishes, and spear-fishes, are eaten in all parts of the world. The only commercial fisheries, however, are along the shores of Sicily and Calabria, and along the shores of Sicily and Calabria, and of New England, where the common swordfish, (Xiphias gladms), is pursued with harpoon and line similar to those employed by whalemen. The flesh of this enormous fish is excellent, either fresh or pickled. (For details see Good's History of the Swordfish Family, in Report of U.S. Fish Commission, Part VIII.) The silvery hair-tail, or scabbard fish, (Trichurus lepturus), a near relative of swordfish, is an important species at Jamaica.

—The Surf fish Family. The surf-fishes of the Pacific coast, constituting the family Embiotocida, are best known from their remarkable habit of bringing forth their young alive. They are among the most important food fishes of the Calilfornian coast, and twelve distinct species are known from the San Francisco markets.

—The Drum Family, (Scianidæ). The drum family occurs in all the warmer parts of the Atlantic and Indian oceans, and is well represented on the Pacific coast. The species are nearly all large, and are of such excellent quality for food that the family would seem to deserve mention among the few which are of the greatest importance to man. The drums, however, with a few exceptions, do not congregate together in schools, and can only be caught by the slow processes of hook and line fishing from the shore, and are therefore rarely, if ever, the objects of special fisheries carried on upon a commericial basis. Our eastern coast is particularly well stocked with edible fishes of this family, such as the well-known squeteague, or weakfish (Cynoscian regalis), and its southern representative, the spotted trout or sea trout, of the South Atlantic states, (C. carolinus), which are valued not only a particularly fine quality of isinglass, and are caught in large numbers in weirs and scines. The drum, (Pogonias chromis), is well known as one of the most destructive enemies of the oyster beds, and, when young, is a desirable food fish. The fresh-water drum, (Haploidonotus grunniens), distributed widely throughout the great lakes and the Mississippi basin, is known by numerous local titles, such as gaspergou, jewel head, sheepshead, and maleshagenay. The lafayette, spot or goody (Liostomus obliquus), and the croaker, (Micropogou undulatus), are well known types of the smaller members of this family, all consumed in large quantities from New York southward. The drum of the Chesapeake, the redfish or channel bass of southern waters, (Sciænops ocellatus), often attains the weight of forty of sixty poinds, and is captured in large quantities in nets and with the hook. The kingfish, (Menticirrus nebulosus), and the whiting of Charleston, (M. alburullus), are also important species, and next to the pompano, Spanish mackerel, and sheepshead, are the most highly prized by epicures and most costly in the market. The queen-fish, the bagre and the roncador are members of this group, well known in California. The maigre, (Sciana aquilla), and the ombre, or coroo, (Umbrina cirrusa), are European food fishes, and others of commercial importance occur at the cape of Good Hope and in the East Indies.

—The Sheepshead Family. The sheepsheads, or sea breams, are, like the drums, of importance everywhere, but though caught in quantities in the aggregate, with hook and line, among the rocks where they feed, they can not ordinarily be taken by wholesale method. An exception to this general statement may be made in the case of the scup, or porgy, (Stenitibeys argyrops), which is the subject of an extensive trap fishery in Narragansett bay, during the spawning season in the spring. (See Baird in Report of U.S. Fish Commission, part I., pp. 228-235.) The sheepshead, (Archosargus probatocephalus), occurs from Cape Cod southward to the gulf of Mexico, and is a favorite of anglers and epicures, besides being a prominent feature in many markets. The sailors' choice, or pin-fish, (Lagodon rhomboides), is a small species of value. The sargo of the Mediterranean is well known, and there are in the east numerous important fishes of this group, among them the snapper, (Pagrus unicolor), one of the chief fishes of southern Australia and New Zealand,Pagellus lithognathusof the cape of Good Hope, and Chryophrys hastaof the East Indies and China.

—The Snapper Family. Several members of this family, (Prislipomatidee), occur in the markets from New York south ward under the name of grunt, and numerous similar forms occur elsewhere in warm seas. The red snapper, (Lutjanus blackfordii), is the most important of its representatives in the United States, giving rise to a large and constantly increasing reef fishery in the gulf of Mexico, from which Pensacola and New Orleans derive a large income. The gray snapper, (Luljanus caxis), and the red snapper, (L. autolycus), are among the most important food fishes of the Bermuda.

—The Perch Tribe. The sea basses proper, (Serranida), like the fishes of the three families last mentioned, while not captured by wholesale means, are of much importance to the local fisherman of many regions. The sea bass of New England and the middle states, (Centropristis atrarius), the blackfish of Charleston and the south, is one of the best representatives of the group. New York, Noank, Philadelphia and Charleston all have small fleets of fishing vessels chiefly engaged in their capture. The grouper, (Epinephelus morio), gives rise to considerable smack fishery in the gulf, carried on by New England and Florida fishermen for the supply of the Havana market. Numerous other species of local repute might be mentioned. The family Labracide, closely allied to that just mentioned, includes our striped bass, or rockfish, (Morone lineata), one of the noblest of game fishes, and of great commercial value withal, which is Edition: current; Page: [218] found from the gulf of St. Lawrence to Florida, and is taken both by hook and by net in all the rivers and estuaries. The bass of England, (Morone labrax), is a very similar fish. Our white perch, (Morone americana), is sold in immense quantities in markets south of Cape Cod, and is one of the most useful of our smaller fishes. The white bass, and the short striped bass and similar forms, inhabit the great lakes and the Mississippi basin. The common perch, (Perca fluciatilis), occurs in lakes and streams throughout eastern North America, Europe, and northwestern Asia, and is everywhere of great local importance. The pike perches, represented in the United States by at least two species of the genus stizontedium, known in the interior states by such names as wall-eyed pike, sauger, and frequently also erroneously by such names as salmon and salmontrout, are important, as is also the zander, (Lucioperca zandra), of continental Europe. A family, allied to the perches, which attains its highest development in North America, is that of the breams, (Centrarchidæ). In addition to the two species of Micropterus, the large-mouthed black bass, (M. salmoides), and the small-mouthed black bass, (M. dolomicu), so well known throughout the United States, we have in the streams and rivers—particularly those east of the Rocky Mountains—numerous smaller forms known by such names as breams, bass, sun-fish, etc. The bluefish, (Pomatomus saltarix), is the only noteworthy species in a very small family. (See Baird in Report of U.S. Fish Commission, Part I., pp. 235-252.) It;is of great importance on our coast from New England to Cape Hatteras, but though found in almost all warm seas is elsewhere oflittle economic value. The moon-fish, (chæ'odipterus faber), called porgy in the Chesapeake bay, is another important isolated species. This fish—which as a table fish is similar to, and equals, if not surpasses, the sheepshead—is taken abundantly in the Chesapeake, and is rapidly coming into notice in the markets of New York, Baltimore and Washington.

—The Mullet Family. The mullet family, (Mugilida), sometimes called "the gray mullets," occurs everywhere in the brackish waters of temperate and tropical regions. Over seventy species are already known. They swim in schools, and being easily caught in simple nets, form an important article of food for the poor whereverthey occur. In Italy, mullet roes are esteemed a delicacy, and, when salted and smoked, constitute the renowned "botargo." The mullets of the southern Atlantic, (Mugil lineatusand M. brasiliensis), give occasion for a considerable shore fishery.

—The Anchory Family. The family of anchovies, (Engraulidæ), is of comparatively small importance save in southern Europe, where considerable quantities of these tender little fish are preserved in oil, or put up in the form of a relish under the name of anchovy sauce.

—The Catfish Family. The catfishes are always of some local importance, but nowhere give rise to commercial fisheries of considerable extent. In Philadelphia and in Washington considerable quantities are annually marketed.

—The Carps and Suckers. Suckers, dace, and other brook fishes belonging to the families Cyprinnidæ and Catostomidæ, are of local importance in Europe and North America. The common carp, (Cyprinus carpio), for two centuries a highly prized domestic animal of Europe, has, since 1877, been introduced into all parts of the United States by the United States fish commission, and is undoubtedly a most valuable accession to the food resources of the country. The buffalo carps, (Bubalichthys urus), and other species of the Mississippi valley, are of immense size for fresh-water species, sometimes weighing fifty or sixty pounds. It is quite possible that if domesticated they would be of more value than even the Germancarp.

—Various Minor Families. The eel, (Anguilla culgaris), is also of local importance in Europe and eastern North America. Hatched from the eggs at sea, the little female eels, when not larger than a common darning needle, ascend the rivers to their sources. After three or four years they descend to the sea, where they encounter the males, propagate their kind, and die. On their downward descent they are caught in "eel sets," or weirs, placed across the river at right angles to its current. (for details see Goode, article in Bulletin of U.S. Fish Commission, Vol. I.) The marays, various species of Muranida, and related families, are of importance in tropical countries. The sturgeons, (Acipenseridæ), are of most importance in Russia, where the Sterlet, (Acipensar ruthenus), and some of the larger species afford material for the much prized caviare. An extensive sturgeon fishery is growing up in the rivers of the eastern Atlantic states, and large quantities of the lake sturgeon. (Acipenser rubicundus), are caught in our great lakes. Quantities of caviare and smoked sturgeon are now put up in the United States to supply the demands of the large foreign-born population. Sharks are much dreaded, the world over, on account of their size and voracity, though in temperate regions they are rarely dangerous to men. In the United States we have but two species of commercial value, though many are pernicious on account of the annoyance they cause to the fisherman. The dog-fish, (Squatus americanus), is caught in quantities on the New England coast for the sake of its liver, rich in oil. In California the oil shark, (Galeorkinus galeus), is the subject of a considerable fishery. Oil is casually obtained from many other of our common sharks, particularly the basking shark, (Selache maxima), the liver of one of which will yield several barrels of valuable oil. Throughout the East Indies there are in various localities, particularly at Kurrachee, extensive shark fisheries carried on for the purpose of obtaining the fins for drying and export to China. Small sharks are eaten in many countries. Skates are eaten in Europe, and a small quantity of their fins is now consumed in New York. From the skins of skates and sharks ornamental leather called shagreen, (also used for polishing purposes by metal and wood-workers,) Edition: current; Page: [219] is obtained, Lampreys, (Petromyzontidæ), though esteemed as food in Europe, are not used in the United States, save at Hartford, Connecticut. In the codfishery of the German ocean they are of the highest importance for bait.

—Mollusks. The oyster, (Ostrea, varios species), is the most important of all mollusks, and is more abundant and valuable in our southern Atlantic states than elsewhere, its production amounting to $13,000,000 annually. The oysters of Europe are, like those of California, less abundant, smaller, and to the American taste of inferior quality. Oyster culture is extensively prosecuted, and with considerable success, on the coasts of France, and to a less degree in Holland. Without some special effort our oyster fisheries bid fair to become extinct within a quarter of century. (For details See Ernest Ingersoll's The Oyster Industry of the United States, a part of the Fishery Census Report, printed in 1881.)

—The eastern United States is well provided with other delicious shellfish, the clam, (Mya arenaria), the quahog, (Venus mercenaria), and the scallop, (Pecten irradians). Little attention is paid in this country to the mussels and snails, so much eaten by the lower classes in Europe, and of which we have an abundant supply.

—The most important source of mother-of-pearl which we have is the abalone or ear-shell, (Haliotis various species), found on our Pacific coasts. In 1880 $703,250 worth of their shells and dried flesh were gathered, the latter exported to China. There is a vast undeveloped resource in the fresh water mussels (Unionidæ) so abundant in the Mississippi valley. The greatest part of the mother-of-pearl of commerce comes from the pearl fisheries of the east, in the gulf of Manaar, in Ceylon and southern India, in the Persian gulf, on the coast of Australia and in the bay of Panama. Statistics of these fisheries can not well be given. Simmonds estimates that between 1769 and 1877 Ceylon produced over $5,000,000, Tutecorin in 1861 about $50,000, the Persian gulf about $2000,000, and the bay of Panama about $125,000. In 1870 pearis to the value of about $123,000 were imported to France and Great Britain, Cameos are made from the helmet shells, (Cassis, various species), and from the conch, (Strombus gigas), large quantities of which are gathered annually in warm seas. From the latter is made the pink shell jewelry, of late coming into favor. The chank shell (Turbinella pyrum) is the sacred shell of India, and is used in their temples as well as in various manufactures. The fisheries of the Indian ocean yield from four to five millions of these shells annually worth from $50,000 to $75,000. The cowry shell, (Crypræa, various species), is the only coin in use in parts of Africa and India, and immense quantities, of uncertain value, are yearly sent to those countries. The "cuttle-fish bone" of commerce is obtained from a species of squid abundant in the Mediterranean, and vast supplies of dried cuttle fish are imported into China, for food, from all eastern seas. The squid is gathered in large quantities on our eastern coast for baiting in the cod fisheries, and affords employment to a number of schooners. The minor uses of mollusks are multifarious.

—Crustaceans. The lobster is the most important of crustaceans, and is still very abundant on the coast of our middle and New England states as well as that of Nova Scotia. In addition to the large quantities consumed in a fresh state, there is a product of canned lobsters worth $238,280. New England capital supports seventeen lobster canneries in Canada, the entire product of which is exported to England, and is not recorded upon the export records of our custom houses. Norway has extensive lobster fisheries and the neighboring countries of northern Europe obtain smaller harvests, Crawfish, (Aslacusand Cambarus, numerous species), are very abundant in the United States, but are not yet appreciated; in Europe they are highly esteemed, and command liberal prices, Shrimps, too, so largely consumed in Europe, are rarely caught in this country; there are one or two shrimp canneries on the coast of the gulf of Mexico, and in California large quantities are dried for export to China. Crabs are eaten in all parts of the world. On our eastern coast the blue crab (Callinectes hastatus) is extensively captured, and, especially when in the "softshell" condition, is a favorite article of food. Canneries have recently sprung up on the shores of the Chesapeake.

—Worms. The palolo (Palolociridis)is an important article of food at the Navigators' islands, and many tribes of American Indians feast periodically upon worms and insect larvae. The only worms of importance to civilized man are the medicinal leeches, (Hirudo medicinedis of Europe, and allied forms). Most of the leeches used in this country are imported, though certain American leeches, as Macrobdella decora, are by many authorities considered valuable for surgical purposes.

—Radiates. The precious red coral. (Corallium nobile), comes chiefly from the Mediterranean, though a small quantity is obtained at the Cape Verde islands and certain less valuable kinds from India, the Malay archipelago and Japan. A rough estimate places the value of the annual production coral at $2,500,000, in an unmanufactured state. The trepang, or beche de mer, belongs to group of holothurians, closely related to the star fishes. They are obtained in quantity in all eastern seas, and are dried for exportation to China, where they constitute a favorite article of food. The value of the Chinese import may be anywhere from $500,000 to $1,000,000. About 1870 an establishment for drying trepangs was in operation at Key West, but it was soon abandoned. Abundant as these animals are on our own southern coasts and in the West Indians, no use can be made of them until "Chinese cheap labor" is introduced into those regions.

—Sponges. Sponges are obtained in the Mediterranean to the value of at least $2,000,000 annually, and the greater part of the sponges used in the United States are still imported. Edition: current; Page: [220] Florida has a large and growing sponge industry, and, except in the finest qualities, experts consider the product of the Gulf equal to that of Europe.

—APPARATUS OF THE FISHERIES. Although it is impossible in this essay to describe all the forms of fishery apparatus, it seems appropriate to call attention to their general character and to caution the reader against certain popular errors, into which, owing to similarity of names, persons unfamiliar with the fisheries are likely to fall. The hook and line is the commonest instrument of capture, and, varied in form and material, is used in much the same manner in all parts of the world. The trawl line, set line, spilliard, trot line or bull-tow, used in North America and northern Europe, consists of numerous short lines, each with hook attached, fastened at intervals along a heavier main line. A New England trawling schooner often lays out ten to fourteen miles of trawl line. Drailing, trailing or trolling should be distinguished from trawling. In fishing by this method a spoon bait, squid or batted hook is rapidly pulled across the surface of the water, either from a boat in motion or from a station on the shore. The trawl net of Europe should be carefully distinguished from the trawl line, with which it is often confused by the inexperienced. This is an immense bag net, dragged slowly over the bottom, for the capture of soles, turbots and other ground-loving species, its mouth being kept open by a framework of iron and wood (beam-trawl) or by two broad boards or otters, spread apart by the pressure of the water (otter-trawl). The dredge, used in the oyster fisheries and in scientific exploration, is a net similar to a trawl net, but much smaller, its mouth being formed of a framework of iron from two to four feet wide. The oyster dredge is often made entirely of iron. Seines are of all sizes, from that of ten feet (used by two persons, wading) to those a mile or more in length, used in the shad fisheries of the Potomac and the North Carolina sounds, set and hauled by the use of steam. The purse-seine, used with such tremendous effect in the menhaden and mackerel fisheries of the United States, is an immensely deep and long net, which, after it has been made to encircle a school of fish is drawn together in the form of a purse or pocket, from which the fish are bailed out with shovel or scoop nets. The gill net is a net with large openings into which fish thrust their heads and are retained by the pressure of the twine. The pound net, trap net, weir, bar net, fyke, eel basket, lobster pot, mudgrague, and numerous other devices, are all forms of the labyrinth trap, the fish gaining access to the interior through a tortuous or narrow passage, through which, from lack of intelligence, they are unable to return to freedom. Fish spears, grains, gigs, etc., are all many-pronged forks with barbed tips, which are used, the world over, in striking large fish, turtles and porpoises. The harpoon, originally a one-tined spear, with single or double prong, is now usually constructed on the principle of a toggle, the head turning upon a pivot after it has entered the flesh of the animal struck. The "lily iron" or "Indian dart," used in the sword fishery, is the form of the toggle-harpoon. Toggle-harpoon-heads are now frequently shot into whales by means of large guns, and the use of explosive bullets is becoming general in the whale fishery of the United States.

—FISHERIES OF THE STATES. Owing to the fact that at the time of the preparation of this article the statistical results of the investigation of the fisheries made in connection with the tenth census are not fully compiled, it is only possible to present a partial statement of the condition of the fisheries. The figures presented are, in the main, to be regarded as final, though certain correctionswill necessarily be made hereafter in the statistics of the gulf states, and of other localities.

—The total value (to the producers) of the products of the fisheries, is $44,870,232. The prices upon which this estimate is based are very low, and if the value of the product were estimated on the basis of prices paid by retail merchants to jobbers and wholesale dealers, the amount would be at least $90,000,000, and probably much more. In addition to the sum above stated, which has reference solely to the sea and great river and lake fisheries, the smaller rivers and lakes of the continent yield products, the value of which, at the lowest estimate, is $1,500,000. More than half of the value stated is in the product of the class of fisheries which has been designated by the term "general food fisheries," which includes all of our great food fisheries along shore and at sea, most prominent among these being the cod, halibut, salmon, herring, mackerel, haddock and lobster fisheries, allof which, though sometimes carried on as special fisheries, are so interwined in matters of capital, vessels and fisherman, that it is impossible todiscuss them separately except at great length. The yield of the so-called general fisheries is valued at $25,128,717. Next in importance is the oyster fishery, valued at $13,403,832, the whale fishery at $2,323,948, the menhaden fishery at $2,116,787, and the seal fishery at 81,390,313, followed by the sponge fishery at $200,750, and the marine salt industry at $305,890.

—In these several fisheries are directly employed 132,081 persons, of whom 102,758 are fishermen, and 29,323 are "shoresmen," being men employed on the wharves in packing and curing fish, or in the numerous canning establishments. The number of vessels overfive tons in burden in 6,605, valued at $9,358,282; of boats 44,800, valued at $2,460,000. The total amount of capital invested in the fisheries, including the value ofvessels, boats, apparatus and shore property, is put at $38,336,000.

—The New England states stand first in importance, since from the ports of this district most of the deep sea or off-shore fisheries are prosecuted. The total number of persons employed is 37,043, of whom 28,838 are actual fishermen. The capital invested amounts to $19,937,607, there being Edition: current; Page: [221] 2,126 vessels, valued at $4,562,131, and 14,787 boats, valued at $739,970, besides outfit, apparatus and shore property in proportion. The value of the product is placed at $14,270,393, of which about $10,,000,000 is distributed to the general fisheries; $2,211,385 to the whale fishery; $1,478,900 to the oyster fishery; $439,722 to the menhaden fishery; $111,851 to the Antarctic seal and sea elephant fishery; and $3,890 to the marine salt industry.

—Next in importance stand the southern states, which employ 58,204 persons, 44,230 of whom are actual fishermen; 18,283 boats, valued at $685,476; 3,211 vessels, valued at $2,683,521, together without fit, gear and shore property sufficient to bring the total amount of capital invested up to $9,496,991.4. The total value of products for this division is estimated at $11,025,027, the general fisheries being rated at $3,236,137; the oyster fishery at $7,382,052; and the sponge fishery at $200,750.

—The fisheries of the southern states are naturally divided into two sections: those of the gulf of Mexico and those of the Atlantic coast. Messrs. Earll and McDonald present the following summary of statistics for the latter, including sea and river fisheries of Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and East Florida:

"The only persons included in the tables are those who fish extensively, or devote a considerable portion of their time to preparing and marketing fishery products. Parties fishing for pleasure or home supply are wholly neglected, though an estimate of the fish taken by them is included. A large majority of the fishermen are married, having families depending upon them. Assuming that 30,000 families are represented, the total number of people dependent upon the fisheries of this district will scarcely fall below 200,000. Fully five-eighths of the entire number are Americans, nine-tenths of the remainder are negroes, and the rest are foreigners, chiefly of Spanish descent." "The $9,602,737 represents the sum realized by the fishermen as the result of their labor, and not the market value of the catch. Owing to the cost of transportation, the expense of icing and packing, and the profits of the various middlemen, the values of many of the products are greatly increased before they finally reach the consumer. If the market value of the products be desired, fully $7,000,000 must be added to the above figures."

—Following the southern states, forming a group third in importance, stand the states and territories of the Pacific coast. In Oregon, Washington and California there are 5,555 fishermen and 5,060 shoresmen and factory hands. The total number of fishermen in Alaska is estimated at 6,000, though practically nearly the entire population of the territory, men, women and children, are actively engaged in the fisheries. On our Pacific coast there are 5,547 boats, valued at $404,695; and 53 vessels, worth $178,450. The total amount of capital value of the product, including $2,345,547 for enhancement of value upon 43,389,442 pounds of salmon in canning, amounts to $9,438,277, $3,715,668 (or $6,061,215 if the enhancement on salmon be included,) of this amount is credited to general fisheries; $703,250 to the oyster and mussel fisheries; and $225,300 to the whale fishery (a small quantity of seal and salmon, and shark oil, being included)

—The middle states constitute a group fourth in importance. With the great-lake fisheries of New York and Pennsylvania included, the statistics of these four states are as follows: Persons employed, 16,017, of whom 13,482 are actually employed in fishing. Number of vessels, 1,211, (with tonnage of 23,576,50), valued at $1,385,600; of boats 8,501, valued at $560,347, together with other property sufficient in value to increase amount of capital invested to $4,309,828. Value of products, $8,874,899; of which $3,111,040 is classed under general fisheries, $4,532,900 under oyster fishery, and $1,261,385 under menhaden fishery. The value of the river and lake fisheries of the middle states is placed by Earll and McDonald at $634,921, a portion of which, $208,320, is to be deducted if the value of the river fisheries of the Atlantic coast is to be separately considered. The fisheries of the great lakes are, perhaps, most conveniently discussed in a separate group. The value of the coast fisheries of the middle states is $8,666,579.

—The fisheries of the great lakes, as tabulated by Mr. F. W. True, in census bulletin No. 261, employ 5,050 fishermen; 49 steam tugs; 1,656 vessels and boats; and capital in the aggregate to the amount of $1,345,975. The total number of pounds of fish taken is 68,742,000, valued at $1,632,900 in fresh condition, and $1,784,050 when finally put upon the market by producers. The fisheries of Lake Michigan are most important, employing 1,578 men, and $531,135 capital; 612 vessels and boats (30 of which are tugs), valued at $125,895; 476 pound nets; 24,599 gill nets; 19 seines, and 1,455 smaller nets; and producing 23,141,875 pounds of fish, (12,030,400 whitefish, 2,639,450 trout, 3,030,400 lake herring, 3,839,600 sturgeon, 110,925 "hard fish," 408,800 "soft fish," 508,600 "coarse fish," and 533,700 "mixed fish"), valued at $668,400. Those lf Lake Erie are almost as important, employing 1,470 men; 538 vessels and boats; 758 pound nets; 5,755 gill nets, and 8,145 smaller nets; with aggregate capital invested of $503,500; and producing 26,607,300 pounds of Edition: current; Page: [222] fish, (2,185,800 whitefish, 26,200 trout, 11,874,400 lake herring, 1,590,000 sturgeon, 4,214,800 "hard fish," 5,994,900 "soft fish," 43,000 "coarse fish," and 1,178,2000 "mixed fish"), valued at $412,880. Lake Superior has 414 fishermen; 155 boats; $81,380 invested capital; 43 pound nets; 4,630 gill nets; 32 seines; 2000 small nets; and produces 3,816,625 pounds of fish, (2,257,000 of which are whitefish), valued at $118,370. Lake Huron, (with Lake St. Clair), has 976 men; $155,910 capital: and produces 11,536,200 pounds of fish, worth $293,550. Lake Ontario has 612 men; $54,050 capital; and produces 3,640,000 pounds of fish, worth $159,700.

—In addition to the fishermen mentioned above, there are Canadian fisheries of considerable extent, the product of which is largely sold in the United States.

—As has already been indicated, New England possesses the most important fisheries in the United States, and they are also, without doubt, the most profitable and extensive in the world. Norway, with 56,000 fishermen, produces not over $12,000,000 value of fishery products annually, while New England, with 29,000 fishermen, or with 37,000 if all shoresmen are counted, produces $14,000,000. The close rivalry of the southern states with New England is due to the extent of the oyster fishery. Remove this, and the value of the fisheries of the south remains only $3,400,000. Eliminating the salmon industry, the general fisheries of the Pacific slops are worth only $2,800,000. The general fisheries of New England alone are worth about $10,000,000.

—With a coast line of 5,013 miles5. extending from the Arctic circle almost to the tropics, and with flashing fleets in Arctic, Antarctic and Equatorial seas, the United States participates in almost every kind of fishing known to mankind, except the coral fishery. The extent and variety of its fishery interests were especially evident on the occasion of the late international fishery exhibition in Berlin, in which the United States was brought into comparison with all the countries of the world which posses commercial fisheries, except France.

—The coast fisheries, or those carried on from the shore with small boats, are similar in character and extent to those of other countries. There are, in addition to these, certain special fisheries, in large part peculiar to this country, to which reference must be made, though this article is too limited to permit their satisfactory discussion.

—The menhaden fishery is different from any other in the world. The commercial importance of the menhaden has but lately come into appreciation. Twenty-five years ago, and before, it was thought to be of very small value. A few millions were taken every year in Massachusetts bay, Long Island sound, and the inlets of New Jersey. A small portion of these were used for bait; a few barrels occasionally salted in Massachusetts to be exported into the West Indies. Large quantities were plowed into the soil of the farms along the shores, stimulating the crops for a time, but in the end filling the soil with oil parching it and making it unfit for tillage. Since that time manifold uses have been found. As a bait fish this excels all others; for many years much the greatest share of our mackerel was caught by its aid, while the cod and halibut fleet use it rather than any other fish when it can be procured. The total consumption of menhaden for bait, 1877, did not fall below 80,000 barrels, or 26,000,000 of fish, valued at $300,000. Ten years before, when the entire mackerel fleet was fishing with hooks, the consumption was much greater. As a food resource it is found to have great possibilities. Many hundreds of barrels are sold in the West Indies, while thousands of barrels are salted down for domestic use by families living near the shore. In many sections they are sold fresh in the market. About 1872 there sprung up an important industry, which consists in packing these fish in oil, after the manner of sardines, for home and foreign consumption. In 1874 the production of conned fish did not fall below 500,000 boxes. This industry has now been discontinued, the herring proving to be better suited for canning. As a source of oil, the menhaden is of more importance than any other marine animal. Its annual yield usually exceeds that of the whale (from the American fisheries) by about 200,000 gallons, and, in 1874, did not fall far short of the aggregate of all the whale, seal and cod oil made in America. In 1878 the menhaden oil and guano industry employed capital to the amount of $2,350,000; 3,337 men, 64 steamers, 279 sailing vessels; and consumed 777,000,000 of fish. There were 56 factories, which produced 1,392,644 gallons of oil, valued at $450,000, and 55,154 tons of crude guano, valued at $600,000: this was a poor year. In 1874 the number of gallons produced was 3,373,000; in 1875, 2,681,000, in 1876, 2,992,000; in 1877, 2,427,000. In 1878 the total value of manufactured products was $1,050,000; in 1874 this was $1,809,000; in 1975, $1,582,000; in 1876, $1,671,000; and in 1877, $1,608,000. It should be stated that in these reports only four-fifths of the whole number of factories are included. The refuse of the oil factory supplies a material of much value for manures. As a base for nitrogen it enters largely into the composition of most of the manufactured fertilizers. The amount of nitrogen derived from this source, in 1875, was estimated to be equivalent to that contained in 60,000,000 pounds of Peruvian guano, the gold value of which would not have been far from $1,920,000. The yield of the menhaden fishery in pounds in probably triple that of any other carried on by the fishermen of the United States. In the value of its products it is surpassed by three only: the cod fishery, which in 1876 was estimated to be worth $4,826,000; the whale fishery, $2,850,000; and the mackerel fishery, $2,275,000; the value of the menhaden fishery for this year being Edition: current; Page: [223] $1,658,000. In 1880, with an increased value of products, the menhaden fishery yielded $2,116,787. In estimating the importance of the menhaden to the United States, it should be borne in mind that its absence from our waters would probably reduce all our other sea fisheries to at least one-fourth their present extent.

—The salmon fishery of the Pacific is another industry peculiar in its methods and extent. The salmon which throng the rivers of this region as they ascend to their spawning beds are taken in gill nets, to the number of 2,755,000 (in 1880), weighing 51,862,000 pounds, 3,370 fishermen, with 1,715 boats, worth, together with nets and other apparatus, $142,900, are engaged in their capture. A limited quantity (1,585,500 pounds of fish, 1,246,000 prepared,) is salted, and a still smaller quantity smoked. By far the larger portion of the catch is put up in hermetically sealed cans. In the canning industry are 45 establishments, employing 4,940 hands—for the most part Chinamen—and with capital to the amount of $1,239,000. These factories consumed, in 1880, 43,379,542 pounds of salmon, worth $909,818, and produced 31,453,152 pound cans of salmon, worth $3,255,365. The total value of the product of the Pacific salmon fishery was $3,389,934. This industry is of very recent origin, having sprung into existence, for the most part, within the last decade.

—The sardine industry of Maine is similar to the Pacific salmon industry, and of still more recent origin. Up to 1880 according to R. E. Earll, it was confined to Eastport, and though experiments were made in the preparation of herring as sardines as early as 1866, the business did not practically begin till 1875, since which time it has grown with a remarkable rapidity. In 1880 it furnished employment to over 1,500 fishermen and factory hands, in addition to 376 fishermen belonging to New Brunswick. The capital dependent upon the industry during the same season, including $80,000 belonging to the New Brunswick fishermen, was over $480,000, and the value of the products amounted to nearly $825,000.

—The lobster canning industry is also comparatively recent. It is located chiefly in Maine and the British provinces, and is carried on largely by means of Portland capital. The value of the Maine lobster fishery alone, as its products entered into consumption in 1880, was $412,076, $238,280 of which was in canned lobsters. The products of the 17 Canadian canneries, operated by capital from the United States, are exported directly to Europe, to the amount, I, am informed by Mr. Earll, of about $250,000 annually. This amount does not appear upon our custom house records, but should be recognized as a by-product of the activity of the United States in the fishery industry.

—The whale fishery has of late years greatly decreased in value, owing to the introduction of mineral oils and the great diminution in the number of whales, due to over-fishing. It is now located, for the most part, in the North Pacific and the Arctic seas in the vicinity of Behring strait. In 1880 its product was valued at $2,323,394, and it employed 171 vessels, with tonnage of 38,633,38, and 4,198 men. There is still a considerable shore fishery about Cape Cod. About eighty humpback whales were killed at Provincetown in the winter of 1879, and large schools of blackfish and porpoises often run ashore on the sandy beaches.

—The seal fishery has been fully discussed in Mr. Elliott's monographs recently published by the census office, 100,000 skins of the fur seal are annually taken by the Alaska commercial company from the Prybilov islands of Alaska, in accordance with the terms of a lease which they have received from the government of the United States. The same company obtained 47,000 skins in addition from the Commander islands, leased them by Russia. There are also 10,000 skins obtained by the shore fishermen of California and 56,000 by American fishermen in Puget sound. The total value of fur-seal skins obtained by Americans on this coast is placed at $1,540,912.6. The fur-seal skins undergo an immense enhancement of value before leaving the bands of the Alaskan commercial company, which has establishments in London where they are plucked and dyed. Connecticut has a seal fishery in the Antarctic ocean, employing 9 vessels, and yielding, in 1880, $111,851. According to Mr. Petroff, the yield of sea-otter skins from Alaska, in 1880, amounted to 6,000, worth $600,000. In addition to these, 75, valued at $3,750, were taken in California.

—The oyster fishery of the United States is the largest single fishery in the world. It employs 52,805 persons, and yielded, in 1880, $2,195,370 bushels, worth, to the producer, $9,034,861. There is to be considered an enhancement of 13,047,922 bushels, in passing from producers to market. This enhancement, which amounts to $4,368,991, results either from replanting or from packing in tiu, and increases the value of the products to $13,438,852. This fishery employs 4,155 vessels, valued at $3,528,700, and 11,930 boats. The actual fishermen number 38,249, the shoresmen 14,556. About 80 per cent, of the total yield is obtained from the waters of Chesapeake bay. A speedy extermination of this most valuable mollusk will doubtless result unless some effective means of protection and artificial culture are soon employed. (See Ingersoll's The Oyster Industry, recently published by the census.)

—The sponge fishery of the gulf of Mexico yields sponges of an excellent quality to the value of $200,750. This is located at Key West, Cedar Key and Appalachicola.

—There are several special fisheries of great interest carried on from certain parts of New England. The winter halibut fishery is peculiar to Gloucester. It employs a fleet of 39 of the staunchest and swiftest schooners, of 80 to 100 tons, manned by crews of men whose seamanship and daring can not be surpassed. The fishery is extremely perilous, being prosecuted on the outer banks in water from 1,200 to 1,800 feet Edition: current; Page: [224] in depth. Voyages continue two to six weeks.

—The winter haddock fishery of Gloucester is almost equally perilous. In it are employed 77 of the best vessels engaged in summer in the cod and mackerel fisheries.

—The Grand bank codfishery is participated in by vessels from numerous New England ports. Formerly one of the most important fisheries, its relative prominence is much less than it was a century of half a century ago. The codfishery on Georges bank is carried on chiefly from Gloucester, and, being a winter fishery, is both profitable and perilous.

—The mackerel fishery employs 468 vessels, and 5,043 men. In 1880 its yield amounted to 343,808 barrels of salted mackerel and 28,796,855 pounds solf fresh and canned, the total number of pounds caught being 131,939,233. This fishery is of special interest from its connection with the late fishery treaties with Great Britain. (See Report of Halifax Fishery Commission).

—The swordfish fishery is carried on from New Bedford, New London, and several smaller ports of southern New England. About 17 small vessels are employed in summer, and the yield of their harpoons, together with that from the mackerel vessels, amounts to about 1,000,000 pounds. Among the minor fisheries are the pound-net or weir fishery of southern New England; the mullet fishery of the south; the sea-bass fishery of New London, Philadelphia and Charleston; the grouper fishery of the gulf of Mexico—devoted to the supply of Cuban markets; the red-snapper fishery of Pensacola; the abalone fishery of California; the clam, scallop, crab, terrapin and Irish moss fisheries, all of which might be discussed at considerable length.

—The shad and herring fisheries of out great rivers are of much importance to the commercial centres of the fish trade and to the extensive inland districts which they supply with cheap food. It is not practicable to present full statistics in this article. It may be stated, however, that the river and lake fisheries of the Middle and South Atlantic states are stated By Col. McDonald to engage 13,017 persons; 78 vessels, and 4,815 men; and to yield 69,193,974 pounds of fish, worth $2,037,948. The river fisheries of New England and the Gulf states will easily increase this amount of $2,500.000.

—Exports and Imports. In the year ending June 30, 1880, the total exports of fishery products from the United States amounted to $5,744,580, distributed as follows:

—The chief exports of oysters were to Germany ($22,709), Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, etc., ($114,321), and Great Britain ($366,403). The exportation of oysters to Great Britain has increased remarkably within a few years, as is shown by the following statement from 1875 to 1881: 1875, $38,661; 1876, $99,012; 1877, $118,634; 1878, $252,999; 1879, $304,473; 1880, $363,790: 1881, $403,629. Dried and smoked fish went chiefly to the British West Indies ($20,656), French Guiana ($24,757), French West Indies ($45,683), Dutch Guiana ($43,169), Cuba ($138,369), and Hayti ($369,124). Pickled fish went in the main to the Hawaiian islands ($16,747), San Domingo ($19,513) the British West Indies ($22,734), and Hayti ($168,435). French fish went chiefly to Quebec and Ontario ($40,758), and to Cuba ($82,847). Miscellaneous cured fish chiefly those hermetically sealed in cans, went to Quebec and Ontario ($20,603), British West Indies ($21,671); Hayti (26,952), French ($29,083), Cuba ($54,624), Hawaiian islands ($57,641), Germany ($68,799), British possessions in Australasian ($157,754), Hong Kong ($261,931), and England ($1,496,365). The exportations of this class of goods in Europe increased from $184,783, in 1869, to $2,039,204, in 1878, and there is no reason why in another decade the quantity may not increase in almost equal degree. Sperm oil went almost entirely to Great Britain; whale and fish oil to Great Britain and France; spermaceti to Germany and England; and whalebone to France, Germany and England.

—In the same year imports were received to the value of 82,412,803, distributed as follows:

Of this amount, $1,715,245,25 was imported, free of duty, from Canada and Newfoundland, in accordance with the pernicious provisions of the existing fishery treaty.

—FISHERIES OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA. The fisheries of British North America, exclusive of Newfoundland, in 1880, employed 46,218 men, 1,168 vessels, 24,302 boats and netting to the value of $1,770,275. The total value of the product is placed by official authority at $19,226,528—a value which is much over-estimated if the estimates of the value of the mackerel taken serve as a criterion. In the so-called gulf division, including the fisheries of the St. Lawrence river, the north shore of the gulf of St. Lawrence, the Magdalen islands and the island of Anticosti, there are employed 11,535 fishermen and shoresmen, 166 vessels, 5,838 boats and finals, and nets and seines to the value of $688,134. The total value of the product was $2,357,220, of which $1,628,188 was in cod. In the districts above Quebec were employed 1,836 fishermen, and 1,152 boats, the product being appraised at $92,966, all in fresh-water fish. In the leased rivers of Quebec and New Brunswick were taken 1,717 salmon, weighing 23,202 pounds, worth, perhaps, $23,000. Nova Scotia employed 29,276 men, 731 vessels, 11,210 boats, and nets and weirs to the value of $661,000. The product Edition: current; Page: [225] was $6,291,061, of which $2,507,898 was in cod, $1,270,368 in mackerel, $612,321 in lobsters, $561,177 in herring, and $357,094 in haddock. New Brunswick employed 8,566 men, 220 vessels, 4,219 boats, nets and weirs, worth $262,371. The product was valued at $2,744,446, $710,149 being in lobsters, $621,543 in herring, and $297,887 in cod. Prince Edward island employed 992 men, 19 vessels, 392 boats and nets, worth $3,496. The product was $1,675,089, of which $710,210 was in canned lobsters, $661,156 in mackerel, and $112,180 in cod. British Columbia employed 1,833 fishermen, 14 vessels, 426 boats and nets, worth $40,735, and produced $713,335, chiefly in salmon ($434,000) and fur-seal skins ($163,000). In addition to this, the Indian population consumed fish to the value of $4,885,000. Ontario, with its numerous lakes and rivers, employed 2,130 men, 18 vessels, 865 boats, and netting, to the value of $114,539. It product was $444,491, $225,000 in fishes of the whitefish family, (Coregonidæ), and $104,430 in trout.

—It is impossible to ascertain exactly the value of the fisheries of Newfoundland. In 1880 the exports amounted to $7,131,095,40, more than two-thirds of which was dried codfish. The total consumption probably does not exceed $500,000.

—Estimating upon this basis, the total value of the fisheries of British North America would be $26,857,623, and of North America would be $26,857,623, and of North America as a whole, $71,727,875.

—WEST INDIES, AND CENTRAL AMERICA. Throughout the West Indies are excellent local fisheries, which are, however, quite insufficient to supply the demands of the large Catholic population. To the political economist this region is most interesting as affording a market for exported fishery produce. In 1877 Canada alone sent to the British West Indies fish to the value of $1,527,000, and to the Spanish West Indies $899,000. Cuba also consumes the entire product of the grouper fishery of the gulf of Mexico, carried on by vessels from Key West and Pensacola, and large quantities of Florida mullet. The Bahamas have important sponge fisheries, the export in 1877 amounting to $90,000, while tortoise shell, worth $15,000, was sent out the same year. The local industries of the various islands can not be discussed in an article of this character. The pearl fishery of the Mexican coast is estimated to yield yearly from $230,000 to $500,000.

—SOUTH AMERICA. Chili had, in 1865, 1,912 persons employed in fishing. No statistics of production are available. There are no fisheries of commercial importance. The Argentine republic has local fisheries of which no record can be obtained. Uruguay imported, in 1878, 1,296,000 pounds of dried fish, besides preserved and picked fish. Brazil consumes imported salt fish is great quantities, but statistics can not be obtained. Canada, in 1878, sent products worth $265,000 to South America, chiefly, no doubt, to Brazil. Here is a fine opening for the products of the United States.

—NORWAY. The whole coast of this country is the seat of an extensive shore fishery, in which about 12 per cent, of the entire made population of the country is directly engaged. At least 30 or 40 per cent., probably a still greater proportion of the population, are directly and indirectly dependent on the fisheries for a livelihood. As will be evident from the statistics presented below, the total yield of the Norwegian fisheries, when it is remembered that the population of the country is only 1,800,000, is proportionally far greater than that for any other country. The yield of the Norwegian fisheries, as based upon the an estimate of Mr. Herrman Baars, from the average export statistics of the years 1868-79, is as follows:

These estimates are somewhat below those for 1879 in certain kinds of products, the exports for that year in lobsters being placed at 1,019,404, instead of 1,000,000; in "klipfish," 44,684,160 kilos, instead of 35,000,000; in "stockfish," 20,665,420 kilos, instead of 20,000,000; in fish guano, 5,972,680 kilos, instead of 5,000,000; in fish roes, 50,588 barrels, instead of 40,000. The yield of herring in 187, however, was less than that given in the table of estimates; while in 1881 and 1882 this bas increased immensely, owing to the return of the herring schools so long in great part absent from these coasts. In addition to the above figures prepared by Mr. Baars for the Berlin fishery exhibition of 1880, we have a series of returns prepared by the central bureau of statistics of Norway, which place the value of the fishery yield much lower, and which are probably not so nearly correct. According to these figures, the fisheries yielded products valued as follows: 1869, $3,034,000, 1870 $5,620,320; 1871, $6,830,200, 1872, $6,090,240, 1873, $6,724,080; 1874, $6,296,400; 1875, $6,415,040; 1876, $5,987,520; 1877, $7,919,010, 1878, $5,684,640; giving an average, for the ten years, of $6,266,880.

—As is indicated in the foregoing table, about 79 per cent, of the entire product, as estimated by Mr. Baars, is exported. It is probable that the estimate for home consumption is much too small, nevertheless it is true that Norway exports a large proportion of its fishery products, and performs and important function in supplying the remainder of Europe with fish, distributing at least 300,000,000 pounds of eatable Edition: current; Page: [226] fish in marketable condition, the value of which, when finally sold to the consumer, may be estimated at fully $20,000,000. The distribution of the Norwegian fishery exports is explained in the following tables, derived from the official statistics of Norway. The first table gives exports by cities whence exported: the second exports by countries whither exported:

—For statistical purposes the coasts of Norway are divided into four districts, as follows: 1, the coast of the Skagerack, from the Swedish boundary to Cape Lindesnues; 2, the coast of the North Sea, from Cape Lindesnaes to Cape Stadt; 3, the coast of the Norwegian sea, from Cape Stadt to the island of Soöroön(lat. 70° 40° N.); and 4, the coast of the Polar sea from Soöroön to the Russian boundary on the cast. The total length of the coast line, exclusive of islands, is 1,926 miles, of which 229 lie in the first district, 327 in the second, 1,022 in the third, and 348 in the fourth. According to the estimates of the central bureau of statistics, the value of the Norwegian fishery product is divided among the four districts as follows: (1)2.6 per cent., or about $750 to the mile; (2) 10.4 per cent., or about $1,989 to the mile; (3) 72.4 per cent., or about $4,438 to the mile; (4) 14.6 per cent., or about $2,553 to the mile. The cod fisheries are prosecuted almost exclusively in the third and fourth districts, four-fifths of all the cod being landed in the third, which the herring fisheries are for the most part in the second and third.

— Edition: current; Page: [227] The Norwegian coast fisheries are officially classified as follows—the figures following the name of each fishery are the percentages of the value of its yield to the average total value of the fisheries of the country, for the years 1869-78:

Grouped in more comprehensive divisions:

Norway has also certain fisheries in the entrance to the Baltic and a small cod fishery along the shores of Spitzbergen. The walrus and seal fishery in the vicinity of Spitzbergen and Novaya Zemlya employed, in 1878, 51 vessels, of 1,881 tons, and 306 persons, yielding products valued at about $40,000. The whale fishery in Varanger fiord resulted in the same year in the capture of 130 whales, valued at about $70,000.

—According to the census of 1875 there were in Norway 33,255 grown men who derived their entire support from the fisheries, and 23,381 men who, in addition to fishing during the season, carry on other work part of the year. The total,56,638, is about 10 per cent of the total adult male population,559,565. The estimated annual yield to men enraged in the several branches of the fisheries is as follows: winter cod fishery, about $60; spring cod fishery, $45; fat herring fishery, $40 to $55; mackerel fishery, $60. 12,243 boats were enraged in the winter cod fishery in 1878, and this total represents very nearly the actual number of fishing boats in Norway. They are for the most part open boats, with crews of four or five men. There are hardly any sea going vessels in the Norwegian fisheries, though m any of their clumsy "jaegten" are engaged in transporting fish from the fishing grounds to the markets.

—SWEDEN. The fisheries of Sweden are but small compared with those of Norway, and are for a considerable part carried on by men engaged in farming the major portion of the year. Sweden exports almost none of its fishery products, but consumes much imported fish obtained chiefly from Norway. There is no official estimate of the number of fishermen and fishing boats, but Dr. Sidenbladh, a recent writer, in his work entitled "Le Royaume de Suede," gives figures which indicate that at least 6,000 boats and 24,000 menj participate in the herring fishery. Professional fishermen. It is safe to assume that a very large proportion of the entire professional and non-professional fishermen engage in the herring fishery, which is by fur the most extensive and profitable of the fisheries of Sweden. In 1878, 577 persons, with 3,883 nets, were engaged in the eel fishery of Blekinfen and Schonen; in 1875 the mackerel fishery of Bohuslan employed 313 vessels and 1,280 men, and in the same year the winter fishery in the kattegat and vicinity was carried on by 179 decked boats, with a tonnage of 5,600, and crews of 1,509 men. The total product of the fisheries of Sweden, in so far as it possible to judge from the scattered statistics which are accessible, does not exceed in value $1,500,000. Of this amount, $845,000 is the value of the herring fishery, $73,000 of the salmon fishery, $40,000 of the eel fishery, and 828,000 of the lobster fishery, the remainder being distributed among the general coast fisheries for cod, flounders, lance, etc., and the various fresh-water fisheries. The fisheries of Sweden are apparently about equivalent in value to those to Connecticut, though employing regularly at least twice as many men, and in the herring season a large additional force.

—DENMARK. The fisheries of Denmark resemble those of Sweden, in that they are carried on chiefly by a peasant population, engaged part of the year in other pursuits. The fishes taken are cod, haddock, whiting and ling, the halibut, sole and other kinds of flatfish, mackerel gartish, herring, dogfish, skate, salmon and eels, besides seals, porpoises, lobsters, shrimps, black mussels and oysters. The most important fishing places are the Lim fiord, where the product in 1878-9 was valued at about $107,000, and 2,021 fishermen, 569 being professional fishermen, were employed; and Bornholm, where, in 1874, 759 men, in 348 boats, large and small, captured fish to the value of $163,000. The only general official estimate at present accessible is one for 1863, which puts the value of the product at $988,000, or slightly more than that of Rhode Island. Rhode Island, however, employs only 2,300 fishermen, while Denmark is estimated to have 10,000. Like Sweden, Denmark largely consumes imported fish. In the year 1877, according to Arthur Feddersen, the oyster export being left out of account, the imports of fish of all sorts exceeded the exports by 5,420,000 pounds—since, although the exports of fresh fish exceeded imports of the same by about five and one half million pounds, there were seven million pounds dried fish imported in excess of those exported. In 1878 the entire exports of fish amounted to 6,722,460 pounds, and of oysters to 1,005,023 pounds.

—RUSSIA. Russia has an important fishery on the Baltic Coast of Finland. The best statistics available are those quoted by Lindeman, who states that fish constitute the greater portion of the food of the inhabitants, and that the exports to Russia and Sweden in 1875 amounted to $457,000. The most important branch of the industry is the strömling or herring fishery, though the capture of sprats, salmon and seals employs a considerable number of men. The total yield of the Finnish Edition: current; Page: [228] fisheries can fall below $700,000, and is about equal to that of Michigan, Louisiana or Rhode Island. Russia has also fisheries of some extent in the Polar sea, an account of which may be found in the Report of United States Fish Commission, Part III.. pp.35-96. Statistics for these fisheries are not to be had. Numerous herring are taken in autumn and early winter, most of which are packed in barrels and sent to Archangel. Salmon are caught abundantly at the months of the Petschora, Meson, Dwina, Onega, Warsuka and other rivers, while a large cod and halibut fishery is carried on in the numerous bays of the Murmanian coast. An extensive sealhunt continues from the beginning of February to the end of March on the east coast of the White sea and in neighbouring regions, while the beluga or white whale, the walrus and the polar bear are objects of pursuit for men and vessels in summer. There is also considerable seal and walrus hunt on the southern coast of Novaya Zemlya. Russia has control of the important fur-seal fishery of the Kurile islands and other localities on the Pacific coast of Asia. The Alaska commercial company of San Francisco and St. Petersburg leases the Commander islands, whence, in 1880, 47,000 fur-seal skins were taken. There are also important cod-fishing privileges in the Okhotsk sea, in which several California vessels have participated until 1882, when by the removal of the Russian custom house from Petropolovsk to Vladivostock they have been practically debarred from this privilege. The inland fisheries of Russia are of great extent and importance, and are discussed in an extensive and finely illustrated folio work published by the government. Statistics are not to be had. The following estimate of the Russian fisheries was derived from the Russian commissioner to the Berlin fishery exhibition. The total proceeds of the fisheries, those of Siberia and of small fresh water streams and ponds excepted, is estimated to amount to $22,039,000. About $2,950,000 of this is distributed to the Caspian, $735,000 to the Baltic, $735,000 to the white sea and those portions of the Artic sea which border the provience of Archangel, $785,000 to the Black sea, and about $3,685,000 to the great lakes and rivers. The total imports amount to about 3,000,000 pounds, chiefly herring and canned fish, while the exports, consisting only of caviar and isinglass, amount to about $1,470,000. The value of seal skins and oil taken by Russians amnounts to about $250,000 annually.

—GERMANY. The fisheries of Germany are of small statistical importance, owing to the limited extent of seacoast, and to the fact that the product of river, lake and brook can not be easily estimated, and is necessarily for the most part ignored. The streams have been depleted by over-fishing, and strenuous efforts are being made by the Deustscher Fischerei Verein, a powerful society, under governmental patronage, to restock them for the benefit of the inland population, to whom fish are of great dietetic importance. The annual importation of edible fishery products is valued at about $1,410,000, while the export is only $77,000. In 1872, 17.193 persons were employed in the coast fisheries, of whom 6,969 were professional fishermen. 5.011 assistants and 5,215 occasional or semi-professional fishermen. There were 732 fishing stations and 8, 140 boats. The most important single fishery is that carried on by the Haring-fischerei gesellschaft of Emden which employed 11 "loggers" or fishing boats of a peculiar model, and in 1878 captured herring to the value of about $42,000. Other fisheries in the North sea are the shore-net fisheries valued at about $16,000, the haddock fishery of Norderney, which employs about 400 men in 70 open boats, and in 1872 yielded from 1,000,000 to 1,200,000 pounds of haddock, worth, perhaps $30,000. The fisheries of Heligoland, employing 400 fishermen and 32 "Schaluppes" or open boats yield annually some 600,000 haddock, worth about $25,000, and the fisheries at the mouth of the Elbe amount to perhaps $;5,000 more. The Baltic fisheries of Germany are chiefly for flounders, cod. herring and salmon. The value of the Baltic fisheries is probably less than $200,000. There is also a small oyster fishery on the Schleswig. Holstein coast, the value of which can not exceed $10,000. It is to be regretted that the value of the German fisheries has not been appraised by any recent authority. An estimate based upon the most liberal interpretation of the data now before me would put their entire worth at less than $350,000, inland fisheries being of course excepted. This is slightly more than the worth of the fisheries of California, and much less than that of Connecticut. New Jersey and Virginia.

—HOLLAND. According to statements furnished to Dr. Lindeman by Prof Buys, of Leyden, the herring fishery of Holland employs 127 seagoing vessels and 265 smaller craft, with crews in all numbering about 2,700. The total product amounted, in 1878, to 150000,000 herrings, valued at $1,164,240. Many vessels of the herring fleet are engaged in winter in the capture of cod on the Dodger bank in the North Sea. They fish with trawl lines and a considerable portion of the catch is salted down in the holds of the vessels, as is done our own Grand bank cod schooners. The value of this fishery in 1878 was $392,876. There also a coast fishery for the capture of fish be sold fresh in the markets, shrimps, anchovies, etc. The consumption of fresh fish in two important centres, mentioned by Prof. Buys amounts top $232,177; more audacious than he, We venture to estimate the total local consumption at $462,000. The export of fresh fish shrimps and anchovies amounts to 13,000,000 pounds, which, if the statements of Buys are correctly understood, is over and above the amount of local consumption. These is also an oyster fishery on natural beds along the coasts of Seeland and the island of Texal. This yielded, Edition: current; Page: [229] in 1876, 36,560,000 oysters; in 1877, 9,769,200; in 1878, 7,193,200. The value of the product in the last year is placed at $198,757. In the same region are mussel beds; from which, in 1878, about 2,900,000 pounds of mussels were obtained. The total number of vessels and fishermen in Holland is given by Prof. Buys as follows: Great fishery (herring and cod) 127 vessels, with 1,886 men; coast fisherries(for herring, cod, etc.), 453 vessels, 3,309 men; fisheries of the Zuiderzee(herring, anchovy, schollee), 1,282 boats, 3,269 men; fisheries of Groingen and Friesland, 183 boats,523 men; fisheries of Seeland, 472 boats, 1,026 men. Total, vessels and boats, 2,517; men, 10,014. The value of the fisheries is n ot summed up, and as usual it is necessary for the winter of this article to make a provisional total. It seems probable that this should not be less than $2,350,000. The exports of Holland to Germany amounted, in 1878, to 8,874,000 smoked berrings and 55,000 barrels of pickled herrings, 578,600 pounds of dried codfish, 1,326,000 pounds of fresh fuish, about 792,000 pounds (in 1877) of anchovies, and 1,170,500 oysters. To Belgium, in the same year, were sent 24,435,000 smoked herrings, 741,400 pounds of dried codfish, 10,276,000 pounds of fresh fish, and an indefinite quantity of pickled herring, anchovies and oysters. England received, among other products, 1,294,000 pounds of shrimps and 2,839,200 oysters.

—BELGIUM. Belgium, though on account of the fisheating proclivitioes of its population importing foreign fishery products in considerable quantity, had, in 1879, sea fisheries to the value of about $423,000, or nearly as important as the commercial fisheries of the state of New York. About one-fifth of thsi amount is credited to the cod fishery, in which were engaged 109 vessels. The remainder of the product results from the coast fisheries, for turbot, herring, skate, cod, shrimp, etc. The oyster fishery at Ostende yielded, in 1876, about 10,000 bushels, of which nearly half were sent to Germany. About $73,000 worth of oysters were exported from England in 1878, and about $15,000 worth of lobsters, of which 253,000 pounds came from France, and 210,000 from Norway.

—GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. In 1877 England had 3,425 fishing vessels of over 13 tons, with a tonnage of 137,768 and 9,869 smaller sail boats and fishing boats of the second and third classes. Scotland had 2,940 first class, with tonnage of 51,089, and 10,629 smaller; Ireland 403, and the Isle of Man 254, first class vessels, with 5,819 and 134 respectively of smaller craft. In 1876 the number of men and boys in the Scotch fisheries was estimated at 45,890, the value of boats and gear at $5,703,514, while the Irish fisheries had 23,693 fishermen(15,840 being occasional fishermen). I can find no estimate of the number of men in the English fisheries, but it is to be inferred that the number can not be far from 50,000. This estimate gives an aggregate of fishermen for Great Britain and Ireland, of 120,000 men and boys; with 6,770 first class vessels and 26,317 smaller boats in 1877.

—The herring fishery in prosecuted in Scotland. England and Ireland. That of Yarmouth, the most important in England, employed, in 1877, 493 first class vessels and 509 of a smaller size, and yielded 132,000 lasts of fish, or 249,480,000 individual herring. There is a smaller herring fishery at Lowesoft. When England has learned the art from the Marine fishermen there will doubtless spring up an extensive sardine-canning industry, based upon the herring fishery. The herring fishery is by far the most important fishery of Scotland. In 1878, 905, 768 barrels, or perhaps 272,000,000 pounds, were salted, and the total catch may be estimated at fully 350,000,000 pounds. Ireland cures few herrings. exporting its fish in fresh condition to England or consuming them locally, an importing cured herring from Scotland. In 1876, 227,990,000 pounds. Ireland cures few herrings, exporting its fish in fresh condition to England or consuming them locally, and importing cured herring from Scotland. In 1876, 227,990,000 pounds were sent from Ireland to England, and the total product was doubtless much more than 350,000,000. The aggregate product of the herrings fisheries is probably not far from 800,000,000 to 900,000,000 pounds of fresh fish. The export of herring in 1876 amounted in value to $3,546,439.

—The cod fishery of England is located in the North sea, upon the Dodger bank and neighbouring shoals, the principal port interested being Grimsby. Few cod are salted, and the greater portion of the catch is kept alive in well smacks, and a reserve of living fish for market supply kept in live-cars at Grimsby. Harwich and elsewhere. From 15,000 to 20,000 cod are kept alive at one time at the former port in the height of the cod season. The cod fishery thus constitutes a part of the great fresh-market fishery of Great Britain, another most important branch of which is the trawl-net fishery for turbot, soles and other bottom-loving species. In 1879 there were from 1,700 to 1,800 trawling smacks working on the coasts of England, (1,300 of them in the North sea). with crews aggregating 9,000 men and boys. In 1877, 503 of these hailed from Grimsby, while a still larger number came from the four channel fishing ports of Brixham. Plymouth, Hull and Ramsgate. In 1877, 88,752,000 pounds of fresh fish were sent from Grimsby by rail. The catch of the other large fishing ports would probably bring the total up to at least 400,000,000, worth, perhaps, $16,000,000. The export of cod in 1877 was valued at $214,813.

—There is an important drift-net fishery for mackerel are yearly sent by rail from Plymouth and Penzance to London and elsewhere. This product is included in the total given above for the fresh fish business.

—Pilchards, too, are caught in drift nets and seines in immense quantities, on the coast of Cornwall, and of the late years these have been packed in oil and sold as "sardines", the sardines of the bay of Biscay being the same fish prepared in the same manner. 9.477 hogsheads of pickled pilchards were exported to Italy in 1877, and the total value of the pilchard export in that year was Edition: current; Page: [230] $93,034.

—Scotland, in addition to the "cod, ling, hake, sarthe (pollock)and tusk(cusk)," locally consumed in fresh condition, in 1877 produced 18, 720,000 pounds cured dry, and 861,900 cured in pickle, representing, perhaps, in all 58,000,000 fresh fish, and worth, perhaps. $1,160,000.

—Ireland has a fresh-market fishery of much importance, as may be judged from the fact that she sent to England, in 1876, 243,742,800 pounds of fresh fish, valued at $2,441,601, including in addition to the herring already mentioned, 15,930,000 pounds of mackerel and 11,013,800 pounds of cod.

—The export of salmon from Great Britain and Ireland amounted, in 1877, to $189,162. From 400,000 to 6,00,000 lobsters are annually imported from Norway, and about 200,000 more from France. In addition, large quantities are obtained from the south coast, while the value of the lobster fisheries of Scotland is estimated at $1,452,000.

—That the oyster fishery is failing is clear from the fact that the imports of oysters are yearly growing larger. In 1870, according to Lindeman, the value of oysters sold in London was $19,360,000. This estimate was doubtless based on retail prices. Exports in 1877 amounted to $121,227.

—In addition to the fisheries already mentioned there are extensive industries in the collection of mussels, whilks, periwinkles, prawns, whitebait and various minor products of the sea. No English authority has been so rash as to estimate the total value of the fisheries of Great Britain and Ireland. I hope I shall not be too severely criticized if I venture to express my belief that their total worth, whale and seal fisheries excluded, and local consumption counted in, will not fall below $40,000,000.

—FRANCE. Lindeman quotes the value of the fisheries of France in 1877 at $17,031,636, the number of men employed being 81,230, and the number of boats and vessels, 21,565. The fisheries of France, if this estimate be reliable, are fairly comparable to those located on the coast of the United States between Long Island and Cape Florida—the middle and southern Atlantic states, the product of that district being worth $18,269,506, the number of men employed exceeding 55,000 of vessels, 4,000, and of boats, 26,000. Another comparison, which it is proper to make, is between the fisheries of France and those of New England, together with those of New Jersey, The product of this group of six states amounts to $17,446,982, employing 34,497 fishermen, 2,716 vessels and 18,852 boats. France engages in distant sea fisheries to a great extent than any other European nation. Since the sixteenth century there has been an important French cod fishery on the banks of Newfoundland, supported by a liberal bounty from the government, which has always regarded this as its best school for mariners. The yearly expenditure for bounties amounts to $600,000 or $800,000. In 1877 this fishery employed 179 vessels, from the ports of St. Malo, Granville, St. Brieuc. Fécamp and Dieppe, with crews numbering 7,731 men. The headquarters of this fishery is at the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon on the south coast of Newfoundland. In 1876 the yield of this fishery was estimated at 35,200,000 pounces of codfish, worth about $1,750,000.7. Another cod fishery is upon the coasts of Iceland. The vessels are smaller but more numerous, there having been in 1877,244, with 4,314men. Part of these vessels hail from the northern ports of Dunkerque and Fécamp: others from Granville and La Rochelle. The value of the Iceland fishery in 1876 was about $1,368,000. The coast fisheries of France in 1876 were valued at about $14,061,000, and employed over 68,000 persons. The most important fishery is perhaps that for sardines on the coast of Brittany. There is also an extensive shrimp fishery along the eastern extent of the coast, a tunny or "horse-mackerel" fishery both on the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, a mackerel fishery in the gulf of Gascony, and shad, salmon, lamprey, mullet and eel fisheries at the mouths of the large rivers. In France, oyster culture is more successfully prosecuted than in any other country. From Sept. 1, 1875, to April 30, 1876, 237,000,000 of oysters were taken from the oyster parks. Their value is included in the figures already quoted.

—SPAIN. The Spanish sea fisheries are much less productive than formerly. The marine department of Ferrol yielded, in 1870, about 75,000,000 pounds of sea fish, valued at about $1,281,000. The n umber of fishing vessels was estimated at 6,153, the number of men 20,150. The most extensive fisheries were those of Vigo and Villaga Reia.

—PORTUGAL. From statements made by Prof. Bocage, it appears that the most important fisheries of Portugal are the sardine and funny fisheries, and that the total value of the sea fisheries is from three to four million dollars. The export of fishery products, in 1876, amounted to 19,000,000 pounds, worth $252,000, about 490,9000 pounds of which, worth about $57,500, was prepared tunny, and 9,000,000 sardines, worth about $153,000. Portugal imported, in 1876, about 34,000,000 of dried codfish, valued at $1,454,000. If these statistics of production are reliable, the fisheries of Portugal are fairly comparable in value with those of the state of Maine. It is however, more than probable that a careful census of the fisheries had never been taken, and that the fisheries of this country are far less important than the statement of Prof. Bocage would warrant us in believing.

—ITALY. In 1870 Italy had 30,848 fishermen, and 11,566 boats. As nearly as it is possible to estimate from the partial statistics available, the product is valued at about $1,216,000, and the fisheries are comparable in value to those of Delaware or of Rhode Island and Pennsylvania combined. The chief fisheries of Italy are sardines, tunnies, swordfish, precious coral and sponges. There are extensive fisheries for eels and other Edition: current; Page: [231] fresh-water fish in the great lagoons along the coast. The total exportation, in 1878, amounted to 88,000 pounds, valued at $629,000, and the importation to 97,000,000 pounds, valued at $4,147,000.

—AUSTRIA. The Austrain fisheries in the Adriatic, from April 23 to October 22, 1878, yielded $550,000. 2,796 boats were employed, and 10,973 men. The most important fisheries are for the sardelle, mackerel and anchovy. Many species of crustaceans are prized, as well as various snails mussels and oysters. The coral fishery on the Dalmatian coast yields about $4,500. The sponge fishery, 1874, employed about 200 men and 100 boats, and its product was valued at $9,000.

—GREECE and TURKEY. The only commercial fishery of Greece and Turkey appears to be that for sponges. There are no satisfactory data available for estimating its extent. Lindeman states that in 1876 two ports, Patras and Lyra, exported sponges to the value of at least $110,000.

—MALTA. According to Lindeman, Malta has 200 boats and 800 men employed in the fisheries. Their product is locally consumed.

—ALGIERS. Algiers, in 1877, had 4,330 fishermen, with 974 boats. The product was estimated to weigh 15,000,000 pounds, worth $512,000. The production of coral on the coast of Tunis and Algiers has been placed at $500,000. The export of fish pickled or preserved in oil, from Algiers, in 1876, amounted to 11,638,000 pounds. The sardine industry alone had, in 1877, 50 curing establishments, employing 386 men.

—TUNIS. The value of the fisheries is estimated at about $38,000, the principal exportable products being tunnies, cuttlefish and mullet roses. In addition to the regular fisheries there is coral fishing, and a sponge fishery which yields yearly from 220,000 to 295,000 pounds of sponges, valued at $110,000 to $130,000. The yield of cuttlefish amounts to about 130,000 pounds, worth perhaps, $20,000.

—TRIPOLI. Tripoli has about 40 boats, with 150 fishermen, and the value of its product, as reported to Lindeman by the British consul, Mr. Drum mond Hay, amounts to about $17,000, in addition to $150,000, the yield of the sponge fishery.

—AUSTRALIA. Queensland has an "Oyster fishery" at Morelin bay, yielding, in 1878, about $6,000, and in the same year exported pearl mussels and trepangs to the value of about $340,000. Victoria exported, in 1876, products worth about $123,000, and imported almost an equal amount. The city of Melbourne consumes yearly about $125,000 worth of fresh fish. In 1879 there were estimated to be 398 fishermen, and 261 boats. New South Wales imports great quantities of fish, chiefly from the United States: in 1876 the imports amounted to $800,000. The local fisheries are unimportant. South Australia offers no statistics. In the decade ending 1878, 50,000 bags of oysters were taken at Coffin bay. West Australia has a Pearl fishery of some importance. Tasmania has a small local fishery, and a whale fishery, valued at about $150,000. New Zealand also has a whale fishery, which employed, in 1877, 13 ships, of 3,525 tons, and yielded products worth about $200,000.

—EAST INDIES. British India has important local fisheries, and has an export trade of some extent in fish oil and shells. The pearl mussel fishery of Ceylon produced in 1877, 6,849,720 pearl oysters, valued at 189,011 rupees. There is also a valuable pearl oyster fishery in the Persian gulf. The Dutch East Indies have immense local fisheries. In 1872, 49,469 fishermen were recorded in Java and Madura alone. There are extensive captures of tortoise shell throughout the entire region. There is a very extensive and profitable fishery on the north coast of Java for the trepang or beche-de-mer, which is dried and exported to China. The Philippines have also immense local fishery interests. The most important exports are trepangs, pearl shells and sharks' fins, sent ot China.

—JAPAN has a fine salmon fishery, particularly in the n orth, and its markets are abundantly supplied with fresh and dried fish of local production.

—CHINA has a large coast population of fishermen. The immense inland population consume fishing products in greater quantity consume fishing products in greater quantity than can be supplied by the home industry, though the cuttlefish fishery of Ningpo alone employs 1,200 boats. The imports in 1878 amounted to at least $2,300,000. The pearl oyster fishery of the Pak-hoi archipelago yielded, in 1875 about $45,000.

—POLYNESIA. The islands of the Pacific produce considerable quantities of pearls, trepang and tortise shell, the value of which can not well be estimated.

—GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. Usual "estimates" place the value of the fisheries of the world at $120,000,0000: but my "estimate" would be $225,000,000, upon the basis of the last fishery census of the United States.

—The nation most extensively interested in the fisheries is the United states with a product of $44,870,252; next, Great Britain, with $40,000,000 or more; then British North America, with $27,000,000; Russia with $22,000,000; France with $17,000,000; and Norway with $12,000,000.

—The number of active fishermen in North America may be estimated at 160,000; in Europe, at 520,000. It is needless to draw lengthy deduction. In the United States the yield to each man is about $435, in Canada, $413; in Great Britain, perhaps $330; Holland $240; Norway, $210; Denmark. Spain and Portugal, perhaps $100; and in Italy and Germany very much less, the fisheries being carried on with no capital, and little regularity. For more extended information upon the subjects discussed in this article, see Moritz Lindeman's Die Seefischereien in den Jahren, 1869-78, in whole No. 60 of "Petermann's Mittheilangen"; Holdsworth's article, Fisheries, in the Encyclopedia Britannica; Betram's Harvest of the Sea; the Reports of the Internationale Fischerei-Ausstelluny, Berlin, 1880; and reports of U.S. Fish Commission. Parts I-VI. An extended report on the fisheries of the United States, prepared by the Fish Commission and the Census Bureau, is now in press. For a discussion of the political aspect of the fisheries, see TREATIES, FISHERY.

FITZPATRICK

FITZPATRICK, Benjamin, was born in Greene country, Georgia, June 30, 1802, and died in Alabama, Nov. 21, 1869. He was admitted to the bar in Alabama in 1821, was governor of his state 1841-5, and United States senator 1848-9 and 1853-61, and in 1860 received and declined the democratic nomination for the vice-presidency.

FLAG

FLAG, The (IN U.S. HISTORY). I. COLONIAL. While the colonies were a part of the British empire, their recognized standard was naturally that of Great Britain, and, though minor modifications were sometimes made, the retention of the "union" with its two crosses of St. Andrew and St. George, marked all of them as essentially British. The "Confederacy of 1643" (see NEW ENGLAND UNION.) had a distinctive flag, but not till 1686. It consisted of a large upright red cross on a white ground, with the royal crown and cipher in the centre in gold. The sea flag was red, with a white "union", bearing an upright red cross, and in the upper left hand corner of the union a green pine tree. But, all through the colonial period, the real looseness of dependence on Great Britain was marked by a growing disposition to the use of individual colonial flags. Unfortunately there are but scant contemporary references to them, but such as exist will be found collected, with illustrations, in Preble's history, as cited among the authorities. It is certain that the Connecticut troops in 1775 had their own standard, with the colony's motto Qui transtulit sustinet. The standard of New York was marked by a black beaver; but probably all had the British union in some form, since the colonists at first claimed to be loyal subjects of the king, resisting the usurpations of parliament and the ministry. It is very doubtful whether there was any flag in the American lines at Bunker Hill; certainly none was captured by the British. One tradition is that there was a red flag, with the legend, Come if you dare; another that the legend was An Appeal to Heaven; and another that the flag was blue with a white union, containing the upright red cross and the pine tree.

—After the breaking out of hostilities, congress made no effort to fix upon a national standard; indeed the growth and development of a national standard was as natural as that of the nation itself. At first captains of privateers and military commanders generally followed their own fancy in the adoption of a flag, or used the state standard. The varying results may be divided into two classes, "Pinetree flags" and "rattlesnake flags," the former being rather of a New England nature, while the latter had some approach to nationality. The former was generally white, with a green pine tree in the centre, and the legend An Appeal to Heaven; this was formally adopted by the Massachusetts legislature in April, 1776, but the London newspapers, three months before that time, mention the capture of a similar flag on a privateer. The rattlesnake flag was also white, with a rattlesnake, either cut into thirteen pieces, each marked with the initial of a colony, and the legend Join, or die, below, or complete and coiled, with the legend Don't tread on me; another variety, later than the former, had a ground of thirteen stripes, red and white, with the rattlesnake extended across the field. A less common flag consisted of a white ground on which was depicted a mailed hand grasping thirteen arrows.

—II. NATIONAL. Toward the end of 1775 the urgent need of a distinct national flag became very evident. The stripes seem first to have been used by a Philadelphia light horse troop in 1774-5, but only as a "union" Their use as the ground of a flag, originally suggested by the recognized flags of the East India company or of Holland, had been familiarized by one variety of the rattlesnake ensign; and congress adopted it, in December, 1775, on the recommendation of a committee consisting of Franklin, Lynch and Harrison. The "grand union" flag now consisted of thirteen stripes, as at present, but with the British "union" of two crosses to mark continued allegiance to the king. This flag was first hoisted over the American headquarters at Cambridge, Massachusetts, Jan. 1 or 2, 1776. Paul Jones claims to have first raised it over his ship, the Alfred, some days previously; but his flag seems to have been the stripes and rattlesnake. Preble, in his history, has given a copy of a water-color drawing of the "grand union flag" in July, 1776, found by Dr. B. J. Lossing among the papers of Gen. Philip Schuyler, which is the most satisfactory contemporary representation. It is noteworthy, however, that when the naval committee of congress presented a national flag to that body Feb. 8, 1776, they chose one of the rattlesnake variety.

—In June, 1776, when independence had become a recognized probability, Washington and a committee of congress made informal arrangements for the substitution of a five-pointed star in the union. It was not until June 14, 1777, that congress formally ordered the royal union to be displaced by thirteen stars, as at present, symbolical of "a new constellation.". The new flag was probably first used at the battle of the Brandywine, Sept. 11, 1777; and its introduction in Lentze's picture is an anachronism.

—No change took place in the national flag until, by the act of Jan. 13, 1794, two new stripes, as well as two new stars, were added for Vermont and Kentucky. No further change took place for twenty-four years, even after the admissions of Ohio and Louisiana; and the war of 1812 was fought under a flag of fifteen stripes and stars. The impropriety of considering Kentucky and Vermont a part of the "old thirteen," and the cumbrousness of a flag with a new stripe for each new state, occasioned the passage of the act of April 4, 1818, by which the stripes were to be limited to thirteen in future, in memory of the thirteen states which had first secured for the flag a place among national emblems, while the number of stars should show the number of states in Edition: current; Page: [233] the Union on the 4th July, the day on which changes were to be made. Unfortunately the act neglected to fix the arrangement of the stars in the union, which has been very capricious, sometimes in straight lines, sometimes in a star, sometimes in concentric circles, and sometimes scattered at random.

—The features of the national flag may be thus summarized 1777-94, thirteen stripes and thirteen stars (generally in a circle); 1794-1818, fifteen stripes and fifteen stars (generally in three straight lines); 1818-82, thirteen stripes and from twenty to thirty-eight stars. (See CONSTITUTION, I.)

—The revenue flag, by act of March 2, 1799, and the circular of the secretary of the treasury, Aug. 1, consisted of sixteen perpendicular red and white stripes, with the arms of the United States in blue on a white field as a union. This was changed in 1871 by substituting thirteen blue stars on a white ground as a union.

—In addition to the national flag each state has its own flag, which is hoisted on its public buildings, or carried into battle or on parade by its volunteers, or militia, alongside of the national standard. These flags are too numerous for special mention.

—III. CONFEDERATE. During the war of the rebellion the confederate states' forces carried the so-called "stars and bars," a flag consisting of three red and white stripes, the white in the middle, and a blue union with as many white stars as there were states in the confederacy. The more familiar battle flag was of red, traversed from the corners by a blue cross with white stars. Toward the end of the rebellion the three stripes were dropped for a flag half red and half white, the white nearest the staff; and some ineffectual efforts were made to further change it to a flag wholly or partially black. Individual states had also their own flags.

—See 8 Bancroft's United States, 232; 3 Hildreth's United States, 177; 1 Journals of Congress, 165 (resolution of June 14, 1777); 1 Stat. at Large (Bioren and Duane's edit.), 678; 1 Stat. at Large, 341, 699 and 3:415 (acts of Jan. 13, 1794, March 2, 1799, and April 4, 1818; Hamilton's History of the American Flag(1852); Preble's History of the American Flag (1872).

FLORIDA

FLORIDA, a state of American Union, formed from the Florida Purchase. (See ANNEXATIONS, II.) East and West Florida were united into the territory of Florida by act of March 30,1822. Several efforts were made by the people of the territory to induce congress to separate it again into East and West Florida, but without success. No enabling act was passed, but a convention of delegates, Jan.11, 1839, "having and claiming the right of admission to the Union" formed "a free and independent state, by the name of the state of Florida". No boundaries were assigned by the state constitution, or by the act of admission, both referring for particulars to the treaty of February 22, 1819; but that treaty merely described the ceded district as "the territories eastward of the Mississippi, known by the name of East and West Florida." and this vagueness of description gave rise to disputes with Georgia and Alabama as to the boundary line, which were not settled for some years.

—The constitution was in the usual form. The governor was to hold office for four years, and to be ineligible for four years thereafter. The capital was to be Tallahassee. The legislature was forbidden to emancipate slaves, or to prevent immigrants into the state from bringing slaves with them. Under this constitution the state was admitted by act of March 3, 1845, Iowa being admitted by the same act.

—In politics, national and state, Florida was whig by a small majority until 1852, when the democrats elected the governor and congressman by a close vote, 4,628 to 4,336 for governor. The remnant of the whig minority in 1856 took the name of the American party, but in 1858 this also disappeared, and but one party, the democratic, existed in the state. Jan.10,1861, a state convention passed an ordinance of secession by a vote of 62 to 7, and Feb.4 the delegates from Florida took part in the first meeting of the congress of the confederate states. After 1863 Florida was left to its own defense by the confederate government; at the close of the rebellion it came early under control of the federal authorities. July 13, 1865, President Johnson appointed a provisional governor, who called a state convention for October 25. This body "annulled" the ordinance of secession, Oct.28, and adopted a new constitution, Nov.7, which declared the abolition of slavery "by the government of the United States" limited the right of suffrage and the right to sit on juries to white persons, and defined the state boundaries as follows: "Beginning at the mouth of the river Perdido; thence up the middle of that river to the boundary of Alabama, in latitude 31° north; thence due east to the Chattahoochee river; thence down the middle of that river to the Flint river; thence straight to the head of the St. Mary's river; thence down the middle of that river to the Atlantic ocean; thence southwardly to the gulf of Florida and gulf of Mexico; thence northwardly and westwardly, including all islands within five leagues of the shore, to the beginning" The convention, by ordinance, repudiated the state debt incurred during the rebellion. Under this constitution an election for state officers and congressmen was held Nov. 29, a legislature was organized Dec. 18, and Jan. 16, 1866, the president relived the provisional governor. The state remained under its own authorities until the passage of the reconstruction act of March 2, 1867, when it became part of the third military district commanded by Maj. Gen. Pope, Col. Sprague having command of the sub-district of Florida. Under this régime a state convention adopted a constitution Feb. 25, 1868, which was ratified by popular vote, May 4-6, state officers being chosen at the same time to hold until January, 1873. As the new constitution conformed in all respects to the act of congress(See RECONSTRUCTION), Edition: current; Page: [234] and as the new legislature, in June, 1868 ratified the 14th amendment, Florida was recognized as a state by act of June 25, 1868. From this time the state remained under republican control until 1876, when the state government became democratic. This election was claimed "on the face of the returns" by both parties, a and the truth will probably never be known. Outside of Baker country the returns made both parties almost exactly equal. From Baker country two returns were received, one being 143 rep., 238 dem.(95 dem. maj.), and the other, in which some precincts were cast out, 130 rep., 89dem.(41 rep. maj.). The returning board finally took the latter, making 42 rep. maj. in the state. (For the electoral vote of the same year see ELECTORAL COMMISSION, I.). The state has since been democratic; though the majority is small and is liable to be reversed by immigration.

—Considerable desire has always been shown in West Florida for annexation to Alabama, and in 1869 Alabama offered Florida $1,000,000 as the price of her consent to the proposed annexation. A popular vote upon the question was ordered in West Florida by the governor in that year, and showed a majority in favour of such annexation, but no further steps were taken in the matter.

—The name of the state was first given to the entire territory by its discoverer, Ponce de Leon, in 1572, from the Spanish name of the day on which it was discovered, Pascua Florida.(Easter Sunday).

—GOVERNORS. Wm. D. Moseley(1845-9). Thos. Brown(1849-53). Jas E. Broome(1853-7), Madison S. Perry (1857-61), John Milton (1861-5), Wm. Marvin (provisional) 1865. David S. Walker (1866-8), Harrison Reed (1868-73), Ossian B. Hart(1873-7), Marcellus B. Stearns(acting-governor)1876, George F. Drew(1877-81), Wm. D. Bloxham(1881-3).

—See French's Historical Memoirs of Lousiana and Florida; Fairbanks' History of Florida; Adams' Florida; Lanier's Florida; Poore's Federal and State Constitutions; Appleton's Annual Cyclopedia, 1861-80; Tribune Almanac. 1838-81. The act of March 3, 1845, admitting Florida, is in 5 Stat, at Large, 742.

FOOT'S RESOLUTION

FOOT'S RESOLUTION(IN U. S. HISTORY). Dec. 29, 1829, in the senate, S. A. Foot, of Connecticut, introduced a resolution instructing the committee on public lands to inquire into the expediency of limiting the sales of the public lands, for a certain period, to those which had already been offered for sale. This apparently innocent resolution was taken up, discussed at irregular intervals, and gave rise to an intermittent debate, which lasted until May 21, 1830, and which, from the pre-eminent ability of the debaters and the wide range of the discussion, is usually known as "the great debate in the senate." At first the debate consisted of allegations by western senators that the policy of the eastern states. Foot's resolution being an example, had always been to check western growth by limiting land sales, and of argument and denial by eastern senators. Southern senators were strongly inclined to espouse the cause of the west, and some of them suggested that the public lands ought to be given away instead of sold. Jan. 19, 1831, Robert Y. Hayne, of South Carolina, assigned as an additional reason for the adoption of this policy, the necessity of preventing the growth of a permanent government revenue and the "centralization" of the government. The debate then took a new turn, centering upon Hayne and Daniel Webster, of Massachusetts. Hayne is commonly supposed to have been supplied with the substance of his brilliant arguments by Calhoun, who, as vice-president, could take no part in the debate; Webster's share has never been attributed to any one but himself. Webster's first reply to Hayne, Jan. 20, claimed the growth of the Western states as the legitimate fruit of the New England system of land sale and surveying, there adopted, and of the ordinance of 1787, drawn and introduced by Dane, of Massachusetts, Jan. 21 and 25. Hayne replied, and in his reply seized upon the circumstance that Dane was a member of the Hartford convention as a basis for a general attack upon New England and upon the loose construction or "centralizing" theory of government. Jan. 26, Webster delivered his second speech, known by eminence as The Reply to Hayne. In the second part of this speech he stated fully his views upon the nature of the government, and also what he understood to be Hayne's views. (See NULLIFICATION.) As his statement of Hayne's views amounted to a mere right of revolution against insufferable oppression, Hayne interrupted him with the first public declaration by a responsible authority that the asserted right of "nullification" of objectionable acts of congress by state authority was not a mere "right of revolution, but a right of constitutional resistance." Webster having thus obtained a foothold, proceeded, with extraordinary eloquence and force, to the demolition of the new doctrine. This portion of his reply, with his final answer on the following day to Hayne's reply, make up the strongest presentation of the "national" theory of the constitution which had then been made. It is, however, faulty, in modern view, in one point: he defined the constitution as, "not a compact, but an instrument resting on compact"; and his great antagonist, Calhoun, in all his subsequent speeches struck persistently at this one vulnerable point. The power of Webster's speech was so striking that Calhoun was forced, in December, 1832, to take Hayne's place in the arena, and accepted the senatorship from South Carolina, resigning the vice-presidency to do so. After Jan. 27, the other senators, who had stood aside, with the exception of Benton, of Missouri, for the battle between Hayne and Webster, resumed the debate, which drifted off upon questions of slavery, the tariff, and the judiciary, until it died away without action of any kind. Its real importance Edition: current; Page: [235] lay in speeches of Hayne and Webster. (See ORDINANCE OF 1787, NULLIFICATION, CONSTRUCTION.)

—See 10 Benton's Debates of Congress, 418; 1 Benton's Thirty Years' View, 130; 3 Webster's Works, 248, 270; 1 Calhoun's Works; 1 A. H. Stephens' War Between the States, 347; 1 Von Holst's United States, 470.

FORCE BILL

FORCE BILL. (See NULLIFICATION, RECONSTRUCTION, KU-KLUX KLAN.)

FORESTRY

FORESTRY. Under this general term is included whatever relates to woodlands, their preservation, maintenance, cutting off and renewal. In the English legal sense, a forest is a tract of land, whether wooded or not, that is held by the sovereign for the maintenance of game, and subject to peculiar laws differing from the common law of England. A chase differs from a forest in being capable of being held by a subject, and in being held by a subject, and in being under the common and not the forest law. As applied in the American sense, a forest is synonymous with woodland. Small woodlands are sometimes called groves, and their care and management is termed sylviculture. The term arboriculture is applied to cultivation of trees, whether singly, in avenues or groups, and is sometimes, although improperly, restricted to fruit trees. We find that forests left to nature are very unequally distributed, some regions being densely wooded, while others are wholly destitute of trees. This distribution is influenced by latitude, elevation above sea level, and especially by the amount of rainfall in a given locality; and the latter is largely determined by the prevailing winds, and by the character of the surface over which they pass.

—As a general rule, ocean winds are humid, and as they pass over the land they tend to become cool, and to deposit the excess of moisture as rain, or in winter as snow. This is especially true where they pass over mountain ranges, where they must necessarily become cooled down to a low degree, and cause copius showers of rain. After passing over and descending into the lowlands beyond, the air being dry can no longer produce showers, and the region may be arid, on the leeward side, while it is heavily wooded on the opposite. We see such contrasts along the Andes, in Peru, where there is a belt of rainless and treeless country between these mountains and the Pacific, while eastward the trade winds bring heavy rains, that fall upon the dense forests. On our Pacific coast we find even stronger contrasts in the densely timbered region along the coast, which first receives the prevailing westerly winds from the Pacific, and the dry and in some places utterly arid region to the eastward of the mountains.

—In rainy regions within the topics we invariably find forests, very generally with perennial foliage, and dense and highly colored wood. In exogenous species the rings of growth are indistinct and uncertain; they often afford choice products from their juices, gums, essential oils, dyes, medicinal qualities, fibres and fruits, but are generally too solid and heavy for carpentry, although often prized for cabinet work. As we pass into the temperate zones the deciduous species become prevalent; the palms, which form characteristic trees in the tropics, disappear, the broad-leaved perennials gradually dwindle out, butt the coniferous evergreens, relatively few within the tropics, become common and often the prevailing and almost exclusive kind. These various species become fewer in number and smaller in size as we pass into the arctic zone, where the poplars and the willows dwindle to shrubs, and finally disappear. In ascending from sea level to great altitudes we may pass through all these ranges of climate in a few hours, until we reach an elevation at which trees disappear altogether. This is called the timber line. It is some 14,000 or 15,000 feet above sea level in the tropics, about 11,800 in the Himalayas, 6,400 in the Alps, from 9,000 to 12,000 in the Rocky mountains, in Colorado, and becomes lower as we go north, till it comes down to the plains. There is often a heavy forest growth a few hundred feet before reaching this line, when the trees begin to appear short, spread out wide, leaning with the prevailing winds, and finally disappear entirely. Above this it becomes bald and barren to the summit, or to the perpetual snow.

—In comparing the forest growth of the northern hemisphere we find a remarkable resemblance between the native species on the eastern borders of Asia and North America. In some instances the forest trees of Mantchooria, northern China and Japan, are of the same species as those found in our northern states; in others, they are of the same genera but of different species; and in the great majority of cases they may be readily transferred, from one continent to the other; presenting opportunities for obtaining a great variety for ornamental plating, and perhaps for profitable forest growth. On the other hand, the eastern and western borders of North America present a strong contrast in their forests; the former including a great number of deciduous species, and the latter chiefly the coniferous evergreens. Although the latter in very many cases grow to immense size, they do not prosper in the Atlantic states, probably from the absence of distinctly wet and dry seasons, and because the wood ripens but imperfectly before winter.

—It has been found by experience in Europe that the supply of timber and wood in various forms, for meeting the innumerable uses of civilized life, can only be maintained by cultivation. In most European countries upon the continent, large tracts of land belong to the government, not in continuous blocks, but in parcels more or less interrupted by other tracts that belong to local communities or municipalities, to public establishments or to private owners. Over all of these lands, excepting those belonging to individuals, the state extends its protection, and so far as these lands are covered with woodlands, it assumes the control. Over private property it never attempts Edition: current; Page: [236] to interfere, unless a public interest is endangered. The owner is allowed to plant or to clear off his lands, as a general rule, whenever it suits his interests to do so. But where the forests are needed for protection, as for example, on a shore liable to drifting sands, or on a mountain liable to erosion from torrents, or on a frontier, he is restrained from a general clearing, and must not use his timer excepting as allowed.

—For the management of these interests, forest administrations have been established, generally in connection with the ministry of finances, or that in charge of agricultural and industrial interests; and for the training of skilled agents for the service, schools of forestry have been established. In these, there is usually required a preparatory course of study equivalent to that implied in graduation from a gymnasium or real-school, and the special studies of the course extend through two ro three years. Instruction is generally imparted by lectures, reviews, oral recitations, practical exercises and excursions under the guidance of the professors. The studies include mathematics, physics, meteorology, climatology, natural sciences, (especially botany, zoölogy, geology, and mineralogy), chemistry, drawing, the practical use of instruments for surveying and all kinds of measurements, the application of all of these studies to the wants of the forest agent, and so much of the common law and political economy, history and general literature as appears directly applicable to the profession. The formalities of legal prosecutions, of transactions with superior and subordinate officers, the construction of roads, and of various mechanical structures employed in the cutting, extraction, transportation and manufacture of forest products, form a particular class of these studies. Besides these there are rules of management, methods of planting and of restocking the land with trees after clearing, and a wide range of practical details to be learned, both theoretically in the class-room, and practically by labors and in subordinate grades of supervision, before the candidate is thought to be worthy of a separate charge.

—As hunting is deemed in Europe an object of especial interest, in connection with forestry, it is taught as a science and an art in schools of forestry. Of late years fish culture has also been introduced as a subject of practical instruction in the Prussian schools. The terms "forst und jagd," are constantly associated in German literature, and "caux et forêts" in France; indicating the connection between forests and hunting in the former, and the supervision of inland waters by the forest administration in the latter country at a former period. The term is still in common use, although no longer applicable.

—After passing examinations, and a certain probationary term of service, the graduate of a school of forestry may be appointed in charge of a revier or district, in one of the lower grades of the service, and may rise by successive promotions, somewhat like those of the military and naval service. In fact, these grades have generally their equivalent rank in the army; in many cases military instruction is given in schools of forestry and in case of war the forest officers may be called into active military service. Finally, after a fixed period of active duties, these agents may retire on a pension.

—Besides these schools of forestry of a high grade there are a great number of schools of forest guards, and forest schools of lower grade and of very practical character, where the elements of forestry are taught, with so much of literary instruction as is needed for these subordinate duties. Occasionally these agents are assembled, at a leisure season, for the revision of their studies, and the examination of practical subjects.

—The principal schools of forestry in Europe are as follows: In France, at Nancy; a school of forest guards at Barres; a course in sylviculture at three agricultural colleges, and a special course at the "Institut Agronomique" in Paris. In Denmark, at Copenhagen* (in connection with agriculture). In Sweden, at Stockholm; and elementary forest schools at seven other places. In Finland, at Evois. In Russia, at St. Petersburg, at Lissino, and with agriculture at Moscow;* and at Nova Alexandria* in Poland. In Germany, at Eberswalde and Münden in Prussia; at Giessen* in Hesse; at Tharand in Saxony; at Aschaffenburg and Munish in Bavaria; at Tübingen* in Wurtemburg; at Eisnach in Saxe-Weimar; at Carlsrube* in Baden. In Austria, at Vienna,* Eulenburg, Weisswasser, Lemberg, Graz,* Aggsbach, Schemnitz,* and other places. In Italy, at Vallombrosa. In Switzerland, at Zurich.* In Spain, at Escorial. In Portugal, at Lisbon.* In some of the above places, (those marked with a star) forestry forms a part of some larger institution, such as a university or a polytechnic school.

—As a general thing students not aspiring to the state service are allowed to attend these schools, and may receive diplomas. In many cases state students receive aid, and in some they are held to service for a certain period after graduating. No school of forestry has hitherto been established in Great Britain, but those seeking forest service in India and Australia obtain their professional training in France or Germany. It will undoubtedly be found to the interest of our agricultural colleges and our universities to provide means for instruction in the practical duties of forestry in the United States, although from the tenure of our lands in private owners, we can not offer certain appointments in any way comparable with those in European countries. The instruction should chiefly relate to the details of planting and management, and a knowledge of the conditions best calculated to secure success. It would include mathematics, as applied in surveys, measurements and various calculations; chemistry, both organic and inorganic, especially as applied to soils; geology and mineralogy, the natural sciences, physics, meteorology; in short whatever enables the careful observer to anticipate success from a knowledge of requirements, Edition: current; Page: [237] or to avoid failures by knowing their causes. As an essential means of instruction, schools of forestry, besides the apparatus for scientific illustration, must have collections of tools and implements, models of machines and structures, cabinets of woods for showing their structure, qualities and uses, geological, mineralogical and botanical series, and especially gardens and plantations, including labeled specimens of living trees, of as many species as the soil and climate will allow. As a first requisite in tree planting we should understand the capacity of soils and the requirements of different tree with respect to them. But as the roots of trees penetrate much deeper than those of agricultural crops, the nature of the subsoil is often an important matter; and as both of these are principally derived from the disintegration of rocks, the study of geology finds a direct practical application. It is not unusual to find certain rocky strata distinguished by some particular kind of forest growth. The chestnut, for example, can not be made to thrive on a calcareous soil, but prefers the silicious, and especially that from decomposed granite. The pines prefer a sandy soil, if the subsoil is suitable; and the oaks generally require a moderately compact and strong clay soil. Neither a purely silicious, calcareous or aluminous soil is entirely suitable for trees, but a mixture, and especially a portion of vegetable mould is generally preferred.

—It is a peculiar advantage in forest tree growth that it may often be secured very successfully upon broken and rocky surfaces altogether too rough for cultivation, as the roots insinuate themselves into crevices, wherever there is soil and moisture, and act as powerful agents in promoting the decomposition of rocks, and their conversion into soil. Although the presence of moisture in the soil is generally necessary to vegetation, its excess is injurious; hence drainage becomes necessary for successful planting. The roots of plants absorb moisture from the soil, and give it out by evaporation from the leaves. By this means the planting of certain trees, such as poplars and willows, on the borders of swamps, has the effect of drying them. Trees are also found to intercept or absorb malarious emanations from marshes, and hence their cultivation may ebcome an act of public utility, as a sanitary measure, for the protection of cities and towns against insalubrious exposures.

—There are several different modes of management of woodlands, each of which has its advantages in certain localities. 1. Selection; or the taking of trees here and there, leaving the younger to take the place of those removed. This is the common practice in reserved wood-lots, and is generally a wasteful and ruinous one, because in such forests the trees are of all ages and sizes, the amount of timber is less than by some other methods, and vacant places are very apt to form, that tend continually to become larger. Still in some places it is the best and indeed the only one that can be practiced, as, for example, in places where it would be unsafe to clear off all the timber at once, on account of loose drifting sand or steep declivities that might suffer from erosion of torrents. If done at stated periods, it is also the best practice in spruce and cedar woodlands, where trees below a certain size are left for future cutting.

—2. Coppice growth. By this method, all the trees worth cutting are taken off at once, and a new growth springs up from the stumps and roots. It is allowed to grow to the period fixed for cutting, which depends upon the kind of tree, the goodness of soil, the climate, and the uses to which the wood is to be applied. It can be used only in deciduous woodlands, for the conifers do not generally thus reproduce, and is especially useful in the management of woodlands kept for supplying charcoal to furnaces. Although trees in such cases will generally grow if let alone, there are certain measures that should receive attention in order to secure the greatest yield. They must be carefully guarded against fires, and fenced against cattle, and especially against sheep, at all times. Their injury from browsing, and breaking down of young sprouts, will do a great deal more harm than the profit that could be realized from pasturage. The trees should be cut as close to the ground as possible, and always in winter, or before the sap starts in spring. Care must be taken not to injure the bark on the stump, as the sprouts come out along the line of junction between the bark and wood, and the stumps should be rounded off with an adze, so that the rain will not settle upon them. The sprouts may sometimes be bent down and partly buried, a notch being cut where they are covered, and thus a tree with an independent root may be started, and when rooted, these sprouts may be cut apart from the native tree. Coppices should sometimes be thinned out, where the growth is too dense, and may be cut off at intervals of from ten to forty years. The kinds of trees that grow best in coppices are the oaks, chestnut, poplars, cottonwoods, locust, ailanthus, willows, catalpa, soft maples, linden, elms, ash, birch, hickory, alder, etc. The beech, hard maple and some others do not grow successfully in this manner, and, as a general rule, the reproduction is more successful in a deep rich soil, with a moderate degree of moisture, and in a humid climate. It becomes more uncertain as the soil becomes hard, and the climate dry. In cutting off a coppice growth, it is a profitable practice to reserve some of the more thrifty of the young trees, to grow on to a second or even third or fourth period of cutting, when they will have acquired much greater value for timber than they would be worth for firewood. This is especially the case with the oak, ash, hickory, black walnut and other kinds valuable for manufactures. Such trees, when left exposed to the air and light, are apt to become covered with branches along the sides, that would become large, to the injury of the timber if left. They should be cut off late in summer or early in Edition: current; Page: [238] autumn, at which season they will not be likely to sprout again. For hoop poles, the cuttings may be made once in five or six years; for fencing, the trees may be suitable in ten or twelve years; for posts, in fifteen or twenty years; and for railroad ties, in from twenty to thirty years. Where oak is raised for supplying bark for tanning purposes and for dyeing, it is usually cut off when from twenty to twenty-five years old. As this cutting must be done when the bark will peel, it is delayed till vegetation has started in the spring and early summer, somewhat to the prejudice of the future growth, which becomes feebler as the season advances, and is lost altogether when the wood has ceased to form for the season, and the buds for the next year are set.

—3. Full forest growth. By this form of cultivation the forest is started by planting or sowing, and so dense that it will shade the ground while still young, and until which time it may be cultivated, sometimes with some farm crop, partly to keep the ground mellow, and partly to kill the grass and weeds. As the trees become too dense, so that their branches interlock, they should be thinned out; and this thinning process should be continued from time to time, usually at intervals of five or six years, but more seldom as the trees become large, until forty or fifty years old. In countries where timber is valuable, the profit from these thinnings will more than pay the whole cost of cultivation. The first will furnish hoop poles, vine props and stakes; the next, poles; and the later ones, small timber for a great variety of uses. In all of them the top wood is cut into firewood, and the twigs are bound into faggots and sold for oven-wood. In such a forest, properly managed, the trees being a little crowded grow tall and straight, they are all of about the same size and age, and under the best management they will yield at full maturity from three to five times as much in volume and in value as trees growing naturally and without care in our forests.

—As trees gain in size they become relatively more valuable per cubic foot, because the wood is harder, stronger, and adapted to more uses than small wood. In all trees the wood is of greatest worth at full maturity, and although they may still keep alive and continue to form new wood on the outside many years after they have begun to decline, they are apt to become hollow and unsound within, and may finally be almost good for nothing before they fall of old age. It is best, therefore, to cut them when fully ripe, and before any part has decayed. The forester has not performed his whole duty in bringing the woodland to maturity; it is not finished until this timber has been cut off, and a new crop has been started in its place. In this, modern forestry has achieved great success, at almost nominal cost, by so managing the cuttings that nature does this work of restoration of itself. In a dense forest the surface of the earth is deeply shaded, and nothing will grow on the ground. The few seeds that sprout soon perish, and in a crowded forest few seeds will grow on the trees. As the period for cutting approaches, a part of the trees are taken out, leaving fifteen or twenty to an acre, more or less, about equally distributed over the surface, and of the kinds desired for the new growth. These, now freely exposed to the air and light, will probably the next year bear an abundance of fruit, which, falling upon the litter, and covered by the leaves of the same season, will soon spring up, covering the whole surface with a carpet of young trees. These require some shading, and would all perish in an open field. This shade they get form the parent trees, and with the sun shining on them a part of the time, and a part of the time shaded off, they grow rapidly in the soil that has been forming for a long period from the annual fall of leaves. As the young trees get larger, they need more air and light, and a part of the old trees are taken out, and finally the remainder, leaving a new forest fully started, to grow on perhaps for one or two hundred years.

—The profits of planting in this manner are very large, but the long period required for returns renders it not very inviting for investment. Most proprietors can not afford to wait so long for their money, and hence it is generally employed by governments, to secure the heavy timber needed for their navies and other uses. In such a forest, after a few years, cattle may be pastured without injury, and in beech and oak woodlands they become valuable for the fattening of swine. The privilege of pasturage and feeding is sometimes sold at auction, and in others it is a right enjoyed by communes and villages. Whenever allowed, the herds of cattle or swine are generally in care of keepers—not their owners, but persons appointed for the purpose, who have no motive for preference, and who will allow all the animals in their care an equal chance. It is sometimes claimed as a right, to gather litter from woodlands, for fertilizing lands, or for bedding cattle in stables. The practice is always bad, and should be prevented where possible. It tends to impoverish the soil, and eventually to check the growth of the trees. This method of cultivation is the only one applicable to coniferous trees, as they can be grown only form seed. As they require particular care when young, they should always be started in seed-beds, and be transplanted in nursery rows three or four years before being finally set where the trees are to grow. In extensive operations, nurseries should always be established as near as may be to the intended plantations. For small planting it is advisable to purchase the young plants from nurserymen, who can generally sell them cheaper than an unskilled planter could grow them. When wild coniferous trees are used, they should be taken up in a damp time in the spring, the roots dipped in a puddle of rich soil, and they should be placed in boxes, not too closely packed nor covered so as to exclude the air, and they should be set in nurseries and cultivated two or three years before final planting. In deciding between sowing and Edition: current; Page: [239] planting, we must be governed by circumstances. In the case of oak, and the nut trees generally, as also in that of pines on a very light sandy soil, the young roots strike deep, and can not be extracted without great injury. They should therefore generally be planted or sown where they are to grow. There is an advantage from planting in rows, because they can then be cultivated while young. If there is a little uncertainty as to what trees are best suited to the situation, they may be planted alternately, of different kinds, as in Scotland the Pinus sylvestris (Scotch pine) and the larch. At the period of thinning, one or the other may then be removed, leaving all the trees of one kind, as found most promising, or some of each may be left as though best. As a general rule, a mixture of species produces more quantity and greater value than all of one kind.

—As to the density of growth, much depends upon the soil, slope, aspect, elevation, climate and other causes. It may be more dense on a hillside than on a plain, and at greater elevations than at those of less height. In planting trees on a hillside, the rows should run horizontally, at the same elevation, following the contour of surface, without regard to allignment in any other direction. The reason of this is, that the soil is not so liable to wash when worked in this manner. On very steep slopes it is injudicious to disturb the soil more than can possibly be avoided, and upon a northern slope it is sometimes best to sow seeds upon the snow. They would be more likely to perish, if sown on a southerly slope; in fact, trees are in such places much more difficult to start than in any other, and, under equal conditions otherwise, a southern exposure is more often treeless and arid than one fronting to the north.

—In collecting seeds of trees for planting, it should be remembered that they are liable to heat and mould if placed in heaps while still fresh. They should therefore be spread evenly, and stirred from time to time until somewhat dry. Those that are thin and chaffy, like the birch, may be kept in papers or sacks till the next spring. Those with a hard shell, like the locust, acacias, coffee-tree, etc., should be scalded slightly and soaked in warm water until they swell, and then should be immediately planted. Those that ripen late in spring, or early in summer, should be planted at once. The willows, poplars, cottonwoods, elms and soft maples are of this kind. The hard shelled nuts may be planted in the fall of the same year in which they were grown, or early the next spring. They may be kept over winter by spreading on the ground in a dry place, covered loosely with straw and boards, but exposed to the weather, or they may be placed in alternate layers with sand in boxes or barrels, and thus left in the open air till spring. It may be said of nearly all forest-tree seeds, that they lose their vitality in a relatively short time, as compared with the grains. Some can scarcely be kept over winter, and must be planted at once. Indeed in some soils and climates, fall planting is preferable to planting in spring, but in this no rule of general application can be laid down. In doubtful cases and untried conditions no extensive operations should be undertaken without first experimenting, not only as to the season and manner of planting, but also with respect to the kinds most likely to succeed in a given locality.

—In planting tree seeds, whether in the large way, where they are to remain, or in seed beds, the soil should be thoroughly mellowed, by plowing and harrowing; and if in new prairie land, it is idle to expect success unless the sod be first thoroughly broken and rotted, and afterward the ground plowed as deeply as may be before planting. It is generally advisable to cultivate the land with some field crop a year or two after breaking. The breaking can only be done early in summer, when the vegetation is most active. The ground becomes too hard, later in the season, and the sod will not decompose. For early spring planting the ground may be plowed the fall previous—In prairie planting it will generally be best to plant the seeds at equal intervals in rows, so as to admit of after cultivation by horse power. To secure accuracy in this, the ground, after plowing and harrowing, may be marked off into rows. It is absolutely necessary in the more arid climate westward from the Missouri river, and a good rule almost anywhere, to plant rather closely together, so that the trees will shade the ground early, and afterward to thin out as they become dense. This forces the trees to run up straight, and secures a fine body to the trunk. Almost all trees, when planted with a free exposure on all sides, tend to grow low and wide. The distance most frequently adopted is four feet between rows and two or three feet apart between rows.

—On level ground the trees should generally be planted in rows running east and west, because they sooner shade the ground in this direction. Upon hillsides they should be in horizontal lines, for reasons already mentioned. Seeds may be planted and cultivated the first year like corn. The ground must be kept mellow, and it is a good practice to run a cultivator between the rows from time to time, in the early part of summer, whether there are weeds or not, and this practice is especially useful in a dry season.

—In some trees, such as the oak, when set from nurseries, the stem becomes hard, and the growth slow and imperfect. It is sometimes best after the first year, when the roots have become well started, to cut down this stem close to the ground. A new and strong one will then spring up, and very probably outgrow, in a year or two, those that have not been cut back. A fire running through a young plantation will sometimes apparently ruin it altogether, by killing all the young trees. The roots will however be often found full of life, and by cutting off the dead stem, others will spring up from them. In such cases only one should generally be allowed to grow. Such an accident in a plantation of coniferous woods would be fatal, since they never Edition: current; Page: [240] sprout from the root, nor can they survive the loss of their leaves. In some regions where from annual fires the trees have been killed off, and at the time of first settlement the surface shows nothing but herbage, the ground is found full of the roots of trees, which everywhere spring up when these fires are prevented. These "grub prairies" become, with no other care than a little protection, groves of trees that in twenty years or more afford an abundance of fuel, and wood for various other uses. In the southwestern states these roots continue to grow as the opportunity of foliage permits, until they become of large size, affording much material for firewood, and even for charcoal, in places where there was apparently no timber.

—Besides rearing forest trees from seeds, they may be in some cases propagated with great success from cuttings taken from the young wood, or from the roots, and placed in ground previously well prepared as already described for planting. This may be done to great advantage with the willows, the poplars and the cottonwoods; and with some of these that do not readily produce fertile seeds, it is the only means by which they can be made to grow. It is generally best to cut these sprouts late in the fall, or during the winter, but never while they are in leaf. They may be kept till wanted for use, by burying them in trenches, where they are not exposed to standing water, or to frost, or by keeping them in cellars, tied in bundles, and with the ends covered with damp sand or moss. They should not be exposed to the dry air more than is absolutely necessary, and when cut, the incision should be made obliquely across the lower end, without loosening the bark. When kept in a damp place, a callus will form along the edge of the wood under the bark, and from this the roots will spring. For willows these cuttings may be one or two inches thick and two feet long. They are usually much less when taken from the poplars, being ten to twelve inches long, and from the last year's growth. They should be pressed obliquely into the ground, with the ends to the north, as being in this position less liable to dry up at the end, and more exposed to the sun. They should not project much above the ground. Although cuttings are usually set early in spring, in ground prepared the fall before, they may sometimes be set in autumn, or, if the weather permits, in winter. They will need cultivating and thinning, as already described for planted trees.

—In the prairie regions of the west, where from an arid climate the cultivation of trees becomes difficult, the native cottonwoods that spring up by millions on the sand bars of rivers, may be plowed up, or pulled up in moist places without plowing, in great abundance, and are preferable to cuttings. They may be plowed in, by laying obliquely down in a furrow and covering with the plow. In these dry prairies the cottonwoods or the willows may be planted with great advantage alternately with the more valuable kinds, for sheltering them form the sun and the drying winds, until they get well started and able to protect themselves. Among the kinds worth cultivating for profit in these regions may be mentioned the black walnut, ash, oaks, locust, mulberry, western catalpa, honey locust, ailanthus, osage orange, box elder, hackberry, elms, soft maple, and native red cedar. As a general rule the conifers do not succeed, and it has been found impossible to raise the beech, chestnut or sugar maple, except in particular localities, and by a combination of circumstances that is rare.

—The osage orange is used as a hedge plant about as far north as Chicago, but along its northern limit it becomes liable to winter-kill. Further north the white willow forms an excellent hedge when closely planted. Both this willows and the cottonwoods grow with great rapidity, and at the age of eight or ten years they may have a diameter of as many inches at two feet from the ground. When cut in summer and peeled they dry very easily, and furnish poles for fencing and other uses that will last many years when not in contact with the ground. At twenty or thirty years the cottonwood may be sawn into boards suitable for inside joinery, and planks for bridges and other uses.

—In a prairie region trees become of great utility to agriculture, which planted in belts, from four to ten rods or more in width. They protect grain and fruits from drying winds, and tend to mitigate the severity of drought. In winter they afford shelter from the fierce north winds that have at times proved so destructive to property and to human life. There can be no doubt but that if a fifth or a fourth part of the prairies were covered with such belts of timber, the amount of grain that could be raised upon the remainder would be as much as would be realized from the whole, without them. As the public land surveys are run with the cardinal points, these necessarily become the direction of farm lines, and very naturally of timber belts. They perhaps afford the greatest protection when planted in east and west lines, but it would be still better to have them around every prairie farm, and at intervals of a quarter of a mile or so throughout the prairie country. If neighbors could agree to each plant on two sides of their farms, these belts would afford shelter to both, and the whole would be mutually benefited. The first benefit from shelter belts would be, protection against hot and dry summer winds so liable to prevail in the western states. The cultivation of fruits may be said to depend for success upon their presence; and even in the older states, where fruits were formerly raised with more certainty than at present, it would be found that the want of shelter from adjacent woodlands is a principal cause of modern failures. Another benefit is derived from the prevention of drifting snows in winter, especially along public highways and railroad cuts. This has been so completely proved upon the line of the Northern Pacific railroad, that the company has undertaken to plant Edition: current; Page: [241] with belts of trees, the exposed places along the whole line. For plantations of this kind, from six to eight rows, four to six feet apart, should be planted on the side most exposed to the wind, and one of fewer number on the other side, some seventy-five feet from the track. The ground must be thoroughly prepared by breaking the sod, back-setting and deep cultivation before hand. About one month can be devoted to planting in spring and one month in autumn. The trees must be carefully cultivated three or four years, and will need to be protected from cattle, and from prairie fires. The best means for guarding against these fires is to plow several furrows on each side of a strip of land outside of the belt, one or two hundred feet apart, and carefully burn off the grass between the furrows as soon after the first autumnal frosts as the fire can be made to burn. A similar precaution taken along the sides of the track, between the timber belts, would render accidents from fires almost impossible, and the danger becomes every year less as the country becomes well settled. By preventing the snows from drifting, they protect the ground against frost, and when they melt, the water settles into the soil, and keeps it moist for a longer time. This is one of the reasons why the north sides of ravines and of mountains are usually better wooded than those which have a southern exposure. In regions where the conifers, such as cedars and spruces, can be cultivated with ease, they might save infinite trouble from the drifting of snows along the highways, and screens in these places become almost as important an object of public expense as bridges. Such evergreen belts should be in double rows, the trees in each being opposite the spaces in the other. Their density and distance between rows depend upon the local circumstances, and can only be determined by knowing the conditions. Great success has been obtained in Russia from planting along railways; and with deep cultivation beforehand, and careful attention afterward, they have succeeded in places that appeared utterly beyond hope of improvement from aridity of the soil and dryness of the climate.

—The importance of timber as a material of indispensable want, and the rapid exhaustion of our native forest supplies, being admitted as facts, it becomes an important question as to what can be done by governments toward maintaining, regulating and restoring these supplies.

—Our settled lands all belong to private owners. There can be no planting done upon them at public cost, and it is not in the least probable that the title will ever be recovered by government, for the purpose of planting. The public lands belonging to the national government are remote from the great body of our population, and we scarcely find it possible to protect the timber upon them from being cut to supply the wants of adjacent settlements. The law, in fact, now gives them this right in certain cases, and moreover these supplies are so remote from the great markets that they can not be made generally available, by any existing mode of transportation, and at present prices.

—The states own some lands that have been given for educational and other purposes, but they are being sold as fast as opportunities offer, and systems of forest management can scarcely be organized under state laws with any prospect of success. It must be admitted that these conditions present great difficulties, and the most probable result will be, that growing prices will sooner or later force upon our people the realization of the fact, that there in profit in growing timber. Whenever this comes to be believed and felt, the owners of land will very probably plant for this profit, just as they now raise grain. The kinds best suited for given localities will be carefully sought out, and the best methods of management will be studied and practiced. The sooner we begin this work the less we shall feel the inconveniences of scarcity and high prices. There can be no doubt but that if one quarter of the whole area of the United States were planted in timber, the shelter and protection which these woodlands would afford to the remainder, would enable us to raise the same amount of grain that could be got from the whole surface without woodlands. There are waste grounds and exhausted lands in almost every part of the country, that might be used for planting with the greatest advantage, and nothing will so restore fertility to an old worn out field as a crop of timber.

—The government can aid in this measure in various ways. It can also, while some considerable tracts of timber land remain in its possession, adopt measures tending to economize present resources and provide for future wants. These may be briefly stated as follows: 1. It may reserve from future sales, selected bodies of timber land, and put them under management tending to use the timber already grown to best advantage, and to reserve and protect the young growth for future supplies. This is being done successfully and with profit in British India, Australia and other colonies. The system of leasing timber-rights upon ground rents, premiums at auction sale of rights, and a rate of tariff on the timber taken, as long practiced in Canada, deserves our most careful study. 2. It may cause to be planted young forests, upon lands still owned by the government, and in situations that have been found best adapted for timber growth. 3. It may establish experimental stations, for determining questions in forest culture that can never be done by individuals. These stations should have reference to the acclimatization of specie, the adaptation of particular kinds to given localities, the best methods of cultivation, and all scientific questions involved in the general subject of forestry. These stations should be judiciously chosen, widely distributed, and carefully managed, all the results of practical value being published for the information of the people. 4. It may cause to be prepared and published the latest and best of the results of researches in other countries, that afford results of practical value in our Edition: current; Page: [242] own country, and it should do its share in the advancement of our knowledge upon these questions, by aiding in carefully conducted researches. 5. In respect to the existing timber-culture acts, they should be so amended that when an entry is once made under them, the land should never after be liable to entry under any other form, at least not unless its unfitness for tree culture has been proved by proper evidence. It is a very common practice for persons to make these entries, hoping to sell out the privilege of homestead entry or pre-emption by abandoning them. 6. It has the power to couple a condition of planting, or of maintenance of a certain amount of woodland (if now timbered), in all future conveyances of public lands.

—As to the power of states to encourage tree planting, it might be exercised in the following manner: 1. By laws encouraging and protecting trees along highways, and by rewarding such planting in exemptions from highway taxes. They might authorize local highway authorities to plant screens and timber belts where needed for a public benefit. 2. By exempting lands planted in timber from taxation, or from the increased value thus given them, for a term of years. 3. By premiums given through the agency of agricultural or other societies, to be awarded for best success in planting or greatest areas planted. 4. Reports of facts worth knowing should be published, and prizes for approved essays should be offered, and the best published for distribution to those who would be most benefited by them. 5. An interest should be awakened in educational institutions and especially in our agricultural colleges. Experimental plantations, lectures and other means of instruction should be provided. 6. The distribution of seeds and plants at cost is provided in some countries, with great success, and without burden to the public. It might be done in some localities with great advantage in our own country. 7. A state board of forestry or a commissioner of forestry might be created by law, for the collection and diffusion of information upon all matters relating to the subject. 8. Efficient laws might be passed for preventing forest fires, by adequate penalties against the careless use of fires, and strict regulations tending to their prevention and control when started. 9. Model plantations, on the plan of model farms, or in connection with them, might be established. 10. When waste lands unfit for agriculture are sold for taxes, the title should be vested in the state, and the lands, if possible, reserved for timber culture under such regulations as should tend to best results. In cities and villages the local governments might promote a taste for sylviculture, and illustrate some of its principles by ornamental plantations and the planting of parks. To give these most value, collections of living trees, properly labeled, should be established at points where they would be of most interest, and especially near schools and public institutions.

FORMOSA

FORMOSA (Tai-wan), a fertile island 90 miles distant from the coast of China, which is about 240 miles long and 70 miles wide, intersected by a chain of mountains along its length. The eastern half of this island was from the fifteenth century claimed by the Japanese; the Chinese, as their maps made by the Jesuits show, claiming only the western half. The Dutch were, in 1662, driven from their settlements at Zeelandia on Formosa by the Japanese half-breed Koku sen-ya ("Coxinga"), and Dutch and Japanese Christianity on the island was extirpated. In March, 1867, the American brig Rover was wrecked off the southern shore, and the crew put to death by the natives. In June, 1867, Commodore Bell with the United States steamships Hartford and Wyoming, by orders of our government, landed a force to chastise the savages (Botans), but was repulsed. Unable to obtain redress from the Peking government, which disclaimed responsibility over eastern Formosa, our consul at Amoy, Gen. Charles Le Gendre, visited the chief of the eighteen tribes, obtaining from him a promise to protect the lives of shipwrecked Europeans and Americans. On June 8, 1874, a Japanese force of 1,300 men, under Gen. Saigo, occupied for six months a point at Liang Kiao bay, with the object of punishing the Botan savages who three years before had massacred the crew, numbering fifty-four men, of a vessel from the Riu Kiu (Loo Choo) islands. The Chinese government demanded the withdrawal of the troops, and war was imminent. Okube, the mikado's representative in Peking, firmly demanded that proper indemnity should be paid, and China agreed to assume responsibility over eastern Formosa. The Chinese paid the indemnity of 700,000 taels, and the Japanese on the 3d, having lost 700 men and spent $5,000,000, disembarked, having accomplished something for the benefit of the world. The fertility and position of Formosa make it a desirable island for European powers ambitious of influence in the East, but as yet China has not shown any evidences of a willingness to part with it.

FORTUNE BAY OUTRAGES

FORTUNE BAY OUTRAGES. (See TREATIES, FISHERY.)

FORTUNES

FORTUNES, Private. The private fortune of every person consists of the possessions whose management and enjoyment are attributed to him by the laws. At all periods the formation, growth and destruction of private fortunes have been intimately connected with the economic and political prosperity or decline of empires.

—Among the peoples of antiquity of whom we have record, private fortunes, consisted, especially at the beginning, of flocks and herds, and of land. The inequality of fortunes is noted in the book of Job. The partial inventory of Job's estate declares that he had 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, 500 she-asses, and numerous slaves. At that remote period great fortunes were acquired by usurpation. Job speaks Edition: current; Page: [243] of people "who remove landmarks," rob the flocks of others, "take away the ass of the fatherless and the ox of the widow": and says that such people will reap the field of another and gather the vintage of those whom they oppress; and will take away the garments of the poor man and leave him naked and exposed to the rigorous cold and the mountain rains. Hence, some great fortunes were acquired by economy and labor, others by robbery and violence.

—The evil consequences of extreme inequality of fortunes had already become very great among the Jews, when they were remedied by the institution of the Sabbatical year and the jubilee. (See Leviticus, chap. xxv) Every seven years, debts were remitted; every fifty years, lands, whatever may have been the previous stipulations, reverted to their former owners. Houses in walled towns were the only exceptions to this law.

—All the legislators of antiquity prescribed regulations intended to prevent inequality of fortunes or to diminish it. According to the Mosaic law (so called), the lands divided among the tribes and families became inalienable. Minos in Crete, and Lycurgus in Sparta, had established similar laws. "In the time of Lycurgus," says Plutarch, "there existed so great an inequality between citizens, that most of them, being debarred from any settled occupation, and reduced to poverty, were a burden to the city; while all the wealth was in the hands of the smaller number * *. Lycurgus divided the lands of Laconia into 30,000 parts, which he distributed among the inhabitants of the rural districts; and he made 9,000 parts of the territory of Sparta, for as many citizens." At Athens Solon proceeded by the abolition of debts: he did not touch the lands, because among a commercial people landed property is only an accessory.

—At Rome we find that there was originally a partition of land which assigned to each citizen about one and one-fourth acres. Later, as conquest extended the national territory, the portion allotted was increased to three and a half times this amount. Confiscation of the lands followed closely every division. Then came laws fixing the rate of interest on debts, and agrarian laws limiting the quantity of land a citizen could possess. The laws of Licinius Stolo, which were operative at Rome for from two to three centuries, provided that no citizen, under any pretext whatever, should in future possess more than about 315 acres, and that the surplus should be gratuitously distributed or secured for a low price to the poor citizens; that in this division at least four acres apiece should be assigned to the citizens; that only a designated number of slaves should be allowed on these lands, to cultivate them; that the number of flocks and herds should be also limited and proportioned to the quantity of land a person occupied; that the richest persons should not send to the commons or public pastures more than 100 cattle and 500 sheep. At the same time that these laws were rigorously enforced, every agriculturist was placed under the direct surveillance of the censors, who took note of any one whose lands were neglected or badly cultivated. Under this strict regimen the Roman republic attained the highest degree of prosperity, and found itself able to maintain wars against the Latins, the Gauls, and Carthage. At that time, as Horace says, private fortunes were moderate, and the republic was opulent.

—The aim of the agrarian laws and of all the laws designed to restrict the inequality of fortunes, is evident. In all the states of antiquity the very defective organization of the judiciary made it unable to prevent confiscations, especially when war and pillage were the means most employed for the acquisition of property. Now, the inevitable and immediate effect of the concentration of property was to destroy the greater part of the free population, to dry up the sources from which the armies were recruited, and thus to prepare the way for the downfall of the state. In the interior the multiplication of indigent citizens, a result of the concentration of fortunes, was a perpetual danger to the constitution; these men, who considered all industrial labor as servile, had no other means of existence than the gratuities of the public treasury, and they incessantly conspired to elevate a tyrant over the heads of the rich. These motives acted with greater force among exclusively military people, such as the Spartans and Romans. Elsewhere, at Athens, for example, commerce, manufactures and free colonization diminished the extreme inequality of fortunes and its disadvantages.

—Whatever may have been the reason, the laws designed to maintain equality were everywhere powerless. Among the Hebrews, in the times of the kings, the difference in fortunes was notable. The prophets could not utter maledictions enough against the confiscations of the rich and against the luxurious habits introduced by foreigners, after the conquests of David and Solomon. At Sparta the treasures imported after the taking of Athens, and the right to make a will, which was introduced in spite of the laws of Lycurgus, led to the concentration of fortunes. In the time of Agis III. "there were," says Plutarch, "not more than 700 native Spartans, of whom scarcely 100 had preserved their inheritance; all the rest were only an indigent multitude, who, languishing at Sparta in opprobrium, and weakly defending themselves against enemies from without, were constantly spying for an opportunity for a change which should relieve them from a condition so despicable." Agis, when he attempted the restoration of the old laws, had immense patrimonial estates, to which he joined a sum of money estimated at about $600,000. The failure of his enterprise is well known.

—At Rome the Licinian laws also became obsolete, under the influence of the same causes that had overthrown the agrarian laws ascribed to Moses and to Lycurgus. "Macedonia having been subjugated," says Polybins. "people thought they should be able to live in entire Edition: current; Page: [244] security and enjoy tranquilly universal empire. The greater part lived at Rome in a strange bewilderment." The pillage of Africa and Greece profited only a small number; they employed the wealth acquired by war in destroying the constitution of their country. The tragic end of the Gracchi, who attempted to restore the Licinian laws, as Agis had attempted to restore the laws of Lycurgus, is well known. After their death the usurpations of the great had no longer any restraint. "The rich," says Appian, "caused the greater part of the undistributed lands to adjudged to be themselves, flattering themselves that long possession would prove an unassailable property right; they purchased or took by force the small inheritances of their poor neighbors, and thus made their fields vast domains. Military service drawing the free men away from agriculture, they employed slaves to take care of the flocks. These very slaves were most profitable property to them, because of their rapid multiplication, favored by exemption from military service. What happened in consequence? Powerful men enriched themselves beyond measure, and the fields were filled with slaves; the Italian race, worn out and impoverished, perished under the weight of poverty, imposts and war. If, perchance, the free man escaped these evils, he became ruined by idleness, because he possessed nothing of his own in a territory wholly invaded by the rich; and because there was no work for him on the land of another, in the midst of so great a number of slaves."

—Then arose at Rome the colossal fortunes of such men as Lucullus and Crassus, and in their train followed the civil wars and the establishment of the despotism. At the time when Cæsar took possession of the dictatorship, 2,000 rich men alone possessed almost everything, and 320,000 indigent heads of families participated in the gratuitous distributions made by the public treasury. The maintenance of such a condition of things was impossible. The imperial régime lived by the confiscation of these great fortunes, and it created others, those of the freedmen, the publicans and the courtesans. It encouraged, besides, manual labor, and enrolled everybody into a sort of administrative community: this régime, completed by the confiscations, was the agrarian law of the time, when the imperial domain absorbed most private fortunes.

—The middle ages had their great feudal fortunes founded on conquest and pillage, and their great ecclesiastical fortunes obtained by donations and testaments. In the twelfth century, in France and in England, the nobility and the clergy shared the soil in nearly equal portions. They likewise shared, in nearly equal portions, the serfs of the ancient imperial domain, which constituted the total laboring population.

—Italy and Germany had states where great fortunes arose from commerce and manufactures. Everywhere wealth consisting of personal property tended to break up the territorial monopolies: the conquest of America, by establishing in the new world landed estates like those of ancient Rome, reduced the influence of the ancient territorial fortunes. Later, the invention of machines and commerce created new fortunes, while the financial and political revolutions tended to level the old ones. If it be true that, since the time of Cæsar, there have been no more agrarian laws in the west, it is certain that the revolutions and confiscations, and the civil and foreign wars, have taken the place of them.

—To-day, in France, there are not many fortunes which much exceed the average, though there are many of moderate size. In England, Spain, Italy and Russia exceptional fortunes are more numerous, and the middling class less important. In England, in spite of the maintenance of feudal laws, and despite the concentration of landed estates brought about by Pitt, the middle class of society has acquired immense influence. It is this class, which, in our time, has created and possesses the largest fortunes, and these fortunes are enormous. In the United States there is a marked difference in the condition of society in the northern, the western and the southern states. In the northern and western states large fortunes have been created by trade and by mining industries; but there is in them nothing exclusive or oppressive; they are only the last step of a ladder of which all the intermediate rungs are filled.

—The most superficial examination suffices to make one perceive the fundamental difference between the private fortunes of ancient times and those of to-day. In the former times the wealth produced by manufacturing and trading people was a prey for warlike nations, and the latter, exposed to the brutalities of the military spirit, saw the confiscations of the great prepare the way, by the spoliation and corruption of the weak, for revolutions and civil wars. All the efforts of legislators proved powerless against that fatal consequence of the ideas which controlled ancient communities, ideas which were immoral, and radically contrary to the very foundation of property, labor.

—Among moderns, on the contrary, the theory of private property is founded on labor, and the security of property is an uncontested fundamental principle. Ownership being made more secure, colossal and rapid fortunes have become more rare: it has been easier for the poor person to defend his property against fraudulent and violent confiscations. Finally, France has in the civil code an agrarian law of sure effect in the institution of equal inheritance. In England and the United States the greater security of property, and a more complete freedom of capital and labor, have produced more advantageous economic results with a very different proportion in the distribution of fortunes. Among the ancients small farming, insecurity, and the imperfection of industrial processes rendered accumulations slow and difficult. Among moderns, on the contrary, the invention of machines and the improvements Edition: current; Page: [245] in industrial processes, a social organization less infected with a military spirit, a more secure condition of property, and especially better moral aims, have rendered legitimate accumulations more easy and more rapid. For the rest, political economy has singularly simplified the problems relative to the proportions of private fortunes. It is little concerned to know whether it is advantageous for fortunes to be equal or unequal, large or small: it is sufficient for it that they be created, as far as possible, by the labor of the one who possesses them. The greatest fortune that can be imagined, if it is the product of labor, without fraud or violence, is an increase of wealth and a benefit to society. Far from being injurious to the poor man, it furnishes him implements of labor, the means of building up, in his turn, a private fortune. The smallest fortune which is the result of fraud or violence, is a public scandal.

—One single point is important. It is, that laws, customs and tribunals should resist the establishment of private fortunes by other means than by labor. All the efforts of civilization should tend to this end: this would be real progress. As to the fortunes acquired and held, they are few in comparison with those which the movement of affairs constantly raises up, and they can henceforth never constitute a monopoly.

—Let capital and labor be free and secure: then there will arise few sudden fortunes, but there will arise a great number of fortunes. The number of great fortunes will increase, but the number of small and middling fortunes will increase still more rapidly. This rising movement of wealth will be slow and general; but its very slowness will prevent it from corrupting morals, and its generality will preserve the poor from oppression by the rich.

—Economic freedom is the only agrarian law adapted to modern society. It favors at the same time the increase of wealth, and a real equality, viz., that which makes fortunes proportional to industrial aptitudes. It will also do away with the attraction which great capital, and fortunes too large for the person who possesses them to administer well, now exercise. Let us never fear that human works will last too long, especially when the matter concerned is private fortunes.

COURCELLE SENEUIL.
E. J. L., Tr.

FOURIERISM

FOURIERISM. François-Marie-Charles Fourier, the socialist, and founder of the phalansterian school, was born at Besançon, France, April 7, 1772, and died at Paris, Oct. 10, 1837.

—The family of Fourier was one of the oldest and most honorable commercial families of Besançon. His father, who died in 1781, left a fortune inventoried at 200,000 livres (over $38,200), after deducting liabilities and doubtful credits. He had, by will, made his son Charles heir of two-fifths, and each of his three daughters of one-fifth of his property.

—Fourier was brought up for commerce. After having received the usual school education, he worked as a clerk in several cities of France, notably at Rouen and Lyons. He traveled in that capacity in Germany, Holland, and inland. In 1793 he came into possession of his patrimonial fortune; and, wishing to do business on his own account, he invested nearly all of it in colonial goods, which were dispatched from Marseilles to Lyons about the time of the siege of the latter city. Fourier lost his fortune there, and incurred also the risk of life and liberty. About the same time he found himself included in the great requisition, and passed some time in the army. Having procured a discharge on account of illness, he obtained employment in a mercantile house, and was charged, in 1799, to throw into the sea a cargo of rice, which his house had allowed to spoil in consequence of not having been willing to sell it during a time of scarcity. In 1800 he became an unlicensed broker at Lyons.

—It was during this period of his life that he conceived his project of social reform, of which he gave the first formal statement in his "Theory of the Four Movements," published at Lyons, under the imprint of Leipzig, in 1808. A man of the eighteenth century, he had adopted its method and general scientific conceptions. He put aside all authority, traditional, moral, religious or political, and undertook to solve the problem of social destiny by a sort of scientific revolution. He treated society by the method of induction appropriate to the physical sciences, and maintained that the actions of men are controlled by one single, constant and universal law, to which he gave the name of passional attraction. In the "Theory of the Four Movements" this doctrine was not yet very clearly formulated, but its germ was there. This work contained a lively, spirited and sensible critique on the vices, defects and antagonisms which exist in our social state. From the time of the conception of this work Fourier had no other real occupation than to complete, publish and propagate his doctrine. Although he still kept in view, and, later, resumed, commercial occupations, all the live forces of his intellect were absorbed by this fixed idea. It was his constant companion in his various sojourns, in the bosom of his family, among his friends, in the country, at Besançon and at Paris, and when among his disciples.

—In 1822 he published at Paris his "Treatise on Domestic and Agricultural Association." Until that time Fourier had had scarcely more than the one disciple, M. Just Muiron; about 1825 he found himself at the head of a small school. In 1826 he took up his permanent residence at Paris, and there wrote his "New Industrial World," which appeared in 1829. From this time to his death Fourier was employed in the propagation of his ideas by speaking and writing, and in a continual struggle against the silence or the railleries of contemporary criticism. He directed a violent polemic against Owen and the Saint-Simonians, in a pamphlet entitled: "Snares and Quackeries of the two sects of St. Simon and Owen, which promise Association and Progress," (1831); and in a weekly publication, "The Phalanstery or Industrial Edition: current; Page: [246] Reform," (1832). An attempt at a phalansterian colony was undertaken at Condé-sur-Vesgre under his direction, but was soon abandoned. Finally, in 1835 and 1836, he published two volumes entitled: "False Industry."

—Fourier not only undertook to formulate an economic doctrine; he aspired also to make over morals; in a word, to change all the relations of men, and to determine in advance, in detail, the material with which society must operate. We borrow from a work by M. Auguste Ott a summary of Fourierite doctrine, especially in matters of political economy.

—"Fourier laid down as a fundamental principle that the end of man is happiness." In what consists this happiness? "True happiness consists only in satisfying one's passions. * * * The happiness about which people have reasoned, or rather failed to reason, so much, consists in having many passions and many means of satisfying them." Man should then follow only the natural attractions he finds in himself. "All those philosophic caprices, called duties, have no relation to nature; duty comes from men, attraction comes from God. We should study the attraction, nature alone, without any regard to duty. Consequently, if in present society, when men abandon themselves to their passions, there follow results which are disastrous (subversive, in the language of Fourier), this fact only proves that society is badly organized, that hitherto man has not taken account of the laws which govern him, with the laws of the material order."—"The problem being to find a social form in which all the attractions, all the passions of man, should be entirely and fully satisfied, the first thing to do is to analyze these attractions. This analysis demonstrates to Fourier that the passions of mankind may be reduced to twelve fundamentals: 1. Five appetites of the senses, which tend to the pleasure of the senses, to internal and external luxury: the passions of taste, touch, sight, hearing and smell. 2. Four passions of the affections, which bind mankind together and tend to form groups. These are friendship, ambition (tending to form corporations, communities), love and familism (the paternal feeling). 3. Three distributive or mechanizing passions, whose functions we will give, namely: the cabalistic, a passion which leads to intrigue, and makes one take pleasure in rivalries and cabals; the butterfly, a passion which incites to change, and to variation of pleasures; and the composite, a blind transport, an irresistible influence which carries away the senses and the soul. This arises from a combination of many pleasures.

—From the combined satisfaction of all these passions, arises unitism, the sentiment of universal affection, as white is the result of the combination of all the prismatic colors. The passions of the senses lead to enjoyments from the senses and to labors which tend to satisfy them. Thus the sense of taste is a coach with four wheels, which are, agriculture, conservation, cooking, and gastronomy. He who likes to eat cabbages, for example, will also find pleasure in cultivating them and having them cooked. These passions are then the mainsprings of pleasure and of labor. But if they acted without connection with other passions, labor and pleasure also would have few attractions. The quantity of attraction will be much more considerable if the passion of taste is at the same time accompanied by the satisfaction of the affectional passions. The passions will then combine men into groups, bound together by friendship, love, the spirit of association, and family feeling: and new energy will be given to human activity. But it is not everything to satisfy these passions. They are partially satisfied in the present state of civilization—very incompletely, it is true—and yet man is not happy. It is because the three essential passions have been misunderstood, disgraced and condemned; and these very passions are the fundamental springs of the social mechanism; they are the composite, the butterfly and the cabalistic. The composite tends to unite the small groups into numerous associations, in which the action of all may be combined, and where irresistible enthusiasm arises from the multitude of efforts. To give satisfaction to this passion, is then necessary that the groups be organized be series, each composed of a certain number of groups of the same kind, which devote themselves, to similar work; and that the series be co-ordinated among themselves. The cabalistic passion the passion for intrigue, rivalry, emulation, ought likewise to be satisfied. It is consequently necessary that the series and groups be brought into competition, that is, that they be so arranged that there may be rivalry, emulation, between the various groups of the same series, and between the various parts of the same group. The series of the pear-cultivators, for example, will be composed of a certain number of groups, each cultivating a different variety of pear. Rivalry will spring up between these groups; each will determine to give the best products, and labor will acquire an activity of which civilized people have no idea. Finally, the butterfly passion demands that one often vary his labor, and that he be subjected only to short sittings. It is then necessary that the groups and series be so fitted together that every individual may belong at the same time to several series and several groups; that he may be able, when any particular labor fatigues him, to leave this labor and the group devoted to it, and go to another kind of work in another group or series. Thus the monotony of labor is made to disappear: the series, being continually renewed, manifest always the same ardor, and the individual, passing constantly from one kind of labor to another, is ever experiencing a new charm.

—All these conditions would be realized by the following organization: The workers should be combined in associations (phalanxes) of about 1,800 members, men, women, and children of all ages. Each phalanx, organized by groups and series, should work in common a square league of land. The Edition: current; Page: [247] living should also be in common. Each phalanx should inhabit an immense building called a phalanstery, arranged in the most agreeable and most convenient manner, where, at the same time, the special branches of manufacturing industry would be brought together. Fourier estimates that the energy given to labor by the proposed organization, added to the economy resulting from the consumption in common, would immediately triple the present production. Great comfort and luxury will then be at once brought within reach of all. The total product will be distributed as follows: one-third will form the dividend on the capital, and will belong to the proprietors of the phalansterian establishment; five-twelfths will be assigned to labor; one-fourth to talent. (Fourier varied sometimes from these proportions.) The same individual will be able to share in the product, under these three heads, as capitalist, laborer and capacity. But a minimum of consumption will be guaranteed to simple laborers. This distribution will not require any exchange transactions. Each individual will participate in the consumption in proportion to the dividend to which he is entitled. There will be various classes of tables, lodging, and enjoyments of every kind: each one will consume according to his income, and a simple balance of account will be sufficient to determine his condition each year. Each phalanstery will cultivate the products best adapted to its soil and climate, and the phalansteries of the different parts of the world will interchange their products. There will, besides, be established industrial armies, which will travel over the globe and execute all the great labors of general utility. Thus will universal harmony be established. The mechanizing passions will harmonize the five springs of the senses with the four affectional springs, and man will be able to give free course to all his passions without there being any danger of conflict. On the contrary, everything which, in civilized life, is reproved as vicious inclination and condemned by moralists, becomes a means of emulation and a source of activity. The passions, brought into competition by the cabalistic passion, exalted by the composite, made to supplement each other by the butterfly, will inspire the individual to incessant labors and pleasures, so that people will be eager to rouse from their sleep to receive the increased enjoyment which every phalansterian day holds forth.

—Such is an outline of Fourier's system; and, it must be said, this system always remained in an outline condition, at least as to its whole. Nevertheless, as Fourier elaborated some parts of it, and as he attached great importance to the details of its execution, we should give our readers a nearer view of the details of the organization he proposed. He was chiefly possessed by two ideas: the first, for which we find no special term in this author, we call the idea of symmetry; the second, the idea of series. Symmetry, according to Fourier, constitutes one of the greatest laws of nature; it is also one of the fundamental laws of social organization, and all the groups and series of which we have spoken must be symmetrically disposed. This disposition consists in the formation of a centre and two extremities, two wings. Thus, in a group of seven persons, (the smallest number which can form a group), three persons form the centre, and two, each of the extremities. The centre will represent the general character of the group, the passion or the labor which constitutes it, (the dominant or the tonic); the extremities will represent the oppositions or contrasts which this general character will present. Between the extremities there will be rivalry, emulation; the centre will maintain the balance, and unity will be thus established between the differences. This arrangement may be applied in all the groups, whatever be the number of individuals of which they are composed, and like wise in the series of groups. Only, in the most numerous groups, new divisions and subdivisions are established, but always according to the same principle. Thus, each wing forms itself into a new centre and two new wings; the transitory characteristics hold between the centres and the wings, etc. Symmetry has an intimate connection with what Fourier calls series. It sometimes takes its name; for the word series in his theory has an altogether different sense from what it has in ordinary science. The idea of series, newly arisen in science, immediately played a great part there. It was in fact identical with growth, progress. In this sense it was the principle of progressive classifications in geology, botany and zoölogy. At the same time that it caused rapid advances to be made in these sciences, it demonstrated the progressive creation of the universe. In Fourier, wholly different series were treated of. Besides the progressive series, nature presented still others, like the series of musical tones, the series of colors. In general, all things which presented resemblances and differences could be ranged in series. But, hitherto, these relations, so tar as pertained to series, had given rise to no important scientific discovery, and there resulted from them only wholly secondary classifications. However, Fourier attributes to this principle of classification a wide significance, and by combining it with the principle of accord which musical sounds and the white light arising from the combination of the colors of the spectrum furnish him, he makes it the basis of his whole plan of organization.

—According to Fourier, then, every passion, as, in general, every object in nature, is presented under a series of manifestations, of modes, which, contrary to the real series of botany, geology, etc., goes on increasing at first, arrives at a maximum, and then decreases. The increase is marked by the increasing number of springs or motives which act in each mode. Several springs, in fact, may act in each passion; friendship, for example, depends either on the spiritual motive of affinities of character or on the material motive of affinities of industrial inclinations; love, on sexual attraction, Edition: current; Page: [248] or on spiritual affinity, the bond of the heart, which Fourier calls celadony. When one spring alone is in action, the manifestation is incomplete, mean and bare, good at most in civilization. Every passion, every enjoyment, every pleasure, ought to be composite, that is to say, the result of the play of several springs. Thus, the pleasures of the table are only complete when to the enjoyments of taste are added agreeable conversation and the charms of friendship; labor becomes a pleasure only when it is enhanced by the simultaneous satisfaction of other passions. The increase then in each series is determined by the increasing number of simultaneous enjoyments of which each passion is susceptible. Taking the musical scale for a type. Fourier consequently divides these series into eight principal modes. The first three (from 0 to 2) express the simplest satisfactions, those which civilization furnishes; the four following (3 to 6) offer complete enjoyments, harmonized, as the phalanstery will present them; the last ones do not exactly express a decrease; but they are rare and exceptional manifestations, endowed, moreover, with a high power in harmony. The eighth mode is the omnimodal harmony: it results from the organization and simultaneous play of the seven inferior modes. It corresponds with white in the scale of colors, or with the octave in the musical scale. It is the pivot which is in harmony with all the terms of the series. It is of itself divided into two: the direct harmony (corresponding to white), and the inverse harmony (corresponding to black). The three inferior modes are only secondary springs in harmony; the four subsequent modes will be the mainsprings, properly so called, of the organization of the phalanstery. The superior modes, the high, most puissant moduli, the infinitesimal moduli, will have for their function to establish a bond between the different phalansteries, and to bring about unity and universal harmony.

—Taking these hypotheses for a starting point, what was the problem Fourier propounded to himself? In virtue of his general principle, the social organization can not be perfect save on condition of not leaving one single human desire without satisfaction, or one single sentiment without complete development; and, moreover, the desires and passions are the necessary mainsprings of social organization; so that, if a single one of these springs were neglected, the organization itself could not arrive at its perfection. The problem laid down is then this: to create satisfaction of every kind in all the series at once, by the satisfaction given to each passion in all its modes without exception, and by the effect of a mechanism which embraces at the same time all these passions and all these modes. A mechanism which permits all the passions to be satisfied, and the necessity of giving free play to all the passions in order for this mechanism to be able to perform its functions: such are, then, the fundamental conceptions of the phalansterian organization. Such is, clearly, also the idea of Fourier. The organization must be integral; all the wheels of the mechanism should be put into operation simultaneously; otherwise there could be no progress. Moreover, he becomes indignant at the moralists, who, by condemning this or that human passion are breaking the mainsprings of his machine. He stands strongly against the ideas of equality which the revolutionists preach. The inequalities of every kind constitute one of the principal mainsprings of human activity: the differences of rank, power, influence and fortune, are indispensable stimuli to the phalansterian mechanism. 'The societary system is as incompatible with equality of fortunes as with uniformity of character.' This shows why Fourier expressly maintains that capital should have its due share in the distribution of the products; and those of his pupils who aimed to diminish or cut off that share completely failed to understand the fundamental idea of their master. The gratification of the passion of love, which Fourier, in his first work, represented as a bait which must infallibly seduce civilized people; which he preaches with less boldness in his second work, and of which he postpones the organization for 100 years in his later writings,—this passion of love, to which, nevertheless, he can not help continually reverting, and which his disciples wished to cover with a veil, forms one of the indispensable mainsprings of his system. 'The passions,' says he in his "Treatise on Domestic and Agricultural Association," 'are not a mechanism of which one can weigh separately any particular part, according to the caprices of each reader and the restrictions of each sophist. Their equilibrium must be integral and unitary; each of the parts there has a correspondence with the whole and if one falsifies the balance in love, it will be indirectly falsified more or less in the other branches of the societary mechanism.'

—Fourier has then propounded a problem whose solution is not easy; but it must be said that its solution is not to be found in his writings. A mechanism so admirable was worth the trouble of being described in its smallest details: Fourier has not done it. His works are composed only of fragments, of detached notices. Particular parts are developed with a certain care, but the whole plan is nowhere found. We are told that the domestic characters are 810, neither more nor less, and that a phalanstery should be composed of 1,620 persons. We are given the division of the phalanstery into sixteen tribes, classified according to age. We are informed that the industrial functions are of seven kinds: domestic, agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial labor; teaching, study and the employment of the sciences; and the fine arts. But the enumeration and determination of the characters, the subdivision of the seven general functions and the determination of the series are completely lacking. The agreeable and comfortable arrangements of the phalanstery are carefully described. We are Edition: current; Page: [249] shown, by many examples, how indispensable the multiplicity of passions and of enjoyments is to the action of the mechanism. Thus, the refined tastes of the gourmand, by the variety of products they call for, are in exact accord with the necessity of introducing a great variety into the groups and series. Thus, vanity and pride are the most powerful stimulants to activity and emulation. It is known how Fourier turned to advantage the dirty habits of some children, to secure the accomplishment of certain disgusting labors; and the delicacy and conceit of certain others, to utilize them in ornamentation and articles of luxury. The phalansterian education is carefully described. Fourier shows how, by letting children walk around in the workshops, by, giving them practice in small labors, twenty industrial talents will be developed among them: how also the railleries of their comrades and their self-respect will impress them with an ardent love of work. Fourier quite often refers to what he calls rallying, that is to say, the means of harmonizing the natural antagonisms, such as those which exist between the rich and the poor, between youth and old age, between princes and subjects. He shows how the population will be reduced to 600 inhabitants a square league, by the extension of phanerogamous morals (harmony of the sixth), and of the enrollment of two-thirds of the women in the corporation of bacchanals, bayadères, etc. In a word, all the supposed results of phalansterian organization are described with much spirit and intelligence, and with a faith as real as blind, but nowhere have they been demonstrated." (Traité d'Economie Sociale, by Aug. Ott; Paris, 1854; Guillaumin, publisher.)

—It is evident that the doctrine of Fourier has a faulty basis. If, in fact, human society is subject, like inert matter, to constant and immutable laws, it is impossible for humanity to escape the control of these laws, and we can not say, with the phalansterian school, that "men have hitherto gone in the wrong path, and that the laws which they have made should be condemned and cast aside." The truths in the physical sciences, attraction among the rest, are truths only because facts constantly and invariably confirm them. If one single fact afforded an exception to the laws recognized by the physical sciences as general, these laws would be at once considered as untrue, and relegated among the more or less ingenious hypotheses which have often been hazarded on the phenomena of nature. For the rest, although Fourier constantly declared that he adopted the method of the natural sciences, that he enunciated the laws written by nature herself, he never employed the language and method appropriate to the sciences. In the place of proving and deducing, he affirmed, drawing his demonstrations from vague and remote analogies, the importance of which was over-estimated by his mind, overexcited as it was by continued labor. What could be more opposed to a scientific habit of mind than to pretend to know the past without regard to historic testimony, and to divine the future and reveal the whole of a cosmogony, without relying upon any constant fact? And yet this is what Fourier did. "The world," according to him, says M. Reybaud, "will have a duration of 80,000 years; 40,000 of rise, and 40,000 of decline. In this number are included 8,000 of apogee. The world is scarcely adult; it is 7,000 years old; it has hitherto had only the irregular, feeble, unreasoning existence of childhood; it is going to pass into the period of youth, then into maturity, the culmination of happiness, afterward to decline into decrepitude. Thus saith the law of analogy: the world, like man, like the animal, like the plant, must be born, develop and perish. The only difference is in the duration. In regard to the fact of creation, God made sixteen species of men, nine in the old world, seven in America, but all subject to the universal law of unity and analogy. Nevertheless, in creating the world, God reserved other successive creations to change its face: the creations will extend to eighteen. Every creation is brought about by the conjunction of the austral and the boreal fluid."

—In what pertains to economic matters, the affirmations of Fourier are not only barren of proof, but they are contradicted by the observation of every day. Labor is, to be sure, necessary to the contentment of man, and absolute idleness is suffering as well as a vice; but it does not follow from this that labor is attractive, that its attractiveness is sufficient to give rise to industrial activity. As M. Ott observed, Fourier, who so carefully analyzed the vicious inclinations and assigned to them a place in his phalanstery, forgot in his nomenclature the worst of vices, the most attractive and the most dangerous to his system, indolence. It has been said, it is true, that in a harmonious world indolence would not exist; but it is only a gratuitous affirmation, contrary to the experience of all human society up to this time. The same experience must inspire great mistrust of the glorification promised to the sensual appetites. Hitherto, the easy satisfaction of these appetites, far from being a stimulant to labor, has impelled men to idleness. Nothing less than a subversion of the ordinary laws of human nature would be necessary for the same cause to produce the opposite effects. These objections are taken from the standpoint of the Fourierites themselves. From a moral point of view, doctrines which are the negation of morality itself can be neither approved nor excused.

—Since Fourier's death, important modifications have been made in the ideas of his school. Without condemning the doctrines of the master, his disciples neglected the better part of them, and devoted themselves to various financial and economic problems. Thus, his school has sometimes, by the talent or personal consideration of some of its members, taken the appearance of an organized and powerful body. But, in reality, the Fourierites have produced nothing useful, in the economic line or in any other, except by departing Edition: current; Page: [250] from the school, and abandoning the fundamental ideas and the hypotheses of the master. For a long time the utopia of Fourier has been, to those acquainted with it, and to impartial men, only a rallying word, one number more in the long catalogue of human aberrations.

—BIBLIOGRAPHY. Théorie des quatre mouvements et des destinées générales, Leipzig (Lyons), 1808, 8vo, 425 pages; Traité de l'association domestique et agricole, Besançon and Paris, 1822, 2 vols., 8vo; Sommaire de la théorie d'association agricole, ou attraction industrielle. Besançon, 1828, 8vo; Le nouveau monde industriel, ou invention du procédé d'industrie attrayante et combinée, distribuée en séries passionnées, Paris, 1829, 4 vols., 8vo; Piéges et charlatanisme des deux sectes de Saint-Simon et d'Owen, qui promettent l'association et le progrès, Paris, 1831, 8vo, 80 pages; La fausse industrie morcelée, repugnante, mensongère, et l'antidote, l'industrie naturelle combinée, attrayante, véridique, donnant quadruple produit, Paris, 1835-6, 2 vols., 12mo. A second edition of the Théorie des quatre mouvements appeared in 1841 (1st vol. of the Complete Works); the Traité d'association domestique et agricole, in 1841, under the title of Théorie de l'unité universelle, in 4 volumes, forming II., III., IV., and V. of the Complete Works. The Nouveau monde industriel appeared in 1846 (vol. VI. of the Complete Works). The two volumes of Fausse industrie were not republished. A part of the manuscripts left by Fourier were printed in the Phalange, a monthly review which appeared from 1845 to 1849, 10 vols., gr. 8vo. Some volumes of these manuscripts were published in 18mo, under the title, Publication des manuscrits de Fourier. Fourier wrote, besides, a great number of articles in the Phalanstère, ou la Réforme Industrielle, a weekly, and, later, a monthly paper, which appeared from June, 1832, to February, 1834.

COURCELLE SENEUIL.
E. J. L., Tr.

FOURTH ESTATE

FOURTH ESTATE. The expression "Fourth Estate" (vierter Stand) was first used in Germany, and in contradistinction to the "Third Estate." The contrast between these two estates was apparent even in the time of the French revolution of 1789, when the Girondists, who represented the third estate, proceeded against the "Mountain," which was supported principally by the lower classes of the people. Nevertheless, the difference was not then entirely clear, as political rather than social causes seemed to separate the masses into parties. The restoration placed the great classes of the people entirely in the background, and only the old estates appeared again to have any political importance The revolution of July, 1830, was principally the work of the third estate. The new king, Louis Philippe, appeared, so to speak, as the personification of the third estate, with which he shared the government of France. The entire fourth estate, during the period of the charter of 1814, was deprived of all right of suffrage and of all participation in public affairs.

—The revolution of February, 1848, now suddenly broke out. A domestic quarrel between the "citizen king" and the liberal friends of reform of the third estate was the occasion of it. But as soon as the revolution commenced, it extended beyond the third estate. The fourth estate made itself for the moment the ruling power. It desired to restore the republic and the democracy, which was the first to guarantee it political rights. But it was at variance with itself. Its lowest strata were the most violent; the communistically disposed proletarians even sought a social transformation, inasmuch as they desired employment and wages guaranteed by the state. All property, all credit, all civilization, seemed now to be threatened by the wild passions of the crowd. In defense of property Gen. Cavaignac ventured a bloody struggle. He conquered in the three days fight of June in the streets of Paris, because he cleverly caused his garde mobile to be recruited from the fourth estate itself. In the legislative assembly, which was newly elected, the greater number of seats fell to the lot of the third estate, which indeed alone had the capacity and leisure to manage the affairs of the state. The fourth estate, which had to devote all its time and energy to daily labor and the earning of bread, saw, that representative democracy, at least in France, necessarily exalted the third estate, which it viewed not without mistrust. Prince Napoleon, who had been elected to the presidency chiefly by the fourth estate, aided by the belief of the masses in the Napoleonic genius and traditions, now undertook a campaign against the third estate, which at the same time was a campaign against representative democracy. Greeted and supported by the acclamation of the great masses of the people, the peasants and the workmen, he ascended the restored imperial throne. But universal suffrage, which put the deciding power in the hands of the masses, was and remained the basis of the imperial power, and the third estate was unable to resist it.

—In Germany also similar differences existed, and led to the idea of a fourth estate, distinct from the third in its social position and its political character. The name is certainly badly chosen, for even German constitutional law of the present day no longer rests on estates, but rather upon classes In Germany the great classes of the people are indeed better educated than in France. They are also, on the whole, more disposed to follow with confidence the guidance of the more cultured middle class. But, at the same time, the authority of the government, of the civil officers and of the church exercises a far stronger influence over them than over the independent and critically inclined third estate.

—In fact, on the contrast between the work of the head and the work of the hand, that is, between intellectual and physical activity, is based the difference, which is of great importance in the organization of states and in their political life. Indeed, the Edition: current; Page: [251] distinction itself is not absolute; the shoemaker and the woodcutter work badly, if they work with no head, and the thinker can not dispense with his hand, which transcribes his thoughts. But, in general, callings are distinguished from one another according as mental or physical activity predominates in them. For the liberal pursuits of the third estate a higher education is an indispensable requisite, and for this reason generally these persons only have the capacity and leisure to use their intellect in the service of the state. The great classes, employed more with the material cultivation of the soil, with hand work, with retail trade and with manufactures, are wanting in the necessary education and leisure to devote themselves to affairs of state. It is of much more importance to them, then, that the administration should be a good one, than that they themselves should be called to take any part in the administration.

—The fourth estate, therefore, embraces also all the great classes of the people, which have not the characteristic marks of the third estate. Its strength lies in the mass of the lower middle class in the cities, of workmen, shopkeepers, petty tradesmen, servants and peasants in the country.

—The proletariat is chiefly only the refuse of the fourth estate, but it may also be of the other estates, and must not be confounded with the former. There is a proletariat of the nobility and of the higher middle class, as well as of the fourth estate. The proletariat is an unavoidable evil, which is connected with all classes and ranks of society. It forms no estate by itself. The expression proletariat is borrowed from the old Roman census-constitution. The undomiciled and poor Romans, those who had less than 1,500 ases of taxable property, were not included in the five classes, and were therefore not liable to taxation nor bound to do duty in war, like the domiciled citizens (assidui), although they were required to perform subordinate duties for the army. Their property consisted chiefly of their children (proles), and hence they obtained the name. Modern proletarians are also people without property, no matter what estate or what class of the people they may belong to through birth, education or profession. But the absence of property is not in itself decisive, and nothing would be more dangerous than to divide the entire population into property owners and non-property owners, and incite them to hostility against each other. The sons of well-to-do parents, when they establish a household of their own, may be entirely without property, but they are by no means proletarians. People without property, then, are only proletarians, if, through isolation and a precarious means of existence, they are in a dangerous position, and when their entire existence in society appears unsafe. The task of politics is to work for this end, that there may be as few proletarians as possible in the land.

—The fourth estate is the foundation of the modern state, and likewise the chief object of its care. It is chiefly from the fourth estate that the state draws its financial and military power. From its obscure ranks start up constantly a multitude of individuals, who acquire for themselves education, a name, and a rank in society. It is the source from which all the other classes are renewed and fed. So long as the fourth estate of a nation is healthy and strong, the life of the nation is safe; it can recover from the worst maladies and losses. But if the fourth estate is seized with decay, there is no salvation for the nation.

—The fourth estate needs the care of the state more than all the other classes, which are in a better condition to help themselves. In individual cases, certainly, the persons of the fourth estate must provide for themselves by their own labor and economy. But it is surely the state's care, that the fundamental conditions of common life and common welfare shall be well established. For this end particularly the country has need of good laws and institutions, and a capable administration. This the fourth estate can not obtain of itself. The better educated classes must work for it.

—The fourth estate has neither the capacity nor the inclination to govern or to take part in the higher branches of civil administration. But it has the desire and the need to be well ruled and governed. That done, it is contented, and entirely free from any desire of innovation or revolution. There is no greater error than that of Stahl, who thinks that the fourth estate is desirous by nature to overthrow the ruling power. Quite the contrary. The aristocracy is naturally inclined to share power with the monarchy: the third estate is from the beginning inclined to exercise criticism and control, and prefers representative democratic forms. The fourth estate has in Europe, on the other hand, a natural bias, not toward the aristocracy, which has too long oppressed, despised and lived on it, nor toward the representative democracy, in whose principal work it can not participate, and whose views are for the greater part not intelligible to it; but toward the monarchy.

—The fourth estate is in no way insensible to the ideal goods of humanity, and it is readier than any other estate to do and dare for these goods. But only high ideas, not medium ones, attract it, and it comprehends only the great outlines of the case, not its detail. The history of the world has irrefutably shown, that these great classes of the people, which think generally only of their daily earnings, and appear exclusively engaged in material pursuits, have defended with self-sacrificing determination, religious interests, and, in more modern times, political ideas and ends, and have often turned the scale by their impetuous onslaught.

FRANCE

FRANCE is the most westerly portion of central Europe, and is bounded on the northeast by Belgium and the grand duchy of Luxemburg; on the east by Alsace-Lorraine, Switzerland and Italy; on the south by the Mediterranean and Spain; on the west by the Atlantic ocean; and Edition: current; Page: [252] on the northwest by the English channel and the straits of Dover. The islands in the immediate neighborhood of the coast of France measure only 419 square kilometres, but adding to them the more distant island of Corsica, with its 8,747.41 square kilometres, the area of the European portion of the French republic is increased to 528,573.04 square kilometres. Excluding Corsica and the smaller neighboring islands, continental France is situated between 42° 2' and 51° 5' north latitude and 7° 7' west longitude and 5° 51' east longitude, reckoning, of course, from the meridian of Paris. The geometrical form of the boundaries resembles a hexagon, of which the western and eastern sides are somewhat indented, and the outlines of which are clearly indicated by the following measurements Brest to Antibes, 1,098 kilometres; Bayonne to Cirey, 868 kilometres; Brest to Cirey, 940 kilometres; Dunkirk to Céret, 965 kilometres: La Rochelle to Geneva, 542 kilometres. The 5,230 kilometres perimeter of the boundaries, inclusive of sinuosities, are subdivided in the following proportion 1,333 kilometres on the channel, 862 kilometres on the Atlantic, 570 kilometres on the Pyrenees, 625 kilometres on the Mediterranean, 720 kilometres on the Alps, 290 kilometres on the Jura, and 790 kilometres on the northeastern boundaries; the continental boundaries, therefore, comprise 2,520 kilometres, and the maritime coast line 2,710 kilometres. The centre of the country is at St. Amand, south of Bourges, at a distance of 450-520 kilometres from the most extreme points of the boundaries. Of the entire 5,230 kilometres perimeter only 790 kilometres on the northeast are unprotected by natural boundaries. Altogether the natural circumstances of location are very favorable for the defense of the boundaries and for the self-sustenance of the state. Notwithstanding all this, France is not insulated; it is in close contact with the German centre of Europe; it commands the mountain passes which lead to Italy and Spain; it keeps a vigilant eye on the fortified coast of England; its western coast line is open to free communication with all parts of the globe, while the south shares in the domination of the Mediterranean. France has her continental and her maritime phases, and the union of both elements gives her a commanding position among the powers of the earth.

—Formation of French Unity.8 When the Carlovingian dynasty descended from the throne, the kingdom of France covered from north to south an area at least equal to that of the present territory of France, but all the land lying to the east of the Meuse, the Saone and the Rhine was dependent on the German empire. The duke of Edition: current; Page: [253] France bore the title of king, but he had no authority, so to speak, over other lands than his own. Six great fiefs, the duchy of Normandy, the duchy of Burgundy, the earldom of Flanders, the earldom of Champagne, the duchy of Aquitatine and the earldom of Toulouse, formed about his duchy so many independent realms, owing nothing to the crown except homage. Within each of these states the great feudary held by feudal tenure a number of fiefs of the second order, the possessors of which in their turn were suzerain lords of rere-fiefs, divided Edition: current; Page: [254] into baronies, castellanies, and the fiefs of viscounts of cities. Under these latter lords were all the cities and villages. The system of military clientage descended thus step by step from the king of France to the lowest baron. No other tie bound these fiefs together, and for more than a century a state of warfare was the life itself of the nation, divided into some thousands of gross tyrannies. All that the first kings could pretend to do was to remain kings, and to transmit the crown to their heirs. While they had themselves crowned in the hereditary order each during the lifetime of the other, a sort of order was established within the great fiefs, and the dukes and counts of the first rank established for themselves a real authority over their vassals. Finally, under Louis the Fat, royalty began the same work of organization for itself, by making war against the lords and barons, who lived by brigandage upon the territory of its ducal fief. Feudal obedience once established in the duchy of France, the king set to work to regulate the hierarchy and the laws of the feudalism of which he was the chief, and by vigorous measures he caused his great vassals to respect his authority as military commander and sovereign dispenser of justice. As soon as there was some order and tranquillity in the different duchies and earldoms of France, agriculture and commerce received a slight impetus, and communes were formed, some through successful insurrection, others through the purchase of municipal liberty. The king encouraged, wherever he could, the organization of the city bourgeoisie, and at the end of the twelfth century, by thus weakening the power of his vassals, he had everywhere established and caused to be respected his right of actual suzerainty. Having then at his command the forces of the nascent state, he was able to fix its boundaries by conquest. Marriages, treaties, confiscations, battles, equally promoted this new policy. It was necessary first to weaken the Norman monarchy, which, being a part of France, had taken possession of England, but which, by its right of proprietorship and by its family alliances, had remained or become mistress of all the French coast on the ocean. Philip Augustus dismembered its domain, after his policy had divided it. But the English kings, in order to defend themselves, commenced to excite coalitions of its former vassals against French royalty. Philip Augustus triumphed at the victory of Bouvines over the barons of the north, and this was the first great battle gained in France in favor of national unity.

—The great feudaries soon tried to break this nascent unity, but St. Louis, whose minority was the cause of such great perils to the state, regained in 1242, upon the battle field of Taillebourg, the power and prestige of his grandfather, Philip Augustus. Advantageous treaties and temporary concessions gave the sanction of right to the violent conquests, the heritage of which the pious king accepted; but the appanage system again dismembered this kingdom, which each day was becoming more solidified; no longer, it is true, without hope of reversion to the crown, and perhaps even for the good of France; for before restoring it to royalty, made permanent by the disappearance of transient races, each of the appanaged dynasties increased its domain and made power more thoroughly respected there than it would have been possible for the central chief to attempt. They were branches of the same trunk, which grew larger every day.

—At the same time St. Louis reformed the laws, and prepared the early union of the three classes of the nation into the states general. He made himself, by his pragmatic sanction, temporal head of the French clergy; he connected, by means of the right of appeal, the seignioral courts with his own tribunals, and placed the municipalities of the south as well as the communes of the north under the judicial and military authority of his officers. He did more: by suppressing the feudal right of hostility in the political order, and judicial combat in the civil order, he desired justice to be the only rule, the only sanction of social relations; and the new judges, in becoming the arbiters of society, formed a body which, for the purpose of instructing itself, sought out and awakened the memories of antiquity, and gave to all the science of the universities an impulse unknown till that time.

—A new division of the kingdom was begun while these reforms were going on. The institutions of royal justice, by establishing a hierarchy among the tribunals, gave rise to four great bailiwicks, upon which all the seignioral courts depended, and which themselves, as well as the courts of the great fiefs, were subject to the royal court, which afterward became the French parliament. This court, composed only of great vassals and officers of the crown, had followed royalty everywhere and had not yet had a fixed seat; but when procedure by writing and the multiplication of laws rendered it necessary to admit therein clerks or educated laymen, it changed its character, and soon jurists alone composed it.

—From justice, as St. Louis established it with so much authority, sprang all the political structure of the state. The functions Edition: current; Page: [255] of the seneschals, bailiffs, provosts, representatives of the royal law, and bearers of the royal sword, were made more definite; their power was increased, and, dependent on the crown which no longer invested them with hereditary offices as the Carlovingian monarchy had done, they worked zealously to destroy everywhere the authorities of feudalism, from this time divided and incapable of successful revolt.

—Royalty then at last represented the nation and disposed of its forces. Up to that time it could only alternately conquer or administer; henceforth it advanced more confidently, and increased or regulated the kingdom, as favorable occasions for action offered themselves. Philip the Fair attempted to drive the English from Guyenne and to seize Flanders, and he deprived the empire of Lyons, thus penetrating into the valley of the Rhone, which was not yet French territory. At the same time he applied to the whole of the kingdom his grandfather's (Louis IX.'s) system of bailiffs; that is to say, he made the lords every where subject to the king, and he fixed the seat of the itinerant parliament, which was divided from this reign, into a chamber of accounts, chamber of inquiry and grand chamber. During a century and a half, this parliament was the only supreme court of the kingdom; some of its members were then delegated to decide appeals in the countries where customary law was prevalent; those of Champagne in the Grands Jours at Troyes; those of Normandy in the Exchequers at Rouen, and those of countries where statute law was prevalent in the Chambre de Langue d'oc established at Paris itself.

—The bourgeoisie, by this enlargement of the functions of justice, obtained positions which they alone were capable of filling. They still more quickly became of importance in the state, when it was necessary to ask them to open their purses to provide for public expenditure. Royalty of the house of Capet, so long as it was simply feudal, found in its own treasury, that is, in the revenue of its domains, the money necessary for its seignioral duties; but when it reigned, governed, made laws, embraced a policy, it needed an army, it needed subsidies. Philip the Fair neglected no means of becoming rich, not even the most iniquitous and most dangerous. He suspended the right which the feudaries had of coining money, and speculated upon the melting and recoinage of the royal moneys. Whether they were guilty of usury or not, he made the Jewish and Lombard bankers, who were enriching themselves by developing national commerce, periodically disgorge; he seized the property of templars condemned to death; he sold their freedom to serfs and slaves; he established the first custom houses known in France; he imposed a tax on salt; and, growing ever more eager to amass gold, which he needed for the promotion of his plans, he finally assembled in a common session the three classes, the three orders of the kingdom: the clergy, the nobility and the third estate.

—An attempt to re-establish feudalism, encouraged by the depressed state of the whole country, broke out shortly after his death, and a great number of nobles were again reinstated by royal charters in the privileges and prerogatives of their fathers; but the judiciary of St. Louis was too well established, and too much in accordance with the spirit of the times, not to resist these attacks, and by resisting, it assured the existence of the political and financial system which has since been established upon its foundations.

—A supreme crisis even now threatened royalty and the kingdom; the hundred years war began, and in this duel to the death, which must either destroy the future of France to the profit of English monarchy, or drive away forever English monarchy from continental soil, a thousand startling events, a thousand misfortunes occurred, but also miracles, which cast the whole French nation, king and people into a sea of blood and tears, but which finally saved it; and the destiny of France triumphed.

—Already the single question of the inheritance of fiefs had nearly compromised the state. Philip the Fair, in order to keep the appanages within reach of the crown, had decided that males alone could inherit them; but as to the crown itself, it was uncertain if, the case occurring, the daughters could not lay claim to the seignioral manor and title of their father. The legists declared that France should exclude women from the throne, and supported their argument by the custom of the Salic Franks, which, in fact, under the first race, had been applied to the inheritance of the royal power, and which, under the name of Salic law, has been famous in French history. But if males alone thus had the right to reign over France, it was because one of the English kings once found himself nearer the throne of France than the legal heir, that the hundred years war had broken out and the massacre of the two nations had begun.

—New taxes, new confiscations were the first resources of the kings of France; but, since England furnished more regular support to her forces and had better disciplined troops, the French at first appeared on the field of battle only to be vanquished. When John the Good was made prisoner at Poitiers and dragged as a captive to London, a general insurrection assailed on all sides the establishment of the monarchy. In those times of misfortune and ignorance the light of patriotism did not illumine the minds of men, and the bourgeoisie, which later showed more experience and wisdom in its devotion, was at that time the most terrible enemy of the tutelary authority, which was shaping the kingdom for the battles of the future. In 1356, the republican spirit of the municipalities of Italy and Flanders inspired the states general, in which the deputies of the cities wanted to grasp the power, and not only to fix the taxes, but to collect and distribute them, and in financial matters to entirely reform the administration. The attempt was premature, and Edition: current; Page: [256] Etienne Marcel, who was the promoter of it, soon found himself compelled, in order to maintain it, to undertake to change the dynasty and to have recourse to foreign assistance. Then, abandoned by some of his own party, he succumbed, while the revolutionary agitation, having spread into the rural districts, took the form of a war of extermination, directed by the peasants against the seignioral nobility. These very excesses proved the cause of the safety of royalty, which, sustained by the threatened nobility, and represented by the dauphin, who afterward became Charles the Wise, little by little gathered together the scattered elements of national unity.

—The revolution had given to the kingdom a financial organization, by charging the delegates and general commissaries with the levying of money for the "aid" voted by it. From that time dates the commencement of élections and généralités (French districts), which, later, became the civil divisions of France. This was not the only trace of its passage which the revolution was destined to leave behind it. The principal character of its acts was the attestation of the already inchoate homogeneity of the nation; if it exposed the cause of French unity to dangers, it served it by revealing it.

—Charles V. established the administration upon its bases, and, profiting by the lessons of the revolution itself, he above all perfected the management of the finances. More successful than his father in the war with England, he repaired some of the disasters the state had undergone during his regency, and, by the creation of companies of ordnance, he formed the first nucleus of a permanent army, which up to that time had been unknown in France.

—The minority and then the folly of his successor endangered the progress already accomplished, and again plunged France into an abyss of misfortune. The foreign enemy this time found a new auxiliary in the appanagist princes, descended from King John, who did not wish to destroy royalty, in abeyance through the imbecility of the monarch, but to exploit it themselves. Never did France see worse days; her capital, the heart of the country, had fallen into the hands of the kings of England, and the legitimate heir to the throne was wandering beyond the Loire, almost without an army. Finally, the patriotism of some of the nobility and the sublime devotion of Joan of Arc delivered the country from its incomparable misery. Strengthened by the struggle, which had almost destroyed it, royalty rose above so many perils never to sink again. The soil of the fatherland was free for the first time in five centuries, and on this land which had drunk so much generous blood before becoming independent, the institutions of the state could be organized as parts of one great whole.

—Charles VII. had created a parliament at Poitiers, when he was living in exile at Chinon. Victorious, he wanted the judicial organization of his predecessors to answer the needs of France, liberated and enlarged. A second parliament was granted to Languedoc, and a third promised to Guyenne. The crown inherited Dauphiny, in the person of the eldest sons of future kings; this new province had also its parliament, and at the end of the century there were parliaments at Dijon, at Rouen and at Aix, when Burgundy and Provence became integral parts of French territory. Brittany did not obtain hers till 1553.

—One after another, taxes had been levied, at first provisional, afterward regular: the customs of Philip the Fair, the gabelles of Philip of Valois, and the taxes levied upon liquors and various articles of consumption by the republican states general of 1356. Abolished for a time on the accession of Charles VI., these taxes were re-established, and their collection subjected to fixed laws. From the establishment of two courts of taxation dates the separation of ordinary justice from the administration of justice in matters of finance. The oldest of the taxes, the taille, grew in importance in proportion as the object for which it had been established, the support of the army, became more considerable.

—For a century, the division of old France into généralités and financial élections, had been an accomplished fact; but as old. France extended its frontiers, the countries which were added to it claimed the right of retaining, as regarded taxes, the privilege of consent and distribution which they possessed. They did retain this right, and as it was in the several states general that this privilege was exercised, the name of pays d'états was given to them in administrative language.

—By obtaining from the states general of 1439 the establishment of a personal taille, the king everywhere suppressed the feudal tailles. The royal taille was voted for the levy of a permanent army of 2,500 men at arms and 4,000 archers. Up to this time royalty had not had at its service a standing army, and had carried on wars only by appealing to its vassals and the people of the communes. But now it was at the head of the first of modern troops, and although cavalry occupied the chief position, artillery soon appeared; it made war a science, and the infantry increased in number as the nation became more securely organized. The ban and arriére-ban became from this time only languishing remains of the military customs of feudalism, which did not disappear till the time of Louis XIV., as the exercise of seignioral justice existed, continually losing strength, till the states general of 1789.

—Thus we come to the light. Through justice commenced the formation and regular division of France, the castellanies and provostships of the king were the seats for justice and the police in the first instance; the bailiwicks in the north and the seneschals' courts in the south, ruled the castellanies and provostships, and were at once seats of justice and military offices. Supreme jurisdiction was vested in the parliaments. Through the organization of the finances the kingdom was enabled to increase in strength. Financially, France was divided into pays d'états, which voted Edition: current; Page: [257] and distributed their taxes, and pays d'élections, in which were established receivers general, delegates, receivers of domains, collectors of gabelles, and soon a whole army of collectors, treasurers and comptrollers, whose hierarchy and functions foreshadowed the administration and regulation of accounts of the coming centuries. Finally, France had an army, and for military purposes the country was divided into twelve great governments given to officers of the crown.

—We have only just mentioned the rôle and the situation of the church under the monarchy of the house of Capet. St. Louis began the loosening of the bonds which attached the church in matters temporal to Rome, and supported it in its right of election. Rome soon regained all its empire; but Charles VII., following in the footsteps of St. Louis, ordered the French clergy to pay no more tributes to the holy see, and to preserve its republican constitution. It is true that, in the following century, Francis I. put an end to the existence of a democratic clergy, and by a concordat concluded with the holy see, constituted himself the only elector of the members of the royal clergy.

—The time had come when France must be entirely united under the sceptre of her kings. Louis XI. completed the work of the feudal monarchy. It only remained to do away with the appanagists, with the very blood of the dynasty itself. It is known with what skill, what decision, what constancy, his cruel genius was applied to this work, and how he contributed more than any other king, except Philip Augustus, to the material formation of the kingdom.

—The construction of the new national edifice occupied five centuries; but what centuries of violence; the imagination can hardly light up with a ray of chivalric poetry those sombre years of ignorance, of famine, of pestilence and of intestine strife.

—The sixteenth century inaugurated a new policy. France was prepared for it, when the west of Europe was refreshed by the breath of the Greek and Latin renaissance. Antique art mingled its brilliancy and elegance with the naïveté, rudeness and gayety of the Gallic spirit, and French genius began its glorious career. But it was not until the seventeenth century that its supremacy dethroned the old fame of the German empire and the holy see. Francis I. was the first to commence the foundation of this future fortune, and it was by his struggle with the house of Austria that he forced the nations to think of the balance of power. His son increased the national inheritance; his grandsons came near losing it; but through the struggles of religious reform, the human mind kept its onward progress. The civil laws were purified through the injunctions of the representatives of France, and under the inspiration of her magistrates and in the political debaucheries of the league, the instincts of liberty rose up constantly, and hid the shortcomings of patriotism.

—Under Henry IV an order of things was inaugurated which approaches that of the present day. Sully accustomed the nation to desire to have men of integrity in power, he made the practices of economy popular, and elevated the whole nation by proclaiming the excellence of agriculture. Colbert completed his work by giving new life to industry and commerce.

—Till the middle of the sixteenth century the crown had its councilors, when it was pleased to take them, an abbé, Suger; a soldier, Joinville; a legist, Juvénal des Ursins; a barber, Olivier le Daim.

—With secretaries of state came the creation of ministries. The action of the governmental machinery was thus continually rectified, but suddenly, powerful shocks stopped and disorganized it. Every minority of a king was the signal for the old feudal and communal régime to raise its head, and make an effort at revolt. The iron hand of Richelieu was necessary to lower the most powerful rebel heads, and the glittering sceptre of Louis XIV, to make them all bow down before him.

—Still, the balance of power in Europe was fixed by France in the treaties of Westphalia, and she herself, under her king, the last of her conqueror kings, extended her frontiers on all sides. The literature and art of the century made France the arbiter of Europe, even at the time of her misfortunes; and although they only adorned general and often servile ideas, they prepared the way for the unexpected reign of philosophy in the next century. Louis XIV himself unwittingly contributed toward giving to the bourgeoisie an importance which writers of the eighteenth century carried to the highest point. When he humiliated the remnants of the nobility in his pompous antechambers, and would employ in important matters only the common people, he was the first, by the caprice of despotism, to instill into his people that idea of equality which the revolution employed in the name of justice. But we now come to the time when old France ceased to exist, and new France appeared.

—The author of this article will be perhaps permitted to recall that, in a work entitled "Etat de la France en 1789," he drew up, for that memorable date, the inventory of the system which the states general overthrew and transformed. Even the slightest sketch of this can not be given in a few lines. The extent of territory was about the same as at present, the population numbered about 26,500,000, of which about 6,000,000 were in the cities and towns, and about 680,000 in the capital. The average length of life was estimated at twenty-eight years and nine months.

—The institutions of feudalism had fallen one by one under the blows of monarchy; but it was only their vigor and their vitality which had disappeared, their forms, their names, their connections existed. Till 1789, all France was only an assemblage of fiefs, arriére fiefs and plebeian estates, placed under the tenure of the king, who, according to the law of the middle ages, was the supreme lord of the land, as well as the irresponsible head of the state. Without doubt, it had for a long time been impossible to realize rigorously such a principle in actual transactions; but the principle Edition: current; Page: [258] existed none the less. It was the corner stone of the old régime. The revolution was needed to uproot it from the soil, in order that France should be really free.

—It is doubtful if there were many more than 80,000 nobles in 1789; but how few were actually descended from the companions at arms of Clovis, or even from the officers who, under the Carlovingians, became hereditary proprietors of their offices. The great majority were only recently of noble rank, obtained in the offices of the magistracy. The clergy embraced about 200,000 individuals, and enjoyed a considerable revenue, the amount of which has been variously estimated. Together with the king, who still enjoyed a large domain, these 80,000 nobles and 200,000 members of the clergy possessed three-fourths of the soil. One-fourth remained for 26,000,000 of men, but at the most there were but 450,000 landholders in France.

—As the desire to manage its own affairs had become the ruling passion of France, the experiment was tried of giving to the pays d'élections provincial assemblies, which with some liberty, should play the same part which the states general were supposed to play in the pays d'état, the list of which is as follows. Artois, Cambrésis, Brittany, Walloon Flanders, Burgundy, Languedoc, earldom of Foix, Marsan, Nébouzan, Quatre Vallées, Bigorre, Béarn, Soule, Lower Navarre, Labourd, Dauphiny. These institutions only made the nation more impatient to effect the union of the provinces and the regulation of the laws, and this impatience was legitimate, for royalty, after having materially established the kingdom, was capable only of tyrannizing over it, and, of a feudal nature after all, it was not willing to melt down the iron system of feudalism to forge the body of a new nation.

—Parliaments had in the course of time arrogated the right of remonstrance, because they enjoyed the privilege of the registration of the ordinances and edicts. This right, which, substantially, always yielded to force, appeared to them to be the fundamental law of the country, and to be worth a constitution by itself; but after the thinkers and politicians of the eighteenth century had spoken, it was impossible for these chimeras to exist. The revolution effected what kings could not, what the parliaments would have wished to prevent them from doing. Those declarations of the constitutions of 1791 and 1793 were not vain words. "The kingdom is one and indivisible." "The French republic is one and indivisible." Even the misfortunes of France have not been able to destroy this unity and this indivisibility, which nations admire and envy.

—The Third Republic. The Franco-German war of 1870-71 early revealed the weakness of the second empire. Immediately after the first defeats and in consequence of a vote of distrust of the legislature, the Olivier ministry resigned; one of the deputies even demanding the abdication of the emperor (Aug. 10). The new cabinet, presided over by Palikao, made every effort to increase the means of defense and to supply Paris with provisions. Meanwhile the French army had been annihilated in a succession of great battles; the whole of Alsace and Lorraine was occupied by German troops, and only Strasburg and Metz still held out. Napoleon III. himself surrendered at Sedan and went into captivity in Germany; the prince imperial, who had accompanied his father, had previously gone to England. On receipt of the news of this catastrophe, Paris rose in rebellion; during the night of Sept. 3, Jules Favre proposed in the legislature to depose the imperial dynasty. Palikao did not dare to vigorously resist this agitation, as the army and national guards could not be depended on. On the afternoon of Sept. 4 a mob stormed the hall of the legislature, the senate dissolved, and while Gambetta proclaimed a republic amid tumultuous excitement, the empress, together with the heads of the imperial party, were fugitives on their way to find shelter in England. On the very evening of Sept. 4, 1870, a "provisional government of national defense" constituted itself in the Hôtel de Ville, composed of deputies of the left only (Arago, Crémieux, Favre, Ferry, Gambetta, Garnier-Pagès, Glais-Bizoin, Pelletan, Picard, Rochefort, Simon). Under their auspices all Germans were expelled from France. Gen. Trochu presided, and was entrusted with the office of commander-in-chief of Paris. Jules Favre became vice-president and minister of foreign affairs; he entered upon his functions with a diplomatic circular of Sept. 6, in which he declared that the government desired peace, but would not cede one inch of the national territory, nor a stone of a French fortress. He made the same claim in a personal conversation with Bismarck at Ferrières on Sept. 19-20; he thought of contenting victorious Germany with money only. Thiers undertook a diplomatic mission to London, Vienna, St. Petersburg and Florence to ask the intercession of the neutral powers, but without success. His negotiations with Bismarck on Nov. 1, at Versailles, resulted in nothing. When the German army advanced toward Paris, the French government resolved to share the fate of the capital, but appointed a delegation for the administration of the provinces at Tours, where Gambetta as minister of war and of the interior virtually assumed the dictatorship. On Sept. 19 the surrounding of Paris had been completed, and the Prussian king, William I, had taken up his headquarters at Versailles, the old residence of the French kings. Strasburg and Metz capitulated. In vain Gambetta continued to levy new troops to relieve Paris; the French recruits and the militia (garde mobile) were unable to offer successful resistance to the experienced German soldiers, and in the beginning of December the government delegations even had to remove further south to Bordeaux. The government at Paris, too, was in a Edition: current; Page: [259] difficult position. All efforts of Gen. Trochu to break through the iron belt of the besieging army were unsuccessful, and want soon made itself felt. In addition to this, an extreme party existed in the city itself, which had its connection with the international society of workingmen and relied upon the armed population of the workingmen's quarters, Belleville, Montmartre, etc. Aside from minor revolts, this party attempted, on Oct. 31, 1870, and Jan. 22, 1871, (unsuccessfully, however,) to usurp the government and to establish the so-called commune.

—Under these circumstances the "provisional government of defense" was compelled to sue for peace. On Jan. 28, 1871, Favre and Bismarck signed an agreement for a three weeks armistice on land and water, in accordance with which the German troops occupied, the following day, all forts around Paris. During this armistice, which was afterward extended to March 3, a national assembly was to be chosen by general election in order to negotiate peace. When Gambetta attempted to limit the freedom of election to those of pronounced republican tendencies, his decree was not recognized by either Bismarck or the Paris government; this, with the general desire of the French people for peace, compelled him to resign. On Feb. 8 the elections took place, and on Feb. 12 the national assembly held its first session at Bordeaux. The following day the government of national defense resigned the powers confided to it to the national assembly, and the latter appointed Thiers, on Feb. 17, chief executive officer; retaining Favre as minister of foreign affairs. On Feb. 26 the preliminaries of peace were decided upon at Versailles, between Thiers and Favre on one side and the chancellor, Bismarck, and the representatives of Bavaria, Würtemberg and Baden on the other side, in accordance with which France ceded the provinces of Alsace, except Belfort, and German Lorraine, including Metz, to the German empire, and bound herself to pay a war indemnity of 5,000,000,000 francs; part of the French territory to remain occupied by German troops until the indemnity should be paid. These preliminaries were ratified on March 1 by the national assembly at Bordeaux and March 2 by Emperor William I. The German troops, who had occupied several quarters of Paris, withdrew from the city March 3. Shortly afterward the Germans also left Versailles, and the national assembly, together with the executive, removed from Bordeaux to the former place March 20. On March 18 a fresh and successful insurrection broke out in Paris, and the so-called commune usurped control of the government. This outbreak, however, was confined to the city of Paris; the French army remained true to the government, and after great bloodshed the insurrection was quelled, and by May 28 order was restored in Paris. Previous to this, the treaty of peace with Germany had already been definitively ratified. In accordance with the preliminaries, French and German representatives had, on March 28, convened at Brussels in order to deliberate over the details of the treaty; the negotiations, however, progressed slowly, as no agreement could be arrived at concerning the financial questions. This created distrust in Germany as to whether the government at Versailles would and could honestly carry out the provisions of the preliminary treaty. In consequence, Bismarck used his personal influence; and in a meeting with Favre, the French minister, at Frankfort on the Main (May 6-10) all conflicting points were speedily decided. The treaty of Frankfort, of May 10, 1871, generally confirmed the preliminaries, but contained amendments regulating the future border more in accordance with the nationality of the inhabitants, and containing an additional article in relation to the possession of the French railways of the east in Alsace-Lorraine.

—The elections of Feb. 8 had, under clerical influences and under the pressure of the situation, resulted in a preponderating majority of the "legitimist Orleanist" party, so that every one looked with either fear or hope for an early restoration of the monarchy. The princes of the house of Orleans returned to take up their residence in France; Count Chambord (Henry V.) appeared for a long visit at his country seat. Chambord and the followers of both sides entered into negotiations in order to effect a fusion. This, however, was made impossible by Chambord's manifesto of July 5, wherein he declared that he could not sacrifice the white flag of Henry IV. Thiers tried first to secure for himself the good will of the monarchist majority by appointing an increasing number of Orleanists as members of his cabinet. The republican Jules Favre resigned, and on Aug. 3 Charles Remusat entered the foreign office; later, Casimir Périer (the son) was appointed minister of the interior. On Aug. 12 the left centre of the national assembly brought in a bill proposing the prolongation of the power of Thiers for three years, under the title of president of the republic, and the establishment of a responsible ministry. After a hot debate, Aug. 30 and 31, the bill was passed by a vote of 491 against 93. The bill provided that Thiers should exercise the executive power as president of the republic under the authority of the national assembly, until the work of the latter was ended; he should reside at the seat of the assembly and be heard by the latter at any time at his request. The president as well as the ministers (who are appointed and dismissed by the former), should be under responsibility to the national assembly. Soon after the passage of this bill the assembly adjourned from Sept. 17 to Dec. 4, after appointing a permanent commission of forty-five members to act during the interval of the adjournment.

—The next object of the French government and national assembly was the earliest possible liberation of the country from the occupation of the German troops, and the improvement of the army after the Prussian model. For the paying of the first two milliards of war indemnity, Thiers contracted, in June, 1871, a loan of Edition: current; Page: [260] 2,500,000,000 francs, and for the liquidation of the balance a second loan of over three milliard francs in July, 1872. That for the latter loan a sum of more than forty-four milliards was subscribed, was evidence of the very favorable condition of French credit. Thus France was enabled by more speedy payments to bring about the end of the occupation at an earlier period than had been expected at the time of the treaty. In the last convention of March 15, 1873, it was decided that the last quarter milliard should be paid off on Sept. 5, thereby securing the complete evacuation of the French territory. The reorganization of the army was also vigorously pressed. The national assembly granted for that purpose any sum requested, and even offered to the government more money than the latter required. The law of July 28, 1872, concerning military service, established universal liability to arms, in such a manner that one part of the troops should be under obligation of five years active service, and the other part of six months exercise only. Besides this, a term of four years service in the reserve and eleven years in the territorial army was decided upon. This law was made complete by the organization law of July 24, 1873, and the cadres law of March 13, 1875. The former determined the number of regiments (144 of infantry, 70 of cavalry and 28 of artillery), and assigned them to eighteen corps d'armée for which the commanding generals were at once appointed; a nineteenth corps d'armée was established in Algeria and placed under the command of Chanzy, the governor general of Algeria. By the cadres law, the cadres of the battalions were increased in such a way that while formerly a regiment consisted of three battalions with a maximum of 3,000 men, a regiment of four battalions could now be formed, increasing the strength of the regiment to 4,000 men. This bill passed, the French infantry comprised 641 battalions. Such a law appeared of so much importance and so favorable for the early outbreak of the meditated war of vengeance, that in April, 1875, the question was raised at Berlin, whether "war was in view." All parties in France labored for the war of vengeance; even the plans of the Jesuits tended in the same direction. Under the guidance of the latter, humbled France should be raised up again, and the people stirred up for the national-clerical crusade against Germany. Miraculous fountains and apparitions, numerous processions, chanting of religious songs with refrain of vengeance, were intended to keep up the fanaticism of the populace. The clericals most favored by the government increased their demands more and more until the law of July 12, 1875, concerning public instruction, awarded them the privilege of establishing "free universities" and the participation in conferring academical degrees, whereby they hoped to secure a controlling influence in the higher grades of instruction, in addition to the management of the institutions for female instruction and education which they already conducted. The proceedings instituted by the military commission against Marshal Bazaine were intended to relieve the "Grande Nation" from all responsibility for the disgrace of the last war, and to lay all the blame therefor to insubordination and treason. Bazaine was, by court martial, on Dec. 10, 1873, condemned to death, but the sentence was commuted to twenty years' imprisonment. Removed to the fortress on the island of St. Marguerite, he escaped on Aug. 10, 1874.

—Less harmony existed between the parties in question concerning the framing of the constitution. The monarchists divided into legitimists. Orleanists and Bonapartists, and each of the three parties had its own pretendant; the republicans, too, formed three groups: moderate, decided and radical republicans. Not only the monarchists and republicans opposed each other, but even the several factions in the parties themselves often disagreed. Thus it happened that the "commission of thirty" which was to frame the constitutional laws, found much difficulty in arriving at a conclusion, and could not gain a majority in the assembly for its decrees. On account of these difficulties several ministers were politically wrecked, and the constitution made no progress toward completion. It took four years before the republic became a fact and constitutional. Meritorious as had been the course of Thiers as president of the republic, he had gained the ill will of the monarchists because he would not support their plans and because of his preference for the republic. And as the supplementary elections mostly resulted in favor of the republicans, it could be foreseen with mathematical certainty that the monarchists would eventually lose the majority in the assembly. As Thiers, in forming his new cabinet on May 18, 1873, chose its members from the ranks of the republicans only, without regard to the majority of the monarchists, the latter proposed a resolution of censure against him. This was accepted on May 24, by a vote of 360 against 344. Thereupon Thiers and his ministry tendered their resignation and Marshal MacMahon was at the same session elected president of the republic. The latter formed a new ministry composed of legitimists, Orleanists and Bonapartists, presided over by the duke de Broglie as minister of foreign affairs. The new presidency promised to be of but short duration; for the legitimists labored more strenuously than ever to bring about a fusion; they had already secured the good will of many Orleanists, and proposed to recall Count Chambord and offer him the throne. The count de Paris, as head of the house of Orleans, visited Count Chambord on Aug. 5, 1873, at Frohsdorf, and recognized him as the chief of the united houses of Bourbon and Orleans, and as the chief representative of the monarchical principle in France. But since Count Chambord, in his letter of Oct 27, demanded an unconditional recall, and refused to make any binding declaration in regard to the flag (whether tricolor or white), or as to Edition: current; Page: [261] the constitution, the Orleanists withdrew, and the attempt at fusion again proved a failure. MacMahon, however, demanded then the establishment of a strong executive power, and the assembly accordingly decided to fix the term of office of the president at seven years (septennate). Under the ministry of Broglie ultramontanism and Bonapartism made rapid progress. The pastorals of the French bishops outdid each other in their attacks upon the German emperor and his government, so that the minister of public worship, in a circular of Dec. 26, 1873, cautioned the bishops, and Bismarck called the French government to account. The Bonapartists gained several favorable results at the later elections, and found themselves in possession of most of the higher offices. Since legitimists and Orleanists had lost all ground with the people, the only question remained whether the third empire or the republic would come out victorious from the struggle of parties. After the death of the ex-emperor, Napoleon, on Jan. 9, 1873, the Bonapartists gathered around his son, who, on March 16, 1874, became of age. This latter event was celebrated at Chiselhurst, many followers of the empire doing homage to the prince imperial. Since the Bonapartists could hardly count upon aid from any of the other parties, they carried on their agitation all the more vigorously among the lower classes and awaited a favorable opportunity for a coup d'état. But this was what legitimists and Orleanists feared most, and as the agitation of the Bonapartists became too strong, the former declared in 1875 for the establishment of the republic.

—After Broglie had succeeded in passing the law of Jan. 20, 1874, by which the appointing of the mayors was given entirely into the hands of the government, he proposed still another most reactionary law, limiting the general right of voting at elections for deputies. When the question was put whether the electoral law should have an immediate hearing, the assembly decided against Broglie. In consequence, he resigned on May 16, 1874, and the minister of war, Cissey, on May 22, formed a new cabinet, whose members were also chosen from the monarchical parties. Clericals and Bonapartists continued to be preferred. At the consideration in the assembly of the laws concerning the transfer of power, the elections and the authority of the senate, a decision was reached. The right and left centre united in their position in reference to the amendment to the first law proposed by Wallon, a deputy, and also to the new senate law drafted by the same, and in this way both laws were passed on Feb. 23 and 24 by the national assembly. One of the laws determined the position of the president of the republic in relation to the senate and chamber of deputies; the other one fixed the number of senators at 300, of which 75 were to be elected by the national assembly for life, while 225 were to be elected for a term of nine years by the departments and colonies, or the representatives of the latter, members of the general councils of the arrondissements and the communes. In consequence of these decisions the ministry under Cissey resigned, and on March 11, Buffet, who, since April 4, 1873, had been president of the national assembly, formed a new cabinet, which, however, did not fully agree with the majority which had passed these laws. These changes were followed, on July 16, by the adoption of the laws determining the relations of the public authorities to each other, and regulating the election of the 225 senators; on Nov. 30 by the adoption of the law concerning the election of deputies by voting in the arrondissements; and on Dec. 29 by the adoption of a stricter press law, and of a law concerning the state of siege, (which should only remain in force in Paris, Lyons, Marseilles and Versailles). The election of the seventy-five senators by the national assembly was accomplished in eleven ballots, and resulted in the complete defeat of the Buffet ministry. At last the assembly determined that the elections for the senate should be held on Jan. 30, 1876, those for the chamber of deputies on Feb. 20, and that the opening of both chambers should take place on March 8; then the national assembly dissolved, to return no more, as originally constituted.

—In spite of all efforts of the government which controlled the press law, the state of siege, the voting in the arrondissements, the prefects and the mayors, and tried to use them in its own favor, the elections for senate and chamber of deputies resulted very generally in favor of the new constitutional law. Of the 300 senators, about one-third were said to be republicans (mostly moderate) and 40 Bonapartists; of the 532 deputies, about 360 were said to be republicans and 80 Bonapartists. These elections proved a complete defeat of the reactionists, and especially of the clericals, who had made such rapid progress under the former government. Buffet himself was not elected for either chamber (later, on June 16, he was elected as senator for life); he resigned on Feb. 21, 1876, and on March 9 a new ministry was formed from members of the left centre, presided over by Dufaure. On March 7 the new session was opened; the senate and the chamber of deputies proceeded to elect their temporary officers. On March 8 the functions of the former national assembly were transferred by its president, Andiffret-Pasquier, and the permanent committee to the newly constituted chambers, and on March 13 both chambers elected their permanent presiding officers, Andiffret-Pasquier in the senate and Grévy in the chamber of deputies. The republicans now demanded from the government the immediate dismissal of all legitimist or Bonapartist prefects and the abolition of the maire law and state of siege. The fulfillment of the two first-named points was delayed; the state of siege, however, together with some restrictions of the press law which Buffet had arbitrarily introduced, were abolished, in consequence of a motion made and accepted in both chambers. A motion, Edition: current; Page: [262] offered on March 21 in the senate by Victor Hugo, and in the chamber of deputies by Raspail, to decree a general amnesty for political offenses and press transgressions, (consequently also for communists), was lost by a large majority, the government, however, promising to exercise all possible indulgence and consideration. The law proposed by Waddington, minister of public instruction, to alter the law concerning higher instruction adopted in 1875, to make the state alone competent to grant academical degrees, was, on June 7, confirmed by the chamber of deputies; in the senate, however, on Aug. 11, it was rejected by a vote of 144 against 139. The reactionary maire law, created by Broglie in 1874, was abrogated on July 11 by the chamber of deputies, and on July 12 a new bill was passed, whereby the election of maires was left with the municipalities, with the exception of the principal towns of the arrondissements and cantons in which the election was decided by the government. At the same time a bill was passed making it obligatory to elect a new common council before the election of a new maire.

—On Aug. 11 the senate passed the maire law proposed by the chamber of deputies, but rejected the amendment; to which decision the latter finally agreed. The new election for maires took place on Oct. 8 in 33,000 municipalities, and resulted mostly in favor of the republicans; in 3,000 municipalities the election depended on the government. By refusing in several instances the customary military honors at funerals of knights of the legion of honor, the government came into conflict not only with the chamber of deputies but also with the entire non-clerical public opinion. To disembarrass itself in this dilemma, the government, on Nov. 23, proposed a law providing that in future military honors should be conferred on active soldiers only, and not on any other members of the legion of honor. This evident inclination of the government to clerical tendencies created such a storm that the cabinet under Dufaure could not maintain itself. The government was compelled to withdraw its motion on Dec. 2, and to consent to an order of the day providing that in the future application of the funeral regulation the two principles of liberty of conscience and equality of citizens before the law should be maintained. Since the cabinet had no majority either in the senate (for which it was too liberal) or in the chamber of deputies (for which it was too clerical), it tendered its resignation. After long deliberation a new ministry was formed on Dec. 12, in which Jules Simon, member of the moderate left, assumed the presidency and the department of the interior, and Martel the departments of justice and worship, while all other offices remained in the possession of their former holders. After the overthrow of MacMahon, Jules Grévy (Jan. 30, 1879) became president of the republic.

—Constitution. The form of government in France is republican, based upon the constitution adopted by the national assembly on Feb. 28, 1875, and several amendments. The president of the republic is the chief officer, and is assisted in the government by the ministry, the senate and the chamber of deputies. He is under responsibility to the French people, with the privilege of appeal to the same. His power is executive. According to decree of the national assembly, of Nov. 11, 1875, the members of the chamber of deputies are elected by universal suffrage. Each arrondissement elects one deputy for every 100,000 inhabitants or fraction thereof. A voter must be a citizen and twenty-one years of age; a deputy, a citizen and twenty-five years of age. The chamber of deputies consists of 532 members, and the senate of 300 members, of whom 225 are elected by the departments and colonies, and 75 by the national assembly. The senators for the departments are elected by electoral boards for a term of nine years, (one-third of their number going out of office every third year), while the senators nominated by the assembly remain during their lifetime. A senator must be a Frenchman by birth and forty years of age. The senate and chamber assemble annually on the second Tuesday in January, provided the president of the republic does not convoke them sooner; their sessions must last at least five months. Both open and close their sessions at the same time. The president proclaims the close of the session, and has the privilege of convoking the chambers at any time; it becomes his duty to do so if one-half of the members of both chambers desire it. The president can adjourn the chambers, but for no longer than a month and not oftener than twice during the same session. The senate, in conjunction with the chamber of deputies, has the right of proposing and making new laws. Bills for the levying of taxes, or relating to the revenue, however, must first be presented to and accepted by the chamber of deputies. The president of the republic is elected by a majority of votes of the national assembly consisting of both chambers. His term of office is seven years, at the expiration of which he is again eligible. He, as well as the senate, has the initiative in legislation. He promulgates all laws adopted by both chambers, and insures their proper execution. He has the right of pardon, commands the forces, and appoints all civil and military officers, including the heads of the ministerial departments. The envoys and ambassadors of foreign powers are accredited to him. Every decree of the president must be countersigned by one of the ministers. The president may, with the consent of the senate, dissolve the chamber of deputies, but must in that case convoke the electoral boards for new elections within three months. The ministry is responsible to the national assembly for the general policy of the government, and each minister is personally responsible for his individual acts. The president is responsible only in case of high treason. In case of his death the united chambers must at once proceed to elect a new president. The seat of the executive Edition: current; Page: [263] and of both chambers is at Versailles.

—Administration. The administration, as the emanation of the executive power in France, is rigorously separated from the legislative authority and from the administration of justice. It constitutes a system of the strictest centralization. Since June, 1875, nine ministries have been established: 1, the ministry of the interior; 2, the ministry of foreign affairs; 3, the ministry of finance; 4, the ministry of justice (keeper of the great seal); 5, the ministry of commerce and agriculture; 6, the ministry of worship and public instruction; 7, the ministry of public works; 8, the ministry of war; 9, the ministry of the navy. The chamber of accounts is independent. There is a council of state, presided over by the minister of justice, the functions of which are the giving of advice on bills and decrees as well as on all administrative and other affairs presented by the president of the republic and by the ministry, and the deciding of appeals in conflicting administrative affairs and annulments on account of errors on the part of the various administrative departments. Its ordinary members are elected by the national assembly for a term of three years; the extraordinary ones are appointed by the president of the republic. A special tribunal decides in cases of concurrence of jurisdiction between the courts of administration and of justice. In close connection with the central administration of the ministry is the departmental or provincial administration. Each department is presided over by a prefect, who executes all decrees, decisions, directions, etc., issued by the ministry to the lower courts. Aside from his position as a government officer, he is also the representative of the interests of the department, which is at the same time a part of the state and an individual sovereignty, with power to buy and sell. The prefect is assisted by the general council. The latter has as many members as the department has cantons, who are elected in the same manner as the members of the general assembly. The members of the general council, whose term is six years, must be residents of the department. Every three years one-third of the members retire, but may be reelected. The general council levies the taxes in the districts, directs the financial affairs of the department, though its decrees are partly subject to confirmation by the higher authorities, and gives its opinion in all matters wherein its advice is required. Each general council appoints annually a departmental commission to assist the prefect. The subdivisions of the department, the arrondissements, are presided over by a sub-prefect, who is, in fact, merely the agent of the prefect. He is assisted by an elected council (conseil d'arrondissement) whose annual sessions are limited to fifteen days. The cantons of which an arrondissement is composed are administratively insignificant; they merely serve as a basis for the elections and for the levy of recruits. Every canton is the seat of a justice of the peace. Next to the administration of the police comes that of the commune. The commune being at the same time a part of the state and an independent corporation, the mayor has, in the same manner as the prefect, the double character of a governmental agent and municipal representative. As agent of the government his functions are to promulgate and secure the proper execution of all laws and ordinances, and to maintain the general and municipal police (except in towns of over 40,000 inhabitants). His decrees must in part be sanctioned by the prefect or sub-prefect. He has no judicial power, which rests alone with the police courts. As representative of the municipality he manages the parish property, regulates the receipts and expenditures, prepares the budget, represents the community in the courts, etc. He is also civil magistrate, keeps the civil list, officiates at civil marriages, though under the control of the courts of justice (procureur d'état). The mayor (maire) appoints most of the municipal officers. His assistant and substitute is the "adjunct," of which there are several in communes of over 2,500 inhabitants. The maire, as well as his assistant (whose functions are not specified), has no salary. The former is assisted by the municipal council elected by the parishioners. All Frenchmen twenty-one years of age, residing at least six months in a parish, are eligible. The municipal council consists of at least ten members; their number increases, according to the population, to the limit of thirty six. The municipal council passes ordinances concerning the administration of the common property, which must be submitted to the citizens as well as to the authorities, and which the prefect may veto, but which he can not alter. It deliberates on the budget, the purchase and sale of public property, the erection of buildings and repairs, the acceptance of donations, and matters of dispute, though its decrees must be submitted to the prefect or the minister of the interior for sanction; it furthermore gives its advice in all matters submitted to it, as church taxation, matters of public benevolence, etc. The sessions of the municipal council are not public. The ordinary annual session lasts ten days; extraordinary sessions may be convoked at the request of one-third of the members, with the consent of the prefect.

—Political Division. European France is divided into eighty-six departments and one territory (Belfort), comprising 363 arrondissements, 2,865 cantons, and 35,989 communes. This division was made by decree of the national assembly, of Jan. 15, 1790, and proved very beneficial, as the difference in size of the historically defined provinces, with their frequently adverse interests, rendered their administration very difficult. Notwithstanding this, the old division into provinces has remained a favorite historical remembrance of the population, the more so as it corresponds more nearly to their physical, industrial and social relations. The correspondence of the provincial division with the present division into departments may best be shown, with a few exceptions, by the following Edition: current; Page: [264] summary:

—Administration of Justice. The administration of justice is presided over by a special minister of state; it is divided into civil and criminal jurisdiction. The former is exercised by justice courts, circuit courts and courts of appeal. The justice court consists of a judge who need not be a jurist, and two substitutes who have no pay. The justice of the peace is really judge as well as mediator. No lawsuit can be commenced in the circuit court that has not first been tried before a justice of the peace, in order, if possible, to effect an agreement between the contending parties. The circuit courts (tribunal d'arrondissement) consist, according to the size of the arrondissement, of seven to ten or twelve salaried judges, and several substitutes without pay who are selected from among the lawyers. They take cognizance of all cases which can not be brought before any other court, and have summary jurisdiction in cases involving amounts not exceeding 1,500 francs. The appellate court consists of from twenty-four to thirty or forty members, which constitute three chambers; for civil proceedings, for appeals in error, and for indictments. The assizes have only jurisdiction in matters submitted to them by the court of appeals. The appellate court is generally of second resort. The commercial jurisdiction is exercised: 1, by tribunals of commerce, whose members are elected from among merchants and manufacturers for a term of two years, and are confirmed by the government; 2, by the prud'hommes, (experienced men) arbitrators composed of manufacturers, master workmen, journeymen and workmen who settle disputes by arbitration. The commercial jurisdiction requires no attorneys not lawyers. The French judicial code distinguishes three degrees of infractions of the law: offenses against the police regulations, transgressions and crimes. The first come under the jurisdiction of the police courts, with fines limited to fifteen francs, or five days' imprisonment. If judgment amounts to more than a fine of five francs, the case may be appealed to the tribunal of appeals in error or to the court of cassation. The latter consists of three judges who pass sentence in the case of all transgressions that are not crimes, but which are subject to higher penalty than can be inflicted by the police courts. Appeal from its judgment may be taken to another tribunal of cassation or to any of the twenty-six courts of appeal. Crimes come under the jurisdiction of the assizes, which are held every three months in the principal town of each department, and consist of judges and a jury. Besides crimes, offenses of all kinds against the press laws, as well as political offenses (with the exception of high treason), are submitted to the court of assizes. In each of the 363 arrondissements is established a court of first resort, and in each of the 2,865 cantons a justice of the peace. The judges merely pronounce the legal punishment for a crime after an absolute majority of a jury of twelve men has rendered a verdict. A supreme court (haute cour de justice), the jury of which is composed of members of the general councils and whose judges are taken from the courts of cassation, decides in cases of high treason and crimes of the ministers, high dignitaries, senators and members of the council of state. Although special courts are against the constitution, there are several special tribunals provided by law, as probate courts, military courts, marine courts, disciplinary chambers of notaries and attorneys, and disciplinary magistrates, for matters concerning public instruction. The court of cassation never decides matters in dispute, but merely the proper application of the laws and proceedings. It has forty-nine members, and is divided into three chambers: civil chambers, criminal chambers and the chambres de requête. In some cases judgment is passed by the three chambers jointly. The judges of the circuit courts, courts of appeal and courts of cassation can not be deposed, but must be retired at a certain age (since 1852). In fact, Edition: current; Page: [265] there are but two resorts in the French administration of justice. With the exception of the justice and commercial courts, councils of prefecture and prud'hommes, all courts have the services of the ministère public, which in the circuit and superior courts is represented by the state's attorney (procureur de la république). The state's attorney conducts prosecutions in criminal cases, gives advice in civil suits, or (in matters concerning the state or minors) appears himself as a party to the suit. With the exception of the probate courts, all legal proceedings in France are public and verbal.

—Education. The progress of science, art and public instruction has corresponded with the high state of culture in the nation, although the middle schools have not attained a very high degree of excellence, and the public schools, properly speaking, are essentially affected by political and clerical influences. Public instruction, with the exception of a few special professional schools, is presided over by a special ministry assisted by a high board of education and eighteen inspectors general. The whole state is divided into sixteen government groups, or so-called academies. Each of these is presided over by a rector, who is responsible for all branches of instruction, though the primary schools in the single departments are under the superintendence of the prefect. The prefect appoints and dismisses the teachers and exercises immediate authority. The instruction in the higher schools comprises the five faculties of theology, law, medicine, science and literature, the latter two corresponding with the philosophical faculty of the German universities. Only in Paris are all five departments united in full universities, while in eighteen other places but single departments are represented. For instance: theology at Aix, Bordeaux, Caen, Lyons, Montauban, Paris and Toulouse; law at Aix, Bordeaux, Caen, Dijon, Douai, Nancy, Paris, Poitiers, Rennes and Toulouse; medicine at Montpellier, Nancy, Paris; science at Besançon, Bordeaux, Caen, Clermont, Dijon, Grenoble, Lille, Lyons, Marseilles, Montpellier, Nancy, Paris, Poitiers, Rennes and Toulouse; literature at Aix, Besançon, Bordeaux, Caen, Clermont, Dijon, Grenoble, Douai, Lyons, Montpellier, Nancy, Paris, Poitiers, Rennes and Toulouse. Besides these there are high schools for pharmacy at Lyons, Montpellier and Paris. Lately the government has given more particular attention to the higher grades of instruction in the lyceums (formerly colléges royaux) and in the communal colleges, and also to public instruction in the elementary schools, (for which male teachers are trained in eighty-one and female teachers in eleven normal schools). In 1872 but 51.75 per cent. of the total population was able to read and write, and but 10.45 per cent. was able to read only, leaving, therefore, 37.80 per cent. altogether illiterate. This percentage is of course subject to many local variations, as the different departments share very unequally in the diffusion of education. The proportion of the educated is highest in the northeast, and lowest in Brittany and on the western and northern terraces of Auvergne, Limousin, Berri, Nivernais and Bourbonnais. Of the schools for instruction in special branches of knowledge, the following deserve special mention: the school of fine arts at Paris, founded in 1648 by Louis XIV., with free tuition and three grand annual prizes, the academy of design at Paris, founded in 1766 by Louis XV., also with free tuition; the conservatory of music and declamatory art at Paris, established 1794, a celebrated preparatory school for the opera and the drama; the academy for instruction in oriental languages; the schools of Rome and of Athens; and the Ecole des Chartes. The polytechnic school at Paris was established in 1794. It is maintained under the supervision of the minister of war and the special management of a general of the army, and serves as a preparatory school for the artillery and engineer corps, as also for the schools of navigation, civil engineering, mining, etc. The schools for instruction of engineers of public works and the schools for miners at Paris, therefore, presuppose a course in the polytechnic school. A conservatory for the application of science to the arts and trades, a central school for arts and trades, and a superior commercial college, are established at Paris, and schools for arts and trades at Chalons-sur-Marne, Angers and Aix. Nancy has a school of forestry. Besides three superior agricultural schools at Grignou near Versailles, at Granjouan (lower Loire) and at Montpellier (1871), there are forty-seven estates with 995 pupils serving as minor farming schools. Of the military colleges the most important are: the school for the training of officers of the staff at Paris (Ecole d'état major), that of St. Cyr for the education of officers of the infantry, the cavalry school at Saumur, the prytonée militaire de la flèche for sons of officers, the artillery and engineer school (at Fontainebleau), and a school for the practice of firearms at Vineennes. While there are hydrographical schools in nearly all of the larger seaports, the naval academy at Brest is of special importance for the navy.

—Population. The population of France after the cessions to Germany in virtue of the treaty of Frankfort, May 10, 1871, according to the census of 1866, was 36,469,836; according to the census of 1872 it was only 36,102,921; showing, aside from the territorial losses, a decrease of 366,915 souls, or 1.2 per cent. This decline of population was partly due to losses in the war, but principally to the ravages of small-pox during 1870-71, the decrease in marriages and the increase of the death rate over the birth rate. It affected almost the entire country. Only fourteen departments showed an increase of population. Chief among these were the departments of Allier, Loire, Nord, Pas-de-Calais, Seine and Seine-et-Oise, none of which belong to southern France. France has at present nine cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants. Their population, Edition: current; Page: [266] with the exception of Lyons, Bordeaux and Toulouse, increased in the six years between the census of 1866 and that of 1872, although not in the same proportion as the larger cities of the German empire. The largest cities of France are, according to the census of 1876: Paris, 1,988,806 inhabitants (in 1866, 1,825,274), Lyons, 342,815 inhabitants (in 1866, 323,954): Marseilles, 318,868 inhabitants (in 1866, 300,431); Bordeaux, 215,146 inhabitants (in 1866, 194,241); Lille, 162,775 inhabitants (in 1866, 154,749); Toulouse, 131,642 inhabitants (in 1866, 126,936); Nantes, 122,247 inhabitants (in 1866, 111,956); Rouen, 104,902 inhabitants (in 1866, 100,671); St. Etienne, 126,019 inhabitants (in 1866, 96,620). Of the rest of the larger cities, some, especially affected by the Franco-German war and the consequent occupation, show a considerable increase, principally Rheims, 81,328 inhabitants (in 1866, 60,734); Versailles, 49,847 inhabitants (in 1866, 44,021); Nancy, 66,303 inhabitants (in 1866, 49,993). The average population is 70.6 to the square kilometre. But the great variations in numerical distribution will best be shown from the following: To one square kilometre the department of the Seine had, in 1872, 4,667 inhabitants, Rhône 240, Nord 255, Lower Seine 131, Loire 116, Pas-de-Calais 115, etc., while the department of the Lower Alps had 20, the Upper Alps 21, Lozère 26, Landes 32, Savoy 47, Corsica 30, etc. Leaving out of consideration the city of Paris, the most densely populated are the departments of the north and of the coast, and the most sparsely populated those of the mountains and of the interior, with the exception of the larger cities and manufacturing districts, as Lyons and St. Etienne. The number of populous cities in France is small. The city element of the whole population is about 25 per cent.9

—Although historical researches into the descent of the population point to a diversity of races, there is not another country in Europe in which the different nationalities are so harmoniously blended as in France. It is only on the Belgian frontier, toward the Pyrenees and in the interior of Brittany, that a marked difference is perceptible, and this rather in the idiom than in national customs. The proportion of foreign elements is estimated as follows: the Walloons in the north, 5 per cent.; the Bretons, 3 per cent.; the Italians in the southeast, 1.1 per cent.; the Basques and Catalonians in the Pyrenees, 0.5 per cent.; the Israelites, 0.14 per cent.; the Gypsies and Cagots, 0 05 per cent. This leaves 90.21 per cent. to the French race, i.e., the mixture of subjugated Gauls, colonized Romans and Gallic tribes. According to nationality the population consisted, in 1872, of 35,362,253, or 97.97 per cent. Frenchmen, and 730,844, or 2.03 per cent. foreigners; and according to religious faith, of 35,387,703, or 98 per cent. Catholics; 580,757, or 1.6 per cent. Protestants; 49,439, or 0.14 per cent. Israelites: and 85,022, or 0.26 per cent of anti-Christian or unknown creed. From 1872 to 1876 there was an increase of 802,867 in the population of France, the total population at the latter date being 36,905,788.

—Army. The army of the second French empire had almost completely gone to wreck during the campaign of 1870; a predominant part of it was, after the surrender of Sedan, Strasburg, Metz and the other fortresses on war territory, in German captivity. With numerous new organizations France had offered resistance to the enemy during the last period of the war, so that after the victory over the "commune" at Paris, a new French army had to be created. This has been done by a course of legislation, which has abandoned the previously prevailing principles, and which corresponds in almost every respect with the Prussian system. This has made it possible to create an army, whose strength, notwithstanding the loss of Alsace and Lorraine, materially exceeds that of the army of the empire. By the conscription law of 1872 the principle of universal liability to arms is laid down, in accordance with which every Frenchman is liable to military service: substitution or enlistment for money are prohibited, and every French man, who has not been declared entirely unfit for service, must, from his twentieth to his fortieth year, be in the active army and its reserve; and only Frenchmen are admitted to the French army. This law further stipulates that members of the active forces shall not take part in political elections, and that every armed active troop is subject to the military laws, belongs to the army, and is subordinate to the ministry of war or marine. Thereby political agitation in the army is prevented, and the national guard abolished. The time of service in the active army is five years, in the reserve of the same four years, in the territorial army five years and six years in the reserve of the latter; making, in all, twenty years. Besides this, the system of volunteer service for one year only (volontaires conditionels d'un an) has been established. By the law of July 24, 1873, regulating the army organization, the permanent division of the army into corps d'armée, divisions, etc., has been decreed, corresponding to the Prussian provincial system, by which France, with respect to organization of the active army and its reserve, as well as that of the territorial army and reserve, is divided into eighteen districts, which again are subdivided according to the productiveness of conscription and the demands of mobilization. In each of the eighteen districts a corps d'armée is garrisoned; a nineteenth corps is maintained in Algeria. Each corps d'armée consists of two divisions of infantry with two brigades each, a cavalry brigade, an artillery brigade, a battalion of engineers, a squadron of the train, together with the staff and the necessary commissary department. Unlike the German system Edition: current; Page: [267] the active army does not recruit itself from the respective districts, but from the whole territory of France; but in case of mobilization the different troops are re-enforced by reserves from their own districts. One ordinance is peculiar: that in times of peace no commanding general of a corps d'armée shall occupy that office for more than three years, unless he has been expressly confirmed in it at the expiration of that time by decree of the president of the republic. The territorial army, similar to the German "landwehr" (militia) is formed of persons living in the district and not belonging to the active army; the reserve of the territorial army is only called upon if the present forces are not sufficient. The law of March 13, 1875, completes the reorganization of the French army, determines the number and formation of all classes of troops, regulates the grades of the military departments in peace and in war, and fixes the annual average peace footing of privates for every part of the army. Accord-to this, the strength of the French army is as follows: Infantry, 144 regiments of the line, each consisting of four battalions of four companies each, and two dépót companies for each regiment, altogether 576 battalions with 2,304 field and 288 dépót companies (236,301 men), thirty battalions of chasseurs, of four active and one dépót company each, altogether thirty battalions with 120 field and thirty dépét companies (18,240 men); four regiments of zouaves, with four battalions of four companies each, and one dépót company for each regiment, altogether sixteen battalions, with sixty-four field and four dépót companies (10,320 men), three regiments of Algerian sharpshooters (tirailleurs) with four battalions of four companies each, and one dépót company for each regiment, altogether twelve battalions, forty-eight field and three dépót companies (8,505 men); one foreign legion of four battalions, having each four companies, altogether four battalions, sixteen active companies (2,529 men); three battalions of African light infantry, of six companies each, altogether three battalions, eighteen field companies (4,143 men); four companies of fusileers, and one pioneer penal company (1,560 men). This makes the total footing of the infantry: 641 battalions, with 2,575 field and 325 dépót companies (281,601 men). Napoleon's army of 1870 had only 372 field battalions. The cavalry consisted of twelve regiments of cuirassiers, twenty-six regiments of dragoons, twenty regiments of chasseurs, and twelve regiments of hussars, each composed of four field and one dépót squadron, making a total, therefore, of seventy regiments, with 280 field and seventy dépót squad rons (58,100 men and 51,800 horses). To this must be added the African cavalry, with four regiments of chasseurs d'Afrique and three regiments of Spahis, with four field and two dépót squadrous each. This makes the total sum of French cavalry seventy-seven regiments, with 308 field and eighty-four dépót squadrons (65,725 men and 58,948 horses). In case of war and for the manœuvres nineteen squadrons of éclaireurs volontaires (one for each corps d'armée) are to be formed. Besides the foregoing there are eight companies of remonte riders, with 2,892 men. The artillery consisted, exclusive of the staff, of nineteen regiments of division, with three foot, eight field and two dépót batteries each; nineteen regiments corps of artillery, with eight field, three mounted and two dépót batteries each, comprising altogether fifty-seven foot, fiftyseven mounted and seventy-six depót batteries, with 55,242 men and 29,944 horses. Instead of the 984 guns with which Napoleon III. should, have nominally entered the campaign, France will in future go to war with 2,166 guns. Besides the above there belong to the artillery two regiments of pontoniers, of fourteen companies each, ten companies of artisans, three companies of pyrotechnists, and fifty-seven companies of the train, making a total of 10,000 men and 2,700 horses. The engineer corps comprises, besides the staff, four regiments of sappers and miners, of five battalions each, composed of four companies; to this must be added one dépót company for each regiment, one company of railroad workers and one company of drivers, making a total of 10,960 men and 733 horses, in ninety-two companies. The train is composed of twenty squadrons of carriage train, with three companies each, and twelve companies in Algeria, making altogether 9,392 men and 7,380 horses, in seventy-two companies. Adding to this the commissary department and branches, with 20,833 men and 1,664 horses, and the gens d'armes with 27,014 men and 13,567 horses, we arrive at a total peace footing of the army of 490,322 men and 120,894 horses.

—The strength of the army on a war footing would amount to nineteen corps d'armée and six independent divisions of cavalry, with 880,000 men, leaving about 50,000 men still disposable for Algeria, etc. The dépót troops of the field army would number 220,000 men, making a total war footing of the active army, inclusive of its dépóts, of 1,150,000 men. The territorial army would consist of 145 regiments of infantry, with three battalions each, eighteen regiments of artillery, eighteen battalions of engineers, and eighteen squadrons of train; also a number of squadrons of cavalry, which are estimated at 560,000 men. The war footing of the French army will therefore amount to 1,710,000 men, and when the conscription law of 1872 has been in operation for twenty years, France will have 3,400,000 trained soldiers at her command. Besides the numerical strength, the tendency is to increase the moral value of the army; the new regulations give a degree of independence and responsibility to the subaltern officers, formerly unknown in France; the camp at Chalons, where formerly sham battles were fought, has lost its importance, for at present the French corps d'armée manœuvre after the Prussian manner, at various locations in their districts, and call in part of their reserves for the exercises.

—The system of fortification Edition: current; Page: [268] also has been materially changed. Before 1870 the fortresses of France comprised twenty-three of the first class, thirty-six of the second, twenty-nine of the third and forty-seven of the fourth class. A number of unimportant places have been abandoned, while the more important places have been enlarged and strengthened in accordance with the exigencies of the day, and a large number of fortifications have been built. The latter are to establish an entirely new system of defenses against an invasion from the east, while Paris is to be protected against bombardment, and, if possible, against blockade, by a second line of detached forts built in a wider circle around the city. A law of March, 1875, appropriated 60,000,000 francs for the fortification of the capital, and another law of July 17, 1874, made a further appropriation of 88,500,000 francs for the rebuilding of the defenses on the eastern border. The works around Paris have been pushed forward actively; the rest, however, are not so far advanced. The ordinary budget of the war department for 1876 amounted to 500,038,115 francs; it was a temporary budget, calculated for an extraordinary emergency. It was intended to facilitate the accomplishment of the organization law of 1873 and the cadres law of 1875, and to limit expenses as much as possible, in view of the financial situation.

—Navy. The French fleet consisted, in 1876, of nineteen armor-plated frigates and nine armor-plated corvettes for battle on the high seas; six ironclads of the second class, seven floating batteries, ten gunboats of the first class and nine gunboats of the second class for coast defense; also eight screw steam frigates, twelve screw steam corvettes, nineteen first class aviso ships, eighteen second class avisos, (all principally for cruising service), twenty-seven transports, twenty-five third class avisos, thirty-nine gunboats, twenty sailing vessels, three schoolships, eleven sailing schooners, and one floating workshop. To these 243 vessels must be added thirty-nine in course of construction. Deducting from the total sum of 282 vessels those not available for active service, and supposing those in course of construction (in 1877) completed and equipped, a French fleet of twentytwo ironclads of the first and eleven of the second class, nine armor-plated sailing vessels, seven armor-plated floating batteries, twenty-one gunboats, forty-four cruisers and twenty-three avisos, therefore a total of 137 vessels, with 1,040 guns, would be ready for action. Besides this mobile fleet the republic would still have eighty-six cruisers, avisos, transports for port service, for administrative, exercise and training purposes, at her disposal. The fleet is generally divided as follows: The squadron in the Mediterranean comprises six ironclads, one cruiser, one aviso or dispatch boat, which also occupy the maritime stations at Algeria and Constantinople. The artillery squadron numbers two cruisers and one aviso; under the commander of this squadron are also the maritime stations at Newfoundland with one cruiser and two gunboats, at Martinique with one cruiser, at Guadaloupe with one aviso, at Guiana with two avisos and two schooners, and at Iceland with one aviso and one transport. The South Atlantic squadron is composed of six vessels, of which two are cruisers, three avisos and one transport; this squadron occupies the station of the Senegal with three avisos. The squadron in the Pacific ocean is composed of three cruisers, one aviso and one transport. In the eastern Asiatic waters, one ironclad, two cruisers, one aviso and one gunboat are permanently stationed. The Indo-Chinese squadron comprises one ironclad, seven gunboats, two cruisers, two avisos and one transport. In New Caledonia are one aviso, two transports, two gunboats, one schooner. Thirteen vessels are designed for port service in the five maritime arrondissements, and about the same number for foreign service. One vessel is engaged in hydrographical work along the coasts, ten are on experimental trips, eight are kept as reserves for extraordinary emergencies and to replace losses, and five are used as training ships. In the summer of 1876 there were seventy-eight vessels in reserve, of which seventeen were armor-plated vessels of the first and one of the second class, six ironclads, eight transports, six floating batteries, two gunboats, eighteen cruisers and eleven avisos. The administration of the whole navy and coast defense of France is divided into five maritime arrondissements, corresponding with the five principal ports of war, Cherbourg, Brest, Lorient, Rochefort and Toulon. They are presided over by five sea prefects (vice-admirals). The marine budget for 1875 amounted to 136,387,481 francs. The war navy of France was composed, at the end of 1881, of 59 ironclads, 264 unarmored screw steamers, 62 paddle steamers and 113 sailing vessels.

—Railways and Telegraphs. The first attempts in the direction of railway building promised little in France. Though railways had been opened very early, the line from St. Etienne to Andrézieux as early as 1828, the line St. Etienne to Lyons in 1832, Andrézieux to Roanne in 1833, Montrond to Montbrison in 1836, and the Paris to St. Germain line in 1835, there were in 1841 no more than 200 kilometres of railroad in operation. They were then an object of speculation, and their management was not the best; they were not remunerative, and while a few profited by them, many met with heavy losses by investing in them. Not until the state itself took hold of them and placed them under its superintendence, did public distrust of them cease; thereafter the French railway system began to improve, and soon surpassed that of many other countries. On Feb. 7, 1842, De Teste, then secretary for public works, brought a bill before the assembly, based on the co-operation of the state, the communities and private enterprise, and proposing the building of several railroads from Paris to important points on the border. Although this was not Edition: current; Page: [269] carried out as proposed, it nevertheless remained the foundation for the future network of railways, of which 2,220 kilometres were in operation as early as 1848. The financial crisis of 1847 and the political crisis of 1848 again impeded the progress of the railway system, and it was 1852 before its full development was secured through the fusion of single companies into six larger groups which made it their object to harmonize the interests of the state with those of the companies and of the general public. At the end of 1875 the railway lines of France had increased to 21,587 kilometres (19,784 kilometres main lines and 1,803 kilometres local lines). It comprised the following principal lines 1 Railways of the north (1,762 kilometres) direct connection of Paris with Creil and Beauvais, with Amiens and Boulogne, and by way of Amiens, and Arras with Calais, Dunkirk, Lille or Valenciennes; also with Maubeuge and Valenciennes via Cambray with Laon and directly with Soissons. Courtray, Mons and Charleroi are the principal points of connection with the Belgian railway system, and between Valenciennes, Lille, Hazebrouck and Dunkirk run branch lines along the northern border. 2. Railways of the east (2,255 kilometres): Trunk line Paris and Belfort, with northern branches Epernay and Rheims to Soissons, Laon or Mézières and Givet; intermediate lines from Blesme (Vitry) to Chaumont, from Blainville (Luneville) via Epinal to Port d'Atelier (near Vesoul); southern branches from Chalmaison (Provins) to Montereau, Buchères (Troyes), to Bar-sur-Seine, Chalindrey (Langres) and also Vesoul to Gray. This system connects at Soissons and Laon with the railways of the north and at Givet and Longwy with the German-Belgian frontier. 3. The Paris, Lyons and Mediterranean railway (5,102 kilometres); its main line is the railroad from Paris via Dijon, Lyons and Avignon to Marseilles. The most important branches run in an easterly direction: from Nuits (near Ancy) to Châtillon-sur-Seine, from Dijon via Auxonne to Gray, from Dijon via Auxonne and Dôle to Besançon and Belfort or Dôle to Pontarlier (Neuchâtel), from Macon via Bourg and from Lyons to Ambérieux and jointly to Geneva, three branches—from Lyons, St. Rambert or Valence to Grenoble, from Rognac to Aix and from Marseilles via Toulon to Fréjus and Nice. Connections with the eastern railways are at Montereau, Gray and Belfort. An important connecting link is the Juraline, Besançon and Bourg railway running parallel with the border. At Culoz-sur-Rhöne this road connects with the Savoy railway over Chambéry to Modane and the Mont-Cenis tunnel. The most important branch lines run from Villeneuve, St. Georges via Corbeil to Alais on the Essonne, from Moret (on the mouth of the Loire) via Nevers and Moulins to St. Germain-des-Fossés, thence via Clermont to Brionde sur-Allier, and again via Roanne and St. Etienne to Le Puy; thence via La Roche and Auxerre, Chagny and Montceau, Lyons and St. Etienne, Livron and Prives, Tarascon and Nimes, and further via Alais to Portes or via Montpellier to Cette. 4. The Orléans railways (4,186 kilometres) with the old trunk line: the Paris, Orleans, Tours, Poitiers, Angoulême and Bordeaux railway, and the eastern opposition and partly parallel line from Orléans via Vierzon, Châteauroux, Limoges and Périgueux to Coutras and to Agen. Eastern lines are: from Vierzon via Bourges to Le Guetm (near Nevers) and from Bourges to Montluçon, from La Laurière via Guéret and Montluçon to Moulins, and a main branch from Périgneux via Figeac to Rodez. From this run in a northerly direction the line Brives, and Tulle and Figeac, and Aurillac, connecting with a "Cantal" line to the Allier near Brionde, and southwardly the line Capdenac and Lexos, forking into Montauban, Toulouse or Albi. Western branches are, Paris, Seeaux, Orsay and Limours, Tours and Le Mans, the Tours, Angers, Nantes, Redon, Vannes, Lorient, Quimper and Châteaulin, with the branch line, Savenay and St. Nazaire, and in addition Poitiers, Niort and La Rochelle, forking into Aigrefeuille and Rochefort. 5. The railways of the south (2,031 kilometres), with the trunk line from Bordeaux via Montauban and Toulouse to Cette, thence connecting with the Orléans and Mediterranean railways respectively. Northern branches: Vias and Lodève, and Béziers and Graissessac. Southern branches: Bordeaux via Bayonne to the Spanish frontier at Irun, with side branches from La Mothe to La Teste de Buch, from Bayonne and Dax to Pan, and from Morceus to Tarbes and Bagnères de Bigorre; also from Toulouse to Montrejean and Foix, and from Narbonne to Perspignan. This chain of railways from Bordeaux via Toulouse, Narboune, Cette, Nimes, Marseilles and Toulon to Nice, is in itself of great value, but has gained much greater importance since the completion of the Italian coast line railway. 6. Railways of the west (2,549 kilometres), radiating in three main lines from Paris to Brest, Cherbourg and Le Havre. From the longest of these lines, that of Paris to Brest, branch off Le Mans and Angers, Rennes and Redon, and Rennes and St. Malo, in a southerly direction; and northward St Cyr and Dreux, Le Mans and Alençon-Mezidon, Laval and Caen, and Rennes and St. Malo. From the second line branch—Paris and Versailles, and Paris and Germain, Lisieux and Honfleur, forking into Pont l'Evéque and Trouville, and Airel and St. Lô From the third line branch—Tourville and Serquigny, Malaunay and Dieppe, and Beuzeville and Fécamp. Between the second and third of these lines, the Argentan and Granville railway has been projected as the future link of a direct line from Paris to the gulf of St. Malo. The rest is subdivided into twenty-four smaller companies. The Paris belt line, of 20 kilometres length, centrally connects all the principal railways. In the aggregate France has to every 100 square kilometres of area 4.09 kilometres of railways and 5.98 Edition: current; Page: [270] kilometres to every 10,000 inhabitants.

—The network of telegraphic wires which spreads over France comprised, in 1875, 51,700 kilometres of line and 143,234 kilometres of wire, with 2,817 government offices, and 1,198 railroad and private offices. The number of telegraphic messages sent in 1873 was 6,550,623, of which 877,264 were international; the receipts were 13,850,048 francs, the expenditure 12,990,000 francs.

—The total length of all the railways open for traffic Jan. 1, 1881, was 23,584 kilometres (exclusive of 2,190 kilometres of local lines), and the total gross receipts in 1880 amounted to 1,048,672,957 francs. By a law which passed the chamber of deputies, in the session of 1878, there will be added 16,000 kilometres of railways before the end of the year 1888. To provide for the cost of the new network of railways, the chamber granted a credit of 3,000,000,000 francs.

—Jan. 1, 1881, there were 65,949 kilometres of lines of telegraphs and 196,533 kilometres of wire. The number of telegraphic despatches sent during the year 1880 was 16,492,897, of which 1,578,957 were international messages. The total revenue from telegraphs in the year 1879 amounted to 28,029,835 francs.

—Finances. By the war of 1870-71 extraordinary drafts have been made upon the financial resources of France, and the taxes have been largely increased, but at the same time the productiveness of the nation and the national wealth have been augmented. The taxes in France are promptly paid, and the government loan of 1854-9, amounting to 2,050 million francs, was subscribed for in the country itself without difficulty. The taxes amount, on an average, to fifty-six francs per head. The increase in France of public expenses may be illustrated by the following statement: The extraordinary requirements of the government at the outbreak of the revolution in 1789 amounted to 600 million livres. The national assembly of 1791 fixed the budget at 582 2/8; million livres. Under the first empire the requirements amounted to 700-800 million francs per year. In 1818 the greatest exertions were necessary, the budget being estimated at 1,150 millions, of which 752 millions were for the army and navy. During the restoration (1816-19) the public expenses amounted to 960 million francs. The first decade (1830—39) of the "July king"'s reign required annually 1,170 million francs, the last nine years (1840-48) an average of 1,432 million francs. The republic of 1848-9 required for the year 1,708 million francs (according to actual account). With the restoration of the Napoleonic dynasty a course of lavish expenditure was inaugurated, which could only be gradually equalized by the increased revenues. The actual budget of 1875 showed a total expenditure of 2,587,670,813 francs. The revenues amounted to the sum of 2,568,460,624 francs, leaving a deficit of 19,210,189 francs. The expenses of the war of 1870-71 amounted to 4,820,643,000 francs, not including the five milliards indemnity to Germany. The "voted" budget of 1876 fixed the expenses at 2,570,505,513 francs, and the revenues at 2,575,028,582 francs. The surplus, therefore, amounted to 4,523,069 francs.

—The national debt of France is divided into the consolidated and the floating debts, which were also considerably increased during the second empire. The consolidated debt amounted, for 1876, in rentes, at 5, 4½, 4 and 3 per cent., together with the sinking fund, to 747,998,866 francs, representing a national capital of twenty millards. The capital of the sinking fund amounted to 277,599,838 francs, and for the annual payment of interest to 124,776,346 francs; in all, therefore, 1,150,375,050 francs, equal almost to a capital of twenty-three and one-half milliards. The public revenues of France are principally derived from indirect taxation. Among these, the budget for 1876 estimated the following: on liquor, a tax of 364,190,000 francs; result of the tobacco monopoly, 299,570,000 francs: the revenues from the customs and the salt monopoly, 236,933,250 francs; the tax on sugars, 110,972,000 francs. The direct taxation for the year 1876 amounted in the voted budget to 384,339,700 francs. Not only the state itself, but also the departments and communities have been during the second empire loaded with debts.

—The principal sources of revenue and branches of expenditure were set down as follows in the budget estimates for the year 1881.

In the preliminary budget for the year 1881, drawn up by the minister of finance, the revenue for the year was estimated at 2,752,794,830 francs, and the expenditure at 2,754,432,600 francs, leaving a deficit of 1,637,770 francs.

—The following is a statement of the deficits of former periods, from 1814 till the last completed year of the reign of Napoleon III.:

The average annual revenue and annual expenditure Edition: current; Page: [271] during each of the four periods here given were as follows:

The total public debt of Francs amounted, on Jan. 1, 1879, to a nominal capital of 19,862,035,983 francs, the interest on which, or "rente," was 748,404,952 francs. The number of "inscriptions" of "rente," that is, of individual holders, was 4,380,393. The following table shows the nominal capital of each of the four descriptions of "rente," the interest, or amount of "rente," and the number of holders on Jan. 1, 1879:

At the commencement of 1879 the total burden of the capital of the public debt of France was 515 francs per head of population; while the burden of the interest or rente was nineteen francs per head of population. The interest and other expenses connected with the public debt of France were distributed as follows for 1882: Consolidated debt, 743,026,239 francs; redeemable capital, 340,432,278 francs; annuities and life interests, 151,881,060 francs; total charges, 1,235,339,577 francs.

—All the departments of France, as well as many of the large towns, have their own budgets and debts, which latter were largely increased by the war. The budget estimates of the city of Paris for each of the years 1879 and 1880 were as follows:

The principal source of revenue in the budget of the city of Paris is from tolls upon articles of general consumption, called droits d'octroi, estimated to produce 125,398,041 francs in 1879 and 128,713,600 francs in 1880. The principal branch of expenditure is for interest and sinking fund of the municipal debt, which, at the end of September, 1880, amounted to 2,295,000,000 francs.

—Resources: Agricultural, Industrial and Commercial. At all times wealth has been an essential element of power. In international relations influence is generally measured by the number of bayonets, and bayonets are supported only with gold. Victory then belongs to heavy money bags rather than to large battalions. Hence each nation tends to increase its budget resources and to ask of the tax payer increasing sacrifices. It is fortunate that the revenue of the citizens increases in an equal proportion, and (with a few exceptions) it would not be right absolutely to affirm that taxes have increased more rapidly than production. At bottom, it is impossible to have any certain knowledge of the relation which exists between what the public treasury demands and what the tax payer can give; this information however, would be of the highest importance. A few attempts have been made, more or less skill fully, to obtain this information, but always without success. There, without doubt, exists no means of obtaining the exact amount of the income of each individual, but we can reach an approximate valuation of the whole of the products of a country. For want of a complete inventory, we must content ourselves with indications which will give a general idea near enough to the actual state of facts. Before measuring the altitude of Mont Blanc, it was known that its impressive magnitude surpassed the other peaks of the Alps; in the same way, if we can set down only a few precise figures, it will be none the less easy for us to show that the resources of France are immense, although perhaps not inexhaustible.

—Agriculture. One often hears it said that France is eminently an agricultural country. We think that the significance of this declaration has not always been well considered. It is generally used as an argument to ask favors for agriculture, to place it above manufacturing industry and commerce. It seems to us that those who do so are mistaken friends of France; they have forgotten the fable of the stomach and the other members of the body, which made so great an impression upon the Roman people encamped on Mt. Aventine. All the branches of national labor, whether they produce the raw material, or manufacture it into goods, or transport it and distribute it among consumers—all these branches, we say, are equally necessary, that the tree of national labor may extend its benefits over all the country. The more steady is the equilibrium between agriculture, industry and commerce, the more fruitful is labor, the more also does wealth increase, and the more comfortable are the masses. The exclusive preponderance of commerce would be a house built upon the sands; the preponderance of manufactures would expose the country to sudden commotions, perhaps catastrophes; the preponderance of agriculture would retard the progress of well-being. Everybody knows that capital employed in an agricultural business generally brings in less profit than when used in commerce or manufacturing industry. Edition: current; Page: [272] Consequently to say that France is eminently an agricultural country is to say that she is a poor country. Let us affirm rather that she is a country perfectly well balanced, where agriculture in an advanced state goes hand in hand with a powerful manufacturing industry, both nourishing a flourishing commerce. And we do not exaggerate. The agriculture of France is in an advanced state. Everywhere the best methods are known, and there is hardly a canton where they are not used, or where some one could not be found worthy of the agricultural prize of honor, and if all cultivators have not adopted these methods, it is because progress itself is subject to conditions of time. A man must first have saved money by economy before thinking of employing it in improvements. Already there are large, thickly sown tracts of lands in French Flanders, Limagne, Languedoc, La Beauce and Lorraine, whose inhabitants are second both in knowledge and success to no other country in Europe. We will cite here a few statistics.

—We begin with cereals. It is not with the product of these that the cultivator is the best satisfied; at least, if it is wrong to claim that there is always a loss attendant on their cultivation, the profits are moderate. Nevertheless we will begin with cereals, because they are the chief food of France, and because their total value is considerable. Now, what have statistics to say of the cultivation of cereals? That at the beginning of this century about four and a half million hectares were devoted to wheat, while its cultivation in 1872 was spread over six and a half millions; this increase of two millions was gained partially from lands formerly devoted to rye and partially from waste lands. The same area which formerly yielded ten hectolitres now yields more than sixteen, and this too is only the amount acknowledged by the cultivator, who is on his guard against taxes and landlords. Hence, when the official tables show a total production of 55 millions of hectolitres about 1820, of 75 millions about 1840, of 85 millions in 1851, of 110 millions in 1861, of 107 millions in 1869 (in 1862, 116 millions, the maximum reached), we have a right to suspect that at each of these times the real amount produced far surpassed these figures. We believe, indeed, that we may consider these figures as the net product destined for consumption, and as not including the quantity reserved for seed.

—Has production kept pace with the population? The answer is difficult, for we must not wish to solve so delicate a question solely according to the results of certain mathematical operations. It seems, doubtless, that sixty years ago the soil of France produced only two hectolitres of wheat for each of the inhabitants, while in 1872 it produced almost three; but what was the quantity of inferior cereals, which, one generation and above all two generations ago, was mixed with the wheat? Accustomed as the French of to-day are to better flour, can they depend on reaping, the average year, enough to satisfy their actual needs? If we examine the records of the custom houses, we shall find between the years 1832 and 1872 about as many harvests which have furnished a surplus for exportation as insufficient harvests. But when the balance of quantity is struck, there results a definite deficit of more than 35 millions of hectolitres, about a million a year, that is, enough to furnish bread for all France for three or four days.

—This deficit would not be very alarming. But what can we think of the constant increase in prices? A hectolitre of wheat cost from 1820 to 1829, 18 francs, 6 centimes; from 1830 to 1839, 19 francs, 9 centimes; from 1840 to 1849, 20 francs, 49 centimes; from 1850 to 1859, 21 francs, 72 centimes; from 1860 to 1869, 21 francs, 44 centimes. (During this last mentioned period there were several years of exceptionally good harvests.) Has not this ascending tendency of prices lasted too long to attribute it alone to the influx of gold? It is not rather, and in a much greater measure, the result of the rapid increase in consumption? If this conjecture is well founded, we may conclude from it that prices will become more and more remunerative, and that agriculture, realizing increasing profits, will consent more willingly to the expense of necessary improvements. That would be very fortunate, for wealth would multiply in geometrical progression. On the other hand, one would think that the insufficiency of harvests in France would make her, in a certain measure, dependent on other countries; but that would be a mistake, for, despite the scarcity. France made war on Russia in 1855 and 1856, and came very near bombarding Odessa, one of its granaries.

—Wheat is the principal cereal, but to complete her supply France has 606,000 hectares, which produce at least nine million hectolitres of meslin; 2,100,000 hectares of rye, giving twenty-three to twenty-four million hectolitres; 1,100,000 hectares of barley, with a production of more than twenty million hectolitres; three million hectares of oats, with seventy million hectolitres; besides ten million hectolitres of maize, eight million hectolitres of buckwheat, and more than one hundred million hectolitres of potatoes.

—To sum up, there remains much still to be done in order that the cultivation of agricultural commodities may meet the wants of the people; and what is disagreeable, but inevitable, is that the exports are effected at a much lower price than the imports; it has been calculated that the difference, in forty years, has amounted to about 850 millions of francs.

—The cultivation of the vine furnishes, however, a certain compensation. It is one of the most valuable of the agricultural products of France; the vineyards cover about 2,200,000 hectares. The quantity of wine produced varies considerably from year to year; but when the vine mildew, which, however, may be destroyed with sulphur, causes no ravages, it may be estimated at 60,000,000 hectolitres. From 1827 to 1836, the exports amounted to an average of 1,181,000 hectolitres, valued at 42,500,000 francs; Edition: current; Page: [273] from 1837 to 1846, 1,848,000 hectolitres at 50,000,000 francs; from 1847 to 1856, 1,731,000 hectolitres at 109,000,000 francs; from 1857 to 1866, 2,159,000 hectolitres at 218,000,000 francs.

—The raising of live stock is doubtless a great industry in France. We think that the relative slowness of multiplication is the fault more of the climate than of man. When it is necessary to produce fodder at great expense, the raising of live stock is no longer profitable. Have we not read, under the signature of very distinguished agriculturists, that live stock is a necessary evil? They have abandoned this unfavorable judgment, by a chain of circumstances which it is not our province to recount; however, it is certain that the raising of live stock on a large scale is only advantageous in countries where there are many and fertile natural meadows. Live stock may be fattened also in the neighborhood of sugar refineries and of certain distilleries, and in fact, advantage is taken of this source of fodder. Now, France is not distinguished by the extent of her meadow land: in 1842 there were only 4,200,000 hectares; since then, a million of hectares has been added; the official documents do not say how, probably by improving the commons (unmowable meadows). It does not seem to us that much of the arable land has been changed into meadows: besides, it would have been of more advantage to have multiplied the lucern fields, the fields of sainfoin and clover, which, one and a half million hectares in 1842, reached only two and a half million hectares in 1872. We think that all these figures are under the truth. It is not necessary to add that besides the product of the meadows, oats, a part of the barley, roots, vetches, cabbages, the refuse of sugar refineries, etc., are also used for feeding live stock. With all these resources, there are fed but (returns of 1866) 3,312,637 horses (in 1812, 2,122,617; in 1850, 2,983,966); 518,000 asses; 350,000 mules; 12,733,000 horned cattle (in 1866), of which 6,700,000 were cows (6,682,000 horned cattle in 1812; 9,131,000 in 1829; 9,937,000 in 1839); 30,386,000 wool-bearing animals (32,000,000 in 1829; 29,000,000 in 1839; 35,000,000 in 1852); finally, 59,000,000 hogs and 1,680,000 goats. The above numbers, and which are probably under the truth, indicate only a part of the progress realized, for almost everywhere greater care, intelligent cross-breeding and improvement in the feeding have sensibly increased the size and the weight of the animals.

—To appreciate the extent to which each country raises live stock, the number of animals is generally estimated at so many for every 100 hectares and every 1,000 inhabitants. Is there not some injustice in comparing such averages taken over the whole of the territory of France, with those of England or of Holland? To make these comparisons more instructive, we should limit ourselves, it seems to us, to the departments situated to the north of the Loire, a territory whose conditions of climate more nearly approach those of the countries inhabited by the rivals of France, once her models. If the south of France is poor enough in live stock, to its account must be carried its wines and oils, its silks, its oranges, its madder and various other products, which taken together may be considered a full compensation.

—While endeavoring to do justice to all, we must acknowledge that there is still room for progress, as much in the improvement of the methods used as in the clearing of land. The territory of France is thus divided: arable land, 48.3 per cent.; vineyards, 3.7; natural meadows, 9.7; commons and waste lands, 17.8; forests, 16.8; highways, rivers, etc., 3.7 per cent. But all the commons are not suitable for cultivation; no utopia must be built upon this foundation. The largest amount of capital could accomplish nothing. There remain still many useful things for the institutions of credit to accomplish; for example, to liquidate a mortgage debt of 6,000 millions of francs (with apparent debts, 11½ thousand millions), a sum which only constitutes a small fraction of the market value of the real estate (lands, houses, manufactories) fixed officially, in 1851 at 83,744 millions (in 1821 at 39,514 millions), and tax payers are never guilty of exaggeration in their statements. The actual value of property is not less than 150,000 millions.

—Landed property is very much divided; there were estimated to be about 10 millions of distinct pieces of land in 1815, 11 millions in 1840, more than 12 millions in 1856, 13 millions in 1858, 14 millions in 1865, so that the division of the land shows a tendency to increase. However, as one person often possesses lands in more than one commune, many pieces of property figure at the same time upon the registers of several tax collectors. The exact number of proprietors is unknown, but a statement, commenced in 1812, stated that there were 5,257,073 farms, of which 3,799,759 were cultivated by their owners. Another statement showed that among 10,000 agriculturists, there were 3,518 proprietors, 1,272 farmers, 694 metayers, the rest being day laborers or servants. The soil is very unequally divided. It is near enough the truth to estimate at 5 per cent the part comprising large properties, at 19½ per cent, that comprising medium properties, and at 74½ per cent, that comprising small properties.

—Industry. After England, France is the most industrial country. She has, upon the continent, rivals only in Switzerland, Belgium, and some parts of Germany. In many important products her superiority is beyond question; but her mines are not so numerous nor so abundant as those of some of her neighbors. Still the extraction of coal goes on increasing; in 1787, the production from mines situated in France was only 2,150,000 metric quintals; fifteen years later it amounted to 8,441,000 quintals, which was scarcely increased till 1815. In 1825 it reached 14,913,000 quintals; in 1835, 25,064,000 quintals; in 1844, 37,827,000 quintals; in 1847, 51,532,000 quintals. From 1848 to 1852 the production, which the revolution Edition: current; Page: [274] had reduced to 40 millions, rose to 49 millions; it took then a rapid upward movement, and attained, in 1857, 79 millions of quintals; it fell back, in 1858, to 66 millions, to rise to 80 millions of quintals in 1860, and to exceed 90 millions in 1862, and even 132 millions in 1868. The importation is 77 million quintals, and the consumption more than 200 millions (209 in 1868.) 85,000 workmen are employed in the coal mines.

—Although the domestic use of coal is spreading, it is above all in industry that it is employed. For a long time past the forests have proved insufficient to supply the factories of France, and it has been necessary to use increasing quantities of coal in the manufacture of iron. In 1789 the 202 blast furnaces produced 655,495 quintals of pig iron and 75,792 quintals of cast iron, without any other combustible than charcoal. It was about 1819 that the use of coal commenced (20,000 for 1,125,000 quintals of castings); but it was only in 1852 that the two methods of production were about equally used; 2,633,400 quintals of wood, 2,593,000 quintals of coal or coke. Of the total production of the foundries at present, 12,353,000 quintals (in 1868), about one and a half millions of quintals are cast, and the rest refined or transformed into iron. More than four-fifths of these operations are now effected by means of coal. The French factories subject iron to all the elaborations necessary for consumption; they draw it out into bars (6,385,000 quintals) and into wire; they flatten it into sheet iron, of which a part is tinned; they manufacture all the instruments, tools and machinery which a great country uses; they deliver to the railroads considerable quantities of rails (1,882,000 quintals)—but not enough; they produce different kinds of steel (991,721 quintals in 1868); but they have not yet arrived at satisfying all the wants of the home market, since large quantities of castings, of iron and of rails are still imported. It is no exaggeration to estimate the number of workmen employed in the manufacture of iron at 180,000.

—The other metals play only a secondary part among French productions. There is produced 224,000 quintals of copper, 42,500 kilogrammes of pure silver, 274,000 quintals of lead and of other less important minerals, almost insignificant quantities of zine (29,000 quintals), and of tin. But the manufacture of chemical products is flourishing and continues to increase. This applies both to chemical products properly so called, to salts and acids of every description, and to merchandise in more general use, such as sugar, the products of distilleries, soap, and some others. The dye works and even the paper mills, the tanneries and other factories profit by this.

—But among the great industries, that is to say, among those which employ numerous workmen and turn into the market large quantities of merchandise, the manufacture of textile fabrics holds in France the first rank. In 1851 it was officially stated that there were 64,420 proprietors, 431,380 workmen and 477,063 working women, and this number was even then below the truth, or at least an inexact idea was given, in this sense, that there was not included in textile industry a number of secondary callings, which depend on and complement it.10 As for instance, when the census officer inscribed among mécaniciens (workers in metals) the workman who ran the steam engine of a cotton mill, he followed the letter rather than the spirit of his instructions, and the letter here destroyed exactness, for if a cotton crisis should happen, this mécanicien would be deprived of his wages as well as the spinner.

—What are the quantities produced? There are in France only incomplete data on this point; but we can, by using a certain number of indications, estimate the value of the products of the manufacture of flax at 250 million francs, of cotton at 650 millions, of wool at 950 millions, of silk at 1,000 millions, of mixed textures at 330 millions, when, of course, the manufactories are running at full power. The raw materials then employed are from 70 to 75 million kilogrammes of hemp, 60 millions of flax, 80 millions of cotton,11 90 millions of wool (of which 60 millions come from French animals); finally, from five to six million kilogrammes of raw silk, of which two and one-half to three millions are produced in France. The textures are too varied for it to be possible to make a complete enumeration, and, above all, to indicate the quantities produced.

—It would not be just to pass over in silence the manufacture of jewelry and articles of gold and silver (32 to 35 millions of francs), gilt jewelry (12,000,000 francs), knick-knacks, millinery, flowers, and so many other branches of industry, which if they work only to satisfy luxury, maintain the traditions of taste, whose purity is acknowledged by all civilized nations.

—We have just specified the distinctive characteristic of French industry, taste. It would be a mistake, however, to think that French manufactures have in view only luxury; their products must be divided into two parts; the one, which is destined for home consumption, must satisfy the wants of the poor as well as the rich; the other, which is destined for exportation, has in view more particularly, but not exclusively, the well-to-do classes. The result of this is, that the foreign commerce of France is very easily affected by international crises, which are only felt in domestic transactions, if they occur at the same time with a bad harvest.

—Commerce. In most countries when the statistics of commerce are spoken of, only foreign commerce is meant. It is the only one on which we possess definite figures. Still domestic commerce is much more important and considerable. It is by its numberless channels that commodities and products reach the consumer, Edition: current; Page: [275] and the total amount of the transactions which make up this movement reaches thousands of millions of francs. But no one has yet been able to give the exact figures. Perhaps, for want of a better way, the movement of bank funds may give an idea of them. We should not know what foreign commerce amounted to, if there were no customs duties. Meanwhile, here are what the official documents tell us of French commerce.12 After having oscillated for more than twenty years between six and seven millions of francs, the value of the exports and imports together amounted, in 1827, to 921 millions, the figures of 1787. It did not reach a thousand millions till 1832. In 1841 it was more than 1,560 millions; in 1851 it exceeded 2,000 millions; in 1856 it was 3,148 millions; in 1860 it was more than 4,000 millions; in 1869, the year before the war with Germany, it reached 6,228 millions. With the exception of the years 1828, 1830, 1837, 1840 to 1848, 1861, 1862, 1867, 1868 and 1869, the exports have always exceeded the imports (up to 1869). But if it is true that nothing is more brutal than figures, which seem to declare that when they speak, all the world must listen, we may say also that nothing is less clear; we must know how to interpret figures to understand them; and it is precisely the difference of the interpretations which allows arguments for or against all opinions to be found in statistics: Now, the fluctuations of the relations between imports and exports give occasion to different interpretations; let it be sufficient for us to say that the French tables include cereals, merchandise of an extremely irregular movement, and that, on the other hand, they do not include precious metals nor money, which are indicated separately and not at all in totality; that they do not indicate the circulation of letters of exchange, nor the operations of the clearings of accounts; finally, that the values are not exactly conformable with the reality of things, but still near enough so.

—If now we join together the statements concerning merchandise with those relative to precious metals, we obtain the following table for periods of five years (we give the annual average in millions of francs):

With the exception of the years 1861 and 1863 the imports of precious metals have always surpassed the exports. The total sum of the imports for the fifteen years 1853 to 1869 was 10,141 millions, the exports amounted to 6,872 millions, so that there remained in the country 3,269 millions in the above mentioned period alone. While only considering these figures as approximate, they are remarkable enough to cause reflection; they explain in part how France was able to pay an indemnity of 5,000 millions of francs. The imports of France consist chiefly of raw materials; if we take up, indeed, a table of the foreign commerce, in 1872, we shall find that out of the sixty-three kinds of merchandise enumerated, only a dozen were manufactured products, and their total value was only 1/2 per cent. of the whole of the imports.

—Among imported materials or commodities we mention the following, using the annual average taken from the period 1857 to 1866: cereals, 91 millions of francs; raw cotton, 238 millions; raw silk, 255 millions; uncombed wool, 178 millions; sugar, 118 millions; common wood, 125 millions; oil seeds, 44 millions; coal, 107 millions; raw hides, 88 millions; copper, 39 millions; dust and refuse of gold and silversmiths, 29 millions; coffee, 64 millions; cattle, 65 millions, and horses, 10 millions; indigo, 21 millions; flax, 46 millions; hemp, 8 millions; besides metals and various other materials.

—Let us now look at the table of exports. We can not count here the number of articles indicating raw materials, because the list of re-exports, often in small quantities, is long, and we see at the first glance that, for instance, indigo, cochineal, cotton, etc., are articles of re-export. It would be easy, nevertheless, to show that manufactured products predominate among the exports. Out of a total value of 2,430 millions, may be distinguished five or six kinds of manufactured merchandise, with a value of 1,000 millions; they will be found among the following: silk textures, 414 millions; woolen textures, 241 millions; toys, 138 millions; cotton textures, 75 millions; linen textures, 19 millions; clothing, 95 millions; tanned and dressed hides, 128 millions; refined sugar, 58 millions; pottery, glass and crystal, 35 millions; paper, 36 millions; articles of metal, 42 millions; perfumery, 14 millions; gold and silver work, 18 millions. Brandy is likewise a manufactured product, 62 millions. Finally, we must mention millinery and artificial flowers, 14 millions, and the soaps of Marseilles, which have only amounted to six or seven millions. We say nothing of a host of different kinds of merchandise, many of which are quite important. Still, France exports more agricultural commodities than she imports manufactured products. Her principal exports in this category were, in 1857 to 1866: wines, 219 millions; raw silks, 69 millions; cereals, 89 millions; wool, 27 millions; butter and cheese, 38 millions (in 1866, 72 millions); eggs, 12 millions; madder, 12 millions; olive oil, 7 millions, etc. Still, many of Edition: current; Page: [276] these products have been subjected to an elaboration, like oil, cereals, (exported in part in the form of flour), silks, (raw or thrown).

—We will now mention the countries with which France has the most active commerce (annual average of the period 1857 to 1866, special commerce). They are the following: Great Britain, 1,153 millions; Belgium, 406 millions; Italy, 390 millions; Germany, Zollverein (and Hanseatic cities), 361 millions; United States (time of the civil war), 332 millions; Switzerland, 202 millions; Spain, 194 millions; Russia, 104 millions; Turkey, 171 millions; Brazil, 138 millions; East Indies, 85 millions; Argentine confederation, 111 millions; Egypt, 70 millions; Netherlands, 56 millions. We must mention also Cuba and Porto Rico, 60 millions; Peru, 50 millions; Chili, 33 millions; Mexico, 30 millions; Norway, 37 millions; Portugal, 22 millions; Austria, 28 millions; Sweden, 24 millions; Greece, 13 millions; Denmark, 3 millions. In the foregoing numbers the exports and imports are united. A whole series of tables would be necessary, if we wished to indicate for each country its relations separately as regards imports and exports, which necessarily vary more or less from year to year.

—It only remains now to remark, and we thus arrive at the character of French commerce, that out of the 6,280 millions, the amount of the general13 commerce of France, 4,429 belong to maritime commerce, and 1,851 to land commerce. And if we distinguish the exports from the imports, we find among the imports 1,984 millions by sea and 1,003 millions by land, and among the exports 2,445 by sea and 848 by land—figures which indicate that more raw materials are imported than are exported. It is this character of French commerce, it is, in a word, the nature of the productions of France, which explains the relative inferiority of her merchant marine. If she had the coal and iron of England, the cotton of the United States, the coffee and sugar of Brazil, she would have a much more powerful incentive to navigation than all the premiums and customs favors. This is the true cause why her maritime trade was in 1872 represented by only 4,500,000 tons entry and 3,100,000 tons departure, of which 2,700,000 entry and 1,650,000 departure were under foreign flags.

—Let us add, before concluding, that the coasting trade of France in 1872 was represented by three millions of tons, and that the effective force of the fleet was composed of more than 15,000 sailing vessels and steamers, with a tonnage of more than a million.

—Progress. If we should simply propose to show that France has made progress, we should fear to be interrupted by the cry, the case is decided. That civilization has advanced during the last fifty or sixty years, and above all, that well-being has become widespread, comfort more general, and consequently manners more polished, are things that no one denies. But it would be useful, from a political point of view, to be able to measure at least the material progress realized during a series of years. Researches of this nature would allow us to state in what measure the increase of wealth has compensated, as regards the power of France, for the more rapid increase in population in many other countries; they would allow us also to risk certain conjectures in regard to the revenue of the nation, information which would be of the utmost importance, if it were possible to determine it exactly.

—We will commence with landed property. It has been the object of two returns, in 1821 and in 1851, and these are the results: The market value of the land, including houses and factories, was, in 1821, 39,514,000,000 francs, and, in 1851, 83,744,000.000 francs. This would show an increase of 112 per cent. in thirty years. But in reality the progress has been greater, we are not ignorant of the depreciation which property was subjected to after the revolution of 1848, and if the value of real property had been estimated at 100,000 millions in 1847, it would have been below the truth. In 1873 the figures were much higher. After 1852, when the fear of the revolution had been dispelled, the price of real estate began to approach its former figures, so that in placing the amount at 120,000 millions in 1873, we are below the truth, for many persons estimated it at 150,000 millions.

—Why has the value of real estate increased? Throwing aside the argument based on the influx of gold, there remains to us still to point out two principal causes. They are these: The first is, the increase in the revenue from the soil and the advance in rents. The revenues from the soil have increased through the simultaneous effect of the increase in products and prices. Thus, to cite but one example, from 1820 to 1829 the average product oscillated between 11 and 12 hectolitres of wheat per hectare and the price was 18 francs, 6 centimes; from 1850 to 1859 the product was 15 to 16 hectolitres and the price 21 francs, 71 centimes. Whether it is because the population has advanced more rapidly than production, or because each individual has increased the amount he consumes, or because other circumstances have exercised their influence, it is certainly the case that in the first period each hectare yielded a gross product of 11½ x 18.06, or 207 francs, 69 centimes, and in the second period 15½ x 21.71, or 336 francs, 50 centimes. The second cause of the increase in the value of the soil is the multiplication of personal property. Many persons, who have acquired a fortune in business, like to enjoy the security which placing it in real property offers, so that the demand increases in a rapid progression. Now, the competition of buyers influences much more strongly the price of property than the slow but certain advance in the increase of production.

—The demand is increasing or has increased up to the present time, in a rapid progression. It would almost seem that the private fortunes of a nation taken all together follow another law than each Edition: current; Page: [277] one of these fortunes taken by itself. A small manufacturer draws from his capital of 1,000 francs, 200 or 30014 per cent. and more, while the great capitalist is content with 3 or 4 per cent. But if the individual is subjected to the consequences of supply and demand, and sees the rate of interest diminish in proportion as his capital is multiplied, a nation has an industrial power so much the stronger in proportion as the rate of interest is lower. This fact is enough in itself to justify the proposition, that the industrial power of a nation increases more quickly than its capital, but it may be added that leaving the rate of interest out of consideration, the amount of capital has a virtue all its own. Hence, if in a manufacture employing 500,000 francs, a profit, without machinery, of 50,000 francs is realized, if the capital is doubled, instead of a double profit, a quadruple profit is often obtained. The profits of a nation increase by sure steps in more rapid progression than the amount of its capital.

—Now, what has been the amount of personal property at different times? This is a question which it should be possible to solve. It is more complicated than one thinks. For example, according to what principle must the capital of an establishment be determined? 1st, according to the sums employed in starting it, or, 2d, according to its actual value, based upon its products. Some very imperfect attempts have been made to estimate the amount of existing capital; the official statements published on this point, up to the present time, have no value, because it is necessary to multiply the amount by five, perhaps even by ten. We can not supply this defect, because it is not possible for one man alone to draw up in an exact manner such an inventory; all that we can do, is to venture certain estimates, based on a certain number of indications, which are only the shadow of the truth, but which show well enough its outlines. The following are some of the indications which have served us as a guide, and which are interesting in themselves. (The figures are given in millions of francs.)15

RAILWAYS.

VARIOUS COMPANIES (SEINK)..

CITY OF PARIS..

COMPANIES OF THE DEPARTMENTS.

To these figures we might add the number of steam engines (11,620 in 1855, and 31,094 in 1868), the tonnage of the ships, the progress realized by the coasting trade despite the competition of the railroads, and a certain number of other things which we have no space to mention. From the combination of all this information that we have compared, it seems to us that the following estimate may be made. The value of personal property was, in 1820, 15,500,000,000 francs; in 1840, 40,700,000,000 francs: in 1850, 45,400,000,000 francs; in 1860, 113,776,000,000 francs; and in 1869, 150,000,000,000 francs. We must remark that it is not without hesitation or without verification that we have written down the last amount, which has no other value than that it has been calculated after the same principles as the preceding ones, and with which it may then be compared. We must only remark that in the seventeen and a half thousand millions, at which the built property has been estimated, are included many hundreds of millions, the value of mills, factories and other structures, which we have not been able to separate from the figures above. Finally, the entire value of the railways has been included among the personal property. We have also taken into account the foreign property owned by Frenchmen.

—Individual Resources and Incomes. If it is very difficult to determine the value of the national capital, it would be almost impossible, at least for one man alone, to arrive at a sufficiently approximate estimate of the revenue. For real property, which consists of objects exposed to the full light of day, and whose prices vary little from year to year, a satisfactory valuation may be obtained. It is the same case with a great part of personal property, which consists of effects whose value is known. The same is not the case with income. A bad harvest, vacant apartments, houses built and not let, an industrial crisis, and a thousand other circumstances influence considerably the income of individuals. The rate of interest does not increase with the amount of capital; it follows often, but not always, an opposite course. If the productive forces always preserved the same co-efficient, or the same degree of power, if the profits were always maintained at the same rate, if the prices of merchandise did not change, the interest would invariably decrease in proportion to the increase of capital. But things are not thus Edition: current; Page: [278] situated. New machines are continually invented, and new processes, which re-enforce productive power; the extension of markets and multiplication of the population serve to increase the prices, and render possible new enterprises; and the manufacturer, who foresees a higher profit, can offer a greater interest. All these considerations prevent us from making any calculations; their foundation would be too unstable.

—Some economists have thought they could overcome this difficulty, by taking one of the existing valuations of the products of agriculture, five, six or seven thousands of millions, and adding to it three or four thousands of millions for the products of manufacturing industry, and have contented themselves with this total. It is in this way that the conclusion has been arrived at, that the average income of a Frenchman was seventy-five centimes a day. By this proceeding, only the production of a part of the French population is found, and yet it is divided by the total number of inhabitants. It is clearly seen that the quotient must be false. But, besides, in these calculations there has been omitted a considerable quantity of products, and the prices of the gross sales realized by the producer have been used. It is the price of bread and not the value of wheat, the price of the stew or the chop, and not the value of the live cattle or sheep, which must finally be considered. We believe that the average of one franc fifty centimes would be nearer the truth, and in this case the aggregate income of all Frenchmen would amount to 30,000,000,000.16 To sum up, despite the high price of bread, of meat and wine, and some other products, the remuneration of labor having been raised, the lowering of the price of manufactured products has been so great, that to-day, with a given income a greater amount of comfort can be obtained than could be enjoyed a generation ago. It is true that men are more exacting to-day, and that the progress attained only acts as a stimulant toward still greater progress.17

—BIBLIOGRAPHY. Sismondi, Histoire des Français, 31 vols., Paris, 1821-44; Thierry, Lettres sur l'histoire de France, Paris, 1827, new ed., 1859; Thierry, Dix ans d'études his toriques, 9th ed., Paris, 1857; Guizot, Essai sur l'histoire de France, Paris, 1834, 9th ed., 1857; Michelet, Histoire de France, 2d ed., 17 vols., Paris, 1845-67; Martin, Histoire de France, 4th ed., 17 vols., Paris, 1856-60; Genoude, Histoire de France, 30 vols., 1844; Gouet, Histoire nationale de France, 6 vols, Paris, 1864-8; Guizot, L'histoire de France racontée à mes petits-enfants, 5 vols., Paris, 1870-75; Guizot, Histoire de la civilisation Edition: current; Page: [279] en France, 13th ed., 5 vols., Paris, 1874; Heinrich, Geschichte von Frankreich, 3 vols., Leipzig, 1802-04; Schmidt, Geschichte von Frankreich, 4 vols., Hamburg and Gotha, 1839-48; Gfrörer, Geschichte der ost-und west. frank. Karolinger, 2 vols., Freiburg, 1848; Thierry, Récits des temps Méroringiens, 10th ed., Paris, 1875; Warnkönig and Gérard, Histoire des Carolingiens, 2 vols., Brussels, 1862; Thierry, Histoire de la conquête de l'Angleterre par les Normands, Paris, 1825, new ed., 2 vols., Paris, 1858; Michand, Histoire des crusades, 7 vols., Paris, 1812-17. 9th ed., 4 vols., Paris, 1858; Buchon, Histoire des conquêtes et de l'établissement des Français dans l'ancienne Grèce sous les Villehardouin, Paris, 1846; Barante, Histoire des dues de Bourgogne de la maison de Valois, 1364-1477, 8th ed., 8 vols., Paris, 1858; Havemann, Geschichte der ital-franz. Kriege von, 1494-1515, 2 vols., Göttingen, 1834-5; Herrmann, Frankreichs Religions-und Bürgerkriege im 16 Jahrh., Leipzig, 1828; Lacretelle, Histoire de France pendant les guerres de religion, 4 vols., Paris, 1814-16; Sainte-Aulaire, Histoire de la Fronde, 3 vols., Paris, 1827, 4th ed., 2 vols., Paris, 1860; Ranke, Französische Geschichte, vorzüglich im 16 und 17 Jahrh., 5 vols., Stuttgart, 1852-61; Mignet, Histoire de la Ligue et du règne de Henri IV., 5 vols., Paris, 1829; Bazin, Histoire de France sous Louis XIII., 4 vols., Paris, 1837; Bazin, Histoire de France sous le ministère du cardinal de Mazarin, 2 vols., Paris, 1842; Lacretelle, Historie de France pendant le 18e siècle, 5th ed., 6 vols., Paris, 1830; Lemontey, Histoire de la Régence, 2 vols. Paris, 1832; Droz, Histoire de règne de Louis XVI., 3 vols., Paris, 1838-42, new ed., 3 vols., Paris, 1858; Tocqueville, Histoire philosophique du règne de Louis XV., 6 vols., Paris, 1864-73; Roux and Buchez, Histoire parlementaire de la révolution française, 40 vols., 1833-8; Berville and Barrière, Collection des mémoires relatifs à la révolution française, 56 vols., Paris, 1820-56; Mignet, Histoire de la révolution française, 10th ed., 2 vols., Paris, 1870; Thiers, Histoire de la révolution française, 13th ed., 10 vols., Paris, 1873; Louis Blanc, Histoire de la révolution française, 13 vols., Paris, 1847-64; Michelet, Histoire de la révolution françrise, 7 vols., Paris, 1847-53; Wachsmuth, Geschichte Frankreichs im Revolutions zeitalter, 4 vols., Hamburg, 1833-45; Dahlmann, Geschichte der Französischen Revolution. Leipzig. 1845; Sybel. Geschichte der Revolutionszeit, 2d ed., 3 vols., Düssel-dorf, 1861; Mortimer-Feruaux, Histoire de la terreur, 7 vols., Paris, 1862-9; Cassagnac, Histoire des causes de la révolution française, 4 vols., Paris, 1850; Villiaum8eacute, Histoire de la révolution française, 6th ed., 3 vols., 1863; Arnd, Geschichte der Französischen Revolution von, 1789-99. 6 vols., Brunswick, 1851-2; Carlyle, The French Revolution, 3 vols., London, 1870; Lamartine, Histoire des Girondins, 6 vols., Paris, 1870; Barante, Histoire de la Convention nationale, 6 vols., Paris, 1851-3; Barante, Histoire du Directoire, 3 vols., Paris, 1855; Cassagnac, Histoire du Directoire, 8 vols., Paris, 1851-63; Bignon, Histoire de France depuis le 18 brumaire, 1799, 6 vols., Paris, 1827, continued to 1812, 4 vols., Paris, 1838; Thiers, Histoire du consulat et de l'empire, 5 vols., Paris, 1865-8; Michelet, Histoire du 19e siécle, 3 vols., Paris, 1875; Lacretelle, Histoire de France deputs restanration, 4 vols., Paris, 1829-35: Lamartine, Histoire de la restauration, 8 vols., Paris, 1852: Viel-Castel, Histoire de la restauration, 18 vols., Paris, 1860-76; Duvergier d'Hauranne, Histoire du gouvernement parlementaire en France, 1814-48. 10 vols., Paris. 1862-72; Louis Blanc, Révolution française, Histoire de dix ans, 1830-40, 5th ed., 5 vols., Paris, 1846; Regnault, Histoire de huit ans, 1840-48, 2d ed., 3 vols., Paris, 1860: Nouvion, Histoire du règne de Louis Philippe, 4 vols., Paris, 1858-61: Lamartine, Histoire de la révolution de 1848, 4th ed., 2 vols., Paris, 1859; Stern, Histoire de la révolution de février, 1848, 2d ed., 2 vols., Paris, 1862; Regnault, Histoire du gouvernement provisoire, Paris, 1850; Delvau, Histoire de la révolution de février, 2 vols., Paris. 1850; Guizot, Mémoires pour servir d l'histoire de mon temps, 8 vols., Paris, 1858-67, Leipzig, 1858-63; Garnier-Pagès, Histoire de la révolution de 1848 4th ed., 2 vols., Paris, 1871; Delord, Histoire du second Empire, 6 vols., Paris, 1864-75; Tenot. Paris en decembre, 1851, Paris, 1868; Cavalier, Histoire de France depuis Louis XIV., jusqu'à nos jours. 1 vol., Paris, 1869; Sybel, Napoleon III., Bonn, 1873; Gottschall, Paris unter dem ziceiten Kaiserretch, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1871: Collection de documents inédits sur l'histoire de France, Paris. 1874; Enquête parlementaire sur les actes du government de la défense nationale, 2 vols., Paris, 1874; Müller, Politische Geschichte der neucsten Zeit, 1816-75, 3d ed., Stuttgart, 1875; Girault de St. Fargeau, Dictionnaire géographique, historique, industriel et commercial de toutes les communes de la France, Paris, 1851; Aigard. Patria ou la France ancienne et moderne, Paris, 1847; Malte-Brun, La France illustrée, 3 vols, Paris, 1855-61; Lavallée. Géographie physique, historique et militaire de la France, 6th ed., Paris, 1863; Joanne, Dictionnaire géographique de la France, Paris, 1864. 2d ed., 1869; Joanne, Géographie, histoire, statistique et archéologie des départments de la France, Paris, 1869; Bourboulon, Geographie physique et statistique de la France, Paris, 1867; Oyer, Géographie physique, militaire, etc., de la France, Paris, 1873; Cortambert, Géographie physique et politique de la France, Paris, 1873; Levasseur, La France avec ses colonies, Paris, 1873; Jähns, Das franzosisches Heer von der grossen Revolution bis zur Gegenwart, Leipzig, 1873; Hillebrand, Frankreich und die Franzosen in der zweiten Häifte des 19 Jahrh. Berlin, 1873; Schnitzler, Statistique générale de la France, 4 vols., Paris, 1846; Block, Statistique de la France comparée, 2d ed., 2 vols., Paris, 1875; Audiffret, Etat de la fortune nationale et du crédit publique de 1789 à 1873, Paris, 1875; Colle, La France et ses colonies au 19me siècle, Paris, 1878; Crisenoy, Mémoire de l'inscription maritime, Paris, 1872; David, Le crédit nationale, Paris. 1872; Dufour, Traite général du droit administratif, 8 Edition: current; Page: [280] vols., Paris, 1872: Germain. Dictionnaire du budget, Paris, 1878; Hélie, Les constitutions de la France. Paris. 1878; Ingouf, L'avenir de la marine et du commerce extérieur de la France, Paris, 1877; Kleine, Les richesses de la France, Paris, 1872; Langel, La France politique et sociale, Paris, 1878; Lavergne, Economie rurale de la France, 4th ed., Paris, 1878; L'ou, De l'accroissement de la population en France et de la doctrine de Malthus, Paris, 1866; Moussy, Tableau des finances de la France, Paris, 1879; Prat. Annuaire protestant: Statistique générale des diverses branches du Protestantisme français, Paris, 1880; Reclus, La France, vol. ii., of Nouvelle Geographie Universelle, Paris, 1877; Roussan, L'armée territoriale et la réserve de l'armée, Paris. 1874; Vraye, Le budget de l'état, Paris, 1875; Vuitry, Etude sur le régime financier de la France, Paris, 1879; Statistique centrale des chemins de fer, Paris, 1879; Annuaire de l'économie sociale, Paris, 1881; Annuaire des établissements français dans l'Inde, Pondichéry, 1881; Block, Annuaire de l'économie politique et de la statistique, 1881, Paris, 1881; Delarbre. La marine militaire de la France, Paris, 1881; Dupont, Annuaire de la marine pour 1881, Paris, 1881.

FRANCHISE

FRANCHISE, Elective. (See SUFFRAGE.)

FRANKLIN, Benjamin

FRANKLIN, Benjamin, was born at Boston, Mass., Jan. 17, 1706, and died at Philadelphia, April 17, 1790. He learned the printer's trade, removed to Philadelphia, and gradually became prominent in the service of Pennsylvania. He then became postmaster general for the crown in North America, and afterward agent at London for Pennsylvania. In 1773-6 he was a delegate to the continental congress, and in 1778 became its most distinguished representative abroad, as minister to France. He returned in 1785, after the conclusion of the treaty of peace, mainly due to his own diplomatic skill, became president (governor) of Pennsylvania, and took part in the convention of 1787. In his later years he took an active part in the anti-slavery society of Pennsylvania. (See ALBANY PLAN OF UNION. REVOLUTION.)

—Apart from Franklin's skill as a scientific investigator and as a practical diplomatist, his work is interesting for the clear perception which it showed of the questions at issue between the mother country and her North American colonies. While he maintained, as fully as any other public man, the theoretical rights of the colonists, he recognized, to the exact moment of its disappearance, every restriction upon theory arising from the aversion of the colonists to independence, and never endeavored to hurry the revolution unhealthily. The fourth volume of his collected works contains, scattered through its pages, a wonderfully clear and simple outline of the rights of the colonists, as they understood them.

—See Franklin's Autobiography (particularly Bigelow's edition): Sparks' Life and Works of Franklin; Holley's Life of Franklin; Parton's Life of Franklin; 1 Brougham's Sketches of Eminent Statesmen (edit. 1854), 251; Parker's Historic Americans, 13; 12, 27 Atlantic Monthly; Shurtleff's Inauguration of the Franklin Statue.

FRANKLIN, State of

FRANKLIN, State of. (See TENNESSEE.)

FREEDMEN'S BUREAU

FREEDMEN'S BUREAU, The. During the years 1861-2 the numbers of the fugitive slaves within the federal lines increased with the growth of the anti-slavery feeling in the federal government and army. Many of the able-bodied males were finally provided for by the organization of colored troops (see ABOLITION, III.); the aged, the young, the women and the sick were the occasion of more difficulty. Wherever the federal troops held post the freedmen poured in, without money, resources, or any provision for the future further than an implicit confidence in the benevolence and beneficence of the federal government. Before the end of the year 1864 the advance of the armies had freed 3,000,000 persons, of whom at least a million had thrown themselves helplessly upon the federal government for support. Attempts to employ some of them upon confiscated or abandoned plantations failed through the rapacity and inhumanity of the agents employed; and in 1863 great camps of freedmen were formed at different points, where the negroes were supplied with rations, compelled to work, and kept under some degree of oversight. The next year, 1864, this great responsibility was transferred from the war to the treasury department, but was still a mere incident of the military or war power of the president, as commander-in-chief, and was without any regulation of law. A bill to establish a bureau of emancipation had been introduced, Jan 12, 1863, but had failed to pass. Another bill passed the house. March 1, 1864, but failed in the senate. March 3, 1865, the first "freedmen's bureau bill" became law. It established a "bureau of refugees, freedmen, and abandoned lands" in the war department, to continue for one year after the close of the rebellion, under control of a chief commissioner; it gave the president authority to set apart confiscated or abandoned lands in the south to the use of the bureau; it authorized the assignment of not more than forty acres to each refugee or freedman; it guaranteed the possession of such lands to the assignees for three years; and in general it gave to the bureau "the control of all subjects relating to refugees and freedmen from rebel states" The bureau was organized almost entirely by officers of the regular army, under Gen. O. O. Howard, chief commissioner, and their administrative ability and fidelity made the bureau's early years very economical and satisfactory. Feb. 6, 1866, a supplementary bill was passed, which continued the bureau until otherwise provided by law, authorized the issue of provisions, clothing, fuel and other supplies to destitute refugees and freedmen, made any attempt to deny or Edition: current; Page: [281] hinder the civil rights or immunities of freedmen a penal offense, and required the president to take military jurisdiction of all such cases. This bill was vetoed, Feb. 19, by President Johnson for the reasons, 1, that it abolished trial by jury in the south, and substituted trial by court martial, 2, that this abolition was apparently permanent, not temporary; 3, that the bureau was a costly and demoralizing system of poor relief, and 4, that congress had no power to apply the public money to any such purpose in time of peace. The bill failed to pass over the veto.

—The quarrel between the president and the republican majority in congress became open and bitter in the spring of 1866, and about the same time the legislation of southern legislatures as to freedmen, during their winter sessions of 1865-6, was made public. (See RECONSTRUCTION.) The result was the passage of the second freedmen's bureau bill, in July, 1866. It corresponded in general intention to the February bill, except that it continued the bureau for two years only. It was vetoed, July 16, on the same general grounds as above given, and was passed the same day over the veto. The powers of the bureau were thus very much enlarged. Its chief commissioner was authorized to use its funds at discretion, to apply the property of the confederate states to the education of freedmen, to co-operate with private freedmen's aid societies, and to take military jurisdiction of offenses against the civil rights or immunities of freedmen. In June, 1868, the bureau was continued by law for one year longer in unreconstructed states. Aug. 3, 1868, a bill was passed over the veto providing that Gen. Howard should not be displaced from the commissionership, and that he should withdraw the bureau from the various states, Jan. 1, 1869, except as to its educational work, which did not stop until July 1, 1870. The collection of pay and bounties for colored soldiers and sailors was continued until 1872 by the bureau, when its functions were assumed by the usual channels of the war department. Total expenditures of the freedmen's bureau, March, 1865-Aug. 30, 1870, were reported at $13,359,092.27. (See ABOLITION, SLAVERY, RECONSTRUCTION.)

—See McPherson's History of the Reconstruction; and other authorities under RECONSTRUCTION. The first freedmen's bureau bill is in 13 Stat. at Large (38th Cong), 507; the second freedmen's bureau bill is in 13 Stat. at Large (39th Cong.), 173.

FREEDOM

FREEDOM, AND RIGHTS OF FREEDOM. I. Nature of Freedom. When we examine into the essence of freedom, and seek to understand that sacred blessing which man prizes higher than all besides, we must pass beyond the bounds of law and of the state, and seek its roots in nature and in God. In the microcosmic world of organic beings, the freedom of these beings rises, by degrees, to a fuller meaning. Even the plant which is fixed to its place, and is essentially not free, shows some faint advances toward freedom, when, following the instinct of self-preservation, it pushes its roots where nourishment most readily comes to it, and fastens its tendrils where it may best receive protection and insure its growth. The beast is freer, that moves its body about according to its instincts, and moves its limbs according to changing necessity. It chooses its place of rest and arranges it; it seeks its nourishment with discrimination; it practices the tricks of the hunter; it courts sexual union and cares for its young. The word instinct, which means the endowment of the race and the moving necessity of present impulse, is not adequate to explain these phenomena. The freedom of the beast is also manifest in this, that it does not move with mathematical or mechanical necessity, but according to its feelings, desires or apprehensions. Bodily, physical freedom is plainly met with even here; indeed, here the first advances toward a higher, moral freedom appear, and we can, without doing violence to language, speak of the fidelity of the dog, of the spirit of the horse, of the majesty of the lion, and of the industry of the bee. But first with man as a person do moral freedom and intellectual freedom attain their full development. In the beast the instinctive nature predominates still, but man rises to self-conscious action. The distinction between good and evil, truth and error, here, for the first time, gets its definite meaning. In consequence of this higher will and freedom of the mind, man can struggle against the power of natural impulse.

—Tocqueville (Ancien Régime, p. 278) asks the question, in what is the love of the nations for freedom, which inspires to the greatest deeds, grounded? and answers, that it was not alone in the hatred of oppression, for the freest people willingly submit to a dictator appointed for a time; neither in their material interests, for sometimes people abandon everything to defend freedom. He replies: "Freedom has in herself her own charm. He who seeks in freedom anything else than freedom herself, is bowed in bondage." I think the deepest ground lies in the fact that freedom is the most godlike quality of man, that it is voluntary and self-conscious life of a higher order. The highest degree of freedom is revealed in a creative act, in self-culture and in the improvement of the world.

—Necessity and freedom are antithetical but not contradictory. They are joined in unity in a person, for to the person both belong. The necessity of being is the condition precedent of his freedom. When Raphael painted a Madonna, he was bound to the necessity of his esthetic nature, while he painted with the true freedom of the artist. So Shakespeare, when he wrote his plays. It is the same in politics. In the acts of Julius Cæsar or Frederick II. of Prussia, we recognize the nature of Cæsar or Frederick as necessary, but we likewise plainly discern the marks of individual freedom. Freedom, on its positive side, implies choice, but it does not on that Edition: current; Page: [282] account become caprice or arbitrariness. Free moral choice must have regard to its own nature, and its connection with the laws of the system of the world and with the destiny of mankind.

—It is the province of politics both to promote freedom, and to bring to development what still lies dormant in the intellectual endowment of man. It has to do with the collective life of the people.

—II. Individual Rights of Freedom. 1. The first of these is the acknowledgment of free personality, and, as a logical consequence, the negation of all slavery. Since man is by nature a person, he can not and must not be considered as simply a thing; and never must property, i.e., the dominion of the person over things, be assigned to man over man, to person over person. Slavery is always an unjust subordination. In many respects the authority of the Roman father over the child was similar to the authority of the master over the slave. But there existed a cardinal difference. The child was esteemed as a person, and hence as free (liber); the slave as a thing, and hence under dominion. Slavery even as a penalty, is not admissible, for the culprit does not cease to be a man, and hence a person. 2. The glebæ ad-criptio of the middle ages was in contradiction with the natural right of freedom. It is true it did not entirely deny the personality of the feudal dependents; their marriages were recognized as legal, and certain rights of possession of goods and movables were guaranteed them. But the system nevertheless brought man into the false relation of the dependence of the person upon the thing. 3. Not every dependence of one person upon another is in opposition to freedom. The child, through its helplessness and its wants, is, by nature, dependent upon the guidance and care of its parents. The authority of guardians over children and minors is well founded, just as is the guardianship over weak-minded and insane persons of full age, or over spendthrifts. But the continuation of the Roman patria potestas over sons of manly years, was certainly a mistaken notion and a violation of natural freedom, upon which the young man has a just claim. In the same way, the servant is in many things personally dependent upon his lord, the workman upon the manufacturer, and the journeyman upon the master workman; but this dependence, also, is quite compatible with personal freedom. Free men themselves regulate the relation of work and wages, according to their needs. But labor contracts for service and wages may overstep the bounds of self-determination and damage the rightful freedom of all, when it makes arrangements, which, under the appearance of a free contract, lay the foundation of a virtual lasting slavery. But that very thing is done, and for a lifetime, by those labor contracts which concede to the serving party no power to step out of the relation of servant, if his personal interests should demand it. 4. Protection against false imprisonment. It is not enough to protect the negative side of freedom, i.e., to prevent an undue dependence; the positive side of freedom, also, i.e., a person's self-determined mode of living, his movements and actions, need the protection of law. The transition from the one to the other is formed by the measures of security against arbitrary arrest, developed especially in Anglo-American law. Here belong the following provisions: 1st. No one shall be arrested except upon the written warrant of competent authority, wherein the ground for the arrest and the person of the party arrested and of the party who makes the arrest shall be designated, except in cases of the seizure of a criminal in an overt act. A general warrant, i.e., a warrant to arrest all persons suspected, without specifying individuals, is illegal according to Anglo-American law. 2d. The habeas corpus act, passed in the reign of Charles II., A. D. 1679, secures to the prisoner the right to procure from the judge a writ of habeas corpus, by which all inferior officers, jailers, etc., are required to bring him without delay before the judge, so that he may test the legality of his imprisonment, and if that be not confirmed, release him. 3d. Releasement upon furnishing bail, (called in the old German law trostung). It was a maxim of the middle ages that. "He who gives bail (trostung) must not be imprisoned," except in particularly serious cases. 4th Imprisonment and detention from police considerations, in contrast to arrest for judicial examination and punishment, is only allowed, by way of exception, in rare cases, as especially the confinement of lunatics, or measures in the interest of quarantine regulations or for checking dangerous epidemics; or for the purpose of caring for the dissolute poor, and to protect the public from being annoyed by them. 5th. The abolition of imprisonment for debt, i.e., the imprisonment of the debtor with the intent, by depriving him of his freedom, of forcing him to pay. This advance in modern freedom was only effected in comparatively recent years. 6th. The guarantee of an action for indemnity against officers and employés who had effected an illegal arrest; and 7th. The acknowledgment of the right to resist, with force, an illegal arrest. 5. Freedom of movement is further limited, by restricting a person to the limits of a certain place or district, or even by commanding one to leave a city, village or district, or by banishment from the country. Such restrictions, again, according to the rule, are only admissible when they are judicially decreed as punishments, or when, as a legal exception, they are necessary as a police expedient. 6. The protection of freedom of travel in opposition to prohibition of travel is, in more recent times, even internationally guaranteed; while but a generation ago passports for travelers were frequently required. 7. The highest form of this freedom of movement from place to place is the freedom of emigration. The free man is as little bound to the state as to the soil. It is not worthy of the state to hold him as if he were a serf, if he wishes to leave his home and hopes Edition: current; Page: [283] to find in another state better conditions for his advancement. But it was a long time before freedom of emigration was acknowledged. It is not acknowledged everywhere even to-day. But the state certainly has a right in this matter, viz., that the emigrant shall beforehand fulfill his indispensable duties toward his native country, and shall not, apparently to evade or mock the law of the land, simply step out of his previous allegiance to one government into allegiance to another. 8. Freedom of marriage. Matrimony is the most complete life in common of man and wife. Hence it is a question of life for the individual, whether he is to be allowed to follow his own inclination and choice, or is to be compelled to submit to the will of another, or is to be prevented from concluding an intended marriage. Actual coercion to marriage is to-day generally given up, in so far at least as the law demands, under all circumstances, the free personal expression of the will of the parties betrothed, which can not be supplanted by any parental or other authority. No one, according to the prevailing law, is compelled to marry when he does not desire it, or to marry any one whom he does not desire to marry. On the other hand, there existed till the most recent times, and do still in some countries exist, manifold hindrances to marriage, which make the consummation thereof difficult, or even entirely prevent it, notwithstanding the affianced parties wish to marry. The legislation of recent times has shown itself in this matter favorable to freedom, in this, that it has removed a multitude of such hindrances or has modified them, as, for example, the prohibition of marriage between distant relatives, the demanding of a property certificate from the parties betrothed, the permission of the community, etc. For Germany a series of this sort of restrictions was cleared away, especially by the North German law of May 4, 1868. 9. Freedom of property. In the possession of property, i.e., the dominion of the person over things, free personality is preserved. There are a number of legal defenses whose object is to give the best possible protection to this freedom. Among them belong: 1st. The freedom to acquire landed property, which during the middle ages was permitted frequently only to certain classes of the inhabitants, was prohibited to foreigners, and was brought into continual jeopardy through sundry natural rights of neighbors, of relatives, of heirs, of fellow-citizens and natives. 2d. The freedom of the soil from standing burdens, burdens in kind, as, especially, socage, tithes, tributes, which so sorely oppressed landed property, and burdened the free use of the soil. 3d. Free transferability and divisibility of goods, in opposition to the fixedness and indivisibility of the property of fief, family, and much of that of manor and peasant, in the middle ages. 4th. The protection of freedom at home, domestic peace or security, was afforded in full measure in the laws of many of the German cities of the middle ages. But in the last century it has been seriously damaged by the too great control and guardianship of the police. Especially has this freedom been preserved in Anglo-American law. The saying, "My house is my castle," in vogue everywhere in the middle ages, has gradually come to have a specifically English ring. Under this head falls the protection against the illegal quartering of soldiers, which is clearly set forth in the English bill of rights of 1689, and in the constitution of the United States. Freedom of property, may, however, be carried too far. Property is so called because it belongs exclusively to a particular individual, and means, in short, unlimited dominion of the same over his own things, liable, of course, to the danger of a merely selfish use, which disregards and neglects the duties toward the community (of the family, of the municipality and of the state). But since all law is a regulation of the public life, and is made to insure the peaceable dwelling together of men, it has also the task to restrain and moderate the selfish freedom of property, in so far as the interest of the community demands it. 10. Economic freedom. The whole modern system of economy is to be distinguished from the economy of the last century, chiefly from the fact that it has been impregnated with the spirit of individual liberty, and its activity has been freed from a thousand restraints, which formerly made its development difficult. Here belong: 1st. The removal of the restraint of guilds and fraternities, and the introduction of the free choice of his trade by every man. Every one may exercise that trade in which he hopes soonest to conquer in the battle of life, or that to which his inclination leads him. Every one may extend the bounds of his industrial pursuits, and may combine one industrial pursuit with another, as he finds it to his purpose. 2d. Free trade, in opposition to the so-called protective tariff system. As the full development of strength and the highest contentment for the individual comes with this economic freedom, so it is only through freedom that mankind can reach a maximum of economic achievement. But we must not overlook the fact that freedom draws after it an intensity of competition between men, and has likewise the right to take care that the dangers of this bellum omnium contra omnes shall not damage or ruin the proper and insured existence of many. The advance of the human race is marked by an increase of the legal rights of freedom; but only the union of freedom with growing humanity preserves the former from degeneration and abuse. 11. Intellectual freedom. Higher than all other personal freedom is the intellectual freedom of the individual; we notice, 1st. Religious freedom, especially freedom to profess one's belief and in the choice of one's mode of worship, a freedom which mankind, after long and grievous aberrations, has at last, with difficulty, made the portion of all. In his relations to God, man must dare to be true and upright: for God is truth and loves the truth. Nothing is more abominable in holy things than hypocrisy, and all intolerance Edition: current; Page: [284] and oppression of conscience leads to hypocrisy. The reformation broke the power of ecclesiastical authority, and freed the conscience of the church. But the people of the United States first brought the legal security of this freedom to the world in its fullest compass. The crime of heresy had earlier been done away with, but now, for the first time, the principle that one's faith should have no legal effects, and should not be a condition of his rights, came to prevail. This religious freedom certainly destroys the false unity of religious belief. It doubtless promotes the multiplicity of religious creeds and modes of worship; but all nature and the essence of the soul prove that this multiplicity, in which there is truth and life, is more pleasing to God and more fruitful to mankind than that unity, which at last sinks into a stupid absence of thought and empty formality. 2d. The scientific freedom of investigation and research. For centuries this free activity of thought and of intellectual labor was hemmed in and bound by church authority. Science would examine into everything, even religion itself, and it can not allow itself to be ruled, except by the laws of logical thought, which are of quite a different character from the power of faith in the heart. The frequently repeated objection is entirely untenable that (only objective) truth has a natural claim upon protection and to dissemination, but not error. The state has neither the means of distinguishing with any certainty an objective truth from an error, nor the power successfully to impede error, and to defend truth against doubt. History proves that governments have often sought to crush with violence supposed errors, which afterward turned out to be truths, and, on the other hand, undertook by means of punishment to defend against every attack supposed truths, which were only superstitions, both without lasting success, and to the damage of the people. Almost every discovery of a new truth has been suspected and antagonized in the beginning as a great error, and seldom has a thinker found a truth without a previous battle with traditional, and often even with his own errors, which had the appearance of truth. When the state grants freedom, it opens up, likewise, to truth, new ways. If opinions are erroneous, they call out truth, and thus error serves, though against its will, the same end as truth. The external coercion of the government, violence, is never the right means to obtain the victory of truth over error; for truth, which is spirit, can only ground and maintain itself upon its own spiritual power. A just observation of nature has a stronger power, as evidence in the domain of truth, than a hundred thousand bayonets, and the logical power of a just conclusion can not be overcome by the physical power of a hundred cannon. It is very certain that sometimes among nations might has triumphed over truth. A nation may be hindered for centuries in the perception of truth, by a mechanical pressure of state authority upon civilization and the expression of opinion, and be depressed and darkened in its intellectual life. A more rapid dissemination of a truth may, under some circumstances, be secured by the help of the authority of the government. But force is always a false means in the conflict between error and truth, and its employment in most cases works destructively, 3d. Freedom of speech, and especially the so-called freedom of the press, are in part applications of the religious freedom of creed and the scientific freedom of research, and in part a further development of intellectual freedom in general. This freedom was first acknowledged for all classes, not in the English revolution, although Milton's brilliant defense of it made a deep impression, but in 1694, when the censorship of the press was given up. As late as the year 1780 in France, where there was no freedom of the press for political discussion, the plan was seriously considered to make the entire book trade a state affair, and thus make the whole literature and every public expression of opinion dependent upon the state. The French revolution first proclaimed the freedom of the press in France in 1791, a freedom which, it is true, was later restrained. 12. Among the individual rights of freedom, we must mention the freedom which manifests itself in the peculiar manner of living of a person. John Stuart Mill observes with reason that this freedom is less restrained in our time by law than by custom and even fashion. So long as the rights of others are not violated nor public decency disregarded, every one should be allowed to live, dress and outwardly behave according to his inclination.

—III. Political Freedom. We distinguish political freedom from individual freedom. 1. Municipal freedom, i.e., the independent administration of municipal affairs and the autonomy of the municipal organization within the bounds of the state's constitution and legislation, in contrast to the guardianship of the community by the government. 2. Corporate freedom, which is akin to municipal freedom, and protects the independent conduct of legal persons and corporate bodies. 3. Freedom of the state in its proper sense. Here the negative side of freedom of the state signifies the casting off of all unjust domination, whether it be that of a foreign power or of the excessive and hence despotic authority of the state itself. The positive side shows itself in self-determined participation in the life of the community. Ancient nations, especially the Greeks, were inclined to call only those states free states in which the majority of the citizens, i.e., the demos, governed themselves. Free states, in the acceptation of the ancients, are hence, particularly, non-monarchical states—republics, as they are called in modern times. The modern view, on the other hand, cares less whether the majority rules, and more whether it is politically entitled to rule and co-operates in legislation and has the control of the government. The opposite, then, of free states are absolute or despotic states. Edition: current; Page: [285] England is a free state, notwithstanding she has an hereditary dynasty; and the constitutional monarchy of to-day may claim the honorable name of a free form of government, the same as may representative democracy, while direct democracy, if it becomes absolute and oppresses the minority, ceases to be a free form of government. 4. Among the political rights of freedom which deserve special attention are the political rights of assembly and freedom of assemblies from interference. These were first acknowledged and developed in the Anglo-Saxon constitutional law of the English and Americans. Only in the most recent times have they also attained legal value in the free states of Europe.

FREEDOM OF LABOR

FREEDOM OF LABOR. If we ask the author of an able work entitled, "Freedom of Labor," (M. Dunoyer, Member of the Institute, vol. i., p. 24), what freedom is, he tells us: "What I call freedom, is the ability which man acquires of employing his powers more easily in proportion as he becomes free from the obstacles which originally interfered with their exercise. I say that he is the more free, the more he is delivered from the causes which prevented him from making use of them, the more he has removed these causes, the more he has extended the sphere of his action and cleared it from obstructions."

—Endeavoring to ascertain, on the other hand, from past experience, by the aid of history, by what laws and under the influence of what causes men succeed in employing more effectually the natural forces whose operation constitutes industry or human labor, the same economist has found that it is by having greater freedom in the use of these forces, so that freedom is at the same time the cause and the result of itself, the cause and the result of power, and that these two terms, freedom and power, are correlative.

—M. Dunoyer does not then consider freedom as a dogma, but he shows it in its causes, and he presents it as a result. He does not make it an attribute of man, or the result of a special form of government, but a product of the combined elements of civilization. He shows that it is primarily dependent on race, that is to say, on the nature itself of men, and the more or less favorable organization of their physical, intellectual and moral faculties: secondly, on the places on the globe where they are located, and the advantages afforded for agriculture, manufactures and commerce in the part of the earth they occupy; finally, on the greater or less advantage they have succeeded in gaining from their powers or their position.

—We will not treat here of the great and numerous questions which arise as soon as one attempts to define this formidable word, freedom, but only glance at them, before returning to the kind of freedom which is the subject of this article.

—Whoever speaks of labor, is, in many respects, speaking of the whole of society; so that if the phrase "freedom of labor" is not an expression for all freedom, it assuredly is for a very large part, and there are few kinds of freedom that are not embraced by it. But in economic language, a more restricted signification, though one still very broad, is given to this phrase, "freedom of labor," which expresses an opportunity given to every citizen to pursue whatever calling he wishes, be it one or several; to regulate the prices of his products and of his services according to his understanding of their value; to exchange the results of his labor at home or abroad, as may seem for his best interests: whence it appears that freedom of labor includes competition and free exchange or free trade. (See these two articles.)

—Under the word COMPETITION we have shown the social benefits, and, so to speak, the regulating and providential part that competition takes in the general economy of society: the nature of the inconveniences it may accidentally present in consequence of the unfavorable circumstances in the midst of which certain countries, and, we may say, certain industries, are placed; and the blind presumption of those who have sought ways to suppress competition, to class avocations, and to distribute the public offices—in short, to organize labor, to use their own expression, or, in other terms, according to the language of economists, completely to suppress the initiative of the citizens and freedom of labor. We need not then recur to that here. We will likewise omit all considerations, which, while entering into the general subject, relate more particularly to commercial freedom.

—Among persons unacquainted with economic studies, many imagine that freedom of labor exists in all branches of human activity. To be convinced of their error these have only to take into account the conditions to which most avocations are subject. In France, for example, they will find that a great number of those called liberal can not be entered without the degrees of bachelor, licentiate, doctor, etc., which are simply that compulsory apprenticeship of which Colbert spoke in his advice to Louis XIV., an apprenticeship very long and very costly. Several liberal professions in France are, moreover, positively organized into guilds, with limitations as to number and the conditions of admission: they are those of notary, stock broker, banker, merchandise broker, vendue master, etc. Several are a little less trammeled, and are not restricted by being limited as to number, though they are as to conditions of admission: they are those of barrister, physician, druggist, veterinary surgeon, teacher, etc. Others are made public functions, as that of professor and engineer. Among the industries we find, in France, butchering and baking constituted as veritable guilds in many towns; and printing, bookselling, registry offices, theatrical enterprises, public conveyances, etc., subject to a system of certificates granted by public authority. But these direct impediments are not perhaps those whose action is most effective against the principle of freedom. There are indirect ones Edition: current; Page: [286] which exercise their influence upon all branches of labor; such as the loaning of capital, the lever of commerce and the industries, encounters in the laws upon usury which fix a maximum rate of interest, those which prohibit loaning upon pledge, and those which oppose the free formation of institutions of credit. Such are the restrictions which the commercial code and the entire legislation present to the formation of the industrial and commercial associations found in three types which no longer satisfy the demands of industrial development; such are the numerous prohibitions and hundreds of lengthy laws which hinder the supply in a great number of industries, and the sale of products in very many others; such are the octrois, whose action is, in many respects, analogous; such are the systems to which the merchant marine and the colonies are subject; such are the restrictions of every nature, imposed by special laws, upon the working of mines, the duration of labor combinations, and prison and other labor, it may be by local usages, by police regulations, or by thousands of decrees and ordinances called their rules of public administration, the nomenclature of which would occupy many pages of our columns—measures, decrees and ordinances which are far from having been all inspired by sound notions of administration, prudence and justice.

—Nor have we yet enumerated all. Many industries are disturbed because governments have thought they should reserve to themselves the right of carrying on certain branches of business and establishing for them national workshops. Thus it is with the hot mineral springs, the establishments for breeding fine horses, cows and sheep, the Indret establishment for articles necessary in the navy, the manufactories of fire arms, the production of Sèvres china, of Gobelin dyes and tapestry, the government printing office, the Mont de Piété (loan bank, where articles are pawned); and others besides: tobacco and snuff, saltpetre, powder and gaming cards, the production of which is in France made a monopoly for the collection of the taxes. To those who are surprised that we put these government enterprises and the administration of these taxes in the number of hindrances to the industries, it would be easy to show how a subsidized establishment, the government printing office, for example, produces in a way that is a burden to the public treasury, and discourages private industries by engrossing certain kinds of labor, and lowering the price of many products obtained.

—If any one would make out for all countries such an abstract as we have just given for France, he would find analogous restrictions in each of them: much fewer, however, in England, and above all, in the United States, and very probably more in many other countries, and in proportion to their degree of civilization, for the degree of freedom is a pretty good measure of the progress realized. There are still many vestiges of the guilds in Germany and in the northern countries, although these traces are indeed disappearing every day. It was not until 1847 that the Swedish government succeeded in suppressing the masterships, wardenships and trade corporations; the class of the bourgeoisie being at length united with the three others, and having ceased to appeal to its privileges with the same tenacity. Hitherto there had been a compulsory apprenticeship, of seven years in some trades, of eleven years in others. It was not until July 1st of that year that domestic labor was completely emancipated, and that each one could, in his home, devote himself to making any articles he chose, and that every licensed dealer could sell all his products. But to start a manufactory it is still necessary to be provided with a certificate of capacity, issued by men officially selected for the purpose. The spirit which produces regulations and special privileges has not been willing to yield everything at once; it has clung to the diploma.

—In North America, which may be taken as the opposite type, a citizen engaged in any industry enjoys, in the employment of his faculties and the pursuit of wealth, a freedom relatively very considerable.

—We should have much to do, were we to take up, one by one, all the avocations in which freedom of labor is not entire, and to show how it would be both possible and profitable to introduce freedom into them, at once in some, by degrees in the others. We wish only to prove that the march of civilization is regulating socialism, which is slavery, by freedom, and that freedom is the polar star upon which statesmen must ever have an open eye, if they are ambitious to show themselves intelligent and skillful pilots.

—M. Dunoyer, in responding in 1845 to the socialistic schools which charged freedom of labor with bringing about the gradual elevation of the opulent classes and an accelerated degradation of the laboring classes, was then right in saying: "I beg to consider how strange it must seem to see the misfortune of the laboring classes attributed to greatly increased competition, in the notorious state of imperfection in which freedom of labor and that of transactions still are. People talk of universal, unlimited competition! Where does any such really exist? In fact, there is no such thing as any truly universal competition. Do people forget that there is no civilized country where the entire mass of producers does not defend itself by double and triple lines of custom houses against the competition of foreign producers? Do they not know how far from being complete is competition, even in the interior of each country, and by how many causes it is everywhere more or less limited? In France, for example, where it is more developed than in some other places, it still encounters a multitude of obstacles; there are, we know, outside of services really public, a certain number of kinds of business, the carrying on of which the public authorities have thought should be reserved exclusively to the government; there is a still more considerable number the monopoly of which legislation has given to a limited number of individuals. Edition: current; Page: [287] Those which have been abandoned to competition are subjected to formalities, to restrictions, and to numberless trammels which prevent many persons from engaging in them; and consequently in these even, competition is far from being unlimited. Finally, there is scarcely one which is not subject to various taxes, necessary, without doubt, but sufficiently onerous for many people to be unable to pay them, and hence these kinds of business are virtually prohibited to such persons: whence it follows that competition, already limited for so many causes, is still so to a high degree by taxes. I do not state these facts here to blame any one: but in the face of such a condition of things, is it not singular to hear any one speak of universal, unlimited competition, and to witness the more or less real evils which the lower classes of society suffer attributed to excess of freedom and of competition?"

—It is not possible to treat thoroughly this great question in a single article; for freedom of labor is the corollary of all the propositions which science demonstrates; and this subject is one of those whose development might well take an entire course. Indeed, M. Dunoyer was led to make almost a complete course of study on the economy of society in attempting to fathom the vast questions connected with it. We will then stop here, and conclude by quoting two passages which express our thoughts better than we could do it: "Political economy holds most strongly to the idea of freedom of labor: for freedom is the essence of human industry. What, in fact, is industry? It is not simply a muscular effort and a material operation. Industry is, above all, the action of the human mind on the physical world. Now the mind is essentially free: the mind in all its operations needs freedom, exactly as there is need of air under the wings of a bird, that it may be sustained and advance in its course." (M. Michel Chevalier, Discours au Collége de France; Journal des Economistes, Jan., 1848.)—"The natural order of human society consists in enthroning in it the law which is in correspondence with the nature of the beings of which that society is formed. These beings being free, their most natural law is the maintenance of their freedom: this is what we call justice. There are in the heart of man, and these can therefore and ought to enter into the alliance, other laws still, but none which are contrary to that. Before all else, the state is organized justice; and its first function, its most stern duty, is to insure freedom; and what freedom is there in society where labor is not free?"

E. J. L., Tr.
JOSEPH GARNIER.

FREE-SOIL PARTY

FREE-SOIL PARTY, The (IN U. S. HISTORY). The history of this party, the first one which aimed specially at the restriction of slavery to its state limits, covers a period of but about five years, 1848-52, and may best be understood by first considering the two elements which composed it, the political free-soilers and the conscientious free-soilers.

—1. The political free-soilers were confined to the state of New York, and were mainly the voters of that state political organization, or "machine," of which ex-President Van Buren had long been the recognized head. (See ALBANY REGENCY.) Van Buren's defeat in the democratic convention of 1844, and the political revolution in the party which was a consequence of it, were results of southern votes and of a distinct southern question; and the first effort of the Polk administration, like every other administration of any party in a similar situation, was to encourage the building up of a new organization of its own, for the purpose of ousting the old organization from the control of the great state of New York. (See DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY, IV.; VAN BUREN, MARTIN; NEW YORK.) The old organization, however, in the present case, was too strongly entrenched to surrender power easily, and the four years of Polk's administration were marked by a progressive split in the democratic party of New York, resulting, toward 1847, in the formation of two distinct factions, the barnburners and the bunkers (See those names.) The former was the Van Buren organization, and its opposition to the administration which had supplanted it naturally took the form of opposition to the extension of slavery to the territories. It therefore fell naturally into the free-soil party on its organization. The division in the New York democratic party, though apparently healed in 1852, lasted in reality for many years further, the former "barnburners" and "hunkers" taking the names of "softs" and "hards," respectively.

—2. The conscientious free-soilers were not confined to New York, but were found in every northern state, and in Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and Kentucky, in the south. They were mainly the members of the "liberty party," (see ABOLITION, II.), re-enforced, after 1844, by a part of the antislavery element which had been common, up to that year, throughout the agricultural membership of the northern democratic party. In the fall of 1847 they held a national convention at Buffalo, still under the name of the liberty party, and nominated John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, and Leicester King, of Ohio, as presidential candidates; but toward the spring of 1848 the evident division in the New York democratic party, which it was hoped would extend to other states, encouraged them to drop their nominations and take part in the formation of the "free soil party."

—The democratic convention at Baltimore in 1848 was attended by delegations from both the barnburner and hunker factions, each claiming to represent the state. May 23, by a vote of 133 to 118, the convention admitted both delegations, giving half the state vote to each. Both delegations rejected the decision, and withdrew from the convention. The hunkers, satisfied with having kept their opponents out, and secure of the support of the administration, did nothing further. The barnburners met in state Edition: current; Page: [288] convention at Utica, June 22, and nominated Martin Van Buren and Henry Dodge, of Wisconsin, as presidential candidates, apparently for the purpose of maintaining their state organization, of showing their ability to control the state electoral vote, and thus of forcing some compromise which would secure for them recognition as an essential part of the New York democracy. Gen. Dodge refused to accept the nomination.

—In the meantime a call had been issued for a general free-soil convention at Buffalo, Aug. 9. It was attended by 465 delegates from nearly all the free states, and from Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, eighteen states in all. For president, Martin Van Buren received 244 votes to 181 for John P. Hale, and was nominated; Charles Francis Adams was nominated for vice-president. The platform was very long, in three preambles and sixteen resolutions. The preambles declared the delegates' independence of the slave power, their secession from the democracy; their inability to join the whigs, who, in nominating Taylor, had "abandoned their distinctive principles for mere availability"; and their determination to secure "free soil to a free people." The resolutions declared in general that slavery in the states was valid by state laws, for which the federal government was not responsible; but that congress had "no more power to make a slave than to make a king," and hence was bound to restrict slavery to the slave states, and to refuse it admission to the territories. In the election of 1848 for president the new party cast 291,263 votes, a great but deceptive advance on the liberty party's vote in 1844. It was entirely a free state vote, except 9 in Virginia, 80 in Delaware, and 125 in Maryland. Outside of New York the free-soilers outnumbered the democrats in Massachusetts and Vermont, and gave the votes of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin to the democratic candidates by small pluralities, in New York they polled 120,510 votes to 114,318 votes for Cass and Butler, and gave the electoral votes of the state to the whig candidates. Both elements of the free-soil party were thus satisfied; the conscientious free-soilers, frequently called "abolitionists," had punished and demoralized the whig party, and the political free-soilers, commonly called "night soilers" by their hunker opponents, had punished and demoralized the democratic party. The principal result of the congressional elections of the same year was that the New York delegation was changed from 10 democrats and 24 whigs (in 1847-9) to 1 democrat, 1 free-soiler, and 32 whigs (in 1849-51).

—In congress the free-soil representatives at once took separate ground, apart from both whigs and democrats. In the 31st congress they numbered 2 in the senate, (Hale and S. P. Chase), and in the lower house 14, including Preston King, of New York, J. R. Giddings, Lewis D. Campbell and Joseph M. Root, of Ohio, Geo. W. Julian, of Indiana, David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania (see WILMOT PROVISO), and Horace Mann, of Massachusetts. In the 32d congress (1851-8) they had 3 in the senate, Charles Sumner having taken his seat there, and 17 in the house. In the 33d congress (185-5) the free-soilers in the senate numbered from 3 to 5; in the house they had about the same number. After that time they were swallowed up in the sudden rise of the anti-Nebraska tide. (See REPUBLICAN PARTY.)

—Negotiations between the political free-soilers and the other democratic faction in New York began again (if they had ever really ceased) in 1849. Both factions attended the state convention of that year, and united in the nomination of state candidates and in the adoption of a vague and indefinite resolution on the slavery question. In 1850 the state convention went further, and passed a resolution that it was "proud to avow its fraternity with and devotion to" the principles of the democratic national convention of 1848. Against this resolution the political free-soilers, headed by John Van Buren, could now muster but twenty votes. The result was the absorption of the Van Buren faction into the state democratic party, and the reduction of the free-soil vote of New York in 1852 to its real limits. The breach in the state democracy was thus closed, but never really healed.

—In 1852 the national convention of both the whig and the democratic parties accepted the compromise of 1850 (see COMPROMISES, V.) in all its parts. The free-soilers therefore held a convention at Pittsburg, Aug 11, 1852, with delegates from all the free states, and from Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and Kentucky. Their recent New York allies were not represented. Henry Wilson, of Massachusetts, presided; the platform of 1848 was enlarged to twenty-two resolutions, and John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, and George W. Julian, of Indiana, were nominated as presidential candidates. The platform of the "free democratic party" denounced slavery as "a sin against God and a crime against man;" it denounced "both the whig and the democratic wings of the great slave compromise party of the nation;" and it repudiated the compromise of 1850, and demanded the repeal of the fugitive slave law. In the presidential election of 1852 the free-soilers cast but 156,149 votes, all in northern states excepting 62 in Delaware, 54 in Maryland, 265 in Kentucky, and 59 in North Carolina. In all the northern states, except Iowa, the free-soil vote was slightly decreased, owing mainly to the party's rejection of the compromise of 1850; in New York it had fallen to 25,329, the real free-soil vote, apart from its political allies in that state.

—After the election of 1852 the free-soilers shared in the general suspension of political animation which followed. In 1854 they opposed the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and in 185-6 were absorbed by the newly formed republican party. The 34th congress, when it met in December, 1855, contained democrats, whigs, anti-Nebraska men, free-soilers, and Americans or know-nothings; before February, 1856, there were only republicans, democrats and Americans, and the Edition: current; Page: [289] whig and free-soil parties had disappeared from congress.

—The principles of the free-soil party as to slavery restriction were identical with those of the great and successful republican party which followed it, and yet the former, from 1846 until 1854, probably never really gained 10,000 votes in the entire country. Its lack of success was due in part to its insistence upon strict construction in other matters than slavery, while the republican party was generally broad construction; but the principal reason was, that the country was not yet ready for it. Some such measure as the Kansas-Nebraska bill was an essential prerequisite to the formation of a successful anti-slavery party, and opposition to that particular measure required broad construction views of the powers of congress. (See NATION; DEMOCRATIC PARTY, IV.; REPUBLICAN PARTY, I.; WILMOT PROVISO; ABOLITION, II.; SLAVERY..)

—See 16 Benton's Debates of Congress; 1 Greeley's American Conflict, 191, 223; 2 Wilson's Rise and Fall of the Slace Power, 129, 140, 150; International Review, August, 1881, (G. W. Julian's Reminiscences of the 31st Congress); Giddings' History of the Rebellion, 283, 357; 2 Benton's Thirty Years' View, 723; Schuckers' Life of S. P. Chase; Gardiner's Historical Sketch of the Free-Soil Question (to 1848); 27 Democratic Review, 531; Tribune Almanac, 1849-55; D. S. Dickinson's Speeches; authorities under articles referred to; the platforms of the party in full are in Greeley's Political Text Book of 1860, 17, 21.

FREE TRADE

FREE TRADE, in the sense in which the term is generally used, may be regarded as the expression of a principle in political economy, which holds that the prosperity of a state or nation can best be promoted and maintained by freeing the exchange of all commodities and services between its own people and the people of other nations and countries, to the greatest extent possible, from all interferences and obstructions of an arbitrary, artificial character, the results of legislation in deference to either prejudice or the demands of special or private interests. In its broadest sense, free trade, as the expression of an economic principle, is, however, susceptible of a much wider and more complex definition. It was concretely and somewhat sentimentally, but at the same time truthfully, defined by Chevalier, the eminent French economist, to be "the free exercise of human power and faculties in all commercial and professional life"; and as "the liberty of labor in its grandest proportions." As represented by its leading advocates, it does not, furthermore, content itself with merely antagonizing the arbitrary restriction of the commercial intercourse of a particular country with foreign countries for the purpose of stimulating or directing the domestic industries of the former; but regarding in the light of an economic axiom, the proposition "that that government is best which governs least," it also favors the restriction of the functions of government or the state to the narrowest limits consistent with the establishment and maintenance of liberty and order, the protection of life and property, the dispensation of justice, and the providing for the common defense and the general welfare of the people governed. Free trade, accordingly, embraces within the sphere of its opposition and condemnation a great variety of forms of economic interferences on the part of the state other than those pertaining to international exchanges, and of which the following—some happily now almost obsolete, but others still existing—may be mentioned as illustrations, to wit: the arbitrary regulation by statute (usury laws) of the price and loan of money, or conjointly and consistently (as in old times), the price of commodities.18 or (as formerly by guilds and statutes and latterly by trade associations) of the price of labor, or wages; all interference (as in England) with the free transfer and sale of land; and with the business of banking and dealing in credits, independent of the making and issue of currency; the proscription from office, business or pursuit by reason of sect or religious belief (as the present proscription of the Jews in Russia from agriculture); the continued payment by the state, from the proceeds of general taxation, of bounties, for the promotion of special domestic industries (as in the case of the beet root sugar manufacture in Europe and the French system of bounties on shipping); the inhibition (as in the United States) on foreigners from the investment of capital in American shipping; and the maintenance of navigation laws for the purpose of industrial and commercial restriction. These, and many other examples which might be cited, are all violations of the spirit if not of the correct theory of free trade; but as in the popular mind, and especially in the sphere of politics, the idea of free trade is associated almost exclusively with the freedom of international exchanges, any discussion of the subject for the purpose of affirmation or explanation from any other than this standpoint, is neither customary nor expedient, and will not here be attempted.

—The Relations of Free Trade and Protection. Free trade as an economic principle, or politico-commercial system, is the direct Edition: current; Page: [290] opposite to the so-called principle or system of protection, which maintains, on the contrary, that a state or nation can most surely and rapidly attain a high degree of material prosperity by "protecting" or shielding its domestic industries from the competitive sale or exchange of the products of all similar foreign industries; the same to be effected either by direct legislative prohibition of foreign commerce, or by the imposition of such discriminating taxes (duties) on imports as shall, through a consequent enhancement of prices, interfere to a greater or less extent with their introduction, free exchange and consumption. An explanation of either of the terms free trade or protection involves, therefore, a presentation of the arguments, based on theory or experience, which may be adduced in support of the respective economic systems of which they are the expressions, and a review of the premises of the one almost necessarily requires a conjoint statement of the claims of the other.

—Relation of Free Trads as an Economic System to Taxation and Revenue. It is also desirable to clearly appreciate at the outset of any explanation of the subject under consideration, the relation which "free trade" and "protection," regarded as economic systems, sustain to taxation and revenue; a point about which (at least in the United States) there is no little of popular misapprehension, which in turn has doubtless been often intentionally encouraged by a common assertion of the advocates of protection, that "the adoption of free trade as a national fiscal policy necessarily involves a resort on the part of the state to direct taxation as a means of obtaining revenue." The truth in respect to this matter is, however, as follows: The command of a constant and adequate revenue being absolutely essential to the existence of organized government, the power to compel contributions from the people governed, or, as we term it, "to tax," is inherent in every sovereignty, and rests upon necessity. The question of the obtaining of such revenue obviously, therefore, is the question of first importance in the economy of a state, the one in comparison with which all others are subordinate; for without revenue no governmental machinery for the protection of life and property, the dispensing of justice and the providing for the common defense could long be efficiently maintained. The soldier and policeman guard, while the laborer performs his labor in safety. So far, the advocates of free trade and protection fully agree. The former, however, maintain that in the exercise of this power the object of the tax should be rigidly restricted to the defraying of legitimate public expenditures, or, in other words, that taxes should be levied for revenue purposes exclusively, and that, subject to such limitations, the question as to what forms taxation had best assume—whether direct or indirect, tariff or excise, on incomes or property—becomes one of mere experience and expediency in every instance; preference being always given to those forms which involve the least waste, cost and personal annoyances in collection, which are most productive of revenue, and interpose the minimum of interference and restriction on commercial intercourse. Free trade as an economic principle is not, therefore, as is often assumed and supposed, necessarily antagonistic to the imposition of duties on imports, provided the end sought to be attained is simply revenue, and the circumstances of the state render such form of taxation expedient. Protection, on the other hand, on the ground of advantages accruing directly or incidentally, advocates and defends the imposition of taxes on imports for purposes other than those of revenue. Protection, therefore, to the exact extent to which it attains its object, is obviously antagonistic to revenue, inasmuch as revenue is received only on those commodities which come in, while protection is secured only when the importation of commodities is restricted or made difficult.

—A Tariff for Revenue with Incidental Protection. The adjustment of a tariff for revenue in such a way as to afford what is termed "incidental protection"—an idea much favored by American politicians—is based on the supposition that by arranging a scale of duties so moderate as only to restrict and not prevent importations, it is possible to secure a sufficiency of revenue for the state, and at the same time stimulate domestic manufactures by increasing the price of competitive foreign products. That the double object thus aimed at is capable of attainment can not be doubted, but that the project is also one of the most costly of all methods of raising revenue will become evident, if it is remembered, that while revenue to the state accrues only from the tax levied on what is imported, another tax, arising from the increase of price consequent upon the tariff on imports, will also be paid by the nation upon all domestic products that are sold and consumed in competition with such imports; and this latter tax, which will not pass into the public treasury, may, and probably will, be much greater than the former. A tariff for revenue so adjusted as to afford incidental protection is therefore a system which requires the consumers, who are the people, to pay much in order that the state may receive little. So little accustomed, however, are the people of the United States (in common with those of other countries) to reason on this subject, and so intentionally have they been misinformed, that indirect taxation of the character indicated, with its two-fold and unnecessary burdens, one seen and the other unseen, is almost universally regarded as far preferable to any more direct, simple and less onerous system. In this respect, therefore, the ideas of the people of the nineteenth century are analogous to those of the fourteenth, who regarded filth as undesirable mainly by reason of and in proportion to its sensible offensiveness, and who by ignoring its unseen and subtle influences, and resorting to perfumery rather than to sanitary measures as remedies, made sure of the coming and continuance of pestilence. On the other hand, when taxes Edition: current; Page: [291] under a tariff are imposed on imports which do not compete for sale and consumption with any similar products of the importing country, then in such cases the entire proceeds of the tax, less the expense of collecting, accrue to the benefit of the state, and no further unseen or unnecessary burden of taxation is made contingent. But very curiously, under the existing (1882) fiscal and economic policy of the United States, such articles—as for example, tea and coffee—have been especially selected by statute, for exemption from taxation on importation.

—What is a Tariff for Revenue Only? A tariff for revenue only is a tax on commodities brought from foreign countries, in order to secure revenue. It is based on the assumptions, that some indirect form of taxation is advisable, that the form in question is expedient, if not the best, and that the government should receive all the taxes paid by the people. It is levied in such a way as to carefully avoid all protection, and to bring into the public treasury all that accrues from the payment of the tax. The existing tariff of Great Britain is a revenue tariff, answering to this definition. Under this tariff, ordinary import duties are levied upon only six articles or classes of articles, none of which, it is assumed, are the product of the United Kingdom, viz., cocoa, tea, chicory, dried fruits, tobacco and wine. The other duties are levied to countervail excise or other inland taxes, which are imposed for purposes of revenue upon corresponding British productions; as for example, distilled spirits in various forms, malt liquors, gold and silver plate, playing cards, etc. Full details of the nature and amount of these "countervailing" tariff taxes may be found in the "Statistical Abstract" of the United Kingdom, published annually by authority. Under the operation of this tariff is constituted what is called "British free trade." It is not, however, absolute free trade in the sense that free trade exists in the United States between the different states and sections of the federal Union. With these preliminary statements, the essential points of the argument in favor of free trade, as contradistinguished from protection, may be stated as follows.

—The Highest Right of Property. The highest right of property is the right to exchange it for other property. That this must be so will at once appear, if it is remembered that, if all exchange of property were forbidden, or by circumstances rendered impossible, each individual would be assimilated in condition to Robinson Crusoe on his uninhabited island; that is, he would be restricted to subsisting on what he individually produced or collected, be deprived of all benefits of co-operation with his fellow-men, and of all advantages of production derived from diversity of skill or diversity of natural circumstances. In the absence of all freedom of exchange between man and man, civilization would obviously be impossible; and it would also seem to stand to reason that to the degree in which we impede or obstruct the freedom of exchange, or, what is the same thing, commercial intercourse, to that same degree we oppose the development of civilization.

—To Restrict Exchanges reaffirms the Principle of Slavery. Any system of law which denies to an individual the right freely to exchange the products of his labor, by declaring that A may trade on equal terms with B, but shall not under equally favorable circumstances trade with C, reaffirms in effect the principle of slavery and violates liberty. For certainly no man can be free who, by arbitrary enactment, is not allowed, in trying to exchange his product for another, to obtain all that the laws of value acting freely would give him; or who has some part of the product of his labor arbitrarily taken from him for the use and enjoyment of some other man who has not earned it. But this is exactly what slavery and a protective tariff alike do; only the one works openly, and the other covertly and indirectly. The argument that is generally put forth by the advocates of the policy of protection, in justification of legislation restricting freedom of exchange, or in defense of the pithily expressed proposition that "it is better to compel an individual to buy a hat for five dollars, rather than to allow him to purchase it for three," is, that any present loss or injury resulting from such restriction to the individual will be more than compensated to him, or to society, through some future and indirect accruing benefit. But it should be borne in mind that this is the same argument that has always been made use of in past times as a warrant for every crime against liberty; more especially in defense of slavery, in vindication of persecution by state or church for heresy or unbelief, for the establishment of state religions and enforced conformity thereto, and for all arbitrary restrictions on speech or the press. It ought not therefore to be a matter of surprise, that the intellectuality of this latter third of the nineteenth century, recognizing the antagonism of any other position to the great cause of human progress, should have ranged itself by an overwhelming majority on the side of industrial and commercial freedom, equally and for like reasons and motives as it has on the side of intellectual, religious and political freedom; that no man intellectually great by general acknowledgment, who has given any special attention to this subject, and who is not avowedly working in the interests of despotism, or private gain, can be pointed out in either hemisphere, that is not unqualifiedly in favor of removing speedily and to the greatest extent compatible with the requirements of governments for revenue, all restrictions on the commercial intercourse of both nations and individuals; and that there is not to-day a first-class college or institution of learning in the whole world which would admit or invite to its chair of political economy a person who theoretically believed in the theory or expediency of restricting exchanges as a means of increasing popular welfare and abundance.

—Unconstitutionality of Protection as a National Policy in the United States. Edition: current; Page: [292] In countries having a despotic government, there is no restraint on the adoption of any fiscal or economic policy on the part of the state. But in countries where the government is free, or based on the consent of the governed, and where the powers of the state are limited by a written constitution, or by the principles which are naturally inherent in, and essential to this form of government, it becomes an interesting question as to the right of such a government to levy discriminating taxes for the purposes of protection, or for purposes other than for defraying public expenditures, even though any injustice thereby done to the individual is more than compensated by some indirect benefit to the entire community. In short, is not this one of those acts of procedure on the part of the state which is antagonistic to the principles of a free government, and which, fully recognized and broadly carried out, will of necessity be utterly destructive of it? and in respect to which, as in the case of a tax to support an established church, or of a law compelling every man to help catch a fugitive slave, the dissent and resistance of even one citizen makes unjust any enactment authorizing such procedure? In the case of the United States this question has recently been considered and passed upon by its highest judicial tribunal, under the following circumstances: In 1872 the legislature of Kansas passed a law authorizing counties and towns of that state "to encourage the establishment of manufactories and such other enterprises as may tend to develop" such county or city, by the direct appropriation of money, or by the issue of bonds to any amount that the local authorities might consider expedient; and under this act the city of Topeka created and issued its bonds to the extent of $100,000 and gave the same "as a donation," a majority of voters approving, to an iron bridge company, as a consideration for establishing and operating their shops within the limits of the city. The interest coupons first due on these bonds were promptly paid by the city out of a fund raised by taxation for that purpose, but subsequently, when the second coupons became due and the bonds had passed out of the possession of the bridge company by bona fide sale to a loan association, the city refused to meet its obligations, on the ground that the legislature of Kansas had no authority under the constitution of the state to authorize the issue of bonds, the interest and principal of which were to be paid from the proceeds of taxes, for any such purpose as the encouragement of manufacturing enterprises. Legal proceedings to enforce payment were thereupon commenced by the bondholders in the United States circuit court, and judgment having been there given for the city, the case was appealed to the United States supreme court, where with only one dissenting voice (Judge Clifford) the judgment of the lower court was affirmed, the opinion of the court and the principles upon which it was based being given by Mr. Justice Miller. From this opinion attention is asked to the following extracts, reference being made, for the benefit of those who desire a more complete statement, to the report in full, 20 Wallace, pp. 655-668: "It must be conceded that there are rights in every free government beyond the control of the state. A government which recognized no such rights, which held the lives, the liberty and the property of its citizens subject at all times to the absolute disposition and unbounded control of even the most democratic depository of power, is after all but a despotism. It is true it is a despotism of the many, of the majority, if you choose to call it so, but it is none the less a despotism." * * * "The theory of our governments, state and national, is opposed to the deposit of unlimited power anywhere. The executive, the legislative and the judicial branches of these governments are all of limited and defined powers. There are limitations of such powers which grow out of the essential nature of all free governments—implied reservations of individual rights, without which the social compact could not exist, which are respected by all governments entitled to the name." * * * "Of all the powers conferred upon the government that of taxation is most liable to abuse. Given a purpose or object for which taxation may be lawfully used, and the extent of its exercise is in its very nature unlimited. This power can as readily be employed against one class of individuals and in favor of another, so as to ruin the one class and give unlimited wealth and prosperity to the other, if there are no implied limitations of the uses for which the power may be exercised. To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less robbery because it is done under the forms of the law and is called taxation. This is not legislation; it is a decree under legislative forms. Nor is it taxation. Beyond a cavil there can be no lawful tax which is not laid for a public purpose." * * * "It may not be easy to draw the line in all cases so as to decide what is a public purpose in this sense and what is not. But in the case before us, in which towns are authorized to contribute aid by way of taxation to any class of manufacturers, there is no difficulty in holding that this is not such a public purpose as we have been considering. If it be said that a benefit results to the local public of a town by establishing manufactures, the same may be said of any other business or pursuit which employs capital or labor. The merchant, the mechanic, the innkeeper, the banker, the builder, the steamboat owner, are equally promoters of the public good and equally deserving the aid of the citizens by forced contributions. No line can be drawn in favor of the manufacturer which would not open the public treasury to the importunities of two-thirds of the business men of the city or town."

—Here then we have, from the supreme court of the United States, Edition: current; Page: [293] a decision as recent as 1874, defining the limitation of the power of taxation "growing out," as it was expressed, "of the essential nature of a free government"; and which would seem to admit of no other construction than that taxation for "protection," or for the aid of private interests engaged in manufacturing or other business, is beyond the province of the legislative power of either the national or state governments of the federal Union; and when imposed, to use the exact language of the court, "is none the less robbery because it is done under the forms of law, and is called taxation." Other judicial authorities in the United States to whom weight is accorded, have also concurred in this opinion. Thus, Thomas M. Cooley, one of the justices of the supreme court of Michigan, and professor of law in the university of that state, in his work, "Principles of Constitutional Law," (p 57), thus defines the limits of taxation under the constitution of the United States: "Constitutionally a tax can have no other basis than the raising of a revenue for public purposes, and whatever governmental exaction has not this basis is tyrannical and unlawful. A tax on imports, therefore, the purpose of which is not to raise a revenue, but to discourage and indirectly prohibit some particular import for the benefit of some home manufacture, may well be questioned as being merely colorable, and, therefore, not warranted by constitutional principles." The question at issue has also formed the subject of review by the supreme court of the state of Maine, and the following are extracts from the opinions given by the members of this tribunal respecting the limitations on the powers of a free government to impose taxes: "No public exigency can require private spoliation for the private benefit of favored individuals. If the citizen is protected in his property by the constitution against the public, much more is he against private rapacity." "If it were proposed to pass an act enabling the inhabitants of the several towns by vote to transfer the farms, or the horses, or oxen, or a part thereof, from the rightful owner or owners to some manufacturer whom the majority might select, the monstrousness of such proposed legislation would be transparent. But the mode by which property would be taken from one or many and given to another or others, can make no difference in the underlying principle. It is the taking that constitutes the wrong, no matter how taken." "Taxation," said the chief justice (in giving an opinion adverse to the right of a town to grant aid, under a permissible statute of the state legislature, to a manufacturing enterprise), "by the very meaning of the term, implies the raising of money for public uses, and excludes the raising if for private objects and purposes. 'I concede,' says Black, C. J., in Sharpless vs. Mayor, 21 Penn., 167, 'that a law authorizing taxation for any other than public purposes is void.'" "No authority or even dictum can be found," observes Dillon, C. J., in Hanson vs. Vernon, 27 Iowa, 28, "which asserts that there can be any legitimate taxation, when the money to be raised does not go into the public treasury, or is not destined for the use of the government or some of the governmental divisions of the state." "If there is any proposition about which there is an entire and uniform weight of judicial authority, it is that taxes are to be imposed for the use of the people of the state in the varied and manifold purposes of government, and not for private objects or the special benefit of individuals. Taxation originates from and is imposed by and for the state." "Our government is based on equality of right. The state can not discriminate among occupations, for a discrimination in favor of one is a discrimination adverse to all others. While the state is bound to protect all, it ceases to give that just protection when it affords undue advantages, or gives special and exclusive preferences to particular individuals and particular and special industries at the cost and charge of the rest of the community."

—Free Trade Natural; Protection Artificial. The general result for which all men labor, is to increase the abundance or diminish the scarcity of those things which are essential to their subsistence, comfort and happiness. Different individuals are endowed with different natural capacities for making the various forces of nature and varieties of matter available for production. One man is naturally fitted to excel as a farmer, another as a mechanic, a third as a navigator, a fourth as a miner, engineer, builder, or organizer and director of society, and the like. The different countries of the earth likewise exhibit great diversity as respects soil, climate, natural products and opportunity. It would seem clear, therefore, in order that there may be the greatest material abundance, that each individual must follow that line of production for which he is best fitted by natural capacity or circumstances; and that, for the determination of what that line shall be, the promptings of individual self-interest and experience are a far better guide than any enactments of legislatures and rulers possible can be; and, finally, that the greatest possible facility should be afforded to producers for the interchange of their several products and services. So true, indeed, are these propositions, that mankind in their progress from the rudest and most incipient social organizations to higher degrees of civilization, invariably act in accordance with them, and, as it were, instinctively. Robinson Crusoe upon his uninhabited island and the solitary settler in the remote wilderness follow, of necessity, a great variety of occupations, as those of the farmer, hunter, builder, blacksmith, fisherman, tailor, and the like. But as rapidly as the association of others in the same neighborhood admits, the solitary man abandons his former diversity of employment, and devotes himself, more or less exclusively, to a single department of industry, supplying his want of those things which he does not himself produce, by exchanging the surplus product Edition: current; Page: [294] of his own labor for the surplus product of others' labor, who follow different industries. It is to be further observed that settlements in all new countries commence, if possible, in close proximity to navigable waters, so as to take advantage of natural facilities for intercommunication between man and man for the purpose of exchanging services or commodities; and that if commenced inland, one of the first efforts of the new society is the construction of a path or road, which will enable its members to hold communication with some other settlements or societies. Next, as population and production increase, the rude path or trail gives way to a well-defined road, the ford to a bridge, the swamp to a causeway, the pack carried upon the backs of men and animals to the wagon drawn by horses, the wagon to the railway car, the boat propelled by oars and sails to the boat propelled by steam, and finally the telegraph, annihilating space and time; all efforts and achievements having the single object of facilitating intercommunication between man and man, and removing obstructions in the way of interchanging human services and commodities. Free exchange between man and man, or, what is the same thing, free trade, is therefore action in accordance with the teachings of nature. Protection, on the other hand, is an attempt to make things other than nature designed. Free trade, or the interchange of commodities and services with the minimum of obstruction, by rendering commodities cheap, tends to promote abundance. Protection, by interference or placing obstructions in the way of exchanges, tends to increase the cost of commodities to the consumer, and thereby promotes scarcity.

—So instinctively and so universally, moreover, does human nature, when left free to follow its own instincts, repudiate every idea that there can be anything in the nature of a principle in the doctrine of protection growing out of the natural order of things, that it would probably be impossible to find a single sane person who did not consider it a privilege to satisfy his legitimate and rational wants at the smallest price, or the minimum of effort, and make haste to embrace the opportunity. Again, if a person says "he is not in favor of free trade," (by which is to be understood, in accordance with the definitions before given, the removal of all restrictions on the exchange of commodities and services, except such as governments after careful inquiry may deem it expedient to institute for the sake of revenue, or for sanitary or moral considerations) then it stands to reason, unless he utters words and cant phrases without any idea of their meaning, that he must be in favor of trade that is not free, that is, of restricted trade, or no trade at all; for there are no other alternatives. But does anybody know of any one who is not in favor of good roads and bridges, of swift and safe lines of railroads and steamships, of telegraphs and newspapers? But roads and bridges, and steamships and railroads, and telegraphs and newspapers, are merely agencies for effecting and facilitating the interchange of ideas and commodities; and it amounts to precisely the same general result, whether we make the interchange of commodities costly and difficult by interposing deserts, swamps, unbridged streams, bad roads or bands of robbers between producers and consumers, or whether, for the benefit of some private interest that has done nothing to merit it, we impose a toll on the commodities transported, and call it a tariff. A 20 per cent. duty may fairly be considered as the representative equivalent of a bad road; a 50 per cent., of a broad, deep and rapid river, without any proper facilities for crossing; a 75 per cent., a swamp flanking such a river on both sides; while a 100 per cent. duty and upward, such as levied on some articles under the existing (1882) tariff of the United States, may be compared in effect to the present condition of affairs in Central Africa, where the lack of facilities for movement, combined with insecurity for life and property, enhance the cost or price of transported commodities to the highest degree consistent with their entering into consumption, or act as a complete restriction. In all such instances, whether the obstructions be natural or artificial, the general result is the same, namely, there is a greater effort and an increased cost required to produce a given result, and a diminution of the abundance of the things which minister to everybody's necessities, comfort and happiness.

—Examples derived from the actual experience of the United States, will further serve to illustrate and enforce this argument. Upon the coast of Nova Scotia, within a short distance of the United States, there are coal mines of great value, which unlike any others in the whole world, are located so advantageously in respect to ocean navigation that, almost by the action of gravity alone, the coal may be delivered from the mouth of the pit upon the deck of the vessel. Now, for years the government of the United States imposed a tax on the landing of this coal within its territory, of $1.25 per ton. But if we assume that coal upon a well-managed railroad can be transported for one cent per ton per mile, the effect of this tax upon the people of New England and New York, who under natural circumstances would find it to their profit to use this coal, is precisely equivalent to the removal of these mines from a point on the coast of Nova Scotia, to a location 125 miles inland. And it would also seem to stand to reason that if the removal of these mines 125 miles into the interior was a benefit to the people of the United States, a further augmentation of their distance from the seaboard to 500 or 1,000 miles would be a still greater blessing, and that their absolute annihilation would be the superlative good of all. Some years ago an English engineer, Mr. Bessemer, devised a new process for the manufacture of steel. He did not claim to make anything new; he did not claim to make steel of a quality superior to what was made before; but he did succeed in showing mankind how to make an Edition: current; Page: [295] article indispensable in the work of production cheap, which was before dear. Immediately on the assured success of the invention, the advocates of protection in the United States asked congress to impose such a duty on the import of this steel as would, through a consequent increase of its price to American consumers in a great degree neutralize the only benefit accruing from the discovery and use of the new process, namely, its cheapness, and they succeeded in obtaining, and still (1882) retain, a duty that in a great degree accomplishes such a result. In the spring of 1880 the northwestern states of the federal Union experienced snow storms of unusual severity, which greatly impeded all means of intercommunication. From a protectionist point of view these storms could not legitimately have been regarded in the light of a calamity; for they afforded, in the first instance, occupation to a very large number of laborers in digging out the railroad tracks, who otherwise would have had to seek other employments, or perhaps have had none whatever. A large number of locomotives and cars were also injured; and somebody had to be paid for putting them again in order, which may be set down as benefit No. 2. And finally, for lack of ability to transport the commodities necessary for subsistence, the dealers in coal, provisions and other merchandise were enabled to dispose of their stocks at high prices, and so realized unusual profits. Or, in other words, they had created for them, by act of nature, an exceedingly profitable home market of precisely the same character as that which a high tariff creates. Of course, with such beneficial results, everybody ought to have been contented. But so far from this being the case, everybody regarded the condition of affairs in the light of a national calamity. The complaints were loudest in those sections where, by the unexpected restrictions on intercommunication, the discomfort and even suffering from the scarcity of useful things—food and fuel—was greatest; and the conductors of the newspapers of the country, following their instincts, and forgetting for a time their economic views, were unanimous in hoping that the serious obstructions to business occasioned by the snow (tariff) would not long continue. If, however, the people who had found profitable employment in shoveling snow, repairing broken machinery, and in selling the necessaries of life at famine prices, could have been consulted, they might possibly have been found in favor of frequent and long continued snow-blockades, and ready to denounce as unpractical theorists, unpatriotic, and even corrupt, all those entertaining a contrary opinion.

—From the above propositions and examples it would seem evident that the direct effect of a protective duty, when it is really operative, is to compel, on the part of the community employing such an agency, a resort to more difficult and costly conditions of production for the protected article; and also that when a community adopts the protective policy it commits itself to the indorsement of the principle that the creation and maintenance of obstacles is equivalent to, or the surest method of creating material abundance, and the development of natural wealth. But if this policy be correct, then the country "which is the hardest to get at has the most advantageous situation; pirates and shipwrecks contribute to national prosperity by reason of the increased price of freights and insurance; and improvements in navigation and railroads are injurious." Such conclusions would seem to be too absurd to require serious refutation; but that people of reputed intelligence and prominent station practically indorse them, is proved by the utterances and teachings of men prominently identified with the protectionist policy in the United States, where protection has been made for many years a prominent feature in the national fiscal system, and, as it is claimed, with success. Thus, for example, the late Henry C. Carey, who stands in relation to the modern doctrine of "protection" very much the same as the prophet Mohammed does to the religion of Islam, expressed the opinion, over and over again, that the interests of the United States—material and moral—would be greatly benefited if the Atlantic could be converted into an impassable ocean of fire, and also that a prolonged war between Great Britain and the United States would be of the greatest possible benefit to the latter country. Horace Greeley favored the imposition of a duty of $100 per ton (above 500 per cent.) on the importation of pig-iron into the United States, and referred to the statement as illustrating his idea of the kind of a tariff that this country needed; or, in other words, he favored the practical prohibition of exchanges with foreign countries. With consistency, also, he was opposed to internal exchanges of the products of labor, when the transactions involved any extensive transportation of the things exchanged. "When a railroad," he said, "brings artisans to the door of the farmer, it is a blessing. When it takes the wheat, the flesh, the corn and the cotton to a distant manufacturing centre, a locomotive is an exhauster; its smoke is a black flag, and its whistle is the scream of an evil genius." The university of Pennsylvania, which claims to rank among the first educational institutions of the United States, teaches, through its approved text books (in 1882), that "commerce between distant points is an undesirable thing"; that it is not expedient that the United States should have any foreign commerce; and that "if there were no other reasons for the policy which seeks to reduce foreign commerce to a minimum, a sufficient one would be found in the effect on the human material it employs." Again, in a debate in the United States house of representatives, in 1882, on a proposition to revise the consular system with a view of making its provisions less onerous to American shipping, one Hiscock, a representative from the great commercial state of Edition: current; Page: [296] New York, after admitting that the existing system was "complex and to some extent cumbersome," and "an obstruction to the importation of foreign commodities," declared himself in favor of its continuance, and solely for the latter reason. These incidents are here introduced, because they afford to one seeking information respecting the opposing theories of free trade and protection, a clear insight into the real animus of the sincere advocates of protection in the United States in the latter third of the nineteenth century; and further because unless they are put on record at a time nearly contemporaneous with their occurrence, they may, in the not very remote future, be regarded as incredible and fictitious.

—The Practical as contradistinguished from the Theoretical Rule of Free Trade. Such then, is a summary of the facts and arguments which can be adduced in support of "free trade," considered from the standpoint of theory, or abstract principle. These facts and arguments are in themselves so clear and cogent, and so thoroughly in accordance with common sense and natural human instincts, that it does not seem possible for a person of fair intellectual ability, who is not predisposed to despotism as a form of government, or whose mind at the outset is not warped by prejudice, to study and understand the subject thoroughly without giving his hearty allegiance to at least the theory of free trade. And it is the testimony of nearly all instructors in colleges and other institutions of learning where the subject is taught thoroughly, and personal inquiry and discussion is permitted and stimulated, that such is the experience of nine-tenths of their students; and that the other one-tenth would be also in the same way of thinking if they cared to think at all, or were not influenced by personal considerations. Furthermore, the advocates of the protective theory rarely attempt to meet the facts and arguments as here presented: neither are they willing to even discuss the subject from the purely theoretic or abstract standpoint. But they evade and shift the question at issue, by asserting that the industries of a country ought not to be defined or regulated by merely economic reasons; that other interests—political or social—which are peculiar to each country or nation ought and necessarily do come in, to materially modify the universal and undeviating application of the free trade principle. Or, as the chairman of a convention of protectionists which assembled in New York in November, 1881, popularly expressed it in his opening address, "We plant ourselves on protection as a matter of fact. The professors tell us that free trade is perfect in theory, but it can't be applied to us. It would not correspond with the facts." The same idea, but expressed somewhat differently, is also embodied in the assertions that are frequently made by protectionists in the United States, that there is no such thing as a definite system or science of political economy; that every nation, owing to differences in natural conditions and habits and customs, has necessarily a system of its own; that all talk about the independence of nations and the brotherhood of man is mere sentiment, and that historical experiences and reasoning from general principles amount to nothing. In short, it is proclaimed that every nation must have an economic system of its own, the result of its own wants and experiences, and that in the United States, as well as in all other countries, it is only necessary for the nation to determine what are its peculiar interests and pursue them, to do exactly right. It is not necessary to here discuss these assumptions and propositions further than to remark that nothing can be more absurd and unfounded than the assertion which to a certain extent has become popular (in the United States) that a thing may be true in theory and yet false in application or practice. A theory is simply an exposition of the general principles of any art or process; and if the exposition or theory is really true, then it must of necessity be true in its application or practice; and any one who asserts to the contrary simply uses words without any conception of their meaning. And as for the proposition that there is no such thing as general principles in economic science, but that every nation has a system of its own and determines its own economic laws, the legitimate inference and the one which protectionists accept, and of necessity must accept, is, that the drawing of an artificial arbitrary line on the surface of the globe and calling one side Canada and the other side Ohio, or one portion of territory the United States and the other England, of itself is sufficient to invalidate conclusions based on sound reasoning and careful experience, and make a course of action which is universally acknowledged to be a blessing in one case, a curse and a calamity in another. But for the purpose of facilitating this investigation and helping to speedily and clearly get at the truth, it is expedient to meet the advocates of the protective theory on their own ground; and to assume with them, that in any discussion of this subject of free trade, with a view of determining its correctness as an economic principle, and its value as a basis of any national policy, it is the deductions and results of actual experience and not of abstract reasoning, that alone need to be considered. To deductions and results of this character, accordingly, it is proposed to next ask attention.

—The Results of Specific Experiment. The largest and most complete experiment in free trade that the world has ever seen, has been made in the United States, and the results may be claimed to constitute an absolute demonstration of the wisdom of this policy and of the benefits that would accrue to the whole world from its adoption. We have here, at the present time of writing (1882), a nation of more than 53,000,000 of people, representing races most diverse in their origin, natural capacity and intellectual culture; inhabiting a country continental in its area, embracing almost every variety of climate, and affording the Edition: current; Page: [297] greatest opportunity for (as it indeed has) the most varied occupations and industries. The different states and territories into which this great country is divided differ among themselves in respect to wages of labor,19 prices of commodities, climate, soil, and other industrial conditions, as widely as the United States as a whole differs from any foreign country with which it is engaged in extensive commercial intercourse; and no case can be cited, or even imagined, which requires protection, on the protectionist theory, so much as the cultivation of the comparatively poor soils of the eastern states against the cultivator of the rich soils of the valley of the Mississippi, with the products of the two sections competing freely in the same markets. And yet the law which governs the exchange of all products and services in the United States is that of absolute free trade, and throughout the entire territory no internal taxes are levied by either the federal, state or local governments with a view of favoring any private interests or industries, or for any other than general public uses or revenue. Under such a state of affairs, the centres of great industries, the distribution of population and the conditions of domestic production and competition are continually changing, but, under the influence of natural laws working freely, no permanent social and economic disturbances, or interruptions to national growth and prosperity ever occur, while the people adjust themselves to any temporary vicissitudes with no more thought of complaining than against the vicissitudes of the weather. No protectionist, moreover, in the United States has ever thought it expedient to propose, in order to develop at the earliest period the growth of manufactures in the newer and poorer states, that these latter should be allowed to impose restrictions on the introduction into their territory of the manufactures of the older and richer states; or has ever ventured to publicly express a doubt, that within the geographical limits of the country, the greatest freedom of innocent production and trade should be accorded. And while the extension of these conditions of industrial and commercial freedom in any degree beyond the geographical boundaries of the United States is opposed by the protectionists as fraught with national disaster, there can not be a doubt, should Canada, Mexico and Cuba at any time peacefully become incorporated into the federal Union, that the industries of the United States would at once quietly adjust themselves to any new conditions, that the productions, the exchanges and general business interests of all the countries concerned would be speedily and greatly augmented, and that no objections to the proposed enlargement of their territory would be raised by the people of the United States for any other than political reasons—Experience of Great Britain. Between 1841 and 1846, Great Britain, under the leadership of Sir Robert Peel, definitely abandoned the theory and practice of protection, which for centuries had characterized her foreign commercial policy, and adopted the opposite policy of free trade with all the world. This result was not due to any change in popular sentiment proceeding from a better acquaintance with general economic principles, but from a realization, on the part of all classes of the British people, of the disastrous results which the recognition and practice of the policy of protection, during a period of many years, had entailed upon the country. These results Mr. Noble, in his work, "Fiscal Legislation of Great Britain," thus describes: "It is utterly impossible," he says, "to convey by mere statistics of our exports any adequate picture of the condition of the nation when Sir Robert Peel took office in 1841. Every interest in the country was alike depressed; in the manufacturing districts mills and workshops were closed and property depreciated in value; in the seaports shipping was laid up useless in the harbor; agricultural laborers were eking out a miserable existence upon starvation wages and parochial relief; the revenue was insufficient to meet the national expenditure; the country was brought to the verge of national and universal bankruptcy." Great Britain, therefore, it may be said, really adopted free trade under compulsion, and in face of the active opposition of some of her leading statesmen and the very grave doubts of not a few of her ablest financiers and economists. The repeal of the "corn laws" (duties on the imports of cereals), the test question, was denounced as being "inexpedient and full of hazard, injurious to all and ruinous to some, especially to the laborer and the artisan ruinous to the best interests of the country, the most pernicious measure ever presented to a British parliament, and a serious breach of the constitution." It was confidently predicted that it would "shake the social relations of the country to their foundation, subvert the whole system of society, throw great quantities of land out of cultivation, render it impossible for the government to raise taxes, would lower wages and reduce the laborer to a lower scale of life." Mr. Disrach, in the house of commons, gravely asserted that the tendency of free trade "was to sap the elements and springs of our manufacturing prosperity"; and, in the house of lords, Lord Stanley (afterward the earl of Derby) boldly predicted that "before many years elapsed, they would have the manufacturing interests of the country earnestly requesting the legislature to give them that protection that they have been so Edition: current; Page: [298] desirous you should withdraw from us." Never, however, in all history has any change in state policy been so magnificently vindicated by all subsequent experience; and of this the following is a summary of some of the more important results. Under the most stringent system of protection ever known in Great Britain the growth of British exports, commencing with 1805, was as follows: 1805, $190,000,000; 1825, $194,000,000; net increase in twenty years, $4,000,000, or at the rate of $200,000 per annum. Under a somewhat reduced protection as to manufactures, but with duties ranging from 20 to 30 per cent., British exports increased from $194,000,000 in 1825 to $237,000,000 in 1837, a net increase in seventeen years of $43,000,000, or at the rate of $2,400,000 per annum. During the next seven years, or between 1837 and 1842, there was no increase whatever. After protection to manufactures had been substantially abandoned in 1842, but while protection to agriculture and shipping continued, exports increased rapidly, namely, from $237,000,000 in 1842 to $289,000,000 in 1846, or to the extent of $52,000,000; a greater gain in four years of partial free trade, than had been achieved in thirty-seven previous years of protection. With further removals of restrictions on British exchanges—on food products in 1846, and on shipping in 1849—the increase in the value of British exports was rapid and continuous, rising from $289,000,000 in 1846 to the enormous figure of $1,432,000,000 in 1880. The total increase of British imports and exports, during the last thirty years of the full protective system, was, as nearly as real values can be ascertained, about $340,000,000. The like increase in the first thirty years of British free trade was $2,400,000,000, or ten times as large as under protection.

—The repeal of the navigation laws of Great Britain in 1849 was as strenuously resisted as was the previous abolition of duties on the importation of food products and manufactures. Free trade in shipping, it was confidently asserted, would ruin British ship owners, destroy domestic ship building, and drive British sailors into foreign marine service. Not one of these predictions was in any degree realized. Between 1816 and 1840, under the restrictive system, a period of twenty-four years, the total increase in British tonnage was only 80,000 tons. In 1848, the last year of the British navigation laws, the aggregate tonnage belonging to the United Kingdom was 3,400,000. In 1858 the aggregate was 4,657,000, an increase of 1,257,000 in ten years. In 1878 it was 5,780,000; and in 1880, 6,574,000. Previous to the repeal of the British corn laws, the wealth of Great Britain increased at a slower rate than population. Since 1849 the increase of the population of the United Kingdom has been in the ratio of about 33 per cent., while the national wealth, as tested by the income tax, has increased at the rate of 130 per cent. In 1841 the capital of British savings banks was $120,000,000; in 1880, $388,000,000. In 1850 there were 920,000 paupers in England and Wales; in 1880, notwithstanding the growth of population, there were but 803,000. In 1850 there were 51,000 convictions for crime in England and Wales; in 1880 there were but 11,214. But the most striking demonstration of the increased happiness and comfort that have accrued to Great Britain under free trade, is derived from the following table, which shows the average per capita consumption of the leading articles of food by her people in 1840 (under protection), and in 1880 (under freedom), respectively:20

—Experience of Belgium. The experience of Belgium is even more instructive. During the French occupation of this country under the First Napoleon, the protective system was carried out, practically and under military rule, to a degree rarely if ever equaled. Not only was the introduction of all foreign goods into the country strictly forbidden, but all goods of foreign production found within the state were seized and burned, and the persons concerned in their importation summarily and severely punished. The result of such a system was that when the Dutch reassumed the sovereignty, in 1814, the whole country had become desolated, and to a considerable extent depopulated. The Dutch, however, brought in a new fiscal and commercial policy, one cardinal feature of which was a limitation of duties on imports to 3 per cent. on raw materials and 6 per cent. on manufactured articles. Under this liberal legislation the principal manufactures of Belgium again sprang into existence. But a deep-rooted antagonism between the Dutch and the Belgians led to a separation of the two countries in 1830, when, mainly through a hatred of the old government and its policy, the previous free trade legislation was repealed, and from 1830 to 1855 high protective and discriminating duties were imposed on imports. But in 1851 the finance minister in his place in parliament declared that if this policy was continued it would prove the ruin of the whole system of domestic industry; and in 1855 the parliament and the people so fully acquiesced in his opinion that protection in Belgium was swept away at once and forever, and the duties on imports were arranged purely with a view to revenue. The general result has been to give to Edition: current; Page: [299] Belgium, comparatively, the position of the first industrial and commercial state of the world. With an area of territory of about 11,000 square miles, (that of the two states of Massachusetts and Connecticut), only one-half arable land, with a standing army on a peace basis—a necessity by reason of political relations—nearly double that of the United States, with a population (in 1876) of 5,336,000, and, apart from a few coal and iron mines, hardly any natural resources, Belgium maintains the most dense population in Europe; enjoyed a revenue in 1880, of $57,000,000 (of which only $3,600,000 was derived from customs); has the greatest diversity of textile manufactures, and consumes more silks than any other country; has the best managed and cheapest railway system in Europe; and a domestic export and import commerce that quadrupled between 1861 and 1870, and for the year 1878 aggregated $498,000,000 exclusive of $254,000,000 of transit exports and imports to and from other countries. If the foreign commerce of the United States were equal to that of Belgium in the ratio of population, its annual value (in place of being $1,613,000,000 in 1880) would have been over $4,500,000,000. The secret of these great results is due mainly, if not exclusively, to the circumstance that the custom house in Belgium is but a mere appendage to the excise department; and only about one-fifteenth part of the revenues is derived from duties on imports. "Those who allege that the industry and commerce of a state will not prosper if made free, must take upon themselves the burden of proving the following proposition: that the illiterate population of Belgium, occupying a limited area of half sterile soil, is less in need of protection and can work to better advantage in supplying the world with the most useful products of the so-called manufacturing industries, than the well-instructed population of the United States, possessing a boundless area of fertile soil." It may, therefore, be fairly claimed that practice and experience, more especially in the case of the United States, have established the practicability and desirability of free trade as an economic system or theory, by evidence which, for weight, uniformity, concentration and positiveness, is immeasurably greater than the evidence which can be brought for any other theory whatever.

—Results of the Policy of Protection. On the other hand, it is not possible to adduce any corresponding evidence, drawn from history or experience, in support of the wisdom of protection; and for the best of reasons, that there is none. Wherever protection has existed, economic history has been full of convulsions, contradictions and absurdities. No single clear and positive result has been produced. The modern doctrine of protection is an inheritance from the middle ages. "The restraint of production and trade was a policy which ancient civilization never adopted. The great statesman of Athens congratulates his audience on the fact that, thanks to the extended commerce of their country, they are as familiar with the use of foreign products as they are with those of domestic industry, and use them even as freely as the country of their origin does. The public opinion of Greece was profoundly shocked when, as a measure of political animosity, Athens excluded a Greek city, Megara, from its market." Prof. Thorold Rogers thinks that the origin of protection as an economic system is to be found in the so-called "mercantile system" of the middle ages, which was based upon the doctrine that wealth consisted solely in specie (money) or the precious metals, and therefore it was of the greatest importance that a government should secure as far as possible the greatest amount of specie within the country whose affairs it administered. International trade was the process by which the precious metals were distributed; and if such trade were allowed to freely exist, the attempts of government to restrain the exportation of money would be fruitless, and that natural impoverishment would thereby certainly follow. In the middle ages the principle that trade and commerce are mutually advantageous, and that after every fair mercantile transaction both parties are richer than before, was also not understood in Europe. On the contrary, the generally accepted theory among both nations and individuals in respect to trade was pithily embodied by an old proverb, "What is one man's gain must be another man's loss." Commerce, therefore, it was assumed, could benefit one country only as it injured some other. In accordance, therefore, with this principle, every state in Christendom, in place of rendering trade and commerce free, exerted itself to impose the most harassing restrictions on commercial intercourse, not only as between different countries, but also as between districts of the same country, and even as between man and man. "Country was accordingly separated from country and town from town as if seas ran between them. If a man of Liege came to Ghent with his wares, he was obliged first to pay toll at the city's gate; then when within the city he was embarrassed at every step with what were termed 'the privileges of companies'; and if the citizen of Ghent desired to trade at Liege, he experienced the same difficulties, which were effectual to prevent either from trading to the best advantage. The revenues of most cities were also in great part derived from the fines and forfeitures of trades, almost all of which were established on the principle that if one trade became too industrious or too clever, it would be the ruin of another trade. Every trade was accordingly fenced round with secrets, and the commonest trade was termed, in the language of the indentures of apprentices, 'an art or mystery.'" If one nation saw profit in any one manufacture, all her efforts were at once directed to frustrate the attempts of other nations to engage in the same industry. She must encourage the importation of all the raw materials that entered into its production, and adopt an opposite rule as respected the finished Edition: current; Page: [300] article. At the close of the sixteenth century England undertook the woolen manufacture. By the 8th of Elizabeth the exporter of sheep was for the first offense to forfeit his goods forever, to suffer a year's imprisonment, and then have his left hand cut off in a market town on market day, there to be nailed up to the pillory. For the second offense he should be adjudged a felon, and suffer death. At a later period, in the reign of Charles II., it was enacted that no person within fifteen miles of the sea should buy wool without the permission of the king: nor could it be loaded in any vehicle, or carried, except between sunrising and sunsetting, within five miles of the sea, on pain of forfeiture. An act of parliament in 1678, for the encouragement of woolen manufactures, ordered that every corpse should be buried in a woolen shroud. In 1672 the lord chancellor of England announced the necessity of going to war with the Dutch and destroying their commerce, because it was surpassing that of Great Britain; and even as late as 1743 one of England's greatest statesmen declared in the house of lords that "if our wealth is diminishing, it is time to ruin the commerce of that nation which had driven us from the markets of the continent, by sweeping the seas of their ships and blockading their ports." By the treaty of Utrecht, which concluded the great war of England and Spain against Louis XIV. and his allies, England being able to dictate the terms, secured the adoption of a section by which the citizens of Antwerp were forbidden to use the deep water that flowed close by their walls; and it was further expressly stipulated that the capacious harbor of Dunkirk, in the north of France, should be filled up and forever ruined, so that French commerce might not become too successful.

—With the progress of civilization, and the consequent diffusion of information, the arbitrary restrictions on trade above noticed, which were formerly so common in Europe, have almost entirely disappeared, and men now wonder that any benefit could ever have been supposed to accrue from such absurd and monstrous regulations. But the change to a more liberal state of things, though constant, has been slow, and the harsh policy of the middle ages, in the process of modification and extinction, has given rise to and is lineally represented by the modern policy of "protection," which, while clearly recognizing the inexpediency of interfering with domestic exchanges, regards foreign trade as something different from other trade, which it is for the interest of the state to interfere with and regulate. As in the case of free trade, there is no better way of testing and explaining this opposite policy than by considering the results of its specific and practical application; and to some of these it is proposed to next ask attention.

—The Experiment of Protection in the United States. While, as already pointed out, the United States have adopted absolute free trade, in the law governing their internal or domestic exchanges, they have at the same time, and more especially since 1861-2, applied and maintained the principles of protection to their foreign exchanges, with a degree of rigidity and on a scale of magnitude which has hardly any parallel in recent commercial history. This policy has now (1882) been in uninterrupted operation for over twenty years; and as the experiment has been made on a grand scale and under most favoring circumstances, it may, it would seem, be legitimately regarded as a test. The prime object, it will not be questioned, for which protection has been instituted and maintained in the United States, has been the development of the so-called manufacturing industries of the country, and the rendering of the nation industrially independent. That this result has not been effected under the protective policy, but that the economic movement in the above respects has been retrograde, admits of proof from data which are accessible to everybody who has access to the official records, and which does not involve the least resort to hypothesis. Thus, for all practical purposes, the exports of the United States may be regarded as made up of agricultural products and manufactures. She exports products of the sea, the mine and the forest; but the shipments of these are comparatively small in amount; and some of them are in manufactured form, so that in the comparisons it is proposed to institute, all non-agricultural products will be treated as manufactures; and making these inclusions, the following facts are revealed: 1st. that for the year 1879-80, 87½ per cent. of the total exports of the United States consisted of unprotected unmanufactured products—all agricultural except petroleum; and 2d, that the value of the manufactured products exported constituted a smaller proportion of the total exports in 1879-80 than they did in 1869-70, and that the proportion was also smaller in 1869-70 than it was in 1859-60. Or, to put the case differently, in 1859-60 the value of the manufactured exports of the United States constituted 17.5 per cent. of the value of the total exports. In 1869-70, after ten years of a high tariff policy, they had run down to 13.4 per cent.; and in 1879-80, after another ten years of like experience, they were further reduced to 12.5 per cent. During the same period the export of unmanufactured unprotected articles increased from a proportion of 82.3 per cent. of the total exports in 1859-60 to 87.5 of the total in 1879-80. On the other hand, the value of the imports of foreign merchandise, which was at the rate of about $10.80 per capita in 1860, increased to $11.21 in 1870 and to $13.36 in 1880. The increasing inability of American manufacturers under protection to command foreign markets is therefore demonstrated. It is not to be denied that the foreign commerce of the United States greatly increased in the thirty years included between 1850 and 1880; but a fair analysis of this trade will bring nothing of consolation to the believer in the efficacy of the protectionist policy as a means of national development. Edition: current; Page: [301] During the ten years from 1850 to 1860 under a tariff of low duties, the United States increased her exports of manufactured articles in the ratio of 171 per cent.; but during the next twenty years, or from 1860 to 1880, under a tariff called protective, the corresponding increase was in the ration of only 89 per cent.21

—A legitimate, but striking result of the inability thus demonstrated of the so-called manufacturing industries of the United States, to export their products to any considerable extent, has been to practically limit the market, or demand for them, to the domestic consumption of the country, and this, in turn, has prevented any enlargement of these industries corresponding to the increasing ability and desire of other nations to exchange or consume, and the increased facilities for effecting international exchanges. But with the great natural resources of the country, its rapidly increasing population, the increased use and power of machinery, and the energy of the people, the power of production in the United States tends to continually exceed the power of domestic consumption, and out of this singular condition of affairs there is a continual portent and frequent realization of stagnation of business, diminished wages and employment for labor, increasing pauperism and social disturbances. Two other practical and specific illustrations of the evil influence of the policy of protection in the United States are worthy of special notice. With a view of fostering the construction and use of ships, the protection of those branches of industry in the United States has been made for many years as absolute and complete as it was possible for the law to make it. No vessel of foreign construction can be imported, or participate in the coasting trade. No citizen of the United States can buy or acquire an American register, license or title to any foreign-built vessel. No foreigner is allowed to directly participate in the ownership or command of any American vessel. Materials used in the construction of ships intended for foreign trade may be imported free of duty. Under such a system the foreign commercial marine of the United States has been almost annihilated, as is shown by the circumstance that while in 1865, 75 per cent. of the total foreign trade of the United States was carried in American bottoms, in 1881 the proportion was only 16.2 per cent. The coasting trade, in respect to which no foreign competition whatever is permitted, has also declined. On the other hand, the shipping interests of other countries which have repealed the restrictions which navigation laws similar to those existing in the United States formerly imposed, have experienced a development during the corresponding period, greater than any other branch of industry, save that of railway construction and transportation.

—Another most remarkable illustration of the evil effect of commercial Edition: current; Page: [302] restrictions in limiting trade and industry, and consequently national development, is to be found in the history of the commercial relations between the United States and the British North American provinces. Thus, in 1852-3, in the absence of anything like commercial freedom, the aggregate exchanges between the two countries amounted to only $20,691,000. The subsequent year a treaty of reciprocity went into effect, whereby the people of the two countries were enabled to trade and exchange their products with little or no obstruction in the form of import duties. The result was, that the aggregate of exchanges rose the very first year of the operation of the treaty from $20,691,000 to $33,494,000, which subsequently increased, year by year, until it reached the figure of $55,000,000 in 1862-3, and $84,000,000 in 1865-6. In this latter year the treaty of reciprocity was repealed and restrictive duties again became operative. The result was, that the annual aggregate of exchanges immediately fell to $57,000,000, and in 1873, seven fully years after expiration of the treaty, when both nations had largely increased in wealth and population, the decrease of trade consequent on the abrogation of the treaty had not been made good. Again, the population of the United States consists, in round numbers, of 50,000,000; and these fifty millions annually make exchanges among themselves, through the agencies of railroads alone, and exclusive of all other instrumentalities of trade, such as ships, wagons, boats and animals, to the extent of over twelve thousand millions of dollars; or, in other words, every four millions of the population exchange commodities among themselves, each and every year, to the extent of considerably more than a thousand millions. It is true that much of this exchange represents the movement of the same commodity, backward and forward, over the same route, under different forms or conditions—as raw material or manufactured product—and that it is not all a direct movement between producers and ultimate consumers. But it is safe to assume that not one ton or one dollar's worth is transported a single mile except for the real or supposed advantage of the owner. On the other hand, the British North American provinces contain at present a population of about four millions, and as the geographical line which separates them from us is so artificial, that except where a river or lake has been named as the boundary, it is not easy to tell where one country begins and the other ends; and as they have the same wants and material interests that we have, speak essentially the same language and are not lacking in resources, energy or courtesy, it would be but natural to suppose that the methods and amount of trade over the whole territory subject to the two governments would be subject to the same influences, and that men and commodities would pass as freely between the two countries as they do between different sections of the provinces, or between the different states of the federal Union. But the United States, with a view of promoting national industry and development has for a long time established all manner of arbitrary and burdensome restrictions on trade and commercial intercourse along the artificial line separating the two countries; or, in other words, it has established a ridge right across the boundary line, difficult to overcome and with very few gaps in it. And the people of Canada, after remonstrating against this policy for a long time, and after repeatedly asking the United States to unite with them and demolish the ridge, and level down all the obstructions, have finally become disgusted with their treatment, and have concluded to experiment in the way of trade restrictions themselves. And the result has been that, in place of exchanging commodities annually to the value of a thousand millions of dollars, the total aggregate of all the exchanges—exports and imports—between the four millions of people in the dominion of Canada and the entire population of the United States was but seventy-seven millions in 1874; and since Canada has concluded to imitate the policy of the United States and have a commercial barrier or ridge of her own, this comparatively small aggregate has been further reduced, and amounted in 1879 to only fifty-six millions, or less than the exchanges of which the clearing houses could take cognizance in such cities of the United States, as Cleveland, Ohio; Memphis, Tenn.; or New Haven, Conn., during the same period. Here, then, is an annual loss of business, measured by the results of 1879, of some $940,000,000 between the two contiguous countries, one-half of which at least falls upon the United States, in consequence of the commercial policy adopted. Could the barriers be removed, how many wheels, engines, cars, spindles, looms, hammers and strong human arms would be put in motion, and how much greater would be the sphere of employment, enjoyment and abundance for the people of the two countries.

—In response to the arguments in favor of free trade derived from either abstract reasoning or specific examples, the advocates of the theory of protection (especially in the United States) submit certain counter arguments.

—The Argument of Extended Opportunities for Domestic Industry. It is claimed, with much speciousness and apparent fairness, that by prohibiting the importation and use of the products of foreign (manufacturing) industries, a demand will be created for a corresponding additional quantity of American products, and that this, in turn, will create additional opportunities for the employment of American laborers; and the results of their labor and expenditure remaining in the country, the national wealth will be thereby augmented; whereas if the same amount of labor and expenditure is diverted to, and takes place in, a foreign country, the result will be exactly opposite.

—In answer, now, to this, it may be said, 1st. That the amount of consumption in the two instances, and consequently the results of consumption, will not be the same; for Edition: current; Page: [303] whatever increases the price of a useful commodity diminishes its consumption, and, vice versa, whatever diminishes the price increases consumption. 2d, To admit the desirability of creating an opportunity of employing labor, through the agency of a tax on all consumers of certain articles, to do work that would yield to the same consumers a greater product of the same articles if performed elsewhere, or an equal product at less cost, is to admit that the natural resources of a country are so far exhausted that there is no opportunity for the truly productive employment of labor—an argument which, however effective in over-populated countries, can have no possible application in a new country like the United States, whose natural resources, so far from being exhausted, are yet, as it were, unappropriated and unexplored. Again, a tax levied in pursuance of legislative enactment for the maintenance of such labor is clearly in the nature of a forced charity, while the petitioners for its enactment answer in every particular to the definition of the term "pauper"—namely, one who publicly confesses that he can not earn a living by his own exertions, and therefore asks the community to tax themselves or diminish their abundance for his support. 3d, The only true test of the increase of national wealth is the possession of useful things in the aggregate, and not in the amount of labor performed or the number of laborers employed, irrespective of results. A tariff, from its very nature, can not create anything; it only affects the distribution of what already exits. If the imposition of restrictions by means of taxes on imports enables a producer to employ a larger number of workmen and to give them better wages than before, it can be accomplished only at the expense of the domestic consumers, who pay increased prices. Capital thus transferred is no more increased than is money by transference from one pocket to another, but on the contrary it is diminished to just the extent that it is diverted from employing labor that is naturally profitable to that which is naturally unprofitable.

—Protection in reality does not Protect. Herein, then, is exposed the fallacy of the averment that duties levied on the importation of foreign commodities protect home industry. It may be conceded that certain industries may be temporarily stimulated, as the result of such duties, and that the producers may obtain large profits by a consequent increase in the price of their products; but then, it is at the expense of those who pay the increased price, who are always the domestic consumers. To further make clear this position, the following illustration, drawn from actual American experience, is submitted: For a number of years subsequent to 1860, congress, with a view a protecting the American producer, imposed such a duty on foreign salt as to restrict the import and at least double the price of this commodity, whether of foreign or domestic production, to the American consumer. The result was, taking the average price of No. 1 spring wheat for the same period in Chicago, that a farmer of the west, desirous of buying salt in that market, would have been obliged to give two bushels of wheat for a barrel of salt, which without the tariff, he would have readily obtained for one bushel. If, now, the tax had been imposed solely with a view to obtaining revenue, and the farmer had bought imported salt, the extra bushel given by him would have accrued to the benefit of the state; and if the circumstances of the government required the tax, and its imposition was expedient and equitable, the act was not one to which any advocate of free trade could object. But in the case in question the tax was not imposed primarily for revenue, as was shown by the circumstance that imports and revenue greatly decreased under its influence; and the salt purchased by the farmer in Chicago was domestic salt, which had paid no direct or corresponding tax to the government. The extra bushel of wheat, therefore, which the farmer was compelled to give for his salt, accrued wholly to the benefit of the American salt boiler, and the act was justified on the ground that American industry, as exemplified in salt making, was protected. And yet it must be clear to every mind that if the farmer had not given the extra bushel of wheat to the salt boiler, he would have had it to use for some other purpose advantageous to himself—to give to the shoemaker, for example, in exchange for a pair of brogans. By so much, therefore, as the industry of the salt boiler was encouraged, that of the farmer and shoemaker was discouraged; and, putting the whole matter in the form of a commercial statement, we have the following result: under the so-called "protective system" a barrel of salt and two bushels of wheat were passed to the credit of what is called "home industry," while under a free system there were a barrel of salt, two bushels of wheat, and a pair of shoes Protection, therefore, seeks to promote industry at the expense of the products of industry; and its favorite proposition, that though under a system of restriction a higher price may be given for an article, yet all that is paid by one is given to some other person in increased employment and wages, has this fallacy, namely, that it conceals the fact that the entire amount paid by the consumer would "in the long run" have been equally expended upon something and somebody if the consumer had been allowed to buy the cheap article instead of the dear one; and consequently the loss to the consumer is balanced by no advantage in the aggregate to any one. "When a highwayman takes a purse from a traveler, he expends it, it may be, at a drinking saloon, and the traveler would have expended it somewhere else. But in this there is no loss in the aggregate; the vice of the transaction is that the enjoyment goes to the wrong man. But if the same money is taken from the traveler by forcing him to pay for a dear article instead of a cheap one, he is not only despoiled of his just enjoyment, as before, but there is a destructive process besides, in the same Edition: current; Page: [304] manner as if the loss had been caused by making him work with a blunt ax instead of a sharp one. Whenever, therefore, anything is taken from one man and given to another under the pretense of protection to trade, an equal amount is virtually thrown into the sea, in addition to the robbery of the individual"

—Influence of Protection not Permanent, but Temporary. A further conclusion, alike deducible from theory and proved by all experience, is that not only does protection to a special industry not result in any benefit to the general industry of a country, but also that its beneficial influence on any special industry is not permanent, but temporary. Thus, the price of no article can be permanently advanced by artificial agencies, without an effort on the part of every person directly or indirectly concerned in its consumption to protect and compensate himself by advancing the price of the labor or products he gives in exchange. If sufficient time is afforded, and local exchanges are not unduly restricted, this effort of compensation is always successful. Hence, from the very necessity of the case, no protective duty can be permanently effective. Hence, also, it is that protected manufacturers always proclaim, and not doubt honestly feel, that the abandonment of protection, or even its abatement, would be ruinous; and in all history not one case can be cited where the representatives of an industry once protected have ever come forward and asked for an abatement of taxation on the ground that protection had done its work. Under this head the experience of the United States affords a most curious and convincing illustration. Thus, in 1862-3, in order to meet the expenses of a great war, the government imposed internal taxes on every variety of domestic manufactures, and in accordance with the principles of equity imposed what were claimed to be corresponding taxes on the imports of all competing foreign products. Soon after the close of the war, however, when the cessation of hostilities diminished the necessity for such large revenues, the internal taxes were repealed, but in no one instance was there a protected manufacturer found who took any other position than that a repeal of the corresponding tariff would be most disastrous to his business. The tariff, as originally raised to compensate for the new internal taxes, was therefore left in a great degree unchanged. That the principle here laid down, of want of permanency in protective agencies, is furthermore admitted by the protected (American) manufacturers themselves as a result of their own experience, is also proved by the following striking testimony, forced out under oath before a government commission from one of the foremost of their number in 1868—the late Oakes Ames, of Massachusetts: Ques. "What, according to your experience, was the effect of the increase of the tariff in 1864 on the industries with which you are specially acquainted?" Ans. "The first effect was to stimulate nearly every branch, to give an impulse and activity to business; but in a few months the increased cost of production and the advance in the price of labor and the products of labor were greater than the increase of the tariff, so that the business of production was no better, even if in so good a condition, as it was previous to the advance of the tariff referred to."

—Will Free Trade tend to diminish and Protection tend to increase the Wages of Domestic Industry? Upon no one argument have the advocates of protection relied more, in support of their system, than the assumption that, if there were no restrictions on trade, the opportunity to labor created by protection and the results of the expenditure of the earnings of such labor would be diverted to other countries to their benefit, and to the corresponding detriment of that country which, needing protection by reason of a necessity for paying higher wages or other industrial inequalities, abandons it, or, to speak more specifically, it is assumed that if the United States were to adopt a policy of free trade, England would supply us with cotton and metal fabrications, Germany with woolen goods, Nova Scotia with coal, the West Indies exclusively with sugar, Russia with hemp and tallow, Canada with lumber, and Australia with wool; that thereby opportunity to our own people to labor would be greatly restricted, and the wages of labor be reduced to a level with the wages of foreigners. Specious as is this argument, there could not be a greater error of fact or a worse sophism of reason. In the first place, only a very small proportion of the United States are engaged in occupations that admit of being protected against the influence of foreign competition. According to the returns of the census of 1870—and the condition of things is without doubt comparatively the same now as then—12,500,000 persons were engaged in all occupations. These twelve and one-half millions were the "working and business men" and women of the country. Each of these "laborers" had to support, on an average, three and one-fifth persons. 47 per cent. of these were engaged in agriculture. 22 per cent. of them were engaged in "professional and personal services," which class includes unskilled laborers and professional men. 9 per cent. were in trade and transportation. 22 per cent. were in "manufactures, mechanical and mining industries." Out of all the productive laborers of the country, therefore, there were nearly four in other industries for every one in "manufactures." Taking the whole country over, therefore, four "working and business" men were affected injuriously by the taxes imposed on them in consequence of the national policy of protection, for every one who could possibly gain by them. It is also curious to note how few of the many products of domestic manufacturing industry can be directly benefited by a protective tariff. Anything that can be exported regularly, and sold in competition in foreign countries with similar foreign products, evidently can not be directly benefited by any tariff legislation, and in Edition: current; Page: [305] this category, and apart from our great agricultural staples, must be included our petroleum, turpentine and rosin; nearly all building materials and constructions of wood, including vessels; our products or gold, silver and copper; our stoves, tinware, shovels, axes, nearly all agricultural machines and implements, and most articles of common hardware; boots and shoes, and sole leather; coarse cotton fabrics, starch, refined sugar, distilled spirits and alcohol, most fermented liquors, wagons, carts, most carriages, harnesses, railroad cars, sewing machines, all ordinary confectionary, and the cheaper papers and paper hangings, photographs, picture frames, pianos, india-rubber goods, toys, watches, guns, fixed ammunition, newspapers, buttons, brooms, gas, clocks, and a great variety of other articles, not one of which, if the tariff was entirely abolished, would be imported to any considerable extent, and most of which, under free trade, would be manufactured and exported in vastly larger quantities than at present. But supposing the reverse was true; and that in consequence of the abandonment of the protective policy, large quantities of the commodities above mentioned should be imported from foreign countries, none of them will be given away to American consumers for nothing. Product for product is the invariable law of exchange, and we can not buy a single article abroad, save through the medium of something that must be produced at home. Hence the utter absurdity of that assertion which to protectionists seems pregnant with such dreadful meaning, namely, "that under free trade we should be deluged with foreign goods"; for if more should be really imported under a free trade than under a protective policy, then one of two things would take place: either we must produce more at home in order to pay for the new excess of imports, in which case domestic industry would be stimulated and not diminished; or, not producing more, we must obtain more in return, or, what is the same thing, a higher price for what we already produce—a result manifestly conducive to national prosperity. It would also seem to be in the nature of a self-evident proposition, that nothing under any circumstance can or will be imported unless that in which it is paid for can be produced at home with greater final advantage.

—Again, the favorite argument of the advocates of protection that, if trade is unrestricted and the people of a country, under the inducement of greater cheapness, are allowed to supply themselves with foreign commodities, the opportunities for the employment of domestic labor will be correspondingly diminished, is an argument identical in character with that which has in past times often led individuals and whole communities to oppose the invention and introduction of labor-saving or "labor-dispensing" machinery. But, to sift thoroughly this sophism, it is sufficient to remember that labor is not exerted for the sake of labor, but for what labor brings, and that human wants expand just in proportion to the multiplication of the means and opportunity of gratifying human desires. If the wages of a day's labor would purchase in the market one hundred times as much as at present, can any one doubt that the demand for the necessaries and luxuries of life would be increased a hundred-fold? If the people of the United States could obtain the products of the labor of other countries for nothing, could the labor of the whole world supply the quantity of things we should want? In short, the demand for the results of labor can never be satisfied, and is never limited except by its ability to buy; and the cheaper things are, the more things will be purchased and consumed. Nothing, therefore, can be more irrational than the supposition that increased cheapness, or increased ability to buy and consume, diminishes or restricts the opportunity to labor. If by the invention of machinery, or the discovery of cheaper sources of supply, the labor of a certain number of individuals in a department of industry becomes superfluous or unnecessary, such labor must take a new direction, and it is not to be denied that in the process of readjustment temporary individual inconvenience, and perhaps suffering, may result. But any temporary loss thus sustained by individuals is more than made up to society, regarded from the standpoint of either producers or consumers, by the increased demand consequent on increased cheapness through greater material abundance, and therefore greater comfort and happiness.

—Wages in the United States are, as a general thing, unquestionably higher than in Europe. The difference in rates between the United States and Great Britain, taking the purchasing power of money into consideration, is not at present very considerable, and not near as great as is commonly represented. From 1875 to 1878 wages in many departments of industry were higher in Great Britain than in the United States, and the tide of immigration, especially of skilled labor, notably rolled back. On the continent wages are much lower than in Great Britain; but British industry does not ask to be protected on account of this difference, but defies continental competition. On the other hand, the continental states that have recently adopted the protective policy have pleaded, as a reason, the necessity of guarding against the competition of the United States; while, very curiously, the comparatively high wages of Great Britain are put forward as the main reason for the maintenance of protection in the United States. The high wages paid for labor in the United States are due to two causes. 1. Owing to great natural advantages, a given amount of labor, intelligently applied, will here yield a greater or better result than in almost any other country. It has always been so, ever since the first settlements within our territory, and has been the main cause of the tide of immigration that for the last 200 years has flowed hitherward. Hamilton, in his celebrated report on manufactures, made before any tariff on the imports of foreign Edition: current; Page: [306] merchandise into the United States was enacted, notices the fact that wages for similar employments were as a rule higher in this country than in Europe; but he considered this as no real obstacle in the way of our successful establishment of domestic manufactures; for he says "the under takers8quot—meaning thereby the manufactures—"can afford to pay them." And that this assertion embodied a general truth will appear evident from the following considerations. Wages are labor's share of product, and in every healthy business are ultimately paid out of product. No employer of labor can continue for any great length of time to pay wages, unless his product is large. If it is not, and he attempts it, it is only a question of time when his affairs will be wound up by the sheriff. Or, on the other hand, if a high rate of wages continues to be permanently paid in any industry and in any country, it is in itself proof positive that the product of labor is large, that the laborer is entitled to a generous share of it, and that the employer can afford to give it to him. And if to-morrow the tariff of the United States was swept out of existence, this natural advantage, which, supposing the same skill and intelligence, is the sole advantage which the American laborer has over his foreign competitor, would not be diminished to the extent of a fraction of an iota. Consider, for example, the American agriculturist. He pays higher wages than his foreign competitor. In fact, the differences between the wages paid in agriculture in the United States and Europe are greater than in any other form of industry. The tariff can not help him, but, by increasing the cost of all his instrumentalities of production, greatly injures him. With a surplus product in excess of any home demand to be disposed of, no amount of other domestic industry can determine his prices. How then can he undersell all the other nations, and at the same time greatly prosper individually? Simply because of his natural advantages of sun, soil and climate, aided by cheap transportation and the use of ingenious machinery, which combined give him a greater product in return for his labor than can be obtained by the laborers in similar competitive industries in any other country. What has he to ask of government other than that it will interfere with him to the least possible extent? Take another case in point. Wages in England, in every industry, are much higher than in the continental states of Europe. In the cotton manufacturing industries they are from 30 to 50 per cent, higher than in France, Belgium and Germany; and an English cotton operative receives more wages in a week than an operative similarly employed in Russia can earn in a month. Now which of these countries has the cheapest labor? The question may be answered by asking another: Does England seek protection against the competition of the continental states, or is it the continental states that demand protection against England? In short, instead of high industrial remuneration being evidence of high cost of production in this country, it is direct evidence of a low cost of production; and in place of being an argument in favor of the necessity of protection, it is a demonstration that none is needed. Industrial products of every kind are made at the lowest cost by those who earn the highest wages, wherever modern machinery is brought in to aid in the work on their production; and this "bringing in" has been done to a greater degree in the United States than in any other country. 2. Wages are exceptionally high in the United States for another reason. The existing tariff imposes an average tax of about 40 per cent, on the whole value of imported commodities; and as these number some 2,000 articles and include almost everything that is necessary or useful to life, the cost of all such commodities, whether imported or produced at home, is always enhanced; sometimes greatly and to the full extent of the duty, and sometimes to a lesser extent, as when the domestic product is equal to the home demand, and domestic competition is severe. But if the American laborer is compelled thereby to pay more for his comforts and luxuries than his foreign competitor, he must have higher wages, or he will be at a disadvantage with him. If his wages are advanced to such an extent as will exactly compensate him for his comparative increased expenses, he is no better off relatively, having gained nothing on the one hand, nor lost anything on the other. But there being no fixed rule or standard for making such adjustments, the American laborer is almost always placed at a disadvantage. The tariff taxes are constant; their influence in increasing prices varies as a rule within narrow limits; they fall exclusively on consumption and are as certain as death. On the other hand, the prices of labor vary with the supply and demand in the domestic market. Whoever heard of a protected manufacturer making up his schedule of wages in advance, or varying it afterward, except on compulsion, according to the varying expenses of his employés? Let any one examine the census reports of the United States, and he will find that in her great textile and metal industries the amount paid for wages represents only about 20 per cent, of the value of the finished product. If, now, the American laborer uniformly received two dollars in wages where his foreign competitor received but one, and the value of the products of their labor was always the same, a tariff of 20 per cent, on the value of all competitive foreign imports would obviously fully compensate for any advantages the foreign manufacturer would have on the score of wages. But the wages of the American laborer in the industries specified are not 100 per cent, higher than are paid to the British laborer, who is his only for midable competitor, nor 50 per cent. The domestic manufacturer, however, says 20 per cent, protection is not enough, and demands and receives 40, 60, 70, and even 100 per cent, and upward. Now what does this excess represent? It certainly is not needed to compensate for any difference Edition: current; Page: [307] in wages, and the American laborer does not profit by it. Neither is it to be claimed that the domestic manufacturer does to the full extent; but it represents duplications and reduplications of taxes, an increased cost of raw materials and the instrumentalities of production, a misapplication and waste of labor; in short, a loss that really benefits no one. All tariff rates, both direct and indirect, fall on consumption and must be paid by the consumer in the increased price of the things he consumes; and the heavier these taxes are made by any sort of legislation of avoidable expenditures, the heavier will be the burden on the man who, from necessity, expends all or nearly all his wages in living, as compared with one who only needs to expend a part of his income for similar purposes and lays up a surplus for increasing his income. Hence, in place of there being any warrant for the assertion which is continually made that the American laborer is greatly benefited by the advance of wages which accrues to him under the protective policy, which imposes a double burden of taxation—one direct and visible, and the other indirect and not readily seen—no more efficient or cruel device was ever instituted for making the rich richer, and the poor poorer; and every dollar raised by the government by taxation for any other purpose than to provide revenue for its most economical administration, constitutes a heavier burden on the recipients' of small incomes or wages than upon any other class of the community.

—From these premises, therefore, the following reductions may be regarded as in the nature of economic axioms: 1. A nation or community can attain the greatest prosperity, and secure to its people the greatest degree of material abundance, only when it utilizes its natural resources and labor to the best advantages and with the least waste and loss, whatever may be the nominal rate of wages paid to its laborers. The realization of such a result is hastened or retarded by whatever removes or creates obstructions or interferences in the way of production and exchanges. 2. The exports, on the whole, of any country must and always do balance its imports; which is equivalent to saying that if we do not buy we can not sell, while neither buying nor selling will take place unless there is a real or supposed advantage to both parties to the transaction. 3. As a nation exports only those things for which it possesses decided advantages relatively to other nations in producing, it follows that what a nation purchases by its exports it purchases by its most efficient labor, and consequently at the cheapest possible rate to itself. Hence, the price paid for every foreign manufactured article, instead of beig so much given for the encouragement of foreign labor to the prejudice of our own, is as truly the product of our own labor as though we had directly manufactured it ourselves. Free trade, therefore, can by no possibility discourage home labor or diminish the real wages of laborers.

—Does Protection encourage Diversity of Industry? The averment that prohibition or restriction of foreign imports encourages diversity of domestic industry is answered by saying that when any trade can be introduced or undertaken for fiscal or public advantage, private enterprise is competent to its accomplishment. "To ask for more is only to ask to have a finger in the public purse." It may be possible to conceive of specific cases in which it might be politic for a government to give an advantage for a limited time and for a definite object. But protection, as an economic system, can not rightfully claim any support from such an admission, inasmuch as its demand is that the public shall be obliged to support all manufacturing enterprises upon no other ground than that they can not support themselves.

—Does Protection tend to cheapen Manufactured Products? Protection, it is alleged, has a tendency to make what are termed manufactured products cheaper. A very fit and cogent answer which has been made to this assertion of the opponents of free trade is, that if protection is to be recommended because it leads ultimately to cheapness, it were best to begin with cheapness. Another answer is to be found in the circumstance that not a single instance can be adduced to show that any reduction has ever taken place in the cost of production under a system of protection, through the agencies of new inventions, discoveries and economies which would not have taken place equally soon under a system of free trade; while, on the contrary, many instances can be referred to which prove that protection, by removing the dread of foreign competition, has retarded not only invention, but also the application and use of improvements and inventions elsewhere devised and introduced. Thus, referring to the experience of the United States, where the system of protection has in general prevailed for many years, it is a well-known fact that the department of industry which has been distinguished more than any other by the invention and application of labor-saving machinery is that of agriculture, which has never been protected to any extent; and for the reason that in a country which raises a surplus of nearly all its agricultural products for sale in foreign countries, it never can be. On the other hand, in that department of industry engaged in the primary manufacture of iron, which has always been especially shielded by high restrictive duties, not only from foreign competition, but also from the necessity of the exercise of economy and skill, the progress in the direction of improvement has been so slow, that according to the report of the geological survey of Ohio for 1872-3, there was hardly a furnace at that time in that great iron-producing state that could be compared with the best English furnaces in respect either to construction, management or product; many Ohio furnaces unnecessarily wasting one-fourth of the metal in the ore in the process of smelting.

—Is it profitable to effect a reduction of prices by artificially stimulating production? It is Edition: current; Page: [308] here pertinent to notice an idea adopted by a school of American economists or politicians, that it is for the advantage of a country to endeavor to effect a reduction of prices by the creation, through legislation or otherwise, of an excessive or artificial stimulus to production. That the creation of an artificial stimulus to domestic production—such as is almost always temporarily afforded by an increase of the tariff or by war, which necessitates extraordinary supplies—does have the effect in the first instance to quicken certain branches of production, and subsequently to reduce prices through the competition engendered, can not be doubted; but experience shows that in almost every such instance the reduction of prices is effected at the expense or waste of capital, and that the general result, in place of being a gain, is one of the worst events that can happen to a community. Thus, the first effect of creating an extraordinary domestic demand is to increase prices, which, in turn, affords large profits to those in possession of stock on hand or of the machinery of production ready for immediate service. The prospect of the realization of large profits next immediately tempts others to engage in the same branch of production—in many cases with insufficient capital, and without that practical knowledge of the details of the undertaking essential to secure success. As production goes on, supply gradually becomes equal to, and finally in excess of, demand. The producers working on insufficient capital or with insufficient skill are soon obliged, in order to meet impending obligations or dispose of inferior products, to force sales through a reduction of prices, and the others, in order to retain their markets and customers, are soon compelled to follow their example. This in turn is followed by new concessions alternately by both parties, which are accompanied by the usual resort of turning out articles or products of inferior quality, but with an external good appearance. And so the work of production goes on, until gradually the whole industry becomes depressed and demoralized, and the weaker producers succumb, with a greater or less destruction of capital and waste of product. Affairs having now reached their minimum of depression, recovery slowly commences. The increase of the country causes consumption gradually to gain on production, and finally the community suddenly becomes aware of the fact that supply has all at once become unequal to the demand. Then those of the producers who have been able to maintain their existence, enter upon another period of business prosperity; others agains rush into the business, and the old experience is again and again repeated. Such has been the history of the industry of the United States under the attempt to restrict the freedom of trade by high duties on imports, frequently modified. To use a familiar expression, it has always been either "high water" or "low water" in the manufacturing industry of the country—no middle course, no stability. What the people have gained at one time from low prices as consumers, they have more than lost at another by the recurrence of extra rates, and they have also lost, as producers, by periodical suspensions of industry, spasmodic reduction of wages, and depression of business. Meantime, the loss to the country from the destruction of capital and the waste and misapplication of labor, has been something which no man can estimate; but to which, more than to any other one agency, the present remarkable industrial depression of the country must be attributed. The illustrations under this head afforded by the recent industrial experience of the United States are very numerous, and are not surpassed in curious interest by anything on record in the whole range of economic history. The following will serve as examples: In 1864-5 it was found that the supply of paper of domestic manufacture was insufficient to meet the consumption of the country, and that the supply from abroad was greatly impeded by an unusually heavy duty imposed in time of war on its import. The price of paper in the country accordingly rose with great rapidity, and the profits of the paper manufacturers, who were then in possession of the machinery of production, became something extraordinary. The usual effect followed. A host of new men rushed into the business and old manufactories were enlarged, so that during the years 1864-6 it was estimated that more paper mills were built in the United States than during the whole of the twelve years previous. As a matter of course, the market became overstocked with paper, prices fell with great rapidity, many abandoned the business through inclination or necessity, and many mills and much machinery were sold for less than the cost of construction; while in the spring of 1869 the paper makers met in convention to consider the desirability of decreasing the production of paper—or, what is the same thing, of allowing their capital and their labor to remain unemployed—on account of the unprofitableness of the business. In October of the same year a storm of great violence swept over the northern portion of the country, and in the flood which followed, many mills engaged in the manufacture of paper were so injured as to be temporarily incapable of working. A leading journal in one of the paper-manufacturing districts, devoted to the advocacy of protection, in commenting on the effects of the storm, used this language: "There seems to have been unusual fatality among paper mills, but this disaster will work to the advantage of those who escaped the flood, and we doubt not that those that did stand will do a better business in consequence of the lessened supply"; or, in other words, the condition of this particular industry had become so bad-through the influence of a fiscal policy based on the theory of protection that the occurrence of a great public calamity, with a vast attendant destruction of property, had come to be regarded in the light of a public blessing.

—Again, at Kanawha, Virginia, there Edition: current; Page: [309] are remarkable salt springs, some of which furnish conjointly with the brine an inflammable gas, which flows with such force and quantity that it has been used not only to lift the salt water into tanks at a considerable elevation above the evaporating pans, but also to subsequently evaporate the brine by ignition under the furnaces; thus obviating the expense both of pumping and of fuel. During the war, in order to deprive the army and the people of the southern confederacy of a supply of salt, the springs in question, at Kanawha, were rendered useless by the federal forces; which fact, coupled also with the imposition of excessively high duties (over 100 per cent.) on the import of foreign salt, gave to the manufacturers of salt on the Ohio river such a market, that although the cost of manufacturing was nearly doubled, their profits for a time were enormous; salt that cost in 1868, at points on the Ohio river, twenty-three cents per bushel, in barrel, selling readily in Cincinnati for forty eight cents per bushel. The result was such an increase in the number of salt wells and furnaces on the Ohio river, and such an increase in the power of production, that the available market, deprived of the stimulus of the war, was upon unable to take but little more than one-half of the salt that could be produced. As was natural, the price of salt under such circumstances rapidly declined; and a struggle for existence among the manufacturers commenced. The furnaces built at war prices and based on insufficient capital were soon crushed out of existence; while life was preserved to the remainder only by the formation of manufacturers' association for permanently limiting production; and in order that such limitation of production and consequent breaking down of prices might not be interfered with, the Kanawha wells (the proprietors of which were not in the association), with all their advantages, were leased for a term of years at a large annual rental, called "dead rent," and all utilization of them suspended and forbidden. "Now had the duty on salt," writes one of the leading members of the association, under date of December, 1874, "never been raised above the present rate, I have no doubt that the capital invested in the business would have been more profitable, and that the waste of the large amount that has been uselessly invested would have been prevented."

—Laws establishing Protection necessarily unstable. One of the essential attributes of a just law is that it bears equally upon all subjected to its influence; and it would also seem clear that the general effect of an unjust law must be injurious. Now a system of law imposing protective duties must, in order to be effective, be partial and discriminating, and therefore unequal and unjust; for if a law could be devised which would afford equal protection to all the industrial interests of a nation, it would benefit in fact no interest by leaving everything relatively as before: or, in other words, the attempt to protect everything would result in protecting nothing. Any system of laws founded on injustice and inequality can not, furthermore, be permanent. The possibility that it may be further changed to meet the increased demands of special interests, and the instinctive revolt of human nature against legal wrong and partiality, continually threaten its stability. Hence, a system of industry built upon laws establishing protection through discriminating taxes can never have stability of condition; and without such stability there can be no continued industrial prosperity. On the other hand, one of the strongest arguments in behalf of freedom of trade is, that it makes every branch of industry independent of legislation, and emancipates it from all conditions affecting its stability other than what are natural and which can in a great degree be anticipated and provided against.

—Do foreigners pay, in all or part, the taxes upon imports? It is often asserted, by the advocates of protection, that a tariff on imports "obliges a foreigner to pay a part of our taxes." To this it may be replied that if there were any plan or device by which one nation cold thus throw off its burden of taxation in any degree upon another nation, it would long ago have been universally found out and recognized, and would have been adopted by all nations to at least the extent of making the burden of taxation thus transferred in all cases reciprocal. If the principle involved in the proposition in question, therefore, could possibly be true, no advantage whatever could accrue from its application. But the point itself involves an absurdity. Taxes on imports are paid by the persons who consume them; and these are not foreigners, but residents of the country into which the commodities are imported. A duty on imports may injure foreigners by depriving them of an opportunity of exchanging their products for the products of the country imposing the duty, but no import taxes will for any length of time compel foreigners to sell their products at a loss, or to accept less than the average rate of profit on their transactions; for no business can permanently maintain itself under such conditions. Where a nation possesses a complete monopoly of an article, as is the case of Peru in respect to guano, and to a great extent with China in the case of tea, the monopoly always obtains the highest practicable price for its commodity, and the persons who find its use indispensable are obliged to pay the prescribed prices. The imposition of a tax on the importation of such a commodity into a country may compel the monopoly, for the sake of retaining a market, the reduce its prices proportionally; and in such cases the nation imposing the impost may to a degree share the profit of the monopoly. But the price to the consumers is not diminished by reason of the import duty, and the cases in which any interest has such a complete control over the supply of a product as to enable it arbitrarily to dictate prices, are so rare as hardly to render them worthy of serious Edition: current; Page: [310] consideration in an economic argument.

—The Peace and War Argument. Another powerful argument in favor of free trade between nations is, that of all agencies it is the one most conducive to the maintenance of international peace and to the prevention of wars. The restriction of commercial intercourse among nations tends to make men strangers to each other, and prevents the formation of that union of material interests which creates and encourages in men a disposition to adjust their differences by peaceful methods rather than by physical force. On the other hand, it requires no argument to prove that free trade in its fullest development tends to make men friends rather than strangers, for the more they exchange commodities and services the more they become acquainted with and assimilated to each other; whereby a feeling of inter-dependence and mutuality of interest springs up, which, it may be safely assumed, does more to maintain amicable relations between them than all the ships of war that ever were built or all the armies that ever were organized.

—Of the truth of this the experience of England and the United States in respect to the Alabama claims is a striking example. The moral and religious sentiments of the people of the two countries undoubtedly contributed much to restrain the belligerent feelings that existed previous to the reference of the claims to arbitration; but a stronger restraining element than all, and one underlying and supporting the moral and religious influences, was a feeling among the great body of the people of the two nations that war, as a mere business transaction, "would not pay"; and that the commerce and trade of the United States and Great Britain are so interlinked and interwoven that a resort to arms would result in permanent and incalculable impoverishment to both countries.

—One argument, however, in favor of protection, which is said to take stronger hold on the popular mind than almost any other, is the asserted necessity of artificially stimulating by legislation all manner of domestic industries, in order that the country may not be dependent on other nations for martial requisites in case of possible foreign war. The first answer to this averment is, that whatever may have been our condition heretofore, the power of production at present in the United States is so great, so varied, and so permanently established, that it is hardly possible to conceive of a contingency in which the nation would be inconvenienced by a deficiency of any material requisite for the carrying on of war, with the exception of the two commodities, gold and saltpetre; and it will not be pretended by any one that the domestic supply of either of these articles can be advantageously increased by restricting their importation. Second, with a vigorous, patriotic population, especially if the same be supplemented, as in the case of England and the United States, with favorable natural conditions for defense, that nation, under our present civilization, will be most invulnerable in war which can incur and sustain the greatest and longest-continued expenditure, or which, in other words, is possessed of the greatest national wealth. But national wealth increases in a ratio proportioned to the removal of obstacles in the way of the development of trade, commerce, and all productive industries, whether such obstacles be in the nature of an imperfect education of the people, or in the nature of bad roads, high mountains, impenetrable forests, trackless deserts, popular prejudices, or legal commercial restrictions, which impede a free interchange of commodities and services. In support of these positions two historical illustrations may be cited as evidence. During the late civil war, the confederate states, although deficient in almost all the so-called manufacturing industries, with a population trained almost exclusively to agriculture, and with all their main lines of intercommunication with the external world blockaded, nevertheless managed to obtain at all times adequate military supplies for conducting great campaigns so long as they were able to pay for them, and finally succumbed to the financial rather than to the physical power of their antagonists. Upon this same point the example of Holland is also most instructive. From the commencement of their existence as a nation, the Dutch not only made their country an asylum for the oppressed of all nations, but they took especial care that their trade, industries, and all commercial exchanges should be "unfettered, unimpeded, and unlegislated upon," and this too while all the rest of the civilized world adopted a diametrically opposite policy. The result was that, though possessing a most restricted territory (about four hundred thousands acres of arable land) and a limited population (less than two millions), they not only maintained their independence against the combined hosts of Spain, France and Germany, but for a time became the dominant naval power of the world. Though not raising a bushel of wheat, Holland became the best place for Europe to buy grain; though she did not posses an acre of forests, there was always more and better timber to be obtained in her ports than elsewhere; and though she smelted no iron, and did not raise a "sheaf of hemp," her fleets became the best that sailed the seas; and all because, to use the words of one of her statesmen (Cornelius DeWitt, 1745), "she had the wealth to pay for these commodities," and possessed with wealth because trade and all exchange were felt unimpeded.

—Why Free Trade is not immediately and universally accepted and adopted. But the question here naturally arises, if the above propositions in favor of free trade are correct, and if the doctrine of protection is as false and injurious as it is represented to be, how happens it that free trade does not at once meet with universal acceptance? and how is the adherence of many men of clear intellect and practical experience to the opposite doctrine to be accounted for? One of the best answers to these questions was given by the celebrated Edition: current; Page: [311] French economist, Bastiat, in an article written many years ago, entitled "That which is Seen and That which is not Seen," in which he showed that protection is maintained mainly by a view of what the producer gains and a concealment of what the consumer loses; and that if the losses of the million were as patent and palpable as the profits of the few, no nation would tolerate the system for a single day. Protection accumulates upon a single point the good which it effects, while the evil which it inflicts is infused throughout the community as a whole. The first result strikes the eye at once; the latter requires some investigation to become clearly perceptible. Mankind also divide themselves into twoclasses—producers and consumers, buyers and sellers. The interest of producers and sellers is that prices shall be high, or that there shall be scarcity; the interest of consumers and buyers is that prices shall be low, or that there shall be abundance. Every person will at once admit that it is for the general interest that there shall be abundance, rather than scarcity. But in the case of individuals controlling large agencies for production, their interest as producers and sellers of large quantities of commodities may be made greater than their interest as consumers, if by the aid of legislation the price of what they produce can be raised, by discriminating laws, disproportionately over what they consume, or to the cost of production. Men of this class are generally rich beyond the average of the community, and therefore influential in controlling legislation and in determining fiscal policies; and it is but natural that in so doing they should consult their own interests rather than the interests of the masses.

—It is not generally known that Adam Smith, after writing his unanswerable argument in favor of free trade in his "Wealth of Nations," closed the discussion with an expression of opinion that to expect that freedom of trade would ever prevail in Great Britain would be as absurd as to expect that Utopia would ever be there established; and he assigns as the main reason for his opinion "the private interests of many individuals who irresistibly oppose it," and whose influence he declared could not be overcome. And he draws this picture of the danger which threatened any individual who attempts to oppose the claims of the manufacturers, which all must recognize as equally applicable to the present situation. "The member of parliament," he says, "who supports every proposal for strengthening monopoly, is sure to acquire great reputation for understanding trade, but also great popularity and influence with an order of men whose members and wealth render them of great importance. If he opposes them, on the contrary, and, still more, if he have authority enough to be able to thwart them, neither the most acknowledged probity, nor the highest rank, nor the greatest public services, can protect him from the most infamous abuse and detraction, from personal insults, nor sometimes from real danger arising from the influence of furious and disappointed monopolists." It is happily true that Adam Smith's anticipations were not realized, and that his teachings largely contributed to a different result. But it is equally true that this result would have been greatly delayed in Great Britain had not reform been necessary to prevent revolution on the part of a starving, discontented people, made hungry and discontented by restrictions on trade, which in turn made food dear and employment scarce.

—In the United States the greatest obstacle to the adoption of free trade, in common with many other economic reforms—such as pertain to currency, banking, bankrupt laws, local taxation, and the like—has been the continued and remarkable prosperity of the country, consequent, not upon legislation, but upon the utilization by the people of their great natural resources, their energy, their skill in the invention and use of labor-saving machinery, and the continued influx of the capital and population of other countries. These conditions have in times past made the people of the United States so indifferent to influences and results which in almost any other country would have been pregnant with national disaster, that the nation at large may be said to have actually preferred to endure many economic evils rather than devote time to their consideration, and meet the political issues contingent upon attempted change or reformation. One striking illustration of this state of affairs is to be found in the matter of the loses through the destruction of property by fire, in the United States. These losses exceed, comparatively and absolutely, those experienced in any other country, and at present exceed on an average $100,000,000 per annum. If products of the various industries of the different states could be gathered in quantities sufficient to represent this valuation—for example, in the form of cloths, furniture, boots and shoes, cotton, corn, wheat, tobacco, and the like—and the same be publicly and arbitrarily burned, the universal sentiment would be one of horror, and that the nation could not annually endure such a calamity of loss. But as it is, the masses of the people are absolutely indifferent to the subject, and do not care to be informed.

—For further information on the subject of free trade, reference may be made to the following publications. Bastiat's Sophisms of the Protectionists; Grosvenor. Does Protection Project? Prof. W. G. Sumner, Lectures on the History of Protection in the United States; Fawcett, Free Trade and Protection; Thompson, A Catechism of the Corn laws London (scarce); Horace White, The Tariff Question; Reports of the Special Commissioner of the Revenue of the United States, 1865-70; J.S. Moore, The Parsee Letters, and Friendly Sermons to the Protectionist Manufacturers of the United States; Lieber, Notes on the Fallacies Peculiar to American Protectionists; and the various treatises on political economy by Perry, Walker, J.S. Mill, Macleod, Cairnes, etc. [Compare the article PROTECTION in this Cyclopædia;, Edition: current; Page: [312] vol. iii., in which the argument for the protective system will be found. ED.]

FRELINGHUYSEN

FRELINGHUYSEN, Theodore, was born at Milltown, N.J., March 28, 1787, and died at New Brunswick, N.J., April 12, 1862. He was graduated at Princeton in 1804, was admitted to the bar in 1808, served as United States senator 1829-33, was chancellor of New York university 1839-50, and president of Rutgers college 1850-62. He was the candidate of the whig party of vice-president in 1844.

—See Chambers' Memoirs of Frelinghuysen.

FRÉMONT

FRÉMONT, John Charles, was born at Savannah, Ga., Jan.21, 1813, was graduated at Charleston college in 1830, and entered the army as second lieutenant in 1838. He distinguished himself in the Mexican war (see ANNEXATIONS, IV.), and in the exploration of the Rocky mountains 1848-53, was United States senator from California (free-soil) 1851-3 and was the republican candidate for president in 1856. In 1864 he was nominated for president by the "radical men" of the republican party at Cleveland, but declined in favor of Lincoln. He was a major general of volunteers 1861-3, and is now (1881) governor of the territory of Arizona.

—See Bigelow'sLife of Frémont; Savage's Representative Men,273; Upham'sLife of Frémont; 9Atlantic Monthly.

FRONTIERS

FRONTIERS. The European system of balance of power places among the first elements of peace an equalization as perfect as possible of the territories and forces of the different states, thus condemning invasion of frontiers and conquest. Grotius (in book iii., chap. xv.) advises the state against too great an extension of territory. Vattel (book ii., chap. vii.) says that the frontiers of states should be carefully settled, since the least usurpation of foreign territory is unjust. Montesquieu (book ix., chap. vi.) writes of the defensive force of states as follows; "To have proper power a state must be of such size that there shall be due proportion between the rapidity with which an enterprise undertaken against it may be executed and the promptitute with which the state can baffle this attack." Among the laws of Numa is one which prohibits all shedding of blood at the sacrifices to the god Terminus; thus showing, says Plutarch, that there is nothing more efficacious in securing quiet and undisturbed peace than to remain within one's own boundaries, not to be obeyed, which amounts to saying that Numa directed men not to struggle for boundaries—a command just enough, perhaps, from the point of view of attack, but of little value when there is question of defense, and singular enough to find in the beginning of Roman society.

—Thus legislators and publicists, for different reasons, but reasons drawn from the independence of nations and the preservation of states, from sentiments of justice and the need of peace, have laid down as a principle the inviolability of frontiers, adding that to secure it in every way frontiers should not be too greatly extended. An excellent maxim for the recognition of this inviolability is in reality respect for the property of others. Inviolability of conscience, inviolability of domicile, inviolability of frontiers: these three principles flow successively from each other, and are the first sign and the greatest characteristic of civilization—A definitely marked and respected frontier is, with independence, the first condition of existence for a state. Grotius who had laid down the best principles on this subject, and Vattel who had developed Grotius at length, have both sought the surest rules for determining the frontiers of countries. Both these writers are most occupied with defensive frontiers, such as mountains, lakes, rivers, streams and the sea, which Grotius calls natural and sufficient boundaries. But these limits which seem to present most security still offer many subjects of quarrel between bordering states. The following are the principal rules laid down in this regard by the authors whom we have just named: If there is a river or a stream between two states, the boundary is in the middle of this river or stream, unless the first occupant had obtained possession of the entire watercourse and had made his exclusive right recognized by the people subsequently established on the opposite bank. Otherwise it is acknowledged that the two states bordering on the river meant to take the middle of the stream as frontier. In whatever way a navigable river is owned, navigation should be free for states on both banks; each has the right to erect defensive works, but is not allowed to construct any industrial establishments which may throw the current of the water toward the other side. If the stream makes alluvial deposits on one of its banks, this increase is to the profit of the favored side, without the middle of the river ceasing to serve as frontier. But in case of avulsion, that is to say, if an important portion of territory be torn away by the river which then flows over a certain extent of this invaded territory, the first proprietor retains his right to this piece of his property always recognizable, the river belongs to him altogether in so far as it occupies the place of the detached piece of land, and the middle of the old bed continues to serve as frontier. The same rules are applicable to lakes; the alluvial deposits are to the profit of the neighbor to whom the movement of the water brings them; but if the lake should enter into some valley and form a gulf there, the frontier line drawn through the lake in its old bed is not thereby displaced, and the gulf belongs altogether to the country where it is found. The course of a stream or river flowing from a lake may not be obstructed at its issue by the proprietor of the territory where the lake ends. This would be to expose the inhabitants along the higher banks of the lake of suffer from high water thrown Edition: current; Page: [313] back on their shores by too high a dam. On the other hand, the proprietor of the lower country might be exposed to serious damage by too abundant and rapid a flow of water. It is for the states menaced by these various dangers to agree to guard against them. The sea belongs to all nations, and a frontier line could not be determined anywhere as in lakes and rivers. Still, Bodin, in his "Republic," tried to establish as a principle that the ownership of each coast power extends over the open sea to a distance of thirty leagues from land. But to give this right a real existence it would be necessary for nations to recognize and enforce it. But their coasts, with the bays, roadsteads, ports and all the rights of fishing, salt works and establishments for commerce, industry and defense, belong naturally and indisputably to maritime countries. Straits which serve to connect two seas are considered free by right. They are declared common property like the open sea, and are not to be closed nor interfered with; in one word, they are not to belong in any way to any particular people. In 1667, when the United Provinces recognized implicitly in England, in accordance with her claims in the treaty of Breda, the sovereignty of the seas which surrounded her, by recognizing as of right particular honors to the English flag, Louis XIV, was formally opposed to naming the straits the English channel.

—Such are the most important principles established by publicists of authority concerning defensive frontiers. As to other boundaries we must appeal to the general principle recommended by Vattel, that too much care can not be shown in fixing boundaries. In fact, whenever this precaution has not been taken there have remained between neighboring states secret causes of misunderstanding which sooner or later produce their fatal effects. Vattel remarked that in consequence of not having followed this principle scrupulously in the treaty of Utrecht, France and England entered afterward into a disastrous war on the question of the boundaries of their respective possessions in America. In the nineteenth century a certain number of disputed boundaries have been settled or decided by arbitration, as, for example, in 1872, the ownership of the isle of San Juan near Vancouver's island, which had been in dispute since 1846.

—After having secured the safety of the nation, frontiers should not become a barrier separating it from the rest of the world and preventing its development. From this point of view they are becoming more and more effaced every day. Treaties of commerce and navigation, the need which each people feels of things lacking in its own country and abounding in others, the communication of ideas, and the diffusion of knowledge, all impel men to go out of their own country; and railways, steam navigation and telegraphs constrain them to open their frontiers at a thousand points in order to obtain free access to each other.

FRONTIERS

FRONTIERS, Natural. Natural frontiers is an expression which geography has lent to politics, and which should have its place in the history of the political ideas of our century.

—Forty of fifty years ago the system of natural frontiers was very warmly debated. It was pretended that geography itself and determined the limits of states, that mountains and rivers were limits established by nature to determine the question of property between nations. The natural boundaries of France, for example, were the Pyrenees, the Alps and the Rhine; she had then a right to take possession of Belgium, and of the left bank of the Rhine as far as its mouth. This was no usurpation on her part; it was the application of a principle of natural right. That is the manner in which under the empire and again also under the restoration it was the duty of every good Frenchman to understand geography. It is true that on the other side of the Rhine geography was not understood in the same way. The Rhine, instead of being a river forming the boundary between France and Germany, was a river entirely German, and its valley itself, from its source to its mouth, was also entirely German. Alsace by this claim should belong to Germany; France should stop at the Vosges. Lorraine itself, according to some geographical line of other, less visible upon the map than the Vosges are, should also belong to Germany. Its two principal rivers, the Moselle and the Meuse, run toward the Rhine.

—It is a curious thing, but I have never seen a single nation which, by virtue of the system of natural frontiers, has dreamt of restricting its possessions and its limits. It is always for the purpose of extending its empire that each nation studies in geography its natural boundaries. It places them always beyond its territory, never within it.

—Hence the doubts which I have had for a long time concerning the excellence of the system of natural frontiers; not that I pretend absolutely that there are no natural limits. I willingly recognize that the Mediterranean on south and the ocean on the west are the natural limits of France. Do these natural frontiers prevent her from possessing, by a very good title, Algeria? Did not England, during the hundred years war, posses, despite her natural frontiers, a great portion of France? And how many different countries does she still possess beyond the seas! Where are then the natural frontiers of England? Try to confine her within them. What does this expression mean which admits of such different applications? Must this system be regarded as an old discredited theory, and worthy of the discredit into which it has fallen? Must it be believed that there are only political frontiers, determined by the varying law of treaties, and dependent upon the chances of war? Have only the workings of force and of hazard a share in the destiny of nations? Had not geography also its influence?

—I grant that there are upon the surface of the earth places more or less great in extent, which seem separated Edition: current; Page: [314] from each other by seas, mountains and rivers, and which form, thanks to these boundaries, distinct domains. Nations willingly occupy these distinct domains, calling them their countries. But we must not believe that these countries are territories always having the same extent and the same configuration. There are ordinarily upon the confines of these domains, more or less separated from each other, more or less clearly assigned to such or such a people, uncertain tracts which seem to belong to both the neighboring nations, and which through chance fall sometimes to the lot of one nation and sometimes to that of the other. It is toward these doubtful countries that ambition and the spirit of conquest are directed.

—The states which are the best and most naturally bounded have sides open and wanting in natural defenses. As for instance, France, on the north. It must be said that these natural defenses—seas, mountains, rivers—have, according to the times and the spirit of the people, very different uses. There are times when the sea separates nations, and there are times when it unites them. Horace called the ocean the great divider of nations; we call it, on the contrary, the bond of the world. These are times when mountains are crossed only with infinite trouble. It was necessary to be a Hercules or a Hannibal to cross the Alps; in these days of disunion and division, one side of a mountain is altogether different from the other. The sides differ in language, in manners and in ideas. As nations have the bad habit of hating all the more that which they understand the least, the people of the two opposite sides emulate each other in mutual hatred, and they do not bear the fatigue of crossing the mountain except to go and fight their neighbors on the other side. Do not let us speak too ill of war; it is war ordinarily that commences to open mountains; but once opened by war, the mountains are open also to commerce; merchants pass where soldiers have passed; engineers follow; they mark out paths over these steep mountains. We are astonished, in descending from the Jura into the valley of the lake of Geneva, by a succession of magnificent views varying at each turn of the road. So much for those inaccessible peaks which must separate nations! A carriage drive is all that is necessary to cross them; where are the natural frontiers?

—It is the same story for rivers as for mountains. How far we are from the time when Araxes was indignant at the bridge which united the two banks, pontem indignatus Araxes. The rivers running under bridges no longer separate countries; they unite them; they are bonds instead of being obstacles; where then, once more, are the natural frontiers?

—To these abolitions of obstacles, that is, frontiers, add that last and greatest abolition of space, the speed of the railways, and what do you say now of the separation of states? If governments would only practice more and more the good habit of not awakening travelers, to ask their passports at the frontier, we could while asleep cross five or six states. Are there then no longer frontiers in Europe? Assuredly there are, but frontiers which one runs the risk of not noticing unless he pays great attention, or unless the customs officer comes to warn him that he has passed into another country. Custom houses tend each day to become more and more the only natural and visible frontiers which exist in Europe. I do not advocate the unity of Europe. Far from it. Europe is already rather monotonous. She has the monotony of civilization; make her a unit, and she will have the monotony of servitude. What she preserves of liberty is by reason of her want of unit.

—Natural frontiers to-day are the needs and the wishes of the people. Place the Alps upon the Vosges and all that height of mountains will not prevent Alsace from being French, because such is her interest, such is her determined wish. Place the Rhine on the northern frontier of France; if the inhabitants of the Rhenish provinces do not wish to be French; if the ideas, the laws, the administration of France do not please them, it will be difficult to affirm that the Rhine is the natural frontier of France; nature will yield to the will of man; for such is the destiny of our century, that the will of the people is stronger than all fortresses, than all mountains, than all rivers, than all lines of demarcation, natural or not.

—Do you think that if Belgium is some day united to France, it will be because the Rhine and the Meuse are the natural frontiers of France? No, the Meuse is no more a natural frontier of France than the Oise or the Somme. Belgium will be united to France because she has the same interests of commerce, of industry and of liberty. A frontier to-day is the opposition and the contrast of two peoples. It is not the Pyrenees which separate France from Spain, it is the difference in manners and customs. Mountains could, during a long time, serve as frontiers, when the nations were divided and hostile: mountains were then ramparts; but these ramparts, like those of St. Quentin, of Leipzig and of Frankfort, the hand of civilization has battered down, as a very long time ago it battered down the old feudal castles, where voluntary captivity alone could guarantee safety. Military dungeons, city ramparts, natural frontiers, are all obsolete expressions, which belong to the past and have nothing to do with the future.

—The wish to fix the boundaries of France by the Jura, the Vosges and the Ardennes, or to extend it to the Rhine, is a pretension equally out of date; it is a forgetfulness of the spirit of our century, in which frontiers are made by the will of nations, and no longer by nature. Man no longer obeys nature, nature obeys man. A nation's destiny is no longer determined by its geography; it imposes upon geography the laws of its own will.

—Nations make their frontiers; nations themselves sometimes raise up barriers between themselves and their neighbors, and sometimes destroy the barriers which separate Edition: current; Page: [315] them from a friendly nation; nations themselves close or open their territory to one another, and recede from or approach one another ready to take up arms to repulse whoever would wish to prevent these unions or these divorces, equally peaceable, equally legitimate, provided their wills have strength and perseverance. Such is the new state of the world.

FUGITIVE SLAVE LAWS

FUGITIVE SLAVE LAWS (IN U.S. HISTORY). Before the American revolution the black race in the colonies had generally been impressed with the artificial character, in the eye of the law, of property. (See SLAVERY.) Within his own colony an owner had the same right to reclaim his slave as to reclaim any other stolen, lost or estray property; but the reclamation of a slave who had escaped to another colony depended upon the intercolonial comity which permitted it. Nor was there any legal authority to reclaim fugitive slaves under the articles of confederation, except that which was, perhaps, implied in confining to "the free inhabitants of these states" the enjoyment of "the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states." Reclamations of fugitive slaves, though rare, sometimes occurred, but were still dependent on interstate comity. In the formation of the constitution by the convention of 1787, it seems to have been an implied part of one of the compromises (see COMPROMISES, III) that a provision should be inserted for the reclamation of fugitive slaves. "By this settlement" [compromise], said C. C. Pinckney, in the South Carolina convention, "we have obtained a right to recover our slaves in whatever part of America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before. In short, considering all circumstances, we have made the best terms for the security of this species of property it was in our power to make. We would have made better if we could; but, on the whole, I do not think them bad." The result was the fugitive slave provision. (See CONSTITUTION, Art. IV., §2, ¶ 3.) In this, slaves were indirectly called "persons held to service or labor in one state, under the law thereof." The provision was mandatory, but upon no particular officer or branch of the government; it simply directed that the fugitive "shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." If this was only a direction to the states, it is evident that the only recourse for relief under it was to state courts; and that, if a state should refuse or neglect to execute and obey this provision of the constitution, there was no remedy. Such has steadily been held as the construction of the kindred provision, as to extradition of criminals, immediately preceding the fugitive slave provision, and couched in much the same language. Though the surrender of criminals has sometimes been refused, as by Massachusetts in the Kimpton case in August, 1878, no further remedy has been sought for, nor has congress ever undertaken to pass any general interstate extradition law. The only real argument in favor of the power and duty of congress to pass a general fugitive slave law, was the absence of any such common self-interest to induce the northern states to execute faithfully the fugitive slave provision of the constitution, as that which was usually certain to induce all the states to surrender fugitive criminals—I. The first fugitive slave law, entitled "An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters," originated in the senate, passed the house without debate by a vote of 48 to 7, and was approved by President Washington, Feb. 12, 1793. It was in four sections. The first two, applying to fugitive criminals, merely specified the manner in which the demand was to be made upon the governor, and made no attempt to enforce a surrender of the criminal, if it should be refused. An abstract of the last two sections, respecting fugitives from labor, is as follows: 3, the owner, his agent or attorney, was empowered to seize his fugitive slave, take him before a circuit of district court of the United States, or before any magistrate of the county, city or town corporate wherein the arrest should be made, and make proof by oral testimony or affidavit of his ownership, and the certificate thereof by the judge or magistrate was to be sufficient warrant for the removal of the fugitive to the state or territory from which he had fled; 4, rescue, concealment or obstructing the arrest of a fugitive slave were made offenses liable to a fine of $500.

—Before 1815 the increase of the domestic slave trade from the border states to the extreme south had brought out complaints of the kidnapping of free blacks in the border free states, under pretense that they were fugitive slaves. In 1817, a senate committee reported a bill to modify the law, but it was never considered. The following year the Baltimore Quakers renewed the question by a petition to congress for some security to free blacks against kidnapping. On the other hand, the border slave states complained of the increased insecurity of slave property, and a member of the house from Virginia introduced a bill to increase the efficiency of the fugitive slave law. It was intended to enable the claimant to prove his title before a judge of his own state, and thus to become entitled to an executive demand upon the governor of the state in which the fugitive had taken refuge; and to any writ ofhabeas corpusit was to be a sufficient return that the prisoner waw held under the provisions of this act. Efforts to amend the bill by securing the full benefit of the writ ofhabeas corpusto the fugitive, and by making the state courts of the state in which the arrest was made the arbiter of title, were voted down, and the bill was carried, Jan. 30, 1818, by a vote of 84 to 69. In the senate it was passed, March 12, with amendments requiring other proofs than the claimant's affidavit and limiting the existence of the act of four years. Edition: current; Page: [316] April 10 the house refused to consider the bill further. The great objection to the act of 1793 was its attempt to impose service, under the act, upon magistrates who were officials of the states, not of the federal government, and who could not therefore properly be called upon to execute federal laws. The question was brought before the supreme court(in the case of Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, citied below), as follows. The state of Pennsylvania had passed an act providing a mode for the rendition of fugitive slaves to their owners by state authorities and making the seizure of fugitive slaves in any other way a felony. One Prigg, as agent of a Maryland slave owner, found a fugitive slave in Pennsylvania, and, when the local magistrate refused to award her to him, carried her off to Maryland vi et armis. For this he was indicated in Pennsylvania, and the two states amicably agreed that judgment should be entered against him, in order that an appeal might be taken to the supreme court. The supreme court, as its opinion was given by Story, held that the Pennsylvania statute was unconstitutional; that the power to legislate on this subject was exclusively in congress; but that the duty of executing federal laws could not be imposed upon state magistrates or officers. Taney, dissenting in part, held that the constitution was a part, of the supreme law of every state, which the state could enforce, but could not abrogate or alter; and that the right of a master to seize his fugitive slave was thus a part of the organic law of each state, which the state could enforce, but could not abrogate or alter. The doubts expressed by the court as to the duty of state magistrates caused the passage by various northern legislatures of acts guarding or prohibiting the execution of the fugitive slave law by state magistrates. (See PERSONAL LIBERTY LAWS.)

—II. The passage of a more effective fugitive slave law was one of the essential features of the compromise of 1850 (See COMPROMISES, V..)., and formed a part of the original "omnibus bill." As approved by President Fillmore, Sept. 18,1850, it consisted of ten sections, an abstract of which is as follows' 1, the powers of judges under the act of 1793 were now given to United States commissioners; 2, the territorial courts were also to have the power of appointing such commissioners; 3, all United States courts were so to enlarge the number of commissioners as to give facilities for the arrest of fugitive slaves; 4, commissioners were to have concurrent jurisdiction with United States judges in giving certificates to claimants and ordering the removal of fugitive slaves; 5, United States marshals and deputies were required to execute writs under the act, the penalty for refusal being a fine of $1,000, the marshal being further liable on his bond for the full value of and slave escaping from his custody "with or without the assent" of the marshal or his deputies; the commissioners, or officers appointed by them, were empowered to call the bystanders to help execute writs; and all good citizens were required to aid and assist when required; 6, on affidavit before any officer authorized to administer an oath. United States courts or commissioners were to give the claimant a certificate and authority to remove his fugitive slave whence he had escaped; in no case was the testimony of the fugitive to be admitted in evidence; and the certificate, with the seal of the court, was to be conclusive evidence of the claimant's title, thus cutting off any real benefit of the writ of habeas corpus from the fugitive; 7, imprisonment for six months, a fine of $1,000, and civil damages of $1,000, and to the claimant, were to be the punishment for obstructing an arrest, attempting a rescue, or harboring a fugitive after notice; 8, commissioners were to be paid fees of $10 when a certificate was granted, and of $5 when their decision was in favour of the alleged fugitive; fees of other officers were to follow the rules of the court; 9, on affidavit by the claimant that he apprehended a rescue, the marshal was not to surrender the fugitive to the claimant at once, but was first to take him to the state whence he had fled, employing any assistance necessary to overcome the rescuing force; 10, any claimant, by affidavit before any court of record in his own state or territory, might obtain a record with a general description of the fugitive, and an authenticated copy of such record was to be conclusive evidence, on proof of the identity of the fugitive, for issuing a certificate in any state or territory to which the slave had fled.

—An examination of this long and horribly minute act will show the futility of the most taking and popular criticism upon it, that it employed all the force of the United States in "slave catching". This was just what the act was bound to do, if it attempted to enforce the fugitive slave provision of the constitution, and yet avoid the imposition of the duty upon state officials. Nor is there any more force in the objection to the difference in the commissioner's fee for detaining and for releasing a fugitive: the difference in fees was the price of the evident difference in the labor involved in the two cases: and no accusation was ever brought against a commissioner of having sold his honor for the additional $5.

—But the refusal of a jury trial to the alleged fugitive, for the ascertainment of his identity, was a defect so fatal as to make the law seem not only unconstitutional, but absolutely inhuman. If the alleged fugitive were a slave(i.e., property), his value was more than $20 above which limit the constitution(amendment VII.) guarantees a jury trial for title; if he were a free man, his right to a jury trial in a case affecting his life or liberty dates from magna charta, and is among the rights reserved, by amendment X., from the power of both the United states and the states "to the people"; and in denying a jury trial in either case congress seems to have been an inexcusable trespasser. Webster proposed, and Dayton, of New Jersey, offered, an amendment providing for a jury trial; but this was voted down, on the ground that a fugitive Edition: current; Page: [317] slave was property, and yet that the owner's title was not disputed or in question, so as to require a jury trial. But this was evidently begging the question, for 1, an alleged fugitive, if a free man, evidently had the right to a jury trial to decide whether he was property or a person; and 2, no federal law could make the affidavit of a citizen of one state so "conclusive" as to exclude entirely the affidavit of a citizen of another state, as any alleged fugitive might possibly be. Against this evil feature of the act many northern legislatures promptly guarded by passing new or stronger "personal liberty laws." and thus practically "nullifying" it. (See NULLIFICATION, PERSONAL LIBERTY LAWS.)

—The passage of the act gave a sudden and great impetus to the search for fugitive slaves in the north, which was accompanied by various revolting circumstances, brutality in the captors, bloodshed by the captors or captured, or both, and attempted suicide to avoid arrest. From many localities in the north, persons who had long been residents were suddenly seized and taken south as fugitive slaves; and these latter arrests were more efficacious than the former in rousing northern opposition to the law, for they seemed to show that not merely the execution but the principle of the law was unjust and illegal. Margaret Garner's attempted murder of her children, in Ohio, to save them from slavery, and Anthony Burns' arrest in Boston, were the cases which made most noise at the time.

—The political consequences of the passage of the fugitive slave law of 1850 were not only the revival and enforcement of the personal liberty laws, but the demand, first by the free-soil party, and then by the republican party, for the repeal of the fugitive slave law, which the south considered irrepealable, as part of a compromise. The success of the republican party, in 1860, by the vote of the north, was therefore constructed by secessionists at the south as a final refusal by the north to enforce the compromise of 1850, and was the principal excuse for secession.

—The fugitive slave law was not finally repealed until June 28, 1864. (See COMPROMISES V., VI.: SLAVERY; REPUBLICAN PARTY; ABOLITION III. SECESSION.)—(I.) See 4 Elliot's Debates, 286; 1 Benton's Debates of Congress, 384,417; 1 von Holst's United States,310; Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet., 539; 6 Benton's Debates of Congress, 43, 107, 177; the act of Feb.12, 1793, is in 1 Stat. at Large, 302. (II.) See 16 Benton's Debates of Congress, 593; 2 Benton's Thirty Years' View, 773; 5 Stryker's American Register,547, 550; Buchanan's Administration, 16; Tyler's Life of Taney, 282, 392; Ableman vs. Booth, 21 How., 506; 2 Wilson's Rise and Fall of the Slave power, 391-337, 435; Schuckers' Life of Chase, 123, 171; 2 Webster's Works, 558, and 5:354; Moses Stuart's Conscience and the Constitution; Still's Underground Rail road, 348; Steven's History of Anthony Burns; 1 Greeley's American Conflict, 210; 2 A. H. Stephens' War Between the States, 674 (in the Declaration of South Carolina); Hamilton's Memoir of Rantoul, 729; authorities under articles above referred to; the fugitive slave law is in 9 Stat. at Large, 462: the act of June 28, 1864, is in 13 Stat. at Large (38th Cong.),410.

FUNCTIONARIES

FUCTIONARIES. "Public functionaries" says M. Viven,(Etudes administrative, p.43) "are the dispensers or instruments of the power of the society: through their agency justice is done, knowledge is diffused, order is preserved, taxes collected, public property administered, national wealth increased, and the security, dignity and greatness of a country are maintained and guaranteed.

—Adam Smith, while recognizing the necessity of the service of functionaries, classed them with those laborers he called unproductive. Because he did not discern the product of their labor in any material object, he supposed that no accumulation of wealth could result from it. The erroneousness of this opinion has since been often demonstrated. Industrial production consists in modifying, transporting from one place to another, or transforming, the materials furnished by nature, so as to adapt them to our needs. What it has thus created is not matter, a thing wholly beyond human power to create, but utility; and to that end it must overcome obstacles of various kinds, among which those which arise from the passions of men, and which would arrest production by taking away security, are among the most considerable and the most difficult to vanquish. Now the especial mission of governments is to institute and apply the guarantees indispensable to that security. The functionaries they employ for this purpose co-operate then most certainly in production, while laboring to overcome one of the principal difficulties which hinder its development, and succeeding to a greater or less degree in the effort. When this mission is properly fulfilled, the utility resulting from it attaches to man himself, whom it renders more restrained in his evil inclinations, more enlightened in regard to his duties and his rights better disposed to observe the former and defend the latter; better fitted, in short, for all the useful functions of social life. One can not, then, fail to recognize that functionaries devoted to such a mission take a considerable part in the production and accumulation of the utilities of human creation which constitute wealth; but it would not be necessary hence to conclude that their co-operation is the more efficacious as they are more numerous and their field of action more extended, for this conclusion would be contrary to the truth; and here a distinction, which appears to us important, should be made between functionaries and other workers.

—All labors governed by liberty, that is to say, originating in individual activity and its voluntary combinations, are subject, in their development and their results to natural laws which observation has caused to be recognized: but the labors of functionaries, governed by authority, that is, by men invested with Edition: current; Page: [318] the power of constraining the will, do not generally fall under the operation of these laws. A few indications will suffice to give an idea of the difference and even of the frequent opposition of the conditions which govern these two classes of labor.

—Free labor has its determining cause the various needs every one experiences and satisfies at his will, according to the extent of his resources; it can not, in its various applications, take any greater development than comforts with the extent of the various classes of wants to which it responds, for no workman has the power to make others accept products or services which do not suit them, nor to oblige them to pay for more than they require. In the absence of all constraint or hindrance, every service, whether it be of labor or of exchange, is necessarily remunerated by reason if its real value, that is to say, the value, generally recognized. If a class of services increases faster than the condition of the corresponding wants requires, the value of such services falls, and laborers tend to withdraw from this class. If, on the contrary, a class of services is not sufficiently extensive relatively to the demand for them, their value rises and the tendency is for new workmen to immediately devote themselves to them. Thus freedom insures to every one a part of the general product equal to recognized value of his co-operation, and it maintains, better than could otherwise be maintained, a constant proportion between each branch of labor and the wants it is designed to satisfy. Under this régime every worker has a lively interest, in his special sphere of activity, in multiplying and perfecting his services, because the recompense from them increases with his success in increasing their importance, and because, on the other hand, they would soon fall in value and be neglected if they became inferior to those of his competitors. Hence arises, among all laborers an energetic and persevering emulation, the assured result of which is a constant improvement in the quality of work, and the progressive increase, as well in quantity as in importance, of all the services we mutually render and whose products constitute our wealth.

—Such are the most general conditions which govern free labor. But the case is quite otherwise with the labors of functionaries. The determining cause of these is the needs freely manifested by each of the individuals by which society is composed; it is in the will, that is to say, in the opinions, the views, the passions of the men invested with authority, and in the real or pretended needs which theysuppose, with more or less reason and disinterestedness to exist among the population. These labors are not then necessarily proportioned to the extent of the corresponding needs, for this extent is determined only by arbitrary estimates which are more or less independent of the assent of those interested, and also more or less well grounded. Again, those for whom the services are destined, have not the option of refusing them or of limiting the quantity. These services are not then remunerated with reference to their real value, for this value is not discussed and determined by agreement between the one who furnishes it and the one who pays for it, and the determination of its amount is the result of estimates almost inevitably erroneous or partial. Finally, the principal causes of the continued improvements in free labor are not operative in the case of the labor of functionaries, for the latter lack the stimulus of self-interest, which, in public functions, is better satisfied by canvassing and by intrigue than by improvement in the service. Besides, they lack the stimulus of competition and the certainty of a recompense exactly proportioned to the services rendered. It is evident that the labors of functionaries are not assimilable, in scarcely any respect, to free labors, and that the one class could not, in political economy, be confounded with the other; nor could they be considered as subject to the same general laws without opening the way to many errors.

—Another conclusion from the preceding indications is, that the labors of functionaries are subject to conditions incomparably less favorable to their improvement than those which govern free labor; and experience fully confirms, on this point, the indications of theory, for improvements in organization or methods of procedure are as rare in the public service as they are frequent in free labors. The latter are constantly transformed or modified under the impetus of discoveries in science or of a constantly stimulated spirit of invention, and there is scarcely an innovation adopted the effect of which is not to increase their productiveness. The former, on the contrary, are distinguished by a sort of immutability, which is rarely disturbed except at revolutionary epochs, and the innovations which are made at such times are far from always constituting true progress. As to the results of labors, such is the inferiority of those directed by public authority that we may affirm, without the least fear of exaggerating, that if free production employed as many faculties and resources to obtain, on the whole, so few useful results, it would not succeed in satisfying a tenth part of the wants for which it provides, This consideration alone would authorize us to conclude that nations which understand their own interests should endeavor to reduce as much as possible the number of pubic employments, or, in other terms, the functions of their governments; because all the branches of activity which they allow, without absolute necessity, to be taken away from the domain of individual initiative and liberty, and made an apanage of authority, lose, by that very fact, the greater part of the their usefulness. But the necessity of restricting, as far as possible, the number of public employments and functionaries appears much greater skill, if one observes all the evil results of the contrary system. Among the latter results may be counted the tendency of the system to make people lose the habit of personal effort and the feeling of responsibility, and to Edition: current; Page: [319] withdraw as much as possible from all individuals initiative and expect everything of the government. At the same time this system leads to the creation of an immense number of offices or public employments, and multiplies to a dangerous degree that portion of the population which, aspiring to live on governmental favors or the income from taxation, employs all means to that end—corruption, intrigue, solicitation, mendicity, émeutes, revolutions, counter-revolutions, etc. It thus substitutes, on a vast scale, a harmful activity for a useful activity, and renders infinitely more difficult, more precarious and more onerous the maintenance of security. Finally, it contributes greatly to increase public expenses.

E. J. L. Tr
A. CLÉMENT.

FUND, FUNDING, REFUNDING.

FUND, FUNDING, REFUNDING. In finance "fund" signifies a sum of money set apart for some specific purpose, or a source whence money may be obtained. In England the national debt is called "the funds". The term "funds" is not so applied in the United States.—"The funding of a debt" according to Mr. J. S. Gibbons, "consists in dividing it into parts, or shares, which are represented by certificates, and on which interest is paid to the holder. These certificates are known as stock, or bonds, indifferently." The term "funding," as it is used in the laws of the United States, signifies the conversion of floating or temporary indebtedness into indebtedness having a longer time to run before maturity. (See act of Feb.25, 1862.) Funding in this sense may consist in converting floating debt, or evidences of public debt bearing no interest (such as United States notes), into interest-bearing bonds, or it may consist in converting one form of interest-bearing bonds or notes into another form having a longer time to run.—"Refunding," as the term is used in laws of the United States signifies the renewal, or continuance in a new form, of debt that has once been funded and has matured or is about to mature. (See title of act of July 14, 1870.)

GAG LAWS.

GAG LAWS. (See PETITION.)

GALLATIN

GALLATIN, Albert, was born at Geneva, Switzerland, Jan. 29, 1761, and died at Astoria, N. Y., Aug.12,1849. He was graduated at the University of Geneva in 1779, emigrated to America, was instructor in Harvard in 1782, and settled in western Pennsylvania in 1785. He took part in the whisky insurrection, was elected United States senator but was unseated by the federalist majority, and served in the house as a democrat 1795-1801. He was secretary of the treasury 1802-14 (See ADMINISTRATIONS.) negotiated the treaty of Ghent in 1814, and remained abroad until 1827, as minister to France (1815), and Great Britain (1826). He then became a bank president in New York City. (See WHISKY INSURRECTION; DEMOCRATIC PARTY; FEDERAL PARTY, I.)

—See 6 Maine Hist. Coll.; II. Adams' Life of Gallatin, and Writings of Gallatin.

GAMBETTISM

GAMBETTISM.The term "Gambettism," frequently met with in current political discussion in France, has a meaning not very well defined, nor generally very flattering to the man from whose name it is derived. It is more frequently on the lips and the pens of the enemies than of the friends or admirers of M. Gambetta. Usually it suggests the pursuit of an extreme ambition by methods of doubtful character and tinged in some degree with pretension verging on hypocrisy. It is not in this sense that the term is used in this article, nor, so used, could it afford a proper subject of discussion in this work. It is rather proposed to here consider under the term "Gambettism" that phase of the development of republicanism, and especially of the political organization by which republicanism is sustained in France, with which M. Gambetta has been conspicuously identified.

—It is not to be denied that the French republic of to-day is very different from either of those which preceded it. Although the government of national defense, organized by insurrection on the morrow of the capture of Napoleon III, at Sedan, proclaimed the republic in name, the republic as it now exists may with reason be said to have proceeded not from revolution but from evolution. It has come into existence because of a general and growing sense on the part of the French people that it was the only practicable form of government for their much-tried country. It has gradually won the respect and to a certain degree the affections of a steadily increasing number of the people of France, and has come to be regarded as the surest and most stable guaranty of order prosperity, progress and general freedom. Based upon universal suffrage, it is sustained by a large numerical majority of the voters; it counts its firm supporters among all classes; it has enlisted in its service the best talent, the ripest experience, the most ardent patriotism of the nation; It has established itself as the recognized form of government, the valid and sufficient representative of the national life, and it has apparently practically extinguished the factions which, during the first years of its existence, labored, struggled and plotted to overthrow it, and on its ruins to erect Edition: current; Page: [320] a royal or imperial throne. Judged by any tests which can be fairly applied, the French republic bids as fair to hold its own as any government on the continent of Europe. That it is secure from overthrow by revolution or by usurpation it would be rash to predict. That it may not be able to withstand the peculiar influences that have so often swept away the governments of France within the last hundred years: that the French people may tire of it; that it may involve itself in dangerous foreign complications, and be ruined by attempts to satisfy the passions rather than the real needs of the country—all this is possible, and there is even evidence that it is probable. But that the republic is more firmly grounded than any preceding government; that it is in the direct line of the march of events for the last century; that, if it fall, the requirements of the French nation and of the age will tend to its re-establishment as they now tend to its maintenance; these are conclusions which can be fairly maintained.

—The most striking peculiarity of the position of the French republic of to-day is, that it is sustained by a very powerful political organization, which has grown gradually but steadily since the close of the Franco-German war. That organization differs widely from any heretofore known in France. In the first place, it is practically free from a class basis. It rests neither on the peasantry nor the working people, nor the middle or trading class, nor the nobility, nor on any factitious alliance or combination of these, but has its supporters among all, and is opposed by a majority of none, except the nobility, and that only passively. In the next place, this organization is under the control of no one leader or group of leaders and though it is naturally guided from time to time by prominent statesmen, and has found in M. Gambetta a peculiarly distinguished and efficient representative, it has been shown that its allegiance was not blind nor absolute, and that its fortune was bound up with the fortune of no one person. In the next place (and this is, perhaps, the most significant fact of all), the republican organization in France has definitely set for itself aims which, if fairly carried out, will tend strongly to its future permanence, viz, the spread of free secular instruction and the perfection of the system of popular representation in such form as to promote a continually increasing participation by the people in the management of their public affairs. The development of this organization has been largely the work of M. Gambetta, and it is his personal contribution to it, the methods which he has introduced in perfecting it, and the direction which he has sought to give it, that it will be the purpose of the following article to trace. In doing so, a brief reference to the career of the republican leader previous to the period within which the republic as it now exists in France has been developed, will be requisite—Léon Gambetta was born Oct. 30, 1838, in the town of Cahors, on the Lot, in the old province of Guienne. His family was of Italian origin, the first strain of Pure French blood being introduced in it with his mother, a woman of marked intelligence and unusually interested in political affairs. His education was that commonly given to French youth of his generation, first in a Jesuit preparatory school, then in a provincial lycée. At eighteen, with his mother's aid, he deserted the commercial life to which his father had destined him, and went to Paris to study law at the Sarbonne, whence he was graduated with honor. He made rapid progress in his profession, entering first the office of the noted criminal lawyer, Maitre Lachaud, and later that of Maitre Crémieux, the lawyer who had the most extensive Jewish clientèle in Paris. Gambetta attracted attention by his defence of Greppo, a deputy arbitrarily banished by Napoleon III; by his defense of Delescluze, the editor of the Réveil, an extreme radical, and by his ardent activity in the small but very earnest circle of the political opponents of the empire. In 1869, being then but thirty-one, he was elected to the corps législatif from the department of les Bouches du Rhône, including the city of Marseilles; at his election he received 2,000 more votes than M. de. Lesseps the official candidate, and 5,000 more than M. Thiers, the candidate of the Orléanists. The period was a trying one, but full of promise for those who believed as Gambetta did. The emperor, and, still more, the imperial party, were alarmed at the signs of disaffection throughout the country and particularly in the army, and were struggling desperately, through the Olivier ministry, to discover some ground on which they could safely stand. The particular device adopted was the so-called liberal constitution which, however, left the initiative of all important legislation to the ministry, and left the ministers responsible, not to the corps législatif, but to the emperor. It was during the debate on this constitution that Gambetta, amid the jeering interruptions of the right and centre, and cries of "treason" from the imperialists, made the defiant announcement to the premier: "We accept you and your constitutionalism as a bridge to the republic, but that is all!" This declaration, half prediction, half challenge, was characteristic of the man as he then was, at the age of thirty-one. At this period the young orator was often described by unfriendly critics as a "Boanerges of the cafés". He had indeed much of the style and habit of the café of the time. His voice, sonorous and strong, "voix de porte-voix," Alphonse Daudet calls it, was used with Vehemence and with no effort at modulation. He spoke often and at length, in the corps législatif and in Belleville, at Paris and in Marseilles. His speeches were full of metaphor. His periods were long and heavy, varied at rare intervals by sharp, clear-cut sentences. He had but little irony though much sarcasm, bitter to the verge of brutality. In person he was heavy, and the verdict of the varnished politicians of the empire, which they supposed to be final, was. "Il manque absolument Edition: current; Page: [321] de tenue; ce n'est pas un homme sérieuz." But if Gambetta bore the marks of the café in his speech or manner, it must be remembered that the cafés of the Latin quarter were at that time, as Daudet recalls, "not merely beer shops for smoking and drinking; but in the midst of Paris muzzled, without public life and without journals, these reunions of studious and generous youth, real schools of legal resistance, were almost the only places where a free utterance might still make itself felt." And the same writer, an intimate friend of Gambetta, adds: "On more than side this furious son of Cahors betrayed his nearness to the Italian race; the strain of Genoese blood made the Gascon almost a shrewd and keen Provencal. Often, nay always, talking, he did not allow himself to be carried away by the torrent of his utterance; strongly enthusiastic, he knew in advance the point at which his enthusiasm should stop." Gambetta was moreover an ardent and close student. He entered journalism, not as a political writer, but as a critic of art, and his position in his own profession was already assured before he appeared in the political cases which gave him notoriety, at which period, indeed, he had already been given charge of the office work of Maitre Crémieux, the distinguished Israelitish lawyer already alluded to. It was not his eloquence alone, but his penetration, judgment, his untiring industry and energy, and his grasp of the underlying principles as well as of the details of the law, which distinguished him. It is not to be doubted that if the had not embraced the career of a politician, in the higher sense of that word, he would have taken advanced rank in either journalism or the law, two callings which in France are singularly exacting. He arrived at the first stage of the maturity of his powers, however, at a moment when public life, was, for a nature like his irresistibly charming. He was, as we have noted, a republican de la reille; the republic was the goal to which all his convictions, sentiments and ambitions alike urged him. But the republic, as he at first conceived it, or at least, as he first had opportunity to shape its form and policy, was a very different thing from that which he ultimately made the object of his labors. The republic of which he became the leading spirit when the dynasty of Napoleon III, fell at Sedan, was to the last degree, arbitrary, violent, and, in the French phrase, autoritaire. It was, in fact, a republic only in name, being, so far as concerned its legal sanction, a usurpation and a modified dictatorship. A self-chosen group of theoretical republicans, whose title to power consisted in a proclamation thrown to the national guards and the populace of Paris from the windows of the Hôtel de Ville and afterward read by Gambetta's stentorian voice from a balcony of the same building, seized the treasury and executive force of the nation, directed armies, ordered a levée en masse, laid taxes, used the credit of the nation for enormous loans in foreign markets—in a word, assumed all the rights and powers of government without a mandate from the people, and with no acknowledged accountability to any representative body. Gambetta, with the functions of minister of the interior and of war, not only directed, almost without consultation, these tremendous instruments of the national energy, but he dissolved the conseils généraux, the local representative bodies of the departments, and replaced them by administrative commissions chosen by himself, and, whether or not chosen as well as could be at the time, unquestionably embarrassing a great many irresponsible and unfit men, mostly advocates and journalists of Paris. And he steadily refused to call together, or to order the election of any national legislature. When the supreme effort had failed, and the government of national defense had negotiated a treaty of peace, of which the terms required its ratification by a national assembly. Gambetta issued a proclamation forbidding the election of any member of the imperial or royal families, or of any candidate who had been, under the empire, a senator or conseiller d'état, or had accepted an "official candidacy." This certainly was a criminal blunder, as well as an outrageous usurpation. It brought France to the verge of civil war. It revived, at a moment when unity was vitally necessary, all possible party hatreds and personal and local jealousies. If it had been carried out, this decree would have deprived France of the services of some of her best and strongest men, with whom Gambetta has since been closely allied. It betrayed a startling and inexplicable distrust of the people, which was bitterly rebuked by the dispatch of the Paris members of the government. "M. de Bismarck," wrote Jules Favre and Jules Simon veut que nous soyons libres dans nos élections." It is but just to Gambetta to note that his tremendous but ill-fated effort to retrieve the fortunes of the war was indirectly of incalculable value to the French people and to the final triumph of the cause of the republic. Had France surrendered when the Germans appeared before Paris, the French people would always have laid their defeat to the vices of the emperor and the empire and the treachery of Bazaine. They learned in the five months of what a high German authority calls Gambetta's "prodigy of administrative energy and ability," that their final defeat was due to the superior military training, the political sagacity, the patient, invincible sentiment of unity in the German people, and the lesson was indispensable in persuading them to submit to the tedious process of acquiring like virtues. Gambetta's campaign à outrance made the republic of to-day possible. There is evidence, also, that after the fever of futile exertion and the bitterness of immediate failure had passed away, the experience of that terrible half year largely tempered and guided the mind of Gambetta himself. But his course at that time, with reference to the popular suffrage and popular representation, was a great obstacle in his Edition: current; Page: [322] future career, and that he was able to overcome it is evidence that he has won his way, not by mere personal energy or by the arts of the demagogue, but by intimately allying himself with deep and progressive forces in French politics.

—In the summer of 1871 he was elected to the national assembly, and in the autumn of that year he founded the République Française. In referring to this journal, in which some of his most important and effective work has been done, Gambetta says: "Its true origin dates from the national defense. It was in those tragic experiences that we learned to judge character, and from them that we drew the profound feeling of the formidable responsibilities of public life. We had a firm desire that the government should come to the hands of the democracy through liberty, for the whole country. We never separated in our thoughts the introduction, one after another, of the various strata of the French people to the practice of public affairs from the supreme interest of our re-establishment among the nations. We began our work at a grievous period. France, reduced materially, was morally excluded from what it had been the custom, before her reverses, to call the European concert. The miseries of civil war had been added to those of invasion. For ourselves, we were disavowed, thrust to one side. Far-seeing statesmen recognized that their country could be saved only by a republic, but they wished one without republicans. The aptitude of the republican party for government was strongly doubted. It was a minority in an assembly named under peculiar circumstances, and which, almost immediately put upon its guard by the manifestations of universal suffrage, claimed unlimited authority. This assembly ardently wished a monarchy; it ended by making a republic." This picture of the state of affairs when Gambetta resumed an active part in public life, is substantially just, and for him the most painful feature of it, to which he has alluded, was the isolation, by no means unnatural or unmerited, in which he and his immediate friends found themselves. If "far-seeing men," such as M. Thiers, wished for a "republic without republicans," it was largely due to the fact that the then known republicans had shown no just conception of a republic, and had grossly offended the principles on which alone it can be maintained. Gambetta had, then, a double task: to persuade the avowed republicans of the time to so conduct themselves that they could be trusted, and then to persuade the country to trust them. Thiers had declared that the republic must be conservative, or it could not be at all. Nothing in Gambetta's career justified the opinion that a republic under his guidance, or that of his immediate party, would be conservative, nor could any sudden conversion or any violent protestations in that sense win the confidence of the people. As Gambetta himself observed, the governing aptitude of the republican party was to be proven. He set himself to prove it. On the one hand, he had to hold the friends he had and to gather about him the men who believed in a republic but not in the then republicans, and especially not in him; on the other hand, he had to convince the great body of the French people that a republic would be safe, orderly, efficient and powerful in itself, and that it could be made reasonably stable. In this work, the nature and magnitude of which he now appears to have understood from the start, his first and most potent instrumentality was the journal that he had founded, and which he made in many regards novel, unique and characteristic. Although it was necessarily known as his organ, he adopted the policy of unsigned writing, a policy previously followed but in part by any of the great political journals of Paris, and principally associated only with the smaller and more violent radical and socialist sheets of the second republic. This policy not only gave greater freedom to the writers, while admitting of all necessary discipline among them, but it tended to give prominence rather to the ideas of the paper than to the personality of its contributors. It helped greatly to make it, in the best sense, the political organ not of Gambetta but of the party of the republic. In other regards its editor followed the models furnished by the English and American press. He addressed himself not to any one class but to the country, not to Paris alone but to the provinces as well, and even chiefly. He organized a system, up to that time nearly unknown in French journalism, for obtaining accurate information in regard to political opinion, its shades, its progress and its tendencies "Our duty to the public," the République remarked, "is to tell what is going on and to gather as well as we can what the public thinks." The style of the writing in the République was as original and characteristic as its organization and methods. When, after seven years, its editor was chosen president of the chamber, it congratulated itself that "it had in some measure contributed to create and to sustain that confidence in its own powers which has doubtless counted for much in the final triumph of the democracy. " And this was, from the beginning, one of the most signal and valuable services rendered by the paper. Its articles were always marked by a tone of singularly sustained self-reliance. It met the many enemies of the republic and the republicans with a constant manifestation of confidence in assured success. No calumny, no taunt, no sarcasm, no denunciation, disturbed its aggressive cheerfulness. The empire had enlisted in its cause much of the brightest talent of Parisian journalism. The royalists never lacked for champions among the élite of the cultured, experienced and gifted thinkers and writers. The former were arrogant, caustic, supple and unscrupulous. The latter were generally polished, sincere, weighty, and invariably a little disdainful of the new critics of the "classes dirigeantes.". But the writers of the République were masters of logical statement; Edition: current; Page: [323] they were thoroughly informed; they were as much at home in the history and the literature of politics as their opponents, and, above all, they were working to prepare the future, not to revive the past. Their articles bore the unmistakable impress of assurance of triumph, not in boastfulness, but in cool raillery, in stinging sarcasm, in easy irony. Nothing like the attitude and bearing of the new journal had been before known in the republican or even the liberal press of France. It reassured the timid, it attracted the doubting, it convinced the sincere; it particularly annoyed, confused and baffled the opponents, who were more used to aiming than receiving the shafts of ridicule. The value of this peculiar style in the leading organ of the republican party can hardly be exaggerated. It was exactly adapted to the work in hand. Among the readers of journals in France the class who were to be won over to the republic had learned to regard that form of government and the men with whom it was associated with distrust, indifference and contempt, and it is hardly too much to say that they were quite as much afraid of the ridicule directed at republicans as of the grave dangers which the republic appeared to involve. The République dissipated their fears on the latter score by patient argument and demonstration, and it taught them that there was no safety from ridicule in clinging to those who had previously had almost a monopoly of its use. Victor Hugo has said that the most formidable weapon used against the ancien régime was "le sourire de Voltaire." It was a weapon which the République resumed. For the past ten years there has been no force more active in undermining the anti-republican forces in France than the persistent, bitter, keen and confident wit of M. Gambetta's journal.

—The history of the first seven years of this decade is happily described in the phrase which has already been cited from the pen of M. Gambetta: "The assembly ardently wished a monarchy; it ended by making a republic." There is no doubt that a strong majority of the assembly elected at the close of the war desired some form of monarchy, and, could the majority have agreed among themselves, they could have carried out their desire. Their difficulty was, as M. Thiers bitingly described it, "they wished to seat three men on one throne," and not only did the throne remain vacant, but it was ultimately abandoned. If it was not destroyed, it was at least put away as a piece of furniture quite out of date, of which the future utility was very uncertain. It is usually inferred that the twice repeated refusal of the Comte de Chambord to give up the white flag of the Bourbons for the tricolor, which had waved on all the victorious battle fields of France for nearly a century, was the only obstacle to the union of the two royalist houses and the reestablishment of the monarchy. But this refusal was only the manifestation of a spirit which made monarchy impossible, and which would have made itself felt in any event, fatally for the cause of royalty and perhaps disastrously for France. That refusal, however, practically released the Orléanists from any further obligation to oppose the republic, and, since their own immediate candidate for the throne was an impossible one, it left them free to join the republicans. It was to promote this essential re-enforcement that Gambetta labored, and the bridge which he built for the Orléanists was the "Opportunism" which was so closely united with his name that it is nearly identical with "Gambettism." It consisted in limiting, as far as possible, the demands of the republicans to the removal or prevention of those restraints upon the free exercise of the suffrage and of political activity which the reactionists imposed or sought to impose. The scheme of government which the latter had succeeded in framing, embraced a president with very great power over the action of the legislature; a senate so chosen as to include nearly, if not quite, all the leaders of the reaction; the revival in its most arbitrary and abused form of the "official candidacy" of the empire, and the persistent, unsparing, ingenious suppression of all efficient agencies for influencing public opinion. The vast, complex and potent machinery of patronage centralized at Paris was placed in the hands of Marshall MacMahon, "to whom a special mission of resistance was confided from the first," and who was secured in power for seven years. All the restrictive laws of the empire were maintained in force and stretched to their utmost to frighten, embarrass or suppress republican journals. Political meetings were subjected to the greatest possible restraints, and republican speakers and canvassers were everywhere exposed to the persecution or annoyance of the officials. On the other hand, everything was done to goad the republicans to an infraction of public order, to the manifestation of some revolutionary purpose. And with this policy at home, every effort was made to create the impression that the peace so necessary to France was only to be had through the reactionary government. That this policy, bold, energetic, adroit and unscrupulous as it was, wholly failed was largely due to the wisdom and skill of Gambetta's resistance, it must have succeeded. He alone was able to hold in check the fiery impulses of the extreme men of his party. He alone could convince them that time was their ally, with whom victory was inevitable, if they had but the patience to await it. It was his conservatism which persuaded the country that the republic would be conservative. It was his determined adherence to the law, when the law was being abused expressly to provoke its violation, that thwarted the reactionists and reassured those who were alarmed lest violence should beget violence. In this work he developed rare powers as a political leader, and particularly as a political speaker. Direct appeal to the judgment and feelings of the voters, such as is so common and so valuable Edition: current; Page: [324] an element in the working of representative government in Great Britain and the United States, was relatively little practiced in France before Gambetta's day. There had not, indeed, before existed the supreme condition to the growth of this practice—the regular and substantially free exercise of the right of universal suffrage. The suffrage under the restoration and the Orléanist monarchy was narrowly limited; under the empire it was practically valueless except at the intervals of the plébiscite, when the whole power of the government was used to pervert it. Political discussion of any effective sort was confined to Paris and two or three large cities. Gambetta carried it directly to the remotest corners of the country and to every class of the population. This was a marked service to the cause of free government, since it provided for free government the solid basis of an active, interested public sentiment, which grew in strength and intelligence with every renewed struggle.

—As a political speaker M. Gambetta has rare personal gifts. His voice is sonorous and far-reaching. His professor, M. Valette, at the Sorbonne, had urged Gambetta's father to devote his son to the law because it was a pity that the bar of France should lose such a "remarkable organ." His manner, though emphatic and sometimes even violent, has an essential simplicity and directness which puts him on good terms with his audience. He has must tact beneath his vehemence, and is rarely provoked beyond self-control. His natural and acquired sympathy with his countrymen is a source of influence for him, and his sarcasm and irony, by no means too refined for the average hearer, are formidable weapons both of attack and defense. During the period commencing with the definite agitation of the constitution finally adopted in 1875 and the famous coup de tête of Marshal MacMahon in 1877, M. Gambetta's addresses in various parts of France contributed very largely to the steady increase of republican strength in the chamber, which determined the desperate act of the president in dissolving the chambers and ordering a new election for October of that year. In the brief and brilliant canvass which followed, he was the acknowledged leader of the republican party, and his title to the position was confirmed by the result. The marshal-president had made a singularly adroit attempt at the renewal of the system of personal control in the government. He had in effect dismissed the Simon ministry on the ground that it could not command a majority in the chamber without an alliance with the extreme left, to which he could not consent. He had chosen a ministry of obscure persons, with the avowed mission of administering the governmental affairs without reference to the chamber, and the chamber had promptly declined to enter into relations with it. He had then formed a confessedly reactionist ministry and appealed to the country. The republicans conducted the canvass on the distinct issue of ministerial responsibility to the majority in the legislature, as the absolute condition of parliamentary government. In this canvass Gambetta was untiring. He defined the issue in a phrase at once compact and comprehensive. The president must se soumettre ou se démettre, "submit or resign." The ministry seized the words as the pretext for his arrest and trial under a law by which it hoped to deprive him of his political rights and banish him from the chamber. But Gambetta bore himself with the calmness of one who was as sure of his legal position as he was of his political power, and at the last moment the ministry abandoned the purpose which, if carried out, might have brought on popular resistance that it was not ready to meet. The triumph of the republicans was complete, and the more signal that it was won against an administrative pressure which exceeded anything known under the empire, and organized, indeed, by M. de Fourton, who had been the inventor and manager of the imperial system, and now made it even more rigid and arbitrary. The great army of employés and officials were formally notified that their utmost influence must be used for the government candidates; republican journals, addresses, manifestoes, meetings and even private consultations were everywhere suppressed or interfered with; republican candidates were repeatedly harassed by the préfets or the courts; and extreme measures were taken to excite, if possible, some overt act of resistance. In maintaining the orderly and peaceful and law-abiding temper of his party, while asserting its rights and clearly defining its unaltered determination to exercise them, M. Gambetta greatly strengthened his hold on popular confidence, and upon the respect of the great body of conservative and cautious people to whom the reactionists sought to present themselves as the only hope of France for order at home and peace and dignity abroad.

—In the chamber which resulted from the elections of 1877, M. Gambetta was chosen chairman of the budget commission and ultimately president of the chamber. His influence constantly grew, and as it extended, the party of which he was the immediate leader underwent a change which he had foreseen and which was a renewed evidence of the breadth of his views and the elevation of his purposes. It attracted to itself more and more of the members of the moderate groups in the chamber and lost correspondingly from the extreme left. The body of radicals whom he had for five years restrained with increasing difficulty, entered upon open opposition to him. Under the significant title of "intransigéants," led by Dr. Clémencean in the chamber and the Comte de Rochefort in the press, they spared no effort to undermine his influence with the people and to thwart his policy. In November, 1881, Gambetta assumed the task of forming a ministry, which was overthrown in January, 1882, by a chamber freshly elected. This event has been freely commented on as marking the close of his career. The conclusion is a forced Edition: current; Page: [325] one. M. Gambetta took office in obedience to what he justly conceived to be the essential principle of parliamentary government, that the acknowledged leader of the majority should be the official head of the ministry. He took office as Mr. Gladstone lately did in Great Britain, much against his own desires. He failed, where Mr. Gladstone succeeded, because his party was, as he feared it would be, unequal to the task of submitting to the responsibilities of the situation. The sentiment which he entertained may be gathered from the following passage in the Republique Française of the 11th January, 1882 (he resumed the direction of the journal on the 30th December, 1881): "When the chamber imposed office upon M. Gambetta, it did not know him. Few have surmised that the formation of his cabinet rested on an equivocal basis. The deputies wished M. Gambetta in power, because they did not wish him elsewhere; but they intended that once at the head of the ministry, he should be contented with the title, without governing, without applying his political ideas. He alone understood this equivoque, and it may well be that among the reasons which decided him to accept those high functions, there was a desire to put an end to it. Henceforth it can not exist. When, hereafter, M. Gambetta is called upon, it will be known that he must be taken as he is, with his programme of thorough reforms, of which the scrutin de liste is the essential condition. "This view is sustained by the course of M. Gambetta in power. When he sought to form his cabinet, the very men who had forced him to undertake the task refused their aid in performing it. He selected the best men he could get—not a strong cabinet politically, but men of energy and experience, and devoted to the republican cause. When he met the newly elected chamber, he announced a series of important measures, most of them those which the party had sustained: an extension of non-sectarian education, a change in the judicial organization, a reform of the military law, a moderate and limited revision of the constitution for the purpose of placing the senate upon a broader popular basis, and, finally, the adoption of the principle of the scrutin de liste. The latter is the substitution of the election of all the deputies of each department on one ticket for their election severally by arrondissements or districts. The deputies who had "wished him in power, because they did not wish him elsewhere," seized on the latter point to overthrow, and, as they hoped, to crush him. The new chamber had been elected by arrondissements. Its members owed much of their prominence and influence to the zeal or skill with which they had advanced the interests of the small districts from which they came, or those of the active politicians of their districts. They were committed to a "politique de clocher," or in the homely New England phrase, to a policy of "the town pump." M. Gambetta asked only that in the revision of the constitution, which the majority favored, the principle of the scrutin de liste should be embodied. His opponents chose to affirm that he sought a dissolution of the chamber and a new election, in which his name would be returned from so many departments that the election would be in some sense a plébiscite, on which he would base the establishment of personal power, of some sort of undefined dictatorship. The passage in which M. Gambetta alluded to this vague and malicious accusation, in his address to the chamber, was cloquent, logical and effective. Triple salvos of applause from all the benches of the chamber greeted it. There is no doubt that the charge was a mere device and subterfuge. M. Gambetta, at the head of the ministry, and able to remain there a long time, had be chosen to accept the scrutin d'arrondissement, would have had in his hands the most potent instrumentality for establishing personal power, for it is in the nature of the two methods, and it is shown by the history of France, that the influence of the central government is far more powerful in elections by districts than in elections by departments. "Every time," said M. Gambetta, "that France has really belonged to herself, every time that she has had really great legislatures, every time that personal power has been neutralized and foiled, it has had to face an assembly issuing from the scrutin de liste. On the other hand, the first act of personal power, the moment it took posession of the country, was to suppress the scrutin de liste, and to make of the scrutin d'arrondissement the very basis of its authority and of its electoral influence." The real motives of M. Gambetta were clearly and boldly explained in the République Française a fortnight before the test vote was taken: "For ten years past M. Gambetta has obeyed but one thought, to make of the French democracy a government. When one thinks of the origin of our republican party, of its habits of vehement opposition, its struggles in which heroism verged on the chimerical, the task undertaken by M. Gambetta seems an impossible one. What he has done, with many others certainly, to bring that end nearer, by introducing among us a true political spirit, all his companions in arms in the Versailles assembly and for the last six months of 1877(when the coalition was overthrown and the election of M. Grévy was assured) may perhaps remember. At this moment the republican party can compare itself fearlessly with all the parties that have held power within the nineteenth century. Yes, but all these parties have ended with failure. In order that the democracy may be more fortunate, in order that it may guide France toward a future of prosperity, of stability and at the same time of progress hitherto unknown, it must do better yet, it must become a government more powerful, much more intelligent, much more fruitful, and far more expansive than the governments of the past. It does not satisfy M. Gambetta to be simply minister; he would be the minister of a democracy possessing the full consciousness of its forces." And after defining the Edition: current; Page: [326] reforms at which M. Gambetta aimed, the République continues: "If the democracy were in possession of the most highly perfected administrative machinery, that would not be enough. It would still be requisite that the shaft which transmits motive power to each of the wheels of state should work with vigor and regularity—the shaft, or rather the motor itself, the democracy in its direct representatives. The more profound is the connection of the legislative assemblies with the nation, not so much with its passions of the hour as with its permanent purposes, impressing them in a manner clear, precise and practical, the more the democracy will feel itself strong and capable of progress. The system which our adversaries of the Versailles chamber imposed upon us, unquestionably clogs the expression of the national will. That is why it is necessary to revise that system and to enlarge the electoral basis of the chamber and the senate. Until that be done the republic can not get out of the ruts traced by previous governments." There is nothing in the recent career of M. Gambetta to throw any serious doubt on the sincerity of this statement of his views and purposes. On the contrary, he staked his possession of power, which he might easily have retained, upon the acceptance by the chamber of reforms broadly conceived to secure the stability, the efficiency, the dignity and usefulness of his party. This was not the act of a restless or selfish ambitieux; it was the act of a patriot and a statesman. He was overthrown by a coalition of the extreme democrats and the reactionists, and "with him fell," in the words of M. John Lemonne, "the republican majority, for the coalition was made up of those who would suppress the senate and the presidential office, and of those who would suppress the republic itself." The same distinguished writer, the most gifted and acute of the many able men whom the Orléanists have contributed to the republican party of France, says: "They mistake who imagine M. Gambetta is annihilated by his fall. He has fallen in defense of the opinions and the cause of conservative republicans. He is stronger now than ever before. He has had no occasion and not even the time to undergo the trials of power. He has expended nothing from the large reserve of strength that he has accumulated in the course of his public life, he fell amid the plaudits of those who overthrew him, and he has fallen erect upon his feet. Those who must now govern will soon perceive that there is a force outside them with which they must make their account." This "force outside" the ministry is what in this article has been termed "Gambettism." It is the force which more than any other now tends to make of the republican party of France a party capable of government, inspiring and obeying responsible leadership, and using the delicate but powerful forces of parliamentary institutions vigorously, steadily and sagaciously. That M. Gambetta completely embodies it, or that it is free from embarrassment from faults and errors in his judgment and character, has not been claimed; but that the creation and development of this force is the aim with which his career has been, when fairly interpreted, most consistent, is a reasonable inference, and one which is full of hope for the future of free representative government in France.

GARFIELD

GARFIELD, James Abram, president of the United States 1881, was born at Orange, Cuyahoga county, Ohio, Nov. 19, 1831, and died at Elberon, N. J., Sept. 19, 1881. He was graduated at Williams college in 1856; became a professor in, and afterward president of, Hiram college, Ohio; was admitted to the bar, and served in the army 1861-3, reaching the grade of major general. He was a republican representative in congress 1863-81, was elected U. S. senator for the term 1881-7, but before he took his seat was elected president, July 2, 1881, he was shot by a disappointed office seeker, and the injury resulted in his death.

—Garfield's rise form the position of a driver of mules upon the tow-path to the presidency was great, but others before him have compassed as great an interval. His exceptional success, among the crowd of self-made presidents, Jackson, Van Buren, Fillmore, Lincoln and Johnson, lay in his attainment of a breadth of culture which none of the others approached, and which, though it lay outside of polities, had a very strong influence upon his political career. His life and letters show his constant anxiety to develop his mental powers in every department of thought, so that before his untimely death he had become an intellectual athlete. It is unfortunately useless to speculate on the breadth of development to which twenty years further life and activity would have carried him.

—In congress Garfield was one of the mass of republican members during Thaddeus Stevens' leadership, and after Stevens' death he was by no means the most prominent republican leader until 1876-8, when he met and was a prime factor in defeating the spread of the greenback or "soft money" idea in his party. (See GREEN-BACK-LABOR PARTY, REPUBLICAN PARTY.) The extra sesson of the 46th congress, March 18, 1879 (see VETO), gave him almost the first rank as a party leader. By common consent the work of the debate was left to him. His charge that the southern democrats, having failed to defeat the government in the field, were now endeavoring to "starve it to death," was a very taking and compre;hensible point, and did good service for some time afterward. When, in the republican national convention of 1880, it was found that the majority of delegates were divided between Blaine and Sherman, that a strong minority (about 306 in number) were determined upon Grant, and that changes were hopeless, a sudden movement of all the factions nominated Garfield, June 8, on the thirty-sixth ballot, against his own protest. In November he was elected. (See ELECTORAL VOTES.)

—Only two points of Garfield's career have seemed vulnerable to his political Edition: current; Page: [327] opponents: his reception of a fee of $5,000 for arguing the De Golyer claim before a congressional committee, and his alleged complicity in the credit mobilier fraud. (See CREDIT MOBILIER.) As to the former case it need only be said that the arguing of cases, or giving opinions in cases, before courts or committees, by lawyers who are also congressmen, has never been condemned by public opinion and has been unhesitatingly followed by men of all parties; and that in this case the opinion seems to have been worth the fee paid for it. In the latter case the only evidence against Garfield is the naked assertion of Oakes Ames; in his favor are the facts that Garfield was notoriously poor; that he might have used his committee positions to enrich himself with far less danger of exposure than by accepting credit mobilier stock; and, above all, that the stock, which Ames claimed to have given Garfield, remained in Ames' possession for all the five years from 1868 until the explosion in 1873, that its enormous dividends were unhesitatingly appropriated by Ames, and that he showed no notion, until the explosion came, that the stock had ever been the property of any other person than himself. All this would seem absolutely conclusive in the case of any one but a presidential candidate.

—The two New York senators, Conkling and T. C. Platt, were republicans of the Grant faction. Immediately after his inauguration in March, 1881, President Garfield attempted to recognize all the factions of his party in the matter of appointments; but, as the most important New York appointment was given to their opponent, the New York senators, after vainly struggling against its confirmation until May, suddenly resigned, left their party in a minority in the senate, and brought about a great political uproar. A disappointed office seeker, thinking that the Conkling faction would justify any method of attack upon the president, chose this time to gratify his resentment for the refusal to appoint him to a consulship, and shot the president, announcing himself as Conkling's champion. The horrible calamity of the president's assassination served at least one useful purpose; it threw a vivid light upon the evils of the American system of appointments to and removals from office.

—See Hiusdale's Republican Text Book of 1880; Brisbin's Life of Garfield; Bundy's Life of Garfield; Gilmore's Life of Garfield; Balch's Life of Garfield; Smalley's History of the Republican Party.

GENET

GENET, Citizen (IN U. S. HISTORY), the name usually given to Edmond Charles Genet, the ambassador of the French republic to the United States in 1793.

—In the early months of 1793 the government of the French republic was still nominally under the control of the Girondins, but the massacre of the royal guards, Aug. 10, 1792, the general massacre, Sept. 2-7, 1792, and the execution of the king, Jan. 21, 1793, showed that the destructive element, of which the Jacobins were the best known faction, had learned the virtues of terror as a political force and was gaining upon the more moderate Girondins. Hitherto the revolution had been confined to France; the fighting of the first campaign of the war declared against Austria and Prussia, April 20, 1792, had been done on French soil; and American interest in the events in France was entirely speculative. The opening of the year changed all this. The execution of the king was given, and taken, as a defiance to every neighboring monarchy; the declaration of war against England and Holland, Feb. 3, 1793, was the first movement of the expansion which was soon to make all Europe the theatre of the revolution; and it was inevitable that this outward movement of the revolution should involve somewhere a call for active sympathy and assistance upon France's only ally, the United States. To obtain this assistance Genet was sent in January in the Ambuscade frigate, and arrived at Charleston, April 8, bringing with him 300 blank commissions for privateers.

—Genet was only in his twenty-eighth year, but a master of that half-purposed and half-delirious declamation, which seems absurd now, but which was then the surest weapon of a French revolutionary envoy: he came to a country whose people were already very strongly disposed to war against Great Britain on their own account, and equally disposed to consider the French revolution as having every claim upon their active support; and, for the moment, he swept the American people off their feet and almost into the war. That he was not entirely successful was altogether due to the overmastering influence which Washington possessed, and which he did not hesitate to use for the maintenance of neutrality. (See EMBARGO, I.; JAY'S TREATY; EXECUTIVE.)

—The whole web of difficulties of which Genet became the centre turned upon the treaties with France of Feb. 6, 1778. There were two treaties of this date, the first of alliance and the second of amity and commerce, and the general meaning of the former and the special applicability of two articles of the latter were the questions at issue in 1793.

—The treaty of alliance (see REVOLUTION) is by its terms a treaty "eventual and defensive"; the "essential and direct end of this defensive alliance" is stated in the second article as the maintenance of the liberty, sovereignty and independence of the liberty, sovereignty and independence of the United States; and to every intent and purpose its provisions are confined to the then existing war between the United States and Great Britain, and the French intervention therein, with the exception, perhaps, of the mutual guaranty of possessions in the last two articles. Genet claimed, and many Americans were inclined to agree with him, that the treaty of alliance was still in existence and binding on both parties, and that it had not been terminated by the peace of 1783. It was not difficult to disprove the claim, in itself considered, but it was re-enforced by another consideration, invulnerable to reason, which weighed still more Edition: current; Page: [328] heavily with the mass of the American people. The selfish reason of the French court for making the treaty, its desire to dismember the British empire, was then a state secret to all but a few, and the sentimental obligations to alliance seemed far more binding upon the United States in 1793 that they had been upon France in 1778. The burden of the argument for maintaining the alliance was therefore the idea that the United States was under obligations to requite the assistance which France had rendered during the revolution.

—The treaty of commerce offered more difficulties. In its terms it was to be permanent, not limited to a single object; by it seventeenth section free entrance was to be allowed to prizes made by either party into the ports of each nation, and enemy cruisers against one party were not to be allowed to remain in the ports of the other; by its twenty-second section privateers of a third power at enmity with either nation were not to be permitted to fit out or sell prizes in the ports of the other; and, by the twenty-ninth section, each nation was allowed to have consuls in the ports of the other. In themselves considered, it is plain that the first two of these provisions, however beneficial to the United States in 1778, were very embarrassing in 1793, but Genet succeeded in rendering them even more embarrassing. He insisted on turning the prohibition of the arming, in this instance, of British privateers into a permission to arm French privateers and enlist men on the soil of the United States; and he also insisted that the powers of French consuls should include that of complete admiralty jurisdiction, in condemning and selling prizes. These were the two main questions as issue in 1793; the other exasperating pretensions and the unbounded insolence of language of Genet were only subsidiary to his main design, the exercise of such powers of sovereignty as would really convert the United States into French soil.

—Five days before Genet's arrival at Charleston, a British packet had brought to New York city the news of the French declaration of war against Great Britain. April 18, Washington sent to his cabinet thirteen questions, probably drawn up by Hamilton. The most important of these were: 1, should a proclamation issue to prevent American interference in the war, and should it contain a declaration or neutrality; 2, should the French minister be received, 3, absolutely or with qualifications; 4, should the United States consider the treaties abrogated or suspended during the present state of government in France; 8, whether the war was offensive, defensive, or mixed and equivocal on the part of France; 11, whether the twenty-second section of the treaty of commerce applied to privateers only, or to ships of war also; and 13, whether congress ought to be called together. By the unanimous advice of the cabinet a proclamation of neutrality was issued, April 22, declaring the neutrality of the United States between the parties to the war, exhorting citizens of the United States to avoid infractions of neutrality, and giving notice that violators of neutrality would not be protected by the United States, but would be prosecuted, whenever possible, by federal officers.—the cabinet was also unanimous in advising in favor of the reception of the French minister, and against an extra session of congress. As to the treaties the cabinet was divided: Hamilton and Knox thought that France, while so acting as to provoke war against her, had no right to hold the United States to treaty stipulations made for entirely different circumstances; Jefferson and Randolph considered the treaties as made with the French nation, not with the king alone, and as unaffected by the change of government and policy. No reasoning, however, can reconcile the treaty of alliance and the declaration of neutrality; in so far, then, the whole cabinet seem to have considered the treaty of alliance really at an end, including its guaranty. Among the conflicting arguments and statements as to the treaty of commerce, it is only clear that Washington decided not yet to hold it abrogated; in plain words, to say nothing about it, but to follow it until forced to abrogate it.

—Genet soon gave Hammond, the British representative, good cause for complaint. Immediately after his landing, he had fitted out two privateers which made captures of British vessels along the coast. His own frigate, the Ambuscade, arrived at Philadelphia May 2, bringing with her a British merchantman, the Grange, which she had captured within the capes of the Delaware. Genet had not yet been recognized or received by the federal government. His progress northward had been marked by expressions of popular enthusiasm as warm as those which had first met him, and misled him, at Charleston. He arrived at Philadelphia May 16; banquets were arranged in his honor, at which Genet himself sang the Marseillaise, and the guests, wearing the red cap of liberty, took turns in plunging a knife into the severed head of a pig, which represented the late king; British and French sailors engaged in armed conflicts in the streets of Philadelphia, the latter being generally supported by the populace; and all the initial steps of the process by which French agents of the time were in the habit of "revolutionizing" other peoples were successfully taken.

—The first damper upon this process in America was the calm and entirely business-like tone of the president's answer to Genet at the latter's official reception, May 18. The next was a refusal of his request, May 23, that the United States should pay $2,300,000 of their French debt. not yet due, though Genet offered, as an inducement, to expend the amount in the United States. These rebuffs were followed by a notification from Jefferson to Genet, June 5, that "the arming and equipping vessels in the ports of the United States, to cruise against nations with whom they are at peace, was incompatible with the territorial sovereignty of the United States," and must be stopped; and this notification was emphasized by the arrest of two of Genet's American recruits, Edition: current; Page: [329] Henfield and Singletary, and their indictment for breach of neutrality, for a crime, Genet wrote, with almost frantic indignation, "which my mind can not conceive, and which my pen almost refuses to state, the serving of France and the defending with her children the common and glorious cause of liberty." This last step, indeed, was the most serious of all to Genet's plans, and, if submitted to, cut the ground from under his feet: and in protesting against it, he first began to show that insolent ill temper, which for the next four months was the most prominent feature of his intercourse with the state department. He was now convinced that the neutrality proclamation of April 22 was no legal fiction, designed to delude Great Britain, but was to be literally fulfilled by the executive.

—Had Genet been fortunate enough to find congress in session, he would certainly have now precipitated matters by endeavoring to open direct communication with that branch of the government, and would probably have been supported by some of the more reckless Gallicans among the representatives. It can hardly be supposed that the attempt would have succeeded. Congress can not officially know of the existence of a foreign minister except through the president (see EXECUTIVE, III.); and the exercise even of consular functions is dependent on revocable permissions, known as exequaturs, from the president. Congress, however, was not regularly to meet for six months. June 14, in a letter relating to the payment of the debt due to France, Genet very directly intimated that the federal government had "taken it on itself" to decide the question "without consulting congress upon so important a matter." He then repeated without success official and unofficial demands for an extra session of congress until, Sept. 18, in a final burst of passion, he declared that he was "persuaded that the sovereignty of the United States resides essentially in the people, and its representation in the congress; that the executive power is the only one which has been confided to the president; that this magistrate has not the right to decide questions, the discussion of which the constitution reserves particularly to the congress; and that he has not the power to bend existing treaties to circumstances and to change their sense." In this connection it is worthy of note that Genet's instructions of the previous January had designated him as "minister plenipotentiary to the congress of the United States," a phrase which, if construed by the knowledge of the American constitution elsewhere shown in the instructions, could only argue a possible view to this very phase of affairs.

—In this general manner, by passing over the executive and interfering with domestic concerns, the revolutionary envoys had usually succeeded in making the friendship of France almost as dangerous as her enmity to any government with which they came in contact, and in this case it must be acknowledged that the trial was a severe one for a form of government as yet hardly four years old. It was increased by the facts that the only definite, active sympathy of the country was with France, that the mass of the people was indifferent to, or strongly inclined to approve, any course of action which would make against Great Britain; and that the only opposing influence was negative, rather an incipient dislike to the violence of the French revolution that any active sympathy with Great Britain. In the cabinet Jefferson represented the first class, Randolph and Knox the second, and Hamilton the third. Hamilton undertook the defense of the administration in a series of seven letters, signed "pacificus," in which, with great ability, be defended the proclamation on the very evident ground that, while a declaration of war lay in the power of congress, it was the president's duty to see that the peace was kept until war was declared Madison, at Jefferson's request, replied in five letters, signed "Helividius."

—From Genet's first arrival he had encouraged the formation of the French faction into associations to further "the principles of the revolution" (see DEMOCRATIC CLUBS), and these, and their newspaper organs, Bache's Advertiser and Freneau's Gazette, attacked the president freely. One of them, in a pasquinade called "the funeral of Washington," went so far as to represent him upon the guillotine. The president seems to have kept his equanimity until, at a cabinet meeting, Aug. 2, when Genet's race had been almost run, he got, says Jefferson, "into one of those passions when he can not command himself," and declared "that he had never repented but once the having slipped the moment of resigning his office, and that was every moment since; that by God he had rather be in his grave than in his present situation; that he had rather be on his farm than to be made emperor of the world; and yet that they were charging him with wanting to be a king."

—About July 1, Genet seems to have become satisfied that the government of the United States was not composed of easily inflammable material, and that congress was not to be called together at his bidding, and to have decided upon the next step in such cases, an appeal to the people. He had hitherto disregarded the prohibition of the equipment of privateers; and had equipped and sent to sea eight privateers, which, with two French frigates, had captured about fifty British merchantmen, some of them, like the Grange, within the jurisdiction of the United States. When he proceeded to equip another privateer, the Little Democrat (formerly the Little Sarah), in Philadelphia itself, then the national capital, he seems to have sought to force an issue with the government. Orders were sent to detain her, July 6; Genet, after threatening an appeal to the people, evasively declared that the vessel was not ready, and was not yet going to sea; and, July 8, when the guards had been removed, the vessel sailed. the acquittal of Henfield by a jury, in spite of evidence, led Genet further in the course he had marked out. Passing to New York city, he had Edition: current; Page: [330] begun to expedite the cause there, when he found himself impeded, rather than helped, by a rumor of his threat to appeal from the government to the people. Some of his partisans denied the story, whereupon chief Justice John Jay and Senator Rufus King, of New York, issued a card in the newspapers, Aug. 12, vouching for the truth of it. This practically closed Genet's career. Hitherto he had been a danger; henceforth he was only a nuisance. The drift of the public meetings began to run continually more strongly against him personally, not against France or in favor of Great Britain. He took the liberty of demanding a contradiction of the story from the president himself, who refused to hold communication with him except through the state department; he then demanded a prosecution of Jay and King for libel; and when this was refused, he published the whole correspondence and began a prosecution on his own account in November, but soon abandoned it. The "appeal to the people," which Genet had threatened and Hamilton had urged upon the president in July, had thus been finally made, to Genet's complete discomfiture and astonishment. The whole episode is interesting as almost the only case in which a French revolutionary envoy, having a fair opportunity and freedom of speech in a neutral or friendly country, failed to overthrow or convert the constituted authorities to the "principles of the revolution."

—A request for Genet's recall had already been determined upon at three cabinet meetings, Aug. 1-3, and it was made in a long and able letter of Aug. 16, to Morris, the American minister in Paris, written by Jefferson. It rehearsed Genet's persistent misconstructions of the treaties, his disregard of American neutrality, and his various insolences of language to the president in his state papers, declared the continued friendship of the United States for France, and asked the recall of Genet. A copy of the letter was sent to Genet. Hammond had previously been informed, Aug. 5, that the United States would make compensation for British vessels captured by French privateers equipped in American ports after June 5, the date on which Genet had been informed that such equipments must cease; but that, after Aug. 5, the British government must be satisfied with the active exertions of the federal government to maintain neutrality. Aug. 7, Genet had been informed that his illegal captures must be restored; otherwise the federal government would make restitution for them and look to France for indemnity. The French government, Oct. 10, disavowed all responsibility for the "punishable conduct" and "criminal manœuvres" of their agent in the United States, and promised his prompt recall; but at the same time they requested, in return, the recall of the American minister at Paris, Gouverneur Morris, whose active antipathy to the dominant party of France had operated to lessen his usefulness in that country. Genet's recall was not known until the following January. Before the middle of September, 1793, he had been compelled to perceive that he would only be recognized through his official intercourse with the executive; that the executive was determined to maintain neutrality, not active alliance with France; and that he had nothing to hope from an appeal to the people, further than barren editorials in a few newspapers. His mission, therefore, as far as its essential object was concerned, was already a failure; but he still had some power, personally or by his subordinates, to annoy the administration, and this power he exercised throughout the remainder of the year. Some of the French consuls persisted in attempting to exercise admiralty jurisdiction in prize cases; and the administration, Sept. 7, threatened to revoke the exequatur of any consul who should so offend. The penalty was enforced in the case of the French vice-consul at Boston, A. C. Duplaine, who had rescued a libeled French prize from the United States marshal, Aug. 21, with the help of a body of marines from a French frigate in the harbor. Genet's agents had two expeditions under way, one from Georgia against Florida and the other from Kentucky against New Orleans, France being now at war with Spain also. For the support of his soldiers and sailors, whose number he stated. Nov. 14, to be about 2,000, he again urged the United States to pay in advance a portion of the debt to France. This was refused, for the assigned reasons that payments had already been made in advance to cover, the year 1794, and that there was no fund from which to legally draw the money for an more payments; a still more cogent reason was the natural unwillingness of a neutral administration to furnish Genet with funds whose expenditure could only involve fresh breaches of neutrality.

—Before the month of November the administration felt strong enough to take a higher tone toward Genet; but a fair opportunity did not come until Nov. 14. In a letter of that date, in reply to one from Jefferson objecting to certain French consular commissions which had not been addressed directly to the president, Genet assumed to state the constitutional functions of the president, relative to the reception of foreign ministers, as "only those which are fulfilled in courts by the first ministers for their pretended sovereigns, to verify purely and simply the powers of foreign agents accredited to their masters and irrevocable by them when once they have been admitted." In his answer, Nov. 22, Jefferson emphatically stated that the president was the only channel of communication between this country and foreign nations; that foreign agents could only learn from him what was or had been the will of the nation; and that no foreign agent could be allowed to question what he communicated as the will of the nation, to interpose between him and any other branch of the government, under pretext that either had transgressed its functions, or to make himself the arbiter between them. I Edition: current; Page: [331] am therefore, sir, not authorized to enter into any discussions with you on the meaning of our constitution, or to prove to you that it has ascribed to him alone the admission or interdiction of foreign agents. I inform you of the fact by authority from the president. In your letter you personally question the authority of the president, making a point of this formality on your part; it becomes necessary to make a point of it on ours also; and I am therefore charged to return you these commissions and to inform you that the president will issue no exequatur to any consul or vice-consul whose commission is not directed to him in the usual form." To restrict Genet to legitimate diplomatic functions was to deprive him of most of his capacity for mischief; accordingly his career in the United States may be considered finally ended. A message from the president, Jan. 20, 1794, announced that the request for the recall of Genet had been agreed to by the French government; but the utter destruction which had already overtaken his party, the Girondins, at the hands of the Jacobins, was a plain warning to Genet not to return to France. He therefore remained in New York, where he married a daughter of Governor Clinton. He attracted no further public attention until his death in 1835.

—The most ambiguous position in regard to the whole affair of Genet and his mission is that of Jefferson. Prima facie, the whole case is strongly in his favor: his state papers are all exceedingly creditable, being frank, explicit, and yet very temperate, even including the last crushing letter of Nov. 22. His private correspondence, however, and, still more, two dispatches of Genet to the French government, July 25 and Oct. 7, 1793, have thrown some doubts on Jefferson's earnestness: Genet says, in terms, that Jefferson had at first fraternized with him, had cautioned him against the influence which Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris were exerting on the president's mind in favor of Great Britain, and had aided him in organizing his expedition against New Orleans. In an official letter of Sept. 18 to Jefferson, Genet did not hesitate to charge him with having made himself the "generous instrument" of the request for Genet's recall, "after having made me believe that you were my friend, after having initiated me into mysteries which have inflamed my hatred against all those who aspire to an absolute power," and significantly remarked, that "it is not in my character to speak, as many people do, in one way and act in another, to have an official language and a language confidential." The last covert charge is utterly unwarranted: so far as all the evidence goes, Jefferson's language, both official and confidential, was at first cordially in Genet's favor, and as cordially against him when his plan of action had become evident. In the authorities cited below, the reader will find the case fairly given in von Holst, unfavorably to Jefferson in Hildreth, and favorably to him in Randall.

—The case of Genet got little notice from congress, whose attention, in the winter of 1793-4, was entirely taken up by the first proposition to attack the commercial intercourse of Great Britain and the United States. (See EMBARGO, JAY'S TREATY.) Both the Genet episode, and that of Jay's treaty which immediately followed it, are instructive instances of the almost invariable influence which successive presidents have exerted in favor of peace abroad. Washington's example was closely followed by Adams in 1798, by Jefferson during his terms of office, and by Madison until he yielded to the force of the war feeling in 1812. (See DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY. III.: MONROE DOCTRINE; EXECUTIVE. III.)

—See 4 Hildreth's United States, 413; 1 von Holst's United States, 113; 2 Pitkin's United States, 357; 1 Schouler's United States, 246; 1 Tucker's United States, 504; 2 Spencer's United States, 318; 2 Marshall's Washington (ed. 1831), 260, and note ix.; 31 Atlantic Monthly, 385; Sparks' Life of Washington, 452, and 10 Washington's Writings, 534; Trescott's Diplomatic History, 91; 2 sparks' Life of Gonverneur Morris, 288; 1 Jay's Life of Jay, 298; J. Q. Adams' Life of Madison, 53; 2 Rives' Life of Madison, 322, 1 Wait's American State Papers, (2d edit.) 157, 198, 4 Hamilton's Works, 360; 4 Jefferson's Works (ed. 1829), 490; De Witt's Jefferson, 221; 2 Randall's Jefferson, 157; 1 Tucker's Jefferson, 432. The proclamation of April 22, 1793, is in 1 Statesman's Mannual, 46.

GENEVA ARBITRATION

GENEVA ARBITRATION. The commissioners who negotiated the treaty of Washington, recorded in a protocol so much of the history of the negotiations which preceded it as they desired to preserve. They say that in the conference of March 8, 1872, the Americans made the following statement of the demand then and since known as the "Alabama claims". "That the history of the Alabama and other cruisers which had been fitted out, or armed, or equipped, or which had received augmentation of force in Great Britain or in her colonies, and of the operations of those vessels, showed extensive and direct losses in the capture and destruction of a large number of vessels with their cargoes, and in the heavy national expenditures in the pursuit of the cruisers, and indirect injury in the transfer of a large part of the American commercial marine to the British flag, in the enhanced payments of insurance, in the prolongation of the war, and in the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion," and added "that in the hope of an amicable settlement no estimate was made of the indirect losses, without prejudice, however, to the right to indemnification on their account in the event of no such settlement being made." The British commissioners replied, "that the British government could not admit that Great Britain had failed to discharge toward the United States the duties imposed on her by the rules of Edition: current; Page: [332] international law, or that she was justly liable to make good to the United States the losses occasioned by the acts of the cruisers to which the American commissioners expressed their regret at this decision of the British commissioners." The parties then negotiated for the submission of the claims to arbitration, and concluded the treaty of Washington in part for that purpose. The first article of the treaty, after reciting that claims against Great Britain "exist, growing out of the acts committed by the several vessels which have given rise to the claims generically known as the Alabama claims," provides that "all the said claims growing out of the acts committed by the aforesaid vessels" shall be referred to a tribunal of arbitration. Thus tribunal assembled Dec. 15, 1871, in Geneva, in Switzerland. It consisted of the following arbitrators: Count Federigo Sclopis, of Salerano, named by the king of Italy; Baron Itajuba, named by the emperor of Brazil; Mr Jaques Staempfli, named by the president of Switzerland; Charles Francis Adams. Esq., appointed by the president of the United States, and lord chief justice Sir Alexander Cockburn, appointed by the queen of Great Britain. J. C. Bancroft Davis, Esq., represented the United States as their agent; Lord Tenterden represented Her Britannic Majesty in the same capacity. On motion of Mr. Adams, seconded by Sir Alexander Cockburn, Count Sclopis was made president, and Mr. Alexander Favrot, of Switzerland, was elected to be the secretary of the tribunal. In accordance with the terms of the treaty the agent of each government then presented printed volumes containing the "case" of his government, with accompanying proofs.

—The American agent laid claim for damages for injuries committed by thirteen vessels, viz.: the Sumter: the Florida, and her tenders, the Clarence, the Tacony and the Archer; the Alabama and her tender; the Tuscaloosa; the Retribution; the Georgia, the Tallahassee; the Chicamauga; and the Shenandoah. The British agent denied that the arbitration covered more than the acts of the Alabama, the Georgia, the Florida, and the Shenandoah. The tribunal took jurisdiction of all the vessels submitted by the American agent, and exculpated Great Britain from liability for the acts of any except the Florida and her tenders, the Alabama and her tenders, and the Shenandoah after leaving Melbourne. The American demands for damage were laid in the exact language of the protocol cited above, in which they were classified as "direct" and "indirect." On Feb. 3, 1872, Lord Granville informed the American minister in London, that "the British government held that it was not within the province of the tribunal of arbitration at Geneva to decide upon the claims for indirect losses and injuries put forward in the case of the United States."

—Pending the diplomatic discussion which followed, the two agents met at Geneva, April 15, to put in the counter cases of their respective governments, and while there discussed the mode of settling the difficulty in case it could not be settled diplomatically. Soon after the reassembling of the tribunal in June (no diplomatic adjustment being reached) the plan discussed by the agents in April was practically carried out. The tribunal, of its own accord, declared that without expressing an opinion on the political question which had arisen, they were individually and collectively of opinion that the "indirect claims" did not "constitute, upon the principles of international law applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of compensation or computation of damages." This decision was accepted by both governments as a satisfactory disposition of the disputed matter—With the scope of the arbitration thus settled, the tribunal made the following disposition of the matters before it. The treaty laid down three rules for the guidance of the arbitrators, viz.: "That a neutral government is bound, 1, to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or carry on war against a power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use; 2, not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men, 3, to exercise due diligence in its own ports or waters, and, as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties."

—The United States rested their demand on these propositions: that the British government, by the indiscreet haste with which the proclamation of neutrality (seeALABAMA CLAIMS) was issued, by the preconcerted action with France respecting the declarations of the congress of Paris, by refusing to amend the defective neutrality laws, by the delay in seizing a vessel which was evidently being fitted out at Liverpool and intended to carry on war with the United States, a country with which Great Britain was then at peace, and other unfriendly acts, and individual members of the government by open expressions of sympathy with the insurgents, had exhibited an unfriendly feeling which might affect their own course, and must have affected the action of their subordinates; that these facts proved an animus in the government and imbued with a character of culpable negligence many of the acts of its subordinates complained of for which a government might not otherwise be held responsible; and that Great Britain had always maintained a right to permit vessels like the Alabama to be constructed and equipped in her ports, so that in point of law she held that there was no Edition: current; Page: [333] obligation to exercise due diligence to prevent their departure.

—On these points the tribunal decided that "the due diligence referred to in the first and third of the said rules ought to be exercised by neutral governments in exact proportion to the risks to which either of the belligerents may be exposed from a failure to fulfill neutrality on their part." "The circumstances out of which the facts constituting the subject matter of the present controversy arose were of a nature to call for the exercise on the part of Her Britannic Majesty's government of all possible solicitude for the observance of the rights and duties involved in the proclamation of neutrality."

—The American case also contended that the treaty required that when a vessel which had been especially adapted for war within a neutral port for the use of a belligerent in war comes again within the neutral's jurisdiction, the neutral should seize and detain it. The British papers contended that the obligations created by the treaty refer only to the duty of preventing the original departure of the vessel, and that the fact that it was, after the original departure from a neutral port, commissioned as a ship of war, protects it against detention. On this point the tribunal decided as follows: "The effects of a violation of neutrality, committed by means of the construction, equipment and armament of a vessel, are not done away with by any commission which the government of the belligerent power benefited by the violation of neutrality may afterward have granted to that vessel; and the ultimate step by which the offense is completed can not be admissible as a ground for the absolution of the offender, nor can the consummation of his fraud become the means of establishing his innocence. The privilege of exterritoriality, accorded to vessels of war, has been admitted into the law of nations, not as an absolute right, but solely as a proceeding founded on the principles of courtesy and mutual deference between different nations, and therefore can never be appealed to for the protection of acts done in violation of neutrality."

—It was further contended in the American case that the insurgent cruisers had such advantages in British ports over the vessels of the United States in the storing and receiving of coal as made the ports bases of hostile operations against the United States. On this point the tribunal said: "In order to impart to any supplied of coal a character inconsistent with the second rule, prohibiting the use of neutral ports or waters as a base of naval operations for a belligerent, it is necessary that the said supplied should be connected with special circumstances of time, of persons, or of place, which may combine to give them such a character;" but Viscount d'Itajuba, while signing the award, recorded in the protocol his opinion that "every government is free to furnish to the belligerents more or less of that article."

—The American case also contended that Great Britain could not escape liability by reason of alleged deficiencies in internal legislation enacted for the purpose of enabling the government to fulfill its international duties. The tribunal held that "the government of Her Britannic Majesty can not justify itself for a failure in due diligence on the insufficiency of the legal means of action which it possessed."

—The American pleadings urged the importance of awarding a sum in gross, and thus closing the political question; and contended that interest should form a part of the sum so awarded, that the United States should be repaid for its outlays in pursuit of the cruisers, and that the sufferers should be compensated for the loss of prospective earnings. The tables of damages presented by the United States also presented claims for gross freights. The tribunal decided that no compensation should be made for the pursuit of the cruisers; that none should be made for prospective earnings, "as they depend in their nature on future and uncertain contingencies", that net freights only should be allowed; and that "it is just and reasonable to allow interest at a reasonable rate"; and "by a majority of four voices to one awarded to the United a sum of $15,500,000 in gold as the indemnity to be paid by Great Britain to the United States as the satisfaction of all the claims referred to the consideration of the tribunal." This award was signed by Count Sclopis, Viscount d'Itajuba, Mr. Staempfli and Mr. Adams, Sept. 14, 1872. Sir Alexander Cockburn refused to sign it, and filed a long dissenting opinion. The president then declared the tribunal to be dissolved.

GEORGIA

GEORGIA, one of the thirteen original United States. Its territory was originally included in the charter of 1662-3 to the lords proprietors of the Carolinas, but was set apart by a royal charter of June 9, 1732, to a company organized by James Oglethorpe to provide homes in America for indigent persons. The boundaries of the new colony were laid down in the charger as follows: "All those lands, countrys and territories situate, lying and being in that part of South Carolina, in America, which lies from the most northern part of a stream or river there, commonly called the Savannah, all along the sea coast, to the southward, unto the most southern stream of a certain other great water or river called the Alatamaha, and westerly from the heads of the said rivers respectively in direct lines to the south seas." this boundary was more precisely defined by the state constitution of 1798 as beginning at the mouth of the Savannah, running up that river and the Tugalo to the headwaters of the latter, thence straight west to the Mississippi, down that river to parallel 31° north latitude, thence east on that parallel to the Appalachicola or Chattahoochee, along that river to the Flint, thence straight to the head of the St. Mary's river, along that river to the Atlantic, and thence along the coast to the place of beginning. June 20, 1752, the charter was surrendered, and the colony be came a royal province.

—The first state constitution Edition: current; Page: [334] was adopted by a state convention, Feb. 5, 1777. It changed the name of parish to that of county, gave the choice of the governor to the legislature, fixed the governor's term at one year, and forbade the election of any person as governor for more than one year in three. A new constitution was formed by a state convention which met at Augusta, Nov. 4, 1788, and was ratified by another convention at the same place, May 6, 1789. Among other changes, it prolonged the governor's term to two years, and directed the senate to elect the governor from three names to be selected by the house. By an amendment adopted by a new state convention at Louisville, May 16, 1795, Louisville was made the permanent seat of government. Another constitution was adopted in state convention at Louisville, May 30, 1798. It abolished the African slave trade, but forbade the legislature to emancipate slaves without the consent of their owners, or to prevent immigrants from other states from bringing their slaves with them. Various amendments to this constitution were made up to and including the secession convention of 1861, the only one necessary to specify here being that of Nov. 17, 1824, which transferred the election of governor to the people. The changes produced by the rebellion will be given hereafter.

—The territory originally claimed by Georgia, extending from the Atlantic coast to the Mississippi, was diminished in 1798 by the formation of Mississippi territory, from which the states of Mississippi and Alabama were afterward formed. (See those states.) All this territory was claimed by Georgia under her charter, the king's proclamation of 1763, and a cession by South Carolina, in April, 1787, of her claims under the original charter. The United States claimed it on the ground that it had been annexed to the British province of West Florida before the revolution, and had been ceded by Great Britain to the United States by the peace of 1783. The controversy was settled by the convention of April 24, 1802, between the United States and Georgia, by which the latter ceded her claims to the territory in dispute, in consideration of $1,250,000, and a stipulation that the United States would extinguish the Indian title to lands within the state of Georgia, for the use of Georgia, "as soon as the same can be peaceably obtained upon reasonable terms." (See CHEROKEE CASE.)

—In presidential elections the electoral votes of Georgia have always been cast for democratic candidates, except in 1840 and 1848, when they were cast for Harrison and Taylor respectively, the whig candidates. In 1789 and 1792 the Georgia electors voted for Washington for the presidency and for various democrats for the vice-presidency. (See ELECTORAL VOTES.) In 1824 the Georgia electors voted for Crawford, and in 1836 for White (see those names), both of these being democrats. Until 1844 the congressional elections were by general ticket, a majority of the electors of the state choosing all the congressmen of the state. Under this system the congressmen were regularly democratic. The federal party made little opposition to the dominant party in the state, but soon after 1830 a strong whig vote appeared and endured until 1855, its best known members being John M. Berrien, Alexander H. Stephens, Thomas Butler King, and Robert Toombs. In 1838 the whigs, by a coalition with the "state rights" faction, elected all the nine congressmen, though four of them afterward declared for Van Buren; and in other years the legislature occasionally chose a whig United States senator. After the adoption of the district system in 1844, the eight districts of the state were at first evenly divided between the two parties. In 1848 the whigs permanently lost one of their districts and in 1850 another; but the seventh and eighth districts, composed of the central counties of the state eastward to the Savannah river, and represented by Stephens and Toombs, remained whig until the final overthrow of the party. The majorities in the democratic districts, though steady, were always very small. After the death of the whig party, an American party appeared in the state. (See WHIG PARTY, AMERICAN PARTY.) Until 1861 it held two of the congressional districts of the state, and maintained a strong vote in the others. To sum up, Georgia was, from 1830 until 1861, one of the most evenly divided of the southern states, and yet one of the steadiest in general vote and in proportional party strength.

—The state elections until 1830 were undisputedly democratic, and all political struggles were entirely personal between different members of the same party. From 1796 until 1810 the claim of land companies to the Mississippi lands claimed by Georgia was the controlling issue in state politics, as was the case from 1825 until 1835 with the removal of the Creek and Cherokee Indians from the state. (See YAZOO FRAUDS, CHEROKEE CASE.) The "state rights party" of Gov. Troup retained its organization after its victory in the Cherokee case. It was still often known as the "Troup party" until about 1837; but in 1832 Thos. B. King and others of its leaders so committed it against Jackson that it gradually became the Georgia whig party.

—After 1830 the state elections resulted almost as steadily in democratic success, but with much greater difficulty. Although but one governor, Crawford, was an avowed whig, the whig party in the state disputed every election vigorously, aided in electing at least one governor, Gilmer, in opposition to the national or regular democratic candidate, and frequently controlled the legislature, generally in years not affected by a presidential election. As a general rule the whig vote in the state may be reckoned at from 47 to 49 per cent. of the total, occasionally rising to a majority.

—The formation of the so-called American party in the state reduced the opposition vote to about 40 per cent., and this proportion represents the opposition in 1860-61 both to the election of Breckinridge and to secession. The opposition Edition: current; Page: [335] to the latter measure, as elsewhere-mentioned, was to the advisability, not to the principle, of secession, and ceased when the majority and pronounced the decision. Indeed, the leader of the so-called union party of the state, A. H. Stephens, was almost immediately elected vice-president of the new southern confederacy. (See ALLEGIANCE, SECESSION. CONFEDERATE STATES.)

—In November, 1860, an act of the legislature provided for a special election for delegates to a state convention, which met at Milledgeville, Jan. 16, 1861. Jan. 16, by a vote of 208 to 89, an ordinance of secession was passed. It repealed the ordinance ratifying the constitution, and the acts ratifying the amendments to the constitution, dissolved the union between Georgia and the other states, and declared "that the state of Georgia is in the full possession and exercise of all those rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent state." The minority, however, signed the ordinance, as a pledge that they would sustain their state, with the exception of six; and these yielded so far as to place on the minutes a pledge of "their lives, fortunes and honor" to the defense of the state. Ten delegates were chosen by the convention to represent the state at the organization of the provisional government in Montgomery, and Georgia thus became one of the confederate states. The progress of the war developed a considerable opposition in Georgia to the confederate government. In the leaders it took the form of a sublimated state sovereignty, in opposition to the despotic acts of the executive; but in the mass of voters there seems to have been a strong undercurrent in favor of reconstruction in its first form, that is, re-entrance to the Union on terms. April 30, 1865, the Sherman-Johnson agreement ended the rebellion in Georgia. (See CONFEDERATE STATES, REBELLION, RECONSTRUCTION.)

—June 17, 1865, James Johnson was appointed provisional governor of the state. Under his directions a convention met at Milledgeville, Oct. 25, repealed the ordinance of secession, voided the war debt, and adopted a new state constitution, Nov. 7, which was ratified by popular vote. It recognized the abolition of slavery by the federal government as a war measure, but reserved the right of its citizens to appeal to "the justice and magnanimity of that government" for compensation for slaves; it made the governor ineligible for re-election; it confined the right of suffrage to free white male citizens; and it enjoined upon the legislature the duty of providing by law for "the government of free persons of color." State officers were elected Nov. 15, 1865, the legislature met in December, and the state remained under the new form of government until March, 1867. (See RECONSTRUCTION.) The state then became a part of the third military district, under Maj. Gen. John Pope. Under the direction of Maj. Gen. Meade, who succeeded him, a state convention met at Atlanta, Dec. 8, 1867, and formed a new constitution, which was ratified, April 20, 1868, by a popular vote of 89,007 to 71,309. It declared the paramount allegiance of the citizen to be due to the constitution allegiance of the citizen to be due to the constitution and government of the United States, voided all state laws "in contravention or subversion thereof," declared all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and residents in the state, to be citizens of the state, forbade the legislature to abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens, abolished slavery and the limitation of suffrage to white males, prolonged the governor's term to four years, and voided all contracts for the encouragement of rebellion, made and not executed. Some changes, not affecting any of the above-points, were made in congress, and the state was readmitted by act of June 25, 1868.

—The election at which the constitution had been ratified had resulted in the choice of republican state officers, a republican senate, and a democratic house of representatives. In July the new state officers entered on their duties and the legislature ratified the congressional changes in the constitution, but during this and the next month the legislature proceeded to declare negroes ineligible to membership in it, and to admit to membership several persons who, it was alleged, were disqualified to hold office by the 14th amendment. During the year the state supreme court decided in favor of the eligibility of negroes to office, but the action of the legislature provoked an unfavorable feeling to Georgia in congress, and was construed as an effort to avoid the terms of reconstruction. In December, therefore, the Georgia senators were not admitted, and did not obtain their seats until January and February, 1871; the representatives had been admitted July 25, 1868. The Georgia electors, in obedience to a state law passed under the confederacy and not repealed in 1880, voted Dec. 9, 1868, the second Wednesday of December, instead of the first, as required by the federal statute. On this nominal ground a vigorous effort was made in February, 1869, to reject the vote of Georgia, but it was counted "in the alternative." (See ELECTORS, VII.)

—Nothing, however, could save Georgia from re-reconstruction. The act of Dec. 23, 1869, authorized the governor to reconvene the legislature, with only such members as the reconstruction acts allowed, prohibited the exclusion of qualified members, authorized the use of the army and navy to support the governor, and imposed upon the legislature the ratification of the proposed 15th amendment as a condition precedent to the admission of senators and representatives from Georgia. The seats of the representatives also were thus vacated until January and February, 1871. The organization of the legislature in January and February, 1870, was only effected with great difficulty by the governor, and his irregular course of action was condemned by the senate investigating committee; but the organization was finally accomplished, the conditions fulfilled by the legislature, and the Edition: current; Page: [336] state admitted by act of July 15, 1870. The first election under the new regime took place Dec. 20—22, 1870, and resulted in the choice of democratic state officers, and of five democratic and two republican representatives in congress. At the next election for congressmen, 1872, the state having been re-districted, the republicans lost one congressman and gained one. At the next election, 1872, the democrats elected all the nine congressmen: in two districts the republican vote entirely disappeared, and in all the others it was much reduced. Since that time the state has been democratic in all elections, state and national, and the political contest has been confined to factions of the dominant party. The peculiar state law, requiring electors to vote on thesecondWednesday of December, excited some comment in 1881, but the undisputed republican majority in the presidential election of 1880 allowed the state's electoral votes to be admitted without objection.

—A new constitution was formed by a convention which met at Atlanta, July 11, 1877, and was ratified by popular vote, Dec. 5. Its only noteworthy changes were its location of the state capital at Atlanta, and its limitation of the right of suffrage by prohibiting any one convicted of a penitentiary offense, and not pardoned, from registering, voting or holding office.

—The most prominent citizens of the state in national politics have been William H. Crawford, Herschel V. Johnson, and Alexander H. Stephens. (See those names.) Reference should also be made (see also list of governors) to John M. Berrien, democratic United States senator 1825-9, attorney general under Jackson (see ADMINISTRATIONS), and whig United States senator, 1841-52; Joseph E. Brown, democratic United States senator 1879-85; Howell Cobb, democratic representative 1843051 and 1835-7, speaker of the house 1849-51, and secretary of the treasury under Buchanan (see ADMINISTRATIONS); John Forsyth, democratic representative 1813-18, United States senator 1818-19 and 1829-34, minister to Spain 1819-23, and secretary of state under Jackson and Van Buren (see ADMINISTRATIONS,); Joseph Habersham, postmaster general 1795-1801; Benj. H. Hill, democratic United States senator 1877-82; Thos. Butler King, whig representative 1839-43 and 1845-9; Wilsom Lumpkin, democratic representative 1815-7 and 1827-31, and United States senator 1837-41; John Milledge, democratic representative 1792-3, 1795-9, and 1801-2, and United States senator 1806-9; and Robert Toombs, whig representative 1845-53, democratic United States senator 1853-61, and secretary of state of the confederate state.

—The name of Georgia was given to the colony in 1732 in honor of King George II. The prosperity of the state and its vast possibilities of future growth have encouraged its citizens to give it the popular name of the empire state of the south.

—GOVERNORS George Walton (1789-90); Edward Telfair(1790-3); Geo. Matthews (1793-6); Jared Irwin (1796-8); James Jackson (1798-1801); Josiah Tatnall (1801-2); John Milledge (1802-6); Jared Irwin (1808-9); David B. Mitchell (1809-130; Peter Early (1813-15); David B. Mitchell (1815-17); William Rabun (1817-19); John Clark (1819-23); George M. Troup (1823-7); John Forsyth (1827-9); George R. Gilmer (1829-31); Wilson Lumpkin (1831-5); William Schley (1835-7); George R. Gilmer (1837-9); Charles J. McDonald (1839-43); George W. Crawford (1843-7); G. W. B. Towns (1847-15); Howell Cobb (185103); Herschel V. Johnson (1853-7); Joseph E. Brown (1857-65); James Johnson (provisional, 1865); Chaekwa J. Jenkins (1863-7); John Pope and G.G. Meade (military governors, March, 1867-June, 1868); Rufus B. Bullock (June, 1868-October, 1871); Benjamin Coley (acting, October 1871-January, 1872); James M. Smith (chosen by special election, January, 1872-January, 1877); Alfred H. Colquitt (1877-83).

—See 1 Poore'sFederal and State Constitutions;3 Hildreth'sUnited States, 532;1Stat. at large (Bioren and Duane's edition), 448, 488; White'sHist. Coll. Of Georgia; Hewitt's Historical Account of Georgia(to 1779);Georgia Hist. Soe. Collections; Stevens'History of Georgia (to 1798); McCall'sHistory of Georgia(to 1816); W. H. Carpenter'sHistory of Georgia(to 1852); Muller'sBench and Bar of Georgia; 2 A.H. Stephen'sWar Between the States,197. 312; 1,4, Force's Tracts;Tribune Almanac, 1838-81; Appleton'sAnnual Cyclopœdia,1861-80.

GERMAN EMPIRE

GERMAN EMPIRE. 1. Area and Population. The geographical position of Germany is almost in the centre of Europe, it being situated between the Slavonic lands of the East, and the Romanic countries of the West and South, and bordering in the north on Denmark, the home of a people who are the kinsfolk of the Germans. At one time the whole country from the Rhone to the eastern banks of the Vistula was tributary to the German king, when he, as emperor of Rome extended his supremacy even over Italy,. Of Poland, which was also tributary to him, the German rulers retained Silesia and Posen, and of Denmark they held Schleswig-Holstein; but all the land in the west, Lotharingia (Lorraine) and Arles, was in the course of time incorporated into France, which succeeded in securing even provinces whose population was chiefly of the Tentonic stock—Elsasa (Alsace) and German Lotharingia (Lorraine), which, however, through the war of 1871, again came under German rule. Others, such as Switzerland and the Netherlands, were, through the space of Westphalia, completely cut off from the empire. The only province which, until the wars of the French revolution, still formed part of the imperial dominion—Belgium—was, by the congress of Vienna, ceded to the Netherlands. For her losses in the west, Germany was partly compensated by an acquisition of territory in the east, where it made some inroads upon the Slavonic population.

—The Edition: current; Page: [337] present territory of the German empire, by the terms of the Treaties between the North German confederation and the South German states (December, 1870), and through the acquisition of Elsass (Alsace) and German Lotharingia (Loraine), embraces all the territory of the German league (Deutsche Bund), excepting Austria, Luxemburg and Liechtenstem, and includes the Prussian provinces—Prussia, Posen and Silesia—and the imperial province or territory of Elsass Lothringen (Alsace-Lorraine). It is bounded on the north by the North sea, Denmark and the Baltic; on the east by Russia, Poland and Galicia; on the south by Austria from the Vistula to the take of Constance, and Switzerland; on west by France, Luxemburg, Belgium and the Netherlands. The present area and the population of the different states and principalities of the empire, including Elsass-Lothringen, according to the oeusus of Dec. 1, 1880, are shown in the following table:

As may be seen from the above table, the free towns, Hamburg, Bremen and Lubeck, take the lead as regards the increase of population during the census period. 1875-80; next comes Saxony, while Prussia comes last. As far as the decrease of the population is concerned, it was largest in the imperial province of Elsass-Lothringen. Of the total number of Population given, there were in the empire 22,185,433 males and 23,048,28 females; 275,856 were foreigners. The population of the principal cities having ever 100,000 inhabitants, was, according to the census of 1875 and 1880, respectively, as follows:

—Emigration, which had been on the decline for a short time, mainly owing to the unsettled condition during the civil war, of the United States, which received the largest average number of emigrants, has again been on the increase, especially since 1879. the number of German emigrants during the period 1870-80 was 625,425. Out of every 10,000 emigrants 9,345 went to the United States 22 to Canada, 4 to Central America and Mexico, 13 to the West Indies, 351 to Brazil, 73 to other states of South America, 21 to Africa, 5 to Asia, and 166 to Australia. Taking the census of 1875 as a basis, 13,9 out of every 1,000 emigrated from the German empire. Emigration was at its highest in 1854, when over a quarter of a million persons left Germany; after which it gradually declined till 1862, in which year the number was as low as 27,529; it rose again slowly, with fluctuations, will 1872, when there were 155,595 persons who left for the United States alone. In 1873 the total number was 130,937; in 1874 it was 75,503; in 1875 it declined to 56,289; in 1876, to 37,803; in 1877, to 21,964. In 1878 it again rose to 24,217; in 1879, to 33,327; and in 1880, to 106,190. Of the latter there were 63,778 men and 42,412 women, and about 103,115 emigrated to the United States of America, and 2,119 person to Brazil. In 1881 emigration materially increased again. During the period 1846-80 the total number of emigrants to the United States was over 3,000,000.

—II. Trade and Industry. As a branch of the industries whose province it is to develop the natural resources of a country, agriculture has attained a high state of perfection in Germany. Almost two-thirds of the entire population are engaged in it. The largest crops are returned by the low lands in the province of Prussia, the districts at the foot of the Alps in Bavaria, those at the foot of the mountain range from the upper Oder to the Maas river, the fertile marshes along the North sea, the strips along the Baltic, and those along the rivers and in the valleys.

—On the basis of the statistics taken in 1878, showing the state of agriculture in the empire, the following figures are obtained:

Edition: current; Page: [338]

An approximate estimate of the cultivable and uncultivable area is given by the official returns, of the same year, from the states and districts names in the following tables:

The following table shows the principal products during the year 1880:

Comparing the crops of 1880 with the products imported and exported, our table shows the following results regarding the quantities of the principal products:

—The development of the mines is a very ancient branch of German industry, which at present employs a large number of men, and gives a powerful impetus to kindred branches of industry. Thought the precious metals, such as gold and silver, are not very abundant, the production of silver is probably the largest of any country in Europe. The equality of zinc obtained is only second to that of English zinc; lead is found in abundance; copper is also found in large quantities. Iron is found in quantities greatly exceeding those of any other mineral product; especially in Westphalia and the Rhenish provinces. The quantity of hard coal obtained is increasing from year to year, while the yield of salt is also very large. The production of meals and minerals in 1880 shows an increase over that of the year previous, as appears from the following table:

The growth of the iron industry is shown by use following figures:

The number of laborers employed in the manufacture of iron was, in 1878, 135,973; in 1879, 144,534; and in 1880, 163,899.

—The census taken in 1875 regarding the different trades gives the following figures:

Edition: current; Page: [339]

—The growth of German commerce was greatly aided by the customs union (Zollverein) organized in 1833, under the lead of Prussia, and which gradually took in all the states of Germany. Through it and the formation, under the constitution, in 1871, of the territory subject to the uniform operation of the customs and excise laws of the empire (Zoll-u-Handelsgebiet), Germany was at last enabled to secure the position it now holds among the commercial nations of the world; a position it could not have achieved without it, divided as it had been from a political and economical point of view. The present union embraces all the states of the empire, with the exception of the free towns of Hamburg and Bremen, and localities which, owing to their geographical position, can not properly be incorporated into it. The free towns are to remain outside the union until they themselves demand admittance. Under the constitution, the powers and the duties of the former Zollverein parliament were vested in the imperial diet, while those of the council were transferred to the Bundesrath, which has three standing committees, namely, on finance, on taxes and customs, and on trade and commerce. All the receipts of the union are paid into a common treasury, and distributed among the several states of the empire in proportion to their respective population. The chief sources of revenue are customs duties, principally on imports, and taxes on spirits, wine, sugar manufactured from beet root, and tobacco. The population of the territory included in the customs union is estimated at 42,337,974, according to the census of 1875.

—The following statement gives the estimated value of the imports and exports in 1880 (figures are given in thousands):

Edition: current; Page: [340]

—The following is a statement of the gross receipts on import and excise duties of the empire during the fiscal year 1880-81 (figures given in thousands):

—The merchant marine of Germany numbered, on Jan. 1, 1880, 4,777 vessels, of an aggregate tonnage of 1,171,286. Of these there were 374 steamers, of 196,343 tons. The following is a tabulated statement of the shipping as distributed among the different states:

—The number of sailing vessels and steamers coming to and going from the different ports of the empire in 1880, with tonnage, is shown by the following table:

Edition: current; Page: [341]

—The railways of the empire as far as completed on July1, 1881, and open for traffic, had a total length of 33,872 Kilometres, or 21,000 English miles. The policy of the imperial government is to acquire, as soon as practicable, the right of property in all these lines, and place them under its exclusive control and management.

—As regards the telegraph service, we find that the total number of dispatches in the year 1880 was 14,412,598, of which 9,448,128 were inland, and 4,964, 470 foreign. The telegraph lines had, at the end of 1880, a length of 59,961 kilometres.

—The imperial post office carried 575,309,030 letters, 140,981,960 postal cards, 8,463,070 patterns, 104,100,720 stamped wrappers, and 348,973,287 newspapers, in the year 1880. The total receipts of the postoffice(including telegraphic service) in 1880-81, amounted to 136,647,195 mark, and the total expenditure to 120,237,476 mark. The post offices were 7,540 in number, with 5,659 telegraphic stations, at the end of 1880, and 63,413 persons were employed in the service.

—III. Religion and Education. In regard to the constitution and organization of the leading churches in the empire, it must be noticed, that of these churches of Protestant, or Evangelical, are not all alike in the several states. Though Prussia has circuit and provincial synods, it still is in want of a general representative body of the entire church, in which ecclesiastical authority might be completely vested. The supreme executive and administrative authority of the church is represented by the ecclesiastical council. The synodic system may be found in a more perfect form in Bavaria, Saxony, W8uml;rtemberg, Baden, Hesse, Saxe-Weimar, Oldenburg, Brunswick and Waldeck. In all these states, and in Elsass-Lothringen and the Hanse Towns, the organization and constitution of the church is presbyterial; in most of the other states the consistorial system prevails. The higher clergy are the general superintendents, the superintendents(deacons). and in Elsass-Lothringen the ecclesiastical inspectors. The total number of ministers of Protestant church in the empire is 16,000. The Catholic church has five archbishoprics; Köln and Gnesen-Posen in Prussia; München-Freising and Bamberg in Bavaria, Freiburg in Baden, Würtemberg, Hohenzollern, Hessen-Nassau—twenty bishoprics: Ermland, Kulm, Breslau, Hildesheim, Osnabrück, Münster, Paderborn, Fulda, Limburg and Trier, in Prussia; Augsburg, Passau, Regensburg, Eichstädt, Würzburg and Speyer, in Bavaria; Röttenburg in W8uml;rtemberg. Mainz in Hesse, Strasburg and Metz in Elsass-Lothringen, and three apostolic vicariates. In the several states of the empire there are, in all about 20,000 priests and more than 800 monastic institutions. The Jesuits and a number of similar orders were, by act of July 4,1872, excluded from the territory of the empire. The Old Catholics have one bishop, who has his seat at Bonn.

—According to the census of 1875, the different churches and denominations were, as regards the number of their adherents, as follows:

Edition: current; Page: [342]

—Popular education in Germany is of the highest order, and in regard to the number of people enjoying an average education, Germany is among the first. Since 1854, until the establishment of the empire, the secular authorities in the Protestant states even indulged in the opinion that the revolutionary and liberal spirit residing in the masses might be kept down by handing the schools over to the absolute control of the clergy. But those who fathered this surrender of the secular character of the people's schools, could not prevent the ultramontanes from taking advantage of the discontent that was aroused among the people, and securing for themselves whatever benefits there were in the reaction of the church against the spirit of liberalism aroused among the masses, as an incident to the revolutionary movement that swept over Germany in 1848. Since the establishment of the German empire under the headship of a state whose population is largely Protestant, the dangers which lay in handing over an instution—which, as the common schools, exercises such a powerful influence on the character of the people—to the exclusive control of the clergy, became even more apparent, and a movement is slowly setting in, which is in favour of placing the educational institutions of the people on a more liberal basis and making them more independent of the authority of the church. The census taken in Prussia in 1871 also paid some attention to education. There were, in Prussia, 16,008,417 persons over ten years of age who could read and write; of 296,084 persons over ten years, the educational condition was not stated; while 2,258,490 persons, or 12 per cent, over ten years, were reported as without any education. The proportion in the several provinces is somewhat different, as the following table shows:

In the other states the same fluctuations were noticeable, though in some the period of reaction was of shorter duration than in Prussia, in consequence of which the schools in states like Saxony, Baden, Brunswick and Würtemberg outstripped the rest. The number of the common or primary schools in the empire is estimated at about 60,000, in which about six millions of pupils are instructed. To every thousand inhabitants there are 150 pupils. The total number of teachers, male and female, is calculated at 75,000. As connecting schools between those of the lower grade and the higher grade, are the intermediate schools. Those of the higher grade are divided into so called real schulen and gymnasia. The real schulen, which are again divided into those of the first and of the second grade, and into the so-called higher citizens' schools—bürger-Schulen—furnish the rudiments of the technical arts and sciences. In 1874 there were 106 real schulen, 42 of the second grade, and 107bürger-Schulen, with 82,000 pupils. The course of the gymnasia embraces the sciences and arts, and prepares the pupils for public service, and for admission to the universities. In 1874 they were 333 in number(183 Evangelical, 57 Catholic, and 93 mixed), besides 170 progymnasia and Latin schools, having, in all, 108,000 pupils. For the education of primary school teachers there are 156 seminaries, of which 110 are Evangelical and 41 Catholic. Then there are quite a number of theological seminaries, both Protestant and Catholic. The universities have principally four faculties: the theological, the law, the medical, and philosophical. The oldest university in the German empire is the university of Heildelberg(1386); the youngest, that of Strasburg(1872). There are in all, including the academy of Münster, twenty-one universities, of which ten are in Prussia, three in Bavaria, one in Saxony, one in Würtemberg, two in Baden, one in Elsass-Lothringen, one in Hesse, one in Thüringa, and one in Mecklenburg. The number of students averages 20,000; the number of professors, 1,800. In addition to all these schools there are a number of polytechnic, commercial, military and agricultural schools, colleges of music, and naval academies. Education in the primary schools is made general and compulsary throughout the empire, which is certainly the most effective means of securing an average education to the largest number of people.

—IV. Army and Navy. As one of the results of the war of 1866, the military organization of Prussia was introduced into the armies of all the North German states; after the establishment of the German empire in 1871, it was adopted by all the states in South Germany. The leading provisions were either incorporated in the constitution and in the act of May 2, 1874, concerning the organization of the military, or they were adopted as part of the laws of the empire. Added to these are the acts passed in 1874 concerning the control of the troops not on active duty and relating to the organization of the landsturm; also the act of May 6, 1880, increasing the imperial army on the peace footing. The military forces of the empire are composed of the army, the navy and the landsturm; the army is divided into regular troops and the militia, the navy into the fleet of war and the marines. In the regular army and the fleet, all those who are liable to military service are disciplined and prepared for active duty. These bodies are always ready for service, while the militia and the marines are only called out in case of actual war, and the landsturm is employed only on the defensive Edition: current; Page: [343] in case of the country should require it. By article 57 of the constitution the obligation to serve in the army is made general; it provides that "every German shall be liable to service, and no substitution is allowed." Under article 59 of the constitution, every German capable of bearing arms has, as a rule, to be in the standing army for seven years, from his twentieth till the commencement of his twenty-eighth year. Of the seven years three must be spent in active service, and the remaining four in reserve duty; he is obliged to join thelandwehr or militia for another five years. The service of the landsturm takes in all those capable of bearing arms, from seventeen to forty-two years of age, who are not otherwise on military duty. The German army, as at present organized, numbers about 1,800,000 men. The 63d article of the constitution provides that the whole of the land forces of the empire shall form a consolidated army, which in war and peace shall be under the command of the emperor. The sovereigns of the principal states have the right to select the lower grades of officers; and by the stipulation of Nov.23,1871, the king of Bavaria has reserved the privilege of superintending the general administration of that portion of the consolidated army raised within his dominions. Yet the emperor must approve of all appointments made, and nothing which may affect the superior direction of the troops of any state of the empire can be done without his consent. By article 64 all German troops are bound to obey unconditionally the orders of the emperor, and must take the oath of fidelity. Article 65 invests the emperor with power to order the erection of fortresses in any part of the empire, and by article 68 he has the power, in case the public order and safety are threatened, to declare any country or district in a state of siege.

—The army of the German empire, as constituted in October, 1879, consists of 150 regiments of infantry, including the guards, 20 battalions of jäger, or riflemen; 93 regiments of cavalry; 49 regiments of artillery; 20 battalions of engineers, including a railway regiment, and 18 battalions of military train. The following shows the strength and organization of the imperial army on a peace footing:

The strength and organizaation of the imperial army on the war footing is as follows:

In the above statement are not included the troops of the field reserve, organized in 1876, numbering about 250,000 men, and those of the landsturm. The calculation is that, with the addition of the landsturm, Germany may place in the field at any time two and a half millions of armed men without drawing upon the last reserves. For military purposes, the empire is divided into seventeen districts, each represented by one army corps. The guards, taken from Prussia and Elsass Lothringen(Alsace-Lorraine) do not belong to any special division.

—The fortress system of Germany has, since the Franco-German war, been remodeled; a number of old fortified places, which were considered useless, have been abolished; many new ones have been constructed, and others enlarged. The empire is divided into nine fortress districts, which are, together with the fortified places contained in them as follows:

—So far as the navy is concerned, rapid progress has been made for the last ten years. The fleet of war at the command of the empire consisted at the close of 1881, of twenty-two ironclads, including three not completed, fifty-nine other steamers, and four sailing vessels. The following gives a detailed list of them:

Edition: current; Page: [344]

—According to a plan proposed by the imperial government in 1873, and by the diet, the German navy is to be largely increased. By March 31,1883, the date set for the completion of the reforms in the navy, Germany will in all probability have a floating armament of eight ironclad frigates, six ironclad corvettes, one monitor, thirteen gunboats also ironclad, twenty wooden corvettes, six dispatch boats, nine other large and nine small gunboats, two artillery ships, three sailing brigs and twenty torpedo boats. At the close of 1880 the German navy was manned by 5,189 seamen and officered by one admiral, one vice-admiral, three rear admirals, fifteen captains and 401 lieutenants. There were, besides 1,297 marines; artillery, numbering 458 men; in all 7,365 officers and men. The sailors of the fleet and marines are raised by conscription from the seafaring population, which on this account is exempt from other military service. The seafaring population, of Germany is estimated at 80,000, of whom 48,000 are employed in the inland merchant navy, and about 6,000 in foreign navies. There are three ports of war, at Kiel and Danzig on the Baltic, and at Wilhelmshaven in the bay of Jade on the North sea.

—V. Constitution and Government. The political unity of Germany being an accomplished fact, it is a matter of more than curious interest to know that it required not only the slow process of great events, the combined powers of a successful war and of a diplomacy of the first order, to unite a country which was divided into so many principalities, great and small, as the land over which the Carlovingians and their successors once exercised their mighty sway. At the beginning of and during the eighteenth century, when the political division of Germany was greatest, there were no less than 1,762 rulers, who though by no means equal in influence, dignity and power, occupied each on independent dominion, and who were only loosely kept together in some sort of political union by the imperial power, whose dignity and influence, however, were fast declining. As a consequence of the revolutionary wars of France, the frail fabric of the Holy Roman empire of the German nation fell to pieces, and finally led, Aug.6. 1806, to the abdication of Francis II. as the head of the empire, and the relinquishment by him of its office and dignity. The fall of Napoleon I. brought about, with some slight exceptions, the same territorial and political divisions which Germany enjoyed in 1792; when finally the proceedings at the congress of Vienna resulted in a confederation, Deutsche Bund, which was as little capable of uniting the nation politically, as the empire which had preceded it. It was not till after the successful wars of 1866 and of 1870-71 that Germany realized the sense of political unity and the powers which none but a close political compact could give. The first of these wars, which resulted in shutting out Austria, and leaving the South German states to themselves, had the effect of uniting the other states under the leadership of Prussia, in what became known as the North German confederation,(Nord-Deutsche Bund). The successful issue of the Franco-German war finally led to the establishment of the German empire, which, under the headship of Prussia, includes besides the members of the North German confederation, the South German states and Elsass-Lothringen (Alsace-Lorraine).

—The organic laws of the new empire consist of the constitution, which the German governments agreed on, and which is but a slight modification of the constitution of the North German confederation, the treaties concluded with the South German states for its ratification, and by which to some of these states certain reserved rights were guaranteed, and the military stipulations made with the several states comprising the new confederation. The imperial constitution is dated April 16, 1871. A few amendments were made in 1873. It is composed of seventeen chapters and seventy-eight articles. Chapter one defines the territorial extent or dominion of the new government. The government of the empire, in its broadest sense, is composed of the emperor, (as presiding or executive officer), the imperial chancellor, and the various subordinate executive and administrative officers, the Bundesrath(which see)and the imperial diet or Reichstag, as constituting the legislative and representative powers of the nation. There is no strict division or limitation of powers, as in the constitution of the United States, exercised by the different branches of the government, as will be seen by a reference to the organization and the functions of each of these branches. The Bundesrath is the chief executive Edition: current; Page: [345] and administrative body of the empire; yet, exceeding the ordinary functions of such a body, it has the power of originating, submitting and approving legislative measures, and thus acts as a sort of upper house to the imperial diet (CONSTITUTION, chap. iv.) For a further enumeration of its powers and its organization, see article BUNDESRATH. The imperial diet or Reichstag is composed of representatives elected by universal suffrage and ballot. The Reichstag constitutes, together with the Bundesrath, the legislative branch of the government. Bills or legislative measures originating with the latter, require the approval of the former, in order to become a law. Before the laws thus passed can take effect, they must be assented to by the emperor, and countersigned by the chancellor of the empire. The Reichstag has the power to originate, and, with the advice and consent of the Bundesrath, to enact laws. Petitions sent into the Reichstag may be reoffered to the Bundesrath for further action. The members of the imperial diet, who receive no compensation for their services are elected for three years in the ratio of one representative for every 10,000 inhabitants, according to the last census. A state having less than 100,000 inhabitants, is entitled to one representative. Every German, being twenty-five years of age, has the right to vote in which he may reside. Every German is eligible as a representative to the Reichstag, who is twenty-five years old, and has resided in one of the states of the empire at least one year previous to the election, except he be rendered ineligible for the same reasons that disqualify him as an elector, such as his being under guardianship or because of some legal disability, that he is in bankruptcy, a public pauper, or deprived of the rights of citizenship by the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. According to the last census the several states are entitled to the following number of representatives: Prussia, 236; Bavaria, 48;Würtemberg, 17; Saxony, 23; Baden, 14; Mecklenburg-Schwerin, 6; Hesse, 9; Oldenburg, Saxe-Weimar, Brunswick, and the free town of Hamburg. 3 each; Saxe-Meiningeu, Anhalt, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, 2 each;Mecklenburg -Strelitz, Saxe-Altenburg, the principalities of Waldeck, Lippe, Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, Schwarzburg-Sondershausen, Reuss-Schleiz, Schaumburg-Lippe and Reuss-Greiz and the free towns, Lübeck and Bremen, 1 each; Elsass-Lothringen, 15; making, in all, 397 representatives. A dissolution of the imperial diet short of the term of three years for which the members are elected, can only be effected by a resolution of the Bundesrath, and with the advice and consent of the emperor; in which case a new election must take place within sixty days, and the new diet must convene within ninety days, from the dissolution of the old diet. The diet can not, without the consent of its members, be prorogued for a longer period than thirty days, and not oftener than once during any one session. Government officials, who may be elected to the Reichstag, require no leave of absence in order to attend its sessions: yet if a member of the diet be appointed to a public office, or promoted, he must submit to a new election. The members of the Reichstag are, when in session, privileged from arrest, except when seized in the commission of some public offense; any previous proceeding pending against a member may, should the diet so demand it, be stayed during the sessions. Each member may exercise the right of free speech on the floor of the legislative assembly, and can not be held responsible outside the diet for his acts or speeches relating to the proceedings of, or touching any measure pending before that body. The proceedings of the Reichstag are public; each vote requires an absolute majority, a majority of the members duly elected being present. The diet elects its presiding officers and appoints its clerks and committees. (Constitution, chap. v.) Both the imperial diet and the Bundesrath are convoked once a year for the purpose of fixing the public budget.

—The third branch of the government is represented by the executive or presiding officer, the emperor. Though forming the head of a federation composed of independent states or sovereigns, the imperial office and dignity is essentially the embodiment of monarchical traditions. Though, by law, made hereditary in the crown of Prussia, the imperial dignity is, in the opinion of him who exercises it, as much a gift of divine grace as any kingly crown since the days when Charles the Great styled himself Carolus serenissimus Augustus, a Deo coronatus qui per misericordiam Dei rer. And the exercise of the imperial office and its prerogatives is looked upon by the rulers of the empire as of divine right, as much as the royal prerogatives they individually enjoy as rulers of their several dominions. The emperor has the power of appointing and receiving ambassadors, of representing the German empire in its relations with foreign governmetns and in all international affairs, of declaring war,(though without the consent of the Bundesrath only in case of a foreign invasion), and of concluding treaties of peace, of forming alliances and of entering into diplomatic and other treaties with foreign governments.

—Under chapter two of the constitution, the legislative powers of the government are vested in the Reichstag and the Bundesrath. They have power to pass laws defining the right and regulating the change of domicile (excepting as to Bavaria), regulating the rights of citizenship, passports, the police surveillance of resident foreigners, and the trades, as also insurance, colonization and immigration; to raise revenue and regulate commerce, the coinage of money, the issue of currency; to fix the standard of weights and measures, and regulate the banking system; to prescribe the rules for issuing and for the protection of patents and copyrights; to pass laws for the encouragement and protection of German commerce and navigation and for the establishment of a proper consular system, for Edition: current; Page: [346] the control of the railway system, and for the improvement of streams, and the construction of high ways and canals in the interest of trade and commerce, and the regulation of internal navigation; to establish and prescribe rules for the postal and telegraph service (excepting as to Bavaria); to provide for the manner of enforcing in one state judgments and decrees rendered in another state, and for the authentication of public documents; to pass civil and criminal laws of uniform application throughout the empire, and to establish courts of competent jurisdiction for the enforcement and administration of these laws; to organize and prescribe rules governing the military and naval service; to pass sanitary rules and regulations; and to control and regulate the public press and the organization of private societies. Article three of the same chapter provides that the citizens or subjects of each state shall enjoy the rights and immunities of citizens in the several states composing the empire, and shall be in all respects equal before the law throughout the federal dominion. This is a provision somewhat similar to the one contained in the constitution of the United States. Chapter six relates to the tariff and commerce. Under it, the operation of the tariff laws and such as regulate public commerce extends throughout the dominion of the empire, which, to that end, forms a close union: excluded from this union are such districts as are not, on account of their geographical position, fit to be incorporated, while the free cities of Hamburg and Bremen are also excluded, until they move to be incorporated in the union. The revenues provided for by the imperial government are raised and administered by the governments of the individual states; the emperor, through proper officers, sees to it that the provisions of the law in the raising of the revenues are properly observed and carried out by the revenue officers of the different states. Chapter seven gives the control of the railways, except those of Bavaria and Würtemberg, to the imperial government. By virtue of chapter eight the postal and telegraph service is also placed under the control and management of the imperial government. Chapter nine relates to the navy and navigation, giving the chief command of the navy and the appointment of its officers to the king of Prussia. Chapter ten provides that the consular service shall be under the control of the emperor. Who, with the advice of the committee of the Bundesrath on trade and commerce, shall appoint the several consuls. Under chapter eleven the military forces of the empire form one consolidated army, whose commander-in-chief shall be the emperor, and which is to be governed by the rules and regulations established for the organization and discipline of the army of Prussia. Chapter twelve relates to the finances of the empire, and provides that all receipts and expenses shall be fixed by law before the commencement of the next fiscal year. The chancellor is required to submit annually an account of the receipts and expenditures of the empire to the Bundesrath and the Reichstag. In case the revenues raised by the several states are not sufficient to meet the expenses of the government, and as long as the empire does not raise its own revenue, the chancellor has the power to call upon the several states for special contributions in proportion to their population, in order to meet the deficiency. In case of necessity the imperial government may also make loans, and pledge the public credit. Chapter thirteen relates to legal remedies and penalties; it confers on the court of appeals of Lübeck exclusive jurisdiction in cases of treason; all other offenses against the imperial government or any of its public officers are tried by the courts having competent jurisdiction under the laws of the state where the offense may be committed. Controversies between two or more of the states composing the empire, and whose organic laws do not provide for some mode of redress, are to be referred to the Bundesrath for adjudication; in case the Bundesrath in unable to reach a decision, the controversies are to be settled by the legislative powers of the empire. In case a suitor should be without a remedy under the laws of the state in whose courts he may apply for legal redress, he may invoke the aid of the Bundesrath, whose duty it is to compel the government of the particular state to furnish the proper remedy. Chapter fourteen provides that amendments to the constitution may be proposed by either of the legislative bodies; and are declared rejected, if fourteen votes of the Bundesrath are against their adoption. Chapter fifteen contains some general provisions declaring certain laws passed by the North German diet part of the laws of the new empire.

—At the head of the administrative department of the empire is the chancellor's office, with the several departments, such as form the office of the postmaster-general, those presided over by the general director of the telegraph service, and those having charge of the affairs of Elsass-Lothringen (Alsace-Lorraine). Connected with the chancellor's office are also the statistical bureau, the bureau regulating the right of domicile, and the board of railway managers. The chancellorship and the ministry of foreign affairs are at present held by one and the same person, Prince Bismarck; the ambassadors and consuls of the empire are subject to his order and control. Added to the imperial administration are committees or boards on customs and excise duties, on emigration, on education, and a board of auditors; there was, also, until the establishment, in 1877, of the imperial court of last resort, a court of commerce, located at Leipzig, having original jurisdiction touching matters of trade and commerce.

—The German empire has as yet no so-called federal judiciary, except the imperial court of last resort, established at Leipzig by an imperial act passed March 24, 1877. The civil and criminal jurisdiction of the country is vested in the several state courts. Yet a series of laws passed by the imperial diet in 1877 gave Edition: current; Page: [347] these courts a uniform organization, and uniformity in both their civil and criminal procedure. The first is the law on the organization of the judiciary passed Jan. 27, the second is the code of civil procedure passed Jan. 30, and the third is the code of criminal procedure passed Feb. 1; added to these is the bankruptcy act passed Feb. 10, 1877. All these laws took effect on and from Oct. 1, 1879. A very important step toward consolidating the government and strengthening the feeling of nationality throughout the empire was the passage of the act, Dec. 20, 1873, whereby the whole range of civil and criminal laws was placed within the sphere of the legislative powers of the empire. Aside from their procedure and organization, the state courts constitute the judiciary of the several states whose governments appoint the judges, though their qualifications are fixed by the law of the empire; the government of each state also establishes and defines the judicial districts within its territory, and fixes the rules of practice governing its courts. The imperial court has both original and final jurisdiction in all cases of high treason and treasonable offenses against the government or its head, the emperor, the same jurisdiction, which, by the original draft of the constitution, had been conferred on the supreme court of appeals in Lübeck. Its appellate jurisdiction extends to all cases of appeal properly so called, whereby a new trial and decision, touching both facts and law of such cases as are tried by theschoeffengerichte—courts of inferior criminal jurisdiction, composed of judges learned in the law and two or more laymen—may be obtained, and such cases may be remanded to the supreme court of the particular state where the case originally arose. As a court of last resort it also acts as a court of error; as such it has the power to review the proceedings of the courts in banc(landsgerichte)and of such courts as have trial by jury(schwurgerichte). Either the decisions rendered in such cases are reviewed, or the cases are remanded for further proceedings. Cases arising under the laws of an individual state are remanded to a court of review, composed of five judges of the supreme court of such state. If, however, the cases arise under the laws of the empire, the imperial court does not remand such cases on appeal, but exercises exclusive and final jurisdiction as a court of error.

—The German empire is now composed of twenty-five states or principalities, including the free towns of Hamburg, Lübeck and Bremen, having governments of their own, and the imperial province of Elsass-Lothringen (Alsace-Lorraine), which, as such, is placed under the direct control of the government of the empire. Under its constitution, the empire forms a perpetual union of the states for the protection of the realm and the case of the welfare of the German people.

—VI. Finances. As will be seen by a reference to what we have said speaking of the constitution of the empire, the ordinary expenditure of the empire is defrayed from the revenues arising from customs, certain branches of excise, and the profits of the postal and telegraph service. In case the receipts from these various sources of income should not be sufficient to cover the expenditures, the individual states may be assessed to make up the deficit, each state being required to contribute in proportion to its population. The ordinary expenditure is, as a rule, to be voted only for one year, but, in special cases, may be voted for a longer term. The fiscal year, formerly coincident with the calendar year, was made to run from April 1 to March31, in 1877—In the public budget for the fiscal year 1881-2, the total amount of the revenue of the empire was fixed at 592,956,554 mark; the amount of expenditure was the same. By an act dated June 27, 1881, an additional appropriation was made, amounting to 395,846 mark, 365,000 mark of which were set down for extraordinary (eiumalige) expenditure, which are to be either taken from surplus funds, or raised by special contributions on the part of each state. The revenues consist of:

The customs and excise duties exceed those of the previous year by twenty-eight million mark. Contributions from such provinces as are not included in the tariff union, amount to 6,790,540 mark, exceeding those of the previous year by 389,940 mark. The receipts of the postal and telegraph service are estimated at 137,721,760 mark (four million more than those of the previous year), and the ordinary or continual expenses at 119,024,605 mark. The receipts of the railways are fixed at 37,635,000 mark (one and a fourth million more than those of the year before), and the expenses at 26,595,60 mark.

—The extraordinary contributions, besides the special contributions of the states, serve to balance the accounts of the budget. As will be seen from the table on next page, the extraordinary or special expenditures are estimated at about 81 1/8million mark; of these,14½ million are raised by state contributions, while the balance is to come partly from the imperial funds, partly from loans.

—The state contributions as estimated exceed by 21½ million mark those of the previous year. They are levied upon the several states as follows:

Edition: current; Page: [348]

These are, however, to be somewhat revised by the government in the course of the year on the basis of the census of 1880.

—The expenditures are distributed as follows:

Barring the surplus of previous years and the state contributions, the resources of the empire have been increased about twenty-eight million mark, owing to the increase in the amount of customs and excise duties. The draft of the public budget for 1882-3 estimates the receipts and expenditures at 607,234,771 mark. Of the expenditures, those that are extraordinary or special are fixed at 72,093,979, and 534,140,792 mark is the amount of those which are ordinary or continual. The fiscal year 1880-81 resulted in a deficiency of twelve million mark, which must be made up. In order to balance the receipts and expenditures, the state contributions are calculated at 115,712,740 mark, an increase, therefore, of more than twelve million mark. the fiscal year 1881-2 is expected to yield a surplus of fifteen million mark.

—At the time of the establishment of the German empire, it had, as such, no public debt. The public debt has been created in recent years. On Feb. 1, 1881, the total funded debt amounted to 251,000,000 mark; added to which is a new debt of 102,540,088 mark, contracted in virtue or certain acts passed March 28 and May 24, 1881. The whole debt bears interest at 4 per cent. Besides the funded debt, there is an unfunded debt represented by reichs-kassenschine, or imperial treasury notes, to the amount of 155,785,540 mark, outstanding on April 1, 1881. As offsetting this debt, there are a number of invested funds, amounting in all to 865,487,928 mark. Among these funds are the invalid fund of 546,418,885 mark, the fund for the erection of fortresses, amounting to 64,913,470 mark, and a war fund of 120,000,000 mark.

—In regard to the monetary system of the empire, on Jan. 1, 1872, a law for the uniformity of coinage throughout the empire, passed by the imperial diet, was published, under which law, the standard of value is gold. The same law provided for the substitution of the mark, of 100 pfennig, as the general coin, to commence on Jan. 10, 1875. There are gold five-mark, ten-mark and twenty-mark pieces, the first called halbe-krone(half-crown), the second krone, and the third doppel-krone(double crown).

—VII. History. On July 19, 1870, France followed up its threatening and daring attitude toward Prussia by a declaration of war. Contrary to the expectations of the French monarch and his advisers, not only the South German states took up the causes of Prussia, but the people throughout the land were willing to flock to the banner of the Prussian monarch, in order to resent the insult which in their opinion he had received; and to settle the old issue, which, since the days of Andernach, divided the French and the Germans, and which, later on, had been formulated in the literature of the two nations as the contest between the spirit of the Germanic races on the one hand, and that of Latin races on the other.

—In spite of a small body of opponents in southern Germany, who were either jealous of the supremacy of the Hohenzollern, or, for some other reason, opposed to the unity of the German states, the large body of the people was unanimous in encouraging the government to insist on the observance of the terms, which called for an alliance between the South German states and the North German confederation; and in hastening the general uprising of the nation against its traditional foe. The unity of the German people, on which, for generations, the aspirations of its patriots and poets had been centered, seemed to have become at once an accomplished fact. With the masses of the German people that unity soon became the leading idea of that short but memorable war, which taxed all the material and intellectual resources of the two nations.

—With the fall of the French capital the war came to a close, resulting in the acceptance by the French of all the conditions imposed upon them, of which conditions the surrender of Elsass-Lothringen (Alsace-Lorraine) was hailed by the conquering nation as the only rational means of settling the traditional disputes flowing from the territorial division of the kingdom of Ludwig (Louis) the Pious.

—The enthusiasm in which the German people indulged over their glorious achievements Edition: current; Page: [349] in the field, soon deepened into the feeling that they were again a nation, not only bound together by the ties of blood, but also, a nation worthy of a common government, in which the traditions of the empire might be perpetuated, and the liberties of the people safely lodged. The call of the people for such a government, one which might realize their aspirations toward unity, became so imperative that the South Germ an states could no longer resist it. It has become quite evident that their safety, no less than that of the rest of Germany, depended upon the consolidation of the different German branches, into which the nation was divided, and that, in the defeat of its traditional foe on the other side of the Rhine, a most powerful enemy to all attempts at uniting the Germans politically had been defeated. The principal difficulties lay in the way of deciding upon some form of government, which, while satisfying the desire of the people for unity, was calculated to infringe as little as possible upon the relative independence of the individual states, especially those of South Germany, and upon the sovereignty which they had hitherto enjoyed in the regulation of their internal affairs. Baden was the first state which raised the question, on Sept. 2. 1870, of consolidating the German states into a more perfect and permanent political union. Bavaria followed, by proposing a conference in which this question should be discussed. On Sept. 21, Delbrück, the chancellor of the North German confederation, went, at the request of Count Bismarck, from Ferrières, where the Prussians had their headquarters, to Munich, to receive the propositions of the South German states in regard to the matter. In these conferences, however, in which the head of the judicial department of Würtemberg, Minister Mittnacht, took part, the claims of Bavaria were of such a nature that no agreement was arrived at. Bismarck then invited the South German governments, except Bavaria, to send plenipotentiaries to Versailles, with a view to a conference to be held there, the attendance on which was left optional with Bavaria. In the several conferences held at that place during the month of October, and at which the South German states were represented by two plenipotentiaries each, and the North German confederation by ministers Delbrück, Roon and Friessen, the negotiations resulted, on Nov. 15, in an agreement with Hesse and Bade, by which they accepted the constitution of the North German confederation, after some slight changes had been made in it concerning the administration and control of the postal department and the railroads, and the regulation of the revenue. In regard to the military condition of Hesse a special stipulation was made; a conference held on Nov. 25 regulated those of Baden, whose military quota became part of the German, that is, Prussian, army. The treaty was finally ratified on Dec. 16 and 19 respectively by the two chambers of Baden and on Dec. 20 and 29 by those of Hesse. On Nov. 23 the treaty was signed by Bavaria, after it had secured some special privileges. Bavaria retained its right to be represented at foreign governments by its own ambassadors: the control and regulation of its military, its postal and telegraph service, and its railroads; and the right to pass certain revenue laws and laws defining and regulating the right of domicile. Bavaria secured, in addition, a permanent seat in the committee of the Bundesrath on the army and fortifications. The Bundesrath was to have a committee on foreign affairs, consisting of representatives of the kingdoms of Bavaria, Saxony and Würtemberg, the chairmanship of which was conceded to Bavaria. In this committee any amendment of the constitution might be defeated by a veto of the fourteen members of which the committee was to be composed. Though the national party was of the opinion that the terms of this compact recognized the independence of the several states to a greater extent than was just, it met, on grounds quite opposite to this, with a powerful opposition in the Bavarian chamber of deputies, and was not ratified until Jan. 21, 1871; whereas the federal council had ratified it on Dec. 30 of the year previous.

—The treaty with Würtemberg was concluded on Nov. 25, 1870. Its provisions were in the main similar to those contained the treaty with Baden, with the exception that Würtemberg retained the right to regulate its postal and telegraph service within its own territory and as far as it extended into the territory of adjoining states. At the same time a stipulation was entered into by Prussia and Würtemberg, according to which the military forces of Würtemberg were to be united into one corps, and form, as such, an integral part of the consolidated army. The newly elected chamber of deputies finally ratified the treaty on Dec. 23, while the upper chamber sanctioned it on Dec. 29. Official notice of the ratification of the treaties with Baden, Hesse and Würtemberg was given in Berhn on Dec. 3, 1870, and that of the treaty with Bavaria on Jan. 29, 1871, after the diet of the North German confederation, which had convened in Berlin, Nov 24, had sanctioned it on Dec. 9, 1870. In the meantime the king of Bavaria suggested that the title of German emperor should be given to the head of the new confederation, and thus the splendor and dignity of imperial office be revived. The federal diet issued an address to king of Prussia, expressing a similar desire, which was presented to him at Versailles by President Simson, heading a delegation of thirty members of the North German diet, on Dec. 18,1870. Whereupon, on Jan. 18, 1871, the king of Prussia, Wilhelm 1., was, on motion of the princes and representatives of the free cities of Germany, assembled at Versailles, invested with the hereditary dignity and accepted the office of German emperor. Thus, after Germany's traditional foe, who was bent upon destroying the integrity of the German nation, had been defeated, and the people of Germany were once more united, it was natural that they should Edition: current; Page: [350] connect in thought their present great achievement with the glories of the past, and indulge in the illusion that the imperial office of Charles the Great and the empire of Otto I. had been revived. Intense as the enthusiasm of the people was over the results of the war, they hailed with equal delight the assurance of a peaceful policy, which the first proclamation of the new emperor of the Germans gave to his people. After referring to the constitution of the North German confederation, in which provision had been made for a revival of the imperial dignity, the emperor said that he considered it his duty to accept that dignity; that, in doing so, he was mindful of the duty to protect with that fidelity which was a national characteristic of the German people, the prerogatives of the German empire and the countries composing it; to maintain the peace, and to defend, with the aid of the combined powers of the nation, the independence of Germany. In conclusion, the emperor trusted that he and those to whom the imperial crown would be handed down, might forever add to the power and dignity of its dominion, not by military conquests, but by increasing the blessings of peace, thus promoting the general welfare, freedom and civilization of the nation.

—The proclamation was issued from the headquarters at Versailles on Jan. 17, 1871. The acceptance of the imperial office had the effect of changing the name by which the union of the German states was henceforth to be known; the designation Deutsches Bund was now changed into Deutsches Reich. Thus the German league, or, more strictly speaking, the North German confederation, ceased, and the German empire took its place. The great gain made by the Germans, through the successful conclusion of war, was in a great measure due to the fact that they had carried on the war without foreign aid, and has persistently rejected all foreign intervention in securing the terms of peace finally agreed upon. There had been no want of a disposition on the part of some of European powers to interfere. Among the European powers the czar of Russia was the only one who was decidedly in favor of the Germans. Italy and Austria sympathized with France. Denmark likewise hoped for the success of the French arms. England, at first, showed some indignation at the policy of the French government which aimed at a disturbance of the peace of Europe. Subsequently, however, the French were furnished with arms and ammunition from British soil, and active aid, which was not interfered with by the English government until Bismarck remonstrated against it.

—On March 17, 1871, William I., now emperor of Germany, returned to Berlin. On March 21 the first imperial diet convened. The elections had turned a majority decidedly in favor of the new order of things, and in support of a national policy; yet among the 382 members of that body, there were 60 ultramontanes, who formed a persistent opposition to this policy. The address of the emperor pointed at the great achievement which had hitherto been the object of the people's aspirations: the unity of Germany, permanent protection against foreign invasion, a uniform system of laws, and an equal administration of justice throughout the land. Simson was elected president of the diet. The address to the crown, prepared by Lasker, was approved by a large majority, despite the objections of the clerical party. A proposition, submitted on April 1 by Reichensperger, in the interest of this party, which, among other things, advocated the freedom of the press, the right of establishing private associations, and the independence of the church, was rejected on April 4 by a vote of 223 against 54. The assembly also decided that its members should receive no compensation for their attendance and services. On April 14 the constitution of the German empire was adopted, only seven voting against it.

—Of more than ordinary interest were the debates touching the state of Elsass-Lothringen. The government submitted a bill which provided for a permanent incorporation of this province with the German empire; but that the constitution of the empire was not to take effect in the province before Jan. 1, 1874; until then its affairs were to be administered be the emperor, with the advice of the Bundesrath. From different quarters the desire was expressed that the province should be united with Prussia; yet on June 3 the bill, with some amendments changing the date of which it was to take effect from Jan. 1, 1874, to Jan. 1, 1873, was passed by a large majority. On June 15 the session was closed, and on the day following the German troops entered and marched through the streets of Berlin in commemoration of the recent events which resulted in the establishment of national unity and a central government as a fit representative of the common bond which again united the German people.

—The next session of the imperial diet commenced Oct. 16. The principal business of this session was the passage on Nov. 6 of a bill providing for the establishment of a war fund to the amount of 40,000,000 thalers; the adoption of a military budget, for which the gross sum of 90,373,275 thalers was voted; the granting of a subsidy to the St. Gothard railway, amounting to 10,000,000 francs; then the enactment of the law regulating the coinage of the empire, which established the mark as the general coin. Lasker's bill, which proposed to extend the legislative and political powers of the empire both in criminal and civil matters, was not finally acted upon by the diet, partly owing to the opposition it received from certain political factions and from the majority of the Bundesrath. The bitter struggle between church and state, to which the dogma concerning the infallibility of the pope gave rise, was foreshadowed in this session of the diet, when von Lutz., the Bavarian minister, submitted the bill, which had been approved by the Bundesrath, providing that any minister or other member of the clergy, Edition: current; Page: [351] who while officiating in that capacity, either in a church or elsewhere, should discuss the affairs of state in a manner calculated to disturb the public peace, should be punished by imprisonment for two years. The leaders of the clerical party, Windthorst, Reichensperger, Mallinckrodt and others, rose with great indignation, and protested against a bill which they deemed so hostile to the best interests of the empire and the rights of the Catholic church. In spite of this protest the bill was passed on Nov. 28. The diet finally adjourned on Dec. 1, 1871. A further step toward political unity and a centralized government was taken by the total or partial abolition, on the part of the smaller states, of their embassies or foreign legations. In 1872 the clerical contest assumed a more threatening character. It was principally in Prussia that, in consequence of the indulgence shown by the government, the Catholic clergy became aggressive. The conduct of the clergy, which received a new impulse by the heated discussions concerning the dogma of infallibility, gave sore offense to the government, and aroused its latent energy to resist the aggressive policy of the church. On Dec. 14, 1871, a bill was submitted in the Prussian chamber of deputies, which provided that the control and superintendence of all public and private schools should be handed over to the government. This bill was passed by both chambers on Feb. 13, and March 8, 1872. But it was not only in Prussia that this doctrine, which insisted upon a revival of the idea that the religious behests issued from the see of Rome should be received by the Christian world as a finality, disturbed the public peace and divided the people; in Bavaria, too, the religious contest assumed a threatening aspect. There the advocates of this dogma were arrayed not only against the liberals, but also against those of their own church, who, like Doellinger and his followers, calling themselves Old Catholics, opposed the dogma of infallibility as an innovation, which was neither warranted by the faith of the primitive Christians nor supported by the ancient traditions of the church. As the contest seemed to spread all over Germany, it soon became evident that, if its baneful influence were checked by governmental interference, it could successfully be done only by some action taken by the imperial diet. The imperial government still tried to observe a conciliatory policy toward the pontiff at Rome; in March, 1872, Bismarck submitted the proposition to the pope, according to the terms of which the latter was to accredit Cardinal Hohenlohe, a zealous Catholic, though unfriendly to the Jesuits, as ambassador of the imperial government to the see of Rome. The decided manner in which this proposition was rejected by Pius IX. indicated that no agreement between the papacy and the empire could be arrived at. In the session which commended on April 8, the attention of the imperial diet was first called to the question whether the budget should provide for the retention of the embassy at Rome; at the suggestion of Bismarck it was retained. The struggle, however, between the different parties, to which church issues had given prominence, began when the two bills against the Jesuits camp up for discussion on May 15 and 16. One was introduced by Gneist, the other by Wagner-Marquardsen, both aiming at limiting the powers and checking the spread of this order. After an excited discussion, the bill introduced by Wagner-Marquardsen, which was more stringent in its provisions, was passed by a vote of 205 against 84. The action of the Bundesrath, whereby some of the most stringent provisions were modified, so as to make the supervision by the police not mandatory but directory, led to further discussions, which resulted in the bringing in of a new bill, providing that the order of Jesuits and similar orders as well as congregations should be excluded from the German empire, and their future settlement within it prohibited; that those existing were to disband within six months; that such members as were foreigners were to be banished the realm, while the natives might be confined to certain districts. This bill passed the diet by a vote of 181 against 93 on June 19, and was unanimously approved by the Bundesrath on June 25; it went into operation on July 4. In some of the German states—Bavaria, Saxony, Würtemberg and Baden—the Jesuits were not permitted to reside. In Prussia, however, their numbers had increased considerably during the last fifty years, especially in the Rhenish province, in Westphalia and in Posen, in Elsass-Lothringen, too, they formed no insignificant body. On the taking effect of the law in question, the monasteries were closed in the course of the summer, though not without causing disturbance, with required that interference of the military. Among the nobility, those of the Rhenish province and of Westphalia showed a good deal of sympathy for the Roman pontiff. In consequence of a resolution adopted by the Bundesrath on May 13, 1873, orders, such as that of the Redemptorists, the Lazarists, etc., came within the operation of the law. The Catholic bishops were greatly agitated by this action of the Bundesrath; they held a conference at Fulda, which lasted from Sept. 18 to Sept. 20, and resulted in the issuing by the assembled prelates of a memorial wherein they discussed the state of the Catholic church in the German empire, and declared open war against the imperial government. They announced a set of principles touching the freedom of the church and the independence of the clergy, which could hardly fall seriously to affect the sovereignty and independence of the government. The contest between the clergy and the government had now assumed alarming proportions. The gain of the Old Catholic party in the number of its adherents, while it added to the opposition against the aggressive policy of the Catholic church, intensified the struggle, and did much to give the contest the character of a war of principles, rather than that Edition: current; Page: [352] of a struggle for power. The government now earnestly commenced to assert its authority, and the conflicts between the refractory bishops—Krementz in Frauenburg, Ledochowski in Posen, and others—and the public authority, showed that each of the contending parties was determined to carry the struggle to the bitter end. The pope expressed great indignation at the coercive measures employed by the imperial government against the bishops. The language employed by the pope when delivering his address on June 25, showed that the demands of the church and the interests of the state, as a system of public and private forces governed by law, were absolutely at war with each other. In his allocution of Dec. 23, the pope showed himself even more implacable, in consequence of which the Prussian legate at Rome took leave. Thus the Culturkampf, the struggle for civilization, as the foemen who were arrayed against Rome were pleased to term it, was inaugurated, and formed one of the most important factors in the development of the new empire. As against this formidable contest, which engrossed not only the attention of the government, but of the people at large, the other proceedings of the imperial diet, though important in themselves, gave no cause of serious disagreement. The more important measures discussed were the appropriations for the navy, the distribution of the French war contribution, the duties on salt and brewers' materials, the prolongation of the "dictatorship" in Elsass-Lothringen to Jan. 1, 1874, the exclusive control of the Luxemburg railroads by the imperial government, the revision of the military code, and Lasker's bill providing for the establishment by the imperial government of courts of original jurisdiction, which was again approved by the diet but still awaited the action of the Bundesrath.

—The position of the South German states toward the empire still gave proof that they were not equally willing to assist the government in the promotion of its national policy. Baden had made the greatest concessions. In making civil marriage obligatory it had done even more than was expected. Hesse also had early changed its policy in favor of national unity. In Würtemberg, the proposition submitted by the democratic faction to the assembly, touching the "reserved rights"—that each particular change in the treaty of Nov. 25, 1870, should require the consent of the Landtag—was, in February, 1872, owing to the strenuous opposition of Minister Mittnacht, defeated by a vote of 60 against 29. A similar proposition introduced about the same time in the chamber of deputies in Bavaria met with the same fate. Some doubt, however, as to the policy of the Bavarian government was caused, when, in 1872, Count Hegnenberg-Dux, the prime minister, whose attitude toward the empire was of a friendly nature, having died, the king commissioned one of the most uncompromising opponents of the empire and a friend of the ultramontanes, von Gasser, to form a new cabinet. As the latter could not find the proper men willing to enter the new cabinet in support of his views, the uneasiness which had taken hold of those in favor of a national policy and who were friends of the empire, was removed, when von Pfritzchner, the minister of finance, was appointed president of the cabinet, and as such took charge of the foreign affairs of the government. This attempt on the part of the Bavarian government to yield to a policy unfriendly to the empire was all the more astonishing, as the meeting of the three emperors, William of Germany, Alexander II. of Russia and Francis Joseph of Austria, which took place about the same time at Berlin, although it did not result in a formal alliance, indicated that the three emperors meant to pursue a uniform policy, that Russia and Austria were willing to recognize the establishment of the German empire as a fact not in conflict with their own interests, and that they approved of the national policy of the German government; all of which did much to check the renewed warlike spirit on the part of France.

—The fourth session of the imperial diet commenced March 12, 1873. The address of the crown suggested various measures touching the protection of the German empire, the extension of its powers, and the requirements of trade and commerce and other interstate relations; and with a tone of assurance referred to the friendly relations of the empire with neighboring governments as a circumstance which would certainly give Germany the support of these powers, should France ever avail herself of the first opportunity to gratify her desire for revenge. The comparative strength of the different parties represented in the imperial diet was as follows: the national liberal party had 115, the German imperial party 34, the liberal imperial party 30, the conservatives 50, the progressists 45, the centre 66 and the Poles 13 representatives; 23 members belonged to no party. Simson was chosen president. The bill introduced by Lasker, providing for the extension of the legislative and judicial powers of the empire so as to cover all civil and criminal matters, was adopted on April 3 by a decided majority, and its approval by the Bundesrath was promised by Minister Delbrück; the diet was also advised that the Bundesrath contemplated a civil code of uniform operation throughout the empire. The bill for the establishment of a general office superintending and regulating the railroad system of the empire was likewise passed. The same disposition was made of the bill granting the members of the imperial parliament compensation. The bill by which civil marriage was to be made obligatory on persons engaging in matrimony, as well as the different measures introduced for the surveillance of the public press, were not finally acted upon. The postal treaty with Italy was approved May 28; an amendment to the postal treaty with Persia, June 21. An amendment to the revenue law was passed June 25, whereby the duty on Edition: current; Page: [353] iron, steel, etc., was in some instances wholly abolished, in some reduced, Jan. 1, 1877, being fixed as the date of its total abolition. The coinage bill, passed June 24, definitely fixed the mark as the unit, and provided, among other things, for the withdrawal of all paper money heretofore issued by Jan. 1, 1876, and the issue of paper money by the imperial government, in regard to which a special bill, regulating the details of the matter, was to be submitted by the government to the diet at its next session. The special stipulations agreed upon with France, on June 29, 1872, and March 15, 1873, respectively, were also approved by the diet, which in doing so acknowledged the skill and wisdom displayed by Bismarck in obtaining from France the concessions embodied in these stipulations. The last stipulation provided that France should pay the entire war indemnity by Sept. 5, 1873, and that, in consequence, the German troops should commence on July 1 to evacuate the four departments, still held by them, and the fortress Belfort; that until the payment of the last installment Verdun should remain under the control of the German troops; the last installment being paid, Verdun was to be evacuated and the German troops withdrawn from French soil within fourteen days. The bill whereby the German constitution became operative in Elsass-Lothringen, and which was passed June 18, provided that the Military rule to which it had been subjected should cease on Jan. 1, 1874; and, furthermore, that these imperial provinces were to be represented in the diet by fifteen delegates. Yet this bill, as well as the discussion of the report concerning the legislation and administration in Elsass-Lothringen, was not allowed to pass without giving the ultramontanes and democrats a chance to complain of the tendency they supposed in these proceedings to curtail the civil and religious freedom of the citizens in these provinces. The further discussions of this subject came to a close in the diet at last, when it adjourned June 25.

—In Elsass Lothringen, whose administration was in charge of the chancellor of the empire, the sentiment of the inhabitants, which was not at all friendly to the new rule, was constantly kept alive by the encouragement it received from the ultramontanes and the French. Against all the influences which were brought to bear upon the inhabitants of these provinces to resist the German rule, and to set up the traditions of a few centuries, which had made them subjects of the government of France, against the fact that the stock and body of the people shared with their new rulers the same national origin, the government of the German empire, with singular firmness and energy, followed up its policy of drawing the political union between these estranged provinces and the rest of Germany closer, and of coercing the inhabitants of Elsass-Lothringen into a patriotic sentiment in favor of their German kinsfolk on the other side of the Rhine. Rapp, the vicar general of Strasburg, at the head of a committee whose object was to offer decided opposition to the new rule, was, on March 17, banished from the provinces; Lauth, the mayor of Strasburg, who had officially declared himself in favor of the restoration of French rule, was deposed April 7; and the board of councilmen, who had protested against this action of the German government, was suspended for two years; the superintendent of police was invested with the powers until then exercised by the mayor and the municipal council. In regard to the management of the schools, the government provided that it should be in the hands of its own officers; that the examination and appointment of teachers, the organization of the schools and the course of study should be determined by the government; that such schools as did not conform to the regulations laid down by the government were to be closed; and that from and after Oct. 1, in those districts whose population was German, no language but the German should be taught. At the election of members to the district and circuit councils, the clericals and all those governed by French sympathies, desired that either none but such as favored the opposition to and "protested" against German rule should be chosen, or that no election should take place. Yet the elections, especially in Lower Alsace, turned out more in favor of the government than was anticipated. Gradually a third party was organizing against those parties which were opposed to Germany, and adopted the name of the Alsacian party, whose spokesman was the Alsacian Journal. The members of this party, though recognizing the existing condition of things, were determined to remain Alsacians; they were not willing to cut loose from the traditions which had made them for centurries independent of their kinsfolk on the other side of the Rhine; their aim was to promote the political development and the industrial interests of their own country.

—On Sept. 5 the last installment of the war indemnity was paid by France; on Sept. 8 the Germans commenced to evacuate Verdun, and on Sept. 16 the German troops crossed the borders of France.

—The line of policy observed by the Prussian government in its struggle with the ultramontanes, which was in the main defined by the four laws introduced by the Prussian diet and passed in May, 1873, regulating the conduct of the church, was a very important factor and exercised the greatest influence upon the political and religious condition of the German empire. There arose a general opposition in all parts of the empire to the claims of the Roman pontiff, claims which were calculated not only to offend the dignity of the temporal government, but also to seriously disturb its relations with its subjects, who might set their fidelity to the church above their allegiance to their government. The orders of the Redemptorists, of the Lazarists, of the Priests of the Holy Ghost and of the Society of the Holy Heart of Jesus, associations similar to the order of the Jesuits, were, by virtue of a Edition: current; Page: [354] resolution passed by the Bundesrath, dissolved by the imperial chancellor on May 20. Pius IX., in order to secure more favorable terms to the Catholic clergy, appealed, in a letter dated Aug. 7, to the emperor himself. The answer of the emperor, dated Sept. 3, charged the Catholic clergy with being the cause of all the difficulties and disturbances, and of refusing to yield, as the constitution and the laws required, obedience to the public authorities. The publication of these communications had the effect of making the emperor the recipient of a large number of addresses from all parts of Germany and from abroad, warmly approving the position he had taken, and encouraging the government to persist in the course it had adopted in opposition to the rebellious tendencies of the Catholic clergy. The meeting which took place about this time between the emperor and the czar of Russia at Ems, and the one between the former and the emperor of Austria, was followed by a visit, which Victor Emanuel, king of Italy, paid to the emperor at Berlin; the king had come in company with two of his ministers, and remained two days. All these events seemed to indicate that the temporal powers were agreed, if not openly to oppose, at least to discourage the overreaching policy of the clergy. The fact that Lasker's bill, which had been passed by the imperial diet, and which extended the authority and powers of the government of the empire so as to give it complete jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters, and enable it directly to control the conduct of its citizens throughout its territory—the fact that this bill was, on Dec. 12, approved by the Bundesrath by a vote of 54 against 4, did much to strengthen the position of the general government in the difficulties and disturbances the clergy had caused, and to lend the opposition to clerical pretensions the strong aid of the government throughout the empire. The movement inaugurated by the advocates of Old Catholicism gained in strength. In the convocation held by them at Köln on June 4, Reinkens was elected bishop. Having been ordained in his new dignity by Bishop Heykamp at Rotterdam, Aug. 11, Reinkens took the required oath before Minister Falk, and was at once confirmed in his office as Catholic bishop by the Prussian government. A few months later, on Nov. 9, Prince Bismarck was re-appointed prime minister, and again set about to shape the home policy of the Prussian government. At the election of delegates to the Prussian Landtag, which took place on Nov. 4, the conservative party lost fifty-nine members, whereas the clericals and the national liberals gamed in strength. In this connection we may mention the fact, as one of more than ordinary significance, that within a few months a bill was submitted in the Prussian Landtag, by which civil marriage was made obligatory on persons engaging in matrimony; that the chamber of deputies in Bavaria and in Würtemberg approved Lasker's bill, which had passed both the imperial diet and the Bundesrath; and that in the lower house of deputies in Hesse certain bills were introduced, which placed the management of the schools and the organization of the church on a more liberal basis, and which were more particularly intended to free in a great measure the former from the control of the latter. The principle also, which seems to have been tacitly agreed to and acted upon by most of the German governments, that a change or amendment of the imperial constitution did not require the express approval of the diets or representative bodies of the several states comprising the German empire, but might take effect after having been passed by the imperial diet and having received the approval of the representatives of the several governments in the Bundesrath, was now insisted upon as a uniform rule, when, contrary to the established practice, the representatives of Saxony in the Bundesrath, pending the adoption of Lasker's bill, hesitated to cast their vote before being expressly authorized by the Landtag of that principality to do so.

—The elections to the next imperial diet, which took place on Jan. 10, 1874, except in Elsass-Lothringen, where they were held Feb. 1, were held under great popular excitement, to which the issues pending between the different political factions had given rise. The clericals were very hopeful of success, and the result of the elections showed that they had gained in strength, especially as against the conservatives in Bavaria and some Prussian districts; the social democrats carried their candidates in nine electoral districts. Yet, as the diet was finally made up, the clericals, who numbered 101, were opposed by 155 members of the national liberal party, while the 135 members, who were opposed to the policy and government of the empire, had to make a stand against the imposing array of 240 representatives, including the progressists, who supported that policy; the conservative party, which had been reduced to twenty members, stood entirely outside of the working forces of the diet, and carried no appreciable influence. In Elsass-Lothringen, the election resulted in the return of ten clericals, including the bishops of Strasburg and of Metz, and of five members from the faction whose policy consisted in protesting against the administration of Elsass-Lothringen by the imperial government. The diet was now in session. At its opening on Feb. 5 the address of the crown mentioned several measures, which the government proposed to submit to that body, such as a bill concerning the press and a bill for the regulation of trade. On Feb. 16 the fifteen deputies from Elsass-Lothringen appeared in the bails of the assembly, and at once surprised the members of the diet by the propositions they submitted. One of these propositions was, that the population of Elsass-Lothringen should, at that late day, have the right of passing upon the question, whether they were willing to give their assent to the incorporation of that province into the German empire. This measure, however, was voted down by a decided Edition: current; Page: [355] majority, without even being made the subject of discussion. The next proposition asked for the repeal of the law which invested the head of the administration of that province with certain dictatorial powers, including the right to call upon the military in case the public peace and safety required it. This proposition was taken up and discussed March 3, but was finally rejected by a vote of 196 against 138. On Feb. 14 the postal treaty between the government of the empire and Brazil was ratified, and on the 16th of the same month the extradition treaty with Switzerland. The bill by which vaccination was made compulsory was passed on March 16, but not without giving both the social democrats and the ultramontanes an opportunity to protest against and oppose it as a measure infringing upon the personal rights and liberties of the citizen. A bill providing for the establishment of a board of health was also passed on the same day. On April 24 a law was enacted, providing for the issuing of treasury notes to the amount of 120,000,000 mark, which were to take the place of the paper money issued by the several states, all of which was to be retired by Jan. 1, 1876. Several amendments to the law regulating the different trades, especially the one which made a breach of contract punishable as a criminal offense, were, Feb. 19, on the first hearing, most vigorously opposed by the members of the social democratic party; being referred to a committee, it did not reach a second reading during this session. The act regulating the press, which had been amended in many respects by the committee to which it had been referred on the first reading, was again taken up. After meeting with the united opposition of the social democrats and the clericals, which was principally directed against the right of seizure and the responsibility of the press, it was finally passed by a decided majority on April 19, although a motion to extend its operation also to Elsass-Lothringen was lost. Another source of discomfiture for the clericals was the bill making civil marriage obligatory, which was finally adopted on March 28. Yet this did not deter them from making a vigorous fight against the passage of the act prohibiting the unlawful or unauthorized exercise of clerical offices, and which provided that a violation of its provisions should be punishable by imprisoning the offender, by loss of citizenship, and by banishment from the territory of the empire. This act, which was in the first place directed against those Prussian clergymen who still refused obedience to the existing laws, was finally passed on April 25 by a vote of 214 against 108. Yet the measure which met with the most general opposition from different factions of the diet, was the army bill. It fixed, in the first place, the numerical strength of the army in times of peace at 401,659 men. In the opposition to this provision, not only the factions whose policy was directed against the government of the empire as inconsistent with the ancient dignity and independence of the several German states, especially of the South German states, but all members with democratic proclivities of the progressist party and the left wing of the national liberals, headed by Lasker, were united. Among those who thus made a stand against the law were also the social democrats and the ultramontanes, who seemed, queerly enough, always ready to join hands in the effort to obstruct the policy of the imperial government. When the bill was at its first reading, Feb. 16, von Moltke insisted upon its passage, and defended its provisions as essential to the safety and peace of the empire. It was finally referred to a committee; it was two months before they were ready to refer it back. In spite of the great opposition the army bill had met with in this diet, public opinion seemed to agree with the views of von Moltke, that the safety and integrity of the empire required the adoption of some measure calculated to secure a ready and efficient military service in case of need, and in the end prevailed upon the committee to report in favor of the bill in a somewhat modified form. It passed to a second reading, April 13-17, despite the fight made on it by the social democrats, the ultramontanes and a certain faction of the progressist party, by a vote of 224 against 148, and it at last became a law, April 20, by a vote of 214 against 123. On April 26, 1874, the diet closed its first session of that year.

—The spirit of opposition and hatred against the imperial government shown by the ultramontanes in and out of the legislative assemblies was certainly the occasion, if not the direct cause, which prompted, July 18, Kullmann, of Magdeburg, in the attempt to assassinate Prince Bismarck at Kissingen. The culprit was speedily seized, tried at Würzburg by a jury, and on Oct. 30 sentenced to imprisonment for a term of fourteen years, and to loss of citizenship for ten years, besides being put under police surveillance. A prosecution of more political importance than this, was that against Count von Arnim, who had been recalled from the embassy at Paris owing to some political differences between him and Prince Bismarck. The count was tried and convicted on the charge of having taken from the archives of the embassy certain political documents of great importance, which he refused to give up; he was, Dec. 19, sentenced to imprisonment for three months, from which sentence the accused took an appeal. The action of the chancellor in bringing the refractory diplomat to what he conceived to be speedy justice, and the reading in the course of the trial of certain documents which, among other things, bore witness to the skillful diplomacy displayed by the chancellor in his relations with the French government, could not fail to add to the distinction he had already won as Germany's foremost statesman. The last session of the diet of that year, which convened Oct. 29, 1874, was principally occupied in fixing the various items of the general budget for the year 1875, which, after being fully discussed and considered, Edition: current; Page: [356] was adopted in the shape submitted, Dec. 18. The postal treaties with Chili and Peru were approved Nov. 4, that with Berne, Nov. 30, and, on Dec. 9, a resolution was adopted, which declared in favor of popular representation in all the states composing the empire. A proposition for the establishment of a legislative assembly for Elsass-Lothringen, supported by the ultramontanes and opposed by Bismarck, was submitted by the deputies of that province, but no final action was taken. The diet again met in the following year, in a short session, which extended from Jan. 7, 1875, to Jan. 30. Parts of the principal business of this session were the extradition treaty with Belgium, which was approved on January 22; the act regulating the publishing and taking effect of the general laws of the empire, which was passed January 14; and the banking act, which made the imperial bank of the leading institution in the banking system of the empire, which was passed January 30. The most important feature in the proceedings of this session, and which aroused the most general interest, was the final passage of the law making civil marriage obligatory throughout the territory of the empire; it also contained a provision whereby any member of the Catholic clergy or order might contract a lawful marriage. The law was passed, after meeting with the most stubborn opposition, from the ultramontanes, on January 25.

—The event which most engaged public attention during the interval which marked the close of this session of the imperial diet and the opening of the next, was the publishing of the papal encyclica on Feb. 5, 1875, in which the laws passed by the Prussian diet against the Catholic clergy were declared invalid and of no binding force on the church. The excitement produced by this further evidence of papal defiance, again ran very high, and called out the full strength of the liberal element in support of the government in its contest against the uncompromising and defiant attitude of the church. The efforts of the ultramontanes were directed not only toward defeating the policy of the government in the legislative assemblies, but also toward enlisting the co-operation of the Catholic powers of Europe in the formation of a great and powerful alliance against Germany. But Bismarck was not weary, and the bold stand he took against the enemies of his government showed that he was ready to accept the issue of war, if war his opponents meant. This had the effect of quieting, for the time, the aggressive tendencies of the ultramontanes, and of causing England and Russia to raise a voice in the interest of European peace.

—When the diet met again, on Oct. 27, 1875, the address of the crown invited the consideration of the assembly to the following measures: the new money standard of the empire, which was to be in force on and from Jan. 1, 1876; an increase of the tax on brewing material; an act providing for a stamp tax on negotiable instruments and other evidences of money transactions; an act for regulating the copyright of works of all; and, finally, the adoption of a new criminal code. The low condition of trade and commerce, noticeable throughout the country about this time, was pointed out, but not without being characterized as only temporary in its nature. The address finally called attention to the fact that the public peace was no longer threatened, but firmly established throughout the country. In the debates on the public budget the principal question was concerning the means of raising the eighteen millions required to meet the expenditures of the government. The government was in favor of meeting the deficit by an increase of the tax on malt, a stamp tax on negotiable instruments, etc; while the majority of the diet were in favor of meeting the present want by curtailing the appropriations for the army and reducing them to a more economical basis. Though Bismarck advocated the imposition of an increased indirect tax on certain articles, such as beer, coffee, tobacco, brandy, sugar and petroleum, the bills taxing brewing material and imposing a stamp duty on negotiable instruments, etc., were rejected Dec. 16, and the budget was finally agreed upon, in a shape which met the views of the majority of the diet and in opposition to those held by the government, on Dec. 16, after which the diet adjourned without taking any action on the bill providing for the adoption of a criminal code. The principal features of this bill were the provisions of more than ordinary stringency directed against the unruly element of the population, whose actions were likely to be turned to political account; the provisions imposing certain penalties for the official misconduct of members of foreign legations, for encouraging offenses against foreign governments, for abusing the privileges of the pulpit by the clergy in their war against the secular authorities, for inciting the populace to actions in violation of the public laws, for public attacks on the institution of marriage, the family or property, and for resisting public officers in the discharge of their duties. The diet meeting again on Jan. 19, 1876, this bill, with the exception of the sections making criminal any act which tended to encourage the populace to commit a violation of the public laws, or which tended to encourage the different classes of society to commit acts of depredation or violence against one another, was finally passed in a somewhat modified form, whereupon the diet was closed Feb. 10, 1876.

—Though unwilling to make public acknowledgment of the fact that there was a breach between him and the ruling majority of the diet, which threatened to become wider as the differences became more apparent between the policy of the imperial chancellor and that of the majority of the august assembly, who were, in theory at least, the representatives of the people at large, Bismarck was secretly chagrined at the defeat of his legislative measures, touching the raising of new taxes and the punishment of what he considered offenses endangering Edition: current; Page: [357] the peace and safety of society and of the government. Added to this, were the difficulties he had to contend with in the Bundesrath. The majority of this body were opposed to the proposition submitted to them, whereby the railroad system of Germany was to be consolidated and placed under the control of the imperial government. Bismarck's native instinct saw in this opposition an indirect but firm protest against the policy of building up a strong central government, and of placing the consolidated interests of the country under the control of one power, wherein all the functions of government were firmly united.

—The last session of the diet, which was the result of the elections of Jan. 16, 1874, was opened on Oct. 30, 1876. The address of the crown recommended the passage of a bill regulating the judiciary, a code of civil and criminal procedure, an act regulating proceedings in bankruptcy, and called the attention of the assembly to the struggles in the east, the differences between Russia and Turkey, and announced it as the intention of the government to maintain friendly relations with all foreign governments (especially those which were more closely united with it by historical traditions, such as Austria and Russia). and to use its effort in securing peace and good-will among those governments whose friendly relations with one another might be endangered or disturbed. Public opinion seemed to be somewhat divided as to the relative merits of the eastern question, the people, especially in South Germany, being mostly opposed to Russia, while the heads of the imperial government could not conceal their leaning toward the pretended champion of Christendom against the professors of Islam, and were willing to aid the former power, by a conference, to exact from the government of Turkey, the adoption of some measures looking to the protection of the Christians within its territory. Beyond this, the government of Germany observed a strict neutrality. The principal business before the diet was the passing of the judiciary laws. The several bills concerning this matter had been referred to a committee chosen by the diet in 1875 for the purpose of revising and reporting them back. The committee concluded its labors on July 3, 1876, and submitted its report to the diet Nov. 3. Upon the reading of the report, the Bundesrath submitted no less than eighty-six objections, the principal of which were those against the trial by jury of all offenses in the nature of abuses of the privileges of the press, and the compulsory attendance of publishers and editors, of printers and compositors, as witnesses in such cases. In spite of these objections the bills passed the first and second readings, whereupon the Bundesrath withdrew all objections except eighteen, which that body firmly insisted on, giving notice to the members of the diet, that, if the bills in question were passed despite them, the Bundesrath would refuse its approval. Fearing that these important legislative measures might be defeated by an obstinate adherence to the position taken in regard to them by either side, a compromise was agreed upon, by which trial by jury in the cases referred to was not allowed except in those states in which, as in southern Germany, that form of procedure existed as a matter of right, and by which, furthermore, the compulsory attendance of such witnesses as we have mentioned could still be resorted to; the date when these laws were to take effect was fixed for Oct. 1, 1879. The bills were finally passed after their third reading, Dec. 21, whereupon the diet was closed on the following day. This compromise had the effect of producing great dissatisfaction in the ranks of the progressist party with the action of the majority of the diet, which in the main was composed of the members of the national liberal party, and was not without its influence on the forthcoming elections for the return of members to the next diet. The election took place Jan. 10, 1877. The national liberal party lost twenty members, securing but 128, the progressists lost three, reducing their number to thirty-four, while the conservatives made considerable gains, and the centre managed to retain its previous strength. The social democrats gained five members, two of whom were from Berlin. Thus the national liberals failed to furnish the majority for the next diet; the only united majority vote lay with the functions, whose common policy, in support of the imperial government, had given them the name by which they became known as "friends of the empire"; they might command a vote of about 253, while their opponents could count upon 139 votes. Out of 2,500,000 votes cast, the vote of the socialist candidates reached 485,000, an alarming evidence of the strength of their party. Though the relative position and influence of the different parties appeared to be materially changed, when the new diet opened, Feb. 22, 1877, nothing occurred in its first session which was calculated to create serious disturbances in its business, or to pit the different parties against each other in a contest over the balance of power in the new assembly. On March 23 the diet passed the act giving to Elsass-Lothringen a legislative assembly of its own, with power to pass laws for the regulation of the internal affairs of the province, which, however, were to take effect only after obtaining the approval of the Bundesrath, and in case of disagreement, of the imperial diet. On April 26 the various appropriations of the public budget were agreed on, which estimated the resources and expenditures at 540,536,415 mark respectively. The further legislative measures which passed, were the act fixing Leipzig as the seat of the imperial court of the last resort, and an act regulating the granting and issuing of patents, and establishing a patent office. The comparative quite of this session was somewhat broken by the startling announcement of the intended resignation of Bismarck, who at last, however, yielding to the solicitations of the emperor, refrained from pressing it any further, and simply took leave of Edition: current; Page: [358] absence for an indefinite period. His resignation was tendered by the imperial chancellor on the alleged ground of failing health, but was in fact prompted by the opposition he met with in his attitude toward the eastern question, as well as to his home policy, which especially as touching all questions of public economy, had become highly distasteful to his former allies in and out of the legislative assembly of the nation.

—Passing the summer without any notable event, the fall of that year found Bismarck at Varzin, engaged in devising a system of revenue, calculated to make the empire really independent in all financial matters; he was also no stranger to the thought, in order to secure a working majority in the diet in aid of his plans, of making some advances toward his former allies, the national liberals, and, if possible, to win them over to some sort fo concerted action with himself. The several conferences which took place at Varzin, in the winter of 1877, between the chancellor and Bennigsen, though they resulted in an understanding by which certain leaders of the national liberal party were to have a seat in the cabinet, came to a termination without any definite understanding or agreement, as the chancellor was unwilling to give the proper constitutional guarantees that the indirect taxes, which were to be levied by the imperial government, would be applied in such a manner as to reduce the heavy burden of the direct tax. The only reform in the revenue system, which the government proposed during the session of the diet, which commenced Feb. 6, 1878, was to confer upon the imperial government the power of levying a stamp tax in certain cases, and of raising the tax on the tobacco. On this occasion, Bismarck made the statement in the assembly, that it was not so much a tax on tobacco as a monopoly of tobacco, which suited his policy—a statement which was not at all calculated to close the branch between him and the national liberals, who, in point of principle, were opposed to nothing so much as such a policy. The diet finally referred the chancellor's bill to a committee with which it remained without any further action being taken on it during that session. After passing on the public budget, which estimated the resources and the expenditures at 536,476,800 mark, and passing an act authorizing the imperial chancellor to act by substitution, the diet was about to adjourn, when the uncertain state of public feeling touching the future relation of the government to that body, the imperial diet, which came nearest representing the wishes of the people, was still further increased by the attempt, fortunately unsuccessful, made by Max Hoedel upon the life of the emperor, on May 11. The government readily seized on this event as a reason for adopting stringent measures against the socialists, who were all along treated by the government as the most unruly element in the country; a bill was, on May 21, submitted to the diet, directed against the socialists, and providing for the passage of some special acts, the enforcement of which was to be entrusted to the Bundesrath and the diet. The majority of the diet, however, was of the opinion, that as long as the government had not exhausted all the powers already at its command for the diet. The majority of the diet, however, was of the opinion, that as long as the government had not exhausted all the powers already at its command for the repression of all public disturbances, it would not be advisable at that late day to hurry through a legislative measure of so great importance. The bill was therefore rejected, May 24, by a large majority.

—The session of the diet from February to May, 1878, though of no special importance as far as the passage of legislative measures was concerned, indicated that the time was fast approaching, which called for a redistribution of the political power in that body. The national liberals, who had hitherto enjoyed the ascendency, and who had shown a ready disposition to act in concert with the imperial chancellor in carrying out his policy, were now, for the sake of the political principles they had expressed, compelled to change their attitude toward Bismarck, when Bismarck, with measures such as the tax on tobacco, (which, though they avowedly favored a monopoly, the chancellor warmly defended before the diet,) the proposed substitution of a system of indirect for direct taxation, and the law against the socialists, surprised the liberal majority of the diet by a line of policy, which, in more respects than one, was distasteful to that majority. The national liberals were in favor of a free trade policy, and in point of principle were arrayed against all monopolies; the traditions of their party history had made them the advocates not only of political freedom in its larger sense, but also of the personal liberties of the citizen, and they were now invited to further aid the one statesman, who hitherto had been in the full possession and control of all the political powers of the new empire, in the execution of a policy so much oppossed to the very principles which helped to make them a poltical party. They hence declined to act on the measures submitted to them, and this session of the diet, though of more than ordinary length, came to an end without witnessing the adoption of a single measure affecting the great interests of the country.

—Yet, following this came the second more successful attempt on the life of the aged emperor on June 2, by Carl Nobiling, a professed socialist. The emperor received serious though not fatal injuries, from which he slowly recovered. This new attempt to right real or supposed grievances of the masses by cutting off the head of the government threw the government and the people alike into the wildest state of excitement, amidst which Bismarck succeeded in disbanding, on June 12, the imperial diet and ordering a new election to take place on the 30th of the same month, by means of which the chancellor hoped to secure a conservative majority, in support of the government and its measures. Though the excitement preceding the election ran high and the contest carried on was most bitter, the result of the election was by no means of a very satisfactory nature, Edition: current; Page: [359] and of no decided advantage to any one of the parties who had entered the contest. The conservatives had gained no decided majority, while the party who called themselves the "friends of the empire" had lost in strength. The centre was the only faction which maintained its former quota, while the social democrats, who were in the thickest of the battle, lost but three representatives. As far as the working force of the new diet was concerned, it was represented by those parties of about equal strength, the national liberals, the conservatives and the centre. On Sept. 9 the diet met. The bill against the socialists was the only business before the assembly. It was referred to a committee on Sept. 17, and in its amended form reported back by the committee, passed on Oct. 19, by a vote of 221 against 149, the centre, the progressists and the socialists voting in the negative, while the national liberals voted in the affirmative, after an effective appeal to them by Bismarck, in which he not only denounced the dangers of socialism, but also assured his former allies that he harbored no thought of favouring or employing reactionary or any other measures which were against the true interests of the country. The act gave extensive powers to the public authorities in enforcing its provisions; it was, by its terms, directed against all societies, organizations, meetings and publications with socialistic tendencies, against any and all movements attempting to "upset" the present order of society, and endangering the public peace and safety of the country. Its enforcement was entrusted to a special committee of the Bundesrath, some of whose members, however, were taken from the judiciary; and the time during which it was to be in force was fixed at two years and a half, making it expire on March 31,1881. The law having been passed, the war upon the socialists began. The further meetings and transactions of all the different socialistic organizations, 153 in number, were prohibited throughout the country, and the further publication of forty periodicals advocating the cause of socialism was forbidden; and on Nov. 28 the functions of the civil authorities for the preservation of the public peace were suspended in Berlin and the city declared in a "state of siege," while a large number of socialists were expelled.

—Socialism in Germany, or, more strictly speaking, the party of the socialist democrats, had grown to its present proportions under the influence of the teachings of Karl Marx and Ferdinand Lasalle, and had developed into a political power throughout Germany even before the establishment of the empire under the active leadership of the latter. The movement inaugurated by Marx, resulting in the organization at London of the "International Workingmen's Association," September, 1864, was in its theoretical tendencies, more comprehensive than the one which owed its origin to the efforts of Lasalle; Marx aimed at an organization in the interests of the working classes throughout the world, while the latter confined his efforts to Germany and thus became the leader of a distinctively national movement. It assumed a definite shape in the organization at Leipzig on May 23, 1863, of the "General Workingmen's Union." Lasalle, as the moving spirit, denounced the present means of production and the accumulation and distribution of wealth as being contrary to the sound principles of public economy and as aiding capitalists in robbing the workingmen of the avails of their labor, and in monopolizing the industries of the country for the benefit of the few. As against individual enterprise encouraged and regulated by competition and private capital, the advocates of this movement favoured the consolidation of capital in the interests of labor, the formation of productive associations on the basis of a community of interests of those forming them, and, whenever required, the aid of the government in the shape of furnishing the appropriate guarantee for the raising of capital and funds for the encouragement and management of the numerous enterprises thus carried on, and insisted that the government was bound to protect the interests of the laboring classes by appropriate legislation. As a means of bringing the claims of the workingmen to the notice of the government and of enforcing them. Laselle early advocated universal suffrage, and insisted upon it as the most effective means whereby the laboring classes might make themselves felt as a political power, and of promoting and defending their cause against the combined efforts of their opponents. Lasalle entered into the cause with all the ardor which youth and a brilliant imagination could give, and with a mind well equipped and disciplined for the work he undertook. He was then a man who, though young, had won distinction as a scholar and a brilliant advocate at the bar. Being elected president of the union, he began in all earnestness his work of securing to his followers the requisite political power by thorough organization and discipline. He was at the height of his influence, though greatly harassed by the personal attacks he met with on the part of the opponents of his cause, when his labors came to a sudden end on Aug 31, 1864; he fell in a duel he had provoked. It was not long after the death of their illustrious leader that dissensions broke out in the ranks of his followers. The more radical members of his party, favouring the wide-spread organization of the internationals and their more revolutionary tendencies, finally cut loose from their former organization, and in August, 1869, at Eisenach, formed a new association which they called "The Socialist Democratic Workingmen's Party." The platform adopted by them declared in favor of a democratic form of government, equality before the law and the abolition of privileges and class distinctions, the abolition of the wages system and the establishment of productive associations on the basis of a community of interests of all concerned, political liberty as forming the very basis of the economical liberation of the working Edition: current; Page: [360] classes. The party further insisted on the direct exercise of universal suffrage, separation of church and state, compulsory education and the strictly secular management of the public schools, the abolition of all indirect taxes and the substitution of an income tax, and,finally, the aid of the government for the encouragement of productive associations and the pledge of the public credit in support of their various enterprises. Though the two factions by which the cause of socialism was represented in Germany, the followers of Lasalle and the internationals or social democrats, were as far as the details of their work were concerned and in many things opposed to each other, it soon became apparent that the cause of socialism could not gain in the end by a division of its forces, and this finally led to attempts at again uniting the two factions. It was in Gotha in May, 1875, that a reunion of the two factions was effected. The congress of Gotha, by which name the large gathering of representatives of socialism is known, resulted in the organization of what henceforth became known as "The Socialist Workingmen's Party of Germany." Its platform was in the main the same as the one adopted by the party at Eisenach, and its organization rapidly spread throughout Germany. This is the brief outline of the origin and growth of a party which, after the passage of a law aiding the government in its warfare upon its adherents, not only taxed all the energies of the public authorities in its suppression, but also gave rise to the sad spectacle of the government turning its entire machinery against a whole body of people, who, however, mistaken in principle, formed the bone and sinew of the nation, and who were justified in their adherence to their cause by real grievances.

—Turning from this by no means glorious incident, the government's war against the socialists, in the history of the German empire, we can make more honorable mention of the congress of Berlin, which met on June 13, 1878, to settle the eastern question, and over which Prince Bismarck presided. The fact that the chairmanship was accorded to the German chancellor showed the predominant position Germany had secured among the European powers, and that each was willing to submit to the discreet influence and winning diplomacy which the imperial chancellor so well knew how to employ. The congress was in session until July 13, when the treaty was concluded, which, among other things, constituted Bulgaria an autonomic principality, though tributary to the porte, made Montenegro independent, engaged the porte to introduce legal reforms and to grant religious freedom, and which maintained the treaty of Paris (March 30, 1856) and of London (March 13, 1871) where not modified by the present treaty. The treaty of Berlin was ratified the following month, August 3, 1878.

—On Dec. 5, 1878, the emperor returned to Berlin, and again assumed the duties of his office. On Dec. 15 Bismarck sent a communication to the Bundesrath, in which he defined the revenue policy, and advocated a general system of taxation and protection to native industry. Another important measure proposed was a bill which extended the disciplinary powers of the diet, whereby even speeches delivered in the diet could be made the subject of criminal prosecution. The new session of the diet was opened Feb. 12, 1879, by the emperor in person. His address chiefly pointed out a thorough reform and change in the economical policy of the empire. The bill extending the disciplinary powers was rejected on March 7. The bill was to confer on the diet the power of punishing in a summary way those of its members whose speeches might be calculated to disturb the public peace and good order of society, or who were guilty of injuring the reputation, honest and integrity of citizens, not members of the diet, etc., by excluding the members so offending from the diet, by revoking their commissions, or by turning them over to the ordinary tribunals for further prosecution. The government thus intending to carry the war against the socialists into the halls of the legislative assembly, and to stop all discussion of the merits of their cause carried on under the cover of its privileges, the majority of the diet, having passed the highly proscriptive act against the socialists throughout the country, was not willing to aid the government any further by adopting a measure which not only called in question the dignity of the supreme legislative and representative body of the people, but which was calculated seriously to affect the independence of its members, and the right of free discussion which they might justly claim on all questions agitating the public mind, or involving the interests and general welfare of the country. The most important question before the diet now, was that concerning the raising of a revenue to meet the public expenses, estimated by the budget submitted at 540 million mark. The government intended to meet the estimates of the budget by means of a tariff, which had the advantage of being supported by the plea that it helped to protect home industries, and thus impart a new energy to the various branches of trade and industry, which were then suffering from the reaction that had set in, in consequence of wild speculations, into which a great many had plunged soon after the close of the Franco-German war, and in which fortunes were wrecked as soon as they were built. After the diet had taken a short recess, in order to give its members an opportunity to examine in detail the bill to be submitted by the government and awaiting the action of the Bundesrath, the bill was finally presented to the diet on its meeting, April 28. The diet was composed of three parties: the conservatives (German conservatives or the imperial party), with 114 votes; the liberals (national liberals and progressists), with 125 votes; the centre (including the Poles and part of the representatives from Elsass Lothringen), with 125 votes. By uniting on any measure, two of the parties constituted a majority. Edition: current; Page: [361] The progressists were as a unit opposed to the tariff bill as a means of protection, while the conservatives were without exception in favor of the bill, if for no other reason than that it was a measure fathered by the government, and distasteful to their political opponents, who were arrayed against them on all questions of public policy. The centre was also in favor of protection. A serious mistake was made by the national liberals in hesitating to make the tariff or the question of protection a party issue, and in not requiring from its members strict adherence to its traditional policy, and thus losing all concerted action in the struggle on hand. Strict discipline being neither required nor enforced in the ranks of this party, its difficulties were increased by the fact that it soon broke up into three factions: the positive and unqualified free traders, the protectionists, and those who were in favor of a tariff for revenue only. The national liberals therefore exercised no appreciable influence in deciding the question at issue, as the opposition coming from their ranks was neither feared, nor the divided support they could give much sought for. Bismarck, in thus effecting a coalition of all the conservative elements in the diet, and witnessing the utter helplessness and divided condition of those who had been his former allies, but who of late had become dissatisfied with his policy, and who were not united in either resisting or supporting the measures he proposed in order to alleviate the financial and economical condition of the empire, was not long in carrying his measure through the diet. The entire tariff bill, after all its features had been discussed, was finally passed on July 12, by a vote of 217 to 117, a large number of national liberals, the progressists and the social democrats voting in the negative. The act provided, aside from an outspoken protective tariff in favor of certain industries, for a duty on tobacco, iron, corn, lumber, petroleum, salt, coffee, tea and other grocers' commodities, a species of legislation which fell heavily on the large class of consumers who were to be indirectly benefited by the imposition of a protective tariff, which for the first time was put on trial in the new empire. The act further provided that the duties on commodities imported from such countries as by their tariff laws discriminated against commodities exported by Germany, and in favor of other states, might be increased double the fiscal rate; it also authorized an embargo in certain cases. Before the passage of this law, the attention of the diet was occupied by a bill providing for a local government of Elsass-Lothringen (Alsace-Lorraine) independent of the direct control and interference of the imperial government. The bill passed without much opposition on July 4. It provides for a governor (stadthalter), to be appointed by the emperor, and whose seat was to be at Strasburg; for a ministry, at the head of which was a secretary of state; for a council of state presided over by the governor; and a legislative assembly, composed of fifty-eight members. The bill as passed became a law and went into effect on and after Oct. 1, 1879. Its business being finished with the passage of the tariff act, the diet adjourned on July 12.

—Bismarck, in effecting, for the purpose of securing a majority for his financial measures, a coalition between the conservatives, the party most loyal to the government, and the centre, the party which in the struggle between church and state had espoused the cause of the clergy in their war against the government, again showed his consummate skill in the management of opposing political factions. Yet aside from the fact that the liberals had now become thoroughly estranged from him, for the reason that by his adroit management he had pushed them to the wall and thus made their opposition harmless for the time, it was certainly no comfort to him to find among his supporters in and out of parliament those who were—the Culturkampf raging—his bitterest enemies; to see, on a moment's reflection, that his new allies could not and would not stand by him, unless he was willing to change or at least modify his position toward the papacy and the church. He had, for the time at least, lost the support of the liberal element; and subsequent events proved that he could not undo the fatal consequences flowing from this new alliance, and was bound to make concessions and sacrifice of principle, in order to retain his hold on the legislative majority represented by this coalition.

—The excitement produced by the heated discussions over the new tariff law having subsided, the following year was one of comparative quiet in the public and political life of the nation. The close of the year 1879 was marked by the introduction of the new judiciary system, provided for by the imperial diet, throughout the several states, and the opening and first session of the imperial court of last resort at Leipzig, under the presidency of Edward Simson, whose name was already honorably connected with all the leading events of the empire. The foreign policy of the imperial government, of maintaining the independence and dignity of the empire, remained unchanged. The only efforts Bismarck made to aid in the settlement of the eastern difficulties, was to prevail upon the Turkish government to consent, in the interest of public peace, to the incorporation of Dulcigno with Montenegro. In all else the imperial chancellor observed a strict neutrality, his only care being to impress the European powers with the fact that while he was ready to meet any attempt to disturb the peace and safety of the empire, it was not the policy of the German government to interfere with the neighboring governments beyond the maintenance of public peace, or to add to the power and dignity of the empire by territorial annexations or foreign conquests.

—On Feb. 12, 1880, the diet again convened. In the choice of its president, Count Arnim Boitzenburg, the coalition between the conservatives and the centre or ultramontanes made itself still felt. The relative strength Edition: current; Page: [362] of the different factions remained unchanged: the conservatives had 58 members, the imperial party 48, the national liberals 83, the progressists 26, the centre 101, the socialists 10, and the rest made up a small faction, who occupied an independent position. A bill providing, among other things, for an increase in the numerical strength of the army in times of peace, which was submitted by the government ostensibly on the ground that the attitude of France toward Russia gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that an alliance was forming, was, after some discussion, passed on April 16, by a vote of 186 (of the conservatives and national liberals) against 128 (of the ultramontanes, progressists, Poles, liberals and Alsacians). An important feature in the proceedings of the diet was the bill providing for an extension of the time for and during which the law against the socialists must be in force, which formed the subject of debate on April 18 and 19, on which occasion the socialists, in concert with the progressists, denounced the evil features of the law, and opposed the present bill, while the national liberals submitted to it and the conservatives defended it, as a necessary measure for the preservation of the public peace. The bill was finally passed, extending the operation of the law to September, 1884. The alliance between the conservatives and ultramontanes, of which, beyond the election of the president of the diet, no further evidence was given during the present session, except in the passage of the law on usury and of the act regulating the different trades, seemed to be but temporary after all, and did not prevent the centre or ultramontanes from opposing two measures submitted by the government, one of which was for the protection and in the interest of the German trade and commerce with the South Sea islands, the other providing for the incorporation of Altona and St. Pauli, a suburb of the city of Hamburg, with the dominion subject to the operation of the German tariff law. The former measure was defeated, while the latter was, after some discussion, referred to the Bundesrath for further action which was to remove the objection to the measure, that Hamburg could not be deprived, for no other reason than to further the tariff system of the empire, of one of its most important districts without and against its express consent. Bismarck, considering these two measures as necessary and in the interest of the government, was greatly displeased with the opposition he met with from the centre; and in view of the fact that this faction still held the balance of power, he counseled the liberal elements to forget their differences, not only among themselves, but also with the government, in order to prevent any further alliance between the conservative and ultramontane elements, and in order to unite upon some policy in support of the unity and integrity of the empire as against its most bitter and persistent opponents. On May 11 the diet adjourned, these closing events giving some hope of future co-operation between the more moderate faction of the liberal party and the conservative elements of the government.

—The events and incidents connected with the proceedings during the session of the diet which had just come to an end, had the effect of bringing about the final separation of the more uncompromising or left wing of the national liberal party from the more conservative element. The split between the two factions had been noticeable for some time, but the traditions of the party had, until now, been stronger than the individual differences of its leaders, and this had hitherto prevented an open breach. But the hopes, in which the leaders of the more radical faction indulged, of forming the nucleus of a new liberal party more powerful and more influential than the old, were not realized. The platform which they published on Aug. 28 declared their determined opposition to all reactionary measures, and also that the economical welfare of the people was closely connected with their political freedom, and depended upon the principle of free competition in the various departments of trade and industry. It was this last proposition which did not meet with favor from the conservative elements, and which finally gave rise to the disunion.

—The progressists, on the other hand, were not willing to give up their independent position and simply fall into the ranks of the seceders; they rather claimed that those who cut loose from their former party organization should come over to them. The liberals not being willing to do this, there was no prospect of establishing some common ground on which the liberal elements in the different factions might meet, and, forgetting minor and past differences, carry out a policy which was in favor of both the economical and political liberation of the people.

—The third and last session of the present diet commenced on Feb. 15, 1881. The government announced as the main features of its financial policy the development of the resources of the empire in such a manner as to make it generally independent of the aid furnished by its constituent governments, and thus enable the latter to lighten the burden of their own taxation, which still fell heavily upon their respective peoples.

—Among the bills submitted was the accident insurance bill, one providing for the re-establishment of the guilds, another against drunkenness, and finally the bill providing for an amendment of the constitution, whereby the public budget was to be fixed every two years, and on which, though introduced, no action was taken in the previous session. Since the relative strength and composition of the different parties, owing to the split in the liberal ranks, had materially changed, it was with some difficulty that the diet succeeded in choosing its presiding officers. The German imperialists and the national liberals resisted the re-election by acclamation of the former presiding officers, Count Arnim von Frankenstein and Ackermann, which the centre and progressists Edition: current; Page: [363] had proposed. After Arnim had been elected by 147 votes, but declined, the choice finally fell upon von Gossler, one of the secretaries of the Prussian ministry, an ultra-conservative, though without political record; von Frankenstein and Ackermann were re-elected, and accepted. The diet being thus constituted, the public budget was the first thing taken up. It estimated the expenses at 588,077,972 mark, and was, after some slight modifications, passed on the third reading, March 24. The bill providing for biennial sessions and a quadrennial constitution of the imperial parliament came to its first reading on March 8. The government advocated its passage on the ground of relieving the overburdened legislature, while the liberals opposed it for the reason that it was aimed at the dignity, efficiency and privileges of the people's assembly. The only support it received in the diet came from the conservative side; the centre was keeping back, awaiting the close of the Culturkampf, which was promised by certain advances that Bismarck, as the representative of the Prussian government, had made in favor of the clergy toward a final settlement of the struggle between church and state. The bill was referred to a committee, which, after a brief consultation, reported unanimously against its passage. It was finally rejected on its third reading, May 16, by an overwhelming majority. The same fate was shared by the bill submitted by the government in favor of an increase in the brewers' tax and in the stamp duties, and of a tax to be levied on such as were liable to military duty, but were not in actual service. Another defeat Bismarck suffered was the rejection of his measure, which proposed to promote the economical council, which aided and advised the Prussian government in its financial and economical measures, to the dignity of a council of the empire. The strong objection urged against it was, that, as heretofore constituted, this board was not entirely free from the influence of the government, and that it furnished no guarantee that its future constitution would be materially changed, and its usefulness much improved by simply being attached to the imperial government. An important measure before the diet was the accident insurance bill, which had passed the Bundesrath, and was submitted the latter part of March. It provided for the establishment of an imperial board of underwriters, who were bound to issue policies to all workmen, and who were to indemnify laborers who became disabled by accident, out of an insurance fund partly made up of premiums to be paid by those insured, and partly by government contributions. This was the first step taken by the government toward the fulfillment of the promise to alleviate the suffering working people, made at the time the bill against the socialists was submitted to the diet. The bill passed its first reading without much trouble. Its main feature, the insurance of workingmen against accidents, was approved by all, with the single exception of the progressists, while the clause providing for a government contribution was not allowed to pass without being criticized as a sort of monopoly It was referred to a committee which took about two weeks in considering the bill. In the committee the members representing the conservative party united with those representing the centre, thus securing a majority, against which the liberal members were powerless, and agreed on the following report: that all private insurance companies be prohibited from issuing the same kind of policies as provided for by the bill, and that, instead of one imperial board of underwriters, there was to be a board in each of the states composing the empire. The bill, as reported back, reached its second reading May 31. The progressists opposed the bill, while the socialists desired to have its provisions extended to the farm laborer. The national liberals were in favor of a board of underwriters for the whole empire, and of allowing private companies to issue similar policies. But the conservatives, in connection with the centre and the imperialists, defeated the proposition of the liberals. Bismarck insisted on the passage of the clause requiring the government to contribute toward the payment of the premiums. Though the bill seemed to have, in view of these different opinions, little chance of being adopted, it passed its final reading by a vote of 140 against 108, substantially in the shape it was reported by the committee. The bill coming back to the Bundesrath for its approval, it was, on June 25, rejected by this body on the ground that it was unjust to tax the disabled laborer without earnings by the compulsory payment of premiums, and that the establishment of insurance boards in the different states was, in its opinion, an impracticable measure. And thus the first attempt of the government failed toward enacting a law, which, in its opinion, was a most salutary measure of social reform. Having parted ways with the national liberals, and not being sure in all instances of the centre or ultramontanes, who were not willing to support the government without some assurance of the government's changing its position toward the Catholic clergy, Bismarck seemed to have lost his hold upon the factions which, united, might give him a legislative majority in the diet in support of his measures. Among the bills which were passed before the close of the present session, was the bill regulating the different trades after the pattern of the guilds, defining the relation of master and servant, and regulating the matter of apprenticeship, the law against drunkenness, that against the adulteration of wines, and the act recognizing the German as the official language in the legislative assemblies of Elsass-Lothringen. The present session suddenly closed on the evening of June 15, 1881, and with it the fourth legislative term of the imperial diet came to an end. No special reference was made in the diet to the foreign policy of the government, since all parties trusted to the chancellor's singular ability Edition: current; Page: [364] and success in maintaining the public peace, and the undisturbed relations between the empire and the leading European powers. Yet the assassination of the Russian czar, Alexander II., on March 31, 1881, gave rise to expressions of sympathy on account of the sad fate of the aged monarch, and the diet passed, on April 4, a resolution, in which the German chancellor was requested to use his efforts in effecting an agreement with the leading governments of Europe, whereby the killing of any of the rulers entering into this compact, or the attempt to commit this offense, was to be made punishable, and the penalty inflicted, not only on such offenders as were citizens or subjects, but also on strangers who happened to be found within their respective dominions; and whereby, further, the offender, if found elsewhere, might, on proper request, be surrendered to the government against whose ruler the crime was committed.

—Pending the discussion of the proposition submitted by the Prussian government to the Bundesrath, May 18, that the revenue office of Hamburg, with its different branches, should be abolished, and, as claimed by those opposing this measure, Hamburg thus be coerced into joining the tariff union, the whole agitation of this matter came to a sudden close by the publication, on May 27, of the treaty between the imperial government and that city, whereby Hamburg was to enter the union Jan. 1, 1889.

—The principal event engrossing the attention of the nation, was the forthcoming election of representatives to the imperial diet entering upon its fifth legislative term. The imperial government exerted its influence to the utmost, in order to secure the election of representatives who might furnish the required majority for the passage of the various measures which Bismarck was anxious to put through the diet. The government press attacked the liberals most violently, and branded those who were not willing to vote in favor of Bismarck's candidates and to extend an unqualified support to the imperial government as enemies of the empire and the crown. Though the government employed all manner of means to carry the election, it failed to submit a distinct programme as to its future financial and economical policy; the tobacco monopoly was the only issue, which was used by the friends of the government in order to secure the vote of the people, on the plea that the revenue resulting from it would be sufficient to furnish the means of securing to the working classes a proper indemnity against accidents disabling them for work, and the means for the support of the aged paupers—the "patrimonium of the disinherited," as it was called. The installation of a bishop at Trier, who was exempted from taking the required government oath, the renewed negotiations with the see of Rome, concerning a peaceable settlement of the issues arising out of the Culturkampf, were the means employed to win over the ultramontane vote. The principal efforts of the government were directed toward securing the vote of the centre, though this party declared its unwillingness to support the measures and policy of the government while the obnoxious May laws, passed by the Prussian diet against the clergy, were still in force, and while the imperial chancellor threatened the diet with measures such as the tobacco monopoly and his socialist schemes, so distasteful to the party. The elections were to take place on Oct. 27. This gave the liberals time to recover from their apathy, and renewed courage to enter upon an active campaign. The socialist schemes of the chancellor, the news concerning a settlement of the clerical difficulties on the basis of concessions to the pope, which were at war with the interests of the state, the daring attitude of the orthodox Lutherans, and, finally, the agitation against and persecution of the Jews, gave rise to a reasonable apprehension among the middle classes, especially in Prussia, that a reactionary movement in politics not only, but also in matters concerning religion and the church, was fast setting in. All this had the effect of stirring up the body of the people, and setting the tide of the election against the friends of the government. Owing to the efforts made by all parties, the election on Oct. 27 left about a hundred contests undecided, and which as to all such cases made special elections necessary, which took place at different points during the month of November. The final result was as follows: the ultramontanes secured 98 members, the conservatives 57, the progressists 56, the national liberals 47, the radical wing of the liberals or the seceders 45, the imperialists 25, the independent liberals 6, the South German democrats or people's party 8, the social democrats 13, the Poles 16, the Alsacians 15, and the Danes 2. The greatest losses were suffered by the national liberals and the German imperialists, the latter losing all its leaders. The greatest gains were made by the progressists (twenty-eight members) and the radical wing of the liberals or the seceders (twenty-three members). At the first election the socialists had carried none of their candidates; those afterward elected owed their success to the fact that there was a large number among the ranks of the other parties, who, being in many ways disappointed at the result of the first election, either abstained from voting at the special elections, or, as was the case in Breslau with the conservatives, voted for the socialist candidates in order to counteract the strong run made by the progressists. The new diet, in consequence, was composed politically of three large divisions: the centre, together with the Guelfs, Poles and Alsacians, having 138 members; the conservatives and German imperialists with 82, and the liberals with 154 members. Among those who were most surprised and disappointed at the result of the elections was Prince Bismarck, who had reckoned on an increase in the list of conservative members, and now, in view of the present composition of the imperial diet, lost all faith in being able to secure a fair working majority in support of his Edition: current; Page: [365] policy.

—The diet convened on Nov. 17, 1881. In the absence of the emperor, who, on account of his health, was unable to attend in person, Bismarck read the imperial message. After referring to the growing resources of the realm, the favorable results coming from the economical policy of the government as far as sanctioned by the diet, the treaty with the city of Hamburg, and another bill extending the terms for fixing the public budget, and also extending the legislative terms of the national assembly, which the government was about to submit, the message dwelt at some length on the reforms proposed by the crown for the relief of the working classes, and the social evils from which they were suffering. The measures pointed out were the bill providing for accident insurance and the uniform establishment of sick relief funds. As the best means of lightening the burdens of taxation, and yet increasing the revenue of the government, the message advocated the tobacco monopoly. In conclusion, reference was made to the efforts of the government for the maintenance of the peace and dignity of the empire, and for perpetuating its blessings in the distant future. The election of the presiding officers on Nov. 19 furnished somewhat of a test of the relative strength and probable coalition of the different parties. The centre was willing to unite with the conservatives in the choice of a president to be named by the latter, if the first vice-presidency was conceded to them. All the conservative elements uniting, they elected, with the aid of the centre, their candidate, von Levetzow, president, by a vote of 193, against the candidate of the liberals, Stauffenberg, who received 146 votes. Thus the coalition between the conservative and ultramontane elements again promised to become a working power during the present session of the national assembly. On Nov. 24 the public budget was taken up on its first reading. It estimated the expenses and the receipts at 607,234,771 mark, respectively. It was not until the second reading of the budget that the imperial chancellor, representing the government, had an opportunity of defining his position toward the leading parties in the diet, and the support he expected from them in aid of his policy. Richter, the spokesman of the progressists, had already, on the first reading of the budget, criticized the financial and economical policy of the crown, reminding those who represented the government that those who in a broad sense were termed the liberals, also had a definite and positive programme on all social and economical questions of the day, and that it was they who had fathered the legislative and other measures which proved to be of real benefit to the working classes, and that those representing the government were not alone in their sympathy for the laboring population, and their willingness to do something in order to alleviate their condition. Pending the debate on the treaty with the city of Hamburg, the incorporation of which into the tariff union taxed the imperial government with an outlay of forty million mark, the chancellor defended his policy which resulted in the treaty, and finally gave vent to his views on the status of the leading political parties. He deprecated the breaking up of the nation into numerous political factions, none of which, while threatening the integrity of the nation by their petty dissensions, could command the majority needful to carry out a policy in the interest of a united country and its government. He denied the charge of having been the first to bring about the breach between the liberal element and the government, claiming that it was the leaders of that party who had proposed that breach. On Nov. 29, the public budget being on its second reading, Bismarck charged the progressists with being a deadlock to all salutary legislation, and with harboring republican ideas and tendencies; he deplored the fact that the more moderate parties, the national liberals and the free conservatives, had lost in strength, and finally, on Nov 30, declared, that if the alternative were given him to choose between either uniting with the centre or the progressists, he would at all times prefer, on grounds of public policy and following the instincts of true statesmanship, an alliance with the centre. Yet, in spite of this high opinion expressed by the chancellor, the centre was not a party to be trusted. No sooner was this declaration made, than the centre united with the liberals in defeating, by a vote of 160 against 131, one of his pet measures, the appropriation of 85,000 mark required for the establishment of a German board of finance and public economy. Complaints, which were made on the liberal side of the house about the manner in which the last elections had been managed by the Prussian government, gave rise to a heated debate Dec. 15, during the course of which von Puttkammer, the Prussian minister, took occasion to remark, that the public officials who supported the government at the late elections were entitled not only to the thanks of the government, but also of their imperial lord and master. This put the liberals on their feet, and they strongly protested against abusing the powers of the government in order to influence the vote of the electors: and this protest could not fail to widen the breach between the liberals and those representing the imperial government. As if to prove this fact and give further cause of distrust, the emperor published his famous rescript, addressed to the Prussian ministry, in which he said: "On such of the public officers as are entrusted with the execution of the different acts of my government, and hence are liable to be discharged under the law regulating public discipline, devolves the duty under their official oath to represent the policy of my government even at the elections. I shall thankfully acknowledge the faithful discharge of this duty, and see to it that all public officers, in view of their oaths and their allegiance, will abstain at the elections as well from all opposition against my government." Edition: current; Page: [366] The further proceedings of the diet were, after a short intermission during the holidays, again taken up on Jan. 9, 1882. The accident insurance bill again came up on Jan. 17 and 18, in the shape agreed upon by the liberal party; it was referred to a committee who were to report in the matter the next session. On Jan. 10, Windhorst, the leader of the centre or ultramontanes, moved the abolition of the act passed by the imperial diet May 4, 1874, which punished the refractory clergymen by interning or banishing them from the realm. After a debate which lasted two days, the motion was, on Jan. 4, carried by a large majority. Only about one-half of the conservatives and liberals voted against it; this was due to the fact that the conservatives thought that in view of their alliance with the centre they were in a certain sense obliged to yield to them in this instance, and that the liberals were tired of being charged with an undue zeal to prolong the ecclesiastical conflict, after the government had ceased to enforce the war against the clergy. The bill relating to the incorporation of Hamburg into the tariff union and providing for an appropriation of forty million mark was also passed on Jan. 21, by a vote of 171 against 102, the progressists and a part of the radical liberals or seceders voting against it. After the public budget had passed the third reading, the diet adjourned, Jan. 28, 1882.

—In the special session called, and which convened on June 6, though the respective committees had been in session since June 1, the tobacco monopoly bill was, on June 14, one day before the adjournment of the session to Nov. 30, badly defeated by a vote of 276 to 43. The bills on accident insurance and on the establishment of sick relief funds, on which the committee was to report finally, were not acted upon, but laid over for the next session. In the course of the debate on the monopoly bill, Prince Bismarck declared, with much emphasis, that the imperial government would still adhere, even as against a growing majority in the national assembly opposing it, to a policy of protection, as the best means of both promoting native industry and developing the independent resources of the empire.

—The German empire is now entering upon its second decade. Although a federation of sovereign states, although it recognizes the principle of popular representation in the law-making power of the government, it has proven, in the hands of a man like Bismarck, who has directed its affairs and shaped its policy, a monarchy in the strictest sense; not a monarchy bordering on absolutism, like the monarchies of the east of Europe, but a monarchy nevertheless in the sense that the government is practically centered in one person, who, under the forms of law, is constantly at work asserting his own will as the ruling power in the state, and whose influence is felt, not only in the imperial cabinet, but also in the halls of legislation, and in all the practical workings of the government. If we keep this fact in mind, we may understand to some extent why it is that we fail to see in the empire any traces of a real parliamentary government, such as we find in England; such as is deemed by some to be the only true government which, like the modern governments of Europe, is based upon both the traditions of history and the demand for greater popular freedom. If we keep this fact in mind, we may understand why it is that the legislative work of the nation, save those great measures which aimed at consolidating the people, had, especially after 1878, done so little to advance the interests of the people, to improve their economical condition, and to satisfy their rational desire for political and religious freedom by embodying its leading principles in some organic law, and thus putting it on a securer basis than mere tradition or royal self-restraint could give. Some think that this backwardness in the parliamentary life of the nation is principally due to the process of disintegration noticeable since 1879 in the leading political parties of the empire; that this disintegration hindered the building up of a real working majority in any one party which, while forgetting minor differences, would unite in carrying such public measures as were demanded, not only by the requirements of a consolidated government and the traditions of the crown, but also by the interests of the people, and of a great common-wealth. The old liberal-conservative majority, whose strength seems to have exhausted itself in supporting the national government against the opposition of all those factions which were opposed to the establishment of the empire under Prussian headship, was broken up in 1879, when the imperial government sought the aid of the clerical centre party for the support of those economic measures which were opposed to the principles of that majority. Yet the attempts at securing a majority formed by the ultramontane and conservative elements proved fruitless. In the meantime the breach in the ranks of the national liberal party widened. The progressists, before and since the establishment of the empire, until 1877, had repeatedly withdrawn their support and consequently weakened the liberal ranks, while the centre and the old conservatives could not but gain by this defection. Since 1879, owing to the peculiar policy that the imperial government had adopted, and dissatisfied with those of their political allies who were unwilling to protest by active means against this policy, a large number of such as until then had been faithful to their party, likewise withdrew from the liberal conservative ranks, and went over to the more independent and vigorous party of the progressists. This was done in the hope that the new coalition might permanently unite both wings of the old liberal party—the national liberals and the progressists—and thus form the basis of a new and powerful party in the interests of political liberalism and reform. But this great object, which, if carried out, would in all probability add greatly to the possibility of parliamentary government in Edition: current; Page: [367] the empire, is a thing that has not been accomplished as yet, although many forces are at work to establish some common ground on which all the liberal elements of the nation might meet, and effect a strong political organization which would carry its influence directly into all the departments of government. Ever since 1879, when Bismarck began to turn against his old allies, and, forgetting that the men had not changed against whose interests he had waged a merciless war while fighting the Catholic clergy, attempted to secure the alliance of those very men—the German people have been, as a leading statesman, von Bennigsen, has well expressed it, in a state of political chaos; a state in which a man of such extraordinary power and influence as the imperial chancellor (who even to this day is, we may say, at the head of European politics, and still occupies a commanding position) has not succeeded in anything he has since undertaken, while politically he has suffered defeats such as only a statesman of his power and influence could hope to outlive. All these facts, and the fact that the German people have not, for centuries, been an active political nation, and thus are as yet devoid of that true political instinct which seizes upon every opportunity to transform the majority into a political power in the state, go far to explain why parliamentary government (which is the only government, in a monarchical state, that gives the people some share in the administration and conduct of the affairs which concern them as a nation; which makes them in fact citizens and not simply subjects of the crown,) has not as yet become established in the empire; and it explains, too, why the Germans, as has been said, are not, politically, a contented people. But a cause more potent than all the facts mentioned is certainly to be found in this, that the traditional theory, still prevalent in Europe, according to which it is the monarch who governs, and not the people, is maintained by a statesman to whom the Germans, as they themselves are willing to admit, owe much, and who, in the position he occupies, not only wields immense power, but has the personal influence and indomitable will necessary for the accomplishment of great ends. Added to his way of looking at the functions of the monarch is the doctrine announced by him, and which seems so much opposed to all constitutional government, that he, as chancellor of the empire and minister to the crown, is responsible to no one except to his lord paramount, the emperor. Doctrines and theories, such as these, are far from being mere abstractions in the mind of a man like Prince Bismarck; they are a real power in the state, and make themselves keenly felt in the settlement of all questions touching the relation of the people to the government. Principles such as these not unfrequently make the rulers forget, that whatever great achievements have been effected in the life of a nation, and whatever glories have been won by the governments of this world, such achievements were not effected and such glories were not won, except by the concerted action of a superior chief, and of a valiant people willing to follow him in the execution of great enterprises. Yet, that the empire is the best fabric that could be devised for the government of a people, like the Germans, whose individualism is so strong, and whose neighbors are their natural rivals, if not their natural enemies, will be denied only by those who forget what a powerful consolidating influence the idea of the old empire, up to the establishment of the new, exercised over the people; or by those who strongly dislike to hear that the Germans are once more, politically speaking, a united people.

—BIBLIOGRAPHY. Neumann, Das Deutsche Reich in geographischer, statistischer und topographischer Beziehung; Brachelli, Statistische Skizze des Deutschen Reichs; Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, herausgegeben vom Kaiscrlishen Statistischen Amt; Statistische Monatschefte; Almanach de Gotha; Martin, Statesman's Yearbook; Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe; von Rönne, Das Staatsrecht des Deutschen Reichs; Held, Die Verfassung des Deutschen Reichs, etc; Hirth, Annalen des Deukchen Reichs; E. Bezold, Materialien zur Deutschen Reichsverfassung; von Rönne, Die Deutsche Reichsverfassung (text with commentary); von Mohl, Das Deutsche Reichsstaatsrecht; von Holtzendorff, Jahrbuch fur Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Rechtspflege des Deutschen Reichs; Klüpfel, Geschichte der Deutschen Einheitsbestrebungen bis zu ihrer Erfullung; Linel, Das Deutsche Kaiserreich; von Trentschke, Zebn Jahre deutscher Kämpfe; Weber, Der Deutsche Zollverein, scine Enstehung und Geschichte; von Giesebrecht, Geschichte der Deutschen Kaiserzeit; Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire; Baring Gould, Germany, Past and Present; Cohen, Etudes sur l'Empire d'Allemagne; Legoyt, Forces matérielles de l'Empire d'Allemagne; Nicolson, A Sketch of the German Constitution; Mendelssohn, Das german. Europa; Winderlich, Deutschland; Kutzen, Das deutsche Land; Daniel, Deutschland nach seinen physischen und politischen Verhältnissen.

GERRY

GERRY, Elbridge, vice-president of the United States 1813-14, was born at Marblehead, Mass., July 17, 1744, and died in office at Washington City, Nov. 23, 1814. He was graduated at Harvard in 1762, was a member of the continental congress 1776-80 and 1783-5, was a delegate to the convention of 1787 (see list of members under CONSTITUTION), was in congress as a supporter of the constitution 1789-93, and was one of the X. Y. Z. mission to France in 1797-8. In 1812 he was elected vice-president. (See DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY, I-III; X. Y. Z. MISSION; MASSACHUSETTS; GERRYMANDER; CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS)

—See Austin's Life of Gerry.

GERRYMANDER

GERRYMANDER (IN U. S. HISTORY). In 1814 the democratic legislature of Massachusetts Edition: current; Page: [368] proceeded to lay out the senatorial districts of the state with the single purpose of securing as many democratic senators as possible from the democratic vote. One result was, the extraordinary distortion of some of the districts, instead of the compact shape taken by a district fairly formed from contiguous territory. In one instance the district assumed a shape so distorted as of itself to suggest unfairness. The Boston Centinel published a colored map of the district, and the hand of Gilbert Stuart, the artist, completed the resemblance to some fabulous monster, to which was given the name of "the gerrymander," combining the names of the salamander and of Gerry, the democratic governor of the state. (See GERRY, ELBRIDGE.) The name, like the evil which gave rise to it, has survived to our own day. It is used either as a verb or as a noun; but it is more common to say that a party has "gerrymandered" a state than to say that it has been guilty of a "gerrymander" in a state.

—The following hypothetical description of the process of gerrymandering, though written in 1815, is still perfectly accurate: "I suppose a case. Six counties, each containing 1,000 voters, are to be formed into three senatorial districts, each to elect four senators. These districts may be so contrived that the party predominant in the legislature at the time of arranging them, whether federal or democratic, with 2,320 voters, shall have eight senators, and the other, with 3,680 voters, shall have but four, and nevertheless every elector of the whole 6,000 shall exercise the right of suffrage. I state the number of voters of each of the six counties to which I give names:

I might have styled the parties big-endians and little-endians; the name is of no importance. Now for a display of political legerdemain—in order to enable the minority to rule the majority:

Thus a minority of 2,320 have twice as many senators as the majority of 3,680—their candidates having been successful in the first two districts. This political arithmetic, like every other science, has its arcana. The grand and unerring rule is to make your own majorities as small and those of your adversaries as large as possible: in other words, to throw away as few votes on your own side, and as many on the other, as is in your power."

—The process has since been varied in its application to legislative and congressional districts, but without forsaking the general rule above given. All parties, and in all states, have been guilty of the practice; and where a party has succeeded in carrying an election by demonstrating an outrageous gerrymander by its opponents, it has usually proceeded to offset it by an equally outrageous gerrymander of its own. The political history of the states of New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Indiana would give abundant but unnecessary illustration. A leading politician of the last named state is said to have remarked with satisfaction that he had so fixed his state that his opponents could not carry the legislature without at least 15,000 popular majority. The most flagrant instance of gerrymandering in congressional districts is probably the sixth district of Mississippi. This remarkable district consists of all the counties of the state which touch the Mississippi river. Its length is about 300 miles and its average breadth about 20; and its peculiar shape has given it its popular name of "the shoe-string district."

—See APPORTIONMENT: 6 Hildreth's United States, 487; Parton's Caricature and other Comic Art. 316: Carey's Olive Branch, 409.

GIBRALTAR

GIBRALTAR. A piece of incredible negligence on the part of the Spanish government gave this post to England during the war of the succession. At Madrid, the war office was so convinced that the place was impregnable, owing to the fortifications of Daniel Speckel, that it was left almost without a garrison. In 1704 Sir George Rooke, the commander of the Mediterranean fleet, being informed that the garrison was composed of one hundred and fifty men at most, made a sudden attack on it with 1,800 men. It was soon obliged to surrender. The place has remained in England's hands since that time, in spite of the repeated efforts of Spain to take it. The last siege, which continued three years, seven months and twelve days, immortalized the name of Elliot.

—The great sacrifices which England has submitted to to retain this fortress, have caused it to be said and written that the importance of the position is exaggerated, and that it is not worth the money which it costs. England has paid and pays no attention to this. In the course of an inquiry into the state of colonial fortifications in 1861, English statesmen, administrators, military men, Gladstone, Lord Herbert de Lea (Sidney Herbert), and Sir John Burgoyne, were all agreed on one point, that Malta and Gibraltar Edition: current; Page: [369] were not colonies, but purely military posts, in which full garrisons should be kept up in times of peace as well as in war. The late Lord Herbert, then minister of war, did not hesitate to say that in case of war the colonies should expect to see their garrisons removed. "We shall retain possession of our colonies, if we remain masters of the sea. If we do, why leave garrisons in the colonies? and if we cease to be masters of the sea, what is the use of keeping isolated battalions there? Would not this be to expose them to be taken as in a trap?" In conformity with this policy England has always kept a strong garrison in Gibraltar. The number, which was 3,618 men in 1851, has been increased continually. In 1861 it was 6,001. of whom 4,396 were infantry. The state of the fortifications is found to be almost satisfactory. In the course of the inquiry to which we have just referred, Sir John Burgoyne presented an exhibit of the expenses to be made in putting the colonies in a state of reasonable defense: Gibraltar appeared in this for £25,000 only. In 1860 the expenses of this military post were increased for the single item of war to £420,685.

—According to the census of 1868, the population of Gibraltar, excluding the garrison, was 15,782. The tables published on the movement of population show that the births exceed the deaths, in a considerable proportion. In 1859 the births were 636 and the deaths 441; in the same year there were 212 marriages. The number of children attending school was also very considerable for the population. In 1836 it was 2,413; of these, 1,527 belonged to Catholic schools; the remainder were divided among schools of the church of England, Wesleyans and Israelites. In the same year the revenue of the local government amounted to £32,500, which was increased to £36,397 in 1870, arising, in great part, from the duties on wines, spirits and other articles of consumption. The expenses reached £28,369, which were increased exceptionally to £41,921 in 1870. In 1869 the expenses were £29,724, and £36,788 in 1868. Gibraltar advances also in commercial importance. The imports and exports, which in 1857 were 1,756,384 tons, were more than 2,000,000 tons in 1862, and 3,084,000 in 1868. Three-fifths of this was on English ships; France only coming after Spain for imports and exports; and after the United States for exports. Foreign commerce shows also satisfactory results. Exports, which in 1857 amounted to £48,139, increased in 1860 to £150,658. During the same period the import of foreign products rose from £720,415 to £1,244,233. The greater part consisted, of course, in British products. Besides the political reasons for retaining this post, it is thought, rightly or not, that the immense profits which English merchants make in illicit trading have their share—In the various political convulsions which have so often caused bloodshed in Spain, Gibraltar has often served as an asylum for the defeated of every party.

—England is represented at Gibraltar by a governor, who bears the title of commander-in-chief and vice-admiral, though he belongs almost always to the army; a colonial secretary; a court of admiralty; and a police court, the first magistrate of which is an officer. The court of admiralty takes cognizance of commercial cases. For the remaining part of the civil and municipal government the ancient Spanish laws and customs are in force.

GOLD

GOLD, a dense, ductile, malleable metal, of a brilliant yellow color, used in ornamentation and for money. Its especial adaptation for these purposes arises from its power to resist oxidation or corrosion upon exposure to air or moisture, and its insolubility in ordinary acids. In the form of coin it is readily distinguished from base metals by its characteristic lustre, its great specific gravity and its metallic ring. Alloyed with other metals its color changes: the yellow tint is successively lowered by increased additions of small quantities of silver, and, on the contrary, heightened by copper. In the ordinary state its hardness is about that of tin but not quite as soft as lead, varying, however, with the composition.

—Pure gold is the most malleable of all metals, and has been beaten into leaves of 1/282000 of an inch in thickness, and is then capable of transmitting light, the yellow hue being changed to green.

—Gold is exceedingly ductile, and can be finely divided without heating. The specific gravity of gold varies with its previous treatment, being, when cast in bars, from 18/100 and 29/100 to 19/100 and 37/100, and raised by pressure or heating to 19/100 and 40/100. Its atomic weight has been given by modern chemists at from 196 to 196.67.

—Pure gold can not be volatilized at any ordinary temperature when melted and kept in a state of fusion, but when alloyed with volatile metals and heated in contact with air, will rise in fumes. It is also dispersed by the electric battery, the concentrated heat of the sun's rays, or by the oxyhydrogen blow-pipe.

—Gold is dissolved by bromine, chlorine and selenic acid, and, when heated, in a solution of strong sulphuric with a little nitric acid.

—Gold is found diffused in many of the solid rocks, sometimes in a metallic state as native gold, and often in combination with silver, lead, tellurium and sulphides. Valuable and working deposits of gold are found in stratified rocks and in veins containing quartz traversing rocks of other geological periods; also in metallic sulphides and bitter spar, in which it is disseminated in grains, crystalline threads or masses, and in invisible particles.

—Besides these places of original deposit, gold is excavated in so-called dry diggings at the bottoms of now buried rivers, or nearer the surface in alluvial deposits adjacent to dry water crevices, and in wet diggings in the beds of streams by whose currents it has been brought down from higher altitudes, separated from the lighter earthy matter and deposited in auriferous gravels and sands, in masses called lumps and nuggets, or in smaller particles in the form of grains, dust or thin scales.

—Native gold Edition: current; Page: [370] is never found absolutely pure, but always contains a small quantity of silver and frequently copper or iron, the proportion of gold in the alloy being 60.49 in Transylvania to 99.25 in Australia. Gold is also found alloyed with bismuth, palladium, rhodium, and associated with minerals and ores containing arsenic, antimony, tellurium and metallic sulphides of lead, iron, copper, zinc, etc.

—The methods of obtaining and extracting gold vary with the character of the deposit in which it is found, but may be classified either as placer or vein mining. In the first, the gold is separated from an alluvial deposit by a purely mechanical process. After removing the overlying gravel or earthy material, the ground in contact with the bed rock is subjected to the action of water, where that is accessible, which, while removing the waste material, permits the gold to sink and be collected at the bottom. The separation of the gold in placer mining is effected in various ways: in some cases with a pan—a circular dish of sheet iron with sloping sides, a foot or more in diameter, held in a stream or hole filled with water. By skillful shaking and twisting the lighter materials are washed out, the heavier gold settling to the bottom. For treating larger quantities sometimes an appliance called a cradle, from its resemblance to that household article, is used. It is a box from three to six feet in length resting upon rockers and having an opening at one end and pieces of wood about an inch square, called riffle bars, nailed across its bottom. The dirt, upon which water from time to time is poured, is shaken by the rocking motion through a perforated riddle-box, into which it is shoveled by an assistant, and drops upon an apron sloping toward the upper end of the cradle, from which it falls to the bottom, running out at the lower end. The gold, mixed with the heavier sand and gravel, is detained by the riffle bars. A modified form of the cradle, called a tom, with an extended inclined sluice, is sometimes constructed. Currents of water are also made to run through long sluices or shallow troughs, upon the bottom of which riffles made of strips of wood are placed. Whatever the mechanical contrivance employed, from the simple washing on the prospector's shovel to the largest hydraulic operations, the principle involved is the same, namely, the greater specific gravity of the gold carries it to the bottom of the pan, rocker or sluice, while the lighter and worthless portions are washed away. Where the gold is very finely divided, being in small grains or thin scales, it is liable to float away with the dirt, and is secured by using blankets of wool or copper plates covered with quicksilver to form an amalgam, which is removed by working and scraping the plates.

—In California a large amount of gold is obtained by hydraulic mining, water being brought in many cases from great distances in ditches, flumes and iron pipes, from higher altitudes. Jets of water issuing under the pressure of a column, sometimes hundreds of feet in height, through nozzles skillfully arranged and directed, strike with tremendous force against the banks and beds of earth containing gold. Hills are undermined and washed away, their material being moved by the current into sluices where the gold is separated and collected. The earthy matter is carried to the lower levels and valleys or held in solution until it settles in the bays and more sluggish currents of the large rivers near the coast. The operations in mining gold-bearing quartz or other vein material are conducted in the manner usually employed in mining other metals or minerals. At a convenient point, either a tunnel, where practicable, is run horizontally from the surface to the vein, or a shaft is sunk perpendicularly to a sufficient depth, and from it a drift or level run until the vein is reached. Gold in quartz or free milling ores is usually disseminated in small particles, to obtain which, before undergoing the usual treatment, the gold-bearing rock must be finely pulverized. Various methods and devices are employed, among the simplest of which is the arrastra, which has a circular bed of stone of from eight to twenty feet in diameter with a post in the middle, through which extends a horizontal bar reaching to the circumference on either side. From each arm revolving around the post hangs a heavy stone weighing from three to five hundred pounds, the former end slightly raised above and the hinder resting upon the bed of rock to be crushed. Some what similar to this is the Chilian mill, with the same central upright and revolving arms, but having the grinding stones with a beveled face and roll, instead of being dragged upon the floor.

—These earlier and ruder methods have been succeeded in large mining operations by rock crushers and stamp mills. By the former the rock is broken and crushed between powerful iron jaws, and by the latter pulverized by successive blows of heavy iron stamps or hammers upon the rock or ore resting upon a hardened iron bed. The pulverized rock is washed away, and the gold, set free, is collected by mercury, as in placer mining, but with greater care, as the particles of gold being smaller are more liable to be carried away by the current.

—To separate the gold from the mercury, the amalgam, after first pressing out all the fluid mercury, is placed in an iron retort and heated to a low red heat, when the mercury volatilizes, passes over into a condenser connected with the retort, and is thus recovered for use in future operations. The gold is obtained nearly free from mercury (it being difficult to drive off the last portion of that metal) in a porous, sponge-like form, which can readily be melted and cast into bars.

—Ores in which the matrix is an oxide of the metals are generally free milling. Those other than free milling are chiefly the sulphides of iron and copper, and to some extent lead, antimony and zinc, though in the latter silver is usually the more valuable constituent.

—Ores in which gold is combined with the sulphides of the base metals are refractory in proportion to the extent of the base Edition: current; Page: [371] metal, and the treatment is as varied as are the proportions in which the combinations exist. With some ores a simple roasting to eliminate the sulphur is found to be sufficient, and the most economical treatment which the value of the ore will permit, preparatory to crushing and amalgamating. Other ores of iron are better treated by the chlorinating process, while those in which copper or lead are valuable constituents are best treated by a smelting process which results in forming base bars of lead containing the precious metals or copper matte. The gold is removed from lead in a reverberating furnace, and copper matte is usually sold to copper works.

—Gold as received at the mints, unless it is from a refinery, invariably contains silver. The methods of separating these two metals are known as the nitric acid process and the sulphuric acid process, in both of which the same principle is involved, that of dissolving the silver, decanting it from the gold, and subsequently recovering it by precipitation.

—In the nitric acid process, to accomplish the solution of the silver, the gold is melted with twice its weight of silver, and while in a fused condition poured in a thin stream from a height of two or three feet into a tank of cold water for the purpose of subdividing it into granulations and giving a large surface for the action of the acid. The granulations are transferred to porcelain pots and treated with nitric acid; the pots are placed in a water bath to accelerate chemical action, the nitrous fumes of which are abundantly emitted, being carried away by a high flue. After the silver has been dissolved, the solution is drawn off into wooden vats containing a solution of sodium chloride, which precipitates the silver from a nitrate into a chloride. The gold is placed on a filter, washed, dried, pressed into cakes and melted. The precipitated chloride is removed to lead-lined vats, and zinc in a granulated condition is introduced, when a reaction attended by evolution of heat sets in, a soluble chloride of zinc is formed, and the silver liberated in a metallic state. It is subsequently washed, dried, pressed and melted into bars as in the case of the gold.

—In the sulphuric acid process the same preliminary steps are observed in granulating the bullion. The granulations are treated in iron pots, with concentrated sulphuric acid, which in part breaks up, giving oxygen to the silver, while the undecomposed acid combines with the oxide of silver thus formed and forms sulphate of silver. The fumes from the operation are carried into a lead-lined chamber and reconverted into sulphuric acid by the aid of air and hyponitric acid. The gold is taken from the pots after the silver has been dissolved and drawn off, and treated as the residual gold from the nitric acid process. The sulphate of silver is decomposed in lead-lined vats by metallic copper, which in the process is converted into sulphate of copper, and the silver is precipitated in a metallic form. The solution of sulphate of copper, after being decanted, is concentrated by heat to the crystallizing point and recovered as commercial blue vitriol, and the silver is washed, died, etc., and cast into bars.

—The fineness of bullion and coin is estimated in thousandths, pure metal being considered 1000 fine. The process of ascertaining the fineness of gold, or assaying, may be briefly described as follows: One thousand parts of the alloy is accurately weighed; the weight used, for convenience' sake, is the French gramme divided into 1000 parts or millegrammes. Pure silver, to the amount of twice the weight of pure gold estimated to be contained in the alloy, is added, and the whole, enveloped in a piece of lead foil, is placed in a cupel in a muffle furnace heated to a high temperature. The cupel is made of compressed bone ash, and possesses the property of absorbing the oxides of base metals. The lead foil is oxidized, and as it is absorbed by the cupel carries with it the oxides of the base metals which may be contained in the alloy. This part of the process eliminates the base metal from the 1000 parts of alloy being operated upon. The button of gold and silver taken from the cupel is laminated by hammer and rolls into a thin slip and digested in nitric acid, which dissolves the silver and leaves the pure gold, which, after washing, drying and annealing, is returned to the balance and weighed. Its weight in millegrammes expresses in thousandths the fineness of the alloy.

—Gold is one of the metals earliest mentioned in history, and has been found in all parts of the world. Almost every country contains workable mines or deposits of gold, but nearly all the fields in which supplies prior to the Christian era were obtained are at present abandoned. The most productive appear to have been situated cast of Persia, probably in Tartary or southern Siberia, from which large stores were derived; also in India, Egypt, Nubia, Ethiopia and other regions on the cast coast of Africa; and in Asia Minor, Thrace, Greece, and some of the neighboring islands, Italy, Spain and Gaul.

—From the historical accounts of the large quantities of gold used in the ornamentation of ancient temples and public buildings, held in the treasuries and owned by monarchs and private citizens, in the form of plate, or money, and of the sums collected at various times for tribute, it is supposed that ancient mining was prosecuted with its greatest success during the first few centuries preceding the Christian era, but, either because mining for gold became less profitable or the mines were gradually exhausted, the production of gold after the reign of Augustus Cæsar rapidly diminished, and in the fifth century of our era had almost ceased. Many of the countries conquered by the Romans contained mines of gold which continued to furnish supplies during the continuance of the empire. But the Roman method of leasing and operating the mines soon ruined the mining industry. The operations were carried on by the labor of unwilling slaves, and being leased to favorites, whose only care was to secure the greatest profit during the term for Edition: current; Page: [372] which they were to have possession, the richest deposits were worked out and no care taken to keep open the drifts and tunnels for the use of future occupants.

—The principal deposits of gold worked during the present century are in the United States, in Australia, and in portions of Africa. Gold is mined to a limited extent in some of the mountainous regions of central and southwestern Europe in which the large rivers take their rise—notably the Rhine, the Danube and the Rhone. Small quantities have been annually produced in Italy. Hungary, Germany, Spain, and, in former years, in Turkey, Japan, China, in many other regions of Asia and Africa, and even in Great Britain. The largest gold production of the eastern hemisphere is found in Siberia on the eastern slope of the Ural mountains, and still further cast on the head waters of the Yenessei and Amoor rivers. These mines have been worked for many years with an increasing annual yield, amounting in 1880 to $28,000,000. A still larger quantity has been annually furnished to the world, since 1852, from Australia, embracing Victoria, New South Wales. Queensland and New Zealand, which together, in 1880, added $30,000,000 to the world's stock of the precious metals. A less productive but still important gold field is found in South America, principally in Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia and Brazil, which promises to increase its present yield of $6,000,000 per annum. Gold is also found in North America on the Atlantic slope, in Nova Scotia, also near Quebec and on the eastern watershed of the Alleghany mountains, in the Carolinas and Georgia, and in the western mountain regions, in various localities, from Alaska to Central America. But the richest and most extensive deposits thus far discovered have been found in the states on the Pacific slope or in the basins or parallel ranges west of the Rocky mountains.

—The gold mines of the United States, according to the mint reports, produced, in the fiscal year 1881, $36,500,000, and for thirty-four years, from 1848 to 1881 inclusive, $1,557,000,000. The yield of the several states and territories for 1880-81 was reported by the director of the mint as follows:

—The production of the precious metals in the early centuries prior to and immediately succeeding the commencement of the Christian era, is somewhat conjectural. No reports are extant of the amount yearly obtained from the mines. As far as any authentic information has been received, the deposits of gold known to the ancients were little worked after the fall of the Roman empire, and from that date to the close of the fifteenth century, although in some regions gold was still obtained, the total amount was not large. If Mr. Jacob's conclusions are reliable, the total production of gold in Europe and western Asia from A. D. 800 to A. D. 1500 could not have exceeded $35,000,000, for he states that during that period the production of the precious metals was one-seventh or one-eighth of what it was from 1700 to 1800 in Europe and east of the Ural mountains, which for the last twenty years, the most productive period, he reports to have been $1,000,000 gold and $3,000,000 silver. According to his estimates, the mines of America sent to the old world, between A. D. 1492 and 1600, gold and silver of the value of $690,000,000, and from A. D. 1600 to 1700, $1,687,000,000; the mines of Europe and America furnished from A. D. 1700 to 1810, $4,000,000,000, and from A. D. 1810 to 1830, $500,000,000. The official statements published by him show that from the Russian mines, which commenced to produce in 1704, up to 1810, gold had been extracted to the value of 1,726 puds ($1,500,000) of which $500,000 was obtained within the last twenty years of the period. The average annual production of Asia and Africa he made $6,000,000.

—Dr. Adolph Soetbeer's summary of the production in all the gold-producing countries of the world, from the discovery of America, to 1880, gives the following amounts and values:

The countries from which supplies of gold were obtained and the yield of each in 1830 has been estimated by the director of the mint as follows.

Edition: current; Page: [373]

—That the gold obtained from the mines for many centuries before the discovery of America was insignificant compared with their present production, is to some extent evidenced by contrasting the yearly coinages of the periods. The mint records of Great Britain show that gold coinage from the eighteenth year of Edward III. to the death of Henry VII., was only £464,908, from the accession of James I. to George I., £18,244,868; from that date to 1829. £132,056,241; and from 1830 to 1880, £201,897,275. The average annual gold coinage was—

—The gold coinage of the United States has in like manner increased. From A. D. 1793 up to and including the year 1848, when gold began to arrive at the mint from California, a period of fifty-six years, $76,341,440 of gold was coined—an annual average of $1,363,400. But in the succeeding thirty three years, 1849-81, the gold coinage increased to $1,135,495,746, and averaged yearly $34,408,962, and for the last eight years nearly $50,000,000. The same fact is seen in looking at the total gold coinage, etc., of a number of countries for the preceding five years, as stated in the reports of the director of the mint as follows:

The total yearly coinage at the mints of the various countries of the world, however, always far exceeds the production, as those institutions are employed in manufacturing into coins of their own country, the coins imported from foreign countries as well as the bullion received from the mines.

—Upon a careful review of the metallic circulation in all the commercial countries of the world, both Dr. Soetbeer and the director of the United States mint find that the total amount of the gold coin in those countries is less than half the amount of gold received from the mines since the discovery of America, and not even half of their yield during the twenty-nine years from 1851 to 1879. It is evident, therefore, that the greater portion of the annual production is appropriated for other purposes than coinage into money.

—Efforts have been made by several statisticians, notably by Jacob and by Soetbeer, to ascertain the amount of gold and silver lost by abrasion and used in ornamentation and the arts. In the years 1879, 1880 and 1881 the director of the mint caused circular inquiries to be issued, the replies to which reported as used in manufactures and the arts in the United States in 1881, of coin and bullion other than old jewelry, plate, etc., over ten millions of gold and over three millions of silver, and the director estimated in 1881, that over eleven millions of gold was thus used in the United States and at least seventy five millions in the world. The character of the gold was reported to him as follows:

—Mr. William Jacob, in 1831, made a very exhaustive inquiry as to the amount of money in the world at various periods up to that date. He placed the accumulated stock of gold and silver, in the year A. D. 14, at 1,790 millions of dollars, which he estimated, however, to have been reduced by the year 482 to 435 millions of dollars, and in A. D. 806 to 168 millions, and that it remained at about 170 millions up to the discovery of America in 1492. By the year 1600, accessions from the mines of America had increased the amount of gold and silver to 1,650 millions of dollars, by 1700 to 1,130 millions, by 1809 to 1,900 millions, and twenty years later, 1829, to 1,566 millions.

—Some authorities have questioned the allowance made by Jacob for abrasion and appropriation in the arts, and place the stock in the world upon the discovery of America at a higher rate. Seyd's estimate makes it 900 millions of dollars. He estimates the amount of money in the world in 1848 to be, of gold, 2,000 millions; in 1872, 3,650 millions; and in 1878, 4,150 millions.

—Soetbeer, assuming that the amount of gold available for coinage in civilized countries in 1830 was 800,000 kilograms ($531,216,000), estimated that, after deducting for consumption in the arts and export to the Orient, there remained 4,690,000 kilograms ($3,116,974,000). This nearly coincides with the estimate of the director of the mint for 1880, who makes the gold circulation of the world $3,221,223,971.

—During the three centuries preceding our own, general prices seem to have advanced in Europe, as the same nominal sum of money would buy much less in the eighteenth than in the fifteenth century. This is accounted for in some measure by the debasement of the coins then frequently practiced in every country, but it is more generally attributed to the effect of the large amount of gold and silver received during that period from the western world. It might therefore have been expected, and has been asserted, that the increased production of gold in the world after 1848, and the large addition to the stock of money in commercial countries, would depress its purchasing power, or, what is the same thing, inflate prices. A comparison, however, of the market prices of staple articles in several commercial countries, does not show any large advance in the average prices of the years 1878 to 1881, over the prices of 1850. In some instances they appear to be lower. According to statistical tables in the "London Economist," the prices, in 1878, of a large number of selected articles, being the principal commodities entering into consumption in England, were 101 per cent. of the mean of their prices for Edition: current; Page: [374] the years 1845-50, and their mean prices for the years 1878-81 were 114 per cent., and in 1881 were about 116 per cent. A comparative table of the prices of French imports and exports at different periods shows that in 1878 the prices of French imports were 96 per cent. and of French exports 74 per cent—a mean of 85 per cent. of their prices in 1850. A like comparison of the prices of leading commodities in the New York market for the same years shows in 1878 no advance, although prices were somewhat higher in 1880. It may therefore be said that the enormous addition to the metallic circulation witnessed in the last thirty years appears to have been required by the increased wealth, greater commercial enterprise and enlarged production of the present period, and to have been received and absorbed without thus far materially affecting general prices.

GOVERNMENT.

GOVERNMENT. This word is used to designate the aggregate of the powers to which the exercise of effective sovereignty belongs in each state. The union under one central authority of all the component elements of nations is what alone constitutes and makes them political bodies, that is to say, bodies capable of life, of volition and collective action; and there is not a single nation which would not fall into dissolution if the government called to direct it should disappear or cease to obtain the submission which it requires in order to be obeyed.

—Though all governments have in reality the same tasks to perform, they are far from existing under the same form. There are as many political institutions, as many communities in which the sovereign authority lives and acts under conditions markedly diverse, as there are states. Hence governments are divided into different species or kinds; but, as a modern writer (Dufau, la République et la Monarchie; introduction, p. 18) justly remarks, "we have still to find a correct classification of the forms of government and discuss the name proper to each."

—We are indebted to the Greeks for the most ancient classification of governments. According to their publicists there were three forms of the state and of government: monarchy, or the reign of a single man; aristocracy, or the reign of the great and wealthy; democracy, or the reign of the aggregate of free men: forms, the corruption of which produced, respectively, tyranny, oligarchy, and demagogy or ochlocracy (mob rule). Since each of these forms, whenever it prevails alone, is not slow in bringing on abuses and evils of an increasing gravity, some writers have advised a combination of them, but without being able to indicate definitely the means of effecting this combination nor the means of preserving it from all destructive change.

—The ancients were led to adopt the classification which they did, by the idea which they formed of sovereignty. Slavery, which weighed upon a part of the population by preventing them from rising to an understanding of the rights which flow from the nature of man, concealed from them the origin and the essence of this sovereignty. In their eyes sovereignty had its origin in force alone. It belonged altogether to the state, that is to say, to those who being masters in the state alone had the government of it. Outside their ranks were none but subordinates, subjects, held to obey laws framed without their co-operation. Under the empire of such ideas it was natural that distinctions between forms of government should all rest upon a single fact, the numerical proportion existing between governments and the governed.

—In modern times, owing to more exact ideas of law and sovereignty, the truth has been more nearly approached, and the definition given by Montesquieu of the nature of the three kinds of government, if it does not embrace the whole truth, embraces a great part of it. "There are," says Montesquieu, "three kinds of government: the republican, the monarchic and the despotic. The republican is that in which the people in a body, or only a part of the people, exercise sovereign power; the monarchic is that in which a single man governs, but according to fixed and established laws; while in the despotic one man, without law or rule, controls everything by his will and caprice." Since the time of Montesquieu many other classifications have been made and new names used, but the work has advanced but little, and doubt and confusion exist in men's minds, which can not but react harmfully upon the correctness of political ideas.

—The forms of government are so numerous and variable that it is very difficult indeed to consider all the differences which exist between them; in this matter, we must content ourselves with discovering the real source of the forms of government and ascertaining what is fundamental in them. The observation of facts gives the following result. In principle, sovereignty resides and can reside only in the aggregate of the individuals united into one same political body; but as it is impossible for the population to exercise this sovereignty by themselves and continually, they are forced to establish governments to which all that part of sovereignty is given which they can not reserve to themselves. On the other hand, under whatever title and to whatever extent governments are invested with sovereign power they never possess it completely. Among every people, in the absence of recognized political rights, feelings and will are met with, whose supremacy is maintained, and which impose on the action of the government impassable limits. Thus, there exists between peoples and governments at all places and times a division of the exercise of sovereignty, which, however unequal it may be, and whatever the provisions of the law concerning it, can not result in leaving either peoples or governments without some part of this exercise.

—There are many states in which the division of the exercise of sovereignty between the people and the government is a constitutional and legal reality. Such states are those in which there exist only the Edition: current; Page: [375] public powers which are subject to election, or powers whose decisions in order to become executory must have the formal consent of the governed or some portion of the governed. In other states the division of sovereignty is less perceptible, but such division, however, exists, and there never was a government which had not to take into consideration the will of the people, and never a government which could not assert its own.

—Take the most completely autocratic states: there are some in which the monarch has apparently all power over men and things. Religious beliefs, written laws, traditions of the past, nothing which subjects the intelligence, has been omitted in order to consecrate his person, sanctify his authority and free it from all restraint. What is the result? In such states the omnipotence of the master is in reality but a deceptive fiction. Before and around him are living forces which impose more or less narrow limits to his will. Neither the powerful nobles, nor the ministers of religion, nor the soldiery, nor the people, are disposed to endure everything from him. There are beliefs, interests, rules, customs, which they do not allow him to offend, and when he forgets this, insurrections, which frequently dethrone or put him to death, teach such rulers that their sovereignty has limits, and that above it there is another sovereignty which occasionally awakes, refusing to be annihilated. And so there is the case of republics, in which the magistrates, simple executors of the will of those who chose them, seem devoid of all personal initiative. The government here preserves by the force of things the real exercise of a certain part of effective sovereignty. There are matters on which citizens as a body could not deliberate without compromising secrecy; there are others which come unexpectedly and require immediate decision, and it is necessary that the government should act, even if its action should involve the future. The time, of course, will come when account must be given of the motives which impelled it, but the fact will nevertheless remain that a sovereign act was performed which in a good number of cases will infallibly react on the destiny of the state. Such is the case in all political communities. There are no states in which the exercise of sovereign power is not divided in different proportions between the people and their government, and from the inequality of these proportions arise the differences which separate the forms of government most profoundly.

—The first and most considerable distinction arising from the difference of the proportions of sovereign actions which the government holds, is that which makes the governments republican or monarchic. Wherever nations retain sovereign action in the largest measure, they remain representative, they choose the depositories of public authority themselves, and there is not a single person who does not hold the mission which he performs from the will itself of the whole or a part of the people. On the contrary, where nations do not retain so much sovereign action they are not representative, and their government exists of itself. In such a government there is a personal power elevated above all, and not emanating from the suffrages of those whom it governs. Birth invests successive titularies with this power according to an order established by the laws and declared immutable—Such are the two great constitutive forms under the one or other of which are ranged all possible governments. In fact, there is no government which is not a republic or a monarchy, that is to say, which does not emanate altogether from an election or which does not admit of hereditary royalty.

—After the fundamental distinction which divides governments into two clearly distinct categories, come all the distinctions which arise from the difference of the sums of effective power the exercise of which they possess. These distinctions are numerous and not less marked in republics than in monarchies. In fact, the different kinds of republican governments have nothing in common except the principle upon which they are based. But in everything relating to the change of persons composing the government, and the degree of independence which these persons enjoy in the administration of the state, no two have ever been exactly alike. There have been some formed of simple councils, changed several times in a year and obliged to consult their constituents before rendering the least new decision. On the other hand, we have seen cases where a chief elected for life disposed freely of employments and was able to impress on public affairs a character depending in a great degree on his personal will. And between these two extreme forms there is a large number of intermediate ones.

—In like manner, notwithstanding the hereditary character of the king, the monarchic form lends itself to numberless modifications. While there are states in which the prince possesses absolute power, there are others in which, subject to the law, he decides nothing of himself, and in which he performs no act of authority without the direct concurrence and control of the nation, represented by legislative assemblies whose members it has chosen.

—One point to be remarked is the absence of terms for classifying the different republican governments. On the contrary, numerous terms make it possible to classify different monarchic governments, and, though they have not all the desirable precision, these terms have the merit of being in harmony with the reality of facts. Thus, when it is said of these governments that they are autocratic, absolute, despotic, limited, constitutional, representative, parliamentary, words are used to which a real sense is attached, words which denote differences of form between these governments, due to the unequal apportionment of the parts of sovereignty, the exercise of which belongs to hereditary chiefs of the state.

—Certain writers, following in this the example of antiquity, divide governments into aristocratic and democratic. The greatness or smallness of the number of persons Edition: current; Page: [376] in possession of the right to share in managing the affairs of the state is never an insignificant fact. Nothing has a more active influence than this on the decisions of the ruling powers, and especially on the distribution of offices and on the advantages attached to public life. But if it is well to note the fact, it should not be forgotten that governments, so far as they are aristocratic or democratic, merely reflect the nations to which they belong; and this in reality does not affect their form in their really characteristic part, the degree of independence and the discretion reserved to the powers of which they are the assemblage.

—Besides governments which direct the different states, there are others whose authority extends over a number of states, distinct, but connected by pacts of alliance or federal union. These have no other prerogatives than those which the governments of the several states have yielded in their favor, and there may be very considerable differences between the amounts of directing authority which they wield—Whence comes the diversity of forms of government? To answer this question has been and is the object of the labors of science. The study of facts justifies the following statement: The differentiating cause of the forms of government is the difference in the situations of the states themselves. Extent, configuration, geographical position of states, the number, origin, traditions, industrial and commercial interests of the populations which they include, all vary—there is nothing similar among them, and if there are some that contain but few germs of decomposition, there are others, on the contrary, which conceal many of energetic and persistent vitality. This does not permit the governments to accomplish their tasks under the same conditions of existence and action. The less homogeneous the elements collected in the same social body, the more the powers called to maintain union demand independence and stability, and the greater the share of these they obtain.

—It would be impossible for a state to exist unless the populations which it includes retained less influence on its destiny in proportion as they themselves are incapable of agreement. In every state there is a measure of participation, either in creating the public powers or administering collective affairs which for these populations limit the power of the elements of discord to whose influence they are subject; and when this measure is exceeded, conflicts more and more productive of violence and irritation break out and lead to intestine strife. Such has been the course of affairs at all times and in all places. The degree of political sociability of populations ranged under the same central authority has decided the amount of sovereignty of which the populations have retained the regular and continuous exercise. Great where the populations owing to natural affinities form a very compact whole, this amount has always been small or nothing where the populations did not accommodate themselves to the same laws or the same administration; and to governments have fallen all that portion which they could not manage without damage to the maintenance of internal peace. This is a necessity imposed on every state under pain of anarchy and destruction.

—As to the circumstances which react on the form of governments by rendering populations more or less social, they are all those which have the sad privilege of sowing dissension and hatred in the bosom of states. Differences of origin, of language, and nationality, quarrels between established religions, rivalries between social classes, jealousies and struggles between local interests: these circumstances and many others less important, mingle and combine, strengthen or weaken each other; and their total action, by determining to what point the wishes of the governed are or are not reconcilable, determines in the last resort the mode of existence and the amount of sovereignty which each government requires to preserve the state it governs from dissolution and ruin.

—Among the circumstances which contribute to vary governmental constitutions there is one which has always attracted more attention than others: territorial extension. This circumstance Montesquieu declares to be altogether of decisive importance. "The natural peculiarity of small states is to be governed as republics, that of medium size to be subjected to a monarch, that of great empires to be governed by a despot." What is true in this regard is, that the power of the causes of discord and ruin which they contain is almost always in proportion to the size of the states. Ordinarily the greatest enclose not only states which are foreign to each other, but nations between which exist enmities, the deeper because there are among them some which arms alone have been able to force into an association which deprived them of their former independence. Generally also it is in the largest states that the antagonism of different religious beliefs, and the differences of climate and geographical situations maintain in the bosom of populations hatreds and rivalries of the most intense character; and such is frequently the unsociability of the elements entering into their composition that they would separate if the power intrusted with maintaining political unity were not fixed in the hands of an absolute sovereign. There are nations which do not possess so much sovereign action as they might exercise without peril to public peace; there are none which could retain it beyond the measure fixed by the energy of the motives of dissension, to whose influence they are subject, because in such a case the anarchy which originates on account of inefficient central authority extends its ravages gradually, and ends by bringing the state to ruin.

—Anarchy is death to all political associations. By destroying in the bosom of a state the power destined to unite all its forces under a single management, it dissolves and deprives it of the means of resisting the attacks of its neighbors. Hence the necessity of escaping the destructive effects of anarchy has at Edition: current; Page: [377] all epochs decided in every state in the world the organization of the government. Wherever a change in the personnel of the government by election lets loose storms of passion destructive in their violence, the political community has been able to preserve itself only on condition that it seek repose under the monarchic form; on the contrary, where the same change in the personnel of the government merely caused agitation without disorganization, the community retaining a more complete exercise of sovereignty, continued to live under a republican form.

—The need of union and internal security has influenced not only the division of states into monarchies and republics, but also the modifications which more or less affect political constitutions of the same sort and bearing the same name. In republics as well as in monarchies, the number and real force of the elements of trouble and division, whose force must be restrained, have influenced the partition of sovereign action between the governing and the governed; and in fact there have never been two states in which this partition was regulated in precisely similar proportions. It follows from this that political liberty can not flourish everywhere in the same degree, and that, as Montesquieu thought, there are states condemned to exist only on condition of accepting the evils produced by an entire absence of liberty. This is certainly a real misfortune for these states; but, it is proper to remark that this misfortune is, for those who suffer it, but one fruit of the iniquities in which one party among them has shared. Brute force created and maintains the empires weighed down by the despotism of the prince. One of these empires extended its conquests over territories belonging to neighboring nations; it has subdued and retains under its rule people who regret their former autonomy, and instead of fellow-citizens it finds in the vanquished enemies, almost always disposed to rend the ties of an association which they detest. This is what chiefly makes states—whose greatness rests only on a union, under the same government, of races distinct by origin, language and historical antecedents—the seat of absolutism. War exists within them, and nothing less than a continual state of siege is requisite to prevent it from breaking out. Their unity is too artificial not to succumb, if the authority which forms its only bond is not free from all control and restraint. This authority has struggles and combats to endure, and, like military command, it can admit neither limit nor division. In this way nations are punished which abuse their power; they oppress and are oppressed; the servitude which they impose on others turns against them, and they can not escape it without a decrease of the territorial greatness which they acquired unjustly.

—We have seen on what foundations governments rest, in what the differences consist which appear in their structure, and from what sources these differences really come. It remains now to show what the natural attributes of governments are, and within what limits the task devolved on them should be restricted.

—The true rule is, that governments should do only what members of the community, either singly or collectively, are unable to do of themselves, or unable to do sufficiently well, without the co-operation of public authority. But where shall we find the line of demarcation between things pertaining directly and specifically to governments and things which pertain to them only partially or not at all? After a close examination the question will not be found so simple as it might appear, and in practice it has received a variety of solutions. It is easy, nevertheless, to designate the functions which in all states belong of strict necessity to governments. They are those functions whose fulfillment is essential at all times to the maintenance of independence and national unity. Execution of the laws, negotiations or treaties with foreign countries, the levy and employment of military forces, collection and application of the product of taxes intended to provide for expenses of public utility, all these acts belong to the special domain of the governmental power; and when members of the community unite in regulating them, it is in proportion as they participate in the exercise of effective sovereignty, and form an integral and working part of the government.

—There are other parts of sovereign action, which, without being concentrated in the hands of government, demand its continual co-operation. Such is the administration of justice. There are states in which the people themselves designate the judges who administer justice for them, and, by means of juries selected from their own ranks, take part directly in the exercise of the judicial power. In this respect, combinations may be very different, and the best are always those which free the judges most from external dependence; but whatever be their spirit or character, there still remains a task which the central authority alone is fitted to accomplish with the requisite success, that of assuring the execution of the laws in accordance with the will of the legislator. If the accomplishment of this task is imperfect, laws abandoned to various interpretations would at length cease to be understood alike at all points of the national territory, and society would suffer from the uncertainty of the rules on the strict observance of which the security of person and property depend.

—Of social wants there are some the satisfaction of which demand, imperatively, the co-operation and action of the state. These are provided for by services and labors of public utility, and consequently at the common expense of all portions of the territory. There are many ways of executing these labors, and many ways also of meeting the expenses which they necessitate, and of obtaining repayment; but the care of declaring the utility of these works and of seeing that they accomplish their purpose, is incumbent on the state. Thus, in the organization of postal communication, the digging of canals, making of Edition: current; Page: [378] long roads, its intervention is necessary, and the government intervenes because it is the organ of what is most general in the interests to be conciliated and satisfied. There is no state of any extent without communities endowed with life peculiar to themselves and having special wants and interests. Communes, parishes, districts, departments, counties, provinces, under whatever denomination they may be known, these fractions of the political association have to bear the local expenses, and manage the property which belongs to them, perform all the acts required by an existence distinct from the general existence, and all have mandatories and administrations, which deliberate and act in their name; everything differs, nevertheless, according to the country in the measure of the liberty which they enjoy, in all things concerning the conduct of their affairs. While certain governments make it a point to keep them in leading strings, and allow them to move only with the permission and under the control of government functionaries whom they themselves have chosen, others do not interfere at all in their decisions, and let them act in all questions at their own risk and peril.

—If we examine the question on one side only, it seems that in their relations either with communes, or territorial fractions, having an existence of their own, governments should confine themselves to enforcing obedience to the laws of the state, and to preserving from all injurious attacks the interests placed under their care, but, on a closer inspection, we discover that affairs are not everywhere and always arranged in the same fashion. Populations are not equally advanced in all countries, or equally fitted to administer the affairs within their jurisdiction. The reason is, that the past has not been the same for all. Even in Europe there are still some nations whose escape from serfdom is too recent, and who, bent under the weight of ignorance, unless government acted, would make none of the sacrifices which the improvement of their intellectual and economic position most imperatively demands. Still, even with these populations, compulsion should be reduced to minimum proportions. The power of producing the qualities required in civil life is found only in the practice of that life. In order to know what are the collective interests, and what intimate ties exist between them and private interests, it is necessary to be occupied with them. Men who take no part in the decisions made with reference to the public good, never discover to what point this good is connected with their own, and remain indifferent to everything which passes outside of the sphere in which their domestic activity is concentrated. If you take away local liberty, political liberty will have but ill-secured foundations, and, not finding among the masses feelings and ideas to render it dear to them, will be exposed to the hazards of revolutionary crises—After having indicated what governments have to do, either alone and unaided, or in concert with one or another subdivision of the political community, it remains to show within what limits their action should be confined, and what the domain is which they can not enter without becoming more injurious than useful.

—There are liberties in every society which it is important to leave in all their natural extent. It is an indefeasible right of individuals to use their faculties and powers as they see fit, to improve their condition, to amass wealth and rise to the possession of all the advantages attached to the social state. This right has for each one no other limit than the respect due to the same right of other men, and in everything which concerns this right, the task of public power consists solely in preserving its exercise from any offensive or restrictive attack.

—Unfortunately governments have not judged in this way. Instead of contenting themselves with securing to each person the highest possible degree of safety in the employment of his means of well-being and in the enjoyment of the goods which have come to his share, they have considered it as their office to direct the activity of individuals according to their own pleasure, and to interfere in the distribution of wealth. Ranks and conditions, ownership and distribution of lands, application of capital and labor, production and exchange of products, labor, manufactures and commercial transactions—there is not one of these which has not been subjected to distinct repressive rules, and their acts have only succeeded in creating obstacles to the beneficent energy of arts and civilization.

—It is impossible to invade the common right without spreading in the midst of societies injustice and serfdom, the weight of which will inevitably arrest or retard their progress. Such has been and such always will be the effect of laws intended to create a civil and economic order different from that which should be produced by the free development of individual forces and faculties. These laws operate only on condition of taking from some to give to others, and their results are continually in opposition to the general welfare. If they tie up the land in whole or in part for the benefit of one portion of the community, they reduce among the remainder the possibility of obtaining the advantages of ownership in real property, narrow the field of their action, and weaken the mainspring of their efforts. Nothing acts so efficaciously on the energy of men as the desire to acquire land; above all, nothing inclines them so much to be careful, industrious, to accumulate savings, the use of which is required on land; but where this desire, for want of meeting all the facilities for satisfying itself, to which it has the right, remains feeble and languishing, populations lack the qualities most essential to their prosperity. Among the causes which prevent the nations of Europe from advancing with firmer and quicker step toward civilization, one of the first places must be assigned to the institutions which give to privileged classes the exclusive possession of vast portions of the soil; Edition: current; Page: [379] and if the Slavonic nations have remained behind others, it is principally because among them landed property was reserved entirely to those families of which the nobility was composed.

—In industrial affairs the interference of authority is no less injurious. At every epoch the kinds of production which are stimulated by the circumstances of the moment obtain the most ample remuneration, and on this account attract more labor and capital than others. This is the natural course of things which governments oppose, whenever, by distinguishing between the different branches of commerce and industry, they provoke the special development of some. In this case, by calling productive forces into less fruitful fields than those which they leave or would choose, they diminish their general fruitfulness, and nations do not gain from their labor all the results which they desire. To this drawback are added others of no less gravity. First, it is only by imposing on the community more or less onerous burdens, that industries are sustained which are wanting in some of the conditions of success, which they would need in order to dispense with assistance, and such combinations are changed into obstacles to the increase of wealth. In the second place, the action of power enfeebles among producers the qualities most necessary to the proper employment of their resources. Instead of counting only on profits due to the energy and dexterity of their own efforts, they leave to the state the care of securing for their work sufficient recompense, and generally they care little for profiting by innovations which demand advances of money and sacrifice.

—Let an examination be made of the results produced in practice by legislative arrangements, intended either to modify the distribution of property and wealth or to assign artificial and forced directions to the application of labor, and we shall find not one which is not an attack on liberty, whose productive activity needs to be developed in all its power, and which does not deprive members of the social body of some of the means and elements of prosperity, the use of which they have the right to retain. At present, owing to the advance of enlightenment, governments, better informed than in former periods, have commenced to see that there is a large number of facts of the economic and civil order which must be left to themselves. In the most advanced states of Europe laws which formerly reserved to particular classes the possession of the soil, or treated unequally the different methods of labor and production, have already given way to less restrictive enactments; and it is very clear that the time is approaching when the laws of justice will at last receive the respect due them.

—It is to be desired, nevertheless, that governments should no longer extend their action beyond the circle in which the interests of society require them to be confined. In everything relating to the distribution of wealth, to the application of industrial forces, and the conquests of individual activity, their task consists solely in superintending the execution of engagements, to secure for persons as well as property of every kind of which they are in legitimate possession the highest measure of safety possible. This task accomplished, they have only to follow the course taken by events. To regulate this course there are natural laws which require no assistance from man; laws, whose work is always the better and completer the more it is accomplished in freedom. To endeavor to substitute a different order for the order which is the object of these laws, is nothing less than to try to substitute for the results of supreme wisdom the results of human wisdom, which are necessarily imperfect; and such fool-hardiness meets inevitable punishment in the sufferings which it inflicts, or in those whose abolition it prevents.

GOVERNMENT

GOVERNMENT, Provisional. Every political society needs a head; this need must be deeply engraved in human nature, for, since the creation, political societies have never been able to dispense with a head. Thus, the first act of a revolution is to replace the head swept away by the political tempest. And it is this great and indispensable need of having a government that renders people indulgent as to the methods employed at the time of choosing leaders, to whom they give power, or whom they allow to take it; this causes them to close their eyes to the usurpations which these representatives permit themselves to make, while proclaiming aloud the sovereignty of the people which they trample upon, while making laws by their own authority which their limited and provisional mandate would not permit them to make, sometimes while performing definitely acts beyond their mission and competence. But the people abhor anarchy beyond all things.

—Still, "it is an eternal experience," says Montesquieu, "that every man who has power is inclined to abuse it." Now the majority of revolutions have had, as cause and excuse or pretext, the necessity of restraining the abuses of power. Nevertheless powers constituted with a precarious title and following revolutions fall into the same errors. Thus, the provisional government in France of 1814 hastened to create a king, and Talleyrand, while showing his salon of the rue St. Florentin, said, "There is where the restoration was made." The provisional government of 1830 in France acted in the same manner, and the government of July was established in the Hotel de Laffitte. The provisional government of 1848 in France repeated these mistakes, and after deliberating a few hours gave birth to a republic. The dictator of 1851 used and abused his usurped power; and as to the government of "national defense," of Sept. 4, 1870, it kept long enough within just limits with the exception of the delegation of Tours. "But," we repeat, "every man in possession of power is inclined to abuse it." We see, besides, by these examples, that it is the tendency of chiefs of states to usurp rights; Edition: current; Page: [380] this tendency is not peculiar to monarchies; all powers, whether oligarchies, monarchies or republics, tend by their nature to absorb the people as contradistinguished from the governing party, no matter by what name he is called, in the same way as they would if he reigned.

—Where, then, is the remedy for this aggression? It is not found in the continuation of the quotation of Montesquieu: "To prevent the abuse of power it is necessary to dispose things so that one power should check another, otherwise every power advances till it finds limits." Montesquieu's remark applies in fact only to normal conditions, and the existence of a provisional government characterizes a political situation which is pre-eminently abnormal; power in this instance is held by men who are self-elected, that is to say, by men without election, but for this very reason provisional governments should abstain from disposing of the future. Their powers do not reach beyond the term of their office; they are legitimate only for the maintenance of order, and not to issue laws, which the regular authorities will have time to do. They should absolutely take but urgent measures and no other, and they should always hasten to ask a bill of indemnity from the first parliament for each particular measure, and not for all taken together.

—There is a detail upon which we must dwell in closing. In France, as in most other states, a distinction is made between an act which is passed by the legislative power, a law, and that which emanates from the executive power, an order, ordinance, a decree. Now the provisional government being dictatorial in its character it combines the two powers. On this account it is frequently difficult to distinguish the act which is a law from the act which is a decree, and certain persons are disposed to consider all the acts as laws, an interpretation which may have serious inconveniences. It is important, then, to bear well in mind that the nature of the act is not changed by the effect of the signature of a revolutionary dictator, that is to say, a decree remains a decree.

—It is needless to add, that if the government which was overthrown, or rather, whose overthrow was sought, remains in power, it will respect absolutely nothing of what was done by the insurgent government (the word provisional applies only to successful insurrections). The French government recognized nothing done under the commune, not even the record of births, deaths and marriages, and the government at Washington did not recognize for a moment the acts of the secession government, although it lasted three years.

GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION

GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION, Political Economy of. Upon this question political economists, and others who take an interest in social subjects, are divided into two great parties. On the one side, there are those who wish that the state should do very much more for the people: on the other side, there are those who think that the influence now exerted by the government should be greatly curtailed. There are, consequently, two distinct phases of thought, each most ably and powerfully represented. The first party may generally be said to be composed of some of the most enterprising, intelligent and politically active of the working classes. It also embraces most of those who have strong philanthropic tendencies, but who have not directed systematic thought to the consideration of the true causes that produce the suffering which excites in them such generous sympathy. Among those who desire to see government intervention greatly curtailed, there are to be found a comparatively small number of exceptionably thoughtful working men. The most consistent and thorough-going upholders of these doctrines, however, belong to a certain philosophic school, the distinguished leader of which is Mr. Herbert Spencer. His writings contain probably by far the most powerful and exhaustive statement of the arguments against over-legislation, and against the growing tendency to rely upon state assistance. These opinions generally receive the designation of laissez faire. In a very circuitous way it has, as it were, accidentally happened that laissez faire is popularly supposed to derive authority and sanction from the principles of political economy. The advocates of free trade in England had to attack one kind of government interference; and, in abolishing protection, they undoubtedly released commerce from numberless fetters which had been imposed by the state in that country. The sympathy which the free traders were thus naturally led to feel for laissez faire soon became increased by another circumstance. The English factory acts, when first proposed, were vehemently resisted by the manufacturers as an unwarrantable interference with industrial freedom. The majority of these manufacturers were leading free traders, and were also prominent members of what is known as the Manchester school. As, however, the abolition of protection and opposition to the factory acts were both defended on the ground of hostility to state interference, there soon arose a connection between the Manchester school and laissez faire. During the anti-corn-law agitation, the advocates of free trade so repeatedly appealed to the principles of political economy that there was assumed to be a peculiar connection between this science and the Manchester school. As, however, this school had identified itself with the doctrine of laissez faire, it was soon popularly supposed that laissez faire and political economy were intimately associated with each other. It has been thought advisable to explain the origin of this association of ideas, because when its accidental character is clearly perceived it is more easy to understand that political economy gives no sanction whatever to the doctrine of laissez faire. In fact, there is nothing whatever in the principles of economic science to lead to the establishment of any general conclusion with regard to the advantages Edition: current; Page: [381] or disadvantages of state interference.

—Error and confusion are sure to result if we seek to lay down some rule as applicable to every proposed case of government intervention. Although the main object I have in view is to point out the evils resulting from an undue reliance upon the state, yet it seems to me that those who exhibit this tendency scarcely adopt a more erroneous course than those who are such extreme advocates of laissez faire, that under all circumstances they condemn government interference without inquiring into the nature of the particular instance to which it is to be applied. As an example of this it may be mentioned that those who are most thoroughly indoctrinated with laissez faire apparently consider that they are bound to oppose compulsory education because it involves state interference. Such opposition affords an instructive warning against the danger of offering too implicit obedience to any general principle. A moment's consideration will suffice to show that interference on behalf of children and interference on behalf of grown-up persons rest on entirely different grounds. The latter kind of interference may be objected to because it impedes the freedom or men's actions, is antagonistic to individual liberty, and, in the words of Wilhelm von Humboldt, "prevents the harmonious development of the human character." The child, however, independently of all government interference, must be under the control of a parent or a guardian. It is therefore idle to talk of his individual liberty and of his freedom of action; these must be more or less completely surrendered to his parent or guardian. It is therefore evident that the question of state intervention must be regarded from an entirely different point of view when it is applied on behalf of children. It most generally happens that they require the aid of the state when those who are constituted their natural protectors neglect their duty or abuse their power. The extent to which there is such an abuse of power or such a neglect of duty must be the chief element in determining the limits to which it is desirable that the state should extend its protection to children. A child having no power to provide itself with food and clothing, it will be generally admitted that the state ought to take some action if a parent either can not or will not supply his children with the necessaries of life. Although this is a case in which the necessity of some interference will at once be acknowledged, yet the conditions under which such interference should take place suggest considerations of the utmost importance. The history of the English poor law abundantly shows that if the state renders aid to neglected children with too great liberality, and if at the same time parents, who are responsible for these neglected children, are treated with undue leniency, a most disastrous encouragement is given to improvidence and immorality. Then again, it would probably be admitted by the most enthusiastic friends of compulsory education that, in order to justify it, it ought, in the first instance, to be proved that every one who is born in a civilized country is entitled to claim from his parents a certain amount of mental training, and that, if this claim is ignored by the parents, it is the duty of the state to enforce it. No one would be prepared to say that interference between the parent and the child, in reference to education, is good in itself; it would not be needed if the social condition of the country were more satisfactory; and those who are among the foremost to recognize the importance of compulsory education confidently hope that it will gradually be rendered unnecessary as nations advance in social improvement. Here then is a case in which the right or wrong of government interference can not be determined by a priori considerations; a trust worthy decision can only be arrived at on the point by ascertaining to what extent parents neglect the duty which they owe to their children of providing them with a certain amount of mental instruction.

—Another illustration of the importance of deciding each proposed case of government interference upon its merits, is afforded by considering the circumstances under which it is desirable that the state should attempt to regulate the hours of labor. Such interference is ordinarily condemned on some such ground as the following: It is said to be contrary to individual freedom; it is urged that if it is legitimate that the state should say how many hours a man should work with his hands, it would be equally legitimate to decree the amount of mental labor that should be permitted. A government official would consequently have to visit every study; a man would have to be watched in his daily avocations; the time when he retired to rest and when he rose from slumber might have to be noted. Life with all this worry and watching would scarcely be worth having. Then again, it is said that a legal limitation of the hours of labor might so cripple productive industry as to reader successful competition with foreign countries impossible. The trade of a country might thus be lost, and the people be deprived of the chief source of their maintenance. Fully admitting the force of these and other considerations, I view with as much disfavor as any one can, the cry which is raised in favor of a law fixing a legal limit of so many hours for the day's work. But those who are strongly opposed to such legislation should be careful to avoid the not unfrequent error of hastily concluding that the state can never be justified under any circumstances in regulating the hours of labor. It certainly appears to me that it is quite as desirable to pass a law limiting the number of hours which a child is permitted to work, as it would be undesirable to impose similar restrictions upon men and women. If grown-up persons over-work themselves they do it of their own free will. They can not be compelled to labor more hours than they please unless they are either held in subjection as slaves, or unless they are in some other way deprived of Edition: current; Page: [382] personal liberty. A child, however, is not permitted to exercise freedom of judgment; he does not himself decide at what age he shall begin work, and the number of hours he shall each day labor. All this is determined for him by others. If, therefore, it can be shown, as it has undoubtedly been shown in England, that, through the cupidity and mistaken economy of employers, and through the selfishness, avarice and poverty of parents, large numbers of children are worked too young and are also greatly over-worked, then it seems to me that one of the clearest cases that can be imagined is made out in favor of state intervention. Under the circumstances just described it is only by state intervention that the child can be protected against what may prove to be an incalculable and irreparable injury. The only argument of weight which has been suggested against such interference has been urged by those who say that to deprive a parent of a portion of his children's earnings, is certainly unjust upon those parents who are extremely poor. We here simply say that, after making due allowance for the difficulties associated with the poverty of parents, we believe it can be proved that the balance of argument strongly preponderates in favor of the state interfering on behalf of over-worked children.

—It is not necessary to quote other instances to show that state interference on behalf of children is usually to be defended on grounds entirely different from those which would be brought forward to justify similar interference on behalf of grown-up persons. I will, therefore, proceed to state some of the considerations which have to be taken into account when government intervention is applied to adults. It will be useful, in the first instance, to mention certain principles, to the truth of which scarcely any will refuse assent. It will, for instance, be generally admitted that government intervention is not a good thing in itself; the more it can be avoided the better. Probably the best measure which can be obtained of the welfare of a community is to ascertain to what extent each member of it can, with advantage to all the rest, be permitted to have freedom of action. It is obvious that this freedom will be curtailed in proportion to the extent to which the authority of the state has to be introduced into private life. The following considerations will probably suffice to show that the well-being of a community may be estimated in the manner just suggested. Nothing, for example, brings such manifold evils upon a nation as wide-spread ignorance among its people. No one would think of advocating compulsory education if children generally received an adequate amount of instruction. Consequently the extent to which the necessity exists of the state interfering with education may be regarded as a measure of popular ignorance; and the amount of this ignorance indicates the difference between the present condition of a country and the welfare it might enjoy. If another example is required to corroborate what has been stated, we may revert to the instance of the state interfering in reference to the employment of children. As previously stated, children are sent to work too soon, or are worked too many hours a day, chiefly in consequence of the cupidity and mistaken economy of employers, or in consequence of the selfishness, avarice or poverty of parents. With the decline in the force of these agencies there would be a corresponding diminution in the necessity for this particular kind of government interference. But could there be more conclusive evidence of a marked improvement in the general condition of a country than would be supplied by the fact that the agencies to which allusion has just been made were exerting less influence? A moral and intellectual advance would be indicated by the circumstance that cupidity and mistaken economy were much more rare among employers. Again, still more striking evidence would be afforded of general advancement, if parents were so little avaricious or selfish, and if so little poverty existed among them, that they were rarely or never tempted to permit their children to be over-worked.

—It is, however, not necessary to say more with a view of showing that government interference is not good in itself, but that it must be regarded rather as a disagreeable remedy which has to be applied in order to cure or counteract various defects in the social condition of a country. The remedy is not only a disagreeable one, but it may be compared to some of those strong medicines which not unfrequently leave behind after consequences of a serious kind; these medicines can not be given to a patient without some risk; they should always be used with the utmost caution and discrimination. Statesmen, therefore, when they are pressed to extend the area of government intervention, should consider that they occupy a position not unlike that of a physician who has to decide whether he will give to a patient some extremely dangerous drug. The physician, if he is at all worthy of his profession, will endeavor to ascertain the exact state of his patient, and will carefully note all his symptoms. If he does not do this, but if, on the contrary, he adopts whatever course he believes will give most immediate satisfaction to the patient and his friends, mischief is almost sure to ensue, and he forfeits all claim to confidence and respect. In a similar way, statesmen, when they are asked to use state intervention, should not forget that it is a perilous experiment, and should do all in their power to ascertain the exact circumstances under which it is applied, in order to estimate, with as much correctness as possible, what will be its future consequences. If states-men do not do this, but if, on the contrary, they adopt that course which they believe will most promote the interests of party, and give them the most immediate popularity, then the gravest misfortunes may be brought upon their country.

—It is impossible to dwell with too great earnestness upon the demoralization and mischief which would ensue if some of the demands which are Edition: current; Page: [383] now so constantly urged for state assistance should be conceded. Of all these demands none are so insidious, none so dangerous, as those which would call in the aid of a central authority to enable one section of the community to levy contributions for its own advantage from the rest of the nation. This has already been done to a most alarming extent, and a powerful influence would be exerted in the same direction by many of the social movements which now receive popular favor. As a proof of what has just been stated, it will be sufficient to remark, without discussing the subject with further detail here, that about £9,000,000 are annually levied in England and Wales for the relief of the poor. This great sum represents a heavy tax imposed on industry, and no small portion of the amount is taken from the industrious and provident to be distributed among those who have brought poverty upon themselves by indolence and improvidence. As if the harm already done by thus encouraging recklessness and discouraging thrift had not been sufficiently great, an appeal has often been influentially put forward to administer the poor law with greater liberality. This simply means that the industrious should be still more heavily fined, in order that a more liberal reward might be given to improvidence. Some of the best-intentioned people are thus unconsciously advocating schemes which would bring a similar baneful influence into operation. Proposed chimerical measures of relief have numerous and powerful advocates. Like the English poor law, however, they may all be regarded as developments of the principle that it is not simply by the sweat of the brow or by the labor of the brain that men must support themselves, but that they have a right not only to look to others to provide them with maintenance, but, as far as possible, to protect them against the consequences of their own voluntary acts. But although the principle, just referred to, can not, in my opinion, be too strongly condemned, yet it must not be supposed that we should be justified in at once rushing hastily to the conclusion that there should be no poor laws whatever, that under no circumstances should free education be given, that the state should never assist emigration, and that neglected children should not be cared for. The important question which has to be considered is this: If any of these things ought to be done, under what circumstances, and in what particular manner should they be done? In attempting to come to a decision on this point, it is above all things essential to keep in view that the utmost discouragement should be given to improvidence. For instance, it has been proved that out door relief is often simply regarded as a gift, the acceptance of which entails no disagreeable consequences. Residence in a workhouse in England is, on the contrary, generally looked upon as a somewhat serious punishment. It is, therefore, obvious that in-door relief discourages voluntary pauperism, whereas it is greatly stimulated by out-door relief. Consequently England, without abolishing her poor law, may in the future avoid much of the harm which it has done in the past if the granting of outdoor relief were to be either altogether forbidden, or only permitted in very exceptional cases. Again, with regard to emigration, although reasons will afterward be stated which lead to the conclusion that it would be most unwise for England to undertake to pay the passage-money of all who might wish to settle in foreign countries, yet in the case of some great emergency it might be advisable for her, as an exceptional measure, to resort to state emigration. In a similar way, although I believe that a general system of free education ought to be resisted because it would weaken the sense of parental obligation, yet, in my opinion, no child ought to be permitted to grow up in ignorance because his school fees are not forthcoming. It would be scarcely less unjust for a parent to make others pay for the education of his children than it would be to make others pay for their food and clothing. The state very properly orders local authorities to undertake the maintenance of children if they are unprovided with the necessaries of life; but if a parent willfully refuses to feed and clothe his children, then he is criminally punished. If, however, it is not a voluntary act, then he is treated as a pauper. In a similar way, I think, a parent ought to be punished if he makes other people pay for the education of his children, it, order that he may have something more to spend in his own enjoyment. If, however, he is too poor to pay the school fees, then there is just as much reason why he should be treated as a pauper as if he were unable to feed and clothe his children.

—Enough has now probably been said to show with what extreme caution any scheme should be viewed which proposes to benefit a class by the expenditure of money obtained by taxation. As previously remarked, the objections to be urged against such proposals assume greatly increased force when, as is not unfrequently the case, the class among whom the money is chiefly to be distributed are not to contribute toward the extra taxation which the additional expenditure will necessitate. Thus, the carrying out of the social and economic changes advocated by the international society would involve a heavy outlay of public money. At the same time it is to be observed that it is one of the cardinal principles of this association to raise all taxation by a graduated property tax.

—There are, however, other instances of government intervention which do not directly involve expenditure of public money. If an attempt is made to ascertain the effects of such interference, it will be found that considerations of a very complicated character are often involved. At the outset of such an investigation, certain principles can be laid down which will greatly assist us in arriving at a right decision in any particular case, although they will not furnish any general conclusions of universal applicability. Sanitary legislation affords Edition: current; Page: [384] an instance in which the interference of the state will most generally be admitted to be both just and desirable. A man who neglects drainage and other matters upon which the preservation of health depends, not only injures himself and those who are dependent upon him, but may become the centre and source of wide-spread disease. Because it is thus comparatively easy to decide in favor of a compulsory system of drainage of houses and compulsory purification of rivers from sewage, it is not unfrequently supposed that, for similar reasons, the state ought to interpose in such a matter as restricting, if not prohibiting, the sale of intoxicating liquors. Thus, it is said that intemperance is not less injurious to health than defective sanitary arrangements, and it is argued that if it is within the appropriate functions of the state to secure good drainage, it must be quite as much within its legitimate functions to impede or forbid the sale of intoxicating liquors. But in order to justify such a conclusion it would be necessary to prove that as imperfect drainage is bad in itself, so all consumption of alcohol must be deleterious; the extent to which it is deleterious merely varying with the amount of consumption. The analogy, however, at once breaks down if it is admitted, as it generally will be, that beer, wine and other alcoholic beverages, if taken in due moderation, need not be pernicious, but, on the contrary, may be beneficial. It is, however, argued by the advocates of a prohibitory liquor law, that the mischief resulting from drunkenness is not confined to the drunkard himself; he often so much injures his family as to reduce them and himself to pauperism; sometimes he is led into crime; in this way, consequently, intemperance greatly increases pauperism and crime. It thus inflicts a serious loss upon the community, and adds much to the taxation of the country. Such considerations as these induce many people to think that as the whole community is injured by drunkenness, the state should give the majority the right to restrict or prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors. The demand for the exercise of such a power obviously suggests considerations different from those which are associated with enforcing a certain sanitary scheme, such, for instance, as the carrying out of a uniform system of drainage. No one can be benefited by having a place imperfectly drained, whereas all who, for example, drink beer and wine in judicious moderation may be subjected to great inconvenience, and may even be injured if the sale of these articles is forbidden or greatly impeded. Thus, if it were enacted, as has been so often proposed in England, that there should be only one public house for each 1,000 or 2,000 people, many men, if they wanted to purchase a glass of beer, would have perhaps to walk a couple of miles. They would have to submit to this trouble and inconvenience not through any fault of their own, but solely because certain people do not practice self-restraint. Then again, if the number of public houses were artificially limited in the manner proposed, a great industry would manifestly have to be carried on as a monopoly. It is difficult to imagine any trade conducted as a strict monopoly without causing abuse and unfairness. It would be almost impossible to find any authority who might with safety be entrusted to select the persons who should enjoy the privilege of exercising this monopoly. Competition in the trade would also be to a great extent destroyed, and competition is the best security for fair prices and a good article. It has, however, been suggested that the monopoly should be put up to auction; but if this were done, the large brewers would be able to outbid less wealthy competitors, and the trade would be thrown more completely than it is now into the hands of a limited class. Again, it is obvious that those who pay a large price for the privilege of exercising monopoly would recoup themselves with handsome interest for their outlay; they would do this by charging an additional price for all the articles sold. It thus appears that one of the results of carrying out such a policy of restriction would be to subject temperate people to great inconvenience. They might have to walk a considerable distance for every glass of beer they wished to purchase, and they would be obliged to pay an additional price for it. There certainly seems to be good reason for condemning government intervention when it subjects all who can exercise self-restraint to loss and inconvenience, in order that the force of temptation may be somewhat reduced to the self-indulgent.

—It will, perhaps, however, be urged that if these suggested legislative restrictions should cause annoyance to temperate people, they would be abundantly compensated both for their additional trouble and for the additional price they might have to pay for beer, by the stimulus which would be given to the prosperity of the country, and by the reduction which might be effected in its taxation if drunkenness were diminished. But before the individual liberty of a whole community is interfered with, because some abuse freedom of action, justice and policy alike demand that everything should be done to see whether such abuse could not be checked by punishing those who do not exercise self-restraint. Thus, before any legislation is sanctioned which would impose upon temperate people many vexatious restrictions, a far more decided effort should be made than has ever yet been attempted to punish intemperance, and make the drunkard more directly bear the consequence of his acts. At the present time an exactly opposite course is adopted. It seems to be a recognized principle of the law of England that crimes committed by persons while they are drunk should be treated with exceptional leniency. It is hardly possible to take up a paper without seeing cases in which magistrates either altogether excuse the perpetrator of some dastardly assault, or greatly mitigate the usual punishment, on the ground that the accused was drunk at the time the offense was Edition: current; Page: [385] committed.

—The subject of the liquor traffic has been alluded to here, chiefly for the purpose of showing that the problem of government interference involves so many complicated and difficult considerations that each demand for it should be separately investigated, in order that the special circumstances involved in each particular case should be carefully weighed. It would have been foreign to the immediate purpose of this article to attempt anything like a complete discussion of the questions involved in greatly restricting or prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors. If it had been my intention to enter upon such a discussion, it would have been necessary, among other things, to have referred to the experience which is afforded by America of the working of a prohibitory liquor law in that country. The evidence of those must have been examined who assert that the demoralization which ensues from the gross and systematic evasion of this law, far more than counterbalances any good which may result from the slight effect produced in somewhat diminishing intemperance.

—I have, however, already entered into what may probably appear to be a too detailed consideration of the general subject of state intervention. I have been chiefly induced to do so because one of the most characteristic features of modern socialism is the growing tendency which it displays to demand state assistance, especially in the form of grants of public money to carry out social and economic reforms. These general remarks on government intervention will moreover render a not unimportant assistance in discussing various social questions.

GRACE OF GOD

GRACE OF GOD. The majority of the kings of modern Europe, in public acts and on their medals or coins, have given themselves the title of kings by the grace of God, Dei gratia rex. This is the exact and complete formula of legitimacy and divine right. Formerly coins bore this device, Sit nomen Domini benedictum. In these four words the Dei gratia rex already existed in germ. Indeed, what other motive could Charle-magne or Philip Augustus have for blessing the Lord except for having made them kings? The Roman emperors, before Christianity, although their power was absolute, did not pretend to hold it by the grace of God. The principle on which it rested was not divine right, it was delegation by the people to which they appealed. In the twelfth century the legists of Bologna did not yet profess a theory different from that of the Institutes: "By the law Regia according to which the empire was constituted, the people yielded all their power to the prince." From this the jurist Theophilus concluded that "the prince is not only master of our property but even of our lives," which proves that even the most senseless despotism has always found defenders.

—With Christianity appeared new ideas on the origin of power and the source of sovereignty. When Pepin was consecrated king by St. Boniface in 752, the character of royalty was changed. The king became the anointed of the Lord; an indelible sanction which came from heaven was given to his power. The person of the king was thenceforth as inviolable and sacred as that of the priest, and the prince had soon to accustom himself to place the origin of his right in the will of God. Beginning with Theodosius the Younger, the emperors of the east were anointed, their example was followed by the Visigoth and Frankish kings. But the theory of divine right which was to flow from this was formulated much later.

—Under the reign of Charles II. in England Filmer became its interpreter. The following are the principal features of the system he invented, and which was reproduced afterward with more or less modifications by writers of the theocratic party. Hereditary monarchy in the order of primogeniture is also conformable to the will of God: it is of divine institution; no opposing right can be invoked against the prince who possesses it by the grace of God; no human power can be arrayed against it. From this it follows that the monarch who holds his rights from Heaven alone, is absolute, and can not be bound to his subjects by any engagement, and that the promise which he gives simply expresses his present intention without binding him by any obligation. These absolutist doctrines were placed under the authority of the Holy Scriptures, which, however, appear to be rather opposed to them. Thus, in the Scripture God punishes the chosen people for having desired a king; and in the history of the Hebrews the order of primogeniture is far from being rigorously observed; we find that the youngest brothers are by preference the object of divine protection. Isaac was not the eldest son of Abraham, nor Jacob of Isaac, nor Judah of Jacob, nor David of Jesse, nor Solomon of David. In polygamous countries little account is generally taken of the rights of primogeniture. As to the New Testament, Filmer could have found there no example favorable to his thesis. Neither Tiberius to whom Christ enjoined men to pay tribute, nor Nero whom St. Paul commanded men to obey, were monarchs by divine right. (See Macaulay's "History of England.")

—Filmer's theory was not an isolated fact. Bossuet in France lent it the support of his eloquence and genius. This theory is found entire in these eloquent words. "To God alone belong glory, majesty, independence; he alone establishes thrones and destroys them; he gives his power to princes or withdraws it." The king, according to Bossuet, reigning by the grace of God, could not recognize an authority superior to his own, except the divine power itself, whose representative he is upon earth.

—These words, by the grace of God, taken in themselves, would seem to express merely an idea of submission and respect, a pious invocation of the divine power. In truth, everything takes place by the will of God, but it is not in this sense and with this humility that the device appears in history; it has a more ambitious and haughty Edition: current; Page: [386] meaning. It is the negation of the sovereignty of the people, it is the formula of a power "from which the people should endure everything, which can not itself be forfeited, no matter how senseless and incapable it may be, of a right which pretends to be superior to all rights, indefeasible, and which would be inviolable if all other rights were violated." (Guizot.)

GRAHAM

GRAHAM, William Alexander, was born in Lincoln county, N. C., Sept. 5, 1804, and died at Saratoga Springs, N. Y., Aug. 11, 1875. He was graduated at the university of North Carolina, in 1824, studied law, was a whig United States senator 1840-3, governor 1845-9, secretary of the navy under Fillmore 1850-53, and was the whig candidate for vice-president in 1852. (See WHIG PARTY.) He was in the confederate states senate 1864-5.

GRANGER

GRANGER, Francis, was born at Suffield, Conn., Dec. 1, 1792, and died at Canandaigua, N. Y., Aug. 28, 1868. He was graduated at Yale in 1811, removed to New York, and entered state politics there as one of the anti-masonic leaders. He was the anti-masonic candidate for governor in 1830 and 1832, and was the whig candidate for vice-president in 1836. (See ANTI-MASONRY, I.; WHIG PARTY.) He was a whig representative from New York 1835-7 and 1839-43, and post-master general under Harrison.

GRANGERS

GRANGERS (IN U. S. HISTORY), the popular name for "The Patrons of Husbandry," a secret association devoted to the promotion of the interests of agriculture. Its formation dates from Dec. 4, 1867, but for several years its organization spread very slowly from Washington, its birth-place. Its general development fairly began in 1872, and before the end of the year 1875 it numbered about 1,500,000 members in every section of the Union.

—The secret machinery of the order corresponds very closely to that of the freemasons. The lodges are called "granges," i.e., farms, whence the popular name of the order; but both men and women are admitted to membership. There is a state grange for each state, and a national grange for the whole Union. There are four degrees in subordinate granges, one in the state grange, and two in the national grange, the last three being named, respectively, Pomona, Flora and Ceres.—"No grange, if true to its obligation, can discuss political or religious questions, or call political conventions, or nominate candidates, or even discuss their merits in its meetings." Though the order is thus fundamentally non-political, it has been extremely difficult to keep it free from political influences. Its extent is a standing temptation to designing politicians, and its aim to cheapen transportation has a constant tendency to carry it into a quasi political warfare against railroad corporations. Its leaders have, indeed, been very successful in keeping its organization out of politics, but its success in other respects has taught the farmers of many of the northwestern states the virtues of organization and has caused the temporary formation of "farmers' parties," particularly during the stagnant period of national politics, 1872-5.

—See Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1873, 622; Kelley's Origin and Progress of the Patrons of Husbandry (1875); Martin's History of the Grange Movement (1875); Smedley's Manual of Jurisprudence of the Patrons of Husbandry (1875); Carr's Patrons of Husbandry on the Pacific Coast (1875).

GRANT

GRANT, Ulysses S., president of the United States 1869-77, was born in Point Pleasant, Clermont county, Ohio, April 27, 1822, was graduated at West Point in 1843, served with credit in the Mexican war, and in the war of the rebellion rose to the chief command of the armies of the United States. Aug. 12, 1867, he was appointed secretary of war ad interim by President Johnson, and Jan. 14 following he gave the position up to Stanton, when the senate disapproved the latter's removal. (See IMPEACHMENTS, VI.) In the following June he was nominated for the presidency, was elected in November, and was re-elected in 1872. (See REBELLION; REPUBLICAN PARTY; ELECTORAL VOTES; RECONSTRUCTION; INSURRECTION, II.) He was a candidate for renomination in the republican convention of 1880, but was not nominated. (See GARFIELD, J. A.)

—When Grant was first nominated and elected he had no known political opinions and no experience in civil administration. Neither of the lacking qualifications, however, was demanded in 1868; the country only desired a president who could hold taut the length of rope that had been gained, keep the peace between the lately warring sections until politics should settle back to their ordinary level, and take care that in this process the results of the war, the abolition of slavery in every form, negro suffrage, and the equality of races before the law, should not be lost. For these purposes Grant represented very exactly both the needs and the desires of a majority of the qualified voters of the country. On the one hand, his kindly and considerate treatment of Lee and his surrendered soldiers, and his report to the president in 1865 on the condition of the insurrectionary states, showed that he had no vindictive feelings toward the conquered; and on the other hand, his calm and unswerving obstinacy, as it had often been tested in the field, marked him as a man who would not be likely to vacillate before any show of opposition to the laws. On the whole, the result justified the wisdom of the popular selection; indeed, a wiser president would probably not have succeeded so well.

—Since 1874-5 the case has been very different. The very characteristics which in 1868-70 made Grant a very useful president, have since then made him an anachronism in politics. Nevertheless, a strong faction of the republican party has always been desirous to raise him again to the presidency, in Edition: current; Page: [387] spite of the blunders and scandals of his second term of office. For these latter and notorious evils, however, his civil inexperience, not his personal character, is to be blamed, and his last annual message, Dec. 5, 1876, very fairly states the case, thus: "Mistakes have been made, as all can see and I admit, but it seems to me oftener in the selections made of the assistants appointed to aid in carrying out the various duties of administering the government—in nearly every case selected without a personal acquaintance with the appointee, but upon recommendations of the representatives chosen directly by the people."

—See Badeau's Military History of Grant; Coppee's Life of Grant; Dana and Wilson's Life of Grant; Chesney's Essays in Military Biography; Young's Around the World with Grant; and authorities under articles referred to.

GREAT BRITAIN

GREAT BRITAIN. The official designation is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." The greater island was known in Cæsar's time as Britain, a name of prehistoric (probably Iberian) origin and uncertain meaning. The inhabitants were called Britons by their Roman conquerors, but called themselves Kymry; their English conquerors afterward called them Welsh, or "strangers." Another ancient name of Britain is Albion, a word of Celtic origin, meaning "hilly," and kindred with the names of the Alps, Albania on the eastern shore of the Adriatic, and Albany, an ancient epithet of Scotland. The island is supposed to have taken its name Albion from the cliffs of Dover visible from the opposite Gaulish coast. The northern part of the island was known to the Romans as Caledonia, a Celtic name of disputed meaning; but it acquired its name of Scotland from the Scots, an Irish tribe which early in the Christian era obtained possession of the western highlands. Ireland itself, Ierne, or Hibernia, is simply "the western land." From the fourth century to the tenth, Britain was overrun and occupied by successive swarms of invaders from the northern coast of Germany, from Denmark, and from Norway. The German tribes were known chiefly as Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians. The Angles, coming from a little district called Angeln, on the Baltic coast of Sleswick, were much the most numerous, and at last gave their name to the new home, Angleland, or England, although it was first under a Saxon king that the various parts of the country were united into a great kingdom. Of these tribes the Jutes and Frisians settled mainly in Kent and the Isle of Wight; the Saxons settled in the south and centre of the English territory, and the Angles in the east and north, as far as the site of Edinburgh. The Danes and Norwegians, coming later, effected settlements on the east coasts of England and of Ireland, and on the northern coasts of Scotland. In the course of these centuries of invasion, the ancient British population of Britain was largely forced into the western districts—into Cumberland and Lancashire, Wales and Cornwall, and into Brittany, the northwestern peninsula of Gaul. The various tribes of North German invaders, under leaders bearing now the title of kings, now simply that of ealdormen or earls, founded many petty kingdoms in Britain, some of which corresponded nearly in outline to modern shires or counties. But the title "king" in those days did not mean the ruler of a specified territory; it meant the principal chief of a particular tribe of men. At various times there were kingdoms of the Northumbrians, or "people north of the Humber"; of the Mercians, or people on the March or western border against the Welshmen; of the East Angles, of the East, Middle, South and West Saxons, and of the Kentish men or Jutes Modern authors used to speak of a heptarchy, or system of seven Teutonic kingdoms in Britain; but the expression is inaccurate, as there were never at any one time seven regularly organized states, and at some times the number of fluctuating divisions amounted to ten or eleven. The relations of these states were those of chronic warfare. Sometimes one king gained a temporary supremacy over all his rivals, and then called himself Bretwalda, or "wielder of Britain," but this did not mean that he was king over the whole country, in the modern sense; it only meant that the other kings owed him, for the time being, an indefinite homage. In the first half of the seventh century Northumbria took the lead among these little kingdoms; in the following half century the lead passed to Mercia; at the beginning of the ninth century the first place was decisively taken by Egbert, king of the West Saxons, but England can hardly be regarded as constituting a single kingdom until the reign of Edgar, 959-75. Since the time of Edgar, England has always been under a single government—an instance of political stability to which the history of the rest of the world has hitherto afforded no parallel—but its boundaries have in one instance been enlarged, namely, by the conquest of Wales under the great king Edward I., in 1283. Scotland was also conquered by Edward I. in 1296-8, but regained its independence in the following reign, the work being completed by Robert Bruce at Bannockburn in 1314. At the death of Elizabeth in 1603, the crown of England passed to the king of Scotland as next of kin, and for another century the two kingdoms remained distinct and independent, with one king, but with two parliaments, one at Westminister and one at Edinburgh. In 1706-7 Scotland was united to England, and began to be represented in the parliament at Westminster in such manner as will be shown below. At this time, therefore, the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" began its formal existence. The conquest of Ireland was attempted as early as 1170, in the reign of Henry II., by Richard, earl of Pembroke, surnamed "Strongbow"; and Ireland indeed continued thereafter nominally subject to the king of England. Yet the conquest of Ireland Edition: current; Page: [388] can hardly be said to have been accomplished earlier than the reign of Elizabeth, and it was first really carried to completion by Oliver Cromwell. Though subject to the English crown, Ireland retained its independent legislature until 1801. when it was formally united with Great Britain, and began to be represented in the parliament at Westminster. So the formal existence of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland," strictly speaking, begins with the beginning of the nineteenth century.

—The total geographical area of the United Kingdom is about 122,161 square miles, divided as follows: England, with Wales, 58,311; Scotland, 31,326: Ireland. 32,524; total, 122,161. In other words, the area of England with Wales is almost exactly equal to that of the New England States, omitting Vermont; or to that of the state of New York with Vermont added; or to that of the state of Georgia. The area of either Scotland or Ireland alone is a little less than that of the state of Indiana. The area of Great Britain without Ireland is equal to that of the six New England states with half of New York added. The area of the United Kingdom is equal to that of the four states of Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The greatest length of Great Britain, from its southwest corner at Land's End to Duncansby Head, where John of Groat in the reign of James IV. built his celebrated ferry-house on the beach of the Pentland Firth, is about 600 miles. Its greatest width, along the south coast, is 320 miles; its least width—say from Kincardine on the Forth to Dumbarton on the Clyde—is less than 30 miles. The greatest length of Ireland is 300 miles, and crosswise from Carnsore Point to Erris Head it measures about 200 miles. The higher mountains of Great Britain rise in the west of the island, so that most of the rivers belong to the North sea drainage. The largest of these, the Thames, draining an area about equal to that of the state of Connecticut, and possessing a tidal upflow for 60 miles from its mouth, makes London practically a seaport. The climate of Great Britain displays to a remarkable extent the effects of maritime situation. While the parallel of London runs through Labrador, the summers are not only much cooler, but the winters are much less severe, than in any part of the northern United States. In January the thermometer in London seldom goes below 32° Fahrenheit, while in July it seldom goes above 80°.

—The population of the United Kingdom during the following decennial periods is shown in the table below:

It will be seen that the population of England has nearly trebled since the beginning of the present century, and that the population of Scotland has more than doubled; while, on the other hand, the population of Ireland remains the same as at the beginning of the century, the natural increase having been drawn off by emigration. The rate of increase in Great Britain, though very small compared to that of the United States, has been greater than that of any other European country. England is more densely populated than any other country in the world excepting Belgium. The population of England is 437 to the square mile, whereas that of Massachusetts, the most densely peopled state in the American Union, is 225 to the square mile, and that of China proper is about 300 to the square mile. At the beginning of the reign of Edward III., in 1327, the population of England is estimated to have reached 4,000,000; but in 1348 and the following years the terrible plague known as the Black Death, destroyed half the population, reducing it to about 2,000,000. Toward the end of Elizabeth's reign the population had reached about 5,000,000. In 1700 it was 6,045,008; in 1750 it was 6,517,035.

—England is divided into 40 counties or shires, and Wales into 12; Scotland into 32 counties and 1 stewartry (Kirkcudbright, formerly administered by a royal steward with powers more extensive than those of a sheriff); Ireland into 32 counties, forming 4 provinces. Some of the English counties—as Kent, Surrey, Essex, etc.—correspond to old kingdoms; others being regarded as parts of old kingdoms, were known as shires or divisions; some, such as Durham, were ancient bishoprics. As these counties have all grown up historically, and not as the result of any arbitrary subdivision of the kingdom, they are extremely irregular in extent and in population. Yorkshire, the largest of the English counties, is forty times the size of Rutland, the smallest. In Ireland the four provinces—Ulster. Leicster, Munster, and Connaught—retain the names of ancient Celtic kingdoms, but the division into counties was made for administrative purposes after the English conquest. Three of the English counties—Durham, Lancaster and Chester—are called counties palatine, and in mediæval times their earls possessed peculiar prerogatives.

—I. CONSTITUTION. In order to speak intelligently of the government of Great Britain, it is necessary to distinguish carefully between its two aspects, formal and practical. In form, the English government is a monarchy, in practice, it is a republic. That is to say, while the supreme governing power nominally resides in the hereditary sovereign, subject to specific constitutional limitations, in reality it does nothing of the sort; in reality the supreme governing power resides in the house of commons. It has been customary to speak of "king, lords and commons" as three estates of the realm, among which the powers or functions of government are subdivided; but this is a mistake. The powers Edition: current; Page: [389] and functions of government in England are not subdivided between three estates of the realm, but they are concentrated in the house of commons. The house of lords may protest against a given decision of the commons, but has no power to reverse it; and the sovereign has in reality no veto power whatever, not even such power of protest as is possessed by the lords. As Mr. Bagehot forcibly observes, the queen "must sign her own death-warrant if the two houses unanimously send it up to her" Yet in the view of the law, and in common parlance, the sovereign is the source of all government in England. Though not possessed of legislative power, the sovereign is often spoken of as the executive; yet it is only by a palpable legal fiction that the sovereign of Great Britain can be regarded as the executive. The executive power really resides in a body unknown to English law, in a committee of parliament generally called the cabinet; and principally in the chairman of that committee, generally known as the prime minister or premier, though his official designation is usually "First Lord of the Treasury."

—Viewed in this way, stripped of the legal fictions which result from its peculiar historic development, nothing can be simpler than the actual working of the English government. A house of commons is chosen by the people. The recognized leader of the party which wins the election is appointed (nominally by the crown, but this is a mere form) to conduct the government and to form a cabinet. So long as this government is supported by the votes of a majority of the house, it continues in office. When it ceases to be supported by the votes of a majority of the house, two courses are open to it. On the one hand, the prime minister and his cabinet may resign, and thus make room for a cabinet of the opposite party; or, on the other hand, the prime minister may dissolve the house of commons and order a new election, in which case, if his party returns a majority of members he continues in office, but if it fails to do so, he resigns at once. In this way, anything like a deadlock between the legislative and executive powers is rendered impossible. In this way the final authority in every disputed question rests with the house of commons. For though the prime minister may refuse to recognize as final the decision of a particular parliament, he can only do so through dissolving that parliament and ordering the election of a new one, and to the verdict of this election he must submit. But, although there must be a new election of parliament at least once in seven years, so long as the party of a given prime minister continues to return a majority of members so long may he continue in office, be it for half a century. In its practical working, therefore, the English constitution has this peculiar excellence, that the supreme executive power is entrusted to a minister who may be kept in office as long as he is satisfactory to the people, but can instantly be removed, without disturbance of any sort, the moment any feature of his policy is seriously disapproved by the people. And it there be room for any doubt as to whether the conduct and policy of the chief executive magistrate are satisfactory or not, the question can be settled at any time by a direct appeal to the people.

—It is common in the United States to speak of the secretary of state as our "prime minister" or "premier," but nothing could well be more absurd. The American secretary of state answers to the British secretary of state for foreign affairs; there is nothing in his position or in his functions which is in any way analogous to the position or the functions of the British premier. But in many respects the American president answers to the prime minister. He is unlike the prime minister in that he acts in his own name, in that he is not a member of the legislative body, and in that his term of office is arbitrarily limited by the constitution. But he is like the prime minister as being the chief executive magistrate for the time being.

—It was said above that the house of lords has no power to reverse a decision of the house of commons. There is no possibility of a real deadlock between the two houses. In point of fact, a bill which has passed the commons may be defeated in the lords, but whether the commons accepts such a veto or not depends entirely upon the strength of its determination and of its interest in the bill. When the commons has finally made up its mind, the lords must sooner or later submit. In case the lords were to persist in opposing the will of the commons, the lord chancellor would be authorized to commission a sufficient number of new peers to "swamp" the upper house. This prerogative is something to be used only with reluctance and as a last resort, and it has not actually been used since the reign of Anne, but the knowledge that it can be used constitutes a sufficient check upon the house of lords. In 1832 the government was prepared, if necessary, to secure the adoption of the reform bill by the creation of eighty liberal peers; and the knowledge of this fact at last caused the lords to withdraw their opposition to the bill. In the reign of George I. an attempt was made to take away this prerogative of creating new peers (technically supposed to be a prerogative of the sovereign), but it was evidently fortunate for the peers as a legislative body that the attempt was unsuccessful. The continuance of the independent existence of the house of lords is favored by its manifest inability to obstruct seriously the course of legislation, while as a revising and criticising body it has often been found of great service. In like manner the continuance of the English monarchy is favored by the fact that the sovereign has come to be merely an ornamental part of the governing organization, without the power of doing serious mischief. In many instances, indeed, the sovereign is useful as the theoretical source of "prerogatives" that derive their practical value only from being exercised by a responsible ministry with the approval of the majority of the house of commons.

—This unquestioned supremacy of the Edition: current; Page: [390] commons in the English government is of modern growth. We can hardly refer it to a period back of the revolution of 1688, at which time, as we shall see, cabinet government, in the strict sense of the term, had its beginnings. Yet back of that time, and far back in the middle ages, it is not so much true that the ultimate governing power did not reside in the commons as that it was more or less uncertain where it resided. In Plantagenet times it was to some extent true—as it is not at all true to-day—that the sovereignty was shared between "king, lords and commons." To determine precisely where the ultimate authority resided, and in what ways it might constitutionally exert itself, required several generations of discussion and more or less of hard fighting. England has never at any time, save for five years under Cromwell, been governed despotically; at no time has the sovereign been able to override the laws, save now and then through the subserviency of the judiciary, which was one great curse of the Tudor and still more of the Stuart times. The gradual dissolution of the feudal system, which resulted in the temporary establishment of despotic government all over the continent of Europe, resulted in the firm establishment of a free popular government in England. Many circumstances conspired to bring about such a result, but one of the most important was the conquest of the kingdom by the Normans. The accession of William the Conqueror was marked by a tendency toward centralization such as at that time characterized no other kingdom in Europe, but this centralization was achieved at the expense of the nobles, not at the expense of the common people. The old English nobility, through manifold acts of confiscation, was pushed down into a subordinate position in the social and political scale; while the new Norman nobility, through the very circumstances of its creation, was unable to assert such an independence of the crown as was asserted until nearly the end of the middle ages by the nobility of France and other continental countries. The king's authority, through his sheriffs and lord lieutenants, penetrated, with more or less efficiency, into every county. Instead of tyrannizing over the common people, and making war on the king, each in his own interest, the nobles were obliged to court the aid of the yeomanry and burghers, and, when they opposed the crown, to do so in an organized body and for the acquirement of certain permanent legal rights which under the circumstances they must needs share with the yeomanry and burghers who were their allies. Such was, in rough outline, the general character of the relations between "king, lords and commons" during the great formative period of English constitutional history between the Norman conquest and the accession of Edward I. Its most important feature was the alliance between the nobles and the common people, which resulted from the weakness of the nobles relatively to the crown, and which was consummated during the thirteenth century in the rebellion organized against Henry III. by the barons under Simon de Montfort. It was in the course of this struggle that the house of commons, as an independent legislative body, originated. The oldest English sovereigns—the kinglets over such little realms as Kent or Essex—used to hold consultations with their "elders" or nobles, after the fashion of Homeric kings, while the crowd of "churls" or common people stood about and listened, and signified approval or disapproval by cheers or groans, or by clashing their weapons. But after there had come to be one king over all England, the common people could not all come to hear his consultations with the nobles, and rattle their spears or quarter-staves; and so the parliaments or meetings for "talking" public business came gradually to consist only of the king and such great nobles as he thought it worth while or felt obliged to invite to come and discuss public affairs with him. In the days of the united monarchy before the Norman conquest, such meetings of king and nobles were called "witenagemote" or "meetings of wise men." But though the common people—the yeomen and burghers—had given up the practice of attending such royal meetings, they never quite gave up the practice of attending county meetings. When it had become manifestly impracticable for all the freemen in a county to attend in a body, they hit upon the device of sending representatives. Each township sent to the county assembly its "reeve" or principal magistrate, accompanied by "four discreet men." This had become a time-honored custom long before the thirteenth century, and so when Simon de Montfort wished to increase the strength of the popular party espoused by the barons, he had a precedent for a representative assembly all ready to hand. In 1265 Earl Simon called together a parliament in which the peers sat in person as heretofore, while each town sent two elected citizens and each county sent two elected "knights of the shire." And these elected citizens or burghers, and knights of the shire, sitting and voting separately from the body of peers, formed the first real house of commons.

—The tendency to an alliance of interest between the nobles and the commons, which early brought forth such sound practical results, was further increased by a circumstance of which the importance in English history can hardly be overrated. In the countries on the continent of Europe the children of nobles were always regarded as themselves noble; nobility came to them as a birthright, and in the absence of any common legislative dealings between the nobles and the common people this circumstance went far toward bringing about an entire separation of feelings and interests between the two classes. It tended toward the creation of a caste of nobility, destitute of sympathy with the common people. Such a caste, in France for example, could go so far as to compel the non-noble caste to pay all its taxes for it. But in England there has never been a noble class, as such. After the Norman conquest only those persons Edition: current; Page: [391] came to be regarded as peers whom the king summoned to attend his great council or witenagemot. Other people might possess great wealth or importance, but until summoned to the witenagemot they were not politically distinguishable from the mass of commoners, they were not regarded as peers. By degrees the right to be summoned to the great council came to be regarded as hereditary in certain families through long usage; but as the thing which was inherited was simply the right to occupy a legislative office, it could not belong to more than one member of a family at a time, at least as a matter of mere inheritance. Hence the children of a peer have always been commoners, and only one child at a time has been able to reach the peerage merely through inheritance. This state of things has from the outset thrown an active and influential set of people into the house of commons, giving to that body a weight and importance which in mediæval times at least it could not possibly have acquired in any other way. And through the legislative co-operation thus ensured between plain country gentlemen and city merchants on the one hand, and the heirs of noble families on the other hand, it has prevented anything like a determined hostility between the two houses of parliament, and greatly increased their ability to limit and define the prerogatives of the crown. One of the most conspicuous facts in English history is the harmonious way in which the two houses have worked together; and it is a fact to which elsewhere in European history we find no parallel. At first, as might have been expected, it was the commons that generally followed the lead of the lords; but it was inevitable that in course of time this relationship should be reversed. As the so-called lower house represented not only the inhabitants of the chartered towns, but also the great majority of landed gentry and yeomanry—the whole nation, in short, with the exception of the personal holders of hereditary or official seats in the upper house—it was inevitable that such an assembly should gradually draw into itself all the real governing power of the state.

—In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the power of parliament was perhaps almost as great as at the present day when fairly brought to a final test, but it was far more liable to encounter resistance on the part of the crown. As Mr. Freeman observes, "the ancient parliaments demanded the dismissal of the king's ministers; they regulated his personal household; they put his authority into commission; if need be, they put forth their last and greatest power and deposed him from his kingly office. In those days a change of government, a change of policy, the getting rid of a bad minister and the putting a better in his place, were things which could never be done without an open struggle between king and parliament, often they could not be done without the bondage, the imprisonment, or the death, perhaps only of the minister, perhaps even of the king himself. The same ends can now begained by a vote of censure in the house of commons; in many cases they can begained even without a vote of censure, by the simple throwing out of a measure by which a ministry has given out that it will stand or fall."

—The political events of the fifteenth century tended to increase the power of the crown at the expense of parliament; but in such a way that the influence of the lords suffered much more diminution relatively than that of the commons. From the earliest times it has been one of the most fundamental principles of the English constitution that the king can levy no tax save with the consent and by the authority of parliament. And this principle has at all times prevented the crown from becoming independent of parliament. At all times, indeed, the crown has possessed certain sources of revenue, established by immemorial custom, and not liable to be interfered with by parliament. In Blackstone's Commentaries, book i., chap. viii., these sources of revenue are fully described under the head of the king's "ordinary revenue." Among these sources were divers fines and aids connected with the bestowal of ecclesiastical preferments, escheats and confiscations of property, and such minor matters as deodand, treasure trove, flotsam and jetsam, etc. But in ordinary times all these sources of revenue were insufficient to maintain the crown in independence, or to enable it to carry on the work of administration without calling upon parliament for aids and subsidies. And the granting such aids and subsidies, which had to be raised by taxation, naturally fell into the hands of the commons as representatives of the nation at large. During the great wars of Edward III. and Henry V. the crown would have been powerless for want of pecuniary resources but for the aid of the commons. If a public policy proposed by the crown were disapproved by the nation at large, it could be frustrated by a refusal on the part of the commons to grant supplies; and it is no doubt ultimately through this control of the public purse that the house of commons has come to be the supreme power in the government.

—But during the fifteenth century the power of parliament in both its houses received a shock through that terrible series of struggles known as the wars of the roses. These wars during a period of thirty years (1455-85) were carried on with an obstinacy and barbarity unequaled elsewhere in English history. The battles were distinguished for their enormous slaughter, that of Towton, March 29, 1461, having been probably the bloodiest battle ever fought on English soil. After each victory of either party followed a series of wholesale executions; such of the nobles as escaped death on the field were usually beheaded without mercy. So great was this slaughter that the first parliament of Henry VII. contained only twenty-nine lay peers. The old nobility, in short, was almost annihilated, both in person and in property; for along with the slaughter there went wholesale confiscations, and these confiscations added greatly to the disposable wealth of the crown. These events contributed Edition: current; Page: [392] in various ways to enhance the royal power at the expense of parliament. In the first place, the peers newly created by the Tudor kings were for a time inclined to be subservient to the crown; and this tendency was aided under Henry VIII. by the dissolution of the monasteries, which at once withdrew thirty-six abbots and priors from the house of lords, and thus eliminated another source of opposition to the royal authority. In the second place, the available wealth of the crown was so far increased by escheats and confiscations that it became for a time to some extent independent of the house of commons; it became unnecessary to summon parliaments quite so frequently as before. In the third place, the effect of thirty years of anarchy was to arouse in the people a feeling of intense loyalty to the Tudor sovereigns as the guarantors of order and peace. And this feeling was strengthened by the curious uncertainty as to the succession which prevailed through the Tudor period. Throughout the sixteenth century the terrible memories of the civil war of the fifteenth made people unusually sensitive to the evils of a disputed succession. It was this feeling which caused some of the most atrocious acts of Henry VIII. and his daughter Mary to be condoned. This feeling went far toward making the Tudor parliaments more subservient to the crown than any others which have ever assembled in England. "Very different indeed," says Mr. Freeman, "from the parliaments which overthrew Richard II. and Charles I. were the the parliaments which, almost without a question, passed bills of attainder against any man against whom Henry's caprice had turned, the parliaments which, in the great age of religious controversy, were ever ready to enforce by every penalty that particular shade of doctrine which for the moment commended itself to the defender of the faith, to his son or to his daughters."

—Nevertheless, even during the reign of Henry VIII., when the English government made perhaps its nearest approach to despotism, the importance of the house of commons was acknowledged by the persistence of the efforts made to corrupt it. The Tudor tyranny was scrupulously legal in form, and it has been truly said that "every deed of wrong done by Henry with the assent of parliament was in truth a witness to the abiding importance of parliament." One feature of the Tudor period was the continual and energetic interference of the government in parliamentary elections, and this alone shows that the assent of the commons was even in these times held indispensable. Still stronger illustration of this is shown by the creation of rotten boroughs, more especially in Cornwall, which we must be careful not to confound with such other rotten boroughs as Old Sarum. Many of the boroughs disfranchised by the great reform bill of 1832 had become "rotten" in a natural way, simply by being outstripped in rate of growth by adjacent towns. But besides these, many rotten boroughs were called into existence in the Tudor period by the government sending writs of election to petty places likely to return members who would be found subservient to the court. That the crown could not get along without the house of commons is shown by nothing more forcibly than by the very pains which it thus took to pack that legislative body. Nevertheless all such proceedings tended to impair the quality of the legislature and to weaken its authority; and it was clear that if English freedom was to be maintained, a constitutional struggle must arise, in which the independence of parliament must be asserted and the arbitrary tendencies of the crown checked. Such a struggle would no doubt have come before the end of the sixteenth century but for reasons which it is easy to point out. During the first half of Elizabeth's reign the dread of a disputed succession, which had been so effective ever since the accession of her grandfather, was greatly enhanced by the fact that in case of her death without issue her probable successor would be the Catholic queen of Scotland, whose cause was supported by Philip II. of Spain, the most formidable enemy to popular liberty in all Europe. Until the overthrow of the Invincible Armada in 1588 the king of Spain was an enemy whose power of mischief it would not do to underrate. This state of things so thoroughly identified the interests of the people with the interests of the great queen, both before and after her magnificent triumph over Spain, that anything like a serious constitutional struggle between herself and her parliament was quite out of the question. Besides all this, Elizabeth was a woman of too much good sense and tact to get herself drawn into a quarrel about questions of authority and prerogative. After her death all was changed. It was clear that no future sovereign could afford to take such liberties with the constitution as the Tudors had done, unless endowed either with unusual shrewdness or with unbounded personal popularity, or both. But Elizabeth's successors had little shrewdness and little personal popularity. In foreign relations, while the cause of Elizabeth had been identical with that of England, on the other hand the Stuarts always contrived to favor just that line of foreign policy most calculated to alarm and disgust the English people. While the memory of the Armada was still fresh in the land, James I. ostentatiously cherished a perverse friendship for Spain; and in the latter part of the century, when Spain had ceased to be dangerous, and France under Louis XIV. had become the chief enemy to freedom in Europe, then James' grandsons showed even greater perversity in their criminal subservience to the French court. Thus, as the causes which kept the nation loyal to the Tudors no longer existed, it was natural that the great struggle which was to teach the sovereign hereafter to "know his place" should begin with the accession of the House of Stuart. By this time, too, the spirit of the old nobility had Edition: current; Page: [393] grown up again in the new, and the united strength of lords and commons was as great, in relation to that of the crown, as it had been in the days of Richard II. The occasion for conflict, moreover, was precipitated by the impecuniosity of the Stuart kings. James I. and Charles I., without anything like the pecuniary resources of Henry VII., were much more anxious than Henry VII. to get along independently of parliament, and the larger part of the history of their reigns is the history of their attempts to raise money in unconstitutional ways. "Tonnage and poundage," "ship money," and other similar illegal exactions, combined with the persecution of the Puritans to bring about the rebellion which for a few years resulted in overturning the throne. The so-called commonwealth, which ensued, far from vindicating for the popular legislature its title to the supreme authority in the government, proceeded to overturn the legislature as well as the throne. The brief period of the commonwealth was in reality a season of anarchy, save during the briefer included period of Cromwell's supreme authority. The attempts of Cromwell to rule in connection with a house of commons were totally unsuccessful, because the constitution supplied no precedents adequate for determining the character of the relations between the two. In case of a conflict of policy the ultimate authority must rest with the party strongest for the time being, which in this instance was the lord protector as head of an invincible army. The brief rule of Cromwell, though deservedly glorious in English History, was a pure despotism with nothing constitutional about it. It was a despotism which did not deserve to last, which endured some five years only by reason of the transcendent ability and weighty character of Cromwell himself, but to which even Cromwell's greatness could hardly have sufficed to insure a much longer duration. The restoration of the monarchy, with all the constitutional precedents grouped about it, was really the only condition upon which the good work begun by the long parliament could be successfully carried on. The essential triumph of the Puritan rebellion was illustrated in the reformatory measures of the first parliament of Charles II., and it would have been even more complete but for the temporary reaction of feeling which the anarchical character of the commonwealth had brought about. For a moment the crown was once more associated in men's minds with peace and quietness, a feeling of which Charles and his brother proceeded to take advantage to defy public opinion.

—The second revolution, in 1688, finally settled the question as to where the ultimate authority in the English government resided. It settled it in much the same way that it had been settled in 1399 by the deposition of Richard II., but this time the questions at issue had been much more definitely propounded, and the solution was much more unmistakable. The turning out of Richard had been a plain assertion of the right of parliament to make and unmake kings; but the turning out of James, coming as it did within forty years from the overthrow and execution of his father, showed that henceforth the king of England could keep his place on the throne only on condition of "governing by act of parliament."

—This final and unmistakable assertion of the supremacy of parliament has been further illustrated by the growth of modern cabinet government, which took its rise in the revolution of 1688. Before William III., the kings of England had had ministers, but up to his time each minister had been regarded as the personal servant of the crown so far as concerned the discharge of the duties of his own office. Each minister was separately responsible before the law, but that kind of collective responsibility whereby the whole group of ministers assume or resign office together had not yet been established. It was not even necessary that the various ministers should belong to the same political party, or should hold similar views on great questions of public policy. Under William III, began the practice of insuring practical co-operation between the crown and parliament by means of total changes in the ministry; and from this beginning it has gradually come to pass that the change of ministry is determined entirely in accordance with the will of parliament, and not at all with reference to the will of the sovereign; and thus it has further come to pass that the real executive power in England no longer resides in the crown but in the cabinet. A conflict between crown and parliament, such as occurred in the seventeenth century, could not occur at the present time, since all the active power of the crown has passed into its representative, the cabinet—a representative agent which changes in personality as often as the parliamentary majority changes. The crown, as such, is in England a mere "survival"; and such reasonable prospect of permanence as it has is mainly due to the very fact that it has become a mere survival. Yet from a practical point of view it can hardly be doubted that the abolition of the monarchy to-day need not modify in any essential respect the already well-established operation of cabinet government in England.

—This complete absorption of the executive power by the cabinet, with the concomitant complete dependence of each cabinet upon its parliamentary majority, has been brought about only by degrees. The change has been, so to speak, stealthy in its progress. It would be hard to say precisely when it was consummated. George III.—the last English sovereign whose will has really counted for anything in politics—had considerable influence in deciding who should be his ministers. His antipathy to the elder Pitt was effective in keeping Pitt out of the cabinet. George III. also took part in cabinet affairs himself. He was opposed to his own prime minister, Lord North, as to the desirableness of prolonging the war against the American colonies; and his obstinacy Edition: current; Page: [394] was to some extent successful in prolonging the war. Nothing of the sort would be possible to-day. The opinions and wishes of the queen can not make the slightest difference as to the selection of Mr. Gladstone for prime minister or as to the passage of the Irish land bill.

—But although we can not say precisely when this change was consummated, we may say that the most important date in English constitutional history since 1688 is unquestionably 1832, the year of the great reform bill. In that year was inaugurated a change whereby the house of commons has come to represent, much more truly than before, the whole English people. While the old "rotten boroughs" and "pocket boroughs" existed, although the vote of the commons determined what was to be the supreme law of the land, it was nevertheless possible and customary for the crown and the peerage, through corrupt influence upon the elections, to determine to some extent the composition of the house of commons. The year 1832 may be assigned as the epoch at which the supremacy of the commons became finally complete throughout all departments of the government.

—For the composition of the so called lower house, and the changes wrought in it by the reform bills of 1832 and 1867, see HOUSE OF COMMONS.

—II. FINANCES. For a certain number of public purposes, taxes are raised exclusively by local authorities without any action on the part of the general government. Among the more important of these objects of local taxation may be mentioned the maintenance of paupers, the repair of roads and bridges, the erection and care of prisons, insane asylums, and other public buildings, including parish churches, and the support of the police. All such expenses as these are provided in Great Britain, precisely as in the United States, by the various local governments. The amount of these expenses will be stated below under the head of local administration.

—The finances of India and of the colonies are kept entirely separate from those of the United Kingdom. Not a penny from the revenues of these countries finds its way into the coffers of the imperial exchequer, nor is the British treasury in any way responsible for any of their expenses, except in certain special cases, as for example, where the imperial government guarantees a loan contracted by one of the colonial governments with the approval of parliament. The British treasury pays the salaries of the governors and other important officers in a few of the colonies; but in all the principal colonies these expenses are provided for by colonial taxation. From the beginning it has been a fundamental principle of British colonization that it should be self-supporting; and to this circumstance, no doubt, a considerable part of the extraordinary success of British colonization is due. At the same time, where military defense is concerned, the imperial government charges itself to a certain extent with the protection of the colonies, as well as with the maintenance of its dominion in India.

—The first principle of taxation in Great Britain is that the government can neither raise any tax, nor expend a penny of the public revenues, except through a vote of parliament. This principle, which has always lain at the bottom of the English constitution as the ultimate practical guaranty of English liberties, was distinctly and formally acknowledged by the crown in the reign of Edward I.; and although English sovereigns—notably the first two Stuarts—have since then sought to evade it, their attempts have been unsuccessful. On the other hand, the initiative in levying taxes or in disposing of public moneys is never taken by parliament, but always by the cabinet, or nominally and in former times really by the crown. So strictly is this rule adhered to that the house of commons refuses to receive petitions soliciting any particular disposition of the public funds for any purpose whatever. If lobbying of this sort is to go on at all, it must go on with the ministry, not with the legislature.

—The treasury department of the British government was in former times administered by the lord high treasurer an officer who ranked immediately after the two archbishops and the lord chancellor, as the fourth personage in the kingdom outside of the royal family. But this office became obsolete in the reign of Anne, and the treasury is now administered by a bureau or committee of five. The chairman of this committee, known as the "first lord of the treasury," is usually the prime minister, who has the general business of the government to superintend; so that, in point of fact, the especial charge of the business of the treasury is lodged with the second officer of the committee, who is known as the "chancellor of the exchequer." The other three members of the committee are of no especial account. Now and then it has happened that the same person has occupied the offices of first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer at the same time. This was the case with Sir Robert Peel in 1834 and with Mr. Gladstone in 1874; and both offices are held by Mr. Gladstone at the present time (1881); but in the nature of things such a union of two such onerous offices must be exceptional. All the five members of the treasury committee, as well as their two secretaries, must be members of parliament and all go into or out of office together when there is a change of administration. It is the business of the chancellor of the exchequer to present each year to the house of commons his financial statement for the year just expired, and also his "budget" or estimate of receipts and expenses for the current year. The financial year in Great Britain ends on the last day of March, and the budget is usually presented to the house a few weeks later. In presenting the budget, the chancellor indicates what modifications, if any, the government proposes to make in the system of taxation for the ensuing year; and he usually makes out his estimate in such a way as to allow a margin of from two to three million dollars for incidental or unforeseen additions Edition: current; Page: [395] to the reckoned expenses.

—1. Revenue. The total revenue of the United Kingdom for the year ending March 31, 1880, amounted to £70,747,079, equal to $339,585,979. The chief sources of this revenue were, 1st, Custom house duties, £19,326,000; 2d, Excise tax, £25,300,000; 3d, Income and property tax, £9,230,000; 4th, Stamp duty, £10,316,103; 5th, Land and assessed tax, £2,670,000; 6th, Postoffice receipts, £3,330,000; 7th, Crown lands, £390,000; 8th, Miscellaneous, £184,976. These sources of revenue may be considered in detail.

—1st. Custom House Duties. Since 1845 customs duties have been levied only on imported goods, and the number of articles subject to duty has been greatly reduced. In 1841 the tariff list contained something like 1,200 articles; in 1881 it contained only eight, of which only five are of any importance, to wit: tea, yielding £4,016,319; coffee, yielding £216,925; wines, yielding £1,378,508; spirits, yielding £4,941,871; tobacco, yielding £8,596,757. The only other dutiable articles are chicory, cocoa and dried fruits. Customs duties are levied indiscriminately upon goods produced in British colonies and goods produced in foreign countries, and no distinctions are made with reference to the nationality of the ships from which goods are landed. The articles made dutiable are in the main articles which can not be produced in the United Kingdom. Where a dutiable article is produced in Great Britain, as in the case of spirituous liquors, it is subjected to an excise tax as nearly as possible equivalent to the duty. It will be seen, therefore, that the British tariff is devised simply for the purpose of raising revenue, and not at all for the purpose of what is called "encouraging native industry" by taxing consumers for the benefit of producers. The most important changes made in the tariff during the present century have been made by Sir Robert Peel in 1842 and 1845, and by Mr. Gladstone in 1853 and 1860. The results of these changes, as affecting the revenue derived from the tariff, may be seen in the following brief statement: In 1842 the total revenue from 1,200 articles was £22,523,000; in 1880 the total revenue from eight articles was £19,326,000. The custom house department is administered by a board of six commissioners holding office for life or during good behavior; this board is under the general direction of the treasury, and, more specifically, of the chancellor of the exchequer. Customs duties have in all ages been part of the revenues of the British government. In former times they were known by the epithet "tonnage and poundage," the tonnage duties being applicable to wines or spirits, and the poundage duties being analogous to what are now commonly known as ad valorem duties.

—2d. Excise. The principal articles subject to excise at the present day are spirituous liquors, beer, hops, chicory, and the sugar used in breweries. Besides this, the excise department receives a very considerable revenue from licenses, hackney carriages and cabs, and race horses. License taxes are levied on innkeepers, brewers, wine merchants and venders of beer and spirits, tobacconists, and grocers selling tea, coffee or pepper. A revenue is also derived from licenses for killing or selling game. During the past forty years a great many excise duties have been abolished, such as the excise upon salt, leather, candles, beer, vinegar, glass, soap and paper; yet the revenue derived from the excise has been increased, instead of being diminished, by these exemptions.

—3d. Income Tax. The income tax is levied upon incomes of £100 per annum and upward. The net yield of this tax is estimated as averaging £1,100,000 per penny; so that a tax of nine pence on the pound will yield a revenue of £9,900,000. The income tax is levied upon incomes derived from rent of land or houses or other real estate, from commerce or professional services, or from salaries. The income tax was first established by the younger Pitt in 1798. At the end of the Napoleonic wars, in 1815, when its annual yield was about £14,000,000, it was abolished; and was not again imposed until 1842, when a deficit of £10,000,000 having rolled up in the course of five years. Sir Robert Peel laid a tax of seven pence in the pound on incomes of £150 and upward, for three years. Incomes in Ireland were exempted from this tax. In 1845, in order to assist Sir Robert Peel in his projects of commercial reform, the tax was continued; and since then it has from time to time been continued by special legislation, for various specific purposes. In 1853 Mr. Gladstone extended the tax to incomes of £100 and upward, besides extending its operation to Ireland. This arrangement was intended to last only until 1860; but the Crimean war intervening in 1854, it was found necessary not only to prolong the period of the tax, but to increase its rate even to sixteen pence in the pound. Since 1860, although the rate has been reduced to four pence, and although a tax of this kind is always and deservedly unpopular, the proper occasion for abolishing it altogether does not seem to have arrived.

—4th. Stamp Duty. Stamps are required upon all wills, bills of exchange, receipts, title deeds and policies of marine insurance.

—5th. Land Tax. This is a tax of four shillings in the pound, or 20 per cent. on the annual income of all landed property. These figures seem enormous, but are really moderate enough. since the valuation upon which the tax is assessed is the valuation of the year 1692, which is a merely nominal figure when compared with the present value of estates. Besides this, in the same group of taxes, come the taxes upon dwelling houses, upon domestic servants, private carriages and horses, and various articles of luxury. Note of these taxes are levied in Ireland.

—6th. Postoffice Receipts. The postal service, in connection with the public revenue, was established by Cromwell in 1657, but its revenue-yielding function has always been regarded as entirely secondary to its function as a public convenience. In Edition: current; Page: [396] 1868 the telegraph lines throughout Great Britain were purchased by the government, and have since that time been operated by the postoffice department, greatly to the benefit of the public. Throughout Great Britain and Ireland every post-office has a telegraph office connected with it, and messages are sent to any distance at a uniform rate of one shilling for twenty words. The revenue derived from this source amounts to about one-tenth of that derived from the carriage of letters; but this ratio constantly tends to increase, from which it may perhaps be inferred that the tariff will ultimately be diminished.

—7th. Crown Lands. These are landed estates forming, so to speak, the residuum of the ancient hereditary domain of the crown. They are now ceded to the state by every sovereign, at the moment of his accession, in consideration of an annual allowance granted him for life by parliament, and known as the "civil list." The crown lands are administered by a special department, the commissioners of woods and forests. But these lands do not include the duchy of Cornwall, which is separately administered, and the revenue from which is assigned to the Prince of Wales, nor the duchy of Lancaster, whose revenues are paid to the queen.

—8th. The revenues from the sale of antiquated or worthless accoutrements of the army and navy, unclaimed arrearages of the national debt, contributions from the viceroyalty of India in partial reimbursement of expenses incurred by the imperial government on account of the military armament of India, dues or arrears paid in by foreign governments, conscience money (i.e., anonymous remittances of uncollected taxes), and various other occasional, unimportant or unclassifiable receipts.

—2. Expenses. The national expenses of the United Kingdom may be considered under three heads: 1st, the consolidated funds; 2d, the public expenses of administration; and 3d, the national debt. The annual expenses of administration are provided for from year to year by special votes of the house of commons. Expenses relating to the consolidated fund, or to the liquidation of the national debt, are regulated by acts of parliament extending over an indefinite period, and remaining in force so long as they are not formally abrogated.

—1st. The Consolidated Funds. The yearly revenue, after having been paid in to the exchequer, is placed to the credit of the consolidated funds. Against this credit there are charged certain debits as follows, first, the regular interest of the national debt; then, the civil list, or annual endowment assigned to the sovereign; then, the expenses of the courts of justice, along with the salaries of certain permanent officers, such as the comptroller of the exchequer, and other matters which are not regarded as worth while to be rearranged at every parliament. All these charges are summed up as the regular annual charges against the consolidated fund. The surplus is applied to the public expenses of administration.

—2d. Public Expenses of Administration. Some time before the annual meeting of parliament, the heads of the different departments, after consultation with the lords of the treasury, prepare estimates of the probable expenses of the administration of their departments for the ensuing year. Four especial budgets are handed in: one for the navy, one for the army, one for the revenue department, and one for the civil service. The civil service is subdivided into departments, such as that of public works, law and justice, education, colonial and consular service, and charitable institutions; and besides all this, there is a section devoted to various temporary purposes. Down to the year 1863, moreover, a small sum was put at the disposal of the ministers for unforeseen expenses. But since 1863 this item has been provided for by a regular and permanent assignment of £120,000. The estimates are subdivided into articles, each article having reference to a special branch of expense. The amount assigned by parliament for the civil service of the preceding year is set down in a column by itself; and by the side of it are set down the corresponding estimates for the ensuing year; and these estimates are accompanied by very elaborate explanations concerning every detail of expense, however minute. Printed copies of these estimates are distributed to each member of the house of commons. After a while they are submitted to the committee of supply for examination, and the articles are then discussed and put to vote, one after another. After a certain number of articles have been adopted, an act is passed authorizing the lords of the treasury to apply a certain proportion of the public revenue to the purposes assigned by vote of the house of commons. This act is called the "ways and means act." The gross amount specified in this act can never exceed the amount of the sums already appropriated by the committee of supply. Several acts of ways and means are ordinarily passed in the course of each session, in accordance with an old constitutional tradition whereby enough money is to be granted during the sitting of parliament to prevent any delay in public business, without putting into the hands of the crown enough funds to enable it to dispense with parliament. Thus are the financial proceedings of the house of commons still affected by reminiscences of that family of Stuart kings whom it was not safe to trust with money! At the close of the session a general act of ways and means is passed, recapitulating all these minor acts, and authorizing the lords of the treasury to appropriate the revenue in general as therein assigned. This general act is called the act of appropriation. In times of war, when it is impossible to foresee exactly the characters and amounts of all the expenses that may be found necessary, it is customary to pass a "vote of confidence," allowing the government several millions sterling in order to provide for extraordinary war expenses. Funds granted in this way can not be appropriated for any purpose that is not immediately connected with the war going on at the time. If the government Edition: current; Page: [397] turn out to have need of any further funds, parliament must be summoned and demand made for a further credit.

—A few words concerning the practical operations of the exchequer will here be in place. All the revenues collected are paid into the exchequer, from which no funds can be withdrawn except by order of the comptroller of the exchequer, an officer of high rank and independent position, who can be removed from his post only after an address presented to the crown (that is, to the prime minister) by both houses of parliament. Whenever an order for money is presented to the exchequer, it is the business of the comptroller to see that the object for which the money is drawn is one of the objects which have been authorized by parliament, and that the amount demanded falls within the limits of the credit allowed by the house of commons for this specific purpose. The comptroller can not himself draw any money whatever from the exchequer; he can only order the bank to charge moneys to the credit of a third party whom he designates. Most of the demands on the public funds of the interior are made by the paymaster general, who advises the treasury daily of the sums which he is intending to draw on the following day, and of the several accounts to which they are to be charged. The treasury then authorizes the comptroller of the exchequer to give the paymaster the necessary credit, and the paymaster can then transfer this credit to his drawing account and proceed to make payment. His payments are made in various ways; small sums are paid in ready money at the paymaster's window, and larger sums by checks on the bank. Payments abroad are usually effected by means of orders on the treasury drawn by government officers resident abroad, and accepted on presentation by the paymaster general. Officers entitled to draw such orders are usually officers of the commissary department, and the orders are drawn on account of what is known as the treasury chest fund. This fund consists of about £13,000,000 coming from the accumulation of disposable balances of various sorts, and it furnishes a very convenient means for making disbursements in different parts of the world. The final check relating to the expenditure of the public revenues is furnished by the audit office. The bureau of audit consists of four commissioners who are removable only in the same way as the comptroller of the exchequer. Most of the public accounts are sent in to the audit office for examination, but the detailed accounts of the army and navy are revised by especial military comptrollers. The audit office does not approve an account unless it can be shown that the credits have been appropriated in strict accordance with the acts of ways and means. There are two different kinds of audit, one called the "detailed audit," the other known as the "appropriation check." So far as the first is concerned, the duties of the audit office consist in ascertaining whether each responsible person has expended legitimately the funds entrusted to him. Before each responsible person is set a statement of all the advances which have been made to him, and he is required to render an account of the manner in which he has expended these sums. This account is carefully examined item by item, and the commissioners require a full explanation of every obscure or doubtful point. If the explanations are unsatisfactory, the commissioners "disallow" the items to which they relate, and at last, after concluding their examination, they make their report to the treasury; and the treasury decides for itself in the case of disallowances whether it will accept or cancel them. The "detailed audit," however, only certifies that the accounts to which it refers are duly balanced, that there are vouchers for each payment, and that every payment has been duly authorized. The "appropriation check" goes farther than this, and by means of it the commissioners of audit indicate to parliament the exact sums that have been expended in every particular for which appropriations have been made, showing, moreover, whether the sums appropriated have been entirely expended. This second kind of audit is applied only to a few very important departments, such as the army and navy and the public works.

—The following tables show the total amounts of revenue and expenditure for the sixteen financial years 1866-81:

Edition: current; Page: [398]

The expenditure for the financial years 1868 and 1869 included supplemental appropriations for the Abyssinian expedition, amounting to £5,600,000, and the expenditure for 1874 included the sum of £3,200,000 paid for the Alabama claims under the treaty of Washington.

—During the whole period of sixteen years there has been an almost uninterrupted reduction of taxation, as may be seen from the following statement. In 1864 the taxes were reduced by £4,615,508; in 1865 by £3,235,384; in 1866 by £5,343,405; and in 1867 by £601,462. In 1868 they were increased by £1,285,000; and in 1869 by £1,450,000. In 1870 they were reduced by £2,735,670; and in 1871 by £4,497,343. In 1872 they were increased by £3,050,066. In 1873 they were reduced by £3,895,105; in 1874 by £3,327,380; in 1875 by £4,554,903; and in 1876 by £66,000. In 1877 they were increased by £1,549,050. In 1878 they were reduced by £6,000. In 1879 they were increased by £4,340,000. The increase in 1868 and 1869 was connected with the expenses of the Abyssinian expedition; that of 1877 was connected with extraordinary disbursements on account of the war between Russia and Turkey; and that of 1879 was connected with the war in South Africa.

—The annual revenue derived from the income tax, the most important of the direct taxes, during each of the financial years 1870-81, was as follows.

—3d. National Debt. The largest branch of national expenditure is that for the interest and management of the national debt. The origin of the national debt goes back to 1694, when the bank of England loaned the government £1,200,000 at 8 per cent. interest, in consideration of certain chartered privileges which were secured to it at about that time. During the past hundred years the expenditure on account of the debt has increased more than fivefold. The debt is partly funded, partly unfunded. The holders of the funded debt can not demand the payment of the principal, but only the annual interest, while the holders of the unfunded debt can call for payment of principal as well as interest. The funded debt has been funded partly in perpetuity, partly in terminable annuities. The perpetual annuities are redeemable on payment of the principal which they represent; but in the case of most of them the government can not exercise its right of redemption without giving at least a year's notice. The unredeemed principal of the perpetual funded debt amounted in 1871 to about £731,000,000. Of the terminable annuities, some are the outstanding balances of annuities of which the term was originally fixed, while others are brief annuities created by the government in exchange for loans of money applied to the redemption of the perpetual funded debt; so that the creation of a terminable annuity in this way is a step toward the payment of the debt.

—An attempt was made by Mr. Gladstone in 1853 to reduce the interest of a considerable portion of the debt to 2½ per cent.; but the attempt was unsuccessful. The principal feature of this plan was the issue of exchequer bonds bearing 2 8/4 per cent. interest until 1864, and 2½ per cent. until 1894, after which the bonds should be redeemable at the pleasure of the government. These bonds were offered in exchange for bills of exchequer or for shares in the consolidated fund, but they were only taken up to the amount of about £400,000, and this was almost solely in exchange for bills of the exchequer. The arrears of the national debt are paid through the agency of the bank of England, which receives a commission upon the payments that it makes. Formerly so much importance was attached to the maintenance of a sinking fund for redeeming a certain amount of the debt each year, that loans were often made for the purpose of keeping it up. But the obvious futility of borrowing in order to pay the debt caused this sinking fund to be abolished. But by the provisions of an act of parliament of 1875, the national debt is now to be gradually reduced by means of a new permanent sinking fund, maintained by annual votes of the legislature. The charge of the sinking fund for the financial year ending March 31, 1876, was fixed at £27,400,000; for the following year at £27,700,000; and for every subsequent year at £28,000,000. It was also provided that the charges under this head should be entered under the consolidated fund.

—The unfunded or floating debt comprises bills of the exchequer and bonds of the exchequer. There are various kinds of exchequer bills, distinguished as "supply bills," "deficiency bills," and "ways and means bills." Between the two latter kinds of bills there is a close analogy. The bills of ways and means serve as a guaranty for loans made at the bank in order to cover some deficit in the quarterly revenues designed for supplying the public service; and in just the same way the deficiency bills provide against slight deficits in the consolidated funds. These two classes of bills may be issued without special recourse to parliament, in virtue of the general authority given to the government for financial management. The supply bills of the exchequer are issued in virtue of a direct authorization by parliament. They are a kind of promissory notes, bearing an interest fixed from time to time by the treasury, and payable Edition: current; Page: [399] at assigned dates. These notes are usually issued in March and June of each year, and they usually run for one year from the date of issue. They have most of the characters of bank bills, and are receivable in payment of the revenues for the year in anticipation of which they are issued. But formerly the sum of these bills in circulation would occasionally become too large to be redeemed under these conditions; and in such cases it was customary to authorize a new issue each year for the purpose of paying off the bills of the preceding year arrived at maturity. The inconvenience of this is obvious, and in 1861 a new system was introduced. Bills of the exchequer are now charged to the account of the consolidated fund. They are thus payable at the close of one year from the date of issue, but are only paid in case payment is demanded by the holders. If they are not presented for payment at the end of the year, they are payable at the end of the following year, and so on. The treasury is authorized to issue new bills in amount sufficient to replace those which have been paid on presentation. The holders of bills of the exchequer which have not more than six months to run may offer them in payment of taxes. The treasury has the right to fix the rate of interest on these bills, which can not, however, exceed 5½ per cent. per annum. The sum total of exchequer bills in circulation does not exceed £6,000,000, though formerly it attained a much higher figure.

—Exchequer bonds are notes bearing interest and payable at specified dates. They are issued for periods of five or six years. The sum total of bonds in circulation twenty years ago was nearly £4,000,000, but has dwindled until it is now less than £1,000,000.

—The following table exhibits the condition of the national debt from its origin down to the year 1881, at various periods:

—During the fifteen years 1867-81, the capital of the national debt varied as follows:

—The balances in the exchequer for the sixteen years 1866-81, are shown in the following table:

—Parliament has at various times placed at the disposal of the government large sums to be loaned to private individuals or companies upon personal security, in order to facilitate the progress of works of national importance. Advances of this sort are known as "exchequer loans." They are made upon proper security, at a reasonable rate of interest, and are payable at specified periods.

—III. LOCAL ADMINISTRATION. The principal administrative division of the kingdom is the county, of which, as above stated, there are 52 in England and Wales, 33 in Scotland (including the "stewartry" of Kirkeudbright), and 32 in Ireland. The county of York is divided into three parts or districts known as ridings, a word which is probably a corruption of tritking or Edition: current; Page: [400] "third." The principal county magistrates are the lord lieutenant, the sheriff, the justices of the peace, and the coroners.

—Lord Lieutenant. This officer is appointed by the crown (i.e., by the prime minister), and is chosen from among the principal noblemen residing in the county. He is assisted by one or more deputies whom he appoints himself, and who compose with him the lieutenancy of the county. He is the keeper of the rolls, and in this capacity takes part in the sittings of the justices of the peace. Down to 1871 he was commander of the militia, and appointed its officers, as well as those of the yeomanry and the volunteers; but in 1871 these prerogatives were transferred to the crown.

—Sheriff. In ancient times the sheriff was elected by the freeholders of the county; but since the reign of Edward I. he is appointed annually by the crown. It is not permissible to refuse the position of sheriff, although no salary is attached to it and the office brings with it considerable expense; but the social consideration connected with the office is such that the principal landholders of the county are usually very desirous of obtaining it: The penalty, in case of refusal, is a fine of £600. An interval of three years must elapse between any two successive incumbencies of the same sheriff. The sheriff is charged with the maintenance of the public peace and the execution of the laws. He presides over elections, he is superintendent of jails, he arrests persons accused of crime or misdemeanor, he summons juries, and sees that judgment is executed. To assist him in the discharge of his duties he appoints a deputy sheriff, as well as bailiffs and jailors. The sheriff is not a justice of the peace, and can not take part in the sittings of these magistrates. The sheriff of the county of Middlesex is not appointed by the crown, but is elected by the citizens of London.

—Justices of the Peace. The administrative functions of the ancient county courts have been passed down to the justices of the peace. These magistrates are nominated by the lord lieutenant in his capacity of keeper of the rolls, and are appointed by the lord chancellor. They must necessarily be residents in the county. Their numerous duties are performed in assemblies known as quarter sessions, petty sessions, and special sessions. The business transacted in quarter sessions is both judicial and administrative. As civil judges they decide appeals from decisions of the petty county courts; they decide upon questions relating to local taxation, licenses, and the practical administration of the poor laws. As criminal judges they have cognizance of petty crimes and misdemeanors, and may arrest persons or bind them over to keep the peace. Their principal administrative duties relate to the supervision of bridges and highways, prisons and asylums, and local police. They appoint the chief of the police, subject to the approval of the home secretary, and the chief appoints his subordinate officers, subject to the approval of the justices of the peace. An officer known as "clerk of the peace" who is appointed by the lord lieutenant, attends the sessions as secretary, and is charged with the execution of their decisions. The justices of the peace appoint a treasurer. In order to facilitate the transaction of business, each county is divided into districts, and the justices resident in each district hold petty sessions, from which an appeal lies to the quarter sessions. The justices of the peace in quarter sessions also assess the county taxes in accordance with a uniform valuation of the taxable property in the county. The county expenses are chiefly incurred in the building and repair of bridges and highways, and of county court houses. These are all provided out of the general tax levied at the quarter sessions. A special tax is devoted to the maintenance of prisons and lunatic asylums. The local police is also supported in the main by the county, though a certain proportion, not exceeding one-fourth of the expense, is usually contributed by the national treasury. The various committees charged with the separate items of county affairs, such as the committee on prisons, the committee on buildings, etc., prepare an account of the expenses incurred in their several departments; and these accounts, together with the report of the treasurer, are submitted to the approval of a committee of finance appointed by the justices of the peace.

—Coroners. The duties of the coroner are the same in Great Britain as in the United States. Though, as his title imports, he is par excellence the "crown officer" or representative of the crown, he is usually elected by the freeholders of the county. In some instances, however, he is appointed by the crown, or by the chief magistrates of certain cities. Each county has from three to six coroners.

—Cities and Boroughs. These names are applied particularly to municipal corporations independent of the county, which retain, by virtue of a charter or of a special act of parliament, the power of self-government intact. Legislation regarding these corporations was summed up and epitomized in an act of 1835. A municipal corporation consists of a mayor, a board of aldermen, a common council, and citizens or burgesses. The citizens are all individuals having attained their legal majority who have occupied during three consecutive years a house, shop or office within the city, or who have their true residence within the city or within a radius of seven miles of it, and who have besides been enrolled as liable to the poor tax. The citizen list, or roll of burgesses, is publicly revised every year. The citizens elect the councilors, auditors and assessors. Councilors are chosen subject to a property qualification of not less than £500. No ecclesiastic can be elected councilor, nor can any one who is in receipt of a salary from the city. Councilors are elected for a term of three years. Aldermen are appointed by the common council, and hold office for a term of six years, and no one is eligible as alderman who is not eligible as councilor. The aldermen Edition: current; Page: [401] men preside at city elections, and one of them takes the place of the mayor in the case of his absence or death. The mayor is elected annually by the common council, and is taken indifferently from among the aldermen or from among the councilors. The mayor is ex officio justice of the peace during his year of office and the following year. In the municipal council his sole privilege is to preside at the meetings. The municipal council holds its meetings quarterly, and besides this, extraordinary meetings can be summoned by the mayor or by any five councilors. Two-thirds of the members of the council are required for a quorum. The council may make regulations for the city and ensure their observance by affixing fines not exceeding £5. Such regulations become effective only after having been posted for forty days at the entrance to the city hall, and after having been communicated to the home secretary. The council administers the municipal estates and revenues, and it has supervision over the local administration of justice, over prisons and houses of correction, and other local matters. Besides the council there are in every city certain officers which are either appointed by the council or elected by the citizens. The assessors and auditors are elected by the citizens, while the other officers are appointed by the council and hold office for life or during good behavior. Among these are the town clerk (who has charge of the charters and archives of the city, and prepares the electoral lists), the town treasurer, etc., etc. In most cities and boroughs there are county courts for the trial of civil actions, the extent of their circuit being prescribed by the lord chancellor. These courts have cognizance of all civil actions not exceeding £50 in value. At the request of any city, its magistrates may undertake the administration of criminal justice in petty cases, the expense being defrayed by the city. The principal expenses of cities and boroughs are expenses for lighting, water, repair of streets, and police.

—Parishes. At the base of local administrative organization in Great Britain is found the parish. The ancient division of the county was into hundreds and townships, but these divisions at the present day have had their principal functions merged in or obscured by those of the county and the parish. At the head of each hundred there is an officer called the high constable, who was formerly elected by the freeholders of the hundred, but who is now appointed by the justices of the peace in quarter sessions. The duties of this officer have lost their ancient importance, and are now limited to the collection of taxes and the serving of writs. The word "town" has to a considerable extent departed from its ancient meaning. Towns which are not especially chartered as cities or boroughs have no distinct government as such, but for all administrative purposes make a part of the county in which they are situated. Nevertheless, neither the old townships nor the old free assembly of the township have disappeared, though both are disguised by a peculiar nomenclature. The change from the old township to the modern parish is in most instances merely a change of name; and the old town meeting survives in the vestry meeting of the parish. The vestry elects officers for the administration of parochial affairs, such as church wardens, commissioners of cemeteries, constables, overseers of the poor, and highway surveyors. The church wardens, of whom there are two in each parish, have charge of the repair of the parish church and of whatever secular business belongs directly to the church. They are paid from the revenues of the church; and before 1868, when their wages from this source were inadequate, a special tax was levied, known as the church rate, which could not exceed 5 per cent. of the annual revenue from the properties on which it could be laid. Since 1868 the payment of church rates has been made optional. Wherever there is a parochial cemetery, its administration is entrusted to a special committee, which provides for its expenses by a tax on burials. Whenever it is necessary to establish a new cemetery, or enlarge an old one, the committee may negotiate a loan, with the consent of the vestry. All country roads except turnpikes are kept up by the parishes, by means of a highway rate which is assessed in precisely the same manner as the poor rate. Petitions for the abatement of these classes of taxes may be heard by the justices of the peace in special or quarter sessions. Besides these obligatory charges, the vestry can undertake, at its own option, the service of the police and that of lighting the streets, the taxes for these purposes being assessed after the manner of the poor rates, except that properties consisting in buildings pay three times as much as lands. Besides these local services, there are others—such as public carriages, water supply, fire department, repair of town clocks, public baths, markets, etc.—which are sometimes discharged by the vestry, but perhaps more generally by local committees whose sphere of activity may extend over several parishes. The extent of the circuit of such local committees is determined by the home secretary, but the committees are responsible not to the national government, but to the parishes with which their work is concerned.

—City of London. The huge metropolis, with its population (in 1879) of 4,714,000, is technically known as the "Metropolitan District," and its current name is London. Properly speaking, however, the city of London contains hardly 100,000 of this vast population. The city contains 108 parishes, and is divided into 26 quarters or wards. The municipal government is vested in the council, consisting of the lord mayor, 26 aldermen, and 206 councilors. The lord mayor is elected annually by the council of aldermen and the assembly of guild masters, among the aldermen who have held the office of sheriff. Within the city the lord mayor takes precedence over the members of the royal family with the exception of the sovereign. He has the Edition: current; Page: [402] prerogatives of a lord lieutenant, and besides his administrative functions he is the first justice of the peace for the city, and sits in several local courts. The aldermen are elected by the freeholders occupying houses of more than £10 rental. The common council can not contain more than eight members following the same trade. To be eligible as councilor it is necessary to possess, in one's own ward, a house of at least £10 rental. The common council is at once a legislative and an executive body. It regulates and alters the constitution of the city, without appeal to any other authority in the kingdom. It disposes of all the funds of the municipal corporation; and it appoints all the municipal officers whose appointment has not been reserved to the aldermen. Among the municipal officers the most important is that of the recorder, who is elected for life by the board of aldermen. He is the consulting lawyer of the corporation, and represents the lord mayor in his judicial functions. In all cases where the lord mayor and the aldermen sit as judges, the recorder sums up the arguments and pronounces the decisions. He also attends the central criminal court as representative of the lord mayor, and at the close of each session of this court he makes report to the crown concerning capital sentences. He presides over the quarter sessions at the Guildhall and at South wark; and he is also the advocate of the city, charged with the defense of its interests, if necessary, before parliament. The common sergeant, elected by the common council, is the assistant of the recorder. He attends the meetings of the aldermen and common council, as well as those of the different municipal committees, to give legal advice when required. The town clerk. chosen also by the common council, has charge of the archives and is keeper of the municipal seal. The remembrancer is an officer who attends the houses of parliament in order to watch the interests of the city there, and to make a report of whatever is said or done that may affect its privileges. The chamberlain, besides filling the office of city treasurer, receives the oath from persons who have established their right to the freedom of the city, and decides disputes between masters and apprentices. After these officers come the comptroller, the auditors, the secretary of municipal works, the coroner, and the two sheriffs.

—Metropolitan District. The various departments of public service entrusted to local committees, of which mention was made above, constitute in London a special administrative department, which deals principally with public works. The metropolitan circuit, for this purpose, comprises the city of London and county of Middlesex, with certain parts of the counties of Essex, Surrey and Kent, the whole making up the enormous aggregate known to modern geography as London. This metropolitan circuit is divided into thirty-eight districts, each of which has its board of commissioners. The city by itself forms one district, and the same is the case with some of the more important metropolitan parishes. The administration of the entire metropolis is under the supreme direction of a metropolitan commission composed of forty-three members, appointed by the district commissions and by those vestries which perform the same work as the district commissions. The members hold office for three years, one-third of the number being replaced each year. The metropolitan commission elects its own president and other officers. This metropolitan commission has charge of the sewers, decides upon the opening of new streets or the widening or altering of old ones, and also controls the naming of the streets and the numbering of houses. The purification of the Thames is one of the most important works which the commission has in hand; and to defray the cost of it parliament has authorized a tax of three pence in the pound on the rental of all the real estate in the metropolis for forty years. The general expenses of the commission are met by a tax graded equitably with reference to the wealth of the various districts and the advantage which they relatively receive from a given set of improvements. The members of the district commissions are chosen in each parish from among those people who pay poor rates assessed on an annual income of not less than £40; and they are chosen by a vestry consisting of not less than 18 nor more than 120 members. Parishes containing more than 2,000 electors are divided into sections. In districts formed of a single parish the vestry itself acts as a district commission. These local commissions and vestries superintend the local lighting, sewerage, paving, and street cleaning. They also employ physicians to inspect the sanitary condition of their districts. Each vestry or district commission defrays its expenses by means of two taxes: the general rate and the sewer rate. Separate accounts are kept for each of these taxes, as well as for street lighting when that is provided for by a general tax. The vestry or district commission is authorized to abate taxes, in whole or in part, in the case of localities which derive little or no advantage from them. These taxes are collected by the inspectors of the poor rate, unless the vestries or district commissions appoint special collectors. The accounts of all these local boards are approved by auditors elected at the same time as the vestrymen. A special auditor, appointed by the government, approves the accounts of the metropolitan commission.

—The total amount annually raised by local taxation was as follows, in the three divisions of the United Kingdom, in the year ending March 31, 1874, this being the latest official return:

Edition: current; Page: [403]

—The following table exhibits the amounts of the various branches of local expenditure in the year ending March 31, 1874:

—IV. CHURCH. The established church of England is the Protestant Episcopal, the fundamental doctrines of which are regarded as embodied in the thirty-nine articles, agreed upon in convocation in 1562, and finally settled in 1571. The separation of the English church from Rome, which was declared by Henry VIII., was consummated at the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth. The crown was declared by parliament to be the supreme head of the realm in matters spiritual as well as in matters temporal. The thirty-nine articles, together with the book of common prayer, were adopted as containing an authoritative statement of the cardinal tenets of the church. The dogma of transubstantiation was rejected, and with it were rejected works of supererogation, purgatory, indulgences, the worship of images and relics, the worship of the virgin and the saints, auricular confession, and the celibacy of the clergy; and communion in both kinds was allowed to the laity as well as to the clergy. An oath was required of all the clergy, as well as of all members of parliament and all public officials, recognizing the sovereign as the head of the church. At first there was no recognition of liberty of conscience; both Catholics on the one hand, and Calvinistic Puritans on the other, were subject to persecution. But the spirit of persecution is not congenial with the spirit of civil liberty which has always been so powerful in England; and by the eighteenth century complete toleration had begun to prevail. At the present day all sects are fully tolerated in England, and civil disabilities do not attach to any class of citizens for religious reasons.

—The sovereign, as temporal head of the church, possesses the right to nominate to all vacant archbishoprics and bishoprics; but this, like most of the rights of the crown, is practically exercised by the prime minister. The premier appoints to deaneries and such prebendaries and canonries as are in the gift of the crown. There are 2 provinces and 31 dioceses in England. The provinces are those of Canterbury and York, each under its archbishop. The former contains 23 dioceses, the latter contains 8. The archbishop of Canterbury is the primate; as spiritual head of the church he presides at the coronation of the sovereign and administers the oath. The archbishops are the chiefs of the clergy in their provinces, and they confirm and consecrate all the bishops. They have also each his own diocese, wherein they exercise episcopal, as throughout their provinces they exercise archiepiscopal jurisdiction. Thus there is the diocese of Canterbury, as well as the province of Canterbury, comprising the dioceses of Canterbury, Winchester, Salisbury, Exeter, London, etc. For the management of ecclesiastical affairs, the provinces have each a council, called the convocation, consisting of the bishops, archdeacons and deans, in person, while the inferior clergy are represented by proctors. These councils are summoned by the archbishops in the queen's name. In the province of Canterbury the convocation is divided into two houses, like parliament, the archbishop and bishops sitting in the upper house, while the deans and the representatives of the inferior clergy sit in the lower house. In the province of York all sit together in one house. The archbishop of Canterbury Edition: current; Page: [404] takes precedence of all other subjects, after the members of the royal family. The archbishops and bishops sit, by virtue of their office, in the house of lords; and this circumstance in English history has, very fortunately, prevented the development of the convocation into a separate estate of the realm, co-ordinate with the peers and the commons. The houses of convocation have their sessions during the same season as the sessions of parliament, but their powers have become with time very much restricted, and at the present day none of their decrees are in any way binding on the laity unless confirmed by act of parliament. It has become one of those happy devices, of which English history is so full, of allowing certain classes of people to play at sovereignty, and even to exercise here and there a little harmless jurisdiction, while the real sovereignty remains all the time with the chosen representatives of the people in the house of commons. The ecclesiastical courts take cognizance of questions of heresy and schism, of public worship, and of the revenues of the clergy. In each diocese the archdeacon's court is the court of primary jurisdiction. Above this comes the consistorial court of the bishop. Appeals lie from this to the provincial court of Canterbury, known as the court of arches, and from this there is a final appeal to the judicial committee of the privy council.

—There are about 12,000 parishes in England, besides something like 200 places ranked as extra-parochial. Every parish has a parish church, presided over by the rector, who is called the "parson." He holds during life the freehold of the parsonage, with its manse and glebe-lands, and receives the tithes and other dues. But in some cases the benefice is annexed in perpetuity to some spiritual corporation, which thus appropriates the dues and becomes the patron of the living. A vicar is a person appointed by such a corporation, to hold the living as its lieutenant; in other respects the vicar does not differ from a rector. The patronage, or right of nomination to a benefice, is called the advowson, and is legally classified under the head of real property. Of the 11,728 benefices now existing in England and Wales, 1,144 are in the gift of the crown, 1,853 are presented by bishops, 938 by chapters, 931 by officers of metropolitan churches, 770 by the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the colleges of Eton, Winchester and others, and 6,092 by lords, gentlemen and ladies in the enjoyment of private patronage. Rectors receive the whole revenue of their benefices; but vicars, as simple agents or delegates of the holders of the benefices, receive only a portion. By an act of 1871, when a parson who has held a living for seven years or more is incapacitated by physical infirmity from discharging his duties, he may be retired on a pension not exceeding one-third the revenue of the living.

—The church revenues are derived very largely from real estate, and also from tithes (which in 1836 were commuted for a fixed charge in money), as well as from surplice fees for baptisms, marriages and burials. The sum total has been estimated at £4,480,000. The archbishop of Canterbury receives about £15,000; the archbishop of York, £10,000; the bishop of London, £10,000; the bishop of Durham, £8,000; the bishop of Winchester, £7,000; and the other bishops from £3,000 to £5,000. The deans receive £1,000 and upward.

—Of the entire population of England and Wales, about 14,000,000 belong to the established church, leaving about 11,500,000 to all other sects. Among the Protestant dissenters, the most numerous and influential are the Independents or Congregationists, the Wesleyans, and the Baptists. The Wesleyans have more than 9,000 places of worship, the Congregationalists about 3,500, and the Baptists about 2,000. Other dissenting sects of more or less social importance, are the Unitarians, Quakers and Moravians. There are about 1,000,000 Roman Catholics in England; and the Roman church has 14 dioceses there, all united in the socalled "province of Westminster," and presided over by one archbishop and thirteen bishops. In Scotland the Roman church has three vicars. In 1877 there were 1,039 Catholic chapels in England, and 233 in Scotland.

—The established church in Scotland is Presbyterian in government and Calvinistic in doctrine. There is in each parish a parochial tribunal, called a "kirk session," consisting of the minister as president, together with several other persons prominent in the neighborhood, of whom two are selected as "elders." A certain number of parishes constituting a district send each its minister and one of its elders to an assembly called a "presbytery," which has the power of ordaining ministers, of authorizing candidates to preach before ordination of investigating complaints against members of the church, of admitting new members, and of pronouncing sentences of excommunication. Minor matters of church discipline are dealt with in the kirk session, from which, however, an appeal always lies to the presbytery, and ultimately to the general assembly, the highest body in the Scotch church. The general assembly is composed partly of ministers and partly of lay members, elected annually by the different presbyteries, boroughs and universities. It consists of 386 members, and meets in May every year. The nomination of ministers belongs either to the crown or to private individuals. In 1830 some of the Scotch people protested against this use of patronage, and in 1843 the result was the division of the church. Alongside of the national church of Scotland there grew up the free church of Scotland. The latter church, supported entirely by voluntary contributions, has built 900 churches and 600 school houses, besides establishing several foreign missions. Including the free church, considerably more than half the population of Scotland may be ranked as dissenters from the established church of Scotland. There are numerous bodies of Congregationalists, Edition: current; Page: [405] Wesleyans, Baptists and Unitarians. The national church of Scotland has three presbyteries in England.

—In 1876 it was estimated that there were 51,250 Jews in Great Britain, of whom 39,883 resided in London.

—In 1871 the census of Ireland showed the following distribution of sects: Roman Catholics, 4,141,933; Episcopalians, 683,293; Presbyterians, 558,238; Wesleyans, 41,815; Baptists, 4,643; Congregationalists, 4,485; Quakers; 3,834; Jews, 258; Miscellaneous, 19,035.

—The Roman Catholic church in Ireland has 4 archbishoprics (Armagh, Cashel, Dublin and Tuam) and 23 bishoprics. The church is supported by fees on the celebration of births, marriages and masses; by Christmas and Easter dues; and by voluntary subscriptions and free-will offerings. The Catholic college of Maynooth was disendowed Jan. 1, 1871. The Protestant Episcopal church was established by law in Ireland, from the time of Elizabeth until 1869, when Mr Gladstone's government disestablished it. It is henceforth on the same footing practically as any other free or dissenting sect.

—V. POOR LAW. Down to the time of Henry VIII. the only institutions for public charity were the monasteries, which by distributing alms alleviated distress in a fitful and irregular manner. Upon the dissolution of the monasteries it was soon found desirable to establish some civil machinery for the relief of the poor, and various more or less ineffectual measures were passed during the sixteenth century, with this object in view, until at last in 1601 the famous statute 43 Eliz., c. 2, became the foundation of the modern English poor law. This statute provided that every parish should have a board of overseers of the poor, consisting of the churchwardens, together with from two to four householders to be appointed annually by the justices of the peace nearest at hand. It was the duty of these overseers to levy a "poor rate" upon the landed property in the parish, and to apply the proceeds of this tax, first, in setting to work indigent children and able-bodied persons without means of subsistence; and secondly, in relieving the aged or infirm or other poor people who were unable to work, and who had no parents, grandparents or children able to support them. Should any parish prove unable to furnish sufficient money for these purposes, the justices might make good the deficiency out of any other parish within the hundred; and if the resources of the hundred also were found inadequate to bear the burden, the deficiency might be made good out of some other part of the county. An appeal against the rates might be carried to the justices in quarter sessions. The overseers were further authorized to apprentice pauper children, and, with the consent of the lord of the manor, to build poor houses on the waste land of the parish. In cities and boroughs the mayor might exercise the powers herein granted to the justices of the peace. One evil result of this arrangement was that the well-regulated parishes had to carry a heavier burden than the poor and ill-managed parishes, as paupers were inclined to migrate from the latter to the former. This evil gave rise to what was known as the doctrine of settlement, in accordance with which it was provided in 1662 that, on complaint of the churchwardens or overseers, an indigent person coming into a parish might be compelled to return to the parish where he was born, or at least where he was last settled. Such abuses prevailed in the administration of this system of poor relief that in 1834 a new act was passed, placing the administration of the poor law under the control of a board of commissioners to be appointed by the crown. The powers lodged in this board passed through various vicissitudes into the hands of the local government board in 1871. By the act of 1834, and later acts, the board was authorized to insist upon the erection of workhouses in which able-bodied paupers should be compelled to reside; and, wherever necessary, to consolidate several adjacent parishes into a union, with a workhouse in common. Masters of workhouses and other wage-receiving officers of unions or parishes were made removable by the board, which was also empowered to provide for a thorough inspection of workhouses, and for a proper audit of the accounts of overseers. Each parish was to remain separately chargeable for the maintenance of its own poor. The effects of this act of 1834 were such that within three years from its passage the total annual expenditure for the relief of the poor was reduced from £6,317,253 to £4,044,741. The expenditure at the present time is over £8,000,000 annually for England and Wales; but in view of the enormous increase in wealth and population, this burden is much lighter than in 1834.

—VI. PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. Public education has made great progress in Great Britain during the past half century, but has nowhere attained so high a level as has been reached in the northern United States. The difference in respect of illiteracy, moreover, between different counties of Great Britain is quite as marked as the difference between Massachusetts and Mississippi. The test usually applied is only an approximate one, consisting in ascertaining the proportion of men or women who are able to sign the marriage register. Judged by this test, the percentage of illiterate men in England in 1841 was 33, and the percentage of illiterate women was 49; but in 1876 the percentage of men was reduced to 16 and that of women to 22; and in 1877 the percentage of men was 15 and of women 20. In Scotland the percentage of illiteracy is much smaller, being 9 in the case of men and 18 in the case of women. In Ireland it is much greater, being 31 in the case of men and 37 in the case of women. Among the different parts of England the smallest percentage of illiteracy is found in Westmoreland, and next in Middlesex, while next in honorable mention come Surrey and Rutland. The highest percentage of illiteracy is found in Wales. As compared with the rest of Great Britain in respect to Edition: current; Page: [406] public education, Scotland has ever since the reformation been far in advance. The Presbyterian reformers ordered every parish to establish a primary school under the supervision of the minister, and these schools have been of immense benefit to the country. In 1871, out of 629,235 children in Scotland between the ages of five and thirteen years, 494,860 were enrolled as attending the public schools. An important measure toward the advancement of primary education in England was carried through parliament by Mr. Gladstone's government in 1870. In this act it is ordered that "there shall be provided for every school district a sufficient amount of accommodation in public elementary schools available for all the children resident in such district, for whose elementary education efficient and suitable provision is not otherwise made." These schools are in each district placed under school boards invested with great powers, among others that of enforcing attendance at school upon all children between the ages of five and thirteen. The expenses of these schools are charged upon the local rates. Under the operation of this act we find that whereas in 1871 there were 9,521 schools, attended by 1,345,802 children, in 1879 there were 17,166 schools, attended by 2,594,995 children. The members of the school boards are elected for three years by the burgesses in boroughs or by the rate payers in parishes. The number of members varies from five to fifteen. They serve gratuitously, but are allowed indemnity for expenses or damages resulting from their service on the board. The board àppoints the instructors and any other necessary officials, it fixes their salaries, and can dismiss them when requisite. Instruction is not absolutely gratuitous, as in the United States, but there is a small charge for tuition, the rate being fixed by the board. If the parents of a child are too poor to pay the tuition fee, the board pays it for them; if it appears, on due inspection, that a district is too poor to bear the expense of tuition fees, the department of education authorizes the board to establish a school there which shall be entirely gratuitous. In 1879 the average amount of school fees paid by each scholar was 10s. 5¼d., equivalent to $2.50½. Scholars who distinguish themselves may continue their education in normal schools, where £23 are allowed for expenses in the case of a boy and £17 in the case of a girl.

—In secondary as well as primary education Scotland takes the lead. Instruction is given in the "borough schools," and in special industrial schools or mercantile colleges. The Andersonian university, founded in 1708 at Glasgow for scientific studies, is now an evening school where some 800 pupils receive instruction in penmanship, modern languages, book keeping, and elementary mathematics and physics. At Edinburgh the Watt institution, founded in 1821, teaches chemistry, physics, mathematics, modern languages, drawing and modeling; more than half the pupils are laboring men. There are something like twenty mechanics' institutes in Scotland; and schools of design have been established in many cities, of which that in Edinburgh is attended by 1,800 pupils. In England there are a great many higher schools established by private liberality and more or less richly endowed. In the first rank come the great schools of Eton with 800 pupils. Harrow with 520, and Rugby with 500, which were founded in the sixteenth century and are situated in the country; others, somewhat less celebrated, are situated at Winchester, London and Shrewsbury. The expense of living at these schools often reaches £200 per year, but there are systems of pecuniary aid analogous to those adopted in American colleges. More modern in character are the college of the city of London, founded in 1841, giving instruction in ancient and modern languages, mathematics and vocal music; the Owens college at Manchester, giving scientific and literary instruction; and the collegiate institution at Liverpool, which is at once a scientific school and a preparatory school for the universities. Among the institutions especially devoted to industrial training, a most conspicuous place is held by the public institution established in 1859 at South Kensington under the name of the "Science and Art Department." This establishment comprises a normal school of design, a central school of design, and an industrial museum. Pupils in the normal school of design, after having passed six semi-annual examinations, are placed in charge of art schools established in different towns and cities of the United Kingdom. In 1871 there were 212,500 pupils studying in these art schools. In scientific instruction the department has made use of various "mechanics' institutes" and other popular courses of instruction which were already in existence. Deserving pupils obtain prizes and endowments for the purpose of pursuing their studies in the royal school of mines, the royal college of chemistry, the London laboratory of metallurgy, or the royal scientific college at Dublin. The courses of study comprise all the sciences, as well as architecture and the designing of machinery.

—As regards the higher instruction, the two great universities at Oxford and Cambridge are subjects far too extensive and complicated to be treated, even in a cursory way, in a brief, sketchy article like the present. The university of London, founded in 1837, differs from these in giving no direct instruction; it simply examines candidates for a degree, and its examinations are very severe. Women are admitted as candidates. To this university, however, are attached two colleges, both situated in London. The one, known as University college, prepares pupils for the examinations, and is entirely unsectarian in its management; the other, called King's college, is Episcopalian in complexion. In Scotland there are four excellent universities, at Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and St. Andrews.

—VII. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. The simplest form of the administration of justice in England has already been described under the Edition: current; Page: [407] head of "Local Administration." In every county there are magistrates called justices of the peace, selected from among the most respected landholders of the county. They serve without pay, and when once appointed usually hold their offices for life. Their general administrative duties have already been described. At assizes the justices usually sit as a grand jury, though the members of a grand jury do not need to be justices. As judges in quarter sessions, or even sitting singly, the justices of the peace may try petty cases, either civil or criminal; but an appeal always lies from the decision of a single justice to the quarter sessions. There are about 18,300 justices of the peace in England, but in some cases the title does not necessarily imply an active discharge of the duties of the office. There are sinecures in this, as in all other institutions.

—Besides the justices of the peace, there are the sixty county courts in England and Wales, which deal with petty matters. These courts are held by a single salaried judge, appointed for life, and they can try cases involving not more than £50. They have also the powers of a court of chancery in cases involving not more than £500. By an act of 1863, in towns with a population of 25,000 or more, there may be appointed, at the request of the local authorities, a salaried magistrate who, either by himself or with the aid of the justices of the peace, may do the work of these county courts. In London and some other cities there are special police courts, held also by a single salaried judge, which take cognizance of petty crimes and misdemeanors. In the city of London the lord mayor also holds a police court at the Mansion House, and one is held by an alderman at the Guildhall.

—The higher courts of common law (modified by acts of 1873 and 1875) are: the court of king's bench, the court of exchequer, and the court of common pleas. They are held at Westminster, where the court of chancery also sits. Each of these common law courts is held by a president and four assistants. The presiding judge, in the queen's bench and in the common pleas, is called lord chief justice; in the exchequer he is called lord chief baron. Formerly the provinces of these three courts differed considerably, but with the progress of business they have come to overlap each other in many directions; but the court of exchequer, as its name implies, is purely a fiscal court; the common pleas is simply a civil court; while the queen's bench has cognizance of both civil and criminal cases, and appeals lie to it from all the inferior courts.

—For judiciary purposes, England is divided into eight circuits, and the judges of these three supreme courts are obliged twice a year to hold assizes in these circuits. The judges allot these circuits among themselves, and go about, holding their assizes in person. Each individual judge, in holding a court on his circuit, sits as a delegate of the supreme court to which he belongs. By means of these circuits, the jurisdiction of the common law courts at Westminster is extended all over England, taking direct cognizance of all cases, whether civil or criminal, which lie beyond the jurisdiction of the county courts or of the justices of the peace.

—The supreme court of chancery at Westminster is held by the lord chancellor, but as the relations of equity to common law are very much the same in England as in the United States, the peculiar functions of this court require no special explanation here. A final appeal, in many cases, lies to the house of lords; but there is nothing in England which answers to the supreme court of the United States, as the circumstances pertaining to a federal government are non-existent in Great Britain. Within the limits of the crude outline sketch here given, however, the administration of justice in England does not materially differ from the administration of justice in the United States. But the English understand the value of a good judge better than the Americans; for the inferior judges receive salaries equivalent to $6,000, while the judges of the highest courts are paid at the rate of from $30,000 to $40,000 per year.

—VIII. ARMY. The maintenance of a standing army in time of peace, without the consent of parliament, was prohibited in 1690 by the bill of rights. It requires an annual vote of the house of commons to keep the army in existence from year to year. A cabinet meeting is held shortly before the sitting of parliament, which receives communications from the commander-in-chief respecting the number of officers and men, in each branch of the service, which are needed for the ensuing year. On the basis thus furnished, the cabinet authorizes the secretary of state for war to draw up his "army estimates" to be submitted to the approval of the house of commons. A further efficient means of controlling the army is furnished by the mutiny act. In the absence of the mutiny act, the soldier on English soil is subject only to the common law, and could be punished, even for desertion, only by a civil action of contract. That martial law, without which an army can not maintain its orderly existence, exists itself only through the mutiny act which is limited in duration to a single year, and consequently has to be renewed at the beginning of every session of parliament. To such precautions were the English people led by the attempts of the Stuarts to set up a tyranny; and they were obviously so thorough as to make henceforth the merest beginning of a military despotism well nigh impossible.

—The force of the regular army at decennial periods since the beginning of the present century, and cost of maintaining it, have been as follows:

The regular army of the United Kingdom in 1882, exclusive of India, consisted of 7,222 commissioned Edition: current; Page: [408] officers, 17,555 non-commissioned officers, trumpeters and drummers, and 108,217 rank and file; a total of 132,994 men of all ranks. The following table shows the composition of this force:

—The following table shows the cost of maintaining the army for the year ending March 31, 1882:

One or two items of the foregoing table require a word of explanation. Beside the regular forces, the army estimates include appropriations for four classes of auxiliary and reserve forces, the titles of which appear in the table under that heading. In the year 1880-81 the total number of militia was 139,111; that of yeomanry, 14,511; that of volunteers, 245,648; and that of enrolled pensioners, etc., 47,000; making the total auxiliary force, 446,270. This, added to the regular army, 1880-81, makes a total of 553,370 men available for the military defense of Great Britain.

—The total force of the British army in India usually stands at about 60,000; since 1877 it has been kept at the figure of 62,653.

—About 40 per cent. of the British regular army is stationed in England and Wales, 2 per cent. in Scotland, 12 per cent in Ireland, and 46 per cent. abroad.

—There is no conscription, or enforced military service, in Great Britain; the force of the army is maintained entirely by voluntary recruiting. The greatest abuse which had characterized the army administration, namely, the purchase of commissions, was abolished by Mr. Gladstone in 1871.

—IX. NAVY Down to the time of Henry VII., whenever it was necessary to have an armed fleet for the defense of the British or the assault of the French coasts, it was customary to press merchant vessels into the service, very much as the United States government in 1861 appropriated New York ferry-boats to be used as gunboats. It was under Henry VIII. that the English navy first assumed a distinct existence, although nearly two centuries before, under Edward III., the English had won at Sluys a naval victory of the first magnitude, destroying the antagonist French fleet almost as thoroughly as at the Nile or at Trafalgar. The superiority of the English navy became pronounced in the reign of Elizabeth, and by the end of the seventeenth century was generally acknowledged, though the French and Dutch still held their position as formidable rivals. Since the middle of the eighteenth century the supremacy of the English navy over the waters of the earth has been undisputed. Until the reign of Anne the government of the navy was Edition: current; Page: [409] vested in the lord high admiral; but since then it has been administered by the board of admiralty, or "Lords Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral." The board consists of five members who are always changed with every change of the government. The financial secretary of the board is also changed. The fixed administration, independent of the state of political parties, consists of two permanent secretaries, the controller of the navy, the accountant general, the directors of engineering and architectural works, of transports, of contracts, of naval construction, of naval ordnance, and of the medical department, and the superintendents of victualing and stores. The first lord of the admiralty, corresponding to our secretary of the navy, is always a member of the cabinet; he has supreme authority over the navy, and all questions of importance are left to his decision. The other members of the board are the senior naval lord, who is responsible for the discipline of the fleet, and directs its general movements; the third lord, who superintends the management of the dock yards and the building of ships; the junior naval lord, who superintends the transport and commissariat; and the civil lord, who is responsible for the accounts. Unlike the army, the existence of which has to be renewed every year by act of parliament, the British navy is a permanent establishment, and the statutes in accordance with which its discipline is maintained run in perpetuity, or until revoked or amended by the house of commons.

—The following table gives the navy estimates for the year ending March 31, 1882:

These estimates not being found quite sufficient, a supplementary grant for the navy, of £83,000, was made toward the close of the session of 1880.

—The number of seamen and marines at present serving in the navy is as follows:

—The number of ships in the British navy has undergone great variations, not simply with the growth of the navy in actual strength, but also with the progress of the art of naval warfare. In 1588 the fleet which defeated the Spanish Armada consisted of 176 ships and 14,992 men; but of this great force only 34 ships and 6,225 men belonged to the royal navy; the rest were volunteers serving in merchantmen pressed into the service. In 1679 there were 76 ships-of-the-line in commission. In 1750, shortly before the beginning of the war which made England the mistress of the seas, the navy consisted of 135 ships-of-the-line, 112 frigates, and 130 sloops and smaller vessels. During the great war between England and France at the beginning of this century, the British navy was increased to enormous dimensions. In 1800 it comprised 850 ships of all classes. In 1810 it comprised 1,239 vessels actually ready for service, of which nearly 300 were ships-of the-line, about 600 were frigates, and the remainder were sloops and corvettes. In 1820 the navy comprised 745 vessels, of which 140 were ships-of-the-line. In 1822 the introduction of steam brought about an entire revolution in naval warfare. The grand old line-of-battle ships soon began to become obsolete. Down to 1835, however, the 625 vessels of which the British navy consisted comprised 110 ships-of-the-line, 150 frigates, and 350 smaller craft, with only 15 steam ships. In 1842 the invention of the screw propeller by Ericsson, and its substitution for the paddle wheel, introduced fresh changes of great importance into the art of naval construction; six years after, the British navy contained 49 screw steamers, of which 1 was classed as a ship-of-the line and 10 as frigates. At the close of the Crimean war in 1856, the navy comprised 964 vessels, among which were 45 screw steamers classed as ships-of-the-line, 30 classed as frigates, and 300 of inferior power; besides all this, there were 14 paddle wheel frigates, and 100 paddle wheel corvettes; of sailing vessels, there were 50 ships-of-the-line, 125 frigates, and 300 sloops and brigs. In 1860 the introduction of plated armor, followed in 1862 by Ericsson's invention of the turret ship, taken in connection with the simultaneous progress in the art of gunnery, entirely revolutionized the art of naval construction. The appearance of the "Monitor" in Hampton Roads, March 9, 1862, marks perhaps the greatest single step that has ever been taken in the history of naval warfare. Its immediate effect was to render antiquated all the most recently built ships then existing in all the navies of the world. Important innovations have been made since the invention of the "Monitor"; but Edition: current; Page: [410] the present British navy dates from the year 1862; and for the purposes of naval warfare at the present day the great navy of the Crimean war would be of no more use than a squadron of 964 pleasure boats.

—The most important portion of the present British navy at the beginning of 1881, consisted of 68 ironclad ships, afloat and building, of which number 48 were described as efficient, while 17 had become antiquated or otherwise inefficient, and 3 had been built solely for colonial use and were not reckoned as strictly British. The following table gives a general idea of the character of the 48 effective ironclads:

In this table the ships marked with an asterisk were not yet launched at the beginning of 1881, but were expected to be finished in the course of the year. The Inflexible, built at Portsmouth and launched in 1878, is the most formidable war vessel that has ever existed. She is 320 feet in length and 75 feet in extreme breadth. In her central part a citadel 12 feet high, one-half above and one-half below the water, contains the engines and boilers, the hydraulic loading gear, the magazines, and the base of the rotating turrets. The walls of this citadel, 41 inches thick, consist of armor plates varying from 16 to 24 inches in thickness, with a strong teak backing. Within this armored citadel are the two turrets, 12 feet high and 28 feet in diameter. The turrets do not stand in line fore-and-aft, but are placed en échelon, so as to command a fore-and-aft fire from all the guns. Each turret holds two 81-ton guns, capable of firing a ball weighing 1,650 lbs., with a charge of 300 lbs. of powder. The vessels of the second class are designed for ocean warfare, but are inferior in power to those of the first class. The Polyphemus, now building at Chatham, deserves especial mention as representing an entirely new style of war ship. She may be described as simply a steel tube, deeply immersed, her convex deck rising but 4½ feet above the water line. She carries no heavy guns, her whole power being concentrated in a tremendous ram 12 feet in length. Besides the ram, the Polyphemus has three torpedo ports. The third class comprises a group of very swift and powerful cruisers. The ships of the fourth class are at present regarded as fit only for coast defense. Those of the fifth class were built for the most part between 1861 and 1863, and are now antiquated, except for the protection or destruction of mercantile fleets. Not a single vessel built prior to 1861 now remains in use in the British navy.

—X. RESOURCES: AGRICULTURAL, INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL Agriculture. According to the official reports, of the 77,000,000 acres constituting the superficial area of the United Kingdom, about 47,000,000 are devoted to agriculture, including both grazing and the growth of cereals, etc. Of this, 11,833,000 acres are devoted to cereals; 5,271,000 to kitchen vegetables; 565,000 are left fallow; 6,236,000 are laid out in gardens, orchards, etc.; and 22,525,000 are utilized as pasture lands. The area devoted to cereals is subdivided as follows, wheat, 3,831,000 acres; barley, 2,617,000 acres; oats, 4,362,000 acres; rye, 81,222 acres; beans, 550,613 acres; and pease, 391,250 acres. The average yield of wheat in the United Kingdom is estimated at 27 bushels per acre, of barley from 35 to 40 bushels, and of oats about 45 bushels; thus giving a total average yield of wheat, 103,437,000 bushels; of barley, 98,137,500 bushels; and of oats, 196,290,000 bushels. The principal fruit raised in Great Britain is the apple, the yield of which is estimated at four tons to the acre.

—The average number of domestic animals in the annual census taken on the 25th of June Edition: current; Page: [411] is about three million horses, ten million oxen and cows, thirty-three million sheep, and five million hogs.

—The census of 1871 showed in Great Britain 549,784 farms of all sizes. Of this number 51.3 per cent. were farms of 20 acres and less, and 48.7 per cent. were larger farms. It is difficult to make a very precise estimate of the wages paid for agricultural labor, since the usages, the rates and the mode of payment differ considerably in different parts of the country. In some districts wages are paid in kind; in some places a certain amount of labor is given in exchange for rent. Wages paid in money range ordinarily from 12 to 15 shillings (i.e., from $2.88 to $3.60) per week.

—Mineral Products. British agriculture, though conducted with great care and skill, is too limited in extent either to obtain a controlling position in the markets of the world, or to furnish a sphere for the activity and satisfaction for the material wants of the dense and rapidly increasing population of the United Kingdom. The industrial and commercial development of Great Britain has been primarily due (next to the free constitution of the government) to the immense mineral resources of the country. The most important mineral and metal products are coal and pig iron, the annual yield of which, in the years 1868-79, is shown in the following table:

The total amount of iron ore produced in 1879 was 16,692,802 tons, valued at £6,746,668. As to other mineral products, the yield for 1879 is shown in the following table:

—The production of coal in 1879 was distributed as follows.

The production of pig iron in 1879 was distributed as follows:

The exports of coal to foreign countries have increased more than fivefold since 1850. In 1879 the quantity of coal exported was 15,740,082 tons, valued at £6,793,932, of which 3,317,370 tons went to France, 2,055,080 tons to Germany, and the remainder, distributed in quantities not exceeding 100,000 tons, to some forty different countries.

—Textile Industries. Important as are the working of metals, and the mining of coal, as elements in the national wealth of Great Britain, these industries still derive their chief importance from the facilities which they have afforded for the development of the enormous textile industries for which Great Britain is so famous. The various inventions designed to replace by machinery the slow processes of manual labor have been promptly put into operation in England, thanks to the abundance of all the raw materials needed for the construction of machinery, as well as of cheap coal, placing at the disposition of manufacturers all the mechanical power required for their various purposes. The introduction of machines for spinning and weaving has had such an influence upon manual labor as to reduce very considerably the number of hands requisite for producing a given quantity of thread or of cloth. But, far from lessening the general demand for labor in textile industries, it has enlarged the field of labor to such an extent that the population for which these branches of production now furnish the means of subsistence, in the United Kingdom alone, may be counted by millions. It is to the work of Arkwright, Watt, and their fellows, more than to all other causes combined, that the enormous increase of Great Britain in wealth and population during the present century is due.

—The recent condition of the textile industries of Great Britain may best be represented in a series of tables. In 1815 the total imports of cotton were 99,000,000 lbs.; in 1820, 152,000,000 lbs.; in 1830, 264,000,000 lbs., in 1840, 592,000,000 lbs.; in 1850, 663,576,861 lbs.; in 1860, 1,390,938,752 lbs.; and in 1863, 669,583,264 lbs. The falling off between 1860 and 1863, due to the blockade of the southern states in the rebellion, is very noticeable; and it is worthy of remark that a supply of cotton more than adequate for the industries of England in 1850, had become, through the mere expansion of industry, so inadequate, only thirteen years later, as to produce a period of distress almost comparable Edition: current; Page: [412] to a famine. Subsequent fluctuations are exhibited in the following table:

The first shipment of cotton from the United States to Great Britain was in 1791, and consisted of 182,000 lbs. During the past fifty years other countries have begun to rival the United States as cotton growers. The imports of raw cotton, from various parts of the world, in 1837 and in 1879, have been as follows:

—Until the nineteenth century the manufacture of woolen cloths was the principal industry of Great Britain. In 1801 the total manufactures of the country were valued at £60,000,000, of which woolens represented more than one-fourth. Since then the production has quadrupled. England and Scotland now consume in their mills one-fourth of the total wool clip of the world; the mills count more than 5,000,000 spindles and 279,000 operatives. The fluctuations in the wool trade from 1867 to 1880, inclusive, were as follows:

—The following table shows the number of textile factories, and of operatives employed in them, in the three divisions of the United Kingdom, on Oct. 31, 1874:

Edition: current; Page: [413]

Of this total number of persons employed (1,005,685) there were 61,209 boys and 64,677 girls under thirteen years of age. The average wages of the cotton operatives in Lancashire were estimated in 1860 at 18s. 6d. per week for men, 10s. 2d. for women, 7s. for boys, 5s. for girls. In the linen factories at Belfast wages vary from 5s. 6d. to £2 per week, according to the skill of the workman. The average wages paid in England and Scotland for work in the woolen factories were at the same time from 6s. to 7s. per week for spinning, and 9s. for weaving; these operations being mainly carried on with the assistance of women and young girls; the wages of men in the same factories averaged from 16s. to 26s. per week.

—Hardware. The manufacture of hardware, cutlery and machinery employs 530,000 workmen. The raw material is valued at £20,000,000, and the manufactured goods amount in value to over £100,000,000 annually, of which about two-thirds are used in Great Britain and one-third exported. Until quite recently the hardware industry of Great Britain surpassed in magnitude that of all the rest of the world put together; and, though no longer without competitors, it is still advancing as rapidly as ever. Through the increase of the manufacture of cutlery, pins, and other hardware, such towns as Sheffield and Birmingham have quadrupled their population within seventy years.

The annual product of the total manufactures of the kingdom is about £665,000,000, and the number of workmen employed is 2,930,000.

—Commerce. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, when the grandfathers of the present generation of Englishmen were spending £624,000,000 to overthrow Bonaparte, the commerce of the British empire did not exceed £60,000,000. At the present day it reaches about £931,000,000, of which about £320,000,000 represents the trade of the colonies. This is about one-third of the entire trade of the world. The following table gives the declared value of the imports and exports during the eighth decade of the century:

—The following table exhibits the dealings of the United Kingdom with the remainder of the world during the year 1879:

And the following shows the dealings of the United Kingdom with the different countries in 1880. (This table, like the former, is taken from the "Statesman's Manual," by Frederick Martin.)

Edition: current; Page: [414]

These tables show that while the commerce of the United Kingdom extends all over the world, its principal dealings are with few countries. More than one-half of all its commercial dealings are with six countries: the United States, France, India, Germany, Australasia, and the Netherlands. Our own country ranks first in the list; and the trade between Great Britain and the United States is more than twice as great as that between Great Britain and France, the second country on the list in the table of 1879. In other words, the commercial ties between Great Britain and the United States are more than twice as strong as the ties between any other two countries in the world; and their strength is rapidly growing year by year.

—The six chief articles of import into Great Britain for the year 1880 are as follows:

The six chief articles of export for 1880 are exhibited in the following table:

—Shipping. The number of vessels carrying the British flag was at the beginning of the present century greater than that of any other nation of ancient or modern times, and during the present century it has quadrupled. The following table exhibits the total shipping of the United Kingdom, both sailing and steam, and for both home and foreign trade, for years 1867-80:

Edition: current; Page: [415]

—The following table shows the distribution of the total amount of shipping into sail and steam, and also into home and foreign trade, for the years 1866 and 1879, omitting the intervening years:

It will be seen from this that the proportion of steamers is growing so rapidly that before very long the sailing vessels will be in the minority. The tendency of the merchant vessels is to increase in size and tonnage. The average tonnage has more than doubled since 1840, and in this way the nation has effected a saving of 123,000 seamen, as compared with the former number of hands to tonnage, as we may see from the following table:

According to the scale of 1849 it is obvious that 320,000 seamen, instead of 197,000, would be required to man the British merchant fleet at the present day. The saving thus effected in gross amounts to 38 per cent., thus allowing a great reduction of freight charges, and enabling food and raw materials to be imported, and manufactures to be exported, with less expense and greater profit.

—The proportion of trade done all over the world in British vessels is as follows: United Kingdom, 55,120,000 tons, or 88 per cent.; United States, 7,434,000 tons, or 59 per cent.; Canada, 5,673,000 tons, or 80 per cent.; France, 5,254,000 tons, or 36 per cent.; Australasia, 4,492,000 tons, or 93 per cent.; Netherlands, 3,790,000 tons, or 51 per cent.; Germany, 2,298,000 tons, or 36 per cent.; Italy, 1,887,000 tons, or 23 per cent.; South America, 1,200,000 tons, or 50 per cent.; West Indies, 1,180,000 tons, or 60 per cent.; Russia, 1,006,000 tons, or 34 per cent.; South Africa, 1,004,000 tons, or 86 per cent. The total carrying trade of Great Britain is therefore about 90,000,000 tons, which, at an average of 10s. ($2.40) per ton, yields an income of £45,000,000 per annum. The sum paid by British underwriters averages £1,500,000 yearly, being about £6 per ton on vessels and £8 per ton on cargoes. The total amount of marine insurance usually exceeds £450,000—Railways. From the opening of the first railway, in 1825, down to the end of 1850, the number of miles of railway constructed in the United Kingdom was 6,621; this was at the rate of 265 miles annually. In 1860 the length of lines was 10,433, the average rate of construction being 381 miles annually. At the end of 1879 the length of lines was 17,696, the annual average on the total length having increased to 402 miles. The principal recent railway statistics of Great Britain are comprised in the following table:

Edition: current; Page: [416]

At the end of 1878 the total length in miles of railways in the British empire was as follows:

At the end of 1879 between 5,000 and 6,000 miles of new lines were in process of construction in the different parts of the empire. The railways in the United Kingdom employ a force of 276,000 men. No less than 176 members of parliament are railway directors. From 1847 to 1873 the number of passengers killed per million steadily decreased; since 1873 it has risen, as is shown in the following table:

—BIBLIOGRAPHY. Beda, Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, published by Thorpe, 2 vols., London, 1861; Malmesbury, Historia novella and De gestis pontificum; Savile, Rerum Anglicarum scriptores post Bedam prœcipui, London, 1596; Camden, Supplementa, Frankfort, 1603; Gale, Historiœ Briticœ, Saxonicœ, Anglodanicæ scriptores XV., Oxford, 1691; Dugdale and Dodsworth, Monasticum Anglicarum, 3 vols., London, 1655-73; Stevens, History of Ancient Abbeys, 3 vols., London, 1722-3; Wilkins, Concilia Magnœ Britanniœ et Hiberniœ, 5 vols., London, 1737; Thorpe, Ancient Laws and Institutes of the Anglo-Saxon Kings, London, 1840, and Diplomatarium Anglicanum œvi Saxonici, London, 1865; De Thoyras, Histoire d'Angleterre, 9 vols, Hague, 1733; Hume, History of England, 6 vols., London, 1754-61; Jones, History of England during the Reign of George III., 3 vols., London, 1825; Henry, History of Great Britain, 6 vols., Edinburgh, 1771-93; Heinrich, Geschichte von England, 4 vols., Leipzig, 1806-10; De Molleville, Histoire d'Angleterre, 6 vols., Paris, 1815; Lingard, History of England, 13 vols., London, 1854; Lappenburg, Geschichte von England, 2 vols., Hamburg, 1834-7; Macgregor, History of the British Empire, 2 vols., London, 1852; Keightley, History of England, 3 vols., London, 1839, 2 vols., 1859; Hallam, Constitutional History of England, London, 1827, 3 vols., London. 1871; May, Constitutional History of England since the Accession of George III., 3d ed., 3 vols., London, 1871, and Constitutional History of England from 1760 to 1860, 3d ed., 2 vols., London, 1871; Stubbs, The Constitutional History of England in its Origin and Development, 2 vols., London, 1874-5; Creasy, Rise and Progress of the English Constitution, 9th ed., London, 1866; Agnes Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England, 12 vols., London, 1840-48, 6 vols., London, 1864-5; Ranke, Englische Geschichte vornehmlich im 16 und 17 Jahrh., 9 vols., Berlin and Leipzig, 1862-72; Buckle, History of Civilization in England, 2 vols., London, 1874; Green, A Short History of the English People, London, 1874, and History of the English People, 4 vols., London; Kemble, Codex diplomaticus œvi Saxonici, 6 vols., London, 1845-8, and The Saxons in England, 2 vols., London, 1849; Palgrave, Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth, Anglo-Saxon Period, 2 vols., London, 1832; James, History of England in the Time of the Romans, Saxons, Danes and Normans, London, 1851; Haigh, Conquest of Britain by the Saxons, London. 1861; Pauli, König Aelfred und seine Stelle in der Geschichte Englands, Berlin, 1857, and Bilder von Altengland, 2d ed., Gotha, 1876; Vaughan, Revolutions in English History, 3d ed., 3 vols., London, 1867; Thiérry, Histoire de la conquête d'Angleterre par les Normands, Paris, 1825, new ed., 1867; Turner, History of England from the Norman Conquest to 1500, 6th ed., 3 vols., London, 1852, Modern History of England, part I., Reign of Henry VIII., London, 1826, new ed., 2 vols., London, 1835, and Modern History of England, part II., Reigns of Edward VI., Mary and Elizabeth, London, 1829, new ed., 2 vols., London, 1854; Froude, History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the Defeat of the Spanish Armada, new ed., 12 vols., London, 1870; Clarendon, History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, 7 vols, Oxford, 1849; Gardiner, History of England under the Duke of Buckingham and Charles the First, 1624-8, London, 1875; Brodie, Constitutional History of the British Empire from the Accession of Charles I. to the Restoration, 4 vols., Edinburgh, 1827, new ed., 3 vols., London, 1865; Mackintosh, History of the Revolution in England in 1688, London, 1834; Guizot, Histoire de la revolution d'Angleterre, 4th ed., 2 vols., Paris, 1850, and Pourquoi la révolution d'Angleterre a-t-elle réussi 2, Paris, 1850; Younge, History of the English Revolution of 1688, London, 1874; Birchall, England under the Revolution and the House of Hanover, 1688-1820, Manchester, 1876; Merle d'Aubigné, Le Protecteur, ou la république d'Angleterre aux jours de Cromwell, Paris, 1848; Macpherson, History of Great Britain from the Restoration of Charles II. to the Accession of the House of Hanover, London, 1775; Macaulay, History of England from the Accession of James II., 5 vols., London, 1848-61, new ed., London, 1875; Earl Stanhope, History of England from the Peace of Utrecht to the Peace of Versailles, 1713-83, 5th ed., 7 vols., London, 1858; Massey, History of England during the Reign of George III., 4 vols., London, 1861-5, 2d ed., 1866; Martineau, History of England during the Thirty Years' Peace, 2 vols., London, 1848-50; Roebuck, History of the Whig Ministry of 1830, 2 vols., London, 1850-51; Pauli, Geschichte Englands seit den Freidensschlüssen von Edition: current; Page: [417] 1814 und 1815, 3 vols., Leipzig, 1864-75; Molesworth, History of England from 1830-74, to the Resignation of the Gladstone Ministry, new ed., 3 vols., London, 1874; Bagehot, The English Constitution, London, 1867, 2d ed., 1872; Gneist, Das englischen Verwaltungsrecht mit Einschluss des Heers, der Gerichte und der Kirche, 2d ed., 2 vols., 1866-7, and Selfgovernment, Communalrerfassung und Ve ualtungsgerichte in England, 3d ed., Berlin, 1871; Baxter, The Taxation of the United Kingdom, London, 1869; Burrows, Constitutional Progress, London, 1869; Clode, History of the Administration and Government of the British Army from the Revolution of 1688, 2 vols., London, 1869-70; Freeman, The Growth of the English Constitution from the Earliest Times, London, 1873; Hearn, The Government of England, London, 1870; Holms, The British Army in 1875, London, 1876; Noble, National Finance, London, 1875; Palgrave, The Local Taxation of Great Britain and Ireland, London, 1871; Reed, Our Ironclad Ships, London, 1869; Scott, The British Army, 2 vols., London, 1868; Stephens, New Commentaries on the Laws of England, 4 vols., London, 1868; Todd, On Parliamentary Government in England, 2 vols., London, 1867-9; Young, Imperial Federation of Great Britain and Her Colonies, London, 1876.—(See IRELAND, SCOTLAND.)