Cyclopædia of Political Science, Political Economy, and the Political History of the United States
1.  The articles
2.  In the Palatine school founded by Charlemagne and improperly called the academy, the members were also obliged to assume a literary name for equality's sake.
3.  The alternat means that each power stands first in the copy of the treaty destined for it.
4.  If taxation increases the price of the goods taxed, how can it at the same time lower it?
5.  It is certain that a country purely industrial or commercial lacks a foundation, and that agriculture is indispensable to give firmness and stability to a state, but agriculture alone does not make a country rich. What is the income from agricultural capital, and what from industrial capital? Besides, if there were no industry in a country who would buy the surplus products of agriculture? Is not the market the best stimulant to production? The most prosperous country is one in which agriculture, industry and commerce form together a harmonious whole. M. B.
6.  The following statistical tables are from the Statesman's Year Book for 1881:
Area of each of the three civil departments, and the three military divisions of Algeria, according to the returns of 1877:
7.  Maine, Ancient Law.
8.  Stubbs, Const History of England, vol. 1. p. 603.
9.  "Omnes mercatores habeant salvum et securum exire de Anglia, et venire in Angliam, et morari et ire per Angliam, tam per teriam quam per aquam, ad emendum et vendendum, sine omnibus malis toltis, per antiquas et rectas consuetudines, præterquam in tempore gwerrae, et si sint de terra contra nos gwerrina; et si tales inveniantur in terra nostra in principio gweriae, attachientur sine dampno corporum et rerum, donec sciatur a nobis vel capitali iueticiario nostro quomodo mercatores terrae nostrae tractentur, qui tunc inven entur in terra contra nos gwerrina; et si nostri salvi sint ibi, alil salvi sint in terra nostra." Such is the full provision, in the quaint law Latin of the times, of this great compact which is justly cherished as the priceless franchise of English liberty.
10.  Robert v. Mohl, Staatsrecht, Voelkerrecht u. Politik, vol. 1, pp. 731-758.
11.  Art. 2. "les trois princes allies ne s'envisageant euxmémes que comme délégués par la Providence pour governer trois branches d'une meme famille; savoir l'Autriche, la Prusse et la Russie; confessant ainsi que la nation chrétienne dont eux et leurs peuples sont partie, n'a réelement d'autre souverain que celui à qui seul appartient en propriété la puissance parce qu'en lui seul se trouvent tous les trésors de l'amour, de la science et de la sagesse infinie, c'est à dire Dieu, notre divin sauveur Jésus Christ, le verbe du Trés-Haut, la parole de vie."
12.  Art. 1. "les trois monarques contractions deterrent unis par les liens d'une fraternité veritable et indissoluble, et se considérant comme compatriotes, ils se préteront en toute occasion et an tout lieu assistance, aide et secoures."
13.  Since January 1, 1874, the constitution of the German empire has been in force in Alsace-Lorraine, and the empire legislates for the country. But it is contemplated in future that laws may have force in Alsace-Lorraine when approved by the landesausschuse (committee of the country) and the bundesrath, even without the co-operation of the reichstag.—ED.
14.  Here and elsewhere dates refer to the adoption of the organic law quoted.
15.  The following statistics relative to the Argentine Confederation are from the Statesman's Manual for 1881. The estimated sources of revenue and branches of expenditure for the year 1879 were as follows:
The budget for 1880 estimated the revenue at 18,762,061 pesos, or £3,752,412, and the expenditure at 18,381,718 pesos, or £3,676,343. The interest on the public debt was calculated at 8,429,057 pesos, or £1,685,811, being 450,000 pesos, or £90,000 more than in 1879. The other principal items in the expenditure were estimated as follows: Internal administration, 3,452,000 pesos; department of justice, 1,326,000 pesos; war, 4,416,000 pesos; marine, 650,000 pesos. The customs duties on imports and exports were expected to yield, the first 18,000,000 pesos, and the latter 2,500,000 pesos. The probable railway receipts were set down at 650,000 pesos, and the receipts from the postal and telegraphic services at 450,000 pesos, in the budget for the year 1880.
—More than one-half of the total expenditure of the confederation is for the interest of the public debt, home and foreign. The internal liabilities were stated to amount to 64,855,000 pesos, or £12,971,000, at the end of 1873. The foreign debt, at the same date, amounted to £8,497,200; it was entirely raised in England. The foreign debt consists of three loans, negotiated in 1824, in 1868 and in 1871. Of the first there was outstanding, in 1879, the amount of £1,501,300, of the second £1,853,600, and of the third £5,142,300.
—The greater part of the foreign loan of 1868, to the amount of £1,930,000, was issued by Messrs Baring Brothers, London, at the price of 12½ for 100. It is to be repaid in twenty-one years. The most important of these foreign loans, that of 1871, amounting originally to £6,122,400, was granted by congress for the construction of railways and other public works. It was issued in London at the price of 88½, under promise to be redeemed by a sinking fund of 2 frac12; per cent. before the end of 1892.
—Besides the liabilities here enumerated, there was a floating debt in treasury bills, and comprising also loans made to the national government by the provincial bank, to the amount of 13,200,000 pesos, or £2,640,000, at the end of 1877.
—The above statement of the revenue, expenditure and debt of the Argentine Confederation refers to the national or general government, called upon to defray the expenses of the army and navy, of the foreign department, and to meet other obligations imposed upon it by the constitution. Each of the fourteen provinces, or states, of the confederation has a revenue of its own which is derived by the imposition of local taxes. Buenos Ayres, the most important state of the confederation, requires annually above £1,000,000 to meet the expenses of its government, law courts, chambers, militia, country schools, and other public institutions. The liabilities of all the states are internal, with the exception of Buenos Ayres, which contracted a foreign loan of £1,034,700 in June, 1870, in England. The loan, issued at 88, with interest of 6 per cent., was to be redeemed at par in 83 years.
—ARMY AND NAVY. The army of the confederation, now in course of reorganization, consisted, at the end of 1876, of 6,183 men, comprising 2,612 infantry, 3,189 cavalry, and 409 artillery. There were besides a militia and national guard, numbering 19,867 men. The army was commanded at the same date by a 3 generals, 138 colonels, 140 majors, and 674 other officers, being a total of 955 commissioned officers, or one to every 7 men, rank and file.
—The navy of the confederation consisted, at the end of the year 1876, of 26 steamers, as follows:
The navy was commanded, at the end of 1876, by two admirals, and 74 other officers, and manned by 2,900 sailors and marines.
—The increase of population in recent years has been due chiefly to immigration. In each of the six years from 1871 to 1876 the immigration and emigration were as follows:
The immigrants of 1877 numbered 28,708, and those of 1878 numbered 35,876. The great majority of the immigrants are natives of Italy and Spain.
—TRADE AND INDUSTRY. The imports into the confederation consist chiefly of manufactured cotton and woolen goods, machinery, coal and iron, while the exports are made up to the amount of more than one-half by wool and fallow. The foreign trade is chiefly with Great Britain.
—The commercial intercourse between the Argentine Confederation and the United Kingdom is shown in the subjoined tabular statement, which gives the total value of the exports of the confederation to Great Britain and Ireland, and of the imports of British and Irish produce and manufactures into the confederation in each of the five years from 1875 to 1879:
The three staple articles of Argentine exports to the United Kingdom are skins, tallow and untanned hides. The value of the skins, mainly sheep, amounted to £145,245, of the tallow £110,042, and of the hides to £88,476, in 1872. The imports of British produce into the Argentine Confederation consist chiefly of cotton and woolen manufactures, and of iron. The value of the British cotton manufactures imported in the year 1879 was £770,020, that of woolens £298,-890, and that of iron, wrought and unwrought, £282,480. A network of railways, constructed in part at the expense of the state, has been in progress for several years. The following statement gives the length, in English miles, together with the proprietorship, of the various lines open for traffic, at the end of 1878:
There were besides, at the end of 1878, railways of a total length of 1,368 miles sanctioned by the government, including an international line from Buenos Ayres to Chill, 894 miles in length.
—The total cost of construction of the lines open for traffic at the end of 1878, was £10,874,633, being an average cost of £7,700 per mile.
—At the end of June, 1879, there were 4,820 miles of telegraph lines in operation, 3,346 miles belonging to the state, and 1,474 miles to private companies. The total length of telegraph wires at the same date was 9,830 miles. The number of telegraphic dispatches was 214,714 in the year 1878.
—The postoffice, in the year 1878, carried 2,166,078 parcels and packets, and 5,045,573 letters.
16.  The budget estimates for the "common affairs of the empire," were as follows for the year 1880:
—The principal sources of revenue were given as follows in the financial estimates for the year 1880:
—The principal branches of expenditure were given as follows in the budget estimates for the year 1880:
—The following table gives the total amount of the public debt of Austria, including the debt of the whole empire, but exclusive of the special debt of Hungary on the 1st of July, 1879:
The following table gives the area and total number of inhabitants of the various provinces of the empire, according to the official estimates for Dec. 31, 1876:
17.  In the United States any citizen of the country, or a resident thereof, being the author of a book, map, chart, etc., may secure a copyright in the same by complying with the requirements of the law. The terms for which the copyright may be obtained is 28 years from the time of recording the title; at the expiration of that period, the author, if living, and his widow, if he be dead, may re-enter for 14 years additional.
18.  Of this sum, land taxes form 3,240,000 florins; indirect taxes, 1,060,000 florins; tax on capital, on incomes, and on salaries of employés, 650,000 florins.
19.  The tax on wine is 820,000 florins; on beer, 860,000 florins; alcohol, 94,000 florins; on meat, 300,000 florins; registration, 915,000 florins.
—Remark. The tax on beer and spirits belongs, according to the constitution, to the empire. But the grand duchy of Baden, like the other states of the south, has reserved the right of taxing these articles and of paying therefore into the treasury of the empire a sum proportioned to the population.
20.  An Historical Account of Massachusetts Currency, by Joseph B. Felt, Boston, 1839, p. 103.
21.  The History of Massachusetts Bay, by Lieut. Governor Hutchinson, vol. 2, p. 396. Boston, 1767.
22.  A Short History of Paper Money and Banking in the United States, by Wm. M. Gouge, Phila., 1833, p. 10.
23.  American State Papers—Finance, vol. 2, pp. 352 and 470.
24.  Finance Report, vol. 12, page 59.
25.  Benton's Thirty Years in the United States Senate, vol. 2, p. 24.
26.  Report of the Comptroller of the Currency, 1876, p. 13.
27.  Hildreth's History of the U. S., vol. 5, pp. 548-50.
28.  Hammond's Political History of New York, vol. 1, p. 309, Buffalo, 1850.
29.  Report of the Comptroller of the Currency, 1876, pp. 39-42.
30.  Address of Comptroller Knox before the Merchants' Association of Boston; Banker's Magazine, vol. 15, p. 545.
31.  Report of Comptroller of Currency, 1876, p. 92.
32.  Report of Comptroller of Currency, 1878, p. 33.
33.  As a supplement to the foregoing article we may add the latest statistics which are comprised in the tables that follow:
Revenue and Expenditure for the financial year 1880-81.
34.  In the constitution of a state of the American Union, says Judge Cooley, in his "Constitutional Limitations," we shall expect a declaration of rights for the protection of individuals and minorities. This declaration usually contains the following classes of provisions: "1. Those declaratory of the general principles of republican government; such as, that all freedmen, when they form a social compact, are equal, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive, separate public emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; that absolute, arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists now here is a republic, not even in the largest majority; that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness, security, and the protection of property; that for the advancement of these ends they have at all times in inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper; that all elections shall be free and equal; that no power of suspending the laws shall be exercised except by the legislature or its authority; that standing armies are not to be maintained in time of peace; that representation shall be in proportion to population; that the people shall have the right freely to assemble to consult of the common good, to instruct their representatives, and petition for redress of grievances; and the like 2. Those declaratory of the fundamental rights of the citizen: as that all men are by nature free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; that the right to property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction; that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination of preference, shall forever be allowed; that every man may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; that every man may bear arms for the defense of himself and of the state; that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, nor shall soldiers be quartered upon citizens in time of peace; and the like. 3. Those declaratory of the principles which ensure to the citizen an impartial trial, and protect him in his life, liberty and property against the arbitrary action of those in authority: as that no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed; that the right to trial by jury shall be preserved; that excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive punishments inflicted; that no person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, nor be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; that private property shall not be taken for public use without compensation; and the like."
—Our author, writing of bills of attainder, says: "Bills of attainder were prohibited to be passed, either by the congress or by the legislatures of the several states. Attainder, in a strict sense, means an extinction of civil and political rights and capacities; and at the common law it followed, as of course, on conviction and sentence to death for treason; and, in greater or less degree, on conviction and sentence for the different classes of felony.
—A bill of attainder was a legislative conviction for alleged crime, with judgment of death. Such convictions have not been uncommon under other governments, and the power to pass these bills has been exercised by the parliament of England at some periods in its history, under the most oppressive and unjustifiable circumstances, greatly aggravated by an arbitrary course of procedure, which had few of the incidents of a judicial investigation into alleged crime. For some time before the American revolution, however, no one had attempted to defend it as a legitimate exercise of power; and if it would be unjustifiable anywhere, there were many reasons why it would be specially obnoxious under a free government, and why consequently its prohibition, under the existing circumstances of our country, would be a matter of more than ordinary importance. Every one must concede that a legislative body, from its numbers and organization, and from the very intimate dependence of its members upon the people, which renders them liable to be peculiarly susceptible to popular clamor, is not properly constituted to try with coolness, caution and impartiality a criminal charge, especially those cases in which the popular feeling is strongly excited,—the very class of cases most likely to be prosecuted by this mode. And although it would be conceded that, if such bills were allowable, they should properly be presented only for offenses against the general laws of the land, and be proceeded with on the same full opportunity for investigation and defense which is afforded in the courts of the common law, yet it was remembered that in practice they were often resorted to because an obnoxious person was not subject to punishment under the general law, or because, in proceeding against him by this mode, some rule of the common law requiring a particular species or degree of evidence might be evaded, and a conviction secured on proofs that a jury would not be suffered to accept as overcoming the legal presumption of innocence. Whether the accused should necessarily be served with process; what degree or species of evidence should be required; whether the rules of law should be followed, either in determining what constituted a crime, or in dealing with the accused after conviction,—were all questions which would necessarily address themselves to the legislative discretion and sense of justice; and the very qualities which are essential in a court to protect individuals on that before them against popular clamor, or the hate of those in power, were precisely those which were likely to prove weak or wanting in the legislative body at such a time. And what could be more obnoxious in a free government that the exercise of such a power by a popular body, controlled by a mere majority, fresh from the contests of exciting elections, and quite too apt, under the most favorable circumstances, to suspect the motives of their adversaries, and to resort to measures of doubtful propriety to secure party ends?
—Nor were legislative punishments of this severe character the only ones known to parliamentary history; there were others of a milder form, which were only less obnoxious in that the consequences were less terrible. Those legislative convictions which imposed punishments less than that of death were called bills of pains and penalties, as distinguished from bills of attainder; but the constitutional provisions we have referred to were undoubtedly aimed at any and every species of legislative punishment for criminal or supposed criminal offenses; and the term 'bill of attainder' is used in a generic sense, which would include bills of pains and penalties also.
—The thoughtful reader will not fail to discover, in the acts of the American states during the revolutionary period, sufficient reason for this constitutional provision, even if the still more monitory history of the English attainders had not been so freshly remembered. Some of these acts provided for the forfeiture of the estates, within the commonwealth, of those British subjects who had withdrawn from the jurisdiction because not satisfied that grievances existed sufficiently serious to justify the last resort of an oppressed people, or because of other reasons not satisfactory to the existing authorities; and the only investigation provided for was an inquiry into the desertion. Others mentioned particular persons by name, adjudged them guilty of adhering to the enemies of the state, and proceeded to inflict punishment upon them, so far as the presence of property within the commonwealth would enable the government to do so. These were the resorts of a time of extreme peril; and if possible to justify them in a period of revolution, when everything was staked on success, and when the public safety would not permit too much weight to scruples concerning the private rights of those who were not aiding the popular cause, the power to repeat such acts under any conceivable circumstances in which the country could be placed again was felt to be too dangerous to be left in the legislative hands. So far as proceedings had been completed under those acts, before the treaty of 1783, by the actual transfer of property, they remained valid and effectual afterward; but so far as they were then incomplete, they were put an end to by that treaty.
—The conviction of the propriety of this constitutional provision has been so universal, that it has never been questioned, either in legislative bodies or elsewhere. Nevertheless, cases have recently arisen, growing out of the attempt to break up and destroy the government of the United States, in which the supreme court of the United States has adjudged certain action of congress to be in violation of this provision and consequently void. The action referred to was designed to exclude from practice in the United States courts all persons who had taken up arms against the government during the recent rebellion, or who had voluntarily given aid and encouragement to its enemies; and the mode adopted to effect the exclusion was to require of all persons, before they should be admitted to the bar or allowed to practice, an oath negativing any such disloyal action. This decision was not at first universally accepted as sound; and the supreme courts of West Virginia and of the District of Columbia declined to follow it, insisting that permission to practice in the courts is not a right, but a privilege, and that the withholding it for any reason of state policy or personal unfitness could not be regarded as the infliction of criminal punishment.
—The supreme court of the United States have also, upon the same reasoning, held a clause in the constitution of Missouri, which, among other things, excluded all priests and clergymen from practicing or teaching unless they should first take a similar oath of loyalty, to be void, overruling in so doing a decision of the supreme court of that state."
35.  The Bermuda, 3 Wall, 514; The Springbok, 5 Wall, 1.
36.  The following figures are taken from the Statesman's Year Book, 1881: In the budget for the financial year 1879-80, the revenue of Brazil was set down at 117,273,800 milreis, and the expenditure at 116,675,690 milreis.
—In April, 1879, the total national debt, home and foreign, amounted to 786,116,837 milreis. In the same year the internal debt amounted to 565,000,000 milreis.
—There were actually under arms, according to official reports, at the end of the year 1878, 16,000 troops. But the nominal strength of the standing army is fixed at 20,000 on the peace footing. At the end of June, 1879, the navy consisted of 57 steamers.
—The area of the empire is estimated at 8,515,848 geographical square kilomètres, or 8,275,326 English square miles, with a population, in 1872, of 9,448,233, besides 1,000,000 aborigines.
37.  Compare Fr. Rohmer's work, "Deutschlands alte und neue Büreaukratie," (Munich, 1848), from which the above is in part literally taken.
38.  Bureaucracy was the creature of that so-called enlightened absolutism which enunciated the principle: "Everything for the people, nothing through the people," and which supposed that it could best serve the interest of the state and of citizens by regulating and controlling not only the affairs of state, but those of municipalities and even of private persons, leaving nothing for the individual himself to do. Bureaucracy placed all interests under the supervision and guardianship of the state. Officials came to form a class or caste, distinct from the rest of the community, and standing above it. This bureaucratic rule was opposed by the nobility and by the liberals. Its influence is not yet everywhere entirely at an end, but it can not long survive the opposition of a free press, of the general participat on of the citizens in public affairs, and the general extension of constitutional government. See the article "Büreaukratie" in Brockhau's "Conversations lexikon." ED.
39.  Ideée générale de la révolution au dix-neuvième siècle.
40.  We here add an extract from M. Coquelin on Centralization in the Dictionnaire de l'economie politique: "We think A. de Tocqueville entirely correct when in his work 'Democracy in America,' he expresses himself as follows: 'Centralization is a word very often repeated in our days, although, generally speaking, no one ever tries to define its meaning. Certain interests are common to all component parts of the nation, such as the framing of general laws and the relation of the nation to foreign nations. There are interests, on the other hand, which belong especially to certain parts of the nation, as for instance, municipal enterprises. The concentration in a place and in one and the same hand of the power to direct the former interests, constitutes what we may call governmental centralization. And by concentrating in the same manner the power to manage the latter we have administrative centralization. But there are cases in which these two kinds of centralization are confounded with one another. Still by taking, in the aggregate, the objects which belong more especially in the domain of each of them, we are able to distinguish them easily. It is evident that governmental centralization acquires immense power when it is combined with administrative centralization. Thus people are accustomed to completely and continuously leave their will out of consideration; they are made to obey not only once and upon a given point, but in everything and every day. Not only does such centralization subdue them by force; it isolates them and then takes hold of them one by one in the great mass. These two kinds of centralization mutually aid each other; the one draws the other after it; but we do not think that they are inseparable. Under Louis XIV. France witnessed the greatest governmental centralization imaginable, for the one man who framed general laws and had the power to interpret them, represented France abroad and acted in her name. 'I am the state,' he used to say, and he was right And yet, under Louis XIV. there was much less administrative centralization than in our days in France. We have in our time a country, England, where governmental centralization has attained a very high degree; the state there seems to move like one man; it raises immense masses at its will, and the effects of its power are everywhere felt England, which has accomplished great things during the last 50 years, has no administrative centralization. For our part we can not conceive how a nation could exist, much less prosper, without a strong governmental centralization. But we think that administrative centralization only enervates the people who submit to it, because it ever tends to diminish their public spirit. Administrative centralization succeeds, it is true, in bringing together all the forces the nation can dispose of, at a given time and in a given place; but it is prejudicial to the reproduction of these forces; it makes the nation triumph on the day of battle, but it diminishes her power in the long run. Administrative centralization can, therefore, very well contribute to the greatness of one man, but never to the durable prosperity of a nation. It must not be overlooked that in saying that a state can not act because wanting in centralization, we almost always unconsciously have in view governmental centralization. The German empire, it may be argued, has never been able to draw all the advantage possible from its forces; and why not? Because the national power has never been centralized; because the state could never enforce obedience to its general laws; because the several component parts of this great body always had the right or the possibility to refuse their co-operation to the depositaries of the general authority even in questions which interested all citizens alike; in other words, because there was no governmental centralization. These same remarks apply to the middle ages also. All the misery of feudal society was brought about because the power not only of administering but also of governing was divided among a thousand hands and split up in a thousand ways. The entire absence of governmental centralization prevented at that time the nations of Europe from striving with energy toward any goal.'
—Consequently it is true that there exists a political and an administrative centralization. The former—the only one which really affects the unity and power of the state—has, to our knowledge, never been seriously attacked. It is, therefore, an error, when, in defending the cause of French centralization people incessantly invoke the great, the supreme argument of the unity and the power of the state—an argument which has such ascendency over unthinking minds. The unity and the power of the state have nothing to do with the question. As long as the state is invested with the general attributes of public authority; as long as it makes laws and appoints judges; as long as it holds in its hands the entire public force and directs its movements; as long as it can levy the taxes necessary for its support and collect them by its own agents; as long as the central government enjoys these essential prerogatives and some others besides which are attached to them, the unity of the state will be guarded and its power of concentration will be as great as it can be. But it does not follow, therefrom, that this government should interfere incessantly in the particular affairs of provinces, counties and cities; and still less should the state usurp the natural right of citizens whom it should confine itself to protecting. All the arguments advanced on the subject are therefore good to defend political centralization which nobody attacks; but they have no value whatever when advanced in defense of administrative centralization which alone is in question.
—And says Ch. Dunoyer, in his De la liberte du travail: 'The apologists of the system we reject, hold the following language: It lies in the nature of centralization, they say, to produce a stronger government, a stronger nation, a more highly developed civilization, and, above all, a more general and a more equal development, a more complete and better organized system of roads, canals and all other means of communication; a greater unity in all the means of exchange, in language, in money, in weights and measures; more uniformity in the ways of manufacturing, of clothing, lodging, and of doing a multitude of things; more equality of feeling and thinking. * * * * In one word, the system has the pretension to render the government better organized for the mission of order and peace it has to accomplish, to make it better fit to develop social forces and more apt to give rapidity and unity to this development. I do not think much penetration is needed to perceive that the system succeeds but poorly in bringing forth such results and that in many respects the results are negative.
—More uniformity in the way of feeling and thinking! But what if everybody complains.—unfortunately not without reason—of the anarchy of ideas nowadays reigning in France. More equality or uniformity in the manner of manufacturing, of dressing, of lodging. But this uniformity which is desirable only in a certain sense and in a certain measure, exists to a greater extent in England, the country of municipal institutions, than in centralistic France. As to the unity of the monetary system, of weights and measures, which is a good thing in many respects, there is no necessity, in order to establish it, to deprive local authorities or individuals of the right of managing their special interests as they deem best. With respect to the uniformity of language, it is worthy of note that all the efforts of an exaggerated centralization have not succeeded in bringing it about in France, while it exists, although it may seem incredible, in the United States, the most decentralized country of the world, and among the heterogeneous population which has only recently come to the country from the extremities of the globe. If it becomes a question of the power of concentration to be given to France, and with right, for the maintenance of her political power, we may say that this political power does not result from administrative centralization, but from political centralization, which, in our opinion, should be kept intact. All the rights, all the attributes, all the prerogatives relating not only to the defense of the country but also to the general affairs of the state, must be reserved for the central government. We thus understand the question. So much is necessary, but it is sufficient. But to these natural, legitimate and necessary prerogatives, governments are wont to add others which make them intervene at all times and at the wrong time in the private affairs of provinces, of communalities and of individuals. Far from adding to their original power, governments thus embarrass, enervate and enfeeble themselves."
—What is here said of administrative centralization may with great force be applied to the government of the several states of the Union, but with greater force what is said of political administration to the power which should be lodged in the federal government of the United States. ED.
41.  He deserves ill of the mendicant who gives him to eat and to drink; because what is given is thus lost, and it perpetuates his misery.
42.  Considérations d'économie politique sur la bienfaisance, ou de la charité, par F. Duchâtel, ministre du commerce.
43.  Esprit des lois, book xi. chap. vi.
44.  We deem it preferable, nevertheless, that the chambers should share the right to take the initiative with the executive power, but we think the representative ought to make only an occasional use of the right.
45. Under the word CONCORDAT is found an explanation of this question from the liberal Catholic point of view.
46. Encyclopidie de Courtin article "Concordat."
47. Thunberg, Voyage en afrique et en Asie, principalement au Japon, translated from Swedish, 353-355, et Voyage au Japon, translated by L. Langlois, vol. iii., p. 206.
48. Des Odoards-Fantin, vicar general of Embrun, Dictionnaire du gouvernment, des lois, des usages et de la discipline d l'Eglise, t. 11, p. 238, and following.
49. Quœ extraordinariae temporum rationes atque bonum pacis et unitalis Ecclesiœ a nobis postulaverunt. (Bull of Pius VII. of the 18th calends of September, 1801.)
50. Abrégé chronologique de l'histoire ecclesiastique par Marquer, vol. iii., p. 508.
51.  This article is treated from the liberal Protestant point of view.
52.  More properly to the pope since the declaration of papal infallibility.
53.  The Moravians here referred to belonged to the dissenting churches founded in the fifteenth century by John Huss, in Bohemia and Moravia.
54. A general synod was convened at Paris in 1872
55.  The following statistics show the comparative strength of the Protestant denominations in the United States, January, 1881: Baptist: 24,794 churches, 15,401 ordained ministers and 2,133,044 members, or 1 minister to each 139 members in the United States.
—Methodist Episcopal: 16,721 churches, 9,261 ordained ministers and 1,680,779 members, or 1 minister to each 181 members in the United States—Methodist Episcopal (south : 3,593 ordained ministers and 828,013 members, or 1 minister to each 230 members in the United states.
—Lutheran: 5,556 churches, 3,102 ordained ministers and 684,570 members, or 1 minister to each 221 members in the United States.
—Presbyterian: 5,338 churches, 4,920 ordained ministers and 573,377 members, or 1 minister to each 117 members in the United States.
—Christian (Disciples of Christ): 4,861 churches, 3,658 ordained ministers and 567,448 members, or 1 minister to each 155 members in the United States.
—Congregational: 3,689 churches, 3,589 ordained ministers and 323,876 members, or 1 minister to each 100 members in the United States.
—United Brethren in Christ: 2,207 churches, 2,200 ordained ministers and 155,437 members, or 1 minister to each 71 members in the United States.
—Reformed Church in U. S.: 1,384 churches, 752 ordained ministers and 154,742 members, or 1 minister to each 206 members in the United States.
—United Evangelical: 366 churches, 363, ordained ministers and 141,000 members, or 1 minister to each 396 members in the United States.
—Presbyterian (south): 1,928 churches, 1,031 ordained ministers and 119,970 members, or 1 minister to each 116 members in the United States.
—Protestant Methodist: 1,501 churches, 2,120 ordained ministers and 118,170 members, or 1 minister to each 56 members in the United States.
—Cumberland Presbyterian: 2,474 churches, 1,386 ordained ministers and 111,855 members, or 1 minister to each 81 members in the United States.
—Mormon: 654 churches, 3,906 high priests and 110, 377 members, or 1 high priest to each 28 members in the United States.
—Evangelical Association: 1,332 churches, 1,340 ordained ministers and 99,608 members, or 1 minister to each 74 members in the United States.
—The Brethren (Dunkards): 710 churches, 1,665 ministers and 90,000 members, or 1 minister to each 54 members in the United States.
—Six Principle Baptist: 20 churches, 17 ordained ministers and 2,075 members, or 1 minister to each 122 members in the United States.
—Independent Methodist: 13 churches, 14 ordained minister and 2,100 members, or 1 minister toe ach 150 members in the United States.
—Shaker: 17 churches, 68 ministers and 2,400 members, or 1 minister to each 35 members in the United States.
—American Communities: 14 churches, 8 ministers and 2,838 members, or 1 minister to each 355 members in the United States.
—New Mennonite: 31 churches, 44 ministers and 2,990 members, or 1 minister to each 68 members in the United States.
—Primitive Methodist 121 churches, 50 ordained ministers and 3,370 members, or 1 minister to each 67 members in the United States.
—New Jerusalem: 91 churches, 81 ministers and 4,734 members, or 1 minister to each 58 members in the United States.
—Reformed Presbyterian: 41 churches, 31 ordained ministers and 6,020 members, or 1 minister to each 194 members in the United States.
—Seventh Day Baptist: 87 churches, 103 ordained ministers and 8,606 members, or 1 minister to each 84 members in the United States.
—Reformed Episcopal: 55 churches, 68 ordained ministers and 10,459 members, or 1 minister to each 154 members in the United States.
—Adventist: 91 churches, 107 ministers and 11,100 members, or 1 minister to each 104 members in the United States.
—Free Methodist: 287 churches, 601 ordained ministers and 12,120 members, or 1 minister to each 20 members in the United States.
—Jews (total pop. 230,457): 269 synagogues, 202 rabbis and 13,683 members, or 1 rabbi to each 68 members in the United States.
—Seventh Day Adventist: 608 churches, 138 ordained ministers and 14,733 members, or 1 minister to each 107 members in the Untied States.
—Moravian: 74 churches, 96 ordained ministers and 16,112 members, or 1 minister to each 167 members in the United States.
—Wesleyan Methodist: 260 churches, 472 ordained ministers and 17,847 members, or 1 minister to each 38 members in the United States.
—Unitarian Congregational: 342 churches, 394 ordained ministers, and 17,960 members, or 1 minister to each 50 members in the United States.
—Church of God (Winebrennerians): 569 churches, 498 ordained ministers and 20,224 members, or 1 minister to each 41 members in the United States.
—Universalist: 766 churches, 724 ordained ministers and 37,945 members, or 1 minister to each 52 members in the United States.
—AntiMies on Baptist: 1,090 churches, 888 ordained ministers and 40,000 members, or 1 minister to each 45 members in the United States.
—Second Adventist: 583 churches, 501 ministers and 63,500 members, or 1 minister to each 127 members in the United States.
—Friends: 621 churches, 876 ministers and 67,643 members, or 1 minister to each 77 members in the United States.
—Methodist Episcopal (Colored): 1,031 churches, 648 ordained ministers and 74,195 members, or 1 minister to each 115 members in the United States.
—Free Will Baptist: 1,485 churches, 1,286 ordained ministers and 76,706 members, or 1 minister to each 60 members in the United States.
—Reformed Church in America: 489 churches, 519 ordained ministers and 78,917 members, or 1 minister to each 152 members in the United States.
—United Presbyterian: 793 churches, 638 ordained ministers and 80,236 members, or 1 minister to each 122 members in the United States.
56.  We believe that the author is Mr. Brunswick.
57.  All this has been rapidly changing since the abolition of the feudal system in Japan.—E. J. L.
58.  This is now changed, and Calabria is comparatively secure.—E. J. L.
59.  Statesman's Manual, 1881.
60.  1. The instructive British statute bearing on several of these points may be found collected in Mr. Eaton's work on Civil Service in Great Britain.
61.  "Force will probably be found in the future on the side of civilization and enlightenment; for civilized nations are the only ones which can have enough wealth to maintain an imposing military force. This fact removes, so far as the future is concerned, the probability of the recurrence of those great upheavals of which history is full, and in which civilized nations became the victims of barbarians." (J. B. Say, Traite d'Economie Politique, liv. 3, ch. 7.)
62.  Except in the polar region. It is a known fact that the Laplanders, Esquimaux and Samoieds are undersized.
63.  Attention should be here called to the congress of Berlin, held July 13, 1878. The treaty of Berlin contains the following stipulations: The principalities of Roumania (proclaimed a kingdom in 1881), Servia and Montenegro, to become independent states, Roumania to cede to Russia Bessarabia, and receive the Dobrudscha in return. Servia obtained Nish, Tirot, and almost the entire northern territory of the Morava. Montenegro received Nikschitz, Podgorizza and Antivari. Austria-Hungary was to occupy Bosnia and the Herzegovina. Russia obtained the largest part of Armenia, with Ordahan, Kars and Batum. The land between the Danube and the Balkan to be constituted into a Christian principality, Bulgaria, which, however, remains under the suzerainty of the porte. South of the Balkans a province of Roumelia, under a Christian governor, is to be formed. Turkey was thus left with 4,800,000 inhabitants, and a territory of about 170,000 kilomètres in Europe: while in Asia it retained 1,890,000 square kilomètres, with 17,000,000 inhabitants.
64.  So decided in the 1st congress, in contravention to the claim that the constitutional majority of two-thirds implies two-thirds of the whole number of members.
65.  In the United States consuls are nominated by the president and confirmed or rejected by the senate. Before entering on the duties of his office, the consul is required to give bond for the faithful discharge of his duties, with sureties to be approved by the secretary of state. Consuls "have authority to receive protests or declarations which captains, masters, crews, passengers, merchants and others make relating to American commerce. They are required to administer the estates of American citizens dying within their consulate and leaving no legal representatives, when the laws of the country permit it; to take charge of stranded American vessels, in the absence of the master, owner or consignee; to settle disputes between masters of vessels and the mariners; and to provide for destitute seamen within their consulate, and send them to the United States at the public expense." (See Bouvier's Law Dictionary.)
66.  It is proper to add that indirect taxation finds its real justification in the unwillingness which all ratepayers exhibit in giving the necessary information on which to base direct taxation or distribute its burdens equitably. M. B.
67.  The German bishops and many Austrian bishops shared the views of the bishop of Orleans.
68.  These bills have been suppressed since the time when Montesquieu wrote.
69.  The general a return to Paris had been celebrated with enthusiasm from Frejus to the capital.
70.  Henry Carey Baird, in Letters to Prof. Perry.
71.  The sum total includes the cents omitted in giving the sums for various years.
72.  There is nothing in this provision about age that need surprise us. As every man is a voter, it was proper to take the necessary precautions to secure maturity of choice. Voters of the age of 30 years offer all requisite guarantees on this point. It can, therefore, be left to them to appreciate whether such or such a fellow-citizen of the age of 25 years may not, by his extraordinary talents, be able to render desirable service to his country. The younger Pitt was made a minister at 23.—M. B.
73.  Under a charter dated Jan. 5, 1874, and which came into force Aug. 1, 1874, Iceland has its own constitution and administration. By the terms of the charter the legislative power is vested in the althing, consisting of 35 members, 30 elected by popular suffrage, and six nominated by the king. A minister for Iceland nominated by the king, and responsible to the althing, is at the head of the administration; while the highest local authority is vested in the governor, called stiflamtmand, who resides at Reikjavig.
—The annual revenues of the state, during the five financial years ending March 31, from 1874 to 1878, averaged £2,750,000. The expenditure during this quinquennial period was fully balanced by the revenue, with an annual surplus employed for the reduction of the public debt.
—In the budget estimates of revenue and expenditure for the financial year ending March 31, 1880, the revenue was calculated at 46,557,518 kroner, or £2,586,528; and the expenditure at 41,049,390 kroner, or £2,280,522. The sources of revenue were as follows: Surplus of domains, 1,495,014 kroner; interest of reserve fund, 2,955,365; direct taxes, 9,038,400; stamp duty, 2,448,000; duty on inheritance and transfer of property, 1,580,000; law fees, 2,024,000; custom house dues and excise on distilleries, 22 081,000; surplus on postal and telegraph department, 70,779; surplus on state railways in Funen and Jutland, 1,118,505; contribution from the sinking fund, 1,687,910; miscellaneous receipts, 2,058,545; total revenue, 46,557,518 kroner, or £2,586,528. The branches of expenditure were as follows: Civil list and appanages, 1,422,384 kroner; rigsdag and council of state, 306,616; interest on national debt, (interior 6,702,400, foreign 615,800), 7,317,700; pensions, including invalids of war, 3,273,395; ministry of foreign affairs, 373,512; ministry of interior, 1,699,697; ministry of justice, 2,435,385; ministry of public worship and education, 982,085; ministry of war, 8,722,842; ministry of navy, 5,357,670; ministry of finance, 2,950,402; ministry for Iceland, 109,600; miscellaneous expenses, 3,886,375; management and sinking fund of the national debt, (interior 100,000, foreign 72,600), 172,600; public works, etc., 2,039,127; total expenditure, 41,049,390 kroner, or £2,280,522.
—State debt, 1872, £12,740,087; 1875, £10,324,201; 1877, £9,791,580; 1878, £9,710,108.
—On Jan. 1, 1878, the merchant marine of Denmark consisted of 3,279 vessels, of an aggregate burden of 258,325 tons. Of these, 188, of 43,124 tons, were steamers. Included in this amount were all vessels of not less than four tons. The mass of the shipping consisted of vessels under 300 tons. Of vessels over 300 tons there were 135, of an aggregate burden of 12,015 tons.
74.  In addition to the tax directly imposed on the distilled spirit, the internal revenue system of the United States from the first imposed a number of other and collateral taxes—i.e., licenses, fees, permits, etc.
—on the business of producing, refining and vending of spirits, which, although assessed and collected independently, are included under a general return of aggregate revenue from distilled spirits. Thus, the total revenue returned as collected in any one year is always considerably greater than the receipts from. the direct tax on the spirit itself. These annual aggregates, since the first imposition of the tax, have been as follows: 1863, $5,176,520; 1864, $30,329,149; 1865, $18,731,422; 1866, $33,268,171; 1867, $33,542,951; 1868. $18,655,630; 1869, $45,071,230; 1870, $55,606,094; 1871, $16,281,848; 1872, $49,475,516; 1873. $52,099,371; 1874, $49,444,089; 1875, $52,081,991; 1876, $56,426,000; 1877, $57,469,000; 1878, $50,420,000; 1879, $52,570,000; 1880, $61,185,000.
75.  The reader will here do well to look forward and see what was the consumption in subsequent years, when the tax was reduced.
76.  St. John, New Brunswick, during the decade, was destroyed by fire.
77.  We think, with our honorable collaborator, that something should be done against dueling. Experience has proven that a Draconian penalty would remain powerless. There is too flagrant an injustice in confounding with the assassin the honorable man who, yielding to a prejudice which reigns like a king in society, kills his equal, for public sentiment not to cry out against this too radical solution of the question. But we hesitate to admit the theory proposed by Mr. Pessard, although his proposition has already begun to be put in practice. The tribunal of honor can not but diminish the number of duels, but it does not attack the root of the prejudice. Rather would it strengthen it. Now, all our efforts should aim at its extermination. The best means to obtain this result will be, we believe: 1, to deny social recognition to any one who has challenged and then killed his adversary in a duel; 2, to have it admitted by the code of honor that no one is obliged to fight with a man who has already killed an adversary, or who, from the fact of having been engaged in three previous duels, has come to be considered as a professional duelist (we avoid using a stronger word); 3, rigorously to enforce the payment of fine and heavy pecuniary indemnity to the family of the victim; this last point is already reached. We do not flatter ourselves that we have thus solved the problem, but we would be happy to have indicated the true remedy.—M. B.