Cyclopædia of Political Science, Political Economy, and the Political History of the United States

Edited by: Lalor, John J.
Display paragraphs in this book containing:
First Pub. Date
New York: Maynard, Merrill, and Co.
Pub. Date
Includes articles by Frédéric Bastiat, Gustave de Molinari, Henry George, J. B. Say, Francis A. Walker, and more.

1. [1] In the United States a witness may be sworn in any manner considered binding on his conscience. Quakers and others having conscientious scruples against the taking of an oath under any circumstance, may affirm instead. In some of the states the witness, whoever he be, may elect between the taking of an oath and judicial affirmation. The penalty for the affirmation of what is false by a witness in a civil or criminal case, is the same as for perjury.

—Besides the judicial and professional oath, there is what the French call the "political oath," which in part corresponds to the oath taken, in countries like the United States, to support the constitution. Of this latter oath, C. Lavollée says: "In feudal times, when political society was made up of suzerains, vassals and serfs, the oath of fealty was but the necessary or at least logical consecration of the bonds of submission which united the inferior to his superior. Subsequently, when absolute monarchy, basing itself on divine right, had survived feudalism, the oath of fealty was retained; and it could not but be retained, since the sovereign represented both God, whose delegate he was, and the nation all of whose rights he absorbed into his own person. The political oath was then as logical as it was under the feudal system.

—The external ceremonies and formulas of the oath were in keeping with the principle of submission, or rather of subjection, which bent the subject at the feet of his master. The master had all the rights; the subject had only duties. By the oath the subject solemnly pledged himself to maintain a condition of things which he had not brought about, and which he could not do away with. He fulfilled his chief duty by promising fidelity to the person whom he recognized as his superior and master. Nothing simpler or more rational.

—The modern law regulating the forms of government of a people, in the greater number of civilized states, rests on a totally different principle. Divine right has joined feudalism in the ruins of history, and has been replaced by the right of the people. Dynasties no longer force themselves on a people: they have to be accepted; the prince is the delegate, the mandatory of national sovereignty; in such a manner, that by the overthrow of the old order of things, logically speaking, the prince owes the oath of fealty to the people, and not the people to the prince. It is so in certain republics, in which the principle of popular sovereignty has been established from the beginning, and is not perverted by traditional formalities which had their origin in the old right of kings. In several constitutional states the king takes the oath of fealty to the constitution.

—Hence in countries which profess the dogma of popular sovereignty, the political oath can not be what it was under the old regime. We might even say that not only has it no raison d'étre, no reason why it should exist, but that there are reasons why it should not exist. An oath, with the forms of solemnity which surround it, represents in the eyes of men the idea of an indissoluble and perpetual engagement. But should the citizen swear to be always faithful to a sovereign whose rights, created by the national will, may be destroyed by that same will? Should he swear always to obey and support a constitution which the nation may modify or abrogate at any moment? We can understand an oath made to a superior and immutable being, to God, or to a sovereign consecrated by divine right; we can understand an oath to the great principles of truth, probity, honor, duty, principles universally accepted and respected, implanted by God in the human conscience, whence they dominate time, circumstances and laws. But it is very difficult to define the character and value of an oath given to a removable sovereign, to precarious institutions, made by the very persons in whom resides the right to change the sovereign and modify the institutions. In such an act we can see only a conditional oath, limited by restrictions and hedged in by reservations; but such an act is not an oath. * * * Not only is the political oath useless, since it never strengthened or saved a constitution or a sovereign, but, moreover, it is sometimes only an instrument of tyranny or violence. * * * The political oath has not, in the eyes of the people of our day, the authority which belongs to so solemn an act. It has not the character of inviolability; it is commented on and discussed. It is not of rare occurrence, that the person who takes it harbors, in his innermost soul, a faith different from that to which he has just sworn; public opinion no longer grows indignant at this, nor is it even surprised at it: sometimes it is an accomplice to the wrong, requiring the official or other person who takes the oath to remember, at the moment he takes it, an oath he had previously taken. This is a deplorable confusion of ideas; for just as there is but one conscience and one morality, there can be but one oath: it matters not what we call it, judicial, professional or political: all oaths impose the same duties and should be kept with the same fidelity * * *. But we must not lose sight of the fact that, according to modern law, the constitution of a country may be indefinitely modified by the national will, so that an oath can be no obstacle in the way of the desires or of the proposals of reform which it is the right of every citizen to express in a legal way. The oath itself would be opposed to the constitution if it held the person taking it within bounds which would prevent him from exercising that right. With the oath as governments have always wished to interpret it, it would be possible to confiscate the national will for all time. Revolution has too frequently undertaken the task of answering that pretense. * * Says M. Odilon Barrot, 'Oaths are taken or refused, but not discussed. The sanction of the oath being entirely in the conscience, the strength of the oath is entirely in the morality of the person who takes it.' In political matters, more than in any other, it is the character of the man which gives authority to the oath. * * Let the politician, functionary or civil magistrate take an oath to the law, the soldier to his flag, and every citizen to what to him is duty: such, in our opinion, is the simple and easy solution of this much debated question. In politics everything is variable, uncertain and precarious. In the midst of the crumbling of thrones and constitutions which our generation has witnessed, we should like to have pointed out to us a form of government or a dynasty certain to grow old with its oaths. But duty is, and will always subsist. Let men take an oath of fealty to it." The "political oath" here spoken of is very intimately related on one side to the oath of allegiance.—ED


2. [2] There is, I conceive, nothing in law to prevent the crown, by and with the consent of the estates of the realm, in the ordinary form of an act of parliament, and with the advice of responsible ministers, from repealing or amending the act of settlement. In the event of its appearing likely that there should be a failure of the persons thereby defined as capable of succession, amendment would become necessary; for example, if they should not be or should cease to be Protestants.

3. [3] It is remarkable that in the assize of Northampton (1176) the justices are directed to take the oath of fealty even from "rustics": "Item justitiœ capiant domini regis fidelitates * * ab omnibus, scilicet comitibus, baronibus, militibus et libere tenentibus, et etiam rusticis, qui in regno manere voluerint." Does this include men who were not free? In the earliest forms of the oath of fealty to the king, both in England and elsewhere, the promise was to be "fidelis sicut homo debet esse domino suo." Allen ("Royal Prerogative," pp 68-71) thinks this was a limitation of the subject's obedience, or reservation of his right to throw off allegiance if the king falled in his duties, and this is probable. But the words would likewise operate in the king's interest by adding the stricter personal bond of homage to the more general obligation of fealty.

4. [4] Bishops after consecration swore fealty only; but on their election, and before consecration, they did homage. Glanvill, lib. 9, cap. 1, ad fin.

5. [5] Strictly there is not any oath of homage distinct from the oath of fealty. The oath was always an oath of fealty, and the duty of homage, where it was present, carried with it the duty of swearing fealty to the lord. On the other hand, there might be, and often was, fealty without homage. (Allen, p. 62. Cp. Hargrave's and Butler's Notes on Co. Litt., 68a.) Homage was the privilege of the freeholder, being "the most honourable service, and most humble service of reverence, that a franktenant may do to his lord." (Litt., s. 85.) As to the common-law duty, cp. Selden. "Table Talk," s. v. "Fathers and Sons," "Every one at twelve years of age is to take the oath of allegiance in court-leets [sic] whereby he swears obedience to the king."

6. [6] 1 Eliz., c 1. In the argument in Miller vs. Salomons, in the Exchequer (7 Ex., at p. 478), it was erroneously stated to be the first statute on the subject.

7. [7] The "etc." means, I suppose, "and the contents of this Book."

8. [8] 1 Anne, c. 16, 4 & 5 Anne, c. 20; and as to Scotland, 6 Anne, c. 66 (Statutes of the Realm, c. 14, in other editions).

9. [9] One of the minor points taken by Mr. Salomons' counsel was that, as the act of George III. did not authorize the insertion from time to time of the reigning sovereigns' names, it expired at the end of the reign, or at all events when there ceased to be a king named George.

10. [10] Sir Samuel Martin's, then a baron of the exchequer, and now the only survivor, as it happens, of the judges before whom the case was argued.

11. [11] The oaths of allegiance, etc., were enforced on the clergy by Charles II.'s act of uniformity and various other statutes. The taking of them was part of the ordination service until separated from it by this act.

12. [12] It may be worth while to explain to lay readers that this does not mean limiting the powers of the crown, but defining the course of the succession.

Footnotes for OCEANICA

13. [13] GOVERNMENT OF THE COLONIES.—New South Wales. The constitution of New South Wales, the oldest of the Australasian colonies, is embodied in the act 18 and 19 Vict., cap. 54, proclaimed in 1855, which established a "responsible government." The constitution vests the legislative power in a parliament of two houses, the first called the legislative council, and the second the legislative assembly. The legislative council consists of not less than twenty-one members, nominated by the crown, and the assembly of 108 members, elected by seventy-two constituencies. To be eligible, a man must be of age, a natural-born subject of the queen, or, if an alien, he must have been naturalized for five years, and resident for two years before election. There is no property qualification for electors, and the votes are taken by secret ballot. The executive power is in the bands of a governor nominated by the crown. The governor, by the terms of his commission, is commander-in-chief of all troops in the colony. In the exercise of his authority he is assisted by a cabinet of eight ministers. The cabinet is responsible for its acts to the legislative assembly.

New Zealand. The present form of government for New Zealand was established by statute 15 and 16 Vict., cap. 72, passed in 1852. By this act the colony was divided into six provinces, afterward increased to nine, namely: Auckland, Taranaki, Wellington, Nelson, Canterbury, Otago, Hawke's Bay, Westland and Marlborough, each governed by a superintendent and provincial council, elected by the inhabitants according to a franchise which practically amounts to household suffrage. By a subsequent act of the colonial legislature, 39 Vict., No. xxi., which was passed in 1875, the provincial system of government was abolished. By the terms of this act and of other amending statutes the legislative power is vested in the governor and a "general assembly," consisting of two chambers, the first called the legislative council, and the second the house of representatives. The legislative council consists of forty-five members, nominated by the crown for life, and the house of representatives of ninety-five members, elected by the people for three years. The members of the house of representatives include four aborigines, or Maories, elected by the natives. Every owner of a freehold worth £50, or tenant householder, in the country at £5, in the towns at £10 a year rent, is qualified both to vote for, and to be a member of, the house of representatives. The executive authority is vested in a governor appointed by the crown. The governor is, by virtue of his office, commander-in-chief of the troops. The general administration rests with a responsible ministry, consisting of about seven members. Besides the ministers, there is one native member of the executive council, but not in charge of any department. The control of native affairs, and the entire responsibility of dealing with questions of native government, were transferred in 1863 from the imperial to the colonial government. In 1864 the scat of the general government was removed from Auckland to Wellington, on account of the central position of the latter city.

Queensland. The form of government of the colony of Queensland was established Dec. 10, 1859, on its separation from New South Wales. The power of making laws and imposing taxes is vested in a parliament of two houses, the legislative council and the legislative assembly. The former consists of thirty members, nominated by the crown for life. The legislative assembly comprises fifty-five deputies, returned from as many electoral districts, for five years, by the ballot vote of all tax payers. Persons having property, either leasehold or freehold, or a license to depasture lands from the government in any electoral district in which they do not reside, have the right of a vote in any district in which such property may be situated, as well as in the district in which they reside. The executive power is vested in a governor appointed by the crown. The governor is commander-in-chief of the troops, and also bears the title of vice-admiral. In the exercise of the executive authority he is assisted by an executive council of six ministers. The ministers are jointly and individually responsible for their acts.

South Australia. The constitution of South Australia bears date Oct. 27, 1856. It vests the legislative power in a parliament elected by the people. The parliament consists of a legislative council and a house of assembly. The former (according to a law which came into force in 1881) is composed of twenty-four members. Every three years the eight members whose names are first on the roll retire, and their places are supplied by two new members elected from each of the four districts into which the colony is divided for this purpose. The executive has no power to dissolve this body. It is elected by the whole colony voting as one district. The qualifications of an elector to the legislative council are, that he must be twenty-one years of age, a natural-born or naturalized subject of the queen, and have been on the electoral roll six months, besides having a freehold of £30 value, or a leasehold of £20 annual value, or occupying a dwelling house of £25 annual value. The qualification for a member of council is merely that he must be thirty years of age, a natural-born or naturalized subject, and a resident in the province for three years. The president of the council is elected by the members. The house of assembly consists of forty-six members, elected for three years. The qualifications for an elector are that of having been on the electoral roll for six months, and of having arrived at twenty-one years of age; and the qualifications for members are the same. There were 57,627 registered electors in 1882. Judges and ministers of religion are ineligible for election as members. The elections of members of both houses take place by ballot. The executive power is vested in a governor appointed by the crown and an executive council, consisting of the responsible ministers, and specially appointed members. The governor is at the same time commander-in-chief of the troops. The ministry, of which he is the president, is divided into six departments. The ministers are jointly and individually responsible to the legislature for all their official acts.

Tasmania. The constitution of Tasmania was established by act 18 Vict., No. 17, supplemented by act 34 Vict., No. 42, passed in 1871. By these acts a legislative council and a house of assembly are constituted, called the parliament of Tasmania. The legislative council is composed of sixteen members, elected by all natural-born or naturalized subjects of the crown who possess either a freehold worth £30 a year, or a leasehold of £200, or have a commission in the army or navy, or a degree of some university, or are in holy orders. The house of assembly consists of thirty-two members, elected by householders of £7 per annum, or freeholders of property £50 in value, and all subjects holding a commission, or possessing a degree. The legislative authority rests in both houses, while the executive is vested in a governor appointed by the crown. The governor is, by virtue of his office, commander-in-chief of the troops in the colony. He is aided in the exercise of the executive authority by a cabinet of responsible ministers, consisting of five members. The ministers must have a seat in one of the two houses.

Victoria. The constitution of Victoria was established by an act, passed by the legislature of the colony in 1854, to which the assent of the crown was given, in pursuance of the power granted by the act of the imperial parliament of 18 & 19 Vict., cap. 55. The legislative authority is vested in a parliament of two chambers; the legislative council, composed of forty-two members, and the legislative assembly, composed of eighty-six members. A property qualification is required both for members and electors of the legislative council. According to a bill passed in 1881 members must be in the possession of an estate of the annual value of £500, and electors must be in the possession or occupancy of property of the ratable value of £10 per annum if derived from freehold, or of £25 if derived from leasehold or the occupation of rented property. No electoral property qualification is required for graduates of British universities, matriculated students of the Melbourne university, ministers of religion of all denominations, certificated schoolmasters, lawyers, medical practitioners, and officers of the army and navy. One-third of the legislative council must retire every three years, so that a total change is effected in nine years. The first election of new members took place November, 1882. The members of the legislative assembly are elected by universal suffrage, for the term of three years. Clergymen of any religious denomination, and persons convicted of felony, are excluded from both the legislative council and the assembly. The number of electors on the roll of the legislative council was increased by the action of the bill of 1881 from 33,105 to about 110,000; the number of electors for the legislative assembly was 176,022, according to the latest returns. The executive authority is vested in a governor appointed by the crown. The governor is commander-in-chief of all the colonial troops. In the exercise of his duties as the executive he is assisted by a cabinet of nine ministers. At least four out of the nine ministers must be members of either the legislative council or the assembly.

Western Australia. The administration of Western Australia is vested in a governor, who exercises the executive functions. There is besides a legislative council, composed of seven appointed and fourteen elected members, the latter returned by the votes of all male inhabitants, of full age, assessed in a rental of at least £10. The qualification for elected members is the possession of landed property of £1,000. The governor is assisted in his functions by an executive council.

—POPULATION, RESOURCES, ETC., OF THE COLONIES.—New South Wales. The excess of immigration over emigration averaged 10,000 annually in the seven years 1874-80. There is a high birth rate in the colony. The excess of births over deaths amounted to 116,931 in the year 1880. The population of Sydney, the capital of New South Wales, numbered 220,427 at the census of April 3, 1881, the total comprising 99,670 inhabitants within the city, and 120,737 in the suburbs. The increase of population in the decennial period 1871-81 was 89,272, or 66 1/2 per cent. The trade of New South Wales more than quadrupled in the fifteen years 1850-64. The total value of the imports in 1850 amounted to £2,078,338, and in 1864 had risen to £10,135,708. The exports in 1850 were valued at £2,399,580, and in 1864 at £9,037,832. From 1864 to 1870 there was a decline in both imports and exports, but a new rise took place in 1871, continuing with interruptions till 1881. The value of the total imports in 1881 was £17,409,326: the value of the total exports, including bullion, was £16,049,503. Rather more than one-third of the total imports of New South Wales come from Great Britain, and about one-third of the exports are shipped to it. The staple article of export from New South Wales to the United Kingdom is wool. Of this article there were exported in the year 1881, 87,739,914 lbs., of a value of £5,304,576. Next to wool, the most important articles of export are tin, copper, tallow and preserved meat. In March, 1882, New South Wales had 83,062,854 sheep; 2,180,896 horned cattle; 346,931 horses; and 213,916 pigs. The total area of land under cultivation embraced 645,068 acres, of which about one-half was under wheat and maize. New South Wales is believed to be richer in coal than the other territories of Australasia. In 1881 there were mined 1,775,224 tons of coal, valued at £603,248. The gold mines of New South Wales cover a vast area, extending over three districts, called the Western Fields, the Southern Fields, and the Northern Fields. The gold produce of the colony was estimated as follows, in each of the seven years 1875-81:

Table.  Click to enlarge in new window.

New South Wales likewise possesses valuable copper and tin mines, the former producing 27,587 tons of copper in 1881. New South Wales has three lines of railway, the Southern, the Northern and the Western. In 1881 there were 994¼ miles of railway open for traffic and 11½ miles of tramways, and 487 miles under construction. The whole of the lines were built by the government. Of electric telegraphs there were in the colony 14,278 miles of line in 1881, constructed at a cost of £492,211. The paid messages transmitted in 1881 numbered 1,597,741. There were 318 telegraph stations at the end of 1881. The postoffice of the colony transmitted 26,355,600 letters, 16,527,900 newspapers, and 851,300 packets, in the year 1881.

New Zealand. The census of April 3, 1881, gave the total population of 534,032, including 44,099 Maories (24,370 males and 19,729 females); of the rest, 269,605 were males and 220,328 females. This includes 5,004 Chinese, of whom only nine were females. In 1880 there were 19,341 births, 5,437 deaths and 3,181 marriages in the colony. At the census of 1881 there were four towns with upward of 10,000 inhabitants in New Zealand. The total number of immigrants and of emigrants, and the surplus of immigrants over emigrants, was as follows:

Table.  Click to enlarge in new window.

The commerce of New Zealand increased nearly twenty-fold in the twenty years from 1859 to 1878; but while the imports, which at one time amounted to more than eight millions, fell again, the exports increased slightly in recent years. The value of the total imports of New Zealand in 1881 was £7,457,045; of the exports, £6,060,866. The value of the imports from Great Britain in 1881 was £3,718,308; that of the exports to Great Britain, £5,125,859. The staple article of export from New Zealand to the United Kingdom is wool. In 1881 there were exported to Great Britain 59,368,832 lbs. of wool, of an aggregate value of £3,477,993. Next to wool the most important articles of export were corn, flour, gum and preserved meat. The live stock of the colony consisted, in April, 1881, of 161,736 horses, 698,637 cattle, 12,985,085 sheep, 200,083 pigs, and 1,563,216 head of poultry. The greatest increase of live stock in recent years was in sheep. Their number increased from 1,523,324 in 1858, to 7,761,383 in 1861, to 4,937,273 in 1864, to 8,418,579 in 1867, to 9,700,629 in 1871, and to 11,704,853 in 1874. Large gold fields were discovered in the spring of 1857. The gold exports amounted to 355,322 ounces, valued at £1,407,770 in 1857; in 1881 only 250,683 ounces, valued at £996,867. In 1882 there were 1,383 miles of railway open for traffic. The total expenditures on construction of all the lines to March 31, 1881, had amounted to £9,599,355, and in 1882 to £9,869,669. On March 31, 1882, the colony had 3,824 miles of telegraph lines, and 9,653 miles of wire. The number of telegrams dispatched was 1,438,772, of which total over a million were private messages. The total receipts from telegrams amounted to £78,116. The total number of telegraph offices in the colony was 234. The postoffice in the year 1881 received 25,557,931 letters, of which number two-thirds came from places within and one-third from places without the colony. The total number of newspapers received in 1881 was 12,248,043, of which number over two-thirds came from places within and less than one-third from places without the colony. The total revenue of the postoffice amounted to £154,142 in 1881.

Queensland. Queensland is divided into twenty municipalities, the largest of which, as regards population, is Brisbane. It contains the city of Brisbane, the capital of the colony, and the seat of government, with a population of 31,109 on April 3, 1881. The number of immigrants in 1881 was 16,223; that of the emigrants, 9,209. The total value of imports in 1881 was £3,601,906, and of exports, £3,289,253. Wool, preserved meat and tallow are the chief articles of export. In December, 1882, there were 28,026 acres under sugar cane, out of a total of 128,875 acres under cultivation. The live stock at the end of 1881 numbered 194,217 horses, 3,618,513 cattle, 8,292,883 sheep and 56,438 pigs. There are several coal mines in the colony, the produce of which amounted to 65,612 tons in 1881. Gold fields were discovered in 1867, the produce of which amounted to 373,266 ounces, valued at £1,306,431 in the year 1877; in 1881 it was only 259,782 ounces, valued at £923,012. At the end of 1881 there were 800 miles of railway open for traffic in the colony, and 200 miles more in course of construction; while in 1882 a trans-Australian line from Brisbane to Port Darwin had been began. The postoffice of the colony in the year 1881 carried 5,178,547 letters, 4,530,263 newspapers, and 409,575 packets. At the end of 1881 there were in the colony 6,279 miles of telegraph lines, and 8,585 miles of wire, with 170 stations. The number of messages sent was 597,333 in the year 1881.

South Australia. On April 3, 1881, the population of South Australia numbered 279,865 (149,530 males and 130,335 females). Of these 75,812 were members of the church of England, 42,628 Roman Catholics, and 42,103 Wesleyan Methodists. During 1881 there were registered 10,708 births, 4,012 deaths and 2,308 marriages. The population of Adelaide, the capital of the colony, was, in 1881, 38,479, exclusive of the suburbs. The number of acres under cultivation doubled in the ten years 1866-76. There were 2,613,908 acres under cultivation in 1882. 1,768,781 thereof under wheat. The live stock of the colony comprised 159,678 horses. 314,918 horned cattle and 6,810,856 sheep. The total value of South Australian imports in 1882 was £5,890,000, and of exports, £5,280,000. The three staple articles of export are wool, wheat and flour, and copper ore. The total exports of wool in 1881 amounted to £1,911,927; the exports of wheat and flour, to £1,336,761; and the exports of copper, to £263,370. Mining operations are pursued on a very extensive scale in the colony. The mineral wealth as yet discovered consists chiefly in copper, besides which there exist iron ores of great richness. The colony had 945 miles of railway open for traffic in July, 1882, and 174 miles of lines in course of construction. There are two principal lines of railway, namely, the Port line, extending from Adelaide to Port Adelaide, and the North line, connecting Adelaide with the chief copper mines. The colony had 4,946 miles of telegraph in operation at the end of 1881, with 7,227 miles of wire. Included in the total is an overland line, opened in 1872, constructed at the expense of the South Australian government, running from Adelaide to Port Darwin, a distance of 2,000 miles. In 1882 there were 488 postoffices in the colony; and during 1880 there passed through them 10,340,772 letters and packets, and 5,790,768 newspapers.

Tasmania. The area of this colony is estimated at 26,215 square miles, or 16,778,000 acres, of which 15,571,500 acres form the area of Tasmania proper, the rest constituting that of a number of small islands. The total number of acres granted, or sold, up to the end of the year 1882, was 4,265,944; of these, 1,888,053 acres are held on depasturing leases, 374,374 acres being under cultivation, 53.41 per cent. of the population belong to the church of England; 22.24 per cent. to the church of Rome. At the census of 1881 the number of persons returned as being unable to read and write, was 31,080; as being able to read, only 9,589. The number of immigrants in 1881 was 12,579; that of emigrants, 11,163. The total value of the imports in 1881 was £1,438,524: that of the exports, £1,555,576. The commerce of Tasmania is almost entirely with the United Kingdom and the neighboring colonies of Victoria and New South Wales. Wool is the staple article of export. There were in the colony 27,805 horses, 130,526 head of cattle, 1,847,479 sheep and lambs, and 49,660 pigs. on March 31, 1882. The soil of the colony is rich in iron ore and tin, and there are large beds of coal. Gold has also been found. The exports of tin amounted in value to £375,775, and yield of gold to £216,901 in 1881. At the end of 1881 there were 178 miles of railway open for traffic. At the commencement of 1882 the number of miles of telegraph line in operation was 928, and the number of stations, 85. In 1881, 147,660 telegraphic messages were sent. The submarine cable, established in 1869, and connecting the colony with the continent of Australia, carried 14,871 messages in 1880. The postoffice carried, in the year 1881, 1,994,148 letters, 187,555 packets, and 2,049,949 newspapers.

Victoria. The population of this colony, which in 1836 was but 224, had increased in 1881 to 862,346. During the last decade there has been a large decrease both in Chinese and aborigines. About one-half of the total population of Victoria live in towns. The number of immigrants in 1881 was 59,066, and that of emigrants, 51,744. The birth rate in Victoria was 30.75 per 1.000 in 1880. The two staple articles of export from the colony are wool and gold. The total exports of wool amounted to £8,467,369 lbs., valued at £5,450,029, in 1881. In the ten years from 1852 to 1861 the exports of gold amounted to upward of two millions of ounces in weight per annum, but subsequently there was a gradual decline, till the year 1867, when the exports fell to under a million and a half ounces. In 1881 the produce of gold amounted to 858,850 ounces, valued at £3,674,104. There were 1,997,943 acres of land under cultivation in the colony at the end of March, 1882. In recent years there was a slowly increasing cultivation of the vine, the number of acres planted amounting to 4,919. In the year ended March 31, 1881, there were in the colony 275,516 horses, 1,286,267 head of cattle, 10,360,285 sheep, and 241,936 pigs. There were 1,214 miles of railway completed at the end of 1881, and 450 miles in progress. There were 3,349 miles of telegraph lines, comprising 6,626 miles of wire, open at the end of 1881. The number of telegraphic dispatches in the year 1881 was 1,281,749. At the end of 1881 there were 298 telegraph stations. The postoffice of the colony forwarded 26,308,347 letters, 4,213,625 packets, and 11,440,732 newspapers, in the year 1881. There were 1,158 postoffices on Dec. 31, 1881.

Western Australia. The agricultural prosperity of the colony has been greatly on the rise in recent years: still, there were only 60,821 acres of land under cultivation at the end of 1881, out of a total of 626,000,000 acres. The live stock consisted, in 1881, of 31,755 horses, 60,009 cattle, and 1,267,912 sheep. The total value of imports in 1881 was £404,831, and of exports, £502,769. Wool and lead are the principal articles of export. Copper and coal are also found. There were eighty-eight miles of railway open for traffic at the end of 1882. In 1881 there were 1,585 miles of telegraph line within the colony, with twenty-seven stations. In 1881 there passed through the postoffice 929,624 letters, 693,283 newspapers, and 79,818 packets.—F. M.

Footnotes for OFFICE-HOLDERS

14. [14] This article was originally printed in pamphlet form as one of the publications of the civil-service reform association, with whose kind permission, together with the permission of the author, it appears here.—ED.


15. [15] Who would write history after civilized Europe had perished? We are not so sure that the conquest of Turkey by Russia would add to the power of the latter.—MAURICE BLOCK.

16. [16] Russia's ambitions designs found expression again in the last Russo-Turkish war. The insurrections which took place in Herzegovina, Servia and Montenegro, in 1876 and 1877, not without being produced by Russian influence, caused new controversies between Russia and Turkey, after the latter had refused the guarantees desired by the great powers for the security of the Christians, in the conference which met at Constantinople in November, 1876, and which continued in session till January, 1877. These controversies led to a declaration of war by the czar against the porte, April 24, 1877. This was the fifth Russo-Turkish war. On March 3, 1878, a treaty of peace, called the peace of San Stefano, was signed, by which the war was ended. But the congress of Berlin materially changed its provisions in favor of Turkey. This congress met at Berlin, June 13, 1878, under the presidency of the German chancellor, Prince Bismarck. It was called to examine the result of the Russo-Turkish war (1877-8) created by the peace of San Stefano, and to make it harmonize with the interests of the other powers, especially of England and Austria. The result of the transactions and celebrations of this congress was the peace of Berlin, which provided for the independence of Rumania, Servia and Montenegro, and established two new independent states, Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelis. The immediate gain to Russia by this war was not great considering the sacrifice it had made in it. It cost 500,000,000 roubles, and 172,000 men on the European theatre of the war. On the other hand, the war greatly increased the influence of Russia, as a great Slavic power on the Balkan peninsula, and afforded it an opportunity to interfere in the affairs of that peninsula at any time.

Footnotes for PARAGUAY (Republic of).

17. [17] The ministry consists of five secretaries, presiding over the departments of the interior, of finance, of worship and justice, of war, and of foreign affairs. For administrative purposes the country is divided into seventy departments (departementos), governed by commanders.

—The public revenue of Paraguay is derived mainly from customs duties. In 1881 they yielded £82,548. In 1882 the expenditure was estimated to amount to £62,685, inclusive of interest on the debt, army expenses and other items.

—The republic had no debt until the war of 1865-70, which led to the raising of large internal loans. In 1871 and 1872, the government contracted two foreign loans, the first of the nominal amount of £1,000,000, and the second of £2,000,000, each bearing 8 per cent. interest. The loans, issued at the price of 80, were hypothecated on the public lands of Paraguay, valued at £19,380,000. Payment of both interest and sinking funds on the two loans ceased in 1874. No part of the previous payments, according to the report of the select parliamentary committee on foreign loans, 1875, "was provided for by the government of Paraguay, but the whole was derived from the proceeds of the loans themselves. Since these funds so set apart have been exhausted, no payment on account of interest or sinking fund has been made by the government of Paraguay." According to treaty stipulations arising out of the war of 1865-70, Paraguay is indebted to Brazil to the amount of 200,000,000 pesos, or £40,000,000; to the Argentine Confederation to the amount of 35,000,000 pesos, or £7,000,000, and to Uruguay to the amount of 1,000,000 pesos, or £200,000, being a total war debt of 236,000,000 pesos, or £47,200,000.

—The military force in the war against the united armies of Brazil Uruguay and the Argentine Republic, carried on during the years 1865-70, comprised 60,000 men, including 10,000 cavalry and 5,000 artillery. These troops were afterward altogether disbanded, and the entire force in 1877 consisted of 185 foot soldiers, forming the garrison of the capital. The permanent army is only 500 men.

—The frontiers of the republic, not well defined previous to the war of 1865-70—large territories considered part of it being claimed by Brazil, Bolivia and the Argentine Confederation—were fixed by a treaty of alliance between Brazil, the Argentine Confederation and Uruguay, signed May 1, 1865, to be between 22° and 27° south latitude, and 57° and 60° west longitude, of the meridian of Paris. By the final adjustment of the boundaries between Paraguay and neighboring states the area of the former is now estimated at 91,970 square miles.

—An enumeration made by the government in 1857 showed the population to number 1,337,439 souls.

—At the beginning of 1873 the number of inhabitants, according to an official return, was reduced to 221,079 souls, comprising 28,746 men and 106,254 women over fifteen years of age, with 86,079 children, the enormous disproportion between the sexes, as we has the vast decrease of the population, telling the results of the war. Since that date, another enumeration was taken, in 1876, the returns of which state the population at 293,844, being an increase of 72,765 in three years. About one-third of the inhabitants are living in the central province, containing the capital, the rest being spread thinly as settlers over the remaining portion of cultivated country. Nearly three-fourths of the entire territory is national property.

—The chief article of foreign commerce of Paraguay is the yerba mate, or Paraguayan tea, made of the leaves of the Ilex Paraguayensis tree, dried and reduced to powder, which are extensively consumed in all the states of South America. About 7,600,000 pounds of tobacco were exported in 1881. However, the total commerce of the republic is very small, the aggregate of imports and exports not amounting, on the average, to more than half a million sterling per annum. In 1881 the imports amounted to £255,600, and the exports to £362,400. The imports are derived to the extent of three-fourths from Great Britain, and one-fourth from France and Germany. The British imports are passing entirely through the territories of Brazil and the Argentine Confederation, and since the year 1862, when a few articles of machinery and furniture, valued at £1,764, arrived from England, there has been no direct intercourse between Paraguay and the United Kingdom.

—The only railway in Paraguay is a short line of forty-five English miles, from Asuncion, the capital, to Paraguay. There are no lines of telegraph but one at the side of this railway.—F. M.

Footnotes for PARDON.

18. [18] No attempt has been made in the above to give the actual law, constitutional and other, relative to the pardoning power; this Cyclopædia being one of politics and political economy, mainly, and not of law.

—In the United States the power to pardon offenders is vested by the several state constitutions in the governor. It is not, however, a power which necessarily inheres in the executive. (State vs. Dunning, 9 Ind., 22.) And several of the state constitutions have provided that it shall be exercised under such regulations as shall be prescribed by law. There are provisions more or less broad to this purport in those of Kansas, Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi. Oregon, Indiana, Iowa and Virginia. In State vs. Dunning, 9 Ind., 20, an act of the legislature requiring the applicant for the remission of a fine or forfeiture to forward to the governor, with his application, the opinion of certain county officers as to the propriety of the remission, was sustained as an act within the power conferred by the constitution upon the legislature to prescribe regulations in these cases. And see Branham vs. Lange, 16 Ind., 500. The power to reprieve is not included in the power to pardon. (Cooley.)

Footnotes for PARLEY.

19. [19] The institution of parley is useful to the strong as well as to the weak; not to respect it is not only a crime, but also, for each, a very grave fault against his own interest. It sometimes happens in war that a parlementaire is killed; we believe this is always by mistake. The flag has not, perhaps, been seen, or, if the envoy presents himself during a battle, which is generally a very inopportune moment, he may be accidentally wounded.—M. B.


20. [20] References given in italics, are to subjects treated in this article; those given in small capitals, are to articles in the Cyclopædia at large.

Footnotes for PEACE

21. [21] The preceding only applies to wars of aggression, and in such cases most constitutions require the consent of the national representatives. Even when the constitution attributes to the king the right to declare war, this does not mean that the war is the result of the royal will, but only that it is one of the king's functions (and not, for instance, one of the functions of a minister or prefect) to sign the act. The right of defense, in case of an attack, is too evident, and is therefore not mentioned.

22. [22] Arbitration can be employed only in cases involving material interests, and in that case all European nations will submit to it in the future. Is there any material interest which is worth the milliards which war actually costs? Thus, there will be no more fighting but for honor or for a sentiment, a passion; but what can arbitrators do in such a case?

Footnotes for PERSIA.

23. [23] By the treaty of Dec. 9 (21), 1881, ratified Feb. 28 (March 12), 1882, the boundary between the Persian province of Chorasan and the territory of the Turkomans, which had lately been occupied by the Russians, was finally established. By the stipulations of that treaty the boundary line is formed by the lower parts of the Atrek river upward to Fort Tschat, by the ridge of the Songu Dagh and by the Sjagirim mountains; it next crosses the upper Tshandyr, runs in a northeasterly direction to the Sumbar, following its course to its month; it then runs along the ridge of the Kopet Dagh in a southeasterly direction, following, as a whole, irrespective of some sinuosities and indentations, the northern water-shed of the Atrek river, up to Baba-Durmas, which remains in the possession of Persia. This conquest by Russia has at least the advantage for Persia, that a considerable portion of the latter country will henceforth be secure from the destructive invasions of the Turkomans; the Russians also gave their freedom to a great number of captive. Persians in the settlements of the Tekke (Turkomans). The sixth volume of Behm & Wagner's Die Berolkerung der Erde contains the latest estimates of the population of Persia, by Gen. Houtum-Schindler, who possesses a most thorough knowledge of the country; these estimates are based, partly on the general's own observations, and partly on the statements of the Persian minister of finance, and are as follows:

Table.  Click to enlarge in new window.

According to religion these 7,653,600 inhabitants are divided into 6,860,600 Shiites, 700,000 Sunnites and Mohammedan sectarians, 8,000 Parsees, 19,000 Jews, 43,000 Armenians, and 23,000 Nestorians. Of 1,000 Armenians, 528 are males, 472 females; of 1,000. Mohammedans, 495 are males, and 505 females.

—The cultivation and the export of opium, which are not only encouraged by the government, but even ordered by it, have lately considerably increased, while in other respects little or no progress has been made in the country. The Persian opium trade dates only from the Anglo-Chinese war. In consequence of the safety afforded by the occupation of Hong Kong by the English, Persian opium gradually made its way to China. The prohibitory duties exacted in the ports of India had been a great obstacle in the way of trade, and for a long time more opium was sent to Constantinople than to Hong Kong. Finally, some merchants of lead discovered the route via Ceylon, and now that drug is shipped via Bender-Abbas directly to China, by steamers of the Pei-ho line of steamships. In 1880 the export was 6,000 piculs (or boxes of 125 English lbs.), and in 1881, 8,000; while ten years previous, the export amounted to but 4,000 piculs, or one-half of the amount exported in 1881. 8,000 piculs are equivalent to 480 English tons, and are but one-tenth of the quantity of opium exported from India. With better roads. Persia might well night make its competition felt by India. Probably in consequence of the primitive method of manufacturing it, Persian opium is a little cheaper than that produced in India; crude Persian opium costs ten rupees per see (two lbs.); refined, thirteen and one-third rupees, against sixteen rupees for refined Indian opium.

—The Persian priesthood consists of many orders, the chief of them at the present time being that of Mooshteched, of whom there are but five in number in the whole country. Vacancies in this post are filled nominally by the members of the order, but in reality by the public voice, and the shah himself is excluded from all power of appointment. Next in rank to the mooshtehed is the sheik-nl-islam, or ruler of the faith, of whom there is one in every large town, nominated by, and receiving his salary from, the government. Under these dignitaries there are three classes of ministers of religion, the mooturelle, one for each mosque or place of pilgrimage; the muezzin, or sayer of prayers, and the mollah, or conductor of rites. The Armenians are under two bishops, one of them Roman Catholic, and both residing at Ispahan. There is wide tolerance exercised toward Armenians and Nestorians, but the Jews and Guebres suffer under great oppression. Education is in a comparatively advanced state, at least as far as the upper classes are concerned. There are a great number of colleges, supported by public funds, in which students are instructed in religion and Persian and Arabian literature, as well as in a certain amount of scientific knowledge, while private tutors are very common, being employed by all families who have the means. A larger portion of the population of Persia are possessed of the rudiments of education than of any other country in Asia, except China. The revenue and expenditure of the government are known only from estimates, as no budgets or other official accounts have ever been published. The receipts of the year 1875 amounted to 4,361,660 tomans, or £2,026,354, in money, besides payments in kind, consisting of barley, wheat, rice and silk, valued at 550,840 tomans, or £255,911, making the total revenue equal to 4,912,500 tomans, or £2,282,265. The bulk of the public expenditure is for the maintenance of troops, and salaries, with pensions, to the Persian priesthood, while each annual surplus is paid into the shah's treasury. Almost the entire burthen of taxation lies, as remarked above, upon the laboring classes, and, among these, upon the Mohammedan subjects of the shah. The amount of revenue collected from the Christian population, the Jews, and the Guebres, is reported to be very small. The government has no public debt.

—By a decree of the shah, issued in July, 1875, it was ordered that the army should for the future be raised by conscription, instead of by irregular levies, and that a term of service of twelve years should be substituted for the old system, under which the mass of the soldiers were retained for life. The organization of the army is by provinces, tribes and districts. A province furnishes several regiments; a tribe gives one, and sometimes two, and a district contributes one battalion to the army. The commanding officers are almost invariably selected from the chiefs of the tribe or district from which the regiment is raised. The Christians, Jews and Guebres in Persia are exempt from all military service. The whole external trade of Persia may be roughly valued at £4,000,000 annually, of which £2,500,000 may be taken as the value of the imports, and £1,500,000 as that of the exports. The greater part of the commerce of Persia centres at Tabreez, which is the chief emporium for the productions of northern India, Samarkand, Bokhars. Cabul and Beloochistan. There are no official returns of the value of the total imports and exports, the former of which are estimated to have averaged £1,000,000, and the latter £500,000, per annum, in the year 1876-80. The principal article of import into Tabreez during the five years consisted of cotton goods of British manufacture, of the average annual value of £800,000; while the chief article of export was silk, shipped for France and Great Britain, of the average annual value of £110,000. All the European merchandise that reaches Tabreez passes by Constantinople to Trebizond, whence it is forwarded by caravans. Upward of £100,000 worth of carpets are now annually exported to Europe.

—Persia has a system of telegraphs, established by Europeans. At the end of 1879 there were 3,367 miles of telegraph lines and 5,660 miles of telegraph wire in operation. The number of telegraph offices was seventy-one at the same date. The number of dispatches forwarded in the year 1878 was 500,000, the revenue of the year from telegraphs amounting to £15,000. The first regular postal service, also established by Europeans, was opened in January, 1877. Under it mails are conveyed from Julfa, on the Russian frontier, to Tabreez and Teheran, and from thence to the port of Resht, on the Caspian sea. In November, 1882, the Persian government arranged with a syndicate of French capitalists for the construction of a railway from Resht to Teheran, 250 miles. (See Statesman's Manual, 1883.)

Footnotes for PERU.

24. [24] The so-called "saltpetre war" carried on by the republic of Chili, against the allied republics of Peru and Bolivia, was begun in the year 1879. For decades there had existed a controversy concerning the boundaries between Chili and Bolivia. The question in dispute was, whether the province of Atacamba, between Peru and Chili, belonged entirely to Holivis, or whether Chili had a right to claim its extremest southern part. This question increased in significance, when it was discovered, that there were in this very southern part vast deposits of guano, extensive beds of saltpetre and rich veins of silver. By the treaty of Aug. 10, 1866, the governments of Chili and Bolivia agreed that the territory in dispute should belong to both states in common, so far as the division of receipts from taxes and revenue duties was concerned, and Bolivia pledged itself in no way to disturb Chilian citizens in the exploitation of the saltpetre mines. Incensed by Pern, with which Bolivia had concluded a secret offensive and defensive alliance in 1873, the government of Bolivia did not observe the treaty of 1866; it arbitrarily taxed a Chilian company of merchants in the seaport of Antofagasts, and here meeting with resistance, made several arrests and confiscated the property of the company. Peru, which exported large quantities of guano and saltpetre, and feared the competition of energetic Chili, did not dislike this repression. Chili complained of the action of Bolivia in violation of the treaty, and when the latter did not pay any attention to its complaints, Chili equipped a squadron, caused Antofagasta to be blockaded by the same on Feb. 14, 1879, and the entire saltpetre region to be seized. Upon this followed, on the first of March, the declaration of war by Bolivia, which, on the second day of April, concluded an armed alliance with Peru. The Chilian squadron next blockaded the south Peruvian port of Iquique and other ports in the neighborhood, whence saltpetre and guano were exported. Pressed hard by the Peruvian fleet, which had more iron-clads, the Chilians were, however, compelled to raise the blockade and to retire to Antofagasta. But soon afterward they succeeded in capturing the strongest iron-clad of the enemy, in taking the port of Pisagua and in defeating the land forces of the Bolivians and Peruvians near Dolores; they also occupied the port of Iquique and took away the entire south Peruvian province of Tarapacs, with its rich beds of guano and saltpetre. Chili was completely master at sea, and Arica and other ports of Peru were blockaded by the Chilian fleet. Intense excitement prevailed in the two allied states, and their two respective governments were overthrown; in Bolivia there existed a state of anarchy, its army and finances being prostrate; in Peru, Gen. Pierola, who had been elected president, ruled like a dictator. The campaign of 1880 was still more favorable for the Chilians. Their troops, under Gen. Baquedano, marched on the 20th of March into the town of Moquegua, which had been abandoned by the Peruvians; the Chilian troops threw the enemy back on Tacna, where the allied troops suffered another defeat, upon which the former occupied the town and took Arica by storm. The Bolivian troops retired home after the defeat near Tacna. Through the mediation of the United States negotiations for peace were begun. The plenipotentiaries of the belligerent republics and of the United States convened on neutral ground, on board a United States man-of-war, on the 22d of October. The conference, however, did not agree as to the conditions of peace. The proposition that the three states should submit to the arbitration of the United States government was refused by the victorious Chilians. Thus the conference came to an end, without any result, on the 27th of October. With a force of about 24,000 men the Chilians resumed the war. They landed two army corps on the coast of Peru, they routed the enemy, intrenched near Lurin, and advanced toward Lima, the capital of Peru. After having suffered two further defeats, one near Chorillos, on Jan. 12, 1881, and the other near Miraflores, on the 15th of the same month, the enemy fled in confusion to Lima. The Peruvian army was now utterly demoralized, and unable to resist any further. Lima was occupied by the Chilian troops on the 17th of January. In place of the fugitive Pierola, Calderon was appointed provisional president of Peru by a convention of notables; after the session of congress, which had been convened with great difficulty, had been opened, Calderon's nomination was made definitive. Gen. Lynch, who, in place of Gen. Baquedano, was intrusted with the chief command of the Chilian troops, came in conflict with Calderon and with Galvez, the minister of foreign affairs; he ordered their removal; and when, his orders notwithstanding, both of them continued to exercise their functions, they were arrested and sent to Santiago. The United States government, believing it had a right to intervene in all American states, and knowing its own interest to be better guarded by the existence of small than of large states, had already recognized the Calderon government; it had also declared to the Chilian government, that the latter would not be allowed to insist upon a cession of territory as a condition preliminary to negotiations for peace, and that the United States would not suffer any intervention from Europe. Chili stipulated the following conditions: Peru was to cede the district of Tarapaca, and to pay a war indemnity of twenty millions of dollars within sixteen years; until the completion of the payment of that sum, Chili was to keep the town of Arica as a pledge; and in case the indemnity should not be paid, Chili would keep Arica and take possession also of the guano island, Lobos. Chili declared to the American minister that it would decline all further mediation in case of Peru's refusing to accept these conditions. In a circular of Dec 21, 1881, to the diplomatic representatives of Chili, Balmaceda, the Chilian minister of foreign affairs, gave an accurate account of the causes of the war, of the events of the war and of the intervention by the United States, and insisted upon the demand of a cession of territory, which he signified as an indispensable means of indemnification, and a condition of security based upon international law. At the same time he did not fail to recall the fact that the United States government in its international conflicts (especially in the wars with Mexico) did not hesitate to impose on the vanquished adversary cessions of large tracts of territory as a preliminary condition. Under such circumstances the negotiations, it is true, were continued, but the conclusion of peace was removed to an incalculable distance; meanwhile Chili remained in possession of what it had occupied.

—During the year 1882 no essential change occurred in the condition of Peru. The Chilians insisted upon their conditions of peace, and in Peru they could find no government that would agree to these conditions. Bolivia kept aloof from the war, and neither could Peru expect any assistance from any other power, the more so because the United States in 1882 abstained from any intervention. In that part of the country which had not been occupied by Chilian troops, lawless gangs of soldiers, under rapacious and violent leaders, raged in a most cruel manner. In Chincha sixty European inhabitants were shot, and in pillaging the town the marauders destroyed property valued at eight millions of dollars. In the seaport of Pisco the gang of Col. Mas, on the 24th of January, in a state of beastly intoxication, murdered several hundreds of inhabitants. Several generals now claimed the highest authority, and fought one against the other; thus: Admiral Mantero, in Huaraz; farther north, the Indian Puga; in Cajamarca, Pierola's former minister of war, Gen Iglesias; in Arequipa, Carrillo; in Ayacucho, Gen. Caceres, a brave and determined officer. The latter had some of the leaders of the marauding troops shot, among them Col. Mas. The Chilians refused to recognize the troops of these leaders as belligerent soldiers, but treated all men who were captured with arms in hand as highway robbers. The Peruvians treated the Chilians in a like manner. Thus, on the 9th of July they surprised and killed a troop of Chilian soldiers in Concepcion, upon which the Chilian general, del Canto, caused all the inhabitants of that town to be massacred. The Chilians, growing impatient because peace was not concluded, sought to indemnify themselves by increasing the revenue duties, and by imposing contributions on the towns which they held and occupied. In this manner they tried to compel the Peruvians to make peace. The negotiations with President Garcia Calderon, confined in the interior of Chili, remained without result, because he refused to agree to the cession of Arica and Tacna. The Chilians therefore entered into negotiations with Iglesias, an honest but narrow-minded man, in Cajamarca; Iglesias proved to be more ready to yield. Montero, however, who, by virtue of his former capacity as vice-president, had declared himself the constitutional successor of Calderon, who had gone to Arequipa and had even formed a ministry there, refused to ratify the concessions made by Iglesias.

—On May 15, 1883, a treaty of peace, accepted by Iglesias, was concluded between Chili and Peru. The stipulations of the treaty were as follows: 1. The unconditional surrender in perpetuity to Chili of the department of Tarapaca as far north as the Quebrada de Camarones, the whole of which territory is consequently to be governed by Chili. 2. The territories of Tacna and Arica, now held by Chili, are to be subject to the legislation and government of that republic during ten years from the date of the treaty's taking effect. At the expiration of that time, a plebiscitum is to be had which shall decide whether that territory shall be subject to Chili or return to Peru. The country which remains in possession of the territory is to pay the other country 10,000,000 silver Chilian dollars, or the equivalent in Peruvian soles. A special protocol is to determine the form under which the plebiscitum shall be held, and the time of payment of the $10,000,000 alluded to. 3. The government of Chili binds itself strictly to comply with the contract signed and decrees issued respecting guano Feb. 9, 1882, and respecting nitrate March 22 of the same year, and it adds thereto the following declaration: "The said decree of Feb. 9, 1882, orders the sale of 1,000,000 tons of guano, and article thirteen establishes that the net price of the guano, after deducting the cost of extraction, analysis, weighing, loading, salaries of employés to overlook these different operations, and all expenses incurred up to the moment of placing it, sacked, on board the vessel, shall be divided in equal parts between the government of Chili and the creditors of Peru, whose credits are guaranteed by this article." The government of Chili also declares that, when the sale of 1,000,000 tons shall have been completed, it will deliver to the creditors of Peru 50 per cent. of the net proceeds, as provided by article thirteen, until the debt shall have been extinguished or the deposits exhausted. But it is understood that only the deposits which are actually worked are alluded to hereby, and that all those which may hereafter be discovered or worked in the annexed territories will belong exclusively to Chili, which will retain all the proceeds and dispose of them as she may determine. It is also understood that the creditors of Peru who are benefited under this concession must comply with the regulations contained in the decree of Feb. 9, 1882, and that, beyond the declarations contained in this article, Chili does not recognize, on account of war or any other motive, any indebtedness of Peru, of any nature whatsoever. 4. The North Lobos islands will continue to be managed by Chili until the 1,000,000 tons of guano which have been sold shall have been delivered. Then they will be returned to Peru. The 50 per cent of the net proceeds of the guano from the Lobos islands to which Chili is entitled under the decree of Feb. 9, is ceded by her to Peru, and payment thereof will be commenced directly the present treaty shall have been ratified.

—The questions referring to the future commercial relations between the two countries, and the indemnities due the Chilians for losses through the war, are matters for subsequent discussion and arrangement. The treaty, however, could not be carried into effect, because the Peruvians refused to recognize Gen. Iglesias as their lawful president, and to ratify the treaty he had signed. Victorious Chili was from the beginning willing to recognize Iglesias as president, because his presidency offered the best guarantees for the ratification, and for the strict observance, of the treaty. Meanwhile, the lawless condition of Peru continued. Bands of so-called "patriots," who opposed Iglesias and the ratification of the treaty of peace, committed numberless outrages. This reign of terror, and the consideration of the fact that the conclusion of a treaty would be an indispensable condition to the recovery of Peru, caused the better part of the population of that country to rally around Iglesias, and to support his claims to the presidency.

25. [25] Peru had a deficit, in 1876, of about $1,538,490. It has (1883) a large public debt, divided into internal and external. The internal liabilities are estimated at about $20,000,000. It has, besides, a floating debt of an unknown amount, greatly increased by large issues of paper money, made in 1879 and 1880, to carry on the war against Chili. The total of these issues was estimated, at the end of October, 1880, at 35,000,000 soles.

—The army of Peru was composed, at the end of 1878, of eight battalions of infantry, numbering 5,600 men; of three regiments of cavalry, numbering 1,200 men; of two brigades of artillery, numbering 1,000 men; and of a gendarmerie, numbering 5,400 men. The number of men under arms was raised nominally to 40,000 in May, 1879, after the outbreak of hostilities against Chili, and further increased to 70,000 in the summer of 1880, after the successful invasion of the territory by the Chilians. At the beginning of November, 1879, the Peruvian navy consisted of four ironclads and six other steamers. In 1883, in consequence of the war with Chili, it may be said that both the army and navy of Peru have been completely destroyed.

—The foreign commerce of Peru is chiefly with Great Britain and the United States.

—In 1878 there were open for traffic, or in course of construction, eleven railway lines belonging to the state, 1,281 miles in length, and costing 128,354,600 soles. There were, besides, eight lines belonging to private persons, 496 miles in length, and two lines belonging in part to the state and in part to individuals.

Footnotes for PETITION, Right of

26. [26] See, for example, "Address to the People of Maryland," 3 American Museum, 419, giving an account of the Mary land convention, very few members of which, it is true, seemed to wish to have the right of petition mentioned in the constitution; p. 424.

27. [27] See ib., 273-278, 280-290, 557-562, for the attempt to censure John Quincy Adams for a breach of this resolution; and notice, at p. 278, Mr. Cushing's able argument, showing that the right of petition existed independent of the constitution.

28. [28] (See also 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 143; Story on the Constitution, § 1894; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 349; 1 May's Constitutional History, chap 7, pp. 410-417; Whipple's Report to the Legislature of Rhode Island, and Otis' Letter, published in pamphlet form, by Cassady & March, Boston, 1889; Broom's Constitutional Law, 408 et seq., 493 et seq., 508 et seq.)

Footnotes for PHYSIOCRATES.

29. [29] The date of this publication is important in the history of the science. We have remarked, in an essay relating to the origin and filiation of the term political economy (Journal des Economistes, vol. xxili., pp. 11, 217): "Engene Daire, after stating (xiv. of his Introduction to the 'Works of Turgot,' in the Collection des principaux Economistes) that this work was printed about 1766, inclines us to believe in the notice of Mercier de la Rivière (same vol., p. 430), that this date is not exact, and that Turgot's treatise appeared later. Engene Daire was mistaken a second time; we have before us a copy of the edition of 1766 in 12mo." If Eugene Daire was mistaken, it was only in part, and we ourselves are also mistaken. The volume of which we speak, bore the last date which we mention; but this date points to the time when Turgot was writing, during his intendancy. The first edition seems to have been the separate one formed of the article in the Ephémérides, part of which appeared in the 11th vol., at the end of 1769, and a part in the 12th vol., at the commencement of 1770.

Footnotes for PIRACY

30. [30] Kent. in his Commentaries (vol. i., p. 183), gives the following definition of piracy: "Piracy is robbery, or a forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority, and done animo furandi, and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility. It is the same offense at sea with robbery on land; and all the writers on the law of nations, and on the maritime law of Europe, agree in this definition of piracy." Further on he continues: "They (pirates) acquire no rights by conquest; and the law of nations, and the municipal law of every country, authorize the true owner to reclaim his property taken by pirates, wherever it can be found; and they do not recognize any title to be derived from an act of piracy. The principle, that a piratis et latronibus capta dominium non mutant, is the received opinion of ancient civilians and modern writers on general jurisprudence; and the same doctrine was maintained in the English courts of common law, prior to the great modern improvements made in the science of the law of nations."

—By the constitution of the United States, congress is authorized to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations. In pursuance of this authority it was declared, by the act of congress of April 30, 1790, c. 9. sec. 8, that murder or robbery, committed on the high seas, or in any river, haven or bay, out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, or any other offense which, if committed within the body of a county, would, by the laws of the United States, be punishable with death, should be adjudged to be piracy and felony, and punishable with death. It was further declared, that if any captain or mariner should piratically and feloniously run away with any vessel, or any goods or merchandise to the value of fifty dollars, or should yield up any such vessel voluntarily to pirates; or if any seaman should forcibly endeavor to hinder his commander from defending the ship or goods committed to his trust, or should make a revolt in the ship—every such offender should be adjudged a pirate and felon, and be punishable with death. [By the act of congress of March 3, 1835, c. 313, the offense of making a revolt in a ship is no longer punishable as a capital offense, but only by fine, and imprisonment at hard labor.] Accessories to such piracies before the fact are punishable in like manner; but accessories after the fact are only punishable by fine and imprisonment. And by the act of March 3, 1819, c. 76, sec. 5, congress declared, that if any person on the high seas should commit the crime of piracy, as defined by the law of nations, he should, on conviction, suffer death. This act was but temporary in its limitation, and has expired; but it was again declared, and essentially to the same effect, by the act of congress of May 15, 1820, c. 113, sec. 3, that "if any person, upon the high seas, or in any open roadstead, or bay, or river, where the sea ebbs and flows, commits the crime of robbery in and upon any vessel, or the lading thereof, or the crew, he shall be adjudged a pirate. So, if any person engaged in any piratical enterprise, or belonging to the crew of any piratical vessel, should land and commit robbery on shore, such an offender shall also be adjudged a pirate.' According to a decision of the United States supreme court, robbery on the high seas is piracy by the act of congress, as well as by the law of nations.

—Kent holds, that it is of no importance, for the purpose of giving jurisdiction, on whom or where a piratical offense has been committed. "A pirate, who is one by the law of nations, may be tried and punished in any country where he may be found, for he is reputed to be out of the protection of all laws and privileges. The statute of any government may declare an offense committed on board its own vessels to be piracy, and such an offense will be punishable exclusively by the nation which passes the statute. But piracy, under the law of nations, is an offense against all nations, and punishable by all." "An alien, under the sanction of a national commission, can not commit piracy while he pursues his authority. His acts may be hostile, and his nation responsible for them. They may amount to a lawful cause of war, but they are never to be regarded as piracy." "If a natural-born subject was to take prizes belonging to his native country in pursuance of a foreign commission, he would, on general principles, be protected by his commission from the charge of piracy. But to prevent the mischief of such conduct, the United States have followed the provisions of the English statute of 11 and 12 William III., c. 7, and the general practice of other nations, and have, by the act of congress of April 30, 1790, sec. 9, declared, that, if any citizen should commit any act of hostility against the United States, or any citizen thereof, upon the high seas, under color of any commission from any foreign prince or state, or on pretense of authority from any person, such offender shall be adjudged to be a pirate, felon and robber, and, on being thereof convicted, shall suffer death. The act of congress not only authorizes a capture, but a condemnation in the courts of the United States, for all piratical aggressions by foreign vessels; and whatever may be the responsibility incurred by the nation to foreign powers, in executing such laws, there can be no doubt that courts of justice are bound to obey and administer them. All such hostile and criminal aggressions on the high seas, under the flag of any power, render property taken in delicto subject to confiscation by the law of nations."

—By the ancient common law of England, piracy, if committed by a subject, was held to be a species of treason, being contrary to his natural allegiance; and by an alien to be felony only: but since the statute of treasons (25 Edw. III., c. 2), it is held to be only felony in a subject. Formerly this offense was only cognizable by the admiralty courts, which proceed by the rules of the civil law; but it being inconsistent with the liberties of the nation that a man's life should be taken away unless by the judgment of his peers, the statute 28 Henry VIII., c. 15, established a new jurisdiction for this purpose, which proceeds according to the course of the common law. It was formerly a question whether the Algerines and other African states should be considered pirates; but however exceptionable their conduct might have been on many occasions, and however hostile their policy might be to the interests of humanity, still, as they had been subjected to what may be called regular governments, and admitted to enter into treaties with other powers, they could not be treated as pirates. (M'Culloch.)

—What constitutes piracy, in violation of the law of nations, is not uniformly fixed everywhere. It is questioned whether (as according to English common law) self-interested design must be the motive of the attack. A majority of modern writers have answered this question in the negative. Another undecided question is, whether piracy may be committed by a mutinous crew against the vessel on which they serve. Acts of violence committed by duly authorized privateers against hostile, or, bona fide, against neutral, merchantmen, are not considered as piracy. Different from the crime of piracy, in violation of the law of nations, is the crime of piracy which is mentioned in and punished by the criminal laws of some countries. The description of the facts which constitute these two different kinds of crime may become doubtful, as when a party, being in a state of insurrection, and recognized as "belligerent" by the neutral powers, injures the maritime commerce of the other party in the course of a civil war. The slave trade, too, is to be considered piracy, according to the laws of seafaring nations, and according to the treaties which have been concluded for the purpose of suppressing that nefarious trade; but where the right to search suspected vessels on the high seas is denied to vessels under foreign flags, the punishing of the guilty in accordance with the provisions in relation to piracy can not be carried out practically. It is a strange fact, as compared with other codes, that sec. 4 of the German criminal code does not enumerate piracy among the crimes committed in foreign countries, which may be punished. (Holtzendorff.)

Footnotes for POLICE

31. [31] Bär, p. 341, etc. According to Bär (p. 348), the most experienced judges, magistrates and prison officials in England have declared, that three-fourths to four-fifths of all crimes are the result of intemperance. In the year 1877, before a parliamentary committee, nineteen prison superintendents and clergymen stated that the number of prisoners who were victims of intemperance amounted to 60-90 per cent. of all criminals (p. 344). In Germany, according to Bär (p. 348), in the year 1875, of 32,837 prisoners, there were 13,706 drunkards (41.7 per cent.), 7,269 occasional drinkers (22.1 per cent.), and 6,437 habitual drunkards (19.6 per cent.).

32. [32] The general economic principle, that the production accommodates itself to the demand for the article produced, is incorrect in so far as the number of drinking places and the retail trade in spirits are concerned, for the reason that the temptations to intemperance are increased by the frequency, convenience and cheapness of the opportunities offered for the gratification of the taste for intoxicants. Where taverns or "saloons" and the retail trade in spirits are completely free, the number of taverns, etc., is not proportioned to the want, but to the power of resistance of the people to the desire, for strong drink. The less this power for resistance is, the greater will be the number of "saloons," and the more rapidly will intemperance spread. For this reason the retailing of spirituous liquors has in all states been subjected to police regulations, and where these regulations have been abolished, a speedy return to severer ones has been necessary. In England the public houses have to be licensed, and the license can be granted only by a permanent committee of the justices of the peace of the county, or of the city, and must be renewed every year. The license is granted only for one definite public house, on which a special tax is laid. (Laws of 1828 and 1872.) In France, by a decree of Dec. 29, 1851, a tavern or inn can be opened only by virtue of a license, issued by the prefect. The prefect may close a tavern, from motives of public security, or because the keeper thereof has been sentenced for a transgression of the regulations governing his traffic. The prefects are instructed to grant new licenses only after an extremely careful examination into the character of the person and of the demand, and to close a public house as soon as the keeper has become guilty of even the smallest transgression of the police regulations. (Ministerial Circular of March 6, 1872.) A peculiar system, and one worthy of attention, prevails in Sweden and Norway. In Sweden the laws of 1857 and 1869 provided, that in every parish the number of taverns should be determined by boards cooperating with the parish authorities, and that they should be leased to the highest bidder. In 1865 there was formed, in the city of Gothenburgh a joint stock company, which rented all the taverns in the city, with a view to limiting the retailing of spirituous liquors and opposing intemperance. All the profits of the business, by the by laws of the society, go to the treasury of the parish. The highly favorable results obtained by this company caused societies of the same kind to be formed in many other cities. In the year 1871, in Norway, a similar law was enacted, and the so-called Gothenburgh system was introduced there. This system, however, has its disadvantages; for a great number of secret drinking places were opened, and the police but seldom succeeded in suppressing them. In Germany an ordinance of June 21, 1869, makes the business of taverns, as well as the retail trade in brandy and spirits, dependent on the obtaining of a license. The license, however, can be denied: 1, when there is reason to believe that the person asking it is likely to abuse it for the encouragement of excessive drinking, gambling, or of immorality; 2, when the place intended for the trade, by reason of its position, etc., does not satisfy the requirements of the police. When it is not contrary to territorial laws, the territorial administrations may make the permission to retail intoxicants dependent on proof of actual public demand. This is the case in Prussia, Saxony, Mecklenburg, Brunswick, Saxe-Meiningen, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Saxe-Altenburg, Reuss and Schaumburg-Lippe. Nevertheless, the ordinance caused a notable increase in the number of retail shops for the sale of intoxicants.

33. [33] To this effect, asylums for the inebriate were established in the United States (in 1857 in Boston), asylums in which cures are frequently effected. It has been claimed that in the asylums in the United States cures have been effected in 35 per cent. of the cases.

34. [34] In the middle ages the church used to punish every kind of unchastity as an ecclesiastic transgression, but it is known how widespread sexual profligacy was in the middle ages among the clergy and laity, and how openly it was practiced. Loose women were not only tolerated, but public brothels were considered necessary institutions in a city. They frequently were the property of the lords of the country or city; they were leased out by them, or kept for them by brothel masters or mistresses whom they appointed. Private brothels were licensed, and stood under the protection of public authority, but had to pay certain taxes. In most German cities brothels had to be tolerated under police supervision, and the laws against simple prostitution, as a rule, remained void of effect.

35. [35] In Germany it was mainly the work of Cella on crimes and transgressions in the matter of unchastity (1786), that paved the way for the opinion that simple incontinence, which appears only as vice, without offending the rights of others, or creating public scandal, is not punishable.

36. [36] For this reason, Mohl, on principle, advocates the toleration of brothels. V. Oettingen (Moral Statistik, p. 171, etc.) agrees with him in this.

37. [37] Where brothels are tolerated, they should be subjected to strict supervision, not only in the interest of sanitary police, but, above all, to prevent their becoming hot-beds of vice. It is desirable to give prostitutes the possibility of emancipating themselves from the control of panders and brothel-keepers. The strongest objection against the toleration of brothels consists in this, that in most cases the return to a good life is rendered impossible to their inmates.


38. [38] We may use the expression medical sciences, because medicine, the art of healing, is aided by several sciences, specially cultivated for its use: anatomy, physiology, pathology, therapeutics; but we should not say the science of medicine.

39. [39] The very real distinction which we establish between science and art has nothing in common with that which, rightly or wrongly, is made between theory and practice. There are theories of art, as there are of science, and it is only of the former that we may say, they are sometimes in opposition to practice. Art dictates rules, but general rules; and it is not unreasonable to suppose that these general rules, though correct, may sometimes disagree with the practice in certain particular instances. But this is not the case with science, which neither ordains, counsels nor prescribes anything, which limits itself to observing and explaining. In what sense, then, can it be in opposition to practice? There is, to our thinking, a double error in the following passage from Rossi: "The school of Quesnay has been too much reproached with its laissez faire, laissez passer. It was pure science." No, it was not pure science; it was art, since it was a maxim, a precept, a rule to follow. As to the maxim itself, although susceptible, like all general rules, of many restrictions in practice, instead of saying, like Rossi, that it approached too nearly the school of Quesnay, we should say that it has not been sufficiently landed, because not sufficiently understood.

40. [40] It is, however, proper to remark that these economists do not say precisely that there is no wealth except exchangeable values, but that exchangeable value is the only wealth which political economy can take into account.

Footnotes for POLITICS

41. [41] An expression of the French president Jeannin, in Laurent. x., p. 344: "Les princes font bien quelque fois des choses honteuses, qu'on ne peut blâner, quand elles sont utilse à leurs états; car la honte étent couverte par le profit, on la nomme sagesse," i.e., "Princes, indeed, sometimes do shameful things, which we can not find fault with, when they are useful to their states; for shame, in the mantle of profit or advantage, is called wisdom."

42. [42] Circular of Prince Metternich, May 12, 1821: "Conserver ce qui est légalement établi, tel a dû étre le principe invariable de leur politique (des souverins alliés) le point de départ ét l' objet final de tous leurs résolutions."

Footnotes for POPULATION.

43. [43] According to Niebuhr, monogamous marriages resulted in more children than polygamous. Volney stated (Voyage dans la Turquie, vol. ii., p. 445), that married men in Turkey were frequently impotent at the age of the thirty. Roscher (vol. ii., p. 300, Amer. translation) says: "Polygamy, also, is a hindrance to the increase of population. Abstract physiology must indeed admit that a man may, even without any danger to his health, generate more children than a woman can bear. But, in fact, the simultaneous enjoyment of several women leads to excess and early exhaustion. * * In the civilized countries of the east the polygamy of the great may lead to the compulsory celibacy of the many in the lower classes, as a species of compensation. The monstrous institution of eunuchism, which has existed time out of mind in the east, is a consequence of this condition of things, as well as of the natural jealousy of the harem." The reader will find much of value in Roscher's chapters on "Population," and their copious notes.—Translator.

44. [44] Roscher (Polit. Econ., vol. ii., p. 287, foot notes) quotes the "Edinburgh Review" and other authorities to the contrary.—Translator.

45. [45] According to Dr. P. H. Chevasse, a child should not be nursed more than nine months; and he quotes Dr. Archer Farr as follows: "It is generally recognized that the healthiest children are those weaned at nine months complete. Prolonged nursing hurts both child and mother: in the child, causing a tendency to brain disease, probably through disordered digestion and nutrition; in the mother, causing a strong tendency to deafness and blindness." Dr. Chevasse adds: "If he be suckled after he be twelve months old, he is generally pale, flabby, unhealthy and rickety, and the mother is usually nervous, emaciated and hysterical. * * A child nursed beyond twelve months is very apt, if he should live, to be knock-kneed, and bow-legged, and weak-ankled, to be narrow-chested 'and chicken-breasted."—Translator.

46. [46] Roscher, in his chapter on "Temporary Emigration," thinks such emigration would be a great national misfortune to the country from which the immigrants obtain their wages, inasmuch as its working class may thus be forced to a lower standard of living; and he queries whether the immigration of Chinese into Australia and the United States may not have a like result. In Australia a fine of £10 per capita was imposed to prevent such immigration. Recently (1882) the United States has passed restrictive laws in this regard. Even J. S. Mill, at the time when the national life of the English people seemed threatened by the immigration of Irish laborers, would have had no hesitation in prohibiting this immigration, so as to keep the economic contagion from spreading to English workmen.—Translator.

47. [47] Mr. Thornton's language is as follows: "Misery, the inevitable effect and symptom of over-population, seems to be likewise its principal promoter." "Except when people are placed in situations in which, being unable to estimate correctly the amount of employment, they overrate their means of subsistence; or, when some political arrangement, such as a charitable provision for the poor, encourages them to get families around them which they can not themselves maintain, it will, I think, be found that wherever population has received an undue influence, the people have been first rendered reckless by privation"—Translator.

Footnotes for PORTUGAL

48. [48] Political History during the last decade. During the last decade the history of Portugal was more peaceful than that of Spain. A few riotous assemblies were held, and a few insignificant plots took place, but no civil war; neither did the parliamentary parties combat one another very violently, because in Portugal the republicans and social-democrats met with little sympathy among the people. The permanent financial deficit constituted the principal object of contention; it furnished to every opposition, whether conservative or liberal, both the means and occasion for opposing and overthrowing the cabinet for the time being in power. In the chambers the regeneradores (conservatives), under the counselor of state de Fontes Pereira de Mella, on the one side, were opposed by the historians under Marquis Loulé and Braamcamp, and the reformers (liberals) under the leadership of the bishop of Vizen. The historians and the reformers at times combined, forming a great progressionist party. The reformers there, as reformers in general are wont to do in other parliaments, spoke of retrenching the expenditures of the state, of reducing the taxes, of thorough reforms in all branches of the administration, and made motions to that effect, which, however, could not be entertained by a cautious and conservative government. The regeneradores tried to restore the national wealth, by going to the utmost limit of taxation, supporting industry and increasing trade, thereby gradually doing away with the deficit. One cabinet after another vainly tried to solve this difficult problem. The republican and communistic agitation, which originated in Spain after the abdication of King Amadeus, only slightly disturbed Portugal. A republican committee, consisting of Spaniards and Portuguese, in 1873, issued a manifesto to the people of Portugal, by which the latter were urged to agitate in favor of an Iberian republic. But just as in 1869, when King Lonis of Portugal, as well as his father, the titular king, Ferdinand, refused to accept the crown of Spain, which had been offered to them, the majority of the population neither felt like tying their future to revolutionary Spain, divided by exceedingly extreme parties, nor like exchanging their independence for the blessings of a Spanish province. The Portuguese press most emphatically rejected the proposition of an "Iberian Union." The cabinet of d'Avila, which by imposing new taxes had caused great dissatisfaction, was succeeded, on Sept. 13. 1871, by a conservative ministry, of which de Fontes Percira was president and minister of finances. In a conflict with the chapter of the cathedral of Braganza the ministry energetically defended the rights of the state as against the church, and in 1875 a majority of the chamber and the press expressed themselves as opposed to the intentions of the clericals. The chambers of 1876 passed the bill for suppressing the last remnants of slavery on Sao Thomé. Although slavery had been abolished there, the emancipated negroes, who had been reduced to a state of bondage to the planters, were cruelly maltreated by the latter. Notwithstanding all its exertions within the province of economy and the increase of taxation, the Fontes Pereira cabinet was unable to do away with the deficit; for which reason the cabinet was violently attached by the historians and reformers, and being unable to meet these attacks satisfactorily, the cabinet handed in its resignation March 6, 1877. Thereupon a cabinet of the coalition was formed, Marquis d'Avila e Bolams, whose supporters occupied a position midway between conservatives and liberals, becoming president of the cabinet and minister of foreign affairs and of the interior. This cabinet, formed from the moderate elements of the regeneradores and of the opposition, was only able to maintain itself as long as it did not by any measures arouse the hostile feelings of those who constituted the majority in the cortes. At the election for members of the city council in Lisbon the cabinet opposed the regeneradores, and it also appointed progressionists to the most important offices of the administration; for which reasons the regeneradores endeavored to overthrow the cabinet. In this they succeeded the more easily as the deficit had increased still more, and as the ministry had shown great weakness in dealing with the bishops. The vote of want of confidence offered by the regeneradores on the occasion of the debate on the address, and by which the ministry was accused of having violated the principles of liberalism and the rules of proper administration, was passed, Jan. 26, 1878. by a vote of 60 to 19. The cabinet thereupon resigned, and Fontes Pereira formed a new cabinet. This latter, it is true, had a decided majority in both chambers; but disagreement among the ministers themselves caused the cabinet to resign May 29, 1879. The new cabinet of the 1st of June was formed from the liberal opposition; Braamcamp, the leader of the historians, occupied the position of president and of minister of foreign affairs. But as, on the 3d of June, the conservative majority by 75 to 29 passed a vote expressing a want of confidence in the ministry, the latter dissolved the chambers and ordered a new election. The election resulted in a majority of 70 to 80 in favor of the ministry; the republican party was able to elect but one representative. The submission of the so-called Delagoa treaty, concluded with England in 1875, gave rise to severe conflicts. According to that treaty, England was to have the right to transport its goods through Delagoa Bay, a Portuguese possession in South Africa, from and to Transvaal free, also to build warehouses for goods free of duty, in the port of Lorenzo-Marques, to build a railroad from that city to Pretoria, in the Transvaal, and to operate the same on its own account. This was considered by public opinion as an abandonment of Portuguese territory and an actual repeal of the arbitration, made in 1875 by Marshal Mac Mahon in favor of the rights of Portugal to Delagoa Bay. The opponents of the Delagoa treaty, on March 8, 1881, asked to postpone the consideration of that matter until the English squadron should have left the harbor of Lisbon. The chamber of deputies, however, declined to pass this motion, and on the 10th of March sanctioned the treaty by a vote of 74 to 19: this vote was openly declared by the English press to be equivalent to a cession of Lorenzo-Marques to the British crown. The upper chamber, it is true, refused to entertain the vote censuring the government, which had been proposed, by a vote of 50 to 49; but, as there were two ministers among those who voted with the majority, the censure was in reality voted by a majority of 49 to 48. At that time great excitement prevailed in Lisbon. The republican party took the opportunity to call a meeting of the people, in which the government and even the dynasty were violently attacked. An emphatic protest against the treaty was voted, and handed to the president of the chamber by a deputation from the meeting. When the chamber, in spite of this protest, ratified that treaty, the ministers and their followers were publicly insulted by the mob, and cries of "Down with the ministry." "Long live the republic!" were heard. In view of the exasperation of the populace and of the vote of the upper chamber, the Braamcamp cabinet was unable to maintain its position, and it resigned. Thereupon Rodriguez Sampajo formed a new ministry on the 28th of March, composed of conservatives of the second class and of members of the independent party. The chamber was dissolved, and general new elections were ordered. By these elections the ministry obtained an overwhelming majority, while the reformers, who, in the previous chamber had been in the majority, had but six votes left. Nevertheless, this cabinet tendered its resignation on the 13th of November, because it had been accused of excessive indifference toward the reformist and republican agitation, and because the municipal elections resulted strictly in favor of the conservatives. In consequence thereof, Fontes Pereira, on the 14th of November, formed another conservative cabinet, which was completed on the 16th of the same month. Fontes took the presidency, the ministry of finances, and provisionally that of war. The deficit in the budget for 1882-3 still amounted to 5,622 contos; the revenues amounted to 29,654, and the expenditures (including the extraordinary expenses) to 35,276 contos. Besides the financial question, public opinion also agitated the question of reforming the constitution. The general demand was in favor of transforming the upper chamber into a senate, partly filled by election, and in favor of a change of the elections for deputies, for the purpose of facilitating the representation of the minority. Opening the cortes in January, 1883, the king declared, in his address from the throne, that the government was considering a reform of the constitution. For the purpose of securing its authority in the Congo district of Africa, threatened by France, Portugal, in March, 1883, concluded a treaty with England, promising freedom of trade and measures against the slave trade; England, in turn, acknowledging Portugal's sovereign authority. At the same time Portugal equipped an expedition for the Congo. intended to guard Portugal's interests in that part of Africa.

Late Statistics. The number of Protestants in Portugal, mostly foreigners, does not exceed 500. They have chapels at Lisbon and Oporto. The superintendence of public instruction is under the management of a superior council of education, at the head of which is the minister of the interior. Public education is entirely free from the supervision and control of the church. Within the last few years, there has been great progress in primary education. The expenditure on public education by the government amounted to 868,648 milreis, or £193,033. in 1882-3.

—The following were the estimated sources of revenue and branches of expenditure of the budget, approved by the general cortes, for the financial year ending June 30, 1883:

Direct taxes £1,348,140
Stamp and register duties 683,488
Indirect taxes and customs 3,380,171
National domains and miscellaneous receipts 572,941
Repayments and sundries 245,484
Extraordinary receipts (loans) 859,555
Total revenue £6,589,779

Public debt £2,908,738
Treasury 1,280,860
Home office 480,255
Justice 139,416
War 1,022,906
Marine and colonies 869,715
Foreign affairs 68,552
Public works, ordinary and extraordinary 1,569,413
Total expenditure £7,839,155
Estimated deficit, 1882-3 £1,249,416

As remarked above, there has been no budget for the last thirty years without a deficit. The revenue of the kingdom during the thirty years 1850-80 increased by about 60 per cent. At the end of 1881 the debt was £97,512,000, the annual interest being £3,065,285. Included in the existing debt is the "old debt," which has been nearly all converted, only about £400 000 remaining unconverted. The external debt amounts to about £50,000,000, the last loan issued being one of £5,189,000 in 1882. The funded debt of Portugal, per head of population, is nearly as large as that of the United Kingdom, the quota of debt for each inhabitant amounting to £20 11s., and the annual share of interest, at 3 per cent. to 13s. 6d. Besides the funded debt, there is a large floating debt, estimated variously at from £2,500,000 to £4,000,000. A large portion of the foreign debt of Portugal consists of loans raised between 1877 and 1882. The first of these, a foreign loan of £6,500,000 nominal, at 3 per cent, was issued at 50 in 1877. Only £4,000,000 of this loan was subscribed at the time. This was followed by the issue of another foreign loan of £2,500,000, on the same terms, in July, 1878, and by a foreign loan of £3,000,000, issued in December, 1880, and, finally, in 1882, by a loan of £5,189,000, in 5 per cent. bonds. The floating debt of Portugal has been increasing in recent years, although its gradual extinction was decreed in 1873, when the government raised a loan for this special object. The interest on the public debt has frequently remained unpaid. Portions of the national debt have also been repudiated at various periods.

—The effective strength of the army is fixed annually by the cortes, and was nominally 78,200 officers and men, in 1882, on the war footing. The actual strength of the army in 1882 was reported to consist of 26,059 rank and file, chiefly infantry, the cavalry numbering 3,241, and the artillery 2,709, officers and men. The number of troops in the Portuguese colonies amounts to 8,500 infantry and artillery, besides a reserve of 9,500 men. The navy of Portugal was composed, at the end of 1882, of thirty-one steamers and sixteen sailing vessels, most of the latter laid up in harbor. The steamers (1883) comprise: eight corvettes, of 2,300 horse power, having forty-six guns; ten sloops, of 687 horse power, having thirteen guns; nine gunboats, of 840 horse power, having thirty-one guns; two transports, of 420 horse power, having four guns; and two torpedo boats, of 600 horse power; making a total of thirty-one steamers, of 4,797 horse power, with ninety-four guns. The navy is officered by one vice admiral, ten rear admirals, forty-two captains, forty-one lieutenant captains, 149 lieutenants, and manned by 3,034 sailors. The commercial navy of Portugal consisted, on Jan. 1, 1881. of 433 vessels, including forty-one steamers, of an aggregate burthen of 88,829 tons.

—The total length of railways open for traffic in October, 1882, was 1,673 kilometres, or 1,045 English miles, with 144 kilometres, or ninety English miles more, in course of construction. All the railways receive subventions from the state.

—The number of postoffices in the kingdom, in September, 1881, was 858, besides forty-five on the islands. There were 20,338,171 letters and postal cards, and 15,276,552 packets and newspapers carried in 1881.

—The number of telegraph offices at the end of 1880, was 196. There were at the same date 4,369 kilometres, or 2,715 English miles, of telegraph wires. The number of telegrams dispatched in the year 1880 was 1,121,364, comprising 428,987 inland dispatches, and the remainder international or transit. Of the whole number, 688,065 were official dispatches.


49. [49] There are but three possible varieties of sentences for crime, namely: fixed, discretionary, and indeterminate.

—A primitive state of society can be imagined, in which in the absence of any penal code, all offenses are visited with a single extreme penalty, or, at least. in which the amount of torture inflicted is limited only by the caprice of the despot who inflicts it. The invention of a scale of punishments (échelle des peines), and the application of punishment according to this scale, under rules prescribed by a code, may be regarded as the first step in the onward march of humanity in quest of that ideal justice which forever eludes discovery. Under an absolute code, sentences are fixed; that is, the penalty for each offense is named in the code itself, and no latitude is left for the exercise of discretion by the courts. But experience under an absolute code makes it apparent that the legislature can not adjust punishment to guilt; that in order to equality of punishment. punishment must be more flexible; that the heinousness of an offense depends not merely upon the character of the act, but upon the circumstances of its commission, and the character and motives of the actor, which can not be known, except as revealed by the evidence at the time of the trial. To this conviction is due the amendment of the code, by substituting for definite penalties the principle of maximum and minimum punishments: the amount of punishment in each actual case is, within certain prescribed limits, determined by the court, and to that extent the sentence is discretionary. Under this system the legislature shifts from its own shoulders to those of the judiciary a large share of the responsibility for a just estimate of guilt. But the courts are as incapable of apportioning punishment as is the legislature: the inequality of punishment against which the system is a protest still exists: convicts feel it, prison officers see it, and judges confess it. One sole resource is left. namely, again to divide the burden of responsibility, by placing it in part upon the officials to whom the custody and oversight of prisoners are committed. The first suggestion of a possibility of such a solution was the creation. in the Australian colonies, of the ticket-of-leave. But the principle of conditional liberation. once recognized, gained adherents everywhere, and it has been incorporated in many penal codes. The "mark" system and "good-time" laws are outgrowths of this principle of variability in the duration of imprisonment, dependent upon the conduct of the prisoner himself. The indeterminate sentence is its highest and latest form. It exists only in theory, not having been reduced to practice by any government, but is advocated by many able men who have had practical experience in the administration of the criminal law and in the care of criminals. Under this ideal system, neither the legislature nor the courts prescribe any definite term of imprisonment; maximum and minimum penalties are abolished; the court passes solely upon the criminality of the prisoner under indictment; his release from prison depends upon his amenability to discipline, and the estimate formed of his character by those who hold him in custody and under observation. and by whom discipline or "treatment" is to be administered to him.

—To this definition of the indeterminate sentence it is essential to add the briefest possible account of the nature of the arguments for and against it. It has a close logical connection with that theory of crime, according to which criminal actions are the product of disease; crime is a neurosis, like insanity or idiocy, and should be so treated: in so far as it is analogous to insanity, the criminal has a right to cure, and in so far as it is analogous to idiocy, he has a right to education, training and development; prisons should be regarded and conducted as moral hospitals or training schools for moral imbeciles, rather than as places of punishment. It is also connected with that theory of moral responsibility which either denies its existence or denies that it can be judged by any but Almighty God; which would eliminate from criminal jurisprudence all thought of retribution or expiation; which would abandon the attempt to adjust penalty to illdesert; and which denies the right of society, if not of God himself, to inflict punishment upon any sentient creature. Of the three possible bases of a penal code, it only accepts two, namely, the protection of society and the reformation of the offender. The status of the criminal is reduced to a dilemma: he can be reformed, or he can not; if he can be, he should be; if he can not be reformed, he should be held for life, if necessary, in order to protect society from injury at his hands. Hence, indeterminate sentences are sometimes called reformation sentences. In the terse language of Mr. Recorder Hill. of Birmingham. "To our limited faculties, crime and punishment have no common measure; our [present] course of proceeding is almost as vain in practice as it is absurd in theory; and in truth, there remain for us but two modes of usefully dealing with criminals—incapacitation and reformation."

—It is evident that the questions raised by the advocates of the indeterminate sentence cover pretty much the whole field of human thought, in science, in religion, in philosophy, in morals, in politics and in law. To argue them exhaustively a profound knowledge of first principles and an extensive acquaintance with the facts of science and of history are essential prerequisites.

—But from the practical side, the point of view of the statesman and the legislator, the question is one of the concentration or distribution of power: what powers shall be conferred upon prison officers, what use they might make of them for good or for evil, what guarantees can be given that such enormous power over individuals will not be abused. On the other hand, it is a question what benefit, in the reformation of prisoners or the repression of crime, would follow the grant if made. It is an outward obedience only which is paid to power. The heart is moved by love; and it is not easy to see wherein there would be any more room for the exercise of love under the new than under the present system, while it is quite certain that an increase of power begets an increase of fear, and that under the influence of fear the moral character is more likely to deteriorate than to improve. It may well be asked: If the adjustment of penalty to guilt is a task beyond the power of any legislature or any court. is it not also beyond the power of any prison board? Or if we discard the idea of penalty, and consider the criminal as a man diseased, what assurance can we have, that the persistence of the criminal, as of the insane, temperament, will not defy every effort for its eradication? If we concede that the majority are susceptible of cure, is it just to incarcerate for life those who can not be cured, and yet whose criminality may be of too feeble a type to involve any serious peril to society as the result of their liberation? and if not, then how, and by what tribunal, and upon what principle, is the date of their release to be determined?

—There is no immediate prospect of the general acceptance of the indeterminate sentence; but the discussion opens up such a wide range of investigation and reflection as to make it interesting and profitable to all thoughtful students of penology. Its acceptance would put an end to the debates about cumulative sentences, restitution sentences, life sentences, a scale of penalties, the assimilation of penalties, and many other subsidiary questions of criminal jurisprudence. With the adoption of this form of sentence, society would return to its original position and conviction. that, in one way or in another, the expulsion of irreclaimable offenders is a necessity. No more complete confession of the failure of existing modes of dealing with crime can well be imagined.


50. [50] M. Danoyer here refers to the expression, "the carrying trade," the "commerce of transportation," and others similar.—E. J. L.

51. [51] By high arts, M. Dunoyer here refers to such arts as that of the orator, the actor, the musician, the sculptor, etc.—E. J. L.

52. [52] This, however true it may have been when M. Lunoyer wrote, is we are happy to say, no longer so, as witness Macleod's interesting exposition of the nature of incorporeal property, and the writings of Whateley, Senior, and others.—E. J. L.

53. [53] M. Dunoyer includes actors, musicians, etc., among artists.—E. J. L.


54. [54] With the principles, moral and politico-economical, which this article implies, no one will disagree. Yet, while there is much that is only too true in the views of the writer, more than enough to warrant its publication in a strictly scientific work, there are some things in which no economist can agree with him. The two exaggerations into which the writer has fallen, are, first, his apparently wholesale condemnation of "exchanges"; and, then, his seemingly equally wholesale condemnation of speculation. He plainly confounds the use of both with their abuse. "Exchanges," though abused, are far from having departed entirely from their original purpose. They are still real markets, with some who deal in them, like all other markets; with this difference, however, that commodities are not carried thither in kind, and that transactions are closed in them, for goods previously examined or supposed to have been examined or represented by samples.

—It is by means of "exchanges" that brokers are enabled to bring buyers and sellers together, which, after all, constitutes the whole of business. The utility of these meetings can not be denied, spite of the abuses with which they are almost inevitably connected; They enable merchants to save the time which they would otherwise have to employ in journeys, to an fro, to meet each other. Then, they obviate, in certain cases, for the buyer or seller, the disadvantage it might be to him, to be the first to take steps to meet the other. Business men will appreciate this practically; better, perhaps, than political economists, theoretically. And so with, speculation. A speculator, in the non-abused sense of the term, is nothing more or less than a person who buys commodities or other exchangeable things, when he thinks that their prices have fallen before their real value, and has reason to believe that at a future time he will be able to sell them at a higher rate than that at which he bought them. The difference between the price which he buys them at, and the price at which he sells them again, should cover the interest on the sum invested, the costs of storage, etc.; it should, further, cover the risk incurred in the purchase, and pay a just compensation for the personal labor of the man making the operation. When this care is taken, speculation is entirely legitimate: but in all cases of speculation, there should be, to render it legitimate, an actual and not an entirely fictitious investment of capital. Speculation acts like the governor is a steam engine; it prevents the too great fluctuation of prices, in which respect it serves both producers and consumers. It intervenes in favor of producers by increasing the demand, when prices go below the cost of production; in favor of consumers, it prevents too great a rise in prices by throwing the products of producers on the market when there is a scarcity of them. (See EXCHANGE, AN; SPECULATION.)—ED.

Footnotes for PROPERTY

55. [55] Property and the family are two ideas, for the attack and defense of which legions of writers have taken up arms during the last half century. Recent systems, founded upon old errors, but revived by the popular emotions which they aroused, have in vain disturbed, misrepresented, sometimes, even denied, them. These ideas express necessary facts, which, under diverse forms, have been and will always be coming forth; they may thus be justly regarded as the fundamental principles of all political society, because from them originate, to a great extent, the two principal objects which concern social laws, namely, the rights of man over things, and his duties toward his fellow-men.

The Right of Property. If man acquires rights over things, it is because he is at once active, intelligent and free; by his activity he spreads over external nature; by his intelligence he governs it, and bends it to his use; by his liberty, he establishes between himself and it the relation of cause and effect and makes it his own.

—Nature has not for man the provident tenderness imagined by the philosophers of the eighteenth century and dreamed of before them by the poets of antiquity when they described the golden age. She does not lavish her treasures in order to make life flow smoothly along in abundance and idleness for mortals; on the contrary, she is severe, and yields her treasures only at the price of constant labor; she maltreats those who have not sufficient strength or intelligence to subdue her, and when we consider the primitive races whom the arts of civilization had not yet raised above her, we may ask ourselves, with Pliny, if she did not show herself a step-mother rather than a mother. Left to itself, the earth presents here deserts, there marshes or inextricable forests; the most fertile portions are ordinarily the most inaccessible, because, situated in the valley; they are encroached upon by stagnant waters, and infected by the miasms which exhale from them, or haunted by noxious animals which seek their food there; poisonous plants grow among the nutritious ones, without any outward sign by which to distinguish them, while yet we have not the warming of instinct which the animals have. The best fruits themselves have as yet, for the most part, only a coarse savor before cultivation has corrected their bitterness. Doubtless man can live, as he has, amidst this indifferent or hostile nature; but he would live there, timid and fearful as the roe of the forests, isolated, or collected in small groups, and lost in the immense spaces. in which his frail existence would be but an accident in the luxuriant life of organized beings; he would not feel himself at home, and would in very fact be like a stranger on an earth which he would not have fashioned according to his will, and where he would be neither the swiftest in the chase, the best protected against cold, nor the best armed for strife.

—What even now distinguished him from other creatures, in this state of profound barbarism, were the divine powers of soul with which he was gifted. However torpid they might as yet have been, they would have taught him, without any doubt, to emerge from his nakedness and his feebleness: from the earliest times, they would have suggested the means of arming his hand with an axe of stone, like those which, buried in the calcareous deposits of another age, tell us to-day of the miserable beginning of our race upon the globe; they would have taught him to protect his body against the cold with the skin of the bear, and to shield his home and family from the attacks of ferocious beasts by arranging a cave for his use or building a hut in the midst of water, not far from the shore of a lake. But already man would have left upon matter some impress of his personality, and the reign of property would have begun.

—When centuries have elapsed, and generations have accumulated their labors, where is there, in a civilized country, a cold of earth, a leaf, which does not bear this impress? In the town, we are surrounded by the works of man; we walk upon a level pavement or a beaten road; it is man who made healthy the formerly muddy soil, who took from the side of a far-away hill the flint or stone which covers it. We live in houses; it is man who has dug the stone from the quarry, who has hewn it, who has planed the wood; it is the thought of man which has arranged the materials properly and made a building of what was before rock and wood. And in the country, the action of man is still everywhere present; men have cultivated the soil, and generations of laborers have mellowed and enriched it; the works of man have deemed the rivers and created fertility where the waters had brought only desolation; to-day man goes as far as to people the rivers, to direct the growth of fish, and takes possession of the empire of the waters. We reap the wheat, our principal food. Where is it found in a wild state? Wheat is a domestic plant, a species transformed by man for the wants of man. Thus products, natives of countries most diverse have been brought together, grafted, modified by man for the adornment of the garden, the pleasures of the table, or the labors of the workshop. The very animals, from the dog, man's companion; to the cattle raised for the shambles have been fashioned into new types which deviate sensibly from the primitive type given by nature. Everywhere a powerful hand is divined which has moulded matter, and an intelligent will which has adapted it, following a uniform plan, to the satisfaction of the wants of one same being. Nature has recognized her master, and man feels that he is at home in nature. Nature has been appropriated by him for his use; she has become his own; she is his property.

—This property is legitimate; it constitutes a right as sacred for man as is the free exercise of his faculties. It is his because it has come entirely from himself. and in no way anything but an emanation from his being. Before him, there was scarcely anything but matter; since him, and by him, there is interchangeable wealth, that is to say, articles having acquired a value by some industry, by manufacture, by handling, by extraction, or simply by transportation. From the picture of a great master, which is perhaps of all material productions that in which matter plays the smallest part, to the pail of water which the carrier draws from the river and takes to the consumer, wealth, whatever it may be, acquires its value only by communicated qualities, and these qualities are part of human activity, intelligence, strength. The producer has left a fragment of his own person in the thing which has thus become valuable, and may hence be regarded as a prolongation of the faculties of man acting upon external nature. As a free being be belongs to himself; now, the cause, that is to say, the productive force, is himself; the effect, that is to say, the wealth produced, is still himself. Who shall dare contest his title of ownership so clearly marked by the seal of his personality?

—Some authors have tried to establish the principle of property on the right of the first occupant. This is a narrow view: occupation is a fact and not a principle. It is one of the signs by which the taking of possession manifests itself, but it is not sufficient to make it valid before the philosopher or the lawyer. Let a man land upon a desert, and say: "As far as my eye can reach, from this shore to the hills which bound the horizon yonder, this land is mine"; no one would accept such occupation for a bona fide title. But let the man settle upon the most the most fertile hill-side, build a hut there, cultivate the surrounding fields, and the possession of the portion actually occupied will become a right, because he has performed a proprietary act, that is to say, has by his labor thereon impressed on it the seal of his personality. International law makes a distinction, in regard to this, between individuals and states; what it refuses to the former, it grants to the latter; and it recognizes the validity of a summary taking of possession, which does not injure any anterior right. It is because the occupation is of an entirely different nature: the one having as its object useful possession, the other sovereignty, which implies only a general protection; the proof of this is, that in modern society the sovereignty frequently passes from one state to another without property changing hands.* Montesquieu wrote: "As men have renounced their natural independence in order to live under political laws, they have renounced their natural community of possession to live under civil laws. The political laws gave them liberty; the civil laws, property". Bentham enlarged upon the same thought: "Property and law were born together, and will die together. Before law, there was no property; take away the law, and all property ceases." This was a narrow view. Montesquieu and Bentham, in order to consider but one side of the question, approached very near an exceedingly dangerous error, for it led to this consequence, that if the law had made property, the law could unmake it, and undid the very foundation which the authors intended to lay. It is evident that property originated before law, as before the formation of any regular society, since there has been appropriation of a certain part of matter ever since man had lived, and began, in order to extend his hand and his intelligence about him. Property and the family have been the cause, and not the effect, of society; and the laws, to follow the beautiful definition placed by Montesquieu himself at the beginning of his work, "are the necessary relations which flow from the nature of things"; the laws have consecrated this necessary relation which was established between man and matter, but they have not erected a relation which would have been factitious and accidental. It is true that, without law, property has no guarantee against violence, and that it lacks security and solidity. But what right is there the exercise of which would be secure outside of the social condition?

—It is also true that there are certain kinds of property which could not be produced without the protection of social law, because an advanced civilization and good government have the effect of widening the circle in which human activity can with safety move, and consequently extend the field of property. It is true, in short, that, in a certain number of particular cases in which natural right does not furnish sufficient light, the law decides and determines thus a positive right of property which it might perhaps determine otherwise, because it is important, in well organized society, that nothing, in such a matter, should remain in uncertainty, abandoned to the caprice of arbitrary power. But care must be taken not to confound a particular form or case with the principle of right itself.

—It is, then, to the human being, the creator of all wealth, that we must come back; it is upon liberty that it is expedient to base the principle of property, and if any one would know by what sign it is to be recognized, we will answer that it is by labor that man impresses his personality on matter. It is labor which cultivates the earth and makes on an unoccupied waste an appropriated field; it is labor which makes of an untrodden forest a regularly ordered wood; it is labor, or, rather, a series of labors often executed by a very numerous succession of workmen, which brings hemp from seed, thread from hemp, cloth from thread, clothing from cloth; which transforms the shapeless pyrits, picked up in the mine, into an elegant bronze which adorns some public place, and repeats to an entire people the thought of an artist. It is labor which is the distinctive sign of property; it is the condition(or the means) of it, not the principle, which traces its origin to the liberty of the human soul.

—Property, made manifest by labor, participates in the rights of the person whose emanation it is; like him, it is inviolable so long as it does not extend so far as to come into collision with another right; like him, it is individual, because it has its origin in the independence of the individual, and because, when several persons have co-operated in its formation, the latest possessor has purchased with a value, the fruit of his personal labor, the work of all the fellow-laborers who have preceded him; this is what is usually the case with manufactured articles. When property has passed, by sale or by inheritance, from one hand to another, its conditions have not changed; it is still the fruit of human liberty manifested by labor, and the holder has the same rights as the producer who took possession of it by right.

—Violence, confiscation, fraud, conquest, have more than once disturbed the natural order of property, and mixed their impure springs with the pave sources of labor. But they have not changed the principle. Does the theft by which a lucky rascal is enriched interfere with the fact that labor is necessary for the production of wealth? Moreover, we must not exaggerate at pleasure than extent of these deviations from the general rule. It has been said that if we could go back to the origin of all landed property, possibly none would be found untainted with some one of these vices, on the soil of old Europe, overrun and successively occupied by so many hordes of invaders in ancient times and the middle ages. But how far would we have to go back across the centuries? so far that it could not be told in the case of ninety-nine hundredths of landed estates, except by mere conjecture, based on the probabilities of history. French laws, for instance, have established the thirty-years limitation, firstly, because it is necessary, in order to give some fixity to property, that it should not be left exposed to endless claims, and then, because long possession is itself a title, and because a man who has himself or by his tenantry, or farmers, put continuous labor on the same soil for a generation, has made, so to speak, the property his own. Now what is this short legal limitation beside the long limitation of ages, and how would any one dare contest the lawfulness of the owner's right over lands now richly cultivated, covered with farms and manufactories under the pretext that a Frank of the fourth century expelled from them a Gaul who was herding his flocks there? On the land has accumulated immovable wealth, which has sometimes increased the value of it a hundred-fold, and the origin and transmission of which are equally lawful. Out of the soil has grown the personal wealth which now forms a large part of the patrimony of society, and this wealth, the fruit of modern labor, is for the greater part free from the stain of brute force. War is no longer in our day a means of existence; it is rather a cause of ruin; conquerors aspire to usurp sovereignty, but they respect property. The political societies which have settled in new worlds, in America and Australia, have been established for the greater part by the clearings of the pioneers who made the land what it is , and bequeathed it to their children. There has been little or no violence there, in the many places where they have not had to strive against savage tribes, even in the occupation of the land. In the main, if we consider property as a whole, how small a place is occupied by the exception as compared with the rule, by violence as compared with labor!

Social Utility of Property. What is just always useful: Property has such a character of social utility that society could not exist without property, and there is no thriving society without individual property. Therefore, when persons have desired to bare property upon utility, arguments were certainly not lacking; but utility, which must be taken great account of in political subjects is, as we have remarked, a result, and not a principle, and we must content ourselves with saying that the excellent effects of property corroborate the lawfulness of the right. "Man", says M. Thiers, "has a first property in his person and his faculties; he has a second, less adherent in his being, but not less sacred, in the product of these faculties, which embraces all that is called the goods of this world, and which society is deeply interested in guaranteeing to him; for without this guarantee there would be no labor, without labor no civilization, not even the most necessary, but only misery, robbery and barbarism." We can not imagine a society entirely devoid of the idea of property; but we can conceive of one, and even find such in history, where property is in a rudimentary condition, and it would not be difficult to prove that such a condition is indeed, as M. Thiers says, misery and barbarism. Man is not a god; labor, which is a healthful exercise for both soul and body, is at the same time painful; it is only at the cost of an effort that man realizes his thought in matter, and oftentimes he would not make this effort, so painful to him, if he were not encouraged by the thought of producing a useful effect, and of himself enjoying the result of it. Who would take the trouble to fell a tree, to divide it into boards, of he knew that the next day a savage would seize upon it to make a fire with it, or even build a hut! Activity would have no object, because it would have no certain compensation; it would retire within itself, like the snail when threatened by danger, and would not venture out save for the satisfaction of the most immediate wants or the creation of property the easiest to defend—the hunting of game, or the manufacture of a bow or of an axe. In societies which have already risen to a certain degree of civilization, but which have not sufficient respect for property, this social imperfection alone is enough to impede progress and to keep men for centuries at a low level, to rise above which requires unheard-of efforts, and, above all, the knowledge of right. "All travelers," says M. Thiers elsewhere, "have been struck by the state of languor, of misery, and of greedy usury, in countries where property is not sufficiently protected. Go to the east, where despotism claims to be the sole owner, or what amounts to the same thing, go back to the middle ages, and you will see everywhere the same features; the land neglected, because it is the prey most exposed to the greediness of tyranny, and reserved for the slaves, who have no choice of employment; commerce preferred, as being able to escape more easily from exaction". A melancholy picture, but which has long been and still is, on a large portion of our globe, the true picture of humanity. When property, on the contrary, is fully recognized, respected and protected in its various forms, man does not fear to let his activity radiate in every direction. The picture of society is then entirely different: in place of a few thin, boughless shrubs, there will be seen a forest of immense oaks, spreading their branches far and wide, and exhibiting trunks more vigorous in proportion to the greater number of pores through which they breathe air and life. Far from injuring each other, men sustain each other by their individual development. For property is not a common fund fixed in advance, which is diminished by the amount which each appropriates; it is, as we have said, a creation of the intelligent force which dwells in man; each creation is added to the previous creations, and, putting new vigor into commerce, facilitates ulterior creations. The property of one, far from limiting for others the possibility of becoming owners, on the contrary increases this possibility; it is the strongest stimulus to production, the pivot of economical progress; and if the nature of things had not made a law with regard to it, anterior to all agreement, human law would have established it as the institution pre-eminently useful to the welfare and morality of nations.

History of property. It will be understood, that, although the principle of property is always the same, it has not been comprehended and applied in the same manner at all times and in all countries. It is with the right of property as with most natural rights, which remain long buried in barbarism, and emerge from it gradually with the progress of civilization. We tend at present toward the plenitude of the right of property, and the most advanced nations of Europe and the new world appear to be very far from the ideal of our conception. But how many centuries has it taken to free it from the exigencies or the ignorance of the past? The savages of America, who did not cultivate the soil, had no idea of landed property; custom made sacred the right of possession only for personal property; the land was common to all; it was a vast territory for fishing and hunting, open to all belonging to the tribe, but defended with jealous care against the encroachments of the neighboring tribes. When they improved and formed societies wisely organized, as in Mexico and Peru, they were necessarily obliged to take into account the appropriation of land, but their ideas even then did not rise to individual property. "No one," says Robertson, speaking of Peru, "had an exclusive right over the portion allotted to him. He possessed it only for a year. At the expiration of that time, a new division was made according to the rank, the number and the necessities of the family. All these lands were cultivated by the common labor of all the members of the community." In Mexico the grandees had individual property, but, he adds, "the bulk of the nation possessed the lands in a widely different manner. A certain quantity of land was allotted to each district proportionate to the number of families which formed it. This land was cultivated by the labor of the whole community. The product was taken to a common warehouse, and divided among the families according to their respective needs."

—The primitive nations do not appear to have risen much higher in the conception of the idea of property. Among the pastoral peoples of the east, property, composed principally of personal property and cattle, was almost wholly in the hands of the father of the family, of the patriarch, of the chief of the tribe; such are the customs of the Arabs, and we find them to-day in Algeria, where the land belonging to the members of the same douar or village in common, is distributed among them by the caid. The same system, ascending from the head of a family to the prince, has concentrated all property in the hands of eastern despots, and enfeebled the progress of those beautiful countries by cutting into the roots of individual activity. The Jewish law had conceived the idea of the cancellation of personal debts every seven years and the restoration of alienated lands every fourteen years, at the great jubilee, with the view of retaining property in the same tribes and families: a law, which appears, however, not to have been very well observed. In Greece, Sparta and Athens there were indicated two opposite tendencies: one mutilating and suppressing almost the right of property, in order to fashion the citizen according to the will of the state; the other insuring, notwithstanding certain restrictions, civil liberty; but it is easy to see to which side the preferences of the philosophers inclined. Even in the laws, in which he tries to create a practical policy, Plato expresses himself thus: "I declare to you, as a legislator, that I regard you and your property as belonging, not to yourselves, but to yourselves, but to your family, and your entire family, with its property, as belonging still more to the state." Rome, while sanctioning territorial property more solemnly than most other ancient governments, guaranteed it to her own citizens only, and centred it in the hands of the father of the family; conquest, moreover, was still among the principal modes of acquisition, and had given rise to immense possessions of the state (ager publicus) and to the agrarian laws. During the empire the jurisconsults, under the influence of the new ideas propagated by the stoic philosophy and the Christian religion, set themselves to extricate persons too closely confined by family bonds, and property was the gainer by this advance in liberty. But in the middle ages the feudal system weighed heavily upon the land; confounding the ideas of property and sovereignty, it made the possessor of the land master of chattels and persons, bound both the one and the other by a multiplicity of bonds, the serfs to the glebe, the lords to the flef and interwove society in a vast net-work of reciprocal servitudes. Personal property, long smothered by these various systems, showed itself only with timidity, under the shelter of the franchise, in the guilds of the arts and trades; the laws of the princes protected it only by keeping it under strict tutelage; it gradually increased, however, and was even beginning to develop quite rapidly, when the discoveries of Christopher Columbus and Vasco da Gama had opened the great course of the ocean to maritime commerce. But, at this period, the absolute power of kings was being raised upon the ruins of feudalism in the principal states of western Europe, and if property freed itself somewhat de facto from bonds put on it, it de jure only changes masters without acquiring any further independence. Louis XIV., who may be regarded as the most illustrious and most fully convinced representative of absolute power, wrote, for the instruction of the dauphin: "Everything within the extent of our states, of whatever nature, belongs to us by the same title. You should be fully convinced that kings are absolute lords, and have naturally the full and free disposition of all property possessed as well by the clergy as the laity, to use as wise stewards". About a century later, in 1809, another sovereign, not less absolute, said during a session of the council of state: "Property is inviolable. Napoleon himself, with the numerous armies at his command, could not take possession of a single field, for to violate the right of property in one, is to violate it in all." His actions did not always exactly conform to this theory; nevertheless, this declaration shows what progress the idea of property had made in France, from the eighteenth to the nineteenth century. This was because the eighteenth century had passed between the two periods, and although it had not itself a clear idea of the sacred character of property, since it based it upon utility and the law, and declared it to have originated in a so-called primitive community, it had, nevertheless, shaken off the yoke of feudal servitude and the divine right of kings; it had pleaded the cause of liberty, and the revolution had made this cause triumph, by emancipating man, labor and the land; property could now be produced under its principal forms.

Of the Objections to Property. Property triumphed with liberty, one of the forms of which it is. It was just the time when it was about to be obliged to defend itself against the most malevolent adversaries, who attacked it in the name of a pretended equality; jealous of seeing large fortunes displaying themselves side by side with extreme poverty, they foolishly believed that to deprive of the fruits of their labor those who had lawfully acquired them, was to encourage labor and to relieve poverty. The convention, guided by principles entirely different from those of the constituent assembly, slid more than once down this declivity, and following the convention, Gracchus Babœuf collected and exaggerated the doctrines of the mountain out of which he created modern communism. "When", says he, "the minority in a state have succeeded in engrossing landed and industrial wealth, and by this means hold the majority under their rod, and use their power to cause them to languish in want, the fact should be recognized that this encroachment could take place only under the protection of the government, and then what the old administration failed to do in its time to prevent the abuse or to repress it at its birth, the present administration should do, in order to re-establish the equilibrium which should never have been lost, and the authority of the law should effect an immediate change in the direction of the ultimate principle of the perfected government, of the social contract: that all should have enough, and no one too much." There have been at all times those who have dreamed of a community of property, and who could do so the better as individual property was in their time less extended and less firmly established. Plato wrote his "Republic"; Campanella, his "City of the Sun"; Thomas More, his "Utopia"; Fenelon, his "Bætica" and his "Government of Salentum"; but they created a speculative philosophy rather than a policy, and intended, above all, to trace for mankind an ideal of virtue: a mistaken, erroneous conception, but more disinterested, nevertheless, than that of modern communists. The principal object of the latter is enjoyment ; their theories have been suggested by the sight of the wealth which was increasing rapidly in modern society, but distributing its favours in an unequal manner, as it proportioned them to the labor, to the intelligence, to the capital of each one and to the circumstances of production: they have wished that those less favored should have a larger share without having a burden of labor and they have conceived of no better way to do this than to limit or confiscate capital, that is to say , property, which is the lever of labor.

—The Saint-Simonians, to attain this end, proposed to organize a powerful priesthood, composed of the ablest men in science, the arts and manufactures. This priesthood would have given an impetus to all society; the priest would have been "the living law"; there would have been no longer emperor nor pope; there would have been a father "disposing of all the capital and products, and distributing them to each according to his merits "They arrived at this conclusion, that "all property is property of the church," and that "every kind of business is a religious function." They did not see that property is the very reward of the labor which they were extolling, and the fruit of the economy without which labor deprived of capital, is reduced to impotence; they did not see that hereditary transmission is the consequence and the extension of property, and under pretense of increasing social wealth, wealth which for lack of being managed and renewed by the force of individual interests, would have insensibly melted away in the hands of their high priest, they ended in an immense despotism; in order to pursue the shadow of comfort, they would have forfeited, without knowing it, their real welfare, and they did not hesitate knowingly to sacrifice liberty, the most important of all possessions in a society of civilized men. This is where the first of the systems hostile to property would have led to.

—That of Fourier dates from about the same period, that is to say, the consulate. But it found no echo until after the great eclat which Saint-Simonism caused at the beginning of the reign of Louis Phillipe. Fourier was not, properly speaking, a communist; he proclaimed liberty, and admitted capital. But, in fact, he incloses both the one and the other in a system of exploitation in common which maims them; there is no longer but one kind of liberty, that of abandoning one's self without restraint to one's various appetites; there is no longer but one kind of property, that of the phalanstery. Is that truly liberty which, with a firm will for a guide and responsibility for a guarantee, directs the spirit of man toward a definitive end? Is this truly property, that is to say, the full and entire possession of the various things which man had appropriated to himself by labor?

—The latest adversary of property is M. Proudhon, who in a famous pamphlet has taken up again a paradox of Brissot's, viz., that property is theft; M. Proudhon, does not recognize, either in possession or labor, sufficient reasons to justify property. "Since every man" he says "has the right to possess simply because he exists and can not do without material for exploitation and labor in order to live; and since, on the other hand, the number of occupants varies continually by birth and death, it follows that the quantity of material to which each laborer may lay claim is changeable, like the number of occupants; consequently, that possession is always subordinate to the population; finally, that as possession in law can never remain fixed, it is, in fact, impossible that it should become property." Elsewhere, in answering the argument of Ch. Comte, who sees a title to property in the superior value obtained by the possessor when the latter, thanks to his labors, has drawn subsistence for two persons from soil which had formerly fed but one, M. Proudhon adds: "I maintain that the possessor is doubly paid for his trouble and his industry, but that he acquires no right to the land. Let the laborer claim the fruits as his own; I grant that he should have them, but I do not understand that the ownership of the produce involves that of the material." This concession places all personal property outside of litigation, as it consists entirely of the produce which the laborer has made his own and has not consumed. There remains landed property, or, to express it more clearly, the very small portion of the value of real estate which is not the result of labor, a personal capital buried in the soil and confounded with it. Now, no economist maintains that every man, on coming into this world, has a right to a portion of it, and especially to a portion equal to that of others in the very country in which he is born. Possession is a fact, and not a right; it may give rise to a right when, having taken place upon land still unpossessed it is sanctioned by labor; that is all. Society guarantees the rights of individuals, it is her first duty; in the system, of M. Proudhon she would commit the double fault of wishing to do them too much good by seeking to make a fortune for them, and of doing them too much harm by spoiling some of a right logically anterior to herself, for the purpose of endowing others with a gratuitous benefit.—(The above note is the joint production of L. Wolowaki and Emile Levasseur.—ED.

* The word "cultivate" (to work and sow) must not be taken too literally: possession of land may also be taken by placing flocks on it, by opening a mine on it or otherwise. And if the government has taken possession in the manner indicated in the text, and an individual buys a piece of ground from it, this ground becomes individual property even if left unoccupied.

Footnotes for PROPERTY

56. [56]

Omnis in hoc gracilli xeniorum turbs libello
constabit nummis quatuor empts tibi.
Quatnor est nimium, potoerit constare duobns.
Et facict incrum bibliopola Tryphon.
—(Epigrammata, lib. xili., ep.3.)

Qui tecum cupis esse nisos ubicunqus libelios.
Et comites longse queeris habere vise,
Hos eme quos arcet brevibus mecubrans tabellis:
Sorinia da magnis, me manus una capit
* * * * * *

Libertum docti Lucensis quare Secundi
Limina Post Pacis, Palladiumque Forum.

—(Epigrammata, lib. i., ep.3.)

57. [57]

Hic meret aera liber Sosiis, hic et mare transit,
Et longum noto scriptori prorogat alvum.

—(Art. Poet., 345)


58. [58] In the above article the argument for protection is given. The principles advocated by the writer of it are at variance with those demonstrated in the article on FREE TRADE, as well as with the body of doctrine contained in the various articles of this work, whether political or politico-economical. It may be thought, that, on this account, the article should have no place here; and something may be said in favor of that view, since the Cyclopædia is a scientific work; and a consensus of political economists may be said to exist as to the truth, and therefore as to the expediency, of the principles of free trade. But, in the present condition of the public mind in the United States, when so many are looking for light, it was thought best not to exclude the argument for protection, which now has a living, and always will have an historical interest. Readers of the Cyclopædia, we presume, open its pages in search for truth. On the question of free trade and protection we have furnished them with an article on both sides. As a further contribution to what is still a matter of controversy with many in this country, we here give a summary of the case between free traders and protectionists from a very recent work by an eminent French economist, Emile de Lavelaye. Says M. de Lavelaye: "Colbert, the celebrated French statesman, once asked a merchant what was the best way to promote trade, and the latter answered: Laissez faire; laissez passer (see LAISSEZ FAIRE) i.e., let it alone. The words were taken by J. V. de Gournay, and afterward became the watchwords of advocates of freedom of commerce, now called free traders.

—What, indeed, can be conceived more natural than to allow every man to buy and to sell where he can buy and sell with greatest advantage to himself, whether in his own country or out of it? We can excuse a state when it imposes an entry duty on certain kinds of goods, to procure a revenue, although such a duty is a bad kind of tax; but to impose duties under pretext of protecting home industries, is a measure both iniquitous and contrary to the general interest.

—By forcing consumers to buy of protected manufacturers dearer than they could buy in a foreign market, the government imposes a tax on consumers in favor of the protected manufacturers, a compulsory buying which has in it all the elements of injustice. In this compulsion and injustice consists the protective system.

—But, say the advocates of protection, protective duties are imposed to favor labor, and consequently to favor the working class.

Error 1. The economic end sought is not to increase but to diminish labor. If I can get a number of yards of linen in a foreign market by one day's labor, it is contrary to that economic end to force me to spend two days' labor in order to acquire it. To force one to increase his labor without increasing the product, is what Bastiat rightly called Sisyphism, since it is to strain humanity in a useless effort, like Sisyphus, who was condemned to roll a rock, which always fell back again, toward the top of a mountain. The economic end to be sought is an increase of wealth and a decrease of effort.

Error 2. It is not rendering a service to workmen to drive them into mammoth factories, by force of law and contrary to nature. Look at Italy at the present moment. What a pity that the tariff there has dragged workingmen and workingwomen from the field and from labor in the open air in that land of beauty, with its mild climate, to harness them twelve or fourteen hours in gloomy factories, while they keep time with the uniform movement of machinery.

—Free trade, by applying to nations the principle of the division of labor (see DIVISION OF LABOR) assures them the benefit of that division, and thus greatly increases their well-being.

—If, in a family, each of its members is employed in doing what he can do best, it is evident that the aggregate product, and, as a consequence, the share of each member of the family, will be the greatest possible. If, on the other hand, each is compelled, by legislative restriction, to devote a part of his time to a kind of work to the doing of which he is not adapted, all and each will be more poorly provided. Let us apply this to nations. If each of them employs its powers in those branches of labor which the nature of the country occupied by it specially favors, it will carry to the market a maximum of products obtained by a minimum of labor; and the consequence will be that the well-being of humanity will be increased in proportion to the increase in the productiveness of the labor of each country. The man who, wishing to be sufficient to himself, should endeavor to manufacture or produce everything he needed, food, shoes, clothes, furniture and books, would clearly be very ill-advised. Would the nation that imitated him be less so? If my land, which is sandy, is better adapted to the growing of rye than of wheat, the least onerous way for me to get wheat is not to cultivate it myself, but to obtain it in exchange from those who have clayey land. This very evident truth shows the absurdity of the protective system, which would compel me, whether or not, to cultivate wheat on sand.

—But, say the partisans of protection, foreign countries will inundate us with their products. Vain fear: foreign countries will not give us their goods for nothing. In payment of theirs, they will want ours. Commerce is always an exchange of products against products. As many products must leave our ports as enter them. It more enter them than leave them, so much the better: for in that case foreign countries pay us a tribute, and we may increase our consumption. If more leave our ports than enter them, so much the worse; for then, it is we who pay the tribute.

—Protectionists want to buy little and sell much, in order that foreign countries may be compelled to pay the excess of their purchases in coin. What a contradiction in these aims! How can the different nations, exchanging with one another, always sell more than they buy? Plainly impossible.

—The principal cause of the progress of industry, is the competition of persons engaged in industry, each of them striving to manufacture better and cheaper articles and thus to monopolize the custom. The more generally the influence of competition is felt, the greater will be the advantage of all. Hence competition should not be restricted within the limits of a state, but extended from country to country.

—Monopoly engenders inertia, and protection routine. On the contrary, the manufacturer who is compelled to perfect all his wares, will conquer the market of the world in his endeavors to keep the national market. What is the effect of a railroad connecting two countries? To facilitate exchanges between them. What is the effect of entry duties on foreign goods? To hamper exchanges. How does it happen that the same men, at the same moment, do two things the effects of which are so completely opposed?

—You spend forty or fifty millions of francs to bore a tunnel through the Alps, and at both ends of that tunnel you, Frenchmen, and you, Italians, station a custom house officer, who, by the taxes he levies, destroys in great part the utility of that marvel of engineering skill. Inexplicable contradiction!

—A consistent protectionist should demand the destruction of machinery; for free trade and machinery have exactly the same effect: they diminish the labor necessary to obtain a given product. Thanks to machinery, the Frenchman can obtain coal at less cost; thanks to foreign countries, he can get it cheaper: the result is identically the same to him.

—Would you, Frenchmen, exclude foreign countries, then break your machinery. In both cases, you would have to put forth a stronger effort to procure the same quantity of coal.

—Capital spontaneously takes the direction of the most lucrative employment. Protection directs it toward a less lucrative employment, causing the difference to be paid by a tax levied on consumers. Production is diminished by so much.

—A last argument is resorted to by the protectionists. For the objects of prime necessity, they say, wheat and iron, for instance, a country can not depend on foreign nations: since in time of war it could neither feed nor defend itself. Answer: There is no instance in which a people in time of war wanted the necessary things. In our days such want is less to be feared than formerly: firstly, because of railroads, which facilitate revictualing; and then because the treaty of Paris of 1854 has provided that neutral ships may continue to transport the goods of the belligerents. Hence the hermetic blockade of a state has become more impossible than ever. Is it wise to inflict an injury permanent and certain on one's self, in order to escape another which is remote and improbable?

—There are some things which free traders have not seen. To suppress labor, and not to increases it: such is the end. Free trade attains this end just as machines do. Hence both are a good.

—But, it will be said, there are men who live by the labor of their hands; and if you suppress them they have nothing left but to disappear. Free trade, like machines, may, therefore, cause a displacement of workmen, for they must leave the place in which the tariff forced sterile labor on them, to go where, with less effort, they will obtain more products. This is what happened in France, when the revolution of 1789 did away with the internal tariffs which separated the old French provinces. Abolish the tariffs which in our day separate the different provinces, and the same fact may be reproduced. The displacement effected, the men will be everywhere better supplied, for their labor will be more productive, but they will perhaps be differently distributed, which will not be done without hardship. The conclusion is: do not cause workmen to come into existence in a place in which nature has not accorded them sufficient remuneration. But when they exist, reform your tariffs with foresight and prudence.

—Much has been said of a system of temporary protection. No one has given a better exposition of this system than a German economist, Frederick List, the initiator of the customs union (zollverein) or Germany, which led to the political union of that country. 'The final end,' he says, 'is universal free trade; but in order that it may bring to each state, and consequently to the human race, the greatest possible good, it is necessary that each people should turn its natural resources to the best advantage. An exclusively agricultural country is necessarily a backward country: instance, Poland in the olden time. Doubtless it is bad that privilege should cause artificial industries to spring up, but there are many industries natural to a country which will not be developed in it, unless they are protected in the beginning. Hence the best way to reach free trade and to derive the greatest profit from it is temporary protection.'

—Such is List's opinion. Adam Smith and J. S. Mill expressed the same opinion. I admit neither the premises nor the conclusion. An agricultural country is not necessarily a backward country. If Poland was formerly a backward country, as List pretends it was, it was because a frivolous aristocracy, employed in amusements, disposed of the net revenue, and did nothing to instruct their serfs or themselves. In no country in the world were intellectual and moral culture, comfort and happiness so general as in New England before protection developed manufactures on a large scale.

—People are in the habit of measuring the industry of a country by the mass of products which its industry produces. Wrongly so. Never did civilization shine more brightly than at Athens, where arts and letters attained the highest point of perfection, but where industry remained in its infancy. Protection is no longer necessary in our day, as in the time of Adam Smith. Discoveries and processes are immediately known everywhere. Capital and the spirit of enterprise and ceaselessly in search of natural wealth to exploit it, wherever it is to be found.

—Temporary protection becomes permanent for the reason that the protected interests enter into a coalition and oppose all reform." Compare preceding article.—ED.

Footnotes for PRUSSIA

59. [59] The census returns of Dec. 1, 1875, showed that at that date there were in Prussia 12,692,370 males and 13,059,084 females, being an excess of only 357,684 females, less than in most other European states; in 1880 there were 13,414,846 males and 13,865,245 females. During the nine years from Dec. 1, 1871, to Dec. 1, 1880, the ratio of increase amounted to 1.13 per cent, per annum. The census of 1880 gives the average density of the population at 199 per English square mile. The variation, however, is considerable, the density being highest in the manufacturing districts of Disseldorf, in the Rhine province, where it is nearly four times the average, and smallest in the district of Köslin, Pomerania, where it amounts to but three-fifths of the average. There are a greater number of towns (1,289) officially enrolled as "Städte," most of them of very limited population, spread all over the kingdom. As in nearly all other states of Europe, so in Prussia, there is a strong movement toward concentration of the population in the towns. At the census of Dec. 1, 1871, the total population of the 1,289 towns of the kingdom was 7,968,545, and that of the rural communes (Landgemeinden), 87,987 in number, 16,637,652. Compared with the preceding census of Dec. 3, 1867, the increase in the towns amounted to 466,909, or 6.22 per cent., and that in the rural communes to but 167,951, or 1.02 per cent. Thus, while the town population increased at the rate of rather more than 1½ per cent, per annum, the rural population grew but at the rate of ¼ per cent, per annum.—S. M.

60. [60] The estimates of public revenue and expenditure submitted by the government to the chambers are always prepared to show an even balance, without surplus or deficit; but in recent years the former has been constant, as a rule, and the latter an exception. The surplus of the five years from 1870 to 1874 varied from £1,425,000 in 1870, to £4,158,000 in 1872, reaching its maximum in the latter year. But there were deficits in 1875, in 1876 and in 1877.

—Up to the end of 1876 the finance estimates were for the calendar year, but it was then decided that henceforth they should be, as in Great Britain, for financial years ending March 31. The first financial year under the new arrangement commenced April 1, 1877, so that the preceding accounts were for a period of fifteen months, commencing Jan. 1, 1876, and ending March 31, 1877.

—The budget estimates of revenue and expenditure of Prussia were as follows, during each of the seven years, 1874-81:

Table.  Click to enlarge in new window.

—The revenue in the financial estimates of Prussia, is divided under seven heads, representing the various ministerial departments. Receipts from state railways form the chief source of revenue, and, next to them, the direct taxes. In recent years the income from railways and other state undertakings, such as mines, has been largely increasing showing a tendency to become a far more fruitful source of revenue than all taxation, direct or indirect.

—In the budget estimates for the year ending March, 1883, the sources of revenue were given as follows:

Sources of Revenue.
1. Ministry of agriculture, domains and forests:Mark.
Income from domains and forests... 73,128,214
Various... 7,000,340
Total... 80,128,554
2. Ministry of finance:
Direct taxes:
Land tax (Grundsteuer)... 40,188,000
House tax... 28,056,000
Income tax... 28,827,600
Class tax (Klassenstener)... 25,146,100
Trade tax (Gewerbestener)... 18,662,000
Railway dues... 2,986,000
Miscellaneous... 588,000
Total... 144,453,700
Indirect taxes:
Share of imperial customs and taxes... 19,089,690
Succession tax (Erbschaftstener)... 5,200,000
Stamps... 16,500,000
Bills of exchange... 70,440
Bridge, harbor, river, or canal dues... 2,200,000
Fines, etc.... 53,500,000
Miscellaneous... 2,051,870
Total... 98,562,000
State lottery... 4,043,800
Naval commercial institution (See handlung)... 3,000,000
The mint... 236,820
Miscellaneous... 127,863,384
Total receipts of ministry of finance... 378,159,204
3. Ministry of public works:
Mines, produce of... 60,160,148
Furnaces, iron mills, forges, produce of... 19,172,536
Salines, produce of... 5,461,970
State railways... 369,150,347
Miscellaneous... 8,841,682
Total receipts of ministry of public works... 462,786,883
4. Ministry of justice... 6,596,000
5. Ministry of the interior... 8,592,383
6. Ministry of commerce and industry... 298,603
7. Ministry of public instruction and ecclesiastical affairs... 2,233,813
8. Ministry of state... 689,310
9. Ministry of foreign affairs... 4,500
10. Ministry of war... 667
Total estimated revenue... 934,589,917

—The expenditure in the financial estimates of Prussia is divided into ordinary (fortdauernde) and extraordinary (einmalige and ausserordentliche) disbursements. The ordinary is subdivided into current expenditure (Betriels-Ausgaben), administrative expenditure (Staatsverwaltungs-Ausgaben), and charges on the consolidated fund (Dotationen). In the estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1883, the branches of expenditure were as follows:

Branches of Expenditure.
Current expenditure:Mark.
1. Ministry of agriculture, domains and forests 37,080,230
2. Ministry of Finance... 37,759,535
3. Ministry of Public works... 344,915,267
Total current expenditure... 419,755,032
Administrative expenditure:
1. Ministry of Finance... 36,738,613
2. Ministry of Public works... 16,569,612
2a. Ministry of Commerce and industry... 1,515,075
3. Ministry of Justice... 78,762,100
4. Ministry of The interior... 40,402,367
5. Ministry of Agriculture, domains and forests- 11,314,550
6. Ministry of Public instruction and ecclesiastical affairs... 50,628,067
7. Ministry of State... 2,967,792
8. Ministry of Foreign affairs... 500,570
9. Ministry of War... 107,472
10. Ministry of General administration of finance 127,074,410
Total administrative expenditure... 366,575,628
Charges on consolidated fund:
Addition to the "Krondotation" of the king... 4,500,000
Interest of public debt, inclusive railway debt... 87,094,613
Sinking fund of debt... 20,480,094
Annnities and management... 1,914,641
Chamber of lords... 171,360
Chamber of deputies... 1,200,520
Total charges on consolidated fund... 115,361,228
Total ordinary expenditure... 901,691,888
Extraordinary expenditure... 32,898,029
Total expenditure... 934,589,917

—In the budget for 1883-4 the revenue and expenditure were expected to balance at 1,089,583,000 mark. The expenditure for the army and navy is not entered into the budget of Prussia, but forms part of the budget of the empire.

—The public debt of the kingdom, inclusive of the provinces annexed in 1866, was, according to the budget of 1882-3, as follows:

Table.  Click to enlarge in new window.

The charges for interest and management of the debt amounted to 87,620,651 mark in the financial year 1882-3. For the budget year 1883-4 it was reported that a loan of thirty-two million mark would be required. The interest on the debt would have to be increased by eighteen million mark; and it was expected, that on April 1, 1883, the total debt would be 2,640 million mark, to which would be added 1,860 million, to be issued in treasury bonds, in consequence of the nationalization of the railways. The total debt of Prussia would thus amount to 4,500 million mark, or £225,000,000.—S. M.

61. [61] At the last census, taken Dec. 1, 1889, the Protestants in Prussia numbered 17,645,868, being 64.69 per cent. of the total population of the kingdom, and the Roman Catholics 9,206,283, or 33.24 per cent. The number of Jews was 363,790, or 1.334 per cent. of the population at the date of the census. There were, at the census of Dec. 3, 1867 (the last in which religious statistics were ascertained in the fullest manner) 9,317 Protestant ministers, and 7,690 Roman Catholic priests, including chaplains. The protestants at the same date and 11,365 churches, and 1,594 other religious meeting places, while the Roman Catholics had 6,164 churches, and 2,833 chapels, besides 259 convents and monasteries. The higher Catholic clergy are paid by the state, the archbishop of Breslan receiving £1,700 a year, and the other bishops about £1,135. The incomes of the parochial clergy mostly arise from endowments.—S. M.

62. [62] What is called gratuitous, is the abolishment of the school payment, and its replacement by a school tax. Actually there is a mixed combination, which seems to answer the purpose. Therefore the government has demanded, but in vain, the repeal of article twenty-five, which prescribes gratuitous education.

63. [63] The following table shows the quantities and value of coal and of lignite (Braunkohle), the quantities in 1,000 tons, and the values in 1,000 mark, in the various provinces of Prussia during the year 1880:

Table.  Click to enlarge in new window.

The following table shows the quantities and value, in 1,000 tons and 1,000 mark, of the iron and copper ore produced in Prussia in the year 1880:

Table.  Click to enlarge in new window.

Not included in the tabular statements given above are zinc and tin ores, salines, and other mineral produce. Gold and silver ores are likewise found in Prussia, the quantities amounting to 206,000 tons, and the value to 3,812,000 mark, in 1880. The total mining produce of the kingdom amounted to 577,304,000 tons, and the value to 314,936,000 mark, or £15,746,800, in the year 1880.

—The production of the most important mineral, coal, in Prussia, after vastly increasing for about thirty years, from 1840 to 1871, reached its limit at the latter date, when there came to be an apparent exhaustion of the fields. But the years 1875 and 1876 again showed a large increase in production. The following statement gives, after official returns, the quantities of coal, exclusive of lignite (Braunkohle), raised in the kingdom during the period from 1838 to 1880:

Table.  Click to enlarge in new window.

The coal mines in the Ruhr-Düsseldorf district, which extend over more than ten miles in length, contribute nearly one-half of the total produce, while the coal pits of the river Saar, situated in the southwestern angle of the Rhenish province, and which extend their strata into Bavarian and French territory , furnish about the sixth part of the coal produce of Prussia. The coal raised in Prussia amounts to 93 per cent. of the total coal production of Germany.

—Prussia has a very large and complete system of railways. On May 15, 1882, the length of the system open for traffic was as follows:

 Length, in kilometers.
Railways owned by the state... 14,843
Owned by private companies:
Under state administration... 2,394
Under private administration... 3,745
Total... 20,982
English miles... 13,048

In 1878 the lines owned by the state had a length of only 4,989 kilometers, while those owned by private companies extended to 12,880 kilometers.

—All the lines of the former territories of Hanover, Hease, and Nassan are owned by the state, and the whole of the railways of Prussia will in time become national property.—S. M.


64. [64] This area was also claimed by Virginia, and was included in her cession

65. [65] These western reserve and fire lands, amounting in all to about 4,300,000 acres, were also ceded by Virginia. By "fire lands" are meant such as were donated by Connecticut to those of her citizens who had suffered by fire and raids during the revolution.

66. [66] This exemption from local taxation was part of the credit system, its intention being to prevent any part of the means of the debtor from being drawn from him by taxation during the time given him to comply with his engagement to the government.

67. [67] A similar law was passed in 1816.

Footnotes for RENT

68. [68] A main point in Anderson's theory was, that increased demand for food leads to increase of price, and this permits additional cost to be bestowed in bringing inferior land into cultivation. (See Macleod's Kcon. Phil., vol. ii., p. 29.) E. J. L.

69. [69] Surely M. Passy can not think that Genovesi, Beccaria, Verri, the physiocrates, Hume, Condillac, Bastiat, Whateley, and all the other economists who have considered the cause of value to lie in human desire, thought there could be no demand for anything except that on which labor had been expended! How would he account for the value of undeveloped mines, quarries, etc., and what is more, for the value of labor itself!—E. J. L.

70. [70] Here M. Passy falls into the error (pointed out by Storch in his Polit. Econ.) of confounding the production of articles which have value with the production of their value.—E. J. L.

71. [71] The income from talents and moral qualities, being due to the "natural fertility" or "productive power" of the mind, bears so many points of resemblance to what M. Passy treats of under the title "Rent of the Soil," that some economists put it in the same category. Storch, in his Cours d'Economic Politique, devotes a chapter (chap. v., book III.) to the "Rent of Talents and Moral Qualities." [Original reads "Reat of Talents..."—Econlib Ed.]

72. [72] The reader will see how far this was from being a response.—E. J. L.

Footnotes for REPUDIATION.

73. [73] It is impossible to state with accuracy the exact amount of the debt during this period. The table given is taken from an article by Robert P. Porter, "International Review," 1880, p. 556. Compared with other statements the figures seem by no means exaggerated.

Footnotes for REVENUE

74. [74] Selbstschätzung, says M. Rau; self-taxation, an Englishman would say, according to the analogy of "self-government."

75. [75] In addition to the facts of self-assessment, fully attested as occurring in Geneva, Bremen and Holland, must be placed to the credit of the morality of the Germanic peoples, those very numerous acts of restitutions to the treasury, which form what is in England termed "conscience money." In France the yield of reparations of this sort, though on the increase, has never been large.

76. [76] Ajoutons que c'est par l'étude de la science économique en général qu'il serait bon de commencer celle des finances publiques. * * Mais, dira-ton, la solution des questions de finances comporte divers points de vue: le point de vue économique, et les divers points de vue, fiscal, politique et moral. L'observation est exacte. Mais les raisons fondamentales sont d'ordre économique. (Jos. Garnier.)

77. [77] Sinclair, in his "History of the Revenue," stigmatizes escheat as "a species of confiscation."

78. [78] By the revenue measures introduced by Mr. Gladstone in 1853, the tax upon the direct succession of a child to a parent was placed at 1 per cent.; that upon the succession of an entire stranger in blood, at 10 per cent. Intermediate rates were fixed for successions within certain degrees of consanguinity. If 10 per cent., why not 50?

79. [79] The extortions of the early kings of England, under the pretense of administering justice, are very strikingly portrayed by Mr. Hume, in his "History."

80. [80] Immense contributions were enforced by the Carthaginians from the towns on the Libian-Phœnician coast. "At one time," says Mr. Grote, "immediately after the first Punic war, they took from the rural cultivators as much as one-half their produce."

81. [81] For the influence of these acts in the American colonies, see Bancroft's History of U. S., vol. v., p. 265-6.

82. [82] See the speeches of Rt. Hon. Henry Fawcett on successive Indian budgets. "India," says Prof. Fawcett, "seems too often to be looked upon as if she had been specially created to increase the profits of English merchants, to afford valuable opportunities for English youths, and to give us a bountiful supply of cheap cotton."

83. [83] See especially the works of Savigny, Ranke and De Tocqueville, passim.

84. [84] M. Garnier states, that, in the budget of Chili guano stands for a revenue of 114,000,000 francs, against 4,000,000 from customs, and 1,250,000 from all other sources.

85. [85] Thus, Brodie, referring to the soap monopoly, constituted by Charles I. of England, says: "Almost every article of ordinary consumption, whether of manufacture or not, was exposed to a similar abuse: salt, starch, coals, iron, wine pens, cards and dice, beavers, pelts, bone-lace, etc., meat dressed in taverns, tobacco, wine casks, brewing and distilling, lampreys, weighing of hay and straw in London and Westminster, gauging of red herrings, butter casks, kelp and seaweed, linen cloth, rags, hops, buttons, hats, gutstring, spectacles, combs, tobacco pipes, etc., saltpetre, gunpowder, in short, articles down to the sole gathering of rags, were all under the fetters of monopolies, and consequently deeply taxed." Of Queen Elizabeth's system of monopolies Hume remarks that, had it been continued, the England of his day would have contained as little industry as Morocco or the coast of Barbary.

86. [86] The regulation of weights and measures in England was, until 11 and 12 Wm. III. (c. 20) conducted to secure a profit to the state.

87. [87] Baron Riesbeck, in his travels through Germany in the middle of the last century, thus speaks of the army of the great Frederick: "All the military regulations have these two ends in view; that of preventing the improvement of agriculture from suffering by the number of troops, and that of making them subservient to the circulation of money. For these purposes the annual reviews always take place at the end of the year, when fewest hands are wanted for the purposes of agriculture. Each regiment has a peculiar part of the country assigned it for recruiting, and in that, or near it, are commonly its standing quarters. By this means the troops are not only easily got together when they are wanted, but the father has always his son in the neighborhood to help him to improve his land; and, at the annual review time, the latter has not far to go to join his regiment."

Footnotes for RICARDO

88. [88] Ricardo has been the subject of many different judgments. Some (Rossi and J. S. Mill being of this number) regarded him as the first of economists, after Adam Smith; others place him in the second rank; the truth probably lying between the two extremes. As a thinker, Ricardo appears to as superior, original and profound; as a writer, he sometimes obscures his thought by abstract formulas, the strictness of which is only apparent, though we do not wish to say that he is in error when he is obscure. He employs short sentences when enunciating propositions introduced by hypotheses and followed by explanations.

89. [89] The date given by M'Culloch and Fonteyrand. The "Universal Biography" says the 11th of August of the same year, but M'Culloch and Fonteyrand must have known best.


90. [90] This article is intended neither as an argument for, nor as an attack upon, the Catholic church. It is a simple statement of its own doctrines, written by a deep thinker profoundly versed in its doctrines and laws. See note at the close of the article.—ED.

91. [91] We have here translated the German Volksschulen by public schools. In writing the article Dr. v. Schulte certainly did not have in view the public schools of the United States, in particular. The Volksschule is a school intended for the people. It seems certain that what Dr. v. Schulte says of the attitude of the Catholic church toward the Volksschule is true of its attitude toward the public schools of the United States.—ED.

92. [92] In our opinion, Christianity is not only the basis but the living element of our civilization; yet the legal foundation of the state does not by any means rest on Christianity. The state has not grown out of the church, nor upon the church, but is completely independent of the latter and of her dogmas.—BLUNTSCHLI.

93. [93] Bluntschli here inserts a note to the effect that the state introduced religious freedom into the world. The remark is certainly a correct one. The principle of liberty of conscience forced itself into the world through blood, we might almost say, spite of church and state authorities, as a means "not to determine rights, but to repress violence and terminate quarrels."—ED.

94. [94] There are those who consider this provision in conflict with the principle of the equal rights of confessions or creeds, and of freedom of conscience. But is not the member of a recognized Christian denomination, the statutes of which he freely accepts, bound by them?

95. [95] The above article (somewhat shortened here by the omission of matter relating exclusively to Germany) was written by a distinguished Catholic teacher of ecclesiastical law, John Frederick von Schulte, the author of a great number of works on the law of the Catholic church. It was written for the larger edition of Bluntschli and Brater's Staatswörterbuch. After the promulgation of the decree of the infallibility of the pope by the Vatican council, Dr. von Schulte, with Dr. Döllinger and other learned Catholic divines and laymen, formed themselves into the body known as the "Old Catholics," a party which rejected the doctrine of papal infallibility as subversive of the ancient constitution of the church, as the absorption of the church by the pope, and as contrary to the doctrine Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus. This is not the place to discuss whether the decree of papal infallibility changed the constitution of the Catholic church. What concerns us most in this work is to lay before its readers the meaning of that dogma, as understood by the best informed in the church itself—a meaning, which, therefore, may be considered the meaning of the Church. We give it in the words of probably the most eminent and learned of Catholic dignitaries, one whose name has long been familiar to Protestants and Catholics as well as to disbelievers both in Protestantism and in the Roman church. He says: "The Vatican definition, which comes to us in the shape of the pope's encyclical bull called the Pastor Æternus, declares that 'the pope has that same infallibility which the church has':* to determine, therefore, what is meant by the infallibility of the pope, we must turn first to consider the infallibility of the church. And again, to determine the character of the church's infallibility, we must consider what is the characteristic of Christianity, considered as a revelation of God's will.

—Our Divine Master might have communicated to us heavenly truths without telling us that they came from him, as it is commonly thought he has done in the case of heathen nations; but he willed the gospel to be a revelation acknowledged and authenticated, to be public, fixed and permanent; and, accordingly, as Catholics hold, he framed a society of men to be its home, its instrument and its guarantee. The rulers of that association are the legal trustees, so to say, of the sacred truths which he spoke to the apostles by word of mouth. As he was leaving them, he gave them their great commission, and bade them 'teach' their converts all over the earth, 'to observe all things whatever he had commanded them'; and then he added, 'Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.' Here, first, he told them to 'teach' his revealed truth; next, 'to the consummation of all things'; thirdly, for their encouragement, he said that he would be with them 'all days,' all along, on every emergency or occasion, until that consummation. They had a duty put upon them of teaching their Master's words, a duty which they could not fulfill in the perfection which fidelity required, without his help: therefore came his promise to be with them in their performance of it. Nor did that promise of supernatural help end with the apostles personally, for he adds, 'to the consummation of the world,' implying that the apostles would have successors, and engaging that he would be with those successors as he had been with them.

—The same safeguard of the revelation, viz., an authoritative, permanent tradition of teaching, is insisted on by an informant of equal authority with St. Matthew, but altogether independent of him: I mean St. Paul. He calls the church 'the pillar and ground of the truth'; and he bids his convert Timothy, when he had become a ruler in that church, to 'take heed unto his doctrine,' to 'keep the deposit' of the faith, and to 'commit' the things which he had heard from himself 'to faithful men who should be fit to teach others.' ,/p>

—This is how Catholics understand the Scripture record, nor does it appear how it can otherwise be understood; but, when we have got as far as this, and look back, we find that we have by implication made profession of a further doctrine. For, if the church, initiated by the apostles and continued in their successors, has been set up for the direct object of protecting, preserving and declaring the revelation, and that by means of the guardianship and providence of its Divine Author, we are led on to perceive that, in asserting this, we are in other words asserting, that, so far as the revealed message is concerned, the church is infallible; for what is meant by infallibility in teaching but that the teacher in his teaching is secured from error: and how can fallible man be thus secured except by a supernatural infallible guidance? And what can have been the object of the words, I am with you all along to the end,' but to give thereby an answer by anticipation to the spontaneous, silent alarm of the feeble company of fishermen and laborers, to whom they were addressed, on their finding themselves laden with superhuman duties and responsibilities?

—Such then being, in its simple outline, the infallibility of the church, such too will be the pope's infallibility, as the Vatican fathers have defined it. And if we find that by means of this outline we are able to fill out in all important respects the idea of a council's infallibility, we shall thereby be ascertaining in detail what was defined in 1870 about the infallibility of the pope.

—1. The church has the office of teaching, and the matter of that teaching is the body of doctrine which the apostles left behind them as her perpetual possession. If a question arises as to what the apostolic doctrine is on a particular point, she has infallibility promised to her to enable her to answer correctly. And, as by the teaching of the church is understood, not the teaching of this or that bishop, but their united voice, and a council is the form the church must take, in order that all men may recognize that in fact she is teaching on any point in dispute, so in like manner the pope must come before us in some special form or posture, if he is to be understood to be exercising his teaching office, and that form is called ex cathedra. This term is most appropriate, as being on one occasion used by our Lord himself. When the Jewish doctors taught, they placed themselves in Moses' seat, and spoke ex cathedra; and then, as he tells us, they were to be obeyed by their people, and that, whatever were their private lives or characters. 'The Scribes and Pharisees,' he says, 'are seated on the chair of Moses: all things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do; but according to their works do you not, for they say and do not.'

—2. The forms by which a general council is identified as representing the church herself, are too clear to need drawing out; but what is to be that moral cathedra, or teaching chair, in which the pope sits, when he is to be recognized as in the exercise of his infallible teaching? The new definition answers this question. He speaks ex cathedra, or infallibly, when he speaks, first, as the universal teacher; secondly, in the name and with the authority of the apostles; thirdly, on a point of faith or morals; fourthly, with the purpose of binding every member of the church to accept and believe his decision.

3. These conditions of course contract the range of his infallibility most materially. Hence Billuart, speaking of the pope, says, 'Neither in conversation, nor in discussion, nor in interpreting Scripture or the fathers, nor in consulting, nor in giving his reasons for the point which he has defined, nor in answering letters, nor in private deliberations, supposing he is setting forth his own opinion, is the pope infallible.' (t ii., p. 110.)** And for this simple reason, because, on these various occasions of speaking his mind, he is not in the chair of the universal doctor.

—4. Nor is this all; the greater part of Billuart's negatives refer to the pope's utterances when he is out of the cathedra Petri, but even when he is in it his words do not necessarily proceed from his infallibility. He has no wider prerogative than a council, and of a council Perrone says, 'Councils are not infallible in the reasons by which they are led, or on which they rely, in making their definition, nor in matters which relate to persons, nor to physical matters which have no necessary connection with dogma.' (Prœl. Theol., t. ii., p. 492.) Thus, if a council has condemned a work of Origen or Theodoret, it did not in so condemning go beyond the work itself; it did not touch the persons of either. Since this holds of a council, it also holds in the case of the pope; therefore, supposing a pope has quoted the so-called works of the Areopagite as if really genuine, there is no call on us to believe him; nor again, when he condemned Galileo's Copernicanism, unless the earth's immobility has a 'necessary connection with some dogmatic truth,' which the present bearing of the holy see toward that philosophy virtually denies.

5. Nor is a council infallible even in the prefaces and introductions to its definitions. There are theologians of name, as Tournely and Amort,*** who contend that even those most instructive capitula passed in the Tridentine council, from which the canons with anathemas are drawn up, are not portions of the church's infallible teaching; and the parallel introductions prefixed to the Vatican anathemas have an authority not greater nor less than that of those capitula.

—6. Such passages, however, as these are too closely connected with the definitions themselves, not to be what is sometimes called, by a catachresis, 'proximum fidei'; still, on the other hand, it is true also, that, in those circumstances and surroundings of formal definitions, which I have been speaking of, whether of a council or a pope, there may be not only no exercise of an infallible voice, but actual error. Thus, in the third council, a passage of an heretical author was quoted in defense of the doctrine defined, under the belief he was Pope Julius, and narratives not trustworthy are introduced into the seventh. This remark and several before it, will become intelligible if we consider that neither pope nor council are on a level with the apostles. To the apostles the whole revelation was given, by the church it is transmitted; no simply new truth has been given to us since St. John's death; the one office of the church is to guard 'that noble deposit' of truth, as St. Paul speaks to Timothy, which the apostles bequeathed to her, in its fullness and integrity. Hence the infallibility of the apostles was of a far more positive and wide character than that needed by and granted to the church. We call it, in the case of the apostles, inspiration; in the case of the church, assistentia. Of course there is a sense of the word 'inspiration' in which it is common to all members of the church, and therefore especially to its bishops, and still more directly to its rulers, when solemnly called together in council after much prayer throughout Christendom, and in a frame of mind especially serious and earnest by reason of the work they have in hand. The Paraclete certainly is ever with them, and more effectively in a council, as being 'in Spiritu Sancto congregata'; but I speak of the special and promised aid necessary for their fidelity to apostolic teaching; and, in order to secure this fidelity, to inward gift of infallibility is needed, such as the apostles had, no direct suggestion of divine truth, but simply an external guardianship, keeping them off from error (as a mans guardian angel, without enabling him to walk, might, on a night journey, keep him from pitfalls in his way), a guardianship saving them, as far as their ultimate decisions are concerned, from the effects of their inherent infirmities, from any chance of extravagance, of confusion of thought, of collision with former decisions, or with Scripture, which in seasons of excitement might reasonably be feared. 'Never,' says Perrone, 'have Catholics taught that the gift of infallibility is given by God to the church after the manner of inspiration.' (t. ii., p. 253.) Again: '[Human] media of arriving at the truth are excluded neither by a council's nor by a pope's infallibility, for God has promised it, not by way of an infused' or habitual 'gift, but by the way of assistentia (Ibid., p. 541.) But since the process of defining truth is human, it is open to the chance of error; what Providence has guaranteed is only this, that there should be no error in the final step, in the resulting definition or dogma.

—7. Accordingly, all that a council, and all that the pope, is infallible in, is the direct answer to the special question which he happens to be considering; his prerogative does not extend beyond a power, when in his cathedra, of giving that very answer truly. 'Nothing,' says Perrone, 'but the objects of dogmatic definitions of councils are immutable, for in these are councils infallible, not in their reasons,' etc. (Ibid.)

—8. This rule is so strictly to be observed that, though dogmatic statements are found from time to time in a pope's apostolic letters, etc., yet they are not accounted to be exercises of his infallibility if they are said only obiter—by the way, and without direct intention to define. A striking instance of this sine qua non condition is afforded by Nicholas I., who, in a letter to the Bulgarians, spoke as if baptism were valid, when administered simply in our Lord's name, without distinct mention of the Three Persons; but he is not teaching and speaking ex cathedra, because no question on this matter was in any sense the occasion of his writing. The question asked of him was concerning the minister of baptism, viz., whether a Jew or Pagan could validly baptize; in answering in the affirmative, he added obiter, as a private doctor, says Bellarmine, 'that the baptism was valid, whether administered in the name of the Three Persons or in the name of Christ only' (de Rom. Pont., iv., 12.)

—9. Another limitation is given in Pope Pius' own conditions set down in the Pastor Æternus, for the exercise of infallibility, viz., the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the apostolic depositum, through the channel either of Scripture or tradition; and, though the pope is the judge whether it is so referable or not, yet the necessity of his professing to abide by this reference is in itself a certain limitation of his dogmatic action. A Protestant will object, indeed, that, after his distinctly asserting that the immaculate conception and the papal infallibility are in Scripture and tradition, this safeguard against erroneous definitions is not worth much, nor do I say that it is one of the most effective; but anyhow, in consequence of it, no pope, any more than a council, could, for instance, Introduce Ignatius' Epistles into the canon of Scripture; and as to his dogmatic condemnation of particular books, which, of course, are foreign to the depositum, I would say, that, as to their false doctrine, there can be no difficulty in condemning that by means of that apostolic deposit, nor surely in his condemning the very wording in which they convey it, when the subject is carefully considered. For the pope's condemning the language, for instance, of Jansenius is a parallel act to the church's receiving the word 'consubstantial,' and if a council and the pope were not infallible so far in their judgment of language, neither the pope nor council could draw up a dogmatic definition at all, for the right exercise of words is involved in the right exercise of thought.

—10. And in like manner, as regards the precepts concerning moral duties, it is not in every such precept that the pope is infallible. As a definition of faith must be drawn from the apostolic depositum of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of infallibility, whether in the pope or a council, so too a precept of morals, if it is to be accepted as dogmatic, must be drawn from the moral law, that primary revelation to us from God. That is, in the first place, it must relate to things in themselves good or evil. If the pope prescribed lying or revenge, his command would simply go for nothing, as if he had not issued in because he has no power over the moral law. If he forbade his flock to eat any but vegetable food, or to dress in a particular fashion (questions of decency or modesty not coming into the question), he would in like manner be going beyond his province, because such a rule does not relate to a matter in itself good or bad. If he gave a precept all over the world for the adoption of lotteries instead of tithes or offerings, certainly it would be very hard to prove that he was contradicting the moral law, or ruling a practice to be in itself good which was in itself evil. There are few persons but would allow that it is at least doubtful whether lotteries are abstractedly evil, and in a doubtful matter the pope is to be believed and obeyed. However, there are other conditions besides this necessary for the exercise of papal infallibility in moral subjects: for instance, his definition must relate to things necessary for salvation. No one would so speak of lotteries, or of a particular dress, or of a particular kind of food; such precepts, then, did he make them, would be simply external to the range of his prerogative. And again, his infallibility in consequence is not called into exercise, unless he speaks to the whole world; for, if his precepts, in order to be dogmatic, must enjoin what is necessary to salvation, they must be necessary for all men. Accordingly, orders which issue from him for the observance of particular countries, or political or religious classes, have no claim to be the utterances of his infallibility. If he enjoins upon the hierarchy of Ireland to withstand mixed education, this is no exercise of his infallibility. It may be added that the field of morals contains so little that is unknown and unexplored, in contrast with revelation and doctrinal fact, which form the domain of faith, that it is difficult to say what portions of moral teaching in the course of 1800 years actually have proceeded from the pope, or from the church, or where to look for such. Nearly all that either oracle has done in this respect, has been to condemn such propositions as in a moral point of view are false, or dangerous, or rash; and these condemnations, besides being such as in fact will be found to command the assent of most men as soon as heard, do not necessarily go so far as to present any positive statements for universal acceptance.

—11. With the mention of condemned propositions I am brought to another and large consideration, which is one of the best illustrations that I can give of that principle of minimizing, so necessary, as I think, for a wise and cautions theology; at the same time I can not insist upon it in the connection into which I am going to introduce it, without submitting myself to the correction of divines more learned than I can pretend to be myself. The infallibility, whether of the church or of the pope, acts principally or solely in two channels, in direct statements of truth, and in the condemnation of error. The former taxes the shape of doctrinal definitions, the latter stigmatizes propositions as heretical, next to heresy, erroneous, and the like. In each case the church, as guided by her Divine Master, has made provision for weighing as lightly as possible on the faith and conscience of her children. As to the condemnation of propositions, all she tells us is, that the thesis condemned when taken as a whole, or, again, when viewed in its context, is heretical, or blasphemous, or impious, or whatever other epithet she affixes to it. We have only to trust her so far as to allow ourselves to be warned against the thesis, or the work containing it. Theologians employ themselves in determining what precisely it is that is condemned in that thesis or treatise; and doubtless in most cases they do so with success; but that determination is not de fide; all that is of faith is, that there is in that thesis itself, which is noted, heresy or error, or other peccant matter, as the case may be, such that the censure is a peremptory command to theologians, preachers, students and all other whom it concerns, to keep clear of it. But so light is this obligation, that instances frequently occur, when it is successfully maintained by some new writer, that the pope's act does not imply what it has seemed to imply, and questions which seemed to be closed, are, after a course of years, reopened. In discussions such as these, there is a real exercise of private judgment, and an allowable one; the act of faith, which can not be superseded or trifled with, being, I repeat, the unreserved acceptance that the thesis in question is heretical, or erroneous in faith, etc., as the pope or the church has spoken of it. In these cases, which in a true sense may be called the pope's negative enunciations, the opportunity of a legitimate minimizing lies in the intensely concrete character of the matters condemned; in his affirmative enunciations a like opportunity is afforded by their being more or less abstract. Indeed, excepting such as relate to persons, that is, to the trinity in unity, the blessed virgin, the saints, and the like, all the dogmas of pope or of council are but general, and so far, in consequence, admit of exceptions in their actual application, these exceptions being determined either by other authoritative utterances, or by the scrutinizing vigilance, acuteness and subtlety of the Schola Theologorum.

—One of the most remarkable instances of what I am insisting on is found in a dogma, which no Catholic can ever think of disputing, viz., that 'out of the church, and out of the faith, is no salvation.' Not to go to Scripture, it is the doctrine of St. Ignatius, St. Irenæus, St. Cyprian in the first three centuries, as of St. Augustine and his contemporaries in the fourth and fifth. It can never be other than an elementary truth of Christianity; and the present pope has proclaimed it, as all popes, doctors and bishops before him. But that truth has two aspects, according as the force of the negative falls upon the 'church' or upon the 'salvation.' The main sense is, that there is no other communion or so-called church, but the Catholic, in which are stored the promises, the sacraments, and other means of salvation; the other and derived sense is, that no one can be saved who is not in that one and only church. But it does not follow, because there is no church but one which has the evangelical gifts and privileges to bestow, that therefore no one can be saved without the intervention of that one church. Anglicans quite understand this distinction; for, on the one hand, their article says, 'they are to be had accursed (anathematizandi) that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by (in) the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature; 'while, on the other hand, they speak of and hold the doctrine of the 'uncovenanted mercies of God.' The latter doctrine in its Catholic form is the doctrine of invincible ignorance—or, that it is possible to belong to the soul of the church without belonging to the body; and, at the end of 1800 years, it has been formally and authoritatively put forward by the present pope (the first pope, I suppose, who has done so), on the very same occasion on which he has repeated the fundamental principal of exclusive salvation itself. It is to the purpose here to quote his words; they occur in the course of his encyclical addressed to the bishops of Italy, under date of Aug. 10, 1863: 'We and you know, that those who lie under invincible ignorance as regards our most holy religion, and who, diligently observing the natural law and its precepts, which are engraven by God on the hearts of all, and prepared to obey God, lead a good and upright life, are able, by the operation of the power of divine light and grace, to obtain eternal life.'**** Who would at first sight gather from the wording of so forcible a universal, that an exception to its operation, such as this, so distinct, and, for what we know, so very wide, was consistent with holding it? Another instance of a similar kind is the general acceptance in the Latin church, since the time of St. Augustine, of the doctrine of absolute predestination, as instanced in the teaching of other great saints beside him, such as St. Fulgentius, St. Prosper, St. Gregory, St. Thomas and St. Buonaventure. Yet in the last centuries a great explanation and modification of this doctrine has been effected by the efforts of the Jesuit school, which have issued in the reception of a distinction between predestination to grace and predestination to glory; and a consequent admission of the principle that, though our own works do not avail for bringing us into a state of salvation on earth, they do avail, when in that state of salvation or grace, for our attainment of eternal glory in heaven. Two saints of late centuries, St. Francis de Sales and St. Alfonso, seem to have professed this less rigid opinion, which is now the more common doctrine of the day. Another instance is supplied by the papal decisions concerning usury. Pope Clement V., in the council of Vienne, declares, 'If any one shall have fallen into the error of pertinaciously presuming to affirm that usury is no sin, we determine that he is to be punished as a heretic.' However, in the year 1831, the Sacred Pœnitentiaria answered an inquiry on the subject, to the effect that the holy see suspended its decision on the point, and that a confessor who allowed of usury was not to be disturbed, 'non esse inquietandum.' Here again a double aspect seems to have been realized of the idea intended by the word usury. To show how natural this process of partial and gradually developed teaching is, we may refer to the apparent contradiction of Bellarmine, who says 'the pope, whether he can err or not, is to be obeyed by all the faithful,' (Rom. Pont., iv., 2), yet, as I have quoted him above, sets down (ii., 29) cases in which he is not to be obeyed. An illustration may be given in political history in the discussions which took place years ago as to the force of the sovereign's coronation oath to uphold the Established church. The words were large and general, and seemed to preclude any act on his part to the prejudice of the Establishment; but lawyers succeeded at length in making a distinction between the legislative and executive action of the crown which is now generally accepted. These instances, out of many similar, are sufficient to show what caution is be observed, on the part of private and unauthorized persons, in imposing upon the consciences of others any interpretation of dogmatic enunciations which is beyond the legitimate sense of the words, inconsistent with the principle that all general rules have exceptions, and unrecognized by the theological Schola.

—12. From these various considerations it follows, that papal and synodal definitions, obligatory on our faith, are of rare occurrence; and this is confessed by all sober theologians. Father O'Reilly, for instance, of Dublin, one of the first theologians of the day, says: 'The papal infallibility is comparatively seldom brought into action. I am very far from denying that the vicar of Christ is largely assisted by God in the fulfillment of his sublime office, that he receives great light and strength to do well the great work intrusted to him and imposed on him, that he is continually guided from above in the government of the Catholic church. But this is not the meaning of infallibility. * * What is the use of dragging in the infallibility in connection with papal acts with which it has nothing to do? Papal acts, which are very good and very holy, and entitled to all respect and obedience, acts in which the pontiff is commonly not mistaken, but in which he could be mistaken and still remain infallible in the only sense in which he has been declared to be so.' ('The Irish Monthly,' vol. ii., No. 10, 1874.)***** This great authority goes on to disclaim any desire to minimize, but there is, I hope, no real difference between us here. He, I am sure, would sanction me in my repugnance to impose upon the faith of others more than what the church distinctly claims of them and I should follow him in thinking it a more scriptural. Christian, dutiful, happy frame of mind, to be easy, than to be difficult, of belief. I have already spoken of that uncatholic spirit, which starts with a grudging faith in the word of the church, and determines to hold nothing but what it is as if by demonstration, compelled to believe. To be a true Catholic a man must have a generous loyalty toward ecclesiastical authority, and accept what is taught him with what is called the pielas fldei, and only such a tone of mind has a claim, and it certainly has a claim, to be met and to be handled with a wise and gentle minimism. Still the fact remains, that there has been of late years a fierce and intolerant temper abroad, which scorns and virtually tramples on the little ones of Christ.

—I end with an extract from the pastoral of the Swiss bishops, a pastoral which has received the pope's approbation: 'It in no way depends upon the caprice of the pope, or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition. He is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains. He is tied up and limited by the creeds already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the church. He is tied up and limited by the divine law, and by the constitution of the church. Lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside religious society there is civil society, that alongside the ecclesiastical hierarchy, there is the power of temporal magistrates, invested in their own domain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe obedience in conscience, and respect in all things morally permitted, and belonging to the domain of civil society.' "—JOHN HENRY CARDINAL NEWMAN.

*Romanum Pontificem en infallibilitate poliere, qua divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam in definienda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam ease voluit.

**And so Fessler. "The pope is not infallible as a man, or a theologian, or a priest, or a bishop, or a temporal prince, or a judge, or a legislator, or in his political views, or even in his government of the church." (Introd.)

***Vide Amort, Dem. Cr., pp. 205-5. This applies to the Unam Sanctam. Vide Fessler.

****The pope speaks more forcibly still in an earlier allocution. After mentioning invincible ignorance, he adds: "Quis tantum sibi arroget, ut hujusmodi ignorantiae designare limites queat, juxta populorum, regionum, ingeniorum, aliarumque rerum tam multarum rationem et varietatem!" (Dec. 9, 1854.)

*****Vide Fessler also; and I believe Father Parrone says the same

Footnotes for RUSSIA

96. [96] The Russian empire comprises one-seventh of the territorial part of the globe, and about one twenty-sixth part of its entire surface. Owing to the vast extent of the empire, and its social condition, no surveys that can lay claim to accuracy have yet been made, and the area is obtained in greater part from estimates. There has been, likewise, no general census of the population, but various enumerations, made by the government during the years 1870 to 1873, mainly undertaken for purposes of finance or war, serve to furnish an approximately correct return of the numbers of the people. The density of population of European Russia is considerably greater than that of the Asiatic part of the empire. Russia in Europe has, on the average, thirty-four individuals to the square mile, while Asiatic Russia has barely more than a single individual to the square mile.

—By articles forty-two and fifty-nine of the treaty of Berlin, signed July 13, 1878, Russia added to its vast territories the province of Bessarabia, taken from Roumania, together with the districts of Ardahan, Kars and Batoum, in Asia Minor, detached from the Turkish empire. Bessarabia has an estimated area of 3,720 English square miles, with a population of 140,000. According to the most reliable estimates, the newly acquired district in Asia Minor, formed, provisionally, into the government of Kars, embraces an area of 5,670 English square miles, with a total population of 600,644, comprising 417,602 Mohammedans and 183,042 Christians.

—In 1881 most of Kuldja was restored to China, leaving Russia only 5,500 square miles and 26,000 inhabitants. To the above have also to be added the trans-Caspian territory, 123,250 square miles, 275,000 inhabitants, and Fergana, 28,040 square miles, 800,000 inhabitants. More recent enumerations give the population of Poland (1872) as 6,528,017; Finland (1879), 2,028,021; Caucasus (1873-6, inclusive of additions), 5,391,744; Siberia (1873), 3,440,302; and the whole of Central Asia, 4,401,876—According to official returns of births and deaths for the years 1867-70, the population progresses at an average increase of 781,000 a year; a percentage which, supposing the inhabitants always to multiply at the same rate, would double the population in fifty-eight years.

—The vast majority of the population of Russia are devoted to agricultural occupations, and dwell in villages, spread thinly over the vast area of the empire. According to local enumerations made at various periods, there are but seventeen towns containing more than 50,000 inhabitants. The list is as follows:

St. Petersburg (1881)... 861,900 Kasan... 78,602
Moscow (1871)... 611,970 Kief (1874)... 127,251
Warsaw (1878)... 336,703 Nicolaief (1875)... 82,805
Odessa (1873)... 184,819 Tiflis (1876)... 104,024
Kichenef (Bessarabia)... 103,998 Kharkof (1879)... 101,175
Riga (1881)... 160,000 Tula... 58,150
Saratof... 93,218 Berditchef... 52,786
Tashkend (1879)... 81,951 Samara... 51,947
Vilna... 79,265

In the larger towns a considerable proportion of the trading and industrial population are either aliens, or of foreign extraction.

—The population of Russia proper is composed of three groups: Great Russians, or Veliko-Russ; Little Russians, or Malo-Russ; and White Russians, or Bélo-Russ. The first, numbering 35,000,000, all belonging to the Slavonian race, occupy the central provinces: the second, numbering about 11,000,000, compose the bulk of the population of Poltava, Kharkof, Chernigof, Kief, Volhynia, Podolsk, Ekatermoslaf, and the Taurida; the White Russians, about 3,000,000, inhabit the provinces of Monilef, Minsk, Vitebsk and Grodno. Besides these three groups of Russians proper, there is a great variety of national elements in the general population of the Russian empire.

—Since the emancipation act of 1861 the cultivable lands of Russia proper in Europe have been approximately distributed as follows:

 Per cent.
Town lands, about... 0.4
Crown lands, about... 34.6
Lands attached to mines... 3.5
Lands held by peasants: 1, crown peasants, 15.6 per cent...
Lands held by peasants: 2, former serfs, 5.0 per cent...
brace bracket20.6
Lands held by landed gentry and nobility... 19.7
Lands held by other proprietors, or not surveyed... 20.4

It will be seen, that about one-third of the cultivable land in Russia proper is held by the state; one-fifth by landed proprietors; and one-fifth by the peasantry.—F. M.

97. [97] The prohibition of celibacy in the Greek church is carried to such an extent that no priest can perform any spiritual function before he is married, nor after he becomes a widower; and as, by the rules of the church, he is not allowed to remarry, the death of his wife occasions the cessation of his clerical functions. A priest may, however, on the death of his wife, enter into a convent, and enjoy the privilege of becoming eligible to be a dignitary of the church. There are in Russia nearly 500 cathedrals and about 29,000 churches attached to the established faith, the latter employing (1883) about 70,000 secular or parochial clergymen. The Russian church formerly possessed immense wealth, but it was partly confiscated by Peter I. and partly by Catherine II. The latter sovereign appropriated the whole movable property of the church for the use of the state, assigning, in compensation, pensions to the chief ecclesiastical dignitaries. But, with the exception of a few benefices in St. Petersburg, Moscow, and other principal cities, the stipends of the clergy, even when increased by the offerings of the people, and by the fees on occasions of births, marriages and funerals, are scarcely adequate to provide for their subsistence. The total number of the established clergy, of all ranks and orders, is stated (1883) at 254,000.

—No member of the Russo-Greek church is permitted to renounce his creed; and when a marriage takes place between one of its members and a person belonging to another faith, the children must all be brought up in the established church.

—The number of members of the principal creeds in European Russia was returned as below for 1879:

Orthodox Greek Catholics... 63,835,000
United Greeks and Armenians... 55,000
Roman Catholics... 8,300,000
Protestants... 2,950,000
Jews... 3,000,000
Mohammedans... 2,600,000
Pagans... 26,000

—F. M.

98. [98] Under the ministry of public instruction, Russia is divided into eleven educational districts, each presided over by a curator. The nine universities, in 1878, were attended by 6,250 students. In 1876 there were 24,456 primary schools, with 1,019,488 pupils; in 1877 there were sixty-eight normal schools, with 4,596 pupils; while the various secondary establishments—lyceums, gymnasiums, district schools, etc.—had 88,400 pupils. In the budget for the year 1882, a sum of 18,030,867 roubles was set down for public education.

—The mass of the population of Russia is as yet without education. In 1860 only two out of every hundred recruits levied for the army were able to read and write, but the proportion had largely increased in 1870, when eleven out of every hundred were found to be possessed of these elements of knowledge. In the grand duchy of Finland, which has a system of public instruction separate from that of the rest of the empire, education is all but universal, the whole of the inhabitants being able at least to read, if not to write. The empire, Finland excepted, is divided, as above stated, into educational districts, each of which has a number of lyceums, at which the young men intended to fill civil offices are mostly instructed, besides gymnasiums, high schools and elementary schools, varying according to area and population. The eleven districts are those of St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kharkof, Kasan, Dorpat, Kief, Odessa, Wilna, Warsaw, Caucasus and Orenburg.—F. M.

99. [99] The following was the composition of the regular Russian army in 1882:

Table.  Click to enlarge in new window.

The nominal strength of the various divisions of the Russian army, according to the returns of the ministry of war, was as follows in 1882:

Table.  Click to enlarge in new window.

To this has to be added the staff, gendarmerie, militia (raised only in time of war), etc., which would raise the war forces to a total of 2,733,305 men.

—By the law of Dec. 18, 1878, which came into force Jan. 1, 1881, personal military service is declared obligatory in Finland. The Finnish troops form nine battalions of riflemen, each with eighteen officers and 505 men, and number in all 4,833.

—Among the irregular troops of Russia the most important are the Cossacks. The country of the Don Cossacks contains from 600,000 to 700,000 inhabitants. By imperial decree, dated April 29, 1875, every Cossack of the Don, from fifteen to sixty years of age, is bound to render military service. No substitution is allowed, nor payment of money in lieu of service. Exemption from military service is granted, however, at all times, to the Christian clergy, and, in times of peace, to physicians and veterinary surgeons, apothecaries, and teachers in public schools. The regular military force consists of fifty-four cavalry regiments, each numbering 1,044 men, making a total of 56,376. The number of Cossacks is computed as follows:

Table.  Click to enlarge in new window.

The military organization of the Cossacks is in eight districts, called woisskos. Each woissko furnishes a certain number of regiments, fully armed and equipped, and undergoing constant military exercise, so as to be prepared to enter the field, on being summoned, in the course of ten days. The two larger districts are the woissko of Kuban, which has the privilege of furnishing a squadron of picked men for an imperial escort in time of war, and the second the woissko of Terak, which furnishes a like escort in time of peace.

—The Cossacks are a race of free men; neither serfage nor any other dependence upon the land has existed among them. The entire territory belongs to the Cossack commune, and every individual has an equal right to the use of the land, together with the pastures, hunting grounds and fisheries. The Cossacks pay no taxes to the government, but, in lieu of this, they are bound to perform military service. They are divided into three classes: viz., 1, the minors, or malolelniye, up to their sixteenth year; 2, those on actual service, the sluzhiliye, for a period of twenty-five years, therefore until their forty-second year; 3, those released from service, the otslavniye, who remain for five years, or until their forty-seventh year, in the reserve, after which period they are regarded as wholly released from service and invalided. Every Cossack is obliged to equip clothe and arm himself at his own expense, and to keep his horse. While on service beyond the frontiers of his own country, he receives rations of food and provender, and a small amount of pay. The artillery and train are at the charge of the government. Instead of imposing taxes on the Don Cossacks, the Russian government pays them an annual tribute, varying in peace and war, together with grants to be distributed among the widows and orphans of those who have fallen in battle. Besides the regular Cossacks, there are, on the Orenburg and Siberian lines, the Bashkir Cossacks, numbering some 200,000 men.

—The Russian navy (1883) consists of two great divisions, the fleet of the Baltic, and that of the Black sea. Each of these two fleets is again subdivided into sections, of which three are in or near the Baltic, and two in or near the Black sea. The divisions, like the English, carry the white, blue and red flag, an arrangement originating with the Dutch, but without the rank of the admirals being connected with the color of the flag.

—At the end of the year 1880 the strength of the various divisions of the Russian navy was returned officially as follows: 1, the Baltic fleet, consisting of one hundred and thirty-seven men-of-war, comprising twenty-seven armor-clad ships, forty-four unarmored steamers, and sixty-six transports; 2, the Black sea fleet, consisting of thirty-one men-of-war, comprising three armor-clad ships, twenty-five unarmored steamers, and three transports; 3, the Caspian sea fleet, consisting of eleven unarmored steamers and eight transports; 4, the Siberian fleet, consisting of fifteen unarmored steamers and twenty-one transports. The total comprises 223 men-of-war, all steamers, armed with 561 guns, with engines aggregating 188,120 horse power.

—The iron-clad fleet of war of Russia, comprising thirty ships, twenty-eight in the Baltic and two in the Black sea, was made up, at the end of 1880, of the following classes of ships: 1st class, three mastless turret ships, 12 and 14 inch armor thickness; 2d class, nine sea-going cruisers, 4 to 6 inch armor; 3d class, sixteen vessels for coast defense, 4 to 4½ inch armor; 4th class, two circular monitors, 11 and 18 inch armor.

—The imperial navy was commanded, in 1880, by 17 admirals, 32 vice-admirals, 31 rear admirals, 201 first-class captains, 98 second-class captains, 303 captain lieutenants, 443 lieutenants, and 129 midshipmen of the special corps attached to the navy. The navigation detachment contained, at the same date, five generals and 508 staff officers; the naval artillery, four generals and 197 staff officers; and the naval engineers, six generals and 139 staff officers.—F. M.

100. [100] The public revenue of the empire is derived to the extent of two-thirds from direct and indirect taxes, while nearly two-thirds of the total expenditure is for the army and navy, and interest on the public debt. There are annual budget estimates published by the government, and also, since 1866, accounts of the actual receipts and disbursements of the state, which, entering into minute details, can not be issued till after the lapse of a number of years.

—The following table gives the total actual revenue and expenditure of the imperial government, in roubles, for each of the years 1875-81:

Table.  Click to enlarge in new window.

The expenditure 1876-81 is exclusive of the large expenses incurred during the war with Turkey, which in 1876 amounted to about 51,000,000 roubles, in 1877 to over 429,000,000, in 1878 to 408,000,000, in 1879 to 128,000,000, and in 1880 to about 59,000,000. It should also be remembered, that, during the last five years, the actual value of the rouble has only been about two English shillings.

—The following table shows the principal sources of revenue and the chief branches of expenditure of the government in roubles, according to the budget estimates for 1882:

Sources of Revenue.

1. Ordinary revenue:
Direct taxes... 128,291,700
Indirect taxes... 390,687,940
Mint, mines, post and telegraphs... 26,183,328
State domains... 42,562,237
Miscellaneous receipts... 49,158,117
Revenue of Transcaucasia... 9,834,548
   Total ordinary revenue... 656,717,870
2. "Recéttes d'ordre"... 22,165,068
3. Extraordinary receipts... 83,121,574
     Total revenue... 762,004,512

Branches of Expenditure.

1. Ordinary expenditure:
Interest and sinking fund of the national debt... 191,776,287
Imperial chancery... 1,650,230
Holy synod... 10,300,800
Ministry of the imperial house... 8,954,000
Ministry of foreign affairs... 3,686,185
Ministry of war... 183,489,042
Ministry of the navy... 27,507,721
Ministry of finance... 78,430,477
Ministry of the imperial domains... 19,244,882
Ministry of the interior... 65,120,548
Ministry of public instruction... 18,030,867
Ministry of public works and railways... 16,072,905
Ministry of justice... 14,780,362
Department of general control... 2,367,225
Civil administration of the Transcaucasus... 7,252,291
Various... 931,329
   Total ordinary expenditure... 658,595,151
2. Anticipated deficits in receipts... 8,500,000
3. "Dépenses d'ordre"... 22,165,068
4. Extraordinary expenses... 72,744,293
      Total expenditure... 762,004,512

It is expected that the actual revenue will show a deficit of 4,500,000 roubles. The budget estimates for 1883 balance the revenue and expenditure at 778,505,423 roubles, or £111,215,060.

—In the budget estimates for the year 1882, the total amount, in roubles, required for interest on the public debt and sinking fund, was divided as follows:

Foreign loans:  
Terminable... 23,481,601
Perpetual... 23,486,172
Internal terminable loans:  
Debt to sundry departments... 125,837
4 per cent. bank bills (metallic)... 4,500,000
5 per cent. bank bills... 13,450,000
First and second lottery loans... 13,285,000
First and second oriental loans... 44,000,000
Treasury bills... 9,331,200
Polish obligations... 1,890,000
Debt on Polish "Fenilles de liquidation"... 3,184,123
Internal perpetual loans... 10,117,646
Interest and sinking fund on consolidated bills issued for construction of railways, etc... 51,924,708
   Total... 198,776,287

—The finances of Russia, almost since the beginning of the century, exhibit large annual deficits, caused partly by an enormous expenditure for war, and partly by the construction of reproductive works, such as railways. But the war expenditure was by far the greatest cause of the deficits.

—According to official returns, issued in 1881, the total war outlay incurred by Russia during the four years 1876 to 1880, amounted to 1,075,396,653 roubles, or £153,628,093.

—To cover a series of annual deficits, and, at the same time, to procure the capital for the construction of a network of railways throughout the empire, a number of foreign loans were raised during the thirty-two years from 1850 to 1882. The most important of them were, first, a loan of £5,500,000, issued in 1850, to meet the expenditure for the railway from St. Petersburg to Moscow; secondly, a loan of £12,000,000, issued in 1859; thirdly, a loan of £8,000,000, issued in 1860; and fourthly, a loan of £15,000,000, issued in 1862, the latter three contracted partly for the covering of financial deficits and partly for the construction of railways. The subsequent foreign loans were: one for £2,600,000, issued in 1863, and two for £6,000,000 each, issued respectively in 1864 and 1866. The next was a foreign loan of £15,000,000, brought out in September, 1872, and the second raised in December, 1873. The following table gives the year of issue, nominal capital, interest per cent., and price of issue, of the foreign loans of Russia, fifteen in number—including early liabilities dating back to 1822—contracted up to 1882:

Table.  Click to enlarge in new window.

Not included in the above list are several loans for railways, guaranteed by the imperial government. The earlier of the foreign loans of Russia have become largely reduced at present, through the operation of sinking funds. Of the 1822 loan, issued by Messrs. Rothschild, more than one-half had been repaid at the end of 1875; of the 1850 loan, contracted for by Baring Brothers, the outstanding sum was £2,950,000, of the 1859 loan, issued by Thomson, Bonar & Co., the amount was £5,100,000; and of the 1860 loan, issued by Baring Brothers, it was £6,600,000 at the same date. But the repayments of the subsequent loans, through sinking funds, were comparatively small.

—The entire public debt of Russia, interior and foreign, was estimated to amount to 2,450,000,000 roubles, or £350,000,000, on Sept. 1, 1878, the total including an internal loan of 210,000,000 roubles, or £30,000,000, issued in 1877, soon after the commencement of the war against Turkey, and another internal loan, called "the second eastern loan," to the amount of 300,000,000 roubles, or £42,837,142, issued in August, 1878. On Jan. 1, 1880, the total debt had increased to 4,480,812,699 roubles, or £640,116,099.

—Included in the debt here enumerated is a very large quantity of paper money, with forced currency. According to official reports, the total amount of bank notes in circulation on Jan. 1, 1875, was 797,313,480 roubles, or £113,901,925. There were new issues of paper money to a very large amount during the years 1876-9. The total debt represented by paper money of forced currency, was estimated at 1,500,000,000 roubles, or upward of £210,000,000, in January, 1880.

—The destruction of public credit, through an unlimited issue of paper money, is, as remarked above, of old standing. In the reign of Catherine II., the first attempt, on a large scale, was made to cover the annual deficits by a very liberal supply of paper roubles, the sum total of which at the death of the empress, 1796, amounted to 200,000,000. During the subsequent wars with France and Turkey, new emissions of paper followed, with the consequence that in 1815 the notes had fallen to 418, that is, one silver rouble was worth four roubles eighteen kopecks in paper. Great efforts were now made by the government to improve this state of things, by withdrawing a portion of the paper from circulation. After ten years of improved financial management, there remained, however, still 600,000,000 of notes, circulating at the rate of three paper roubles to one silver rouble. As a final remedy, the imperial government withdrew, in 1843, the whole of the old paper money, introducing, in its stead, a new form of bank notes, with forced currency. By these and other means, particularly the establishment, in 1859, of a state bank, the bank of Russia, under the control of the minister of finance, the nominal value of the paper money was considerably raised, with a prospect of the resumption of specie payments in the course of a number of years.

—The grand duchy of Finland had a revenue of 32,320,714 marcs, or £1,292,828, and an expenditure of 35,131,146 marcs. or £1,405,245, in 1882. Its total debt on Jan 1, 1882, amounted to 61,422,865 marcs, or £2,456,914. In December, 1882, Finland contracted an additional loan of £810,000 at 4 per cent., for forty-two years. The special budgets of Poland ceased in 1867, on the final incorporation of the kingdom with Russia.—F. M.

101. [101] The commerce of Russia with foreign countries is officially divided into trade with Europe, and trade with Asia: the former being subdivided into trade through the Baltic ports, through the White sea ports, through the southern ports, and over the European land frontier. The immense extent of the empire, and its ever-changing limits eastward, make it difficult to obtain exact returns of the aggregate amount of its foreign commerce, which must be partly estimated. According to official statements, the total value of imports in the five years 1876-80 averaged, in round numbers, 455,000,000 roubles, or £65,000,000, while the value of the exports during the same period averaged 476,000,000 roubles, or £68,000,000 per annum. The four principal articles of import during the period were raw cotton, iron and other unwrought metals, tea, and machinery of all kinds, while the staple articles of export were grain and other agricultural produce.

—The two principal countries trading with Russia (1883) are Great Britain and Germany. Of the imports, about 40 per cent. annually came from Germany, and 20 per cent. from Great Britain; and of the exports 35 per cent. went to Great Britain, and 20 per cent. to Germany, on the average of the five years 1876-80.

—The commercial navy of Russia consisted, at the end of the year 1879, of 2,368 sea-going vessels, of an aggregate burden of 261,231 ship last, or 522,462 tons. The total comprised 925 ships engaged in trading to foreign countries, and 1,780 coasting vessels, many of them belonging to Greeks, sailing under the Russian flag. Not included in the return were 389 trading steamers on the rivers and lakes of the empire, very nearly two-thirds of this number being on the river Volga and its affluents.

—The internal commerce of the empire, as well as its foreign trade, has been greatly extended by the establishment, in recent years, of a comprehensive net-work of railways. The latest official returns state, that on July 1, 1880, the total length of the railways of Russia in Europe, open for traffic, amounted to 22,037 versts, or 14,145 English miles. At the same date 1,110 miles more of lines were in course of construction. The progress of railway construction in Russia is shown succinctly in the following table, which gives the length of lines opened at successive periods:

Table.  Click to enlarge in new window.

On the proposition of the minister of public works, the emperor sanctioned, in June, 1875, the extension of the then existing system by 6,500 versts, or 4,333 English miles, which, added to the 2,500 versts, or 1,666 English miles, previously sanctioned, raised the total to 9,000 versts, or 6,000 English miles. The new net-work is divided into four classes, according to different degrees of urgency, and the first of these classes will include the Siberian railway and the seven projected lines in the coal basin of the Don; 2,600 versts, or 1,734 English miles, are assigned to this class, at the head of which has been placed the immense Siberian line, reported as "most urgent" by a special commission on railways summoned in 1870. It is from a station on this line, probably Tinmen, that the Central Asian line to Tashkend is to take its rise, the continuation of the Orenburg line in that direction having been condemned as impracticable, owing to the inhospitable nature of the country it would have to traverse. The importance of the seven lines for the coal fields of the south is great, as the new railways will traverse this field in every direction, and connect it on one side with the Black sea and the sea of Azof, and on the other with the existing trunk lines of the empire.

—In 1880-81 a railway for military purposes was constructed from Mikhailovsk, on the southeast shore of the Caspian, to Kizil Arvat, and a tramway thence to Beurma, near Bami, about 200 miles in all; within 100 miles of Askabad, and 260 of Sarakhs, on the northwest frontier of Afghanistan.

—On Jan. 1, 1879, there were forty-five railway companies existing in the empire. Of this number ten had constructed their lines altogether without government assistance; while the remaining thirty-five were guaranteed, fifteen to the full amount of their capital, and the other twenty only to a partial extent. The entire sum guaranteed in 1874 by the state, in the shape of interest and repayment of capital, amounted to 51,177,627 roubles, or £7,311,089. In the year 1878 the sum of 14,392,172 roubles, or £2,084,596, being 78.52 per cent. of the sum total, was paid out of the exchequer to the railway companies. The charters granted to railway companies are for the most part terminable after between seventy-five and eighty-five years; but some small companies have charters only for thirty-seven years. The following table shows the gross receipts, the working expenses and the net receipts, in roubles, of the Russian railways during each of the eleven years 1869-79:

Table.  Click to enlarge in new window.

It appears from official returns referring to the end of the year 1878, that at that date the capital of all the railway companies amounted to 1,450,288,196 roubles, or £207,184,028. The capital consisted of £135,446,153 in bonds, and £71,737,875 in shares. No less than £92,101,350 of the bonds and £8,055,750 of the shares were held by the government itself; 48.8 per cent. of the whole railway property of the country was therefore held by the government.

—The postoffice in the year 1880 conveyed 128,817,612 letters and post cards, 8,960,721 wrappers and parcels, and 88,168,700 newspapers. There were 4,458 postoffices in the empire in 1880. The total receipts of the general post in the year 1880 did not cover the expenditure.

—The length of telegraph lines in Russia, in 1880, was 59,000 English miles, and the length of wire 134,000 English miles. Of the total system, about seven-eights was the property of the state. There were at the same date 2,838 telegraph offices, 1,185 belonging to the state, and the remainder to private companies. The total number of telegrams carried in 1880 was 7,298,429, comprising 5,768,255 inland dispatches, and the rest on international service. The receipts of the telegraph office, which were £1,226,762 in 1878, have shown, in recent years, a small annual surplus, which is, by imperial decree, always devoted to the extension of the telegraphic system.—F. M.


102. [102] The Sandwich islands are also known as the Hawaiian islands, Hawaii being the largest of the group. The latest statistics give the population at 57,985, 5,916 of whom are Chinese and 4,561 whites. The capital is Honolulu, with a population (1878) of 14,114. The receipts of the state from April 1, 1876, to March 31, 1878, amounted to $1,151,713, and the expenditures to $1,110,472. The state debt on March 31, 1878, was $444,800. The standing army consists of only seventy-five men. There is a volunteer corps of 400 men.—M.

Footnotes for SAXONY

103. [103] At the census of Dec. 1, 1880, the population of Saxony was composed of 2,876,138 Lutherans; 72,946 Roman Catholics; 1,467 German Catholics; 10,235 members of other Christian sects; and 6,516 Jews. The clergy are chiefly paid out of local rates and from endowments, the budget contribution of the state to the department of ecclesiastical affairs amounting to but 85,593 thalers, chiefly spent in administrative salaries. The government of the Protestant church is intrusted to the Landes-Consistorium, or national consistory. Public education has reached the highest point in Saxony, every child, without exception, partaking of its benefits. By a law of June 6, 1835, attendance at school, or under properly qualified teachers, was made compulsory. The kingdom has the second largest university in Germany, that of Leipzig, founded in 1409, and attended, on the average of recent years, by nearly three thousand students.

—The financial period extends over a term of two years. In the financial accounts, both the revenue and expenditure are divided into "ordinary" and "extraordinary," the latter representing income from state domains and disbursements for public works. The ordinary revenue for each of the two years 1882-3 was returned at 67,767,236 mark, and was balanced by the expenditure. The extraordinary revenue for each of the two years 1882-3, likewise balanced by the expenditure, was returned at 4,014,905 mark. More than one-half of the total revenue of the years 1881-2 was derived from domains and state railways. The chief branch of expenditure is that of interest and sinking fund of the public debt, amounting to 31,593,138 mark, for the years 1882-3. The debt was incurred almost entirely for the establishment and purchase of a net-work of railways and telegraphs, and the promotion of other works of public utility. The total debt had risen on Jan. 1, 1881, to 669,583,425 mark, and in 1882 to 673,445,475.

—The population of Saxony, by the census of Dec. 1, 1880, was 2,972,805, comprising 1,445,330 males, and 1,527,475 females. The area, in English square miles, and the population, of the Hauptmannschaften, was as follows at each of the two enumerations of Dec. 1, 1875, and Dec. 1, 1880:

Table.  Click to enlarge in new window.

—F. M.

Footnotes for SCOTLAND

104. [104] Scotland has given to the world more than its share of genius, a fact largely attributable to its social, religious and political conditions. We may mention—1. Poets. John Barbour, Sir David Lyndsay, George Buchanan, Dr. Arthur Johnston, Gavin Douglass, Allan Ramsay, Robert Blair, James McPherson, John Logan. Dr. James Beattie, James Thomson (of the "Seasons"), Thomas Campbell, John Skinner, Lady Anne Barnard, Jane Elliott. John Leyden, William Laidlaw, John Graham, James Montgomery, Mrs. Joanna Baillie, Robert Burns. Baroness Nairn, Robert Tannahill, James Hogg (the "Ettrick Shepherd") Allan Cunningham, William Motherwell, William Edmonstoun Aytoun, J. Ballantine, Robert Buchanan.

—2. Norelists, Tobias George Smollett, Sir Walter Scott, Elizabeth Hamilton. John Galt, Susan Edmonstonne Ferrier, Mrs. Christian Isabel Johnstone, Sir Thomas Dick Lauder, George MacDonald, William Black, etc.

—3. Theologians. John Knox, Ebenezer Erskine, Ralph Erskine, George Campbell, John Brown, Andrew Thomson, Thomas Chalmers, Edward Irving, Robert S. Candlish, Thomas Guthrie, Norman Macleod. John Tulloch, John Caird, John Ker.

—4. Metaphysicians, etc. Dr. Thomas Reid, Dugald Stewart, Lord Monboddo, John Abercrombie, M. D., George Combe, Sir William Hamilton. Sir James Mclntosh.

—5. Historians. Hector Boece. David Hume, Dr. William Robertson, Patrick Fraser Tytler. Lord Hailes, Dr. John Gillies, Bishop Burnet, John Pinkerton, Sir William Napier, James Boswell, Dr. Thomas McCrie. Cosmo Innes, J. G. Lockhart, W. Stirling Maxwell, John Lord Campbell, Henry Lord Cockburn, Lord Macaulay, John Hill Burton.

—6. Miscellaneous Writers, Essayists, etc. Sir Andrew Fletcher, Dr. Adam Smith, Archibald Alison, Prof. John Wilson (Christopher North), John Gibson Lockhart, J. R. M'Culloch, Francis Jeffrey, Lord Erskine, Henry Lord Brougham, Robert Mudie, Prof. Masson, Dean Ramsay, Dr. Robert Chambers, Rev. George Gilfillan, James Mill (father of John Stuart Mill).

—7. Discoverers and Trarelers. Mungo Park, Hugh Clapperton, Captain Grant, James Bruce, Sir John Ross, David Moffat, David Livingstone, etc.

—8. Scientists. John Napier (inventor of logarithms), Sir David Brewster, James Watt, Prof. J. D. Forbes, Sir John Leslie, John P. Nichol, Sir James Clark, M. D., Thomas Clark. Dr. Alexander Bain, Sir William Fairbairn, Sir Charles Lyell, Sir Roderick Murchison, Hugh Miller, Prof. John Fleming, Archibald Geikie, Prof. John Playfair, etc.

Footnotes for SERVIA

105. [105] The independence of Servia from Turkey was established by article thirty-four of the treaty of Berlin, signed July 13, 1878, and was solemnly proclaimed by Prince (now King) Milan at his capital, Aug. 22, 1878.

—The revenue of Servia is derived chiefly from direct imposts, including a general capitation tax, classified as to rank, occupation and income of each individual, and which is assessed, in the first instance, on the different communes or parishes. The budget for 1883 is as follows: revenue, £1,392,000; expenditures, £1,391,000; showing £900 surplus; and being an increase of revenue to the amount of £86,500 over the previous year. The increase (about the same) in the expenditure is chiefly due to the expenses incurred in reorganizing the Servian army on the German system. The national debt is about £5,500,000, £3,500,000 being incurred for the new railway (Belgrade-Vranja), the interest and amortization of which, during fifty years, is 6 percent.; £1,500,000 for a lottery loan, to repay the war requisition; £250,000 due to Russia; and £250,000 incurred in 1882 to pay the claims of the disinherited Turks in the annexed provinces. The interest and expenses on the debt amount to £310,000 in the budget for 1883.

—The standing army of Servia, on a peace footing, is 9,710 men—infantry, artillery, engineers and cavalry. Besides the standing army, there is the national militia; so that, on paper, in 1882, the total war force of Servia amounted to 210 battalions, with 225,000 men in all. This army has 810 officers, and some 300 pieces of artillery. The army is, however, being reorganized on the German system. By the new law every able-bodied Servian will be in the army from his twentieth to his fiftieth year. At twenty he enters for two years the regular army, afterward passing into the reserve until he reaches his thirtieth year. From thirty to thirty-seven he is in the first-class militia, and from thirty-seven until fifty in the second-class militia. The infantry will have fifteen battalions, and the cavalry two regiments. The total war force will be 135 battalions, with 160,000 men.

—Servia had, in 1883, a population of nearly 1,750,000. The inhabitants are almost entirely Slaves, the Turkish population on the territory (4,250 square miles) acquired from Turkey by the Berlin treaty having rapidly disappeared. There are leas than 2,000 Jews (who have much of the commerce of the country in their hands). The gypsy population, it is stated, is turning to the cultivation of the land, on the advantageous terms offered to them by the government.

—The state is divided into twenty-one counties. In religion Servia is almost independent of the patriarch of Constantinople. There are about 10,000 Roman Catholics, chiefly subjects of Austria-Hungary, with about 460 Protestants. The excess of births over deaths amounted to 15,355 in 1880, and to 36,836 in 1881.

—The chief trade of Servia is with Austria. Besides, with that country, as remarked above, commercial intercourse is mainly carried on with France, the United States, Turkey and Roumania. The total imports are officially valued at about £2,000,000, and the exports at considerably less, mainly to and from Austria and Turkey. Live animals are the chief article of export, particularly pigs, which are kept in countless herds, feeding on the acorns which cover the ground for miles. Large quantities of cereals, hides and prunes, are also exported. The commercial resources of Servia are as yet wholly undeveloped, chiefly for want of roads, but a railway from Belgrade to Vranja is being constructed. There are 1,370 miles of telegraph.—F. M.


106. [106] Since this article was written, the indemnity has been paid, but paid without interest.

Footnotes for SMITH

107. [107] While he occupied his chair at Glasgow, Smith was in the habit of giving certain lectures on the elements of political economy, as it was understood in his time, i.e., upon those artificial regulations and restraints of civil society which statesmen conceive to be necessary or expedient. Here he was accnstomed to draw those inferences in favor of a policy of freedom which he afterward expanded into his celebrated work. Neither he, nor, indeed, any one else, had ever elaborated at this time the laws under which the production of wealth is effectually secured.

—The modern science of political economy has been developed from a host of negative inductions. Statesmen, misled by the selfish misrepresentations of reputed experts, have from time to time controlled and misdirected trade in the fancied interests of trade. They have attempted to be wiser than nature. They have seen that order and government have been necessary to the well-being of society, and that confusion and mischief are the invariable result of uninstructed self-interest. But. forgetting that the business of government is to check aggression only, and to secure every man a fair field for the exercise of his own labor, they have unconsciously aided aggression, curtailed liberty, and narrowed the field in which labor could exercise itself. There is of course a border, for the occupation of which the advocates of liberty and control constantly contend. The wisdom of government in the days of Adam Smith, and frequently enough in our own time, is to extend the area of government, and, with it, to assert the just control of an administration over the innocent acts of individuals. Such a line of action on the part of a government may be adopted with the best possible intentions, as Smith shows in the ninth chapter of his fourth book, where he sketches the policy of Colbert. Such a policy found its earliest and most complete refutation in the reasonings which are contained in the "Wealth of Nations." * * It has been objected to Adam Smith and Hume, that they did not foresee the French revolution, intimately as they were acquainted with the state of France. But the objection is shallow What is called political prophecy is often mere guess work, which no wise man will seriously indulge in. The easiest way in which weak men think they can gain a reputation is by sinister predictions of political events. No one can anticipate the conservative forces of society, no one can gather enough information to make a safe induction as to the resistance which may be made to change, or, indeed, as to the forces which will compel change. But there is such a thing as political prescience. It is not difficult to discover the inevitable consequences induced by certain kinds of political action. This faculty Smith possessed in the highest degree, in a far higher degree than Hume, whose sagacity and acuteness he admired so much. Of this prescience his great work is the most noteworthy illustration. No person has ever pointed out with more exactness the effects of a mistaken commercial policy. the invariable reaction from a course of legislation which does not commend itself to the moral sense of a nation, and the mischievous consequences which ensue when a public law gives its sanction to private selfishness. * * The range of the subjects treated in Smith's work is very wide. Social history and the politics of commerce occupy his attention as much as mere abstract reasonings. His educational theories have been generally accepted. His rules of taxation are classical. His vindication of free trade is complete. His criticism of the great company has been the basis of the latest legislation on the Indian empire. His conception of the mutual relations in which nations stand, is as comprehensive as it is generous. It should not be forgotten that Smith did not propose to himself the discovery of a scheme which should make any one country wealthy or prosperous at the expense of the rest of mankind, but how the wealth of nations should be developed. He rose far above the peddling maxim, that the gain of one people is the loss of another Hence his work is international, and has formed an effective protest against those shams of a sordid self-interest which masks itself under the name of patriotism.

—Among economists, Smith possesses the inductive mind in the highest degree. His work not only displays a wealth of varied reading, but is full of facts. Considering, too, how inexact were the statistical data on which he could in his time rely, his sagacity is remarkable. No example of this quality seems to me more striking than his inference that the precarious occupants in the ancient manor must have passed through a métayer tenancy before they reached the independence of the fifteenth-century yeoman, as described by Fortescue. Such was actually the fact, as I have been able to discover from a very large investigation of farm accounts during the epoch referred to by Smith. But, in fact, to be scientific, political economy must be constantly inductive. Half, and more than half, of the fallacies into which persons who have handled this subject have fallen, are the direct outcome of purely abstract speculation. In consequence, though he was the progenitor of the science, and necessarily left it incomplete, Smith is far more frequently in the right than his critics are. Almost every blemish in his work (some few inaccuracies of expression excepted, which arise from a somewhat loose use of terms,) is due to his exaggerated sympathy with the economic theories of his French friends and teachers. It is to this influence that we can trace his errors as to the nature and causes of value, and whatever is defective in his exposition of rent. Even here, however, he seems to me to be much more in the right than Ricardo, who accounts for the origin of rent on grounds which have absolutely no warrant in fact. His most adverse critics have, however, united with his warmest admirers in his vindication of private liberty against the interference of government; that is, in his advocacy of what are called free trade principles. To the modern reader, who recognizes the vast services which the merchants and manufacturers of Great Britain have done for such principles as Smith advocated, the language which the author uses about the mercantile classes seems singularly harsh and bitter. "The passionate confidence of interested falsehood"; the policy of a "great empire" being guided by the policy of "shop-keepers"; "impertinent badges of slavery, imposed by the groundless jealousy of merchants and manufacturers"; "illiberal and oppressive monopolies"; "the mean and malignant expedients of the mercantile system," and similarly pungent comments on the machinations of the trading classes a century ago, are expressions of active animosity against interests which Smith must have thought hostile to the public good. But, at that time, the leading merchants deserved little sympathy from any person who considered this public good as the paramount object of economy and legislation. Their intrigues had prevented the establishment of bonded warehouses. The mercantile classes drove Walpole into the war of the right of search. The real or reputed interests of the same order precipitated and prolonged the seven-years war. The costs of that war, and the sustentation of the East India company, whose conquests had made it bankrupt, led to the uprising of the American colonists, and the war of independence. The merchants who stimulated, and the nabobs and planters who continued, these costly struggles, were no doubt powerful in Change alley. They were, moreover, ready to make the highest biddings for rotten boroughs. But they were detested by the people, and especially by those free-holders in whom, as Smith thought, the strength and hope of the nation resided Macaulay has given, in a few words, a statement of how public opinion estimated these people, in his "Life of Lord Clive, "the greatest of the race.

—The most energetic attack, however, which Smith made on any institution of his time, was that on the East India company. To us the company is a thing of the past. In Smith's day it was the most brilliant phenomenon that the world had ever witnessed. A very few years had created the Indian empire; had changed a few timid and servile traders into a force of heroes, by whom successes had been achieved more amazing than those of Cortez and Pizarro. In the face of this extraordinary prestige, which affected the whole western world, the author of the "Wealth of Nations" dissected the pretensions of the great company, showed that it failed as a trader, and failed as a ruler; and proved that its government was mischievous to its subjects, and its monopoly a wrong upon the English people.—THOROLD ROGERS.


108. [108] "The assailants of the principle of individual property," says John Stuart Mill ("Principles," book ii., §2), "may be divided into two classes: those whose scheme implies absolute equality in the distribution of the physical means of life and enjoyment, and those who admit inequality, but grounded on some principle or supposed principle of justice or general expediency, and not like so many of the existing social inequalities, dependent on accident alone. At the head of the first class, as the earliest of those belonging to the present generation, must be placed Mr. Owen and his followers. M. Louis Blanc and M. Cabet have more recently become conspicuous as apostles of similar doctrines (though the former advocates equality of distribution only as a transition to a still higher standard of justice, that all should work according to their capacity, and receive according to their wants).

—The characteristic name for this economical system is 'communism,' a word of continental origin, only of late introduced into this country. The word 'socialism,' which originated among the English economists, and was assumed by them as a name to designate their own doctrine, is now, on the continent, employed in a larger sense; not necessarily implying communism, or the entire abolition of private property, but applicable to any system which requires that the land and the instruments of production should be the property, not of individuals, but of communities, or associations, or of the government."

—It is in this latter sense, evidently, that M. Reybaud uses the word "socialism" in this article,—ED.

109. [109] Among the forms of socialism, German writers on political economy mention what they call staatssozialismus. or state socialism. understanding by the term "that system which would have economic relations regulated as far as possible by the state, and which would substitute state help for self-help" Prince Bismarck has shown a decided leaning to this form of socialism. The French have the expression socialisme d'état, which is the exact equivalent of staalssozialismus, or state socialism. That such a form of socialism has been finding favor with large classes of the people in recent times can not be doubted. Hence it has been not inappropriately styled by Professor Faweett, "modern socialism;" and much of what he says on its growth and probable consequences in certain countries of Europe is true as to its growth and consequences in the United States, but of course not to the same extent as in Europe. He writes: "It is each day becoming more evident that in every European country an increasing number of the laboring population are giving an enthusiastic adherence to certain social and economic principles, which, if carried into effect, will introduce even more fundamental changes than those brought about by the first French revolution. Never, perhaps, was there a time when it was more important to dispassionately consider the ideas. the wants and the aspirations of the workmen who are engaged in this movement, which may be described under the general title of modern socialism. Without such dispassionate consideration, there is certain to arise, instead of a kindly and intelligent sympathy, the rancorous enmity of bitter class prejudice. Those who are prepared to show this sympathy may have some chance of directing to purposes of inestimable good this new movement, which, if met with blind and unreasoning opposition, will at last gradually gather so much strength as to pass beyond control; Europe may then flud herself involved in a terrible war of classes. It has been repeatedly shown that the friends of revolutionary changes derive their motive power from the bigoted opponents of progress, and from the stubborn upholders of unwise laws and unjust privileges. It might as well be supposed that the railway engine would move if it were deprived of steam, that wheat could grow without soil, or that man could live without food, as to imagine that a revolutionary propagandism could be maintained if it were not kept alive by the recollection of some wrong inflicted, and by the continuance of some grievance unredressed. It is perfectly vain to expect that there will not be threatening of coming convulsions so long as the social and economic condition of great masses of the people remains what it is at the present time. England is constantly being glorified as the wealthiest of all nations. From every platform in the kingdom orators delight to parade the well-known statistics about our vast and growing commerce. Each quarterly return from the board of trade shows an augmentation of exports and imports. In spite, however, of all these evidences of accumulating wealth, the majority of our people have a severe struggle for existence, and no inconsiderable minority live in abject misery and in degrading poverty. The more wealthy the nation is admitted to be, the more perilous does it become, and the more ominous of future trouble, that one out of twenty of the nation should be a pauper; that to a great proportion of our laboring classes a life of incessant toll yields no other result than an old age of dependent mendicancy; that millions are so entirely uneducated as to be cut off from every intellectual enjoyment; that in many rural districts horses are stabled far more comfortably than laborers are housed; and that in our largest and wealthiest cities the poor are so crowded and huddled together, that in a countless number of instances all the members of a family herd together in a single room. Can any one who reflects on such facts be surprised that a wide-spread spirit of unrest and dissatisfaction is abroad? Ought it not to be regarded as almost incredible that a social structure resting on such a basis should have stood so long? But it may be said that if things are not as rapidly improving as can be desired, they are certainly not getting worse. Why then, it is urged, should there be this new outburst of discontent? No new laws vexations to the industrial classes have been imposed; many, on the contrary, have been repealed; taxation is not more burdensome, and duties on many of the necessaries of life which added greatly to their cost have been remitted. May it not, therefore, be fairly concluded that things will gradually improve; that the present dissatisfaction is unreasonable, and that the demands of those who are so discontented with society as it is now constituted should be simply met by undeviating resistance? As there is only too much reason to fear that many will assume this attitude of resistance, it is important to give the most emphatic warning as to the consequences which the adoption of such a policy may involve. As it is so frequently supposed that the movement in favor of organic social and economic changes has no solid foundation in reason or in justice, and that it is rather a temporary aberration of certain unsettled and mischievous people who love revolution for revolution's sake, it becomes important, in the first instance, to attempt to discover whether this is a true interpretation of the sentiments now widely prevalent among the industrial classes.

—As previously remarked, it no doubt, at first sight. appears somewhat difficult to account for the fact that this desire for change should have grown up with the repeal of many unjust laws, with the remission of many burdensome taxes, with a great stimulus in the productive industry of the country, and with the more wide-spread desire among those who are in comfortable circumstances to be good, kind and charitable to the poor. But does not the fact that all these circumstances have been in operation without producing any more marked effect upon the general well-being of the people, suggest an explanation of the phenomenon which we are seeking to elucidate? Scarcely any other result can be expected than that there should arise a feeling of angry disappointment, unreasoning distrust and unjust suspicion when favorable agencies like those just mentioned are contrasted with such facts as those previously enumerated, which are only too truly typical of the social and economic condition of the country. For a long time the people were led to believe that the elevation of their class would be secured by bringing into operation various favorable material agencies. At one period it was supposed that the application of steam to manufactures and the improvement of locomotion by the introduction of railways, would so stimulate production as to bring to the laborer an age of golden plenty. At another time it was confidently stated that by the abolition of protection the markets of the world would be thrown open to us, and the supplies of cheap food thus procured would yield an increased store of comfort to every humble home. In one respect these predictions have been fulfilled, in another respect they have been cruelly falsified. Production has been stimulated beyond the expectations of the most sanguine, and supplies of food have been obtained from even the most distant countries in much greater quantities than could have been anticipated. Still, however, so far as the laborer is concerned, the age of golden plenty seems as remote as ever, and in the humble homes of the poor a not less constant war has to be waged against penury and want. From the bitter disappointment thus engendered, there has not unnaturally arisen a feeling of deep distrust of the fundamental principles on which society is based. A wide-spread opinion has grown up that it is no use relying upon the old remedies and the old nostrums. Resort must be had to far more radical changes; the very foundations on which our social system rests must be altered. This feeling of unrest, this desire to do away with the existing order of things, is sure to arise when the mass of the people become dissatisfied with their condition. On many previous occasions they had more reason than now to attribute their misfortunes to political causes. Unjust and vexatious taxation, combined with a reckless expenditure of a profligate and corrupt court, at length accumulated such misery upon the French people that an irresistible movement arose to sweep away every established institution. The first French revolution ought not consequently to be regarded as an uprising to substitute a republican for a monarchical form of government. The people, driven to a frenzy of despair by physical suffering, were not in a frame of mind calmly to reason upon well-devised schemes of relief. They wished to see everything changed, and they consequently waged an unrelenting war with the existing state of things. Again, the revolutionary movement in 1848, although it caused the fall of so many dynasties, was not so much a political as a social and economic movement. The dissatisfaction which prevailed at this period was not mainly due either to unjust laws or vexations taxation. It was the manifestation of an intense desire fundamentally to change the principles from which the vast Industrial system of the present time has been developed. Competition and the separation of capital from labor may be regarded as the most prominent characteristics of modern industry. It might, therefore, have been almost foreseen that these characteristics would be singled out for special reprobation, when the general condition of the industrial classes became unsatisfactory, and the great mass of the people in every country felt that they had to bear an undue amount of suffering, the hardest toil yielding to them a most inadequate share of comfort and enjoyment. There consequently arose a determination to substitute for the industrial system then existing one from which not only competition would be absent, but one in which capital and labor would be united, instead of being separated by the rivalry of hostile interests. The industrial ideas which were thus sought to be carried into practical effect may be described under the general name of socialism or communism. The very mention of these words will no doubt to many minds suggest much that is ominous of danger, and much which is opposed to the well-being of society. Prejudice, however unfounded, often spreads so fast that it becomes most formidable to combat. To many, socialism and communism are supposed to be synonymous with confiscation and spoliation. A socialist exists vaguely in the minds of the comfortable classes as a sort of abandoned creature who wishes to live by robbing other people of their property, and who desires to see general pillage introduced. In the present state of mankind, socialism would do nothing to increase the well-being of the people, and the socialistic schemes which have been propounded would inevitably end in disastrous failure. But, although this may be fully proved, yet nothing can be more unjust than to throw aspersions upon the character of socialists, and to misinterpret their motives. They no doubt have been mistaken enthusiasts, but it is impossible to deny that their motives have been pure and their aims lofty. They have been animated by a desire which must have been felt by all who are not depraved by selfishness, to lighten poverty, to alleviate human suffering, and to diffuse more general happiness among mankind. The injustice which is so generally done to socialists will be perhaps more clearly perceived when attention is directed to the origin of the socialistic sentiment.

—It has been often remarked that the more a country advances in wealth, the wider and deeper seems to be the gulf between the rich and the poor. Not only is this shown by the fact that the augmentation in the number of the very wealthy is not accompanied either by a corresponding decrease in the number of the very poor, or by a proportionate diminution of their sufferings; but the separation between classes seems to become intensified in other ways. The time was when those who were engaged in any industry, master, foreman and workmen, dwelt near to each other, and between them there were often intimate personal relations. which have now completely passed away. Althuogh the introduction of steam and the application of various mechanical inventions have completely revolutionized the conditions on which industry is carried on, yet there has probably been a not less marked change in the social and industrial life of the country. The supplanting of hand-loom weaving and pillow-lace making by vast manufactories filled with complicated and costly machinery, does not represent a greater change than that which is indicated by a comparison between the present mode of life of men of business and that which was adopted by them formerly. The merchant and the manufacturer used to reside close to where the daily work of their lives was carried on. Now, however, each year a greater distance separates the homes of the master and his workmen. Many who have accumulated princely fortunes seldom go within miles of the homes of any of their workmen. All these considerations show that the relations between employers and employed have gradually lost their personal character, and have become more and more commercial. This being the case, there can, of course, be little friendship or comradeship; there is too little of that personal sympathy which often arises among those who are fellow-workers at a common object; but, on the contrary, labor being bought and sold in the same way as any commodity of commerce, the only feelings between employers and employed are too often those which exist between the buyers and sellers of merchandise. It must not, however, be supposed that the present has thus been contrasted with the past with the object of implying that there has been no improvement, nor must it be imagined that it would be desirable to restore a state of things which would in many respects be incompatible and incongruous with the requirements of modern times. But being perfectly ready to admit that there has been progress, yet this should not cause us to lose sight of those drawbacks associated with commercial development, which make the present in some of its aspects compare unfavorably with the past. It is, of course, far more prudent carefully to consider these drawbacks with the view of reaching the causes which produce them; for if this can not be done, if commercial progress is always to be presented to the mass of the people in no other aspect than that in which they now see it, there will certainly arise not only dissatisfaction, but a desire to effect organic changes in the constitution of society. Some idea may be formed of the extent to which discontent must be engendered, when every workman must be constantly reminded of the fact, that, while numbers are unable to obtain a sufficiency of the necessaries of life, others have so much superfluously wealth that they are able to squander it in useless and mischievous luxuries, and never devote themselves to one hour's useful employment. The more the distance widens between the rich and the poor, the more the belief is certain to gain ground that there is something radically wrong in the laws which regulate the distribution of wealth. It can not be wise and just, it is plausibly said, that the produce which the earth yields should be so apportioned among its inhabitants that, whereas many have far more than they need, others have to endure the bitter pangs of want. It is urged that if there was more equality in this distribution, there would be enough for all; if superfluities were taken away from the rich. and given to the poor, all would then enjoy adequate comfort. Those who are influenced by such ideas as these are at once, by natural sequense, led to the conclusion that the circumstances which produce inequalities in wealth are chiefly responsible for all the social and economic evils under which a nation suffers. It is consequently proposed that society should be regulated on principles which would. as far as possible, prevent inequalities in wealth. A feeling thus arises in favor of either abolishing, or greatly curtailing the rights of private property. Various schemes have, from time to time. been propounded with the object of giving effect to these ideas. Those who would not shrink from applying what they conceive to be a complete remedy, propose that society should be reconstituted on an entirely communistic model; associations being established in which there should be no private property, the wealth produced being the joint property of the community. Others suggest less thorough remedies, and propose, that, after a due maintenance has been guaranteed to all the members, any surplus which may remain might be appropriated as private property. St. Simon and Fourier in France, and Robert Owen in England, have identified their names with these communistic experiments. It is scarcely necessary to remark that all such attempts have hitherto failed to obtain any practical success. In fact, it is not too much to say that in the present state of mankind failure is inevitable. Men are not yet sufficiently advanced to work with as much zeal for the good of others as for their own advantage. Those who are industrious will not long remain content if they see that a considerable portion of the fruits of their labor is devoted to the support of those who are as well able to work as themselves, but who are so indolent and improvident that they rely upon others for their maintenance. It must, however, be remembered that such men as St. Simon, Fourier and Owen never proposed the confiscation of other people's property. They always contemplated that their communistic societies should legitimately acquire the land and other property upon which they first commenced operations. Robert Owen, in fact, purchased an estate in Hampshire for a considerable sum of money, upon which he attempted to give practical effect to his socialistic ideas Although these schemes have completely failed, yet failure has done little to weaken the sentiment which gave them birth. The ideas from which they have originated have not been and probably will not be ever extinguished. Each fruitless endeavor to carry them out not only stimulates a fresh development, but also causes them to assume another form. Unlike the socialists of former days, those who are at the present time under the influence of the socialistic sentiment are beginning to place their chief reliance upon state intervention. They seem to think that if individual efforts have been unable to achieve success, this provides the most cogent argument in favor of an appeal to the state. This is the reason which induces me to ascribe such grave importance to modern socialism. There was no cause to feel alarm or misgiving as long as socialism simply caused certain experiments to be tried by enthusiasts, against whom no other charge could be brought than that they showed too much zeal in their efforts to improve society. Even their failure did something to benefit mankind. It can scarcely be doubted that in these first socialistic schemes were sown the germs of a social and economic movement which has already effected great good, and which promises more for the future than any other agency yet brought into operation. It is well known that some of those who were the most strongly imbued with the teaching and doctrines of Robert Owen were the founders, and afterward the managers of our most prosperous co-operative institutions. Co-operation is as yet only in its infancy; it has hitherto been generally applied to the distribution of wealth. but rarely to its production. Enough, however, has been seen of its effects to justify a confident belief that its general adaptation to industrial undertakings would probably mark the greatest advance ever yet made in human improvement. Labor and capital, instead of being hostile interests, will be united, and by this union an incalculable stimulus will be given to production. * * *—Until quite recently there was one most marked and important difference between the continental and the English workman. The former placed his chief reliance on the state, whereas it was the aim of the latter to free himself as much as possible from government control. One of the first uses which the French workmen made of their success in the revolution of 1848, was to compel the government to establish national workshops, and to advance loans to co-operative associations. One of the first things which the English workmen did, when they obtained political power by the reform bill of 1867, was to call upon parliament to repeal all the laws which interfered with the formation of voluntary trade combinations. The continental workman was constantly looking to the state as he would to a powerful friend or benefactor to aid and reward him. The attitude of the English workman has, until recently, been one rather of hostility toward the state. His habit has been to claim freedom from government control, to that he might have a free and open field for the exercise of his energies. This difference, however, between English and continental laborers is becoming less marked. It can scarcely have escaped notice that during the last two or three years English workmen have with much greater frequency asked for government assistance; and the demands for state intervention are constantly enlarging. There are many circumstances which have contributed to bring about this change. In the first place, it is probable, as previously indicated, that the growing tendency shown by so many of our artisans to rely upon the state may be traced to the false hopes excited, some years since. by those who taught the people to believe that the great end to be striven after was a larger production of wealth. This augmented production of wealth has taken place, and when it is found to be unaccompanied by the predicted improvement in the condition of the poor, there is naturally aroused keen disappointment, and there is diffused through the industrial classes a general feeling of distrust. They get into just that frame of mind which causes them to give a ready acceptance to any doctrines differing from those by which they suppose they have been deceived. The opinions in favor of state intervention so current among continental workmen now consequently find a more ready acceptance in this country; these opinions are, In fact, transplanted to our shores under such favorable circumstances that, for a time at least, they seem to have taken root among us. * * *—Fully, however, admitting that among those who hold these opinions are still to be found some of our ablest artisans, yet it can scarcely be denied by any who observe serve the signs of the times that, so far as England is concerned, the demands for state assistance are each year assuming more formidable proportions. This will be sufficiently shown by enumerating some of the many things which the state is, with increasing urgency, asked to supply for the people. It is now, for instance, often said that the government should pay the passage-money of emigrants; should furnish work at good wages for the unemployed; and should secure for laborers comfortable houses and wholesome food at a reasonable rate. Such proposals as these represent the opinions of those who may by comparison be regarded as moderate in their demands. * * *—In one respect this growing tendency to rely upon the state is fraught with greater danger to England than to many other countries. This is not an appropriate place to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of government by party. There is, however, one aspect in which party government may be viewed, as having a very direct bearing upon the subject we are now considering. The two great political sections who contend for place and power have a constant temptation held out to them to bid against each other for popular support. [May not the same be said of political parties in the United States?] When therefore, it is perceived that any particular set of opinions has obtained a great hold upon the masses, place and power will seem to be the lot of the political party which promises to do most to give effect to these opinions. Under the pressure of this temptation, it may, consequently, any day happen that statesmen will accept doctrines and pursue a policy against which, if their judgment was unbiased, they would be the first to protest. This is a peril which hangs over this country, and recent events have shown that I am not conjuring up an imaginary vision of coming danger. During the last year [this was written in the early part of 1872] direct encouragement has been given to some of the most mischievous and alarming features of modern socialism by one who is, and by another who has been, a responsible minister of state. The budget of 1871 was framed in accordance with some of the financial principles of the international association; and no member of this organization ever made more reckless promises to the proletariat than did Sir John Pakington, when, as president of the social science association, he told the workmen, in his address at Leeds, that parliament ought to secure for them comfortable homes and wholesome food at reasonable prices. A few months before Sir John Pakington enunciated these mischievous doctrines, the people had been virtually told by the chancellor of the exchequer, that if they make some demand, the granting of which involves additional expenditure, the majority shall avoid contributing a single shilling toward the outlay, and shall be enabled to throw the whole burden upon the payers of income tax. Under such fostering care it is not surprising that there is rapidly growing up in this country an abnormal development of that new form of socialism, the cardinal principle of which is that all social improvements must be effected by state agency, and must also be carried out by public money."—HENRY FAWCETT.

110. [110] This is almost the system extrolled by the famous German agitator. Ferdinand Lasalle. What is said lower of Proudhon applies to some extent to Karl Marx.

Footnotes for SOVEREIGNTY

111. [111] "The words sovereign and sovereignty, "says Theodore D. Woolsey ("Political Science," etc., New York, Scribner, Armstrong & Co.. 1878), "are applicable to persons and to states; moreover, from the intimate connection between the state as a political organism and the territory where the laws prevail, the territory itself may be called a sovereignty, or the expression may be explained in the last case with greater reason as denoting something held in sovereignty, a province or district which is not dependent. The first nation in the world was that of being above or higher than others in power and jurisdiction. Thus, the sovereign ruler is above all other officers or magistrates, and above all the individuals belonging to the people. The quality of sovereignty, however, does not necessarily imply unlimited power or unchecked power; much less undelegated power. It can be used of all kingly and imperial power from that of a chief officer of state who is absolute, to the king who can do nothing without a legislative assembly. It has not, however, if we do not err, even been applied to the head of a democratic state whose office ceases after a term of years. For the most part, when used at present, it is either of dignity, denoting the superior person in the states or nation, or else it is used of a rule; who can control the policy of a nation toward other nations in matters of diplomacy. Thus, the king or queen of England, although having, in matter of fact, an exceedingly limited power, is called sovereign to denote the dignity of the office as above all others in the kingdom, or as having constitutionally the power to control foreign relations, a power unchecked in theory, yet practically not expressing the sovereign's personal will.

—The abstract conception of sovereignty is thus unfolded by Mr. John Austin in the sixth of his lectures on "The Province of Jurisprudence,"(1., p. 226, ed.3): 'If a determinate human superior, not in the habit of obedience to a like superior, receive habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society, that determinate superior is sovereign in that society, and the society (including the superior) is a society political and independent. To that determinate superior the other members of the society are subject;or on that determinate superior the other members of the society are dependent. The mutual relation which subsists between that superior and them may be styled the relation of sovereign and subject, or the relation of sovereignty and subjection.' This definition looks at fact simply, and has nothing whatever to do with right. The habitual obedience would seem to be absolute, but persons called sovereigns at the present day have no right to require habitual obedience except within a very narrow sphere. Subjection is now used, if used at all in politics, of relations that are not personal, the term being retained while the feudal notion has left it. And again, few, I presume, of the subjects of the sovereign of Great Britain would allow to themselves be called dependents on the sovereign.

—But what is the sovereignty of a state? and how does it comport with the sovereignty of a ruler? In the intercourse of nations, certain states have a position of entire independence of others, and can perform all those acts which it is possible for any state to perform in this particular sphere. These same states have also entire power of self-government, that is, of independence upon all other states as far as their own territory and citizens not living abroad are concerned. No foreign power or law can have control except by convention. This power of independent action in external and internal relations constitutes complete sovereignty. This definition of sovereign states would be inconsistent with the claim of sovereignty which has been set up in this country by communities called states, and in the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain called sovereign states; which, however, never made a treaty separately with foreign nations, never belonged in their separate capacity to the community of nations, and are incapacitated by the constitution from performing any international act; and which, moreover, by the same constitution, are precluded from doing many things within their own territory and in the exercise of state power, which sovereign states do and must do. This use of the word sovereignty, and, indeed, the use of the word state, shows the poverty of political language, but has helped on far greater evils than that of supplying false premises for syllogisms ending in secession.

—Is the sovereignty of the state a term emanating from the sovereignty of the ruler? or is the ruler properly called a sovereign only as representing the state? The state stands for an untold amount good to be secured to present and future generations by a just and wise government, at the head of which the ruler is placed. He is a means for a great permanent end; he dies, and some one else succeeds to him, and not by his will, for the most part, but by the law of the state. He disobeys the law, and seeks to overturn it; another is substituted for him, and all things go on, it may be, better than before. All this shows that the ultimate power in theory rests with the state or the people constituting it, and that the prince is a delegate or deputed sovereign. This of course touches the source of his power, and the object for which it is granted. The power itself may be absolute, and the grant may have been made in remote ages. The prince is a vicar of God, just as receivers of tribute are 'God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing'. But he is such because the state and its authority are from God, and because he fulfills the end for which the helm of state is intrusted to him. If some democrats of the French school have talked of cashiering kings, the grossness of taste, and want of reverence for old dignities, were the result of an ill use of sovereign power. If the French kings had felt that they were created to minister rather than to be ministered unto, that their power, called sovereign, was delegated to them, the outrages of an extreme reaction against their sway might been spared to the world."

Footnotes for SPAIN

112. [112] The national church of Spain is the Roman Catholic, and the whole population of the kingdom, with the exception of about 60,000 persons, adhere to the same faith. According to article twelve of the constitution of 1876, a restricted liberty of worship is allowed to Protestants; but it has to be entirely in private, all public announcements of the same being strictly forbidden. The constitution likewise enacts that "the nation binds itself to maintain the worship and ministers of the Roman Catholic religion". Resolutions of former legislative bodies, not repealed in the constitution of 1876, settled that the clergy of the established church are to be maintained by the state. According to official returns laid before the cortes in July, 1876, the number of places of worship and schools of Spanish Protestants were as follows: fifty-three places of worship; ninety schools, with 2,500 enrolled members, and 8,000 attendants at service on Sundays at the various chapels; 3,000 children. The poorest receive Protestant education.—F. M.

113. [113] It was found, at the general census of 1860, that of the total population of the kingdom, there were 2,414,015 men and 715,906 women able to read and write; 316,337 men and 389,211 women able to read, but not to write; and that all the rest, upward of 5,000,000 men and 6,800,000 women, could neither read nor write. At the preceding census, of 1846, the total number of persons of both sexes, able to write, was found to be on more than 1,221,001, while the total number able to read was only 1,898,288, or considerably less than one-fifth of the population.

—In 1878 there were stated to be 29,600 schools in Spain for primary education, with 1,611,000 pupils. Middle-class education is given in fifty-eight public colleges, by 757 professors, to 13,881 pupils. In first-class education the most remarkable feature is the large number of law students, namely, 3,755 in 1859-60, divided among ten faculties. There were, at that date, ten faculties of literature and philosophy, with 234 students; seven faculties of sciences, with 141; four faculties of pharmacy, with 544, seven faculties of medicine, with 1,718; and six faculties of theology, with 839 students—in all, 6,181 students. The expenditure for public education by the government amounted, on the average of the last years, to rather less than £250,000.—F. M.

114. [114] The army of Spain, reorganized in 1868, after the model of that of France, was modified as to its organization by subsequent laws in 1877, 1878 and 1882. Under the new military law, the armed forces of the kingdom consist: 1, of a permanent army; 2, of a first or active reserve; and 3, of a second or sedentary reserve. All Spaniards past the age of twenty are liable to be drawn for the permanent army, in which they have to serve three years; they then pass for three years into the first or active reserve, and then for six years into the second reserve. Any one many purchase exemption from service by a payment of about $300.

—The strength of the permanent army of the peninsula for 1882-3 was put down at 94,810 men; while for Cuba the number was 26,579; Porto Rico, 3,318; and the Philippines, 10,035. Or the infantry there are 140 battalions, and of the cavalry twenty-four regiments; six regiments of artillery, and ten battalions of pioneers. The civic guard consists of fifteen regiments, with 780 officers and 14,756 men

Footnotes for SPOILS SYSTEM

115. [115] The phrase "merit system" was first used in Eaton's "Civil Service in Great Britain," and it is sufficiently defined by saying that it is everywhere the very opposite of the spoils system, in both theory and method. The merit of a candidate, the merit of a bill or the merit of a policy are equally the basis of all just claim for support. A system which everywhere, in politics and official life, holds merit to be a decisive test, must everywhere recognize the public interests as paramount. Such a system is as thoroughly democratic and republican as it is thoroughly just.

Footnotes for STATISTICS

116. [116] Statistics is the picture or representation of social life at given periods of time, and especially of the present time, drawn on a scale in accordance with the laws of development discovered by means of the theoretical sciences: political economy, the science of finance, administrative science, etc. Schölzer calls statistics history standing still. Statistics, as thus defined, is as far removed from saying too much as from saying too little. To give a complete tableau of its object, statistics should, of course, take in the life of a people in all its aspects. But it should look upon such facts only as its own property, the meaning of which it is able to understand; that is, such only as can be ranged under known laws of development. Unintelligible facts are collected only in the hope of penetrating into their meaning in the future, by comparing them with one another. In the meantime, they are to the statistician what unfinished experiments are to the investigator of nature.

—The view is daily gaining ground, that statistics should be occupied (without, however, confining themselves to them) with present facts, with "facts affecting society and the state which are susceptible of being expressed in figures." The more deceptive the immediate observation of an individual, isolated fact is, in cases in which a great number of simultaneous or scattered individual, isolated facts of national life are observed, the more important it is to discover proper numerical relations, by noting all the like acts or experiences of men, the time and place in question, and the relation of the aggregate of these phenomenon to the sum total of the population, or to the sum total of corresponding phenomena in other places. When this is done, and the facts are completely enumerated, and correctly recorded, there is no danger of subjective error. And this species of "political and social measurement," as Hildebrand calls it, may be applied not only to quantities, but to all qualities accessible to the observation of the senses; since the individual or isolated qualities of the things enumerated may be again made objects of enumeration. Without doubt, this mode of numerical procedure is the most perfect for all those divisions of statistics in which it can be followed, and hence it should be our endeavor to make the numerical side of statistics as comprehensive as possible. But one side of a science is not a science itself. As there is no natural science proper, called microscopy, embracing all the observations made by means of the microscope, so, care should be taken not to deduce the principle of a science from the chief instrument it employs. There will always be many and important facts in national life, which can not be subjected to numerical calculation, although they may be established with the usual amount of historical certainty. Were statistics to be limited in the manner mentioned above, it would remain a collection of fragments, and, instead of being a science, become a method. Besides, it is evident, that of statistics in general, economic statistics constitutes a chief part, and precisely the part most accessible to numerical treatment. As economic statistics needs to be always directed by the light of political economy, it also furnishes the latter with rich materials for the continuation of its structure, and for the strengthening of such foundations as it already has. It is, moreover, the indispensable condition of the application of economic theorems to practice."—WILLIAM ROSCHER


117. [117] This is substantially the classification of Sir Rupert Kettle, in his admirable work, "Strikes and Arbitrations," London,1866

118. [118] This is Prof. T. E. Cliffe Leslie's definition. It does not seem to me that "a number of workmen in combination" are essential to a strike, and all strikes, using the word as Prof. Leslie does, to indicate strikes and lockouts, are certainly not refusals of workmen to work on the terms offered by the employers.

Footnotes for SUBSIDIES.

119. [119] Owing to a misprint in the original report to congress, both this sum and the total are usually quoted half a million dollars too large

Footnotes for SUFFRAGE

120. [120] Notes to Table.

The adjective "white" before "male" in some constitutions, adopted before the 15th amendment, is here omitted.

a. Declarant means a male person of foreign birth, who shall have declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, conformably to the naturalization laws of the United States.
b. "Immediately preceding the election at which he offers to vote."
c. " The general assembly may prescribe a longer or shorter residence in any precinct or county, or in any ward in any city or town having a population of more than 5,000 inhabitants, but in no case to exceed three months." (Const., Art. VIII., Sec. 1.)
d. "Provided no native of China shall ever exercise the privileges of an elector."
e. "Provided that no person shall be denied the right to vote at any school district election, or to hold any school district office, on account of sex." (Const., Art. VII., Sec. 1.) And "The general assembly may enact laws to extend the right of suffrage to women of lawful age, and otherwise qualified. No such enactment shall be of effect until submitted to the vote of the qualified electors at a general election, nor unless the same be approved by a majority of those voting thereon." (Idem, Sec. 2.)
f. "In the county, town or city in which he offers to vote."
g. "The legislature may provide by law that any woman of the age of twenty-one years and upward may vote at any election held for the purpose of choosing any officers of schools, or upon any measure relating to schools, and may also provide that any each woman shall be eligible to hold any office pertaining solely to the management of such schools." (Const., Art., Vii., Sec. 8.)
h. "Who have adopted the customs and habits of civilization."
i. "persons of Indian blood residing in the state, who have adopted the language, customs, and habits of civilization, shall have been pronounced (by any district court of the state)capable of enjoying the rights of citizenship."
j. "If twenty-two years of age or upward."
k. "Provided, that no person shall at any time be allowed to vote in the election of the city council of the city of Providence, or upon any proposition to impose a tax, or for the expenditure of money in any town or city, unless he shall, within the year next preceding, have paid a tax assessed upon his property therein, valued at least at $134."
l. "Who have once been declared by law of congress to be citizens of the United States, and civilized persons of Indian descent, not members of any tribe."

121. [121] Notes to Table

a. A crime punishable by death or imprisonment in a state prison.
b. The constitution adopted by California in 1879 expressly disfranchises for infamous crime, embezzlement or misappropriation of public money, and dueling, and says that laws shall be made to exclude from the right of suffrage persons convicted of the above starred crimes.
c. Theft is the term used in the constitution of Connecticut.
d. The legislature may make the forfeiture of the right of suffrage a punishment for crime.
e. No person who has been dishonorably discharged from the service of the United States is qualified to vote or hold office in Kansas.
f. Since 1876 "the legislature may enact laws excluding from the right of suffrage, for a term not exceeding ten years," for this crime at any election.
g. These crimes forever disqualify for voting.
h. "Under the law of the state, or of the United States, unless restored to civil rights."
i. "In any state or territory of the United States, unless restored to civil rights,"
j. The constitution of Nevada, Art. Iv., Sec. 10, makes intelligible for office persons convicted of embezzlement, or defalcation of public funds, or bribery, and empowers the legislature to make these crimes punishable as felonies; and by Art. II., Sec. 1. clony disfranchises.
k. The constitution of New Jersey, Art. II., sec. 1. says that "no person convicted of a crime which now excludes him from being a witness, unless pardoned or restored by law to the right of suffrage, shall enjoy the right of an elector." The laws of the state make persons convicted of the tabulated crimes incompetent as witnesses, and if the crime is perjury or subornation of perjury, a pardon does not remove the incompetency.
l. Disfranchises "at such election," as do all corrupt offers to give or receive money or other valuable thing for a vote, in both New York and Pennsylvania.
m. Any person convicted of this offense "shall, in addition to any penalties provided by law, be deprived of the right of suffrage absolutely for a term of four years."
n. "Any elector who shall receive any gift or reward for his vote, in meat, drink, money, or otherwise , shall suffer such punishment as the laws shall direct."
o. "Subject to such exceptions as the legislature may make."
p. "Any elector who shall receive any gift or reward for his vote, in meat, drink, money, or otherwise, shall forfeit his right to elect at that time, and suffer such other penalty as the law shall direct."
q. "Petit larceny,"
r. "No person who is under conviction of treason, felony or bribery in an election, shall be permitted to vote while such disability continues." (Const, of W. Va., Art. IV., Sec. 1) This phrase, "while such disability continues, "has not received judicial interpretation in West Virginia, but is constructed by election officers to mean during imprisonment.
s. "These crimes are treason, felony, and the 'crimen falsi.'

—which term includes crimes which involve a charge of such falsehood as may injuriously affect the public administration of justice by the introduction therein of falsehood and fraud, such as forgery, perjury, subornation of perjury, or conspiracy to procure the absence of a witness."
t. And persons "who may be under interdiction."

Footnotes for SWEDEN.

122. [122] The commercial intercourse of Sweden is chiefly with Great Britain, as regards exports, and, next to it, with France and Denmark. As regards imports, the commercial intercourse is largest with Great Britain, Germany, Denmark, Russia, Norway and the United States, in the order here indicated. The imports consist mainly of textile manufactures, coal, and colonial merchandise, the last largely on the increase, while the staple exports are timber, bar iron and corn. Both the imports and exports more than doubled in the ten years from 1870 to 1880, the total imports rising from £7,500,000 to over £16,000,000, and the total exports from £5,000,000 to £12,500,000.

—The commercial navy of Sweden, at the end of 1880, numbered 4,385 vessels, of a burden of 560,693 tons, of which total 3,613 vessels, of 474,095 tons burden, were sailing vessels, and 772 vessels of 86,598 tons burden, were steamers. The port of Göteborg had the largest shipping in 1879, namely, 277 vessels, of 87,674 tons, and next to it came Stockholm, possessing 253 vessels, of a total burden of 31,668 tons. In 1864 Stockholm had 110 vessels, of 28,216 tons, registered for foreign trade, and Göteborg 124, of 35,626 tons: so that the shipping of the latter port showed the largest increase in the course of the fourteen years.

—Mining is one of the most important departments of Swedish industry, and the working of the iron mines in particular is making constant progress by the introduction of new machinery. These were raised in the year 1878, throughout the kingdom, 15,821,520 cwt. of iron ore from mines, besides 115,585 cwt. from lake and bog. The pig iron produced amounted to 7,845,578 cwt., the cast goods to 489,454 cwt., the bar iron to 4,657,060 cwt., and the steel to 1,476,061 cwt. There were also raised in the same year, 2,983 lbs. of silver, 25,565 cwt. of copper, and 947,635 cwt. of zinc ore. There are not inconsiderable veins of coal in the southern parts of Sweden, giving 4,429,889 Swedish cubic feet of coal in 1878.

—Within recent years a network of railways, very important for the trade and industry of Sweden, has been constructed in the country, partly at the cost of the state. The state railways include all the main or trunk lines, the chief of which are the North Western, connecting the capitals of Sweden and of Norway; the Western, between Stockholm and Göteborg; the Southern, terminating at Malmö, opposite Copenhagen; the Eastern, from Stockholm to Malmö; and the Northern, passing from Stockholm, and connecting the capital with the north of the kingdom. The following table gives particulars concerning the length and cost of construction of all the Swedish railways open for traffic on Jan. 1. 1880, distinguishing the railways belonging to the state and the private railways:

Table.  Click to enlarge in new window.

In the end of 1881 the total length of the railways of Sweden opened for traffic had increased to 3,830 English miles, of which 1,365 miles belonged to the state.

—All the telegraphs in Sweden, with the exception of those of private railway companies, belong to the state. The total length of all the telegraph lines at the end of 1881 was 11,598 kilometres, or 7,210 English miles, and the total length of telegraph wires 29,575 kilometres, or 18,380 English miles. The number of telegraphic dispatches sent in the year 1881 was 1,118,081, of which number 591,576 were from and for Sweden, 398,531 from and for other countries, and 128,271 in transit.

—The Swedish postoffice carried 68,731,121 letters, postcards, journals, etc., in the year 1881. The number of postoffices at the end of the year was 1,835. The total receipts of the postoffice in 1880 amounted to 5,132,211 kroner, or £285,122, and the total expenditure to 4,463,283 kroner, or £247,960, leaving a surplus of 668,928 kroner, or £37,162.

Footnotes for SWITZERLAND

123. [123] The abzugsrecht is the old right of the state to confiscate a certain part of the fortune of a citizen who proposes to leave the country.

124. [124] The act which establishes the neutrality of Switzerland is dated Nov. 20, 1815.

Footnotes for TAXATION

125. [125] "But it may be said, that the state in taxing personal property situate beyond its territory, does not in fact tax the property, but the owner, over whom the state has jurisdiction in respect to such property. In answer to this claim, attention is here asked to the following extract from an argument made some years ago by Mr. G. P. Lowrey, of New York, before a committee of the legislature of New York, when this subject was up before them for consideration. 'This claim,' he said, 'involves a dangerous inaccuracy, and arises from a confusion of the idea of the assessment with the idea of the tax. These two stand upon altogether different bases. The assessment is to the person in respect to the property; but the tax is to the property in respect to itself alone. In the order of consequence a tax goes before an assessment. A tax stands upon an existing relation between the property and the state, as protector and protected, and is that portion of the public burden which the property ought to bear because of that existing relation. An assessment stands upon the existing relation between the property and its owner or possessor; it follows the tax, and is merely the method of securing it. The danger, in saying that the tax is to the person in respect of his property, is, that, by the form of the expression we justify an assessment upon a person for all property indiscriminately. We transpose the subjects, and make the law seek out the person, and then tax him according to his property, instead of first seeking property which it has a right to tax, and then as a secondary matter, a person to whom it may be assessed. Even if a knowledge of the property is obtained by inquiry addressed to the owner in the shape of a general assessment, still the rationale of the matter presupposes the right to tax on account of the property and our relation to it directly. If we disregard this rationale, we may, perhaps, register an assessment where we are not entitled to levy a tax.'

—The person to whom the assessment is made need not be the owner. He may be the agent, trustee, guardian, executor or administrator. This is because the property, which owes the tax by reason of being protected, has not hands wherewith to take from itself a portion of itself, to pay for protection to be accorded to the remainder. Therefore the law, following the property to get the tax, makes its demand upon whoever it finds in possession, without inquiring upon what interest the property is based. This it does, ignoring all persons beneficially interested in the title, even the owner himself. 'Every person,' says the statutes of New York, 'shall be assessed, etc., for all personal property owned by him, including all property in his possession, or under his control, as agent, trustee, guardian, etc.'

—Thus it will be seen, that, for the purpose of assessment, possession is a title superior to ownership. And I now reiterate, that, according to the theory of our government, a tax stands upon the just obligation of all property to contribute to the support of the power which protects it; but that the assessment stands upon the possession or power of the person assessed, over the property taxed. This may be further illustrated. Movables can never be out of the actual or constructive presence of some one, and, therefore, there is always a person in esse to whom the assessment may be made. But the case is very different with unmovables, and therefore, lands are often taxed and assessed by their own name and designation, and specifically sold to satisfy the specific assessment, no person's name anywhere appearing in the proceedings.

—Keeping this vital distinction between an assessment and a tax clearly in view the mind will come by easy steps to an understanding of how it is that a tax, to a man who has no property in the state, is a tax upon his person. Process is the eye of the law. Its vision is limited by territorial boundaries. Whatever does not exist within that limit, does not, for any purpose of law, exist at all. The rich man, whose property is in Europe and the pauper, whose property is nowhere, are then equal, as persons, before the law. A tax upon a pauper would be a personal tax. A tax upon the rich man is, by unimpeachable parity of reason, the same. Such a tax would be a gross solecism on our system. The philosophy of our plan of voluntary political association, is that all individuals, and all the values within a community, shall aggregate into one mass all the power which they separately contain, which sum total shall constitute a sovereignty of the whole. This sovereignty—the soul of the state, which can not be impaired, and the state survive—reflects back upon its constituents, in detail, all that it has received from them. What it receives, and what it returns, is of two kinds, as to both source and object, viz., individual service to the government, and protection to the individual from it. Thus, in his individual capacity, a man is bound to perform military service, and the state, by the military arm, is bound to protect him from invasion. He is bound to do jury duty, and the authorities are bound, upon his demand, to provide him a jury. He is bound to aid the sheriff, and the sheriff is bound to execute process in his favor by posse comitatus if necessary. These personal services correspond to those which in feudal times the mesne lord holding a frank tenement owed the lord paramount. They can not be compounded for, for their value consists in their being rendered in kind. Their performance is the only price which the citizen pays for his citizenship. The terms are not only consistent and harmonious with our general scheme of government, but are highly politic. They are a liberal invitation to all men to come and add to ours their lives, their hopes, their strength, labor and courage, that we may build up a nation. To all political privileges we admit each one by virtue of his being a man, free born and of lawful age, we ask him nothing concerning his property, unless his property asks something from us."

126. [126] A copy of an assessment roll of the time of Edward III. (1329-67) given by Lingard in his history of England, contains a list of articles, down to a towel and a bench; and the historian notes that in the returns are carefully mentioned the very rooms in which the articles were found, and that there were no exemptions except one suit of clothes for each person, which were supposed to be included in the tax levied on the poll or person.

127. [127] "It is claimed that each individual owes the state annually a certain sum of money in the way of taxes, proportioned to his entire property. If he voluntarily pays, he escapes arbitrary measures. If he declines to pay, or tries to avoid payment, he has no just cause to complain if he is regarded in the light of a criminal, or if the same arbitrary measures are used to collect his tax, as if it were a debt owing by one citizen to another. But let us examine this averment. If the defaulting tax payer is to be regarded as a criminal, and as such placed in the worst possible light, be certainly ought not to be deprived of the privileges of a criminal; which are, a right to a public investigation according to the rules of evidence adopted by free and enlightened communities, a right to be heard before condemnation, and the right to be presumed innocent of having property subject to taxation until the fact is ascertained otherwise by legal proof. But under the existing tax laws of most of the United States there are not accorded to the tax payer the privileges of a criminal; for no tax can be assessed on a large proportion of the personal property of the state according to any rules of legal evidence that any common law court would adopt. No assessor, under the laws of New York, for example, in assessing personal property, can act judicially. The law gives him no power to obtain legal testimony of a character that is admissible in a court; he must act the part of an arbitrary despot against an inculpated tax payer, or not act at all, and his conclusions for acting must be reached at best by the testimony of those who have no means of knowing anything, in a legal sense, about the subject matter under investigation. It seems clear, therefore, that any attempt to tax without legal evidence is an act of usurpation or despotism, wholly antagonistic to the principles of a free government, and that it is a mockery to characterize such acts as, in any sense, judicial proceedings Nor does the right to reduce or regulate the assessment by the oath of the tax payer relieve the law in any degree of its unequal and despotic character; for every individual holding public office knows that oaths, as a guarantee of truth in respect to official statements, have ceased to be of any value. The assessments made according to the oaths of parties, furthermore, are not made according to legal evidence, upon examination and proofs; but according to the will and secret caprice of each tax payer, instigated by his selfishness, and the natural depravity of human nature. Each tax payer, under the present rule, becomes, therefore, the interpreter, not only of the law, but of the fact, and makes a secret interpretation of both, and we have as many interpreters of the law as there are numbers of tax payers; and also an indefinite multiplicity of assessors; for each person who unfairly reduces his own assessment, arbitrarily assesses thereby some other of the community for the difference. Could or would any people apply the same rules for the collection of debts? Is there any one who has so much confidence in human nature that he will propose a law, that a person who issued shall be discharged from all claims of indebtedness if he will make oath, interpreting both the law and the fact himself, that he owes the claimant nothing? Is it believed, that under tariff laws, the government could get sufficient revenue to pay for its collection, if the importer was permitted to offset debts against the value of his goods; or if the law was peremptory that his oath alone should be given, and that there should be no legal examination, inspection or proof of the value or character of the importations?" (Second Report of Commissioners of New York, 1873.)

128. [128] The most curious and confirmatory evidence of this is to be found in a method of procedure adopted in the city of Boston, Massachusetts—a method which has no parallel except in the records of the middle ages and of the inquisition, and constitutes, in itself, a satire upon any claim to the enjoyment of a wholly free and enlightened government. For failing to obtain satisfactory information about the private affairs of any individual, the chief assessors and their subordinates in this city, to the number of some fifty, meet in secret session, in a large upper chamber set aside for the purpose, and appropriately termed the "dooming chamber," when the citizen in question, without being present either by counsel or in person, is arbitrarily doomed to the payment of any sum which a majority of those present may think proper; and from which "dooming" there can be no appeal.

129. [129] Holland, by reason of her immense national debt, the largest comparatively of any country, has been obliged to maintain a most rigorous and extensive system of taxation in order to raise revenue sufficient to the wants and requirements of the state. But it has been prominently brought out in recent years, that the decadence of Holland dates almost from the hour when taxes were imposed on manufactories, commerce, fishing industry, and moneyed capital. Business went elsewhere, and with the decline of business the ability to pay taxes diminished, and the burden of taxation augmented. (See Journal des Economistes, November, 1871; also, "Principles of Political Economy," J. R. M'Culloch, pp. 470-71.)

—Within recent years the local taxation of Great Britain has been made the subject of special inquiry and investigation by a committee of parliament; and, in addition to several official reports, two prize essays on the same subject have been published by the statistical society of London (i.e., "On the Local Taxation of Great Britain and Ireland"; First and second Tayler Prize Essays, by R. H. Inglis Palgrave, and John Scott, of the Inner Temple); while the necessity of raising increased revenue in France has also drawn especial attention to the subject of local taxation in that country; but it is particularly noticeable, that in neither England nor France has any prominent speaker or writer advocated the direct taxation of personal property; or even alluded to the subject, except to scout the very idea of such a proposition.

130. [130] If we assume 5 per cent. as about the average profit of money, land or other property in the United States, over and above all charges and taxes, then an exemption of $600 would represent an accumulation yielding an income of $12,000. If the exemption is raised to $2,000, as it was at one time in the United States, then it would represent $40,000.

131. [131] These views, it should be understood, are, however, heresies to some of the best thinkers and writers on political economy. Some confuse themselves on the subject, by first defining property as anything that can be bought or sold, and then, since a title—as, for example, a deed - can be bought and sold, accept the inference that a title is necessarily property. But let us analyze this definition and assumption. We can, without doubt, sell and deliver a deed to a farm, but what is sold in such instances is the farm, including a right, a right to have dominion over it. But it may be rejoined, that a right of dominion is property. Let us, therefore, carry the analysis a little farther. If the farm in California is property in the state where it is, and where it is taxed, any right or title to the same farm, held in New York or England, be it in the nature of a deed, a mortgage, a partnership interest, or any other form of title, can not be the property; for the same thing certainly can not be property in two separate states and jurisdictions, and in two distinct forms and manifestations, at the same time. On the other hand, if it be assumed that the title to the farm is the property, and, as such, can be rightfully taxed where it (the title) is, then it stands to reason that the subject of the title, the farm in California, ought not to be also regarded as property, and taxed in New York or England. In other words, if the title to the farm is property, then the farm is not really in California at all (unless the owner of the title resides there), but goes out of that state in the pocket of the individual who walks off with the title to it. We have all heard of such concentration of meat that all that is valuable in an ox for food can be put into a quart can; but such a concentration of property as is here supposed is something much more remarkable; and admits of a man having a drove of oxen in his hand, ten acres of woodland in his hat, a church with a steeple in one coat pocket, and a four-story brick block and a mill privilege in the other.

132. [132] In 1874 the real estate of Philadelphia was assessed at $539,003,602, on an asserted full valuation. The personal property of the city subject to taxation at the same time, was returned at a valuation of $9,464,873; and included horses, carriages, furniture, gold and silver watches. The system of taxation in Montreal, dominion of Canada the same year, was as follows: one-fifth of 1 per cent. on the value of real estate; one-fifth of 1 per cent. for school tax; one-twentieth of 1 per cent. on railway property; 7½ per cent. on rentals. In addition, there were water rates, and special taxes on insurance, telegraph, ferry and street railway companies, and on innkeepers, billiard tables, theatres, breweries, banks, brokers, etc., and licenses on grocers, butchers, exhibitions, dogs, etc.

133. [133] On this subject the eminent French economist, Joseph Garmer, in his Traité des Finances, ch. v., says: "From the point of view of distributive justice and economic truth, and to attain an equitable apportionment of the public burdens, we must put the question: A tax being given, on whom does it fall in the last analysis? No absolutely satisfactory answer to this question, insoluble in its generality, has been given or could have been given. However, Ricardo, who made a profound study of taxation, thought that taxes, no matter of what kind, are always paid by the consumer, on his capital or on his income, the producer always making them enter into the cost of production; and employing his capital and his industry in other branches when he can not include the taxes he pays in such cost. James Mill likewise adopted the same opinion. This was Franklin's view also; he thought that the merchant always added the tax to his bill or invoice. It was likewise Adam Smith's idea, who, in passing, says: 'The tax is finally paid by the last purchaser or consumer.' ['Wealth of Nations,' edited by J. E. Thorold Rogers, vol. ii., p. 132.]—The physiocrates had been led to think that taxes finally fell, directly or indirectly, on the landed proprietor, to whom they thought the entire net product of production, which in the end is the only thing taxed, and which alone should be taxed by the legislator, comes back.

—J. B. Say says that Ricardo may be right in the abstract, but that, in fact, the producer does not always succeed in making the consumer pay the tax, a part of which he (the producer) must bear himself. The French economist adds: 'This subject does not admit of an absolute opinion. There is probably no kind of contribution which does not fall on several classes of citizens.' According to him, therefore, the subjects taxed (bases de l'impot) should be increased sufficiently to attain this end: that those producers who are not reached by one tax may be reached by another.

—The views held by the physiocrates on production being incomplete and erroneous, their financial conclusion is no longer worthy of consideration. J. B. Say's conclusion is in harmony with those of Ricardo and Smith; but it is lacking in precision. That of Ricardo, if it be exact, should be amended thus: 'Taxes in general and in the long run, fall on the consumer.' And, indeed, in the face of the facts, it is difficult to admit, that this diffusion or transmission of burdens is made directly, immediately and without effort. If we may so express ourselves, Ricardo considers the phenomenon as if it were happening in vacuo, whereas, in reality, the tax, to find its natural or definitive incidence and to traverse the successive strata of society, needs a pretty long lapse of time, a thing which is effected only after many and complex repercussions. The burden weighs at first on certain classes of citizens; then, by degrees, it apportions itself among a greater number of tax payers, or among all tax payers, and by successive repercussions it becomes an integral part of the price of things, in such a way that the person who buys most things pays most taxes. At first view the tax seems paid, whereas it has only been advanced.

—However, the solution of this question is not, we repeat, possible, as to taxation considered in general; it is possible, if possible at all, only if we consider the different kinds of taxes apart from one another, and according to their special assessment. It is necessary to consider apart their accidental and their permanent effects, their temporary and definitive effects. We must remark, also, that both for taxation and for the cost of production, the law of supply and demand is predominant. That law it is which permits, according to very variable cases and circumstances, the landowner, capitalist or workman to have the tax reimbursed to him by the leaseholder, the manufacturer, or the merchant, and which permits these latter to have themselves reimbursed, in turn, by the consumers; or which compels each of them to pay a part of the tax. It is, therefore, erroneous to affirm that the producer has himself always and equally reimbursed by the consumer. At the end of a period of time, the tax imposed on one or many categories of individuals is repercussed on other classes, and in the end fiscal charges weigh on all the classes of the population, even the taxes on the wealthy, which fall indirectly and in a certain proportion on the poor themselves, since for the labor of the poor there is less demand by the wealthy, whose saving or consumption the tax has curtailed.

—It is an error to say of a tax that its weight divided ad infinitum becomes almost insensible to those who bear it. This would be true of one sole tax, but it is not true when there is question of several taxes; taxes may apportion themselves and repercuss as much as you will, but they must be paid, and they produce their natural effects none the less. Division, diffusion and repercussion are unfortunately not synonymous with evaporation. We can, therefore, formulate no general law as to the incidence, the repercussion or diffusion of taxes. On this point there is among economists a great diversity of opinions and much hesitation."

—Lorenz von Stein, in his Finanzwissenschaft, maintains that all taxes, and even the fines paid by criminals, finally become component parts of the prices of things, just as do the costs of production, and in the last analysis fall on the consumer. Etienne Laspeyres, in the article Staatswirthschaft, in Bluntschli's Staatswörterbuch, defends the same view. As far back as 1790 the Marquis de Cassux published a work, "The Absurdity of the Land Tax," demonstrated by showing that all taxes, no matter of what kind, ultimately become part of the prices of commodities.

—In addition to the opinions of recognized economic authorities above noted by M. Garnier, J. R. M'Culloch, whose article on "Taxation," contributed to the Encyclopædia Britannica, James Mill pronounced "masterly," thus expresses himself: "The truth is, that every burden laid, directly or indirectly, on any article for which there is any considerable demand, falls ultimately on its consumers." ("Taxation and the Funding System," p 17.) M. Thiers, as shown by an extract from his work, "Rights to Property," quoted in connection with this article by the author, was an unqualified believer in the diffusion theory of taxation. Adam Smith would also appear to have completely indorsed it, when he says, "No tax can even reduce, for any considerable time, the rate of profit in any particular trade"—i.e., all business—which must always keep its level with other trades in the neighborhood." And again, in discussing the taxes upon luxuries, he says, "such taxes, though they fall indifferently upon every species of revenue, and are paid finally by whoever consumes the commodities upon which they are imposed," etc. The reader will, therefore, notice that Mr. Wells' views on this department of taxation are substantially in harmony with those of Adam Smith, Ricardo, James Mill, M. Thiers, J. R. M'Culloch, J. B. Say; they also found an earnest advocate in one of the soundest thinkers and shrewd practical observers America has ever produced—the late Isaac Sherman, of New York.—ED.

134. [134] As applied to the wages of labor, the truth of this principle is equally incontestable. "The sewing girl performing her toilsome work by the needle at one dollar a day, the street sweeper working the mud with his broom at a dollar and a half, the skilled laborer at two and three dollars, the professor at five, the editor at five or ten, the artist and the songstress at ten or five hundred dollars a day, are all members of the working classes, though working at different rates. And it is only the difference in their effectiveness that causes the difference in their earnings. Bring them all to the same point of efficiency, and their earnings also will be the same." (W. Jungst.)

135. [135] The method in which taxation diffuses itself has been thus illustrated by M. Thiers, in his work "Rights to Property." "In the same manner," he says, "as our senses, deceived by appearances, tell us that it is the sun which moves and not the earth; so a particular tax appears to fall upon one class, and another tax upon another class when in reality it is not so. The tax really best suited to the poorest member of society is that which is best suited to the general fortune of the state; a fortune which is much more for the possession and enjoyment of the poor man than it is for the rich; a fact of which we are never sufficiently convinced. But of the manner, nevertheless, in which taxes are divided among the different classes of the state, the most certain thing we can say is: That they are divided in proportion to what each man consumes, and for a reason not generally recognized or understood, namely, that taxes are reflected, as it were, to infinity, and from reflection to reflection become eventually an integral part of the prices of things. Hence the greatest purchasers and consumers are everywhere the greatest tax payers. This is what I call 'diffusion of taxation,' to borrow a term from physical science, which applies the expression 'diffusion of light' to those numberless reflections, in consequence of which the light which has penetrated the slightest aperture spreads itself around in every direction, and in such a manner as to reach all the objects which it renders visible. So a tax which at first sight appears to be paid directly, in reality is only advanced by the individual who is first called upon to pay it."

Footnotes for TELEGRAPH

136. [136] Aristide Dumont wrote in 1854: "The use of the telegraph, once it has been popularized, is called to render to the production of wealth services which have some relation to those created by economic and rapid ways of circulation, since these services shorten time, that stuff of which life is made, and since, in every industry, they impress greater activity upon production, and, as a consequence, diminish the amount of unproductive capital, lower the amount of current expenses in business, facilitate exchanges, and abridge transactions of every kind.

—But from another point of view, the telegraph is called to render much greater services to industry. If we suppose the net-work of telegraphs extended and popularized, not only over the entire surface of Europe, but over every civilized point of the world, a single day would be sufficient to exchange news between the most distant markets; thenceforth there would be none of those uncertainties which so frequently disturb commercial relations, and none of those rumors which facilitate stock-jobbing [?]. A sort of equilibrium would become established, and production would become more independent of the emotions produced by politics. Is it not true that if the electric telegraph had embraced, in the course of the year 1853, the Danubian provinces, Constantinople, St. Petersburg, Odessa; and that if it had been possible to exchange a dispatch, in one day, between these different points and Paris, France's public funds and industrial values would have undergone fewer fluctuations? Kept constantly informed of what was happening, Frenchmen would have been less excited, and this would have prevented the rum of a great many individuals.

—Thus the electric telegraph facilitates the production of wealth in two ways: 1, by saving time and permitting a diminution in the amount of unproductive capital; 2, by establishing a sort of equilibrium between all markets, and of thus diminishing the influence of the uncertainty of politics on industry.

—But if we consider the telegraph from the moral point of view, we believe that it has introduced into the world a revolution still more profound. If, in fact, the various continents are united, and they will-be united in the course of this century [a prophecy fulfilled not very long after it was made]; if communication can be had in a few hours between London, Canton, New York, Calcutta and Paris, a new force will be added to the civilizing power of humanity, to the diffusion of enlightenment and to the radiation of good upon evil. The limits which pen peoples up will be blotted out, and peoples the most remote from one another acquire solidarity and unity. Men will emigrate more freely, for they will be no longer morally separated by any barrier. The superabundant population of Europe will feel less repugnance to transfer their activity to shores hitherto unknown; for, if they go even to the antipodes, they will not be, as formerly, remote from their country, their relations and their habits. This fear of remoteness has been hitherto a great obstacle to the spread of civilization. Some peoples are less subject than others to this species of nostalgia, and it is they who have accomplished the greatest things. The telegraph will tend more and more to remove that obstacle."


137. [137] Different writers use the terms jurisdictional waters, water territory, maritime territory.

138. [138] "Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act (1878)," 41 and 42 Vict., cap. 78, notwithstanding its preamble, is such a claim.

Footnotes for THIRD ESTATE

139. [139] The third edition of this pamphlet has this note: "This work, written during les Notables of 1788, was published in the first days of January, 1789.

Footnotes for TREATIES, Fishery

140. [140] Prof. Hind's charges of intentional falsification of fishery statistics by the British authorities so widely published, are not sustained by evidence, and should not be entertained for a moment. The hundreds of errors which he has pointed out are evidently the result of inattention on the part of the responsible persons, and of childish incompetency on that of the clerks employed in their preparation.


141. [141] Madison papers, vol. iii., p. 1343.

142. [142] Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 1815, p. 26.

143. [143] Finance Report, vol. iv., p. 854.

144. [144] Page 186, 3d Session, 27th Congress, Appendix. Speech of Woodbury.

145. [145] Report No. 379, 28th Congress, 1st Session, H. of R.

146. [146] Report of Secretary Bibb, 1844.

147. [147] Finance Report, 1864, p. 10.


148. [148] In justice to Mr. Ford it should be added, that he draws a distinction between pensions granted to civil servants of the government and those granted to military and naval servants, and this distinction is manifestly a just one to make. While the dangers of corruption attending the liberal use of civil pensions are many, and in fact might be said to be inseparable from the system, there exist strong reasons for granting allowances for military and naval service when there exist also the proper safeguards against abuse. If there be any principle recognized and established in this country it is that pensions must be confined to those who were separated by the nature of their service from the great mass of the community, and who devoted themselves exclusively to military duties; who laid aside the character of a citizen, and became a soldier; who, in abandoning the pursuits, extinguished also the habits, of private life. But, in bestowing military pensions, it should be recognized that provision should be made only for those who, being unable to support themselves, are necessarily thrown upon public or private charity. "It would not, I think," wrote Attorney General Rush in 1815, "be going too far to say that in every case where an officer or private loses his health while in service, to such a degree as to be disabled from performing his duty any more, he is contemplated, prima facie, as an object of this charitable relief from the legislature." And more recently the expediency of military and naval pensions was defended in congress as follows: "The service which the soldier renders may be voluntary, but it is not a service which he may give or withhold at pleasure, but one which, if not offered, may be compelled by the strong arm of the government. The recognition by the state of the distinguished military services of its citizens in its support and defense in the form of a pension, though sometimes granted as a charity, or as an act of grace, is generally given in fulfillment of some promise made by the government, or inducement held out to the soldier either at the time or after his enlistment. It is not given to every man who performs military service, however distinguished and meritorious that service may be, but to those only who receive wounds or contract disease while in the line of duty. The purpose and design of the government is to make the soldier good, as far as money can do it, for the injuries he received, or in other words, to make up to him as much as he could have earned at his trade or vocation if he had not been wounded or had not contracted the disease. Under this rule—and in my judgment it is both just and magnanimous—no man is entitled to a pension for military service except those who have received disabling wounds or injuries during the war, and the widows, minor children and dependent relatives of those who were killed or who have since died from the effects of such service. This is the humane policy recognized and acted upon by every civilized country on the globe. It has been truly said that every pensioner is, in one sense, a burden upon his fellow-citizens, either directly or indirectly; and no reason can exist for imposing such a burden on behalf of men who did only their plain, simple duty as citizens, and received no material injury in its performance. A disabled soldier is not a pauper for taking a pension. A well man would be nothing else if he were to accept one. For this reason I do not deem it right or expedient to select out any particular class of soldiers, or men who rendered any particular service, or suffered any peculiar hardships and privations, and pension them, regardless of whether they can show any pensionable disability or not. Under the lenient rules adopted by the present commissioner of pensions, every soldier who was wounded or contracted disease while on active duty in the field, or during confinement in rebel prisons, can, if not already pensioned, apply for and receive one now under the general law. It is impossible for congress to grade and adjust pensions to the different degrees of suffering and hardship endured in the service. All that we can do is to grant them in cases where the evidence shows there is a pensionable disability: but it we should go beyond this rule we should be simply pensioning a large number of men, who, while they endured great suffering and privations, received no material injury, and are now able to earn their living. In this connection I desire also to say that I would not create a civil pension list by granting pensions to men who are injured in the civil service of the government. They go into that service voluntarily, and can not be compelled to enter it against their will, and can leave when they please. When they assume the duties they take all the risks, and are paid for doing so. I believe pensions should only be granted to men who have been injured in the military or naval service of the country; and, without stopping here to elaborate the point, I will simply say that in my judgment we are not called upon in granting pensions to break down the barriers set up by our fathers between the military and civil service, and launch out into a sea which I fear would prove shoreless and bottomless." Nor is it any condemnation of such pensions to point out the great frauds that have arisen under various systems. That is the fault of the laws. "The state has in time of war a fundamental right to the money, the services, and, if need be, the life of every citizen, without other compensation than the security and protection it affords him at all times. The pension laws are not passed to secure to the maimed survivor of the war, or to the helpless dependents on those who lost their lives in the struggle, a right existent independently and in the nature of things, but as a voluntary and fitting assumption of care over those who, in the service of the nation, have lost the ability to care for themselves. It is doubly demoralizing and doubly shameful that beneficent laws like these should be made the cover of fraud and robbery—it not only despoils the public treasury and unjustly burdens the shoulders of the tax-paying masses, but it delays and often fatally prejudices the cause of really deserving applicants."


149. [149] For statement of resources and liabilities of these banks see Report of Comptroller of the Currency, 1876, p. 43.

Footnotes for UNIVERSITIES

150. [150] Quoted by Hallam, Lit. Eur., i., 26.

151. [151] The disciples of this philosopher were condemned for heresy by a council held in Paris in 1209.

152. [152] The fault of this definition is that it might include a kindergarten, or a school of Choctaw.

153. [153] So ascertained by Prof. F. B. Dexter.

154. [154] It is proper to add, that two or three instances of fraudulent universities have been detected and crushed. They were simply scandalous ventures of unscrupulous persons to entrap the unwary into purchasing diplomas—and would not here be mentioned were it not that foreigners have sometimes been misled by announcements which to every educated American are obvious frauds. These sporadic appearances are counterfeit, not entitled to any nomenclature.

Footnotes for USURY

155. [155] Instead of the prohibition of interest which prevailed in mediæval times, most modern states have established fixed rates of interest, the exceeding or evasion of which, by contract or otherwise, is declared null and void, and is usually punishable as usury. It the fixing of the rate is intended to depress the rate of interest customary in the country, it uniformly fails of its object. If governmental control were great enough, vigilant and rigid enough, which is scarcely imaginable, to prevent all violations of the law, it is certain that less capital would be loaned than had been, for the reason that every owner of capital would be largely interested in employing his capital in production of his own. More capital, too, would go into foreign parts, and there would be less saved by those not engaged in any enterprise of their own. All this would happen to the undoubted prejudice of the nation's entire economy.

—If, on the other hand, the control of the government be not great enough, the law would, in most cases, be evaded; especially as each party, creditor as well as debtor, would find it to his advantage to evade it. The latter, who otherwise would not be able to borrow at all, is, as a rule, more in need of obtaining the loan than the creditor is to invest his capital. How easily, therefore, might he be induced to bind himself by oath or by word of honor'. He would, moreover, be compelled to pay the creditor not only the natural interest and the ordinary insurance premium against loss, but also for the special risk he runs when he violates the law threatening him with a severe penalty. Hence the last result of usury laws is either a material enhancement of the difficulty of obtaining loans, or an enhancement of the rate of interest.—WILLIAM ROSCHER.

Footnotes for WAGE FUND

156. [156] In spite of Mr. Mill's complete recantation of the wage-fund doctrine, in 1869, his earlier statements are still found, unretracted and unqualified, in the latest edition of his "Political Economy."

Footnotes for WAGES

157. [157] "The full-blooded American," said Michel Chevalier, "is encamped, not established, on the soil he treads upon."

158. [158] "Many employers of labor," says Prof. Alfred Marshall, "in some parts of England more than half, have risen from the ranks of labor." Accepting this statement as correct, it is to be noted, that, in addition to business ability being the efficient cause of profits, in comparison of the employer with the non-employer, business ability becomes, in a still higher degree, the cause of profits, as between the employer on a large and the employer on a small scale.

Footnotes for ZOLLVEREIN

159. [159] Says Henri Richelot, writing in 1862: "Since the year 1832 the Zollverein, although other influences concurred with its influence, has been the principal fact in Germany; and the progress of Germany since then has been, in great part, the progress of the Zollverein. The first advance of the Zollverein consisted in its material enlargement; this it accomplished by successive incorporations which leave nothing in Germany outside of its boundaries save Austria, the Hanseatic cities and Mecklenburg. The increase of population of the Zollverein was a necessary consequence of the increase of its territory; but it has been more rapid; from twenty-three and one-half millions in 1834, the number of inhabitants of the Zollverein has risen to nearly thirty-four millions.

—The reports of the commerce of the Zollverein, containing only quantities and no values, do not enable us to give the total annual movement of its trade with non-Zollverein states and countries, and in this matter we have only more or less uncertain approximations. But the approximations warrant us in classing the Zollverein, in international commerce, immediately after England, France and the United States, although it is very far from these countries; and in assigning to it the incontestable rank of the fourth commercial power of the world, of the third in Europe, and of the second on the European continent. The manufacturing character of the Zollverein has become more and more pronounced in international commerce. The increase of its exports is apparent, not in its natural products, such as cereals and building lumber, but in manufactured commodities, in woolen, silk and cotton textile fabrics, in linen and hardware. In its imports we notice an increase in exotic articles of consumption, such as tea and coffee, an increase in the consumption of which is usually regarded as a sure index of general prosperity. The same may be said of the importation of articles used in manufacture. But so far as manufactured articles themselves are concerned, the salient point in the importation of the Zollverein is their decrease. In the vitality of the great German fairs which are still held, it is remarkable how German industry, little by little, thrusts aside its rivals in England, France and Switzerland. Lastly, in its expositions, the first of which took place in 1844 in Berlin, and the second in 1854 in Munich; and in the expositions of London and Paris in 1851 and 1855, that industry stood the test. If it had no originality or invention to boast of, all agreed that it possessed solid merit in the medium sphere which belonged to it." Its progress was still more noticeable in 1867 in Paris, and in 1873 in Vienna. The Zollverein thus seems to have advanced Germany much in the same way that the introduction of the policy of free trade promoted the wealth, well-being and industrial progress of England.—ED.

End of Notes

Top of File Notes to Volume I Notes to Volume II Notes to Volume III

Return to top