{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_22419/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_22419","id":"gutenberg_22419","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22419","summary":null,"tags":["American literature -- Periodicals","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Journals","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Sociology","The Arena"],"text":"Produced by Barbara Tozier, Bill Tozier, Richard J. Shiffer\nand the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttp://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE ARENA.\n\nNo. XXII.\n\nSEPTEMBER, 1891.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: Geo. C. Lorimer. (signed \"Yours' Respectfully, Geo. C.\nLorimer\")]\n\n\n\n\nTHE NEWER HERESIES.\n\nBY REV. GEO. C. LORIMER, D. D.\n\n\nIt is a good thing that the Inquisition, Star-chamber, and other\ncompulsory institutions of the dark past have departed from Europe,\nand have never been tolerated in America. Were it not so, at the\npresent time there would be much excellent work for the rack, the\nthumbscrew, and the faggot. Heresy is in the air, especially in the\nnorthern latitudes of the United States. We inhale it with the morning\nbreezes, it stimulates us to mental activity during the noon hour, and\nat times stifles us as by the sultry atmosphere of a blistering day.\nEverywhere it is being discussed, and by every kind of individual,\nqualified or unqualified for such high contentions. Daily journals,\nhitherto never remarkable for orthodoxy, have suddenly grown anxious\nas to the future of the faith; and other journals, that have always\nantagonized orthodoxy, are, figuratively speaking, rubbing their hands\nmost gleefully and smiling through their editorial columns with a most\nperceptible \"I told you so\"; while religious papers, representing as\nthey do, the conservative element in this country, are apparently\nstaggered at the inroads which the so-called higher criticism has made\nof late. Aged people ominously shake their heads, and striplings of\nthe limp-back Bible type are amazed at the stir which ideas are making\nin the community, and which threaten to disturb the peace and quiet of\ntheir mediocre godliness; and pious women engaged on crazy quilts, in\nthe interest of noble benefactions, stop with punctured and bleeding\nfingers to protest against all departures from ancient doctrinal\nsymbols.\n\nSuspects are numerous, and, as in the days of the worthy Council of\nTen in Venice, no prominent person, especially a teacher, is beyond\nsurveillance. If he adventures just a little from the beaten path,\neven though it may be to gather a thought, which, like a wild field\ndaisy, given by the bounty of the Infinite One for the delight of his\ncreatures, he has found growing on the wind-swept plain of natural\nreligion, honored possibly by heathen seers and philosophers, he is\nlikely to be summoned before the black draped, gloomy councillors and\nfamiliars of modern inquisitorial conservatism.\n\nIn my opinion there is no real need for the morbid anxiety that now\nprevails in certain quarters, and surely no serious alarm should be\nfelt for the perpetuity and stability of truth. Truth is truth, and\nall the bad captains that ever sailed that bark, and all the bad\nnavigators that ever misdirected its course, have never been able to\nrun it on the lee shore, or bring it to final shipwreck, and never\ncan; for over and above all human devices and guidings there is a\ndivine hand that upholds and shields that which, next to his Infinite\nSelf, is the most precious blessing yet conferred upon the human mind.\n\nLet us remember that the heresies of the hour are not of the \"damnable\nsort\" which, as Peter declared, deny the Lord who bought us; neither\nare they mixed with such immoralities as Paul condemns in his letter\nto the Galatians. And if we may believe that the words of that same\napostle have any pertinency in our times, then, when he declares that\nheresies or schisms must arise among us \"that they which are proved\nmay be made manifest,\" we may confidently expect that out of the\npresent discussions and the \"jangling of sweet notes out of tune\" some\nbroader thought and some nobler conception of divine teachings,\nrevealed to us in Holy Scripture, will assuredly come to the church\nand to the world.\n\nI think that the leaders who are solicitous for the ark of God ought\nto try to characterize the opinions which have given rise, in these\nlatter days, to threatened trials for heterodoxy. It is so easy to say\nthat a man who differs from ourselves is not orthodox, and to avoid an\nactual and exact statement of what we mean; when in fact we deal\nunjustly with him, and produce a wrong impression on the community at\nlarge.\n\nLet us notice the three distinctive and discriminating marks of\nso-called heresy in evangelical churches, and I think you will be\npersuaded that it is unwise for us to be alarmists, and imprudent \"to\nbreathe out threatenings and slaughters.\"\n\nIt will be observed that the newer heresies do not challenge the truth\nof Scripture inspiration, only the form and philosophy of such\ninspiration. The men who are suspected of entertaining erroneous\nopinions concerning the method of Divine impartation of truth are the\nstrenuous advocates of the moral grandeur, spiritual authority, and\nfaith-sufficiency of the heavenly oracles. They, it is true, deny what\nhas been known as the verbal theory--a theory which owes more to the\npost-reformers' fear of an infallible pope, than to any real,\nintelligent cause--but by no recognized council or decree,\nacknowledged by Protestants, has that mechanical conception ever been\nmade binding on the conscience. Modern scholarship is simply leading\nus to recognize a more rational criticism than was possible to our\nfathers; a mode of criticism which almost every Sunday-school teacher,\nin his humble way, adopts, and which is common, and has been in the\nmost orthodox pulpits for unnumbered years, every man bringing the\npassage he is discussing to the test of knowledge that he has acquired\nand, in a sense, to the test even of his reason. I do not say that\nscholars have uttered the final word upon this great subject, nor is\nit possible for such a word to be pronounced at the present stage of\ninvestigation, but I do insist that we should recognize the authority\nof enlightenment, and that we should not carelessly brand as heterodox\nmen of eminent attainments, who are merely seeking to guide us to\nfoundations which, in the long run, shall prove absolutely\nindestructible.\n\nWe have to decide whether the Christianity of the immediate future\nshall be governed supremely by intelligence or ignorance. If ignorance\nis to rule supreme, then let us found no more universities, nor open\nany new theological seminaries. Let us not go through the farce of\ninstructing, unless it be merely to insist on the assimilating by\nstudents of dogmas that must never be questioned, and from which they\nwill swear by the eternities they will never depart, either in spirit\nor in letter. But, if we believe that education means the quickening\nof a man's nature so that he will investigate, and if we really\nbelieve that God has more light yet to break in upon the world,\nthrough the casements and windows of holy scriptures, then, in his\nDivine Name, let us not be alarmed when, here and there, after\ninfinite weariness and labor, a little ray penetrates the darkness of\nthe ages and promises to give us a noonday view of the origin and\ninfluence of God's Word.\n\nIt should also be considered that the newer heresies are not primarily\ndefections from Christian doctrine, only from the creeds which assume\nauthoritatively to define such doctrine. Public teachers are being\narraigned for their departure from certain standards, such as the\nThirty-Nine Articles, the Westminster Confession, and the lugubrious\ncompilation known as the New Hampshire Confession of Faith. These\ndocuments, with whatever excellency they may be accredited, were\nprepared by fallible men--some of them, indeed, exceedingly\nfallible--who were hardly qualified in their day to define the faith\nof Christ for the guidance of future ages, and were adopted in most\ncases by meagre majorities. Why we should suppose their statements are\nto be regarded as infallible, and why thinkers of our times should be\nstrictly held to their formulas, is something that no one yet has had\ncourage or intelligence sufficient to explain. What right has any body\nof men to insist on conformity to a creed prepared by beings like\nthemselves, even though it has been venerated for a century or two?\nWho is Melancthon, and who is Luther, and who are the Westminster\ndivines but \"men by whom we have believed\"? But are we bound to their\nword, or are we strictly held to the Word of our common Lord and\nDivine Teacher? Is Chillingworth's cry, \"the Bible, the whole Bible,\nand nothing but the Bible the religion of Protestants,\" a mere\nillusion? It certainly is, and the sacred idea concerning the right of\nprivate judgment, if the withered hand of men long dead is to hold the\nbrain of the present in the grasp of death; if we respect ourselves\nand our avowed belief in the adequacy of Scripture as a rule of faith,\nthen we had better make one huge bonfire of all the antiquated creeds,\nthan denounce the so-called heretics who are, in reality, trying to\nbring us back to the position of the primitive saints who allowed no\nhuman word to obscure or darken the divine Word given by revelation.\n\nI think that every candid soul will admit, in addition to what I have\nstated, that the newer heresies are not revolts from the scriptural\nhigh ideal of Christian life, only a noble protest against narrow\ninterpretations of that life. The men who have recently been arraigned\nbefore the tribunals of various denominations are eminent for their\nuprightness, their conscientious candor and tolerance. No word has\never been uttered to their moral detriment; they are, in this blameful\nage, among the most blameless of its people. They insist, however,\nthat all doctrine should be regarded merely as moulds in which the\nlife should be cast, and are valuable only in so far as they are able\nto shape the life in pattern of that one career which has excited the\nadmiration of the ages and the adoring wonder of the heavens.\n\nIt hardly seems in accord with any just conception of our Master's\nfaith that men and women who are trying to serve God and their\ngeneration should be branded with foul names, should be sneered at as\nreckless and dangerous guides, and as even denying the Lord whom they\nreverence and worship. Let us be careful. Heterodoxy of conduct is a\ngreater evil than heterodoxy of creed, and I am free to say, though I\nmay not, with my convictions regarding the atonement of Christ,\nunderstand how some eminently philanthropic people can enter the\ngolden gates, yet I should hardly myself appreciate a place beyond\ntheir threshold if God could not plan, in some way consistent with His\nhonor, to find a radiant seat of glory for them.\n\nI write these things because I am not a heretic. I do not, of course,\nagree with the fathers, for, like other Scotchmen, I cannot agree with\nanybody else in the world; but I am perfectly satisfied with my own\northodoxy.\n\nOccasionally I have been startled to find some adventurous soul giving\nutterance to views, as being novel and hazardous, which I have\nentertained, without any perturbation of spirit, for nearly twenty\nyears. I was somewhat amused, not long since, on hearing a venerable\ntheological professor, with tears in his eyes, perspiration on his\nbrow, and anguish in his voice, relate how, after a fearful struggle,\nhe had emancipated himself from certain of Calvin's dictums; but while\nsome clergymen present seemed astounded, I remarked at the close of\nthe meeting that I had accomplished that feat for myself some quarter\nof a century agone, and what is more, though I did not say this to\nhim, I did so without any tears, and without any anguish whatever.\nThese personal references are merely to show that in taking up the\ncause of the newer heretics I am not in any wise biassed by a\nmisdirected mind in their favor.\n\nLet us have freedom. Let us think it out. Let the struggle go on, and\nlet us not, with pallid faces and strident voices, cry out in fear;\nfor the only tribunal that can righteously adjudicate the lightness of\nhuman thought is the tribunal, as Schiller has it, of history, which\nunquestionably is on earth the tribunal of the infinite God. He rules\nin the world of mind as well as in the globe of matter, and eighteen\ncenturies ought to convince us that truth slowly emerges from warring\nopinions, conflicting theories, and especially from pathetic longings\nof the human soul to discover its hidden meanings and its widest and\ngrandest applications. Alas! perhaps our ignorance and intolerance may\nrender it necessary that now, as in the past, the prophets of God must\nfirst be stoned to death before we will give heed to their message or\ncommemorate their greatness by the homage of our mind. But seriously,\nI would advise all who have any regard for their own comfort,\nhappiness, and even self-respect, to have as little to do with this\nwretched stoning business as possible; for I have never yet been able\nto discover what satisfaction there can possibly be in helping a dear\nbrother or sister to a martyr's crown at the expense of one's own\nfairness and kindly charity.\n\n\n\n\nHARVEST AND LABORERS IN THE PSYCHICAL FIELD.\n\nBY FREDERIC W. H. MYERS.\n\n\nThere is no living savant, one may say with little fear of\ncontradiction, who surpasses Mr. A. R. Wallace in generous readiness\nto esteem at its full worth the work of other men. And one may add\nthat this habit of mind, so attractive in a man of acknowledged\neminence, is as a rule not attractive only, but actively serviceable\nto science; that it stimulates effort, and creates an atmosphere in\nwhich good work is zealously done.\n\nYet there may be cases in which this ready appreciativeness may prove\na hindrance to progress rather than a help. If wrongly received, it\nmay lead men who have done little to think that they have done much;\nit may deter others from embarking on needful tasks which they may\nsuppose to have been already amply performed.\n\nIn two papers in THE ARENA for January and February, 1891, Mr. Wallace\ndwelt, partly with criticism, and partly with praise, on the work\nalready done by the Society for Psychical Research. To his criticisms\nI make no demur; they are legitimate and interesting; and indeed where\nMr. Wallace's opinions diverge from those which I have myself set\nforth, I am disposed to think that we are but looking on \"the two\nsides of the shield,\"--a shield embossed on either side with devices\nso marvellous that no man's interpretation can as yet suffice to\nunriddle them.\n\nBut on the other hand, I cannot let pass without protest the sentence\n(ARENA, January, p. 130) in which Mr. Wallace speaks of the thanks due\nto the Society for Psychical Research, \"for having presented the\nevidence in such a way that the facts to be interpreted are now\ngenerally accepted as facts by all who have taken any trouble to\ninquire into the amount and character of the testimony for them,--the\nopinion of those who have not taken that trouble being altogether\nworthless.\" Now in the first place I do not think that all those who\nhave studied our testimony are convinced by it. I received a letter\n(for instance) not long ago, from a distinguished American, an old\nfriend of mine, who wrote in the most cordial terms to say that out of\npersonal regard for me he had read \"Phantasms of the Living\" from\nbeginning to end, and that he did not believe a word of it. Our\nreaders' scepticism is perhaps seldom quite so robust; but\nnevertheless I should say that the attitude of at least half of them\nis best described by saying not that they accept our evidence _ex\nanimo_, but that they have not yet exactly managed to see their way to\nupsetting it.\n\nNor can I possibly treat as unimportant the attitude of that great\nmajority of _savants_ who have paid no attention at all to the matter.\nNaturally, their opinion of our evidence does not affect my own\nopinion thereof, but it decidedly affects my view as to what lines our\nwork ought to follow. Why is it that these men have not studied our\n_Proceedings_? It will not do to talk about indolence and prejudice.\nAll men are more or less indolent and prejudiced; but _savants_ as a\nclass are certainly less indolent, and probably less prejudiced, than\nany other class that one could name. We must not count upon finding\nour _savant_ \"_semper vacuum, semper amabilem_,\" any more than Horace\nfound his young ladies always in that condition of affable\nreceptivity. The main reason why so many eminent men neglect our work\nmay be stated in a much less offensive way. The minds of all of us\nmove in certain orbits, from which we are sensibly deflected only by\nthe approach of some new body of adequate mass. Now our \"psychical\"\nexperiments and observations have plainly not as yet attained\nsufficient mass to be able to deflect the majority of those great\nbodies, the luminaries of science, from their accustomed paths through\nthe heavens. _Tides_, indeed, we do create; there is a refluent\nwashing to and fro of magazine articles about our topic; but we have\nnot yet generated that wholesale perturbation of the scientific system\nwhich our facts, if facts they be, must in time inevitably effect.\n\n\"Some of the best workers in the Society,\" says Mr. Wallace again,\n\"still urge that the evidence is very deficient, both in amount and in\nquality, and that much more must be obtained before it can be treated\nas really conclusive. This view, however,\" he adds, \"appears to me to\nbe an altogether erroneous one.\" On the contrary, I venture to say,\nthis assertion of the need of more work, and consequently of more\nworkers, is of absolutely primary, absolutely urgent importance. What\nwould have become of the evolution theory itself (if I may use an\n_argumentum ad hominem_ of no disrespectful kind), what would have\nbecome of that theory itself, though urged at first by _savants_ of\nsuch surpassing merit, had no one been able to repeat and confirm\ntheir observations? And we who are dealing, not with plants and\nanimals which can be held fast and observed, but, for the most part at\nany rate, with phantasmal sights, subjective impressions,--surely we\nmust feel a tenfold need of the multiplication of centres of\nexperiment and observation, of the formation of fresh bodies of record\nin every country, and in each year that passes by. No single small\ngroup can ever gain leverage enough to divert the world's prevalent\nmodes of thought, unless it is gradually reinforced by fellow-workers\nenough to make the possible mistakes or possible death of a few\npersons quite unimportant to the general result.\n\nIt has been suggested by Mr. Wallace and by other critics that we have\nbeen too exclusively preoccupied with the idea of _telepathy_, that we\nhave tried to force into that category phenomena which need a\ndifferent or a further explanation. Considering the complexity of\nthese phenomena there may well be some truth in this criticism, yet we\nshould surely be unwise if we relaxed our insistence on the importance\nof _telepathy_, or the transference of thought or feeling from mind to\nmind without the agency of the recognized organs of sense as the very\nroot and basis both of experiment and of theory as concerning an\nunseen world. No one, of course, can suppose that the infinitely\ncomplex laws of which we are just now obtaining a precursory glimpse\nand first faint intimation, can possibly be summarized in any single\nexpression. But the prime importance of telepathy lies in the fact\nthat here, at last, is an action of unseen, uncomprehended forces\nwhich can be made the subject of actual experiment. Nay, more, the\nvery fact that in this special direction experiment turns out to be\npossible, is in itself an augury that we are on a true scientific\ntrack; for it involves a remarkable coincidence between a theoretical\nconclusion and a practical discovery.\n\nIn the first place, let us try to realize theoretically what is\ninvolved in the supposition that any sort of invisible intelligence\ncan become in any way known to us. I speak of the methods of\ncommunication only, without reference to the nature of the supposed\nintelligence, beyond the mere fact of its habitual invisibility. It is\nplain, I think, that the said intelligence must either so act upon\nvisible matter as to affect our sense-organs in the ordinary way, or\nelse must convey messages to our minds by some director process, not\ndepending on the intervention of our organs of sense.\n\nNow probably no one will assume that the first method will alone be\nemployed. Even those who insist, with Mr. Wallace, on the objectivity\nof apparitions, do not, I think, maintain that it is _only_ by moving\nmaterial objects that unseen intelligences affect our minds. Few will\ndoubt that _if_ there be communication from unseen beings at all, it\nwill probably be at least partly in the second of the two modes\nalready specified, that is, that it will reach our minds in some way\nmore intimate and direct than by ordinary sense-perception. But if\nthis be so, then there must be in our minds a certain power of\nreciprocity. We must be able to receive the message in the same\nimpalpable way in which the unseen intelligence communicates it.\n\nBut if we suppose that man possesses this power of receiving direct or\ntelepathic messages from unembodied or invisible intelligences, it is\nnatural to inquire whether he is capable of receiving similar messages\nfrom embodied or visible intelligences. If we cannot find that he is\nthus capable, our belief in the supposed messages from the unseen will\nbe doubly difficult; for we shall have to postulate both the new forms\nof intelligence and the new mode of intercourse. But if, on the other\nhand, we can show that the mode of intercourse here needed does\nalready exist, and appears in man's relations with his fellow-men,\nthen the transition to messages from the unseen will be so much the\nless violent. We shall only be supposing that man can receive from the\ndisembodied a kind of message which he already receives from the\nembodied, and which has no obvious dependence on a corporeal\nembodiment. One single proved transmission, direct from mind to mind,\nof the most trivial fact or percept, will do more to make communion\nwith the unseen _scientifically_ conceivable,--I do not say more to\nmake it _morally_ conceivable,--than all the poetry and all the\nrhetoric which has ever stirred the hearts of men.\n\nSuch, on the one side, is my deductive argument from the very\nconception of communication with unseen intelligences.\n\nAnd do we, on the other hand, find, by empirical observation of the\nphenomena around us, anything which indicates the existence of a\nsupernormal perceptivity such as theory would suggest? It is known to\nreaders of the Society for Psychical Research _Proceedings_ that we do\nfind such indications, scattered at first, and appearing unsought-for\namid the phenomena of mesmeric or somnambulic states; but now to some\nslight extent isolated into distinctness, and brought under\nexperimental control.\n\nTo some slight extent only, I repeat; for the experiments thus far\nmade, although completely convincing to those who, like myself, have\nwitnessed many of them, under very varied conditions, have\nnevertheless not yet passed into that desired stage at which one may\nbe able to repeat them before any observer, at any moment. At present\nthey are proved by the same kind of evidence as certain rare\npathological phenomena (I do not of course mean that telepathy is\nitself in any way a morbid product)--phenomena such as those\nsurprising rises and falls of the human temperature which are\nunpredictable, sporadic, and transitory, and must rest for their\nevidence on the good faith and accuracy of comparatively few\nobservers.\n\nYet these telepathic experiments have a very hopeful side. Experience\nhas already shown that the phenomena may be developed at any moment,\nbetween quite normal persons, and with no bad effects of any sort\nwhatever. Only we cannot tell except by actual trial, and trial of a\npatient and careful kind, between _which_ persons, out of all mankind,\nthese telepathic messages can be made to run.\n\nWhat we desire, then, what we ask of all who sympathize with our\nefforts, is neither premature praise nor equally premature theorizing,\nbut active co-operation in our endeavor to improve and extend our\nexperiments in thought-transference. We want to get our telepathic\ntransmissions distant, definite, and reproducible.\n\nIt is desirable to get them _at long distances_,--not because it is\nreally more marvellous that thought should thus travel a million miles\nthan that it should travel a millimetre,--but for the merely\npractical reason that at long distances it is easy to avoid two main\nsources of error, namely, _hyperaesthesia_, which may be quite\nunconscious, and _fraudulent codes_, which may be hard to detect.\nMost, nay, probably all, of the so-called experiments in\nthought-transference which have been offered by \"thought-readers,\"\netc., from the public platform, have really had nothing at all to do\nwith thought-transference, have depended either on abnormal delicacy\nof tactile and other sensory perception, or on the adroit use of\npreconcerted signals. It is only when the observer has complete\ncontrol of the conditions (which he never has in any public\nexhibition), that it is worth while to conduct experiments between two\npersons in the same room.\n\nAnd even in cases where the good faith--the _conscious_ good faith--of\neveryone concerned is above suspicion, it must be remembered that\nthere are both unconscious actions and unconscious perceptions which\nmay wholly vitiate an experiment. The rule should be so to arrange the\nexperiment that the percipient _cannot_ profit by unconscious\nindications; that he cannot (for example) see the expression of the\nagent's face, or hear the sound of his pencil as he writes down a\nnumber to be guessed. Such precautions should be a matter of course;\nand when they are taken, these experiments near at hand are certainly\nthe easiest and best for private experimenters to begin with, although\nthe desirability of gradually increasing the distance between the\npersons concerned should always be kept in view.\n\nLet A and P begin their trial, then, in quiet and calm of mind; let A,\nthe agent, sit behind P, the percipient, and not in contact. Let A be\nprovided with a full pack of cards, in which he replaces the card\ndrawn, after each trial, or with a bag of known numbers--say from ten\nto one hundred--a range convenient for computation--in which bag he\nreplaces and shuffles up the number drawn, after each trial. Let him\ndraw a card (to take cards as our example) say, \"Now!\" and gaze\nfixedly at it. Let P keep his mind as blank as possible, and make his\nguess only when some kind of image of color, suit, or pips, in some\nway floats into his mind. His first guess only must be counted, and\nmust be received in silence. Let A continue this process for some\nprearranged number of times, say ten times, and record accurately all\nthe experiments made. Let him renew the process, with intervals of\nhours or days between each batch of trials, until he has some hundreds\nof results to analyze. Then let him send his results, with description\nof the conditions under which the trials were made, to Dr. Richard\nHodgson, 5 Boylston Place, Boston, Mass. Dr. Hodgson will tell him if\nit is worth his while to go on, and will advise as to modifications in\nthe form of experiment.\n\nThese hints must here suffice as to experiments made close at hand.\nBut experiment, or observation verging into experiment, is often\npossible at long distances as well. It often happens that some one\ntells me that he (or she) has so peculiar a sympathy with some given\nfriend that what one of the pair is actually feeling or thinking at a\ndistance is reproduced by the sensation or thought of the other. To\nsuch communications my invariable reply is, \"Keep a 'psychical' diary.\nPut down therein at once every incident which you intend to count, if\nit turns out (so to say) a telepathic success, and no incident which\nyou do _not_ intend to count. Let your friend keep a similar diary,\nwithout showing it to you; after a few months let me compare the two\ndiaries with one another.\"\n\nI am not armed with supernatural, or even with statutory powers; and\nmy informants have for the most part thought that they had obliged me\nquite enough if they _promised_ to do as I told them. But just as I\nwas beginning to imitate the dictum, \"Miracles do not happen,\" with\nthe dictum, \"Psychical diaries are not kept,\" the lady termed Miss\nX----, in Proceedings XIV. and XVI., came to furnish an exception, to\nmy rule. I shall not attempt to summarize the \"Record of Telepathic\nand Other Experiences\" in Proceedings XVI.; but I trust that it may be\nthe prototype of many similar records, which can be kept the more\neasily now that this example has been set.\n\nI will give in brief, one American example (to be found at length in\nS. P. R. Proceedings XVIII.) of well-recorded telepathic transmission.\nThe incident thus transferred is trivial and even ludicrous; the fact\nof the transference was absolutely useless. But the case is not only\nnone the worse for this; it is all the better. When we are trying to\nprove that such transmission exists, we want to keep clear, if we can,\nof emotional complications. If P is brooding over A's approaching\ndeath, and sees a figure of A, then, even if the hour coincides, we\ncannot help a suspicion that the brooding may have produced the\nfigure. But few, I think, will explain the following incident as a\nmere outcome of morbid sentimentality. We owe it to the kindness of\nDr. Elliott Coues, who knows both ladies concerned, and happened to\ncall on Mrs. C---- the very day on which that lady received the\nfollowing letter from her friend, Mrs. B----.\n\n                                   _Monday Evening, January 14, 1889._\n\n     MY DEAR FRIEND,--I know you will be surprised to receive a note\n     from me so soon, but not more so than I was to-day, when you were\n     shown to me clairvoyantly, in a somewhat embarrassed position. I\n     doubt very much if there was any truth in it; nevertheless, will\n     relate it, and leave you to laugh at the idea of it.\n\n     I was sitting in my room sewing, this afternoon, about two\n     o'clock, when what should I see but your own dear self; but,\n     heavens! in what a position. Now, I don't want to excite your\n     curiosity too much, or try your patience too long, so will come\n     to the point at once. You were falling up the front steps in the\n     yard. You had on your black skirt and velvet waist, your little\n     straw bonnet, and in your hand were some papers. When you fell,\n     your hat went in one direction and the papers in another. You got\n     up very quickly, put on your bonnet, picked up the papers, and\n     lost no time getting into the house. You did not appear to be\n     hurt, but looked somewhat mortified. It was all so plain to me\n     that I had ten to one notions to dress myself and come over and\n     see if it were true, but finally concluded that a sober,\n     industrious woman like yourself would not be stumbling around at\n     that rate, and thought I'd best not go on a wild goose chase.\n     Now, what do you think of such a vision as that? Is there any\n     possible truth in it? I feel almost ready to scream with laughter\n     whenever I think of it; you did look _too_ funny, spreading\n     yourself out in the front yard. \"Great was the fall thereof.\"\n\nThis letter came to us in an envelope addressed: Mrs. E. A. C----, 217\nDel. Ave., N. E., Washington, D. C., and with the postmarks,\nWashington, D. C., Jan. 15, 7 A. M., 1889, and Washington, N. E. C.\nS., Jan. 15, 8 A. M. Some further letters in the postmarks are\nillegible.\n\nNow the point is that every detail in this telepathic vision was\ncorrect. Mrs. C---- had actually (as she tells me in a letter dated\nMarch 7, 1889) fallen in this way, at this place, in the dress\ndescribed, at 2.41, on January 14. The coincidence can hardly have\nbeen due to chance. If we suppose that the vision preceded the\naccident, we shall have an additional marvel, which, however, I do not\nthink that we need here face. \"About 2,\" in a letter of this kind, may\nquite conceivably have meant 2.41.\n\nThe _definiteness_ of the details here reproduced, is all, I think,\nthat we can reasonably desire. But most important, and I fear, most\ndifficult to obtain, of all the qualities of our ideal telepathic\nexperiment, is that of _reproducibility_. This is, I think, a\ndifficulty which inheres in the very nature of the phenomenon itself.\nWe are mainly concerned here with the powers not of the waking or\nempirical, but of the submerged or unconscious self. The transference\nof the telepathic message, though it may be helped by conscious\nconcentration, takes place (as I hold) mainly in strata of our being\nwhich lie below the threshold of ordinary consciousness. It seems as\nthough the influence of the _percipient's_ conscious self, at any\nrate, were merely hurtful to the experiment, so that to get the\npercipient at his best we have to catch him in a state of original\ninnocence which he cannot long maintain. It too often has happened\nthat so soon as his own curiosity was roused, so soon as he began to\nspeculate on the process which was going on, and to wonder how he\ncaught the impression, so soon did the impression cease to travel, and\nhis unconscious self could send its message upwards no more.\n\nI am disposed to think that for the present it is to hypnotism that we\nmust look for cases where the telepathic message can be sent\nrepeatedly and at will. It is in the rare cases of _sommeil a\ndistance_, or such cases as those of Mrs. Pinhey, Dr. Hericourt, and\nDr. Gley, reported in Vol. II. of _Phantasms of the Living_, that\nthere has as yet been the nearest approach to that clock-work\nregularity and repeatability which is the experimental ideal. It is,\ntherefore, on the medical profession that I would urge the importance\nof watching for cases of this sort, which are likely to be found more\nfrequently as the therapeutic use of hypnotism extends.\n\nI have mentioned several different forms in which these telepathic\nmessages may be observed by careful seekers. I certainly do not assert\nthat the power or agency operative in each of these cases is precisely\nthe same. On the contrary, I think it probable that there are\nvarieties and complexities quite beyond our present speculation. But\nat least these cases fall for us under the same primary or obvious\ncategory; they are all cases where a thought, a feeling, an impulse, a\npicture, has been transferred from one mind to another without the\nagency of the recognized organs of sense.\n\nThere are some, both among friends and among opponents, who are\ninclined to represent telepathic experiment as a petty thing. \"What\ndoes it come to,\" say the opponents, \"even though you do get a few\nsilly thoughts or meaningless numbers out of one head into another?\"\n\"Enough of telepathy!\" say the friends; \"go on to something of vaster\nscope!\"\n\nThese friends and these opponents are not those who have best realized\nthe import of the telepathic claim. The true, the scientific\nopposition is of a quite different type. It asserts, not that the\nalleged discovery is a trifle which may be admitted with a sneer, but\nthat it involves a new departure in science greater than its advocates\ncan probably conceive, or have as yet come near to justify. Brushing\naside all our further extensions of theory, they take their stand\nsimply and decidedly against telepathy itself; and wisely so, for if\ntelepathy be once admitted, there is, as seems to me, no logical\nhalting-place until we reach a far-off point which I will not confuse\nmy present argument by attempting to specify.\n\nAnd over all this far-stretching field there is a harvest of\nexperiment, a harvest of observation, which only needs laborers to cut\nand carry, to thresh and winnow it. The reality, the extent, the\nimportance of the phenomena which lie around us, unnoted and\nunexplained, are more fully recognized as each year's work adds at\nonce to our knowledge and to our corresponding consciousness of\nignorance. Such recognition, I say, is beginning to spread; but it has\nthus far brought with it all too little of active co-operation in the\nwork of inquiry, that work which in America Dr. Hodgson, backed by\nProf. W. James and Prof. W. S. Langley, pushes forward at once with\ncaution and with energy. Those who wish our work to succeed must in\nsome way help towards its success. No enterprise, I think, could\npromise more fairly. But we are still at the beginning of that great\nwork and the end is far.\n\n\n\n\nFASHION'S SLAVES.\n\nBY B. O. FLOWER.\n\n\nThe last session of the International Council of Women discussed no\nquestion of greater importance to civilization than that of dress\nreform. The fact that this world's congress, representing the most\nthoughtful, conscientious, and broad-minded women of our age, has\ntaken up this subject with a firm determination to accomplish a\nrevolution which shall mean health and happiness to the oncoming\ngeneration, is itself a prophecy pregnant with promise of a\nsubstantial and enduring reform. It will not be surprising if in the\nnear future it is found that this earnest though somewhat timid\ndiscussion marked a distinct step in the world's progress; certainly\nit was the most significant and authoritative utterance from united\nwomanhood that has yet been made touching a problem which most vitally\naffects civilization.\n\nTo the student of sociology nothing is more perplexing or discouraging\nthan society's persistency in blindly clinging to old standards and\noutgrown ideals which can no longer be defended by reason; and this is\nnowhere more marked than in the social world where fashion has\nsuccessfully defied all true standards of art, principles of common\nsense, rules of hygiene and what is still more important, the laws of\nethics which underlie all stable or enduring civilizations.\n\nAt the very threshold of this discussion, I ask the reader to, as far\nas possible, divest his mind of all prejudice arising from\npreconceived opinions, and view in a perfectly candid and judicial\nmanner this problem upon which the last word will not be spoken until\nwoman is emancipated. As long as free discussion is tabooed and\nconservatism finds it possible to dismiss the question with a flippant\njest, a ribald joke, or a basely unjust imputation, the old order will\nstand; partly because woman feels her helplessness and largely because\nso few people stop to trace cause and effect or patiently reason upon\nresults of the most serious character. Conservatism is strongly\nentrenched in the minds of the millions, and to a certain degree\nmental lethargy broods over the world. It is true that in woman's\nsphere to-day mental activity is more marked than in any other age,\nand the best brains and most thoughtful women of our time are boldly\ndenouncing the bondage of fashion and bravely pleading for such\nradical reforms in dress as will secure to womanhood health and\ncomfort, while being genuinely artistic and graceful, breathing true\nrefinement and conforming to aesthetic principles rather than the\ncaprice of fashion. To me there is something infinitely pathetic in\nthe brave protests that have from time to time flashed from the\noutraged sensibilities of those who represent the very flower of\nAmerican womanhood, when discussing this subject, for running through\ntheir almost every utterance is the plaintive note of helplessness,\nmingled with the consciousness of the justice of the cause for which\nthey plead. The talented and universally respected Mrs. Abba Woolson\nGould some years ago thus gave expression to her feelings when writing\nof the long, heavy, disease-producing skirts of women:\n\n     Do what we will with them, they still add enormously to the\n     weight of clothing, prevent cleanliness of attire about the\n     ankles, overheat by their tops the lower portion of the body,\n     impede locomotion, and invite accidents. In short, they are\n     uncomfortable, unhealthy, unsafe, and unmanageable. Convinced of\n     this fact by patient and almost fruitless attempts to remove\n     their objectionable qualities, the earnest dress-reformer is\n     loath to believe that skirts hanging below the knee are not\n     transitory features in woman's attire, as similar features have\n     been in the dress of men, and surely destined to disappear with\n     the tight hour-glass waists and other monstrosities of the\n     present costume.... Any changes the wisest of us can to-day\n     propose are only a mitigation of an evil which can never be done\n     away till women emerge from this vast swaying, undefined, and\n     indefinable mass of drapery into the shape God gave to His human\n     beings.\n\nMary A. Livermore voices a sad and terrible truth when she observes:\n\n     The invalidism of young girls is usually attributed to every\n     cause but the right one; to hard study--co-education--which, it\n     is said, compels overwork that the girl student may keep up with\n     the young men of her class; too much exercise, or lack of rest\n     and quiet at certain periods when nature demands it. All the\n     while the physician is silent concerning the glove-fitting,\n     steel-clasped corset, the heavy, dragging skirts, the bands\n     engirding the body, the pinching, deforming boot, and the ruinous\n     social dissipation of fashionable society. These will account for\n     much of the feebleness of young women and girls. For they exhaust\n     nervous force, make freedom of movement a painful impossibility,\n     and frequently shipwreck the young girl before she is out of\n     port.\n\n     We have a theory, generally accepted in civilized society, which\n     we never formulate in speech but to which we are very loyal in\n     practical life. This theory, put in plain language, is as\n     follows: God knows how to make boys; and, when He sends a boy\n     into the world, it is safe to allow him to grow to manhood as God\n     made him. He may be too tall or too short, for our notions, too\n     stout or too thin, too light or too dark. Nevertheless, it is\n     right, for God knows how to make boys. But when God sends a girl\n     into the world, it is not safe to allow her to grow to womanhood\n     as He has made her. Some one must take her and improve her\n     figure, and give her the shape in which it is proper for her to\n     grow.\n\n     Accordingly, the young girl comes some day from the dressmaker\n     with this demand: \"Mme. ---- (the dressmaker) says that I am\n     getting into horrid shape, and must have a pair of corsets\n     immediately.\" The corsets are bought and worn, and the physical\n     deterioration begins.\n\nMiss Frances E. Willard thus touchingly refers to the bondage of\nfashion:\n\n     \"But there came a day--alas! the day of my youth--on which I was\n     as literally caught out of the fields and pastures as was ever a\n     young colt; confronted by a long dress that had been made for me,\n     corsets and high-heeled shoes that had been bought, hair-pins and\n     ribbons for my straying locks, and I was told that it simply\n     'wouldn't answer' to 'run wild' another day. Company from the\n     city was expected; I must be made presentable; 'I had _got_ to\n     look like other folks.'\n\n     \"That was a long time ago, but I have never known a single\n     physically reasonable day since that sweet May morning, when I\n     cried in vain for longer lease of liberty.\"\n\nMrs. Frances E. Russell, whose significant paper read at the Woman's\nCouncil elicited universal approbation, in the following extract from\nher able essay in THE ARENA sounds a more hopeful note than her\nillustrious predecessors, for she is nearer the dawn, and the horizon\nof woman's freedom is broadening:\n\n     The fiction that women have no legs is now fully discredited, for\n     in the show windows of the largest dry goods stores stand dummies\n     of the female figure dressed only in the combination undersuit\n     made of wool or silk \"tights,\" covering the whole body, except\n     the head, hands, and feet. By this time everyone must know that\n     woman, like man, is a biped. Can anyone give a good reason why\n     she must lift an unnecessary weight of clothing with every step\n     she takes,--pushing forward folds of restricting drapery and\n     using almost constantly, not only her hands, but her mental power\n     and nervous energy to keep her skirts neat and out of the way of\n     harm to herself and others?\n\n     Much discussion has been wasted over the question whether a woman\n     should carry the burden of her voluminous drapery from the\n     shoulders or the hips. Why must she carry this unnecessary weight\n     at all?\n\n     Now let us join hands, all lovers of liberty, in earnest\n     co-operation to free American women from the dominion of foreign\n     fashion. Let us, as intelligent women, with the aid and\n     encouragement of all good men, take this important matter into\n     our own hands and provide ourselves with convenient garments; a\n     costume that shall say to all beholders that we are equipped for\n     reasonable service to humanity.\n\nConservative critics have so frequently misrepresented those who have\nhonestly pleaded for dress reform, that it is no longer safe to be\nfrank, and this fact alone has constrained numbers of earnest writers\nfrom expressing their sentiments who have felt it their duty to speak\nin behalf of health, beauty, and common sense; indeed so certain is\none to be misrepresented who handles this subject in anything like a\nreasonable and unconventional manner, and so surely will his views be\nassailed as improper, owing to the age-long cast of conventional\nthought, that were it not that this question so intimately affects\nfundamental, ethical, and hygienic laws, and bears such a vitally\nimportant relation to true progress, I frankly admit that I doubt\nwhether I should have the courage to discuss it. But I find it\nimpossible to remain silent, believing as I do most profoundly that\nthe baleful artificial standards so long tolerated must be abolished,\nthat the fetish of the nineteenth century civilization must be\noverthrown, and that it is all-important that people be thoroughly\nacquainted with the far-reaching and basic significance of this\nproblem, through courageous and persistent agitation and education, in\norder that manhood and womanhood be brought up to the ethical plane\nwhich marks enduring civilization. In the examination of this subject\nI desire to very briefly notice it from aesthetic, hygienic, and\nethical points of view. It is a singular fact that every effort made\ntoward a healthful and common sense reform in woman's apparel has been\nassailed as inartistic or immoral; while fashions at once disgusting,\nindecent, destructive to life and health, and degrading to womanhood\nhave been readily sanctioned by conventionalism. This antagonistic\nattitude toward any movement for an improvement in woman's attire\nfounded on the laws of health, art, comfort, and common sense was\ncharacteristically expressed in a recent editorial in a leading Boston\ndaily, wherein the writer solemnly observed:\n\n     The simple truth is, the great majority of the women _appreciate\n     the fact that it is their mission to be beautiful_, and the\n     dress reformers have never yet devised any garment to assist the\n     women in fulfilling this mission.\n\n[Illustration: From 1860 to 1865. The era of hoop-skirts.]\n\n[Illustration: From 1860 to 1865. The hoop-skirt era. The difficult\nfeat of tying on a bonnet.]\n\nThe author of the above fairly represents the attitude of conventional\nthought,--its servility to fashion, its antagonism to reformative\nmoves. The implied falsehood that fashion represents beauty and art,\nor is the servant of aestheticism has been reiterated so often that\nthousands have accepted it as truth.\n\n[Illustration: 1870 to 1875. The era of the enormous bustle and train\nof sweeping dimensions.]\n\n[Illustration: 1870 to 1875. The era of the enormous bustle and train\nof sweeping dimensions.]\n\nIn order to expose its falsity, I have reproduced in this paper plates\ntaken from leading American and English fashion monthlies during the\npast three decades, in each of which it is noticeable that extremes\nhave been reached. In 1860-65, the hoop-skirt held sway, and the wasp\nwaist was typical of beauty. Then no lady was correctly attired\naccording to the prevailing idea who did not present a spectacle\ncuriously suggestive of a moving circus tent. During this era four or\nfive fashionably dressed women completely filled an ordinary\ndrawing-room; while the sidewalk was often practically monopolized by\nmoving monstrosities, save when in front or behind the formidable\nswinging cages moved escorts, who with no less servility than American\nwomanhood bowed to the frivolous and criminal caprice of the modern\nBabylon.\n\nBut fashion is nothing if not changeable; fancy not art guides her\nmind. What to-day types beauty, is by her own voice to-morrow voted\nindecent and absurd. Thus we find in the period extending from 1870 to\n1875 an entirely new but none the less ridiculous or injurious extreme\nprevails. The wonderful swinging cage, the diameter of which at the\nbase often equaled the height of the encased figure, has disappeared,\nbeing no longer considered desirable or aesthetic, and in its place we\nhave prodigious bustles and immense trains, by which an astonishing\nquantity of material is thrown behind the body, suggesting in some\ninstances a toboggan slide, in others the unseemly hump on the back of\na camel. This is the era of the enormous bustle and the train of\nsweeping dimensions.[1]\n\n      [1] During this period the ingenuity of man came to woman's\n          rescue, by the invention of an interesting, and, judging by\n          its popularity, exceedingly serviceable contrivance known as\n          a dress elevator, which enabled ladies to instantly elevate\n          their enormous trains when they came to a particularly muddy\n          and filthy crossing.\n\nWhen we examine the prevailing styles which marked this period, we are\nstruck with amazement at the power exerted by fashion over the\nintellect and judgment of society. Imagine the shame and humiliation\nof a woman of fashion, endowed by nature or afflicted by disease with\nsuch an unsightly hump on the back as characterized the fashionable\ntoilet of this period!\n\n[Illustration: 1870 to 1875: \"Suggesting in some instances a toboggan\nslide; in others, the unseemly hump on the back of a camel.\"]\n\nToward the end of the seventies, we find another extreme reached,\nwhich if possible was more absurd and injurious than those which\nmarked the early days of this decade. This was the period of the\ntie-back, or narrow skirts and enormous trains. As in 1860 fashion's\nslaves vied with one another in their effort to cover the largest\npossible circular space, now their ambitions lay in the direction of\nthe opposite extreme:[2] the skirts must be as narrow as possible even\nthough it greatly impeded walking, for as will be readily observed all\nfree use of the lower limbs was out of the question during the reign\nof the \"tie-back.\"\n\n      [2] It was in the midst of the period of the tie-backs that\n          _Harper's Bazar_ published two striking cartoons\n          illustrating the poem given below. One represented a poor\n          man's wife, \"The slave of toil,\" and was pathetically\n          powerful in its fidelity to truth; the other, drawn by the\n          powerful Nast, represented a society lady of the day attired\n          in the reigning tie-back, measuring at the hips a little\n          more than double the width a short distance below the knees.\n          This slave was chained to fashion's column.\n\n\n                             SISTER SLAVES.\n\n          You think there is little of kinship between them?\n            Perhaps not in blood, yet there's likeness of soul;\n          And in bondage 'tis patent to all who have seen them\n            That both are fast held under iron control.\n          The simpering girl, with her airs and her graces,\n            Is sister at heart to the hard-working drudge;\n          Two types of to-day, as they stand in their places;\n            Whose lot is the sadder I leave you to judge.\n\n          One chained to the block is the victim of Fashion;\n            Her object in life to be perfectly dressed;\n          Too silly for reason, too shallow for passion,\n            She passes her days 'neath a tyrant's behest.\n          Thus pinioned and fettered, and warily moving,\n            Lest looping should fail her, or band come apart:\n          What room is there left her for thinking or loving?\n            What noble ambition can enter her heart?\n\n          And one, the worn wife of a grizzled old farmer;\n            She kneads the great loaves for the \"men-folks\" to eat.\n          In the wheat-fields the green blades are springing like armor;\n            Afar in the forests the flowers are sweet.\n          She lifts not her eyes. Within kitchen walls narrow\n            Her life is pent up. The most hopeless of slaves,\n          Though weary and jaded in sinew and marrow,\n            She never complains. Women _rest_ in their graves.\n\n          Twin victims, for which have we tenderest pity--\n            For mother and wife toiling on till she dies,\n          Or the frivolous butterfly child of the city,\n            All blind to the glory of earth and of skies?\n          Is it fate, or ill fortune, hath woven about you\n            Strong meshes which ye are too helpless to break?\n          Shall we scornfully wonder, or angrily flout you,\n            Or strive from their torpor your minds to awake?\n\n          Yet, Venus of old, with your queenly derision,\n            How you would disdain the belle's tawdry array!\n          _Free footsteps untrammelled_, cool hand of decision,\n            Sweet laugh like bells pealing, were yours in the day\n          When you reigned over men by the might of your beauty;\n            No fetters were o'er you in body or brain;\n          The world would bow down in the gladness of duty\n            Could you but awake in your splendor again.\n\n          And, Pallas and Venus, if now you were holding\n            A talk over womanhood, what would you say,\n          The words of wise counsel while you were unfolding,\n            If some one should show you these pictures to-day?\n          I dream of your faces: divinest compassion\n            Would yearn the poor toiler to pity and save;\n          And your largeness of scorn would descend on the fashion\n            Which binds, unresisting, the idler a slave.\n\n[Illustration: 1878. The period of the tie-back, narrow skirts, and\nenormous trains.]\n\nThe reaction in favor of a more sensible dress which followed was of\nbrief duration. During this time, however, the long trains were seldom\nseen, and thoughtful women began to hope that the arbitrary rule of\nfashion was over. It was not long, however, before the panier period\narrived, and what was popularly known as the pull-back was accepted as\nthe correct style in fashion's world. Of this latter conceit little\nneed be said, for it has so recently passed from view that all\nremember its peculiarity, which to the ordinary observer seemed to be\na settled determination on the part of its originators to render\nwalking as difficult and fatiguing as possible, while fully exposing\nthe outline of the wearer's body below the waist at every step. What\nin '60 or '70 would have been accounted the height of indecency, is in\nthe eighties perfectly proper in the fashionable world. During this\ntime it was not enough to have the skirts very narrow, they must at\nevery step give the outline of the limbs [or as our Minnesota solon\nwould put it, _nether_ limbs], hence we find the pull-backs in which\n\"two shy knees appeared clad in a single trouser.\"\n\n[Illustration: The tie-backs of 1878 and 1879.]\n\n[Illustration: The pull-back of 1886.]\n\n[Illustration: Fashionable walking costume early in the seventies.\nWoman appreciating the fact \"that it is her mission to be beautiful.\"\nSee page 405.]\n\n[Illustration: Fashionable walking costume in the early sixties. Woman\nappreciating the fact \"that it is her mission to be beautiful.\" See\npage 405.]\n\nSuch have been the inconsistencies, incongruities, and absurdities of\nfashion as illustrated in the past three decades, in view of which one\nmay well ask whether in fashion's eyes women are such paragons of\nugliness that these ever-varying styles (introduced, we are seriously\ninformed, to conserve to her beauty,) are absolutely essential, and by\nwhat rule of art can we explain the fact that the ponderous hoopskirt\nwas the essential requirement of beauty in the sixties and the\nenormous bustles demanded in the seventies. The truth is, fashion is\nsupremely indifferent alike to all laws of art and beauty, health and\nlife, decency and propriety--a fact that must be patent to any\nthoughtful person who examines the prevailing styles of a generation.\nI submit that the wildest extremes to which well-meaning but\ninjudicious dress reformers have gone in the past have been marked by\nnothing more inartistic than the costume of the reigning belle in\n1860. Each successive decade has been marked by an extreme which,\nsurveyed from the vantage ground of the present, is as ridiculously\nabsurd as it has been wanting in beauty Nowhere have the laws of true\nart been so severely ignored as in the realm of fashion. Yet this view\nof the problem palls into insignificance when we come to examine the\nquestion from the standpoint of health and life.\n\nOne would think that after thousands of years of sickness and death,\nwith all the advantages of increased education and a broadening\nintellectual horizon, we would have arrived at such an appreciation of\nthe value of health and the solemn duty we owe to posterity, as to\ncompel this consideration to enter into our thoughts when we adopted\nstyles of dress; yet nowhere is the weakness of our present\ncivilization more marked or its hollowness so visible, even to the\nsuperficial thinker, as in the realm of fashion, _where every\nconsideration of health and even of life, and all sense of\nresponsibility to future generations are brushed aside as trivialities\nnot to be seriously considered_. In vain have physicians and\nphysiologists written, lectured, and demonstrated the fatal results of\nyielding to fashion. The learned Doctor Trall in writing on this\nsubject wisely observes:\n\n     The evil effects of tight-lacing, or of lacing at all, and of\n     binding the clothing around the hips, instead of suspending it\n     from the shoulders, can never be fully realized without a\n     thorough education in anatomy and physiology. And if the\n     illustrations[3] here presented should effect the needed reform\n     in fashionable dress, the resulting health and happiness to the\n     human race would be incalculable; for the health of the mothers\n     of each generation determines, in a very large measure, the vital\n     stamina of the next. It is obvious that, if the diameter of the\n     chest, at its lower and broader part, is diminished by lacing, or\n     any other cause, to the extent of one fourth or one half, the\n     lungs B, B, are pressed in towards the heart, A, the lower ribs\n     are drawn together and press on the liver, C, and spleen, E,\n     while the abdominal organs are pressed downward on the pelvic\n     viscera. The stomach, D, is compressed in its transverse\n     diameter; both the stomach, upper intestines, and liver are\n     pressed downward on the kidneys, M, M, and on the lower portions\n     of the bowels [the intestinal tube is denoted by the letters f,\n     j, and k,] while the bowels are crowded down on the uterus, i,\n     and bladder, g. _Thus every vital organ is either functionally\n     obstructed or mechanically disordered_, and diseases more or less\n     aggravated, the condition of all. In post-mortem examinations the\n     liver has been found deeply indented by the constant and\n     prolonged pressure of the ribs, in consequence of tight-lacing.\n     The brain-organ, protected by a bony inclosure, has not yet been\n     distorted externally by the contrivances of milliners and\n     mantuamakers; but, lacing the chest, by interrupting the\n     circulation of the blood, prevents its free return from the\n     vessel of the brain, and so permanent congestion of that organ,\n     with constant liability to headache, vertigo, or worse\n     affections, becomes a \"second nature.\" The vital resources of\n     every person, and all available powers of mind and body, are\n     measurable by the respiration. Precisely as the breathing is\n     lessened, the length of life is shortened; not only this, but\n     life is rendered correspondingly useless and miserable while it\n     does exist. It is impossible for any child, whose mother has\n     diminished her breathing capacity by lacing, to have a sound and\n     vigorous organization. If girls will persist in ruining their\n     vital organs as they grow up to womanhood, and if women will\n     continue this destructive habit, the race must inevitably\n     deteriorate. It may be asserted, therefore, without exaggeration,\n     that not only the welfare of the future generations, but the\n     salvation of the race depends on the correction of this evil\n     habit. The pathological consequences of continued and prolonged\n     pressure on any vital structure are innutrition, congestion,\n     inflammation, and ulceration, resulting in weakness, waste of\n     substance, and destruction of tissue. The normal sensibility of\n     the part is also destroyed. No woman can ever forget the pain she\n     endured when she first applied the corsets; but in time the\n     compressed organs become torpid; the muscles lose their\n     contractile power, and she feels dependent on the mechanical\n     support of the corset. But the mischief is not limited to local\n     weakness and insensibility. The general strength and general\n     sensibility correspond with the breathing capacity. If she has\n     diminished her \"breath of life,\" she has just to that extent\n     destroyed all normal sensibility. She can neither feel nor think\n     normally. But in place of pleasurable sensations and ennobling\n     thoughts, are an indescribable array of aches, pains, weaknesses,\n     irritations, and nameless distresses of body, with dreamy\n     vagaries, fitful impulses, and morbid sentimentalities of mind.\n     And yet another evil is to be mentioned to render the catalogue\n     complete. Every particle of food must be aerated in the lungs\n     before it can be assimilated. It follows, therefore, that no one\n     can be well nourished who has not a full, free, and unimpeded\n     action of the lungs. In the contracted chest, the external\n     measurement is reduced one half; but as the upper portions of the\n     lungs cannot be fully inflated until the lower portions are fully\n     expanded, it follows that the breathing capacity is diminished\n     more than one half. It is wonderful how anyone can endure\n     existence, or long survive, in this devitalized condition; yet,\n     thousands do, and with careful nursing, manage to bring into the\n     world several sickly children. The spinal distortion is one of\n     the ordinary consequences of lacing. No one who laces habitually\n     can have a straight or strong back. The muscles being unbalanced\n     become flabby or contracted, unable to support the trunk of the\n     body erect, and a curvature, usually a double curvature, of the\n     spine is the consequence. And if anything were needed to\n     aggravate the spinal curvature, intensify the compression of the\n     internal viscera, and add to the general deformity, it is found\n     in the modern contrivance of stilted gaiters. These are made with\n     heels so high and narrow that locomotion is awkward and painful,\n     the centre of gravity is shifted \"to parts unknown,\" and the head\n     is thrown forwards and the hips projected backwards to maintain\n     perpendicularity.\n\n      [3] I have reproduced the admirable cuts found in Dr.\n          Trall's physiology, as they were essential to the\n          understanding of the text quoted, and also because they\n          convey more vividly than words the injury necessarily\n          sustained by those who persist in outraging nature and\n          violating the laws of their being by improper dress.\n\n[Illustration: The internal viscera.]\n\n[Illustration: Anterior view of thorax in the Venus of Medicis.]\n\n[Illustration: The same in a fashionable corset-wearing lady of\nto-day.]\n\nIn speaking of the destructiveness to health caused by woman's dress,\nProf. Oscar B. Moss, M. D., declares:\n\n     Although the corset is the chief source of constraint to the\n     kidneys, liver, stomach, pancreas, and spleen, forcing them\n     upward to encroach upon the diaphragm and compressing the lungs\n     and heart, its evils are rivalled by those resulting from\n     suspending the skirts from the waist and hips, by which means the\n     pelvic organs are forced downward and often permanently\n     displaced. Now, add to these errors a belt drawn snugly around\n     the waist, and we have before us a combination of the most\n     malignant elements of dress which it would be possible to invent.\n\n     The waist belt enforces the evils which the corset and skirts\n     inaugurate. Every proposition of anatomy and physiology bearing\n     upon this subject appeals to reason. Did the abdominal organs\n     require for their well-being less room than we find in the\n     economy of nature, less room would have been provided. Nature\n     bestows not grudgingly, neither does she lavish beyond the\n     requirements of perfect health.\n\n     The same laws which govern the nutrition of muscles, apply also\n     to the vital organs. Pressure that impedes circulation of blood\n     through them must suppress their functions proportionally. With\n     the lungs, heart, and digestive organs impaired by external\n     devices, which force them into abnormal relations, health is\n     impossible. Every other part of the body--nay, life\n     itself--depends upon the perfection of these organs. The ancients\n     fittingly called them the tripod of life.\n\n     Consumption, heart disease, dyspepsia, and the multiform phases\n     of uterine and ovarian diseases are among the natural and\n     frequent consequences of compressing the internal organs. Men\n     could not endure such physical indignities as women inflict upon\n     themselves. Should they attempt to do so, they would not long\n     hold the proud position of \"bread winners,\" which is now theirs\n     by virtue of their more robust qualities.\n\n[Illustration: Street costume. Spring, 1884.]\n\n[Illustration: Street costume. Summer, 1891. (Compare waist with\nanterior view of thorax of corset-wearing lady of to-day.) See page\n412.]\n\nIt is difficult to imagine a slavery more senseless, cruel, or\nfar-reaching in its injurious consequences than that imposed by\nfashion on civilized womanhood during the past generation. Her health\nhas been sacrificed, and in countless instances her life has paid the\npenalty; while posterity has been dwarfed, maimed, and enervated, and\nin body, mind, and soul deformed at its behests. In turn every part of\nher body has been tortured. On her head at fashion's caprice the hair\nof the dead has been piled. Hats and bonnets, wraps and gowns laden\nwith heavy beads and jet have as seriously impaired her health as they\nhave rendered her miserable; the tight lacing required by the wasp\nwaists has produced generations of invalids and bequeathed to\nposterity suffering that will not vanish for many decades. By it, as\nhas been pointed out by the authorities cited, every vital organ in\nthe body has been seriously affected. The heart and lungs, by nature\nprotected by a cage of bone, have been abnormally crushed in a space\nso contracted as to absolutely prohibit the free action upon which\nhealth depended; while the downward pressure was necessarily equally\ninjurious to her delicate organism. The tightly drawn corset has\nproved an unmitigated curse to the living and a legacy of misery and\ndisease to posterity. And this cruel deforming of the most beautiful\nof God's creations was said to be beautiful simply because fashion\nwilled it. Nor was this all; enormous bustles and skirts of prodigious\ndimension have borne their weight largely upon that part of her body\nwhich above all else should be absolutely free from pressure. By this\nmeans the most sensitive organs have been ruthlessly subjected to down\npressing weights which for exquisite torture and for the absolute\ncertainty of the long train of agony that must result, rival the\nheartless ingenuity of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages. Beyond this\ngeneration of debilitated and invalided mothers, rises a countless\nposterity robbed of its birthright of health while yet unborn.[4] A\npossible genius deformed and dwarfed by the weight of a fashionable\ndress; a brain which might have been brilliant rendered idiotic by the\nconstant pressure of a corset, and the wearisome weight of a \"stylish\"\ndress pressing about the hips; a child whose natural capacity might\nhave carried him to the seat of a Webster or into the laboratory of an\nEdison, condemned to drag a weakly, diseased, or deformed body through\nlife, with mind ever chained to the flesh, through the heartless\nimposition which fashion imposed on his mother! What thought can be\nmore appalling to a conscientious woman? Yet until a revolution is\naccomplished and a reign of reason and common sense inaugurated, this\ncrime against the unborn will continue. But some argue the days of\nthese extremes are past.\n\n      [4] In discussing the solemn duty mothers owe to their\n          offspring, Mrs. Annie Jenness Miller sensibly observes:--\n\n          Are women ignorant of the mischief they do to their\n          offspring, or are they indifferent to consequences? Has the\n          true maternal love become extinct, in this age of advanced\n          civilization, that women ignore all the laws of nature while\n          anticipating the glory of motherhood? We know not; yet we\n          often see what causes a thrill of pity in our soul for the\n          future of the child yet unborn: a mother laced within stiff\n          bones and steel, while the very instincts of being cry out\n          against the sin of it. Surely every child has a right to be\n          well born! Wealth may be a grand inheritance, but health is\n          a better one, as any poor suffering creature will testify,\n          whose misery the most expensive doctors have been called\n          upon to alleviate without avail. And how can a child be well\n          born unless its parents observe the laws of life bearing\n          upon the birth and rearing of children? It is impossible. If\n          a mother will so clothe herself that the vitality which\n          properly belongs to her baby becomes exhausted and\n          destroyed, the child is robbed, as a natural consequence,\n          and perhaps the weakened, puny, distorted, fretful little\n          creature, who is innocent of the cause of its own\n          sufferings, will live to become a curse to the world instead\n          of the blessing that it would have been had rational\n          conditions been observed before its birth.\n\n                 *       *       *       *       *\n\n          Tight corsets grudgingly loosened a quarter of an inch at a\n          time, heavy skirts, and all the evil conditions we are so\n          familiar with, are still retained as the months pass,\n          bringing ever nearer what should be the very happiest hour\n          of woman's existence--that in which she is to be intrusted\n          with the keeping, training, and guidance of a new human\n          soul. Perhaps her baby comes into the world dead or\n          deformed, perhaps deprived of certain of its faculties; or\n          it may be that it possesses life and all of its special\n          senses and organs in such a diminished degree that the whole\n          of its future becomes a pain rather than a joy, while its\n          miserable, puny structure remains a lasting reproach to its\n          parents as long as they live.\n\n[Illustration: VAGARIES OF FASHION. PREVAILING STYLES IN WALKING\nCOSTUMES DURING THE PAST THIRTY YEARS. (Four images for the years\n1860, 1872, 1878, and 1886.)]\n\nI answer not past, but they are assuming other forms. Since 1890\ndawned, the evils in some respects have been aggravated; for it must\nnot be forgotten that the daughters of the present decade have, in\norder to be fashionable, compressed beyond all healthful bounds the\nflesh of their arms, retarding circulation and inviting pneumonia and\nother ills. And in order to look stylish, thousands of women wear\ndress waists so tight that no free movement of the upper body is\npossible; indeed in numbers of instances ladies are compelled to put\ntheir bonnets on before attempting the painful ordeal of getting into\ntheir glove-fitting dress waists. Many young women to-day, yielding to\nthe spell of fashion, place the corset next to their flesh, while a\nstill greater number have merely the thinnest possible undershirt\nbetween the flesh and the corset, after which they tightly draw the\ndress waist until it meets. This seems incredible, but it is vouched\nfor by several ladies of my acquaintance, among whom are physicians\nwhose large practice among their sisters gives them peculiar\nfacilities for knowing the absolute facts. Health, posterity, and all\nthe instincts of the higher self are ruthlessly sacrificed to the\nfickle folly of fashion's criminal caprice. And we must not forget\nthat even now the sweeping train is coming in vogue and correctly\nattired ladies must consent to carry the germs of death with\nquantities of filth from the streets of our metropolitan cities into\ntheir homes of wealth and refinement. The corset and high-heeled\nshoes, the two most deadly foes to maternity and posterity, are also\nseen at the present time, on every hand.\n\nIf outraged nature could show the procession of mothers sacrificed on\nfashion's altar during the past generation, or unveil the suffering\nand deformity being borne by posterity at the present time, through\nthis slavery, the world would be thrilled with an indescribable\nhorror. Health, comfort, and human life have paid the penalty of a\ncriminal servitude to the modern juggernaut, before whose car millions\nof our women are bowing in abject servility, knowing full well that at\neach turn of its wheel new pains or fresh diseases will be inflicted.\nAnd what power controls and gives life to this mistress of modern\ncivilization? At whose behest is this crime against reason, life, and\nposterity perpetrated? _The cupidity of the shrewd and unscrupulous\nand the caprice of the shallow and frivolous._\n\n[Illustration: Vagaries of Fashion. A belle in the eighties.]\n\n[Illustration: Vagaries of Fashion. A belle early in the sixties.]\n\nThe moral aspect of this subject is even more grave than the\nhygienic. Anything which injures the physical body, whether it be\nlicentiousness, intemperance, gluttony, or vicious modes of dress, is\nnecessarily evil from an ethical point of view. Not simply because the\nlaw of our being decrees that whatever drains or destroys the physical\nvitality must sooner or later sap the vital forces of the brain; but\nalso because anything is ethically destructive which chains the mind\nto the realm of animality, when, unfettered, it should be unfolding in\nspiritual strength and glory. Thus it will be readily seen that any\narticle of clothing which presses upon the vitals of the body so as to\ncause displacement of the delicate organism, or so cumbersome as to\ncause general fatigue, anything, as is the case with high heels, which\nthrows the body out of its equilibrium, or any article of dress which\nmakes the mind ever conscious of the body by virtue of its\nuncomfortableness, is injurious from an ethical point of view. This\nfact which has been so generally overlooked will become more apparent,\nif for the sake of illustration we suppose for a moment that a plant\nis endowed with reason and sensation, and obeying the general law of\nits being, and the persuasive and inspiring influence of the sun and\nrain, is struggling to rise heavenward, and give to the radiant world\nabove its impearled wealth--its gorgeous bloom, its marvellous\nfragrance and fruit; but by virtue of the bonds of a prison-house\nbelow,--a small pot or a rocky encasement, its lifework is thwarted,\nits bloom, perfume, and fruit, if they come at all, are stunted,\nlimited, and imperfect. For generations woman's condition has been\nlike that of the plant, the wealth of her nature has been dwarfed, the\nmarvellous richness of her life has been marred by the imprisoned\nconditions of her body, and infinitely more sad and far-reaching have\nbeen the baleful consequences upon millions of her offspring, dwarfed,\nweakly, sickly, enfeebled in body and soul. _A mother whose thoughts\nhave voluntarily or involuntarily been held in the atmosphere of the\nphysical nature, necessarily imparts to her child a legacy of\nanimality which, like the corpse of a dead being, clings to the soul\nthroughout its pilgrimage._ Terrible as have been fashion's ravages on\nwoman's physical health, the curse which she has exerted when the\nethical aspect of the case is entertained, far transcends it.\n\nIt is a curious fact that almost all the opposition from women to\nproposed reforms in woman's dress comes from two extremes in society.\nThose who do no independent thinking, taking all their thoughts and\nopinions from the expressed views of the men with whom they associate,\nand the profoundly earnest and thoughtful, but conservative women of\nsociety. The opposition of the former class is merely the echo of\nhusbands, brothers, fathers, and lovers; but the others are moved by\nconviction, and for this reason their views are worthy of\nconsideration. They fear that any radical change will exert an immoral\ninfluence. Their minds are swayed by ancient thought which throughout\nall ages has cast its baleful shadow over the brain of the world. They\nare held under the spell of a conservatism which unquestioningly\ntolerates established institutions and existing orders, but has no\nconfidence in aught that proposes to break with these, even though the\nnew has reason and common sense clearly on its side. Thus time and\nagain fashions have been tolerated, although known to be morally\nenervating and singularly repulsive to all refined sensibilities;\nwhile proposals from without for reforms based on the laws of health\nand beauty have called forth the most determined opposition from this\nconscientious class, merely because the proposed innovations have not\nconformed to ideas entertained by virtue of prevailing fashions, and\nhave been therefore regarded immoral. And herein lies an important\npoint to be considered. Anything which is radically unlike prevailing\nstandards or styles to which we have become accustomed will impress\nmost persons as being immodest or indecent. _The unusual in dress is\nusually denounced as immoral_ because we are all prone to allow our\nprejudice to obscure our reason and o'ersway our judgment. This point\n_must_ be recognized before any real reform can be accomplished. When\nhumanity has grown sufficiently wise to reason broadly and view\nproblems on their own merits, aside from preconceived opinion or\ninherited prejudice, real instead of false standards of morality will\nprevail, and we shall cease to condemn anything as pernicious simply\nbecause it is unusual, radically unlike that to which we have been\naccustomed or revolutionary in its tendency. Let me make this if\npossible more apparent by an illustration, because it bears such an\nimportant relation to the main issue. If men had for ages worn long\nflowing robes, completely enveloping their bodies, but on a certain\nday with one accord exchanged them for a costume similar to that now\nseen throughout the civilized world, society would experience a\ndistinct shock; immoral, indecent, pernicious, and vulgar would mildly\nexpress the sentiment of conventional thought, until the same society\nhad become accustomed to the change. To us at the present time it is\ndifficult to conceive how women of sense and refinement submitted to\nthe swinging-cage paraphernalia of the sixties, or the Grecian bend\nof a later date. Yet in those days the severely plain skirts of the\npresent would have seemed positively indecent. It has been necessary\nto dwell on this thought in order to sufficiently remove existing\nprejudice to enable a fair consideration of the question in its\nbroader aspects. I have also introduced fair examples of prevailing\nfashions during the past generation and reproductions of Greek,\nShakespearian and other simple costumes worn at the present time by\nthe queens of the stage, to show by comparison how infinitely more\ngraceful, beautiful, comfortable, healthful, and by their very\nelements of comfort and healthfulness, ethically superior, are these\ncostumes to those which conventionalism sanctioned in the sixties,\nseventies, and eighties. Is there anything immodest, indecent, or\nsuggestive of impropriety in Mary Anderson in the graceful Grecian\ncostume of Parthenia, presented on the preceding page? Of the tens of\nthousands of people who have witnessed the performances of Madame\nModjeska, Miss Anderson, Julia Marlowe, or Margaret Mather in the\ncostumes given in this paper, it is not probable that a perceptible\nnumber have seen aught improper or even injuriously suggestive,\nnotwithstanding they are so radically unconventional. Surely no mind\naccustomed to think broadly and view problems on all sides, and\nunaccustomed to revel in the sewer of sensualism would see in the\nattire of these estimable ladies aught but costumes at once graceful,\nrefined, and apparently infinitely more comfortable and healthful than\nthose represented in any of the fashion plates I have reproduced, and\nwhich millions of women of good sense have under the stress of\nconventionalism been compelled to wear. Let us compare Miss Anderson's\nGrecian costume with the dress of a society belle in the seventies,\nwhich required from twenty to thirty yards of material, and when\ncompleted and fitted transformed the wearer into a monstrosity with an\nunsightly hump on the back, and a street cleaner of immense dimensions\ntrailing for several feet in her rear.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n[Illustration: _From copyrighted photo by Sarony._ MARY ANDERSON AS\nPARTHENIA.]\n\nFrom artistic, hygienic, economical, and ethical points of view, to\nsay nothing of common sense and comfort, is not the simple and\nbeautiful costume of Parthenia incomparably superior to that which\nmarked the second decade of the past generation? Would not woman\nto-day clothed in close-fitting garments of silk or woollen fabric,\nwith an outer robe or loose dress fashioned something after the order\nof the ancient Grecian or Roman pattern, be far more beautiful than\nshe is as a slave to fashion's fickle fancy, while the requirements of\nlife, health, and comfort would be fully met? Again, let us compare\none of the plates of the sixties with its wonderful expanse of skirt\nto the simple, graceful attire of Miss Marlowe as Viola in the\n\"Twelfth Night,\" and laying aside all preconceived opinions (with the\ninfluence which we have seen the unusual plays in fashioning our ideas\nof propriety,) does not our reason and common sense sustain the view\nthat the latter is far more refined, simple, and less vulgarly\nostentatious than the inflated garment of the early sixties? Or if we\ncompare the pictures of Modjeska and Miss Marlowe in Shakespearian\nroles, or that of the former in the neat and graceful gathered gown,\nand Miss Mather in the simple peasant dress, are they not one and all\nfar more chaste, artistic, sensible, and healthful than the\nhoop-skirt, bustle, and train, or the tie-back? Do not, however,\nunderstand that I advocate the introduction of any of these costumes.\nIt is for woman and woman alone to decide what she will wear, and in\nthis paper I am merely seeking to second the splendid work that has by\nher been inaugurated, and by speaking as one of the younger men of\nthis decade, to voice what I believe American womanhood will find to\nbe the sentiment of the rising generation, whenever she makes a\nconcerted effort to emancipate herself from the slavery of Parisian\nfashions. There are many evidences that the hour is ripe for a\nsensible revolt, and that if the movement is guided by wise and\njudicious minds it will be a success. Two things seem to me to be of\nparamount importance.\n\n[Illustration: _From copyrighted photo by Falk, N. Y._ JULIA MARLOWE.]\n\n[Illustration: HELENA MODJESKA.]\n\n[Illustration: MARGARET MATHER.]\n\n[Illustration: HELENA MODJESKA.]\n\n(1.) The commission of women acting for the Council should decide\ndefinitely upon the nature and extent of changes desired. The ideal\ncostume should be clearly defined and ever present in their mind. But\nit would be exceedingly unwise to attempt any radical change at once.\nThis has been more than anything the secret of the partial or total\nfailures of the movements of this character in the past. The changes\nshould be gradually made. Every spring and autumn let an advance step\nbe taken, and in order to do this an American fashion commission or\nbureau should be established, under the auspices of the dress reform\ncommittee of the Women's Council, which at stated intervals should\nissue bulletins and illustrated fashion plates. If the ideal is kept\nconstantly in view, and every season slight changes are made toward\nthe desired garment, the victory will, I believe, be a comparatively\neasy one, for the splendid common sense of the American women and men\nwill cordially second the movement. _Concerted action, a clearly\ndefined ideal toward which to move, and gradual changes_--these are\npoints which it seems to me are vitally important. One reason why the\nmost ridiculous and inartistic extremes in fashion have been generally\nadopted is found in this policy of gradual introduction, a fact which\nmust impress anyone who carefully examines the fashions of the past.\nFirst there has been a slight alteration, shortly becoming more\npronounced, and with each season it has grown more marked, although\nperhaps not for four or six years has the extreme been reached. At\nevery step there have been complaints from various quarters, but\nsteadily and persistently has the fashion been pushed until it reached\nits climax, after which we have had its gradual decline. This was the\nhistory of the hoop skirt and the Grecian bend, and has been that of\nmost of the extremes which have marked the past, and we can readily\nbelieve that in no other way could womanhood have been insnared by\nsuch supreme and criminal folly as has characterized fashion's\ncaprices in unnumbered instances.\n\n[Illustration: _From copyrighted photo by Falk, N. Y._ MISS MARLOWE AS\nVIOLA.]\n\n(2.) Another very essential point is the proper education of the girls\nof to-day, for to them will fall, in its richest fruition, the\nblessings of this splendid reform if it be properly carried on, and if\nthey be everywhere instructed to set health above fashion, and seek\nthe beauty of Venus de Medici rather than the pseudo beauty of the\nwretched, deformed invalid, who at the dictates of the modern Babylon\nhas trampled reason and common sense, health and comfort, the\nhappiness of self and the enjoyment of her posterity under foot. Teach\nthe girls to be American; to be independent; to scorn to copy fashion,\nmanners, or habits that come from decaying civilizations, and which\noutrage all sentiment of refinement, laws of life, or principles of\ncommon sense. The American girl is naturally independent and well\nendowed with reason and common sense. Once shown the wisdom and\nimportance of this _American_ movement, and she will not be slow to\ncordially embrace it. In many respects the hour is most propitious,\nowing to a combination of causes never before present, among which may\nbe mentioned the growing independence of American womanhood; the\nenlarged vision that has come to her through the wonderfully diverse\noccupations and professions which she has recently embraced; the\ngrowing consciousness of her ability to succeed in almost every\nvocation of life. The latitude enjoyed by her in matters of dress in\nthe mountains and seashore resorts; the growth of women's gymnasiums;\nthe emphasis given to hygienic instruction in schools, and the recent\nquiet introduction of a perfectly comfortable apparel for morning\nwear, which, strange to say, has originated where one would least\nexpect, among the most fashionable belles of the Empire city.[5] This\nsignificant innovation which is reported by the daily press, as\nbecoming quite popular among the young ladies of the wealthy districts\nof New York, consists of a comfortable blouse worn over knickerbocker\ntrousers. Clad in this comfortable attire, the belles come to\nbreakfast, nor do they subsequently change their dress during the\nmorning if they intend remaining indoors. If a sedate or fastidious\ncaller is announced, a beautiful tea-gown, which is at hand, is\nslipped into, and the young lady is appropriately clad to suit even\nconventional requirements. The bicycle and lawn tennis costumes now\nbecoming so popular also exercise a subtile but marked influence in\nfavor of rational dress reform, not only giving young ladies the\nwonderful comfort and health-giving freedom which for ages have been\ndenied her sex, but also by accustoming them to these radically\nunconventional costumes.[6]\n\n      [5] In speaking of this practical dress reform on the part\n          of the belles of New York, the Boston _Daily Globe_ recently\n          observed editorially: The great question now agitating the\n          fashionable women of Fifth Avenue is: \"Do you wear\n          knickerbockers?\"\n\n          Stripped of all apologetic circumlocution, \"knickerbockers\"\n          are simply loose, easy trousers, above which is worn a\n          becoming blouse waist, and thus attired, the belles of New\n          York come down to breakfast. Nor are the trousers\n          subsequently removed while the ladies are about the house,\n          unless some conservative caller is announced, when a stylish\n          tea-gown can be jumped into in a second, and the lady is in\n          faultless female costume.\n\n          That women should be handicapped in their locomotion in\n          their own homes is simply a relic of oriental slavery and\n          prudery, and the revolt against it is sensible and\n          wholesome. That they have come to stay is evident, while\n          improved costumes for shop girls, and other women engaged in\n          business every day in the year, are certain to follow in the\n          order of progress.--_Boston Globe._\n\n          It might be well also for the council to recommend the\n          formation of societies in each community where social or\n          society gatherings of those interested might be held at\n          stated intervals, at which all members would appear in\n          dresses made with special regard to health, comfort, and\n          beauty, and in which all garments would conform to the\n          general ideal recommended by the council.\n\n      [6] As the paper is being set up my attention has been attracted\n          to a remarkably sensible signed editorial in the Boston\n          _Sunday Globe_, of July 26, by the brilliant writer and\n          sensible thinker, Adelaide A. Claftin, from which I extract\n          the following:\n\n          Bishop Coxe's fulmination against the riding of bicycles by\n          women has attracted considerable attention, but to the\n          student of social movements it is not strange that Bishop\n          Coxe should object. The real oddity is that scarcely anybody\n          else, apparently, has objected.\n\n          That young girls from the best families should within a\n          short time have betaken themselves to whirling through the\n          public thoroughfares, like so many boys, is certainly a new\n          departure from all old fashioned canons of feminine decorum,\n          at least as startling as many that have brought down all\n          sorts of thunderbolts from pulpit and press. Had it been a\n          prerequisite that an amendment to the United States\n          Constitution, or even a statute of a State Legislature\n          should be obtained, the girls would doubtless have had to\n          wait many a weary year.\n\n          It is not long since another church dignitary, Dr. Morgan\n          Dix, objected to the entrance of girls into universities,\n          because it was not \"proper for young women to be exposed to\n          the gaze of young men, many of whom were less bent upon\n          learning than upon amusement.\"\n\n          However little she may realize it, every girl who rides her\n          steel horse is a vivid illustration of one of the greatest\n          waves of progress of this century, the advancement of women\n          in freedom and opportunity.\n\n          A wise physician once said that the opinion that a good\n          woman should stay closely at home had killed more women than\n          any other one cause. In the days of our grandmothers the\n          suggestion of regular gymnastic training or athletics for\n          girls would have been received with horror. It was hardly\n          proper for a woman to have any knowledge of the construction\n          of her physical system.\n\n          It is a curious historical fact that the first women\n          lecturers upon physiology were women's rights women, and\n          viewed by the majority of people as dangerous to female\n          modesty, while the Ladies' Physiological Institute in Boston\n          was at first much disapproved of by the clergy. So long,\n          too, as old-fashioned \"stays\" (laced up sometimes by the aid\n          of equally old-fashioned bed-posts) remained in vogue,\n          neither physiology nor athletics stood much chance with\n          women.\n\n          But the often derided dress reformer has had her way, to a\n          great extent. Bathing dresses, gymnastic and tennis suits\n          which would have frightened an eighteenth century dame into\n          one of her favorite fainting fits.\n\n          Meanwhile the girls have mounted their bicycles. Bless you,\n          my children; what endless vistas of good times are before\n          you! What glorious landscape views and ocean moonrises, what\n          freedom, what fresh, airy delight in young life and\n          strength!\n\n          Already one young doctor has departed with his bride on a\n          wedding tour to Texas, each upon a bicycle. Other strange\n          affairs will no doubt take place. By and by the bishops will\n          see no more irreverence in bidding Godspeed to girls\n          starting on a journey to California upon bicycles than to\n          girls departing to Europe on a steamship.\n\nAnother encouraging sign of the times is the increasing demand on the\ngreat and fashionable house of Liberty & Co., of London, for the Greek\nand other simple costumes by fashionable ladies, who are using them\nlargely for home wear. I have reproduced two recent styles of dresses\nmade by Liberty. All fabrics used are rich, soft, and elegant, and the\neffect is said to be gratifying to lovers of art, as well as far more\nhealthful and comfortable than the conventional dress. The most\nimportant fact, however, is the effect or influence which is sure to\nfollow this breaking away from the ruling fashions in wealthy circles.\nWhen conventionalism in dress is fully discredited, practical reform\nis certain to follow. The knell of the one means the triumph of the\nother.\n\n[Illustration: Some of Liberty's recent dresses. The Grecian Costume.]\n\n[Illustration: Some of Liberty's recent dresses. _The Juliet._]\n\nBelieving as I do that the cycle of woman has dawned, and that\nthrough her humanity will reach a higher and nobler civilization than\nthe world has yet known, I feel the most profound interest in all that\naffects her health, comfort, and happiness; for as I have before\nobserved, her exaltation means the elevation of the race. A broader\nliberty and more liberal meed of justice for her mean a higher\ncivilization, and the solution of weighty and fundamental problems\nwhich will never be equitably adjusted until we have brought into\npolitical and social life more of the splendid spirit of altruism,\nwhich is one of her most conspicuous characteristics. I believe that\nmorality, education, practical reform, and enduring progress wait upon\nher complete emancipation from the bondage of fashion, prejudice,\nsuperstition, and conservatism.\n\n\n\n\nUN-AMERICAN TENDENCIES.\n\nBY REV. CARLOS MARTYN, D. D.\n\n\nThe monarchial conception is that a few are born booted and spurred to\nride, and that the many are born saddled and bridled to be ridden. The\nrepublican theory is that \"Everybody is cleverer than anybody,\" to\nquote the epigram attributed to Talleyrand; and that government, in\nLincoln's phrase, should be \"of the people, by the people, and for the\npeople.\"\n\nThe United States is the only nation in history which has dared to\nbase itself upon an absolute trust in the people.\n\nThere have been republics (so-called) _ad infinitum_ and _ad nauseam_.\n\"Greece,\" cries one of the foremost of our orators, \"had her\nrepublics, but they were the republics of one freeman and ten slaves;\nand the battle of Marathon was fought by slaves unchained from the\ndoorposts of their master's houses. Italy had her republics; they were\nthe republics of wealth and skill and family, limited and\naristocratic. Holland had her republic, the republic of guilds and\nlandholders, trusting the helm of state to property and education. The\nSwiss republics were groups of cousins. And all these which, at their\nbest, held but a million or two within their narrow limits, have gone\ndown in the ocean of time.\"\n\nThe Spanish-American Republics are nondescripts. They owe their\nexistence to _pronunciamientos_. They are the puppets of successful\nsoldiers, and are administered by generals who follow one another like\nthe ghosts that walked in the vision of \"Richard Third,\" and do not\nhold office long enough to be photographed. They are based on mongrel\nraces, steeped in ignorance, cramped by superstition, and physically\nrotten before they get ripe.\n\nOur fathers built a commonwealth on the foundation of manhood. They\nrecognized no other qualification, save for a period of inconsistency,\n_color_; which, happily, is now wiped out of the fundamental law,\nthough not entirely out of popular prejudice.\n\nThe faith in the people which Jefferson, Sam Adams, and the men of '76\ncherished as the distinctive tenet of their political creed, has been\njustified by results. Their gigantic creation launches into the second\ndecade of its second century, belted with power, aggrandized with _El\nDorados_, the amazement of the world, the \"Arabian Nights\" translated\ninto every-day reality.\n\nUnfortunately, however, in the face of this unprecedented record of\nprosperity, certain un-republican tendencies begin to exhibit\nthemselves among us. These may well give thoughtful patriots startled\nconcern.\n\nHalf a century ago, before time had been annihilated by the telegraph,\nand distance abolished by steam, nations were comparatively isolated;\nand the American most of all. Europe was three thousand miles away.\nNow-a-days, the old world is next-door neighbor to the new. Saint\nJohn's apocalyptic vision is realized; there is \"no more sea.\" It is\nbridged by steamers, and flashed out of existence by the electric\ncable. What is the consequence? The consequence is that while Europe\nborrows many of our ideas, America borrows more of hers. With the\nincrease of travel, the growth of wealth, the enlargement of our\nleisurely class, there is an aping of English and German habits of\nthought and modes of life which are utterly repugnant to republican\ninstitutions. While Europe should seem to be almost ready to discard\nbaby-house distinctions and the embroidered rags of aristocracy,\nAmerica, strange to say, appears willing to put on and wear the\ndisreputable finery. We are becoming disagreeably familiar with what\nMr. Gladstone characterizes in an inspired phrase, as the _classes_ in\ncontrast with the _masses_.\n\nThis interchange of national customs comes inevitably from the\nfacilitated intercourse of our day, from the intimacy begotten by\ninter-marriage, by commerce, by travel. But it is sad if we are to\nborrow more than we lend, and if the balance of trade is to be\nperpetually against us. We must find or invent a remedy if\nrepublicanism is to survive. The widespread alarm felt among our\nhumbler citizens shows how real the danger is. Take, for instance, the\ngrowing distrust of universal suffrage manifested by our cultivated\nclasses. Certain journals, the organs of wealth and monopoly;\nsocial-science conventions, composed of pert specialists poisoned by\ncaste feeling; even pulpits, which should be the guardians and\nexponents of democracy,--cautiously, tentatively, but as positively as\nthey dare, discuss the propriety of restraining the ballot, and sigh\nfor a property or an educational qualification.\n\nNow, if there be one feature of American republicanism which is\nsupremely characteristic, it is universal suffrage. This\ninterpenetrates our political system as veins run through a block of\nmarble. The patriots and sages who framed our Constitution grouted it\nwith this principle. They believed and declared that it was safe to\ntrust men with self-government. They recognized, of course, the fact\nthat in every community there would be an element of ignorance and\ninefficiency. But by putting the ballot in every hand they\ndeliberately took bonds of wealth and culture to enlighten this\nignorance and train this inefficiency. They enlisted the self-interest\nof the Commonwealth on the side of popular education. They said,\npractically, to the well-to-do and to those who had interests at\nstake: See to it, if you would save your possessions, that you share\nthem with the poorest and the lowest, at least to the extent of\nlifting them to the level of self-control and self-respect. In fact,\nthis is the meaning of our free schools, of trial by jury, and of the\nballot-box. Tocqueville, whose insight into republican institutions\nwas marvellous, distinctly traces our prosperity, in his survey of\nAmerican democracy, to universal suffrage, with all that it\nnecessitates. So on the other side of the water, when, in 1867,\nParliament doubled the English franchise, Robert Lowe leaped to his\nfeet and cried, amid the cheers of the House of Commons: \"_Now_ the\nfirst interest and duty of every Englishman is to educate the masses.\"\nPreviously, if the Court of St. James stooped to put intelligence on\none side and morality on the other side of the cradle rocked by\npoverty and vice, it was pity that dictated the gracious act. Now it\nis self-preservation. Who does not know how much stronger\nself-interest is than pity as a motive? Who cannot see the far-sighted\nwisdom of our fathers in thus ingrafting this powerful motive upon the\nfundamental law?\n\nMoreover, universal suffrage is educational in itself. Responsibility\neducates. Nothing else does. By throwing the responsibility upon the\npeople they are necessarily lifted, sobered, broadened. Our women do\nnot vote. What is the result? Not one woman in a thousand has any\ninterest in, and not one in two thousand has any acquaintance with,\npolitical affairs. Their ignorance would be laughable were it not sad.\nEvery father, husband, brother, can testify to the impenetrable\nignorance of his feminine belongings concerning matters of public\nmoment. It forms the topic of universal comment in male circles. It is\nnot because women are naturally incapable. It is because having no\nresponsibility they naturally have no interest. Why should a woman\ninform herself of what does not concern her? Occasionally, some woman,\nexceptionally placed, or born with a genius for politics, studies and\nmasters state-craft. But exceptions do not invalidate, they prove\nrules. Women, like men, cannot be expected to take any intelligent\ninterest in affairs that lie outside of their life.\n\nOur men, on the contrary, are politicians down to the infant in the\ncradle. A boy baby cries, \"Mr. Chairman!\" as soon as he can talk, and\ncalls the next crib to order. Men know that the maturing of politics,\nthe selection of administrations, the distribution of offices, the\nadjustment of taxes, are their function. This knowledge whets the edge\nof interest. The significant fact is that it is not the people who are\nindifferent to politics. This indifference is found among merchants\nwho are too busy making money to attend to the public weal; among\nscholars buried alive in their books, with no interest in any question\nthat is not musty; among men of leisure, aping old world aristocracy,\nand out of touch with democracy; among those who _say_ that all men\nare equal and are afraid they _will_ be,--never among the people.\n\nThe plainer men are the greater is their political interest. Our\nnaturalized citizens, shut out in their native land from all\nparticipation in government, and hence appreciating citizenship here,\nare among the most alert. These are they who crowd the halls during\nthe recurring canvasses, and who are always early at the polls. And is\nit possible to overrate the instruction they get at meetings where\nthey hear great questions discussed by master minds, when issues are\ntorn open and riddled with light? Thus universal suffrage is itself a\nnormal school, the people's college.\n\nIt is often said that, judged by its power to govern great cities,\nuniversal suffrage is a failure. This is true. The failure, however,\nis due to local causes. It does not come from the inherent incapacity\nof the masses, but is the spawn of accidental and removable evils.\nChief among these is the corner grog-shop. This is the blazing\nlighthouse of hell. Here it is that morals and manners are debauched.\nIt is over this counter that what an old poet calls \"liquid damnation\"\nis dealt out. If the _quid-nuncs_, instead of railing at universal\nsuffrage, would combine to help shut that door, republicanism would\nspeedily lose its reproach. The constituency of the grog seller is the\nready made tool of the demagogue. A true democracy can only exist on\nthe basis of sobriety. A drunken people cannot be trusted with the\ndearest rights and most vital possessions of freemen. Better the\nmerciless tyranny of the Czar, or the military despotism of the\nKaiser, far better the class rule of England, than the staggering,\nhiccoughing, bedevilled government of the groggery!\n\nAside from the great centres of population, the common people are more\ntrustworthy than the corporations, the colleges, or the newspapers.\nThe selfishness, the preoccupation, the anti-republicanism of these,\nare proverbial. We know that editors are echoes, not leaders, printing\nwhat will sell, not what is true. Landor declared that there is a\nspice of the scoundrel in most literary men. Everybody understands\nthat a corporation's gospel is a good fat dividend. Who would exchange\nuniversal suffrage for college suffrage, or corporation suffrage, or\nnewspaper suffrage?\n\nOur danger to-day does not lie in universal suffrage. It lies in the\nsteady encroachments of wealth, in the multiplication of monopolies,\nin the too rapid growth of fungus millionnaires, in the increasing\nnumber of well educated idlers, in the sinister prominence of the\nsaloon in politics, in the tendency of the country to submit to\nbureaucracy, in the transformation of the national Senate into a club\nof rich men, housed and fed at the national expense, in the change of\nthe House of Representatives into a huddle of clerks to register the\ndecrees of greedy capital, in the chronic distrust of the people felt\namong book-educated and professional men; in one word, in the\nappalling gravitation towards government by \"boodle\" in the hands of\nunscrupulous minorities.\n\nThe only hope of deliverance lies in the people,--in their honesty,\nfair play, and decision, No; it is not universal suffrage that has\nbrought disgrace on the country. If the rancor of party spirit, if the\ndry-rot of legislative corruption, if the tyranny of incorporated\nwealth, if the diabolism of intemperance are to be curbed, it is\nuniversal suffrage which must hold the reins. Talk of taking the\nballot out of the hand of the poor citizen! As well fling the revolver\nout of window when the burglar is in the house. One of the keenest\ncritics of American life has said: \"Corruption does not so much rot\nthe masses; it poisons Congress. Credit mobilier and money rings are\nnot housed under thatched roofs; they flaunt at the capital.\" The real\nscum is the so-called better class. If anybody is to be deprived of a\nvote, it should be the railroad king, the mill owner, the indifferent\ntrader, and the Europeanized Yankee who spends abroad what his father\nearned at home, and mistakes Paris for Paradise.\n\nAs another illustration of the un-republican trend, observe the\nobsequious attitude of our government towards monarchs and monarchies.\nWe are to-day cheek by jowl with the despots of Europe. Instead of\nbeing the torch bearer of freedom we occupy a position of apology for\nwhat we are and of gaping admiration for what they are. When an\nopportunity offered the other day to recognize the new Republic of\nBrazil, the toadies at Washington equivocated and postponed. One would\nsuppose that the disappearance of the last monarchy from the new world\nwould have been greeted in the great Republic with the ringing of\nbells and the blaze of bonfires--would have been answered by a regular\nFourth of July outburst. Bless you, no! The Czar was displeased. The\nEmperor of Germany was in the sulks. Queen Victoria put on mourning.\nWhy should the Dons at Washington be out of fashion?\n\nOn the other hand, when Carlos I. was crowned at Lisbon last December,\nthe American Squadron of Evolution was in the harbor, and behold! the\nofficers of the Republic's war-ships paraded side by side with the\nother flunkies of royalty in honor of the coronation--thus showing\nthat they belonged to the Squadron of Reaction. For so misrepresenting\ntheir country they ought to be cashiered. Republicans refusing to\nrecognize a new republic, but hastening to recognize a new king! What\na spectacle! Spirits of Otis and Franklin, of Jefferson and Hamilton,\nwhat think ye of such democracy as this?\n\nNo one would have the United States play the role of a bully, or enact\nthe demagogue. But surely there is a medium between that and the\ndespicable inconsistency of unfriendliness towards those of our own\npolitical faith, and of lackey serviceableness towards a crowned head.\nKings do not hesitate to discourage republicanism everywhere. A\nrepublic should not hesitate to encourage it anywhere. Self-respect in\nsuch a matter would win the respect of the world by deserving it. But\nwhen Americans sell their daughters to European profligates for a\ntitle, and pay millions to boot; when republicans in profession become\ntuft-hunters in practice, and haunt the back stairs of palaces; when\nthe United States government, the eldest born and guardian of\ndemocracy, decredits its own political creed and parades in royal\nprocessions,--is it not time to cry a halt?\n\nWe need in this country a revival of republicanism. There is a\ntendency to flunkeyism at the bottom of human nature. Most men \"dearly\nlove a lord,\" as Burns affirmed. Hence, a full-fledged aristocrat\nattracts flunkies as a magnet draws iron filings. Lucian tells of an\nexhibition in Rome in which monkeys had been trained to play a human\npart; which they did perfectly, before the beauty and fashion of the\ncity--until a wag, in the midst of the performance, flung a handful of\nnuts upon the stage, and straightway the actors were monkeys again.\nSome of our republicans are monkeys in human attire. They get on well\nenough until the nuts of class distinction are flung among them,--then\nthey are on all fours.\n\nLet us make democracy the fashion. Send devitalized Americans to\nCoventry. Make an unrepublican word or deed the unpardonable political\nsin. Do this: or else ship the statue of Liberty Enlightening the\nWorld back to France, and ask her to set it in the harbor of\nMarseilles.\n\nAnother of these un-republican tendencies is the current movement for\ncivil service reform. Every thoughtful citizen perceives and laments\nthe evils attendant on the present spoils system. It is the quartering\nof the conquerors upon the conquered. It makes public office the\nreward of party service. It loads half a dozen men (the President and\nhis Secretaries) with the responsible but impossible duty of filling\nhundreds of thousands of offices, on the grab-bag principle.\n\nWith the best intentions, the civil service reformers would make a bad\nmatter worse. On their plan, the un-American method of fixed tenure by\ncompetitive examination and appointment by irresponsible cabals would\nreplace the method of political appointment for party service. Thus\nthey would fasten upon the country a great army of permanent\nofficials. It is out of harmony with our whole system. Every other\nofficer is elected, and for a specified term. Why, even in the\nministry, the tendency is to break up the life-pastorate. The largest\nof our religious denominations has deliberately adopted the principle\nof rotation. And the other bodies, while nominally retaining the life\ntheory, have practically borrowed the Methodist plan.\n\nNo wonder civil service reform is unpopular. It goes to work at the\nwrong end--works away from instead of towards republicanism. In\nEngland, in Germany, where families reign, and where governmental\nservants might consistently hold office for life, such a system has a\nwarrant--though even there it is found to be obstructive and\nreactionary. But in a republic, where universal suffrage is the law,\nnothing more intolerable could be conceived. The idea of creating a\nclass distinct from all other classes, independent of the\nadministration and unaccountable to the voters, fixed and immovable\nsave for causes proven--why, it is, not a _step_, it is a _stride_\ntowards absolutism. Such a proposition, like \"Hamlet's\" case,\n\n    \"----makes us rather bear those ills we have,\n    Than fly to others that we know not of.\"\n\nThat the civil service needs reform goes without the saying. But the\nreform should be pushed along consistently republican lines. The\nproper, the democratic method would be a further and broader\napplication of universal suffrage. Make _all_ the offices elective.\n\nInstead of _appointing_ Custom-House officials and postmasters,\n_elect_ them. Put the responsibility where it belongs upon the\nrespective communities they serve. Then, men that are locally known\nand respected would be selected. If the people are capable of electing\ntheir own presidents, governors, representatives and judges, surely\nthey might be trusted to elect Custom-House officers and postmasters!\nOtherwise, our republicanism is a humbug. This would abolish the\nWashington grab-bag. It would also avoid the creation of a class of\nlife-officials than which nothing could be more dangerous and\nunsavory.\n\nIf our fathers, with no precedents on the file, could announce their\nsublime faith that all men are endowed by their Creator with the right\nto life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; if they could discard\nthe probate-court idea, and adopt universal suffrage; if, in spite of\ninconsistencies and imperfections, their conception has flowered in\nthe best, and happiest, and most prosperous nation on the\nglobe,--cannot their children show a faith as serene, a courage as\nbrave? One thing is certain, the European experiment has failed, while\nours is a miracle of success--and most successful when most\nconsistently worked out. In such circumstances, shall we exchange this\nfor that, and go back from the nineteenth century to the fourteenth?\n\nWhen Hume derided his mother's faith, and exhorted her to get rid of\nher Christian prejudices, she answered: \"My son, can you show me\nanything better?\"\n\n\n\n\nEXTRINSIC SIGNIFICANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT IN JAPAN.\n\nBY KUMA OISHI, A. M.\n\n\nAll students of history are aware that the revolution of 1688\nsucceeded in consolidating constitutional government in England; that,\nthough toward the middle of the last century it had not yet assumed\nits present admirable aspect, the English idea of political liberty\nand religious toleration attracted the attention of Montesquieu and\nVoltaire, who introduced it to their country; and that, since then,\naccelerated by the establishment of the federal government in America,\nand the triumph of the revolutionary principle in France, the theory\nhas spread over the continent with astonishing rapidity.\n\nNow that constitutional government is established in Japan, will she\nnot exercise the same influence over the Asiatic continent as that\nwhich England has exercised over the European? To this, three great\nobjections may be raised. I. The pervading conservatism of Asia. II.\nThe prevailing ignorance among the Asiatic nations. III. The\ndoubtfulness as to their adaptability to the representative form of\ngovernment. We shall try to answer these objections in the above\norder.\n\nI. If it be argued that the Asiatic people are conspicuously\ncharacterized by the conservative spirit, that they seem well\nsatisfied with their present social and political organizations, such\nas they are, it must be remembered at the same time, that this was\nalso the appearance which the French people presented, before their\nattention was called to the political superiority of England. \"In\ngeneral,\" says Lecky, \"there runs through the great French literature\nof the seventeenth century a profound content with the existing order\nin Church and State, an entire absence of the spirit of disquiet,\nscepticism, and innovation that leads to organic change.\"[7]\n\n      [7] Lecky's History of England, Vol. V., p. 301.\n\n[Illustration: Kuma Oishi (signed \"Cordially yours, Kuma Oishi\")]\n\nThat the conservative spirit and the seeming contentment of some of\nthe Asiatic nations are not in themselves forces strong enough,\nwhen the time comes, to dispel the charm, as it were, possessed by the\ntheory of representative government, that in short, conservatism is no\nmatch for \"progress,\" as such a movement is popularly called, can be\nillustrated by the history, not of the European nations alone, but of\nsome Asiatic nations themselves. To the general conservative tendency\nof Asia, Japan was no exception until about twenty-five years ago. No\nrational being would have then believed that in the course of a few\nyears, Japan would become one of the most progressive nations on the\nface of the earth. The revolution of 1867, from which the birth of New\nJapan is dated, was originally a dispute between the Mikado and the\nShogun for the _de facto_ sovereignty, and not the struggle of the\nlower classes to rise to political eminence. The tottering dynasty of\nthe Shoguns came to an end, not because they were tyrannical, not\nbecause the people felt the special need of social amelioration, but\nbecause they saw that the Shogunate had been the instrumentality of\nusurping the imperial authority, while the nominal Emperor was shut up\nin his palace, and closely watched by the agents of the Shogun. In\nJapan loyalty and patriotism meant one and the same thing; therefore\nthe people could not long tolerate this state of affairs. They needed\nonly an occasion to deprive the Shogun of his political power, and to\nrestore it to the Emperor. At last the occasion came. The demand of\nthe Western nations to open certain seaports of the country,\naccompanied by the threats of armed force, compelled the Shogun to\nyield. But this step proved fatal to him. If the people were opposed\nto the Shogun's usurpation, they were still more opposed to his new\npolicy, simply because it was new. They were blind to the innumerable\nadvantages that could be derived from international commerce and\ncommunication. As a hermit nation, the people looked down upon the\nforeigners with mingled distrust and disdain. Knowing nothing of the\nWestern civilization they were determined that no \"savage strangers\"\nshould step upon the \"sacred land of gods.\" To them the admission of\nthe foreigners signified nothing less than unprecedented disgrace and\npossibly more--a prey to the ambition and treachery of the \"foreign\ndevils.\" The conservative spirit of the people carried them to a pitch\nof excitement as high as the exactly opposite principle carried the\nFrench people during the revolution. The Emperor became doubly dear\nto them, because he was a sovereign _de jure_, and because he was\nopposed to the new policy. Thus the revolution which followed owes its\ntriumph to the conservatism of the people. Even with their zealous\nattachment to the Emperor, and their deep hatred of the Shogun, it is\nan open question whether events would have taken the same course, if\nthe Mikado had advocated and the Shogun opposed the new policy, so\nstrong was prejudice of the people. No more unfavorable condition and\ntime could have been chosen for the introduction of the European\ncivilization. However, in spite of their abhorrence of the Western\npeople, the Western ideas and customs, in spite of all their efforts\nto shut them out, the appearance of some formidable men-of-war,\nfloating the flags of different nations, compelled Japan to enter into\nthe terms of treaty with them. Twenty years have passed since then,\nand within that short period, the nation has undergone a marvellous\ntransformation under the magic touch of progress. It would be telling\nan old story to enumerate the series of innovations that have been\nwritten socially and politically, until the promulgation of the new\nconstitution, in which culminated the national pride of the people.\nThe matter to be noted here is that the European civilization\nencountered but a few obstacles, notwithstanding its inopportune\nintroduction, and was soon adopted with determined zeal. The like\nprogressive phenomenon on a smaller scale is also recurring in Korea,\nbut of this later.\n\nII. Having thus seen from well known historical examples in Europe and\nAsia that the conservatism is not in itself a force strong enough to\nresist progress, which leads to the establishment of constitutional\ngovernment, let us proceed to meet the second objection, namely: the\nprevailing ignorance among the Asiatic nations. Here the nature of our\ninquiry involves three distinct topics. 1. Was the general\nintelligence of the Japanese people, before they came into contact\nwith the Western civilization, higher than that of the other Asiatic\nnations? 2. Is there not a peculiar characteristic among the Japanese\nwhich impels them to progress? 3. Consequent upon the exposition of\nthese two topics, investigation must also be made as to why the\nChinese Empire does not show a similar progressive tendency.\n\n1. Besides being the most dangerous enemy of representative government\nafter its establishment, ignorance is most hostile to its\nestablishment. _Prima facie_, people must possess a certain degree of\ncapacity, mental and moral, to understand what civilization is and\nwhat representative government is. The Batta of Sumatra may have their\nown alphabet, and the Fans of the West Coast may excel in iron\nwork,[8] but even these fall short of the pre-requisites, not\nintellectually only, but morally also. We cannot conceive of them,\nseated around a camp-fire, discussing the merits of two chambers\nsystem, or defining the rights and duties of a citizen, while their\nvile lips are stained with the blood of their fellow-man, whose flesh\nthey have just devoured. Not to expatiate further on this self-evident\nfact, it is certain that the Japanese people were sufficiently\nintelligent to understand and appreciate the Western ideas, when they\nwere thrust to their notice. Certain, too, that in some branches of\naesthetic art, they were somewhat superior to the neighboring nations.\nBut beyond this, thirty years ago, a careful observer could have\ndetected in the Japanese people no conspicuous intellectual\nattainment, except, of course, such points of dissimilarity as exist\nbetween any two nations equally civilized. Japan, Korea, and China had\nthe same system of education and the same \"classics,\" and each was\ncomposed of followers of Confucius and believers in Buddhism. True,\nJapan was then under the feudal system, and China and Korea were and\nstill are under monarchy, but in point of absolutism, their\ngovernments were all alike. The greater differentiations were the\nfacts that the Japanese had their own system of religious belief\nbesides, called Shintoism, that the Japanese and the Koreans each had,\nin addition to the Chinese characters, their own syllables, and that\nthe styles of their dress were different in no small degree. But the\nformer, being a belief, principally concerned with the hereafter, has\nno more connection than the latter two with the subject of our\ninquiry, which relates to the intellectual phases of these people only\nin so far as they influence their political ideas.\n\n      [8] Peschel's, \"The Races of Man,\" p. 163.\n\n2. Nor can we find any peculiar characteristic in the Japanese people,\nto which we may ascribe their progressive tendency. The only\npredominant characteristic that we know is their imitative power. This\nthey have remarkably exhibited in their adoption of the Chinese\ncivilization, which they modified and made their own, and more\nremarkably in their recent adoption of the Western civilization. Let\nus examine what relation this bears to the conservative and the\nprogressive spirit of the people. Mr. Herbert Spencer attributes two\nmotives to imitation, either reverential or competitive.[9] It is with\nthe latter that we are concerned. This, coming as it does from a\ndesire of an imitator to assert his equality with the one imitated,\nimplies the recognition of superiority of the latter, and the\nacknowledgment of inferiority of the former. Conservatism, in the\nsense we have been using the term, defies any recognition and\nacknowledgment of this sort; therefore it defies imitation. In other\nwords, a man does not imitate what he dislikes or scorns, and since\nconservatism is aversion to, or contempt for, say a new political\ninstitution, the imitative trait has no part to play, while that\naversion or contempt continues. Evidently, then, the imitative power\nof the Japanese was not the force which served to make the\nconservative people progressive; only when conservatism gives way, and\nadmiration for what is new is awakened, can this power assume its full\nactivity.\n\n      [9] \"His Principle of Sociology,\" Vol. II., p. 209.\n\nWere we to admit for the sake of argument that the Japanese people\nwere far superior in intelligence to the other people of Asia, or that\nthey possessed a peculiar characteristic which impelled them to the\nadoption of the Western civilization, or even both, our position will\nnot be altered, for the progressive idea of Japan has already reached\nacross the sea to the continent of Asia, giving rise to an event in\nKorea. In December, 1884, the two political factions of that country,\none of which was liberal and the other conservative, respectively,\nrepresenting the Japanese and the Chinese principles, disputed for\nsupremacy. The positive and negative currents, as of electricity, met\nat the peninsula, and produced a spark of revolution.[10]\n\n     [10] There was another agitation in Korea in 1882, but this was\n          a mere uprising of the mob against the Japanese staying in\n          that country, and not of grave political importance. For\n          the details of both these events, the reader is referred to\n          \"A Korean _Coup D' Etat_,\" an entertaining article by\n          Perceval Lowell, _Atlantic Monthly_, November, 1886. This\n          poverty-stricken country, with an imbecile sovereign at the\n          helm of state, and with no organized array, is practically\n          under the control of the Chinese government, though\n          nominally she is independent. Some European powers, who seem\n          to consider that the greatness of a nation is commensurate\n          with its success in its territorial aggrandizement are\n          casting eyes at her, in vain let us hope, for the sake of\n          Korea. While the influence of China is so predominant, she\n          cannot accomplish much. A _coup d' etat_ might be needed a\n          few times more, before she can become an independent nation\n          in the fullest sense of the words. At any rate, her prospect\n          is dubious enough at present.\n\nAlthough, unfortunately for Korea, the liberals were vanquished, and\nits chief leaders were banished from their native country, the\nsignificance of the phenomenon does not lose its weight on that\naccount. The tidal wave of progress, once repulsed, is not likely to\nsubside forever. Meantime, it is worth while to notice, that even\nunder the undisputed administration of the victorious conservatives,\nthe nation could not remain aloof from the rest of the world. Besides\nentering into treaties with some western and eastern nations, Korea is\navailing herself of the services of European abilities, for the\npurpose of internal improvement.\n\n3. \"But,\" some one may ask, \"if the establishment of constitutional\ngovernment in Japan is due principally to the inherent excellence of\nthe institution itself, and not to the superior intelligence of the\nJapanese people, nor yet to their peculiar characteristic, how can the\nnon-progressive tendency of China be accounted for?\" The vast extent\nof her dominion,[11] the immense number of her population,[12] and her\nalmost inexhaustible national resources, all combine to make the\nquestion in regard to her future policy a momentous one. With the best\nform of government, and under the guidance of an able statesman, it is\nwithin her power to promote the advancement of whole Asia, and mould\nthe destiny of the world. Yet, to all practical intents and purposes,\nshe is evidently indifferent to the possibility of such a noble\nmission. Nay, more; she ignores it. She reminds us of an opium smoker.\nThe world is awake, but she reposes in profound slumber, and little\ndoes she care what others are doing. The doctrine of _Laissez-Faire_\nis the sinew of her policy toward the European states. She lets them\nalone so long as they let her alone, leaving them to wonder for what\nshe was born. When some one comes and strikes her on the face, she\nstands up, still half asleep, slowly gathers whatever strength is in\nher, returns blow for blow, but the moment her enemy disappears\ntorpidity again overtakes her, she relapses into dreamy indifference.\nOf what is this opium composed that she smokes?\n\n     [11] About 4,179,559 sq. miles.--_The Statesman's Yearbook_, 1891.\n\n     [12] About 404,180,000.--_Ibid._\n\nI must not be understood to mean _absolute_ irresistibility of\nconstitutional government. Already I have touched upon one exception,\nviz: inadequate capacity, mental and moral, of people. Instead of\nexcepting Japan from the pervading conservatism of Asia, I am inclined\nto make causes resisting or retarding the establishment of\nconstitutional government in China exceptions to its irresistibility,\nside by side with ignorance. Such causes are, doubtless,\nmultitudinous. Nevertheless, a careful observer will be able to single\nout two principal ones among many others: territorial and\nintellectual.\n\nWe have seen that the average intelligence of the Chinese people is\nnot much inferior, if at all, to that of the Japanese, previous to the\nrevolution. Even those Chinese who come to this country for manual\nlabor, can read and write to some extent. Undoubtedly there is a large\nnumber of illiterate and brutal outcasts, who are a standing disgrace\nto humanity at large, but they can be found in every nation at\npresent. The average intelligence of the middle class in China is,\nnext to Japan, perhaps, the highest among the Asiatic nations. But the\ngreatest evil from which Chinese intellect is suffering is its\nbombastic antiquarianism. This differs from conservatism, in that it\nis not the cautious distrust of new institutions for the improvement\nof the existing ones, but an effort to move backward, and to revive\nthe ancient order of things, which crumbled into dust a thousand years\nbefore, from its inadaptability. The goal toward which modern\ncivilization is striving, is the attainment of justice, the security\nof property and of the lives of individuals. The ideal society of the\nChinese is one in which the simplicity of primitive tribes makes the\nadministration of justice unnecessary, in which the possession of\nproperty and the protection of lives are unknown. Eulogies are\nlavished throughout their literature to the peaceful reigns of the\nprimitive kings, when no one locked his house at night, or touched\nanother's article which he happened to find on his way. To them\nantiquity is adorable instead of venerable. They consider themselves\ninsignificant by the side of their godly ancestors. No doubt the\ndoctrine of Confucius, which the Chinese people endeavor to carry out\nto a letter, has played a large part in producing this effect. Instead\nof unfolding the possibilities of the future, he recapitulated the\nvirtues and achievements of the past. I am not attempting to\ndepreciate the inestimable service, which his system of philosophy has\nrendered toward enhancing the standard of rectitude among his\ndisciples. But for him Asia might have sunk into the depths of moral\nchaos. This much at least must be said in justification of his\ndoctrine, that evidently it was not his intention to reproduce an\nexact duplicate of the primitive Chinese civilization. \"Let each day\nbring a new order of things,\" and \"A sage's principles change as\ntime,\" are among the precepts he enunciated. But these aphorisms, upon\nwhich the Anglo-Saxons would have laid a great stress, have been set\nat naught by his followers to the detriment of their own welfare.\n\nThis antiquarianism also existed in Japan, before the introduction of\nthe European civilization, but here it had lacked much of its\nintensity, through its non-originality. The Japanese had no inventive\npride, and it was with little reluctance that they abandoned their old\ntheories which they borrowed from China, and adopted new civilization\nof the West. The Chinese cannot forget that whatever civilization they\npossess is their own, and that, at one time, theirs was the \"Celestial\nEmpire,\" which gave law, literature, and art to the neighboring\nnations. Every one knows that all the people still believe their\ncivilization far superior to that of Europe. And since they do not\ncare to compete with the civilization which they regard as inferior,\nthey are striving to model themselves after the features of their own\nancient civilization, which, for aught we know, might have been purer\nbecause younger, but which, existing in the less developed stage of\nsociety, must have been necessarily cruder. They are not aware that a\nsociety developed to any extent is a composite organism; that an\noriginally simple cluster of people had grown into a complex\ncommunity, through double methods, the multiplication of its own\noffsprings, and its union with another cluster or clusters of\npeople.[13] This gradual growth of a society is followed by a\ncorresponding diversity in the division of labor, thus making the\nsocial structure also complex.[14] Whatever else they can do, the\nChinese will never realize their ideal of ancient simplicity, with\ntheir present complex social structure and system. A human society can\neither fall backward or progress forward, but it cannot _progress\nbackward_. In China the active movement for social and political\namelioration is restrained by the erroneous idea that they will\naggravate evils and increase the distance between the present and the\npast. The unemployed energy of the nation, like an unemployed human\nmuscle, is losing its vitality. Unable to go backward, unwilling to go\nforward, the nation is at standstill, and its civilization is stagnant\nwith vices of the worst sort, the growth of which is checked by no\niron hands of heroic reformers.\n\n     [13] Spencer's \"Principle of Sociology,\" Vol. II., pp. 436-458.\n\n     [14] Ibid, pp. 459-472.\n\nAnother cause acting against the susceptibility of China to the\nEuropean civilization is the vastness of her territory. The power of\nresistance being equal, a force requires longer time to travel larger\ndistance, but when the power of resistance against the force of\ncivilization is much stronger, as in the case of China, in comparison\nwith Japan, the required length of time becomes still greater. The\nvast and thickly populated Empire of China naturally contains the\nvarious aggregates of people, with diverse inclinations and\nantagonistic interests, which makes their joint effort for any\nachievement extremely difficult, especially when the central authority\nis weak. The disadvantages are further multiplied by the difficulty of\ntravelling and communication. On account of these hindrances, the\nWestern civilization has not as yet time to permeate the whole Empire\nof China, and give the people an impetus for progressive movement. It\nmay be well questioned whether \"the fathers\" could have succeeded in\norganizing the federal government, if the colonies were as large, and\ncontained as great a population as the present United States. As it\nwas, several States refused to enter into the confederation at\nfirst.[15] Taking into consideration her better facility for\ncommunication, and her proximity to the other European powers, perhaps\nRussia owes to the size of her territory, the successful maintenance\nof her absolute monarchy as much as China. But here the decisive\nbattle is already impending. At this moment she is trembling with\napprehension lest the palace of the Czar be at any moment levelled to\nits foundation by the terrible explosion of a nihilist's bomb. The\nmore the employment of force is resorted to as the means of\nsuppression, the greater the violence of resistance. It may take the\nChinese people generations before they are seized with such political\nfanaticism, but judging from precedents, it is a rational probability\nthat the absolute monarchy of China may yet become the object of\nfurious attack by her now inert and abject populace, apparently in\nhappy ignorance of the nature of sovereign authority, the free and\nunrestrained exercise of which they may learn to covet too soon.\n\n     [15] New York, Virginia, North Carolina, and Rhode Island.\n          Bryce's The American Commonwealth, Vol. I., p. 32.\n\nIgnorance, antiquarianism, and large territory, then, are some\nprincipal causes which retard the march of progress. There remains\nonly the third and last objection to be met--the adaptability of the\nAsiatic people to the representative form of government.\n\nIII. If two thousand years of Asiatic despotism has given her people\none lesson, that lesson is obedience, and obedience is, according to\nJohn Stuart Mill, a quality essential to the people under\nconstitutional government.[16] Not only they must be obeyed, but also\nthey must obey. Law, which is constitutional, commands their\nobedience, so long as it is not repealed, whether it promotes, or is\ndetrimental to, their welfare. This is especially the case in England,\nwhere parliament is supreme and not the constitution, as in the United\nStates, though in both countries _vox populi_ will tell in the end. On\nthe other hand it may be disputed that if long despotism taught the\nAsiatic people to be subservient to public authorities, it also made\nthem meek and slavish, entirely eradicating the spirit of\nindependence, indispensable to self-governing people. Granted, but how\nshall this defect be remedied? Because they are too slavish and not\nsufficiently independent, are they to crawl under absolute despotism\nfor another two thousand years, which would make them all the more\nslavish, and all the less independent? Slavishness is obedience plus\nsomething more. If political liberty were given the Asiatic people,\nwhen they had just learned to obey, slavishness would never have\nbecome their fault. The very fact of their being slavish proves that\ndespotism should have ceased to exist long before, and should cease\nnow, in order to cure them of this despicable disease. As far as this\nquestion is concerned, then, the slavishness of the Asiatic people,\ninstead of being against their adaptability to constitutional\ngovernment, is for it. In the words of Macaulay, \"If men are to wait\nfor liberty until they become wise and good in slavery, they may\nindeed wait forever.\"[17]\n\n     [16] His Representative Government, pp. 85, 86.\n\n     [17] His Essay on Milton.\n\nThere may be a thousand other infirmities among these people, but most\nof them doubtless are, or were, found among the highly civilized\npeople of to-day. Every nation can point with pride to some men of\nadmirable achievement, of brilliant genius, of saintly virtues, but\nthat same nation also contains the countless number of inebriates,\nrobbers, and murderers. Differences in environments and in the stage\nof civilization have contributed much in differentiating the\ninhabitants of the globe, but we must bear in mind that they are all\nmade by the same hand of the Creator, and are, in general, striving to\ndo good according to the dictates of their conscience. What\ncharacterizes civilization is not so much the quality of goodness\nrevealed, as its quantity. Between aborigines and highly advanced\npeople, there exists a wide gulf, but that gulf becomes perceptibly\nnarrower between the so-called semi-civilized and the civilized, much\nnarrower than the word \"semi\" indicates with the force of scientific\nexactness. But behind all these arguments, there lays the most\nfundamental condition of the adaptability, namely: that the people\nshould be desirous of establishing it. No other Asiatic nations beside\nJapan have expressed their desire to this end, either by words or by\naction, and therefore they are incapacitated.\n\nThis objection would be fatal, if we were advocating that the Asiatic\npeople ought to have constitutional government. But we have not been.\nWe have been arguing that since constitutional government has\nirresistible attraction to those who can understand what it is, and\nsince it has already been established in Japan, the other Asiatic\nnations will begin to desire it, notwithstanding their seeming\nignorance and conservatism; and because they are adapted for it in all\nthe respects but one, the want of desire to establish it, when that\ndesire is enkindled within their breasts, then a \"great democratic\nrevolution,\" which De Tocqueville said was going on in Europe,[18] and\nwhich is still going on there, will also go on in Asia. We may observe\nin passing, that Sir Henry Maine's arguments against the\nirresistibility of popular government[19] have no connection with our\nposition, being directed against the ultra-democratic tendency of\nmodern times which is beyond the scope of our present discussion.\n\n     [18] His Democracy in America, Vol. I., p. 2.\n\n     [19] His Popular Government, pp. 70-74.\n\nBut will this new institution of Japan possess permanency?\nConstitutional government has shown in many cases the lack of\nstability. In France and Spain especially it has been established and\noverthrown again and again.[20] Can _Tei Koku Gi Kai_[21] prove itself\nabove such frailty and stand for ages a majestic monument of the\npeople capable of self-government? Or must it pass away in ignominy\nand gloom through its own weakness, or of the constitution, or of the\npeople, or of all these combined? Hitherto we have been discussing the\nextrinsic significance of constitutional government in Japan, but this\nimportant question introduces us into the field of its intrinsic\nexcellence. To answer the question we must examine the constitution\nitself in its details, besides tracing the steps which led to its\npromulgation. Perhaps a volume may be necessary for this most\ninteresting and profitable study. At any rate, the space which we have\nalready occupied renders a further discussion of the subject\nimpossible for the present. But we cannot lay aside our pen without\nexpressing our fondest anticipation, and most earnest desire, that\nguided by statesmen of genius, and supported by the prudent and\npatriotic people, this first institution ever founded on the Asiatic\nsoil for the development of political liberty, may be crowned with\nbrilliant success, not only for the sake of Japan, but for the sake of\nall Asia, whose myriad sons it is her noble duty, as well as\nprivilege, to rescue from the yoke of ever-detestable bondage.\n\n     [20] Ibid, pp. 17, 18.\n\n     [21] Literally, \"The Deliverative Assembly of the Empire,\" being\n          the comprehensive name for the two legislative chambers of\n          Japan, corresponding to Parliament of England or Congress of\n          the United States.\n\n\n\n\nUNIVERSITY EXTENSION.\n\nBY PROF. WILLIS BOUGHTON, OF OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY.\n\n\nUniversity extension is a movement intended to bring the people at\nlarge into closer communion with the college and the university.\nThough it had a lowly birth in England, it has become a great\ninstitution permanently wedded to Oxford and Cambridge. For some years\nthe idea has been growing that our American colleges ought to be doing\nsomething in this same line. The world is full of students who are\nunable to attend the university; some are prevented by family ties,\nand some by business relations; but mature though they be, there are\neverywhere real students who are lamenting the fact that they seem\nforever shut out from the light of knowledge as it is shed abroad from\nour higher educational institutions. To such are added those young\npeople who have been by circumstances early forced into industrial\npursuits, but who are hungry after such training as will enable them\nto command better situations and better salaries. The success of the\nChautauqua movement indicates how many there are that are bent upon\nimproving themselves.\n\nThis Chautauqua movement is only an attempt to Americanize university\nextension. In various ways, however, it fails to perform the full\nfunction of the latter institution. While Chautauqua work is carefully\nplanned, it is elementary; the student is left almost entirely to his\nown, often misdirected, efforts; and there is little or no chance of\nhis coming into personal contact with the experienced educator and\nspecialists. Though the circles have, through lack of direction,\nsometimes neglected education for entertainment, the organization as a\nwhole has accomplished a wonderful work in the elevation and the\ninstruction of great numbers of people.\n\nUniversity extension, on the other hand, profiting by the experience\nof Chautauqua, proposes not only to plan courses of study, but to\ndirect, supervise, and test the work of its students as well. In doing\nall this, it employs the lecturer, the syllabus, the class, the\ntravelling library, and the examination. It has adopted methods\nwhereby it can reach people of as varied occupations as those reached\nby Chautauqua, and it can thus furnish them with information having a\npositive educational value.\n\nThe lecturers are college-bred men or women, and specialists in\ndifferent lines of educational work. If actively engaged in teaching\nat some reputable college or university, their chances of success are\ngreater, and the character of their work is of a better grade. It\npromises well for the future of university extension to record that\nsome of America's most popular and celebrated professors have added to\ntheir already heavy duties the burdens of some line of extension\nteaching. But all college professors are not adapted to this work. The\nsuccessful extension lecturer must be of a versatile nature--a good\nlecturer, an earnest student, a practical teacher. It is his duty to\ninterest a mixed, popular audience in an educational subject, and to\ninspire numbers of his hearers with a determination to enter upon a\nsystematic and thorough course of study. The teacher who can do so\nmust have within him the spirit of the reformer, and the earnestness\nthat will enable him to arouse and to enthuse to action the numbers\nthat are dying of lethargy and ennui. The teacher who can do this has\nhere a field of labor extensive enough for the highest ambition, and\nmay be repaid by a success grander than can be attained in the limited\ncircle of the college or the university.\n\nThe work of the lecturer arranges itself into unit courses. The unit\ncourse consists of a series of six related lecturers, so arranged that\nthey will cover a definite field of study. Though less comprehensive,\nthe unit course may be compared to a course of study in a college\ncurriculum. As extension students are the busy people of this world,\nthese lectures occur only at intervals of one week, thus giving the\nstudent time for the extra reading and study that he is asked to do. A\nunit course, then, will cover a period of six weeks; and four unit\ncourses, extending over a period of twenty-four weeks, constitute an\nextension year. It is superfluous to attempt to estimate how much the\nearnest solitary student may accomplish in a year through the\nassistance and the impetus thus given his efforts. Much, however,\ndepends upon the personal effort of the student, and the syllabus is\nintended to direct his private study.\n\nThe syllabus is much more than a carefully prepared outline of a unit\ncourse. It must form a skeleton for the student's diligent work; it\nmust recall and elaborate the points brought out in each lecture; it\nmust give a comprehensive list of reference books upon the course--a\nbibliography of the subject--with information as to the best editions\nand as to how to use the books to the best advantage; it must suggest\nlines of research--comparisons and parallelisms; it must outline for\nthe student paper work with full instructions as to how to write upon\nthe subject; it must, in short, be a sort of teacher, full of methods\nand of suggestions, supplementing the work of the class.\n\nThe class immediately follows the lecture and is conducted by the\nlecturer himself. It is here that the student comes into the most\ndirect contact with the educator. Just as the lecture is for the\npopular audience, many of whom seek pleasure rather than information,\nso the class is preeminently the earnest student's workshop. It is\nhere that he has the privilege of turning questioner and of putting to\nthe lecturer such queries as have puzzled him in his private work. The\npapers that have been prepared during the week are criticised and\ndiscussed, and experienced lecturers claim that some extension\nstudents can and do prepare papers which show as deep an insight and\nas broad an understanding of the subject as are manifested by the\nordinary college student. The class then is, from the student point of\nview, the select portion of the audience, and still it often happens\nthat only a small proportion of this class even can be induced to do\nsystematic and thorough work; they are regarded as the fruit of the\nlecture and measure the speaker's ability to interest a popular\naudience.\n\nAs an adjunct to class work, the travelling library is proposed. In\norder to do effective work, the student must have books, and\nuniversity extension proposes to arrange with public libraries so that\nthe necessary volumes can be furnished the isolated student at a cost\nlittle in excess of that of transportation. There is such competition\namong express companies that there will be little trouble in getting\nrates of transportation which will render this feature of extension\nteaching practicable. What Mudie's Circulating Library is to England,\nthe extension travelling library may be to America. The result will be\nto place in the reach of all the best copyrighted books, and to\nstrangle the reprints of worthless publications that are bought only\nbecause they are cheap.\n\nFinally there comes the examination. For the assurance of timid and\nsensitive persons, it may be stated that extension work is optional,\nand may be carried to any desired stage of completion. The many enter\nupon the work because it is popular and interesting; and as soon as it\nassumes the character of study, the class will often dwindle down to a\nsmall portion of the audience. The requirements for an examination\nwill weed this remainder until there is found but a handful that will\nsubmit to the test. These workers are usually mature, and often prove\nthemselves to be thorough and proficient students. The examination is\nintended to be a thorough test, and if it proves the work to have been\ncreditably done, a certificate to that effect is awarded.\n\nAny community that arranges for one or more unit courses is termed a\nlocal centre. In order to introduce and conduct this plan of work,\nthere must be some kind of a local organization. Often there already\nexists, even in a small town, some literary club or other society\norganized for purposes of education or culture. Such societies, if in\na thrifty condition, may be utilized for extension purposes. If they\nprove to be responsible for the expense of one or more unit courses,\nno further organization is needed; but in towns where no such society\nexists, a local centre may be formed by the co-operation of a few\ncitizens. A public meeting may be convened or other means taken to\nelect a local committee consisting of a half dozen members, with at\nleast a chairman, a secretary, and a treasurer as its official board.\nThe first work of the committee is to raise a guarantee fund to cover\nthe expense of one or more unit courses. Responsible persons are\nwilling enough to subscribe to such a fund upon the assurance that it\nwill not be used except in case of a deficiency caused by a limited\nsale of student or course tickets. Experience in Philadelphia has\nproved that, ordinarily, enough tickets will be sold to more than\ncover the expense of the course.\n\nThe guarantee fund raised, the local committee is ready to secure the\nservices of a lecturer, and is brought into business connections with\nthe nearest branch, as the next higher stage in the system is\ndenominated. The branch is located at a railroad centre, and in the\nvicinity of some college or university. For example, the Philadelphia\nbranch is the business centre for the entire region within a radius of\nfifty miles. It draws its lecturers from the faculties of the\nUniversity of Pennsylvania, Princeton, Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and\nSwarthmore. The branch acts as the middle man between the college and\nthe local centre. Its functions are to supply a competent corps of\nlecturers, to systematize the work within its jurisdiction, and to\norganize new local centres. Already the Philadelphia branch has formed\ntwenty-five local centres, some of which another season will give a\nfull year's work consisting of four unit courses.\n\nLocated in Philadelphia in the midst of colleges, this organization is\npurely national in its aims. It brings with it system out of chaos.\nWhile university extension was groping aimlessly about, it came to the\nattention of one of the leading educators of our country. As provost\nof the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. William Pepper has proved\nhimself to be a man of great executive ability. Comprehending to the\nfullest extent the future of our educational system, with wonderful\nforesight, he saw in the extension movement a future far more\nimportant than for a mere matter of missionary diversion for certain\ncharitably inclined professors. He at once suggested plans for uniting\nthe efforts of those engaged in the work and of harmonizing them\nthroughout the country. Accordingly Mr. George Henderson was sent to\nEngland to study the movement in all of its bearings, and to gain a\nthorough insight into the English system. Upon his return the American\nSociety was organized with Dr. Pepper as president, and Mr. Henderson\nas Secretary. But Dr. Pepper, already burdened with the executive\nduties of a great university, as well as with the labors of an\nextensive profession, was soon obliged to withdraw from the active\npresidency, and Dr. Edmund J. James was elected to that office. Such,\nin brief, is the origin of the National Society.\n\nThis American Society comes in as a helpmate to the local centre, the\nbranch, the college, and the university. Its functions are distinct\nand various. Coming forward with the accumulated experience of a\nquarter century in England, it can enable extension workers in this\ncountry to profit thereby. It has employed a corps of practical\nbusiness men to systematize the work, and to attend to the necessary\ndetails; it is publishing a monthly journal called _University\nExtension_, for the purpose of gathering and disseminating information\nregarding the movement; it publishes syllabi and furnishes them to the\nstudent and to the public at the lowest possible cost; and employs\norganizers to help in the formation of local centres, and to get them\nin working order. It must be recognized at once that no single\neducational institution can do this general work, and that the\nAmerican Society, instead of becoming a competitor with the university\nin extension work, renders it practical for even the smaller colleges\nto enter this field of usefulness.\n\nIn the performance of its functions, then, the National Society must\nordinarily deal with the greater centres of organization; still when\nit is impracticable to form a branch, it may deal directly with the\nlocal centre. Nor is its influence bounded by any conventional\nbarriers. It can enter the home where the solitary student sits by his\nevening lamp, and direct his work. In this home work, of course, the\nstudent rarely comes into direct contact with the educator, but\nthrough systematized correspondence his work may be directed and\nfinally tested. It can thus be given a true educational value. It must\nnot be ignored that a startling proportion of our great business men\nare what are termed self-educated. So will it be in the future; but it\nis far from visionary to believe that university extension will open\npaths whereby the solitary student need no longer employ an expensive\ntutor nor waste his time, groping in the labyrinth paths of knowledge,\nwithout a thread, at least, to direct his wanderings to pleasanter\nfields of light and learning.\n\nWhile this system of study is popular, and has all the glitter of\nnovelty, many insincere persons will enroll their names. Some will\nseek only entertainment, and will be satisfied with the popular\nlecture alone. Others, through timidity and lack of self-confidence,\nmay attend the class but will not attempt the paper work or the\nexamination. But in every community are scores of earnest, hungry\nstudents anxious to learn but knowing not how to get the knowledge\nthat they crave,--mature students settled in homes and in\nbusiness,--to such university extension offers chances for improvement\nand refreshing labor that were never known before. Then it is no\nlonger imperative to reside in the vicinity of the university, or to\nforever remain ignorant of university learning, for wherever a score\nor more of students may congregate, there can be brought from college\nhalls a master workman to direct the work.\n\nIt is easy, then, to realize the scope of the American society. It can\nstretch its influence into every corner of the country; it can enter\nevery town and city; it can enter even the isolated home. Ordinarily\ncolleges and universities of the country are anxious to work with the\nNational Society, for in this way even the small college becomes a\nlink in this great chain of organization, and the efforts of its\nfaculty may bear fruit, whereas unsystematized work is little better\nthan a failure. By such co-operation the work of extension teaching\nmay have come to have such a positive educational value that its\ncertificates, when awarded by the members of a college faculty, may,\nin that institution, at least, pass current for a definite amount of\nthe work required for a degree. At Cambridge, England, students from\ncentres that are in affiliation with that institution can thus save\none year's residence at the university. Is it, then, visionary to\nexpect as much here?\n\nUniversity extension, however, offers no royal road to learning; it is\nas yet, as it were, laying the ties for a broad gauge track where only\nthose that have the strength to work their passage may travel. But\nwhen operated by the American Society, it is far in advance of the\noverland or Panama routes of the forty-niners in extension travel.\nThis society seems to have solved the problem, and promises to become\nthe great American University that Washington proposed, Jefferson\nplanned, and scores have, since the founding of our government,\nprophesied and awaited.\n\n\n\n\nPOPE LEO ON LABOR.\n\nBY THOMAS B. PRESTON.\n\n\nIn reading the encyclical letter of Pope Leo XIII. on the condition of\nlabor, one is chiefly struck by his earnest desire for the welfare of\nall mankind, his clear recognition of the existence of a grave social\nproblem, and the singular want of logic which he exhibits in his\nattempt to solve it. His views on this subject certainly deserve\ncareful and thoughtful analysis on account of the influence which they\nare bound to exert in the world, owing to his peculiar position as\nhead of the largest of the Christian churches. They should be read\nwithout bias, each argument being given its due weight irrespective of\nany conclusions but those of common sense and right reason.\nUnfortunately there is much division of opinion as to the value of the\ndocument. Those Catholics who are superstitious give to these opinions\nof the Pope the force of a revelation from God. And on the other hand\nthere are many so-called liberals who regard these utterances as the\nwords of a crafty old man, ambitious of acquiring wealth, power, and\nfame in the world for himself and for the hierarchy of his Church.\nPutting aside all prejudice of either kind, let us examine what Pope\nLeo says in the light of reason, having faith enough to believe that\nthe interests of true religion cannot suffer in the slightest degree\nfrom such an examination.\n\nIn his opening sentences the Pope speaks in a tone of regret of the\n\"spirit of revolutionary change\" predominant in the nations, and seems\nto connect it with \"a general moral deterioration.\" He does not appear\nto have considered that the change may be evolutionary rather than\nrevolutionary, and that the \"general moral deterioration\" is quite as\nmuch due to the efforts of reactionary politicians and churchmen who\naim to retain for the classes all the constantly increasing\nwealth-producing power of the world, keeping the masses down to the\nsame bare level of subsistence as formerly, while their capacity for\nenjoyment has been vastly enlarged through the increased general\naverage of civilization and refinement. This naturally produces on the\none side the piled-up accumulations of individuals garnered by the\nfew, an inordinate display of wealth and luxury, and the vices of\nintemperance and immorality; while on the other, maddened and starving\ncrowds are likely to resort to violence, and the poorer population to\nindulge whenever they get a chance in the same pleasures as the rich.\nBut with all these disadvantages in the modern economic situation it\nmay fairly be questioned whether the general moral deterioration is as\ngreat as in the good old times, the \"ages of faith,\" when the\nInquisition flourished along with the Borgias, the _droit du seigneur_\nwas a recognized custom, and bribery and violence were everywhere\nprevalent.\n\n\"Public institutions and the laws,\" says Pope Leo, \"have repudiated\nthe ancient religion.\" But is not this repudiation in large part due\nto the refusal of the ministers of the ancient religion to accommodate\nthemselves to new conditions in the world's history, so that with the\ngrowth of modern civilization the world has moved more rapidly than\nthe Church, and the latter has become dissociated from the masses,\nchiefly owing to the ignorance and intense conservatism of her rulers\nand their entirely unnecessary distrust of the discoveries of science?\nPope Leo admits that this is \"an age of greater instruction, of\ndifferent customs, and of more numerous requirements in daily life,\"\nbut he cannot divest himself of the trammels of ecclesiasticism which\nseem to mould his thoughts and lead him to consider it \"essential in\nthese times of covetous greed to keep the multitude within the line of\nduty.\" With him it is \"the multitude\" who seem possessed of an insane\ndesire to break out of the line of duty. His theory is like that of\nthe man who accounted for the overcrowding in large cities on the\nground that the poor and unfortunate had a strange and uncontrollable\npropensity for swarming in tenement-houses. He does not give\nsufficient force to the influence of conditions upon human acts, and\napparently is chiefly anxious that \"strife should cease,\" forgetting\nthat until justice be done the worst thing that could happen would be\nthe cessation of strife.\n\nThe flattering surroundings and aristocratic training of Pope Leo\ncannot, however, dull the generous sympathies of his heart, or blind\nhis clear vision of \"the misery and wretchedness which press so\nheavily at this moment on the large majority of the very poor.\" He\nsays: \"The condition of the working population is the question of the\nhour.\" This will be a rude awakening to those conservative Catholic\nchurchmen who have in recent years been insisting that things as they\nare were altogether lovely, and that the talk about the misery of the\npoor was only the exaggeration of a few cunning agitators who wanted\nto excite the people so that in a general upheaval these agitators\nthemselves might personally profit. Pope Leo's voice of sympathy is\nheard declaring that there is a social problem, and that \"it is\nshameful and inhuman to treat men like chattels to make money by or to\nlook upon them merely as so much muscle or physical power.\"\n\nCharity, as Pope Leo frequently understands it, would indeed effect a\nwonderful amelioration in the world. But it is that charity \"which is\nalways ready to sacrifice itself for others' sake\" and the chief\ncharacteristic of which is the love of justice. It has been degraded\nin these later years into the sense of alms-giving, so that the\nChristian pulpits of every denomination have too often thus been\npreaching charity while ignoring justice.\n\nIs it any wonder the world rebelled? The victories of the Church were\nwon when she possessed the sublime strength of weakness, and when her\nmartyrs and saints in language only matched by that of the radicals of\nto-day were proclaiming the essential liberty, fraternity, and\nequality of all men, and denouncing the iniquities of imperial Rome.\nBut when she took the fatuous step, and placed on her own brow the\ncrown of the Caesars, then she too became conservative, then the words\nof her popes began to be regulated by policy, then charity became\nalms-giving, and piety degenerated into ecclesiasticism. Authority was\nstrained until it snapped, and a suffering world revolted from the\noutrageous assumptions of ecclesiastical power. A return to\nChristianity is, indeed, needed, but the Church will have quite as\nmuch of a journey to go as the world, so far as her methods are\nconcerned.\n\nWith regard to the position of the family in the state, Pope Leo is\nthe advocate of freedom as against the interference of public\nauthority in domestic affairs. He admits, however, that the state\nshould interfere in cases of family disturbance \"to force each party\nto give the other what is due,\" herein differing from the\nphilosophical anarchists. He discerns clearly that the interests of\nlabor and of capital are not antagonistic, but what he does not see is\nthat the interests of labor and capital may both be antagonistic to\nthe interests of monopoly, and that until the latter is destroyed the\ntwo former will be continually forced into positions of seeming\nantagonism. He denounces \"rapacious usury,\" and says that it was \"more\nthan once condemned by the Church,\" conveniently overlooking the fact\nthat the _usuria_, which was condemned, was not only \"rapacious\" but\nwas all taking of money for the use of money, all interest on loans--a\ncondemnation which, if insisted upon by the Church to-day, would soon\nempty her sanctuaries. He refers to the \"greed of unrestrained\ncompetition\" but does not grasp the idea that under conditions of\njustice unrestrained competition would be an advantage, constantly\nleading men to emulate each other, and becoming a sure guarantee of\nprogress. It is the competition of those who have nothing but their\nlabor, or their brains, or their capital to sell with the owners of\nvast monopolies who exact from production an ever-increasing toll that\nneeds to be restrained, and this not by abolishing \"the custom of\nworking by contract,\" or by state interference and legislative\ntinkering, to which the Pope leans in spite of his protests against\nsocialism, but by the abolition of the monopolies or their absorption\ninto the functions of the state.\n\nThe Pope is almost a Spencerian in his bias towards individualism, but\nhe forgets that individualism can never be maintained in practice\nexcept through the assumption by the state of those monopolies which,\nif left in private hands, would benefit the few at the expense of the\nmany. True individualism requires equality of opportunity. The instant\nthe idea of monopoly enters, equality of opportunity becomes\nimpossible, and individualism is destroyed. It is through want of\nseeing this fact that the Pope, in common with most political\neconomists, goes floundering round in a sea of contradictions, now\nproclaiming principles almost like those of the anarchists, and again\nfavoring extreme socialism, while all the time imagining himself an\nindividualist. Their theories remind one of the labored attempts to\nexplain the solar system by the old Ptolemaic method of epicycles and\ndeferents, when the one simple law of centripetal and centrifugal\nforce was enough to account for all the majestic movements of the\nuniverse. What other outcome can there be of this want of a regulator\nin economics--like a governor in machinery--than an endeavor to patch\nup the machine of humanity, adding a little here, taking off a little\nthere, doing the best that occasion seems to allow, and all the while\nimpressed with a profound and sad conviction that the machine is in a\nbad way, and certain to smash up, whatever is done? Consequently we\nhave just such weak documents as this encyclical letter, emanating now\nfrom an eminent agnostic scientist, now from a millionnaire\n\"philanthropist\" and now from the Pope--all conflicting with each\nother, the first denying that man has any more rights than a\nrattlesnake, the second lauding a \"triumphant democracy\" which has not\nthe courage to attack the monopolies through which he has acquired his\nmillions, the third writing a long paper full of pious platitudes and\ninjunctions to the rich to give to the poor, and to the poor to be\ncontented, and then everything will be lovely.\n\nThe main portion of the encyclical letter is directed against\n\"socialism,\" and the Pope's arguments are effective as against what he\nevidently means by socialism. They are sadly weakened, however, by his\nwant of a logical conception of what constitutes private property. He\nshows in more than one place that he believes private property to be\nonly the result of human labor, but when he comes to apply his ideas,\nhe admits of its extension to land and other monopolies, without\nrealizing that because such monopolies are not the creation of human\nlabor they cannot therefore be rightfully considered as private\nproperty. He is like the man who would divide the human race into men,\nwomen, and poets, or in enumerating the New England States would\ninclude Boston after having mentioned Massachusetts. His arguments are\nstill further weakened by his evident leaning towards compulsory\nSunday rest, and an eight-hour day, trades-unionism, and regulation by\nchurch societies, all of which savor of the very socialism which he is\ncombatting.\n\nHe argues well, however, against the theory which proposes that the\nstate should administer individual property as common property for the\nbenefit of all. This would be more correctly termed state socialism\nor, in its extreme form, communism. But the Pope fails to recognize\nthat there is such a thing as public property, created by the mere\npresence of large communities, and which those communities have a\nperfect right to administer. While endeavoring to uphold the rights of\nprivate property, he impugns what Father William Barry called in a\nrecent review article, \"The Rights of Public Property.\" His Holiness'\nignorance on this point can be best shown by a quotation:--\n\n\"If one man hires out to another his strength or his industry, he does\nthis for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for food\nand living; he thereby expressly proposes to acquire a full and real\nright, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of that\nremuneration as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money,\nand invests his savings, for greater security, in land, the land in\nsuch a case is only his wages in another form; and, consequently, a\nworkingman's little estate thus purchased should be as completely at\nhis own disposal as the wages he receives for his labor.\"\n\nIt would be interesting to know what the Pope would say if the\nworkingman invested his savings in a slave, and whether the Holy\nFather would consider the slave only the workingman's \"wages in\nanother form.\" Pope Leo certainly never could have intended to state\nthat the mere purchase of a thing was sufficient to convey ownership.\nYet that is just what the last sentence quoted amounts to. The justice\nof the ownership depends entirely upon whether the thing purchased be\nrightfully capable of ownership, in the first place, and whether it be\nobtained from the rightful owner, in the second.\n\n\"As effects follow their cause,\" Pope Leo says a little further on,\n\"so it is just and right that the results of labor should belong to\nhim who has labored.\"\n\nThere he strikes the key-note of the right of property upheld alike by\nthe best churchmen and economists in all ages. That is the natural law\nof labor. It is opposed to the theory of State socialism, and to what\nmany in this country understand by nationalism. If the Pope had\nadhered to that proposition, he would have been saved from his\nillogical position. It is undoubtedly true that a man is entitled to\nthat of which he is the producing cause. And in some branches of labor\nwhich are more intimately associated with the earth than others, such\nas agricultural operations, it is true that the results of labor, and\nthe improvements made upon land, become physically inseparable from\nthe land itself, so that he who would own what his labor has produced\nmust also have security of tenure, and exclusive possession of \"that\nportion of nature's field which he cultivates.\"\n\nIt is for want of distinguishing carefully between possession and\nownership that the Pope falls into his ludicrous economic blunders.\nThis part of his encyclical is absolutely self-contradictory. He is\narguing for the securing to the laborer of the fruits of his labor.\nThe workman on land must have ownership of those things he has\nproduced, and hence must have exclusive possession of that part of the\nearth which he tills. He must have such disposal of it as will enable\nhim by the exertion of his labor to secure a proportionate reward. But\nthis is not ownership. Ownership carries with it something more than\nthis. Once \"divide the earth among private owners,\" as the Pope puts\nit, and you have this condition of things: that those who do not\nhappen to be among the private owners must compete for the privilege\nof living on the earth, they must pay a part of the results of their\nlabor for permission to work, and on the other hand the fortunate\nowners receive something for which they themselves render no labor. It\nis strange that the Pope did not see the absurdities of his own\npropositions. He says:--\n\n\"Moreover the earth, though divided among private owners, ceases not\nthereby to minister to the needs of all; for there is no one who does\nnot live on what the land brings forth. Those who do not possess the\nsoil contribute their labor; so that it may be truly said that all\nhuman subsistence is derived either from labor on one's own land, or\nfrom some laborious industry which is paid for either in the produce\nof the land itself or in that which is exchanged for what the land\nbrings forth.\"\n\nPope Leo is mistaken. All human subsistence is not derived either from\nlabor on one's own land or from some laborious industry. Some human\nsubsistence, as the Pope says, is derived from labor on one's own\nland. Some human subsistence is derived from laborious industry on the\nland of others. And--what the Pope seems to ignore--some human\nsubsistence is derived by owning land and letting others work upon it,\ntaking from them part of the fruits of their labor in exchange for the\nmere permission to labor. By no construction can such ownership be\nclassed as a \"laborious industry.\" Yet such owners generally enjoy the\nvery best of \"human subsistence.\"\n\nNevertheless, a few sentences further on, the Pope naively asks: \"Is\nit just that the fruit of a man's sweat and labor should be enjoyed by\nanother?\" Had the Pope pondered over that question more profoundly, he\nmight have come to far different conclusions from those which he seems\nto have reached.\n\nIt is unfortunate that the Pope through a desire to uphold the just\nrights of property should have been led to maintain the privileges of\nmonopoly, and still more unfortunate that so many Catholics will\nconsider his blunder an article of faith and feel it binding upon\ntheir consciences to oppose all further efforts to impair private\nownership of land by taxation--the only way in which individual\npossession can be reconciled with the common right of all mankind to\nthe earth.\n\nIn one place the Pope seems to doubt the extent to which the principle\nof private ownership is applicable to land, for he says: \"The limits\nof private possession have been left to be fixed by man's own industry\n_and the laws of individual peoples_.\" But if the laws should tax the\nmonopoly value out of land, then the holder of land would not be able\nto get any profit out of it except by his own labor. It would be no\nlonger such ownership as exists to-day which allows private owners to\nconfiscate the results of other's labor. The Pope here abandons the\nunqualified ownership which he elsewhere maintains. It might well be\nasked if he is prepared to excommunicate the legislators and assessors\nwho, in nearly every civilized country to-day, do tax land, and thus\nto a certain extent impair ownership. And if the same principle were\nextended so that the tax would equal the entire rental value there\nwould be no chance for the land monopolist to exploit the earnings of\nlabor. Man's means should not be \"drained and exhausted by excessive\ntaxation,\" as the Pope seems to fear, showing that he has a vague idea\nof the method by which it is proposed to destroy ownership. But as the\nrental value to-day is already paid by labor, the proposed plan could\nnot drain or exhaust labor any more than at present, while such a tax\nfalling upon lands held for speculation would cause their abandonment,\nand thus open new fields for labor. Workingmen would then be really\n\"encouraged to look forward to obtaining a share in the land,\" and\nthat prosperity which the Pope hopes for would result. He seems to be\nignorant of the fact that taxing land, unlike a tax upon any product\nof labor, makes it cheaper and easier to obtain for possession and\nuse.\n\nMore than all does he forget that what labor needs is not the\nprotecting arm of Church or State, but equal opportunity and the\nfullest possible freedom of access to Nature's bounties. He is untrue\nto himself and talks like the veriest socialist when he says: \"Among\nthe purposes of a society should be to try to arrange for a\n\"continuous supply of work at all times and seasons.\" Bountiful nature\nin the great storehouse of the earth has provided a \"continuous supply\nof work\" for the whole human race for all future ages. Make monopoly,\nby taxation, loosen her grip upon the earth, and labor would have\nabundant opportunity for all time to come without the necessity for\npaternal, socialistic tinkering on the part of either State or\nChurch.\n\n\n\n\nTHE AUSTRIAN POSTAL BANKING SYSTEM.\n\nBY SYLVESTER BAXTER.\n\n\nThere is a possibility that the plan for the establishment of postal\nsavings banks, so ably advocated by the postmaster-general, may result\nin a radical change in our entire banking system. The demand for\npostal savings-banks is so popular that it is not likely that there\nwill be much further delay on the part of Congress in realizing the\nproject. Now it happens that among the new political issues that have\narisen, the question of the currency has assumed a most prominent\nplace. There can be no doubt of the intensity of the feeling that has\ndeveloped against the national banks, which have supplied a large\nproportion of the circulating medium since the war, and the demand for\na currency issued directly by the government, without the intervention\nof the banks, is growing both in volume and in force.\n\nThe sense of the inadequacy of the national banks to the financial\nnecessities of the country is by no means confined to those who, by\ntheory or experience, have been made hostile to them, and regard them\nas detrimental to our institutions, and as dangerous instruments for\nthe oppression of the common people. It extends to those who recognize\nthat the national banks have been of invaluable service to the\ncountry, and are a vast improvement over the banking system that\npreceded them. Nevertheless they feel that grave defects are showing\nthemselves, and that for the security of the community something\nbetter is needed. There is not the confidence on the part of the\nbusiness community that there should be, and events like the recent\noccurrences in connection with the Keystone National Bank, in\nPhiladelphia, are not likely to enhance that confidence. One of the\nmost frequent of surmises is as to how many similar cases there may\nbe, and a very commonly heard query is that as to the state of affairs\nthat a general financial panic might reveal, with the banks loaded\nwith collateral upon which it would be hardly possible to realize at\nsuch a time.\n\nThen there is the moral aspect of the case, so well expressed in an\nessay[22] by one of the soundest philosophical and political thinkers\nwhom America has known, the late David Atwood Wasson. Said he: \"At\npresent the government permits itself to become indirectly,--or,\nif we speak of the State governments, worse, sometimes, than\nindirectly,--confederate with those who amass fortunes by making\ncredit precarious, and forcing the hazards of the gaming-table into\nall the legitimate operations of business. The comptroller of the\ncurrency has publicly said that about one half, on an average, of the\nmeans of the national banks, in one chief city--institutions, observe,\ncreated by government, and charged, in effect, with one of its most\ndistinctive functions, that of supplying a medium of exchange--are\nloaned to speculators; that is, to men who subsist largely on\nartificial disturbances of credit, upon corners in the stock market\nand money market, upon alternations of inflation and stringency, the\nups and downs of a disordered constitution. Without going into the\nmatter closely, which is aside from my present purpose, I leave before\nthe reader the main facts of the case: that the system of credit\ncentred in the modern banking system plays a vast and increasing role\nin our civilization; that while of a utility not easily overstated, it\naffords peculiar opportunities of fraud and exaction; that aside from\nthese, its unregulated condition is dangerous, resulting in\nalternations of inflation and depression, like the alternate extremes\nof fever and ague; that vast and growing combinations exist for\nproducing artificially this disorder; that those institutions which\ncredit has created under the express sanction of government, at once\nto supply its necessities and hold it healthily in check, are managed\nonly as private property; that much oppression, alike of labor and\ncapital, and also, I fear, much demoralization--which is an interior\nand worse oppression--are suffered in consequence; and that hitherto\nour statesmanship wants the studious leisure, and our method of\ngovernment the stability and precision of operation, which these\nexigencies demand.\"\n\n     [22] \"The New Type of Oppression,\" in \"Essays: Religious, Social,\n          Political.\" Lee & Shepard, Boston.\n\nA truer statement of the case never was made, and these words should\nbe well pondered by patriotic citizens.\n\nProbably the reason why the feeling against our present banking system\nhas not yet taken shape in legislation is because no sound\nconstructive measures have been proposed. Faulty as the system is,\nwhat is there better that can take its place? is asked, and to this no\nsatisfactory reply has been given. Even though the notes of the\nnational banks should be retired, and currency issued directly from\nthe national treasury should take their place, we must have banking\nfacilities of some kind.\n\nAbsolute security of bank deposits is what is desired, and any measure\nthat would secure that end could hardly fail to be joyfully welcomed\nby the business community, with the exception of the small minority\neither selfishly interested in present banking corporations, or whose\nprosperity is derived from operations based upon a state of\ninsecurity. Powerful as these interests are, there is no reason why\nthey should be permitted to stand in the way of the realization of a\nbetter condition of affairs, should that prove attainable.\n\nThe leading merit of the national banking system comes from the\nabsolute security of its circulating medium, proceeding from the\ngovernmental guarantee. Meanwhile the interests of the depositors, in\nsupplying whose convenience the bank derives its business, remain\ninadequately guarded. Is not some system possible whereby in place of\nthis partial guarantee we may have a complete guarantee, covering both\ncirculating medium and deposit?\n\nFortunately, with the experiences of other countries furnishing\nexamples so available as they do nowadays, we are not left entirely to\nour own resources in devising solutions for problems that confront us.\nWe have but to look to Austria for a most successful example of a\ntruly national banking system, that completely meets the demand. When\nAustria established its postal savings bank, in 1882, a regular check\nand clearing system was made a feature thereof. This, offering\nsubstantially the same convenience as our ordinary private or national\nbanks in this country, together with the additional advantages of\nabsolute security of deposits, and checks good in all parts of the\ncountry, has become enormously popular with the mercantile public, so\nthat the regular banking department has quite overshadowed the\nsavings department, important as the latter is.\n\nEvery post-office in Austria, therefore, has the function of both a\nsavings-bank and a bank of deposit. A permanent deposit of one hundred\nflorins, or forty dollars, is sufficient to make a person a member of\nthe check and clearing department. No limit is placed on the amount\nthat may be deposited, but a single check cannot be drawn for more\nthan ten thousand florins [four thousand dollars]. Interest is paid on\ndeposits at a rate not exceeding two per cent., while the interest on\nsavings may not exceed three per cent. A charge of two kreutzers\n[eight mills] is made for each entry, together with a commission of\none fourth per mille. Another function of the postal bank is the\nbuying and selling of government securities, for which a commission of\ntwo per mille is charged, with a commission of one per mille for the\ncashing of coupons.\n\nIt is interesting to learn that two years before the adoption of this\nsystem by Austria, a very similar plan was advocated by an able\nAmerican student of finance, the Hon. L. V. Moulton, of Grand Rapids,\nMichigan. In his book, \"The Science of Money and American Finances,\"\npublished in 1880, he said: \"The government ought to provide a deposit\nsystem of absolute safety to depositors for all who choose to avail\nthemselves of it. A system of postal savings-banks somewhat similar to\nthe British should be adopted. The government receiving a deposit, and\nallowing the depositor to check out at the same or any other office,\npaying no interest and doing no loaning, receiving the use of the\nfunds while on deposit, as compensation for storage and transportation\nof funds. No actual transportation would, of course, be required,\nexcept to settle balances between offices. This would be the safest\npossible deposit and most convenient exchange system, and is quite as\nproper for the government to undertake as the postal or money-order\nbusiness. As it is, the government coins money and transfers money,\nbut will not take it on storage, which is absurd, and forces the\npeople to deposit with loan and discount concerns, liable to explode\nat any time and leave them penniless.\"\n\nAlthough interest on deposits is paid in Austria, there appears to be\nno good reason why it should be paid were the system adopted in this\ncountry. There is no need of it as an inducement, for the absolute\nsecurity and the greatly increased convenience of the system would be\nsufficient for that. The present national banks pay no interest on\ndeposits, the facilities afforded being adequate to secure all the\ndeposits needed.\n\nIt appears desirable, however, to pay interest on deposits of savings.\nIn the bill prepared by Postmaster-General Wanamaker, it is provided\nthat this shall not exceed 2.4 per cent. This low rate is fixed upon\nin order that the interest may be considerably less than the average\npaid by private bankers to depositors. The great obstacle to the\nestablishment of postal savings-banks in this country has been the\nlack of available means for the investment of the funds, the rapidly\ndecreasing national debt making government bonds out of the question\nfor the purpose. Mr. Wanamaker proposes to overcome this obstacle by\nloaning the funds to national banks within the State where the\ndeposits are made. The objection to this course lies in the objection\nto the national banks themselves, as heretofore stated. To give them\ndisposition over such a vast amount--it is estimated that the deposits\nin the postal savings-banks would soon reach $500,000,000--would be to\nincrease vastly their power for harm.\n\nMr. Wanamaker's alternative proposition, to utilize the funds in the\ndirection of greater and much needed expenditures for public\nbuildings, particularly post-office structures, is, on the other hand,\na sound one. They might also be employed to advantage in providing the\nmeans for the much needed extension of the postal service now so\nwidely demanded, as in the adoption of a parcels post equal to that of\nGermany, England, and other countries, and in nationalizing the\ntelegraph and telephone and incorporating them into the postal\ndepartment.\n\nThe deposits in the proposed check and clearing department would place\nan enormous amount at the disposal of the government, in addition to\nthe postal savings-bank funds. Paying no interest on these deposits,\nthe government might utilize the money in its own expenditures, and\nthus to a considerable extent reduce taxation. Or, just as the\nordinary banks loan their deposits, the government might loan this\nmoney for mortgages on land and on staple products, somewhat as\ndemanded in recent agitations.\n\nA person so eminent in the discussion of these questions as Mr. Edward\nAtkinson has recently stated, in substance, that, increase the volume\nof the currency as we may, still it would not be adequate to certain\nexigencies of regular recurrence, like the annual moving of the crops.\nHe thus practically concedes the justice of the farmers' demand, as\nformulated in their \"sub-treasury project,\" but he would supply this\nwant through private banking institutions organized expressly to loan\nmoney for this purpose.\n\nSuch institutions would, however, naturally take advantage of the\nnecessities of the farmers by obtaining the highest rates of interest\npossible, while the underlying purpose of the other plan would be that\nof making the loans at the lowest rates consistent with the expense of\nthe transactions. Is it not better, it may be asked, and more in\naccordance with the principles of true self-help, for the people thus\nto supply their own financial needs in the cheapest way possible\nthrough the instrumentality of their governmental organization, rather\nthan depend upon \"private enterprise\" organized to take advantage of\ntheir necessities for its own profit?\n\nAt first glance there might seem to be an objection in the fact that,\nwhile the government was lending money at two per cent. it was paying\non savings deposits interest possibly as high as 2.4 per cent., which\nwould appear to be an unbusiness-like and unprofitable proceeding. But\non striking an average between the sums on which it was paying that\nrate and the large amounts on which it was paying no interest, but\nreceiving two per cent., it would probably be found that it was\ngetting the whole at a rate considerable less than two per cent.\n\nA more valid objection to the lending of money by the government at a\nfixed low rate of interest, instead of at whatever rates it might\nobtain according to the state of the money market, as private banking\ninstitutions would do, might be found in the liability that the\nparties to whom it was loaned might reloan it at higher rates, and\nthus use the good offices of the government as a means of personal\nprofit. The measure could hardly fail, however, to lower very greatly\nthe general rate of interest in the business world. It would be\nimportant, of course, to keep this large sum in circulation, and thus\navoid the evils arising from hoarding. Its utilization for the\nregular expenditures of the government would be likely to do this, and\nthe consequent reduction of taxation would be a great public\nadvantage. Although the idea of loaning money at fixed low rates upon\ncertain securities, such as land and staple products, might prove\nimpracticable from various considerations--such, for instance, as the\ninjustice of discriminating in favor of any particular classes in the\ncommunity, as such a scheme would appear to do--there should be no\ndifficulty in devising some practicable system for using to the\nadvantage of the entire public the extensive funds which thus would be\nplaced at the disposal of the government.\n\nThe postal banks would doubtless very largely take the place of\npresent institutions of deposit. To what extent this would be the\ncase, it is, of course, impossible to say. For all ordinary purposes,\nand for the needs of the average business man, their advantages could\nnot fail to be great. Their effect would probably be to withdraw from\nthe market large sums now available for speculative purposes, and\ndivert them to legitimate uses. The speculative tendency would,\ntherefore, be likely to be discouraged by so much. Necessary\nlimitations might make the postal banks unavailable for those whose\nfinancial transactions are conducted on a great scale, and their wants\nwould continue to be met by private institutions, which would offer\nspecial inducements to large depositors, just as the trust companies\nnow offer special inducements over the present national banks by\npaying interest on deposits.\n\n\n\n\nANOTHER VIEW OF NEWMAN.\n\nBY WM. M. SALTER.\n\n\nI suppose I should never have felt toward Cardinal John Henry Newman\nas I do, had I not been once in a certain state of mind. It was my\nlot, as a divinity student, to feel under the necessity of examining\ninto the grounds of my religious belief. I could not accept what my\nteachers gave me, simply because it was taught, much as I revered some\nof them. I had to test, examine, and conclude for myself. I evidently\nfelt the difficulties of belief, as most of my fellow-students did\nnot. At New Haven the main outlines of evangelical orthodoxy, at\nCambridge the fundamental ideas of theism, were accepted, as a rule,\nwithout serious question. I envied my fellows their assurance; I, too,\ncraved assurance, but I had to get it in my own way, and I was plunged\ninto investigations, and beset by doubts that did not seem to occupy\nor perplex them. The question was, where could I find a point to start\nfrom; not what was the whole truth, but what was the truth I could be\nimmediately sure of,--what was light that I could not question (or, at\nleast, reasonably question)? For, once in possession of that, other\nthings might naturally and logically follow. It seemed to me, that if\nthere was any sure ground for the Christian believer, it was to be\nfound in Christ himself; that if ever a voice from another world had\nspoken to this, it had been through him. The fundamental problem was,\nWas his consciousness to be trusted? It was after three years of\nexamination into the origin and trustworthiness of the gospel records,\nof effort to form a faithful picture of Jesus' mind, of weighing of\nprobabilities as to whether he could have been mistaken, and a\ndecision that he could not have been, and that he was, under God, my\nappointed Lord, and Saviour, and Judge, as he was that of all men,--it\nwas at this time that I fell in with the writings of Newman, and that\nhe began to exercise a charm over me, which, amid all my subsequent\nchanges of thought, I have never been willing to disown.\n\nI felt in the first place that he had a profound sense of the\ndifficulties of faith. There was no evidence that certain questions\nhad ever been open questions to him (such as the being of God and the\nreality of a revelation), but he seemed to be as keenly aware of the\ndifficulties attending them as if they had been. He believed and yet\nhe knew the other side. Few are the apologists who have dared to say\nwhat he has said; few are the unbelievers who could state their case\nmore strongly than he has stated it for them. It was this width of\nimagination that, for one thing, separated him from the ordinary\ntheologian. One of his precepts to a zealous follower was, \"Be sure\nyou grasp fully any view which you seek to combat.\" Let me illustrate.\nNewman admitted in so many words that it was a great question whether\natheism was not as philosophically consistent with the phenomena of\nthe physical world as the doctrine of a creative and governing power.\nHe allowed Hume's argument against miracles to be valid from a purely\nscientific aspect of things, and doubted the conclusiveness of the\ndesign argument (though not the argument from order) for the being of\nGod. He knew to the full how hard it was to hold one's faith in God in\nface of all that seems amiss and awry, purposeless, blind, and cruel\nin the world. He held this faith, he believed there were reasons for\nit (chiefly in man's conscience), it was the starting-point of his\nreligious system, and yet when he looked out of himself into the world\nof men, the lie seemed to be given to it and the effect was as\nconfusing, he said, as if it were denied that he was in existence\nhimself. \"If I looked into a mirror [these are his words] and did not\nsee my face, I should have the sort of feeling which actually comes\nupon me when I look into this living, busy world and see no reflex of\nits Creator.... Were it not for the voice speaking so clearly in my\nconscience and my heart, I should be an Atheist, or a Pantheist, or a\nPolytheist.... To consider the world in its length and breadth, its\nvarious history, the many races of men, their starts, their fortunes,\ntheir mutual alienation, their conflicts; and then their ways, habits,\ngovernments, forms of worship, their enterprises, their aimless\ncourses, their random achievements and acquirements, the impotent\nconclusion of long-standing facts, the tokens so faint and broken of\na superintending design, the blind evolution of what turn out to be\ngreat powers or truths; the progress of things, as if from unreasoning\nelements, not towards final causes; the greatness and littleness of\nman, his far-reaching aims, his short duration, the curtain hung over\nhis futurity; the disappointments of life, the defeat of good, the\nsuccess of evil, the pervading idolatries, the corruptions, the\ndreary, hopeless irreligion, that condition of the whole race so\nfearfully yet exactly described in the apostle's words, 'Having no\nhope and without God in this world'; all this is a vision to dizzy and\nappall, and inflicts upon the mind a sense of profound mystery which\nis absolutely beyond human solution.\" To have one's doubts, one's\nmisgivings, one's own blank confusion portrayed with such appreciation\nand in such vivid detail by another--how could it fail to powerfully\naffect me? Surely, I said to myself, whether this man's faith was true\nor not, he did not hold it because the tremendous obstacles in the way\nof it had not been brought home to him. Similarly he appreciated the\ndifficulties in connection with revelation itself, as when he said\nthat God \"has given us doctrines which are but obscurely gathered from\nscripture, and a scripture which is but obscurely gathered from\nhistory,\" as when he admitted the real obstacles in the way of the\nJews admitting that Jesus was their Messiah.\n\nBut I will not linger over this point, and pass on to say that Newman\nimpressed me as one of those few men, in any age, who have an\nintellectual life of their own. His was no hereditary belief; he had\nfaced the problems of religion for himself. What looks like faith in\nmany cases, he himself said, was a mere hereditary persuasion, not a\npersonal principle, a habit learned in the nursery, which is scattered\nand disappears like a mist before the light of reason. His own\nadmiration went out evidently to the \"bold unworldliness and vigorous\nindependence of mind\" shown by one of his early teachers, Thos. Scott;\nto the type of mind illustrated by an Oxford associate, who had an\nintellect, he says, \"as critical and logical as it was speculative and\nbold.\" Whately, he records, had taught him to see with his own eyes\nand to walk with his own feet; he thought of dedicating his first book\nto him, in words to the effect that he had not only taught him to\nthink, but to think for himself. It was a first hand dealing with\nalmost all the problems he took up, that I had the sense of in\nreading Newman's pages, however far ahead he was of me in the line of\n(what seemed then) religious advance.\n\nAnd because he had thought, he had moved, he had had a history. He\nstarted with certain truths (as he supposed them to be), but instead\nof accepting them mechanically, he thought them out; he studied to see\nwhat they implied, what other truths were consistent with them and\nwhat were not; in other words, he gradually worked his way out to\nsomething like a system, and therein consisted his history. The\nordinary idea of Newman (leaving the past tense for the moment) seems\nto be that he sacrificed his intellect, that out of weariness he threw\nhimself into the Catholic fold. Such may be a true account of some\nconversions, but it is a pitiable travesty of the facts in the case of\nNewman. Newman went into the Church because it seemed rational to him\nto do so; and it is still the great question, whether once assuming\ncertain fundamental ideas held by Protestant and Catholic alike, any\nother course is rational. The \"trouble\" with Newman, as with his\nbrother Francis (in some ways also a remarkable man), was simply that,\nas the London _Truth_ banteringly said, neither was able to swallow\nthe Athanasian creed in a comfortable and prosaic way, as good Britons\nshould; or, as the _Saturday Review_ in all seriousness urged, that he\ndid not hold as his supreme principle pride in the Church of England\nas such, determination to stand shoulder to shoulder with others \"in\nresisting the foreigner, whether he came from Rome or from Geneva,\nfrom Tuebingen or from Saint Sulpice\"; in other words, that he opened\nthe windows of his mind, instead of keeping them shut; that he set out\non living a life of reason instead of one of prejudice; that he\ndetermined to seek out and follow the truth on whatever shores that\nquest should land him.\n\n\"Most men in this country,\" Newman once wrote, \"like opinions to be\nbrought to them, rather than to be at the pains to go out and seek for\nthem.\" But Newman himself was cast in another mould; rationality,\nconsistency, were an imperative craving with him; and feeling that the\npopular religious creed lacked these things, he went in search of them\nand started, as it were, on a journey. A memorandum, written down at\nthe age of twenty-eight, speaks of himself as \"now in my room in Orell\nCollege, slowly advancing, etc., and led on by God's hand blindly,\nnot knowing whither He is taking me.\" His touching verses, beginning\n\"Lead, kindly Light,\" betray the same feeling. Gloom did encircle him,\nbut in the midst of it there was a light, which he strove and craved\nto follow. Though mystical, in a certain sense, by temperament, he\nresolved, he tells us, to be guided, not by his imagination, but by\nhis reason. He had once a strange emotional experience, but when it\nwas over he wished that it should not unduly influence him. \"I had to\ndetermine its logical value,\" he says, \"and its bearing on my duty.\"\n\"What are we doing all through life, both as a necessity and as a\nduty,\" he wrote many years afterwards, \"but unlearning the world's\npoetry and attaining to its prose? This is our education as boys and\nas men, in the action of life and in the closet or library; in our\naffections, in our aims, in our hopes, and in our memories. And in\nlike manner it is the education of our intellect.\" This is little more\nthan saying that the supreme rule of life is reason, that it is our\nlife-task to bring all the varied motions of our minds into harmony\nwith this ideal. The fact is that he became ultimately persuaded that\nthe Catholic creed was that rational and consistent creed of which he\nwas in search--rational and consistent that is, in the sense of being\nin harmony with, and an outgrowth of, those fundamental ideas of a God\nand of a revelation with which he started; and in addressing others\nafter he became a Catholic, he said, \"Be convinced in your reason that\nthe Catholic Church is a teacher sent to you from God, and it is\nenough. I do not wish you to join her till you are.\"\n\nYet while he was in search of the truth, while he was on the journey,\nhe excited no little suspicion and distrust. The very thing that lends\nhim charm to those who love to see intellectual movement and\ndevelopment allowed apostles of prejudice and good, but narrow-minded,\nmen to think of him as insidious, leading his disciples on to\nconclusions to which he designed to bring them, while his purpose was\nveiled. But, says Froude, who tells us this, and was himself at Oxford\nin those early days, he was on the contrary \"the most transparent of\nmen. He told us what he believed to be true. He did not know where it\nwould carry him. No one who has ever risen to any great height in the\nworld refuses to move till he knows whither he is going.\" Such are the\nwords of one who, though he felt the spell of Newman, soon struck on\na different intellectual path. Matthew Arnold, too, experienced the\nspell. \"Who could resist,\" he says in a lecture on Emerson, \"the charm\nof that spiritual apparition, gliding in the dim afternoon light\nthrough the aisles of St. Mary's, rising into the pulpit, and then in\nthe most entrancing of voices, breaking the silence with words and\nthoughts which were a religious music--subtile, sweet, mournful.\" To\nArnold, he was a man \"never to be named by a son of Oxford without\nsympathy;\" and this, though Arnold, too, regarded his solution for the\ndoubts and difficulties which beset men's minds to-day as impossible.\nOnce Charles Kingsley brought against him a charge of intellectual\ndishonesty and falsity; but, as Mr. Conway remarks, Kingsley's sword\nbroke in his hands and on all sides the demolition which he received\nin Newman's reply (the _Apologia pro Vita Sua_) has been regarded as\ncomplete. Even the _Saturday Review_ says, \"His conversion was\ntransparently honest; no one, save the most contemptible of party\nscribes, can ever hint a doubt of that.\" \"He deliberately shut his\neyes,\" an \"intellectual suicide,\" \"his sympathies and sensibilities\nwere always his ultimate test of right thought and action.\" Such are\nthe comments of a recent reviewer; but on the morning of the day in\nwhich Newman was received into the Catholic Church, he wrote to a\nfriend, \"May I have only one tenth part as much faith as _I have\nintellectual conviction_ where the truth lies! I do not suppose any\none can have had such combined reasons pouring in upon him that he is\ndoing right.\"\n\nBut how can Newman have had _reasons_ for his course? we may\nincredulously ask. And here I revert to my particular state of mind\nyears ago. The question for me was, holding as I did that in Jesus,\nGod had spoken to the world, and that under God he was the Lord, and\nSaviour, and Judge of men, could I remain standing in such a position?\nIt was a starting-point, but did it not lead somewhere? Holding so\nmuch, despite the difficulties, was it not possible that consistently\ntherewith, I must hold more, despite further difficulties? Looking\nabout me among Unitarians, with whom I was then associated, I felt\nthat even this faith had scant acceptance among them. For example,\ntaking a country church for a year, I found that not in a decade or\nmore had there been any additions to the church membership, or even\nefforts in that direction; the church was, practically, simply an\nassemblage of pew-holders. My own efforts to induce persons to confess\nJesus as their Lord, to take his name, to become his avowed follower\nbefore the world (i. e. to join his church), were something novel; yet\na church, an assembly of followers, was essential to my idea of\nChristianity,--Jesus having said, \"Whoever will confess me before men,\nhim will I confess before my Father who is in heaven,\" and a king\nwithout a kingdom (or right to a kingdom) being in itself absurd. I\ncould not help the foreboding that Unitarianism was not a finality or\nmore than a camp for a night; nay, the question was whether\nUnitarianism was not doing more to dissipate Christianity, than to\nbuild it up in any historical sense of the term.\n\nMoreover, Protestant orthodoxy did not have any firm hold on some\nfundamental parts and evident implications of the faith I already\nheld, and was struggling to keep. The idea of the Church itself was\nweak in most Protestant mind; they \"spiritualized\" it, as they said;\nbut when Jesus spoke of confessing him _before men_, he evidently laid\nthe foundations of a visible Church. Again, Jesus felt that he spoke\nwith Divine authority, and as he was commissioned, so he commissioned\nothers to stand for him before the world, and to speak in his name. He\nleft them to be his witnesses, to continue his message and his work\nafter he should be gone. He had the power to forgive sins, for\nexample, and he conveyed it to others, solemnly saying that whatever\nwas bound or loosed on earth, should be bound or loosed in heaven. Was\nit exactly natural, I asked myself, that divine light and guidance and\nforgiveness should be thus present, as it were, on earth for a few\nyears, and then become entirely a matter of history and antiquarian\nresearch? If there was reason for Jesus' commissioning the apostles,\nwas there not equal reason for the apostles commissioning others who\nshould take their places? Protestants said the revelation was in a\nbook; but Jesus never spoke of a book. If something else was\nauthoritative in the apostolic days, what absurdity was there in\nsupposing that something else might be authoritative in later days?\nAnd yet, no Protestant church or synod or council ever claimed to be\nsuch a living witness of God on the earth. The most zealous\nProtestants were careful to say that they gave only their human,\nfallible interpretations of the distant revelation; that it was even\nblasphemous for a man to claim to forgive sins; that the Bible, and\nthe Bible only, was their religion. And yet, the Bible, it was\nseverally claimed, gave the basis to the Presbyterian creed, to the\nMethodist creed, to, one might say, a hundred creeds, even including\nthe slender one of Unitarians. How certain words of Newman came home\nto me in the midst of such reflections! \"There is an overpowering\nantecedent improbability in Almighty God's announcing that He has\nrevealed something, and then revealing nothing; there is no antecedent\nimprobability in His revealing it elsewhere than in an inspired\nvolume.\" I do not mean to say that I was converted by Newman; but I\nwas open to light on that side. I did not shut my mind, as most\nProtestants seemed to, and I dimly felt, I had a sort of foreboding\nthat, if what I already held was true, reason might be on his side.\nAnd it was reason--the demand for a set of views that should be\nharmonious and consistent--that made me dissatisfied; and so I could\ngive credit to the idea that Newman in his changes, and in his final\nact, was influenced by reason.\n\nTo Newman, the main difficulty of all lay in the being of God. If\nthere was a God, it seemed rational to him that there should be a\nrevelation, taking into account the actual condition of men. If there\nwas a revelation, the Catholic Church presented more signs of being\nits bearer and custodian than any other body or institution of men. I\nthink if we are disposed to question the rationality of his course, we\nshall find, if we examine the matter carefully, that it is because we\nquestion his postulates, not his reasoning or results. Granted that\nthere is a God, as men ordinarily understand that term, and I think\nthat a revelation is antecedently probable; granted that a revelation\nhas been made, as Protestants (save Unitarians) are agreed, and I\nthink it but reasonable to suppose that some such body as the Catholic\nChurch claims to be should be its bearer and unerring interpreter to\nmen. We are mistaken if we think that Newman devised any short-cut to\nmental peace, or used any other instrument or method for arriving at\nhis results than we ordinarily employ in sound reasonings of every\nday. He claimed no intuitions, no vision of theological truth, and he\nwas less arbitrary and fanciful in defending Catholic dogma than I\nhave known \"philosophers\" to be in defending the being of God and the\nimmortality of the soul. He tells us in his _Apologia_ that he\nbelieved in a God on a ground of probability, that he believed in\nChristianity on a probability, and that he believed in Catholicism on\na probability, and that these three grounds of probability, distinct\nfrom each other in subject-matter, were still, all of them, one and\nthe same in nature of proof, as being probabilities--probabilities of\na special kind, a cumulative, a transcendent probability, but still\nprobability.\n\nBut did he not by some magical metamorphosis turn these probabilities\ninto a certainty? No; he simply claimed that they were sufficient to\nproduce certitude, which is a different matter. Certitude, he held,\nwas a quality or habit of mind; certainty, a quality of propositions;\nand probabilities that did not reach to logical certainty might\nsuffice for a mental certitude. We are mentally sure almost every day\nof many things which could not be demonstratively proved; we are\npractically as sure of them as if they could be proved; we are ready\nto act on the basis of them, and that is the test of practical\ncertitude. The word of a friend on a matter of which we are ignorant\nis an example; we may be as sure of what he tells us as if we had seen\nit ourselves; yet he may be mistaken; strictly speaking, his word is\nonly probable evidence. But did not Newman substitute faith for\nreason? Yes, in a sense; but not in a sense in which it is of itself\nirrational to do so. How much could the reason of any of us tell us of\nCentral Africa? We know of it by testimony, do we not? not by reason.\nFrom our own notions alone we could not tell whether it was a desert\nor a forest; whether it was inhabited or uninhabited; whether\nfull-grown human beings or dwarfs lived there; but a Livingstone, a Du\nChaillu, a Stanley, tell us, and we accept their word. The fact is,\nthat trust in testimony is what we daily practise. We learn of what is\ngoing on in a neighboring town, of much in our own town, of much in\nour own house (unless we are there all the time, and in every part of\nit at the same time) not by reasoning about it, any more than by\nsight, but by faith in what others tell us. \"Why should we be\nunwilling to go by faith?\" asks Newman. \"We do all things in this\nworld by faith in the word of others. By faith only we know our\npositions in the world, our circumstances, our rights and privileges,\nour fortunes, our parents, our brothers and sisters, our age, our\nmortality; why should religion be an exception? Why should we be\nwilling to use for heavenly objects what we daily use for earthly?\"\nThere is really nothing mystical about faith; it is not peculiarly a\nreligious principle, nor is it the ideal way of getting knowledge. As\nNewman says, \"The word of another is in itself a faint evidence\ncompared with that of sight or reason. It is influential only when we\ncannot do without it.\"\n\nNow it may be difficult to suppose that God has ever spoken in the\nworld. But if we think He has, it cannot be irrational to take His\nword and believe it; it cannot be absurd to trust a Divine message,\nwhen we are every day trusting human messages. And one thing further.\nWhen we trust a friend's report, we do not make our previous ideas of\nwhat is probable, a test of how much we shall believe of what he says.\nIf we were already competent to say what happened, we should not go to\nhim for information. Unless it is impossible, or against all the laws\nof probability, we assent to what he says, however much it may\nsurprise, or startle, or alarm us; if we cannot do this, we have not\nreal trust. But trusting it is irrational \"to pick and choose;\" to say\nthis we will accept and that we will reject, according as it seems\nantecedently likely or not. Surely this must be also true of divine\ntestimony. If God, the perfect, the unerring intelligence, speaks, we\nare at least to give Him the same respect we should show to a\nfellow-man; we are not to say, \"this is credible and I accept it; that\nis strange, mysterious, and I must reject it.\" If we knew beforehand\nwhat was true, to what end would God give the revelation? And if we do\nthus sit in judgment, we simply show (unless we are dishonest) that we\ndo not believe that God has spoken. Hence, what is called the\nsubmission of reason, which, in the large sense of the word, it is\nonly rational to give, if God has indeed given a message to the world.\nProtestants so submit to the teachings of the Bible; Catholics do to\nthe teachings of the Church. If God really speaks in either, it is as\nrational to do so as it is to trust Stanley's reports of the lakes and\njungles, the weird forests and strange inhabitants of Central\nAfrica--yes, as much more so as Stanley is a man, and God is God. Most\nsimply and frankly does Newman say, in speaking of early converts,\n\"The Church was their teacher; they did not come to argue, to examine,\nto pick and choose, but to accept whatever was put before them.\" This\nattitude of arguing, examining, picking, and choosing in relation to\nthings of which we really know nothing, and can know nothing, in our\nmortal state (though supposedly God knows and has given a certain\namount of light) Newman calls Rationalism; and if God has spoken,\nsurely such Rationalism is irrational. The doctrine that there is no\npositive truth in religion, that one creed is as good as another, and\nthat all is opinion, Newman calls Liberalism; but if God has revealed\nthe truth such Liberalism is false.\n\nIn writing of Newman as I have, I have been moved by old attachment\nand personal veneration. But if I have incidentally contributed to\nshow that a Catholic need not necessarily be either a weak man or a\ndishonest one, as is sometimes taken for granted among Liberals, I\nshall not be sorry. My opinion is that Newman differed from the stock\nProtestantism of his day, largely because he sought out light and\nsought it with a mind which for eagerness, keenness, subtlety, depth,\nhas rarely been surpassed; that he left the Church of England because\nit was neither fish nor fowl--and rationality and consistency were not\nin it; that he went to Rome, because, taking his premises for granted,\nreason pointed that way. And yet the guarded way in which I have\nspoken has probably been noticed by my readers. I have not said that\nreason, abstractly speaking, was on his side, but that starting from\nhis premises his course was reasonable--his premises being those to\nwhich most Christians hold. The difference was that he took them\nseriously and they became living principles, germs of ample growth in\nhis mind, while others held them unthinkingly; that he had the rare\npower of realizing his ideas, while others took them as mechanically\nas we often take the stars at night--points of light they are to us\nand nothing more. But whether his premises were really sound is\nanother question. My mature judgment is that they were not; had I been\nable to hold my Christian faith as I once held it, could I have\nresisted the solvents that science, and criticism, and philosophy were\nbringing to bear upon it, I should have gone I know not where; as it\nis, I am a Liberal (though not in Newman's sense). The ordinary idea\nof God I cannot hold, nor does it seem likely that I shall ever hold\nan idea of God with which the idea of a special revelation would be\ncongruous; and even were the ordinary idea of God a true one, I think\nthat the matter-of-fact evidence of a revelation through Jesus is\ninsufficient. Reluctant as I was to admit it, struggle as I might\nagainst it, the share of Jesus in the errors and illusions of his time\n(the sense of which grew upon me) made it impossible for me at last to\nabsolutely trust his consciousness; however great, however sublime a\nfigure he was, it appeared that he belonged after all to our fallible\nhumanity. Hence in my view we were thrown back on ourselves; we may\nhave great and consoling beliefs about life and its purpose, about\ndeath and what lies beyond, about the fathomless Power from which we\ncome and on whose bosom we rest; but a revelation we have not; they\nare beliefs which we ourselves form and do not receive from without.\nRationalism, though not in the sense in which Newman used it, becomes\nthe only method; and Liberalism, in the sense that whatever creed one\nmay hold none can claim to be infallible, or of exclusive divine\nauthority, and that good men of different creeds should respect and\ntolerate one another, becomes at once a necessity and a duty.\n\nNewman has taken his way; other men, let us trust, with the root of\npiety in them as truly as it was in him, have taken theirs; the ways\nare far apart--which is truer, time, the future, perhaps the ages\nalone can tell. But we are bound not to revile him, as he in sober\ntruth never reviled us.\n\n\n\n\nINTER-MIGRATION.\n\nBY RABBI SOLOMON SCHINDLER.\n\n\nThe immigration problem, which I have been discussing in previous\nnumbers of THE ARENA, cannot be unravelled without considering one\nimportant thread which adds to the entanglement. I shall apply to it\nthe term \"Inter-migration,\" a word not found in the dictionary,\nbecause it is freshly coined for the purpose. Let me try to define its\nmeaning.\n\nA person is said to migrate when he leaves his native land, seeking a\nnew home in some other country. Around the word emigrant or immigrant\nhovers always the idea of an exchange of habits, customs, and language\nof one country with those of another. The immigrant, when he arrives\nat the place which he has chosen for his new settlement, appears by\nhis dress, his language, his manners, yea, even by his features, a\nstranger; one who has apparently no right to press himself upon the\ncommunity; one who must not feel offended if he is mistrusted, until\nhe has shown that his arrival will not prove dangerous to the old\nsettlers. Around the word emigrant hovers the idea of distance; he\ncomes from far-off countries, from a place which cannot be easily\nreached, or from which information concerning himself cannot be\nreadily obtained. We call a person an immigrant who comes to us from a\ndistance of at least a few thousand miles, and from a country that\ndiffers from ours in the forms of government as well as in customs and\nmanners. We would surely not call a person an immigrant who comes from\na village of Maine or New Hampshire to Boston, nor even if he should\ncome from the far South or from the extreme West.\n\nYet, what is the difference? He is a person who has left his native\nhome, who is as much a stranger among us as the one who comes across\nthe ocean. His manners may be as different from ours, his features may\nshow at a glance, whether he is a southerner, a western man, or\nwhether he comes from down east; even his language may be strange on\naccount of the peculiar accent which he gives his words, and the\nidioms which he uses. It may frequently happen that two people, who\nboth think they speak the English language will be unable to\nunderstand each other, on account of the difference in dialect. The\nnew-comer may prove to be as much, or even more, of an undesirable\nelement among us, as the one who comes from Ireland or China; his\npresence in the labor market may tend as well to reduce the rates of\nwages as if he had come from Hungaria or Bulgaria. There is no denying\nthe fact that a locomotion has taken place, that an individual has\ntransplanted himself from one place to the other, either on account of\nthe urging of his venturesome spirit, or for the sake of finding a\nbetter market for his abilities, or driven out by force of adverse\nconditions. There is little difference whether a person leaves Russia\non account of his dissatisfaction with the government, or an arbitrary\nlegislation which deprives him of his opportunities; or whether he\nleaves a village in Nebraska because he finds he is unable longer to\nwithstand the grinding process of the land sharks, or the sweating\nsystem of the factory owners. His intentions are to better his\ncondition; precisely the same as are those of him who crosses the\nAtlantic. The one will sell his all to pay his passage on the steamer,\nthe other to pay for his railroad ticket, and both will arrive\npenniless. Yet the one is called an emigrant or immigrant, and the\nother is not, although the distance from which the latter comes may be\nthe same or even greater than that from which the former hails.\n\nIn order to distinguish between these two classes of migration, I call\nthis latter one \"Inter-migration,\" and desire the term to stand for a\nchange of habitation occurring within the boundaries of a land that is\nunder the same government.\n\nInter-migration, although it has never before reached the development\nto which it has risen in the present, is not a new form of the\nmigratory habit of peoples. Ancient records tell us that a forced\ninter-migration has frequently taken place. The conquerors of old,\ndesirous of making one nation out of the many peoples they subdued by\ntheir valiant sword, would transplant large numbers of individuals\nfrom one province to another distant one, giving their land and their\npossessions in exchange to settlers, whom they drew from some other\ncountry. Their scheme, however, rarely succeeded, because the\ndifficulties of a long journey made it impossible for them to\ntransplant a sufficiently large number of people; the masses remained\nundisturbed, the few new-comers were soon absorbed by them, and the\ndesired change of sentiment was not produced. The moment the\ngovernment was attacked by a new conqueror, all provinces would at\nonce rise in revolt, and thus hasten the downfall of empires, such as\nwas, for instance, the Persian, before the onslaught of so small an\narmy as that with which Alexander the Great crossed the Hellespont.\n\nThe golden era of the Roman Empire, and the prosperity and the culture\nwhich then prevailed, were made possible solely through the facilities\nwhich were given to inter-migration. Good roads connected the ends and\ndissected the width and breadth of the great Roman Empire. Travel was\nwell protected. A well-drilled army suppressed highway robbery, and an\nexcellent navy put down piracy. A resident of Gaul could with ease\nsettle in Syria, while the Syrian, if he so desired, could find with\nease a home in Gaul. The residents of Brittania and Greece could with\ncomparative ease inter-migrate, and had not the floods of barbarians\nwhich deluged the Roman Empire put an end to civilization, and with it\nthe possibilities of inter-migration, we might stand to-day on a much\nhigher round of culture, and our knowledge might have been much\ngreater than it is.\n\nIf the inventions of the nineteenth century have made possible\nemigration to such an extent to-day as never before existed, it has\nstill more facilitated inter-migration. It has almost destroyed the\nequilibrium between the centripetal and centrifugal forces, giving the\nadvantages to the latter. The facilities of locomotion have made\npeople restless; the times have passed by when grandchildren would\nlive in the same house in which their grandparents lived or when they\nconsider it a hardship and misfortune to move out of such a\nhabitation, or to see it change owners; time has been, when only the\nadventurer left his native place, and when it was considered dangerous\nto go into the world, which at that time could be circumscribed by a\nradius of a few miles; time has been, when people lived for\ngenerations in the same house, in the same street, in the same village\nor town, when even the household furniture became venerable on account\nof its antiquity and the remembrances connected with it. What boy or\ngirl in our day plays around the chair which their great-grandfather\nused to occupy? To sell one house and move into another; to leave one\ncity and seek settlement in another, is now the rule and not the\nexception; and it is mainly this inter-migration, stirring up the\nmasses, to which is due our increased prosperity and our progress in\nall branches of knowledge. Inter-migration keeps us from stagnation;\nit removes shyness and fear at the sight of a stranger, accustoms us\nto an intercourse with different people, removes prejudices and\nsuperstitions, and facilitates the exchange of thoughts and ideas.\n\nOn the other hand, it cannot be denied that intermigration has also\nits drawbacks; that it will easily flood the labor market so as to\nscrew down wages; it will foster the venturesome spirit, induce people\nto risk a certainty for an uncertainty, and especially has it tended\nto draw people from the rural districts to the large cities.\n\nAll the complaints heard against immigration, and all the pressure\nthat is brought to bear upon the government to restrict it, do not\ncome from the rural districts, but from the large cities; and it is\ngenerally overlooked that the competition, which presses down the\ncompensation for labor to such a degree that the wages earned for hard\nwork are sometimes not sufficient to support one person, and far less\na family, is not brought about solely by the immigrant who comes from\nabroad, but is, to a very great extent, the consequence of\ninter-migration, of the influx of villagers into the cities. While in\ncountry places there is a scarcity of labor, thus in New England, for\nexample, while many farms are vacant, there are people starving in the\ncities, unable to obtain work. The increase of large cities and of\ntheir population is beyond the proportion in which it formerly stood\nto that of the country. This has aroused the thoughts of many\nlong-headed people, and investigations are being made on every hand,\nespecially because some people are moved by fear that city life will\ncorrupt morality. They take it for granted that country people are\nvirtuous, and that vice finds its domicile only in the large centres\nof population, and having established these premises, they argue that\nthe tendency of country people to move into cities shows a degeneracy\non their part, or that the abnormal growth of cities is a sure token\nof the moral depravity which has taken hold of the people. This,\nhowever, is not true. There is as much iniquity in proportion in small\ncommunities as in large ones, and not unfrequently wickedness and\nviciousness are attributed to actions which, after all, are neither\nwicked nor vicious, but merely strange to one who is not accustomed to\nthem. The tide of inter-migration, which swells the population of the\ncities, has its natural causes, of which moral corruption is the\nleast.\n\nThe philosophers of the individualistic school will take exception,\nwhen I name as the first cause of the tendency to leave the village\nfor the city, the fact that the more society becomes organized, the\nmore each individual becomes a part of a system, the easier it is to\nobtain comfort, and that, having found the proper place, one can more\neasily excel in that sphere of life. True, a man living in a village\nmay be able to secure for himself, without excessive labor, food that\nwould keep him from starvation, and raiment and fuel to protect him\nagainst the inclemency of the weather; but man needs more than bread\nand meat, a coat and a pair of shoes. There are a thousand other\nthings which bring cheer to him and make his life worth living, that\nhe cannot obtain in rural solitude. He claims a right to these\ncomforts, and tries to obtain them by seeking them where they are to\nbe found. If simple support, which rustic life insures, was preferable\nto the insecurity of earning a livelihood in the city; if plenty of\ncoarse food and the healthier habitation which the village offers,\nwere sufficient to induce the over-worked, half-starved, and\nill-tenanted city laborer to give up for them the other comforts which\ncity life offers him, we should soon behold an exodus from the city to\ncountry places, instead of observing the growth of the centres of\npopulation. It is the tendency to work in a system and with a system\nwhich increases as the human being rises in culture and civilization.\nThis is the magnet which draws people to large cities, and holds them\nthere, despite the many drawbacks which naturally adhere to it.\n\nThe facility of locomotion and of transportation have made possible an\ninterchange of commodities which has never been so before. The world\nhas become one marketplace, upon which the commodities are thrown, and\nin which he who is able to sell an article of the same quality at the\nlowest rate will have most customers. When grain can be produced in\nlarge quantities in the West, so that it can be sold at a lower rate\nin the East than the cost of its production would be there, it is\nquite natural that the Eastern farmer must go to the wall, and it is\nno wonder he deserts his farm. The less the raw material can be used\nin its natural state, and the more our refinement demands a long\nprocess of converting it into a commodity, the more does it require\nsystematic, organized, skilled labor to perform that conversion. With\nsufficient land a few people can raise such an abundance of raw\nmaterial that the labor of thousands of people will be called for to\nchange it into useful articles. It is the system, the developed social\norganization, which draws the villager to the city, and as an\nillustration I shall point to the sudden and unparelleled growth of\nthe city of Berlin.\n\nTwenty-five years ago Berlin was not quite as large in population as\nis Boston to-day, and its area was much smaller. Berlin is situated in\na sandy, sterile country; so to say, in a desert. There is no\nnavigable river to connect it with the ocean, nor are minerals or coal\nfound in its immediate neighborhood. When Berlin was made the seat of\nthe German government, the first result was that thousands of\ngovernment officials were removed from other places to this city; then\nthe garrison was enlarged. More commodious roads were built to connect\nthe capital with the provinces. This attracted business men, as well\nas thousands whose services in all branches of life were required. The\nmanufacturer soon followed, and Berlin became in a short time a\ncommercial centre. Leipsic lost its prestige and Nuremberg its renown.\nThe organized net-work of labor makes it possible now for a million\nand a half of people to live and prosper on that sterile ground. Let\nBerlin cease to be the capital of Germany, through any unforeseen\nevent, and its population will melt away at once. Like iron filings\nhanging on a magnet, in which one particle attracts and holds the\nother, thus are people attracted to and held in places where society,\nand with it labor, is organized.\n\nAnother and weighty reason to account for inter-migration, and\nespecially for the increase of population in cities, is that\nagriculture, too, has undergone a change. The inventive genius of our\nage, which keeps on creating labor-saving machinery, has not left this\nbranch of occupation untouched. As the mechanic had to go in order to\nbe replaced by the factory owner, thus the small farmer can no longer\nexist beside a syndicate which will systematically cultivate large\ntracts of land. The tendency of the time is to apply system also to\nagricultural pursuits, to take that art out of the sphere of instinct\nand to transplant it into the sphere of science.\n\nIn this paper I have merely sought to bring before the mind of the\nreader important facts which are usually overlooked in the discussion\nof the problem under consideration, believing it to be necessary to\nadduce all the important evidence which bears upon the subject in\norder that he may form a just and enlightened opinion on a great\nliving question of the first magnitude, as a frank statement of a\nproblem is of far greater value to the honest investigator than any\namount of ingenious reasonings from a narrow or distorted point of\nview.\n\n\n\n\nHE CAME AND WENT AGAIN.\n\nBY WILL N. HARBEN.\n\n\nHe was the humblest man in the world. He wore ragged clothing and\nlived in the filthiest tenement-house in New York. He was unlettered,\nhad never opened a book, and seemed to know little of the ways of men.\nHis hair and beard were long, and like golden silk; his eyes held the\nblue of infinite space.\n\nWhen wealthy people passed him they shook their heads and said, \"He is\ndemented;\" but the poor, who knew him, lowered their voices when he\nwas near and whispered that he belonged to a better world, for in his\neyes they saw a strange light of eternal kindness.\n\n\"Why are you so good to me?\" the poor would ask, marvelling over his\ntears of sympathy.\n\n\"Because I love you,\" he would answer, \"and love is the mother of all\nthat is good. If you will love men as I do your way of life will be\nstrewn with roses from heaven and your vision know no end.\"\n\nHe had never been in a church nor heard one word in the Bible, and\nyet, with a far-away light in his eyes, he used to talk of immortality\nand infinite love. \"Love is everlasting life,\" he would say, \"love is\neternal.\"\n\nHis poor old mother did not understand him, and she was often troubled\non his behalf. She used to plead with him to stay with her more and\nnot to give up his life so completely to others.\n\n\"Why,\" she would argue plaintively, \"even the great clergymen who\npreach in the grand churches, and who are said to be the best of men,\ndo not risk their lives and love others as you do. They seldom come\nhere where everybody is so poor.\" Once he asked her to tell him what\nthe clergymen taught, and when she tried to explain the creeds of the\ndifferent denominations, he shook his head and turned pale with\nperplexity and pain.\n\n\"I cannot understand,\" he said sorrowfully. \"It all makes my heart\nache. It seems to me that the church-members, too, are in the dark.\nLove is food for the soul and they are starving. People everywhere are\ndying in crime and pain and no one offers to help them.\"\n\nOne day, after he had been laboring for a week without sufficient food\nand sleep among the fever-stricken poor, he fell ill, and his mother\nthought he was about to die. She ran, her gray locks streaming in the\nwind, to the parsonage of a little church near by and inquired for the\nminister, but was told by his wife that he had been gone for several\nweeks to a watering place in the mountains. The old woman ran on\nfurther, till she came to a great church whose majestic spire seemed\nto touch the clouds. A stately rectory was near. Soft music, mingled\nwith merry voices, came out to her through the open doors. Awkwardly\nand tremblingly she went up the polished marble steps and rang. A\nservant in livery told her gruffly that his master was dining with his\nbishop and other distinguished personages, and that she would have to\nwait.\n\nShe replied with a groan that she feared her son was dying. The man\nwent to his master and came back saying, \"He cannot see you now.\"\n\nShe sat down in the great hall and tried to pray. Before her hung a\ncostly painting representing Jesus with a child in his arms, a lamb at\nhis side. She smelt the fragrance of flowers, and heard the clinking\nof wine-glasses, the tinkling of silver and rare china, short speeches\nand laughter.\n\n\"The dean, it seems,\" she heard the bishop say, \"was reproving one of\nthe young clergymen for becoming intoxicated. The young scamp's reply\nquite took the dean off his feet. 'If I mistake not, sir,' said the\nyoung priest, 'the liquor I drank came from your celebrated\nart-gallery and bar-room.'\"\n\nThis story was greeted by hearty laughter, and then the old woman\nheard the bishop giving a description of a new yacht which he had just\nbought. By and by the rector came out. His cheeks were slightly\nflushed, his manner betrayed impatience.\"\n\n\"Well,\" said he to her, \"what is it? I am very busy.\"\n\n\"I am afraid my son is dying,\" she said timidly, abashed by the\nsplendor of his dress and abrupt manner. \"I thought some minister\nought to see him.\"\n\n\"Where do you attend church?\" he asked, looking down at her tattered\nattire.\n\n\"I do not go to any,\" she faltered.\n\n\"I have as much as I can attend to in my own parish,\" he frowned;\n\"besides my bishop is here as my guest; there is a young theological\nstudent with me who will go.\" And he went back to the dining-room and\nsent a young man out to her.\n\n\"Show me the way,\" said the student, and he shrugged his shoulders,\nand blushed because the footman seemed to comprehend the situation.\n\nWithout a word she led him through the squalid streets to the house,\nand up the narrow stairs to her miserable room. The sick man lay alone\non a hard couch.\n\n\"What can I do for you?\" asked the visitor.\n\nA look of hope came into the pallid features of the one addressed. His\nvoice was low and eager when he replied:--\n\n\"A poor woman downstairs has fallen and broken her spine. I fear she\nis without attention, I was trying to reach her when I fell ill.\nPerhaps you will go to see her; I need nothing.\"\n\n\"His mind is wandering,\" said the student, turning to the mother. \"He\ncould not comprehend anything I might read or say now. He needs\nmedical treatment. You should apply to the public charities.\" And he\nwent away, brushing the sleeve of his coat which had caught a cobweb.\n\nAt her son's request the mother went below. Presently she returned\nwith the information that the injured woman's needs had been attended\nto. Then she got a Bible and began to read to him for the first time\nin life. When she had read a few passages he asked her what it was,\nand she replied:--\n\n\"They say it is the Word of God, and that it shows us how to live.\"\n\nWhen she was reading of the life of Christ he listened with a profound\nlook of perplexity on his pale face. But when she pronounced the\nwords, \"Love thy neighbor as thyself,\" he uttered an exclamation of\nsurprise, and sat up in his bed.\n\n\"I have spoken those words before!\" he cried, \"but in a different\nlanguage. It was in another life which seems like a dream. I lived\nlong, long ago, in a far-away land. I had another mother there, Mary\nwas her name, and a good father whom the people called Joseph. I lived\nthere as I do here, but the world mocked me because I tried to teach\nthem to love one another--they could not understand. They put me to\ndeath. They made a cross, and hung me on it, on a hill in the\ndirection of the setting sun from Jerusalem. A multitude gathered to\nsee me die.\"\n\nAmazed at his radiant and transformed countenance, which held in it\nthe light of eternity, she fell down before him crying:--\n\n\"My Lord! My Master!\"\n\nHe lifted her up, his weakness gone.\n\n\"Rise,\" said he gently. \"Call me not 'Master,' for I am but the son of\nGod, as you are His daughter. The Father of us all, in His love, is\nnot better than the humblest of His children.\"\n\nShe was going out to cry aloud in the streets that Jesus, the son of\nGod, had come to earth, but he prevented her.\n\n\"Speak not of me to them,\" he said softly; \"they could not understand;\nit would be even as it was before.\"\n\nThat very day he went about according to his humble wont, among the\npoor and the miserable, spreading joy and comfort everywhere.\nWan-faced courtesans, with death and hate in their eyes, despairing\nthieves, murderers, and would-be suicides, listened to his words of\nhope and began life anew. He went to the houses of the wealthy and\nplead in the behalf of suffering men and women, misguided children,\nand mistreated animals, but was called a tramp and sent away.\n\nOne day his mother lead him to the corpse of a dead friend. \"Make him\nlive again,\" she whispered.\n\nHe looked down at the dead and smiled infinitely. He took a flower\nfrom a vase, and put it into the hand that was cold. \"This is the\nbirthday of our friend,\" he said. \"Should I wish to alter the work of\nmy Father, in whose eyes all things are perfect? Our friend is this\nday delivered from the womb of earthly travail.\"\n\nOne bright morning she came and laid herself at his feet.\n\n\"I have heard strange things to-day,\" she said, \"things I have not\nlearned before because I am so ignorant. They say that all the great\nand good churches in Christendom have grown up upon the teachings of\nJesus of Nazareth.\"\n\n\"Nazareth,\" he repeated dreamily, \"I lived in Nazareth.\"\n\n\"They worship him that was crucified on Calvary; ah! they would listen\nto you now, my Master. You have lived in their memories for centuries.\nHear, the bells are ringing. It is the Sabbath, the Lord's day!\"\n\n\"My Father's day has neither beginning nor end.\"\n\n\"Come, go with me,\" went on the woman eagerly, \"we shall hear them\npraise your name.\"\n\n\"I will go with you,\" said he, a strange look in his eyes.\n\nShe ran from the room and presently came back with a suit of new\nclothes which she had borrowed from a dealer: Her face was aglow with\npride and joy as she spread them before him.\n\n\"What are they for?\" he asked in gentle surprise.\n\n\"For you,\" she said, \"that you may go into the house of the Lord robed\nas--as others are.\"\n\nA blended look of wonder and pain passed over his face.\n\n\"The spirit of the man is not clothed with the wool of the sheep that\nwas slain,\" he said gently. \"I will go as I am, and fear naught in my\nFather's presence.\"\n\nShe led him down several streets till they reached a grand\nthoroughfare. Along this they went side by side, jostled by the\nfashionable throng, till they came to a stately church. Going up the\nbroad stone steps they entered the great Gothic doors. A group of men\nin the vestibule laughed at his long hair and ragged attire. Elegantly\ndressed ushers were seating the people as they entered. They did not\nspeak to the woman and her son, but smiled at one another, and passed\nsome jests in undertones. After awhile one of them drew near, and said\nto her:--\n\n\"Have you not made a mistake, my good woman? This is St. ---- Church.\nSt. ----'s is the next below.\"\n\nTears were in her eyes as she led her son away. By and by they came to\nanother edifice. In a niche in the stone wall near the entrance was\nthe figure of Jesus on a cross. He paused and looked at it for several\nminutes, murmuring, \"Strange! Strange!\"\n\nIn the vestibule she was so awed by the imposing interior of the\nstructure and the fashionable congregation, that she drew him to one\nside.\n\n\"Perhaps we had better stand here,\" she whispered. \"We seem to be\nunlike the rest. We shall not be in the way out here, and through the\ndoor we can see and hear the service.\"\n\nHe made no answer. He was looking at a grand window on which stood a\nrepresentation of Jesus, in a stream of light from heaven, bearing the\nwords, \"This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.\" \"Strange,\nvery strange!\" she heard him whisper, and tears were in his eyes.\n\nNo one offered to give them seats, and they remained standing in the\nvestibule against a wall. A grand organ began to peal out the music of\nGounod's Saint Cecilia Mass. Presently it died down; there was a short\npause, then, like the rising of a musical storm came the subdued\nvoices of the choristers from the closed vestry. The door was\ngradually opened, and the music swelled out into the church. The\ncrucifer, a beautiful lad, attired in a blood-red cassock and a white,\nlace-trimmed cotta, entered. Behind him, chanting, came a long train\nof choir-boys, followed by two acolytes who swung by chains of brass\ncensers from which rose clouds of fragrant smoke. Two priests brought\nup the rear; one, the celebrant of the Holy Communion, was\nmagnificently garbed. He wore a trailing black cassock of richest\nsilk, and over it a short lawn cotta trimmed with priceless lace, an\nenormous cloth-of-gold cope on the back of which blazed a cross\nwrought in jewels. About his neck he had a white stole, over an arm a\nsnowy maniple, upon his head a priestly beretta.\n\n\"Is it not beautiful?\" asked the poor woman of her son. But he did not\nhear her. His eyes, blinded by tears of infinite sorrow, were resting\non the white statue of the Virgin near the snowy altar of marble, on\nwhich burnt a constellation of tapers and candles around the red lamp\nof the \"Holy Presence.\"\n\nHis breast heaved; a sob escaped him, and his head sank upon his\nchest.\n\n\"And they do this in the name of love,\" he said, as if in prayer.\n\"They make an idol of my memory while my brothers and sisters are\ndying for the lack of love and kindness. They do all this to praise me\nwhom they have so little understood. O God, my Father, let this trial\npass, or make me as you are that I may, this time, set them right, for\nI suffer past endurance.\"\n\nThe short sermon ended. The celebration of Mass began. The wafer and\nthe wine were consecrated. The priest raised the wafer before the\neyes of the congregation and said, \"This is my body,\" and all heads\nbowed low.\n\n\"At the very instant you hear the bell strike,\" whispered a man to a\nboy near the mother and son, \"at that very instant the Saviour will be\nthere--listen!\"\n\n\"Father, forgive them,\" the woman heard her son say, and she followed\nhim out of the church. They had reached the street when three strokes\nfrom a silver bell was heard.\n\nA few minutes later, as they were passing through a squalid street on\nthe way home, they came to a little church. He read her wishes in her\nface, and they went in. A man approached and showed them to a back\nseat. On a platform a preacher was striding to and fro shouting,\nsinging snatches of hymns, and praying. In his excitement he would\nfall on his knees and raise his hands heavenward; again he would\nspring up and beat himself with his hands, and violently kick the\nfloor, preaching, singing, and praying alternately.\n\n\"Save yourselves from the eternal wrath of an angry God!\" he cried. \"I\ntell you that hell is yawning for you; the burning breath of countless\ndevils is about you. Christ died to save you; will you not trust in\nhim? Now is the only time; to-morrow it may be too late!\"\n\nAfter awhile the congregation began to sing a hymn, and the preacher\nwent on: \"Come forward all who want the prayers of the church. Come\nnow, and embrace salvation!\" And men, women, and children trembling\nwith fear, and weeping and groaning, went to the altar and threw\nthemselves on their knees.\n\nThe poor woman looked at her son. His face was pale and set as with\nthe agony of death. She glanced over the congregation. People sat\nthere wrestling with the greatest problem of their lives, their faces\nwhite, their eyes dilated. Others were smiling as if highly amused at\nthe preacher's actions. Members of ritualistic churches, who had come\nout of curiosity, were frowning contemptuously, and congratulating\nthemselves on the dignity of their own form of worship.\n\n\"I must go,\" said the son to his mother. \"I must be with those that\nneed me. Here they teach that the Eternal Father hates His children.\nIf only they knew Him they would not be afraid.\"\n\nHe never entered a church again. He continued his life as he had begun\nit, teaching human love and gentleness to all he knew. Once he was\ntrying to save a half-demented drunkard from being beaten by an\ninhuman policeman, and was put into prison. While he was there his\nmother died, and when he was released, his health was broken.\n\nA week passed in which he could get no food to eat. He was starving.\nOne moonlit night he rose and staggered out to search for bread,\nsuffering indescribable tortures. His voice had gone. He stood on the\ncorner of a street, and mutely held out his hands to passers-by, but\nthey paid no heed to him. Along the street he tottered till he came to\na brightly lighted building. A church was holding a festival.\nBeautiful women in the height of fashion, children in the daintiest of\ndresses, were promenading about. He looked in at the door, and when he\nsaw the long tables filled with eatables, his eyes gleamed with the\ndesire of a famished animal. He staggered across the threshold, but\nwas stopped by the door-keeper. \"Ticket,\" said the man. The outcast\ndid not understand, he could see nothing but the food within. A\npoliceman stepped forward and laid his hand on his arm.\n\n\"This is no place for you,\" he said roughly. \"You have no money, move\non!\"\n\n\"He looks hungry, wait!\" said a little girl, who was pinning some\nflowers on the lapel of a young minister's coat, and she ran to a\ntable and brought a piece of bread to the starving man. He hugged it\nin his arms, and tottered out into the night, chuckling to himself in\njoy. A square where trees and flowers grew was before him. He entered\nit, and sank on to a bench near a fountain. He looked at the bread,\nand a savage content captured his features. He was about to break it\nwhen a man arose from a seat across a walk, and came and sat down\nbeside him, eyeing the food covetously. He touched the thin hand that\nheld it, and the two men looked into each other's eyes.\n\n\"I am starving,\" said the breadless one. \"I have no means. I belong to\na family who have descended from kings; I cannot beg. I thought you\nlooked as if you did not want it. I am dying.\"\n\nThe other clutched the food tightly in both his hands for an instant.\nA look of ferocious desire wrung his face, and he raised it to his\nlips. Then a divine smile dawned in his eyes, and he proffered it to\nthe other. The man took it eagerly, and slipped into the darkness,\nthat he might eat it unseen. As he turned away the head of the giver\nsank slowly to his breast.\n\nBrightly lighted streets stretched away in several directions. A\nprocession of men and women bearing banners and beating drums and\ntambourines passed along, singing hymns, and pausing now and then to\nkneel on the cobblestones to pray or to urge the little clusters of\nidlers to join them in their march to safety. Above the wondrous stars\nand moon were shining as they had shone at the dawn of eternal\nthought. They shone on the Vatican at Rome, the imperial cradle of\nsaints; on the comfortable homes of ministers in the church; on the\n\"palaces\" of gentle-blooded bishops; on assemblages of men who were\nwrangling over creeds; on gatherings where earnest searchers after\ntruth were being tried for heresy; on prisons where inmates of dark,\nsilent cells were praying for a gleam of light, for but the voice of\nan insect to keep madness from their tortured brains; on millions of\nsuffering human beings--on the cold, dead form of one who understood\nnaught but love.\n\n\n\n\nO THOU WHO SIGHEST FOR A BROADER FIELD.\n\nJULIA ANNA WOLCOTT.\n\n\n    O thou who sighest for a broader field\n      Wherein to sow the seeds of truth and right,\n    Who fain a nobler, wider power wouldst wield\n      O'er human souls that languish for the light;\n\n    Search well the realm that even now is thine!\n      Canst not thou in some far-off corner find\n    A heart, sin-bound, as tree with sapping vine,\n      That waiteth help its burdens to unbind?\n\n    Some human plant, perchance beneath thine eyes,\n      Pierced through by hidden thorns of idle fears;\n    Or, drooping low for need of light from skies\n      Obscured by doubt-clouds, raining poison tears?\n\n    Some bruised soul the balm of love would heal?\n      Some timid spirit faith would courage give?\n    Or maimed brother who, though brave and leal,\n      Still needeth thee to rightly walk and live?\n\n    Oh, while _one_ soul thou find'st that hath not known\n      The fullest help thy soul hath power to give,\n    Sigh not for fields still broader than thine own,\n      But, steadfast, in thine own more broadly live!\n\n\n\n\nAN EVENING AT THE CORNER GROCERY.\n\nA WESTERN CHARACTER SKETCH.\n\nBY HAMLIN GARLAND.\n\n\nColonel Peavy had just begun the rubber with Judge Gordon of\nCerro-Gordo County. They were seated in Robie's grocery, behind the\nrusty old cannon stove, the checker-board spread out on their knees.\nThe Colonel was grinning in great glee, wringing his bony yellow hands\nin nervous excitement, in strong contrast to the stolid calm of the\nfat Judge.\n\nThe Colonel had won the last game by a large margin, and was sure he\nhad his opponent's \"dodges\" well in hand. It was early in the evening,\nand the grocery was comparatively empty. Robie was figuring at a desk,\nand old Judge Brown stood in legal gravity warming his legs at the\nred-hot stove, and swaying gently back and forth in speechless\ncontent. It was a tough night outside, one of the toughest for years.\nThe frost had completely shut the window panes as with thick blankets\nof snow. The streets were silent.\n\n\"I don't know,\" said the Judge, reflectively, to Robie, breaking the\nsilence in his rasping, judicial bass, \"I don't know as there has been\nsuch a night as this since the night of February 2d, '59, that was the\nnight James Kirk went under--Honorable Kirk, you remember,--knew him\nwell. Brilliant fellow, ornament to western bar. But whiskey downed\nhim. It'll beat the oldest man--I wonder where the boys all are\nto-night? Don't seem to be anyone stirring on the street. Aint\nfrightened out by the cold?\"\n\n\"Shouldn't wonder.\" Robie was busy at his desk, and not in humor for\nconversation on reminiscent lines. The two old war-dogs at the board\nhad settled down to one of those long, silent struggles, which ensue\nwhen two \"champions\" meet. In the silence which followed, the Judge\nwas looking attentively at the back of the Colonel, and thinking that\nthe old thief was getting about down to skin and bone. He turned with\na yawn to Robie, saying:--\n\n\"This cold weather must take hold of the old Colonel terribly, he's so\ndamnably thin and bald, you know,--bald as a babe. The fact is, the\nold Colonel aint long for this world, anyway; think so, Hank?\" Robie\nmaking no reply, the Judge relapsed into silence for a while, watching\nthe cat (perilously walking along the edge of the upper shelf) and\nlistening to the occasional hurrying footsteps outside. \"I don't know\nwhen I've seen the windows closed up so, Hank; go down to thirty below\nto-night; devilish strong wind blowing, too; tough night on the\nprairies, Hank.\"\n\n\"You bet,\" replied Hank, briefly. The Colonel was plainly getting\nexcited. His razor-like back curved sharper than ever as he peered\ninto the intricacies of the board to spy the trap which the fat Judge\nhad set for him. At this point the squeal of boots on the icy walk\noutside paused, and a moment later Amos Ridings entered, with whiskers\ncovered with ice, and looking like a huge bear in his buffalo coat.\n\n\"By Josephus! it's cold,\" he roared, as he took off his gloves and\nbegan to warm his face and hands at the fire.\n\n\"Is it?\" asked the Judge, comfortably, rising on his tiptoes, only to\nfall back into his usual attitude, legal legs well spread, shoulders\nthrown back.\n\n\"You bet it is!\" replied Amos. \"I'd'know when I've felt the cold\nmore'n I have t'-day. It's jest snifty; doubles me up like a\njack-knife, Judge. How d' you stand it?\"\n\n\"Tollerble, tollerble, Amos. But we're agein', we aint what we were\nonce. Cold takes hold of us.\"\n\n\"That's a fact,\" answered Amos to the retrospective musings of the\nJudge. \"Time was you an' me would go t' singing-school or\nsleigh-riding with the girls on a night like this and never notice\nit.\"\n\n\"Yes, sir; yes, sir!\" said the Judge with a sigh. It was a little\nuncertain in Robie's mind whether the Judge was regretting the lost\nability to stand the cold, or the lost pleasure of riding with the\ngirls.\n\n\"Great days, those, gentlemen! Lived in Vermont then.\nHot-blooded--lungs like an ox. I remember, Sallie Dearborn and I used\nto go a-foot to singing school down the valley four miles. But now,\nwouldn't go riding to-night with the handsomest woman in America, and\nthe best cutter in Rock River.\"\n\n\"Oh! you've got both feet in the grave up t' the ankles, anyway,\" said\nRobie from his desk, but the Judge immovably gazed at the upper shelf\non the other side of the room where the boilers, and pans, and\nwashboards were stored.\n\n\"The Judge is a little on the sentimental order to-night,\" said Amos.\n\n\"Hold on, Colonel! hold on. You've _got_ 'o jump. He! he!\" roared\nGordon from the checker-board. \"That's right, that's right!\" he ended,\nas the Colonel complied reluctantly.\n\n\"Sock it to the old cuss,\" commented Amos. \"What I was going to say,\"\nhe resumed, rolling down the collar of his coat, \"was, that when my\nwife helped me bundle up t' night, she said I was gitt'n' t' be an old\ngranny. We _are_ agein', Judge, the's no denyin' it. We're both gray\nas Norway rats now. An' speaking of us ageing reminds me,--have y'\nnoticed how bald the old Kyernel's gitt'n'?\"\n\n\"I have, Amos,\" answered the Judge, mournfully. \"The old man's head is\nshowing age, showing age! Getting thin up there, aint it?\" The old\nColonel bent to his work without reply, and even when Amos said,\njudicially, after long scrutiny, \"Yes, he'll soon be as bald as a\nplate,\" he only lifted one yellow, freckled, bony hand, and brushed\nhis carroty growth of hair across the spot under discussion. Gordon\nshook his fat paunch in silent laughter, nearly displacing the board.\n\n\"I was just telling Robie,\" pursued Brown, still retaining his\nreminiscent intonation, \"that this storm takes the cake over\nanything--\"\n\nAt this point Steve Roach and another fellow entered. Steve was\nRidings' hired hand, a herculean fellow, with a drawl, and a liability\nfor taking offence quite as remarkable.\n\n\"Say! gents, I'm no spring rooster, but this jest gits away with\nanything in line of cold _I_ ever see.\"\n\nWhile this communication was being received in ruminative silence,\nSteve was holding his ears in his hand and gazing at the intent\nchampions at the board. There they sat; the old Judge panting and\nwheezing in his excitement, for he was planning a great \"snap\" on the\nColonel, whose red and freckled nose almost touched the board. It was\na solemn battle hour. The wind howled mournfully outside, the timbers\nof the stove creaked in the cold, and the huge cannon stove roared in\nsteady bass.\n\n\"Speaking about ears,\" said Steve, after a silence, \"dumned if I'd\nlike t' be quite s' bare 'round the ears as Kernel there. I wonder if\nany o' you fellers has noticed how the ol' feller's lost hair this\nlast summer. He's gittin' bald, they's no coverin' it up--gittin' bald\nas a plate.\"\n\n\"You're right, Stephen,\" said the Judge, as he gravely took his stand\nbehind his brother advocate, and studied, with the eye of an adept,\nthe field of battle. \"We were noticing it when you came in. It's a sad\nthing, but it must be admitted.\"\n\n\"It's the Kyernel's brains wearin' up through his hair, I take it,\"\ncommented Amos, as he helped himself to a handful of peanuts out of a\nbag behind the counter. \"Say, Steve, did y' stuff up that hole in\nfront of ol' Barney?\"\n\nA shout was heard outside, and then a rush against the door, and\nimmediately two young fellows burst in, followed by a fierce gust of\nsnow. One was Professor Knapp, the other Editor Foster, of the\n_Morning Call_.\n\n\"Well, gents, how's this for high?\" said Foster in a peculiar tone of\nvoice, at which all began to smile. He was a slender fellow with\nclose-clipped, assertive red hair. \"In this company we now have the\nmajesty of the law, the power of the press, and the underpinning of\nthe American civilization all represented. Hello! There are a couple\nof old roosters with their heads together. Gordon, my old enemy, how\nare you?\"\n\nGordon waved him off with a smile and a wheeze. \"Don't bother me now.\nI've got 'im. I'm laying f'r the old dog. Whist!\"\n\n\"Got nothing!\" snarled the Colonel. \"You try that on if you want to.\nJust swing that man in there if you think it's healthy for him. Just\nas like as not, you'll slip up on that little trick.\"\n\n\"Ha! Say you so, old True Penny? The Kunnel has met a foeman worthy of\nhis steel,\" said Foster in great glee, as he bent above the Colonel.\n\"I know. _How_ do I know?\" quotha. \"By the curve on the Kunnel's back.\nThe size of the parabola described by that backbone accurately gauges\nhis adversary's skill. But, by the way, gentlemen, have you--but\nthat's a nice point, and I refer all nice points to Professor Knapp.\nProfessor, is it in good taste to make remarks concerning the dress or\nfeatures of another?\"\n\n\"Certainly not,\" answered Knapp, a handsome young fellow with a yellow\nmustache.\n\n\"Not when the person is an esteemed public character, like the Colonel\nhere? What I was about to remark, if it had been proper, was that the\nold fellow is getting wofully bald. He'll soon be bald as an egg.\"\n\n\"Say!\" asked the Colonel, \"I want to know how long you're going to\nkeep this thing up. Somebody's dumned sure t' get hurt soon.\"\n\n\"There, there! Colonel,\" said Brown soothingly, \"don't get excited,\nyou'll lose the rubber. Don't mind 'em. Keep cool.\"\n\n\"Yes, keep cool, Kunnel, it's only our solicitude for your welfare,\"\nchipped in Foster. Then addressing the crowd in a general sort of way\nhe speculated, \"Curious how a man, a plain American citizen like\nColonel Peavy, wins a place in the innermost affections of a whole\npeople.\"\n\n\"That's so!\" murmured the rest. \"He can't grow bald without deep\nsympathy from his fellow-citizens.\" The old Colonel glared in\nspeechless wrath.\n\n\"Say! gents,\" pleaded Gordon, \"let up on the old man for the present.\nHe's going to need all of himself if he gets out o' the trap he's in\nnow.\" He waved his fat hand over the Colonel's head, and smiled\nblandly at the crowd hugging the stove.\n\n\"My head may be bald,\" grated the old man with a death's-head grin,\nindescribably ferocious, \"but it's got brains enough in it to 'skunk'\nany man in this crowd three games out o' five.\"\n\n\"The ol' man rather gits the laugh on y' there, gents,\" called Robie\nfrom the back side of the counter. \"I haint seen the old skeesix play\nbetter'n he did last night in years.\"\n\n\"Not since his return from Canada, after the war, I reckon,\" said Amos\nfrom the kerosene barrel.\n\n\"Hold on, Amos,\" put in the Judge warningly, \"that's out-lawed.\nTalking about being bald and the war reminds me of the night Walters\nand I-- By the way, where is Walters to-night?\"\n\n\"Sick,\" put in the Colonel, straightening up exultantly. \"I waxed him\nthree straight games last night. You won't see him again till spring.\nSkunked him once, and beat him twice.\"\n\n\"Oh git out.\"\n\n\"Hear the old seed twitter!\"\n\n\"Did you ever notice, gentlemen, how lying and baldness go together?\"\nqueried Foster reflectively.\n\n\"No! Do they?\"\n\n\"Invariably. I've known many colossal liars, and they were all as bald\nas apples.\"\n\nThe Colonel was getting nervous, and was so slow that even Gordon (who\ncould sit and stare at the board a full half hour without moving)\nbegan to be impatient.\n\n\"Come! Colonel, marshal your forces a little more promptly. If you're\ngoing at me _echelon_, sound y'r bugle; I'm ready.\"\n\n\"Don't worry,\" answered the Colonel, in his calmest nasal, \"I'll\naccommodate you with all the fight you want.\"\n\n\"Did it ever occur to you,\" began the Judge again, addressing the\ncrowd generally, as he moved back to the stove and lit another cigar,\n\"did it ever occur to you that it is a little singular a man should\nget bald on the _top_ of his head first? Curious fact. So accustomed\nto it we no longer wonder at it. Now see the Colonel there. Quite a\ngrowth of hair on his clap-boarding, as it were, but devilish thin on\nhis roof.\"\n\nHere the Colonel looked up and tried to say something, but the Judge\nwent on imperturbably.\n\n\"Now I take it that it's strictly providential that a man gets bald on\ntop of his head first, because if he _must_ get bald it is best to get\nbald where it can be covered up.\"\n\n\"By jinks, that's a fact!\" said the rest in high admiration of the\nJudge's ratiocination. Steve was specially pleased, and drawing a\nneck-yoke from a barrel standing near, pounded the floor vigorously.\n\n\"Talking about being bald,\" put in Foster, \"reminds me of a scheme of\nmine, which is to send no one out to fight Indians but bald men. Think\nhow powerless they'd--\"\n\nThe talk now drifted off to Indians, politics, and religion, edged\nround to the war when the grave Judge was telling Ridings and Robie\njust how \"Kilpatrick charged along the Granny White Turnpike,\" and on\na sheet of wrapping paper was showing where Major John Dilrigg fell.\n\"I was on his left about thirty yards, when I saw him throw up his\nhand--\"\n\nFoster in a low voice was telling something to the Professor, and two\nor three others, which made them whoop with uncontrollable merriment,\nwhen the roaring voice of big Sam Walters was heard outside, and a\nmoment later he rolled into the room, filling it with his noise.\nLottridge, the watchmaker, and Erlberg, the German baker, came in with\nhim.\n\n\"_Hello_, hello, _hello_! All here, are yeh?\"\n\n\"All here waiting for you--and the turnkey,\" said Foster.\n\n\"Well, here I am. Always on hand like a sore thumb in huskin' season.\nWhat's goin' on here? A game, hey? Hello, Gordon, it's you, is it?\nColonel, I owe you several for last night. But what the devil yo' got\nyour cap on fur, Colonel? Aint it warm enough here for yeh?\"\n\nThe desperate Colonel who had snatched up his cap when he heard\nWalters coming, grinned painfully, pulling his straggly red and white\nbeard nervously. The strain was beginning to tell on his iron nerves.\nHe removed the cap, and with a few muttered words went back to the\ngame, but there was a dangerous gleam in his fishy blue eyes, and the\ngrizzled tufts of red hair above his eyes lowered threateningly. A man\nwho is getting swamped in a game of checkers is not in a mood to bear\npleasantly any remarks on his bald head.\n\n\"Oh! don't take it off, Colonel,\" went on his tormentor hospitably.\n\"When a man gets as old as you are, he's privileged to wear his cap. I\nwonder if any of you fellers have noticed how the Colonel is shedding\nhis hair.\"\n\nThe old man leaped up, scattering the men on the checker-board which\nflew up and struck Judge Gordon in the face, knocking him off his\nstool. The old Colonel was ashy pale, and his eyes glared out from\nunder his huge brow like sapphires lit by flame. His spare form\nclothed in a seedy Prince Albert frock towered with a singular\ndignity. His features worked convulsively a moment, and then he burst\nforth like the explosion of a safety valve:--\n\n\"Shuttup, dumyeh!\"\n\nAnd then the crowd whooped, roared, and rolled on the counters and\nbarrels, and roared and whooped again. They stamped and yelled, and\nran around like fiends, kicking the boxes and banging the coal-scuttle\nin a perfect pandemonium of mirth, leaving the old man standing there\nhelpless in his wrath, mad enough to shoot. Steve was just preparing\nto seize the old man from behind, when Judge Gordon, struggling to his\nfeet among the spittoons, cried out, in the voice of a Colonel of\nFourth of July militia:--\n\n\"H-O-L-D!\"\n\nSilence was restored, and all stood around in expectant attitudes to\nhear the Judge's explanation. He squared his elbows, shoved up his\nsleeves, puffed out his fat cheeks, moistened his lips, and began\npompously:--\n\n\"Gentlemen--\"\n\n\"You've hit it; that's us,\" said some of the crowd in applause.\n\n\"Gentlemen of Rock River, when in the course of human events, rumor\nhad blow'd to my ears the history of the checker-playing of Rock\nRiver, and when I had waxed Cerro-Gordo, and Claiborne, and Mower,\nthen, when I say to my ears was borne the clash of resounding arms in\nRock River, the emporium of Rock County, then did I yearn for more\nworlds to conquer, and behold, I buckled on my armor and I am here.\"\n\n\"Behold, he is here,\" said Foster, in confirmation of the statement.\n\"Good for you, Judge, git breath and go for us some more.\"\n\n\"Hurrah for the Judge,\" etc.\n\n\"I came seekin' whom I might devour like a raging lion. I sought\nfoemen worthy of my steel. I leaped into the arena and blew my\nchallenge to the four quarters of Rock--\"\n\n\"Good f'r you, settemupagin! Go it, you old balloon,\" they all\napplauded.\n\n\"Knowing my prowess I sought a fair fout and no favors. I met the\nenemy and he was mine. Champion after champion went down before me\nlike--went down like--Ahem! went _down_ before me like grass before\nthe mighty cyclone of the Andes.\"\n\n\"Listen to the old blow-hard,\" said Steve.\n\n\"Put him out,\" said the speaker, imperturbably. \"Gentlemen, have I the\nfloor?\"\n\n\"You have,\" replied Brown, \"but come to the point. The Colonel is\nanxious to begin shooting.\" The Colonel, who began to suspect himself\nvictimized, stood wondering what under heaven they were going to do\nnext!\n\n\"I'm a gitt'n' there,\" said the orator with a broad and sunny\ncondescension.\n\n\"I found your champions an' laid 'em low. I waxed Walters, and then I\ntackled the Colonel. I tried the _echelon_, the 'general advanced,'\nthen the 'give away' and 'flank' movements. But the Colonel _was\nthere_. Till this last game it was a fair field and no favor. And now,\ngentlemen of Rock, I desire t' state to my deeply respected opponent,\nthat he is still champion of Rock, and I'm not sure but of Northern\nIowa.\"\n\n\"Three cheers for the Kunnel!\"\n\nAnd while they were being given the Colonel's brows relaxed, and the\nchampion of Cerro-Gordo continued earnestly:--\n\n\"And now I wish to state to Colonel the solemn fact that I had nothing\nto do with the job put up on him to-night. I scorn to use such means\nin a battle. Colonel, you may be as bald as an apple, or an egg, yes,\nor a _plate_, but you can play more checkers than any man I ever met,\nmore checkers than any other man on God's green footstool.--With\none-single, lone exception--myself.\"\n\nAt this moment, somebody hit the dead-beat from Cerro-Gordo with a\ndecayed apple, and as the crowd shouted and groaned Robie turned down\nthe lights on the tumult. The old Colonel seized the opportunity for\nputting a handful of salt down Walters' neck, and slipped out of the\ndoor like a ghost. As the crowd swarmed out on the icy walk, Editor\nFoster yelled:--\n\n\"Gents! let me give you a pointer. Keep your eye peeled for the next\nedition of the Rock River _Morning Call_.\" And the bitter wind swept\naway the answering shouts of the gang.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Transcriber's Notes:\n\nEvery effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully as\npossible, including obsolete and variant spellings and other\ninconsistencies. The transcriber made the following changes to the\ntext to correct obvious errors by the publisher:\n\n1. p. 412, \"tranverse\" changed to \"transverse\"\n\nAlso, several occurrences of mismatched quotes remain as published.\n\nEnd of Transcriber's Notes]","title":"The Arena, Volume 4, No. 22, September, 1891","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":46613}