EconlibThe LibraryOther Sites |
Front Page  Titles (by Subject) F - Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and of the Political History of the United States, vol. 2 East India Co. - Nullification
Return to Title Page for Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and of the Political History of the United States, vol. 2 East India Co. - NullificationThe Online Library of LibertyA project of Liberty Fund, Inc.Search this Title:Also in the Library:
F - John Joseph Lalor, Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and of the Political History of the United States, vol. 2 East India Co. - Nullification [1881]Edition used:Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and of the Political History of the United States by the best American and European Authors, ed. John J. Lalor (New York: Maynard, Merrill, & Co., 1899). Vol 2 East India Co. - Nullification
Part of: Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and of the Political History of the United States, 3 vols.
About Liberty Fund:Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. Copyright information:The text is in the public domain. Fair use statement:This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
FFACTIONFACTION. This word has, unfortunately, formed a part of the political vocabulary in every period of history. Taken in its most rigorous sense it is merely a synonym of party, and reminds us of the groups of competitors who, in the games of the Roman circus, arrayed themselves in different colors and contended with one another for the prize in running, or in trials of strength. But the word also calls to mind the great parties which have agitated political society ever since its foundation. —At Rome people adopted the color of the victor in the circus; in the combats of public life they soon adopt the passions of the hardiest combatant. And just as the games had their streamers, so also personal ambitions have their standards. It was thus that the first faction was formed under the leadership of Cæsar, which, overcoming its weakness in point of numbers by the boldness of its enterprises, soon became the powerful party which was one day to overrun and rule the empire. —In the present condition of society can factions, properly so called, be formed? We would like to believe they could not; something extremely odious attaches to-day to the secret machinations which disturb the common peace, and place in power a minority of energetic men whose boldness surpasses their intelligence and knowledge. Public opinion may still perhaps excuse, in history, the bold attempts of the duke de Guise and of Cardinal de Retz; it can make allowance for circumstances in the conflicts of the past, when the leaders of the minority prepared the way for the formation of their parties by a hazardous coup de main. But they now highly disapprove of this substitution of force for reason, of violence for persuasion, even in extreme cases. —Such, then, is a faction in its generally accepted sense; it is in politics what pirates are to seafaring men. It has been correctly enough defined grammatically as "an opposing league made up of conspirators"; while of parties, on the contrary, we may say that they are groups whose members seek, by the diffusion of their ideas and the success of their doctrines, a triumph which factions demand through their personal audacity or the terror of their victims. In a word, real statesmen are the leaders of parties; factions are made up only of conspirators. In our time this word ought to be expunged, and together with it the idea which it represents. No matter how imperfect our political education may be, and no matter how divided society may appear to be, enduring success, now as in the past, can be achieved only by men of thought. When by reason of the character and temperament of the people of any country authority seems more or less exposed to the attacks of impatient minorities, the victories obtained by factions are always ephemeral. The reaction will be as sudden as the triumph; and opinion, which has too often and too quickly honored these coups de main with the name of "revolution," will inflict upon their authors the penalty of general reprobation. —A word about "sovereign factions." Power itself may possess the allurements and weaknesses of ambitious minorities. If it feel its strength diminishing, at endeavors with all its powers to affect what by a license of speech has been called a coup d'état—But factious revolutions of either kind should be tolerated, approved or allowed to bear fruit no longer, neither because of the prestige which power gives, nor because of the popularity which courage and talent enjoy. ERNEST DRÉOLLE FACTORY LAWSFACTORY LAWS. The doctrine so long current in political economy and expressed in the motto, laissez faire, laissez passer, has been thoroughly exploded by the logic of circumstances. No better proof of this could be desired than the factory laws of modern industrial nations, laws which have been of late warmly defended by economists of every school. The reaction begun by Adam Smith against the paternal theory and practice of contemporary governments resulted in an illogical and untenable theory of the state and its functions. "Free competition" was the panacea for all economical ills of society. Every one was to be free to sell his own labor and that of his family where he could obtain most for it, and free to make such contracts as he would or could. As England was the first great industrial state of modern times, so in England the results of such a policy first showed themselves in all their nakedness. The most merciless exploitation of the weaker elements of society by the stronger became the rule. The manufacturers, in their thirst for wealth, paid as little attention to the health of their operatives as they chose. The laborers, in their necessity, were compelled to accept what terms were offered. The labor of the father soon became insufficient to support the family. The mother had to go into the coal mine or factory. It was not enough; the children were sent into the mines and factories. They were compelled to work ten or fifteen hours a day for seven days in the week, in narrow, illy ventilated and dirty factory rooms or in still more un-healthful mines. The result of such work was, of course, the moral and physical deterioration of the children and a steady degeneration of the laborers from decade to decade. The conditions prevailing in Great Britain during the latter part of the last century and the early part of the present century would be entirely incredible were they not well attested by the testimony of unimpeachable witnesses. So crying did the evil become that in 1802 an act was passed "for the preservation of the health and morals of apprentices and others employed in cotton and other mills, and cotton and other factories." This bill owed its passage to the ravages of epidemic diseases in the factory districts of Manchester. The illy fed and over-worked children in the factories formed the very best field for the development and spread of epidemic and contagious diseases. Pauper children were sent in crowds from the agricultural districts of the southern counties to the manufacturing regions of the northern counties. They were apprenticed to the mill owners and mercilessly over-worked and under-fed. The act mentioned subjected all mills employing three or more apprentices or twenty other persons to its provisions. The walls were to be whitewashed, windows enough were to be provided, and the apprentices were always to have two suits of clothing, one to be new each year. Twelve hours were declared to be a day's work, and work was altogether prohibited from 9 P. M. to 6 A. M. These provisions applied only to apprentices, and not to the work of children residing in the neighborhood of the factories. In 1819 children before the age of nine were excluded from the cotton mills, and those from nine to sixteen were not to be employed more than twelve hours a day. In 1825 a bill was passed providing for a partial holiday on Saturday. In 1831 night work in the cotton factories was prohibited for persons between nine and twenty-one years of age; the working day for persons under eighteen was to be twelve hours, and on Saturday nine. In 1833 these provisions were extended to various other kinds of factories. These acts diminished the number of children employed in factories very materially. In 1835 (before the factory acts went into full operation) there were 56,455 children employed in 3,164 factories; in 1838, 29,283 were employed in 4,217 factories, i.e., from an average of over seventeen per factory to less than seven. The movement did not stop here. A mining act was passed which prohibited underground work to children under ten, and to women. In 1844 a new act was passed, providing that children between eight and thirteen should not be employed in textile industries for more than six and a half hours per day. In 1847 ten hours was declared a working day for women and "young persons," i.e., persons between thirteen and eighteen, and they were allowed to work only between 6 A. M. and 6 P. M., one hour and a half to be allowed for meal time. No protected person was to work on Saturday after 2 P. M. Subsequent laws extended these provisions, with some modifications, to nearly every branch of manufacturing industry. In 1874 the minimum age of children was raised to ten years. —In 1878 a consolidating act was passed, which included in one bill the substance of all previous laws. We can not illustrate the present state of the subject in any better way than by giving this bill in outline. Part I. contains the general law relating to factories and workshops, under the following heads: 1. Sanitary provisions; 2, Safety; 3, Employment and meal hours; 4. Holidays: 5, Education: 6. Certificates of fitness for employment. 7, Accidents. 1. Under the first head, the buildings must be kept in a clean state, and free from effluvia arising from any drain, privy or other nuisance. 2. The second contains provisions for the fencing of dangerous machinery, and restrictions on the employment of children and young persons in cleaning, etc., machinery in motion. 3. A child, young person or woman shall not be employed except during the period of employment fixed as follows: 1st. In textile factories. For young persons and women the period shall be from 6 A. M. to 6 P. M or 7 A. M. to 7 P. M.: on Saturdays, from 6 A. M. till 1 P. M. for manufacturing processes, and 1.30 for all employment, if one hour is allowed for meals; otherwise at 12.30 and 1. Or if the work begins at 7 A. M., it shall end on Saturdays at 1. 30 and 2 P. M. respectively. For meal times two hours at least on week days, and on Saturdays half an hour, must be allowed. Continuous employment without a meal time of at least half an hour not to exceed four and a half hours. For children: employment to be for half time only (in morning or afternoon sets, or alternate days). The work day is the same as above A child must not be employed for two successive periods of seven days in the same set, whether morning or afternoon, nor on two successive Saturdays, nor on Saturday in any week if he has already on one day been employed more than five and a half hours. Nor shall a child be employed on two successive days, nor on the same day in two successive weeks, 2d. In non-textile factories. For young persons and women: period of employment same as before, ending at 2 P. M. on Saturdays; meal times not less than an hour and a half, and on Saturdays half an hour; continuous employment without a meal not to exceed five hours. These regulations also apply to young persons in workshops. For children: half-time arrangements generally the same as before; continuous employment without a meal not to exceed five hours. Women in workshops are subject to the same regulations as young persons, if young persons or children are employed; if not, the period of employment for a woman in a workshop shall be from 6 A. M. to 9 P. M. (on Saturday, 4 P. M.). Absent time for meals, etc., must be allowed to the extent of four and a half hours (on Saturdays two and a half hours). The employment of young persons or children at home, when the work is the same as in a factory or workshop, but no machine power is used, is also regulated, the day being fixed at 6 A. M. to 9 P. M.; for children, 6 A. M. to 1 P. M.; or 1 P. M. to 8 P. M. Meal times in factories or workshops must be simultaneous, and employment during such meal times is forbidden. The occupier of a factory or workshop must issue a notice of the times of employment, etc. No children under ten shall be employed. 4. The following holidays shall be allowed to all protected persons: Christmas day, Good Friday (or the next public holiday), and eight half-holidays, two of which may he commuted for one entire holiday. 5. Occupiers must obtain a weekly certificate of school attendance for every child in their employment 6. Medical certificates of fitness for employment are required in the case of children and young persons under sixteen. When a child becomes a young person a fresh certificate is necessary. 7. Notice of accidents causing loss of life or bodily injury must be sent to the inspector and certifying surgeon of the district. —Part II. contains special provisions for particular classes of factories and workshops, such as bake houses, print works, bleaching and dyeing works. The third schedule to the act contains a list of special exceptions too numerous to be given in detail. —Part III. provides for the administration of the law. Two classes of officers are to be appointed by the secretary of state, viz.: 1, inspectors, charged with the duty of inspecting and examining factories and workshops at all reasonable times, and of exercising such other powers as may be necessary to the carrying out of the act: and 2, certifying surgeons, to grant certificates of fitness under the act. Numerous other sections relate to penalties and legal proceedings. —Part IV. defines the principal terms used in the act. "Child" means a person under fourteen years of age, a "young person" is between fourteen and eighteen; a "woman" means a woman over eighteen. Other sections apply the act to Scot land and Ireland, with a temporary saving for the employment of children under ten and children over thirteen (lawfully employed at the time of the passage of the act). Previous enactments are repealed—It will be seen that the government has taken under its protection the whole class of women, children and youth employed in manufacturing industries. England has not progressed very far in protecting male laborers over twenty-one years of age, although the general provisions relating to the situation, cleaning, ventilation, etc., of factories, and the legal definition of a day's labor, should be considered as the first steps in such a policy. The liberty of combination allowed the laborers is also to be regarded as a negative protection at least. —Other countries have followed the example of England in protecting the interests of wage laborers. Switzerland, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and several states of the American Union, have more or less developed systems of factory laws. The federal law of Switzerland provides that children under fifteen years of age shall not be employed in factories, and those under seventeen shall not be so employed as to hinder their school and religious instruction. Sunday and night labor is forbidden to persons under eighteen years of age. Pennsylvania fixes the legal day's labor at eight hours in the absence of a special contract, and prohibits the employment of children under thirteen years of age in factories. Minors between the ages of thirteen and sixteen shall not be employed in factories for more than nine months in any one year, nor shall any minors between said ages be employed who have not attended school for at least three consecutive months within the same year. Operatives under twenty-one years of age shall not be employed for more than sixty hours in any one week. Detailed provisions are also contained in the law as to the means of safety to be provided in all branches of industry where they are needed. Massachusetts prohibits the employment of children under ten years of age in manufacturing, mechanical or mercantile establishments. No child under fourteen years of age shall be so employed, except during the vacations of the public schools, unless during the year next preceding such employment he has for at least twenty weeks attended some public or private day school under teachers approved according to law, nor shall such employment continue, unless such child in each and every year attends school for twenty weeks, which time may be divided into two terms of ten consecutive weeks each. Nor shall any child under fourteen years of age who can not read and write be employed in such establishments while the public schools of the town are in session. Minors under eighteen and women may not be employed in factories for more than ten hours per day, nor sixty hours per week. A law, approved April 12, 1882, provides that every person or corporation employing females in any manufacturing, mechanical or mercantile establishment shall provide suitable seats for the use of the females so employed, and shall permit the use of such seats by them when they are not necessarily engaged in the active duties for which they are employed. The provisions in reference to ventilation, cleaning, etc., of factories are similar to those in the English law. It will be seen that Massachusetts has gone farther than any other commonwealth in the classes of protected persons. In addition to factories, mercantile and mechanical establishments are included in the law. Other states allow also many more exceptions than Massachusetts does. —It is evident from the preceding sketch that the meaning of the term "factory legislation" can not be ascertained by a mere putting together of the meanings of the two words which compose it, but can be understood only by a study of its history (Cohn.) The origin and development of factory legislation point to a limited field which as very far from being coincident with legislation concerning factories. This limited field has in general as its object the protection of wage laborers from those injurious influences which they can not themselves ward off, and, in a narrower sense, from those agencies which most deeply affect the existence of the laborer, especially the protection of those persons who stand most in need of protection, particularly of children; and finally, protection in those branches of industry in which such influences have revealed themselves in the most palpable way. It is characteristic of the empirical course of such legislation that, where it was anything more than a mere pretense, it began in the narrowest sense of the term and approached its logical consequences only after the lapse of generations. Out of the protection of apprentices in cotton factories grew the protection of all children in those factories; out of this grew their protection in other kinds of factories, and out of this last their protection in all mercantile and mechanical establishments as well. (Mass.) The protection of children developed into a protection for women and even for adult men. Protection against the danger of excessive duration of labor developed into a detailed oversight directed not only to the limitation and division of the day, but also to the kind of wages and to provisions against mechanical and chemical dangers of the factories. —The discussion as to the wisdom of such legislation has been long and excited. Factory laws have been opposed at every stage as being an unwarranted case of interference with the liberty of the individual. Many political economists have protested that the principles of economics forbid any such interference with the freedom of contract. Manufacturers objected that the cost of manufactured goods would be so increased that they could not compete in foreign markets. The laboring classes themselves were opposed to the movement, maintaining that, so far from raising their standard of life, it tended to lower it. Nor can it be denied that each and all these objections have a certain force. Laws which prescribe the age at which labor may be begun, the duration of labor, the conditions under which labor may be carried on, and compulsory attendance at school, need special justification. They interfere with the liberty of the individual, which seems to be contrary to the course of modern political development. In their endeavor to protect him they limit his power over the very agency by which he becomes independent, viz., his own labor, and so they seem to come in conflict with the principles of a sound economy. In their attempt to raise the standard of comfort of the laboring classes they deprive them of certain sources of income, and so their first result is a lowering of the standard of comfort, and they are felt to be oppressive. They interfere, in a word, immediately in the life of the laboring classes, and undertake to counteract by force their tendency to degeneration. And yet they do nothing more than simply apply this force, letting the results take care of themselves. However weighty these arguments are allowed to be, they are overcome by other considerations. In the first place, so far as those provisions relating to the labor of children are concerned, it may be maintained even by those who would limit the functions of the state to the simple one of protection, that such legislation is nothing more than a much needed interference of the state in behalf of the most helpless and oppressed portion of the community. If fathers and mothers become so deadened to every feeling of the obligation of parents to their offspring, as to place their children under such conditions as make their normal development as human beings impossible. If they deprive them of all opportunities for mental, moral and physical education; if they employ them habitually in such branches of industry as lead to their mental, moral and physical deterioration and ruin; surely no more sacred duty rests upon the state than to interfere to protect these children—to protect them not only against their employers, but against their parents as well. The state, then, may undertake to protect minors from the abuse of their parents or guardians. But the principle which justifies interference to protect one helpless and exploited class, justifies interference to protect all helpless and exploited classes. For a long time women were minors in the eyes of the law, and are in reality so yet in all the great manufacturing centres of the world. Their labor was and is exploited as mercilessly by their husbands and lovers as ever that of children was by their parents. Legislation has interfered to protect them from this abuse, fixing the maximum period of labor within any one day and any one week. Such measures can be justified on essentially the same principles as those in behalf of children. The case of adult men is some-what different. To those, however, who maintain that factory laws interfere to an unwarrantable extent with the right of contract, and that adult men and women know what is to their interest better than any set of lawgivers, it may be rejoined that it makes no difference how clearly a man knows what is for his interest if circumstances compel him to close with any contract offered him, which is the case of the ordinary laborer in our modern industry. A laborer in search of work, and needing it in order to earn his next meal, is in no position to require his employer to see that the workshop is healthy or safe, or to dictate any other terms on which he will or will not work. The employer is economically the stronger, and he can exploit the laborer at his will. Here is still another case, then, where the simple theory of protection demands the interference of the state. The conditions of modern industry tend constantly to make the laboring class as a whole more dependent and helpless, and every added year of industrial development makes protection of this class more necessary. —Factory legislation may be justified not only as a fair response to a demand for protection on the part of helpless classes of the community, but as an essential movement in the interests of society as a whole. Looked at from this standpoint, we may formulate the object of factory laws somewhat as follows: the establishment or restoration of normal conditions of life for the laboring classes, in opposition to those destructive influences by which modern industry especially, although that by no means alone, has destroyed the unity of family, home and education. (Cohn.) It goes without the saying that in a state of society in which the children from the age of five or six years are sent into the mines and factories from daylight till dark, in which the mothers from the time of delivery work all day and half the night in the same places, in which the fathers either do the same or idle away their time living on the proceeds of the labor of their wives and children—it goes without the saying, we repeat, that in such a society there can be no home life, no care and nurture of children, no education, no morality, no health; in a word, none of the conditions necessary to the development of intelligent citizens and to the welfare of free states. Practical statesmen and philanthropists of two generations ago saw clearly that something must be done to counteract the agencies which were sapping rapidly and surely the foundations of family life, reversing the relations of parent and child, of husband and wife, and reducing whole classes of the population to a condition but little, if any, removed from barbarism. They began the work, and it has made good progress. But it is clear that much remains to be done. The next step to be taken is to prohibit the employment of mothers of young children in the factories. Exactly what legislation on this point is practicable does not appear as yet by any means clear, though that something must be done in this direction, and that right early, no one can doubt who knows anything of the conditions prevailing in the great manufacturing centres of the world. In such cases we interfere with the liberty of the laboring classes against their will in the interests of society as a whole. And their objection that their income is thus abridged and their standard of comfort thus lowered, although undoubtedly true of the immediate results, will probably lose its force in course of time, and even if it does not, it ought not to avail against the interest of the commonwealth as a whole—In answer to the manufacturers who urge that such legislation, by raising the price of labor, makes a country unable to compete in the world market with nations which have no such laws, three points may be made: First, it can not be shown, either in theory or practice, that those nations with the lowest wages are best able to compete in international industry. On the contrary, as America has the highest rate of agricultural wages in the world and is yet able to underbid all the world with her agricultural productions, and as England has the highest rate of wages of all the nations which manufacture largely for foreign countries and yet underbids all her competitors with her manufactures, it would seem that supremacy in the world's market and the highest rate of wages are perfectly compatible. Second, the endeavor of the laborers is now directed toward securing an international factory legislation which will place all nations on the same footing in this respect. The federal legislature of the Swiss republic took the first official step toward securing an international system in 1881. Foreign governments were invited to unite with Switzerland in such an attempt. No decisive result has as yet been attained by this step, but it is significant of the progress of events, and marks a decided advance in this subject. Third, a state has other and nobler ends to follow than the accumulation of mere material wealth. The advance of its citizens in intelligence and happiness, in all that distinguishes civilization from barbarism, is of far more importance than supremacy in the world market. Moderate wealth and happy homes are better than a degraded proletary and ability to underbid all competitors in the industrial world. —Whatever one may think of the arguments on either side, it is certain that factory legislation will not rest where it is, but will advance to new fields and new restrictions. The laborers themselves have taken the matter into their own hands, and by their local, national and international combinations are exercising, whether for weal or woe, a marked influence on the legislation of all civilized nations. —LITERATURE. Among the sources of information on this topic we may mention: Artisans and Machinery, by P. Gaskell, London, 1836; Die Lage der arbeitenden Klassen in England, by Engel, Leipzig, 1848; Ansichten der Volkswirthschaft aus dem geschicht. Standpunkte, by Wilhelm Roscher; Moral and Physical Condition of the Working Classes, by Dr. Kay, 1832; various Reports of Commissioners appointed to inquire into the working of the factory act by the British parliament; various Reports of English Factory Inspectors; various Reports of Children Employment's Commission to Parliament; yearly Reports of Statistical Bureaus of all civilized nations; Ueber internationale Fabrikgesetzgebung, by Gustav Cohn, in Conrad's Juhrbücher für Nationalokonomie, vol. xxxvii., p. 313, to which reference is made in the body of the above article; Le travail des femmes au xix. siecle, by Paul Leroy-Beaulieu, Paris. 1873; La législation sur le travail des enfants dans les manufactures, by Tallou-Maurice, Paris, 1875. E. J. JAMES. FAIR TRADEFAIR TRADE. During the remarkable period of industrial and commercial depression and disturbance that prevailed in Europe and the United States from 1873 to 1878-9, the idea became somewhat popular in England that the special economic troubles which Great Britain then experienced, i.e., a diminution of exports and a consequent depression of her manufacturing industries, were due mainly to the unfair conditions which characterized British international exchanges; or to the lack of anything like reciprocal fairness and liberality, on the part of foreign nations, in respect to matters of trade and commerce in dealing with Great Britain. Thus, it was affirmed, and without the possibility of contradiction, that while Great Britain permitted the free importation into her own ports of nearly all the products of all foreign nations, these same nations at the same time not only imposed heavy and often prohibitory duties on the importation into their territories of the products of British industry, but also, in some instances—as in the case of the beet-root sugar of France—subsidized competition, and even made the underselling of British products in their home market possible by the granting of bounties on exports. It was, therefore, claimed that while the policy of commercial liberality in free trade adopted by Great Britain had been magnanimous, it had proved disastrous, because it was one-sided, and not reciprocated, and that the commercially wise and proper course for Great Britain to take, under such circumstances was to institute and enforce "fair trade," by applying to each foreign country a tariff of duties which would correspond as nearly as possible to the tariff which such country enforced against its imports of British products. The programme of the so-called "fair traders," so far as it was definitely formulated, appears to have embodied the following as its principal features 1. Raw materials of manufacture to be admitted free. 2. Food to be taxed when coming from foreign countries: to be admitted free when coming from British colonies: this taxation to be maintained for a considerable term, in order to give the colonies time to develop their products. 3. Tea. coffee, fruit, tobacco, wines and spirits to be taxed 10 per cent. higher when coming from foreign countries than from British colonies. 4 Duties to be levied upon the importation into Great Britain of the manufactures of such foreign countries as impose prohibitory or protective duties on British manufactures; such duties to be removed or abated in the case of any nation which might agree to remove or abate its restrictions on British imports. —Nothing, however, resulted from the presentation of these ideas and propositions, except discussion, and this in fact was all that was needed: for discussion soon satisfied the British people generally, that while commercial reciprocity on the part of foreign nations would undoubtedly greatly augment their international exchanges, and while ample warrant and occasion existed for the enactment of such retaliatory tariffs as the "fair traders" proposed, yet such enactments would be far from expedient, and not likely to result in any substantial benefit to British trade, industry or commerce. It was shown, in the first place, that a retaliatory commercial policy on the part of Great Britain against foreign nations, would be more likely to induce further retaliation on the part of the latter, rather than greater commercial liberality; as it was the genial warmth of the sun rather than the piercing blasts of the wind that induced the traveler to take off his coat. Second. That it would not be easy to draw the line between raw material and manufactures, and that any, even indirect, enhancement of the raw materials of British industries, would work to their detriment. Third. That to enhance the cost of food by imposing discriminating duties on food imports, would tend to reduce the size of the loaf to the British workman, and, by increasing the expenses of his living, practically reduce his wages. Fourth. That the so-called luxuries, tea, coffee, tobacco, wines and spirits, were already taxed for purposes of revenue in Great Britain to as great a degree as was expedient Fifth. That government can not create trade, and can not divert it without diminishing it. "When people talk of its being the duty of the government to find markets for their people, what they mean is, that the government shall deprive their people of the markets which they find for themselves." One argument put forth by the "fair traders" in support of their policy, which at first sight appeared rather more plausible than most of the others advanced by them, was that British manufacturers should be in some way compensated for "restricted hours of labor and for exceptional taxation" imposed upon them by home legislation; and that if the legislature choose to place disabilities on particular industries, the country at large should bear the cost, and not the particular industries. To this it was replied, that any such disabilities as cited were not imposed intentionally by the legislature: that the assumption has always been that cheap labor is not necessarily efficient labor; and that any system which tends to the degradation of the working chasses, and prevents them from attaining a certain moral, intellectual and physical standard, directly impairs their physical energy. Hence legislation repressive of such systems was, on the whole, beneficial. But if it could be shown that any statute restrictions on labor or any special disabilities really diminish the efficiency of the industries they affect, it should be the object of reformers to address themselves to the legitimate task of obtaining relief from unwise or unjust laws, and not to extend their operation. —But the most efficient of all arguments, preferred against the views of the "fair traders," was the record of the progress of Great Britain since it began to relax and finally abandon the protective system. Thus in 1829, soon after the removals of restrictions on commerce instituted by Mr. Hankinson and Poulett Thomson, the declared value of British and Irish exports was $179,000,000; in 1839, it was $266,000,000; in 1849, just after the repeal of the corn laws, it was $317,000,000; in 1859, the year before the French commercial treaty, it was $652,000.000, in 1869, after nine years of the treaty and before the Franco-German war, it was $949,000,000; and in 1880, $1,115,000,000. It was also shown that during the periods when the liberal commercial policy of Great Britain was claimed to have specially acted to her great disadvantage, or from 1870 to 1880, the per capita consumption of staple articles of food—the best barometer of the condition of the people—had greatly increased: tea, from 3.18 lb. to 4.59; butter, from 4.15 to 7.52; bacon, from 1.98 to 15.96; sugar, from 41.4 to 59; and tobacco, from 1.30 to 1.49 Pauperism and convictions for crime had also during the same period materially decreased, and the deposits in the savings banks materially increased. The theory and plans of the fair traders accordingly made little permanent impression on the British public; the government gave no attention to them; and with the revival of domestic industries and foreign trade, the whole subject has ceased to attract interest in Great Britain, or be regarded as of any practical importance. —Among the more important publications which have appeared in Great Britain on this subject, reference may be made to the following. In favor of fair trade: A Plea for Limited Protection or Reciprocity, by Lord Bateman, pamphlet; an article by Richard Wallace, in the Contemporary Review, March, 1879; an article by Farrer Ecroyd, in the Nineteenth Century, for October, 1880. In opposition to or in refutation of the theory of fair trade reciprocity A Letter by Sir Louis Mallet to Mr. Thom. Bayley Potter, of the Cobden Club, 1879; Free Trade versus Fair Trade, by T H. Farier, 1882; and The Recent Depression of Trade, its causes, and the remedies that hate been suggested for it, by Walter E Smith, Oxford, Cobden prize essay, 1879. DAVID A. WELLS. FAITS ACCOMPLISFAITS ACCOMPLIS. These words have become a usual phrase in political language, and require no explanation. By faits accomplis are meant questions decided by events, and which are or may or should be considered as ended. There is nothing so indestructible, nothing so immutable, as the past. But when it is said that a thing is a fait accompli, it is ordinarily meant that it is of such a character as to be accepted or submitted to, and that the idea is abandoned of doing away with its immediate results, or effacing its most direct consequences. It is believed that the expression began to have this precise sense in practice, after having been employed by Odilon Barrot in a circumstance of considerable importance in the parliamentary history of the French monarchy of 1830. In the session of March 24, 1836, the cabinet formed by Molé, the month be fore, having announced a policy of conciliation, Barrot said: "I was glad to make note of the words of the new ministry, which invited us to take thought only for the future of the country without wrangling over the past. We have accepted faits accomplis, that is to say, that without renouncing our convictions, without abandoning our political religion, in the presence of a majority whose honor and whose dignity itself were pledged to the measures which have been adopted, we consented not to renew in vain, and at the great risk of endangering the peace of the country, questions for which we could not expect, at present, a solution in accordance with our convictions." These words have become the commentary which on almost any occasion may be given on the doctrine of faits accomplis. Since that time the expression has passed into use to describe facts the discussion of which is abandoned, at least temporarily, and concerning which it is considered sufficient to appeal to history or the future. We see that the idea expressed by these two words is analogous in politics to what is known in law as prescription. Both suppose that time, by its influence alone, legalizes certain acts or certain results to such a degree that it may become allowable, wise or prudent to admit them as beyond question, whatever, in other regards, be the judgment which should be passed on them. This is sometimes a concession demanded by necessity, and sometimes a sacrifice made in the interest of the public good. —Is it possible to determine, in a general manner, the cases and conditions in which the doctrine of faits accomplis is legitimately applicable? The solution of this question depends on the circumstances. This doctrine is indeed appealed to, according to circumstances, either to sanction obedience to necessity, the surrender of one's claims in the interest of all, or the yielding to force and coming to terms with tyranny. It may serve as an argument to reason or as a pretext to weakness. Like prescription in law it may either support a right or shield its violation It may be the expression of a clever policy which distinguishes in time the possible from the impossible, or a cowardly egotism which prostrates itself before fortune. Sometimes destined to bring peace to a divided nation, it may authorize it to grant what Tacitus calls grande patientiœ documentum. It may in turn be the shame or the salvation of a country. —In times when the frequent recurrence of revolutions tests the energy and faithfulness of men's characters too severely, the doctrine of faits accomplis should be held rather in distrust than made an habitual rule of conduct. At these times the power of events is such that acquiescence is more common and more to be feared than resistance. Men are but too ready to accept the irrevocable, and this even when there are no calculations of personal interest; the indifference and scepticism, produced by the frequent destruction of hopes, opinions and systems, induce us only too frequently to accept the despotism of facts, that is to say, the idolatry of success. Therefore it is perhaps from the nature of the sentiments which determine us to bend before facts, rather than from the nature of the facts themselves, that we must judge whether we are right or wrong in submitting to them. Conscience is more capable of distinguishing whether we yield through weakness of heart or mind than is reason to pronounce whether the results of events are finally decisive or not; and it is easier to recognize what is worthier than what is more certain. It is nevertheless true that a proper appreciation of circumstances, no matter how difficult it may be, is necessary in order wisely to apply the doctrine of faits accomplis in practice. It can not even be laid down as a principle that the mistakes of the past should never be sanctioned, and that all rights are forever imprescriptible. It is an absolute rule that no injustice should be committed, no right violated. But when the evil is really irreparable, the impossible should not be attempted. There should be no struggle against necessity, when one is intrusted with public interests. The simplest and clearest example is that of war; if victory has pronounced against the right in a just war, it is heroic to resist to the death; but it is not criminal in the conquered to acknowledge his own helplessness, and conclude a peace with the conqueror which will secure the triumph of iniquity. There are circumstances under which the state and the country can not be sacrificed even to right. The last resort of a Brutus and a Cato is no more permitted to nations than to individuals. But civilized nations, devoted to the enjoyments of art and industry, have to guard themselves rather against the inclination to tolerate than the desire to repress injustice. We see, therefore, that the question of the possible and the impossible is always involved in such affairs with the question of right, and that before undertaking to act against injustice itself we must know certainly whether it can be repaired. And still it may be beautiful to ignore this. It is the glory of Poland never to have accepted faits accomplis. —Of principles of which certain facts may be the violation, examination will unable us to decide which are really sacred, since they are eternal, and which are not essentially inviolable, since they are conventional, and concerning which compromise may be admitted. Thus the persons called legitimists in France consider that in a monarchy the right of the dynasty is of such a character that it should be exempt from the attack of events and remain unmoved in the midst of revolutions. Nevertheless if the countess of Albany had not died without posterity, would there still be a Jacobite party? Without any doubt, the rights of the Stuarts would be buried in oblivion, and no one would dream of reacting against the event of 1688. The right of dynasties therefore, is not proof against time. Suppose, on the other hand, that the edict which revoked the edict of Nantes was still in force in France with the legislation consequent on it, no prescription would have been sufficient to shield this attack on the liberty of conscience, and it would be the duty of citizens to force governments to decree the abolition of these laws condemned by an eternal truth. In such a case submission to the faits accomplis would be a continual complicity. —When Great Britain, under the influence of a celebrated ministry, abolished the corn laws in 1845 and at the same time effected a great economic revolution, one of its best guarantees against all political revolutions, the cabinet which was the author of these important measures was not able to stand long. Its successors, who followed the same course, soon saw the end of their power; the parliamentary movement restored the enemies of reform to office in 1852. The ministry formed by Lord Derby announced, soon after, the dissolution of parliament. It had not ceased to oppose the recent changes in all commercial legislation, and this question continued to be agitated during the elections But after the votes of the nation had decided it once more, the reforms being thus definitely sanctioned by public opinion, the ministry and its party submitted; they looked on the reforms as faits accomplis, and said no more about them. And while they profited by this, their adversaries had no idea of reproaching them for it. It was reasonable and politic to abandon a cause lost beyond recovery, and which was not one of those which deserved an eternal protest. —Of all faits accomplis. the most important, and those which give rise to the most difficult questions of this century, are the changes of government. Setting aside the merits of a new government, the forms which it receives, and the principles which it professes, it appears that its existence, when the national consent is not refused to it, is a fact forced on good citizens, and that they have not the right to separate themselves from their country and deny what it recognizes. The more frequent the changes of government are, the more the identity and perpetuity of the state and the country become the only objects of civic duty, and alone command an unchanging fidelity. But this doctrine of a government de facto which is very similar to that of faits accomplis, although justified by the interests of public peace, is not very favorable to the dignity either of nations or of individuals. It aids and encourages too much that readiness to honor the conqueror, to serve the stronger, who hides under the mask of patriotic duty slavish calculations of cupidity or ambition. Hence the evident necessity for those who wish to escape the degrading effects of frequent revolutions, to remind governments that they should bring into esteem the forms and the principles which belong to them. Never have these principles and forms had such need of being present to the mind of an honorable man, as in times which called them in question every moment. Whoever has formed fixed principles, and has identified them with certain constitutional and legal forms, has found that immovable point of support for politics, that inconcussum quid which Descartes looked for for philosophy; he will pass judgment on faits accomplis, even when he shall feel his powerlessness to modify or oppose them, and in the condemnation of that which he is forced to endure he will save his independence of character and dignity of mind. The firmness of individuals is never of higher value than amidst the instability of institutions. Happy are the nations which are only composed of citizens capable of controlling facts by principles. CHARLES DE RÉMUSAT. FAMILYFAMILY. The state, at its inception, had to do not with individuals only, as the baseless hypothesis of certain philosophers would have us believe, but it found itself in presence of the family, a primitive agglomeration of individuals with its own moral and material unity. Such are the entirely natural limits which are presented to the all powerful action of politics. If the individual exists of himself, if he has a destiny and duties to fulfill, what social authority can without crime do away with that free and responsible personality, hinder the pursuit of this end, or place obstacles in the way of the accomplishment of these duties? How can it claim to be master of the thoughts, the religion, the labor, the savings of the individual? Are not these things which belong to his own individual domain, which are connected with the human person, and which can not be withdrawn from his control by the state without the most odious of all confiscations? And now if the family is necessary to the preservation and development of the individual, if it takes care of his earliest infancy, protects him and gives him moral nutriment, no less necessary than the support of the body; if it constitutes a sacred whole formed by the wants, the sympathies, even the liberty of those whom it develops, how can policy dream of abolishing the family or offering violence to it? —It is astonishing that a man of genius like Plato, exclusively preoccupied with the unity of the state, could have believed that the abolition of the family would increase the love of country. But he confined to the class of warriors the unnatural régime which abolished the family in his famous ideal republic and replaced it by a gross promiscuousness. By confining the country itself within very narrow limits both as to population and territory, he may, misled by the example of Lacedemonia—an exceptional case and one which was moreover of short duration—have thought, that all the affection of the citizens would be concentrated upon the city. But is this illusion possible for publicists who draw their plans of society in the midst of our vast and powerful agglomerations of individuals in the midst of modern nations, and for Christian peoples? The more the country extends, the more the love of humanity takes the place of a sensitive and cruel spirit of nationality, the more must this broad sentiment, threatened with extinction or coolness on account of its very extent, be rekindled at the hearth of family affection. Under the kindly action of maternal instruction, under the influence of common joys and sorrows, of participation in happiness and misfortune, is formed the faculty of loving with the greatest tenderness, delicacy and strength; the habit of devotion, inspired by mutual affection and by the power of example; and that idea of solidarity, which, commencing with an attachment to the honor of the family name, rises to an heroic pride in the honor of the common country, and is willing to sacrifice all for it. The sentiment of fraternity, which some men have wished to turn against the family in order to extend it to all the members of the human race, acquires a precise meaning and has its origin only in the bosom of the family itself. Is not the quality of father, husband, orphan, mother or widow that which interests and touches us in others, so that we fee, disposed to give them real affection and efficient aid? Are not the most accessible avenues to our heart on that side? —Almost all communistic sects have sketched for us a picture charged with the evils which spring from the family. The family, they say, renders one egotistical, selfish, and enervates him who yields to its influence. The family renders one egotistical! It would be more just to recognize that it frees man from his isolated self, and his solitary brutality. Is it not true, that, even in countries of the highest civilization, which offer the loftiest objects for affection and the noblest employments for the activity of man, bachelors are considered, and too often justly, as forming the most egotistical part of the nation? The family renders one selfish! There is some truth in this allegation, but let us take the trouble to see if it does not rather redound to the credit than to the blame of the family. Is it not better to work for one's own than for one's self or not to work at all? All society derives profit from these increased efforts and this foresight. Is not the capital necessary for its support and development formed and accumulated in this way? Who, with the exception of a few dreamers, can believe that there could be manifested by the individual, for the sake of his country and humanity alone, the virtue which consists in depriving one's self of all enjoyments, in order to save, and the courage to devote one's self with zeal to thankless and obscure labor? The family enervates, it is said; say, rather, that it softens hearts and that it polishes manners. We are thankful that with the sentiments it nourishes there is no danger of seeing again either the first or the last of the Brutuses, or Peter the Great, sacrificing his son to political necessity. Is it very certain that this is so great a misfortune? Doubtless there exist weak men who are enervated by the pleasures of the family more than they are strengthened by its trials; but should the legitimate repose and happiness be condemned, which we, worn out in the struggles of life, seek under the beloved shelter of the domestic roof? —The family is the first germ of society, the first school of the sentiments and of duty. The rare attempts at abolishing the family, which the world has witnessed, have strikingly proved that these attempts, always ephemeral, destined in the mind of their originators to strengthen the social bond, turned against society itself. The absence of the family, pitilessly sacrificed, at Lacedemonia, plunged the citizens into the most shameful vices, destroyed arts and literature, and changed a free city into a sort of military convent. A right no less sacred than individual liberty is the property derived from it through the application of its labor, and as an extension of the faculties which constitute the person. No civilization without guaranteed property. Granted; but no property worthy of that name without the family. What would the family be, if it possessed nothing of its own? Hence it is seldom that these two bases of society are not attacked at the same time. It is because the family, with the institution of property which it necessitates, involves a certain inequality of conditions, that it is blamed and its destruction wished for. It is for this very reason that we praise it in the name of political science, and that we wish to maintain it. Inequalities which are founded upon monopoly and privilege are most frequently harmful. Those which arise from the respect given to the variety of aptitudes, of merits and the free development of the best sentiments of the human heart, are the very life of society. —By protecting the family as well as the individual in its essential rights against the attacks of legislative omnipotence, we do not intend to claim that politics and legislation have no legitimate power over the family. Families have relations with the state, which it belongs to the state to regulate. Thus neither marriage, nor the right of bequeathing property, nor paternal authority itself, is a thing entirely given up to the arbitrary will of individuals. The family has been successively modified and improved. Although this is chiefly due to morals, the action of the law has not been without its effect. Law, governed by a purer morality and the precepts of Christianity, has abolished legal concubinage and punished adultery Law has limited the arbitrary and absolute power of the father of the family, and taken under its protection the life of the child, as it defends its mind against the perverse instruction which, under cloak of the family, might seek to lead it astray and corrupt it. The action of law, purified by religion and by philosophy, has sanctified the rights of woman, her dignity, her equality as a moral person, and protects her against the caprices, the bad treatment or the desertion of her husband. It is the law, finally, which, together with the influence of morals, manners and customs, relegated into the depths of the past the oriental family, with its debasing polygamy; and the Greek family, in which, it is true, the head of the family no longer bought women, and had but one legitimate wife by her own consent and that of her parents, but which permitted a plurality of concubines, and in certain cases authorized the marriage of brother and sister. The law substituted a superior form in place of the Roman family, which made the husband absolute master of the person and property of his wife, gave him the right to condemn her to death, and did not raise the legitimate wife, after she had become a mother, above her own children. The law also greatly modified the feudal family, with its harsh traits and shocking inequalities. —Politics have also had an effect upon the constitution of the family, and it would not be difficult to render this truth even more obvious by the aid of history. Monarchical power was pleased to borrow its most natural and touching symbol from paternal power, and paternal power itself has played the rôle of absolute monarch. Feudal society and the feudal family were made in the image of each other. The more society is subjected to the artificial arrangements of violence and conquest, the more the animating spirit of the family and the laws which govern it assume a hard and pitiless character. The prohibition of marriages between plebeians and the patrician race at Rome, the absolute subordination of woman and the rights of males in the family of the middle ages, and the almost forced inheritance of professions, afford additional proofs to those already given. The efforts of Christianity and of modern times seem to have been directed toward replacing the family upon its most natural bases. The less politics interferes with the family and the less it believes itself permitted to interfere, the more in general both the nation and the family gain. The principal task of politics is to respect this material and moral condition of the existence and improvement of individuals—the family—and to cause it to be respected. A free nation is composed of free families, and the tyranny of laws introduced into the family only bears witness to the tyranny which reigns in society and the state. HENRI BAUDRILLART. FAREWELL ADDRESSESFAREWELL ADDRESSES (IN U. S. HISTORY). (I.) In 1792, Madison, at Washington's request, furnished him a draft of an address to the American people on his expected retirement in 1799. Having been prevailed upon to accept a second term of office. Washington again took up, in 1796, the idea of a farewell address to the American people. It was dated Sept. 17. 1796, and though containing portions of Madison's former draft, was mainly the work of Hamilton and Washington. Its most important paragraph was its recommendation of abstention from any interference with European affairs, a principle which has since generally characterized the policy of all American statesmen and given most of its success to American diplomacy. It was further extended in 1823 to include abstention by European powers from interference in American affairs. (See MONROE DOCTRINE.)—(II) At the end of his second term of office, President Jackson issued a farewell address to the American people, dated March 3, 1837. It is a fair summary of the principles on which he had centered the party of which he was the leader. (See DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN PARTY. IV.) —See (I.) 1 Statesman's Manual (ed. 1858), 69; 4 Hildreth's United States, 685; 1 Schouler's United States, 331; 12 Washington's Writings, 382; 2 Marshall's Life of Washington (ed. 1831), 396; (II.) 2 Statesman's Manual (ed. 1858), 1054; 3 Parton's Life of Jackson, 627. A. J. FARMERS GENERALFARMERS GENERAL. Fermiers généraux was the name given in France under the old monarchy to a company which farmed certain branches of the public revenue, that is to say, contracted with the government to pay into the treasury a fixed yearly sum, taking upon itself the collection of certain taxes as an equivalent. The system of farming the taxes was an old custom of the French monarchy. Under Francis I. the revenue arising from the sale of salt was farmed by private individuals in each town. This was, and is still in France and other countries of Europe, a monopoly of the government. The government reserves to itself the power of providing the people with salt, which it collects in its stores, and sells to the retailers at its own price. This monopoly was first assumed by Philippe de Valois in 1350. Other sources of revenue were likewise farmed by several individuals, most of whom were favorites of the court or of the minister of the day. Sully, the able minister of Henry IV., seeing the dilapidation of the public revenue occasioned by this system, by which, out of one hundred and fifty millions paid by the people, only thirty millions reached the treasury, opened the contracts for farming the taxes to public auction, given them to the highest bidder, according to the ancient Roman practice. By this means he greatly increased the revenue of the state. But the practice of private contracts through favor or bribing was renewed under the following reigns. Colbert, the minister of Louis XIV, called the farmers of the revenue to a severe account, and by an act of power deprived them of their enormous gains. In 1728, under the regency, the various individual leases were united into a ferme générale, which was let to a company, the members of which were henceforth called fermiers généraux. In 1759, Silhouette, minister of Louis XV., quashed the contracts of the farmers general, and levied the taxes by his own agents. But the system of contracts revived: for the court, the ministers and favorites were all well disposed to them, as private bargains were made with the farmers general, by which they paid large sums as douceurs. In the time of Necker, the company consisted of forty-four members, who paid a rent of one hundred and eighty-six millions of livres, and Necker calculated their profit at about two millions yearly—no very extraordinary sum, if correct. But independent of this profit there were the expenses of collection, and a host of subalterns to support: the company had its officers and accountants, receivers, collectors, etc., who, having the public force at their disposal, committed numerous acts of injustice toward the people, especially the poorer class, by distraining their goods, selling their chattels, etc. The "gabelle" or sale of salt, among others, was a fruitful source of oppression. Not satisfied with obliging the people to pay for the salt at the price fixed upon it in the name of the king, they actually obliged every individual above eight years of age to buy a certain quantity of salt whether wanted or not. But the rule was not alike all over France; in some provinces, which enjoyed certain privileges, salt was nine livres the one hundred weight, while in others it cost sixteen, and in some sixty-two livres. In some provinces the quantity required to be purchased per head was twenty-five pounds weight, in others it was nine pounds. And yet the provinces, nay the individual families of each province, were prohibited under the severest penalties from accommodating each other's wants, and buying the superfluous salt of their neighbors, but whoever wanted more salt than his obligatory allowance was obliged to resort to the government stores. Besides, every article of provisions that was exported from one province to another was subject to duties called traites. Every apprentice on being bound to a master was bound to pay to the king a certain sum according to the nature of the trade, and afterward a much larger sum on his admission to practice his trade as a master. These few instances may serve to convey an idea of taxation in France previous to the revolution. A lively but faithful picture of the whole system is given in Breton's Histoire Financiere de la France, 2 vols., 8vo, Paris, 1829. The farmers general, as the agents of that system, coming into immediate contact with the people, drew upon themselves a proportionate share of popular hatred. But the revolution swept away the farmers general, and put an end to the system of farming the revenues; it equalized the duties and taxes all over France; but the monopoly of the salt and tobacco has remained, as well as the duties on provisions, cattle and wine brought into Paris and other large towns, called the octroi, and the right of searching by the octroi officers, if they think fit, all carriages and individuals entering the barriers or gates of the same. —The Roman system of levying taxes, at least after the republic had begun to acquire territory out of Italy, was by farming them out. In the later period of the republic the farmers were from the body of the equestrian order. Individuals used to form companies or associations for farming the taxes of a particular district: the taxes were let by the censors for a period of five years. They were probably let to those who bid highest. These farmers were called publicani, and by the Greek writers telonae, which is rendered by publicans in the English version of the New Testament, where they are appropriately classed with sinners, for they were accused of being often guilty of great extortion. These tax collectors in the province were, however, only the agents. The principals generally resided at Rome, where the affairs of each association (societas) were managed by a director called a magister. The individual members held shares (partes) in the undertaking. There was also a chief manager in the province or district of which the company farmed the tax, who was called promagister.  —There are no means of knowing what proportions of the taxes collected reached the Roman treasury (ærarium). Numerous complaints of the rapacity of the publicani or their agents occur in the classical writers. These publicani were the moneyed men of the late republic and the early empire, and their aid was often required by the state for advances of money when the treasury was empty. Part of the mal-administration probably came from the publicani sub-letting the taxes, which seems to have been done, sometimes at least. BOHN. FARMINGFARMING, Large and Small. (See AGRICULTURE.) FASHIONSFASHIONS, Political Economy of. Fashion exercises considerable influence on a number of industries, particularly on those pertaining to clothing and lodging. Every change in fashion is a source of profit to some persons and of loss to others. A man who invents a new design or a new combination of colors in dry goods, or a new style of furniture or of coat, and who succeeds in bringing his invention into fashion, may derive great advantage from it, especially if his right to it is guaranteed him. On the other hand, the individuals who possess a supply of articles out of fashion, experience a loss. It is the same with the manufacturers and workmen who devote themselves to the production of these articles, when the new fashion varies sensibly from the old. "It is well known," said Malthus, "how subject particular manufactures are to fail, from the caprices of taste. The weavers of Spitalfields were plunged into the most severe distress by the fashion of muslins instead of silks; and great numbers of workmen in Sheftield and Birmingham were for a time thrown out of employment, owing to the adoption of shoe strings and covered buttons, instead of buckles and metal buttons" (Principles of Population, chap xiii). Thousands of analogous facts might be cited. —M'Culloch finds in these disturbances occasioned by fashion an argument for the poor-tax. "It may be observed," he says, "that owing to changes of fashion, * * * those engaged in manufacturing employments are necessarily exposed to many vicissitudes. And when their number is so very great as in this country [England], it is quite indispensable that a resource should be provided for their support in periods of adversity." (Prin. of Polit. Econ., part iii, chap. iv.) We do not wholly share the opinion of Mr. M'Culloch on this subject. How, in fact, does fashion operate on certain industries and on certain classes of laborers? It acts as a risk. Now this risk, which may result in losses to the manufacturers and in stoppage of work to the workmen, must necessarily be covered, so that the profits of the one class and the wages of the other may be in just proportion to the average profits and wages in other branches of production. If it were otherwise, if the risk arising from the fluctuations of fashion were not completely covered, capital and labor would soon cease to resort to branches subject to this particular risk. Then, competition diminishing in these branches, profits and wages would not fail to increase until there was compensation for the risk. This being granted, suppose a law intervene to guarantee to the workman a minimum of subsistence during the time he is thrown out of employment in consequence of the variations of fashion; what will result? The risk arising from that cause being partially covered or compensated, the result will be that the wages of the workman will be lowered by an amount precisely equal to the risk covered, that is to say, by the amount of the tax. How then can the tax be of advantage to the workman, since it will not in reality have increased the amount of his resources? Doubtless the workman might have squandered his wages and have found himself destitute when the fashion came to change, and the consequences of the risk to fall upon him. The poor-tax is nothing but an obligatory savings bank, whose funds are levied from his wages, and on which he has the right to draw when out of employment. But must not a bank of this kind, by freeing the workman from the necessity of foreseeing the critical periods and providing for them, perpetuate his intellectual and moral inferiority? Is it not an insurance for which he pays too high a premium? —J. B. Say looked at the influence of fashion from a different point of view. According to that eminent economist, frequency of changes in fashion occasions a ruinous waste. "A nation and private individuals will give evidence of wisdom," he says, "if they will seek chiefly articles of slow consumption but in general use. The fashions of such articles will not be very changeable. Fashion has the privilege of spoiling things before they have lost their utility, often even before they have lost their freshness: it increases consumption, and condemns what is still excellent, comfortable and pretty, to being no longer good for anything. Consequently, a rapid succession of fashions impoverishes a state by the consumption it occasions and that which it arrests." —These words of M. Say are evidently most judicious but we need not because of them, or because of the above-quoted observation of Malthus, condemn fashion from an economic point of view; for if fashion causes a certain harm and certain disturbances, especially when its fluctuations are too frequent, in return, it is one of the prime movers of artistic and industrial progress. This will be apparent from a single hypothetical case. Let us suppose that fashion should cease to exercise her influence; that the same taste and the same style should continue to prevail indefinitely, in respect to clothing, furniture and dwellings will not this permanence of fashion give a mortal blow to artistic and industrial progress? Who, pray, will exercise his ingenuity to invent anything new in the line of clothing, furniture or dwellings, if the consumers have a dread of change, if every modification of the fashion is considered an offense, or even interdicted by law? People, in that case, will always to the same things, and, in all likelihood, will always do them, besides, in the same manner. Let the taste of the consumers, on the other hand, be variable, and the spirit of invention, of improvement, will be powerfully stimulated. Every new combination adapted to please the taste of consumers becoming then a source of profit to the inventor, every one will exercise his ingenuity in devising something new, and the activity thus given to the spirit of invention will be most favorable to the development of industry and the fine arts. It will sometimes happen, doubtless, that ridiculous fashions will be substituted for elegant ones; but under the influence of a desire for change, that butterfly passion, as a Fourierite would call it, which gives birth to fashion, this invasion of bad taste would be transient, and people would continually advance by improvement upon improvement. —On examining the influence which fashion exercises over the development of industry and the fine arts, one becomes convinced that the vivifying impulse which it gives to the spirit of invention and improvement more than compensates for any injury it causes. Besides, fashions have their limits of longevity, whose average may be easily calculated, and which the experience of producers, in lack of a table of mortality prepared ad hoc, is apt in estimating. Rarely does an intelligent manufacturer produce more of any design or shade than the consumption can absorb before this design or this shade is out of fashion; and if, perchance, his prevision has proved incorrect, if the fashion passes by sooner than he had foreseen, he easily finds some way of getting rid of the excess of his merchandise among the large class of consumers who are behind the times. A certain kind of dress goods or a certain that which has become antiquated at Paris, may yet, after two or three years, delight the belles of lower Brittany or of South America. —We have just pointed out the influence fashion has on production. Let us now consider briefly its characteristics and the causes which determine its variations. Fashion is not alone affected by the physical influence of the temperature of a country and the moral influence of the taste and character of the population, it is also largely subject to the influence of the social and economic organization. The institutions of a people are reflected in it as in a mirror. Consequently, in countries where the abuses of privilege and despotism permit a class considered as superior to maintain their idleness at the expense of the rest of the nation, the fashions are commonly ostentatious and complicated. They are ostentatious, because the privileged orders feel the necessity of dazzling the multitude by the splendor of their external appearance, and of thus convincing them that they are made of superior clay—"from porcelain clay of earth," as Dryden said. The fashions are also complicated, because the privileged class have all the leisure necessary to devote a long time to their toilet, the sumptuousness of which serves, as has been said, to inspire in the vulgar an exalted idea of those who wear it. But let the condition of society be changed; let the privileged ones disappear; let the superior classes, henceforth subject to the law of competition, be obliged to employ their faculties in earning their subsistence; we at once see fashions become more simple; and the embroidered coats, short clothes, dresses with trains or with paniers—in a word, all the magnificent and complicated apparel of aristocratic fashion—are seen to disappear, to give place to attire easily adjustable and comfortable to wear. In a pamphlet entitled. "England, Ireland and America, by a Manchester Manufacturer," Richard Cobden pointed out, in 1835, with much acuteness and humor, the necessities which had operated within a half century to bring about this economic change of fashion. Mr. Cobden depicted the old London merchant with his magnificent costume and his formal manners, and showed how a merciless competition caused the disappearance of this model of the good old times, to substitute for it a modern type, with dress and habits infinitely more economical. "Such of our readers," he says, "as remember the London tradesman of thirty years ago, will be able to call to mind the powdered wig and the queue, the precise shoes and buckles, and the unwrinkled silk hose and tight inexpressibles that characterized the shop-keeper of the old school. Whenever this stately personage walked abroad on matters of trade, however pressing or important, he never forgot for a moment the dignified step of his forefathers, while nothing gratified his self-complacency more than to take his gold-headed cane in hand, and, leaving his own shop all the while, to visit his poorer neighbors, and to show his authority by inquiring into their affairs, settling their disputes, and compelling them to be honest and to manage their establishments according to his plan. His business was conducted throughout upon the formal mode of his ancestors. His clerks, his shopmen and porters, all had their appointed costumes; and their intercourse with each other was disciplined according to established laws of etiquette. Every one had his especial department of duty, and the line of demarcation at the counter was marked out and observed with all the punctilio of neighboring but rival states. The shop of this trader of the old school retained all the peculiarities and inconveniences of former generations; its windows displayed no gaudy wares to lure the vulgar passer-by, and the panes of glass, inserted in ponderous wooden frames, were constructed exactly after the ancestral pattern. * * * The present age produced a new school of traders, whose first innovation was to cast off the wig, and cashier the barber with his pomatum-box, by which step an hour was gained in the daily toilet. Their next change was, to discard the shoes and the tight unmentionables, whose complicated details of buckles and straps and whose close adjustment occupied another half hour, in favor of Wellingtons and pantaloons, which were whipped on in a trice, and gave freedom, though, perhaps, at the expense of dignity, to the personal movements during the day. Thus accoutered, these supple dealers whisked or flew, just as the momentary calls of business became more or less urgent; while so absorbed were they in their own interests that they scarcely knew the names of their nearest neighbors, nor cared whether they lived peaceably or not, so long as they did not come to break their windows. Nor did the spirit of innovation end here; for the shops of this new race of dealers underwent as great a metamorphosis as their owners. While the internal economy of these was reformed with a view to give the utmost facility to the labor of the establishment, by dispensing with forms and tacitly agreeing even to suspend the ordinary deferences due to station, lest their observance might, however slightly, impede the business in hand; externally, the windows, which were constructed of plate glass, with elegant frames extending from the ground to the ceiling, were made to blaze with all the tempting finery of the day. We all know the result that followed from this very unequal rivalry. One by one, the ancient and quiet followers of the habits of their ancestors yielded before the active competition of their more alert neighbors. Some few of the less bigoted disciples of he old school adopted the new-light system; but all who tried to stem the stream were overwhelmed; for with grief we add, that the very last of these very interesting specimens of olden time that survived, (joining the two generations of London tradesmen whose shops used to gladden the soul of every tory pedestrian in Fleet street), with its unreformed windows, has at length disappeared, having lately passed into the Gazette, that schedule of anti reforming traders." —From this ingenious and clever sketch we can clearly see the necessity which determined the simplification of the fashions of the old régime. This necessity arose from the suppression of the ancient privileges which permitted a member of the corporate body of tradesmen, or a manufacturing mechanic who had attained the rank of master, to pass his time a his toilet or to meddle in the quarrels of his neighbors, instead of giving his attention to his own business: it arose from the extensive growth of competition, which obliged every merchant, every manufacturer, every head of a business enterprise, to take into account the value of time, under penalty of seeing his name finally inscribed under the fatal heading of bankruptcies. A régime of competition does not permit the same fashions as a régime of privilege; and fashion is as sensitive to modifications arising from the interior economy of society as it is to changes of temperature. This being so, it is obvious that it is wrong for a government to attempt to influence fashion by obliging, for example, its servants to wear sumptuous and elaborate apparel. In fact, one of two results follow. Either the state of society is such that the dominant classes find it to their advantage to display a certain ostentation in their dress; and in this case it is useless to impose it on them, or even to recommend it to them. Or the state of society is such that people in all ranks of society have something better to do than to spend a long time over their toilet: in this case, what good can result from the intervention of government in matters of fashion? If sumptuousness of attire becomes general, if men accustom themselves to accord to dress a portion of the time demanded by their affairs, will not society suffer harm? If, on the contrary, the example given above is not followed, if the magnificence of the costumes of the court and the ante-chamber is not imitated, will not this display form a shocking dissonance in a busy community? Will it not produce an impression analogous to that one receives from a masquerade? A government should then carefully avoid interference in this matter. It should follow fashions, not direct them. —To recapitulate: Fashion, looked at from an economic point of view, exercises on the improvement of production an influence whose utility more than compensates for the damage which may result from its fluctuations. On the other hand, it is naturally established and modified by various causes, among which economic causes hold an important place. When people do not understand the necessities which determine its changes, they establish artificial fashions, which have the double disadvantage of being anti-economic and ridiculous. G DE MOLINARI. FATHERLANDFATHERLAND. Toward the middle of the last century a witty French abbe, who was at the same time a humorist and a philosopher, the abbe Coyer, exclaimed, in one of his fits of petulance, "What is there vulgar or harsh in the word patrie (fatherland) to drive it from the language? It is seldom or never heard either in the country or in the cities, still less at the court. Old men have forgotten it, children have never learned it. I look for its use in that crowd of writers who instruct us in what we know already, and I find it only in a very small number of philosophers. A polished man will not write it. It would be much worse if he pronounced it. I ask this citizen who always bears arms. What is your employment? I serve the king, he answers. Why not the fatherland? The king himself was made to serve it. I am outspoken, very much so." Our abbe asks afterward when this word fell into such discredit in France. "It was," he says, "under the ministry of Cardinal Richelieu." "Colbert," he adds, "was well fitted to restore it, but he thought that kingdom and fatherland meant the same thing." This witty and able attack was characteristic of the abbe Coyer, an avowed disciple of Montesquieu, though a Jesuit; an ardent republican, though preceptor of Prince Turenne. —When the French revolution, so long in preparation, was at length effected, the word fatherland (patrie) regained its popularity. It was enough for a few men clothed with a questionable power to write this word on a flag, and unfurl this flag before the eyes of the multitude, to cause fourteen armies to spring from the earth, so to speak; and these fourteen armies of improvised soldiers defeated the best troops of Europe, the ablest, the best exercised, the most worthy of the confidence of kings. It seemed a miracle. But it came to pass that after having so bravely purged the soil of the father-land from foreign hosts, and justly punished some of the chiefs of the conspiracy gotten up against French liberty, the conscripts, after they became veterans, forgot the fatherland in their dreams of glory. To brilliant successes lamentable reverses succeeded. Should they alone be blamed for these disasters? Before those enterprises were undertaken in search of the vainest of glory, what a weakening of consciences, what scepticism, what a criminal disavowal of the principles in which the France of 1789 had put all its faith! When French soldiers were tainted with the folly of military triumphs. French citizens had once more forgotten the old word patrie (fatherland), or only pronounced it with a disdainful smile. It has not regained favor in France since. No one says, it is-true, as in the time of the abbe Coyer, that he serves the king. That way of speaking has grown antiquated even in France. Men no longer serve the king, but the state. This is assuredly a more noble service, since the notion of the state and that of the fatherland are frequently confounded. Still the two terms are far from being synonymous. Insurrection would never be "the most sacred of duties" as is taught by a celebrated maxim, if the state did not sometimes command what the fatherland for bids. —The state may be defined as a being of the reason, whose matter and form are equally vague and undetermined. Properly speaking. I know the state only under the form of the individuals who govern in its name. I do not therefore owe it absolute submission under all circumstances. Louis XIV. was able to say: "L'etat c'est moi.'" Every duty, moreover, supposes a moral sanction. I love my God, my family, my country, and I ought to love them. But what kind of worship or love is to be offered to the state? The state is not dear to all noble hearts. This is enough to show that, in political science, as well as in every other science, it is necessary to distrust metaphysics and the mere creatures of the reason. What, on the contrary, is more real than the fatherland; and what more beautiful word is there? The family, in which the father commands, is the most elementary of societies. In other words, domestic life is the first degree of social life. There, as Homer says, "each one separately governs his wives and sons, as does a master." Thus, in the most remote ages whose history we can study, the dii patrii are the penates, the gods of the paternal hearth. Later, the fatherland becomes the city. "Natione Grains an barbaras," says Cicero, "patria Atheniensis ant Lacedemonius" Common interest united different families. Brought together by the necessity of mutual protection, they entered into a pact which made their interests common. From this arose the imperious duty of each one to struggle and if necessary to die for the fatherland of all. In what does virtue consist, if not in the scrupulous fulfillment of some duty? The virtue of the patriot of Athens or Rome was to make an entire sacrifice of himself to his own city, and to treat as an enemy whoever lived in a neighboring city. Later, cities inhabited by citizens of the same race come together to repel an invader from distant regions, and, after a successful use of their allied forces, they elect, or submit to a common chief, according to circumstances. Their agreement gives them strength; this strength assures them peace. During peace a daily exchange of services takes place, and national unity is established. Thenceforth the definition of Cicero is no longer exact; fatherland and nation no longer designate two different things; they designate the same thing differently considered. —There is no intelligence so rustic that it does not comprehend perfectly the word fatherland. According to some, my fatherland is the land, the territory which I inhabit. This is a definition which is revolting "The Gracchi, the Scipios under the tyranny of Caligula," exclaims the abbe Coyer, "could they regard Rome as their fatherland?" The protest of Chevalier de Jaucourt is no less vigorous: "Those who live under an oriental despotism, where no other law is known than the will of the sovereign, no other principle of government than terror, where no fortune, no life is in safety, those, I say, have no fatherland." In other words, where political liberty does not exist, there is a herd of slaves, not a nation of citizens. It is the privilege of citizens, of free men, to have a fatherland. —It is felt at once that this language belongs to the eighteenth century; that it announces a social tempest. It is true that the same indifference in regard to the native soil is found in this fragment of an old poet, cited by Cicero. Patria est ubicumque est bene. But this is a mere witticism. I should like to hear from the month of an exile that he lived in a foreign land without any desire, without any regret! B. HAURÉAU. FAVORITISMFAVORITISM. If favor always rewarded merit, the envious alone would complain; morality and the general interest would be satisfied. We know that this is not the case, and it is precisely because favor is so often bestowed on the unworthy that it is generally looked upon with such ill will. —In our time, favor plays but a small part in political society, and exactly as its excesses disappear efforts are made, not without result, to reduce its influence still further. When the reign of favor, or rather of favorites, was at its height, no one dreamed of struggling against it. This was during the good old time of unlimited power, when the caprice of an absolute sovereign might raise on the shield and clothe with omnipotence the first man who knew how to please him. Need it be said that this was to raise the evils of despotism to a higher degree? The least enlightened despot knows that he should not venture too far; but his favorite will not always be so circumspect, for he does not risk his crown. It is true that he exposes his life, and more than once populations which could not reach the sovereign have taken vengeance on his favorite, who thus expiated the faults of his short-sighted protector. —The influence of the favorite is distinguished from that of the camarilla in being manifest, while that of the camarilla is secret. —Parliamentary rule is incompatible with favoritism. A constitutional sovereign has ministers to whom talent is indispensable if they are to maintain themselves. They dispense favors, but as there is an opposition, this opposition brings about the passage of laws which subject officials to conditions of admission and abolish sinecures. To save themselves from public censure, the ministers avoid committing too evident injustice, or dispensing unmerited favors. In politics, Justice is the daughter of Responsibility. M. B. FEDERAL GOVERNMENTFEDERAL GOVERNMENT. (See CONGRESS, EXECUTIVE.) FEDERALISTFEDERALIST, The. Immediately after the publication of the constitution Hamilton issued the first of a series of papers by himself, Madison and Jay, in the "Independent Journal" of New York city, in explanation and defense of the new system of federal government. Gouverneur Morris was also invited to take part, but was prevented by private business. The joint signature was at first A Citizen of New York, afterward Publius, and over this signature eighty-five essays were published from October, 1787, until March, 1788, when they were collected in book form under the title of The Federalist. Jay wrote five essays: sixty-three are claimed for Hamilton by his son, leaving fourteen to Madison and three to their joint effort; but Madison is credited by the Philadelphia edition of 1819, corrected by himself, with twenty-nine essays, leaving fifty-one to Hamilton. The Federalist was widely read, and aided materially in securing the adoption of the constitution. A. J. FEDERAL PARTYFEDERAL PARTY, The (IN U. S. HISTORY). The origin of the party, in the political segregation of the commercial and business elements from the mass of the people, is given elsewhere. (See ANTI-FEDERAL, PARTY.) But though the mass of the party was thus commercial, it had many leaders and an important part of its own body who held very different views. These were most affected by the reflection that the revolution, by taking the United States out of the British empire, had practically taken them out of the family of nations. They desired a place in the civilized world, a recognized rank among nations—nationality—not a league of separate nations. They therefore wished for order, prosperity and an energetic government, not, like the rest of their party, for the sake of commerce and business, but for the sake of the nation. This, the only valuable political element in the federal party, and the precursor of two other and greater parties which were afterward to take part in the seventy-five years' (1790-1865) work of nationalizing the government, was stronger in leaders than in following. The country, which had comparatively little real national feeling as yet, was not ready for it, and the commercial party, which had at first supported it, proved in the end a faithless ally. The history of the party falls naturally into two periods, one (1789-1801) in which the alliance between its two elements, and its own hold upon power, grew yearly weaker, and a second (1801-20) in which it grew less and less influential until it disappeared, its nationalizing principle reviving again with stronger power of assertion in the whig and republican parties. (See those parties; also NATION, UNITED STATES) —I. 1789-1801. The process of the adoption of the constitution was exceedingly complex. The underlying difficulty was in most cases that of overcoming the repulsive force not only of the two sections, north and south, each of which had many elements ready for separate nationality, but also of the thirteen distinct political units which composed those sections. But on the surface other causes were more actively apparent. At first, while the idea of the former congressional structure governed the deliberations of the convention of 1787, the "large states" pressed the national plan earnestly. After the new political factor, the senate, was introduced, the large states became recalcitrant, and finally ratified the constitution with great reluctance. When, however, the confusion of the conflict had cleared away, it was found that the advantages accruing to large and small states were fairly balanced, and that the substantial fruits of victory had been gathered by the commercial classes, including in that term all interests not agricultural, excepting manufactures, which were as yet of no great importance. It was to their behoof that the control over individual citizens, over the army, over the navy, over taxation for national purposes, over commercial regulations, was to be exercised in future by a federal government, not by a jarring congeries of state legislatures; and their activity, intelligence, influence, and hearty support of the constitution secured to them in 1789 a control of the new federal government so complete that it would be difficult to specify a federal office not then held by a federalist, for even Jefferson and Randolph were professedly of that party. This initial success of the commercial party was due to a fortuitous combination of three assisting circumstances, none of which could fairly be relied upon as permanent. 1. Washington's experience of the confederation during the revolution had predisposed him to favor an energetic republican government, and he therefore became the central figure of the federal party, in spite of his own efforts to stand outside of party. Throughout the northern and middle states the right of suffrage was then very generally restricted to freeholders, the small farmers being the controlling class. With these Washington's name was all powerful, and through its silent influence their support was secured for the ratification of the constitution, and afterward for the federal party. 2. In the south, where Washington's influence was by no means so potent, a weaker but still respectable element, very similar to the last, was brought to the support of the constitution and the federalists by the influence of Madison and others, who were actuated far more by contempt for the extreme weakness of the confederation than by desire for a very energetic government in its place. 3. The opposition (see ANTI-FEDERAL PARTY) was utterly disorganized. Its natural leaders of the Madison class had gone over to the federalists, its only principle of cohesion, opposition to the constitution, had disappeared with the translation of the government to a new form; and those of its members who were chosen to the 1st congress at first followed the prudent course of abstaining from open opposition to federalist measures. We are therefore indebted almost entirely to the federal party, in which, however, the Madison element was as yet included, for all the work of the first session by which the administrative machinery of the government was put into shape as it still remains. The excellent organization of the executive departments, of the federal judiciary, and of the territories, is always with us as a memorial of the administrative ability of the dead and almost forgotten federal party. —The party had at first been satisfied with the obtaining of order and guarantees for commerce, foreign and domestic; but the remarkable and immediate contrast between the national results of the first or extra session of congress (March 4-Sept. 29, 1789) and the preceding chaos of the confederation had a natural and constant tendency to convert it to nationalizing views. The nationalization of the government had for years been the ruling desire of Alexander Hamilton, Washington's secretary of the treasury, and he now proved his title to the leadership of a party which was but approaching the standard which he had long fixed upon. At the second session of this congress (Jan. 4-Aug. 12, 1790) he offered to the house of representatives his "plan for the settlement of the public debt," which contained several features certain to obtain the support of the party both in its commercial and in its newer nationalizing aspect. Its first recommendation, the payment of the foreign debt in full, was adopted unanimously. The second recommendation, the funding and payment at par of the domestic or "continental" debt, which had fallen far below par, was opposed by members from agricultural districts as a commercial measure which would only benefit speculators, who were busily buying the evidences of debt from holders ignorant of their value. Madison here diverged from the federalists, and urged payment in full to original holders and the market value to holders by purchase; but Hamilton's recommendation was finally adopted. The third recommendation, the assumption of state debts incurred in the revolution, was opposed as a nationalizing measure, designed to degrade the states, to represent them as delinquent debtors, and to attract the permanent support of the capital of the country to the federal government. It was carried in committee of the whole, March 9, by a vote of 31 to 26; but an anti-federalist reinforcement of seven members from the new state of North Carolina turned the scale, and assumption having been reconsidered, April 12, was lost by a majority of two. It was, however, again introduced and carried by a bargain. (See CAPITAL, NATIONAL.) Hamilton's first false step, however triumphant at first view, was in thus springing upon his supporters in congress, without securing the acquiescence of their non-commercial leaders, this sweeping plan of financial reform, which he might easily have made acceptable both to them and to their commercial allies, and a new bond of union between the two. Confident in his own ability and in his own rectitude of intention, he demanded from the Madisonian element a blind support which it would not give, and the result was suspicion and alienation. For the next two years Madison, while supporting many isolated points of Hamilton's policy, is no longer the great federal pillar of debate in the house. —At the third session of this congress (Dec. 6, 1790-March 3, 1791), two further items in Hamilton's policy were adopted. It is probable that his proposition to assume state debts had been intended to force, by an increase of debt, the prompt exercise of federal powers, and particularly of the power to lay excises, which had hitherto been in the states and was unfamiliar as an appanage of the federal government, though expressly granted by the constitution. (See INTERNAL REVENUE, WHISKY INSURRECTION.) On his recommendation an excise law, laying taxes on distilled spirits, was passed, March 3, 1791, and "The Bank of the United States" was chartered by acts of Feb. 25 and March 2, 1791. This last measure met a strong opposition, led by Madison in the house, and by Jefferson and Randolph in the cabinet. (See BANK CONTROVERSIES, II.) The arguments in its favor show that Ames, Sedgwick and other federalist leaders had now fully assimilated Hamilton's broad construction theory, which defended every attempt to increase the national, as distinguished from the state, power and influence, on the ground of the power granted to congress to pass all laws "necessary and proper for carrying into execution" the enumerated powers. Who was to judge of the necessity and propriety of a doubtful law? Congress itself, said Hamilton and his supporters, governed in the exercise of its discretion by its direct responsibility to the people, and secured from the evil effects of possible error by the conservative influence of the federal judiciary. (See CONSTRUCTION, II.) —Within the limits of a single congress, then, Hamilton had raised his party from the narrow basis of commercial interest to the broader foundations of nationalization, and he had done it almost unaided. He had taught the commercial classes that their safety and prosperity were best secured by close alliance with the federal government, and they in their turn had so reacted on their congressional representatives as to make them Hamilton's eager followers. Before 1790 we find many half-uttered hopes for a more energetic central government than the confederation; Hamilton and his measures first made "the nation" a political force. It was, indeed, but a blind and vague force as yet, and was destined soon to be rejected by the commercial selfishness which was at first its only available conservator; but the principle survived, and American politics has even since felt the growing impulse which was first directly given by Hamilton's measures. Before the end of the 1st congress, the federal party was fairly committed to a support of his policy, which was in general as follows, though portions of it were never successfully carried out: 1. With a reliance upon agriculture as a basis for exportations and foreign commerce, duties on imports were generally made high, with the view of encouraging infant American manufactures by prohibiting the importation of articles which could be manufactured here, and of drawing a larger revenue from articles whose importation was beyond control. (See PROTECTION.) 2. The power of internal taxation was at once asserted and enforced. 3. The superfluous revenue, after the payment of the debt which had originally compelled the adoption of the first two measures, was to be devoted to the formation of a strong navy which was to protect commerce; and 4, to the increase of the army, and the first opportunity was to be taken to convince ill-disposed states or ill-disposed individuals that both had at last found their master. Such was the magnificent structure which the federal party proposed to erect upon a soil which had been, but a few months before, the shifting quicksand of the confederation. It is not wonderful that the more "high flying" federalists often regretted that the national government had not been made still stronger and the states still weaker, and that they felt considerable distrust of their ability to carry out their plans to the end as the government was then constituted. It is certain that their incautious utterances soon enabled their political enemies to charge them with a design of converting the government into a monarchy or an oligarchy, under the guise of a "higher-toned" government. —During the 2d congress (Oct. 24, 1791-March 2, 1793) the federal party retained its majority in congress and continued its work of organizing a national government. The postoffice system was completely organized; the army and the tariff were increased; bounties were granted for the encouragement of fisheries; and the president was formally authorized to call out the state militia as a national instrument for enforcing the laws. But before the end of this congress the reaction had begun under the lead of Jefferson, the secretary of state, and his first auxiliaries were drawn from the Madison element which Hamilton had so unluckily estranged. When resolutions censuring Hamilton's official conduct were brought up in the house, late in February, 1793, Madison took an open stand in their favor, and was one of the small minority of seven who finally voted for them. He was now in close and confidential alliance with Jefferson. (See DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY, II.) His loss, which was really the beginning of the end, was under-estimated or contemptuously disregarded by Hamilton, who mistakenly relied upon the still federalist states of South Carolina, Maryland and Delaware to counterbalance Virginia and prevent the formation of a controlling southern party. —In the 3d congress (Dec. 2, 1793-March 3, 1795) the federalists controlled the senate by a small majority. By a party vote (14 to 12) the seat of Gallatin, of Pennsylvania, was vacated for ineligibility, and the new federalist legislature chose James Ross in his stead, thus making a reliable majority in the senate. In the house the election of the speaker was contested for the first time, and the federalists were beaten by a majority of ten. In such a divided congress it was sufficient success for the federalists to maintain the ground they had already won, but they succeeded further in supporting the president in his proclamation of neutrality between England and France in his management of the French ambassador (see GENET, CITIZEN), and in his suppression of the whisky insurrection. —In one important respect the prospect for the party was unpropitious. The long conflict between Great Britain and France had begun, in which it was inevitable that the former's most powerful weapon, her navy, would be used to the oppression of American commerce. (See EMBARGO, I.) Here, again, the assumption of the state debts worked for ill, for its increase of the national debt and interest gave the opposition a fair excuse for opposing successfully the formation of a navy which could compel respect, and even embarrassed the federalists very apparently in their attempts to secure this corner stone of a true national policy. This failure to begin a navy in 1794-5 was the real death warrant of the federalists as a political party. Prevented from protecting commerce by force, they were constrained to resort to accommodation with Great Britain (see JAY'S TREATY), and, though this policy of palliation was successful for the time, its inevitable and cumulative effect was to undo Hamilton's work of nationalization, and to degrade the party again to the position of a mere commercial association, dependent on the favor of Great Britain not only for prosperity, but even for existence. This effect was not immediately apparent, however, and the power of the party never seemed greater, even in 1798, than at the close of the year 1796. It had then completely organized the government after its own ideas, had very considerably established the broad construction of the constitution, had compelled even the assurance of a French republican envoy of 1793 to respect the neutrality of the United States, had put down with the strong hand the first symptom of revolt against the federal government, had forced an unwilling house of representatives to carry Jay's treaty with Great Britain into effect, and in the first contested election had seated its candidate, John Adams, in the presidency. (See ELECTORAL VOTES, III.) "Against us," said Jefferson, in his Mazzei letter of April 27, 1796, "are the executive, the judiciary, two out of three branches of the legislature, all the officers of the government, and all who want to be officers." But the party's tenure of power was nevertheless weak. Jefferson had been but three electoral votes behind Adams, thus becoming vice-president; and he alleges that the real vote was 70 to 69, instead of 71 to 68, one republican elector in Pennsylvania having failed to vote, and a federalist having been received in his place. But a far more ominous circumstance was the geographical character of the vote. The federalists had lost South Carolina, and only received two chance votes in the whole south, outside of Delaware and Maryland (see those states), while in the north they had lost all but one of Pennsylvania's votes. Jefferson's ability as a leader and organizer was fast depriving them of the assistance they had at first received from the disorganization of the opposition, and unless some new factor could be found to replace the influence of Washington, his approaching retirement would enable the opposition every year to make fresh inroads further north, and finally to circumscribe the commercial interest within its own geographical limits. —Indications may be found in the debates that some of the federalist leaders, particularly Fisher Ames, saw their proper course in a conjunction of internal improvements and an energetic naval policy; but the latter was barred by the necessity of providing for the interest of the debt, and the former alone would have demanded a wisdom of self-sacrifice to which the commercial party had not attained. Instead of both, they grasped eagerly at the possibility of war with France (see X. Y. Z. MISSION) in 1798, and used it as a make-shift. In the senate they had a clear majority, and in the house the flame of popular anger, roused by the outrageous demands of the French directory, either silenced or converted most of the republicans, and gave the control of that body also to the federalists. If they had now reduced all other expenses to the lowest possible limits, and put every available resource into the increase of the navy, it was not yet too late to change the course of history on two continents. Party passion, however, and the treasured bitterness of past political struggles, hurried them further. A regular army was at once formed under cover of Washington's nominal command, ostensibly to guard against a mythical French invasion; the passage of the alien and sedition laws was almost avowedly an attempt to suppress the few republican newspapers, whose scurrilous attacks had long been a thorn to the dignity of the federalist leaders; and these needless exhibitions of party zeal more than neutralized the increase of the navy to twenty-four vessels. —During the 6th congress (Dec. 2, 1799-March 3, 1801), which had been elected in the very crisis of the war fever of 1798, the federalists had a majority in both houses, and yet the symptoms of disintegration in the party became steadily more apparent. Its two wings, the commercial and the nationalizing elements, which had been clamped together only by Hamilton's adroit use of Washington's authoritative influence, were already falling apart. Hamilton was now a private citizen of New York, and was governed more by his hatred for President Adams than by political prudence. Adams, who disliked Great Britain and showed no officious subservience to commercial interests, was the embodiment of that nationalizing feeling afterward more strongly developed in the whig and republican parties. He had earned the distrust of the Hamilton faction by his willingness to make peace with France, when he found that nation earnestly anxious for peace (see ADAMS, JOHN), and the party's embarrassment at this loss of its only available stock in politics was made evident by the anxiety of some of the party leaders either to manœuvre Pinckney into the presidency in place of Adams, or to bring Washington back to the political arena and thus compel Adams to retire. "Believing the dearest interests of our country at stake," and "considering Mr. Adams unfit for the office he now holds," Gouverneur Morris had written to Washington, Dec. 9, 1799, begging him to accept a third term; but Washington was dead before the letter reached him, and the only hope of union in the federal party died with him. His death at this time was peculiarly unfortunate for the federalists, for in this congress a strong federalist representation from the south appeared for the first and last time, John Marshall being its most prominent member. They were rather of the Adams than of the Hamilton school, and if the crash could have been postponed for a new years might possibly have become the southern wing of a real national party, very much like the whigs of after years. But their appearance was too late, and after 1801 they soon fell into the all embracing republican party—This congress represented mainly the war feeling of 1798, and felt little sympathy with the popular discontent at the continued enforcement of the sedition law. The prosecutions under this act were few, but, by a perverse ingenuity, they were chiefly brought in those doubtful middle states which only Washington's influence had ever made secure to federalism. It seems difficult to see anything better than farce in proceedings against a "criminal" in New York, charged with the circulation of petitions against the sedition law, and against another in New Jersey, charged with the expression of a wish that the wadding of a cannon just firing might strike the president behind. But when it is remembered that only the whim of two southern electors in 1796 had saved the federal party from defeat in that year, and that the loss of either New York's or New Jersey's vote would ensure its defeat in 1800, the blindness of the prosecutors seems almost willful. —All this time Burr, who was superior to Jefferson as an organizer, in the modern American sense of that political term (see BURR, AARON), had been actively at work in the "pivotal" state of New York, and the result of his labors was seen in the spring elections, beginning April 28, 1800, for members of the legislature which was to choose electors in the following autumn. A republican majority was elected, and the hardly smothered ill feeling in the federal party at once broke out. Pickering and McHenry, who, while nominally the president's advisers, had kept up a close and confidential correspondence with Hamilton, were contumeliously dismissed from the cabinet, and Adams threw himself openly upon the anti-Hamilton element, taking Marshall into the cabinet. Hamilton endeavored to defeat this movement by printing, for circulation among southern federalists, a very savage pamphlet attack upon the president, which would certainly have come within the terms of the sedition law, if that act had ever been anything better than a party measure. Hamilton's rhetoric was needless, and the president himself was too late. The spark of nationalization, which had only begun to burn in the south after ten years of federalist government, was not destined to come to a name. The presidential election left the federal party a wreck. The middle states, except New Jersey and part of Pennsylvania's votes, joined the solid column of states south of the Potomac and Ohio, and gave the republican candidates a majority. —It can not be said that the party, at least its larger commercial element, surrendered the federal government with dignity. The whole session of congress following the election was spent in efforts to save by intrigue something of what had been lost at the polls. The scheme to make Burr president, in order to establish a claim upon the person who was to dispense the offices, is elsewhere given. (See DISPUTED ELECTIONS, I.) At a time when the supreme court had not sufficient business to fully employ it, twenty-three new judgeships were erected, each with its attendant, suite of clerks, marshals and deputies, and filled by the appointment of federalists. (See JUDICIARY.) And, as if to make the object of the law more apparent, the party endeavored, almost successfully, to renew the sedition law, which was to expire by limitation at the end of this session. With all these schemes the non-commercial element of the party, the class represented by Marshall, Bayard and Adams, had very little sympathy or connection, and Adams, while yielding to party demands so far as to appoint federalists to office, seems to have done so with some contempt. After signing judicial appointments until after midnight of his last day of office, whence the angry epithet of "midnight judges," given to his appointees, the president left Washington early in the morning of March 4, 1801, and the control over the national government which it had founded passed from the federal party forever. It still retained control of the judiciary, but the next congress, which was republican, repealed the new judiciary law, in spite of the excited expostulations of the federalists, and in face of the fact that the constitution expressly gave all judges, when once appointed, a life tenure during good behavior. —During this period the three leading minds of the party, after Madison's defection, were Hamilton, John Adams, and John Jay of New York. Hamilton's natural place was in the small nationalizing element, but he had the entire confidence of the commercial class also, and was apt to incline toward it because of his reliance upon it. Jay and Adams were entirely nationalist, and after 1801 ceased to act as party leaders. Other leaders of a lower rank were Samuel Livermore, and William Plumer, of New Hampshire; Fisher Ames, Theodore Sedgwick, and Caleb Strong, of Massachusetts, (see also ESSEX JUNTO); Roger Sherman, Oliver Wolcott, Oliver Ellsworth, Uriah Tracy, and Jonathan Trumbull, of Connecticut; Rufus King and Gouverneur Morris, of New York; Thomas Fitz Simons, James Ross, and William Bradford. of Pennsylvania; Jonathan Dayton, and Elias Boudinot, of New Jersey; James A. Bayard, of Delaware; John Marshall, and Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia; Robert G. Harper (afterward of Maryland). Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and William Smith, of South Carolina. —II. 1801-20. During Jefferson's first term of office the crusade against the federal party was carried on with vigor, ability and success. No general eviction of office holders was resorted to; indeed, such a step would have almost brought the operations of government to a stand, for the administrative skill and experience were mainly federalist. Appointments were made, however, as often as vacancies occurred, with scrupulous attention to republican party interests. Every effort was made to disparage the federalists in the eyes of the people. For this purpose the old charge of monarchical tendencies was still brought against them, but it now showed more exactly the animus which really controlled it—the idea that federalists generally had no sympathy with or respect for their constituents; that they claimed elective office on the score of their own innate ability, virtue, or assumed superior qualifications, rather than as representatives of those characteristics in their constituents; and that, in short, they "did not trust the people." Against this insidious method of attack the older federalists, whose early training had been colored by the staid and dignified official life of colonial times, were unprepared to make an adequate defense by formulating a party creed for popular examination, and the case against them really went by default. Athens does not stand alone in her employment of ostracism; that penalty may be applied almost as rigorously with the ballot as with the oyster shell, and it was so thoroughly used at this time that only New England tenacity and commercial interest combined could have hindered its entire success. The older federalist politicians were slowly driven out of politics, and younger men were sternly taught that any adoption of federalist ideas would be an absolute bar or a great hindrance to their advancement. —The political action of the party was no wiser than its neglect to put its theory before the people. The opposition of the federalists to the repeal of the judiciary law, above referred to, was generally creditable, but it is almost the last point in their party history to which praise can be awarded. They might have fairly claimed as their own almost every measure introduced by the new administration; they preferred to follow a general course of factions opposition to every proposal to increase the strength of the federal government, thus alienating the little remnant of their nationalizing element, and intensifying the commercial character of the remainder of the party. In 1803 their opposition to the acquisition of Louisiana (see ANNEXATIONS, I.) was not concurred in by several of their own party, such as John Quincy Adams in the senate, and Purviance, of North Carolina, in the house, who were elected as federalists, but who, perhaps for that reason, preferred to increase federal power even for the benefit of their opponents. But the leaders generally confined the federalist side of the debates to a recapitulation of former republican arguments, a course certain to estrange the most valuable elements of their own party, and to convince the popular mind that their present professions were no more based upon political principle than their professions in 1793, by their own present admission, had been. Before the end of Jefferson's first term the fortunes of the federal party had ebbed to the point at which they really always afterward remained, though the accession of temporary elements of opposition to the dominant party occasionally gave them a factitious increase of strength. In the presidential election of 1804, federalist electors were chosen only by Connecticut and Delaware, with two from Maryland. —In February, 1806, the party received an unexpected reinforcement in the person of John Randolph, hitherto the republican leader in the house. He now joined the federalists in opposing the "restrictive system" (see EMBARGO), which weighed heavily upon commerce, but his quarrel was rather with the president than with his former party, and he brought with him but a few personal adherents and no real party strength. From this time the general history of the party is made up of opposition to the embargo and kindred measures, and of efforts, which were now made earnestly, but unfortunately too late, to obtain a strong navy. The opposition to the embargo became so violent as to threaten a disruption of the Union (see SECESSION, I.), but it never was a party opposition; it was a revolt of those engaged in commerce, of their friends, and of their dependents, against the attempts to shackle commerce and make the United States an agricultural country. In the presidential election of 1808 New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, with three electors from North Carolina, were added to the federalist list of 1804. (See ELECTORAL VOTES, VI.) —During Madison's first term (1809-13) the opposition to the restrictive system continued, and culminated in opposition to the war which followed the abandonment of the restrictive system. By this time the federal party had lost even the pretense of party principle. It had taken refuge in the last resort of a minority, state rights, (see STATE SOVEREIGNTY), and all its arguments were amplifications and exaggerations of the strict construction theory of the republicans. Since its principles were now taken at second-hand, it seemed well that its candidates should be selected in the same way, and accordingly, in 1812, the federalists endeavored to take advantage of New York jealousy of Virginia by supporting De Witt Clinton, of New York, for president, and Jared Ingersoll, a Pennsylvania federalist, for vice-president. The basis of the alliance was opposition to the war with England, though Clinton cautiously abstained from committing himself personally, and after the election took an opportunity to approve the war; but in the presidential election of 1812 the alliance only failed of success because of the growth of the agricultural or backwoods population of the middle states, and particularly of Pennsylvania. To the hitherto federalist list were now added the votes of New York and New Jersey, and three additional votes from Delaware and Maryland; and, though Madison was elected by 128 votes to 89, the 25 votes of Pennsylvania, if that state had followed the lead of New York, would have made Clinton president by a vote of 114 to 103. Even in that event, it is difficult to see of what advantage the result would have been to the federal party. (For the party's further opposition to the war, see CONVENTION, HARTFORD.) —The most prominent of the federalist leaders during this period were C. C. Pinckney and Rufus King, the party's usual candidates for president and vice-president. Of those who were prominent in the first decade, Ames, Hamilton, Bradford and Tracy were, in 1815, dead; Plumer, John Adams, John Quincy Adams and Bayard were either nominally or really in affiliation with the democratic (republican) party; Marshall had retired to the supreme court; and the others began to confine their ambition to the service of their respective states. In the presidential election of 1816 Massachusetts, Connecticut and Delaware were the only states which cast federalist electoral votes; three federalist electors, chosen by the "district system" in Maryland, did not take the trouble to vote. In congress the few federalists did not attempt even to cast a united vote any longer, and in national politics we may consider the party as dead after 1817. In 1820 it cast no electoral votes. In state politics it survived, though in a hopeless minority, in Maryland and North Carolina; in Delaware and Connecticut it usually controlled state elections until after 1820; in Massachusetts it controlled state elections until its great defeat of 1823, when the state, and even the county of Essex (see ESSEX JUNTO), were carried by the republicans. —The federalist opposition to the war, which is commonly assigned as the reason for the party's final collapse after 1816, was undoubtedly of great weight; but a deeper influence had long been operating to give the coup de grace to the dying party, even in the state elections which were now its only dependence. Until 1808 manufactures were hardly of any importance in American politics, but the "restrictive system," by keeping British manufactures out of the country, at once began the development of a great manufacturing interest in the United States. For seven years this interest was fostered by the embargo, by the non-intercourse law, and at length by open war, until in 1815 it represented a very considerable invested capital and a large influence in the very citadel of federalism, New England. For a continuance of the restrictive system in the form of high tariffs this interest was dependent upon the favor of the republican party, and it was therefore directly antagonistic to the federal party. It is safe to say that the federal party was finally destroyed by an alliance of agriculture and manufactures. This alliance, indeed, was not permanent. Agriculture was faithless to its new ally, and the manufacturing interest, after thirteen years of unavailing effort to obtain a protective tariff, went over to its old antagonist, and, in conjunction with commerce, and on a wiser political basis, founded a new party. (See WHIG PARTY.) As a federalist, Daniel Webster opposed a protective tariff in 1814 and 1824, and hoped that we would never have a Sheffield or a Birmingham in this country; as a whig, he was as earnest in the opposite direction. But, during these thirteen years, federalism tended more and more to become a social rather than a political cult in New England, Delaware, Maryland and North Carolina, until it finally disappeared with the old age of its more persistent devotees. —As the small nationalizing element, which, alone had ever given the federalists a claim to the title of a political party, remained in, but not of, the democratic-republican party until about 1828-30, and then fell back again into the national republican (afterward called whig) party, it may be said that the principles of the federal party thus survived it. But the irremediable fault of the original federalist leaders, a fault avoided by their whig and republican successors, was, that they never formulated their cardinal party principles into a creed comprehensible by the mass of voters. He who searches the writings of federalists for such a formulation will search in vain; the party, which was made up of the finest elements of American society, lived upon an instinct, a kind of spiritual recognition, rather than upon defined political principles. Nor can the neglect be properly ascribed to immaturity of political thought; Hamilton was as capable of such a work as Jefferson (see DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY, II.), if he had cared enough for popular conviction to strive for it. After 1801 the ill effects of this neglect were increasingly apparent, but they only drew from federalist leaders angry railings at popular stupidity in not comprehending federalist principles, though these had never been comprehensibly placed before the people. In 1814 a clearer insight seems to have come to some federalists, though too late, and an extract from Barent Gardénier's "Examiner," of March 19, 1814, might serve as an epitaph for his party: "See and feel? Aye, multitudes of the people can do much more. And if we would only talk to them more, and scold at them less, than we do, the good effects would very soon be apparent." [The references to commerce and manufactures are historical only; for the comparative economic advisability of PROTECTION and FREE TRADE, see those articles.]—See DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY; EMBARGO; SECESSION; CONVENTION, HARTFORD; WHIG PARTY; UNITED STATES; and authorities there cited. See also 4, 5, 6 Hildreth's United States; 1 von Holst's United States; Pitkin's United States; Gibbs' Administrations of Washington and Adams; J. C. Hamilton's History of the American Republic; American State Papers; 1-4 Benton's Debates of Congress; Hamilton's Works; John Adams' Works; Marshall's Life of Washington; Washington's Writings; Jay's Life and Writings of John Jay; Sparks' Life and Letters of Gouverneur Morris; Fisher Ames' Works; Quincy's Life of J. Quincy; Adams' Documents relating to New England Federalism; Garland's Life of Randolph; Dwight's Hartford Convention; Story's Life and Letters of Joseph Story; 1 Webster's Works; Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster; Hammond's Political History of New York; Hosack's Memoir of De Witt Clinton; Campbell's Life and Writings of Clinton; Gardénier's Examiner; Carey's New Olive Branch; Van Buren's Political Parties; Seybert's Statistical Annals of the United States, 1789-1818; Sullivan's Letters; Pickering's Life and Correspondence of Pickering; 24 Niles' Register, 97. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON. FENIANSFENIANS. Thus the American members of the revolutionary party, which, during the years 1860-70, agitated the forcible separation of Ireland from England, by means of a wide-spread organization known as the Fenian brotherhood, call themselves. The conspiracy of the Fenians owed its important position in the long line of Irish conspiracies against the English government principally to two causes: its distinctively revolutionary tendency and its origin in America. As a revolutionary effort it was the work of a party which had adopted the name "Young Ireland," and which, in opposition to the conciliatory policy of O'Connell, had organized itself as a party of violence. Its American origin is accounted for by the dreadful Irish famine (1845-7), in consequence of which a large number of poor, discontented Irishmen, who bore a traditional hatred toward England, left their native country and came to America in search of a new home. In the course of time these emigrants grew rapidly in number and public influence, and when the war between the north and south began, quite a large number of naturalized Irishmen enlisted in favor of the Union. During the war different causes were at work to arouse the old animosity between the United States and England to such a degree as to make it not at all unlikely that it would result in open hostility between the two countries. A more favorable state of circumstances in furtherance of the schemes of the young Irish patriots could hardly be imagined, and encouraged in view of the difficulties pending between the British and American governments, the Fenian conspiracy was, toward the close of 1861 and the beginning of the following year, organized and began its active operations. —The name Fenian was taken from the ancient Celtic caste of warriors, the Finna. The organization of the Fenians was, therefore, a society of men who trusted to the force of arms, and the object of the conspiracy is sufficiently indicated by the name. The principal founder of the brotherhood in America was John O'Mahoney, while in Ireland James Stephens took the foremost lead in the movement. It was in America that the organization was first effected, and the United States was from the beginning recognized as the principal base of operations; yet in Ireland secret meetings of Fenians were held as early as the beginning of 1862. In the spring of 1863, John Luby, one of the leaders of the brother hood, came to America as a sort of emissary, where he, together with O'Mahoney, visited the camp of Gen. Corcoran, the commander of the Irish legion in the army of the Potomac, and where he met with the warmest expressions of sympathy for the cause of Ireland. In the fall of 1863 Fenianism had made such progress in the northern and western states of the Union, that O'Mahoney no longer hesitated to call a Fenian convention, which took place at Chicago. A few weeks later (November, 1863), the first number of the paper "The Irish World," published by Luby and edited by O'Leary, was issued, as the organ of the Fenians in Ireland. Practical measures in aid of the movement were not neglected. Emissaries visited all parts of the country in order to enlist volunteers and to perfect the military organization of the brotherhood; armories were established and the men instructed, though with the utmost secrecy, in the use of arms. The American brethren were likewise very active. In the spring of 1864, the first contributions, from the proceeds of the great fair held in Chicago, toward a military fund, were made; and in the fall of the same year a second Fenian convention was held in Chicago, which was attended by delegates from all the states from New York to California. The sudden close of the civil war in the United States in April, 1865, and the disbanding of the army, in consequence of which not only the commanders of the Irish legion, but a large crowd of adventurers, were open to new engagements, hastened the Fenians to take some decided action. But in proportion as the Fenians became more demonstrative and active, the vigilance of the British government was increased, and before the Fenians were ready to take a decided step, their hopes of succeeding before long in their revolutionary enterprise were suddenly dashed to pieces. In the night of Sept. 15, 1865, the police took possession of the building of "The Irish People." took charge of the press, put Luby, O'Leary and O'Donovan Rossa, and other Fenian leaders who were stopping at Dublin, under arrest, and at the same time seized upon the private documents of the Fenians, which at once gave the British government a clue to the secret movements of the conspirators. In consequence of the information gotten by means of these private documents, a number of arrests were made in the southern and western districts of Ireland. Stephens himself fell into the hands of the police. Thus deprived of all its leaders, without encouragement in the shape of sympathetic demonstration on the part of the Irish people, the Fenian brotherhood in Ireland fell to pieces. —Yet, notwithstanding all this, the Fenian conspiracy was by no means subdued; for the defeat which the Fenian movement had suffered aroused all the latent energy of the brotherhood in America. In October, 1865, a general convention of Fenians was held at New York, which was to inaugurate the establishment of an independent republic on Irish soil. A constitution was submitted and debated, and O'Mahoney was elected president of the new republic. He appointed a minister of war, of the navy, and of finance, and together with his ministers took up his residence in an elegant mansion in New York city, which had been chosen as the temporary seat of government. The first executive measure was the levy of an income tax, by means of which a considerable amount of money came into the treasury. In accordance with the original plans, and in view of the differences still existing between the United States and England, which the Fenians tried to use as a means whereby the breach between the two countries might be widened, and their governments stirred up to open hostilities, a two-fold plan of action was agreed on, on the basis of which O'Mahoney was to take charge of the operations against Canada in the United States, while Stephens was to direct and manage the invasion and revolutionizing of Ireland. —The winter months were passed in making arrangements for final action. Toward the latter part of February, 1866, the excitement among the people of Ireland again rose very high. The English authorities discovered some traces of the importation of arms and ammunition and the enlistment and drilling of volunteers. During the fore part of March the number of American emissaries who had come to Ireland increased in alarming proportions. Their bearing became daily more threatening, and the symptoms of an impending outbreak were unmistakable. But the English government was on its guard, and once more the energetic measure—the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus—was all that was needed to check the revolution in its inception. Suddenly the strangers, who were suspected by the authorities, had disappeared from Ireland. The few who remained were put under arrest without difficulty, thus the rebellion, the leaders gone, again came to a sudden collapse. The Fenian operations against Canada shared no better fate. In the beginning of June, 1866, the Fenian forces began to gather on the Canadian borders, and in the second week in June an army of about 4,000 or 5,000 men invaded Canada along the coast of Lake Erie. The Fenian troops took possession of a few border towns, but were in the end defeated by the Canadian troops in several engagements. —This unsuccessful issue proved not only the fact that the Fenian forces were not equal to carry out the great plans of their leaders, but the more important fact, that the government of the United States was not willing to use the Irish discontent in support of any hostile movement against England, and all subsequent attempts on the part of the Fenians only served to prove the same facts. In Ireland, preparations to that end having been made for some time, on March 5, 1867, the rebellion broke out simultaneously in the vicinity of Dublin, in Drogheda and in Kerry. It was the most powerful effort the Fenians made in defense of their cause; yet it resulted, after a few days' struggle, in a complete defeat. The total number of the Fenian insurgents engaged in this struggle did not exceed 3,000 men, and, aside from the destruction of railroad and telegraph lines, the taking of a quantity of arms, and the firing of a few police stations and guard houses along the coast, the insurrection was of no consequence. There were no battles fought. The English troops, who followed up the insurgents, nowhere found a consolidated body of men opposing them. All that the English troops had to do was to capture the fugitives and take possession of the arms and ammunition belonging to the Fenians, which were scattered about in large quantities. The only attempt which the Fenians again made to establish an Irish republic, came to an end which was even more disgraceful. In April, 1867, about forty or fifty Fenians, who had served in the Union army, left New York, in a steamer fitted out for the purpose, to conquer Ireland. In the beginning of June, after sailing about the Irish coast for some time, they landed near Waterford, only to fall, a few hours later, into the hands of the police, without offering any resistance. With this first and only invasion of Ireland the Fenian conspiracy was not of course broken up, but all hopes of again putting the Fenian forces on the offensive were gone. Completely routed in Ireland and America alike, the Fenians finally hit upon the plan of alarming their traditional enemy in his own camp, by arousing the discontent of the Irish laboring classes who were employed in England, especially in the large commercial and manufacturing cities, and thus to subject England herself to the horrors of a civil war. The Fenian conspiracy had now come to its last and most desperate stage, in which it totally lost its political character; its organization was reduced to a state of anarchy, and the further doings of the Fenian combatants were simply the deeds of murderers and incendiaries. —Two events, characteristic of the further movements of the Fenians, deserve special mention: the forcible liberation, September, 1867, of several Fenian leaders who were under arrest in Manchester, and the attempt to release, December, 1867, two Fenians who had been arrested in London, and were there kept in prison. In Manchester the prisoners succeeded in escaping, but a large number of those who had aided in their liberation were put under arrest, and three of the ringleaders were put to death. In London the Fenians caused an explosion, whereby the outer prison walls and several neighboring houses were blown up, and, though the prisoner was not set free, about fifty persons, who happened to be on the spot, were either killed or wounded. In this case, too, the head of the conspirators was caught and suffered the penalty of death. —These events mark the last public effort of the Fenians in furtherance of their cause. Although the Fenian conspiracy, as a means of forcibly separating Ireland from England, proved unsuccessful, its effects undoubtedly were of great importance in this, that it hastened the adoption of needful reforms for the removal, in a peaceful way, of the crying evils under which Ireland was then suffering. B. FEUDAL SYSTEMFEUDAL SYSTEM. In treating of this subject we shall endeavor to present a concise and clear view of the principles of what is called the feudal system, to indicate the great stages of its history, especially in England, and to state briefly the leading considerations that should be taken into account in forming an estimate of its influence on the civilization of modern Europe. —The essential constituent and distinguishing characteristic of the species of estate called a feud or fief was from the first, and always continued to be, that it was not an estate of absolute and independent ownership. The property, or dominium directum, as it was called, remained in the grantor of the estate. The person to whom it was granted did not become its owner, but only its tenant or holder. There is no direct proof that fiefs were originally resumable at pleasure, and Mr. Hallam, in his "State of Europe during the Middle Ages," has expressed his doubts if this were ever the case; but the position, as he admits, is laid down in almost every writer on the feudal system, and, if not to be made out by any decisive instances, it is at least strongly supported not only by general considerations of probability, but also by some indicative facts. This, however, is not material. It is not denied that the fief was at one time revocable, at least on the death of the grantee. In receiving it, therefore, he had received not an absolute gift, but only a loan, or at most an estate for his own life. —This being established as the true character of a primitive feud or fief, may perhaps throw some light upon the much disputed etymology and true meaning of the word. Feudum has been derived by some from a Latin, by others from a Teutonic root. The principal Latin origins proposed are fœdus (a treaty) and fides (faith). The supposition of the transformation of either of these into feudum seems unsupported by any proof. These derivations, in fact, are hardly better than another resolution of the puzzle that has been gravely offered, namely, that feudum is a word made up of the initial letters of the words fidelis ero ubique domino vero meo. The chief Teutonic etymologies proposed have been from the old German faida, the Danish feide, or the modern German vehd, all meaning battle-feud, or dissension; and from fe or fee, which it is said signifies wages or pay for service, combined with od or odh, to which the signification of possession or property is assigned. But, as Sir Francis Palgrave has well remarked, "upon all the Teutonic etymologies it is sufficient to observe, that the theories are contradicted by the practice of the Teutonic tongues—a feud, or fief, is not called by such a name, or by any name approaching thereto, in any Teutonic or Gothic language whatever." (Proofs and Illustrations to Rise and Progress of Eng. Com., p. ccvii.) Lehn, or some cognate form, is the only corresponding Teutonic term; laen in Anglo-Saxon, len in Danish, leen in Swedish, etc. All these words properly signify the same thing that is expressed by our modern English form of the same element, loan; a loan is the only name for a feud or fief in all the Teutonic tongues. What then is feud or fief? Palgrave doubts if the word feudum ever existed. The true word seems to be fevdum (not distinguishable from feudum in old writing), or feftum.Fiev or fief (Latinized into fevodium, which some contracted into fevdum, and others, by omitting the v, into fevdum) he conceives to be fitef, or phitef, and that again to be a colloquial abbreviation of emphyteusis, pronounced emphytifsis, a well-known term of the Roman imperial law for an estate granted to be held not absolutely, but with the ownership still in the grantor and the usufruct only in the hands of the grantee. It is certain that emphyteusis was used in the middle ages as synonymous with precaria (an estate held on a precarious or uncertain tenure); that precariæ, and also præstitæ or præstariæ, (literally loans), were the same with beneficia; and that beneficia under the emperors were the same, or nearly the same, as fiefs. It may be added that the word feu is still in familiar use in Scotland for an estate held only for a term of years. The possessor of such an estate is called a feuar. Many of these feus are held for 99 years, some for 999 years. A rent, or feuduty, as it is called, is always paid, as in the case of a lease in England; but, although never, we believe, merely nominal, it is often extremely trifling in proportion to the value of the property. In Erskine's "Principles of the Law of Scotland," in the section "On the several kinds of holding" (book ii., tit. 4), we find the following passage respecting feu-holding, which may be taken as curiously illustrating the derivation of fief that has just been quoted from another writer: "It has a strong resemblance to the Roman emphyteusis, in the nature of the right, the yearly duty payable by the vassal, the penalty in the case of not punctual payment, and the restraint frequently laid upon vassals not to alien without the superior's consent." As for the English term fee, which is generally if not universally assumed to be the same word with fief and feud, (and of which it may be the abbreviated form, as we may infer from the words "feoffor," "infeoff" and "feoffment"), it would be easy enough to show how, supposing that notion to be correct, it may have acquired the meaning which it has in the expression fee simple, fee tail, etc. —The origin of the system of feuds has been a fertile subject of speculation and dispute. If we merely seek for the existence of a kind of landed tenure resembling that of fief in its essential principle, it is probable that such may be discovered in various ages and parts of the world. But feuds alone are not the feudal system. They are only one of the elements out of which that system grew. In its entireness it is certain that the feudal system never subsisted anywhere before it arose in the middle ages, in those parts of Europe in which the Germanic nations settled themselves after the subversion of the Roman empire. —Supposing feud to be the same word with the Roman emphyteusis, it does not follow that the Germanic nations borrowed the notion of this species of tenure from the Romans. It is perhaps more probable that it was the common form of tenure among them before their settlement in the Roman provinces. It is to be observed that the emphyteusis, the precaria, the beneficium, only subsisted under the Roman scheme of polity in particular instances, but they present themselves as the very genius of the Germanic scheme. What was only occasional under the one became general under the other. In other words, if the Romans had feuds, it was their Germanic conquerors who first established a system of feuds. They probably established such a system upon their first settlement in the conquered provinces. The word feudum indeed is not found in any writing of earlier date than the beginning of the eleventh century, although, as Mr. Hallam has remarked, the words feum and fevum, which are evidently the same with feudum, occur in several charters of the preceding century. But, as we have shown, feudum or feud, in all probability, was not the Teutonic term. "Can it be doubted," asks Mr. Hallam, "that some word of barbarous original must have answered, in the vernacular languages, to the Latin beneficium?" There is reason to believe, as we have seen, that this vernacular word must have been lehn, or some cognate form, and that feud was merely a corrupted term of the Roman law which was latterly applied to denote the same thing. —We know so little with certainly respecting the original institutions of the Germanic nations, that it is impossible to say how much they may have brought with them from their northern forests, or how much they may have borrowed from the imperial polity, of the other chief element which enters into the system of feudalism, the connection subsisting between the grantor and the grantee of the fief, the person having the property and the person having the usufruct, or, as they were respectively designated, the suzerain or lord, and the tenant or vassal. Tenant may be considered as the name given to the latter in reference to the particular nature of his right over the land; vassal, that denoting the particular nature of his personal connection with his lord. The former has been already explained; the consideration of the latter introduces a new view. By some writers the feudal vassals have been derived from the comites, or officers of the Roman imperial household; by others from the comites, or companions, mentioned by Tacitus (German., 13, etc.) as attending upon each of the German chiefs in war. The latter opinion is ingeniously maintained by Montesquieu (xxx., 3). One fact appears to be certain, and is of some importance, namely, that the original vassali or vassi were merely noblemen who attached themselves to the court and to attendance upon the prince, without necessarily holding any landed estate or beneficium by royal grant. In this sense the words occur in the early part of the ninth century. Vassal has been derived from the Celtic gwas and from the German gesell, which are probably the same word, and of both of which the original signification seems to be a helper, or subordinate associate, in labor of any kind. —If the vassal was at first merely the associate of or attendant upon his lord, nothing could be more natural than that, when the lord came to have land to give away, he should most frequently bestow it upon his vassals, both as a reward for their past and a bond by which he might secure their future services. If the peculiar form of tenure constituting the fief or lehn did not exist before, here was the very case which would suggest it. At all events, nothing could be more perfectly adapted to the circumstances. The vassal was entitled to a recompense; at the same time it was not the interest of the lord to sever their connection, and to allow him to become independent; probably that was as little the desire of the vassal himself; he was conveniently and appropriately rewarded, therefore, by a fief, that is, by a loan of land, the profits of which were left to him as entirely as if he had obtained the ownership of the land, but his precarious and revocable tenure of which, at the same time, kept him bound to his lord in the same dependence as before. —Here then we have the union of the feud and vassalage—two things which remained intimately and inseparably combined so long as the feudal system existed. Nevertheless they would appear, as we have seen, to have been originally quite distinct, and merely to have been thrown into combination by circumstances. At first it is probable that, as there were vassals who were not feudatories, so there were feudatories who were not vassals. But very soon, when the advantage of the association of the two characters came to be perceived, it would be established as essential to the completeness of each. Every vassal would receive a fief, and every person to whom a fief was granted would become a vassal. Thus a vassal and the holder of a fief would come to signify, as they eventually did, one and the same thing. —Fiefs, as already intimated, are generally supposed to have been at first entirely precarious, that is to say, resumable at any time at the pleasure of the grantor. But if this state of things every existed, it probably did not last long. Even from the first it is most probable that many fiefs were granted for a certain term of years or for life. And in those of all kinds a substitute for the original precariousness of the tenure was soon found, which, while it equally secured the rights and interests of the lord, was much more honorable and in every way more advantageous for the vassal. This was the method of attaching him by certain oaths and solemn forms, which, besides their force in a religious point of view, were so contrived as to appeal also to men's moral feelings, and which, therefore, it was accounted not only impious but infamous to violate. The relation binding the vassal to his lord was made to wear all the appearance of a mutual interchange of benefits—of bounty and protection on the one hand, of gratitude and service due on the other; and so strongly did this view of the matter take possession of men's minds, that in the feudal ages even the ties of natural relationship were looked upon as of inferior obligation to the artificial bond of vassalage. —As soon as the position of the vassal had thus been made stable and secure, various changes would gradually introduce themselves. The vassal would begin to have his fixed rights as well as his lord, the oath which he had taken measuring and determining both these rights and his duties. The relation between the two parties would cease to be one wholly of power and dominion on the one hand, and of mere obligation and dependence on the other. If the vassal performed that which he had sworn, nothing more would be required of him. Any attempt of his lord to force him to do more would be considered as an injustice. Their connection would now assume the appearance of a mutual compact, imposing corresponding obligations upon both, and making protection as much a duty in the lord, as gratitude and service in the vassal. —Other important changes would follow this fundamental change, or would take place while it was advancing to completion. After the fief had come to be generally held for life, the next step would be for the eldest son usually to succeed his father. His right so to succeed would next be established by usage. At a later stage fiefs became descendible in the collateral as well as in the direct line. At a still later, they became inheritable by females as well as by males. There is much difference of opinion, however, as to the dates at which these several changes took place. Some writers conceive that fiefs first became hereditary in France under Charlemagne; others, however, with whom Mr. Hallam agrees, maintain that there were hereditary fiefs under the first race of French kings. It is supposed not to have been till the time of the first Capets in the end of the tenth century that the right of the son to succeed the father was established by law in France. Conrad II., surnamed the Salic, who became emperor in 1024, is generally believed to have first established the hereditary character of fiefs in Germany. —Throughout the whole of this progressive development of the system, however, the original nature of the fief was never forgotten. The ultimate property was still held to be in the lord; and that fact was very distinctly signified, not only by the expressive language of forms and symbols, but by certain liabilities of the tenure that gave still sharper intimation of its true character. Even after fiefs became descendible to heirs in the most comprehensive sense, and by the most fixed rule, every new occupant of the estate had still to make solemn acknowledgment of his vassalage, and thus to obtain, as it were, a renewal of the grant from the lord. He became bound to discharge all services and other dues as fully as the first grantee had been Above all, in certain circumstances, as, for example, if the tenant committed treason or felony, or if he left no heir, the estate would still return by forfeiture or escheat to the lord, as to its original owner. —Originally fiefs were granted only by sovereign princes; but after estates of this description, by acquiring the hereditary quality, came to be considered as property to all practical intents and purposes, their holders proceeded, on the strength of this completeness of possession, themselves to assume the character and to exercise the rights of lords, by the practice of what was called sub-infeudation, that is, the alienation of portions of their fiefs to other parties, who thereupon were placed in the same or a similar relation to them as that in which they stood to the prince. The vassal of the prince became the lord over other vassals; in this latter capacity he was called a mesne (that is, an intermediate) lord; he was a lord and a vassal at the same time. In the same manner the vassal of a mesne lord might become also the lord of other arrere vassals, as those vassals that held of a mesne lord were designated. This process sometimes produced curious results; for a lord might in this way actually become the vassal of his own vassal, and a vassal a lord over his own lord. —From whatever cause it may have happened (which is matter of dispute), in all the continental provinces of the Roman empire which were conquered and occupied by the Germanic nations, many lands were from the first held, not as fiefs, that is, with the ownership in one party and the usufruct in another, but as allodia, that is, in full and entire ownership. The holder of such an estate, having no lord, was of course free from all the exactions and burdens which were incidental to the vassalage of the holder of a fief. He was also, however, without the powerful protection which the latter enjoyed; and so important was this protection in the turbulent state of society which existed in Europe for some ages after the dissolution of the empire of Charlemagne, that in fact most of the allodialists in course of time exchanged their originally independent condition for the security and subjection of that of the feudatory. "During the tenth and eleventh centuries," says Mr. Hallam, "it appears that allodial lands in France had chiefly become feudal; that is, they had been surrendered by their proprietors, and received back again upon the feudal conditions; or more frequently, perhaps, the owner had been compelled to acknowledge himself the man or vassal of a suzerain, and thus to confess an original grant which had never existed. Changes of the same nature, though not perhaps so extensive or so distinctly to be traced, took place in Italy and Germany. Yet it would be inaccurate to assert that the prevalence of the feudal system has been unlimited; in a great part of France allodial tenures always subsisted, and many estates in the empire were of the same description." —After the conquest of England by the Normans, the dominium directum, or property of all the land in the kingdom, appears to have been considered as vested in the crown. "All the lands and tenements in England in the hands of subjects," says Coke, "are holden mediately or immediately of the king; for in the law of England we have not properly allodium." This universality of its application, therefore, may be regarded as the first respect in which the system of feudalism established in England differed from that established in France and other continental countries. There were also various other differences. The Conqueror, for instance, introduced here the practice unknown on the continent of compelling the arrere vassals, as well as the immediate tenants of the crown, to take the oath of fealty to himself. In other countries a vassal only swore fealty to his immediate lord; in England, if he held of a mesne lord, be took two oaths, one to his lord and another to his lord's ford. It may be observed, however, that in those times in which the feudal principle was in its greatest vigor the fealty of a vassal to his immediate lord was usually considered as the higher obligation; when that and his fealty to the crown came into collision, the former was the oath to which he adhered. Some feudists, indeed, held that his allegiance to the crown was always to be understood as reserved in the fealty which a vassal swore to his lord; and the emperor Frederic Barbarossa decreed that in every oath of fealty taken to an inferior lord there should be an express reservation of the vassal's duty to the emperor. But the double oath exacted by the Norman conqueror did not go so far as this. It only gave him, at the most, a concurrent power with the mesne lord over the vassals of the latter, who in France were nearly removed altogether from the control of the royal authority. A more important difference between the English and French feudalism consisted in the greater extension given by the former to the rights of lords generally over their vassals by what were called the incidents of wardship and marriage. The wardship or guardianship of the tenant during minority, which implied both the custody of his person and the appropriation of the profits of the estate, appears to have been enjoyed by the lord in some parts of Germany, but nowhere else except in England and Normandy. "This," observes Mr. Hallam, "was one of the most vexatious parts of our feudal tenures, and was never perhaps more sorely felt than in their last stage under the Tudor and Stuart families." The right of marriage (maritagium) originally implied only the power possessed by the lord of tendering a husband to his female ward while under age: if she rejected the match, she forfeited the value of the marriage; that is, as much as any one would give to the lord for permission to marry her. But the right was afterward extended so as to include male as well as female heirs; and it also appears that although the practice might not be sanctioned by law, some of the Anglo-Norman kings were accustomed to exact penalties from their female vassals of all ages, and even from widows, for either marrying without their consent or refusing such marriages as they proposed. The seignorial prerogative of marriage, like that of wardship, was peculiar to England and Normandy, and to some parts of Germany. —It has been very usual to represent military service as the essential peculiarity of a feudal tenure. But the constituent and distinguishing element of that form of tenure was its being a tenancy merely, and not an ownership; the enjoyment of land for certain services to be performed. In the state of society, however, in which the feudal system grew up, it was impossible that military service should not become the chief duty to which the vassal was bound. It was in such a state of society the most important service which he could render to his lord. It was the species of service which the persons to whom fiefs were first granted seem to have been previously accustomed to render, and the continuance of which, accordingly, the grant of the fief was chiefly intended to secure. Yet military service, or knight service as it was called in England, though it was the usual, was by no means the necessary or uniform condition on which fiefs were granted. Any other honorable condition might be imposed which distinctly recognized the dominium directum of the lord. —Another common characteristic of fiefs, which in like manner arose incidentally out of the circumstances of the times in which they originated, was that they usually consisted of land. Land was in those times nearly the only species of wealth that existed; certainly the only form of wealth that had any considerable security or permanency. Yet there are not wanting instances of other things, such as pensions and offices, being granted as fiefs. It was a great question nevertheless, among the feudists, whether a fief could consist of money, or of anything else than land; and perhaps the most eminent authorities have maintained that it could not. The preference thus shown for land by the spirit of the feudal customs has perhaps left deeper traces both upon the law, the political constitution, and the social habits and feelings of England and other feudal countries than any other part of the system. England has thence derived not only the distinction (nearly altogether unknown to the Roman law) by which her law still discriminates certain amounts of interest in lands and tenements under the name of real property from property of every other kind, but also the ascendency retained by the former in nearly every respect in which such ascendency can be upheld either by institutions or by opinion. —The grant of land as a fief, especially when it was a grant from the suzerain, or supreme lord, whether called king or duke, or any other name, was, sometimes at least, accompanied with an express grant of jurisdiction. Thus every great tenant exercised a jurisdiction, civil and criminal, over his immediate tenants: he held courts and administered the laws within his lordship like a sovereign prince. It appears that the same jurisdiction was often granted by the crown to the abbeys with their lands. The formation of manors in England appears to have been consequent upon the establishment of feudalism. The existence of manor courts, and so many small jurisdictions within the kingdom, is one of the most permanent features of that polity which the Normans stamped upon the country. —In the infancy of the feudal system it is probable that the vassal was considered bound to attend his lord in war for any length of time during which his services might be required. Afterward, when the situation of the vassal became more independent, the amount of this kind of service was fixed either by law or by usage. In England the whole country was divided into about 60,000 knights' fees; and the tenant of each of these appears to have been obliged to keep the field at his own expense for forty days on every occasion on which his lord chose to call upon him. For smaller quantities of land proportionately shorter terms of service were due; at least such is the common statement; although it seems improbable that the individuals composing a feudal army could thus have the privilege of returning home some at one time, some at another. Women were obliged to send their substitutes: and so were the clergy, certain persons holding public offices, and men past the age of sixty, all of whom were exempted from personal service. The rule or custom, however, both as to the duration of the service, and its extent in other respects, varied greatly in different ages and countries—The other duties of the vassal were rather expressive of the relation of honorable subordination in which he stood to his lord, than services of any real or calculable value. They are thus summed up by Mr. Hallam: "It was a breach of faith to divulge the lord's counsel, to conceal from him the machinations of others, to injure his person or fortune, or to violate the sanctity of his roof and the honor of his family. In battle he was bound to lend his horse to his lord when dismounted: to adhere to his side while fighting, and to go into captivity as a hostage for him when taken. His attendance was due to the lord's courts, sometimes to witness and sometimes to bear a part in the administration of justice." —There were, however, various other substantial advantages derived by the lord. We have already mentioned the rights of wardship and of marriage, which were nearly peculiar to the dominions of the English crown. Besides these, there were the payment, called a relief, made by every new entrant upon the possession of the fief, the escheat of the land to the lord when the tenant left no heir, and its forfeiture to him when the tenant was found guilty either of a breach of his oath of fealty, or of felony. There was, besides, a fine payable to the lord upon the alienation by the tenant of any part of the estate, if that was at all permitted. Finally, there were the various aids, as they were called, payable by the tenant. —The principal ceremonies used in conferring a fief were homage, fealty and investiture. The first two of these can not be more distinctly or more shortly described than in the words of Littleton. "Homage," says the Treatise of Tenures, "is the most honorable service, and most humble service of reverence, that a frank tenant may do to his lord: for when the tenant shall make homage to his lord, he shall be ungirt and his head uncovered, and his lord shall sit and the tenant shall kneel before him on both his knees, and hold his hands jointly together between the hands of his lord, and shall say thus: I become your man, from this day forward, of life and limb, and of earthly worship, and unto you shall be true and faithful, and bear you faith for the tenements that I claim to hold of you, saving the faith that I owe to our sovereign lord the king; and then the lord, so sitting, shall kiss him." Religious persons and women, instead of "I become your man," said, "I do homage unto you." Here, it is to be observed, there was no oath taken; the doing of fealty consisted wholly in taking an oath, without any obeisance. "When a freeholder (frank tenant)," says Littleton, "doth fealty to his lord he shall hold his right hand upon a book, and shall say thus: Know ye this, my lord, that I shall be faithful and true unto you, and faith to you shall bear for the lands which I claim to hold of you, and that I shall lawfully do to you the customs and services which I ought to do at the terms assigned, so help me God and his saints; and he shall kiss the book. But he shall not kneel when he maketh the fealty, nor shall make such (that is, any such, tiel), humble reverence as is aforesaid in homage." The investiture or the conveyance of feudal land is represented by the modern feoffment. —The feudal system may be regarded as having reached its maturity and full development when the Norman conquest of England took place. It appears accordingly to have been established there immediately or very soon after that event in as pure, strict and comprehensive a form as it ever attained in any other country. The whole land of the kingdom, as we have already mentioned, was, without any exception, either in the hands of the crown, or held in fief by the vassals of the crown, or of them by sub-infeudation. Those lands which the king kept were called his demesne (the terræ regis of the domesday survey), and thus the crown had a number of immediate tenants, like any other lord, in the various lands reserved in nearly every part of the kingdom. Nowhere else, also, before the restrictions established by the charters, were the rights of the lord over the vassal stretched in practice nearer to their extreme theoretical limits. On the other hand, the vassal had arrived at what we may call his ultimate position in the natural progress of the system; the hereditary quality of the feuds was fully established; his ancient absolute dependence and subjection had passed away; under whatever disadvantages his inferiority of station might place him, he met his lord on the common ground of their mutual rights and obligations; there might be considerable contention about what these rights and obligations on either side were, but it was admitted that on both sides they had the same character of real, legally binding obligations, and legally maintainable rights. —This settlement of the system, however, was anything rather than an assurance of its stability and permanency. It was now held together by a principle altogether of a different kind from that which had originally created and cemented it. That which had been in the beginning the very life of the relation between the lord and the vassal, had now in great part perished. The feeling of gratitude could no more survive than the feeling of dependence on the part of the latter after feuds became hereditary. A species of superstition, indeed, and a sense of honor, which in some degree supplied the place of what was lost, were preserved by oaths and ceremonies, and the influence of habit and old opinion; but these were at the best only extraneous props; the self-sustaining strength of the edifice was gone. Thus it was the tendency of feudalism to decay and fall to pieces under the necessary development of its own principle. —Other causes, called into action by the progress of events, conspired to bring about the same result. The very military spirit which was fostered by the feudal institutions, and the wars, defensive and aggressive, which they were intended to supply the means of carrying on, led in course of time to the release of the vassal from the chief and most distinguishing of his original obligations, and thereby, it may be said, to the rupture of the strongest bond that had attached him to his lord. The feudal military army was at length found so inconvenient a force that soon after the accession of Henry II the personal service of vassals was dispensed with, and a pecuniary payment, under the name of escuage, accepted in its stead. From this time the vassal was no longer really the defender of his lord; he was no longer what he professed to be in his homage and his oath of fealty; and one effect of the change must have been still further to wear down what remained of the old impressiveness of these solemnities, and to reduce them nearer to mere dead forms. The acquisition by the crown of an army of subservient mercenaries, in exchange for its former inefficient and withal turbulent and unmanageable army of vassals, was in fact the discovery of a substitute for the main purpose of the feudal polity. Whatever nourished a new power in the commonwealth, also took sustenance and strength from this ancient power. Such must in especial degree have been the effect of the growth of towns, and of the new species of wealth, and, it may be added, the new manners and modes of thinking, created by trade and commerce. —The progress of subinfeudation has sometimes been represented as having upon the whole tended to weaken and loosen the fabric of feudalism. It "demolished," observes Blackstone (ii., 4), "the ancient simplicity of feuds; and an inroad being once made upon their constitution, it subjected them in a course of time to great varieties and innovations. Feuds began to be bought and sold, and deviations were made from the old fundamental rules of tenure and succession, which were held no longer sacred when the feuds themselves no longer continued to be purely military." But the practice of subinfeudation would rather seem to have been calculated to carry out the feudal principle, and to place the whole system on a broader and firmer basis. It would be more correct to ascribe the effects here spoken of to the prohibition against subinfeudation. The effect of this practice, it is true, was to deprive the lord of his forfeitures and escheats and the other advantages of his seigniory, and various attempts, therefore, were at length made to check or altogether prevent it, in which the crown and the tenants in chief, whose interests were most affected, may be supposed to have joined. One of the clauses of the great charter of Henry III. (the thirty-second) appears to be intended to restrict subinfeudation (although the meaning is not quite clear), and is expressly forbidden by the statute of Quia Emptores (the 18 Edw. I., c. 1). Subinfeudation was originally the only way in which the holder of a flef could alienate any part of his estate without the consent of his lord; and it therefore now became necessary to provide some other mode of effecting that object, for it seems to have been felt that after alienation had been allowed so long to go on under the guise of subinfeudation, to restrain it altogether would be no longer possible. The consequence was, that as a compensation for the prohibition of subinfeudation, the old prohibition against alienation was removed; lands were allowed to be alienated, but the purchaser or grantee did not hold them of the vendor or grantor, but held them exactly as the grantor did; and such is still the legal effect in England when a man parts with his entire interest in his lands. This change was effected by the statute of Quia Emptores with regard to all persons except immediate tenants of the crown, who were permitted to alienate on paying a fine to the king by the statute 1 Edw. III., c. 12. Thus at the same time that a practice strictly accordant to the spirit of feudalism, and eminently favorable to its conservation and extension, was stopped, another practice, altogether adverse to its fundamental principles, was introduced and established, that of allowing voluntary alienation by persons during their lifetime. —It was a consequence of feudal principles, that a man's lands could not be subjected to the claims of his creditors. This restraint upon what may be called involuntary alienation has been in a great degree removed by the successive enactments which have had for their object to make a man's lands liable for his debts; although, after a lapse of near six hundred years since the statute of Acton Burnell, the lands of a debtor are not yet completely subjected to the just demands of his creditors. This statute of Acton Burnell, passed 11 Edw. I. (1283), made the devisable burgages, or burgh tenements, of a debtor salable in discharge of his debts. By the statute of Merchant, passed 13 Edw. I. (1285), called statute 3, a debitor's lands might be delivered to his merchant creditor till his debt was wholly paid out of the profits. By the 18th chapter of the statute of Westminster the second, passed the same year, a moiety of a debtor's land (not copy-hold) was subjected to execution for debts or damages recovered by judgment. But the lands are not sold: the moiety of them is delivered by the sheriff to him who has recovered by judgment, to occupy them till his debt or damages are satisfied. Finally, by the several modern statutes of bankruptcy, the whole of a bankrupt debtor's lands have become absolutely salable for the payment of his debts. Further, by a recent act (3 and 4 Wm. IV., c. 104), all a deceased person's estate in land, of whatever kind, not charged by his will with the payment of his debts, whether he was a trader within the bankrupt laws or not, constitutes assets, to be administered in equity, for the payment of debts, both those on specialty and those on simple contract. —An attempt had early been made to restore in part the old restraints upon voluntary alienation by the statute 13 Edw. I., c. 1, entitled "De Donis Condition-alibus," which had for its object to enable any owner of an estate, by his own disposition, to secure its descent in perpetuity in a particular line. So far as the statute went, it was an effort to strengthen the declining power of feudalism. The effect was to create what were called estates tail, and to free the tenant in tail from many liabilities of his ancestor to which he would be subject if he were seized of the same lands in fee simple. The power which was thus conferred upon landholders of preventing the alienation of their lands remained in full force for nearly two centuries, till at last, in the reign of Edward IV., by the decision of the courts (A. D. 1472), the practice of barring estates tail by a common recovery was completely established. —The practice of conveying estates by fine, which was of great antiquity in England, and the origin of which is by some referred to the time of Stephen or Henry II, was regulated by various statutes (among others, particularly by the 4 Henry VII), and contributed materially to facilitate the transfer of lands in general, but more particularly (as regulated by the statute just mentioned) to bar estates tail. By a statute passed in the 32 Henry VIII., c. 28, tenants in tail were enabled to make leases for three lives or twenty-one years, which should bind their issue. The 26 Hen VIII., c. 13, also had declared all estates of inheritance, in use or possession, to be forfeited to the king upon conviction of high treason, and thus destroyed one of the strongest inducements to the tying up of estates in tail, which hitherto had only been forfeitable for treason during the life of the tenant in tail—Another mode by which the feudal restraints upon voluntary alienation came at length to be extensively evaded, was the practice introduced, probably about the end of the reign of Edward III., of granting lands to persons to uses, as it was termed; that is the new owner of the land received it not for his own use, but on the understanding and confidence that he would hold the land for such persons and for such purposes as the grantor then named or might at any time afterward name. Thus an estate in land became divided into two parts, one of which was the legal ownership, and the other the right to the profits or the use; and this use could be transferred by a man's last will at a time when the land itself, being still bound in the fetters of feudal restraint, could not be transferred by will, except where it was devisable, as in Kent and some other parts of England, by special custom. The person who thus obtained the use or profits of the estate—the cestut que use, as he is called in law—was finally converted into the actual owner of the land to the same amount of interest as he had in the use (A. D. 1535) by the statute of Uses (the 27 Hen. VIII., c. 10), and thus the power of devising land which had been enjoyed by the mode of uses was taken away. But this important element in the feudal system, the restraint on the disposition of lands by will, could no longer be maintained consistently with the habits and opinions then established, and accordingly, by stat. 23 Hen. VIII. (which was afterward explained by the stat. 34 Hen. VIII.), all persons were allowed to dispose of their freehold lands held in fee simple by a will in writing, subject to certain restrictions as to lands held by knight service either of the king or any other, which restrictions were removed by the stat. 12 Chas. II., c. 24, which abolished military tenures. —Notwithstanding these successive assaults upon certain parts of the ancient feudalism, the main body of the edifice still remained almost entire. It is said that the subject of the abolition of military tenures was brought before the parliament in the 18th of James I., on the king's recommendation, but at that time nothing was done in the matter. When the civil war broke out in 1641, the profits of marriage, wardship, and of most of the other old feudal prerogatives of the crown, were for some time still collected by the parliament, as they had formerly been by the king. The fabric of the feudal system in England, however, was eventually shattered by the storm of the great rebellion. The court of wards was in effect discontinued from 1645. The restoration of the king could not restore what had thus been in practice swept away. By the above mentioned statute, 12 Car. II., c. 24, it was accordingly enacted that from the year 1645 the court of wards and liveries, and all wardships, liveries, primer-seizins, values, forfeitures of marriage, etc., by reason of any tenure of the king's majesty, or of any other by knights' tenures should be taken away and discharged, together with all fines for alienations, tenure by homage, escuage, aids pur filz marrier and pur fair fitz chevalier, etc.; and all tenures of any honors, manors, lands, tenements or hereditaments, or any estate of inheritance at the common law held either by the king or of any other person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, were turned into free and common soccage, to all intents and purposes. By the same statute every father was empowered by deed or will executed in the presence of two witnesses, to appoint persons to have the guardianship of his infant and unmarried children, and to have the custody and management of their property. It was not till after the lapse of nearly another century that the tenures and other institutions of feudalism were put an end to in Scotland by the statutes, passed after the rebellion, of the 20 Geo. II., c. 43, entitled "An act for abolishing heritable jurisdictions;" and the 20 Geo. II., c. 50, entitled "An act for taking away the tenure of ward-holding in Scotland, for giving to heirs and successors a summary process against superiors, and for ascertaining the services of all tenants, etc." Nor have estates tail in Scotland yet been relieved from the strictest fetters of a destination in perpetuity, either by the invention of common recoveries, or by levying a fine, or by any legislative enactment. —We have enumerated the principal statutes which may be considered as having broken in upon the integrity of the feudal system, considered in reference to the power which the tenant of land can now exercise over it, and the right which others can enforce against him in respect of his property in it. But the system of tenures still exists. The statute of Charles II. only abolished military tenures and such parts of the feudal system as had become generally intolerable; but all lands in the kingdom are still held either by soccage tenure, into which military tenures were changed, or else by the respective tenures of frankalmoigne, grand serjeanty and copyhold, which were not affected by the statute. —Some of the consequences of tenures as they at present subsist, can not be more simply exemplified than by the rules as to the forfeiture and escheat of lands, both of which, however, have undergone modifications since the statute of Charies II. —To attain a comprehensive and exact view of the present tenures of landed property in England and thier incidents and consequences, it would be necessary for the reader to enter upon a course of study more laborious and extensive than is consistent with pursuits not strictly legal. —The notions of loyalty, of honor, of nobility and of the importance, socially and politically, of landed over other property, are the most striking of the feelings which may be considered to have taken their birth from the feudal system. These notions are opposed to the tendency of the commercial and manufacturing spirit, which has been the great moving power of the world since the decline of strict feudalism; but that power has not yet been able to destroy, or perhaps even very materially to weaken, the opinions above mentioned in the minds of the mass. —We are not, however, to pass judgment upon feudalism, as the originating and shaping principle of a particular form into which human society has run, simply according to our estimate of the value of these its relics at the present day. The true question is, if this particular organization had not been given to European society after the dissolution of the ancient civilization, what other order of things would in all likelihood have arisen, a better or a worse than that which did result? —As for the state of society during the actual prevalence of the feudal system, it was, without doubt, in many respects exceedingly defective and barbarous. But the system, with all its imperfections, still combined the two essential qualities of being both a system of stability and a system of progression. It did not fall to pieces, neither did it stand still. Notwithstanding all its rudeness, it was, what every right system of polity is, at once conservative and productive. And perhaps it is to be most fairly appreciated by being considered, not in what it actually was, but in what it preserved from destruction, and in what it has produced. —The earliest published compilation of feudal law was a collection of rules and opinions supposed to have been made by two lawyers of Lombardy, Obertus of Otto and Gerardus Niger, by order of the emperor Frederic Barbarossa. It appeared at Milan about the year 1170, and immediately became the great text-book of this branch of the law in all the schools and universities, and even a sort of authority in the courts. It is divided in some editions into three, in others into five books, and is commonly entitleld the "Libri Feudorum"; the old writers, however, are wont to quote it simply as the Textus, or Text. But the great sources of the feudal law are the ancient codes of the several Germanic nations; the capitularies or collections of edicts of Charlemagne and his successors; and the various coutumiers or collections of the old customs of the different provinces of France.The laws of the Visigoths, of the Burgundians, the Salic law, the laws of the Alemanni, of the Baiuvarii, of the Ripuarii, of the Saxòns, of the Anglii, of the Werini, of the Frisians, of the Lombards, etc., have been published by Lindenbrogius in his Codex Legum Antiquarum, fol. Francof., 1613. The best editions of the capitularies are that by Baluze, in 2 vols. fol, Paris, 1677, and that by Chiniac, of which, however, we believe only the first two volumes have appeared, Paris. fol., 1780. Richebourg's Nouveau Coutumier Général, 4 vols. fol., Paris. 1724, is a complete collection of the contumiers, all of which, however, have also been published separately. All these old laws and codes, as well as the Milan text-book, have been made the subject of voluminous commentaries. BOHN. FICTIONSFICTIONS, in Law and in Political Economy. The part which fictions have played in the history of human society and of political science and thought, is one of the most instructive phenomena that sociology can investigate. They have had a large share in determining not only the political ideas, but the political and legal rights of mankind. It is needless to say we do not refer to fictions in the common meaning of the word as denoting mere fabrications in the sense of falsehoods, nor yet to the fictitious creations of the novelist's imagination. The fictions we have in view may be classed as legal, political and philosophical; some of them, in different aspects, coming under all three heads. Sir Henry Maine, in his work on Ancient Law, has drawn attention to the vast influence which fictions have exercised over the development of society, as affording a means of introducing change and reform into law without breaking with the past and its traditions and solemn forms. But for one of these fictions, one older than positive law in the strict sense of the word, but which fills conspicuous place in the most famous of all legal systems, few early communities could have survived. The disasters and perils surrounding them—war, pillage, famine, fire, disease—were such that families were often left without male heirs, clans without chiefs of the true blood. The sons were slain in battle, or perished early from the hardships to which childhood was exposed, or were taken captive and passed into slavery, or fell victims to the maladies which ravaged the human race in its infancy. Households were thus left without their natural protectors, and, what was deemed a graver evil, without successors to perform the rites of ancestry worship, and to leave male heirs in their turn to perpetuate it. The fiction of adoption whereby a stranger was admitted to the place of a son, with all his rights and obligations, gave the family a defender and head, and preserved its name and honor among the living. As society advanced, the forms of adoption were applied to other ends, as, for instance, to effect the alienation of land by gift and sale. The ancient testament was at first a species of adoption, or of the nomination of a successor to the headship of the family and the administration of its patrimony; and at length was made use of to effect the disinheritance of the natural heir. The civil law of Rome, and the common law of England, were for centuries developed mainly by means of the fiction of a religious adherence to the letter and form of the law, while in substance it was radically changed by novel interpretations. The state of thought which this mode of law reform indicates is especially remarkable. There is the most scrupulous adherence to the outward forms and literal text of the law, while there is no scruple in subverting it in spirit. There can be little doubt that the explanation is to be looked for in the original connection of law with religion, and the consequent sacredness of legal ceremonies and formulas as religious rites and observances. Herbert Spencer says that government and law, were originally, nothing but ceremony. A third term is however necessary to explain their connection. Law was originally religion: religion consisted in forms, obeisances and ceremonies; and law, accordingly, was in the main a mass of ceremonial observances. The idea of the sacred and inviolate character of the form and letter survived after its origin in religion had been forgotten. No change in the ancient order of procedure was permitted, but whatever it could be interpreted to cover was lawful and right. There is no reason to suppose that either the Roman jurisconsults or the English judges were exempt from a reverential regard for the regular procedure and literal terms of the old law, when superseding it in substance, and even when triumphing in the ingenuity by which the change was effected. —No more curious instance of the length to which legal fictions have been pushed can be cited, than that of the collusive action, called a common recovery, whereby in the reign of Edward IV, the owner for life of an entailed estate was enabled to set aside the statute De Donis, and to alienate the land from the heir. Many reasons concurred to make the barring of entails appear expedient at that epoch. The crown and its lawyers were desirous of making the inheritance and not the life estate only, forfeitable for treason. The ancient principles of the common law, derived by the early judges in a great measure from the Roman jurists, inclined the courts to favor the free disposition of landed property. The courts of law, moreover, were engaged in a fierce struggle with the court of chancery for jurisdiction, and were seeking to extend their powers and remedies, and to attract suitors by fictions, such as the actions of ejectment and common recovery. The expenses attending the war of the roses, and their own extravagant habits, had embarrassed many landed proprietors, and made them anxious to sell; while a middle class in both town and country had become wealthy and were anxious to buy. The judges and great lawyers were themselves great buyers of land and liked to see it brought into the market. But along with all these reasons for sanctioning the fictitious process whereby lands were disentailed, there was a survival in the breasts of the judges of a feeling of the efficiency of the ancient form and letter of the law. For while the transaction would have been held invalid, had a single ceremony or formula been omitted or changed, a close adherence to ancient precedent in outward procedure was allowed to subvert a fundamental enactment respecting inheritance. But a time was sure to come, when a fiction such as that of the common recovery would be intolerable both to public opinion and to that of the legal profession, even for the most expedient and beneficial reform. The intellect of an advanced age revolts against a solemn judicial juggle, as an indecent abuse and usurpation of legislative power. —Among legal fictions, though of a different kind from the foregoing, may be classed the forged compilations of law of which the middle ages were so fertile. A remarkable instance is that of Andrew Horn's Miroir des Justices, which was lauded by Lord Coke and is still not unfrequently cited by English legal writers, as a valuable and trustworthy repertory of Anglo-Saxon law. Horn was no lawyer, being a fishmonger by occupation, and a chamberlain to the city of London, who lived in the reigns of the three Edwards, and whose compilation is a crude mixture of tradition, fable, and the laws of his own time. Hallam's just sentence on the Mirror for its fictions and forgeries has not deprived it, down to the present day, of authority in the estimation of authors of some reputation even in Germany. —Among both political and legal fictions we must class the venerable British constitution, which is still in many respects, in outward form, a pure monarchy, while in fact it is a republic, and rapidly becoming a very democratic one. The royal sanction is still given to a statute in terms which sound like the maxim of imperial law, Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem, though the British sovereign has really a less voice in legislation than the humblest elector. —Of the mixed philosophical and political fiction, the doctrine of the social compact, as the foundation of the authority of government and law, affords an example, which was made especially memorable when the two houses of the English parliament put it forward as the ground of the deposition of James II. The commons resolved that King James, having endeavored to subvert the constitution by breaking the original compact between king and people, and having withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, had abdicated the government and that the throne was thereby vacant. The house of lords, for their part, also framed a resolution that there was an original contract between the king and the people. It may well seem to modern ideas that no such fiction was necessary to justify the deposition of such a sovereign yet Hallam's comment on the resolution is, that it involved "a proposition necessary at that time as denying the divine origin of monarchy, from which its claim to absolute indefeasible authority had been plausibly derived." —A still more famous fiction and one that may claim to be termed at once legal, political and philosophical, is that of a law of nature, from which flow a number of both political and legal rights. This fiction, the origin of which has been traced by Sir Henry Maine to a mixed Greek and Roman source, contributed much to bring about the French resolution, and the ideas of natural liberty and equality which then spread through the world. It is curious that it has lent its support to opposite conceptions of rights in different countries. In France children are supposed to have a natural right to equal shares in their parents' property. In England an unrestricted testamentary power, whereby the succession of any or all of the children may be defeated is supposed to be a natural right, and has been so denominated by learned writers on jurisprudence. The whole class of so-called natural rights for example, to life, liberty, property, reputation exist only by the sanction of the state and positive law; and they are set aside by the state without scruple when public policy demands it, as, for instance, when it becomes necessary to make citizens fight for their country. As democracy advances less and less regard is now paid to individual "rights" of this sort. It is to an aristocratic legislature that rights of property and independence seem most sacred and founded in natural justice, instead of in simple expediency. Yet the conception that they have a foundation in a law of nature, fictitious as such a basis is, will probably long continue to give effective aid to the opponents of socialism. —Political economy undoubtedly owed not only its first successes but much of its form in a great measure to the popularity of the doctrine of a code of natural law. Adam Smith drew from it the doctrines in the Wealth of Nations of the "natural system of liberty" by which the province of the state was bounded; of the beneficent tendency of the "natural effort of every man to better his condition," of "the natural order of opulence," and of "natural wages, profit, prices and rent." —It would not be too much to say that the domain of fiction in human philosophy once far exceeded that of truth, based on inductive investigation and positive evidence. At the same time it would be rash to assert that fiction has not played in several departments of thought a beneficent part. The doctrine of natural rights has without doubt done much for the prosperity and happiness of mankind. —But the sphere of fiction must steadily diminish as that of inductive and positive science advances and as man's mind itself becomes stronger, clearer and more discerning. Dr. Whewell, in tracing the slow progress of former ages in the physical sciences to the indistinctness and inappropriateness of human ideas on such subjects, laid himself open to the retort that this imperfection of human thought in matters of science was the very thing to be accounted for. Yet there is a sense in which the disciple of Herbert Spencer may accept Dr. Whewell's proposition. In the infancy of the human race the brain of man is small and soft and feeble. It grows larger and more vigorous by exercise, and its increased powers are transmitted to each successive generation to receive further enlargement. Truth advances, and the clouds of fiction recede, not merely because discoveries are made and errors refuted, but because man's cerebral vigor and activity grow, and the faculties by means of which science and philosophy make progress gain strength, in a manner which will become clear to any one who compares the brain of a savage with that of a civilized and educated man. T. E. CLIFFE LESLIE. FILIBUSTERSFILIBUSTERS (INU. S. HISTORY), a name borrowed from the West Indian freebooters of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the "buccaneers," or "filibusters." In its modern sense it was applied to associations originating in the United States for the ostensible purpose of freeing Cuba and other West Indian or Central American districts from European control or from military dictatorship, but with the ultimate object of annexing them to the United States. Such unauthorized private interventions in the affairs of a foreign state have been common in the history of other nations, and have frequently been followed by the public force of the state, when the private intervention had truly represented public sentiment: instances may be found in abundance in the dealings of Great Britain with Spain, the South American republics, Greece, and Italy, of France with the revolted British colonies in North America, and of Russia with Turkey. The peculiar stigma upon the American filibustering expeditions was, that they were undertaken not for the public welfare, or from generous motives, but for the extension of the area of slavery. —The acquisition of Texas (see ANNEXATIONS, III.) was really a great and most successful filibustering expedition. Its success stimulated similar efforts in other directions. In December, 1850, Lopez, a Cuban, with a number of associates, including Gov. Quitman, of Mississippi, was arrested for a violation of the neutrality law of 1818; but nothing could be proved against them, and they were released. Early in August, 1851, with 500 men, Lopez sailed from New Orleans and landed in Cuba; but the Spanish authorities routed his forces, executed the leaders Aug. 16, and imprisoned the rest. It was evident that Spain was too strongly entrenched in Cuba to be disturbed by private effort, and subsequent movements in its direction were mainly confined to governmental action. (SeeOSTEND MANIFESTO.) Nevertheless private preparations did not wholly cease, though they never again came strongly to the surface; but President Pierce probably ended them by his proclamation of May 31, 1854, warning all good citizens against taking any part in them. —Mexico and Cuba being too strong, and other West Indian islands of too small value to make filibustering profitable, there remained only the states of Central America. May 4, 1835, Gen. William Walker (the "gray-eyed man of destiny"), with a Californian company, sailed on a filibustering expedition to Central America. In the latter part of August he effected a landing at San Juan del Sur. on the Pacific coast of Nicaragua. He defeated the government troops captured Granada, the capital, in October, and tried by court martial and condemned to death his principal opponents. He was elected president, but withdrew in favor of Rivas, a native Nicaraguan: and the new government was recognized by the American minister. It proceeded to re-establish slavery and invite immigration from the southern states, but Walker quarreled with his native associates, the other Central American states combined against him, and in April, 1857, he surrendered to an American naval officer, and was conveyed to the United States. He immediately organized another expedition at New Orleans, landed at Punta Arenas, Nov. 25, and was seized and brought to New York by Com. Paulding, of the United States navy. He was released and fitted out a new expedition from New Orleans, Oct. 7, 1858, but was stopped by the federal authorities. Again released, he organized his fourth and last expedition and lauded at Truxillo, in Honduras, June 27, 1860. The president of Honduras, with an overwhelming force, routed and captured him, Sept. 3, tried him by court martial and shot him. His death, and still more the civil war in the United States which began soon afterward, ended filibustering. —See 5 Stryker's American Register. 179; 14 Whig Review, 353; 2 Wilson's Rise and Fall of the Slave Power. 608; 1 Greeley's American Conflict, 270, 276; 3 Spencer's United States. 516; President's Message, Jan. 7, 1858; Atlantic Monthly, 1859-60 (Art. "With Walker in Nicaragua") ALEXANDER JOHNSTON. FILIBUSTERINGFILIBUSTERING. (See PARLIAMENTARY LAW.) FILLMOREFILLMORE, Millard, president of the United States 1850-8, was born in Cayuga county, N. Y., Jan. 7, 1800 and died at Buffalo, N. Y., March 8, 1874. He was admitted to the bar in 1828, was a whig representative from New York 1833-5 and 1837-43, was elected vice-president in 1848, and became president on the death of Taylor. In 1856 he was nominated for the presidency by the American party("know nothings"), but was defeated. (See ANTI-MASONRY, I.; WHIG PARTY; AMERICAN PARTY.) —See Barre's Life of Fillmore; Savage's Representative Men, 260: Abbott'sLives of the presidents. A. J. FINANCEFINANCE, American. The history of American finance is not less unique than the other sides of American history. The subject may be divided into four periods: the colonial; the revolutionary; the first seventy years of peace under the present constitution, extending from 1789 to 1860; and the period of the civil war, ending with the refunding operations of 1881. —THE COLONIAL PERIOD. The financial history of this period is very instructive, for it is replete with financial experiments. Each of the thirteen colonies directed its own affairs; though often one colony followed the methods of another. Massachusetts took the lead in paper-money experiments and banking, and her example in the former regard was followed by all the others. —Trade or exchange was needful in the very beginning of colonial existence, and this was accomplished by barter. In New England the aborigines used a money made of shells, called wampum, peag, or wampumpeag, which the colonists adopted and employed among themselves and with the Indians. After a time it became over-abundant, depreciated, and was abolished about 1650. Silver was also used, though usually it was very scarce, and for a long time exchanges were most frequently made in peltry, especially the beaver, in the northern colonies, and tobacco and rice in the southern. It must be noted, however, that exchanges were often made in other products, while the wampum, though more generally employed in the New England colonies than elsewhere, was not wholly confined to them. The specie in the colonies came from Europe along with the immigrants, and from trade with the West Indies. To the latter ports the colonists first shipped peltry, fish and lumber, and afterward pipe-staves, hoops, beef, pork, peas, fat cattle, horses, etc., and brought back, besides silver and bills of exchange, manufactured goods, sugar, molasses, cotton wool and ram. At a later period the specie thus flowing into the country was sent to England to pay for importations from that quarter. —In each colony taxation was necessary to support the government therein existing. These were laid and collected in various ways. For many years after the colonial governments were founded, there was not enough gold or silver to be found in them to pay the taxes. It was necessary, therefore, to use other things. In the northern colonies beaver skins, wheat, rye, oats, Indian corn, peas, flax, wool, beef, pork, live stock, bullets, codfish and other articles were taken. In the southern, most of these were also accepted, besides tobacco, rice, beeswax and tallow. Storehouses were maintained in which the tax gatherers deposited the public property until it should be wanted or could be sold or exchanged. Taxes were paid in this mode until the issue of paper money; and in some instances afterward, when the supply of paper money became scarce. —The prices of the articles thus taken were fixed from time to time by the courts or colonial assemblies; and were usually rated much higher than they were worth. By thus fixing the prices of the selected commodities above their true value, they became, so far as this could be done by governmental action, the exclusive currency, and threw out of use the little coin there was in the country. In other words, they destroyed the market for it, and drove it to other lands. Badly as the colonists needed specie, they adopted the worst policy possible to get it; or to retain even what they had. —The systems of taxation varied greatly in the colonies. In South Carolina, for example, all the revenue that was needed for a considerable period was raised by a tax on imports, in most of the colonies, however, real and personal estate was taxed, an a poll tax also was levied. In Maryland, in 1639, a tax was levied wholly on "personal estates" which was applied in defraying the expense of an expedition against the Indians. In Virginia at one time the colonial resources consisted first of parish levies, "commonly managed by sly cheating fellows, that combine to cheat the public." Secondly, public levies raised by act of the assembly, both derived from tithables or working hands. The cost of collecting this part of the revenue was estimated at not less than 20 percent. Thirdly, a tax on exported tobacco, together with tonnage duties. Maryland, too, levied a tax on the export of tobacco, pork, pitch and flax which the colonists had to pay. The system of taxation adopted by that colony was perhaps the least politic and wise of any of the colonial systems. Immigration was taxed when no need was greater than that of settlers. English rum was admitted free, but that from Pennsylvania was taxed nine pence per gallon. —Like older nations, the colonies could not escape contracting debts beyond their immediate ability to pay. These were created in consequence of the wars with the French and Indians. To meet the expenses thus incurred, paper money was issued. Massachusetts invented the system in 1690. She had just come out of war with Canada, which had proved as disastrous to her arms as to her treasury. The troops returned unexpectedly to Boston, and the colony had no money to pay them. There was no time to collect it by tax, and it could not be borrowed. The colony had made no provision for paying them, expecting that the enterprise would be successful, and that the soldiers would get their reward by plunder. In this emergency the general court, "desirous," as they say, "to prove themselves just and honest," and considering the "scarcity of money and the want of an adequate measure of commerce," authorized a committee to issue, forthwith, in the name of the colony, £7,000, in bills of credit, from two shillings to five pounds each. The following is a copy of one of the bills: No.(916) 20 s This indented Bill of Twenty Shillings due from the Massachusetts Colony to the Possessor shall be in value equal to money, and shall be accordingly accepted by the Treasurer and Receivers subordinate to him in all Public payts, and to any stock at any time in the Treasury, Boston, in New England, February the third, 1690. By order of the General court.  The bills were, in truth, treasury notes, payable by a tax, and receivable for treasury dues. At the outset they were not favorably received, and would command neither money nor goods at money prices. The soldiers lost heavily, for they were not able to sell these notes for more than twelve or fourteen shillings in the pound. But two years afterward an order was issued declaring that they should pass current within the province in all payments equivalent to money, and in all public payments at 3 percent advance. Thus they were made a lawful tender, for their face, in private transactions, and were received by the treasurer, in whatever payment, at 5 percent premium. They were to be redeemed in a year. The object of this action was to prevent their depreciation; and for twenty years it had this effect. The demand for the bills, when the tax became due, made them worth more than hard money, because a 5 per cent, bonus was attached to them. An order was passed that no more than £40,000 should be emitted, but like most limitations of the kind since established, the order was disregarded. The "scarcity of money" was a constant cry and every additional issue whetted the appetite for more. The whole amount emitted during the first twelve years, including the re-emissions, exceeded £110,000. At the end of that time Hutchinson says that they were as good as silver, and not until 1710 did they much depreciate. —Of all the colonies South Carolina tested the magical powers of paper money the most thoroughly. It was first issued there after the unsuccessful expedition against St. Augustine in 1703, "following the example of many great and rich countries, who have helpt themselves in their exigencies with funds of credit, which have fully answered the ends of money". The amount put forth was £6,000, which bore 12 per cent interest. To offer them in payment was a legal tender, and if the creditor refused to receive them he lost his debt. "But such refusal never occurred, for the paper was boarded for the sake of the interest." Several thousand pounds more were subsequently stamped, not bearing interest, and were exchanged for the "old currency" in order to get the bills into circulation and to remove the heavy burden of interest." Notwithstanding this change, the bills remained at par, until the subsequent issue of very large amounts caused their depreciation." —Nine years later, in 1712, South Carolina tried another experiment in issuing paper money. This was the establishment of a public bank, which issued £48,000, called bank bills, to meet the requirements of commerce and of the government. This was lent on landed or personal security for a year, the colony promising to pay gradually (£4,000 annually) until the entire amount was redeemed. By this method the government gained the interest, and the community the benefit of the circulation. The plan was very successfully executed in Pennsylvania, but not equally so in any other colony. —In Georgia the trustees who managed the colony sent over considerable sums of silver and minor coins to form a currency. Yet the dearth of money was so great, notwithstanding the inflow of the paper circulation of South Carolina, that the trustees sent "sola bills." or bills of exchange, which were promptly paid when they fell due, and their credit was maintained to the end. —The mode of redeeming paper money was the same in all the colonies, namely, by taxation. In some of them it was redeemed more punctually than in others; too often they were very slow in laying taxes for that purpose. In South Carolina especially, the debtor class, having discovered the advantages of debasing the circulation and swelling prices, loudly clamored for further issues of paper money as the easiest method of discharging their debts. Sooner or later it depreciated everywhere, and heavy losses were sustained. The following distich, though not remarkable for poetic excellence, tells a true tale of the time: "The country maids with sauce to market come, Whenever it was not issued in such amounts as to create a disinclination to pay it, or belief that it would not be paid paper money retained its face value, although there was no specie in the treasury for redeeming it. It is also true that when the colonies issued so much that distrust of the public obligation to pay it sprung up, it depreciated. —Measures were taken by the English government to prevent the issuing of so much paper money, because it was harmful to the colonies and to trade with Great Britain. But these measures were often suspended, or winked at and so nearly all the colonies continued to employ it until they ceased to be such, and indeed for several years afterward. —With so much paper money afloat, of varying kinds and values; with the limitation of prices by a law which were rarely correct; with the payment of taxes in kind, and with the use of tobacco, rice, skins and other things as money, besides silver imported from England, the West Indies and other places, one will easily perceive in what uncertainty and confusion was this entire subject of money, how difficult was trade, how great the risk of making contracts payable at a future day both for the debtor and the creditor. To remedy the evil some-what, a proclamation was issued by Queen Anne in 1704, fixing the value of the various kinds of silver coins then circulating in the colonies. This furnished some relief, but could not remove all the evils attending the use of such a heterogeneous currency, so singularly ill regulated by law and custom. —In respect to the banking institutions of this period these have been considered elsewhere, and therefore but little need be said here. (see BANKING IN THE UNITED STATES.) It may be added, however, that nearly thirty years before the establishment of Colman's bank, "our fathers, "so says a rare tract published in 1714,"entered into a partnership to circulate their notes, founded on land security, stamped on a paper, as our Province bills, which gave no offense to the government then and at that time, when the prerogative of the Crown was extended further than ever has been since." —Only one other topic remains to complete our account of the colonial finances—that of the coinage. Two mints were established, one in Massachusetts in 1651, and the other in Maryland nine years afterward. The Virginia colonists, finding that glass beads were a better article of traffic with the natives than either dollars or guineas, in 1621 had erected a manufactory for them, "as a mint for the coinage of a current medium of commerce with the Indians." The Massachusetts "mint house" was established in Boston, and though illegal, it existed for more than thirty years. To conceal its business, all the coins were dated 1632. The mint master, John Hull, coined by contract, and grew very rich from the business! The charge fir coining was 5 per cent. The coins reached Connecticut and the other New England colonies, but did not circulate beyond them as money. —In Maryland the silver money was struck nine pence to a shilling, and the year after the mint began operations, in 1662,"the people were ordered to buy ten shillings per poll of this sophisticated coin and pay for it in good casked tobacco, at two shillings per pound. "This was a hard measure truly, and was repealed in 1676; but it was only the first of a long series of arbitrary acts relating to the monetary circulation, "one of the most fruitful sources," says Maryland's latest historian, "in every people, of discontent, extravagance and crime." —THE REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD. When the colonies determined to become their own masters, the step seemed bolder from the lack of pecuniary means than from the want of soldiers and munitions of war. At the time this daring determination was reached, perhaps there were not more than $6,000,000 in hard money in all the colonies. Of course no estimate can be exact, but this is the belief of those who have studied the matter well. The colonies had just concluded an exhaustive war on the northern frontier, and were poorly prepared for the conflict with Great Britain. —The first, and indeed only, source of revenue to carry on the war for a considerable period was paper money. All the colonies, as we have seen, at some time or other of their existence had issued it, and were well acquainted with its virtues and its defects. It has been maintained that this was a very poor way for the continental; congress to raise money "but it may be asked, what other expedient could have been adopted? In the first place, the congress which had declared the independence of the colonies was composed of delegates having no clearly defined authority. Each colony had sent two or more delegates with instructions which they had no right to exceed or disregard. Congress, therefore, had no inherent authority, and the powers of the delegates were not uniform. It is singular that a body possessing so little power, and deriving that little in such a peculiar way, should have achieved so much. It is true that the action of congress was often weak and vacillating; but no chart existed, the members were obliged to feel their way, and to take good care never to run too strongly against the will of the people. The lack of inherent power prevented that body from legislating more wisely than they did on more than one occasion. They dared not tax the people in the beginning to raise means for waging war, fearing that they would denounce the act as a usurpation of power. Moreover such a step would have cooled the war fever. Nothing ever chills the desire to spend money, especially for the benefit of the public, so quickly as an immediate demand for it. Taxation, therefore, was highly inexpedient. As for borrowing, who would loan money to a dozen rebellious colonies? If they failed to achieve their independence, surely the borrower would get nothing; if they succeeded, they would probably to be exhausted to pay. In either event payment to lenders seemed hopeless. The issue of paper money, whether a wise expedient or not, was the only one which our fathers thought they could adopt. They saw no other resource. —Yet it must be admitted that the people and congress too, quite generally, were in favor of issuing paper money. Said a delegate during one of the debates on this subject: "Do you think, gentlemen, that I will consent to load my constituents with taxes, when we can send to our printer, and get wagon-load of money, one quire of which will pay for the whole?" Other members shared in this view. They all knew that a certain amount of paper money had been issued and circulated by every colony without causing a depreciation in its value; and they believed that congress could do the same thing. They had no intention, at first, of going beyond the safety line. —The first issue was for $2,000,000, and shortly afterward there was another issue of one-half that amount. Without long delay a third issue appeared, of $3,000,000 more. In about a year from the time the first issue was authorized, the bills began to depreciate. Some who had favored these issues were opposed to further ones, and urged congress to try the experiment of borrowing the money which was now afloat. But the need of funds was so great and no other way of getting them immediately seeming to be open, congress issued more. —The war was now raging with great earnestness. Independence had been declared, and all hope or desire of making an accommodation with Great Britain had faded away. Congress having become accustomed to issuing paper money, though seeing the evils, or some of them at least, which accompanied the issue of it, proceeded to increase the quantity. Congress could now do whatever was possible in the way of taxing the colonies, but again appeared the fatal weakness of that body. Congress had not the slightest shadow of power to tax anything. All that the members could do was to apportion taxes among the states, and recommend their payment. If the states had responded to this recommendation, the history of the issue of continental paper money would have been very different from what it was. But the truth is, the states had resisted British taxation so successfully that they were not much more inclined to pay taxes to congress than to the king. Paying taxes has never been done very cheerfully, and the colonists could not altogether understand why, if the object of the war was to escape the payment of them to Great Britain, they should be imposed by a different power. This view may seem to betoken ignorance, but it was entertained by not a few persons in those days. The states throughout the war responded very feebly to the call of congress for money. Some of them paid more than others, but rarely did any state pay the full amount requested. One excuse was, because the quotas assigned were unequal. The quotas were based on population, and not on property, and the numbering of the people had been nothing more than a crude estimate. New Hampshire complained that she had only 82,000 inhabitants instead of the higher estimate made by congress, and accordingly asked that the quota assigned to her be reduced. But the reply of congress was an unexpected as it was unanswerable. It was declared that the population of the other states might be as much smaller in proportion as that of New Hampshire, consequently it did not appear that any injustice had been done to her. Congress promised, too, that in the end the exact population of the states should be ascertained and that justice should be rendered to all. Unhappily this promise was not very faithfully kept. Congress continued to push out paper money until more than $200,000,000 were afloat, and then, having completely exhausted the fountain, other measures were devised. The exact amount issued has never been ascertained. Congress told the people that the amount should not exceed $200,000,000, but a much larger sum was forced out. —With such an enormous quantity afloat, nothing could keep it buoyant. But there were several causes which weighed it down. One of these was counterfeiting. The bills were executed in such a rough way, that counterfeiting was easy. The British government enraged in this ignoble business in order to destroy the value of the money. At one time a shipload of counterfeit paper money was sent over from England, but the vessel was lost on the way. A great many counterfeits were made in New York and other places in possession of the enemy, and pushed into the frightfully swollen stream of circulation. The severest laws were enacted against counterfeiting, but these proved ineffectual. The British ministry never imagined that, if by counterfeiting and other vile arts they should succeed in destroying paper money, the government would be better off, yet this was the case. When it sank out of sight, the government was relived from redeeming it. —Another cause contributing to the same end was the issue of paper money by the states. That put forth by congress would have fallen quickly enough had the states not issued any, but their action accelerated the downfall of the entire mass. Congress saw this and besought the states to stop issuing it, but this recommendation was not heeded much better than those for the payment of taxes. —One of the expedients recommended by congress for maintaining the value of paper money, was the enactment of laws by the states limiting or fixing the prices of commodities. This was an old expedient which had been attempted in the early history of the colonies. The price of labor was one of the first things which fell under legal regulation in the history of the Plymouth colony. This idea was now seized by congress and recommended to the states for their adoption. It was one of the many recommendations of that body with which the states cheerfully and promptly complied. The New England states met several times and fixed the prices of commodities, and passed the severest laws against those who should violate the limitations prescribed; but this attempt to regulate prices utterly failed; indeed, there was many a pure-minded but intelligent patriot who declared that the movement would prove useless before any legal action was taken. —The continental money was a legal tender, and the miseries suffered by the people in consequence of endowing it with this attribute form one of the saddest and most touching chapters in the history of this period. Thousands were reduced from affluence to poverty by receiving payment in depricated or worthless paper What was still worse, the national and individual conscience hardened; and the moral loss was far greater than that which could be reckoned by a money standard. —Nothing, however, is more certain than that if a paper money be issued and forced on the people they must pay the full price for it; depreciation is a loss which somebody must bear, from which there is no possible escape. The people of the revolution found this out in due time. Depreciation was a tax, and an enormous one, which they were obliged to pay. Every class of creditors was compelled to receive the bills; every person who took them lost while they were in his hands; however much the merchant might charge for his goods to cover prospective depreciation, he was often caught in taking money which he could pay out except at a heavier discount than he had expected to pay; and thus everywhere, and among all classes, depreciation was a heavy and uncertain tax which all were compelled to bear. It was one of the most pernicious taxes to trade and morals that could have been devised. —When the continental issues became worthless, congress tried one other experiment with it deserving of brief mention. A new issue was put forth based on the credit of the states at a discount of forty dollars of the old emission for one of the new. In this way congress hoped to retire the former issues. Only a small amount of these new bills were put afloat. The people had grown tired of this kind of money and wanted no more in any form. —When the printing press was stopped, congress resorted to demands for specific supplies from the states. They were asked to contribute food, clothing, munitions of war, etc, and to bring these supplies to certain places. The states were to be credited at prices fixed by persons appointed for that purpose. When this plan failed, the system of seizure was begun. Certificates were given to those from whom things were taken, specifying what they were. Thus congress and the officers of the government who were so careful about exercising power in 1775 had gone almost as far as it was possible to go in 1780. —Some funds were obtained by loans both at home and abroad, and these will now be described. The money borrowed at home consisted of the bills issued by congress and the states. At an early period of the war, loan offices were established in all the states, and the funds were solicited. But at the very outset congress made the great mistake of offering only 4 percent interest. The interest was to be paid on one kind of loans in specie, obtained from France; and on the other kind in paper money. The former loans were the most popular, and for a time the interest was duly paid is hard money. Nevertheless the total amount obtained in this way was not very large, and did not afford all the relief that congress desired. —The loans obtained from foreign countries, however, were of the greatest value. At first, Franco sent money and munitions of war secretly, not wishing to arouse the anger of Great Britain. The negotiations were conducted with Beaumarchais, who pretended to be a lover of our country and interested in furnishing us aid. Tobacco was to be sent in payment of the supplies furnished. Spain also advanced money secretly at the same time. When the alliance was formed with France in 1778, she no longer concealed her designs. Turgot stoutly opposed the policy of exciting the British lion, but Vergennes, the minister of state, disagreed with him, and the king was inclined to listen to the latter. Both the king and Vergennes were desirous of humiliating Great Britain, but Turgot was not willing to do this, especially at the heavy price which France must pay. Several loans were granted from time to time; France also guaranteed the payment of another to lenders in Holland. Other loans were obtained in the latter country chiefly through the influence of John Adams. Those in France were negotiated principally by Franklin. Spain was the best promiser and poorest performer of any of the European countries that furnished us assistance. "The Diplomatic Correspondence of the Revolution " published by Jared Sparks, contains a large number of letters giving a history of these foreign negotiations, and the trials of those who were sent to Spain to get funds from that country were very great. After all the abundant promises made by the Spanish government, but little more than $150,000 were borrowed. —Having now described how the means were raised to carry the country through the revolution, we must describe the financial machinery invented for administering the finances. Soon after the assembling of congress a "board of treasury" was formed, composed of five delegates, but afterward increased to fifteen, to whom was entrusted the transaction of the financial business of congress. A treasurer was appointed, who was not a delegate, and Michael Hillegas of Philadelphia served for several years in that capacity. An auditor and comptroller were appointed. Afterward two chambers of accounts were created, each chamber consisting of three commissioners besides the necessary clerks. The board was reconstructed several time. Two features were adopted in 1779; one of them was the abolition of the comptroller's office, and the other was the addition of three commissioners who were not members of congress. —At every period of its history the board proved to be very inefficient. Letters received requiring prompt attention were often neglected, whereby the public interests suffered. The accounts generally were very poorly kept. There was no head to the body; the majority of members were delegates to congress, and having duties to perform in that capacity, too often neglected the weightier matters relating to the financial administration of the country. —Finally, the work of the board was so poorly done that congress determined to entrust the administration of the finances to Robert Morris. He insisted, however, that full power should be given to him to remove all whom he thought unfit for their positions in the treasure office. Some delegates objected to clothing him with so much power. But the times were dark, and they finally yielded. Morris knew that the treasury officers were filled with incompetent servants. He knew that a reorganization must be made and without delay. Congress, however well inclined, would perform the task too slowly. Morris desired power not for the mere sake of having it, but in order to administer the finances with greater success. —While Morris remained superintendent of finance, a period of little more than three years, he accomplished great things. He was successful in borrowing considerable funds from abroad; and in abolishing the plan of getting supplies by seizure and specific requests. He founded a bank which contributed no slight aid to the government. (See BANKING IN THE U.S.). He was unceasing in his calls on the states for the taxes due by them. The books of the treasury were faithfully kept, and he displayed all the attention possible to every detail of his office. He was severely pressed for funds throughout his period of office, and when every other source failed, he did not hesitate to use his own individual credit, which always stood higher than that of the government. —After the war closed, congress grew more lethargic than ever, and the states were less inclined to support the government. The articles of confederation were ratified March 1, 1781, but these did not go far toward cementing the states together. Several attempts were made to induce them to yield their power of taxing imports to the confederation, but one or more states always objected, and no state was willing to part with the power unless all were. Rhode Island was the most strenuous objector. Morris exerted his utmost to induce the states to yield, but failed. —It was while Morris was at the head of the finances that congress first considered the subject of coinage. He sent an elaborate communication to congress, showing what unit ought to be adopted and tracing all the details relating to this delicate matter. Jefferson and Gouverneur Morris also contributed some valuable ideas. —After Morris resigned, the board of treasury was re-established, for there was no other man to whom congress would confide so much power. But the new board was not more efficient than the former one. They had less to do, for the war was ended, yet there was a vast debt hanging over the confederation, both foreign and domestic and a multitude of unsettled claims, the delay to settle which was embarrassing to many of the owners. But the less that congress and the board did in adjusting these matters, the more imperative became the stronger federal bond which should have the effect of uniting and awakening the energies of the people. Morris resigned early in 1784, and for the next five years chaos reigned in the treasury office. It became at length apparent to all that the work which the continental congress had begun, that body was utterly unable to finish. If creditors were to receive their dues, a new constitution must be formed giving greatly enlarged powers to the general government, especially in the way of providing a revenue to discharge past and future pecuniary obligations. —THE SEVENTY YEARS OF PEACE, from 1789 to 1860. With the adoption of the federal constitution a new chapter begins in the history of American finance. The first question that confronted congress related to the funding and payment of the revolutionary debt. The leaders of the republic felt that its destiny turned on the solution of that question. Soon after the first assembling of congress, Hamilton, the secretary of the treasury, was directed to consider the subject and make a report thereon at the second session of that body. —The debt was of two kinds, foreign and domestic. The foreign debt was due to three nations: Holland, France and Spain. The amount due to each of these countries was well known, and also the terms of payment and there was no difficulty concerning its liquidation, for no one thought of repudiating it. The action of the government, therefore, with regard to it was free from embarrassment. —Unhappily, the fact was otherwise with respect to the domestic debt. This was divided into three branches. One branch covered the expenditures incurred directly by the government. The evidences of it in the possession of creditors consisted principally of certificates of various kinds. In many cases the creditors had parted with them at varying sums much less than their face value. In providing for their payment two questions were raised. The first question was, ought the government to pay any more than the present holders had paid for them? and secondly, if the government ought to pay the full face value, should not the difference between that value and the sum paid by the assignee be paid to the assignor? Hamilton contended that the government ought to pay to the present holders the face value of the certificates without regard to the fact that some of them had been transferred from the original holders. Jefferson and Madison differed from him. The contention grew sharp but, in the end, the view taken by Hamilton and recommended in his report prevailed. —A second branch of the expenditures concerned the expenditures incurred directly by the states. Hamilton maintained that throughout the revolution congress had repeatedly promised to equalize the burdens of the states and to do justice to them, and that when they relinquished the right to impose taxes on imports, their richest source of revenue, it was with the expectation that the federal government would relieve them from the burdens they had borne in prosecuting the war for independence. The contest over this question was prolonged and bitter. The votes on various propositions relating to it were exceedingly close, and for a long time the final action of congress was regarded with grave doubt. The amount of these debts was supposed to be $25,000,000. Finally, congress agreed to assume an arbitrary amount, $21,500,000, apportioning this sum among the several states. Northern members generally were in favour of assumption; but those from the south were opposed to it. Hamilton succeeded in getting enough votes from the southern section to pass the measure by persuading northern members to consent to the location of the capital on the Potomac, instead of allowing it to remain at Philadelphia where the country very generally supposed it would be permanently located. Thus the national honor was saved and the capital located at Washington. —The third branch of expenditures consisted of sums advanced to the states by the continental congress, and by the states to that body. It was very difficult to determine the exact amount of these sums, and commissioners were appointed to consider what was due on the one side and other "according to the principles of general equity." —The first branch of the domestic debt was funded in the following manner: Interest at the rate of 6 per cent, was to be paid on two-thirds of the principal after 1790, and on the balance after 1800; and 3 per cent, interest was to be paid on the interest which had accumulated on this portion of the debt. The government was permitted to redeem 2 per cent, annually of the principal if it desired, and that portion bearing 3 per cent. Whenever it desired. —The state debts assumed were thus funded Four-ninths bore 6 per cent, interest beginning with the year 1792, three-ninths 3 per cent, interest beginning at the same time, and the remainder, two-ninths, bore interest at 6 per cent, after the year 1800. —In respect to the third branch, the debts between the states and the federal government were so adjusted that when the final account was made up it stood as follows:
The balances due to the creditor states were funded in the same manner as the second branch of the domestic debt. These are the main features of the domestic debt. These are the main features of the funding system, but there were several others which require too much space to be described. —Having funded the debt the next step was to provide for its payment. Of course the mode of paying interest was settled in the funding scheme, but not that of paying the debt itself. Prior to 1800 the provisions pertaining to the subject were somewhat complex and inadequate. Hamilton, whose financial genius has never been surpassed, had not discovered the fallacy of the sinking fund theory, for Robert Hamilton had not yet pricked the bubble which Walpole and some of his successors had so industriously blown. Commissioners had been appointed for receiving that portion of the public income obtained from taxes and loans which were set apart and delivered to them for discharging the interest and principal of the debt. But there was no fixed amount for discharging the principal. Another feature of this legislation was, that all the debt purchased or redeemed was considered as drawing interest just the same, which was paid to the commissioners to be applied by them in discharging more debt. —When Jefferson became president he chose Gallatin for secretary of the treasury. Another law was then passed determining the mode of reducing the debt. This provided that $7,300,000 should be set aside annually for that purpose. This was not a purely arbitrary sum, but was the amount needed for paying the interest and principal that might be discharged during the next two years. In 1803 Louisiana was purchased and $700,000 more were added to the sinking fund. —During the first ten years of the government the debt was not diminished. Several unusual events happened. The war with the Indians on the frontier, the insurrection in Pennsylvania where the collection of the internal revenue tax on whisky was resisted, the difficulty with the Barbary powers, the unprovoked aggressions of France and England-these events necessitated the expenditure of large amounts of money and prevented a reduction of the debt. With the opening of the century the last cloud disappeared, and without increasing the revenues though the mode of collecting them was considerably changed, rapid progress was made in paying the debt. It rose in value, so that the commissioners could not buy any except at a premium, which they had no right to offer. The sinking fund was larger than could always be applied toward discharging the public indebtedness. Gallatin, in order to place the debt more perfectly under the control of the government in respect to its payment, proposed that a certain portion of the debt on which annuities had been paid should be changed, if the holders consented, into paid-up stock for the balance due, payable at a fixed time, instead of discharging a portion of the principal annually Congress heeded the recommendation, and a considerable portion of the debt was changed into a new form. —The reduction of the debt continued until the second war with Great Britain, when there was a pause. During the first eleven years of the century $46,022,810 had been paid, and $45,154,189 still remained. Had the war not occurred, the remainder would have been paid in twelve years, but in consequence of that event it was not extinguished until 1834. —Gallatin's plan of finance at the opening of the war was very simple. He proposed that sufficient taxes should be laid to defray the expenses of the peace establishment, the interest on the old debt and the new one that should be contracted, and that the extraordinary expenses of the war should be paid from loans. The following loans were authorized by congress at the dates given: March 14, 1812, $11,000,000, Feb.8, 1813, $16,000,000; Aug. 2,1813, $7,500,000: March 24, 1814, $25,000,000; Nov. 15, 1814, $3,000,000; March 3, 1815. $18,452,800. Six per cent interest was paid on each loan. —Gallatin thought that, as our commerce for a time at least would be idle, banks and individuals would readily loan their money to the government, and so they did in the southern and middle states, but not in New England, for in that section the war was not popular. At first, individuals were inclined to loan their money quite freely, and when the subscriptions to the first loan were opened, Gallatin said that the amount was the largest ever offered to the government at 6 per cent, interest by individuals since the formation of the government. But after a few months the inclination of the people to subscribe weakened, and finally, in order to get funds, the government asked lenders on what terms they would make loans. They prescribed terms: and having thus prostrated itself before the feet of the money lenders, the government was obliged to stay there untill the close of the war. —The reason why the credit of the government sank so low was, because congress was unwilling to lay adequate taxes, such as the occasion imperatively demanded. The best fountain of revenue had dried away, yet congress hesitated to introduce a system of internal taxation, which should have been adopted at the outbreak of the war. Gallatin recommended its adoption in the beginning, but congress would not heed his advice. Had congress introduced a thorough system of taxation at the opening of the contest, instead of waiting until near the close, the sad story never would have been told which the committee of ways and means in 1830 did tell, that for the loans of $80,000,000 obtained by the government during this period they yielded only $34,000,000 after deducting discounts and depreciation. —Another expedient to which congress resorted during the war of 1812 was the issue of treasury notes. They were receivable for all dues to the government, but no individual was obliged to receive them. They were issued for a year, and bore interest, and were really a loan in anticipation of the taxes. The amount swelled until the close of the war. The amount then outstanding equaled the amount of the last loan authorized, the object of which was to get the means for discharging them. A portion was funded and others were paid for taxes and canceled. —The total debt contracted from the beginning of the war was $80,500,073,50. The sinking fund was increased to $10,000,000, and once more debt-paying began. Portions of it were extended from time to time at lower rates of interest, and one loan for $5,000,000, to pay awards under the Florida treaty, was obtained at 4½ per cent. The government was not able to pay $10,000,000 into the sinking fund every year, but, aggregating the amount paid, there was a compliance with the law. In 1834 the debt was extinguished. —Shortly afterward there was a surplus of more than $40,000,000 in the treasury, arising from the sale of public lands. Congress decided to deposit all except $5,000,000 with the states. The amount to be deposited was $37,468,819,97. One-quarter of the amount was to be paid every three months. When the first three-quarters had been paid, a financial tornado swept over the land, the banks keeping the government deposits failed, and the government suddenly found itself on the edge of bankruptcy. The merchants were unable to pay their bonds, and the treasury was reduced from a plethoric state to, utter emptiness. Congress was convened and the members voted to extend the time for merchants to pay their dues, and authorized the issue of treasury notes to defray the expenses of the government. The secretary of the treasury, Woodbury, urged congress to recall the deposits from the states, but the plea was not regarded with favour. It has never been repaid. Congress, however, repealed the law authorizing the payment of the fourth installment. —The worst of the crisis soon passed away, but every year the government authorized the issue of new treasury notes with which the old ones were redeemed. But the amount outstanding kept growing. A very uncomfortable feeling arose, that in a time of profound peace the government should not be able to pay its expenses. After the public debt was discharged, the expenses were greatly increased. New enterprises of great variety and requiring heavy outlays were undertaken. These were continued just the same after the government was overtaken with reverses. Congress did not seem inclined to retrench. Hence treasury notes were put forth in ever-increasing quantities until 1842, when the amount not redeemed was funded. The same thing was done two years later, when there was another accumulation of them. —In 1847 war was declared with Mexico and there were more issues of treasury notes and stock. The cost of the war was $63,605,621. After its close debt-paying began and continued until 1837, when the amount unpaid was reduced to a low figure. In that year the tariff was revised and the duties were cut down, but hardly had this been done when another financial tornado swept over the land, the revenues were in-sufficient to pay the expenses of the government and consequently more treasury notes were issued to fill the gap. The revenues did not recover rapidly, though it was quite generally expected that they would, and the treasury notes. In 1860 the debt had grown to about $60,000,000. —The influence of the secretary of the treasury in directing the national finances at times has been very great; at others, very slight. The treasury department was one of the earliest departments organized, and its province was pretty clearly defined at an early day. When Hamilton was ready to make his first report to the house, he inquired whether he should make it orally or in writing. That body determined to receive it in writing, and the mode then observed has always been followed. But there are many reasons why, besides thus making it in writing, he should appear before either branch of congress whenever asked, and explain it. Such a requirement would necessitate putting men at the head of the treasury department processing a familiar knowledge of the finances. —When the question of organizing the treasury department was before the house; some members favored the establishment of a board of treasury similar to that which existed during the revolutionary war. Gerry, of Massachusetts, was one of the stoutest defenders of the old system. Yet no one knew better than he its defects, for at one time he was a member of it, and condemned it in plainest terms for its inefficiency. (See TREASURY DEPARTMENT.) —Alexander Hamilton was first chosen to administer the affairs of the treasury department. How he fulfilled the duties of his position was never more felicitously described than by Webster. "The whole country perceived with delight, and the world saw with admiration. He smote the rock of the national resources, and abundant streams gushed forth. He touched the dead corpse of the public credit, and it sprung upon its feet. The fabled birth of Minerva from, the brain of Jove, was hardly more sudden or more perfect than the financial system of the United States as it burst forth from the conception of Alexander Hamilton." —He remained in office during Washington's first term and a part of his second. He was succeeded by Oliver Wolcott, of Connecticut, who was an admirer of Hamilton and trod closely in his footsteps. He resigned shortly before the close of Adams' administration, and Samuel Dexter, the secretary of war, acted as the head of the treasury department during the remainder of Adam's term. —Jefferson appointed Albert Gallatin, who was one of the able financiers that ever occupied the post. He was a worthy successor of Hamilton, and for several years was as influential with his party on all questions touching the administration of the national finances as Hamilton had been with the party he represented. But after a time discord arose in his party, and the influence of Gallatin was weakened. To his honor be it said, opposition to him was caused by his exposure of the misdeeds of the secretary of the navy, who was the brother of Senator Smith, of Maryland, one of the most influential members in that body. Not long after the war broke out with Great Britain, he was sent abroad with two other commissioners to negotiate a treaty of peace. But he did not resign, and William Jones, the secretary of the navy, was temporarily placed in charge of the treasury. He was utterly unfitted for the post, especially at such a critical time when the highest order of financial ability and constant attention to the duties of the office were required. After Gailatin resigned, George W. Campbell, of Tennessee, was appointed. But he had neither the health nor the requisite ability, and soon broke down and reared. While he was in office the business of negotiating loans which was of the highest importance, was very largely confided to Mr. Sheldon, the chief clerk, who was opposed to war, and rejoined over the failure of any plan for getting the sinews of war. No wonder, with such officials the treasury department at this time, that incompetency should have shown itself in very glaring colors!— When Campbell retired, A. J. Dallas, of Philadelphia, was appointed, and in a short period he restored the national credit. He infused new vigor into his department. He increased the taxes. He took strong and sure steps to restore specie payments. He zealously urged the creation of another United States bank. Madison was desirous of appointing him long before he did, but a section in the senate was unwilling, especially the two senators from Pennsylvania, and so Madison was obliged to wait until the finances reached such a deplorable state that they consented to withdraw their opposition. Hamilton, Gallatin and Dallas—a glorious triumvirate of financiers—were all born on foreign soil. —When Monroe was elected president in 1816 he selected Wm. H. Crawford, of Georgia, for secretary of the treasury, though he would have gladly kept Dallas had he been willing to serve. Crawford did excellent service during the eight years that he remained at the head of the treasury department. His most noted report is one on the "Bank of the United states and other Banks, and the Currency," made in February, 1820. He was succeeded by Richard Rush of Philadelphia, the appointee of John Quincy Adams. He served during a golden day in our financial history, when expenditures were light, the revenues large, and debt-paying was rapid. —We now approach a stormy time. When Jackson was elected president, Samuel D. Ingham, of Pennsylvania, was first selected for secretary of the treasury. After serving two years he resigned, and Louis McLane, of Delaware, succeeded him. Ingham's resignation grew out of differences with respect to the management of the public deposits, and the Eaton Scandal. McLane remained long enough to make one annual report and then he too resigned, and Wm. J. Duane of Philadelphia, was appointed. A controversy soon sprung up between him and the president concerning the removal of the deposits, and refusing to resign, he was dismissed. Then came Roger B. Taney, of Maryland, who held the office for a short time, when he was appointed chief justice of the supreme court of the United States. Yet he held the office long enough to accomplish the chief work for which he was selected, namely, to remove the deposits from the United States bank.(See DEPOSITS REMOVAL OF). The place was next filled by Levi Woodbury, of New Hampshire, who continued during the remainder of Jackson's presidential term and through that of his successor, Van Buren. Woodbury was an honest and industrious man, but corruption grew rankly at this period. It was at this time, too that the policy of the government with respect to banking and money was radically changed. (See INDEPENDENT TREASURY). —There was a change of parties in 1840, and Harrison selected Thomas Ewing of Ohio, for chief of the treasury department. But Harrison died shortly after his inauguration, and with the accession of Tyler to the presidency cabinet reconstruction began. Walter Forward, of Philadelphia, succeeded Ewing, and he remained two years and then resigned. The president was very desirous of having Caleb Cushing, and sent in his name three times to the senate but that body refused to confirm him. John C. Spencer, of New York, was then appointed, but unwilling to execute the wishes of the president concerning the putting of some money into the hands of certain persons in New York—an act which he regarded as illegal—he resigned, and George M. Bibb, of Kentucky, filled out the remainder of Tyler's troubled term. —Polk chose Robert J. Walker, of Mississippi, who served during the next four years. He is generally regarded as a very able and successful administrator of the affairs of that department. In 1848, when Taylor was elected president, William Meredith, of Philadelphia, became secretary, but he did not remain in office long and was succeeded by Thomas Corwin, of Ohio. He served through Fillmore's term, and was followed by James Guthrie of Kentucky, who filled the post whiled Pierce was president. Buchanan appointed Howell Cobb, of Georgia. He remained there until a short time before the close of that administration, when he resigned, and was succeeded first by Philip F. Thomas of Maryland and afterward by John A. Dix, of New York. —The revenues of the government during this period of seventy years were derived mainly from loans, duties on imports, internal revenue, and public lands. The history of the loans obtained by the government we have already considered; the other sources of revenue will be more appropriately considered under other heads.(See TARIFF; INTERNAL REVENUE; LANDS, PUBLIC.) In respect to coinage, that topic, though forming an important chapter in the history of American finances, is considered elsewhere and nothing further need be said here. (See COINAGE.) The only feature remaining for us to notice relates to the receipts and expenditures, in regard to which a few words must suffice. —The estimates of expenditure are first made by various departments of the government and presented by the secretary of the treasury to the house. They are then examined by the proper committee, and appropriations are granted. These expenditures have varied greatly during the different periods of the government. Sometimes they have been made with great wisdom and economy, but too often in an unwise and wasteful manner. We have not space to analyze the expenditures, indeed this would require a volume. Something further, however, will be found under another title. —THE CIVIL WAR PERIOD. We have now reached the last period in the history of our national finances. These were administered on a grander scale than ever before, but they were less difficult to administer than during the revolutionary period, or the war of 1812. All the machinery for transacting the financial business had been perfected, a system of revenue existed, and though the credit of the government at the outbreak of the war was suffering, there was a vast amount of wealth in the country, and the people responded heartily to every call of the government for support. The funds to carry on the war were derived from loans, demand treasury notes, duties on imports, and internal revenues. —The first war loan was negotiated under an act approved in February, 1861. The credit of the government was so low that the loan, amounting to $18,415,000, bearing 6 per cent. interest, and running twenty years, could be negotiated only at a discount of $2,019,776.10, or at an average rate of $89.03 per $100. —Another loan was authorized in summer of 1861 for $250,000,000. The banks agreed to furnish $150,000,000 at par, receiving 7 3/10 per cent, interest, but as the secretary of the treasury required payment to be made in gold, it was very difficult for them to comply, especially to pay the last installment of $ 50,000,000. Indeed, the operation compelled the banks to suspend specie payments; at the same time the independent treasury suspended also. This event took place Dec. 28, 1861. It has been affirmed that its existence at this time was very harmful to the government, because its operations were opposed to those of the banks. The occasion required that if possible both should work together. But, in paying gold, the banks, through the desire of aiding the government to the utmost extent, undermined themselves. Had the law been otherwise, and the treasury been permitted to take other money than specie from the banks, the suspension of specie payments with its long train of evils might have been delayed for a considerable period and possibly never have occurred. —There were other loans issued during the war, the most noteworthy of which were the nine hundred million loan, known as the ten-forty loan; and the loan for $500,000,000, payable after the five years and running no longer than twenty. —A large amount of bonds was sold to the banks when the national banking system was created. This indeed was one of the objects of Secretary Chase in founding the system—to make a market for the government bonds. Its essential features were copied from the system existing in the state of New York, the real author of which was the Rev. Dr. McVickar, professor of political economy in Columbia college. In his pamphlet entitled "Hints on Banking" addressed to the legislature of New York in 1838, the system is clearly wrought out, though there are earlier publications from which doubtless he drew some of his ideas. These were the literary product of the derangement of the currency in the war of 1812. (See BANKING IN THE UNITED STATES.) —The demand treasury notes, more commonly known as legal tenders, were declared to be a legal tender for all debts, public and private, and were issued as a temporary relief to the government. The holders had a right to exchange them for bonds bearing interest, and it was not supposed when the first issue appeared that the amount would be very considerably increased, or that they would remain long in existence. Their constitutionality was questioned in the beginning, and their issue was defended solely on the ground that it was a war measure. But as the government was pressed from time to time for funds, the issues were increased until $450,000,000 had been put forth. Secretary Chase was opposed to issuing them for sometime, but the need of funds became so great that he consented. Afterward, the supreme court of the United States declared that the law authorizing their issue was unconstitutional (Hepburn vs. Griswold, 8 Wall., 603), and subsequently that tribunal reversed the former decision. (Knox vs. Lee, 12 Wall., 453.) The state courts have rendered several decisions on the question, and usually they have sustained the validity of the enactment. (See TREASURY NOTES.) —The various descriptions of bonds and other forms of indebtedness issued from the opening of the war to June 30,1865, amounted to $3,888,686,575. —The duties on imports were increased in 1861 and again in 1863. (See TARIFF.) An internal revenue system was devised, from which large sums poured into the treasury. (See INTERNAL REVENUE.) It embraced a wide scope liquors, tobacco, manufactures, stamp duties on a great variety of legal instruments, stamp duties on a great variety of legal instruments, succession taxes, personal income, and other things. These measures, though of great importance, were hurriedly prepared and enacted, for there was not enough time to do the work thoroughly, and the difficulties and hardships growing out of the execution of them were numerous and trying. Yet the people bore much uncomplainingly, the spirit of patriotism ran high, and by slow degrees many of the most serious imperfections of this hasty legislation were removed. —When the war was over, it appeared that on Aug. 31, 1865, the total indebtedness of the government, excluding the "old funded and unfunded debt of the revolution," and the cash in treasury, was $2,844,649,626.56. This was the highest point it ever reached. The amount of legal tenders then in circulation was $433,160,569. The figures first fell below $400,000,000 in September, 1866, nor have they ever exceeded that amount since. The following table will show the amount outstanding at the close of each fiscal year, which ends the 30th of June. It must be remembered, however, that no account is here taken of the cash in the treasury.
—The debt was very much increased by the suspension of specie payments, which unsettled prices and contributed to the speculation which grew rankly in almost every business. The issue of legal tender notes enormously aggravated the evil. Fluctuations in prices were rapid. When such a state of things exists an additional price is often asked, as a kind of premium to cover the loss from depreciation. This extra charge is an enormous tax which the people paid during the sixteen years that they were using paper money. While the war lasted, speculation centered on gold. Congress attempted to prevent it by legislation, but their action aggravated the movement. —As soon as the war ended, many expected that the government would immediately return to specie payments. They had conducted their business with this end in view. So did the merchants in the war of 1812. Mr. McCulloch, who was now secretary of the treasury, believed that the true policy was to contract the legal tender notes until their value should be restored to par. This policy was put into execution; but after contraction had proceeded a short time, a loud cry arose against it, congress stopped it, and not until Jan. 1, 1879, did the desired event take place. Another mistake was committed by congress "greater," says a competent authority, "than all other mistakes in the management of the war"—and that was the abrogation by congress of the right to fund the legal tender notes in gold bonds. The taking away of this right from the holders was manifestly unjust to them; and by this act was prolonged the existence of a depreciated monetary circulation and the many ills which inevitably follow in its train. —Although the government delayed to take the step, the policy of returning to specie payments was not definitively abandoned. At almost every session of congress bills were introduced and discussed relating to the subject and then laid aside. No plan was matured. Finally, a bill was approved Jan.14, 1875 providing for the resumption of the specie payments on 1879., The act provided, among other things, for the accumulation of gold in the treasury. Besides the amount thus obtained through the sale of bonds, the gold current, which had flowed away from us during the war and for several years afterward, changed and began to run hither. The balance of trade in our favor during the immediate years preceding the resumption of specie payments was enormous, and when the time for resumption arrived, the premium on gold had run down to zero, a large amount had been accumulated in the treasury, and the event occurred without the slightest disturbance to any trade or interest. —Although the government has not possessed the means to pay all the bonds at maturity, there has been no difficulty in refunding those which could not be paid. Most of the loans specified two dates, after the first of which the government might pay if it desired, and by the second of which it must. The government has always consumed these obligations to mean that it will pay when the first period arrives, and it has been desirable for the government to avail itself of this right, because new loans could be obtained bearing lower rates of interest. —The last bonds refunded bear 38frac12 per cent, interest. The operation consisted in a continuing bonds, which originally bore 5 and 6 per cent, interest, at a lower rate during the pleasure of the government. —Jan. 1, 1882, the principal items of the public debt were the following:
—There is a law requiring the payment of 1 per cent, of the debt annually, but it has not always been observed. The whole amount paid to the present time satisfies the sinking fund, though until within the present fiscal year there was a deficiency. —We have now gone over the field except to state the action of the government with reference to the coinage. Its action in demonetizing and remonetizing silver forms an interesting chapter of the period we are considering, but the articles on COINAGE, and PARIS MONETARY CONFERENCE cover the ground so well that nothing further need be added here. —AUTHORITIES: The Colonial Period: Douglass' Summary, Historical and Political, of the First Planting, etc., of the British Settlements in North America, 2 vols., 1760; Discourse Concerning the Currencies of the British Plantations in America with Regard to Paper Money, by the same author, 1740; A Model for Erecting a Bank of Credit, with a Discourse in Explanation thereof, reprinted at Boston, 1714; Felt's Historical Account of Massachusetts Currency; Bronson's Historical Account of Connecticut Currency; besides which may be mentioned the various histories of the states. In respect to coinage in the colonies, and subsequently, a good account may be found in the Banker's Magazine, for October and November, 1861, prepared by John H. Hickcox. The Revolutionary Period: The author's Financial History of the United States from 1774 to 1789 and the authorities there cited; and Lewis' History of the Bank of North America. The Third Period: The author's Financial History of the United States from 1789 to 1860, and authorities there cited. The Fourth Period: No work has appeared giving a full history of the financial events covered by it. Monographs have been written on many financial events of this period, and there are almost numberless government publications relating to the subject. Spaulding's History of the Legal Tender Money may be mentioned, and Richardson's Practical Information Concerning the Public Debt of the United States. ALBERT S. BOLLES. FINANCEFINANCE, Science of, the science of the economy which the state must conduct in order to obtain and apply the commodities or services necessary to the proper performance of its functions. It depends immediately upon two other sciences whose conclusions form its starting point; upon political science in the narrower sense of the term, i.e., the science which determines the functions of the state, and upon political economy, which develops the general principles underlying all social economies. As the prevailing theory or practice in reference to the functions of the state changes, the financial system and consequently the science of finance must change. The science of finance will be comparatively simply in a state which derives all its income, like private individuals, from the profits of its own property, such as domains, and which limits its activity as much as possible to simple protection of the citizen. In such a state neither the income nor expenditure exercises any great influence on the economic condition of the country. But the problems become more complex as society develops, as the functions of the state increase, as the system of domains disappears and the system of taxation takes its place; as the income and expenditure grow larger, and the government by its system of raising and applying revenue begins to exercise an ever increasing influence upon the economic development of the state and upon the distribution of the national income. As a consequence the science of finance must develop, must take up the consideration of an ever increasing number of problems, and will not be completed until society has reached its ultimate economical development. As the term is ordinarily used it includes, as our definition indicates, merely the treatment of the economy which the state conducts, as the highest form of compulsory associative economies, i.e., the science of finance treats only of national finance as opposed to local finance. But the course of its development will soon force it to take up the latter subject also. And rightly too; since each state, for example, in our American Union, each country in the state, and each city in the country, has or may have its own system of finance independent of all the others, the consideration of which ought not to be omitted in any tolerably complete presentation of the subject of finance. The same thing is true of local organizations of other countries. The whole subject of local and particularly of municipal finance forms one of the most important subjects in the whole range of political science, and in no other connection can it be so conveniently and thoroughly treated as in connection with the science of national finance. —The science of finance is a product of modern thought. The scientific investigation of financial subjects seems to have been entirely unknown to antiquity or even to the middle ages. The work of Xenophon on the revenues of Athens was simply a discussion as to how the city might derive sufficient revenue from its own territory without having to depend on foreign sources. His recommendation of a state monopoly of silver mining, and his opinion that the increase of the amount of silver would not diminish its price, are worthy of notice. But Xenophon was not a practical statesman, nor were the other writers whose occasional remarks are met with in classical literature, and so we have no means of ascertaining the theoretical opinions of ancient financiers except by inferring them from their financial institutions and contrivances. We must be careful in drawing such inferences, however, as the devices adopted depended often upon accident rather than upon a thoughtful consideration of what was best. The large income which the principal ancient states derived from the conquest and continued plunder of foreign nations raised them above the necessity of systematically taxing their own citizens on a large scale, and so they were never forced to a thoughtful consideration of the most economical system of providing public revenue by taxation. Both at Athens and at Rome, it is true, some kinds of taxes and other sources of public income were carefully managed; but their financiers never thought it worth while to elaborate rules on the subject or to seek out general principles. The few writings upon financial subjects, therefore, which have come down to us from antiquity, while possessing considerable value to the historian of finance, are of but little importance to the theory of our science. —The science of finance is not only the product of modern thought, but it is chiefly the product of the thought of two nations, Germany and England. To German economists we owe its systematic form, to English economists the most valuable portion of its contents. A short sketch of the rise and development of the science is necessary to a full understanding of its present condition and prospects. Its history, like that of political economy in general of which it for a time formed a part, falls naturally into two periods, that before and that after Adam Smith. —In the transition period from the middle ages to modern times, when the revival of learning took place, and when, among other branches, political science was resuscitated, political writers took up finance also. The wide-spread political and economical changes of the time directed attention to the investigation of financial questions. Among these changes we may mention, as promotive of our science, on the one hand, the growing dissatisfaction with the patrimonial conception of the state, the rise of princely absolutism, by which for the first time a really political life was made possible, the revolution in warfare, the introduction of Roman law, particularly of Roman financial law, and the growing need of the state for an increased revenue; on the other hand, the transition from a barter to a money economy, the depreciation of money in consequence of the exploitation of American mines, the general tendency toward paternalism in the economical policy, as is shown by the rise of the mercantile system and the predilection for monopolies and finally, the secularization of the church property in Protestant lands, which among other changes rendered necessary different poor laws. —As a matter of course the first literary attempts, both of the more pretentious works on political science and of the monographs devoted exclusively to finance, were, and long remained, very defective. The authors naturally enough began with the concrete institutions of their own countries, and with proposals for reforming particular abuses. But their works testify rather to their zeal in compilation than to their thorough knowledge of the subject. They often gave very good but very trite directions as to economy, justice, etc., but they took their illustrations without discrimination from the most opposite political conditions, and showed little insight into the real condition and wants of their times. Nor did the practical men, who began to treat the subject during the sixteenth century, show any greater tendency toward scientific exactness. From the seventeenth century mercantilistic views began to exercise a more and more marked influence upon financial literature. And even in this early period a marked difference appears between the English and German treatment of the subject, which has remained characteristic even down to the present time. English writers have preferred to devote their attention to the investigation of particular subjects closely connected with the questions which were from time to time of great public interest, neither knowing much nor caring to know much of their relations to other subjects. German writers on the contrary, have made a special effort to systematize the results of their investigations, and by a proper subordination of parts to make their knowledge a science. The very dissimilar political relations of England and Germany led their economists to emphasize very different points. The early German authors discuss finance principally in connection with the system of domains and monopolies then in vogue, and gradually make the science of finance a part of cameralistics. This latter science included all the information considered necessary to an officer of the internal administration, and the science of finance came to occupy a prominent place in it. The system of domains was universally accepted by these writers as the principal element in every financial economy. But the development of nations soon compelled a great change in these views. The growing needs of the state demanded a constantly increasing revenue; the domains became more and more unable to meet this demand. The system of direct taxation was still in a very crude condition and generally unpopular with the rulers, because it depended on obtaining the consent of the estates. As a consequence attention was directed more strongly to the development of monopolies and of indirect taxes, like the excise, etc. These subjects are accordingly extensively discussed in the literature of the time. But little change occurs in this development until after the middle of the eighteenth century. Essentially upon the basis of the previous views, although under the influence of the new political and philosophical tendencies, the theory of finance was gradually systematized and worked out in its details. The better writings of this period are therefore of value even now, because they present the principles of administration which were then accepted and which in part still prevail. —The strictly scientific era of the science of finance did not begin until after the middle of the last century. Three influences affected its development. First, the development of the modern science of political economy, of the theory of free competition, elaborated in the writings of the physiocrats, (Quesnay, Turgot), and more fully in epoch-making work of Adam Smith. Second, the theoretical revolution in jural and political philosophy and in politics effected by Montesquieu, Rousseau and Kant. Finally, the practical revolution in political, social and economical life produced by the French revolution and the events connected with it. —The physiocrats exercised a stimulating and fruitful influence upon the theory, if not upon the practice, of finance by their one-sided plan of taxation, the principle of an impôt unique, of a single universal tax on land, which was to take the place of all other taxes. Adam Smith, then, threw a new light upon the subject of finance by developing the economical basis of the same in the "Wealth of Nations." Public revenues, from the isolation in which they had been discussed before, were now brought together and treated as a whole, which had the most intimate connection with the greater whole of political economy. Instead of indefinite and variable rules, men were now enabled to lay down definite principles for the preservation of national wealth and national industry. They saw that measures and contrivances were defective, which they had long accepted as perfect. But even Smith, although he had a tolerably complete system of political economy, did not produce a complete science of finance, because he had no fundamental principle upon which to base his theory. This was the natural consequence of his defective theory of the state, particularly of his complete misconception of the universal importance of the state for national life and the limitations of the national economy by the state. But aside from this defect—a very serious one, it is true—Adam Smith made an epoch in this subject by the fifth book of his famous work on the "Wealth of Nations," and exercised a moulding influence, lasting even down to the present day, upon the theoretical conception and treatment of finance, and at least outlined a tolerably complete system of theoretical science. Even the externally close connection into which he brought finance with political economy remains to-day characteristic of all writers except the Germans. And even German thinkers, independent in some respects, are still greatly influenced by Smith. —The progress of philosophy and the French political revolution led to new investigations in political science as to the functions of the state and the limits of its activity, by which new principles as to the rights of the state were won and preparation was made from another direction for the science of finance. The evil of this movement was the excessive reaction of Kant's school against the eudemonistic tendencies of Wolf and his followers, and against the practice of the state of "good despotism." This reaction led to an unfortunate limitation of the idea of the state which is entirely inconsistent with actualities, and which corresponds with the one-sided and unhistorical opposition of Smithianism to all interference of the state in economical matters. The false theory of Smith and his school in reference to the unproductivity of services, and consequently of the state, favored this fatal tendency. In spite of all, however, the science of finance gained a firmer systematic form, and in consequence of this perfecting of the science a revolution in praxis was begun which is slowly but irresistibly progressing. —In recent times the Germans have taken the lead in the development of the science. English writers, following Adam Smith, discuss finance as a comparatively unimportant part of political economy, using it principally to afford an application and explanation of economical principles. And although they have done invaluable work in elaborating details, such as the economical effects of taxes and the incidence of various kinds of taxes, the theory of public debts, paper money, coinage, banking, etc., yet they reveal nowhere even down to the present an adequate conception of the importance of finance to political economy. On the contrary, the Germans, although their treatment of the details has been and still is, in many respects, unsatisfactory, have yet elaborated a complete and systematic science of finance which if full of promise for the future. —The science of finance falls naturally into three divisions. The first discusses the organization of the financial economy, and investigates the general principles which must underlie all financial systems. The second treats of public expenditure, and the purposes for which it may be made. The third treats of public income, and the ways and means of obtaining it—I. The Organization of the Financial Economy. 1. In constructing a financial system we must first have regard to the amount to be expended. This will depend upon the number and character of the functions which the state assumes. This last will vary with the political development of the state. We see, then, how idle the attempt is, which many theorists have made, to fix once for all the sum total of expenditure. One state may be justified in making an expenditure many times greater than that which another state of equal area or even of equal population may make. England may with impunity devote a sum to public purposes which would bankrupt many states of greater population and area. Although we may not lay down a cast iron rule for proper expenditure, we may sum up the purposes for which the modern state devotes money, and such a summary will be found at the close of this section. The science of finance, as such, has nothing to do with determining the functions of the state—a problem which belongs to the science of politics, in the narrower sense of the term. But, inasmuch as no important function of the state can be performed without the expenditure of resources in some form, it follows that determining the functions of the state and providing for their proper performance include the determining of a certain expenditure and of the income necessary to cover it. This last is essentially a problem of finance; and financial science, then, requires that in every revenue system there shall be, first, a detailed and efficient supervision and control of expenditure; second, a rigid observance of the principle of economy; and third, a careful regard for the relation between expenditure and national wealth. Most modern nations have attempted to secure a careful supervision by adopting the system of budgets. The administration lays before the legislature a careful estimate of the sums which in its opinion are necessary to the proper performance of the functions of the state. The latter, in voting or refusing to vote the sums proposed, confirms or rejects the views of the former as to the limits of state interference. In this settlement the administration and the legislature represent the two sides of a business transaction. The former represents the supply of governmental interference which in its view would be advantageous; the latter, the demand of the people for such interference. Their views are likely to be very different. The administration is prone to over-estimate the advantages of the services of the state for the people, and to underestimate the cost (in taxation, etc) which they impose upon the people. The legislature shows opposite tendencies. History has shown that by such a device a fair control of the financial system is secured. By the principle of economy is not meant that the state must limit its activity to the narrowest possible bounds; but simply that in the proper performance of any given function (which it has been decided the state should assume) the least possible expenditure should be made. The third point is a very important one. No mathematical ratio between the expenditure and national wealth can be found. All attempts to do this have failed, as they rest upon a false, mechanical view of the relation of the state to the national economy—a relation which is essentially organic. We may lay down the following as a principle: the greater the economical value of the public service, the more it promotes the productive power of all, the greater the net income of the nation, the larger the proportion of public revenue derived from industrial undertakings, the larger may the public expenditure become both absolutely and relatively. The question might be formulated as follows: May the expenditure increase to such as extent that the sacrifices it demands of the people become very oppressive? The answer would be affirmative, if it has reference to a temporary outgo, and the expenditure promises to be successful, and the particular form of state deserves preservation. But if the condition is to be permanent, if no saving can be effected, if the functions of the state can not be diminished, then the impossibility of raising sufficient revenue proves the impossibility of the continued existence of such a state. Even the assistance derived from repudiation, i.e., violation of legal obligations, will not always afford a permanent relief. In such cases public production must, like private production, cease, because the undertaking no longer pays expenses. 2. But in the construction of a financial system regard must be had, in the second place, not merely to the amount to be raised at any given time, but also to the indubitable fact that the total expenditure of a modern civilized state tends constantly to increase. A glance at the budgets of modern states for the last fifty years will afford statistical proof of this so-called law of the ever increasing functions of the state. The governments of nearly all existing states have taken upon themselves within recent times the management of the postal system, of education, etc, in many cases of the telegraph and the railroad. This tendency must be taken into account. A good revenue system, therefore, must be elastic. It must be able to adapt itself to the growing demands of the state, and, hence, we must condemn all those plans which involve the limiting of the state to one or two sources of revenue. Another point should be considered in this connection, viz., the adjustment between the national and local systems of finance. This varies greatly in our modern states according to the historical development and peculiar conditions of the various nations. In some countries each individual city and country and province has or may have its own system of revenue to provide for its own wants. In others the local organizations are permitted to raise money only by a system of additions to the national taxes. In our own country no state may raise revenue by emitting bills of credit or by laying duties on imports or exports. Practically under our present laws the states are also prevented from establishing state banks as sources or revenue. The municipalities are restricted, in many parts of the Union, as to the kinds of taxes they may levy and as to the amount they may raise by taxation. It will be found by experience in the various countries what particular sources of revenue can be best exploited by the national government and what are best adapted for local organizations, although the science of finance has hardly taken the first step toward a satisfactory solution of this question—one of the most important within its whole field. 3. In the third place, provision must be made in every revenue system for securing an equilibrium between income and outgo. This can be secured permanently only by providing a proper system of income. We must endeavor to ascertain some principles, then, which may guide us in selecting proper sources of income. But these can be found only by investigating what sources of income are best adapted to the various kinds of expenditure. We must classify expenditure, therefore, with a view of deciding upon the sources of income appropriate to each class. This classification leads to the distinction between extraordinary and ordinary income, in the various senses of the word. The sources of income in our modern states are principally taxes and public loans. Our investigation will be limited, therefore, chiefly to these two sources of income, and to deciding which is the appropriate one for any given kind of expenditure. The fundamental principle of this portion of our science is, that income must equal outgo—a principle, the very opposite of that which must prevail in a private or individual economy, in which a man, to remain solvent, must regulate his outgo by his income. The government decides what functions the state will assume, what expenditure is necessary to perform them properly, and then aims to raise the required revenue; while the individual must first find out his revenue before he fixes his outgo. A disregard of this principle results in a deficiency, which, if long continued, becomes chronic, and easily leads to national bankruptcy. The best means of avoiding such a deficiency is to insist upon carefully prepared budgets for short periods of time—one, two or three years. If the estimates for one period are wrong, they can easily be corrected for the next. In deciding upon the sources of income to be used, we must have reference to the kind of expenditure. Expenditure may be classed as ordinary and extraordinary expenditure. These terms are applied in three difference senses. In the first sense, ordinary expenditure is such as occurs regularly in the ordinary course of the government, and can be estimated almost exactly beforehand. Extraordinary expenditure is such as must be made in consequence of some special and unexpected necessity, such as war or a great public calamity. The first kind must be met, of course, by an income of equal regularity and quantity. The second may be met by extraordinary measures, such as treasury notes or the use of public credit in some other form; though in many cases it is better to keen a permanent surplus fund in the treasury to use on such occasions. In the second sense, we have reference to the permanence of the results achieved by the expenditure. We apply in our financial system the idea of fixed and circulating capital. Ordinary expenditure is such as is regularly applied in the process of public production within a financial period, which reappears in the value of its products (public services), and must therefore occur periodically to the same amount. It includes all expenditure for the running expenses of the government. Extraordinary expenditure is such as is made at irregular times, and whose effects extend beyond the current financial period. The outlay may form the basis of a permanent advantage, or it may be necessitated by some great obstacle in the way of political progress, such as an unavoidable war. In the first case it becomes an investment of fixed capital, so that in the subsequent financial periods a less expenditure is sufficient and an increased productiveness results. Such an investment may be made for two purposes. It may be a simple commercial undertaking like that of any private individual, for the sake of the profit connected with it, such as investment in domains, railroads, etc; or it may be for the purpose of improving or establishing the means of performing the functions of the state. All great reforms in administration, the building of free public roads, the improvement of the means of defense, etc., etc, require such investments. The money expended in an unavoidable war has very different results from that expended in the last two cases. It involves a real loss of men and capital. Nor does even a really successful war give us any guarantee of no repetition; on the contrary, it is often merely the prelude to longer and more costly wars. In the third and legal sense, ordinary expenditure is that which is granted. Once for all, for certain purposes, and need not be incorporated in the budget. Extraordinary expenditure is that which must regularly receive the consent of the legislative body. Thus, in England the amount supposed to be actually necessary to the existence of the government, is furnished by a permanent income which, although it may be changed by every parliament, is practically changed very seldom. All other expenditure must be voted regularly by parliament. Now, as has been said, in constructing a financial system, regard must be had to the kind of expenditure which is to be provided for by any given source of income. We may lay it down as a principle, that the ordinary expenditure in the second sense of the term must be met in all cases by ordinary income (i.e., in general, income from taxes); while extraordinary expenditure may be met by extraordinary income (i.e., by the use of public credit). Ordinary expenditure in the third sense must of course be met by ordinary income, while extraordinary may be met by temporary devices of a character suited to the particular object in view. —II. Public Expenditure, and the Purposes for which it may be made. 1. The financial needs of the state may be divided into two classes; first, its need of things in kind; second, its need of money. In the early periods of political development the need of things in kind predominates. The government needs men to fight, and it simply demands their services without paying them anything in return. It expects the soldiers to arm themselves at their own expense and to provide their own rations while in the field. As the state develops, there is a constant tendency to satisfy its necessities by way of purchase, and in consequence of this its need of money becomes more important than its need of things in kind. But even in our modern money economy there are some cases in which the state can better afford to take things in kind than money. In time of war, for instance, it may become necessary to have more horses, or supplies, and it will often be better to take the things wanted than to take money and attempt to purchase them. All instances of the use of the right of eminent domain come under this head. It is often more advisable to take a piece of ground, for instance, and pay what seems to be a fair valuation, than to attempt to raise money enough to satisfy the demands of the owner, which, as is well known, become exorbitant as soon as the government attempts to buy. 2. From another point of view, the financial needs of the state may be classified as its need of personal services and its need of commodities. The science of finance must investigate the various methods of expenditure necessary to satisfy these needs. Several different systems of securing persons to perform the services have been in vogue at different times and in different countries. The following are the most important: 1st, the German system, according to which all public offices are filled from the ranks of persons who have shown their fitness for the places by prescribed tests, and the appointment gives (after a certain period of probation) a right to the office, and there fore its salary, so long as its duties are properly performed, 2d, the French system, in which the salaried officer, although professionally educated, may be removed at pleasure; 3d, the American system, in which the salaried officers are appointed and removed at pleasure, without any necessary regard to their fitness; 4th, the voluntary system, in which the offices are filled from among those able and willing to perform their duties without salaries. The first system, involving, as it does, educated officials and pensions, seems at first thought to be the most expensive. For the salaries must be large enough to attract and retain men of ability and education. They involve, therefore, a restitution of the costs of education. The officers may not be dismissed, so that they must continue to draw their salaries, even if the circumstances should allow a material reduction of the force. If they give out while performing their duties, they must be supported, and they must finally be pensioned after they become too old for the active service. But there are several points in its favor to be considered. In the first place, we must have regard to the value of the service as well as its nominal cost. A professionally educated civil service will furnish better results by far than an uneducated one. An officer who feels sure of his position as long as he does his duty, and reasonably sure of increased salary or of promotion as a result of marked faithfulness, will do his work far better than one who may be removed at the pleasure of an irresponsible superior. The German system will secure a more honest set of public servants than any of the others mentioned, and so less will be lost by peculation and fraud than under the other systems. It is better than the plan of voluntary offices, for under the latter only the wealthy can enter the public service, and the government would receive a too aristocratic coloring. Thus, although the German system seems to be the most costly, yet it is after all the cheapest and consequently financially the best one. We pass over the further discussion of this point at this place. (See CIVIL SERVICE.) —A a rule the state can better afford in our modern industrial economy to satisfy its need of commodities by purchase in the open market than by manufacturing them itself. There are some exceptions of this, however. If the state needs peculiar commodities which the commercial industry of the country would not produce except for the state, or if special experiments are necessary which private parties would not make, or if the competition among private firms is not very great, and inspection of the commodities difficult, then the state can generally better produce them itself. Military supplies afford a good example of this; although private parties can often furnish even these on better terms than the government could produce them. Krupp, in Germany, and our own rifle factories in this country, are good instances. In all other cases the state in providing its supplies must simply follow the ordinary rules of private business—buying by contract and en gros. Financial considerations must further determine whether the government shall erect buildings for its business or hire them from private parties. 3. Public expenditure may be divided, from a third point of view, into gross and net expenditure. Gross expenditure includes not only what is consumed in performing the functions of the state, but also what is expended in collecting the sums so consumed. Net expenditure includes only the former of these two items. They should both be carefully indicated in the budgets, as the costs of collection reveal the economy of the financial system and of the administration. It goes without the saying that these costs of collection should be as low as possible, and yet they can never become a determining factor in a financial system. They depend upon a great variety of circumstances, some of which we summarize. Those public economies which derive a large portion of their income from industrial sources, such as domains, forests, mines, factories, railroads, etc., etc., will always have a relatively larger gross expenditure than those which depend on taxes. (Compare English with German finance.) Even of two economies which have the same system the budgets will be very different, according to the systems of administration. The relations of time and place and circumstance have very much to do with determining the ration of gross and net expenditure. In addition to the nominal costs of collection there are to be counted all those sacrifices which the public must make beyond their taxes, and which do not result even in a larger gross income to the state; at costs growing out of illegalities, bribery, bad systems of administration, incomplete control, hindrances to production, etc., etc., some of which are characteristic of states in a backward condition of political development, others arising from the kind of taxes (customs duties, excise, indirect taxes in general). The nominal costs of collection depend: 1st, upon the condition of the whole financial, and particularly of the tax, system, the system of collection, whether by farming, by officers, by local authorities, etc., exercises the greatest influence in this respect; 2d, upon the kind of taxes most employed, whether direct or indirect; 3d, upon local and temporal circumstances, even with the same kind of tax. The moral development of a people, its geographical situation, its communications, its economical condition, the prevalence of great industries, etc., are all of great influence in this respect. The more favorable all these items are, the less may be costs of collection become. —The purposes for which expenditure is made in the modern state may be classed under three heads; 1, for the executive and legislative departments; 2, for justice and defense; 3, for the general welfare. The executive head must receive an allowance which will not only allow him to live, but to maintain an establishment in some degree of elegance if not of splendor. It is necessary to connect a salary with the office of chief executive in a republic, or it would limit the choice of the people to wealthy men able and willing to undertake the expense. It is also usual in free states to pay a salary to the members of the legislature, for the same reason. In monarchies the income of the sovereign is largely derived from private property, though in many modern states the legislature, considering that royal estates belonged to the government, has taken possession of them and allowed the king a salary, so to speak, instead. Under the head of justice fall all expenses for the courts, for prisons, and penitentiaries; under defense, all outlay for police, detective force, workhouse, foreign representatives, and, most important of all, for the army. In most modern states the army is a necessity, and the best way to provide it is one of the most difficult questions of finance. "In peace prepare for war," is a direction which European states have been following so thoroughly for the last generation that some of them are already on the verge of bankruptcy, and nearly all are seriously impeded in their material progress by the enormous cost of their armies. The militia system is exceedingly costly, because exceedingly inefficient, and can be adopted only by those nations that are reasonably free from war. The American rebellion was the most costly war of modern times, largely because a vast army had to be raised and an enormous fleet built within a short time by a nation practically unacquainted with either. But it may well be doubted whether any great saving would have been effected by having spent large sums for fifty years preceding the conflict, in order to be ready for it, to say nothing of the fact that one party would have had as much advantage from the preparation as the other. But a European nation, such as Germany, may well find it cheaper to keep a large standing army and a still larger reserve (of all able-bodied men) than to rely upon a standing army and conscription, or upon a militia system. The amount of expenditure a nation can apply to its army is measured solely by the value it sets on its national existence. —Expenditure for the general welfare includes expenditure for inner administration, for economical administration, and for education. Statistics, public health and poor laws belong to the first; coinage, the postoffice, telegraph, state railways, public highways, etc., to the second; schools, art and religion to the third. —III. Public Revenue, and the Sources from which it may be derived. The ordinary revenue of modern governments is derived from three sources: 1, from agricultural, industrial or commercial enterprises; 2, from fees: 3, from taxes. These three sources must be carefully distinguished, and their relative and historical importance emphasized. When a state manages a public farm, conducts a great commercial institution, like a bank, upon the same principles and for the same purpose as private individuals, viz., to secure a pure income which it may apply to other purposes, it derives revenue from the first source. When it undertakes the exclusive performance of certain functions for its citizens, and charges the persons especially benefited a certain sum, which it fixes without reference, possibly, to the value of the service to the person served, or its cost to the government, it derives revenue from the second source. The postoffice is an excellent example of this source. The postage is the fee. The government charges three cents for forwarding a latter to the address. It may not cost the government one-tenth of that sum, or it may cost ten times that sum. The person served might be willing to pay one hundred times the postage charged, or he might prefer to hire somebody else to forward it because it would be cheaper. But the government fixes its own price and insists upon being allowed to perform the service, and accomplishes its aim by refusing to allow any one to perform it more cheaply. When the state exacts a sacrifice of a citizen without performing any service of a citizen without performing any service for him other than affording the general protection and opportunities which come from his enjoying the privileges of citizenship, it derives revenue from the third source. The fundamental distinction between a fee and a tax lies in the nature of the return made by the government to the individual paying it. Both are contributions to the government, but for the former the payer receives in return a special service, which is not performed for anybody except those who pay for it; while for the latter he receives only a general return which everybody living in the state enjoys, whether he pays for it or not. The revenue from fees is intended to cover the expenses of performing the service. In case the government charges more than private parties would charge, the surplus becomes a tax levied only on the persons availing themselves of these services. In case the revenue is insufficient to pay the cost of service the deficit must be made up by general taxation, and is in so far a gift from the state as a whole to the portion of the community profiting by these services. The same thing is true of the individuals in these classes. Under free competition a man in New York might get his letter carried to Boston for one cent, a man in Texas might have to pay twenty-five cents for the same service; under the present system the former is taxed two cents, which are given to the latter to apply on his postage. A fee, therefore, may contain a tax for the individual, whenever it is higher than what he would have to pay for the same service under free competition, and we must carefully distinguish in every contribution to the government between the fee and the tax. —1. Revenue from business enterprises. In an early stage of civilization or of industrial development the public revenue must be largely derived from the profits of public property. Land is the most common form at first. Mines are also a common form in early as well as in latter times. A period soon comes in a progressive state when the income from such sources is no longer sufficient, and the main dependence must be placed upon taxation. But even under such conditions the state may retain its domains and even develop similar source of revenue, such as smelting works, factories, banks, canals, railroads, etc. Down to a late date the domains furnished the greater portion of the national revenue in many of the European states, and even at the present time they form an important element in the financial systems of most continental states. The general tendency has been toward selling the farm domains and retaining the forest domains. Of late years the questions of state banks and state railways and canals and telegraphs have been growing more and more important. There has been a marked and growing tendency toward government ownership of all such agencies. The purely financial element, however, has rarely led to government ownership in these cases, although such enterprises generally make good returns on the investment. The income of several European countries from such sources is steadily growing, and it is likely to become more and more important with every advance in industrial development. (See RAIROADS, FORESTRY, PUBLIC LANDS.) —2. Revenue from fees. The modern state derives a large income from fees, which, as already defined, are contributions made to the state in return for a special service rendered the individual. The theoretical justification of fees lies in the nature and in the results of various functions of the state; their actual existence and historical development are closely connected with the prevailing views of law, of the state, of society and of the national economy, and with the conditions of the same, and charge, therefore, with those views and conditions. The principles laid down, therefore, with reference to fees are not absolute, but temporal, local, and historically relative. What functions the state ought to assume is not a financial question, nor has the science of finance to decide which of its functions it should discharge at general expense of the whole state and which at the expense of the individual most benefited. Historically, in the economically progressive state, a growing tendency has shown itself toward the public assumption of functions performed hitherto by private parties. Such, for example, are the paving and lighting of streets, the furnishing of means of instruction, the establishment of water works, of asylums, etc, etc. At first all such institutions are generally supported by the fees of those most concerned; in course of time, however, a tendency shows itself toward lessening the fee more and more, until, a deficit occurring, the state must support the institution by taxation. The following principle may be laid down in reference to what functions should be supported by fees, and what by general taxation. The more clearly the performance of a certain function redounds to the benefit of particular individuals who can be easily ascertained, the greater the proportion of expense which said individuals should defray by their fees; the less clearly it accrues to the benefit of one individual more than another, and the greater the difficulty of ascertaining the parties benefited, the greater the proportion of expense which the state should bear by general taxation. As has been said above, the fee must not amount to more than the charge private parties would make for performing the service; otherwise it becomes a tax. Many taxes are levied under the form of fees. In all cases where the government requires the performance of a certain act merely for the sake of taxing it, as, for instance, the stamping of deeds, contracts, etc., the so-called fee is really a tax, and should be considered such. —3. Revenue from taxes. Taxation is the most important and most difficult department of modern finance, and the theory of taxation the most important and the most difficult portion of the science of finance. The latter falls naturally into two divisions—a general and a special: the former treating of the general principles of taxation; the latter, of particular taxes and their special characteristics. The remainder of this article will be devoted to the general division; the special will be treated in the article entitled TAXATION. We shall discuss the general principles of taxation under two heads: 1st, the basis, nature and development of taxation in general; 2d, the fundamental principles of taxation. 1st, The right of taxation, i.e., the right of collecting from subjects compulsory contributions for public ends and purposes, finds its theoretical justification in the absolute necessity for the state, and therefore in its right to existence. From which it follows, that the justification of this right does not belong to the service of finance, but in its economical aspects and connection with the organization of property and industry to political economy, in its political and legal aspects to the science of the state, and in its philosophical aspects to jural philosophy. This point will be further considered, however, at the end of our second division. The nature of a tax has been fully explained in a preceding portion of this article. The development of taxation has kept pace with the industrial development of society. In a primitive and undeveloped state taxes are not to be found. The only thing corresponding to them is the voluntary contribution or gift to the head of the state (prince, chief, etc.), on special occasions. "The government is expected to pay expenses." The conquest of other nations, the proceeds of the public domains, etc., are ordinarily fully adequate to meet all financial necessities. On the other hand, society makes but few demands upon the government. Its members depend more upon themselves, rarely expecting more from the government than protection of life and property. As the industrial order of society is developed, greater demands upon government aid and interference are made. The functions of the government are rapidly multiplied. At first those who expect this aid must pay for it themselves, i.e., the expenses of the additional functions are defrayed by fees. But in course of time the number benefited by these advantages increases, until the want has become "public," i.e., can be satisfied at the expense of the state as a whole. But the more such wants are multiplied, the more impossible it becomes for the domains to furnish the requisite funds. Taxes become necessary, and the greater the amount of money needed, the more extensive and complex does the tax system become. 2d. The fundamental maxims of taxation laid down by Adam Smith have become classical. We produce them here for the sake of convenient reference in our discussion of the subject. They are as follows: 1. The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities, that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state 2. The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor and to every other person. 3. Every tax ought to be levied at the time and in the manner in which it is most convenient to the contributor to pay it. 4. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible, over and above what it brings into the treasury of the state. The last three are simply principles of proper administration and will be discussed later. The first maxim contains implicitly three distinct principles. It finds the justification of taxation in the protection accorded by the state. It lays down a principle of just distribution of taxation, viz., upon every one according to his ability. It proposes a method taxation by which this equal distribution is to be reached, viz., the income tax. It may be safely said of these last that the second is a contradiction of first, and that the third is by no means an axiom, and is not easily demonstrable. The maxim is really a begging of the question, and yet it has been copied and recopied and paraphrased by nearly three generations of successors. —The fundamental principles of taxation are to serve as a guide in the practical levying of taxes, especially in the choice of the various taxes and in the organization of the tax system as a whole. Every tax is to be tried by these principles, and as far as possible that one chosen which will best satisfy their demands. On account of the great difference in these demands and on account of the practical difficulty of reconciling them with one another, it is very exident that no one tax should be adopted as the sale source of public revenue. On the contrary, a judicious combination of several different kinds of taxes, i.e, a real rax system, seems best adapted to realize our ideal, viz., the greatest practicable agreement of actual taxation with our fundamental principles. These principles are nine in number, divided into four groups as follows: I. Politico financial principles: 1. Adequateness of taxation; 2. Elasticity of taxation. II. Economical principles: 3. Choice of proper sources of taxation, i.e., particularly, discussion of the question whether taxation is to draw only from individual and national income, or also from individual and national capital; 4 Regard for the incidence of taxation, particularly of the various kinds of taxes, upon the tax payer, and a general investigation of the "shifting of taxation." III. Principles of justice or of the just distribution of taxation; 5. Universality: 6. Equality of taxation. IV. Administrative principles: 7. Definiteness as to time, place, manner and equality; 8. Convenience of the same; 9. Economy in collection. It is not usual to include the first two principles in such a summary; but they should be placed first of all, as they are most important of all. They follow from the very nature of the financial economy, and from the principle upon which that is based, viz., that income is determined by expenditure, and must be sufficient to meet it. For not, as the Smithian school of political economy from their particularistic standpoint teach, not "justice toward the individual," not the maxim of universality and equality of taxation, but the fulfilling of the conditions of social life and union, is our fundamental principle—the securing of the means for the preservation of the state and for the performance of its functions. —1. By" adequateness of taxation" we mean that the income iron taxes must be sufficient to cover the expenses of a financial period, so far as other means are lacking or are impermissible. Taxation must be resorted to after the income from industrial undertakings and the surplus from the fee system have been exhausted, and it must meet the rest of the expenditure. —2. By " elasticity" is meant that a tax system must contain such component parts (i.e., kinds of taxes) us can adapt themselves to charges in expenditure or can supplement possible deficiencies of other taxes or other sources of income. In consequence of the law of the ever-widening functions of the state, we must demand of the tax system that it shall be able to furnish a constantly increasing revenue. —3. The "source of taxation" is that economical quantity from which the tax is really paid, and is to be carefully distinguished from thebasis of assessment. The latter term denotes that on which the tax is nominally laid and according to which it is assessed. Thus the so-called property tax, levied on and according to property, is ordinarily is reality an income tax, i.e., it is paid by the property owner out of his income. Where the property is actually diminished from year to year in order to pay the tax, the latter becomes a real as well as a nominal property tax. There are three possible sources of taxation: income or profits; capital, i.e., property used as a means of production; and finally, property in use. It is possible for a tax to be collected from the commodities belonging to each of these three classes of property, or from the money which represents them in the market, in such a way that the sum total of these commodities shall be diminished by the tax. —The normal source of taxation is national income. By national income we mean the total amount of commodities which come newly into the possession of a nation within a year, and which might have been consumed without lessening the total amount of national wealth at the beginning of the year. In the long run this is the only source from which taxation may draw. A constant or even frequent encroachment on national wealth or capital would soon be stopped by the diminution of the latter. A taxation of national capital, i.e., of the supply of material means of production—or capital in the purely economic sense as opposed to capital in the historico-legal sense—leads necessarily to a limitation of production and to a keenly felt reduction in the standard of comfort. The "sparing of property and capital," the verdict against real taxes on property and capital (i.e., taxes which really diminish property and capital) is, therefore, a universal and highly important principle of the modern theory of taxation. We must keep in mind, however, that a taxation of private or individual capital is not always a taxation of national capital, and that the same objections, therefore, do not apply to a tax a individual which apply to taxes on national capital. Thus a tax on inheritance, while it really diminishes private may not diminish national capital a particle, as it may result in a mere difference of distribution among the citizens. A temperary tax even on national capital or property may be justifiable, in order to support great undertakings on which the existence or continued properity of the nation may depend; as, for instance, to prosecute a necessary war or to introuce much needed reforms in national politics or economy, just as in private business the sacrifice of a portion of the capital or property may be necessary to save the rest. —4. Regard for the incidence of taxation. The government may determine the basis of assessment or the object upon which the tax is laid, and thereby the person who is to advance this tax in the first place, i.e., the tax payer; but under a system of free competition it has no power to determine the source of taxation or the person who must ultimately bear the tax, i.e., the tax bearer. In reference to the last it may have wishes and intentions, and by its choice of taxes and objects for taxation may do much to realize its wishes and intentions. But what particular private income or property shall ultimately become the real source of taxation, or what particular person shall become the real tax bearer, is determined by the economic process which we call the "shifting of taxation." The latter is the result of a reaction of taxation upon the tax payer. He attempts to get rid of the burden of taxation, either by increasing his income (and therefore regularly by increasing his activity of production) or by collecting from another the tax which he has advanced. This endeavor appears in industry as the shifting of taxation, and expresses itself ultimately in certain changes in production and distribution in the whole national economy. Taxation often distributes itself ultimately, therefore, among the sources of taxation and tax bearers, in a very different way from that in which it was originally levied on the objects of taxation and the tax payers. This ultimate distribution is the important point. It should be consistent with economical principles and with principles of justice. The important problem, therefore, of the theory and praxis of taxation consists in finding out, as accurately as possible, what effects a given tax system or particular kinds of taxes have upon the ultimate distribution of taxation which results from this shifting process. —Very many theorists, and nearly all practical men, in this sphere of our science have hitherto attributed an undue importance to this process. They see in it a universal panacea for all inequality of taxation, and maintain that every tax, no matter how unjust when first imposed, if it be retained, will in course of time be equalized by this process of adjustment, and hence cease to be unjust. We may call this the optimistic theory. It is well summed up in the motto, "Every old tax is a good one; every new tax, a bad one." However, neither reason nor observation sustains this view. While in many cases such an adjustment as furthers equality does undoubtedly take place, yet in many others it meets very great difficulties, and in some, unsuperable obstacles. It may also be urged against this view that the adjustment often occurs in such a way as to increase inequality. The economically weaker elements of society, being oftentimes unable to shift any portion of their taxation, are further burdened by whatever portion the stronger elements are able to shift from their own shoulder. In any case it is exceedingly difficult to determine what the effect of this shifting process has been, and we have therefore no security that a harmful and unequal system of taxation will distribute itself justly by any process of shifting or reshifting. It is necessary, therefore, to make our system of taxation, from the first, consistent with the principles of economy and justice.—5 and 6. Universality and equality of taxation. The idea of justice in taxation is a purely relative one. A system may be essentially just at one period and under one set of conditions, which under different circumstances would lack every element of justice. In the following we shall speak of just taxation with reference to the conditions of modern industrial life. Our idea of just taxation will depend very largely on our idea as to the present distribution of wealth which has taken place under the régime of so-called free competition. Whoever regards our present system as absolutely right and the only just one, must regard the present distribution of property and income which has taken place under it, as the only proper one. His theory of just taxation will be a system which interferes as little as possible with the actual distribution of wealth in our society. Universality means to him that every citizen, whether his income be large or small, whether it be derived from funds or daily labor, shall be taxed. He must refuse all proposals to remit taxes. Equality of taxation means that every one shall pay an equal numerical proportion of his income as tax, and implies, therefore, a rejection of progressive taxation. But the claim that the existing distribution effected under free competition is the only just one, is, on the one hand, a begging of the question, and, on the other, it ignores the influence of the existing laws of private property which have been inherited from entirely different conditions. The conclusion, therefore, that the present distribution of wealth is a noli me tangere, is unfounded. A second principle has been making its way into theory and practice, which we may call the politico-social principle, according to which taxation is not merely a means of providing revenue for the government, but, in addition, a means of correcting the existing distribution of property. According to this, the rule of universality admits of some exceptions, such as leaving a certain minimum income untaxed. Equality means equal sacrifice; not attempting to realize that, however, by demanding a numerically equal proportional part of all incomes, but by taking a numerically larger proportion with every increase in income, a least within certain limits. —Two principles have been proposed by which taxation is to be justified and according to which it is to be levied. The first we may call the industrial principle, which would adjust taxation according to "interest," or "service and counter-service." This views the relation of the tax-paying subject to the state as a purely business one. The state performs certain functions, and the individual pays it for such performance. This, of course, is a mere generalization of the fee principle, and is entirely untenable as a general basis for taxation. The second, which we may call the organic principle would regulate taxation according to the ability of the taxed to sustain it. The degree of taxation is determined by the relation between the economic condition of the taxed and the amount of the tax. The justification of taxation lies, accordingly, in the nature of the state and in the relation of the taxed to the state, from which taxation results not as a special counter-service for advantages from the body politic, but as a duty of a member toward the fulfillment of the conditions of the existence and prosperity of the whole to which he belongs. This theory considers the tax as a sacrifice, and equality of taxation is to be established by so adjusting the taxes that they will require an equal sacrifice of all. This is to be accomplished by a system of progressive taxation, i.e., one in which the rate increases with the income. For it is evident that the day laborer who barely earns enough to sustain his family, we will say $400 a year must make a greater sacrifice to pay a 3 per cent. tax, than a capitalist whole income is $10,000 a year, i.e., that $12 is more for the former than $300 for the latter. The first of these principles is naturally the predominating one in all primitive conditions, the second becomes more and more important the more highly the industrial economy is developed.—7, 8 and 9. Definiteness, convenience, economy. These may be called administrative axioms. From our conception of a tax as a sacrifice, it follows, as a matter of course, that every device ought to be adopted to diminish the burden as much as possible consistent with accomplishing our purposes. Definiteness and convenience are really of value only so far as they contribute to economy. Economy in this connection means economy in costs of collection, using that term in its widest sense. We refer to what was said on this point at the close of division II. of this article. —LITERATURE. At the head of systematic works upon the subject we rank the Finanzwissenschaft, by Adolph Wagner, Leipzig, 1877-82, which was taken as the basis of the foregoing article and largely used in its preparation. It is a revision and rewriting with large additions of the Finanzwissenschaft of Rau. It contains admirable summaries of the literature upon special points as well as upon the subject as a whole. Stein's Lehrbuch der Finanzwissenschaft, Leipzig, 1860; Bergius Grundsatze der Finanzwissenschaft, Berlin, 1865; von Malchus' Handbuch der Finanzwissenschaft, Stuttgart, 1830; von Jakob. die Staatswissenschaft, Halle, 1821; may be mentioned among German works. De Parien, Traité des impots, Paris, 1862-5; J Garnier, Eléments des finances, Paris, 1858; L. Cossa, Elem di scienza della fin., Milan, 1876; are all worthy of notice, and contain summaries of all valuable literature on finance. The English works bearing on this subject will be mentioned at close of article on TAXATION. E. J. JAMES. FINE ARTSFINE ARTS, The. The taste for the beautiful, that is to say, the want felt for a certain order and a certain harmony in things form which affect the senses and the intellect, either in sound, color, form or movement, gave birth to the fine arts. To arrange sounds, forms, colors or movements in a manner which shall produce an agreeable impression upon the senses or the intellect, is the object of the musician, the painter, the architect, the sculptor, the poet, or, to use a general term, of the artist. The domain of the fine arts is commonly restricted to painting, sculpture, architecture and music. Some even give the name of art only to the imitation by mechanical means of all forms in their highest degree of natural or ideal beauty. This is what is called plastic art. This word embraces only such arts as drawing, painting, sculpture and architecture, together with engraving and mosaic work. But this definition is evidently too narrow. When a musician or a dancer awakens in the mind a sense of the beautiful, the one by harmonious cadences, the other by graceful and expressive movements, they are artists in the same sense that the painter, the sculptor or the architect is. It is or little importance what may be the material or the instrument which the artist employs to operate upon the senses and the intelligence, provided he succeeds in pleasing them. The fine arts might, therefore, be defined in a general manner as the application of human labor to the production of the beautiful. —The fine arts are found among all nations, even the most barbarous, but they are more or less perfect, more or less developed, according to the state of civilization and the peculiar aptitudes of the people. The Greeks seem to have possessed in the highest degree the taste for the beautiful, and the faculties necessary to satisfy this elevated want of the senses and the intellect. Hence Greece was for a long time a wonderful studio, in which painters, sculptors, architects, musicians and poets vied with each other in ministering to the ruling passion of an artistic people. Other nations, like the ancient Mexicans, seem to have been entirely destitute of the feeling of the beautiful. The forms of the Grecian statues and monuments are as beautiful as those of the Mexican statues and monuments are hideous. —Man could make no great advance in the fine arts until after his more pressing wants were satisfied. Music and dancing probably were the first. Although the art of the architect and the sculptor could not be developed before the trade of the mason or the stone-worker, man needed only the graceful play of the limbs to invent dancing, and the free use of his voice or a reed to invent music. It was possible to develop painting, sculpture, and, above all, architecture, only by the aid of the industrial arts. The trade of building must necessarily have preceded architecture. It was the latter's mission to give to each individual edifice the kind of beauty appropriate to its purpose and to local exigencies. In architecture, as in literature, the same style would not apply equally well to all kinds of work. The architect is bound to give, for example, a religious character to a church, a secular character to be theatre or ball room. The Gothic style up to the present time seems to be that which is most appropriate to the manifestation of religious sentiment. In the Gothic cathedral, the ethereal height of the arches, the vast depth of the nave, and the mysterious subdued light from the windows, join with the profound and solemn accents of the Gregorian chant and the grave and majestic tones of the organ, in awakening the sentiment of veneration. The motley style of the renaissance is better calculated to excite mundane and worldly thoughts. Hence it is the one chosen for theatres and ball rooms. The peculiar propensities of nations have naturally exercised a great influence upon the development of the fine arts. A religious and melancholy people alone could have invented Gothic architecture. In Grecian architecture is found that exquisite elegance which marked all the customs as well as all the works of the privileged Hellenic race. The affected and bizarre customs of the Chinese are also found reflected in their architecture as well as in their dress. —The necessities of climate and the configuration of the ground have exercised a great influence upon the development of architecture, and they have often determined the character of it. Necessities of another order have also operated upon the development of architecture and other arts. Throughout all antiquity is seen the influence which the fine arts exercised over the mind. —For a long time they were considered as an instrumentum regni, as a means of appealing to and mastering the imagination by terror or respect. The gigantic constructions of the Assyrians and Egyptians—construction, the utility of which we vainly endeavor to discover to-day—had perhaps no other object. These exterior signs of power were then necessary to make a simple-minded people accept the absolute dominion of a race or caste. Those who claimed to be the representatives of divinity upon earth were obliged to show themselves superior to other men, in all that was considered as a manifestation of strength or majesty. The co-operation of the fine arts was indispensable to the display of their power. They needed them to construct their temples and palaces, to ornament them with magnificent decorations, and to fashion their garments and their arms. Architects, painters, sculptors, musicians and poets were not less necessary to them than soldiers and priests in sustaining the imperfect and vicious structure of their dominion. Hence the particular care which governments in all ages have given to the development of the fine arts, and the ostentatious protection which they have accorded them, very frequently to the great detriment of other branches of production. Although, in the past, the fine arts were powerful auxiliaries of politics and religion, as nations have developed intellectually and morally, as their intelligence and sentiments have broadened and become purified, this display has exercised less influence over the minds of the people, and the fine arts have lost their political and religious importance. The taste for the beautiful has ceased little by little to be used as an instrument of domination. —Economists have put two leading questions on the subject of the fine arts. They have inquired, first, whether the fine arts form a species of national wealth and second, whether the intervention of the government to protect them is necessary. —Do the products of the fine arts constitute a species of wealth? As regards all that concerns architecture, painting and sculpture, there can be no doubt as to the answer. A building, a statue and a picture are material riches, the accumulation of which evidently augments the capital of a nation. But can as much be said of the products of music and dancing? Can the talent of the musician and the dancer be regarded as productive? Adam Smith says, no; J. B. Say and Dunoyer say, yes. According to Smith's doctrine, the name of products can not be given to things which are ended at the very moment of their formation. To which J. B. Say answers, and rightly, as we think: "If we descend to things of pure enjoyment, we can not deny that the representation of a good comedy gives as much pleasure as a box of bonbons or an exhibition of fire-works. I do not consider it reasonable to claim that the painter's talent is productive, and that the musician's is not so." —But although J. B. Say recognizes the musician's talent as productive, he does not admit that its products can contribute to the increase of a nation's capital. He states his reasons for this opinion as follows: "It results from the very nature of immaterial products that there is no way to accumulate them, and that they can not serve to augment the national capital. A nation which contains a great number of musicians, of priests and of clerks, might be a nation well endowed as to amusements and doctrines, and admirably well administered, but its capital would not receive from all the work of these men any increase, because their products would be consumed as fast as they were created." (J. B. Say, Traité de téconomie politique, book i., chap. xiii.) —But does it follow, because a product, material or immaterial, is consumed immediately after having been created, that it does not augment the capital of a nation? May it not augment, if not its external capital, at least its internal capital, or, to make use of Storch's expression, the capital of its physical, intellectual and moral faculties? Would a population deprived of the services of clergymen, administrators, musicians and poets, a population, consequently, to which religious, political and artistic education was wanting, be worth as much as one sufficiently provided with those different services? Would not man, considered at once as capital and as an agent of production, be worth less under the former circumstances than under the latter? —In his work, De la liberté du travail, M. Charles Dunoyer has completely demonstrated that the consumption of the material or immaterial products of the fine arts develops in man valuable faculties; whence it results that artistic products of the fine arts develops in man valuable faculties; whence it results that artistic production, material or immaterial, can not be considered barren. —Let us complete this demonstration of the productiveness of the fine arts by means of a simple hypothesis. Suppose her musicians and singers were taken away from Italy, would she not be deprived of a species of wealth, even if these artists were replaced by an equal number of laborers, carpenters and blacksmiths? Italy profits by the work of her musicians and her singers as absolutely as she does from the products of agriculture or of manufacturing industry. In the first place she consumes a part of it herself, and this consumption serves to educate the Italian people by developing their intelligence, by refining and polishing their manners. Then, another part of the products of the fine arts, of which Italy is the nursery, is exported each year. Italy supplies a great number of foreign theatres with its composers, its musicians and its singers. In exchange for their immaterial products, these art-workers receive other products purely material, a part of which they commonly bring back to their own country. What laborer, for instance, would have added so much as Rossini to the wealth of Italy? What seamstress or dressmaker, however capable or industrious, would have been worth as much as Catalani or Pasta from the same point of view? The production of the fine arts can not then be considered barren for Italy. —The fine arts, then, can contribute directly to augment the capital of a nation, whether material capital or immaterial capital, which resides in the physical, moral and intellectual faculties of the population. They are in consequence productive in the same degree and in the same sense that all the other branches of human work are. —Artistic production also, like all others, is effected by previous accumulation, the co-operation of capital and labor. In this respect artistic production offers no particular point of interest, except that it gives birth more frequently than any other kind of production, agricultural industry excepted, to natural monopolies. Great artists possess a natural monopoly, in this sense, that the competition among them is not sufficient to limit the price of their work to the level of what is strictly necessary for them to execute it. Jenny Lind possessed a natural monopoly, for the remuneration which she obtained on account of the rarity of her voice, was very disproportionate to what was strictly necessary for her to exercise her profession of a singer. The difference forms a species of rent, in the politico-economical sense of the word, of the same nature exactly as rent derived from land. If nature and art had produced a thousand Jenny Linds, instead of producing but one, it is evident that the monopoly which she enjoyed would not have existed, or that it would have been infinitely less productive. Painters, sculptors and architects possess in their reputation a still more extended monopoly, for it exists and is principally developed after their death. The value of this monopoly depends upon the merit of the artist and upon the quantity of his works. According as the number of works produced by a painter or sculptor is more or less considerable, the price of each one is more or less high. Where the merit is equal, the pictures or statues of the masters who produced the least have a greater pecuniary value than those of the masters whose productions are numerous. Thus, for example, an ordinary picture by the Dutch painter, Hobbema, commonly sells for more than an ordinary picture by Rubens, although Hobbema does not rank so high in art as Rubens. But the former produced only a small number of pictures, while the latter left an enormous number of works. Supposing, also, that the pictures of Ingres and Horace Vernet were equally prized by amateurs, the former would always have a superior pecuniary value to the latter, simply because they are rarer. The differences in the price of objects of art, and the variations which their value in exchange undergoes, notably when fashion takes up again a style which it had abandoned, are curious to study; some valuable ideas are found here in regard to the influence which the fluctuations of demand and supply exercise upon prices, also some interesting information as to the origin, progress and end of natural monopolies. —After having examined the question of the productiveness of the fine arts, we must now see if this kind of production should be specially directed and encouraged by the government, or should be abandoned to the free action of individuals, like all other kinds of production. —The Egyptians and all the nations of antiquity condemned to slavery their prisoners of war, and sometimes entire nations whom they had subjugated. They employed these slaves to construct their monuments. We know that the Israelites helped to build the pyramids. But the Egyptian monuments are rather remarkable for their gigantic proportions than for their beauty. It is plain that the object of the people, or rather of the caste which instructed them, was to inspire the mind with awe rather than to charm it. In Greece the products of the fine arts have quite a different character. They bear above all the imprint of liberty. Grecian art was not enfeoffed to a government or a caste. The greatest number of Grecian monuments were built by means of voluntary contributions. The famous temple of Diana at Ephesus, for instance, was erected by the aid of contributions from the republics and kings of Asia, as later was St. Peter's at Rome in part by the money of Christendom. When Erostratus reduced it to ashes, a new subscription was made to rebuild it. All the citizens of Ephesus considered it an honor to contribute. The women even sacrificed their jewels. At Delphos, also, the temple was rebuilt, after a fire, at the public expense. The architect, Spantharus of Corinth, was engaged to complete it, for them sum of 300 talents. Three-fourths of this sum were furnished by the different cities of Greece, and the other fourth by the inhabitants of Delphos, who collected money even in the most distant countries to aid in completing their quota. A certain Athenian added a sum of money for embellishments, which were not included in the original plan. The greater part of the ornaments of the temple were offerings from the cities of Greece or from private citizens. Thirteen statues by Phidias were a gift from the Athenians. These statues were the result of a tenth part of the spoils taken by the Athenians upon the plains of Marathon. A great number of other objects of art commemorated the victories of the different peoples of Greece in their intestine wars. —A part of the revenue of the Grecian temples was applied to the support of the priests, and another part to the support and embellishment of the edifices. The priests made the greatest sacrifices to ornament the dwelling place of the gods, and these sacrifices were rarely unproductive, for in Greece, as elsewhere, the best lodged gods were always those which brought in the most. The fine arts were also nurtured by the rivalries of the small states, into which Grecian territory was divided, as to which should have the finest temples, statues and pictures. This emulation, pushed to excess gave rise to more than one abuse. Thus it was agreed, after the invasion of the Persians, that henceforth a contribution should be levied upon Greece to defray the common expenses, and that the Athenians should be made the depositaries of it. Pericles did not hesitate to divert these funds from their proper destination, and employ them for the embellishment of Athens. Such an odious abuse of confidence aroused the indignation of all Greece against the Athenians, and was one of the principal causes of the Peloponnesian war. —The Romans, less happily endowed than the Greeks, from an artistic point of view, did not make such considerable sacrifices for the encouragement of the fine arts. At Rome, as in Egypt, the arts were chiefly employed to display to the eyes of conquered nations the power and majesty of the sovereign people. The construction of monuments of the arts was still among the Romans a means of keeping their troops in habits of work and of occupying their slaves. The taste for the beautiful did not enter much into these enterprises, and art naturally felt the effects of this, Still, under Augustus, there was at Rome a great artistic movement, a movement which was due in great part to the development of communication between Rome and Greece. Augustus caused to be built the protico of Octavia, the temple of Mars Ultor, the temple of Apollo, the new Forum, and many other monuments of less importance. His friends, L. Cornificius, Asinius Pollion, Marcius Philippus, Cornclius Balbus, and his son-in-law Agrippa, erected at their own expense a great number of monuments. Attributing to himself, as is common among sovereigns, all the merit of the advance which the arts had made under his reign, Augustus said, some time before his death: "I found Rome of clay, and left it of marble." At Rome, as in Greece, the statues were innumerable. The greater part of the chief citizens erected statues to themselves at their own expense. The censors endeavored to deprive them of this trifling satisfaction, by forbidding the erection of statues at Rome without their permission. But as this prohibition did not extend to the statues which ornamented country houses, the rich citizens evaded the ordinance of the censors, by multiplying their effigies in their splendid villas. —At the time of the downfall of the Roman empire, the barbarians destroyed with stupid rage the finest masterpieces of ancient art. The fine arts then disappeared with the temporary eclipse of civilization. But they soon sprang up again, thanks to the expansion of the religious sentiment supported by municipal liberties. Gothic art owes its birth and progress to the Christian sentiment developed in the emancipated communes of the middle age. A fact which is generally ignored is, that the expense of constructing the greater number of the magnificent cathedrals which adorn European cities, was in great part defrayed by voluntary contributions of residents of the city, nobles, bourgeois, or simple journeymen. Nothing is more interesting, even from the simple economic point of view, than the history of these wonders of Gothic art. At a time when poverty was universal, nothing but religious enthusiasm could have decided people to impose upon themselves the necessary sacrifices for their erection. And nothing was neglected to rouse and excite this enthusiasm. The bishop and the priests furnished an example by sacrificing a part of their revenues to aid in constructing the cathedral; indulgences without end were promised those who contributed to the holy work, either by their time or their money. When there was need of it, miracles happened to animate the languishing zeal of the faithful. By casting a glance over the history of the principal cathedrals, one will be convinced that diplomatic skill was no less needed than artistic genius satisfactorily to accomplish those great religious enterprises. At Orleans, for instance, Saint Euverte having undertaken the construction of the first cathedral in the fourth century, an angel revealed to this pious bishop the very place where it should be built. In digging the foundations of the edifice the workmen found a considerable amount of treasure; and the very day of the consecration of the church, at the moment when Sain Euverte was celebrating mass, a resplendent cloud appeared above his head, and from this cloud issued forth a hand, which blessed three times the temple, the clergy and the assembled people! This miracle converted more than seven thousand pagans, and gave a great reputation to the church of Orleans. —At Chartres, Bishop Fulbert devoted in the first place three years' income and the income from the abbey, to the construction of the cathedral (1220); afterward he collected a considerable sum to continue the work. The pious Matilda, wife of William the Conqueror, was associated with him in his work, and gave the greater part of the lead roofing of the cathedral. A physician of Henry I. built at his own expense one of the lateral portals. Those who had no money gave their work. Workmen of every description voluntarily took part in this enterprise. A great number of the inhabitants of Rouen and of other dioceses of Normandy, provided with the blessing of their archbishop or their bishop, joined the workmen. The troop of pilgrims chose a chief, who apportioned to each his work. —At Strasburg, great indulgences were promised to the faithful who should contribute to the building of the cathedral. Gifts flowed in from all parts. Still the construction of that magnificent cathedral lasted for nearly four centuries. Commenced in the twelfth century, it was not finished till the fifteenth. The construction of the cathedral gave a great reputation to the stone-workers of Strasburg. These workmen, who furnished the greatest architects of the time, formed in the German empire, as well as in France, a body distinct from that of ordinary masons. Up to the time of the French revolution, they continued to have charge of the repair and preservation of the Strasburg cathedral. —The cathedrals of Europe, therefore, the most magnificent and most original monuments which it possesses, are due, in a great part, to the zeal and the faith of individuals. Sometimes, doubtless, this faith and zeal were excited by pious frauds; sometimes also the pride of the bourgeois and the workmen were appealed to, to induce them to construct a more spacious and more beautiful cathedral than that of a neighboring and rival city; but in general no recourse was had to coercive measures; there was no levying of taxes to be specially devoted to the construction of churches, the sacrifices which the clergy generously imposed upon themselves and the voluntary gifts of the faithful were sufficient, and assured the multiplication of masterpieces of the Gothic art in an age of universal misery and barbarism. —In Italy the constitution of a multitude of small municipal republics was singularly favorable to the development of the fine arts. Rivals in commerce, the Italian republics were also rivals in the arts. The rich merchants of Genoa, of Pisa, of Florence and of Venice made it a point of honor to protect the arts and to endow their cities with magnificent monuments. This spirit of emulation seized the popes, and Rome disputed with Florence for the great artists of Italy. The basilica of St. Peter's was commenced; but as the ordinary resources of the papacy were insufficient to complete this immense enterprise, recourse was had to a special issue of indulgences; unfortunately this particular kind of paper, having been made too common, depreciated in value, and ended by being refused in a great number of Christian countries. So the gigantic basilica was never completely finished. With the political and commercial decline of the republics, which spread like a network over Italian soil, commenced that of the fine arts in Italy. The encouragement of despotism has never availed to restore them to the splendor which they had in the time of the municipal republics of the middle age and of the renaissance. —In France, Louis XIV, thought that in his own interests it was his duty to protect the arts. Prompted thereto by the great king, Colbert founded the academy of fine arts. Unfortunately, the great king and his minister did not adhere to this creation. Louis XIV. spent enormous sums upon his royal dwellings. Under his reign the fine arts became the auxiliaries of war in crushing nations. —In his learned Histoire de la vie et de l'administration de Colbert, M. Pierre Clément estimated at 165,000,000 livres, money of the period, the sums which Louis XIV. expended in buildings, and in the encouragement of the fine arts and manufactures. The details are as follows:
By taking as a base, adds M. Clément, the mean value of the mark of silver in Louis XIV's time and in 1846, we shall find that the approximate value of the above is about 350,000,000 marks. But when we remember the wonders of Versailles alone, it is probable that all the buildings of Louis XIV., if executed in our day, would cost not far from a billion. —Still these ostentations expenditures contributed in no way to the progress of the fine arts. Under Louis XIV. art was only a reminiscence of antiquity or of the renaissance. In the eighteenth century, taste in art, fettered by the immutable rules of the subventioned academies, became more and more corrupt. The revolution destroyed official protection, but it was wrong in not stopping there; the vandals of that time placed their sacrilegious hands upon the masterpieces of the past, as if they were suspected of royalism. On the other hand, the ridiculous imitations were reproduced no less ridiculously in the arts. To the corrupt taste of Watteau, Boucher and Vanloo, succeeded the false taste of the school of David. Napoleon did not fail to re-establish official protection. "I wish," he wrote to his minister of the interior, Count Cretet, "I wish the fine arts to flourish in my empire." But the fine arts did not hasten to obey the injunction of the despot, and the imperial epoch was anything but artistic. —It is a common opinion that modern civilization is not favorable to the progress of the fine arts. As proof in support of this opinion, are cited the English and Americans, who, at the head of industrial civilization, are in a state of inferiority from an artistic point of view. But it is forgotten that all nations are not endowed with all aptitudes, any more than all soils are provided with fertility of all kinds. While certain northern nations obtained as their heritage industrial genius, artistic aptitudes fell to the lot of the southern nations. Certain nations have been for centuries the studios of the fine arts, as others have been the workshops of manufacturing industry. As international exchange becomes more developed, this division of labor will be more marked, and it will facilitate more and more the progress of the fine arts as well as that of the industrial arts. The progress of the arts will be accelerated also by the spread of comfort, which will augment their market, and by the progress of industry, which will place new material and new instruments at their disposal. Fewer palaces, perhaps, will be built, fewer battle pieces painted than in the past, but railway stations and palaces for industrial expositions will be constructed; the splendid and grand landscapes of the new world, which steamships render more and more accessible to European artists, will be painted; and statues will be erected to useful men instead of to conquerors. On the other hand, the use of light materials, of iron and glass for example, renders possible to-day artistic combinations unknown to the ancients. The employment of new instruments, invented or perfected by industry, will give birth to progress in other ways. Has not the multiplication of musical instruments already given an immense impetus to instrumental music? In an artistic sense, as in all others, modern civilization is probably destined to surpass ancient civilization. But if liberty was the essential condition of the progress of the arts in the past, it will be no less so in the future. Like all other branches of production, and more still because of the character of spontaneity which is peculiar to them, and which has given to them the name of liberal arts, the fine arts will progress the more rapidly the sooner they are freed from all protection and all shackles. G. DE MOLINARI. FIRE INSURANCEFIRE INSURANCE (See INSURANCE.) FISHERIESFISHERIES. Definition of the term Fishery. To the term fishery must necessarily be granted a wider significance than its derivation seems to permit. By universal consent and usage the industries connected with the capture of whales, turtles, corals and sponges are called fisheries, as well as those which are connected solely with animals grouped by zoölogists with the class of fishes. The exploitation of the products of sea, lake and river constitutes an industry distinct from all others, with methods peculiar to itself. carried on by a class of operatives, appropriately enough called "fishermen," and which can not well be described otherwise than as "the fisheries," or better, "the fishery industry." Inappropriate as, at first thought, it may appear to designate as fisheries the pursuit of seals upon dry land, with clubs and guns, or the dredging of oysters and corals from the decks of steamers, the seeming incongruity disappears when we take into consideration the similarity of method between these industries and other, such as the swordfish fishery and the trawl-net fishery of the German ocean. The most comprehensive interpretation of the term is sanctioned by the usages of the Berlin and London fishery exhibitions, and by that of the tenth census of the United States. —THE OBJECTS OF THE FISHERY INDUSTRY. In discussing the various kinds of animals, plants and other objects, which are the objects toward which the activity of the fishery industries is directed, it seems most convenient to follow the order of scientific classification. —Seals, or Pinnipeds. The pinnipeds are divided into three families: the walruses, the eared seals (Otariidæ), and the common seals. The walruses are found only in Arctic seas, and the Atlantic species, formerly ranging down our coast as far as Cape Sable, N. S., is now restricted in American waters to Hudson bay, Davis straits and Greenland. The Pacific walrus still occurs in great numbers in Alaska and northern Siberia, where it is hunted by American whalemen. In 1877 it was estimated that in the preceding ten years at least 120,000 of these animals had been killed by white men in the Arctic ocean and Behring sea, producing about 50,000 barrels of oil and 400,000 to 500,000 pounds of ivory. A considerable number are killed by European whalemen in the North Atlantic, and the Esquimaux of the entire Arctic zone depend largely upon this animal for food, and leather and ivory for manufacturing purposes. The eared seals are of two kinds: the sea lions and the fur seals. The former are used chiefly by the Esquimaux and Indians for food and leather. The latter are the most important of fur-bearing animals. Their skins, when plucked and dyed, command a price of $50 to $80. The most important fur-seal industry is on the Prybilov islands of Alaska, where 100,000 pelts are annually taken by the Alaska commercial company, in accordance with the terms of lease from the United States. Large quantities are also obtained from the Siberian coast, from the islands around Cape Horn, and in the Antarctic ocean. The common seals, of which there are several species on our coast, are valuable chiefly for their skins and oil. The United States does not engage in their capture. There are extensive sealing grounds in West Greenland, where about 90,000 are annually taken by the natives; about Newfoundland, yielding in 1873, 526,000; by Englishmen, and other European seal hunters in the Jan Mayen or Greenland seas, yielding in 1868, at least 250,000; in the White sea, yielding about 100,000; in the Caspian sea, yielding about 130,000. The total annual capture of common seals can not fall far below 1,000,000 individuals, yielding oil to the value of $1,250,000, besides the skins. An immense animal of this group is the sea elephant, (Macrorhinus leoninus), now found chiefly in the Atlantic ocean, though formerly abundant on the west coast of the American continent from California southward. These animals reach the length of eighteen or twenty feet, and one of them yields from 150 to 200 gallons of oil. For more than a hundred years several vessels from New London, Connecticut—formerly also from Sag Harbor and Stonington—have yearly penetrated the ice of the Antarctic ocean to capture these animals at Heard's island and elsewhere. There was formerly an extensive capture of sea elephants on the Californian coast. For a full account of the pinnipeds, and their capture, see J. A. Allen's Monograph of North American Pinnipeds, Washington, 1880, and H. W. Elliott's Monograph of the Seal Islands, a part of the Fishery Census Report, printed in advance. —Cetaceans. There are two principal groups of cetaceans: those with teeth and with a single blow-hole, the sperm whale, porpoises, etc., and those with two blow-holes, which have the teeth replaced by a sieve-like mass of flexible laminæ—the whalebone of commerce—the right whales, bowheads, finbacks, sulphur-bottoms, etc. The sperm whale, pottfisch, or cachalot. (Physeter macrocephalus), occurs in every ocean, and though preferring warm waters, sometimes approaches close to the Arctic circle. It is one of the most important of cetaceans, yielding large quantities of common oil and a specially fine quality of oil called sperm oil, which, together with spermaceti, is found in the cavities of the ponderous head. Ambergris is a product of the intestines of diseased cachalots. Porpoises, dolphins and blackfish, which are pigmy sperm whales, occur the world over in the open ocean and near the shore. Fifteen kinds have already been discovered in the waters of the United States, the most common of which are the "snuffing pigs," or harbor propoises. (Phocæna brachycion on the east coast, P tomerina on the west), the skunk—or bay—porpoises, (Lagenorhynchus perspicillatus, cast, L. obliquidens, west), and the black-fish, the "caing whale," of Scotland, (Olobicephalus intermedius, east, G. scammoni, west). These are valuable for their oil, particularly that of the heads, which is the porpoise-jaw oil, used in preference to all others by watchmakers and machinists. These animals, particularly the lumbering blackfish, often run ashore in schools of hundreds on certain portions of our coast, a valuable windfall for the inhabitants. The white whale, (Delphinapterus catodon), occurs both in Alaska and on the North Atlantic coast, and is prized both for its fine oil and for its skin which makes the valuable porpoise leather used for mail bags, military accoutrements, etc. The right, or whale-bone whales, are represented in our waters by a number of species. The humpbacks, scrags, sulphur-bottoms and finbacks are large, shy species, much trouble to kill, but yielding fair quantities of common or body oil, though their whalebone is so short as to be of little commercial value. the right whale, and the bowhead, (Balæna mysticetus), are sought chiefly in Arctic seas, the lalttler among the icebergs of the extreme north. The longest slabs of whalebone from an adult bowhead measure from fourteen to seventeen feet. (For details see C. M. Scammon's Marine Mammals of the Northwest Coast and American Whalefishery; San Francisco, 1874.) —Tortoises. The most important of this group to the United States is the diamond back terrapin, (Malacoclemmys palustris), which occurs in our seaside marshes from Cape Cod to the gulf of Mexico. It is highly esteemed by epicures, and is an important article of commerce. The green turtle. (Chelonia mydas), is a standard article of food, and many hundreds are taken annually at Key West, and in the inlets of Florida and the Carolinas. It affords turtle soup, a standard article of food in the cities of Europe and America. The eggs of this and other sea turties yield a fine oil, which is an article of commerce in South America. The "turtle oil soap" of our markets is, however, made from other substances. The hawkabill turtle, (Eretmochelys imbricata), is a marine species which yields the tortoise shell of commerce. The largest quantities are obtained from the east, the European and Chinese markets being supplied chiefly from Singapore, Manila and Batavia at the rate of 26,000 to 30,000 pounds annually. In 1870 it was imported into Great Britain to the value of $150,000, and from the following countries: Holland, Philippine islands, British India, Straits Settlement, Australia, New Granada, Honduras, West Indies. France, in 1876, imported tortoise shell to the value of $418,000. Certain pond and river turtles are eaten in the United States, and the land turtle, or gopher, (Xerobates carolinus), is one of the chief resources for meat of the negroes of Florida. —FISHES. The Cod Family. The most important family of fishes, from an economical point of view, is undoubtedly that of the codfishes, which occurs everywhere in the Arctic and temperate waters of the northern hemisphere. The codfish,(Gadus morthua; Swedish, torsk; Norwegian, skrei; German, dorsch, and kablian; Dutch, kabeljau; French, morue, etc.), is found in the North Atlantic and Arctic oceans, from Greenland and Spitzbergen on the north to Virginia and the bay of Biscay. In the Pacific it ranges south to the straits of Fuca on the east, while its limits on the Asiatic coast are not yet known. Everywhere it is the object of extensive fisheries along the shore, and there are important bank fisheries on the banks of Newfoundland, and the other banks along the coast of North America, off the Lofoden islands of Norway, on the shoals in the German ocean, and off the coasts of Ireland and Iceland; in the Pacific, on the banks near the Chumagin islands, and on the Asiatic side. The flesh of the cod is hard, of excellent flavor, is dried with little trouble, so that it may be kept for a long time, and on this account is an important article of commerce, supplying a cheap and nutritious article of food. The oil of the liver is abundant, and useful in the arts as well as in medicine; the roes, salted, form an important article of bait, used in the European sardine fisheries; the swim-bladders form the basis for a fine grade of isinglass, and the skins and tins are made into most useful glues and cements. The other species of the family are useful in similar ways, though the cod is superior to all except in the matter of furnishing material for isinglass and glue, in which it is excelled by the hakes. The roes of the pollock are large, and are by some preferred for bait. The haddock, (Melanogrammus æglefinus), is found in company with the cod in the north Atlantic, though not so widely distributed wither to the north or south. It is highly prized for consumption in a fresh state, though rarely dried. It is a favorite fish for boiling in Europe and in New England, where also it is recognized to be without a rival as a foundation for chowder. The pollock, (Pollachius carbonarius), occurs only in the North Atlantic, its range corresponding closely to that of the haddock, though somewhat more northerly. On account of its darker flesh it is not so highly esteemed as the cod, either fresh or in a dried condition, though many experts believe it to surpass the cod in sweetness and sapidity. The pollock is represented on the west coast of North America by a closely allied species (Pollachius chaleogrammus), which possesses all the economic qualifications of its Atlantic relative. The hakes, (phycis, various species), occur in the Atlantic, over much the same area as the two last-mentioned species, and are captured in large quantities. Next to the cod they are most in demand for salting and drying, their flesh being nearly as while as that of the cod, though of somewhat inferior flavor. When their long ventral fins or "beards" are removed, the uninitiated are unable to distinguish them from cod, and since the introduction of the practice of putting up "boneless fish," cut in strips and packed in boxes, two of the greatest obstacles to the sale of hake under the name of codfish have disappeared. It is but fair to say that conscientious dealers brand their packages with the words "boneless fish," not "boneless codfish," but to the majority of buyers the words have the same significance. The air-bladders of the hakes are large, and immense quantities are used in the manufacture of isinglass. The cusk, (Brosmius brosme), found on ledges and under rocks in localities in the North Atlantic where hake occur, and particularly in Europe, is highly prized as a fish for botling. the ling, (Molva vulgaris), occurs only along the shores of northern Europe, where in is caught with cod and applied to similar uses. There are also several other members of this family, such as the whiting, (Gadus merlangus), of northern Europe, the coal fish, (Pollachius vireus), of northern Europe, and the tomcods, or frost fish, of North America, (Gadus tomcodus of the Atlantic, and Gadus proximus of the Pacific), which have much local importance. The burbot or eel pout, (Lota vulgaris), distributed through the fresh waters of norhtern America. Europe and Asia, is highly esteemed as a food fish on the other side of the Atlantic. —The Herring Family. The herring family is perhaps of wider importance to mankind than that of the cods, since its representatives are found in every portion of the globe, within the tropics as well as under the Arctic circle, and everywhere constitute an important food resource. They usually congregate in schools, not far from the surface, and are easily caught, particularly at the period of spawning when they assemble in shallow water in closely crowded masses. Two groups, with distinct habits, are found within the family, many species remaining constantly at sea, and spawning on the shallows near the shore, others ascending the rivers in the spring and early summer to deposit their eggs upon the flats—but slightly covered with water—near the sources of the streams in their tributaries. The latter, or anadromous class, give occasion for extensive river fisheries in many parts of the earth, for there are few large rivers in temperate or subtropical regions which have not an abundance of one or more species of the herring family. A well-known example of the latter class is our shad, (Clupea sapidissima), abundant in the rivers of eastern North America, from the St. Johns in Florida to the St. Lawrence, and of late years introduced by artificial processes into the Mississippi and its tributaries. Accompanying the shad are three related species, the spring or branch herring; the alewife of New England rivers, (Clupea vernalis; the glut herring, or blue back, (Clupea antivalis), and the tailor herring or mattawocca, (Clupea mediocris), all of which are of large economic value. Europe has no river fish comparable to the shad, although there are two somewhat similar species in the rivers; one of which, the allice shad, or maifisch of Germany, (Clupea alosa), is sometimes held up as its rival. This fish and the twaite shad, or finte, (Clupea finta), are far inferior in size and flavor to their counterparts on the opposite side of the Atlantic, and are not sufficiently abundant to possess commercial importance. Several attempts have been made to introduce our shad into Europe, and it can not be doubted that by the ingenuity of our fish-culturists this difficult task will yet be accomplished. A fish similar to the shad is said to give occasion for important fisheries in the Yang-tse-kiang and other rivers in China. Of the group confined to the sea, the herring, (Clupea harengus), is the most prominent example, and gives rise to extensive fisheries from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Great Britain, Germany, and Holland. This fish, like the others of the tribe, but pre-eminently among them, is well suited for pickling and smoking, and, thus prepared, is one of the chief food resources of northern Europe. The young of this species is the celebrated "whitebait" ot England, which has of late years been introduced to notice in this country by Blackford, the great fish factor of Fulton market, New York. Within five years numerous establishments for canning young herrings have sprung up in Maine, and "American sardines" are now put up to the amount of nearly $2,000,000 every year. The true sardine of Europe (Clupea pilchardus) has for half a century been the basis of an extensive canning industry in southwestern Europe, and has recently been prepared in canneries on the south coast of England. The young herrings, so immensely abundant, will doubtless soon be utilized in the establishment of a sardine industry in Norway and Sweden, where they are fabulously abundant. On our west coast occur the California herring, (Clupea mirabilis), and the California sardine, (Clupea sagax), which are similar fishes, whose value will doubtless be greater in the future. One of the most important fishes of the United States is the menhaden, or mossbunder, (Brevoortia tyrannus), about 900,000,000 of which are taken annually, to be made into oil and guano. The menhaden fishery, which is on e of the most extensive and remarkable in the world, is carried on chiefly by steamers. Menhaden occur on the west coast of Africa, where, very possibly, an extensive fishery will, in the future, be inaugurated. (For details see Goode's History of the American Menhaden, in Report of U. S. Fish Commission, Part V.) The oil sardine, (Clupea scombrina), of the eastern coast of the Indian peninsula, and the trubu of the Malays, (Clupea toli), are valuable Asiatic species. The latter is extensively captured on the coast of Sumatra for the sake of its roes, which are salted and exported to China. There are many valuable species of this family in the warmer regions of the earth, where, on account of the case of capture they are important articles of local consumption. Certain tropical species are believed with good reason to be poisonous, causing a dangerous sickness (called by the Spaniards of Cuba "ciguatera.") to those who eat them. —The Makerel Family. The common mackerel, (Scomber acombrus), is one of the most important food fishes of the northern Atlantic, being extensively taken for consumption in a fresh state, by the fishermen of northern Europe, and, in New England and Canada, giving occasion for one of the most important commercial fisheries in the world; pickled herring which have been alluded to as of such importance in the food supply of Europe. The mackerel, like the herring, congregate together in great schools, and are taken, a hundred barrels or more at a time, in the American purse seine. The methods of capture now employed in Europe correspond to those abandoned on this side of the Atlantic half a century ago. Species closely related to the common mackerel are abundant on the coast of California, in Japan, about New Zealand and Australia, and at the cape of Good Hope, everywhere giving rise to fisheries. There are not many other widely important fishes in this family, though all temperate and tropical seas have three or four or more representatives of the family of considerable local importance; particularly is this the case on the east coast of the United States, where occur in greater or less abundance at least twenty-five members of this and the closely related group of Carangidæ, which are marketable, some of which are recognized to be among the choicest food fishes in the world. The pompanoes, (Trachynotus carolinus and allied species), are very highly esteemed, selling at retail in the markets of the large coast cities for fifty cents to $1.50 per pound; these epicurean treasures are taken chiefly south of New York. The Spanish mackerel. (Cybium maculatum), is almost as valuable as the pompano, and is captured in much larger quantities, from Cape Cod southward, especially in the Chesapeake bay, and on the coast of New Jersey. This fish has been successfully propagated by the United States fish commission, and extensive operations in its culture are in contemplation. The tunny, or horse-mackerel, (Oreynus thynnus), is the subject of an extensive fishery in the straits of Messina, and elsewhere in the Mediterranean. Though the number of individuals taken is small, their immense bulk—for their average weight is from 500 to 1,200 pounds—renders the aggregate result of the fishery quite important. This fish is abundant on the coast of New England, but is not at all valued. Large numbers of them are killed annually in the nets and pounds, where they inflict much damage upon the property of the fishermen, but their carcasses are allowed to fall to pieces on the beaches. The various species of albacore and bonito, harpooned so frequently at sea, belong to this family, and many valuable food fishes, such as our crevallé and amber fish, which are collectively of considerable importance to man. Closely allied to the mackerels are the Stromateidæ, the harvest fishes and butter fishes, which are of considerable importance on the Atlantic coast of the United States. The butter fish, (Poronotus triacanthus), the starfish of Norfolk and vicinity, is a favorite in the many seaport towns, and the harvest fish, (Peprilus paru), is in large demand at Norfolk and other southern markets. —The Salmon Family. The salmons, trouts, chars, graylings and white-fishes are of great importance to the inhabitants of the northern hemisphere, one or more representatives of the group being found in almost every lake, brook or river. These fishes are sedentary in inland waters, except the true salmons, many of which spend a considerable portion of the time between birth and maturity in the estuaries of the rivers in which they were hatched, or at sea, the adults invariably ascending to the headwaters of their rivers when the season of reproduction approaches. The best known of the tribe is the Atlantic salmon, (Salmo salar), once abundant in the rivers of Europe south to France and Portugal, and in those of the United States to the Connecticut, and probably even to the Housatonic and Hudson, now nearly exterminated except in the few streams where stringent protective laws have been enforced. (For details of this and other game fishes see Goode's Game Fishes of North America; New York, Scribner's, 1880-81.) The most important from an economical standpoint is the California, or quinnat salmon, (Oncorhynchus chouicha), which is canned in California, Oregon and Washington, and shipped to all quarters of the globe. California has several other very important species of sea and river salmon, notably the dog salmon, (O. keta); the humpback, (O. gorbuscha); the coho (O. Kisutch), and the nerka (O. nerka). Japan and Siberia have also extensive and valuable salmon fisheries. The chars and lake trouts, though not ordinarily captured by the wholesale, are of much importance, affording food in large quantities, and sport of the most attractive kind. The American lake trout, or Mackinaw trout, (Salvdinus namaycush), is the largest perhaps of this group. The brook trout of eastern North America, (Salvelinus fontinalis), is a prime favorite of angiers. Northern Europe possesses several species of chars, related to our brook trout, prominent among which are the sailbling, (S. salvelinus), and the "ombre chevalier" of the Swiss lakes. The oquassa, or blue-backed trout, (S. oquassa), of the lakes of Maine, is a noteworthy American form. The Dannbe salmon, or huchen, (S. huchu), is also a member of this group. The smelt, (Osmerus mordax), comes in winter from the sea to spawn in the streams from New Jersey to Labrador, and immense quantities of them are shipped to market, packed in ice and snow. It is esteemed a great delicacy. The allied species of Europe, the smelt, or stinte, (O. eperlanus), has a flavor equally fine, but is little prized, chiefly because the fish dealers of Europe do not ordinarily take pains to keep their fish fresh and hard. The surf smelt, (Hypomesus olidus), is an important fish upon the northwest coast of America, as is also the oulachan, or candle fish, (Thaleichthys pacificus), which affords a large quantity of sweet, limpid oil, now being introduced as a substitute for cod liver oil. The capelin (Mallotus tillosus), the lödde of Norway, occurs in immense quantities in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, where it is a favorite food of the codfish. Coming near the shore to spawn in the spring, they give occasion for the extensive spring codfisheries of Labrador. Newfoundland and Finmark. As a bait fish for cod they are, at this season, of great importance. Whitefish of various species, one of the best known being the common lake whitefish, (Coregonus albus), occur in the great lakes of North America, where they give rise to important commercial fisheries, and in other lakes of the new and old world. The gwyniad, the vendace and the pollan of Great Britain, and the madue maræna, schnäpel and felchen of Germany, are well known. The whitefish are delicious in flavour, and are well adapted for transportation in a fresh state as well as for pickling and smoking. They are propagated artificially with much success both in this country and in Europe. The grayling, (Thymallus, various species), are very beautiful and graceful, and therefore celebrated in angling literature. The grayling of the United States, inhabiting Michigan, Wisconsin and Montana, was discovered first about 1867, and has of late years been much discussed. The four families which are of the greatest importance to man, namely the gadoids, cluperiods, scombroids, and salmonoids, having been discussed somewhat at length, it remains to notice briefly the other groups which are of considerable commercial importance. Many families, well worthy of notice, must necessarily be omitted in an essay so much abridged as the preset. —The Flatfish and Sole Families. The fishes of this groups are of world-wide distribution, and in temperate seas are everywhere of importance as source of food. The largest of the groups is the halibut, (Hippoglossus culgaris), distributed throughout the North Atlantic, North Pacific and Arctic oceans, ranging on the North American coast south to Long Island on the east, and the Farallone islands on the west; while on that of Europe its range is limited by the parallel of 50° north latitude. Its capture in the eastern Atlantic is somewhat casual, but the fisherman of New England carry on extensive halibut fisheries on the offshore banks and in Davis straits; in the stormiest months of winter, as well as in summer, they set their lines hundreds of miles from shore, and the halibut fishery is unquestionably the most perilous pursuit in which seafaring men habitually engage. Halibut are especially well suited for marketing in a fresh condition, since the hardness of their fresh renders it possible to preserve them packed in ice for weeks, without suffering detriment to an extent which would be observed by the ordinary buyer in an inland town. Smoked halibut are highly esteemed throughout the northern United States, while the pickled fins and heads are put up to supply a limited New England market. The turbot, (Rhombus maximus), and the brill, (Rhombus tæxis), are favorite food fishes in Great Britain and the adjoining parts of the continent, and with the sole, (Solea vulgaris), give rise to an extensive fishery with trawl nets. Though attaining a larger size than any of the flounders of our North Atlantic coast, they are yet superior, such as the common flounder, (Paralichthys dentatus), or the flatfish, (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), which are to a great extent neglected by our people. We have no substitute in the eastern United States for the sole, which, in flavour and texture, fax surpasses any of our flatfishes, although we have some magnificent species to which it is zoologically closely similar, tentative experiments have been tried with a view to its acclimation here, and there can be little doubt that this will be accomplished as soon as a really positive effort is made in what direction. The Greenland turbot, so called, (Platysomatichthys hippoglossoides), is brought from Newfoundland by the winter herring fleet, and is often seen in the markets of the eastern cities. It is one of the most delicious of flatfishes, and deserves to be better known. The pole flounder, (Glyplocephalus cynoglossus), inhabits deep holes off the New England coast, where it was discovered in 1877 by the United States fish commission. By many its flesh is highly relished. California has many species of flatfishes in its markets, about all of which pass by the name "sole"; none of them have as yet acquired special renown as a food fish. The turbot of the Black sea, (Rhombus mæoticus), is a species of some importance. The plaice, (platessa culgaris), the scholle of scholleof Germany, is also valued in Europe. —The Red Perch Family. The rose fish, red perch, or Norway haddock, (eebastes marinus), if of special importance to the natives of Greenland, and considerable quantities are taken in the British provinces and northern New England by shore fishermen, as well as in northern Europe. This family attains its highest commercial importance, however, on our Pacific coast, where under various names, many of them variations of the word rockfish, no less than twenty-eight closely related species occur, all of them highly esteemed for food. A closely related family, (Chiridæ), is also present in great force in that region, six or more species being included in the list of California food fishes. Among these is the cultus cod, or buffalo cod, (Oplaodon elongatus), and several forms of "rock trout." —The Wrasses and Parrot Fishes. Fishes of the families Labridæ and Scaridæ abound in tropical waters, especially among coral reefs, and with their graceful forms and bright colors are among the showiest and most beautiful of their class. These showy tropical forms are usually dry and flavorless when cooked. There are, however, many less conspicuous species inhabiting temperate water, and a few, a well, in the tropics, which are highly prized for food. In our New England and middle states are the tautog or bluefish, (Tautoga americana), and the cunner, chogset, or blue-perch, (Ctenolabrus adspersus), both captured by hook and line in considerable quantities, and entering largely in local consumption. The scare or scarus of the Mediterranean, (Scarus cretensis), is still highly prized, and in the days of ancient Rome was considered the choicest of fishes, and was introduced from the Troad into the sea between Ostium and Campagua, at great expense, by Elipentius. Coridodax pullus, the butter fish, or kelp fish or New Zealand, is an important food fish; and Lachnolamus falcatus, of the West Indian fauna, the hog-fish of Bermuda, is in many places greatly depended upon in the fish market. The sale of the latter species is forbidden by law in Cuba, on account of supposed poisonous properties of its flesh. It is nevertheless sold in large quantities. Many species of this group are looked upon with suspicion in the tropics, and doubtless at times acquire poisonous properties from their food. —The Swordfish Family, etc. The members of this family, swordfishes, sail-fishes, and spear-fishes, are eaten in all parts of the world. The only commercial fisheries, however, are along the shores of Sicily and Calabria, and along the shores of Sicily and Calabria, and of New England, where the common swordfish, (Xiphias gladms), is pursued with harpoon and line similar to those employed by whalemen. The flesh of this enormous fish is excellent, either fresh or pickled. (For details see Good's History of the Swordfish Family, in Report of U.S. Fish Commission, Part VIII.) The silvery hair-tail, or scabbard fish, (Trichurus lepturus), a near relative of swordfish, is an important species at Jamaica. —The Surf fish Family. The surf-fishes of the Pacific coast, constituting the family Embiotocida, are best known from their remarkable habit of bringing forth their young alive. They are among the most important food fishes of the Calilfornian coast, and twelve distinct species are known from the San Francisco markets. —The Drum Family, (Scianidæ). The drum family occurs in all the warmer parts of the Atlantic and Indian oceans, and is well represented on the Pacific coast. The species are nearly all large, and are of such excellent quality for food that the family would seem to deserve mention among the few which are of the greatest importance to man. The drums, however, with a few exceptions, do not congregate together in schools, and can only be caught by the slow processes of hook and line fishing from the shore, and are therefore rarely, if ever, the objects of special fisheries carried on upon a commericial basis. Our eastern coast is particularly well stocked with edible fishes of this family, such as the well-known squeteague, or weakfish (Cynoscian regalis), and its southern representative, the spotted trout or sea trout, of the South Atlantic states, (C. carolinus), which are valued not only a particularly fine quality of isinglass, and are caught in large numbers in weirs and scines. The drum, (Pogonias chromis), is well known as one of the most destructive enemies of the oyster beds, and, when young, is a desirable food fish. The fresh-water drum, (Haploidonotus grunniens), distributed widely throughout the great lakes and the Mississippi basin, is known by numerous local titles, such as gaspergou, jewel head, sheepshead, and maleshagenay. The lafayette, spot or goody (Liostomus obliquus), and the croaker, (Micropogou undulatus), are well known types of the smaller members of this family, all consumed in large quantities from New York southward. The drum of the Chesapeake, the redfish or channel bass of southern waters, (Sciænops ocellatus), often attains the weight of forty of sixty poinds, and is captured in large quantities in nets and with the hook. The kingfish, (Menticirrus nebulosus), and the whiting of Charleston, (M. alburullus), are also important species, and next to the pompano, Spanish mackerel, and sheepshead, are the most highly prized by epicures and most costly in the market. The queen-fish, the bagre and the roncador are members of this group, well known in California. The maigre, (Sciana aquilla), and the ombre, or coroo, (Umbrina cirrusa), are European food fishes, and others of commercial importance occur at the cape of Good Hope and in the East Indies. —The Sheepshead Family. The sheepsheads, or sea breams, are, like the drums, of importance everywhere, but though caught in quantities in the aggregate, with hook and line, among the rocks where they feed, they can not ordinarily be taken by wholesale method. An exception to this general statement may be made in the case of the scup, or porgy, (Stenitibeys argyrops), which is the subject of an extensive trap fishery in Narragansett bay, during the spawning season in the spring. (See Baird in Report of U.S. Fish Commission, part I., pp. 228-235.) The sheepshead, (Archosargus probatocephalus), occurs from Cape Cod southward to the gulf of Mexico, and is a favorite of anglers and epicures, besides being a prominent feature in many markets. The sailors' choice, or pin-fish, (Lagodon rhomboides), is a small species of value. The sargo of the Mediterranean is well known, and there are in the east numerous important fishes of this group, among them the snapper, (Pagrus unicolor), one of the chief fishes of southern Australia and New Zealand,Pagellus lithognathusof the cape of Good Hope, and Chryophrys hastaof the East Indies and China. —The Snapper Family. Several members of this family, (Prislipomatidee), occur in the markets from New York south ward under the name of grunt, and numerous similar forms occur elsewhere in warm seas. The red snapper, (Lutjanus blackfordii), is the most important of its representatives in the United States, giving rise to a large and constantly increasing reef fishery in the gulf of Mexico, from which Pensacola and New Orleans derive a large income. The gray snapper, (Luljanus caxis), and the red snapper, (L. autolycus), are among the most important food fishes of the Bermuda. —The Perch Tribe. The sea basses proper, (Serranida), like the fishes of the three families last mentioned, while not captured by wholesale means, are of much importance to the local fisherman of many regions. The sea bass of New England and the middle states, (Centropristis atrarius), the blackfish of Charleston and the south, is one of the best representatives of the group. New York, Noank, Philadelphia and Charleston all have small fleets of fishing vessels chiefly engaged in their capture. The grouper, (Epinephelus morio), gives rise to considerable smack fishery in the gulf, carried on by New England and Florida fishermen for the supply of the Havana market. Numerous other species of local repute might be mentioned. The family Labracide, closely allied to that just mentioned, includes our striped bass, or rockfish, (Morone lineata), one of the noblest of game fishes, and of great commercial value withal, which is found from the gulf of St. Lawrence to Florida, and is taken both by hook and by net in all the rivers and estuaries. The bass of England, (Morone labrax), is a very similar fish. Our white perch, (Morone americana), is sold in immense quantities in markets south of Cape Cod, and is one of the most useful of our smaller fishes. The white bass, and the short striped bass and similar forms, inhabit the great lakes and the Mississippi basin. The common perch, (Perca fluciatilis), occurs in lakes and streams throughout eastern North America, Europe, and northwestern Asia, and is everywhere of great local importance. The pike perches, represented in the United States by at least two species of the genus stizontedium, known in the interior states by such names as wall-eyed pike, sauger, and frequently also erroneously by such names as salmon and salmontrout, are important, as is also the zander, (Lucioperca zandra), of continental Europe. A family, allied to the perches, which attains its highest development in North America, is that of the breams, (Centrarchidæ). In addition to the two species of Micropterus, the large-mouthed black bass, (M. salmoides), and the small-mouthed black bass, (M. dolomicu), so well known throughout the United States, we have in the streams and rivers—particularly those east of the Rocky Mountains—numerous smaller forms known by such names as breams, bass, sun-fish, etc. The bluefish, (Pomatomus saltarix), is the only noteworthy species in a very small family. (See Baird in Report of U.S. Fish Commission, Part I., pp. 235-252.) It;is of great importance on our coast from New England to Cape Hatteras, but though found in almost all warm seas is elsewhere oflittle economic value. The moon-fish, (chæ'odipterus faber), called porgy in the Chesapeake bay, is another important isolated species. This fish—which as a table fish is similar to, and equals, if not surpasses, the sheepshead—is taken abundantly in the Chesapeake, and is rapidly coming into notice in the markets of New York, Baltimore and Washington. —The Mullet Family. The mullet family, (Mugilida), sometimes called "the gray mullets," occurs everywhere in the brackish waters of temperate and tropical regions. Over seventy species are already known. They swim in schools, and being easily caught in simple nets, form an important article of food for the poor whereverthey occur. In Italy, mullet roes are esteemed a delicacy, and, when salted and smoked, constitute the renowned "botargo." The mullets of the southern Atlantic, (Mugil lineatusand M. brasiliensis), give occasion for a considerable shore fishery. —The Anchory Family. The family of anchovies, (Engraulidæ), is of comparatively small importance save in southern Europe, where considerable quantities of these tender little fish are preserved in oil, or put up in the form of a relish under the name of anchovy sauce. —The Catfish Family. The catfishes are always of some local importance, but nowhere give rise to commercial fisheries of considerable extent. In Philadelphia and in Washington considerable quantities are annually marketed. —The Carps and Suckers. Suckers, dace, and other brook fishes belonging to the families Cyprinnidæ and Catostomidæ, are of local importance in Europe and North America. The common carp, (Cyprinus carpio), for two centuries a highly prized domestic animal of Europe, has, since 1877, been introduced into all parts of the United States by the United States fish commission, and is undoubtedly a most valuable accession to the food resources of the country. The buffalo carps, (Bubalichthys urus), and other species of the Mississippi valley, are of immense size for fresh-water species, sometimes weighing fifty or sixty pounds. It is quite possible that if domesticated they would be of more value than even the Germancarp. —Various Minor Families. The eel, (Anguilla culgaris), is also of local importance in Europe and eastern North America. Hatched from the eggs at sea, the little female eels, when not larger than a common darning needle, ascend the rivers to their sources. After three or four years they descend to the sea, where they encounter the males, propagate their kind, and die. On their downward descent they are caught in "eel sets," or weirs, placed across the river at right angles to its current. (for details see Goode, article in Bulletin of U.S. Fish Commission, Vol. I.) The marays, various species of Muranida, and related families, are of importance in tropical countries. The sturgeons, (Acipenseridæ), are of most importance in Russia, where the Sterlet, (Acipensar ruthenus), and some of the larger species afford material for the much prized caviare. An extensive sturgeon fishery is growing up in the rivers of the eastern Atlantic states, and large quantities of the lake sturgeon. (Acipenser rubicundus), are caught in our great lakes. Quantities of caviare and smoked sturgeon are now put up in the United States to supply the demands of the large foreign-born population. Sharks are much dreaded, the world over, on account of their size and voracity, though in temperate regions they are rarely dangerous to men. In the United States we have but two species of commercial value, though many are pernicious on account of the annoyance they cause to the fisherman. The dog-fish, (Squatus americanus), is caught in quantities on the New England coast for the sake of its liver, rich in oil. In California the oil shark, (Galeorkinus galeus), is the subject of a considerable fishery. Oil is casually obtained from many other of our common sharks, particularly the basking shark, (Selache maxima), the liver of one of which will yield several barrels of valuable oil. Throughout the East Indies there are in various localities, particularly at Kurrachee, extensive shark fisheries carried on for the purpose of obtaining the fins for drying and export to China. Small sharks are eaten in many countries. Skates are eaten in Europe, and a small quantity of their fins is now consumed in New York. From the skins of skates and sharks ornamental leather called shagreen, (also used for polishing purposes by metal and wood-workers,) is obtained, Lampreys, (Petromyzontidæ), though esteemed as food in Europe, are not used in the United States, save at Hartford, Connecticut. In the codfishery of the German ocean they are of the highest importance for bait. —Mollusks. The oyster, (Ostrea, varios species), is the most important of all mollusks, and is more abundant and valuable in our southern Atlantic states than elsewhere, its production amounting to $13,000,000 annually. The oysters of Europe are, like those of California, less abundant, smaller, and to the American taste of inferior quality. Oyster culture is extensively prosecuted, and with considerable success, on the coasts of France, and to a less degree in Holland. Without some special effort our oyster fisheries bid fair to become extinct within a quarter of century. (For details See Ernest Ingersoll's The Oyster Industry of the United States, a part of the Fishery Census Report, printed in 1881.) —The eastern United States is well provided with other delicious shellfish, the clam, (Mya arenaria), the quahog, (Venus mercenaria), and the scallop, (Pecten irradians). Little attention is paid in this country to the mussels and snails, so much eaten by the lower classes in Europe, and of which we have an abundant supply. —The most important source of mother-of-pearl which we have is the abalone or ear-shell, (Haliotis various species), found on our Pacific coasts. In 1880 $703,250 worth of their shells and dried flesh were gathered, the latter exported to China. There is a vast undeveloped resource in the fresh water mussels (Unionidæ) so abundant in the Mississippi valley. The greatest part of the mother-of-pearl of commerce comes from the pearl fisheries of the east, in the gulf of Manaar, in Ceylon and southern India, in the Persian gulf, on the coast of Australia and in the bay of Panama. Statistics of these fisheries can not well be given. Simmonds estimates that between 1769 and 1877 Ceylon produced over $5,000,000, Tutecorin in 1861 about $50,000, the Persian gulf about $2000,000, and the bay of Panama about $125,000. In 1870 pearis to the value of about $123,000 were imported to France and Great Britain, Cameos are made from the helmet shells, (Cassis, various species), and from the conch, (Strombus gigas), large quantities of which are gathered annually in warm seas. From the latter is made the pink shell jewelry, of late coming into favor. The chank shell (Turbinella pyrum) is the sacred shell of India, and is used in their temples as well as in various manufactures. The fisheries of the Indian ocean yield from four to five millions of these shells annually worth from $50,000 to $75,000. The cowry shell, (Crypræa, various species), is the only coin in use in parts of Africa and India, and immense quantities, of uncertain value, are yearly sent to those countries. The "cuttle-fish bone" of commerce is obtained from a species of squid abundant in the Mediterranean, and vast supplies of dried cuttle fish are imported into China, for food, from all eastern seas. The squid is gathered in large quantities on our eastern coast for baiting in the cod fisheries, and affords employment to a number of schooners. The minor uses of mollusks are multifarious. —Crustaceans. The lobster is the most important of crustaceans, and is still very abundant on the coast of our middle and New England states as well as that of Nova Scotia. In addition to the large quantities consumed in a fresh state, there is a product of canned lobsters worth $238,280. New England capital supports seventeen lobster canneries in Canada, the entire product of which is exported to England, and is not recorded upon the export records of our custom houses. Norway has extensive lobster fisheries and the neighboring countries of northern Europe obtain smaller harvests, Crawfish, (Aslacusand Cambarus, numerous species), are very abundant in the United States, but are not yet appreciated; in Europe they are highly esteemed, and command liberal prices, Shrimps, too, so largely consumed in Europe, are rarely caught in this country; there are one or two shrimp canneries on the coast of the gulf of Mexico, and in California large quantities are dried for export to China. Crabs are eaten in all parts of the world. On our eastern coast the blue crab (Callinectes hastatus) is extensively captured, and, especially when in the "softshell" condition, is a favorite article of food. Canneries have recently sprung up on the shores of the Chesapeake. —Worms. The palolo (Palolociridis)is an important article of food at the Navigators' islands, and many tribes of American Indians feast periodically upon worms and insect larvae. The only worms of importance to civilized man are the medicinal leeches, (Hirudo medicinedis of Europe, and allied forms). Most of the leeches used in this country are imported, though certain American leeches, as Macrobdella decora, are by many authorities considered valuable for surgical purposes. —Radiates. The precious red coral. (Corallium nobile), comes chiefly from the Mediterranean, though a small quantity is obtained at the Cape Verde islands and certain less valuable kinds from India, the Malay archipelago and Japan. A rough estimate places the value of the annual production coral at $2,500,000, in an unmanufactured state. The trepang, or beche de mer, belongs to group of holothurians, closely related to the star fishes. They are obtained in quantity in all eastern seas, and are dried for exportation to China, where they constitute a favorite article of food. The value of the Chinese import may be anywhere from $500,000 to $1,000,000. About 1870 an establishment for drying trepangs was in operation at Key West, but it was soon abandoned. Abundant as these animals are on our own southern coasts and in the West Indians, no use can be made of them until "Chinese cheap labor" is introduced into those regions. —Sponges. Sponges are obtained in the Mediterranean to the value of at least $2,000,000 annually, and the greater part of the sponges used in the United States are still imported. Florida has a large and growing sponge industry, and, except in the finest qualities, experts consider the product of the Gulf equal to that of Europe. —APPARATUS OF THE FISHERIES. Although it is impossible in this essay to describe all the forms of fishery apparatus, it seems appropriate to call attention to their general character and to caution the reader against certain popular errors, into which, owing to similarity of names, persons unfamiliar with the fisheries are likely to fall. The hook and line is the commonest instrument of capture, and, varied in form and material, is used in much the same manner in all parts of the world. The trawl line, set line, spilliard, trot line or bull-tow, used in North America and northern Europe, consists of numerous short lines, each with hook attached, fastened at intervals along a heavier main line. A New England trawling schooner often lays out ten to fourteen miles of trawl line. Drailing, trailing or trolling should be distinguished from trawling. In fishing by this method a spoon bait, squid or batted hook is rapidly pulled across the surface of the water, either from a boat in motion or from a station on the shore. The trawl net of Europe should be carefully distinguished from the trawl line, with which it is often confused by the inexperienced. This is an immense bag net, dragged slowly over the bottom, for the capture of soles, turbots and other ground-loving species, its mouth being kept open by a framework of iron and wood (beam-trawl) or by two broad boards or otters, spread apart by the pressure of the water (otter-trawl). The dredge, used in the oyster fisheries and in scientific exploration, is a net similar to a trawl net, but much smaller, its mouth being formed of a framework of iron from two to four feet wide. The oyster dredge is often made entirely of iron. Seines are of all sizes, from that of ten feet (used by two persons, wading) to those a mile or more in length, used in the shad fisheries of the Potomac and the North Carolina sounds, set and hauled by the use of steam. The purse-seine, used with such tremendous effect in the menhaden and mackerel fisheries of the United States, is an immensely deep and long net, which, after it has been made to encircle a school of fish is drawn together in the form of a purse or pocket, from which the fish are bailed out with shovel or scoop nets. The gill net is a net with large openings into which fish thrust their heads and are retained by the pressure of the twine. The pound net, trap net, weir, bar net, fyke, eel basket, lobster pot, mudgrague, and numerous other devices, are all forms of the labyrinth trap, the fish gaining access to the interior through a tortuous or narrow passage, through which, from lack of intelligence, they are unable to return to freedom. Fish spears, grains, gigs, etc., are all many-pronged forks with barbed tips, which are used, the world over, in striking large fish, turtles and porpoises. The harpoon, originally a one-tined spear, with single or double prong, is now usually constructed on the principle of a toggle, the head turning upon a pivot after it has entered the flesh of the animal struck. The "lily iron" or "Indian dart," used in the sword fishery, is the form of the toggle-harpoon. Toggle-harpoon-heads are now frequently shot into whales by means of large guns, and the use of explosive bullets is becoming general in the whale fishery of the United States. —FISHERIES OF THE STATES. Owing to the fact that at the time of the preparation of this article the statistical results of the investigation of the fisheries made in connection with the tenth census are not fully compiled, it is only possible to present a partial statement of the condition of the fisheries. The figures presented are, in the main, to be regarded as final, though certain correctionswill necessarily be made hereafter in the statistics of the gulf states, and of other localities. —The total value (to the producers) of the products of the fisheries, is $44,870,232. The prices upon which this estimate is based are very low, and if the value of the product were estimated on the basis of prices paid by retail merchants to jobbers and wholesale dealers, the amount would be at least $90,000,000, and probably much more. In addition to the sum above stated, which has reference solely to the sea and great river and lake fisheries, the smaller rivers and lakes of the continent yield products, the value of which, at the lowest estimate, is $1,500,000. More than half of the value stated is in the product of the class of fisheries which has been designated by the term "general food fisheries," which includes all of our great food fisheries along shore and at sea, most prominent among these being the cod, halibut, salmon, herring, mackerel, haddock and lobster fisheries, allof which, though sometimes carried on as special fisheries, are so interwined in matters of capital, vessels and fisherman, that it is impossible todiscuss them separately except at great length. The yield of the so-called general fisheries is valued at $25,128,717. Next in importance is the oyster fishery, valued at $13,403,832, the whale fishery at $2,323,948, the menhaden fishery at $2,116,787, and the seal fishery at 81,390,313, followed by the sponge fishery at $200,750, and the marine salt industry at $305,890. —In these several fisheries are directly employed 132,081 persons, of whom 102,758 are fishermen, and 29,323 are "shoresmen," being men employed on the wharves in packing and curing fish, or in the numerous canning establishments. The number of vessels overfive tons in burden in 6,605, valued at $9,358,282; of boats 44,800, valued at $2,460,000. The total amount of capital invested in the fisheries, including the value ofvessels, boats, apparatus and shore property, is put at $38,336,000. —The New England states stand first in importance, since from the ports of this district most of the deep sea or off-shore fisheries are prosecuted. The total number of persons employed is 37,043, of whom 28,838 are actual fishermen. The capital invested amounts to $19,937,607, there being 2,126 vessels, valued at $4,562,131, and 14,787 boats, valued at $739,970, besides outfit, apparatus and shore property in proportion. The value of the product is placed at $14,270,393, of which about $10,,000,000 is distributed to the general fisheries; $2,211,385 to the whale fishery; $1,478,900 to the oyster fishery; $439,722 to the menhaden fishery; $111,851 to the Antarctic seal and sea elephant fishery; and $3,890 to the marine salt industry. —Next in importance stand the southern states, which employ 58,204 persons, 44,230 of whom are actual fishermen; 18,283 boats, valued at $685,476; 3,211 vessels, valued at $2,683,521, together without fit, gear and shore property sufficient to bring the total amount of capital invested up to $9,496,991.4 . The total value of products for this division is estimated at $11,025,027, the general fisheries being rated at $3,236,137; the oyster fishery at $7,382,052; and the sponge fishery at $200,750. —The fisheries of the southern states are naturally divided into two sections: those of the gulf of Mexico and those of the Atlantic coast. Messrs. Earll and McDonald present the following summary of statistics for the latter, including sea and river fisheries of Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and East Florida:
"The only persons included in the tables are those who fish extensively, or devote a considerable portion of their time to preparing and marketing fishery products. Parties fishing for pleasure or home supply are wholly neglected, though an estimate of the fish taken by them is included. A large majority of the fishermen are married, having families depending upon them. Assuming that 30,000 families are represented, the total number of people dependent upon the fisheries of this district will scarcely fall below 200,000. Fully five-eighths of the entire number are Americans, nine-tenths of the remainder are negroes, and the rest are foreigners, chiefly of Spanish descent." "The $9,602,737 represents the sum realized by the fishermen as the result of their labor, and not the market value of the catch. Owing to the cost of transportation, the expense of icing and packing, and the profits of the various middlemen, the values of many of the products are greatly increased before they finally reach the consumer. If the market value of the products be desired, fully $7,000,000 must be added to the above figures." —Following the southern states, forming a group third in importance, stand the states and territories of the Pacific coast. In Oregon, Washington and California there are 5,555 fishermen and 5,060 shoresmen and factory hands. The total number of fishermen in Alaska is estimated at 6,000, though practically nearly the entire population of the territory, men, women and children, are actively engaged in the fisheries. On our Pacific coast there are 5,547 boats, valued at $404,695; and 53 vessels, worth $178,450. The total amount of capital value of the product, including $2,345,547 for enhancement of value upon 43,389,442 pounds of salmon in canning, amounts to $9,438,277, $3,715,668 (or $6,061,215 if the enhancement on salmon be included,) of this amount is credited to general fisheries; $703,250 to the oyster and mussel fisheries; and $225,300 to the whale fishery (a small quantity of seal and salmon, and shark oil, being included) —The middle states constitute a group fourth in importance. With the great-lake fisheries of New York and Pennsylvania included, the statistics of these four states are as follows: Persons employed, 16,017, of whom 13,482 are actually employed in fishing. Number of vessels, 1,211, (with tonnage of 23,576,50), valued at $1,385,600; of boats 8,501, valued at $560,347, together with other property sufficient in value to increase amount of capital invested to $4,309,828. Value of products, $8,874,899; of which $3,111,040 is classed under general fisheries, $4,532,900 under oyster fishery, and $1,261,385 under menhaden fishery. The value of the river and lake fisheries of the middle states is placed by Earll and McDonald at $634,921, a portion of which, $208,320, is to be deducted if the value of the river fisheries of the Atlantic coast is to be separately considered. The fisheries of the great lakes are, perhaps, most conveniently discussed in a separate group. The value of the coast fisheries of the middle states is $8,666,579. —The fisheries of the great lakes, as tabulated by Mr. F. W. True, in census bulletin No. 261, employ 5,050 fishermen; 49 steam tugs; 1,656 vessels and boats; and capital in the aggregate to the amount of $1,345,975. The total number of pounds of fish taken is 68,742,000, valued at $1,632,900 in fresh condition, and $1,784,050 when finally put upon the market by producers. The fisheries of Lake Michigan are most important, employing 1,578 men, and $531,135 capital; 612 vessels and boats (30 of which are tugs), valued at $125,895; 476 pound nets; 24,599 gill nets; 19 seines, and 1,455 smaller nets; and producing 23,141,875 pounds of fish, (12,030,400 whitefish, 2,639,450 trout, 3,030,400 lake herring, 3,839,600 sturgeon, 110,925 "hard fish," 408,800 "soft fish," 508,600 "coarse fish," and 533,700 "mixed fish"), valued at $668,400. Those lf Lake Erie are almost as important, employing 1,470 men; 538 vessels and boats; 758 pound nets; 5,755 gill nets, and 8,145 smaller nets; with aggregate capital invested of $503,500; and producing 26,607,300 pounds of fish, (2,185,800 whitefish, 26,200 trout, 11,874,400 lake herring, 1,590,000 sturgeon, 4,214,800 "hard fish," 5,994,900 "soft fish," 43,000 "coarse fish," and 1,178,2000 "mixed fish"), valued at $412,880. Lake Superior has 414 fishermen; 155 boats; $81,380 invested capital; 43 pound nets; 4,630 gill nets; 32 seines; 2000 small nets; and produces 3,816,625 pounds of fish, (2,257,000 of which are whitefish), valued at $118,370. Lake Huron, (with Lake St. Clair), has 976 men; $155,910 capital: and produces 11,536,200 pounds of fish, worth $293,550. Lake Ontario has 612 men; $54,050 capital; and produces 3,640,000 pounds of fish, worth $159,700. —In addition to the fishermen mentioned above, there are Canadian fisheries of considerable extent, the product of which is largely sold in the United States. —As has already been indicated, New England possesses the most important fisheries in the United States, and they are also, without doubt, the most profitable and extensive in the world. Norway, with 56,000 fishermen, produces not over $12,000,000 value of fishery products annually, while New England, with 29,000 fishermen, or with 37,000 if all shoresmen are counted, produces $14,000,000. The close rivalry of the southern states with New England is due to the extent of the oyster fishery. Remove this, and the value of the fisheries of the south remains only $3,400,000. Eliminating the salmon industry, the general fisheries of the Pacific slops are worth only $2,800,000. The general fisheries of New England alone are worth about $10,000,000. —With a coast line of 5,013 miles5 . extending from the Arctic circle almost to the tropics, and with flashing fleets in Arctic, Antarctic and Equatorial seas, the United States participates in almost every kind of fishing known to mankind, except the coral fishery. The extent and variety of its fishery interests were especially evident on the occasion of the late international fishery exhibition in Berlin, in which the United States was brought into comparison with all the countries of the world which posses commercial fisheries, except France. —The coast fisheries, or those carried on from the shore with small boats, are similar in character and extent to those of other countries. There are, in addition to these, certain special fisheries, in large part peculiar to this country, to which reference must be made, though this article is too limited to permit their satisfactory discussion. —The menhaden fishery is different from any other in the world. The commercial importance of the menhaden has but lately come into appreciation. Twenty-five years ago, and before, it was thought to be of very small value. A few millions were taken every year in Massachusetts bay, Long Island sound, and the inlets of New Jersey. A small portion of these were used for bait; a few barrels occasionally salted in Massachusetts to be exported into the West Indies. Large quantities were plowed into the soil of the farms along the shores, stimulating the crops for a time, but in the end filling the soil with oil parching it and making it unfit for tillage. Since that time manifold uses have been found. As a bait fish this excels all others; for many years much the greatest share of our mackerel was caught by its aid, while the cod and halibut fleet use it rather than any other fish when it can be procured. The total consumption of menhaden for bait, 1877, did not fall below 80,000 barrels, or 26,000,000 of fish, valued at $300,000. Ten years before, when the entire mackerel fleet was fishing with hooks, the consumption was much greater. As a food resource it is found to have great possibilities. Many hundreds of barrels are sold in the West Indies, while thousands of barrels are salted down for domestic use by families living near the shore. In many sections they are sold fresh in the market. About 1872 there sprung up an important industry, which consists in packing these fish in oil, after the manner of sardines, for home and foreign consumption. In 1874 the production of conned fish did not fall below 500,000 boxes. This industry has now been discontinued, the herring proving to be better suited for canning. As a source of oil, the menhaden is of more importance than any other marine animal. Its annual yield usually exceeds that of the whale (from the American fisheries) by about 200,000 gallons, and, in 1874, did not fall far short of the aggregate of all the whale, seal and cod oil made in America. In 1878 the menhaden oil and guano industry employed capital to the amount of $2,350,000; 3,337 men, 64 steamers, 279 sailing vessels; and consumed 777,000,000 of fish. There were 56 factories, which produced 1,392,644 gallons of oil, valued at $450,000, and 55,154 tons of crude guano, valued at $600,000: this was a poor year. In 1874 the number of gallons produced was 3,373,000; in 1875, 2,681,000, in 1876, 2,992,000; in 1877, 2,427,000. In 1878 the total value of manufactured products was $1,050,000; in 1874 this was $1,809,000; in 1975, $1,582,000; in 1876, $1,671,000; and in 1877, $1,608,000. It should be stated that in these reports only four-fifths of the whole number of factories are included. The refuse of the oil factory supplies a material of much value for manures. As a base for nitrogen it enters largely into the composition of most of the manufactured fertilizers. The amount of nitrogen derived from this source, in 1875, was estimated to be equivalent to that contained in 60,000,000 pounds of Peruvian guano, the gold value of which would not have been far from $1,920,000. The yield of the menhaden fishery in pounds in probably triple that of any other carried on by the fishermen of the United States. In the value of its products it is surpassed by three only: the cod fishery, which in 1876 was estimated to be worth $4,826,000; the whale fishery, $2,850,000; and the mackerel fishery, $2,275,000; the value of the menhaden fishery for this year being $1,658,000. In 1880, with an increased value of products, the menhaden fishery yielded $2,116,787. In estimating the importance of the menhaden to the United States, it should be borne in mind that its absence from our waters would probably reduce all our other sea fisheries to at least one-fourth their present extent. —The salmon fishery of the Pacific is another industry peculiar in its methods and extent. The salmon which throng the rivers of this region as they ascend to their spawning beds are taken in gill nets, to the number of 2,755,000 (in 1880), weighing 51,862,000 pounds, 3,370 fishermen, with 1,715 boats, worth, together with nets and other apparatus, $142,900, are engaged in their capture. A limited quantity (1,585,500 pounds of fish, 1,246,000 prepared,) is salted, and a still smaller quantity smoked. By far the larger portion of the catch is put up in hermetically sealed cans. In the canning industry are 45 establishments, employing 4,940 hands—for the most part Chinamen—and with capital to the amount of $1,239,000. These factories consumed, in 1880, 43,379,542 pounds of salmon, worth $909,818, and produced 31,453,152 pound cans of salmon, worth $3,255,365. The total value of the product of the Pacific salmon fishery was $3,389,934. This industry is of very recent origin, having sprung into existence, for the most part, within the last decade. —The sardine industry of Maine is similar to the Pacific salmon industry, and of still more recent origin. Up to 1880 according to R. E. Earll, it was confined to Eastport, and though experiments were made in the preparation of herring as sardines as early as 1866, the business did not practically begin till 1875, since which time it has grown with a remarkable rapidity. In 1880 it furnished employment to over 1,500 fishermen and factory hands, in addition to 376 fishermen belonging to New Brunswick. The capital dependent upon the industry during the same season, including $80,000 belonging to the New Brunswick fishermen, was over $480,000, and the value of the products amounted to nearly $825,000. —The lobster canning industry is also comparatively recent. It is located chiefly in Maine and the British provinces, and is carried on largely by means of Portland capital. The value of the Maine lobster fishery alone, as its products entered into consumption in 1880, was $412,076, $238,280 of which was in canned lobsters. The products of the 17 Canadian canneries, operated by capital from the United States, are exported directly to Europe, to the amount, I, am informed by Mr. Earll, of about $250,000 annually. This amount does not appear upon our custom house records, but should be recognized as a by-product of the activity of the United States in the fishery industry. —The whale fishery has of late years greatly decreased in value, owing to the introduction of mineral oils and the great diminution in the number of whales, due to over-fishing. It is now located, for the most part, in the North Pacific and the Arctic seas in the vicinity of Behring strait. In 1880 its product was valued at $2,323,394, and it employed 171 vessels, with tonnage of 38,633,38, and 4,198 men. There is still a considerable shore fishery about Cape Cod. About eighty humpback whales were killed at Provincetown in the winter of 1879, and large schools of blackfish and porpoises often run ashore on the sandy beaches. —The seal fishery has been fully discussed in Mr. Elliott's monographs recently published by the census office, 100,000 skins of the fur seal are annually taken by the Alaska commercial company from the Prybilov islands of Alaska, in accordance with the terms of a lease which they have received from the government of the United States. The same company obtained 47,000 skins in addition from the Commander islands, leased them by Russia. There are also 10,000 skins obtained by the shore fishermen of California and 56,000 by American fishermen in Puget sound. The total value of fur-seal skins obtained by Americans on this coast is placed at $1,540,912.6 . The fur-seal skins undergo an immense enhancement of value before leaving the bands of the Alaskan commercial company, which has establishments in London where they are plucked and dyed. Connecticut has a seal fishery in the Antarctic ocean, employing 9 vessels, and yielding, in 1880, $111,851. According to Mr. Petroff, the yield of sea-otter skins from Alaska, in 1880, amounted to 6,000, worth $600,000. In addition to these, 75, valued at $3,750, were taken in California. —The oyster fishery of the United States is the largest single fishery in the world. It employs 52,805 persons, and yielded, in 1880, $2,195,370 bushels, worth, to the producer, $9,034,861. There is to be considered an enhancement of 13,047,922 bushels, in passing from producers to market. This enhancement, which amounts to $4,368,991, results either from replanting or from packing in tiu, and increases the value of the products to $13,438,852. This fishery employs 4,155 vessels, valued at $3,528,700, and 11,930 boats. The actual fishermen number 38,249, the shoresmen 14,556. About 80 per cent, of the total yield is obtained from the waters of Chesapeake bay. A speedy extermination of this most valuable mollusk will doubtless result unless some effective means of protection and artificial culture are soon employed. (See Ingersoll's The Oyster Industry, recently published by the census.) —The sponge fishery of the gulf of Mexico yields sponges of an excellent quality to the value of $200,750. This is located at Key West, Cedar Key and Appalachicola. —There are several special fisheries of great interest carried on from certain parts of New England. The winter halibut fishery is peculiar to Gloucester. It employs a fleet of 39 of the staunchest and swiftest schooners, of 80 to 100 tons, manned by crews of men whose seamanship and daring can not be surpassed. The fishery is extremely perilous, being prosecuted on the outer banks in water from 1,200 to 1,800 feet in depth. Voyages continue two to six weeks. —The winter haddock fishery of Gloucester is almost equally perilous. In it are employed 77 of the best vessels engaged in summer in the cod and mackerel fisheries. —The Grand bank codfishery is participated in by vessels from numerous New England ports. Formerly one of the most important fisheries, its relative prominence is much less than it was a century of half a century ago. The codfishery on Georges bank is carried on chiefly from Gloucester, and, being a winter fishery, is both profitable and perilous. —The mackerel fishery employs 468 vessels, and 5,043 men. In 1880 its yield amounted to 343,808 barrels of salted mackerel and 28,796,855 pounds solf fresh and canned, the total number of pounds caught being 131,939,233. This fishery is of special interest from its connection with the late fishery treaties with Great Britain. (See Report of Halifax Fishery Commission). —The swordfish fishery is carried on from New Bedford, New London, and several smaller ports of southern New England. About 17 small vessels are employed in summer, and the yield of their harpoons, together with that from the mackerel vessels, amounts to about 1,000,000 pounds. Among the minor fisheries are the pound-net or weir fishery of southern New England; the mullet fishery of the south; the sea-bass fishery of New London, Philadelphia and Charleston; the grouper fishery of the gulf of Mexico—devoted to the supply of Cuban markets; the red-snapper fishery of Pensacola; the abalone fishery of California; the clam, scallop, crab, terrapin and Irish moss fisheries, all of which might be discussed at considerable length. —The shad and herring fisheries of out great rivers are of much importance to the commercial centres of the fish trade and to the extensive inland districts which they supply with cheap food. It is not practicable to present full statistics in this article. It may be stated, however, that the river and lake fisheries of the Middle and South Atlantic states are stated By Col. McDonald to engage 13,017 persons; 78 vessels, and 4,815 men; and to yield 69,193,974 pounds of fish, worth $2,037,948. The river fisheries of New England and the Gulf states will easily increase this amount of $2,500.000. —Exports and Imports. In the year ending June 30, 1880, the total exports of fishery products from the United States amounted to $5,744,580, distributed as follows:
—The chief exports of oysters were to Germany ($22,709), Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, etc., ($114,321), and Great Britain ($366,403). The exportation of oysters to Great Britain has increased remarkably within a few years, as is shown by the following statement from 1875 to 1881: 1875, $38,661; 1876, $99,012; 1877, $118,634; 1878, $252,999; 1879, $304,473; 1880, $363,790: 1881, $403,629. Dried and smoked fish went chiefly to the British West Indies ($20,656), French Guiana ($24,757), French West Indies ($45,683), Dutch Guiana ($43,169), Cuba ($138,369), and Hayti ($369,124). Pickled fish went in the main to the Hawaiian islands ($16,747), San Domingo ($19,513) the British West Indies ($22,734), and Hayti ($168,435). French fish went chiefly to Quebec and Ontario ($40,758), and to Cuba ($82,847). Miscellaneous cured fish chiefly those hermetically sealed in cans, went to Quebec and Ontario ($20,603), British West Indies ($21,671); Hayti (26,952), French ($29,083), Cuba ($54,624), Hawaiian islands ($57,641), Germany ($68,799), British possessions in Australasian ($157,754), Hong Kong ($261,931), and England ($1,496,365). The exportations of this class of goods in Europe increased from $184,783, in 1869, to $2,039,204, in 1878, and there is no reason why in another decade the quantity may not increase in almost equal degree. Sperm oil went almost entirely to Great Britain; whale and fish oil to Great Britain and France; spermaceti to Germany and England; and whalebone to France, Germany and England. —In the same year imports were received to the value of 82,412,803, distributed as follows:
Of this amount, $1,715,245,25 was imported, free of duty, from Canada and Newfoundland, in accordance with the pernicious provisions of the existing fishery treaty. —FISHERIES OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA. The fisheries of British North America, exclusive of Newfoundland, in 1880, employed 46,218 men, 1,168 vessels, 24,302 boats and netting to the value of $1,770,275. The total value of the product is placed by official authority at $19,226,528—a value which is much over-estimated if the estimates of the value of the mackerel taken serve as a criterion. In the so-called gulf division, including the fisheries of the St. Lawrence river, the north shore of the gulf of St. Lawrence, the Magdalen islands and the island of Anticosti, there are employed 11,535 fishermen and shoresmen, 166 vessels, 5,838 boats and finals, and nets and seines to the value of $688,134. The total value of the product was $2,357,220, of which $1,628,188 was in cod. In the districts above Quebec were employed 1,836 fishermen, and 1,152 boats, the product being appraised at $92,966, all in fresh-water fish. In the leased rivers of Quebec and New Brunswick were taken 1,717 salmon, weighing 23,202 pounds, worth, perhaps, $23,000. Nova Scotia employed 29,276 men, 731 vessels, 11,210 boats, and nets and weirs to the value of $661,000. The product was $6,291,061, of which $2,507,898 was in cod, $1,270,368 in mackerel, $612,321 in lobsters, $561,177 in herring, and $357,094 in haddock. New Brunswick employed 8,566 men, 220 vessels, 4,219 boats, nets and weirs, worth $262,371. The product was valued at $2,744,446, $710,149 being in lobsters, $621,543 in herring, and $297,887 in cod. Prince Edward island employed 992 men, 19 vessels, 392 boats and nets, worth $3,496. The product was $1,675,089, of which $710,210 was in canned lobsters, $661,156 in mackerel, and $112,180 in cod. British Columbia employed 1,833 fishermen, 14 vessels, 426 boats and nets, worth $40,735, and produced $713,335, chiefly in salmon ($434,000) and fur-seal skins ($163,000). In addition to this, the Indian population consumed fish to the value of $4,885,000. Ontario, with its numerous lakes and rivers, employed 2,130 men, 18 vessels, 865 boats, and netting, to the value of $114,539. It product was $444,491, $225,000 in fishes of the whitefish family, (Coregonidæ), and $104,430 in trout. —It is impossible to ascertain exactly the value of the fisheries of Newfoundland. In 1880 the exports amounted to $7,131,095,40, more than two-thirds of which was dried codfish. The total consumption probably does not exceed $500,000. —Estimating upon this basis, the total value of the fisheries of British North America would be $26,857,623, and of North America would be $26,857,623, and of North America as a whole, $71,727,875. —WEST INDIES, AND CENTRAL AMERICA. Throughout the West Indies are excellent local fisheries, which are, however, quite insufficient to supply the demands of the large Catholic population. To the political economist this region is most interesting as affording a market for exported fishery produce. In 1877 Canada alone sent to the British West Indies fish to the value of $1,527,000, and to the Spanish West Indies $899,000. Cuba also consumes the entire product of the grouper fishery of the gulf of Mexico, carried on by vessels from Key West and Pensacola, and large quantities of Florida mullet. The Bahamas have important sponge fisheries, the export in 1877 amounting to $90,000, while tortoise shell, worth $15,000, was sent out the same year. The local industries of the various islands can not be discussed in an article of this character. The pearl fishery of the Mexican coast is estimated to yield yearly from $230,000 to $500,000. —SOUTH AMERICA. Chili had, in 1865, 1,912 persons employed in fishing. No statistics of production are available. There are no fisheries of commercial importance. The Argentine republic has local fisheries of which no record can be obtained. Uruguay imported, in 1878, 1,296,000 pounds of dried fish, besides preserved and picked fish. Brazil consumes imported salt fish is great quantities, but statistics can not be obtained. Canada, in 1878, sent products worth $265,000 to South America, chiefly, no doubt, to Brazil. Here is a fine opening for the products of the United States. —NORWAY. The whole coast of this country is the seat of an extensive shore fishery, in which about 12 per cent, of the entire made population of the country is directly engaged. At least 30 or 40 per cent., probably a still greater proportion of the population, are directly and indirectly dependent on the fisheries for a livelihood. As will be evident from the statistics presented below, the total yield of the Norwegian fisheries, when it is remembered that the population of the country is only 1,800,000, is proportionally far greater than that for any other country. The yield of the Norwegian fisheries, as based upon the an estimate of Mr. Herrman Baars, from the average export statistics of the years 1868-79, is as follows:  These estimates are somewhat below those for 1879 in certain kinds of products, the exports for that year in lobsters being placed at 1,019,404, instead of 1,000,000; in "klipfish," 44,684,160 kilos, instead of 35,000,000; in "stockfish," 20,665,420 kilos, instead of 20,000,000; in fish guano, 5,972,680 kilos, instead of 5,000,000; in fish roes, 50,588 barrels, instead of 40,000. The yield of herring in 187, however, was less than that given in the table of estimates; while in 1881 and 1882 this bas increased immensely, owing to the return of the herring schools so long in great part absent from these coasts. In addition to the above figures prepared by Mr. Baars for the Berlin fishery exhibition of 1880, we have a series of returns prepared by the central bureau of statistics of Norway, which place the value of the fishery yield much lower, and which are probably not so nearly correct. According to these figures, the fisheries yielded products valued as follows: 1869, $3,034,000, 1870 $5,620,320; 1871, $6,830,200, 1872, $6,090,240, 1873, $6,724,080; 1874, $6,296,400; 1875, $6,415,040; 1876, $5,987,520; 1877, $7,919,010, 1878, $5,684,640; giving an average, for the ten years, of $6,266,880. —As is indicated in the foregoing table, about 79 per cent, of the entire product, as estimated by Mr. Baars, is exported. It is probable that the estimate for home consumption is much too small, nevertheless it is true that Norway exports a large proportion of its fishery products, and performs and important function in supplying the remainder of Europe with fish, distributing at least 300,000,000 pounds of eatable fish in marketable condition, the value of which, when finally sold to the consumer, may be estimated at fully $20,000,000. The distribution of the Norwegian fishery exports is explained in the following tables, derived from the official statistics of Norway. The first table gives exports by cities whence exported: the second exports by countries whither exported:   —For statistical purposes the coasts of Norway are divided into four districts, as follows: 1, the coast of the Skagerack, from the Swedish boundary to Cape Lindesnues; 2, the coast of the North Sea, from Cape Lindesnaes to Cape Stadt; 3, the coast of the Norwegian sea, from Cape Stadt to the island of Soöroön(lat. 70° 40° N.); and 4, the coast of the Polar sea from Soöroön to the Russian boundary on the cast. The total length of the coast line, exclusive of islands, is 1,926 miles, of which 229 lie in the first district, 327 in the second, 1,022 in the third, and 348 in the fourth. According to the estimates of the central bureau of statistics, the value of the Norwegian fishery product is divided among the four districts as follows: (1)2.6 per cent., or about $750 to the mile; (2) 10.4 per cent., or about $1,989 to the mile; (3) 72.4 per cent., or about $4,438 to the mile; (4) 14.6 per cent., or about $2,553 to the mile. The cod fisheries are prosecuted almost exclusively in the third and fourth districts, four-fifths of all the cod being landed in the third, which the herring fisheries are for the most part in the second and third. — The Norwegian coast fisheries are officially classified as follows—the figures following the name of each fishery are the percentages of the value of its yield to the average total value of the fisheries of the country, for the years 1869-78:
Grouped in more comprehensive divisions:
Norway has also certain fisheries in the entrance to the Baltic and a small cod fishery along the shores of Spitzbergen. The walrus and seal fishery in the vicinity of Spitzbergen and Novaya Zemlya employed, in 1878, 51 vessels, of 1,881 tons, and 306 persons, yielding products valued at about $40,000. The whale fishery in Varanger fiord resulted in the same year in the capture of 130 whales, valued at about $70,000. —According to the census of 1875 there were in Norway 33,255 grown men who derived their entire support from the fisheries, and 23,381 men who, in addition to fishing during the season, carry on other work part of the year. The total,56,638, is about 10 per cent of the total adult male population,559,565. The estimated annual yield to men enraged in the several branches of the fisheries is as follows: winter cod fishery, about $60; spring cod fishery, $45; fat herring fishery, $40 to $55; mackerel fishery, $60. 12,243 boats were enraged in the winter cod fishery in 1878, and this total represents very nearly the actual number of fishing boats in Norway. They are for the most part open boats, with crews of four or five men. There are hardly any sea going vessels in the Norwegian fisheries, though m any of their clumsy "jaegten" are engaged in transporting fish from the fishing grounds to the markets. —SWEDEN. The fisheries of Sweden are but small compared with those of Norway, and are for a considerable part carried on by men engaged in farming the major portion of the year. Sweden exports almost none of its fishery products, but consumes much imported fish obtained chiefly from Norway. There is no official estimate of the number of fishermen and fishing boats, but Dr. Sidenbladh, a recent writer, in his work entitled "Le Royaume de Suede," gives figures which indicate that at least 6,000 boats and 24,000 menj participate in the herring fishery. Professional fishermen. It is safe to assume that a very large proportion of the entire professional and non-professional fishermen engage in the herring fishery, which is by fur the most extensive and profitable of the fisheries of Sweden. In 1878, 577 persons, with 3,883 nets, were engaged in the eel fishery of Blekinfen and Schonen; in 1875 the mackerel fishery of Bohuslan employed 313 vessels and 1,280 men, and in the same year the winter fishery in the kattegat and vicinity was carried on by 179 decked boats, with a tonnage of 5,600, and crews of 1,509 men. The total product of the fisheries of Sweden, in so far as it possible to judge from the scattered statistics which are accessible, does not exceed in value $1,500,000. Of this amount, $845,000 is the value of the herring fishery, $73,000 of the salmon fishery, $40,000 of the eel fishery, and 828,000 of the lobster fishery, the remainder being distributed among the general coast fisheries for cod, flounders, lance, etc., and the various fresh-water fisheries. The fisheries of Sweden are apparently about equivalent in value to those to Connecticut, though employing regularly at least twice as many men, and in the herring season a large additional force. —DENMARK. The fisheries of Denmark resemble those of Sweden, in that they are carried on chiefly by a peasant population, engaged part of the year in other pursuits. The fishes taken are cod, haddock, whiting and ling, the halibut, sole and other kinds of flatfish, mackerel gartish, herring, dogfish, skate, salmon and eels, besides seals, porpoises, lobsters, shrimps, black mussels and oysters. The most important fishing places are the Lim fiord, where the product in 1878-9 was valued at about $107,000, and 2,021 fishermen, 569 being professional fishermen, were employed; and Bornholm, where, in 1874, 759 men, in 348 boats, large and small, captured fish to the value of $163,000. The only general official estimate at present accessible is one for 1863, which puts the value of the product at $988,000, or slightly more than that of Rhode Island. Rhode Island, however, employs only 2,300 fishermen, while Denmark is estimated to have 10,000. Like Sweden, Denmark largely consumes imported fish. In the year 1877, according to Arthur Feddersen, the oyster export being left out of account, the imports of fish of all sorts exceeded the exports by 5,420,000 pounds—since, although the exports of fresh fish exceeded imports of the same by about five and one half million pounds, there were seven million pounds dried fish imported in excess of those exported. In 1878 the entire exports of fish amounted to 6,722,460 pounds, and of oysters to 1,005,023 pounds. —RUSSIA. Russia has an important fishery on the Baltic Coast of Finland. The best statistics available are those quoted by Lindeman, who states that fish constitute the greater portion of the food of the inhabitants, and that the exports to Russia and Sweden in 1875 amounted to $457,000. The most important branch of the industry is the strömling or herring fishery, though the capture of sprats, salmon and seals employs a considerable number of men. The total yield of the Finnish fisheries can fall below $700,000, and is about equal to that of Michigan, Louisiana or Rhode Island. Russia has also fisheries of some extent in the Polar sea, an account of which may be found in the Report of United States Fish Commission, Part III.. pp.35-96. Statistics for these fisheries are not to be had. Numerous herring are taken in autumn and early winter, most of which are packed in barrels and sent to Archangel. Salmon are caught abundantly at the months of the Petschora, Meson, Dwina, Onega, Warsuka and other rivers, while a large cod and halibut fishery is carried on in the numerous bays of the Murmanian coast. An extensive sealhunt continues from the beginning of February to the end of March on the east coast of the White sea and in neighbouring regions, while the beluga or white whale, the walrus and the polar bear are objects of pursuit for men and vessels in summer. There is also considerable seal and walrus hunt on the southern coast of Novaya Zemlya. Russia has control of the important fur-seal fishery of the Kurile islands and other localities on the Pacific coast of Asia. The Alaska commercial company of San Francisco and St. Petersburg leases the Commander islands, whence, in 1880, 47,000 fur-seal skins were taken. There are also important cod-fishing privileges in the Okhotsk sea, in which several California vessels have participated until 1882, when by the removal of the Russian custom house from Petropolovsk to Vladivostock they have been practically debarred from this privilege. The inland fisheries of Russia are of great extent and importance, and are discussed in an extensive and finely illustrated folio work published by the government. Statistics are not to be had. The following estimate of the Russian fisheries was derived from the Russian commissioner to the Berlin fishery exhibition. The total proceeds of the fisheries, those of Siberia and of small fresh water streams and ponds excepted, is estimated to amount to $22,039,000. About $2,950,000 of this is distributed to the Caspian, $735,000 to the Baltic, $735,000 to the white sea and those portions of the Artic sea which border the provience of Archangel, $785,000 to the Black sea, and about $3,685,000 to the great lakes and rivers. The total imports amount to about 3,000,000 pounds, chiefly herring and canned fish, while the exports, consisting only of caviar and isinglass, amount to about $1,470,000. The value of seal skins and oil taken by Russians amnounts to about $250,000 annually. —GERMANY. The fisheries of Germany are of small statistical importance, owing to the limited extent of seacoast, and to the fact that the product of river, lake and brook can not be easily estimated, and is necessarily for the most part ignored. The streams have been depleted by over-fishing, and strenuous efforts are being made by the Deustscher Fischerei Verein, a powerful society, under governmental patronage, to restock them for the benefit of the inland population, to whom fish are of great dietetic importance. The annual importation of edible fishery products is valued at about $1,410,000, while the export is only $77,000. In 1872, 17.193 persons were employed in the coast fisheries, of whom 6,969 were professional fishermen. 5.011 assistants and 5,215 occasional or semi-professional fishermen. There were 732 fishing stations and 8, 140 boats. The most important single fishery is that carried on by the Haring-fischerei gesellschaft of Emden which employed 11 "loggers" or fishing boats of a peculiar model, and in 1878 captured herring to the value of about $42,000. Other fisheries in the North sea are the shore-net fisheries valued at about $16,000, the haddock fishery of Norderney, which employs about 400 men in 70 open boats, and in 1872 yielded from 1,000,000 to 1,200,000 pounds of haddock, worth, perhaps $30,000. The fisheries of Heligoland, employing 400 fishermen and 32 "Schaluppes" or open boats yield annually some 600,000 haddock, worth about $25,000, and the fisheries at the mouth of the Elbe amount to perhaps $;5,000 more. The Baltic fisheries of Germany are chiefly for flounders, cod. herring and salmon. The value of the Baltic fisheries is probably less than $200,000. There is also a small oyster fishery on the Schleswig. Holstein coast, the value of which can not exceed $10,000. It is to be regretted that the value of the German fisheries has not been appraised by any recent authority. An estimate based upon the most liberal interpretation of the data now before me would put their entire worth at less than $350,000, inland fisheries being of course excepted. This is slightly more than the worth of the fisheries of California, and much less than that of Connecticut. New Jersey and Virginia. —HOLLAND. According to statements furnished to Dr. Lindeman by Prof Buys, of Leyden, the herring fishery of Holland employs 127 seagoing vessels and 265 smaller craft, with crews in all numbering about 2,700. The total product amounted, in 1878, to 150000,000 herrings, valued at $1,164,240. Many vessels of the herring fleet are engaged in winter in the capture of cod on the Dodger bank in the North Sea. They fish with trawl lines and a considerable portion of the catch is salted down in the holds of the vessels, as is done our own Grand bank cod schooners. The value of this fishery in 1878 was $392,876. There also a coast fishery for the capture of fish be sold fresh in the markets, shrimps, anchovies, etc. The consumption of fresh fish in two important centres, mentioned by Prof. Buys amounts top $232,177; more audacious than he, We venture to estimate the total local consumption at $462,000. The export of fresh fish shrimps and anchovies amounts to 13,000,000 pounds, which, if the statements of Buys are correctly understood, is over and above the amount of local consumption. These is also an oyster fishery on natural beds along the coasts of Seeland and the island of Texal. This yielded, in 1876, 36,560,000 oysters; in 1877, 9,769,200; in 1878, 7,193,200. The value of the product in the last year is placed at $198,757. In the same region are mussel beds; from which, in 1878, about 2,900,000 pounds of mussels were obtained. The total number of vessels and fishermen in Holland is given by Prof. Buys as follows: Great fishery (herring and cod) 127 vessels, with 1,886 men; coast fisherries(for herring, cod, etc.), 453 vessels, 3,309 men; fisheries of the Zuiderzee(herring, anchovy, schollee), 1,282 boats, 3,269 men; fisheries of Groingen and Friesland, 183 boats,523 men; fisheries of Seeland, 472 boats, 1,026 men. Total, vessels and boats, 2,517; men, 10,014. The value of the fisheries is n ot summed up, and as usual it is necessary for the winter of this article to make a provisional total. It seems probable that this should not be less than $2,350,000. The exports of Holland to Germany amounted, in 1878, to 8,874,000 smoked berrings and 55,000 barrels of pickled herrings, 578,600 pounds of dried codfish, 1,326,000 pounds of fresh fuish, about 792,000 pounds (in 1877) of anchovies, and 1,170,500 oysters. To Belgium, in the same year, were sent 24,435,000 smoked herrings, 741,400 pounds of dried codfish, 10,276,000 pounds of fresh fish, and an indefinite quantity of pickled herring, anchovies and oysters. England received, among other products, 1,294,000 pounds of shrimps and 2,839,200 oysters. —BELGIUM. Belgium, though on account of the fisheating proclivitioes of its population importing foreign fishery products in considerable quantity, had, in 1879, sea fisheries to the value of about $423,000, or nearly as important as the commercial fisheries of the state of New York. About one-fifth of thsi amount is credited to the cod fishery, in which were engaged 109 vessels. The remainder of the product results from the coast fisheries, for turbot, herring, skate, cod, shrimp, etc. The oyster fishery at Ostende yielded, in 1876, about 10,000 bushels, of which nearly half were sent to Germany. About $73,000 worth of oysters were exported from England in 1878, and about $15,000 worth of lobsters, of which 253,000 pounds came from France, and 210,000 from Norway. —GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. In 1877 England had 3,425 fishing vessels of over 13 tons, with a tonnage of 137,768 and 9,869 smaller sail boats and fishing boats of the second and third classes. Scotland had 2,940 first class, with tonnage of 51,089, and 10,629 smaller; Ireland 403, and the Isle of Man 254, first class vessels, with 5,819 and 134 respectively of smaller craft. In 1876 the number of men and boys in the Scotch fisheries was estimated at 45,890, the value of boats and gear at $5,703,514, while the Irish fisheries had 23,693 fishermen(15,840 being occasional fishermen). I can find no estimate of the number of men in the English fisheries, but it is to be inferred that the number can not be far from 50,000. This estimate gives an aggregate of fishermen for Great Britain and Ireland, of 120,000 men and boys; with 6,770 first class vessels and 26,317 smaller boats in 1877. —The herring fishery in prosecuted in Scotland. England and Ireland. That of Yarmouth, the most important in England, employed, in 1877, 493 first class vessels and 509 of a smaller size, and yielded 132,000 lasts of fish, or 249,480,000 individual herring. There is a smaller herring fishery at Lowesoft. When England has learned the art from the Marine fishermen there will doubtless spring up an extensive sardine-canning industry, based upon the herring fishery. The herring fishery is by far the most important fishery of Scotland. In 1878, 905, 768 barrels, or perhaps 272,000,000 pounds, were salted, and the total catch may be estimated at fully 350,000,000 pounds. Ireland cures few herrings. exporting its fish in fresh condition to England or consuming them locally, an importing cured herring from Scotland. In 1876, 227,990,000 pounds. Ireland cures few herrings, exporting its fish in fresh condition to England or consuming them locally, and importing cured herring from Scotland. In 1876, 227,990,000 pounds were sent from Ireland to England, and the total product was doubtless much more than 350,000,000. The aggregate product of the herrings fisheries is probably not far from 800,000,000 to 900,000,000 pounds of fresh fish. The export of herring in 1876 amounted in value to $3,546,439. —The cod fishery of England is located in the North sea, upon the Dodger bank and neighbouring shoals, the principal port interested being Grimsby. Few cod are salted, and the greater portion of the catch is kept alive in well smacks, and a reserve of living fish for market supply kept in live-cars at Grimsby. Harwich and elsewhere. From 15,000 to 20,000 cod are kept alive at one time at the former port in the height of the cod season. The cod fishery thus constitutes a part of the great fresh-market fishery of Great Britain, another most important branch of which is the trawl-net fishery for turbot, soles and other bottom-loving species. In 1879 there were from 1,700 to 1,800 trawling smacks working on the coasts of England, (1,300 of them in the North sea). with crews aggregating 9,000 men and boys. In 1877, 503 of these hailed from Grimsby, while a still larger number came from the four channel fishing ports of Brixham. Plymouth, Hull and Ramsgate. In 1877, 88,752,000 pounds of fresh fish were sent from Grimsby by rail. The catch of the other large fishing ports would probably bring the total up to at least 400,000,000, worth, perhaps, $16,000,000. The export of cod in 1877 was valued at $214,813. —There is an important drift-net fishery for mackerel are yearly sent by rail from Plymouth and Penzance to London and elsewhere. This product is included in the total given above for the fresh fish business. —Pilchards, too, are caught in drift nets and seines in immense quantities, on the coast of Cornwall, and of the late years these have been packed in oil and sold as "sardines", the sardines of the bay of Biscay being the same fish prepared in the same manner. 9.477 hogsheads of pickled pilchards were exported to Italy in 1877, and the total value of the pilchard export in that year was $93,034. —Scotland, in addition to the "cod, ling, hake, sarthe (pollock)and tusk(cusk)," locally consumed in fresh condition, in 1877 produced 18, 720,000 pounds cured dry, and 861,900 cured in pickle, representing, perhaps, in all 58,000,000 fresh fish, and worth, perhaps. $1,160,000. —Ireland has a fresh-market fishery of much importance, as may be judged from the fact that she sent to England, in 1876, 243,742,800 pounds of fresh fish, valued at $2,441,601, including in addition to the herring already mentioned, 15,930,000 pounds of mackerel and 11,013,800 pounds of cod. —The export of salmon from Great Britain and Ireland amounted, in 1877, to $189,162. From 400,000 to 6,00,000 lobsters are annually imported from Norway, and about 200,000 more from France. In addition, large quantities are obtained from the south coast, while the value of the lobster fisheries of Scotland is estimated at $1,452,000. —That the oyster fishery is failing is clear from the fact that the imports of oysters are yearly growing larger. In 1870, according to Lindeman, the value of oysters sold in London was $19,360,000. This estimate was doubtless based on retail prices. Exports in 1877 amounted to $121,227. —In addition to the fisheries already mentioned there are extensive industries in the collection of mussels, whilks, periwinkles, prawns, whitebait and various minor products of the sea. No English authority has been so rash as to estimate the total value of the fisheries of Great Britain and Ireland. I hope I shall not be too severely criticized if I venture to express my belief that their total worth, whale and seal fisheries excluded, and local consumption counted in, will not fall below $40,000,000. —FRANCE. Lindeman quotes the value of the fisheries of France in 1877 at $17,031,636, the number of men employed being 81,230, and the number of boats and vessels, 21,565. The fisheries of France, if this estimate be reliable, are fairly comparable to those located on the coast of the United States between Long Island and Cape Florida—the middle and southern Atlantic states, the product of that district being worth $18,269,506, the number of men employed exceeding 55,000 of vessels, 4,000, and of boats, 26,000. Another comparison, which it is proper to make, is between the fisheries of France and those of New England, together with those of New Jersey, The product of this group of six states amounts to $17,446,982, employing 34,497 fishermen, 2,716 vessels and 18,852 boats. France engages in distant sea fisheries to a great extent than any other European nation. Since the sixteenth century there has been an important French cod fishery on the banks of Newfoundland, supported by a liberal bounty from the government, which has always regarded this as its best school for mariners. The yearly expenditure for bounties amounts to $600,000 or $800,000. In 1877 this fishery employed 179 vessels, from the ports of St. Malo, Granville, St. Brieuc. Fécamp and Dieppe, with crews numbering 7,731 men. The headquarters of this fishery is at the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon on the south coast of Newfoundland. In 1876 the yield of this fishery was estimated at 35,200,000 pounces of codfish, worth about $1,750,000.7 . Another cod fishery is upon the coasts of Iceland. The vessels are smaller but more numerous, there having been in 1877,244, with 4,314men. Part of these vessels hail from the northern ports of Dunkerque and Fécamp: others from Granville and La Rochelle. The value of the Iceland fishery in 1876 was about $1,368,000. The coast fisheries of France in 1876 were valued at about $14,061,000, and employed over 68,000 persons. The most important fishery is perhaps that for sardines on the coast of Brittany. There is also an extensive shrimp fishery along the eastern extent of the coast, a tunny or "horse-mackerel" fishery both on the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, a mackerel fishery in the gulf of Gascony, and shad, salmon, lamprey, mullet and eel fisheries at the mouths of the large rivers. In France, oyster culture is more successfully prosecuted than in any other country. From Sept. 1, 1875, to April 30, 1876, 237,000,000 of oysters were taken from the oyster parks. Their value is included in the figures already quoted. —SPAIN. The Spanish sea fisheries are much less productive than formerly. The marine department of Ferrol yielded, in 1870, about 75,000,000 pounds of sea fish, valued at about $1,281,000. The n umber of fishing vessels was estimated at 6,153, the number of men 20,150. The most extensive fisheries were those of Vigo and Villaga Reia. —PORTUGAL. From statements made by Prof. Bocage, it appears that the most important fisheries of Portugal are the sardine and funny fisheries, and that the total value of the sea fisheries is from three to four million dollars. The export of fishery products, in 1876, amounted to 19,000,000 pounds, worth $252,000, about 490,9000 pounds of which, worth about $57,500, was prepared tunny, and 9,000,000 sardines, worth about $153,000. Portugal imported, in 1876, about 34,000,000 of dried codfish, valued at $1,454,000. If these statistics of production are reliable, the fisheries of Portugal are fairly comparable in value with those of the state of Maine. It is however, more than probable that a careful census of the fisheries had never been taken, and that the fisheries of this country are far less important than the statement of Prof. Bocage would warrant us in believing. —ITALY. In 1870 Italy had 30,848 fishermen, and 11,566 boats. As nearly as it is possible to estimate from the partial statistics available, the product is valued at about $1,216,000, and the fisheries are comparable in value to those of Delaware or of Rhode Island and Pennsylvania combined. The chief fisheries of Italy are sardines, tunnies, swordfish, precious coral and sponges. There are extensive fisheries for eels and other fresh-water fish in the great lagoons along the coast. The total exportation, in 1878, amounted to 88,000 pounds, valued at $629,000, and the importation to 97,000,000 pounds, valued at $4,147,000. —AUSTRIA. The Austrain fisheries in the Adriatic, from April 23 to October 22, 1878, yielded $550,000. 2,796 boats were employed, and 10,973 men. The most important fisheries are for the sardelle, mackerel and anchovy. Many species of crustaceans are prized, as well as various snails mussels and oysters. The coral fishery on the Dalmatian coast yields about $4,500. The sponge fishery, 1874, employed about 200 men and 100 boats, and its product was valued at $9,000. —GREECE and TURKEY. The only commercial fishery of Greece and Turkey appears to be that for sponges. There are no satisfactory data available for estimating its extent. Lindeman states that in 1876 two ports, Patras and Lyra, exported sponges to the value of at least $110,000. —MALTA. According to Lindeman, Malta has 200 boats and 800 men employed in the fisheries. Their product is locally consumed. —ALGIERS. Algiers, in 1877, had 4,330 fishermen, with 974 boats. The product was estimated to weigh 15,000,000 pounds, worth $512,000. The production of coral on the coast of Tunis and Algiers has been placed at $500,000. The export of fish pickled or preserved in oil, from Algiers, in 1876, amounted to 11,638,000 pounds. The sardine industry alone had, in 1877, 50 curing establishments, employing 386 men. —TUNIS. The value of the fisheries is estimated at about $38,000, the principal exportable products being tunnies, cuttlefish and mullet roses. In addition to the regular fisheries there is coral fishing, and a sponge fishery which yields yearly from 220,000 to 295,000 pounds of sponges, valued at $110,000 to $130,000. The yield of cuttlefish amounts to about 130,000 pounds, worth perhaps, $20,000. —TRIPOLI. Tripoli has about 40 boats, with 150 fishermen, and the value of its product, as reported to Lindeman by the British consul, Mr. Drum mond Hay, amounts to about $17,000, in addition to $150,000, the yield of the sponge fishery. —AUSTRALIA. Queensland has an "Oyster fishery" at Morelin bay, yielding, in 1878, about $6,000, and in the same year exported pearl mussels and trepangs to the value of about $340,000. Victoria exported, in 1876, products worth about $123,000, and imported almost an equal amount. The city of Melbourne consumes yearly about $125,000 worth of fresh fish. In 1879 there were estimated to be 398 fishermen, and 261 boats. New South Wales imports great quantities of fish, chiefly from the United States: in 1876 the imports amounted to $800,000. The local fisheries are unimportant. South Australia offers no statistics. In the decade ending 1878, 50,000 bags of oysters were taken at Coffin bay. West Australia has a Pearl fishery of some importance. Tasmania has a small local fishery, and a whale fishery, valued at about $150,000. New Zealand also has a whale fishery, which employed, in 1877, 13 ships, of 3,525 tons, and yielded products worth about $200,000. —EAST INDIES. British India has important local fisheries, and has an export trade of some extent in fish oil and shells. The pearl mussel fishery of Ceylon produced in 1877, 6,849,720 pearl oysters, valued at 189,011 rupees. There is also a valuable pearl oyster fishery in the Persian gulf. The Dutch East Indies have immense local fisheries. In 1872, 49,469 fishermen were recorded in Java and Madura alone. There are extensive captures of tortoise shell throughout the entire region. There is a very extensive and profitable fishery on the north coast of Java for the trepang or beche-de-mer, which is dried and exported to China. The Philippines have also immense local fishery interests. The most important exports are trepangs, pearl shells and sharks' fins, sent ot China. —JAPAN has a fine salmon fishery, particularly in the n orth, and its markets are abundantly supplied with fresh and dried fish of local production. —CHINA has a large coast population of fishermen. The immense inland population consume fishing products in greater quantity consume fishing products in greater quantity than can be supplied by the home industry, though the cuttlefish fishery of Ningpo alone employs 1,200 boats. The imports in 1878 amounted to at least $2,300,000. The pearl oyster fishery of the Pak-hoi archipelago yielded, in 1875 about $45,000. —POLYNESIA. The islands of the Pacific produce considerable quantities of pearls, trepang and tortise shell, the value of which can not well be estimated. —GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. Usual "estimates" place the value of the fisheries of the world at $120,000,0000: but my "estimate" would be $225,000,000, upon the basis of the last fishery census of the United States. —The nation most extensively interested in the fisheries is the United states with a product of $44,870,252; next, Great Britain, with $40,000,000 or more; then British North America, with $27,000,000; Russia with $22,000,000; France with $17,000,000; and Norway with $12,000,000. —The number of active fishermen in North America may be estimated at 160,000; in Europe, at 520,000. It is needless to draw lengthy deduction. In the United States the yield to each man is about $435, in Canada, $413; in Great Britain, perhaps $330; Holland $240; Norway, $210; Denmark. Spain and Portugal, perhaps $100; and in Italy and Germany very much less, the fisheries being carried on with no capital, and little regularity. For more extended information upon the subjects discussed in this article, see Moritz Lindeman's Die Seefischereien in den Jahren, 1869-78, in whole No. 60 of "Petermann's Mittheilangen"; Holdsworth's article, Fisheries, in the Encyclopedia Britannica; Betram's Harvest of the Sea; the Reports of the Internationale Fischerei-Ausstelluny, Berlin, 1880; and reports of U.S. Fish Commission. Parts I-VI. An extended report on the fisheries of the United States, prepared by the Fish Commission and the Census Bureau, is now in press. For a discussion of the political aspect of the fisheries, see TREATIES, FISHERY. G. BROWN GOODE. FITZPATRICKFITZPATRICK, Benjamin, was born in Greene country, Georgia, June 30, 1802, and died in Alabama, Nov. 21, 1869. He was admitted to the bar in Alabama in 1821, was governor of his state 1841-5, and United States senator 1848-9 and 1853-61, and in 1860 received and declined the democratic nomination for the vice-presidency. FLAGFLAG, The (IN U.S. HISTORY). I. COLONIAL. While the colonies were a part of the British empire, their recognized standard was naturally that of Great Britain, and, though minor modifications were sometimes made, the retention of the "union" with its two crosses of St. Andrew and St. George, marked all of them as essentially British. The "Confederacy of 1643" (see NEW ENGLAND UNION.) had a distinctive flag, but not till 1686. It consisted of a large upright red cross on a white ground, with the royal crown and cipher in the centre in gold. The sea flag was red, with a white "union", bearing an upright red cross, and in the upper left hand corner of the union a green pine tree. But, all through the colonial period, the real looseness of dependence on Great Britain was marked by a growing disposition to the use of individual colonial flags. Unfortunately there are but scant contemporary references to them, but such as exist will be found collected, with illustrations, in Preble's history, as cited among the authorities. It is certain that the Connecticut troops in 1775 had their own standard, with the colony's motto Qui transtulit sustinet. The standard of New York was marked by a black beaver; but probably all had the British union in some form, since the colonists at first claimed to be loyal subjects of the king, resisting the usurpations of parliament and the ministry. It is very doubtful whether there was any flag in the American lines at Bunker Hill; certainly none was captured by the British. One tradition is that there was a red flag, with the legend, Come if you dare; another that the legend was An Appeal to Heaven; and another that the flag was blue with a white union, containing the upright red cross and the pine tree. —After the breaking out of hostilities, congress made no effort to fix upon a national standard; indeed the growth and development of a national standard was as natural as that of the nation itself. At first captains of privateers and military commanders generally followed their own fancy in the adoption of a flag, or used the state standard. The varying results may be divided into two classes, "Pinetree flags" and "rattlesnake flags," the former being rather of a New England nature, while the latter had some approach to nationality. The former was generally white, with a green pine tree in the centre, and the legend An Appeal to Heaven; this was formally adopted by the Massachusetts legislature in April, 1776, but the London newspapers, three months before that time, mention the capture of a similar flag on a privateer. The rattlesnake flag was also white, with a rattlesnake, either cut into thirteen pieces, each marked with the initial of a colony, and the legend Join, or die, below, or complete and coiled, with the legend Don't tread on me; another variety, later than the former, had a ground of thirteen stripes, red and white, with the rattlesnake extended across the field. A less common flag consisted of a white ground on which was depicted a mailed hand grasping thirteen arrows. —II. NATIONAL. Toward the end of 1775 the urgent need of a distinct national flag became very evident. The stripes seem first to have been used by a Philadelphia light horse troop in 1774-5, but only as a "union" Their use as the ground of a flag, originally suggested by the recognized flags of the East India company or of Holland, had been familiarized by one variety of the rattlesnake ensign; and congress adopted it, in December, 1775, on the recommendation of a committee consisting of Franklin, Lynch and Harrison. The "grand union" flag now consisted of thirteen stripes, as at present, but with the British "union" of two crosses to mark continued allegiance to the king. This flag was first hoisted over the American headquarters at Cambridge, Massachusetts, Jan. 1 or 2, 1776. Paul Jones claims to have first raised it over his ship, the Alfred, some days previously; but his flag seems to have been the stripes and rattlesnake. Preble, in his history, has given a copy of a water-color drawing of the "grand union flag" in July, 1776, found by Dr. B. J. Lossing among the papers of Gen. Philip Schuyler, which is the most satisfactory contemporary representation. It is noteworthy, however, that when the naval committee of congress presented a national flag to that body Feb. 8, 1776, they chose one of the rattlesnake variety. —In June, 1776, when independence had become a recognized probability, Washington and a committee of congress made informal arrangements for the substitution of a five-pointed star in the union. It was not until June 14, 1777, that congress formally ordered the royal union to be displaced by thirteen stars, as at present, symbolical of "a new constellation.". The new flag was probably first used at the battle of the Brandywine, Sept. 11, 1777; and its introduction in Lentze's picture is an anachronism. —No change took place in the national flag until, by the act of Jan. 13, 1794, two new stripes, as well as two new stars, were added for Vermont and Kentucky. No further change took place for twenty-four years, even after the admissions of Ohio and Louisiana; and the war of 1812 was fought under a flag of fifteen stripes and stars. The impropriety of considering Kentucky and Vermont a part of the "old thirteen," and the cumbrousness of a flag with a new stripe for each new state, occasioned the passage of the act of April 4, 1818, by which the stripes were to be limited to thirteen in future, in memory of the thirteen states which had first secured for the flag a place among national emblems, while the number of stars should show the number of states in the Union on the 4th July, the day on which changes were to be made. Unfortunately the act neglected to fix the arrangement of the stars in the union, which has been very capricious, sometimes in straight lines, sometimes in a star, sometimes in concentric circles, and sometimes scattered at random. —The features of the national flag may be thus summarized 1777-94, thirteen stripes and thirteen stars (generally in a circle); 1794-1818, fifteen stripes and fifteen stars (generally in three straight lines); 1818-82, thirteen stripes and from twenty to thirty-eight stars. (See CONSTITUTION, I.) —The revenue flag, by act of March 2, 1799, and the circular of the secretary of the treasury, Aug. 1, consisted of sixteen perpendicular red and white stripes, with the arms of the United States in blue on a white field as a union. This was changed in 1871 by substituting thirteen blue stars on a white ground as a union. —In addition to the national flag each state has its own flag, which is hoisted on its public buildings, or carried into battle or on parade by its volunteers, or militia, alongside of the national standard. These flags are too numerous for special mention. —III. CONFEDERATE. During the war of the rebellion the confederate states' forces carried the so-called "stars and bars," a flag consisting of three red and white stripes, the white in the middle, and a blue union with as many white stars as there were states in the confederacy. The more familiar battle flag was of red, traversed from the corners by a blue cross with white stars. Toward the end of the rebellion the three stripes were dropped for a flag half red and half white, the white nearest the staff; and some ineffectual efforts were made to further change it to a flag wholly or partially black. Individual states had also their own flags. —See 8 Bancroft's United States, 232; 3 Hildreth's United States, 177; 1 Journals of Congress, 165 (resolution of June 14, 1777); 1 Stat. at Large (Bioren and Duane's edit.), 678; 1 Stat. at Large, 341, 699 and 3:415 (acts of Jan. 13, 1794, March 2, 1799, and April 4, 1818; Hamilton's History of the American Flag(1852); Preble's History of the American Flag (1872). ALEXANDER JOHNSTON. FLORIDAFLORIDA, a state of American Union, formed from the Florida Purchase. (See ANNEXATIONS, II.) East and West Florida were united into the territory of Florida by act of March 30,1822. Several efforts were made by the people of the territory to induce congress to separate it again into East and West Florida, but without success. No enabling act was passed, but a convention of delegates, Jan.11, 1839, "having and claiming the right of admission to the Union" formed "a free and independent state, by the name of the state of Florida". No boundaries were assigned by the state constitution, or by the act of admission, both referring for particulars to the treaty of February 22, 1819; but that treaty merely described the ceded district as "the territories eastward of the Mississippi, known by the name of East and West Florida." and this vagueness of description gave rise to disputes with Georgia and Alabama as to the boundary line, which were not settled for some years. —The constitution was in the usual form. The governor was to hold office for four years, and to be ineligible for four years thereafter. The capital was to be Tallahassee. The legislature was forbidden to emancipate slaves, or to prevent immigrants into the state from bringing slaves with them. Under this constitution the state was admitted by act of March 3, 1845, Iowa being admitted by the same act. —In politics, national and state, Florida was whig by a small majority until 1852, when the democrats elected the governor and congressman by a close vote, 4,628 to 4,336 for governor. The remnant of the whig minority in 1856 took the name of the American party, but in 1858 this also disappeared, and but one party, the democratic, existed in the state. Jan.10,1861, a state convention passed an ordinance of secession by a vote of 62 to 7, and Feb.4 the delegates from Florida took part in the first meeting of the congress of the confederate states. After 1863 Florida was left to its own defense by the confederate government; at the close of the rebellion it came early under control of the federal authorities. July 13, 1865, President Johnson appointed a provisional governor, who called a state convention for October 25. This body "annulled" the ordinance of secession, Oct.28, and adopted a new constitution, Nov.7, which declared the abolition of slavery "by the government of the United States" limited the right of suffrage and the right to sit on juries to white persons, and defined the state boundaries as follows: "Beginning at the mouth of the river Perdido; thence up the middle of that river to the boundary of Alabama, in latitude 31° north; thence due east to the Chattahoochee river; thence down the middle of that river to the Flint river; thence straight to the head of the St. Mary's river; thence down the middle of that river to the Atlantic ocean; thence southwardly to the gulf of Florida and gulf of Mexico; thence northwardly and westwardly, including all islands within five leagues of the shore, to the beginning" The convention, by ordinance, repudiated the state debt incurred during the rebellion. Under this constitution an election for state officers and congressmen was held Nov. 29, a legislature was organized Dec. 18, and Jan. 16, 1866, the president relived the provisional governor. The state remained under its own authorities until the passage of the reconstruction act of March 2, 1867, when it became part of the third military district commanded by Maj. Gen. Pope, Col. Sprague having command of the sub-district of Florida. Under this régime a state convention adopted a constitution Feb. 25, 1868, which was ratified by popular vote, May 4-6, state officers being chosen at the same time to hold until January, 1873. As the new constitution conformed in all respects to the act of congress(See RECONSTRUCTION), and as the new legislature, in June, 1868 ratified the 14th amendment, Florida was recognized as a state by act of June 25, 1868. From this time the state remained under republican control until 1876, when the state government became democratic. This election was claimed "on the face of the returns" by both parties, a and the truth will probably never be known. Outside of Baker country the returns made both parties almost exactly equal. From Baker country two returns were received, one being 143 rep., 238 dem.(95 dem. maj.), and the other, in which some precincts were cast out, 130 rep., 89dem.(41 rep. maj.). The returning board finally took the latter, making 42 rep. maj. in the state. (For the electoral vote of the same year see ELECTORAL COMMISSION, I.). The state has since been democratic; though the majority is small and is liable to be reversed by immigration. —Considerable desire has always been shown in West Florida for annexation to Alabama, and in 1869 Alabama offered Florida $1,000,000 as the price of her consent to the proposed annexation. A popular vote upon the question was ordered in West Florida by the governor in that year, and showed a majority in favour of such annexation, but no further steps were taken in the matter. —The name of the state was first given to the entire territory by its discoverer, Ponce de Leon, in 1572, from the Spanish name of the day on which it was discovered, Pascua Florida.(Easter Sunday). —GOVERNORS. Wm. D. Moseley(1845-9). Thos. Brown(1849-53). Jas E. Broome(1853-7), Madison S. Perry (1857-61), John Milton (1861-5), Wm. Marvin (provisional) 1865. David S. Walker (1866-8), Harrison Reed (1868-73), Ossian B. Hart(1873-7), Marcellus B. Stearns(acting-governor)1876, George F. Drew(1877-81), Wm. D. Bloxham(1881-3). —See French's Historical Memoirs of Lousiana and Florida; Fairbanks' History of Florida; Adams' Florida; Lanier's Florida; Poore's Federal and State Constitutions; Appleton's Annual Cyclopedia, 1861-80; Tribune Almanac. 1838-81. The act of March 3, 1845, admitting Florida, is in 5 Stat, at Large, 742. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON. FOOT'S RESOLUTIONFOOT'S RESOLUTION(IN U. S. HISTORY). Dec. 29, 1829, in the senate, S. A. Foot, of Connecticut, introduced a resolution instructing the committee on public lands to inquire into the expediency of limiting the sales of the public lands, for a certain period, to those which had already been offered for sale. This apparently innocent resolution was taken up, discussed at irregular intervals, and gave rise to an intermittent debate, which lasted until May 21, 1830, and which, from the pre-eminent ability of the debaters and the wide range of the discussion, is usually known as "the great debate in the senate." At first the debate consisted of allegations by western senators that the policy of the eastern states. Foot's resolution being an example, had always been to check western growth by limiting land sales, and of argument and denial by eastern senators. Southern senators were strongly inclined to espouse the cause of the west, and some of them suggested that the public lands ought to be given away instead of sold. Jan. 19, 1831, Robert Y. Hayne, of South Carolina, assigned as an additional reason for the adoption of this policy, the necessity of preventing the growth of a permanent government revenue and the "centralization" of the government. The debate then took a new turn, centering upon Hayne and Daniel Webster, of Massachusetts. Hayne is commonly supposed to have been supplied with the substance of his brilliant arguments by Calhoun, who, as vice-president, could take no part in the debate; Webster's share has never been attributed to any one but himself. Webster's first reply to Hayne, Jan. 20, claimed the growth of the Western states as the legitimate fruit of the New England system of land sale and surveying, there adopted, and of the ordinance of 1787, drawn and introduced by Dane, of Massachusetts, Jan. 21 and 25. Hayne replied, and in his reply seized upon the circumstance that Dane was a member of the Hartford convention as a basis for a general attack upon New England and upon the loose construction or "centralizing" theory of government. Jan. 26, Webster delivered his second speech, known by eminence as The Reply to Hayne. In the second part of this speech he stated fully his views upon the nature of the government, and also what he understood to be Hayne's views. (See NULLIFICATION.) As his statement of Hayne's views amounted to a mere right of revolution against insufferable oppression, Hayne interrupted him with the first public declaration by a responsible authority that the asserted right of "nullification" of objectionable acts of congress by state authority was not a mere "right of revolution, but a right of constitutional resistance." Webster having thus obtained a foothold, proceeded, with extraordinary eloquence and force, to the demolition of the new doctrine. This portion of his reply, with his final answer on the following day to Hayne's reply, make up the strongest presentation of the "national" theory of the constitution which had then been made. It is, however, faulty, in modern view, in one point: he defined the constitution as, "not a compact, but an instrument resting on compact"; and his great antagonist, Calhoun, in all his subsequent speeches struck persistently at this one vulnerable point. The power of Webster's speech was so striking that Calhoun was forced, in December, 1832, to take Hayne's place in the arena, and accepted the senatorship from South Carolina, resigning the vice-presidency to do so. After Jan. 27, the other senators, who had stood aside, with the exception of Benton, of Missouri, for the battle between Hayne and Webster, resumed the debate, which drifted off upon questions of slavery, the tariff, and the judiciary, until it died away without action of any kind. Its real importance lay in speeches of Hayne and Webster. (See ORDINANCE OF 1787, NULLIFICATION, CONSTRUCTION.) —See 10 Benton's Debates of Congress, 418; 1 Benton's Thirty Years' View, 130; 3 Webster's Works, 248, 270; 1 Calhoun's Works; 1 A. H. Stephens' War Between the States, 347; 1 Von Holst's United States, 470. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON. FORCE BILLFORCE BILL. (See NULLIFICATION, RECONSTRUCTION, KU-KLUX KLAN.) FORESTRYFORESTRY. Under this general term is included whatever relates to woodlands, their preservation, maintenance, cutting off and renewal. In the English legal sense, a forest is a tract of land, whether wooded or not, that is held by the sovereign for the maintenance of game, and subject to peculiar laws differing from the common law of England. A chase differs from a forest in being capable of being held by a subject, and in being held by a subject, and in being under the common and not the forest law. As applied in the American sense, a forest is synonymous with woodland. Small woodlands are sometimes called groves, and their care and management is termed sylviculture. The term arboriculture is applied to cultivation of trees, whether singly, in avenues or groups, and is sometimes, although improperly, restricted to fruit trees. We find that forests left to nature are very unequally distributed, some regions being densely wooded, while others are wholly destitute of trees. This distribution is influenced by latitude, elevation above sea level, and especially by the amount of rainfall in a given locality; and the latter is largely determined by the prevailing winds, and by the character of the surface over which they pass. —As a general rule, ocean winds are humid, and as they pass over the land they tend to become cool, and to deposit the excess of moisture as rain, or in winter as snow. This is especially true where they pass over mountain ranges, where they must necessarily become cooled down to a low degree, and cause copius showers of rain. After passing over and descending into the lowlands beyond, the air being dry can no longer produce showers, and the region may be arid, on the leeward side, while it is heavily wooded on the opposite. We see such contrasts along the Andes, in Peru, where there is a belt of rainless and treeless country between these mountains and the Pacific, while eastward the trade winds bring heavy rains, that fall upon the dense forests. On our Pacific coast we find even stronger contrasts in the densely timbered region along the coast, which first receives the prevailing westerly winds from the Pacific, and the dry and in some places utterly arid region to the eastward of the mountains. —In rainy regions within the topics we invariably find forests, very generally with perennial foliage, and dense and highly colored wood. In exogenous species the rings of growth are indistinct and uncertain; they often afford choice products from their juices, gums, essential oils, dyes, medicinal qualities, fibres and fruits, but are generally too solid and heavy for carpentry, although often prized for cabinet work. As we pass into the temperate zones the deciduous species become prevalent; the palms, which form characteristic trees in the tropics, disappear, the broad-leaved perennials gradually dwindle out, butt the coniferous evergreens, relatively few within the tropics, become common and often the prevailing and almost exclusive kind. These various species become fewer in number and smaller in size as we pass into the arctic zone, where the poplars and the willows dwindle to shrubs, and finally disappear. In ascending from sea level to great altitudes we may pass through all these ranges of climate in a few hours, until we reach an elevation at which trees disappear altogether. This is called the timber line. It is some 14,000 or 15,000 feet above sea level in the tropics, about 11,800 in the Himalayas, 6,400 in the Alps, from 9,000 to 12,000 in the Rocky mountains, in Colorado, and becomes lower as we go north, till it comes down to the plains. There is often a heavy forest growth a few hundred feet before reaching this line, when the trees begin to appear short, spread out wide, leaning with the prevailing winds, and finally disappear entirely. Above this it becomes bald and barren to the summit, or to the perpetual snow. —In comparing the forest growth of the northern hemisphere we find a remarkable resemblance between the native species on the eastern borders of Asia and North America. In some instances the forest trees of Mantchooria, northern China and Japan, are of the same species as those found in our northern states; in others, they are of the same genera but of different species; and in the great majority of cases they may be readily transferred, from one continent to the other; presenting opportunities for obtaining a great variety for ornamental plating, and perhaps for profitable forest growth. On the other hand, the eastern and western borders of North America present a strong contrast in their forests; the former including a great number of deciduous species, and the latter chiefly the coniferous evergreens. Although the latter in very many cases grow to immense size, they do not prosper in the Atlantic states, probably from the absence of distinctly wet and dry seasons, and because the wood ripens but imperfectly before winter. —It has been found by experience in Europe that the supply of timber and wood in various forms, for meeting the innumerable uses of civilized life, can only be maintained by cultivation. In most European countries upon the continent, large tracts of land belong to the government, not in continuous blocks, but in parcels more or less interrupted by other tracts that belong to local communities or municipalities, to public establishments or to private owners. Over all of these lands, excepting those belonging to individuals, the state extends its protection, and so far as these lands are covered with woodlands, it assumes the control. Over private property it never attempts to interfere, unless a public interest is endangered. The owner is allowed to plant or to clear off his lands, as a general rule, whenever it suits his interests to do so. But where the forests are needed for protection, as for example, on a shore liable to drifting sands, or on a mountain liable to erosion from torrents, or on a frontier, he is restrained from a general clearing, and must not use his timer excepting as allowed. —For the management of these interests, forest administrations have been established, generally in connection with the ministry of finances, or that in charge of agricultural and industrial interests; and for the training of skilled agents for the service, schools of forestry have been established. In these, there is usually required a preparatory course of study equivalent to that implied in graduation from a gymnasium or real-school, and the special studies of the course extend through two ro three years. Instruction is generally imparted by lectures, reviews, oral recitations, practical exercises and excursions under the guidance of the professors. The studies include mathematics, physics, meteorology, climatology, natural sciences, (especially botany, zoölogy, geology, and mineralogy), chemistry, drawing, the practical use of instruments for surveying and all kinds of measurements, the application of all of these studies to the wants of the forest agent, and so much of the common law and political economy, history and general literature as appears directly applicable to the profession. The formalities of legal prosecutions, of transactions with superior and subordinate officers, the construction of roads, and of various mechanical structures employed in the cutting, extraction, transportation and manufacture of forest products, form a particular class of these studies. Besides these there are rules of management, methods of planting and of restocking the land with trees after clearing, and a wide range of practical details to be learned, both theoretically in the class-room, and practically by labors and in subordinate grades of supervision, before the candidate is thought to be worthy of a separate charge. —As hunting is deemed in Europe an object of especial interest, in connection with forestry, it is taught as a science and an art in schools of forestry. Of late years fish culture has also been introduced as a subject of practical instruction in the Prussian schools. The terms "forst und jagd," are constantly associated in German literature, and "caux et forêts" in France; indicating the connection between forests and hunting in the former, and the supervision of inland waters by the forest administration in the latter country at a former period. The term is still in common use, although no longer applicable. —After passing examinations, and a certain probationary term of service, the graduate of a school of forestry may be appointed in charge of a revier or district, in one of the lower grades of the service, and may rise by successive promotions, somewhat like those of the military and naval service. In fact, these grades have generally their equivalent rank in the army; in many cases military instruction is given in schools of forestry and in case of war the forest officers may be called into active military service. Finally, after a fixed period of active duties, these agents may retire on a pension. —Besides these schools of forestry of a high grade there are a great number of schools of forest guards, and forest schools of lower grade and of very practical character, where the elements of forestry are taught, with so much of literary instruction as is needed for these subordinate duties. Occasionally these agents are assembled, at a leisure season, for the revision of their studies, and the examination of practical subjects. —The principal schools of forestry in Europe are as follows: In France, at Nancy; a school of forest guards at Barres; a course in sylviculture at three agricultural colleges, and a special course at the "Institut Agronomique" in Paris. In Denmark, at Copenhagen* (in connection with agriculture). In Sweden, at Stockholm; and elementary forest schools at seven other places. In Finland, at Evois. In Russia, at St. Petersburg, at Lissino, and with agriculture at Moscow;* and at Nova Alexandria* in Poland. In Germany, at Eberswalde and Münden in Prussia; at Giessen* in Hesse; at Tharand in Saxony; at Aschaffenburg and Munish in Bavaria; at Tübingen* in Wurtemburg; at Eisnach in Saxe-Weimar; at Carlsrube* in Baden. In Austria, at Vienna,* Eulenburg, Weisswasser, Lemberg, Graz,* Aggsbach, Schemnitz,* and other places. In Italy, at Vallombrosa. In Switzerland, at Zurich.* In Spain, at Escorial. In Portugal, at Lisbon.* In some of the above places, (those marked with a star) forestry forms a part of some larger institution, such as a university or a polytechnic school. —As a general thing students not aspiring to the state service are allowed to attend these schools, and may receive diplomas. In many cases state students receive aid, and in some they are held to service for a certain period after graduating. No school of forestry has hitherto been established in Great Britain, but those seeking forest service in India and Australia obtain their professional training in France or Germany. It will undoubtedly be found to the interest of our agricultural colleges and our universities to provide means for instruction in the practical duties of forestry in the United States, although from the tenure of our lands in private owners, we can not offer certain appointments in any way comparable with those in European countries. The instruction should chiefly relate to the details of planting and management, and a knowledge of the conditions best calculated to secure success. It would include mathematics, as applied in surveys, measurements and various calculations; chemistry, both organic and inorganic, especially as applied to soils; geology and mineralogy, the natural sciences, physics, meteorology; in short whatever enables the careful observer to anticipate success from a knowledge of requirements, or to avoid failures by knowing their causes. As an essential means of instruction, schools of forestry, besides the apparatus for scientific illustration, must have collections of tools and implements, models of machines and structures, cabinets of woods for showing their structure, qualities and uses, geological, mineralogical and botanical series, and especially gardens and plantations, including labeled specimens of living trees, of as many species as the soil and climate will allow. As a first requisite in tree planting we should understand the capacity of soils and the requirements of different tree with respect to them. But as the roots of trees penetrate much deeper than those of agricultural crops, the nature of the subsoil is often an important matter; and as both of these are principally derived from the disintegration of rocks, the study of geology finds a direct practical application. It is not unusual to find certain rocky strata distinguished by some particular kind of forest growth. The chestnut, for example, can not be made to thrive on a calcareous soil, but prefers the silicious, and especially that from decomposed granite. The pines prefer a sandy soil, if the subsoil is suitable; and the oaks generally require a moderately compact and strong clay soil. Neither a purely silicious, calcareous or aluminous soil is entirely suitable for trees, but a mixture, and especially a portion of vegetable mould is generally preferred. —It is a peculiar advantage in forest tree growth that it may often be secured very successfully upon broken and rocky surfaces altogether too rough for cultivation, as the roots insinuate themselves into crevices, wherever there is soil and moisture, and act as powerful agents in promoting the decomposition of rocks, and their conversion into soil. Although the presence of moisture in the soil is generally necessary to vegetation, its excess is injurious; hence drainage becomes necessary for successful planting. The roots of plants absorb moisture from the soil, and give it out by evaporation from the leaves. By this means the planting of certain trees, such as poplars and willows, on the borders of swamps, has the effect of drying them. Trees are also found to intercept or absorb malarious emanations from marshes, and hence their cultivation may ebcome an act of public utility, as a sanitary measure, for the protection of cities and towns against insalubrious exposures. —There are several different modes of management of woodlands, each of which has its advantages in certain localities. 1. Selection; or the taking of trees here and there, leaving the younger to take the place of those removed. This is the common practice in reserved wood-lots, and is generally a wasteful and ruinous one, because in such forests the trees are of all ages and sizes, the amount of timber is less than by some other methods, and vacant places are very apt to form, that tend continually to become larger. Still in some places it is the best and indeed the only one that can be practiced, as, for example, in places where it would be unsafe to clear off all the timber at once, on account of loose drifting sand or steep declivities that might suffer from erosion of torrents. If done at stated periods, it is also the best practice in spruce and cedar woodlands, where trees below a certain size are left for future cutting. —2. Coppice growth. By this method, all the trees worth cutting are taken off at once, and a new growth springs up from the stumps and roots. It is allowed to grow to the period fixed for cutting, which depends upon the kind of tree, the goodness of soil, the climate, and the uses to which the wood is to be applied. It can be used only in deciduous woodlands, for the conifers do not generally thus reproduce, and is especially useful in the management of woodlands kept for supplying charcoal to furnaces. Although trees in such cases will generally grow if let alone, there are certain measures that should receive attention in order to secure the greatest yield. They must be carefully guarded against fires, and fenced against cattle, and especially against sheep, at all times. Their injury from browsing, and breaking down of young sprouts, will do a great deal more harm than the profit that could be realized from pasturage. The trees should be cut as close to the ground as possible, and always in winter, or before the sap starts in spring. Care must be taken not to injure the bark on the stump, as the sprouts come out along the line of junction between the bark and wood, and the stumps should be rounded off with an adze, so that the rain will not settle upon them. The sprouts may sometimes be bent down and partly buried, a notch being cut where they are covered, and thus a tree with an independent root may be started, and when rooted, these sprouts may be cut apart from the native tree. Coppices should sometimes be thinned out, where the growth is too dense, and may be cut off at intervals of from ten to forty years. The kinds of trees that grow best in coppices are the oaks, chestnut, poplars, cottonwoods, locust, ailanthus, willows, catalpa, soft maples, linden, elms, ash, birch, hickory, alder, etc. The beech, hard maple and some others do not grow successfully in this manner, and, as a general rule, the reproduction is more successful in a deep rich soil, with a moderate degree of moisture, and in a humid climate. It becomes more uncertain as the soil becomes hard, and the climate dry. In cutting off a coppice growth, it is a profitable practice to reserve some of the more thrifty of the young trees, to grow on to a second or even third or fourth period of cutting, when they will have acquired much greater value for timber than they would be worth for firewood. This is especially the case with the oak, ash, hickory, black walnut and other kinds valuable for manufactures. Such trees, when left exposed to the air and light, are apt to become covered with branches along the sides, that would become large, to the injury of the timber if left. They should be cut off late in summer or early in autumn, at which season they will not be likely to sprout again. For hoop poles, the cuttings may be made once in five or six years; for fencing, the trees may be suitable in ten or twelve years; for posts, in fifteen or twenty years; and for railroad ties, in from twenty to thirty years. Where oak is raised for supplying bark for tanning purposes and for dyeing, it is usually cut off when from twenty to twenty-five years old. As this cutting must be done when the bark will peel, it is delayed till vegetation has started in the spring and early summer, somewhat to the prejudice of the future growth, which becomes feebler as the season advances, and is lost altogether when the wood has ceased to form for the season, and the buds for the next year are set. —3. Full forest growth. By this form of cultivation the forest is started by planting or sowing, and so dense that it will shade the ground while still young, and until which time it may be cultivated, sometimes with some farm crop, partly to keep the ground mellow, and partly to kill the grass and weeds. As the trees become too dense, so that their branches interlock, they should be thinned out; and this thinning process should be continued from time to time, usually at intervals of five or six years, but more seldom as the trees become large, until forty or fifty years old. In countries where timber is valuable, the profit from these thinnings will more than pay the whole cost of cultivation. The first will furnish hoop poles, vine props and stakes; the next, poles; and the later ones, small timber for a great variety of uses. In all of them the top wood is cut into firewood, and the twigs are bound into faggots and sold for oven-wood. In such a forest, properly managed, the trees being a little crowded grow tall and straight, they are all of about the same size and age, and under the best management they will yield at full maturity from three to five times as much in volume and in value as trees growing naturally and without care in our forests. —As trees gain in size they become relatively more valuable per cubic foot, because the wood is harder, stronger, and adapted to more uses than small wood. In all trees the wood is of greatest worth at full maturity, and although they may still keep alive and continue to form new wood on the outside many years after they have begun to decline, they are apt to become hollow and unsound within, and may finally be almost good for nothing before they fall of old age. It is best, therefore, to cut them when fully ripe, and before any part has decayed. The forester has not performed his whole duty in bringing the woodland to maturity; it is not finished until this timber has been cut off, and a new crop has been started in its place. In this, modern forestry has achieved great success, at almost nominal cost, by so managing the cuttings that nature does this work of restoration of itself. In a dense forest the surface of the earth is deeply shaded, and nothing will grow on the ground. The few seeds that sprout soon perish, and in a crowded forest few seeds will grow on the trees. As the period for cutting approaches, a part of the trees are taken out, leaving fifteen or twenty to an acre, more or less, about equally distributed over the surface, and of the kinds desired for the new growth. These, now freely exposed to the air and light, will probably the next year bear an abundance of fruit, which, falling upon the litter, and covered by the leaves of the same season, will soon spring up, covering the whole surface with a carpet of young trees. These require some shading, and would all perish in an open field. This shade they get form the parent trees, and with the sun shining on them a part of the time, and a part of the time shaded off, they grow rapidly in the soil that has been forming for a long period from the annual fall of leaves. As the young trees get larger, they need more air and light, and a part of the old trees are taken out, and finally the remainder, leaving a new forest fully started, to grow on perhaps for one or two hundred years. —The profits of planting in this manner are very large, but the long period required for returns renders it not very inviting for investment. Most proprietors can not afford to wait so long for their money, and hence it is generally employed by governments, to secure the heavy timber needed for their navies and other uses. In such a forest, after a few years, cattle may be pastured without injury, and in beech and oak woodlands they become valuable for the fattening of swine. The privilege of pasturage and feeding is sometimes sold at auction, and in others it is a right enjoyed by communes and villages. Whenever allowed, the herds of cattle or swine are generally in care of keepers—not their owners, but persons appointed for the purpose, who have no motive for preference, and who will allow all the animals in their care an equal chance. It is sometimes claimed as a right, to gather litter from woodlands, for fertilizing lands, or for bedding cattle in stables. The practice is always bad, and should be prevented where possible. It tends to impoverish the soil, and eventually to check the growth of the trees. This method of cultivation is the only one applicable to coniferous trees, as they can be grown only form seed. As they require particular care when young, they should always be started in seed-beds, and be transplanted in nursery rows three or four years before being finally set where the trees are to grow. In extensive operations, nurseries should always be established as near as may be to the intended plantations. For small planting it is advisable to purchase the young plants from nurserymen, who can generally sell them cheaper than an unskilled planter could grow them. When wild coniferous trees are used, they should be taken up in a damp time in the spring, the roots dipped in a puddle of rich soil, and they should be placed in boxes, not too closely packed nor covered so as to exclude the air, and they should be set in nurseries and cultivated two or three years before final planting. In deciding between sowing and planting, we must be governed by circumstances. In the case of oak, and the nut trees generally, as also in that of pines on a very light sandy soil, the young roots strike deep, and can not be extracted without great injury. They should therefore generally be planted or sown where they are to grow. There is an advantage from planting in rows, because they can then be cultivated while young. If there is a little uncertainty as to what trees are best suited to the situation, they may be planted alternately, of different kinds, as in Scotland the Pinus sylvestris (Scotch pine) and the larch. At the period of thinning, one or the other may then be removed, leaving all the trees of one kind, as found most promising, or some of each may be left as though best. As a general rule, a mixture of species produces more quantity and greater value than all of one kind. —As to the density of growth, much depends upon the soil, slope, aspect, elevation, climate and other causes. It may be more dense on a hillside than on a plain, and at greater elevations than at those of less height. In planting trees on a hillside, the rows should run horizontally, at the same elevation, following the contour of surface, without regard to allignment in any other direction. The reason of this is, that the soil is not so liable to wash when worked in this manner. On very steep slopes it is injudicious to disturb the soil more than can possibly be avoided, and upon a northern slope it is sometimes best to sow seeds upon the snow. They would be more likely to perish, if sown on a southerly slope; in fact, trees are in such places much more difficult to start than in any other, and, under equal conditions otherwise, a southern exposure is more often treeless and arid than one fronting to the north. —In collecting seeds of trees for planting, it should be remembered that they are liable to heat and mould if placed in heaps while still fresh. They should therefore be spread evenly, and stirred from time to time until somewhat dry. Those that are thin and chaffy, like the birch, may be kept in papers or sacks till the next spring. Those with a hard shell, like the locust, acacias, coffee-tree, etc., should be scalded slightly and soaked in warm water until they swell, and then should be immediately planted. Those that ripen late in spring, or early in summer, should be planted at once. The willows, poplars, cottonwoods, elms and soft maples are of this kind. The hard shelled nuts may be planted in the fall of the same year in which they were grown, or early the next spring. They may be kept over winter by spreading on the ground in a dry place, covered loosely with straw and boards, but exposed to the weather, or they may be placed in alternate layers with sand in boxes or barrels, and thus left in the open air till spring. It may be said of nearly all forest-tree seeds, that they lose their vitality in a relatively short time, as compared with the grains. Some can scarcely be kept over winter, and must be planted at once. Indeed in some soils and climates, fall planting is preferable to planting in spring, but in this no rule of general application can be laid down. In doubtful cases and untried conditions no extensive operations should be undertaken without first experimenting, not only as to the season and manner of planting, but also with respect to the kinds most likely to succeed in a given locality. —In planting tree seeds, whether in the large way, where they are to remain, or in seed beds, the soil should be thoroughly mellowed, by plowing and harrowing; and if in new prairie land, it is idle to expect success unless the sod be first thoroughly broken and rotted, and afterward the ground plowed as deeply as may be before planting. It is generally advisable to cultivate the land with some field crop a year or two after breaking. The breaking can only be done early in summer, when the vegetation is most active. The ground becomes too hard, later in the season, and the sod will not decompose. For early spring planting the ground may be plowed the fall previous—In prairie planting it will generally be best to plant the seeds at equal intervals in rows, so as to admit of after cultivation by horse power. To secure accuracy in this, the ground, after plowing and harrowing, may be marked off into rows. It is absolutely necessary in the more arid climate westward from the Missouri river, and a good rule almost anywhere, to plant rather closely together, so that the trees will shade the ground early, and afterward to thin out as they become dense. This forces the trees to run up straight, and secures a fine body to the trunk. Almost all trees, when planted with a free exposure on all sides, tend to grow low and wide. The distance most frequently adopted is four feet between rows and two or three feet apart between rows. —On level ground the trees should generally be planted in rows running east and west, because they sooner shade the ground in this direction. Upon hillsides they should be in horizontal lines, for reasons already mentioned. Seeds may be planted and cultivated the first year like corn. The ground must be kept mellow, and it is a good practice to run a cultivator between the rows from time to time, in the early part of summer, whether there are weeds or not, and this practice is especially useful in a dry season. —In some trees, such as the oak, when set from nurseries, the stem becomes hard, and the growth slow and imperfect. It is sometimes best after the first year, when the roots have become well started, to cut down this stem close to the ground. A new and strong one will then spring up, and very probably outgrow, in a year or two, those that have not been cut back. A fire running through a young plantation will sometimes apparently ruin it altogether, by killing all the young trees. The roots will however be often found full of life, and by cutting off the dead stem, others will spring up from them. In such cases only one should generally be allowed to grow. Such an accident in a plantation of coniferous woods would be fatal, since they never sprout from the root, nor can they survive the loss of their leaves. In some regions where from annual fires the trees have been killed off, and at the time of first settlement the surface shows nothing but herbage, the ground is found full of the roots of trees, which everywhere spring up when these fires are prevented. These "grub prairies" become, with no other care than a little protection, groves of trees that in twenty years or more afford an abundance of fuel, and wood for various other uses. In the southwestern states these roots continue to grow as the opportunity of foliage permits, until they become of large size, affording much material for firewood, and even for charcoal, in places where there was apparently no timber. —Besides rearing forest trees from seeds, they may be in some cases propagated with great success from cuttings taken from the young wood, or from the roots, and placed in ground previously well prepared as already described for planting. This may be done to great advantage with the willows, the poplars and the cottonwoods; and with some of these that do not readily produce fertile seeds, it is the only means by which they can be made to grow. It is generally best to cut these sprouts late in the fall, or during the winter, but never while they are in leaf. They may be kept till wanted for use, by burying them in trenches, where they are not exposed to standing water, or to frost, or by keeping them in cellars, tied in bundles, and with the ends covered with damp sand or moss. They should not be exposed to the dry air more than is absolutely necessary, and when cut, the incision should be made obliquely across the lower end, without loosening the bark. When kept in a damp place, a callus will form along the edge of the wood under the bark, and from this the roots will spring. For willows these cuttings may be one or two inches thick and two feet long. They are usually much less when taken from the poplars, being ten to twelve inches long, and from the last year's growth. They should be pressed obliquely into the ground, with the ends to the north, as being in this position less liable to dry up at the end, and more exposed to the sun. They should not project much above the ground. Although cuttings are usually set early in spring, in ground prepared the fall before, they may sometimes be set in autumn, or, if the weather permits, in winter. They will need cultivating and thinning, as already described for planted trees. —In the prairie regions of the west, where from an arid climate the cultivation of trees becomes difficult, the native cottonwoods that spring up by millions on the sand bars of rivers, may be plowed up, or pulled up in moist places without plowing, in great abundance, and are preferable to cuttings. They may be plowed in, by laying obliquely down in a furrow and covering with the plow. In these dry prairies the cottonwoods or the willows may be planted with great advantage alternately with the more valuable kinds, for sheltering them form the sun and the drying winds, until they get well started and able to protect themselves. Among the kinds worth cultivating for profit in these regions may be mentioned the black walnut, ash, oaks, locust, mulberry, western catalpa, honey locust, ailanthus, osage orange, box elder, hackberry, elms, soft maple, and native red cedar. As a general rule the conifers do not succeed, and it has been found impossible to raise the beech, chestnut or sugar maple, except in particular localities, and by a combination of circumstances that is rare. —The osage orange is used as a hedge plant about as far north as Chicago, but along its northern limit it becomes liable to winter-kill. Further north the white willow forms an excellent hedge when closely planted. Both this willows and the cottonwoods grow with great rapidity, and at the age of eight or ten years they may have a diameter of as many inches at two feet from the ground. When cut in summer and peeled they dry very easily, and furnish poles for fencing and other uses that will last many years when not in contact with the ground. At twenty or thirty years the cottonwood may be sawn into boards suitable for inside joinery, and planks for bridges and other uses. —In a prairie region trees become of great utility to agriculture, which planted in belts, from four to ten rods or more in width. They protect grain and fruits from drying winds, and tend to mitigate the severity of drought. In winter they afford shelter from the fierce north winds that have at times proved so destructive to property and to human life. There can be no doubt but that if a fifth or a fourth part of the prairies were covered with such belts of timber, the amount of grain that could be raised upon the remainder would be as much as would be realized from the whole, without them. As the public land surveys are run with the cardinal points, these necessarily become the direction of farm lines, and very naturally of timber belts. They perhaps afford the greatest protection when planted in east and west lines, but it would be still better to have them around every prairie farm, and at intervals of a quarter of a mile or so throughout the prairie country. If neighbors could agree to each plant on two sides of their farms, these belts would afford shelter to both, and the whole would be mutually benefited. The first benefit from shelter belts would be, protection against hot and dry summer winds so liable to prevail in the western states. The cultivation of fruits may be said to depend for success upon their presence; and even in the older states, where fruits were formerly raised with more certainty than at present, it would be found that the want of shelter from adjacent woodlands is a principal cause of modern failures. Another benefit is derived from the prevention of drifting snows in winter, especially along public highways and railroad cuts. This has been so completely proved upon the line of the Northern Pacific railroad, that the company has undertaken to plant with belts of trees, the exposed places along the whole line. For plantations of this kind, from six to eight rows, four to six feet apart, should be planted on the side most exposed to the wind, and one of fewer number on the other side, some seventy-five feet from the track. The ground must be thoroughly prepared by breaking the sod, back-setting and deep cultivation before hand. About one month can be devoted to planting in spring and one month in autumn. The trees must be carefully cultivated three or four years, and will need to be protected from cattle, and from prairie fires. The best means for guarding against these fires is to plow several furrows on each side of a strip of land outside of the belt, one or two hundred feet apart, and carefully burn off the grass between the furrows as soon after the first autumnal frosts as the fire can be made to burn. A similar precaution taken along the sides of the track, between the timber belts, would render accidents from fires almost impossible, and the danger becomes every year less as the country becomes well settled. By preventing the snows from drifting, they protect the ground against frost, and when they melt, the water settles into the soil, and keeps it moist for a longer time. This is one of the reasons why the north sides of ravines and of mountains are usually better wooded than those which have a southern exposure. In regions where the conifers, such as cedars and spruces, can be cultivated with ease, they might save infinite trouble from the drifting of snows along the highways, and screens in these places become almost as important an object of public expense as bridges. Such evergreen belts should be in double rows, the trees in each being opposite the spaces in the other. Their density and distance between rows depend upon the local circumstances, and can only be determined by knowing the conditions. Great success has been obtained in Russia from planting along railways; and with deep cultivation beforehand, and careful attention afterward, they have succeeded in places that appeared utterly beyond hope of improvement from aridity of the soil and dryness of the climate. —The importance of timber as a material of indispensable want, and the rapid exhaustion of our native forest supplies, being admitted as facts, it becomes an important question as to what can be done by governments toward maintaining, regulating and restoring these supplies. —Our settled lands all belong to private owners. There can be no planting done upon them at public cost, and it is not in the least probable that the title will ever be recovered by government, for the purpose of planting. The public lands belonging to the national government are remote from the great body of our population, and we scarcely find it possible to protect the timber upon them from being cut to supply the wants of adjacent settlements. The law, in fact, now gives them this right in certain cases, and moreover these supplies are so remote from the great markets that they can not be made generally available, by any existing mode of transportation, and at present prices. —The states own some lands that have been given for educational and other purposes, but they are being sold as fast as opportunities offer, and systems of forest management can scarcely be organized under state laws with any prospect of success. It must be admitted that these conditions present great difficulties, and the most probable result will be, that growing prices will sooner or later force upon our people the realization of the fact, that there in profit in growing timber. Whenever this comes to be believed and felt, the owners of land will very probably plant for this profit, just as they now raise grain. The kinds best suited for given localities will be carefully sought out, and the best methods of management will be studied and practiced. The sooner we begin this work the less we shall feel the inconveniences of scarcity and high prices. There can be no doubt but that if one quarter of the whole area of the United States were planted in timber, the shelter and protection which these woodlands would afford to the remainder, would enable us to raise the same amount of grain that could be got from the whole surface without woodlands. There are waste grounds and exhausted lands in almost every part of the country, that might be used for planting with the greatest advantage, and nothing will so restore fertility to an old worn out field as a crop of timber. —The government can aid in this measure in various ways. It can also, while some considerable tracts of timber land remain in its possession, adopt measures tending to economize present resources and provide for future wants. These may be briefly stated as follows: 1. It may reserve from future sales, selected bodies of timber land, and put them under management tending to use the timber already grown to best advantage, and to reserve and protect the young growth for future supplies. This is being done successfully and with profit in British India, Australia and other colonies. The system of leasing timber-rights upon ground rents, premiums at auction sale of rights, and a rate of tariff on the timber taken, as long practiced in Canada, deserves our most careful study. 2. It may cause to be planted young forests, upon lands still owned by the government, and in situations that have been found best adapted for timber growth. 3. It may establish experimental stations, for determining questions in forest culture that can never be done by individuals. These stations should have reference to the acclimatization of specie, the adaptation of particular kinds to given localities, the best methods of cultivation, and all scientific questions involved in the general subject of forestry. These stations should be judiciously chosen, widely distributed, and carefully managed, all the results of practical value being published for the information of the people. 4. It may cause to be prepared and published the latest and best of the results of researches in other countries, that afford results of practical value in our own country, and it should do its share in the advancement of our knowledge upon these questions, by aiding in carefully conducted researches. 5. In respect to the existing timber-culture acts, they should be so amended that when an entry is once made under them, the land should never after be liable to entry under any other form, at least not unless its unfitness for tree culture has been proved by proper evidence. It is a very common practice for persons to make these entries, hoping to sell out the privilege of homestead entry or pre-emption by abandoning them. 6. It has the power to couple a condition of planting, or of maintenance of a certain amount of woodland (if now timbered), in all future conveyances of public lands. —As to the power of states to encourage tree planting, it might be exercised in the following manner: 1. By laws encouraging and protecting trees along highways, and by rewarding such planting in exemptions from highway taxes. They might authorize local highway authorities to plant screens and timber belts where needed for a public benefit. 2. By exempting lands planted in timber from taxation, or from the increased value thus given them, for a term of years. 3. By premiums given through the agency of agricultural or other societies, to be awarded for best success in planting or greatest areas planted. 4. Reports of facts worth knowing should be published, and prizes for approved essays should be offered, and the best published for distribution to those who would be most benefited by them. 5. An interest should be awakened in educational institutions and especially in our agricultural colleges. Experimental plantations, lectures and other means of instruction should be provided. 6. The distribution of seeds and plants at cost is provided in some countries, with great success, and without burden to the public. It might be done in some localities with great advantage in our own country. 7. A state board of forestry or a commissioner of forestry might be created by law, for the collection and diffusion of information upon all matters relating to the subject. 8. Efficient laws might be passed for preventing forest fires, by adequate penalties against the careless use of fires, and strict regulations tending to their prevention and control when started. 9. Model plantations, on the plan of model farms, or in connection with them, might be established. 10. When waste lands unfit for agriculture are sold for taxes, the title should be vested in the state, and the lands, if possible, reserved for timber culture under such regulations as should tend to best results. In cities and villages the local governments might promote a taste for sylviculture, and illustrate some of its principles by ornamental plantations and the planting of parks. To give these most value, collections of living trees, properly labeled, should be established at points where they would be of most interest, and especially near schools and public institutions. FRANKLIN B. HOUGH. FORMOSAFORMOSA (Tai-wan), a fertile island 90 miles distant from the coast of China, which is about 240 miles long and 70 miles wide, intersected by a chain of mountains along its length. The eastern half of this island was from the fifteenth century claimed by the Japanese; the Chinese, as their maps made by the Jesuits show, claiming only the western half. The Dutch were, in 1662, driven from their settlements at Zeelandia on Formosa by the Japanese half-breed Koku sen-ya ("Coxinga"), and Dutch and Japanese Christianity on the island was extirpated. In March, 1867, the American brig Rover was wrecked off the southern shore, and the crew put to death by the natives. In June, 1867, Commodore Bell with the United States steamships Hartford and Wyoming, by orders of our government, landed a force to chastise the savages (Botans), but was repulsed. Unable to obtain redress from the Peking government, which disclaimed responsibility over eastern Formosa, our consul at Amoy, Gen. Charles Le Gendre, visited the chief of the eighteen tribes, obtaining from him a promise to protect the lives of shipwrecked Europeans and Americans. On June 8, 1874, a Japanese force of 1,300 men, under Gen. Saigo, occupied for six months a point at Liang Kiao bay, with the object of punishing the Botan savages who three years before had massacred the crew, numbering fifty-four men, of a vessel from the Riu Kiu (Loo Choo) islands. The Chinese government demanded the withdrawal of the troops, and war was imminent. Okube, the mikado's representative in Peking, firmly demanded that proper indemnity should be paid, and China agreed to assume responsibility over eastern Formosa. The Chinese paid the indemnity of 700,000 taels, and the Japanese on the 3d, having lost 700 men and spent $5,000,000, disembarked, having accomplished something for the benefit of the world. The fertility and position of Formosa make it a desirable island for European powers ambitious of influence in the East, but as yet China has not shown any evidences of a willingness to part with it. W. E. G. FORTUNE BAY OUTRAGESFORTUNE BAY OUTRAGES. (See TREATIES, FISHERY.) FORTUNESFORTUNES, Private. The private fortune of every person consists of the possessions whose management and enjoyment are attributed to him by the laws. At all periods the formation, growth and destruction of private fortunes have been intimately connected with the economic and political prosperity or decline of empires. —Among the peoples of antiquity of whom we have record, private fortunes, consisted, especially at the beginning, of flocks and herds, and of land. The inequality of fortunes is noted in the book of Job. The partial inventory of Job's estate declares that he had 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, 500 she-asses, and numerous slaves. At that remote period great fortunes were acquired by usurpation. Job speaks of people "who remove landmarks," rob the flocks of others, "take away the ass of the fatherless and the ox of the widow": and says that such people will reap the field of another and gather the vintage of those whom they oppress; and will take away the garments of the poor man and leave him naked and exposed to the rigorous cold and the mountain rains. Hence, some great fortunes were acquired by economy and labor, others by robbery and violence. —The evil consequences of extreme inequality of fortunes had already become very great among the Jews, when they were remedied by the institution of the Sabbatical year and the jubilee. (See Leviticus, chap. xxv) Every seven years, debts were remitted; every fifty years, lands, whatever may have been the previous stipulations, reverted to their former owners. Houses in walled towns were the only exceptions to this law. —All the legislators of antiquity prescribed regulations intended to prevent inequality of fortunes or to diminish it. According to the Mosaic law (so called), the lands divided among the tribes and families became inalienable. Minos in Crete, and Lycurgus in Sparta, had established similar laws. "In the time of Lycurgus," says Plutarch, "there existed so great an inequality between citizens, that most of them, being debarred from any settled occupation, and reduced to poverty, were a burden to the city; while all the wealth was in the hands of the smaller number * *. Lycurgus divided the lands of Laconia into 30,000 parts, which he distributed among the inhabitants of the rural districts; and he made 9,000 parts of the territory of Sparta, for as many citizens." At Athens Solon proceeded by the abolition of debts: he did not touch the lands, because among a commercial people landed property is only an accessory. —At Rome we find that there was originally a partition of land which assigned to each citizen about one and one-fourth acres. Later, as conquest extended the national territory, the portion allotted was increased to three and a half times this amount. Confiscation of the lands followed closely every division. Then came laws fixing the rate of interest on debts, and agrarian laws limiting the quantity of land a citizen could possess. The laws of Licinius Stolo, which were operative at Rome for from two to three centuries, provided that no citizen, under any pretext whatever, should in future possess more than about 315 acres, and that the surplus should be gratuitously distributed or secured for a low price to the poor citizens; that in this division at least four acres apiece should be assigned to the citizens; that only a designated number of slaves should be allowed on these lands, to cultivate them; that the number of flocks and herds should be also limited and proportioned to the quantity of land a person occupied; that the richest persons should not send to the commons or public pastures more than 100 cattle and 500 sheep. At the same time that these laws were rigorously enforced, every agriculturist was placed under the direct surveillance of the censors, who took note of any one whose lands were neglected or badly cultivated. Under this strict regimen the Roman republic attained the highest degree of prosperity, and found itself able to maintain wars against the Latins, the Gauls, and Carthage. At that time, as Horace says, private fortunes were moderate, and the republic was opulent. —The aim of the agrarian laws and of all the laws designed to restrict the inequality of fortunes, is evident. In all the states of antiquity the very defective organization of the judiciary made it unable to prevent confiscations, especially when war and pillage were the means most employed for the acquisition of property. Now, the inevitable and immediate effect of the concentration of property was to destroy the greater part of the free population, to dry up the sources from which the armies were recruited, and thus to prepare the way for the downfall of the state. In the interior the multiplication of indigent citizens, a result of the concentration of fortunes, was a perpetual danger to the constitution; these men, who considered all industrial labor as servile, had no other means of existence than the gratuities of the public treasury, and they incessantly conspired to elevate a tyrant over the heads of the rich. These motives acted with greater force among exclusively military people, such as the Spartans and Romans. Elsewhere, at Athens, for example, commerce, manufactures and free colonization diminished the extreme inequality of fortunes and its disadvantages. —Whatever may have been the reason, the laws designed to maintain equality were everywhere powerless. Among the Hebrews, in the times of the kings, the difference in fortunes was notable. The prophets could not utter maledictions enough against the confiscations of the rich and against the luxurious habits introduced by foreigners, after the conquests of David and Solomon. At Sparta the treasures imported after the taking of Athens, and the right to make a will, which was introduced in spite of the laws of Lycurgus, led to the concentration of fortunes. In the time of Agis III. "there were," says Plutarch, "not more than 700 native Spartans, of whom scarcely 100 had preserved their inheritance; all the rest were only an indigent multitude, who, languishing at Sparta in opprobrium, and weakly defending themselves against enemies from without, were constantly spying for an opportunity for a change which should relieve them from a condition so despicable." Agis, when he attempted the restoration of the old laws, had immense patrimonial estates, to which he joined a sum of money estimated at about $600,000. The failure of his enterprise is well known. —At Rome the Licinian laws also became obsolete, under the influence of the same causes that had overthrown the agrarian laws ascribed to Moses and to Lycurgus. "Macedonia having been subjugated," says Polybins. "people thought they should be able to live in entire security and enjoy tranquilly universal empire. The greater part lived at Rome in a strange bewilderment." The pillage of Africa and Greece profited only a small number; they employed the wealth acquired by war in destroying the constitution of their country. The tragic end of the Gracchi, who attempted to restore the Licinian laws, as Agis had attempted to restore the laws of Lycurgus, is well known. After their death the usurpations of the great had no longer any restraint. "The rich," says Appian, "caused the greater part of the undistributed lands to adjudged to be themselves, flattering themselves that long possession would prove an unassailable property right; they purchased or took by force the small inheritances of their poor neighbors, and thus made their fields vast domains. Military service drawing the free men away from agriculture, they employed slaves to take care of the flocks. These very slaves were most profitable property to them, because of their rapid multiplication, favored by exemption from military service. What happened in consequence? Powerful men enriched themselves beyond measure, and the fields were filled with slaves; the Italian race, worn out and impoverished, perished under the weight of poverty, imposts and war. If, perchance, the free man escaped these evils, he became ruined by idleness, because he possessed nothing of his own in a territory wholly invaded by the rich; and because there was no work for him on the land of another, in the midst of so great a number of slaves." —Then arose at Rome the colossal fortunes of such men as Lucullus and Crassus, and in their train followed the civil wars and the establishment of the despotism. At the time when Cæsar took possession of the dictatorship, 2,000 rich men alone possessed almost everything, and 320,000 indigent heads of families participated in the gratuitous distributions made by the public treasury. The maintenance of such a condition of things was impossible. The imperial régime lived by the confiscation of these great fortunes, and it created others, those of the freedmen, the publicans and the courtesans. It encouraged, besides, manual labor, and enrolled everybody into a sort of administrative community: this régime, completed by the confiscations, was the agrarian law of the time, when the imperial domain absorbed most private fortunes. —The middle ages had their great feudal fortunes founded on conquest and pillage, and their great ecclesiastical fortunes obtained by donations and testaments. In the twelfth century, in France and in England, the nobility and the clergy shared the soil in nearly equal portions. They likewise shared, in nearly equal portions, the serfs of the ancient imperial domain, which constituted the total laboring population. —Italy and Germany had states where great fortunes arose from commerce and manufactures. Everywhere wealth consisting of personal property tended to break up the territorial monopolies: the conquest of America, by establishing in the new world landed estates like those of ancient Rome, reduced the influence of the ancient territorial fortunes. Later, the invention of machines and commerce created new fortunes, while the financial and political revolutions tended to level the old ones. If it be true that, since the time of Cæsar, there have been no more agrarian laws in the west, it is certain that the revolutions and confiscations, and the civil and foreign wars, have taken the place of them. —To-day, in France, there are not many fortunes which much exceed the average, though there are many of moderate size. In England, Spain, Italy and Russia exceptional fortunes are more numerous, and the middling class less important. In England, in spite of the maintenance of feudal laws, and despite the concentration of landed estates brought about by Pitt, the middle class of society has acquired immense influence. It is this class, which, in our time, has created and possesses the largest fortunes, and these fortunes are enormous. In the United States there is a marked difference in the condition of society in the northern, the western and the southern states. In the northern and western states large fortunes have been created by trade and by mining industries; but there is in them nothing exclusive or oppressive; they are only the last step of a ladder of which all the intermediate rungs are filled. —The most superficial examination suffices to make one perceive the fundamental difference between the private fortunes of ancient times and those of to-day. In the former times the wealth produced by manufacturing and trading people was a prey for warlike nations, and the latter, exposed to the brutalities of the military spirit, saw the confiscations of the great prepare the way, by the spoliation and corruption of the weak, for revolutions and civil wars. All the efforts of legislators proved powerless against that fatal consequence of the ideas which controlled ancient communities, ideas which were immoral, and radically contrary to the very foundation of property, labor. —Among moderns, on the contrary, the theory of private property is founded on labor, and the security of property is an uncontested fundamental principle. Ownership being made more secure, colossal and rapid fortunes have become more rare: it has been easier for the poor person to defend his property against fraudulent and violent confiscations. Finally, France has in the civil code an agrarian law of sure effect in the institution of equal inheritance. In England and the United States the greater security of property, and a more complete freedom of capital and labor, have produced more advantageous economic results with a very different proportion in the distribution of fortunes. Among the ancients small farming, insecurity, and the imperfection of industrial processes rendered accumulations slow and difficult. Among moderns, on the contrary, the invention of machines and the improvements in industrial processes, a social organization less infected with a military spirit, a more secure condition of property, and especially better moral aims, have rendered legitimate accumulations more easy and more rapid. For the rest, political economy has singularly simplified the problems relative to the proportions of private fortunes. It is little concerned to know whether it is advantageous for fortunes to be equal or unequal, large or small: it is sufficient for it that they be created, as far as possible, by the labor of the one who possesses them. The greatest fortune that can be imagined, if it is the product of labor, without fraud or violence, is an increase of wealth and a benefit to society. Far from being injurious to the poor man, it furnishes him implements of labor, the means of building up, in his turn, a private fortune. The smallest fortune which is the result of fraud or violence, is a public scandal. —One single point is important. It is, that laws, customs and tribunals should resist the establishment of private fortunes by other means than by labor. All the efforts of civilization should tend to this end: this would be real progress. As to the fortunes acquired and held, they are few in comparison with those which the movement of affairs constantly raises up, and they can henceforth never constitute a monopoly. —Let capital and labor be free and secure: then there will arise few sudden fortunes, but there will arise a great number of fortunes. The number of great fortunes will increase, but the number of small and middling fortunes will increase still more rapidly. This rising movement of wealth will be slow and general; but its very slowness will prevent it from corrupting morals, and its generality will preserve the poor from oppression by the rich. —Economic freedom is the only agrarian law adapted to modern society. It favors at the same time the increase of wealth, and a real equality, viz., that which makes fortunes proportional to industrial aptitudes. It will also do away with the attraction which great capital, and fortunes too large for the person who possesses them to administer well, now exercise. Let us never fear that human works will last too long, especially when the matter concerned is private fortunes. COURCELLE SENEUIL. FOURIERISMFOURIERISM. François-Marie-Charles Fourier, the socialist, and founder of the phalansterian school, was born at Besançon, France, April 7, 1772, and died at Paris, Oct. 10, 1837. —The family of Fourier was one of the oldest and most honorable commercial families of Besançon. His father, who died in 1781, left a fortune inventoried at 200,000 livres (over $38,200), after deducting liabilities and doubtful credits. He had, by will, made his son Charles heir of two-fifths, and each of his three daughters of one-fifth of his property. —Fourier was brought up for commerce. After having received the usual school education, he worked as a clerk in several cities of France, notably at Rouen and Lyons. He traveled in that capacity in Germany, Holland, and inland. In 1793 he came into possession of his patrimonial fortune; and, wishing to do business on his own account, he invested nearly all of it in colonial goods, which were dispatched from Marseilles to Lyons about the time of the siege of the latter city. Fourier lost his fortune there, and incurred also the risk of life and liberty. About the same time he found himself included in the great requisition, and passed some time in the army. Having procured a discharge on account of illness, he obtained employment in a mercantile house, and was charged, in 1799, to throw into the sea a cargo of rice, which his house had allowed to spoil in consequence of not having been willing to sell it during a time of scarcity. In 1800 he became an unlicensed broker at Lyons. —It was during this period of his life that he conceived his project of social reform, of which he gave the first formal statement in his "Theory of the Four Movements," published at Lyons, under the imprint of Leipzig, in 1808. A man of the eighteenth century, he had adopted its method and general scientific conceptions. He put aside all authority, traditional, moral, religious or political, and undertook to solve the problem of social destiny by a sort of scientific revolution. He treated society by the method of induction appropriate to the physical sciences, and maintained that the actions of men are controlled by one single, constant and universal law, to which he gave the name of passional attraction. In the "Theory of the Four Movements" this doctrine was not yet very clearly formulated, but its germ was there. This work contained a lively, spirited and sensible critique on the vices, defects and antagonisms which exist in our social state. From the time of the conception of this work Fourier had no other real occupation than to complete, publish and propagate his doctrine. Although he still kept in view, and, later, resumed, commercial occupations, all the live forces of his intellect were absorbed by this fixed idea. It was his constant companion in his various sojourns, in the bosom of his family, among his friends, in the country, at Besançon and at Paris, and when among his disciples. —In 1822 he published at Paris his "Treatise on Domestic and Agricultural Association." Until that time Fourier had had scarcely more than the one disciple, M. Just Muiron; about 1825 he found himself at the head of a small school. In 1826 he took up his permanent residence at Paris, and there wrote his "New Industrial World," which appeared in 1829. From this time to his death Fourier was employed in the propagation of his ideas by speaking and writing, and in a continual struggle against the silence or the railleries of contemporary criticism. He directed a violent polemic against Owen and the Saint-Simonians, in a pamphlet entitled: "Snares and Quackeries of the two sects of St. Simon and Owen, which promise Association and Progress," (1831); and in a weekly publication, "The Phalanstery or Industrial Reform," (1832). An attempt at a phalansterian colony was undertaken at Condé-sur-Vesgre under his direction, but was soon abandoned. Finally, in 1835 and 1836, he published two volumes entitled: "False Industry." —Fourier not only undertook to formulate an economic doctrine; he aspired also to make over morals; in a word, to change all the relations of men, and to determine in advance, in detail, the material with which society must operate. We borrow from a work by M. Auguste Ott a summary of Fourierite doctrine, especially in matters of political economy. —"Fourier laid down as a fundamental principle that the end of man is happiness." In what consists this happiness? "True happiness consists only in satisfying one's passions. * * * The happiness about which people have reasoned, or rather failed to reason, so much, consists in having many passions and many means of satisfying them." Man should then follow only the natural attractions he finds in himself. "All those philosophic caprices, called duties, have no relation to nature; duty comes from men, attraction comes from God. We should study the attraction, nature alone, without any regard to duty. Consequently, if in present society, when men abandon themselves to their passions, there follow results which are disastrous (subversive, in the language of Fourier), this fact only proves that society is badly organized, that hitherto man has not taken account of the laws which govern him, with the laws of the material order."—"The problem being to find a social form in which all the attractions, all the passions of man, should be entirely and fully satisfied, the first thing to do is to analyze these attractions. This analysis demonstrates to Fourier that the passions of mankind may be reduced to twelve fundamentals: 1. Five appetites of the senses, which tend to the pleasure of the senses, to internal and external luxury: the passions of taste, touch, sight, hearing and smell. 2. Four passions of the affections, which bind mankind together and tend to form groups. These are friendship, ambition (tending to form corporations, communities), love and familism (the paternal feeling). 3. Three distributive or mechanizing passions, whose functions we will give, namely: the cabalistic, a passion which leads to intrigue, and makes one take pleasure in rivalries and cabals; the butterfly, a passion which incites to change, and to variation of pleasures; and the composite, a blind transport, an irresistible influence which carries away the senses and the soul. This arises from a combination of many pleasures. —From the combined satisfaction of all these passions, arises unitism, the sentiment of universal affection, as white is the result of the combination of all the prismatic colors. The passions of the senses lead to enjoyments from the senses and to labors which tend to satisfy them. Thus the sense of taste is a coach with four wheels, which are, agriculture, conservation, cooking, and gastronomy. He who likes to eat cabbages, for example, will also find pleasure in cultivating them and having them cooked. These passions are then the mainsprings of pleasure and of labor. But if they acted without connection with other passions, labor and pleasure also would have few attractions. The quantity of attraction will be much more considerable if the passion of taste is at the same time accompanied by the satisfaction of the affectional passions. The passions will then combine men into groups, bound together by friendship, love, the spirit of association, and family feeling: and new energy will be given to human activity. But it is not everything to satisfy these passions. They are partially satisfied in the present state of civilization—very incompletely, it is true—and yet man is not happy. It is because the three essential passions have been misunderstood, disgraced and condemned; and these very passions are the fundamental springs of the social mechanism; they are the composite, the butterfly and the cabalistic. The composite tends to unite the small groups into numerous associations, in which the action of all may be combined, and where irresistible enthusiasm arises from the multitude of efforts. To give satisfaction to this passion, is then necessary that the groups be organized be series, each composed of a certain number of groups of the same kind, which devote themselves, to similar work; and that the series be co-ordinated among themselves. The cabalistic passion the passion for intrigue, rivalry, emulation, ought likewise to be satisfied. It is consequently necessary that the series and groups be brought into competition, that is, that they be so arranged that there may be rivalry, emulation, between the various groups of the same series, and between the various parts of the same group. The series of the pear-cultivators, for example, will be composed of a certain number of groups, each cultivating a different variety of pear. Rivalry will spring up between these groups; each will determine to give the best products, and labor will acquire an activity of which civilized people have no idea. Finally, the butterfly passion demands that one often vary his labor, and that he be subjected only to short sittings. It is then necessary that the groups and series be so fitted together that every individual may belong at the same time to several series and several groups; that he may be able, when any particular labor fatigues him, to leave this labor and the group devoted to it, and go to another kind of work in another group or series. Thus the monotony of labor is made to disappear: the series, being continually renewed, manifest always the same ardor, and the individual, passing constantly from one kind of labor to another, is ever experiencing a new charm. —All these conditions would be realized by the following organization: The workers should be combined in associations (phalanxes) of about 1,800 members, men, women, and children of all ages. Each phalanx, organized by groups and series, should work in common a square league of land. The living should also be in common. Each phalanx should inhabit an immense building called a phalanstery, arranged in the most agreeable and most convenient manner, where, at the same time, the special branches of manufacturing industry would be brought together. Fourier estimates that the energy given to labor by the proposed organization, added to the economy resulting from the consumption in common, would immediately triple the present production. Great comfort and luxury will then be at once brought within reach of all. The total product will be distributed as follows: one-third will form the dividend on the capital, and will belong to the proprietors of the phalansterian establishment; five-twelfths will be assigned to labor; one-fourth to talent. (Fourier varied sometimes from these proportions.) The same individual will be able to share in the product, under these three heads, as capitalist, laborer and capacity. But a minimum of consumption will be guaranteed to simple laborers. This distribution will not require any exchange transactions. Each individual will participate in the consumption in proportion to the dividend to which he is entitled. There will be various classes of tables, lodging, and enjoyments of every kind: each one will consume according to his income, and a simple balance of account will be sufficient to determine his condition each year. Each phalanstery will cultivate the products best adapted to its soil and climate, and the phalansteries of the different parts of the world will interchange their products. There will, besides, be established industrial armies, which will travel over the globe and execute all the great labors of general utility. Thus will universal harmony be established. The mechanizing passions will harmonize the five springs of the senses with the four affectional springs, and man will be able to give free course to all his passions without there being any danger of conflict. On the contrary, everything which, in civilized life, is reproved as vicious inclination and condemned by moralists, becomes a means of emulation and a source of activity. The passions, brought into competition by the cabalistic passion, exalted by the composite, made to supplement each other by the butterfly, will inspire the individual to incessant labors and pleasures, so that people will be eager to rouse from their sleep to receive the increased enjoyment which every phalansterian day holds forth. —Such is an outline of Fourier's system; and, it must be said, this system always remained in an outline condition, at least as to its whole. Nevertheless, as Fourier elaborated some parts of it, and as he attached great importance to the details of its execution, we should give our readers a nearer view of the details of the organization he proposed. He was chiefly possessed by two ideas: the first, for which we find no special term in this author, we call the idea of symmetry; the second, the idea of series. Symmetry, according to Fourier, constitutes one of the greatest laws of nature; it is also one of the fundamental laws of social organization, and all the groups and series of which we have spoken must be symmetrically disposed. This disposition consists in the formation of a centre and two extremities, two wings. Thus, in a group of seven persons, (the smallest number which can form a group), three persons form the centre, and two, each of the extremities. The centre will represent the general character of the group, the passion or the labor which constitutes it, (the dominant or the tonic); the extremities will represent the oppositions or contrasts which this general character will present. Between the extremities there will be rivalry, emulation; the centre will maintain the balance, and unity will be thus established between the differences. This arrangement may be applied in all the groups, whatever be the number of individuals of which they are composed, and like wise in the series of groups. Only, in the most numerous groups, new divisions and subdivisions are established, but always according to the same principle. Thus, each wing forms itself into a new centre and two new wings; the transitory characteristics hold between the centres and the wings, etc. Symmetry has an intimate connection with what Fourier calls series. It sometimes takes its name; for the word series in his theory has an altogether different sense from what it has in ordinary science. The idea of series, newly arisen in science, immediately played a great part there. It was in fact identical with growth, progress. In this sense it was the principle of progressive classifications in geology, botany and zoölogy. At the same time that it caused rapid advances to be made in these sciences, it demonstrated the progressive creation of the universe. In Fourier, wholly different series were treated of. Besides the progressive series, nature presented still others, like the series of musical tones, the series of colors. In general, all things which presented resemblances and differences could be ranged in series. But, hitherto, these relations, so tar as pertained to series, had given rise to no important scientific discovery, and there resulted from them only wholly secondary classifications. However, Fourier attributes to this principle of classification a wide significance, and by combining it with the principle of accord which musical sounds and the white light arising from the combination of the colors of the spectrum furnish him, he makes it the basis of his whole plan of organization. —According to Fourier, then, every passion, as, in general, every object in nature, is presented under a series of manifestations, of modes, which, contrary to the real series of botany, geology, etc., goes on increasing at first, arrives at a maximum, and then decreases. The increase is marked by the increasing number of springs or motives which act in each mode. Several springs, in fact, may act in each passion; friendship, for example, depends either on the spiritual motive of affinities of character or on the material motive of affinities of industrial inclinations; love, on sexual attraction, or on spiritual affinity, the bond of the heart, which Fourier calls celadony. When one spring alone is in action, the manifestation is incomplete, mean and bare, good at most in civilization. Every passion, every enjoyment, every pleasure, ought to be composite, that is to say, the result of the play of several springs. Thus, the pleasures of the table are only complete when to the enjoyments of taste are added agreeable conversation and the charms of friendship; labor becomes a pleasure only when it is enhanced by the simultaneous satisfaction of other passions. The increase then in each series is determined by the increasing number of simultaneous enjoyments of which each passion is susceptible. Taking the musical scale for a type. Fourier consequently divides these series into eight principal modes. The first three (from 0 to 2) express the simplest satisfactions, those which civilization furnishes; the four following (3 to 6) offer complete enjoyments, harmonized, as the phalanstery will present them; the last ones do not exactly express a decrease; but they are rare and exceptional manifestations, endowed, moreover, with a high power in harmony. The eighth mode is the omnimodal harmony: it results from the organization and simultaneous play of the seven inferior modes. It corresponds with white in the scale of colors, or with the octave in the musical scale. It is the pivot which is in harmony with all the terms of the series. It is of itself divided into two: the direct harmony (corresponding to white), and the inverse harmony (corresponding to black). The three inferior modes are only secondary springs in harmony; the four subsequent modes will be the mainsprings, properly so called, of the organization of the phalanstery. The superior modes, the high, most puissant moduli, the infinitesimal moduli, will have for their function to establish a bond between the different phalansteries, and to bring about unity and universal harmony. —Taking these hypotheses for a starting point, what was the problem Fourier propounded to himself? In virtue of his general principle, the social organization can not be perfect save on condition of not leaving one single human desire without satisfaction, or one single sentiment without complete development; and, moreover, the desires and passions are the necessary mainsprings of social organization; so that, if a single one of these springs were neglected, the organization itself could not arrive at its perfection. The problem laid down is then this: to create satisfaction of every kind in all the series at once, by the satisfaction given to each passion in all its modes without exception, and by the effect of a mechanism which embraces at the same time all these passions and all these modes. A mechanism which permits all the passions to be satisfied, and the necessity of giving free play to all the passions in order for this mechanism to be able to perform its functions: such are, then, the fundamental conceptions of the phalansterian organization. Such is, clearly, also the idea of Fourier. The organization must be integral; all the wheels of the mechanism should be put into operation simultaneously; otherwise there could be no progress. Moreover, he becomes indignant at the moralists, who, by condemning this or that human passion are breaking the mainsprings of his machine. He stands strongly against the ideas of equality which the revolutionists preach. The inequalities of every kind constitute one of the principal mainsprings of human activity: the differences of rank, power, influence and fortune, are indispensable stimuli to the phalansterian mechanism. 'The societary system is as incompatible with equality of fortunes as with uniformity of character.' This shows why Fourier expressly maintains that capital should have its due share in the distribution of the products; and those of his pupils who aimed to diminish or cut off that share completely failed to understand the fundamental idea of their master. The gratification of the passion of love, which Fourier, in his first work, represented as a bait which must infallibly seduce civilized people; which he preaches with less boldness in his second work, and of which he postpones the organization for 100 years in his later writings,—this passion of love, to which, nevertheless, he can not help continually reverting, and which his disciples wished to cover with a veil, forms one of the indispensable mainsprings of his system. 'The passions,' says he in his "Treatise on Domestic and Agricultural Association," 'are not a mechanism of which one can weigh separately any particular part, according to the caprices of each reader and the restrictions of each sophist. Their equilibrium must be integral and unitary; each of the parts there has a correspondence with the whole and if one falsifies the balance in love, it will be indirectly falsified more or less in the other branches of the societary mechanism.' —Fourier has then propounded a problem whose solution is not easy; but it must be said that its solution is not to be found in his writings. A mechanism so admirable was worth the trouble of being described in its smallest details: Fourier has not done it. His works are composed only of fragments, of detached notices. Particular parts are developed with a certain care, but the whole plan is nowhere found. We are told that the domestic characters are 810, neither more nor less, and that a phalanstery should be composed of 1,620 persons. We are given the division of the phalanstery into sixteen tribes, classified according to age. We are informed that the industrial functions are of seven kinds: domestic, agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial labor; teaching, study and the employment of the sciences; and the fine arts. But the enumeration and determination of the characters, the subdivision of the seven general functions and the determination of the series are completely lacking. The agreeable and comfortable arrangements of the phalanstery are carefully described. We are shown, by many examples, how indispensable the multiplicity of passions and of enjoyments is to the action of the mechanism. Thus, the refined tastes of the gourmand, by the variety of products they call for, are in exact accord with the necessity of introducing a great variety into the groups and series. Thus, vanity and pride are the most powerful stimulants to activity and emulation. It is known how Fourier turned to advantage the dirty habits of some children, to secure the accomplishment of certain disgusting labors; and the delicacy and conceit of certain others, to utilize them in ornamentation and articles of luxury. The phalansterian education is carefully described. Fourier shows how, by letting children walk around in the workshops, by, giving them practice in small labors, twenty industrial talents will be developed among them: how also the railleries of their comrades and their self-respect will impress them with an ardent love of work. Fourier quite often refers to what he calls rallying, that is to say, the means of harmonizing the natural antagonisms, such as those which exist between the rich and the poor, between youth and old age, between princes and subjects. He shows how the population will be reduced to 600 inhabitants a square league, by the extension of phanerogamous morals (harmony of the sixth), and of the enrollment of two-thirds of the women in the corporation of bacchanals, bayadères, etc. In a word, all the supposed results of phalansterian organization are described with much spirit and intelligence, and with a faith as real as blind, but nowhere have they been demonstrated." (Traité d'Economie Sociale, by Aug. Ott; Paris, 1854; Guillaumin, publisher.) —It is evident that the doctrine of Fourier has a faulty basis. If, in fact, human society is subject, like inert matter, to constant and immutable laws, it is impossible for humanity to escape the control of these laws, and we can not say, with the phalansterian school, that "men have hitherto gone in the wrong path, and that the laws which they have made should be condemned and cast aside." The truths in the physical sciences, attraction among the rest, are truths only because facts constantly and invariably confirm them. If one single fact afforded an exception to the laws recognized by the physical sciences as general, these laws would be at once considered as untrue, and relegated among the more or less ingenious hypotheses which have often been hazarded on the phenomena of nature. For the rest, although Fourier constantly declared that he adopted the method of the natural sciences, that he enunciated the laws written by nature herself, he never employed the language and method appropriate to the sciences. In the place of proving and deducing, he affirmed, drawing his demonstrations from vague and remote analogies, the importance of which was over-estimated by his mind, overexcited as it was by continued labor. What could be more opposed to a scientific habit of mind than to pretend to know the past without regard to historic testimony, and to divine the future and reveal the whole of a cosmogony, without relying upon any constant fact? And yet this is what Fourier did. "The world," according to him, says M. Reybaud, "will have a duration of 80,000 years; 40,000 of rise, and 40,000 of decline. In this number are included 8,000 of apogee. The world is scarcely adult; it is 7,000 years old; it has hitherto had only the irregular, feeble, unreasoning existence of childhood; it is going to pass into the period of youth, then into maturity, the culmination of happiness, afterward to decline into decrepitude. Thus saith the law of analogy: the world, like man, like the animal, like the plant, must be born, develop and perish. The only difference is in the duration. In regard to the fact of creation, God made sixteen species of men, nine in the old world, seven in America, but all subject to the universal law of unity and analogy. Nevertheless, in creating the world, God reserved other successive creations to change its face: the creations will extend to eighteen. Every creation is brought about by the conjunction of the austral and the boreal fluid." —In what pertains to economic matters, the affirmations of Fourier are not only barren of proof, but they are contradicted by the observation of every day. Labor is, to be sure, necessary to the contentment of man, and absolute idleness is suffering as well as a vice; but it does not follow from this that labor is attractive, that its attractiveness is sufficient to give rise to industrial activity. As M. Ott observed, Fourier, who so carefully analyzed the vicious inclinations and assigned to them a place in his phalanstery, forgot in his nomenclature the worst of vices, the most attractive and the most dangerous to his system, indolence. It has been said, it is true, that in a harmonious world indolence would not exist; but it is only a gratuitous affirmation, contrary to the experience of all human society up to this time. The same experience must inspire great mistrust of the glorification promised to the sensual appetites. Hitherto, the easy satisfaction of these appetites, far from being a stimulant to labor, has impelled men to idleness. Nothing less than a subversion of the ordinary laws of human nature would be necessary for the same cause to produce the opposite effects. These objections are taken from the standpoint of the Fourierites themselves. From a moral point of view, doctrines which are the negation of morality itself can be neither approved nor excused. —Since Fourier's death, important modifications have been made in the ideas of his school. Without condemning the doctrines of the master, his disciples neglected the better part of them, and devoted themselves to various financial and economic problems. Thus, his school has sometimes, by the talent or personal consideration of some of its members, taken the appearance of an organized and powerful body. But, in reality, the Fourierites have produced nothing useful, in the economic line or in any other, except by departing from the school, and abandoning the fundamental ideas and the hypotheses of the master. For a long time the utopia of Fourier has been, to those acquainted with it, and to impartial men, only a rallying word, one number more in the long catalogue of human aberrations. —BIBLIOGRAPHY. Théorie des quatre mouvements et des destinées générales, Leipzig (Lyons), 1808, 8vo, 425 pages; Traité de l'association domestique et agricole, Besançon and Paris, 1822, 2 vols., 8vo; Sommaire de la théorie d'association agricole, ou attraction industrielle. Besançon, 1828, 8vo; Le nouveau monde industriel, ou invention du procédé d'industrie attrayante et combinée, distribuée en séries passionnées, Paris, 1829, 4 vols., 8vo; Piéges et charlatanisme des deux sectes de Saint-Simon et d'Owen, qui promettent l'association et le progrès, Paris, 1831, 8vo, 80 pages; La fausse industrie morcelée, repugnante, mensongère, et l'antidote, l'industrie naturelle combinée, attrayante, véridique, donnant quadruple produit, Paris, 1835-6, 2 vols., 12mo. A second edition of the Théorie des quatre mouvements appeared in 1841 (1st vol. of the Complete Works); the Traité d'association domestique et agricole, in 1841, under the title of Théorie de l'unité universelle, in 4 volumes, forming II., III., IV., and V. of the Complete Works. The Nouveau monde industriel appeared in 1846 (vol. VI. of the Complete Works). The two volumes of Fausse industrie were not republished. A part of the manuscripts left by Fourier were printed in the Phalange, a monthly review which appeared from 1845 to 1849, 10 vols., gr. 8vo. Some volumes of these manuscripts were published in 18mo, under the title, Publication des manuscrits de Fourier. Fourier wrote, besides, a great number of articles in the Phalanstère, ou la Réforme Industrielle, a weekly, and, later, a monthly paper, which appeared from June, 1832, to February, 1834. COURCELLE SENEUIL. FOURTH ESTATEFOURTH ESTATE. The expression "Fourth Estate" (vierter Stand) was first used in Germany, and in contradistinction to the "Third Estate." The contrast between these two estates was apparent even in the time of the French revolution of 1789, when the Girondists, who represented the third estate, proceeded against the "Mountain," which was supported principally by the lower classes of the people. Nevertheless, the difference was not then entirely clear, as political rather than social causes seemed to separate the masses into parties. The restoration placed the great classes of the people entirely in the background, and only the old estates appeared again to have any political importance The revolution of July, 1830, was principally the work of the third estate. The new king, Louis Philippe, appeared, so to speak, as the personification of the third estate, with which he shared the government of France. The entire fourth estate, during the period of the charter of 1814, was deprived of all right of suffrage and of all participation in public affairs. —The revolution of February, 1848, now suddenly broke out. A domestic quarrel between the "citizen king" and the liberal friends of reform of the third estate was the occasion of it. But as soon as the revolution commenced, it extended beyond the third estate. The fourth estate made itself for the moment the ruling power. It desired to restore the republic and the democracy, which was the first to guarantee it political rights. But it was at variance with itself. Its lowest strata were the most violent; the communistically disposed proletarians even sought a social transformation, inasmuch as they desired employment and wages guaranteed by the state. All property, all credit, all civilization, seemed now to be threatened by the wild passions of the crowd. In defense of property Gen. Cavaignac ventured a bloody struggle. He conquered in the three days fight of June in the streets of Paris, because he cleverly caused his garde mobile to be recruited from the fourth estate itself. In the legislative assembly, which was newly elected, the greater number of seats fell to the lot of the third estate, which indeed alone had the capacity and leisure to manage the affairs of the state. The fourth estate, which had to devote all its time and energy to daily labor and the earning of bread, saw, that representative democracy, at least in France, necessarily exalted the third estate, which it viewed not without mistrust. Prince Napoleon, who had been elected to the presidency chiefly by the fourth estate, aided by the belief of the masses in the Napoleonic genius and traditions, now undertook a campaign against the third estate, which at the same time was a campaign against representative democracy. Greeted and supported by the acclamation of the great masses of the people, the peasants and the workmen, he ascended the restored imperial throne. But universal suffrage, which put the deciding power in the hands of the masses, was and remained the basis of the imperial power, and the third estate was unable to resist it. —In Germany also similar differences existed, and led to the idea of a fourth estate, distinct from the third in its social position and its political character. The name is certainly badly chosen, for even German constitutional law of the present day no longer rests on estates, but rather upon classes In Germany the great classes of the people are indeed better educated than in France. They are also, on the whole, more disposed to follow with confidence the guidance of the more cultured middle class. But, at the same time, the authority of the government, of the civil officers and of the church exercises a far stronger influence over them than over the independent and critically inclined third estate. —In fact, on the contrast between the work of the head and the work of the hand, that is, between intellectual and physical activity, is based the difference, which is of great importance in the organization of states and in their political life. Indeed, the distinction itself is not absolute; the shoemaker and the woodcutter work badly, if they work with no head, and the thinker can not dispense with his hand, which transcribes his thoughts. But, in general, callings are distinguished from one another according as mental or physical activity predominates in them. For the liberal pursuits of the third estate a higher education is an indispensable requisite, and for this reason generally these persons only have the capacity and leisure to use their intellect in the service of the state. The great classes, employed more with the material cultivation of the soil, with hand work, with retail trade and with manufactures, are wanting in the necessary education and leisure to devote themselves to affairs of state. It is of much more importance to them, then, that the administration should be a good one, than that they themselves should be called to take any part in the administration. —The fourth estate, therefore, embraces also all the great classes of the people, which have not the characteristic marks of the third estate. Its strength lies in the mass of the lower middle class in the cities, of workmen, shopkeepers, petty tradesmen, servants and peasants in the country. —The proletariat is chiefly only the refuse of the fourth estate, but it may also be of the other estates, and must not be confounded with the former. There is a proletariat of the nobility and of the higher middle class, as well as of the fourth estate. The proletariat is an unavoidable evil, which is connected with all classes and ranks of society. It forms no estate by itself. The expression proletariat is borrowed from the old Roman census-constitution. The undomiciled and poor Romans, those who had less than 1,500 ases of taxable property, were not included in the five classes, and were therefore not liable to taxation nor bound to do duty in war, like the domiciled citizens (assidui), although they were required to perform subordinate duties for the army. Their property consisted chiefly of their children (proles), and hence they obtained the name. Modern proletarians are also people without property, no matter what estate or what class of the people they may belong to through birth, education or profession. But the absence of property is not in itself decisive, and nothing would be more dangerous than to divide the entire population into property owners and non-property owners, and incite them to hostility against each other. The sons of well-to-do parents, when they establish a household of their own, may be entirely without property, but they are by no means proletarians. People without property, then, are only proletarians, if, through isolation and a precarious means of existence, they are in a dangerous position, and when their entire existence in society appears unsafe. The task of politics is to work for this end, that there may be as few proletarians as possible in the land. —The fourth estate is the foundation of the modern state, and likewise the chief object of its care. It is chiefly from the fourth estate that the state draws its financial and military power. From its obscure ranks start up constantly a multitude of individuals, who acquire for themselves education, a name, and a rank in society. It is the source from which all the other classes are renewed and fed. So long as the fourth estate of a nation is healthy and strong, the life of the nation is safe; it can recover from the worst maladies and losses. But if the fourth estate is seized with decay, there is no salvation for the nation. —The fourth estate needs the care of the state more than all the other classes, which are in a better condition to help themselves. In individual cases, certainly, the persons of the fourth estate must provide for themselves by their own labor and economy. But it is surely the state's care, that the fundamental conditions of common life and common welfare shall be well established. For this end particularly the country has need of good laws and institutions, and a capable administration. This the fourth estate can not obtain of itself. The better educated classes must work for it. —The fourth estate has neither the capacity nor the inclination to govern or to take part in the higher branches of civil administration. But it has the desire and the need to be well ruled and governed. That done, it is contented, and entirely free from any desire of innovation or revolution. There is no greater error than that of Stahl, who thinks that the fourth estate is desirous by nature to overthrow the ruling power. Quite the contrary. The aristocracy is naturally inclined to share power with the monarchy: the third estate is from the beginning inclined to exercise criticism and control, and prefers representative democratic forms. The fourth estate has in Europe, on the other hand, a natural bias, not toward the aristocracy, which has too long oppressed, despised and lived on it, nor toward the representative democracy, in whose principal work it can not participate, and whose views are for the greater part not intelligible to it; but toward the monarchy. —The fourth estate is in no way insensible to the ideal goods of humanity, and it is readier than any other estate to do and dare for these goods. But only high ideas, not medium ones, attract it, and it comprehends only the great outlines of the case, not its detail. The history of the world has irrefutably shown, that these great classes of the people, which think generally only of their daily earnings, and appear exclusively engaged in material pursuits, have defended with self-sacrificing determination, religious interests, and, in more modern times, political ideas and ends, and have often turned the scale by their impetuous onslaught. BLUNTSCHLI. FRANCEFRANCE is the most westerly portion of central Europe, and is bounded on the northeast by Belgium and the grand duchy of Luxemburg; on the east by Alsace-Lorraine, Switzerland and Italy; on the south by the Mediterranean and Spain; on the west by the Atlantic ocean; and on the northwest by the English channel and the straits of Dover. The islands in the immediate neighborhood of the coast of France measure only 419 square kilometres, but adding to them the more distant island of Corsica, with its 8,747.41 square kilometres, the area of the European portion of the French republic is increased to 528,573.04 square kilometres. Excluding Corsica and the smaller neighboring islands, continental France is situated between 42° 2' and 51° 5' north latitude and 7° 7' west longitude and 5° 51' east longitude, reckoning, of course, from the meridian of Paris. The geometrical form of the boundaries resembles a hexagon, of which the western and eastern sides are somewhat indented, and the outlines of which are clearly indicated by the following measurements Brest to Antibes, 1,098 kilometres; Bayonne to Cirey, 868 kilometres; Brest to Cirey, 940 kilometres; Dunkirk to Céret, 965 kilometres: La Rochelle to Geneva, 542 kilometres. The 5,230 kilometres perimeter of the boundaries, inclusive of sinuosities, are subdivided in the following proportion 1,333 kilometres on the channel, 862 kilometres on the Atlantic, 570 kilometres on the Pyrenees, 625 kilometres on the Mediterranean, 720 kilometres on the Alps, 290 kilometres on the Jura, and 790 kilometres on the northeastern boundaries; the continental boundaries, therefore, comprise 2,520 kilometres, and the maritime coast line 2,710 kilometres. The centre of the country is at St. Amand, south of Bourges, at a distance of 450-520 kilometres from the most extreme points of the boundaries. Of the entire 5,230 kilometres perimeter only 790 kilometres on the northeast are unprotected by natural boundaries. Altogether the natural circumstances of location are very favorable for the defense of the boundaries and for the self-sustenance of the state. Notwithstanding all this, France is not insulated; it is in close contact with the German centre of Europe; it commands the mountain passes which lead to Italy and Spain; it keeps a vigilant eye on the fortified coast of England; its western coast line is open to free communication with all parts of the globe, while the south shares in the domination of the Mediterranean. France has her continental and her maritime phases, and the union of both elements gives her a commanding position among the powers of the earth. —Formation of French Unity.8 When the Carlovingian dynasty descended from the throne, the kingdom of France covered from north to south an area at least equal to that of the present territory of France, but all the land lying to the east of the Meuse, the Saone and the Rhine was dependent on the German empire. The duke of France bore the title of king, but he had no authority, so to speak, over other lands than his own. Six great fiefs, the duchy of Normandy, the duchy of Burgundy, the earldom of Flanders, the earldom of Champagne, the duchy of Aquitatine and the earldom of Toulouse, formed about his duchy so many independent realms, owing nothing to the crown except homage. Within each of these states the great feudary held by feudal tenure a number of fiefs of the second order, the possessors of which in their turn were suzerain lords of rere-fiefs, divided into baronies, castellanies, and the fiefs of viscounts of cities. Under these latter lords were all the cities and villages. The system of military clientage descended thus step by step from the king of France to the lowest baron. No other tie bound these fiefs together, and for more than a century a state of warfare was the life itself of the nation, divided into some thousands of gross tyrannies. All that the first kings could pretend to do was to remain kings, and to transmit the crown to their heirs. While they had themselves crowned in the hereditary order each during the lifetime of the other, a sort of order was established within the great fiefs, and the dukes and counts of the first rank established for themselves a real authority over their vassals. Finally, under Louis the Fat, royalty began the same work of organization for itself, by making war against the lords and barons, who lived by brigandage upon the territory of its ducal fief. Feudal obedience once established in the duchy of France, the king set to work to regulate the hierarchy and the laws of the feudalism of which he was the chief, and by vigorous measures he caused his great vassals to respect his authority as military commander and sovereign dispenser of justice. As soon as there was some order and tranquillity in the different duchies and earldoms of France, agriculture and commerce received a slight impetus, and communes were formed, some through successful insurrection, others through the purchase of municipal liberty. The king encouraged, wherever he could, the organization of the city bourgeoisie, and at the end of the twelfth century, by thus weakening the power of his vassals, he had everywhere established and caused to be respected his right of actual suzerainty. Having then at his command the forces of the nascent state, he was able to fix its boundaries by conquest. Marriages, treaties, confiscations, battles, equally promoted this new policy. It was necessary first to weaken the Norman monarchy, which, being a part of France, had taken possession of England, but which, by its right of proprietorship and by its family alliances, had remained or become mistress of all the French coast on the ocean. Philip Augustus dismembered its domain, after his policy had divided it. But the English kings, in order to defend themselves, commenced to excite coalitions of its former vassals against French royalty. Philip Augustus triumphed at the victory of Bouvines over the barons of the north, and this was the first great battle gained in France in favor of national unity. —The great feudaries soon tried to break this nascent unity, but St. Louis, whose minority was the cause of such great perils to the state, regained in 1242, upon the battle field of Taillebourg, the power and prestige of his grandfather, Philip Augustus. Advantageous treaties and temporary concessions gave the sanction of right to the violent conquests, the heritage of which the pious king accepted; but the appanage system again dismembered this kingdom, which each day was becoming more solidified; no longer, it is true, without hope of reversion to the crown, and perhaps even for the good of France; for before restoring it to royalty, made permanent by the disappearance of transient races, each of the appanaged dynasties increased its domain and made power more thoroughly respected there than it would have been possible for the central chief to attempt. They were branches of the same trunk, which grew larger every day. —At the same time St. Louis reformed the laws, and prepared the early union of the three classes of the nation into the states general. He made himself, by his pragmatic sanction, temporal head of the French clergy; he connected, by means of the right of appeal, the seignioral courts with his own tribunals, and placed the municipalities of the south as well as the communes of the north under the judicial and military authority of his officers. He did more: by suppressing the feudal right of hostility in the political order, and judicial combat in the civil order, he desired justice to be the only rule, the only sanction of social relations; and the new judges, in becoming the arbiters of society, formed a body which, for the purpose of instructing itself, sought out and awakened the memories of antiquity, and gave to all the science of the universities an impulse unknown till that time. —A new division of the kingdom was begun while these reforms were going on. The institutions of royal justice, by establishing a hierarchy among the tribunals, gave rise to four great bailiwicks, upon which all the seignioral courts depended, and which themselves, as well as the courts of the great fiefs, were subject to the royal court, which afterward became the French parliament. This court, composed only of great vassals and officers of the crown, had followed royalty everywhere and had not yet had a fixed seat; but when procedure by writing and the multiplication of laws rendered it necessary to admit therein clerks or educated laymen, it changed its character, and soon jurists alone composed it. —From justice, as St. Louis established it with so much authority, sprang all the political structure of the state. The functions of the seneschals, bailiffs, provosts, representatives of the royal law, and bearers of the royal sword, were made more definite; their power was increased, and, dependent on the crown which no longer invested them with hereditary offices as the Carlovingian monarchy had done, they worked zealously to destroy everywhere the authorities of feudalism, from this time divided and incapable of successful revolt. —Royalty then at last represented the nation and disposed of its forces. Up to that time it could only alternately conquer or administer; henceforth it advanced more confidently, and increased or regulated the kingdom, as favorable occasions for action offered themselves. Philip the Fair attempted to drive the English from Guyenne and to seize Flanders, and he deprived the empire of Lyons, thus penetrating into the valley of the Rhone, which was not yet French territory. At the same time he applied to the whole of the kingdom his grandfather's (Louis IX.'s) system of bailiffs; that is to say, he made the lords every where subject to the king, and he fixed the seat of the itinerant parliament, which was divided from this reign, into a chamber of accounts, chamber of inquiry and grand chamber. During a century and a half, this parliament was the only supreme court of the kingdom; some of its members were then delegated to decide appeals in the countries where customary law was prevalent; those of Champagne in the Grands Jours at Troyes; those of Normandy in the Exchequers at Rouen, and those of countries where statute law was prevalent in the Chambre de Langue d'oc established at Paris itself. —The bourgeoisie, by this enlargement of the functions of justice, obtained positions which they alone were capable of filling. They still more quickly became of importance in the state, when it was necessary to ask them to open their purses to provide for public expenditure. Royalty of the house of Capet, so long as it was simply feudal, found in its own treasury, that is, in the revenue of its domains, the money necessary for its seignioral duties; but when it reigned, governed, made laws, embraced a policy, it needed an army, it needed subsidies. Philip the Fair neglected no means of becoming rich, not even the most iniquitous and most dangerous. He suspended the right which the feudaries had of coining money, and speculated upon the melting and recoinage of the royal moneys. Whether they were guilty of usury or not, he made the Jewish and Lombard bankers, who were enriching themselves by developing national commerce, periodically disgorge; he seized the property of templars condemned to death; he sold their freedom to serfs and slaves; he established the first custom houses known in France; he imposed a tax on salt; and, growing ever more eager to amass gold, which he needed for the promotion of his plans, he finally assembled in a common session the three classes, the three orders of the kingdom: the clergy, the nobility and the third estate. —An attempt to re-establish feudalism, encouraged by the depressed state of the whole country, broke out shortly after his death, and a great number of nobles were again reinstated by royal charters in the privileges and prerogatives of their fathers; but the judiciary of St. Louis was too well established, and too much in accordance with the spirit of the times, not to resist these attacks, and by resisting, it assured the existence of the political and financial system which has since been established upon its foundations. —A supreme crisis even now threatened royalty and the kingdom; the hundred years war began, and in this duel to the death, which must either destroy the future of France to the profit of English monarchy, or drive away forever English monarchy from continental soil, a thousand startling events, a thousand misfortunes occurred, but also miracles, which cast the whole French nation, king and people into a sea of blood and tears, but which finally saved it; and the destiny of France triumphed. —Already the single question of the inheritance of fiefs had nearly compromised the state. Philip the Fair, in order to keep the appanages within reach of the crown, had decided that males alone could inherit them; but as to the crown itself, it was uncertain if, the case occurring, the daughters could not lay claim to the seignioral manor and title of their father. The legists declared that France should exclude women from the throne, and supported their argument by the custom of the Salic Franks, which, in fact, under the first race, had been applied to the inheritance of the royal power, and which, under the name of Salic law, has been famous in French history. But if males alone thus had the right to reign over France, it was because one of the English kings once found himself nearer the throne of France than the legal heir, that the hundred years war had broken out and the massacre of the two nations had begun. —New taxes, new confiscations were the first resources of the kings of France; but, since England furnished more regular support to her forces and had better disciplined troops, the French at first appeared on the field of battle only to be vanquished. When John the Good was made prisoner at Poitiers and dragged as a captive to London, a general insurrection assailed on all sides the establishment of the monarchy. In those times of misfortune and ignorance the light of patriotism did not illumine the minds of men, and the bourgeoisie, which later showed more experience and wisdom in its devotion, was at that time the most terrible enemy of the tutelary authority, which was shaping the kingdom for the battles of the future. In 1356, the republican spirit of the municipalities of Italy and Flanders inspired the states general, in which the deputies of the cities wanted to grasp the power, and not only to fix the taxes, but to collect and distribute them, and in financial matters to entirely reform the administration. The attempt was premature, and Etienne Marcel, who was the promoter of it, soon found himself compelled, in order to maintain it, to undertake to change the dynasty and to have recourse to foreign assistance. Then, abandoned by some of his own party, he succumbed, while the revolutionary agitation, having spread into the rural districts, took the form of a war of extermination, directed by the peasants against the seignioral nobility. These very excesses proved the cause of the safety of royalty, which, sustained by the threatened nobility, and represented by the dauphin, who afterward became Charles the Wise, little by little gathered together the scattered elements of national unity. —The revolution had given to the kingdom a financial organization, by charging the delegates and general commissaries with the levying of money for the "aid" voted by it. From that time dates the commencement of élections and généralités (French districts), which, later, became the civil divisions of France. This was not the only trace of its passage which the revolution was destined to leave behind it. The principal character of its acts was the attestation of the already inchoate homogeneity of the nation; if it exposed the cause of French unity to dangers, it served it by revealing it. —Charles V. established the administration upon its bases, and, profiting by the lessons of the revolution itself, he above all perfected the management of the finances. More successful than his father in the war with England, he repaired some of the disasters the state had undergone during his regency, and, by the creation of companies of ordnance, he formed the first nucleus of a permanent army, which up to that time had been unknown in France. —The minority and then the folly of his successor endangered the progress already accomplished, and again plunged France into an abyss of misfortune. The foreign enemy this time found a new auxiliary in the appanagist princes, descended from King John, who did not wish to destroy royalty, in abeyance through the imbecility of the monarch, but to exploit it themselves. Never did France see worse days; her capital, the heart of the country, had fallen into the hands of the kings of England, and the legitimate heir to the throne was wandering beyond the Loire, almost without an army. Finally, the patriotism of some of the nobility and the sublime devotion of Joan of Arc delivered the country from its incomparable misery. Strengthened by the struggle, which had almost destroyed it, royalty rose above so many perils never to sink again. The soil of the fatherland was free for the first time in five centuries, and on this land which had drunk so much generous blood before becoming independent, the institutions of the state could be organized as parts of one great whole. —Charles VII. had created a parliament at Poitiers, when he was living in exile at Chinon. Victorious, he wanted the judicial organization of his predecessors to answer the needs of France, liberated and enlarged. A second parliament was granted to Languedoc, and a third promised to Guyenne. The crown inherited Dauphiny, in the person of the eldest sons of future kings; this new province had also its parliament, and at the end of the century there were parliaments at Dijon, at Rouen and at Aix, when Burgundy and Provence became integral parts of French territory. Brittany did not obtain hers till 1553. —One after another, taxes had been levied, at first provisional, afterward regular: the customs of Philip the Fair, the gabelles of Philip of Valois, and the taxes levied upon liquors and various articles of consumption by the republican states general of 1356. Abolished for a time on the accession of Charles VI., these taxes were re-established, and their collection subjected to fixed laws. From the establishment of two courts of taxation dates the separation of ordinary justice from the administration of justice in matters of finance. The oldest of the taxes, the taille, grew in importance in proportion as the object for which it had been established, the support of the army, became more considerable. —For a century, the division of old France into généralités and financial élections, had been an accomplished fact; but as old. France extended its frontiers, the countries which were added to it claimed the right of retaining, as regarded taxes, the privilege of consent and distribution which they possessed. They did retain this right, and as it was in the several states general that this privilege was exercised, the name of pays d'états was given to them in administrative language. —By obtaining from the states general of 1439 the establishment of a personal taille, the king everywhere suppressed the feudal tailles. The royal taille was voted for the levy of a permanent army of 2,500 men at arms and 4,000 archers. Up to this time royalty had not had at its service a standing army, and had carried on wars only by appealing to its vassals and the people of the communes. But now it was at the head of the first of modern troops, and although cavalry occupied the chief position, artillery soon appeared; it made war a science, and the infantry increased in number as the nation became more securely organized. The ban and arriére-ban became from this time only languishing remains of the military customs of feudalism, which did not disappear till the time of Louis XIV., as the exercise of seignioral justice existed, continually losing strength, till the states general of 1789. —Thus we come to the light. Through justice commenced the formation and regular division of France, the castellanies and provostships of the king were the seats for justice and the police in the first instance; the bailiwicks in the north and the seneschals' courts in the south, ruled the castellanies and provostships, and were at once seats of justice and military offices. Supreme jurisdiction was vested in the parliaments. Through the organization of the finances the kingdom was enabled to increase in strength. Financially, France was divided into pays d'états, which voted and distributed their taxes, and pays d'élections, in which were established receivers general, delegates, receivers of domains, collectors of gabelles, and soon a whole army of collectors, treasurers and comptrollers, whose hierarchy and functions foreshadowed the administration and regulation of accounts of the coming centuries. Finally, France had an army, and for military purposes the country was divided into twelve great governments given to officers of the crown. —We have only just mentioned the rôle and the situation of the church under the monarchy of the house of Capet. St. Louis began the loosening of the bonds which attached the church in matters temporal to Rome, and supported it in its right of election. Rome soon regained all its empire; but Charles VII., following in the footsteps of St. Louis, ordered the French clergy to pay no more tributes to the holy see, and to preserve its republican constitution. It is true that, in the following century, Francis I. put an end to the existence of a democratic clergy, and by a concordat concluded with the holy see, constituted himself the only elector of the members of the royal clergy. —The time had come when France must be entirely united under the sceptre of her kings. Louis XI. completed the work of the feudal monarchy. It only remained to do away with the appanagists, with the very blood of the dynasty itself. It is known with what skill, what decision, what constancy, his cruel genius was applied to this work, and how he contributed more than any other king, except Philip Augustus, to the material formation of the kingdom. —The construction of the new national edifice occupied five centuries; but what centuries of violence; the imagination can hardly light up with a ray of chivalric poetry those sombre years of ignorance, of famine, of pestilence and of intestine strife. —The sixteenth century inaugurated a new policy. France was prepared for it, when the west of Europe was refreshed by the breath of the Greek and Latin renaissance. Antique art mingled its brilliancy and elegance with the naïveté, rudeness and gayety of the Gallic spirit, and French genius began its glorious career. But it was not until the seventeenth century that its supremacy dethroned the old fame of the German empire and the holy see. Francis I. was the first to commence the foundation of this future fortune, and it was by his struggle with the house of Austria that he forced the nations to think of the balance of power. His son increased the national inheritance; his grandsons came near losing it; but through the struggles of religious reform, the human mind kept its onward progress. The civil laws were purified through the injunctions of the representatives of France, and under the inspiration of her magistrates and in the political debaucheries of the league, the instincts of liberty rose up constantly, and hid the shortcomings of patriotism. —Under Henry IV an order of things was inaugurated which approaches that of the present day. Sully accustomed the nation to desire to have men of integrity in power, he made the practices of economy popular, and elevated the whole nation by proclaiming the excellence of agriculture. Colbert completed his work by giving new life to industry and commerce. —Till the middle of the sixteenth century the crown had its councilors, when it was pleased to take them, an abbé, Suger; a soldier, Joinville; a legist, Juvénal des Ursins; a barber, Olivier le Daim. —With secretaries of state came the creation of ministries. The action of the governmental machinery was thus continually rectified, but suddenly, powerful shocks stopped and disorganized it. Every minority of a king was the signal for the old feudal and communal régime to raise its head, and make an effort at revolt. The iron hand of Richelieu was necessary to lower the most powerful rebel heads, and the glittering sceptre of Louis XIV, to make them all bow down before him. —Still, the balance of power in Europe was fixed by France in the treaties of Westphalia, and she herself, under her king, the last of her conqueror kings, extended her frontiers on all sides. The literature and art of the century made France the arbiter of Europe, even at the time of her misfortunes; and although they only adorned general and often servile ideas, they prepared the way for the unexpected reign of philosophy in the next century. Louis XIV himself unwittingly contributed toward giving to the bourgeoisie an importance which writers of the eighteenth century carried to the highest point. When he humiliated the remnants of the nobility in his pompous antechambers, and would employ in important matters only the common people, he was the first, by the caprice of despotism, to instill into his people that idea of equality which the revolution employed in the name of justice. But we now come to the time when old France ceased to exist, and new France appeared. —The author of this article will be perhaps permitted to recall that, in a work entitled "Etat de la France en 1789," he drew up, for that memorable date, the inventory of the system which the states general overthrew and transformed. Even the slightest sketch of this can not be given in a few lines. The extent of territory was about the same as at present, the population numbered about 26,500,000, of which about 6,000,000 were in the cities and towns, and about 680,000 in the capital. The average length of life was estimated at twenty-eight years and nine months. —The institutions of feudalism had fallen one by one under the blows of monarchy; but it was only their vigor and their vitality which had disappeared, their forms, their names, their connections existed. Till 1789, all France was only an assemblage of fiefs, arriére fiefs and plebeian estates, placed under the tenure of the king, who, according to the law of the middle ages, was the supreme lord of the land, as well as the irresponsible head of the state. Without doubt, it had for a long time been impossible to realize rigorously such a principle in actual transactions; but the principle existed none the less. It was the corner stone of the old régime. The revolution was needed to uproot it from the soil, in order that France should be really free. —It is doubtful if there were many more than 80,000 nobles in 1789; but how few were actually descended from the companions at arms of Clovis, or even from the officers who, under the Carlovingians, became hereditary proprietors of their offices. The great majority were only recently of noble rank, obtained in the offices of the magistracy. The clergy embraced about 200,000 individuals, and enjoyed a considerable revenue, the amount of which has been variously estimated. Together with the king, who still enjoyed a large domain, these 80,000 nobles and 200,000 members of the clergy possessed three-fourths of the soil. One-fourth remained for 26,000,000 of men, but at the most there were but 450,000 landholders in France. —As the desire to manage its own affairs had become the ruling passion of France, the experiment was tried of giving to the pays d'élections provincial assemblies, which with some liberty, should play the same part which the states general were supposed to play in the pays d'état, the list of which is as follows. Artois, Cambrésis, Brittany, Walloon Flanders, Burgundy, Languedoc, earldom of Foix, Marsan, Nébouzan, Quatre Vallées, Bigorre, Béarn, Soule, Lower Navarre, Labourd, Dauphiny. These institutions only made the nation more impatient to effect the union of the provinces and the regulation of the laws, and this impatience was legitimate, for royalty, after having materially established the kingdom, was capable only of tyrannizing over it, and, of a feudal nature after all, it was not willing to melt down the iron system of feudalism to forge the body of a new nation. —Parliaments had in the course of time arrogated the right of remonstrance, because they enjoyed the privilege of the registration of the ordinances and edicts. This right, which, substantially, always yielded to force, appeared to them to be the fundamental law of the country, and to be worth a constitution by itself; but after the thinkers and politicians of the eighteenth century had spoken, it was impossible for these chimeras to exist. The revolution effected what kings could not, what the parliaments would have wished to prevent them from doing. Those declarations of the constitutions of 1791 and 1793 were not vain words. "The kingdom is one and indivisible." "The French republic is one and indivisible." Even the misfortunes of France have not been able to destroy this unity and this indivisibility, which nations admire and envy. PAUL BOITEAU. —The Third Republic. The Franco-German war of 1870-71 early revealed the weakness of the second empire. Immediately after the first defeats and in consequence of a vote of distrust of the legislature, the Olivier ministry resigned; one of the deputies even demanding the abdication of the emperor (Aug. 10). The new cabinet, presided over by Palikao, made every effort to increase the means of defense and to supply Paris with provisions. Meanwhile the French army had been annihilated in a succession of great battles; the whole of Alsace and Lorraine was occupied by German troops, and only Strasburg and Metz still held out. Napoleon III. himself surrendered at Sedan and went into captivity in Germany; the prince imperial, who had accompanied his father, had previously gone to England. On receipt of the news of this catastrophe, Paris rose in rebellion; during the night of Sept. 3, Jules Favre proposed in the legislature to depose the imperial dynasty. Palikao did not dare to vigorously resist this agitation, as the army and national guards could not be depended on. On the afternoon of Sept. 4 a mob stormed the hall of the legislature, the senate dissolved, and while Gambetta proclaimed a republic amid tumultuous excitement, the empress, together with the heads of the imperial party, were fugitives on their way to find shelter in England. On the very evening of Sept. 4, 1870, a "provisional government of national defense" constituted itself in the Hôtel de Ville, composed of deputies of the left only (Arago, Crémieux, Favre, Ferry, Gambetta, Garnier-Pagès, Glais-Bizoin, Pelletan, Picard, Rochefort, Simon). Under their auspices all Germans were expelled from France. Gen. Trochu presided, and was entrusted with the office of commander-in-chief of Paris. Jules Favre became vice-president and minister of foreign affairs; he entered upon his functions with a diplomatic circular of Sept. 6, in which he declared that the government desired peace, but would not cede one inch of the national territory, nor a stone of a French fortress. He made the same claim in a personal conversation with Bismarck at Ferrières on Sept. 19-20; he thought of contenting victorious Germany with money only. Thiers undertook a diplomatic mission to London, Vienna, St. Petersburg and Florence to ask the intercession of the neutral powers, but without success. His negotiations with Bismarck on Nov. 1, at Versailles, resulted in nothing. When the German army advanced toward Paris, the French government resolved to share the fate of the capital, but appointed a delegation for the administration of the provinces at Tours, where Gambetta as minister of war and of the interior virtually assumed the dictatorship. On Sept. 19 the surrounding of Paris had been completed, and the Prussian king, William I, had taken up his headquarters at Versailles, the old residence of the French kings. Strasburg and Metz capitulated. In vain Gambetta continued to levy new troops to relieve Paris; the French recruits and the militia (garde mobile) were unable to offer successful resistance to the experienced German soldiers, and in the beginning of December the government delegations even had to remove further south to Bordeaux. The government at Paris, too, was in a difficult position. All efforts of Gen. Trochu to break through the iron belt of the besieging army were unsuccessful, and want soon made itself felt. In addition to this, an extreme party existed in the city itself, which had its connection with the international society of workingmen and relied upon the armed population of the workingmen's quarters, Belleville, Montmartre, etc. Aside from minor revolts, this party attempted, on Oct. 31, 1870, and Jan. 22, 1871, (unsuccessfully, however,) to usurp the government and to establish the so-called commune. —Under these circumstances the "provisional government of defense" was compelled to sue for peace. On Jan. 28, 1871, Favre and Bismarck signed an agreement for a three weeks armistice on land and water, in accordance with which the German troops occupied, the following day, all forts around Paris. During this armistice, which was afterward extended to March 3, a national assembly was to be chosen by general election in order to negotiate peace. When Gambetta attempted to limit the freedom of election to those of pronounced republican tendencies, his decree was not recognized by either Bismarck or the Paris government; this, with the general desire of the French people for peace, compelled him to resign. On Feb. 8 the elections took place, and on Feb. 12 the national assembly held its first session at Bordeaux. The following day the government of national defense resigned the powers confided to it to the national assembly, and the latter appointed Thiers, on Feb. 17, chief executive officer; retaining Favre as minister of foreign affairs. On Feb. 26 the preliminaries of peace were decided upon at Versailles, between Thiers and Favre on one side and the chancellor, Bismarck, and the representatives of Bavaria, Würtemberg and Baden on the other side, in accordance with which France ceded the provinces of Alsace, except Belfort, and German Lorraine, including Metz, to the German empire, and bound herself to pay a war indemnity of 5,000,000,000 francs; part of the French territory to remain occupied by German troops until the indemnity should be paid. These preliminaries were ratified on March 1 by the national assembly at Bordeaux and March 2 by Emperor William I. The German troops, who had occupied several quarters of Paris, withdrew from the city March 3. Shortly afterward the Germans also left Versailles, and the national assembly, together with the executive, removed from Bordeaux to the former place March 20. On March 18 a fresh and successful insurrection broke out in Paris, and the so-called commune usurped control of the government. This outbreak, however, was confined to the city of Paris; the French army remained true to the government, and after great bloodshed the insurrection was quelled, and by May 28 order was restored in Paris. Previous to this, the treaty of peace with Germany had already been definitively ratified. In accordance with the preliminaries, French and German representatives had, on March 28, convened at Brussels in order to deliberate over the details of the treaty; the negotiations, however, progressed slowly, as no agreement could be arrived at concerning the financial questions. This created distrust in Germany as to whether the government at Versailles would and could honestly carry out the provisions of the preliminary treaty. In consequence, Bismarck used his personal influence; and in a meeting with Favre, the French minister, at Frankfort on the Main (May 6-10) all conflicting points were speedily decided. The treaty of Frankfort, of May 10, 1871, generally confirmed the preliminaries, but contained amendments regulating the future border more in accordance with the nationality of the inhabitants, and containing an additional article in relation to the possession of the French railways of the east in Alsace-Lorraine. —The elections of Feb. 8 had, under clerical influences and under the pressure of the situation, resulted in a preponderating majority of the "legitimist Orleanist" party, so that every one looked with either fear or hope for an early restoration of the monarchy. The princes of the house of Orleans returned to take up their residence in France; Count Chambord (Henry V.) appeared for a long visit at his country seat. Chambord and the followers of both sides entered into negotiations in order to effect a fusion. This, however, was made impossible by Chambord's manifesto of July 5, wherein he declared that he could not sacrifice the white flag of Henry IV. Thiers tried first to secure for himself the good will of the monarchist majority by appointing an increasing number of Orleanists as members of his cabinet. The republican Jules Favre resigned, and on Aug. 3 Charles Remusat entered the foreign office; later, Casimir Périer (the son) was appointed minister of the interior. On Aug. 12 the left centre of the national assembly brought in a bill proposing the prolongation of the power of Thiers for three years, under the title of president of the republic, and the establishment of a responsible ministry. After a hot debate, Aug. 30 and 31, the bill was passed by a vote of 491 against 93. The bill provided that Thiers should exercise the executive power as president of the republic under the authority of the national assembly, until the work of the latter was ended; he should reside at the seat of the assembly and be heard by the latter at any time at his request. The president as well as the ministers (who are appointed and dismissed by the former), should be under responsibility to the national assembly. Soon after the passage of this bill the assembly adjourned from Sept. 17 to Dec. 4, after appointing a permanent commission of forty-five members to act during the interval of the adjournment. —The next object of the French government and national assembly was the earliest possible liberation of the country from the occupation of the German troops, and the improvement of the army after the Prussian model. For the paying of the first two milliards of war indemnity, Thiers contracted, in June, 1871, a loan of 2,500,000,000 francs, and for the liquidation of the balance a second loan of over three milliard francs in July, 1872. That for the latter loan a sum of more than forty-four milliards was subscribed, was evidence of the very favorable condition of French credit. Thus France was enabled by more speedy payments to bring about the end of the occupation at an earlier period than had been expected at the time of the treaty. In the last convention of March 15, 1873, it was decided that the last quarter milliard should be paid off on Sept. 5, thereby securing the complete evacuation of the French territory. The reorganization of the army was also vigorously pressed. The national assembly granted for that purpose any sum requested, and even offered to the government more money than the latter required. The law of July 28, 1872, concerning military service, established universal liability to arms, in such a manner that one part of the troops should be under obligation of five years active service, and the other part of six months exercise only. Besides this, a term of four years service in the reserve and eleven years in the territorial army was decided upon. This law was made complete by the organization law of July 24, 1873, and the cadres law of March 13, 1875. The former determined the number of regiments (144 of infantry, 70 of cavalry and 28 of artillery), and assigned them to eighteen corps d'armée for which the commanding generals were at once appointed; a nineteenth corps d'armée was established in Algeria and placed under the command of Chanzy, the governor general of Algeria. By the cadres law, the cadres of the battalions were increased in such a way that while formerly a regiment consisted of three battalions with a maximum of 3,000 men, a regiment of four battalions could now be formed, increasing the strength of the regiment to 4,000 men. This bill passed, the French infantry comprised 641 battalions. Such a law appeared of so much importance and so favorable for the early outbreak of the meditated war of vengeance, that in April, 1875, the question was raised at Berlin, whether "war was in view." All parties in France labored for the war of vengeance; even the plans of the Jesuits tended in the same direction. Under the guidance of the latter, humbled France should be raised up again, and the people stirred up for the national-clerical crusade against Germany. Miraculous fountains and apparitions, numerous processions, chanting of religious songs with refrain of vengeance, were intended to keep up the fanaticism of the populace. The clericals most favored by the government increased their demands more and more until the law of July 12, 1875, concerning public instruction, awarded them the privilege of establishing "free universities" and the participation in conferring academical degrees, whereby they hoped to secure a controlling influence in the higher grades of instruction, in addition to the management of the institutions for female instruction and education which they already conducted. The proceedings instituted by the military commission against Marshal Bazaine were intended to relieve the "Grande Nation" from all responsibility for the disgrace of the last war, and to lay all the blame therefor to insubordination and treason. Bazaine was, by court martial, on Dec. 10, 1873, condemned to death, but the sentence was commuted to twenty years' imprisonment. Removed to the fortress on the island of St. Marguerite, he escaped on Aug. 10, 1874. —Less harmony existed between the parties in question concerning the framing of the constitution. The monarchists divided into legitimists. Orleanists and Bonapartists, and each of the three parties had its own pretendant; the republicans, too, formed three groups: moderate, decided and radical republicans. Not only the monarchists and republicans opposed each other, but even the several factions in the parties themselves often disagreed. Thus it happened that the "commission of thirty" which was to frame the constitutional laws, found much difficulty in arriving at a conclusion, and could not gain a majority in the assembly for its decrees. On account of these difficulties several ministers were politically wrecked, and the constitution made no progress toward completion. It took four years before the republic became a fact and constitutional. Meritorious as had been the course of Thiers as president of the republic, he had gained the ill will of the monarchists because he would not support their plans and because of his preference for the republic. And as the supplementary elections mostly resulted in favor of the republicans, it could be foreseen with mathematical certainty that the monarchists would eventually lose the majority in the assembly. As Thiers, in forming his new cabinet on May 18, 1873, chose its members from the ranks of the republicans only, without regard to the majority of the monarchists, the latter proposed a resolution of censure against him. This was accepted on May 24, by a vote of 360 against 344. Thereupon Thiers and his ministry tendered their resignation and Marshal MacMahon was at the same session elected president of the republic. The latter formed a new ministry composed of legitimists, Orleanists and Bonapartists, presided over by the duke de Broglie as minister of foreign affairs. The new presidency promised to be of but short duration; for the legitimists labored more strenuously than ever to bring about a fusion; they had already secured the good will of many Orleanists, and proposed to recall Count Chambord and offer him the throne. The count de Paris, as head of the house of Orleans, visited Count Chambord on Aug. 5, 1873, at Frohsdorf, and recognized him as the chief of the united houses of Bourbon and Orleans, and as the chief representative of the monarchical principle in France. But since Count Chambord, in his letter of Oct 27, demanded an unconditional recall, and refused to make any binding declaration in regard to the flag (whether tricolor or white), or as to the constitution, the Orleanists withdrew, and the attempt at fusion again proved a failure. MacMahon, however, demanded then the establishment of a strong executive power, and the assembly accordingly decided to fix the term of office of the president at seven years (septennate). Under the ministry of Broglie ultramontanism and Bonapartism made rapid progress. The pastorals of the French bishops outdid each other in their attacks upon the German emperor and his government, so that the minister of public worship, in a circular of Dec. 26, 1873, cautioned the bishops, and Bismarck called the French government to account. The Bonapartists gained several favorable results at the later elections, and found themselves in possession of most of the higher offices. Since legitimists and Orleanists had lost all ground with the people, the only question remained whether the third empire or the republic would come out victorious from the struggle of parties. After the death of the ex-emperor, Napoleon, on Jan. 9, 1873, the Bonapartists gathered around his son, who, on March 16, 1874, became of age. This latter event was celebrated at Chiselhurst, many followers of the empire doing homage to the prince imperial. Since the Bonapartists could hardly count upon aid from any of the other parties, they carried on their agitation all the more vigorously among the lower classes and awaited a favorable opportunity for a coup d'état. But this was what legitimists and Orleanists feared most, and as the agitation of the Bonapartists became too strong, the former declared in 1875 for the establishment of the republic. —After Broglie had succeeded in passing the law of Jan. 20, 1874, by which the appointing of the mayors was given entirely into the hands of the government, he proposed still another most reactionary law, limiting the general right of voting at elections for deputies. When the question was put whether the electoral law should have an immediate hearing, the assembly decided against Broglie. In consequence, he resigned on May 16, 1874, and the minister of war, Cissey, on May 22, formed a new cabinet, whose members were also chosen from the monarchical parties. Clericals and Bonapartists continued to be preferred. At the consideration in the assembly of the laws concerning the transfer of power, the elections and the authority of the senate, a decision was reached. The right and left centre united in their position in reference to the amendment to the first law proposed by Wallon, a deputy, and also to the new senate law drafted by the same, and in this way both laws were passed on Feb. 23 and 24 by the national assembly. One of the laws determined the position of the president of the republic in relation to the senate and chamber of deputies; the other one fixed the number of senators at 300, of which 75 were to be elected by the national assembly for life, while 225 were to be elected for a term of nine years by the departments and colonies, or the representatives of the latter, members of the general councils of the arrondissements and the communes. In consequence of these decisions the ministry under Cissey resigned, and on March 11, Buffet, who, since April 4, 1873, had been president of the national assembly, formed a new cabinet, which, however, did not fully agree with the majority which had passed these laws. These changes were followed, on July 16, by the adoption of the laws determining the relations of the public authorities to each other, and regulating the election of the 225 senators; on Nov. 30 by the adoption of the law concerning the election of deputies by voting in the arrondissements; and on Dec. 29 by the adoption of a stricter press law, and of a law concerning the state of siege, (which should only remain in force in Paris, Lyons, Marseilles and Versailles). The election of the seventy-five senators by the national assembly was accomplished in eleven ballots, and resulted in the complete defeat of the Buffet ministry. At last the assembly determined that the elections for the senate should be held on Jan. 30, 1876, those for the chamber of deputies on Feb. 20, and that the opening of both chambers should take place on March 8; then the national assembly dissolved, to return no more, as originally constituted. —In spite of all efforts of the government which controlled the press law, the state of siege, the voting in the arrondissements, the prefects and the mayors, and tried to use them in its own favor, the elections for senate and chamber of deputies resulted very generally in favor of the new constitutional law. Of the 300 senators, about one-third were said to be republicans (mostly moderate) and 40 Bonapartists; of the 532 deputies, about 360 were said to be republicans and 80 Bonapartists. These elections proved a complete defeat of the reactionists, and especially of the clericals, who had made such rapid progress under the former government. Buffet himself was not elected for either chamber (later, on June 16, he was elected as senator for life); he resigned on Feb. 21, 1876, and on March 9 a new ministry was formed from members of the left centre, presided over by Dufaure. On March 7 the new session was opened; the senate and the chamber of deputies proceeded to elect their temporary officers. On March 8 the functions of the former national assembly were transferred by its president, Andiffret-Pasquier, and the permanent committee to the newly constituted chambers, and on March 13 both chambers elected their permanent presiding officers, Andiffret-Pasquier in the senate and Grévy in the chamber of deputies. The republicans now demanded from the government the immediate dismissal of all legitimist or Bonapartist prefects and the abolition of the maire law and state of siege. The fulfillment of the two first-named points was delayed; the state of siege, however, together with some restrictions of the press law which Buffet had arbitrarily introduced, were abolished, in consequence of a motion made and accepted in both chambers. A motion, offered on March 21 in the senate by Victor Hugo, and in the chamber of deputies by Raspail, to decree a general amnesty for political offenses and press transgressions, (consequently also for communists), was lost by a large majority, the government, however, promising to exercise all possible indulgence and consideration. The law proposed by Waddington, minister of public instruction, to alter the law concerning higher instruction adopted in 1875, to make the state alone competent to grant academical degrees, was, on June 7, confirmed by the chamber of deputies; in the senate, however, on Aug. 11, it was rejected by a vote of 144 against 139. The reactionary maire law, created by Broglie in 1874, was abrogated on July 11 by the chamber of deputies, and on July 12 a new bill was passed, whereby the election of maires was left with the municipalities, with the exception of the principal towns of the arrondissements and cantons in which the election was decided by the government. At the same time a bill was passed making it obligatory to elect a new common council before the election of a new maire. —On Aug. 11 the senate passed the maire law proposed by the chamber of deputies, but rejected the amendment; to which decision the latter finally agreed. The new election for maires took place on Oct. 8 in 33,000 municipalities, and resulted mostly in favor of the republicans; in 3,000 municipalities the election depended on the government. By refusing in several instances the customary military honors at funerals of knights of the legion of honor, the government came into conflict not only with the chamber of deputies but also with the entire non-clerical public opinion. To disembarrass itself in this dilemma, the government, on Nov. 23, proposed a law providing that in future military honors should be conferred on active soldiers only, and not on any other members of the legion of honor. This evident inclination of the government to clerical tendencies created such a storm that the cabinet under Dufaure could not maintain itself. The government was compelled to withdraw its motion on Dec. 2, and to consent to an order of the day providing that in the future application of the funeral regulation the two principles of liberty of conscience and equality of citizens before the law should be maintained. Since the cabinet had no majority either in the senate (for which it was too liberal) or in the chamber of deputies (for which it was too clerical), it tendered its resignation. After long deliberation a new ministry was formed on Dec. 12, in which Jules Simon, member of the moderate left, assumed the presidency and the department of the interior, and Martel the departments of justice and worship, while all other offices remained in the possession of their former holders. After the overthrow of MacMahon, Jules Grévy (Jan. 30, 1879) became president of the republic. —Constitution. The form of government in France is republican, based upon the constitution adopted by the national assembly on Feb. 28, 1875, and several amendments. The president of the republic is the chief officer, and is assisted in the government by the ministry, the senate and the chamber of deputies. He is under responsibility to the French people, with the privilege of appeal to the same. His power is executive. According to decree of the national assembly, of Nov. 11, 1875, the members of the chamber of deputies are elected by universal suffrage. Each arrondissement elects one deputy for every 100,000 inhabitants or fraction thereof. A voter must be a citizen and twenty-one years of age; a deputy, a citizen and twenty-five years of age. The chamber of deputies consists of 532 members, and the senate of 300 members, of whom 225 are elected by the departments and colonies, and 75 by the national assembly. The senators for the departments are elected by electoral boards for a term of nine years, (one-third of their number going out of office every third year), while the senators nominated by the assembly remain during their lifetime. A senator must be a Frenchman by birth and forty years of age. The senate and chamber assemble annually on the second Tuesday in January, provided the president of the republic does not convoke them sooner; their sessions must last at least five months. Both open and close their sessions at the same time. The president proclaims the close of the session, and has the privilege of convoking the chambers at any time; it becomes his duty to do so if one-half of the members of both chambers desire it. The president can adjourn the chambers, but for no longer than a month and not oftener than twice during the same session. The senate, in conjunction with the chamber of deputies, has the right of proposing and making new laws. Bills for the levying of taxes, or relating to the revenue, however, must first be presented to and accepted by the chamber of deputies. The president of the republic is elected by a majority of votes of the national assembly consisting of both chambers. His term of office is seven years, at the expiration of which he is again eligible. He, as well as the senate, has the initiative in legislation. He promulgates all laws adopted by both chambers, and insures their proper execution. He has the right of pardon, commands the forces, and appoints all civil and military officers, including the heads of the ministerial departments. The envoys and ambassadors of foreign powers are accredited to him. Every decree of the president must be countersigned by one of the ministers. The president may, with the consent of the senate, dissolve the chamber of deputies, but must in that case convoke the electoral boards for new elections within three months. The ministry is responsible to the national assembly for the general policy of the government, and each minister is personally responsible for his individual acts. The president is responsible only in case of high treason. In case of his death the united chambers must at once proceed to elect a new president. The seat of the executive and of both chambers is at Versailles. —Administration. The administration, as the emanation of the executive power in France, is rigorously separated from the legislative authority and from the administration of justice. It constitutes a system of the strictest centralization. Since June, 1875, nine ministries have been established: 1, the ministry of the interior; 2, the ministry of foreign affairs; 3, the ministry of finance; 4, the ministry of justice (keeper of the great seal); 5, the ministry of commerce and agriculture; 6, the ministry of worship and public instruction; 7, the ministry of public works; 8, the ministry of war; 9, the ministry of the navy. The chamber of accounts is independent. There is a council of state, presided over by the minister of justice, the functions of which are the giving of advice on bills and decrees as well as on all administrative and other affairs presented by the president of the republic and by the ministry, and the deciding of appeals in conflicting administrative affairs and annulments on account of errors on the part of the various administrative departments. Its ordinary members are elected by the national assembly for a term of three years; the extraordinary ones are appointed by the president of the republic. A special tribunal decides in cases of concurrence of jurisdiction between the courts of administration and of justice. In close connection with the central administration of the ministry is the departmental or provincial administration. Each department is presided over by a prefect, who executes all decrees, decisions, directions, etc., issued by the ministry to the lower courts. Aside from his position as a government officer, he is also the representative of the interests of the department, which is at the same time a part of the state and an individual sovereignty, with power to buy and sell. The prefect is assisted by the general council. The latter has as many members as the department has cantons, who are elected in the same manner as the members of the general assembly. The members of the general council, whose term is six years, must be residents of the department. Every three years one-third of the members retire, but may be reelected. The general council levies the taxes in the districts, directs the financial affairs of the department, though its decrees are partly subject to confirmation by the higher authorities, and gives its opinion in all matters wherein its advice is required. Each general council appoints annually a departmental commission to assist the prefect. The subdivisions of the department, the arrondissements, are presided over by a sub-prefect, who is, in fact, merely the agent of the prefect. He is assisted by an elected council (conseil d'arrondissement) whose annual sessions are limited to fifteen days. The cantons of which an arrondissement is composed are administratively insignificant; they merely serve as a basis for the elections and for the levy of recruits. Every canton is the seat of a justice of the peace. Next to the administration of the police comes that of the commune. The commune being at the same time a part of the state and an independent corporation, the mayor has, in the same manner as the prefect, the double character of a governmental agent and municipal representative. As agent of the government his functions are to promulgate and secure the proper execution of all laws and ordinances, and to maintain the general and municipal police (except in towns of over 40,000 inhabitants). His decrees must in part be sanctioned by the prefect or sub-prefect. He has no judicial power, which rests alone with the police courts. As representative of the municipality he manages the parish property, regulates the receipts and expenditures, prepares the budget, represents the community in the courts, etc. He is also civil magistrate, keeps the civil list, officiates at civil marriages, though under the control of the courts of justice (procureur d'état). The mayor (maire) appoints most of the municipal officers. His assistant and substitute is the "adjunct," of which there are several in communes of over 2,500 inhabitants. The maire, as well as his assistant (whose functions are not specified), has no salary. The former is assisted by the municipal council elected by the parishioners. All Frenchmen twenty-one years of age, residing at least six months in a parish, are eligible. The municipal council consists of at least ten members; their number increases, according to the population, to the limit of thirty six. The municipal council passes ordinances concerning the administration of the common property, which must be submitted to the citizens as well as to the authorities, and which the prefect may veto, but which he can not alter. It deliberates on the budget, the purchase and sale of public property, the erection of buildings and repairs, the acceptance of donations, and matters of dispute, though its decrees must be submitted to the prefect or the minister of the interior for sanction; it furthermore gives its advice in all matters submitted to it, as church taxation, matters of public benevolence, etc. The sessions of the municipal council are not public. The ordinary annual session lasts ten days; extraordinary sessions may be convoked at the request of one-third of the members, with the consent of the prefect. —Political Division. European France is divided into eighty-six departments and one territory (Belfort), comprising 363 arrondissements, 2,865 cantons, and 35,989 communes. This division was made by decree of the national assembly, of Jan. 15, 1790, and proved very beneficial, as the difference in size of the historically defined provinces, with their frequently adverse interests, rendered their administration very difficult. Notwithstanding this, the old division into provinces has remained a favorite historical remembrance of the population, the more so as it corresponds more nearly to their physical, industrial and social relations. The correspondence of the provincial division with the present division into departments may best be shown, with a few exceptions, by the following summary: In the north—1. Lorraine (Departments—Vosges, Meurthe-Moselle, Meuse); 2. Champagne (Departments—Haute-Marne, Aube, Marne, Ardennes); 3. Isle de France (Departments—Seine-et-Marne, Seine, Seine-et-Oise, Aisne, Oise); 4. Flanders, Artois and Picardy (Departments—Nord, Pas-de-Calais, Somme). —Administration of Justice. The administration of justice is presided over by a special minister of state; it is divided into civil and criminal jurisdiction. The former is exercised by justice courts, circuit courts and courts of appeal. The justice court consists of a judge who need not be a jurist, and two substitutes who have no pay. The justice of the peace is really judge as well as mediator. No lawsuit can be commenced in the circuit court that has not first been tried before a justice of the peace, in order, if possible, to effect an agreement between the contending parties. The circuit courts (tribunal d'arrondissement) consist, according to the size of the arrondissement, of seven to ten or twelve salaried judges, and several substitutes without pay who are selected from among the lawyers. They take cognizance of all cases which can not be brought before any other court, and have summary jurisdiction in cases involving amounts not exceeding 1,500 francs. The appellate court consists of from twenty-four to thirty or forty members, which constitute three chambers; for civil proceedings, for appeals in error, and for indictments. The assizes have only jurisdiction in matters submitted to them by the court of appeals. The appellate court is generally of second resort. The commercial jurisdiction is exercised: 1, by tribunals of commerce, whose members are elected from among merchants and manufacturers for a term of two years, and are confirmed by the government; 2, by the prud'hommes, (experienced men) arbitrators composed of manufacturers, master workmen, journeymen and workmen who settle disputes by arbitration. The commercial jurisdiction requires no attorneys not lawyers. The French judicial code distinguishes three degrees of infractions of the law: offenses against the police regulations, transgressions and crimes. The first come under the jurisdiction of the police courts, with fines limited to fifteen francs, or five days' imprisonment. If judgment amounts to more than a fine of five francs, the case may be appealed to the tribunal of appeals in error or to the court of cassation. The latter consists of three judges who pass sentence in the case of all transgressions that are not crimes, but which are subject to higher penalty than can be inflicted by the police courts. Appeal from its judgment may be taken to another tribunal of cassation or to any of the twenty-six courts of appeal. Crimes come under the jurisdiction of the assizes, which are held every three months in the principal town of each department, and consist of judges and a jury. Besides crimes, offenses of all kinds against the press laws, as well as political offenses (with the exception of high treason), are submitted to the court of assizes. In each of the 363 arrondissements is established a court of first resort, and in each of the 2,865 cantons a justice of the peace. The judges merely pronounce the legal punishment for a crime after an absolute majority of a jury of twelve men has rendered a verdict. A supreme court (haute cour de justice), the jury of which is composed of members of the general councils and whose judges are taken from the courts of cassation, decides in cases of high treason and crimes of the ministers, high dignitaries, senators and members of the council of state. Although special courts are against the constitution, there are several special tribunals provided by law, as probate courts, military courts, marine courts, disciplinary chambers of notaries and attorneys, and disciplinary magistrates, for matters concerning public instruction. The court of cassation never decides matters in dispute, but merely the proper application of the laws and proceedings. It has forty-nine members, and is divided into three chambers: civil chambers, criminal chambers and the chambres de requête. In some cases judgment is passed by the three chambers jointly. The judges of the circuit courts, courts of appeal and courts of cassation can not be deposed, but must be retired at a certain age (since 1852). In fact, there are but two resorts in the French administration of justice. With the exception of the justice and commercial courts, councils of prefecture and prud'hommes, all courts have the services of the ministère public, which in the circuit and superior courts is represented by the state's attorney (procureur de la république). The state's attorney conducts prosecutions in criminal cases, gives advice in civil suits, or (in matters concerning the state or minors) appears himself as a party to the suit. With the exception of the probate courts, all legal proceedings in France are public and verbal. —Education. The progress of science, art and public instruction has corresponded with the high state of culture in the nation, although the middle schools have not attained a very high degree of excellence, and the public schools, properly speaking, are essentially affected by political and clerical influences. Public instruction, with the exception of a few special professional schools, is presided over by a special ministry assisted by a high board of education and eighteen inspectors general. The whole state is divided into sixteen government groups, or so-called academies. Each of these is presided over by a rector, who is responsible for all branches of instruction, though the primary schools in the single departments are under the superintendence of the prefect. The prefect appoints and dismisses the teachers and exercises immediate authority. The instruction in the higher schools comprises the five faculties of theology, law, medicine, science and literature, the latter two corresponding with the philosophical faculty of the German universities. Only in Paris are all five departments united in full universities, while in eighteen other places but single departments are represented. For instance: theology at Aix, Bordeaux, Caen, Lyons, Montauban, Paris and Toulouse; law at Aix, Bordeaux, Caen, Dijon, Douai, Nancy, Paris, Poitiers, Rennes and Toulouse; medicine at Montpellier, Nancy, Paris; science at Besançon, Bordeaux, Caen, Clermont, Dijon, Grenoble, Lille, Lyons, Marseilles, Montpellier, Nancy, Paris, Poitiers, Rennes and Toulouse; literature at Aix, Besançon, Bordeaux, Caen, Clermont, Dijon, Grenoble, Douai, Lyons, Montpellier, Nancy, Paris, Poitiers, Rennes and Toulouse. Besides these there are high schools for pharmacy at Lyons, Montpellier and Paris. Lately the government has given more particular attention to the higher grades of instruction in the lyceums (formerly colléges royaux) and in the communal colleges, and also to public instruction in the elementary schools, (for which male teachers are trained in eighty-one and female teachers in eleven normal schools). In 1872 but 51.75 per cent. of the total population was able to read and write, and but 10.45 per cent. was able to read only, leaving, therefore, 37.80 per cent. altogether illiterate. This percentage is of course subject to many local variations, as the different departments share very unequally in the diffusion of education. The proportion of the educated is highest in the northeast, and lowest in Brittany and on the western and northern terraces of Auvergne, Limousin, Berri, Nivernais and Bourbonnais. Of the schools for instruction in special branches of knowledge, the following deserve special mention: the school of fine arts at Paris, founded in 1648 by Louis XIV., with free tuition and three grand annual prizes, the academy of design at Paris, founded in 1766 by Louis XV., also with free tuition; the conservatory of music and declamatory art at Paris, established 1794, a celebrated preparatory school for the opera and the drama; the academy for instruction in oriental languages; the schools of Rome and of Athens; and the Ecole des Chartes. The polytechnic school at Paris was established in 1794. It is maintained under the supervision of the minister of war and the special management of a general of the army, and serves as a preparatory school for the artillery and engineer corps, as also for the schools of navigation, civil engineering, mining, etc. The schools for instruction of engineers of public works and the schools for miners at Paris, therefore, presuppose a course in the polytechnic school. A conservatory for the application of science to the arts and trades, a central school for arts and trades, and a superior commercial college, are established at Paris, and schools for arts and trades at Chalons-sur-Marne, Angers and Aix. Nancy has a school of forestry. Besides three superior agricultural schools at Grignou near Versailles, at Granjouan (lower Loire) and at Montpellier (1871), there are forty-seven estates with 995 pupils serving as minor farming schools. Of the military colleges the most important are: the school for the training of officers of the staff at Paris (Ecole d'état major), that of St. Cyr for the education of officers of the infantry, the cavalry school at Saumur, the prytonée militaire de la flèche for sons of officers, the artillery and engineer school (at Fontainebleau), and a school for the practice of firearms at Vineennes. While there are hydrographical schools in nearly all of the larger seaports, the naval academy at Brest is of special importance for the navy. —Population. The population of France after the cessions to Germany in virtue of the treaty of Frankfort, May 10, 1871, according to the census of 1866, was 36,469,836; according to the census of 1872 it was only 36,102,921; showing, aside from the territorial losses, a decrease of 366,915 souls, or 1.2 per cent. This decline of population was partly due to losses in the war, but principally to the ravages of small-pox during 1870-71, the decrease in marriages and the increase of the death rate over the birth rate. It affected almost the entire country. Only fourteen departments showed an increase of population. Chief among these were the departments of Allier, Loire, Nord, Pas-de-Calais, Seine and Seine-et-Oise, none of which belong to southern France. France has at present nine cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants. Their population, with the exception of Lyons, Bordeaux and Toulouse, increased in the six years between the census of 1866 and that of 1872, although not in the same proportion as the larger cities of the German empire. The largest cities of France are, according to the census of 1876: Paris, 1,988,806 inhabitants (in 1866, 1,825,274), Lyons, 342,815 inhabitants (in 1866, 323,954): Marseilles, 318,868 inhabitants (in 1866, 300,431); Bordeaux, 215,146 inhabitants (in 1866, 194,241); Lille, 162,775 inhabitants (in 1866, 154,749); Toulouse, 131,642 inhabitants (in 1866, 126,936); Nantes, 122,247 inhabitants (in 1866, 111,956); Rouen, 104,902 inhabitants (in 1866, 100,671); St. Etienne, 126,019 inhabitants (in 1866, 96,620). Of the rest of the larger cities, some, especially affected by the Franco-German war and the consequent occupation, show a considerable increase, principally Rheims, 81,328 inhabitants (in 1866, 60,734); Versailles, 49,847 inhabitants (in 1866, 44,021); Nancy, 66,303 inhabitants (in 1866, 49,993). The average population is 70.6 to the square kilometre. But the great variations in numerical distribution will best be shown from the following: To one square kilometre the department of the Seine had, in 1872, 4,667 inhabitants, Rhône 240, Nord 255, Lower Seine 131, Loire 116, Pas-de-Calais 115, etc., while the department of the Lower Alps had 20, the Upper Alps 21, Lozère 26, Landes 32, Savoy 47, Corsica 30, etc. Leaving out of consideration the city of Paris, the most densely populated are the departments of the north and of the coast, and the most sparsely populated those of the mountains and of the interior, with the exception of the larger cities and manufacturing districts, as Lyons and St. Etienne. The number of populous cities in France is small. The city element of the whole population is about 25 per cent.9 —Although historical researches into the descent of the population point to a diversity of races, there is not another country in Europe in which the different nationalities are so harmoniously blended as in France. It is only on the Belgian frontier, toward the Pyrenees and in the interior of Brittany, that a marked difference is perceptible, and this rather in the idiom than in national customs. The proportion of foreign elements is estimated as follows: the Walloons in the north, 5 per cent.; the Bretons, 3 per cent.; the Italians in the southeast, 1.1 per cent.; the Basques and Catalonians in the Pyrenees, 0.5 per cent.; the Israelites, 0.14 per cent.; the Gypsies and Cagots, 0 05 per cent. This leaves 90.21 per cent. to the French race, i.e., the mixture of subjugated Gauls, colonized Romans and Gallic tribes. According to nationality the population consisted, in 1872, of 35,362,253, or 97.97 per cent. Frenchmen, and 730,844, or 2.03 per cent. foreigners; and according to religious faith, of 35,387,703, or 98 per cent. Catholics; 580,757, or 1.6 per cent. Protestants; 49,439, or 0.14 per cent. Israelites: and 85,022, or 0.26 per cent of anti-Christian or unknown creed. From 1872 to 1876 there was an increase of 802,867 in the population of France, the total population at the latter date being 36,905,788. —Army. The army of the second French empire had almost completely gone to wreck during the campaign of 1870; a predominant part of it was, after the surrender of Sedan, Strasburg, Metz and the other fortresses on war territory, in German captivity. With numerous new organizations France had offered resistance to the enemy during the last period of the war, so that after the victory over the "commune" at Paris, a new French army had to be created. This has been done by a course of legislation, which has abandoned the previously prevailing principles, and which corresponds in almost every respect with the Prussian system. This has made it possible to create an army, whose strength, notwithstanding the loss of Alsace and Lorraine, materially exceeds that of the army of the empire. By the conscription law of 1872 the principle of universal liability to arms is laid down, in accordance with which every Frenchman is liable to military service: substitution or enlistment for money are prohibited, and every French man, who has not been declared entirely unfit for service, must, from his twentieth to his fortieth year, be in the active army and its reserve; and only Frenchmen are admitted to the French army. This law further stipulates that members of the active forces shall not take part in political elections, and that every armed active troop is subject to the military laws, belongs to the army, and is subordinate to the ministry of war or marine. Thereby political agitation in the army is prevented, and the national guard abolished. The time of service in the active army is five years, in the reserve of the same four years, in the territorial army five years and six years in the reserve of the latter; making, in all, twenty years. Besides this, the system of volunteer service for one year only (volontaires conditionels d'un an) has been established. By the law of July 24, 1873, regulating the army organization, the permanent division of the army into corps d'armée, divisions, etc., has been decreed, corresponding to the Prussian provincial system, by which France, with respect to organization of the active army and its reserve, as well as that of the territorial army and reserve, is divided into eighteen districts, which again are subdivided according to the productiveness of conscription and the demands of mobilization. In each of the eighteen districts a corps d'armée is garrisoned; a nineteenth corps is maintained in Algeria. Each corps d'armée consists of two divisions of infantry with two brigades each, a cavalry brigade, an artillery brigade, a battalion of engineers, a squadron of the train, together with the staff and the necessary commissary department. Unlike the German system the active army does not recruit itself from the respective districts, but from the whole territory of France; but in case of mobilization the different troops are re-enforced by reserves from their own districts. One ordinance is peculiar: that in times of peace no commanding general of a corps d'armée shall occupy that office for more than three years, unless he has been expressly confirmed in it at the expiration of that time by decree of the president of the republic. The territorial army, similar to the German "landwehr" (militia) is formed of persons living in the district and not belonging to the active army; the reserve of the territorial army is only called upon if the present forces are not sufficient. The law of March 13, 1875, completes the reorganization of the French army, determines the number and formation of all classes of troops, regulates the grades of the military departments in peace and in war, and fixes the annual average peace footing of privates for every part of the army. Accord-to this, the strength of the French army is as follows: Infantry, 144 regiments of the line, each consisting of four battalions of four companies each, and two dépót companies for each regiment, altogether 576 battalions with 2,304 field and 288 dépót companies (236,301 men), thirty battalions of chasseurs, of four active and one dépót company each, altogether thirty battalions with 120 field and thirty dépét companies (18,240 men); four regiments of zouaves, with four battalions of four companies each, and one dépót company for each regiment, altogether sixteen battalions, with sixty-four field and four dépót companies (10,320 men), three regiments of Algerian sharpshooters (tirailleurs) with four battalions of four companies each, and one dépót company for each regiment, altogether twelve battalions, forty-eight field and three dépót companies (8,505 men); one foreign legion of four battalions, having each four companies, altogether four battalions, sixteen active companies (2,529 men); three battalions of African light infantry, of six companies each, altogether three battalions, eighteen field companies (4,143 men); four companies of fusileers, and one pioneer penal company (1,560 men). This makes the total footing of the infantry: 641 battalions, with 2,575 field and 325 dépót companies (281,601 men). Napoleon's army of 1870 had only 372 field battalions. The cavalry consisted of twelve regiments of cuirassiers, twenty-six regiments of dragoons, twenty regiments of chasseurs, and twelve regiments of hussars, each composed of four field and one dépót squadron, making a total, therefore, of seventy regiments, with 280 field and seventy dépót squad rons (58,100 men and 51,800 horses). To this must be added the African cavalry, with four regiments of chasseurs d'Afrique and three regiments of Spahis, with four field and two dépót squadrous each. This makes the total sum of French cavalry seventy-seven regiments, with 308 field and eighty-four dépót squadrons (65,725 men and 58,948 horses). In case of war and for the manœuvres nineteen squadrons of éclaireurs volontaires (one for each corps d'armée) are to be formed. Besides the foregoing there are eight companies of remonte riders, with 2,892 men. The artillery consisted, exclusive of the staff, of nineteen regiments of division, with three foot, eight field and two dépót batteries each; nineteen regiments corps of artillery, with eight field, three mounted and two dépót batteries each, comprising altogether fifty-seven foot, fiftyseven mounted and seventy-six depót batteries, with 55,242 men and 29,944 horses. Instead of the 984 guns with which Napoleon III. should, have nominally entered the campaign, France will in future go to war with 2,166 guns. Besides the above there belong to the artillery two regiments of pontoniers, of fourteen companies each, ten companies of artisans, three companies of pyrotechnists, and fifty-seven companies of the train, making a total of 10,000 men and 2,700 horses. The engineer corps comprises, besides the staff, four regiments of sappers and miners, of five battalions each, composed of four companies; to this must be added one dépót company for each regiment, one company of railroad workers and one company of drivers, making a total of 10,960 men and 733 horses, in ninety-two companies. The train is composed of twenty squadrons of carriage train, with three companies each, and twelve companies in Algeria, making altogether 9,392 men and 7,380 horses, in seventy-two companies. Adding to this the commissary department and branches, with 20,833 men and 1,664 horses, and the gens d'armes with 27,014 men and 13,567 horses, we arrive at a total peace footing of the army of 490,322 men and 120,894 horses. —The strength of the army on a war footing would amount to nineteen corps d'armée and six independent divisions of cavalry, with 880,000 men, leaving about 50,000 men still disposable for Algeria, etc. The dépót troops of the field army would number 220,000 men, making a total war footing of the active army, inclusive of its dépóts, of 1,150,000 men. The territorial army would consist of 145 regiments of infantry, with three battalions each, eighteen regiments of artillery, eighteen battalions of engineers, and eighteen squadrons of train; also a number of squadrons of cavalry, which are estimated at 560,000 men. The war footing of the French army will therefore amount to 1,710,000 men, and when the conscription law of 1872 has been in operation for twenty years, France will have 3,400,000 trained soldiers at her command. Besides the numerical strength, the tendency is to increase the moral value of the army; the new regulations give a degree of independence and responsibility to the subaltern officers, formerly unknown in France; the camp at Chalons, where formerly sham battles were fought, has lost its importance, for at present the French corps d'armée manœuvre after the Prussian manner, at various locations in their districts, and call in part of their reserves for the exercises. —The system of fortification also has been materially changed. Before 1870 the fortresses of France comprised twenty-three of the first class, thirty-six of the second, twenty-nine of the third and forty-seven of the fourth class. A number of unimportant places have been abandoned, while the more important places have been enlarged and strengthened in accordance with the exigencies of the day, and a large number of fortifications have been built. The latter are to establish an entirely new system of defenses against an invasion from the east, while Paris is to be protected against bombardment, and, if possible, against blockade, by a second line of detached forts built in a wider circle around the city. A law of March, 1875, appropriated 60,000,000 francs for the fortification of the capital, and another law of July 17, 1874, made a further appropriation of 88,500,000 francs for the rebuilding of the defenses on the eastern border. The works around Paris have been pushed forward actively; the rest, however, are not so far advanced. The ordinary budget of the war department for 1876 amounted to 500,038,115 francs; it was a temporary budget, calculated for an extraordinary emergency. It was intended to facilitate the accomplishment of the organization law of 1873 and the cadres law of 1875, and to limit expenses as much as possible, in view of the financial situation. —Navy. The French fleet consisted, in 1876, of nineteen armor-plated frigates and nine armor-plated corvettes for battle on the high seas; six ironclads of the second class, seven floating batteries, ten gunboats of the first class and nine gunboats of the second class for coast defense; also eight screw steam frigates, twelve screw steam corvettes, nineteen first class aviso ships, eighteen second class avisos, (all principally for cruising service), twenty-seven transports, twenty-five third class avisos, thirty-nine gunboats, twenty sailing vessels, three schoolships, eleven sailing schooners, and one floating workshop. To these 243 vessels must be added thirty-nine in course of construction. Deducting from the total sum of 282 vessels those not available for active service, and supposing those in course of construction (in 1877) completed and equipped, a French fleet of twentytwo ironclads of the first and eleven of the second class, nine armor-plated sailing vessels, seven armor-plated floating batteries, twenty-one gunboats, forty-four cruisers and twenty-three avisos, therefore a total of 137 vessels, with 1,040 guns, would be ready for action. Besides this mobile fleet the republic would still have eighty-six cruisers, avisos, transports for port service, for administrative, exercise and training purposes, at her disposal. The fleet is generally divided as follows: The squadron in the Mediterranean comprises six ironclads, one cruiser, one aviso or dispatch boat, which also occupy the maritime stations at Algeria and Constantinople. The artillery squadron numbers two cruisers and one aviso; under the commander of this squadron are also the maritime stations at Newfoundland with one cruiser and two gunboats, at Martinique with one cruiser, at Guadaloupe with one aviso, at Guiana with two avisos and two schooners, and at Iceland with one aviso and one transport. The South Atlantic squadron is composed of six vessels, of which two are cruisers, three avisos and one transport; this squadron occupies the station of the Senegal with three avisos. The squadron in the Pacific ocean is composed of three cruisers, one aviso and one transport. In the eastern Asiatic waters, one ironclad, two cruisers, one aviso and one gunboat are permanently stationed. The Indo-Chinese squadron comprises one ironclad, seven gunboats, two cruisers, two avisos and one transport. In New Caledonia are one aviso, two transports, two gunboats, one schooner. Thirteen vessels are designed for port service in the five maritime arrondissements, and about the same number for foreign service. One vessel is engaged in hydrographical work along the coasts, ten are on experimental trips, eight are kept as reserves for extraordinary emergencies and to replace losses, and five are used as training ships. In the summer of 1876 there were seventy-eight vessels in reserve, of which seventeen were armor-plated vessels of the first and one of the second class, six ironclads, eight transports, six floating batteries, two gunboats, eighteen cruisers and eleven avisos. The administration of the whole navy and coast defense of France is divided into five maritime arrondissements, corresponding with the five principal ports of war, Cherbourg, Brest, Lorient, Rochefort and Toulon. They are presided over by five sea prefects (vice-admirals). The marine budget for 1875 amounted to 136,387,481 francs. The war navy of France was composed, at the end of 1881, of 59 ironclads, 264 unarmored screw steamers, 62 paddle steamers and 113 sailing vessels. —Railways and Telegraphs. The first attempts in the direction of railway building promised little in France. Though railways had been opened very early, the line from St. Etienne to Andrézieux as early as 1828, the line St. Etienne to Lyons in 1832, Andrézieux to Roanne in 1833, Montrond to Montbrison in 1836, and the Paris to St. Germain line in 1835, there were in 1841 no more than 200 kilometres of railroad in operation. They were then an object of speculation, and their management was not the best; they were not remunerative, and while a few profited by them, many met with heavy losses by investing in them. Not until the state itself took hold of them and placed them under its superintendence, did public distrust of them cease; thereafter the French railway system began to improve, and soon surpassed that of many other countries. On Feb. 7, 1842, De Teste, then secretary for public works, brought a bill before the assembly, based on the co-operation of the state, the communities and private enterprise, and proposing the building of several railroads from Paris to important points on the border. Although this was not carried out as proposed, it nevertheless remained the foundation for the future network of railways, of which 2,220 kilometres were in operation as early as 1848. The financial crisis of 1847 and the political crisis of 1848 again impeded the progress of the railway system, and it was 1852 before its full development was secured through the fusion of single companies into six larger groups which made it their object to harmonize the interests of the state with those of the companies and of the general public. At the end of 1875 the railway lines of France had increased to 21,587 kilometres (19,784 kilometres main lines and 1,803 kilometres local lines). It comprised the following principal lines 1 Railways of the north (1,762 kilometres) direct connection of Paris with Creil and Beauvais, with Amiens and Boulogne, and by way of Amiens, and Arras with Calais, Dunkirk, Lille or Valenciennes; also with Maubeuge and Valenciennes via Cambray with Laon and directly with Soissons. Courtray, Mons and Charleroi are the principal points of connection with the Belgian railway system, and between Valenciennes, Lille, Hazebrouck and Dunkirk run branch lines along the northern border. 2. Railways of the east (2,255 kilometres): Trunk line Paris and Belfort, with northern branches Epernay and Rheims to Soissons, Laon or Mézières and Givet; intermediate lines from Blesme (Vitry) to Chaumont, from Blainville (Luneville) via Epinal to Port d'Atelier (near Vesoul); southern branches from Chalmaison (Provins) to Montereau, Buchères (Troyes), to Bar-sur-Seine, Chalindrey (Langres) and also Vesoul to Gray. This system connects at Soissons and Laon with the railways of the north and at Givet and Longwy with the German-Belgian frontier. 3. The Paris, Lyons and Mediterranean railway (5,102 kilometres); its main line is the railroad from Paris via Dijon, Lyons and Avignon to Marseilles. The most important branches run in an easterly direction: from Nuits (near Ancy) to Châtillon-sur-Seine, from Dijon via Auxonne to Gray, from Dijon via Auxonne and Dôle to Besançon and Belfort or Dôle to Pontarlier (Neuchâtel), from Macon via Bourg and from Lyons to Ambérieux and jointly to Geneva, three branches—from Lyons, St. Rambert or Valence to Grenoble, from Rognac to Aix and from Marseilles via Toulon to Fréjus and Nice. Connections with the eastern railways are at Montereau, Gray and Belfort. An important connecting link is the Juraline, Besançon and Bourg railway running parallel with the border. At Culoz-sur-Rhöne this road connects with the Savoy railway over Chambéry to Modane and the Mont-Cenis tunnel. The most important branch lines run from Villeneuve, St. Georges via Corbeil to Alais on the Essonne, from Moret (on the mouth of the Loire) via Nevers and Moulins to St. Germain-des-Fossés, thence via Clermont to Brionde sur-Allier, and again via Roanne and St. Etienne to Le Puy; thence via La Roche and Auxerre, Chagny and Montceau, Lyons and St. Etienne, Livron and Prives, Tarascon and Nimes, and further via Alais to Portes or via Montpellier to Cette. 4. The Orléans railways (4,186 kilometres) with the old trunk line: the Paris, Orleans, Tours, Poitiers, Angoulême and Bordeaux railway, and the eastern opposition and partly parallel line from Orléans via Vierzon, Châteauroux, Limoges and Périgueux to Coutras and to Agen. Eastern lines are: from Vierzon via Bourges to Le Guetm (near Nevers) and from Bourges to Montluçon, from La Laurière via Guéret and Montluçon to Moulins, and a main branch from Périgneux via Figeac to Rodez. From this run in a northerly direction the line Brives, and Tulle and Figeac, and Aurillac, connecting with a "Cantal" line to the Allier near Brionde, and southwardly the line Capdenac and Lexos, forking into Montauban, Toulouse or Albi. Western branches are, Paris, Seeaux, Orsay and Limours, Tours and Le Mans, the Tours, Angers, Nantes, Redon, Vannes, Lorient, Quimper and Châteaulin, with the branch line, Savenay and St. Nazaire, and in addition Poitiers, Niort and La Rochelle, forking into Aigrefeuille and Rochefort. 5. The railways of the south (2,031 kilometres), with the trunk line from Bordeaux via Montauban and Toulouse to Cette, thence connecting with the Orléans and Mediterranean railways respectively. Northern branches: Vias and Lodève, and Béziers and Graissessac. Southern branches: Bordeaux via Bayonne to the Spanish frontier at Irun, with side branches from La Mothe to La Teste de Buch, from Bayonne and Dax to Pan, and from Morceus to Tarbes and Bagnères de Bigorre; also from Toulouse to Montrejean and Foix, and from Narbonne to Perspignan. This chain of railways from Bordeaux via Toulouse, Narboune, Cette, Nimes, Marseilles and Toulon to Nice, is in itself of great value, but has gained much greater importance since the completion of the Italian coast line railway. 6. Railways of the west (2,549 kilometres), radiating in three main lines from Paris to Brest, Cherbourg and Le Havre. From the longest of these lines, that of Paris to Brest, branch off Le Mans and Angers, Rennes and Redon, and Rennes and St. Malo, in a southerly direction; and northward St Cyr and Dreux, Le Mans and Alençon-Mezidon, Laval and Caen, and Rennes and St. Malo. From the second line branch—Paris and Versailles, and Paris and Germain, Lisieux and Honfleur, forking into Pont l'Evéque and Trouville, and Airel and St. Lô From the third line branch—Tourville and Serquigny, Malaunay and Dieppe, and Beuzeville and Fécamp. Between the second and third of these lines, the Argentan and Granville railway has been projected as the future link of a direct line from Paris to the gulf of St. Malo. The rest is subdivided into twenty-four smaller companies. The Paris belt line, of 20 kilometres length, centrally connects all the principal railways. In the aggregate France has to every 100 square kilometres of area 4.09 kilometres of railways and 5.98 kilometres to every 10,000 inhabitants. —The network of telegraphic wires which spreads over France comprised, in 1875, 51,700 kilometres of line and 143,234 kilometres of wire, with 2,817 government offices, and 1,198 railroad and private offices. The number of telegraphic messages sent in 1873 was 6,550,623, of which 877,264 were international; the receipts were 13,850,048 francs, the expenditure 12,990,000 francs. —The total length of all the railways open for traffic Jan. 1, 1881, was 23,584 kilometres (exclusive of 2,190 kilometres of local lines), and the total gross receipts in 1880 amounted to 1,048,672,957 francs. By a law which passed the chamber of deputies, in the session of 1878, there will be added 16,000 kilometres of railways before the end of the year 1888. To provide for the cost of the new network of railways, the chamber granted a credit of 3,000,000,000 francs. —Jan. 1, 1881, there were 65,949 kilometres of lines of telegraphs and 196,533 kilometres of wire. The number of telegraphic despatches sent during the year 1880 was 16,492,897, of which 1,578,957 were international messages. The total revenue from telegraphs in the year 1879 amounted to 28,029,835 francs. —Finances. By the war of 1870-71 extraordinary drafts have been made upon the financial resources of France, and the taxes have been largely increased, but at the same time the productiveness of the nation and the national wealth have been augmented. The taxes in France are promptly paid, and the government loan of 1854-9, amounting to 2,050 million francs, was subscribed for in the country itself without difficulty. The taxes amount, on an average, to fifty-six francs per head. The increase in France of public expenses may be illustrated by the following statement: The extraordinary requirements of the government at the outbreak of the revolution in 1789 amounted to 600 million livres. The national assembly of 1791 fixed the budget at 582 2/8; million livres. Under the first empire the requirements amounted to 700-800 million francs per year. In 1818 the greatest exertions were necessary, the budget being estimated at 1,150 millions, of which 752 millions were for the army and navy. During the restoration (1816-19) the public expenses amounted to 960 million francs. The first decade (1830—39) of the "July king"'s reign required annually 1,170 million francs, the last nine years (1840-48) an average of 1,432 million francs. The republic of 1848-9 required for the year 1,708 million francs (according to actual account). With the restoration of the Napoleonic dynasty a course of lavish expenditure was inaugurated, which could only be gradually equalized by the increased revenues. The actual budget of 1875 showed a total expenditure of 2,587,670,813 francs. The revenues amounted to the sum of 2,568,460,624 francs, leaving a deficit of 19,210,189 francs. The expenses of the war of 1870-71 amounted to 4,820,643,000 francs, not including the five milliards indemnity to Germany. The "voted" budget of 1876 fixed the expenses at 2,570,505,513 francs, and the revenues at 2,575,028,582 francs. The surplus, therefore, amounted to 4,523,069 francs. —The national debt of France is divided into the consolidated and the floating debts, which were also considerably increased during the second empire. The consolidated debt amounted, for 1876, in rentes, at 5, 4½, 4 and 3 per cent., together with the sinking fund, to 747,998,866 francs, representing a national capital of twenty millards. The capital of the sinking fund amounted to 277,599,838 francs, and for the annual payment of interest to 124,776,346 francs; in all, therefore, 1,150,375,050 francs, equal almost to a capital of twenty-three and one-half milliards. The public revenues of France are principally derived from indirect taxation. Among these, the budget for 1876 estimated the following: on liquor, a tax of 364,190,000 francs; result of the tobacco monopoly, 299,570,000 francs: the revenues from the customs and the salt monopoly, 236,933,250 francs; the tax on sugars, 110,972,000 francs. The direct taxation for the year 1876 amounted in the voted budget to 384,339,700 francs. Not only the state itself, but also the departments and communities have been during the second empire loaded with debts. —The principal sources of revenue and branches of expenditure were set down as follows in the budget estimates for the year 1881.
In the preliminary budget for the year 1881, drawn up by the minister of finance, the revenue for the year was estimated at 2,752,794,830 francs, and the expenditure at 2,754,432,600 francs, leaving a deficit of 1,637,770 francs. —The following is a statement of the deficits of former periods, from 1814 till the last completed year of the reign of Napoleon III.:
The average annual revenue and annual expenditure during each of the four periods here given were as follows:  The total public debt of Francs amounted, on Jan. 1, 1879, to a nominal capital of 19,862,035,983 francs, the interest on which, or "rente," was 748,404,952 francs. The number of "inscriptions" of "rente," that is, of individual holders, was 4,380,393. The following table shows the nominal capital of each of the four descriptions of "rente," the interest, or amount of "rente," and the number of holders on Jan. 1, 1879:  At the commencement of 1879 the total burden of the capital of the public debt of France was 515 francs per head of population; while the burden of the interest or rente was nineteen francs per head of population. The interest and other expenses connected with the public debt of France were distributed as follows for 1882: Consolidated debt, 743,026,239 francs; redeemable capital, 340,432,278 francs; annuities and life interests, 151,881,060 francs; total charges, 1,235,339,577 francs. —All the departments of France, as well as many of the large towns, have their own budgets and debts, which latter were largely increased by the war. The budget estimates of the city of Paris for each of the years 1879 and 1880 were as follows:
The principal source of revenue in the budget of the city of Paris is from tolls upon articles of general consumption, called droits d'octroi, estimated to produce 125,398,041 francs in 1879 and 128,713,600 francs in 1880. The principal branch of expenditure is for interest and sinking fund of the municipal debt, which, at the end of September, 1880, amounted to 2,295,000,000 francs. B. —Resources: Agricultural, Industrial and Commercial. At all times wealth has been an essential element of power. In international relations influence is generally measured by the number of bayonets, and bayonets are supported only with gold. Victory then belongs to heavy money bags rather than to large battalions. Hence each nation tends to increase its budget resources and to ask of the tax payer increasing sacrifices. It is fortunate that the revenue of the citizens increases in an equal proportion, and (with a few exceptions) it would not be right absolutely to affirm that taxes have increased more rapidly than production. At bottom, it is impossible to have any certain knowledge of the relation which exists between what the public treasury demands and what the tax payer can give; this information however, would be of the highest importance. A few attempts have been made, more or less skill fully, to obtain this information, but always without success. There, without doubt, exists no means of obtaining the exact amount of the income of each individual, but we can reach an approximate valuation of the whole of the products of a country. For want of a complete inventory, we must content ourselves with indications which will give a general idea near enough to the actual state of facts. Before measuring the altitude of Mont Blanc, it was known that its impressive magnitude surpassed the other peaks of the Alps; in the same way, if we can set down only a few precise figures, it will be none the less easy for us to show that the resources of France are immense, although perhaps not inexhaustible. —Agriculture. One often hears it said that France is eminently an agricultural country. We think that the significance of this declaration has not always been well considered. It is generally used as an argument to ask favors for agriculture, to place it above manufacturing industry and commerce. It seems to us that those who do so are mistaken friends of France; they have forgotten the fable of the stomach and the other members of the body, which made so great an impression upon the Roman people encamped on Mt. Aventine. All the branches of national labor, whether they produce the raw material, or manufacture it into goods, or transport it and distribute it among consumers—all these branches, we say, are equally necessary, that the tree of national labor may extend its benefits over all the country. The more steady is the equilibrium between agriculture, industry and commerce, the more fruitful is labor, the more also does wealth increase, and the more comfortable are the masses. The exclusive preponderance of commerce would be a house built upon the sands; the preponderance of manufactures would expose the country to sudden commotions, perhaps catastrophes; the preponderance of agriculture would retard the progress of well-being. Everybody knows that capital employed in an agricultural business generally brings in less profit than when used in commerce or manufacturing industry. Consequently to say that France is eminently an agricultural country is to say that she is a poor country. Let us affirm rather that she is a country perfectly well balanced, where agriculture in an advanced state goes hand in hand with a powerful manufacturing industry, both nourishing a flourishing commerce. And we do not exaggerate. The agriculture of France is in an advanced state. Everywhere the best methods are known, and there is hardly a canton where they are not used, or where some one could not be found worthy of the agricultural prize of honor, and if all cultivators have not adopted these methods, it is because progress itself is subject to conditions of time. A man must first have saved money by economy before thinking of employing it in improvements. Already there are large, thickly sown tracts of lands in French Flanders, Limagne, Languedoc, La Beauce and Lorraine, whose inhabitants are second both in knowledge and success to no other country in Europe. We will cite here a few statistics. —We begin with cereals. It is not with the product of these that the cultivator is the best satisfied; at least, if it is wrong to claim that there is always a loss attendant on their cultivation, the profits are moderate. Nevertheless we will begin with cereals, because they are the chief food of France, and because their total value is considerable. Now, what have statistics to say of the cultivation of cereals? That at the beginning of this century about four and a half million hectares were devoted to wheat, while its cultivation in 1872 was spread over six and a half millions; this increase of two millions was gained partially from lands formerly devoted to rye and partially from waste lands. The same area which formerly yielded ten hectolitres now yields more than sixteen, and this too is only the amount acknowledged by the cultivator, who is on his guard against taxes and landlords. Hence, when the official tables show a total production of 55 millions of hectolitres about 1820, of 75 millions about 1840, of 85 millions in 1851, of 110 millions in 1861, of 107 millions in 1869 (in 1862, 116 millions, the maximum reached), we have a right to suspect that at each of these times the real amount produced far surpassed these figures. We believe, indeed, that we may consider these figures as the net product destined for consumption, and as not including the quantity reserved for seed. —Has production kept pace with the population? The answer is difficult, for we must not wish to solve so delicate a question solely according to the results of certain mathematical operations. It seems, doubtless, that sixty years ago the soil of France produced only two hectolitres of wheat for each of the inhabitants, while in 1872 it produced almost three; but what was the quantity of inferior cereals, which, one generation and above all two generations ago, was mixed with the wheat? Accustomed as the French of to-day are to better flour, can they depend on reaping, the average year, enough to satisfy their actual needs? If we examine the records of the custom houses, we shall find between the years 1832 and 1872 about as many harvests which have furnished a surplus for exportation as insufficient harvests. But when the balance of quantity is struck, there results a definite deficit of more than 35 millions of hectolitres, about a million a year, that is, enough to furnish bread for all France for three or four days. —This deficit would not be very alarming. But what can we think of the constant increase in prices? A hectolitre of wheat cost from 1820 to 1829, 18 francs, 6 centimes; from 1830 to 1839, 19 francs, 9 centimes; from 1840 to 1849, 20 francs, 49 centimes; from 1850 to 1859, 21 francs, 72 centimes; from 1860 to 1869, 21 francs, 44 centimes. (During this last mentioned period there were several years of exceptionally good harvests.) Has not this ascending tendency of prices lasted too long to attribute it alone to the influx of gold? It is not rather, and in a much greater measure, the result of the rapid increase in consumption? If this conjecture is well founded, we may conclude from it that prices will become more and more remunerative, and that agriculture, realizing increasing profits, will consent more willingly to the expense of necessary improvements. That would be very fortunate, for wealth would multiply in geometrical progression. On the other hand, one would think that the insufficiency of harvests in France would make her, in a certain measure, dependent on other countries; but that would be a mistake, for, despite the scarcity. France made war on Russia in 1855 and 1856, and came very near bombarding Odessa, one of its granaries. —Wheat is the principal cereal, but to complete her supply France has 606,000 hectares, which produce at least nine million hectolitres of meslin; 2,100,000 hectares of rye, giving twenty-three to twenty-four million hectolitres; 1,100,000 hectares of barley, with a production of more than twenty million hectolitres; three million hectares of oats, with seventy million hectolitres; besides ten million hectolitres of maize, eight million hectolitres of buckwheat, and more than one hundred million hectolitres of potatoes. —To sum up, there remains much still to be done in order that the cultivation of agricultural commodities may meet the wants of the people; and what is disagreeable, but inevitable, is that the exports are effected at a much lower price than the imports; it has been calculated that the difference, in forty years, has amounted to about 850 millions of francs. —The cultivation of the vine furnishes, however, a certain compensation. It is one of the most valuable of the agricultural products of France; the vineyards cover about 2,200,000 hectares. The quantity of wine produced varies considerably from year to year; but when the vine mildew, which, however, may be destroyed with sulphur, causes no ravages, it may be estimated at 60,000,000 hectolitres. From 1827 to 1836, the exports amounted to an average of 1,181,000 hectolitres, valued at 42,500,000 francs; from 1837 to 1846, 1,848,000 hectolitres at 50,000,000 francs; from 1847 to 1856, 1,731,000 hectolitres at 109,000,000 francs; from 1857 to 1866, 2,159,000 hectolitres at 218,000,000 francs. —The raising of live stock is doubtless a great industry in France. We think that the relative slowness of multiplication is the fault more of the climate than of man. When it is necessary to produce fodder at great expense, the raising of live stock is no longer profitable. Have we not read, under the signature of very distinguished agriculturists, that live stock is a necessary evil? They have abandoned this unfavorable judgment, by a chain of circumstances which it is not our province to recount; however, it is certain that the raising of live stock on a large scale is only advantageous in countries where there are many and fertile natural meadows. Live stock may be fattened also in the neighborhood of sugar refineries and of certain distilleries, and in fact, advantage is taken of this source of fodder. Now, France is not distinguished by the extent of her meadow land: in 1842 there were only 4,200,000 hectares; since then, a million of hectares has been added; the official documents do not say how, probably by improving the commons (unmowable meadows). It does not seem to us that much of the arable land has been changed into meadows: besides, it would have been of more advantage to have multiplied the lucern fields, the fields of sainfoin and clover, which, one and a half million hectares in 1842, reached only two and a half million hectares in 1872. We think that all these figures are under the truth. It is not necessary to add that besides the product of the meadows, oats, a part of the barley, roots, vetches, cabbages, the refuse of sugar refineries, etc., are also used for feeding live stock. With all these resources, there are fed but (returns of 1866) 3,312,637 horses (in 1812, 2,122,617; in 1850, 2,983,966); 518,000 asses; 350,000 mules; 12,733,000 horned cattle (in 1866), of which 6,700,000 were cows (6,682,000 horned cattle in 1812; 9,131,000 in 1829; 9,937,000 in 1839); 30,386,000 wool-bearing animals (32,000,000 in 1829; 29,000,000 in 1839; 35,000,000 in 1852); finally, 59,000,000 hogs and 1,680,000 goats. The above numbers, and which are probably under the truth, indicate only a part of the progress realized, for almost everywhere greater care, intelligent cross-breeding and improvement in the feeding have sensibly increased the size and the weight of the animals. —To appreciate the extent to which each country raises live stock, the number of animals is generally estimated at so many for every 100 hectares and every 1,000 inhabitants. Is there not some injustice in comparing such averages taken over the whole of the territory of France, with those of England or of Holland? To make these comparisons more instructive, we should limit ourselves, it seems to us, to the departments situated to the north of the Loire, a territory whose conditions of climate more nearly approach those of the countries inhabited by the rivals of France, once her models. If the south of France is poor enough in live stock, to its account must be carried its wines and oils, its silks, its oranges, its madder and various other products, which taken together may be considered a full compensation. —While endeavoring to do justice to all, we must acknowledge that there is still room for progress, as much in the improvement of the methods used as in the clearing of land. The territory of France is thus divided: arable land, 48.3 per cent.; vineyards, 3.7; natural meadows, 9.7; commons and waste lands, 17.8; forests, 16.8; highways, rivers, etc., 3.7 per cent. But all the commons are not suitable for cultivation; no utopia must be built upon this foundation. The largest amount of capital could accomplish nothing. There remain still many useful things for the institutions of credit to accomplish; for example, to liquidate a mortgage debt of 6,000 millions of francs (with apparent debts, 11½ thousand millions), a sum which only constitutes a small fraction of the market value of the real estate (lands, houses, manufactories) fixed officially, in 1851 at 83,744 millions (in 1821 at 39,514 millions), and tax payers are never guilty of exaggeration in their statements. The actual value of property is not less than 150,000 millions. —Landed property is very much divided; there were estimated to be about 10 millions of distinct pieces of land in 1815, 11 millions in 1840, more than 12 millions in 1856, 13 millions in 1858, 14 millions in 1865, so that the division of the land shows a tendency to increase. However, as one person often possesses lands in more than one commune, many pieces of property figure at the same time upon the registers of several tax collectors. The exact number of proprietors is unknown, but a statement, commenced in 1812, stated that there were 5,257,073 farms, of which 3,799,759 were cultivated by their owners. Another statement showed that among 10,000 agriculturists, there were 3,518 proprietors, 1,272 farmers, 694 metayers, the rest being day laborers or servants. The soil is very unequally divided. It is near enough the truth to estimate at 5 per cent the part comprising large properties, at 19½ per cent, that comprising medium properties, and at 74½ per cent, that comprising small properties. —Industry. After England, France is the most industrial country. She has, upon the continent, rivals only in Switzerland, Belgium, and some parts of Germany. In many important products her superiority is beyond question; but her mines are not so numerous nor so abundant as those of some of her neighbors. Still the extraction of coal goes on increasing; in 1787, the production from mines situated in France was only 2,150,000 metric quintals; fifteen years later it amounted to 8,441,000 quintals, which was scarcely increased till 1815. In 1825 it reached 14,913,000 quintals; in 1835, 25,064,000 quintals; in 1844, 37,827,000 quintals; in 1847, 51,532,000 quintals. From 1848 to 1852 the production, which the revolution had reduced to 40 millions, rose to 49 millions; it took then a rapid upward movement, and attained, in 1857, 79 millions of quintals; it fell back, in 1858, to 66 millions, to rise to 80 millions of quintals in 1860, and to exceed 90 millions in 1862, and even 132 millions in 1868. The importation is 77 million quintals, and the consumption more than 200 millions (209 in 1868.) 85,000 workmen are employed in the coal mines. —Although the domestic use of coal is spreading, it is above all in industry that it is employed. For a long time past the forests have proved insufficient to supply the factories of France, and it has been necessary to use increasing quantities of coal in the manufacture of iron. In 1789 the 202 blast furnaces produced 655,495 quintals of pig iron and 75,792 quintals of cast iron, without any other combustible than charcoal. It was about 1819 that the use of coal commenced (20,000 for 1,125,000 quintals of castings); but it was only in 1852 that the two methods of production were about equally used; 2,633,400 quintals of wood, 2,593,000 quintals of coal or coke. Of the total production of the foundries at present, 12,353,000 quintals (in 1868), about one and a half millions of quintals are cast, and the rest refined or transformed into iron. More than four-fifths of these operations are now effected by means of coal. The French factories subject iron to all the elaborations necessary for consumption; they draw it out into bars (6,385,000 quintals) and into wire; they flatten it into sheet iron, of which a part is tinned; they manufacture all the instruments, tools and machinery which a great country uses; they deliver to the railroads considerable quantities of rails (1,882,000 quintals)—but not enough; they produce different kinds of steel (991,721 quintals in 1868); but they have not yet arrived at satisfying all the wants of the home market, since large quantities of castings, of iron and of rails are still imported. It is no exaggeration to estimate the number of workmen employed in the manufacture of iron at 180,000. —The other metals play only a secondary part among French productions. There is produced 224,000 quintals of copper, 42,500 kilogrammes of pure silver, 274,000 quintals of lead and of other less important minerals, almost insignificant quantities of zine (29,000 quintals), and of tin. But the manufacture of chemical products is flourishing and continues to increase. This applies both to chemical products properly so called, to salts and acids of every description, and to merchandise in more general use, such as sugar, the products of distilleries, soap, and some others. The dye works and even the paper mills, the tanneries and other factories profit by this. —But among the great industries, that is to say, among those which employ numerous workmen and turn into the market large quantities of merchandise, the manufacture of textile fabrics holds in France the first rank. In 1851 it was officially stated that there were 64,420 proprietors, 431,380 workmen and 477,063 working women, and this number was even then below the truth, or at least an inexact idea was given, in this sense, that there was not included in textile industry a number of secondary callings, which depend on and complement it.10 As for instance, when the census officer inscribed among mécaniciens (workers in metals) the workman who ran the steam engine of a cotton mill, he followed the letter rather than the spirit of his instructions, and the letter here destroyed exactness, for if a cotton crisis should happen, this mécanicien would be deprived of his wages as well as the spinner. —What are the quantities produced? There are in France only incomplete data on this point; but we can, by using a certain number of indications, estimate the value of the products of the manufacture of flax at 250 million francs, of cotton at 650 millions, of wool at 950 millions, of silk at 1,000 millions, of mixed textures at 330 millions, when, of course, the manufactories are running at full power. The raw materials then employed are from 70 to 75 million kilogrammes of hemp, 60 millions of flax, 80 millions of cotton,11 90 millions of wool (of which 60 millions come from French animals); finally, from five to six million kilogrammes of raw silk, of which two and one-half to three millions are produced in France. The textures are too varied for it to be possible to make a complete enumeration, and, above all, to indicate the quantities produced. —It would not be just to pass over in silence the manufacture of jewelry and articles of gold and silver (32 to 35 millions of francs), gilt jewelry (12,000,000 francs), knick-knacks, millinery, flowers, and so many other branches of industry, which if they work only to satisfy luxury, maintain the traditions of taste, whose purity is acknowledged by all civilized nations. —We have just specified the distinctive characteristic of French industry, taste. It would be a mistake, however, to think that French manufactures have in view only luxury; their products must be divided into two parts; the one, which is destined for home consumption, must satisfy the wants of the poor as well as the rich; the other, which is destined for exportation, has in view more particularly, but not exclusively, the well-to-do classes. The result of this is, that the foreign commerce of France is very easily affected by international crises, which are only felt in domestic transactions, if they occur at the same time with a bad harvest. —Commerce. In most countries when the statistics of commerce are spoken of, only foreign commerce is meant. It is the only one on which we possess definite figures. Still domestic commerce is much more important and considerable. It is by its numberless channels that commodities and products reach the consumer, and the total amount of the transactions which make up this movement reaches thousands of millions of francs. But no one has yet been able to give the exact figures. Perhaps, for want of a better way, the movement of bank funds may give an idea of them. We should not know what foreign commerce amounted to, if there were no customs duties. Meanwhile, here are what the official documents tell us of French commerce.12 After having oscillated for more than twenty years between six and seven millions of francs, the value of the exports and imports together amounted, in 1827, to 921 millions, the figures of 1787. It did not reach a thousand millions till 1832. In 1841 it was more than 1,560 millions; in 1851 it exceeded 2,000 millions; in 1856 it was 3,148 millions; in 1860 it was more than 4,000 millions; in 1869, the year before the war with Germany, it reached 6,228 millions. With the exception of the years 1828, 1830, 1837, 1840 to 1848, 1861, 1862, 1867, 1868 and 1869, the exports have always exceeded the imports (up to 1869). But if it is true that nothing is more brutal than figures, which seem to declare that when they speak, all the world must listen, we may say also that nothing is less clear; we must know how to interpret figures to understand them; and it is precisely the difference of the interpretations which allows arguments for or against all opinions to be found in statistics: Now, the fluctuations of the relations between imports and exports give occasion to different interpretations; let it be sufficient for us to say that the French tables include cereals, merchandise of an extremely irregular movement, and that, on the other hand, they do not include precious metals nor money, which are indicated separately and not at all in totality; that they do not indicate the circulation of letters of exchange, nor the operations of the clearings of accounts; finally, that the values are not exactly conformable with the reality of things, but still near enough so. —If now we join together the statements concerning merchandise with those relative to precious metals, we obtain the following table for periods of five years (we give the annual average in millions of francs):  With the exception of the years 1861 and 1863 the imports of precious metals have always surpassed the exports. The total sum of the imports for the fifteen years 1853 to 1869 was 10,141 millions, the exports amounted to 6,872 millions, so that there remained in the country 3,269 millions in the above mentioned period alone. While only considering these figures as approximate, they are remarkable enough to cause reflection; they explain in part how France was able to pay an indemnity of 5,000 millions of francs. The imports of France consist chiefly of raw materials; if we take up, indeed, a table of the foreign commerce, in 1872, we shall find that out of the sixty-three kinds of merchandise enumerated, only a dozen were manufactured products, and their total value was only 1/2 per cent. of the whole of the imports. —Among imported materials or commodities we mention the following, using the annual average taken from the period 1857 to 1866: cereals, 91 millions of francs; raw cotton, 238 millions; raw silk, 255 millions; uncombed wool, 178 millions; sugar, 118 millions; common wood, 125 millions; oil seeds, 44 millions; coal, 107 millions; raw hides, 88 millions; copper, 39 millions; dust and refuse of gold and silversmiths, 29 millions; coffee, 64 millions; cattle, 65 millions, and horses, 10 millions; indigo, 21 millions; flax, 46 millions; hemp, 8 millions; besides metals and various other materials. —Let us now look at the table of exports. We can not count here the number of articles indicating raw materials, because the list of re-exports, often in small quantities, is long, and we see at the first glance that, for instance, indigo, cochineal, cotton, etc., are articles of re-export. It would be easy, nevertheless, to show that manufactured products predominate among the exports. Out of a total value of 2,430 millions, may be distinguished five or six kinds of manufactured merchandise, with a value of 1,000 millions; they will be found among the following: silk textures, 414 millions; woolen textures, 241 millions; toys, 138 millions; cotton textures, 75 millions; linen textures, 19 millions; clothing, 95 millions; tanned and dressed hides, 128 millions; refined sugar, 58 millions; pottery, glass and crystal, 35 millions; paper, 36 millions; articles of metal, 42 millions; perfumery, 14 millions; gold and silver work, 18 millions. Brandy is likewise a manufactured product, 62 millions. Finally, we must mention millinery and artificial flowers, 14 millions, and the soaps of Marseilles, which have only amounted to six or seven millions. We say nothing of a host of different kinds of merchandise, many of which are quite important. Still, France exports more agricultural commodities than she imports manufactured products. Her principal exports in this category were, in 1857 to 1866: wines, 219 millions; raw silks, 69 millions; cereals, 89 millions; wool, 27 millions; butter and cheese, 38 millions (in 1866, 72 millions); eggs, 12 millions; madder, 12 millions; olive oil, 7 millions, etc. Still, many of these products have been subjected to an elaboration, like oil, cereals, (exported in part in the form of flour), silks, (raw or thrown). —We will now mention the countries with which France has the most active commerce (annual average of the period 1857 to 1866, special commerce). They are the following: Great Britain, 1,153 millions; Belgium, 406 millions; Italy, 390 millions; Germany, Zollverein (and Hanseatic cities), 361 millions; United States (time of the civil war), 332 millions; Switzerland, 202 millions; Spain, 194 millions; Russia, 104 millions; Turkey, 171 millions; Brazil, 138 millions; East Indies, 85 millions; Argentine confederation, 111 millions; Egypt, 70 millions; Netherlands, 56 millions. We must mention also Cuba and Porto Rico, 60 millions; Peru, 50 millions; Chili, 33 millions; Mexico, 30 millions; Norway, 37 millions; Portugal, 22 millions; Austria, 28 millions; Sweden, 24 millions; Greece, 13 millions; Denmark, 3 millions. In the foregoing numbers the exports and imports are united. A whole series of tables would be necessary, if we wished to indicate for each country its relations separately as regards imports and exports, which necessarily vary more or less from year to year. —It only remains now to remark, and we thus arrive at the character of French commerce, that out of the 6,280 millions, the amount of the general13 commerce of France, 4,429 belong to maritime commerce, and 1,851 to land commerce. And if we distinguish the exports from the imports, we find among the imports 1,984 millions by sea and 1,003 millions by land, and among the exports 2,445 by sea and 848 by land—figures which indicate that more raw materials are imported than are exported. It is this character of French commerce, it is, in a word, the nature of the productions of France, which explains the relative inferiority of her merchant marine. If she had the coal and iron of England, the cotton of the United States, the coffee and sugar of Brazil, she would have a much more powerful incentive to navigation than all the premiums and customs favors. This is the true cause why her maritime trade was in 1872 represented by only 4,500,000 tons entry and 3,100,000 tons departure, of which 2,700,000 entry and 1,650,000 departure were under foreign flags. —Let us add, before concluding, that the coasting trade of France in 1872 was represented by three millions of tons, and that the effective force of the fleet was composed of more than 15,000 sailing vessels and steamers, with a tonnage of more than a million. —Progress. If we should simply propose to show that France has made progress, we should fear to be interrupted by the cry, the case is decided. That civilization has advanced during the last fifty or sixty years, and above all, that well-being has become widespread, comfort more general, and consequently manners more polished, are things that no one denies. But it would be useful, from a political point of view, to be able to measure at least the material progress realized during a series of years. Researches of this nature would allow us to state in what measure the increase of wealth has compensated, as regards the power of France, for the more rapid increase in population in many other countries; they would allow us also to risk certain conjectures in regard to the revenue of the nation, information which would be of the utmost importance, if it were possible to determine it exactly. —We will commence with landed property. It has been the object of two returns, in 1821 and in 1851, and these are the results: The market value of the land, including houses and factories, was, in 1821, 39,514,000,000 francs, and, in 1851, 83,744,000.000 francs. This would show an increase of 112 per cent. in thirty years. But in reality the progress has been greater, we are not ignorant of the depreciation which property was subjected to after the revolution of 1848, and if the value of real property had been estimated at 100,000 millions in 1847, it would have been below the truth. In 1873 the figures were much higher. After 1852, when the fear of the revolution had been dispelled, the price of real estate began to approach its former figures, so that in placing the amount at 120,000 millions in 1873, we are below the truth, for many persons estimated it at 150,000 millions. —Why has the value of real estate increased? Throwing aside the argument based on the influx of gold, there remains to us still to point out two principal causes. They are these: The first is, the increase in the revenue from the soil and the advance in rents. The revenues from the soil have increased through the simultaneous effect of the increase in products and prices. Thus, to cite but one example, from 1820 to 1829 the average product oscillated between 11 and 12 hectolitres of wheat per hectare and the price was 18 francs, 6 centimes; from 1850 to 1859 the product was 15 to 16 hectolitres and the price 21 francs, 71 centimes. Whether it is because the population has advanced more rapidly than production, or because each individual has increased the amount he consumes, or because other circumstances have exercised their influence, it is certainly the case that in the first period each hectare yielded a gross product of 11½ x 18.06, or 207 francs, 69 centimes, and in the second period 15½ x 21.71, or 336 francs, 50 centimes. The second cause of the increase in the value of the soil is the multiplication of personal property. Many persons, who have acquired a fortune in business, like to enjoy the security which placing it in real property offers, so that the demand increases in a rapid progression. Now, the competition of buyers influences much more strongly the price of property than the slow but certain advance in the increase of production. —The demand is increasing or has increased up to the present time, in a rapid progression. It would almost seem that the private fortunes of a nation taken all together follow another law than each one of these fortunes taken by itself. A small manufacturer draws from his capital of 1,000 francs, 200 or 30014 per cent. and more, while the great capitalist is content with 3 or 4 per cent. But if the individual is subjected to the consequences of supply and demand, and sees the rate of interest diminish in proportion as his capital is multiplied, a nation has an industrial power so much the stronger in proportion as the rate of interest is lower. This fact is enough in itself to justify the proposition, that the industrial power of a nation increases more quickly than its capital, but it may be added that leaving the rate of interest out of consideration, the amount of capital has a virtue all its own. Hence, if in a manufacture employing 500,000 francs, a profit, without machinery, of 50,000 francs is realized, if the capital is doubled, instead of a double profit, a quadruple profit is often obtained. The profits of a nation increase by sure steps in more rapid progression than the amount of its capital. —Now, what has been the amount of personal property at different times? This is a question which it should be possible to solve. It is more complicated than one thinks. For example, according to what principle must the capital of an establishment be determined? 1st, according to the sums employed in starting it, or, 2d, according to its actual value, based upon its products. Some very imperfect attempts have been made to estimate the amount of existing capital; the official statements published on this point, up to the present time, have no value, because it is necessary to multiply the amount by five, perhaps even by ten. We can not supply this defect, because it is not possible for one man alone to draw up in an exact manner such an inventory; all that we can do, is to venture certain estimates, based on a certain number of indications, which are only the shadow of the truth, but which show well enough its outlines. The following are some of the indications which have served us as a guide, and which are interesting in themselves. (The figures are given in millions of francs.)15  RAILWAYS.
VARIOUS COMPANIES (SEINK)..
CITY OF PARIS..
COMPANIES OF THE DEPARTMENTS.
To these figures we might add the number of steam engines (11,620 in 1855, and 31,094 in 1868), the tonnage of the ships, the progress realized by the coasting trade despite the competition of the railroads, and a certain number of other things which we have no space to mention. From the combination of all this information that we have compared, it seems to us that the following estimate may be made. The value of personal property was, in 1820, 15,500,000,000 francs; in 1840, 40,700,000,000 francs: in 1850, 45,400,000,000 francs; in 1860, 113,776,000,000 francs; and in 1869, 150,000,000,000 francs. We must remark that it is not without hesitation or without verification that we have written down the last amount, which has no other value than that it has been calculated after the same principles as the preceding ones, and with which it may then be compared. We must only remark that in the seventeen and a half thousand millions, at which the built property has been estimated, are included many hundreds of millions, the value of mills, factories and other structures, which we have not been able to separate from the figures above. Finally, the entire value of the railways has been included among the personal property. We have also taken into account the foreign property owned by Frenchmen. —Individual Resources and Incomes. If it is very difficult to determine the value of the national capital, it would be almost impossible, at least for one man alone, to arrive at a sufficiently approximate estimate of the revenue. For real property, which consists of objects exposed to the full light of day, and whose prices vary little from year to year, a satisfactory valuation may be obtained. It is the same case with a great part of personal property, which consists of effects whose value is known. The same is not the case with income. A bad harvest, vacant apartments, houses built and not let, an industrial crisis, and a thousand other circumstances influence considerably the income of individuals. The rate of interest does not increase with the amount of capital; it follows often, but not always, an opposite course. If the productive forces always preserved the same co-efficient, or the same degree of power, if the profits were always maintained at the same rate, if the prices of merchandise did not change, the interest would invariably decrease in proportion to the increase of capital. But things are not thus situated. New machines are continually invented, and new processes, which re-enforce productive power; the extension of markets and multiplication of the population serve to increase the prices, and render possible new enterprises; and the manufacturer, who foresees a higher profit, can offer a greater interest. All these considerations prevent us from making any calculations; their foundation would be too unstable. —Some economists have thought they could overcome this difficulty, by taking one of the existing valuations of the products of agriculture, five, six or seven thousands of millions, and adding to it three or four thousands of millions for the products of manufacturing industry, and have contented themselves with this total. It is in this way that the conclusion has been arrived at, that the average income of a Frenchman was seventy-five centimes a day. By this proceeding, only the production of a part of the French population is found, and yet it is divided by the total number of inhabitants. It is clearly seen that the quotient must be false. But, besides, in these calculations there has been omitted a considerable quantity of products, and the prices of the gross sales realized by the producer have been used. It is the price of bread and not the value of wheat, the price of the stew or the chop, and not the value of the live cattle or sheep, which must finally be considered. We believe that the average of one franc fifty centimes would be nearer the truth, and in this case the aggregate income of all Frenchmen would amount to 30,000,000,000.16 To sum up, despite the high price of bread, of meat and wine, and some other products, the remuneration of labor having been raised, the lowering of the price of manufactured products has been so great, that to-day, with a given income a greater amount of comfort can be obtained than could be enjoyed a generation ago. It is true that men are more exacting to-day, and that the progress attained only acts as a stimulant toward still greater progress.17 —BIBLIOGRAPHY. Sismondi, Histoire des Français, 31 vols., Paris, 1821-44; Thierry, Lettres sur l'histoire de France, Paris, 1827, new ed., 1859; Thierry, Dix ans d'études his toriques, 9th ed., Paris, 1857; Guizot, Essai sur l'histoire de France, Paris, 1834, 9th ed., 1857; Michelet, Histoire de France, 2d ed., 17 vols., Paris, 1845-67; Martin, Histoire de France, 4th ed., 17 vols., Paris, 1856-60; Genoude, Histoire de France, 30 vols., 1844; Gouet, Histoire nationale de France, 6 vols, Paris, 1864-8; Guizot, L'histoire de France racontée à mes petits-enfants, 5 vols., Paris, 1870-75; Guizot, Histoire de la civilisationen France, 13th ed., 5 vols., Paris, 1874; Heinrich, Geschichte von Frankreich, 3 vols., Leipzig, 1802-04; Schmidt, Geschichte von Frankreich, 4 vols., Hamburg and Gotha, 1839-48; Gfrörer, Geschichte der ost-und west. frank. Karolinger, 2 vols., Freiburg, 1848; Thierry, Récits des temps Méroringiens, 10th ed., Paris, 1875; Warnkönig and Gérard, Histoire des Carolingiens, 2 vols., Brussels, 1862; Thierry, Histoire de la conquête de l'Angleterre par les Normands, Paris, 1825, new ed., 2 vols., Paris, 1858; Michand, Histoire des crusades, 7 vols., Paris, 1812-17. 9th ed., 4 vols., Paris, 1858; Buchon, Histoire des conquêtes et de l'établissement des Français dans l'ancienne Grèce sous les Villehardouin, Paris, 1846; Barante, Histoire des dues de Bourgogne de la maison de Valois, 1364-1477, 8th ed., 8 vols., Paris, 1858; Havemann, Geschichte der ital-franz. Kriege von, 1494-1515, 2 vols., Göttingen, 1834-5; Herrmann, Frankreichs Religions-und Bürgerkriege im 16 Jahrh., Leipzig, 1828; Lacretelle, Histoire de France pendant les guerres de religion, 4 vols., Paris, 1814-16; Sainte-Aulaire, Histoire de la Fronde, 3 vols., Paris, 1827, 4th ed., 2 vols., Paris, 1860; Ranke, Französische Geschichte, vorzüglich im 16 und 17 Jahrh., 5 vols., Stuttgart, 1852-61; Mignet, Histoire de la Ligue et du règne de Henri IV., 5 vols., Paris, 1829; Bazin, Histoire de France sous Louis XIII., 4 vols., Paris, 1837; Bazin, Histoire de France sous le ministère du cardinal de Mazarin, 2 vols., Paris, 1842; Lacretelle, Historie de France pendant le 18e siècle, 5th ed., 6 vols., Paris, 1830; Lemontey, Histoire de la Régence, 2 vols. Paris, 1832; Droz, Histoire de règne de Louis XVI., 3 vols., Paris, 1838-42, new ed., 3 vols., Paris, 1858; Tocqueville, Histoire philosophique du règne de Louis XV., 6 vols., Paris, 1864-73; Roux and Buchez, Histoire parlementaire de la révolution française, 40 vols., 1833-8; Berville and Barrière, Collection des mémoires relatifs à la révolution française, 56 vols., Paris, 1820-56; Mignet, Histoire de la révolution française, 10th ed., 2 vols., Paris, 1870; Thiers, Histoire de la révolution française, 13th ed., 10 vols., Paris, 1873; Louis Blanc, Histoire de la révolution française, 13 vols., Paris, 1847-64; Michelet, Histoire de la révolution françrise, 7 vols., Paris, 1847-53; Wachsmuth, Geschichte Frankreichs im Revolutions zeitalter, 4 vols., Hamburg, 1833-45; Dahlmann, Geschichte der Französischen Revolution. Leipzig. 1845; Sybel. Geschichte der Revolutionszeit, 2d ed., 3 vols., Düssel-dorf, 1861; Mortimer-Feruaux, Histoire de la terreur, 7 vols., Paris, 1862-9; Cassagnac, Histoire des causes de la révolution française, 4 vols., Paris, 1850; Villiaum8eacute, Histoire de la révolution française, 6th ed., 3 vols., 1863; Arnd, Geschichte der Französischen Revolution von, 1789-99. 6 vols., Brunswick, 1851-2; Carlyle, The French Revolution, 3 vols., London, 1870; Lamartine, Histoire des Girondins, 6 vols., Paris, 1870; Barante, Histoire de la Convention nationale, 6 vols., Paris, 1851-3; Barante, Histoire du Directoire, 3 vols., Paris, 1855; Cassagnac, Histoire du Directoire, 8 vols., Paris, 1851-63; Bignon, Histoire de France depuis le 18 brumaire, 1799, 6 vols., Paris, 1827, continued to 1812, 4 vols., Paris, 1838; Thiers, Histoire du consulat et de l'empire, 5 vols., Paris, 1865-8; Michelet, Histoire du 19esiécle, 3 vols., Paris, 1875; Lacretelle, Histoire de France deputs restanration, 4 vols., Paris, 1829-35: Lamartine, Histoire de la restauration, 8 vols., Paris, 1852: Viel-Castel, Histoire de la restauration, 18 vols., Paris, 1860-76; Duvergier d'Hauranne, Histoire du gouvernement parlementaire en France, 1814-48. 10 vols., Paris. 1862-72; Louis Blanc, Révolution française, Histoire de dix ans, 1830-40, 5th ed., 5 vols., Paris, 1846; Regnault, Histoire de huit ans, 1840-48, 2d ed., 3 vols., Paris, 1860: Nouvion, Histoire du règne de Louis Philippe, 4 vols., Paris, 1858-61: Lamartine, Histoire de la révolution de 1848, 4th ed., 2 vols., Paris, 1859; Stern, Histoire de la révolution de février, 1848, 2d ed., 2 vols., Paris, 1862; Regnault, Histoire du gouvernement provisoire, Paris, 1850; Delvau, Histoire de la révolution de février, 2 vols., Paris. 1850; Guizot, Mémoires pour servir d l'histoire de mon temps, 8 vols., Paris, 1858-67, Leipzig, 1858-63; Garnier-Pagès, Histoire de la révolution de 1848 4th ed., 2 vols., Paris, 1871; Delord, Histoire du second Empire, 6 vols., Paris, 1864-75; Tenot. Paris en decembre, 1851, Paris, 1868; Cavalier, Histoire de France depuis Louis XIV., jusqu'à nos jours. 1 vol., Paris, 1869; Sybel, Napoleon III., Bonn, 1873; Gottschall, Paris unter dem ziceiten Kaiserretch, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1871: Collection de documents inédits sur l'histoire de France, Paris. 1874; Enquête parlementaire sur les actes du government de la défense nationale, 2 vols., Paris, 1874; Müller, Politische Geschichte der neucsten Zeit, 1816-75, 3d ed., Stuttgart, 1875; Girault de St. Fargeau, Dictionnaire géographique, historique, industriel et commercial de toutes les communes de la France, Paris, 1851; Aigard. Patria ou la France ancienne et moderne, Paris, 1847; Malte-Brun, La France illustrée, 3 vols, Paris, 1855-61; Lavallée. Géographie physique, historique et militaire de la France, 6th ed., Paris, 1863; Joanne, Dictionnaire géographique de la France, Paris, 1864. 2d ed., 1869; Joanne, Géographie, histoire, statistique et archéologie des départments de la France, Paris, 1869; Bourboulon, Geographie physique et statistique de la France, Paris, 1867; Oyer, Géographie physique, militaire, etc., de la France, Paris, 1873; Cortambert, Géographie physique et politique de la France, Paris, 1873; Levasseur, La France avec ses colonies, Paris, 1873; Jähns, Das franzosisches Heer von der grossen Revolution bis zur Gegenwart, Leipzig, 1873; Hillebrand, Frankreich und die Franzosen in der zweiten Häifte des 19 Jahrh. Berlin, 1873; Schnitzler, Statistique générale de la France, 4 vols., Paris, 1846; Block, Statistique de la France comparée, 2d ed., 2 vols., Paris, 1875; Audiffret, Etat de la fortune nationale et du crédit publique de 1789 à 1873, Paris, 1875; Colle, La France et ses colonies au 19me siècle, Paris, 1878; Crisenoy, Mémoire de l'inscription maritime, Paris, 1872; David, Le crédit nationale, Paris. 1872; Dufour, Traite général du droit administratif, 8 vols., Paris, 1872: Germain. Dictionnaire du budget, Paris, 1878; Hélie, Les constitutions de la France. Paris. 1878; Ingouf, L'avenir de la marine et du commerce extérieur de la France, Paris, 1877; Kleine, Les richesses de la France, Paris, 1872; Langel, La France politique et sociale, Paris, 1878; Lavergne, Economie rurale de la France, 4th ed., Paris, 1878; L'ou, De l'accroissement de la population en France et de la doctrine de Malthus, Paris, 1866; Moussy, Tableau des finances de la France, Paris, 1879; Prat. Annuaire protestant: Statistique générale des diverses branches du Protestantisme français, Paris, 1880; Reclus, La France, vol. ii., of Nouvelle Geographie Universelle, Paris, 1877; Roussan, L'armée territoriale et la réserve de l'armée, Paris. 1874; Vraye, Le budget de l'état, Paris, 1875; Vuitry, Etude sur le régime financier de la France, Paris, 1879; Statistique centrale des chemins de fer, Paris, 1879; Annuaire de l'économie sociale, Paris, 1881; Annuaire des établissements français dans l'Inde, Pondichéry, 1881; Block, Annuaire de l'économie politique et de la statistique, 1881, Paris, 1881; Delarbre. La marine militaire de la France, Paris, 1881; Dupont, Annuaire de la marine pour 1881, Paris, 1881. MAURICE BLOCK. FRANCHISEFRANCHISE, Elective. (See SUFFRAGE.) FRANKLIN, BenjaminFRANKLIN, Benjamin, was born at Boston, Mass., Jan. 17, 1706, and died at Philadelphia, April 17, 1790. He learned the printer's trade, removed to Philadelphia, and gradually became prominent in the service of Pennsylvania. He then became postmaster general for the crown in North America, and afterward agent at London for Pennsylvania. In 1773-6 he was a delegate to the continental congress, and in 1778 became its most distinguished representative abroad, as minister to France. He returned in 1785, after the conclusion of the treaty of peace, mainly due to his own diplomatic skill, became president (governor) of Pennsylvania, and took part in the convention of 1787. In his later years he took an active part in the anti-slavery society of Pennsylvania. (See ALBANY PLAN OF UNION. REVOLUTION.) —Apart from Franklin's skill as a scientific investigator and as a practical diplomatist, his work is interesting for the clear perception which it showed of the questions at issue between the mother country and her North American colonies. While he maintained, as fully as any other public man, the theoretical rights of the colonists, he recognized, to the exact moment of its disappearance, every restriction upon theory arising from the aversion of the colonists to independence, and never endeavored to hurry the revolution unhealthily. The fourth volume of his collected works contains, scattered through its pages, a wonderfully clear and simple outline of the rights of the colonists, as they understood them. —See Franklin's Autobiography (particularly Bigelow's edition): Sparks' Life and Works of Franklin; Holley's Life of Franklin; Parton's Life of Franklin; 1 Brougham's Sketches of Eminent Statesmen (edit. 1854), 251; Parker's Historic Americans, 13; 12, 27 Atlantic Monthly; Shurtleff's Inauguration of the Franklin Statue. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON. FRANKLIN, State ofFRANKLIN, State of. (See TENNESSEE.) FREEDMEN'S BUREAUFREEDMEN'S BUREAU, The. During the years 1861-2 the numbers of the fugitive slaves within the federal lines increased with the growth of the anti-slavery feeling in the federal government and army. Many of the able-bodied males were finally provided for by the organization of colored troops (see ABOLITION, III.); the aged, the young, the women and the sick were the occasion of more difficulty. Wherever the federal troops held post the freedmen poured in, without money, resources, or any provision for the future further than an implicit confidence in the benevolence and beneficence of the federal government. Before the end of the year 1864 the advance of the armies had freed 3,000,000 persons, of whom at least a million had thrown themselves helplessly upon the federal government for support. Attempts to employ some of them upon confiscated or abandoned plantations failed through the rapacity and inhumanity of the agents employed; and in 1863 great camps of freedmen were formed at different points, where the negroes were supplied with rations, compelled to work, and kept under some degree of oversight. The next year, 1864, this great responsibility was transferred from the war to the treasury department, but was still a mere incident of the military or war power of the president, as commander-in-chief, and was without any regulation of law. A bill to establish a bureau of emancipation had been introduced, Jan 12, 1863, but had failed to pass. Another bill passed the house. March 1, 1864, but failed in the senate. March 3, 1865, the first "freedmen's bureau bill" became law. It established a "bureau of refugees, freedmen, and abandoned lands" in the war department, to continue for one year after the close of the rebellion, under control of a chief commissioner; it gave the president authority to set apart confiscated or abandoned lands in the south to the use of the bureau; it authorized the assignment of not more than forty acres to each refugee or freedman; it guaranteed the possession of such lands to the assignees for three years; and in general it gave to the bureau "the control of all subjects relating to refugees and freedmen from rebel states" The bureau was organized almost entirely by officers of the regular army, under Gen. O. O. Howard, chief commissioner, and their administrative ability and fidelity made the bureau's early years very economical and satisfactory. Feb. 6, 1866, a supplementary bill was passed, which continued the bureau until otherwise provided by law, authorized the issue of provisions, clothing, fuel and other supplies to destitute refugees and freedmen, made any attempt to deny or hinder the civil rights or immunities of freedmen a penal offense, and required the president to take military jurisdiction of all such cases. This bill was vetoed, Feb. 19, by President Johnson for the reasons, 1, that it abolished trial by jury in the south, and substituted trial by court martial, 2, that this abolition was apparently permanent, not temporary; 3, that the bureau was a costly and demoralizing system of poor relief, and 4, that congress had no power to apply the public money to any such purpose in time of peace. The bill failed to pass over the veto. —The quarrel between the president and the republican majority in congress became open and bitter in the spring of 1866, and about the same time the legislation of southern legislatures as to freedmen, during their winter sessions of 1865-6, was made public. (See RECONSTRUCTION.) The result was the passage of the second freedmen's bureau bill, in July, 1866. It corresponded in general intention to the February bill, except that it continued the bureau for two years only. It was vetoed, July 16, on the same general grounds as above given, and was passed the same day over the veto. The powers of the bureau were thus very much enlarged. Its chief commissioner was authorized to use its funds at discretion, to apply the property of the confederate states to the education of freedmen, to co-operate with private freedmen's aid societies, and to take military jurisdiction of offenses against the civil rights or immunities of freedmen. In June, 1868, the bureau was continued by law for one year longer in unreconstructed states. Aug. 3, 1868, a bill was passed over the veto providing that Gen. Howard should not be displaced from the commissionership, and that he should withdraw the bureau from the various states, Jan. 1, 1869, except as to its educational work, which did not stop until July 1, 1870. The collection of pay and bounties for colored soldiers and sailors was continued until 1872 by the bureau, when its functions were assumed by the usual channels of the war department. Total expenditures of the freedmen's bureau, March, 1865-Aug. 30, 1870, were reported at $13,359,092.27. (See ABOLITION, SLAVERY, RECONSTRUCTION.) —See McPherson's History of the Reconstruction; and other authorities under RECONSTRUCTION. The first freedmen's bureau bill is in 13 Stat. at Large (38th Cong), 507; the second freedmen's bureau bill is in 13 Stat. at Large (39th Cong.), 173. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON. FREEDOMFREEDOM, AND RIGHTS OF FREEDOM. I. Nature of Freedom. When we examine into the essence of freedom, and seek to understand that sacred blessing which man prizes higher than all besides, we must pass beyond the bounds of law and of the state, and seek its roots in nature and in God. In the microcosmic world of organic beings, the freedom of these beings rises, by degrees, to a fuller meaning. Even the plant which is fixed to its place, and is essentially not free, shows some faint advances toward freedom, when, following the instinct of self-preservation, it pushes its roots where nourishment most readily comes to it, and fastens its tendrils where it may best receive protection and insure its growth. The beast is freer, that moves its body about according to its instincts, and moves its limbs according to changing necessity. It chooses its place of rest and arranges it; it seeks its nourishment with discrimination; it practices the tricks of the hunter; it courts sexual union and cares for its young. The word instinct, which means the endowment of the race and the moving necessity of present impulse, is not adequate to explain these phenomena. The freedom of the beast is also manifest in this, that it does not move with mathematical or mechanical necessity, but according to its feelings, desires or apprehensions. Bodily, physical freedom is plainly met with even here; indeed, here the first advances toward a higher, moral freedom appear, and we can, without doing violence to language, speak of the fidelity of the dog, of the spirit of the horse, of the majesty of the lion, and of the industry of the bee. But first with man as a person do moral freedom and intellectual freedom attain their full development. In the beast the instinctive nature predominates still, but man rises to self-conscious action. The distinction between good and evil, truth and error, here, for the first time, gets its definite meaning. In consequence of this higher will and freedom of the mind, man can struggle against the power of natural impulse. —Tocqueville (Ancien Régime, p. 278) asks the question, in what is the love of the nations for freedom, which inspires to the greatest deeds, grounded? and answers, that it was not alone in the hatred of oppression, for the freest people willingly submit to a dictator appointed for a time; neither in their material interests, for sometimes people abandon everything to defend freedom. He replies: "Freedom has in herself her own charm. He who seeks in freedom anything else than freedom herself, is bowed in bondage." I think the deepest ground lies in the fact that freedom is the most godlike quality of man, that it is voluntary and self-conscious life of a higher order. The highest degree of freedom is revealed in a creative act, in self-culture and in the improvement of the world. —Necessity and freedom are antithetical but not contradictory. They are joined in unity in a person, for to the person both belong. The necessity of being is the condition precedent of his freedom. When Raphael painted a Madonna, he was bound to the necessity of his esthetic nature, while he painted with the true freedom of the artist. So Shakespeare, when he wrote his plays. It is the same in politics. In the acts of Julius Cæsar or Frederick II. of Prussia, we recognize the nature of Cæsar or Frederick as necessary, but we likewise plainly discern the marks of individual freedom. Freedom, on its positive side, implies choice, but it does not on that account become caprice or arbitrariness. Free moral choice must have regard to its own nature, and its connection with the laws of the system of the world and with the destiny of mankind. —It is the province of politics both to promote freedom, and to bring to development what still lies dormant in the intellectual endowment of man. It has to do with the collective life of the people. —II. Individual Rights of Freedom. 1. The first of these is the acknowledgment of free personality, and, as a logical consequence, the negation of all slavery. Since man is by nature a person, he can not and must not be considered as simply a thing; and never must property, i.e., the dominion of the person over things, be assigned to man over man, to person over person. Slavery is always an unjust subordination. In many respects the authority of the Roman father over the child was similar to the authority of the master over the slave. But there existed a cardinal difference. The child was esteemed as a person, and hence as free (liber); the slave as a thing, and hence under dominion. Slavery even as a penalty, is not admissible, for the culprit does not cease to be a man, and hence a person. 2. The glebæ ad-criptio of the middle ages was in contradiction with the natural right of freedom. It is true it did not entirely deny the personality of the feudal dependents; their marriages were recognized as legal, and certain rights of possession of goods and movables were guaranteed them. But the system nevertheless brought man into the false relation of the dependence of the person upon the thing. 3. Not every dependence of one person upon another is in opposition to freedom. The child, through its helplessness and its wants, is, by nature, dependent upon the guidance and care of its parents. The authority of guardians over children and minors is well founded, just as is the guardianship over weak-minded and insane persons of full age, or over spendthrifts. But the continuation of the Roman patria potestas over sons of manly years, was certainly a mistaken notion and a violation of natural freedom, upon which the young man has a just claim. In the same way, the servant is in many things personally dependent upon his lord, the workman upon the manufacturer, and the journeyman upon the master workman; but this dependence, also, is quite compatible with personal freedom. Free men themselves regulate the relation of work and wages, according to their needs. But labor contracts for service and wages may overstep the bounds of self-determination and damage the rightful freedom of all, when it makes arrangements, which, under the appearance of a free contract, lay the foundation of a virtual lasting slavery. But that very thing is done, and for a lifetime, by those labor contracts which concede to the serving party no power to step out of the relation of servant, if his personal interests should demand it. 4. Protection against false imprisonment. It is not enough to protect the negative side of freedom, i.e., to prevent an undue dependence; the positive side of freedom, also, i.e., a person's self-determined mode of living, his movements and actions, need the protection of law. The transition from the one to the other is formed by the measures of security against arbitrary arrest, developed especially in Anglo-American law. Here belong the following provisions: 1st. No one shall be arrested except upon the written warrant of competent authority, wherein the ground for the arrest and the person of the party arrested and of the party who makes the arrest shall be designated, except in cases of the seizure of a criminal in an overt act. A general warrant, i.e., a warrant to arrest all persons suspected, without specifying individuals, is illegal according to Anglo-American law. 2d. The habeas corpus act, passed in the reign of Charles II., A. D. 1679, secures to the prisoner the right to procure from the judge a writ of habeas corpus, by which all inferior officers, jailers, etc., are required to bring him without delay before the judge, so that he may test the legality of his imprisonment, and if that be not confirmed, release him. 3d. Releasement upon furnishing bail, (called in the old German law trostung). It was a maxim of the middle ages that. "He who gives bail (trostung) must not be imprisoned," except in particularly serious cases. 4th Imprisonment and detention from police considerations, in contrast to arrest for judicial examination and punishment, is only allowed, by way of exception, in rare cases, as especially the confinement of lunatics, or measures in the interest of quarantine regulations or for checking dangerous epidemics; or for the purpose of caring for the dissolute poor, and to protect the public from being annoyed by them. 5th. The abolition of imprisonment for debt, i.e., the imprisonment of the debtor with the intent, by depriving him of his freedom, of forcing him to pay. This advance in modern freedom was only effected in comparatively recent years. 6th. The guarantee of an action for indemnity against officers and employés who had effected an illegal arrest; and 7th. The acknowledgment of the right to resist, with force, an illegal arrest. 5. Freedom of movement is further limited, by restricting a person to the limits of a certain place or district, or even by commanding one to leave a city, village or district, or by banishment from the country. Such restrictions, again, according to the rule, are only admissible when they are judicially decreed as punishments, or when, as a legal exception, they are necessary as a police expedient. 6. The protection of freedom of travel in opposition to prohibition of travel is, in more recent times, even internationally guaranteed; while but a generation ago passports for travelers were frequently required. 7. The highest form of this freedom of movement from place to place is the freedom of emigration. The free man is as little bound to the state as to the soil. It is not worthy of the state to hold him as if he were a serf, if he wishes to leave his home and hopes to find in another state better conditions for his advancement. But it was a long time before freedom of emigration was acknowledged. It is not acknowledged everywhere even to-day. But the state certainly has a right in this matter, viz., that the emigrant shall beforehand fulfill his indispensable duties toward his native country, and shall not, apparently to evade or mock the law of the land, simply step out of his previous allegiance to one government into allegiance to another. 8. Freedom of marriage. Matrimony is the most complete life in common of man and wife. Hence it is a question of life for the individual, whether he is to be allowed to follow his own inclination and choice, or is to be compelled to submit to the will of another, or is to be prevented from concluding an intended marriage. Actual coercion to marriage is to-day generally given up, in so far at least as the law demands, under all circumstances, the free personal expression of the will of the parties betrothed, which can not be supplanted by any parental or other authority. No one, according to the prevailing law, is compelled to marry when he does not desire it, or to marry any one whom he does not desire to marry. On the other hand, there existed till the most recent times, and do still in some countries exist, manifold hindrances to marriage, which make the consummation thereof difficult, or even entirely prevent it, notwithstanding the affianced parties wish to marry. The legislation of recent times has shown itself in this matter favorable to freedom, in this, that it has removed a multitude of such hindrances or has modified them, as, for example, the prohibition of marriage between distant relatives, the demanding of a property certificate from the parties betrothed, the permission of the community, etc. For Germany a series of this sort of restrictions was cleared away, especially by the North German law of May 4, 1868. 9. Freedom of property. In the possession of property, i.e., the dominion of the person over things, free personality is preserved. There are a number of legal defenses whose object is to give the best possible protection to this freedom. Among them belong: 1st. The freedom to acquire landed property, which during the middle ages was permitted frequently only to certain classes of the inhabitants, was prohibited to foreigners, and was brought into continual jeopardy through sundry natural rights of neighbors, of relatives, of heirs, of fellow-citizens and natives. 2d. The freedom of the soil from standing burdens, burdens in kind, as, especially, socage, tithes, tributes, which so sorely oppressed landed property, and burdened the free use of the soil. 3d. Free transferability and divisibility of goods, in opposition to the fixedness and indivisibility of the property of fief, family, and much of that of manor and peasant, in the middle ages. 4th. The protection of freedom at home, domestic peace or security, was afforded in full measure in the laws of many of the German cities of the middle ages. But in the last century it has been seriously damaged by the too great control and guardianship of the police. Especially has this freedom been preserved in Anglo-American law. The saying, "My house is my castle," in vogue everywhere in the middle ages, has gradually come to have a specifically English ring. Under this head falls the protection against the illegal quartering of soldiers, which is clearly set forth in the English bill of rights of 1689, and in the constitution of the United States. Freedom of property, may, however, be carried too far. Property is so called because it belongs exclusively to a particular individual, and means, in short, unlimited dominion of the same over his own things, liable, of course, to the danger of a merely selfish use, which disregards and neglects the duties toward the community (of the family, of the municipality and of the state). But since all law is a regulation of the public life, and is made to insure the peaceable dwelling together of men, it has also the task to restrain and moderate the selfish freedom of property, in so far as the interest of the community demands it. 10. Economic freedom. The whole modern system of economy is to be distinguished from the economy of the last century, chiefly from the fact that it has been impregnated with the spirit of individual liberty, and its activity has been freed from a thousand restraints, which formerly made its development difficult. Here belong: 1st. The removal of the restraint of guilds and fraternities, and the introduction of the free choice of his trade by every man. Every one may exercise that trade in which he hopes soonest to conquer in the battle of life, or that to which his inclination leads him. Every one may extend the bounds of his industrial pursuits, and may combine one industrial pursuit with another, as he finds it to his purpose. 2d. Free trade, in opposition to the so-called protective tariff system. As the full development of strength and the highest contentment for the individual comes with this economic freedom, so it is only through freedom that mankind can reach a maximum of economic achievement. But we must not overlook the fact that freedom draws after it an intensity of competition between men, and has likewise the right to take care that the dangers of this bellum omnium contra omnes shall not damage or ruin the proper and insured existence of many. The advance of the human race is marked by an increase of the legal rights of freedom; but only the union of freedom with growing humanity preserves the former from degeneration and abuse. 11. Intellectual freedom. Higher than all other personal freedom is the intellectual freedom of the individual; we notice, 1st. Religious freedom, especially freedom to profess one's belief and in the choice of one's mode of worship, a freedom which mankind, after long and grievous aberrations, has at last, with difficulty, made the portion of all. In his relations to God, man must dare to be true and upright: for God is truth and loves the truth. Nothing is more abominable in holy things than hypocrisy, and all intolerance and oppression of conscience leads to hypocrisy. The reformation broke the power of ecclesiastical authority, and freed the conscience of the church. But the people of the United States first brought the legal security of this freedom to the world in its fullest compass. The crime of heresy had earlier been done away with, but now, for the first time, the principle that one's faith should have no legal effects, and should not be a condition of his rights, came to prevail. This religious freedom certainly destroys the false unity of religious belief. It doubtless promotes the multiplicity of religious creeds and modes of worship; but all nature and the essence of the soul prove that this multiplicity, in which there is truth and life, is more pleasing to God and more fruitful to mankind than that unity, which at last sinks into a stupid absence of thought and empty formality. 2d. The scientific freedom of investigation and research. For centuries this free activity of thought and of intellectual labor was hemmed in and bound by church authority. Science would examine into everything, even religion itself, and it can not allow itself to be ruled, except by the laws of logical thought, which are of quite a different character from the power of faith in the heart. The frequently repeated objection is entirely untenable that (only objective) truth has a natural claim upon protection and to dissemination, but not error. The state has neither the means of distinguishing with any certainty an objective truth from an error, nor the power successfully to impede error, and to defend truth against doubt. History proves that governments have often sought to crush with violence supposed errors, which afterward turned out to be truths, and, on the other hand, undertook by means of punishment to defend against every attack supposed truths, which were only superstitions, both without lasting success, and to the damage of the people. Almost every discovery of a new truth has been suspected and antagonized in the beginning as a great error, and seldom has a thinker found a truth without a previous battle with traditional, and often even with his own errors, which had the appearance of truth. When the state grants freedom, it opens up, likewise, to truth, new ways. If opinions are erroneous, they call out truth, and thus error serves, though against its will, the same end as truth. The external coercion of the government, violence, is never the right means to obtain the victory of truth over error; for truth, which is spirit, can only ground and maintain itself upon its own spiritual power. A just observation of nature has a stronger power, as evidence in the domain of truth, than a hundred thousand bayonets, and the logical power of a just conclusion can not be overcome by the physical power of a hundred cannon. It is very certain that sometimes among nations might has triumphed over truth. A nation may be hindered for centuries in the perception of truth, by a mechanical pressure of state authority upon civilization and the expression of opinion, and be depressed and darkened in its intellectual life. A more rapid dissemination of a truth may, under some circumstances, be secured by the help of the authority of the government. But force is always a false means in the conflict between error and truth, and its employment in most cases works destructively, 3d. Freedom of speech, and especially the so-called freedom of the press, are in part applications of the religious freedom of creed and the scientific freedom of research, and in part a further development of intellectual freedom in general. This freedom was first acknowledged for all classes, not in the English revolution, although Milton's brilliant defense of it made a deep impression, but in 1694, when the censorship of the press was given up. As late as the year 1780 in France, where there was no freedom of the press for political discussion, the plan was seriously considered to make the entire book trade a state affair, and thus make the whole literature and every public expression of opinion dependent upon the state. The French revolution first proclaimed the freedom of the press in France in 1791, a freedom which, it is true, was later restrained. 12. Among the individual rights of freedom, we must mention the freedom which manifests itself in the peculiar manner of living of a person. John Stuart Mill observes with reason that this freedom is less restrained in our time by law than by custom and even fashion. So long as the rights of others are not violated nor public decency disregarded, every one should be allowed to live, dress and outwardly behave according to his inclination. —III. Political Freedom. We distinguish political freedom from individual freedom. 1. Municipal freedom, i.e., the independent administration of municipal affairs and the autonomy of the municipal organization within the bounds of the state's constitution and legislation, in contrast to the guardianship of the community by the government. 2. Corporate freedom, which is akin to municipal freedom, and protects the independent conduct of legal persons and corporate bodies. 3. Freedom of the state in its proper sense. Here the negative side of freedom of the state signifies the casting off of all unjust domination, whether it be that of a foreign power or of the excessive and hence despotic authority of the state itself. The positive side shows itself in self-determined participation in the life of the community. Ancient nations, especially the Greeks, were inclined to call only those states free states in which the majority of the citizens, i.e., the demos, governed themselves. Free states, in the acceptation of the ancients, are hence, particularly, non-monarchical states—republics, as they are called in modern times. The modern view, on the other hand, cares less whether the majority rules, and more whether it is politically entitled to rule and co-operates in legislation and has the control of the government. The opposite, then, of free states are absolute or despotic states. England is a free state, notwithstanding she has an hereditary dynasty; and the constitutional monarchy of to-day may claim the honorable name of a free form of government, the same as may representative democracy, while direct democracy, if it becomes absolute and oppresses the minority, ceases to be a free form of government. 4. Among the political rights of freedom which deserve special attention are the political rights of assembly and freedom of assemblies from interference. These were first acknowledged and developed in the Anglo-Saxon constitutional law of the English and Americans. Only in the most recent times have they also attained legal value in the free states of Europe. J. C. BLUNTSCHLI. FREEDOM OF LABORFREEDOM OF LABOR. If we ask the author of an able work entitled, "Freedom of Labor," (M. Dunoyer, Member of the Institute, vol. i., p. 24), what freedom is, he tells us: "What I call freedom, is the ability which man acquires of employing his powers more easily in proportion as he becomes free from the obstacles which originally interfered with their exercise. I say that he is the more free, the more he is delivered from the causes which prevented him from making use of them, the more he has removed these causes, the more he has extended the sphere of his action and cleared it from obstructions." —Endeavoring to ascertain, on the other hand, from past experience, by the aid of history, by what laws and under the influence of what causes men succeed in employing more effectually the natural forces whose operation constitutes industry or human labor, the same economist has found that it is by having greater freedom in the use of these forces, so that freedom is at the same time the cause and the result of itself, the cause and the result of power, and that these two terms, freedom and power, are correlative. —M. Dunoyer does not then consider freedom as a dogma, but he shows it in its causes, and he presents it as a result. He does not make it an attribute of man, or the result of a special form of government, but a product of the combined elements of civilization. He shows that it is primarily dependent on race, that is to say, on the nature itself of men, and the more or less favorable organization of their physical, intellectual and moral faculties: secondly, on the places on the globe where they are located, and the advantages afforded for agriculture, manufactures and commerce in the part of the earth they occupy; finally, on the greater or less advantage they have succeeded in gaining from their powers or their position. —We will not treat here of the great and numerous questions which arise as soon as one attempts to define this formidable word, freedom, but only glance at them, before returning to the kind of freedom which is the subject of this article. —Whoever speaks of labor, is, in many respects, speaking of the whole of society; so that if the phrase "freedom of labor" is not an expression for all freedom, it assuredly is for a very large part, and there are few kinds of freedom that are not embraced by it. But in economic language, a more restricted signification, though one still very broad, is given to this phrase, "freedom of labor," which expresses an opportunity given to every citizen to pursue whatever calling he wishes, be it one or several; to regulate the prices of his products and of his services according to his understanding of their value; to exchange the results of his labor at home or abroad, as may seem for his best interests: whence it appears that freedom of labor includes competition and free exchange or free trade. (See these two articles.) —Under the word COMPETITION we have shown the social benefits, and, so to speak, the regulating and providential part that competition takes in the general economy of society: the nature of the inconveniences it may accidentally present in consequence of the unfavorable circumstances in the midst of which certain countries, and, we may say, certain industries, are placed; and the blind presumption of those who have sought ways to suppress competition, to class avocations, and to distribute the public offices—in short, to organize labor, to use their own expression, or, in other terms, according to the language of economists, completely to suppress the initiative of the citizens and freedom of labor. We need not then recur to that here. We will likewise omit all considerations, which, while entering into the general subject, relate more particularly to commercial freedom. —Among persons unacquainted with economic studies, many imagine that freedom of labor exists in all branches of human activity. To be convinced of their error these have only to take into account the conditions to which most avocations are subject. In France, for example, they will find that a great number of those called liberal can not be entered without the degrees of bachelor, licentiate, doctor, etc., which are simply that compulsory apprenticeship of which Colbert spoke in his advice to Louis XIV., an apprenticeship very long and very costly. Several liberal professions in France are, moreover, positively organized into guilds, with limitations as to number and the conditions of admission: they are those of notary, stock broker, banker, merchandise broker, vendue master, etc. Several are a little less trammeled, and are not restricted by being limited as to number, though they are as to conditions of admission: they are those of barrister, physician, druggist, veterinary surgeon, teacher, etc. Others are made public functions, as that of professor and engineer. Among the industries we find, in France, butchering and baking constituted as veritable guilds in many towns; and printing, bookselling, registry offices, theatrical enterprises, public conveyances, etc., subject to a system of certificates granted by public authority. But these direct impediments are not perhaps those whose action is most effective against the principle of freedom. There are indirect ones which exercise their influence upon all branches of labor; such as the loaning of capital, the lever of commerce and the industries, encounters in the laws upon usury which fix a maximum rate of interest, those which prohibit loaning upon pledge, and those which oppose the free formation of institutions of credit. Such are the restrictions which the commercial code and the entire legislation present to the formation of the industrial and commercial associations found in three types which no longer satisfy the demands of industrial development; such are the numerous prohibitions and hundreds of lengthy laws which hinder the supply in a great number of industries, and the sale of products in very many others; such are the octrois, whose action is, in many respects, analogous; such are the systems to which the merchant marine and the colonies are subject; such are the restrictions of every nature, imposed by special laws, upon the working of mines, the duration of labor combinations, and prison and other labor, it may be by local usages, by police regulations, or by thousands of decrees and ordinances called their rules of public administration, the nomenclature of which would occupy many pages of our columns—measures, decrees and ordinances which are far from having been all inspired by sound notions of administration, prudence and justice. —Nor have we yet enumerated all. Many industries are disturbed because governments have thought they should reserve to themselves the right of carrying on certain branches of business and establishing for them national workshops. Thus it is with the hot mineral springs, the establishments for breeding fine horses, cows and sheep, the Indret establishment for articles necessary in the navy, the manufactories of fire arms, the production of Sèvres china, of Gobelin dyes and tapestry, the government printing office, the Mont de Piété (loan bank, where articles are pawned); and others besides: tobacco and snuff, saltpetre, powder and gaming cards, the production of which is in France made a monopoly for the collection of the taxes. To those who are surprised that we put these government enterprises and the administration of these taxes in the number of hindrances to the industries, it would be easy to show how a subsidized establishment, the government printing office, for example, produces in a way that is a burden to the public treasury, and discourages private industries by engrossing certain kinds of labor, and lowering the price of many products obtained. —If any one would make out for all countries such an abstract as we have just given for France, he would find analogous restrictions in each of them: much fewer, however, in England, and above all, in the United States, and very probably more in many other countries, and in proportion to their degree of civilization, for the degree of freedom is a pretty good measure of the progress realized. There are still many vestiges of the guilds in Germany and in the northern countries, although these traces are indeed disappearing every day. It was not until 1847 that the Swedish government succeeded in suppressing the masterships, wardenships and trade corporations; the class of the bourgeoisie being at length united with the three others, and having ceased to appeal to its privileges with the same tenacity. Hitherto there had been a compulsory apprenticeship, of seven years in some trades, of eleven years in others. It was not until July 1st of that year that domestic labor was completely emancipated, and that each one could, in his home, devote himself to making any articles he chose, and that every licensed dealer could sell all his products. But to start a manufactory it is still necessary to be provided with a certificate of capacity, issued by men officially selected for the purpose. The spirit which produces regulations and special privileges has not been willing to yield everything at once; it has clung to the diploma. —In North America, which may be taken as the opposite type, a citizen engaged in any industry enjoys, in the employment of his faculties and the pursuit of wealth, a freedom relatively very considerable. —We should have much to do, were we to take up, one by one, all the avocations in which freedom of labor is not entire, and to show how it would be both possible and profitable to introduce freedom into them, at once in some, by degrees in the others. We wish only to prove that the march of civilization is regulating socialism, which is slavery, by freedom, and that freedom is the polar star upon which statesmen must ever have an open eye, if they are ambitious to show themselves intelligent and skillful pilots. —M. Dunoyer, in responding in 1845 to the socialistic schools which charged freedom of labor with bringing about the gradual elevation of the opulent classes and an accelerated degradation of the laboring classes, was then right in saying: "I beg to consider how strange it must seem to see the misfortune of the laboring classes attributed to greatly increased competition, in the notorious state of imperfection in which freedom of labor and that of transactions still are. People talk of universal, unlimited competition! Where does any such really exist? In fact, there is no such thing as any truly universal competition. Do people forget that there is no civilized country where the entire mass of producers does not defend itself by double and triple lines of custom houses against the competition of foreign producers? Do they not know how far from being complete is competition, even in the interior of each country, and by how many causes it is everywhere more or less limited? In France, for example, where it is more developed than in some other places, it still encounters a multitude of obstacles; there are, we know, outside of services really public, a certain number of kinds of business, the carrying on of which the public authorities have thought should be reserved exclusively to the government; there is a still more considerable number the monopoly of which legislation has given to a limited number of individuals. Those which have been abandoned to competition are subjected to formalities, to restrictions, and to numberless trammels which prevent many persons from engaging in them; and consequently in these even, competition is far from being unlimited. Finally, there is scarcely one which is not subject to various taxes, necessary, without doubt, but sufficiently onerous for many people to be unable to pay them, and hence these kinds of business are virtually prohibited to such persons: whence it follows that competition, already limited for so many causes, is still so to a high degree by taxes. I do not state these facts here to blame any one: but in the face of such a condition of things, is it not singular to hear any one speak of universal, unlimited competition, and to witness the more or less real evils which the lower classes of society suffer attributed to excess of freedom and of competition?" —It is not possible to treat thoroughly this great question in a single article; for freedom of labor is the corollary of all the propositions which science demonstrates; and this subject is one of those whose development might well take an entire course. Indeed, M. Dunoyer was led to make almost a complete course of study on the economy of society in attempting to fathom the vast questions connected with it. We will then stop here, and conclude by quoting two passages which express our thoughts better than we could do it: "Political economy holds most strongly to the idea of freedom of labor: for freedom is the essence of human industry. What, in fact, is industry? It is not simply a muscular effort and a material operation. Industry is, above all, the action of the human mind on the physical world. Now the mind is essentially free: the mind in all its operations needs freedom, exactly as there is need of air under the wings of a bird, that it may be sustained and advance in its course." (M. Michel Chevalier, Discours au Collége de France; Journal des Economistes, Jan., 1848.)—"The natural order of human society consists in enthroning in it the law which is in correspondence with the nature of the beings of which that society is formed. These beings being free, their most natural law is the maintenance of their freedom: this is what we call justice. There are in the heart of man, and these can therefore and ought to enter into the alliance, other laws still, but none which are contrary to that. Before all else, the state is organized justice; and its first function, its most stern duty, is to insure freedom; and what freedom is there in society where labor is not free?" E. J. L., Tr. FREE-SOIL PARTYFREE-SOIL PARTY, The (IN U. S. HISTORY). The history of this party, the first one which aimed specially at the restriction of slavery to its state limits, covers a period of but about five years, 1848-52, and may best be understood by first considering the two elements which composed it, the political free-soilers and the conscientious free-soilers. —1. The political free-soilers were confined to the state of New York, and were mainly the voters of that state political organization, or "machine," of which ex-President Van Buren had long been the recognized head. (See ALBANY REGENCY.) Van Buren's defeat in the democratic convention of 1844, and the political revolution in the party which was a consequence of it, were results of southern votes and of a distinct southern question; and the first effort of the Polk administration, like every other administration of any party in a similar situation, was to encourage the building up of a new organization of its own, for the purpose of ousting the old organization from the control of the great state of New York. (See DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY, IV.; VAN BUREN, MARTIN; NEW YORK.) The old organization, however, in the present case, was too strongly entrenched to surrender power easily, and the four years of Polk's administration were marked by a progressive split in the democratic party of New York, resulting, toward 1847, in the formation of two distinct factions, the barnburners and the bunkers (See those names.) The former was the Van Buren organization, and its opposition to the administration which had supplanted it naturally took the form of opposition to the extension of slavery to the territories. It therefore fell naturally into the free-soil party on its organization. The division in the New York democratic party, though apparently healed in 1852, lasted in reality for many years further, the former "barnburners" and "hunkers" taking the names of "softs" and "hards," respectively. —2. The conscientious free-soilers were not confined to New York, but were found in every northern state, and in Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and Kentucky, in the south. They were mainly the members of the "liberty party," (see ABOLITION, II.), re-enforced, after 1844, by a part of the antislavery element which had been common, up to that year, throughout the agricultural membership of the northern democratic party. In the fall of 1847 they held a national convention at Buffalo, still under the name of the liberty party, and nominated John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, and Leicester King, of Ohio, as presidential candidates; but toward the spring of 1848 the evident division in the New York democratic party, which it was hoped would extend to other states, encouraged them to drop their nominations and take part in the formation of the "free soil party." —The democratic convention at Baltimore in 1848 was attended by delegations from both the barnburner and hunker factions, each claiming to represent the state. May 23, by a vote of 133 to 118, the convention admitted both delegations, giving half the state vote to each. Both delegations rejected the decision, and withdrew from the convention. The hunkers, satisfied with having kept their opponents out, and secure of the support of the administration, did nothing further. The barnburners met in state convention at Utica, June 22, and nominated Martin Van Buren and Henry Dodge, of Wisconsin, as presidential candidates, apparently for the purpose of maintaining their state organization, of showing their ability to control the state electoral vote, and thus of forcing some compromise which would secure for them recognition as an essential part of the New York democracy. Gen. Dodge refused to accept the nomination. —In the meantime a call had been issued for a general free-soil convention at Buffalo, Aug. 9. It was attended by 465 delegates from nearly all the free states, and from Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, eighteen states in all. For president, Martin Van Buren received 244 votes to 181 for John P. Hale, and was nominated; Charles Francis Adams was nominated for vice-president. The platform was very long, in three preambles and sixteen resolutions. The preambles declared the delegates' independence of the slave power, their secession from the democracy; their inability to join the whigs, who, in nominating Taylor, had "abandoned their distinctive principles for mere availability"; and their determination to secure "free soil to a free people." The resolutions declared in general that slavery in the states was valid by state laws, for which the federal government was not responsible; but that congress had "no more power to make a slave than to make a king," and hence was bound to restrict slavery to the slave states, and to refuse it admission to the territories. In the election of 1848 for president the new party cast 291,263 votes, a great but deceptive advance on the liberty party's vote in 1844. It was entirely a free state vote, except 9 in Virginia, 80 in Delaware, and 125 in Maryland. Outside of New York the free-soilers outnumbered the democrats in Massachusetts and Vermont, and gave the votes of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin to the democratic candidates by small pluralities, in New York they polled 120,510 votes to 114,318 votes for Cass and Butler, and gave the electoral votes of the state to the whig candidates. Both elements of the free-soil party were thus satisfied; the conscientious free-soilers, frequently called "abolitionists," had punished and demoralized the whig party, and the political free-soilers, commonly called "night soilers" by their hunker opponents, had punished and demoralized the democratic party. The principal result of the congressional elections of the same year was that the New York delegation was changed from 10 democrats and 24 whigs (in 1847-9) to 1 democrat, 1 free-soiler, and 32 whigs (in 1849-51). —In congress the free-soil representatives at once took separate ground, apart from both whigs and democrats. In the 31st congress they numbered 2 in the senate, (Hale and S. P. Chase), and in the lower house 14, including Preston King, of New York, J. R. Giddings, Lewis D. Campbell and Joseph M. Root, of Ohio, Geo. W. Julian, of Indiana, David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania (see WILMOT PROVISO), and Horace Mann, of Massachusetts. In the 32d congress (1851-8) they had 3 in the senate, Charles Sumner having taken his seat there, and 17 in the house. In the 33d congress (185-5) the free-soilers in the senate numbered from 3 to 5; in the house they had about the same number. After that time they were swallowed up in the sudden rise of the anti-Nebraska tide. (See REPUBLICAN PARTY.) —Negotiations between the political free-soilers and the other democratic faction in New York began again (if they had ever really ceased) in 1849. Both factions attended the state convention of that year, and united in the nomination of state candidates and in the adoption of a vague and indefinite resolution on the slavery question. In 1850 the state convention went further, and passed a resolution that it was "proud to avow its fraternity with and devotion to" the principles of the democratic national convention of 1848. Against this resolution the political free-soilers, headed by John Van Buren, could now muster but twenty votes. The result was the absorption of the Van Buren faction into the state democratic party, and the reduction of the free-soil vote of New York in 1852 to its real limits. The breach in the state democracy was thus closed, but never really healed. —In 1852 the national convention of both the whig and the democratic parties accepted the compromise of 1850 (see COMPROMISES, V.) in all its parts. The free-soilers therefore held a convention at Pittsburg, Aug 11, 1852, with delegates from all the free states, and from Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and Kentucky. Their recent New York allies were not represented. Henry Wilson, of Massachusetts, presided; the platform of 1848 was enlarged to twenty-two resolutions, and John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, and George W. Julian, of Indiana, were nominated as presidential candidates. The platform of the "free democratic party" denounced slavery as "a sin against God and a crime against man;" it denounced "both the whig and the democratic wings of the great slave compromise party of the nation;" and it repudiated the compromise of 1850, and demanded the repeal of the fugitive slave law. In the presidential election of 1852 the free-soilers cast but 156,149 votes, all in northern states excepting 62 in Delaware, 54 in Maryland, 265 in Kentucky, and 59 in North Carolina. In all the northern states, except Iowa, the free-soil vote was slightly decreased, owing mainly to the party's rejection of the compromise of 1850; in New York it had fallen to 25,329, the real free-soil vote, apart from its political allies in that state. —After the election of 1852 the free-soilers shared in the general suspension of political animation which followed. In 1854 they opposed the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and in 185-6 were absorbed by the newly formed republican party. The 34th congress, when it met in December, 1855, contained democrats, whigs, anti-Nebraska men, free-soilers, and Americans or know-nothings; before February, 1856, there were only republicans, democrats and Americans, and the whig and free-soil parties had disappeared from congress. —The principles of the free-soil party as to slavery restriction were identical with those of the great and successful republican party which followed it, and yet the former, from 1846 until 1854, probably never really gained 10,000 votes in the entire country. Its lack of success was due in part to its insistence upon strict construction in other matters than slavery, while the republican party was generally broad construction; but the principal reason was, that the country was not yet ready for it. Some such measure as the Kansas-Nebraska bill was an essential prerequisite to the formation of a successful anti-slavery party, and opposition to that particular measure required broad construction views of the powers of congress. (See NATION; DEMOCRATIC PARTY, IV.; REPUBLICAN PARTY, I.; WILMOT PROVISO; ABOLITION, II.; SLAVERY..) —See 16 Benton's Debates of Congress; 1 Greeley's American Conflict, 191, 223; 2 Wilson's Rise and Fall of the Slace Power, 129, 140, 150; International Review, August, 1881, (G. W. Julian's Reminiscences of the 31st Congress); Giddings' History of the Rebellion, 283, 357; 2 Benton's Thirty Years' View, 723; Schuckers' Life of S. P. Chase; Gardiner's Historical Sketch of the Free-Soil Question (to 1848); 27 Democratic Review, 531; Tribune Almanac, 1849-55; D. S. Dickinson's Speeches; authorities under articles referred to; the platforms of the party in full are in Greeley's Political Text Book of 1860, 17, 21. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON. FREE TRADEFREE TRADE, in the sense in which the term is generally used, may be regarded as the expression of a principle in political economy, which holds that the prosperity of a state or nation can best be promoted and maintained by freeing the exchange of all commodities and services between its own people and the people of other nations and countries, to the greatest extent possible, from all interferences and obstructions of an arbitrary, artificial character, the results of legislation in deference to either prejudice or the demands of special or private interests. In its broadest sense, free trade, as the expression of an economic principle, is, however, susceptible of a much wider and more complex definition. It was concretely and somewhat sentimentally, but at the same time truthfully, defined by Chevalier, the eminent French economist, to be "the free exercise of human power and faculties in all commercial and professional life"; and as "the liberty of labor in its grandest proportions." As represented by its leading advocates, it does not, furthermore, content itself with merely antagonizing the arbitrary restriction of the commercial intercourse of a particular country with foreign countries for the purpose of stimulating or directing the domestic industries of the former; but regarding in the light of an economic axiom, the proposition "that that government is best which governs least," it also favors the restriction of the functions of government or the state to the narrowest limits consistent with the establishment and maintenance of liberty and order, the protection of life and property, the dispensation of justice, and the providing for the common defense and the general welfare of the people governed. Free trade, accordingly, embraces within the sphere of its opposition and condemnation a great variety of forms of economic interferences on the part of the state other than those pertaining to international exchanges, and of which the following—some happily now almost obsolete, but others still existing—may be mentioned as illustrations, to wit: the arbitrary regulation by statute (usury laws) of the price and loan of money, or conjointly and consistently (as in old times), the price of commodities.18 or (as formerly by guilds and statutes and latterly by trade associations) of the price of labor, or wages; all interference (as in England) with the free transfer and sale of land; and with the business of banking and dealing in credits, independent of the making and issue of currency; the proscription from office, business or pursuit by reason of sect or religious belief (as the present proscription of the Jews in Russia from agriculture); the continued payment by the state, from the proceeds of general taxation, of bounties, for the promotion of special domestic industries (as in the case of the beet root sugar manufacture in Europe and the French system of bounties on shipping); the inhibition (as in the United States) on foreigners from the investment of capital in American shipping; and the maintenance of navigation laws for the purpose of industrial and commercial restriction. These, and many other examples which might be cited, are all violations of the spirit if not of the correct theory of free trade; but as in the popular mind, and especially in the sphere of politics, the idea of free trade is associated almost exclusively with the freedom of international exchanges, any discussion of the subject for the purpose of affirmation or explanation from any other than this standpoint, is neither customary nor expedient, and will not here be attempted. —The Relations of Free Trade and Protection. Free trade as an economic principle, or politico-commercial system, is the direct opposite to the so-called principle or system of protection, which maintains, on the contrary, that a state or nation can most surely and rapidly attain a high degree of material prosperity by "protecting" or shielding its domestic industries from the competitive sale or exchange of the products of all similar foreign industries; the same to be effected either by direct legislative prohibition of foreign commerce, or by the imposition of such discriminating taxes (duties) on imports as shall, through a consequent enhancement of prices, interfere to a greater or less extent with their introduction, free exchange and consumption. An explanation of either of the terms free trade or protection involves, therefore, a presentation of the arguments, based on theory or experience, which may be adduced in support of the respective economic systems of which they are the expressions, and a review of the premises of the one almost necessarily requires a conjoint statement of the claims of the other. —Relation of Free Trads as an Economic System to Taxation and Revenue. It is also desirable to clearly appreciate at the outset of any explanation of the subject under consideration, the relation which "free trade" and "protection," regarded as economic systems, sustain to taxation and revenue; a point about which (at least in the United States) there is no little of popular misapprehension, which in turn has doubtless been often intentionally encouraged by a common assertion of the advocates of protection, that "the adoption of free trade as a national fiscal policy necessarily involves a resort on the part of the state to direct taxation as a means of obtaining revenue." The truth in respect to this matter is, however, as follows: The command of a constant and adequate revenue being absolutely essential to the existence of organized government, the power to compel contributions from the people governed, or, as we term it, "to tax," is inherent in every sovereignty, and rests upon necessity. The question of the obtaining of such revenue obviously, therefore, is the question of first importance in the economy of a state, the one in comparison with which all others are subordinate; for without revenue no governmental machinery for the protection of life and property, the dispensing of justice and the providing for the common defense could long be efficiently maintained. The soldier and policeman guard, while the laborer performs his labor in safety. So far, the advocates of free trade and protection fully agree. The former, however, maintain that in the exercise of this power the object of the tax should be rigidly restricted to the defraying of legitimate public expenditures, or, in other words, that taxes should be levied for revenue purposes exclusively, and that, subject to such limitations, the question as to what forms taxation had best assume—whether direct or indirect, tariff or excise, on incomes or property—becomes one of mere experience and expediency in every instance; preference being always given to those forms which involve the least waste, cost and personal annoyances in collection, which are most productive of revenue, and interpose the minimum of interference and restriction on commercial intercourse. Free trade as an economic principle is not, therefore, as is often assumed and supposed, necessarily antagonistic to the imposition of duties on imports, provided the end sought to be attained is simply revenue, and the circumstances of the state render such form of taxation expedient. Protection, on the other hand, on the ground of advantages accruing directly or incidentally, advocates and defends the imposition of taxes on imports for purposes other than those of revenue. Protection, therefore, to the exact extent to which it attains its object, is obviously antagonistic to revenue, inasmuch as revenue is received only on those commodities which come in, while protection is secured only when the importation of commodities is restricted or made difficult. —A Tariff for Revenue with Incidental Protection. The adjustment of a tariff for revenue in such a way as to afford what is termed "incidental protection"—an idea much favored by American politicians—is based on the supposition that by arranging a scale of duties so moderate as only to restrict and not prevent importations, it is possible to secure a sufficiency of revenue for the state, and at the same time stimulate domestic manufactures by increasing the price of competitive foreign products. That the double object thus aimed at is capable of attainment can not be doubted, but that the project is also one of the most costly of all methods of raising revenue will become evident, if it is remembered, that while revenue to the state accrues only from the tax levied on what is imported, another tax, arising from the increase of price consequent upon the tariff on imports, will also be paid by the nation upon all domestic products that are sold and consumed in competition with such imports; and this latter tax, which will not pass into the public treasury, may, and probably will, be much greater than the former. A tariff for revenue so adjusted as to afford incidental protection is therefore a system which requires the consumers, who are the people, to pay much in order that the state may receive little. So little accustomed, however, are the people of the United States (in common with those of other countries) to reason on this subject, and so intentionally have they been misinformed, that indirect taxation of the character indicated, with its two-fold and unnecessary burdens, one seen and the other unseen, is almost universally regarded as far preferable to any more direct, simple and less onerous system. In this respect, therefore, the ideas of the people of the nineteenth century are analogous to those of the fourteenth, who regarded filth as undesirable mainly by reason of and in proportion to its sensible offensiveness, and who by ignoring its unseen and subtle influences, and resorting to perfumery rather than to sanitary measures as remedies, made sure of the coming and continuance of pestilence. On the other hand, when taxes under a tariff are imposed on imports which do not compete for sale and consumption with any similar products of the importing country, then in such cases the entire proceeds of the tax, less the expense of collecting, accrue to the benefit of the state, and no further unseen or unnecessary burden of taxation is made contingent. But very curiously, under the existing (1882) fiscal and economic policy of the United States, such articles—as for example, tea and coffee—have been especially selected by statute, for exemption from taxation on importation. —What is a Tariff for Revenue Only? A tariff for revenue only is a tax on commodities brought from foreign countries, in order to secure revenue. It is based on the assumptions, that some indirect form of taxation is advisable, that the form in question is expedient, if not the best, and that the government should receive all the taxes paid by the people. It is levied in such a way as to carefully avoid all protection, and to bring into the public treasury all that accrues from the payment of the tax. The existing tariff of Great Britain is a revenue tariff, answering to this definition. Under this tariff, ordinary import duties are levied upon only six articles or classes of articles, none of which, it is assumed, are the product of the United Kingdom, viz., cocoa, tea, chicory, dried fruits, tobacco and wine. The other duties are levied to countervail excise or other inland taxes, which are imposed for purposes of revenue upon corresponding British productions; as for example, distilled spirits in various forms, malt liquors, gold and silver plate, playing cards, etc. Full details of the nature and amount of these "countervailing" tariff taxes may be found in the "Statistical Abstract" of the United Kingdom, published annually by authority. Under the operation of this tariff is constituted what is called "British free trade." It is not, however, absolute free trade in the sense that free trade exists in the United States between the different states and sections of the federal Union. With these preliminary statements, the essential points of the argument in favor of free trade, as contradistinguished from protection, may be stated as follows. —The Highest Right of Property. The highest right of property is the right to exchange it for other property. That this must be so will at once appear, if it is remembered that, if all exchange of property were forbidden, or by circumstances rendered impossible, each individual would be assimilated in condition to Robinson Crusoe on his uninhabited island; that is, he would be restricted to subsisting on what he individually produced or collected, be deprived of all benefits of co-operation with his fellow-men, and of all advantages of production derived from diversity of skill or diversity of natural circumstances. In the absence of all freedom of exchange between man and man, civilization would obviously be impossible; and it would also seem to stand to reason that to the degree in which we impede or obstruct the freedom of exchange, or, what is the same thing, commercial intercourse, to that same degree we oppose the development of civilization. —To Restrict Exchanges reaffirms the Principle of Slavery. Any system of law which denies to an individual the right freely to exchange the products of his labor, by declaring that A may trade on equal terms with B, but shall not under equally favorable circumstances trade with C, reaffirms in effect the principle of slavery and violates liberty. For certainly no man can be free who, by arbitrary enactment, is not allowed, in trying to exchange his product for another, to obtain all that the laws of value acting freely would give him; or who has some part of the product of his labor arbitrarily taken from him for the use and enjoyment of some other man who has not earned it. But this is exactly what slavery and a protective tariff alike do; only the one works openly, and the other covertly and indirectly. The argument that is generally put forth by the advocates of the policy of protection, in justification of legislation restricting freedom of exchange, or in defense of the pithily expressed proposition that "it is better to compel an individual to buy a hat for five dollars, rather than to allow him to purchase it for three," is, that any present loss or injury resulting from such restriction to the individual will be more than compensated to him, or to society, through some future and indirect accruing benefit. But it should be borne in mind that this is the same argument that has always been made use of in past times as a warrant for every crime against liberty; more especially in defense of slavery, in vindication of persecution by state or church for heresy or unbelief, for the establishment of state religions and enforced conformity thereto, and for all arbitrary restrictions on speech or the press. It ought not therefore to be a matter of surprise, that the intellectuality of this latter third of the nineteenth century, recognizing the antagonism of any other position to the great cause of human progress, should have ranged itself by an overwhelming majority on the side of industrial and commercial freedom, equally and for like reasons and motives as it has on the side of intellectual, religious and political freedom; that no man intellectually great by general acknowledgment, who has given any special attention to this subject, and who is not avowedly working in the interests of despotism, or private gain, can be pointed out in either hemisphere, that is not unqualifiedly in favor of removing speedily and to the greatest extent compatible with the requirements of governments for revenue, all restrictions on the commercial intercourse of both nations and individuals; and that there is not to-day a first-class college or institution of learning in the whole world which would admit or invite to its chair of political economy a person who theoretically believed in the theory or expediency of restricting exchanges as a means of increasing popular welfare and abundance. —Unconstitutionality of Protection as a National Policy in the United States. In countries having a despotic government, there is no restraint on the adoption of any fiscal or economic policy on the part of the state. But in countries where the government is free, or based on the consent of the governed, and where the powers of the state are limited by a written constitution, or by the principles which are naturally inherent in, and essential to this form of government, it becomes an interesting question as to the right of such a government to levy discriminating taxes for the purposes of protection, or for purposes other than for defraying public expenditures, even though any injustice thereby done to the individual is more than compensated by some indirect benefit to the entire community. In short, is not this one of those acts of procedure on the part of the state which is antagonistic to the principles of a free government, and which, fully recognized and broadly carried out, will of necessity be utterly destructive of it? and in respect to which, as in the case of a tax to support an established church, or of a law compelling every man to help catch a fugitive slave, the dissent and resistance of even one citizen makes unjust any enactment authorizing such procedure? In the case of the United States this question has recently been considered and passed upon by its highest judicial tribunal, under the following circumstances: In 1872 the legislature of Kansas passed a law authorizing counties and towns of that state "to encourage the establishment of manufactories and such other enterprises as may tend to develop" such county or city, by the direct appropriation of money, or by the issue of bonds to any amount that the local authorities might consider expedient; and under this act the city of Topeka created and issued its bonds to the extent of $100,000 and gave the same "as a donation," a majority of voters approving, to an iron bridge company, as a consideration for establishing and operating their shops within the limits of the city. The interest coupons first due on these bonds were promptly paid by the city out of a fund raised by taxation for that purpose, but subsequently, when the second coupons became due and the bonds had passed out of the possession of the bridge company by bona fide sale to a loan association, the city refused to meet its obligations, on the ground that the legislature of Kansas had no authority under the constitution of the state to authorize the issue of bonds, the interest and principal of which were to be paid from the proceeds of taxes, for any such purpose as the encouragement of manufacturing enterprises. Legal proceedings to enforce payment were thereupon commenced by the bondholders in the United States circuit court, and judgment having been there given for the city, the case was appealed to the United States supreme court, where with only one dissenting voice (Judge Clifford) the judgment of the lower court was affirmed, the opinion of the court and the principles upon which it was based being given by Mr. Justice Miller. From this opinion attention is asked to the following extracts, reference being made, for the benefit of those who desire a more complete statement, to the report in full, 20 Wallace, pp. 655-668: "It must be conceded that there are rights in every free government beyond the control of the state. A government which recognized no such rights, which held the lives, the liberty and the property of its citizens subject at all times to the absolute disposition and unbounded control of even the most democratic depository of power, is after all but a despotism. It is true it is a despotism of the many, of the majority, if you choose to call it so, but it is none the less a despotism." * * * "The theory of our governments, state and national, is opposed to the deposit of unlimited power anywhere. The executive, the legislative and the judicial branches of these governments are all of limited and defined powers. There are limitations of such powers which grow out of the essential nature of all free governments—implied reservations of individual rights, without which the social compact could not exist, which are respected by all governments entitled to the name." * * * "Of all the powers conferred upon the government that of taxation is most liable to abuse. Given a purpose or object for which taxation may be lawfully used, and the extent of its exercise is in its very nature unlimited. This power can as readily be employed against one class of individuals and in favor of another, so as to ruin the one class and give unlimited wealth and prosperity to the other, if there are no implied limitations of the uses for which the power may be exercised. To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less robbery because it is done under the forms of the law and is called taxation. This is not legislation; it is a decree under legislative forms. Nor is it taxation. Beyond a cavil there can be no lawful tax which is not laid for a public purpose." * * * "It may not be easy to draw the line in all cases so as to decide what is a public purpose in this sense and what is not. But in the case before us, in which towns are authorized to contribute aid by way of taxation to any class of manufacturers, there is no difficulty in holding that this is not such a public purpose as we have been considering. If it be said that a benefit results to the local public of a town by establishing manufactures, the same may be said of any other business or pursuit which employs capital or labor. The merchant, the mechanic, the innkeeper, the banker, the builder, the steamboat owner, are equally promoters of the public good and equally deserving the aid of the citizens by forced contributions. No line can be drawn in favor of the manufacturer which would not open the public treasury to the importunities of two-thirds of the business men of the city or town." —Here then we have, from the supreme court of the United States, a decision as recent as 1874, defining the limitation of the power of taxation "growing out," as it was expressed, "of the essential nature of a free government"; and which would seem to admit of no other construction than that taxation for "protection," or for the aid of private interests engaged in manufacturing or other business, is beyond the province of the legislative power of either the national or state governments of the federal Union; and when imposed, to use the exact language of the court, "is none the less robbery because it is done under the forms of law, and is called taxation." Other judicial authorities in the United States to whom weight is accorded, have also concurred in this opinion. Thus, Thomas M. Cooley, one of the justices of the supreme court of Michigan, and professor of law in the university of that state, in his work, "Principles of Constitutional Law," (p 57), thus defines the limits of taxation under the constitution of the United States: "Constitutionally a tax can have no other basis than the raising of a revenue for public purposes, and whatever governmental exaction has not this basis is tyrannical and unlawful. A tax on imports, therefore, the purpose of which is not to raise a revenue, but to discourage and indirectly prohibit some particular import for the benefit of some home manufacture, may well be questioned as being merely colorable, and, therefore, not warranted by constitutional principles." The question at issue has also formed the subject of review by the supreme court of the state of Maine, and the following are extracts from the opinions given by the members of this tribunal respecting the limitations on the powers of a free government to impose taxes: "No public exigency can require private spoliation for the private benefit of favored individuals. If the citizen is protected in his property by the constitution against the public, much more is he against private rapacity." "If it were proposed to pass an act enabling the inhabitants of the several towns by vote to transfer the farms, or the horses, or oxen, or a part thereof, from the rightful owner or owners to some manufacturer whom the majority might select, the monstrousness of such proposed legislation would be transparent. But the mode by which property would be taken from one or many and given to another or others, can make no difference in the underlying principle. It is the taking that constitutes the wrong, no matter how taken." "Taxation," said the chief justice (in giving an opinion adverse to the right of a town to grant aid, under a permissible statute of the state legislature, to a manufacturing enterprise), "by the very meaning of the term, implies the raising of money for public uses, and excludes the raising if for private objects and purposes. 'I concede,' says Black, C. J., in Sharpless vs. Mayor, 21 Penn., 167, 'that a law authorizing taxation for any other than public purposes is void.'" "No authority or even dictum can be found," observes Dillon, C. J., in Hanson vs. Vernon, 27 Iowa, 28, "which asserts that there can be any legitimate taxation, when the money to be raised does not go into the public treasury, or is not destined for the use of the government or some of the governmental divisions of the state." "If there is any proposition about which there is an entire and uniform weight of judicial authority, it is that taxes are to be imposed for the use of the people of the state in the varied and manifold purposes of government, and not for private objects or the special benefit of individuals. Taxation originates from and is imposed by and for the state." "Our government is based on equality of right. The state can not discriminate among occupations, for a discrimination in favor of one is a discrimination adverse to all others. While the state is bound to protect all, it ceases to give that just protection when it affords undue advantages, or gives special and exclusive preferences to particular individuals and particular and special industries at the cost and charge of the rest of the community." —Free Trade Natural; Protection Artificial. The general result for which all men labor, is to increase the abundance or diminish the scarcity of those things which are essential to their subsistence, comfort and happiness. Different individuals are endowed with different natural capacities for making the various forces of nature and varieties of matter available for production. One man is naturally fitted to excel as a farmer, another as a mechanic, a third as a navigator, a fourth as a miner, engineer, builder, or organizer and director of society, and the like. The different countries of the earth likewise exhibit great diversity as respects soil, climate, natural products and opportunity. It would seem clear, therefore, in order that there may be the greatest material abundance, that each individual must follow that line of production for which he is best fitted by natural capacity or circumstances; and that, for the determination of what that line shall be, the promptings of individual self-interest and experience are a far better guide than any enactments of legislatures and rulers possible can be; and, finally, that the greatest possible facility should be afforded to producers for the interchange of their several products and services. So true, indeed, are these propositions, that mankind in their progress from the rudest and most incipient social organizations to higher degrees of civilization, invariably act in accordance with them, and, as it were, instinctively. Robinson Crusoe upon his uninhabited island and the solitary settler in the remote wilderness follow, of necessity, a great variety of occupations, as those of the farmer, hunter, builder, blacksmith, fisherman, tailor, and the like. But as rapidly as the association of others in the same neighborhood admits, the solitary man abandons his former diversity of employment, and devotes himself, more or less exclusively, to a single department of industry, supplying his want of those things which he does not himself produce, by exchanging the surplus product of his own labor for the surplus product of others' labor, who follow different industries. It is to be further observed that settlements in all new countries commence, if possible, in close proximity to navigable waters, so as to take advantage of natural facilities for intercommunication between man and man for the purpose of exchanging services or commodities; and that if commenced inland, one of the first efforts of the new society is the construction of a path or road, which will enable its members to hold communication with some other settlements or societies. Next, as population and production increase, the rude path or trail gives way to a well-defined road, the ford to a bridge, the swamp to a causeway, the pack carried upon the backs of men and animals to the wagon drawn by horses, the wagon to the railway car, the boat propelled by oars and sails to the boat propelled by steam, and finally the telegraph, annihilating space and time; all efforts and achievements having the single object of facilitating intercommunication between man and man, and removing obstructions in the way of interchanging human services and commodities. Free exchange between man and man, or, what is the same thing, free trade, is therefore action in accordance with the teachings of nature. Protection, on the other hand, is an attempt to make things other than nature designed. Free trade, or the interchange of commodities and services with the minimum of obstruction, by rendering commodities cheap, tends to promote abundance. Protection, by interference or placing obstructions in the way of exchanges, tends to increase the cost of commodities to the consumer, and thereby promotes scarcity. —So instinctively and so universally, moreover, does human nature, when left free to follow its own instincts, repudiate every idea that there can be anything in the nature of a principle in the doctrine of protection growing out of the natural order of things, that it would probably be impossible to find a single sane person who did not consider it a privilege to satisfy his legitimate and rational wants at the smallest price, or the minimum of effort, and make haste to embrace the opportunity. Again, if a person says "he is not in favor of free trade," (by which is to be understood, in accordance with the definitions before given, the removal of all restrictions on the exchange of commodities and services, except such as governments after careful inquiry may deem it expedient to institute for the sake of revenue, or for sanitary or moral considerations) then it stands to reason, unless he utters words and cant phrases without any idea of their meaning, that he must be in favor of trade that is not free, that is, of restricted trade, or no trade at all; for there are no other alternatives. But does anybody know of any one who is not in favor of good roads and bridges, of swift and safe lines of railroads and steamships, of telegraphs and newspapers? But roads and bridges, and steamships and railroads, and telegraphs and newspapers, are merely agencies for effecting and facilitating the interchange of ideas and commodities; and it amounts to precisely the same general result, whether we make the interchange of commodities costly and difficult by interposing deserts, swamps, unbridged streams, bad roads or bands of robbers between producers and consumers, or whether, for the benefit of some private interest that has done nothing to merit it, we impose a toll on the commodities transported, and call it a tariff. A 20 per cent. duty may fairly be considered as the representative equivalent of a bad road; a 50 per cent., of a broad, deep and rapid river, without any proper facilities for crossing; a 75 per cent., a swamp flanking such a river on both sides; while a 100 per cent. duty and upward, such as levied on some articles under the existing (1882) tariff of the United States, may be compared in effect to the present condition of affairs in Central Africa, where the lack of facilities for movement, combined with insecurity for life and property, enhance the cost or price of transported commodities to the highest degree consistent with their entering into consumption, or act as a complete restriction. In all such instances, whether the obstructions be natural or artificial, the general result is the same, namely, there is a greater effort and an increased cost required to produce a given result, and a diminution of the abundance of the things which minister to everybody's necessities, comfort and happiness. —Examples derived from the actual experience of the United States, will further serve to illustrate and enforce this argument. Upon the coast of Nova Scotia, within a short distance of the United States, there are coal mines of great value, which unlike any others in the whole world, are located so advantageously in respect to ocean navigation that, almost by the action of gravity alone, the coal may be delivered from the mouth of the pit upon the deck of the vessel. Now, for years the government of the United States imposed a tax on the landing of this coal within its territory, of $1.25 per ton. But if we assume that coal upon a well-managed railroad can be transported for one cent per ton per mile, the effect of this tax upon the people of New England and New York, who under natural circumstances would find it to their profit to use this coal, is precisely equivalent to the removal of these mines from a point on the coast of Nova Scotia, to a location 125 miles inland. And it would also seem to stand to reason that if the removal of these mines 125 miles into the interior was a benefit to the people of the United States, a further augmentation of their distance from the seaboard to 500 or 1,000 miles would be a still greater blessing, and that their absolute annihilation would be the superlative good of all. Some years ago an English engineer, Mr. Bessemer, devised a new process for the manufacture of steel. He did not claim to make anything new; he did not claim to make steel of a quality superior to what was made before; but he did succeed in showing mankind how to make an article indispensable in the work of production cheap, which was before dear. Immediately on the assured success of the invention, the advocates of protection in the United States asked congress to impose such a duty on the import of this steel as would, through a consequent increase of its price to American consumers in a great degree neutralize the only benefit accruing from the discovery and use of the new process, namely, its cheapness, and they succeeded in obtaining, and still (1882) retain, a duty that in a great degree accomplishes such a result. In the spring of 1880 the northwestern states of the federal Union experienced snow storms of unusual severity, which greatly impeded all means of intercommunication. From a protectionist point of view these storms could not legitimately have been regarded in the light of a calamity; for they afforded, in the first instance, occupation to a very large number of laborers in digging out the railroad tracks, who otherwise would have had to seek other employments, or perhaps have had none whatever. A large number of locomotives and cars were also injured; and somebody had to be paid for putting them again in order, which may be set down as benefit No. 2. And finally, for lack of ability to transport the commodities necessary for subsistence, the dealers in coal, provisions and other merchandise were enabled to dispose of their stocks at high prices, and so realized unusual profits. Or, in other words, they had created for them, by act of nature, an exceedingly profitable home market of precisely the same character as that which a high tariff creates. Of course, with such beneficial results, everybody ought to have been contented. But so far from this being the case, everybody regarded the condition of affairs in the light of a national calamity. The complaints were loudest in those sections where, by the unexpected restrictions on intercommunication, the discomfort and even suffering from the scarcity of useful things—food and fuel—was greatest; and the conductors of the newspapers of the country, following their instincts, and forgetting for a time their economic views, were unanimous in hoping that the serious obstructions to business occasioned by the snow (tariff) would not long continue. If, however, the people who had found profitable employment in shoveling snow, repairing broken machinery, and in selling the necessaries of life at famine prices, could have been consulted, they might possibly have been found in favor of frequent and long continued snow-blockades, and ready to denounce as unpractical theorists, unpatriotic, and even corrupt, all those entertaining a contrary opinion. —From the above propositions and examples it would seem evident that the direct effect of a protective duty, when it is really operative, is to compel, on the part of the community employing such an agency, a resort to more difficult and costly conditions of production for the protected article; and also that when a community adopts the protective policy it commits itself to the indorsement of the principle that the creation and maintenance of obstacles is equivalent to, or the surest method of creating material abundance, and the development of natural wealth. But if this policy be correct, then the country "which is the hardest to get at has the most advantageous situation; pirates and shipwrecks contribute to national prosperity by reason of the increased price of freights and insurance; and improvements in navigation and railroads are injurious." Such conclusions would seem to be too absurd to require serious refutation; but that people of reputed intelligence and prominent station practically indorse them, is proved by the utterances and teachings of men prominently identified with the protectionist policy in the United States, where protection has been made for many years a prominent feature in the national fiscal system, and, as it is claimed, with success. Thus, for example, the late Henry C. Carey, who stands in relation to the modern doctrine of "protection" very much the same as the prophet Mohammed does to the religion of Islam, expressed the opinion, over and over again, that the interests of the United States—material and moral—would be greatly benefited if the Atlantic could be converted into an impassable ocean of fire, and also that a prolonged war between Great Britain and the United States would be of the greatest possible benefit to the latter country. Horace Greeley favored the imposition of a duty of $100 per ton (above 500 per cent.) on the importation of pig-iron into the United States, and referred to the statement as illustrating his idea of the kind of a tariff that this country needed; or, in other words, he favored the practical prohibition of exchanges with foreign countries. With consistency, also, he was opposed to internal exchanges of the products of labor, when the transactions involved any extensive transportation of the things exchanged. "When a railroad," he said, "brings artisans to the door of the farmer, it is a blessing. When it takes the wheat, the flesh, the corn and the cotton to a distant manufacturing centre, a locomotive is an exhauster; its smoke is a black flag, and its whistle is the scream of an evil genius." The university of Pennsylvania, which claims to rank among the first educational institutions of the United States, teaches, through its approved text books (in 1882), that "commerce between distant points is an undesirable thing"; that it is not expedient that the United States should have any foreign commerce; and that "if there were no other reasons for the policy which seeks to reduce foreign commerce to a minimum, a sufficient one would be found in the effect on the human material it employs." Again, in a debate in the United States house of representatives, in 1882, on a proposition to revise the consular system with a view of making its provisions less onerous to American shipping, one Hiscock, a representative from the great commercial state of New York, after admitting that the existing system was "complex and to some extent cumbersome," and "an obstruction to the importation of foreign commodities," declared himself in favor of its continuance, and solely for the latter reason. These incidents are here introduced, because they afford to one seeking information respecting the opposing theories of free trade and protection, a clear insight into the real animus of the sincere advocates of protection in the United States in the latter third of the nineteenth century; and further because unless they are put on record at a time nearly contemporaneous with their occurrence, they may, in the not very remote future, be regarded as incredible and fictitious. —The Practical as contradistinguished from the Theoretical Rule of Free Trade. Such then, is a summary of the facts and arguments which can be adduced in support of "free trade," considered from the standpoint of theory, or abstract principle. These facts and arguments are in themselves so clear and cogent, and so thoroughly in accordance with common sense and natural human instincts, that it does not seem possible for a person of fair intellectual ability, who is not predisposed to despotism as a form of government, or whose mind at the outset is not warped by prejudice, to study and understand the subject thoroughly without giving his hearty allegiance to at least the theory of free trade. And it is the testimony of nearly all instructors in colleges and other institutions of learning where the subject is taught thoroughly, and personal inquiry and discussion is permitted and stimulated, that such is the experience of nine-tenths of their students; and that the other one-tenth would be also in the same way of thinking if they cared to think at all, or were not influenced by personal considerations. Furthermore, the advocates of the protective theory rarely attempt to meet the facts and arguments as here presented: neither are they willing to even discuss the subject from the purely theoretic or abstract standpoint. But they evade and shift the question at issue, by asserting that the industries of a country ought not to be defined or regulated by merely economic reasons; that other interests—political or social—which are peculiar to each country or nation ought and necessarily do come in, to materially modify the universal and undeviating application of the free trade principle. Or, as the chairman of a convention of protectionists which assembled in New York in November, 1881, popularly expressed it in his opening address, "We plant ourselves on protection as a matter of fact. The professors tell us that free trade is perfect in theory, but it can't be applied to us. It would not correspond with the facts." The same idea, but expressed somewhat differently, is also embodied in the assertions that are frequently made by protectionists in the United States, that there is no such thing as a definite system or science of political economy; that every nation, owing to differences in natural conditions and habits and customs, has necessarily a system of its own; that all talk about the independence of nations and the brotherhood of man is mere sentiment, and that historical experiences and reasoning from general principles amount to nothing. In short, it is proclaimed that every nation must have an economic system of its own, the result of its own wants and experiences, and that in the United States, as well as in all other countries, it is only necessary for the nation to determine what are its peculiar interests and pursue them, to do exactly right. It is not necessary to here discuss these assumptions and propositions further than to remark that nothing can be more absurd and unfounded than the assertion which to a certain extent has become popular (in the United States) that a thing may be true in theory and yet false in application or practice. A theory is simply an exposition of the general principles of any art or process; and if the exposition or theory is really true, then it must of necessity be true in its application or practice; and any one who asserts to the contrary simply uses words without any conception of their meaning. And as for the proposition that there is no such thing as general principles in economic science, but that every nation has a system of its own and determines its own economic laws, the legitimate inference and the one which protectionists accept, and of necessity must accept, is, that the drawing of an artificial arbitrary line on the surface of the globe and calling one side Canada and the other side Ohio, or one portion of territory the United States and the other England, of itself is sufficient to invalidate conclusions based on sound reasoning and careful experience, and make a course of action which is universally acknowledged to be a blessing in one case, a curse and a calamity in another. But for the purpose of facilitating this investigation and helping to speedily and clearly get at the truth, it is expedient to meet the advocates of the protective theory on their own ground; and to assume with them, that in any discussion of this subject of free trade, with a view of determining its correctness as an economic principle, and its value as a basis of any national policy, it is the deductions and results of actual experience and not of abstract reasoning, that alone need to be considered. To deductions and results of this character, accordingly, it is proposed to next ask attention. —The Results of Specific Experiment. The largest and most complete experiment in free trade that the world has ever seen, has been made in the United States, and the results may be claimed to constitute an absolute demonstration of the wisdom of this policy and of the benefits that would accrue to the whole world from its adoption. We have here, at the present time of writing (1882), a nation of more than 53,000,000 of people, representing races most diverse in their origin, natural capacity and intellectual culture; inhabiting a country continental in its area, embracing almost every variety of climate, and affording the greatest opportunity for (as it indeed has) the most varied occupations and industries. The different states and territories into which this great country is divided differ among themselves in respect to wages of labor,19 prices of commodities, climate, soil, and other industrial conditions, as widely as the United States as a whole differs from any foreign country with which it is engaged in extensive commercial intercourse; and no case can be cited, or even imagined, which requires protection, on the protectionist theory, so much as the cultivation of the comparatively poor soils of the eastern states against the cultivator of the rich soils of the valley of the Mississippi, with the products of the two sections competing freely in the same markets. And yet the law which governs the exchange of all products and services in the United States is that of absolute free trade, and throughout the entire territory no internal taxes are levied by either the federal, state or local governments with a view of favoring any private interests or industries, or for any other than general public uses or revenue. Under such a state of affairs, the centres of great industries, the distribution of population and the conditions of domestic production and competition are continually changing, but, under the influence of natural laws working freely, no permanent social and economic disturbances, or interruptions to national growth and prosperity ever occur, while the people adjust themselves to any temporary vicissitudes with no more thought of complaining than against the vicissitudes of the weather. No protectionist, moreover, in the United States has ever thought it expedient to propose, in order to develop at the earliest period the growth of manufactures in the newer and poorer states, that these latter should be allowed to impose restrictions on the introduction into their territory of the manufactures of the older and richer states; or has ever ventured to publicly express a doubt, that within the geographical limits of the country, the greatest freedom of innocent production and trade should be accorded. And while the extension of these conditions of industrial and commercial freedom in any degree beyond the geographical boundaries of the United States is opposed by the protectionists as fraught with national disaster, there can not be a doubt, should Canada, Mexico and Cuba at any time peacefully become incorporated into the federal Union, that the industries of the United States would at once quietly adjust themselves to any new conditions, that the productions, the exchanges and general business interests of all the countries concerned would be speedily and greatly augmented, and that no objections to the proposed enlargement of their territory would be raised by the people of the United States for any other than political reasons—Experience of Great Britain. Between 1841 and 1846, Great Britain, under the leadership of Sir Robert Peel, definitely abandoned the theory and practice of protection, which for centuries had characterized her foreign commercial policy, and adopted the opposite policy of free trade with all the world. This result was not due to any change in popular sentiment proceeding from a better acquaintance with general economic principles, but from a realization, on the part of all classes of the British people, of the disastrous results which the recognition and practice of the policy of protection, during a period of many years, had entailed upon the country. These results Mr. Noble, in his work, "Fiscal Legislation of Great Britain," thus describes: "It is utterly impossible," he says, "to convey by mere statistics of our exports any adequate picture of the condition of the nation when Sir Robert Peel took office in 1841. Every interest in the country was alike depressed; in the manufacturing districts mills and workshops were closed and property depreciated in value; in the seaports shipping was laid up useless in the harbor; agricultural laborers were eking out a miserable existence upon starvation wages and parochial relief; the revenue was insufficient to meet the national expenditure; the country was brought to the verge of national and universal bankruptcy." Great Britain, therefore, it may be said, really adopted free trade under compulsion, and in face of the active opposition of some of her leading statesmen and the very grave doubts of not a few of her ablest financiers and economists. The repeal of the "corn laws" (duties on the imports of cereals), the test question, was denounced as being "inexpedient and full of hazard, injurious to all and ruinous to some, especially to the laborer and the artisan ruinous to the best interests of the country, the most pernicious measure ever presented to a British parliament, and a serious breach of the constitution." It was confidently predicted that it would "shake the social relations of the country to their foundation, subvert the whole system of society, throw great quantities of land out of cultivation, render it impossible for the government to raise taxes, would lower wages and reduce the laborer to a lower scale of life." Mr. Disrach, in the house of commons, gravely asserted that the tendency of free trade "was to sap the elements and springs of our manufacturing prosperity"; and, in the house of lords, Lord Stanley (afterward the earl of Derby) boldly predicted that "before many years elapsed, they would have the manufacturing interests of the country earnestly requesting the legislature to give them that protection that they have been so desirous you should withdraw from us." Never, however, in all history has any change in state policy been so magnificently vindicated by all subsequent experience; and of this the following is a summary of some of the more important results. Under the most stringent system of protection ever known in Great Britain the growth of British exports, commencing with 1805, was as follows: 1805, $190,000,000; 1825, $194,000,000; net increase in twenty years, $4,000,000, or at the rate of $200,000 per annum. Under a somewhat reduced protection as to manufactures, but with duties ranging from 20 to 30 per cent., British exports increased from $194,000,000 in 1825 to $237,000,000 in 1837, a net increase in seventeen years of $43,000,000, or at the rate of $2,400,000 per annum. During the next seven years, or between 1837 and 1842, there was no increase whatever. After protection to manufactures had been substantially abandoned in 1842, but while protection to agriculture and shipping continued, exports increased rapidly, namely, from $237,000,000 in 1842 to $289,000,000 in 1846, or to the extent of $52,000,000; a greater gain in four years of partial free trade, than had been achieved in thirty-seven previous years of protection. With further removals of restrictions on British exchanges—on food products in 1846, and on shipping in 1849—the increase in the value of British exports was rapid and continuous, rising from $289,000,000 in 1846 to the enormous figure of $1,432,000,000 in 1880. The total increase of British imports and exports, during the last thirty years of the full protective system, was, as nearly as real values can be ascertained, about $340,000,000. The like increase in the first thirty years of British free trade was $2,400,000,000, or ten times as large as under protection. —The repeal of the navigation laws of Great Britain in 1849 was as strenuously resisted as was the previous abolition of duties on the importation of food products and manufactures. Free trade in shipping, it was confidently asserted, would ruin British ship owners, destroy domestic ship building, and drive British sailors into foreign marine service. Not one of these predictions was in any degree realized. Between 1816 and 1840, under the restrictive system, a period of twenty-four years, the total increase in British tonnage was only 80,000 tons. In 1848, the last year of the British navigation laws, the aggregate tonnage belonging to the United Kingdom was 3,400,000. In 1858 the aggregate was 4,657,000, an increase of 1,257,000 in ten years. In 1878 it was 5,780,000; and in 1880, 6,574,000. Previous to the repeal of the British corn laws, the wealth of Great Britain increased at a slower rate than population. Since 1849 the increase of the population of the United Kingdom has been in the ratio of about 33 per cent., while the national wealth, as tested by the income tax, has increased at the rate of 130 per cent. In 1841 the capital of British savings banks was $120,000,000; in 1880, $388,000,000. In 1850 there were 920,000 paupers in England and Wales; in 1880, notwithstanding the growth of population, there were but 803,000. In 1850 there were 51,000 convictions for crime in England and Wales; in 1880 there were but 11,214. But the most striking demonstration of the increased happiness and comfort that have accrued to Great Britain under free trade, is derived from the following table, which shows the average per capita consumption of the leading articles of food by her people in 1840 (under protection), and in 1880 (under freedom), respectively:20  —Experience of Belgium. The experience of Belgium is even more instructive. During the French occupation of this country under the First Napoleon, the protective system was carried out, practically and under military rule, to a degree rarely if ever equaled. Not only was the introduction of all foreign goods into the country strictly forbidden, but all goods of foreign production found within the state were seized and burned, and the persons concerned in their importation summarily and severely punished. The result of such a system was that when the Dutch reassumed the sovereignty, in 1814, the whole country had become desolated, and to a considerable extent depopulated. The Dutch, however, brought in a new fiscal and commercial policy, one cardinal feature of which was a limitation of duties on imports to 3 per cent. on raw materials and 6 per cent. on manufactured articles. Under this liberal legislation the principal manufactures of Belgium again sprang into existence. But a deep-rooted antagonism between the Dutch and the Belgians led to a separation of the two countries in 1830, when, mainly through a hatred of the old government and its policy, the previous free trade legislation was repealed, and from 1830 to 1855 high protective and discriminating duties were imposed on imports. But in 1851 the finance minister in his place in parliament declared that if this policy was continued it would prove the ruin of the whole system of domestic industry; and in 1855 the parliament and the people so fully acquiesced in his opinion that protection in Belgium was swept away at once and forever, and the duties on imports were arranged purely with a view to revenue. The general result has been to give to Belgium, comparatively, the position of the first industrial and commercial state of the world. With an area of territory of about 11,000 square miles, (that of the two states of Massachusetts and Connecticut), only one-half arable land, with a standing army on a peace basis—a necessity by reason of political relations—nearly double that of the United States, with a population (in 1876) of 5,336,000, and, apart from a few coal and iron mines, hardly any natural resources, Belgium maintains the most dense population in Europe; enjoyed a revenue in 1880, of $57,000,000 (of which only $3,600,000 was derived from customs); has the greatest diversity of textile manufactures, and consumes more silks than any other country; has the best managed and cheapest railway system in Europe; and a domestic export and import commerce that quadrupled between 1861 and 1870, and for the year 1878 aggregated $498,000,000 exclusive of $254,000,000 of transit exports and imports to and from other countries. If the foreign commerce of the United States were equal to that of Belgium in the ratio of population, its annual value (in place of being $1,613,000,000 in 1880) would have been over $4,500,000,000. The secret of these great results is due mainly, if not exclusively, to the circumstance that the custom house in Belgium is but a mere appendage to the excise department; and only about one-fifteenth part of the revenues is derived from duties on imports. "Those who allege that the industry and commerce of a state will not prosper if made free, must take upon themselves the burden of proving the following proposition: that the illiterate population of Belgium, occupying a limited area of half sterile soil, is less in need of protection and can work to better advantage in supplying the world with the most useful products of the so-called manufacturing industries, than the well-instructed population of the United States, possessing a boundless area of fertile soil." It may, therefore, be fairly claimed that practice and experience, more especially in the case of the United States, have established the practicability and desirability of free trade as an economic system or theory, by evidence which, for weight, uniformity, concentration and positiveness, is immeasurably greater than the evidence which can be brought for any other theory whatever. —Results of the Policy of Protection. On the other hand, it is not possible to adduce any corresponding evidence, drawn from history or experience, in support of the wisdom of protection; and for the best of reasons, that there is none. Wherever protection has existed, economic history has been full of convulsions, contradictions and absurdities. No single clear and positive result has been produced. The modern doctrine of protection is an inheritance from the middle ages. "The restraint of production and trade was a policy which ancient civilization never adopted. The great statesman of Athens congratulates his audience on the fact that, thanks to the extended commerce of their country, they are as familiar with the use of foreign products as they are with those of domestic industry, and use them even as freely as the country of their origin does. The public opinion of Greece was profoundly shocked when, as a measure of political animosity, Athens excluded a Greek city, Megara, from its market." Prof. Thorold Rogers thinks that the origin of protection as an economic system is to be found in the so-called "mercantile system" of the middle ages, which was based upon the doctrine that wealth consisted solely in specie (money) or the precious metals, and therefore it was of the greatest importance that a government should secure as far as possible the greatest amount of specie within the country whose affairs it administered. International trade was the process by which the precious metals were distributed; and if such trade were allowed to freely exist, the attempts of government to restrain the exportation of money would be fruitless, and that natural impoverishment would thereby certainly follow. In the middle ages the principle that trade and commerce are mutually advantageous, and that after every fair mercantile transaction both parties are richer than before, was also not understood in Europe. On the contrary, the generally accepted theory among both nations and individuals in respect to trade was pithily embodied by an old proverb, "What is one man's gain must be another man's loss." Commerce, therefore, it was assumed, could benefit one country only as it injured some other. In accordance, therefore, with this principle, every state in Christendom, in place of rendering trade and commerce free, exerted itself to impose the most harassing restrictions on commercial intercourse, not only as between different countries, but also as between districts of the same country, and even as between man and man. "Country was accordingly separated from country and town from town as if seas ran between them. If a man of Liege came to Ghent with his wares, he was obliged first to pay toll at the city's gate; then when within the city he was embarrassed at every step with what were termed 'the privileges of companies'; and if the citizen of Ghent desired to trade at Liege, he experienced the same difficulties, which were effectual to prevent either from trading to the best advantage. The revenues of most cities were also in great part derived from the fines and forfeitures of trades, almost all of which were established on the principle that if one trade became too industrious or too clever, it would be the ruin of another trade. Every trade was accordingly fenced round with secrets, and the commonest trade was termed, in the language of the indentures of apprentices, 'an art or mystery.'" If one nation saw profit in any one manufacture, all her efforts were at once directed to frustrate the attempts of other nations to engage in the same industry. She must encourage the importation of all the raw materials that entered into its production, and adopt an opposite rule as respected the finished article. At the close of the sixteenth century England undertook the woolen manufacture. By the 8th of Elizabeth the exporter of sheep was for the first offense to forfeit his goods forever, to suffer a year's imprisonment, and then have his left hand cut off in a market town on market day, there to be nailed up to the pillory. For the second offense he should be adjudged a felon, and suffer death. At a later period, in the reign of Charles II., it was enacted that no person within fifteen miles of the sea should buy wool without the permission of the king: nor could it be loaded in any vehicle, or carried, except between sunrising and sunsetting, within five miles of the sea, on pain of forfeiture. An act of parliament in 1678, for the encouragement of woolen manufactures, ordered that every corpse should be buried in a woolen shroud. In 1672 the lord chancellor of England announced the necessity of going to war with the Dutch and destroying their commerce, because it was surpassing that of Great Britain; and even as late as 1743 one of England's greatest statesmen declared in the house of lords that "if our wealth is diminishing, it is time to ruin the commerce of that nation which had driven us from the markets of the continent, by sweeping the seas of their ships and blockading their ports." By the treaty of Utrecht, which concluded the great war of England and Spain against Louis XIV. and his allies, England being able to dictate the terms, secured the adoption of a section by which the citizens of Antwerp were forbidden to use the deep water that flowed close by their walls; and it was further expressly stipulated that the capacious harbor of Dunkirk, in the north of France, should be filled up and forever ruined, so that French commerce might not become too successful. —With the progress of civilization, and the consequent diffusion of information, the arbitrary restrictions on trade above noticed, which were formerly so common in Europe, have almost entirely disappeared, and men now wonder that any benefit could ever have been supposed to accrue from such absurd and monstrous regulations. But the change to a more liberal state of things, though constant, has been slow, and the harsh policy of the middle ages, in the process of modification and extinction, has given rise to and is lineally represented by the modern policy of "protection," which, while clearly recognizing the inexpediency of interfering with domestic exchanges, regards foreign trade as something different from other trade, which it is for the interest of the state to interfere with and regulate. As in the case of free trade, there is no better way of testing and explaining this opposite policy than by considering the results of its specific and practical application; and to some of these it is proposed to next ask attention. —The Experiment of Protection in the United States. While, as already pointed out, the United States have adopted absolute free trade, in the law governing their internal or domestic exchanges, they have at the same time, and more especially since 1861-2, applied and maintained the principles of protection to their foreign exchanges, with a degree of rigidity and on a scale of magnitude which has hardly any parallel in recent commercial history. This policy has now (1882) been in uninterrupted operation for over twenty years; and as the experiment has been made on a grand scale and under most favoring circumstances, it may, it would seem, be legitimately regarded as a test. The prime object, it will not be questioned, for which protection has been instituted and maintained in the United States, has been the development of the so-called manufacturing industries of the country, and the rendering of the nation industrially independent. That this result has not been effected under the protective policy, but that the economic movement in the above respects has been retrograde, admits of proof from data which are accessible to everybody who has access to the official records, and which does not involve the least resort to hypothesis. Thus, for all practical purposes, the exports of the United States may be regarded as made up of agricultural products and manufactures. She exports products of the sea, the mine and the forest; but the shipments of these are comparatively small in amount; and some of them are in manufactured form, so that in the comparisons it is proposed to institute, all non-agricultural products will be treated as manufactures; and making these inclusions, the following facts are revealed: 1st. that for the year 1879-80, 87½ per cent. of the total exports of the United States consisted of unprotected unmanufactured products—all agricultural except petroleum; and 2d, that the value of the manufactured products exported constituted a smaller proportion of the total exports in 1879-80 than they did in 1869-70, and that the proportion was also smaller in 1869-70 than it was in 1859-60. Or, to put the case differently, in 1859-60 the value of the manufactured exports of the United States constituted 17.5 per cent. of the value of the total exports. In 1869-70, after ten years of a high tariff policy, they had run down to 13.4 per cent.; and in 1879-80, after another ten years of like experience, they were further reduced to 12.5 per cent. During the same period the export of unmanufactured unprotected articles increased from a proportion of 82.3 per cent. of the total exports in 1859-60 to 87.5 of the total in 1879-80. On the other hand, the value of the imports of foreign merchandise, which was at the rate of about $10.80 per capita in 1860, increased to $11.21 in 1870 and to $13.36 in 1880. The increasing inability of American manufacturers under protection to command foreign markets is therefore demonstrated. It is not to be denied that the foreign commerce of the United States greatly increased in the thirty years included between 1850 and 1880; but a fair analysis of this trade will bring nothing of consolation to the believer in the efficacy of the protectionist policy as a means of national development. During the ten years from 1850 to 1860 under a tariff of low duties, the United States increased her exports of manufactured articles in the ratio of 171 per cent.; but during the next twenty years, or from 1860 to 1880, under a tariff called protective, the corresponding increase was in the ration of only 89 per cent.21 —A legitimate, but striking result of the inability thus demonstrated of the so-called manufacturing industries of the United States, to export their products to any considerable extent, has been to practically limit the market, or demand for them, to the domestic consumption of the country, and this, in turn, has prevented any enlargement of these industries corresponding to the increasing ability and desire of other nations to exchange or consume, and the increased facilities for effecting international exchanges. But with the great natural resources of the country, its rapidly increasing population, the increased use and power of machinery, and the energy of the people, the power of production in the United States tends to continually exceed the power of domestic consumption, and out of this singular condition of affairs there is a continual portent and frequent realization of stagnation of business, diminished wages and employment for labor, increasing pauperism and social disturbances. Two other practical and specific illustrations of the evil influence of the policy of protection in the United States are worthy of special notice. With a view of fostering the construction and use of ships, the protection of those branches of industry in the United States has been made for many years as absolute and complete as it was possible for the law to make it. No vessel of foreign construction can be imported, or participate in the coasting trade. No citizen of the United States can buy or acquire an American register, license or title to any foreign-built vessel. No foreigner is allowed to directly participate in the ownership or command of any American vessel. Materials used in the construction of ships intended for foreign trade may be imported free of duty. Under such a system the foreign commercial marine of the United States has been almost annihilated, as is shown by the circumstance that while in 1865, 75 per cent. of the total foreign trade of the United States was carried in American bottoms, in 1881 the proportion was only 16.2 per cent. The coasting trade, in respect to which no foreign competition whatever is permitted, has also declined. On the other hand, the shipping interests of other countries which have repealed the restrictions which navigation laws similar to those existing in the United States formerly imposed, have experienced a development during the corresponding period, greater than any other branch of industry, save that of railway construction and transportation. —Another most remarkable illustration of the evil effect of commercial restrictions in limiting trade and industry, and consequently national development, is to be found in the history of the commercial relations between the United States and the British North American provinces. Thus, in 1852-3, in the absence of anything like commercial freedom, the aggregate exchanges between the two countries amounted to only $20,691,000. The subsequent year a treaty of reciprocity went into effect, whereby the people of the two countries were enabled to trade and exchange their products with little or no obstruction in the form of import duties. The result was, that the aggregate of exchanges rose the very first year of the operation of the treaty from $20,691,000 to $33,494,000, which subsequently increased, year by year, until it reached the figure of $55,000,000 in 1862-3, and $84,000,000 in 1865-6. In this latter year the treaty of reciprocity was repealed and restrictive duties again became operative. The result was, that the annual aggregate of exchanges immediately fell to $57,000,000, and in 1873, seven fully years after expiration of the treaty, when both nations had largely increased in wealth and population, the decrease of trade consequent on the abrogation of the treaty had not been made good. Again, the population of the United States consists, in round numbers, of 50,000,000; and these fifty millions annually make exchanges among themselves, through the agencies of railroads alone, and exclusive of all other instrumentalities of trade, such as ships, wagons, boats and animals, to the extent of over twelve thousand millions of dollars; or, in other words, every four millions of the population exchange commodities among themselves, each and every year, to the extent of considerably more than a thousand millions. It is true that much of this exchange represents the movement of the same commodity, backward and forward, over the same route, under different forms or conditions—as raw material or manufactured product—and that it is not all a direct movement between producers and ultimate consumers. But it is safe to assume that not one ton or one dollar's worth is transported a single mile except for the real or supposed advantage of the owner. On the other hand, the British North American provinces contain at present a population of about four millions, and as the geographical line which separates them from us is so artificial, that except where a river or lake has been named as the boundary, it is not easy to tell where one country begins and the other ends; and as they have the same wants and material interests that we have, speak essentially the same language and are not lacking in resources, energy or courtesy, it would be but natural to suppose that the methods and amount of trade over the whole territory subject to the two governments would be subject to the same influences, and that men and commodities would pass as freely between the two countries as they do between different sections of the provinces, or between the different states of the federal Union. But the United States, with a view of promoting national industry and development has for a long time established all manner of arbitrary and burdensome restrictions on trade and commercial intercourse along the artificial line separating the two countries; or, in other words, it has established a ridge right across the boundary line, difficult to overcome and with very few gaps in it. And the people of Canada, after remonstrating against this policy for a long time, and after repeatedly asking the United States to unite with them and demolish the ridge, and level down all the obstructions, have finally become disgusted with their treatment, and have concluded to experiment in the way of trade restrictions themselves. And the result has been that, in place of exchanging commodities annually to the value of a thousand millions of dollars, the total aggregate of all the exchanges—exports and imports—between the four millions of people in the dominion of Canada and the entire population of the United States was but seventy-seven millions in 1874; and since Canada has concluded to imitate the policy of the United States and have a commercial barrier or ridge of her own, this comparatively small aggregate has been further reduced, and amounted in 1879 to only fifty-six millions, or less than the exchanges of which the clearing houses could take cognizance in such cities of the United States, as Cleveland, Ohio; Memphis, Tenn.; or New Haven, Conn., during the same period. Here, then, is an annual loss of business, measured by the results of 1879, of some $940,000,000 between the two contiguous countries, one-half of which at least falls upon the United States, in consequence of the commercial policy adopted. Could the barriers be removed, how many wheels, engines, cars, spindles, looms, hammers and strong human arms would be put in motion, and how much greater would be the sphere of employment, enjoyment and abundance for the people of the two countries. —In response to the arguments in favor of free trade derived from either abstract reasoning or specific examples, the advocates of the theory of protection (especially in the United States) submit certain counter arguments. —The Argument of Extended Opportunities for Domestic Industry. It is claimed, with much speciousness and apparent fairness, that by prohibiting the importation and use of the products of foreign (manufacturing) industries, a demand will be created for a corresponding additional quantity of American products, and that this, in turn, will create additional opportunities for the employment of American laborers; and the results of their labor and expenditure remaining in the country, the national wealth will be thereby augmented; whereas if the same amount of labor and expenditure is diverted to, and takes place in, a foreign country, the result will be exactly opposite. —In answer, now, to this, it may be said, 1st. That the amount of consumption in the two instances, and consequently the results of consumption, will not be the same; for whatever increases the price of a useful commodity diminishes its consumption, and, vice versa, whatever diminishes the price increases consumption. 2d, To admit the desirability of creating an opportunity of employing labor, through the agency of a tax on all consumers of certain articles, to do work that would yield to the same consumers a greater product of the same articles if performed elsewhere, or an equal product at less cost, is to admit that the natural resources of a country are so far exhausted that there is no opportunity for the truly productive employment of labor—an argument which, however effective in over-populated countries, can have no possible application in a new country like the United States, whose natural resources, so far from being exhausted, are yet, as it were, unappropriated and unexplored. Again, a tax levied in pursuance of legislative enactment for the maintenance of such labor is clearly in the nature of a forced charity, while the petitioners for its enactment answer in every particular to the definition of the term "pauper"—namely, one who publicly confesses that he can not earn a living by his own exertions, and therefore asks the community to tax themselves or diminish their abundance for his support. 3d, The only true test of the increase of national wealth is the possession of useful things in the aggregate, and not in the amount of labor performed or the number of laborers employed, irrespective of results. A tariff, from its very nature, can not create anything; it only affects the distribution of what already exits. If the imposition of restrictions by means of taxes on imports enables a producer to employ a larger number of workmen and to give them better wages than before, it can be accomplished only at the expense of the domestic consumers, who pay increased prices. Capital thus transferred is no more increased than is money by transference from one pocket to another, but on the contrary it is diminished to just the extent that it is diverted from employing labor that is naturally profitable to that which is naturally unprofitable. —Protection in reality does not Protect. Herein, then, is exposed the fallacy of the averment that duties levied on the importation of foreign commodities protect home industry. It may be conceded that certain industries may be temporarily stimulated, as the result of such duties, and that the producers may obtain large profits by a consequent increase in the price of their products; but then, it is at the expense of those who pay the increased price, who are always the domestic consumers. To further make clear this position, the following illustration, drawn from actual American experience, is submitted: For a number of years subsequent to 1860, congress, with a view a protecting the American producer, imposed such a duty on foreign salt as to restrict the import and at least double the price of this commodity, whether of foreign or domestic production, to the American consumer. The result was, taking the average price of No. 1 spring wheat for the same period in Chicago, that a farmer of the west, desirous of buying salt in that market, would have been obliged to give two bushels of wheat for a barrel of salt, which without the tariff, he would have readily obtained for one bushel. If, now, the tax had been imposed solely with a view to obtaining revenue, and the farmer had bought imported salt, the extra bushel given by him would have accrued to the benefit of the state; and if the circumstances of the government required the tax, and its imposition was expedient and equitable, the act was not one to which any advocate of free trade could object. But in the case in question the tax was not imposed primarily for revenue, as was shown by the circumstance that imports and revenue greatly decreased under its influence; and the salt purchased by the farmer in Chicago was domestic salt, which had paid no direct or corresponding tax to the government. The extra bushel of wheat, therefore, which the farmer was compelled to give for his salt, accrued wholly to the benefit of the American salt boiler, and the act was justified on the ground that American industry, as exemplified in salt making, was protected. And yet it must be clear to every mind that if the farmer had not given the extra bushel of wheat to the salt boiler, he would have had it to use for some other purpose advantageous to himself—to give to the shoemaker, for example, in exchange for a pair of brogans. By so much, therefore, as the industry of the salt boiler was encouraged, that of the farmer and shoemaker was discouraged; and, putting the whole matter in the form of a commercial statement, we have the following result: under the so-called "protective system" a barrel of salt and two bushels of wheat were passed to the credit of what is called "home industry," while under a free system there were a barrel of salt, two bushels of wheat, and a pair of shoes Protection, therefore, seeks to promote industry at the expense of the products of industry; and its favorite proposition, that though under a system of restriction a higher price may be given for an article, yet all that is paid by one is given to some other person in increased employment and wages, has this fallacy, namely, that it conceals the fact that the entire amount paid by the consumer would "in the long run" have been equally expended upon something and somebody if the consumer had been allowed to buy the cheap article instead of the dear one; and consequently the loss to the consumer is balanced by no advantage in the aggregate to any one. "When a highwayman takes a purse from a traveler, he expends it, it may be, at a drinking saloon, and the traveler would have expended it somewhere else. But in this there is no loss in the aggregate; the vice of the transaction is that the enjoyment goes to the wrong man. But if the same money is taken from the traveler by forcing him to pay for a dear article instead of a cheap one, he is not only despoiled of his just enjoyment, as before, but there is a destructive process besides, in the same manner as if the loss had been caused by making him work with a blunt ax instead of a sharp one. Whenever, therefore, anything is taken from one man and given to another under the pretense of protection to trade, an equal amount is virtually thrown into the sea, in addition to the robbery of the individual" —Influence of Protection not Permanent, but Temporary. A further conclusion, alike deducible from theory and proved by all experience, is that not only does protection to a special industry not result in any benefit to the general industry of a country, but also that its beneficial influence on any special industry is not permanent, but temporary. Thus, the price of no article can be permanently advanced by artificial agencies, without an effort on the part of every person directly or indirectly concerned in its consumption to protect and compensate himself by advancing the price of the labor or products he gives in exchange. If sufficient time is afforded, and local exchanges are not unduly restricted, this effort of compensation is always successful. Hence, from the very necessity of the case, no protective duty can be permanently effective. Hence, also, it is that protected manufacturers always proclaim, and not doubt honestly feel, that the abandonment of protection, or even its abatement, would be ruinous; and in all history not one case can be cited where the representatives of an industry once protected have ever come forward and asked for an abatement of taxation on the ground that protection had done its work. Under this head the experience of the United States affords a most curious and convincing illustration. Thus, in 1862-3, in order to meet the expenses of a great war, the government imposed internal taxes on every variety of domestic manufactures, and in accordance with the principles of equity imposed what were claimed to be corresponding taxes on the imports of all competing foreign products. Soon after the close of the war, however, when the cessation of hostilities diminished the necessity for such large revenues, the internal taxes were repealed, but in no one instance was there a protected manufacturer found who took any other position than that a repeal of the corresponding tariff would be most disastrous to his business. The tariff, as originally raised to compensate for the new internal taxes, was therefore left in a great degree unchanged. That the principle here laid down, of want of permanency in protective agencies, is furthermore admitted by the protected (American) manufacturers themselves as a result of their own experience, is also proved by the following striking testimony, forced out under oath before a government commission from one of the foremost of their number in 1868—the late Oakes Ames, of Massachusetts: Ques. "What, according to your experience, was the effect of the increase of the tariff in 1864 on the industries with which you are specially acquainted?" Ans. "The first effect was to stimulate nearly every branch, to give an impulse and activity to business; but in a few months the increased cost of production and the advance in the price of labor and the products of labor were greater than the increase of the tariff, so that the business of production was no better, even if in so good a condition, as it was previous to the advance of the tariff referred to." —Will Free Trade tend to diminish and Protection tend to increase the Wages of Domestic Industry? Upon no one argument have the advocates of protection relied more, in support of their system, than the assumption that, if there were no restrictions on trade, the opportunity to labor created by protection and the results of the expenditure of the earnings of such labor would be diverted to other countries to their benefit, and to the corresponding detriment of that country which, needing protection by reason of a necessity for paying higher wages or other industrial inequalities, abandons it, or, to speak more specifically, it is assumed that if the United States were to adopt a policy of free trade, England would supply us with cotton and metal fabrications, Germany with woolen goods, Nova Scotia with coal, the West Indies exclusively with sugar, Russia with hemp and tallow, Canada with lumber, and Australia with wool; that thereby opportunity to our own people to labor would be greatly restricted, and the wages of labor be reduced to a level with the wages of foreigners. Specious as is this argument, there could not be a greater error of fact or a worse sophism of reason. In the first place, only a very small proportion of the United States are engaged in occupations that admit of being protected against the influence of foreign competition. According to the returns of the census of 1870—and the condition of things is without doubt comparatively the same now as then—12,500,000 persons were engaged in all occupations. These twelve and one-half millions were the "working and business men" and women of the country. Each of these "laborers" had to support, on an average, three and one-fifth persons. 47 per cent. of these were engaged in agriculture. 22 per cent. of them were engaged in "professional and personal services," which class includes unskilled laborers and professional men. 9 per cent. were in trade and transportation. 22 per cent. were in "manufactures, mechanical and mining industries." Out of all the productive laborers of the country, therefore, there were nearly four in other industries for every one in "manufactures." Taking the whole country over, therefore, four "working and business" men were affected injuriously by the taxes imposed on them in consequence of the national policy of protection, for every one who could possibly gain by them. It is also curious to note how few of the many products of domestic manufacturing industry can be directly benefited by a protective tariff. Anything that can be exported regularly, and sold in competition in foreign countries with similar foreign products, evidently can not be directly benefited by any tariff legislation, and in this category, and apart from our great agricultural staples, must be included our petroleum, turpentine and rosin; nearly all building materials and constructions of wood, including vessels; our products or gold, silver and copper; our stoves, tinware, shovels, axes, nearly all agricultural machines and implements, and most articles of common hardware; boots and shoes, and sole leather; coarse cotton fabrics, starch, refined sugar, distilled spirits and alcohol, most fermented liquors, wagons, carts, most carriages, harnesses, railroad cars, sewing machines, all ordinary confectionary, and the cheaper papers and paper hangings, photographs, picture frames, pianos, india-rubber goods, toys, watches, guns, fixed ammunition, newspapers, buttons, brooms, gas, clocks, and a great variety of other articles, not one of which, if the tariff was entirely abolished, would be imported to any considerable extent, and most of which, under free trade, would be manufactured and exported in vastly larger quantities than at present. But supposing the reverse was true; and that in consequence of the abandonment of the protective policy, large quantities of the commodities above mentioned should be imported from foreign countries, none of them will be given away to American consumers for nothing. Product for product is the invariable law of exchange, and we can not buy a single article abroad, save through the medium of something that must be produced at home. Hence the utter absurdity of that assertion which to protectionists seems pregnant with such dreadful meaning, namely, "that under free trade we should be deluged with foreign goods"; for if more should be really imported under a free trade than under a protective policy, then one of two things would take place: either we must produce more at home in order to pay for the new excess of imports, in which case domestic industry would be stimulated and not diminished; or, not producing more, we must obtain more in return, or, what is the same thing, a higher price for what we already produce—a result manifestly conducive to national prosperity. It would also seem to be in the nature of a self-evident proposition, that nothing under any circumstance can or will be imported unless that in which it is paid for can be produced at home with greater final advantage. —Again, the favorite argument of the advocates of protection that, if trade is unrestricted and the people of a country, under the inducement of greater cheapness, are allowed to supply themselves with foreign commodities, the opportunities for the employment of domestic labor will be correspondingly diminished, is an argument identical in character with that which has in past times often led individuals and whole communities to oppose the invention and introduction of labor-saving or "labor-dispensing" machinery. But, to sift thoroughly this sophism, it is sufficient to remember that labor is not exerted for the sake of labor, but for what labor brings, and that human wants expand just in proportion to the multiplication of the means and opportunity of gratifying human desires. If the wages of a day's labor would purchase in the market one hundred times as much as at present, can any one doubt that the demand for the necessaries and luxuries of life would be increased a hundred-fold? If the people of the United States could obtain the products of the labor of other countries for nothing, could the labor of the whole world supply the quantity of things we should want? In short, the demand for the results of labor can never be satisfied, and is never limited except by its ability to buy; and the cheaper things are, the more things will be purchased and consumed. Nothing, therefore, can be more irrational than the supposition that increased cheapness, or increased ability to buy and consume, diminishes or restricts the opportunity to labor. If by the invention of machinery, or the discovery of cheaper sources of supply, the labor of a certain number of individuals in a department of industry becomes superfluous or unnecessary, such labor must take a new direction, and it is not to be denied that in the process of readjustment temporary individual inconvenience, and perhaps suffering, may result. But any temporary loss thus sustained by individuals is more than made up to society, regarded from the standpoint of either producers or consumers, by the increased demand consequent on increased cheapness through greater material abundance, and therefore greater comfort and happiness. —Wages in the United States are, as a general thing, unquestionably higher than in Europe. The difference in rates between the United States and Great Britain, taking the purchasing power of money into consideration, is not at present very considerable, and not near as great as is commonly represented. From 1875 to 1878 wages in many departments of industry were higher in Great Britain than in the United States, and the tide of immigration, especially of skilled labor, notably rolled back. On the continent wages are much lower than in Great Britain; but British industry does not ask to be protected on account of this difference, but defies continental competition. On the other hand, the continental states that have recently adopted the protective policy have pleaded, as a reason, the necessity of guarding against the competition of the United States; while, very curiously, the comparatively high wages of Great Britain are put forward as the main reason for the maintenance of protection in the United States. The high wages paid for labor in the United States are due to two causes. 1. Owing to great natural advantages, a given amount of labor, intelligently applied, will here yield a greater or better result than in almost any other country. It has always been so, ever since the first settlements within our territory, and has been the main cause of the tide of immigration that for the last 200 years has flowed hitherward. Hamilton, in his celebrated report on manufactures, made before any tariff on the imports of foreign merchandise into the United States was enacted, notices the fact that wages for similar employments were as a rule higher in this country than in Europe; but he considered this as no real obstacle in the way of our successful establishment of domestic manufactures; for he says "the under takers8quot—meaning thereby the manufactures—"can afford to pay them." And that this assertion embodied a general truth will appear evident from the following considerations. Wages are labor's share of product, and in every healthy business are ultimately paid out of product. No employer of labor can continue for any great length of time to pay wages, unless his product is large. If it is not, and he attempts it, it is only a question of time when his affairs will be wound up by the sheriff. Or, on the other hand, if a high rate of wages continues to be permanently paid in any industry and in any country, it is in itself proof positive that the product of labor is large, that the laborer is entitled to a generous share of it, and that the employer can afford to give it to him. And if to-morrow the tariff of the United States was swept out of existence, this natural advantage, which, supposing the same skill and intelligence, is the sole advantage which the American laborer has over his foreign competitor, would not be diminished to the extent of a fraction of an iota. Consider, for example, the American agriculturist. He pays higher wages than his foreign competitor. In fact, the differences between the wages paid in agriculture in the United States and Europe are greater than in any other form of industry. The tariff can not help him, but, by increasing the cost of all his instrumentalities of production, greatly injures him. With a surplus product in excess of any home demand to be disposed of, no amount of other domestic industry can determine his prices. How then can he undersell all the other nations, and at the same time greatly prosper individually? Simply because of his natural advantages of sun, soil and climate, aided by cheap transportation and the use of ingenious machinery, which combined give him a greater product in return for his labor than can be obtained by the laborers in similar competitive industries in any other country. What has he to ask of government other than that it will interfere with him to the least possible extent? Take another case in point. Wages in England, in every industry, are much higher than in the continental states of Europe. In the cotton manufacturing industries they are from 30 to 50 per cent, higher than in France, Belgium and Germany; and an English cotton operative receives more wages in a week than an operative similarly employed in Russia can earn in a month. Now which of these countries has the cheapest labor? The question may be answered by asking another: Does England seek protection against the competition of the continental states, or is it the continental states that demand protection against England? In short, instead of high industrial remuneration being evidence of high cost of production in this country, it is direct evidence of a low cost of production; and in place of being an argument in favor of the necessity of protection, it is a demonstration that none is needed. Industrial products of every kind are made at the lowest cost by those who earn the highest wages, wherever modern machinery is brought in to aid in the work on their production; and this "bringing in" has been done to a greater degree in the United States than in any other country. 2. Wages are exceptionally high in the United States for another reason. The existing tariff imposes an average tax of about 40 per cent, on the whole value of imported commodities; and as these number some 2,000 articles and include almost everything that is necessary or useful to life, the cost of all such commodities, whether imported or produced at home, is always enhanced; sometimes greatly and to the full extent of the duty, and sometimes to a lesser extent, as when the domestic product is equal to the home demand, and domestic competition is severe. But if the American laborer is compelled thereby to pay more for his comforts and luxuries than his foreign competitor, he must have higher wages, or he will be at a disadvantage with him. If his wages are advanced to such an extent as will exactly compensate him for his comparative increased expenses, he is no better off relatively, having gained nothing on the one hand, nor lost anything on the other. But there being no fixed rule or standard for making such adjustments, the American laborer is almost always placed at a disadvantage. The tariff taxes are constant; their influence in increasing prices varies as a rule within narrow limits; they fall exclusively on consumption and are as certain as death. On the other hand, the prices of labor vary with the supply and demand in the domestic market. Whoever heard of a protected manufacturer making up his schedule of wages in advance, or varying it afterward, except on compulsion, according to the varying expenses of his employés? Let any one examine the census reports of the United States, and he will find that in her great textile and metal industries the amount paid for wages represents only about 20 per cent, of the value of the finished product. If, now, the American laborer uniformly received two dollars in wages where his foreign competitor received but one, and the value of the products of their labor was always the same, a tariff of 20 per cent, on the value of all competitive foreign imports would obviously fully compensate for any advantages the foreign manufacturer would have on the score of wages. But the wages of the American laborer in the industries specified are not 100 per cent, higher than are paid to the British laborer, who is his only for midable competitor, nor 50 per cent. The domestic manufacturer, however, says 20 per cent, protection is not enough, and demands and receives 40, 60, 70, and even 100 per cent, and upward. Now what does this excess represent? It certainly is not needed to compensate for any difference in wages, and the American laborer does not profit by it. Neither is it to be claimed that the domestic manufacturer does to the full extent; but it represents duplications and reduplications of taxes, an increased cost of raw materials and the instrumentalities of production, a misapplication and waste of labor; in short, a loss that really benefits no one. All tariff rates, both direct and indirect, fall on consumption and must be paid by the consumer in the increased price of the things he consumes; and the heavier these taxes are made by any sort of legislation of avoidable expenditures, the heavier will be the burden on the man who, from necessity, expends all or nearly all his wages in living, as compared with one who only needs to expend a part of his income for similar purposes and lays up a surplus for increasing his income. Hence, in place of there being any warrant for the assertion which is continually made that the American laborer is greatly benefited by the advance of wages which accrues to him under the protective policy, which imposes a double burden of taxation—one direct and visible, and the other indirect and not readily seen—no more efficient or cruel device was ever instituted for making the rich richer, and the poor poorer; and every dollar raised by the government by taxation for any other purpose than to provide revenue for its most economical administration, constitutes a heavier burden on the recipients' of small incomes or wages than upon any other class of the community. —From these premises, therefore, the following reductions may be regarded as in the nature of economic axioms: 1. A nation or community can attain the greatest prosperity, and secure to its people the greatest degree of material abundance, only when it utilizes its natural resources and labor to the best advantages and with the least waste and loss, whatever may be the nominal rate of wages paid to its laborers. The realization of such a result is hastened or retarded by whatever removes or creates obstructions or interferences in the way of production and exchanges. 2. The exports, on the whole, of any country must and always do balance its imports; which is equivalent to saying that if we do not buy we can not sell, while neither buying nor selling will take place unless there is a real or supposed advantage to both parties to the transaction. 3. As a nation exports only those things for which it possesses decided advantages relatively to other nations in producing, | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
