EconlibThe LibraryOther Sites |
Front Page  Titles (by Subject) M - 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:
M - 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.
MMACEMACE. (See PARLIAMENTARY LAW.) MACHIAVELISMMACHIAVELISM. If there can be two opinions with regard to Machiaveli, there can be but one with regard to machiavelism. Whether or not this political system was that of the man whose name it bears and tarnishes, no one can be found so audacious or so cynical as to defend it openly. There will always be those depraved enough to practice it deliberately and those weak enough to let themselves be drawn into it by self-interest; but the force of public opinion has at least achieved this much, that machiavelism can not be spoken of except to be contemned and repudiated. Kings, even the least scrupulous, have seen fit to oppose it, and have in their public utterances called in question its odious tenets when proposed for their acceptance. Frederick the Great and Voltaire, in the earlier days of their friendship, united in emphatically condemning Machiaveli's "Prince"; and it may not be out of place to give an example of the way in which it was spoken of by them. "How deplorable," writes Frederick, then prince royal (November, 1740), is the situation of a people which has everything to fear from the abuse of sovereign power, whose possessions fall a prey to a prince's rapacity, whose liberty is at the mercy of his caprice, whose peace depends on his ambition, whose safety rests on his falseheartedness, and whose life is the plaything of his tyrannical temper. Such is a tragical sketch of what a state, ruled by such a prince as Machiaveli's, might be." Voltaire, to whom the young man had long previously confided his praiseworthy aims, encouraged him in them, and said (May 20, 1738): "It was for the Borgias, father and son, and for all those petty princes who could only hope to obtain notoriety through crime, to make a study of that diabolical policy; it becomes a prince like you to despise it. Such scheming, fitly classed with that of a Locusta or a Brinvilliers, may have given a passing power to a few tyrants, as poison may procure an inheritance, but it has never made a man either great or happy; that is certain. The only possible result of this horrible policy is misery, both to one's self and to others." —To define machiavelism is easy: it is the surrender of all principles to one, namely interest; the violation, and sacrifice to success, of every law of morality. This simple definition might seem, at the first glance, altogether inadequate, and the awful series of consequences which it embraces might for a moment escape notice, but, pondered carefully, the conviction will be arrived at, that this seemingly simple maxim once adopted as the supreme guide to conduct, there is no crime, however heinous, which might not result from it. Once let the confines of justice and duty be passed, and there remains nothing to hinder the taking of whatever steps may be deemed necessary to attain the object desired; the only real obstacle to the upsetting of all laws, divine or human, being lack of power, whether resulting from the weakness of individual faculties or from external opposition. He is no criminal who confines himself to wishing, and crime carried only to a certain pitch is perhaps even rarer than virtue. Let, however, one false step be taken and others must follow, and, as advance is made, criminality increases, till it equals that of a Cæsar Borgia, Machiaveli's paragon, and the model of his "Prince." Machiavelism begins in falsehood, which it uses as other men use truth. If ordinary falsehood is insufficient for its purpose, it then makes use of the solemn form of lying called perjury to reassure its victims and entrap them the more readily. These are its most innocent means. But as a lie quickly begets distrust and puts men on their guard, recourse must be had to more efficacious means, in short, to violence in all its forms, from the spoliation which weakens, to the assassination, open or secret, which removes them altogether. Here, briefly, is the career of machiavelism, but there are few even among the most hardened who are capable of carrying it out in its entirety; to do that, their conscience must be utterly devoid of every idea of good and evil, and blinded by an unbridled lust for possession and power. In its worst form, when united to the necessary power, no villainy is too great to be dreamt of and accomplished by it. To a first crime committed with impunity are quickly added all the others which passion begets, and which hearts, insensible to the horror of their deeds and no longer in dread of punishment, can execute. As Voltaire has well said, nothing is established by machiavelism, and all success gained by it, when success is gained, is temporary, rarely lasting even the brief lifetime of him who buys it at so high a price. But this remark of Voltaire's is almost as old as machiavelism itself, dating from long ages before Machiaveli was to give to that policy the name which at once describes it and dishonors him. We need but to open Plato's "Dialogues" to find in the "Republic" and the "Gorgias" stray features of the machiavelism of the ancients, treating it with the just scorn which it merits. The admirable passages, so applicable to the despots of every age, and in which they are described in language the truth of which is unalterable, should be read. It is not here that those protests of humanity against oppressors and wrong-doers who are in power ought to be repeated, protests as old as the indignation of honest men against the abominations of crime, but we may quote these last words in which Aristotle sums up his incomparable description of a tyrant: "All those schemes, with so many others of a like nature by means of which tyranny tries to maintain its dominion, are profoundly perverse"; and a little farther on, appealing to the testimony of history, he adds, "and yet in spite of all these precautions, the least stable of governments are oligarchy and tyranny; everything considered, most tyrannies have had but a very brief existence." Machiaveli himself might have seen in his own lifetime to what the duke of Valentinois was brought by so much craft united to so much power: having languished in prison after prison he met his death under the walls of an obscure village in Spain which he had besieged; an end, after all, too good for such as he. But from this example Machiaveli learned nothing, and the "Prince" appeared some time after Cæsar Borgia had expiated his crimes by his downfall and exile. Machiavelism will never perish; changing to suit times, places and peoples, it will live as long as men are vicious, or there is power in the hands of the evil-minded which it is possible for them to misuse. —There have been long and disastrous periods during which all policy, home or foreign, was but a series of machiavelian manœuvres, and during which men considered anything justifiable when used against a foe, either foreign or domestic. The middle ages present an unbroken record of these hateful practices, which all accepted, each endeavoring to turn them to his own advantage. This infernal statecraft, to borrow again Voltaire's expression, reached its climax in the Italy of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and Machiaveli did but frame its code. It was adopted by such men as Louis XI. and Philip II.; it still sullied France under the Valois, and sometimes even under Richelien. In our own days it remains the only political system known to a number of petty states, but half civilized, given up to an anarchy almost barbarous and wholly corrupt. In the larger states it has had to disappear, or at least to a certain extent to disguise itself in presence of the law of nations and public honesty; notwithstanding which, there have been occasional disgraceful outbreaks, and our own times furnish a notable example which history stigmatizes by the name of the attentat (attempt) of Bayonne (see Adolphe Thiers' "History of the Consulate and the Empire," books xxix.,xxx.,xxxi., Aranjuez, Bayonne and Baylin). The way in which Napoleon I. obtained possession of the Spanish crown is a chain of acts of perfidy unworthy of so great a man, planned against unfortunates without a defense against it, and forged with a skill and a cunuing vigor which has never been surpassed by the cleverest adepts of machiavelism. With the murder of the Duc d'Eughien it is, as Thiers justly says, "the second of the two stains which tarnish his glory." (Vol. viii., p.658.) But, a moralist as well as an historian, Thiers does not fail to point out the punishment which followed the crime, and instances Baylin as the first expiation for Bayonne. The Spanish war gave occasion for, if it was not the sole cause of, Napoleon's reverses and those of France. But such legitimate retribution the outcome of events, like to avenging justice and a warning of Providence, never discourages crime; led away by force of circumstances, and hoping by redoubled adroitness to escape punishment, it is ever ready to renew its dark plotting. Only where there is such refinement of manners as we find in Europe to day, machiavelism must remain within certain limits, and that it may exist at all it is obliged to be less open and less cruel than it was in a coarser and more barbarous age. The best means of suppressing machiavelism altogether is to give it publicity, to let free discussion unveil the real nature of the equivocal acts through the agency of which it hopes to escape the tribunal of public opinion. The first care of a machiavelian policy is to stifle such voices as might complain, and still more such as might judge. Concealment is an evidence of guilt, if not in fact at least in intention; and honesty, especially when armed with the power to do right, may brave all criticism, for it is little likely to be disregarded, and when it is, it is always easy for it to cause erring minds to retrace their steps. Silence, then, is the necessary condition of all machiavelian power, and one of the safeguards, feeble though it be, which it always aims at securing. Had public opinion been able to discuss in 1808 what was going to take place at the château de Marac between Napoleon and the Spanish Bourbons, there is every reason to suppose that the great emperor would have spared himself and France many a misfortune, and not have sullied his reputation by such base disloyalty. The public conscience would have enlightened and regulated that of the conqueror, and prevented him degrading himself to play the part of a despoiler. It is to be presumed, besides, that he himself saw his error and felt the unworthiness of his conduct. But the Spanish crown was at stake, and the irresistible omnia pro dominatione made him believe that in robbing that weak old king he was putting the coping stone of the French empire and of his own policy in place. A great lesson this, but one that will not be very profitable so long as men have more cupidity than virtue, and more passion than wisdom. BARTHÉLEMY SAINT-HILAIRE. MACHINERYMACHINERY, Its Social and Economical Effects. I. Economical Superiority, Motive Powers and Limitations of Machinery. The distinction between a tool and a machine consists principally in the fact that in the case of the latter the motive power does not proceed immediately from the human body, while the former is only an equipment of, or a substitute for, particular human organs. A machine is more complex than a tool. Many machines can be properly compared to a complete laborer. Tools are in their origin more ancient than machines, and as motive powers of the latter, the larger domestic animals were earliest used, then water, next wind, and, last of all, steam was applied. —The indisputable superiority of machines where they compete on an otherwise equal footing with the human hand supplied with mere tools, arises from the fact that they can perform services which would be now too heavy and now too fine for the human hand. An important saving in raw material is also often connected with the greater power of machines. Since machines do not tire, they can work with uninterrupted persistence, and therefore with a superhuman uniformity; and since they never cheat or deceive, they are perfectly trustworthy. As they make the various copies of the same model with the utmost exactness, they permit a greater expenditure of labor and attention upon the original. Besides this, machines work more cheaply than human hands. If this were not so, undertakers would prefer the latter in their enterprises, because, if worst comes to worst, the laborers may be dismissed, but the capital invested in machines is for the most part irrevocably fixed. The same thing is also true of machines as of factories, that within certain limits the relative costs decrease with their increasing size. Even the labor of animals has the advantage over human labor that it is more powerful and cheaper. Their sustenance and dwellings may be ruder than even the rudest which would do for men. Their clothing is the free gift of nature. The portion of their lives which is unfitted for labor is relatively short. Even their dead bodies can be economically utilized. Of the so-called "blind motive powers," water and wind are not only stronger than animals, but absolutely indispensable to the national economy as a whole. Steam, however, where there is an abundance of combustible material, is of all machine powers the most complete, the most obedient to man and the freest from external interruption. Water power is but seldom found concentrated in one place to any great extent, and still more seldom in seaboard localities which are favorably situated for commerce. Consequently the most effective form of large industry—the formation of great metropolises of industry—is possible only with the aid of steam. To what degree the power of man over nature is increased by the various machine powers can be most clearly shown by a comparison of the oar-driven galleys with horse-drawn canal boats, with sail ships and steamships. —The more the production of a commodity depends upon the constant repetition of one and the same operation, the greater is the advantage of the machine. Very different is it, however, where the production demands a series of manifold movements, particularly if the latter must vary with the individual constitution of the object worked upon. Machines are especially adapted for making cloths, because their quality depends chiefly upon having the thread uniformly and evenly woven. If the stuff is well prepared, the machine can work it up much more evenly than the hand. On the railroad, which is smooth, level and straight, a steam engine is used; in the city, where the crookedness of the streets, the crowd of men, the different purposes of travel, compel a thousand irregularities, horses are employed; and in the house everybody goes on foot. Since machines require, as a rule, larger amounts of capital than laborers, and as they fix it more permanently, their use is advantageous only where the products can reckon upon a large market. The more costly the machinery the greater the market by which it is conditioned. Machinery is but illy adapted to the manufacture of costly articles of luxury. As a rule, machinery not only increases the economical superiority of him who applies it, but it also presupposes such superiority—superiority in raw material, natural power, and education in general. In the case of commodities whose price depends mainly upon the cost of raw material, and only to a small extent upon that of manufacture, even a very considerable reduction of the latter will not be able to enlarge the market to such an extent as to justify the necessary machinery. —Finally, it goes without the saying that where thought or invention is required, a machine can never compete with the laborer. The shortest way out, therefore, for a branch of hand industry which is threatened by the introduction of machinery, is for the laborers to pass over to that artistic branch of industry which is most nearly related to it. It can not be denied, however, that the sphere of machines has been recently very much enlarged and that it is relatively constantly increasing. —II. The Economical and Social Advantages and Disadvantages of Machinery. 1. It can scarcely be doubted that for the great public of consumers, or, in other words, for the national wealth as a whole, the advantages of machinery completely outweigh all disadvantages connected with it. The value in use of the national wealth is increased by every successful introduction or improvement of a machine. For the previous quantity of production fewer laborers are needed; since machines, as Ricardo says, are of value only in so far as they save more labor than they themselves have cost. It is, of course, possible that the laborers who have been thus rendered unnecessary should remain idle for the future, but it is not at all probable. Civil society is not ready, as a rule, to pension off the laborers rendered unnecessary by machines with their full previous wages, and so the laborers are impelled, either by necessity or pride, to seek out new spheres of work. Whatever they produce in these is, for the national economy as a whole, a pure gain. Fortunately the new field of labor ordinarily lies very near to the former, as active enterprisers like to apply the capital so saved in the extension of their business. We may say with Hermann, that nature proceeds with economical inventions in the same way as human legislation with patent rights. At first the inventor succeeds in enjoying the sole use of his invention. The public pays him the former prices while his costs of production have become smaller, and so he receives a higher rate of profit than is usual. Competition soon begins to make itself felt, his fellow enterprisers imitate him, and he finds it to his advantage to extend his business and take small profits on large sales rather than large profits on small sales. Thus the price finally falls to the amount of the present costs of production, and the consumers get the ultimate permanent advantage, since they are now able to secure with the same sacrifice far greater enjoyment than before. The cotton industry affords an excellent example of this. As one improvement after another has been introduced, the price of cotton fabrics has steadily declined and their use become more general. Thus, in 1849 one could buy more than eight times as much cotton cloth for a given sum of money as in 1810. The population of Europe increased about 11 per cent. in the years 1836-50, while the use of cotton cloths increased about 85 per cent. —If the consumption of the cheapened commodities increases in exactly the same ratio as their prices fall, the value in exchange of the national wealth remains unchanged; if it increases in a larger ratio, not only does the value in use but also the value in exchange increase. The cotton industry is again a case in point. The average value of English cotton fabrics in 1766 was estimated at £600,000; in 1875, at £95,400,000. Of course, such a development will not always take place. If needles should fall one half in price, their consumption need not increase proportionately or even at all, because sewing is no amusement, and the products of sewing would not become appreciably cheaper on account of the cheapening of needles. The case would become different if the cheapening of the needles enabled us to conquer a foreign market which up to this time had been closed to us. A diminution in the costs of production of decencies or luxuries often increases the number of customers not only in arithmetical but also in geometrical ratio, because in a classification of wealth the number of persons belonging to any class increases as the amount of wealth taken as a basis decreases. The assertion is often made, that products of machinery, though of better appearance than hand-made products, are not so durable. Even if this be so, there is certainly no technological reason why the work of machinery should be less durable than that of hands. On the contrary, the undoubtedly greater uniformity of machines must, in itself considered, be favorable to durability. It is probable, however, that, owing to the greatly increased facility of manufacture by machines, the production of raw material has not kept equal pace. Poorer material has, therefore, been taken, material which could not be worked at all by hand, and consequently even the better work of machines has not been able to make good products out of them. But the fault in such cases ought not to be ascribed to the machines. We can not deny, then, that not only individuals, so far as they are consumers, but also nations in their entirety, have been made richer by the introduction of machinery. —2. But when we come to consider the distribution of this additional wealth, the advantages of machinery, particularly for the lower classes of wage laborers, are much more questionable. They gain, of course, in their capacity as consumers, and those political economists go too far who overlook the advantage of cheaper clothing and of similar articles of necessity. And yet in highly cultivated lands, where a well-developed division of labor compels the choice of a calling for life, no important machine can be introduced without driving some laborers out of their accustomed field of action. We must remember, however, that machines do not necessarily diminish the demand for laborers, taking the country as a whole. As a rule they open a new demand in one place while they close the old demand in another. The manufacture of the machines themselves requires a large number of laborers. If the demand for the products increases largely, more laborers are needed in preparing the raw material, in the work of transportation, etc., etc. The actual expansion of any branch of industry which is owing to machines occasions the expansion of other branches which can employ the surplus laborers. If cotton fabrics sink one-half in price, all consumers have one-half the sum of their former expenditures on these commodities available for some other purpose. Different consumers will use it in different ways. One will employ it in purchasing other satisfactions, another in enlarging his business, still another in increasing his income-yielding investments, i.e., as a rule in increasing his loans for productive purposes. In each case a new demand for laborers will ensue, though in very different degrees according to circumstances—to a greater degree, for instance, if the capital saved is applied in building a railroad than if employed in the purchase of foreign wines. Only in case of wanton destruction or idle hoarding of the sums saved would it be possible for no new demand to arise—cases of rare occurrence in machine-using countries. This removal of the laborers to new fields is made much easier for them by the fact that the most effective machines are generally the most costly, and gain ground, therefore, but slowly. The effectiveness of a machine has often caused such an expansion of certain industries that the demand for laborers even in those industries has been actually increased. If for a given quantity of commodities three-fourths of the laborers become superfluous, but the market increases more than fourfold, the demand for laborers in that very industry will become greater. The simple fact of the enormous increase of laborers in all branches of modern industry proves that the use of machinery may increase the demand for laborers. Nor is it true that machinery has lowered the wages of laborers. The English cotton spinner in 1804 could buy with a certain number of hours' labor 117 pounds of flour or 62 pounds of meat; a spinner of the same grade could buy in 1850 with the same number of hours' work 320 pounds of flour or 85 pounds of meat. And it is still true that the English agricultural laborer is more poorly paid than his brother, the factory operative. —We can not always expect such a development. If those who are most immediately benefited by the invention of a machine consume their advantage, reckoned as capital, unproductively, the machine might permanently diminish the demand for labor. On account of the cost of raw material the price of manufactures can not fall in the same ratio as labor is saved by the machine. Whether, therefore, the market can be enlarged to the same or a greater extent depends upon the ability of the remaining branches of the national industry to furnish an increased supply of equivalents; for it is only such a supply of equivalents that constitutes an effective demand. This presupposes also a nation which makes use of the possibility of saving for the actual increase of its capital, and can be spurred on to greater activity by the prospect of more enjoyment. It depends, indeed, ultimately upon the supply of raw material and of the provisions of the laborers. Every industry contains within itself the guarantee of its further progress only in so far as it can exchange its increased production for an increased quantity of raw material and provisions. It is, therefore, the expansive abilities of internal agriculture or of foreign commerce in raw material which determines the answer to this question. The rate of wages depends on the relation between the supply of labor and the demand for it. The supply is, of course, not immediately affected by the introduction of machinery. So far as the demand is concerned, the possibility of its becoming greater is assured by the fact that every economically successful machine increases the national wealth. On the other hand, we must not close our eyes to the fact that the actual demand for labor within the limits of possibilities depends on the will of the enterprisers and the consumers. And indeed the immediate effect of a labor-saving machine is to make capitalists less eager for labor, and laborers more eager for capital. The demand for labor is conditioned not so much by the amount of fixed capital as of that which is circulating. But the construction of a machine means the conversion of circulating into fixed capital. In all such cases, therefore, there are very different and often opposite forces at work, of which now one and now another prevails. The more the middle class, with its modest but extensive consumption, prevails in a people, and the more the newly discovered machines further the production of objects of necessity used by the laboring classes, the more reasonable becomes the hope that wages generally need not sink in consequence of the introduction of machinery. —But even under the most favorable circumstances it will be impossible to introduce any important machine with out doing some injury. How many laboriously-acquired arts become in such cases superfluous! Rude clod-hoppers, or even children, can take the place of the strong and skillful laborer. The previous advantage of the latter, forming the main part of his capital, is thereby destroyed. Elderly persons rarely have the necessary elasticity of body and mind to pass from their former business into a new one, even if the latter, considered in itself, is just as easy and pleasant as the former. Perhaps hand laborers do not recognize soon enough how irresistible the revolution is; they hope for a long time to be able to maintain themselves by the side of the machine; they expend the best years of their life and all their savings in endeavoring to do so, and in this way miss every opportunity of getting into some other field. The more rapidly the inventions follow one another, the more frequently do these evils recur; and even the manufacturers themselves are often injured by their old machines losing a large part of their value through the invention of new and better ones. This dark side of machinery is not seen in cases where the branch of industry which is to be furthered by it has not hitherto existed in the country; for no laborers are interested in the continuance of the incomplete method. On a Robinson Crusoe's island even the most effective machine would do no damage. We see an illustration of this in the colonies of the European countries. For the same reason, because the laborers could easily change their occupation, because the division of labor was neither so detailed nor so firmly established, the many and exceedingly important inventions at the close of the middle ages made but few men unfortunate or unhappy. —3. The most injurious influence of machines upon the laborers, and through them upon the national economy as a whole, arises from the fact that they increase the proletary, extensively as well as intensively. They sharpen very greatly the contrast between the rich and the poor in industrial life. Population, as a whole, is generally increased by the introduction of machinery. But this increase occurs mainly in the proletarian population. Every class of men has the tendency to increase the more rapidly, the less the amount considered necessary to the support of a family according to their standard of life. The factory laborer, whose tool is the machine, whose workshop is the factory, who receives his raw material from his employer, and his fixed daily or weekly wages from the same person, does not need any capital to commence business. He contributes nothing to production but his own personal labor, and, indeed, the more complete the machine, the more highly developed the division of labor, the earlier and the easier does he become ready for labor. Most factory laborers are almost as far along at twenty as they can ever hope to get. Why and how long shall they postpone the enjoyment of connubial pleasures? If the brides are also employed in the factories, which tends more and more to become true, then no increase of expenses immediately follows marriage. They hardly need dwellings; they need mere sleeping places, for during the day they live in the factories. Children, in their early years, increase the family burdens, but they soon become able to work in the factories, and are then sources of income. In this way it is not much more trouble to rear a large family than a small one—a circumstance which must increase the number of children the more rapidly, from the fact that those children who once enter the factories rarely ever leave them. —In the idea, which we nowadays connect with the word "proletary," the lack of any prospect of improvement in the future forms one of the most important and disheartening elements. Most factory laborers receive wages enough to enable them to save if they would. But experience proves that they are but seldom inclined to do so. Men will not save to any great extent unless they can employ their savings profitably. Factory laborers find great difficulty in doing this, as they are not much inclined to trust the administration of their savings to others. One would think that the repeated interruptions to factory labor from panics, crises, etc., would impress upon the laborer the necessity of laying by a penny against a rainy day. But crises are irregular. Years may pass without a single day being lost, then come years of depression where the machines are run on half time. The ordinary man is not capable of providing against such emergencies. He yields rather to what he regards as the inevitable; he feeds himself fat in good times, and starves in bad times. Such uncertainty, so far from being a discouragement to population, is very favorable to it. A laborer who needs only a healthy body to support a household easily thinks that his posterity, however numerous, can not be any worse off than he himself—4. With every step of progress of the factory system the dependence of the laborer upon his employer increases. Pure theory must indeed grant that the factory owner needs in the course of his industry skillful and industrious laborers as much as the laborers need a wealthy and prudent employer. But as a matter of fact this mutual dependence has been thus far a very different one when looked at from different sides. On the one hand the demand for labor on the part of a very few capitalists, on the other the supply offered by great droves of laborers; the employers enabled by their capital to wait their opportunity, for months or even years, the laborers needing employment from week to week. The former need labor in order to make profits; the latter, capital in order to live: the former prudent enough to command a view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, to make their plans accordingly, and to hold to them firmly; the majority of the latter absolutely incapable of any real calculation or planning. And even if there are any wise individuals among the hordes of laborers it is exceedingly difficult to convince the great mass, and still more difficult to execute a plan in the face of hope and fear. How easy it has been for masters to make their resisting laborers unpopular with the public, how very difficult for laborers to do the same for their hard masters! The resolutions of laborers assume almost necessarily a tumultuous or revolutionary character by which even an impartial government is forced to take sides against them, while those of the masters can be taken in the greatest secrecy and are on that account more effectual. Great political and social changes have been necessary in order to make even a few of these relations more favorable to the laborers; such as a far-reaching liberalizing of the state by the extension of the suffrage, freedom of the press, and right of association even in the lowest classes, and consequently a very much greater sympathy not only on the part of the government but also that of educated public opinion with the lot of the laborer, and an increased self-respect on the part of the latter. But even under new conditions the constantly increasing division of labor in the factory must continually increase the superiority of the directing person, who holds the whole together, as compared with the laborer who forms, as it were, only a small wheel in the great assemblage of machinery. The latter as an individual can be more easily spared than the former. In a word, if every determination of price is to be fixed by a struggle between opposing interests, the contest is, in this case, a very unequal one. —The darkest side of the modern factory system consists in its tendency to loosen the family ties. Many machines require so little human power for their operation that they can be worked by women or half-grown children quite as well as by men. In many cases, indeed, the weak, fine hand is more desirable than the strong and rude one. Now, wherever the labor of women and children is technically as productive as that of men, it is more economical to the capitalist, owing to its much greater cheapness. Even to the families of the laborers themselves the factory work of mother and children is a temporary advantage, if we regard only economical or rather mammonistic considerations. But it is not so in the long run. It is well known that the living expenses, not only of the actual laborers but also of the rising generation, form the minimum below which the rate of wages can not permanently sink. If it falls below this level, laborers fail to keep their ranks full; and if the demand for labor remains the same, wages must rise. Now, the labor of wife and child lowers this minimum below which the wages can not permanently fall. The father can now earn less and still maintain his family. If all laborers would use this opportunity to raise their standard of life, this condition might be maintained. But if they employ it, as experience proves they probably will, to marry earlier and to produce children still more recklessly, they increase the competition in their own field, and the rate of wages will fall to this new and lower minimum. We have already seen that the labor of wife and children is one of the most important incentives to a thoughtless and proletarian increase of population. When this influence has had its full effect, instead of better fed, better clothed and better trained laborers, we simply have more human beings who have sacrificed their childhood and their domestic happiness without obtaining anything more than they had before. And what have they lost withal? If the father ceases to be the supporter of the family, the most natural and undoubted basis of his parental and marital authority is threatened. Here are realized the diseased utopias of the friends of woman's rights—the woman devoted to the same pursuits as the man, independent as he—as a consequence, an enormous number of "wild marriages." No less ruinous is the early economical independence of children who are neither intellectually nor bodily ripe for it. The monstrous and growing importance of saloons and grogshops stands in connection with this loosening of the family ties, in the relation not only of consequence but also of cause. How can the laborer love his home, when in the evening he finds no warm and pleasant sitting room, and at noon no dinner because the housewife must be in the factory all day long? But where love does not bind the family together, it too often happens that the weaker members are abused by the stronger. For selfish parents the most convenient course is to neglect the younger children and exploit the labor of the older ones to the utmost—certainly not a highly developed but a thoroughly diseased division of labor. —The hygienic evils of machinery have often been exaggerated. And yet apart from the disadvantages of the extremely one-sided bodily activity necessary for most factory operations, the tendency to the overworking of children is very injurious, and the great number of wounds to which laborers are exposed when working about machines constitutes a serious evil. The general question as to the morality or immorality of factory laborers as compared with other classes has been often discussed, but without any valuable results. The statistics of crime have not been collected with sufficient care and in sufficient detail to make any conclusion based upon them of any value. The crimes of cities are of a different kind from those of the country, but we can not prove from present facts that they are greater or more numerous. —5. With such evils incident to machinery we need not be surprised that voices have been loudly heard among hand laborers calling for the repression of machines, particularly of new machines. So long as labor was of infinitely more importance in the national economy than capital, so long as the chief industrial cities were ruled by the guilds, even the government used to proceed against new machines under certain circumstances. At a later period, however, when capital and higher intelligence had become more important and more indispensable, the authorities ceased to lend their aid to the jealousy of the laborers. During the eighteenth century the English government often made restitution when the so-called Luddites had destroyed new machines. That envy, however, continued to show itself in private persecution and even in public disturbance for a much longer time. How short-sighted such an opposition to machinery is, becomes evident from its logical consequences. Whoever opposes every device which makes it possible to reach a given end with less human labor, ought to have all transportation carried on by human beings on natural roads, and to condemn all agriculture to be mere scratching of the earth with the finger nails. The widest limits between which the wages of labor may rise and fall, but which they can never permanently pass, and which are determined by the efficiency of labor itself, are enlarged by every new application of machinery. Only in this way is it explainable that English capitalists can afford to pay higher wages and yet sell their products more cheaply than their brothers on the continent. Again, it is wrong to suppose that the many dark sides of modern industry could not exist without machines. The very uniformity of machines forms a strong barrier to all merely capricious abuse of the weaker. Machines have made the relation between master and laborer less changeable and arbitrary, and therefore, as a rule, morally better, in that they form, on the one hand, a means of bringing troublesome laborers to terms, and, on the other, compel the capitalists to keep their factories running even in dull times, if they do not wish to see their capital invested in machines completely idle, or indeed perish by rust. Besides, the large capitalist (and only he can employ machines to any great extent) can better afford to be generous than the man of small means; and the more prominent a man is, the more he is exposed to the influence of public opinion. Further, we can not deny that machines have relieved men of many mechanical and unhealthful kinds of labor. It is sufficient to compare in this connection the attendance of a water, wind or steam mill with the labor of an ancient corn-grinding slave, or the sailor of a modern sail or steam ship with the oarsman of a galley. If machines, then, up to the present time have diminished the toil of the human race but little or not at all, the reason does not lie in any necessity of nature, but in the social imperfection of man. And the lack of forethought of the lower classes is certainly as much to blame for this as the hardheartedness of the higher classes. It is undoubtedly owing also in part to the fact that modern governments have until very recently unduly favored large industries at the expense of smaller. —6. Many of the plans for improvement amount to nothing more than a proposal that the state shall make a deduction from the profits of the capitalist and add it to the wages of the laborer. This means communism. We may mention three objections to any such plans, without going further into the discussion of communistic theories. Such measures could be helpful only on three conditions: 1, that they should be universal. For if one country alone tried them, capital and brains would emigrate to more favorable localities, and thus leave the laborers worse off than before. 2, that the capitalists should be very numerous and all very wealthy. Neither the one nor the other is the case. Of a hundred manufacturing enterprises which are set on foot, only ten ever amount to anything. Diminishing profits largely would simply send them to destruction faster than ever, and thus increase the power and influence of the few successful ones. 3, that the increase of population should be relatively slower than the accumulation of capital. Compulsory deductions in favor of the laborers would tend to make it increase more rapidly, and the greater the deductions the more unfavorable the result. —Other plans have been proposed which smell too much of the study-lamp to have much prospect of success in practical life. The idea of Sismondi that the capitalists should be bound to take care of their sick and aged laborers, is one of these. The logical outcome of such a plan would be a return to the institutions of the middle ages, which, however beneficent they may have been in their time, have showed themselves unable to exist under modern conditions. The fact that they have fallen away of themselves, decayed internally, not battered down from the outside, proves the impossibility of their resurrection. Some have thought that if the laborers were made participants in the profits and loss of the industry they would be great gainers. Aside from the difficulty of devising any plan of realizing such participation, the fact above mentioned, in reference to the large percentage of failures and bankruptcies in manufacturing enterprises, shows clearly that the laborer would not be much, if any, better off. Co-operative association is, according to some, the panacea for all industrial evils. But the history of co-operation can not be said to be very encouraging. The conditions of modern industry are such that a large business can be successfully carried on under ordinary circumstances only by a close and systematic organization such as associations of laborers are hardly capable of realizing, let alone establishing and maintaining. Whatever effectual remedy may finally be found, certain measures can be undertaken and successfully carried out which may alleviate much of the misery and remove some of the abuses of modern industry. The state can interfere to protect the most helpless classes—children and women—and compel capitalists to observe provisions in reference to the situation, arrangement and ventilation of factories, etc. Nearly all civilized nations have commenced this work, and some have carried it on to a great extent. —If a nation is in process of transition to a higher stage of civilization, all the elements of that civilization, looked at from below, appear in the most rosy light. After a nation has once reached that stage it becomes aware that on earth at least there is no unclouded happiness. Men soon forget the pressure of old conditions and exaggerate that of the new. The short-sighted and despairing advise the throwing overboard of all civilization in order to destroy forever its evils—an advice whose ruinousness is only exceeded by its impracticability. The only true remedy consists in developing to their fullest extent the good elements of a higher civilization, with the hope that in a thoroughly healthy society they will so far outweigh the bad elements as to reduce them to comparative insignificance. (See INVENTIONS.) E. J. JAMES, Tr. MADAGASCARMADAGASCAR a large island in the Indian ocean, separated from eastern Africa, by the Mozambique channel, in which are situated the four islands of the Comoren group (Angarija, Moély, Anjouan and Mayotte). Its axis, directed from north-northeast to south-southwest, is about 300 French leagues in length, while its average, but very variable, width is only eighty leagues. The coast is greatly subject to marsh fevers, during a part of the year; the country rises by a succession of mountains and table lands to the central plateau, which is perfectly healthy. The height of this region does not appear to be less than 2,000 metres, and commands the city of Tananarivoo, capital of the tribe of the Hovas. The coast, winding and irregular, presents a multitude of bays, roadsteads and harbors; the greatest of these indentations is that of Diégo-Souarez, at the north, near Cape Amber. Madagascar by its position commands both routes to India, that by the Red sea, and that by the cape, and owing to the trade winds has easy communication with the islands Reunion and Mauritius, situated 150 French leagues to the east, in the middle of the Indian ocean. Hence its political importance, well understood to-day, one which increases the economic value which it receives from its mineral, vegetable and animal resources. Rice and cattle are the principal articles of commerce. —Madagascar is estimated to contain three or four millions of inhabitants, divided into a multitude of tribes, among which only two have acquired an historical name: the Sakalaves, extended over the whole western coast, and the Hovas, settled on the central plateau, in the district of Emyrne; the first of African origin, the second of the Malay race. The latter, either through their own genius, or the topographical conditions which have excited their activity, acquired, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, a marked preponderance, under the reign of Radama I., who was favored in his projects by the French and the English who appeared at his court. Owing to their counsel and their assistance, he not only subjected to his power the numerous tribes which had been independent up to that time, but he made his people acquainted with the elements of civilization: schools, manufactures, etc. Under the reign of his widow, Ranavalo, who succeeded him in 1828, all moral and religious progress was nearly suspended, but commercial relations kept up the unbroken interchange of ideas, as well as products, which seem to justify the recognition made by France and England, in 1861, of Radama II., son of Ranavalo, as king, not only of the Hovas, but of Madagascar, although a great number of tribes were free from his authority. —The island of Madagascar, after having been visited by the Portuguese, the English and the Dutch, who did not remain there, was approached with plans of final settlement, by the French, in the course of the seventeenth century. A company, to develop its wealth, was formed as early as 1637, and received from Louis XIII., in 1642, the privilege of trading. The numerous trading stores and forts became the instruments of development, and the island even received the name of Oriental France. During two centuries, the French flag was maintained alone, with vicissitudes of checks and reverses; and if it was necessary to abandon the French posts, in 1831, the establishment of Sainte-Marie remained in the hands of France, as a permanent declaration of French rights and intentions, that is, rights of sovereignty, not in the sense that France laid claim to the ownership of all the island with reference to the natives, and as mistress of their fortune, but sovereign with reference to foreign powers, which were not to found establishments there without the permission of France. As to her relations with the natives, the treaties which she concluded at different times with the Sakalaves of the western coast, for the opening of ports and the freedom of trade, testify clearly that France never intended to impose her authority by force on all the inhabitants. It does not even appear that the recognition of the chief of the Hovas, as king of Madagascar, implied an express renunciation of the historic rights of France. In the absence of the official version, the most authentic accounts assure us that the representative of the emperor accompanied his recognition with this declaration, "that the emperor, Napoleon III., in recognizing Radama as sovereign of the island, hoped never to be forced again to vindicate the rights of France." —Be this as it may, the elevation of this prince to power, in the month of August, 1861, was followed, as we have said, with two treaties of friendship and commerce, concluded the one with France, the other with England, whose delegates assisted at his coronation. The treaty with France was dated Sept. 12, 1862, concluded at Tananarivoo, between Capt. Dupré in the name of the emperor, and three personages of the Hova court in the name of the king (the commander-in-chief, the minister of foreign affairs, the minister of justice). It comprises twenty-four articles, then an additional article, abolishing import as well as export duties, and was promulgated by imperial decree of April 11, 1863. (Bulletin des Lois, 1102, No. 11,089.) The treaty with England is dated at Tananarivoo, Dec. 5, 1862; the negotiator on the side of England was Thomas Conolly Packenham, consul of her Britannic majesty; the representatives of Radama were the commander-in-chief (Rainilaiarivony), the minister of justice (Rainiketaka) and three secretaries of state in the ministry of foreign affairs (Ramarinako, Razanakembana and Clement Laborde, Jr.). The principal clauses of these treaties, which are almost alike, are as follows: Continual peace and perpetual friendship; reciprocal liberty of entering, residing, traveling and trading in the country; a guarantee of privileges, immunities and advantages granted to the most favored nation; freedom of worship recognized to the Malgaches; reciprocal duties on tonnage and importation; abolition of all prohibition of importation and exportation; jurisdiction over foreigners reserved to foreign consuls; inheritances, goods of shipwrecked persons given to those having rights of foreigners. —At the same time that King Radama signed the treaty with France, he ratified and signed a great concession of lands and industries which, some years before, when he was only heir apparent, he had accorded to Lambert, his representative in France. For the development of this wealth a joint stock company was formed in Paris under the name of Le compagnie de Madagascar financière, industrielle et commerciale, and authorized by imperial decree of May 2, 1863. Baron de Richemont, senator, was appointed governor. An exploring expedition was immediately organized, which departed about the end of May, 1863, with Lambert and Dupré, bearers of the ratification of the treaty by the emperor. On arriving in the Indian ocean, the plenipotentiary of France heard of the terrible revolution of the palace which had been accomplished at Tananarivoo during his absence. May 12, King Radama, with thirty of his favorites, were strangled by the party of the former officers and Hova aristocracy, who wished to regain the power and prestige they enjoyed under Queen Ranavalo. His wife, Rabodo, had been proclaimed queen of Madagascar under the name of Rasoherina, and had sworn to a species of constitution. Dupré arrived in the waters of Tamatave during the month of July, and announced to the court of Emyrne that he was the bearer of a ratified treaty, the execution of which he required, as well as the Lambert charter, which a company had acquired. The Hova government refused, unless important modifications were made. After useless negotiations, Commander Dupré was obliged to leave the harbor of Tamatave, convinced of the definite check of his pacific and diplomatic policy, through the persistent opposition of the Hovas. The French consul withdrew. Political relations were interrupted and commercial relations were again restricted by the establishment of customs duties. The influence of the French, grown weak since the death of Queen Ranavalo, and which the treaty of 1862 had re-established only on paper, was henceforth reduced to nothing. The Malgaches went so far as to destroy the manufactory of arms established by a Frenchman, which was called by the queen "the indestructible beauty." The French government still thought of recovering some credit at the court of Tananarivoo. We find in the yellow book, of 1867, that the revision of the treaty of 1862 had been resumed under conditions which justified the hope that the queen would cease to guard the unexplored wealth of her kingdom from the pacific conquests of commerce and industry. The queen, in fact, seemed to consent to a resumption of negotiations; she had brought out from the sanctuary the statue of Kelimalaga, the goddess of international relations, when she died suddenly (1868), and the project was not carried out. Her cousin, Rauroma, succeeded her under the name of Ranavalo II., and the credit of Europeans was strengthened only in one case, which was moreover creditable to their humanity. They succeeded in saving the lives of the authors of a conspiracy formed under the direction of the former ministers of Radama. But these unfortunates were nevertheless confined in a cave where several of them died of hunger. Their wives and children were reduced to slavery; and their goods confiscated. Such was the custom of the country. We mention this fact to show the state of civilization of the Hovas, under one of its aspects. Their religion, their social hierarchy, their penal laws, date from what might be called organic paganism; and in considering the Hovas we might cite as a corresponding example the kingdoms of Italy in the time of Romulus, or those of India at the beginning of Brahmanism, if we had not to take account of their race, which is much less elegant, less artistic and less philosophic than the nations of classic paganism, and much less progressive also. Hence the Hovas would require a number of years, impossible to be determined, to arrive at western civilization, if the latter did not come to them from abroad, and come with as few chances of being accepted as possible, which may be understood from their inferiority. —The Hovas are of the Malay rac similar to the population of southern India, Malacca, the Moluccas and the northern islands of Oceanica. This race was transplanted to Madagascar, but the time and circumstances of this transplanting are not known. It is more or less mixed with Caffre, Arab and Malgache elements. A people arrived at this degree of complicated civilization, is perhaps less accessible to a superior civilization than an altogether barbarous one. The Hovas, imbued with the feeling of their own superiority, hostile to strangers, form an aristocracy of a very positive turn of mind, full of resources in politics: generally some noble family has control of the king or the queen, and its influence is the better received by the rest of the nation, the more it succeeds in excluding foreigners. —Slavery was abolished in Madagascar by a proclamation dated June 20, 1877. —BIBLIOGRAPHY. Ellis. History of Madagascar, London, 1838, and Three Visits to Madagascar, London, 1858; Bocage, Madagascar, possession française depuis 1642, Paris, 1859, Pfeiffer, Reise nach Madagascar, 2 vols., Vienna, 1861; MacLeod, Madagascar and its People, London, 1865; Mears, The Story of Madagascar, Philadelphia, 1873; Mullens, Twelve Months in Madagascar, London, 1875; Grandidier, Histoire physique, naturelle et politique de Madagascar, Paris, 1876; Oliver, Madagascar and the Malagasy, London, 1866; Sibree, Madagascar and its People, London, 1870; Südafrika und Madagascar, 3d ed., Leipzig, 1874. JULES DUVAL. MADISONMADISON, James, president of the United States 1809-17, was born at Port Conway, Va., March 16, 1751, and died at Montpelier, Va., June 28, 1836. He was graduated at Princeton in 1771, was admitted to the bar, was a delegate to the continental congress from Virginia 1780-83 and 1786-8, and to the convention of 1787 (see CONSTITUTION), and was a democratic congressman 1789-97. He was secretary of state throughout Jefferson's two terms of office, and on his retirement was elected president. (See FEDERALIST; KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS; CONSTRUCTION; ADMINISTRATIONS; EMBARGO; CAUCUS, CONGRESSIONAL; CONVENTION, HARTFORD; HENRY DOCUMENTS; DRAFTS, I.; SECESSION, I.; DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY, I.-III.; UNITED STATES.) —Madison's part in the adoption and ratification of the constitution, and in the organization of government under it, was very large and indeed essential. As soon as the government was fairly organized he took place as Jefferson's most confidential lieutenant in the formation of the republican (democratic) party, and from that time until 1817 his history is closely identified with that of his party. —Madison's ability as a political writer will not be questioned by any one who has read his writings; but his ability was rather judicial than polemical. He never fairly entered the lists against Hamilton but once, in 1793, when Jefferson had written to him thus urgently: "Hamilton is really a colossus to the anti-republican party. When he comes forward there is nobody but yourself who can meet him. For God's sake, take up your pen, and give a fundamental reply to Curtius and Camillus." It must be admitted that in this encounter Madison was very decidedly worsted. Outside of polemics, however, his style is always plain, strong, frank and convincing; and his state papers are of the first rank. —As president, Madison held a different position from any of his three predecessors, "Washington, who ruled superior to party; Adams, who ruled in spite of a party; and Jefferson, who ruled at the head of a party." Madison may be considered the first of the presidents who have been the exponents of a party. It is very certain, for example, that "Mr. Madison's war," as the federalists often called the war of 1812, did not draw its inspiration from Madison at all, even if doubt be cast upon the story that he was forced into it by the democratic leaders in congress. In this, as in many other similar instances, he was the first president to yield in practice to the Jeffersonian theory, as applied to the executive. —See Adams' Life of Madison; Rives' Life of Madison; Madison's Writings; McGuire's Private Correspondence of Madison; 5 Elliot's Debates; 2 Schouler's United States, 279; Madison's messages in the Statesman's Manual; and authorities under DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY, I.-III. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON. MAGNA CHARTAMAGNA CHARTA, the great charter which was granted by King John to the barons of England at Runnymede, A. D. 1215. —With this great charter of personal liberty begins the true history of the English nation, for, as Lord Macaulay relates, the history of the preceding events is the history of wrongs inflicted and sustained by various tribes, which indeed dwelt on English soil, but which regarded each other with aversion such as has scarcely ever existed between communities separated by physical barriers. John having been defeated by Philip of France and driven from Normandy, the Norman nobles were compelled to make England their home. Confined by the sea with the people whom hitherto they had despised and oppressed, they at length began to regard England as their country and the English as their countrymen, and the two races so long hostile found they had common interests to unite them and common enemies to overcome. Both were oppressed by the tyranny of a wicked and despotic king, and the descendants of those who had fought under the Norman William and the Saxon Harold began to intermarry and form closer bonds of union, until the final pledge of their perfect reconciliation was the great charter framed for their common benefit and wrung from their perfidious king by their united and determined exertions. —However circumscribed had been the liberty of the Anglo-Saxons under their ancient form of government, by the introduction of the feudal law into England by William the Conqueror, the whole people had been reduced to a state of vassalage, and their freedom so effectually suppressed, that a great part of them had been cast into a state of abject slavery. At the same time, under John, the Norman barons were compelled to submit to such absolute prerogatives of the sovereign as virtually divested them of that rank and those privileges which men of their class had always enjoyed, and which with bloody valor they had always defended. The power of the crown, long wielded with relentless force, was not easily reduced. Henry I., to aid in excluding his elder brother from the throne, had granted the people a charter in many respects favorable to the personal liberty of the subject. Stephen had renewed and Henry II. confirmed this charter. The king, however, had always ignored its provisions, and exerted the same unlimited authority over the lives and liberty of his subjects. There was a single exception to this stern authority of the sovereign. Arms still remained in the hands of the barons and people, and by combining their power in a settled and united purpose, their liberties might still be vindicated. The oppressions and insults of their rapacious king becoming no less odious to the barons than to the people, and finally enraged at his licentious exactions upon their families as well as his despotic demands upon themselves, they resolved to strike a bold and determined blow for the restoration of their privileges. —Accordingly, immediately after the Christmas holidays in the year 1215, the barons assembled in London, and taking a copy of the charter granted by Henry I., which Langston, the archbishop of Canterbury (who favored their cause), had found in a monastery, they presented it to the king and demanded that he should grant them a renewal of Henry's charter and a confirmation of the laws of St. Edward. To gain delay, the king promised a reply to the barons' demand at the following Easter. The barons assented to this proposition and peaceably retired to their castles, which they provisioned and garrisoned. On the approach of the Easter festival they assembled a force of two thousand knights, besides innumerable retainers, and advanced to Brockley, near Oxford, the king's residence. At this point they received a message from the king, through the archbishop of Canterbury and the earl of Pembroke, demanding to be informed what those liberties were that they so zealously exacted. Through the king's messengers they presented to him a schedule of articles containing their demands. The king indignantly and imperiously rejected this petition from the barons and people. Immediately thereupon the barons elected Robert Fitz-Walter their general-in-chief, and declared war upon the king. They besieged the castle of Northampton for fifteen days; marched through the gates of Bedford castle, willingly opened by William Beauchamp, its owner; advanced to Ware and held a consultation with the chief citizens of London; and thence to London, where they received a welcome from all the people. From London they made incursions upon the king's domains, and laid waste his parks and palaces. Upon issuing their proclamation to the barons, those who had hitherto preserved a semblance of sustaining the king deserted the royal arms and openly espoused the cause they had in secret always favored. Stripped of his military strength and support, the king was finally obliged to submit to the demands of the barons whom so recently he had spurned from his presence. A conference between the king and barons was appointed at Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, a place which from this fact has become noted in history. The two parties with their retinues encamped opposite each other, as if in hostile array. After several days' discussion, the king finally signed the charter on the twelfth day of June, A. D. 1215, with great ceremony and solemnity. —The instrument as first drawn by the barons did not contain all of the provisions which were finally embraced in the great charter. It was at first drawn in the interest of the clergy and nobility alone, and did not comprehend that of the people. By this instrument the freedom of the clergy was assured in elections, and the former charter of the king was confirmed by which the royal assent for leave to elect and confirmation of such election, was rendered unnecessary. All restraints upon appeals to Rome were removed; no one was to be prevented from leaving the kingdom at his will; and all fines imposed on the clergy, from any cause whatever, were to be in proportion to the amount of their estates and not to benefices attached to their ecclesiastical positions. —To the barons this instrument guaranteed abatements in the rigor of the feudal law. The fine or composition known to the feudal law as a relief, which the heir of a deceased tenant paid to the lord at the death of the ancestor, for the privilege of taking up the estate which on strict feudal principles had lapsed or fallen to the lord on the death of the tenant, was established at fixed rates—a knight's at a hundred shillings; an earl's and baron's at a hundred marks, and if the heir to an estate be a minor, he should enter upon it without paying any relief, immediately upon attaining his majority. It was ordained that the king should not sell his wardship; that he should only levy reasonable profits upon the estate, without committing waste or injuring the property, and that he should up hold the castles, houses, mills, parks and ponds; and should he commit the guardianship of the estate to the sheriff or any other, he should first oblige him to find proper surety for the protection of the property. While the lands of a minor were in wardship, and not in his own possession, he was not to be obliged to pay any interest on any debt contracted with a Jew. Heirs should be married without disparagement, and before the contraction of the same the nearest relations of the person should be notified of it. A widow should enter upon her dower (a third part of her husband's rents) without paying any relief. She should not be obliged to marry as long as she chose to remain single, and should only give security not to marry without her lord's consent. It was further ordained that the king should not claim the wardship of any minor who holds lands by military tenure of a baron, on the assumption that he also holds lands of the crown by socage or any other tenure. Scutages should be estimated at a rate the same as in the reign of Henry I., and that no scutage should be imposed except by the great council of the kingdom, save in three general feudal cases, to wit: the king's captivity, the knighting of the king's eldest son, and the marriage of his eldest daughter. (A scutage was a tax or contribution levied upon those who held lands by knights' service, originally, a composition for personal service which the tenant owed to his lord, but afterward levied as an assessment. Blackstone.) On summoning the great council of the kingdom, prelates, earls and great barons should be called to its session by a particular writ, and the lesser barons by a general summons of the sheriff. The land of a baron should not be seized by the king to satisfy a debt to the crown, if the goods and chattels of the baron were sufficient to discharge the debt. No man should be compelled to perform more service for his fee than he is bound to by his tenure. No knight should be forced to give money for castle guard to a governor or constable of a castle if he be willing to perform the service in person or provide another able-bodied man in his place; and should the knight be in the field himself by order of the king, he should be exempt from all other service of this character. No vassal should be permitted to sell so much of his land as would incapacitate him from performing his service to his lord. —The foregoing were the principal articles of the charter as first drawn by the barons. They were prepared entirely, it would appear, in the interest of themselves and the clergy. Had the charter contained nothing further, in the interest of the people, it would not have promoted the national happiness and freedom, as it would have resulted alone in augmenting the power and independence of a class already in authority, whose rule might thereby become more absolute and burdensome than that of the monarch. In fact, it would have been merely granting liberal powers and privileges to the kings, clergy and barons by royal charter, while the rigor of Norman feudal law remained in all its repugnancy toward the people, and not the restoration of the laws of Henry I. to the nation, and the adoption of those other great principles of liberty forming the groundwork of English constitutional law, which have been characterized as an engrafting of Norman feudalism on the "ancient customs of England," such as previously existed under Saxon and Danish free institutions, and in which "ancient customs" were embraced the liberal laws of Edward the Confessor. —The people, however, perceived this weakness of the charter and demanded that other articles, relating particularly to their personal freedom, should be inserted, without which it would have proven of little benefit to themselves and could not have obtained their support. The barons, who relied upon the concurrence of the people to enforce their own demands upon the king, and without which aid they were in a great measure powerless, were thus compelled to insert other clauses of a more extensive and beneficent nature, comprehending the interests and benefits of inferior ranks of men. It was therefore ordained by the charter that all rights and immunities granted to the barons by the king should in like manner be extended by the barons to their inferiors, vassals and dependents. That the king should bind himself not to grant any writ authorizing a baron to levy aids from his vassals, save in the three enumerated feudal cases. That one weight and one measure should be established throughout the kingdom. That merchants should be permitted to transact all business without the infliction of arbitrary tolls and impositions, and that they and all free men should not be debarred from departing from and returning to the kingdom at pleasure. That the ancient liberties, privileges and free customs of London and all cities and burghs should be preserved. That tributes should not be imposed upon them except by the great council of the kingdom. That no town or individual should be obliged to build or support bridges but by ancient customs. That every freeman should be permitted to dispose of his goods according to his own will, and if he die intestate his heirs succeed to them. That no horses, carts or wood should be taken by any officer of the crown without the consent of the owner. That the king's courts of justice should no longer follow him about the kingdom, but should be permanently located; that they should be open to all, and that justice should be no longer refused, delayed or be sold by them. That circuits should be held regularly every year; and that inferior courts of justice—the county court, sheriff's term and court-leet—should meet at their appointed time and places. (A court-leet in English law is a court of record held once a year, in a particular hundred, lordship or manor, before the steward of the leet. Blackstone.) That sheriffs should be deprived of the power to hold pleas of the crown, and should not put any one upon trial from rumor or suspicion, but upon the evidence of lawful witnesses. (The office of sheriff in England is judicial and ministerial. His judicial authority was formerly of considerable extent. It is now, however, generally confined to ascertaining damages on writs of inquiry and the like. Wharton.) That no freeman should be taken or imprisoned or be disseized of his freehold or liberties or free customs, or be otherwise damaged, nor should the king "pass upon him, nor send upon him, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land." (In this provision of magna charta was laid the foundation of the writ of habeas corpus.) That all who had suffered otherwise in this or the two preceding reigns should be restored to their rights and possessions. That a flue imposed upon a freeman should be in proportion to his offense, and that no fine should be imposed upon him that would prove his utter ruin. That even a villain or rustic should not by any fine be bereaved of his carts, plows and implements of husbandry. This latter clause was the only one inserted for the especial benefit of a class which probably at that time was the most numerous in the kingdom. (Hume's Hist. Eng.) —The incorporation by the people of these latter articles in the charter, not only mitigated the severity of the feudal law toward themselves as well as the nobility, but likewise established justice and equality before the law, confirmed the personal freedom of the subject, and formed the perfect outlines of a strictly legal government. By some historians they are believed to have been those liberal Saxon laws framed by Edward the Confessor. —The king having acceded to these demands of the barons and people, other guarantees were required as a safeguard of the great charter. The king was obliged to agree that London should remain in possession of the barons, and the tower be given into the custody of the primate, until the fifteenth day of the following August, or until the execution of the articles of the great charter To insure that the provisions of this charter should be carried into effect, twenty-five members of a council were to be appointed from their own numbers, as guardians of the public liberties, and their authority was not to be limited in either extent or duration. And it was further ordained that if an attempt should be made to violate the charter, either by the king, justiciaries, sheriffs or foresters, four of these conservators should demand of the king a redress of the grievance. If proper satisfaction was not duly made, the council of twenty-five should then be called together, who, with the great council, were granted the power to compel him to observe the provisions of the charter; and in case of resistance on the part of the king, war should at once be levied against him, his castles attacked and every kind of violence employed save that of personal injury to himself and his family. All subjects without distinction were obliged, under the penalty of confiscation, to swear obedience to the twenty-five barons; and twelve knights in each county were to be chosen by its freeholders, who were to report such violations of the charter as might require redress. —The twenty-five conservators first appointed, and whose names have been preserved in the historical records of the great charter, were the earls of Clare, Albemarle, Gloucester, Winchester, Hereford, Roger Bigod earl of Norfolk, Robert Vere earl of Oxford. William Mareschal the younger, Robert Fitz-Walter, Gilbert de Clare, Eastuce de Vescey, Gilbert Delaval, William de Moubray, Geoffray de Say, Roger de Mombezon, William de Huntingfield, Robert de Ros, the constable of Chester, William de Aubenie, Richard de Perci, William Malet, John Fitz-Robert, William de Lanvelay, Hugh de Bigod, and Roger de Montfichet. In their hands the sovereignty of the kingdom was virtually invested, and in the exercise of executive authority they were by the act placed superior to the king, as in the affairs of government there was hardly anything happening relating to the observance of the great charter that might not under its provisions fall under their authority. (Hume's Hist. Eng.) —At first the king adhered strictly to all of these regulations, however humiliating to his sense of personal sovereignty, and in a spirit of perfect obedience himself sent writs to all his sheriffs directing them to compel every one to swear obedience to the commands of the twenty-five barons. In these acts, however, the perfidious king strove to disguise his ultimate design. To lull the suspicions of those of his subjects who might still doubt his fealty of purpose, he discharged from his service all foreign levies and affirmed that his government should thenceforth be administered in a liberal and lawful manner, conducive to the happiness and independence of his people. His well-formed purpose was, while outwardly observing these forms, to await a propitious moment and by force of arms overcome the barons, and again enslave the people. He secretly dispatched emissaries abroad to gather a foreign army, promising as a reward of their victory over his own people the spoils of his kingdom. To Rome he sent a messenger and placed before the pope a copy of the great charter which his subjects had compelled him to sign. As his feudal lord of the kingdom, he demanded of the pontiff his papal aid and protection. In response to the king's appeals the pope issued a bull abrogating and annulling the whole charter, prohibiting the barons from exacting observance of it and the king from paying any regard to it; absolving the king and his subjects from all oaths imposed for its observance, and excommunicating every one who should persist in maintaining such disloyal and treasonable demands. —Under the sanction of this decree from the Roman pontiff, upon the arrival of his foreign forces, the king endeavored by proclamation to recall the liberties which he had solemnly granted to the people. The primate, however, refused to publish the sentence of excommunication against the king's subjects, and the clergy, the barons and the people all conspired to defend their chartered liberties. The king was therefore compelled to rely solely upon his foreign levies to restore his ancient powers. With remorseless vengeance he ordered these mercenaries to make war upon his subjects and lay waste the estates, manors, houses and parks of the barons. Villages in ruins and castles in ashes followed the torch and marked the track of the barbarous soldiery. Horrible tortures were employed to make the people reveal the hiding place of their treasures. The king marched through the entire extent of his kingdom from Dover to Berwick, and laid waste the provinces on each side of him. The barons, on the other hand, incensed at the perpetration of such acts on the part of their king, made reprisals no less extreme. They rallied in force, devastated the king's demesnes, and with fire and sword laid in blackened ruins the king's castles, parks and palaces. The whole kingdom was ravaged, the people slaughtered, and society reduced to anarchy. (Hume's Hist. Eng.) In the midst of this desolating war the king died. While engaged in assembling a large army with a view of fighting a decisive battle for his crown, and passing from Lynne to Lincolnshire on the seacoast, purposely avoiding the main road, he lost by an inundation of the road all his treasure, carriages, baggage and regalia. This disaster, joined with the distracted condition of his affairs, increased the disease with which at that time he was suffering, and on reaching the castle of Newark he expired, in the forty-ninth year of his age. By his demise the nation was at once disenthralled. —Henry, the infant son of John, succeeded to the throne as Henry III., with the earl of Pembroke, then mareschal of England, at the head of the government as protector of the realm, he having been chosen to that responsible position by a general council of the barons, assembled at Bristol. —At the suggestion of Pembroke, who appears in history as a wise and far-sighted as well as a broad and liberal statesman, the young king granted a new charter of liberties, confirming all that his father had granted, and bestowing, in addition thereto, other and important concessions. This charter was again confirmed by the king the following year, with an additional article preventing oppression by sheriffs, and an additional charter known as the charter of forests, abrogating the peculiar and arbitrary laws which had for many years oppressed the people. All the forests which had been inclosed since the reign of Henry II. were disafforested and new rules and regulations adopted for passing through them. Capital punishment was no longer inflicted for forestry offenses, but such offenses became henceforth punishable only by fines and imprisonment. Under this charter the proprietors of lands recovered the right to cut and use wood from their own estates. Thus through revolution was born these great principles of human freedom, and as the historian Hume remarks: "Thus these famous charters were brought nearly to the shape in which they have ever since stood; and they were during many generations the peculiar favorites of the English nation, and esteemed the most sacred ramparts to national liberty and independence. As they secured the rights of all orders of men, they were anxiously defended by all, and became the basis in a manner of the English monarchy, and a kind of original contract which both limited the authority of the king and secured the conditional allegiance of his subjects." JOHN W. CLAMPITT. MAINEMAINE, a state of the American Union. Its soil was claimed, in May, 1605, by Weymouth for Great Britain, and by De Monts for France. English colonization was unsuccessfully attempted at the mouth of the Kennebec, Aug. 18, 1607, and for thirty years French and English settlements were made mainly by individual enterprise. Aug. 10, 1622, Sir Ferdinando Gorges and others received from the Plymouth company a patent for "Laconia," or the "province of Maine," the territory between the Kennebec and the Merrimac, about one-sixth of the modern state, and the grant was confirmed by Charles II., April 3, 1639. The name of Maine was given either from that of the queen's French province, or as equivalent to the main land, as distinguished from the numerous islands off the coast; the latter derivation is much the more probable. Massachusetts (see that state) claimed this part of Maine under her charter, and, as Gorges was an Episcopalian and a royalist, the commonwealth period in England gave Massachusetts fair opportunity to enforce her claim. Commissioners were sent, who testified, Aug. 1, 1652, that they had found the headwaters of the Merrimac in latitude 43° 40' 12'' other commissioners fixed the end of a line, due east of this point, in Casco bay; and other commissioners, late in 1652, were successful in inducing the people to "acknowledge themselves subject to the government of Massachusetts Bay." Jan. 11, 1664, Charles II. ordered Massachusetts to restore the Gorges grant to the heirs, or show cause why not, and for some years the authority of Massachusetts was interrupted. In 1668 it was re-established; and in 1678 Massachusetts purchased the title of the Gorges heirs for £1,250. —The duke of York's grant of March 12, 1664 (see NEW JERSEY), included also the territory between the St. Croix and the Kennebec; and this part of Maine was governed by his deputies until the Massachusetts charter of 1691 formally transferred both the Gorges' and the duke's grants to that colony. From the beginning of the colony's history the French in Acadia asserted claims indefinitely westward into Maine, which were the occasion of angry and sometimes bloody disputes, and were not disposed of until the treaty of Paris in 1763 ended the French dominion in Acadia. —After its formal incorporation in 1691, Maine remained a part of Massachusetts for 130 years. A party was formed in the district soon after the close of the revolution, with the object of obtaining a separation, but the movement made no headway until after 1800, when Maine was as steadily democratic as Massachusetts was federalist. The war of 1812 gave a great impetus to the party of separation, for Maine felt the evils of the war severely, and her territory was occupied by the British up to the Kennebec. An act passed by the Massachusetts legislature, June 19, 1819, submitted the question of separation to the people of Maine, who decided in its favor, July 19, by a vote of 17,091 to 7,132. A state constitution was formed by a convention at Portland, Oct. 11-29, 1819, and ratified by popular vote almost unanimously. The state was admitted by act of March 3, 1820 (see COMPROMISES, IV), to take effect March 15. Another act of April 7, 1820, divided the former congressional representation of Massachusetts, giving thirteen representatives to the old and seven to the new state. —BOUNDARIES. 1. Northeast Boundary. The treaty of 1783, which recognized the United States as a nation, defined the northeast boundary substantially as follows: From the mouth of the river St. Croix, in the bay of Fundy, up the middle of that river to its source; thence due north to the highlands, or watershed, between the rivers of the St. Lawrence and Atlantic systems; thence along the highlands to the northwesternmost head of the Connecticut river; thence to latitude 45° north; and thence due west to the St. Lawrence. Almost every point named was doubtful, except the St. Lawrence river, and the designated parallel of latitude. Massachusetts had always claimed over the highlands to the St. Lawrence, and the claim had been supported by Great Britain as against France; but on the withdrawal of France from Canada the British government had made the highlands the boundary in all its proclamations and instructions to colonial governors After the treaty of peace a British claim grew up that the "highlands" were a line cutting across Maine from Mars hill to the Chaudiere. The United States, by the evidence of contemporary maps, claimed as the highlands the watershed parallel to the St. Lawrence, and the claim was confirmed, after the final settlement, by the marking on the so-called "Jay map" (see Gallalin's memoir, cited below), which was used by the American negotiators in 1782-3, and apparently by the British negotiator also, since his (Oswald's) line was marked upon it and disproved the British claim. The only contemporary evidence for the British claim was an apocryphal map of Dr. Franklin in a Paris library. Commissioners named under the treaty of Nov. 19, 1794, (see JAY'S TREATY), fixed the true St. Croix and its source, as at present, though Oswald's line took the St. John, much further east, as the St. Croix. Efforts were made in 1803, in 1814 (by the treaty of Ghent), in 1827 (by a convention to arbitrate), and through a long series of negotiations from 1830 until 1840, to settle the position of the "highlands" and the true source of the Connecticut river; but the only one which came to any hopeful result was the arbitration of the king of the Netherlands, Jan. 10, 1831, under the convention of 1827, and his award was rejected by both parties. In 1838-9 the territory between New Brunswick and Maine, claimed by both parties, became the scene of a small border war. Maine raised an armed posse, erected forts along the line which she claimed as the true one, and the legislature placed $800,000 at the governor's disposal for the defense of the state; an act of congress, March 3, 1839, authorized the president to resist any attempt of Great Britain to enforce exclusive jurisdiction over the disputed territory; and armed conflict was only averted by the mediation of Gen. Scott, who arranged a truce and a joint occupation by both parties. By this time Great Britain and the United States were both ready to abandon the idea of arbitration, and Lord Ashburton was sent to Washington to arrange a compromise line with Daniel Webster, secretary of state. Commissioners were present from Maine and Massachusetts, and the treaty was concluded Aug. 9, 1842. Besides providing for the suppression of the slave trade and for the extradition of fugitives from justice, it fixed the boundary line to the Rocky mountains; granted free navigation of the St. John river to both nations; confirmed grants of land in the disputed territory to those in possession; allowed to Maine and Massachusetts compensation for territory given up, to be paid by the United States; and altered the northern boundary to its position as understood in 1783, thus giving Rouse's Point to New York, and considerable doubtful territory to New Hampshire. —2. Western Boundary. The western boundary of Gorges' patent was to be the Salmon Falls river to its source, and thence by a "northwestwardly line" sixty miles. Massachusetts claimed that the line should run due northwest; New Hampshire, that it should only deviate slightly from a due north line. In August, 1787, a board of arbitrators from the counselors of New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Nova Scotia decided in favor of New Hampshire, whose eastern boundary was prolonged as at present to the headwaters of the Connecticut. —CONSTITUTION. Slavery had already been abolished while Maine was a part of Massachusetts. (See ABOLITION, I.) The constitution of 1820, which is still the organic law of the state, therefore made no reference to slavery. It gave the right of suffrage to "male citizens of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or upward"; made the election of governor, senators and representatives annual; fixed the number of the lower house at not more than 200 nor less than 100, to be chosen by towns according to population, no town to have more than seven representatives; fixed the number of the senate at not more than thirty-one nor less than twenty, to be chosen by senatorial districts; provided for a council of seven, and ordered them, with the governor, to examine the returns of legislative elections and summon "such persons as shall appear to be elected by a majority of the votes in each district." Twenty-one amendments have since been made, the following being the most important: fixing the number of the lower house at 151 (1841); forbidding the loaning of the state's credit (1848); granting the suffrage to the volunteer soldiers of the state (1865); authorizing the issue of bounty bonds (1868); directing the formation of corporations by general laws (1876); making the term of the governor and legislature two years, and making the governor eligible by a plurality, instead of a majority (1880-81). —GOVERNORS. William King, 1820; W. D. Williamson, 1821; Albion K. Parris, 1822-6; Enoch Lincoln, 1827-8; Nathan Cutler, 1829; Jonathan D. Hunton, 1830; Samuel E. Smith, 1831-3; Robert P. Dunlap, 1834-7; Edward Kent, 1838; John Fairfield, 1839; Edward Kent, 1840; John Fairfield, 1841-2, Edward Kavanagh, 1843; Hugh J. Anderson, 1844-6; John W. Dana, 1847-9; John Hubbard, 1850-52; W. G. Crosby, 1853-4; Anson P. Merrill, 1855, Samuel Wells, 1856; Hannibal Hamlin, 1857; Lot M. Morrill, 1858-60; Israel Washburn, Jr., 1861-2; Abner Coburn, 1863; Samuel Corry, 1864-6; J. L Chamberlain, 1867-70; Sydney Perham, 1871-3; Nelson Dingley, Jr., 1874-5; Seldon Connor, 1876-8; Alonzo Garcelon, 1879; Daniel F. Davis, 1880; Harris M. Plaisted, 1881-2. —POLITICAL HISTORY. The principal reason for the final separation of Maine from Massachusetts was that the district was as generally democratic as the state was federalist. Before the separation the congressmen and local officers of Maine were usually democratic, but the governors and legislatures of the state to which they belonged were federalist. After the separation Maine continued to be a very reliable democratic state until 1854, with the following exceptions. 1. In 1824 and 1828 the electoral vote of the state was given to John Quincy Adams. In 1840 it was cast for Harrison, the whig candidate, but only by a popular majority of 217 out of a total vote of 93,007. In all other presidential elections the democratic candidates had a clear popular majority. 2. In congressional elections the great majority of successful candidates were democratic. The whigs frequently elected two of the representatives, and in 1840 elected four of the eight, and one of the two United States senators. 3. The governors were as steadily democratic with the exception of Gov. Kent (1838 and 1840). —The only important contest of a purely local nature during this period was upon the enactment of a prohibitory liquor law. A law of this nature, commonly known as "the Maine liquor law," was passed in 1851, and signed by Gov. Hubbard. In 1853 a "search and seizure act" was passed, for the confiscation of liquors. In 1856 this whole system of legislation was repealed, and a license law enacted; but in 1858 the Maine law, in all its parts, was re-enacted, and has since remained in force. An attempt to modify it, in 1879, was lost in the house by a vote of 127 to 17. —From 1850 there were many signs of party disintegration. The whig vote ceased to grow; the free-soil vote began to develop into larger proportions; and a coalition was gradually formed between the whigs, the free-soilers, and various classes of dissatisfied democrats. In 1852-3 there was no popular majority for governor, and the coalition elected Crosby governor, and William P. Fessenden United States senator. Fessenden was the second anti-democratic senator in the state's history, George Evans (1841-7) having been the first. The election of 1854 resulted in the first great overthrow of the democratic party of the state. The republican party elected the governor, the legislature, and five of the six congressmen, and contested the election of the solitary democratic representative. In the following year the whigs and democrats were reduced to the necessity of forming a coalition against the new republican party, and in this fashion succeeded in keeping control of the legislature and electing the governor, Wells (democrat), there being no popular majority for that office. In 1856 the republicans at last secured complete control of the state: they elected the governor, Hamlin, by a vote of 69,429 to 44,889 for Wells, and 6,659 for Patten (whig), all of the six congressmen, a heavy majority of both houses of the legislature, and the second of the two United States senators. —From 1856 until 1878 republican success was almost invariable, in all elections, presidential, congressional and state, the only exception being the election of a single democratic congressman in 1862 from the southwest corner of the state. The democrats had usually from one-fifth to one-fourth of the legislature, though in 1866 and 1867 they had but fifteen and thirteen members out of a total of 182. Even the "tidal wave" of 1874-5, which gave the democrats control of so many other states, had no greater effect in Maine than to increase the democratic proportion of the popular vote 5 per cent., and the democratic members of the legislature to 73; and at the succeeding election both these deceptive increases disappeared. —It was inevitable that such a prolonged and unbroken control by one party should give rise to discontents among its own members. These came to a head in 1878. In the congressional elections of that year the republicans failed to obtain a majority in any one of the five districts. In the three districts to the west of a north and south line through the middle of the state, the republican candidates were elected by a plurality, through the division of the opposition vote between the democratic and "greenback" candidates; in the two eastern districts the "greenback" and democratic voters formally or practically united, and elected their candidates. For governor there was no popular majority, Selden Connor (republican) having 56,554 votes, Garcelon (democrat) 28,218, and Joseph C. Smith (greenback) 41,371. In such case, by the constitution, the lower house of the legislature was to choose two out of the four highest candidates on the popular vote, and from these two the upper house was to select a governor; an arrangement excellently calculated to tempt the formation of a coalition. In this case the lower house, controlled by the democrats and greenbackers, chose Smith and Garcelon, and the republican majority in the upper house selected Garcelon to be governor. In the election of 1879 the three parties nominated the same candidates as in 1878, and the popular vote was substantially the same; but in the complexion of the legislature there was a very important difference. On the face of the returns the republicans had a majority in both branches of the legislature, and would therefore be able to choose a republican governor. By the constitution and laws the governor and council were a preliminary canvassing board, to give original certificates of election to members of the legislature, subject to revision by the two houses after their organization. In a multitude of town elections, irregularities of every description, changes of initials of candidates, and similar errors, were inevitable, and had occurred at every election. After examining carefully the arguments of both sides in 1879-80, one can only come to the conclusion that precedents in abundance for any desired system of canvassing can be found in the annals of the state. In 1879 Gov. Garcelon and his council certainly strained every possible republican precedent to the damage of the republican candidates, and succeeded in making out a "fusion" (democratic and greenback) majority in the lower house, the pivotal point of contest. Jan. 7 1880, Gov. Garcelon's term expired; two days before, he had authorized and directed ex-Gov. Chamberlain, major general of the state militia. to protect the public property until a new governor should qualify; and the state was thus left practically, though temporarily, under military government. The fusion majority of the legislature met and elected officers, Jan. 7, the republicans refusing to take part. Jan. 12 the republican majority, with and without certificates, took possession of the rooms of the two houses; the state supreme court pronounced in their favor; Jan. 16 they elected Davis governor; Gen. Chamberlain gave up his authority to him; the fusion legislature disbanded, and the Maine imbroglio was over. To avoid any such difficulty in future, the constitutional amendment heretofore given, making the governor eligible by a plurality, instead of a majority, was proposed by the legislature and ratified by the people. In 1880 the democrats and greenbackers formally united and nominated Harris M. Plaisted, who was elected in September over Gov. Davis by a plurality, as follows Plaisted, 73,713; Davis, 73,544; scattering, 545. In November the republicans secured the electoral vote of the state, three of the five congressmen, and a majority of both branches of the legislature. The popular vote for presidential electors was 74,039 republican, 65,171 fusion, and 4,408 greenback. The two congressional districts carried by the fusionists were the same districts which they had carried in 1878. The legislature in 1882 is as follows: senate, twenty-two republican, nine fusion; house, eighty-four republican, sixty-seven fusion. —Among the prominent leaders in state politics have been the following: James G. Blaine, Hannibal Hamlin (see those names); Jonathan Cilley, democratic congressman 1837-8, killed in the Graves-Cilley duel; Nathan Clifford, state attorney general 1834-8, democratic congressman 1839-43, attorney general under Polk 1846-8, and justice of the supreme court 1858-81; George Evans, whig congressman 1829-41, United States senator 1841-7; John Fairfield, democratic congressman 1835-9, governor 1839 and 1841-2, and United States senator 1843-7; William Pitt Fessenden, whig congressman 1841-3, whig and republican United States senator 1854-64 and 1865-9, and secretary of the treasury under Lincoln; Wm. P. Frye, state attorney general 1867-9, republican congressman 1871-7, and United States senator 1877-83, Eugene Hale, republican congressman 1869-79, and United States senator 1881-7; John Holmes, democratic congressman 1817-20, and United States senator 1820-27 and 1829-33; Lot M. Morrill, governor 1858-60, and republican United States senator 1861-77, Albion K. Parris, democratic congressman 1815-18, governor 1822-6, United States senator 1827-8, and state supreme court judge 1828-36; Sydney Perham, republican congressman 1863-9, and governor 1871-3; Thomas B. Reed, state attorney general 1870-72, and republican congressman 1877-85; Israel Washburn, whig and republican congressman 1851-61, and governor 1861-2; and Wm. D. Williamson, governor 1820, and democratic congressman 1821-3. —See 1 Poore's Federal and State Constitutions; Sewall's Ancient Dominions of Maine (1857); 1 Hazard's Historical Collections, 45, 442; 1 Coolidge and Mansfield's History of New England; Kohl's East Coast of North America; Willis' Laws, Courts and Lawyers of Maine, History of Portland, and Documentary History of Maine; Sullivan's History of the District of Maine (to 1795); Williamson's History of Maine (to 1820); Varney's Young, People's History of Maine; Whitman and True's Maine in the War; Abbott's History of Maine (to 1875); 19 Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia, 743 (opinion of supreme court in 1880); (NORTHEAST BOUNDARY) Documents relating to the Northeast Boundary (1828); Vose's Northeast Boundary (from 75 North American Review); Northeastern Boundary Arbitration; 13 Benton's Debates of Congress, 679, 754; 14 ib., 103, 143; 5 Webster's Works, 81; 6 ib., 288, 350; Gallatin's Memoir on the Northeastern Boundary, before the N. Y. Hist. Soc., April 15, 1843 (with the Jay map); 8 Stat. at Large, 81 (treaty of Sept. 3, 1783, art. 2), 119 (treaty of Nov. 19, 1794, art. 5), 220 (treaty of Ghent, art. 5), 363 (convention of Sept. 29, 1827), and 572 (treaty of Aug. 9, 1842). ALEXANDER JOHNSTON. MALTA, GOZO AND COMINOMALTA, GOZO AND COMINO. In 1798 the fortunes of war gave these three islands to England, and the treaties of 1815 upheld her possession of them. Their area is 115 square miles; in 1871, when the last census was taken, the civil population was 149,084. —The civil legislation remains very nearly what it was when the English first took possession of the island; the changes are inconsiderable. In 1829 a very important innovation was made in criminal legislation by the introduction of trial by jury. During some years there was no great cause to rejoice over this, as from time to time the jury, through lack of firmness, allowed enormous crimes to go unpunished; but at length this method of dispensing justice succeeded in working properly. In 1838 the inhabitants, without receiving complete political liberty, were granted freedom of the press. So far, the English government and the Maltese population have only cause to congratulate themselves on this measure. —The management of local and municipal affairs is in the hands of a council, one-half of which is chosen by election. In order to give the inhabitants means of making known their desires, several consulting committees have been formed, the members of which are changed every year by rotation. —The revenue is composed mainly of customs duties. It continued to increase from 1838 to 1836, when it reached the sum of £144,795, the expenditures being only £129,776. From 1856 to 1866 the receipts continued to increase, and reached the sum of £196,459, to which corresponded £185,449 expenditures. In 1870 the equilibrium was disturbed, to the detriment of the receipts, which fell far below the expenditures, the former amounting to £158,631, and the expenditures to £171,788. Among the receipts, the customs duties exceeded £100,000; the second place was occupied by the land tax, which produced upward of £30,000. Almost all this revenue was devoted to the civil expenditures of the island; only £6,200 being applied to military outlay—Malta is considered by England less as a colony than as a military post, whose garrison should be kept as strong as possible at all times. (See GIBRALTAR) In 1851 this garrison was composed of only 3,331 men. Since that time, by successive additions, these figures have doubled. In 1861 the garrison was composed as follows: 5,415 infantry of the line, 636 colonial militia, 782 artillerists, and 283 engineer sappers. The militia artillery of Malta (Royal Malta fencible artillery) is composed of 637 Maltese, 23 of whom are officers. —The commerce of these islands increases continually; still, there is more continuity and regularity in the movement of importations than in that of exportations. The greater part of imported merchandise comes from England. In 1867 the imports lose to £6,395,320; in 1868, to £7,222,760; in 1869, to £4,808,440. In the same years the exports were £5,256,400, £7,221,320, and £4,187,160. The movement of shipping was, in 1869, 3,695 vessels arrived, with a capacity of 1,367,399 tons; 3,702 ships cleared, with a tonnage of 1,375,208. Since 1862 this movement remained within the following limits, arrivals and clearances combined:  Malta exports chalk, lime, olive oil, oranges, wine, wool, and small cattle; the imports are dry goods, beer, butter, coal, leather dressed and undressed, cotton both in tissue and in thread, iron, woolen and silk stuffs. —BIBLIOGRAPHY. Boisgelin, Ancient and Modern Malta, 2 vols., London, 1805; Bres, Malta antica illustratra, Rome, 1816; Avalos, Tableau historique, politique, physique et morale de Maltc, Paris, 1830; Tullack, Malta under the Phœnicians, Knights and English, London, 1861. L. GOTTARD. MALTHUSMALTHUS, Thomas Robert, was born at Rookery, near Dorking, in the county of Surrey, England, Feb. 14, 1766, and died at Bath, Dec. 29, 1834. His father, Daniel Malthus, was in comfortable circumstances, but as he was obliged to leave his fortune to his eldest son, he had Thomas Robert enter upon an ecclesiastical career. He first confided him to Richard Graves, author of "The Spiritual Don Quixote"; then he sent him to the Warrington academy, in Lancashire; but this institution not having been able to maintain itself, he had him complete his studies with Gilbert Wakefield, who enjoyed a great reputation in England. At eighteen years of age, young Malthus entered Jesus college, Cambridge; he took his degree there in 1788, and the following year entered holy orders. After remaining at home for some time, he received a curacy in the neighborhood. —This was a time when men's minds were in a state of fermentation in Europe, on account of the philosophic movement and the events of the French revolution. William Godwin, a publicist already well known, had just published his book on political justice, in which he claimed that moral evil and all the calamities of the human race were due solely to the defects of governments, and he proposed the establishment of an equality of conditions as a means to prevent the effects of bad political institutions. This work of Godwin had in England both adversaries and partisans. Among the latter was Daniel Malthus, Thomas Robert, his son, on the contrary, had learned from the study of history and of political economy (Adam Smith had published his book in 1776, and David Hume, who had been received into the family with J. J. Rousseau, had published his essays,) that, if defective governments contribute to make men vicious and miserable, the ignorance and degradation of the lower classes contribute powerfully either to form or to maintain bad governments. Malthus was therefore far from harboring any illusions as to the results which might be expected from public reforms. —Godwin published, in 1797, a collection of essays called "The Inquirer," upon education, morals and literature. One of these essays, upon prodigality and avarice, induced Malthus, then in the prime of youth, to take up his pen, and he answered by an "Essay on the Principle of Population," which he published anonymously, and which must be considered less as a first edition, than as an essay toward the celebrated work printed five years later. —Malthus opposed those writers in whose eyes the perfectibility of men and of political and social institutions was unlimited, and reduced almost to nothing the influence of bad governments; he defended property and opposed the various socialistic systems which had been already produced by utopians and others; he showed that society had never encountered but two obstacles to its progress, vice and misery; and he pointed out as the chief cause of these obstacles the too rapid increase of population relatively to the means of subsistence. —This book, which demolished the utopias and systems imagined for the happiness of the human race by popular writers, and which showed the various social phenomena in a new light, was attacked and defended with spirit, as Godwin's had been before it. This incited Malthus thoroughly to examine the subject once more. He first made use of the works of Hume, Wallace, Smith and Price. He examined what influence the principle of population, which he had brought to light, had exercised over nations in the different epochs of history; and desirous to add to the lessons of the past those of his own, he undertook a journey through a part of Europe. —In the spring of 1789 he departed from England with three other members of Jesus college, Cambridge, (among whom was Daniel Clark, known by his travels in different parts of Europe), and visited Denmark, Sweden and a part of Russia; he subsequently visited Switzerland and Savoy. The result of his travels was the publication of the second edition of the "Essay on the Principles of Population," in 1803, which excited attack even more than did the first. In this work, which was born of the first, but which was new in many respects, Malthus gave a fuller exposition of his ideas by their more complete development, and by the recital of numerous facts borrowed from history and from the situation of different countries; he applied his observations to institutions which had always been considered benevolent, and showed the dangers of an unintelligent philanthropy; he pointed out to the working classes that the best means of permanently raising the rate of wages was to exercise great circumspection in the matter of marriage, etc. We give here only a very slight summary of his ideas, which will be more completely set forth in the article POPULATION—A year after the publication of his work, Malthus was appointed professor of history and of political economy at the college of the East India company, at Ailesbury, near London: it was also about this time that he married. He fulfilled for thirty years his duties as professor and also as minister of the gospel; and it was during this period of his life that he three times revised his celebrated work, that he meditated upon the questions with which science concerns itself, and that he was led to publish his other writings: upon the corn laws (1814 and 1815), upon rent (1815), upon the principles of political economy (1819), upon definitions in political economy (1827), etc. —Despite its title, the book upon the principles of political economy is not a complete treatise, but only a collection of dissertations relative to the questions to which he had devoted the greatest share of attention, and which he discussed particularly with Ricardo and J. B. Say. He attempted to establish in this book how important it is not to hastily draw general principles from partial observations, and how essential it is to verify general laws by rigorous examination of the facts. He concluded, therefore, that what is absolutely true in principle is far from being always completely applicable in practice, and that, in the imperfect state of society, it is necessary to understand how to sacrifice, in a certain measure, the truth to the needs of prudence and order. This book is far from having had the same celebrity as that on population; this is due, in the first place, to the nature of the subject, and also, in our opinion, to the relative inferiority of the work. But it is enough glory for one man to have discovered a fundamental law, and to have elucidated it by such remarkable research and such profound observations. The dissertations of Malthus, however, have contributed much to the elucidation of many politico-economic principles, and notably to the theory of rent, to which Ricardo's name has been attached. The latter says, in the preface of his "Principles": "In 1815 the true doctrine of rent was published for the first time by Mr. Malthus, in a book entitled, 'An Inquiry into the Nature and Progress of Rent, etc.,' and by a fellow of the university of Oxford, in his 'Essay on the Employment of Capital in Agriculture,' (Dr. West)." M'Culloch had besides pointed out the same doctrine in a writing on the corn trade, published in 1777 by Anderson. This is not the place to examine into the relation of the theory of rent to these times; we only wish here to call attention to the value which Ricardo put upon this part of the works of Malthus, and also to the modesty with which he submitted his own ideas to the public. —What distinguishes Malthus is love of truth. "This love of truth," says Charles Comte, "which never contradicts itself, produced and developed in him the private virtues which distinguished him: justice, prudence, temperance and simplicity. He had a sweet character. He had such a great control over his passions, he was so indulgent to others, that people who lived near him for more than fifty years declared that they hardly ever saw him disturbed, never in anger, never excited, never cast down. No harsh word, no uncharitable expression, ever escaped his lips against a human being: and, although he was more the object of injustice and calumny than any writer of his age, perhaps of any age, he was rarely heard to complain of this kind of attack, and he never retaliated. He was very sensible to the approbation of enlightened and wise men; he placed a great value upon public esteem. But unmerited outrage affected him very little; he was as much convinced of the truth of his principles and the purity of his views, as he was prepared for contradictions and even for the repugnance which his doctrines could not fail to inspire in a certain class. His conversation naturally turned on those subjects which touch the well-being of society, and which he had made the special object of his studies; such conversation found him always attentive, serious, easy to move. He gave expression to his opinions so clearly and so intelligibly, that it was easy to see they were the result of profound reflection. Moreover, he was naturally gay and lively, and as ready to take part in the innocent pleasures of the young as to encourage them and direct them in their studies. He was among the most zealous partisans of parliamentary reform, and desired to see the government enter on the path of progress. Faithful to his political opinions at a time when they were far from leading to fortune, he did not make them a claim to favor when they triumphed; he had no thought of making science a stepping-stone to fortune. When his principles became the foundation of the law which reformed the poor laws, calumny and insult by the enemies of reform were not lacking for him. His adversaries tried to make the responsibility for the defects which they pointed out in the government's measure fall upon him; on the other hand, the partisans of that measure overloaded him with eulogy in the discussions which it gave rise to in parliament; but there the gratitude of his political friends and national munificence stopped. I must add that no one ever heard him complain either of the insults of the former or of the neglect of the latter." —Charles Comte speaks here of the reform of the poor laws. Despite the exaggerations of party spirit in favor of, and against it, Malthus' book vividly impressed all men endowed with a sense of justice, who sincerely desired to better the condition of the masses, and called the attention of men to the dangers of the poor laws. Propositions of reform were made at various times, and notably in 1817 by Mr. Samuel Withbread, and in 1821 by M. J. Scarlett, a learned lawyer; but it was not till 1834 that parliament decided to modify the legislation, after a celebrated inquiry, which confirmed most of the truths Malthus had proclaimed. —It must have been a great joy to the illustrious economist to see the public action of his country inspired by that one of his opinions which had been most violently attacked. Malthus was then in his sixty-seventh year, and apparently in the enjoyment of very good health. But about the middle of December, 1834, on his arrival at Bath from London, to pass the Christmas holidays with his children at the house of his father-in-law, he became indisposed; a disease of the heart declared itself, and he died on the 29th of the same month. —Malthus is one of those writers whose ideas have been most misrepresented. We have only been able to indicate them here in a very summary manner; they will be more amply developed in the article POPULATION. JOSEPH GARNIER. MALTHUSIANSMALTHUSIANS. (See POPULATION.) MANDARINSMANDARINS, magistrates and functionaries of the Chinese empire. This title was invented by the Portuguese established in the Indies, and derived from the Hindoo mandri (councilor). The true title is khan (chief); it was introduced by the Mantchu Tartars. —There are nearly 100,000 mandarins, classed in eighteen orders. They are councilors of the emperor, ministers, governors of provinces, military commanders, judges, inspectors of letters, etc.; they form various graduated, administrative and judicial tribunals which check each other, and the highest of which controls the acts of the emperor. —The mandarins acquire their hierarchic degrees only after having passed very difficult examinations. The candidates are confined in cells, and there are few examinations which do not last three days; it is not rare, on opening the cells to see the written examination, to find the candidates dead of brain fever. The Chinese profess that places should only be granted to merit. The intention is excellent; but how it is realized is not certain. J DE B. MANGUMMANGUM, Willie Person, was born in Orange county, N. C., in 1792, and died at Red Mountain, N. C., Sept. 14, 1861. He was a representative in congress from North Carolina 1823-6, and United States senator 1831-6 and 1840-53. In 1836 he received the electoral vote of South Carolina for the presidency. (See ELECTORAL VOTES, WHIG PARTY.) MANIFESTOMANIFESTO. Taken in its widest sense this word signifies a solemn statement, a public declaration, which one power makes to another of its rights, its grievances, its claims, either before taking arms, to oblige the second to render it justice, or, after having had recourse to arms, to conciliate other nations. It is a proceeding which modern nations seem to have borrowed from the Romans. According to the fecial law, the herald at arms, called pater patratus, went, protected by his sacred character of ambassador, to demand satisfaction of the people who had offended the republic, and if within the space of thirty-three days such people had not made a satisfactory answer, the herald called the gods to witness the injustice, and returned, saying that the Romans would see what was to be done. This was the preliminary act of the declaration of war. (The Romans doubtless were not its inventors; the use of declarations must be more ancient, or more general.) —There is also the manifesto of a sovereign, of the head of a state, of a government, to a people. But the word more generally employed is proclamation, as is shown by examples drawn from the later revolutions which took place in France. In this case the manifesto is frequently a kind of plea addressed to the tribunal whose decision is final, public opinion. —One of the most celebrated manifestoes of modern history is that which was published, dated Coblentz, July 25, 1792, by the duke of Brunswick-Luneburg, which roused the indignation of all France. In 1859, after the Italian campaign, the emperor, Francis Joseph, addressed under the title, A manifesto to my peoples, a document in which he explained, with a sadness which was not without grandeur, the causes which had conduced to end the war. —The manifestoes by which it is sought to lay before other nations or before the public, the rights, intentions, measures of a given state or government, require on the part of those who draw them up, propriety of terms and precision of ideas, without excluding the elevation and warmth of style which constitute eloquence. To prove, to convince, to speak to the mind and the heart, are the two great objects which it is proposed to attain, and in this instance the style is not confined to that austere brevity which is peculiar to other diplomatic documents. EUGENE PAIGNON. MANUFACTURESMANUFACTURES. (See INDUSTRY.) MARKETMARKET. (See OUTLET.) MARRIAGEMARRIAGE. Marriage has been defined by a celebrated modern jurist: "The association of man and woman, who unite to perpetuate their species, to mutually help one another to bear the burdens of life, and to share a common destiny." —This great institution, the first foundation of civilization, may be considered from very different points of view. The continuation of the human species, the satisfaction of its most powerful passion, moral affinity consecrated by religion, the union of civil and family interests, sometimes even of political interests, when there is question of persons of elevated rank whose august and at the same time grave mission it is to unite in themselves part of the destinies of nations, such are some of the elements which belong to the institution of marriage and are developed by it in different degrees, according to times and circumstances.—"Philosophers," says Portalis, "consider in this act principally the union of the two sexes; jurists see in it only the civil contract, and canonists only the sacrament, or what they call the ecclesiastical contract." Let us, in our turn, endeavor to show in a few words the no less important part that political economy should claim in the study of this contract, which forms in some sort the corner stone of human society, and in which it is easy to recognize, at the same time, the principle of population, the support of property, the stimulant of production, and the principal means of the preservation and transmission of wealth. —We can find no instance in history of a people who attained any considerable development that allowed a promiscuous intermingling of the sexes. Common and constant experience shows the relative sterility of libertinism, while at the same time it proves its wretched and abandoned fruits to be much more subject to early death than those of lawful unions. Distaste for marriage has even imperiled nations which had reached quite a high degree of civilization; and the history of Rome, at the fall of the republic, presents the sight of a city the mistress of the world, threatened by her own population with wars, proscriptions and contempt for the institution that was intended to recruit her families and support the state. —In our day a contrary danger has, undoubtedly, preoccupied the minds of a great many economists. In our society, formed under the influences of Christianity and rich in its traditions, the inconsiderate increase of population has been considered a source of dread; legislators no longer apply themselves, like those of Rome and ancient France, to encourage marriage; on the contrary, they have sometimes thought of restraining it; the number of marriages even seems to have decreased. But the very fears of some economists of our day who devote their attention especially to the restricted society of old Europe, themselves prove full well the beneficent power of an institution which, when applied to the whole world, is still so far from having achieved its work of extending and propagating the human species. —Marriage, which peoples the earth, also confers upon each of its parts that reign of individuality which constitutes property. Want and personal foresight, which are the generative principles of appropriation, in reality acquire their full intensity only in heredity, which extends the view of the possessor beyond the term of his present existence. Marriage alone, then, gives to the principle of appropriation the full latitude of its horizon. It is marriage which, by the urgent and tender incentive of heredity, develops man's individual property; it is marriage which transforms this property into patrimony, and furnishes the most salutary and efficacious stimulant to the production of wealth. Thus the accumulated work of generations, in the different branches of human activity, every day enlarges the majestic basis of civilization in the world. —History frequently confirms, by striking coincidences, this remarkable solidarity between the institution of marriage and that of property, of which theory affords us but a passing glimpse. Sparta, for example, wished to submit the union of the sexes to the direction of the state, and thus reduce this sacred union, so nobly styled by a Roman jurist the communication of the divine and human law * * *, to a mere pairing of animals. The Doric city at the same time included property in the agrarian distribution made by Lycurgus. Conjugal faith, the law of paternity, the sentiment of individual property, were destined to be confounded in Lacedemonia in one same sacrifice. —Mark the economy of these great institutions upon which humanity rests. Marriage, which founds property upon the family which it creates, is at the same time eminently fitted, by the fruitful union of the different faculties which it unites, to procure the preservation of the patrimony which it has acquired. The physical strength of man, the ingenious and assiduous care of his companion, present in the preservation of the goods of the family, not less than in the education of the children, a first application of that division of labor which is justly brought forward by political economy as one of the most powerful means of progress in human activity. —The intimate harmony which exists between the institution of marriage and the institution of property has been frequently manifested also by the comparison of the laws relative to inheritance with those which regulated, in such, different manner, the conditions of conjugal union and the prohibitions with which different legislators have surrounded it. "When a legislator," says Portalis, "had established a certain order of succession the observance of which he considered important for the political constitution of the state, he so regulated marriage that it was never allowed between persons whose union could disturb or alter this order; we find examples of this solicitude in some of the republics of ancient Greece." A law of Athens, for example, allowed a man to marry his half-sister on his father's side, but not his half-sister on his mother's side, in order to prevent the union under one owner of two estates, and consequently of two inheritances. —Marriage, besides, has not attained everywhere the same economic and moral dignity which it possesses in our modern Christian society. This great institution may be found in the world under two entirely distinct forms, which mark one of the principal divisions in the history of civilization. —Monogamy, which is in our eyes the perfect type of marriage, puts man and woman on an equality, in so far as their moral and physical differences will permit. It was, however, but rarely met with in antiquity as a general and obligatory institution, although the appreciation of its perfection was from the earliest ages acknowledged by many legal enactments. In this respect, as in many others, Roman civilization justly lays claim to the honor of having in some sense prepared the way for the revolution which Christianity completed in the world, and of having powerfully contributed to inaugurate, by the elevated morality of its laws, the true principles of reason and of social progress. It may be truly said, on the other hand, that the indissolubility of marriage was established by Christianity alone, and that pagan Rome created a sort of permanent exception thereto by the institution of divorce. —Polygamy, to consider it only under its most general form—that is, the form which allows a man several wives—by this very fact unwarrantably subjects the weaker sex to the caprice, fickleness and domination of the stronger. —All the salutary effects of marriage are in part perverted by polygamy, which, however, was the general law of antiquity, and one which is still obeyed by half the world. —The experience of Mohammedan countries proves that polygamy is unfavorable to population, and the Turkish historians themselves show that the Christian families in the Ottoman states are the most numerous. Moreover, the sole effect of polygamy is to concentrate and monopolize, to the advantage of a few, the union of the sexes, which are about equal in number. How can such an institution offer any advantages for the progress of population? If, after having invaded Europe, Mohammedanism has been driven back within the narrow limits of its first conquests, polygamy is one of the chief causes which must ever hold it bound and powerless. —Polygamy does not establish a real family; it places between the children of a common father the influence of maternal rivalry, as a dire germ of inevitable discord. Property itself does not seem to attain its perfect form by the side of this system of conjugal union. With the wife but an uninterested slave, and the family destroyed, individual property seems shaken to its very foundation, and is absorbed, as is ordinarily the case in Mohammedan countries, in the sovereign domain of the head of the state. Human liberty, property and the dignity of the family can exist only by mutually sustaining each other. From an economic point of view, therefore, as well as from a moral standpoint, polygamy is a debasement of marriage, of which monogamy is the only normal and faithful expression. Side by side with the contract which unites their lives there are different forms of agreement regulating the interests of the man and woman joined by the conjugal tie. —From universal community to absolute separation of goods there are numerous gradations admitted by law, which we do not propose to describe here in detail. The economist finds in the system of community of goods between husband and wife, marked advantages for commerce and the circulation of wealth; the moralist sees in it the wife elevated by a greater responsibility, and stimulated by an interest in the common prosperity of the household more positive than that resulting only from conjugal sympathy and maternal solicitude. The jurist, who is acquainted with the anxiety, the fitness, and sometimes with the sad experience of families, is less absolute in his preferences, and often refrains from applying to the circumstances and interests, which he would conciliate, the means necessary to secure the desired result for the sake of the end of marriage and the good of those interested in conjugal union. —Such is the power of this great institution of marriage, that by the morality of the domestic hearth which it consecrates, by the principles of labor and economy which it propagates, by the spirit of property which it nourishes, by its influence over the destiny of the family which it is called upon to regulate, it is of interest everywhere to the progress of the world and the development of civilization. E. DE PARIEU. MARSHALLMARSHALL, John, was born at Germantown, Va., Sept. 24, 1755, and died at Philadelphia July 6, 1835. He was admitted to the bar in 1781, took high rank as a lawyer, and obtained the militia title of "General Marshall," by which he was commonly known until 1801. In 1797-8 he was an envoy to France (see X. Y. Z. MISSION); after his return he was a federalist congressman from Virginia 1799-1800, when he became secretary of state under Adams. (See ADMINISTRATIONS, III.) He was appointed chief justice of the United States Jan. 31, 1801, and served until his death. (See JUDICIARY; CONSTRUCTION, III.; FEDERAL PARTY.) His decisions are in Cranch's, Wheaton's and Peters' reports, in Peters' condensed reports (covering Cranch's and Wheaton's). and in Brockenbrough's "Marshall's Decisions" (circuit). See 2 Flanders' Chief Justices; Story's Miscellaneous Writings 639. A. J. MARYLANDMARYLAND, a state of the American Union. The patent for its territory was first applied for by Sir George Calvert, "baron of Baltimore," and after his death was made out to his son and heir, Cecil, June 20, 1632. Calvert at first intended that it should be called "Crescentia"; but the patent gave it the name of "Terra Mariae, Anglice Maryland," by which latter name it has since been known. The name was given in honor of Henrietta Maria, Charles I.'s queen. The proprietorship remained in the Calvert family until its extinction, with the exception of the period 1691-1715, when the crown made Maryland a royal colony because of the asserted disloyalty of the proprietor. In 1771 the last Calvert died, leaving the province to his illegitimate son, Henry Hartford; but the revolution which immediately followed put an end to his proprietorship. —BOUNDARIES. The charter gave the colony as a northern boundary the 40th parallel of north latitude; as an eastern boundary Delaware bay and the ocean; as a southern boundary a due east line from Watkin's point to the ocean; and as a western boundary the "Pattowmack" river to its "first fountain," and thence due north by a true meridian. The grant, therefore, evidently embraced the whole of the modern state of Delaware, and a wide strip of southern Pennsylvania, including the city of Philadelphia. Penn claimed the parallel of 39° as "the beginning of the parallel of 40°," which was to be his southern boundary; and disputed Baltimore's claim to Delaware, since the Maryland patent was for "uncultivated lands," and Delaware was already settled by the Swedes. Penn's influence with Charles II. obtained a verdict in his favor from the board of trade in 1685, but the Baltimore family did not finally submit until 1766. In that year the two proprietors sent Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon, two English surveyors, who marked off "Mason and Dixon's line," as decided by the board of trade, placing at the end of each mile a stone with the letter P and the Penn arms on the north side, and the letter M and the Baltimore arms on the south side. (See PENNSYLVANIA. DELAWARE). The southern boundary was settled with Virginia in 1668; but in 1858 the commissioners appointed to restore it found that it had not been drawn due east, varying slightly to the north. Maryland, however, did not attempt to change the ancient line. On the west, Maryland always claimed the south branch as the true origin of the Potomac; but Virginia has successfully maintained the north branch as the boundary, though the question has never been formally settled. —CONSTITUTIONS. The colony was established as a refuge for Roman Catholics, but absolute toleration was given from the first settlement to the religious beliefs of all settlers. From 1691 until the revolution the Protestants were strong enough to disfranchise the Roman Catholics. The charter was also careful to secure the organization of a popular assembly, which shared the government of the colony. The first constitution was framed by a convention at Annapolis, Aug. 14-Nov. 11, 1776, and was not submitted to popular vote. The right of suffrage was given to freemen over twenty-one, having a freehold of fifty acres, of £30 in property. The legislature was to be composed of a senate and a house of delegates. (See ASSEMBLY.) Delegates were to be chosen annually, four from each county, two from Annapolis, and two from Baltimore; and were to have £500 in property. There were to be fifteen senators, nine from the eastern shore, and six from the western shore, who were to be chosen by electors chosen by the people, and were to be owners of £1,000 in property. They were to serve five years. The governor was to be chosen annually by the legislature on joint ballot, with a council of five. The choice of the capital was left to the legislature, which selected Annapolis. In 1810 an amendment abolished property qualifications for office, and gave the right of suffrage to white males over twenty-one, on one year's residence. In 1837 several amendments were made. The constitution of the senate was abolished, and a new apportionment of delegates was made; twenty-one senators were now to be chosen, one from each county and one from Baltimore; the governor was made elective by the people; and the legislature was empowered to abolish slavery, with compensation to owners, provided the necessary act should be passed unanimously by both houses of two successive legislatures, with three months' publication between. —The second constitution was framed by a convention at Annapolis, Nov. 4, 1850-May 13, 1851, and ratified by popular vote June 4, 1851. Its principal changes were as follows: the governor was to hold office for four years, senators for four years, and delegates for two years; a new apportionment of delegates was made; and the legislature was to create corporations by general laws, never to grant state and to corporations, and never to abolish slavery. —The third constitution was framed by a convention at Annapolis, April 27-Sept. 16, 1864, and was ratified, Oct. 12-13, 1864, by the following close vote; in favor, home vote 27,541, soldiers' vote 2,633; against, home vote 29,536, soldiers' vote 263; majority in favor, 375. It declared the paramount allegiance of the citizen to be due to the government and constitution of the United States; abolished slavery, forbade compensation to owners by the legislature; made a new apportionment of delegates according to population, disfranchised all persons who had borne arms against the United States or had even "expressed a desire for the triumph of enemies over the arms of the United States"; and applied the disfranchisement clause to the vote on the new constitution itself. —The fourth constitution was framed by a convention at Annapolis, May 8 - Aug. 17, and ratified by popular vote, Sept. 18, 1867. It omitted the disfranchisement clauses, and instead of the "paramount allegiance" clause used the "supreme law" clause of the federal constitution. (Art. VI., ¶ 2.) —GOVERNORS. Thomas Johnson, 1777-9; Thomas Sim Lee, 1779-82; Wm. Paca, 1782-5; Wm. Smallwood, 1785-8; John Eager Howard, 1788-91, George Plater, 1791-2; Thomas Sim Lee, 1792-4; John H. Stone, 1794-7; John Henry, 1797-8, Benj. Ogle, 1798-1801; John Francis Mercer, 1801-3; Robert Bowie, 1803-6; Robert Wright, 1806-9; Edward Lloyd, 1809-11; Robert Bowie, 1811-12; Levin Winder, 1812-15; Charles Ridgely, 1815-18; Charles Goldsborough, 1818-19; Samuel Sprigg, 1819-22; Samuel Stevens, Jr. 1822-5; Joseph Kent, 1825-8; Daniel Martin, 1828-9; Thomas King Carroll, 1829-30; Daniel Martin, 1830-31; George Howard, 1831-2, Jas. Thomas, 1832-5; Thomas W. Veazey, 1835-8; Wm Grayson, 1838-41; Francis Thomas, 1841-4; Thos. G. Pratt, 1844-7; Philip Francis Thomas, 1847-50; Enoch L. Lowe, 1850-54; Thos, Watkins Ligon, 1854-7; Thos, Holladay Hicks, 1857-61; Augustus W. Bradford, 1861-5. Thos. Swann, 1865-7, Oden Bowie, 1867-71; Wm. Pinkney Whyte, 1871-5; John Lee Carroll, 1875-9; Wm. T. Hamilton, 1879-83. —POLITICAL HISTORY. From the first organization of political parties in the United States, Maryland was a very reliably federalist state. In this she seems to have been influenced, at least in part, by the general feeling of opposition to the politics of her neighboring state of Virginia, which was the rule until 1860, and which, indeed, seems to have been inherited from colonial times. The federalist control of the state lasted until 1802, but sometimes by a precarious tenure. In 1797 the legislature was so evenly divided that, while the democrats elected the governor, the federalists elected a United States senator, to succeed the new governor, by a majority of one. With the beginning of the century the current turned the other way. The democrats elected the presidential electors and a majority of the lower house in 1800, a majority of the whole legislature in 1801, and a majority of both houses and of the congressmen in 1802. The democratic control of the state brought about the widening of the right of suffrage in 1810, referred to above. It was preceded by an enlargement of the right of suffrage by statute, which was passed early in 1802 after a two years' resistance by the federalist senate, and then only after an implied threat of a convention to revise the constitution, and abolish the electoral character of the senate. Presidential electors were chosen by districts, and the federalists secured two of the eleven electors in 1804 and 1808, and five in 1812. —July 26-27, 1812, occurred the Hanson riots in Baltimore, occasioned by Hanson's persistence in publishing a federalist newspaper, "The Federal Republican," there. The mob sacked the office, and killed or cruelly beat twenty-five or thirty persons who defended it. Among these was the partisan leader "light-horse Harry" Lee, of the revolutionary army, who was crippled for life. The feeling, which this affair aroused, restored the state to the federalists in the October election of the same year. Their majority in the lower house was so large as to more than offset a unanimously democratic senate, chosen the previous year. The federalist control lasted until the extinction of the party, with occasional democratic successes. As a general rule, however, the federalists were in a popular minority, and their control of the state was due to the features of the state constitution, which gave the growing city of Baltimore but half as much influence in the legislature as the weakest of the counties. —The growth of Baltimore and the western counties made the electoral constitution of the senate very unpopular, but the minority resisted all attempts to change it until 1837, when the amendments referred to under the first constitution above were adopted. These reforms were forced by the refusal of the democratic senatorial electors to qualify and form a quorum in 1836, and by an attempt, June 6, 1836, of a popular convention of Baltimore and other counties to call a convention to revise the constitution, "without the aid of the legislature." The attempt created great excitement, but was never brought to an open election for the proposed convention. —From 1820 until 1852 the popular majority in the state was anti-democratic in every presidential election, though the district system of choosing electors gave Jackson seven of the eleven in 1824. The majority, however, was never large; in 1832 it was but four out of nearly 40,000 votes. During the same period the legislatures were very steadily whig, and consequently the United States senators, and the governors until 1837, were of that party. After 1837, when the election of governor was given to the people, there was but one whig governor chosen, Thos. G. Pratt. In the presidential election of 1852 the democrats carried the state. After the destruction of the whig party in 1854-5 its Maryland organization, taking the name of the American party, controlled the state until 1859, electing the governor, United States senator, four of the six congressmen, and a majority of the legislatures, and casting the electoral vote of the state for Fillmore in 1856. (See AMERICAN PARTY.) In 1859 the democrats obtained a majority of both houses of the legislature, and in 1860 they secured the electoral vote of the state for Breckinridge, but only by a very narrow plurality over Bell, (See CONSTITUTIONAL UNION PARTY) —At the outbreak of the rebellion in 1860-61, the addition of Maryland to the southern confederacy was warmly desired by the leaders of the secession movement, in order thus to bring Washington city within the pale and into the possession of the confederacy, and make the new government, in the eyes of foreign nations, at least the de facto successor of the government of the United States. This desire was shared by many of the state's democratic politicians, who had long been used to the idea of secession as an antidote to abolition, and by many of the younger men. These two classes brought a strong pressure to bear on Gov. Hicks, to induce him to call a special session of the legislature, without which no state convention was constitutionally possible. The governor refused to convene the legislature, and asserted that all the arrangements had already been made to force an ordinance of secession through the proposed convention. —This excitement, however, as in other southern states, was almost entirely confined to the politicians; the people, except in the extreme southern counties, were almost unanimously against secession. The feeling, indeed, was not based upon a disbelief in the right of secession (see ALLEGIANCE, II.), so much as on economic reasons, such as the inevitable transfer of the war from Virginia to Maryland, and the immediate loss of $50,000,000 in slave property, but its existence, from whatever cause, can not be doubted, nor should it be denied the fair credit for its results. Any reader can easily estimate the increased probability of European recognition which would have followed a secession of Maryland in February, 1861, the irruption of rebel troops over her territory, and the inauguration of the confederate government in Washington instead of in Montgomery. —The fall of Sumter, the president's call for troops, and the armed conflict in Baltimore (see REBELLION) so moved the disaffected classes that they had actually issued an unauthorized call for a meeting of the legislature at Baltimore, when the governor anticipated it by summoning the legislature to meet at Frederick, a more loyal city, April 26. When this body met, it was found to be unionist, but more from policy than from principle: in the house of delegates a motion looking toward secession was rejected by a vote of fifty-three to thirteen, and a resolution condemning the war against the south was carried by a vote of forty-three to twelve. In September, 1861, a large number of the members were subjected to military arrest (see HABEAS CORPUS), on strong suspicions of secessionist intentions, and the session came to an abrupt end. The governor, in his message to the new legislature, a strongly unionist body, which met Dec. 3, 1861, expressed his own and the popular condemnation of the dispersed legislature for "passing treasonable resolutions," "squandering the people's money," and "trying to plunge us into the vortex of secession." —Throughout the war the state's congressional representation was unanimously unionist, the pro-southern members of the legislature were a very meagre minority, and even when rebel armies entered the state for its "redemption," their reception was so chilling that they finally treated Maryland as enemy's territory. Nevertheless the early neutral attitude of the state, and particularly the Baltimore riots of 1861, influenced the other loyal states to see with comparative indifference a continuance of military arrests and confiscations in Maryland which is still remembered there with some bitterness. One result of this régime was the adoption of the constitution of 1864. (See ABOLITION, III.) Its disfranchising clauses, which the convention assumed to apply to the vote on the constitution itself, awoke general opposition, and in the next constitution were omitted. The memories of this period have since made Maryland very steadily democratic. In 1868, after the remission of disfranchisement by the constitution of 1867, the legislature became unanimously democratic, and in 1882 the republican vote is but ten out of twenty-six in the senate, and thirty out of eighty-four in the house of delegates. In the Frederick congressional district, however, the republican vote has continued strong; in 1874 and 1876 it was only beaten by seventy-eight and fourteen votes respectively out of about 30,000, and in 1878 and 1880 it elected its candidate, who has been the only republican congressman in the state since 1868. —Chief Justice Taney, and Henry Winter Davis (see those names) are the most prominent Maryland names in our national political history. Among the other leaders of state politics have been the following: Charles Carroll, "of Carrollton," one of the early revolutionary leaders, a signer of the declaration of independence, United States senator (federalist) 1789-92; Samuel Chase, a signer of the declaration, supreme court justice 1796-1811 (see IMPEACHMENTS, III.); J. A. J. Creswell, postmaster general under Grant; Chas. W. Goldsborough, federalist representative 1805-17, and governor 1818-19; Alexander C. Hanson, federalist representative 1813-17, and United States senator 1817-19; Robert G. Harper, United States senator in 1816 (see SOUTH CAROLINA); Reverdy Johnson, whig United States senator 1845-9, attorney general under Taylor, democratic United States senator 1863-8, and minister to England 1868-9; Wm. Cost Johnson, whig representative 1833-5 and 1837-43; John P. Kennedy, whig representative 1838-9 and 1841-5, and secretary of the navy under Fillmore; Joseph Kent, federalist representative 1811-15 and 1819-26, governor 1826-9, and whig United States senator 1833-7; Philip B. Key, federalist representative 1807-13, Edward Lloyd, federalist representative 1806-9, governor 1809-11, United States senator 1819-26, and president of the state senate 1826-31; Luther Martin, at first the leading anti-federalist of his state, but afterward one of the most distinguished federalist lawyers of the country (see BURR, AARON); Wm. Vans Murray, federalist representative 1791-7, and minister to the Netherlands 1797-1801 (see X. Y. Z MISSION): William Pinkney, minister to Great Britain 1806-11, attorney general under Madison, democratic representative in 1816, minister to Russia 1816-18, and United States senator 1820-22; Thos. Swann, democratic governor 1865-7, and representative 1869-79; Francis Thomas, democratic representative 1831-41, governor 1841-4, republican representative 1861-9, and minister to Peru 1872-5; Wm. Pinkney Whyte, democratic United States senator 1868-9, governor 1871-5, and United States senator 1875-81. —See Bozman's History of Maryland (to 1660); 1 Poore's Federal and State Constitutions; Neill's Terra Marial; 4 Griffith's Early History of Maryland; J. Dunlop's Memoir of the Penn-Baltimore Controversy (in 1 Penn Hist. Soc. Mem., Part 1); Latrobe's History of Mason and Dixon's Line; Veech's History of Mason and Dixon's Line; Hinkley's Maryland Constitution of 1867; Documents accompanying Governor's Messages, Jan. 1, 1864, and Jan. 1, 1865; McSherry's History of Maryland (to 1848); Scharff's Chronicles of Baltimore (1873); Onderdonk's History of Maryland (to 1867); Goldsborough's Maryland Line in the Confederate States Army (1869); Tuckerman's Life of J. P. Kennedy; Wheaton's Life of Pinkney; Pinkney's Life of Pinkney; Tyler's Life of Taney; Scharff's History of Maryland (1879). ALEXANDER JOHNSTON. MASON AND DIXON'S LINEMASON AND DIXON'S LINE. (See MARYLAND.) MASSACHUSETTSMASSACHUSETTS, one of the original thirteen states of the American Union. I. BOUNDARIES. The present boundaries of the state are the final result of compromises and agreements with all the surrounding states. (See MAINE, NEW HAMPSHIRE, VERMONT, NEW YORK, RHODE ISLAND.) The territory granted by the first charter to the "governor and company of the Massachusetts-Bay" was embraced between points three miles south of "any or every part" of the Charles river, and three miles north of "any or every part" of the Merrimac river, and extending westward to the Pacific ocean. The southern boundary, between Massachusetts and Connecticut, was run in 1642, according to the terms of the charter; but the line was not run due west, and two towns of Connecticut were considered part of Massachusetts for nearly a century. The present southeastern portion of the state, the counties of Plymouth, Barnstable and Bristol, fell to it on the union of the Massachusetts-Bay and Plymouth colonies in 1691; and the boundary between it and Rhode Island was fixed in 1741. The northern boundary offered more difficulty. Massachusetts' agents traced the course of the Merrimac toward the extreme north; and the colony claimed the whole coast to a point on a line passing "three miles north of the Merrimac." The claim to the district of Maine was not established until 1737. The claims to the jurisdiction of the territory to the west of the present western boundary line were terminated by cessions to New York and to the United States. (See the states named above, and TERRITORIES.) —II. CONSTITUTIONS. The first civil organization was the "covenant" signed on board the Mayflower, Nov. 11, 1620, by the so-called "pilgrims" who were to form the Plymouth colony. They obtained a patent from the Plymouth company. June 1, 1621, and a grant of the land included between lines drawn north from the mouth of Narragansett river, and west from Cohasset rivulet, June 13, 1630; but neither of these transactions was confirmed by the king, nor was a charter granted. Nevertheless, the Plymouth colonists maintained a government of their own (see NEW ENGLAND UNION), and remained distinct until the union of their colony with that of Massachusetts-Bay, Oct. 7, 1791. —The colony of Massachusetts-Bay was chartered March 4, 1628-9, and the English associates, by resolution of Aug. 29, 1629, of doubtful legality, transferred the powers of government from England to Massachusetts. Here the legislative powers were at first exercised by a general meeting of the freemen (church members). In 1634 the general court was made representative, consisting of not more than two delegates from each town. (See BURGESSES.) In 1644 the general court was divided into two coordinate bodies. June 18, 1684, upon a writ of quo warranto, the English chancery gave judgment against the colony, and vacated its charter. King James then attempted to govern Massachusetts as a royal colony, appointing first Joseph Dudley, and then Sir Edmund Andros, as governor. April 18, 1689, the people openly revolted and kept the royal officials in prison until the news of James' abdication arrived. The new sovereigns, William and Mary, were willing to enjoy the fruits of James' oppression; they refused to restore the old charter, but granted a new one, Oct. 7, 1691. This charter vested in the crown, instead of in the colony, the choice of the governor; gave that official a negative on the acts of the general court; and united Nova Scotia to the "reall [royal] province of Massachusetts-Bay." Aug. 26, 1726, an explanatory charter gave the lower house of the assembly the right to choose their speaker, subject to the governor's approval, and to adjourn for not more than two days. —From the year 1766 the crown was engaged in a persistent attempt to still further modify the republican features of the Massachusetts charter, and the attempt, equally alarming to every colony, seems to have been the great moving cause of the open conflict which followed. (See REVOLUTION.) A series of mutual provocations on the part of ministry and colony, unnecessary to be detailed here, resulted in the practical abrogation of the charter by an act for the government of the colony, April 15, 1774. It took from the legislature the choice of the council and of superior court judges; gave the appointment of sheriffs to the governor, and the selection of juries to the sheriffs; and forbade town meetings, except for elections only, or by special permission of the governor. Congress approved the resistance of Massachusetts to the abrogation of the charter; the ministry undertook to meet resistance by force; and the organization of a new national government took place. (See CONGRESS, CONTINENTAL; DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.) —Provincial congresses met Oct. 5, 1774, and Feb. 1, 1775, and the last general court under royal authority was dissolved June 17, 1775. July 19 following, a popular general court met at Watertown, and assumed both the legislative and the executive powers. This body, Feb. 28, 1778. adopted a constitution, which was rejected by popular vote March 4. A constitution, drawn up by John Adams, was adopted by a convention at Cambridge, Sept. 1-6, Oct. 28 - Nov. 11, 1779, and Jan. 5 - March 2, 1780, and was accepted by popular vote. It declared the commonwealth to be "a free, sovereign and independent state"; gave the legislature power to compel attendance upon public worship; constituted a legislature, called "the general court," composed of a senate of forty, chosen annually by districts of various sizes, and a house of representatives, chosen annually by towns in proportion to population; provided for a governor, to be chosen annually by the legislature if there was no popular majority, and to be given the title of "his excellency"; limited the right of suffrage by a property qualification of £60; provided for the support of Harvard college, public schools and grammar schools; and gave the governor power to remove judges on address of both houses of the legislature. The constitution went into force Oct. 25, 1780, and the first legislature under its provisions met at Boston on that day. —A convention, Nov. 15, 1820-Jan. 9, 1821, adopted fourteen amendments, nine of which were ratified by popular vote, April 9, 1821. Their principal changes were the abolition of the property qualification for suffrage; the adoption of a simpler form of an oath of allegiance, without retaining the declaration of a belief in the Christian religion; and provision for future amendment by vote of the legislature and ratification by popular vote. In this manner amendments have been proposed and ratified by nine legislatures, the most important being the change of the beginning of the political year from May to January (1833); the apportionment of the senators according to population (1840); the establishment of an educational limitation (ability to read and write) upon the right of suffrage (1857); the disfranchisement of aliens for two years after their naturalization (1859), and the abolition of this latter amendment (1863). —In 1851 the popular vote was against the calling of a constitutional convention. In the following year the result was the reverse; and a convention at Boston, May 4-Aug. 1, 1853, adopted a revised constitution, which was rejected, Nov. 14, by a small popular majority. The organic law of the state is therefore still the constitution of 1780. —The representation of the towns in the lower house has caused a difficulty which has grown with the increase of population. From 1840 until 1857 one representative was apportioned to 1,200, and one more for 2,400 additional population in a town; each town having less than 1,200 inhabitants was to be represented as many years in each decade as the number 160 was contained in the number of its inhabitants; and the apportionment of representatives or representation was to be made by the governor and council after each decennial census. Since 1857 the house is fixed at 240 members; the legislature apportions the representation to the counties; and the county commissioners (or the mayor and aldermen in Boston) apportion the county's representation among representative districts. In the state political conventions, however, town representation is still retained, making these bodies very large in numbers. —GOVERNORS: (from 1775 until 1780 the legislative council); John Hancock, 1780-85; James Bowdoin, 1785-7; John Hancock, 1787-93; Samuel Adams, 1793-7; Increase Sumner, 1797-9; Moses Gill, 1799-1800; Caleb Strong, 1800-7; James Sullivan, 1807-8; Levi Lincoln, 1808-9; Christopher Gore, 1809-10; Elbridge Gerry, 1810-12; Caleb Strong, 1812-16; John Brooks, 1816-23; William Eustis, 1823-5; Marcus Morton, 1825; Levi Lincoln, 1825-34; John Davis, 1834-5, Samuel T. Armstrong, 1835-6; Edward Everett, 1836-40; Marcus Morton, 1840-41; John Davis, 1841-3; Marcus Morton, 1843-4; George N. Briggs, 1844-51; George S. Boutwell, 1851-3; John H. Clifford, 1853-4; Emory Washburn, 1854-5; Henry J. Gardner, 1855-8; Nathaniel P. Banks, 1858-61; John A. Andrew, 1861-6; Alexander H. Bullock, 1866-9; William Claflin, 1869-72; William B. Washburn, 1872-4; Thomas Talbot, 1874; William Gaston, 1874-6; Alexander H. Rice, 1876-9; Thomas Talbot, 1879-80; John D. Long, 1880-82; Benjamin F. Butler, 1882-3. —POLITICAL HISTORY. The colonial history of the state has colored all its after history. The government was very democratic, excelled in this respect only by Connecticut, in which the governor was still elective; in intelligence, education and wealth the people were very nearly on a plane, and that a high one; freemen and representatives alike were infinitely more accustomed to dealing with equals than with superiors; and yet the population was so homogeneous that feeling and action were generally in unison, and the establishment of a state church was hardly felt to be a burden. The great force of Massachusetts came from this combination of conscious individualism with unity of action; it was not so much the law that was supreme, as the individual's conscientious interpretation of the law, and the general agreement of the mass of individuals in the same interpretation. There was thus developed a state which fought the battles of Lexington and Concord upon the technical ground of the individual's right to traverse the king's highway unmolested, and which followed them up by the collection of a voluminous mass of affidavits, by spectators and participants, to influence individual opinion at home and abroad. Individualism has always been the law of state politics; Massachusetts democrats have been as tenaciously indifferent to the fact that their party was in a hopeless minority in the state as their federalist and whig neighbors have been to the fact that their parties were in a hopeless minority in the nation; and Massachusetts members of all parties have been pre eminent for a personal dissection of principles to their logical results, regardless of personal, party or other interests. This last form of individualism has been variously characterized as fanaticism or as devotion to principle; but its existence has always been an essential factor in Massachusetts politics. —The political history of the state falls most naturally into four periods: 1, 1775-97; 2, 1797-1823; 3, 1823-48; 4, 1848-82. During the first period the agricultural interest was predominant; during the second, the commercial; during the third and fourth, the manufacturing; but, during the fourth, the rise of a moral question to the surface of politics upturned the state parties from the foundations, and for the first time since 1797 placed Massachusetts in sympathy with a dominant national party. —I.:1775-97. Massachusetts went into and came out of the revolution at the head of the states, though she only stood eighth in population. She had brought on the contest by her stubborn resistance to the ministry; she had fought the opening battles and begun the siege of Boston of her own motion; to the prosecution of the war she had contributed 92,563 men, her nearest competitors being Virginia with 52,715, and Connecticut with 42,831; and, though a formal deference was always paid to the leadership of Virginia, it is indubitable that Massachusetts was the backbone of the rebellion, which was mainly sustained by the community of interests, feelings and action between these two states, a community which was not fairly broken for twenty-five years. In both states there was the same difficulty in ratifying the constitution in 1788 (see CONSTITUTION, II.); but in Massachusetts the weight of ability was so heavily in favor of ratification, and the voters of the state were so much inclined to choose able men as national representatives, that the senators and congressmen were almost entirely federalist from the opening of the first congress. The state was thus represented in congress by such federalist leaders as Tristram Dalton. Fisher Ames, Caleb Strong, Benjamin Goodhue, Theodore Sedgwick, George Cabot, and Harrison Gray Otis; but in the annual state elections for governors and legislatures the anti-federalists maintained themselves successfully until 1797. It would not be accurate to represent the gradual change, which finally made Massachusetts a very reliably federalist state in 1797, as directly due to commercial interest; for in 1797 the western counties, which had been the seat of Shays' insurrection, and which had no commercial interests, were federalist, while the democratic strength lay in and around Boston and in Maine, the commercial portions of the state. It was rather due to the widening influence of the able federalist leaders; but as these were strongly influenced by their sympathies with the commercial interests of the state, it must be confessed that commerce had a great deal to do with the change, directly or indirectly. (See SHAYS' REBELLION, under CONFEDERATION, ARTICLES OF; ESSEX JUNTO; FEDERAL PARTY, I.) —II.: 1797-1823. In 1797 Samuel Adams declined a re-election as governor, and Increase Sumner, a federalist of the Adams school, was chosen in his stead. From that time until 1823 the governors and legislatures were federalist, with the exceptions of Govs. Sullivan, Lincoln and Gerry, and the legislatures of 1806-7 and 1810-12. The majorities, however, were always small: Strong had but 1,600 majority out of nearly 40,000 votes in 1800, and Gore but 3,000 majority out of 93,000 votes in 1809; and in 1806 and 1808 Govs. Strong and Lincoln served with legislatures of opposite politics. In 1804 the general depression throughout the federal party gave the state's electoral votes to Jefferson and Clinton, the democratic candidates; in all other presidential years the state was federalist until 1820, when, like all the other states, it voted for Monroe and Tompkins. —Political conflict in the state grew gradually warmer as the embargo policy was developed and adopted. (See EMBARGO.) The rise of the war feeling, which followed the collapse of the restrictive system, gradually gave the democrats the small percentage of increase necessary to gain control of the state; but it was not until 1811 that they finally elected a governor and a majority of both houses of the legislature. They then proceeded to make a number of changes: the inferior courts were "reorganized," so as to oust the federalist occupants; the church laws were so modified as to allow dissenters from the congregational church to divert their taxes to the support of ministers of their own faith; and the new apportionment of senatorial districts was as unfair as it is apt to be after similar political revolutions. (See GERRYMANDER.) The result was that in April, 1812, ex-Gov. Strong was again nominated by the federalists, and beat Gerry by a majority of only 1,600 out of 104,000 votes; the lower house of the legislature was strongly federalist; but the senate remained democratic for another year. From this time the state remained federalist by an increasing majority. Gov. Strong was re-elected throughout the war, and his annual messages and conflicts with the federal government as to the control of the state's militia made him particularly obnoxious to democrats in other states. The legislature more than kept pace with the governor, although nearly three years were required for it to pass through the stage of resolutions to the point of action. In 1813 the senate adopted Quincy's resolution "that in a war like the present, waged without justifiable cause, and prosecuted in a manner indicating that conquest and ambition are its real motives, it is not becoming a moral and religious people to express any approbation of military and naval exploits not immediately connected with the defense of our seacoast and soil." This may be taken as indicative of the feeling which prompted the many other anti-war resolutions and acts of the legislature until they culminated in the "Hartford convention." (See HENRY LETTERS; CONVENTION, HARTFORD.) At the end of the war Gov Strong retired, and another federalist took his place. The state remained practically isolated in politics from the other states, even from the other New England states, which had formally or heartily renounced federalism. In state elections the federalists were regularly successful; in congressional elections the democrats regularly secured less than one-third of the state's representatives (see MAINE); but the complete nullity of the state in the national councils was so evident as to be a perennial subject of reference in the newspapers of other states as "the result of the Hartford convention." In 1823 even Massachusetts tenacity gave way, and a democratic governor and legislature were elected. The change, however, to which this state was the last to yield, was the development of manufactures, which finally destroyed the federal party elsewhere. (See FEDERAL PARTY, II.) —III.: 1823-48. Gov. Eustis' message congratulated the legislature that "this ancient and respectable state had been restored to the confidence of her sister states" by the late election; and the state senate proceeded to justify the confidence by expunging, in January, 1824, by a vote of 22 to 15, the famous resolution of 1813 against rejoicing over victories The new democratic state administration at once began to press for payment of the state's claims for militia services during the war. The federalists had never obtained any recognition for them, for the state had refused during the war to allow the control of her militia to the federal government. The new powers were more successful. President Monroe advised their payment, in a message of Feb. 23, 1824; but the act for that purpose was not passed until May 31, 1830. —The federalist vote in 1824 was still 34,210 for Samuel Lathrop to 38,650 for Gov. Eustis. In the following year both parties united on Gov. Lincoln, and party divisions disappeared until the rise of the whig party revived them. In the interval the state gave her electoral votes to her citizen, John Quincy Adams, in 1824 and 1828, the popular vote in his favor being 83 per cent. of the whole; in 1832 its electoral vote was cast for Clay; and in 1836 for Webster. In 1834 Gov. Lincoln retired, and a whig governor and lieutenant governor, Davis and Armstrong, came into office. Everett, the successor of Davis, was also a whig, and he retained office until in 1839 he was beaten by Marcus Morton in the closest election of the state's history. The popular vote was for Morton 51,024, for Everett 50,725, scattering 307, Morton's majority 2. In the following year the whigs nominated and elected ex-Gov. Davis, but in the following year Morton was again successful. In 1843 the whigs elected George N. Briggs, and he retained office until 1851. The party proportion of the popular vote may be estimated from a typical year (1846): Briggs, 54,784, Davis (democrat) 33,196, scattering (abolitionist and others) 13,589. In 1844 the democrats nominated George Bancroft, the historian; in 1848, Caleb Cushing; in 1845-7, Davis. —During the latter years of this period the abolitionist feeling in Massachusetts grew into something like the controlling importance which it held soon after 1848. It was strengthened by the arrest of George Latimer, a Virginia fugitive slave, in Boston, in the autumn of 1842, and though the fugitive was released by purchase, the legislature soon after passed the first personal liberty law of the state. (See PERSONAL LIBERTY LAWS.) In 1843 the democratic legislature, elected with Morton, passed resolutions proposing to congress the passage of an amendment to the constitution basing representation in the lower house of congress on the number of free inhabitants. (See COMPROMISES, I.; SLAVERY.) The resolutions were presented in the house, Dec. 21, 1843, by John Quincy Adams, and, coming from a democratic legislature, gave rise to an intense anger among the southern members. The abolitionist vote rose, after 1844, to about one-third of the democratic vote, and in 1845 compelled a choice by the legislature, in default of a popular majority for any candidate; but it showed no sign of any positive and living growth until 1848. —IV.: 1848-82. The original free-soil party had its kindliest home in Massachusetts. (See FREE-SOIL PARTY.) Its leaders, Henry Wilson, J. G. Palfrey, the historian, Horace Mann, the promoter of education in the state, Francis W.Bird, John B.Alley and others made it a more successful party than the old liberty party had been. In 1848 the popular vote for Stephen C. Phillips, the free-soil candidate, exceeded that for Cushing; and, though it feel slightly behind the democratic vote in 1849, it was sufficient in both years to prevent a choice by the people. In both years the whig legislature chose Briggs. These two elections seem to have suggested to Wilson the idea of the famous "coalition campaign" of 1850. The legislature then chosen was to elect a United States senator for the remainder of Webster's term, ending March 4, 1851, and another for the full term of six years from March 4. Wilson's proposition to George S. Boutwell, the democratic leader, who had been his party's candidate for governor in 1849, and was to be the candidate in 1850, was that the democrats and free soilers should run separate candidates for state officers; that they should unite on members of the legislature wherever such a union would be successful; and that, in the probable event of no popular choice for governor and a coalition majority in the legislature, the free-soilers would only claim the election of Charles Sumner, a Boston lawyer, for the long term senatorship, and would give the democrats the rest of the principal offices. The popular vote was for Briggs 57,364, for Boutwell 36,363, and for Phillips 27,803: and the coalition was successful in the legislature, having 27 to 13 in the senate, and 210 to 174 in the house. The coalition agreement was carried out in the election of Boutwell and the state officers and of Robert Rantoul, an anti-slavery democrat, for the short term senatorship, and the free-soilers were further given the presidency of the senate, four of the nine councilors, and one of the state officers; but Sumner's election occasioned more difficulty. Caleb Cushing and other leading democrats opposed it warmly, and implored the democratic legislators not to send this "fireband into the councils of the nation." In the senate Sumner was chosen without difficulty, but one democrat refusing to vote for him; in the house twenty-three democrats voted for another candidate, thus preventing a choice. The balloting continued until April 24, 1851, when Sumner was chosen on the twenty-sixth ballot, one democrat having voted for him and given him a majority. In the next legislature the coalition still had a majority in both branches, and chose Boutwell governor in spite of a plurality of 21,000 for Winthrop, the whig candidate; but in the following year the whigs recovered their majority, and the governorship. In 1853 the whigs elected Washburn, through the legislature; and as this was the last disputed election it is as well to give the popular vote, which was as follows: Washburn (whig) 60,472, Henry W. Bishop (democrat) 35,254, Henry Wilson (free-soil) 29,545. —The anti-slavery feeling in the state had been intensified by the arrest of Sims, April 3, 1851, and of Anthony Burns, May 23, 1854, and their forcible removal from the state (See FUGITIVE SLAVE LAWS.) The free-soilers, at a mass convention, July 20, and a regular state convention, Sept. 7, took the name of the "republican" party (see REPUBLICAN PARTY), and nominated Wilson for governor; but most of its voters, almost immediately afterward, fell into the "know-nothing" organization. (See AMERICAN PARTY.) The result of the election was an overwhelming surprise, particularly to the whigs. The popular vote was, for Gardner (American) 81,503, Washburn 27,279, Bishop 13,742, and Wilson 6,483. Nearly all the legislature were "know-nothings": in the house there were but six whigs and one democrat; and all the eleven congressmen were of the same party. Gardner was re-elected in 1855 and 1856: but in 1855 the republican vote rose to 36,521, while his own fell to 51,674; and in 1856 he claimed to be a "Fremont American," and was voted for by the republicans. In the following year the state became republican in all its branches of government, and thereafter remained so until 1874. Governor Banks' first vote was 59,889 to 30,887 for Erasmus D. Beach (democrat), and 37,553 for Gardner. In 1860 Gov. Andrew received 104,527 votes to 35,191 for Beach (Douglas democrat), 23,816 for Amos A. Lawrence (constitutional union), and 6,000 for Benj. F. Butler (Breckinridge democrat). Andrew's majorities remained large during the war, and in 1864 his vote reached 125,281 to 49,190. At the same election there were no democrats in the senate, and but six out of 240 in the house. From that time until 1874 the democratic proportion of the popular vote was always below 40 per cent., except in 1867, when 42 per cent. was given to John Quincy Adams, and in 1873, when 45 per cent. was given to William Gaston. During all this period all the congressmen had been republicans, and the state's electoral votes had been given to the republican candidates. —In the election of 1874 a complete bouleversement took place. An attempt to modify the state's prohibitory liquor law at the previous session of the legislature had been defeated by the governor's veto His renomination, and the nomination of Horatio Knight, another prohibitionist, for lieutenant governor, excited opposition and aggravated other dissensions. Talbot was defeated, Knight was only elected by a small majority, but the republicans elected a majority of both branches of the legislature and all the state officers except the governor. Of the eleven congressmen but five regular republicans were elected, four democrats, and two independent republicans. In 1875 the republicans elected Gov. Rice by 83,639 votes to 78,333 for Gaston, and in 1876 Rice's majority was increased. In the latter year but one democratic congressman was elected. —It is difficult to class the "Butler movement," which fairly took shape in 1878, otherwise than as one of general discontent. It is true that Butler (see his name) openly advocated the peculiar ideas of the greenback-labor party in that year; but the party which supported him in the state seems to have cared little for any interests outside of the state. Its existence seems to have been based upon the assertions that there was a dominant "ring" in the dominant republican party of the state, and that the manufacturing and other corporations, with which the state was filled, coerced the votes of their employés by threats of discharge in case of disobedience. The latter influence, it was said, was fast destroying the independence and self-respect of the voters; the former was filling the offices with its dependents, was increasing taxation and the public debt, was enabling its favorites to escape their share of taxation, was instrumental in expending the public money for purposes useful only to its protégés, and, by its power to control the committees of the state convention, through the appointment of the presiding officer, had already made reform through the republican party an impossibility. How much truth was in all this it is hard to say, for specific instances are usually conspicuous by their absence from "Butler" speeches; it is at least certain that the charges, were supported by nearly half the voters of the state. Butler had been meagrely supported in previous republican conventions as a candidate for governor, when, in 1878, he offered to run as an independent candidate if 20,000 voters should desire it. The names of 51,784 persons were signed to the invitation, and the "Butter campaign" at once began. The leaders of the two former parties ridiculed Butler's "signers" as men of straw; but it soon became apparent that Butler delegates to the democratic state convention were being chosen all over the state. The democratic state committee therefore announced. Sept. 12, that no delegate pledged to a non-democratic candidate was entitled to sit or vote in the convention. On the day appointed for the convention, Sept. 17, at Worcester, the Butler delegates were present first, and seized the hall; the state committee therefore adjourned the convention to meet at Boston, Sept. 28. The Worcester convention nominated Butler, without referring to the "greenback idea" in the platform; the Boston convention nominated Josiah G. Abbott, proclaiming itself the only representative of the national democratic party. Butler had been nominated, Sept. 11, by the greenback convention; and the republicans nominated Governor Talbot, Sept. 18. The struggle was ended, Nov. 5, by the following popular vote: Talbot 134,725, Butler 109,435, Abbott 10,162; and the state legislature and all but one of the eleven congress men were republican. In 1879 there was no "capture" of the democratic convention. Butler was nominated by a greenback convention John Quincy Adams by the democrats, and John D. Long by the republicans; but the popular vote varied very little from that of 1878. In 1880 Butler declined to be a candidate; Charles P. Thompson was selected by the democrats; and the popular vote at once settled to its normal proportions: Long 164,825, Thompson 111,410, H. B. Sargent (greenback) 4,864. scattering 1,147 In 1881 the collapse of political excitement, through Butler's withdrawal, reduced Long's vote to 96,609 and Thompson's to 54,586; the other party votes were little changed. In the senate there are thirty-six republicans and four democrats; in the house 181 republicans, fifty-five democrats, and four independent. —The state has been so prolific of men who have been influential in politics, that any attempt at selection must be a difficult undertaking. Reference should be made to Charles Francis Adams, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Samuel Adams, Fisher Ames, N. P. Banks, George S. Boutwell, Anson Burlingame, Benjamin F. Butler, Caleb Cushing, Edward Everett, Elbridge Gerry, John Hancock, Joseph Story, Charles Sumner, Daniel Webster, and Henry Wilson (see their names); to the list of governors given above; and to the following: John B. Alley, free-soil leader, republican congressman 1859-67; George Ashmun, whig congressman 1845-51; Bailey Bartlett, high sheriff of Essex county 1789-1830, and federalist congressman 1797-1801; George Cabot, federalist United States senator 1791-6 (see also ADMINISTRATIONS, III.; ESSEX JUNTO; CONVENTION, HARTFORD); Rufus Choate, whig congressman 1831-4, and United States senator 1841-5; B. W. Crowninshield (see ADMINISTRATIONS, VII.), democratic congressman 1823-31; Benj. R. Curtis (see JUDICIARY, DRED SCOTT CASE); John Davis, whig congressman 1825-34, governor 1834-5 and 1840-41, and United States senator 1835-40 and 1845-53; Henry L. Dawes, republican congressman 1857-75, and United States senator 1875-87; William Eustis, democratic congressman 1801-5 and 1820-23 (see Administrations. VI.). minister to the Netherlands 1814-18, and governor 1823-5; William Lloyd Garrison (see ABOLITION); Benjamin Goodhue (see ESSEX JUNTO), federal congressman 1789-95, and United States senator 1796-1800; Benjamin Gorham, federalist and whig congressman 1820-21, 1827-31, and 1833-5; Ebenezer R. Hoar (see ADMINISTRATIONS, XXI.), judge of the state supreme court 1859-69, and republican congressman 1873-5; George F. Hoar (brother of the preceding), republican congressman 1869-77, and United States senator 1877-83; Samuel Hoar (father of the preceding), whig representative 1835-7, and the state's commissioner to South Carolina in 1844 (see SLAVERY); Levi Lincoln, one of the democratic leaders until 1823, governor 1825-34, and whig congressman 1834-41; Horace Mann, secretary of the state board of education 1837-48, free-soil congressman 1848-53, and president of Antioch college, in Ohio, 1853-9; Marcus Morton, democratic congressman 1817-21, judge of the state supreme court 1825-40, and governor 1840-41 and 1843-4; Harrison Gray Otis, federalist representative 1797-1801, and United States senator 1817-22 (see CONVENTION, HARTFORD); Wendell Phillips (see ABOLITION); Timothy Pickering (see ADMINISTRATIONS, I.-III.), federalist United States senator 1803-11, and congressman 1813-17; Josiah Quincy, federalist congressman 1805-13, president of Harvard college 1829-45 (see CONVENTION, HARTFORD; WARS, III.; SECESSION, I.; NATION); Robert Rantoul, democratic United States senator 1851, and congressman 1851-2; Theodore Sedgwick, federalist congressman 1769-96, and 1799-1801 (speaker), and United States senator 1796-9. Joseph B. Varnum, democratic congressman 1795-1811, speaker 1807-11, and United States senator 1811-17, Robert C. Winthrop, whig congressman 1840-50, speaker 1847-9, and United States senator 1850-1. McCLELLANMcCLELLAN, George Brinton, was born at Philadelphia Dec. 3, 1826, was graduated at West Point in 1846, and became a captain during the Mexican war. In 1855 he was sent to Europe, with two other officers, to study the operations of the Crimean war. In 1857 he retired to private life as chief engineer of the Illinois Central railway; and in 1861 he was appointed major general of volunteers from Ohio. May 14, 1861, he was commissioned major general in the regular army, and late in June and early in July he cleared West Virginia of the enemy's forces. In July he took command of the army of the Potomac, and in November, 1861, of all the armies of the United States. In the latter part of June and the beginning of July, 1862, he fought the series of "seven days' battles" around Richmond; in September, 1862, he won the battle of Antietam; and Nov. 7, 1862, he was relieved of his command, and ordered to report at Trenton, N. J. Aug. 28, 1864, he was nominated for the presidency by the democratic national convention (see DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY, VI.), and was defeated in November. (See ELECTORAL VOTES.) In 1877 he was elected governor of New Jersey. (See NEW JERSEY.) —See Hillard's Hurlburt's Delmar's and Victor's lives of McClellan; Barnard's Peninsular Campaign; Swinton's Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac; 3-5 Scribner's Campaigns of the Civil War. McLEANMcLEAN, John, was born in Morris county, N. J., March 11, 1785, and died at Cincinnati, Ohio, April 4, 1861. He removed with his family to Virginia in 1789, and to Ohio in 1797; was admitted to the bar in 1807, and was a democratic congressman from Ohio 1813-16, and state supreme court judge 1817-22. He was postmaster general under Monroe and John Quincy Adams (see ADMINISTRATIONS), was appointed justice of the United States supreme court March 7, 1829, and served until his death. (see DRED SCOTT CASE.) His name was frequently brought before the anti-masons, whigs and republicans as a presidential candidate, but he never received any general party nomination. —See Savage's Living Representative Men, 373. McLEOD CASEMcLEOD CASE, The (IN U. S. HISTORY). In 1837, after the suppression of the Canadian rebellion, or patriot war, a number of Canadian refugees and Americans, using New York state as a base of operations, seized Navy island, in the Niagara river, about two miles above the falls and within British jurisdiction, in order to keep the war alive. Col. McNab, commanding the Canadian militia, sent a party, on the night of Dec. 29, 1837, to capture the steamer Caroline, which carried supplies to Navy island. The attacking party found her at a wharf on the American side of the river, captured her, after a conflict in which one American, Amos Durfee, was killed, and sent her over the falls in flames. In January, 1838, the British government, in an official communication to the government of the United States, assumed the entire responsibility for the burning of the Caroline. —In November, 1840, Alexander McLeod, while in New York state on business, aroused intense feeling among the people there by boasting of his exploits in the attack on the Caroline. He was arrested, lodged in jail in Lockport, and indicted in February, 1841, for murder. At first, bail was accepted, but this increased the excitement, and he was remanded to jail. The British minister demanded his release, in a note to the secretary of state, for the reasons that McLeod was acting under orders in an enterprise planned, executed and avowed by his superiors; that the question was one of international law, to be settled by the two national governments; that the courts of New York had not the means to judge or the right to decide such a question; and that the British government could not recognize the state jurisdiction of the case, but must hold the government of the United States responsible for McLeod. —The new president, Harrison, and his cabinet were unanimous in considering the British claim just; but the minister was informed that it was an impossibility to release a person confined under judicial process, except by operation of law. At first the administration hoped that Gov. Seward, of New York, would order the prosecuting officer of the state to enter a nolle prosequi. The governor, however, refused to interfere, but directed that the trial, March 22, 1841, should take place before the chief justice of the state. The president then directed the attorney general of the United States to proceed to Lockport, see that McLeod had skillful counsel, furnish them with the evidence of the British government's official avowal of the burning of the Caroline, and take steps to transfer the case to the supreme court by writ of error, if McLeod's defense should be overruled. —McLeod was brought before the court on writ of habeas corpus, and his discharge was asked on the grounds assigned above. The court, how ever, held that its jurisdiction over the case was complete; that there was no war in existence at the time in any form; that the burning of the Caroline was not an act of magistracy on the part of the Canadian authorities, since it was committed out of Canadian jurisdiction; that all the persons concerned in the affair were "individuals proceeding on their own responsibility," and liable either for arson or for murder; and that the indictment precluded McLeod's discharge upon habeas corpus. The opinion of the court was not satisfactory to other and able lawyers. It was adversely reviewed in a pamphlet by Judge D. B. Talmadge, of New York; and Webster, in the senate, April 6-7, 1848, used in regard to it the following strong language: "On the peril and at the risk of my professional reputation I now say that the opinion of the court of New York in that case is not a respectable opinion, either on account of the result at which it arrives or the reasoning on which it proceeds." —The case finally came to nothing. McLeod, who seems to have been a liar as well as a braggart, proved an alibi in October 1841, and was acquitted; and congress, by act of Aug. 29, 1842, provided that if such cases should thereafter arise they should be transferred to the United States courts by writ of habeas corpus (See HABEAS CORPUS.) The British government July 28, 1842, apologized for the violation of Territory, and regretted that "explanation and apology was not immediately made"; the American government declared its satisfaction; and the case was ended. —See 3 Spencer's United States. 411, 417; 5 Webster's Works, 116, and 6:247, 300; Edwards' Courts and Lawyers of New York, 305, the case, with the diplomatic correspondence in full, is in 25 Wendell's Reports, 483; see also 26 ib., Appendix, 663 (Talmadge's review); but see, contra, 3 Hill's Reports, 635, and 10 Democratic Review, 487; Gould's Trial of McLeod (1841); 5 Stat. at Large, 539 (Act of Aug. 29, 1842). ALEXANDER JOHNSTON. MECKLENBURGMECKLENBURG. Two grand duchies, situated on the Baltic and forming part of the German empire, bear this name; we shall treat of them together, because they have a constitution and a diet in common, though their territory is divided (with reference to executive power) into two grand duchies. —Mecklenburg-Schwerin has an area of 13,346 square kilometres, and it had, in 1861, 548,449 and in (Dec.) 1871 557,897 inhabitants, of whom more than 540,000 belong to the Lutheran church. In 1880 the population was 577,055. The population in 1871 was distributed among the different parts of the territory as follows: domain lands or domanium, 201,829 inhabitants; knights' estates, 133,835 inhabitants; convent lands, 8,826 inhabitants; cities, 200,066 inhabitants; suburbs of cities, 13,151 inhabitants. The importance of these distinctions will be seen further on. —Mecklenburg-Strelitz is composed of two principalities; Stargard on the east and Ratzeburg on the west of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. The area of the two parts of the state is 2,717 square kilometres, and its population, in 1860, amounted to only 99,660 souls (chiefly Lutherans), of whom 48,773 occupied domain lands, 17,371 knights' estates, and the remainder the cities. The census of December, 1871, gave the number of inhabitants as 96,982. In 1880 the population was 100,269. In Mecklenburg a place containing a certain number of inhabitants is not always called a city, but a city is a locality represented at the diet. The capital, Neustrelitz, does not appoint a deputy, and if, nevertheless, it is treated officially as a city, this is in opposition to the spirit of the political language of the country. This language has preserved its superannuated character with a constitution whose principal provisions date from 1523, 1572, 1621 and 1755. It is true that, March 23, 1848, the grand duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin took the initiative of a reform. A new constitution was promulgated Aug. 23, 1849, the former estates were dissolved Oct. 10 of the same year, and the new representative body met Feb. 27, 1850. But Mecklenburg-Strelitz did not agree to this reform, and the equestrian order (proprietors of knights' estates, knights, Ritter), recovered from its stupor of 1848, complained to the German diet in session at Frankfort, arbitrators were appointed, and in consequence of their decision a grand ducal decree of Sept. 14, 1850, suppressed the constitution just sanctioned. —Mediæval times were restored in what the equestrian order considered as their rights. In virtue of the pact of union of 1523, by which the estates (at that time the equestrian order, the cities and the prelates) declared their opposition for the future to a partition of the country, the two Mecklenburgs had but one diet with annual sessions alternately in the cities of Sternberg and Malchin, both situated in Mecklenberg-Schwerin. The grand duke of this country, who is considered the elder or the first of the grand dukes of Mecklenburg,49 convokes the assembly and closes it. The grand duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz may assemble the estates of his territory to discuss their particular interests, for outside the diet the two duchies are entirely separate. —The reformation having abolished the prelates, the estates are now composed of only two orders: the equestrian order and the cities, or, more correctly, the landschaft, or those outside the equestrian order. The estates admit of numerous territorial and other subdivisions, but with reference to the grand duke they form a body, a corporation. The equestrian order is composed of all the proprietors (nobles or not) of knights' estates residing in the country. They are more than 750 in number. The cities comprise Rostock, Wismar and thirty-eight others in Mecklenburg-Schwerin, and seven in Mecklenburg-Strelitz; they are represented by members of their municipal councils, and more frequently by burgomasters. All the members of the equestrian order may take part in the deliberations of the diet, but can not be represented there. Those who assist at the deliberations, pay their own traveling expenses and support themselves, since each one exercises a personal right. The representatives of cities, on the contrary, are the mandatories of their fellow-citizens (or are considered to be), and receive a remuneration. Therefore, in a general assembly (in plenum), the equestrian order has a great numerical superiority; but the cities have the right of demanding that each order deliberate separately. Moreover, such a numerous assembly is not easily managed, and although there are many dignitaries in the assembly, it is nothing rare to hear several orators speak at once. Each member of the diet enjoys the right of initiative and may present his propositions to the general assembly: but when it is a question of changing the constitution, the proposition must first be submitted to a "limited committee" (engern Ausschuss) elected from among the members of the diet and sitting permanently. It will be understood that the constitution means merely privileges of the estates. Outside these privileges and finances the government has large powers. Almost all the laws not included in these two categories are termed indifferent. Besides, the estates exercise a certain influence on the administration of justice by their right of presentation to certain places of councilors and other special dispositions. —In this organization, that part of the country which is called domain lands, domanium, and which has 250,000 inhabitants, is not represented at all. The two grand dukes, each in his own territory, enjoy power the more absolute since they are considered the proprietors of the soil. It seems to us, also, that the 150,000 inhabitants of equestrian or knights' estates should be added to the non-represented Mecklenburgers. The knights represent themselves and do not give themselves out as representatives of their tenants, laborers and house servants. The latter, therefore, find themselves under an absolute government. As an offset, the city of Rostock is almost independent. It is authorized to coin money, and enjoys the right of pardon and of mitigating punishments less than death or forced labor for life. —The decree of Nov. 16, 1867, applicable to the two grand duchies, emancipated the peasants on the domains of the state. In virtue of this decree the peasants on the domains are to acquire the property which they work at present as simple farmers. But to do this they are bound to submit to the following conditions: 1. The peasant to retain his land to the amount of thirty-nine hectares, by paying a sum representing twenty-five times the yearly rental which he has hitherto paid; 2. Farm buildings to be charged to the peasant, the peasant to be credited, in the estimate made of their value, with the sums which he has contributed to their construction; 3. The peasant also to pay for farming implements and cattle, according to a certain rate; 4. The sums coming from the application of these different clauses, with the exception of a part to be collected afterward, to constitute a principal sum not redeemable, with interest at 4 per cent., and a sinking fund of 1 per cent. The peasants on the domains of the state have not the power of choosing between the old and new situation. They must either accept the conditions just enumerated, or vacate the lands which they occupy, the area of which is estimated at 150,000 hectares. —It is plain that a constitution like that which existed up to the present time in Mecklenburg, requires a peculiar social organization. It could not remain altogether intact in view of the movement taking place everywhere in our day, but this remote corner of Germany has been but slightly influenced from without. Except in the cities, the middle class is scarcely represented; great landed proprietors, some tenants and many laborers constitute the population. Even in the so-called domain lands, which comprise half the country, there were before 1867 scarcely any of those small proprietors, at once independent and unpretentious, who form the strength of so many other countries. The land belonged to the state, and there were 254 farms on temporary leases, 1,283 on long leases, 4,165 so-called peasant farms (bauerstellen) generally held on hereditary leases, 7,209 still smaller farmers called budner, 2,244 cottagers (häusler), or day laborers, to whom were leased houses and gardens for long terms. We pass over certain subdivisions, as 750 mills, farrieries and public houses given on lease. —The ancient institution of guilds continued to flourish on the shores of the Baltic till the introduction of the German constitution; therefore industry is scarcely known in the country; agriculture, too, is worth the attention of the observer only on great estates. Still another distinction should be made. Agriculture is neither skillful nor intensive; it is extensive, that is to say, it is carried on so as to employ as few men as possible. The climate is moist, the earth is soon covered with herbage; it was easy, therefore, to introduce the rotation of crops (koppelwirthschaft) common in Holstein. The proprietor prospers by this management, but the estate supports fewer men, since many of the former inhabitants were driven out to be replaced by cattle. We can not congratulate the country on this kind of progress. —The foreign commerce of Mecklenburg (which exports nothing but agricultural products) is carried on through the two ports of Rostock and Wismar. It is fairly active, and reaches perhaps 8,000,000 thalers imports and 7,000,000 exports. —Communal organization exists only in the cities. On equestrian or knights' estates the proprietor unites all powers in himself, and the peasant knows nothing of the commune except payments in money or in kind. In twenty-three cities the burgomasters are appointed by the grand duke, in the others they are elected by the burghers; but in some localities this choice must be confirmed by superior authority. Each city has a municipal council; the cities are free to manage their own affairs, but they must send a copy of their accounts to the ministry, which has them revised. The communal organization, nevertheless, leaves much to be desired; the government has frequently attempted to introduce reforms, but its efforts fail, owing to the resistance of the estates. —Till 1867 the various religions did not enjoy the liberty which is granted them at present in most of the states of Europe Mecklenburgers who are not Lutherans, practiced their religion only by toleration, and it is well understood that Lutherans themselves can not change the least ceremony without the consent of "competent" authority. Mecklenburg was obliged to submit to the law of equality of religions decreed by the constitution of the empire. —There are many benevolent establishments in the country, and praiseworthy attention is paid to primary education. Education is compulsory. Besides, in domain lands every head of a family, whether he has children or not, is obliged to contribute to the school fund. In knights' lands the proprietor, and in cities the municipal council, appoint the teacher. The teachers are poorly paid. Among the conscripts (in 1856) 88 per cent. knew how to read satisfactorily; those who came from knights' estates were the least instructed. Each grand duchy has primary normal schools. There are eight gymnasia in the two grand duchies, and a university in Rostock which dates from 1419. —The judicial organization of the country is very backward. Patrimonial or knights' jurisdiction has been preserved in most of the cities; the magistrate exercises both judicial and administrative functions. Civil legislation is not uniform in the different parts of the country, but at Rostock there is a supreme court common to both grand duchies. —As to taxes imposed by the estates, they comprise, in addition to ancient tolls, the "ordinary contribution" which is at once a land and poll tax (a personal and property tax) in knights' estates. In domain lands the tax appears under the form of so much per cent. on the rent. In cities the ordinary tax is composed of various levies on lands, houses and professions, to which is added the fifth pfenning for the city. Rostock has a system of its own, which is a kind of octroi.50 There is, besides, an "extraordinary tax" which appears also in a direct form, but figures in one place as a land tax, in another as a license, and in a third as a tax on income or capital. The financial system of the two Mecklenburgs is the most complicated labyrinth that can be imagined. The following is the opinion of the government of the country on this subject (official document of 1846). "False in principle, contrary to the most ordinary rules of political economy, the imposts, taxes and tolls hinder and trouble domestic commerce to the profit of the foreigner, weigh upon the poorer tax payer, while the rich may escape their action without infringing the law, render exportation difficult, increase the cost of collecting taxes, without making fraud difficult. * * *." We have enough of this description, but there is reason to think that the events of 1866 and 1870-71 have improved the situation. —The government not being obliged to render an account of the funds which it collects, there is no budget. The revenues of the grand duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, before 1866, were estimated at 4,000,000 thalers, of which 2,400,000 came from domain land, 320,000 came from transit dues, 1,000,000 from taxes, and 440,000 from posts and other dues called regalian rights. But the forced connection of Mecklenburg with the tariff system of the empire has abolished the transit dues; it is true, however, that by the same act the grand duchies were relieved from various expenditures. The revenues of the grand duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz are about 600,000 thalers, 500,000 of which arise from the domains, 82,000 from imposts, and the rest from various sources. The debt of one of the grand duchies is about 9,000,000 thalers, that of the other 1,000,000, a part of which was contracted to build a railway and to redeem the Sound dues. If the reform which we mention above, though far less than is demanded by public opinion in Germany, is realized, there is reason to think that a regular budget will be established in this country which is so backward. —German legislation is in force with reference to the army, the Mecklenburg troops (treaty of February, 1873) forming a part of the ninth army corps of Prussia. —BIBLIOGRAPHY. Boll, Geschichte Mecklenburgs mit Berucksichtigung der Culturgeschichte, 2 vols., New Brandenburg, 1855, and Abriss der mecklenb.Landeskunde, Wismar, 1861; Raale, Mecklenb.Vaterlandskunde, 2d ed., 3 vols., Wismar, 1863, Wiggers, Kirchengeschichte Mecklenburgs, Parchim, 1840; Nizze, Volkswirthschaflliche zustände in Mecklenburg, Rostock, 1861; Lisch, Jahrbucher des Vereins fur mecklenb.Geschichte und Landeskunde, 1835; Wiggers, Die merklenb.constituirende Versammlung, Rostock, 1850, Das Virfassungsrecht im Grossherzogthum Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Berlin, 1860, and Die mecklenb.Verfassungsfrage, Leipzig, 1877. MAURICE BLOCK. MECKLENBURGH DECLARATIONMECKLENBURGH DECLARATION (IN U. S. HISTORY). The authorized account of this document is that it was adopted at two o'clock in the morning of May 20, 1775, at Charlotte, by a convention of two delegates from each militia company of Mecklenburgh county, N. C.; that the papers of John M. Alexander, the secretary of the convention, were accidentally burned in April, 1800; that copies of the minutes and declaration were then sent to Hugh Williamson, at New York, the historian of North Carolina, and to W. R. Davie; and that another copy was finally published by the "Raleigh Register," April 30, 1818. From this last publication the declaration first became generally known. —The declaration purports to "dissolve the political bands which have connected us to the mother country, and absolve ourselves from allegiance to the British crown, and abjure all political connection, contract and association with that nation"; to declare that the people of Mecklenburgh county are "a free and independent people," who "are, and of right ought to be, a sovereign and self governing association, under the control of no power other than that of our God and the general government of the congress"; and to establish a revolutionary government for the county. —The declaration is historically suspicious from its use of phrases used in the declaration of July 4, 1776; from the facts that Williamson, and the contemporary writers of this and neighboring states, show no knowledge of it, and that it was entirely ignored in and out of congress at a time when resolutions coming far short of independence were heralded by every newspaper in the country; and from its inability to appeal to any better evidence in support of it than that of dead men, burned papers, and a missing letter of approval from the three North Carolina delegates in congress, two of whom were notorious tories. Nevertheless Bancroft accepts it without hesitation; and the probability is that resolutions, of the kind which were common at the time, were passed May 31, that the "copies" of 1818 were from recollection, with strong traces of the declaration of July 4, 1776, and that the Mecklenburgh "declaration" was not of its purported date, or essentially of its purported nature. (See REVOLUTION, DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.) —See 7 Bancroft's United States, 370; 3 Hildreth's United States, 74; Frothingham's Rise of the Republic, 422; 3 Randall's Life of Jefferson, App 2; 4 Jefferson's Works (edit. 1829), 314; Jones' Defense of the Revolutionary History of North Carolina; Graham's Address on the Mecklenburgh Declaration; W. D. Cooke's Revolutionary History of North Carolina; 2 Lossing's Field Book of the Revolution, 617; North Carolina University Magazine, May, 1853; North American Review, April, 1874; Niles' Principles and Acts of the Revolution, 132. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON. MEDIATIONMEDIATION. In international law, mediation is an act the object of which is to reconcile the disputes of nations. Three kinds of amicable negotiations, however, are distinguished: 1, a third power tenders its good offices to terminate the international dispute; 2, or a third power is selected to make impartial proposals of settlement, the other parties reserving the right of accepting or rejecting them; 3, or it is constituted judge or arbitrator to pronounce a sentence founded on the principles of justice and equity and binding on both parties. So we have tender of good offices, mediation, arbitration; each one of these methods has rules, and implies rights and duties for each power. —The tender of good offices generally springs from a spontaneous sentiment; its object is to prevent violence, by engaging the contending parties to come to an understanding and settle their rights, to offer or accept reasonable satisfaction. This is the first step toward mediation. —Mediation is a commission conferred and accepted for the purpose of conciliation, to procure peace, by softening reproach, calming resentment, and enlightening minds. Its tendency is to effect a compromise of opposing claims, to smooth difficulties raised by interest, self-esteem or passion, and it may lead to arbitration. —Arbitration consists in the choice of one or several judges selected by common consent to decide the dispute and pronounce a sentence which, executory like a treaty, is to serve as a law and rule. —We may remark that the processes of arriving at a settlement of disputes between nations are identical with those applied to the disputes of individuals; but we should not be astonished at this; nations are nothing more than agglomerations of individuals, and these agglomerations can not have, really and logically, other laws than those which govern the individuals composing them. Natural right flows from the same sources. Its principles apply, therefore, to nations as well as to individuals. Vattel could therefore say, with the concurrence of all civilized peoples: "Justice is even more necessary among nations than among individuals, because injustice has more terrible consequences in the disputes of these powerful political bodies. Each nation should therefore render to others what belongs to them, respect their rights, and leave them to the peaceful enjoyment of them. But the difference consists in this, that in civil society there are powers charged with enforcing respect for the rights of each one of its own members, while between free and sovereign nations there is no superior judge on earth before whom they can be summoned to appear in order to await from him the settlement of their disputes." Hence the creation, by the force of things, of this rôle of third powers tendering their good offices, or chosen as mediators, or accepted as arbitrators. EUGÈNE PAIGNON. MEDIATIZATIONMEDIATIZATION. In consequence of the wars of the revolution and the empire, a great number of immediate principalities, counties and baronies of Germany, that is to say, such as had no other suzerain than the emperor under whose immediate authority they were, were subordinated to princes formerly their equals; this has been termed mediatization. In other words, their prerogatives, property and honors were left them, and their sovereignty taken away. The federal act of the Germanic confederation recognizes (Art. 14) their exceptional position; the mediatized lords (slandesherrn) continued to be the equals of sovereign princes, in this sense that the latter might and (may?) without mésalliance, intermarry with them (ebenbürtigkeit); and they enjoy certain immunities for themselves and their families, such as exemption from military service. Several decisions of the federal diet have recognized for the princes the title of durchlaucht, (serene highness), and to the counts that of erlaucht, (excellency). Several German states granted them other privileges; they are, for instance, nearly everywhere hereditary peers. Since the dissolution of the Germanic confederation their situation has not been so well defined. In a case tried in Berlin in February or March, 1872, the court refused to recognize the right of privileged jurisdiction in the case of two lords. (They had been members of the board of management in a joint stock company which had failed.) —The number of mediatized rulers is somewhat considerable. There are fourteen in Austria, twenty-nine in Prussia, twenty-two in Bavaria, thirty-five in Würtemberg, eight in Baden, and nineteen in the grand duchy of Hesse. But it is proper to remark that some are mentioned twice, in this sense, and that several houses, such as those of La Tour and Taxis, figure in a number of states. Further, Prussia granted the title of standesherrn to twenty-eight other houses of princes and counts. Among mediatized rulers we find the names Aremburg, Croy, Bentheim, Sayn-Wittgenstein, Salm, Solms, Wied, Esterhazy, Schwarzenberg, Windischgraciz Fugger, Hohenlohe, Ottingen, Waldburg, Loewenstein, Stadion, Leiningen, Furstenberg, Loyen, Isenburg, Erbach, Stolberg, and others. M. B. MEMORANDUMMEMORANDUM is a term which has survived from the Latin, which had been introduced as a neutral language in the composition of letters negotiations and treaties in times before Louis XIV. In the reign of that monarch the French language became usual in the relations of states. By memorandum was described a species of diplomatic note containing a brief statement of the condition of a question and a justification of the position taken by a government, or the acts emanating from it.—"In monarchic states," says Martens, "the minister of a foreign power may sometimes negotiate directly with the king, either orally, or by laying before him memoirs, etc.; but more frequently he is obliged to enter into a conference with the minister of foreign affairs, or with one or more commissioners whose appointment he has obtained. Conferences are held sometimes at the residence of the minister, sometimes at that of the commissioner, sometimes at a third place. Frequently the minister presents a memoir, a note or another document, which contains in writing the substance of what he has stated orally, and as a rule these papers should be signed. Several states have taken the wise resolution of never deliberating on a point unless the foreign representative has presented the substance of it in writing, in the form of a memoir or a note. But, generally, a minister would not be obliged to return in writing the substance of what he had presented orally, or what he had read, or to sign the copy or the protocol which might have been drawn up; he agrees sometimes to give a verbal note, an apercu de conversation, etc. But such papers are not usually signed; as also it is not customary to sign confidential memoirs, and court declarations are sufficiently authenticated by the memoir with which the foreign minister accompanies them." —The nature of the memorandum demands a pure and exact style, showing a cool thinker rather than a rhetorician. It should rivet the attention; in a word, it should express fitly and with unbroken logic, what should be said, and nothing more; it should avoid circumlocution, idle phrases, ambiguous or uncommon words; such should be the character of diplomatic writings. Ill-chosen expressions may lead to irritation or complications, by wounding power in its dignity or its interests. EUGÈNE PAIGNON. MERCANTILE SYSTEMMERCANTILE SYSTEM. The theory of the balance of trade and the consequences which were drawn therefrom constitute what is called the mercantile system, because the whole of this system tends to consider foreign commerce as the most productive branch of a nation's labor. It is supposed that a nation can sell more than it buys, in a way to ruin neighboring nations by absorbing their precious metals by the greatest possible exportation and the least possible importation. This false theory still prevails in the minds of the masses, and still serves as a rule for many administrations and governments; it forms the basis of the economic ideas of all the writers of the eighteenth century, who did not belong to the physiocratic school or to that of Adam Smith; it is still appealed to in our days by statesmen, and by all those who, by conviction or for financial considerations, defend prohibition, high tariffs and custom impediments. —We have not to detail here, still less to refute, all the consequences of this fundamental error, which would necessitate a full course in political economy, and which would lead us to repeat what is already found in many articles of this Cyclopædia. We will limit ourselves to saying that the mercantile system is in opposition to the true notion of money and of production, to the nature of markets and the mechanism of the operations of commerce, and we will refer the reader more particularly to the articles, BALANCE OF TRADE, COMMERCE, EXCHANGE, OUTLET, MONEY, PRODUCTION OF WEALTH, EXPORTS AND IMPORTS. —All sciences have begun in error; and the mercantile error is found in antiquity. It is plain from a passage in Cicero,51 that the exportation of precious metals was often prohibited under the republic, and this prohibition was often renewed, although very uselessly, by the emperors. There is perhaps no state in modern Europe which has not formally interdicted the exportation of gold and silver. This exportation was, it is said, prohibited by the English laws before the conquest, and different statutes having the same purpose were passed at that time. One of these statutes (3 Henry VIII., chap. i.), approved in 1512, declared that any person who transported metallic specie, plate or jewels, to a foreign country, if it was discovered, would be liable to a confiscation equivalent to double the value of the merchandise transported. —In 1848 when Rossi became minister of the pope, one of his first cares was to repeal the legal provisions which forbade the exportation of coin from the Roman states. About the same time, and a few days after the revolution of February in France, the commissary of the department of the Rhone opposed, by a decree, the exportation of coin from that department! —It is known that commerce, during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, developed rapidly, on account of the direct relations of Europe with India by the cape of Good Hope, and the force of circumstances brought about the substitution of a more ingenious and less barbarous system for the gross system of the absolute prohibition of the exportation of coin. Indeed the exportation of gold and silver money by India was advantageous and was practiced notably by the East India company. This company was accused on this point of ruining the kingdom, by taking out of the country its gold and silver, but its defenders, Thomas Mun among others, claimed that this exportation was advantageous, because the commodities brought from India were chiefly re-exported into other countries, from which was received a larger quantity of coin than that required in the first place for the payment of these commodities in the east. —It is from this time that the first theoretical essays on economic and commercial questions date. Mun wrote in 1635 or 1640; after him came, in England, Josiah Child, Dr. Davenant, the authors of the "English Merchant," and J. Steuart; in France, Melon and Forbonnais; in Italy, Genoiesi, who were, in the eighteenth century, the most distinguished writers, who defended, with more or less extensive restrictions, the principles of the mercantile system. —The analyses of the physiocrats, and, later, those of Adam Smith, completely refuted this false idea, which all the treatises on political economy place among scientific heresies; but upon this point, we repeat, practice is about three-quarters of a century behind theory. The point of departure of this theory rests in this fact, that, since ancient times, money had principally consisted of gold and silver specie. From this fact it was concluded that the possession of money exclusively constituted wealth; the use of money for a long time prevented the perception of the true nature of purchase and sale, that is to say, of exchange, and confounded wealth with the instrument of exchange and the measure of this wealth. The consequences of this error have been formidable for humanity. They have, in fact, led men to misunderstand the freedom of labor, the advantages of the division of employments among nations; led them to create at the frontiers customs barriers to protect certain branches of work, but which hurt all; to direct most industries into unnatural ways; to give to governments a surveillance which they should not be allowed to exercise; to create a barbarous legislation, and to cast discord among nations. "It is no exaggeration," says Storch, "to affirm that very few political errors have produced more disasters than the mercantile system. Armed with power, it has imposed ordinances and prohibitions where it should have protected. The method of making regulations, which it has inspired, has been the cause of vexations of a thousand kinds to industry, to turn it from its natural paths. The mercantile system has persuaded each nation that the well-being of neighboring nations was incompatible with its own; hence was born that reciprocal desire to injure and impoverish each other, and with it that spirit of commercial rivalry which has been the immediate or remote cause of the greater part of modern wars. It is the mercantile system which has driven nations to employ force or cunning to extort from the weakness or ignorance of rival nations treaties of commerce which have been of no real advantage for themselves. It is this system which has presided over the formation of colonies, for the purpose of giving to the mother country the exclusive enjoyment of their commerce, and to force them to have recourse only to the markets of the mother country. Where this system has produced the least evil, it has retarded the progress of national prosperity; everywhere, besides, it has caused torrents of blood to flow; it has depopulated and ruined many countries, to which it might have been supposed it would have furnished in the highest degree power and wealth." JOSEPH GARNIER. MESSAGEMESSAGE (IN U. S. HISTORY), a written communication to congress by the president. Regular messages are sent at the opening of each session of congress; special messages, whenever an occasion for them arises. During the administrations of Washington and John Adams the messages were delivered orally by the president to the two houses assembled together; since that time they have been delivered in writing, through the president's private secretary, and then printed by order of congress for general distribution. (See EXECUTIVE.) A. J. MEXICOMEXICO forms a triangle whose apex pointing southeast terminates the North American continent. It reaches to that ridge, 1,428 miles long, known as the isthmus of Panama; and includes the most northerly of the passes which exist in that immense embankment and offer a means of passage between the two oceans which wash the shores of the new world, namely, the pass called after Tehuantepec, a town on the Pacific coast. Mexico, however, extends beyond the pass or the isthmus of Tehuantepec; the peninsula of Yucatan, which is farther south, belongs to it also, thus making it contiguous to Central America, which is composed of five independent states, the most important being Guatemala, and of the English colony of Balize. Mexico, then, chiefly extends lengthwise in an oblique direction from 15° to 33° north latitude, lying southeast to northwest, from Cape Catoche in Yucatan to the bay of San Diego in the peninsula of California, a distance of not less than 1,863 miles. Its narrowest part is the isthmus of Tehuantepec, where the width in a direct line is only 136 miles: from Vera Cruz to Acapulco through Mexico, which is indirect, is 341 miles. Farther north, from the mouth of the Rio Bravo del Norte to the anchorage off the town of Sinalos, following the line of latitude, is a distance of 683 miles. —Mexico, since the diminution it suffered at the hands of the United States, possesses a superficial area of 743,948 English square miles, less than half its size when ruled by Spain, and is about three and a half times as large as France. The greater part, as is shown by the preceding data, is in the torrid zone, the populated portion being almost entirely so. Northward the race of peaceable Indians, who by learning to work and embracing Christianity have entered the pale of civilization, disappear; and the population of European origin, although the more numerous, is scanty. Its increase is hindered by the incursions of savage Indians who are opposed to labor, and in particular those of the Apache nation, with regard to whom the United States, deeming them incapable of being improved, now openly pursues a policy of extermination. — The Climate of Mexico and the Productions it favors. By its peculiar configuration Mexico is spared the disadvantages common to tropical countries. That portion of the earth's surface which bears the name of the torrid zone is in general unsuited to white men on account of its extreme heat, but even there the warmth of the sun may be modified by the elevation, that is to say, by the height of the land above the sea level. As the altitude increases, the temperature lowers, till at last, even at the equator, the limit of perpetual snow is reached. The greater part of intertropical Mexico forms a high table land, having a gradual slope on the one side to the Atlantic and on the other to the Pacific, intersected by valleys more or less deep, and studded with mountains and hills. This Mexican plateau enjoys many advantages, among which one in particular is worthy of note, that with the exception of a few isolated summits here and there, its elevation makes it admirably adapted to Europeans, and well suited to the cultivation of the products of the temperate zone, such as cereals, maize, the vine and the olive. On entering Mexico from the south, the central Cordillera of the Andes, which traverse the new world throughout all its length as though they were its spine, spreads out until it occupies almost the entire space between the two oceans; forming a plateau raised above the sea level to a height which, a little north of the isthmus of Tehuantepec, is about 4,900 feet, while at Pueblo, Mexico and Guanaxuato, it varies from 6,800 feet to 7,500 feet. Farther north the elevation is less than at Mexico. —The city of Mexico is built at the foot of two mountains, both covered with perpetual snow, Popocatepetl and Istaccihuatl, the former of which is 17,800 feet high. Setting aside these formidable earth masses and a few others distributed over the plateau, the high districts are for the most part a sort of plain stretching far into the north; the distance this table land extends, from north to south, is at least 1,500 miles, that is, about the distance between Paris and St. Petersburg. —On leaving the shores of the ocean, whether it be the Atlantic or the Pacific, and going toward the high lands, owing to the rapid change of elevation, a quick succession of different climates is encountered, each having its own distinct vegetation. With good means of communication, it would be possible to go in one day, from sunrise to sunset, from the coast plains, where the heat is suffocating, to a temperature resembling that of Montpellier or Toulouse. At each step, the face of the country, the look of the sky, the appearance of the animals and plants, the manners and occupations of the people, all change. First, the sugar cane is met with, in company with indigo, cacao trees and bananas; then comes the coffee shrub, and in succession the cotton plant, oranges, tobacco, olives, wheat and vines, together with many plants peculiar to the country, such as the liana whose fruit is vanilla, the beautiful plant (genus convolvulus) whose root makes jalap, the smilax whose root is sarsaparilla, and the cactus (opuntia) the food of the cochineal insect. On first starting, palms, and all those vigorous trees which in equatorial regions spring up along the seacoast, form the surroundings; in the intermediate region, say about the elevation of Xalapa, the trees have that beautiful, bright green foliage, like that of the liquidambar, which is a certain indication of a country plentifully watered by rivers or by the clouds, and the temperature of which is always moderate; they are succeeded by the oaks, which in turn give way to pines and firs, and lastly the firs remain alone as they do amid the crags of the Alps; the last remnants of vegetation are the lichens which only disappear when the perpetual snow line is reached. Maize thrives in every region. —Sugar planting is as profitable in Mexico as it is in the Antilles; cotton is of excellent quality, and the yield is abundant. Maize produces in a good locality and in a favorable season 800 grains for one. The wheat-growing country in the neighborhood of Puebla and of Toluca, notwithstanding that the farming is of the most primitive description, produces twenty-four or twenty-five grains for one. The banana or plantain is one of the staple food sources of Mexico, and it is well known that no other food plant needs so little attention or in proportion produces, even approximately, so much. —It is customary to divide Mexico into three parts, according to climate and productions, giving to each a characteristic name. The first division, which commences at the seacoast, is distinguished by luxuriant vegetation and excessive heat. Unfortunately many parts of it are devastated by yellow fever, a disease deadly to strangers and even to the Mexicans if from the plateau. It bears the name of the hot district (tierra caliente). Next in order is the temperate district (tierra templada), the climate of which is a perpetual spring. Xalapa and Orizaba are examples of this delightful country, which has a mean annual temperature of from 18° to 20° centigrade, and the thermometric variation in the different seasons is very slight. It is not only free from the overheated atmosphere and malarial exhalations of the seacoast, but also from the insects, both trouble-some and dangerous, which swarm to the torment of mankind over a great part of the hot district. The third and last zone, the cold district (tierra fria) is the most extensive. It includes the entire plateau, and even those parts of the two inclined planes immediately adjacent to it. It is almost universally agreeable to live in, and the inhabitant of the choicest spots in Europe might almost believe himself at home there. —The Mineral Wealth of Mexico. Mexico is naturally wealthy in minerals, and especially so in the precious metals, of which silver is the more abundant. The mines form a line 1,863 miles in length, reaching to the very north of Mexico, and taking a direction from southeast to northwest. They are the result of one of those tremendous upheavals which have set their mark on the successive periods of this planet's existence. The matrix is in veins, principally consisting of quartz, through which the silver is scattered in very small quantity, so much so that after the separation of the waste from the workable ore, the latter only yields the two or three thousandth part of its weight in metal, sometimes even less, and it is only the extreme abundance of the ore which compensates for its lack of richness. In northern Mexico, and especially on the Pacific coast, the traveler may see long lines of rocks cropping out, these being the quartz veins, the hardness and durability of whose substance has resisted all climatic influences. The number of argentiferous veins is practically unlimited, and their thickness is considerable, therein differing from the silver veins of the old world. Although Mexico has produced a great quantity of silver, it has been a mere sample of the metallic wealth of the country; an opinion which, expressed by the great Humboldt in the beginning of the century, has since been confirmed by every engineer and scientific man who has visited the country. The principal prospecting has been done in the neighborhood of the beautiful city of Guanaxuato, round about Zacatecas, farther north still at Guadalupe y Calvo, and in the opposite direction at Real del Monte. By an ingenious process, the invention of a sixteenth century miner, Bartholomew Medina, the silver is separated almost without the use of fuel from the different and often complex combinations in which it is found, the agent used, with a few other substances of less value, being mercury in the proportion of three pounds of it to two of silver. This process, called cold amalgamation, is of great value, because the country, sparsely wooded in the time of the Aztecs, was completely denuded of its forests by the Spaniards. Medina's process quickly spread from Mexico to all the other Spanish possessions in America, where it rendered the same services and is in use still. —Gold is found in Mexico for the most part in combination with silver, in a proportion small in weight but of considerable value, the value of gold being fifteen or sixteen times that of an equal weight of silver. The gold is removed from the silver ingots by "refining." There exist, however, in addition, gold mines, properly so called, which are generally but not invariably alluvial, like those which, existing in every quarter of the globe, have hitherto yielded by the process of washing the greater portion of the gold possessed by man. But the magnificent gold deposits of California remained unknown and therefore undisturbed as long as the country was in the hands of the Spaniards or of independent Mexico. The provinces of Sonora and of Sinaloa, on the Pacific coast, which are an extension of California, contain, according to incontestable evidence, deposits similar to those of California, both in the form of auriferous quartz and of alluvial detritus. —The Mexican mines have been, since the middle of the eighteenth century, the greatest producers of the precious metals in the world. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, when the war of independence broke out, their yield was from 125 to 130 millions, of which nine-tenths was silver. Since then, the country, distracted by continual revolutions and a prey to anarchy, has seen its mines neglected till the present yield barely equals that of the first years of the century. —If the country were restored to a settled condition, if it had an enlightened and stable government to provide the advantages enjoyed by the most civilized nations for three-quarters of a century, such as laws for the protection of labor, technical schools, and lines of communication, the production of gold and silver in Mexico would increase rapidly. The discovery of the great deposits of quicksilver at New Almaden, in California, is calculated to give a lively impetus to Mexican silver mining; for experience joins with calculation to show that abundance of mercury at a low price is a great incentive to activity among the miners who work the silver lodes. —The destruction of the greater portion of the forests and the entire absence of any mineral fuel must cause the production of other metals, and in particular of iron and copper, to be indefinitely postponed. —Advantageous Position between the two Oceans. To the advantages which Mexico possesses in its climate, its soil, the unlimited variety of its agricultural products, and its many gold and even silver mines, it adds that of a topographical situation almost unique. It has on its sides the two greatest and most frequented oceans, the Atlantic and the Pacific. It faces thus at the same time both sides of the old world, and the two most industrious, most civilized and most populous portions of it, one at its western extremity, that is, in Europe, and the other at the eastern, that is, China and Japan. It seems chosen to have intimate connections with both, and even to serve as a highway for much of their commerce. The railroad which is to cross Mexico from Vera Cruz to Acapulco, and is completed between the former city and the capital, will be of great service in opening up communication between the interior of the country and the seacoast, and will be useful to many strangers in spite of its steep ascending gradients, but the greater number will desert it for the line which the people of the United States, by a miracle of boldness and economy, have succeeded in opening between New York and San Francisco, both of which are metropolises exercising great attraction. —The isthmus of Tehuantepec was strongly advocated, before the design of the Central Pacific railway between New York and San Francisco was conceived, as the position for a line of rail which, together with the Panama railway, should make a junction between the two oceans. This route has the advantage of shortening greatly the transit from the eastern to the western slope of the North American continent. Travelers going from New York to San Francisco by sea and one of the isthmuses would gain considerably by taking it as compared with the route via the isthmus of Panama. —The direct railroad between New York and San Francisco deprives of this special advantage the line of rails that was to be placed on the isthmus of Tehuantepec. In return it seems now highly probable that that isthmus will be crossed by a maritime canal of wide section, adapted for the vessels which transport the merchandise exchanged in such quantity between the Atlantic and Pacific basins. This canal, which is intended to commence in the river Guazacoalcos, a tributary of the Atlantic, and to reach the Pacific through the lagoons near Tehuantepec, is seriously projected now by the company which had before the concession for the railway across the isthmus. The United States government has had the proposed route surveyed, and the decision of those surveys, made in 1870-71, under the direction of Captain Schufeldt, by the engineers Fuatos and Buel and other officers, was that the undertaking presented no extraordinary difficulties. It would be necessary to surmount by means of locks an ascent of 233 métres; the length would be 237 kilométres from the island of Tacamichopa in the Guazacoalcos to the port of Salma-Cruz on the Pacific. The watershed would be on the plateau of Tarita. Below the island of Tacamichopa use would be made of the bed of the river Guazacoalcos, which it would be easy to improve. The maritime canal of Tehuantepec promises better for the commerce of the United States than any of the rival schemes proposed, as it would greatly shorten the distance between the numerous and busy ports which the Union possesses on the Atlantic side and San Francisco, already the most important mart of the new world on the Pacific. It would also be the most convenient route to Japan, Hongkong or Shanghae. —The Population of Mexico. The population of Mexico consists chiefly of the descendants of the indigenous race subdued by Cortez. This industrious and disciplined people rapidly embraced Christianity after Mexico was conquered. Whether voluntary or on compulsion, conversion was general. The Catholic clergy skillfully availed themselves of the similarities existing between Christian theology and that of the Aztec religion. Since that time the indigenes, called Indians through the mistake of Columbus who fancied he had found India, have remained submissive. In a very few instances and during periods of extreme suffering, isolated outbreaks of rebellion have occurred, but, very different in this from the Indian tribes once spread over the whole United States, the Mexican Indian regularly cultivates the soil either for himself or as the servant of some white man, does his day's work in one of the few manufactories which have been established, or labors of his own free will in the mines, where he gives surprising proofs of his physical development. There are numerous half-breeds, the offspring of intercourse between the whites and the Indians, who, under the Spanish dominion, were called castes. The number of negroes, or of those sprung from them through unions with whites or Indians, is very small. Formerly there were several thousand black slaves, but they were for the most part set at liberty on the commencement of the war of independence in 1810. —On the western slope of Mexico, in the neighborhood of the city of Acapulco, whose magnificent harbor was the port of arrival and departure of the solitary ship called the Galion, which once a year made the round trip between Mexico and China and the countries which lay on the route, Malays may be met with, the descendants of those who came by that way to settle in the country, but they have not increased. The proof that the Chinese, who are so industrious, who make such intelligent and steady workmen, might easily be attracted to the country and would acclimatize themselves there, is seen in the fact that they are taking root both in California and Australia in spite of the bad treatment they are subjected to in those places. —The dominant race till now has been the white, although in point of numbers it constitutes only one-sixth or one-seventh of the population. It is not without some admixture of Indian blood, as since the time of Cortez and indeed at that great man's instigation, lawful marriages have been contracted between the two races: several of his companions in arms, and those not the least distinguished, having united themselves before the altars to the converted widows of Mexican chiefs who had fallen in the struggle. The ascendency of the white race is not absolute. The classes of mixed blood and even pure-blooded natives have furnished eminent men to the country who have risen to the highest honors. Guerrero, who was president, was of mixed Spanish and Indian blood, and President Juarez was a full-blooded Indian. —The number and composition of the Mexican people in 1810, according to the statistics of Don Francisco Navarro y Noriega, whom Humboldt mentions as being reliable, was as follows:
At the present time the population of Mexico is estimated at about nine millions. —Mexico since the Conquest by Hernando Cortez. Mexico was, before the European invasion, the most powerful state of the new world. It was the farthest advanced in both the useful and the decorative arts, in science and in literature. This civilization, while in many respects to be admired, was marred by some horrible practices, in particular by that of human sacrifice. Several peoples in succession ruled the country, the last and cruelest being the Aztecs, to which race the emperor Montezuma, in whose presence Hernando Cortez found himself, belonged. —The Spanish conquest was achieved by a succession of battles and of deeds of daring which commenced on the day the Spaniards disembarked (Holy Thursday, 1519) and terminated Aug. 13, 1521, on which date the last quarter of Tenochtitlan, or Mexico, was carried by assault, and the young and valiant Guatemozin, the last Aztec emperor, was taken prisoner. The Spaniards at once set to work to organize this vast acquisition. The Indians, notwithstanding their conversion, were, with the exception of the nobles and of the people of Tlascala, shared as slaves, or nearly so, between the conquerors and people of all sorts who flocked from Spain to join them, or who were sent there by the crown. This system went by the name of repartimientos, a word which indicated quite sufficiently what was done. They portioned out these wretched Indians as though they were herds of cattle, making them till the ground and labor in the mines. This régime, when applied to the islands of Hispaniola or San Domingo, speedily resulted in the extinction of the aborigines. In Mexico the race to be dealt with was hardier and possessed greater vitality. The enforced labor decimated but did not utterly destroy it. It must be said, also, that in this case the clergy labored indefatigably in behalf of the unfortunate Mexicans, and their efforts were crowned with success, upheld as they were by the court of Spain. This latter looked upon the sentiments of Christian charity which Queen Isabella manifested toward the aboriginal peoples of America, and which she, when on her death-bed, commended to her successors, as an inalienable bequest. At a later period the courts of justice or audiencias, and the viceroys, among whom were many distinguished men, were the interpreters of the royal views, and ameliorated the evils under which the Indians were crushed by the colonists or by the feudal chiefs who were blinded by avarice. The clergy regarded the task of protecting those unfortunate creatures as a special duty assigned them. In this an example was set to the whole of the new world by the bishop of Chicopas, Bartholomew Las Casas, who, at the time of the barbarities practiced on the natives of Hispaniola, made Europe and America ring with his outspoken denunciation of them. At an early period the Spanish court modified greatly the régime established in Mexico as elsewhere. The repartimientos were abolished, and their place taken by encomiendas. This was, as nearly as possible, serfdom substituted for slavery. The Indian and his family were attached to the soil instead of depending on the individual caprice of a master. One portion of the Indians remained exempt even from the encomiendas in certain villages, access to which was forbidden to the whites. During the reign of Charles III., an enlightened prince, and one who gave his mind to benefiting his people, fresh abuses and deeds of violence came to light, and these seeming intolerable to the court of Madrid, the encomiendas in turn were swept away. The native had now no master but the king, but he was obliged to pay an annual tribute, and he continued in a state of pupilage all his life. He was declared incapable of transacting business whenever the sum in question exceeded five piasters. This was done on the supposition that it would act for the protection of the Indians, but the avaricious cunning of the whites still found means of oppressing them, and the more so that they were more unarmed and less free to do it. Intendants, civil governors created by the same prince in 1776 were placed at the head of each province, and invested with considerable power under the authority of the viceroy. Their duty was to administer the affairs of the country in general, and in particular to act for the protection of the Indian. —The Indian nobility or caciques were exempt from the degrading condition of minority to which the other Indians were subject. From the time of Cortez they had been placed on a par with the Castilian nobility, but no care had been taken to educate their descendants. They had ended by lapsing into a condition of barbarity. Of their ancient superiority they only retained the habit of making exactions from their miserable fellow countrymen. —The numerous class of half-breeds were scarcely better treated than the full-blooded Indian. They too paid tribute, but were, however, free from the state of perpetual pupilage which the Indian was forced to submit to; but they were none the less kept in a condition of degradation. —The class of creole whites, that is to say, whites born in Mexico, suffered under a policy of suspicious surveillance. To those who by their own effort or by inheritance possessed wealth in mines, or in vast agricultural territories, titles of nobility were given; those who were less rich got commissions in the militia and decorations. Neither class was admitted to any share in the government or administration of the country. All that was granted them was the privilege of becoming members of the municipal bodies or ayuntamientos. Numerous, and, from their large possessions, influential, this class was profoundly discontented. There was no despotism clever or adroit enough to make the son of a father born in Spain and of a mother equally Spanish admit that there should exist a gulf between him and his parents or between him and an elder son who happened to have been born in Spain. It was useless to inspect all printed matter entering Mexico, with the object of preventing the circulation of any books unless approved by the inquisition; truth has a diffusive force which sets at naught the arbitrary decrees of the most absolute power or the watchfulness of the subtilest inquisition. An antagonism, at one time suppressed, at another outspoken, existed between the creoles (criollos) and the natives of Spain, who were distinguished by the name of Gachupines. —Ideas of independence were introduced into Mexico by the excitement caused by the independence of the United States and the French revolution, and sank deep into men's minds in spite of the barriers with which government surrounded the people; and the events which took place in the peninsula in 1808 giving the needed opportunity, by the total eclipse of the legitimate royalty from which the whole system emanated, an explosion followed. The independents, commanded by priests, first Hidalgo and then Morelos as their generals in chief, gained in the beginning important advantages, but they soon suffered severe disaster. A Spanish officer of great merit, Calleja, who was afterward viceroy, made them pay dearly for their early successes. Their armies were beaten and dispersed, their chiefs taken and executed. In 1815 the triumph of the Spanish authority seemed everywhere complete, but it was only so in appearance. The creoles, the chief of whom had in consequence of the atrocities committed by the independents made common cause with the Spaniards, rallied at last from all quarters to their country's flag. The signal was given by one of them, who had distinguished himself with the Spanish armies, Colonel Iturbide. This chief, to whom the viceroy Apodaca had entrusted an imported body of troops, proclaimed independence Feb. 24, 1821, and published a programme which has since been famous, by the name of the Iguala plan (so called from the small town where it was issued). The whole country, every class, gave in their adhesion to it. Independence was henceforth an accomplished fact, and from that time it has never again been questioned. —The proclamation of independence was only the beginning of the greatest trials. The Iguala plan provided that Mexico should henceforward form a perfectly independent monarchy, the crown of which was to be offered to the king of Spain on condition of his residing in the country, and in the event of his refusing, to the infantas, his brothers. The court of Spain utterly rejecting this proposal, Iturbide had himself proclaimed emperor, but seated on the throne in May, 1822, in May, 1823, just one year later, he embarked at Vera Cruz, condemned to exile. The Mexican congress, a permanency since the emancipation gained by the Iguala plan, adopted the republican form of government, and believed it could do no better than copy the federal constitution of the United States, which, suited to the manners and antecedents of the former English colonists, jarred with the customs and prejudices of the Mexicans. The republican constitution, long in elaboration, was published in October, 1824, and the president elected was General Victoria, one of the most intrepid heroes of the war of independence. After four or five troubled years had passed, the horrors of civil war commenced, and the country, since then, has gone from revolution to revolution, from catastrophe to catastrophe. It has been by turns a federal and a simple republic. In the former case, the provinces have not only borne the name of states, but have also possessed a sort of independence with a distinct governing body, on the plan, more or less closely followed, of the United States; in the latter, the central executive has had the entire control, subject really or nominally to the decisions of a congress, consisting, like that at Washington, of two chambers. There has even been, apart from any foreign intervention, a thinly disguised effort to establish a monarchy. It was made by General Santa Anna after his return to power in 1853, who planned to have himself elected president for life with the right at his death of naming his own successor. But the attempt proved abortive. and a revolution overthrew Santa Anna in 1855. —During the greater part of the time the federal form of republic has been the prevailing one, and is in existence at the present date. But it is impossible to give the provinces an independent existence such as is possessed by the different states of the American Union. This system has no root in Mexico's past and as a matter of fact the governor of Mexico always has a dominant influence, which, when the country comes to possess passable means of communication, will most assuredly increase. —So great has been the political instability of Mexico since it became independent that the presidential chair changed occupants forty-six times between Oct. 10, 1824, and the French invasion, General Santa Anna's name appearing on the list five times. General Santa Anna was, from the declaration of independence until the movement of 1867, the most prominent figure in the country and the mainspring of the events occurring in it. He contributed more than any other to the overthrow of the emperor Iturbide; he, however, judged it inexpedient to accept the presidency till 1834. Forced again and again to relinquish power, he always regained it, and retained it longer than any of his rivals, steering skillfully between parties, soothing each in turn and using them one against the other. —In the midst of the turmoil of events and the incessant storm of personal pretensions, it is possible since the independence to single out two parties having distinct characteristics in complete opposition to each other, which by their antagonism furnish an inexhaustible incentive to revolution. These are, the conservatives and the reformers or liberals, neither, unhappily, knowing any moderation. The first named cling to ancient ideas and old forms of government, the second are saturated with modern theories, and admire in particular the principles of the French revolution of 1789, grafted on some of the federal principles of the United States. The ground on which they joined issue was the connection between church and state. It was not that the clergy had been at first hostile to independence; with the single exception of the dignitaries of the church, who were almost to a man Spaniards, they had favored the party of independence, and had even taken an active part in the insurrection, giving it its first leaders, Hidalgo, Morelos and Matamoras, and to the last they continued to support it. But this was not done without making both open and secret reservations. The plan of government sketched by the priest Morelos maintained the prerogative of the church and its absolute control over consciences. The Iguala plan, in accordance with which independence was definitely established, provided in its first article that one of the bases of the organization of the country should be the Roman church, catholic and apostolic, and that no other should be tolerated. In respect to its possessions, which were enormous, the Mexican church flattered itself that they would be respected, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that one of the accessory causes of its adherence to the party of independence is to be found in the system inaugurated by the court of Spain at the commencement of the century, of taking possession of the capital of the Mexican clergy and replacing it by annuity bonds which were deservedly protested against. This was actually done to the extent of 58,000,000 francs. —Independence once achieved, the Mexican liberals, who had received their education from the works of the French philosophers and publicists, entered with ardor the course in which they had been preceded by the liberals of France, and in due course by those of the two great peninsulas of southern Europe, Spain and Italy. They openly favored freedom of worship, which the Catholic clergy, in obedience to orders from Rome, rejected with all their power. At the same time the liberals proposed to vest in the state, which was without resources, the possessions of the church. With sound reason Mexican liberals wished, in view of possible claims on the part of Rome, to give the state the guarantees which form part of French public law, and notably such as make the publication of bulls, briefs and other official utterances of the holy see conditional on obtaining the previous sanction of the government. The liberal party also comprehended in its programme the innovations of the Code Napoleon and the French concordat of 1801, such as the civil character of marriage, the abolition of perpetual vows, the abolition of ecclesiastical tribunals, the closing of monastic institutions, the limitation or confiscation by the state of church property, etc. By degrees, overstepping French bounds, it ended by allying itself to the system adopted by the United States, which entirely divorces government from religion and the state from creeds. There has been on this account a complete rupture between the liberals and the clergy. The latter formed the centre and nucleus of the conservative party, with which a great number of the landed proprietors and a section of the Indian population have identified themselves. —After alternate successes and reverses, the liberals at last completely got the upper hand, and the French army found them in power when it entered Mexico. President Juarez, and the party which sustained him, relied on the constitution, which explicitly enjoined freedom of worship. Laws had been passed, which, with certain reserves in their favor, declared the lands and buildings belonging to the clergy to be sequestrated to the state, and under those laws many sales took place. —The political difficulty which has hitherto proved insurmountable in Mexico consists in this, that up to the present time it has not only been impossible to make the two parties walk in harmony, but even to find common ground on which they would tolerate each other. They shun each other absolutely. The liberal party aims at a perfectly commendable object, but does so for the most part without enlightenment and without tact; this object being to establish in Mexico a political system founded on the general principles which modern civilization has adopted in the countries where it has reached its highest development, namely, those of western Europe and the United States of North America, while imitating more particularly such peoples as have an affinity to Mexico in having a resemblance or community in their origin, their traditions, their manners or their language. What are called in France the ideas of 1789, with the deductions which she has drawn from them, and which Spain and Italy have accepted, are the basis of this party's programme. All that portion of this programme which concerns religion, or rather the relations of church and state, is rejected as sacrilegious by the conservative party, which the court of Rome sustains here, and excites by all means in its power. The doctrines of 1789 advocate entire religious liberty, abolition of perpetual vows, and the suppression of church courts; and Juarez, on regaining power after the retreat of the French armies, brought back with himself the constitution whose offspring he was, and vindicated liberal tenets on the subject of religion. His successor, President Lerdo de Tejado, followed his footsteps closely. The liberal party seems to have entered on an indefinite lease of power. It directs its efforts toward remodeling the state on the type of the advanced nations in Europe or the American Union, a work infinitely difficult of accomplishment when regard is paid to the materials on which it has to work and the tools at its disposal. —Mexico needs a moderator who could force or persuade the opposing parties to accept a compromise; some one to reproduce in Mexico what was accomplished in France by the first consul, when he formulated a modus vivendi to which an overwhelming majority acceded, and which appeased the dangerous dissensions having their origin in religion. But on this occasion the holy see gave its sanction to the proposed plan, encouraged it, and ordered its acceptance. In Spanish America, on the contrary, the Roman court has not hitherto admitted any compromise, and has declared its intentions in public documents, among which may be cited the allocution, dated Dec. 15, 1856, of Pope Pins IX. on the state of religion in the republic of Mexico, and that of May 6, 1863, on Spanish America in general. Of the same tenor is the concordat signed at Rome, Sept. 26, 1862, with the republic of Ecuador, a document which might have been penned by Hildebrand; as is also the encyclical of Sept. 17, 1863, to the bishops of New Granada Unfortunately there is no one among the Mexicans who could present himself to them with the authority and prestige which the first consul enjoyed in France. —The history of Mexico, since its independence, has been marked by many noteworthy incidents, viz.: 1. The invasion by the Spanish brigadier, Barrades, in 1829, to reconquer the country—an attempt which failed totally; 2. The Texan war, in which Santa Anna, wishing to recover that province from the American citizens who had taken possession of it, was defeated and taken prisoner at San Jacinto in 1835, with the result that this province, much larger than France, was lost to the Mexican republic; 3. The war of 1838, in which France took the chateau of Saint Jean d'Ulloa; 4. The war of 1847-8, when the army of the United States, after fighting numerous battles, took the city of Mexico, thereby obtaining the cession to the American Union of California and New Mexico. —But of all events in Mexico's history, the most important was the attempt, made by France in 1862 and the following years, to reestablish monarchy in Mexico in favor of an enlightened and generous prince, the archduke Maximilian of Austria, who, after being installed there, saw himself abandoned by the French arms, and believing it his duty to remain at his post in defense of the Mexicans who adhered to him, was defeated, and fell into the hands of Juarez' government, which had the barbarity to hand him over to a military commission, by order of which he was shot at Queretaro, June 19, 1867. —This expedition, foolishly conceived to begin with, badly organized, badly conducted, and which had such a fatal issue, was one of the greatest mistakes made by modern French policy. The object aimed at was, to raise the party of the great landowners and the clergy, by giving it the new throne as a bulwark: an insane project, as, at the time it was sought to carry it out, that party was so wrecked that so far from being able to make any headway against its opponents, it lacked the very cohesion necessary to maintain its existence, and either could not or did not know how to concentrate on behalf of its unfortunate prince what little power remained to it. The court of Rome, on whose fervent and cordial co-operation the emperor Maximilian thought himself justified in counting, betrayed his hopes and stood aloof from him. —Mexico is at present comparatively tranquil, and laws are better kept or less unknown. Military men seem satisfied that the supreme magistracy should rest in the hands of a civilian. Public education is extending and improving in every department, from the highest to the lowest. Efforts are being made toward the development of public works. The railroad from Mexico to Vera Cruz, opened in January, 1873, promises great results for the agriculture of the country, the export of whose rich and varied produce it will greatly facilitate. Mining is receiving a fresh impetus. But a vast amount of ability, wisdom and firmness will be necessary before the unsettled habits, contracted during half a century of civil discord, are finally relinquished, and the passions which then had free vent are brought under proper control. Highway robbery flourished in Mexico when it was a Spanish colony, and the courts of justice were very severe, but it has increased enormously, the very trains on the Mexico 8 Vera Cruz railway being sometimes stopped and robbed. There still remains, therefore, much in the way of progress for Mexico to effect before it can equal the condition of the civilized states whose peer it wishes to be, or raise itself to the level of the political institutions it has adopted. —Mexico is divided into twenty-seven states, one territory (lower California), and one federal district made up of the city of Mexico and its environs. The total revenue of the central government, in 1873, was estimated at over fourteen millions of dollars; the imports rose, in 1870, to twenty-three and the exports to twenty-six millions of dollars.52 — BIBLIOGRAPHY. Solis, Historia de la conquista de Mexico, Madrid, 1684, new ed., Paris, 1858, translated into English, 2 vols., London, 1724; Humboldt, Versuch über den politischen Zustand des Königreichs Neuspanien, 5 vols., Tübingen, 1809-13; Kingsborough, Mexican Antiquities, 9 vols., London, 1831-48; Richthofen, Die äussern und innern Zustände der Republik Mexico, Berlin, 1854; Mühlenpfordt, Versuch einer getreuen Schilderung der Republik Mexico, 2 vols., Hanover, 1844; Orozco y Berra, Geografia de las lenguas de México, Mexico, 1864; Gayangos, Cartas y relaciones de Hernan Cortes, Paris, 1866; Icazbalceta, Colleccion de documentos para la historia de México, Mexico, 1858-66, and Documentos para la historia de México, 20 vols., Mexico, 1853-7; Prescott, History of the Conquest of Mexico, 3 vols., Boston, 1844, 3d ed., 3 vols., Philadelphia, 1874; Zavala, Ensayo historico de las revoluciones de México, 2 vols., Paris, 1831; Torrente, Historia general de la revolucion moderna hispano-americana, 5 vols., Madrid, 1829-30; Mora, Mejico y sas revoluciones, 8 vols., Paris, 1836; Alaman, Historia de México, 5 vols., Mexico, 1849-52; Cuevas, Porvinir de México, 1821-51, Mexico, 1851-7; Labédollière, Histoire de la guerre de Mexique. Paris, 1866; Payno, Historia de México, Mexico, 1871; Kendall, Mexico under Maximilian, London, 1872; Niox, Expédition du Mexique: Récit politique et militaire, Paris, 1874; Boletin de la sociedad de geografia y estadistica de la Republica Mexicana, Mexico, 1878-9; Chevalier, Le Mexique ancien et moderne, Paris, 1866; Domenech, Le Mexique tel qu'il est: La vérité sur son climat, ses habitants et son gouvernement, Paris, 1866; Flint, Mexico under Maximilian, Philadelphia, 1867; Geiger, A Peep at Mexico: Narrative of a Journey across the Republic from the Pacific to the Gulf. London, 1874; Brantz Mayer, History of the War between Mexico and the United States, New York, 1848, and Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and Republican, 1852; Mansfield, The Mexican War, New York, 1848; Helps, The Life of Hernando Cortes, and the Conquest of Mexico, London, 1871. MICHEL CHEVALIER. MICHIGANMICHIGAN, a state of the American Union, formed from the northwest territory. (See TERRITORIES, ORDINANCE OF 1787.) The territory of Michigan, as formed by the act of congress of Jan. 11, 1805, was enlarged by other acts until that of June 28, 1834, when it embraced all the territory north of Missouri, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, and between Lakes Erie and Huron and the Missouri river. According to the provision of the ordinance of 1787, which directed congress to admit new states, with a population of 60,000 at least, from the northwest territory, Michigan began its applications for admission as a state in January, 1833, claiming to have reached the constitutional limit of population; but congress paid no attention to the applications, and the bills for admission, which were introduced, were not acted upon. Finally a convention, called by the territorial council, framed the first constitution, referred to below. The question of the southern boundary was very embarrassing to congress, which finally passed the act of June 15, 1836, to settle the northern boundary of Ohio and to admit Michigan when its convention should assent to the boundaries provided by congress. A convention called by the territorial legislature, Sept. 28, 1836, refused to ratify the new boundaries; but another convention, Dec. 15, 1836, chosen by the people of their own motion, ratified them, and this was accepted as sufficient by congress. The state was then admitted by act of Jan. 26, 1837. Objections were made to the counting of Michigan's electoral votes in 1837, on the ground that the electors were chosen before the state was admitted, but they were counted "in the alternative." (See ELECTORS.) —BOUNDARIES. The first constitution claimed for the new state the same boundaries as those established for the territory of Michigan in 1805—the southern peninsula of Michigan, with the southern boundary a few miles farther south than at present. The act of June 15, after so fixing the northern boundary of Ohio and the southern boundary of Michigan as to give the disputed territory to the former state, added to the new state, in compensation, the whole of the northern peninsula of Michigan also, with a western boundary as follows: from the mouth of the Montreal river in Lake Superior, up the main channel of the Montreal to the middle of the lake of the Desert; thence by a straight line to the nearest headwater of the Menomonee river and up that fork to the Menomonee river; thence down its main channel to the centre of the most usual ship-channel of the Green bay of Lake Michigan, and through that channel to the middle of Lake Michigan; thence down the middle of Lake Michigan to the northern boundary of Indiana, and east and south, with the Indiana line, to the Ohio line. The eastern and northern boundary was that between the United States and Canada. —CONSTITUTIONS. The first constitution was framed by a convention which met at Detroit, May 11 - June 29, 1835, and was ratified by popular vote, Nov. 2. It prohibited slavery; gave the right of suffrage to white males over twenty-one, on six months' residence; provided for a house of not less than 48 nor more than 100 representatives, to be chosen annually and a senate one-third as numerous, to serve two years; and fixed the governor's term at two years. —The second constitution was framed by a convention held at Lansing, June 3 - Aug. 15, 1850. Its principal modifications were that it fixed the capital permanently at Lansing, where the legislature had already established it; if fixed the number of senators at 32, and of representatives at not less than 64 nor more than 100, and it forbade the creation of corporations, except under general laws, the giving of state credit to corporations, and the passage of laws to license the selling of intoxicating liquors. It was amended in 1866 by giving the right of suffrage to voters absent from the state during time of war in the military service of the United States; in 1870 by empowering the legislature to fix maximum rates for transporting passengers and freight on railroads, and by prohibiting the consolidation of parallel or competing railroads, and in 1876 by abolishing the prohibition of license laws. —GOVERNORS. Stevens T. Mason, 1836-40; William Woodbridge, 1840-42; John S. Barry, 1842-6; Alpheus Felch, 1846-8; Epaphroditus Ransom, 1848-50; John S. Barry, 1850-52; Robert McClellan, 1852-5; Kinsley S. Bingham, 1855-9; Moses Wisner, 1859-61; Austin Blair, 1861-5; Henry H. Crapo, 1865-9; Henry P. Baldwin, 1869-73; John J. Bagley, 1873-7; Charles M. Croswell, 1877-81; David H. Jerome, 1881-3. —POLITICAL HISTORY. In presidential elections Michigan was democratic until 1856, except that in 1840 it was carried by the whigs for Harrison by a very small majority. In 1856 it was republican, and in subsequent elections it has always been the same, the popular majority not varying much from 6 per cent. of the total vote. The congressional and state elections have been governed by much the same laws. The senators, congressmen, (see APPORTIONMENT), legislatures and governors were democratic until the end of 1854, with the following exception: the whig success in the election of 1840 included not only the electoral vote of the state, but the congressman from 1851 until 1853, two United States senators and the governor (Woodbridge) —Early in June, 1854, the "anti-Nebraska" state convention of Michigan formally adopted the name "republican" for their party, the name having been recommended to the consideration of several of its members by a letter of Horace Greeley, of New York. The state was carried in the election of 1854 by the party which its state convention had baptized, and since that time the governors, legislatures and United States senators have all been republican. In 1881 the democrats have but 15 of the 132 members of the legislature on joint ballot. The congressmen have been almost as invariably republican: the only exceptions have been the elections of 1854, 1858, 1862, 1870, and 1876, in each of which a single democratic representative was chosen; and the election of 1874 in which three democratic and liberal republican representatives were chosen. In the congress of 1881-3 all the nine representatives are, as usual, republican. —In local politics there has been little worthy of note, except in 1853, when a "Maine liquor law" was adopted by a popular majority of nearly two to one, and in 1870-72, upon questions in regard to the railroads of the state. Until 1870, under acts of the legislature, towns, cities and counties had issued bonds in aid of various local railroads. In 1870 the state supreme court decided that the whole system of bond issues was outside of the legitimate field of taxation, and was unconstitutional. The legislature therefore proposed three amendments, two of which, referred to under the second constitution above, were ratified by popular vote. The third, which was intended to legitimize the bond system of the past and to authorize its continuance, was rejected by a heavy popular majority. —Among the political leaders of the state have been the following: Kinsley S. Bingham, democratic representative 1847-51, first republican governor of the state, and United States senator 1859-61; Austin Blair, the war governor of the state, and republican representative 1867-73; Julius C. Burrows, republican representative 1873-5 and 1879-85; Lewis Cass (see his name); Zachariah Chandler, first republican United States senator 1857-75 and 1879-81, and secretary of the interior under Grant, Isaac P. Christiancy, justice of the state supreme court 1858-72 and chief justice 1872-4. United States senator 1875-9, and minister to Peru 1879-81; Omar D. Conger, republican representative 1869-81, and United States senator 1881-7. Thos W Ferry, republican representative 1865-71, and United States senator 1871-83; Jacob M. Howard, republican representative 1861-2, and United States senator 1862-71; Jay A Hubbell, republican representative 1873-83; Robert McClelland, democratic representative 1843-9 governor 1852-3, and secretary of the interior under Pierce; Charles E. Stuart, democratic representative 1847-9 and 1851-3, and United States senator 1853-9; Alpheus S. Williams, major general of volunteers 1861-5, minister to San Salvador 1866-9, democratic and liberal republican representative 1875-9; and William Woodbridge, whig governor 1840-41, and United States senator 1841-7. —The name of the territory and state was given from that of the lake on its border, an Indian word. It is probably a compound of the Algonquin word "gan" (lake) with the Chippewa prefix "mitcha" (great). The popular name for its people is "Wolverines." —See 1 Poore's Federal and State Constitutions; 2 Stat at Large, 309. 5. 48. 144 (for acts of Jan. 11, 1805, June 15, 1836, and Jan 26, 1837, respectively); 12 Benton's Debates of Congress, 701, 749, and 13:29, 65, 185, 255; Sheldon's Early History of Michigan (to 1815), J. H. Lanman's History of Michigan (to 1837): 2 Wilson's Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, 412, authorities under CASS, LEWIS; Chas. Lanman's Life of William Woodbridge, and Red Book of Michigan (to 1870), Campbell's Political History of Michigan, (1880); Porter's West in 1880, 195. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON MILAN DECREEMILAN DECREE. (See EMBARGO, in U. S. History.) MILITARY COMMISSIONSMILITARY COMMISSIONS, and the Trial of the Conspirators for the Murder of Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States. When war prevails in a portion of country occupied or threatened by an enemy, whether within or without the territory of the United States, crimes and military offenses are often committed which can not by the rules of war be tried or punished by courts martial, and which at the same time are not within the jurisdiction of any existing civil court. The good of society demands that such cases be tried and punished by the military power, by referring them to a duly constituted military tribunal composed of reliable officers, who, acting under the solemnity of an oath and the responsibility attached to a court of record, examine witnesses, pass upon the guilt or innocence of the arraigned parties, and determine the degree of punishment to be inflicted for the violation of law. —The powers of these tribunals have not been defined, nor any mode of procedure established by statute law, but the rules which apply to courts martial are held to be applicable to military commissions, and they are subjected to review and confirmation in the same manner and by the same authority as courts martial. —With respect to the jurisdiction of military commissions, it is held that all military offenses which do not come within the statute referring them for trial before a court martial, must be tried and punished under the laws of war, by military commissions. It is also held, that many offenses which in time of peace are civil offenses, become in time of war military offenses, and must be tried by a military tribunal even in places where civil tribunals exist. In fact, jurisdiction over capital offenses committed by parties not in the military or naval service of the United States, under certain circumstances has been claimed and exercised by military commissions, and parties thus convicted have, by the approval of the higher authority, suffered the penalty attached to the commission of such crimes. The constitution of the United States provides the right of trial by jury to persons held to answer for capital or otherwise infamous crimes, except when arising in the land or naval service. This is referred to as conclusive against the jurisdiction of military courts over such offenses when committed by citizens. It is, however, laid down as a rule by Benet (p. 208) that while the letter of the article would give force to such a declaration, yet in construing the different parts of the constitution together, such interpretation must give way before the necessity for an efficient exercise of the war power which is vested in congress by that instrument. It is also held by the same authority, that this principle has been recognized by the legislation of the country since an early period in its history, by the adoption of the fifty-seventh article of war, in the fact that it has from the beginning rendered amenable to trial by courts martial, for certain offenses, not only military persons, but all persons whatsoever. This article was first adopted by the congress of the confederation, and remained unchanged at the formation of the constitution. —A military commission is not restricted in its jurisdiction to offenses committed in the state or district where it sits, or the place where the offense was committed, as are the criminal courts of the country, but extends to any military department in which, on account of facilities for obtaining evidence, or for other good reasons, it may be convenient to bring a case to trial. During the war of the rebellion a great number and variety of offenses against the law and usages of war, committed mostly by civilians, (Winthrop's Digest, p. 328), were tried and punished by military commissions, to wit: unauthorized correspondence with the enemy; blockade running; mail carrying across the lines; drawing a bill of exchange upon an enemy; dealing in confederate securities or money; manufacturing arms, etc., for the enemy; furnishing articles contraband of war to the enemy; publicly expressing hostility to the government of the United States or sympathy with the enemy; entering the federal lines from the enemy without authority; violating a flag of truce; violating an oath of amnesty or of allegiance to the government; aiding prisoners of war to escape; unwarranted treatment of federal prisoners of war; burning and destroying bridges, railroads, steamboats, and cutting telegraph wires used in military operations; recruiting for the enemy within the federal lines; engaging in guerilla warfare; assisting federal soldiers to desert; resisting or obstructing an enrolment or draft, impeding enlistments; conspiracy by two or more to violate the laws of war by destroying life or property in aid of the enemy. —Of the ordinary crimes over which jurisdiction has been assumed by military commissions, especially during the war of the rebellion, are to be enumerated as most frequent, attempts to defraud the United States, misappropriations of public money and property and embezzlement of the same, bribery of and attempts to bribe United States officers breach of the peace, rape, arson, receiving stolen property, burglary, riot, larceny, assault and battery with intent to kill, robbery, homicide, and the crime known as "murder in violation of the laws of war." A recent illustration of this latter clause, was the principal offense of the Modoe Indians, tried by a military commission in July, 1873, which, as a treacherous killing of an enemy during a truce, was charged as "murder in violation of the laws of war." —From such jurisdiction, however, are very properly excepted such offenses as are clearly within the legal cognizance of the criminal courts of the country, when such courts have been left in the full operation of their usual powers, upon the establishment of a military government, or the status of martial law Such was the condition of the courts in the District of Columbia during the war of the rebellion, as at no time was the operation of the civil courts impeded or in anywise interfered with during its existence, and ordinary criminal offenses committed therein by civilians or soldiers not excepted by the act of March 3, 1863, were in general and particular, taken cognizance of by the courts of said district. —Likewise in a state of district where a military government has not existed or martial law been proclaimed, or, if it has existed or been proclaimed, has ceased to be exercised, and the regular criminal courts are open and in full operation, the supreme court of the United States has decided that a military commission, in the absence of special authority by congress, can not assume jurisdiction of a public offense, although the nation be still involved in war. (Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wallace, 1; Milligan vs. Hovey, 3 Bissell, 13; In re Murphy, Woolworth, 143; Devlin vs. U. S., 12 Ct. Cl., 271; XII. Opin. Att'ys Genl., 128.) —The case, however, claiming the greatest attention as the most noted of all such illegal trials in the history of the United States, is that known as "The Trial of the Conspirators for the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States," and the attempted assassination of certain other public officers and members of the government. This is more clearly set forth in the executive order promulgated by the president, relating to the trial of the accused, and dated EXECUTIVE CHAMBER. Whereas the Attorney General of the United States hath given his opinion: (Signed) Whereupon the following special order was issued from the office of the adjutant general of the army, to wit: WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJ'T GENL'S OFFICE, Detail for the Court. Major General David Hunter, U. S. Volunteers. By order of the President of the United States. Immediately thereafter the commission met pursuant to the foregoing orders, and all the members were duly sworn. The Hon. John A. Bingham and Brevet Col H. L. Burnett, judge advocate, also appeared, by direction of the judge advocate general, as assistant or special judge advocates, and were likewise duly sworn. —The accused were then severally arraigned on the following charge and specification: "Charge against David E. Herold, George A. Atzerodt, Lewis Payne, Michael O'Laughlin, Edward Spangler, Samuel Arnold, Mary E. Surratt, and Samuel A. Mudd. For maliciously, unlawfully and traitorously, and in aid of the existing armed rebellion against the United States of America, on or before the 6th day of March. A. D. 1863, and on divers other days between that day and the 15th day of April, A. D. 1863, combining, confederating and conspiring together with one John H. Surratt, John Wilkes Booth, Jefferson Davis, George N. Sanders, Beverly Tucker. Jacob Thompson, William C. Cleary, Clement C. Clay, George Harper, George Young, and others unknown, to kill and murder, within the military department of Washington, and within the fortified and entrenched lines thereof, Abraham Lincoln, late, and at the time of said combining, confederating and conspiring, president of the United States of America, and commander in-chief of the army and navy thereof; Andrew Johnson, then vice-president of the United States aforesaid; William H. Seward, secretary of state of the United States aforesaid, and Ulysses S. Grant, lieutenant general of the army of the United States aforesaid, then in command of the armies of the United States under the direction of the said Abraham Lincoln; and in pursuance of and in prosecuting said malicious, unlawful and traitorous conspiracy aforesaid, and in aid of said rebellion, afterward, to wit, on the 14th day of April, A. D. 1865, within the military department of Washington aforesaid, and within the fortified and entrenched lines of said military department, together with said John Wilkes Booth and John H. Surratt, maliciously, unlawfully and traitorously murdering the said Abraham Lincoln, then president of the United States, and commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States as aforesaid; and maliciously, unlawfully and traitorously assaulting with intent to kill and murder the said William H. Seward, then secretary of state of the United States, as aforesaid; and lying in wait with intent maliciously, unlawfully and traitorously to kill and murder the said Andrew Johnson, then being vice president of the United States; and the said Ulysses S. Grant, then being lieutenant general and in command of the armies of the United States as aforesaid." —Then followed the specification, at great length, designating the combining and conspiring on the part of the accused to maliciously and traitorously kill and murder the president and the aforesaid officers of the government of the United States, and of the army of the United States, designing and intending thereby to deprive the army and navy of the United States of a constitutional commander-in-chief; the armies of the United States of their lawful commander, and to prevent a lawful election of president and vice-president of the United States aforesaid, and by the aforesaid means to aid and comfort the insurgents engaged in armed rebellion against the said United States, and thereby aid in the subversion and overthrow of the constitution and laws of the United States. —The specification further sets forth the time and place of the said murder, and the means and manner of death of the said Abraham Lincoln, president of the United States, the mortal wound having been inflicted by one John Wilkes Booth, in pursuance of the said conspiracy; and further, the aid and assistance rendered unto said Booth by the accused, said Spangler, an employé of the theatre in which the said murder was committed, enabling the said Booth to approach and enter the box in the said theatre in which the president was sitting at the time of the murderous assault; and further, the aid and assistance rendered by the accused, the said David E. Herold, unto the said Booth, while attempting his escape through the military lines of the government aforesaid, and the further attempt to aid in the concealment of the said Booth after the act aforesaid. —The specification further relates the attempt of the accused, in the further pursuance of the said conspiracy, to kill and murder the Hon. William H. Seward, secretary of state, and the time, place and manner of the murderous assault. And in further prosecution of said conspiracy, the act of George A. Atzerodt, of lying in wait, on the night of the murder of the president, and about the hour of the same, with intent to kill and murder Andrew Johnson, then vice-president of the United States. And further, the act of the accused, Michael O'Laughlin, of lying in wait at the same hour of the aforesaid murder of the president, with intent to kill and murder Ulysses S. Grant, commander of the armies of the United States. And further, the attempt of the accused, Samuel Arnold, to aid, comfort and abet the aforesaid murderous acts, in pursuance of the conspiracy, by meeting, counseling and conspiring with the accused upon divers occasions. In further prosecution of the said conspiracy, the specification sets forth that the accused, Mary E. Surratt, did, at Washington city, on or before the 6th day of March, A. D. 1865, and on divers other days and times between that day and the 20th day of April, A. D. 1865, receive, entertain, harbor and conceal, aid and assist the said John Wilkes Booth and the other accused, with the intent to aid and abet them in the execution of the same, and in escaping from justice after the murder of the said Abraham Lincoln as aforesaid. And in further prosecution of the said conspiracy, the accused, Samuel A. Mudd, did, at Washington city, on or before the 6th day of March, 1865, and upon divers other days between that time and the 20th day of April, 1865, aid, assist, entertain, harbor and conceal the said John Wilkes Booth and the other accused, with knowledge of the conspiracy aforesaid, and with the intent to aid them in the execution of the same, in escaping from justice after the murder of the said Abraham Lincoln as aforesaid. —To the specification, all the accused severally pleaded "Not guilty," also to the charge. "Not guilty." —The several accused applied for permission to introduce counsel; and their applications were granted. —All of the accused, severally, through their counsel, asked leave to withdraw, pro tempore, their plea of "Not guilty." heretofore filed, in order that they might plead to the jurisdiction of the commission. The application being granted, the defendant, Mary E. Surratt, and all others of the accused, severally offered a plea to the jurisdiction of the commission, as follows: "Mary E. Surratt, one of the accused, for plea, says that this court has no jurisdiction in the proceedings against her, because she says she is not, and has not been, in the military service of the United States. And, for further plea, the said Mary E. Surratt says that loyal civil courts, in which all the offenses charged are triable, exist, and are in full and free operation in all the places where the several offenses charged are alleged to have been committed. And, for further plea, the said Mary E. Surratt says that the court has no jurisdiction in the matter of the alleged conspiracy, so far as it is charged to have been a conspiracy, to murder Abraham Lincoln, late president of the United States, and William H. Seward, secretary of state, because she says, said alleged conspiracy and all acts alleged to have been done in the formation and in the execution thereof, are, in the charges and specifications, alleged to have been committed in the city of Washington, in which city are loyal civil courts, in full operation, in which said crimes are triable." Signed, on behalf of the accused, by her counsel. —The judge advocate then presented the following replication: Now come the United States, and, for answer to the special plea by one of the defendants. Mary E. Surratt, pleaded to the jurisdiction of the Commission in this case say that this Commission has jurisdiction in the premises to try and determine the matters in the Charge and Specification alleged and set forth against the said defendant, Mary E. Surratt. (Signed) The court overruled the pleas of the accused to its jurisdiction. —The accused then severally made application for severance, and asked to be tried separate from those charged jointly with them, for the reason that they believed that their defense would be greatly prejudiced by a joint trial. The commission overruled the application for a severance. —The accused then severally pleaded: To the specification, "Not guilty," and to the charge, "Not guilty." —The commission adopted and promulgated its rules of proceeding, and thereupon began taking testimony by calling for the prosecution, Richard Montgomery, Sandford Conover and James B. Merritt, whose testimony was taken during the secret session of the commission, and for a time suppressed. The evidence of these parties related to the action of prominent men connected with the confederacy. The first effort of the government was to establish the general conspiracy alleged in the charge and specification. To this end sixteen witnesses were called, among whom were Richard Montgomery, Sandford Conover, James B. Merritt (the three witnesses before mentioned), General Ulysses S. Grant, Henry Von Steinacker, William E. Wheeler, and Hon. Chas. A. Dana. —The prosecution presented the testimony of Lieut. William H. Terry, William Eaton, and Col. Joseph H. Taylor, with respect to a secret cipher found among Booth's effects. Hon. C. A. Dana testified to finding key to cipher in Secretary Benjamin's office at Richmond, Va. Charles Duell and James Ferguson testified to alleged assassination letter, Charles Dawson to the "Lou" letter addressed to Booth, and Samuel K Chester with respect to Booth's confession as to the plot to capture the president. —For the purpose of connecting Jefferson Davis with the assassination, the prosecution presented the testimony of Lewis F. Bates, J. C. Courtney, James E. Russell, Rev. W. H. Ryder, and others. Edward Frazier testified to the alleged payment of parties by Secretary Benjamin, of certain sums of gold for burning steamboats. Col. Martin Burke testified to alleged confession of Robert C. Kennedy, of plot to burn New York city. G. J. Hyams, W. L. Wall and A. Brenner testified to the alleged introduction of small-pox by Dr. Blackburn into the north, by means of infected clothing. Seven witnesses testified to the alleged starvation of Union prisoners. Three witnesses testified to the alleged mining of Libby prison by confederate authorities. Twenty-nine witnesses testified with respect to the assassination and attending circumstances. Fifteen witnesses testified with regard to the pursuit and capture of Booth and Herold. Four witnesses testified to papers obtained from confederate archives, being proposals to "rid the country of some of her deadliest enemies," by parties who wanted a consideration therefor. Twelve witnesses testified on behalf of the government in the endeavor to establish the guilt of Edward Spangler, one of the accused. Fifteen witnesses testified on behalf of the government in the endeavor to establish the guilt of George A. Atzerodt, one of the accused. Eighteen witnesses testified on behalf of the government in the attempt to establish the guilt of Lewis Payne, one of the accused. Twenty-two witnesses testified on behalf of the government in the endeavor to establish the guilt of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd. one of the accused. Thirteen witnesses testified on behalf of the government in the endeavor to establish the guilt of Michael O'Laughlin, one of the accused. Seven witnesses testified on behalf of the government in the endeavor to establish the guilt of Samuel Arnold, one of the accused. Twenty-one witnesses testified on behalf of the government in the endeavor to establish the guilt of Mary E. Surratt, one of the accused. The prosecution closed, and the defense began by impeaching the testimony of H. Von Steinacker, a witness called by the government to prove the general conspiracy. Before the trial began, and during its progress, large rewards were offered by the government for testimony that would establish the conspiracy and convict the accused parties. While certain testimony of great importance to the government was thus obtained, there crept into the case, by this means, the evidence of parties who had committed perjury to obtain the proffered reward. In this class of testimony was that of the party named Von Steinacker. This individual swore that he was an engineer officer in the topographical department, on the staff of Gen. Edward Johnson, and that altogether he was in the confederate service three years. That in the summer of 1863 he saw Booth and two civilian companions in the camp of the second Virginia regiment, and was formally introduced to them. That there was a secret meeting of the officers and the three civilians That the plan of the proposed assassination was discussed and approved, and that it was further agreed to send certain officers on "detached service" to "Canada and the border," to release rebel prisoners, to lay northern cities in ashes, and, finally, to obtain possession of the members of the cabinet and kill the president. —The counsel for the defense of Mary E. Surratt, becoming possessed of evidence that would establish the perjury of this party, presented to the commission, in due form, their allegations impeaching his veracity and character as a witness for the government. By the testimony of witnesses whom they had summoned, they proposed to show that he was originally a deserter from the federal service; that early in the war he had enlisted as a private in Blenker's regiment of New York volunteers; that having been condemned by a court martial for stealing an officer's arms and equipments, he had escaped within the confederate lines, and, enlisting as a private in the confederate service, had been detailed as a draughtsman by Oscar Heinrichs, an engineer officer on Edward Johnson's staff; that while serving in that capacity he was convicted by a confederate court martial for stealing an officer's coat and arms; that at the battle of Gettysburg he was captured within the Union lines, and escaped by representing himself as in possession of the dead body of Major H. K. Douglas, of Edward Johnson's staff, then alive. The commission refused to entertain the motion to permit the allegations to go upon the record, proof to be adduced in support of the same; and, on motion of the judge advocate general, the whole proceedings were stricken from the record. While the counsel for the defense were not permitted to fully establish his character as a witness, they were, however, allowed to attack in part his credibility as such, and for that purpose called Gen. Edward Johnson, who testified that Von Steinacker was never an officer on his staff. Oscar Heinrichs being called, testified that he was an engineer officer on the staff of Edward Johnson; that he was acquainted with the witness, Von Steinacker; that he was an enlisted man in the confederate service, detailed by himself as a draughtsman. Major H. K. Douglas, whose "dead body" Von Steinacker represented he had in his possession at the time of his capture at Gettysburg, was also called, and testified that he was wounded at the battle of Gettysburg, taken prisoner, and held as such for nine months, and did not see Steinacker again after that engagement. All of these witnesses swore positively that either Booth nor the other conspirators ever made their appearance in their camp, and that no officers of their command were ever sent on "detached service" to burn northern cities, capture the members of the cabinet and kill the president. That there were no secret meetings of the officers with Booth or other civilians at any time. They each testified that Von Steinacker had repeatedly stated that he was a deserter from the federal service. —The counsel for the defense of Mary E. Surratt further called and examined in her behalf thirty-one witnesses whose testimony related to her character as a loyal woman; her ignorance of the plot to either abduct or kill the president; her expressions of gratification at the ultimate success of the Union arms and the speedy close of the war; her kindness to Union soldiers and a large body of escaped government horses which she retained and fed at her own expense for a considerable time, and surrendered to the government without remuneration; the nature and object of her visit to Marlborough Court House on the day of the murder of the president, not as an agent of Booth to deliver arms to Lloyd at Surrattsville, as alleged by the government, but to obtain the means, in obedience to a summons from Mr. Calvert, to meet a pecuniary engagement so as to avert the peremptory sale of her property, by foreclosure; the meeting of Payne and the officers at her house on the morning of the second day after the murder, and her failure to recognize him; of the character of testimony for the prosecution and their impeachment; the intoxication of Lloyd on the 14th of April, the day of the alleged visit to bear arms; impeachment of the testimony of Weichman, principal witness for the prosecution, his own guilt in meeting with the conspirators; the deeply religious character of Mrs. Surratt, her unbounded charity, and the utter improbability of any knowledge of, participation in or consent to any plot to either abduct or assassinate the president. —The counsel for the defense of David E. Herold called in his behalf nine witnesses, whose testimony related to the weakness of his intellect, his admiration for Booth and his susceptibility to his influence. The counsel for the defense of Edward Spangler called twenty-three witnesses, whose testimony related to his character, the nature of his relations to the theatre, the use of the rope found in his box, and the impossibility of criminal relations with Booth on the occasion of the murder. The counsel for the defense of George A. Atzerodt called in his behalf fifteen witnesses, whose testimony related to his character; of his conversations with regard to the assassination of Lincoln, Seward and Grant; of his superlative cowardice, as rendering it impossible for him to perform the part required of a conspirator. The counsel for the defense of Lewis Payne called in his behalf nine witnesses, whose testimony related to his attention to the sick after the battle of Gettysburg; his mental condition, indicating insanity; his examination with regard to his insanity, and causes and indications of his insanity, mental and moral; Payne's own admissions; his desire to die; his splendid physical condition; the affray in which Payne saved the lives of Union soldiers. The counsel for the defense of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd examined in his behalf seventy four witnesses, who testified with respect to his reputation as a citizen and as a master; of his loyalty. of the professional character of services to Booth while attempting to escape after the perpetration of the deed; and impeaching the testimony of witnesses for the prosecution. The counsel for the defense of Michael O'Laughlin called in his behalf nine witnesses, who testified with respect to his visit to Washington on the 13th and 14th of April. and their presence with him on those days his presence with others at the house of the witness Purdy at the hour of the assassination: and his presence at the Penn house the balance of the same night; Booth and O'Laughlin schoolmates; the voluntary surrender of O'Laughlin to the authorities. The counsel for the defense of Samuel Arnold examined eight witnesses in his behalf, who testified to his whereabouts from March 21 to April 1; his employment as a concerning his visit to Fortress Monroe on April 1; his employment as a book-keeper; his confession in Marshal McPhail's office; his employment at the time of his at rest. —This closed the evidence for the defence There were, in all, three hundred and forty witnesses examined, including prosecution and defense; a large proportion of them being recalled. many as often as three or four times—Upon the conclusion of the testimony, argument upon the jurisdiction of the commission was presented by the counsel of Mary E. Surratt. An argument on the plea to the jurisdiction was also presented by the counsel of Samuel A Mudd. The counsel for David E. Herold, Edward Spangler, Mary E. Surratt, George A. Atzerodt. Lewis Payne, Samuel A. Mudd, Michael O'Laughlin, and Samuel Arnold, then presented the several arguments for their defense. —The special judge advocate, Hon. John A. Bingham, then presented the reply of the government to the "several arguments in defense of Mary E. Surratt, and others, charged with conspiracy and murder of Abraham Lincoln, late president of the United States, etc." —After a continuous session of nearly two months, upon the conclusion of the various arguments for the defense and the prosecution, June 30, 1865, the commission met with closed doors, all the members being present, also the judge advocate and assistant judge advocates (the counsel for the defense being excluded) and proceeded to render judgments in the cases. —Upon the consideration of the cases of the accused, David E. Herold, George A. Atzerodt, Lewis Payne and Mary E. Surratt, the commission found the said accused, upon the specification, guilty, except "combining, confederating and conspiring with Edward Spangler"; of this, not guilty. Of the charge, guilty, except "combining, confederating and conspiring with Edward Spangler"; of this, not guilty. And the commission thereupon pronounced the following sentence, to wit: "And the commission do therefore sentence her, Mary E. Surratt, and him, David E. Herold, George A. Atzerodt and Lewis Payne, to be hanged by the neck until they be dead, at such time and place as the president of the United States shall direct; two-thirds of the members of the commission concurring therein." —Upon the consideration of the cases of the accused, Michael O'Laughlin, Samuel Arnold and Samuel A. Mudd, the commission adjudged them guilty of part of the charge and specification, and thereupon pronounced the following sentence: "The commission do therefore sentence the said Michael O'Laughlin, Samuel Arnold and Samuel A. Mudd, to be imprisoned at hard labor for life, at such place as the president shall direct." —Upon consideration of the case of the accused, Edward Spangler, the commission adjudged him guilty of part of the charge and specification, and thereupon pronounced the following sentence: "The commission do therefore sentence the said Edward Spangler to be imprisoned at hard labor for six years, at such place as the president shall direct." —The proceedings of the commission were thereupon laid before the president for his action upon the findings and sentences, all of which were approved and made known in the following executive order: EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6th, 1865. (This order was afterward, to wit, on the 15th day of July following, so modified as to direct that the said Arnold, Mudd, Spangler and O'Laughlin be confined at hard labor in the military prison at Dry Tortugas, Florida, during the period of their respective sentences.) —On the same day the following order was issued by the war department in accordance with the direction of the president: WAR DEPARTMENT. ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, The foregoing sentences in the cases of David E. Herold, G. A. Atzerodt, Lewis Payne and Mary E. Surratt are hereby approved, and it is ordered. that the sentences in the cases of David E Herold, G. A. Atzerodt, Lewis Payne and Mary E. Surratt be carried into execution by proper military authority, under the direction of the Secretary of War, on the 7th day of July, 1865, between the hours of 10 o'clock A. M. and 2 o'clock P. M. of that day. Therefore you are hereby commanded to cause the foregoing sentences in the cases of David E. Herold, G. A. Atzerodt, Lewis Payne and Mary E. Suratt to be duly executed, in accordance with the President's Order This order was promulgated about 5 o'clock P M., July 6, 1863. In a final attempt to save the life of their client, the counsel for Mrs. Surratt, at 2 o'clock A M., July 7. appeared before Judge Wylie. one of the justices of the supreme court of the District of Columbia, at his residence in the city of Washington. and at that early hour presented for his judicial action the following petition for a writ of habeas corpus in her behalf. to wit: WASHINGTON, D. C. July 7, 1865. Judge Wylie granted the writ, making upon it the following indorsement: Let the writ issue as prayed, returnable before the Criminal Court of the District of Columbia now sitting, at the hour of 10 o'clock A. M. this 7th day of July, 1865. At half past eleven o'clock, on the morning of the 7th of July, Maj. Gen. Hancock, accompanied by Att'y Gen. Speed, appeared before Judge Wylie in obedience to the writ, and made the following return: HEADQUARTERS MIDDLE MILITARY DIVISION, The president's indorsement upon the writ is as follows, to wit: EXECUTIVE OFFICE. July 7. 1865, 10 A. M To Major General W. S. Hancock, Commander, etc.: The court ruled that it yielded to the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus by the president of the United States; and under this illegal suspension of the "writ of writs" the prisoner, Mary E. Surratt, together with Herold, Payne and Atzerodt, were executed upon the scaffold. —There are two important incidents connected with the closing scenes of the trial which became known to the writer,53 and are of great interest. It was at first proposed to acquit Mrs. Surratt, or at least to spare her life. Objection was made by the judge advocate general, who proposed, in its stead, that the same judgment should be rendered by the commission as in the cases of Payne. Atzerodt and Herold, with a recommendation to the president for mercy in her case. This course was adopted, the judgment rendered, and the recommendation signed by nearly all of the members of the commission. This recommendation was not placed before the president with its findings at the time they were presented for his approval, as Andrew Johnson subsequently averred, upon his honor, that he never saw the recommendation until two years after the execution, when. upon sending for the papers in the case, he found it among them, in a detached form. —The other incident is the declaration of Payne. made on the morning of the execution to Gen. Hartranft. the special provost marshal, and by him transmitted forthwith to the president. The statement, as taken down by him, is as follows: "The prisoner Payne has just told me that Mrs. Surratt is entirely innocent of the assassination of President Lincoln, or of any knowledge thereof. He also states that she had no knowledge whatever of the abduction plot, that nothing was ever said to her about it, and that her name was never mentioned by the parties connected therewith." Gen. Hartranft indorsed upon this declaration these significant words: "I believe that Payne has told the truth." It was, however, of no avail. Her death had been decreed. JOHN W. CLAMPITT. MINESMINES. The importance of mining as a source of national wealth and an element of progress in civilization scarcely needs explanation. Each of the three great productive industries exploits a natural kingdom for the benefit of man. What agriculture does for the vegetable, and the chase (as a modification of which we may rank the raising of cattle, poultry and fish) for the animal, mining does for the mineral or inorganic world. Its products are, in general, less perishable than those of agriculture, and hence more convenient for storage, export, manufacture, etc. On the other hand, its sources of supply are not perpetual, and, once exhausted, can not be renewed. A wasteful agriculture, or a reckless destruction of forests or of animal species, such as food fishes, can not inflict upon a nation such irretrievable loss as the exhaustion of its mineral resources. Moreover, these resources are not equally distributed among nations. Those who possess and utilize them—especially in the cases of coal and iron—secure great industrial and commercial advantages. Hence, vigor in the development and economy in the use of mineral resources have always been urged as a national duty. —For those who seek to refer the actual practice of nations to general principles, this argument may suffice to justify the special relations which so many governments have assumed toward the mining industry and the ownership of mineral deposits, as distinguished from agriculture, and the ownership of land. At an earlier period the sovereign's peculiar right to the metallic treasures of the earth was referred to a divine ordinance. A survey of the history of mining and mining jurisprudence shows, however, that its characteristic features in different nations have been the result of various local causes, rather than of general principles, dogmatically applied. —Probably the first metals used were those which occur in a native state, such as gold, silver and copper. The two former, being lustrous and malleable, and resisting oxidation under ordinary circumstances, became in the earliest periods of which history speaks, and have remained to this day, objects of high esteem and a convenient medium of exchange and measure of value. Bronze, or ancient "brass," was very probably discovered accidentally through the fusion of impure ores of copper. Its use appears to have antedated in many nations—perhaps not everywhere—that of iron. Without this latter metal, apparently, the extensive ancient workings for gold and copper, discovered by several travelers in Siberia, were conducted by a nomadic race, before the irruption of the Tartars. These operations resembled those of the prehistoric miners of this continent, e.g., the copper miners of Lake Superior, the mica miners of North Carolina, the turquoise miners of New Mexico, etc. They are cited here as among the evidences that the industry of mining was in the beginning. like every other, carried on by individuals, and probably without permanent ownership of the land. —The Phœnicians had abundance of metals, but not to any considerable extent in their own country. They both mined and traded in the Mediterranean countries for gold, lead, silver and iron, and even sailed as far as Great Britain, where they obtained tin. But the claim of the sovereign to all such treasures appears to have been asserted only as one of the rights of the conqueror. When a country was conquered, not only the mines, but all other forms of property, were at the victor's mercy. Extensive mining operations were carried on by the Egyptian kings, of whose cruel administration of these works Diodorus, quoting partly from Agathareides, gives a pathetic picture. It is probable that the greater portion of their miners were purchased slaves, though convicts and prisoners of war furnished a part. To prevent conspiracies and escapes, the different gangs were placed under overseers who were not their countrymen. They were forced to labor naked, under dreadful hardships and severities. The stronger ones hewed the rock in the mines, the half-grown youths carried it to the surface, persons over thirty years of age (so soon was their vigor destroyed) were set at the easier task of crushing it in mortars, and the women and old men ground it fine in hand mills. —The mining of the ancient Greeks is divided into three periods: the first comprising the working of mines in the islands, begun by the Phœnicians; the second, the operations on the mainland. principally those of the Athenians; the third, the development of important mines in the provinces of the Macedonian Philip, which subsequently fell. with the rest of the Greek mines. into the hands of the Romans. During the first period. the proprietors of the island mines were chiefly the petty rulers of the islands. Gold, silver, copper and iron were the products. Perhaps the only mention of the payment of anything like a royalty is that which records the annual tribute of one-tenth the revenue of the gold and silver mines of Siphnos, sent to the shrine of the Delphic Apollo. In later times. this payment having been discontinued, the mines were drowned by the rising of the neighboring sea—a result attributed to the wrath of the neglected god. In the second period the administration of the Athenian mines appears to have begun with the working or leasing of them by the republic Before the Persian war the annual income from this source (about $30,000 at the beginning of that war) was distributed among the citizens. Afterward, on the advice of Themistocles, this distribution ceased, though the state still received payments from the mines. Probably the more ancient mines, as the property of the republic, were rented on special terms, but the general code encouraged the enterprise of private adventurers by permitting taxes on gross production, and inviting both citizens and friendly aliens to work under the light royalty of one twenty-fourth part of the net profits. The labor was performed by slaves, hired from their owners. The overseers, and probably. in many cases, the lessees themselves, were slaves also The slave miners of Athens amounted to many thousands. Once, at least, they revolted and, taking possession of Mount Sunium, made it the base of many destructive raids upon Attic territory. A certain governmental supervision was exercised over mining An official director of mines granted permits for "prospecting" (i.e., searching for ore), and there were laws determining the dimensions of mining "claims." —In western Europe mining was carried on at an early day by the tribes subsequently tributary to Rome. The Etruscans obtained iron from Elba; the Salassians, in Lombardy, turned the course of the Po, and extracted gold from its bed. The tribes of Gaul were producers of gold, silver, copper and iron, and the Britons of gold, silver, iron, lead and tin. For the latter metal the Phœnicians traded with them secretly; and the Romans, by following the Phœnician ships, solved at last the mystery of the Cassiterides. But the most abundant ancient supply of nearly all the metals named was furnished by Spain. The Spanish, Sicilian and Sardinian mines, operated by the Carthaginians, furnished the wealth by the aid of which Carthage paid her numerous mercenaries and waged her costly wars with Rome. —The first two Punic wars delivered into the power of Rome the mines of Sicily, Sardinia and Spain. Those of Asia Minor, Greece, Macedonia, Asia, Egypt, Gaul and Britain were afterward added, about in the order named, by successive conquests, and became thus the property, not of private citizens, but of the state. Yet the Roman law secured the "mineral right" to the landowner, when the land was held by complete title; and doubtless many mines in Italy and elsewhere, outside the conquered provinces, were so held by individuals. The situation was therefore somewhat like that of the United States, which owns the mineral rights of the public domain only, while the private owners of land in any state or territory own its mineral contents also, according to the Roman and the later English common law. —The Romans at first farmed their revenues, and under this general policy awarded leases of their mines periodically. Ordinarily the lessees employed as workmen purchased slaves. The system was in the highest degree wasteful and ruinous, as well as cruel. The lessees, anxious only to gain as much profit as possible during their limited term of possession, robbed the mines without regard to economy or permanence and security. Vast numbers of slaves (Polybius speaks of 40,000 in a single district in Spain) were kept constantly at work, with a severity of discipline not surpassed by that of the early Egyptians. During the period between the close of the first Punic war and the establishment of the empire, the production of metals under this system was immense; but it ended with the practical exhaustion of many of the mines. The emperors effected considerable reforms. They worked the mines through responsible officials, instead of leasing them out to speculators; and since the government could not well purchase such vast numbers of slaves as had previously been owned by private mine lessees, a system securing a sort of feudal service from the inhabitants of the mining regions was gradually introduced, and the slaves who continued to be employed were rather convicts than purchased barbarians or captives. At the same time the emperors appear to have encouraged private enterprise in the discovery and exploitation of new mines. Trajan allowed the Dacian gold mines to be worked by an association (collegium aurariorum); and Valentinian I. gave free permission to prospect for metals, under obligation of paying to the crown a portion of the subsequent profit. But before these measures could completely restore the prosperity of the mining industry of the empire, the irruptions of the barbarians practically destroyed it. The Byzantines held out longest; but after the seventh century they surrendered their mines to the conquering Arabs. Those of Asia Minor, Thrace and Greece were the last which the empire retained. The Arabs in Spain, the Franks in Gaul, and the Goths under Theodoric in Italy, gleaned something for awhile in a rude way from the abandoned mines. But beyond some hints of this, history is silent on the subject, until some centuries later, when an entirely new principle—that of the German "mining freedom" (bergbaufreiheit)—bringing with it a new and active mining industry, makes its appearance in Europe. —This is first seen as a local custom, prevailing with remarkable uniformity at all the ancient centres of German mining, and securing to every citizen in the community the right to mine wherever, as the first discoverer of metalliferous deposits, he could do so without encroaching upon mining rights previously acquired. The exact origin of this custom is not known; but it is highly probable that it sprang out of that early form of communism, the markgenossenschaft, in which the mark was held in common, and redistributed annually among the inhabitants for the purposes of agriculture. Such a redistribution of mining rights could not be fairly made, since the operations of mining (much slower and more laborious then than now) often required years of preliminary development, and the skill required was not possessed by all. Naturally, therefore, the habit would be formed of permitting those to own the mines who had the knowledge to find and work them, and of making their tenure dependent on their perseverance in this work. In this existence of an estate in minerals, entirely independent of the estate in the surface and soil, lies the distinctive character of the German mining law. It doubtless existed as far back as the tenth century in Saxony and Thuringia. The earliest written records of it are much later, as will be seen. but they are elaborate and complicated codes, and bear internal evidence of the antiquity already attached to the immemorial customs which they reduce to systematic form. The German miners, adventurously penetrating into the Roman and Sclavonic countries, carried their bergbaufreiheit with them; and the earliest of their codes which we possess were issued in Latin or German in those colonies. The first is the mining treaty of 1185 between Bishop Albrecht. of Trent, and the German immigrants. The Iglau code, published about 1250, was rapidly extended over Moravia, and was adopted within twenty-five years at Schemnitz, in Hungary. The code of Schladming, in Styria, dates from 1307; that of Massa, in Tuscany, is half a century earlier. All these are supposed to have had a common origin in the bergrecht of Freiberg, in Saxony, i.e., in the unwritten customs of Freiberg or of the Harz, whence the first miners went to Freiberg in the twelfth century. The Freiberg code itself can not be traced back of 1232, in written form. A brief summary of the Iglau code will suffice to indicate the nature of all. This curious document is in Latin, and bears the seals of Wenzel, king of Bohemia and Moravia, and his son, the margrave of Moravia. After a pious and wordy prelude, it ordains that certain officials shall fix the boundaries of mining claims, and defines the dimensions of these and the conditions on which the possessory title of the miner may be acquired and maintained. The full size of the surface granted to a single mine, when unoccupied space permits, is 479 feet along the course of the vein by 196 feet in width. A certain proportion of the claim is set apart for the king, another for the town, or the original owner of the land. Special rights of administration and judgment are accorded to the mining courts of Iglau, and various principles and methods are laid down for the decision of intricate cases of conflicting claims. The thrifty burghers of this "mining city" (bergstadt) won fame and profit by keeping the provisions of this code a secret, and acting, under their guidance, as arbitrators in questions of mining jurisprudence referred to them from other provinces. One of the most frequent causes of dispute was the privilege conferred upon the party driving a deep adit, which, by drawing the water from the mines of other parties, and by facilitating their ventilation, was held to entitle the owner to a share in their profits. To secure this reward, and other incidental "adit privileges," the adit must be a certain distance below any other similar work, and must be prosecuted under certain conditions. —The above will sufficiently show the general nature of the medieval German mining law. It should be added that gold and silver only (including ores containing one of these metals) were at first the objects of it. Other minerals were the exclusive property of the landowner. —Simultaneously with the public appearance of the codes, which, as has been said, embodied customs already old, arose the conflicting claims of the emperor and of the territorial sovereigns. The latter, as the actual owners of many of the mines, and the possessors of general tax-laying authority over the rest, had vantage-ground, which in the course of time they strove to extend. But the emperors had to create their claim out of little or nothing. Frederick I., on the strength of a parliamentary decree applying to Lombardy only, and speaking of the argentaria and salines as sources of royal income, attempted to include the German mines in the same category of regalia, and by the ingenious device of granting the mines of Trent to the bishop (who had them already), secured a quasi recognition of his prerogative, as a precedent. In fact, the emperors seem at no time to have intended to take possession of the mines, but only to establish the right to get revenue, independent of the local legislatures and sovereigns, from this convenient source. Meanwhile, the territorial rulers saw their advantage in promptly adopting and employing for their own interest the theory of "royalty"; and finally the owners of the soil made themselves heard, asserting their rights (upon which constant encroachment was attempted) to certain non-precious metals. The thirteenth century presents a confused conflict among emperor, prince. landlord and miner. The famous "golden bull" of Charles IV. (1356) simplified the conflict by surrendering the claims of the emperor to the electors, and by excluding also the landowner, and putting all metals, precious and base, together with salines, under one rule. namely, the right of the territorial sovereign. The practical result was the exercise of mining royalty by all the princes. whether electors or not; but the "golden bull" was only a "quit claim" deed of this right The sovereigns were left to assert it as best they might, against the ancient. wide-spread democratic principle of "mining freedom." The issue of this conflict was different in different states. In the main, however, the essential victory remained with the miners. The princes granted the right of free exploration, and the right of the discoverer, reserving to themselves only the usual tribute, and the police and magisterial jurisdiction. The basis of mining rights was however, nominally, the grant of the prince, not the ancient mining customs of the people; and hence, in not a few exceptional cases, the sovereign exercised the power which had thus established "mining freedom" to set it aside, granting whole mining districts without reference to the discovery right. One of the first steps taken by sovereigns to confirm by exercise their rights of royalty, was the endowment of certain cities and districts with peculiar privileges on account of their mines. Turin and Vallensasco, in Italy; Truro and Penzance, in Cornwall; and many localities in Hungary, Silesia, Switzerland. Sweden, etc., are instances outside of Germany. In the latter the mining cities were very numerous. The famous seven mining cities of the Harz, and the "ancient and honorable free mining city of Freiberg," in the realm of the Saxon counts of Meissen, as well as many other privileged cities of Saxony, important mining centres down to recent times, may be cited as examples. —In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries an elaborate system of jurisprudence grew up in Germany, varying somewhat in the different states, and affected with occasional exceptions, yet based in the main upon the principles above described. It included free, or nearly free, exploration (buildings not being imperiled, and damages to surface or to agriculture being chargeable to the explorer); the immediate "denunciation" (muthung) of a discovery made; the issue of a preliminary permit; the survey, location and regular lease of the mining ground, after the deposit had been sufficiently exposed; the obligation to prosecute the work continuously, unless natural causes, such as foul air or excess of water, prevented; the payment of royalty (usually one-tenth or one-twentieth of gross product) to the elector; the division of a mining enterprise into shares (kuxe, usually 128 in number); the furnishing of mine timbers by the crown forester, or by private owners under agreements and regulations supervised by the crown officers, etc. The driving of adits was the privilege of the prince, but it was very generally conceded to private parties, with the appertaining advantages and revenues. It was common to give the prince, "by ancient usage," one-eighth of the stock in every leased mine. He was, however, liable to assessment like any other stockholder, and forfeited his stock by non-payment. Mining leases covered a certain area of the surface and a space below the surface, either bounded by vertical planes or by surfaces parallel with the dip of the vein. The first was called a square location (gevierdtfeld) and the second an inclined location (gestrecktfeld). The possessor of an inclined location was generally allowed to work about twenty-one feet (three and one-half lachter or fathoms) into the hanging wall (roof) of his vein, and an equal distance into the foot wall (floor), and to extract all ore found within these limits, as well as in the vein proper, which he might follow indefinitely downward (in die ewige teufe). The simple square location was applied to beds, masses, and even to true veins, when they dipped not more than fifteen degrees below the horizontal. —The principle of mining freedom took little root in Great Britain; and perhaps the sole trace of it now remaining is the custom of "tin-bounding" in Cornwall and Devon. The number of Cornish mining terms which betray a German origin, shows that the enterprising German miners of the middle ages probably found their way to that region, and left their mark upon both institutions and language. There is reason to believe, however, that the British crown at one time laid claim to all mines. Certainly it has from time immemorial claimed by prerogative all gold and silver, and not until the reign of William and Mary was the enjoyment of tin, copper, lead or iron mines, even though their ores contain intermixtures of the precious metal, secured to the subject. The ground of the claim to gold and silver was thus quaintly stated from the bench in the celebrated "case of mines," in the reign of Elizabeth: "The common law, which is founded upon reason, appropriates everything to the persons whom it best suits, as common and trivial things to the common people; things of more worth to persons of a higher and superior class; and things most excellent to persons who excel all others: and because gold and silver are the most excellent things which the soil contains, the law has appointed them, as in reason it ought, to the person most excellent, and that is the king" The right to mines of pure gold or silver, or of either of these, mixed with other metals than tin, copper, lead or iron, appears to be still a royal prerogative, but it is not exercised; and perhaps there are no known cases in which it could be exercised. Practically in Great Britain (and absolutely under the English common law as held in this country) the mineral right of whatever kind originates in the ownership of the soil, although it may be alienated and separately conveyed by the act of the owner, who must, however, to make such conveyance effective as a basis for mining, expressly grant also the right to enter upon his land, dig and carry away the minerals, etc. The exception above mentioned, namely, the custom of tin-bounding in Cornwall and Devon, is spoken of as already "ancient" in a charter granted to the thinners of those districts in the third year of King John. It was thus defined in a modern case at law (Rogers vs. Brenton, 10 Q. B., 26): "That any person may enter on the waste land of another in Cornwall, and mark out by four corner boundaries a certain area; a written description of the land so marked, with metes and bounds, and the name of the person for whose use the proceeding is taken, is recorded in an immemorial local court, called the stannary court, and proclaimed at three successive courts held at stated intervals; if no objection is successfully made by any other person, the court awards a writ to the bailiff of the court to deliver possession of the said bounds or tin-work to the bounder, who thereupon has the exclusive right to search for, dig and take to his own use all tin and tin ore within the described limits, paying to the landowner a certain customary proportion of the ore raised, under the name of 'toll-tin.' The right descends to executors, and may be preserved for an indefinite time, either by actually working and paying toll, or by annually renewing the four boundary marks on a certain day." The custom in Devonshire, it is said, is a freehold interest descending to the heir, and unaccompanied by the obligation to pay any toll to the landowner. It would probably be held void in law, since even the Cornish custom was pronounced by Lord Denman, in the case above cited, to be sustainable only by actually working and paying toll. Bounding, he says, is a direct interference with the common law right of property; and a custom, to have such force as that, must be not only immemorial but reasonable—as the custom of holding tin-bounds without working would not be. The practice has now fallen into disuse; but the stannaries court (created by the consolidation of the several stannary courts) survives, with both common law and equity jurisdiction, concurrent with that of the ordinary courts, in matters arising out of mining. The only mining legislation of Great Britain at the present day is that which supports a school of mines, provides for the collection of mining statistics. maintains inspectors, and imposes certain regulations for the order and safety of the miners. Two statutes (35 and 36 Victoria, chaps. 76 and 77, 1872) contain these regulation. —The mining laws of Australia and Canada follow the principle of English law, modified by old grants of the crown, and by the fact that in these colonies large areas of unoccupied public land exist, on which the local governments may authorize mining upon such terms as they may choose. Their leases or sales of mining rights on such lands are simply acts of the landowner under the common law. —The new codes of mining law in the German states (beginning with that of Prussia, adopted in 1866, which the others more or less closely imitate,) express two tendencies: the one, toward a wider recognition of the rights of the landowner, the other, toward a withdrawal of the government from undue interference with mining, and a reduction of its burdens of taxation and tribute. The inclined location is no longer granted; and the miner is confined to the space inclosed by vertical planes drawn through his surface boundaries. The permission of the landowner is necessary to preliminary explorations; though he may be compelled by the decision of the authorities to give such permission, yet only upon receiving a bond of indemnity. A mining grant is not forfeited by ceasing to work it, unless the authorities, for sufficient reason, insist upon the resumption of work, in which case the grantee has a right of protest and appeal, and six months' grace. The numerous fees, royalties and tithes of former times are done away, and in their place a moderate tax is imposed; in Austria, Saxony and Bavaria, a tax on net profits; in Prussia, a tax on the value of the products of 1 per cent. for the general treasury of the state, and 1 per cent. to cover the expenses of supervision. Iron mines are generally, if not universally, free of royalty to the state. Benefit societies for miners (knappschaftsvereine) are established by law. Bog iron ore; gold nuggets in the soil (in Prussia); gold placers (in Bavaria); coal (in Saxony and some other states); iron (in Silesia); salt and salines (in Hanover); mineral springs and amber (except in East Prussia and West Prussia, where amber found in the sea or on the beach belongs to the state) are exceptions to the mining law, and belong to the landowner. —A brief notice of the mining laws of France will suffice, first, because the mining industry of that country is limited (though in 1810, when the statute of Napoleon was promulgated, the productive mines of Rhenish Prussia belonged to France, and these mines were actually worked according to French law until 1865); secondly, because the French system, unlike the English, the German and the Spanish. has had little to do with the development of our own mining law. By the decree of 1791, after the abolition of feudal rights, the mines and mineral deposits of France were declared to be the property of the nation, and the government was authorized to make "concessions" of them, such concessions to be always temporary only, and the preference to be given to the landowner, to whom was moreover expressly reserved all that part of every mineral deposit lying within one hundred feet of the surface. These provisions amounted nearly to a prohibition of general mining. The law of 1810 declared, in accordance with the Code Napoleon, that the property in minerals goes with the property in land, but that the government may separate the two, granting the mineral right, even in perpetuity, to another than to the landowner. on the simple condition of a tribute paid to the latter. Mines only are subject to these conditions. In this class certain underground workings are included; minieres (open works) and carrieres (quarries) are left to the landowner. The tax paid to the state is 2 per cent. of the gross product. —The Spanish ordinance of mines, published in 1783, has been substantially in force ever since in Mexico, and was the law in the territories which the United States acquired from Mexico by conquest and purchase. It asserts the right of sovereignty over all species of metals, and authorizes the concession of mining rights only so long as the mine is worked. It is also very full in its directions as to the manner of mining, attempting to correct, in this way, the tendency to reckless robbery of mines, inevitable under such tenure. The size of claims (invariably "square locations") is regulated by the dip of the vein as shown by a shaft thirty feet deep; the length of the claim along the course of the vein being 200 yards (varax) and the width from 100 to a maximum of 200 yards, according to the dip, the smallest width being granted to a claim on a vertical vein, and the greatest on a vein departing forty-five degrees or more from the vertical. These measures are so calculated that under the most frequent circumstances (the dip varying from forty-five degrees to sixty degrees from the horizontal) the vein will pass out of the claim at the vertical depth of 600 feet, at which depth, the ordinance naively remarks, it is commonly much exhausted. It need hardly be said that the introduction of steam engines and the construction of deep adits has long since rendered it possible to mine to the depth of over 3,000 feet. The taxation of Mexican mines has always been heavy, especially in the form of the export tax on bullion. Spain did for her western provinces what Carthage and Rome had done for Spain, and the spirit of her legislation, the desire to wring as much plunder from the rich mines as possible, has lingered in the land. It is believed that a more liberal treatment of the mining industry, with the view of attracting and protecting foreign capital. will hereafter obtain. —We are now prepared to explain the history of the relation of our own government to the mining industry. It is based entirely upon the common law. True, the early English colonial grants asserted some crown rights in the metals. Thus the great charter of King James to the London and Plymouth companies (1606) provided that one-fifth of the gold and silver, and one-fifteenth of the copper, which might be discovered, should belong to the crown. But long before the revolution, the right of landowners to all minerals beneath the surface appears to have been recognized. Before the adoption of the federal constitution, the confederate congress, in prescribing a form of grant of patent for lands in the western territory, reserved "one-third part of all gold, silver, lead and copper mines within the same for future sale or disposition." It was not, however, until the acquisition of the lead regions of the upper Mississippi. under the Louisiana treaty with France, in 1803, that the question assumed practical importance. Under the power given by the constitution to congress to dispose of the public lands, the lead mines were reserved from sale, and in 1807 the president was authorized to lease them for not more than five years. The policy of reserving from the operations of ordinary grants of public land mineral lands and lands containing known salines or mines, has continued to the present time, and is incorporated in all the formal statutes relating to the subject. It is held, however, that land not officially set apart as "mineral," and not known to contain salines or mineral deposits, being once conveyed by the government to a private purchaser or settler, all subsequently discovered mineral deposits belong to him. The attempt to lease the mines on the public domain, shown in the act of 1807 above mentioned, was the first and last experiment of our government in that direction. The leases covered tracts at first three miles square (afterward reduced to one mile) and bound the lessees to work the mines with due diligence, and return to the United States 6 per cent. of the ores obtained. The first leases were not issued until 1822, and the product did not become considerable until 1826, when it began to increase rapidly. After 1834, however, in consequence of the immense number of illegal entries of mineral lands at the Wisconsin land office, the miners and smelters refused to pay rents any longer, and the government was unable to collect them. Meanwhile, by a forced construction (afterward declared invalid) of the act for leasing the lead mines, hundreds of leases were granted to speculators in the Lake Superior copper region. where a wild excitement prevailed from 1843 to 1846. In the latter year, the bubble burst; the issue of permits and leases was suspended as illegal; and in acts passed in 1846 and 1847 the policy of selling the mineral lands outright was adopted by the government. The act of July 11, 1846, authorized the sale of the reserved mineral lands in the states of Illinois and Arkansas, and the territories of Wisconsin and Iowa, at an increased rate of $1.25 per acre, as a minimum, but still reserved them from pre-emption. The act of March 3. 1847, creating the Chippewa land district in Wisconsin territory, ordered a geological survey, granted pre-emption to parties in possession of lead mines by occupation from discovery, or by lease under the United States, by paying $5 per acre, and provided for public and private sales at the same price. The act of March 1, 1847, ordered the sale of the copper mines in the state of Michigan, after a geological survey; precedence to be given to lessees of the government, who need pay but $2.50 per acre, the minimum at public sales being $5. The act of March 3, 1849, organizing the department of the interior, transferred to it the powers exercised under the preceding act by the treasury, and still earlier by the war department, with regard to the mines of the United States. The act of Sept 26, 1850, repealed the acts of 1847, and placed the mineral lands within the districts referred to on the same footing, as to sale, private entry and pre-emption, as other public lands of the United States, saving the rights of the lessees. —The application of the policy of sale to the public mineral lands west of the Missouri encountered peculiar embarrassments, arising from two main causes. Large portions of this territory were acquired from Mexico; and the United States, in assuming sovereignty, assumed also, it was held, the ownership of the metals which pertained to sovereignty under the Spanish ordinances. In the case of existing Spanish agricultural grants, not expressly conveying the mineral right, that right would thus belong to the United States, not to the grantees. But our courts finally held that when such a grant was confirmed by a United States patent the mineral right was thereby conveyed to the grantee, whether it had been originally so conveyed to him by the grant or not, because the United States patent gives a full title in fee according to the common law. By this decision a great source of difficulty was removed, although certain evils resulted from the acquisition in this way, by agricultural grantees, of much larger areas of mineral land than could have been acquired under the ordinary operations of our laws. A second and more extensive difficulty in disposing of the mineral lands in the Rocky mountains and on the Pacific slope arose from the fact that, under the excitement beginning with the discovery of gold in California, and continuing as a motive power ever since, population rushed into these regions in advance of the public surveys, indispensable to an orderly sale of the lands. The government was taken by surprise; and for nearly twenty years it permitted miners to enter upon the public lands, dig and carry away gold, silver, copper, quicksilver and other valuable minerals, without attempting to assert its dominant ownership. A system of possessory titles, good as against all claimants except the United States, grew up under local customs and regulations, which the subsequent legislation of congress recognized, as a matter of temporary policy, to a mischievous extent. —The first mining on the Pacific coast after the acquisition of the region by the United States, was the "gulch" and "placer" mining for gold in California. (It is difficult to fix exactly the dates of the beginnings of mining in the different territories. The following list is approximately correct: The rediscovery of gold in California—previously known to hunters, Indians and Jesuit missionaries—took place in 1848. Gold mining began practically in Arizona in 1850, in Oregon in 1852, in Colorado in 1859, in Idaho and Montana in 1860. Quicksilver mining on a regular scale began at New Almaden, California, about 1851. Hydraulic mining began in California about 1853. The mining of silver ore from the Comstock lode, in Nevada, in the neighborhood of earlier gold diggings, began about 1853.) —The placer miners of California early adopted local rules with reference to the size of their claims, and the use of the water necessary to work them. Since the country was swarming with eager adventurers, it was natural that actual occupation should be recognized as necessary to maintain title, and that abandonment should work forfeiture in favor of some new comer. As to the size of claims, they were usually restricted according to the nature of the deposit, as a "gulch," "creek," "bar," or "flat" digging, etc. In gulches and creeks, however, it was common to grant to each claimant a certain number of linear feet along the stream by the whole width, whatever it might be. When the miners proceeded, by an easy transition, to "quartz mining," i.e., to the development of the quartz veins which they had discovered as the sources of the accumulated wealth of the placers, they carried over to this new industry such of the placer rules as they could conveniently apply, and, in particular, the two above mentioned, of necessary continuous occupation and of a single definite dimension of claim. Very likely there were among them German miners who remembered the gestrecktfeld of their fatherland. At all events, it was this, and not the square location of Mexico, that was generally adopted in the quartz mining camps, and has been incorporated into the federal statutes. The principle of recording claims, and deciding conflicts in favor of priority of record, is another feature of the American mining customs, as of all German mining codes. —Unfortunately, there was no uniformity in the customs of different localities. The inhabitants of a certain district held a mass meeting, declared the boundaries of their district as they chose (usually not encroaching on any other already established, unless by way of division of a district found to be inconveniently large), fixed the size of claims and the amount of work necessary to hold them, elected a recorder, and adjourned—to meet again and alter their laws if they should see fit. Often the first settlers (three men have been known to hold a mass meeting, and thus fix the limits and laws of a new district) arranged matters more liberally for themselves than for the hundreds who rushed in afterward; and with the larger population there came the imperative reform. The records were, in many places, carelessly kept, laying the foundation for much litigation and opening the door to fraud. —As has been remarked, the United States passively allowed this system or chaos of local customs to exist for many years. The miners on the public lands were technically trespassers; yet by a series of decisions in the state courts, and finally in the United States supreme court (3 Wallace, 97). it was held that their possessory rights, as against all claimants except the United States, were capable of being transferred, taxed, and valued in money. Finally, an act of congress (July 27, 1865,) declared that actions for the recovery of mining claims should not be affected by the paramount title of the United States, but should be judged according to the law of possession. The principle was recognized again in the act of May 5, 1866. concerning the boundaries of Nevada, in which the possessory titles of citizens holding mining claims were recognized, with a distinct proviso that they should not be considered as titles in fee. The act of July 25. 1866, granting the right of way and other important privileges to the Sutro tunnel (draining the Comstock lode in Nevada). excepted from its grants that lode and all others then in actual possession of other persons, unless the same should be abandoned or forfeited under local laws. It also provided—the first and last instance of the kind in our federal legislation—that the mines "drained, benefited or developed by the tunnel" should be subject to certain payments in return. This general principle is found in Spanish ordinances (Tit. X, Art. 3), which provide for rewards and royalties to the constructors of adits, or for the assessment of mines benefited thereby, in the proportion of the benefit derived, to pay the expense of such construction. A similar feature is found in the German codes. The act of July 26, 1866, was the first general law on the subject of the mines on the public lands. It declared (Sec. 1). that the mineral lands, surveyed or unsurveyed, were open to exploration and occupation by all citizens or those who had declared their intention to become citizens, subject to such regulations as might be prescribed by law, "and subject, also, to the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same may not be in conflict with the laws of the United States"; (Sec 2), that any person or association claiming a vein or lode of quartz or other rock in place, bearing gold, silver, cinnabar or copper, having expended thereon not less than $1,000. and having a good possessory right under the local laws or customs, might file a diagram, conforming in dimensions to the said customs. "enter such tract and receive a patent therefor, granting such mine, together with a right to follow such vein or lode with its dips, angles and variations to any depth, although it may enter the land adjoining, which land adjoining shall be sold subject to this condition"; (Sec. 3), that the application and diagram should be posted and advertised for ninety days, to permit the presentation of adverse claims, after which (there being no adverse claims) the survey should be made, covering one lode only, and the patent issued on payment of $5 per acre and costs; (Sec. 4), that the survey might be varied from the rectangular form to suit the circumstances and local customs, but "no location hereafter made shall exceed 200 feet in length along the vein for each locator, with an additional claim for discovery to the discoverer of the lode, with the right to follow such vein to any depth, together with a reasonable quantity of surface for the convenient working of the same, as fixed by local rules," and "no person may make more than one location on the same lode, and not more than 3,000 feet shall be taken in any one claim by any association of persons"; (Sec. 5), that local legislatures might provide rules for working, "involving drainage, easements and other necessary means"; (Sec. 6), that the appearance of adverse claims should cause a stay of proceedings for patent, until these had been settled by the courts. The remaining sections refer to additional land districts, rights of way for roads and ditches, the use of water (determined by priority of possession for mining, agricultural or other purposes), and the rights of settlers upon agricultural lands under the pre-emption and homestead laws. —The act of July 9, 1870, provided for similar proceedings as to "placers," ("including all forms of deposit excepting veins of quartz or other rock in place"), such claims not to exceed 160 acres for each person or association, and to be sold at $2.50 per acre. —The act of 1866 proved defective in practice, not only as to certain administrative details, but also in three important particulars: it covered mines of gold, silver, cinnabar and copper only; it left too much latitude to the mining customs, to which it nevertheless gave the full rank of law; and it was obscure as to the nature of the title conferred by the patents granted under it. The last point requires a brief further explanation. The terms "tract," "patent," "land adjoining shall be sold," etc., and the provision for payment by the acre, all pointed to a title in fee; but the usage of miners, the conditions of such localities as Virginia City, Nevada, (where a large town had been built, and town lots were daily bought and sold, on the land comprising the Comstock vein outcrop), and finally, in accordance with these influences, the construction of the statute by the highest courts (overruling in some instances contrary decisions below), settled the title to apply to the vein only, with the surface as an easement for convenient working. Entering upon the surface of another's patented claim, to explore for veins alleged to be other than the vein named in the patent, was therefore no trespass. —The act of May 10, 1872, now incorporated in the revised statutes, corrected the three defects above named, as well as others less important. It extended (Sec. 2, or Rev. Stat., Sec. 2320) the privileges of location to lodes bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper or other valuable deposits. It overruled in some particulars the local customs, providing (Sec. 2) that 1,500 feet should be the maximum length of a mining claim, 300 feet on each side of the middle of the vein at the surface the maximum, and 25 feet on each side the minimum, width; that no location should be made before the discovery of the vein within the limits of the claim (abolishing the custom of locating so-called "extensions" of neighboring mines); that the end lines of each claim should be parallel. It declared (Sec. 3, or Rev. Stat., Sec. 2322) that all lode locators in good standing under local regulations not in conflict with United States laws, should "have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations, and of all veins, lodes and ledges [these terms are synonymous] throughout their entire depth, the top or apex of which lies inside of such surface lines extended downward vertically although such veins, lodes or ledges may so far depart from a perpendicular in their course downward as to extend outside the vertical side lines of such surface locations," but that this right of possession outside the location should be confined between vertical planes extending through the end lines of the location, and should not authorize the owner to enter upon the surface of a claim owned or possessed by another. It prescribed (Sec. 5, or Rev. Stat., Sec. 2324) that locations and records should be made in a certain way, and that on all claims located after the date of the act, $100 worth of labor should be performed annually as the condition of possessory title, until patents should be taken. On claims located be fore the act, $10 worth of labor for each one hundred feet along the vein was required annually to maintain title. The time for the first annual expenditure on this class of claims was subsequently extended (act of March 1, 1873) to June 10, 1874, and again (act of June 6, 1874) to June 10, 1875. These concessions relieved individual cases of hardship, but served to prolong for some years the mischievous practice, under local customs and rules contrived for the purpose of holding large numbers of claims without either working or purchasing them. Since 1875 this practice is extinct; the annual work (called by our western miners "assessment work") required by the United States law making it too expensive a speculation. —Thus, by a long and irregular course, the mining law has reached a form unprecedented as a whole in history, yet resembling in details here and there some features still maintained, or already discarded, by foreign nations. It grants to locators, and the United States patent to mineral land confirms, a peculiar right. which may be summed up as the ordinary common law right to the surface and all beneath it. plus certain addition and minus a certain deduction—the addition being the right of the locator to follow veins of which his land contains the apex, down ward, between the end planes of his location into his neighbor's land; and the deduction being a similar right possessed by the adjoining neighbor. The meaning of the terms "vein, lode or ledge," "top or apex," etc., which the law does not define, has been more or less completely settled by the courts. By the act of February 18, 1873, deposits of iron or coal are excepted from the act of 1872, as are all the public mineral lands in Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. The act of May 5, 1876, excepts also Missouri and Kansas. A separate act (March 3, 1873, Rev. Stat., Sec. 2347-2352) provides for the pre-emption, entry and purchase of coal lands, 160 acres by an individual, or 320 (or under certain conditions 640) acres by an association, at a minimum price of $10 per acre for lands more, and $20 per acre for lands less, than fifteen miles from a completed railroad. Under these provisions, speculation in coal lands by the parties engaged in building railroads in Colorado, Utah, Montana and Arizona is now active. That the United States mining law is in many respects still defective can scarcely be denied. The large amount of costly litigation under this system, as compared with the almost total absence of mining litigation proper in the older states, under the common law system, is a striking and unanswerable fact. In 1879 a special public land commission, consisting of the commissioner of the general land office, the director of the geological survey, and three civilians appointed by the president, was authorized by congress to consider the whole question of the land laws, surveys, etc. This commission, consisting of J. A. Williamson, commissioner. etc., Clarence King, director, etc., and Messrs. Thomas Donaldson, A. T. Britton and J. W. Powell, made an elaborate "preliminary report" in February, 1880, including a large amount of testimony, and the draft of a new land code recommended to congress. As regards the mineral lands. its most important features are the final abolition of mining districts and district officers, the sweeping adoption of "square locations," i.e., the ordinary common law system now obtaining in the older states, and certain provisions tending to force possessory owners to become purchasers within a reasonable period. No legislative action has been taken; and it is doubtful whether the prejudices of the mining communities will permit so radical a change. The committee's report and accompanying documents will remain, however, a treasury of information on this subject. —One means for encouraging the mining industry has been employed by all civilized governments, namely, the collection and publication of mining statistics. In this country the several states have performed the work most irregularly. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, California, and perhaps some other states, at present keep up more or less complete statistical bureaus. The federal government began by doing it very imperfectly in the census and in the statistical bureau of the treasury; then, more carefully, for the public lands in and west of the Rocky mountains, through special commissioners reporting to the secretary of the treasury (1866-76); then through the reports of the director of the mint at Washington and of the various topographical and geological surveys of the interior and war departments. There is now a perceptible tendency, on the part especially of those states which have done the least, to develop their own resources and industries, to extend the national geological and statistical work, heretofore confined chiefly to the national lands, into the states. The surrender of state sovereignty, when it comes in the form of a deliverance from state responsibility and expense, seems to have no terrors, even for the sternest opponents of centralization. —The police regulation of mining operations is, in the United States, confined to the protection of the lives of workmen, and does not extend to the prevention of waste or the securing of permanence in mining. It is exercised. if at all, by state and local authorities only. —Hon. A. S. Hewitt, in a presidential address before the American institute of mining engineers, in June, 1876, gives a table, prepared by the writer. showing the production of leading metals and minerals in the United States during the first century of national independence. The following table has been constructed from that, by condensation, correction and addition, bringing it to the end of 1881. It claims approximate accuracy only, but may serve to show the growth of the mining industry of the country.  —The following table is intended to show the general extent of the mining industries of the principal European states. It is mostly from official sources, and gives the product of the year 1879. The units employed are, for everything but gold and silver, metric tons of 1,000 kilogrammes, equal to 2,205 pounds avoirdupois, nearly; for gold and silver, kilogrammes (one kilogramme equals 2,679 pounds or 32,151 ounces Troy). With the exception of coal and salt, the table represents the product of metallurgical rather than mining industry, and does not record, therefore, the crude ores which are exported from certain countries. The export of iron ore from Spain was, in 1879, about 2,700,000 tons; and several hundred thousand tons were exported from Algiers. Chili exported, in 1879, 49,390 tons of copper, of which 80 per cent. was in bars and ingots, 17¼ per cent. in regulus, and 2 8/6 per cent. in ores. Australia produced, in 1879, 8,133 tons of tin, and Bauca and Billiton about 10,000 tons.  —The following miscellaneous statistics may also be of interest in this connection. The production of lead in 1881 is estimated (in metric tons) as follows: Spain, 120,000; Germany, 90,000; England, 67,000; France, 15,000; Italy, 10,000; Belgium, 9,000; Greece, 8,000; Austria, 6,000; Russia, 1,500; United States, 110,000; total, 436,500; which is nearly the whole ascertainable product of this metal in the world—that of Asia being unknown, and that of Australia and South America insignificant. The European product of spelter (metallic zinc) for 1880 is estimated (in metric tons) as follows: Germany, 99,405; Belgium, 65,000; England, 22,000; France, 13,715; Austria, Poland, etc., 3,200; total, 203,330. Great Britain produced, in 1881, about 10,000 metric tons of tin; Australia and Tasmania, 12,000; and Banca and Billiton, 11,000. —BIBLIOGRAPHY. The following works may be consulted with profit on the subject of this article: Classic authors, particularly Strabo, Pliny and Diodorus; Dr. J. F. Reitemeir's Geschichte des Bergbaues und H8macr;ttenwesens bei den Alten Völkern, Gottingen, 1785; Count Kaspar Sternberg's Geschichte des Bergbaues und der Berggesetzgebung des Königreichs Böhmen, Prague, 1838—this work contains the full text of the oldest German mining code, that of Iglau; the Journal für Bergrecht, Bonn, monthly; the Annales des Mines, Paris, monthly; Councillor R. Klostermann's Das Preussische Berggesetz, also the editions and commentaries of Oppenheim and Huysson; the codes and commentaries of Hesse, Nassau, Saxouy, etc.; the German Cyclopædias of Zedler, Halle, 1733, Meyer and Brockhaus, Leipzig, 1877, and later—articles Bergbau, Bergrecht, Bergherr, etc.; R. P. Collier's Treatise on the Law Relating to Mines, London, 1849, Philadelphia, 1853; Prof. J. D. Whitney's Metallic Wealth of the United States,Philadelphia, 1853; J. A. Rockwell's Compilation of Spanish and Mexican Law in Relation to Mines, etc., New York. 1851—there is a larger work on the subject by Gen. H. W. Halleck; Gregory Yale's Legal Titles to Mining Claims and Water Rights in California, San Francisco, 1867; the Reports of the United States Commissioner of Mining Statistics. Washington, 1867-76; the Reports of the various United States Geological Surveys, and of the Director of the Mint; George A. Blanchard and Edward P. Weeks' Law of Mines, Minerals and Mining Water Rights, San Francisco, 1877; Henry N. Copp's United States Mining Decisions. Washington, 1874, United States Mineral Lands. Washington, 1881, and Land Owner, Washington. monthly; the Report of the Public Lands Commission, Washington, 1880; Hon. A. S. Hewitt's A Century of Mining and Metallurgy in the United States, Trans. Am. Inst. of Mining Engineers, vol. v., Easton, Pa., 1877. Several parliamentary "blue-books" contain much information as to the administration of mines in Great Britain. The writer's views on the United States mining law in its different stages will be found more at length in the successive Reports of the Commissioner of Mining Statistics; a communication to the Public Lands Commission, appended to its report. A paper on the Eureka-Richmond Case, Trans Am Inst. of Mining Engineers, vol. vi, 1878. and the files of the Engineering and Mining Journal, New York, weekly. The above list might be indefinitely extended, particularly as to foreign authorities; but the works named will be found to contain abundant further references for those who desire to pursue the subject still more widely or deeply. R. W. RAYMOND. MINISTRYMINISTRY, the body of officers of state who compose the executive government of a sovereign or supreme ruler of a kingdom or empire—Formerly, and as lately as the reign of Charles I., under the English system of government, the king's privy council constituted his executive advisers. This council existed at a very early period of English history. At first it was a small committee, chosen by the king from the parliament, then called the "great council," and was possessed of much power, a part of which was the right to inquire into all offenses against the state, and to commit offenders for trial before the proper courts of law. It was composed of the chancellor. the treasurer, the justice of either bench, the escheator, the sergeants, some of the principal clerks of chancery, and some bishops, earls and barons, nominated by the king. This court has long ceased to exercise the function of advising the king on matters pertaining to the executive government, having grown too cumbrous for such practical work. A smaller body, called the cabinet, composed of from eleven to seventeen of the leading members of the ministry in power, has taken its place. This committee of the ministry, or cabinet, is merely a deliberative body; yet eminent public men have claimed for it, under the British constitution, a defined and acknowledged power for carrying on the executive government of the country. Its members, as a body, have no power to issue orders or proclamations, but all the weighty measures that call for the attention of the government, relating to the interests of the people, both at home and abroad, are considered by the cabinet, who determine what legislation shall be initiated by the ministry of which they are the principal members. —At the head of the ministry is the premier or prime minister, called first lord of the treasury, to whom is entrusted the selection of his associates in the ministry and the subordinate members of the government. He is generally a statesman of great national prominence, and the leader of his political party. As he is ordinarily called by the sovereign to the position of chief of the government on account of the triumph of his political party on some measure of great public interest, he selects his associates in the government from among leading men of his own party. so that his administration may conform to the will of the popular majority, as represented by a majority in the house of commons. He himself is placed in the executive branch of the government as the first lord of the treasury, and its other necessary heads are the lord chancellor, the chancellor of the exchequer, the secretaries of state for home, foreign, colonial and Indian affairs, the secretary for war, the lord president of the council, the lord of the privy seal, and the first lord of the admiralty. Ministers holding the offices of president of the board of trade, president of the poor-law board, vice-president of the committee of council on education, postmaster general, chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, and chief secretary for Ireland, have or have not seats in the cabinet, according to circumstances. It depends, in every case, upon the position of the minister in the ranks of statesmanship, and, to some extent, on the importance of the measures affecting his department which the prime minister intends to propose for legislation. —There are many important officers of the government who do not possess seats in the cabinet, to wit, the attorney general and solicitor general for England; the lord advocate and solicitor general for Scotland; the lord lieutenant, attorney general and solicitor general for Ireland; the first commissioner of works, the lord chamberlain, and others. The prime minister sometimes holds the chancellorship of the exchequer in addition to the office of first lord of the treasury. —Cabinet meetings are usually held on the summons of any member of the ministry; their proceedings are secret, and no record is preserved. Each measure relating to the public service is committed for action to the head of the department to which it properly belongs. The members of the government have seats in parliament, and the prime minister endeavors, in forming his ministry, so to distribute the great offices of state, that when a principal secretary has a seat in one house, the under secretary shall be a member of the other. It is the custom for ministers to make periodic statements in parliament concerning the business of their departments, and they may at any time be called upon to explain their conduct. (See INTERPELLATION.) —Under the British constitution the sovereign is not held personally responsible for the acts of the government. no matter how disastrous they may be to the interests of the country. That responsibility rests with the ministry, which originates nearly all the great measures that become law, and is therefore sponsor for their beneficial application and result. The government of England being in part representative, the will of the people is indicated by parliamentary majorities. The executive government is presumed to represent the popular will, therefore the ministry and the popular house of parliament must accord in opinion; and if they do not accord, or if a ministry does not possess the confidence of the house of commons, a want sometimes expressed by a vote of censure, either the prime minister dissolves parliament and appeals to the country or the ministry ceases to exist. In the latter case each member resigns immediately. and a new government is formed by the appointment of a new prime minister, who proceeds to form a new ministry by direction of the sovereign. It is true that the sovereign possesses the power to dismiss his ministers whenever they cease to command his confidence, but he seldom exercise this power, as such a change would be useless without the support of the house of commons, who, by refusing their support could in a measure destroy the functions of government. Parliament is sometimes dissolved and the ministry dismissed by the sovereign, and an appeal made to the country, to which a response is given in the political complexion of the succeeding house of commons. By this means the crown may temporarily overcome the parliamentary will. This course, however, is seldom pursued by the sovereign, as at best the victory would be ephemeral. As the result of such an arbitrary act, an unfriendly parliament would doubtless be elected, and the ministry and government stand as in the beginning. Sometimes it may become necessary for the public interests that parliament should be dissolved, and an appeal be made to the people by sending the members of the house of commons back to their constituency to be judged for their work. Were this power not vested in the sovereign there might be a danger of destroying the proper balance of the constitution, so necessary in a mixed form of government, by parliament becoming permanent, repealing the act of 1 Geo. I., c. 38, which limits the session to seven years, and assuming all the functions of government; an example of which is to be found in the long parliament, which Charles I. consented should not be dissolved until it dissolved itself. —When a ministry resigns on account of differences between itself and parliament, all the adherents of the ministry holding political office resign with it, and also the great officers of the court, and those of the royal household who have seats in parliament, in either house; also, the three junior lords of the treasury, the two secretaries of the treasury, the four parliamentary under secretaries of state, the paymaster general, the master general of the ordnance, the surveyor general of the ordnance, the five junior lords of the admiralty, the first secretary of the admiralty, the chief commissioner of Greenwich hospital, the president and parliamentary secretary of the poor-law board, the vice-chamberlain, the captain of the gentlemen at arms, the captain of the yeomen of the guards, the lords in waiting, the mistress of the robes, the treasurer of the household, the chief equerry or clerk marshal, the judge advocate general, and the lord chancellor for Ireland. —In 1839 Sir Robert Peel being commissioned by the queen (Victoria) to form a new cabinet, the Melbourne ministry having resigned, he demanded that the change of administration should include the resignation of the chief appointments held by the ladies of her majesty's household. This demand the queen refused, and Sir Robert Peel declined to undertake the formation of a government, and Lord Melbourne was restored to his position of first lord of the treasury. The duke of Wellington accorded with Sir Robert Peel in the opinion that the change suggested was necessary to establish perfect proof of her majesty's confidence in the new ministry. The ministry of Lord Melbourne, immediately after their recall, assembled in council and adopted certain resolutions of a very stringent and positive character in opposition to the proposition of resignation of the ladies of the queen's household on any change of ministry. —The resignation of the ministry occurs almost invariably upon a disagreement with the house of commons on some public measure, or upon a vote of "want of confidence." There have been many ministerial resignations of a notable character, but space forbids an extended review. The resignation of the duke of Wellington, Nov. 16, 1830, was memorable for the advent of the celebrated reform ministry of Earl Grey. This leader introduced at different sessions three reform bills, each of which was rejected by the house of lords, or nullified by amendments. On the rejection of the third measure by the house of lords, the bill having passed the house of commons by a large majority, the ministry of Earl Grey resigned. This act was followed by a week of intense excitement, when the government resumed office, on the king granting them full powers to create a sufficient number of peers to overcome the adverse majority in the lords. The Melbourne ministry followed, and resigned in 1834. Sir Robert Peel succeeded, and resigned in 1835. The Melbourne ministry again came into power, and resigned in 1841, upon a vote of "want of confidence." Sir Robert Peel came again into office, and again retired in 1846, having been defeated on the "Irish protection of life bill," giving place to a whig administration under Lord John Russell, who resigned in 1852. Lord Derby then became prime minister, but almost immediately gave way to Lord Palmerston, who remained in office six years and went out in 1858, on the defeat of the "conspiracy bill." In 1859 he was again recalled, and remained first lord of the treasury until he died, in October, 1865. Russell again came into power, as Earl Russell, but resigned the year following on account of parliament rejecting his reform bill of that year. Lord Derby then became the head of the new ministry, and remained for two years only, resigning in 1868. He was succeeded by Disraeli, who assumed office in February, 1868, and retired in December of the same year, a general election, necessitated by the passage of a reform bill extending the suffrage, having resulted in a large liberal majority. The ministry of Mr. Gladstone then came in and continued till 1875, when it resigned, and Mr. Disraeli became, for the second time, first lord of the treasury, and remained at the head of the government, the latter part of the time as Lord Beaconsfield, until the adverse elections of 1880. Mr. Gladstone then, for the second time, assumed the reins of government by appointment of the queen, and with a liberal ministry is now in power. —In the United States the council of executive advisers is called the cabinet. It is composed of the heads of the various departments of the federal government, and consists of the secretary of state, secretary of the treasury, secretary of war, secretary of the navy, secretary of the interior, the attorney general and postmaster general. They are appointed by the president at the incoming of each new administration, and seldom a single member of a previous administration is retained in the cabinet of a new president, although he may be of the same political party which elected his predecessor. —The office of minister is unknown to the constitution of the United States. By long-established custom, originating from the habit of the presidents of obtaining advice on public matters of grave interest from the heads of the departments, and for that purpose assembling them at the presidential mansion as the most convenient place, the American cabinet has sprung into existence. Under the constitution and laws of the United States they have no seat assigned them in either house of congress. Under our form of government the president is held responsible for the character of his administration, and therefore no necessity exists for an individual member of the cabinet to possess a seat in congress. Still many argue that the law should be changed and members of the cabinet be assigned to seats in congress for the purpose of explaining matters pertaining to the proper administration of their individual departments, as being conducive to a better administration of public affairs. A bill to this effect was introduced in the senate of the United States during the session of the 46th congress, but without favorable action being taken thereon. —As the president is held responsible for the "good conduct" of each member of his cabinet in the performance of his official duties, the power necessarily exists with the president to remove at his pleasure any or all of the members of his cabinet. It is true that the constitution and laws provide that this shall be done "by and with the advice and consent of the senate." Still so inseparably is the right connected with the means of enforcing a proper administration of public affairs, that it is regarded as an inherent right of the office, and the senate invariably consents to the personal wish of the president with regard to his official family. The action of the senate in confirming new appointees to cabinet honors is therefore merely pro formâ. This prerogative of the president is seldom used save in individual cases. In the case of the administration of President Andrew Jackson, however, the whole of the cabinet was removed, by requesting their resignations. A wide difference in law or custom prevails in the United States from that in England, with regard to the matter of resignation on account of parliamentary differences, or parliamentary votes of want of confidence, etc. While in England the custom is absolute that a ministry must resign when censured by a vote in parliament, in the United States congress might pass many votes of censure, or refuse to pass many favorite measures of the administration strongly recommended by themselves and the president, without in the least affecting the integrity of the cabinet. Its members would pay but little attention to any demand that congress might make for their resignation or removal, but a single indication on the part of the president of his desire to terminate their official relations, would instantly compel the resignation of that member of the cabinet. Should he prove contumacious and decline to resign at the verbal wish of the president, in that case, as in the case of a member of President Grant's cabinet (Jewell, postmaster general) during his second presidential incumbency, he would by letter request the same, which act is equivalent to removal, inasmuch as the president states his purpose in direct terms of appointing a successor to his office. —The duties of the cabinet, other than as advisers to the president, are of an important and widely varied character. As heads of their various departments, they are held by the executive responsible for the proper administration of their separate divisions of executive labor. It is a part of their province as chiefs of departments to construe and enforce the laws of congress pertaining to their individual branches, and often to disburse large sums of money Frequently they originate important measures which are recommended to congress by the president in either his annual message, or by transmitting their reports to him to the congress of the United States. It is generally understood that the secretary of state originates our foreign policy, and the secretary of the treasury that of finance. The secretary of the interior controlling to a very considerable degree our home interests and policies, is always an important officer, as is the postmaster general and the attorney general, as all must concede; and in time of war the most important of all are the secretaries of war and navy, who virtually control the armies and navies of the Union, and are therefore responsible to the president, and through him to the country, for the success and honor of our arms. In addition to this, each member of the cabinet, as the head of his department, is obliged to submit to congress an estimate of expenses necessary for its efficient operations for each fiscal year. JNO. W. CLAMPITT. MINNESOTAMINNESOTA, a state in the American Union. That portion east of the Mississippi was a part of the territory ceded by Virginia, and was left out of the limits of the last entire state formed out of the northwest territory. (See TERRITORIES, ORDINANCE OF 1787, WISCONSIN.) That portion west of the Mississippi was a part of the territory ceded by France; it was successively a part of the territories of Missouri and Iowa, and was left out of the limits of the state of Iowa. as finally organized. (See ANNEXATIONS, I.; MISSOURI; IOWA.) By act of March 3. 1849, the two portions, with the modern territory of Dakota, were organized into the territory of Minnesota. An enabling act. for those inhabitants within the modern state of Minnesota, was passed Feb. 26, 1857. —BOUNDARIES. The boundaries assigned by the enabling act, and accepted by the state constitution, were as follows: "Beginning at the point in the centre of the main channel of the Red River of the North. where the boundary line between the United States and the British possessions crosses the same; thence up the main channel of said river to that of the Bois des Sioux river; thence up the main channel of said river to Lake Traverse; thence up the centre of said lake to the southern extremity thereof; thence in a direct line to the head of Big Stone lake; thence through its centre to its outlet; thence by a due south line to the north line of the state of Iowa; thence cast along the northern boundary of said state to the main channel of the Mississippi river; thence up the main channel of said river, and following the boundary line of the state of Wisconsin, until the same intersects the Saint Louis river; thence down said river to and through Lake Superior, on the boundary line of Wisconsin and Michigan, until it intersects the dividing line between the United States and the British possessions; thence up Pigeon river, and following said dividing line, to the place of beginning." —CONSTITUTION. Two constitutional conventions, one composed of republicans and one composed of democrats, were organized under the enabling act. Both met July 13, 1857, and, having finally come to a mutual understanding, agreed upon the same constitution, and adjourned Aug. 29. The joint constitution was ratified by an almost unanimous popular vote. It forbade slavery, "feudal tenures of every description," and leases of agricultural land for more than twenty-one years. The governor's term was fixed at two years. The right of suffrage was given to white male citizens over twenty-one, on a residence of one year in the United States and four months in the state. The capital was fixed at St. Paul, with a permission to the legislature to remove it. Under this constitution the state was admitted by act of May 11, 1858. The following amendments were made to the constitution in subsequent years: in 1858 the governor was allowed to issue not more than $5,000,000 in bonds, secured by a pledge of the faith and credit of the state, to aid certain railroads within the state; in 1860 the foregoing amendment was expunged, and the levy of any tax to pay the interest or principal of the bonds issued was prohibited, unless the levy should be ratified by a popular vote; in 1868 the word "white" was struck out of the suffrage clause; and in 1876 the legislature was empowered to allow women to vote at school elections. —GOVERNORS. Henry H. Sibley, 1858; Alexander Ramsey. 1858-62; Stephen Miller, 1862-6; Wm. R. Marshall, 1866-70; Horace Austin, 1870-74; Cushman K. Davis, 1874-6; John S. Pillsbury, 1876-82; I. F. Hubbard. 1882-4. —POLITICAL HISTORY. The political history of the state may be briefly summed up in the statement that it is and has always been a republican state. Its electoral votes have always been cast for republican candidates, and all its governors, United States senators and congressmen have been republicans, with the exceptions of the first governor, Sibley, Senator Rice, and the congressman from the second district in 1879-81, who were democrats. The republican majority in the state has been steadily increasing, as shown by the votes for governor in the following years 1865, 17,335 to 13,864; 1875, 46,175 to 35,373; 1879, 55,918 to 41,583. The only reasonably close election was in 1869 when the republican vote was 27,348 to 25,401. The legislature has always been republican in both branches, usually by a two-thirds or greater majority. In 1874, an exceptional year, the republican majority was only twenty-one to twenty in the senate, and fifty-four to fifty-two in the house, but it immediately and rapidly increased again until in 1881 it was twenty-nine to twelve in the senate and eighty-six to twenty in the house. —The most important question in state politics has been that of the state's railroad bonds. The original constitution prohibited the loaning of the credit of the state to any corporation. The desire of the people for railroad improvement led them in April, 1858, to adopt the amendment noticed above, under the constitution: the vote in its favor was 25,023 to 6,733. Under this amendment $2,275,000 in bonds, guaranteed by the faith and credit of the state, was issued and transferred to third parties. In the panic which immediately followed, the railroads defaulted, and the state foreclosed on their lands, road beds and franchises, which were transferred to new railroads and have developed the present railroad system of the state. In 1860 the new amendment, practically repudiating the bonds, was passed. In 1869 a bill to set aside 500,000 acres of land for the payment of the bonds passed both houses, but was not signed by the governor. May 2, 1871, a proposition to submit the claim of the bondholders to arbitration was submitted to a popular vote and was defeated, 21,499 to 9,293. Governor Pillsbury omitted no opportunity, from his inaugural Jan. 7, 1876, until October, 1881, to urge upon the legislature the duty of some provision for the payment of the "dishonored bonds," and their final settlement is largely due to his unremitting exertions. The act of March 1, 1877, authorized the issue of new 6 per cent. bonds at the rate of $1,500 for $1,750 and accrued interest. Bonds were not to be issued until the people should ratify an amendment setting aside 500,000 acres of land to secure their redemption. The amendment was defeated, June 12, by a vote of 59,176 to 17,324. In 1881 most of the bondholders offered to surrender their bonds on payment of one-half their face value; and the legislature accepted the terms, March 2. Soon afterward the state supreme court decided that the repudiation amendment of 1860 was void, as it impaired the obligation of a contract; and that the legislature was competent to pay this, as a legal and valid indebtedness of the state. In October the arrangement was consummated, and the long suspended debt was canceled. —Apart from this question, interest in state politics has been confined to occasional attempts to remove the state capital, a bill for which purpose was passed and vetoed in 1869, and to attempts to organize distinct farmers' or temperance parties. None of these last have as yet met any great success. —Among the more prominent leaders in state politics have been the following; Ignatius Donnelly, republican representative 1863-9, and democratic candidate for representative in 1878; Mark H. Dunnell, republican representative 1871-83; S. J. R. McMillan, justice of the state supreme court 1864-74. chief justice 1874-5, and United States senator 1875-87; Alexander Ramsey, whig representative from Pennsylvania 1843-7, governor of Minnesota territory 1849-53, and state 1858-62, and secretary of war under Hayes; Henry M. Rice, democratic United States senator 1858-63; Henry H. Sibley, governor in 1858, and democratic candidate for representative in 1880; Wm. D. Washburn, republican representative 1879-85; Wm. Windom, republican representative 1859-69, United States senator 1870-81 and 1881-3, and secretary of the treasury under Garfield. —The name of the territory and state was given from that of its principal river, an Indian word, said to mean "sky-tinted water." —See 2 Poore's Federal and State Constitutions; 9 Stat, at Large, 403. 11: 167, 285 (for acts of March 3, 1849, Feb. 26, 1857, and May 11, 1858, respectively); Smith's Constitutional Convention of 1857; Neill's History of Minnesota (1858); Gale's Upper Mississippi (1600-1867); Tribune Almanac (1859-81): Messages of Gov. Pillsbury (Jan. 7, 1876-Oct. 12, 1881); Porter's West in 1880, 250. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON. MINORITY REPRESENTATIONMINORITY REPRESENTATION. (See REPRESENTATION.) MISSISSIPPIMISSISSIPPI, a state of the American Union. Its territory consists mainly of land ceded by Georgia to the United States in 1802, a strip about twelve miles wide along the northern edge being a part of the South Carolina cession of 1790. (For both see TERRITORIES.) That part of the state from the parallel of 31° north to an east and west line passing through the mouth of the Yazoo river seems rightfully to have been ceded by Great Britain to the United States in the treaty of 1783; but it was claimed by Georgia, and was included in her cession. The portion of the state south of the parallel of 31° was ceded to the United States by France in 1803. (See ANNEXATIONS, I., II.) —The act of April 7, 1798, for the appointment of commissioners for the Georgia cession, authorized the president to form a territorial government in the ceded territory like that of the northwest territory (see ORDINANCE OF 1787), "excepting and excluding the last article of the ordinance." (See SLAVERY.) In this way the cession became slave territory, and subsequently a slave state. The organization of Mississippi territory was formally completed by the supplemental act of May 10, 1800. The name of Mississippi was given to the territory, and subsequently to the state, from the name of the river which was its western boundary, an Indian word signifying "the great river," or "the whole river," not "father of waters" as it is usually translated. By an enabling act of March 1, 1817, the inhabitants of the western part of the state (see ALABAMA) were authorized to form a state Government. —BOUNDARIES. The enabling act prescribed the following as the boundaries of the new state: "Beginning on the river Mississippi at the point where the southern boundary line of the state of Tennessee strikes the same; thence east along the said boundary line to the Tennessee river; thence up the same to the mouth of Bear creek; thence by a direct line to the northwest corner of the county of Washington; thence due south to the gulf of Mexico; thence westwardly, including all the islands within six leagues of the shore, to the most eastern junction of Pearl river with lake Borgne; thence up said river to the 31st degree of north latitude; thence west, along the said degree of latitude, to the Mississippi river; thence up the same to the beginning." These boundaries were accepted by the first constitution of the state. —CONSTITUTIONS. A convention at the town of Washington, July 7-Aug. 15, 1817, formed the first constitution, which was ratified by popular vote. It confined the right of suffrage to free white males, twenty one years of age or more, on a residence of one year in the state and six months in the county. The legislature was composed of a house of representatives chosen for one year, and a senate for three years. Property qualifications were imposed as follows: on the governor the possession of 600 acres, or $2,000 worth of land; on senators 300 acres, or $1,000 worth; and on representatives 150 acres, or $500 worth. The governor was to hold office for two years, and was to remove judges on address of two thirds of both houses. The legislature was forbidden to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without consent of their owners, unless a slave should render some distinguished service to the state, in which case the owner was to be paid a full equivalent; or to pass any laws to prevent immigrants from bringing their bona fide slaves into the state; but was to have full power to prevent the bringing of slaves into the state as merchandise. In capital cases slaves were never to be deprived of the right of trial by jury. Under this constitution the state was admitted Dec. 10, 1817. —The second constitution was formed by a convention at Jackson, Sept. 10-Oct. 26. 1832. and was ratified by popular vote. Its principal. changes were as follows: no property qualification for office or suffrage was ever to be required; representatives were to hold office for two years and senators for four years; the capital was fixed at Jackson; the legislature was empowered to direct in what courts suits against the state were to be brought; the introduction of slaves for the buyer's own use was permitted until 1845; and the provision for a jury trial-for slaves was omitted. —A state convention at Jackson, Jan. 7, 1861, passed an ordinance of secession, Jan. 9, which was not submitted to popular vote. Another convention, Aug. 14-26, 1865, made two amendments to the constitution, the second of which prohibited slavery thereafter in the state, and empowered the legislature to provide by law for the protection of the freedmen, and to guard against the evils that might arise from their sudden emancipation. —A reconstruction convention at Jackson, Jan. 7-May 15, 1868. formed a constitution, which was at first rejected by popular vote, June 28, but was afterward ratified, Nov. 30-Dec. 1, 1868. Its more important changes were as follows: all citizens of the United States, resident in the state, were to be citizens of the state; no property or educational qualifications were ever to be required for electors, and this provision was not to be amended before the year 1885; slavery was forbidden; "the right to withdraw from the federal Union on account of any real or supposed grievances shall never be assumed by this state, nor shall any law be passed in derogation of the paramount allegiance of the citizens of this state to the government of the United States"; the governor's term was lengthened to four years, and he was given the power to call forth the militia to suppress "riots," as well as insurrections; the right of suffrage was to be limited to such persons as could swear that they were "not disfranchised in any of the provisions of the acts known as the reconstruction acts of the 39th and 40th congresses," but this was not to apply to persons whose disabilities should be removed by congress, provided the state legislature concurred therein; no one was to hold office who was not a qualified elector as aforesaid, or who in any way voted for or aided secession or rebellion; and the ordinance of secession was declared null and void. (See RECONSTRUCTION.) —GOVERNORS. David Holmes, 1817-19; George Poindexter, 1819-21; Walter Leake, 1821-5; David Holmes, 1825 -7; Gerard C. Brandon, 1827-31; Abraham M. Scott, 1831-3; Hiram G. Runnels, 1833-5; Charles Lynch, 1835-7; Alexander G. McNutt, 1837-41; Tilghman M. Tucker, 1841-3; Albert G. Brown, 1843-8; Joseph W. Matthews, 1848-50, John A. Quitman, 1850-52; Henry S. Foote, 1852-4; John J. MacRae, 1854-8; William McWillie, 1858-60; John J. Pettus, 1860-62; Jacob Thompson, 1862-4; Charles Clarke, 1864, until superseded in 1865; Wm. L. Sharkey, provisional, 1865-6; Benj. G. Humphreys, 1866-8; Adelbert Ames, provisional, 1868-70; Jas L. Alcorn, 1870-74; Adelbert Ames, 1874-8; John M. Stone, 1878-82. —POLITICAL HISTORY. The electoral vote of the state has always been given to democratic candidates, except in 1840 and 1848, when it was given to Harrison and Taylor respectively, whigs, and in 1872, when it was given to Grant, republican; in 1864 and 1868 the vote of the state was not counted. (See ELECTORAL VOTES.) The whig party of the state, though usually unsuccessful, was always a strong minority, polling about 45 per cent. of the total vote; and so late as 1856, when its organization had taken the name of the American party, it still polled 41 per cent. of the total vote. —During the same period the state elections were almost as steadily democratic. The whigs were a strong minority in both houses of the legislature, and occasionally, as in 1841, 1842 and 1852, obtained a majority in one or both houses. Until 1842 the two representatives in congress were chosen by general ticket, and in 1837 the whigs elected both; with this exception the state's representatives were democratic. After 1842, when congressmen were chosen by districts, the only exceptions to the general rule were the elections of one whig representative in 1847 and one pro slavery know. nothing in 1855. After 1856 the opposition to the dominant party became steadily weaker; in 1855 it had polled 27.694 votes to 32,638, while in 1859 the proportion was but 10 308 to 34 559. In 1860 the democrats controlled both houses of the legislature by majorities of 27 to 4 in the senate and 86 to 14 in the house. Two political contests of this period deserve more particular mention. —The Union Bank Bonds. At the session of the legislature in 1837 an act was passed "to incorporate the subscribers to the Mississippi Union Bank." As the constitution required in such cases, it was published to the people, and re-en-acted Feb 5, 1838. The act provided for the issue of $15,500,000 in state stock to the bank, as capital, as soon as a corresponding amount in private subscriptions should come in. A supplementary act of Feb. 15, 1838, changed the conditions to an immediate issue of $5,000,000 of state stock, prior to private subscriptions, and this was the change which was afterward alleged to be unconstitutional. The stock was issued and sold at a heavy discount through the bank of the United States, but the sale was sanctioned by the legislature in 1839. It was not until July 14, 1841, that the governor, McNutt, who had signed the acts mentioned, and had ordered the issue of the remaining $10,500,000 to the bank in 1839, declared his belief that the first issue of $5,000,000 was unconstitutional and void. The question of their payment at once became a political one. T. M. Tucker, who had opposed the first issue in the legislature, heading the opposition to its payment. In 1841 Tucker was elected governor, and thereafter the repudiation of the first issue was made final. A resolution of the legislature in 1842 denied that the state was under any obligation, legal or moral, to redeem the bonds; and in 1873 an amendment to the state constitution forbade the legislature to make any provision for their redemption. —The Davis-Foote Campaign. In 1850 the time for secession seemed to be close at hand. (See SECESSION.) Of the two United States senators of the state, Jefferson Davis was the leader of the pronounced secessionists, and Henry S Foote of those who were against the advisability of secession. (See ALLEGIANCE,II.) Both resigned. and began a joint canvass for the governorship in 1852, in order to bring the issue plainly before the people. Davis polled 27,729 votes to 28,738, and was beaten for the time. At the same time Davis' party had a majority (21 to 11) in the senate, and Foote's a majority (68 to 35) in the house. The anti-Davis party had a popular majority of 28,403 to 21,241 on the question of a state convention. —RECONSTRUCTION. The close of the war of the rebellion found very little semblance of government in the state, which had suffered enormously during the war. Preparations had been made to aid Gov. Clarke in reorganizing civil government, when his functions were suspended by the appointment of Wm. L. Sharkey as provisional governor, June 13, 1865. Under his guidance the reorganization was completed, Gov. Humphreys was elected Dec. 2, and the whole state government began operations Dec. 16. Its functions were again suspended by the act of March 2, 1867. (See RECONSTRUCTION.) In no state was congressional reconstruction more relentlessly opposed than in Mississippi. Maj. Gen A. C. Gillem, military governor of the state, succeeded in forming a convention, but the constitution which it formed contained so many severe restrictions upon the rights of suffrage and of office holding by those who had taken part in the rebellion as to intensify the opposition. The state appealed in vain to the United States supreme court against the reconstruction acts, and a majority of its voters rejected the constitution. Adelbert Ames was then appointed provisional governor, Humphreys' functions being suspended. At the beginning of 1869 four years had been lost, the state was in about as bad a plight as in 1865, and there seemed to be little hope for the future adoption of the obnoxious constitution. The act of congress of April 10, 1869, therefore ordered a new election in the state, and authorized the president to submit the disfranchising clauses and the test oaths to a separate vote, but required the new legislature to ratify the 15th amendment, as well as the 14th, before readmission. In the election, though the constitution was adopted by a vote of 76,186 to 38,097, and all the radical republican candidates for governor, state officers and congressmen were elected, the proscriptive clauses were struck out by very heavy majorities. The new legislature, in which the republicans had majorities of 26 to 7 in the senate and 82 to 23 in the house, ratified the amendments, and the state was readmitted Feb. 17, 1870. March 10 the governor was inaugurated. —The republican majority in the state, mainly colored, was unbroken for five years. For a time the democrats made a peaceable but very apparent inroad upon it. In 1871 they came within two votes of a tie in the house, and in 1872 they carried one of the six congressional districts. In 1875, however, driven to desperation either by the peculation and fraud of negro officials, or by the pent-up wrath of a five years' peaceable struggle on even terms with a former slave race, the white democracy resorted to what was elsewhere called "the Mississippi plan." Open violence seems to have had little or no share in it. Midnight rides by companies of red-shirted horsemen, an occasional volley from harmless pistols, and the careful dissemination of startling rumors among the black population, furnish a combination of influences sufficient to explain the sudden decrease in the negro vote. At the election of Nov. 2. 1875, the republican party of the state went by the board. The democrats carried five of the six congressional districts, and, what was of more importance to them, both houses of the legislature; their majority in the senate was 26 to 11 and in the house 97 to 20. Feb. 23, 1876, the new legislature, after getting rid of the other state officers, impeached Gov. Ames for "inciting a war of races" in several specified instances. March 28 the governor offered to resign if the impeachment was dropped. This arrangement was carried into effect, and J. M. Stone, president of the senate, became governor Since that time the state has been democratic in all elections, and in 1880-81 there was but one republican in the senate out of thirty-seven and seven in the house out of 120. (See INSURRECTION, II) —A new element of opposition, the national party, or greenbackers, has developed in the state, and under that organization it has been possible for white voters to make head against the dominant party without becoming identified with a negro party. In 1880-81 this new element had two members in the senate and fourteen in the house, and polled a considerable vote in three of the congressional districts. In 1881 it combined with the republicans, and was only defeated in the state election by a very narrow majority. Its possible future results are only a matter for speculation. The republican party of the state, however, is by no means dead. In 1880, it is alleged, it carried the notorious "shoe-string district" (see GERRYMANDER), and was only "counted out" with great difficulty. —Jefferson Davis (see his name) is the only citizen of the state who has become notably prominent in national politics. Among the other leaders of the state are the following: William Barksdale, democratic representative 1853-61, killed at Gettysburg; Albert G. Brown, democratic representative 1839-41 and 1848-53, United States senator 1854-61, and confederate states senator 1862-5; Henry S. Foote, United States senator 1847-52. and governor 1832-4 (see TENNESSEE); L. Q. C. Lamar, democratic representative 1857-61 and 1873-7, and United States senator 1877-83, George Poindexter, democratic representative 1817-19, governor 1819-21, and United States senator 1830-35; Sergeant S. Prentiss (see WHIG PARTY), whig representative 1838-9; John A. Quitman, major general in the Mexican war, governor 1850-52, democratic representative 1833-8; Jacob Thompson, democratic representative 1839-51, and secretary of the interior under Buchanan; and Robert J. Walker, democratic United States senator 1836-45, secretary of the treasury under Polk, governor of Kansas in 1857, and financial agent to Europe under Lincoln. —See 1 Stat. at Large, 549, 2:70. 3:348, 472 (for acts of April 7, 1798. May 10. 1800, March 1, 1817, and Dec. 10, 1817. respectively); 2 Poore's Federal and State Constitutions; Monette's History of the Mississippi Valley (to 1846); Tribune Almanac, 1838-81; Nine Years of Democratic Rule in Mississippi (1838-47); 10 Democratic Review, 3,365; J. Thompson's Speech in the House of Representatives (Jan. 10, 1842); Report of Committee on Union Bank Bonds to the Legislature (Feb., 1842); Walker's Slavery, Finances and Repudiation; Claiborne's Life of Quitman; authorities under DAVIS, J.; H. S. Foote's Casket of Reminiscences (1874); 3 Reporter, Nos. 43-46; McPherson's History of the Reconstruction, 239, (see also index under Mississippi). ALEXANDER JOHNSTON. MISSOURIMISSOURI, a state of the American Union, formed from the Louisiana purchase. (See ANNEXATIONS, I.) —BOUNDARIES. When the territory of Orleans, afterward the state of Louisiana, was organized (see LOUISIANA), the entire remainder of the new purchase was organized, by act of March 3, 1805, as the territory of Louisiana, and its name was changed to Missouri territory by act of June 4, 1812. (See also ARKANSAS) March 6, 1820, an enabling act was passed (see COMPROMISES, IV.), authorizing the formation of a state government by the people of Missouri, within the following boundaries: "Beginning in the middle of the Mississippi river on the parallel of 36° north latitude; thence due west to the Saint Francois river, and up that river to the parallel 36° 30' north latitude; thence due west to a point where the said parallel is intersected by a meridian line passing through the middle of the mouth of the Kansas river, where the same empties into the Missouri river; thence due north to the intersection of the parallel which passes through the rapids of the river Des Moines; thence east to the middle of the channel of the main fork of the Des Moines river, down the Des Moines to the Mississippi, and down the Mississippi to the place of beginning." The northern boundary line of the state was long undecided. Iowa claimed that the rapids in the Mississippi, called by the French explorers La rapides la riviere Des Moines were the point through which the parallel above referred to was to pass; Missouri argued for certain rapids, or ripples, in the Des Moines itself, some twenty-five miles farther north. In the dispute between the two states military force was repeatedly threatened, and once employed, and a Missouri sheriff was arrested and imprisoned. Acts of congress, for the purpose of ascertaining the true boundary line, were passed June 18, 1838, July 20, 1840, March 3, 1841, and June 17, 1844; but all were unsatisfactory and unsuccessful. Another act of Aug. 4, 1846, referred the whole question to the United States supreme court. Its decision was in favor of Iowa, and this was confirmed by act of Feb. 15, 1848, and ended the dispute. On the other hand, by the act of June 7, 1836, congress extended the state on the west to the Missouri river, thus giving it, says Benton, "an addition equal in extent to such states as Delaware and Rhode Island, by its fertility equal to one of the third class of states." By the Missouri compromise this was to have been forever free soil, but this act made it part of a slave state. —CONSTITUTIONS. The state's first constitution was adopted by a convention at St. Louis, June 12-July 19 1820. It forbade the legislature to pass emancipation laws without consent of owners, or to prevent immigrants from bringing slaves with them; it ordered the legislature "to prevent free negroes and mulattoes from coming to and settling in this state under any pretext whatsoever"; it fixed the governor's term at four years; and it directed the permanent seat of government to be located on the Missouri river, within forty miles of the mouth of the Osage. The capital was laid out accordingly, and named Jefferson City; and the legislature held its first session there, Nov. 20, 1826. —The constitution was presented to congress at its next session, and the "free negro clause" revived the excitement which had been allayed by the Missouri compromise. The bill for the state's admission passed the senate; in the house a proviso was added that Missouri should abolish slavery; and the two house disagreed. Another compromise was finally adopted, March 2, 1821, by which Missouri was to be admitted on the fundamental condition that the legislature should pledge the faith of the state that the "free negro clause" should never be executed. June 26, 1821, the legislature passed a "public and irrevocable act" in the terms required; but a long preamble declared that the action of congress was palpably unconstitutional and grossly insulting to the state. that the people of Missouri did not intend to respect or be bound by the condition, but that the act was passed as the only means of securing immediate admission. President Monroe chose to consider this measure of compliance as sufficient, and declared Missouri admitted by his proclamation of Aug. 10, 1821. —The amendments to the constitution of 1820 were mainly in the direction of an entirely elective judiciary. A new constitution was framed by a state convention, Nov. 7, 1845-Jan. 14, 1846, but was rejected by popular vote. —The state convention which was called in 1861, with the hope of securing an ordinance of secession, proved to be the most extraordinary convention in the history of any state. It held five sessions, Feb. 28-March 22, 1861, July 22-31, 1861. Oct. 10-18, 1861, June 2-14, 1862, and June 15-July 1, 1863. Circumstances (see political history below) made the convention a revolutionary governing body for the state, even when the legislature was in session; it abolished or suspended state offices, abrogated state laws, disfranchised voters unable to take a test oath of past loyalty, changed, suspended or forbade elections by the people, and even abolished slavery after July 4, 1870. —After the close of the war within the state a new constitution was framed by a convention at St. Louis, Jan. 6-April 10, 1865. It abolished slavery; it excluded every person who had "ever been in armed hostility to the United States," or who had ever committed any one of a long list of offenses against the government, from the right of suffrage, from holding any office of honor, trust or profit in the state, in any corporation, or in any school; it provided for a registration of "qualified voters"; and it ordered a comprehensive test oath of past loyalty to be taken by all applicants for registration or aspirants to office. All these provisions were the result of a deep-seated resentment against the politicians who in 1861 had endeavored to hurry the state into secession against the wish of its people, and had thus made it the theatre of an unusually savage and desolating warfare. Nevertheless, the popular majority in favor of it was only 43,670 to 41,808. —All the disfranchisement clauses were wiped out by an amendment ratified Nov. 8, 1870. A new constitution was framed by a convention at Jefferson City, May 5-Aug. 2, 1875, and was ratified Oct. 30, by a popular vote of 90,600 to 14,362. It increased the governor's term to four years; it forbade special legislation on a great number of specified subjects; it forbade the contracting of debt by the legislature for more than $250,000 in any one year, unless the act should be approved by a two-thirds majority of the qualified voters of the state, at an election for that purpose; it forbade the creation of corporations except by general law; and it made a residence of one year in the state, sixty days in the precinct, or declaration of intention to become a citizen, the only restrictions upon manhood suffrage. —GOVERNORS. Alexander McNair, 1820-24; Frederick Bates, 1824-8; John Miller, 1828-32; Daniel Dunklin, 1832-6; Lilburn W. Boggs, 1836-40; Thomas Reynolds, 1840-44; John C. Edwards, 1844-8; Austin A. King, 1848-52; Sterling Price, 1852-6; Trusten Polk, 1856-60; Claiborne F. Jackson, 1860-61; Hamilton R. Gamble, provisional, 1861-4; Thos. C. Fletcher, 1864-8; Jos. W. McClurg, 1868-70; B. Gratz Brown, 1870-72; Silas Woodson, 1872-4; Chas. H. Harding, 1874-6; John S. Phelps, 1876-80; Thomas T. Crittenden, 1880-84. —POLITICAL HISTORY. The state entered the Union during the "era of good feeling," and struggles for office were at first rather personal than political. The governors, senators and congressmen were fully in sympathy with the Monroe and Adams administrations, and the electoral vote of the state was cast for Monroe in 1820 and for Clay in 1824. Since that year the state has been democratic in all general elections, except during the period 1862-70, referred to below, including the two presidential elections of 1864 and 1868, when the state was republican. Until 1860 all the governors and legislatures were democratic, the proportion of the state vote being very steadily about 55 per cent. democratic and 45 per cent. opposition (whig until 1855, and American or know-nothing thereafter); the only exception was in 1852, when, after forty-eight ballots, a coalition of free-soil democrats and whigs elected the speaker of the house. —In the early history of the state there is little of general political interest until about 1849-50, when the disruption of the state democratic party took place, and the leadership of it was wrested from Senator Benton. Benton's followers had for some half dozen years been known as "hards," mainly from the "hard money" ideas of their leader, while his democratic opponents were called "softs." In 1849 the "softs" carried through the legislature the "Jackson resolutions of '49," which pledged the state to co-operation with the other slaveholding states against any attempt to exclude slavery from the territories. Benton denounced the resolutions as secessionist and treasonable, refused to obey them, and appealed to the people. His party in the state was led by F. P. Blair, B. Gratz Brown, Richard A. Barrett and Arnold Krekel; the "softs" by Sterling Price and Claiborne F. Jackson; and the whigs by Samuel Woodson and Thomas Allen. The result was that Benton was beaten, lost his senatorship, and, after serving a term in the house of representatives, was beaten in the election for governor in 1856, polling a smaller vote than either the "soft" or the know-nothing candidate. From that time the whole party machinery was in the hands of the "softs," or pro-slavery party. —A state convention met at Jefferson City, Feb. 28, 1861, to "consider the relations" between Missouri and the federal government. The act calling the convention had stipulated that no ordinance of secession should be valid until ratified by popular vote; but this was needless, as the convention proved to have a Union majority. March 4 the convention again met at St. Louis, listened to a secession commissioner from Georgia, and refused to join in the secession movement. But, though the convention and the popular majority were unionist, the state officers, the legislature and the leading "soft" politicians were strongly secessionist. Preparations were busily made to levy was against the United States; these were defeated by the energy of the federal general, Nathaniel Lyon; and in May the state became the theatre of open war. When the state convention reassembled, July 22, 1861, at Jefferson City, it found the state government suspended. The governor, the lieutenant governor, the president of the senate, the speaker of the house, a majority of the legislature and a part of the convention itself, including its president, Sterling Price, had fled the state, after an unsuccessful attempt at armed revolution. The convention, therefore, as the only representative of the people of the state, assumed the powers of government. July 30 it declared vacant the offices of the governor, the lieutenant governor and the members of the legislature, and appointed a provisional governor, Hamilton R. Gamble, and a provisional lieutenant governor, Willard P. Hall, who retained their positions until 1864. Aug. 5, 1861, Gov. Jackson, by proclamation, declared the independence of Missouri; and Nov. 2 the secession remnant of the legislature, at Neosho, voted the state into the southern confederacy and elected senators and representatives to the confederate congress. (See CONFEDERATE STATES.) The legislature which met Dec. 29, 1862, had a majority in both branches in favor of the abolition of slavery in the state, and the state convention passed an ordinance of gradual abolition in 1863. (See ABOLITION, III.) By this time the forces of the state had been disciplined so thoroughly that they were able to defeat a rebel army under Shelby; and the state convention finally adjourned and left the ordinary state government in operation. The electoral vote of the state in 1864 was given to Lincoln by a popular vote of more than two to one, and the "radical republicans" elected the governor, the other state officers, a heavy majority of the legislature, and eight of the nine congressmen. —A new state convention met at St. Louis, Jan. 6, 1865, finally abolished slavery (see ABOLITION, III.) and formed a new constitution. Its most noteworthy features were the disfranchisement of any person who had taken part in any manner in the rebellion, the establishment of a rigid "oath of loyalty" and the provision that no person could vote, hold any state, county or municipal office, teach in any school, preach, solemnize marriage or practice law, unless he could take the stipulated oath that he had never committed any of the long list of offenses for which disfranchisement was made the penalty. The attempt to carry this test oath into effect was resisted throughout the state by ministers of all denominations, by teachers, lawyers and others, and before the end of the year the oath itself was pronounced unconstitutional by the United States supreme court, as an ex post facto law. The attempt to enforce it was then abandoned, except in the registration law of 1868, which empowered the registrars to reject the names of persons guilty of enumerated offenses, even if they offered to take the oath. In 1868 the "radical republicans" again elected their state ticket, presidential electors, a majority of the legislature, and six out of the nine representatives in congress. —In 1870 the feeling against the disfranchising clauses of the constitution had become so strong that it split the dominant party. The "liberal republicans," headed by Senator Carl Schurz and B. Gratz Brown, desired "universal amnesty and universal enfranchisement," both of negroes and former rebels. In the republican state convention. Sept. 2, the majority of the committee on resolutions made a report conveying the views of the "liberal republicans." It was rejected by a vote of 349 to 342, whereupon 250 of the delegates withdrew, organized a separate convention, and nominated Brown for governor and a full state ticket. The liberal ticket, supported by the democrats, was successful by a popular vote of 104,771 to 62,854. The liberals and democrats also elected a majority of the legislature, and six of the nine congressmen. At the same election an amendment to the constitution was ratified, abolishing the test oath and disfranchisement clauses. (For the national development of the liberal movement see LIBERAL REPUBLICAN PARTY.) —In 1872 the fusion of liberal republicans and democrats elected the state ticket, the Greeley presidential electors, a majority of the legislature, and nine of the thirteen congressmen. Since that time the state has been democratic in all elections, and in 1874 the republicans even dropped their party name, assuming for the time that of the "people's party." In 1876 and 1880 the electoral vote of the state was given to the democratic candidates by heavy popular majorities. In the congressional elections of 1880 the democrats elected eight congressmen, four of the others being "republican greenbackers" and one republican. In almost all the congressional districts the struggle at this election was very close and doubtful: one of the representatives received a majority of but two votes out of 41,552, and the majorities of several others were exceedingly meagre—Among the citizens of Missouri who have become prominent in national polities are Thos. H. Bentor, F. P. Blair and Carl Schurz. (See those names.) The following also should be mentioned: David R. Atchison, United States senator 1843-55, and a prominent pro-slavery leader in the Kansas struggle (see KANSAS); Edward Bates, national republican representative in congress 1827-9, afterward prominent as a whig politician in the state, president of the whig national convention in 1856, and attorney general under Lincoln; Henry T. Blow, minister to Venezuela 1861-2 and to Brazil 1869-71, and republican representative 1869-71; James O. Broadhead, a whig leader until the downfall of that party, an active union leader during the rebellion, and provost marshal of the state; B. Gratz Brown, United States senator 1863-7, governor 1870-72, and liberal republican candidate for vice-president in 1872; John B. Clark, democratic representative 1857-61 (expelled), and senator in the confederate congress; John B. Clark, Jr., democratic representative 1873-83; F. M. Cockrell, United States senator 1875-87; John B. Henderson, one of the Douglas democratic leaders in 1860, and United States senator 1862-9; Lewis F. Linn, United States senator (democratic) 1833-43; Jos. W. McClurg, republican representative 1863-8, and governor 1868-70. Sterling Price, democratic representative 1845-6, brigadier general in the Mexican war, governor 1853-7, and confederate major general; Jas. S. Rollins, whig candidate for governor in 1848 and 1856, and republican representative 1861-5; and David Wagner, chief justice of the state supreme court 1865-80. —The name of Missouri was given from that of its principal river, an Indian word, said to mean "muddy water," the original form of the word being Minneshoshay. —See 2 Stat. at Large, 331, 743, and 3 Stat. at Large, 545, 645 (for the acts of March 3, 1805, June 4, 1812, March 6, 1820, and March 2, 1821, respectively); 6 Benton's Debates of Congress, 711; 6 Bioren and Duane's Stat. at Large, 666 (for Missouri's assent); 7 Benton's Debates of Congress, 129 (for the president's proclamation); Cutts' Treatise on Party Questions, 73; 1 Benton's Thirty Years' View, 8, 626; 2 von Holst's United States, 143; authorities under COMPROMISES, IV., and ELECTORS, III.; Gale's Upper Mississippi (1600- 1867); Monette's History of the Mississippi Valley; 1 Draper's Civil War, 349; and 2:227; Shepard's Early History of St. Louis and Missouri; Münch's Der Staat Missouri (1859); 21 Atlantic Monthly ("Free Missouri."); Davis and Durrie's History of Missouri (1876); Porter's West in 1880. 296. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON MODUS VIVENDIMODUS VIVENDI. The law of nations formulates the laws, rules and usages in force among the different states. But that these laws, rules and usages may be considered as in force, it is necessary that the states should have recognized each other, that is to say, it is necessary that they should mutually consider each other as states. Now, it may happen, for one reason or another, that a government does not wish to, or can not, morally, recognize a given state; if this state is situated at a distance, it has only to be ignored; it is treated as if it did not exist. There may be then, it is true, some difficulties for such subjects of the government as are obliged to visit such a country, and who have to put themselves under the protection of another state, but there is no difficulty between the two governments. The case is not the same when the two powers are contiguous. It is then impossible for them to ignore each other, they must live together, and then it may be desirable to establish a modus vivendi. Generally such a situation is settled by a war, but when Cavour first used this expression in 1860, war between Italy and the pope was morally and politically impossible. After the installation of the Italian government at Rome, it was necessary to seek a modus vivendi for the relations between the king and the pope. —This expression, of which we find no trace in treatises on international law yet published, is of quite frequent use at present, and, the word being found, the situation would appear to be more frequent than during the past, the more so since war is not so easily decided upon, when it is necessary to put millions of men on foot and expend billions of money. MAURICE BLOCK. MOHAMMEDANISMMOHAMMEDANISM is the most recent of the great religious creations of humanity.55 Instead of the mystery in which the other religions hide their origin, this one was born in the full light of history; its origin is visible. The life of Mohammed is as well known to us as the lives of the reformers of the sixteenth century. The fundamental principles alone of Islamism will be presented here, with the political or social revolutions which it has produced. —Islamism has in reality but two dogmas: the unity of God, and the prophetic office of Mohammed. Mohammed was no more the founder of monotheism among the Arabs than he was of their civilization and literature. The worship of the supreme Allah seems to have always formed the basis of the religion of the Arabs. The Semitic race has never conceived the government of the universe in any other form than that of an absolute monarchy. Numerous superstitious, tainted with idolatry and varying from tribe to tribe, had changed, however, among the Arabs the purity of the patriarchal faith, and after coming into contact with more firmly organized religions all the better minds of Arabia aspired to a higher worship. In the sixth century that country, till then inaccessible, was thrown open on every side. The Syrians introduced letters. The Abyssinians and the Persians reigned alternately in Yemen and Bahreïn. Whole tribes had embraced Judaism; Christianity had large churches at Nedjian, in the kingdoms of Hira and Ghassan. A species of vague toleration and syncretism of all religious was finally established; the ideas of one God, of paradise, of the resurrection, of the prophets, spread by degrees even among pagan tribes. The Caaba became the Pantheon of all the worships, and when Mohammed excluded images from the holy house, in the number of the exiled gods was a Byzantine madonna, painted on a column, holding her son in her arms. The ceremonies of the Caaba, the processions, the sacrifices in the valley of Mina, the belief in purgatory (Arafat), were established in all their details long before Mohammed. The prophet merely consecrated these ancient usages and sanctioned them by a strict proclamation of the doctrine of future rewards and punishments. The symbol of Islamism, at least before the relatively modern invasion of theological subtleties, scarcely went beyond the simplest elements of natural religion. "There is no God but God, and Mohammed is his prophet." This is the whole Mussulman dogma. —Islamism being the least mystic of religions, its influence must be studied especially in the civil and political sphere. The new religion was an advance, so far as Arabia was concerned. It is true, that nothing could equal the charm of that society shown us by the Kitabel-Agâni and pre-Islamite poetry; never has human life been freer, more joyous, more noble, for a few. But it was a terrible anarchy. The weak children and women were scarcely protected. Although there were women at that time in Arabia who were their own mistresses. choosing their husbands and having the right to send them away whenever they pleased, no idea of an equality of rights existed. Mohammed established the right of women to inherit from their parents, restrained polygamy, even represented monogamy as a state of life agreeable to God. He recommended humanity toward slaves, advised their emancipation and abolished a multitude of inhuman practices. He desired each of the faithful to give one-tenth of his goods in alms. The Koran has become the text and the only source of the new law. It is at once a book of theology and a civil code—a collection of common law. Hence the fatal consequence, as we see, that in Islamism the civil law can never be separated from religion. No order, no methodical plan existed in the drawing up of this fundamental book. The Koran is a collection of Mohammed's discourses and orders of the day. Nothing could be more dissimilar, more contradictory. Entrusted at first to the memory, the surats (chapters of the Koran) were collected during the caliphate of Abou-Bekr, and underwent a second revision under that of Othman. This text has come down to us without essential variations. —It does not appear that Mohammed's vision extended beyond the horizon of Arabia, or that he thought his religion might suit others besides Arabs. The conquering principle of Islamism, the idea that all the world should become Mussulman, appears to have originated with Omar. Governing after the death of Mohammed under the name of the feeble Abou-Bekr, at the moment when the work of the prophet, scarcely outlined, was on the brink of dissolution, he arrested the defection of the Arab tribes, and gave the new religion its universal character. He was the Paul of Islamism. In the circle of the primitive believers, among those of Mecca who had followed the prophet to Medina, and those of Medina who had aided him, the faith was almost absolute, but if we leave this little group, which did not exceed a few thousand men, we find in all the rest of Arabia nothing but very thinly disguised incredulity. The Mussulman faith had met, among the rich and proud families of Mecca, a centre of resistance which it could not entirely overcome. The other tribes of Arabia embraced Islamism only through force, without troubling themselves about the dogmas which they had to believe, and without attaching much importance to them. Certain parts of Arabia became completely Mussulman only at the beginning of the present century through the Wahhabite movement. —The party of sincere Mussulmans found their strength in Omar; but after his assassination the opposing party triumphed by the election of Othman, nephew of Abou-Sofian, the most formidable enemy of Mohammed. The entire caliphate of Othman was a violent reaction against the friends of the prophet, who saw them selves excluded from affairs and violently persecuted. They never gained the upper hand after ward. The provinces could not endure that the little aristocracy of Medina and Mecca should arrogate to itself alone the right of electing a caliph. Ali, the true representative of the primitive tradition of Islamism, was, during his whole life, an impossible man, and his election was never seriously considered in the provinces. Persia alone espoused his cause through opposition to the Semitic spirit, and rendered to the least pagan of men a worship full of paganism. —The accession of the Ommeyads brought these tendencies into full play. This family, which had become Syrian in habits and interests, was welcomed on every side. Now the orthodoxy of the Ommeyads was greatly suspected. They drank wine, practiced the rites of paganism, cared nothing for tradition. nor for the sacred character of the friends of Mohammed. Thus is explained the astonishing spectacle of the first century of the hegira altogether occupied in exterminating the real fathers of Islamism. By all ways we arrive at this singular result, that the Mussulman movement was produced almost without religious faith. Hence the state of uncertainty in which all the dogmas of the Mussulman religion are found till the twelfth century; hence that hold philosophy openly proclaiming the sovereign rights of reason; hence the numerous sects bordering sometimes on the most open infidelity—Karniathians, Fatimites, Ismailites, Druses, Hashbishins, secret double-meaning sects, joining fanaticism to unbelief, license to enthusiasm, the boldness of the freethinker to the superstition of the devotee. It was only in the twelfth century that Islamism really triumphed over the undisciplined elements which were seething in its bosom; this it did through the advent of the Ascharite theology which was more severe in its methods, and by the violent extermination of philosophy. This philosophy presents the example of a very high culture suppressed almost instantaneously and nearly forgotten by the people who created it. The caliphs of Bagdad, in the eighth and ninth centuries, had the glory of opening that brilliant series of studies which holds so large a place in the history of civilization, through the influence which it exercised on Christian Europe. The caliph Hakem in Spain renewed this noble spectacle. The taste for science and fine arts established in this favored corner of the earth a toleration of which modern times can scarcely show an example. Christians, Jews, Mussulmans, spoke the same language, chanted the same poetry, took part in the same studies. All the barriers separating men were thrown down; all labored with one accord at the common civilization. The mosques of Cordova in which students were numbered by thousands became active centres of philosophic and scientific studies. The schools of Kairoan, of Damascus, of Bagdad, of Bassorah, of Samarcand, initiated, on their part, the Mussulmans into that liberalism of manners and thought which people deprived of political liberty often demand of high intellectual culture. —No great dogmatic idea presided at the creation of the Arab philosophy. The Arabs merely adopted the entire Greek encyclopedia such as the world accepted it toward the seventh and eighth centuries. At that time Greek science played among the Syrians, the Nabatians, the Harranians, the Sassanide Persians, a rôle very similar to that which European science played in the east during the last half century. Though developed on a traditional basis, Arabic philosophy reached, especially in the eleventh and twelfth centuries a real originality, and the intellectual growth represented by Arabic scholars till the end of the twelfth century was superior to that of the Christian world. But it was unable to pass into institutions; theology in this direction opposed an impassable barrier to it. Mussulman philosophy always remained an amateur or a court functionary. As soon as fanaticism alarmed the sovereigns, philosophy disappeared, its manuscripts were burned by royal command, and Christians alone remembered that Islamism had had its scholars and its thinkers. Islamism revealed by this circumstance how incurably narrow its genius was. Incapable of transformation, or of admitting any element of civil or citizen life, it tore from its bosom every germ of rational culture. This fatal tendency was combated while Islamism was controlled by the Arabs, a keen and intellectual race, or by the Persians, a people very much given to speculation; but it had unlimited sway as soon as barbarians (Turks, Berbers, etc.) assumed the guidance of Islam. Then the Mussulman world entered that period of ignorant brutality from which it issued only to fall into the gloomy agony in which it is struggling before our eyes. —Mohammed invented nothing either in politics or religion. He established that unity of the nation which included all the Arab tribes, and which the aristocrats of Mecca had commenced for their own benefit. The creation of an executive council superior to the council of elders, the collection of alms destined to support pilgrims, the keeping of the keys of the Caaba, the management of the waters, and the discovery of the wells of Zervzen, had given the Coreishites an undisputed hegemony over Arabia, but the political bond was still lacking. Mohammed united the tribes in a sacred group. He proclaimed absolute equality among his disciples, and said, "My assembled believers can not err in a choice." Thus sovereignty departed from the oligarchy of the Coreishites and the assembly of the allied sheiks; it entered, by divine inspiration into the Mussulman church, into the assembly of the saints of Ismail. This was theocracy in the etymological sense of the word—the government not of priests, but of God himself, This political equality found its exercise in the election of the chief who was to lead the Mussulmans to the holy war, but it stopped there. Of all democracies this was the most disposed to settle into a military dictatorship, and besides there was no question of legislative power in this society; the law was already framed, and bound to be eternal. —When Abou Bekr appeared in the assembly to recite the prayers, after the death of Mohammed, he did not ascend the pulpit; he remained some steps lower. So did Omar and Othman. The caliphs (vice-prophets) never looked on themselves as inspired. The title emir-al-mouminin, which Omar took, indicated clearly what he wished to be: the prince of the faithful, the commander of the holy war. The first caliphs, however, were not distinguished from the last of the Arabs except by authority. The distinctions which then existed among the Mussulmans were altogether moral; the degree of relationship with the prophet and religious merit were the titles which determined the order of inscription in the divani (census-list of the faithful) for the division of the fruits of conquest. —The Ommeyads created a more formidable aristocracy; the divani became in their hands the list of military rewards; in return, the holders of these benefices insured them the right of succession to the caliphate. The chiefs of Islam then exchanged the democratic dictatorship of the earliest vicars of the prophet for the despotism of the kings of Persia and the exarchs of Byzantium. The Mussulman like the Roman republic perished from extension. This second Roman people could not escape the slow and invincible influences of the conquered races. Twenty years after Mohammed, Arabia was humiliated, overshadowed by the provinces; a century later, the Arab genius was almost completely extinct; Persia triumphed through the accession of the Abbassides; Arabia disappeared forever from the world's stage; and while its language was to bear civilization from Malaysia to Morocco, from Timbuctoo to Samarcand, forgotten, pressed back into its deserts, it became again what it had been in the days of Ismail. —Liberty took refuge in the colonies of Africa and Sicily, far from the presence of the hereditary caliph, though under the menace of his Valis. The Arab colonies had elective magistrates, municipal assemblies, which decided on peace and war. This political civilization, troubled, however, by factions, by the endless anarchy of the Arab character, lasted till the invasions of the religious conquerors, the Fatimites and the Almoravides. —In Asia the inability of the Arabs to form regular armies, and the consequent introduction of Turkish guards, the concentration of all powers in the hands of the emir el-Omra reduced the caliphate to the most deplorable degradation. The revolt of the feudaries and the Mongol invasions filled the Mohammedan world with blood. When the power of the Osmanli Turks had absorbed all others, peace was established, and Turkey was dangerous only to Persia and Europe; but this centralization soon brought on that terrible corruption which has reduced the Ottoman empire to a state of debasement out of which no human effort can raise it. —Under the caliphate as well as under the dynasties which rose "like clouds of dust from his feet," one guarantee alone remained to the Mussulmans, the law sent down from heaven. This law, which, for the Shiites, adherents of Ali, is reduced to the Koran, includes, in addition, for the Sunnites, the traditional sayings of the prophet, collected by his intimates, the decisions of the first four caliphs and the four great Imams. The legislation of the Turkish epoch is further increased by the decisions of 200 jurisconsults assembled under Mohammed II., and by the code of Soliman. The articles of faith of Néséfi define supreme power as follows: "It is the right and the duty of the Imam to see to the observance of the precepts of the law, to enforce legal penalties, to defend the boundaries, to raise armies, to collect the tithes, to put down rebels and brigands, to preside at the public prayer of Friday and the feasts of Bairam, to judge citizens, to settle misunderstandings among subjects (rayahs), to receive legal proof in legitimate cases, to arrange the marriage of minors of both sexes who are deprived of natural guardians, and to settle the partition of lawful booty." This power is exorbitant, but it is not absolute. Even in Persia Saadi wrote: "The cadi obeys the vizier, the vizier the sultan, and the sultan the law which the people themselves obey." Some canonists deny the sultan the right of making organic laws to assure the execution of the sacred law. The latter is placed under the guardianship of judges and jurists, who form the first two orders of the Mussulman clergy, and are superior to the ministers of worship. These interpreters of the law have often obeyed the precept of the Koran: "Oppose the violation of the law," and the sheik-ul-islam has frequently been as great by his resistance as a prætorian prefect under the Roman emperors. —The public law of the cast seems to have always conferred on the monarch an unlimited power over his functionaries, and in general over all who have the misfortune to approach him. Other citizens are usually safe, and in many respects freer than Europeans. This cruel law of exception originated in the condition of the ancient ministers in the east, chosen from among the slaves of the seraglio, and in the situation itself of the monarchs, strangers to everything in the realm; "first prisoners of the place," as Montesquieu says, and servants of the hatreds of their ministers so long as their own ignorance continues, and they are incapable of mastering their rage when they discover that they have been deceived. This deplorable policy has governed all the monarchies of the east, and Islamism has changed it in no regard. —The perpetual interference of the sovereign in affairs of inheritance has caused Europeans to suppose that Mussulman princes were owners of all the real property, or that they could not maintain their luxury except by confiscations, after the manner of the first Cæsars. Other authors have solved the question in a more mystic sense, and assured us that according to the Koran the land belongs to God. The origin of Mussulman property must be found in the special code of the holy war. The ownership of lands possessed by the Arabs before the conquest, the ownership of lands abandoned by infidels and divided among believers, is as secure as the title to land can be in the west, and is transferred by sale, donation or inheritance. The Koran and the Sunna recognize, besides, complete ownership of desert lands recovered by labor. "If any man brings dead land to life," says Mohammed, "it belongs to him." In every country buildings and trees are the objects of a true and complete ownership; but it is not the same with the soil on which they stand. Entire tribes, as the Metnalis of Syria, are merely usufructuaries; the sultan in such cases is the great landed proprietor. As to the Christians, former owners of the soil, they enjoy a tenant right which is almost equivalent to ownership. Once out of Arabia and launched into the world, the Arabs would have become faithless to the holy war if they had settled down permanently. It was necessary to deprive them of the pretext. The hereditary possession of land was left to the vanquished on condition of laboring and paying tribute. Abandoned land was given by the state to new settlers. As the choice between conversion and extermination was given to idolaters, and between conversion and tribute to the "people of the book," (that is, to nations having a revelation—Christians, Jews, Sabians), the former were converted, and the latter paid tribute. This tribute included a land tax and poll tax, the ransom of their lives and the price of their personal safety. The newly converted did not enjoy immediately the same rights as their conquerors, and were treated as subjects at first. The original inhabitants were thus riveted to the soil under the supervision of the victorious army. These warriors, collectors of taxes, organized in a hierarchy, lived on domains, which were frequently extensive, and mistaken by Europeans for feudal estates, though they were merely financial districts. But one essential thing was really wanting to make this a feudalism: property in land. —While the Arabs were the leaders of Islamism, sciences, letters, philosophy, and even arts to a certain point, were able to unite the conquerors and the conquered. But under Turkish rule all fusion became impossible. The Turks took Islamism much more seriously than the Arabs had. The prescriptions of the law and of juris prudence against tributaries were enforced in all their rigor. The rayahs were obliged to distinguish themselves from the Osmanli by their dress, to yield them the inside of the walk, to pay the tribute without delay and with deference, under pain of "being taken by the throat and treated as enemies of God." They retained their religion, it is true, their communes, their civil laws and the right to be judged by priests of their own nation; but all the vexations which conquerors could inflict on the conquered without threatening their lives or violating the pact of settlement were heaped on the heads of the rayahs. This treatment was called avaniah. Such abuse of power did not prevent the aristocratic race, however, from showing many examples of probity in intercourse with men, of devotion to the country, of modest dignity and noble politeness. Strangers to arts, to sciences, and frequently to every exercise of thought, they despised those industrious nations which were unable to conquer, while the enslaved, descended from superior races, from nations which had held the sceptre of three continents, retained the consciousness of their ancient nobility, of their present activity, and gave the conquerors contempt for contempt. —Once settled in a country, the Mussulmans have always disdained to convert the inhabitants. The proselytism and fanatacism of the Turks and Berbers themselves were but a frightful revenge for the crusades and the expulsion of the Moors from Spain. The Israelites and tributary Christians have only suffered persecutions when the Mussulmans thought themselves insulted or menaced; at such times they felt the whole fury of apathetic and ignorant masters whose toleration was exhausted. It must even be admitted that this situation has become still more critical since Europe has begun to exercise a pressure upon the internal government of Turkey, and by imposing on Mussulman society reforms opposed to the spirit of Islamism, has asked it to commit suicide. The indissoluble and fatal union of religious law and the civil law is the greatest obstacle to every political innovation. The law, equal for Mussulmans alone, can regard infidels with disdainful tolerance only, and can not fill the abyss between the children of God and their enemies which divides the reprobate from the elect. —Islamism is evidently the product of an inferior, and so to speak, mediocre combination of human elements. This is why it has been a conqueror only in the middle stage of human nature. Savage races have not been able to rise to it, and, on the other hand, it has not sufficed for peoples who possessed the germs of a more vigorous civilization. Its too great simplicity has everywhere been a bar to a really fruitful development of science, of lofty poetry, of delicate morality. —If it be asked what the future of Islamism will be in presence of an essentially aggressive civilization, and destined it seems to become universal as far as may be permitted by the infinite variety of the human race, it must be confessed that nothing enables us to form precise ideas on this subject. If, on the one hand, Islamism loses, not its existence, for religions do not die, but the moral and intellectual government of an important part of the world, it will not succumb to the attacks of another religion, but to modern sciences with their modes of reasoning and criticism. On the other hand, it seems—if we consider only its dogmas and constitution—to possess in its simplicity hidden powers of resistance. It has neither popes, nor councils, nor bishops divinely instituted, nor a well defined clergy; it has never sounded the formidable abyss of infallibility. What can criticism attack? it is sometimes asked. Its legend? This legend has no more sanction than the pious beliefs which may be rejected in the bosom of Catholicism without becoming a heretic. Its dogma? Reduced to its real limits Islamism adds nothing to natural religion but the prophetic office of Mohammed and a certain conception of fatalism which is less an article of faith than a general turn of mind susceptible of proper direction. Its morals? In morals it offers the choice between four sects equally orthodox. among which the moral sense has a fair share of liberty. As to worship, when freed from accessory superstitions, it can be compared for simplicity only with some of the purest sects of Protestantism. Have we not seen in the beginning of the present century, in the very country of Mohammed, a sectary call forth the vast political and religious movement of the Wahhabites, by proclaiming that the true worship of God consists in prostration before the idea of his existence, that the invocation of any intercessor with him is an act of idolatry, and that the most meritorious act would be to raze the tombs of the prophets and destroy the mausoleums of the Imams? —Symptoms of a much graver nature are revealed at Constantinople and in Egypt. In those places the contact of science and European manners has produced a libertinism which is concealed only to avoid shocking the people. Sincere believers who feel the danger do not hide their alarm, and denounce European books of science as containing fatal errors and subversive of all religious faith. We may persist, however, in believing that if the east could succeed in overcoming its apathy, and pass the limits which to this time it has been unable to pass in the matter of rational speculation, Islamism would not oppose a very serious obstacle to the progress of the modern spirit. The absence of theological centralization has always left Mussulman nations a certain amount of religious liberty; and Mussulman orthodoxy not being defended by a permanent autonomous body, self-recruited and self-governed, is vulnerable. But it must be confessed also that, in certain parts of the Mussulman world, in Syria for example, ignorance and fanaticism are extreme; and it can not be conceived how minds so narrow can ever be opened to a broad idea or a generous sentiment. —It is superfluous to add that, if a religious reform should appear in Islamism, Europe should not interfere except by its influence in the most general manner. It would ill become her to wish to regulate the faith of others. While propagating actively her own dogma. which is civilization, she should leave to nations the infinitely delicate task of accommodating their religious traditions to their new wants, and respect the most indefeasible right, as well of nations as individuals, that of presiding over the revolutions of their own conscience in the most perfect liberty. ERNEST RENAN. MONARCHYMONARCHY. The time is past when the word republic appeared necessarily to mean liberty. and monarchy, slavery. We have no longer to learn that there are tyrannical republics and free monarchies. Consequently, the preference to be given to a republic to a monarchy, or to a monarchy to a republic, no longer appears to us with the same absolute character as to some publicists who have gone before us, and to several generations which preceded us. As soon as it is a question of men placed in very different conditions of enlightenment and virtue, of political skill, of physical circumstances and social condition, the problem becomes altogether relative. It is reduced to the single point, of knowing which of the two forms of government, in the given situation, gives better protection to the liberty of citizens and the safety of property; which is best fitted to make the country great. It is a question which the instinct of nations seems to solve more surely than political science. Not that the reasons indicated by the latter to determine one choice or another are devoid of force. But if they are separated from each other, it will be found perhaps that there is not a single one, taken alone, which is absolutely decisive. Thus, Montesquieu, when he affirms that vast territories require a monarchy, maintains what is generally true, but very far from being an absolute truth, since two examples, gigantic, so to speak, the Roman republic and the United States of America, contradict him. Neither does the species of relationship which is established between centralization and monarchy, appear to rise to the height of necessary and universal law. In addition to the contrary example of the Roman republic, it would be necessary to admit that the converse is not absolutely true, since England is at once a country of decentralization and constitutional monarchy. If with the author of l' Esprit des lois we lay down the principle that virtue is necessary to a republic, it may be answered with many commentators that it is necessary to all governments. And still we think that Montesquieu's view was correct, and that his thought, true when applied to aristocratic republics, becomes still truer when applied to democratic republics, which require for self maintenance a particularly large amount of energy, moderation, political capacity on the part of the people; all or very nearly all of whom are called to take part in the government. Without drawing a regular comparison between a republic and a monarchy, we may say that the republic presupposes more confidence in human nature, and the monarchy less. Monarchy itself is a precaution taken against the sum of error and evil contained in societies which it proposes to protect against the outburst of ambitious and disorderly passions. Moreover, we do not intend to make this study a plea, but an examination. We shall interrogate both publicists and facts. We shall seek for the foundation of monarchy, and under what exceedingly varied aspects it was presented to nations who adopted it, and to writers who discussed it. It is only after this attempt, purely experimental and historical, that we shall try to say what this form of government may and should be among modern nations. —Origin of Monarchy. It is not to be doubted that historically, royalty has its roots deeper in the past of the human race than any other form of government. Several of its partisans have gone so far as to see in it the only natural government, because one God governs the universe, and one sun illuminates our world. They have also produced examples from the animal kingdom, such as that of the bees. We attach little importance to these analogies which are sometimes puerile, and often deceptive, for it can not be clearly seen why, if bee-hives are on the side of monarchy, ant-hills, elephant troops and beavers should not be summoned in support of a republic. There is much more force in the opinion which considers that royal power finds its primitive type both in the family which admits only one chief, and in the unity of military command; that it has its origin in a superior capacity which may impose itself by force, or be accepted without effort, in case of necessity, or even obtain the sanction of a positive election. Whichever one of these origins presided at its cradle, it is by inheritance that the image of royalty is in a certain sense rounded and finished. When royalty had taken possession of nations, it was forced to abandon the temporary form which made of it, to use Aristotle's word, merely an "irremovable leadership." Thus it was able to produce those powerful dynasties of the Egyptians, Medes and Assyrians. Hereditary royalty supposes generally a state of society already formed, for example, ownership in land transmitted in families, that is to say, conditions of stability. The ideal and tradition of inheritance appears to us attached to power in virtue of the following reasons: 1, natural assimilation of authority with property in material things, which pass from the father to the children, an assimilation which in the feudal period went so far as to confound proprietorship with sovereignty, 2, the innate desire of heads of families to transmit their dignities and the enjoyment of their powers to their children or their relatives; 3, the prestige which in the eyes of certain nations surrounds certain names consecrated by habitual respect; 4, the political fortune of other chiefs who in a certain way are grouped around and connected with the royal establishment; 5, finally, the military force aiding all these causes. It would be difficult to say what part in the establishment of hereditary royalty was taken, in those remote ages, by social foresight, which finds in the permanence of supreme authority, in the bosom of a single family, a guarantee of good order, to such a degree that this consideration at last appears as the most decisive argument in favor of the monarchic form. It must not be supposed, moreover, that the idea of divine right, which has played so great a part in the history of royalty and which is held in such high esteem by certain modern apologists of this form of government, was foreign to the formation of hereditary royalty in those remote ages. The theory may be new enough; the idea is very old. Not only did it not await Bossuet, and de Bonald, but it was far earlier than the anointing of Pepin and of Charlemagne, as well as the benefit which their successors were to draw from it. As far back as we go, we find that religion surrounds the cradle of royalty with a mystic halo. The kings of Homer descended from gods or demigods, and are the objects of a sort of religious veneration. The same was the case with the kings of Rome. Many barbarous peoples appeared convinced that the families of their kings were descended from the families of their gods. Odin passed as the father of an entire royal race. Without doubt other governments besides those of royalty have placed themselves under the cover of religion. If Numa pretended to be inspired by the nymph Egeria, Lycurgus laid claim to be inspired by the oracles. and Solon had his laws consecrated by the Delphian Sibyl. But if this applies to all legislators, it is true, in a still higher degree, of royalty, whose age, which seems lost in the dimness of the past, and whose perpetuity, which seems to repeat eternity itself upon earth, render it peculiarly venerable. In every land, therefore, the belief appears that kings are the images of gods or of God upon the earth. This is not a purely Christian but a universal idea, and old as the world. —Among the origins as well as among the conceptions of royalty, we shall not omit that in virtue of which the king appears as the living law, as the very personification of the state, which is an advance of the same idea, as the image itself of the sovereign people. All nations have beheld in the sovereign the living law, but the idea of seeing in him a delegate and a representative of the sovereignty of the people is a Roman idea. It is the theory of the imperial monarchy which jurists applied to the monarchy of France, and which several publicists have repeated. "The Abbe Dubos," writes Montesquieu, who opposed his system, (Exprit de lois, book xxx., chap. xxiv.), "wishes to remove every kind of idea that the Franks entered Gaul as conquerors. According to him, French kings merely put themselves in the place and succeeded to the rights of the Roman emperors." —It is evident that the temptation to base the legitimacy of the monarchy on one or another of these origins has exercised a mighty influence on writers occupied theoretically with royalty, and especially with modern royalty. Some have insisted on its characteristics of antiquity and hereditariness. They held that what was oldest in power was necessarily the most legitimate. Others dwelt upon what they called its divine character. Still others, remembering the royalty of barbarous times. were especially struck by the fact of election. Beginning with the sixteenth century, a period in which the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people appeared most prominently in speculative and even in active politics with the Protestants and members of the league, there is an entire class of minds for which popular election becomes the title itself of legitimacy and the only foundation of royal power. An entire collection of books might be cited which testify to the predominance of this theory. The "Treatise on Political Power," by John Poynet, bishop of Winchester; De Jure regni apud Scotas, by George Buchanan; the Franco-Gallia of the jurisconsults, Hotman; the Vindiciœ contra tyrannos of Hubert Languet, and so many other Protestant works which found an echo among the Catholic publicists and preachers in their struggle against Henry III., exhibit this thought most clearly: that election is the original and real title to royalty, and that the sovereignty of the people, from which it emanates, may withdraw the powers granted and crush wicked princes. Whatever may have been the interest of these controversies about the origin of royalty and the historical basis which gives it legitimacy, we think there is no value in their common claim of establishing the legitimacy of the monarchic order which has its real title in its necessity. National sovereignty, beyond a doubt, has the right to rise up and depose kings and reigning families. But national sovereignty itself has no power over what is good, just, proper and expedient according to places and times. It has no power over the nature of things. It must come to an agreement with good sense, reason, justice, experience, the laws of necessity. Otherwise it will build upon sand. It can no more give life to an impossible republic than it can give morality and usefulness to a tyrannical monarchy. Above election, as well as above the right of succession, there is a certain thing, the necessity of a power strong enough to protect society against the conflict of discordant forces, and to which unity is indispensable in order to make itself promptly and surely obeyed. When monarchy renders this service, and renders it better than any other form could, its legitimacy is beyond a doubt. What is more legitimate than a power, the necessary protector and depository of public order, of general justice, of public interest? What is more legitimate than a great magistracy, the centre and connecting bond of society? Now, these are the features under which "modern royalty has appeared to the eyes of nations," and through which it "has acquired their power by obtaining their adhesion." —Criticism has rendered such complete justice to the legitimacy of a monarchy founded on divine right, a theory by which the pretension is raised of making power the inalienable property of a royal race, said to have received it from the hands of God himself, that there is no need of dwelling on it here. Besides, history shows that the claim of divine right has never saved a dynasty. Let royal families proclaim that they reign by the grace of God, as well as by the will of the people, there is no exception to be taken to this, as soon as it is understood that there is not a single form of government which can not place itself under the words: Omnis potestas a Deo. All power not issued from brute force contains a divine element; this element is justice. In this sense and from this point of view it is sacred. It ceases to be sacred only in becoming unjust and oppressive. "God," writes Pufendorf, "who certainly wishes that men should practice the moral law, has commanded the human race, through the lights of reason, to establish civil society, and, consequently, a sovereign power which is the soul of that society. In other words, he wishes an end without indicating at the same time the necessary means to arrive at it." In this sense, just power representing justice is divine, as the objects of men and of society are themselves divine. But if the end is immutable, the means are changing and various. It is of small import that a family was necessary at a certain time in history, or even during a succession of centuries, if it is no longer needed, if it is merely the worn-out instrument of accomplished designs. De Maistre himself, such a resolute partisan of legitimacy, seems to recognize this in the following significant passage in one of his letters: "If the house of Bourbon is finally proscribed, (de Maistre means by God and not by the people), it is well that the government should be consolidated in France; it is well that a new race should commence a legitimate succession; whether it is this or that race is of no importance to the universe." —In conclusion: reigning families, like royalty itself, draw their origin from that force of things which is made up of circumstances above the will and purely free choice of nations. Kings are not chosen by chance. The reasons which elevated in turn the Merovingians and the Capetians in France were not arbitrary. Later, when age has consecrated a family, it is not easy to supplant it. A people does not invent its dynasties, it finds them. —Forms and Various Kinds of Monarchies. The classification of the various forms in which a monarchy may appear has sensibly varied with publicists who wrote on this subject. Each one of them has had its partisans and its detractors. Aristotle, who first applied an analytical genius to the accurate observation and strict classification of governments, placed royalty among the good governments, though he preferred, as did almost all the political writers of antiquity, and Plato, his master, aristocracy, on which he founds the perfect city. He recognizes five kinds of royalty. ("Politics," book iii., chap. ix.) The first kind. whose type is presented to him by the Spartan royalty, appears to be, he says, the most legal; it is not absolute mistress. It may be sometimes hereditary and sometimes elective. The second species is the royalty established among certain barbarous nations, especially Asiatics, with the characteristics of absolute power, though legitimate and hereditary. The third kind of royalty is an elective tyranny, for a term of years or for life, of which the ancient Greeks offer us more than one example. "A fourth kind of royalty," continues Aristotle, "is that of heroic times, accepted by the citizens and hereditary by law. The founders of these monarchies, benefactors of nations, either by enlightening them through the arts, or in guiding them to victory, by uniting them or winning for them permanent states, were called kings out of gratitude, and transmitted their power to their sons. These kings had supreme command in war, and offered all the sacrifices in which the ministry of the pontiffs was not indispensable; besides these two prerogatives, they were sovereign judges of all disputes, sometimes without oath, and sometimes with. The formula of the oath consisted in lifting the sceptre." There is finally a fifth kind of royalty, where a single chief is master of all. "This royalty has intimate relations with family power; as the authority of the father is a sort of royalty over the family, so the royalty of which we speak here is an administration of the family type applied to a city, or to one or more nations." Aristotle declared that he would stop to examine this last form; in it he recognized the pure image of monarchy, finding, like Hobbes (Imperium, chap. vii.), of a later time, no real royalty except absolute royalty. The Greek philosopher found no difficulty in condemning this form of government after such an examination, although he supposes the monarch to whom this power is given to be as virtuous as enlightened. He proves the superiority of fixed equal, impartial laws, over the arbitrary will of a single man; he claims for the majority, even when composed of individuals inferior to that eminent individual, the honor of a greater safety in judgments and superior incorruptibility. The great political philosopher might, and even should, it would seem, not have neglected to discover whether royalty was by nature incompatible with that fixity of laws and those guarantees of liberty which he desires above all. The example of the constitution of Sparta put him upon the way to do this. Why did he, in mentioning it with praise, not stop to analyze it? Besides, did Aristotle understand clearly the conditions of monarchy—he who, in order to put forward the elective system, absolutely condemned hereditary power, which he thought offered but few chances of bringing to the succession men worthy of the virtuous monarch, and capable of reigning after him? Experience, which the profound author of "Politics" habitually takes as guide, does not confirm this preference given to the elective monarchy. Is it not enough to recall that the elective system, applied to royalty in the Roman empire, and later in the kingdom of Poland, produced internal dissensions and degradation of the state? Is it not enough to recall the fatal events in unfortunate Poland, fatal to its nationality, in order to pronounce aloud its condemnation? Rousseau, who violently opposed hereditary royalty in the Contrat social, believed that he corrected the ordinary drawbacks of monarchic election in Poland, by proposing a drawing by lot among the life senators, of three names, from which the same assembly should choose the one they preferred, without adjourning the session. (Gouvernement de Pologne, chap. xiv.) It is more than doubtful whether such a means. which would have put all the chances on the side of mediocrity, would have succeeded in suppressing the defects of a system which it professed to correct. This strange mixture of chance and election would have succeeded only in creating a royalty of chance, without prestige and without permanence. —Machiavelli has not tried to classify different kinds of royalty, but the different species of principalities, a more extensive subject, since he includes even ecclesiastical principalities. He seems, besides, to pay more attention to distinguishing them by the means which were used to found them, than by their intrinsic characters. The author of "The Prince" treats in a special manner civil principalities, that is. those which are based upon the free suffrage of their citizens. This is the kind of monarchy which he prefers. The advice he gives such principalities bears the stamp of a remarkable elevation of character, and proves that the evil maxims, which he nowhere presents as the beau ideal of politics, but which he has the fault to give out with the culpable coldness of a man who subjects morality to politics, are addressed only to those who have become masters of sovereignty by treason and crime. Chapter ix. of "The Prince" is devoted to describing the duties of the monarch who has arrived at power through the free choice of his subjects. For Machiavelli, consequently, there are two kinds of royalty, independent of usurpation. In one case the nobility call a man to supreme power in order to resist the people; in the other, the people wish to have a protector against the insolence and the tyranny of the nobles. He prefers the last; but in the first as in the second case, he wishes the monarch to take up the cause of national interests, and set up, for this purpose, his sole and sovereign will. In reality, the power of the state is the constant thought of Machiavelli, his only idol is the unity of the nation using above the ruins of anarchic forces. —A disciple of Aristotle, in many points, Bodin did not follow his master in his method of classifying the different forms of royalty, and however inferior he may be to him in genius, it may be said that on this point, as on several others, he is superior to him. Bodin distinguishes three forms of monarchy. ("Republic," book xi.): first, the monarchy of lordship, in which, he says, "the prince has become master of property and person, by the right of arms, and governs his subjects as the father of a family governs his slaves": secondly, the tyrannical monarchy, "in which the monarch, disregarding the laws of nature, treats free persons as slaves, and the property of his subjects as his own"; thirdly, the royal or legitimate monarchy, "in which the subjects obey the laws of the monarch, and the monarch the laws of nature, natural liberty and rights of property remaining with the subjects." This last trait, brought forward and discussed by John Bodin in twenty passages of the "Republic," shows in the happiest manner the characteristics or at least the conditions of modern monarchy. He recognizes it as legitimate, only on condition of becoming reconciled with the rights of liberty and property, and guaranteeing them. What a distance between this liberal theory and that which was current under Louis XIV. and Louis XV., which claims that kings are the owners of all property, the mere use of which is enjoyed by the subjects, through a sort of toleration or concession altogether voluntary! Bodin opposes the conception of a mixed monarchy brought forward by several publicists and particularly by Hotman, who stated that the best government is that which "associates and tempers the three elements, royalty, aristocracy and democracy." Sovereignty, according to the author of the "Republic," endures neither division nor limit. He attacks, therefore, in very precise terms, "this sovereignty played for by two parties, of which sometimes the people and sometimes the prince would be master, which is a striking absurdity, incompatible with absolute sovereignty, and contrary to the laws and to natural reason." Bodin, nevertheless, is really a partisan of limited monarchy; he trusts in the barrier of parliaments, as well as the virtue of the prince in the exercise of his power; but he is ignorant of that which has been sought for so much since his time under the name of constitutional guarantees. In the last analysis Bodin depends on morality to moderate royalty; as Bossuet, at a later time, depended on religion. —It is surprising that Montesquieu, coming after Aristotle and the learned author of the "Republic," did not seek to establish any strict classification of the different forms of monarchy. Perhaps he was turned away from this by the error which he committed in making despotism a government apart. He would have been obliged to classify despotism with monarchy, as a form of its abuse, and he would have then been obliged to renounce his classification of three governments which he gives as original the republican, the monarchic and the despotic. But Montesquieu recognized a monarchy which he said had liberty as its direct object: that is, the English monarchy, and monarchies which "tend only to the glory of the citizens, the state, and the prince," (Esprit des lois, book xi., chap. vii.)—a somewhat vague statement. He explains exhaustively why the ancients had no very clear idea of monarchy, it is even the title of one of his chapters. "The ancients," he says (Esprit des lois, book xi.), "were not acquainted with the form of government founded on a legislative body made up of the representatives of a nation." And further on: "The ancients, who were unacquainted with the distribution of the three powers in the government of a single one, could not form a correct idea of monarchy." Thus, with Montesquieu, monarchy is moderate government par excellence. —If we combine the ideas put forth by the political writers just examined, and if we understand the spirit of what we see or of what exists to-day in monarchy, its different forms may be classed, we think, much more simply according to their fundamental characters. Doubtless there is, to begin with, a great and essential difference between elective monarchy and hereditary royalty. But this distinction would be too insufficient. The most essential would be that which recognizes two kinds of monarchies, absolute and limited monarchy. Absolute monarchy is not necessarily despotism (see ABSOLUTISM), but leads to it. We shall not, of course, for instance, commit the injustice of comparing the ancient French monarchy with an oriental despotism. Still, it is impossible for us to grant that before 1789 French monarchy was anything but absolute. Tempered in fact, that we admit, by parliaments, by the barrier of opinion, by tradition, by various powers which grew up at its side, French royalty was nevertheless absolute legally, because it was able to silence with a word all resistance, which it did more than once. The essence of absolute monarchy lies entirely in the more or less complete concentration of the three powers, executive, legislative and judicial, in the hands of the prince. The moderate monarchy is that which finds its limits in the distinction of these three powers, sanctioned by a positive constitution, and in the establishment of one or more bodies with rights apart from the monarch. Hence, moderate monarchy really appears only among representative governments. Whether it finds its limit in the aristocracy, in a democracy, or in a combination of both, it deserves to be called moderate, and may for this reason subserve liberty. —The Marks and Part of Monarchy among Modern Nations. Several important consequences follow, it appears to us, from the considerations which we have presented: it follows that monarchy can no longer, under the protection of a pretended divine right, be the object of a kind of superstitious worship, whatever may be the prestige inseparable from the exercise of sovereign power and royal personages; it follows also that force is not the only origin of royal power, and that it would be unwelcome in presenting itself at present as the title of monarchy in view of the universally admitted right of nations to dispose of themselves; finally, it follows that election, which does not create eternal legitimacy, is not a sufficient title to invest sovereigns with an absolute power, since there are, above the right of the people as well as above the right of the king, original rights, which we have reduced to two, the liberty of the citizen and the security of property. Order in a civilized society is synonymous with the maintenance of justice, which enforces the liberty of all, and makes one man respect the liberty of the other. Nations seek in monarchy a defense against the anarchy or the oppression which surrenders the weak to the strong. Monarchies, therefore, follow in their way, which, in a certain number of cases, is the best, the same end as republics and other governments of every class, which is to permit and assure the free development of all useful action, and to confine evil within the narrowest limits without curtailing legitimate and fruitful liberty. This, to our thinking, is the sense of the maxim, already old, that "Kings are made for the people"; a maxim which requires other guarantees than the purely moral obligation, imposed by duty on Christian princes, as Bossuet thought; a maxim which seeks its sanction in an organization of power, intended to make royalty a simple means of the public good. Between monarchy and peoples no other tie is conceivable than that which may be called an alliance of reason. Not that this tie should be devoid of affection, not that it should be necessarily reduced to the cold and formal relations between the sovereign and the nation dictated by simple expediency, but it can no longer have its origin in a species of chivalric devotion. The only legitimacy of government is the general interest. The only organ which gives expression to this interest is the national sovereignty. When the latter accepts the monarchic form, it does not intend to abdicate; it only wishes to regulate itself. It arms itself, so to speak, with precaution against its own errors, it condemns itself to prudence by foresight; is places a barrier before the disorder which it fears. No more, no less. —Notwithstanding this character of modern royalty, quite rational and subordinate to public utility, there are publicists who declare monarchy to be illegitimate in itself, we do not say merely, be it noted, who declare it fatal in its consequences, open to attack as a wrong combination, from which evil alone can come, but who declare that it is contrary of itself to justice, to law, and to reason. It is not long since we heard it maintained in the press and from the tribune that a republic is the only legitimate form of government, while monarchy, even when accepted, can never be legitimate, because a people can not establish it, without alienating its will and disposing of future generations without having the right to do so. Such, in substance, is the creed of that school of which Rousseau is the mouthpiece and which goes further than its master, for Rousseau recognized, although with regret, that monarchy is fitted for certain nations. It appears to us that the most scrupulous devotion to the dogma of popular sovereignty and even the preference given republicanism do not imply such consequences. A nation does not surrender its will by establishing a monarchy for the sake of order, liberty, and national unity. It is a singular paradox to maintain that the national will is not expressed quite as clearly in allowing a form of government to continue, as by overthrowing it, quite as well by persistence as by caprices. Why should not a people wish, if it judges proper, to retain the monarchic form, one century, ten centuries, for all time? In what are the present generations of men slaves to those who established it? Is it sought to be denied that there are legitimate revolutions? Let us acknowledge the fact: the right of resistance is eternally implied in all the constitutions of this world. There have been glorious insurrections, there have been revolutions with which are connected the most beautiful memories of the human race. All peoples have placed some of these fearful and salutary crises among the greatest events of their history, and those who introduced and directed them in the number of their greatest men. All have dated from them their political regeneration, and a new era of prosperity and greatness. But wisdom forbids the declaration of a permanent revolution under pretext of national sovereignty. It forbids us to consider this necessary evil as a harmless expedient. It forbids fickle desires and an adventurous imagination, which end by creating a sickly want that is never weary of appealing to the emotions and to chance. The risk in revolutions is really terrible. If men do not issue from them more worthy and more noble, they become more degraded. If moral and political beliefs do not receive new life from them, they give way. If interests are not strengthened by them, they lose by them. Revolutions destroy the countries which they do not save. This is why it is wisdom in nations to detest and avoid revolutions, consenting to them only in cases of the most absolute necessity. The argument that monarchy is equivalent to an abdication of national sovereignty, can not bear serious criticism. —Publicists of the too exclusively republican school find hereditary monarchy to be an odious fiction, incompatible with the reason of modern nations, because it gives rights to mediocrity, stupidity, vice, and even crime. They maintain that heredity not only permits such an evil, but that it produces it by the corruption which is fatally connected with young princes. One would think they were commenting, on the saying of the young Denys, to whom his father, while reproaching him for some shameful act, said: "Have I given you the example of such deeds?" "Ah!" answered the son, "your father was not a king." —Monarchic publicists, obliged now to address not feeling, but reason, do not deny these drawbacks of heredity. They do not injure their cause by attributing to the institution which they defend more perfection than it possesses, or than is compatible with human weakness. They answer: Yes, heredity is a fiction, a convention; it has immense drawbacks, but what if it has greater advantages? Is not the existence of a family having the tradition of power a good thing? Charlemagne, Saint Louis, Henry IV. and many others were legitimate heirs. May not the existence of mediocre princes even have its advantages, either because they leave the government to able ministers, or liberty takes advantage of them to extend its conquests and strengthen its rights? —Hereditary royalty is the image and the consecration of perennial power. This is its object. Now, duration is one of the first elements of force. Only that is loved and feared which has a lengthened existence. The right of monarchical succession does away with the dangerous intervals left by election, and it has the inestimable advantage of withdrawing from elections this element of permanence which should be presented by the institutions of a great country. It gives, to home and foreign politics, that coherence and continuity, that mixture of strength and prudence, the condition of all greatness and repose, which republics produce only with much greater effort, whenever they do succeed in producing them. Finally, continue the defenders of monarchy, is it just, is it honest, to speak of the right of succession under constitutional governments in the same way as under absolute governments? Is it not the very object of constitutional governments to prevent bad princes from doing evil, to support the mediocre, to obtain as much as possible from the good, to prevent the greatest from becoming so powerful as to put themselves above the law? Doubtless there remain the drawbacks connected with minorities and regencies, but these are passing evils, and not of frequent occurrence. Constitutional governments, which create great powers by the side of royalty, thereby diminish the dangers to minorities so much to be feared under absolute monarchies. It is the merit of this form of government to endure, that royal authority should not have at all times the the same degree of intensity and energy. And, most important, it presents no breaks, and its ever present image is a barrier against anarchy and the claims of usurpers. To close the argument of the right of succession, sometimes add the partisans of the monarchic form, would not another consideration have weight which has never had more effect than in our day? Is not hereditary royalty, up to a certain point, the consecration and the safeguard of other hereditary rights still more sacred, that of the transmission of property for example? You speak in a tone of irony while pointing out a child subject to the most humiliating infirmities of nature: "There is a king!" Are you not afraid that others will appear, saying with the same contempt: "See that wailing child; that is a landlord!" —We have endeavored to sum up the arguments of monarchic publicists in their most striking and correct passages, dwelling only upon those which agree with the nature and conditions of modern society. We shall now indicate how the rôle of monarchy may and should be conceived in this society. —The royal power appears with two necessary characteristics in the new conditions created for European societies by the liberal spirit and the ascending movement of democracy: it should be limited and restraining. Neither powerful enough to pass its bounds, nor so disarmed as not to be able to accomplish its mission efficiently: such should it be and remain under pain of inevitable forfeiture. —There is no need of stopping for any length of time to show that monarchic power should be limited, and that it can not be otherwise than limited. The paternal monarchy of de Bonald is only a dream. Benjamin Constant, an almost contemporaneous publicist, stated very justly, "The direct action of the monarch decreases inevitably in proportion to the progress of civilization. Many things which we admire and which seem very beautiful in other epochs, are inadmissible now. If you imagine the kings of France dispensing justice to their subjects, at the foot of an oak tree, you will be moved by the spectacle, and you will revere this lofty and simple exercise of a paternal authority; but what would be seen to-day in a judgment given by a king without the assistance of tribunals? The violation of every principle, the confusion of all powers, the destruction of judicial independence." (Du Pouvoir royal, vol. i., p. 295, edition Laboulaye.) Another reason will prevent modern nations from yielding to absolute monarchy, and this reason is supported by experience. Centuries ago experience condemned simple governments through the mouth of Polybius, though he was far from possessing the numerous and terrible proofs of the dangers inherent in them which are at our disposal. It is a maxim of Polybius, that "every simple form based on a single principle, can not last, because it will soon fall into the defect which is peculiar to it." (Polybius, book vi., § 10, phrase cited by Barthelemy Saint-Hilaire in the preface of the "Politics" of Aristotle, p. 115.) The theory of checks and balances sanctioned by the great names of Plato, Aristotle, Polybius and Cicero, and supported by the practice of some of the greatest constitutions of antiquity, gains force from the nature of modern societies which are so complicated in their elements. Of course there is no perfect equilibrium in a state; a system of checks and balances always meets serious difficulties in application; but it is necessary to tend toward this system, or be condemned to the excesses of a single power, whether of a king, aristocratic clique, assembly, or popular dictatorship; this is an insupportable tyranny, after eighteen centuries of Christianity have shown us the limits of the state, and several centuries of philosophy have made us proud and exacting in regard to our rights, when also the habit of individual and political liberty has made the latter dear to us in proportion to the benefits which it is intended to secure. —Limited or constitutional monarchy was the desire of France as soon as she reflected on her destiny. This must be recognized as an historical fact, even when one's preferences seem to settle on the republican form. As soon as the notion of right is disseminated in a nation, as soon as its interests are multiplied and increased, the need of escaping from the absolute power of a single man and a single family, this need which has always exercised the upper class, descends from the aristocracy to the masses; and as the former demand privileges, the latter want liberties, with this difference, that a nobility may sell itself to royal power, while a nation does not yield itself up, at least for a long time. It is said, of course, that the assistance formerly given by royalty to the middle and lower classes against feudal oppression, that the admission of men of common birth to the highest civil and military dignities, reached such a point under the ancient monarchy that the duke de Saint-Simon characterized the reign of Louis XIV. as a reign of vile bourgeoisie, have themselves contributed to favor the establishment of absolute power. This can not be disputed; but how can it be disputed either that everything which increased the classes devoted to the professions called liberal or to industrial labor tended to liberate them? The more the feeling of their value was developed, the more considerable and prevalent became their attention to their affairs, the less were they tempted to yield their persons, their labor and their property to the oppressive action or to the capricious direction of arbitrary power.56 If, from the fifteenth century, a Philip de Comynes was able to proclaim the principle, that "neither the king nor any one else has the power to levy taxes without the consent of his subjects"; if these positive maxims, which even then were not new, could be transmitted in the writings of publicists and in the documents of states; what must it have been in the eighteenth century, after an immense development of industry and enlightenment, and in view of a neighboring nation whose tempting example gave brilliant proof that the monarchic power might be limited without prejudice to order and to the great advantage of public liberty and general prosperity? In allowing the monarchy to remain, the revolution of 1789 could only allow it tempered or limited in its powers, since it did not admit it for its own sake, but for its supposed service to national unity, liberty and order. And this was not the effect of a passing excitement. It was the fruit of long mental labor, and was the object of persevering and inflexible will. Even in 1804, when France, weary of the anarchy which had harassed her, took refuge in the arms of military power, surrounded with the most brilliant prestige of genius and glory, she stated, while doing so, what sort of a monarchy she wished to establish by raising a new family to the throne. "France," said the tribunate, from which originated the proposition to raise the first consul to the throne, "France is justified in expecting from the family of Bonaparte, more than from any other, the maintenance of the rights and the liberty of the people and ail the institutions fitted to guarantee them." "The French have conquered liberty." said the senate in its message of May 4, 1804, in adopting this proposition; "they wish to preserve their conquest, they wish repose after victory. This glorious repose they would owe to the hereditary government of one who, raised above all, defends public liberty, maintains equality, and lowers his fasces before the sovereign will of the people which proclaimed him." This is the government which the French nation wished to give itself in the days of '89, the souvenir of which will be ever dear to patriots, and in which the experience of centuries and the experience of statesmen inspired the representatives which the nation had chosen. It is necessary that liberty and equality should be sacred, that the social pact should be safe from violation, that the sovereignty of the people should never be misunderstood, and that a nation should never be forced to resume its power and avenge its outraged majesty. The senate, in a memoir which it appended to this message, dwelt upon the dispositions which according to it seemed proper to give French institutions "the necessary force to guarantee the nation its dearest rights, while securing the independence of the great authorities, a free and intelligent grant of taxation, safety of property, individual liberty, liberty of the press and of elections, responsibility of ministers, and inviolability of constitutional laws." Ten years had not passed before these demands reappeared; they became the rallying cry of all France, which imposed them as a condition sine quá non on all its governments. The first restoration, the hundred days, the second restoration, the eighteen years of the government of July, 1830, were attempts to satisfy these persistent demands; and if they have appeared to suffer some interruption on the morrow of revolutions, which profoundly disturbed minds as well as events, it was only to resume at once their career with a daily increasing force. We do not speak here of the second empire, whose constitutional changes are so near us, and therefore can not be discussed with the impartiality of history. —The necessity of a moderating power is a second truth, which seems little open to question. Let us not forget that the object to be attained is always this: not to allow the establishment of tyranny, neither the tyranny of an oppressive majority nor that of a minority, neither one in the name of a democracy nor one in the name of an aristocracy. Place all power in a single assembly, and experience shows the perils of this combination, which delivers, without guarantee, the rights of citizens to a power without check. If the assembly is dissolved, to what dangers are not liberty and order subject during the interval which separates this assembly from that which is to follow! If the assembly is excessively long-lived, what a number of other perils in case public opinion does not go with it! Place power in two assemblies, how are you to prevent a conflict between them from becoming envenomed and bringing on revolutions? How are you to hope that an executive power, itself very liable to change, and dependent as the ministerial power, would have sufficient authority? The necessity of a moderating power is such that republican states themselves do not always neglect to form it. Doubtless it is very weak in the United States. It is nevertheless true that the president is armed with a veto power. This veto, at least, forces the legislature to reconsider the question, and this time it can prevail only by a majority of two thirds. The veto, besides, is a sort of appeal to the people. The executive power then pleads its case and presents the reasons for its action. Besides this precaution, to which he refers. de Tocqueville points out, in the federal organization of the United States and in a peculiar combination of moral and political circumstances, the causes which serve, though imperfectly, as a counterpoise to the tyranny of the majority. The necessity of a moderating power appears still more urgent in a greatly centralized government. It is not enough to answer all difficulties by the sovereignty of the people. The people are not always assembled; do not govern directly. Even when it is admitted that the sovereignty resides in the nation. all difficulties are not settled by that answer. Powers are various, and from their diversity arises struggle. The great task of royalty in the eyes of modern nations is to prevent these struggles of powers and parties from degenerating into disorder and revolution. This is why representative governments leave an important share of power to loyalty, while reserving the last word to the nation, which in grave questions pronounces by means of elections, and which divides political power. It is not true, then, that in making royalty chiefly a moderating power, its fall is proclaimed. On the contrary, much force is necessary to fill such a rôle. This neutral power, elevated above accidents and struggles, interfering only in great crises, at least in a visible and striking manner, should have lofty prerogatives. The first of these is to execute the law. But that is not enough unless there be added the power of co-operation in framing it. The monarch does this by appointing one of the two legislative chambers; such at least is the order established by the different French constitutions; he co-operates by the appointment of ministers, who represent him in the chambers; he co-operates by the right of proposing the law, dissolving the elective chamber, or refusing his sanction. This right of absolute and not simply a retarding veto, has inspired one of the most remarkable discourses of a genius so profoundly political as Mirabeau. He was not afraid to surrender liberty in maintaining it. He thought that in spite of appearances liberty would gain by it, as well as the force necessary to the royal power. The same opinion was upheld by a no less jealous adherent of public liberties, Benjamin Constant. The participation of the monarchic power in the framing of laws is, in the eyes of this celebrated publicist, an essential part of this rôle of moderator which occupies us at present. "If," says he, "in dividing power you place no limits to legislative authority, it happens that one class of men make the laws without troubling themselves about the evil which they cause, and another class execute these laws while believing themselves innocent of the evil which they cause, since they did not contribute to make them. * * When the prince assists in framing the laws and his consent is necessary, their vices never increase to the same degree as when the representative bodies decide without appeal. The prince and the minister are enlightened by experience. When they are not guided by the feeling of right, they will be by the knowledge of what may come to pass. The legislative power, on the contrary, never comes in contact with experience. The impossible never exists for it. It only needs to will; another authority executes. Now, to will is always possible: to execute is not." (Esquisse de Constitution, chap. ii.: Des Prérogatives royales, p 183, Laboulaye.) The same writer afterward establishes that a power obliged to give its support to a law which it disapproves, soon finds itself without force or consideration; and that besides no power executes a law zealously which it disapproves; that the royal sanction aids free governments in preserving themselves from the danger of multiplying laws, which is the disease of representative states, because in these states everything is done by law, while the absence of laws is the disease of unlimited monarchies, because in them everything is done by men. —All publicists, as well as all constitutions, add to the prerogatives inseparable from monarchy the most touching and the most popular of all rights, the right of pardon. The right to make war, to conclude treaties of peace and alliance, are naturally connected with the executive power. This right, besides, is generally limited by discussions of the chambers, by the power which they have of voting taxes, and in a parliamentary government by ministerial responsibility. Up to recent times, this responsibility of ministers to the assemblies appeared to the legislator as one of the most essential conditions of a free government. He had thought that in representative monarchies the irresponsibility of a monarch is a consequence of his inviolability, and important both to liberty and public order. If the monarch is responsible, it was said, what is the use of the right of succession? Is not his moderating power destroyed? Royalty becomes a party. It descends into the arena. It is no longer a judge and arbitrator in the combat. It is exposed to all the chances of the struggle, the end of which may be an overthrow. Besides, it is added, to whom is the monarch responsible? To public opinion? But what absolute prince is not? To revolutions? But what sovereign of the east is not? Is there the slightest difference between such a responsibility and the irresponsibility of former sovereigns? —We do not intend to trace in full the programme of a monarchy which might suit modern nations, for this does not enter into our subject. It was enough to indicate its essential traits in a work intended to place before the eyes of the public the elements of politics. We have merely undertaken to show once more that if there is a monarchy founded on prejudice, there is one which rests on reason and which is capable of bearing examination. For a still stronger reason we shall not discuss the assertion, so often put forth, that representative monarchies are merely compromises between principles long at variance—compromises destined to disappear one after another, and give way, with the exclusive triumph of democracy, to the universal establishment of the republican form. Now we have either shown nothing, or we have shown that republics themselves, if they are to exist, can not dispense with certain limitations, and that a people has not fewer precautions to take against the excesses of democracy than against those of any other principle. Otherwise there would be no stop on the incline till the direct government of the people by itself was reached; the tyranny of numbers would be introduced in the name of popular sovereignty. Who knows the secret of the future? If European nations should arrive at such a degree of political maturity as to solve, under the republican form, better than has hitherto been done, the difficult problem of reconciling order with liberty, who could regret it? The great question before us is, not whether the future will be called republican or monarchic, but whether it will be free. (See ABDICATION, ABSOLUTISM.) HENRI BAUDRILLART. MONEY AND ITS SUBSTITUTESMONEY AND ITS SUBSTITUTES. After the discovery of gold in California, and before the government had established a mint there, private parties manufactured coins of the weight and fineness of American gold coin, and even of subdivisions as low as twenty-five cents. These were not counterfeit, the inscriptions upon them being different from those upon the coins manufactured by the government. They denoted expressly that they were made by private individuals; and, being so, they were, of course, not legal tender. Yet, as they contained the same amount of gold as the government coins, and as the public had confidence that the makers would not cheat by putting in a less quantity, they passed as readily as the money coined by the government, and were in fact worth as much, not merely in California, but in every part of the world. Prior to the issuing of these coins, the California miners and merchants conducted their exchanges by means of "dust"; that is, gold in the form in which it was found in the placer diggings and river washings. This gold passed from hand to hand by weight or by guess-work. A sack of flour was worth so many grains, a barrel of sugar so many, a quarter of beef so many, a pair of boots so many, etc. Obviously, it was a great convenience to dispense with the trouble of weighing gold every time a man wished to buy or sell anything. The government was a long way off, and busy about other things, and knew little of its newly acquired possessions on the Pacific. It had received as yet but slight information of the needs of the settlers. It allowed them to go their own way, and do pretty much as they pleased; and, in fact, no harm resulted from this private coinage. Whenever a want arises in human society, somebody will come forward to supply it. California wanted coins to take the place of "dust"; private individuals got the necessary machinery together. and established a shop to manufacture coins. They naturally adopted the forms and weights to which the public were accustomed. If California had been an English colony, they would have adopted the form and weight of English coins; if French, they would have taken those peculiar to that nation. But, in fact, the forms and subdivisions of the metal were of no importance to the value of the coins: this depended wholly upon the weight and fineness of the substance coined. In due time the government set up its own mint in California, and the private coiners disappeared because there was no further use for them. —Now, it is a perfectly scientific use of terms to call these early California coins and dust packages "money"; and the illustration serves our present purpose as well as a hundred examples which might be drawn from the pages of ancient history. The literature of the subject is overwhelming in extent and variety; but reading the whole of it would give no clearer idea of what money is, in the scientific sense, than observing the successive processes by which the isolated settlers of California carried on their exchanges with each other: first, dust; second, private coins; third, government coins. It is scientifically accurate to say that all three were money; although in the modern acceptation of the term a distinction is made between coin and bullion, the word "money" being more commonly applied to the former. —Different Kinds of Money. Now, supposing that California, instead of being rich in gold, had been equally rich in furs or tobacco, and had possessed no gold at all, all the other circumstances of her early settlement being the same: how would trade have been carried on? We need not resort to any abstruse chain of reasoning to answer this question, since we know, from the history of our own country, exactly what was done in like circumstances. Our ancestors in Maryland and Virginia, before the revolutionary war, and for some time after, in default of gold and silver, used tobacco as money, made it money by law, reckoned the fees and salaries of government officers in tobacco, and collected the public taxes in that article. It is a curious instance of the survival of old customs, that certain fees of court officers in the District of Columbia are computed in tobacco money to this day.57 —Coon skins, beaver skins, musket balls, and almost everything else possessing value, and not too difficult to handle, have been used at various times in our own country as money; in some cases being legal tender, and in others not. Furs and skins of various sorts are still employed as money at some of the trading posts of the Hudson's Bay company. Chevalier tells us, that as late as the year 1866 hand-made nails were used as money in certain secluded villages in France. When Cortez invaded Mexico, he found the people using grains of cacao as money for small transactions. Salt, leather, olive oil and dried fish have been employed as money in modern times. According to some writers, cattle serve the purposes of money among the tribes of central Asia now, although others maintain that they merely constitute a standard of value; that is to say, a camel is reckoned to be worth so many head of cattle, a horse so many, a tent so many, when camels, horses and tents are bartered against each other, the cattle themselves not being used as a medium of exchange, or brought into the transaction, except for purposes of reference. —Evolution of Metallic Money. Following the observed course of trade from the earliest times and through all stages of civilization, it will be seen that money must needs have some utility and exchange value of its own; it must be serviceable to human wants, and must be the creation of labor. Anything possessing these attributes may serve the purpose of money. Some things will serve these purposes better than others. Some are more durable, more portable, more divisible, and steadier in value, than others: in a word, some things are more convenient than others to answer the needs of mankind as instruments of exchange. Mankind have experimented upon nearly all the substances in nature to ascertain what things are the most convenient. They have held no general congress to decide the question by voting; nor would such congress, if held, have been able to decide anything. They have experimented precisely as they experimented with stone, bronze and iron as cutting instruments in their daily life, discarding the worse instrument and adopting the better, from time to time, as the inferiority of the one and the superiority of the other became manifest. Although the early American colonists used tobacco, coon skins, beaver skins, musket balls and other inconvenient things as money, they did so from no want of knowledge that gold and silver were far preferable. They had no gold and silver, or not sufficient for their needs. What little they had they were obliged to send abroad to pay for indispensable articles. As soon as they became rich enough to buy gold and silver, or to retain what they produced, they abandoned the tobacco and coon-skin currency. Generally speaking, it is accurate to say that mankind have educated themselves by slow degrees to understand what substances and things are most suitable to answer the purposes of money. The precious metals came into use in the earliest historic period. Silver was employed as money in the time of Abraham, and then passed by weight. Iron, lead, tin, copper and bronze were successively used by the Greeks and Romans, but were displaced at an early day by gold and silver, except for very small transactions. It would require more space than we have at our disposal to go into the history of these changes. We may say, briefly, that the human race learned by experience that metallic substances were better adapted to serve their needs as money than other substances, and that gold and silver were better adapted to this end than any other metals. The reason why they are so may be explained in a few words. —Attributes of the Precious Metals. 1. These metals possess much value in little weight; they are portable; they can be carried in one's pocket in sufficient quantity to answer ordinary needs. Their superiority in this regard over tobacco, beaver skins and the other kinds of money we have mentioned, including the baser metals, is apparent at a glance. 2. These metals can be divided and subdivided to any extent without losing any part of their value, whereas most of the other things we have described lose very much of their value by being cut in pieces. Ten gold dollars are always equal to an eagle, and can be converted into an eagle, or the eagle can be converted into ten dollars, at a trifling expense. 3. These metals are not subject to loss by exposure to the atmosphere or by the lapse of time, and to very little wear and tear by handling. They do not rust or decay, and very few substances in nature produce any injurious or corroding effect upon them by contact. 4. They are susceptible of receiving a fine impression in letters and figures denoting their value, and are not easily counterfeited; that is to say, they are well fitted to be coined. 5. They are homogeneous—always of the same character. There is no such thing as inferior gold or inferior silver There is good iron and bad iron, good tobacco and poor tobacco. Cows were once receivable for taxes in Massachusetts, and Professor Sumner remarks that the poorest cow was always tendered to the tax gatherer; and thus the public treasury became the owner, eventually, of nearly all the scrawny cattle in the colony. Nothing is well suited to answer the purposes of money if there are degrees of goodness in different lots of the same article. 6. These metals possess value apart from their utility as money. They are useful in the arts and for purposes of ornament. Undoubtedly their use as money stands for the larger part of their value at the present time. If they should cease to be used as money, and the whole existing mass of both metals be thrown upon the market to sell for what the gold and silver smiths could afford to pay for them, they would fall enormously, and the further production of them would cease. But because these metals are so well adapted to serve as instruments of exchange and measures of value, their use as money will continue; although, as the world advances in civilization, the actual handling of coin or bullion tends to diminish rather than to increase. Although their use as money now constitutes the chief part of their value, it was their utility for other purposes which caused them to be first selected and employed as money. It is quite impossible to conceive that mankind would choose, as their measure of all values, an article which was itself of no value, and to which they attached no importance. Gold and silver have been chosen to the office of money by the process of natural selection. We might say that they have been self-elected, and we might add that no money which is not self-elected is good money. Anything which requires the aid of the sheriff to make it go, is emphatically bad money. —Stability of Value. These metals are also very stable in value—a circumstance which arises from the fact that there is so large a stock existing in the world at all times in comparison with the quantity annually yielded by the mines, or lost by wear and tear. The amount of gold in the world, coined and uncoined, may be assumed to be equal to $5,000,000,000, and of silver nearly as much. The annual addition to this stock is about $150,000,000, or, say, 1½ per cent. of the whole. The loss by abrasion is supposed to be not more than 1 per cent. in twenty-five years. The loss by fire and shipwreck, and other accidents, is probably greater than the loss by abrasion; but there are no data for determining what the aggregate amount may be. It is evident that the existence of so great a mass of these metals, with so little disturbing force in the way of increase or diminution, must (other things being equal) give them great steadiness of value as compared with articles of which the quantity is susceptible of great variation of supply. It is not denied that variations in the value of these metals do occur, measured by the amount of commodities they will buy; but these variations are so small that they can only be detected in long periods of time. The value of an ounce of gold is the average amount of other things, useful or necessary to mankind, which it will buy; and this average must be ascertained by taking a sufficiently long period to exclude errors arising from the elasticity of prices—the alternation of what are called good times and bad times, periods of speculation and periods of panic. In striking this average we must also make allowance for the progress of mankind; that is, for the cheapening of production by new inventions and discoveries: for, although a given weight of gold or silver will now buy only one-eighth as much food or labor as it would five centuries ago, it will buy a much greater quantity of clothing, fuel, books, iron, transportation, light, and other comforts brought into existence by the ingenuity of successive generations of men; that is to say, the value of the precious metals as compared with food is much less than it was in the year 1400, but is greater as compared with nearly everything else. —Supply and Demand. The law of supply and demand governs the value of these metals as of other things. The two principal events in modern times which have affected the value of gold and silver were the discovery of America in 1492, and the discovery of gold in California and Australia in 1848-9. The annual production of the precious metals before the discovery of America, according to Professor Soetbeer, was less than $1,000,000 per annum. In the sixteenth century it rose to $11,000,000, in the seventeenth to $22,000,000, and in the eighteenth to $55,000,000, per annum; but this increase, great as it was, was surpassed in the years immediately following the discoveries in California and Australia. The annual production of the two metals rose to more than $200,000,000 in 1852, of which $174,000,000 was gold; and the average production from 1849 to the present time has been not far from $160,000,000 per annum. There was a great and permanent rise in general prices during the century following the discovery of America. The amount of gold and silver in circulation in the year 1600 was probably four or five times as great as it had been a century earlier, and the prices of agricultural products in western Europe rose in a corresponding ratio; that is, they quadrupled in 100 years. Difficult as it is to trace cause and effect in dealing with the prices of commodities and the quantity of money existing at different times, there is a general agreement among economists and historians that the great and permanent rise of prices in Europe in the sixteenth century was produced by the influx of the precious metals from America, and that it was proportionate to such influx. Mr. J. S. Mill, writing in 1847, considers this the only case in which a rise of prices up to that time could be shown to be due to an increased supply of the precious metals. The progressive advance in prices was checked in the seventeenth century, probably by the great increase of trade, which, beginning in Holland, extended to Germany, Sweden, England, France, India and America, and which is supposed to have counteracted the influence of the new supplies of money by an increased demand for it. Adam Smith says that the rise of general prices consequent upon the influx of silver from America ceased about the year 1636, and that during the remainder of the century there was a decline of prices, taking the average price of wheat as a standard, and that this decline continued during the first half of the eighteenth century. This decline in prices must have been much greater but for the introduction of bills of exchange and other substitutes for money, the nature of which will be explained hereafter. —Notwithstanding the increasing use of bank facilities and bank paper to effect the exchange of property without the intervention of the precious metals, the growth of trade outran the supply of money during the first half of the present century to such a degree that general prices declined, according to Prof. Jevons, 60 per cent. between 1809 and 1849. The production of gold in California and Australia arrested the downward movement, and caused a reaction, and a rise of prices estimated by statisticians at 20 to 40 per cent. Prof. Jevons estimates the rise from 1849 to 1857 at 31 per cent. Mr. W. L. Fawcett ("American Handbook of Finance") concludes that the advance of prices due to the new supplies of gold has been equal to 40 per cent. —Definition of Money. We are now prepared to give the scientific definition of money. Money is a substance possessing attributes which fit it to serve as a common measure of value, and which make it, in the estimation of mankind, an equivalent for all other kinds of property. We can conceive of other measures of value which are not in themselves valuable; as, for instance, a scale of prices in which all kinds of property are compared with each other, showing how many sheep ought to be given for a horse, how many pounds of coffee are equal to a barrel of flour, etc. But such a scale of prices would not be an equivalent. It would not be rendering an equivalent if I should obtain a beefsteak from my butcher, and tender him in return nothing but a scale of comparative prices, showing him how much sugar he ought to be able to procure in exchange for a beefsteak. Again: we can conceive of other equivalents which are not good measures of value; we have already described some of them. The house in which I live is the equivalent of some thousands of bushels of wheat; but it is not a good measure of value, because it is not divisible or portable, and because it is liable to decay and eventually to become worthless. It is a mistake to say that money is only a sign or representative of value. This is true of the various substitutes for money; but it is not true of money itself, whether the kind of money employed is a piece of gold, a beaver skin, a block of salt, or a dried codfish. Each of these things possesses its own utility in the way of serving human wants. The piece of gold serves human wants by answering the need of men for an instrument of exchange and a measure of value as effectually as a beaver skin does by protecting his body from the cold. True, you can not eat gold, or wear it on your back, neither can you eat or wear a paving stone; yet the paving stone is valuable in the way of promoting human intercourse and traffic, and so is the gold. It would be just as absurd to say that a paving stone is a sign of value as to say that gold is a sign of value. It is sometimes said, that, if mankind would come to an agreement to accept some other thing as a universal equivalent and measure of value, that other thing would be just as good money as gold. The answer is, that mankind will not come to any such agreement. Mankind have already come to an agreement upon this subject, not by treaty, not by convention, not by the action of their governments, but by tacit consent founded upon experience. They have brought into requisition various substitutes for money which are of vast and increasing advantage to trade and industry; and so far as these have come into use by tacit consent, founded upon experience, they will prove lasting and beneficial. None of these substitutes, however, possess the character of equivalency, nor do any of them serve as measures of value. The bill of exchange, the bank check, the bank note, which I give to my creditor, is in itself nothing but a piece of paper with ink marks upon it. Its original value as paper is destroyed by the ink marks. It gives to him the right to obtain a sum of money, or goods equivalent to that sum; but it is not money. We are not now stickling about the names of things, and drawing distinctions where there is no difference. As the subject of this paper is money and its substitutes, it is necessary, first, to obtain a clear idea of what money is, in order that we may the better obtain an idea of what its substitutes are, and how great a service they have rendered, and are capable of rendering, to human society. —The Unit of Value. We have seen that mankind have tentatively and experimentally used a great number of things as money, and have finally chosen gold and silver as the best, and have come to such a world-wide agreement upon this point, that all men act upon it as readily and unconsciously as they draw atmospheric air into their lungs. Every operation in life that is not purely intellectual is an operation of dollars and cents. I can not walk down town without wearing clothes and shoes, and these are matters of dollars and cents. I can not sleep without a bed to lie in and a roof over my head, and these are matters of dollars and cents. Dollars and cents are the measure of the exertion I must put forth to supply my daily wants. Under both law and practice in this country, the dollar is twenty-five and eight-tenths grains of gold nine-tenths fine; and, however numerous and multifarious may be the existing substitutes for money, however vast may be the exchanges effected by banks and clearing houses and by paper instruments of every kind, twenty-five and eight-tenths grains of gold nine- tenths fine is the measure of every dollar in the whole mass. The amount of labor required to produce this dollar at the mines is equal, in the average, to the amount required to produce a dollar's worth of wheat, cloth, iron or other commodities. —While, strictly speaking, nothing should be called money which is not in itself an equivalent and a common measure of value, the word has a much wider signification in common usage, being employed to designate anything which possesses the efficiency of money. Thus it is used to describe not only gold and silver but bank notes, government notes (redeemable or irredeemable), checks, drafts, bills of exchange, bank deposits and wealth generally. We say that a man has a great deal of money when we mean that his possessions would realize a large sum if converted into money. When we speak of the money market we mean not the market for gold and silver considered as metals—that is quite a different affair—but the demand and supply of loanable capital. The London money market is said to have £120,000,000 in ready money available for loans, although the whole amount of gold and silver within reach is not more than one-fifth of that sum. Such use of the word money includes the scientific definition of it and much more. The custom of calling these various things money because they possess all the efficiency of money is fortified by a certain amount of reason, and is at all events too firmly rooted in popular acceptation to be dislodged. It is only needful to point out in what respect the scientific definition of the term differs from the language of everyday life. —Other Definitions. The word most commonly employed to signify metallic money is specie. The word cash is used to signify ready money as distinguished from one's potential resources or from future payments. The word currency is properly used to designate that which is current as distinguished from that which is uncurrent. It is equally applicable to specie or to paper. Dollars, whether of coin or of paper, are current in the United States, but pounds sterling, francs and marks are not. Before the national banking system came in force in this country there was a vast deal of "uncurrent funds" floating about in the shape of bank notes redeemable at their place of issue, but nowhere else. Wherever these notes were accepted at par by banks they were current. At all other places they were uncurrent, and could be converted into current funds only by returning them to their place of issue for redemption, or by submitting to a "shave" equal to the cost and trouble of so returning them. Here again custom has made a definition of its own of the word currency. As commonly used in the United States it means the paper circulation as distinguished from coin. Bankers frequently tell us that "currency is scarce," meaning that bank notes and greenbacks are scarce, although gold may be plentiful. We often hear of the "demand for currency to move the crops," which signifies that the paper circulation is in request for this purpose in preference to coin, on account of the greater case of handling and transporting it. Such use of the word is clearly a perversion of its original and derivative sense, and is objectionable upon that ground, but is probably too firmly fixed in the vocabulary of commerce in this country to be uprooted. Money of account is the commercial unit of value at any particular place. It may or may not correspond with the legal unit of value, and may or may not be legal tender. The gold dollar of twenty-five and eight-tenths grains nine-tenths fine is the money of account in the United States at the present time; anything which is the equivalent of it, or is resolvable into it at par, being accepted by all banks and clearing houses. Silver dollars are legal tender, but are not money of account, although they are commonly accepted in small transactions. During the war and the suspension of specie payments, the greenback was money of account and gold was a commodity, notwithstanding the fact that the gold dollar was then, as it is now, the legal unit of value. The government establishes the legal unit of value, and declares what shall be legal tender; commerce, through the instrumentality of banks and clearing houses, declares what shall be money of account. It is as little in the power of government to prescribe a money of account for the business community as it is in the power of the business community to declare what shall be legal tender. —Bi-Metallism. We have thus far classed silver and gold together under the common designation of "the precious metals," as constituting one instrument selected by mankind to serve as a measure of value and an equivalent in exchange. But it follows from what has been said, that, unless these metals bear a fixed ratio of exchange with each other, they can not both be a correct measure of value. If they vary with respect to each other, one of them will be chosen as the standard, and the value of the other will be reckoned as so many units or parts of the standard. Which one of them shall be chosen will depend, not upon the action of governments, but upon the preference of the people as exhibited in their daily practice. All that government can do is to declare what shall be legal tender in settlement of past debts. As to the trade which goes on from day to day, and as to future contracts and undertakings, it can do nothing to change or modify the practice which the convenience of business may dictate. Government can enable me to pay my last month's grocer's bill in silver, paper, leather or anything which it sees fit to make legal tender; but it can not compel the grocer to sell me another bill of goods, except for gold or the equivalent of gold, if he chooses to demand it. Usually governments will conform their legal-tender laws to the practice of business, departing from it only under a real or supposed necessity, as when, for instance, they desire to make forced loans from their subjects by issuing their own notes in exchange for the property of citizens. —For a period of about 200 years prior to 1872 silver and gold were used in most parts of Europe and America indifferently and alternately as money, in a ratio between fifteen and sixteen of silver to one of gold. The public convenience was served by such use. If we are asked why the public convenience was served by the two metals then, and is not equally served now, we can only say that it was probably because trade had not then assumed such proportions as to make the weight and bulk of silver felt as a serious inconvenience to business, and because the variations in the market value of the two metals were comparatively slight. The largest variation in the period mentioned was that caused by the great gold production of California and Australia, viz., an advance in the gold price of silver equal to 1.656 per cent., the ratio of the two metals having fallen between the years 1851 and 1859 from 15.46 to 15.21. In 1861 the ratio again stood at 15.47. It is immaterial, in a practical point of view, whatever be its scientific interest. to inquire what has caused civilized mankind to prefer the single gold standard to the double standard—as immaterial as it is to know whether the north pole is surrounded by solid ice or by an open sea. As a matter of scientific concern, it is undoubtedly important to investigate these questions. It would be an addition to the sum of human knowledge to know exactly why our forefathers liked silver well enough to use it as money of account, that is, money in terms of which all other things are reckoned, and why we do not. I have my own opinion as to these reasons. I look upon the transition from the double standard to the single gold standard as a step in the world's progress brought about by natural selection, by the same process which led to the adoption of iron in place of stone implements for cutting, the same which led men to adopt the precious metals as money, instead of the more bulky and perishable articles which were formerly used. I hold that all arguments which do not address themselves to this point of view are a waste of breath. Volumes upon volumes have been written to show that it would be better for mankind to return to the double standard. Two international conferences have been assembled at Paris to consider the question, and a third is now talked of. These conferences are and will be useless; because they can not persuade the commercial world to do what its interests are opposed to, or to desist from doing what its interests favor. That its interests do favor the single gold standard is sufficiently proved by the fact that the single gold standard has come to pass. Most of the arguments for the double standard go upon the presumption that there is some virtue in legal-tender acts to compel people to keep their accounts and make their trades in a kind of money which they do not like. But really a legal-tender act, as already said, exhausts itself upon what is past and gone: it exerts no force upon the present or the future. During the whole period of suspension of specie payments in this country (from Jan. 13, 1862, to Dec. 18, 1878), the business of ascertaining the gold value of greenbacks was carried on daily and hourly in the New York gold exchange, except during the brief period when congress attempted to close the gold room by law, with the disastrous result of putting up the premium much higher than it would otherwise have been. —In 1873 silver began to decline rapidly in value, as compared with gold, partly by reason of its demonetization in various parts of Europe, partly in consequence of increased production in the United States, and partly in consequence of a falling off in the demand for silver in India. The decline since 1873 has been equal to 15 per cent. So great a decline was well calculated to stir up doctrinaires and busybodies to put things to rights by printing essays and passing resolutions. But it is equally well calculated to confirm all other people in the notion that a metal so liable to depreciate is not a good recompense for their labor, or a fair equivalent for their property. I have yet to see the bi-metallist who governs himself in his daily business by any different principles from those of the mono-metallist. Both act as though they considered gold money preferable to silver money. It is only in academic discussions, on the lecture platform, in congress, and in Paris conferences, that you learn that silver is as good for trade as gold. Elsewhere, perfect unanimity exists that gold is better for trade than silver, and better than silver and gold together. It is this conjoint, simultaneous, involuntary preference of civilized men, expressed, not by words, but by acts, day by day, year in and year out, for gold money as against silver money, that has brought about the single gold standard in the commercial world. Nothing short of a like preference expressed in like manner will ever bring back the silver standard or the double standard. If the bi-metallists in the Paris conference had set about persuading the public not to prefer gold, instead of trying to bring the sheriff to the aid of silver, they would have been pursuing their end by rational means, whether the end was exactly rational or not. By following the opposite policy, they kept the cart before the horse all the time, and of course made no headway. —It would take more space than we have at our disposal to go over the heads of the dispute between the bi-metallists and their opponents. It is worth remarking, that none of the evils prophesied to flow from the general adoption of the gold standard in the commercial world have come to pass. It was said that the United States could not possibly resume specie payments on the single gold standard; but, if we could do such a wonderful thing, they said that it would put such a strain on the gold resources of the world, that prices would be greatly and permanently lowered, and severe distress would be inflicted upon mankind. Yet the United States did resume specie payments on the gold standard, and now Italy has got herself in readiness to do the same thing; and general prices have not declined, but, on the contrary, have been rising continuously since 1878. —Substitutes for Money. It has been already remarked, that, as civilization progresses, the actual handling of coin and bullion tends to diminish rather than to increase; its place as a medium of exchange being filled by other and more convenient instruments, while its function as a measure and standard of value remains in force all the same. This brings us to the second part of our theme, the substitutes for money. Mr. W. L. Fawcett very pointedly says, that "the proportion of actual coin money in use in the traffic of any country is the measure of the imperfectness of its banking system." —Exactly at what period in the world's history bills of exchange came into use is not known. Operations having some resemblance to banking can be traced in the history of ancient Greece and Rome; and there is abundant evidence that the governments of the ancient world—Greek, Roman, Carthaginian and Chinese—knew how to obtain loans by the issue of representatives of money made of leather, iron or tin, upon the same principles that modern governments obtain them by the issue of paper. Bills of exchange were used to a limited extent in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: they came into extensive use about the beginning of the seventeenth century, and their employment has increased progressively and prodigiously to the present time. As money is a labor-saving machine to avoid the inconvenience and uncertainty of barter, bills of exchange are likewise a labor-saving machine to avoid the use of money. It was found in practice that the goods sold by Germany to Sweden for instance, would pay for the goods sold by Sweden to Germany—the one would effect the other without the employment of money provided the individual sellers of German goods could find the individual buyers of Swedish goods, and swap their claims and obligations. A common place of meeting for such buyers and sellers would in due course have led to the establishment of banks to adjust these transactions by the simple process of writing debit and credit here and there in a set of books. And, in fact, this came to be and still is the principal function of banks. But banks had their beginning, historically speaking, in another set of causes. The old banks of Venice, Genoa, Sweden, England and France were established, in the first instance, to extend financial aid to their respective governments. The banks of Barcelona, Amsterdam and Hamburg were founded for purely commercial purposes. —The multifariousness of the coins of the middle ages, and their uncertain value, were the plague of commerce. They consisted of crowns, florins, ducats, pounds, dollars, etc., more or less debased by the action of monarchs, and more or less worn and clipped. The main object of the early banks was to receive these heterogeneous coins from traders, and give in return the full-weight money of the locality; so that a bill of exchange drawn on Venice, for instance, for so many ducats, might be readily paid in ducats, instead of a miscellaneous assortment of coins, good, bad and indifferent, which must needs be examined and certified by an assayer before the payee would accept them: in other words, the early banks of Venice, Amsterdam, etc., created a "money of account" in their respective localities; or, if they did not actually create it, they preserved it. Bank money, in those times, always commanded a premium over street money, because its value was always guaranteed, always fixed, never variable. The miscellaneous coin deposits of merchants were credited to them on the bank's books at their ascertained value in ducats; and they could draw out the corresponding sums in ducats at pleasure, or could discharge their own debts by turning over to others the sums standing to their credit on the bank's books, without drawing out any money whatsoever. —The Evolution of Banking. We have not time to recite the history of banking development; but one can see how natural the transition would be from the sort of bank we have described to the modern bank. Thus, for instance, the merchant who had made a deposit of coin would soon perceive that the bank's certificate of deposit was more convenient to handle, and less exposed to robbery, than the coin itself; and so bank notes would come into existence. The first bank notes were merely certificates issued against a corresponding amount of coin or bullion: they were like warehouse receipts, issued against grain, cotton or other property taken on storage. The bank itself would soon perceive that a certain portion of the deposits would always be on hand, since some persons would always be sending in as much as others were drawing out, and that this average amount on hand could be profitably employed in the way of loans, for which interest could be obtained. Experience would show that these loans must be secured by pledges of property, in order to guard against loss; and inasmuch as bills of exchange are brought into existence by the sale of property, and are in fact title deeds to property in transit, they would constitute the best security for such loans. Consequently the discounting of bills of exchange—that is, furnishing ready money to the seller of the goods, and collecting it from the buyer at the agreed time of payment—would be the most natural employment of the banker's balance of deposits on hand. Then, seeing that the bills of exchange were regularly paid at maturity, and that new lots were coming in as the old ones were going off, it would be very natural to regard the bills themselves as deposits, and to credit them as so much money to the accounts of the merchants sending them in, and to call them, in a general way, "money." For all the purposes of the banker they are money, because he can send them to the places where they are payable, and either get money for them, or pay his own obligations with them. For all the purposes of the merchant they are money, because he can draw his checks against them, and pay his debts with them. What really happens here is, that the various bills of exchange arising in all parts of the country, or of the commercial world, representing goods bought and sold, offset each other. Barter is going on, as it must have gone on before any money whatever was invented, but with this difference, that, instead of men swapping directly a stone hatchet for a dozen arrow heads, or a day's labor for a haunch of venison, they now swap by a recognized standard of value (viz., the gold dollar of twenty-five and eight-tenths grains), but do not bring the dollar itself into requisition, or only to a very limited extent. The dollar is the common denominator, but the denominator is used only for purposes of reference. Thus it happens that the balances settled at the New York clearing house in one week may amount to one thousand million dollars—a sum larger than the whole amount of gold, greenbacks and national bank notes in circulation in the United States. All the checks, drafts and bills of exchange that go to the clearing house are loosely termed "money," because they answer nearly all purposes for which money is ever used. They are really the signs and evidences of commodities bought and sold. The only difference between the three kinds of paper instruments here named—checks, drafts and bills of exchange—is a difference of locality or territoriality. The check is usually payable in the same town or city where it is drawn; the draft is payable in a different town or city in the same country; and the bill of exchange is payable in some other country. Checks are usually payable at sight; drafts and bills of exchange may be at sight, or a certain number of days after sight. There differences are unimportant as regards the principle we are considering. —Primitive American Banks. It is seen, therefore, that a bank is really a place where swapping is done by wholesale, where merchants and producers, buyers and sellers, meet to exchange their various goods and services without the use of money. The subject is somewhat complex, and perhaps an illustration will serve to make the facts clearer. In my younger days, which were passed in a small town in the then territory of Wisconsin, there was a country store at which all the new settlers did their trading. Money was very scarce, what little the people had being sent off to the government land office at Milwaukee, to pay for the land which had been entered under the pre-emption laws. The country store sold dry goods, groceries, etc., and bought wheat, pork, butter, eggs, and whatever was produced for sale in the neighborhood. A rude warehouse was attached to the store to hold the bulkier products; and a line of teams was in motion, carrying the surplus farm products from this store to Milwaukee, some eighty miles distant, and bringing back to it the goods required by the community. Each head of a family in the town had an account on the books of the storekeeper, where he received credit for what he brought in for sale, and was debited for what he took away. And so things went on from year to year. After a while other stores were established which did business in the same way, giving people the benefits of competition. In course of time money became more plentiful in consequence of the community sending more wheat, etc., to Milwaukee, than the value of the goods they brought back; and gradually the stores were enabled to buy wheat and pork, and sell molasses and other things, for cash, or on short time. Now, the store we have described united the functions of a merchant and a banker. It was the place where all the buying and selling in the community was done by writing debit and credit opposite each man's name, according as he brought in one kind of property, and took away another kind, without the use of money. This is the simplest representation that can be given of the sort of business transacted by a modern bank. There are hundreds and thousands of these country stores in the west to-day, whose proprietors would probably be amazed to be told that they are bankers, but who are performing, unconsciously, all the functions of bankers, except that of issuing circulating notes. In the case of which I have spoken, remittances to Milwaukee by individuals other than the storekeeper were commonly made by buying the storekeeper's drafts on his correspondent in that city, just as we now buy bank drafts. —It will be seen that there was a circulation of the goods and products of the community carried on by means of the store, and that the store itself furnished the capital needed to set the business going, and tide over the interval between seed time and harvest. Now, what does the modern bank do other than this? The modern bank does not deal directly in merchandise. It furnishes capital to merchants, and settles their balances exactly as the country storekeeper settled those of his customers. The bank, instead of having a warehouse in the rear to receive grain and provisions, and shelves to hold dry goods and hardware, and a lot of teams carrying things here and there, intrusts these functions to warehousemen and merchants, to railways and steamships, holding paper instruments which are the warrants and certificates of the property itself. We need not trace the various ramifications of banking. They are all resolvable by the principles of the country store. The bank's deposits are composed mainly of these warrants and certificates, called, in the language of commerce, "checks," "drafts," and "bills of exchange." —The Genesis of Bank Notes. As mankind progress in civilization, the tendency and unconscious effort is always going on to dispense with the use of money, and to carry on trade by swapping. It is thus that bank notes come into existence. Farmer A, we will suppose, sells to miller B a thousand bushels of wheat, and receives a check for one thousand dollars. If farmer A wishes to pay off a mortgage to C, or to buy a hundred sheep from D, he can turn over this check in payment. and the swap will be complete. No money will be used, but each of the parties will have obtained what he wanted just as effectually as though a bag of gold had been passed around from one to the other, and even more economically; but if A wishes to pay the wages of his farm hands, and to send his son to college, and to go on a journey himself, he must receive pay for his wheat in something that will circulate from hand to hand in small sums. Swapping must come to an end, and money must be brought into requisition, unless the miller draws, say, two hundred checks of five dollars each, and unless the miller's credit is so well and widely known that everybody will accept his checks. But this very rarely happens. What does happen is, that the farmer takes his check to the bank, and the bank gives him its notes for the amount. These notes will be accepted universally, because everybody knows they will be paid on demand. Thus swapping is still carried on, notwithstanding the subdivision of the check into a number of small checks, or bank notes, or tickets—it makes no difference what we call them. The miller, in this case, has deposited his draft on New York, or his bill of exchange on Liverpool, for the last lot of flour he sent forward into the world's circulation; the bank has credited him the amount; and, when his check came in, it issued a lot of tickets saying, virtually, that "the bearer of this ticket is entitled to the value of one two-hundredth part of a lot of flour, in existence somewhere, and can receive that value whenever and wherever he chooses. He can receive it at this bank's counter in gold, or he can receive it in property at any store, hotel, railway office, or other place of business, where the standing of this bank is known."—"Credit Money." Much confusion has been introduced into this subject by the use of the phrase "credit money." as applied to bank loans, bank deposits and bank notes. Many people, and even some writers on political economy, use this phrase as though it had a definite signification, whereas it would puzzle the best of them to define it, or to tell what they mean by it. The only credit money in this country is the legal-tender greenback. This has nothing behind it but credit—the government credit, a good credit but credit pure and simple. It may be said the government has a lot of gold somewhere to redeem these greenbacks with: so it has (since Jan. 1, 1879); but the fact remains that the green back is based upon credit, and not upon property. So is the bank of England note, up to fifteen million pounds. This amount of notes the bank of England puts out on the credit of the government. But bank notes, ordinarily, are not credit money: they are property tickets, representing the swapping of goods and services, as already shown. Of course, we are now speaking of good banking, not of swindling or slovenly banking. The history of this country furnishes a great many examples of bad banking, to which the phrase "credit money" might be properly applied; but these cases are now rare. Still less is the phrase "credit money" applicable to bank loans and deposits. What is loaned and deposited under the conditions of good banking is property in circulation. I repudiate utterly the phrase "credit money," as applied to other money than greenbacks or government issues. —Few words in the English language have been more vilely abused than this word "credit." If I have a wagon that I do not wish to use for a year, and I lend it to my neighbor at an agreed rate of hire. I have extended to him a credit. If I have no wagon. but have the money to buy one, and lend this money to my neighbor, who buys a wagon, agreeing to repay me with an agreed rate of interest, I have equally extended to him a credit. What I have done in either case is to lend him a wagon. He could make better use of it than I could for the time being; and therefore the world is better off. It is all the same. whether I lend the wagon or whether a bank lends it. Range the world over, and you will find nothing different from this, in point of principle, in the nature and employment of credit. Credit never brings a cent's worth of property into existence, except by putting tools and implements already existing into the hands of those who can make use of them, and who could otherwise not obtain them; but, by accomplishing this, it becomes a mighty engine of human progress. All notions implying that credit of itself, in any form whatever, calls wealth into existence by prestidigitation, are fantastic and mischievous. "Credit instruments," which we hear spoken of so frequently, are instruments for facilitating the transfer of tools and other reproductive capital from the hands of those who have them, but can not use them, to those who have them not, but can use them. A savings bank is a credit instrument of this sort; an ordinary bank of deposit and discount is such an instrument; a draft, a bill of exchange, a bank note is not such an instrument: it is, as shown, a ticket for circulating property, entitling the holder to such and such a share of the world's existent consumable commodities. When these commodities are consumed, and cease to exist, the corresponding tickets cease to exist also, and new ones only come into life as new commodities are produced. The drafts and bills of exchange are paid and canceled, and the bank notes come home to be redeemed. The notes may not be actually canceled. In order to save the cost of printing, and the trouble of signing a new lot, the old ones may be reissued, when called for, by the same kind of business needs which led to their first issue. It obviously makes no difference, except in a mechanical sense, whether, in the case of a second issue, the old notes are again used, or new ones are put out. —Bank of England Note System. It has already been remarked that the only credit money in existence is government money—green backs in this country: bank of England notes, up to the fifteen million pounds' limit, in Great Britain, etc. It has been shown how the greenbacks are entitled to be called credit money, and how bank notes differ from them as to their origin the causes which bring them into life, and which lead to their ultimate extinction. Bank of England notes are of two kinds as to their origin although in external appearance. there is no difference between them. In the year 1844 it was estimated. or rather ascertained, by the public authorities, that eleven million pounds of bank notes, of the denomination of five pounds and upward, would circulate in the hands of the people at all times—in bad times as well as good times—performing the ordinary functions of internal traffic. The government owed the bank eleven million pounds, borrowed a long time before. It said to the bank, "You may issue this amount of notes without any gold reserve whatever, because experience shows that gold will never be demanded so long as the issue is not in excess of eleven millions. and so long as the public have confidence in your ultimate solvency; and, of course, you will be solvent to this extent, because we owe you that amount. We will not pay you any interest on the amount we owe you (this eleven millions), because you will get interest from the borrowers of these notes. If the business requirements of the country call for more than eleven millions at any time, you may issue them to any extent, provided you have five gold sovereigns in your vaults for every five pound note so issued in excess of the eleven millions." This is the famous "currency principle" which is identified with the name of Sir Robert Peel. Eventually, the amount of uncovered issues was raised to fifteen million pounds by the dying out of country banks then in existence, which were issuing notes of their own, and which it was deemed best not to disturb. But the principle was not altered in any way by turning over their note issuing privileges to the bank of England. —This so-called "currency principle" proceeded upon a totally different plan from that which we have described as the natural mode of creating and issuing bank notes: which latter is commonly called the "banking principle." The banking principle, as shown, is simply the swapping of property by retail, the swapping by wholesale being carried on by checks, drafts and bills of exchange. The banking principle requires that an equivalent of every bank note shall be in existence, circulating through the community in the form of pounds of sugar, barrels of flour, legs of mutton, etc. The currency principle requires nothing of the sort it merely says, that, "since people prefer paper to gold for ordinary use. when they are satisfied of the goodness of the paper, we (the government) will give them paper up to the amount of their average requirements, and take the corresponding amount of gold or property unto ourselves." This is virtually what our government has done in the case of the greenbacks. —The bank of England act has been much lauded; and so high an authority as Prof. Jevons esteems it "a monument of sound and skillful financial legislation." It appears to me to be plausible and specious rather than scientific. What is to be said in favor of it is, that the government gets the profit on the sum represented by the uncovered notes, and that the security to the note holder is always perfect. But the government could equally get the profit on the notes by taxing them when issued by banks, and it could furnish equal security by requiring the banks to deposit government bonds or consols, as is done in the case of our national banks. What is to be said against it is, that it does not conform to the natural course of things; the evolution by which bank notes, as swapping instruments, are brought into existence, forbidding any swapping beyond fifteen million pounds, unless done by means of checks and bills of exchange. For all above this sum it requires that gold be first bought. It is arbitrary and rigid. It proceeds upon the theory that human wisdom (the wisdom of the year 1844) is a better regulator of the circulation than the silent and unperceived course of trade which creates its instruments of exchange as it goes along. It is not a sufficient answer to say that the bank act has worked well; since human society readily adapts itself to its environment. whether good or bad. Deprived of the use of the bank note, which arises naturally in the mode described, British trade has availed itself of the check system to a prodigious extent. In London but little more than 2 per cent. of the business done is transacted by means of coin and bank notes together, the remainder being represented by checks and bills of exchange. —Greenbacks and National Bank Notes. Our greenback system is akin to the issue department of the bank of England, so far as relates to the fifteen million pounds of bank of England notes. Congress having recently passed a bill to authorize the issue of gold certificates, in small denominations, to persons depositing gold in the treasury, the parallel is still closer as regards the issue of circulating notes. An illustration used by Mr. George S. Coe, president of the American Exchange bank, New York, showing the unphilosophical character of the "credit money," embodied alike in the greenback and the uncovered bank of England note, seems to me perfectly conclusive as to the point we are considering. Bills of exchange, says Mr. Coe—want of space compels me to condense his argument—bills of exchange are the world's international currency, drafts and checks are the currency of domestic wholesale traffic, and paper notes are the currency of retail trade. How absurd it would be to draw a lot of bills on Liverpool without sending any equivalent property to Liverpool to balance them! Suppose a syndicate of bankers in New York, about whose solvency there could be no question. (or the government itself), should draw three hundred and fifty millions of such bills, and sell them to the public without sending a cent's worth of wheat, cotton or other property abroad to correspond with them: the bills would go to England in due course, and be paid, and the proceeds would come back to us in the shape of English goods. Under the circumstances, the English bankers would be obliged to draw back on the American bankers for an equal sum. But suppose the American bankers, instead of paying the English drafts, should tender the holders of them a fresh lot of bills of exchange on Liverpool: what would be the effect of this on the trade of the two countries? Obviously it would throw the whole traffic into dire confusion. We should have received three hundred and fifty million dollars' worth of property without rendering any equivalent. We should simply owe that amount of money to England. Undoubtedly England is able to lend us that amount in the usual way in which time loans are negotiated, but not, by any means, in this way. Perhaps we should be able to invest that sum advantageously in our new country, after due consideration; but this is not certain. At all events, we could not do so in a hurry. Clearly the trade of the world would be subjected to a wrench like that caused by throwing a stone into a delicate and complicated piece of machinery. —Apply this analysis to the drafts and checks floating about in our own country, and the same result is reached. Apply it to the paper currency, and it comes to the same thing, so far as this currency is not backed by property circulating alongside. It is not necessary to follow low any particular note around, and see what course it takes, how long it stays out, and when it comes back to its place of issue. When trade is brisk, the notes, if issued according to the banking principle, will be plentiful: when trade is slack, they will find their way home for redemption. This is as it should be. But, if there is no property in circulation corresponding to the notes, the currency will be rigid and inelastic. It will bear no relation to the wants of trade. —The Future of our National Banking System. The bank charter extension act passed by congress in the summer of 1882 makes no considerable change in the national banking system. But a great change is impending, to be brought about by the payment of the national debt, which now constitutes the security of bank note issues. Whether other adequate security can be provided when the bonds are paid off, is still an unsolved problem. It is certain that other bonds security is not obtainable. Good state bonds are even scarcer than national bonds, and are, like the latter, in the course of redemption, so that even if we were to consider that class of bonds admissible as a substitute for those of the United States, they could not be had in sufficient amounts. Other sorts of bonds, municipal or corporate, are out of the question, as security for bank notes. Not only do they not, even the best of them, enjoy the stability of market value requisite to insure perfect confidence; but since the selection of securities would rest with officers of the government, it would eventually become a part of the political dispensation, and the choice would be more or less governed by "influence" and "pressure." Nothing would more surely undermine and destroy the system than to admit polities and favoritism into the category of forces prescribing what particular bonds of cities, towns, railways, gas companies, or what not, should be received. —The conclusion is inevitable that when the national bonds are paid off, or when they become so scarce that the banks can not obtain them, or so high in price that no profit can be made in issuing circulating notes upon them, the national banknote system must end unless the capital of the banks themselves, and the responsibility of the shareholders, can be relied upon as sufficient. It is plain that if the bank has in its own vaults the capital heretofore invested in the United States bonds which it has deposited in the treasury, its ability to redeem its notes will be perfect. The question is, how to insure that it shall always have this capital within reach. It would be quite reasonable to provide that the liability of bank shareholders should be unlimited as to circulating notes. This would insure watchfulness on the part of all solvent shareholders over the loans and discounts and other investments of the bank's capital. It would be reasonable also to make note holders preferred creditors of failed banks, giving them the first lien on the assets. The unlimited liability of shareholders has always served to prevent depreciation of the notes of Scotch banks, and an examination of the cases of bank failures under our national system would probably show that no loss would ever have resulted to note holders if these two requirements had been in force, even without the bond security held at Washington. —It is necessary, however, not merely to insure the solvency of the bank notes, but to so convince the public of the fact that no doubt shall over arise, so that in cases of failures, few or many, the notes shall continue to pass freely, without question and without examination. To attain this end it would be necessary that all the national banks should agree to receive at par the notes of all other national banks under the same terms and conditions of central redemption which are now prescribed by law, or perhaps with some improvement upon existing methods of redemption. With such a guaranty and balance wheel, added to the reasonable safeguards previously mentioned, there would be no need of bond security for bank notes to be held in pledge at Washington. But the mutual insurance system could not be forced upon the banks by law. It would not be just to make one bank responsible for another bank's debts against its will. The system must be entered into voluntarily or not at all. It is for the bankers of the whole country, through their central organization, to find the ways and means to preserve the excellent system which we now have, so immensely superior to the old state system, or to any possible state system. The problem is not so difficult as it seems. We have been so long accustomed to bond security for bank notes that any other system is to most people unthinkable. But, in point of fact, it exists nowhere else in the world, although the bank of England system has points of resemblance to it, as already shown. At all events. it would be a great mistake for us to perpetuate or prolong a national debt merely to furnish security for bank notes. While the debt exists, while the government has not the means of paying it off, and relieving the tax payers of the annual interest charge, it may be usefully employed as security for the holders of bank notes, but to tax the people longer than is necessary for this purpose would be indefensible. and would furnish good ground for the charge made against the national banks that they oppress the community. That charge is now without foundation. The banks have neither created nor protracted the national debt. So long as the debt exists, it is immaterial who holds it, whether national banks, savings banks, trust companies, life insurance companies, or private persons. In a paradoxical world. nothing more whimsical can be found than the unpopularity of the banks arising from the fact that their notes are secured by government bonds. Before the war their notes were either not secured at all, or were less perfectly secured; yet they were exposed to no such loss of popularity. They were always popular so long as their notes were good. —The comptroller of the currency, in his annual report for 1882, strongly opposes the plan here suggested for continuing the national bank note system after the public debt shall have been paid off, believing, as he does, that it is impracticable to secure any general concurrence among the banks to receive, and thus mutually insure, each other's notes; and believing. also, that the popularity of the present system would be made use of to perpetrate extensive frauds upon the public. Better would it be, he thinks, that the system should perish when the debt is extinguished, than that the admirable features which have given it such a hold upon public confidence should be seized upon by swindlers as a means of defrauding the people. His views are entitled to great weight. by reason of his personal authority, as well as for the intrinsic force of his argument. It can not be doubted, however, that with the extinguishment of the national bank system the old state bank system, or systems, would be revived We have therefore to choose between the latter and some modification of the former, and we must make our choice before the expiration of many years. HORACE WHITE. MONGOLSMONGOLS. In ethnology, the Mongolians include those races of men after the Aryans, Semites and Hamites, numbering nearly half the human race. They are characterized by easily recognizable physical traits: the lateral projection of the check, and depression of the nasal, bones; broad and flat faces; imperfectly arched eyebrows and oblique eyes; tawny skin; and lank and thin hair, especially on the face; though in certain states of civilization these traits are modified or disappear. Under the general classification of Mongolians are included the variety of races included in the Chinese empire, Burmese, Siamese, Japanese, Turks, Magyars, Lapps, Finns, Esquimaux and Samoieds. In history they are known as the founders of the Median and early Chinese empires, as Scythians and Huns, and as Mongols, Tartars (Tatars) and Turks. The original home and place of departure of the Mongolians is central and eastern Asia. between the fortieth and fiftieth degrees of north latitude. More than any other division of mankind they are nomads, though in many instances they have forsaken their pastoral habits to found nations and empires. —The history of the Mongols proper begins with Genghis Khan (1162-1227). who, as the leader of a small horde in the region southeast of Lake Baikal, speedily united many tribes, and then moved to the conquest of China. His sons and grandsons continued the work of conquest until, by 1250, the whole of central Asia and part of Europe, from the Pacific ocean to the frontiers of Germany, were united under one empire. Though this empire soon broke up, a second tide of Mongol invasion, under Tamerlane. in the fourteenth century, overflowed Persia, Turkistan, Hindostan, Asia Minor and Georgia. This new empire soon in turn disintegrated; but the Mogul empire in India was in the sixteenth century founded by a descendant of Tamerlane. Though the Mongol power in Europe was broken up, and most of the Mongol tribes driven out, yet the Turks, true to the spirit of their progenitors, maintained the energy of conquest for centuries, and then "camped out" in Europe, instead of settling on the soil to improve it. The Magyars are, perhaps, the only people of historic Asiatic origin who have been thus far converted to Christianity and become European in their tastes and habits. The Mongolian peoples of central-western Asia are being gradually subdued by the Russian arms and made subjects of the czar; these military movements being but the continuation of a policy begun four centuries ago. The Mongolians of Mongolia proper number about 2,000,000, and are governed by chieftains who claim descent from their great founder Genghis Khan. Though subjects of China, they are allowed great freedom. In religion the peoples of Mongol origin are followers of Confucius, Lao Tszê, Buddha, Mohammed and Christ. Their languages are now usually classified under the head of "Turanian." See Howorth's History of the Mongols, London, 1876-80. W. E.g. MONOPOLIESMONOPOLIES. Until political economy had established as a fundamental truth, and political science accepted as a rule of action, that each individual in a community is naturally free to pursue his own happiness as in his judgment he may deem most expedient, limited only by the like right on the part of his neighbor, it was almost impossible to arrive at any clear ideas upon the subject of monopoly. Roman jurists as well as English common law lawyers, after magna charta. formulated declarations of rights, which vitiated claims of monopoly and declared them to be contrary to natural justice; yet so long as government was arbitrary and unlimited in its sovereignty—the very fountain and source of all power over the individual subject, without restraint and limitation—it certainly was difficult to establish axiomatically and philosophically any limitation upon the right of the government to create monopolies. It is only when terms are set to the power of encroachment by the government itself over individual enterprise or the pursuit of happiness, that the principle can be invoked, that that impairment of individual liberty which government itself can not justly work it can not authorize others to bring about. For instance, the constitutions of the several states all contain provisions that the public burden shall be borne equally, and that no man shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property except by due process of law, and some of the state constitutions contain, in express terms, the provision of magna charta that "no man shall be deprived of his free customs and liberties," in other words, he shall not be deprived of the right to devote himself to any legitimate occupation, and to reap the natural reward of success therein. It is, therefore, clearly incompetent for a government so limited to create an artificial organism, or to permit the growth of an artificial organism, which would in effect distribute the public burdens unequally, or which in its practical effect and working prevents persons from reaping the natural reward of industry and superior intelligence in any vocation which they may have chosen. In modern times, beginning with magna charta, government thenceforth became, as to English-speaking people, not an arbitrary imposition upon a people, but a trust to be exercised for the benefit of the citizen, within the terms of limitation set by the people to the power of government. That there were great interregnums of arbitrary power exercised in England is not to the purpose. because English lawyers have long regarded the expressions of judicial opinions during the reign of the Tudors and some of the Plantagenets as nonauthoritative common law doctrines as to the rights of English citizens. —We can only get rid of much loose talk which ordinarily surrounds the subject of monopoly and anti-monopoly by defining what is meant by a monopoly. The derivation of the word shows that its original meaning implied the exclusive right to sell a commodity. Its derivative meaning can no longer be strictly defined, but is applied to many forms of social manifestations, which all come under one or the other of the following heads, or under several of them. 1. Any grant by law to an individual or combination of individuals, to perform a particular service or supply a commodity, and the exclusion of others from performing or supplying the same. 2. Any grant by law to any particular person or combination of persons, to perform a particular service which in its nature makes it impossible for others to render a like service or an equally efficient service. 3. Any legal exemptions of natural or artificial persons from the burden or duties which are imposed upon other persons or corporations in the commonwealth. 4. Trade marks, copyrights and patents. The foregoing are legal monopolies. —Qualified or incidental monopolies, arising from the organization of modern society, are: 1. The engrossing of a business by an individual or combination of individuals, who, by means of the vastness of the capital invested, drive out competitors, not by a superior service, a better commodity or lower normal price which is the operation of the natural law of competition, but by losses deliberately incurred which they can bear and the competitor can not, to be recouped by excessive charges when the competitor is made harmless. 2. The exclusive possession or occupation of certain peculiarly favorably situated portions of land. 3. All industrial enterprises of a community involving expenditure of large capital for plant used in the supply of any article which is consumed or devoted to service rendered at the place and in connection with the plant or machinery by which it is supplied. and the supply of which article or convenience or service can be indefinitely increased without a proportionate increase in plant and capital. 4. The natural or cultivated aptitude or faculty to supply a commodity or render a service so far superior to others that the competitive standards of price are no longer applicable. Great artists, orators, lawyers, actors, etc., come under this head of personal monopoly. 5. What may in course of centuries grow into a monopoly, and that of an extremely burdensome character, is the individual ownership of land. —At the very outset we must recognize the fact that the greatest, monopoly of all existing in society is the monopoly of government. This monopoly arises from the primal necessity of human beings for security, and government is the only furnisher of security, and allows no one else to attempt to meet the same want. It levies its own remuneration on its own conception of right, in the shape of taxes for the service performed by it; questioning its authority is deemed to be treason; and, in addition to furnishing security, government seems to have a standing option to perform whatever other services it sees fit for the community, at such prices as it may see fit, and in many instances, even in the United States, avails itself of this privilege. Thus, in addition to rendering the service of security which involves the establishment of executive and legislative offices, the organization of a judicial and police system, the building of forts and the maintenance of an army and navy, it undertakes to facilitate the opening of intercommunication between people by the building of highways and canals, deepening harbors, carrying letters and packages, and furnishing educational facilities. It claims and exercises the right to be the exclusive supplier of coined money and currency, and by tariff, bounty and tax regulation and impositions, rearranges and readjusts all the commercial and industrial occupations of the people, and for many peoples supervises and regulates the religious beliefs and institutions as well as their temporal interests; and yet all governments are frequently compelled to extend their own monopoly into new fields, for the purpose of diminishing corporate and personal monopolies which exist in the community, the pressure of which may be more burdensome because less equally distributed than that which is exercised by governments. —Although theoretically the people of the United States are masters of the situation, and determine upon the objects and expenditure of government, the will of the people is acted and reacted upon by so many influences, and is expressed by so many volunteer spokesmen upon the rostrum and in the press, and political parties that claim to be composed of the whole people are so viciously organized, that what is the true will of the people can as vet not accurately nor even approximately be ascertained. The will of the people is so often entrapped, misconstrued and misstated by interested parties who find their profit in explaining public opinion by manufacturing it or vending a spurious article, and our political methods are so defectively organized, that there is as yet no way to arrive in a populous community at a veritable expression of the popular will. It becomes, therefore, of much importance to consider, in the case of any particular movement against an industrial or natural monopoly, whether it will result in the destruction of the monopoly, or in its becoming changed into a governmental monopoly, which is as yet, even in the United States, a very different thing from giving back to the people the power which theretofore had been absorbed by the monopoly. —Monopolies were instituted originally as part of the prerogative of the sovereign, either to reward favorites or as a means to replenish the exchequer. Even the grants to municipal corporations of courts-leet and the right to raise their own taxes, "to pay scot and bear lot," were frequently granted in return for a mere money remuneration. Frequently the grants arose to humble the power of some great nobleman in whose territory the burgh or city securing municipal rights was located, not because his exactions pained the royal heart, but because it made the lord of the manor too powerful a subject. Trade monopolies were granted during the middle ages because, in the first place, arbitrary regulations were the rule. All mundane as well as religious matters were supposed to require regulating. Liberty was regarded as the most baneful of influences, and wherever it existed it was immediately eliminated, and the persons who theretofore exercised some free trade or free calling were subjected to stringent regulations. In that way every avocation was subjected to artificial bands; the number of persons permitted to pursue it was limited, and the governments of Europe down to the middle of the eighteenth century far surpassed our modern trades unions in the minuteness and unreasonableness of the regulations they constantly prescribed and enforced. Another reason for regulating trades by monopoly grants during the middle ages, was because the persons following them could thus be subjected to a stricter inquisition as to their modes of life and their habits of thought; and as ecclesiasticism was the most potent stimulant of governmental activity during the middle ages, the regulating of the trades was a correlated part to the regulating of the faith. These restrictions. however, being universal, almost wholly lost the nature of monopolies, because, in a nation where all is regulated and all circumscribed, though there is an immense waste of energy and probably stagnation in enterprise and a checking of the growth of wealth, monopoly conditions can scarcely be said to exist, except in so far as certain special trades or avocations may be more remunerative than others, and a limitation of the number engaged therein result in extraordinary gains. A survival of such trade regulations is the limitation of the number of persons who are permitted in France to follow the calling of stock brokers. And likewise in Germany surviving limitations in exceptional employments and functions indicate what was the universal condition during the middle ages. —Of trade monopoly Bentham says, "I know of but one opinion relative to it: oppression in the instance of the individuals excluded from the occupation thus engrossed, and excessive earnings in the instance of the partakers of the privilege; whence the alternation of penury with excessive plenty in a rank of life where sensual excesses supply the demand for occupation in a vacant mind, and enhancement of prices in every article connected with the subject matter of the monopoly; such appear to be the consequences to the several parties interested, to individuals excluded, individuals favored, and the community at large." —Notwithstanding the general justice of Bentham's criticisms of trade monopolies, it must nevertheless be conceded, when viewed historically, that their existence for a limited period is not only explicable but justifiable. At the times when the seas swarmed with pirates, and the navies of Europe had not yet successfully made head against them, it required extraordinary inducements to venture capital in trades beyond the high seas; and nothing short of a monopoly or exclusive privilege would tempt men, in international commerce involving shipments by sea, to take risks which can scarcely be realized by business men in these days of bills of exchange and commercial bills of lading, of insurances and steamers, and safety upon the high seas from all possible attack except that of the elements. —It must also be remembered that the merchants' companies opened at the outset their corporations to all who were willing to bear with them equal risks, and that therefore, while trading was prohibited, in such cases as the Dutch and East India companies, with the countries over which their dominion extended, to all persons not members of the merchants' companies, yet as they extended the benefits of their operations to those who were willing to share with them their risks, it was scarcely in the nature of a monopoly. It was necessary that all trades should be done under the merchants' flag because, notably in the case of the East India company in England, the company protected its traders by an army, and considerably contributed toward the expenses for the maintenance of a fleet to protect merchandise on the inward and outward passages. —The greatest abuse connected with monopolies of a trading character were those which arose from the necessity for revenue on the part of kings. Precisely as offices were sold to the highest bidders, trade privileges were sold to the highest bidders, and numberless monopolies arose and continued long after the period of necessity that had given them birth had passed away, eating out, by exactions and taxations, the commercial life of the people. The East India company had become in time so powerful, so many of the returned rich India merchants interested in the profits of the India company were sent to parliament, and the influence of their wealth permeated so many different strata of society, that the struggle to deprive that company of its exclusive privileges and to throw the empire of India open to free trade lasted almost a hundred years. The Hudson's Bay company still exercises, in a modified form, the privileges that have been granted to it, on the theory that such exclusive privileges were necessary; they doubtless were, at first, to induce men to venture their lives and their capital in so desperate an enterprise as the trapping and capturing of fur animals in the inhospitable territory of British America, thousands of miles from the protection of the British fleet or British soldiers, among hostile Indians and savage animals. —Under the head of grants by law to an individual or combination of individuals to perform a particular service, and the exclusion of others from performing or supplying the same, may be enumerated such industries of a country as are fostered and "protected" by means of a tariff so high as to exclude foreign competition. Although the inhabitants of the country as to which such a system of protection prevails are free to engage in such industry, yet exclusion by law, of sources of supply from countries more favorably situated for production, operates, as to the increase of price in the protected article, as a monopoly, in the same manner as a patent or a positive prohibition against the non-protected from purchasing the same commodity at a lower rate. In time, competition between the protected manufacturers or producers tends to lower prices, but this is an incident which is true of almost all monopolies. however onerous, not confined to a single individual. The Paris stock exchange, limited by law to sixty members, produces the same result as to competition between those members in enabling persons who desire to deal in stocks to get their business done at a rate that is not so exacting as to deter them from making operations. Monopolists scarcely ever charge what it is possible to charge even when in combination, simply because they would thus destroy the source of their business, because substitutes for their protected article or service would come into existence, or people would be content to do without it. —Under the second class of grants by law to persons or combinations of persons, to perform a particular service or supply a commodity which in its nature makes it impossible to others to render a like or an equally efficient service, many disguised monopolies are granted in all countries. If a company or combination of individuals is organized for the water supply of a city, for gas supply, or for the building of warehouses along the river front, with special privileges to condemn land for such purposes, the possession of the field in the case of water and gas companies, and the power to select at the outset the most favorably located points for warehouses of which there may not be many at the river frontage of a city, may each in itself give to such persons or company an exclusive right, although in terms the law does not make it exclusive. The same would be true of a bridge company, if there were but one or two eligible points along the river where such a bridge or bridges could be constructed. Although other companies might come into the field, they would do so after the first company had possession of the more eligible sites, and under such disadvantages that the first company, unless properly controlled by law, has a perpetual monopoly in having that power of oppression which the second or other company can not enjoy. —A legal exemption from the burdens that all citizens naturally should bear, such as taxation, the bearing of arms, or the performance of other duties as citizens, operates precisely in the same manner as a grant of special privileges. It is immaterial, in fact and in principle, whether the person has the special privilege of taxation either through the power of charging more for a commodity than it is worth or for a service than can be obtained for it under the law of competition, or whether the person or persons or corporation is exempted from the duty which others are called upon to bear, because in either case an inequality is created which gives to the privileged class opportunities for development and for the acquisition of wealth which others do not equally enjoy, and which is counter to the fundamental principle as embodied in magna charta, that "no man shall be deprived of his free customs and liberties." In this country such exemptions have been granted in years past to banks, and more recently to railway corporations, and are most generally granted to educational and religious institutions. That there is no difference in principle between a direct grant of money and such exemptions is capable of mathematical demonstration, and yet in many states where the requirement of the constitution is that taxation shall be equal, that there shall be no state church, and that there shall be no privileged class, such exemptions have been held to be constitutional exercises of power, either from want of courage on the part of the judiciary to offend the powerful interests which enjoy such immunity, or from want of sufficient politico-economical knowledge to enable the judicial mind to see that such immunities are in point of fact of the nature of monopoly grants. —In the case of trade marks, copyrights and patents, the state grants legal monopolies on an entirely different theory from the grant of monopolies of a trading character. A trade mark is a property which even at common law has been recognized as a matter capable of individual ownership on the part of him who has created a good will therein; and although copyright (the right of an author to the exclusive possession of his intellectual product) is supposed to exist by virtue of law alone, yet even in such a case it is doubtful whether a careful analysis would not show that while the thoughts embodied in the author's works are, from the instant they are divulged, the common property of mankind, yet that form in which the author sees fit to put those thoughts is the special property of him who has given those thoughts that form. Kant insists most ingeniously that there is a natural right of property in an author's work independent of law, on the ground that a man has a right to make his speech to the community and that he alone can make it, and that no man may make it for him. When he prints that speech he simply multiplies his message to society, but he does not change the nature of his right. He alone is authorized. no matter in how many copies, to make that speech; and the publisher to whom he deputes that right is his mere agent in the multiplying of the speech; and while others may make speeches of a similar nature, no man can put the author's name to a speech that he did not make or did not authorize the making of; and therefore there is a natural right of property in the author to the speech as long as the author's name is connected therewith. Hence, if Kant's position is correct, copyright is the mere giving of legal sanction to a natural right of property, and does not partake of the nature of monopoly. —Patents, while they give a monopoly of the process or device to the inventor, on the other hand, destroy monopolies to a much greater degree than they create them. A man's right to his secret or trade is a well-recognized common law property right. In the absence of patent laws, every one making an invention would swear his employés to secrecy, and would attempt as long as possible to keep the advantage of his process or his invention within the knowledge of those only on whose loyalty he can depend. This right he has at law; the inadequate protection, however, that the law can afford to such secrets of trade, and the injurious effects upon the industrial progress of the world which the maintenance of such secrets has had, have induced society almost everywhere in the civilized part of the world to say to the inventor, "Publish your discovery to the world to the fullest possible extent; if you tell the whole truth as to your discovery we will secure to you the exclusive right to its use for a certain number of years, so that the world may have the benefit of the knowledge of the discovery or invention." Though doubts have been entertained at times as to the wisdom of patent laws, their utility, weighed as against the inconvenience of their absence, has on the whole been conceded by the leading publicists of the world. —As to all monopolies created by law, whether created in terms by the law or incidental to the law, it is the duty of the state to see to it that they do not become oppressive. An adherent, be he never so blind a one, to the laissez-faire doctrine of political economy, can not insist that in case of monopolies created by law the state shall let such monopolies alone. It is the constant duty of the law-making power to circumscribe the special organisms which it calls into being, for the purpose of keeping them within proper bounds and to prevent their too rapid and mischievous growth. Cases of greater difficulty, however, arise as to how society shall deal with monopolies which are qualified or incidental, and arise from the social organization. Where a business has grown to such proportions in the hands of certain individuals or combination of individuals that they can crush out competition by losses deliberately incurred by them, and which they can easily bear by reason of their enormous accumulation of capital, and which, therefore, drives out of business those who, though equally capable of rendering the service of supplying the commodity, are incapable of bearing the losses thus imposed, presents a problem which has not as yet been solved by modern society. The most flagrant and at the same time the most conspicuous example in this country, is that which is known as the "Standard oil combination." Originally a corporation with a capital not larger than that of many of its competitors, its managers, by securing special freight rates from the great trunk lines to the seaboard for their crude petroleum and the refined article, which was then manufactured by them at Cleveland, Ohio, obtained so great an advantage over their competitors that they had, on the one hand, the producer in their toils, and, on the other, so effectually destroyed their rivals in the business of refining that 90 per cent. of the enormous business done in refined petroleum in the United States, and which amounted in 1880 to 367,000,000 gallons, representing a value of $31,000,000, was engrossed and monopolized by the Standard oil combination. It is idle, because it is wide of the truth, to say that they were either superior refiners or superior producers. They simply were less scrupulous or more alert than their neighbors in making combinations with the railways, who, in violation of all proper business interests connected with transportation, and of their duty to the state, entered into a compact with them to deprive of a market others equally favorably situated for production and refining, so that the Standard oil company could purchase other refineries at any price they saw fit to pay for them, and in numerous cases purchased them simply to dismantle them so as to prevent production. When this combination, by such methods, became so powerful as to control a capital variously estimated at from ten to twenty millions of dollars, and now estimated at something like fifty millions of dollars, they openly dictated terms to the railways which prior to that time they had been in collusive combination with, and obtained exclusive control over their transportation facilities from the producing points to the seaboard. Not content with that condition of affairs, they determined to abandon the railways altogether, and constructed their own pipe lines to tide waters. Here is an industrial monopoly not created by law, which has no legal sanction for its performances or exactions, but which, nevertheless, operates precisely in the same manner as though a law had been passed placing the producers of oil in their possession, to be taxed at their own will, requiring the railway companies to charge them but such rates as they see fit to pay, prohibiting other people from engaging in the business that they are engaged in, and dismantling and destroying the works of those already engaged therein. Were such a law proposed to be enacted, the community would cry out that it was monstrous, far exceeding, in tyrannical outrage upon the community, anything that had ever been attempted by the Tudors. Yet in this free country, where all trades and occupations are supposed to be open to competition, this mischievous result has been achieved. It is clearly, therefore, the duty of the law-maker, under the principle of salus populi suprema lex, to insist that it is no part of the law of competition that men shall use their capital deliberately to ruin other people, and the legislator should prevent the existence of conditions which enable such unfair advantages to be obtained, to check them when they are likely to be obtained, and to undo the mischief if, by reason of the neglect of the law-maker, it has been permitted to be created. The state has a right to step in, and does step in, to protect all classes of the community who are supposed not to deal on equal terms with those with whom they are thrown in contact: clients as against lawyers, wards as against their trustees, infants as against persons of full age. Therefore some kind of protection must be afforded by law to industries which are likely to be subjected to an influence, under the guise of competition, so baneful and sinister as the one which has been exercised by the Standard oil company. —Many other sinister combinations have existed and do exist in this and other countries. That of certain chemical manufacturers may be instanced, in which by losses deliberately incurred they have driven competitors out of the field and have maintained for a great number of years the monopoly of a market and extraordinary prices for their products, simply because they had incidentally acquired so vast a capital before their competitors came into the field that that which was a small percentage of loss on their whole business for a given year would result in utter ruin and bankruptcy to such competitors. In the rapid growth of capital in modern society these sinister forms of the exercise of its power must be carefully watched, and should become the subject of preventive legislation. —An exclusive possession of certain peculiarly favorably situated portions of land is one of those monopolies which it is extremely difficult to deal with under the modern theory of absolute ownership in land, modified only in so far as the right of eminent domain may justify its being taken for public use. The owner of a piece of property in Wall street or Broad street, New York, or upon the river frontage, has a perpetual monopoly in higher rentals, of the enjoyment of which it is difficult to deprive him without shaking one of the very foundations of society—the recognition of property in land. In most instances the burden borne by the community for the rental of such favorably located spots of land does not appear onerous, because the landlord adjusts the burden somewhat to the profits which can be made by occupation, whole or partial, of such bits of land. It is easy, however, to imagine a case where a peculiar spot of land may give its individual owner such power of exaction over the community that it is not to be borne. Should the harbor of New York fill up in such a manner that but few docks are accessible to ships of heavy draft, and those few docks belong to private individuals, it might then become necessary, for the purpose of preserving the commerce of the country or the city for the community to step in and exercise right of eminent domain, take the land at a valuation and give it to the public at a moderate rate, or to apply the doctrine laid down by Lord Ellenborough, in a case decided in 1811, where the question of "reasonable charges" came before him on the part of the warehousemen on one of the London docks. Lord Ellenborough in that case determined, that wherever a man had so peculiarly favorably situated a piece of property that he had power to exact monopoly rates, it was part of the doctrine of the common law to limit him to reasonable rates so as to prevent him from taking an undue proportion of other men's wealth, because the policy of the English law frowned upon monopoly and favored freedom. —That enterprises such as railways have a tendency to become monopolies, although their building is quite free in the United States, arises from the nature of such enterprises. The proportion of fixed charges to mere operating expenses dependent upon the rate of business is so great in the railway, that it may almost indefinitely increase its business without at all in proportion increasing its expenses after it has once been constructed. The existing line can, therefore, almost always outbid a competitor for business as to the rate at which it sees fit to do it. As the service is consumed at the spot where it is created, and is rendered without a relative increase of expenditure for the purpose of rendering it, there is in such a case, in the nature of things, a monopoly created which demands the constant exercise of legal restraint. Although railways may be increased in number from given points, yet even when an active competition for a time prevails, the number of those railways will necessarily be so few that their interest to combine, as against their tendency to compete, will outweigh competition, and combination becomes the general result of almost all competitive railway building. After combination has been effected, the community is confronted with the fact that its service is no cheaper than it was before; that its business is done by two or three lines instead of one which previously rendered the service; that one line would have sufficed to have done the whole business, and that there is a loss of capital to the community represented by the building of the second or third line. This capital is lost because the community has failed to do its duty to limit the charges of these transporting corporations, which are enabled to earn extravagant rates of charge by the growth of the community, upon a limited business; and so large is the income, as compared with the cost of the same, that new capital is tempted into the same field for the purpose of dividing the business with the existing line, not because there is any necessity for the rival line because the existing line is incompetent to perform the work, but simply because of the profit made by the existing line upon the work performed by it; so that upon a given amount of business yielding on an expenditure of ten millions of dollars a million and a half a year profit, it will pay capitalists a fair rate of interest to expend another ten million dollars for the purpose of taking seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars net profits out of the existing line and dividing it upon the ten million newly invested. If the community were to reduce the profit of the existing line, by legal enactments, it is clear that the ten millions of dollars invested in the building of the second line would not be so invested, but would be available to the community for other purposes. No service is done to the community by the building of the new line between two given points, if prices remain the same to the community, and the business is subsequently divided between the two roads, but the ten millions of capital are diverted from other employments. If in consequence of competition between the two lines the price of carriage is reduced, the community is the gainer to the extent of such reduction; but if, after the new line is built, a combination is made between the two roads to maintain prices so that both may earn dividends upon their capital, the community has lost for other purposes the ten millions unnecessarily invested—a very serious loss indeed. This has so frequently been the case that it is no longer a hypothetical illustration, but one taken from facts within the knowledge of every man who has observed the course of railway construction and railway wars and railway combinations in the United States; and while it is true that a competing line does touch, at intermediate points, territory which is not touched by the line previously existing, and thus incidental benefits are conferred, those incidental benefits by no means outweigh the enormous waste of capital which has been occasioned by railway construction for mere purposes of dividing business, with combination as to rates. —Gas companies and water companies stand precisely in the same relation to the community as railway companies. They have the power to exact monopoly rates simply because the plant once supplied gives to the persons or corporation who supply it an extraordinary power over others who propose to come into the business. Those who come into the business, come not to supply a superior article at lower rates as in ordinary business, but to divide the field; and they soon discover that to divide the field profitably they must maintain rates, and therefore two mains are frequently laid side by side in large cities by gas companies where one would suffice to supply all the necessary gas. The community is no better served; the same rates are maintained as to gas that have existed theretofore, and the same poor commodity furnished, because the individual householder does not stand in a position of equality with the corporation that supplies him, and the injustice to which he is subjected is so small to him individually, although amounting in the aggregate to great profits to the corporation, that it scarcely pays him to conduct a fight. The community, therefore, in such cases is generally the loser, as to capital, of all that portion of plant which occupies the same field that is already occupied with means of abundant supply on the part of the existing corporation before the competitor came in. —The same rule applies as to water supply. Hence, in all such cases it is the duty of the community. through its law-making and judicial powers, to prevent waste of capital. This can be accomplished by regulation as to price and regulation as to quality of commodity or service to be supplied. The ground of such regulation is not simply that some of these corporations exercise the right of eminent domain, but is based on the principle well recognized at common law from its earliest development, that where parties do not stand in equal position to make a contract it is the duty of the state to see to it that the contract is fair, and where parties who do not stand toward each other in equal position, from the nature of circumstances are compelled to make a contract, it is the duty of the state to prescribe the terms of such contract. A trader along the line of a railway is compelled to make his contract with the railway corporation from the nature of his business and the nature of the business of the railway. It is the duty of the state to see to it that he is not unjustly discriminated against, and that others do not obtain terms which he himself does not get. —During the great railway investigation in the state of New York the on underlying principle as to traffic charges which the managers of the two great leading railways of this country insisted upon during the whole course of that investigation was, that they had a right to charge what the traffic would bear; in other words, that they had a right to charge all that they could under the given circumstances enforce the payment of. Throwing aside all question of the fact that the railway corporation exercises the right of eminent domain, and that it is a common carrier, it is peculiarly and specially subject to legal restraint on the grounds mentioned by Lord Ellenborough in his decision already referred to, that its position is one of advantage toward the person dealing with it. The parties do not stand in equal relation as to contract. This is a doctrine which, even in private businesses where the parties do not stand on equal ground at the time when the contract is made, prevents contracts from being enforced in favor of the superior who made the most of his situation. In the middle of the night a citizen needs the service of a doctor to save the life of his child. There is but one physician within miles, and before he can secure the services of another his child may die. He is a rich man. Were the doctor to exact, as the condition of his leaving his house, half of the wealth of the man, "because that is what that service might bear" under those peculiar circumstances, and the victim were willing to make a contract to give it to him, any properly constituted court of equity would give him relief, and if he had paid the exorbitant demand he could recover it back. But so little restraint have industrial and carrier corporations in the United States been subjected to, that not only have they in the past but they even now claim that they are to be regarded as entirely private enterprises to be left free from legal interference, and that as the basis of their treatment of the traveler and freighter they will, when they can, apply the monstrous doctrine that they have the right to take advantage of their position as against them, and exact the last farthing of the amount that the traffic will bear. —Monopolies of this industrial character are more difficult to deal with in the United States than in any other part of the civilized globe. Not only have they already attained such proportions that the legislative machinery of many states is under their control, but they also have extended their influence into the business of politics. and so largely control the politicians of the country that every attempt to subject them to proper supervision has, because of that overshadowing influence which they have already acquired, proved thus far well nigh fruitless. Their influence does not rest, however, only in the fact that they have the machinery of politics under their control. The public press, particularly in metropolitan centres, is in part owned or controlled by persons holding large interests in such enterprises, and thus public opinion is vitiated upon these subjects to a degree not easily understood. Another difficulty in subjecting them to proper control and exercising the right of the public upon these subjects, is the well-grounded suspicion of the community that the monopoly of the politician is one not less dangerous than that of the industrial and carrier enterprises, and that to subject to governmental control the great corporations in the state, involving hundreds of millions of dollars of capital. is simply to substitute a master no more scrupulous without capital in the place of one which is at least restrained and made conservative by the possession of capital. One of the reasons why the reform of our civil service, reform of our methods of legislation, and reform in our representative system, are so imperatively demanded, is because such reforms lie at the basis of all other reforms, and that under existing conditions the public will not and can not trust its law-making, executive and judicial powers so long as there is a feeling that they are not free from corruption, and that the power that they exercise will be exercised for their personal ends and not for the public weal. There is scarcely a state in the Union in which the adjournment of its legislative body is not hailed with delight, nor its convening regarded with dread by the citizens of the state, and so long as this feeling is justified, it is almost hopeless to clothe such legislative bodies with power sufficiently great to hold other sinister powers in check. Such a transfer of power is quite fairly regarded as making a leap into the dark. —Another difficulty in the United States, in dealing with the existing industrial enterprises, is fundamental. Railways extending from state to state, from one side of the continent to the other, overleaping state lines and disregarding them, renders each state powerless to deal with corporations of this character as a whole, and it can only deal with the section it happens to have control over, and the power of the United States has as yet not been sufficiently concentrated to deal with the subject adequately. In our loose organization of government—intentionally made loose at the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States—as the monopoly power that was then to be apprehended was that which arose from government itself, government was. therefore, intentionally and deliberately weakened, and it has therefore become a prey to almost any powerful interest that sees fit for the time being to capture it; and thus while the framers of the constitutions took great care that there should be no laws of primogeniture, that perpetuities shall be prohibited, that no nobility should be created, so that capital, honors, fame and even distinguished services shall give to their possessor only a temporary benefit, and that such capital, honors and fame shall all be again distributed by the natural process of death into the body of the community, they did not foresee that the great moneyed corporations of the community would prove more attractive than patents of nobility, would be more potent than the fame of leaders of armies, would concentrate capital more powerfully and continuously than by the process of mortmain and perpetuities, and would be more dangerous to the body politic as to its freedom than an aristocratic class. —With power to exact monopoly rates incident to that kind of superior personal ability embodied as to oratory in a Webster, as to art in a Meissonier, as to acting in a Rachel, as to forensic ability in a Choate, no quarrel can be made. These phenomenal abilities commanding phenomenal prices for their services are entitled to what they earn, because no man is required to pay who does not think he will obtain what he deems an equivalent service or pleasure. Monopolies which arise from natural advantages we can therefore dismiss from the purpose of this article. With the exception of trades union regulations we know of no human society or class of men who object to the remuneration which these masters receive in their respective professions. Of course these advantages are of infinite gradation; exist between two bricklayers as well as between two lawyers; but it is only in the case of great special aptitudes that command attention that these distinctions become so characteristic that they partake of a monopoly element, and as the monopoly dies with the individual who possesses the power, and frequently exists but for a short span of years, it is one, as we have said, with which we can find no fault and which does no harm. —As to the subject of ownership in land, which has recently again come up for discussion as a monopoly, by the revamping of arguments which Proudhon presented with most esprit, suffice it to say that the individual monopoly in land is in the present organization of society the only possible condition on which land can safely be held. The only alternative which is or can be presented by those who object to the monopoly in land on the part of the individual, is that of the ownership by the community. The ownership by the community means the ownership by the government. The ownership by the government means substantially the control of such ownership by those who have for the time being possession of the reins of government; and government is as yet so utterly defectively organized, so little even in free countries does it represent either the will or the interest of the whole people, and so far are the incumbents of official positions from subordinating their own personal interests and the interests of their families and friends to that of the public weal, that such ownership by the public, which in other words means control by the politician of all the landed property of the community, would create a tyranny so burdensome and so intolerable, and create unequal taxation so monstrous, that nothing in modern history would at all form a parallel. Imagine Tweed and his gang of thieves, when they had control of the treasury of the city of New York, at the same time controlling every lot of land in the city of New York as to who was to occupy it and at what rental, and picture the utter impossibility of dislodging him and them from power, and how such ownership by the state or community as represented by Tweed and his junta would have been exercised. Indeed it appears to the writer to be the vainest of occupations during any period of time about which we need to give ourselves any concern, in a country where land is still so easy of attainment, and at so cheap a price, to speak seriously of monopoly of land as being likely to become burdensome; and to suggest public ownership as an alternative, against the monopoly of private property, before an entirely different condition of political morality will prevail, seems puerile. It may be conceded at the outset that the ownership of land is a monopoly, but it is a monopoly which society is compelled to recognize from the necessity of the case so as to prevent a much worse monopoly from taking its place. We need not, therefore, shut our eyes to the fact that in the remote future the time may come when individual ownership in land may become a burdensome monopoly. It is to be hoped, however, that when that time does come, those who then are uppermost in the field of politics and of government will be so vastly superior in character and mind to the present prevailing politicians and so-called statesmen that the ownership in land may then safely be transformed from a personal into a governmental monopoly. SIMON STERNE. MONROEMONROE, James, president of the United States 1817-25, was born in Westmoreland country, Va., April 28, 1758, and died at New York city, July 4, 1831. He was graduated at William and Mary in 1776, served in the continental army, studied law with Jefferson, and was a delegate from Virginia to the continental congress 1788-6. He was a democratic United States senator 1790-94, minister to France 1794-6, and governor of Virginia 1799-1802. He was again minister to France in 1803, to Great Britain in 1803, and to Spain in 1805. In 1811 he again became governor, and thence became secretary of state during the rest of Madison's two terms. He became president in 1817, and was re-elected in 1820, coming short but one of a unanimous electoral vote. In 1831 he removed to New York city. (See X. Y. Z. MISSION; ANNEXATIONS, I.; EMBARGO; QUIDS; CAUCUS. CONGRESSIONAL; INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS; MONROE DOCTRINE; DEMOCRATIC PARTY, IV.; ELECTORAL VOTES; UNITED STATES.) —In his earlier political life Monroe was decidedly more ultra than the more conservative Madison, and his "View of the Conduct of the Executive" shows him to have been a democrat rather than a republican. In 1808-9 he was Madison's unsuccessful rival for the presidency, but afterward entered his cabinet and succeeded to his office in due course. His presidency was marked by a disappearance of old political issues. (See ERA OF GOOD FEELING.) —Monroe's correspondence is still in the department of state at Washington, inedited; but it has been used by Schouler, as cited below. See Monroe's View of the Conduct of the Executive, The People the Sovereigns, and his messages in the Statesman's Manual; Adams' Life of Monroe; Waldo's Tour of President Monroe in 1817; 2 Schouler's United States; and authorities under articles above referred to. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON. MONROE DOCTRINEMONROE DOCTRINE. Soon after the overthrow of the empire of the first Napoleon, the rulers of Russia, Austria, France and Prussia formed an alliance for mutual protection, not against aggression from foreign powers, but against revolutionary movements within their own states. At a congress held by the allied powers at Troppau (1820) it was agreed that the main purpose of the alliance should be to maintain the principle of the legitimacy of the existing dynasties; and that if this principle were threatened in any country in Europe the allied powers should preserve it by actual and armed interference. Popular risings having taken place in Piedmont and Naples, they were put down by the armed forces of Austria, in pursuance of measures taken at the congress at Laibach (1820), and the revolution in Spain against Ferdinand VII. was suppressed by French armies, in consequence of resolutions taken at the congress of Verona(1822). —At the first two congresses the English government, then represented by Castlereagh, had, although not strictly one of the allied powers, participated in and sanctioned the proceedings. But at the point of starting for Verona Castlereagh committed suicide, and George Canning, becoming secretary of state, disapproved of the Spanish intervention. After the restoration of the Spanish king, Canning thought he had reason to believe that the principle of intervention would be also applied to the reduction of the American colonies of Spain, which ever since 1810 had been successively drifting into open revolt. These colonies had freed themselves from the colonial bondage which fettered their trade with the outside world, and England had largely profited by their independence. That independence had already been recognized by the United States, and both interest and sympathy made the latter strongly opposed to any effort toward reconquest on the part of Spain. —In the summer of 1823 Mr. Canning mentioned his suspicions to Mr. Rush, the American minister in London. and expressed his great desire to have the United States join with him in endeavoring to thwart the object of the allied powers. Speaking of a cabinet meeting held in September, 1823, Mr. J. Q. Adams, then secretary of state to Mr. Monroe, says: "The subject for consideration was the confidential proposal of Canning, secretary of state, to R. Rush, and the correspondence between them relating to the project of the holy alliance upon South America. The object of Canning appears to have been to obtain some public pledge from the United States ostensibly against the forcible interference of the holy alliance between Spain and South America. but really or specially against the acquisition by the United States of any part of the Spanish possessions." ("Memoirs of John Q Adams," by Chas. F. Adams, vol. vi., p. 177.) For Mr. Rush's dispatches of Aug. 23, 1825, sec "The Court of London, 1819-1825," by R. Rush, republished by his son, London, 1873. Mr. Adams thought lightly of the matter, (see his diary of September, October, November, 1823, passim), but Mr. Monroe and other members of the cabinet, particularly Mr. Calhoun, were as Mr. Adams says, "very much in fear that the holy alliance would restore all South America to Spain." Upon long and careful consideration it was finally agreed to express some disapprobation of the scheme in the message; and the passage relating to this subject, and also another relating to the claim of Russia to part of the northern Pacific coast, was much debated, and also submitted as finally adopted by the cabinet to Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison. The annual message of 1823 contained the following sentences in regard to the first point: "We owe it to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and the allied powers to declare, that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere; but with the governments which have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and just principles, acknowledged, we could not view an interposition for oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny by any European power, in any other light than as a manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States." In another part, with reference to the Russian claim of occupation, and also, perhaps, as Mr. Adams suggests, with reference to a supposed cession by Spain of part of its colonies, in case of success, to other European powers, which might colonize some of the sparsely settled Spanish possessions, the following expression occurs: "The American continents should no longer be subjects for any new European colonial settlement." In these passages is found what has since been called the "Monroe doctrine." The Russian claim was soon amicably settled, as was also a similar controversy with Great Britain on the same Pacific coast by the treaty of Washington in 1846. It was afterward contended that the allied powers never had any such intention as Mr. Canning supposed, and France publicly disavowed any such purpose. Mr. Adams also disbelieved it. There can be no doubt, however, that something like an interference was suggested by the new ministry of the restored king of Spain. It appears from the "Memoirs of Prince Metternich," but recently published, that as lately even as in the summer of 1824, and several months after Mr. Monroe's message became known in Europe, a note was addressed to the allied powers, by the Spanish minister of foreign affairs, proposing a conference to be held at Paris, to take into consideration the regulation of Spanish American affairs, and to which England should be invited. France, Austria, Russia and Prussia adhered to the plan, but the invitation was met by Canning with an "almost brutal" refusal. (Memoires de Metternich, vol. iv., p. 97, and note, Paris, 1881.) Considering the great power then exercised over the whole of Europe by the allied powers, and the submission everywhere yielded to them, even in many instances by England herself, this declaration on the part of the United States, then comparatively a weak power physically, by Mr. Monroe, was a bold patriotic manifestation, and the spirit which dictated it will ever be highly appreciated, as it was at the time, even in Europe, by all the liberal classes. It strengthened England in her opposition to European intervention, and hastened her recognition of the independence of the Spanish American colonies. —The meaning of this declaration was very plain. Some of the colonies founded by Spain on this continent had declared themselves independent, and had thus far successfully sustained that independence. The United States having recognized their independence, there is reason to believe that the allied powers contemplated interference between those independent governments and Spain according to the system of intervention which they had proclaimed in Europe, and just carried out with so much success. Against this intervention the government of the United States might feel bound also to intervene. Nothing was said about the United States abandoning the neutrality which it had hitherto observed between Spain and her rebellious colonies. If Spain would reconquer them she might try, but the United States would not permit that to be done with the assistance of the allied powers, who were bent not only on sustaining and propagating absolute monarchical government in Europe, but also on introducing that form of government into the new world by their system of intervention. —This was the view Mr. Jefferson took in his reply to Mr. Monroe, when the message had been submitted to him. He expressed himself as follows: "I could honestly, therefore, join in the declaration proposed that we aim not at the acquisition of any of those Spanish American possessions; that we will not stand in the way of any amicable arrangement between them and the mother country; that we will oppose with all our means the forcible interposition of any other power, as auxiliary, stipendiary, or under any other form or pretext, and most especially their transfer to any power by conquest, cession or acquisition in any other way." —To leave no doubt upon the true construction of the Monroe declaration, and to do away with false impressions, which had even then begun to prevail with some, the house of representatives in 1825 passed the following resolution: "That the United States ought not to become a party with the Spanish American republics, or either of them, to any joint declaration for the purpose of preventing interference by any of the European powers with their independence or form of government, or to any compact for the purpose of preventing colonization upon the continents of America; but that the people of the United States should be left free to act in any crisis in such a manner as their feelings of friendship toward those republics, and as their own honor and policy may, at the time, dictate." In other words, the United States should not be fettered by any doctrine or programme, but left free to act as occasion might require. Mr. Calhoun, one of the advisers of Mr. Monroe, and who took most interest in the declaration, (see Adams' "Memoirs and Diary" of September-December, 1823, passim), speaking of the Monroe doctrine, in the debate in the senate on the question of the acquisition of Yucatan, asserted most emphatically that "the United States was under no pledge to intervene against intervention, but was to act in each case as policy and justice required." (See note 36 to p.97, Wheaton's "International Law," by Dana.) A resolution introduced by Mr. Clay. January, 1824, in the house of representatives, "deprecating European combinations to resubjugate the independent American states of Spanish origin," and thus giving support and emphasis to the declaration in the message of December, 1823, seems never to have been acted upon, and was not referred to any committee. —Mr. Benton, in his "Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, 1789- 1856."vol. vii., p. 470, accompanies the paragraph of Mr. Monroe's message given above, with an extensive note in which he says: "This paragraph contains the doctrine so much quoted then and since as the 'Monroe doctrine'; and the extent and nature of which have been so greatly misunderstood. It has been generally regarded as promising a sort of political protection or guardianship of the two Americas—the United States to stand guard over the new world and repulse all intrusive colonists from its shores. Nothing could be more erroneous or more at war with our established principles of non-interference with other nations. The declaration itself did not import any such high mission and responsible attitude for the United States; it went no further than to declare that any European interference to control the destinies of the new American states would be construed as the manifestation of an unfriendly spirit toward the United States. This was very far from being a pledge to take up arms in the defense of the invaded American states; and the person of all others, after Mr. Monroe himself, and hardly less authoritative on this point—Mr. Adams, his successor in the presidency—has given the exact and whole extent of what was in tended by the declaration." Mr. Benton concludes this note as follows: "The occasion for the Monroe declaration was this: Four of the powers which overthrew the great emperor, Napoleon I. —Russia, Austria, Prussia and France—having constituted themselves a 'holy alliance' for the maintenance of the order of things which they had established in Europe, took it under advisement to extend their care to the young American republics of Spanish origin, and to convert them into monarchies, to be governed by sovereigns of European stock, such as the holy alliance should put upon them. It was against the extension of this European system to the two Americas that Mr. Monroe protested, and being joined in that protest by England, the project of the allies was given up." —Since that time there never was any real occasion to press the Monroe doctrine into service. It went into the domain of past history. The only time, perhaps, when apparently there was a similar concatenation of circumstances to those of 1823, was when an auxiliary army of French and Belgians invaded Mexico, to assist Maximilian, of Austria, in securing to himself the imperial throne offered to him by a powerful faction of the Mexican people. But even then, Mr. Seward repudiated the "Monroe doctrine" as not applicable to the circumstances. —In a dispatch to Mr. Motley, the American minister at Vienna (Oct. 9. 1863), who had expressed great alarm at the expedition of Maximilian, and sought instructions as to asking the emperor of Austria for explanations, and had also referred Mr. Seward 'o the Monroe doctrine, Mr. Seward instructed the minister not to interfere, using these remarkable words: "France has invaded Mexico, and war exists between the two countries. The United States hold in regard to those two states and their conflict the same principles that they hold in relation to all other nations and their mutual wars. They have neither a right nor any disposition to intervene by force in the internal affairs of Mexico, whether to establish or maintain a republican or even a domestic government there, or to overthrow an imperial or foreign one, if Mexico shall choose to establish or accept it." —In a popular and much wider but indefinable sense, the Monroe doctrine means what Mr. Benton said was a misconstruction of it, that is, a sort of political protection or guardianship of the two Americas, to be exercised by the United States. G. KOERNER. MONTANAMONTANA. a territory of the United States, formed of part of the Louisiana cession. (See ANNEXATIONS, I.) It consists of 143,776 square miles, bounded north by British Columbia. east by Dakota, south by Wyoming and Idaho, and west by Idaho. It was organized by act of May 26,1864, its territory being taken from Idaho. Its population in 1880 was 39.189. Its capital is Helena, and its governor in 1882 is Benj. F. Potts. —The act of May 26, 1864, is in 13 Stat. at Large, 85. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON. MONTENEGROMONTENEGRO, a principality formed of a group of mountains on the west of Turkey, between Herzegovina on the north, Albania on the east and south, and Dalmatia on the west; on the latter side it is only separated from the basin of Cattaro and from the Adriatic by a strip of Austrian territory one league wide. Its area is 3,550 English square miles. The country is composed of Tsernagora, old Montenegro, and the Berdas, mountainous districts annexed at different times, and the annexations effected in 1878, including Dulcigno. The land bristles with pointed cliffs, and is intersected by walls of rocks; there is no easy communication with the world outside, except by the way of Lake Scutari. The capital is Cettigne, situated in Tsernagora. The population, which was estimated at 25,000 in the seventeenth century, and at 100,000 in 1835, in 1879 has increased to 250,000. —The principality of Montenegro dates from 1485, when the Turks succeeded in destroying the kingdom of Serbia. The last of the Serb princes of Zeta, Ivan Tchernojevitch, being unable to hold the country, went to Tsernagora with his most faithful companions, added intrenchments to the natural defenses, and established his residence at Cettigne together with the episcopal liege. Thirty years later, power fell to the bishop; a third prince, George, married a Venetian, who, soon, becoming disgusted with the rude and austere life of Montenegro, persuaded her husband to forsake the principality for a life in Venice. —The history of this country is simply a succession of stubborn conflicts between an indomitable little people and the neighboring pashas. The Montenegrins were always glad to serve the Venetians and Austrians as auxiliaries against the Turks, and when, abandoned in the treaties, they were left to their own resources, they continued nevertheless in a state of persistent hostility. Completely defeated in 1623, they were obliged to pay the haratch; but at the commencement of the eighteenth century when Russia began her policy of aggrandizement, she found in these eternal enemies of Turkey natural allies by the community of origin and religion. During the campaign of the Pruth the Montenegrins massacred 30,000 Turks. Vengeance did not delay its appearance; sword and flame spread desolation through Montenegro, and of the population there remained but the remnant which had escaped to the highest summits of the mountains and toward Cattaro. On the withdrawal of the Turks, however, the desert which they had made was repeopled; the principality was reconstituted under the protection of Russia. At the congress of Paris, Prince Daniel demanded absolute independence, hereditary power, and an outlet for the country by the cession of a port on the Adriatic. England had these demands set aside. Turkey, emboldened by this act, launched an army on Montenegro, and sustained a sanguinary defeat at Grahova. An international commission was intrusted with the tracing of new boundaries; but Prince Daniel was assassinated in 1860; fortune changed; and the victorious porte had a military road constructed across the country, with blockhouses occupied by Turkish troops. On the representations, however, of various powers, the blockhouses were demolished, and the porte, while preserving its sovereignty, consented to the maintenance of the territorial and administrative statu quo of Montenegro. This country, therefore, is semi-sovereign. Its constitution underwent considerable changes in the middle of the present century. The bishops (rladikas) being vowed to celibacy, had to designate their successors by will; then every new prince, monk or layman, was obliged to go abroad to be consecrated by a Greek metropolitan. At the death of Peter II., in 1851, his successor, Daniel, declared that to remove these difficulties he resigned the spiritual power, and his resolution, submitted to the assembled people, was sanctioned almost unanimously. Peter II. undertook to give more power to the government by beginning a centralization which his successor completed. Families descended from a common ancestor continued to form a tribe, plemya, but instead of being submitted to the patriarchal government of an hereditary chief, each plemya received as chief a captain appointed by the prince, paid by the state and liable to be deposed at any time. In each village of a plemya was established, in like manner, a lieutenant, dependent on the captain. The plemyas were distributed into eleven districts, called nahias, four of which formed old Tsernagora, and seven the Berdas. At the head of each nahia was placed a senator, intrusted with its administration, and with dispensing justice, and subject to the prince in the same way as the captains and lieutenants. —In 1855 Prince Daniel Promulgated a code, in which he succeeded very skillfully in reconciling the ancient customs of the country with the new duties which were imposed on it. This code, which forms a political constitution in ninety-three articles, as well as a collection of civil and criminal law, has effected immense progress. Besides the prince, there is a senate, composed of sixteen members, intrusted with deliberating on public affairs on which the prince asks its advice; passing judgment on offenses involving more than 100 francs fine, and deciding on appeals from judgments rendered by the captains of the plemyas. The president, vice president, and members are appointed by the prince; they receive a salary and are lodged at the expense of the state. The assemblies are held at Cettigne, in a long, thatched building, divided into two parts, one of which serves as a stable for the asses and mules which bring the senators from the villages, and the other as the hall for deliberation. —Every inhabitant from seventeen to fifty years of age is obliged to render military service at the first call of the prince. It is calculated that in this way 25,000 men are in a condition to bear arms; but as only three-fourths of them can be put into the field, the prince designates the nahias which are to furnish their contingents, or fixes the number of men to be taken in each nahia. Each individual furnishes his own arms, and, taking as many cartridges as he finds, and as much provision as he can carry, sets out for the place of muster. There are no quartermasters' departments or camps; the men sleep without tents where they can; they eat if the women bring them provisions, or if they make raids. The senator of the nahia is the commander of its contingent; he has lieutenants under his orders who are chiefs of the villages, and each commands 100 men; under these are corporals who command ten men. There is a permanent and paid military body for the purpose of maintaining order, the perianiks. These soldiers are distributed in the nahias, under control of the senators and lieutenants. They are also connected with the guard of the house and person of the prince; for this purpose fifteen of them are always at Cettigne, and are changed every month. —The industrial productions consist only in a powder mill established by Peter II., in woolen stuffs, and in cloth of gold or silver, which the women spin and weave. The rearing of cattle is the chief occupation of the inhabitants. There are few cows, but many sheep and goats which form an article of exportation, together with honey, sumac wood, trout and other fish, smoked or salted. Daniel had a great number of mulberry trees planted, and silkworm cocoons figure among the exported products. In the nahias, sheltered from the north winds on the side of Lake Scutari, fruits and vegetables are produced in abundance; also wine and tobacco. Arable lands, however, are rare; every space with productive earth is surrounded with a wall of dry stones and planted carefully with Indian corn, rye, barley, oats and vegetables. Potatoes, introduced in 1780, are produced abundantly, and sold in the market of Cattaro. In exchange for their products, the Montenegrins obtain from the neighboring countries necessary manufactured articles, which, owing to the simplicity of their manners, are few; they are chiefly tools, coffee, salt, lead and arms. —Wars, and the new organization of the country, have increased the public expenses and necessitated additional taxation. The receipts are made up of the personal tax, customs duties, the products of the farming of spirituous liquors and sumac wood; the total amounts to about 120,000 francs, which does not entirely cover the expenditure. The prince has his civil list, obtained in part from the fisheries and the product of several farms. To these receipts, which amount to about 70,000 francs, is added an annual subvention of 8,000 ducats, which he receives of Russia, and which makes a total of about 166,000 francs. But custom imposes on him heavy expenditure; he has presents to make, assistance to give; he aids in filling the deficit in public receipts, and in case of famine he imports grain from abroad. The finances still retain the character of the ancient régime of the vladikas. —BIBLIOGRAPHY. Andric, Geschichte des Fürstenthums Montenegro, Vienna, 1853; Delarue, Le Monténégro, Paris, 1862; Dental, Montenegro its Peopïe and their History, London, 1877; Dutschitch, Zena Gora, Belgrade, 1874: Gopcevic, Montén8acute;gro et les Mont8acute;grins, Paris, 1877; Kohl, Reise nach Montenegro, 2 vols, Dresden, 1851; Kovalevsky, Montenegro and the Slavonic Countries, London, 1872; Krasinski, Montenegro and the Slaxonians of Turkey, London, 1853; Sestak and Scherbs, Militärische Beschreibuny des Paschaliks Herzegovina und des Fürstenthums Cernagona, Vienna, 1862; Viscountees Strangford, The Eastern Shores of the Adriatic in 1863, with a Visit to Montenegro, London, 1864.58 SMITH. MORAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCEMORAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE. J. B. Say, in the passages which we quote below, has defined the nature, object and utility of moral and political science in such a manner that there can be no need of our adding anything upon the subject.—"The general laws which constitute political and moral science exist in spite of disputes on the subject. This is so much the better for those who would discover these laws by means of judicious and continued observation, demonstrate their connection, and deduce the consequences which result from them. They flow from the very nature of things, just as certainly as the laws of the physical world; we do not imagine them, but find them; they govern the men who govern others, and can not be violated with impunity. The general laws which regulate the march of things are called principles, as soon as it is a question of applying them; that is to say, as soon as they are made use of to judge of circumstances, and serve as a rule of action. The knowledge of these principles alone insures the success of this march, which is constantly and successfully directed toward a good end." —After defining the experimental method, the same writer adds: "The natural, physical and mathematical sciences must be the first to share the progress which method renders possible: the facts upon which they are based affect the senses more directly; it is more difficult to deny them; their investigation does not wound any interest; a man may study physics in the Austrian states without exciting the alarm either of the prince, the nobles, or the clergy. The same can not be said of moral and political science. Its study is proscribed in all countries that are governed in the interest of a few, and Napoleon prohibited it in all the institutions of France, as soon as he became all powerful. Vain effort! If moral and political science is, like other sciences, based upon realities, it shares in the progress which the human mind owes to experimental methods; but is it based upon realities? If we consult experience and repeated observations, many moral facts may acquire a certitude equal to that of many physical facts. We see them and see them repeated a thousand times; by means of analysis we know their nature, their formation and their results; we can not doubt their reality. After weighing gold and iron several times, we are convinced that gold is comparatively heavier than iron; this is an indubitable fact; but it is no less real a fact that iron is less valuable than gold. However, value is a purely moral quality and one which seems to depend upon the fleeting and changeable will of men. Nor is this all. The spectacle of the physical world presents to us a series of phenomena, linked one to another; there is no fact which has not one or several causes. All other things being equal, the same cause can not produce two different effects: the grain of corn which I plant does not produce at one time an ear of corn, at another a thistle; it always produces corn. When the land is mellowed by cultivation and fertilized by manure, the same field will, with an equally favourable season, produce more than if the land had not been treated in this way. Thus it is that like causes always produce like effects. Now, it may be readily perceived that the same is true in political economy. A fact is always the result of one or several facts which have gone before it, and are the causes of it. The events of to-day have been brought about by those of yesterday, and will exert an influence over those of to-morrow; all have been effects and will become causes, just as the grain of corn, which, being a product of last year, will produce the ear of corn of this year. To pretend that any effect whatever in either the moral or the physical would happens without a cause, is to pretend that a plant may grow without the seed having been sown; it is to suppose a miracle. Hence has originated the expression the chain of events, which proves that we regard events as links which are connected one with another. —But what certainly have we that a fact which goes before is the cause of one which follows, and that a series of links connect these two with one another? We attribute an event which we witness to a certain circumstance that went before it; but may we not be mistaken? The circumstance that preceded the event was perhaps not the cause of it. It is because it does not know the true causes of events that the human mind seeks for supernatural causes, and has recourse to superstitious practices and charms, the use of which was so common in times of ignorance; useless and sometimes injurious practices, which always have the deplorable effect of turning men away from the only means whereby they can attain the end desired. —A science is complete in its relations to a certain order of facts, in proportion as it is possible for us to point out the bond which unites these facts to one another, and to connect effects with their real causes. This is achieved by scrupulously studying the nature of each thing that plays any part whatever in the phenomenon which we desire to explain; the nature of things discloses to us the manner in which things act and the manner in which they support the actions of which they are the object: it shows us the relations and connections of facts one with another. Now the best way to ascertain the nature of a thing is to analyze it, to see in it everything that it contains, and nothing but what it contains. —To produce values, we do not act upon insensible beings only, nor do we employ only material properties. We have more to do with men who have wants, desires and passions, and who are subject to the laws which are imposed upon them, some of them by their nature as men, others by society, of which they are members. To guide us in our labors all these laws must be known, and to be known they must be studied. This is the object proposed by moral and political science, whose end is to study moral and social man. These laws are very numerous in the social state, because in this state our relations with men and things are extremely numerous. This study embraces not only the laws which flow from our moral nature or our physical wants or from our means of satisfying them, but also the laws of the body politic, civil and criminal legislation. —In speaking of the laws to which men and things are subject, note that I do not examine in virtue of what right such or such a law is imposed upon them, nor in virtue of what duty they submit to them. The fact and not the right is what we are considering here. I call law, whether in physics or in morality, every rule from whose influence we can not withdraw ourselves, without concerning myself with the question whether that rule be equitable or not, or whether it is baneful or beneficial, questions which are the object of a different study from that which we are now considering(political economy). —The knowledge of the nature of things, moral and physical, and of the laws which flow therefrom, can be acquired only by numerous observations, repeated experiments, comparisons and combinations beyond number. All this requires profound meditation and assiduous study. The more science is extended and perfected, the longer and more difficult this study becomes; for a science extends because it comes to consist of a great number of observed relations and of a greater number of laws discovered or recalled to memory. When the branches of human knowledge are very numerous, the life of man is not long enough to learn even one single order of facts and laws, that is, one single science. A savant, therefore, is thought to have used his time and faculties well, and to have rendered sufficient service to his fellow-men, if he has thoroughly mastered a single branch of a single science. Pythagoras and Thales knew all that could be known in their time. Aristotle wrote the best books of his age on politics, morality, belles-lettres, and natural history; but if he lived in our day, not only would he have to renounce belles-lettres to study all there is to be learned of natural history, but, supposing that he wished to make himself a master of one single branch of natural history, such as botany or mineralogy, he would be obliged to limit himself to a superficial acquaintance with the other branches. To become famous in mineralogy, he would have to leave to other savants the study of animals and plants. Thus only could he hope to extend the sphere of that branch of knowledge which he had cultivated." J. B. SAY. MORALITYMORALITY, Agreement of, with Political Economy. Something more than a century ago, some men of genius, in searching for the causes of the wealth of nations and giving a systematic exposition of the phenomena observed, laid the foundations of a new science under the name of political economy. Since that time, and under the influence of studies of this nature, incontestable improvements have been accomplished in every civilized country; and if we were to enumerate all the reforms brought about and the abuses abolished by political economy, and all the fruitful applications of the principles newly brought to light under this name, we should proclaim that the science of Smith and of J.B. Say, of Droz and Bastiat, of Malthus and Ricahrdo, deserves one of the highest places in public esteem. Inoffensive in its nature, intended to render prosperity as general as possible, reaching, so to speak, a material demonstration of the precepts of justice taught by religion and philosophy, political economy should be above all attack; it has however, met with numerous and violent adversaries. They not only contest its efficacy; they often question even the mortality of its tendencies. This reproach, however unjust it may be, is too grave to be despised. We shall therefore inquire here as to the cause of these accusations, and what foundation they have. —The attacks directed against political economy come from three entirely different sources. First, there is in the religious world a certain number of persons who, having heard it spoken of as a science whose end is the creation of wealth, imagine that it must be contrary to the self-denial taught by the Gospels. More zealous than enlightened, these persons overlook the fact that it is a question not of the selfish enrichment of certain individuals, but of the production of goods indispensable to the human species, in order that it may perpetuate itself according to the direction of Providence, and develop according to the laws of eternal justice. A second group of adversaries is made up of utopists. These latter, never having taken the pains to study the theories which they assail, are convinced that political economy resigns and rules in our contemporary society. Hence, they hold is responsible for the grievances, more or less manifest of which they complain. They execrate the principle of laissez faire, as if the operations of industry met with no obstacles; they blame the principle of laisses passer, as if there were no barriers between nations. The adversaries of the third class are the most formidable to the science, because, from a narrow and restricted point of view, their complaints have some appearance of reason, and they have the faculty of identifying their private affairs with the most respectable interests; they are those who profit by monopolic and privileges condemned by political economy. They seldom take the trouble to ascertain whether a reform will not be as advantageous for themselves as for those who demand it. In their eyes a fact sanctioned by time is equivalent to a right. They intrench themselves in abuse, as in property that belongs to them; to attack them in this position is to assail great principles; it is aiding anarchists to disturb social order. Thus we find, among the enemies of political economy, men who declare themselves exclusively religious, and men who are innovators in religion; men who would render society stationary under pretext of preserving it, and others who would not fear to overturn it under pretext of improving it. Doctrinal extremes, instinctively irreconcilable, they agree marvelously in declaring deceitful, dangerous and immortal, a science which none of them has ever studied. —With an inconsistency which it is well to point out, those who, starting from opposite standpoints, agree in accusing political economy do not perceive that they arrive at conclusions utterly contradictory to the sentiments which they profess. We see pretended apostles of progress sacrificing economic liberty, which is the pledge of individual liberty, and the instrument of social amelioration. As to those who present themselves as the exclusive guardians of old laws and old beliefs, they distinctly declare that the means best calculated to enrich society are irreconcilable with the precepts of rigorous morality. Political economists entertain a nobler and more cheering conviction. They are convinced that the science with which they are occupied is the surest auxiliary of morality. To prove the affinity of the two sciences, it is sufficient to point out the economic principles engendered, so to speak, by the moral duties which form the basis of human society. —Man has duties to fulfill toward himself, toward his neighbor, and toward God. The spark of life which he received from his parents, and which he is to transmit to his descendants, is a deposit which he can not dispose of as he pleases. But it is not enough for man to preserve his life. It is the will of Providence, which has placed infinite resources within his reach, that he shall perfect his organism, by procuring for himself the well-being compatible with the laws of his country and the sentiment of his own dignity. In proportion as he increases his physical power, he ought to enrich his mind and soul, and develop in particular his special gifts, in order to render himself more useful to the community in which he lives. Man's duty to himself is in a certain sense but the means of accomplishing his duties toward his neighbor. Being evidently created for society, he owes himself unreservedly to his family, because the family is the constitutive element of all society. He should study, when at home, to make it easy to command there when it is his duty to obey, and to facilitate obedience there when his turn has come to command. Just as the individual is the atom in the family, so that family is in turn the unit in that vast family which is called a nation. Filial devotion to paternal authority is the most elevated conception of country. This ideal implies two duties of the citizen, to respect the law, and cause it to be respected, without which there is no country; and to contribute by every means in his power to render the law like the guardianship of the head of a family, that is, just but mild, and generous without ceasing to be provident. The instinct of family and the love of country, while deeply rooted in our nature, and usually strengthened by personal interest, may, however, degenerate into a stern and selfish passion. The corrective of this kind of egotism is to be found in man's duties toward all his fellow-men, whether superiors or inferiors, compatriots or foreigners, friends or enemies. If every man owes it to himself to improve and ennoble his own life in proportion to his faculties, it follows that he should not offer any obstacle to the fulfillment of this same obligation on the part of his neighbor. The right of the individual results from the duty of each toward all. Every offense against this natural law, every encroachment upon this legitimate share of liberty to which all have an equal right, is a crime against morality. Not to do unto others that we would not wish done to us, was the negative virtue of antiquity. Christianity goes farther, and prescribes devotion to others' well-being, that is to say, an active and disinterested virtue. The measure of duty, which varies for each one, is proportioned to his faculties. When a swarm of children enter the house, the eldest who has given his hand to his little brothers and watched over them by the way, has no greater merit in the eyes of the father of the family: this is a picture of Christian fraternity. Responsibility increases with strength and intelligence; each one owes his like all that he has received from the common Father. —Finally come the duties of man toward God, which are the basis and the crowning of his other duties. In order to strengthen his empire over himself, and to acquire greater influence over others, man must elevate his soul to the idea of a power infinite in its wisdom and in its goodness; he must frequently encourage himself with the thought, that in accomplishing what little good he may be able to do, he is conforming himself to the views of Providence. —Man's entire code of duties may, therefore, be summed up in a few words. To preserve his life and develop his faculties; to devote himself to his family, and to recognize a second family in his country; to respect in others the rights which he claims for himself; to elevate himself to God, as the source of all good thoughts, such are the moral laws dictated by religion or recommended by philosophy. It still remains for us to examine what mysterious links unite these precepts with the axioms of political economy. —Man's destiny on earth is to purchase each day of his existence by labor. Without the aid of human hands, the fruits would rot upon the branches, and the trunk upon its roots; vegetable parasites, stagnant water and the slow decomposition of refuse matter would dispute air and space with animate beings; mankind would soon disappear. Man is then, so to speak, the responsible guardian of the works of the Creator. It is in accordance with this title that his first duty is to preserve himself by employing the resources which nature has placed at his disposal. Thus it is that morality and political economy start from the same point. The former ordains that man should insure his life to himself by productive labor; the latter inquires which are the laws of production best fitted to the preservation of the human species. —Created physically and morally perfectible, man still owes it to himself to increase his own prosperity within the limits of decency and justice, because it is to be desired in the universal order that the individual perfect himself physically, and develop the useful faculties, the germs of which are implanted in him. But how shall we increase each one's contingent, unless by favoring the exchange of products and services in society? How shall we develop individual talents but by the division of labor? —Science has proved that useful labor would soon be suspended, if we did not reserve from the fruits of each enterprise the elements of a subsequent enterprise. The more men save in a country, says political economy, the easier and more fruitful industrial activity becomes. But if a man were to think only of himself, would he look beyond the necessities of his old age? Would he take any interest in the works which are to come after him? He would not. If he curtails his consumptions, and restrains his fancies, it is because he belongs to his wife, his children, and to descendants whom he may not see but about whom nevertheless he thinks. Here the economic law of saving corroborates the instinctive sentiment of family. —Pursuing their analysis still further, economists show that these amounts saved by each man from his products are not ordinarily preserved in kind; but are changed into goods that will keep, and are invested in something that is productive of revenue, as land, houses, materials of industry, rents or money. Sometimes also men give what they have saved to acquire a trade or an art, which constitutes a sort of life annuity. All these accumulated values, whether material or personal, constitute, as the indispensable instruments of public prosperity, what science calls national capital. The idea of country is closely allied with this nation of capital; for country does not mean the soil we tread upon nor the air we breathe; it is a moral sympathy based upon a certain solidarity of interests; it is a mutual guarantee under the protection of a common law. Now, when science demonstrates the necessity of capitalization, when it introduces the varying principle of emulation in individual property, it strengthens the legal measures taken instinctively in every country to secure to every man the fruit of his labor. It encourages that love of country which moralists prescribe, by promising it, as a recompense, the collective enrichment of society. —Nevertheless, powerful men, by whom the laws are nearly always made, naturally endeavor to secure exceptional advantages for themselves. To this tendency, which is the source of revolutions, morality opposes the duty of respecting in others the rights which we claim for ourselves. Political economy reaches the same conclusion, when, studying the phenomena of the circulation and the distribution of wealth, it shows the public misery caused by the unproductive consumption of governments, by the injustice of monopolies established for the benefit of certain privileged individuals, and by the obstacles arbitrarily opposed to the exercise of individual faculties. These demonstrations of science tend to introduce into governmental practice this great precept of ancient wisdom: "Do not unto others what you would not that they should do unto you"; a precept which Christianity has exalted be rendering it. "Do unto others as you would they should do unto you." —In the last analysis, all the investigations of political economy lead to this maxim: Freedom of labor at home, and freedom of exchange with foreign nations. What is the moral significance of this axiom? That God has varied the gifts of individuals and the products of countries in order that men and nations may be necessary one to another. He has established to wonderful equilibrium between their wants and their faculties, so that their wants are better and better satisfied in proportion as their faculties obtain freer scope. He wished that the incessant exchange of products and services should become the pledge of fraternity between citizens and of peace among nations. Once convinced that misery is not the inevitable portion of the greater part of mankind, but that prosperity might, on the contrary, become general, if providential harmony were not incessantly broken in upon by ignorance or merciless cupidity, it is impossible not to have within one's self a feeling of gratitude which purifies the heart and elevates the mind; there is no consideration better calculated to recall man to his duties toward God. —The parallel which we have just drawn will probably be received in some places with a smile in incredulity. We shall be told that "from what has been said of political economy and morality, it does not follow that the two sciences tend to the same end. This may be all the more doubtful since there are divergent tendencies among those who call themselves economists." The objection is sufficiently specious to make an impression upon the ignorant; it is, however, easily refuted. Men ordinarily form a wrong idea of political economy. The vulgar opinion is, that it is an arbitrary indication of the measures which are judged capable of contributing to the material prosperity of nations, and that consequently its teachings must vary according to the standpoint which one takes. It this were true, it would be prostituting the name of science to apply it to political economy. The physician does not invent the laws of nature; he observes, analyzes, and makes known the results of his discoveries, from which may result in practice either good or ill results. In like manner the political economist confines himself to analyzing, in an abstract and disinterested manner, a series of special phenomena which, in the order of productive labor, result from the instincts, wants and aptitudes of mankind. In this difficult labor each one can proceed well or ill, draw legitimate or doubtful conclusions. There is, in reality, but one political economy, despite its different applications, just as there is only one law of physics or chemistry, despite the eccentricities of certain savants. How then can we distinguish the true from the false? Morality itself will become for the man, acting in good faith, the criterion of truth. —We repeat, economic philosophy has not created the essential laws of production: they have been dictated by eternal wisdom. The thinker's task is merely to show that human labor becomes more effective, and that this labor lenders prosperity more general in society in proportion as men approach in it to the divine law. It is evident that the surest means of increasing social prosperity must be at the same time the most conformable to absolute justice. The progressive amelioration of the condition of mankind can be only the result of increasing morality. To suppose that it could be otherwise would be to wound conscience still more than reason: it would be offering an insult to Providence. The conformity of the doctrines of economy with moral law is the best criterion of their truth. It is interesting to apply this test to the arbitrary systems which are opposed to rational political economy. —To revert, for example, to the two systems mentioned in the beginning of this article, that of utopian innovators and that upheld by the partisans of despotic immobility, we see the leaders forcibly enrolling individuals in a fictitious organization, in which, under promise of rendering them prosperous in spite of themselves, they begin by despoiling them of their freedom of action. Now these systems which reduce man to the condition of a machine are subversive of all morality, since morality is based upon the proposition that man, created free and responsible for his acts, deserves merit or blame within the limit of the duty which has been taught him, or which his mind has conceived. In a communistic utopia with equality of wages, no matter what the exertion and service of the workman, as men would no longer incur the responsibility of their idleness, there would be so flagrant a violation of moral law, that the falseness of the economic principle of this utopia might be asserted a priori. —Let us now interrogate those pretended conservatives who in reality do not dream of preserving anything but their autocracy. What conceptions do they oppose to the teachings of the economic school? What are their ideas upon the development of society? Giving an exaggerated extension to this simple word of the Gospel, "There will always be poor among you," they make a theory of the inequality of social advantages, and this inequality, as they conceive it, is not that natural inequality which is to a certain extent necessary as a means of exciting emulation. They desire to establish an hierarchical classification, in which the mission of one class would be to consume a great deal in order to afford the other the opportunity to pass their lives in laboring for the powerful ones of the earth. Ignoring, and that designedly, the distinction made by economists between productive and unproductive consumption, they assert that all expenditure, of whatever nature, enrich a country. The ideal of political institutions therefore consists, according to them, in creating a class so opulent that the crumbs which fall from their banqueting table shall suffice to satisfy the multitude. Nor can we be accused of exaggerating the opinion which is opposed to us in order to ridicule it. We find the following in a work entitled Traité d' Economic Politique, by Saint-Chamans, an interpreter of the schools which style themselves exclusively conservative and religions. "We fear that men may be scandalized to see us boast of luxury, incite all classes to expense, and blame thrift and the wise economy of the father of a family: but it must be borne in mind that we are in this work considering a special object considered apart, the wealth of nations. * * Let religion command simplicity and modesty in our manner of life, let the wise moralist condemn the superfluities of luxury, let the prudent man impose economy upon himself for the sake of his children and of his own future, and there can be nothing better than to follow these counsels. * * We merely say that this virtuous and wise conduct is not the way to reach progress in general wealth, nor the well-being of the suffering classes." What then are the means of relieving those who are suffering? J. B. Say, in exposing the injury caused by unproductive consumption, has shown that the treasure wasted in ruinous fancies might be much better utilized as reproductive capital, and that we should not see nearly so many men without shirts and shoes regarding with envious eyes persons dressed in velvet and jewels, if a larger proportion of the sums devoted to superfluities were invested in useful enterprises. Saint-Chamans replies to this illustrious economist: "The poor man has shoes because the rich man has gold buckles, and poor man wears a shirt because the rich man is clad in velvet." Do not luxury and prodigality in the upper classes, and passive submission and fatalism under the name of resignation in the needy multitude, afford a double chance of securing corruption of morals? Thus does the author whom we have just quoted declare ingeniously enough that his theory upon the enrichment of nations has nothing in common with morality. Nations are thus left to choose between poverty and immorality. An admirable conclusion, truly! —We have then the touchstone by the aid of which we may discover the purity of economic doctrines. The false doctrines are those which, when pushed to their extreme consequences, will lead to immorality. The true doctrines are those which we find always absolutely conformable to the laws of morality. Let this test be applied to history, and we shall find that nations come nearer to economic truths whenever they introduce moral principles into their organization, and increase in material prosperity in proportion as they approach political economy. Considered from this height, the study of this science becomes one of the most honorable as well as one of the most useful employments of the human mind, and to describe it by a definition worthy of its noble tendencies, it might perhaps be called "morality in its application to labor." ANDRÉ COCHUT. MORALITYMORALITY, Political. There is but one morality, as there is but one geometry. Moral rules, logically expressed, are self-evident propositions, which, like all necessary truths, compel conviction, and they have never been disputed except with a wrong intent. —Hence the words political morality do not designate a particular morality, but universal morality applied to politics. Interest and passion have never deformed truth more than in this matter. But in attacking the distinction between good and evil, interest and passion attack their enemy. Doubtless there may be sincerity with error, even in morals. Duty in itself has not been disputed, but men have not always been agreed either as to its principle or its applications. The first point belongs especially to philosophic discussion, the second depends more upon the general state of enlightenment and manners. It is for these two reasons that notwithstanding the immutability of moral distinctions, a certain diversity, and consequently a certain progress, is possible in estimating the use which must be made of them. In this, as in everything else, prejudices may exist, and one of the most widespread, as well as most stubborn and persistent, is that which withdraws politics from morality, or subjects it to a morality different from that which is universal. —This is not what we have learned from the political writers of antiquity. As Montesquieu remarks, they were greatly superior to moderns by the moral character which they gave to social science. The leaders of the great schools are of one mind. Plato thinks that the good is the object of the state. He founds his republic on a system of education conformable to true philosophy; he considers law as worthy of the name only in so far as it is reason itself. According to him, power exists only to lend physical force to reason. According to Aristotle, virtue did not found the state, but it is its final cause, being the object of society as well as of the individual; what is required of the laws, is to establish the reign of reason. They are the expression of the general will only because it is supposed that the latter is wiser and juster than the will of a single man or a small number of men. We know what importance Aristotle attaches to sociability. Therefore he goes so far as to regard morality as only a part of politics. Society is founded on justice, said Zeno; right reason, which commands and which forbids, is the law which rests on the nature of things, and which consequently extends from God to man. —If the ancient republics were not always constituted nor especially governed in conformity with these principles, it was, first of all, because no ideal can be fully realized upon earth; secondly, because customs and prejudices upheld many grave errors in morality; and, finally, because in free states popular passions sometimes mislead the public conscience. But political morality in the Greek and Latin world always remained superior to what it was everywhere else. Even at Rome it often struggled successfully against the violence of a harsh and ambitious people. Later, when all was enfeebled and corrupted, philosophy continued to protest against the examples and the principles of the government of the Cæsars. Unfortunately, wearied with its own powerlessness, it soon took refuge in private life to save the dignity of the man in the absence of that of the citizen, and Christianity, which for various reasons gave the same example, by abstaining from interference in the affairs of the state, by preaching contempt for human affairs, contributed to the decline of public morality. Both permitted the establishment of the odious doctrines brought forward by the jurisconsults of the empire in aid of despotism. Their science, under the last form which it received at Byzantium, became, and long remained, the corrupter of political society. Morality was proscribed by it the day when the maxim of Ulpian was proclaimed; Quidquid principi placuit legis habet vigorem. This doctrine, the scourge of modern monarchies, has not ceased to produce evil in Europe, and its tradition is not yet obliterated. —Nevertheless the philosophy of the middle ages, drawing inspiration from that of antiquity, honorably but vainly opposed this maxim. We know what was sid by St. Thomas Aquinas and Ægidius of Rome. The church, either to defend the honor of Christian morality, or to vindicate its own authority, often opposed praiseworthy censures to the abuses of power and legislation; and it was a pope, Pius V., who, on the eve of St. Bartholomew, first defined "reasons of state" to be a fiction of wicked men. At the same time, the renaissance, by restoring to the human mind the liberty which it had long lost, caused to prevail independent philosophy, which dared to consider matters of state and questions of government as within the province of the human mind. Machiaveli, in approaching them with great critical profundity, it is true, was far from having immediately re-established truth in all its rights; he went too far in the way of taking prudence for wisdom, and success for arbiter between powers and parties; he gave his name to politics separated from morality. At least he admitted that morality was an art which had its rules, which governments were obliged to observe; that the object of their existence was not the satisfaction of the governing power; and that, finally, the governed had duties toward the state. Better inspired, or less carried away by false models, other publicists appeared. Who, far from sacrificing everything to adroitness, have made these very simple truths more and more popular, that governments are created for society and not society for governments; that justice is the law of laws, and consequently the rule of society as well as of individuals, and of governments as well as of society. In this manner the grand thought of the sages of antiquity re-entered the political world: that justice is the mistress of all things, both mortal and immortal. —From these truths may be deduced all the rules for the application of morality to politics. They may all be reduced to the principle of justice. Even the duties which moralists connect more willingly with the principle of love, assume another character when they are fulfilled by government. It is not a question of sentiment, but a strict obligation for powers, instituted buy the consent of society, to aid in contributing, so far as their authority permits, to its happiness; and citizens may demand public wellbeing of the state as a debt. For a much greater reason have they a right to everything which assures these rights themselves: their liberty, their dignity. Those who believe that public utility is the only rule of the laws and of power, neglect to remark that there can not be for the legislator and for the government any necessity but a moral one of providing for the public utility. Duty, therefore, bears on politics as upon everything else, and respect for legitimate interests is itself not an interest, but an obligation. —It is no longer disputed in principle that legislation should be in accordance with morality. The civil laws of all civilized peoples have been, for about a century past, purified from almost everything which they might have contained contrary to equity, honesty and humanity. What still remains to be removed is of small import in comparison with what has disappeared. —It is a little more difficult to establish the reign of morality in politics, properly speaking: let us denote by this term everything which concerns the constitution of the state, or the conduct of the government. It can not be said that the question of the constitution to be given to a country is purely a question of morality. We should consider what the situation of the country is, its beliefs, its manners, its opinions, its wants. What duty prescribes is to give it the best institutions possible, considering all these circumstances. Morality does not command the choice by way of preference of a monarchy, or a republic, but of that one of the two which appears most suited to gain the national consent, to attain the good of the state, of the public and of the citizens. Every impossible government is, by this fact alone, a bad government. But it does not follow that a government is good, provided it is possible. Thus, power absolute in itself is bad, and no circumstance can correct its essential viciousness. It is beyond the rights of human nature to exercise it. It is contrary to the rights of human nature to accept it. He who accepts it is a usurper; he who bestows it degrades himself. The institutions, which limit it are guarantees of public honesty. We might show, if space permitted, that constitutional principles are all connected with some principle of morality under the form of simple utility. It is a recognized principle, for example, that all powers should not be united in the same hand, and especially that judicial should be separated from executive power. It is not so evident at first what relation such a rule can have to morals; an ancient prejudice, and long popular, upheld a system altogether opposed to this. For a long time the right of dispensing justice was considered as an attribute of royalty, and St. Louis is still spoken of as dispensing justice in the woods of Vincennes. But if experience proves that every man intrusted with governmental action, daily struggling with the difficulties and necessities of politics, is destined to attach himself exclusively to the interests of his power, and to consider as mad or guilty the man who opposes it, and to become devoted to the success of his ideas and his measures, it is evident that he can not be a disinterested, impartial and just judge, in all cases in which he thinks his authority concerned; and consequently it is just, that is to say, obligatory, to give to others the right of judging. —This brings us to the question of the rights of morality in the conduct of government—a more difficult question, and one which has divided sincere minds. It seems to be solved, however, by the principles which have just been established. Governments, after all, are not really things, but men, and how can we raise the question whether men should act honestly on all occasions? That they should so act will not be disputed in the great majority of cases. Cruelty, spoliation, iniquity, treason, corruption, even colored by the pretext of political utility, will not find apologists; but if we leave generalities, differences of opinion commence, and it is certain that history, in all its pages, even in those which can be read without shame and indignation, shows us governments prompt to attribute to themselves rights which neither private morality nor ordinary justice would avow. Hence the idea that there are two kinds of morality, one of which, political morality, has no resemblance to the other. The almost always improper use which has been made of the phrase "reasons of state," could not have been introduced and tolerated for so long a time, unless through a specious application of the suspicious adage. "The end justifies the means"; so suspicious, in fact, that no one would dare to use it publicly in order to defend an action of doubtful character. But under forms less evident and more dignified, it is the essence of the thought which authorizes all the questionable measures of government. Public utility, the interest of the state, the dignity of the crown, the safety of the republic, the maintenance of order or tranquillity, are the reasons which are given by men, both to others and to themselves, to obtain absolution for acts which, stripped of this pretext, would be acknowledged as reprehensible. It can not be denied that in many cases the gravity of the motive is so much superior to the gravity of the fault, that the indulgence of nations and historians who judge them is conceivable. In the most virtuous private life, two duties of unequal importance may be found in opposition, and one must prevail over the other, which would be to do a wrong for the sake of a greater good. But it is necessary that the choice should be between two duties, and not between an interest and a duty. Now in politics, interest, being or appearing public, easily acquires, even in the eyes of honest men, the importance of a duty, and lulls the scruples of the statesman to such a degree that he makes it a matter of conscience to sacrifice his conscience. To one placed on this incline, the danger of slipping is so great, the bad examples are so numerous, the sophisms so easy, that we do not hesitate to think that, in the ordinary practice of government, the dictates of morality remain absolute, and that no public interest authorizes an action which can not, at any given moment, be publicly avowed. —A distinction should be made. Of course society is not an individual; the state is not a private person. Public powers are, therefore, within the circle of their attributes, clothed with prerogatives denied to citizens. They are force at the service of reason and justice. They are authorized therefore to employ force, almost as private persons themselves are, when the right of natural defense leaves them no other means of saving justice, violated in their persons. For a greater reason, the state, representing the right of all, is authorized to employ force, when necessary, and force itself is organized and regulated for this purpose in advance. Although the prerogatives, which the law grants it, exceed the rights which it recognizes as belonging to individuals, they are just and legitimate, and morality recognizes them in every well-constituted state. —The execution of laws is not open to condemnation unless the laws themselves are. It is, therefore, only in cases unforeseen by the laws, or rather in the cases in which a certain conduct is legally optional or even legally prohibited, that the question just indicated can arise. In the first case it is impossible to lay down a rule. The law is supposed to be disinterested; it permits action or abstention; a choice must be made. Here are the living problems of practical politics. In order to solve them in one sense or another, we can only consult experience, reason, conscience; we must have serious motives and pure intentions; we must be attentive in our examination and sure in our convictions. With these conditions we can dare to act, come what may. If we are wrong, the wrong is excusable. The best means of convincing ourselves whether the conditions are fulfilled, appears to be to ask ourselves what we should say if summoned to explain our conduct before an independent public. This rule shows well enough what the responsibility of depositories of authority is in governments in which free discussion obtains. —Finally, there are cases in which, the laws being silent or opposed, we should have to examine whether certain circumstances would authorize action outside the laws. Acts of this kind are called, when they are accomplished by governments, coups d'état; when by peoples or parties, revolutions. (See these words.) Here it is the law which is in question, not morality. It is self-evident that if it can ever be permitted for people or prince to rise above the law, a just cause is needed, and the law of duty should assume more power in proportion as the written law has lost its power. Neither words nor celebrated examples are wanted to authorize successful iniquities or even useful crimes. "If right is to be violated," said Julius Cæsar, "it should be in order to reign." This hypothesis must be rejected, and the answer given that right is inviolable. "Little morality kills big morality," said Mirabeau. And it may well have been that he was lacking in big morality because he was lacking in little morality. "This is worse than a crime," said an expert, "it is a blunder." Now crimes are the only irreparable blunders. Finally comes the formidable maxim before which Montesquieu himself bowed down: "The safety of the people is the supreme law." The safety of the people is not above justice. CHARLES DE RÉMUSAT. MORMONSMORMONS (IN U. S. HISTORY), a sect mainly located in Utah territory and the territories in its immediate neighborhood, to the number of about 150,000, but having also about 60,000 converts in other parts of the United States and in foreign countries. —I. ORIGIN. Joseph Smith was born in Sharon, Vt., Dec. 23, 1805, and in 1816 removed to Palmyra, N.Y., with his parents. As a boy he bore no good reputation for industry, thrift or honesty, but about 1820 he professed to have become converted. He claims to have had a revelation, Sept. 21, 1823, of God's will that he should revive the covenant of Israel. He was told that the lost tribes of Israel had wandered to America and had there grown numerous, powerful and wealthy; that they had degenerated and fallen before their enemies; that, before their final extinction, one of their prophets, Mormon, had written on gold plates an account of their history, prophecy and doctrine; and that his son, Mormon, the last of the race, had buried the plates in the "hill of Cumora," about four miles from Palmyra. On the following day he was allowed to see the plates, under angelic guidance; and Sept. 22, 1827, he was allowed to take them from their 1,400 years' burial. They were written in the "reformed Egyptian character," which could only be deciphered by Smith through the aid of the Urim and Thummim, an enormous pair of spectacles. The plates disappeared after Smith had translated them, but eleven witnesses averred that they had seen them. —It is asserted that one Solomon Spaulding, living in 1812 in Conneaut, Ashtabula county, Ohio, wrote the book of Mormon as an historical romance, under the title of "The Manuscript Found," its Jewish-Indian machinery being suggested by the prehistoric mounds in the neighborhood; that at his death in 1816 it was in possession of one Patterson, a Pittsburg editor, who intended to publish it, and with whom Sidney Rigdon, one of Smith's first disciples, was a compositor; and that at Patterson's death in 1826 it disappeared, to reappear in 1828-30 as the bible of a new sect. When Smith's book was published in 1830 its identity with Spaulding's was at once declared by the widow and neighbors of Spaulding, who had repeatedly heard it read. —II. DOCTRINE. The sect is a secret with an hierarchical organization. At its head is the president, with two subordinates; then the twelve apostles, the seventy disciples, high priests, bishops, elders, priests, deacons, and teachers. The whole forms a despotism of the president, tempered by the continual necessity of yielding to the other officers in order to avoid revolt. The distinguishing features of the sect are polygamy; materialism; baptism for the remission of sins and for the dead; a belief in the inspiration of the head of the sect; and a liberal dedication of themselves, their property and their services to the advancement of the sect at home and abroad. They hold that those who define God as a spirit, "that is, as nothing," and worship him as such, are as much atheists as those who deny that there is a God; and they maintain that God is a material being, "having body, parts and passions," but of infinite power. These doctrines they derive from the following sources: 1. In addition to the Bible they accept the book of Mormon as authority in matters of faith. This book is written in imitation of biblical language, but is marred by numerous inaccuracies, violations of common grammatical rules, and anachronisms. All these the Mormons acknowledge, but hold that the defects of Smith's early education do not at all detract from the truth of the message which he was only the instrument in delivering. 2. Furthermore the sect accept the "revelations" given by God to their spiritual head. These pertain to every point of polity and social economy, but the unfailing promptitude with which they appear when needed seems as yet to have awakened no general suspicion of their genuineness among the Mormons. The most tremendous of these "revelations" was that which, in 1843, sanctified polygamy, in direct contradiction to the book of Mormon itself. Up to that time, in theory at least, monogamy had been the Mormon law for both leaders and people; but the sudden elevation of the leaders to uncontrolled power, and their inability to control their passions, changed the whole basis of the sect's existence. The revelation was first proclaimed by Young, Aug. 29, 1852, and was at once denounced as a forgery by the widow and sons of Joseph Smith, who joined in the antipolygamous schism known from its leader, Gladen Bishop, as the "Gladdenites" 3. The sect has also its canon of inspired books and epistles, which expands with the growth of the church. The authority of these, however, rests rather on agreement than on any internal claim of inspiration. —III. HISTORY. Smith's first converts were of his own family and neighbors, and from the beginning he gave these as a name, "The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." Their first organized conference was held at Fayette, N.Y., June 1, 1830, the church then numbering some thirty members. Their early leaders were Joseph Smith, his brother Hyrum Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and William W. Phelps. In 1831 the whole church removed to Kirtland, Ohio, as a halting place on their road to Independence, Mo., which Smith intended to make their final headquarters. Arrangements were at once made to build up the Missouri refuge, and the sect then soon numbered nearly 2,000. Their assumptions of superiority, their intolerance of "gentiles," and probably also their anti-slavery opinions, made them obnoxious to the people of Jackson county, Mo., who mobbed and outraged their leaders, and in 1838 violently expelled the whole colony. Early in 1839, now numbering about 15,000, they settled in Illinois, just above the Des Moines rapids on the Mississippi, and founded a city called Nauvoo. Among their new accessions were Brigham Young, Orson Hyde, Heber C. Kimball, and Parley P. Pratt. —Nauvoo at once became an imperium in imperio, having its own government, revenue and army, of which "Lieutenant General Smith" was absolute head. As in Missouri, they became unpopular. Stories of their refusal to allow the execution of state writs, and of their gross immoralities, explained and confirmed by the "revelation" of 1843 as to polygamy, fired the surrounding country against them, so that in June, 1844, Governor Ford, of Illinois, took the field in person, with a militia force, to keep the peace. Upon his pledge of the honor of the state for their safe-keeping and fair trail, the two Smiths and two other leaders surrendered and were lodged in hail at Carthage. During the evening of June 27 a mob of 200 disguised men overpowered the guard and shot and killed both the Smiths. —Brigham Young became president in Smith's place by the unanimous vote of the twelve apostles and the acquiescence of the sect, and hurried forward the building of the great temple in which the sect took an especial pride. But Nauvoo was now fairly besieged, and open war was varied by arson and secret murderr on both sides Jan.20, 1846, the "high council" announced that a final home was to be sought beyond the Rocky mountains. The migration began in the following month, but in September the impatient people of the neighborhood poured in and drove out the little remnant with fire and sword. In May the temple had been solemnly consecrated, and the next day dismantled to the walls. —It was not until 1848 that this extraordinary migration was ended, and the Mormons were fully settled at Salt Lake in Utah. It had been managed with consummate skill. The younger men had been steadily pushed ahead to plant crops which were to be gathered by, and to support, the main body. In this manner, inspite of individual suffering, the main body successfully endured two winters on the plains, and in 1848 organized that government of their own, far from the "gentiles" of Missouri and Illinois, to which they were to give the still illegal title of "the state of Deseret." —In 1850, after the organization of the territory (See UTAH; COMPRISES, V.), Young was appointed governor by President Fillmore, but he was soon found to be infinitely more a Mormon than a federal officer. The federal laws for the government of the territories were contemptuously disregarded whenever they clashed with the Mormon peculiar institutions. Shocking stories were told of the cruelties perpetrated by the "Danites," or Mormon "destroying angels," upon intruding gentiles. One of these, the massacre of about 100 emigrants at Mountain Meadows in 1857, was peculiarly atrocious in its details, but was not punished until 1877, when John D. Lee was condemned to death by shooting for his share in it. The impossibility of obtaining a successor to Gov. Young without efficient federal support led the president, in 1857, to order Col. A. S. Johnston, with a force of federal troops, to enter Salt Lake City. Sept 15, by proclamation, Young forbade the entrance of soldiers, and ordered out his own troops for resistance. Johnston wintered among the mountains, and finally entered the city. June 10, 1858, President Buchanan informed congress that the Mormon difficulties were over. They really, however, were not. The enormous power of the hierarchy was constantly exerted to "freeze out" gentile traders, control federal grand juries, and neutralize federal laws. —The connection of Salt Lake City with the Union Pacific railroad, in May, 1869, at last brought the Mormons again face to face with the enemies from whom they had so often escaped. A new corps of federal judges, determined to suppress polygamy, entered the territory; the grand juries passed out of Mormon control; and indictments of polygamous practices became common. Convictions, however, were practically impossible, owing to the secrecy of the sect's workings, and the difficulty of obtaining evidence to convict. This difficulty has not yet been surmounted. The Edmunds bill, which was passed March 14, 1882, practically disfranchises every one guilty of polygamy in the territories, and makes the practice a misdemeanor, but its result remains to be seen. April 26, 1882, George Q Cannon, a Mormon, who had for many years represented his sect and territory in congress, was unseated by the house. Aug. 29, 1877, Brigham Young died, and was succeeded in the presidency by John Taylor. —The essential difficulty in the Mormon question is not so much present as prospective, by the constitution of the United States, the subjects of marriage and divorce in the states are exclusively under the control of the states themselves. If then, Utah ever becomes a state, its legislature becomes omnipotent over these subjects. In the hope of this consummation, it seems probable that the Mormon leaders will submit with patience to any present disfranchisement, since the political control of a territorial government, subject to a federal governor's veto and to the control of the federal congress, is comparatively and unimportant matter. The true solution of the question seems to lie in the adoption of an amendment giving congress the exclusive power, by general laws, to legislate on marriage and divorce. With such an absolute bar to hope for the future, the Mormon leaders would probably be compelled to a monogamous revelation. —The name Descret is understood by Mormons to mean "the land of the honey-bee." The name Nauvoo signifies "beautiful." The following extraordinary derivation for the name Mormon was seriously given by Joseph Smith himself: the Egyptian mon, good, and the English more; hence Mormon, "more good."—(See The Book of Mormon, (4th edition, 1834); Millenial star; Times and Seasons; The Gospel Reflector; New York Prophet; Doctrines and Covenants (1854); Voice of Warning (1854); Jacques' Latter-Day Saints' Catechism (1870); Hyde's Mormonism (1857); Mrs. Ferris' Mormons at Home (1852),Ferris' Utah and the Mormons (1856); 3 Atlantic Monthly (campaign of 1857); Ludlow's Heart of the Continent (1870); Stenhouse's Rocky Mountain Saints (1873); United States Revised Statutes, § 5352; Tucker's Origin and Progress of Mormonism (1867); Gunnison's History and Doctrines of the Mormons; Smucker's History of the Mormons; Harper's Magazine and Century Magazine for January, 1882. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON. MOROCCOMOROCCO, Empire of, a Mohammedan state, which occupies the northwestern corner of the African continent, from which it received its Arabic name of Maghrib (West), which it still bears in the Mohammedan world, and which was extended in the middle ages to all Mohammedan Africa of the west. The area of Morocco is about 219,000 English square miles. The estimates of its population vary from 2,500,000 to 8,000,000; 5,000,000 is probably about correct. Its political organization is the simplest in existence. The sultan is the whole government. There is neither above nor beside him a written law (except the Koran and its commentaries), nor council of the empire, nor ministry. No discussion, no publicity, no control, no report or returns, still less a press to annoy him in his autocracy. It is the most perfect example of personified power. Some servitors, secretaries after a fashion, are the instruments of his will; one of these, whom we may honor with the title of minister of foreign affairs, and who resides at Tangier, where all the European consuls live, is intrusted with the management of the relations with foreign powers. The sultan places commanders at the head of his troops, and governors over the cities, both of whom receive their orders directly from him and report to him. The administration is reduced to almost as great simplicity as the government. A chief issuing what orders he pleases, and a herd which obeys, in trembling, on pain of death, or at least confiscation and imprisonment, is the whole administrative system of Morocco. This state, which borders on civilization through Algeria, Spain, and its commerce with Europe, has not been penetrated so far by any of those flashes of civilization which begin to illuminate, more or less clearly, all the other regions of Islamism: Tunis, Egypt, Turkey, Persia; a contrast which is both a singular spectacle and a scandal. —Supreme power has for three centuries remained in the hands of a single family, entitled Sharifs because they claim to be descended from Mohammed, a genealogy which no one thinks of discussing, and which redoubles the respect which the people yield the sultan. The latter takes advantage of this to make himself a caliph of Islam in the west, on an equality with the sultan of Constantinople in the east; thus uniting in himself a double power, spiritual and temporal. On the death of one of these princes, his heir, on assuming power, finds himself in conflict with his brothers, and frequently with rebellious tribes. The rivalry of brothers and relatives is a more prominent trait among Mussulman dynasties than among Christians, because the rules for the transmission of power are not derived from the Koran. Mohammed neither designated his successor, nor indicated any rule of succession; this was the cause of intestine wars which divided his disciples and his posterity. The omission was remedied by choosing the eldest surviving descendant, but this rule, whose authority is sanctioned neither by law nor custom, is not respected by the excluded descendants, whenever ambition possesses them. In Morocco the risk of civil war is increased by the custom prevailing among its sovereigns, of marrying a large number of the daughters of great families, in order to create a support among the wealthy and powerful. On this account nearly all the new reigns begin by the armed protest of some relative. —Tribal rebellion is another permanent character of the situation, connected with the one just mentioned, because claimants do not fail to excite that traditional spirit of independence which is favored by the physical features of the country. Morocco is divided into two almost equal parts, communication between which is difficult, on account of the long and lofty chain of the Atlas mountains which run from northeast to southwest; on the west the Tell, on the east the Sahara: these are two countries, and, as it were, two different peoples. Besides, a branch of the Atlas range turns to Rabat, and cuts the Tell in two parts, which communicate only by a narrow passage in which Rabat is built, between the mountain and the sea. Hence, a new division singularly favorable to revolts, and which explains why the kingdom of Fez or of Mequinez at the north, and that of Morocco at the south, constituted, for long periods, independent and almost always hostile states. —The history of the empire turns in great part on the struggles in these three great territorial regions between the sultans, wishing to establish unity, and their undisciplined vassals: they recall by many traits the feudal period of European monarchies, in which civilization finished by giving to unity such instruments as roads, the printing press, posts and a regular system of administration, the use of which is feared by the Mohammedan mind. Struggles with Spain began toward 1859. Commencing in the neighborhood of Ceuta by misunderstandings which might have been amicably removed, the war was ended by the capture of Tetouan and a treaty of peace, or rather by a capitulation which was signed April 26, 1860, and which secured numerous advantages to the victorious army, among others, a tribute of 100,000,000 francs, and the cession of the port of Santa Cruz de Mar-Pequefia, opposite the Canary islands. The pecuniary obligations of Morocco not having been fulfilled, a new treaty became necessary in 1861, and finally loan was raised, which England negotiated with Morocco to release her from Spain, England taking Spain's place in collecting the customs duties given as guarantee. These more or less bloody incidents are merely episodes of that implacable hostility which sometimes smouldering and sometimes active, always exists between the people of Morocco and that of Spain, scarcely separated by the straits of Gibraltar, but profoundly opposed to each other in memory of the Moorish dominion in Spain followed by the expulsion of the Moors by the Spaniards. This irritation is maintained by the sight of the Spanish flag floating over the four presidios (Ceuta, PeÑon de Velez, PeÑon de Albuccmas and Melilla) and the Zafarine islands. Morocco is now at peace with the other nations of Europe, rather through the absence of all immediate contact than in virtue of the numerous treaties concluded to regulate peace and commerce. Among the latter it is proper to mention that of Tangier, concluded with France Sept.10, 1844, which is most favorable to France. England obtained, Nov. 9, 1856, two treaties, one political, the other commercial, which secured important advantages. But, up to 1872, no influence was able to obtain the establishment at Fez, the capital of the empire, and near the emperor, of diplomatic representatives of Europe. France, first of the European nations, obtained from the emperor the right of accrediting near him a minister plenipotentiary (M. Tissot), whose reception was attended with a certain celat—The ports which serve as commercial communications with Europe are eight in number: in the Mediterrnean, Tetouan; in the straits, Tangier, on the ocean, in going from north to south, Larache, Rabat, Casablanca (Darbeida), Mazagan, Safi, Mogador (Soueyra). Santa Cruz of Barbary or Agadir (not the Santa Cruz ceded to Spain), the best anchorage on the coast, is unfortunately closed to commerce. On the side of Algeria which joins Morocco on the east, commerce with Tlemeen, Lalla-Maghrnia and Nemours is established through Tafilet, Figuig, Teza and Oudjda. In the middle ages this route had acquired such an importance that Tlemeen became a city of 100,000 inhabitants, and the capital of the kingdom; but wars between the two states, and in our day, the Algerian duties, have thrown the commercial current northward toward the Mediterranean and the straits, in spite of the almost impassable barrier of Rif, and on the west toward the ports of the ocean, to the great loss of France and the gain of England. These two nations have most of the trade with Morocco, but especially England, which possesses in Gibraltar a very convenient station for contraband as well as legitimate trade. Next in order follow Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands. Commerce has in Morocco a field of operation whose area is estimated at from fifty-three to seventy-five millions of hectares, peopled with from five to six millions of inhabitants, Moors, Berbers, Arabs and Jews Commercial operations amount to a sum of from forty to fifty millions of francs, which gives only seven or eight francs per head, and indicates extreme barbarism. The returns of 1871 place the imports at 22,830,000 francs, and the exports at 19,530,000 francs. England represents the greater part of these figures: thirteen millions of imports, and fifteen millions of exports. These low figures are the consequence of a brutalizing government, hostile to all agricultural, industrial and social progress, obtaining its revenues from monopolies, exactions, prohibitions and confiscations; turning one of the most beautiful, well-watered and fertile countries in the world into the home of the poorest and most unfortunate of people. For want of security for life and property, and a regular freedom of exchange, traffic is reduced to almost nothing. Its elements, however, are very numerous. Morocco abounds in cereals (wheat and barley) of as good quality as in Algerian Tell; almonds, olive oil, fruits, vegetables, wax, bark, animals, leeches, etc. Numerous flocks furnish wool, skins and other valuable articles; the wool finds its principal sale in the French market for common cloth. By way of the Sahara caravans arrive, some of which come from Soudan, bringing gold dust, ostrich feathers, gum, ivory, blue stuffs and citrons. In return, the ports of Morocco receive from Europe, cotton stuffs, sugar, tea, spices and drugs, raw and woven silk, cloth, arms and ammunition, hardware, iron, and especially money from France, whose merchants do not like those of England, endeavor to pay in merchandise rather the money. From this unequal competition it results that English commerce has acquired a preponderance in Morocco which France and Spain, owing to their position, might compete for with advantage. The abolition of custom houses on the Morocco frontier of Algeria might be an efficacious means of establishing this equilibrium. The movement in the ports during 1870 was 1,307 ships arrived, with a tonnage of 201,127, and 1,306 ships cleared, with a tonnage of 200,336. The flags which hold the first rank are those of England (617), spain (363), and France (172). —All efforts to obtain precise information about the budget are vain. L'Annuaire de l'économie politique (year 1863) gives a first résumé, which places the receipts at 2,600,000 piasters (of 5 francs 25 centimes) or 16,000,000 francs, and the expenditures at 990,000 piastres, or a little more than 5,000,000 francs. If we notice that this valuation puts the tax paid the sultan at merely two francs a head, we shall accept it only with reserve. The fiscal income, if not the expenditures, must be much greater in a country of arbitrary government like Morocco. It appears clearly enough, however, from the harsh conditions which the emperor signed in his last treaty with Spain that there was little reality in the mysterious mountains of treasure which were said to be accumulated at Mequinez. Two-thirds of the expenditures are devoted to maintaining the negro guard, made up of slaves brought from Soudan, and to the payment of certain troops more or less regularly equipped and disciplined. There is no navy, notwithstanding the extent of the coast; the inhabitants of Sale never devote themselves to the sea except in view of piracy, which the mountaineers of Rif practice from time to time. —Such, in its prominent traits, is Morocco, the last remnant of the powerful empires founded by successors of Mohammed in the west of Europe and Africa. After having resigned, under the Almoravide and Almohade princes, from Timbuctoo to the heart of Spain, Islamism, driven back step by step, has concentrated in this remote corner of Barbary its prejudices, its fanaticism, its hatreds, and also whatever virtues of hospitality and bravery it retains. The conquest of Algiers by the French separated this branch from its trunk and roots, and we may foresee a near future when, in Morocco also, the political power of the Koran will yield in an unequal struggle against civilization, unless it consents to receive its light and join in its progress. —BIBLIOGRAPHY. Calderon Ouadro geografico, estadistico, historico, politicodel imperio de Marrueccos, Madrid, 1844; Renou, Description geographique de l'empire de Marve. Paris,1846; Rohlfs, Reise durch Marokko, 2ded., Bremen, 1869; Maltzan, Drei Jahre im Nordwesten von Afrika, 2ded., 4 vols., Leipzig, 1868; Amicis, Marocco, Milan, 1876; Pietsch, Marokko, Leipzig, 1878; Hooker, Journal of a Tour in Morocco, London, 1878; Leared, Morocco and the Moors, Bremen, 1873; Augustin, Marokko in seinen geographicher, historischen, religiösen, politischen, militärischen und gesellschaftlichen Zuständen, Pesth, 1845. JULES DUVAL. MORTONMORTON, Oliver Perry, was born in Wayne country, India., Aug.4, 1828, and died at Indianapolis, Nov.1,1877. He was graduated at Miami university in 1843, was admitted to the bar in 1847, and was elected circuit judge in 1852. In 1836 he was defeated as the republican candidate for governor; in 1840 he was elected lieutenant governor, but by a previous understanding the governor, but by a previous understanding the governor, Lane was elected United States senator by the legislature, and Morton became the war governor of Indiana. In this position he displayed great energy and fertility of resource, and was re-elected in 1864. From 1867 until his death he was United States senator from Indiana, and one off t he leaders of the national republican party. —See Walker's Life of O.P. Morton. A. J. MOSAISMMOSAISM. This name is much more applicable than that of Judaism to the dogmas and institutions of the Pentateuch, which, after having formed the national and religious existence of the Hebrew people, still regulate to-day the beliefs and the morals of that people, scattered, to the number of at least five or six millions, over the whole surface of the earth. Judaism designates only a particular state of that ancient religion from which Christianity and Mussulman belief sprang: it is the spirit which animated it and the forms which it adopted after the return from the Babylonian captivity, when it was no longer acknowledged except by the inhabitants of the ancient kingdom of Judah or the Judæans (Judæi), which our language, disfiguring the name, calls the Jews. Mosaism, on the contrary, so called from Moses, its principal founder (Moseh or Mosheh in Hebrew), embraces all the elements of which the faith and legislation of the Israelites have been composed from their origin up to the present time.  —Thus understood, Mossaism, while recognizing in Moses the author or promulgator of its general constitution, commenced its existence long before that great man, and has continued it, modifying or completing it, long after him, for, at this present time, after nearly four thousand years, it can not withdraw itself from the influence of modern ideas. People often speak of the immobility of Judaism, with the evident intention of extending this accusation of immobility to all Mosaism. This is a grave error. No religion, especially when complicated with a civil legislation and a political constitution, has remained long free from changes and transformations. The contrary could take place only among a petrified people, in a race of men who had absolutely forgotten the use of will or of intellect. Now, the Israelites have never been in such a position, even in the midst of the harshest servitude, and Mosaism has never checked the internal workings of its institutions, while ever guarding, for its basis, this precept of the prophet: "Ye shall add nothing to it nor take anything away from it." —The immense career which it embraces may be divided into four principal periods. The first begins with Abraham and extends to the departure from Egypt; this is the epoch of the patriarchs. The second is filled by the promulgation of the laws, ordinances and prescriptions, which the last four books of the Pentateuch contain, and which in the eyes of faith are considered as having been drawn up by Moses under the inspiration of God; this is the epoch of the law, properly so called, of the written law or of the Torah. The third belongs to the prophets, who succeeded Moses, and who form an uninterrupted chain, up to the end of prophecy. Finally, in the fourth, we find the doctors, who, under pretext of interpreting the law and protecting it against transgressions, overloaded it with a multitude of disciplinary regulations and accessory doctrines; this is the epoch of the oral law or of tradition, which begins about the third century before Christ, and ends with the Talmud, about the fifth or sixth century of our era. —The particular characteristic of the patriarchal epoch, is to show us monotheism as a patrimony, as a spiritual heritage, destined to pass from father to son in the same family until a time forseen by a divine wisdom. It was to Abraham that the only God, the living God, first revealed himself, and Abraham made him known to Isaac, and Isaac to Jacob. The head of the family was invested with sacerdotal dignity; he was Priest, as he was king, because there was no other authority than his, and his worship, freed from all rules, consisted of prayers and of sacrifices. Morality itself held but a small place in this primitive religion; it was natural morality, reduced to the practice of justice and to gravity of manners, preserved in spite of polygamy. —After the departure from Egypt, when the Hebrew family had become a people, the obscure tradition, which it had kept up to that time and by the force of which it had remained united, was soon changed into a religion all at once national and universal: universal by a fund of imperishable truths: national by the particular forms under which it had to be preserved among a race solely devoted to that pious ministry, a nation of priests, as they called themselves. It was given to Moses, one of the greatest legislators who has ever appeared on earth, to accomplish this wonder. It was through him that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob became veritably the eternal God, the God of the universe, Jehovah, the God of gods and the King of kings. It was he also, who, conceiving the human race as a single family, of which the house of Israel was only a feeble branch, drew from this idea a code of morals for the use of all ages and of all races. But in order that the people to whom he confided this deposit should not let it escape from their hands, it was necessary, in some way, to isolate it from the rest of the world and to insure its duration by the vigor of its legislation. This thought was evidently the source from whence flowed most of the prescriptions of the Pentateuch. —To separate the spirit from the letter, the invariable substance from its transitory form, the universal dogma and morality from the national worship, was, sometimes unwittingly, the aim of the prophets who succeeded Moses. All the efforts of their eloquence tended to this end, to place justice, rectitude, charity, purity of soul, circumcision of the heart, above exterior practices: to show as an abominable work before God the prayers, the fasts and the sacrifices which were not accompanied or preceded by good actions; and to let their people see a time, more or less near, when all the nations of the earth, adoring the Eternal, would form only one family. There were some even who hastened the accomplishment of this prediction by carrying the world of Jehovah to the foreign races who were ignorant of or despised it. —The doctors (nomodidascaloï) or rabbis, as they were commonly called (from rabbi, my master) the authors and the interpreters of the oral law, who, under different names, so much the more venerated as they live nearer our own age, form an uninterrupted chain for more than eight centuries: they were the theologians and the jurisconsults of Mosaism. They tried to fix the dogmas, to regulate the thousand details which belong to the external practice of religion, to determine in advance in the name of a tradition which they made reach back to Moses, all possible applications of the law. Hence, that voluminous collection, which is called the Talmud (that is to say, the study, or rather the science, the science par excellence and which is composed of two parts: the Mishna or the second law, and the Gemara or the comments. Hence, also, three classes of doctors, who are distinguished only by the time in which they lived or the work in which they took part; the Thannalm or authors of the Mishna, the Amoralm or their immediate disciples, and the Sabouraïm or those who, having lived last, were obliged to summon reason(sabara) to the aid of tradition. It is to these latter that the drawing up of the German is principally due. —We may reproach all these teachers of God's people with having stilled, in some sort, the text of the law under the enormous mass of their commentaries, and with having too often degraded the spirit of it by a multitude of minute regulations. But the honor must be left them of having prevented their beliefs and their morals from sharing the ruin of their nationality; of having preserved their religious unity from the destruction which overtook their political unity; of having created in advance, with a power of duration unparalleled in history, the only authority which was able to bind together the scattered remnants of their race: we refer to the tradition accepted as a second law descended from Sinaï, and which regulates even the smallest details of the life of an Israelite. This authority, after all, is not so immutable as it is supposed to be; for it is a purely lay authority, exercised by the learned, by doctors, and it is a principle of the Talmud, that every provision adopted by one synod can be repealed by another. Without any doubt the traditions, which have been added to the Holy Scriptures, the Mishna and the Gemara, bear the traces of their origin; they are the work of the sect of the Pharisees. But the Pharisees, from the time that they appeared on the scene, carried all the nation with them and might be taken for the nation itself. The Essenes formed only a feeble minority, whom a contemplative and monastic life maintained in isolation until the day when they were confounded with nascent Christianity. The Sadducees, who were not more numerous, even less so perhaps, were the Epicureans of Mosaism, since they denied the resurrection and the future life. They were the rich and the great of the earth, who, satisfied with their lot in this world, did not care much about the other. Now, the men of this description count for nothing in any belief; all beliefs reject and deny them, as they deny all beliefs. As for the Samaritans, who rejected not only the Talmud, but the canonical books, with the exception of the Pantateuch and the book of Joshua, they are reduced to-day to a score of families, who vegetate at Sichem in misery and ignorance, and must soon disappear. Although they pretend to be the descendants of the ten tribes, which formerly formed the kingdom of Israel, they belong to Mosaism neither by their origin nor their faith. Sprung from one of those foreign races which established themselves upon the territory of the ten tribes dispersed by conquest, they were always the enemies of the Jews, their neighbors, and their worship, whose seat was Mt. Gerizim, was only a rival worship of that of Zion. —The most essential dogma of Mosaism, that from which it has never varied, is the belief in one only God, in a living God, Creator and Preserver of all beings, whose power is subject to no rules and no limits, except his own wisdom; it is a spiritual monotheism, which no religion of antiquity approaches, neither the pantheism of India, nor the dualism of Egypt and Persia, nor the polytheism of the Romans and the Greeks. We often hear it maintained that the God of Moses and of the Old Testament is only a national God, who, like the kings of the earth, exercises his authority over one people alone, and who chose a capital, by designating Jerusalem as the only place worthy of possessing his sanctuary. Nothing is more contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Holy Scriptures; for when they first mention the name of God, it is to tell us that he created heaven and earth, light and darkness, the stars of the firmament, vegetables, animals and man. He is, according to the words of the Pentateuch, the God of minds, who animates all flesh, that is to say, the principle of intellect and of life, Who is upon the earth and in the heavens, and before whom there is no other god. When Moses asked God by what name he should be called, that he might inform his brothers who were plunged in ignorance and servitude, he received for answer these sublime words: "I am who am," that is to say, the only Being to whom existence really belongs, the eternal Being who has always been and who always will be, as his name Jehovah or Yaveh indicates. He is the eternal Being, immaterial, infinite; this is why he has forbidden his being represented to the eyes, and why all images are prohibited in his temple. He is the Judge as well as the Master of the earth. "I, even I, am he," he says by the mouth of his prophet, "and there is no god with me: I kill and I make alive: I wound and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." (Deut., xxxii., 39.) —There is no inference to be drawn from the an thropomorphical figures under which he often appears in the history of the Hebrew people and in the visions of the prophets. To uncultured men it was necessary to speak a language that they might understand, that of the imagination and of the senses. There is, besides, such majesty and such eloquence in these figures, that it is difficult to conceive a more sublime and more complete manner of making the multitude comprehend the existence of a Creator. The detractors of the Bible often cite the words of Jephthah, when he sought to repulse the attacks of the king of Moab: "Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So, whomsoever the Lord our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess." (Judges, xi., 24.) But Jephthah was far from being a prophet. He was an ignorant adventurer, who spoke to an idolatrous king the only language which was common to both. —The temple of Jerusalem was, for the tribes recently become masters of the holy land, a pledge of political and religious unity. For it must not be forgotten that the nationality of the Hebrew people was confounded with their religion, and that many altars, many temples independent of each other, must necessarily have dividid it, as the schism of Samaria abundantly proves. But the prophets did not cease to announce that the house of Jehovah would be a house of prayer for all nations: that a time would come when his name would be invoked over all the earth: that his word would break through the walls of Jerusalem to enlighten the world. From the time of the patriarchs, when he appeared for the first time to Abraham, he predicted to him that all the families of the earth would be blessed in him. (Genesis, xii., 3.) The God of the Bible, the God of Mosaism, is therefore at once the all-powerful Master of the universe, since he created it, and the Father of the human race; a free God, personal and spiritual. —Man, according to the Holy Scriptures and according to teachings and tradition, bears in himself the same marks. He was created, says Genesis, in the image of God; and since in the words of the Decalogue, it is forbidden to represent the divinity under any visible form, this resemblance must be understood in a spiritual sense. It is thus, in fact, that it is understood in the Pentateuch. All the moral qualities which Moses wished to develop in the souls of his people, he represents as divine perfections which man should seek to imitate. "Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy." (Leviticus, xix., 2) "The Lord God, mereiful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth." (Exodus, xxxiv., 6) "Circumcise, therefore, the foreskin of your heart and be no more stiffnecked, for the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow," etc. (Deuteronomy, x., 16-18.) The serpent himself, when he promises to Adam and Eve that their disobedience will render them like their Creator, speaks only of a spiritual resemblance, which consists in the knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis, iii., 5) But all these qualities suppose liberty. Hence, liberty is formally recognized in the Old Testament, commencing with the books of Moses. We see there that God speaks to man as to a creature entirely master of his own actions; he shows him in the future the rewards and punishments which will follow his conduct, according as it shall have been good or bad. —From the idea which Mosaism has formed of the divine nature and of human nature flows all its morality. Christ summed it up with admirable precision when he said: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hand all the law and the prophets." How, indeed, is it possible not to love God, if God is for us not that abstract and intangible being that pantheism adores, or the blind force of nature which under a thousand different forms pagan mythology invokes, but the living model of all beauty and of all moral perfection, the personal principle of life, of thought and of liberty? How is it possible not to love man if he be the reflection of that eternal ideal, and if it be true, as the Scriptures affirm, that he is the image of the Creator? Therefore, neither Moses, nor the prophets, nor the doctors, ever tired of insisting upon these two precepts. "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." (Deuteronomy, vi., 5.) It is the author of the Decalogue who thus expresses himself, and these sublime words have become the credo of the synagogue. Every Israelite repeats them morning and evening, adding to them these words: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord." (Deuteronomy, vi., 4.) These words were in the mouth of the celebrated Akiba, when he died by the most horrible tortures in the reign and by the orders of Hadrian. Says the Psalmist. "As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God. My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God." (Psalms, xiii., 1, 2.) —The love of man for his kind and for human nature in general, is prescribed with no less force in the books of the Old Testament. Moses was the first to say, "Love thy neighbor as thyself", and this maxim may be considered as the most complete expression of devotion and of right, of charity and of justice, of what one owes to others and to himself. Far from absolutely excluding love of self, it lays down the love of self as the rule and the type of the love which should be borne for others. Far from prescribing, like Indian morality, the annihilation of the individual, the sacrifice of the human person, it is precisely the human person which it defends and protects under the imperative form of a general law emanating from God. It exacts that the human person shall be dear to us for the dignity which is in it, without distinction or exception, without difference between ourselves and our fellow-men. —The universal application of this precept has been contested in vain by those who maintain that it is applicable to the Israelites alone. Did not Moses teach, in Genesis, that all men descend from the same primitive pair, and consequently that they all form one family, that they are all brothers? Moses also said: "Love ye, therefore, the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." (Leviticus, xix., 34) He does not stop there; he wishes men to love even their enemies, and what is more still, to fly to their aid when they are in trouble, and to work with them for their deliverance. We read in Exodus (xxiii, 4, 5,) these beautiful words: "If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldst forbear to help him thou shalt surely help with him." We search in vain all the holy books of the Hebrew people, and we do not find this maxim which the Sermon on the Mount, in the Gospel (Matthew, v., 43,) attributes to the ancients: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy." The authors of tradition have shown themselves on this point the worthy successors of Moses and the prophets. Hillel the Elder, who died about half a century before Christ, summed up in these words the obligations of the law, of which he was one of the most illustrious interpreters: "What you do not wish one to do to you, do not do to others; this is all the law, all else is but the commentary on the law." —The articles of the Decalogue, which forbid theft, murder, adultery, false testimony, envy, are only the rigorous consequences of this principle; for we are commanded to love our fellows as ourselves, and for a much stronger reason should we abstain from doing them any evil. But the actions proscribed by the Decalogue are not the only ones which incur the reprobation of the Hebrew legislator. The Pentateuch formally condemns all acts of violence, all injury by action or by word, and even all grudge in the heart. (Leviticus, xix., 17, 18.) It condemns not only adultery, but debauchery and prostitution. It pushes severity so far as to exact the burning by fire of the daughter of a priest whose manners shall have become a public scandal. (Leviticus, xxi., 9.) It condemns not only theft, but the abuse of property, such as the action of receiving as a pledge from a poor borrower the instrument of his labor or the garment which covers him. It condemns not only false testimony but calumny, backbiting and lying. —We experience some difficulty when we pass from these admirable precepts to the civil laws of Moses. But it must be remarked that there is an immense gap between the civil laws of a country, however advanced it may be in civilization, and the universal rules of morality. Civil laws, to be practicable, are obliged to accept at least a part of the prejudices, of the passions and of the habits of the nation, for which they are intended. Civil laws, among all peoples and in all times, are nothing more than a compromise between the fact and the right, between the state of culture, of morality, of external security, which a nation has reached, and the absolute exigencies of conscience or the ideal proposed by religion. How, for example, can we reconcile with the mildness of the Gospel the punishments pronounced against criminals by all Christian nations? How can we reconcile with evangelical purity that sort of guarantee offered by the police to the profligacy of morals? It is still worse when we pass from the civil order to international relations, where force is the sole guarantee, we may even say the sole measure, of right. It is not astonishing, therefore, that Moses, at once moral legislator, civil legislator and political chief of his nation, offers us a similar contradiction, and one even more obvious, because of the difference in times, manners and customs. —The faithful of Mosaism in the midst of other Religions; their Emancipation. It is impossible, with the best will in the world, to see in the dispersion of the Isrealites among other nations, a supernatural effect of the death of Christ; for this dispersion commenced and was almost accomplished many years before our era. From this epoch, the greatest part of the nation lived outside of Palestine, scattered through the three divisions of the ancient world. Without speaking of the ten tribes led away by Salmanazar and which were confounded with the other peoples of his empire, the Jews themselves, that is to say, the ancient inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah, did not consent to return with Zorobabel and Esdras. When Alexander the Great destroyed the Persian monarchy, he found a great number of them in Babylonia. It was in Babylonia itself, at Sora, at Pombeditha, at Nehardea, that they founded their most celebrated academies. There was a large number of them in the Greek colonies. They formed a considerable part of the population of Alexandria, whither Alexander the Great attracted them, by according to them the same privileges as to his Macedonian subjects. Ptolemy Soter almost depopulated Judæa in the interest of his own states; and if it is true that a hundred and twenty thousand of these exiles returned to their own country, there still remained enough of them to enable Osins to conceive the idea of building at Leontopolis a rival temple to that of Jerusalem. It was during their sojourn in Egypt, under the government of the Lagides, that the Jews became familiar with the language, the manners, the civilization and the philosophy of the Greeks. It was from this intercourse that the version called the Septuagint, many apocryphal books of the Bible, and the writings of Philo, sprang. The policy of the Seleucides in Syria was the same in regard to the Jews as that of the Ptolemies in Egypt. They attracted crowds of them to Seleucia, to Antioch, to Ctesiphon, to Phrygia and Lydia. Thence they spread into Ionia and most of the islands of the Archipelago. At Rome also, after the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey, there was a Jewish colony, which numbered, in the time of Augustus, more than eight thousand persons. The dispersal of the Jews before the Christian era, is attested by the Acts of the Apostles. We read there (ii., 5, 9,) that on feast days there came together at Jerusalem, Jews of all languages and of all nations, Parthians, Medes, Elamites, the inhabitants of Mesopotamia, of Cappadocia, of Pontus, of Phrygia, of Pamphilia, of Egypt, of Libya, of Arabia, of Cilicia, of Crete and of Rome. But we know that the destruction of the Hebrew nationality was not complete till after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and above all after the emperor, Hadrian, just after the insurrection of Barchochebas, had built upon the ruins of the holy city a new city, entry into which was interdicted to the descendants of Israel, under pain of death. —Palestine remained no less, even after this event, the religious mother country of the Jews. The cities of Tiberia, of Sephoris, and Diospolis, were the seats of so many theological academies, in which the Talmud of Jerusalem was being elaborated, while in the academies of Persia that of Babylon was being prepared. But the mass of Israelites scattered throughout all the extent of the empire, passed through alternate periods of repose and suffering, according to the humor of the masters of the world, or of the subordinate tyrants who occupied their place in the provinces. Confounded with the first Christians, they had the honor, for a long time, of suffering with them for a cause which was common to them, that of the one God, proclaimed both by the Old Testament and the New. —The hardships endured by the Israelites under Greek or Roman rule had a purely political character. The laws of the empire gave the right of believing what one wished or what one could; but religion being a national institution, they would not allow one to neglect to honor it publicly, or, still less, to affect to despise it. Such were not the persecutions which awaited the followers of the old law under the reign of the Christian princes, above all during the Catholic fervor of the middle ages. These latter were inspired by religious hatred. Hence they were much more terrible; for they added to the barbarity of the times what there is most implacable in fanaticism. Moreover, men are less worthy to be accused than the situation itself. The Christian nations, convinced that all was finished, that the word of the Scriptures was accomplished, that the liberator promised to the human race had come, were naturally irritated against that stubborn race who persisted in proclaiming the contrary. Manners were not mild enough, nor faith evangelical enough, to make men put in practice those beautiful words dropped from the cross: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." On the other side, the Jews did not recognize in the dogmas of the Trinity and of the Incarnation the severe monotheism of their ancestors, neither did they admit that the rude age in which they lived, that that age of oppression, of violence, of servitude for some, of despotism for others, of war for all, was the age of peace and of universal liberty predicted by the prophets, the age when swords were to be changed into plowshares; and the Jews felt their attachment for their faith increase by reason of the sufferings which they endured for it. Excluded from all the professions, from all the recognized honorable conditions, excluded even from the ranks of servitude, as much despised by the slave bound to the soil as by the nobility and the middle class, having no other resource than to trade in money, a trade declared infamous in the name of Aristotle and the Holy Scriptures, they lived as enemies in the midst of that society, which, not content with loading them with outrages, periodically decimated them by frightful butcheries. —This state of things was prolonged until the sixteenth century. Then a policy, more intelligent than that of the middle ages, appreciating the services which the Jews were able to render to finance and to commerce, commenced to assure them a pleasanter condition of things. It was thus that, under Henri III., the Spanish Israelites, expelled by the edict of Ferdinand and Isabella, or flying from the stakes of the inquisition, obtained permission to establish themselves, with an entire liberty of conscience, in the cities of Bordeaux and Bayonne, where they gave a vigorous impulse to the commerce of France with Italy. Another portion of these exiles went to the Netherlands, recently freed from the yoke of Philip II., and they took an honorable part in the industrial activity of the cities of Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Others were received with the same consideration by Denmark, and brought the same advantages to it, to the free city of Hamburg, and to the European colonies recently founded in North and South America. The electors of Brandenburg, knowing how to profit from the faults of their neighbors, also attracted to their states the Jews persecuted in the rest of Germany. But the greatest part of this change was the work of the reformation. Christian unity being broken, and the new communions, brought forth by the preaching of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, having forced the Catholic powers to treat with them on an equal footing or to suffer them in their midst, the principle of toleration entered little by little into the statutory provisions, into the manners and into the public law of Europe. The Jews were not slow to reap the fruits of this toleration. The Protestant countries—above all, Holland, England, from the time of the protectorate of Cromwell, and North America—treated them with a benevolence hitherto unknown, and little by little admitted them to the rank of citizens. —To the principle of toleration introduced by the reformation were joined the principles of liberty, of humanity, of universal right, so dear to the eighteenth century. It was under the influence of these ideas, which, although not new, received a new application, that the emperor of Austria, Joseph II., proclaimed his edict of toleration in 1782; that the constitution of the United States of America admitted, in the fullest measure, freedom of conscience; that the Grand Duke Léopold I. introduced the same reform into Tuscany; that King Louis XVI. issued his decree of 1784, and paved the way, with the aid of Malesherbes, for a more efficacious reparation. It was at this same epoch, and under the same inspiration, that Dohm in Germany and the Abbé Grégoric in France demanded the complete assimilation of the Israelites to their Christian fellow-citizens. This desire was only accomplished by the constituent assembly of 1789. Jan. 28, 1790, it passed a first decree which recognized the rights of active citizens to the Israelites of the south of France, known under the names of Portuguese, Spanish or Avignonese Israelites. A second decree of Sept. 27, 1791, proclaimed solemnly the emancipation of all the Israelites, inhabitants of France, without distinction of origin. —All the French constitutions, which followed that of 1791, sanctioned the same principle. The victorious eagles of the empire bore it successfully into all the countries of Europe, even into Spain and the states of the church. Naturally this triumph lasted no longer that the régime to which it was due. But the seed was sown in men's minds, and we see it to-day bearing fruit everywhere. The Israelites of Germany, of Austria, of Italy, of Belgium, of Portugal, of Switzerland and Denmark, are now citizens like those of France, of England, of Holland and of the United States. It will be the same everywhere where civilization shall have attained the height it has in these countries. —Wherever it has been proclaimed, the emancipation of the Israelites has produced the same effects. It has changed pariahs into useful, laborious and intelligent citizens, who serve society and civilization in all the spheres of human activity; in the arts, in the sciences, in industry, in commerce, in politics and in war. There is not a free country which does not count Israelites among the notable men from whom it draws the most honor. AD. FRANCK. MUNICIPAL BONDSMUNICIPAL BONDS, instruments issued for the payment of money by municipal corporations, such as counties, cities and towns, negotiable inform and clothed with the attributes of commercial paper. These bonds usually run from ten to thirty years, and ordinarily have interest coupons attached to them, which are separately negotiable, and may be enforced by the holder without producing or even proving an interest in the original bond. There is no country in the world where these securities have been issued in such quantities as in the United States, whose total municipal indebtedness was estimated, in 1876, to amount to over a thousand million of dollars. —The authority to issue such securities is not incidental to the ordinary powers of municipal corporations, but must be conferred by express legislative grant. Whether or not the state legislature has the power to confer authority, in the absence of express constitutional provision, to issue these bonds for purposes not strictly public, as, for example, in behalf of railroads, is a question which has long been combated in the highest courts of various states, as well as in the United States courts, and both sides of the question are supported by strong arguments of reason and common sense. As the question involves the power of taxation, and as the state constitutions invariably contain inhibitions upon taxation other than for public purposes, it is of vital importance, in considering the validity of such securities, first to determine whether the purpose for which they have been issued is a public purpose within the constitutional phrase. —The various questions relating to this peculiar class of commercial paper did not assume great importance before the civil war. Before then the issues of such bonds had been for purposes, for the most part, undoubtedly "public," such as the erection of town halls, the construction and maintenance under corporate supervision of water works, roadways, etc. But when, at the close of the war, a large non-producing population were scattered throughout the rich agricultural regions of the west and northwest, and became producers in their turn, there soon arose, in those fertile but sparsely settled districts, the urgent necessity of better means of communication with the great distributing points and centres of trade. Railroads were demanded by the farmers of the grain-bearing areas at the west and northwest, in order to put their products upon eastern markets. But the construction funds had to come, in the main, from eastern capitalists; and the farmers, in order to meet the then paramount want, were ready to pledge the corporate credit of their towns and counties to any extent. —It is a curious social fact that a body of men, acting as an aggregation, will often commit themselves to a line of conduct which as individuals they would strongly condemn. It is not, therefore, to be wondered at that the honest farmers of the great northwest, while despising the owner of a small holding who would mortgage his crop before sowing the seed, should have been so ready to plunge their communities into corporate debts of extraordinary amount, especially when the pay day was put at twenty or thirty years in the future. Judge Dillon, who formerly sat as United States circuit judge in the eighth circuit, where numerous cases involving the validity of such securities arose, declares "that he has known of a newly organized county government, whose population did not exceed 10,000, vote in behalf of a single railway company bonds to the amount of $300,000," bearing interest at the rate of 10 per cent.! "And," he adds, "instances are not infrequent where bonds have been issued to greater amounts than the assessed value of all the taxable property at the time within the municipal or territorial subdivision"! ("Dillon on Municipal Bonds," 5.) For a time this sort of financiering was an apparent success. The demand for railway facilities was undoubtedly based on an imperative want, and it did not take long for this demand to work its way into local politics, as soon as the popularity of schemes for "developing the resources" of this region or that began to be seen. Occasionally a conservative voice could be heard protesting against what has been described by the supreme court of the United States as "the epidemic insanity of the people," "the mania for running in debt for local improvements," (Mercer County vs. Hackett, Wallace, 96), but such opposition to the universal clamor was futile, and only exposed the objector to local and political unpopularity. Thus bonds to the amount of hundreds of thousands of dollars were issued by communities which had scarcely begun to assume municipal duties, and interest-bearing securities were negotiated, involving heavy taxation, by towns which existed little more than on paper. The interest in most cases was at first met with reasonable promptness. The bonds were generally disposed of to non-resident buyers, selling at absurdly low rates, in cases where no ordinance forbade their disposal at less than par—and few municipalities were wise enough to set a minimum selling price. Towns and counties were often so eager to lend the aid of their municipal credit to proposed railroad schemes, that, in many cases, an out-and-out donation of bonds was voted in behalf of the railroad company, instead of the usual stock subscription payable in bonds. The railway officials would then sell the bonds, generally in large amounts to banks, brokers or "syndicates," and often at a great discount, to secure the necessary construction funds, and the long-needed railway would then be built. It is thus a matter of record that more than one railroad has been laid in sparsely settled districts only to be abandoned when the funds to support it had failed, and the expected traffic fell far below the hopes of the sanguine promoters. In the six states of Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and Kansas there was an increase in the mileage of railroads of from 6,992 miles in 1876 to 17,645 miles in 1873—an increment of no less than 254 per cent.! While in the western states and territories alone, during the five most active years of railway construction, nor less than five hundred millions of dollars were expended in building railroads. (See article by Mr. Charles Francis Adams, Jr., in "North American Review," vol. 120) —It was about 1870 that these prodigal communities began to feel the weight of their obligations. The proceeds of their indebtedness had been spent in "improving" their lands, but there lay a sting in the galling fact that the debts themselves were, for the most part, in the hands of foreign holders, who now began to press for their dues. Pay day was drawing near, when the principal would become due, and, in the meantime, the interest coupons had to be taken up with harassing regularity. Towns and counties, which had been only too ready to pledge their corporate faith for hundreds of thousands, began to cast about for ways of meeting the payment of the hundreds due as interest; and when this was found to involve a regularly laid "interest tax," which meant just so many dollars from every tax payer's pocket, the idea of a further demand by way of provision for a sinking fund, with which to meet the principal became unbearable, and, before a quarter of the coupons had been taken up, men who would have scorned to employ dishonest means to avoid their personal debts, were anxiously seeking to escape from debts, which, acting together in a corporate capacity, they had just as honestly incurred. —The word "repudiation," in its now common significance, is said to have been used for the first time by the governor of Mississippi, in a message to the legislature of that state, in January, 1841. He alluded to a plan which had been suggested, of repudiating certain bonds of the state issued in support of a banking institution, and which had been sold, contrary to the law regulating their issue, at less than their face value. The state legislature set a noteworthy example to succeeding generations of law-makers less sensitive for the honor of their commonwealth than they. They resolved as follows: "That the state of Mississippi will pay her bonds and preserve her faith inviolate. That the insinuation that the state of Mississippi would repudiate her bonds and violate her plighted faith, is a calumny upon the justice, honor and dignity of the state." —Unfortunately the worthy example set by the Mississippi legislators of 1841 has not been followed in their and some other states. The political huckster was only too quick to learn that a policy of repudiation, so far from exciting the indignation of his constituents, if boldly supported by glip and specious argument, was one of the surest claims to local popularity. Indeed, these interest-burdened communities were so hot to rid themselves of the weight of debt which they had undertaken, that any scheme for resisting the non-resident, and therefore "grasping," "avaricious" and "bloated" bondholder, was certain of a strong popular indorsement, even though based upon palpable fraud. This state of public sentiment, and the action to which it led, were simply parts of a natural sequence. It may be safely laid down as a general proposition, which the student of municipal affairs can readily verify, that whenever a community assumes obligations of a public character which unexpectedly become so heavy as to oppress the private individual, repudiation follows as an inevitable consequence. It was thus with the communities above referred to Public meetings were held and resolutions passed, urging town and country officers to refuse to take up the interest coupons as they came due, and plainly intimating that a compliance with the law and a non-compliance with the demands of the voters would involve a loss of place at the ensuing election. The effect of such proceedings may be readily guessed. Payments were not met, often through actual lack of funds, but often, too, in accordance with the orders of the voters in town hall assembled. The bond question became a political question, and, in certain districts of Iowa and Minnesota, resolutions were passed by nominating conventions which virtually pledged the nominees to the policy of repudiation. The bondholders were driven to their legal remedies, and various methods were tried to enforce their rights. Suits were brought against municipal officers to compel the payment of over-due interest, and when the treasury of the town or county showed a lack of the necessary funds, an application would be made for a mandamus compelling the assessment of a special interest tax. The defenses raised to such actions were founded upon all sorts of pretexts, but they may be generally resolved under two heads: 1. those which pleaded want of power on the part of the municipality to issue the bonds in question; 2, those which alleged various irregularities or defects in the exercise of the power. The decisions of the lower state courts were almost invariably in favor of invalidating such bonds, so strong was the feeling against them; and it is notorious that in certain districts, judges, on the one hand, lost their seats because their decisions maintaining the public credit were so obnoxious to the popular demand, and, on the other, owed their elevation to the bench, to the explicit understanding that they were pledged to decide against the validity of these securities, in such cases as might come before them. —The "Grangers," or "Patrons of Husbandry," a secret order, modeled after the manner of the "Odd Fellows," directed their energies to the accomplishment of two great results: lowering the rates of railway transportation, and "wiping out" railroad of municipal bonds. One of their officers, who represented the Northwestern Farmers' convention, before the Windom committee on transportation rates (U. S. senate, 1873), when it was suggested to him that the United States supreme court might declare unconstitutional any act changing rates from five cents per mile to three cents per mile, where the charter allowed five cents per mile, was for "wiping out the supreme court, and getting one that would decide it." Thus is precisely what the people of the "granger" states did, i.e., reversed the decision of their judges upon the question of the validity of town and county bonds, by electing others pledged to a construction of the law favoring their views. A striking instance of the way in which an elective judiciary may be influenced by an erroneous and mischievous popular sentiment, is to be found in such a decision, referred to by the United States supreme court, in the case of Gelpeke vs. Dubuque, 1 Wallace U. S. Rep., 206, as "standing out in unenviable solitude and notoriety." The opinion of the federal court concluded with these words: "We shall never immolate truth, justice and the law because a state tribunal has erected the altar and decreed the sacrifice." (See Mr. Adams' article, above referred to.) On another occasion, in 1875, the same court, referring to the great commonwealth of Minnesota, said: "The faith of the state, solemnly pledged, has not been kept; and were she amenable to the tribunals of the country as private individuals are, no court of justice would withhold its judgment against her." —Unfortunately, popular opposition to the payment of municipal debts has not been confined to the granger states. In the option of the federal bench, if not elsewhere, even the New York court of appeals has lent its sanction to schemes of repudiation, by declaring certain bonds void upon grounds which the United States supreme court has pronounced unsound, (see Starin vs. Bank of Genoa, and Gould vs. Sterling, 23 N. Y. Rep., 439, 453); while the most flagrant case of refusal to meet a municipal debt justly incurred is to be found in the recent (March, 1882) action of the people of Greenwood, Steuben county, New York, who by threats and force actually prevented the sheriff from collecting an interest tax in favor of bonds whose validity had been sustained by the highest court of the state. To enforce the tax the governor was compelled to issue a proclamation declaring the town to be in a state of insurrection! When cases involving the defenses mentioned above came to be submitted finally to the scrutiny of the federal judiciary, the rights of innocent holders of these bonds were firmly upheld. The sound and honest reasoning upon which the supreme court of the United States based its decisions in these cases may be summarized, briefly, as follows: 1. The power of municipal corporations to issue such securities is derived only from express legislative grant, and is not to be implied; and the legislature may grant this power if not prohibited, either expressly or by necessary implication, by the constitution of the state or by that of the United States. 2. Where authority to issue such bonds exists, no mere defect or irregularity in the exercise of that power will suffice to invalidate the security in the hands of an innocent purchaser. This second point is one upon which the supreme court and the highest appellate courts of several states, notably the New York court of appeals, are still at odds, the latter insisting, with strong show of reason, it must be admitted, that if the purchasers of such securities are not required to verify their bonds, except by the recitals upon their face, and the act authorizing their issue, the door is at once thrown open to the fraudulent schemes of official rascality. Judge Dillion himself, who, in his decisions, has invariably "set a face of flint against repudiation in all its forms," admits that "the frauds which unscrupulous officers will be enabled successfully to practice, if an implied and unguarded power to issue negotiable securities is recognized, and which the corporation or the city will be helpless to prevent is a strong argument against the judicial establishment of any such power"; and he suggests this query, "Do not the decisions of the supreme court of the United States lead to this conclusion, 'that where the power to issue bonds is given upon the condition of a previous vote in favor of the proposition, the public or municipal officers can, where no vote whatever has been taken or the proposition been voted down, bind the county or municipality by the false recitals in such unauthorized bonds, provided they are issued by the officers entrusted by the statute with the power?" A query which has been emphasized by the conduct of the mayor of Adrian, Mich., who sold to various New York bankers forged bonds, the power to issue which existed as recited on their face, although no authority had been given by popular vote. It is a serious question whether the bonds are not binding upon the town under the decisions of the United States supreme court, which has declared against the repudiation of such bonds even by municipalities which have been deceived and defrauded in their issue. (See New York papers, Feb. 13, 1882, passim) —There is no doubt, that, but for the position assumed by the highest tribunal in this country upon the question of municipal bonds, dealers in this class of commercial securities would be subject to far greater risks than they are at present. It is well for them, however, to bear this much in mind, that want of power to issue is a good defense even against a purchaser in good faith. In other words, such purchaser is bound to know whether or not the legislature has expressly authorized the particular issue by the municipal officers executing the same; although he is under no obligation to examine the records of the town or country in whose securities he proposes to deal, in order to see whether or not the declarations upon the face of such bonds are true as to the performance of the details in the exercise of that power, when those declarations have been duty verified by the municipal officers named in the legislative act. —The lesson of 1868-73 has been a bitter one for the people of many promising towns and counties, and it will be years before some of the more prodigal communities recover from the load of taxation recklessly but voluntarily assumed. Grass grows upon the track, and ties not along the line of more than one railroad in districts whose inhabitants will, for years to come, pay interest on money spent in its construction. GEORGE WALTON GREEN. MUTSUHITOMUTSHITO (meek or peaceful man), the reigning emperor of Japan, and the 123d ruler of the line of mikados, was born Nov. 3, 1850, in the palace of Kioto. His father was the emperor Komei, and his mother Fujiwara Asako. At his father's death, Jan. 80, 1867, he was declared mikado, and on the re-establishment of the ancient government, Jan. 3, 1868, became sole ruler, without regent or shogun ("tycoon"). He saw Europeans for the first time at his audience with the foreign envoys, March 23, 1868. On April 6, in the presence of the imperial court, and the leaders of the restoration, he took that oath which lies at the foundation of the government of Japan, and which has been made the basis of political progress since 1868. The text of the oath, which seems to be steadily transforming Japan from an absolute despotism to a constitutional monarchy, is as follows: "1. The practice of discussion and debate shall be universally adopted, and all measures shall be decided by public argument. 2. High and low shall be of one mind, and social order shall be thereby perfectly maintained. 3. It is necessary that the civil and military power be concentrated in a single whole, the rights of all classes be allowed, and the nation's mind be completely satisfied. 4. The uncivilized customs of former times shall be broken through, and the impartiality and justice displayed in the working of nature be adopted as a basis of action. 5. Intellect and learning shall be sought for throughout the world, to establish the foundations of the empire" On Feb. 7, 1869, the national capital was removed to Tokio, and the mikado was soon afterward married to Haruko, a lady of the noble house of Ichijo, born in 1830. No issue of this marriage has yet appeared. In case of death or failure of offspring from the imperial concubines, twelve in number, an heir is chosen from one of the four shin-no, or families of imperial blood, Katsura, Arisugawa, Fushimi, and Kanin. In October, 1881, Mutsuhito issued a proclamation, in which, after reviewing the successive phases of government, occur these words: "It is my duty to develop the manner of administration as the times alter. I intend to establish a national assembly in 1890." [This article is inserted mainly as an addition to that on Japan.] W. E. G. [49.]At home each one of the two grand dukes is called grand duke of Mecklenburg without any distinctive designation. If in 1701 a second line was formed, it was not without opposition, but space does not permit us to give its history. [50.]By the convention and the law of May 15, 1863, the financial organization of the country was sensibly improved; the tolls (octrois) were abolished and internal barriers replaced by custom houses on the frontiers, which are assimilated to those of Germany since 1867. [51.]"In a great number of cases, before and since my consulship, the senate has very wisely decided that the exportation of gold could not be allowed." (Oration for L., Flaccus, ch. 28.) [52.]A revolution took place in 1880, which overthrew Gen. Porfirio Diaz and installed in his place Gen. Gonzales. The administration is carried on by a council of six ministers, viz, of justice, finance, the interior, army and navy, foreign affairs, and public works. [53.]The writer was of counsel for Mrs. Surratt. [54.]The ton in this table is the gross ton of 2.240 pounds avoirdupois. The flask of quicksilver is 76½ avoirdupois. The barrel of petroleum is 42 gallons. [55.]The data which we possess for even an approximate estimate of the number of the followers of Islam are altogether inadequate In one place we find the Mussulman population stated at 270,000,000; in another it is reduced to 120,000,000. On account of the total absence of statistics and of serious censuses in Mohammedan countries we are unable to decide between numbers so different. Islamism has made very great progress in the interior of Africa and in China. There are no documents to show the number of these new followers, which increases every day. Strange phenomenon! Islamism is the religion which in the nineteenth century makes the greatest conquests. Mussulman missionaries setting out from Cairo and Muscat enter every part of Africa and find the most cordial reception among the negro populations. The favor which the monotheistic belief finds in certain parts of China, and the change which it effects in the minds of the population. are astonishing. [56.]"Arbitrary power," writes Benjamin Constant, "exercised either in the name of one or of all, pursues man through all his forms of repose and happiness." (De l'Esprit de conquéte et de l'Usurpation, chap. xi.) See the following chapter of the same work on the effects of arbitrary power on morals, intelligence and industry. [57.]This anachronism in finance was discovered by the writer in the course of an examination of the laws of Maryland relating to tobacco currency. In October, 1780, a law was enacted fixing the rate of tobacco fees at 12s. 6d. per hundred weight. In 1806 all tobacco fees were abolished in Maryland, and federal money substituted for them. But meanwhile the District of Columbia had been ceded to the United States; and the old Maryland laws continued in force there, except as specifically changed by congress. Changes were made in the District by piecemeal; and it so happens that the fees of the clerk of the supreme court of the United States, in cases where the government itself is a party, are still computed in pounds of tobacco, and settled at the treasury by the old statutory valuation of tobacco. The fees of the marshal of the District of Columbia were computed in tobacco down to a recent period. [58.]The constitution of Montenegro was somewhat changed in 1879. The executive power rests with the reigning prince, while the legislative power is vested in a state council of eight members, one-half nominated by the prince and the other half elected by the male inhabitants, who are bearing or have borne arms. By the "administrative statute" of 1879, the country was divided into eighty district and four military commands. |
—The population of Mexico in 1875 was estimated at 9,343,170 souls of which more than one-half were pure "Indians."